Having junk foods? Study says your blood and urine can reveal your junk intake
Ultra-processed foods leave chemical traces in the body and scientists are tracking them. A recent study led by Erikka Loftfield of the National Cancer Institute reveals that blood and urine samples can offer key insights into a person's diet, especially when it includes a high intake of packaged and convenience foods. Also read | Is this everyday snack setting you up for a lifetime of liver damage? Doctor shares 5 prevention tips
The research aimed to better understand the long-term health effects of ultra-processed food consumption. Findings show that biological markers in blood and urine can reliably indicate how much of these foods a person eats, offering a potential new tool for monitoring dietary habits and associated health risks.
The study observed that an average American's diet consists of more than 50% ultra-processed foods. The food consumed by them are hardly made of components that can be found in a regular household kitchen. The foods consist of high-fructose corn syrup, hydrogenated oils, and various additives for flavor and texture. This can further lead to chronic conditions such as obesity, heart disease, type 2 diabetes, and certain cancers. Also read | Is your child obsessed with junk food? Nutritionist shares 5 easy and healthy swaps to break the habit
The study was conducted on 718 adults aged 50-74. The participants were asked to provide multiple 24-hour dietary recalls over 12 months, along with blood and urine samples collected six months apart.
Over 1,000 different metabolites in each sample were measured. The scientists observed that nearly 200 blood metabolites and almost 300 urine metabolites demonstrated high ultra-processed food intake. This consisted of components such as lipid metabolism, amino acids, carbohydrates, vitamins, and xenobiotics (foreign substances like food additives).
However, when a person shifted their diet from high ultra-processed foods to no ultra-processed foods, the results shifted drastically. This denotes that the metabolite patterns change swiftly as soon as the intake of ultra-processed food is reduced or eliminated from the diet. Also read | Snacking on junk food can corrode your memory and increase stroke risk? Study offers answers
The study authors added in the study, 'In summary, we show that dietary patterns with higher UPF intake are associated with distinctive metabolomic profiles in both serum and urine.'
Note to readers: This article is for informational purposes only and not a substitute for professional medical advice. Always seek the advice of your doctor with any questions about a medical condition.
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
13 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
Time of India
14 hours ago
- Time of India
What is the crop-killing fungus that was smuggled into the U.S. by a Chinese couple?
Credit: X Two Chinese nationals are facing serious federal charges after allegedly smuggling a destructive crop fungus into the United States. Yunqing Jian, 33, and Zunyong Liu, 34, were arrested in connection with a case that federal prosecutors say raises critical concerns about national security and food safety. According to a criminal complaint filed in the U.S. District Court in Detroit, the two scientists have been charged with conspiracy, smuggling goods into the United States, false statements, and visa fraud. Prosecutors allege that the pair "illegally imported" Fusarium graminearum , a crop-infecting fungus known to cause head blight—a disease that targets key grains like wheat, barley, maize, and rice. 'This case involves a fungus that poses a serious risk to global food security and public health,' said Jerome F. Gorgon, Jr., United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan. 'The alleged smuggling of this biological agent into an American research institution by foreign nationals is a matter of grave national security concern.' Who are Yunqing Jian and Zunyong Liu? According to the U.S. Attorney's Office, Eastern District of Michigan, 'The FBI arrested Jian in connection with allegations related to Jian's and Liu's smuggling into America a fungus called Fusarium graminearum , which scientific literature classifies as a potential agroterrorism weapon.' The complaint reveals that Jian and Liu have been in a romantic relationship since July 2024, the same month Liu arrived in the United States, allegedly carrying small bags of the crop-damaging fungus. Liu later told investigators he intended to use the samples for research at the University of Michigan, where Jian was employed as a visiting research fellow. Jian, whose academic focus is molecular, cellular, and developmental biology, reportedly received Chinese government funding to support her work involving Fusarium graminearum . Her partner, Liu, conducts similar research in China. When initially questioned at Detroit Metropolitan Airport in July 2024, Liu claimed he had no knowledge of the fungus in his luggage. He later admitted to the FBI that he had brought the samples into the country for scientific research purposes. What is Fusarium graminearum? Fusarium graminearum is a fungus that causes Fusarium head blight, a serious disease affecting cereal crops like wheat, barley, maize, and rice. In the U.S. alone, it's responsible for around $1 billion in crop losses every year, according to the Department of Agriculture. While other fungi can cause the same disease, Fusarium graminearum is the most common one in the U.S. It infects crops early in the season, damaging grain heads and turning them a pale, whitish color. It also produces a toxin in the grains that's harmful to both people and animals. This toxin, often called vomitoxin, can cause vomiting in livestock and symptoms like diarrhea, abdominal pain, headache, and fever in both animals and humans. Because of this, grain crops are carefully tested before they're used for food or animal feed. If the fungus is found, the crops must be discarded—causing heavy losses for farmers. It's not unusual for researchers to import foreign plants, animals, or fungi to study how they behave in different conditions. However, doing so legally requires specific permits. For example, scientists might study a foreign strain of this fungus to understand how it survives heat, resists fungicides, or evolves over time. What remains unclear is why the researchers wanted to bring this particular strain of Fusarium graminearum into the U.S. , and why they didn't follow the legal steps to do so.
