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.
Ultraprocessed food and increased mortality risk?
Replies
-
Just a question - with the obvious exception of caloric intake, are there any other lines you folks draw, based on how a food is processed?
I have a few preferences, which I will admit are kind of arbitrary and probably make zero difference, but here they are:- Kosher hot dogs
- Olive oil bottled (and preferably sourced) in the US
- Fish sourced and packaged in the US or Canada
- No chicken 'patties' or 'nuggets' where the meat is processed and then formed back into a shape
But it's hard to carve the dinosaur nugget shapes out of an actual chicken cutlet
7 -
rheddmobile wrote: »Just a question - with the obvious exception of caloric intake, are there any other lines you folks draw, based on how a food is processed?
I won't eat pink slime - beef trimmings, taken from the more likely to be contaminated part of the meat, then sterilized using ammonia, ground into an unrecognizable paste, and mixed with regular beef so the consumer can't tell - because the whole idea is disgusting, and to me, it does still faintly smell of ammonia when cooking. I remember when Wendy's swapped to it and I didn't know, I just knew I really used to enjoy burgers and then suddenly it was like they had no flavor. Looked it up trying to figure out what changed and there it was. I think most places have stopped using it now (I remember reading all but one pink slime factory went out of business) but there was a period when it was nearly impossible to avoid because the lobbyists had gotten it so that it wasn't required to label it in any way differently from normal ground beef. So you can adulterate my food with ammonia, but it doesn't have to go on the ingredients list, because it's not an "ingredient," it's something used in processing?
Anyway since I almost never eat burgers anymore unless it's a special occasion it's become a moot point.
I am sitting in my truck and my jaw is literally hanging open. I've heard of pink slime, who hasn't by now? But ...well, I know some sources are questionable, so I'm hoping livescience.com is reputable, and they say exactly what you said and I just ate hamburger 2 nights ago. I obviously don't know if it had the filler or not, but just the thought of ingesting ammonia, even in minute amounts is revolting.
https://www.livescience.com/33786-pink-slime.html
jeez
0 -
rheddmobile wrote: »Just a question - with the obvious exception of caloric intake, are there any other lines you folks draw, based on how a food is processed?
I won't eat pink slime - beef trimmings, taken from the more likely to be contaminated part of the meat, then sterilized using ammonia, ground into an unrecognizable paste, and mixed with regular beef so the consumer can't tell - because the whole idea is disgusting, and to me, it does still faintly smell of ammonia when cooking. I remember when Wendy's swapped to it and I didn't know, I just knew I really used to enjoy burgers and then suddenly it was like they had no flavor. Looked it up trying to figure out what changed and there it was. I think most places have stopped using it now (I remember reading all but one pink slime factory went out of business) but there was a period when it was nearly impossible to avoid because the lobbyists had gotten it so that it wasn't required to label it in any way differently from normal ground beef. So you can adulterate my food with ammonia, but it doesn't have to go on the ingredients list, because it's not an "ingredient," it's something used in processing?
Anyway since I almost never eat burgers anymore unless it's a special occasion it's become a moot point.
I am sitting in my truck and my jaw is literally hanging open. I've heard of pink slime, who hasn't by now? But ...well, I know some sources are questionable, so I'm hoping livescience.com is reputable, and they say exactly what you said and I just ate hamburger 2 nights ago. I obviously don't know if it had the filler or not, but just the thought of ingesting ammonia, even in minute amounts is revolting.
https://www.livescience.com/33786-pink-slime.html
jeez
Dude, remember the video!
Also remember that unnecessary/inappropriate stress, in and of itself, is bad for you.
You can't un-eat it.
6 -
French_Peasant wrote: »French_Peasant wrote: »Here's Kevin Halls new study with ultra-processed foods, I don't think this has been linked yet?
https://osf.io/preprints/nutrixiv/w3zh2
WOW that study is insane! I would honestly stab myself after a single day on the ultra processed diet--just scrolling through the pictures makes me feel like heaving. (I would be down with the PB&J and the Egg McMuffin type thing, however, and I have the liquid scrambled eggs every morning from our cafeteria at work but they seem fine to me). That diet is nasty!
However, I have to note, they really tipped the scales toward one particular subset of ultra-processed food. They did not include vegetarian or protein-heavy, organic frozen dinners full of veggies, 100% whole grain bread, pizza loaded down with veggies, fruits at every meal canned in LIGHT syrup, frozen veggie burgers on whole grain buns, pasta with sauce very heavy on an assortment of veg, etc. all of which fall under the ultra processed rubric because they have additives to extend shelf life and come in fancy packaging that give the appearance of healthfulness. Also, what was the canned corn doing in there? That's not ultra-processed.
Still, I can believe that the less-processed diet would handily beat out the ultraprocessed diet on weight management.
This did catch my attention from the fasted blood testing:
"Interestingly, the appetite-suppressing hormone PYY increased during the unprocessed diet as compared with both the ultra-processed diet and baseline. In contrast, the hunger hormone ghrelin was decreased during the unprocessed diet compared to baseline."
Guilty admission: I haven't read the study yet, but plan to.
It seems like they'd want to test a relatively extremely "ultraprocessed" diet that's fairly typical of things commonly eaten. The things you list as being included seem to fit that.
I don't understand why they'd test with the closest-to-real-food alternatives that just barely meet the "ultraprocessed" definition - your "tipped scales" list. Around here, there may be people who eat that way, but it's not the standard "ultraprocessed" way of eating in the wild, statistically speaking.
It seems liked you'd want to test the common case, not the "just barely qualifies" uncommon case.
If I've misread this, one I've checked out the study, I'll come back and admit it.
Yes, I am sure they did it in order to be as dramatic as possible. But science is not about drama; it's about a dispassionate look at the facts based on the categories that have been created. Their specific choices should have been analyzed and discussed in the limitations. (and I just skimmed it, so maybe I missed the discussion). They are citing the NOVA parameters but not disclosing that there is a huge chunk of category 4. They are creating an "All Twinkies" straw man.
I would have actually liked to see that subset tested separately under the same conditions.
Do you guys really think the meals presented in the ultra-processed diet are the common case, where people are eating 100% ultra-processed? Not even any fresh pico or guac for their tortilla chips?
I skimmed through the study eager to get to the point with the actual daily menus, and was glad that not only did they list the foods, they had the brand names and a photo of each meal. What struck me, aside from some of the comments you and others have made about the extreme nature of the unprocessed foods they selected, is the VOLUME of food in those pictures. I went back to make sure I understood the study itself, are they saying they presented the participants (10 men and 10 women) that full amount of food, roughly 3,800 calories in both diets, and then they measured to see how much they actually consumed (energy intake) with the assumption that if you have a giant plate of food in front of you, that if you are eating the ultraprocessed stuff you'll keep eating but if it is the "unprocessed" (which let's be honest, many of the foods in that group were processed as well) you will be satiated and stop eating?
The plates/portions were gigantic and I'm just not sure, if people are isolated in a study (I think that's what it said, correct) away from their jobs and normal day to day activities, wouldn't you tend to eat more just out of boredom if it's sitting in front of you? Ultraprocessed or otherwise?
I also thought this must have been an interesting day in the respiratory chamber:
Day 5 (Respiratory Chamber)DinnerBeef and bean chili (Hormel) Shredded cheddar and Monterey Jack cheese (Glenview Farms)Sour cream (Glenview Farms)Tortilla chips (Tostitos)Salsa (del Posado)Diet Ginger Ale (Shasta)Peaches, canned in heavy syrup
But to your question in the bolded - I looked at that ultraprocessed diet and saw things that I eat... but yeah for me there would be other "un" processed or "less" processed things with it. The only vegetable I saw was canned corn. Just as I don't think it's realistic that the vast majority of people eat the way this study depicts for ultraprocessed without accidentally stumbling on some fresh fruits or vegetables or even a bagged salad with dressing on it - I also am always skeptical of people who claim to never use or eat any sort of processed foods. I mean really, you make every dressing from scratch? You never buy bags of frozen vegetables? You never eat baked chips with a sandwich for a quick lunch at home or while out running errands?
I know we are all in agreement that the way the information is presented is not accurately reflecting reality I just wish there was a way to make that case and get people to understand the middle ground that these "studies" and their conclusions seem to ignore.
7 -
Ah perspectiverheddmobile wrote: »Just a question - with the obvious exception of caloric intake, are there any other lines you folks draw, based on how a food is processed?
I won't eat pink slime - beef trimmings, taken from the more likely to be contaminated part of the meat, then sterilized using ammonia, ground into an unrecognizable paste, and mixed with regular beef so the consumer can't tell - because the whole idea is disgusting, and to me, it does still faintly smell of ammonia when cooking. I remember when Wendy's swapped to it and I didn't know, I just knew I really used to enjoy burgers and then suddenly it was like they had no flavor. Looked it up trying to figure out what changed and there it was. I think most places have stopped using it now (I remember reading all but one pink slime factory went out of business) but there was a period when it was nearly impossible to avoid because the lobbyists had gotten it so that it wasn't required to label it in any way differently from normal ground beef. So you can adulterate my food with ammonia, but it doesn't have to go on the ingredients list, because it's not an "ingredient," it's something used in processing?
Anyway since I almost never eat burgers anymore unless it's a special occasion it's become a moot point.
I am sitting in my truck and my jaw is literally hanging open. I've heard of pink slime, who hasn't by now? But ...well, I know some sources are questionable, so I'm hoping livescience.com is reputable, and they say exactly what you said and I just ate hamburger 2 nights ago. I obviously don't know if it had the filler or not, but just the thought of ingesting ammonia, even in minute amounts is revolting.
https://www.livescience.com/33786-pink-slime.html
jeez
Dude, remember the video!
Also remember that unnecessary/inappropriate stress, in and of itself, is bad for you.
You can't un-eat it.
:D Always highly valued 
2 -
Just a question - with the obvious exception of caloric intake, are there any other lines you folks draw, based on how a food is processed?
I have a few preferences, which I will admit are kind of arbitrary and probably make zero difference, but here they are:- Kosher hot dogs
- Olive oil bottled (and preferably sourced) in the US
- Fish sourced and packaged in the US or Canada
- No chicken 'patties' or 'nuggets' where the meat is processed and then formed back into a shape
But it's hard to carve the dinosaur nugget shapes out of an actual chicken cutlet
My poor children were so mistreated.1 -
French_Peasant wrote: »French_Peasant wrote: »Here's Kevin Halls new study with ultra-processed foods, I don't think this has been linked yet?
https://osf.io/preprints/nutrixiv/w3zh2
WOW that study is insane! I would honestly stab myself after a single day on the ultra processed diet--just scrolling through the pictures makes me feel like heaving. (I would be down with the PB&J and the Egg McMuffin type thing, however, and I have the liquid scrambled eggs every morning from our cafeteria at work but they seem fine to me). That diet is nasty!
However, I have to note, they really tipped the scales toward one particular subset of ultra-processed food. They did not include vegetarian or protein-heavy, organic frozen dinners full of veggies, 100% whole grain bread, pizza loaded down with veggies, fruits at every meal canned in LIGHT syrup, frozen veggie burgers on whole grain buns, pasta with sauce very heavy on an assortment of veg, etc. all of which fall under the ultra processed rubric because they have additives to extend shelf life and come in fancy packaging that give the appearance of healthfulness. Also, what was the canned corn doing in there? That's not ultra-processed.
Still, I can believe that the less-processed diet would handily beat out the ultraprocessed diet on weight management.
This did catch my attention from the fasted blood testing:
"Interestingly, the appetite-suppressing hormone PYY increased during the unprocessed diet as compared with both the ultra-processed diet and baseline. In contrast, the hunger hormone ghrelin was decreased during the unprocessed diet compared to baseline."
Guilty admission: I haven't read the study yet, but plan to.
It seems like they'd want to test a relatively extremely "ultraprocessed" diet that's fairly typical of things commonly eaten. The things you list as being included seem to fit that.
I don't understand why they'd test with the closest-to-real-food alternatives that just barely meet the "ultraprocessed" definition - your "tipped scales" list. Around here, there may be people who eat that way, but it's not the standard "ultraprocessed" way of eating in the wild, statistically speaking.
It seems liked you'd want to test the common case, not the "just barely qualifies" uncommon case.
If I've misread this, one I've checked out the study, I'll come back and admit it.
Yes, I am sure they did it in order to be as dramatic as possible. But science is not about drama; it's about a dispassionate look at the facts based on the categories that have been created. Their specific choices should have been analyzed and discussed in the limitations. (and I just skimmed it, so maybe I missed the discussion). They are citing the NOVA parameters but not disclosing that there is a huge chunk of category 4. They are creating an "All Twinkies" straw man.
I would have actually liked to see that subset tested separately under the same conditions.
Do you guys really think the meals presented in the ultra-processed diet are the common case, where people are eating 100% ultra-processed? Not even any fresh pico or guac for their tortilla chips?
No, it's not about drama. But I don't think this is about drama, nor a straw man situation, either.
Yes, they picked an extreme case. If you want to see if there are behavioral or outcome differences, you don't start by minimizing the differences in the cases. At this point in the development of actual tested conclusions or insights, trying to minimize the intake differences would be a bad study design. You start with stark cases. Also, they use the NOVA definitions, because those are the current standard for such studies. As a scientist, you don't just start making up new definitions: That's a different kind of research trajectory than this study means to pursue.
This is an early study, possibly the first of its particular type. It's an inpatient study, which is remarkable. They measured a bonanza of data points, and studied all of the patients on each of the diets (2 week period for each, so a total of 28 days for 20 people, which is remarkably long for an inpatient study). They matched the nutrients/calories presented in each group.
I think this is all very useful, and interesting, personally. I see no point in starting by comparing an "unprocessed" diet to a "close as we can get to being unprocessed without actually violating the definition of "ultraprocessed"" diet.
BTW, the "untraprocessed" diet had salsa with their taco and with their chips (and it looks like about the same amount as would be served in non-ethnic restaurants, with similar foods). (But, yes, not fresh pico: Salsa. Which is what most people I know would actually eat in routine daily life, me included, and probably consider to be about equally healthy.)
Overall, the ultra-processed diet looks fairly nutritious to me: Much more nutritious and less extreme than I would've guessed from your comments. They have veggies, beans, fruit. It probably includes more veggies/fruits than quite a few people eat (based on my admittedly limited observation of other people in my life, and reading MFP diaries). Yes, I think some people in my life would eat rather like the "unprocessed" case routinely, but of course few people in real life eat 100% "ultra-processed", either. But the overall character of that way of eating doesn't look that crazy.
Also, the "unprocessed" diet includes what we usually talk about here as nutritionally useful processed foods (like pasta, yogurt, frozen corn, skim milk, commercial fish and meat from sources like Tyson).
There are some fascinating nuggets in there, amongst the individual in-process and end-point measurements. It's worth reading closely, IMO. I don't see them as presenting this as the be-all and end-all, either. The formal conclusion is pretty moderate, and even delivers a polite science-y reality check on simply saying people should avoid eating ultra-processed foods.
We'll have to agree to disagree about the "drama" and "straw man" interpretation, I guess. :flowerforyou:4 -
French_Peasant wrote: »French_Peasant wrote: »Here's Kevin Halls new study with ultra-processed foods, I don't think this has been linked yet?
https://osf.io/preprints/nutrixiv/w3zh2
WOW that study is insane! I would honestly stab myself after a single day on the ultra processed diet--just scrolling through the pictures makes me feel like heaving. (I would be down with the PB&J and the Egg McMuffin type thing, however, and I have the liquid scrambled eggs every morning from our cafeteria at work but they seem fine to me). That diet is nasty!
However, I have to note, they really tipped the scales toward one particular subset of ultra-processed food. They did not include vegetarian or protein-heavy, organic frozen dinners full of veggies, 100% whole grain bread, pizza loaded down with veggies, fruits at every meal canned in LIGHT syrup, frozen veggie burgers on whole grain buns, pasta with sauce very heavy on an assortment of veg, etc. all of which fall under the ultra processed rubric because they have additives to extend shelf life and come in fancy packaging that give the appearance of healthfulness. Also, what was the canned corn doing in there? That's not ultra-processed.
Still, I can believe that the less-processed diet would handily beat out the ultraprocessed diet on weight management.
This did catch my attention from the fasted blood testing:
"Interestingly, the appetite-suppressing hormone PYY increased during the unprocessed diet as compared with both the ultra-processed diet and baseline. In contrast, the hunger hormone ghrelin was decreased during the unprocessed diet compared to baseline."
Guilty admission: I haven't read the study yet, but plan to.
It seems like they'd want to test a relatively extremely "ultraprocessed" diet that's fairly typical of things commonly eaten. The things you list as being included seem to fit that.
I don't understand why they'd test with the closest-to-real-food alternatives that just barely meet the "ultraprocessed" definition - your "tipped scales" list. Around here, there may be people who eat that way, but it's not the standard "ultraprocessed" way of eating in the wild, statistically speaking.
It seems liked you'd want to test the common case, not the "just barely qualifies" uncommon case.
If I've misread this, one I've checked out the study, I'll come back and admit it.
Yes, I am sure they did it in order to be as dramatic as possible. But science is not about drama; it's about a dispassionate look at the facts based on the categories that have been created. Their specific choices should have been analyzed and discussed in the limitations. (and I just skimmed it, so maybe I missed the discussion). They are citing the NOVA parameters but not disclosing that there is a huge chunk of category 4. They are creating an "All Twinkies" straw man.
I would have actually liked to see that subset tested separately under the same conditions.
Do you guys really think the meals presented in the ultra-processed diet are the common case, where people are eating 100% ultra-processed? Not even any fresh pico or guac for their tortilla chips?
No, it's not about drama. But I don't think this is about drama, nor a straw man situation, either.
Yes, they picked an extreme case. If you want to see if there are behavioral or outcome differences, you don't start by minimizing the differences in the cases. At this point in the development of actual tested conclusions or insights, trying to minimize the intake differences would be a bad study design. You start with stark cases. Also, they use the NOVA definitions, because those are the current standard for such studies. As a scientist, you don't just start making up new definitions: That's a different kind of research trajectory than this study means to pursue.
This is an early study, possibly the first of its particular type. It's an inpatient study, which is remarkable. They measured a bonanza of data points, and studied all of the patients on each of the diets (2 week period for each, so a total of 28 days for 20 people, which is remarkably long for an inpatient study). They matched the nutrients/calories presented in each group.
I think this is all very useful, and interesting, personally. I see no point in starting by comparing an "unprocessed" diet to a "close as we can get to being unprocessed without actually violating the definition of "ultraprocessed"" diet.
BTW, the "untraprocessed" diet had salsa with their taco and with their chips (and it looks like about the same amount as would be served in non-ethnic restaurants, with similar foods). (But, yes, not fresh pico: Salsa. Which is what most people I know would actually eat in routine daily life, me included, and probably consider to be about equally healthy.)
Overall, the ultra-processed diet looks fairly nutritious to me: Much more nutritious and less extreme than I would've guessed from your comments. They have veggies, beans, fruit. It probably includes more veggies/fruits than quite a few people eat (based on my admittedly limited observation of other people in my life, and reading MFP diaries). Yes, I think some people in my life would eat rather like the "unprocessed" case routinely, but of course few people in real life eat 100% "ultra-processed", either. But the overall character of that way of eating doesn't look that crazy.
Also, the "unprocessed" diet includes what we usually talk about here as nutritionally useful processed foods (like pasta, yogurt, frozen corn, skim milk, commercial fish and meat from sources like Tyson).
There are some fascinating nuggets in there, amongst the individual in-process and end-point measurements. It's worth reading closely, IMO. I don't see them as presenting this as the be-all and end-all, either. The formal conclusion is pretty moderate, and even delivers a polite science-y reality check on simply saying people should avoid eating ultra-processed foods.
We'll have to agree to disagree about the "drama" and "straw man" interpretation, I guess. :flowerforyou:
Nailed it. What a thoughtful assessment of the study and the interpretations that we are drawing here.
I also wanted to say, because I'm dealing with some frustrating negativity in other social media channels I participate in, that I always appreciate your level headedness and positivity in your communication style. You could teach a masters lever class in polite discourse on the internet.4 -
rheddmobile wrote: »Just a question - with the obvious exception of caloric intake, are there any other lines you folks draw, based on how a food is processed?
I won't eat pink slime - beef trimmings, taken from the more likely to be contaminated part of the meat, then sterilized using ammonia, ground into an unrecognizable paste, and mixed with regular beef so the consumer can't tell - because the whole idea is disgusting, and to me, it does still faintly smell of ammonia when cooking. I remember when Wendy's swapped to it and I didn't know, I just knew I really used to enjoy burgers and then suddenly it was like they had no flavor. Looked it up trying to figure out what changed and there it was. I think most places have stopped using it now (I remember reading all but one pink slime factory went out of business) but there was a period when it was nearly impossible to avoid because the lobbyists had gotten it so that it wasn't required to label it in any way differently from normal ground beef. So you can adulterate my food with ammonia, but it doesn't have to go on the ingredients list, because it's not an "ingredient," it's something used in processing?
Anyway since I almost never eat burgers anymore unless it's a special occasion it's become a moot point.
I am sitting in my truck and my jaw is literally hanging open. I've heard of pink slime, who hasn't by now? But ...well, I know some sources are questionable, so I'm hoping livescience.com is reputable, and they say exactly what you said and I just ate hamburger 2 nights ago. I obviously don't know if it had the filler or not, but just the thought of ingesting ammonia, even in minute amounts is revolting.
https://www.livescience.com/33786-pink-slime.html
jeez
How small an amount is revolting? Your body is generating ammonia from from various amino acids all the time and then packaging it up in the liver into urea.3 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »rheddmobile wrote: »Just a question - with the obvious exception of caloric intake, are there any other lines you folks draw, based on how a food is processed?
I won't eat pink slime - beef trimmings, taken from the more likely to be contaminated part of the meat, then sterilized using ammonia, ground into an unrecognizable paste, and mixed with regular beef so the consumer can't tell - because the whole idea is disgusting, and to me, it does still faintly smell of ammonia when cooking. I remember when Wendy's swapped to it and I didn't know, I just knew I really used to enjoy burgers and then suddenly it was like they had no flavor. Looked it up trying to figure out what changed and there it was. I think most places have stopped using it now (I remember reading all but one pink slime factory went out of business) but there was a period when it was nearly impossible to avoid because the lobbyists had gotten it so that it wasn't required to label it in any way differently from normal ground beef. So you can adulterate my food with ammonia, but it doesn't have to go on the ingredients list, because it's not an "ingredient," it's something used in processing?
Anyway since I almost never eat burgers anymore unless it's a special occasion it's become a moot point.
I am sitting in my truck and my jaw is literally hanging open. I've heard of pink slime, who hasn't by now? But ...well, I know some sources are questionable, so I'm hoping livescience.com is reputable, and they say exactly what you said and I just ate hamburger 2 nights ago. I obviously don't know if it had the filler or not, but just the thought of ingesting ammonia, even in minute amounts is revolting.
https://www.livescience.com/33786-pink-slime.html
jeez
How small an amount is revolting? Your body is generating ammonia from from various amino acids all the time and then packaging it up in the liver into urea.
It does?
I'm....seeing my pattern here, getting an education as well, but maybe it's time I simply read more and spoke less. Don't get me wrong, the info is appreciated, but my cycle of getting grossed out, then finding out it was over not much at all, repeating the pattern..what...4 times today??
Time for the older, obviously less knowledgeable guy to bow out...you folks are quite patient by the way...I'll wait for topics I might be able to actually speak to 2 -
Just a question - with the obvious exception of caloric intake, are there any other lines you folks draw, based on how a food is processed?
I have a few preferences, which I will admit are kind of arbitrary and probably make zero difference, but here they are:- Kosher hot dogs
- Olive oil bottled (and preferably sourced) in the US
- Fish sourced and packaged in the US or Canada
- No chicken 'patties' or 'nuggets' where the meat is processed and then formed back into a shape
That's tricky though since Mekong catfish is frequently falsely labeled as US catfish!
I have encountered Italian olive oil which was obviously corn oil with green food coloring, at a friend's house. It wasn't a big canister of cheap stuff, either, it was some fancy bottled stuff. Strong corn odor, no olive flavor. I can't remember the numbers but a study found that due to the organized crime involvement in Italian olive oil, a huge percentage was adulterated if it was looked at by DNA analysis.
I've had really good luck with Spanish olive oil, though. The American stuff is too hard for me to find locally unless it's ultra pricey.4 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »rheddmobile wrote: »Just a question - with the obvious exception of caloric intake, are there any other lines you folks draw, based on how a food is processed?
I won't eat pink slime - beef trimmings, taken from the more likely to be contaminated part of the meat, then sterilized using ammonia, ground into an unrecognizable paste, and mixed with regular beef so the consumer can't tell - because the whole idea is disgusting, and to me, it does still faintly smell of ammonia when cooking. I remember when Wendy's swapped to it and I didn't know, I just knew I really used to enjoy burgers and then suddenly it was like they had no flavor. Looked it up trying to figure out what changed and there it was. I think most places have stopped using it now (I remember reading all but one pink slime factory went out of business) but there was a period when it was nearly impossible to avoid because the lobbyists had gotten it so that it wasn't required to label it in any way differently from normal ground beef. So you can adulterate my food with ammonia, but it doesn't have to go on the ingredients list, because it's not an "ingredient," it's something used in processing?
Anyway since I almost never eat burgers anymore unless it's a special occasion it's become a moot point.
I am sitting in my truck and my jaw is literally hanging open. I've heard of pink slime, who hasn't by now? But ...well, I know some sources are questionable, so I'm hoping livescience.com is reputable, and they say exactly what you said and I just ate hamburger 2 nights ago. I obviously don't know if it had the filler or not, but just the thought of ingesting ammonia, even in minute amounts is revolting.
https://www.livescience.com/33786-pink-slime.html
jeez
How small an amount is revolting? Your body is generating ammonia from from various amino acids all the time and then packaging it up in the liver into urea.
It does?
I'm....seeing my pattern here, getting an education as well, but maybe it's time I simply read more and spoke less. Don't get me wrong, the info is appreciated, but my cycle of getting grossed out, then finding out it was over not much at all, repeating the pattern..what...4 times today??
Time for the older, obviously less knowledgeable guy to bow out...you folks are quite patient by the way...I'll wait for topics I might be able to actually speak to
To the bolded: Nah.
I mean, if you feel stressed or unhappy about it, sure, back off a bit. Otherwise, hang in.
Your questions just give us an opportunity to pontificate - always fun. Or you're a good straight man - equally fun.
There are people I wish would back out, but not because of the questions they ask . . . instead, it's the bogus truths they deliver (then get huffy about, because we're collectively mean and negative). 10 -
rheddmobile wrote: »Just a question - with the obvious exception of caloric intake, are there any other lines you folks draw, based on how a food is processed?
I have a few preferences, which I will admit are kind of arbitrary and probably make zero difference, but here they are:- Kosher hot dogs
- Olive oil bottled (and preferably sourced) in the US
- Fish sourced and packaged in the US or Canada
- No chicken 'patties' or 'nuggets' where the meat is processed and then formed back into a shape
That's tricky though since Mekong catfish is frequently falsely labeled as US catfish!
I have encountered Italian olive oil which was obviously corn oil with green food coloring, at a friend's house. It wasn't a big canister of cheap stuff, either, it was some fancy bottled stuff. Strong corn odor, no olive flavor. I can't remember the numbers but a study found that due to the organized crime involvement in Italian olive oil, a huge percentage was adulterated if it was looked at by DNA analysis.
I've had really good luck with Spanish olive oil, though. The American stuff is too hard for me to find locally unless it's ultra pricey.
We don't eat a lot of fish, to be honest, and usually cod when we do. I know you can never be 100% sure, though
I've heard the same about olive oil. It can get very pricey trying to find American ones! Now I want to go home and smell/taste my new bottle to make sure I didn't get duped (despite it saying it is from the US
) 0 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »rheddmobile wrote: »Just a question - with the obvious exception of caloric intake, are there any other lines you folks draw, based on how a food is processed?
I won't eat pink slime - beef trimmings, taken from the more likely to be contaminated part of the meat, then sterilized using ammonia, ground into an unrecognizable paste, and mixed with regular beef so the consumer can't tell - because the whole idea is disgusting, and to me, it does still faintly smell of ammonia when cooking. I remember when Wendy's swapped to it and I didn't know, I just knew I really used to enjoy burgers and then suddenly it was like they had no flavor. Looked it up trying to figure out what changed and there it was. I think most places have stopped using it now (I remember reading all but one pink slime factory went out of business) but there was a period when it was nearly impossible to avoid because the lobbyists had gotten it so that it wasn't required to label it in any way differently from normal ground beef. So you can adulterate my food with ammonia, but it doesn't have to go on the ingredients list, because it's not an "ingredient," it's something used in processing?
Anyway since I almost never eat burgers anymore unless it's a special occasion it's become a moot point.
I am sitting in my truck and my jaw is literally hanging open. I've heard of pink slime, who hasn't by now? But ...well, I know some sources are questionable, so I'm hoping livescience.com is reputable, and they say exactly what you said and I just ate hamburger 2 nights ago. I obviously don't know if it had the filler or not, but just the thought of ingesting ammonia, even in minute amounts is revolting.
https://www.livescience.com/33786-pink-slime.html
jeez
How small an amount is revolting? Your body is generating ammonia from from various amino acids all the time and then packaging it up in the liver into urea.
It does?
I'm....seeing my pattern here, getting an education as well, but maybe it's time I simply read more and spoke less. Don't get me wrong, the info is appreciated, but my cycle of getting grossed out, then finding out it was over not much at all, repeating the pattern..what...4 times today??
Time for the older, obviously less knowledgeable guy to bow out...you folks are quite patient by the way...I'll wait for topics I might be able to actually speak to
Don't stop on our account! Someone asking honest questions and actually learning from the answers is good for the forum. But I do remember when I first got here and after a couple of my posts were, to my newbie brain, bluntly corrected I backed off for a little to get my bearings.
Plus, some of us old timers are occasionally unusually quiet in a thread and that might sometimes be because we are learning from newbies questions too. Maybe.
Food additives is a tough one. You don't know what you don't know until someone tells you point blank that you don't know. And then you're like, how would I have known that?7 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »rheddmobile wrote: »Just a question - with the obvious exception of caloric intake, are there any other lines you folks draw, based on how a food is processed?
I won't eat pink slime - beef trimmings, taken from the more likely to be contaminated part of the meat, then sterilized using ammonia, ground into an unrecognizable paste, and mixed with regular beef so the consumer can't tell - because the whole idea is disgusting, and to me, it does still faintly smell of ammonia when cooking. I remember when Wendy's swapped to it and I didn't know, I just knew I really used to enjoy burgers and then suddenly it was like they had no flavor. Looked it up trying to figure out what changed and there it was. I think most places have stopped using it now (I remember reading all but one pink slime factory went out of business) but there was a period when it was nearly impossible to avoid because the lobbyists had gotten it so that it wasn't required to label it in any way differently from normal ground beef. So you can adulterate my food with ammonia, but it doesn't have to go on the ingredients list, because it's not an "ingredient," it's something used in processing?
Anyway since I almost never eat burgers anymore unless it's a special occasion it's become a moot point.
I am sitting in my truck and my jaw is literally hanging open. I've heard of pink slime, who hasn't by now? But ...well, I know some sources are questionable, so I'm hoping livescience.com is reputable, and they say exactly what you said and I just ate hamburger 2 nights ago. I obviously don't know if it had the filler or not, but just the thought of ingesting ammonia, even in minute amounts is revolting.
https://www.livescience.com/33786-pink-slime.html
jeez
How small an amount is revolting? Your body is generating ammonia from from various amino acids all the time and then packaging it up in the liver into urea.
It does?
I'm....seeing my pattern here, getting an education as well, but maybe it's time I simply read more and spoke less. Don't get me wrong, the info is appreciated, but my cycle of getting grossed out, then finding out it was over not much at all, repeating the pattern..what...4 times today??
Time for the older, obviously less knowledgeable guy to bow out...you folks are quite patient by the way...I'll wait for topics I might be able to actually speak to
To the bolded: Nah.
I mean, if you feel stressed or unhappy about it, sure, back off a bit. Otherwise, hang in.
Your questions just give us an opportunity to pontificate - always fun. Or you're a good straight man - equally fun.
There are people I wish would back out, but not because of the questions they ask . . . instead, it's the bogus truths they deliver (then get huffy about, because we're collectively mean and negative).
QFT! And very well said, as always.0 -
French_Peasant wrote: »French_Peasant wrote: »Here's Kevin Halls new study with ultra-processed foods, I don't think this has been linked yet?
https://osf.io/preprints/nutrixiv/w3zh2
WOW that study is insane! I would honestly stab myself after a single day on the ultra processed diet--just scrolling through the pictures makes me feel like heaving. (I would be down with the PB&J and the Egg McMuffin type thing, however, and I have the liquid scrambled eggs every morning from our cafeteria at work but they seem fine to me). That diet is nasty!
However, I have to note, they really tipped the scales toward one particular subset of ultra-processed food. They did not include vegetarian or protein-heavy, organic frozen dinners full of veggies, 100% whole grain bread, pizza loaded down with veggies, fruits at every meal canned in LIGHT syrup, frozen veggie burgers on whole grain buns, pasta with sauce very heavy on an assortment of veg, etc. all of which fall under the ultra processed rubric because they have additives to extend shelf life and come in fancy packaging that give the appearance of healthfulness. Also, what was the canned corn doing in there? That's not ultra-processed.
Still, I can believe that the less-processed diet would handily beat out the ultraprocessed diet on weight management.
This did catch my attention from the fasted blood testing:
"Interestingly, the appetite-suppressing hormone PYY increased during the unprocessed diet as compared with both the ultra-processed diet and baseline. In contrast, the hunger hormone ghrelin was decreased during the unprocessed diet compared to baseline."
Guilty admission: I haven't read the study yet, but plan to.
It seems like they'd want to test a relatively extremely "ultraprocessed" diet that's fairly typical of things commonly eaten. The things you list as being included seem to fit that.
I don't understand why they'd test with the closest-to-real-food alternatives that just barely meet the "ultraprocessed" definition - your "tipped scales" list. Around here, there may be people who eat that way, but it's not the standard "ultraprocessed" way of eating in the wild, statistically speaking.
It seems liked you'd want to test the common case, not the "just barely qualifies" uncommon case.
If I've misread this, one I've checked out the study, I'll come back and admit it.
Yes, I am sure they did it in order to be as dramatic as possible. But science is not about drama; it's about a dispassionate look at the facts based on the categories that have been created. Their specific choices should have been analyzed and discussed in the limitations. (and I just skimmed it, so maybe I missed the discussion). They are citing the NOVA parameters but not disclosing that there is a huge chunk of category 4. They are creating an "All Twinkies" straw man.
I would have actually liked to see that subset tested separately under the same conditions.
Do you guys really think the meals presented in the ultra-processed diet are the common case, where people are eating 100% ultra-processed? Not even any fresh pico or guac for their tortilla chips?
No, it's not about drama. But I don't think this is about drama, nor a straw man situation, either.
Yes, they picked an extreme case. If you want to see if there are behavioral or outcome differences, you don't start by minimizing the differences in the cases. At this point in the development of actual tested conclusions or insights, trying to minimize the intake differences would be a bad study design. You start with stark cases. Also, they use the NOVA definitions, because those are the current standard for such studies. As a scientist, you don't just start making up new definitions: That's a different kind of research trajectory than this study means to pursue.
This is an early study, possibly the first of its particular type. It's an inpatient study, which is remarkable. They measured a bonanza of data points, and studied all of the patients on each of the diets (2 week period for each, so a total of 28 days for 20 people, which is remarkably long for an inpatient study). They matched the nutrients/calories presented in each group.
I think this is all very useful, and interesting, personally. I see no point in starting by comparing an "unprocessed" diet to a "close as we can get to being unprocessed without actually violating the definition of "ultraprocessed"" diet.
BTW, the "untraprocessed" diet had salsa with their taco and with their chips (and it looks like about the same amount as would be served in non-ethnic restaurants, with similar foods). (But, yes, not fresh pico: Salsa. Which is what most people I know would actually eat in routine daily life, me included, and probably consider to be about equally healthy.)
Overall, the ultra-processed diet looks fairly nutritious to me: Much more nutritious and less extreme than I would've guessed from your comments. They have veggies, beans, fruit. It probably includes more veggies/fruits than quite a few people eat (based on my admittedly limited observation of other people in my life, and reading MFP diaries). Yes, I think some people in my life would eat rather like the "unprocessed" case routinely, but of course few people in real life eat 100% "ultra-processed", either. But the overall character of that way of eating doesn't look that crazy.
Also, the "unprocessed" diet includes what we usually talk about here as nutritionally useful processed foods (like pasta, yogurt, frozen corn, skim milk, commercial fish and meat from sources like Tyson).
There are some fascinating nuggets in there, amongst the individual in-process and end-point measurements. It's worth reading closely, IMO. I don't see them as presenting this as the be-all and end-all, either. The formal conclusion is pretty moderate, and even delivers a polite science-y reality check on simply saying people should avoid eating ultra-processed foods.
We'll have to agree to disagree about the "drama" and "straw man" interpretation, I guess. :flowerforyou:
I agree, it's definitely an interesting, insightful and extremely useful study, and I am not rejecting it; I am just pointing out some significant limitations that they did not themselves discuss.
The thing that had me most excited in the original post was the fact that their diet is influencing their hormones, which potentially ties into some of the very exciting microbiome research that is coming out. I also think their comments about protein are fascinating--like, are people eating more unconsciously in a desperate attempt to get protein? I think both of these are highly significant.
My point about the NOVA definitions is that they *didn't* use the full definition; they tailored it for their own ends by excluding hundreds of foods from category 4. I think they could have brought better scientific methodology if the food selection would have been from the entire NOVA category 4 list, randomized, and then blind as the list outputs are crafted into dinners by a nutrition team who is not privy to the purpose of the study. And since they didn't do that, I would expect a more rigorous discussion of the way the choices were made, including, "yeah, we wanted these to be as far apart as possible so we really tipped the scales so there would be a clear difference."
As I go back and look at the unprocessed diet, I think they really tipped the scale on that end too. They are serving up large bowls of yogurt, oatmeal and quinoa for breakfast, for example, but yeesh--no honey, dripping straight from the comb so you know it's unprocessed? No heavy cream? No raisins? (could they access the snack raisins at breakfast?) Not even pureed fruit? I love me some yogurt and oatmeal, but I don't sit around and eat it without honey. I can get in a lot of trouble with oatmeal but this stuff, just made with water, I would just pick at it, eat maybe 50 calories, and eat the fruit.
And then the baked potatoes, again, if the Greek yogurt from breakfast could be saved for the potatoes, then I would put the smack down on them, but just plain, eh, I wouldn't eat too much.
They have rigged it so the most calorie dense items aren't going to be very appealing. You could present someone with 5000 calories of very healthy Dickensian Gruel, and when they don't eat much, preferring to starve, point out how wonderful their weight loss has been. (Yeah, I am exaggerating, but I had to work in Dickens somehow, c'mon!)
Basically, what they've done with the food selection is akin to testing 2 different flu shots, and excluding many of the robust-immune system people from Shot A and excluding most of the immune compromised people from shot B. When you tip the scales so you can create a dramatic difference, which shot is going to look better? That's a very flawed analogy, I know, but it's what I can think of now.
And I, too, appreciate your thoughtfulness and gracious communication. If I cam across as overly dramatic in my rejection of the UP menu, it's just that I can't image eating like that meal after meal--I eat plenty of those individual foods (which is why I laughed on the other thread where you referred to me as a gourmet...I'm more like a goat, and eat everything, LOL!)6 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »rheddmobile wrote: »Just a question - with the obvious exception of caloric intake, are there any other lines you folks draw, based on how a food is processed?
I won't eat pink slime - beef trimmings, taken from the more likely to be contaminated part of the meat, then sterilized using ammonia, ground into an unrecognizable paste, and mixed with regular beef so the consumer can't tell - because the whole idea is disgusting, and to me, it does still faintly smell of ammonia when cooking. I remember when Wendy's swapped to it and I didn't know, I just knew I really used to enjoy burgers and then suddenly it was like they had no flavor. Looked it up trying to figure out what changed and there it was. I think most places have stopped using it now (I remember reading all but one pink slime factory went out of business) but there was a period when it was nearly impossible to avoid because the lobbyists had gotten it so that it wasn't required to label it in any way differently from normal ground beef. So you can adulterate my food with ammonia, but it doesn't have to go on the ingredients list, because it's not an "ingredient," it's something used in processing?
Anyway since I almost never eat burgers anymore unless it's a special occasion it's become a moot point.
I am sitting in my truck and my jaw is literally hanging open. I've heard of pink slime, who hasn't by now? But ...well, I know some sources are questionable, so I'm hoping livescience.com is reputable, and they say exactly what you said and I just ate hamburger 2 nights ago. I obviously don't know if it had the filler or not, but just the thought of ingesting ammonia, even in minute amounts is revolting.
https://www.livescience.com/33786-pink-slime.html
jeez
How small an amount is revolting? Your body is generating ammonia from from various amino acids all the time and then packaging it up in the liver into urea.
It does?
I'm....seeing my pattern here, getting an education as well, but maybe it's time I simply read more and spoke less. Don't get me wrong, the info is appreciated, but my cycle of getting grossed out, then finding out it was over not much at all, repeating the pattern..what...4 times today??
Time for the older, obviously less knowledgeable guy to bow out...you folks are quite patient by the way...I'll wait for topics I might be able to actually speak to
It was just a little prompt about one of the most basic parts of toxicology - the dose makes the poison.
There are all kinds of things that are considered hazardous chemicals used industrially and yet they also exist in your body. Formaldehyde is another decent example - people tend to think of it is a scary embalming fluid, but in minute amounts, your body is constantly making it as a byproduct and then turning it into other substances.
We tend to have very platonic, idealized notions of reality but honestly, all the stuff going on inside us is a bit imprecise and messy.6 -
French_Peasant wrote: »French_Peasant wrote: »French_Peasant wrote: »Here's Kevin Halls new study with ultra-processed foods, I don't think this has been linked yet?
https://osf.io/preprints/nutrixiv/w3zh2
WOW that study is insane! I would honestly stab myself after a single day on the ultra processed diet--just scrolling through the pictures makes me feel like heaving. (I would be down with the PB&J and the Egg McMuffin type thing, however, and I have the liquid scrambled eggs every morning from our cafeteria at work but they seem fine to me). That diet is nasty!
However, I have to note, they really tipped the scales toward one particular subset of ultra-processed food. They did not include vegetarian or protein-heavy, organic frozen dinners full of veggies, 100% whole grain bread, pizza loaded down with veggies, fruits at every meal canned in LIGHT syrup, frozen veggie burgers on whole grain buns, pasta with sauce very heavy on an assortment of veg, etc. all of which fall under the ultra processed rubric because they have additives to extend shelf life and come in fancy packaging that give the appearance of healthfulness. Also, what was the canned corn doing in there? That's not ultra-processed.
Still, I can believe that the less-processed diet would handily beat out the ultraprocessed diet on weight management.
This did catch my attention from the fasted blood testing:
"Interestingly, the appetite-suppressing hormone PYY increased during the unprocessed diet as compared with both the ultra-processed diet and baseline. In contrast, the hunger hormone ghrelin was decreased during the unprocessed diet compared to baseline."
Guilty admission: I haven't read the study yet, but plan to.
It seems like they'd want to test a relatively extremely "ultraprocessed" diet that's fairly typical of things commonly eaten. The things you list as being included seem to fit that.
I don't understand why they'd test with the closest-to-real-food alternatives that just barely meet the "ultraprocessed" definition - your "tipped scales" list. Around here, there may be people who eat that way, but it's not the standard "ultraprocessed" way of eating in the wild, statistically speaking.
It seems liked you'd want to test the common case, not the "just barely qualifies" uncommon case.
If I've misread this, one I've checked out the study, I'll come back and admit it.
Yes, I am sure they did it in order to be as dramatic as possible. But science is not about drama; it's about a dispassionate look at the facts based on the categories that have been created. Their specific choices should have been analyzed and discussed in the limitations. (and I just skimmed it, so maybe I missed the discussion). They are citing the NOVA parameters but not disclosing that there is a huge chunk of category 4. They are creating an "All Twinkies" straw man.
I would have actually liked to see that subset tested separately under the same conditions.
Do you guys really think the meals presented in the ultra-processed diet are the common case, where people are eating 100% ultra-processed? Not even any fresh pico or guac for their tortilla chips?
No, it's not about drama. But I don't think this is about drama, nor a straw man situation, either.
Yes, they picked an extreme case. If you want to see if there are behavioral or outcome differences, you don't start by minimizing the differences in the cases. At this point in the development of actual tested conclusions or insights, trying to minimize the intake differences would be a bad study design. You start with stark cases. Also, they use the NOVA definitions, because those are the current standard for such studies. As a scientist, you don't just start making up new definitions: That's a different kind of research trajectory than this study means to pursue.
This is an early study, possibly the first of its particular type. It's an inpatient study, which is remarkable. They measured a bonanza of data points, and studied all of the patients on each of the diets (2 week period for each, so a total of 28 days for 20 people, which is remarkably long for an inpatient study). They matched the nutrients/calories presented in each group.
I think this is all very useful, and interesting, personally. I see no point in starting by comparing an "unprocessed" diet to a "close as we can get to being unprocessed without actually violating the definition of "ultraprocessed"" diet.
BTW, the "untraprocessed" diet had salsa with their taco and with their chips (and it looks like about the same amount as would be served in non-ethnic restaurants, with similar foods). (But, yes, not fresh pico: Salsa. Which is what most people I know would actually eat in routine daily life, me included, and probably consider to be about equally healthy.)
Overall, the ultra-processed diet looks fairly nutritious to me: Much more nutritious and less extreme than I would've guessed from your comments. They have veggies, beans, fruit. It probably includes more veggies/fruits than quite a few people eat (based on my admittedly limited observation of other people in my life, and reading MFP diaries). Yes, I think some people in my life would eat rather like the "unprocessed" case routinely, but of course few people in real life eat 100% "ultra-processed", either. But the overall character of that way of eating doesn't look that crazy.
Also, the "unprocessed" diet includes what we usually talk about here as nutritionally useful processed foods (like pasta, yogurt, frozen corn, skim milk, commercial fish and meat from sources like Tyson).
There are some fascinating nuggets in there, amongst the individual in-process and end-point measurements. It's worth reading closely, IMO. I don't see them as presenting this as the be-all and end-all, either. The formal conclusion is pretty moderate, and even delivers a polite science-y reality check on simply saying people should avoid eating ultra-processed foods.
We'll have to agree to disagree about the "drama" and "straw man" interpretation, I guess. :flowerforyou:
I agree, it's definitely an interesting, insightful and extremely useful study, and I am not rejecting it; I am just pointing out some significant limitations that they did not themselves discuss.
The thing that had me most excited in the original post was the fact that their diet is influencing their hormones, which potentially ties into some of the very exciting microbiome research that is coming out. I also think their comments about protein are fascinating--like, are people eating more unconsciously in a desperate attempt to get protein? I think both of these are highly significant.
My point about the NOVA definitions is that they *didn't* use the full definition; they tailored it for their own ends by excluding hundreds of foods from category 4. I think they could have brought better scientific methodology if the food selection would have been from the entire NOVA category 4 list, randomized, and then blind as the list outputs are crafted into dinners by a nutrition team who is not privy to the purpose of the study. And since they didn't do that, I would expect a more rigorous discussion of the way the choices were made, including, "yeah, we wanted these to be as far apart as possible so we really tipped the scales so there would be a clear difference."
As I go back and look at the unprocessed diet, I think they really tipped the scale on that end too. They are serving up large bowls of yogurt, oatmeal and quinoa for breakfast, for example, but yeesh--no honey, dripping straight from the comb so you know it's unprocessed? No heavy cream? No raisins? (could they access the snack raisins at breakfast?) Not even pureed fruit? I love me some yogurt and oatmeal, but I don't sit around and eat it without honey. I can get in a lot of trouble with oatmeal but this stuff, just made with water, I would just pick at it, eat maybe 50 calories, and eat the fruit.
And then the baked potatoes, again, if the Greek yogurt from breakfast could be saved for the potatoes, then I would put the smack down on them, but just plain, eh, I wouldn't eat too much.
They have rigged it so the most calorie dense items aren't going to be very appealing. You could present someone with 5000 calories of very healthy Dickensian Gruel, and when they don't eat much, preferring to starve, point out how wonderful their weight loss has been. (Yeah, I am exaggerating, but I had to work in Dickens somehow, c'mon!)
Basically, what they've done with the food selection is akin to testing 2 different flu shots, and excluding many of the robust-immune system people from Shot A and excluding most of the immune compromised people from shot B. When you tip the scales so you can create a dramatic difference, which shot is going to look better? That's a very flawed analogy, I know, but it's what I can think of now.
And I, too, appreciate your thoughtfulness and gracious communication. If I cam across as overly dramatic in my rejection of the UP menu, it's just that I can't image eating like that meal after meal--I eat plenty of those individual foods (which is why I laughed on the other thread where you referred to me as a gourmet...I'm more like a goat, and eat everything, LOL!)
Just FTR, if I had to choose between the 2, I'd definitely prefer to eat the "unprocessed" diet (ideally leaving out the meat, with a veg-friendly sub) . . . even without honey, etc. Plain yogurt with fresh fruit and nuts would be fine with me as presented, (though I admit that if I were eating it at home I'd add some chocolate PB2 which has a little sugar, a tablespoon of all-fruit spread, or some blackstrap molasses - I don't need those, but I'd prefer them). Oatmeal with the fresh fruit and nuts, also fine (I'd put some of the provided milk on it, probably.)
On the other hand, all that white flour/sugar-y stuff in the ultra-processed side (commercial muffin and cereal is a breakfast (even mitigated by the milk), fruit in heavy syrup, white sub rolls and hot dog buns, honey buns, more)? Just ugh, to me. Repellant - I was making "yuk" faces all the way through that part. Not my thing.
The point isn't to demonize others' choices, but to point out that what's appealing is very much in the eyes (or taste buds) of the observer.
I encourage everyone to get good nutrition . . . however they like doing it. Doesn't mean I need to think their choices would be tasty to me.
ETA: Note that they did have the participants rate the palatability/familiarity of the foods offered . . . after starting to eat, not after finishing.
Also, I admit I would find the unprocessed diet much more filling, personally.4 -
To the bolded: Nah.
I mean, if you feel stressed or unhappy about it, sure, back off a bit. Otherwise, hang in.
Your questions just give us an opportunity to pontificate - always fun. Or you're a good straight man - equally fun.
There are people I wish would back out, but not because of the questions they ask . . . instead, it's the bogus truths they deliver (then get huffy about, because we're collectively mean and negative).
You both just got hugs. The non-awkward side kind lol. And @Kimny72 I did chuckle a bit at "oldtimer" because you're at least 30 years younger than me
Don't stop on our account! Someone asking honest questions and actually learning from the answers is good for the forum. But I do remember when I first got here and after a couple of my posts were, to my newbie brain, bluntly corrected I backed off for a little to get my bearings.
Plus, some of us old timers are occasionally unusually quiet in a thread and that might sometimes be because we are learning from newbies questions too. Maybe.
Food additives is a tough one. You don't know what you don't know until someone tells you point blank that you don't know. And then you're like, how would I have known that?
Thanks though, very much. You're very encouraging
6 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »rheddmobile wrote: »Just a question - with the obvious exception of caloric intake, are there any other lines you folks draw, based on how a food is processed?
I won't eat pink slime - beef trimmings, taken from the more likely to be contaminated part of the meat, then sterilized using ammonia, ground into an unrecognizable paste, and mixed with regular beef so the consumer can't tell - because the whole idea is disgusting, and to me, it does still faintly smell of ammonia when cooking. I remember when Wendy's swapped to it and I didn't know, I just knew I really used to enjoy burgers and then suddenly it was like they had no flavor. Looked it up trying to figure out what changed and there it was. I think most places have stopped using it now (I remember reading all but one pink slime factory went out of business) but there was a period when it was nearly impossible to avoid because the lobbyists had gotten it so that it wasn't required to label it in any way differently from normal ground beef. So you can adulterate my food with ammonia, but it doesn't have to go on the ingredients list, because it's not an "ingredient," it's something used in processing?
Anyway since I almost never eat burgers anymore unless it's a special occasion it's become a moot point.
I am sitting in my truck and my jaw is literally hanging open. I've heard of pink slime, who hasn't by now? But ...well, I know some sources are questionable, so I'm hoping livescience.com is reputable, and they say exactly what you said and I just ate hamburger 2 nights ago. I obviously don't know if it had the filler or not, but just the thought of ingesting ammonia, even in minute amounts is revolting.
https://www.livescience.com/33786-pink-slime.html
jeez
How small an amount is revolting? Your body is generating ammonia from from various amino acids all the time and then packaging it up in the liver into urea.
It does?
I'm....seeing my pattern here, getting an education as well, but maybe it's time I simply read more and spoke less. Don't get me wrong, the info is appreciated, but my cycle of getting grossed out, then finding out it was over not much at all, repeating the pattern..what...4 times today??
Time for the older, obviously less knowledgeable guy to bow out...you folks are quite patient by the way...I'll wait for topics I might be able to actually speak to
It was just a little prompt about one of the most basic parts of toxicology - the dose makes the poison.
There are all kinds of things that are considered hazardous chemicals used industrially and yet they also exist in your body. Formaldehyde is another decent example - people tend to think of it is a scary embalming fluid, but in minute amounts, your body is constantly making it as a byproduct and then turning it into other substances.
We tend to have very platonic, idealized notions of reality but honestly, all the stuff going on inside us is a bit imprecise and messy.
I can absolutely get onboard with that. Thanks 1 -
Just a question - with the obvious exception of caloric intake, are there any other lines you folks draw, based on how a food is processed?
I have a few preferences, which I will admit are kind of arbitrary and probably make zero difference, but here they are:- Kosher hot dogs
- Olive oil bottled (and preferably sourced) in the US
- Fish sourced and packaged in the US or Canada
- No chicken 'patties' or 'nuggets' where the meat is processed and then formed back into a shape
I missed this earlier, sorry pinuplove - Olive oil is a go to for me...love the stuff 0 -
It is hard to become morbidly obese and have health complications as a result from eating steamed ears of corn. It is, however, considerably easier if you mechanically grind up the corn and then boil and through chemistry extract and purify the sugar to turn into a syrup then mix that syrup with water and drink that in large volumes with regularity.
That fact doesn't actually mean that processing foods to generate food products for the purpose of additives or flavoring is inherently bad...just means you should pay attention to your food choices.5 -
@Phirrgus This is either going to be helpful to you, or immensely unhelpful, but I used to have a wonderful biology tutor who used to love finishing up her lectures on kidney function and urine composition with lines like, "and that's what gives steak and kidney pie that distinctive tang!"
There would be a short silence as everyone thought about that and then quiet notetaking would segue into a clamour of revolted comments.4 -
@HeliumIsNoble - That is actually incredibly helpful, and funny lol. First, I absolutely loved Kidney pies but for some reason it makes me think of how I'm viewing my own base, knee-jerk reactions which have been learned over a 59 year period and how several of those reactions are being challenged by the information I'm getting these days.
If a class full of people who are learning the biology and science behind it all, yet still having some of the same reactions....something about that helps me ease up on how harsh I am towards myself regarding my own reactions.
Thank you 4 -
French_Peasant wrote: »French_Peasant wrote: »French_Peasant wrote: »Here's Kevin Halls new study with ultra-processed foods, I don't think this has been linked yet?
https://osf.io/preprints/nutrixiv/w3zh2
WOW that study is insane! I would honestly stab myself after a single day on the ultra processed diet--just scrolling through the pictures makes me feel like heaving. (I would be down with the PB&J and the Egg McMuffin type thing, however, and I have the liquid scrambled eggs every morning from our cafeteria at work but they seem fine to me). That diet is nasty!
However, I have to note, they really tipped the scales toward one particular subset of ultra-processed food. They did not include vegetarian or protein-heavy, organic frozen dinners full of veggies, 100% whole grain bread, pizza loaded down with veggies, fruits at every meal canned in LIGHT syrup, frozen veggie burgers on whole grain buns, pasta with sauce very heavy on an assortment of veg, etc. all of which fall under the ultra processed rubric because they have additives to extend shelf life and come in fancy packaging that give the appearance of healthfulness. Also, what was the canned corn doing in there? That's not ultra-processed.
Still, I can believe that the less-processed diet would handily beat out the ultraprocessed diet on weight management.
This did catch my attention from the fasted blood testing:
"Interestingly, the appetite-suppressing hormone PYY increased during the unprocessed diet as compared with both the ultra-processed diet and baseline. In contrast, the hunger hormone ghrelin was decreased during the unprocessed diet compared to baseline."
Guilty admission: I haven't read the study yet, but plan to.
It seems like they'd want to test a relatively extremely "ultraprocessed" diet that's fairly typical of things commonly eaten. The things you list as being included seem to fit that.
I don't understand why they'd test with the closest-to-real-food alternatives that just barely meet the "ultraprocessed" definition - your "tipped scales" list. Around here, there may be people who eat that way, but it's not the standard "ultraprocessed" way of eating in the wild, statistically speaking.
It seems liked you'd want to test the common case, not the "just barely qualifies" uncommon case.
If I've misread this, one I've checked out the study, I'll come back and admit it.
Yes, I am sure they did it in order to be as dramatic as possible. But science is not about drama; it's about a dispassionate look at the facts based on the categories that have been created. Their specific choices should have been analyzed and discussed in the limitations. (and I just skimmed it, so maybe I missed the discussion). They are citing the NOVA parameters but not disclosing that there is a huge chunk of category 4. They are creating an "All Twinkies" straw man.
I would have actually liked to see that subset tested separately under the same conditions.
Do you guys really think the meals presented in the ultra-processed diet are the common case, where people are eating 100% ultra-processed? Not even any fresh pico or guac for their tortilla chips?
No, it's not about drama. But I don't think this is about drama, nor a straw man situation, either.
Yes, they picked an extreme case. If you want to see if there are behavioral or outcome differences, you don't start by minimizing the differences in the cases. At this point in the development of actual tested conclusions or insights, trying to minimize the intake differences would be a bad study design. You start with stark cases. Also, they use the NOVA definitions, because those are the current standard for such studies. As a scientist, you don't just start making up new definitions: That's a different kind of research trajectory than this study means to pursue.
This is an early study, possibly the first of its particular type. It's an inpatient study, which is remarkable. They measured a bonanza of data points, and studied all of the patients on each of the diets (2 week period for each, so a total of 28 days for 20 people, which is remarkably long for an inpatient study). They matched the nutrients/calories presented in each group.
I think this is all very useful, and interesting, personally. I see no point in starting by comparing an "unprocessed" diet to a "close as we can get to being unprocessed without actually violating the definition of "ultraprocessed"" diet.
BTW, the "untraprocessed" diet had salsa with their taco and with their chips (and it looks like about the same amount as would be served in non-ethnic restaurants, with similar foods). (But, yes, not fresh pico: Salsa. Which is what most people I know would actually eat in routine daily life, me included, and probably consider to be about equally healthy.)
Overall, the ultra-processed diet looks fairly nutritious to me: Much more nutritious and less extreme than I would've guessed from your comments. They have veggies, beans, fruit. It probably includes more veggies/fruits than quite a few people eat (based on my admittedly limited observation of other people in my life, and reading MFP diaries). Yes, I think some people in my life would eat rather like the "unprocessed" case routinely, but of course few people in real life eat 100% "ultra-processed", either. But the overall character of that way of eating doesn't look that crazy.
Also, the "unprocessed" diet includes what we usually talk about here as nutritionally useful processed foods (like pasta, yogurt, frozen corn, skim milk, commercial fish and meat from sources like Tyson).
There are some fascinating nuggets in there, amongst the individual in-process and end-point measurements. It's worth reading closely, IMO. I don't see them as presenting this as the be-all and end-all, either. The formal conclusion is pretty moderate, and even delivers a polite science-y reality check on simply saying people should avoid eating ultra-processed foods.
We'll have to agree to disagree about the "drama" and "straw man" interpretation, I guess. :flowerforyou:
I agree, it's definitely an interesting, insightful and extremely useful study, and I am not rejecting it; I am just pointing out some significant limitations that they did not themselves discuss.
The thing that had me most excited in the original post was the fact that their diet is influencing their hormones, which potentially ties into some of the very exciting microbiome research that is coming out. I also think their comments about protein are fascinating--like, are people eating more unconsciously in a desperate attempt to get protein? I think both of these are highly significant.
My point about the NOVA definitions is that they *didn't* use the full definition; they tailored it for their own ends by excluding hundreds of foods from category 4. I think they could have brought better scientific methodology if the food selection would have been from the entire NOVA category 4 list, randomized, and then blind as the list outputs are crafted into dinners by a nutrition team who is not privy to the purpose of the study. And since they didn't do that, I would expect a more rigorous discussion of the way the choices were made, including, "yeah, we wanted these to be as far apart as possible so we really tipped the scales so there would be a clear difference."
As I go back and look at the unprocessed diet, I think they really tipped the scale on that end too. They are serving up large bowls of yogurt, oatmeal and quinoa for breakfast, for example, but yeesh--no honey, dripping straight from the comb so you know it's unprocessed? No heavy cream? No raisins? (could they access the snack raisins at breakfast?) Not even pureed fruit? I love me some yogurt and oatmeal, but I don't sit around and eat it without honey. I can get in a lot of trouble with oatmeal but this stuff, just made with water, I would just pick at it, eat maybe 50 calories, and eat the fruit.
And then the baked potatoes, again, if the Greek yogurt from breakfast could be saved for the potatoes, then I would put the smack down on them, but just plain, eh, I wouldn't eat too much.
They have rigged it so the most calorie dense items aren't going to be very appealing. You could present someone with 5000 calories of very healthy Dickensian Gruel, and when they don't eat much, preferring to starve, point out how wonderful their weight loss has been. (Yeah, I am exaggerating, but I had to work in Dickens somehow, c'mon!)
Basically, what they've done with the food selection is akin to testing 2 different flu shots, and excluding many of the robust-immune system people from Shot A and excluding most of the immune compromised people from shot B. When you tip the scales so you can create a dramatic difference, which shot is going to look better? That's a very flawed analogy, I know, but it's what I can think of now.
And I, too, appreciate your thoughtfulness and gracious communication. If I cam across as overly dramatic in my rejection of the UP menu, it's just that I can't image eating like that meal after meal--I eat plenty of those individual foods (which is why I laughed on the other thread where you referred to me as a gourmet...I'm more like a goat, and eat everything, LOL!)
Just FTR, if I had to choose between the 2, I'd definitely prefer to eat the "unprocessed" diet (ideally leaving out the meat, with a veg-friendly sub) . . . even without honey, etc. Plain yogurt with fresh fruit and nuts would be fine with me as presented, (though I admit that if I were eating it at home I'd add some chocolate PB2 which has a little sugar, a tablespoon of all-fruit spread, or some blackstrap molasses - I don't need those, but I'd prefer them). Oatmeal with the fresh fruit and nuts, also fine (I'd put some of the provided milk on it, probably.)
On the other hand, all that white flour/sugar-y stuff in the ultra-processed side (commercial muffin and cereal is a breakfast (even mitigated by the milk), fruit in heavy syrup, white sub rolls and hot dog buns, honey buns, more)? Just ugh, to me. Repellant - I was making "yuk" faces all the way through that part. Not my thing.
The point isn't to demonize others' choices, but to point out that what's appealing is very much in the eyes (or taste buds) of the observer.
I encourage everyone to get good nutrition . . . however they like doing it. Doesn't mean I need to think their choices would be tasty to me.
ETA: Note that they did have the participants rate the palatability/familiarity of the foods offered . . . after starting to eat, not after finishing.
Also, I admit I would find the unprocessed diet much more filling, personally.
Oh, definitely the unprocessed option, I agree! But I would probably get kicked out of the study for sneaking in a jar of honey like Winnie the Pooh. I am kind of fascinated with those tumeric hash brown potatoes2 -
The Kevin Hall study doesn't seem to me to say whether it matters how processed the food is. Again, the unprocessed meals are very different from the ultraprocessed when it comes to specific food choice. They aren't comparing being given the equivalent of 3 Healthy Choice frozen meals with steak, corn, and broccoli (or whatever) with the same thing cooked at home.
I don't think many would disagree that food choice makes a difference to overeating on average when it comes to ad litem eating. But I don't think that means that it's a question of processing. (I think it's a question of availability and food choice, as some foods are easier to overeat than others, and other factors also tend to affect satiety and tendency to overeat, like food variety.)
I bet you could construct a diet based on ultra processed choices that someone health conscious (but limited to pre-packaged choices for some reason) might make vs. one based on so-called unprocessed choices that have the same tendency to disrupt gut-brain signalling that is proposed for ultra processed foods and get quite different results, since it's not processing itself that's the difference, it's the make up of foods that tend to be ultraprocessed (and to me the unprocessed diet here looks way more appealing and delicious, although I also suspect I could easily avoid overeating on it if I were mindful).
For one example, the unprocessed dinner for day one has a ton of vegetables. The ultraprocessed one has fiber supplement in diet lemonade (um, yuck) as the source of fiber, and a giant amount of mashed potatoes. But of course one can make mashed potatoes in an unprocessed way -- most of us do and I expect it tastes way better than the boxed stuff (which I've never even considered purchasing). And unprocessed, homemade mashed potatoes with some milk and butter (which can be made at home from cream easily enough) can be easily eaten to excess.
So I think focusing on the processing of a food being the key issue, and dividing them into "ultraprocessed," "processed," and "unprocessed" adds an unnecessary layer of confusion. Looking at foods as foods makes more sense.
I'm not criticizing the Hall study itself, although I find the results about as unsurprising as possible.5 -
I agree that "unprocessed" vs. "ultraprocessed" has issues as an evaluative scale, when it comes to nutritional (or gustatory) aspects of food. But I'm not sure I have a better idea. This seems to be the foundation upon which current research is being built, and I'm looking at the study on that context . . . while acknowledging the limited value of that evaluative scale when it comes to an individual choosing what to eat at a detailed level. (It may be relevant to thinking in a general way about overall trends of diet, even in an individual.)
Personally, I suspect that "extractive" kinds of processing (where we remove things from foods to get at what are considered useful constituent parts of them, and eliminate the "extraneous" parts) are going to turn out to be a bad plan, if those foods begin to be a large fraction of one's overall diet. There are just too many things we've discovered we need, over my lifetime, that have been in simple (non-extracted, mostly) foods all along. I don't think we've fully mined that shaft yet.
I also think that those very-extracted foods are going to tend to be less filling, more easy to (over-)eat, and (based on product testing) more "hyperpalatable". (Of course you can think of individual counter-examples; so can I. I'm knowingly and intentionally speaking in generalities.)
When I look at the overall menus presented in the Hall study, I'd agree that no one eats exactly like that (either side). But if I eliminate some of the factors that are clearly designed to equalize the nutrients between the menus (like that atrocious lemonade), I'd say I know quite a few people who eat somewhat like the "ultra processed" side, and a few (but not as many) who eat somewhat like the "unprocessed" side.
This personal non-statistical sampling will differ for each of us, of course - my circle is mine, not yours. However, I'd say that when I look at a big mainstream mass-market supermarket (Kroger, Walmart, name your regional chain (mine is Meijer)), I see a space allocation that bears out that distribution of tastes.
Someone is eating lots from that vast aisle of salty snacks, the one of mostly-extracted/enriched/sugared breakfast foods, the bread aisle that has way more soft'n'squishy bread (sometimes caramel colored to look more "wheat") vs. actual whole-grain bread (the latter usually materially more expensive), a frozen food section where ice cream and related dessert bars and such is bigger than the just-veggies section (in which I'm mentally including veggies-with-sauce) by a good bit, an in-store bakery with a vast array of sweet treats plus most of an aisle of prepacked commercial cookies and what not and a non-ice-cream dessert freezer zone as well, and so on.
Some may say that that's because "Big Supermarket" is presenting us with the most profitable choices . . . but I'm quite confident that the stores know exactly what sells and what doesn't. They may give better shelf frontage to things with higher margins (or other profit sources besides margin), but they're not going to keep low-turnover items on the shelves just because there's a high margin, in general. Stuff that doesn't sell creates little profit, no matter how high the margin; stuff that turns over quickly at low margin will actually make them more profit.
Of course the manufacturers want us to overeat, as that's more profit to them, but they too do need to sell us things we'll buy. As a society, we seem to want to buy things that are very easy to prepare and eat, and we demonstrate (in the product testing and our collective buying habits) that we as a population like those foods the stores are full of, on balance.
So, if the question is formally asking whether those eating habits may have a role in "the obesity crisis", I think the Hall study is a useful step. No, the result is not at all surprising. Science has to test and reject or support common sense, not just accept it untested. That's how science works, right? (As an aside, this seems like how some basic research draws "waste of money" critiques - this necessary testing of things we all believe to be true.)
I was going to try to pick out some of the data observations that I thought were interesting nuggets - it goes beyond the hormone thing and doesn't so much include the overall conclusion - but frankly there are too many, and they require too much context. I'd point at the distribution of macronutrients through the day (reflecting primarily subjects' choices), the effect on NEAT, eating speed, the effect on body composition, the glucose testing results (and the reseachers many caveats/qualifications/questions/speculations about all of those).2 -
Just a question - with the obvious exception of caloric intake, are there any other lines you folks draw, based on how a food is processed?
For myself personally, most ultra-processed foods don't really appeal to me. Admittedly, I'm somewhat...ok, I am a food snob and just don't enjoy most of that stuff...don't enjoy fast food, etc. I learned to cook as a teenager so I've been doing it a long time and I'm pretty good in the kitchen.
There are some things I do like...I have a soft spot for hotdogs, especially when I'm camping, but they have to be all beef and either Hebrew National or Nathan's. I also like sausages...not sure if they would be considered ultra-processed...the one's I get are made fresh in the deli of the store I go to. Then there are these frozen bean, rice, and cheese burritos that are decent enough in a pinch, but it has to be Lilly B's .
I don't have any lines in the sand, but that's likely because I just don't eat highly processed foods very often.
One thing I will never buy again is frozen hamburger patties...I bought them once for a party we were hosting and they tasted funny and had more filler than meat. In hindsight it wouldn't have been that big of a deal to just make my own patties.2 -
I agree that "unprocessed" vs. "ultraprocessed" has issues as an evaluative scale, when it comes to nutritional (or gustatory) aspects of food. But I'm not sure I have a better idea.
IMO, focusing on the reasons that a usually given for thinking "ultraprocessed" foods are often problematic without the label. For example, people repeatedly say that ultraprocessed foods are bad for us because they tend to be high in calories, low in nutrients/fiber, and high in added sugar, salt, and/or fat. So why not just say "limit foods that are high in calories, low in nutrients/fiber, and high in added sugar, salt, and/or fat, especially if they tend to be foods that you struggle not to overeat"? Why is the debate over how processed they are important?
Two foods that fit in this category (ultraprocessed) as I understand it are (1) whole wheat bread, and (2) pasta (pick any kind). Neither of these is, IMO, actually all that high in calories and neither is high in added sugar, salt, and/or fat. Both have been staples of diets that are not actually obesogenic. Are they low in nutrients? For the calories, not necessarily, but more importantly they are typically eaten with other foods. I don't eat much bread, but normally when I eat pasta it's with some source of protein (meat/fish or beans, usually), and lots of vegetables, and some olive oil. So the dish that the pasta helps make delicious is NOT low nutrient. So where's the benefit in saying pasta is the problem, because ultraprocessed?
Similarly, I think both boxed and homemade mashed potatoes can be easily overeaten by many (I really strongly suspect the homemade would be more likely to be, as the idea of boxed mashed potatoes grosses me out, but I admit I have not had them). So is the issue really processing?4 -
I agree that "unprocessed" vs. "ultraprocessed" has issues as an evaluative scale, when it comes to nutritional (or gustatory) aspects of food. But I'm not sure I have a better idea.
IMO, focusing on the reasons that a usually given for thinking "ultraprocessed" foods are often problematic without the label. For example, people repeatedly say that ultraprocessed foods are bad for us because they tend to be high in calories, low in nutrients/fiber, and high in added sugar, salt, and/or fat. So why not just say "limit foods that are high in calories, low in nutrients/fiber, and high in added sugar, salt, and/or fat, especially if they tend to be foods that you struggle not to overeat"? Why is the debate over how processed they are important?
Two foods that fit in this category (ultraprocessed) as I understand it are (1) whole wheat bread, and (2) pasta (pick any kind). Neither of these is, IMO, actually all that high in calories and neither is high in added sugar, salt, and/or fat. Both have been staples of diets that are not actually obesogenic. Are they low in nutrients? For the calories, not necessarily, but more importantly they are typically eaten with other foods. I don't eat much bread, but normally when I eat pasta it's with some source of protein (meat/fish or beans, usually), and lots of vegetables, and some olive oil. So the dish that the pasta helps make delicious is NOT low nutrient. So where's the benefit in saying pasta is the problem, because ultraprocessed?
Similarly, I think both boxed and homemade mashed potatoes can be easily overeaten by many (I really strongly suspect the homemade would be more likely to be, as the idea of boxed mashed potatoes grosses me out, but I admit I have not had them). So is the issue really processing?
Yeah, I'll admit that where I run into problems with the advice to eliminate ultra-processed or processed foods is that people seem to be using the word as a proxy for explaining what the actual issues are with the foods in question.
When you dig into "why?", the answers usually come back to some perceived negatives about the food itself, not the processing.
I find it easier to look at a label and determine if the calories/nutrients are in line with my goals and if I think the food will be sufficiently satisfying than to go by the amount of processing (especially since I've found there are some processed foods that are a really good fit for me).6
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions