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
-
Your post wasn't particularly about processed foods.
McD's burgers ARE processed foods.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Processed_meat
As you can see fresh ground beef is NOT considered to be a processed meat however McD bacon and sausage are processed foods. Because it is fresh unprocessed meat McD can not run to another McD store and pick up a box of fresh never frozen 1/4 pound ground beef because not being a processed food it has to stay refrigerated until it goes on the grill.
One of the local store owner does Low Carb High Fat so I learned more about why McD like others are offering LCHF WOE's. McD is the best source for coffee I have found nationwide in most every town in the USA and they use real half and half creamer and not the processed food creamers.
4 -
If you read the actual study, the reason the ULTRAprocessed foods selected led to more weight gain than the unprocessed or minimally processed foods is because people ate more calories of the ultraprocessed foods.
There are a variety of reasons why that is unsurprising. None have to do with the gut biome.
Your own (non-reliable) source on Roundup asserts that it is not only on ultraprocessed foods, so the whole topic seems obviously off the topic of this thread. Perhaps you should start a thread on the gut biome or Monsanto.8 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »SeattleBebop1 wrote: »Someone mentioned the NOVA food classifications. I was curious, and found this:
https://archive.wphna.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/WN-2016-7-1-3-28-38-Monteiro-Cannon-Levy-et-al-NOVA.pdfSeattleBebop1 wrote: »Someone mentioned the NOVA food classifications. I was curious, and found this:
https://archive.wphna.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/WN-2016-7-1-3-28-38-Monteiro-Cannon-Levy-et-al-NOVA.pdf
@SeattleBebop1 thanks for sharing. I did not realize how the ultra processed foods and drinks makes up so much of the Standard American Diet (SAD) and now better understand the why behind the health failures of today that was not all that common 50+ years ago.
I think it's far more involved than the SAD, now vs then. We had plenty of ultra processed food in the 70s/80s. What was less common was the sit down order with a click society we have today. Granted additives have likely changed quite a bit as well as their volume of use in highly processed foods, but any scenario (JMHO) that simply blames food for poor health without considering how active or inactive the population is overall is missing a much larger piece of the puzzle.
It sure is more involved now with kids breakfasts coming with Round Up in the box in more and more brands.
Breakfast With a Dose of Roundup?
https://ewg.org/childrenshealth/glyphosateincereal/
But at least the kids are getting a "safe" dose of Round Up we are told. At least the Round Up in beer and wine is going to adults.
https://webmd.com/food-recipes/news/20180815/roundup-chemical-in-your-cereal-what-to-know
"Olga Naidenko, PhD, the Environmental Working Group’s senior science advisor for children’s environmental health, says glyphosate shouldn’t be in food, especially the foods we feed to young children."
OK one bowl of Round Up only causing 1 case of cancer per 1,000,000 is really nothing but what happens 20 years down the road after the same person has eaten 6,000 bowls plus all of the other Round Up containing foods.
The problem is this since 1974 most all countries that use tractors in farming have been using Round Up starting at some point. We are seeing only the tip of the food chain impact today I expect.
https://detoxproject.org/glyphosate/glyphosate-and-roundup-negatively-affect-gut-bacteria/
" In a second review, Samsel and Seneff pointed out that gut bacteria have this pathway and are susceptible to glyphosate toxicity, with the resulting disruptions in gut bacteria potentially impacting human and animal health. In addition, the authors noted glyphosate’s ability to chelate essential nutrient metals [Glyphosate chelates metals], making them unavailable to human and animal consumers. Thus glyphosate could potentially affect health by causing deficiencies of these nutrients.6"
https://mamavation.com/food/pea-protein.html
"Some of the organic pea protein brands’ products came back with higher levels of glyphosate than the conventional brands."
https://bigthink.com/surprising-science/roundup-beer-wine
Active ingredient in Roundup found in 95% of studied beers and wines
The controversial herbicide is everywhere, apparently.
Maybe when I cut out all forms of any grains in Oct 2014 I cut out common sources of Round Up that may be harmful to one's gut microbiome.
You completely dodged what I said and posted a concern that has absolutely nothing to do with what I said.
Are you denying that we as a population are less active today than we were 50 years ago?
Are you conflating toxins in our food with the additives I was referring to? Because the toxins are a whole other discussion.
I was replying to the Processed foods cause more weight gain thread. Toxins that may harm our gut microbiome may be one reason process foods can cause more weight was my point.
Weedkiller is used while the crops are still in the ground, and therefore affects processed and unprocessed foods alike.
I can’t believe I just had to explain that to a grown adult.15 -
It must suck having to completely exclude so many delicious foods from your life because of paranoia and fear. If the roundup doesn't give you cancer, we will all most certainly become obese, and be turned into carb and sugar addicts, right?
Or, instead of going to extremes based on fear mongering, people can actually enjoy what they like, but in moderation. Throw in some exercise and a conscious effort to try to make healthy decisions, and I would say the person that is better off is the one who doesn't need to completely exclude anything.
Sometimes people exclude many so-called delicious foods because to them, those foods are not delicious. It actually doesn't suck. I grew up eating simple, wholesome, home-cooked meals with lots of fresh produce and that is the kind of food that I crave.
When I say, "I don't eat _____[insert name of your favorite ultra-processed junk food]_____." it's not from a place of fear, deprivation, superiority, or disordered eating. It's just what I enjoy eating (as well as a privilege to be able to afford and have access to healthful foods).
In comparison to the standard American diet, sure, mine might be considered "extreme", but it does not feel extreme to me.8 -
Pretty sure that post wasn't directed toward you.9
-
If you read the actual study, the reason the ULTRAprocessed foods selected led to more weight gain than the unprocessed or minimally processed foods is because people ate more calories of the ultraprocessed foods.
There are a variety of reasons why that is unsurprising. None have to do with the gut biome.
Your own (non-reliable) source on Roundup asserts that it is not only on ultraprocessed foods, so the whole topic seems obviously off the topic of this thread. Perhaps you should start a thread on the gut biome or Monsanto.
Here is the link you suggested to be started.
https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10746790/gut-microbiome-impact-on-health-and-fitness
0 -
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.
The first two sentences of yours aren't at all an accurate, reasonable or fair representation of what rheddmobile said. It's this kind of over reactionary activism that strawmans so much and confuses the whole situation.
The environment can have changed and the increased ready availability of hyper palatable foods can result in behavioural population differences without any changes in human nature, and I can still take responsibility for my food choices and know that if I pick calories as my variable, I can control my weight, and don't need to stress over whether the food I'm eating is "clean" or "processed" or not.
External causes don't absolve you from all personal responsibility, and recognition of their existence isn't a threat.8 -
It is true, however, that ultraprocessed foods and the subset of them called fast foods were certainly available in the '70s, and yet the obesity rate was much less, so blaming them for the obesity crisis seems to leave out relevant factors. I grew up in the '70s and '80s, and my mom used some ultraprocessed foods (canned soups were common, we had the boxed mac and cheese sometimes, we had after school snacks that were ultraprocessed, Eggos sometimes as a treat, fish sticks, TV dinners as a treat when my parents went out). We also got take out pizza or fast food on occasion (truly occasionally), usually the fast food as a treat with a group of other kids and parents after some event. I recall my favorite was Long John Silvers, heh. And orange juice or apple juice was a necessary part of breakfast.
But childhood obesity and even adult obesity in our social circles was really rare, and the existence of these ultraprocessed convenience foods didn't mean we overate or ate bad diets. Regular meals would include fruit and vegetables (dinners would always be a protein (meat, my parents would have been confused by vegetarian meals back then), a starch (corn, potatoes, peas, bread, maybe spaghetti, maybe sweet potatoes, but most commonly potatoes or corn), and a non starchy veg (or maybe salad). The veg weren't always the best, they were too often canned, but we were expected to eat them and it wasn't okay not to. I learned to like them okay, although once I was cooking on my own and going to better restaurants I appreciated them much more.
We also did not eat a ton of sweets, just an after school snack of a reasonable size or occasionally my mom would bake cookies (sometimes from a box, sometimes not). My dad was into those jello puddings after dinner for a while, but they weren't a ton of calories. We'd sometimes have popcorn (popped in a pot with oil).
We ate a reasonable diet, especially for our level of activity.
When people now claim to eat only ultraprocessed foods or to eat constantly or consume huge amounts of soda (soda was a very rare treat for us and half a can was a normal serving, my sister and I would share), or -- especially -- not to have ever eaten veg growing up, that is NOT caused by the existence of the same kinds of foods that have existed for a long time, and that I and many others grew up with without going to excess. It's got to be cultural or (for adults) decisions to act unreasonably or indulgently. That's why claiming it's the food rather than unreasonable choices involving the foods is wrong.9 -
My experience was kind of similar to yours @lemurcat2 . Grew up in the late 70's, early 80's and my mom did not like to cook! Along with the occasional roast chicken or baked potato, we ate Frosted Flakes, Eggos, Oscar Mayer bologna, Kraft singles, fish sticks, tater tots, pasta, flavored rice packets, hot dogs, canned veggies or baked beans, Hostess cupcakes, etc. None of us were overweight, and the heavy kid in class stood out because they were unusual. It was easy enough to get all that "processed" food where I lived at least, but we (and almost everyone I saw day to day) were either not eating as much of it, or were more active.
If the primary problem was "Processed food", the obesity epidemic would have started in at least some places in the US in the 70's at least. While I do believe processed foods make it easier to eat too many calories, they do not make it even remotely unavoidable. People are making poor choices about what and how much they are eating, and what kind of lifestyle they are living. Now that might be due to ignorance, or a societal lack of stress management, or misplaced priorities or technology advancements making folks more sedentary than they realize. I'm sure lack of education is a part of the problem for some people. For many of us though, the info is available and accessible, we just never prioritized acquiring it. There is definitely some willful ignorance as well - again I'm speaking from experience - there are a lot of us out there who didn't want to take responsibility and were more comfortable hiding behind "It's too confusing and hard to do". I see that in so many of the conversations I have with people I know who want to know what I did to succeed, and then refuse to believe when I tell them how.11 -
It is true, however, that ultraprocessed foods and the subset of them called fast foods were certainly available in the '70s, and yet the obesity rate was much less, so blaming them for the obesity crisis seems to leave out relevant factors. I grew up in the '70s and '80s, and my mom used some ultraprocessed foods (canned soups were common, we had the boxed mac and cheese sometimes, we had after school snacks that were ultraprocessed, Eggos sometimes as a treat, fish sticks, TV dinners as a treat when my parents went out). We also got take out pizza or fast food on occasion (truly occasionally), usually the fast food as a treat with a group of other kids and parents after some event. I recall my favorite was Long John Silvers, heh. And orange juice or apple juice was a necessary part of breakfast.
But childhood obesity and even adult obesity in our social circles was really rare, and the existence of these ultraprocessed convenience foods didn't mean we overate or ate bad diets. Regular meals would include fruit and vegetables (dinners would always be a protein (meat, my parents would have been confused by vegetarian meals back then), a starch (corn, potatoes, peas, bread, maybe spaghetti, maybe sweet potatoes, but most commonly potatoes or corn), and a non starchy veg (or maybe salad). The veg weren't always the best, they were too often canned, but we were expected to eat them and it wasn't okay not to. I learned to like them okay, although once I was cooking on my own and going to better restaurants I appreciated them much more.
We also did not eat a ton of sweets, just an after school snack of a reasonable size or occasionally my mom would bake cookies (sometimes from a box, sometimes not). My dad was into those jello puddings after dinner for a while, but they weren't a ton of calories. We'd sometimes have popcorn (popped in a pot with oil).
We ate a reasonable diet, especially for our level of activity.
When people now claim to eat only ultraprocessed foods or to eat constantly or consume huge amounts of soda (soda was a very rare treat for us and half a can was a normal serving, my sister and I would share), or -- especially -- not to have ever eaten veg growing up, that is NOT caused by the existence of the same kinds of foods that have existed for a long time, and that I and many others grew up with without going to excess. It's got to be cultural or (for adults) decisions to act unreasonably or indulgently. That's why claiming it's the food rather than unreasonable choices involving the foods is wrong.
Loving this post. Nothing in there I would change or argue with.4 -
comeonnow142857 wrote: »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.
The first two sentences of yours aren't at all an accurate, reasonable or fair representation of what rheddmobile said. It's this kind of over reactionary activism that strawmans so much and confuses the whole situation.
The environment can have changed and the increased ready availability of hyper palatable foods can result in behavioural population differences without any changes in human nature, and I can still take responsibility for my food choices and know that if I pick calories as my variable, I can control my weight, and don't need to stress over whether the food I'm eating is "clean" or "processed" or not.
External causes don't absolve you from all personal responsibility, and recognition of their existence isn't a threat.
I am not sure where the disagreement between us is. I recognize that there are hyper palatable foods readily available now, but I also recognize it is my responsibility control what I consume. The fact that the foods exist doesn't make those foods responsible for making a person obese. It is still ultimately the individuals responsibility to make good food choices. I don't think that means that these hyper palatable foods need to be avoided altogether. I think that moderation is the key when it comes to these foods, and that a varied diet that stays within a persons caloric goals is key.3 -
My experience was kind of similar to yours @lemurcat2 . Grew up in the late 70's, early 80's and my mom did not like to cook! Along with the occasional roast chicken or baked potato, we ate Frosted Flakes, Eggos, Oscar Mayer bologna, Kraft singles, fish sticks, tater tots, pasta, flavored rice packets, hot dogs, canned veggies or baked beans, Hostess cupcakes, etc. None of us were overweight, and the heavy kid in class stood out because they were unusual. It was easy enough to get all that "processed" food where I lived at least, but we (and almost everyone I saw day to day) were either not eating as much of it, or were more active.
If the primary problem was "Processed food", the obesity epidemic would have started in at least some places in the US in the 70's at least. While I do believe processed foods make it easier to eat too many calories, they do not make it even remotely unavoidable. People are making poor choices about what and how much they are eating, and what kind of lifestyle they are living. Now that might be due to ignorance, or a societal lack of stress management, or misplaced priorities or technology advancements making folks more sedentary than they realize. I'm sure lack of education is a part of the problem for some people. For many of us though, the info is available and accessible, we just never prioritized acquiring it. There is definitely some willful ignorance as well - again I'm speaking from experience - there are a lot of us out there who didn't want to take responsibility and were more comfortable hiding behind "It's too confusing and hard to do". I see that in so many of the conversations I have with people I know who want to know what I did to succeed, and then refuse to believe when I tell them how.
So true. I would go out on a limb and suggest that even the term "personal responsibility" is viewed differently today. "Responsible to what extent?" Is a question I've had thrown at me before. "To the extent that you decide what and how much to put in your mouth." Is my most common answer. Not always though...5 -
I'm another who'll endorse that there were plenty of processed foods and fast foods available in the 1970s, preceding the "obesity crisis" . . . even a fair amount in the 1960s. ( I was adult in the 1970s).
The 24 x 7 ubiquity of food has increased, along with the perceived social appropriateness of things like having food or especially a drink (soda, coffee, etc.) with people in almost any setting. (The "near-constant drink in hand" thing was kind of unusual in my milieu in my childhood: A few people, mostly women IME, did it some at home, and people kind of clucked about it as a bad habit - not so much because of the sugar, but caffeine (as it was usually cola) and poor nutrition that tended to drive out regular food. My own family wrangled with my aging grandma (b. 1883 in Sweden) nearly living on Coca-Cola, to the detriment of her health; it was seen as 'not normal')
People cook way less now - when I retired a few years back, younger co-workers (bizarrely to me) would sometimes goggle at someone randomly making a cake "from scratch" (usually from a mix
) and bringing it to work, as if doing so was a remarkable performance of some sort. It was obvious from conversation that a reasonable-sized minority didn't know how to cook. At. All.
This will make some people angry, but I think there's a relationship between more/most women being in the outside-paid workforce, and the increase in reliance on convenience foods of many types, plus the children being a little less likely to learn to cook. This is not a blameful perception in any way. I was a feminist before lots of y'all were even born, back when women were still fighting to get credit without hubby's/daddy's signature and that sort of thing. Women controlling their lives is an excellent thing. But once you have many more two-income families, lots of other changes flow from that, some good, some not fabulous. (And yes, there were many two-income families before the 1970s . . . but they increased around then. US women's laborforce participation hit 50% around 1980, making it more the norm.)
If you assume that convenient, quick meals became more desired by consumers, it's no big surprise that companies would start falling all over each other, competing to make their convenience foods the most affordable and appealing. Portion sizes increased as part of this, to compete based on perceived value ("Supersize", "Value Meal"). To the companies, our dollars are votes for what we want more of. They respond, to say the least. It's not a nefarious plot to make us overeat, it's just the pursuit of market share and profit. That's their job; they're not our mommies and daddies whose job is to encourage us toward best health. They give us what our spending says we want.
Natural selection very likely inclines us, in a very broad, general sense, to avoid effort, and seek calories. When those vendors run taste tests, we (collectively) enjoy carbs/sugars, salt, fats, protein. Protein is expensive, so the vendors will be motivated to prefer providing carbs and fats. (I'd point out that the marketing of fast food is still pretty centered on the meat feature of the meal, with the cheaper sides being typically more processed and mostly carbs/fats.)
A lot of other social factors toward "family busyness" have increased since my childhood (1950s/60s), too. The hyper-child-centric family life, where everything revolves around shuttling the kids to varied structured activities, is one example. People spend more time commuting farther (that may've started turning around; not sure - but people now seem to have longer commutes on average than back then, even though gas was like 17 cents a gallon sometimes, and you got free glassware with a fill-up). Buying at the drive-up barely existed in 1970, and eating in the car was unusual. Now, both are quite common. So, more busy, relatively more income, more convenience foods.
This is just the food side of things, social forces making it more likely to be quick/ubiquitous, wired-in impulses making it more likely we'll overconsume it (especially when it's quick, before satiety sets in, and "hyperpalatable", i.e. pushes our lowest-common-denominator taste buttons), and market forces pushing the content toward less-filling, less-nutrient-dense yet high calorie foods.
Then there's the activity side. The forces of natural selection, as I've said, are likely to foster humans who conserve energy. Never in history have so many people had so much opportunity to conserve energy! So many things are automated (e.g. Roomba), so many more things are sedentary for more people (e.g. more riding mowers) and even sedentary jobs relatively more sedentary than a few decades back (e.g. cloud storage vs. file cabinets)). Paid services for routine things seem to be more common now, though that may be partly due to changes in my context . . . but things like having a once-a-week housecleaner, or a lawn service, seem much more common now, to me. Watching stuff (TV, computer, electronic games) is a much bigger hobby for more people than it was in my youth. Even the reduced cooking is a reduced calorie burn (25? 50?) compared to drive-through.
Again, I'm not saying any of this is "bad" as some kind of "good old days" speech. I'm just saying there are hundreds if not thousands of small differences over these 40-50 years, all lining up in the direction of weight gain. It only takes a few hundred calories per person a day to explain the obesity crisis. There's no need to pick one cause: There are lots of contributors.
Most of this is so gradual, and feels so natural, that in a population-wide sense, most of us tend not to pay attention. We're busy with other stuff. Sure, we're making choices, but they're not (on average) intentional, thought-out choices. On average, we amble along with the herd, doing what's "normal". (That's not a criticism, either. It's just human.)
It's also sort of normal, I think, now that we've gotten to pretty-wide population dynamics, to see push-pull forces operate to try to reverse this sort of problem, once it's recognized. Information (including misinformation) percolates through the population, gets sound-bite-ized. People respond to "fat bad" "sugar bad" kinds of messages, and sometimes individual factors show up in the statistics, but we haven't, as a culture, really figured out how to turn overall overweight/obesity trends around (recent stats look like it could be leveling off a bit in some subgroups).
My point is that it doesn't make a lot of sense to me to make this some kind of polarized argument between "It's all about people's choices" vs. "the evil corporations did this to us" vs. "it's the bad food" vs. whatever, in order to fix blame. Fixing blame is pointless.
It's not "one key cause". That's too simple. At the population level, it's a complicated, multi-part, self-reinforcing system. Figuring out the best places to put a monkey wrench in those works seems more useful.13 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »SeattleBebop1 wrote: »Someone mentioned the NOVA food classifications. I was curious, and found this:
https://archive.wphna.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/WN-2016-7-1-3-28-38-Monteiro-Cannon-Levy-et-al-NOVA.pdfSeattleBebop1 wrote: »Someone mentioned the NOVA food classifications. I was curious, and found this:
https://archive.wphna.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/WN-2016-7-1-3-28-38-Monteiro-Cannon-Levy-et-al-NOVA.pdf
@SeattleBebop1 thanks for sharing. I did not realize how the ultra processed foods and drinks makes up so much of the Standard American Diet (SAD) and now better understand the why behind the health failures of today that was not all that common 50+ years ago.
I think it's far more involved than the SAD, now vs then. We had plenty of ultra processed food in the 70s/80s. What was less common was the sit down order with a click society we have today. Granted additives have likely changed quite a bit as well as their volume of use in highly processed foods, but any scenario (JMHO) that simply blames food for poor health without considering how active or inactive the population is overall is missing a much larger piece of the puzzle.
It sure is more involved now with kids breakfasts coming with Round Up in the box in more and more brands.
Breakfast With a Dose of Roundup?
https://ewg.org/childrenshealth/glyphosateincereal/
But at least the kids are getting a "safe" dose of Round Up we are told. At least the Round Up in beer and wine is going to adults.
https://webmd.com/food-recipes/news/20180815/roundup-chemical-in-your-cereal-what-to-know
"Olga Naidenko, PhD, the Environmental Working Group’s senior science advisor for children’s environmental health, says glyphosate shouldn’t be in food, especially the foods we feed to young children."
OK one bowl of Round Up only causing 1 case of cancer per 1,000,000 is really nothing but what happens 20 years down the road after the same person has eaten 6,000 bowls plus all of the other Round Up containing foods.
The problem is this since 1974 most all countries that use tractors in farming have been using Round Up starting at some point. We are seeing only the tip of the food chain impact today I expect.
https://detoxproject.org/glyphosate/glyphosate-and-roundup-negatively-affect-gut-bacteria/
" In a second review, Samsel and Seneff pointed out that gut bacteria have this pathway and are susceptible to glyphosate toxicity, with the resulting disruptions in gut bacteria potentially impacting human and animal health. In addition, the authors noted glyphosate’s ability to chelate essential nutrient metals [Glyphosate chelates metals], making them unavailable to human and animal consumers. Thus glyphosate could potentially affect health by causing deficiencies of these nutrients.6"
https://mamavation.com/food/pea-protein.html
"Some of the organic pea protein brands’ products came back with higher levels of glyphosate than the conventional brands."
https://bigthink.com/surprising-science/roundup-beer-wine
Active ingredient in Roundup found in 95% of studied beers and wines
The controversial herbicide is everywhere, apparently.
Maybe when I cut out all forms of any grains in Oct 2014 I cut out common sources of Round Up that may be harmful to one's gut microbiome.
It must suck having to completely exclude so many delicious foods from your life because of paranoia and fear. If the roundup doesn't give you cancer, we will all most certainly become obese, and be turned into carb and sugar addicts, right?
Or, instead of going to extremes based on fear mongering, people can actually enjoy what they like, but in moderation. Throw in some exercise and a conscious effort to try to make healthy decisions, and I would say the person that is better off is the one who doesn't need to completely exclude anything.
I used to be afraid of roller coasters that went upside down when I was a kid. I was afraid because there is a chance that I could fall out. Eventually, I overcame this fear, and last summer my six year old daughter(yes, she was tall enough. She is extremely tall for her age, probably because of a well rounded diet) joined me on one of the craziest roller coasters I had ever been on. Was I afraid that she would fall out? Sure I was. Although they are extremely rare, accidents do happen. The look on her face when the ride was over was one of the greatest things I have ever seen though, and I am glad I didn't have to miss that moment because of irrational fear.
Since 2014 there is nothing I can find that sucks about my health giving WOE. You talking about emotionism issues and my post is talking science in processed foods today.
You aren't talking science Gale, in fact most of what you post defies what science has proven. Here are the facts: CICO is what determines weight loss, gain, or maintenance. Where those calories come from don't matter(in the context of weight management only, not talking nutrition). If I eat nothing but processed foods with roundup, but my CI<CO then I will lose weight. It doesn't matter what the macro breakdown of those foods is. It doesn't matter how much added sugar there is, if I am in a caloric deficit I will lose weight. To the same point, if 100% of my calories come from herbicide free whole foods, but I am consuming more calories than my CO I will gain weight. This fact is irrefutable, yet you continue to try to refute it. I believe the more sustainable woe is one that doesn't eliminate foods that people enjoy. Whether you enjoy those same foods or not doesn't matter. You may have found a woe that works for you, but the problem is, you seem to think that everyone needs to follow that woe as well. If you want to talk science, then you need to realize that science has proven that your woe is not necessary.11 -
My point is that it doesn't make a lot of sense to me to make this some kind of polarized argument between "It's all about people's choices" vs. "the evil corporations did this to us" vs. "it's the bad food" vs. whatever, in order to fix blame. Fixing blame is pointless.
It's not "one key cause". That's too simple. At the population level, it's a complicated, multi-part, self-reinforcing system. Figuring out the best places to put a monkey wrench in those works seems more useful.
Amen...4 -
It's not "one key cause". That's too simple. At the population level, it's a complicated, multi-part, self-reinforcing system. Figuring out the best places to put a monkey wrench in those works seems more useful.
Precisely. It's a multitude of factors - economic, social, cultural:
Decreased activity
Decreased personal savings/Increased spending on perishables
Increased availability of food
Increased number of restaurants/Increase in eating out
Decreased home cooking
Decreased self reliance
Increased motivation to shift blame
You can recognize the factors behind it and implement strategies on how to mitigate this and succeed...or you can choose to blame reality, which leads to certain failure.
5 -
comeonnow142857 wrote: »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.
The first two sentences of yours aren't at all an accurate, reasonable or fair representation of what rheddmobile said. It's this kind of over reactionary activism that strawmans so much and confuses the whole situation.
The environment can have changed and the increased ready availability of hyper palatable foods can result in behavioural population differences without any changes in human nature, and I can still take responsibility for my food choices and know that if I pick calories as my variable, I can control my weight, and don't need to stress over whether the food I'm eating is "clean" or "processed" or not.
External causes don't absolve you from all personal responsibility, and recognition of their existence isn't a threat.
I am not sure where the disagreement between us is. I recognize that there are hyper palatable foods readily available now, but I also recognize it is my responsibility control what I consume. The fact that the foods exist doesn't make those foods responsible for making a person obese. It is still ultimately the individuals responsibility to make good food choices. I don't think that means that these hyper palatable foods need to be avoided altogether. I think that moderation is the key when it comes to these foods, and that a varied diet that stays within a persons caloric goals is key.
The difference is this: "The first two sentences of yours aren't at all an accurate, reasonable or fair representation of what rheddmobile said."
Namely, these (actually sentences 1 and 3, on closer look) "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.".
1 -
comeonnow142857 wrote: »comeonnow142857 wrote: »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.
The first two sentences of yours aren't at all an accurate, reasonable or fair representation of what rheddmobile said. It's this kind of over reactionary activism that strawmans so much and confuses the whole situation.
The environment can have changed and the increased ready availability of hyper palatable foods can result in behavioural population differences without any changes in human nature, and I can still take responsibility for my food choices and know that if I pick calories as my variable, I can control my weight, and don't need to stress over whether the food I'm eating is "clean" or "processed" or not.
External causes don't absolve you from all personal responsibility, and recognition of their existence isn't a threat.
I am not sure where the disagreement between us is. I recognize that there are hyper palatable foods readily available now, but I also recognize it is my responsibility control what I consume. The fact that the foods exist doesn't make those foods responsible for making a person obese. It is still ultimately the individuals responsibility to make good food choices. I don't think that means that these hyper palatable foods need to be avoided altogether. I think that moderation is the key when it comes to these foods, and that a varied diet that stays within a persons caloric goals is key.
The difference is this: "The first two sentences of yours aren't at all an accurate, reasonable or fair representation of what rheddmobile said."
Namely, these (actually sentences 1 and 3, on closer look) "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.".
I do think it was a fair representation. This is what I was responding to: "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."
Saying that processed foods are the reason for the obesity epidemic is way over simplifying things and I think it is flat out wrong. Saying that the amount of willpower in America hasn't declined also infers that people are powerless to resist processed foods. I wholeheartedly disagree. There have always been calorie dense foods, whether they are processed or not. It is still up to the individual to make good food choices.3 -
Highly processed foods, sugar, artificial sweeteners, etc can change one's gut microbiome leading to cravings that can lead to failing health. Food is a factor especially the micro ratios that can trigger food cravings.11
-
Don’t look at me anything I see in the news to studies say things like....
Keto diet the greatest! Keto diet can harm you!
Eggs are good! Now their bad! Now they cause cancer! Now their good again......quick eat an egg before the 6 o’clock news starts!!!!2 -
Just saw this, related to the study discussed in this thread, so figured it was worth posting:
https://conscienhealth.org/2019/10/digging-into-the-squishy-definition-for-ultra-processed-food/
And from one of the links in the above article:
https://www.cell.com/cell-metabolism/fulltext/S1550-4131(19)30307-9?_returnURL=https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1550413119303079?showall=true
A bit from the link above (which echo some of the comments we here made):
"On first pass, the primary findings of this 2-week study do not surprise us. Confine U.S. volunteers interested in a food study to a metabolic ward, give them unlimited access to processed foods that appeal to the American palate, allow them to eat as much of them as they like, and some will overeat. The critical questions are: What is driving food intake? Does this effect have relevance to the chronic control of body weight? We would like to make two main points.
Diet composition. On the “ultra-processed” versus “unprocessed” diet, participants ate substantially more total carbohydrate, added sugar, saturated fat, and sodium, and less protein, polyunsaturated fat, and soluble fiber. Non-beverage energy density was 85% higher on the ultra-processed diet. Moreover, at 45 g per day, the unprocessed diet had almost triple the intrinsic fiber of an average Western diet. Each of these factors, previously linked to food intake or metabolism, may have influenced the study findings independently of food processing...."
-and-
"In fact, many of the foods utilized on the ultra-processed diet (e.g., breads, baked potato chips, and apple sauce) and various refined grain products are, from a food science perspective, no more extensively processed than olive oil, dark chocolate, or nut butters. The processing of olives to olive oil removes virtually all the fiber and fully disrupts the natural food structure. Dark chocolate typically contains a half-dozen or more refined ingredients. However, most of the aforementioned high-carbohydrate foods (e.g., white bread and potato chips) consistently top the list for weight gain in prospective studies (Mozaffarian et al., 2011), whereas these high-fat foods (e.g., olive oil) have the opposite effect. Furthermore, the study cannot tell us whether freshly baked bread, potato chips made from three natural ingredients, or applesauce made from two ingredients—each explicitly not ultra-processed (Monteiro et al., 2018)—would have any different effects than the varieties used instead.
Thus, an understanding of the mechanisms by which ultra-processed foods may influence energy intake and adiposity is critical to solving the obesity epidemic. Carbohydrate processing accelerates the rate of digestion and subsequent postprandial glycemia and insulinemia, responses mechanistically linked to weight gain (Ludwig and Ebbeling, 2018). By contrast, the extent of processing has no comparable effect on high-protein and high-fat foods.
The concept of ultra-processing (Monteiro et al., 2018) provides a useful system to identify industrial products with the worst of numerous nutritional qualities; substantial evidence links this dietary pattern with obesity and chronic diseases. However, the findings of Hall et al. may be transient and independent of processing per se. It might be tempting to attribute modern-day diet problems predominantly to food processing, thus implicitly shifting responsibility for the obesity epidemic to the food industry. But knowledge of the chronic drivers of food intake, including the metabolic effects of food independent of calorie content, is needed to mitigate the risks of misguiding the food industry in how to formulate more healthful food products, and the public in nutrition recommendations, as previously occurred during the low-fat diet era. Although data on the acute control of food intake can be useful, long-term studies will be needed to resolve these controversies."
I will also add that one of my suspicions when looking at the menus was that the "unprocessed" menus appeared to be foods that would tend to be eaten more slowly, in part because they physically took more time (more volume) or were less likely to be the kinds of foods that a higher percentage of people would tend to eat quickly). Some of this is even hand food vs. foods that need to be eaten with utensils. Related to this is that the fiber in the unprocessed menu was intrinsic, and much of that in the ultra processed menu was added to a beverage. Since it was also "take as much as you want," that the ultraprocessed menu had foods like cookies and chips that many people are likely to eat even if not really hungry, and the final macro breakdown indicates that although the initial meals were balanced people taking seconds were taking more of the higher carb and fat and lower fiber and protein items, that also suggests that it's probably not simply about processing (and might not be about processing at all).8 -
Just saw this, related to the study discussed in this thread, so figured it was worth posting:
https://conscienhealth.org/2019/10/digging-into-the-squishy-definition-for-ultra-processed-food/
And from one of the links in the above article:
https://www.cell.com/cell-metabolism/fulltext/S1550-4131(19)30307-9?_returnURL=https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1550413119303079?showall=true
A bit from the link above (which echo some of the comments we here made):
"On first pass, the primary findings of this 2-week study do not surprise us. Confine U.S. volunteers interested in a food study to a metabolic ward, give them unlimited access to processed foods that appeal to the American palate, allow them to eat as much of them as they like, and some will overeat. The critical questions are: What is driving food intake? Does this effect have relevance to the chronic control of body weight? We would like to make two main points.
Diet composition. On the “ultra-processed” versus “unprocessed” diet, participants ate substantially more total carbohydrate, added sugar, saturated fat, and sodium, and less protein, polyunsaturated fat, and soluble fiber. Non-beverage energy density was 85% higher on the ultra-processed diet. Moreover, at 45 g per day, the unprocessed diet had almost triple the intrinsic fiber of an average Western diet. Each of these factors, previously linked to food intake or metabolism, may have influenced the study findings independently of food processing...."
-and-
"In fact, many of the foods utilized on the ultra-processed diet (e.g., breads, baked potato chips, and apple sauce) and various refined grain products are, from a food science perspective, no more extensively processed than olive oil, dark chocolate, or nut butters. The processing of olives to olive oil removes virtually all the fiber and fully disrupts the natural food structure. Dark chocolate typically contains a half-dozen or more refined ingredients. However, most of the aforementioned high-carbohydrate foods (e.g., white bread and potato chips) consistently top the list for weight gain in prospective studies (Mozaffarian et al., 2011), whereas these high-fat foods (e.g., olive oil) have the opposite effect. Furthermore, the study cannot tell us whether freshly baked bread, potato chips made from three natural ingredients, or applesauce made from two ingredients—each explicitly not ultra-processed (Monteiro et al., 2018)—would have any different effects than the varieties used instead.
Thus, an understanding of the mechanisms by which ultra-processed foods may influence energy intake and adiposity is critical to solving the obesity epidemic. Carbohydrate processing accelerates the rate of digestion and subsequent postprandial glycemia and insulinemia, responses mechanistically linked to weight gain (Ludwig and Ebbeling, 2018). By contrast, the extent of processing has no comparable effect on high-protein and high-fat foods.
The concept of ultra-processing (Monteiro et al., 2018) provides a useful system to identify industrial products with the worst of numerous nutritional qualities; substantial evidence links this dietary pattern with obesity and chronic diseases. However, the findings of Hall et al. may be transient and independent of processing per se. It might be tempting to attribute modern-day diet problems predominantly to food processing, thus implicitly shifting responsibility for the obesity epidemic to the food industry. But knowledge of the chronic drivers of food intake, including the metabolic effects of food independent of calorie content, is needed to mitigate the risks of misguiding the food industry in how to formulate more healthful food products, and the public in nutrition recommendations, as previously occurred during the low-fat diet era. Although data on the acute control of food intake can be useful, long-term studies will be needed to resolve these controversies."
I will also add that one of my suspicions when looking at the menus was that the "unprocessed" menus appeared to be foods that would tend to be eaten more slowly, in part because they physically took more time (more volume) or were less likely to be the kinds of foods that a higher percentage of people would tend to eat quickly). Some of this is even hand food vs. foods that need to be eaten with utensils. Related to this is that the fiber in the unprocessed menu was intrinsic, and much of that in the ultra processed menu was added to a beverage. Since it was also "take as much as you want," that the ultraprocessed menu had foods like cookies and chips that many people are likely to eat even if not really hungry, and the final macro breakdown indicates that although the initial meals were balanced people taking seconds were taking more of the higher carb and fat and lower fiber and protein items, that also suggests that it's probably not simply about processing (and might not be about processing at all).
So, to break it down.... it's not the food per se, but the brains response to certain food properties? Wow.... what a revelation these folks wrote.... @lemurcat2 not meant at you at all... but to the writers.... uhh duhhh!!!3 -
Without doubting for a moment the validity of what's been argued in the previous couple of posts, with which I agree wholeheartedly:
This study is tiny, preliminary, very imperfect . . . but still interesting IMO.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2897733/
ETA: There are people here on MFP majoring in tinier and less well-documented minors than the above.
3 -
psychod787 wrote: »Just saw this, related to the study discussed in this thread, so figured it was worth posting:
https://conscienhealth.org/2019/10/digging-into-the-squishy-definition-for-ultra-processed-food/
And from one of the links in the above article:
https://www.cell.com/cell-metabolism/fulltext/S1550-4131(19)30307-9?_returnURL=https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1550413119303079?showall=true
A bit from the link above (which echo some of the comments we here made):
"On first pass, the primary findings of this 2-week study do not surprise us. Confine U.S. volunteers interested in a food study to a metabolic ward, give them unlimited access to processed foods that appeal to the American palate, allow them to eat as much of them as they like, and some will overeat. The critical questions are: What is driving food intake? Does this effect have relevance to the chronic control of body weight? We would like to make two main points.
Diet composition. On the “ultra-processed” versus “unprocessed” diet, participants ate substantially more total carbohydrate, added sugar, saturated fat, and sodium, and less protein, polyunsaturated fat, and soluble fiber. Non-beverage energy density was 85% higher on the ultra-processed diet. Moreover, at 45 g per day, the unprocessed diet had almost triple the intrinsic fiber of an average Western diet. Each of these factors, previously linked to food intake or metabolism, may have influenced the study findings independently of food processing...."
-and-
"In fact, many of the foods utilized on the ultra-processed diet (e.g., breads, baked potato chips, and apple sauce) and various refined grain products are, from a food science perspective, no more extensively processed than olive oil, dark chocolate, or nut butters. The processing of olives to olive oil removes virtually all the fiber and fully disrupts the natural food structure. Dark chocolate typically contains a half-dozen or more refined ingredients. However, most of the aforementioned high-carbohydrate foods (e.g., white bread and potato chips) consistently top the list for weight gain in prospective studies (Mozaffarian et al., 2011), whereas these high-fat foods (e.g., olive oil) have the opposite effect. Furthermore, the study cannot tell us whether freshly baked bread, potato chips made from three natural ingredients, or applesauce made from two ingredients—each explicitly not ultra-processed (Monteiro et al., 2018)—would have any different effects than the varieties used instead.
Thus, an understanding of the mechanisms by which ultra-processed foods may influence energy intake and adiposity is critical to solving the obesity epidemic. Carbohydrate processing accelerates the rate of digestion and subsequent postprandial glycemia and insulinemia, responses mechanistically linked to weight gain (Ludwig and Ebbeling, 2018). By contrast, the extent of processing has no comparable effect on high-protein and high-fat foods.
The concept of ultra-processing (Monteiro et al., 2018) provides a useful system to identify industrial products with the worst of numerous nutritional qualities; substantial evidence links this dietary pattern with obesity and chronic diseases. However, the findings of Hall et al. may be transient and independent of processing per se. It might be tempting to attribute modern-day diet problems predominantly to food processing, thus implicitly shifting responsibility for the obesity epidemic to the food industry. But knowledge of the chronic drivers of food intake, including the metabolic effects of food independent of calorie content, is needed to mitigate the risks of misguiding the food industry in how to formulate more healthful food products, and the public in nutrition recommendations, as previously occurred during the low-fat diet era. Although data on the acute control of food intake can be useful, long-term studies will be needed to resolve these controversies."
I will also add that one of my suspicions when looking at the menus was that the "unprocessed" menus appeared to be foods that would tend to be eaten more slowly, in part because they physically took more time (more volume) or were less likely to be the kinds of foods that a higher percentage of people would tend to eat quickly). Some of this is even hand food vs. foods that need to be eaten with utensils. Related to this is that the fiber in the unprocessed menu was intrinsic, and much of that in the ultra processed menu was added to a beverage. Since it was also "take as much as you want," that the ultraprocessed menu had foods like cookies and chips that many people are likely to eat even if not really hungry, and the final macro breakdown indicates that although the initial meals were balanced people taking seconds were taking more of the higher carb and fat and lower fiber and protein items, that also suggests that it's probably not simply about processing (and might not be about processing at all).
So, to break it down.... it's not the food per se, but the brains response to certain food properties? Wow.... what a revelation these folks wrote.... @lemurcat2 not meant at you at all... but to the writers.... uhh duhhh!!!
Remember, the study was supposed to look at ultra processed vs. unprocessed.
As the article and piece I linked noted, what "ultraprocessed" is tends to be a really squishy definition with lots of foods that are said to fit -- and probably do tend to be easily overeaten (like fries or potato chips) being at least potentially no more "processed" than plenty of foods in the minimally processed definition.
So rather than tell everyone their first concern ought to be the amount of processing that their foods went through, maybe it makes sense to try to figure out WHY the two menus had different responses, with different macros and different calories consumed. Is it truly the amount of processing only? Or is it something else?
That something else they are talking about is likely to be "certain food properties."
I do think it's helpful to consider why people tend to overeat certain foods.
For example, if you tend to eat more (1000 cals, say) at a fast food meal vs. a burger-based meal made at home, why?
You might argue it is because the former is hyperpalatable, and the latter not. I would disagree in that I personally think the latter unquestionably tastes better. I would say it is because it's second nature if not worrying about cals to just get the fries as a side, and that the burger for the same size is usually more cals at the fast food place, because of a combination of higher fat meat and (in some cases) higher fat toppings.
When I made a burger at home, I tend to use lean ground beef, I'm less likely to add cheese, I get either low cal or higher fiber (whole grain) buns or will consider no bun, and I always eat a lot of veg on the side. And I don't have both bread (the bun) and potatoes (let alone fried ones) but for a special occasion. So the homemade meal is lower cal but a higher volume. I am probably going to feel overall more full too. But is it because the homemade meal is less "processed"? Because fast food is addictive or hyperpalatable or the homemade meal low reward? Absolutely not -- it's differences that in theory I could work into a more processed diet too (choose more veg, more fiber (in the food, not as a supplement), cut fat where it won't sacrifice satisfaction, make a meal that takes longer to eat, perhaps).2 -
psychod787 wrote: »Just saw this, related to the study discussed in this thread, so figured it was worth posting:
https://conscienhealth.org/2019/10/digging-into-the-squishy-definition-for-ultra-processed-food/
And from one of the links in the above article:
https://www.cell.com/cell-metabolism/fulltext/S1550-4131(19)30307-9?_returnURL=https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1550413119303079?showall=true
A bit from the link above (which echo some of the comments we here made):
"On first pass, the primary findings of this 2-week study do not surprise us. Confine U.S. volunteers interested in a food study to a metabolic ward, give them unlimited access to processed foods that appeal to the American palate, allow them to eat as much of them as they like, and some will overeat. The critical questions are: What is driving food intake? Does this effect have relevance to the chronic control of body weight? We would like to make two main points.
Diet composition. On the “ultra-processed” versus “unprocessed” diet, participants ate substantially more total carbohydrate, added sugar, saturated fat, and sodium, and less protein, polyunsaturated fat, and soluble fiber. Non-beverage energy density was 85% higher on the ultra-processed diet. Moreover, at 45 g per day, the unprocessed diet had almost triple the intrinsic fiber of an average Western diet. Each of these factors, previously linked to food intake or metabolism, may have influenced the study findings independently of food processing...."
-and-
"In fact, many of the foods utilized on the ultra-processed diet (e.g., breads, baked potato chips, and apple sauce) and various refined grain products are, from a food science perspective, no more extensively processed than olive oil, dark chocolate, or nut butters. The processing of olives to olive oil removes virtually all the fiber and fully disrupts the natural food structure. Dark chocolate typically contains a half-dozen or more refined ingredients. However, most of the aforementioned high-carbohydrate foods (e.g., white bread and potato chips) consistently top the list for weight gain in prospective studies (Mozaffarian et al., 2011), whereas these high-fat foods (e.g., olive oil) have the opposite effect. Furthermore, the study cannot tell us whether freshly baked bread, potato chips made from three natural ingredients, or applesauce made from two ingredients—each explicitly not ultra-processed (Monteiro et al., 2018)—would have any different effects than the varieties used instead.
Thus, an understanding of the mechanisms by which ultra-processed foods may influence energy intake and adiposity is critical to solving the obesity epidemic. Carbohydrate processing accelerates the rate of digestion and subsequent postprandial glycemia and insulinemia, responses mechanistically linked to weight gain (Ludwig and Ebbeling, 2018). By contrast, the extent of processing has no comparable effect on high-protein and high-fat foods.
The concept of ultra-processing (Monteiro et al., 2018) provides a useful system to identify industrial products with the worst of numerous nutritional qualities; substantial evidence links this dietary pattern with obesity and chronic diseases. However, the findings of Hall et al. may be transient and independent of processing per se. It might be tempting to attribute modern-day diet problems predominantly to food processing, thus implicitly shifting responsibility for the obesity epidemic to the food industry. But knowledge of the chronic drivers of food intake, including the metabolic effects of food independent of calorie content, is needed to mitigate the risks of misguiding the food industry in how to formulate more healthful food products, and the public in nutrition recommendations, as previously occurred during the low-fat diet era. Although data on the acute control of food intake can be useful, long-term studies will be needed to resolve these controversies."
I will also add that one of my suspicions when looking at the menus was that the "unprocessed" menus appeared to be foods that would tend to be eaten more slowly, in part because they physically took more time (more volume) or were less likely to be the kinds of foods that a higher percentage of people would tend to eat quickly). Some of this is even hand food vs. foods that need to be eaten with utensils. Related to this is that the fiber in the unprocessed menu was intrinsic, and much of that in the ultra processed menu was added to a beverage. Since it was also "take as much as you want," that the ultraprocessed menu had foods like cookies and chips that many people are likely to eat even if not really hungry, and the final macro breakdown indicates that although the initial meals were balanced people taking seconds were taking more of the higher carb and fat and lower fiber and protein items, that also suggests that it's probably not simply about processing (and might not be about processing at all).
So, to break it down.... it's not the food per se, but the brains response to certain food properties? Wow.... what a revelation these folks wrote.... @lemurcat2 not meant at you at all... but to the writers.... uhh duhhh!!!
Remember, the study was supposed to look at ultra processed vs. unprocessed.
As the article and piece I linked noted, what "ultraprocessed" is tends to be a really squishy definition with lots of foods that are said to fit -- and probably do tend to be easily overeaten (like fries or potato chips) being at least potentially no more "processed" than plenty of foods in the minimally processed definition.
So rather than tell everyone their first concern ought to be the amount of processing that their foods went through, maybe it makes sense to try to figure out WHY the two menus had different responses, with different macros and different calories consumed. Is it truly the amount of processing only? Or is it something else?
That something else they are talking about is likely to be "certain food properties."
I do think it's helpful to consider why people tend to overeat certain foods.
For example, if you tend to eat more (1000 cals, say) at a fast food meal vs. a burger-based meal made at home, why?
You might argue it is because the former is hyperpalatable, and the latter not. I would disagree in that I personally think the latter unquestionably tastes better. I would say it is because it's second nature if not worrying about cals to just get the fries as a side, and that the burger for the same size is usually more cals at the fast food place, because of a combination of higher fat meat and (in some cases) higher fat toppings.
When I made a burger at home, I tend to use lean ground beef, I'm less likely to add cheese, I get either low cal or higher fiber (whole grain) buns or will consider no bun, and I always eat a lot of veg on the side. And I don't have both bread (the bun) and potatoes (let alone fried ones) but for a special occasion. So the homemade meal is lower cal but a higher volume. I am probably going to feel overall more full too. But is it because the homemade meal is less "processed"? Because fast food is addictive or hyperpalatable or the homemade meal low reward? Absolutely not -- it's differences that in theory I could work into a more processed diet too (choose more veg, more fiber (in the food, not as a supplement), cut fat where it won't sacrifice satisfaction, make a meal that takes longer to eat, perhaps).
So, the homemade burger is less calorie dense correct? No cheese? , higher fiber? Looks lower reward value to me....0 -
As a tangential item that may be of interest in this topic, I heard a podcast last week about re-engineering the french fry to last even longer in response to the trend of meal delivery.
https://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=772775254
sorry, edited to add a non-transcript link for those who wish to listen: https://www.npr.org/2019/10/23/772775254/episode-946-fries-of-the-future
So not only do you not need to go into the fast food joint to get it, now you don't even need to go to your car, the fries will come to you.
And they'll be crispy longer, meaning you won't throw half of them out because they are no longer yummy after 10 minutes.
1 -
Why I love Kevin Hall....
https://youtu.be/_im2zAuBmME 1 -
psychod787 wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »Just saw this, related to the study discussed in this thread, so figured it was worth posting:
https://conscienhealth.org/2019/10/digging-into-the-squishy-definition-for-ultra-processed-food/
And from one of the links in the above article:
https://www.cell.com/cell-metabolism/fulltext/S1550-4131(19)30307-9?_returnURL=https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1550413119303079?showall=true
A bit from the link above (which echo some of the comments we here made):
"On first pass, the primary findings of this 2-week study do not surprise us. Confine U.S. volunteers interested in a food study to a metabolic ward, give them unlimited access to processed foods that appeal to the American palate, allow them to eat as much of them as they like, and some will overeat. The critical questions are: What is driving food intake? Does this effect have relevance to the chronic control of body weight? We would like to make two main points.
Diet composition. On the “ultra-processed” versus “unprocessed” diet, participants ate substantially more total carbohydrate, added sugar, saturated fat, and sodium, and less protein, polyunsaturated fat, and soluble fiber. Non-beverage energy density was 85% higher on the ultra-processed diet. Moreover, at 45 g per day, the unprocessed diet had almost triple the intrinsic fiber of an average Western diet. Each of these factors, previously linked to food intake or metabolism, may have influenced the study findings independently of food processing...."
-and-
"In fact, many of the foods utilized on the ultra-processed diet (e.g., breads, baked potato chips, and apple sauce) and various refined grain products are, from a food science perspective, no more extensively processed than olive oil, dark chocolate, or nut butters. The processing of olives to olive oil removes virtually all the fiber and fully disrupts the natural food structure. Dark chocolate typically contains a half-dozen or more refined ingredients. However, most of the aforementioned high-carbohydrate foods (e.g., white bread and potato chips) consistently top the list for weight gain in prospective studies (Mozaffarian et al., 2011), whereas these high-fat foods (e.g., olive oil) have the opposite effect. Furthermore, the study cannot tell us whether freshly baked bread, potato chips made from three natural ingredients, or applesauce made from two ingredients—each explicitly not ultra-processed (Monteiro et al., 2018)—would have any different effects than the varieties used instead.
Thus, an understanding of the mechanisms by which ultra-processed foods may influence energy intake and adiposity is critical to solving the obesity epidemic. Carbohydrate processing accelerates the rate of digestion and subsequent postprandial glycemia and insulinemia, responses mechanistically linked to weight gain (Ludwig and Ebbeling, 2018). By contrast, the extent of processing has no comparable effect on high-protein and high-fat foods.
The concept of ultra-processing (Monteiro et al., 2018) provides a useful system to identify industrial products with the worst of numerous nutritional qualities; substantial evidence links this dietary pattern with obesity and chronic diseases. However, the findings of Hall et al. may be transient and independent of processing per se. It might be tempting to attribute modern-day diet problems predominantly to food processing, thus implicitly shifting responsibility for the obesity epidemic to the food industry. But knowledge of the chronic drivers of food intake, including the metabolic effects of food independent of calorie content, is needed to mitigate the risks of misguiding the food industry in how to formulate more healthful food products, and the public in nutrition recommendations, as previously occurred during the low-fat diet era. Although data on the acute control of food intake can be useful, long-term studies will be needed to resolve these controversies."
I will also add that one of my suspicions when looking at the menus was that the "unprocessed" menus appeared to be foods that would tend to be eaten more slowly, in part because they physically took more time (more volume) or were less likely to be the kinds of foods that a higher percentage of people would tend to eat quickly). Some of this is even hand food vs. foods that need to be eaten with utensils. Related to this is that the fiber in the unprocessed menu was intrinsic, and much of that in the ultra processed menu was added to a beverage. Since it was also "take as much as you want," that the ultraprocessed menu had foods like cookies and chips that many people are likely to eat even if not really hungry, and the final macro breakdown indicates that although the initial meals were balanced people taking seconds were taking more of the higher carb and fat and lower fiber and protein items, that also suggests that it's probably not simply about processing (and might not be about processing at all).
So, to break it down.... it's not the food per se, but the brains response to certain food properties? Wow.... what a revelation these folks wrote.... @lemurcat2 not meant at you at all... but to the writers.... uhh duhhh!!!
Remember, the study was supposed to look at ultra processed vs. unprocessed.
As the article and piece I linked noted, what "ultraprocessed" is tends to be a really squishy definition with lots of foods that are said to fit -- and probably do tend to be easily overeaten (like fries or potato chips) being at least potentially no more "processed" than plenty of foods in the minimally processed definition.
So rather than tell everyone their first concern ought to be the amount of processing that their foods went through, maybe it makes sense to try to figure out WHY the two menus had different responses, with different macros and different calories consumed. Is it truly the amount of processing only? Or is it something else?
That something else they are talking about is likely to be "certain food properties."
I do think it's helpful to consider why people tend to overeat certain foods.
For example, if you tend to eat more (1000 cals, say) at a fast food meal vs. a burger-based meal made at home, why?
You might argue it is because the former is hyperpalatable, and the latter not. I would disagree in that I personally think the latter unquestionably tastes better. I would say it is because it's second nature if not worrying about cals to just get the fries as a side, and that the burger for the same size is usually more cals at the fast food place, because of a combination of higher fat meat and (in some cases) higher fat toppings.
When I made a burger at home, I tend to use lean ground beef, I'm less likely to add cheese, I get either low cal or higher fiber (whole grain) buns or will consider no bun, and I always eat a lot of veg on the side. And I don't have both bread (the bun) and potatoes (let alone fried ones) but for a special occasion. So the homemade meal is lower cal but a higher volume. I am probably going to feel overall more full too. But is it because the homemade meal is less "processed"? Because fast food is addictive or hyperpalatable or the homemade meal low reward? Absolutely not -- it's differences that in theory I could work into a more processed diet too (choose more veg, more fiber (in the food, not as a supplement), cut fat where it won't sacrifice satisfaction, make a meal that takes longer to eat, perhaps).
So, the homemade burger is less calorie dense correct? No cheese? , higher fiber? Looks lower reward value to me....
(1) Define reward value (like satiation vs. nummies, or something else), and
(2) Almost no matter how you define "reward value", it's subjective and/or individualized.2 -
psychod787 wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »Just saw this, related to the study discussed in this thread, so figured it was worth posting:
https://conscienhealth.org/2019/10/digging-into-the-squishy-definition-for-ultra-processed-food/
And from one of the links in the above article:
https://www.cell.com/cell-metabolism/fulltext/S1550-4131(19)30307-9?_returnURL=https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1550413119303079?showall=true
A bit from the link above (which echo some of the comments we here made):
"On first pass, the primary findings of this 2-week study do not surprise us. Confine U.S. volunteers interested in a food study to a metabolic ward, give them unlimited access to processed foods that appeal to the American palate, allow them to eat as much of them as they like, and some will overeat. The critical questions are: What is driving food intake? Does this effect have relevance to the chronic control of body weight? We would like to make two main points.
Diet composition. On the “ultra-processed” versus “unprocessed” diet, participants ate substantially more total carbohydrate, added sugar, saturated fat, and sodium, and less protein, polyunsaturated fat, and soluble fiber. Non-beverage energy density was 85% higher on the ultra-processed diet. Moreover, at 45 g per day, the unprocessed diet had almost triple the intrinsic fiber of an average Western diet. Each of these factors, previously linked to food intake or metabolism, may have influenced the study findings independently of food processing...."
-and-
"In fact, many of the foods utilized on the ultra-processed diet (e.g., breads, baked potato chips, and apple sauce) and various refined grain products are, from a food science perspective, no more extensively processed than olive oil, dark chocolate, or nut butters. The processing of olives to olive oil removes virtually all the fiber and fully disrupts the natural food structure. Dark chocolate typically contains a half-dozen or more refined ingredients. However, most of the aforementioned high-carbohydrate foods (e.g., white bread and potato chips) consistently top the list for weight gain in prospective studies (Mozaffarian et al., 2011), whereas these high-fat foods (e.g., olive oil) have the opposite effect. Furthermore, the study cannot tell us whether freshly baked bread, potato chips made from three natural ingredients, or applesauce made from two ingredients—each explicitly not ultra-processed (Monteiro et al., 2018)—would have any different effects than the varieties used instead.
Thus, an understanding of the mechanisms by which ultra-processed foods may influence energy intake and adiposity is critical to solving the obesity epidemic. Carbohydrate processing accelerates the rate of digestion and subsequent postprandial glycemia and insulinemia, responses mechanistically linked to weight gain (Ludwig and Ebbeling, 2018). By contrast, the extent of processing has no comparable effect on high-protein and high-fat foods.
The concept of ultra-processing (Monteiro et al., 2018) provides a useful system to identify industrial products with the worst of numerous nutritional qualities; substantial evidence links this dietary pattern with obesity and chronic diseases. However, the findings of Hall et al. may be transient and independent of processing per se. It might be tempting to attribute modern-day diet problems predominantly to food processing, thus implicitly shifting responsibility for the obesity epidemic to the food industry. But knowledge of the chronic drivers of food intake, including the metabolic effects of food independent of calorie content, is needed to mitigate the risks of misguiding the food industry in how to formulate more healthful food products, and the public in nutrition recommendations, as previously occurred during the low-fat diet era. Although data on the acute control of food intake can be useful, long-term studies will be needed to resolve these controversies."
I will also add that one of my suspicions when looking at the menus was that the "unprocessed" menus appeared to be foods that would tend to be eaten more slowly, in part because they physically took more time (more volume) or were less likely to be the kinds of foods that a higher percentage of people would tend to eat quickly). Some of this is even hand food vs. foods that need to be eaten with utensils. Related to this is that the fiber in the unprocessed menu was intrinsic, and much of that in the ultra processed menu was added to a beverage. Since it was also "take as much as you want," that the ultraprocessed menu had foods like cookies and chips that many people are likely to eat even if not really hungry, and the final macro breakdown indicates that although the initial meals were balanced people taking seconds were taking more of the higher carb and fat and lower fiber and protein items, that also suggests that it's probably not simply about processing (and might not be about processing at all).
So, to break it down.... it's not the food per se, but the brains response to certain food properties? Wow.... what a revelation these folks wrote.... @lemurcat2 not meant at you at all... but to the writers.... uhh duhhh!!!
Remember, the study was supposed to look at ultra processed vs. unprocessed.
As the article and piece I linked noted, what "ultraprocessed" is tends to be a really squishy definition with lots of foods that are said to fit -- and probably do tend to be easily overeaten (like fries or potato chips) being at least potentially no more "processed" than plenty of foods in the minimally processed definition.
So rather than tell everyone their first concern ought to be the amount of processing that their foods went through, maybe it makes sense to try to figure out WHY the two menus had different responses, with different macros and different calories consumed. Is it truly the amount of processing only? Or is it something else?
That something else they are talking about is likely to be "certain food properties."
I do think it's helpful to consider why people tend to overeat certain foods.
For example, if you tend to eat more (1000 cals, say) at a fast food meal vs. a burger-based meal made at home, why?
You might argue it is because the former is hyperpalatable, and the latter not. I would disagree in that I personally think the latter unquestionably tastes better. I would say it is because it's second nature if not worrying about cals to just get the fries as a side, and that the burger for the same size is usually more cals at the fast food place, because of a combination of higher fat meat and (in some cases) higher fat toppings.
When I made a burger at home, I tend to use lean ground beef, I'm less likely to add cheese, I get either low cal or higher fiber (whole grain) buns or will consider no bun, and I always eat a lot of veg on the side. And I don't have both bread (the bun) and potatoes (let alone fried ones) but for a special occasion. So the homemade meal is lower cal but a higher volume. I am probably going to feel overall more full too. But is it because the homemade meal is less "processed"? Because fast food is addictive or hyperpalatable or the homemade meal low reward? Absolutely not -- it's differences that in theory I could work into a more processed diet too (choose more veg, more fiber (in the food, not as a supplement), cut fat where it won't sacrifice satisfaction, make a meal that takes longer to eat, perhaps).
So, the homemade burger is less calorie dense correct? No cheese? , higher fiber? Looks lower reward value to me....
But in fact it is TASTIER (to my palate). So hardly "lower reward."
I think claiming people overeat so-called hyperpalatable foods (and remember not all ultra processed foods are hyperpalatable and plenty of minimally processed ones can be) because they are so tasty they cannot stop eating them is typically wrong. Ironically, I think a careful reading of Michael Moss's book actually supports me in that view, because it provides information that supports an alternative explanation. I think the connection between so-called hyperpalatable or ultraprocessed foods is that at some point over the past 50 years we had a huge expansion in the availability of calories in reasonably tasty foods that require no work and are super cheap and, lagging a bit behind that, a cultural change such that eating lots of them instead of homecooked foods or, especially, in addition to meals throughout the day, has been normalized.1 -
psychod787 wrote: »Why I love Kevin Hall....https://youtu.be/_im2zAuBmME
I found this study interesting back when it came out, but did not have the time to discuss it properly. I'm wondering if part of it is psychological. From my experience on these boards, many many people tend to have lower inhibition if they think they've messed up. Could it be the preconceived notion that processed = bad gave some of them a "might as well overeat" mentality and knowing food is minimally processed gave them the feeling that they're being "good" so they had higher inhibition? Like a healthy change tends to prime another?
Speed of eating kind of supports that. The morality attached to food makes people perceive those who eat healthily as attractive people who eat slowly and attractively (cue funny salads with attractive women) and people who eat unhealthily are gluttons who stuff their gullet (cue obese sloppy eaters).
I think I'm a non-responder, as they call them, because I don't notice any change in my intake based on processing if foods are matched for volume and nutrients. Instant ramen with canned tuna satiates me just as much as grilled fish and wheat berries, if not more.1
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