Calorie Counter

You are currently viewing the message boards in:

Processed foods cause more weight gain

1456810

Replies

  • psychod787psychod787 Posts: 3,082Member, Premium Member Posts: 3,082Member, Premium Member
    lemurcat2 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%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS1550413119303079%3Fshowall%3Dtrue

    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!!!
  • AnnPT77AnnPT77 Posts: 13,655Member Member Posts: 13,655Member Member
    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. :lol:
    edited October 2019
  • lemurcat2lemurcat2 Posts: 4,432Member Member Posts: 4,432Member Member
    psychod787 wrote: »
    lemurcat2 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%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS1550413119303079%3Fshowall%3Dtrue

    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).
  • psychod787psychod787 Posts: 3,082Member, Premium Member Posts: 3,082Member, Premium Member
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    psychod787 wrote: »
    lemurcat2 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%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS1550413119303079%3Fshowall%3Dtrue

    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....
  • tbright1965tbright1965 Posts: 841Member, Premium Member Posts: 841Member, Premium Member
    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.
    edited October 2019
  • psychod787psychod787 Posts: 3,082Member, Premium Member Posts: 3,082Member, Premium Member
    Why I love Kevin Hall....
  • AnnPT77AnnPT77 Posts: 13,655Member Member Posts: 13,655Member Member
    psychod787 wrote: »
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    psychod787 wrote: »
    lemurcat2 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%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS1550413119303079%3Fshowall%3Dtrue

    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.
  • lemurcat2lemurcat2 Posts: 4,432Member Member Posts: 4,432Member Member
    psychod787 wrote: »
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    psychod787 wrote: »
    lemurcat2 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%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS1550413119303079%3Fshowall%3Dtrue

    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.
    edited October 2019
  • amusedmonkeyamusedmonkey Posts: 9,838Member Member Posts: 9,838Member Member
    psychod787 wrote: »
    Why I love Kevin Hall....

    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.
    edited October 2019
  • NovusDiesNovusDies Posts: 6,607Member, Premium Member Posts: 6,607Member, Premium Member
    lemurcat2 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%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS1550413119303079%3Fshowall%3Dtrue

    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.
    ...

    One of the key factors has to be that they were confined to a metabolic ward for 2 weeks. You take me out of my normal life and routine and I am more likely to give you results that are not representative of what I would normally do.

    This is why any short term food study just doesn't work. There is no winning on accurate results. If you send people home you lose control and if you lock them up you have to account for the psychology of the situation. How many people were overeating just because they felt more stress? If they ate as a group how many people ate more because others were doing it around them?



  • magnusthenerdmagnusthenerd Posts: 1,050Member Member Posts: 1,050Member Member
    psychod787 wrote: »
    Why I love Kevin Hall....

    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.

    Well Carl's Jr. was trying to fix that image: uduo7za4z5qa.png
  • NovusDiesNovusDies Posts: 6,607Member, Premium Member Posts: 6,607Member, Premium Member
    psychod787 wrote: »
    Why I love Kevin Hall....

    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.

    Well Carl's Jr. was trying to fix that image: uduo7za4z5qa.png

    She is not eating that. She wants to feed it to you. She would have less luck with me because I do not typically care for blondes or Carls Jr. Well CJ is good freshly made but it seems like all I normally ever get from them is something made an hour ago if not 3 days ago.
  • tbright1965tbright1965 Posts: 841Member, Premium Member Posts: 841Member, Premium Member
    I'd be tempted if she was a redhead.
    NovusDies wrote: »
    uduo7za4z5qa.png

    She is not eating that. She wants to feed it to you. She would have less luck with me because I do not typically care for blondes or Carls Jr. Well CJ is good freshly made but it seems like all I normally ever get from them is something made an hour ago if not 3 days ago.

  • NovusDiesNovusDies Posts: 6,607Member, Premium Member Posts: 6,607Member, Premium Member
    I'd be tempted if she was a redhead.
    NovusDies wrote: »
    uduo7za4z5qa.png

    She is not eating that. She wants to feed it to you. She would have less luck with me because I do not typically care for blondes or Carls Jr. Well CJ is good freshly made but it seems like all I normally ever get from them is something made an hour ago if not 3 days ago.

    That would make it more tempting. My wife would make it less.
  • psychod787psychod787 Posts: 3,082Member, Premium Member Posts: 3,082Member, Premium Member
    NovusDies wrote: »
    I'd be tempted if she was a redhead.
    NovusDies wrote: »
    uduo7za4z5qa.png

    She is not eating that. She wants to feed it to you. She would have less luck with me because I do not typically care for blondes or Carls Jr. Well CJ is good freshly made but it seems like all I normally ever get from them is something made an hour ago if not 3 days ago.

    That would make it more tempting. My wife would make it less.

    I'm telling your wife you said that... my price... 1million dollars U.S.... ok I'll settle for. 5 spot.. ! Lol
  • Theoldguy1Theoldguy1 Posts: 790Member Member Posts: 790Member Member
    psychod787 wrote: »
    Why I love Kevin Hall....

    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.

    Well Carl's Jr. was trying to fix that image: uduo7za4z5qa.png

    My wife laughs her butt off when she see's a Hardee's (midwestern branch of Carl's Jr) commercial with some beautiful female model holding a 1000+ calorie sandwich. She's like no way that woman ever touched one of those before the commercial recording.
  • GaleHawkinsGaleHawkins Posts: 7,649Member Member Posts: 7,649Member Member
    I think causes for processed foods to cause weight gain can't be proven for some of the reasons stated above all ready.

    Perhaps processed foods where a factor in my obesity but there is no medical way for me to say it was a fact.

    What I can say and prove as a medical fact is since I cut out foods with added sugars and any form of any grains over 5 years ago which functionally removes any risk from eating processed foods I did loose 50 pounds the first year. Now over 5 years later I have not regained any of the 50 pounds without thought to the calories that I eat while are mostly from protein and fat food sources. My calories are still about the same but their sources are different than back in 2014 and the prior 40 years. Now at the age of 68 with improved health markers and with never having to go hungry works for me.

    I do not know why it does not work for others but then we are all different perhaps.
  • psychod787psychod787 Posts: 3,082Member, Premium Member Posts: 3,082Member, Premium Member
    I still dont think it's the food per se, but the ability to overeat is greater on hyperprocessed food.
Sign In or Register to comment.