Calorie Counter

You are currently viewing the message boards in:

Processed foods cause more weight gain

13567

Replies

  • amusedmonkeyamusedmonkey Posts: 9,641Member Member Posts: 9,641Member Member
    psychod787 wrote: »
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    This study suggests one strategy for controlling categories -- eat more nutrient dense, less calorie dense, more satiating foods, for the most part. Also, eat some vegetables, and foods that you tend to take longer to eat.

    Not mentioned by the study, I think it suggests another strategy -- choose appropriate servings for your size, and don't put more than that on your plate (or easily accessible). What happened here is that people needed to decide for themselves when they were ready to stop eating (or just eat until the hour ended). One thing I did when I decided to lose weight was making sure I was sensible with my serving sizes (and if I wanted more volume adding vegetables) and -- important for me -- not leaving out food for potential seconds. I would immediately put away leftovers and in my mind designate them for future dinners or lunch or whatever. Prior to that, my practice had been more to accidentally make far too much and then keep eating until I wanted to stop (sometimes I'd eat more than I wanted because "otherwise it will go to waste, because it's not enough for a full second meal).

    I did use logging to teach myself reasonable serving sizes, but if I'm mindful I mostly can do well not logging and just making sure reasonable amounts are on my plate, not excessive amounts.

    Sometimes I think people have unreasonable expectations (I'll just eat some ice cream from the pint and stop when I stop wanting to eat or I'll grab a bag of chips and eat a few) when just exercising common sense (take out the amount you want to eat and put the rest away) would add necessary structure. Also, thoughts like "I ate enough that I shouldn't really be hungry, I'll wait and then maybe have a couple clementines if I still want something."

    Know what's *kittened* up... my cousin brought me a bag of fresh Georgia peaches. She's my little southern belle.. lol I had one... one turned to two... two turned to three.... I had to just put them away! People say you cant binge on fresh fruit... I can.... that's how i know my tastebuds have changed and I am way below my bf settling range. I mean, If I had eaten the whole bag of 8 peaches... that's like what 400 cals? Would not have done much for a 3400 tdee , its is all about self control... let the woo's begin... lol

    I can (have, and still do sometimes) overeat fresh fruit. My tastebuds haven't changed and I'm way above normal body fat. It's all about context, which many of these articles (or even studies) lack. To do a successful study you need to either remove or control for certain contexts for the sake of data, but that's not how real life works.
  • MaxxittMaxxitt Posts: 1,084Member Member Posts: 1,084Member Member
    The take-home message for me was the difference in appetite regulating hormones with each diet condition. "Hyperpalatability" of the processed group was no doubt a factor in the excess calorie consumption of the "processed group," but there were also statistically significant differences in production of hormones that work to regulate appetite. You can see photos of 7 days' worth of meals for both groups in this NY Times article (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/16/well/eat/why-eating-processed-foods-might-make-you-fat.html)
    edited May 17
  • psychod787psychod787 Posts: 2,445Member, Premium Member Posts: 2,445Member, Premium Member
    psychod787 wrote: »
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    This study suggests one strategy for controlling categories -- eat more nutrient dense, less calorie dense, more satiating foods, for the most part. Also, eat some vegetables, and foods that you tend to take longer to eat.

    Not mentioned by the study, I think it suggests another strategy -- choose appropriate servings for your size, and don't put more than that on your plate (or easily accessible). What happened here is that people needed to decide for themselves when they were ready to stop eating (or just eat until the hour ended). One thing I did when I decided to lose weight was making sure I was sensible with my serving sizes (and if I wanted more volume adding vegetables) and -- important for me -- not leaving out food for potential seconds. I would immediately put away leftovers and in my mind designate them for future dinners or lunch or whatever. Prior to that, my practice had been more to accidentally make far too much and then keep eating until I wanted to stop (sometimes I'd eat more than I wanted because "otherwise it will go to waste, because it's not enough for a full second meal).

    I did use logging to teach myself reasonable serving sizes, but if I'm mindful I mostly can do well not logging and just making sure reasonable amounts are on my plate, not excessive amounts.

    Sometimes I think people have unreasonable expectations (I'll just eat some ice cream from the pint and stop when I stop wanting to eat or I'll grab a bag of chips and eat a few) when just exercising common sense (take out the amount you want to eat and put the rest away) would add necessary structure. Also, thoughts like "I ate enough that I shouldn't really be hungry, I'll wait and then maybe have a couple clementines if I still want something."

    Know what's *kittened* up... my cousin brought me a bag of fresh Georgia peaches. She's my little southern belle.. lol I had one... one turned to two... two turned to three.... I had to just put them away! People say you cant binge on fresh fruit... I can.... that's how i know my tastebuds have changed and I am way below my bf settling range. I mean, If I had eaten the whole bag of 8 peaches... that's like what 400 cals? Would not have done much for a 3400 tdee , its is all about self control... let the woo's begin... lol

    I can (have, and still do sometimes) overeat fresh fruit. My tastebuds haven't changed and I'm way above normal body fat. It's all about context, which many of these articles (or even studies) lack. To do a successful study you need to either remove or control for certain contexts for the sake of data, but that's not how real life works.

    With out asking too many details, what's way above normal? Are you in maintenance , losing, gaining. I mean I am coming to the idea that we all have a comfortable zone. One that is more dictated by lifestyle and food choices. Some of us might always have a higher than "normal" zone that is below our old weights, but above what is normal.
  • sardelsasardelsa Posts: 8,322Member Member Posts: 8,322Member Member
    What strikes me right away when I compare the two groups is the amount of food given in the whole meals group. The time it would take, the amount of chewing involved with those food items. I am exhausted just looking at it especially that dinner and would definitely give up before I would come close to the calorie amount of the processed group. If it were me I'd probably eat a bit more if given the processed but burn a bit more since I had more time to move vs time spent eating
  • amusedmonkeyamusedmonkey Posts: 9,641Member Member Posts: 9,641Member Member
    psychod787 wrote: »
    psychod787 wrote: »
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    This study suggests one strategy for controlling categories -- eat more nutrient dense, less calorie dense, more satiating foods, for the most part. Also, eat some vegetables, and foods that you tend to take longer to eat.

    Not mentioned by the study, I think it suggests another strategy -- choose appropriate servings for your size, and don't put more than that on your plate (or easily accessible). What happened here is that people needed to decide for themselves when they were ready to stop eating (or just eat until the hour ended). One thing I did when I decided to lose weight was making sure I was sensible with my serving sizes (and if I wanted more volume adding vegetables) and -- important for me -- not leaving out food for potential seconds. I would immediately put away leftovers and in my mind designate them for future dinners or lunch or whatever. Prior to that, my practice had been more to accidentally make far too much and then keep eating until I wanted to stop (sometimes I'd eat more than I wanted because "otherwise it will go to waste, because it's not enough for a full second meal).

    I did use logging to teach myself reasonable serving sizes, but if I'm mindful I mostly can do well not logging and just making sure reasonable amounts are on my plate, not excessive amounts.

    Sometimes I think people have unreasonable expectations (I'll just eat some ice cream from the pint and stop when I stop wanting to eat or I'll grab a bag of chips and eat a few) when just exercising common sense (take out the amount you want to eat and put the rest away) would add necessary structure. Also, thoughts like "I ate enough that I shouldn't really be hungry, I'll wait and then maybe have a couple clementines if I still want something."

    Know what's *kittened* up... my cousin brought me a bag of fresh Georgia peaches. She's my little southern belle.. lol I had one... one turned to two... two turned to three.... I had to just put them away! People say you cant binge on fresh fruit... I can.... that's how i know my tastebuds have changed and I am way below my bf settling range. I mean, If I had eaten the whole bag of 8 peaches... that's like what 400 cals? Would not have done much for a 3400 tdee , its is all about self control... let the woo's begin... lol

    I can (have, and still do sometimes) overeat fresh fruit. My tastebuds haven't changed and I'm way above normal body fat. It's all about context, which many of these articles (or even studies) lack. To do a successful study you need to either remove or control for certain contexts for the sake of data, but that's not how real life works.

    With out asking too many details, what's way above normal? Are you in maintenance , losing, gaining. I mean I am coming to the idea that we all have a comfortable zone. One that is more dictated by lifestyle and food choices. Some of us might always have a higher than "normal" zone that is below our old weights, but above what is normal.

    I'm obese. I overate fresh fruits when I was super morbidly obese, and I still overeat them now as merely obese. I highly doubt being 180 pounds overweight is normal in any context.

    ETA: by normal I mean I mean closer to average
    edited May 17
  • psychod787psychod787 Posts: 2,445Member, Premium Member Posts: 2,445Member, Premium Member
    Wanted to add that this study aligns with others. The more palatable a diet' the more people TEND to eat. Most of the participants were slightly overweight. I think 27-28 bmi. If you could linearly carry out the energy deficit they were in ,while it looks like dealing with few if any hunger issues. It would bring them to a normal BMI. Problem is we can't always use info linearly. I will agree that hyperprocessed food does not DIRECTLY cause an elevated weight. The Cafeteria Diet most likely does in some people.
  • French_PeasantFrench_Peasant Posts: 1,631Member Member Posts: 1,631Member Member
    If it's the same study that @psychod787 linked to, it seems like we discussed this study at some point last year; I remember it because @AnnPT77 took me to task for expressing how disgusting the ultraprocessed dinners were. :D They don't demand a lot of chewing and probably go down really easily.

    Although I infinitely preferred the unprocessed dinners, yeah I would probably lose plenty of weight on that diet because the breakfast consists of huge vats of oatmeal or yogurt that you can salt to your hearts delight, but I typically eat both of those with honey or brown sugar. I would just be picking at those breakfasts, probably just eating the fruit or trying to smash it up to get a little flavor into the vats of oatmeal and yogurt.

    I thought it was really putting their thumb on the scale to really skew things, but several people jumped on to assure me that salted, honeyless Dickensian Gruel or yogurt were the most delicious things in the world for breakfast. (And it probably is to a dour Scots Presbyterian who also enjoys cold showers and cultivating melancholia in grim weather).

    A properly made bowl of oatmeal is a calorie bomb, and it is indeed glorious.

    And as @sardelsa notes, I too get tired just from thinking of all the chewing in the unprocessed group. Just grimly digging in and working my way through that tub of broccoli.
  • lemurcat2lemurcat2 Posts: 3,354Member Member Posts: 3,354Member Member
    Phirrgus wrote: »
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    This study suggests one strategy for controlling categories -- eat more nutrient dense, less calorie dense, more satiating foods, for the most part. Also, eat some vegetables, and foods that you tend to take longer to eat.

    Not mentioned by the study, I think it suggests another strategy -- choose appropriate servings for your size, and don't put more than that on your plate (or easily accessible). What happened here is that people needed to decide for themselves when they were ready to stop eating (or just eat until the hour ended). One thing I did when I decided to lose weight was making sure I was sensible with my serving sizes (and if I wanted more volume adding vegetables) and -- important for me -- not leaving out food for potential seconds. I would immediately put away leftovers and in my mind designate them for future dinners or lunch or whatever. Prior to that, my practice had been more to accidentally make far too much and then keep eating until I wanted to stop (sometimes I'd eat more than I wanted because "otherwise it will go to waste, because it's not enough for a full second meal).

    I did use logging to teach myself reasonable serving sizes, but if I'm mindful I mostly can do well not logging and just making sure reasonable amounts are on my plate, not excessive amounts.

    Sometimes I think people have unreasonable expectations (I'll just eat some ice cream from the pint and stop when I stop wanting to eat or I'll grab a bag of chips and eat a few) when just exercising common sense (take out the amount you want to eat and put the rest away) would add necessary structure. Also, thoughts like "I ate enough that I shouldn't really be hungry, I'll wait and then maybe have a couple clementines if I still want something."

    I don't disagree, but for discussions sake don't you think "sensible" and "reasonable" regarding servings can be highly subjective? For context - growing up, when we had food it was usually piled high and we ate every last bit. That was the norm. So "sensible" for me is something that had to be learned through another context, such as "what's a healthy meal size for a 180lb male?"

    Granted that's anecdotal front to back and sideways, but given that we know that experience and upbringing prior to becoming health and weight conscious has an impact, maybe something to consider here?

    Oh, I agree that it might have to be learned.
  • lemurcat2lemurcat2 Posts: 3,354Member Member Posts: 3,354Member Member
    sardelsa wrote: »
    What strikes me right away when I compare the two groups is the amount of food given in the whole meals group.

    Yeah, and I think that's as much of a factor as any. One thing the study suggested is that in that satiety kicks in often about 10-15 min after eating, if you have food that you eat quickly you can more easily overeat than food that takes longer.
  • magnusthenerdmagnusthenerd Posts: 806Member Member Posts: 806Member Member
    Maxxitt wrote: »
    The take-home message for me was the difference in appetite regulating hormones with each diet condition. "Hyperpalatability" of the processed group was no doubt a factor in the excess calorie consumption of the "processed group," but there were also statistically significant differences in production of hormones that work to regulate appetite. You can see photos of 7 days' worth of meals for both groups in this NY Times article (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/16/well/eat/why-eating-processed-foods-might-make-you-fat.html)

    I don't see these as separate things - I would say hyperapalibilty reduces to foods that alter appetite regulation.
  • psychod787psychod787 Posts: 2,445Member, Premium Member Posts: 2,445Member, Premium Member
    kimny72 wrote: »
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    psychod787 wrote: »
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    The article is deceptive in my opinion, especially in regards to the quote shown in the OP.
    The study provided NOTHING but "ultra-processed" foods to one group and NOTHING but fresher, more whole foods to the other.
    The article mentions that each group was given an equal amount of protein, fat and carbs but then later concedes that the ultra-processed group ate more fat and carbs than the other.

    What actually happened was they put the same amount of each macro on the table for each group but didn't control how much of each macro either group consumed.
    The ultra-processed group ate less protein and more fat/carbs which is easy to comprehend, considering the amount of protein in hot dogs and pb&j sandwiches is far less than in whole meats.

    All this shows is that "ultra-processed" foods tend to be:
    1) highly palatable
    2) calorie dense
    3) lower in protein than more whole foods
    4) less satiating than more whole foods

    This typically leads to overeating in those whose diet consists mainly (or entirely as in the case of this study) of "ultra-processed" foods.

    Thus, the claim that processed foods cause weight gain remains false. The link between processed foods and weight gain remains correlative as the actual cause of weight gain is overeating.

    I think a better study would have included these two groups, a third that was offered a mix of whole and processed foods, then two more that are fed similarly to the first two groups, but with actual consumption of calories controlled.

    Well... maybe not as misleading as it seem. While eating the ultra processed food did not DIRECTLY cause people to gain weight' it most likely led to them eating more. Which will cause an increase in fat and carbs. Lends thought to the protein leverage hypothesis. We know MOST hyperprocessed foods have less protein per gram than less refined do. Thus having to eat more to get the same satiety. Also... let's face it @JeromeBarry1 is right. Food scientist get billions in funding to find out what makes us tick. Far more than the NIH gets.

    Yes BUT...neither of the two groups had access to the foods provided to the other. The ultra-processed group had access to NOTHING but ultra-processed (i.e. high calorie, highly palatable, low satiety...) foods.
    It doesn't show that simply having the foods in a more varied diet would yield the same result.

    Exactly, it comes back to the strawman argument. There's something in between all ultra processed and all plain whole foods!

    Yes... this is true, but was not the point of the study. Its was a double cross over study' so both group had their turns on the diet. Only problem with giving each group mix meals with both classes is that it would murk up the data.
  • psychod787psychod787 Posts: 2,445Member, Premium Member Posts: 2,445Member, Premium Member
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    psychod787 wrote: »
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    The article is deceptive in my opinion, especially in regards to the quote shown in the OP.
    The study provided NOTHING but "ultra-processed" foods to one group and NOTHING but fresher, more whole foods to the other.
    The article mentions that each group was given an equal amount of protein, fat and carbs but then later concedes that the ultra-processed group ate more fat and carbs than the other.

    What actually happened was they put the same amount of each macro on the table for each group but didn't control how much of each macro either group consumed.
    The ultra-processed group ate less protein and more fat/carbs which is easy to comprehend, considering the amount of protein in hot dogs and pb&j sandwiches is far less than in whole meats.

    All this shows is that "ultra-processed" foods tend to be:
    1) highly palatable
    2) calorie dense
    3) lower in protein than more whole foods
    4) less satiating than more whole foods

    This typically leads to overeating in those whose diet consists mainly (or entirely as in the case of this study) of "ultra-processed" foods.

    Thus, the claim that processed foods cause weight gain remains false. The link between processed foods and weight gain remains correlative as the actual cause of weight gain is overeating.

    I think a better study would have included these two groups, a third that was offered a mix of whole and processed foods, then two more that are fed similarly to the first two groups, but with actual consumption of calories controlled.

    Well... maybe not as misleading as it seem. While eating the ultra processed food did not DIRECTLY cause people to gain weight' it most likely led to them eating more. Which will cause an increase in fat and carbs. Lends thought to the protein leverage hypothesis. We know MOST hyperprocessed foods have less protein per gram than less refined do. Thus having to eat more to get the same satiety. Also... let's face it @JeromeBarry1 is right. Food scientist get billions in funding to find out what makes us tick. Far more than the NIH gets.

    Yes BUT...neither of the two groups had access to the foods provided to the other. The ultra-processed group had access to NOTHING but ultra-processed (i.e. high calorie, highly palatable, low satiety...) foods.
    It doesn't show that simply having the foods in a more varied diet would yield the same result.

    Actually as I stated above... it was a cross over study.
    wmd1979 wrote: »
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    The article is deceptive in my opinion, especially in regards to the quote shown in the OP.
    The study provided NOTHING but "ultra-processed" foods to one group and NOTHING but fresher, more whole foods to the other.
    The article mentions that each group was given an equal amount of protein, fat and carbs but then later concedes that the ultra-processed group ate more fat and carbs than the other.

    What actually happened was they put the same amount of each macro on the table for each group but didn't control how much of each macro either group consumed.
    The ultra-processed group ate less protein and more fat/carbs which is easy to comprehend, considering the amount of protein in hot dogs and pb&j sandwiches is far less than in whole meats.

    All this shows is that "ultra-processed" foods tend to be:
    1) highly palatable
    2) calorie dense
    3) lower in protein than more whole foods
    4) less satiating than more whole foods

    This typically leads to overeating in those whose diet consists mainly (or entirely as in the case of this study) of "ultra-processed" foods.

    Thus, the claim that processed foods cause weight gain remains false. The link between processed foods and weight gain remains correlative as the actual cause of weight gain is overeating.

    I think a better study would have included these two groups, a third that was offered a mix of whole and processed foods, then two more that are fed similarly to the first two groups, but with actual consumption of calories controlled.

    Exactly. I could put the same amount of calories in Oreo's and milk on one table, and rice on another table, and I would imagine that most people would eat more calories worth of Oreo's because they are more calorie dense, and less satiating. It would be far easier to over indulge on a hyper palatable, calorie dense food. That doesn't mean that processed foods are the reason for the obesity epidemic. This is why most people who give good advice on this site tend to advocate for a varied diet consisting of whole foods and the occasional treat. Everything in moderation. The problem is, a lot of processed foods are quick and easy, and it can be very easy to move less and eat more especially when people are busy and don't have a lot of extra free time.

    Actually it does mean that processed foods are the reason for the obesity epidemic, in that the ready availability of processed, hyper-palatable foods changes the way a large number of people choose to eat. When a behavior is epidemic, what that means is that many people have all decided to behave in a new way at the same exact time for some reason. The amount of willpower in America hasn’t sharply declined since the 50’s. The amount of people who believe in the common-sense phrase “everything in moderation” hasn’t gone down. Human nature hasn’t changed. What has changed is the environment, which makes it more likely that the same exact kind of people will trend towards different choices.

    It doesn’t matter, when looking at an epidemic, that a few individuals buck the trend by making the harder choice to seek out and cook whole foods. Because epidemics of behavior aren’t measured on an individual level, they are measured at a population level.

    I have the idea. Like SOME others, that is a mismatch between our brains and environment. Our brains have not caught up with our environment. Or.... maybe we have. Obese might just become the new norm. Already is on some places. I still have the idea that obese in not the natural state. I have stated in women other forums that rats fed an obesity causing diet... aka Cafeteria diet, will gain weight rapidly. Cut the diet in half with the same foods and they have all the people who diet have. Give then free access to the same chow and they regain rapidly. Put them back on a standard rat chow with free access to a running wheel and they lose MOST of the excess fat. Some of the mice are the OB rats, they don't lose all of it while the non OB rats do... we have seen this with bland diet studies in humans as well. Grossly obese people, such as myself spontaneously eat starvation level calories with no hunger or satiety issues. While people just doing portion control have the issues. Lean people on the bland liquid diet are just enough to maintain their weight. Just some FOOD ( pun intended) for thought... lol
  • lynn_glenmontlynn_glenmont Posts: 7,023Member Member Posts: 7,023Member Member
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    Phirrgus wrote: »
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    But they did not eat the same amount of calories.

    I like the study too, and am not remotely surprised at the results. IMO, if not counting, one helpful strategy is to do more home cooking and eat more whole foods. But this does not mean that "processing" or "chemicals" and not calories are the source of weight gain.

    Disclaimer..sorry for all the bolds..for some reason my mobile device is being a pain with the quotes...
    I'm still a little torn on this. In order for the study to determine that the "processed" foods led to an average 500 calorie increase, they had to have an idea how many calories were being consumed, so some type of counting had to take place, even though it states they were instructed to eat as much as they like.

    "The participants' diets were precisely matched so that regardless of whether they were offered processed or unprocessed meals, they were given exactly the same amount of protein, fat, carbs, salt, and sugar to eat. They were instructed to eat as much food as they liked in 60-minute meal windows. They spent two weeks eating a processed diet, then switched and did two more weeks eating fresh meals."

    And while I'm not clear either on exactly what constitutes "processed" vs ultra processed etc...they do give a good sample of what they considered processed.

    "Participants consumed, on average, 500 more calories a day on the ultra-processed diet, when meals included foods like hot dogs, freezer pancakes, canned chili, and peanut-butter-and-jelly sandwiches. Those eating processed foods also gained about two pounds in those two weeks. Regardless of the person's weight or sex, they ate more carbs and fat on a processed-food diet."

    The difference between processed and unprocessed meals is subtle on the surface; both diet groups ate cereals, eggs, beans, and pastas. However, in the unprocessed group, the ingredients were fresher, with no additives or preservatives in the meals. Additionally, whole foods and unrefined ingredients were used (eggs and potatoes were prepared from scratch, for example).

    As Ann said, the study did not rely on the eaters self-reporting how much they ate (which is IMO typically unreliable), but told them to eat what they wanted. The researchers gave them enough food (controlled for total cals, fiber, protein, etc.) and let them eat however much they wanted of the larger portions. The researchers then counted what was eaten.

    As I quoted from the study above:

    "Meals were designed to be matched for presented calories, energy density, macronutrients, sugar, sodium, and fiber. Subjects were instructed to consume as much or as little as desired. Energy intake was greater during the ultra-processed diet (508±106 kcal/d; p=0.0001), with increased consumption of carbohydrate (280±54 kcal/d; p<0.0001) and fat (230±53 kcal/d; p=0.0004) but not protein (-2±12 kcal/d; p=0.85). Weight changes were highly correlated with energy intake (r=0.8, p<0.0001) with participants gaining 0.8±0.3 kg (p=0.01) during the ultra-processed diet and losing 1.1±0.3 kg (p=0.001) during the unprocessed diet."

    You can see the menus in the study itself.

    I have not had time to look at them again, but although I generally am unsurprised by the results and would have predicted them, I also think that the conclusion that it's "ultraprocessed" vs. whole alone maybe ignores some other distinction in the menus (like fiber coming from fiber added to lemonade, and not food, in the ultraprocessed menu, far fewer veg, stuff like that). I suspect that the menus could be manipulated to change the result, although if we are comparing to "what people eat in real life on a daily basis when picking whole vs. ultraprocessed" it probably does have some real world applicability, mainly for those who are not already mindful about diet and nutrition.

    Re modifying the menus, I mean it's possible to choose ultraprocessed options that have more inherent fiber, would include more veg (although it requires more work), and it's also possible to create whole food based menus that people would likely overeat to the same degree (I go to plenty of farm-to-table type restaurants where that's so).* However, I think in the real world, again, the menus chosen are probably more consistent with the differences (although somewhat extreme, as I think most people may eat a mix).

    In any case, I think "generally cooking from scratch and eating a good amount of whole foods, esp veg and good sources of fiber and protein" is common sense advice that may well lead to weight loss for someone not already doing that (I also think it can be an easy way to have a healthy diet and its my preferred way to eat). But when someone says the issue is "processing," I think that's an oversimplification, although that's not at all a criticism of the study, more some of the reporting.

    *Quick example of what was fed them. One lunch had the ultraprocessed people eat Beef ravioli (Chef Boyardee), Parmesan cheese (Roseli), White bread (Ottenberg), Margarine (Glenview Farms), Diet lemonade (Crystal Light) with NutriSource fiber, and Oatmeal raisin cookies. The whole food people ate Spinach salad with chicken breast, apple slices, bulgur (Bob’s Red Mill), sunflower seeds (Nature’s Promise) and grapes, Vinaigrette made with olive oil,fresh squeezed lemon juice, apple cider vinegar (Giant), ground mustard seed (McCormick), black pepper (Monarch) and salt (Monarch). I see some major differences beyond processing in those two meals (and not that the unprocessed was less palatable, as it sounds much tastier to me).

    I think I'd likely eat more of the whole food options, because it sounds a lot tastier.
Sign In or Register to comment.