Ultra processed food's intake linked to higher lung cancer risk: Study
The findings, based on data from over 100,000 Americans followed for 12 years, suggest that limiting consumption of ready-to-eat meals, processed meats, and sugary drinks could help reduce the global burden of the world's most common cancer.
Lung cancer claimed 1.8 million lives worldwide in 2020 alone, with 2.2 million new cases diagnosed that year, the researchers noted.
The study analysed data from 101,732 participants (50,187 men and 51,545 women, average age 62) drawn from a broader pool of 155,000 people aged 55-74 who completed detailed dietary questionnaires as part of major US cancer screening trials between 1993 and 2001. Researchers tracked cancer diagnoses until 2009 and deaths until 2018.
Foods were classified into four processing categories: unprocessed or minimally processed; containing processed culinary ingredients; processed; and ultra-processed. The ultra-processed foods examined included lunch meats, ice cream, fried foods, breakfast cereals, instant noodles, shop-bought soups, soft drinks, and fast-food items like hamburgers and pizza.
Participants consumed an average of nearly three servings daily, ranging from 0.5 to 6 servings. The most frequently consumed ultra-processed foods were lunch meat (11% of intake), diet or caffeinated soft drinks (just over 7%), and decaffeinated soft drinks (nearly 7%).
During the follow-up period, 1,706 people developed lung cancer—1,473 cases of non-small cell lung cancer and 233 cases of small cell lung cancer. Even after accounting for smoking habits and overall diet quality, those in the highest consumption group showed significantly elevated risks.
The increased risk was 37% for non-small cell lung cancer and 44% for small cell lung cancer among heavy ultra-processed food consumers.
'Over the past two decades, consumption of ultra-processed foods has significantly increased worldwide, regardless of development or economic status,' the authors wrote. This rise may be driving global increases in obesity, cardiovascular disease, and cancer, they added.
The researchers suggest ultra-processed foods may crowd out protective foods like whole grains, fruits, and vegetables from people's diets. Industrial processing also alters food structure, affecting how nutrients are absorbed whilst generating harmful compounds like acrolein—found in grilled sausages and caramel sweets and also present in cigarette smoke.
Food packaging materials may also contribute to health risks, the study noted.
The authors acknowledged their findings require confirmation through additional large-scale studies across different populations before definitive conclusions can be drawn about causality.
'If causality is established, limiting trends of ultra-processed food intake globally could contribute to reducing the burden of lung cancer,' they concluded.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
an hour ago
- Mint
What If Everything We Think About Obesity Is Wrong?
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- The US government is approaching the study of obesity all wrong. According to leadership at the Department of Health and Human Services, food companies are to blame — they're engineering their snacks, fast food and sweets to addict us the same way cocaine and nicotine do. Others assessing the epidemic say people overeat because they lack willpower and could stop if they really wanted to. While the blame game has been good for stirring public outrage, it hasn't led to anything useful for improving our health. Meanwhile, some health officials have been undermining potentially useful research on novel causes of overeating. A leader in diet and obesity research quit his NIH job after he says officials interfered with his ability to discuss his results — which he said didn't align with the agency's talking points. Those blaming Americans' obesity on their lack of willpower also get it wrong. That viewpoint came up on a recent episode of Bill Maher's show, during a discussion with Casey Means, President Donald Trump's nominee for surgeon general, who also argued that junk food was sometimes engineered to hook people. Maher scoffed, countering that McDonald's is 'delicious' and that's why people choose to eat it — no fancy science needed to explain that. There is credible evidence that our obesity rate — about 40% — is related to our heavy consumption of fast food, packaged and instant foods, sweets and sweetened drinks — all of which were recently lumped into the giant category of ultra-processed food. These so-called UPFs make up about 53% of the average American diet, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Research by Kevin Hall — the scientist who quit his NIH job — linked ultra-processed foods to weight gain, but the reasons were more complicated than originally thought. In Hall's study, volunteers confined to a food lab were fed one of two diets. One consisted mostly of ultra-processed foods — turkey bacon, fries, instant noodles, chicken nuggets and similar items. The other was primarily minimally processed foods. Participants were allowed to eat as much as they wanted for two weeks, then they switched to the other diet. During the ultra-processed phase, participants consumed an average of 500 more calories a day and gained a couple of pounds on average. The diets contained the same amounts of protein, carbohydrates, fats, sodium and even fiber — so those components alone couldn't be blamed for weight gain. Hall said the volunteers were asked whether the ultra-processed diet was tastier or more enjoyable to eat, and they reported that both diets were equally appealing. That undercuts the simplistic notion that junk food causes overeating simply because it's delicious. 'There's something more interesting going on,' he told me. The language of addiction is common in NIH-sponsored science and political rhetoric. At a Senate hearing last year, Robert Califf, former commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, told senators that food companies were creating addictive products, and HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has repeatedly blamed the industry for knowingly 'poisoning' Americans with its products. Kevin Hall (@KevinH_PhD) December 5, 2024 Since publishing the results of his study in 2019, Hall has been working to uncover what the 'something more interesting going on' might be. In 2023, he and a team of collaborators conducted additional analysis of the original data and found an important clue. The researchers found the foods that people tended to overconsume followed a pattern: they were typically high in sodium and starch, sweet and fatty, or fatty and high in sodium, according to Tera Fazzino, a psychologist and addiction expert at the University of Kansas who was part of the team. She defined these foods as 'hyper-palatable.' I asked Fazzino whether 'hyper-palatable' was the same as delicious. Not quite. 'I'm in Italy right now,' she said, where she described the food as 'so fresh and so good, and so rewarding.' Hyper-palatable ultra-processed food might be addictive, she explained, or it might disrupt the body's signaling mechanisms that tell people they're full. Hall tried to get at the addiction question in another experiment. Volunteers were given an ultra-processed milkshake, after which their brains were scanned to detect any dopamine surges — similar to those sometimes triggered by addictive drugs. The participants varied in body size, ranging from thin to obese. According to Hall, some of the individuals exhibited an increase in dopamine. However, the response didn't appear to correlate with their level of obesity. He said the NIH initially planned to issue a press release on the study, but then pulled back. Later, he got a call from the New York Times requesting an interview — and press office officials forbade him from speaking with the reporter. When he issued a written statement in response to the Times, he said it was altered by the agency to play down the study's size and significance. Hall said leaders at HHS, which oversees the NIH, didn't want him to talk about his work, 'because it went against the narrative that ultra-processed foods are addictive.' HHS spokesman Andrew Nixon said via email that 'at no point was Dr. Hall's ability to share or advocate for his ideas restricted — his academic freedom and free speech were fully respected throughout,' and he called Hall's concerns 'fake news.' But Hall's story is consistent with what he's told other news outlets. He's also spoken to reporters about previous work — as opposed to communicating via written statement as in this case. For some experts, there's no question that food addiction is real. 'I've treated people who have this compulsive relationship with these ultra-processed foods,' said Ashley Gearhardt, an addiction specialist at the University of Michigan. Sometimes people eat until they get sick, she said, and she sees the same cravings and compulsive behavior with junk food that drives alcoholics. And people don't binge on apples or avocados or chicken thighs. It's almost always things like pizza, candy bars, ice cream or donuts. But that still doesn't explain why the participants in Hall's study ate those extra 500 calories. In ongoing research, Hall and his collaborators are comparing a diet of ordinary ultra-processed foods with one that consists of foods that have been reformulated so that they aren't 'hyper-palatable.' He's also examining caloric density, a characteristic of ultra-processed foods that people tend to overeat. Preliminary results suggest there are ways to make inexpensive, convenient and shelf-stable food that's no less tasty than conventional ultra- processed fare but won't pack on pounds. That's a result that doesn't cast blame — and might lead to real changes that actually make us healthier. More From Bloomberg Opinion: This column reflects the personal views of the author and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners. F.D. Flam is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering science. She is host of the 'Follow the Science' podcast. More stories like this are available on
Time of India
10 hours ago
- Time of India
Protein powder is the buzz word on social media, but is more really better? The data-driven truth and who needs how much
It's 2025, and protein isn't just a macronutrient; it's a full-blown phenomenon sweeping social media , supermarket shelves, and dinner tables around the world. Americans in particular are obsessed: a whopping 61% boosted their protein intake in 2024, compared to just 48% in 2019. From TikTok trends like '200 grams of protein a day' to an explosion of protein-packed snack bars, pancake mixes, and even popcorn, everyone's chasing that muscle-building magic. From steak to shakes: How the protein craze took off Protein's popularity isn't entirely new; it's the only macronutrient never vilified in the shifting sands of diet culture. Since the 1860s - when German chemist Justus von Liebig pushed 'meat extract' as a protein shortcut - food companies have been innovating, from cheese byproduct 'whey' powder to modern bars and ready-to-drink shakes. Productivity Tool Zero to Hero in Microsoft Excel: Complete Excel guide By Metla Sudha Sekhar View Program Finance Introduction to Technical Analysis & Candlestick Theory By Dinesh Nagpal View Program Finance Financial Literacy i e Lets Crack the Billionaire Code By CA Rahul Gupta View Program Digital Marketing Digital Marketing Masterclass by Neil Patel By Neil Patel View Program Finance Technical Analysis Demystified- A Complete Guide to Trading By Kunal Patel View Program Productivity Tool Excel Essentials to Expert: Your Complete Guide By Study at home View Program Artificial Intelligence AI For Business Professionals Batch 2 By Ansh Mehra View Program Today, Cargill 's 2025 Protein Profile shows 57% of consumers scan labels specifically for protein content, and over 75% insist that animal proteins (think beef, chicken, eggs) are vital for dinner. Is there a dark side to all this protein? While the 'protein rules' mantra is hard to resist, doctors warn there can be too much of a good thing. Going far above recommended levels (think 200g-400g a day) can strain kidneys and liver, trigger dehydration, and - even though rare - potentially up your risk of heart disease if your protein comes from fatty red meats. The University of Missouri recently flagged that excessive protein can activate cellular pathways leading to cardiovascular trouble. Experts agree: most healthy adults are fine staying within 0.8-1.6g/kg, and plant-based sources can be just as muscle-friendly without the scare. Who benefits most? Older people, especially post-menopausal women, may need more protein for bone and muscle health, but can usually get what they need from a balanced diet , no supplements required. Live Events For athletes and fitness enthusiasts, protein powers recovery and performance, but more is not necessarily better: it's important to balance intake with other nutrients, hydration, and activity. The science behind the surge Many influencers call for ultra-high protein goals, sometimes urging up to 2.2g/kg of body weight daily, nearly triple the basic recommendation. Social media fuels the fire, with 40% of non-professional athletes getting supplement advice from Instagram, TikTok, and Twitter - often from people with no nutrition credentials. For most adults, the recommended daily protein intake is about 0.8 grams per kilogram of body weight, which means if you weigh 70kg, you'd need roughly 56g of protein each day. Older adults and people who are highly active or involved in sports may benefit from higher amounts, a bit more for pregnant or breastfeeding women. Your protein should ideally come from a variety of sources like lean meats, dairy, eggs, beans, and nuts, spread evenly throughout meals to help your body absorb and use it efficiently. The recent surge in protein popularity is driven by evidence that moderate increases in protein keep you feeling fuller longer, support muscle growth and maintenance, and help with recovery, especially as people age. However, science shows that eating more than about 1.6g/kg per day doesn't bring extra benefits and can even carry health risks if far in excess, especially from heavy red meat or supplements. Most people in developed countries easily meet these recommendations, so unless you have special needs or are very active, focus on consistent, balanced protein rather than chasing ultra-high trends. Consumer impact: Snack, sip, repeat Food companies are riding the wave. Brands like PepsiCo, Kraft Heinz, and Oscar Mayer are rolling out new high-protein offerings - from updated lunchables packs boasting 12g of protein per serving, to restaurant-quality cuts for at-home indulgence. Restaurants report a 10% jump in protein mentions on menus in the last year, and one in five spotlights protein in their dishes.
Time of India
17 hours ago
- Time of India
Stacking supplements for faster results? Experts warn the wrong combinations can backfire
The Promise vs. the Problem Dangerous Duos: What Not to Take Together Zinc and Calcium: Both compete for absorption in the gut, meaning you absorb less of both when taken together. Iron and Calcium: High calcium intake can hinder iron absorption, putting people—especially those with anemia—at risk. Magnesium and Zinc: High levels of zinc can deplete magnesium, leading to deficiency symptoms like fatigue or cramps. Iron and Zinc: These share the same absorption pathway, reducing how much your body can use. Ginkgo Biloba and Fish Oil: Both can thin the blood, raising the risk of bleeding—especially dangerous for those on blood thinners. Smart Stacks That Help Vitamin C + Iron: Vitamin C enhances the absorption of non-heme iron from plant sources. Vitamin D + Magnesium: Magnesium supports the metabolism of vitamin D throughout the day. Vitamin D + Calcium + Vitamin K2: Vitamin D helps absorb calcium, while K2 ensures that calcium reaches the bones and not the arteries. The Multivitamin Myth: Are You Overdoing It? You Might Also Like: AIIMS doctor warns vegetarians of vitamin B12 deficiency: Symptoms, risks and foods to add to your diet In a world obsessed with optimization, taking a single daily multivitamin seems passé. Now, millions are turning to supplement stacking —a trend where multiple vitamins, minerals, and herbal boosters are taken simultaneously to enhance health, energy, and performance. But this trend, while seemingly harmless, is drawing serious concern from medical professionals.A report by Prevention reveals that nearly 75% of Americans take dietary supplements regularly. But when it comes to mixing them without proper guidance, nutritionists and toxicologists warn that users may be setting themselves up for unintended consequences—from reduced efficacy to dangerous side effects.'Supplements may look like harmless pills, but they can influence everything from your immune system to your DNA,' says Sonya Angelone, R.D.N., a registered dietitian based in San Francisco. 'When you mix the wrong ones together, they might cancel each other out—or worse, cause toxicity.'The supplement industry remains largely unregulated, and the availability of concentrated formulations online makes it easy for consumers to experiment without medical supervision. 'It's common enough that it's a real concern and it does come up for me clinically,' adds Dr. Zachary Mulvihill, an integrative medicine physician at Weill Cornell all supplements are friends. Some combinations can clash inside your body, competing for absorption or creating harmful reactions. Here are a few examples cited in the Prevention report:While many combinations are problematic, some vitamin duos do complement each other. According to experts:Still, timing matters. Even if certain nutrients work well together, they don't always need to be taken at the same time. A few hours' separation may make a big difference.'Some people double up without realizing,' says Dr. Mulvihill. 'They'll take a multivitamin, then add a hair, skin, and nails supplement—unintentionally overdosing on B vitamins or zinc.'Even seemingly minor duplications can lead to nutrient overload, especially fat-soluble vitamins like A, D, E, and K, which aren't easily flushed out of the vitamins with prescription meds can also pose a risk. 'Some vitamins, especially minerals, can interfere with medications such as antibiotics,' warns Dr. Bruce Ruck, a toxicologist and adjunct professor at Rutgers College of Pharmacy. 'Always check with your provider before combining the two.'Instead of guessing, doctors recommend bloodwork to assess actual deficiencies. 'It's always better to test than to supplement blindly,' says Dr. if your healthcare provider does recommend potentially conflicting supplements, spacing them out—morning and afternoon, for example—can help avoid interactions.
