Calorie Counter

You are currently viewing the message boards in:

Processed foods cause more weight gain

123457»

Replies

  • GaleHawkinsGaleHawkins Posts: 7,470Member Member Posts: 7,470Member Member
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    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.
  • GaleHawkinsGaleHawkins Posts: 7,470Member Member Posts: 7,470Member Member
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    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

  • PhirrgusPhirrgus Posts: 1,420Member Member Posts: 1,420Member Member
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    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.
  • wmd1979wmd1979 Posts: 303Member Member Posts: 303Member Member
    wmd1979 wrote: »
    wmd1979 wrote: »
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    The article is deceptive in my opinion, especially in regards to the quote shown in the OP.
    The study provided NOTHING but "ultra-processed" foods to one group and NOTHING but fresher, more whole foods to the other.
    The article mentions that each group was given an equal amount of protein, fat and carbs but then later concedes that the ultra-processed group ate more fat and carbs than the other.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    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.
  • PhirrgusPhirrgus Posts: 1,420Member Member Posts: 1,420Member Member
    kimny72 wrote: »
    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...
  • J72FITJ72FIT Posts: 4,829Member Member Posts: 4,829Member Member
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    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...
  • CSARdiverCSARdiver Posts: 5,731Member Member Posts: 5,731Member Member
    AnnPT77 wrote: »

    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.
  • comeonnow142857comeonnow142857 Posts: 310Member Member Posts: 310Member Member
    wmd1979 wrote: »
    wmd1979 wrote: »
    wmd1979 wrote: »
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    The article is deceptive in my opinion, especially in regards to the quote shown in the OP.
    The study provided NOTHING but "ultra-processed" foods to one group and NOTHING but fresher, more whole foods to the other.
    The article mentions that each group was given an equal amount of protein, fat and carbs but then later concedes that the ultra-processed group ate more fat and carbs than the other.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    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.".
  • wmd1979wmd1979 Posts: 303Member Member Posts: 303Member Member
    wmd1979 wrote: »
    wmd1979 wrote: »
    wmd1979 wrote: »
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    The article is deceptive in my opinion, especially in regards to the quote shown in the OP.
    The study provided NOTHING but "ultra-processed" foods to one group and NOTHING but fresher, more whole foods to the other.
    The article mentions that each group was given an equal amount of protein, fat and carbs but then later concedes that the ultra-processed group ate more fat and carbs than the other.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    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.
  • JRsLateInLifeMomJRsLateInLifeMom Posts: 256Member Member Posts: 256Member Member
    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!!!!
Sign In or Register to comment.