I can't do it! I can't live with hunger

13

Replies

  • Sabine_Stroehm
    Sabine_Stroehm Posts: 19,263 Member
    I'm rarely hungry with my approach. Best of luck finding an eating pattern than suits you.
  • LAT1963
    LAT1963 Posts: 1,375 Member
    Florida man.
  • LivingtheLeanDream
    LivingtheLeanDream Posts: 13,342 Member
    [
    psychod787 wrote: »
    Ohh wow... look at the woo's...

    its ok @psychod787 you will always get hugs from me :D
  • psychod787
    psychod787 Posts: 4,099 Member
    You know you have my heart @LivingtheLeanDream ! Some people just hate to hear the truth! Lol hugs my pretty Irish girl!
  • psychod787
    psychod787 Posts: 4,099 Member
    kshama2001 wrote: »
    psychod787 wrote: »
    Ohh wow... look at the woo's... would you like me to post the research to back up my statement? Or is it that westerners are kinda soft, hmmm. Tough luck... we are. Hunger has been my constant companion for 2 years. Not the oh... my stomach is growling I need to eat, but that pain in your gut that feels like someone is trying to cut it out. The current low level thud i have now is an upgrade. No where near the people who live and have survived famines though. Mine has been my own doing. I am harder now, but nowhere as hard as those folks. Oh and OP, my question is, what are those 15lbs worth to you? Are they "vanity" pounds? Or, are they "health" pounds? Because anything you do to lose them, you will have to maintain to keep them off.

    The "Woo" reaction is going to be removed soon: https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10759987/woo-to-become-disagree/p1

    You posted something interesting on another thread about people on controlled diets, increased protein, decreased hunger, and weight loss - maybe repost it here?

    Okay, come do my best Ace Ventura impression. To backup my statement I'll say these things. First off, when one looks inside the studies of high protein diets, one sees a spontaneous reduction of calories in obese individuals by 600 to a thousand calories a day. That is when protein is around 30% of total calories. If one looks inside of bland liquid diet studies, there is a reduction in calories to near starvation level diets with no hunger. Inside Kevin Halls most recent study on processed vs. Unprocessed diet, people on an unprocessed diet, the lower reward value, ate an average of 400 calories a day less than people on a process diet. N equals 1 experience, as well. I also work in a highly controlled environment, where food and activity are controlled as close as one can get, outside of a research setting. I have seen men go from 400 lb to 240 lb with little hunger issues. The diet that get is actually very healthy. It's high in fruits vegetables beans lean meats with some added fats. It does not taste very good, so far less rewarding than what they had on the outside. Most of the people, have to get jobs that require activity. Is all this coincidence? Possibly. I think it lines up with many of the Rat and monkey studies I've seen as well.
  • GaleHawkins
    GaleHawkins Posts: 8,159 Member
    Finding macros that lets me never go hungry 5 years ago at the age of 63 has been a positive game changer for me and my family. The more my health recovers the happier they are. Seeing me lose 50 pounds and keeping if off for 4 years now and eating all that I want to keep from getting hungry is encouraging to some others.

    Keep in mind "Woo" from an anonymous profile posters carries no provable value where it is meant in a positive or negative way.
  • KimberlyCapone
    KimberlyCapone Posts: 42 Member
    cmriverside wrote: »
    Two things jump out at me in your post.

    1. Your protein intake early in the day is low. I'm guessing that unless you are having a lot of protein at dinner, this is part of your problem. Try getting each of your three meals to contain about 30g protein each and about 10g fiber in each meal.

    2. Then, either leave yourself a small calorie amount for an after dinner treat, or delay your last meal until it's close to bedtime. If I eat my dinner and then have a small treat and go to bed within 2-3 hours, I'm good. If I try to stay up for more than 4 hours after dinner I'm going to be hungry. So get your meals planned, time-wise.

    I came here to say the same thing... you need more protein!
  • dogladytwo
    dogladytwo Posts: 97 Member
    Lots of great advice here! I am having similar issues (gained 15 with late night eating) so I am plan to shift my big meal to dinner and add protein snack for bedtime. Carbs before bed are not my friend, tempting though they be!
  • lemurcat2
    lemurcat2 Posts: 7,885 Member
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    psychod787 wrote: »
    kshama2001 wrote: »
    psychod787 wrote: »
    Ohh wow... look at the woo's... would you like me to post the research to back up my statement? Or is it that westerners are kinda soft, hmmm. Tough luck... we are. Hunger has been my constant companion for 2 years. Not the oh... my stomach is growling I need to eat, but that pain in your gut that feels like someone is trying to cut it out. The current low level thud i have now is an upgrade. No where near the people who live and have survived famines though. Mine has been my own doing. I am harder now, but nowhere as hard as those folks. Oh and OP, my question is, what are those 15lbs worth to you? Are they "vanity" pounds? Or, are they "health" pounds? Because anything you do to lose them, you will have to maintain to keep them off.

    The "Woo" reaction is going to be removed soon: https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10759987/woo-to-become-disagree/p1

    You posted something interesting on another thread about people on controlled diets, increased protein, decreased hunger, and weight loss - maybe repost it here?

    Okay, come do my best Ace Ventura impression. To backup my statement I'll say these things. First off, when one looks inside the studies of high protein diets, one sees a spontaneous reduction of calories in obese individuals by 600 to a thousand calories a day. That is when protein is around 30% of total calories. If one looks inside of bland liquid diet studies, there is a reduction in calories to near starvation level diets with no hunger. Inside Kevin Halls most recent study on processed vs. Unprocessed diet, people on an unprocessed diet, the lower reward value, ate an average of 400 calories a day less than people on a process diet. N equals 1 experience, as well. I also work in a highly controlled environment, where food and activity are controlled as close as one can get, outside of a research setting. I have seen men go from 400 lb to 240 lb with little hunger issues. The diet that get is actually very healthy. It's high in fruits vegetables beans lean meats with some added fats. It does not taste very good, so far less rewarding than what they had on the outside. Most of the people, have to get jobs that require activity. Is all this coincidence? Possibly. I think it lines up with many of the Rat and monkey studies I've seen as well.

    I saw you post this on the other thread, and I agree with the overall thrust of the post.

    But 2x repetition brings out the quibbler in me: On one of the debate threads about the Hall study, some felt the unprocessed diet was not "more palatable" but rather "more filling" - there were opinions on both sides. I'm one who would pick the study's "unprocessed" side to eat myself, hands down, for palatabilty/enjoyment alone if I had to pick one of the two as an unaltered whole.

    I guess if people eat less that way, that "why" question is academic. But I kinda hate feeding the idea that highly processed food generally tastes better. To me (and I wasn't the only one), it doesn't, mostly.

    Totally agree, as well as with the parts of your post I did not quote.

    I enjoyed the discussion over that study, and thought there were lots of interesting ideas why the results were as they were, even among people who thought the results were unsurprising.

    I think one reason may be that it's harder to consume cals as quickly on the less processed meals provided, which gives time for satisfaction to kick in and makes mindless eating more difficult.
  • lemurcat2
    lemurcat2 Posts: 7,885 Member
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    psychod787 wrote: »
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    psychod787 wrote: »
    kshama2001 wrote: »
    psychod787 wrote: »
    Ohh wow... look at the woo's... would you like me to post the research to back up my statement? Or is it that westerners are kinda soft, hmmm. Tough luck... we are. Hunger has been my constant companion for 2 years. Not the oh... my stomach is growling I need to eat, but that pain in your gut that feels like someone is trying to cut it out. The current low level thud i have now is an upgrade. No where near the people who live and have survived famines though. Mine has been my own doing. I am harder now, but nowhere as hard as those folks. Oh and OP, my question is, what are those 15lbs worth to you? Are they "vanity" pounds? Or, are they "health" pounds? Because anything you do to lose them, you will have to maintain to keep them off.

    The "Woo" reaction is going to be removed soon: https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10759987/woo-to-become-disagree/p1

    You posted something interesting on another thread about people on controlled diets, increased protein, decreased hunger, and weight loss - maybe repost it here?

    Okay, come do my best Ace Ventura impression. To backup my statement I'll say these things. First off, when one looks inside the studies of high protein diets, one sees a spontaneous reduction of calories in obese individuals by 600 to a thousand calories a day. That is when protein is around 30% of total calories. If one looks inside of bland liquid diet studies, there is a reduction in calories to near starvation level diets with no hunger. Inside Kevin Halls most recent study on processed vs. Unprocessed diet, people on an unprocessed diet, the lower reward value, ate an average of 400 calories a day less than people on a process diet. N equals 1 experience, as well. I also work in a highly controlled environment, where food and activity are controlled as close as one can get, outside of a research setting. I have seen men go from 400 lb to 240 lb with little hunger issues. The diet that get is actually very healthy. It's high in fruits vegetables beans lean meats with some added fats. It does not taste very good, so far less rewarding than what they had on the outside. Most of the people, have to get jobs that require activity. Is all this coincidence? Possibly. I think it lines up with many of the Rat and monkey studies I've seen as well.

    I saw you post this on the other thread, and I agree with the overall thrust of the post.

    But 2x repetition brings out the quibbler in me: On one of the debate threads about the Hall study, some felt the unprocessed diet was not "more palatable" but rather "more filling" - there were opinions on both sides. I'm one who would pick the study's "unprocessed" side to eat myself, hands down, for palatabilty/enjoyment alone if I had to pick one of the two as an unaltered whole.

    I guess if people eat less that way, that "why" question is academic. But I kinda hate feeding the idea that highly processed food generally tastes better. To me (and I wasn't the only one), it doesn't, mostly.

    Humans are very norm-driven, suggestible. No question corporate food processors work hard to push our natural-selection-installed gustatory buttons. But they also work hard to convince us that all the very-processed foods taste better, and that all the happy pretty people like to eat them: Double barrelled! (Don't help them.)

    I'd encourage anyone with satiation problems to eat enough protein, enough healthy fats, and plenty of varied/colorful veggies and fruits . . . the ones they personally find tasty. Giving up enjoyment may not be necessary.

    As far as your prison population - or whatever it is - I get that the institution's impetus would not be to provide amazing flavor. It doesn't necessarily follow that amazing flavor is impossible (or even difficult) on a diet "high in fruits vegetables beans lean meats with some added fats".

    Both palatability and lower-calorie satiation are possible explanations for the Hall study results. IIRC, they didn't demonstrate which was operating (and time to consume was another possibility brought up in the debate thread). If they didn't support one answer vs. another with research findings, don't assume one (and implicitly support the food processors' thesis that all the cool people think the highly-processed choice always tastes better).

    :drinker:

    Possible, but another hypothesis is protein leverage. While the diets in Kevin hall's study were roughly the same per gram, it actually took less food to reach that "magic" 15% protein that "seems" to be the norm in tribal diets.

    Sure. I personally find protein satiating (despite vegetarian and all that), so I get that viscerally. I'm just saying "don't advocate beyond the clearly demonstrated conclusion", or at least admit you're doing it.

    In particular, without the slightest hard proof, I'm encouraging that you not argue this specific point from the palatabilty standpoint, because it's (1) unproven, and (2) potentially unhelpful, because people accept the advertising without much personal testing.

    Do you understand where I'm coming from? I like you, iconoclast/provocateur and all. But maybe question harder whether "hyperpalatable" foods really have the taste-power imputed to them? Can you understand what I'm saying, in terms of whether we encourage others to accept orthodoxies , or question them . . . at least at n=1?

    I'm not saying I think there's a universal answer. That would be dumb. IMO.

    On "hyperpalatable" foods, I think there's a good argument that it's not that they taste better than the homemade version (or other homemade foods), but that homemade foods take work and time and are not generally available all the time everywhere. So in a world where we mostly eat homemade foods, that means we aren't going to so easily mindless eat all the time (as some probably do now). Nor it as easy to eat extra food without thinking much about it.

    When ultraprocessed foods are available, and while (IMO) not as tasty, but generally good enough these days to be an okay alternative, and also super cheap and marketed and available everywhere, that kind of mindless eating happens a lot, and if someone is feeling tired and lazy and emotionally drained from other things and not in the habit of cooking or not someone who enjoys cooking, it's easy to get some higher cal ultraprocessed or fast food or delivery option -- NOT because it's so delicious and irresistible, or tastier than what you would make, but because it's fast and easy.
  • psychod787
    psychod787 Posts: 4,099 Member
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    psychod787 wrote: »
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    psychod787 wrote: »
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    psychod787 wrote: »
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    psychod787 wrote: »
    kshama2001 wrote: »
    psychod787 wrote: »
    Ohh wow... look at the woo's... would you like me to post the research to back up my statement? Or is it that westerners are kinda soft, hmmm. Tough luck... we are. Hunger has been my constant companion for 2 years. Not the oh... my stomach is growling I need to eat, but that pain in your gut that feels like someone is trying to cut it out. The current low level thud i have now is an upgrade. No where near the people who live and have survived famines though. Mine has been my own doing. I am harder now, but nowhere as hard as those folks. Oh and OP, my question is, what are those 15lbs worth to you? Are they "vanity" pounds? Or, are they "health" pounds? Because anything you do to lose them, you will have to maintain to keep them off.

    The "Woo" reaction is going to be removed soon: https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10759987/woo-to-become-disagree/p1

    You posted something interesting on another thread about people on controlled diets, increased protein, decreased hunger, and weight loss - maybe repost it here?

    Okay, come do my best Ace Ventura impression. To backup my statement I'll say these things. First off, when one looks inside the studies of high protein diets, one sees a spontaneous reduction of calories in obese individuals by 600 to a thousand calories a day. That is when protein is around 30% of total calories. If one looks inside of bland liquid diet studies, there is a reduction in calories to near starvation level diets with no hunger. Inside Kevin Halls most recent study on processed vs. Unprocessed diet, people on an unprocessed diet, the lower reward value, ate an average of 400 calories a day less than people on a process diet. N equals 1 experience, as well. I also work in a highly controlled environment, where food and activity are controlled as close as one can get, outside of a research setting. I have seen men go from 400 lb to 240 lb with little hunger issues. The diet that get is actually very healthy. It's high in fruits vegetables beans lean meats with some added fats. It does not taste very good, so far less rewarding than what they had on the outside. Most of the people, have to get jobs that require activity. Is all this coincidence? Possibly. I think it lines up with many of the Rat and monkey studies I've seen as well.

    I saw you post this on the other thread, and I agree with the overall thrust of the post.

    But 2x repetition brings out the quibbler in me: On one of the debate threads about the Hall study, some felt the unprocessed diet was not "more palatable" but rather "more filling" - there were opinions on both sides. I'm one who would pick the study's "unprocessed" side to eat myself, hands down, for palatabilty/enjoyment alone if I had to pick one of the two as an unaltered whole.

    I guess if people eat less that way, that "why" question is academic. But I kinda hate feeding the idea that highly processed food generally tastes better. To me (and I wasn't the only one), it doesn't, mostly.

    Humans are very norm-driven, suggestible. No question corporate food processors work hard to push our natural-selection-installed gustatory buttons. But they also work hard to convince us that all the very-processed foods taste better, and that all the happy pretty people like to eat them: Double barrelled! (Don't help them.)

    I'd encourage anyone with satiation problems to eat enough protein, enough healthy fats, and plenty of varied/colorful veggies and fruits . . . the ones they personally find tasty. Giving up enjoyment may not be necessary.

    As far as your prison population - or whatever it is - I get that the institution's impetus would not be to provide amazing flavor. It doesn't necessarily follow that amazing flavor is impossible (or even difficult) on a diet "high in fruits vegetables beans lean meats with some added fats".

    Both palatability and lower-calorie satiation are possible explanations for the Hall study results. IIRC, they didn't demonstrate which was operating (and time to consume was another possibility brought up in the debate thread). If they didn't support one answer vs. another with research findings, don't assume one (and implicitly support the food processors' thesis that all the cool people think the highly-processed choice always tastes better).

    :drinker:

    Possible, but another hypothesis is protein leverage. While the diets in Kevin hall's study were roughly the same per gram, it actually took less food to reach that "magic" 15% protein that "seems" to be the norm in tribal diets.

    Sure. I personally find protein satiating (despite vegetarian and all that), so I get that viscerally. I'm just saying "don't advocate beyond the clearly demonstrated conclusion", or at least admit you're doing it.

    In particular, without the slightest hard proof, I'm encouraging that you not argue this specific point from the palatabilty standpoint, because it's (1) unproven, and (2) potentially unhelpful, because people accept the advertising without much personal testing.

    Do you understand where I'm coming from? I like you, iconoclast/provocateur and all. But maybe question harder whether "hyperpalatable" foods really have the taste-power imputed to them? Can you understand what I'm saying, in terms of whether we encourage others to accept orthodoxies , or question them . . . at least at n=1?

    I'm not saying I think there's a universal answer. That would be dumb. IMO.

    No Anne, no answers for anything, just hypothesis. Though as the saying goes, If it walks like a duck.... get my drift?😏


    Yeahbut: You finding processed food tastier doesn't mean it's tastier. And my finding it less tasty doesn't mean it's less tasty. There aren't universals in that space. It doesn't even matter what the average is . . . but no one has even demonstrated averages yet. They're being assumed.

    We see what people commonly eat. There are myriad possible reasons why they eat it. Optimal tastiness is an assumption.

    I think we serve others best by encouraging them to make very open-minded n=1 trials about tastiness, because AFAIK science hasn't much touched that question.

    Geese walk like ducks, more or less. They aren't ducks.

    Well Anne, unfortunately on a calorie counting website, you have to show evidence of your statements. Especially when they venture outside the "mainstream". As far as tastes, that's a very cultural thing. What we find tastier in the say, USA in my case, a French person may find horrid. Though, if we look inside of what goes into the individual cultures taste, we tend to find similar things. Caloric density, absence of bitter flavors, fat, and carbs. When OP is complaining of hunger, showing someone an alternative idea is all one can do. I am stating to be "open". Though when one is looking at the "elephant" so to speak, one must look at ot from all angles. Oh Anne... I question almost everything these days.. lol😁 you know i like you as well..

    Dear sir, I believe you made the first leap in your post about the Hall study, when you said (what I bolded) "Unprocessed diet, people on an unprocessed diet, the lower reward value, ate an average of 400 calories a day less than people on a process diet.", specifically in what I italicized in this most recent quoting.

    Unless you're assigning a remarkably broad intepretation to reward value?

    I believe the Hall study didn't find that participants found the unprocessed diet more palatable, more filling, or that it took longer to eat so feelings of satiation had more time to set in (among other theoretically possible interpretations). The study concluded that people ate more calories of the unprocessed food, ad libitum. It didn't decisively conclude a "why", as far as I can see (though protein leverage hypothesis was cited as an unconfirmed potential contributor):
    Participants did not report significant differences in the pleasantness (4.8±3.1; p=0.13)
    or familiarity (2.7±4.6; p=0.57) of the meals between the ultra-processed and
    unprocessed diets as measured using 100-point visual analogue scales (Figure 2D).
    This suggests that the observed energy intake differences were not due to greater
    palatability or familiarity of the ultra-processed diet. Furthermore, differences in the
    energy intake-adjusted scores for hunger (-1.7±2.5; p=0.5), fullness (1.1±2.5; p=0.67),
    satisfaction (1.9±2.4; p=0.42), and capacity to eat (-2.9±2.5; p=0.25) (Figures 2E) were
    not significant between the diets suggesting that they did not differ in their subjective
    appetitive properties.

    That actually comes perilously close to suggesting that perhaps palatability and satiation were not the reasons, but it was a subjective assessment (not sure how one would get an objective one. . . fMRI? ;) ).

    Your prisoner (or whatever) point seems a little iffy on similar terms, because I suspect you don't know whether it's universally "far less rewarding than what they had on the outside" (though I'm sure many would say so). You're the expert in that realm. But it makes me think of the young man, someone I knew personally in college, who thought that the dorm cafeteria food was the best yummy goodness ever, because his mother had been a truly execrable cook. :lol:

    And in free-living conditions, I think lemurcat12 has made a good point about convenience and availability.

    Burden of proof on you, IMO: I think I made no particular claims. I disputed the generality of (what I perceived to be) your claim, using my n=1 as an individual counterexample.

    And, once again, I think we agree on the core advice to OP: It would make sense to try some food choices with more protein. What she's eating now doesn't seem profoundly ultraprocessed to me, but there are alternatives to some of her current choices that might be less so, thus might be worth trying. I believe you also had a point about first-worlders benefitting from toughing out hunger more often . . . I'm neutral on that one, as a generality, though as a bit of a hedonist, I'd prefer not to participate in the experiment, given a choice. ;)

    As an aside, apologies for duplicating some content and messing up quote tags in one of my PP. I have the delusion that I've fixed that in the embedded quotes in this post.

    Point conceded. You MIGHT have a year or two on me in the experience department.😏 I'll catch ya soon... I promise. Catching up on those delts though. Rows work wonders.... lol
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 34,183 Member
    Yikes, I really messed up one paragraph in what I wrote - lost all accuracy! - too late to edit, so quoted below with corrections (bolded are additions):
    I believe the Hall study didn't find that participants found the unprocessed diet more palatable, the unprocessed diet more filling, or that it took longer to eat the unprocessed diet so feelings of satiation had more time to set in (among other theoretically possible interpretations). The study concluded that people ate more calories of the unprocessed food, ad libitum. It didn't decisively conclude a "why", as far as I can see (though protein leverage hypothesis was cited as an unconfirmed potential contributor):

    Apologies.
  • kshama2001
    kshama2001 Posts: 28,052 Member
    psychod787 wrote: »
    kshama2001 wrote: »
    psychod787 wrote: »
    Ohh wow... look at the woo's... would you like me to post the research to back up my statement? Or is it that westerners are kinda soft, hmmm. Tough luck... we are. Hunger has been my constant companion for 2 years. Not the oh... my stomach is growling I need to eat, but that pain in your gut that feels like someone is trying to cut it out. The current low level thud i have now is an upgrade. No where near the people who live and have survived famines though. Mine has been my own doing. I am harder now, but nowhere as hard as those folks. Oh and OP, my question is, what are those 15lbs worth to you? Are they "vanity" pounds? Or, are they "health" pounds? Because anything you do to lose them, you will have to maintain to keep them off.

    The "Woo" reaction is going to be removed soon: https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10759987/woo-to-become-disagree/p1

    You posted something interesting on another thread about people on controlled diets, increased protein, decreased hunger, and weight loss - maybe repost it here?

    Okay, come do my best Ace Ventura impression. To backup my statement I'll say these things. First off, when one looks inside the studies of high protein diets, one sees a spontaneous reduction of calories in obese individuals by 600 to a thousand calories a day. That is when protein is around 30% of total calories. If one looks inside of bland liquid diet studies, there is a reduction in calories to near starvation level diets with no hunger. Inside Kevin Halls most recent study on processed vs. Unprocessed diet, people on an unprocessed diet, the lower reward value, ate an average of 400 calories a day less than people on a process diet. N equals 1 experience, as well. I also work in a highly controlled environment, where food and activity are controlled as close as one can get, outside of a research setting. I have seen men go from 400 lb to 240 lb with little hunger issues. The diet that get is actually very healthy. It's high in fruits vegetables beans lean meats with some added fats. It does not taste very good, so far less rewarding than what they had on the outside. Most of the people, have to get jobs that require activity. Is all this coincidence? Possibly. I think it lines up with many of the Rat and monkey studies I've seen as well.

    Thanks for reposting! I have lots of reactions to this post, but am distracted by "highly controlled environment", which sounds to me like a prison population, and I currently have two episodes left of the finale season of Orange is the New Black. While I of course don't take anything I see on a TV drama as gospel, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if some prisons do take the PolyCon cost-cutting approach to food quality, and I am glad to see the food is much better in your controlled environment, whatever it may be.

    I've been musing on the concept of "low palatable" since not long after I learned about "hyper-palatable." Seems to me if there is one, the opposite is quite possible.

    I think my lunch smoothie is a low palatable / low reward food. While I do like the taste of it, it is very hard for me to finish. Takes me hours. I keep putting it back in the frig and pulling it back out. It's 34% protein, 29% fat, and 37% carbs with 11 g of fiber. Only the protein powder is ultra processed.
  • chris_in_cal
    chris_in_cal Posts: 2,520 Member
    kshama2001 wrote: »
    I think my lunch smoothie is ... Only the protein powder is ultra processed.

    To be a little bit of a contrarian, if 1/3 of your smoothie is a ultra processed ingredient, and after mixing it together, you are processing it into a smoothie...the whole smoothie is bordering on being a "highly processed" food item..

    Just a perspective here, no judgement.

Categories