Calorie Counter

You are currently viewing the message boards in:

Processed foods cause more weight gain

12467

Replies

  • MikePTYMikePTY Posts: 3,083Member, Premium Member Posts: 3,083Member, Premium Member
    kimny72 wrote: »
    psychod787 wrote: »
    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.

    I understand :smile: 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 :lol:

    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.
  • AnnPT77AnnPT77 Posts: 12,119Member Member Posts: 12,119Member 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.

    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.
    kimny72 wrote: »
    psychod787 wrote: »
    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.

    I understand :smile: 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 :lol:

    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. :)
    edited May 18
  • lemurcat2lemurcat2 Posts: 3,320Member Member Posts: 3,320Member 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.

    Sounds way tastier to me too, but also more filling and would take longer to eat.
  • lemurcat2lemurcat2 Posts: 3,320Member Member Posts: 3,320Member Member
    MikePTY wrote: »
    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."
  • mojavemtbrmojavemtbr Posts: 35Member Member Posts: 35Member Member
    Phirrgus wrote: »
    Thread title paraphrased from article, links/sources etc within article.

    https://www.businessinsider.com/how-processed-foods-lead-to-weight-gain-nih-study-2019-5
    Groundbreaking 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" !!!!
    edited May 18
  • psychod787psychod787 Posts: 2,428Member, Premium Member Posts: 2,428Member, Premium Member
    Or..... move more.... eat smarter.... just a thought...
  • glassyoglassyo Posts: 3,968Member Member Posts: 3,968Member Member
    wmd1979 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.
  • PhirrgusPhirrgus Posts: 1,904Member Member Posts: 1,904Member Member
    mojavemtbr wrote: »
    Phirrgus wrote: »
    Thread title paraphrased from article, links/sources etc within article.

    https://www.businessinsider.com/how-processed-foods-lead-to-weight-gain-nih-study-2019-5
    Groundbreaking 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...

    :)
  • mojavemtbrmojavemtbr Posts: 35Member Member Posts: 35Member Member
    Phirrgus wrote: »
    mojavemtbr wrote: »
    Phirrgus wrote: »
    Thread title paraphrased from article, links/sources etc within article.

    https://www.businessinsider.com/how-processed-foods-lead-to-weight-gain-nih-study-2019-5
    Groundbreaking 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.
  • psychod787psychod787 Posts: 2,428Member, Premium Member Posts: 2,428Member, Premium Member
    Phirrgus wrote: »
    mojavemtbr wrote: »
    Phirrgus wrote: »
    mojavemtbr wrote: »
    Phirrgus wrote: »
    Thread title paraphrased from article, links/sources etc within article.

    https://www.businessinsider.com/how-processed-foods-lead-to-weight-gain-nih-study-2019-5
    Groundbreaking 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.
  • canadjinehcanadjineh Posts: 4,895Member Member Posts: 4,895Member Member
    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.
  • psychod787psychod787 Posts: 2,428Member, Premium Member Posts: 2,428Member, Premium Member
    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.
  • rheddmobilerheddmobile Posts: 4,506Member Member Posts: 4,506Member Member
    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.
  • PhirrgusPhirrgus Posts: 1,904Member Member Posts: 1,904Member Member
    psychod787 wrote: »
    Phirrgus wrote: »
    mojavemtbr wrote: »
    Phirrgus wrote: »
    mojavemtbr wrote: »
    Phirrgus wrote: »
    Thread title paraphrased from article, links/sources etc within article.

    https://www.businessinsider.com/how-processed-foods-lead-to-weight-gain-nih-study-2019-5
    Groundbreaking 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..
  • psychod787psychod787 Posts: 2,428Member, Premium Member Posts: 2,428Member, Premium Member
    Phirrgus wrote: »
    psychod787 wrote: »
    Phirrgus wrote: »
    mojavemtbr wrote: »
    Phirrgus wrote: »
    mojavemtbr wrote: »
    Phirrgus wrote: »
    Thread title paraphrased from article, links/sources etc within article.

    https://www.businessinsider.com/how-processed-foods-lead-to-weight-gain-nih-study-2019-5
    Groundbreaking 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.
  • PhirrgusPhirrgus Posts: 1,904Member Member Posts: 1,904Member Member
    psychod787 wrote: »
    Phirrgus wrote: »
    psychod787 wrote: »
    Phirrgus wrote: »
    mojavemtbr wrote: »
    Phirrgus wrote: »
    mojavemtbr wrote: »
    Phirrgus wrote: »
    Thread title paraphrased from article, links/sources etc within article.

    https://www.businessinsider.com/how-processed-foods-lead-to-weight-gain-nih-study-2019-5
    Groundbreaking 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 :D

    I have no issues believing that.
  • lemurcat2lemurcat2 Posts: 3,320Member Member Posts: 3,320Member Member
    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.
Sign In or Register to comment.