Do you lose more when you eat less processed food?
Options
Replies
-
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.
Three examples of the less nutritious aspect of highly processed foods are (1) magnesium deficiency and (2) potential impacts of high fructose corn syrup (HFCS).
Magnesium Deficiency
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.
High Fructose Corn Syrup
Another example which is being currently being debated is the addition of high fructose corn syrup to so many highly processed foods. That due to the chemical nature of and between the bonds between the glucose and fructose, it's digested differently than other sweeteners such as sucrose (table sugar) or seen in other naturally occuring places like the fructose in fruits (which also have fiber). Some have hypothesized the lack of a chemical bond between glucose and fructose in HFCS (unlike the bond you see between two glucose molecules in sugar) results in quicker absorption to the blood stream, creating an exaggerated insulin response and contributing to insulin resistance for those with diets with a lot of HFCS. Since so many people have insulin resistance in the US these days (over 45% of US adults), this makes sense. There is some evidence that it damages the intestinal lining of the gut due to its chemical composition and/or causes inflammation which impedes absorption of vitamins and minerals.
Added Sugar
A LOT of highly processed foods contain added sugar. Why? Because it makes the food more palatable, spikes your pleasure centers in the brain (making you want to eat more) and can be used to extend shelf life. You see added sugar all over the place -- even in stuff you don't really consider sweet like potato chips or crackers. And there has been at least one study the directly accounted for the rise of obesity (and maybe insulin resistance or diabetes -- I've got to go back and look) with added sugar in the diet -- didn't see the differences in added calories (unless those calories were from sugar), different socioeconomic, etc. -- only in the amount of added sugar in the diet.
The research is in its infancy, so it's far from being definitive, but it's starting and some of the preliminary evidence should give one pause.
I'm sure there are other examples, but there are three which are currently be discovered and studied.
LOL0 -
Once again it is interesting to me how when someone asks a benign question about the difference between eating "clean" foods vs "whatever" foods (which is a new label but kind of fun), everyone assumes that they mean that person eats EXCLUSIVELY clean vs EXCLUSIVELY processed. I don't know many people who eat 100% either way. If someone says they do, they are likely lying, exaggerating, or just using different definitions of clean and processed than I would.
OP came back and clarified that her "whatever" example was just a single serving of ice cream or a latte at the end of a primarily nutritious day. I really don't understand how anyone can believe that eating mostly whole foods all day long, and then throwing in a half cup of gelato or coffee drink at the end of the day can somehow invalidate the entire day's worth of good nutrition or throw off your weight loss (unless that treat dips into your calorie deficit for the day of course).
0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »OP came back and clarified that her "whatever" example was just a single serving of ice cream or a latte at the end of a primarily nutritious day. I really don't understand how anyone can believe that eating mostly whole foods all day long, and then throwing in a half cup of gelato or coffee drink at the end of the day can somehow invalidate the entire day's worth of good nutrition or throw off your weight loss (unless that treat dips into your calorie deficit for the day of course).
This is what makes it especially remarkable here. OP was quite clear.0 -
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.
Three examples of the less nutritious aspect of highly processed foods are (1) magnesium deficiency and (2) potential impacts of high fructose corn syrup (HFCS).
Magnesium Deficiency
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.
High Fructose Corn Syrup
Another example which is being currently being debated is the addition of high fructose corn syrup to so many highly processed foods. That due to the chemical nature of and between the bonds between the glucose and fructose, it's digested differently than other sweeteners such as sucrose (table sugar) or seen in other naturally occuring places like the fructose in fruits (which also have fiber). Some have hypothesized the lack of a chemical bond between glucose and fructose in HFCS (unlike the bond you see between two glucose molecules in sugar) results in quicker absorption to the blood stream, creating an exaggerated insulin response and contributing to insulin resistance for those with diets with a lot of HFCS. Since so many people have insulin resistance in the US these days (over 45% of US adults), this makes sense. There is some evidence that it damages the intestinal lining of the gut due to its chemical composition and/or causes inflammation which impedes absorption of vitamins and minerals.
Added Sugar
A LOT of highly processed foods contain added sugar. Why? Because it makes the food more palatable, spikes your pleasure centers in the brain (making you want to eat more) and can be used to extend shelf life. You see added sugar all over the place -- even in stuff you don't really consider sweet like potato chips or crackers. And there has been at least one study the directly accounted for the rise of obesity (and maybe insulin resistance or diabetes -- I've got to go back and look) with added sugar in the diet -- didn't see the differences in added calories (unless those calories were from sugar), different socioeconomic, etc. -- only in the amount of added sugar in the diet.
The research is in its infancy, so it's far from being definitive, but it's starting and some of the preliminary evidence should give one pause.
I'm sure there are other examples, but there are three which are currently be discovered and studied.
Fructose:
Except fructose has relatively little impact on insulin. It is the lowest GI of any sugar.
We also see diabetes as being pretty high in countries that continue to use cane sugar. In fact, Mexico has started to exceed the US in obesity and yet plenty of Americans import the Mexican versions of soft drinks for it to have real cane sugar.0 -
Years later and still one of my favorites simply because it validates the word "ain't".
Straight talk about high-fructose corn syrup: what it is and what it ain't:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19064536
0 -
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.
0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »Once again it is interesting to me how when someone asks a benign question about the difference between eating "clean" foods vs "whatever" foods (which is a new label but kind of fun), everyone assumes that they mean that person eats EXCLUSIVELY clean vs EXCLUSIVELY processed. I don't know many people who eat 100% either way. If someone says they do, they are likely lying, exaggerating, or just using different definitions of clean and processed than I would.
OP came back and clarified that her "whatever" example was just a single serving of ice cream or a latte at the end of a primarily nutritious day. I really don't understand how anyone can believe that eating mostly whole foods all day long, and then throwing in a half cup of gelato or coffee drink at the end of the day can somehow invalidate the entire day's worth of good nutrition or throw off your weight loss (unless that treat dips into your calorie deficit for the day of course).
Who did that? You say "everyone assumes" and yet I saw very few people make that assumption. Most just shared their experiences, which seem to be a major thrust of the OP's inquiry.
0 -
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.
Three examples of the less nutritious aspect of highly processed foods are (1) magnesium deficiency and (2) potential impacts of high fructose corn syrup (HFCS).
Magnesium Deficiency
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.
High Fructose Corn Syrup
Another example which is being currently being debated is the addition of high fructose corn syrup to so many highly processed foods. That due to the chemical nature of and between the bonds between the glucose and fructose, it's digested differently than other sweeteners such as sucrose (table sugar) or seen in other naturally occuring places like the fructose in fruits (which also have fiber). Some have hypothesized the lack of a chemical bond between glucose and fructose in HFCS (unlike the bond you see between two glucose molecules in sugar) results in quicker absorption to the blood stream, creating an exaggerated insulin response and contributing to insulin resistance for those with diets with a lot of HFCS. Since so many people have insulin resistance in the US these days (over 45% of US adults), this makes sense. There is some evidence that it damages the intestinal lining of the gut due to its chemical composition and/or causes inflammation which impedes absorption of vitamins and minerals.
Added Sugar
A LOT of highly processed foods contain added sugar. Why? Because it makes the food more palatable, spikes your pleasure centers in the brain (making you want to eat more) and can be used to extend shelf life. You see added sugar all over the place -- even in stuff you don't really consider sweet like potato chips or crackers. And there has been at least one study the directly accounted for the rise of obesity (and maybe insulin resistance or diabetes -- I've got to go back and look) with added sugar in the diet -- didn't see the differences in added calories (unless those calories were from sugar), different socioeconomic, etc. -- only in the amount of added sugar in the diet.
The research is in its infancy, so it's far from being definitive, but it's starting and some of the preliminary evidence should give one pause.
I'm sure there are other examples, but there are three which are currently be discovered and studied.
Fructose:
Except fructose has relatively little impact on insulin. It is the lowest GI of any sugar.
We also see diabetes as being pretty high in countries that continue to use cane sugar. In fact, Mexico has started to exceed the US in obesity and yet plenty of Americans import the Mexican versions of soft drinks for it to have real cane sugar.
I think there are two issues there. There is the impact of HFCS as I laid out (and it's far from definitive -- just some initial observations and hypotheses). And then there is the impact of added sugar on obesity (regardless of the source of the sugar --- includes sucrose, HFCS, etc.). I'm sure there is considerable overlap between the two, but I think they actually are two distinct and different issues.
0 -
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.
0 -
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).
0 -
lindsey1979 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Once again it is interesting to me how when someone asks a benign question about the difference between eating "clean" foods vs "whatever" foods (which is a new label but kind of fun), everyone assumes that they mean that person eats EXCLUSIVELY clean vs EXCLUSIVELY processed. I don't know many people who eat 100% either way. If someone says they do, they are likely lying, exaggerating, or just using different definitions of clean and processed than I would.
OP came back and clarified that her "whatever" example was just a single serving of ice cream or a latte at the end of a primarily nutritious day. I really don't understand how anyone can believe that eating mostly whole foods all day long, and then throwing in a half cup of gelato or coffee drink at the end of the day can somehow invalidate the entire day's worth of good nutrition or throw off your weight loss (unless that treat dips into your calorie deficit for the day of course).
Who did that? You say "everyone assumes" and yet I saw very few people make that assumption. Most just shared their experiences, which seem to be a major thrust of the OP's inquiry.
There were several points in this thread where people offered comments like, "yeah but if I eat processed food I will still be hungry so I will go over my calories and therefore won't lose weight" when the OP specifically indicated that the calorie count was the same, and people followed up pointing out that satiety wasn't the point of the discussion.
There were a couple of examples where people offered specific comparisons like: 1 snickers = 2 apples so apples are better than snickers for weight loss because it fills you up more (again assuming it has to be either or. Why can't I eat one apple and half a snickers?)
Then there was this recent one:Leaving adherence & satiety & well being & lifestyle out of it is strange to me bc they can't be abstracted from real-world experience.
I have lost weight eating the kind of highly processed food that people call "junk food" or "convenience food", yes.
I also didn't feel great after eating. I was also very, very sedentary, so my appetite was lower than it usually is. My body was thin but didn't look the best, bc of the no fitness aspect. I don't think I personally could sustain an active lifestyle on 1800 calories of "junk" food with any comfort for very long. With whole/"clean"/whatever foods, you usually get more volume and often satiety for the same # of calories. So to me, more food + more activity = feeling and looking better. If it's just about getting to a number on a scale, yeah, you can do it any way as long as you're eating less than you burn.
and not to mention your scenario about magnesium deficiency, which again seems to assume that people are eating primarily, or exclusively processed foods in order to yield that magnesium deficiency.
And this thread is not unique, the straw man arguments are boundless at MFP....0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Once again it is interesting to me how when someone asks a benign question about the difference between eating "clean" foods vs "whatever" foods (which is a new label but kind of fun), everyone assumes that they mean that person eats EXCLUSIVELY clean vs EXCLUSIVELY processed. I don't know many people who eat 100% either way. If someone says they do, they are likely lying, exaggerating, or just using different definitions of clean and processed than I would.
OP came back and clarified that her "whatever" example was just a single serving of ice cream or a latte at the end of a primarily nutritious day. I really don't understand how anyone can believe that eating mostly whole foods all day long, and then throwing in a half cup of gelato or coffee drink at the end of the day can somehow invalidate the entire day's worth of good nutrition or throw off your weight loss (unless that treat dips into your calorie deficit for the day of course).
Who did that? You say "everyone assumes" and yet I saw very few people make that assumption. Most just shared their experiences, which seem to be a major thrust of the OP's inquiry.
There were several points in this thread where people offered comments like, "yeah but if I eat processed food I will still be hungry so I will go over my calories and therefore won't lose weight" when the OP specifically indicated that the calorie count was the same, and people followed up pointing out that satiety wasn't the point of the discussion.
There were a couple of examples where people offered specific comparisons like: 1 snickers = 2 apples so apples are better than snickers for weight loss because it fills you up more (again assuming it has to be either or. Why can't I eat one apple and half a snickers?)
Then there was this recent one:Leaving adherence & satiety & well being & lifestyle out of it is strange to me bc they can't be abstracted from real-world experience.
I have lost weight eating the kind of highly processed food that people call "junk food" or "convenience food", yes.
I also didn't feel great after eating. I was also very, very sedentary, so my appetite was lower than it usually is. My body was thin but didn't look the best, bc of the no fitness aspect. I don't think I personally could sustain an active lifestyle on 1800 calories of "junk" food with any comfort for very long. With whole/"clean"/whatever foods, you usually get more volume and often satiety for the same # of calories. So to me, more food + more activity = feeling and looking better. If it's just about getting to a number on a scale, yeah, you can do it any way as long as you're eating less than you burn.
and not to mention your scenario about magnesium deficiency, which again seems to assume that people are eating primarily, or exclusively processed foods in order to yield that magnesium deficiency.
And this thread is not unique, the straw man arguments are boundless at MFP....
... again, i was talking about my experience.
By "junk" food I mean fast food like McD's burger meals, chips, highly processed prefab dinners, etc. The stuff most people on the planet understand by the phrase "junk food"0 -
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?
Possibly you do because of the difficulties of expressing the amount of calories actually delivered / available to the body in our current system of food labelling. Of course, if you are actually matching calories it won't make a difference.
This is an interesting take on the subject:
Calories aren't right on labels
and the comment section includes a contribution from the Twinkie Professor himself...
The conclusion is as follows:So, perhaps that's a better way to look at the problem: labels wouldn't be so misleading if we thought of their Kcal listings not as total Kcals, but as max Kcals you could get from any given food. And, if one is to determine some kind of main takeaway dietary message from all this discussion, it may be simply this: that by eating more whole, raw foods (like other animals and like our pre-human ancestors did), you can count on fewer Kcals (thank your microbes for halving the amounts of Kcals you absorb once food reaches your intestine); and you can count on greater digestive and metabolic costs by eating well-balanced meals containing plenty of fiber and protein per meal (think "python diet").0 -
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.0 -
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?
No one brought up "highly processed foods" but you.
No one suggested that anyone was eating only processed foods but you. Well, I guess some others went off on tangents about satiety which doesn't seem to apply to OP's scenario either.
OP asked if one would lose less weight eating a generally nutritious diet with some processed stuff (like a latte or some ice cream at the end of the day) and you answered with a complete non sequitur about magnesium, as if eating some processed stuff (like the smoked salmon and dairy I mentioned) meant that you ate ONLY highly processed meals and therefore would be lacking in various nutrients.
Heck, one type of processed food I eat is frozen fish, because fresh fish isn't often available to me (most fish I buy unfrozen at the store is previously frozen). Fish happens to be a good source of magnesium, and no, being frozen doesn't remove the nutrients. Same with bagged and washed greens (although in the summer I tend to get greens fresh anyway).0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Once again it is interesting to me how when someone asks a benign question about the difference between eating "clean" foods vs "whatever" foods (which is a new label but kind of fun), everyone assumes that they mean that person eats EXCLUSIVELY clean vs EXCLUSIVELY processed. I don't know many people who eat 100% either way. If someone says they do, they are likely lying, exaggerating, or just using different definitions of clean and processed than I would.
OP came back and clarified that her "whatever" example was just a single serving of ice cream or a latte at the end of a primarily nutritious day. I really don't understand how anyone can believe that eating mostly whole foods all day long, and then throwing in a half cup of gelato or coffee drink at the end of the day can somehow invalidate the entire day's worth of good nutrition or throw off your weight loss (unless that treat dips into your calorie deficit for the day of course).
Who did that? You say "everyone assumes" and yet I saw very few people make that assumption. Most just shared their experiences, which seem to be a major thrust of the OP's inquiry.
There were several points in this thread where people offered comments like, "yeah but if I eat processed food I will still be hungry so I will go over my calories and therefore won't lose weight" when the OP specifically indicated that the calorie count was the same, and people followed up pointing out that satiety wasn't the point of the discussion.
There were a couple of examples where people offered specific comparisons like: 1 snickers = 2 apples so apples are better than snickers for weight loss because it fills you up more (again assuming it has to be either or. Why can't I eat one apple and half a snickers?)
Then there was this recent one:Leaving adherence & satiety & well being & lifestyle out of it is strange to me bc they can't be abstracted from real-world experience.
I have lost weight eating the kind of highly processed food that people call "junk food" or "convenience food", yes.
I also didn't feel great after eating. I was also very, very sedentary, so my appetite was lower than it usually is. My body was thin but didn't look the best, bc of the no fitness aspect. I don't think I personally could sustain an active lifestyle on 1800 calories of "junk" food with any comfort for very long. With whole/"clean"/whatever foods, you usually get more volume and often satiety for the same # of calories. So to me, more food + more activity = feeling and looking better. If it's just about getting to a number on a scale, yeah, you can do it any way as long as you're eating less than you burn.
and not to mention your scenario about magnesium deficiency, which again seems to assume that people are eating primarily, or exclusively processed foods in order to yield that magnesium deficiency.
And this thread is not unique, the straw man arguments are boundless at MFP....
Why does the magnesium deficiency assume people are eating primarily or exclusively highly processed foods? Where do you draw that assumption?
I don't know what the pain point for that is -- is it 10% or 90%? I have no idea personally, just that it is an explanation posited by many by examining the lack of magnesium in highly processed foods (or issues that impede absorption of magnesium in highly processed foods).
I guess I'm just not used to seeing preemptive counters to non-existent strawman arguments. At least not in real life. MFP, well, that's another matter.
0 -
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.
0 -
lindsey1979 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Once again it is interesting to me how when someone asks a benign question about the difference between eating "clean" foods vs "whatever" foods (which is a new label but kind of fun), everyone assumes that they mean that person eats EXCLUSIVELY clean vs EXCLUSIVELY processed. I don't know many people who eat 100% either way. If someone says they do, they are likely lying, exaggerating, or just using different definitions of clean and processed than I would.
OP came back and clarified that her "whatever" example was just a single serving of ice cream or a latte at the end of a primarily nutritious day. I really don't understand how anyone can believe that eating mostly whole foods all day long, and then throwing in a half cup of gelato or coffee drink at the end of the day can somehow invalidate the entire day's worth of good nutrition or throw off your weight loss (unless that treat dips into your calorie deficit for the day of course).
Who did that? You say "everyone assumes" and yet I saw very few people make that assumption. Most just shared their experiences, which seem to be a major thrust of the OP's inquiry.
There were several points in this thread where people offered comments like, "yeah but if I eat processed food I will still be hungry so I will go over my calories and therefore won't lose weight" when the OP specifically indicated that the calorie count was the same, and people followed up pointing out that satiety wasn't the point of the discussion.
There were a couple of examples where people offered specific comparisons like: 1 snickers = 2 apples so apples are better than snickers for weight loss because it fills you up more (again assuming it has to be either or. Why can't I eat one apple and half a snickers?)
Then there was this recent one:Leaving adherence & satiety & well being & lifestyle out of it is strange to me bc they can't be abstracted from real-world experience.
I have lost weight eating the kind of highly processed food that people call "junk food" or "convenience food", yes.
I also didn't feel great after eating. I was also very, very sedentary, so my appetite was lower than it usually is. My body was thin but didn't look the best, bc of the no fitness aspect. I don't think I personally could sustain an active lifestyle on 1800 calories of "junk" food with any comfort for very long. With whole/"clean"/whatever foods, you usually get more volume and often satiety for the same # of calories. So to me, more food + more activity = feeling and looking better. If it's just about getting to a number on a scale, yeah, you can do it any way as long as you're eating less than you burn.
and not to mention your scenario about magnesium deficiency, which again seems to assume that people are eating primarily, or exclusively processed foods in order to yield that magnesium deficiency.
And this thread is not unique, the straw man arguments are boundless at MFP....
Why does the magnesium deficiency assume people are eating primarily or exclusively highly processed foods? Where do you draw that assumption?
I don't know what the pain point for that is -- is it 10% or 90%? I have no idea personally, just that it is an explanation posited by many by examining the lack of magnesium in highly processed foods (or issues that impede absorption of magnesium in highly processed foods).
I guess I'm just not used to seeing preemptive counters to non-existent strawman arguments. At least not in real life. MFP, well, that's another matter.
That was exactly the point that @lemurcat12 and @senecarr were trying to make to you.
The OP said she eats a mostly whole food diet but occasionally wants to have an ice cream or latte at the end of the day and asked if that would impact her weight loss.
You said:
Magnesium Deficiency
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.
We are asking, what is the tipping point for consumption of processed foods (ie what percentage) to result in magnesium deficiency, and what does any of that have to do with the question of whether or not a latte in the context of a primarily nutrient dense diet will impact your weight loss?
0 -
I eat a fair amount of canned tuna and salmon. It's a good source of protein that isn't too expensive. I love my greek yogurt (again, protein). Canned fruit (in pear juice) is a good option for me when fresh is out of season and too expensive. We eat whole-wheat spaghetti with vegetable rich sauce (neither from scratch). All of these help support a well-balance diet, IMO. But wouldn't most of them be considered processed?
The big question seems to be, exactly where is that line between processed and not? Canned fruit - processed or not? What if it was the fruit that grandma used to buy and home-can? (She used sugar water, which would qualify under medium syrup, not pear juice). What makes yogurt or cheese "worse" than milk? And why would home-made pasta be so much better than boxed?
About a dozen years ago, I lost a good amount of weight eating boxed frozen meals (along with fresh fruits and vegetables and cold cereal and other things that are various amounts of "processed.") It was all about calories. This time around, I'm cooking for my family, sometimes something from a box but often something from frozen meat (either pre-frozen or something I freeze after buying) and frozen or fresh veggies and rice (it's dried ... is that processed?) or pasta. I'm losing weight appropriate to the calories I'm eating this way too. So why would something "processed" (whatever that might mean) change CICO anyway?0 -
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.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 911 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions