Food scientists are obsessed with shelf life. Food journalists are obsessed with healthiness. Shelf life relates to the longevity of a food product. Healthiness relates to the longevity of humans. Longevity is more than how long a product is fit to eat or how long a person is fit to live. Quality deteriorates in a food product. Quality of life deteriorates as we age. Food professionals look for ways to translate the healthiness of foods, meals, and dietary patterns into health-adjusted life expectancy. If only we could classify foods, meals and dietary patterns into healthiness. Why can’t we develop simple relationships to make us live longer, healthier? Or is this the modern equivalent to Ponce de Leon’s quest for the Fountain of Youth?

Life expectancy in the United States of America is declining. The simple explanation is that longevity is tied to health, and health is tied to our diet. Like most simple explanations, this line of reasoning has its drawbacks. Although everybody wants to live healthy for as long as possible, our daily activities, whether forced or voluntary do us in! Implicit in this line of reasoning is that Big Food controls our diet by filling us with ultra-processed foods. There are health trends in the USA that complicate matters. Deaths of despair plaguing white, middle-aged men from drug overdoses and suicide also decrease American longevity. Likewise, America’s youth die from automobile accidents, drug overdoses, guns, and suicides at much higher rates than many other countries around the world. Americans who reach the age of 75 outlive their counterparts in other wealthy nations.

But why let countervailing evidence destroy a popular theory that we all want to believe? That does not mean that diet has no influence on American health. What it does mean is that the link between diet and health with specific reference to ultra-processed food is oversimplistic. Classifying food, meals, or even dietary patterns as healthy or unhealthy may or may not improve longevity in the senior set. It is not likely to have any effect on deaths of despair or premature death in America’s youth. This week I take on the concept of healthy food, meals, and dietary patterns and their potential effects on life expectancy in the USA.

Healthy food may be a mirage. Fruits and vegetables are healthy, with vitamins, minerals, and dietary fiber with much less sugar, salt and fat than many processed foods. This construct assumes that some molecules in foods are healthy and other chemicals are unhealthy. Then again, fruits and vegetables don’t have much protein either. If we are smart enough, we can find plant proteins from different sources to make up for deficiencies of essential amino acids. Or do we need some protein from animal sources? And, some fruits like bananas, dates, and mangoes are high in sugar. Sugars in these fruits are bound not free and accompanied by dietary fiber. Does this make fruit sugars less unhealthy? Maybe, but aren’t sugars released in the gut during digestion. Fiber and fat slow digestion to prevent sugar spikes. Fiber is a good thing, but fat is not. Or is it that simple?

Whole foods have a reputation for being healthier than processed foods. Is that reputation deserved? Whole foods are contained in a matrix that permits slower digestion and greater nutrient interaction. Nutrient interaction in our cells is a good thing. Binding of nutrients by antinutrients is not a good thing. Nutrients in some processed foods such as cheeses also can be trapped in a food matrix and released slowly during digestion. This matrix can protect nutrients from antinutrients. Plant-based, whole foods are healthier than animal-based, whole foods. Or are they?

NOVA, a classification scheme emanating from Brazil, simplifies the evaluation. It divides foods into four groups—raw and minimally processed foods, processed culinary ingredients, processed foods and ultra-processed foods and drinks. The higher up the line, the more processed and the less healthy, or so it would seem. A careful look at ultra-processing reveals that it is more about the adding of chemical ingredients than actual processing steps. Now some of these added ingredients are highly processed, but the most highly purified ingredient, table sugar, is a culinary ingredient. It only becomes unhealthy when incorporated into an industrial formulation. The whole concept also ignores the extreme complexity of the chemistry of whole foods. And then there is the question of hyper-palatability. Are hyper-palatable foods the opposite of healthy foods? Can foods become too palatable for our own good?

Even a healthy food can lead to unhealthy practices if eaten to excess. NOVA classification does not quantify. A slice of whole-grain bread is ultra-processed and considered unhealthy. Five beers at a setting are not ultra-processed and not considered unhealthy.

Healthy meals provide the next level of healthiness. Meals combine nutrients in the form of multiple foods and can prevent eating any ingredient or single food to excess. Current thinking in healthiness favors home cooking over processing. White tablecloth restaurants provide healthier fare than fast food. Or so it would seem! Are these assumptions useful or do they also oversimplify healthiness? Home preparation can produce healthier meals if the preparer has a basic understanding of nutrition, but advice on the net is not always useful. Many prepared sauces and other ingredients used by home cooks are ultra-processed.

A home cook follows a recipe. Processors rely on industrial formulations. Both specify ingredients and a list of steps to be followed. Recipes measure ingredients by volume; formulations by weight. Home cooks are more flexible in their measures and less rigid in adhering to time, temperature, and other guidelines. Thus, the end result of a formulation is more consistent than that of a recipe. Most industrial ingredients rejected by NOVA are available for purchase by home cooks from Amazon. Sugar and salt are culinary ingredients when used at home but become objectionable when added in a processing plant. Upscale restaurants tend to have smaller portions than fast-food counterparts. Fast-casual establishments may rely less on fatty, fried foods, but they make up for it with large portion sizes and multiple courses. Rich desserts at any of these restaurants are not healthy options.

The healthiness of a meal combines the interaction of nutrients between different foods and dishes. Meals can provide balance not possible from a single food. The adverse effects of salty, sugary, fatty foods can be overcome by mixing with foods low in sugar, salt, and fat. Portion control and limited seconds help prevent excess calorie consumption. What really counts is not the healthiness of individual foods or specific meals. It is how foods and meals are incorporated into a dietary pattern.

Healthy dietary patterns are the ultimate object. Most dietary advisors allow for an occasional unhealthy food or even a fast-food meal on the run in an airport. It is the overall healthiness of what we eat daily over an extended period of time that contributes our personal health. Nutritional balance and consumption of a wide range of foods is desirable. Highly restrictive diets, even if loaded with healthy foods, may not be healthy choices in the long run. Two well-regarded patterns include the Mediterranean Diet and DASH. Recommended American dietary patterns tend to focus on the white culture and ignore minority preferences. A recent example is failure to classify rice as a healthy food even though it is a staple of many cultures.

Chemical obfuscation by food professionals does not help in communication with consumers. The idea that all chemicals are dangerous and do not belong in foods promotes misunderstanding. Such public messages are professional malpractice. It is the equivalent of yelling fire in a crowded theatre. An additive with a difficult-to pronounce name appearing on an ingredient list does not mean that it is a hazard. Familiarity with ingredients like sugar or salt does not mean that they are safe to consume in unlimited amounts. Certain consumers have sensitivities to both natural chemicals like lactose and synthetic ones like gluten*. Bias for natural molecules and against synthetic chemicals is not a good guide for maintaining health and safety.

In some circles fake ingredient lists are prepared for fresh fruits like bananas. They illustrate that fruits contain chemicals and that many of these compounds are difficult to pronounce. While the motive is good, such statements mislead on at least three levels. First, these are not ingredients but are chemical components. Everything we put into our mouths is chemical. Second, the list vastly undercounts the chemicals present in a fresh fruit. A detailed list of any fresh fruit would identify thousands of entries not the 30 or so that show up on these lists. Processed foods tend to be less complex chemically than whole foods. Third, fruit chemicals are unstable and undergo rapid changes. For example, the flavor of a baked apple is different from the flavor of a fresh one due to modification of many natural chemicals by heat.

Take home lesson. Most of us would like to live long, healthy lives. Not many of us wish to incorporate healthy foods, healthy meals, and healthy dietary patterns into our life plans. Rather than adapting healthy guidelines, we tend to feel guilty about the choices we make.

_____

*Yes, gluten is a manmade chemical. Any cook or baker who adds water to wheat flour initiates the synthesis of gluten as natural wheat proteins glutenin and gliadin bind to each other.

Coming soon: Can a food be nutritious but not healthy?