Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.

no sugar or flour, food addiction?

Options
1234689

Replies

  • BartBVanBockstaele
    BartBVanBockstaele Posts: 623 Member
    cwolfman13 wrote: »
    I don't see anything particularly wrong with the old food pyramid or MyPlate. People would be better off if they actually followed those guidelines...they emphasize whole foods, veg, fruit, whole grains, and lean proteins. Problem is nobody ever followed those guidelines. Nowhere in the guidelines does it say eat a ton of junk or sugar.
    Indeed. The number one reason that evidence-based guidelines don't have the hoped-for results is that people do not follow them.
  • LifeChangz
    LifeChangz Posts: 456 Member
    edited February 2023
    right, so the guidelines are balanced, practical and helpful for regular eating, regular foods, and they are the goal.

    for definition/understanding - the idea would be that a person struggling with food addiction tends to overeat the 'hyper-palatable' foods; a definition created/provided by various authors. The first time I encountered it was in Kessler's book 'the end of overeating' - the term without contextual understanding, the term doesn't really make sense other than a simple literal interpretation could mean food that really tastes super good - but for food lovers that could easily apply to any food.... It is the premise that the hyper-palatable foods/combination of foods is what ignites the chemical response in the brain, triggering the addictive response for some people.

    the addictive response to certain foods similar to an addictive response to alcohols, drugs, cigarettes; of a 'can't stop overeating'... er, physical and behavioral compulsions, i think, is driven beyond normal eating - the food pyramid and myplate guidelines would be the endpoint goal/moving from addictive eating to regular eating. 1 of the main therapeutic approaches for eating disorders is to 'normalize/stabilize' eating - often using those guidelines. For some, however, foods with carbs/flours/sugars, combined with fats/salts can keep the physical going and may need to be avoided - so this would vary in that respect from the standard food pyramid/myplate models.

    anyhoo, i get lost in trying to express this... and, yes, perhaps the eating guidelines should refer to the national eating disorders information for adjustments/approaches for people with these kinds of issues - which could include help for recovery from the compulsive overeating of whatever foods the person is struggling with - most often the 'hyper-palatable' variety - and too often, to the exclusion of other foods. In the absence of the 'hyper-palatable foods' ~ a person in the throes of withdrawals or increasing tolerance will eat anything... even if the only thing is, let's say pickles or non-starchy veggies, the person may consume them and stop until can acquire more food the next day - or leave the house and hit drive thrus or order delivery... i had a roommate who ate sugar straight from the cannister in the absence of her preferred foods. It is easy to seek alternatives to the preferred food; substitues are available and cheap and easily obtained.

    my thought regarding addiction is that it is progressive and strengthens over time for some people, not all people.... starting rather innocculously enough and often simply as reasons for everyday feasting or social eating with friends - like after a football game... and the person may not experience withdrawals or difficulties... until they try to stop or resist and begin to experience withdrawals. Recognizing this is a real problem, having a common language to discuss it will allow the person to seek solutions, collaborate with medical and social support.

    imho, it's a good thing. it's way bigger, impacting so many people, and a dire need that still needs to be addressed in health care policies/institutions/dietary guidelines and other support - just like alcohol abuse/dependence is provided multi-disciplinary paths for recovery.

    I get lost in the technical speak, and the fine details, and don't retain the whatnots - but have settled on the side of 'food addiction is a real thing' ~ imho it gives society a common understanding, language and place to start pulling together effective help for people who do suffer; whether it ends up being classified as some sort of behavioral/eating disorder or a medical diagnosis or both... it's bigger than my own thoughts on this, and it has taken a lot of thought, reading all the threads and courage to even post my thoughts about it.... but I think I've said about all I have to say on it at this point.... I look forward to further research and evolving thinking on the subject.... methinks we've only just begun to see progress with this issue.
  • neanderthin
    neanderthin Posts: 10,736 Member
    BartBVanBockstaele wrote: »
    cwolfman13 wrote: »
    I don't see anything particularly wrong with the old food pyramid or MyPlate. People would be better off if they actually followed those guidelines...they emphasize whole foods, veg, fruit, whole grains, and lean proteins. Problem is nobody ever followed those guidelines. Nowhere in the guidelines does it say eat a ton of junk or sugar.
    Indeed. The number one reason that evidence-based guidelines don't have the hoped-for results is that people do not follow them.

    The American people have been following the guidelines and not sure why everyone is saying they're not. Everything they wanted people to consume more of, they are, and what they wanted people to eat less of, they did.

    I guess what we can conclude, is since the early 80's when they first introduced the food pyramid is, it hasn't really helped mitigate the upward trend of declining health.
  • neanderthin
    neanderthin Posts: 10,736 Member
    edited February 2023
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    neanderthin wrote: »
    BartBVanBockstaele wrote: »
    cwolfman13 wrote: »
    I don't see anything particularly wrong with the old food pyramid or MyPlate. People would be better off if they actually followed those guidelines...they emphasize whole foods, veg, fruit, whole grains, and lean proteins. Problem is nobody ever followed those guidelines. Nowhere in the guidelines does it say eat a ton of junk or sugar.
    Indeed. The number one reason that evidence-based guidelines don't have the hoped-for results is that people do not follow them.

    The American people have been following the guidelines and not sure why everyone is saying they're not. Everything they wanted people to consume more of, they are, and what they wanted people to eat less of, they did.

    I guess what we can conclude, is since the early 80's when they first introduced the food pyramid is, it hasn't really helped mitigate the upward trend of declining health.

    Um, wot?
    In 2019, 12.3% and 10.0% of surveyed adults met fruit and vegetable intake recommendations, respectively.

    https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7101a1.htm
    In 2015–16, 26 percent of Americans age 16 and older reported that they had heard of MyPlate. This is a 6-percentage point increase from 2013–14, when 20 percent reported being aware of MyPlate. Among those who had heard of MyPlate in 2015–16, more than one-third of them (35 percent) indicated that they had tried to follow its recommendations—the same share as in 2013–14.

    https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/chart-gallery/gallery/chart-detail/?chartId=92429

    The quote tries to put a positive spin on it, but the data says "low awareness, low attempts" . . . and I'd bet long term successful attempts all the way to full compliance are even lower.

    You said "everything they wanted people to consume more of, they are, and what they wanted people to eat less of, they did."

    It's possible that people trend in the recommended directions via popular press coverage or something, but they don't seem to be actually fully following the guidance. Let's not conflate minor trending with compliance.

    Let alone the fact that the My Plate guidelines put a heavy emphasis on appropriate calories, which average people clearly aren't following, based on body weight statistics alone.

    Ditto on the exercise recommendations.

    https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db443.htm

    I didn't say they were eating and meeting what an appropriate diet should look like, I said they were eating more of what was asked of them.



    52hwtaz8bncv.png


    https://ers.usda.gov/data-products/ag-and-food-statistics-charting-the-essentials/food-availability-and-consumption/
  • refactored
    refactored Posts: 458 Member
    And yet the consumption of ultra processed foods has increased which is not shown in the graph. I know this is a press release but it may be easier to read for those of us who struggle to read scientific papers. You can find the original study in a link in the release. https://www.nyu.edu/about/news-publications/news/2021/october/ultra-processed-foods.html
  • BartBVanBockstaele
    BartBVanBockstaele Posts: 623 Member
    refactored wrote: »
    And yet the consumption of ultra processed foods has increased which is not shown in the graph. I know this is a press release but it may be easier to read for those of us who struggle to read scientific papers. You can find the original study in a link in the release. https://www.nyu.edu/about/news-publications/news/2021/october/ultra-processed-foods.html
    We should always be suspicious of articles, even more so of articles that seem to confirm what we think. This one is no exception:
    “The high and increasing consumption of ultra-processed foods in the 21st century may be a key driver of the obesity epidemic.”

    The claim may be true for some countries, but it isn't true for others, such as the US and most industrialised countries. Googling will will reveal any number of articles confirming this, and here is an example. It is the first one that showed up, and it is only an abstract so it is to be seen with that in mind, but what it illustrates is that the popular claims that make for great press are not necessarily as simple as they are often claimed to be:
    A literature and Internet search resulted in 52 studies from 25 different countries. The findings supported an overall levelling off of the epidemic in children and adolescents from Australia, Europe, Japan and the USA. In adults, stability was found in the USA, while increases were still observed in some European and Asian countries.

    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20973911/
  • refactored
    refactored Posts: 458 Member
    mtaratoot wrote: »
    BartBVanBockstaele wrote: »
    refactored wrote: »
    And yet the consumption of ultra processed foods has increased which is not shown in the graph. I know this is a press release but it may be easier to read for those of us who struggle to read scientific papers. You can find the original study in a link in the release. https://www.nyu.edu/about/news-publications/news/2021/october/ultra-processed-foods.html
    We should always be suspicious of articles, even more so of articles that seem to confirm what we think.

    Especially if they say that exercise has no impact on weight management.

    I think most non-scientists are guilty of looking for evidence to support their claim rather than looking for research that refutes their claim and critiquing that research. I liked your summary of how scientific research is conducted. It was well explained.
  • neanderthin
    neanderthin Posts: 10,736 Member
    edited February 2023
    refactored wrote: »
    And yet the consumption of ultra processed foods has increased which is not shown in the graph. I know this is a press release but it may be easier to read for those of us who struggle to read scientific papers. You can find the original study in a link in the release. https://www.nyu.edu/about/news-publications/news/2021/october/ultra-processed-foods.html

    This was basically gathering and looking at data then drawing a conclusion for a trend, and in this case ultra processed food consumption. Pretty basic really and observational studies based on FFQ'ers like this "study" is about as unreliable any scientific data can get, in other words in the realm of, more studies are needed.

    Saying that, what appears to have happened is they only asked what people ate for the current 24hr cycle and wasn't asking people to recall what they ate in the last 6 months on a daily basis and for example expecting people to know what they ate 3 months ago on a tuesday lol. More reliable data basically.

    It's not unexpected that people still like the foods they eat and continue to eat. I wonder what the stats will be in a decade or 2, scary thought really. Cheers
  • ninerbuff
    ninerbuff Posts: 49,342 Member
    By population, the Southern Pacific islands have the highest obesity rates per capita. Now having lived in and visiting islands in those areas, I can attest that it wasn't ultra processed foods that contributed to their girths there. When I lived there (Saipan and having visited Marshall Islands and Palau) the population focused a lot on family/friend gatherings every weekend and partied with food all day. There was never a time I didn't walk the beach and many people I knew (small island) were there and inviting us all the time to eat pig, tons of rice, fried foods and many fruit laden sweets. As well as little exercise for many since at the time, gyms were almost non existent at the time. And this was in the 80's.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
    9285851.png
  • neanderthin
    neanderthin Posts: 10,736 Member
    edited February 2023
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    By population, the Southern Pacific islands have the highest obesity rates per capita. Now having lived in and visiting islands in those areas, I can attest that it wasn't ultra processed foods that contributed to their girths there. When I lived there (Saipan and having visited Marshall Islands and Palau) the population focused a lot on family/friend gatherings every weekend and partied with food all day. There was never a time I didn't walk the beach and many people I knew (small island) were there and inviting us all the time to eat pig, tons of rice, fried foods and many fruit laden sweets. As well as little exercise for many since at the time, gyms were almost non existent at the time. And this was in the 80's.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
    9285851.png

    Exactly. Obesity is the result of consistently eating more calories than required, and it's determined by the food that is available and consumed in that society. I suspect there's data showing what people consume on these Islands and for them, that would be the data to focus on for an intervention. For the USA and Canada for example the foods that are consumed the most as a percentage, would be their focus. Cheers.
  • BartBVanBockstaele
    BartBVanBockstaele Posts: 623 Member
    edited February 2023
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    By population, the Southern Pacific islands have the highest obesity rates per capita. Now having lived in and visiting islands in those areas, I can attest that it wasn't ultra processed foods that contributed to their girths there. When I lived there (Saipan and having visited Marshall Islands and Palau) the population focused a lot on family/friend gatherings every weekend and partied with food all day. There was never a time I didn't walk the beach and many people I knew (small island) were there and inviting us all the time to eat pig, tons of rice, fried foods and many fruit laden sweets. As well as little exercise for many since at the time, gyms were almost non existent at the time. And this was in the 80's.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
    9285851.png
    Indeed. It should also be added that the islanders have a reputation of being able to be fatter than most before their risk for metabolic diseases increases. There is a hypothesis that this has to do with the fact that they had to be able to survive long trips over sea to reach the islands and that this "talent for fatness" is therefore a result of (un)natural selection. However, to the best of my knowledge, that hypothesis has not yet been confirmed. It just seems to fit with observations.

    Blaming "ultraprocessed foods" for all the evils on the planet seems a little inexpensive. I think that easy availability and low prices are more likely to be the main problem, possibly in combination with the reality that people in disadvantaged positions don't have the resources that allow them to engage in gastronomic cooking, which makes it easier for them to go for the much cheaper junk.
  • refactored
    refactored Posts: 458 Member
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    By population, the Southern Pacific islands have the highest obesity rates per capita. Now having lived in and visiting islands in those areas, I can attest that it wasn't ultra processed foods that contributed to their girths there. When I lived there (Saipan and having visited Marshall Islands and Palau) the population focused a lot on family/friend gatherings every weekend and partied with food all day. There was never a time I didn't walk the beach and many people I knew (small island) were there and inviting us all the time to eat pig, tons of rice, fried foods and many fruit laden sweets. As well as little exercise for many since at the time, gyms were almost non existent at the time. And this was in the 80's.

    There have been studies in to this subject and this one has suggested the picture is more complicated than your anecdote suggests (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6628317/).
  • refactored
    refactored Posts: 458 Member
    edited February 2023
    neanderthin wrote: »
    refactored wrote: »
    And yet the consumption of ultra processed foods has increased which is not shown in the graph. I know this is a press release but it may be easier to read for those of us who struggle to read scientific papers. You can find the original study in a link in the release. https://www.nyu.edu/about/news-publications/news/2021/october/ultra-processed-foods.html

    This was basically gathering and looking at data then drawing a conclusion for a trend, and in this case ultra processed food consumption. Pretty basic really and observational studies based on FFQ'ers like this "study" is about as unreliable any scientific data can get, in other words in the realm of, more studies are needed.

    Saying that, what appears to have happened is they only asked what people ate for the current 24hr cycle and wasn't asking people to recall what they ate in the last 6 months on a daily basis and for example expecting people to know what they ate 3 months ago on a tuesday lol. More reliable data basically.

    It's not unexpected that people still like the foods they eat and continue to eat. I wonder what the stats will be in a decade or 2, scary thought really. Cheers

    There is a very small RCT on the subject (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1550413119302487). It did show that when eating an ultra-processed diet the subjects ingested more calories than when they ate an unprocessed diet. Conducting a long term, large RCT on the matter may well be unethical (https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(21)00027-4/fulltext ).

    Could it be that there is something about ultra-processed food that makes it harder to eat within weight stable calorie levels? I can't believe that the answer "yes" to this question is so controversial.
  • neanderthin
    neanderthin Posts: 10,736 Member
    refactored wrote: »
    neanderthin wrote: »
    refactored wrote: »
    And yet the consumption of ultra processed foods has increased which is not shown in the graph. I know this is a press release but it may be easier to read for those of us who struggle to read scientific papers. You can find the original study in a link in the release. https://www.nyu.edu/about/news-publications/news/2021/october/ultra-processed-foods.html

    This was basically gathering and looking at data then drawing a conclusion for a trend, and in this case ultra processed food consumption. Pretty basic really and observational studies based on FFQ'ers like this "study" is about as unreliable any scientific data can get, in other words in the realm of, more studies are needed.

    Saying that, what appears to have happened is they only asked what people ate for the current 24hr cycle and wasn't asking people to recall what they ate in the last 6 months on a daily basis and for example expecting people to know what they ate 3 months ago on a tuesday lol. More reliable data basically.

    It's not unexpected that people still like the foods they eat and continue to eat. I wonder what the stats will be in a decade or 2, scary thought really. Cheers

    There is a very small RCT on the subject (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1550413119302487). It did show that when eating an ultra-processed diet the subjects ingested more calories than when they ate an unprocessed diet. Conducting a long term, large RCT on the matter may well be unethical (https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(21)00027-4/fulltext ).

    Could it be that there is something about ultra-processed food that makes it harder to eat within weight stable calorie levels? I can't believe that the answer "yes" to this question is so controversial.

    Here's the full study of that first link.

    https://reader.elsevier.com/reader/sd/pii/S1550413119302487?token=965322074DF4EB038C28B70E136E77672666ACBEF0AB6DD1E81C47526F37E21D9959FD7A27872A8E92BCF2F76E52D252&originRegion=us-east-1&originCreation=20230206003000


    In Brief
    Hall et al. investigated 20 inpatient adults who were exposed to ultra-processed versus unprocessed diets for 14 days each, in random order. The ultra-processed diet caused increased ad libitum energy intake and weight gain
    despite being matched to the unprocessed diet for presented calories, sugar, fat, sodium, fiber, and macronutrients.
    Hall et al., 2019, Cell Metabolism 30, 67–77

  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 37,071 Member
    FWIW, there was a long thread here - I don't remember the name - where people opined about the Hall study you just mentioned. It was an interesting thread.

    IIRC, a common reaction by quite a few people - reacting to photos/lists of what was in the less-processed meals and more-processed meals - seemed to be that they thought the less processed meals didn't look tasty or appealing, and they wouldn't want to eat them. If that's actually so, that's a pretty simple theory about why people ate less of them in the study. Or, maybe they were more filling, since many here make that claim for less processed foods?
  • neanderthin
    neanderthin Posts: 10,736 Member
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    FWIW, there was a long thread here - I don't remember the name - where people opined about the Hall study you just mentioned. It was an interesting thread.

    IIRC, a common reaction by quite a few people - reacting to photos/lists of what was in the less-processed meals and more-processed meals - seemed to be that they thought the less processed meals didn't look tasty or appealing, and they wouldn't want to eat them. If that's actually so, that's a pretty simple theory about why people ate less of them in the study. Or, maybe they were more filling, since many here make that claim for less processed foods?

    Sounds like a legit counter argument, the food didn't look as good as food manufactured in a labratory.
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 37,071 Member
    neanderthin wrote: »
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    FWIW, there was a long thread here - I don't remember the name - where people opined about the Hall study you just mentioned. It was an interesting thread.

    IIRC, a common reaction by quite a few people - reacting to photos/lists of what was in the less-processed meals and more-processed meals - seemed to be that they thought the less processed meals didn't look tasty or appealing, and they wouldn't want to eat them. If that's actually so, that's a pretty simple theory about why people ate less of them in the study. Or, maybe they were more filling, since many here make that claim for less processed foods?

    Sounds like a legit counter argument, the food didn't look as good as food manufactured in a labratory.

    It wasn't that simple, from memory (so I could be misremembering). Have you seen the photos?

    I think they're in this preprint version of the article:

    https://osf.io/preprints/nutrixiv/w3zh2/download

    While the more processed meals definitely are, a lot of them weren't IMO super-frankenfood-like, just kind of normal. But maybe I'm just desensitized since it was familiar-ish stuff.

    My sense was that I would've preferred the less-processed meals if I had to choose either. Seemed like there was IMO some weirdness from the hoops they had to jump through to make the meals equal for calories and the relevant nutrients.
  • neanderthin
    neanderthin Posts: 10,736 Member
    edited February 2023
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    neanderthin wrote: »
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    FWIW, there was a long thread here - I don't remember the name - where people opined about the Hall study you just mentioned. It was an interesting thread.

    IIRC, a common reaction by quite a few people - reacting to photos/lists of what was in the less-processed meals and more-processed meals - seemed to be that they thought the less processed meals didn't look tasty or appealing, and they wouldn't want to eat them. If that's actually so, that's a pretty simple theory about why people ate less of them in the study. Or, maybe they were more filling, since many here make that claim for less processed foods?

    Sounds like a legit counter argument, the food didn't look as good as food manufactured in a labratory.

    It wasn't that simple, from memory (so I could be misremembering). Have you seen the photos?

    I think they're in this preprint version of the article:

    https://osf.io/preprints/nutrixiv/w3zh2/download

    While the more processed meals definitely are, a lot of them weren't IMO super-frankenfood-like, just kind of normal. But maybe I'm just desensitized since it was familiar-ish stuff.

    My sense was that I would've preferred the less-processed meals if I had to choose either. Seemed like there was IMO some weirdness from the hoops they had to jump through to make the meals equal for calories and the relevant nutrients.

    Didn't see any photos, lots of pages of studies though and looks like i could be buzy for a few months going through those lol. I get the point though. Everything is processed and sometimes it difficult to distinguish a discernable difference, especially in a photo, I would imagine. Maybe they should have shown photos from Eleven Madison Park.
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 37,071 Member
    neanderthin wrote: »
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    neanderthin wrote: »
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    FWIW, there was a long thread here - I don't remember the name - where people opined about the Hall study you just mentioned. It was an interesting thread.

    IIRC, a common reaction by quite a few people - reacting to photos/lists of what was in the less-processed meals and more-processed meals - seemed to be that they thought the less processed meals didn't look tasty or appealing, and they wouldn't want to eat them. If that's actually so, that's a pretty simple theory about why people ate less of them in the study. Or, maybe they were more filling, since many here make that claim for less processed foods?

    Sounds like a legit counter argument, the food didn't look as good as food manufactured in a labratory.

    It wasn't that simple, from memory (so I could be misremembering). Have you seen the photos?

    I think they're in this preprint version of the article:

    https://osf.io/preprints/nutrixiv/w3zh2/download

    While the more processed meals definitely are, a lot of them weren't IMO super-frankenfood-like, just kind of normal. But maybe I'm just desensitized since it was familiar-ish stuff.

    My sense was that I would've preferred the less-processed meals if I had to choose either. Seemed like there was IMO some weirdness from the hoops they had to jump through to make the meals equal for calories and the relevant nutrients.

    Didn't see any photos, lots of pages of studies though and looks like i could be buzy for a few months going through those lol. I get the point though. Everything is processed and sometimes it difficult to distinguish a discernable difference, especially in a photo, I would imagine. Maybe they should have shown photos from Eleven Madison Park.

    Not the NIH link, the osf.io link - it's just a PDF of the Hall study that I think is the one being mentioned. There are photos of all of the meals with food lists, on pages 29-72, one meal per page. Here are a couple of random examples; I think this would be fair use. I feel like maybe people's theories about the meals are a little different than the actual meals, when the study gets discussed here.

    kik2pk0voxrc.jpg
    7a5rubbohqtk.jpg

  • neanderthin
    neanderthin Posts: 10,736 Member
    edited February 2023
    Interesting I would never have thought that steak, mashed and corn were ultra processed foods and I suspect there was some ultra processed food in there somewhere like the chocolate milk, maybe, lemonade, margarine and gravy... basically the main part of the meal and I suspect, calories where contained in what appears from the photo, whole foods. Also it was half a plate of meat and the other half was mashed, seriously lol. The whole food plate looked like they were eating a plate broccoli. Canned corn personally I would classify as a processed food and not ultra processed. Very strange really.

    Ultra processed is the discussion.
  • Sinisterbarbie1
    Sinisterbarbie1 Posts: 711 Member
    edited February 2023
    I am having a hard time understanding why anyone would be opposed to calling food addiction an addiction if some people find that a helpful way of addressing their issues.

    I understand that sometimes naming something gives you power over it, sometimes naming something gives it power over you. But I see the people who are struggling and wanting help and seeking to change wanting to name their problem and be seen. Relating this to drug or alcohol use …It is my observation that some people resist quitting or seriously moderating drinking when they know they should because they fear being labeled an “addict” or an “alcoholic” or even someone with “an alcohol use disorder”. Happily the sober curious movement has made it easier for those of us who have quit for a variety of health and lifestyle reasons to do so without being looked at askance. But a lot of people still resist addressing their issues with alcohol or taking steps to improve overall health when other health concerns make that prudent because of their various misperceptions of available programs. That said this does not seem to be happening with regard to food addictions— why would we ever want to prevent someone who wants to name what is challenging them in the food realm from doing so? If someone wants to call what they are experiencing an addiction how does it harm anyone - the person battling the challenge, or others battling other challenges? Name your demon and slay it. (And if we fear people will simply take some sort of comfort in being able to say they have a disease and do nothing, that is not the parallel to alcoholism or drug use. In those cases if you admit to a disease it means you recognize that you must change your behavior and that you can’t do all the things other people do — why would we think food addicts, properly diagnosed and treated would act differently).

    A second observation. Whatever your particular challenge or addiction is, the substance and your inability to use/eat it in the amounts that you would like/healthfully could well be a symptom of a bigger issue. If you are just addressing your mouth/stomach and not your heart/head you may not solve the problem whether it is food or alcohol related. A good therapist or even a primary care phyician willing to schedule you for a longer consultation to truly discuss what is going on in your life may help you unearth solutions to your diet challenges that would otherwise undermine you.

    Dieters or those of us just trying to stay healthy in the long term and reset to better habits now and again have our own options that arent exactly “rehabs” but “resets” — they are called spas (I don’t mean the kind where you get facials and pedicures), and I have been to them and find them motivating and a good way to try out new things as well as recharge. I don’t mean to be dismissive of drug/alcohol rehab but the discussions and focus and attention to physical and mental health at good ones seems to serve the same goals of unearthing problematic mental patterns as well a physical patterns and resetting… Structured living/waking/sleeping times,meals that are calculated to meet your calorie and other nutrition goals, lots of group exercise choices, lectures and sessions on nutrition and health issues, meditation and other spiritual healing practices, individual counseling sessions with nutritionists, physical trainers, lab testst/weigh ins etc. they are expensive and require an investment of vacation time, but so would rehab.
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 37,071 Member
    neanderthin wrote: »
    Interesting I would never have thought that steak, mashed and corn were ultra processed foods and I suspect there was some ultra processed food in there somewhere like the chocolate milk, maybe, lemonade, margarine and gravy... basically the main part of the meal and I suspect, calories where contained in what appears from the photo, whole foods. Also it was half a plate of meat and the other half was mashed, seriously lol. The whole food plate looked like they were eating a plate broccoli. Canned corn personally I would classify as a processed food and not ultra processed. Very strange really.

    Ultra processed is the discussion.

    Exactly - these meals aren't what most people might assume from the labels "unprocessed" and "ultra-processed".

    More locally (this subthread), the discussion was the Hall et al crossover study of calorie intake when people were eating ad libitum of ultra-processed vs. unprocessed foods in meals of matched nutrients. Those are literally meals from that study. If anyone thinks I'm cherry-picking (by showing day one dinner from each!), they can download the PDF and take a look. It's free.

    I think the study is useful, but I think people base arguments on the abstract from that study (or worse yet, popular-press reports about that study), and make assumptions about the meals that aren't all that reasonable when a person actually looks at the meals.
  • neanderthin
    neanderthin Posts: 10,736 Member
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    neanderthin wrote: »
    Interesting I would never have thought that steak, mashed and corn were ultra processed foods and I suspect there was some ultra processed food in there somewhere like the chocolate milk, maybe, lemonade, margarine and gravy... basically the main part of the meal and I suspect, calories where contained in what appears from the photo, whole foods. Also it was half a plate of meat and the other half was mashed, seriously lol. The whole food plate looked like they were eating a plate broccoli. Canned corn personally I would classify as a processed food and not ultra processed. Very strange really.

    Ultra processed is the discussion.

    Exactly - these meals aren't what most people might assume from the labels "unprocessed" and "ultra-processed".

    More locally (this subthread), the discussion was the Hall et al crossover study of calorie intake when people were eating ad libitum of ultra-processed vs. unprocessed foods in meals of matched nutrients. Those are literally meals from that study. If anyone thinks I'm cherry-picking (by showing day one dinner from each!), they can download the PDF and take a look. It's free.

    I think the study is useful, but I think people base arguments on the abstract from that study (or worse yet, popular-press reports about that study), and make assumptions about the meals that aren't all that reasonable when a person actually looks at the meals.

    Yeah, agree. I don't know if you've ever heard of NOVA, I'll put a link to it. I find it's a decent interpretation. Of course people will have differing opinions but it's a decent base.

    https://archive.wphna.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/WN-2016-7-1-3-28-38-Monteiro-Cannon-Levy-et-al-NOVA.pdf


  • mrpaulcole
    mrpaulcole Posts: 6 Member
    I think the possibility of food addiction can be real. It's most likely a sugar addiction. Brought to us in the processed food which has sugar added to just about everything.
    I'm no expert by any means, I do think that sweets trigger the same hormones that all pleasure triggers
    So, the brain may ... May give one the "this is great" signals enough that a person needs that little fix. Or when not happy the food can trigger a little mental pick-me-up
    Just my thoughts, no science behind this just a humble opinion
    Proving me wrong will be accepted gracefully, I'm not too proud to be corrected
  • neanderthin
    neanderthin Posts: 10,736 Member
    edited February 2023
    Somehow people believe that the attachment to something in the external world can somehow resolve the problems of their inner world. Addiction is when you want to stop something, and when you try to, you can't. Its begins with pain, and it ends with pain. Your in pain and you practice whatever you do to get away from the pain and it could be drugs, alcohol, pornography, sex, food, it doesn't really matter, which then leads to more pain and the cycle continues. That's how I see it and many others. Yeah, maybe medically speaking at this point in time certain terminology is used to argue the point, but does semantics really matter to the person that is going through this pain, I don't think so. cheers.
  • ninerbuff
    ninerbuff Posts: 49,342 Member
    BartBVanBockstaele wrote: »
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    By population, the Southern Pacific islands have the highest obesity rates per capita. Now having lived in and visiting islands in those areas, I can attest that it wasn't ultra processed foods that contributed to their girths there. When I lived there (Saipan and having visited Marshall Islands and Palau) the population focused a lot on family/friend gatherings every weekend and partied with food all day. There was never a time I didn't walk the beach and many people I knew (small island) were there and inviting us all the time to eat pig, tons of rice, fried foods and many fruit laden sweets. As well as little exercise for many since at the time, gyms were almost non existent at the time. And this was in the 80's.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
    9285851.png
    Indeed. It should also be added that the islanders have a reputation of being able to be fatter than most before their risk for metabolic diseases increases. There is a hypothesis that this has to do with the fact that they had to be able to survive long trips over sea to reach the islands and that this "talent for fatness" is therefore a result of (un)natural selection. However, to the best of my knowledge, that hypothesis has not yet been confirmed. It just seems to fit with observations.

    Blaming "ultraprocessed foods" for all the evils on the planet seems a little inexpensive. I think that easy availability and low prices are more likely to be the main problem, possibly in combination with the reality that people in disadvantaged positions don't have the resources that allow them to engage in gastronomic cooking, which makes it easier for them to go for the much cheaper junk.
    Agree. When you can get 2 cheeseburgers for $3 versus paying $10 for a more vitamin/mineral and lower calorie option, COST matters to people who just don't make as much money. Not to mention that people today are very overburdened with work time, commute time and little time to actually prepare food. A tired body and mind will succumb to the easiest way to get food in the body and many times it's just stopping at a drive thru.


    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
    9285851.png
  • putotherpeoplefirst
    putotherpeoplefirst Posts: 31 Member
    Yes I think food addiction is real. Just like drugs or alcohol, food is addictive. There is an organization called Overeaters Anonymous based on the alcoholics anonymous 12 step program. Works for some people but not others.

Categories