Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Is the amount of easy access processed food harming dieters health?
Options
Replies
-
Lovee_Dove7 wrote: »When people say something is working for them, I like to see pics.
I also wonder if they have measures of health like lab tests, for example, that have improved, and if they feel more comfortable and happy.
So many of those who continually pluck the CICO note don't have pics of themselves, and/or current pics, either.
I also wonder, what do they mean "working"?? That's a general term.
Do they mean the scale number went down? That's the guaranteed end result of CICO.
But HOW and WHAT you eat is going to produce different results for different people. If a certain picture comes into your mind of what "works" or what "results" you are after, then CICO is ONLY THE STARTING POINT.
The term "processed" and "clean" are also general terms. Whey protein is processed, but I eat it regularly. However, many or most processed foods I am not comfortable including in my diet, including many of the vegetable oils, refined grains, and packaged processed foods. I think they can be harmful to the metabolism.
Some of us would prefer not to make it quite so easy for anyone to know exactly who we are, where we work and where we live. Basic search algorithms can take pics posted here and match them up to pics elsewhere on the web - like websites with pics of current and former students/staff/employees. It's not a big step from there to home address and phone number. You won't find me posting a pic of myself on any board like this, ever. On a professional networking board where giving out contact info is the whole point - that's a different story.
I could provide lab work if I had a copy. I don't bother to hang on to it. Not that it would make a difference, mine is excellent and always has been. No significant change regardless of diet or weight (was never clinically overweight).
ETA: And CICO - it IS only for weight loss. We're not debating CICO & nutrition here, we're debating whether easy access processed foods are worse than non-processed. To throw my opinion into the ring, it's not that they're processed. Processed foods can be as nutritious or void of nutrition as non-processed. It's that they are easy access and therefore easy to obtain and eat. Eat when you're not hungry, eat when you don't really want that food (but it's easy, so why not).0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
But do you think there's any chance that within 15-20 years things may change if you continue to eat over 3,000 mg of sodium a day on a regular basis?WinoGelato wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »
Interesting. I never snoop in anyone's diary unless they ask me to. Different strokes for different folks.
My diary is for me. I feel no need to share it with anyone else, unless I am asking for help.
I'm not particularly interested in other peoples diaries either. But when I read posts saying "I eat chocolate, chips and drink booze every day, I make it fit", then I get curious to see how they manage it within their calories in the hopes of getting some pointers, and 9 times out of 10 their diaries are closed :huh:
I only snoop when someone asserts that they don't eat processed foods, since I am always curious what they really mean by that, or if someone asks for help as to why they aren't losing, and have the same experience. Do you think maybe that's because the default is a closed diary?
I don't know why it's the default. It seems more people prefer it closed than open, each have their own individual reasons.
But I've noticed some of the most vocal and confident cico eat anything you want supporters have closed diaries.
Mine's open and you'll find plenty of processed foods, chocolate and wine. I take a multi vitamin every day as well.
My last physical had perfect blood work. I've never had high blood pressure although my mom and sister both do. I lost >30 lbs and am maintaining that loss. My TDEE as a petite female over 40 is 2200 so my metabolism seems to be ok as well.
But I guess I should inform my body that we are doomed to be unhealthy because of processed foods.
But every minor decision you make in life is a risk/reward proposition. Every time you step off the curb onto the street, every time you decide to drive today instead of take the train, every time you walk up to someone in a bar and say hello. If you are going to parse these decisions down to, "Will this maybe cause some kind of harm 15 years from now" you might as well start furnishing the panic room you're going to end up living in.
And again, I think you're generalizing. Not all processed food is high in sodium, or sugar, or anything else. I would say my diet is probably 50% (maybe a little more) what we are generalizing as processed: frozen dinners, waffles, packaged soup, protein bars, deli meat, pretzels and chips, pasta, ice cream, cereal, flavored yogurt, fast food. The rest is fresh meat, eggs, produce, whole grains, dairy etc. And yet the only time I go over my sodium number is when we get take out Chinese. And the only time I ever go over the MFP default for sugar is when I drink a regular soda, which is infrequent. I haven't gotten a cold in three years. I have freakishly low blood pressure, and normal blood glucose levels. I have never been officially overweight, but managed to lose 15 vanity lbs last year. And I'm 43, so it's not like youth is covering over my many sins.
I just think this thread is WAY over-generalizing the type of diet that puts you at some kind of health risk. Just the act of "processing" food does not make it high in sodium, high in sugar, or poisonous to your insides.
But do you think there's any chance that within 15-20 years things may change if you continue to step off the curb onto the street on a regular basis?
Perhaps we will have driverless cars in automatic lanes before I push that envelope one time too many and get flattened by a bus. I'm sure the wireless signals from the driverless cars will just give me cancer instead
0 -
Lovee_Dove7 wrote: »When people say something is working for them, I like to see pics.
I also wonder if they have measures of health like lab tests, for example, that have improved, and if they feel more comfortable and happy.
So many of those who continually pluck the CICO note don't have pics of themselves, and/or current pics, either.
I also wonder, what do they mean "working"?? That's a general term.
Do they mean the scale number went down? That's the guaranteed end result of CICO.
But HOW and WHAT you eat is going to produce different results for different people. If a certain picture comes into your mind of what "works" or what "results" you are after, then CICO is ONLY THE STARTING POINT.
The term "processed" and "clean" are also general terms. Whey protein is processed, but I eat it regularly. However, many or most processed foods I am not comfortable including in my diet, including many of the vegetable oils, refined grains, and packaged processed foods. I think they can be harmful to the metabolism.
Have you seen this guy's thread? He intentionally ate a diet heavy in junk food to see what would happen.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10348650/cico-still-skeptical-come-inside-for-a-meticulous-log-that-proves-it/p1
To be fair, she isn't denying that people lose weight that way. She would probably have a harder timer arguing about his profile picture.
I said in another thread that this these statements look like moving the goalpost. Once someone is forced to acknowledge that you can lose weight from any diet, so long as the calories are low, they want to make it about some intangible, immeasurable thing called health because no one can prove someone is healthy, and people want to preserve their beliefs that something as lofty as being healthy requires sacrifice and denial.
Well and my observation is that no matter what examples people throw out in these type of threads, the people who are advocating that "clean eating" is better, that people who eat processed foods don't care about their health or couldn't possibly be healthy eating that way, will never take the examples provided as being valid. In threads like these people have ticked off a number of nutrient dense processed foods like steel cut oats, greek yogurt, frozen vegetables, cottage cheese, etc as "processed" and the clean eaters say, "that's not what I would consider processed, I'm talking about people who eat frozen meals and boxed meals". So I put my own diet out there as an example, because I do eat those type of foods on a fairly regular basis. Still my examples were dismissed because someone said, "the people who eat pop tarts, packaged meals, and takeout day in and day out are generally obese and unhealthy". I'm neither obese, nor unhealthy.
I think the point I'm trying to make is that it isn't the food itself which is making these people obese/unhealthy. It is their overall lifestyle that is unhealthy - too many calories, too little exercise - and the processed nature of the food they are eating is not what is to blame. But as you point out, saying that puts all the responsibility on the individual, and it is a lot easier to blame a particular food, or an entire industry "Big Junk Food" as being responsible.1 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
But do you think there's any chance that within 15-20 years things may change if you continue to eat over 3,000 mg of sodium a day on a regular basis?WinoGelato wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »
Interesting. I never snoop in anyone's diary unless they ask me to. Different strokes for different folks.
My diary is for me. I feel no need to share it with anyone else, unless I am asking for help.
I'm not particularly interested in other peoples diaries either. But when I read posts saying "I eat chocolate, chips and drink booze every day, I make it fit", then I get curious to see how they manage it within their calories in the hopes of getting some pointers, and 9 times out of 10 their diaries are closed :huh:
I only snoop when someone asserts that they don't eat processed foods, since I am always curious what they really mean by that, or if someone asks for help as to why they aren't losing, and have the same experience. Do you think maybe that's because the default is a closed diary?
I don't know why it's the default. It seems more people prefer it closed than open, each have their own individual reasons.
But I've noticed some of the most vocal and confident cico eat anything you want supporters have closed diaries.
Mine's open and you'll find plenty of processed foods, chocolate and wine. I take a multi vitamin every day as well.
My last physical had perfect blood work. I've never had high blood pressure although my mom and sister both do. I lost >30 lbs and am maintaining that loss. My TDEE as a petite female over 40 is 2200 so my metabolism seems to be ok as well.
But I guess I should inform my body that we are doomed to be unhealthy because of processed foods.
But every minor decision you make in life is a risk/reward proposition. Every time you step off the curb onto the street, every time you decide to drive today instead of take the train, every time you walk up to someone in a bar and say hello. If you are going to parse these decisions down to, "Will this maybe cause some kind of harm 15 years from now" you might as well start furnishing the panic room you're going to end up living in.
I agree with the whole post, but wanted to highlight this bit. I try to eat a generally healthful diet, but agonizing over every individual food choice being perfect or what the possible health effects could be (when you can find studies or some opinion or another that make you feel bad about ANY choice you might make) would cause me enough stress that I'd probably be undermining any positive health results.
One benefit of processed foods (including processed foods I used to pointlessly avoid just because they didn't fit my idea of a perfect diet) is that they can make having a mostly whole-foods based, home-cooked diet a lot easier, for a busy person, and frankly I think the benefit of having a meal with a sensible balance of lean protein, carbs, and a good many vegetables is a LOT higher, for me anyway, than worrying about whether my pasta should be homemade or that I used canned black beans because I didn't plan ahead enough to deal with dried (oh, and the can I used last night has 15 mg of sodium for a serving, which is fine with me).
I know from experience that if I make it easier on myself to cook at home, I will eat lots of reasonable calorie, nutrient-dense homecooked meals. If I create false burdens by telling myself it's a failure to ever use processed foods it will start feeling like a chore, I'll limit my choices too much, and make the whole thing more difficult. And I'm someone who enjoys cooking!
One thing that I found informative was reading about blue zones and other food cultures, as I think relaxing about food, enjoying ourselves, and realizing there's a lot of diversity that allows for positive results and it's not worth worrying. So for me, I try to get plenty of nutrient-dense foods in my diet and don't otherwise worry to much. If eating well seems super complicated, you are probably making it so.0 -
Healthy, clean, muscle buidling ... incredibly processed and frozen foods:
http://www.bodybuilding.com/store/b-elite-fuel/essential.html;jsessionid=710321B2E4D6086F1F8B7CAC7D6B3EFE
Good, bad, something else?0 -
Lovee_Dove7 wrote: »If you are losing weight, it's because you have a deficit. So what dieter is not CICO?
But a scale number is not the only thing I'm looking for, therefore types of foods and macros are important to me.
I aim to eat the majority of my food as my idea of natural, not processed.
What does NOT work for me is "eat whatever you want as long as it fits in your macros." Not all foods agree with my system. The metabolism responds to the type of diet you choose, and I think that's a good thing.
That's called backpedaling, there. Define 'processed'. Milk is processed. Frozen food is processed.
The metabolism responds to your activity level, not the type of food that you eat, when eating as we're discussing -well rounded, macro eating in moderation. And not getting into semantics, like whether or not you have food intolerances (lots of us do).0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »The sodium recommendation is hotly debated and not well supported, especially for people without any high blood pressure or indications of risk: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/04/06/more-scientists-doubt-salt-is-as-bad-for-you-as-the-government-says/
It also depends on lots of other lifestyle factors, like whether you do cardio (I do endurance sports, and lots of people end up supplementing sodium on long runs and rides) and whether you get lots of potassium in your diet.
And some people are just lucky.
Around the time I started on here (2013), a visiting PI from Harvard gave a talk on how he was investigating the effects of sodium on the immune system. At the time, his preliminary findings indicated that there was a negative effect. However, I've noticed that research has since been pulled from his personal page and he's never published anything on the subject.
Guessing his experiments did not pan out.0 -
Funny thing, about your view of the concept - if an emergency ever happens, cat food is actually fairly safe to eat. Most dog food? Bad idea. Cats, however, are a little more vulnerable to health issues, and the food produced for them (US standards at least) has to be fairly close to human standards. Just a little zombie apocalypse survival tip if you find all your fellow survivors have raided the grocery stores but the pet food stores are unguarded, and you need to pick out which can to grab before the zombie grabs you.
I'll be eating the cat ;-)
0 -
I kind of feel like I need to stand up for canned chicken a little more robustly since that's our example to kick around.
Normally (and by normally, I mean this is my occasionally-achieved pastoral ideal of proper French Peasant cookery), I buy a $15-$20 pasture-raised Poulet Rouge breed chicken from a local farmer who also supplies one of the finest French restaurants in the region. This weekend, I brought one out of the freezer, spend a lot of time defrosting it, made a paprika marinade, basted it overnight, then roasted it the next day. We ate a little bit and then picked the rest of the meat for stews and such, and the bones will be used for stock. It will come in handy for the next time I get food-snobby again and make noodles from scratch, can jam from organic fruits lovingly cultivated in my back yard, or perhaps just preen and prance about a little with my Julia Child bible clutched in my butter-lovin' hands.
However, I also keep a few cans of chicken on hand, locally Amish-raised and Amish-processed. "Grabill Meats" brand in a brown paper wrapper. What comes out of the can is not really processed beyond cooking; it's chunks and scraps of actual chicken and nothing mechanically removed. (Anything involved "pink slime" would be utterly abhorrent and not allowed in my house, just because, ew). In a pinch, I will use this to make chicken and noodles, chicken and dumplings with a mirepoix, white chicken chili, or chicken and andouille gumbo. Each of these is made with a roux (from light for the chili to darkest brown for the gumbo) and homemade Poulet Rouge stock. And, while the texture is not quite as great as the carefully-roasted, hand-picked meat, it's really the roux and the stock that make the dishes.
I agree it's an inferior ingredient to what my pastoral "ideal" is, but it fits into an actual real life, is much quicker and more economical, and doesn't make that much of a difference if you have the technique to build up layers of complex flavor. Also, if you are feeding 50+ people, you can use one good chicken for the "base" (stock and picked meat) and really stretch the gumbo (or whatever) with store-bought stock and canned chicken.
So....I am probably not the best example of a processed diet, because I grow a lot of my own food and like to cook from scratch, but I also eat out a lot and am generally eating bread from a bag and cereal from a box. I have lost 20 lbs just on MFP, and probably 40 lbs from my worst point last winter, strictly through CICO, as I haven't changed my underlying eating patterns dramatically; I've just cut things back. I brought my blood pressure down from prehypertension to 111/70 just through CICO. Although all my other health markers were good, I have also lowered my LDL cholesterol and significantly boosted my HDL.0 -
Funny thing, about your view of the concept - if an emergency ever happens, cat food is actually fairly safe to eat. Most dog food? Bad idea. Cats, however, are a little more vulnerable to health issues, and the food produced for them (US standards at least) has to be fairly close to human standards. Just a little zombie apocalypse survival tip if you find all your fellow survivors have raided the grocery stores but the pet food stores are unguarded, and you need to pick out which can to grab before the zombie grabs you.
I'll be eating the cat ;-)
Ah, the ATM diet.0 -
Funny thing, about your view of the concept - if an emergency ever happens, cat food is actually fairly safe to eat. Most dog food? Bad idea. Cats, however, are a little more vulnerable to health issues, and the food produced for them (US standards at least) has to be fairly close to human standards. Just a little zombie apocalypse survival tip if you find all your fellow survivors have raided the grocery stores but the pet food stores are unguarded, and you need to pick out which can to grab before the zombie grabs you.
I'll be eating the cat ;-)
Ah, the ATM diet.
Which is way better than Bateman's diet in the book.0 -
Funny thing, about your view of the concept - if an emergency ever happens, cat food is actually fairly safe to eat. Most dog food? Bad idea. Cats, however, are a little more vulnerable to health issues, and the food produced for them (US standards at least) has to be fairly close to human standards. Just a little zombie apocalypse survival tip if you find all your fellow survivors have raided the grocery stores but the pet food stores are unguarded, and you need to pick out which can to grab before the zombie grabs you.
I'll be eating the cat ;-)
Ah, the ATM diet.
Having worked in smut shop, this is utterly horrifying to me...0 -
tincanonastring wrote: »Funny thing, about your view of the concept - if an emergency ever happens, cat food is actually fairly safe to eat. Most dog food? Bad idea. Cats, however, are a little more vulnerable to health issues, and the food produced for them (US standards at least) has to be fairly close to human standards. Just a little zombie apocalypse survival tip if you find all your fellow survivors have raided the grocery stores but the pet food stores are unguarded, and you need to pick out which can to grab before the zombie grabs you.
I'll be eating the cat ;-)
Ah, the ATM diet.
Having worked in smut shop, this is utterly horrifying to me...
Different ATM? I'd say ATM machine but the redundancy bothers me, and also I don't like it.0 -
tincanonastring wrote: »Funny thing, about your view of the concept - if an emergency ever happens, cat food is actually fairly safe to eat. Most dog food? Bad idea. Cats, however, are a little more vulnerable to health issues, and the food produced for them (US standards at least) has to be fairly close to human standards. Just a little zombie apocalypse survival tip if you find all your fellow survivors have raided the grocery stores but the pet food stores are unguarded, and you need to pick out which can to grab before the zombie grabs you.
I'll be eating the cat ;-)
Ah, the ATM diet.
Having worked in smut shop, this is utterly horrifying to me...
Different ATM? I'd say ATM machine but the redundancy bothers me, and also I don't like it.
Different ATM but both involve a withdrawal. That's about as much as I'm willing to say on the topic.0 -
tincanonastring wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »Funny thing, about your view of the concept - if an emergency ever happens, cat food is actually fairly safe to eat. Most dog food? Bad idea. Cats, however, are a little more vulnerable to health issues, and the food produced for them (US standards at least) has to be fairly close to human standards. Just a little zombie apocalypse survival tip if you find all your fellow survivors have raided the grocery stores but the pet food stores are unguarded, and you need to pick out which can to grab before the zombie grabs you.
I'll be eating the cat ;-)
Ah, the ATM diet.
Having worked in smut shop, this is utterly horrifying to me...
Different ATM? I'd say ATM machine but the redundancy bothers me, and also I don't like it.
Different ATM but both involve a withdrawal. That's about as much as I'm willing to say on the topic.
Yeah, American Psycho doesn't have a thing on Human Centipede.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »Lovee_Dove7 wrote: »If you are losing weight, it's because you have a deficit. So what dieter is not CICO?
But a scale number is not the only thing I'm looking for, therefore types of foods and macros are important to me.
I aim to eat the majority of my food as my idea of natural, not processed.
What does NOT work for me is "eat whatever you want as long as it fits in your macros." Not all foods agree with my system. The metabolism responds to the type of diet you choose, and I think that's a good thing.
There's plenty of natural foods that don't agree with some People's metabolisms either. Peanuts, even a lchf food on top of being natural, can straight up kill people whose bodies "don't agree with them".
Also you're going on about how foods are different and all but cut out everything not natural by your Definition even though those processed foods are just as different in their nutrition and ingredients too, just because... Why exactly? Do you think they're inherently Bad for you while natural things are inherently good?
Ultimately, for me, if I only focus on fulfilling macros, and let myself eat whatever foods most appeal to my appetite at the time, I tend to have a greater appetite, and I struggle to stay in a deficit (if I'm on a deficit) or to stay in maintenance. I associate this with processed, refined foods.0 -
Lovee_Dove7 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Lovee_Dove7 wrote: »If you are losing weight, it's because you have a deficit. So what dieter is not CICO?
But a scale number is not the only thing I'm looking for, therefore types of foods and macros are important to me.
I aim to eat the majority of my food as my idea of natural, not processed.
What does NOT work for me is "eat whatever you want as long as it fits in your macros." Not all foods agree with my system. The metabolism responds to the type of diet you choose, and I think that's a good thing.
There's plenty of natural foods that don't agree with some People's metabolisms either. Peanuts, even a lchf food on top of being natural, can straight up kill people whose bodies "don't agree with them".
Also you're going on about how foods are different and all but cut out everything not natural by your Definition even though those processed foods are just as different in their nutrition and ingredients too, just because... Why exactly? Do you think they're inherently Bad for you while natural things are inherently good?
Ultimately, for me, if I only focus on fulfilling macros, and let myself eat whatever foods most appeal to my appetite at the time, I tend to have a greater appetite, and I struggle to stay in a deficit (if I'm on a deficit) or to stay in maintenance. I associate this with processed, refined foods.
That is your appetite, not your metabolism.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I know the main aim of dieting for most of us is to lose weight but what could processed food be doing to our organs? I'm honestly interested in whether being thin but eating these sorts of foods has a detrimental effect on health?
I don't think there is a simple answer to that question. It depends on the over balance of foods, genetics, medical history/problems, etc.
I think that in general, being very overweight/obese while eating whole/minimally processed foods is more likely to cause health problems than being thin and eating a lot of processed foods.
I think being overweight and eating whole, minimally processed foods would be healthier than being thin and eating a lot of highly processed foods.
0 -
Lovee_Dove7 wrote: »If you are losing weight, it's because you have a deficit. So what dieter is not CICO?
But a scale number is not the only thing I'm looking for, therefore types of foods and macros are important to me.
I aim to eat the majority of my food as my idea of natural, not processed.
What does NOT work for me is "eat whatever you want as long as it fits in your macros." Not all foods agree with my system. The metabolism responds to the type of diet you choose, and I think that's a good thing.
That's called backpedaling, there. Define 'processed'. Milk is processed. Frozen food is processed.
The metabolism responds to your activity level, not the type of food that you eat, when eating as we're discussing -well rounded, macro eating in moderation. And not getting into semantics, like whether or not you have food intolerances (lots of us do).
Some would say an unprocessed food is raw, having nothing done to it. Cooking, boiling grilling a vegetable you bought fresh is a processed food. As pointed out unless you milked it and drank it fresh, milk is processed. By the way, milk in cartons doesn't taste like fresh milk out of cows or goats either.
It might do us well to define 'processed'. We could have minimally processed, like cooked food. More highly processed food, and what people call 'junk food'. I dunno, just a suggestion. These definitions might sway the discussion towards more people agreeing its better to eat less processed foods for health reasons.
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I know the main aim of dieting for most of us is to lose weight but what could processed food be doing to our organs? I'm honestly interested in whether being thin but eating these sorts of foods has a detrimental effect on health?
I don't think there is a simple answer to that question. It depends on the over balance of foods, genetics, medical history/problems, etc.
I think that in general, being very overweight/obese while eating whole/minimally processed foods is more likely to cause health problems than being thin and eating a lot of processed foods.
I think being overweight and eating whole, minimally processed foods would be healthier than being thin and eating a lot of highly processed foods.
Why?0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K 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
- 916 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions