Do you lose more when you eat less processed food?

AlexisUPenn

See what works for you. You want to do something that you can sustain for life.

Over the past 11 weeks I've lost 41lbs with eating primarily unprocessed foods (I still have some but not in the amount that I did before) and staying within my calorie budget. Prior to that I was following CICO but didn't focus on "clean eating" and lost 6 lbs over 6 months.

Comparing the two I feel much better now. I'm rarely ever hungry and I do not have cravings for the things that I used to. This is not me preaching a way to eat. Just sharing my experience. Everyone is different.

J72FIT

aggelikik wrote: »

beth0277 wrote: »

From a strictly losing weight standpoint, do you find that you lose more with cleaner foods? I agree with calories in vs calories out for the most point, but I seem to lose a bit more when my calories are made up of lean proteins, fruits, veggies, etc., then when I allow myself to have some processed treats, like fiber one bars. I'm still losing either way, just not as quickly with more processed foods. I wonder if it is my body hanging onto something longer? Anyone had a similar experience?

It is easier to overeat when eating highly processed food. Lots of processed treats, restaurant food etc is more calorie dense, but not necessarily more filling, so going over calories is more probable.

True but I think her point is (and forgive me if I'm wrong) if calories are equal would you lose more weight eating "clean". I maintain that you probably would lose say an extra 3 - 5 pounds but only in water weight...

Osiris275

I'm quite happy with my losses each week and I only eat processed foods, very rarely anything fresh as I don't like it an I don't like cooking! My sodium in my macros is always under my limit so I'm ok with that. Still lost at least a pound each week.

DeguelloTex

lindsey1979 wrote: »

UltimateRBF wrote: »

lindsey1979 wrote: »

WinoGelato wrote: »

lindsey1979 wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

lindsey1979 wrote: »

WinoGelato wrote: »

lindsey1979 wrote: »

Lourdesong wrote: »

lindsey1979 wrote: »

senecarr wrote: »

lindsey1979 wrote: »

senecarr wrote: »

lindsey1979 wrote: »

senecarr wrote: »

lindsey1979 wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

lindsey1979 wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

OP didn't ask about eating all "junk" food or even about junk food at all.

Here's what she said:

Yes, my primary question was if I eat 1500 of mostly unprocessed foods (lean proteins, fruit, veggies) compared to 1500 calories of "whatever" foods (keeping in mind that I try to eat really well throughout the day but processed in the terms of maybe an ice cream treat at night or a latte if it fit in my calories) will my loss be the same?

Not only did she stipulate same calories, but I for one would not find the satiety difference between the two options mentioned much at all.

I'll add, again, that I don't understand this notion that "processed" means not nutritious or not satisfying. Many of the more processed things I eat (stuff like smoked salmon or dairy or protein powder) are foods that I specifically use to make my breakfast more filling.

One example of the less nutritious aspect of highly processed foods is the lack of magnesium. An overwhelming amount of the population is magnesium deficient (I've seen number at 70%+ of the US population) and this is largely attributed to our processing of foods -- that it strips out certain natural vitamins and minerals or that the highly processed foods interfere with absorption. I'm sure there are other examples, but that's one.

This is silly, because it assumes one either eats mostly processed foods (and what you really mean here is ultra processed) or none. What the OP asked about was the difference in weight loss between eating mostly whole foods and a nutritious diet plus some processed stuff vs. no processed stuff.

So, let's assume I eat a good diet with lots of fish and greens and finish off the day with some ice cream (as the OP suggested). Am I going to become magnesium deficient? No, I will not. Am I going to lose weight? Depends on the calories I consume, of course.

You can always extrapolate into ridiculousness. That extrapolation doesn't negate the initial premise in itself. To not understand that difference is silly.

Someone down thread asked about examples, I responded with examples of potential issues. Not every post has to respond solely to the OP's questions -- people can ask other related questions and others can respond. That's sort of the purpose of a discussion.

You sound like you're saying the person saying eating some ice cream won't hurt you is extrapolating into ridiculousness. Lemur's remark was to head off the straw men that has happened repeatedly when CICOphants talk about calories being the important thing.

What does someone's specific diet composition of highly processed foods to non-highly processed foods have to do with the inherent lack of magnesium in the highly processed foods?

Yes, your overall deficiency likely will changed based upon your consumption either due to direct or indirect means, but the lack of magnesium in highly processed foods remains the same. And, yes, you can compensate based on your amount consumed or by taking supplements (as many do). It's not an all-or-nothing situation like that person posits. To pretend that it's absolute is silly unless you're talking about certain things that are very dangerous at low levels like mercury or other toxic compounds -- but that really isn't an issue in highly processed foods (or isn't supposed to be).

What are the chances someone eating some but not all processed foods becomes magnesium deficient? How likely would it get to the extent that the person is actually eating to try to get in magnesium?
To date, I'm not even familiar with studies that show mineral deficiency (other than salt) even affecting appetite, only some correlations that micro-nutrient deficiencies are common in the obese.

I don't know what the chances are from someone eating some but all highly processed foods -- I just gave you the facts as I've read them. That magnesium deficiency is incredibly common in the US population and a major contributor to that (perhaps even the main contributor) is the highly processing of foods because it strips out magnesium or has additives that impede its absorption.

Literally all processed food is low in magnesium? So my processed, GNC vitamin tablets, with the magnesium: 300%, are low in magnesium?

No, not necessarily. I don't know anyone that consider vitamin supplements to be a "processed food" in the context of processed versus whole food discussions. Are you being intentionally obtuse?

The processing of many highly processed foods (especially grain products) results in the stripping of naturally occurring magnesium (and other vitamins/minerals) or has additives that impede absorption. Of course, there are always exceptions. But, as general trends go, that's the hypothesis.

If you see examples of foods that folks recommend to boost your magnesium, they'll almost all whole food examples (not counting supplements, of course). Things like leafy greens like spinach or kelp, legumes, squash or pumpkin seeds. You don't generally see crackers, cookies, bread, etc. cited as ways to increase your magnesium levels.

Deficiency doesn't appear to be an issue except among people who have other health problems. The body regulates magnesium levels pretty efficiently. Apparently it's also difficult to test for magnesium levels in people anyway. Also it appears magnesium is quite ubiquitous. Bread and fortified cereals are cited as good sources in this NIH article as well.

https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/Magnesium-HealthProfessional/#h5

I'm not understanding why you're going on about magnesium.

Magnesium was just an example from the earlier query about how processed food can be less nutritious than their non-processed counterparts. If you go back to the original post, that would probably be more clear. A lot folks seem to struggle with reading comprehension here on MFP. Or are being intentionally obtuse.

Also, I've seen numbers that upwards of 75% of the population in the US is deficient in magnesium. Even mainstream media like CNN has picked that sort of thing up (see link). It seems like Americans' bodies are not regulating magnesium all that well, likely because they aren't getting enough in their diet.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/31/health/magnesium-deficiency-health/

I find it ironic that you are going on about lack of reading comprehension and people being obtuse when the original post was simply about weight loss. No mention of nutrition and certainly no mention of magnesium deficiency.

Really? We're limited to only what the OP asks? Is that how the forums work?

So, when someone else on the thread mentions that she can't understand why there would be any nutritional difference between processed and non-processed foods, we're not allowed the address that? Or you think that means you lack reading comprehension skills? Hmmmm....You also might want to look up what the word ironic actually means.

Oh, really? So your non sequitur about magnesium was supposed to be a response to my post?

Here's the post in question again:

I'll add, again, that I don't understand this notion that "processed" means not nutritious or not satisfying. Many of the more processed things I eat (stuff like smoked salmon or dairy or protein powder) are foods that I specifically use to make my breakfast more filling.

Please let me know how my pointing out that "processed" doesn't mean "non nutritious" -- as there are lots of processed foods that anyone credible would acknowledge are high in nutrients -- somehow made you think that magnesium was a concern here.

In case you were truly confused, I was not suggesting that processed foods are ALWAYS highly nutritious, but that one can't generalize from the fact that they are "processed."

Here we go with people that like to use fancy sounding words that they don't know what they mean.

Non sequitur: a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement.

You said:

I'll add, again, that I don't understand this notion that "processed" means not nutritious or not satisfying. Many of the more processed things I eat (stuff like smoked salmon or dairy or protein powder) are foods that I specifically use to make my breakfast more filling.

I responded with 3 examples of how processed foods can be less nutritious -- giving the examples of problems with magnesium, HFCS and added sugar. That is a statement that follows logically from your previous statement. By definition, it is not a non sequitur.

Do you think it doesn't follow logically because it doesn't show that processed foods are completely devoid of any nutritional value? Really? Do you struggle with literalism?

People can generalize from trends. Not that there are no exceptions, but do you really think that most processed foods are equally nutritious as their non-processed counterparts (if any counterparts exist)? Do you really think you're getting just as much nutrition from most pre-package processed dinner as you would be getting from home cooking the same meal with your own ingredients? Do you think someone would be getting as much nutrition from a diet of junk food as they would from fresh fruits, vegetables, lean meats, nuts, etc.? Really?

I see we've moved from the logical fallacy of non sequitur to the straw man and we've been flirting with ad hominem. Well done, you've completed the trifecta...

Are you often so self-satisfied with your own brilliance? It must be awesome being you.

Coming from you, this is the most hilarious thing I've ever read on these forums. Or were you talking to yourself?

Watch out. That may get you accused of making ad hominem attacks.

I think ad hominem would be something more like "You're wrong because you went to a second-rate law school," not "you're wrong and you went to a second-rate law school."