"Clean" vs. "unclean" eating studies?

SnuggleSmacks

Alright, guys, I have to go earn my paycheck, but I'll check in later. I've learned quite a bit in this thread, despite the frustration caused by the amorphous "clean" food and it's undefined vagaries.

SnuggleSmacks

Here's one that compared eating processed vs unprocessed food (bread and cheese). The whole food group had a 50% higher energy expenditure. Satiety was the same.

http://www.foodandnutritionresearch.net/index.php/fnr/article/view/5144/5755

Oh...and yes, I saw that one. It actually makes a convincing argument for whole grains, but that's about it.

stevencloser

Here's one that compared eating processed vs unprocessed food (bread and cheese). The whole food group had a 50% higher energy expenditure. Satiety was the same.

http://www.foodandnutritionresearch.net/index.php/fnr/article/view/5144/5755

*a 100% higher energy expenditure caused by eating

Which is 50-60 calories per meal. Big whoop.

WalkingAlong

If you drink milk directly from the cow it's pretty much unprocessed.
If you drink pasteurized milk (low fat, etc...) it's processed.

Is yogurt processed? And if so, it's bad? Cheese? Water?
My baby carrots come washed and are packed in citric acid - should I be worried?

"processed" is almost as random as "clean" in today's world.

Good point, not all processing is created equal.

And btw- baby carrots are sometimes treated with chlorine. But don't worry, it's a safe amount approved by the FDA and they rinse it afterwards. No thanks. I'll take my carrots whole.

From what I understand, chlorine 'gasses off' anything really quickly, which is why it's the ideal cleaner for so many foods and food prep tools and surfaces. And of course a fair amount is in our tap water, to keep stuff from growing in it.

EvgeniZyntx

Depending on transportation and storage - "fresh" strawberries actually have a higher risk of mold and fungus than frozen ones. Oh and those "organic" strawberries? Ah, suggest you look up methyl bromide, it is still used on organic and regular strawberries in the US. Only in the US btw.

Ok, sorry my hypothetical example wasn't perfect. Hopefully you were able to understand my point though, of a pre-made food vs. using the actual whole food ingredient.

so flour bad?
pasta bad?

eating and storing rye good?

Processing of rye reduces the risk of ergotism significantly.

There are hundreds of reasons why processing of some sort is necessary for foods.

A little wine is a good idea (hey, even the AHAI says so).
The history of flour is that it was processed to reduce the risk of certain diseases.

My point is that the general rule "less processed" doesn't necessarily make sense - yogurt is a valuable food - a totally processed and fermented food. Enriched flour is better than raw flour...

Freezing food often delivers better nutritional profiles than fresh.

One needs to be critical of these general rules. Assuming that something is bad because it's processed approached the Luddite attitudes of last century. I still fail to see what is unhealthy or wrong of my multi-grain Wasa crackers.

Eudoxy

Here's one that compared eating processed vs unprocessed food (bread and cheese). The whole food group had a 50% higher energy expenditure. Satiety was the same.

http://www.foodandnutritionresearch.net/index.php/fnr/article/view/5144/5755

Oh...and yes, I saw that one. It actually makes a convincing argument for whole grains, but that's about it.

Agreed. That's something, though.;) And this would obviously be about processed vs unprocessed. Whole foods.
As far as "clean", I agree that's all over the place. Sometimes...on facebook?...it seems like eating raw veggies, nuts and berries. Like a survival situation. Lol

EvgeniZyntx

Here's one that compared eating processed vs unprocessed food (bread and cheese). The whole food group had a 50% higher energy expenditure. Satiety was the same.

http://www.foodandnutritionresearch.net/index.php/fnr/article/view/5144/5755

What is unprocessed bread? And unprocessed cheese? How do you make either without some sort of processing.
What that study demonstrated was that the calorie definitions for the "whole" vs "processed" foods were inconsistent.

independant2406

Depending on transportation and storage - "fresh" strawberries actually have a higher risk of mold and fungus than frozen ones. Oh and those "organic" strawberries? Ah, suggest you look up methyl bromide, it is still used on organic and regular strawberries in the US. Only in the US btw.

Ok, sorry my hypothetical example wasn't perfect. Hopefully you were able to understand my point though, of a pre-made food vs. using the actual whole food ingredient.

so flour bad?
pasta bad?

eating and storing rye good?

Processing of rye reduces the risk of ergotism significantly.

There are hundreds of reasons why processing of some sort is necessary for foods.

A little wine is a good idea (hey, even the AHAI says so).
The history of flour is that it was processed to reduce the risk of certain diseases.

My point is that the general rule "less processed" doesn't necessarily make sense - yogurt is a valuable food - a totally processed and fermented food. Enriched flour is better than raw flour...

Freezing food often delivers better nutritional profiles than fresh.

One needs to be critical of these general rules. Assuming that something is bad because it's processed approached the Luddite attitudes of last century. I still fail to see what is unhealthy or wrong of my multi-grain Wasa crackers.

Very valid points. Canning, Freezing and some processing is necessary for food safety.

I just don't like it when a food is processed to a point where it stops being the food it once was. (IE: instant potatoes vs real potatoes). I try to choose fresh ingredients when I can and if its not possible I go for canned or frozen.

Without living on a farm and having the fortitude to garden everything you eat and butcher your own animals its not possible to be 100% clean. All you can do is make educated choices.

Just my opinion.

Eudoxy

Here's one that compared eating processed vs unprocessed food (bread and cheese). The whole food group had a 50% higher energy expenditure. Satiety was the same.

http://www.foodandnutritionresearch.net/index.php/fnr/article/view/5144/5755

What is unprocessed bread? And unprocessed cheese? How do you make either without some sort of processing.
What that study demonstrated was that the calorie definitions for the "whole" vs "processed" foods were inconsistent.

Processed in the case of the bread here is referring to milling, where bran, fiber, nutrients, etc., are removed.
I think that you have interpreted the results differently than the study authors, and reached your own conclusion about calorie definitions?

EvgeniZyntx

Here's one that compared eating processed vs unprocessed food (bread and cheese). The whole food group had a 50% higher energy expenditure. Satiety was the same.

http://www.foodandnutritionresearch.net/index.php/fnr/article/view/5144/5755

What is unprocessed bread? And unprocessed cheese? How do you make either without some sort of processing.
What that study demonstrated was that the calorie definitions for the "whole" vs "processed" foods were inconsistent.

Processed in the case of the bread here is referring to milling, where bran, fiber, nutrients, etc., are removed.
I think that you have interpreted the results differently than the study authors, and reached your own conclusion about calorie definitions?

Same conclusions - the researchers found higher DIT (Dietary Induced Thermogenesis) for the whole meal versus "processed".
Since the amount of energy used to digest the equivalent caloric food was higher for the whole meal (which makes sense if the food items were evaluated on labeled standard value which are known to have errors) - they are inconsistent in that labeling doesn't take into consideration fiber, etc. It's one of the major shortcomings of nutritional labeling.

But it doesn't matter - because we don't really live on pasteurized prepared cheese product. And if we don't eat monolithically we tend to mix a variety of things at meals - if you follow a generally varied diet.

See - the definition of processing is random - according to the study the "whole food" bread they used was processed (from the study "Stone-ground whole wheat flour, water, brown sugar, wheat gluten, yeast...") and the "whole food" cheese was ....



How is that not processed?

Eudoxy

Here's one that compared eating processed vs unprocessed food (bread and cheese). The whole food group had a 50% higher energy expenditure. Satiety was the same.

http://www.foodandnutritionresearch.net/index.php/fnr/article/view/5144/5755

What is unprocessed bread? And unprocessed cheese? How do you make either without some sort of processing.
What that study demonstrated was that the calorie definitions for the "whole" vs "processed" foods were inconsistent.

Processed in the case of the bread here is referring to milling, where bran, fiber, nutrients, etc., are removed.
I think that you have interpreted the results differently than the study authors, and reached your own conclusion about calorie definitions?

If the authors are using ANY definition of bread that infers it isn't processed, they're just making up bull****.

Which everyone does when they say they don't eat processed foods. You point out that yogurt is processed and they just hand wave it away. "Oh, well not that. That's fine." It's basically like listening to someone brag about their low carb diet while eating biscuits.

They are not saying that, they point out that the foods used represent "degrees of refinement". Processed is just shorthand here for processed all the good stuff out of it. I don't place any moral values on food, but bran, fiber, and micronutrients are good for you. And whoa they may have a place in maintaining a healthy weight for the general public.

independant2406

If people would only take a minute to think...

This nonsense about processed foods automatically being bad. The idea that foods are prepared in laboratories by scientists trying to find ways to simultaneously make us fat and give us cancer...

Processed foods are pretty much the only way the society we have functions. How many people do you know living primarily off farm fresh foods and locally prepared meats? A large number of us live in areas with something called winter. We would die.

Preservatives are not anything to be scared of. They keep our food from rotting and giving us disease. They're tested for safety. We've been using preservatives for centuries. They've saved countless lives.

Honestly the same logic behind "processed food is bad" "preservatives cause cancer" and all the rest of it is just a small step away from the anti-vaccination crowd. People are basically saying, "I don't understand it, so it's probably bad." No. If you don't understand it, you just need to learn more. No big scary government/food company is trying to give you cancer. It's sort of bad for business.

I agree some processing and preservatives are necessary for food safety and distribution. Its also not possible for everyone to live on a farm and raise their own food.

We're doing plenty of thinking and working to better understand the things we eat. Maybe one day there will be science to fill in the gaps.

Additional research (like the OP is looking for) would probably end the debate instantly. I think what makes people suspicious of processed food is the unknown. Its frustrating even if you want to understand it,and spend hours searching for information to make educated choices, there's very little data to go by. The unknown is unsettling and leads to conspiracy. So we're left to guess and hope we're making choices that are healthy.

I'm certainly not moving to a farm anytime soon.

I think its good to ask questions and to be curious. No harm in that.

Eudoxy

Here's one that compared eating processed vs unprocessed food (bread and cheese). The whole food group had a 50% higher energy expenditure. Satiety was the same.

http://www.foodandnutritionresearch.net/index.php/fnr/article/view/5144/5755

What is unprocessed bread? And unprocessed cheese? How do you make either without some sort of processing.
What that study demonstrated was that the calorie definitions for the "whole" vs "processed" foods were inconsistent.

Processed in the case of the bread here is referring to milling, where bran, fiber, nutrients, etc., are removed.
I think that you have interpreted the results differently than the study authors, and reached your own conclusion about calorie definitions?

Same conclusions - the researchers found higher DIT (Dietary Induced Thermogenesis) for the whole meal versus "processed".
Since the amount of energy used to digest the equivalent caloric food was higher for the whole meal (which makes sense if the food items were evaluated on labeled standard value which are known to have errors) - they are inconsistent in that labeling doesn't take into consideration fiber, etc. It's one of the major shortcomings of nutritional labeling.

But it doesn't matter - because we don't really live on pasteurized prepared cheese product. And if we don't eat monolithically we tend to mix a variety of things at meals - if you follow a generally varied diet.

See - the definition of processing is random - according to the study the "whole food" bread they used was processed (from the study "Stone-ground whole wheat flour, water, brown sugar, wheat gluten, yeast...") and the "whole food" cheese was ....



How is that not processed?

This was what they had to say about that-

The WF meal tested in this study has approximately three times the amount of fiber as the PF meal (Table 2, see Appendices A and B for nutrition details) and although the exact relationship of meal fiber content and DIT is poorly known (31, 32), high-fiber diets are known to decrease the assimilation efficiency of foods (33). According to FDA and USDA guidelines, the calories on food labels list only assimilated calories, so this does not introduce a known discrepancy into our calculated isocaloric meal sizes (21). However, assimilated products from fermentable fiber tend to make accurate assessments of overall caloric assimilation difficult (32). This should be a minor problem for the present study given that the primary fiber source, wheat bran, is mainly insoluble and subject to less breakdown than more fermentable fibers (i.e. those found in fruit) (34). Bran-fiber does contribute to some short-chain fatty acid absorption by the colon, but to a small degree that would not significantly impact our results (34, 35).

EvgeniZyntx

Depending on transportation and storage - "fresh" strawberries actually have a higher risk of mold and fungus than frozen ones. Oh and those "organic" strawberries? Ah, suggest you look up methyl bromide, it is still used on organic and regular strawberries in the US. Only in the US btw.

Ok, sorry my hypothetical example wasn't perfect. Hopefully you were able to understand my point though, of a pre-made food vs. using the actual whole food ingredient.

so flour bad?
pasta bad?

eating and storing rye good?

Processing of rye reduces the risk of ergotism significantly.

There are hundreds of reasons why processing of some sort is necessary for foods.

A little wine is a good idea (hey, even the AHAI says so).
The history of flour is that it was processed to reduce the risk of certain diseases.

My point is that the general rule "less processed" doesn't necessarily make sense - yogurt is a valuable food - a totally processed and fermented food. Enriched flour is better than raw flour...

Freezing food often delivers better nutritional profiles than fresh.

One needs to be critical of these general rules. Assuming that something is bad because it's processed approached the Luddite attitudes of last century. I still fail to see what is unhealthy or wrong of my multi-grain Wasa crackers.

Very valid points. Canning, Freezing and some processing is necessary for food safety.

I just don't like it when a food is processed to a point where it stops being the food it once was. (IE: instant potatoes vs real potatoes). I try to choose fresh ingredients when I can and if its not possible I go for canned or frozen.

Without living on a farm and having the fortitude to garden everything you eat and butcher your own animals its not possible to be 100% clean. All you can do is make educated choices.

Just my opinion.

Let me agree and be contrarian to my contrarian attitude.

I live in France and buying cheese is an art - "cheese product" doesn't cross my lips. But it is more related to taste, provenance and seller. I as my fromagier to make a recommendation based on a relationship we've built - I let him know what I didn't like, etc... It isn't about the processing - it's about taste. Cheese is processed, end of story. I like a lot of unpasteurized blue type and goat and some of the stinkier stuff and my daughters like the northern cheese (kids....).

But my cheese isn't clean! It's full of live cultures and mold and even flies (ah, I love tome cheese) and it's healthy. It's about taste. And taste dictates freshness and local produce and made to limited quantities not focused on volume, margin and price point.

Focus on food quality - not cleanliness or processing.

Now back to regularly scheduled butthead Evgeni, because even alimentary "quality" has all sorts of issues.

WalkingAlong

I think the cheese sandwich study was useful. There is (to me) a clear difference between whole grain bread and Wonder bread and between real cheese and cheese-like slices. Though better acronyms might've been MW and LW for 'more whole' and 'less whole'. Or MP and LP, maybe.

EvgeniZyntx

Here's one that compared eating processed vs unprocessed food (bread and cheese). The whole food group had a 50% higher energy expenditure. Satiety was the same.

http://www.foodandnutritionresearch.net/index.php/fnr/article/view/5144/5755

What is unprocessed bread? And unprocessed cheese? How do you make either without some sort of processing.
What that study demonstrated was that the calorie definitions for the "whole" vs "processed" foods were inconsistent.

Processed in the case of the bread here is referring to milling, where bran, fiber, nutrients, etc., are removed.
I think that you have interpreted the results differently than the study authors, and reached your own conclusion about calorie definitions?

Same conclusions - the researchers found higher DIT (Dietary Induced Thermogenesis) for the whole meal versus "processed".
Since the amount of energy used to digest the equivalent caloric food was higher for the whole meal (which makes sense if the food items were evaluated on labeled standard value which are known to have errors) - they are inconsistent in that labeling doesn't take into consideration fiber, etc. It's one of the major shortcomings of nutritional labeling.

But it doesn't matter - because we don't really live on pasteurized prepared cheese product. And if we don't eat monolithically we tend to mix a variety of things at meals - if you follow a generally varied diet.

See - the definition of processing is random - according to the study the "whole food" bread they used was processed (from the study "Stone-ground whole wheat flour, water, brown sugar, wheat gluten, yeast...") and the "whole food" cheese was ....



How is that not processed?

This was what they had to say about that-

The WF meal tested in this study has approximately three times the amount of fiber as the PF meal (Table 2, see Appendices A and B for nutrition details) and although the exact relationship of meal fiber content and DIT is poorly known (31, 32), high-fiber diets are known to decrease the assimilation efficiency of foods (33). According to FDA and USDA guidelines, the calories on food labels list only assimilated calories, so this does not introduce a known discrepancy into our calculated isocaloric meal sizes (21). However, assimilated products from fermentable fiber tend to make accurate assessments of overall caloric assimilation difficult (32). This should be a minor problem for the present study given that the primary fiber source, wheat bran, is mainly insoluble and subject to less breakdown than more fermentable fibers (i.e. those found in fruit) (34). Bran-fiber does contribute to some short-chain fatty acid absorption by the colon, but to a small degree that would not significantly impact our results (34, 35).

I think the bold covers what I wrote. Also, remember that error rates on labels are anywhere from 5 to 15%.

EvgeniZyntx

I think the cheese sandwich study was useful. There is (to me) a clear difference between whole grain bread and Wonder bread and between real cheese and cheese-like slices. Though better acronyms might've been MW and LW for 'more whole' and 'less whole'. Or MP and LP, maybe.

So its ok if we move the goal posts on what processed means. There might not have been any difference on the cheeses but we don't know because the authors didn't do a crossover. Research bias. The cheese product MUST go with the white bread. Of course.

Eudoxy

I think the cheese sandwich study was useful. There is (to me) a clear difference between whole grain bread and Wonder bread and between real cheese and cheese-like slices. Though better acronyms might've been MW and LW for 'more whole' and 'less whole'. Or MP and LP, maybe.

I agree. I actually love Velveeta but don't really consider it cheese. Lol. Yeah I guess we can make up new acronyms to avoid being too all or nothing.