Maintenance Phase Podcast Summary: Episode on Ultra-Processed Foods

Title: Ultra-Processed Foods
Host/Authors: Aubrey Gordon & Michael Hobbes
Release Date: June 3, 2025

Introduction

In this episode of Maintenance Phase, hosts Aubrey Gordon and Michael Hobbes delve into the contentious topic of ultra-processed foods. The show's mission to "debunk the junk science behind health fads, wellness scams, and nonsensical nutrition advice" sets the stage for a critical examination of how ultra-processed foods are defined, researched, and perceived in both scientific communities and popular culture.

Defining Processed and Ultra-Processed Foods

Colloquial vs. Scientific Definitions

The conversation begins with the fundamental challenge of defining "processed foods." Aubrey humorously suggests revising the podcast's tagline to reflect the ambiguity: “We can’t define ultra-processed foods exactly, but we know them when we see them” ([00:26] Aubrey Gordon). Michael echoes this sentiment, noting that while items like Twinkies and Wonder Bread are widely recognized as ultra-processed, the term lacks a precise definition in everyday language ([02:04] Michael Hobbs).

Aubrey observes that "processed food has come to act as a stand-in for what folks maybe previously would have referred to as 'junk food'" ([03:15] Aubrey Gordon). Michael critiques the term "junk food" as equally arbitrary but acknowledges that ultra-processing is touted as a more technical and less judgmental term ([04:08] Michael Hobbs).

Historical Context of Processed Foods

Michael traces the term "processed food" back to its earliest mentions in the New York Times in 1912, highlighting perennial concerns about food processing's impact on health ([04:51] Michael Hobbs). Aubrey adds a humorous anecdote about finding a 1950s print promoting bread's energy benefits, illustrating longstanding public debates over processed foods ([05:24] Aubrey Gordon).

The NOVA Classification

Group 1: Unprocessed or Minimally Processed Foods

The NOVA classification system, introduced by Brazilian researcher Carlos Monteiro in 2009, categorizes foods based on their degree of processing. Group 1 includes unprocessed or minimally processed foods—items like fresh fruits, vegetables, and plain meats. Aubrey questions the consistency of this group, pointing out that even simple beans can fall into this category despite being canned ([07:27] Aubrey Gordon).

Group 2: Processed Culinary Ingredients

Group 2 encompasses substances extracted from whole foods, such as oils, sugars, and salt. These are typically used as ingredients in cooking rather than consumed on their own. Aubrey mentions olive oil as an example, highlighting the fine line between minimally processed and ultra-processed ([13:58] Aubrey Gordon).

Group 3: Processed Foods

Processed foods in Group 3 are defined as products made by adding sugar, oil, or salt to enhance flavor and shelf-life, such as breads, cereals, and certain meats. Aubrey notes the ambiguity, questioning if items like stored fats or cheeses fall into this group or others ([10:51] Aubrey Gordon).

Group 4: Ultra-Processed Foods

Group 4 is reserved for ultra-processed foods, which are industrially created with multiple additives to enhance taste and convenience. Examples include soft drinks, candy, and ready-to-eat meals like frozen pizzas. Aubrey humorously dismisses the description of meat products as "extruded remnants," emphasizing her reluctance to categorize everyday foods as harmful based solely on processing methods ([15:46] Aubrey Gordon).

Critique of NOVA

Both hosts critique the NOVA system for its inconsistent classifications and arbitrary distinctions. Michael highlights that even basic foods like potato chips, which consist of minimal ingredients (potatoes, oil, salt), are mistakenly categorized as minimally processed under NOVA ([17:55] Michael Hobbs). Aubrey adds that MUlti-ingredient foods like Heinz Baked Beans would fall into the ultra-processed category despite being a staple in many diets ([63:12] Aubrey Gordon).

Scientific Studies on Ultra-Processed Foods

Kevin Hall's Study

Michael discusses a pivotal study by Kevin Hall, intended to test the effects of ultra-processed foods. Contrary to his initial skepticism, Hall's study inadvertently supported the idea that ultra-processed foods lead to increased calorie intake and weight gain ([31:07] Michael Hobbs). Participants on an ultra-processed diet consumed 500 extra calories per day and gained an average of 2 pounds, while those on a minimally processed diet lost weight ([32:59] Aubrey Gordon).

However, Michael criticizes the study for its flawed design, pointing out that the ultra-processed diet was significantly higher in calories, saturated fats, and sugars, making it difficult to attribute health effects solely to processing ([34:03] Michael Hobbs).

Issues with Study Designs

Aubrey and Michael highlight multiple issues with existing research on ultra-processed foods:

• Inconsistent Definitions: Different studies classify the same food items differently, leading to unreliable conclusions. For example, honey appears in various categories across studies ([43:12] Aubrey Gordon).

• Categorization Challenges: Foods like hamburgers and soy burgers are inconsistently categorized, undermining the credibility of research findings ([44:51] Michael Hobbs).

• Lack of Dose-Response Relationship: Studies often fail to demonstrate a clear dose-response effect, where increased consumption of ultra-processed foods correlates with worsening health outcomes. In some cases, moderate consumption was associated with reduced health risks ([47:00] Michael Hobbs).

Observational Studies

The hosts note that numerous observational studies have linked ultra-processed food consumption with higher rates of cancer, cardiovascular disease, and other health issues. However, they caution that these studies rely heavily on self-reported data and food frequency questionnaires, which are prone to inaccuracies and biases ([35:00] Michael Hobbs).

Mainstreaming and Literature

Chris Van Tilleken's "Ultra Processed People"

In 2023, the term gained widespread attention through Chris Van Tilleken's book, Ultra Processed People: Why Do We All Eat Stuff That Isn't Food and Why Can't We Stop? Michael and Aubrey critique the book for its inconsistent use of the ultra-processed food definition and its tangential discussions on climate change and corporate behavior.

Michael argues that while addressing the environmental impact of food is crucial, Van Tilleken conflates ultra-processed foods with broader issues like meat consumption without a clear scientific basis ([51:07] Michael Hobbs). Aubrey points out that many staple foods classified as ultra-processed are integral to various cultures, complicating the narrative ([63:38] Aubrey Gordon).

Ultra-Processed Foods and Food Addiction

Nicole Avina's Research

The discussion shifts to the concept of food addiction, specifically how ultra-processed foods might trigger brain reward systems similarly to addictive substances. Nicole Avina, an associate professor at Mount Sinai, suggests that combinations of salt, fat, sugar, and protein in ultra-processed foods can activate brain circuits linked to addiction ([53:10] Aubrey Gordon).

Critical Perspectives

Aubrey and Michael express skepticism about the legitimacy of "food addiction" as a scientific concept. They argue that while certain foods can be pleasurable, equating this to addiction oversimplifies the complexity of eating behaviors and neuroscience ([54:08] Michael Hobbs). They caution against using language that could police or shame individuals' eating habits based on ambiguous scientific claims.

Conclusion

Definition Challenges

Aubrey and Michael conclude that the term "ultra-processed foods" lacks the precision required for scientific discourse. They emphasize the difficulty in consistently categorizing foods and the arbitrary nature of the current classifications. Michael compares the inconsistency to defining a mammal without clear boundaries ([49:32] Michael Hobbs).

Alternative Terminology: Junk Food

Given the definitional issues, Aubrey and Michael suggest reverting to more familiar terms like "junk food," despite its own arbitrariness, as it more accurately reflects cultural perceptions without the misleading veneer of scientific legitimacy ([68:02] Aubrey Gordon).

Call for Scientific Rigor

The hosts advocate for a separation between cultural narratives and scientific evidence. They call for more precise definitions and methodologies in research to genuinely understand the health impacts of food processing. Their overarching message is one of skepticism toward broadly applied terms that lack empirical support, urging listeners to remain critical of health fads that masquerade as science.

Notable Quotes

• Aubrey Gordon ([00:19]): “Hi, everybody, and welcome to Maintenance Phase, the podcast that's finding new and exciting ways to stigmatize the foods you love.”

• Michael Hobbs ([02:20]): “If we’re going to be passing laws and putting out studies that say, okay, ultra processed foods is associated with a 5% higher risk of cardiovascular disease, we need to have a clear understanding of what this term means.”

• Aubrey Gordon ([07:35]): “Doing a rat soundboard right now. I'm trying to find my freaking Zoom window to turn on the camera.”

• Michael Hobbs ([26:17]): “This is like the thing, like, is processed foods bad for you... but then they redefine and include some that are not.”

• Aubrey Gordon ([16:54]): “Ultra processed foods are confections of Group 2 ingredients, typically combined with sophisticated use of additives to make them edible, palatable, and habit-forming.”

• Michael Hobbs ([31:07]): “So this is the experimental study that was the attempt to prove that ultra processed food is bad for you.”

• Aubrey Gordon ([63:31]): “Are you gonna mention exactly what I was going up for when I was like.”

• Michael Hobbs ([67:00]): “Is this a scientific concept or not? Because, like, do we all want people to have more time to make stuff at home?”

Final Thoughts

Aubrey Gordon and Michael Hobbes provide a thorough critique of the ultra-processed food concept, highlighting its definitional ambiguities, methodological flaws in research, and cultural biases. They urge listeners to approach such health narratives with skepticism and advocate for more scientifically rigorous approaches to understanding the relationship between food processing and health.