User login
Genetic ‘taste score’ could help us eat healthier and reduce disease risk
Addicted to cookies? Can’t stand broccoli? You may be able to blame Mom and Dad.
That’s because our taste preferences are influenced by our genes. And this may play an important role in determining our food choices and, in turn, our health, according to early study findings presented at this year’s annual meeting of the American Society for Nutrition.
“Our genetic predispositions to perceive certain tastes might be one of many reasons why some of us struggle to make healthy food choices,” says the study’s lead researcher, Julie Gervis, a doctoral degree candidate at the Tufts Jean Mayer USDA Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging.
As the field of personalized nutrition – a branch of science that uses technology to help people figure out what to eat for good health – advances, the findings could bring us closer to more effective personalized nutrition advice, better diets, and less risk for things like obesity, type 2 diabetes, and heart disease.
What’s your ‘polygenic taste score’?
We know genes influence our taste, but little is known about how taste-related genes impact diet quality and health. To investigate this, the researchers used data from “genome-wide association studies,” which scientists use to find gene variations associated with a trait, to create something called a polygenic taste score.
Your polygenic taste score shows how your genes impact your unique perception of taste – be it bitter, salty, sweet, sour, or savory (umami). If you have a high score for, say, sweet, that means you may be more sensitive to sweetness than someone with a moderate or low sweet score.
In the study sample of more than 6,000 adults, those with a high “bitter” score tended to eat fewer whole grains (two fewer servings a week), while those scoring high for savory ate fewer vegetables, especially orange and red types like carrots and bell peppers. That matters because whole grains have been shown to reduce heart disease risk, while a higher veggie intake is linked to lower risk of type 2 diabetes.
Meanwhile, genes related to sweet seemed key for health related to your heart and metabolism, as a higher sweet score was linked with lower triglycerides, a type of fat found in the blood.
From lab to shopping list
While we have a long way to go before dietitians and consumers can use polygenic taste scores, the tool could one day help us use – or minimize – the influence our genes has on our food choices, Ms. Gervis says. That may help us improve personalized nutrition advice aimed at reducing disease risk.
But first, other research needs to repeat the findings, Ms. Gervis says. And more large-scale, genome-wide studies on taste perception should be done.
“I hope these preliminary data convey the potential benefit of incorporating taste-related genes, and taste perception, into personalized nutrition,” she says. “After all, while we don’t always choose what foods are good for us, we do always choose what foods taste good to us.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Addicted to cookies? Can’t stand broccoli? You may be able to blame Mom and Dad.
That’s because our taste preferences are influenced by our genes. And this may play an important role in determining our food choices and, in turn, our health, according to early study findings presented at this year’s annual meeting of the American Society for Nutrition.
“Our genetic predispositions to perceive certain tastes might be one of many reasons why some of us struggle to make healthy food choices,” says the study’s lead researcher, Julie Gervis, a doctoral degree candidate at the Tufts Jean Mayer USDA Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging.
As the field of personalized nutrition – a branch of science that uses technology to help people figure out what to eat for good health – advances, the findings could bring us closer to more effective personalized nutrition advice, better diets, and less risk for things like obesity, type 2 diabetes, and heart disease.
What’s your ‘polygenic taste score’?
We know genes influence our taste, but little is known about how taste-related genes impact diet quality and health. To investigate this, the researchers used data from “genome-wide association studies,” which scientists use to find gene variations associated with a trait, to create something called a polygenic taste score.
Your polygenic taste score shows how your genes impact your unique perception of taste – be it bitter, salty, sweet, sour, or savory (umami). If you have a high score for, say, sweet, that means you may be more sensitive to sweetness than someone with a moderate or low sweet score.
In the study sample of more than 6,000 adults, those with a high “bitter” score tended to eat fewer whole grains (two fewer servings a week), while those scoring high for savory ate fewer vegetables, especially orange and red types like carrots and bell peppers. That matters because whole grains have been shown to reduce heart disease risk, while a higher veggie intake is linked to lower risk of type 2 diabetes.
Meanwhile, genes related to sweet seemed key for health related to your heart and metabolism, as a higher sweet score was linked with lower triglycerides, a type of fat found in the blood.
From lab to shopping list
While we have a long way to go before dietitians and consumers can use polygenic taste scores, the tool could one day help us use – or minimize – the influence our genes has on our food choices, Ms. Gervis says. That may help us improve personalized nutrition advice aimed at reducing disease risk.
But first, other research needs to repeat the findings, Ms. Gervis says. And more large-scale, genome-wide studies on taste perception should be done.
“I hope these preliminary data convey the potential benefit of incorporating taste-related genes, and taste perception, into personalized nutrition,” she says. “After all, while we don’t always choose what foods are good for us, we do always choose what foods taste good to us.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Addicted to cookies? Can’t stand broccoli? You may be able to blame Mom and Dad.
That’s because our taste preferences are influenced by our genes. And this may play an important role in determining our food choices and, in turn, our health, according to early study findings presented at this year’s annual meeting of the American Society for Nutrition.
“Our genetic predispositions to perceive certain tastes might be one of many reasons why some of us struggle to make healthy food choices,” says the study’s lead researcher, Julie Gervis, a doctoral degree candidate at the Tufts Jean Mayer USDA Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging.
As the field of personalized nutrition – a branch of science that uses technology to help people figure out what to eat for good health – advances, the findings could bring us closer to more effective personalized nutrition advice, better diets, and less risk for things like obesity, type 2 diabetes, and heart disease.
What’s your ‘polygenic taste score’?
We know genes influence our taste, but little is known about how taste-related genes impact diet quality and health. To investigate this, the researchers used data from “genome-wide association studies,” which scientists use to find gene variations associated with a trait, to create something called a polygenic taste score.
Your polygenic taste score shows how your genes impact your unique perception of taste – be it bitter, salty, sweet, sour, or savory (umami). If you have a high score for, say, sweet, that means you may be more sensitive to sweetness than someone with a moderate or low sweet score.
In the study sample of more than 6,000 adults, those with a high “bitter” score tended to eat fewer whole grains (two fewer servings a week), while those scoring high for savory ate fewer vegetables, especially orange and red types like carrots and bell peppers. That matters because whole grains have been shown to reduce heart disease risk, while a higher veggie intake is linked to lower risk of type 2 diabetes.
Meanwhile, genes related to sweet seemed key for health related to your heart and metabolism, as a higher sweet score was linked with lower triglycerides, a type of fat found in the blood.
From lab to shopping list
While we have a long way to go before dietitians and consumers can use polygenic taste scores, the tool could one day help us use – or minimize – the influence our genes has on our food choices, Ms. Gervis says. That may help us improve personalized nutrition advice aimed at reducing disease risk.
But first, other research needs to repeat the findings, Ms. Gervis says. And more large-scale, genome-wide studies on taste perception should be done.
“I hope these preliminary data convey the potential benefit of incorporating taste-related genes, and taste perception, into personalized nutrition,” she says. “After all, while we don’t always choose what foods are good for us, we do always choose what foods taste good to us.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Ultra-processed: Doctors debate whether putting this label on foods is useful
The NOVA system divides foods into “fresh or minimally processed,” such as strawberries or steel-cut oats; “processed culinary ingredients,” such as olive oil; “processed foods,” such as cheeses; and “ultra-processed foods.” UPFs are defined as “industrial formulations made by deconstructing natural food into its chemical constituents, modifying them and recombining them with additives into products liable to displace all other NOVA food groups.”
According to doctors who presented during the meeting, ultra-processed foods are drawing increased attention, because researchers have been examining them in National Institutes of Health–funded studies and journalists have been writing about them.
During the debate session at the meeting, some experts said that, with obesity and poor health skyrocketing, increased awareness and labeling of UPFs can only be a good thing. In contrast others noted at the meeting that the classification system that has come to be used for identifying UPFs – the NOVA Food Classification system – is too mushy, confusing, and, ultimately unhelpful.
Carlos Monteiro, MD, PhD, professor of nutrition and public health at the University of Sao Paolo, was part of the group favoring the NOVA system’s classifying certain foods as UPFs, during the debate. He drew attention to the extent to which the world’s population is getting its calories from UPFs.
Mexico and France get about 30% of calories from these foods. In Canada, it’s 48%. And in the United States, it’s 57%, Dr. Monteiro said.
Studies have found that UPFs, many of which are designed to be exceedingly flavorful and intended to replace consumption of unprocessed whole foods, lead to more overall energy intake, more added sugar in the diet, and less fiber and protein intake, he said.
To further support his arguments, Dr. Monteiro pointed to studies suggesting that it is not just the resulting change in the nutritional intake that is unhealthy, but the UPF manufacturing process itself. When adjusting for fat, sugar, and sodium intake, for example, health outcomes associated with UPFs remain poor, he explained.
“I’m sorry,” he said in the debate. “If you don’t reduce this, you don’t reduce your obesity, your diabetes prevalence.”
A study presented by Jacqueline Vernarelli, PhD, during a different session at the meeting suggested there may be other downsides to consuming UPFs. This research, which was based on the U.S. National Youth Fitness Survey, found that poorer locomotor skills among children aged 3-5 and poorer cardiovascular fitness among those aged 12-15 were associated with getting more calories from UPFs.
Those with lower cardiovascular fitness consumed 1,234 calories a day from UPFs, and those with higher cardiovascular fitness consumed 1,007 calories a day from UPFs (P = .002), according to the new research.
“It’s notable here that, although these differences are significant, both groups are consuming a pretty high proportion of their diet from ultra-processed foods,” said Dr. Vernarelli, associate professor of public health at Sacred Heart University, Fairfield, Conn., during her presentation.
In the debate session, Arne Astrup, MD, PhD, senior project director at the Healthy Weight Center at the Novo Nordisk Foundation, Hellerup, Denmark, presented an opposing view.
He said the definition of UPFs makes it too difficult to categorize many foods, pointing to a study from this year in which about 150 nutrition experts, doctors, and dietitians classified 120 foods. Only three marketed foods and one generic food were classified the same by all the evaluators.
Referring to the study Dr. Astrup cited, Dr. Monteiro said it was a mere “exercise,” and the experts involved in it had conflicts of interest.
Dr. Astrup touted this study’s size and its appearance in the peer-reviewed journal the European Journal of Clinical Nutrition.
Defending his point of view, Dr. Astrup said, “The definition and classification is so ambiguous, and the risk of misclassification is so extremely high, I think we really miss the basic requirement of science, namely that we know what we are talking about,” he said.
If you take an unprocessed food, and insert a “little additive … suddenly it’s an ultra-processed food,” he added.
UPF definition doesn’t flag some unhealthy foods
Susan Roberts, PhD, professor of nutrition at Tufts University, Boston, was a discussant at the debate and touched on the merits of both sides. She noted that the UPF definition doesn’t flag some “clearly unhealthy foods,” such as table sugar, but does flag some healthy ones, such as plant-based burgers – to which Dr. Monteiro said that the system was not a system meant to divide foods into healthy and unhealthy groups, during the debate session.
The inclusion of both healthy and unhealthy foods in NOVA’s definition of a UPF is a serious problem, Dr. Roberts said.
“It’s almost like it’s an emotional classification designed to get at the food industry rather than focusing on health – and I think that’s asking for trouble because it’s just going to be such a mess to tell consumers, ‘Well, this ultra-processed food is healthy and this one isn’t,’ ” she said. What’s happening is the term ultra-processed is being used interchangeably with unhealthy.
The discussion that the UPF classification has generated is useful, Dr. Roberts continued. “This definition grew out of that recognition that we’re engaged in an unprecedented experiment of how unhealthy can you make the world without having a major catastrophe.”
She added that the UPF concept deserves a more formalized and rigorous evaluation.
“This is an important topic for the future of public health, and I think it needs big committees to address it seriously,” she said. “I think we should not be dealing with this individually in different labs.”
Doctor’s take on usefulness of discussing UPF concept with patients
Mark Corkins, MD, who did not participate in the debate at the meeting, said he talks to parents and children about nutrition at every office visit in which he sees a child with an unhealthy weight.
“Persistence wears down resistance,” said the chair of the American Academy of Pediatrics nutrition committee, in an interview.“A consistent message – you say the same thing and you say it multiple times.”
The idea of “ultra-processed foods” plays a role in those conversations, but largely in the background. It’s a topic that’s important for pediatric health, Dr. Corkins said – but he doesn’t make it the focal point.
“It’s not a direct attack on ultra-processed foods that usually I take as my direction,” said Dr. Corkins, who is also chief of pediatric gastroenterology at Le Bonheur Children’s Hospital in Memphis, Tenn.. “What I try to focus on, and what I think the American Academy of Pediatrics would focus on, is that we need to focus on making the diet better.”
He added, “Parents are aware – they don’t call it ultra-processed food, they call it junk food.”
Dr. Corkins continued that he is reluctant to directly challenge parents on feeding their children unhealthy foods – ultra-processed or not – lest he shame them and harm the relationship.
“Guilt as a motivator isn’t really highly successful,” he said, in an interview.
Dr. Astrup reported advisory committee or board member involvement with Green Leaf Medical and RNPC, France. Dr. Roberts reported advisory committee or board member involvement with Danone, and an ownership interest in Instinct Health Science. Dr. Monteiro and Dr. Corkins reported no relevant disclosures.
The NOVA system divides foods into “fresh or minimally processed,” such as strawberries or steel-cut oats; “processed culinary ingredients,” such as olive oil; “processed foods,” such as cheeses; and “ultra-processed foods.” UPFs are defined as “industrial formulations made by deconstructing natural food into its chemical constituents, modifying them and recombining them with additives into products liable to displace all other NOVA food groups.”
According to doctors who presented during the meeting, ultra-processed foods are drawing increased attention, because researchers have been examining them in National Institutes of Health–funded studies and journalists have been writing about them.
During the debate session at the meeting, some experts said that, with obesity and poor health skyrocketing, increased awareness and labeling of UPFs can only be a good thing. In contrast others noted at the meeting that the classification system that has come to be used for identifying UPFs – the NOVA Food Classification system – is too mushy, confusing, and, ultimately unhelpful.
Carlos Monteiro, MD, PhD, professor of nutrition and public health at the University of Sao Paolo, was part of the group favoring the NOVA system’s classifying certain foods as UPFs, during the debate. He drew attention to the extent to which the world’s population is getting its calories from UPFs.
Mexico and France get about 30% of calories from these foods. In Canada, it’s 48%. And in the United States, it’s 57%, Dr. Monteiro said.
Studies have found that UPFs, many of which are designed to be exceedingly flavorful and intended to replace consumption of unprocessed whole foods, lead to more overall energy intake, more added sugar in the diet, and less fiber and protein intake, he said.
To further support his arguments, Dr. Monteiro pointed to studies suggesting that it is not just the resulting change in the nutritional intake that is unhealthy, but the UPF manufacturing process itself. When adjusting for fat, sugar, and sodium intake, for example, health outcomes associated with UPFs remain poor, he explained.
“I’m sorry,” he said in the debate. “If you don’t reduce this, you don’t reduce your obesity, your diabetes prevalence.”
A study presented by Jacqueline Vernarelli, PhD, during a different session at the meeting suggested there may be other downsides to consuming UPFs. This research, which was based on the U.S. National Youth Fitness Survey, found that poorer locomotor skills among children aged 3-5 and poorer cardiovascular fitness among those aged 12-15 were associated with getting more calories from UPFs.
Those with lower cardiovascular fitness consumed 1,234 calories a day from UPFs, and those with higher cardiovascular fitness consumed 1,007 calories a day from UPFs (P = .002), according to the new research.
“It’s notable here that, although these differences are significant, both groups are consuming a pretty high proportion of their diet from ultra-processed foods,” said Dr. Vernarelli, associate professor of public health at Sacred Heart University, Fairfield, Conn., during her presentation.
In the debate session, Arne Astrup, MD, PhD, senior project director at the Healthy Weight Center at the Novo Nordisk Foundation, Hellerup, Denmark, presented an opposing view.
He said the definition of UPFs makes it too difficult to categorize many foods, pointing to a study from this year in which about 150 nutrition experts, doctors, and dietitians classified 120 foods. Only three marketed foods and one generic food were classified the same by all the evaluators.
Referring to the study Dr. Astrup cited, Dr. Monteiro said it was a mere “exercise,” and the experts involved in it had conflicts of interest.
Dr. Astrup touted this study’s size and its appearance in the peer-reviewed journal the European Journal of Clinical Nutrition.
Defending his point of view, Dr. Astrup said, “The definition and classification is so ambiguous, and the risk of misclassification is so extremely high, I think we really miss the basic requirement of science, namely that we know what we are talking about,” he said.
If you take an unprocessed food, and insert a “little additive … suddenly it’s an ultra-processed food,” he added.
UPF definition doesn’t flag some unhealthy foods
Susan Roberts, PhD, professor of nutrition at Tufts University, Boston, was a discussant at the debate and touched on the merits of both sides. She noted that the UPF definition doesn’t flag some “clearly unhealthy foods,” such as table sugar, but does flag some healthy ones, such as plant-based burgers – to which Dr. Monteiro said that the system was not a system meant to divide foods into healthy and unhealthy groups, during the debate session.
The inclusion of both healthy and unhealthy foods in NOVA’s definition of a UPF is a serious problem, Dr. Roberts said.
“It’s almost like it’s an emotional classification designed to get at the food industry rather than focusing on health – and I think that’s asking for trouble because it’s just going to be such a mess to tell consumers, ‘Well, this ultra-processed food is healthy and this one isn’t,’ ” she said. What’s happening is the term ultra-processed is being used interchangeably with unhealthy.
The discussion that the UPF classification has generated is useful, Dr. Roberts continued. “This definition grew out of that recognition that we’re engaged in an unprecedented experiment of how unhealthy can you make the world without having a major catastrophe.”
She added that the UPF concept deserves a more formalized and rigorous evaluation.
“This is an important topic for the future of public health, and I think it needs big committees to address it seriously,” she said. “I think we should not be dealing with this individually in different labs.”
Doctor’s take on usefulness of discussing UPF concept with patients
Mark Corkins, MD, who did not participate in the debate at the meeting, said he talks to parents and children about nutrition at every office visit in which he sees a child with an unhealthy weight.
“Persistence wears down resistance,” said the chair of the American Academy of Pediatrics nutrition committee, in an interview.“A consistent message – you say the same thing and you say it multiple times.”
The idea of “ultra-processed foods” plays a role in those conversations, but largely in the background. It’s a topic that’s important for pediatric health, Dr. Corkins said – but he doesn’t make it the focal point.
“It’s not a direct attack on ultra-processed foods that usually I take as my direction,” said Dr. Corkins, who is also chief of pediatric gastroenterology at Le Bonheur Children’s Hospital in Memphis, Tenn.. “What I try to focus on, and what I think the American Academy of Pediatrics would focus on, is that we need to focus on making the diet better.”
He added, “Parents are aware – they don’t call it ultra-processed food, they call it junk food.”
Dr. Corkins continued that he is reluctant to directly challenge parents on feeding their children unhealthy foods – ultra-processed or not – lest he shame them and harm the relationship.
“Guilt as a motivator isn’t really highly successful,” he said, in an interview.
Dr. Astrup reported advisory committee or board member involvement with Green Leaf Medical and RNPC, France. Dr. Roberts reported advisory committee or board member involvement with Danone, and an ownership interest in Instinct Health Science. Dr. Monteiro and Dr. Corkins reported no relevant disclosures.
The NOVA system divides foods into “fresh or minimally processed,” such as strawberries or steel-cut oats; “processed culinary ingredients,” such as olive oil; “processed foods,” such as cheeses; and “ultra-processed foods.” UPFs are defined as “industrial formulations made by deconstructing natural food into its chemical constituents, modifying them and recombining them with additives into products liable to displace all other NOVA food groups.”
According to doctors who presented during the meeting, ultra-processed foods are drawing increased attention, because researchers have been examining them in National Institutes of Health–funded studies and journalists have been writing about them.
During the debate session at the meeting, some experts said that, with obesity and poor health skyrocketing, increased awareness and labeling of UPFs can only be a good thing. In contrast others noted at the meeting that the classification system that has come to be used for identifying UPFs – the NOVA Food Classification system – is too mushy, confusing, and, ultimately unhelpful.
Carlos Monteiro, MD, PhD, professor of nutrition and public health at the University of Sao Paolo, was part of the group favoring the NOVA system’s classifying certain foods as UPFs, during the debate. He drew attention to the extent to which the world’s population is getting its calories from UPFs.
Mexico and France get about 30% of calories from these foods. In Canada, it’s 48%. And in the United States, it’s 57%, Dr. Monteiro said.
Studies have found that UPFs, many of which are designed to be exceedingly flavorful and intended to replace consumption of unprocessed whole foods, lead to more overall energy intake, more added sugar in the diet, and less fiber and protein intake, he said.
To further support his arguments, Dr. Monteiro pointed to studies suggesting that it is not just the resulting change in the nutritional intake that is unhealthy, but the UPF manufacturing process itself. When adjusting for fat, sugar, and sodium intake, for example, health outcomes associated with UPFs remain poor, he explained.
“I’m sorry,” he said in the debate. “If you don’t reduce this, you don’t reduce your obesity, your diabetes prevalence.”
A study presented by Jacqueline Vernarelli, PhD, during a different session at the meeting suggested there may be other downsides to consuming UPFs. This research, which was based on the U.S. National Youth Fitness Survey, found that poorer locomotor skills among children aged 3-5 and poorer cardiovascular fitness among those aged 12-15 were associated with getting more calories from UPFs.
Those with lower cardiovascular fitness consumed 1,234 calories a day from UPFs, and those with higher cardiovascular fitness consumed 1,007 calories a day from UPFs (P = .002), according to the new research.
“It’s notable here that, although these differences are significant, both groups are consuming a pretty high proportion of their diet from ultra-processed foods,” said Dr. Vernarelli, associate professor of public health at Sacred Heart University, Fairfield, Conn., during her presentation.
In the debate session, Arne Astrup, MD, PhD, senior project director at the Healthy Weight Center at the Novo Nordisk Foundation, Hellerup, Denmark, presented an opposing view.
He said the definition of UPFs makes it too difficult to categorize many foods, pointing to a study from this year in which about 150 nutrition experts, doctors, and dietitians classified 120 foods. Only three marketed foods and one generic food were classified the same by all the evaluators.
Referring to the study Dr. Astrup cited, Dr. Monteiro said it was a mere “exercise,” and the experts involved in it had conflicts of interest.
Dr. Astrup touted this study’s size and its appearance in the peer-reviewed journal the European Journal of Clinical Nutrition.
Defending his point of view, Dr. Astrup said, “The definition and classification is so ambiguous, and the risk of misclassification is so extremely high, I think we really miss the basic requirement of science, namely that we know what we are talking about,” he said.
If you take an unprocessed food, and insert a “little additive … suddenly it’s an ultra-processed food,” he added.
UPF definition doesn’t flag some unhealthy foods
Susan Roberts, PhD, professor of nutrition at Tufts University, Boston, was a discussant at the debate and touched on the merits of both sides. She noted that the UPF definition doesn’t flag some “clearly unhealthy foods,” such as table sugar, but does flag some healthy ones, such as plant-based burgers – to which Dr. Monteiro said that the system was not a system meant to divide foods into healthy and unhealthy groups, during the debate session.
The inclusion of both healthy and unhealthy foods in NOVA’s definition of a UPF is a serious problem, Dr. Roberts said.
“It’s almost like it’s an emotional classification designed to get at the food industry rather than focusing on health – and I think that’s asking for trouble because it’s just going to be such a mess to tell consumers, ‘Well, this ultra-processed food is healthy and this one isn’t,’ ” she said. What’s happening is the term ultra-processed is being used interchangeably with unhealthy.
The discussion that the UPF classification has generated is useful, Dr. Roberts continued. “This definition grew out of that recognition that we’re engaged in an unprecedented experiment of how unhealthy can you make the world without having a major catastrophe.”
She added that the UPF concept deserves a more formalized and rigorous evaluation.
“This is an important topic for the future of public health, and I think it needs big committees to address it seriously,” she said. “I think we should not be dealing with this individually in different labs.”
Doctor’s take on usefulness of discussing UPF concept with patients
Mark Corkins, MD, who did not participate in the debate at the meeting, said he talks to parents and children about nutrition at every office visit in which he sees a child with an unhealthy weight.
“Persistence wears down resistance,” said the chair of the American Academy of Pediatrics nutrition committee, in an interview.“A consistent message – you say the same thing and you say it multiple times.”
The idea of “ultra-processed foods” plays a role in those conversations, but largely in the background. It’s a topic that’s important for pediatric health, Dr. Corkins said – but he doesn’t make it the focal point.
“It’s not a direct attack on ultra-processed foods that usually I take as my direction,” said Dr. Corkins, who is also chief of pediatric gastroenterology at Le Bonheur Children’s Hospital in Memphis, Tenn.. “What I try to focus on, and what I think the American Academy of Pediatrics would focus on, is that we need to focus on making the diet better.”
He added, “Parents are aware – they don’t call it ultra-processed food, they call it junk food.”
Dr. Corkins continued that he is reluctant to directly challenge parents on feeding their children unhealthy foods – ultra-processed or not – lest he shame them and harm the relationship.
“Guilt as a motivator isn’t really highly successful,” he said, in an interview.
Dr. Astrup reported advisory committee or board member involvement with Green Leaf Medical and RNPC, France. Dr. Roberts reported advisory committee or board member involvement with Danone, and an ownership interest in Instinct Health Science. Dr. Monteiro and Dr. Corkins reported no relevant disclosures.
FROM NUTRITION 2022
For cancer prevention, not all plant-based diets are equal
researchers have found.
The study of more than 65,000 people showed that plant-based diets that were high in whole grains, fruits, and vegetables appear to be more protective against breast cancer than diets rich in processed plant-based products, such as juice and chips.
“Results suggest that the best plant-based diet for breast cancer prevention could be a healthy plant-based diet comprising fruit, vegetables, whole grains, nuts, and legumes,” said Sanam Shah, MBBS, FCPS, MPH, a doctoral candidate in epidemiology at Paris-Saclay University, who is the lead author of the new study. “In contrast, an unhealthy plant-based diet comprising higher intakes of primarily processed products of plant origin, such as refined grains, fruit juices, sweets, desserts, and potatoes, would be worse for breast cancer prevention.”
Dr. Shah’s group is presenting their research online at the annual meeting of the American Society for Nutrition.
Although the role of plant-based diets in cancer prevention has received extensive attention, Dr. Shah said few studies have assessed the influence of the quality of those diets on the risk of breast cancer.
Dr. Shah and colleagues conducted a prospective cohort study to investigate the link between healthy and unhealthy plant-based diets and breast cancer risk. Unlike other studies, the researchers also evaluated the effect of a gradual decrease in animal products in diets on health.
Dr. Shah’s group followed 65,574 postmenopausal women in France (mean age, 52.8 years) from 1993 to 2014. The researchers used self-reported food questionnaires to classify women into groups on the basis of adherence to a mostly plant or animal diet. Plant-based diets did not exclude meat but had more plant than animal products, Dr. Shah said. The researchers also grouped women on the basis of how healthy the plant-based diets were.
Over the 21-year study period, 3,968 women were diagnosed with breast cancer. Those who adhered to a more healthful plant-based diet had a 14% lower risk than average of developing breast cancer, while those who adhered to a less healthful plant-based diet had a 20% greater risk of developing the disease.
Nutritional quality varies greatly across plant-based foods. Quality plant-based diets should focus on variety to avoid nutritional deficiencies in iron, zinc, calcium, and vitamin B12, Dr. Shah said.
“The study by Shah and coworkers underscores the importance of considering more global aspects of the diet rather than single components when examining relationships between diet and health,” said Megan McCrory, PhD, research associate professor of nutrition at Boston University. “As the study illustrates, plant-based diets as a whole are not always healthy and may also contain less desirable nutrients and foods.”
Abstracts in the conference have been selected by a board of experts for presentation but have not yet been peer reviewed. All findings are to be regarded as preliminary until they are published in peer-reviewed articles. Dr. Shah and Dr. McCrory disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
researchers have found.
The study of more than 65,000 people showed that plant-based diets that were high in whole grains, fruits, and vegetables appear to be more protective against breast cancer than diets rich in processed plant-based products, such as juice and chips.
“Results suggest that the best plant-based diet for breast cancer prevention could be a healthy plant-based diet comprising fruit, vegetables, whole grains, nuts, and legumes,” said Sanam Shah, MBBS, FCPS, MPH, a doctoral candidate in epidemiology at Paris-Saclay University, who is the lead author of the new study. “In contrast, an unhealthy plant-based diet comprising higher intakes of primarily processed products of plant origin, such as refined grains, fruit juices, sweets, desserts, and potatoes, would be worse for breast cancer prevention.”
Dr. Shah’s group is presenting their research online at the annual meeting of the American Society for Nutrition.
Although the role of plant-based diets in cancer prevention has received extensive attention, Dr. Shah said few studies have assessed the influence of the quality of those diets on the risk of breast cancer.
Dr. Shah and colleagues conducted a prospective cohort study to investigate the link between healthy and unhealthy plant-based diets and breast cancer risk. Unlike other studies, the researchers also evaluated the effect of a gradual decrease in animal products in diets on health.
Dr. Shah’s group followed 65,574 postmenopausal women in France (mean age, 52.8 years) from 1993 to 2014. The researchers used self-reported food questionnaires to classify women into groups on the basis of adherence to a mostly plant or animal diet. Plant-based diets did not exclude meat but had more plant than animal products, Dr. Shah said. The researchers also grouped women on the basis of how healthy the plant-based diets were.
Over the 21-year study period, 3,968 women were diagnosed with breast cancer. Those who adhered to a more healthful plant-based diet had a 14% lower risk than average of developing breast cancer, while those who adhered to a less healthful plant-based diet had a 20% greater risk of developing the disease.
Nutritional quality varies greatly across plant-based foods. Quality plant-based diets should focus on variety to avoid nutritional deficiencies in iron, zinc, calcium, and vitamin B12, Dr. Shah said.
“The study by Shah and coworkers underscores the importance of considering more global aspects of the diet rather than single components when examining relationships between diet and health,” said Megan McCrory, PhD, research associate professor of nutrition at Boston University. “As the study illustrates, plant-based diets as a whole are not always healthy and may also contain less desirable nutrients and foods.”
Abstracts in the conference have been selected by a board of experts for presentation but have not yet been peer reviewed. All findings are to be regarded as preliminary until they are published in peer-reviewed articles. Dr. Shah and Dr. McCrory disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
researchers have found.
The study of more than 65,000 people showed that plant-based diets that were high in whole grains, fruits, and vegetables appear to be more protective against breast cancer than diets rich in processed plant-based products, such as juice and chips.
“Results suggest that the best plant-based diet for breast cancer prevention could be a healthy plant-based diet comprising fruit, vegetables, whole grains, nuts, and legumes,” said Sanam Shah, MBBS, FCPS, MPH, a doctoral candidate in epidemiology at Paris-Saclay University, who is the lead author of the new study. “In contrast, an unhealthy plant-based diet comprising higher intakes of primarily processed products of plant origin, such as refined grains, fruit juices, sweets, desserts, and potatoes, would be worse for breast cancer prevention.”
Dr. Shah’s group is presenting their research online at the annual meeting of the American Society for Nutrition.
Although the role of plant-based diets in cancer prevention has received extensive attention, Dr. Shah said few studies have assessed the influence of the quality of those diets on the risk of breast cancer.
Dr. Shah and colleagues conducted a prospective cohort study to investigate the link between healthy and unhealthy plant-based diets and breast cancer risk. Unlike other studies, the researchers also evaluated the effect of a gradual decrease in animal products in diets on health.
Dr. Shah’s group followed 65,574 postmenopausal women in France (mean age, 52.8 years) from 1993 to 2014. The researchers used self-reported food questionnaires to classify women into groups on the basis of adherence to a mostly plant or animal diet. Plant-based diets did not exclude meat but had more plant than animal products, Dr. Shah said. The researchers also grouped women on the basis of how healthy the plant-based diets were.
Over the 21-year study period, 3,968 women were diagnosed with breast cancer. Those who adhered to a more healthful plant-based diet had a 14% lower risk than average of developing breast cancer, while those who adhered to a less healthful plant-based diet had a 20% greater risk of developing the disease.
Nutritional quality varies greatly across plant-based foods. Quality plant-based diets should focus on variety to avoid nutritional deficiencies in iron, zinc, calcium, and vitamin B12, Dr. Shah said.
“The study by Shah and coworkers underscores the importance of considering more global aspects of the diet rather than single components when examining relationships between diet and health,” said Megan McCrory, PhD, research associate professor of nutrition at Boston University. “As the study illustrates, plant-based diets as a whole are not always healthy and may also contain less desirable nutrients and foods.”
Abstracts in the conference have been selected by a board of experts for presentation but have not yet been peer reviewed. All findings are to be regarded as preliminary until they are published in peer-reviewed articles. Dr. Shah and Dr. McCrory disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM NUTRITION 2022