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.
Processed foods cause more weight gain
Replies
-
psychod787 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.
I understand
The common sense conclusion of the study is that a diet of 100% ultra processed foods will likely lead to you eating too much. Which I'm not sure really tells us anything useful.
Murking up the data is where real life happens, but yeah it's incongruous with what a researcher wants in a study. Which is why nutrition research is so gosh darn frustrating
I think the one interesting thing I took from this study is that it was matched for nutritional value among the food. Meaning that "ultra processed food is more caloric/less nutritious" can't be identified as the reason for the increased appetite. So that in itself is interesting and worth exploring in further study I think.
There certainly could be a lot of reasons for it, not the least of which is that maybe the people just enjoyed the process food more. It's certainly easier to eat more of something you like than something you don't like. Especially with a small group study like this, they just could have by random selection gotten a group that really prefers the taste of uktlaproccessed food.
So it does raise some interesting questions but falls short of definitive. Which of course is exactly the opposite of how it is being reported on in the media.2 -
French_Peasant wrote: »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. 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.
Did I? I'd generally prefer the unprocessed side, and it has some things in common with how I usually eat, but certainly I'd tweak details if free to do so.
In general, I find many of the foods commonly called "hyperpalatable" to be not very palatable at all, but rather too-simple and unsatisfying. I got fat eating primarily unprocessed foods, plus taco flavor Doritos, craft beer, and premium ice cream.
I can easily overeat unprocessed foods, even without the other stuff.
I do think it's easier to chow down on ultraprocessed foods and feel less full, encouraging more consumption. They're quick to eat, and not very immediately filling. IMO, that's worth proving, rather than just assuming, but it's far from a transformational insight.
The seeming popular-press interpretation that we are hapless victims of processed foods and coroorate processors, or that this proves "calories don't determine weight loss" . . . seems like sloppy thinking, to me.psychod787 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.
I understand The common sense conclusion of the study is that a diet of 100% ultra processed foods will likely lead to you eating too much. Which I'm not sure really tells us anything useful.
Murking up the data is where real life happens, but yeah it's incongruous with what a researcher wants in a study. Which is why nutrition research is so gosh darn frustrating
This is how science works, in many cases. You test one atomistic little piece that everyone in the general public will just shake their heads and say was common sense all along, and they'll also complain that the study didn't reflect complexities of reality.
But sometimes the studies disprove the common sense; and if they do confirm it, it becomes one more tiny brick in a wall of proof, instead of a strand in a web of speculation and assumption. A tiny brick isn't good for much, all by itself. But the wall is useful, and without bricks you never get one.
Similarly, the tiny proven facts accumulate over time to move knowledge forward. We're just impatient. 3 -
lynn_glenmont 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.
Sounds way tastier to me too, but also more filling and would take longer to eat.1 -
I think the one interesting thing I took from this study is that it was matched for nutritional value among the food. Meaning that "ultra processed food is more caloric/less nutritious" can't be identified as the reason for the increased appetite. So that in itself is interesting and worth exploring in further study I think.
I think the claim that they were matched is somewhat limited. The total meals were matched for calories, protein, carbs, and total fat, as well as fibers, total sugar, and sodium. But volume was different, necessarily; the food choices were quite different (the "unprocessed" had far more veg, the "ultraprocessed" had almost none, the ultraprocessed had more dessert and snack type foods, and even the fruit (again, far less than in the "unprocessed" tended to be in sugary syrup). Beyond this, they were unmatched in some other things:
"the ultra-processed versus unprocessed meals differed substantially in the proportion of added to total sugar (∼54% versus 1%, respectively), insoluble to total fiber (∼77% versus 16%, respectively), saturated to total fat (∼34% versus 19%), and the ratio of omega-6 to omega-3 fatty acids (∼11:1 versus 5:1)."
I've mentioned the fiber thing a few times, since I just don't think quickly drinking some Crystal Lite with fiber added is going to have the same effect on satiety as getting the same amount of fiber in food.
Also, although the sugars don't differ, I think it's probably easier for most to go way over cals when the meal includes a big cookie vs. an apple (the thing with "added sugar" is that it's so often paired with fat and the combination seems to invite eating when not even hungry in many people).
I find it interesting that although the meals were matched that the groups ended up eating about the same amount of protein, with the 500 excess calories the ultraprocessed groups ate coming about half from fat and half from sugar.
The researchers are aware of these kinds of questions, of course. From the study:
"Future studies should examine whether the observed energy intake differences persist when ultra-processed and unprocessed diets are more closely matched for dietary protein and non-beverage energy density while at the same time including ultra-processed foods that are typically eaten slowly."2 -
Thread title paraphrased from article, links/sources etc within article.
https://www.businessinsider.com/how-processed-foods-lead-to-weight-gain-nih-study-2019-5Groundbreaking research from the US National Institutes of Health suggests for the first time that the relationship is causal: no matter how nutritious they are, processed foods lead people to eat more and gain weight.
Personally speaking, the inability/unwillingness to release the food I'm holding and/or stop shoving it into my mouth caused me to gain weight, but to further elaborate, much of that was chicken/fish/veggies/lean beef and so on. I did not partake of massive amounts of what are currently thought of as "processed" foods.
But this seems to be getting thrust back into the public eye, so...thoughts?
The basic science/math is eat more calories than you expend on a daily basis= weight gain....period !
Its not Rocket Science. Its basic. Yes, highly processed foods are the least healthy and whole foods are the healthiest but it all boils down to "eat less, move more" !!!!3 -
Or..... move more.... eat smarter.... just a thought...2
-
JeromeBarry1 wrote: »The Frito-Lay Corp, which employs food scientists no less credentialled than those of the NIH, have as their mission the capture of ever more "stomach share". That is their internal phrase. By and large, this NIH study confirms the success of the scientists employed by the Frito-Lay Corp., as well as the other businesses which seek to profit from the appetites of people, not just the needs of people.
So Frito Lay wants consumers to buy more of their products. Shocking. It's almost like they are a business or something and are concerned with making money. The study just proves that it is easier to overeat hyper palatable calorie dense foods. Nobody is putting a gun to your head and making you eat them though. Instead of focusing on corporations whose obvious goal is to make money as the problem, maybe people need to realize that it is up to them to make responsible food choices. It get so old hearing people blame corporations, or specific foods in general when they are ultimately responsible for what they put into their mouth.
So. Much. This.2 -
mojavemtbr wrote: »Thread title paraphrased from article, links/sources etc within article.
https://www.businessinsider.com/how-processed-foods-lead-to-weight-gain-nih-study-2019-5Groundbreaking research from the US National Institutes of Health suggests for the first time that the relationship is causal: no matter how nutritious they are, processed foods lead people to eat more and gain weight.
Personally speaking, the inability/unwillingness to release the food I'm holding and/or stop shoving it into my mouth caused me to gain weight, but to further elaborate, much of that was chicken/fish/veggies/lean beef and so on. I did not partake of massive amounts of what are currently thought of as "processed" foods.
But this seems to be getting thrust back into the public eye, so...thoughts?
The basic science/math is eat more calories than you expend on a daily basis= weight gain....period !
Its not Rocket Science. Its basic. Yes, highly processed foods are the least healthy and whole foods are the healthiest but it all boils down to "eat less, move more" !!!!
But I already do ELMM I move quite a lot actually...my point was that I did not get overweight on highly processed foods, but on the flip side I do eat much more of them now that I'm about at maintenance. Simple enough after doing what psychod787 says.psychod787 wrote: »Or..... move more.... eat smarter.... just a thought... 4 -
mojavemtbr wrote: »Thread title paraphrased from article, links/sources etc within article.
https://www.businessinsider.com/how-processed-foods-lead-to-weight-gain-nih-study-2019-5Groundbreaking research from the US National Institutes of Health suggests for the first time that the relationship is causal: no matter how nutritious they are, processed foods lead people to eat more and gain weight.
Personally speaking, the inability/unwillingness to release the food I'm holding and/or stop shoving it into my mouth caused me to gain weight, but to further elaborate, much of that was chicken/fish/veggies/lean beef and so on. I did not partake of massive amounts of what are currently thought of as "processed" foods.
But this seems to be getting thrust back into the public eye, so...thoughts?
The basic science/math is eat more calories than you expend on a daily basis= weight gain....period !
Its not Rocket Science. Its basic. Yes, highly processed foods are the least healthy and whole foods are the healthiest but it all boils down to "eat less, move more" !!!!
But I already do ELMM I move quite a lot actually...my point was that I did not get overweight on highly processed foods, but on the flip side I do eat much more of them now that I'm about at maintenance. Simple enough after doing what psychod787 says.psychod787 wrote: »Or..... move more.... eat smarter.... just a thought...
I have been eating a clean mostly whole foods diet since this past November and been maintaining a caloric deficit on most days . I have lost almost 25 lbs. and am almost back to my healthy goal weight. However when I get there and go on a maintenance mode I will not go back to eating more processed foods. The feeling like crap, poor digestion, bad insulin response, skin conditions, etc etc that comes along with all the junk in processed foods are just not worth putting that garbage in my body anymore..
Healthy foods are simply better from every angle.5 -
mojavemtbr wrote: »mojavemtbr wrote: »Thread title paraphrased from article, links/sources etc within article.
https://www.businessinsider.com/how-processed-foods-lead-to-weight-gain-nih-study-2019-5Groundbreaking research from the US National Institutes of Health suggests for the first time that the relationship is causal: no matter how nutritious they are, processed foods lead people to eat more and gain weight.
Personally speaking, the inability/unwillingness to release the food I'm holding and/or stop shoving it into my mouth caused me to gain weight, but to further elaborate, much of that was chicken/fish/veggies/lean beef and so on. I did not partake of massive amounts of what are currently thought of as "processed" foods.
But this seems to be getting thrust back into the public eye, so...thoughts?
The basic science/math is eat more calories than you expend on a daily basis= weight gain....period !
Its not Rocket Science. Its basic. Yes, highly processed foods are the least healthy and whole foods are the healthiest but it all boils down to "eat less, move more" !!!!
But I already do ELMM I move quite a lot actually...my point was that I did not get overweight on highly processed foods, but on the flip side I do eat much more of them now that I'm about at maintenance. Simple enough after doing what psychod787 says.psychod787 wrote: »Or..... move more.... eat smarter.... just a thought...
I have been eating a clean mostly whole foods diet since this past November and been maintaining a caloric deficit on most days . I have lost almost 25 lbs. and am almost back to my healthy goal weight. However when I get there and go on a maintenance mode I will not go back to eating more processed foods. The feeling like crap, poor digestion, bad insulin response, skin conditions, etc etc that comes along with all the junk in processed foods are just not worth putting that garbage in my body anymore..
Healthy foods are simply better from every angle.
Congratulations on the weight loss, that's fantastic, and as always, to each their own. What this study is concerned with is whether or not certain foods cause a person to want to eat more though. I do know there have been quite a few debates on what constitutes "clean" eating, but as long as my panels are coming back "textbook or better" (my doctors description of the results) I will continue to enjoy what I do, and urge you to do the same. 7 -
mojavemtbr wrote: »mojavemtbr wrote: »Thread title paraphrased from article, links/sources etc within article.
https://www.businessinsider.com/how-processed-foods-lead-to-weight-gain-nih-study-2019-5Groundbreaking research from the US National Institutes of Health suggests for the first time that the relationship is causal: no matter how nutritious they are, processed foods lead people to eat more and gain weight.
Personally speaking, the inability/unwillingness to release the food I'm holding and/or stop shoving it into my mouth caused me to gain weight, but to further elaborate, much of that was chicken/fish/veggies/lean beef and so on. I did not partake of massive amounts of what are currently thought of as "processed" foods.
But this seems to be getting thrust back into the public eye, so...thoughts?
The basic science/math is eat more calories than you expend on a daily basis= weight gain....period !
Its not Rocket Science. Its basic. Yes, highly processed foods are the least healthy and whole foods are the healthiest but it all boils down to "eat less, move more" !!!!
But I already do ELMM I move quite a lot actually...my point was that I did not get overweight on highly processed foods, but on the flip side I do eat much more of them now that I'm about at maintenance. Simple enough after doing what psychod787 says.psychod787 wrote: »Or..... move more.... eat smarter.... just a thought...
I have been eating a clean mostly whole foods diet since this past November and been maintaining a caloric deficit on most days . I have lost almost 25 lbs. and am almost back to my healthy goal weight. However when I get there and go on a maintenance mode I will not go back to eating more processed foods. The feeling like crap, poor digestion, bad insulin response, skin conditions, etc etc that comes along with all the junk in processed foods are just not worth putting that garbage in my body anymore..
Healthy foods are simply better from every angle.
Congratulations on the weight loss, that's fantastic, and as always, to each their own. What this study is concerned with is whether or not certain foods cause a person to want to eat more though. I do know there have been quite a few debates on what constitutes "clean" eating, but as long as my panels are coming back "textbook or better" (my doctors description of the results) I will continue to enjoy what I do, and urge you to do the same.
There is something I have noticed from talking to people here that lost weight then regained some. Most of the people that made a change To whole food KETO, whole food vegan... ect... Some of them were not weighing and measuring... just eating to fullness and satiety.... what they did was knock out the "junk" food. They maintained ok.. it's when they added in Keto and vegan "junk" food did they have issues. Not EVERY person that stuck to a whole foods diet maintained, but it was shocking to me how many did until they loads of hyperprocessed foods.3 -
mojavemtbr wrote: »mojavemtbr wrote: »Thread title paraphrased from article, links/sources etc within article.
https://www.businessinsider.com/how-processed-foods-lead-to-weight-gain-nih-study-2019-5Groundbreaking research from the US National Institutes of Health suggests for the first time that the relationship is causal: no matter how nutritious they are, processed foods lead people to eat more and gain weight.
Personally speaking, the inability/unwillingness to release the food I'm holding and/or stop shoving it into my mouth caused me to gain weight, but to further elaborate, much of that was chicken/fish/veggies/lean beef and so on. I did not partake of massive amounts of what are currently thought of as "processed" foods.
But this seems to be getting thrust back into the public eye, so...thoughts?
The basic science/math is eat more calories than you expend on a daily basis= weight gain....period !
Its not Rocket Science. Its basic. Yes, highly processed foods are the least healthy and whole foods are the healthiest but it all boils down to "eat less, move more" !!!!
But I already do ELMM I move quite a lot actually...my point was that I did not get overweight on highly processed foods, but on the flip side I do eat much more of them now that I'm about at maintenance. Simple enough after doing what psychod787 says.psychod787 wrote: »Or..... move more.... eat smarter.... just a thought...
I have been eating a clean mostly whole foods diet since this past November and been maintaining a caloric deficit on most days . I have lost almost 25 lbs. and am almost back to my healthy goal weight. However when I get there and go on a maintenance mode I will not go back to eating more processed foods. The feeling like crap, poor digestion, bad insulin response, skin conditions, etc etc that comes along with all the junk in processed foods are just not worth putting that garbage in my body anymore..
Healthy foods are simply better from every angle.
This study is about ultraprocessed foods (and only a subset of those). Not all "processed foods." It certainly does not support a claim that "processed foods" are all junk and must be avoided.
Processed foods are far too varied to generalize about, and it's simply false to claim they are not healthy foods (a diet is healthy or not, individual foods contribute to whether it is or not, but need to be judged in context).
I actually started eating some processed foods a lot more when I decided to lose (this was in 2014, I've been at maintenance for a while). I was a bit of a neurotic about eating as whole as possible for some years, and I decided this was creating a perfect or screw it kind of mentality, as well as the false idea that if I ate mostly whole foods and so-called healthy foods I could not gain or be obese (which was clearly false for me), so I started counting and working on some of my food issues. I still eat mostly whole foods (I love vegetables, I love to cook), but I got way more relaxed about canned beans, canned tomatoes, boxed pasta, found cottage cheese and yogurt and tofu all quite helpful in hitting protein goals. I even ate protein powder regularly at breakfast for a while (I decided that for me I tend to like and find satisfying protein in more whole forms, so don't, but I don't think it was "crap"). For snacks for a while I did Quest bars and found Kind bars really helpful when traveling (I'm off bars entirely at the moment as I've gotten really picky about sweets). I tried and find occasionally useful powdered peanuts (lower fat than just using peanuts). And of course I use the kinds of processed things most do, like olive oil, vinegars, premade mustards, sriracha, other hot sauces, tahini, soy sauce, etc., which again help make me able to make a quick and satisfying meal in minutes.
As for ultraprocessed -- many of them aren't nutritionally what I want, and even the better ones aren't typically as tasty as I'd make, but they aren't universally nutritionally terrible especially if you aren't eating them 100% but, say, some chips as a side with a delicious homemade chicken chili with lots of veg. And while people would likely all agree that chips count as an ultraprocessed food (so does Ezekiel bread, btw), many are made from only potatoes, oil, and salt -- hardly mysterious ingredients with terrible effects on all.
I do believe that a diet made up of a high percentage of ultraprocessed foods is going to be harder to control weight on for many or most than a diet based more on whole and lightly processed foods, but I don't think that makes ultraprocessed foods "unsafe at any speed" or scary or deserving to be demonized. Typically when people ate a ridiculous amount of fast food and ultraprocessed stuff and were overweight and then change their diet and lose weight, the positive health effects are primarily due to weight loss and probably them having had an extreme diet in the past (you might be surprised at how many people didn't get fat because of lots of that stuff), not because a bag of chips will poison you.7 -
Listened to the interview on CBC Radio1... Just a heads up.... what they termed as ultraprocessed might surprise some people. One of those foods was regular commercial fruit flavoured Greek yogourt. I don't think many of us might consider that as ultra processed - maybe we have in mind 'pizza pockets' or some such. As an example regular 'processed food' includes pastueurized milk, eg. foods that have minimal processing to reduce or eliminate microbes.
As lemurcat2 stated in their comment above.4 -
canadjineh wrote: »Listened to the interview on CBC Radio1... Just a heads up.... what they termed as ultraprocessed might surprise some people. One of those foods was regular commercial fruit flavoured Greek yogourt. I don't think many of us might consider that as ultra processed - maybe we have in mind 'pizza pockets' or some such. As an example regular 'processed food' includes pastueurized milk, eg. foods that have minimal processing to reduce or eliminate microbes.
As lemurcat2 stated in their comment above.
Check out the NOVA class listings of foods. Helped me understand.3 -
canadjineh wrote: »Listened to the interview on CBC Radio1... Just a heads up.... what they termed as ultraprocessed might surprise some people. One of those foods was regular commercial fruit flavoured Greek yogourt. I don't think many of us might consider that as ultra processed - maybe we have in mind 'pizza pockets' or some such. As an example regular 'processed food' includes pastueurized milk, eg. foods that have minimal processing to reduce or eliminate microbes.
As lemurcat2 stated in their comment above.
FRUIT FLAVORED Greek yougurt absolutely belongs on that list. It’s full of added sugar.2 -
psychod787 wrote: »mojavemtbr wrote: »mojavemtbr wrote: »Thread title paraphrased from article, links/sources etc within article.
https://www.businessinsider.com/how-processed-foods-lead-to-weight-gain-nih-study-2019-5Groundbreaking research from the US National Institutes of Health suggests for the first time that the relationship is causal: no matter how nutritious they are, processed foods lead people to eat more and gain weight.
Personally speaking, the inability/unwillingness to release the food I'm holding and/or stop shoving it into my mouth caused me to gain weight, but to further elaborate, much of that was chicken/fish/veggies/lean beef and so on. I did not partake of massive amounts of what are currently thought of as "processed" foods.
But this seems to be getting thrust back into the public eye, so...thoughts?
The basic science/math is eat more calories than you expend on a daily basis= weight gain....period !
Its not Rocket Science. Its basic. Yes, highly processed foods are the least healthy and whole foods are the healthiest but it all boils down to "eat less, move more" !!!!
But I already do ELMM I move quite a lot actually...my point was that I did not get overweight on highly processed foods, but on the flip side I do eat much more of them now that I'm about at maintenance. Simple enough after doing what psychod787 says.psychod787 wrote: »Or..... move more.... eat smarter.... just a thought...
I have been eating a clean mostly whole foods diet since this past November and been maintaining a caloric deficit on most days . I have lost almost 25 lbs. and am almost back to my healthy goal weight. However when I get there and go on a maintenance mode I will not go back to eating more processed foods. The feeling like crap, poor digestion, bad insulin response, skin conditions, etc etc that comes along with all the junk in processed foods are just not worth putting that garbage in my body anymore..
Healthy foods are simply better from every angle.
Congratulations on the weight loss, that's fantastic, and as always, to each their own. What this study is concerned with is whether or not certain foods cause a person to want to eat more though. I do know there have been quite a few debates on what constitutes "clean" eating, but as long as my panels are coming back "textbook or better" (my doctors description of the results) I will continue to enjoy what I do, and urge you to do the same.
There is something I have noticed from talking to people here that lost weight then regained some. Most of the people that made a change To whole food KETO, whole food vegan... ect... Some of them were not weighing and measuring... just eating to fullness and satiety.... what they did was knock out the "junk" food. They maintained ok.. it's when they added in Keto and vegan "junk" food did they have issues. Not EVERY person that stuck to a whole foods diet maintained, but it was shocking to me how many did until they loads of hyperprocessed foods.
That kind of makes sense to me in that most of the hyper-processed stuff I eat seems very high in carbs, and I only do really well when I keep carbs a bit lower, 125g a day or so. When I have a day high in carbs, or refined carbs if you like, I seem to bloat badly, retain loads of water. I know that's not fat gain, but something in those foods just is not kind to me. How it would (if it does) correlate to actually fat gain I have no idea..2 -
psychod787 wrote: »mojavemtbr wrote: »mojavemtbr wrote: »Thread title paraphrased from article, links/sources etc within article.
https://www.businessinsider.com/how-processed-foods-lead-to-weight-gain-nih-study-2019-5Groundbreaking research from the US National Institutes of Health suggests for the first time that the relationship is causal: no matter how nutritious they are, processed foods lead people to eat more and gain weight.
Personally speaking, the inability/unwillingness to release the food I'm holding and/or stop shoving it into my mouth caused me to gain weight, but to further elaborate, much of that was chicken/fish/veggies/lean beef and so on. I did not partake of massive amounts of what are currently thought of as "processed" foods.
But this seems to be getting thrust back into the public eye, so...thoughts?
The basic science/math is eat more calories than you expend on a daily basis= weight gain....period !
Its not Rocket Science. Its basic. Yes, highly processed foods are the least healthy and whole foods are the healthiest but it all boils down to "eat less, move more" !!!!
But I already do ELMM I move quite a lot actually...my point was that I did not get overweight on highly processed foods, but on the flip side I do eat much more of them now that I'm about at maintenance. Simple enough after doing what psychod787 says.psychod787 wrote: »Or..... move more.... eat smarter.... just a thought...
I have been eating a clean mostly whole foods diet since this past November and been maintaining a caloric deficit on most days . I have lost almost 25 lbs. and am almost back to my healthy goal weight. However when I get there and go on a maintenance mode I will not go back to eating more processed foods. The feeling like crap, poor digestion, bad insulin response, skin conditions, etc etc that comes along with all the junk in processed foods are just not worth putting that garbage in my body anymore..
Healthy foods are simply better from every angle.
Congratulations on the weight loss, that's fantastic, and as always, to each their own. What this study is concerned with is whether or not certain foods cause a person to want to eat more though. I do know there have been quite a few debates on what constitutes "clean" eating, but as long as my panels are coming back "textbook or better" (my doctors description of the results) I will continue to enjoy what I do, and urge you to do the same.
There is something I have noticed from talking to people here that lost weight then regained some. Most of the people that made a change To whole food KETO, whole food vegan... ect... Some of them were not weighing and measuring... just eating to fullness and satiety.... what they did was knock out the "junk" food. They maintained ok.. it's when they added in Keto and vegan "junk" food did they have issues. Not EVERY person that stuck to a whole foods diet maintained, but it was shocking to me how many did until they loads of hyperprocessed foods.
That kind of makes sense to me in that most of the hyper-processed stuff I eat seems very high in carbs, and I only do really well when I keep carbs a bit lower, 125g a day or so. When I have a day high in carbs, or refined carbs if you like, I seem to bloat badly, retain loads of water. I know that's not fat gain, but something in those foods just is not kind to me. How it would (if it does) correlate to actually fat gain I have no idea..
Well salt tends to be higher in hyperprocessed in my experience. If you are depleted you get water weight gain as carbs are stored in muscles. I think in the long run Hyperpalitable and energy dense foods kinda makes people over eat.3 -
psychod787 wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »mojavemtbr wrote: »mojavemtbr wrote: »Thread title paraphrased from article, links/sources etc within article.
https://www.businessinsider.com/how-processed-foods-lead-to-weight-gain-nih-study-2019-5Groundbreaking research from the US National Institutes of Health suggests for the first time that the relationship is causal: no matter how nutritious they are, processed foods lead people to eat more and gain weight.
Personally speaking, the inability/unwillingness to release the food I'm holding and/or stop shoving it into my mouth caused me to gain weight, but to further elaborate, much of that was chicken/fish/veggies/lean beef and so on. I did not partake of massive amounts of what are currently thought of as "processed" foods.
But this seems to be getting thrust back into the public eye, so...thoughts?
The basic science/math is eat more calories than you expend on a daily basis= weight gain....period !
Its not Rocket Science. Its basic. Yes, highly processed foods are the least healthy and whole foods are the healthiest but it all boils down to "eat less, move more" !!!!
But I already do ELMM I move quite a lot actually...my point was that I did not get overweight on highly processed foods, but on the flip side I do eat much more of them now that I'm about at maintenance. Simple enough after doing what psychod787 says.psychod787 wrote: »Or..... move more.... eat smarter.... just a thought...
I have been eating a clean mostly whole foods diet since this past November and been maintaining a caloric deficit on most days . I have lost almost 25 lbs. and am almost back to my healthy goal weight. However when I get there and go on a maintenance mode I will not go back to eating more processed foods. The feeling like crap, poor digestion, bad insulin response, skin conditions, etc etc that comes along with all the junk in processed foods are just not worth putting that garbage in my body anymore..
Healthy foods are simply better from every angle.
Congratulations on the weight loss, that's fantastic, and as always, to each their own. What this study is concerned with is whether or not certain foods cause a person to want to eat more though. I do know there have been quite a few debates on what constitutes "clean" eating, but as long as my panels are coming back "textbook or better" (my doctors description of the results) I will continue to enjoy what I do, and urge you to do the same.
There is something I have noticed from talking to people here that lost weight then regained some. Most of the people that made a change To whole food KETO, whole food vegan... ect... Some of them were not weighing and measuring... just eating to fullness and satiety.... what they did was knock out the "junk" food. They maintained ok.. it's when they added in Keto and vegan "junk" food did they have issues. Not EVERY person that stuck to a whole foods diet maintained, but it was shocking to me how many did until they loads of hyperprocessed foods.
That kind of makes sense to me in that most of the hyper-processed stuff I eat seems very high in carbs, and I only do really well when I keep carbs a bit lower, 125g a day or so. When I have a day high in carbs, or refined carbs if you like, I seem to bloat badly, retain loads of water. I know that's not fat gain, but something in those foods just is not kind to me. How it would (if it does) correlate to actually fat gain I have no idea..
Well salt tends to be higher in hyperprocessed in my experience. If you are depleted you get water weight gain as carbs are stored in muscles. I think in the long run Hyperpalitable and energy dense foods kinda makes people over eat.
I agree. I agreed to the tune of a snickers bar and a devil dog today
I have no issues believing that.0 -
rheddmobile wrote: »canadjineh wrote: »Listened to the interview on CBC Radio1... Just a heads up.... what they termed as ultraprocessed might surprise some people. One of those foods was regular commercial fruit flavoured Greek yogourt. I don't think many of us might consider that as ultra processed - maybe we have in mind 'pizza pockets' or some such. As an example regular 'processed food' includes pastueurized milk, eg. foods that have minimal processing to reduce or eliminate microbes.
As lemurcat2 stated in their comment above.
FRUIT FLAVORED Greek yougurt absolutely belongs on that list. It’s full of added sugar.
Or fake sugar.
Hardly inherently poisonous for you, as the other poster suggested.4 -
psychod787 wrote: »mojavemtbr wrote: »mojavemtbr wrote: »Thread title paraphrased from article, links/sources etc within article.
https://www.businessinsider.com/how-processed-foods-lead-to-weight-gain-nih-study-2019-5Groundbreaking research from the US National Institutes of Health suggests for the first time that the relationship is causal: no matter how nutritious they are, processed foods lead people to eat more and gain weight.
Personally speaking, the inability/unwillingness to release the food I'm holding and/or stop shoving it into my mouth caused me to gain weight, but to further elaborate, much of that was chicken/fish/veggies/lean beef and so on. I did not partake of massive amounts of what are currently thought of as "processed" foods.
But this seems to be getting thrust back into the public eye, so...thoughts?
The basic science/math is eat more calories than you expend on a daily basis= weight gain....period !
Its not Rocket Science. Its basic. Yes, highly processed foods are the least healthy and whole foods are the healthiest but it all boils down to "eat less, move more" !!!!
But I already do ELMM I move quite a lot actually...my point was that I did not get overweight on highly processed foods, but on the flip side I do eat much more of them now that I'm about at maintenance. Simple enough after doing what psychod787 says.psychod787 wrote: »Or..... move more.... eat smarter.... just a thought...
I have been eating a clean mostly whole foods diet since this past November and been maintaining a caloric deficit on most days . I have lost almost 25 lbs. and am almost back to my healthy goal weight. However when I get there and go on a maintenance mode I will not go back to eating more processed foods. The feeling like crap, poor digestion, bad insulin response, skin conditions, etc etc that comes along with all the junk in processed foods are just not worth putting that garbage in my body anymore..
Healthy foods are simply better from every angle.
Congratulations on the weight loss, that's fantastic, and as always, to each their own. What this study is concerned with is whether or not certain foods cause a person to want to eat more though. I do know there have been quite a few debates on what constitutes "clean" eating, but as long as my panels are coming back "textbook or better" (my doctors description of the results) I will continue to enjoy what I do, and urge you to do the same.
There is something I have noticed from talking to people here that lost weight then regained some. Most of the people that made a change To whole food KETO, whole food vegan... ect... Some of them were not weighing and measuring... just eating to fullness and satiety.... what they did was knock out the "junk" food. They maintained ok.. it's when they added in Keto and vegan "junk" food did they have issues. Not EVERY person that stuck to a whole foods diet maintained, but it was shocking to me how many did until they loads of hyperprocessed foods.
I think this is less about the effect of "ultraprocessed foods" as the nature of a WFPB or WF keto diet (which I hope did not include the ever popular bacon!) -- very limited. It's much harder to overeat on either of those than a omnivorous, non keto diet, obviously. But I don't think most people need to have such restricted diets to be able to learn to eat a diet on which they can maintain, and I think sticking to the restrictions of either of those diets is going to be somewhat hard for most unless they are part of a community where it's a big deal or they have a huge buy-in to the rationale (health+ethics/environment for WFPB), some kind of health rationale or view that they feel bad eating basically any carbs/junk food for the WF keto folk. In those cases, I think there's something in the nature of hardline rules vs. if we make exceptions the whole rationale seems to fall and we eat everything without limits.
I also think it's interesting that we keep falling into the idea that eating lots of "junk food" (which I'd define as low nutrient, usually low satiety, high cal foods) = ultraprocessed. While I do think that's what this study focused on, I think there are ways to make a whole food diet higher cal and harder to control cals on (if you include butter and other tricks even chefs who cook primarily from whole foods use), and I think there are ultraprocessed foods that would not fall into this category (although I've never personally consumed much of that stuff). People who switch to whole foods for weight control (vs because they just like cooking that way) are much less likely to use such techniques and instead to cook a more health-conscious way, since that was the point, and cooking yourself does help with staying mindful.
One example of ultraprocessed choices that I think could be consistent with eating mindfully and not lead to overeating -- although I've never personally consumed microwave meals more than on a very rare occasion, since it's just not how I eat -- is those Amy's or other more nutrient focused frozen meals, or even a Lean Cuisine (bulked up with veg, since nothing about eating ultraprocessed means you can't also eat whole foods). I actually know multiple women at work who are normal weight but who eat those pretty much every day, and unlike the current study, of course, those foods are inherently calorie limited. (I also expect these women eat whole foods based dinners, knowing them, but again if we bring the discussion to real life, if people are sensible there's no reason eating occasional ultraprocessed means they must stop eating whole foods and decide "well, since I now eat ultraprocessed food, I'll consume lots of junk food daily.")
I also think we see on MFP lots of people who consume ultraprocessed foods as part of a mostly whole foods based diet and do fine. I've said before (maybe in this thread) that I rarely ate ice cream before I dieted (when I did, though, I'd eat quite a lot, possibly even a whole pint, or whatever a restaurant serving is, as I might order it for dessert). I stopped eating any added sugar for the first month or so when I started losing, and then I decided to add it back in in moderation and eventually started eating 200 cal of ice cream 3-4 times a week. It did not slow my weight loss at all. I've stopped eating ice cream for the time being since I've lost my sweet tooth and never seem to want dessert beyond fruit, but if it comes back (as I expect), I'd do that again.
I'll also add that whatever "hyperpalatable" means I agree with several others here who have noted that it's NOT more tasty. I think a well-made whole foods diet (especially if it also includes foods like olive oil or butter plus salt and herbs and spices) is usually far more delicious. I think the deal with ultraprocessed food is often that people CHOOSE higher cal, lower nutrient options (and it's harder to find the alternative often), and that they are easy and cheap and often not very satisfying at all (good ice cream is IMO an exception, though, as is actually good chocolate and homemade baked goods, which are not easy, however, since they take time to make).6 -
@lemurcat2 I use the term 'junk food' quite a bit as most folks are familiar with what type of food it's referencing. Much easier than banging out "ultra-high processed hyperpalatable low nutrient foods"
One of the things I've noticed about me is that in spite of getting more facts straight these days, those times I do indulge and am feeling bloated or lethargic my mind snaps back to the need to "eat clean" for a while. "Unlearned" thoughts/behaviors/programming dies a slow slow death sometimes.
2 -
@lemurcat2 I use the term 'junk food' quite a bit as most folks are familiar with what type of food it's referencing. Much easier than banging out "ultra-high processed hyperpalatable low nutrient foods"
One of the things I've noticed about me is that in spite of getting more facts straight these days, those times I do indulge and am feeling bloated or lethargic my mind snaps back to the need to "eat clean" for a while. "Unlearned" thoughts/behaviors/programming dies a slow slow death sometimes.
Lots of people here don't like the term junk food, but I like it fine, with the caveat that people don't 100% agree on what junk food is. My point, I think, was that a food can be ultraprocessed (since that was the topic of the study) and not junk food. For example, lots of convenience food made to appeal to the healthy eating crowd: an Evol frozen meal that's basically just brown rice, beef, and vegetables, or some seasoned baked tofu, a flavored greek yogurt (as brought up before) with fake sugar. Many such examples. And that's without getting into lots of low cal sauces and seasonings, like a premade Korean BBQ sauce (I just impulse bought one to try, in fact).
I loathe the term "clean eating" (not picking on you) but I would likely be considered a "clean eater" by a lot of those who label themselves as such, in part just because I'm a food snob (an issue I had when getting fat too, sadly, so it's not that protective). As I've said many times in this thread, I find the results of the study unsurprising and I think for many people moving more toward cooking at home from whole foods and mindful of what's in your food can be very helpful (for me it goes along with eating only at mealtimes too). But there was a time when I was so hung up on eating completely "clean" (I would have said "natural" which is an equally stupid term), that I sabotaged myself by making cooking and eating stressful and beating myself up for things that were totally fine and ultimately resulting in what had been eating and fun (cooking most of my food) into something that felt stressful and unsustainable. Getting over that mindset and realizing I didn't have to be a purist and that I could buy a salad from a quick serve place like Protein Bar or Pret or wherever without it being somehow nutritionally inferior (probably higher sodium but eh, I don't have a reason to worry about sodium) just because it would fit the label of "ultraprocessed" was very helpful for me. Even something like a turkey sandwich at Potbelly's in a pinch (normal cals compared to my regular lunch, fewer veg) doesn't make me feel bad or bloated or anything (for me that's more about overeating or sometimes really high fat/sodium, as I tend to get it if I indulge in a big restaurant meal even if it's pretty wholesome in terms of ingredients, which is something I'm learning).
That's why I like to focus on the specifics about foods rather than focusing on whether they technically fit the processed or ultraprocessed or unprocessed camps.8 -
rheddmobile 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.
Oh, so it is all the foods fault, and individuals bear no responsibility whatsoever in their obesity? Thats good to know. I had no idea that there was no such thing as processed foods in the past and they suddenly appeared and made people fat. You say the amount of willpower in America hasn't sharply declined since the 50's, and that may be true, but I believe that advances in technology has led to a society where the average human moves less and eats more. People have more sedentary jobs now than they did in the past. Almost everything is automated now and doesn't require manual labor. Want to play baseball? Great, turn on your PS4 instead of meeting your friends at the sandlot. Blaming foods is such a cop out and its just another way to avoid taking responsibility for our choices.22 -
I didn't take it as picking on me @lemurcat2@lemurcat2 I use the term 'junk food' quite a bit as most folks are familiar with what type of food it's referencing. Much easier than banging out "ultra-high processed hyperpalatable low nutrient foods"
One of the things I've noticed about me is that in spite of getting more facts straight these days, those times I do indulge and am feeling bloated or lethargic my mind snaps back to the need to "eat clean" for a while. "Unlearned" thoughts/behaviors/programming dies a slow slow death sometimes.
Lots of people here don't like the term junk food, but I like it fine, with the caveat that people don't 100% agree on what junk food is. My point, I think, was that a food can be ultraprocessed (since that was the topic of the study) and not junk food. For example, lots of convenience food made to appeal to the healthy eating crowd: an Evol frozen meal that's basically just brown rice, beef, and vegetables, or some seasoned baked tofu, a flavored greek yogurt (as brought up before) with fake sugar. Many such examples. And that's without getting into lots of low cal sauces and seasonings, like a premade Korean BBQ sauce (I just impulse bought one to try, in fact).
I loathe the term "clean eating" (not picking on you) but I would likely be considered a "clean eater" by a lot of those who label themselves as such, in part just because I'm a food snob (an issue I had when getting fat too, sadly, so it's not that protective). As I've said many times in this thread, I find the results of the study unsurprising and I think for many people moving more toward cooking at home from whole foods and mindful of what's in your food can be very helpful (for me it goes along with eating only at mealtimes too). But there was a time when I was so hung up on eating completely "clean" (I would have said "natural" which is an equally stupid term), that I sabotaged myself by making cooking and eating stressful and beating myself up for things that were totally fine and ultimately resulting in what had been eating and fun (cooking most of my food) into something that felt stressful and unsustainable. Getting over that mindset and realizing I didn't have to be a purist and that I could buy a salad from a quick serve place like Protein Bar or Pret or wherever without it being somehow nutritionally inferior (probably higher sodium but eh, I don't have a reason to worry about sodium) just because it would fit the label of "ultraprocessed" was very helpful for me. Even something like a turkey sandwich at Potbelly's in a pinch (normal cals compared to my regular lunch, fewer veg) doesn't make me feel bad or bloated or anything (for me that's more about overeating or sometimes really high fat/sodium, as I tend to get it if I indulge in a big restaurant meal even if it's pretty wholesome in terms of ingredients, which is something I'm learning).
That's why I like to focus on the specifics about foods rather than focusing on whether they technically fit the processed or ultraprocessed or unprocessed camps. Slight misunderstanding maybe...I only use defining terms like that to simplify conversation, I don't apply them to myself.
I thought (and think) this whole conversation and study is interesting, and maybe gives some new insights, but in the end, regardless of what I'm eating it still all comes back to how much I choose to eat - that's really how I approach every day. I just noted that it's interesting how some bits of the study line up with my personal experiences, that's all.
1 -
I think the classic example of the bolded is protein powder. People sometimes react poorly if one refers to it as a "processed food", but I think it's about as ultraprocessed as foods get. (I don't think they get a pass on that definition by extracting and concentrating the believed-nutritious ingredients, rather than extracting and concentrating the believed-hyperpalatable ones.)@lemurcat2 I use the term 'junk food' quite a bit as most folks are familiar with what type of food it's referencing. Much easier than banging out "ultra-high processed hyperpalatable low nutrient foods"
One of the things I've noticed about me is that in spite of getting more facts straight these days, those times I do indulge and am feeling bloated or lethargic my mind snaps back to the need to "eat clean" for a while. "Unlearned" thoughts/behaviors/programming dies a slow slow death sometimes.
Lots of people here don't like the term junk food, but I like it fine, with the caveat that people don't 100% agree on what junk food is. My point, I think, was that a food can be ultraprocessed (since that was the topic of the study) and not junk food. For example, lots of convenience food made to appeal to the healthy eating crowd: an Evol frozen meal that's basically just brown rice, beef, and vegetables, or some seasoned baked tofu, a flavored greek yogurt (as brought up before) with fake sugar. Many such examples. And that's without getting into lots of low cal sauces and seasonings, like a premade Korean BBQ sauce (I just impulse bought one to try, in fact).
But I don't consider it junk food at all. (That's if I fell in with what I think people mean by "junk food".)
In general, I don't find all these vague categories at all helpful: Junk, clean, natural, whole, fast food (when it's used as a broad characterization of the food itself, rather than the convenience/cost side of things), even the processed and unprocessed terms we're discussing right now.
Nutritionally, as the basis of my overall way of eating, I'm skeptical of foods that are extremely distant from the very general kind of eating that's been natural-selection-tested among human groups for centuries to millennia. Fortunately, that set of diverse food traditions includes many foods I enjoy and am happy to eat: Fruit and vegetables and grains and beans for sure, but also yogurt, tofu, commerical packaged convenience products with pretty much the same ingredients that I'd use if I made them myself, etc.
I also don't worry, once a good nutritional foundation is laid, whether I eat minor amounts of really crazy modern (not time-tested) foods (I can't think of any examples right now that I do eat, maybe Taco Flavor Doritos?)I loathe the term "clean eating" (not picking on you) but I would likely be considered a "clean eater" by a lot of those who label themselves as such, in part just because I'm a food snob (an issue I had when getting fat too, sadly, so it's not that protective).
<major snip of useful comments, for reply length>
. . . I like to focus on the specifics about foods rather than focusing on whether they technically fit the processed or ultraprocessed or unprocessed camps.
Yes. I've had people here (who, as MFP friends, could see my diary) call me a "clean eater" even (and I fuss mildly when that happens). (I guess they missed the occasional Taco Doritos?).
To the bolded: Exactly. Getting this right, IMO, is all about balancing appropriate calories, reasonable nutrition, satiation, energy level, social connection via food, practicality, general all-round happiness, and probably other factors I'm forgetting. Rules around vague categories like "processed" or "clean" make it more complicated, for me, without helping at all with the core issues.
But I still find the study useful and interesting, from that "brick in the wall of well-founded knowledge" standpoint I mentioned upthread.4 -
rheddmobile 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.
Oh, so it is all the foods fault, and individuals bear no responsibility whatsoever in their obesity? Thats good to know. I had no idea that there was no such thing as processed foods in the past and they suddenly appeared and made people fat. You say the amount of willpower in America hasn't sharply declined since the 50's, and that may be true, but I believe that advances in technology has led to a society where the average human moves less and eats more. People have more sedentary jobs now than they did in the past. Almost everything is automated now and doesn't require manual labor. Want to play baseball? Great, turn on your PS4 instead of meeting your friends at the sandlot. Blaming foods is such a cop out and its just another way to avoid taking responsibility for our choices.
Indeed. The contrast within my lifetime is dramatic in the ways you mention (I'm 63, born 1955). Roomba, riding lawn mowers (or lawn services) as the common option, so many conveniences (technology or paid services) that obviate chores nearly everyone used to do, in ways big and little. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with this, but it's simple fact that the differences are diverse and (in sum) dramatic.
Also, the change in ready availability of ready-to-eat food choices 24/7, nearly everywhere, affects the activity factor, not just the intake. It used to spend up a few calories to make a snack, and probably 50 or so to make a meal. Now there's the drive-through. Everywhere. Everywhen. With cupholders and consoles in your car designed to facilitate convenient immediate consumption.
Natural selection will have wired us, I suspect, toward conserving energy (moving less) when possible, and toward storing energy (over-eating) when possible. Add in, in many first-world culture contexts, a perception that doing less for oneself is a bit of a status symbol; and that eating/drinking is now socially acceptable in a huge range of contexts where even 50 years ago it would've been seen as a little odd. We're fine-tuning all those factors to an extreme in the fortunate first-world contexts, and (in a cross-population average sort of sense), an obesity crisis is kind of an obvious outcome. (Without claiming either reduced willpower, or any strange magical power of ultraprocessed food. Food is ubiquitous, and that ultraprocessed kind tends to be extra-pleasurable (to many) and not very filling: That's it.)
I think, overall, I'm coming down somewhere between the two of you. I agree with Rhedd about the ubiquity of easy food choices that aren't satiating as being a factor in the population-wide picture, and with wmd about it having more factors than just the food itself, and in feeling that people individually ought to have some common sense, insight, and responsibility for their own choices. (Not that I did, myself, for decades! Though I guess I didn't blame the food . . . .).
ETA: If you parse out the stats from the obesity epidemic, we only need a fairly moderate calorie swing, low hundreds daily IIRC, to account for it. A little lower CO, a little higher CI, gets you there pretty easily. To explain a few hundred daily, it doesn't take a giant conspiracy or change in human nature.8 -
Another thing to keep in mind about processed foods is that they also contain ingredients that often interfere with the body's ability to regulate appetite. Some ingredients actually prevent your body from receiving the signal that it is full, so you are more likely to keep eating/feel hungry. While I believe that calorie counting is king, I do believe what you consume also has an affect on you. For example, I may only have 140 calories of cheese-its (and not go over my 1200 calories), but I tell you what, nothing seems to make my weight go up like cheese-its; much of it seems to be water weight (as it is easily lost when I stop eating cheese-its). From experiences like these, I do think what you eat matters, not just how much. The less processed food I eat, the leaner and better I feel (and the happier my scale is).20
-
AmandaOmega wrote: »Another thing to keep in mind about processed foods is that they also contain ingredients that often interfere with the body's ability to regulate appetite. Some ingredients actually prevent your body from receiving the signal that it is full, so you are more likely to keep eating/feel hungry. While I believe that calorie counting is king, I do believe what you consume also has an affect on you. For example, I may only have 140 calories of cheese-its (and not go over my 1200 calories), but I tell you what, nothing seems to make my weight go up like cheese-its; much of it seems to be water weight (as it is easily lost when I stop eating cheese-its). From experiences like these, I do think what you eat matters, not just how much. The less processed food I eat, the leaner and better I feel (and the happier my scale is).
I'm curious what ingredients those are? I haven't heard of this before.7 -
AmandaOmega wrote: »Another thing to keep in mind about processed foods is that they also contain ingredients that often interfere with the body's ability to regulate appetite. Some ingredients actually prevent your body from receiving the signal that it is full, so you are more likely to keep eating/feel hungry. While I believe that calorie counting is king, I do believe what you consume also has an affect on you. For example, I may only have 140 calories of cheese-its (and not go over my 1200 calories), but I tell you what, nothing seems to make my weight go up like cheese-its; much of it seems to be water weight (as it is easily lost when I stop eating cheese-its). From experiences like these, I do think what you eat matters, not just how much. The less processed food I eat, the leaner and better I feel (and the happier my scale is).
What ingredients are you talking about?
Cheez-its aren't satisfying because they have no fiber, low protein, just straight up carbs with a bit of fat. And they make you gain water weight because they're salty - that hasn't nothing to do with gaining fat or hunger signals.
I tend to eat a decent amount of convenience foods, but I choose many of them carefully to make sure I'm hitting my fiber and protein goals. They fill me up the same way whole foods with similar macros would fill me up. It's the food that has processed out all the satiating components and has dramatic taste profiles (salt, sugar, spice) that fails us appetite wise. It's more what ultra=processed foods are missing, not what they contain. That's why some people don't find protein shakes filling - they have a lot of protein, but no fiber and not enough digestion required to keep them full.13 -
AmandaOmega wrote: »Another thing to keep in mind about processed foods is that they also contain ingredients that often interfere with the body's ability to regulate appetite. Some ingredients actually prevent your body from receiving the signal that it is full, so you are more likely to keep eating/feel hungry. While I believe that calorie counting is king, I do believe what you consume also has an affect on you. For example, I may only have 140 calories of cheese-its (and not go over my 1200 calories), but I tell you what, nothing seems to make my weight go up like cheese-its; much of it seems to be water weight (as it is easily lost when I stop eating cheese-its). From experiences like these, I do think what you eat matters, not just how much. The less processed food I eat, the leaner and better I feel (and the happier my scale is).
I know the ingredients in Cheez-its that make you more likely to feel hungry: 1. fat (makes the volume smaller - think fried vs baked potatoes) 2. dehydration (makes the weight of the food smaller - think raisins vs grapes). These ingredients can easily be found in minimally processed food. The ingredient that makes you retain water weight: salt.
It's fine to have foods you don't want to eat, but I'm hoping you're making an informed choice based on what foods make dieting harder for you, not by a generalized definition that may include foods you like but don't allow yourself to have just because they fall into a certain category. (regardless of water weight gain, because that has nothing to do with fat loss)6
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions