Stop Ultra-Processed Foods, Focus on Better Markers

You finally do the “responsible adult” thing, you get labs.

And then you fixate on one number.

For many people, that number is fasting glucose.

This video pushes back hard on that habit. The core message is not subtle: ultra-processed foods are linked with a wide range of cardiometabolic risk markers, and you can miss the problem if you only look at glucose.

The discussion is built around a new McMaster University analysis (covered by CBC and published in Nutrition and Metabolism) that used a demographically representative sample of about 6,000 Canadian adults. The framing emphasizes that higher intake of ultra-processed foods tracked with higher blood pressure, higher triglycerides, higher insulin, higher body fat and waist circumference, and higher inflammation markers, even after adjusting for factors like physical activity, smoking, income, and education.

Just as importantly, the speaker calls out a twist that many viewers do not expect.

Blood glucose did not show a clear association in this analysis.

That single detail becomes the launch point for a more practical argument: if you want to understand metabolic health, you may need to think in patterns and clusters of markers, not one “pass or fail” number.

Important: A single lab value, especially glucose, can move around due to stress, sleep, recent exercise, illness, and even heat exposure. If you are worried about results, it is worth reviewing trends over time with a clinician.

The everyday trap: “My glucose is normal, so I’m fine”

The emotional storyline in the video is familiar: someone sees a fasting glucose like 95 to 99 mg/dL, panics, and assumes they are on a fast track to diabetes.

The speaker argues that this reaction is often misplaced.

Glucose is described as an “acute phase reactant” in the sense that it can rise in response to immediate stressors. Even the moment of getting blood drawn can be stressful enough to nudge glucose upward, especially if you are anxious about needles.

Why glucose can be a noisy snapshot

This framing is not saying glucose is useless. It is saying glucose is easy to misinterpret.

The video gives concrete examples of everyday factors that can raise glucose temporarily, even in a person who is otherwise metabolically healthy. That includes a hard run, time in a sauna, and situational stress. The point is simple: if glucose can rise during healthy activities, then a mildly higher fasting glucose does not automatically mean your diet is the main problem.

What does this perspective prefer instead?

It shifts attention toward markers that may reflect longer-term metabolic strain, like fasting insulin, triglycerides, HDL cholesterol, and inflammation markers such as C-reactive protein (CRP).

Pro Tip: If you tend to “white knuckle” blood draws, ask the lab if you can sit quietly for a few minutes, breathe slowly, and warm your hands before the sample. Then compare results across multiple tests, not a single day.

What the McMaster study found, in plain language

The video centers on a McMaster University study described as “landmark” because it examined ultra-processed foods and several cardiometabolic risk factors in a nationally representative Canadian sample.

The practical structure discussed in the video is quartiles.

People were grouped from lowest intake to highest intake, with the highest group described as eating up to five servings per day or more of ultra-processed foods. The speaker highlights a reported p value of 0.001, interpreting it as a strong statistical signal that the association is unlikely to be random.

The bigger takeaway is not a single number, it is the consistency.

This analysis reported that higher ultra-processed food intake aligned with higher body mass index (BMI), larger waist circumference, higher blood pressure (the video mentions both systolic and diastolic when discussing tables, and later notes diastolic was particularly consistent), higher triglycerides, higher insulin, and higher markers of inflammation.

What the research shows: High ultra-processed food intake is repeatedly associated with worse cardiometabolic risk profiles across populations, including analyses using large surveys like NHANESTrusted Source.

“Even after adjusting” is the point

A major emphasis in the video is that these associations persisted even after controlling for many confounders.

That list includes physical activity, smoking, total food intake, and socioeconomic factors like income and education. The argument is that ultra-processed foods may exert effects through pathways beyond weight gain alone, including inflammation, insulin resistance, and impaired metabolic regulation.

This is where the tone becomes motivational and a little confrontational: the speaker suggests there may be no safe amount of ultra-processed food.

That is a strong claim.

It is also a practical one. If risk rises in a linear way with each increase in intake, the “moderation” line becomes harder to defend, especially for foods that are easy to overeat.

For background, many researchers classify ultra-processed foods using the NOVA system. Ultra-processed foods are industrial formulations made with additives and processes not typically used in home cooking. You can read more about this framework from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United NationsTrusted Source.

Why this perspective downplays glucose and spotlights insulin

The video’s unique angle is not simply “processed food is bad.” Most people already know that.

The unique angle is, “Stop letting glucose be the only referee.”

The speaker repeatedly returns to the idea that people are reassured by normal glucose while other markers are quietly moving in the wrong direction.

The insulin argument

In the video’s telling, insulin is the bigger signal because it reflects how hard the body has to work to keep glucose in range.

Two people can have the same fasting glucose, but very different fasting insulin. That difference may matter because chronically elevated insulin is often discussed as a marker of insulin resistance and cardiometabolic risk.

The speaker also questions overreliance on hemoglobin A1C, noting it can vary based on red blood cell turnover. This concern is recognized in clinical practice, especially when conditions affect red blood cell lifespan. For example, the American Diabetes Association notes that A1C has limitations and may be unreliable in certain situations, and that diagnosis and monitoring may require additional measures depending on context, see the ADA Standards of CareTrusted Source.

This is not a call to ignore A1C.

It is a call to interpret it carefully.

In the video, alternative markers are mentioned, including “glycomark,” “15 AG,” and fructosamine, as additional context markers some clinicians use. In mainstream terms, a related marker is 1,5-anhydroglucitol (1,5-AG), which can reflect recent hyperglycemic excursions in some settings, though it is not routinely used for everyone.

Q: If my fasting glucose is normal, should I still care about ultra-processed foods?

A: This video’s perspective is yes, because the study discussed linked ultra-processed food intake with higher insulin, triglycerides, waist circumference, and inflammation markers, even when glucose was not clearly associated. A normal glucose can coexist with higher insulin or triglycerides, which may still signal metabolic strain.

If you are unsure which markers are appropriate for you, consider reviewing your full lipid panel, fasting insulin, and other risk factors with a licensed clinician.

Health educator summary based on the video’s interpretation of the study

The markers that moved with ultra-processed foods

The video walks through a set of biomarkers and treats them like a dashboard.

Not one warning light.

A cluster.

Below are the markers emphasized, and why the speaker thinks they matter.

Triglycerides: the “underemphasized” signal

The speaker calls triglycerides an under-recognized marker of overall metabolic health.

The study discussion in the video describes a linear increase in triglycerides as ultra-processed food intake rises. High triglycerides are associated with cardiometabolic risk, and clinical organizations recognize elevated triglycerides as a risk factor that can contribute to atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, see the American Heart Association overview on triglyceridesTrusted Source.

The practical implication is simple: if your triglycerides are climbing, it may be a clue that your day-to-day food pattern is drifting toward ultra-processed calories, refined carbs, and added sugars, even if you are “not a junk food person” in your own mind.

HDL and the triglyceride to HDL ratio

The video also highlights an inverse association between ultra-processed food intake and HDL cholesterol.

In plain terms, higher ultra-processed intake, lower HDL.

The speaker mentions liking the triglyceride to HDL ratio as a useful pattern marker. While ratios are not universally used as primary targets in guidelines, many clinicians consider them a helpful context clue when evaluating insulin resistance risk patterns.

Inflammation markers: CRP and white blood cell count

The video leans into inflammation as a plausible mechanism.

CRP is described as a generalized inflammation marker, and the speaker shares a real-world example of a client with elevated CRP, weight gain over years, minimal exercise, and a daily habit of afternoon candy bars. The story is not used to diagnose anyone, but to make a point: small daily ultra-processed habits can stack up.

Then comes a less common marker for lay audiences.

White blood cell count (WBC) is discussed as rising with higher ultra-processed intake, and the speaker notes that higher WBC can predict type 2 diabetes risk in some research contexts. In general, elevated WBC can reflect many things including infection, inflammation, medication effects, or smoking, so it is best interpreted with a clinician.

Did you know? Large observational studies repeatedly find that ultra-processed foods make up a substantial share of calories in countries like the United States, and higher intake is associated with worse health outcomes in cohort research, see summaries in sources like the BMJ review on ultra-processed foods and health outcomesTrusted Source.

Blood pressure and waist circumference

The study discussion in the video emphasizes higher waist circumference and higher blood pressure with greater ultra-processed intake.

Waist circumference is a practical, at-home metric that often tracks visceral fat more closely than scale weight alone. Visceral fat is associated with higher cardiometabolic risk.

Blood pressure is similarly practical. You can measure it at home, track it over time, and bring readings to a clinician.

The video notes that diastolic blood pressure appeared particularly tied to ultra-processed intake in the paper’s discussion, consistent with findings in other cohorts.

“Healthy” ultra-processed foods, and why marketing confuses us

The most relatable part of the video is the pantry tour you can picture without seeing it.

Capri Sun. Pop-Tarts. White bread. Microwave sandwiches.

And then the foods that surprise people.

Protein bars and breakfast cereals.

This perspective argues that ultra-processed foods are not only the obvious “junk.” They also include products marketed as health foods, often with front-of-package claims like “high fiber” or symbols that look medically endorsed.

The trade-off is convenience.

Ultra-processed foods are shelf-stable, portable, and heavily engineered for taste and texture. That makes them easy to rely on, especially for busy families and athletes on the road.

But the video’s stance is that the biomarkers do not care about the marketing.

If the product is ultra-processed, higher intake still tracked with worse metabolic markers in this dataset.

A note on meat in this video’s framing

The speaker also points out that, in this analysis, there was a lack of connection between meat consumption and the unfavorable biomarker pattern described.

That is included as a counterpoint to common messaging that “meat is the problem.” It is not an argument that all meat choices are equally health-promoting, or that processed meats are the same as unprocessed meats. It is simply the speaker’s interpretation of what stood out in this dataset.

If you are trying to apply this at home, it can help to separate categories:

For broader context, the World Health Organization’s IARC classification discusses processed meat and cancer risk, see IARC Q&ATrusted Source.

A practical, real-life plan to cut ultra-processed foods

This video is not a lecture about perfection.

It is a push for direction.

The speaker’s practical message is to eat whole, unprocessed foods made from scratch as much as possible, while acknowledging it is hard.

Below is a realistic approach that matches the video’s spirit, focusing on everyday applications and trade-offs.

How to reduce ultra-processed foods without burning out

A small change done consistently can beat a perfect plan you quit in a week.

»MORE: If you want an at-home tracking sheet, create a simple weekly log with four lines only: waist circumference, average home blood pressure, number of ultra-processed servings per day, and one note about your most common trigger time.

The fruit and vegetable “buffer” idea

One of the more nuanced parts of the study discussion is that controlling for fruit and vegetable intake made some associations less significant (the video mentions diastolic blood pressure, A1C, and CRP).

In everyday terms, this suggests a trade-off.

If someone is not ready to eliminate ultra-processed foods, increasing fruit and vegetable intake might partially mitigate harm.

That does not make ultra-processed foods “safe,” but it does offer a practical lever that is often easier than total restriction.

Aiming for more whole plants is also consistent with major dietary guidance patterns. For example, the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health emphasizes a whole-food pattern in its Healthy Eating PlateTrusted Source.

Q: Are protein bars always a bad choice?

A: The video’s point is that many protein bars fall into the ultra-processed category, and higher ultra-processed intake was linked with worse metabolic markers in the study discussed. That does not mean every bar is equally problematic, or that using one occasionally is the same as eating several daily.

If you rely on bars for convenience, consider comparing options with fewer added sugars and a shorter ingredient list, and balance them with whole foods like fruit or yogurt when possible.

Health educator summary aligned with the video’s practical framing

Key Takeaways