Ask a dozen word nerds about the origin of “aye yai yai ” and every single one of them will tell you this alternate for “oh no” comes from the Mexican Spanish spoken in parts of Mexico. Ask them about “The ayes have it,” though, and every single one of them will tell you its origin is uncertain.

They’re certain to claim ignorance about “The thighs have it,” as well — unless perhaps one of them is married to a really conscientious radiologist. Then you’ll learn that phrase came to be very recently at the annual meeting of the Radiological Society of North America last December 4.

And that it can now said about intramuscular fat.

While we tend to see muscle and fat as opposites, healthy muscle actually contains about 1.5 percent fat. The muscles of obese individuals can have more than 5 percent fat, and the elderly’s ever-diminishing ones often contain double that.

These higher percentages present health problems. Increases in intramuscular fat have not only been associated with a loss of strength and mobility, but also an increased risk of chronic disease.

So it’s no surprise that in the press release about the paper presented at the previously mentioned radiologist’s meeting, its author notes that higher amounts of intramuscular fat in the thighs have been “associated with [the] onset and progression of knee osteoarthritis” in studies “from our group [of researchers] and others.”

Yet the paper authored by Dr. Zehra Akkaya does contain a big surprise. Big enough to warrant the first bullet in an eye-catching blue box that begins the online version of the presser.

“The more ultra-processed foods people consumed, the more intramuscular fat they had in their thigh muscles.”

Akkaya and other researchers at the Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging at the University of California, San Francisco came to this conclusion by first analyzing data from 666 individuals who, based on initial MRIs, were not afflicted with any type of osteoarthritis. Their average age was 60; average body mass index, 27, the middle of the Overweight range according to the CDC.

During the yearlong study, however, these individuals were far from average when it came to consuming ultra-processed foods. While typical U.S. adults get 57 percent of their daily calories from UPFs according to the American Medical Association, the 666 studied only averaged about 40 percent.

Despite this discrepancy, MRIs of their thigh muscles at years’ end still showed streaks of fat where you’d expect muscle to be — the degree to which correlated to the amount of ultra-processed foods consumed. This held true “regardless of caloric intake or physical activity.”

But UPF consumption not only adversely affects the muscle quality of those 60 and older. A study published in the February 2024 issue of Frontiers in Nutrition found that to be true for those between the ages of 20 and 59, too.

By reviewing data gathered on more than 10,000 adults between those ages as part of the National Health and Nutritional Examination Surveys between 2011 and 2018 researchers found “participants with the highest UPFs intake exhibited a 60 percent increased risk of low muscle mass.” So the study’s conclusion links heavy consumption of UPFs to a “potential adverse impact on muscle health” while noting that heavy consumption is “modifiable.”

Which would mean eating fewer UPFs, right? But a paper published in Frontiers in Public Health last December suggests another kind of modification: changing the types of UPFs consumed.

And that doing so can positively affect the most important muscle of them all, your heart.

In this study, researchers took a second look at self-reported dietary data supplied by nearly 70,000 Swedes in both 1997 and 2009. This new analysis divided the amount of added sugar they consumed into three categories: 1.) sweetened toppings, such as table sugar, jam, marmalade, or honey; 2.) sweetened treats, such as ice cream, pastries, and chocolate; and 3.) sweetened beverages, primarily but not limited to sodas.

Researchers then checked the medical histories of the participants and found that those who reported drinking more than eight sweetened beverages per week had a 19 percent increased risk of stroke, an 18 percent increased risk of heart failure, and a 31 percent increased risk of aneurysm when compared to those who drank less than one per week.

Yet “negative linear associations” were detected between their intake of sweetened treats and all seven of the heart problems considered, which is as significant as it is unexpected. For it means when the first went up, the second went down.

And negative linear outcomes were also evident between the intake of sweetened toppings and two of the seven heart problems, heart failure and aortic stenosis. Moreover, when total sugar intake was considered, those who ingested the least had the highest overall cardiovascular risk.

But before you embrace an all-things-in-moderation approach start eating more foods with added sugars, you need to know what moderation constitutes in this case —because most Americans don’t. According to the USDA, the average American consumes 34 teaspoons of sugars a day, which equates to about 25 percent of a 2,500-calorie-a-day diet.

And 25 percent is more than triple what this study considered moderate and found to be the best for heart health.