The reason it doesn't fall into this category is not because it's not ultra-processed, but because it's not food, and no one is claiming that it's food either. Presumably the idea here is more about how many calories you ingest, and what proportion of those calories comes from what level of processing. AG1 is not going to be a significant proportion of anyone's caloric intake.

Yet adding xanthum gum or any sort of thickening agents to a food would make it ultra processed. Both of those have no nutritional value. Why does nutritional value have any relation to if something is ultra processed? It certainly doesn’t matter from a classification standpoint.

Medicine is "ultra-processed" as well, and goes in your mouth, but the study is certainly not implying that medicine, on the balance of probabilies, is unhealthy for you. That's where it makes a difference. It's not "don't put anything in your mouth that's ultra-processed", it's "don't rely exclusively/mostly on ultra-processed stuff to replace healthy food intake".

Podcast sponsors are blessed, and exempt from the normal rules.

It would be considered ultra processed.

Important to note that whilst the podcast brings different opinions on different matters. It doesn't necessarily mean that Andrew or the podcast endorses those opinions.

Huberman is sponsored by AG1, thereby he endorses the product.

This is my issue with the term processed foods. If a food is processed because it has artificial sweeteners and food coloring, it's different then food containing high-fructose corn syrup and hydrogenated fats (which is what the study looked at).

If you are going to condemn processed foods, show me that it's worse to eat Quest Bars than fruit and nuts with honey.

I hold the problem is sugars (and alcohol).