How much junk food does an average American eat? A simple blood test has the answer
Live Events
(You can now subscribe to our
(You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel
More than 57% of calories in the average American diet come from ultra-processed foods . These include chips, candy, soda, and ready-to-eat meals. Now, scientists have developed a blood test that can measure how much of this food a person really eats.For years, researchers relied on food diaries and surveys to understand diets. But those methods are not always accurate. People forget, misreport, or don't notice how much processed food they eat.This new test changes that. Scientists can now find molecular markers in the blood that show how much ultra-processed food someone consumes. These markers include chemicals linked to additives like preservatives, artificial sweeteners, and colorings, all common in packaged and fast foods.The research was published in PLOS Medicine and included hundreds of participants. Their blood samples were tested and compared with their reported diets. The results matched: the more processed food someone ate, the higher the levels of specific markers in their blood.The test then gives each person a diet 'score' based on the amount of ultra-processed food in their system. A higher score means a higher intake.These high scores were also linked with serious health issues. People who consumed more ultra-processed food were more likely to have obesity, high blood sugar, high blood pressure, and other signs of poor metabolic health.Dr. Marie-Pierre St-Onge, the study's lead author, said this test could be a 'game changer.' It provides an objective way to track diet quality, which could help doctors give better advice.Nutrition scientists are hopeful the test can help in more than just research. It could be used in clinics, health programs, and even in public health surveys to get a better idea of how diet impacts long-term health.However, the test is still new. Researchers say it needs more trials in different age groups and cultures before it becomes widely available.Ultra-processed food is a growing global issue. But in the U.S., the numbers are especially high. Many people don't realize just how much of their daily intake comes from these foods.This test might help people better understand their diets and possibly lead them to make healthier choices. It could also help public health experts track diet trends and target the most at-risk communities.In the future, your next health check-up might not just measure your cholesterol. It could also show you how much junk food is in your blood.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
10 hours ago
- The Hindu
When you want to move, does your brain know before you've decided?
It is the end of a long, hard work day and all you feel like doing is flop on the sofa and watch TV. Your eyes move to something on the screen and watch it for a few minutes, then you think to yourself: 'I wonder what's on elsewhere…'. So you reach for the TV remote and switch the channel. At this precise moment, let's freeze frame and ask: how did this simple decision unfold? Which happened first: the conscious recognition of the intention to move your arm or the brain activity required for the movement? For a long time, people grappled with this as a 'chicken or egg' question and arrived at only philosophical answers, not scientific ones. Indeed, for many years the question was actually believed to be outside the purview of science. The international chain In the early 1980s, American neuroscientist Benjamin Libet published his pioneering work exploring what scientists now call the intentional chain. In its entirety, the intentional chain entails an intent (the desire to change the channel in the example above), an action (reaching for the remote), and an effect (e.g. sounds/sights from a different channel). Due to the technical challenges involved, it wasn't possible for scientists to study the intentional chain from beginning to end — until now. In a study published recently in PLoS Biology, Jean-Paul Noel from the University of Minnesota in the US and collaborators from the US, the UK, and Switzerland, reported an experiment in which they selectively targeted each element of the intentional chain, one by one. They found that conscious recognition of the intent to move coincides with activation in the M1 cortical area, the part of the brain controlling voluntary limb movements. One surprise was a difference in the timing of conscious recognition: the perception of movement and the brain activity corresponding to this intent. First study of its kind The study's participant was a tetraplegic person outfitted with a brain implant in his M1 area (a.k.a. the primary motor cortex). Electrical impulses from the implant stimulated the area. This setup, called a brain-machine interface, used with a device called neuromuscular electrical stimulator (NMES), which activated forearm muscles to cause hand movements, made it possible for the researchers to activate or inactivate individual components of the intentional chain in the study. A particular hand movement was of interest in this setup. The participant held a ball in his hand. When he squeezed it, a sound was emitted exactly 300 mslater. This was the environmental effect, the last piece of the intentional chain. During the experiment, the participant was asked to watch a clock on a computer screen. Depending on the specific trial, he had to report the reading on the clock — at the time he felt the urge to move his hand, the time he moved his hand or the time he heard an audio tone. This was the first study to look in the M1 area in the context of subjective intention of voluntary actions. The researchers found that the timeline of activity in this area was somewhat different than that reported for other brain areas in previous research. Specifically, all the other areas had been activated prior to intention and action — whereas M1 showed activity before but also during a voluntary action. This makes sense given that M1 is the final stop in the brain, before the signal moves to the spinal cord and finally to muscles of the hand. Rearing up Normally, when you intend to move your right hand to pick up an object or lift your foot up to kick a ball, the desire for voluntary movement is reflected as electrical activity in specific parts of the brain. Even before Libet conducted his foundational work, German scientist Hans Helmut Kornhuber placed electrodes along the heads of participants in a study who each made a voluntary decision — to press a button any time they felt like it. He conducted this study in the 1960s. Kornhuber found that in the moments leading up to an individual pressing the button, the electrodes recorded a gradual increase in the strength of an electric signal, which he called the readiness potential. Think of it as the brain gearing up to act. This meant that if these same brain parts were stimulated with electric signals, one could manufacture in the individual an urge to move the hand or the foot. Kornhuber's work, later confirmed by others, proved there was electrical activity in the brain before the individual performed a voluntary action. Subsequent research showed that certain brain circuits are activated before an individual is even aware of their intention to perform a voluntary movement. In the new study, Noel & co. explored the question: when do we become aware of a decision we are about to make? Interesting patterns In the first round with their setup, the researchers studied the full intentional chain. They recorded electrical activity in the participant's M1 area caused by the intent to move his hand using functional MRI. They recorded any subsequent movement of that hand with NMES. Finally, they recorded the sound of the participant squeezing the ball in his hand. Thus, they had an objective way to measure each step of the intentional chain — a significant departure from previous studies in which researchers depended on participants' responses themselves. When the researchers compared the objective measurements to the participant's subjective perceptions, some interesting patterns emerged. For example, when the team asked the participant to report the time at which he developed a conscious awareness of his intention, his answer suggested his perception preceded actual electrical activity recorded by the MRI. Similarly, when asked to report the time at which he perceived his hand began to move, the researcher found his perception preceded the signal recorded by NMES. In the next round, the researchers used NMES to move the participant's hand, thus bypassing the subjective intent and therefore electrical activity in the brain. This time, the participant perceived that his hand moved at a time well after the measured electric signal. When the researchers blocked the hand movement signal from NMES, while keeping the intent and effect parts of the chain intact, the participant perceived his intention to occur much earlier — more so than the full intentional chain. In either case the difference was only in the order of milliseconds, but for the brain this is an eternity. The role of M1 The work of Patrick Haggard at University College London may help understand these results better. Haggard & co. asked participants in a study to report the timing of an action (pressing a keyboard button, say) and the timing of an effect of their action (a colour changing on the computer monitor). The team's results showed that participants perceived a shorter time interval between a voluntary action and its effect — called the intentional binding — than what was objectively recorded. In this context, Noel's team have discovered a new form of intentional binding: between intention and action. Since the work of Kornhuber and Libet, as more scientists examined the time between an individual perceiving a voluntary decision and that decision turning into action, it has been becoming clearer that the timing of brain activity in relation to a voluntary decision depends on where in the brain one looks. Through multiple attempts to understand the brain's goings-on in the moments leading up to a voluntary action, scientists have mapped the parts that light up with electrical activity as an individual consciously develops an urge to take some voluntary action as well as areas that light up with the conscious perception of having taken the action. In the new study, Noel et al. have added to this knowledge by revealing the role the M1 area plays with the start of a conscious decision to take some action and during the execution. Where are you looking? In the last few decades, cognitive neuroscientists have found that a single voluntary decision for an individual involves multiple different slices in their brain. There's the slice of 'what' decision to make, 'when' to make it, 'whether or not' to translate that decision to action. Activities in various parts of the brain correspond to different slices and the timing of brain activity in relation to a voluntary decision depends on which slice is examined. So if we look in the premotor or parietal cortical areas, we find them activated before a voluntary movement has occurred. The new study shows that the M1 area integrates signals from premotor-parietal areas, which explains its activity in the moments leading up to the voluntary action. The specific way the tests were set up made it possible for the researchers to separate M1 activity due to intention from its activity due to action. In a situation where a decision is converted to action, that of reaching for the remote in the example earlier, M1 activity relays that decision down to the spinal cord and to muscles of the arm. The fact that the study was conducted with a single tetraplegic participant raises obvious questions about whether its findings can be generalised. In another recent study in Nature Communications, Noel collaborated with Italian scientist Tommaso Bertoni to examine the same question in 30 healthy participants. They aimed to study the participants' brain activity using electrodes placed on their scalps (in contrast to electrodes implanted inside the M1 area of the brain). The results have supported the role of the M1 area of the brain in translating voluntary decisions to actions, adding further credence to the findings by Noel and team in their paper. Dr. Reeteka Sud is a neuroscientist by training and senior scientist at the Center for Brain and Mind, Department of Psychiatry, NIMHANS, Bengaluru.
Hindustan Times
14 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
US goalkeeper Zack Steffen injures knee and will miss CONCACAF Gold Cup
CHICAGO — Zack Steffen injured a knee and became the second goalkeeper dropped from U.S. training camp ahead of the CONCACAF Gold Cup. Steffen was hurt during training Tuesday, returned to the Colorado Rapids for more exams and will miss the tournament, the U.S. Soccer Federation said Wednesday. Columbus goalkeeper Patrick Schulte injured an oblique on May 24. Matt Turner, the No. 1 American goalkeeper for the past three years, remains in camp along with Chris Brady and Matt Freese, who both have never played for the national team. Turner, who turns 31 on June 24, played just four matches for Crystal Place this season, one in the League Cup and three in the FA Cup — the last on March 1. Turner's last game was on March 23, the Americans' 2-1 loss to Canada in the CONCACAF Nations League third-place game. 'I don't see myself as the No. 1 all the time,' Turner said Wednesday, referring to a goalkeeper's frequent jersey number. 'I think that's my mindset going into every camp right now, is that every inch, every opportunity needs to be fought for and every opportunity that I've had under this current staff I've earned by my performances within training and the opportunities that I had this past season with Crystal Palace.' Turner hinted a club change is possible. Dean Henderson started all 38 Premier League matches this season. 'Hopefully I'll have some news for you in terms of my future this summer,' Turner said. The Americans have friendlies against Turkey on Saturday at East Hartford, Connecticut, and Switzerland three days later at Nashville, Tennessee, then meet Trinidad and Tobago, Saudi Arabia and Haiti in the first round of the Gold Cup. soccer: /hub/soccer
Economic Times
14 hours ago
- Economic Times
Snacks like M&M's, Skittles, and Doritos ‘Not recommended for human consumption' in US? Here's what the Texas Bill proposes
Bill Targets Controversial Food Additives Governor's Office Reviewing the Legislation Live Events Food Industry Pushes Back Consumer Groups Warn of Confusion and Costs FAQs What is Senate Bill 25 in Texas? What would the warning label say? (You can now subscribe to our (You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel A new legislative move in Texas has ignited nationwide debate as the state's GOP-majority legislature advances a bill requiring warning labels on various processed food products, including popular snacks such as M&M's, Skittles, and Doritos. The proposed labels would declare these items as 'not recommended for human consumption' if they contain additives restricted or banned in countries like the UK, Canada, Australia, or the European Union, as per a report by the New York Senate Bill 25 , the measure mandates that beginning in 2027, any food or beverage product sold in Texas containing synthetic dyes, bleached flour, or other controversial ingredients must carry a clearly visible warning label. The label would read: 'WARNING: This product contains an ingredient that is not recommended for human consumption by the appropriate authority in Australia, Canada, the European Union, or the United Kingdom.'The legislation is part of a broader initiative supported by U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has made food transparency a cornerstone of his 'Make America Healthy Again' campaign. 'We are committed to protecting public health by ensuring families know what's in their food,' Kennedy stated earlier, as mentioned in a report by the New York the legislative session having concluded on Monday, Governor Greg Abbott now has 20 days to sign or veto the measure. A spokesperson from the Governor's office said that Abbott is carefully examining the implications of the bill. 'Governor Abbott will continue to work with the legislature to ensure Texans have access to healthy foods to care for themselves and their families,' said press secretary Andrew enacted, the bill would require warning labels to be printed at a font size no smaller than the smallest existing FDA-mandated text on packaging. It also calls for the label to be prominently displayed with sufficient contrast for proposed labeling rule has met resistance from major corporations. In a joint letter dated May 19, industry leaders including PepsiCo, Mondelez, Coca-Cola, Conagra Brands, and Walmart urged Texas lawmakers to reconsider the bill, citing its sweeping scope and potential confusion for consumers.'The food labeling provision in this bill casts an incredibly wide net — triggering warning labels on everyday grocery items based on foreign standards, not on regulations from Texas authorities or the U.S. FDA,' the letter which was among the signatories, issued a statement saying it is closely tracking legislative developments and deferred further comment to the Texas Retailers Association, which also contributed input during bill discussions.A consultant representing the retail association noted, 'Texas retailers and our members including Walmart worked hard on this bill, made some changes, and we'll see how it develops over the next 20 days.'Industry experts and advocacy groups warn the proposed law could bring unintended consequences. John Hewitt, senior vice president of the Consumer Brands Association, has called for Governor Abbott to veto the measure. 'The ingredients used in the U.S. food supply are safe and have been rigorously evaluated,' Hewitt said. 'This legislation could result in inaccurate warning language, legal risks, and unnecessary alarm among consumers.'As the state awaits Abbott's decision, the future of household snack names like Skittles, M&M's, and Doritos in Texas grocery aisles remains uncertain. If passed, Texas would become the first U.S. state to mandate such foreign-comparison warning labels on processed a proposed law that mandates warning labels on foods containing additives banned or restricted in the UK, EU, Canada, or Australia, targeting products like M&M's, Doritos, and label would read: 'WARNING: This product contains an ingredient that is not recommended for human consumption by the appropriate authority in Australia, Canada, the European Union, or the United Kingdom.'
