I can't do it! I can't live with hunger
Replies
-
manderson27 wrote: »Well I hope all this advice has reached the OP and she has tried some of the great advice and found a way to keep going without feeling hungry all the time. Perhaps she will come back and update us at some point.
I've been reading every single response. Some have been kinder than others.
Thanks for asking.5 -
chris_in_cal wrote: »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.
I think you have a misunderstanding of the term "highly processed" when referring to food items. Simply taking a banana and blending it does not render it highly processed, it is the exact same banana with the same nutritional value, including all micronutrients, macronutrients and antioxidants. A highly processed food is one that is broken down, has micronutrients and macronutrients removed or altered, is chemically or manually degraded or has non-nutritive additives. "These foods go through multiple processes (extrusion, molding, milling, etc.), contain many added ingredients and are highly manipulated. Examples are soft drinks, chips, chocolate, candy, ice-cream, sweetened breakfast cereals, packaged soups, chicken nuggets, hotdogs, fries and more. "
So taking an egg, scrambling it and cooking it does not make it a highly processed food, it is just an altered form of a unprocessed or minimally processed food. Blending spinach, still spinach.3 -
I think you have a misunderstanding of the term "highly processed" when referring to food items
Perhaps, but as you wrote it is a spectrum.
At some point there is a difference. Pepsi-co/Lays argue there is not.
"Our GMO chips are canola oil, potatoes, and sea salt" Natural right?
I have spinach. great.
I blend spinach, okay.
I dehydrated it, right.
I add a single naturally occurring anti bacterial.
I grind it into powder.
and so on.
At some point the spinach has become processed food.
This spectrum is how Pepsi-Co argues for fruit juice.
Again, not judging. And I think we share a similar understanding of what highly processed foods are.
3 -
chris_in_cal wrote: »I think you have a misunderstanding of the term "highly processed" when referring to food items
Perhaps, but as you wrote it is a spectrum.
At some point there is a difference. Pepsi-co/Lays argue there is not.
"Our GMO chips are canola oil, potatoes, and sea salt" Natural right?
I have spinach. great.
I blend spinach, okay.
I dehydrated it, right.
I add a single naturally occurring anti bacterial.
I grind it into powder.
and so on.
At some point the spinach has become processed food.
This spectrum is how Pepsi-Co argues for fruit juice.
Again, not judging. And I think we share a similar understanding of what highly processed foods are.
Sir...... When you have the same experience level of @fernt21 .... I might listen to you, until then..... naaa4 -
chris_in_cal wrote: »I think you have a misunderstanding of the term "highly processed" when referring to food items
Perhaps, but as you wrote it is a spectrum.
At some point there is a difference. Pepsi-co/Lays argue there is not.
"Our GMO chips are canola oil, potatoes, and sea salt" Natural right?
I have spinach. great.
I blend spinach, okay.
I dehydrated it, right.
I add a single naturally occurring anti bacterial.
I grind it into powder.
and so on.
At some point the spinach has become processed food.
This spectrum is how Pepsi-Co argues for fruit juice.
Again, not judging. And I think we share a similar understanding of what highly processed foods are.
So here in lies the issue with labelling and terminology when it comes to food items. Most food we eat goes through some sort of "processing" i.e cutting up watermelon into chunks to eat is technically a process right. Some processing actually makes food MORE healthy... cooking tomatoes makes the lycopene bioavailbe to us, versus uncooked raw tomatoes, fermenting foods creates powerful probiotics, adding bacterial culture to milk makes whole natural yogurt, grounding flax seed allows us to digest and absorb the healthy fats versus sucking them down whole just to pass right through our digestive system. However, the term "highly processed" or "ultra-processed" refers specifically to the process of removing valuable nutrients or adding in non-nutritive/harmful ingredients.
In regards to the spinach... blending it does not effect its nutritive qualities, dehydrating it does not remove its nutritive qualitative, freezing it does not remove its nutritive qualities, grinding it into a powder does not remove its nutritive qualities. If I fried it in oil until it was crispy and added salt, then yes it would alter its nutritional potential and also might lead me to eat more than I would otherwise. In regards to the potato chips, the term "all natural" is very different than "highly processed", something can be "all natural" and still be highly processed.
Final note, just because something is unprocessed still doesn't make it a health power house... fresh cut butchers bacon, pork belly, honey, maple syrup, nuts and grains, really almost anything eating in excess isn't going to be great for our waist lines. But a big difference between highly processed and unprocessed foods is that many are severely devoid in micronutrient, antioxidant and probiotic components, which are essential to health and well being (although not for weight loss or gain).9 -
chris_in_cal wrote: »I think you have a misunderstanding of the term "highly processed" when referring to food items
Perhaps, but as you wrote it is a spectrum.
At some point there is a difference. Pepsi-co/Lays argue there is not.
"Our GMO chips are canola oil, potatoes, and sea salt" Natural right?
I have spinach. great.
I blend spinach, okay.
I dehydrated it, right.
I add a single naturally occurring anti bacterial.
I grind it into powder.
and so on.
At some point the spinach has become processed food.
This spectrum is how Pepsi-Co argues for fruit juice.
Again, not judging. And I think we share a similar understanding of what highly processed foods are.
So here in lies the issue with labelling and terminology when it comes to food items. Most food we eat goes through some sort of "processing" i.e cutting up watermelon into chunks to eat is technically a process right. Some processing actually makes food MORE healthy... cooking tomatoes makes the lycopene bioavailbe to us, versus uncooked raw tomatoes, fermenting foods creates powerful probiotics, adding bacterial culture to milk makes whole natural yogurt, grounding flax seed allows us to digest and absorb the healthy fats versus sucking them down whole just to pass right through our digestive system. However, the term "highly processed" or "ultra-processed" refers specifically to the process of removing valuable nutrients or adding in non-nutritive/harmful ingredients.
In regards to the spinach... blending it does not effect its nutritive qualities, dehydrating it does not remove its nutritive qualitative, freezing it does not remove its nutritive qualities, grinding it into a powder does not remove its nutritive qualities. If I fried it in oil until it was crispy and added salt, then yes it would alter its nutritional potential and also might lead me to eat more than I would otherwise. In regards to the potato chips, the term "all natural" is very different than "highly processed", something can be "all natural" and still be highly processed.
Final note, just because something is unprocessed still doesn't make it a health power house... fresh cut butchers bacon, pork belly, honey, maple syrup, nuts and grains, really almost anything eating in excess isn't going to be great for our waist lines. But a big difference between highly processed and unprocessed foods is that many are severely devoid in micronutrient, antioxidant and probiotic components, which are essential to health and well being (although not for weight loss or gain).
I don't really like the focus on terms like processed or ultraprocessed as I think they aren't all that helpful. Rather than arguing about whether or not something is really ultraprocessed it makes more sense to me to focus on the nutrition and other ingredients in that product.
For example, from the definition you gave:
"These foods go through multiple processes (extrusion, molding, milling, etc.), contain many added ingredients and are highly manipulated. Examples are soft drinks, chips, chocolate, candy, ice-cream, sweetened breakfast cereals, packaged soups, chicken nuggets, hotdogs, fries and more. "
It is simply not true that something like ice cream or chips or all packaged soups or sweetened breakfast cereals really fit this mold, and are therefore problematic (as the focus on "highly processed" and other language used to describe them suggest).
It's pretty simple to make ice cream at home using minimally processed ingredients. One can make it without sugar (I have) or with fake sugar (I haven't, but it's common for people who do keto), but even if one includes sugar it's not the "processing" that makes it high cal, but the fact it has sugar and cream. (The non sweet ice cream I made wasn't actually lower cal than ice cream I've made with sugar.)
Even packaged chips are very often just potatoes, salt, and oil, as noted above. I go to a restaurant that has house made chips, and similarly one can make chips at home. Does the frying make them "ultraprocessed" or does it make more sense instead to just note that added oil and frying in the amounts involved here are going to turn a not that high cal food that's often very sating into one that is high cal and many might have difficulty not overeating.
Canned soups usually do have added ingredients some might want to avoid (high sodium), but there's a huge range of packaged soups available. I think focusing on the nutrition and cals and ingredients in the specific soup is more informative.
Sweetened cereals have never been my thing, but you could certainly have a "sweetened cereal" that was just steel cut oats cooked at home to which you added some milk, a bit of sugar, and strawberries. Does the fact you added a little sugar = ultraprocessed? If not, the definition quoted seems to be overgeneralizing.
Also, are the additions to ultraprocessed foods always bad for you or non-nutritive? I think protein powder is unquestionably highly processed, but it can add nutrition without much or anything else. Same with foods that are fortified.
You say that MANY highly processed foods are low nutrient, and seem to concede that the same is true for many minimally processed foods too -- cheese, for example, or a homemade dessert using honey instead of sugar, etc. I would just note that again it makes more sense to look at the specific food, since there certainly are highly processed foods that are not low nutrient -- health-focused pre-made meals, for example. Not my thing, but the nutrition and cals and so on can be perfectly fine.
I guess we could say that it's only the "bad" additions that = ultraprocessing, but then the definition stops being coherent, since it's not actually about the amount of processing.
I tend to prefer to base my diet MOSTLY (not entirely) on less processed foods, since I tend to think the positive qualities of various foods are not all due to the particular things in them that we've isolated and studied, and I do tend to find foods more filling when more whole (whole grain vs refined), although that's not an absolute rule. But I just don't see the various nuances of how processed something is all that helpful. I think it makes sense to just look at the properties of individual foods and how they effect us.
Back to the smoothie -- I'm also a smoothie fan, make ones with fat, protein, and more veg than fruit (I don't currently use protein powder but might use something like tofu, which is also processed). I also find mine filling for the cals (about 400 cals, large volume). But it's absolutely true that many people make smoothies (no more processed, often less, say based mainly on fruit) that are not filling for them for the calories. Some say it's the macros, many just don't find drinking food filling (so that would be the amount of processing for them). I think the key is figuring out how something works for you.6 -
chris_in_cal wrote: »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.
I think you have a misunderstanding of the term "highly processed" when referring to food items. Simply taking a banana and blending it does not render it highly processed, it is the exact same banana with the same nutritional value, including all micronutrients, macronutrients and antioxidants. A highly processed food is one that is broken down, has micronutrients and macronutrients removed or altered, is chemically or manually degraded or has non-nutritive additives. "These foods go through multiple processes (extrusion, molding, milling, etc.), contain many added ingredients and are highly manipulated. Examples are soft drinks, chips, chocolate, candy, ice-cream, sweetened breakfast cereals, packaged soups, chicken nuggets, hotdogs, fries and more. "
Protein powder is made by breaking down foods (milk, eggs, pea, hemp, etc.) and isolating and extracting the protein, removing or altering some or all of the fat and carbs, and sometimes adding non-nutritive additives. It's a lot farther from whole foods than most of the examples in your quote, barring maybe soft drinks.So taking an egg, scrambling it and cooking it does not make it a highly processed food, it is just an altered form of a unprocessed or minimally processed food. Blending spinach, still spinach.
So taking highly processed protein powder and blending it with fruit and milk or yogurt or whatever does not it make it an unprocessed or lightly processed food, it is just an altered form of a highly processed food. Blending protein powder, still protein powder.
ETA missing "not".2 -
What's funny is a lot of us aware healthy people here on MFP looked at the recent Hall study on highly processed foods, where they had pictures of a plate of highly processed food and did a bit if a double take as at first glance it appeared to be a mainstream 'healthy' meal.
We assumed, Cheetos and Big Gulps.2 -
chris_in_cal wrote: »What's funny is a lot of us aware healthy people here on MFP looked at the recent Hall study on highly processed foods, where they had pictures of a plate of highly processed food and did a bit if a double take as at first glance it appeared to be a mainstream 'healthy' meal.
We assumed, Cheetos and Big Gulps.
I don't think that take is consistent with the discussion of the study that occurred here.
Many of us suggested that they made choices that were rather obviously non filling or likely to be overeaten.2 -
chris_in_cal wrote: »What's funny is a lot of us aware healthy people here on MFP looked at the recent Hall study on highly processed foods, where they had pictures of a plate of highly processed food and did a bit if a double take as at first glance it appeared to be a mainstream 'healthy' meal.
We assumed, Cheetos and Big Gulps.
Bro, I read almost every new study that comes out. ESPECIALLY Kevin Halls studies. I am WELL versed on food reward theory, protein leverage... ect.... In fact, I am a living experiment right now. To quote a man greater than I, "as long as 80-90% of your food is lower energy dense/ low processed, I think you will find a happy weight were maintenance will be far easier." James Kreiger
*Technically, the spinach you buy, it is processed... low processing...4 -
. . . suggested that they made choices that were rather obviously non filling or likely to be overeaten.
Perhaps. I work in research, what you are saying is the Hall team made conscious decisions to try and skew the data and results to report a preconceived conclusion.
I doubt that. But it is always a possibility? Cui bono? Why?
3 -
I eat night fiber cereal and a banana, that holds me over until lunch between 1 and 2 when I usually have 6oz chicken and cauliflower rice, dinner is protein and 1/2 cu Nishiki brown rice, Jersey white sweet potato or two servings of other veggies. I try to hold out on dinner until 530-6. I have nonfat plain Greek yogurt, some raisins and 1/4 cu granola for dessert.. I weigh 130 am in maintenance but over the last two weeks I have been ravenous. I am talking about finishing a meal and almost obsessing about the next meal. I burn 1000-1600 cals 6 days per week. I have been eating right around 2000 and I am still hungry! I guess I am not offering up valid info for your case but I can certainly relate. I am watching my parents dog for two weeks which is terribly emotionally draining because he is in a lot of pain and it hurts me to watch him. I wonder if that is contributing to my “hunger”. Stress has a big impact on me.4
-
chris_in_cal wrote: ». . . suggested that they made choices that were rather obviously non filling or likely to be overeaten.
Perhaps. I work in research, what you are saying is the Hall team made conscious decisions to try and skew the data and results to report a preconceived conclusion.
I doubt that. But it is always a possibility? Cui bono? Why?
I doubt Kevin Hall at the NIH, well at least one of his studies was well dubious, not his fault, really equations that were used MIGHT have been off a little, would actually intentionally skew data. I think it was a FINE study actually, just not practical. MOST people will eat a combo of high and low processed. Sad bubba, I actually think we are on nearly the same page, so if Fernt21. She is a bright gal!0 -
manderson27 wrote: »Well I hope all this advice has reached the OP and she has tried some of the great advice and found a way to keep going without feeling hungry all the time. Perhaps she will come back and update us at some point.
I've been reading every single response. Some have been kinder than others.
Thanks for asking.
Oh that's good, so many posters never actually get back to the post they start. Or if they do they don't let us know that they are still reading the responses.
I know a lot of this has gone a bit off topic from the hunger issue that you were struggling with but has anything actually helped you. Only I know how hard it can be to keep going if you are hungry all the time.0 -
chris_in_cal wrote: ». . . suggested that they made choices that were rather obviously non filling or likely to be overeaten.
Perhaps. I work in research, what you are saying is the Hall team made conscious decisions to try and skew the data and results to report a preconceived conclusion.
I doubt that. But it is always a possibility? Cui bono? Why?
No, I don't think and am not saying they were trying to skew the data. I am saying that the average "ultraprocessed food" is different from the average "minimally processed food" and they were trying to look at what happened if people mostly ate one or the other.
Do I think it is likely possible to create diets of minimally processed and ultraprocessed foods where different results were obtained? Yes, I do, but that doesn't mean the study was skewed -- they are looking at commonplace real world conditions. I was taking issue with the claim that we would be surprised by the results given the meals chosen just because they weren't all cheetos and big gulps.
The meals chosen (pretty typical of what they represented) did seem to me (and others here involved in the earlier discussion of it) pretty much likely to lead to the results that they got, but we specifically discussed in the thread the value of doing the study even if one anticipated the results, and also the likely reasons for the results.
I do take issue with your claim that we'd all assumed they would be basically just junk food (they were meals, so I don't expect a meal to be just junk food, and the base meals were matched for macros). I also take issue with the claim that we'd see them as healthy meals in that they were, among other things, absurdly low veg -- which is not a criticism of the study. I personally don't see any diet that low in vegetables as healthy or what I'd expect others to see as surprisingly healthy as you suggested. They looked to me to be, among other things, low volume and not taking long to eat, and I don't believe a diet that gets a large percentage of the fiber from a supplement in lemonade is "surprising" if it's not that filling despite the fiber content.
I do think the likely reasons for the differences are more interesting (if not at all surprising, IMO) than "ultraprocessing is inherently bad in all cases."
It would probably be helpful to read through the comments on the study in the big thread in which we discussed it in debate. (I also feel bad that OP's thread got so off-track; I'd assumed she was long gone. There's some excellent advice in the early pages.)3 -
psychod787 wrote: »chris_in_cal wrote: ». . . suggested that they made choices that were rather obviously non filling or likely to be overeaten.
Perhaps. I work in research, what you are saying is the Hall team made conscious decisions to try and skew the data and results to report a preconceived conclusion.
I doubt that. But it is always a possibility? Cui bono? Why?
I doubt Kevin Hall at the NIH, well at least one of his studies was well dubious, not his fault, really equations that were used MIGHT have been off a little, would actually intentionally skew data. I think it was a FINE study actually, just not practical. MOST people will eat a combo of high and low processed. Sad bubba, I actually think we are on nearly the same page, so if Fernt21. She is a bright gal!
Again, no one was saying it was intentionally skewed. I would recommend a read or reread of the threads here on it for anyone who thinks I am saying that.2 -
TLDR but if what you’re eating isn’t working, why not mix it up? Something as easy as replacing rice with potatoes could help. Or a bowl of fruit in lieu of yogurt.2
-
psychod787 wrote: »chris_in_cal wrote: ». . . suggested that they made choices that were rather obviously non filling or likely to be overeaten.
Perhaps. I work in research, what you are saying is the Hall team made conscious decisions to try and skew the data and results to report a preconceived conclusion.
I doubt that. But it is always a possibility? Cui bono? Why?
I doubt Kevin Hall at the NIH, well at least one of his studies was well dubious, not his fault, really equations that were used MIGHT have been off a little, would actually intentionally skew data. I think it was a FINE study actually, just not practical. MOST people will eat a combo of high and low processed. Sad bubba, I actually think we are on nearly the same page, so if Fernt21. She is a bright gal!
Again, no one was saying it was intentionally skewed. I would recommend a read or reread of the threads here on it for anyone who thinks I am saying that.
Not you @lemurcat2 . I was just saying that almost every study Kevin hall has been a part of was really well done expect the Biggest loser study. Few holes in the way rmr was predicted and subjects were not in a lab OR weight stable.2
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions