Ultra-processed foods (UPFs) are fundamentally manufactured supermarket merchandise engineered for affordability, palatability, extended shelf life, and resistance to digestion.
Sodas, packaged snacks, instant noodles, processed meats, frozen ready-meals, candies, and a plethora of “protein” bars that resemble chemical reagent kits more than actual food items. Typically, these contain substantial amounts of added fat, sugar, starch, salt, and an extensive inventory of additives like emulsifiers.
And they are no longer a negligible fraction of the contemporary diet. In the United States, for instance, ultra-processed items constitute nearly 60% of adults’ caloric intake and approximately 70% of children’s.
For a long period, discussions concerning the adverse health effects of ultra-processed goods primarily centered on metabolism: increased incidence of obesity, elevated blood pressure, insulin resistance, worsening cholesterol profiles, and intensified inflammation.
However, the pivotal question currently under active investigation by researchers is: Does greater consumption of ultra-processed foods lead to a higher frequency of cardiovascular ailments? The findings of one such study have been published in The American Journal of Medicine.
Researchers affiliated with Florida Atlantic University (FAU) scrutinized data from NHANES, a substantial American health survey designed to reflect the nation’s demographic composition.
They selected 4,787 adults (aged 18 and above) from the 2021–2023 period who possessed detailed dietary records spanning at least one day, alongside responses indicating whether they had ever experienced a heart attack or stroke.
Study participants documented everything they consumed over a two-day stretch. Subsequently, the investigators utilized a common food classification system to calculate the proportion of each individual’s calories derived from ultra-processed items.
Following this, specialists segregated the participants into four distinct tiers, ranging from the lowest level of UPF consumption to the highest.
So, this was not some diminutive laboratory experiment. It was rather akin to observing: “Here is what thousands of Americans are actually eating—are we detecting any correlation between these dietary patterns and the development of cardiovascular disease?”
The definition of cardiovascular disease in this research corresponded to self-reported occurrences of either myocardial infarction or cerebral stroke. Subsequently, the researchers adjusted their analysis for a variety of factors that possess the potential to skew results, such as age, gender, racial/ethnic background, smoking habits, and income level.
Even after these adjustments, individuals in the highest UPF consumption bracket demonstrated an elevated risk of cardiovascular disease when contrasted with those in the lowest bracket.
“The outcomes of our study, derived from a large, representative cohort of 4,787 US adults, indicate that those with the highest intake of ultra-processed foodstuffs face a statistically significant and clinically relevant 47% increased risk of cardiovascular disease,” stated study co-author Professor Charles H. Hennekens of Florida Atlantic University (FAU).
The statistic showing a “47% elevated risk” is indeed attention-grabbing, and this is hardly surprising. Yet, it’s crucial to grasp what this finding does not definitively prove.
Studies of this nature are capable of identifying associations. However, they cannot establish direct causation, meaning they cannot prove that UPFs themselves are the agents triggering heart attacks and strokes.
Individuals consuming large quantities of foods derived from ultra-processed vegetable oils might harbor other risk factors that are challenging to fully account for—stress levels, sleep quality, access to healthcare, physical activity, neighborhood food availability, and so forth. While the researchers controlled for certain key variables influencing the outcome, no dataset is perfectly comprehensive.
Nevertheless, this constitutes a rather sobering indicator, as it suggests that UPFs might be implicated in tangible disease outcomes, rather than merely being statistical anomalies in a laboratory report.
It is facile to simply tell people, “Improve your diet,” but in the real world, ultra-processed goods are ubiquitous for explicit reasons. They are inexpensive, convenient, heavily marketed, and, in many locations, they represent the most accessible food option.
Conversely, fresh produce can be costly, require longer preparation times, and sometimes prove genuinely challenging to source.
The researchers even draw a parallel to tobacco use—how it took decades for scientific findings to be fully absorbed by the public and policymakers, and how powerful industrial sectors shape consumption habits.
“Addressing the ultra-processing issue is not solely a matter of individual choice; it necessitates structuring an environment where the healthy choice is the easiest one,” commented Hennekens. “Clinical guidance coupled with public health education is essential to ensure that nutritious foods are both affordable and readily available to everyone.”
In essence: Yes, individual decisions matter, but pretending that the contextual circumstances are equitable for all is illusory.
The researchers also highlight another concurrent phenomenon: the rising incidence of colorectal cancer in the US, particularly among younger demographics.
The paper posits that the risk factors for this condition largely overlap with those for cardiovascular disease, suggesting that dietary patterns may constitute a component of this broader public health picture.
“Increased consumption of ultra-processed foods could be one contributing factor, alongside other dietary and lifestyle characteristics, influencing the development of a spectrum of common and serious gastrointestinal diseases. Heightened awareness is the first step toward effective prevention,” stated study co-author Professor Allison H. Ferris of Florida Atlantic University (FAU).
The researchers candidly acknowledge that large-scale randomized clinical trials would constitute the gold standard. However, they also assert that there is no need to await perfect data before issuing sound recommendations, especially considering that reducing UPF intake aligns broadly with existing knowledge regarding heart health.
Therefore, until more definitive information becomes available, healthcare providers ought to advise their patients to scale back on ultra-processed food consumption, alongside standard lifestyle modifications (and necessary medication protocols).
This does not mandate an absolute ban on eating chips forever. It might translate to gradual shifts in established eating routines: choosing fewer items from boxes and wrappers, and favoring meals constructed from components that resemble their original ingredients.
Because if ultra-processing is indeed linked to a substantially higher propensity for heart attacks and strokes, this transcends a fleeting dietary trend. It represents a public health crisis clearly visible on the societal landscape.
About the Author
