The Metabolic Matrix: Ultra-Processed Food Re-Formulation for Gut Health and Organ Protection: Part I Introduction by Dr. Archana Ainapure

Abstract

Ultra-processed food disrupts metabolism. It increases adiposity, lowers mitochondrial efficiency, and promotes insulin resistance. It also alters growth and increases morbidity and death in humans. Companies selling consumer packaged goods (CPG) are realizing these negative effects. They have started using substitution techniques to reduce salt, sugar, and fat. However, such straightforward alternatives do not lessen the complex negative effects of ultra-processed meals.

The researcher worked with Bahrain dairy companies in the Middle East. Together, they conducted a thorough scientific analysis of their entire commercial food and beverage portfolio. They examined macronutrients, micronutrients, additives, and toxins in each product. They also studied how processing affects health. The goal was to determine the specific nature of each product’s contents. The researcher formed a Scientific Advisory Team (SAT). They created a three-layered “Metabolic Matrix” based on three scientific principles: (1) safeguard the liver, (2) nourish the gut, and (3) support the brain.

The Metabolic Matrix classifies each product and offers metrics, criteria, and suggestions for formulation or modification. For these processes to be successful, real-time communication with the executive and operations teams was essential. This scientific exercise has helped the company improve health, well-being, and sustainability in their products. They have kept the flavor intact. Economic viability has been preserved. Fiscal viability remains unchanged. This process is easily transferrable, and the researcher is sharing this effort and its approaches as a proof of concept. The main goal of this endeavor is to improve customers’ metabolic health and wellbeing worldwide. This will be achieved by reformulating ultra-processed food. It will also involve encouraging other food firms to do the same with their products.

Keywords

insulin resistance, metabolic health, brain health, ultra-processed food, nutrition, re-engineering, re-reformulation.

Insulin Resistance

Chronic metabolic conditions are now widespread. They affect both industrialized and developing nations. These conditions include type 2 diabetes, hypertension, and dyslipidemia. They also include cardiovascular disease, cancer, and dementia.

Additionally, polycystic ovarian disease and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease are included. The prevalence, severity, and proportion of global healthcare costs dedicated to these disorders are all increasing (1). Each of these chronic metabolic illnesses alters cellular processes. These changes lead to modified mitochondrial energetics. This results in the phenomenon of insulin resistance. Where does this insulin resistance come from, and why has it gotten worse over the past 50 years? These are the two main topics.

Chronic Illness

A Brief Introduction to Production Engineering: Part I by Ojas JoshiRead more

One common misperception among medical practitioners is that chronic illness is a natural byproduct of aging. This does not explain why type 2 diabetes and fatty liver disease are now common in young children. These conditions were previously rare in this age group. Now, children as young as the first decade exhibit the same biochemical pathways. In fact, due to abnormal fatal energy partitioning, many neonates have increased adiposity (2-4).

Another common misunderstanding is that the vices of gluttony and sloth directly contribute to the rise in obesity’s prevalence and severity. The physiology of three occurrences refutes this assumption, demonstrating widespread involuntary changes in cellular biochemistry. First, captive laboratory animals are gaining weight, indicating a global metabolic insult that is not just affecting humans (5). Second, over the past 150 years, body temperature in the United States has fallen while obesity has increased. This indicates a sub-cellular impairment in mitochondrial beta-oxidation and heat production. Third, environmental obesogens in the commercial food supply threaten all vertebrate life on Earth. Some obesogens directly affect adipose tissue development. Others impact mitochondrial beta-oxidation and promote weight gain, regardless of calorie intake (6).

Metabolic Health

The idea that fat and chronic disease are the same thing is a third myth. In contrast, it is important to note that 20% of over weight, people have good metabolic health (7), a normal lifespan and health span, and the predicted biochemical aging indicators, such as normal length telomeres (8). Conversely, one or more chronic metabolic disorders are present in 40% of people with normal weight. Up to 93% of adults in the United States exhibit some form of metabolic abnormality (9), whereas only 65% of people are higher weight (10). These illnesses can also affect people of normal weight, and their incidence is rising in countries with low obesity rates. Therefore, a more extensive and potentially mysterious exposure must explain the high incidence of insulin resistance and chronic disease in societies with low obesity rates.

Non-Communicable Diseases (NCDs)

The majority of clinicians incorrectly attribute the rise in non-communicable diseases (NCDs) to fat depots that are visible externally, according to a fourth common myth. This is also incorrect, as two endocrinopathies illustrate the contrast between obesity and chronic disease. First, an Ecuadorian founder-effect cohort known as the “Little Women of Loja” becomes noticeably higher weight despite having a deficiency in growth hormone receptors, protecting them against chronic metabolic diseases, including diabetes and heart disease (11).

Technology NEWS: May 2024Read more

Patients with lipodystrophy, on the other hand, lack subcutaneous fat and exhibit significant insulin resistance, as well as ectopic fat in the liver and muscles (12). Disease arises from invisible fat, leading to ectopic fat and insulin resistance in many individuals of normal weight.

Standard American Diet (SAD)

The fifth and final myth is that the amount of food ingested in accordance with the “calories” meter is what causes chronic disease. Instead, the type of food we consume influences our insulin sensitivity. Ultra-processed foods in the Standard American Diet (SAD) promote obesity. They also change mitochondrial ATP production. This diet is also known as the Western Diet or the Processed Food Diet (13). The NOVA classification of food processing has been recently developed, validated, and implemented. It shows that Group 4, which includes ultra-processed foods, carries the highest risks of morbidity and mortality. Many studies from different cultures reveal a link between eating ultra-processed foods and several health issues. These include obesity (14), diabetes (15), heart disease (16), cancer (17), dementia (18), and other mental health disorders (19). In essence, just as different sources of calories are not the same, neither are obesity and chronic disease (20).

Artificial Sweetener

Several substances in ultra-processed food have been linked to metabolic disturbances (21). Public health professionals (22) and business interests (23-26) have likely conducted the most research and harshly criticized sugar. The food industry creates non-nutritive sweetener substitutes to replace sugar in its recipes. Many consumer packaged goods businesses have tried to lower the sugar content of their products. They aim to improve the quality of their ultra-processed items. Several start-up companies have also founded a new Alliance to Combat Excessive Sugar (ACES) (27).

However, ultra-processed foods are harmful to human health in a number of ways, including the composition of macronutrients and micronutrients, fiber, the impact of food additives, pollutants, heat exposure, and packaging. Academic researchers have offered a methodology for the reformulation of processed foods to enhance sustainability and health (28). A more scientific approach that considers the varied metabolic impacts of food ingredients and processing is necessary to make ultra-processed food healthier. Research posed the question, “Can we make tasty food healthy?” as opposed to “Can we make healthy food tasty?”

Bahrain Dairy Experiment

Researchers have collaborated with the Bahrain dairy Executive Team to explore and reinvent their 180-item portfolio to create best-in-class (nutritious, scrumptious, cost-effective, and commercially viable) foods and beverages that support metabolic health and well-being throughout the course of 2020–2022. This re-engineering effort identified three main areas: the food’s materials, its processing, and its metabolic effects.

Despite considering the cost of ingredients and procedures, the analysis did not prioritize cost; instead, the researchers aimed to provide recommendations for improving dairy’s metabolic health portfolio, leaving sales and marketing to the company’s management. The data shown here serves as a proof-of-concept and a guide for other businesses interested in undertaking a similar exercise for the benefit of their businesses and customers.

We will explore the MATERIALS AND METHODS in Part II of this article in next month’s issue.

Data Accessibility Declaration

The article/Supplementary material contains the original contributions made for the study; further questions should be addressed to the corresponding author.

References

1. Benziger CP, Roth GA, Moran AE. The global burden of disease study and the preventable burden of NCD. Glob Heart. (2016) 11:393–7. doi: 10.1016/ j.gheart.2016.10.024
2. Davidson S, Litwin A, Peleg D, Erlich A. Are babies getting bigger? Secular trends in fetal growth in Israel–a retrospective hospital-based cohort study. Isr Med Assoc J. (2007) 9:649–51. Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17939625
3. Ludwig DS, Rouse HL, Currie J. Pregnancy weight gain and childhood body weight: a within-family comparison. PLoS Med. (2013) 10:e1001521. doi: 10.1371/ journal.pmed.1001521
4. Ulijaszek SJ. Secular trend in birthweight among the Purari delta population, Papua New Guinea. Ann Hum Biol. (2001) 28:246–55. doi: 10.1080/030144601300119061
5. Klimentidis YC, Beasley TM, Lin HY, Murati G, Glass GE, Guyton M, et al. Canaries in the coal mine: a cross-species analysis of the plurality of obesity epidemics. Proc Biol Sci. (2011) 278:1626–32. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2010.1890
6. Heindel JJ, Howard S, Agay-Shay K, Arrebola JP, Audouze K, Babin PJ, et al. Obesity II: establishing causal links between chemical exposures and obesity. Biochem Pharmacol. (2022) 199:115015. doi: 10.1016/j.bcp.2022.115015
7. Chan JM, Rimm EB, Colditz GA, Stampfer MJ, Willett WC. Obesity, fat distribution, and weight gain as risk factors for clinical diabetes in men. Diab Care. (1994) 17:961–9. doi: 10.2337/diacare.17.9.961
8. Iglesias Molli AE, Panero J, Dos Santos PC, González CD, Vilariño J, Sereday M, et al. Metabolically healthy higher weight women have longer telomere length than higher weight women with metabolic syndrome. PLoS One. (2017) 12:e0174945. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0174945
9. O’Hearn M, Lauren BN, Wong JB, Kim DD, Mozaffarian D. Trends and disparities in cardiometabolic health among U.S. adults, 1999-2018. J Am Coll Cardiol. (2022) 80:138–51. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2022.04.046
10. Hales CM, Carroll MD, Fryar CD, Ogden CL. Prevalence of obesity and severe obesity among adults: United States, 2017-2018. NCHS Data Brief. (2020) 360:1–8. Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32487284
11. Rosenbloom AL, Guevara Aguirre J, Rosenfeld RG, Fielder PJ. The “little women of Loja”–growth hormone-receptor deficiency in an inbred population of southern Ecuador. N Engl J Med. (1990) 323:1367–74. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199011153232002
12. Chehab FF. Obesity and lipodystrophy–where do the circles intersect? Endocrinology. (2008) 149:925–34. doi: 10.1210/en.2007-1355
13. Moubarac JC, Parra DC, Cannon G, Monteiro CA. Food classification systems based on food processing: significance and implications for policies and actions: a systematic literature review and assessment. Curr Obes Rep. (2014) 3:256–72. doi: 10.1007/s13679-014-0092-0
14. De Vogli R, Kouvonen A, Gimeno D. The influence of market deregulation on fast food consumption and body mass index: a cross-national time series analysis. Bull World Health Organ. (2014) 92:99–107. doi: 10.2471/blt.13.120287
15. Srour B, Fezeu LK, Kesse-Guyot E, Allès B, Debras C, Druesne-Pecollo N, et al. Ultraprocessed food consumption and risk of type 2 diabetes among participants of the NutriNet-Santé prospective cohort. JAMA Intern Med. (2020) 180:283–91. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.5942
16. Srour B, Fezeu LK, Kesse-Guyot E, Allès B, Méjean C, Andrianasolo RM, et al. Ultra-processed food intake and risk of cardiovascular disease: prospective cohort study (NutriNet-Santé). BMJ. (2019) 365:l1451. doi: 10.1136/bmj.l1451
17. Fiolet T, Srour B, Sellem L, Kesse-Guyot E, Allès B, Méjean C, et al. Consumption of ultra-processed foods and cancer risk: results from NutriNet-Santé prospective cohort. BMJ. (2018) 360:k322. doi: 10.1136/bmj.k322
18. Li H, Li S, Yang H, Zhang Y, Zhang S, Ma Y, et al. Association of ultraprocessed food consumption with risk of dementia: a prospective cohort. Neurology. (2022) 99:e1056–66. doi: 10.1212/wnl.0000000000200871
19. Hecht EM, Rabil A, Martinez Steele E, Abrams GA, Ware D, Landy DC, et al. Cross-sectional examination of ultra-processed food consumption and adverse mental health symptoms. Public Health Nutr. (2022) 25:3225–34. doi: 10.1017/s1368980022001586
20. Schutte S, Esser D, Siebelink E, Michielsen CJR, Daanje M, Matualatupauw JC, et al. Diverging metabolic effects of 2 energy-restricted diets differing in nutrient quality: a 12-week randomized controlled trial in subjects with abdominal obesity. Am J Clin Nutr. (2022) 116:132–50. doi: 10.1093/ajcn/nqac025
21. Lustig RH. Processed food — an experiment that failed. JAMA Pediatr. (2017) 171:212–4. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2016.4136
22. Lustig RH, Schmidt LA, Brindis CD. The toxic truth about sugar. Nature. (2012) 482:27–9. doi: 10.1038/482027a
23. Credit Suisse Research Institute. Sugar: Consumption at a crossroads. (2013). Available at: http://archive.wphna.org/wp-content/uploads/ 2014/01/13-09_Credit_Suisse_Sugar_crossroads.pdf
24. Morgan Stanley Research. Sugar economics: Consumption and diabetes. (2015). Available at: https://www.morganstanley.com.
25. Rabobank. Sweetness and lite: How vulnerable is global sugar consumption to food & beverage trends? (2017). Available at: https://research.rabobank.com/far/en/ sectors/sugar/sweetness-and-lite.html
26. Schroders. Sugar, obesity, and noncommunicable disease: Investor expectations. (2017). Available at: https://prod.schroders.com/en/sysglobalassets/news/sugar- investor-expectations-report.pdf
27. Food Business News. Emerging brands form alliance to reduce sugar consumption (2022). Available at: https://www.foodbusinessnews.net/articles/20501- emerging-brands-form-alliance-to-reduce-sugar-consumption
28. Gustafson DI, Decker EA, Drewnowski A, Hamm MW, Hwang J, Merrigan KA. Making healthy, sustainable diets accessible and achievable: a new framework for assessing the nutrition, environmental, and equity impacts of packaged foods. Curr Dev Nutr. (2022) 6:nzac136. doi: 10.1093/cdn/nzac136

Thanks for reading!

Check out ENTECH magazine at entechonline.com for articles by experienced professionals, innovators, and researchers.

Disclaimer: This article/blog post is not intended to provide professional or technical or medical advice. Please consult with a healthcare professional before making any changes to your diet or lifestyle. AI-generated images are used only for illustration and decoration. Their accuracy, quality, and appropriateness can differ. Users should avoid making decisions or assumptions based only on the text and images.