News

The point is that that ultra-processed or unhealthy foods increase the risk for depression in the general public. I get it's not helpful or correct to tell a person who's actively depressed to exercise and eat right so they feel less depressed, but exercising, eating right, and getting enough sleep has been the first recommendation doctors and therapists will give to someone seeking a longer-term improvement in their mood for a long time.

I should add that I'm a mental health professional, and in my anecdotal experience, there are different "types" of depression, even if they all meet criteria for MDD. Some people fall into a chasm due to their brain chemistry, and only meds, ECT, TMS, time, or a combination of these will get them out. Sounds like this may be what you experienced. Others (I would say the majority of those diagnosed with depression who land in the hospital) have a more low level depression that can absolutely be improved with lifestyle changes and/or psychotherapy. Point being, I still think this is helpful information for a large segment of those experiencing depression.

Absolutely this. When I'm depressed there's no way I have the energy to cook or clean up what I cook with. The knowledge of having something to clean while I'm feeling like shit just makes me feel more like shit.

Socioeconomic variables were definitely accounted for in the study:

with adjustment for known and suspected risk factors for depression, including age, total caloric intake, body mass index (BMI; calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared), physical activity, smoking status, menopausal hormone therapy, total energy intake, alcohol, comorbidities (eg, diabetes, hypertension, dyslipidemia), median family income, social network levels, marital status, sleep duration, and pain.

Here's a link to the JAMA letter

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10512104/

Not sure which one is referenced, but here's a list from google scholar.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_ylo=2023&q=link+between+the+consumption+of+ultra-processed+foods+and+an+increase+in+the+risk+of+depression&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5

You are truly pushing the limits of science, I'm in awe.

Seriously. Cutting the meat off the bone is processing. Letting something dry is processing. The simple act of tossing something in the fridge is processing. We need some official designations here, and precisely what each processing method does and how it affects us once ingested.

Diet was assessed using validated food frequency questionnaires (FFQs) every 4 years. We estimated UPF intake using the NOVA classification, which groups foods according to the degree of their processing. In secondary analyses, we classified UPF into their components, including ultraprocessed grain foods, sweet snacks, ready-to-eat meals, fats and sauces, ultraprocessed dairy products, savory snacks, processed meat, beverages, and artificial sweeteners.

Here's a description of the NOVA classification system. At the bottom it says Group 4 foods (UPF) contain one or more of these ingredients:

colour

colour stabilizer

flavour enhancer

sweetener

carbonating agent

firming agent

bulking agent

anti-bulking agent

de-foaming agent

anti-caking agent

glazing agent

emulsifier

sequestrant

humectant

flavour

casein

lactose

whey

hydrogenated-oil

hydrolysed-proteins

maltodextrin

invert-sugar

high-fructose-corn-syrup

The actual paper discusses the reverse causation hypothesis and using data over a 4 year period: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10512104/

All things in your life maybe, but definitely not all things.

Compared with those in the lowest quintile of UPF consumption, those in the highest quintile had an increased risk of depression, noted for both strict definition (HR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.26-1.76; P < .001) and broad definition (HR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.20-1.50; P < .001) (Table). Models were not materially altered after inclusion of potential confounders. We did not observe differential associations in subgroups defined by age, BMI, physical activity, or smoking. In a 4-year lag analysis, associations were not materially altered (strict definition: HR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.13-1.54; P < .001), arguing against reverse causation.

"Found a link between" typically is pop science speak for small p value. Not that I would take it for granted that it does, so you should just read the paper if you have a question about the details: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10512104/