晨间信号Morning Signal
《男性健康》 2026年10月刊 · 中文解读

为加工食品正名:超加工食品标签未必可靠

THE CASE FOR PROCESSED FOOD · James Collier
约 10 分钟fuel在小程序里点播,20 到 60 分钟做好
这篇讲什么
营养学作家James Collier指出,超加工食品(UPF)至今没有统一、正式的定义,Nova分类法只看加工程度,容易把高纤维全麦面包、早餐麦片等有益食品一并打入冷宫。2023年发表于《柳叶刀》的一项研究追踪欧洲七国266666名参与者十余年,发现健康风险主要来自动物性加工食品和含糖饮料,而所谓超加工的面包、麦片和植物基替代品并未增加风险。他主张回归更通俗的“垃圾食品”一词,把注意力放在少吃不健康食品、多吃富含纤维的食物上。
原文开头
They’ve long been touted as the ultimate dietary villains, but not all are made equal. In fact, the term could even do more harm than good On hearing the term ultra-processed food (UPF), it’s tempting to ask yourself if we should be putting these products into our bodies. After all, these industrially altered items are destroying our metabolic health, or so we’re told. But what exactly are UPFs? When pushed for a definition, most people will offer a familiar response: UPFs are heavily processed on an industrial scale, packed with a long list of synthetic chemical ingredients that you would never find in a normal home kitchen. But does this rigid perspective hold up under scrutiny? …
摘自《男性健康》(Men's Health)2026年10月刊,James Collier。仅引用开头一小段供了解文章,版权归原刊所有,全文请阅读原刊。
晨间信号小程序码
微信扫码,在小程序里听完整版
不用登录先听一篇 · 或在微信搜索小程序 晨间信号
同期其他文章