Do you lose more when you eat less processed food?
Replies
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »Yes, I think satiety is extremely commonly addressed when we get a post like "hypothetically, could I lose weight eating only junk food?" I know I always mention it, as well as general health and how one would feel. For example, I say in theory someone could lose weight eating 1200 if only cake, but I'd feel horrible if I tried and I suspect I simply could not manage to stick to 1200 (or even 1500), at least not unless it were an experiment I had high incentive to stick to.
Here, OP indicated that she ate a mostly nutritious, whole-foods diet, so I don't see satiety as an issue. I eat some ice cream or the like regularly within my calorie goals (or perhaps some pork shoulder vs. pork chops), and have no issue with satiety because I eat lots of food that's satisfying and filling to me (and tons of vegetables and protein). 100% vs. 90% or whatever really shouldn't make that big a difference.
Beyond that, I really don't understand why people keep assuming that "processed food" = not nutritious or not satiety promoting. As I've mentioned several times, the most common processed foods I eat are ones that make my breakfast more filling -- specifically lowfat dairy like cottage cheese or greek yogurt or smoked salmon or protein powder. I also find Quest bars pretty filling, and while I'd never sub ice cream for a meal or anything I find it perfectly filling as a dessert. (OP specifically mentioned a FiberOne bar, which I've never had, but sounds like it might have, well, lots of fiber and be a small dessert vs. her main diet.)
As for processed foods that are considered "junk" food by some, I had a Giordano's pizza slice for lunch on Friday (spinach stuffed). I had it due to a work thing -- Giordano's is not my favorite and usually would not be considered worth the calories to me -- but one slice with salad fit into my calories fine and was actually extremely filling. I had a ton of vegetables that day too, so imagine the processed pizza won't ruin my nutrition.
It's probably your definition of processed food. In my experience, people aren't generally referring to things like "cottage cheese or greek yogurt or smoked salmon or protein powder" relative to processed food. They're usually thinking more along the lines of junk food (twinkies, pop tarts, etc.), sodas, tv dinners, mass produced cookies, crackers, etc. That's why some opt for the term "highly processed" to separate it out from things like traditional cheese, yogurt, smoked salmon, etc.
I think most will realize that there are exceptions to some rules -- where things are fairly processed but still offer a lot of nutritional advantages or the preservatives/additives are very low/non-existent. Things like BCAAs, protein powder, quest bars, etc.
0 -
I'd kind of like us to tackle how hyperbole works first. Like saying "all processed food lacks / has / does X", e.g., "all processed food is low in magnesium."
Sure. But I haven't seen a lot of that hyperbole on this thread. I haven't seen anyone argue such things on this thread (yet).
0 -
My father used to practice law. If I asked him what chemistry is, he'd say it is the study of memorizing the periodic table. His law degree really helped there.lindsey1979 wrote: »
I'd be surprised to see them give up their prescriptivism to give the colloquial usage of ironic as a synonym for coincidental / poetic justice / hypocrisy.lindsey1979 wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »Lourdesong wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »
Literally all processed food is low in magnesium? So my processed, GNC vitamin tablets, with the magnesium: 300%, are low in magnesium?lindsey1979 wrote: »
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?lindsey1979 wrote: »
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.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.
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).
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.
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.
Why look up the definition of ironic? Almost no one uses it in the dictionary / literary jargon sense of the word.
Some of us actually do mean what we say and say what we mean. We actually are concerned with diction and proper word choice. And definitions of words often include colloquial uses as well as more technical or literary definitions. It's why words can have more than one definition or proper use.
But, hey, some people struggle here with basic reading comprehension. Proper diction is probably asking waaaaay too much. I'm sure someone will chime in on how this is not what the OP originally asked so they don't understand why this exchange has occurred. Oy vey.
Also, this:
https://xkcd.com/1028/ the title text in particular: "Anyone who says that they're great at communicating but 'people are bad at listening' is confused about how communication works."
Well, that depends on your audience. If people are illiterate, intentionally obtuse or willfully misunderstanding, it doesn't matter how "clear"' your communication is. Considering I do that for a living -- craft words which are legally binding contracts -- I think I've got a pretty good idea of how to do that properly. And, strangely, I never encounter this "problem" anywhere but the general boards of MFP. Look to the common denominator -- it's not me.
0 -
lindsey1979 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »Lourdesong wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »
Literally all processed food is low in magnesium? So my processed, GNC vitamin tablets, with the magnesium: 300%, are low in magnesium?lindsey1979 wrote: »
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?lindsey1979 wrote: »
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.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.
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).
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.
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.
Um, not fancy sounding. That's about as sensible as claiming that John Kerry is icky because he looks French.
But, yes, used correctly.Non sequitur: a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement.
Precisely. I said: why would processed foods be inherently non nutritious? And then I named the processed foods I rely on most, which I believe are nutritious (and which are not "ultra processed").
You responded by going off about how some "ultra processed" foods are low in magnesium, which is, well, not a logical response to what had been said. It was an irrelevant statement that you made out of the blue for some purpose I cannot fathom. I suspect to troll.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.
Nope.
First of all, you responded with magnesium. You edited about 20 minutes later (according to the date stamp) to add the other stuff. None of the stuff you mentioned -- magnesium being stripped out, added sugar, or HFCS has a thing to do with the types of processed foods I mentioned. (I eat plain greek yogurt, for the most part, and the sugary foods that had been discussed are foods that would be equally sugary whether "processed" or homemade, specifically ice cream.)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?
As you would know, if you had been following the conversation at all -- and presumably you were, if you posted -- my precise point was NOT that no processed foods are low in nutrients (heck, some non processed foods are low in nutrients too). It was that the processed vs. non processed distinction didn't tell us whether foods were low in nutrients or non sating or not, as many processed foods were things like, well, greek yogurt and smoked salmon.0 -
lindsey1979 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Yes, I think satiety is extremely commonly addressed when we get a post like "hypothetically, could I lose weight eating only junk food?" I know I always mention it, as well as general health and how one would feel. For example, I say in theory someone could lose weight eating 1200 if only cake, but I'd feel horrible if I tried and I suspect I simply could not manage to stick to 1200 (or even 1500), at least not unless it were an experiment I had high incentive to stick to.
Here, OP indicated that she ate a mostly nutritious, whole-foods diet, so I don't see satiety as an issue. I eat some ice cream or the like regularly within my calorie goals (or perhaps some pork shoulder vs. pork chops), and have no issue with satiety because I eat lots of food that's satisfying and filling to me (and tons of vegetables and protein). 100% vs. 90% or whatever really shouldn't make that big a difference.
Beyond that, I really don't understand why people keep assuming that "processed food" = not nutritious or not satiety promoting. As I've mentioned several times, the most common processed foods I eat are ones that make my breakfast more filling -- specifically lowfat dairy like cottage cheese or greek yogurt or smoked salmon or protein powder. I also find Quest bars pretty filling, and while I'd never sub ice cream for a meal or anything I find it perfectly filling as a dessert. (OP specifically mentioned a FiberOne bar, which I've never had, but sounds like it might have, well, lots of fiber and be a small dessert vs. her main diet.)
As for processed foods that are considered "junk" food by some, I had a Giordano's pizza slice for lunch on Friday (spinach stuffed). I had it due to a work thing -- Giordano's is not my favorite and usually would not be considered worth the calories to me -- but one slice with salad fit into my calories fine and was actually extremely filling. I had a ton of vegetables that day too, so imagine the processed pizza won't ruin my nutrition.
It's probably your definition of processed food. In my experience, people aren't generally referring to things like "cottage cheese or greek yogurt or smoked salmon or protein powder" relative to processed food. They're usually thinking more along the lines of junk food (twinkies, pop tarts, etc.), sodas, tv dinners, mass produced cookies, crackers, etc. That's why some opt for the term "highly processed" to separate it out from things like traditional cheese, yogurt, smoked salmon, etc.
I think most will realize that there are exceptions to some rules -- where things are fairly processed but still offer a lot of nutritional advantages or the preservatives/additives are very low/non-existent. Things like BCAAs, protein powder, quest bars, etc.
Nice job back pedaling and acknowledging that you didn't originally read (or maybe comprehend) @lemurcat12 post, she was quite clear with her examples.
0 -
-
WinoGelato wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »Lourdesong wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »
Literally all processed food is low in magnesium? So my processed, GNC vitamin tablets, with the magnesium: 300%, are low in magnesium?lindsey1979 wrote: »
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?lindsey1979 wrote: »
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.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.
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).
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.
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.-1 -
lindsey1979 wrote: »
I'd be surprised to see them give up their prescriptivism to give the colloquial usage of ironic as a synonym for coincidental / poetic justice / hypocrisy.lindsey1979 wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »Lourdesong wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »
Literally all processed food is low in magnesium? So my processed, GNC vitamin tablets, with the magnesium: 300%, are low in magnesium?lindsey1979 wrote: »
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?lindsey1979 wrote: »
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.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.
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).
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.
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.
Why look up the definition of ironic? Almost no one uses it in the dictionary / literary jargon sense of the word.
Some of us actually do mean what we say and say what we mean. We actually are concerned with diction and proper word choice. And definitions of words often include colloquial uses as well as more technical or literary definitions. It's why words can have more than one definition or proper use.
But, hey, some people struggle here with basic reading comprehension. Proper diction is probably asking waaaaay too much. I'm sure someone will chime in on how this is not what the OP originally asked so they don't understand why this exchange has occurred. Oy vey.
Also, this:
https://xkcd.com/1028/ the title text in particular: "Anyone who says that they're great at communicating but 'people are bad at listening' is confused about how communication works."
Well, that depends on your audience. If people are illiterate, intentionally obtuse or willfully misunderstanding, it doesn't matter how "clear"' your communication is. Considering I do that for a living -- craft words which are legally binding contracts -- I think I've got a pretty good idea of how to do that properly. And, strangely, I never encounter this "problem" anywhere but the general boards of MFP. Look to the common denominator -- it's not me.
The only person here who has been intentionally obtuse or willfully misunderstood anything is you.
(And for the record, I basically clean up after people who draft contracts poorly or otherwise leave ambiguities or disagreements in them. It's not uncommon at all.)0 -
I'm sure Dr. Mercola and Dr. Oz both know mine is low, but it will be easy to fix with their latest product. I can save on fancy tests and just go straight to buying it.lindsey1979 wrote: »0 -
Is there a word that describes double irony? As in attempting to use irony (sarcasm) but actually stating literalness.lindsey1979 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »Lourdesong wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »
Literally all processed food is low in magnesium? So my processed, GNC vitamin tablets, with the magnesium: 300%, are low in magnesium?lindsey1979 wrote: »
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?lindsey1979 wrote: »
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.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.
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).
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.
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.0 -
Lourdesong wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »Lourdesong wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »
Literally all processed food is low in magnesium? So my processed, GNC vitamin tablets, with the magnesium: 300%, are low in magnesium?lindsey1979 wrote: »
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?lindsey1979 wrote: »
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.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.
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).
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.
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/
Lemurcat appeared to me to be taking issue with the suggestion that processed means not nutritious, or satiating, like, full stop, because processing.
And you responded with your stuff about magnesium and HFCS and whatevers. As if the fact that some processed foods aren't nutritious justifies the inference that they all aren't. The very inference Lemurcat was taking issue with. What were you trying to argue there?
What's interesting is that Lemurcat quoted the OP saying she wanted an ice cream or a latte - which are milk-based products and thus not devoid of magnesium anyway.
I don't share your high regard for CNN personally. I remember when they spent a good month reporting the lack of news on the missing Malaysian airline. And your article reads like it was written to and for hypochondriacs.
Who else said that processsed foods had no nutritional value or no satiation value? I didn't see that anywhere. Just that some are concerned that processed foods (even with the definitional ambiguity) has less nutritional value than their non-processed counterparts -- hence my examples. It doesn't mean that there are no exceptions to that trend but just that is a trend and why many health care professional advise to eat more whole foods. That's not a coincidence.
I'm not a huge fan of CNN personally, but just chose that article after a quick google search to show that the magnesium deficiency issues is pretty well known. I don't think there has been much meaningful debate on the contrary in any respectable news outlet or scientific agency I've seen. If you know of any that show that this is far less common or is exaggerated, I'd love to read those sources.
0 -
lindsey1979 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »Lourdesong wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »
Literally all processed food is low in magnesium? So my processed, GNC vitamin tablets, with the magnesium: 300%, are low in magnesium?lindsey1979 wrote: »
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?lindsey1979 wrote: »
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.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.
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).
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.
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.
Ah personal attacks. Apparently we are no longer flirting with ad hominem we are going to take him home from the bar...
0 -
My father used to practice law. If I asked him what chemistry is, he'd say it is the study of memorizing the periodic table. His law degree really helped there.lindsey1979 wrote: »
I'd be surprised to see them give up their prescriptivism to give the colloquial usage of ironic as a synonym for coincidental / poetic justice / hypocrisy.lindsey1979 wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »Lourdesong wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »
Literally all processed food is low in magnesium? So my processed, GNC vitamin tablets, with the magnesium: 300%, are low in magnesium?lindsey1979 wrote: »
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?lindsey1979 wrote: »
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.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.
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).
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.
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.
Why look up the definition of ironic? Almost no one uses it in the dictionary / literary jargon sense of the word.
Some of us actually do mean what we say and say what we mean. We actually are concerned with diction and proper word choice. And definitions of words often include colloquial uses as well as more technical or literary definitions. It's why words can have more than one definition or proper use.
But, hey, some people struggle here with basic reading comprehension. Proper diction is probably asking waaaaay too much. I'm sure someone will chime in on how this is not what the OP originally asked so they don't understand why this exchange has occurred. Oy vey.
Also, this:
https://xkcd.com/1028/ the title text in particular: "Anyone who says that they're great at communicating but 'people are bad at listening' is confused about how communication works."
Well, that depends on your audience. If people are illiterate, intentionally obtuse or willfully misunderstanding, it doesn't matter how "clear"' your communication is. Considering I do that for a living -- craft words which are legally binding contracts -- I think I've got a pretty good idea of how to do that properly. And, strangely, I never encounter this "problem" anywhere but the general boards of MFP. Look to the common denominator -- it's not me.
Very true. Luckily, I've got more than one degree.
0 -
Cool. Once you have 90, you'll always be right.lindsey1979 wrote: »
My father used to practice law. If I asked him what chemistry is, he'd say it is the study of memorizing the periodic table. His law degree really helped there.lindsey1979 wrote: »
I'd be surprised to see them give up their prescriptivism to give the colloquial usage of ironic as a synonym for coincidental / poetic justice / hypocrisy.lindsey1979 wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »Lourdesong wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »
Literally all processed food is low in magnesium? So my processed, GNC vitamin tablets, with the magnesium: 300%, are low in magnesium?lindsey1979 wrote: »
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?lindsey1979 wrote: »
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.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.
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).
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.
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.
Why look up the definition of ironic? Almost no one uses it in the dictionary / literary jargon sense of the word.
Some of us actually do mean what we say and say what we mean. We actually are concerned with diction and proper word choice. And definitions of words often include colloquial uses as well as more technical or literary definitions. It's why words can have more than one definition or proper use.
But, hey, some people struggle here with basic reading comprehension. Proper diction is probably asking waaaaay too much. I'm sure someone will chime in on how this is not what the OP originally asked so they don't understand why this exchange has occurred. Oy vey.
Also, this:
https://xkcd.com/1028/ the title text in particular: "Anyone who says that they're great at communicating but 'people are bad at listening' is confused about how communication works."
Well, that depends on your audience. If people are illiterate, intentionally obtuse or willfully misunderstanding, it doesn't matter how "clear"' your communication is. Considering I do that for a living -- craft words which are legally binding contracts -- I think I've got a pretty good idea of how to do that properly. And, strangely, I never encounter this "problem" anywhere but the general boards of MFP. Look to the common denominator -- it's not me.
Very true. Luckily, I've got more than one degree.0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Yes, I think satiety is extremely commonly addressed when we get a post like "hypothetically, could I lose weight eating only junk food?" I know I always mention it, as well as general health and how one would feel. For example, I say in theory someone could lose weight eating 1200 if only cake, but I'd feel horrible if I tried and I suspect I simply could not manage to stick to 1200 (or even 1500), at least not unless it were an experiment I had high incentive to stick to.
Here, OP indicated that she ate a mostly nutritious, whole-foods diet, so I don't see satiety as an issue. I eat some ice cream or the like regularly within my calorie goals (or perhaps some pork shoulder vs. pork chops), and have no issue with satiety because I eat lots of food that's satisfying and filling to me (and tons of vegetables and protein). 100% vs. 90% or whatever really shouldn't make that big a difference.
Beyond that, I really don't understand why people keep assuming that "processed food" = not nutritious or not satiety promoting. As I've mentioned several times, the most common processed foods I eat are ones that make my breakfast more filling -- specifically lowfat dairy like cottage cheese or greek yogurt or smoked salmon or protein powder. I also find Quest bars pretty filling, and while I'd never sub ice cream for a meal or anything I find it perfectly filling as a dessert. (OP specifically mentioned a FiberOne bar, which I've never had, but sounds like it might have, well, lots of fiber and be a small dessert vs. her main diet.)
As for processed foods that are considered "junk" food by some, I had a Giordano's pizza slice for lunch on Friday (spinach stuffed). I had it due to a work thing -- Giordano's is not my favorite and usually would not be considered worth the calories to me -- but one slice with salad fit into my calories fine and was actually extremely filling. I had a ton of vegetables that day too, so imagine the processed pizza won't ruin my nutrition.
It's probably your definition of processed food. In my experience, people aren't generally referring to things like "cottage cheese or greek yogurt or smoked salmon or protein powder" relative to processed food. They're usually thinking more along the lines of junk food (twinkies, pop tarts, etc.), sodas, tv dinners, mass produced cookies, crackers, etc. That's why some opt for the term "highly processed" to separate it out from things like traditional cheese, yogurt, smoked salmon, etc.
I think most will realize that there are exceptions to some rules -- where things are fairly processed but still offer a lot of nutritional advantages or the preservatives/additives are very low/non-existent. Things like BCAAs, protein powder, quest bars, etc.
Nice job back pedaling and acknowledging that you didn't originally read (or maybe comprehend) @lemurcat12 post, she was quite clear with her examples.
I didn't think we were limited to her examples, especially since it tends to run contrary to what many people seem to mean when they're talking about processed foods in comparison to their non-processed counterparts. But, perhaps, you are correct that I should have pointed out the pitfalls of her working definition or examples rather than going the other direction of showing examples of how some processed foods can be less nutritious (not inherently non-nutritious).
0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »Lourdesong wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »
Literally all processed food is low in magnesium? So my processed, GNC vitamin tablets, with the magnesium: 300%, are low in magnesium?lindsey1979 wrote: »
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?lindsey1979 wrote: »
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.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.
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).
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.
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.
Ah personal attacks. Apparently we are no longer flirting with ad hominem we are going to take him home from the bar...
That's a personal attack? Really? Wow. You must live in a very fragile place.
Also, just so you know, ad hominem actually are personal attacks.
0 -
Cool. Once you have 90, you'll always be right.lindsey1979 wrote: »
My father used to practice law. If I asked him what chemistry is, he'd say it is the study of memorizing the periodic table. His law degree really helped there.lindsey1979 wrote: »
I'd be surprised to see them give up their prescriptivism to give the colloquial usage of ironic as a synonym for coincidental / poetic justice / hypocrisy.lindsey1979 wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »Lourdesong wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »
Literally all processed food is low in magnesium? So my processed, GNC vitamin tablets, with the magnesium: 300%, are low in magnesium?lindsey1979 wrote: »
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?lindsey1979 wrote: »
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.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.
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).
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.
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.
Why look up the definition of ironic? Almost no one uses it in the dictionary / literary jargon sense of the word.
Some of us actually do mean what we say and say what we mean. We actually are concerned with diction and proper word choice. And definitions of words often include colloquial uses as well as more technical or literary definitions. It's why words can have more than one definition or proper use.
But, hey, some people struggle here with basic reading comprehension. Proper diction is probably asking waaaaay too much. I'm sure someone will chime in on how this is not what the OP originally asked so they don't understand why this exchange has occurred. Oy vey.
Also, this:
https://xkcd.com/1028/ the title text in particular: "Anyone who says that they're great at communicating but 'people are bad at listening' is confused about how communication works."
Well, that depends on your audience. If people are illiterate, intentionally obtuse or willfully misunderstanding, it doesn't matter how "clear"' your communication is. Considering I do that for a living -- craft words which are legally binding contracts -- I think I've got a pretty good idea of how to do that properly. And, strangely, I never encounter this "problem" anywhere but the general boards of MFP. Look to the common denominator -- it's not me.
Very true. Luckily, I've got more than one degree.
If you're always right, you're hanging out with stupid people. I'm wrong about things on a fairly regular basis -- how would I learn otherwise? Just not in this thread thus far -- I'm careful to avoid the absolutes for just that reason. And the fact that it tends to devolve into meaningless semantic arguments. But those seem to be the preferred aim of some on these threads. I suspect it makes them feel that they're especially clever.
0 -
Sure did! Whenever I cut weight for competitions, I avoided foods with barcodes or made by chefs. The weight dropped. Did better in training too.0
-
lindsey1979 wrote: »Cool. Once you have 90, you'll always be right.
If you're always right, you're hanging out with stupid people. I'm wrong about things on a fairly regular basis -- how would I learn otherwise? Just not in this thread thus far -- I'm careful to avoid the absolutes for just that reason. And the fact that it tends to devolve into meaningless semantic arguments. But those seem to be the preferred aim of some on these threads. I suspect it makes them feel that they're especially clever.
0 -
lindsey1979 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »Lourdesong wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »
Literally all processed food is low in magnesium? So my processed, GNC vitamin tablets, with the magnesium: 300%, are low in magnesium?lindsey1979 wrote: »
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?lindsey1979 wrote: »
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.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.
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).
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.
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.
Ah personal attacks. Apparently we are no longer flirting with ad hominem we are going to take him home from the bar...
That's a personal attack? Really? Wow. You must live in a very fragile place.
Also, just so you know, ad hominem actually are personal attacks.
Really? I guess I need to add that to the list of words that I need to look up. Along with sarcasm... no, wait, I think I've got a good handle on that one already.
0 -
phoenix26z wrote: »Sure did! Whenever I cut weight for competitions, I avoided foods with barcodes or made by chefs. The weight dropped. Did better in training too.
Did your calories stay the same?
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
WinoGelato wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »Lourdesong wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »
Literally all processed food is low in magnesium? So my processed, GNC vitamin tablets, with the magnesium: 300%, are low in magnesium?lindsey1979 wrote: »
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?lindsey1979 wrote: »
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.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.
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).
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.
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.
Ah personal attacks. Apparently we are no longer flirting with ad hominem we are going to take him home from the bar...
That's a personal attack? Really? Wow. You must live in a very fragile place.
Also, just so you know, ad hominem actually are personal attacks.
Really? I guess I need to add that to the list of words that I need to look up. Along with sarcasm... no, wait, I think I've got a good handle on that one already.
Not to mention one of the great advantages of sarcasm: when you screw things up or are called on a mistake, you can just claim it's sarcasm. Or, it was intended ironically. Double win.
0 -
Actually, that's what happens when you have 91 of them. Luckily I'm acutely aware of that.lindsey1979 wrote: »Cool. Once you have 90, you'll always be right.
If you're always right, you're hanging out with stupid people. I'm wrong about things on a fairly regular basis -- how would I learn otherwise? Just not in this thread thus far -- I'm careful to avoid the absolutes for just that reason. And the fact that it tends to devolve into meaningless semantic arguments. But those seem to be the preferred aim of some on these threads. I suspect it makes them feel that they're especially clever.
0 -
My irony reservoir is overflowing therefore I think I will call it a night...0
-
UltimateRBF wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »Lourdesong wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »
Literally all processed food is low in magnesium? So my processed, GNC vitamin tablets, with the magnesium: 300%, are low in magnesium?lindsey1979 wrote: »
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?lindsey1979 wrote: »
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.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.
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).
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.
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.
-1 -
No, but I feel better0
-
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.0 -
lindsey1979 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Yes, I think satiety is extremely commonly addressed when we get a post like "hypothetically, could I lose weight eating only junk food?" I know I always mention it, as well as general health and how one would feel. For example, I say in theory someone could lose weight eating 1200 if only cake, but I'd feel horrible if I tried and I suspect I simply could not manage to stick to 1200 (or even 1500), at least not unless it were an experiment I had high incentive to stick to.
Here, OP indicated that she ate a mostly nutritious, whole-foods diet, so I don't see satiety as an issue. I eat some ice cream or the like regularly within my calorie goals (or perhaps some pork shoulder vs. pork chops), and have no issue with satiety because I eat lots of food that's satisfying and filling to me (and tons of vegetables and protein). 100% vs. 90% or whatever really shouldn't make that big a difference.
Beyond that, I really don't understand why people keep assuming that "processed food" = not nutritious or not satiety promoting. As I've mentioned several times, the most common processed foods I eat are ones that make my breakfast more filling -- specifically lowfat dairy like cottage cheese or greek yogurt or smoked salmon or protein powder. I also find Quest bars pretty filling, and while I'd never sub ice cream for a meal or anything I find it perfectly filling as a dessert. (OP specifically mentioned a FiberOne bar, which I've never had, but sounds like it might have, well, lots of fiber and be a small dessert vs. her main diet.)
As for processed foods that are considered "junk" food by some, I had a Giordano's pizza slice for lunch on Friday (spinach stuffed). I had it due to a work thing -- Giordano's is not my favorite and usually would not be considered worth the calories to me -- but one slice with salad fit into my calories fine and was actually extremely filling. I had a ton of vegetables that day too, so imagine the processed pizza won't ruin my nutrition.
It's probably your definition of processed food. In my experience, people aren't generally referring to things like "cottage cheese or greek yogurt or smoked salmon or protein powder" relative to processed food. They're usually thinking more along the lines of junk food (twinkies, pop tarts, etc.), sodas, tv dinners, mass produced cookies, crackers, etc. That's why some opt for the term "highly processed" to separate it out from things like traditional cheese, yogurt, smoked salmon, etc.
I think most will realize that there are exceptions to some rules -- where things are fairly processed but still offer a lot of nutritional advantages or the preservatives/additives are very low/non-existent. Things like BCAAs, protein powder, quest bars, etc.
Protein powder and cereal bars are only "fairly processed" in your definition? I'd say they're probably more processed than some of the stuff you call "ultra processed".
And besides, as I said, your whole argument over the last few pages falls flat because even ultra processed foods can and are enriched with micronutrients, all the time.0 -
What? All processed food has some universal thing in it that causes you issues?cushman5279 wrote: »The only difference I notice is when I eat processed stuff I feel like ***** and it takes me a day or two to get rid of the processed food hangover. When my nutrition is squeaky clean I feel awesome.
it has blood sugar imbalancing properties
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions