Do you lose more when you eat less processed food?
Options
Replies
-
WinoGelato wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Once again it is interesting to me how when someone asks a benign question about the difference between eating "clean" foods vs "whatever" foods (which is a new label but kind of fun), everyone assumes that they mean that person eats EXCLUSIVELY clean vs EXCLUSIVELY processed. I don't know many people who eat 100% either way. If someone says they do, they are likely lying, exaggerating, or just using different definitions of clean and processed than I would.
OP came back and clarified that her "whatever" example was just a single serving of ice cream or a latte at the end of a primarily nutritious day. I really don't understand how anyone can believe that eating mostly whole foods all day long, and then throwing in a half cup of gelato or coffee drink at the end of the day can somehow invalidate the entire day's worth of good nutrition or throw off your weight loss (unless that treat dips into your calorie deficit for the day of course).
Who did that? You say "everyone assumes" and yet I saw very few people make that assumption. Most just shared their experiences, which seem to be a major thrust of the OP's inquiry.
There were several points in this thread where people offered comments like, "yeah but if I eat processed food I will still be hungry so I will go over my calories and therefore won't lose weight" when the OP specifically indicated that the calorie count was the same, and people followed up pointing out that satiety wasn't the point of the discussion.
There were a couple of examples where people offered specific comparisons like: 1 snickers = 2 apples so apples are better than snickers for weight loss because it fills you up more (again assuming it has to be either or. Why can't I eat one apple and half a snickers?)
Then there was this recent one:Leaving adherence & satiety & well being & lifestyle out of it is strange to me bc they can't be abstracted from real-world experience.
I have lost weight eating the kind of highly processed food that people call "junk food" or "convenience food", yes.
I also didn't feel great after eating. I was also very, very sedentary, so my appetite was lower than it usually is. My body was thin but didn't look the best, bc of the no fitness aspect. I don't think I personally could sustain an active lifestyle on 1800 calories of "junk" food with any comfort for very long. With whole/"clean"/whatever foods, you usually get more volume and often satiety for the same # of calories. So to me, more food + more activity = feeling and looking better. If it's just about getting to a number on a scale, yeah, you can do it any way as long as you're eating less than you burn.
and not to mention your scenario about magnesium deficiency, which again seems to assume that people are eating primarily, or exclusively processed foods in order to yield that magnesium deficiency.
And this thread is not unique, the straw man arguments are boundless at MFP....
Why does the magnesium deficiency assume people are eating primarily or exclusively highly processed foods? Where do you draw that assumption?
I don't know what the pain point for that is -- is it 10% or 90%? I have no idea personally, just that it is an explanation posited by many by examining the lack of magnesium in highly processed foods (or issues that impede absorption of magnesium in highly processed foods).
I guess I'm just not used to seeing preemptive counters to non-existent strawman arguments. At least not in real life. MFP, well, that's another matter.
That was exactly the point that @lemurcat12 and @senecarr were trying to make to you.
The OP said she eats a mostly whole food diet but occasionally wants to have an ice cream or latte at the end of the day and asked if that would impact her weight loss.
You said:
Magnesium Deficiency
An overwhelming amount of the population is magnesium deficient (I've seen number at 70%+ of the US population) and this is largely attributed to our processing of foods -- that it strips out certain natural vitamins and minerals or that the highly processed foods interfere with absorption.
We are asking, what is the tipping point for consumption of processed foods (ie what percentage) to result in magnesium deficiency, and what does any of that have to do with the question of whether or not a latte in the context of a primarily nutrient dense diet will impact your weight loss?
I don't know what the tipping point is -- as far as I know there aren't any studies into that. Just the observations from the population's overall deficiency and what is seen to be likely attributable causes.
As for individual tipping points, I think that is going to vary on the individual. Some will notice no difference, some will notice some and some will notice a lot. For me, personally, I don't have an issue if it's just an occasional thing. But if it becomes a significant part (25% or more I'd guess), that's where I start seeing differences in my results. But, as I said, I think that's going to be a highly individual thing.
From what the OP wrote, it appears that her individual tipping point is more sensitive. I think that was the point of her inquiry in the first place -- to see what the tipping point, if any, was for others.
I just gave examples for why certain people may have issues or examples of how highly processed foods can be and often are less nutritious than their non-processed counterparts. Not that everyone would have an issue, but why SOME MAY have an issue.
0 -
Literally all processed food is low in magnesium? So my processed, GNC vitamin tablets, with the magnesium: 300%, are low in magnesium?lindsey1979 wrote: »
What are the chances someone eating some but not all processed foods becomes magnesium deficient? How likely would it get to the extent that the person is actually eating to try to get in magnesium?lindsey1979 wrote: »
You sound like you're saying the person saying eating some ice cream won't hurt you is extrapolating into ridiculousness. Lemur's remark was to head off the straw men that has happened repeatedly when CICOphants talk about calories being the important thing.lindsey1979 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »OP didn't ask about eating all "junk" food or even about junk food at all.
Here's what she said:Yes, my primary question was if I eat 1500 of mostly unprocessed foods (lean proteins, fruit, veggies) compared to 1500 calories of "whatever" foods (keeping in mind that I try to eat really well throughout the day but processed in the terms of maybe an ice cream treat at night or a latte if it fit in my calories) will my loss be the same?
Not only did she stipulate same calories, but I for one would not find the satiety difference between the two options mentioned much at all.
I'll add, again, that I don't understand this notion that "processed" means not nutritious or not satisfying. Many of the more processed things I eat (stuff like smoked salmon or dairy or protein powder) are foods that I specifically use to make my breakfast more filling.
One example of the less nutritious aspect of highly processed foods is the lack of magnesium. An overwhelming amount of the population is magnesium deficient (I've seen number at 70%+ of the US population) and this is largely attributed to our processing of foods -- that it strips out certain natural vitamins and minerals or that the highly processed foods interfere with absorption. I'm sure there are other examples, but that's one.
This is silly, because it assumes one either eats mostly processed foods (and what you really mean here is ultra processed) or none. What the OP asked about was the difference in weight loss between eating mostly whole foods and a nutritious diet plus some processed stuff vs. no processed stuff.
So, let's assume I eat a good diet with lots of fish and greens and finish off the day with some ice cream (as the OP suggested). Am I going to become magnesium deficient? No, I will not. Am I going to lose weight? Depends on the calories I consume, of course.
You can always extrapolate into ridiculousness. That extrapolation doesn't negate the initial premise in itself. To not understand that difference is silly.
Someone down thread asked about examples, I responded with examples of potential issues. Not every post has to respond solely to the OP's questions -- people can ask other related questions and others can respond. That's sort of the purpose of a discussion.
What does someone's specific diet composition of highly processed foods to non-highly processed foods have to do with the inherent lack of magnesium in the highly processed foods?
Yes, your overall deficiency likely will changed based upon your consumption either due to direct or indirect means, but the lack of magnesium in highly processed foods remains the same. And, yes, you can compensate based on your amount consumed or by taking supplements (as many do). It's not an all-or-nothing situation like that person posits. To pretend that it's absolute is silly unless you're talking about certain things that are very dangerous at low levels like mercury or other toxic compounds -- but that really isn't an issue in highly processed foods (or isn't supposed to be).
To date, I'm not even familiar with studies that show mineral deficiency (other than salt) even affecting appetite, only some correlations that micro-nutrient deficiencies are common in the obese.
I don't know what the chances are from someone eating some but all highly processed foods -- I just gave you the facts as I've read them. That magnesium deficiency is incredibly common in the US population and a major contributor to that (perhaps even the main contributor) is the highly processing of foods because it strips out magnesium or has additives that impede its absorption.
No, not necessarily. I don't know anyone that consider vitamin supplements to be a "processed food" in the context of processed versus whole food discussions. Are you being intentionally obtuse?
The processing of many highly processed foods (especially grain products) results in the stripping of naturally occurring magnesium (and other vitamins/minerals) or has additives that impede absorption. Of course, there are always exceptions. But, as general trends go, that's the hypothesis.
If you see examples of foods that folks recommend to boost your magnesium, they'll almost all whole food examples (not counting supplements, of course). Things like leafy greens like spinach or kelp, legumes, squash or pumpkin seeds. You don't generally see crackers, cookies, bread, etc. cited as ways to increase your magnesium levels.
0 -
lindsey1979 wrote: »
Literally all processed food is low in magnesium? So my processed, GNC vitamin tablets, with the magnesium: 300%, are low in magnesium?lindsey1979 wrote: »
What are the chances someone eating some but not all processed foods becomes magnesium deficient? How likely would it get to the extent that the person is actually eating to try to get in magnesium?lindsey1979 wrote: »
You sound like you're saying the person saying eating some ice cream won't hurt you is extrapolating into ridiculousness. Lemur's remark was to head off the straw men that has happened repeatedly when CICOphants talk about calories being the important thing.lindsey1979 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »OP didn't ask about eating all "junk" food or even about junk food at all.
Here's what she said:Yes, my primary question was if I eat 1500 of mostly unprocessed foods (lean proteins, fruit, veggies) compared to 1500 calories of "whatever" foods (keeping in mind that I try to eat really well throughout the day but processed in the terms of maybe an ice cream treat at night or a latte if it fit in my calories) will my loss be the same?
Not only did she stipulate same calories, but I for one would not find the satiety difference between the two options mentioned much at all.
I'll add, again, that I don't understand this notion that "processed" means not nutritious or not satisfying. Many of the more processed things I eat (stuff like smoked salmon or dairy or protein powder) are foods that I specifically use to make my breakfast more filling.
One example of the less nutritious aspect of highly processed foods is the lack of magnesium. An overwhelming amount of the population is magnesium deficient (I've seen number at 70%+ of the US population) and this is largely attributed to our processing of foods -- that it strips out certain natural vitamins and minerals or that the highly processed foods interfere with absorption. I'm sure there are other examples, but that's one.
This is silly, because it assumes one either eats mostly processed foods (and what you really mean here is ultra processed) or none. What the OP asked about was the difference in weight loss between eating mostly whole foods and a nutritious diet plus some processed stuff vs. no processed stuff.
So, let's assume I eat a good diet with lots of fish and greens and finish off the day with some ice cream (as the OP suggested). Am I going to become magnesium deficient? No, I will not. Am I going to lose weight? Depends on the calories I consume, of course.
You can always extrapolate into ridiculousness. That extrapolation doesn't negate the initial premise in itself. To not understand that difference is silly.
Someone down thread asked about examples, I responded with examples of potential issues. Not every post has to respond solely to the OP's questions -- people can ask other related questions and others can respond. That's sort of the purpose of a discussion.
What does someone's specific diet composition of highly processed foods to non-highly processed foods have to do with the inherent lack of magnesium in the highly processed foods?
Yes, your overall deficiency likely will changed based upon your consumption either due to direct or indirect means, but the lack of magnesium in highly processed foods remains the same. And, yes, you can compensate based on your amount consumed or by taking supplements (as many do). It's not an all-or-nothing situation like that person posits. To pretend that it's absolute is silly unless you're talking about certain things that are very dangerous at low levels like mercury or other toxic compounds -- but that really isn't an issue in highly processed foods (or isn't supposed to be).
To date, I'm not even familiar with studies that show mineral deficiency (other than salt) even affecting appetite, only some correlations that micro-nutrient deficiencies are common in the obese.
I don't know what the chances are from someone eating some but all highly processed foods -- I just gave you the facts as I've read them. That magnesium deficiency is incredibly common in the US population and a major contributor to that (perhaps even the main contributor) is the highly processing of foods because it strips out magnesium or has additives that impede its absorption.
No, not necessarily. I don't know anyone that consider vitamin supplements to be a "processed food" in the context of processed versus whole food discussions. Are you being intentionally obtuse?
The processing of many highly processed foods (especially grain products) results in the stripping of naturally occurring magnesium (and other vitamins/minerals) or has additives that impede absorption. Of course, there are always exceptions. But, as general trends go, that's the hypothesis.
If you see examples of foods that folks recommend to boost your magnesium, they'll almost all whole food examples (not counting supplements, of course). Things like leafy greens like spinach or kelp, legumes, squash or pumpkin seeds. You don't generally see crackers, cookies, bread, etc. cited as ways to increase your magnesium levels.
A supplement pill isn't a whole food, that's for sure. Also there's so much processed foods enriched with minerals and vitamins the statement is completely ridiculous. Like delicious Lucky charms.
Vitamin A 10%
Vitamin C 10%
Calcium 10%
Iron 25%
Vitamin D 10%
Thiamin 25%
Riboflavin 25%
Niacin 25%
Vitamin B6 25%
Folic Acid 50%
Vitamin B12 25%
Phosphorus 4%
Magnesium 4%
Zinc 25%
That's in a 27 g serving of lucky charms.0 -
lindsey1979 wrote: »
Literally all processed food is low in magnesium? So my processed, GNC vitamin tablets, with the magnesium: 300%, are low in magnesium?lindsey1979 wrote: »
What are the chances someone eating some but not all processed foods becomes magnesium deficient? How likely would it get to the extent that the person is actually eating to try to get in magnesium?lindsey1979 wrote: »
You sound like you're saying the person saying eating some ice cream won't hurt you is extrapolating into ridiculousness. Lemur's remark was to head off the straw men that has happened repeatedly when CICOphants talk about calories being the important thing.lindsey1979 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »OP didn't ask about eating all "junk" food or even about junk food at all.
Here's what she said:Yes, my primary question was if I eat 1500 of mostly unprocessed foods (lean proteins, fruit, veggies) compared to 1500 calories of "whatever" foods (keeping in mind that I try to eat really well throughout the day but processed in the terms of maybe an ice cream treat at night or a latte if it fit in my calories) will my loss be the same?
Not only did she stipulate same calories, but I for one would not find the satiety difference between the two options mentioned much at all.
I'll add, again, that I don't understand this notion that "processed" means not nutritious or not satisfying. Many of the more processed things I eat (stuff like smoked salmon or dairy or protein powder) are foods that I specifically use to make my breakfast more filling.
One example of the less nutritious aspect of highly processed foods is the lack of magnesium. An overwhelming amount of the population is magnesium deficient (I've seen number at 70%+ of the US population) and this is largely attributed to our processing of foods -- that it strips out certain natural vitamins and minerals or that the highly processed foods interfere with absorption. I'm sure there are other examples, but that's one.
This is silly, because it assumes one either eats mostly processed foods (and what you really mean here is ultra processed) or none. What the OP asked about was the difference in weight loss between eating mostly whole foods and a nutritious diet plus some processed stuff vs. no processed stuff.
So, let's assume I eat a good diet with lots of fish and greens and finish off the day with some ice cream (as the OP suggested). Am I going to become magnesium deficient? No, I will not. Am I going to lose weight? Depends on the calories I consume, of course.
You can always extrapolate into ridiculousness. That extrapolation doesn't negate the initial premise in itself. To not understand that difference is silly.
Someone down thread asked about examples, I responded with examples of potential issues. Not every post has to respond solely to the OP's questions -- people can ask other related questions and others can respond. That's sort of the purpose of a discussion.
What does someone's specific diet composition of highly processed foods to non-highly processed foods have to do with the inherent lack of magnesium in the highly processed foods?
Yes, your overall deficiency likely will changed based upon your consumption either due to direct or indirect means, but the lack of magnesium in highly processed foods remains the same. And, yes, you can compensate based on your amount consumed or by taking supplements (as many do). It's not an all-or-nothing situation like that person posits. To pretend that it's absolute is silly unless you're talking about certain things that are very dangerous at low levels like mercury or other toxic compounds -- but that really isn't an issue in highly processed foods (or isn't supposed to be).
To date, I'm not even familiar with studies that show mineral deficiency (other than salt) even affecting appetite, only some correlations that micro-nutrient deficiencies are common in the obese.
I don't know what the chances are from someone eating some but all highly processed foods -- I just gave you the facts as I've read them. That magnesium deficiency is incredibly common in the US population and a major contributor to that (perhaps even the main contributor) is the highly processing of foods because it strips out magnesium or has additives that impede its absorption.
No, not necessarily. I don't know anyone that consider vitamin supplements to be a "processed food" in the context of processed versus whole food discussions. Are you being intentionally obtuse?
The processing of many highly processed foods (especially grain products) results in the stripping of naturally occurring magnesium (and other vitamins/minerals) or has additives that impede absorption. Of course, there are always exceptions. But, as general trends go, that's the hypothesis.
If you see examples of foods that folks recommend to boost your magnesium, they'll almost all whole food examples (not counting supplements, of course). Things like leafy greens like spinach or kelp, legumes, squash or pumpkin seeds. You don't generally see crackers, cookies, bread, etc. cited as ways to increase your magnesium levels.
Deficiency doesn't appear to be an issue except among people who have other health problems. The body regulates magnesium levels pretty efficiently. Apparently it's also difficult to test for magnesium levels in people anyway. Also it appears magnesium is quite ubiquitous. Bread and fortified cereals are cited as good sources in this NIH article as well.
https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/Magnesium-HealthProfessional/#h5
I'm not understanding why you're going on about magnesium.
0 -
Thank you. I wondered why it seems like edge case and woo-sters go on about magnesium. Looks like it is easy to make it look like it is an overlooked deficiency.Lourdesong wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »
Literally all processed food is low in magnesium? So my processed, GNC vitamin tablets, with the magnesium: 300%, are low in magnesium?lindsey1979 wrote: »
What are the chances someone eating some but not all processed foods becomes magnesium deficient? How likely would it get to the extent that the person is actually eating to try to get in magnesium?lindsey1979 wrote: »
You sound like you're saying the person saying eating some ice cream won't hurt you is extrapolating into ridiculousness. Lemur's remark was to head off the straw men that has happened repeatedly when CICOphants talk about calories being the important thing.lindsey1979 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »OP didn't ask about eating all "junk" food or even about junk food at all.
Here's what she said:Yes, my primary question was if I eat 1500 of mostly unprocessed foods (lean proteins, fruit, veggies) compared to 1500 calories of "whatever" foods (keeping in mind that I try to eat really well throughout the day but processed in the terms of maybe an ice cream treat at night or a latte if it fit in my calories) will my loss be the same?
Not only did she stipulate same calories, but I for one would not find the satiety difference between the two options mentioned much at all.
I'll add, again, that I don't understand this notion that "processed" means not nutritious or not satisfying. Many of the more processed things I eat (stuff like smoked salmon or dairy or protein powder) are foods that I specifically use to make my breakfast more filling.
One example of the less nutritious aspect of highly processed foods is the lack of magnesium. An overwhelming amount of the population is magnesium deficient (I've seen number at 70%+ of the US population) and this is largely attributed to our processing of foods -- that it strips out certain natural vitamins and minerals or that the highly processed foods interfere with absorption. I'm sure there are other examples, but that's one.
This is silly, because it assumes one either eats mostly processed foods (and what you really mean here is ultra processed) or none. What the OP asked about was the difference in weight loss between eating mostly whole foods and a nutritious diet plus some processed stuff vs. no processed stuff.
So, let's assume I eat a good diet with lots of fish and greens and finish off the day with some ice cream (as the OP suggested). Am I going to become magnesium deficient? No, I will not. Am I going to lose weight? Depends on the calories I consume, of course.
You can always extrapolate into ridiculousness. That extrapolation doesn't negate the initial premise in itself. To not understand that difference is silly.
Someone down thread asked about examples, I responded with examples of potential issues. Not every post has to respond solely to the OP's questions -- people can ask other related questions and others can respond. That's sort of the purpose of a discussion.
What does someone's specific diet composition of highly processed foods to non-highly processed foods have to do with the inherent lack of magnesium in the highly processed foods?
Yes, your overall deficiency likely will changed based upon your consumption either due to direct or indirect means, but the lack of magnesium in highly processed foods remains the same. And, yes, you can compensate based on your amount consumed or by taking supplements (as many do). It's not an all-or-nothing situation like that person posits. To pretend that it's absolute is silly unless you're talking about certain things that are very dangerous at low levels like mercury or other toxic compounds -- but that really isn't an issue in highly processed foods (or isn't supposed to be).
To date, I'm not even familiar with studies that show mineral deficiency (other than salt) even affecting appetite, only some correlations that micro-nutrient deficiencies are common in the obese.
I don't know what the chances are from someone eating some but all highly processed foods -- I just gave you the facts as I've read them. That magnesium deficiency is incredibly common in the US population and a major contributor to that (perhaps even the main contributor) is the highly processing of foods because it strips out magnesium or has additives that impede its absorption.
No, not necessarily. I don't know anyone that consider vitamin supplements to be a "processed food" in the context of processed versus whole food discussions. Are you being intentionally obtuse?
The processing of many highly processed foods (especially grain products) results in the stripping of naturally occurring magnesium (and other vitamins/minerals) or has additives that impede absorption. Of course, there are always exceptions. But, as general trends go, that's the hypothesis.
If you see examples of foods that folks recommend to boost your magnesium, they'll almost all whole food examples (not counting supplements, of course). Things like leafy greens like spinach or kelp, legumes, squash or pumpkin seeds. You don't generally see crackers, cookies, bread, etc. cited as ways to increase your magnesium levels.
Deficiency doesn't appear to be an issue except among people who have other health problems. The body regulates magnesium levels pretty efficiently. Apparently it's also difficult to test for magnesium levels in people anyway. Also it appears magnesium is quite ubiquitous. Bread and fortified cereals are cited as good sources in this NIH article as well.
https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/Magnesium-HealthProfessional/#h5
I'm not understanding why you're going on about magnesium.0 -
Yes i do because i avoid mostly salt (processed food has alot of salt) and if i eat whole food i can eat more therefore i will be full, i do snack of them occasionally tho. I love chips too.0
-
-
doralim1990 wrote: »Yes i do because i avoid mostly salt (processed food has alot of salt) and if i eat whole food i can eat more therefore i will be full, i do snack of them occasionally tho. I love chips too.
This doesn't make sense. I can eat a bunch of carrots for the same calories as a small amount of avocado. And I can buy low sodium versions of many highly processed foods.TheopolisAmbroiseIII wrote: »
Oh this is a constant argument with my dad. He will still attempt to tell me how I should eat at nearly 40. I'm about to ask him to keep a food diary if he wants to critique my diet, which he doesn't see day to day. (When I was a kid he used to control my eating too- I remember him glaring at me from across the rooms at parties if I was helping myself to food. Even veggies. I don't know how I managed to have s mostly healthy relationship with food!)
0 -
Lourdesong wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »
Literally all processed food is low in magnesium? So my processed, GNC vitamin tablets, with the magnesium: 300%, are low in magnesium?lindsey1979 wrote: »
What are the chances someone eating some but not all processed foods becomes magnesium deficient? How likely would it get to the extent that the person is actually eating to try to get in magnesium?lindsey1979 wrote: »
You sound like you're saying the person saying eating some ice cream won't hurt you is extrapolating into ridiculousness. Lemur's remark was to head off the straw men that has happened repeatedly when CICOphants talk about calories being the important thing.lindsey1979 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »OP didn't ask about eating all "junk" food or even about junk food at all.
Here's what she said:Yes, my primary question was if I eat 1500 of mostly unprocessed foods (lean proteins, fruit, veggies) compared to 1500 calories of "whatever" foods (keeping in mind that I try to eat really well throughout the day but processed in the terms of maybe an ice cream treat at night or a latte if it fit in my calories) will my loss be the same?
Not only did she stipulate same calories, but I for one would not find the satiety difference between the two options mentioned much at all.
I'll add, again, that I don't understand this notion that "processed" means not nutritious or not satisfying. Many of the more processed things I eat (stuff like smoked salmon or dairy or protein powder) are foods that I specifically use to make my breakfast more filling.
One example of the less nutritious aspect of highly processed foods is the lack of magnesium. An overwhelming amount of the population is magnesium deficient (I've seen number at 70%+ of the US population) and this is largely attributed to our processing of foods -- that it strips out certain natural vitamins and minerals or that the highly processed foods interfere with absorption. I'm sure there are other examples, but that's one.
This is silly, because it assumes one either eats mostly processed foods (and what you really mean here is ultra processed) or none. What the OP asked about was the difference in weight loss between eating mostly whole foods and a nutritious diet plus some processed stuff vs. no processed stuff.
So, let's assume I eat a good diet with lots of fish and greens and finish off the day with some ice cream (as the OP suggested). Am I going to become magnesium deficient? No, I will not. Am I going to lose weight? Depends on the calories I consume, of course.
You can always extrapolate into ridiculousness. That extrapolation doesn't negate the initial premise in itself. To not understand that difference is silly.
Someone down thread asked about examples, I responded with examples of potential issues. Not every post has to respond solely to the OP's questions -- people can ask other related questions and others can respond. That's sort of the purpose of a discussion.
What does someone's specific diet composition of highly processed foods to non-highly processed foods have to do with the inherent lack of magnesium in the highly processed foods?
Yes, your overall deficiency likely will changed based upon your consumption either due to direct or indirect means, but the lack of magnesium in highly processed foods remains the same. And, yes, you can compensate based on your amount consumed or by taking supplements (as many do). It's not an all-or-nothing situation like that person posits. To pretend that it's absolute is silly unless you're talking about certain things that are very dangerous at low levels like mercury or other toxic compounds -- but that really isn't an issue in highly processed foods (or isn't supposed to be).
To date, I'm not even familiar with studies that show mineral deficiency (other than salt) even affecting appetite, only some correlations that micro-nutrient deficiencies are common in the obese.
I don't know what the chances are from someone eating some but all highly processed foods -- I just gave you the facts as I've read them. That magnesium deficiency is incredibly common in the US population and a major contributor to that (perhaps even the main contributor) is the highly processing of foods because it strips out magnesium or has additives that impede its absorption.
No, not necessarily. I don't know anyone that consider vitamin supplements to be a "processed food" in the context of processed versus whole food discussions. Are you being intentionally obtuse?
The processing of many highly processed foods (especially grain products) results in the stripping of naturally occurring magnesium (and other vitamins/minerals) or has additives that impede absorption. Of course, there are always exceptions. But, as general trends go, that's the hypothesis.
If you see examples of foods that folks recommend to boost your magnesium, they'll almost all whole food examples (not counting supplements, of course). Things like leafy greens like spinach or kelp, legumes, squash or pumpkin seeds. You don't generally see crackers, cookies, bread, etc. cited as ways to increase your magnesium levels.
Deficiency doesn't appear to be an issue except among people who have other health problems. The body regulates magnesium levels pretty efficiently. Apparently it's also difficult to test for magnesium levels in people anyway. Also it appears magnesium is quite ubiquitous. Bread and fortified cereals are cited as good sources in this NIH article as well.
https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/Magnesium-HealthProfessional/#h5
I'm not understanding why you're going on about magnesium.
Magnesium was just an example from the earlier query about how processed food can be less nutritious than their non-processed counterparts. If you go back to the original post, that would probably be more clear. A lot folks seem to struggle with reading comprehension here on MFP. Or are being intentionally obtuse.
Also, I've seen numbers that upwards of 75% of the population in the US is deficient in magnesium. Even mainstream media like CNN has picked that sort of thing up (see link). It seems like Americans' bodies are not regulating magnesium all that well, likely because they aren't getting enough in their diet.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/31/health/magnesium-deficiency-health/
0 -
lindsey1979 wrote: »Lourdesong wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »
Literally all processed food is low in magnesium? So my processed, GNC vitamin tablets, with the magnesium: 300%, are low in magnesium?lindsey1979 wrote: »
What are the chances someone eating some but not all processed foods becomes magnesium deficient? How likely would it get to the extent that the person is actually eating to try to get in magnesium?lindsey1979 wrote: »
You sound like you're saying the person saying eating some ice cream won't hurt you is extrapolating into ridiculousness. Lemur's remark was to head off the straw men that has happened repeatedly when CICOphants talk about calories being the important thing.lindsey1979 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »OP didn't ask about eating all "junk" food or even about junk food at all.
Here's what she said:Yes, my primary question was if I eat 1500 of mostly unprocessed foods (lean proteins, fruit, veggies) compared to 1500 calories of "whatever" foods (keeping in mind that I try to eat really well throughout the day but processed in the terms of maybe an ice cream treat at night or a latte if it fit in my calories) will my loss be the same?
Not only did she stipulate same calories, but I for one would not find the satiety difference between the two options mentioned much at all.
I'll add, again, that I don't understand this notion that "processed" means not nutritious or not satisfying. Many of the more processed things I eat (stuff like smoked salmon or dairy or protein powder) are foods that I specifically use to make my breakfast more filling.
One example of the less nutritious aspect of highly processed foods is the lack of magnesium. An overwhelming amount of the population is magnesium deficient (I've seen number at 70%+ of the US population) and this is largely attributed to our processing of foods -- that it strips out certain natural vitamins and minerals or that the highly processed foods interfere with absorption. I'm sure there are other examples, but that's one.
This is silly, because it assumes one either eats mostly processed foods (and what you really mean here is ultra processed) or none. What the OP asked about was the difference in weight loss between eating mostly whole foods and a nutritious diet plus some processed stuff vs. no processed stuff.
So, let's assume I eat a good diet with lots of fish and greens and finish off the day with some ice cream (as the OP suggested). Am I going to become magnesium deficient? No, I will not. Am I going to lose weight? Depends on the calories I consume, of course.
You can always extrapolate into ridiculousness. That extrapolation doesn't negate the initial premise in itself. To not understand that difference is silly.
Someone down thread asked about examples, I responded with examples of potential issues. Not every post has to respond solely to the OP's questions -- people can ask other related questions and others can respond. That's sort of the purpose of a discussion.
What does someone's specific diet composition of highly processed foods to non-highly processed foods have to do with the inherent lack of magnesium in the highly processed foods?
Yes, your overall deficiency likely will changed based upon your consumption either due to direct or indirect means, but the lack of magnesium in highly processed foods remains the same. And, yes, you can compensate based on your amount consumed or by taking supplements (as many do). It's not an all-or-nothing situation like that person posits. To pretend that it's absolute is silly unless you're talking about certain things that are very dangerous at low levels like mercury or other toxic compounds -- but that really isn't an issue in highly processed foods (or isn't supposed to be).
To date, I'm not even familiar with studies that show mineral deficiency (other than salt) even affecting appetite, only some correlations that micro-nutrient deficiencies are common in the obese.
I don't know what the chances are from someone eating some but all highly processed foods -- I just gave you the facts as I've read them. That magnesium deficiency is incredibly common in the US population and a major contributor to that (perhaps even the main contributor) is the highly processing of foods because it strips out magnesium or has additives that impede its absorption.
No, not necessarily. I don't know anyone that consider vitamin supplements to be a "processed food" in the context of processed versus whole food discussions. Are you being intentionally obtuse?
The processing of many highly processed foods (especially grain products) results in the stripping of naturally occurring magnesium (and other vitamins/minerals) or has additives that impede absorption. Of course, there are always exceptions. But, as general trends go, that's the hypothesis.
If you see examples of foods that folks recommend to boost your magnesium, they'll almost all whole food examples (not counting supplements, of course). Things like leafy greens like spinach or kelp, legumes, squash or pumpkin seeds. You don't generally see crackers, cookies, bread, etc. cited as ways to increase your magnesium levels.
Deficiency doesn't appear to be an issue except among people who have other health problems. The body regulates magnesium levels pretty efficiently. Apparently it's also difficult to test for magnesium levels in people anyway. Also it appears magnesium is quite ubiquitous. Bread and fortified cereals are cited as good sources in this NIH article as well.
https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/Magnesium-HealthProfessional/#h5
I'm not understanding why you're going on about magnesium.
Magnesium was just an example from the earlier query about how processed food can be less nutritious than their non-processed counterparts. If you go back to the original post, that would probably be more clear. A lot folks seem to struggle with reading comprehension here on MFP. Or are being intentionally obtuse.
Also, I've seen numbers that upwards of 75% of the population in the US is deficient in magnesium. Even mainstream media like CNN has picked that sort of thing up (see link). It seems like Americans' bodies are not regulating magnesium all that well, likely because they aren't getting enough in their diet.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/31/health/magnesium-deficiency-health/
I find it ironic that you are going on about lack of reading comprehension and people being obtuse when the original post was simply about weight loss. No mention of nutrition and certainly no mention of magnesium deficiency.
0 -
In the past, I have done better when eating "clean foods", but I think it's because I was more likely to adhere to my calorie goals. Sometimes when I hear the CICO discussion there seems to be no acknowledgement of factors that affect our adherence. If we agree that more vegetables and less processed food should improve our satiety, for those of us who allow our satiety to affect our calorie input (knowingly or unknowingly, like my inadvertent forgetting to log things, rounding of teaspoons etc), our success IS affected by eating more satisfying foods. Having said that, this time I have set my goals low enough that I have room for "dirty" foods without going hungry as a result.0
-
goldthistime wrote: »In the past, I have done better when eating "clean foods", but I think it's because I was more likely to adhere to my calorie goals. Sometimes when I hear the CICO discussion there seems to be no acknowledgement of factors that affect our adherence. If we agree that more vegetables and less processed food should improve our satiety, for those of us who allow our satiety to affect our calorie input (knowingly or unknowingly, like my inadvertent forgetting to log things, rounding of teaspoons etc), our success IS affected by eating more satisfying foods. Having said that, this time I have set my goals low enough that I have room for "dirty" foods without going hungry as a result.
I'm not sure where you are getting that in CICO discussions satiety isn't factored in? It was disregarded early on in this topic because the OP clarified she was eating primarily whole foods with an occasional treat thrown in and wondered if that had an impact on her weight loss (she believes it does but I disagree, FWIW). But in normal discussions of CICO and moderation the vast majority will advise: calorie deficit for weight loss, hit your macros/micros for nutrition, find foods that satiate you, work in treats as you can.
I also think both of those last two recommendations are important for adherence. You need to find foods that fill you up but with too restrictive of a diet, people may be less likely to stick with it for the long haul.
0 -
Don't turn on the insulin signal. You'll attract 'beetusman and lowCarbin the boy wonderbread.UltimateRBF wrote: »But what about insulin resistance?0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »goldthistime wrote: »In the past, I have done better when eating "clean foods", but I think it's because I was more likely to adhere to my calorie goals. Sometimes when I hear the CICO discussion there seems to be no acknowledgement of factors that affect our adherence. If we agree that more vegetables and less processed food should improve our satiety, for those of us who allow our satiety to affect our calorie input (knowingly or unknowingly, like my inadvertent forgetting to log things, rounding of teaspoons etc), our success IS affected by eating more satisfying foods. Having said that, this time I have set my goals low enough that I have room for "dirty" foods without going hungry as a result.
I'm not sure where you are getting that in CICO discussions satiety isn't factored in? It was disregarded early on in this topic because the OP clarified she was eating primarily whole foods with an occasional treat thrown in and wondered if that had an impact on her weight loss (she believes it does but I disagree, FWIW). But in normal discussions of CICO and moderation the vast majority will advise: calorie deficit for weight loss, hit your macros/micros for nutrition, find foods that satiate you, work in treats as you can.
I also think both of those last two recommendations are important for adherence. You need to find foods that fill you up but with too restrictive of a diet, people may be less likely to stick with it for the long haul.
I did say "sometimes". FWIW, I agree that for long term adherence you are better to work in treats where possible. I am definitely of the opinion that slow weight loss and sustainable habits are the way to go. But I also know that I get hungrier when I push the limit on "moderate" treats. I don't think I would have enough willpower to lose weight (stick to my calorie goals) on a diet filled with processed foods. Vegetables are my savior.
0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »Lourdesong wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »
Literally all processed food is low in magnesium? So my processed, GNC vitamin tablets, with the magnesium: 300%, are low in magnesium?lindsey1979 wrote: »
What are the chances someone eating some but not all processed foods becomes magnesium deficient? How likely would it get to the extent that the person is actually eating to try to get in magnesium?lindsey1979 wrote: »
You sound like you're saying the person saying eating some ice cream won't hurt you is extrapolating into ridiculousness. Lemur's remark was to head off the straw men that has happened repeatedly when CICOphants talk about calories being the important thing.lindsey1979 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »OP didn't ask about eating all "junk" food or even about junk food at all.
Here's what she said:Yes, my primary question was if I eat 1500 of mostly unprocessed foods (lean proteins, fruit, veggies) compared to 1500 calories of "whatever" foods (keeping in mind that I try to eat really well throughout the day but processed in the terms of maybe an ice cream treat at night or a latte if it fit in my calories) will my loss be the same?
Not only did she stipulate same calories, but I for one would not find the satiety difference between the two options mentioned much at all.
I'll add, again, that I don't understand this notion that "processed" means not nutritious or not satisfying. Many of the more processed things I eat (stuff like smoked salmon or dairy or protein powder) are foods that I specifically use to make my breakfast more filling.
One example of the less nutritious aspect of highly processed foods is the lack of magnesium. An overwhelming amount of the population is magnesium deficient (I've seen number at 70%+ of the US population) and this is largely attributed to our processing of foods -- that it strips out certain natural vitamins and minerals or that the highly processed foods interfere with absorption. I'm sure there are other examples, but that's one.
This is silly, because it assumes one either eats mostly processed foods (and what you really mean here is ultra processed) or none. What the OP asked about was the difference in weight loss between eating mostly whole foods and a nutritious diet plus some processed stuff vs. no processed stuff.
So, let's assume I eat a good diet with lots of fish and greens and finish off the day with some ice cream (as the OP suggested). Am I going to become magnesium deficient? No, I will not. Am I going to lose weight? Depends on the calories I consume, of course.
You can always extrapolate into ridiculousness. That extrapolation doesn't negate the initial premise in itself. To not understand that difference is silly.
Someone down thread asked about examples, I responded with examples of potential issues. Not every post has to respond solely to the OP's questions -- people can ask other related questions and others can respond. That's sort of the purpose of a discussion.
What does someone's specific diet composition of highly processed foods to non-highly processed foods have to do with the inherent lack of magnesium in the highly processed foods?
Yes, your overall deficiency likely will changed based upon your consumption either due to direct or indirect means, but the lack of magnesium in highly processed foods remains the same. And, yes, you can compensate based on your amount consumed or by taking supplements (as many do). It's not an all-or-nothing situation like that person posits. To pretend that it's absolute is silly unless you're talking about certain things that are very dangerous at low levels like mercury or other toxic compounds -- but that really isn't an issue in highly processed foods (or isn't supposed to be).
To date, I'm not even familiar with studies that show mineral deficiency (other than salt) even affecting appetite, only some correlations that micro-nutrient deficiencies are common in the obese.
I don't know what the chances are from someone eating some but all highly processed foods -- I just gave you the facts as I've read them. That magnesium deficiency is incredibly common in the US population and a major contributor to that (perhaps even the main contributor) is the highly processing of foods because it strips out magnesium or has additives that impede its absorption.
No, not necessarily. I don't know anyone that consider vitamin supplements to be a "processed food" in the context of processed versus whole food discussions. Are you being intentionally obtuse?
The processing of many highly processed foods (especially grain products) results in the stripping of naturally occurring magnesium (and other vitamins/minerals) or has additives that impede absorption. Of course, there are always exceptions. But, as general trends go, that's the hypothesis.
If you see examples of foods that folks recommend to boost your magnesium, they'll almost all whole food examples (not counting supplements, of course). Things like leafy greens like spinach or kelp, legumes, squash or pumpkin seeds. You don't generally see crackers, cookies, bread, etc. cited as ways to increase your magnesium levels.
Deficiency doesn't appear to be an issue except among people who have other health problems. The body regulates magnesium levels pretty efficiently. Apparently it's also difficult to test for magnesium levels in people anyway. Also it appears magnesium is quite ubiquitous. Bread and fortified cereals are cited as good sources in this NIH article as well.
https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/Magnesium-HealthProfessional/#h5
I'm not understanding why you're going on about magnesium.
Magnesium was just an example from the earlier query about how processed food can be less nutritious than their non-processed counterparts. If you go back to the original post, that would probably be more clear. A lot folks seem to struggle with reading comprehension here on MFP. Or are being intentionally obtuse.
Also, I've seen numbers that upwards of 75% of the population in the US is deficient in magnesium. Even mainstream media like CNN has picked that sort of thing up (see link). It seems like Americans' bodies are not regulating magnesium all that well, likely because they aren't getting enough in their diet.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/31/health/magnesium-deficiency-health/
I find it ironic that you are going on about lack of reading comprehension and people being obtuse when the original post was simply about weight loss. No mention of nutrition and certainly no mention of magnesium deficiency.
Really? We're limited to only what the OP asks? Is that how the forums work?
So, when someone else on the thread mentions that she can't understand why there would be any nutritional difference between processed and non-processed foods, we're not allowed the address that? Or you think that means you lack reading comprehension skills? Hmmmm....You also might want to look up what the word ironic actually means.
0 -
lindsey1979 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »Lourdesong wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »
Literally all processed food is low in magnesium? So my processed, GNC vitamin tablets, with the magnesium: 300%, are low in magnesium?lindsey1979 wrote: »
What are the chances someone eating some but not all processed foods becomes magnesium deficient? How likely would it get to the extent that the person is actually eating to try to get in magnesium?lindsey1979 wrote: »
You sound like you're saying the person saying eating some ice cream won't hurt you is extrapolating into ridiculousness. Lemur's remark was to head off the straw men that has happened repeatedly when CICOphants talk about calories being the important thing.lindsey1979 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »OP didn't ask about eating all "junk" food or even about junk food at all.
Here's what she said:Yes, my primary question was if I eat 1500 of mostly unprocessed foods (lean proteins, fruit, veggies) compared to 1500 calories of "whatever" foods (keeping in mind that I try to eat really well throughout the day but processed in the terms of maybe an ice cream treat at night or a latte if it fit in my calories) will my loss be the same?
Not only did she stipulate same calories, but I for one would not find the satiety difference between the two options mentioned much at all.
I'll add, again, that I don't understand this notion that "processed" means not nutritious or not satisfying. Many of the more processed things I eat (stuff like smoked salmon or dairy or protein powder) are foods that I specifically use to make my breakfast more filling.
One example of the less nutritious aspect of highly processed foods is the lack of magnesium. An overwhelming amount of the population is magnesium deficient (I've seen number at 70%+ of the US population) and this is largely attributed to our processing of foods -- that it strips out certain natural vitamins and minerals or that the highly processed foods interfere with absorption. I'm sure there are other examples, but that's one.
This is silly, because it assumes one either eats mostly processed foods (and what you really mean here is ultra processed) or none. What the OP asked about was the difference in weight loss between eating mostly whole foods and a nutritious diet plus some processed stuff vs. no processed stuff.
So, let's assume I eat a good diet with lots of fish and greens and finish off the day with some ice cream (as the OP suggested). Am I going to become magnesium deficient? No, I will not. Am I going to lose weight? Depends on the calories I consume, of course.
You can always extrapolate into ridiculousness. That extrapolation doesn't negate the initial premise in itself. To not understand that difference is silly.
Someone down thread asked about examples, I responded with examples of potential issues. Not every post has to respond solely to the OP's questions -- people can ask other related questions and others can respond. That's sort of the purpose of a discussion.
What does someone's specific diet composition of highly processed foods to non-highly processed foods have to do with the inherent lack of magnesium in the highly processed foods?
Yes, your overall deficiency likely will changed based upon your consumption either due to direct or indirect means, but the lack of magnesium in highly processed foods remains the same. And, yes, you can compensate based on your amount consumed or by taking supplements (as many do). It's not an all-or-nothing situation like that person posits. To pretend that it's absolute is silly unless you're talking about certain things that are very dangerous at low levels like mercury or other toxic compounds -- but that really isn't an issue in highly processed foods (or isn't supposed to be).
To date, I'm not even familiar with studies that show mineral deficiency (other than salt) even affecting appetite, only some correlations that micro-nutrient deficiencies are common in the obese.
I don't know what the chances are from someone eating some but all highly processed foods -- I just gave you the facts as I've read them. That magnesium deficiency is incredibly common in the US population and a major contributor to that (perhaps even the main contributor) is the highly processing of foods because it strips out magnesium or has additives that impede its absorption.
No, not necessarily. I don't know anyone that consider vitamin supplements to be a "processed food" in the context of processed versus whole food discussions. Are you being intentionally obtuse?
The processing of many highly processed foods (especially grain products) results in the stripping of naturally occurring magnesium (and other vitamins/minerals) or has additives that impede absorption. Of course, there are always exceptions. But, as general trends go, that's the hypothesis.
If you see examples of foods that folks recommend to boost your magnesium, they'll almost all whole food examples (not counting supplements, of course). Things like leafy greens like spinach or kelp, legumes, squash or pumpkin seeds. You don't generally see crackers, cookies, bread, etc. cited as ways to increase your magnesium levels.
Deficiency doesn't appear to be an issue except among people who have other health problems. The body regulates magnesium levels pretty efficiently. Apparently it's also difficult to test for magnesium levels in people anyway. Also it appears magnesium is quite ubiquitous. Bread and fortified cereals are cited as good sources in this NIH article as well.
https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/Magnesium-HealthProfessional/#h5
I'm not understanding why you're going on about magnesium.
Magnesium was just an example from the earlier query about how processed food can be less nutritious than their non-processed counterparts. If you go back to the original post, that would probably be more clear. A lot folks seem to struggle with reading comprehension here on MFP. Or are being intentionally obtuse.
Also, I've seen numbers that upwards of 75% of the population in the US is deficient in magnesium. Even mainstream media like CNN has picked that sort of thing up (see link). It seems like Americans' bodies are not regulating magnesium all that well, likely because they aren't getting enough in their diet.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/31/health/magnesium-deficiency-health/
I find it ironic that you are going on about lack of reading comprehension and people being obtuse when the original post was simply about weight loss. No mention of nutrition and certainly no mention of magnesium deficiency.
Really? We're limited to only what the OP asks? Is that how the forums work?
So, when someone else on the thread mentions that she can't understand why there would be any nutritional difference between processed and non-processed foods, we're not allowed the address that? Or you think that means you lack reading comprehension skills? Hmmmm....You also might want to look up what the word ironic actually means.
Why look up the definition of ironic? Almost no one uses it in the dictionary / literary jargon sense of the word.0 -
lindsey1979 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »Lourdesong wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »
Literally all processed food is low in magnesium? So my processed, GNC vitamin tablets, with the magnesium: 300%, are low in magnesium?lindsey1979 wrote: »
What are the chances someone eating some but not all processed foods becomes magnesium deficient? How likely would it get to the extent that the person is actually eating to try to get in magnesium?lindsey1979 wrote: »
You sound like you're saying the person saying eating some ice cream won't hurt you is extrapolating into ridiculousness. Lemur's remark was to head off the straw men that has happened repeatedly when CICOphants talk about calories being the important thing.lindsey1979 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »OP didn't ask about eating all "junk" food or even about junk food at all.
Here's what she said:Yes, my primary question was if I eat 1500 of mostly unprocessed foods (lean proteins, fruit, veggies) compared to 1500 calories of "whatever" foods (keeping in mind that I try to eat really well throughout the day but processed in the terms of maybe an ice cream treat at night or a latte if it fit in my calories) will my loss be the same?
Not only did she stipulate same calories, but I for one would not find the satiety difference between the two options mentioned much at all.
I'll add, again, that I don't understand this notion that "processed" means not nutritious or not satisfying. Many of the more processed things I eat (stuff like smoked salmon or dairy or protein powder) are foods that I specifically use to make my breakfast more filling.
One example of the less nutritious aspect of highly processed foods is the lack of magnesium. An overwhelming amount of the population is magnesium deficient (I've seen number at 70%+ of the US population) and this is largely attributed to our processing of foods -- that it strips out certain natural vitamins and minerals or that the highly processed foods interfere with absorption. I'm sure there are other examples, but that's one.
This is silly, because it assumes one either eats mostly processed foods (and what you really mean here is ultra processed) or none. What the OP asked about was the difference in weight loss between eating mostly whole foods and a nutritious diet plus some processed stuff vs. no processed stuff.
So, let's assume I eat a good diet with lots of fish and greens and finish off the day with some ice cream (as the OP suggested). Am I going to become magnesium deficient? No, I will not. Am I going to lose weight? Depends on the calories I consume, of course.
You can always extrapolate into ridiculousness. That extrapolation doesn't negate the initial premise in itself. To not understand that difference is silly.
Someone down thread asked about examples, I responded with examples of potential issues. Not every post has to respond solely to the OP's questions -- people can ask other related questions and others can respond. That's sort of the purpose of a discussion.
What does someone's specific diet composition of highly processed foods to non-highly processed foods have to do with the inherent lack of magnesium in the highly processed foods?
Yes, your overall deficiency likely will changed based upon your consumption either due to direct or indirect means, but the lack of magnesium in highly processed foods remains the same. And, yes, you can compensate based on your amount consumed or by taking supplements (as many do). It's not an all-or-nothing situation like that person posits. To pretend that it's absolute is silly unless you're talking about certain things that are very dangerous at low levels like mercury or other toxic compounds -- but that really isn't an issue in highly processed foods (or isn't supposed to be).
To date, I'm not even familiar with studies that show mineral deficiency (other than salt) even affecting appetite, only some correlations that micro-nutrient deficiencies are common in the obese.
I don't know what the chances are from someone eating some but all highly processed foods -- I just gave you the facts as I've read them. That magnesium deficiency is incredibly common in the US population and a major contributor to that (perhaps even the main contributor) is the highly processing of foods because it strips out magnesium or has additives that impede its absorption.
No, not necessarily. I don't know anyone that consider vitamin supplements to be a "processed food" in the context of processed versus whole food discussions. Are you being intentionally obtuse?
The processing of many highly processed foods (especially grain products) results in the stripping of naturally occurring magnesium (and other vitamins/minerals) or has additives that impede absorption. Of course, there are always exceptions. But, as general trends go, that's the hypothesis.
If you see examples of foods that folks recommend to boost your magnesium, they'll almost all whole food examples (not counting supplements, of course). Things like leafy greens like spinach or kelp, legumes, squash or pumpkin seeds. You don't generally see crackers, cookies, bread, etc. cited as ways to increase your magnesium levels.
Deficiency doesn't appear to be an issue except among people who have other health problems. The body regulates magnesium levels pretty efficiently. Apparently it's also difficult to test for magnesium levels in people anyway. Also it appears magnesium is quite ubiquitous. Bread and fortified cereals are cited as good sources in this NIH article as well.
https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/Magnesium-HealthProfessional/#h5
I'm not understanding why you're going on about magnesium.
Magnesium was just an example from the earlier query about how processed food can be less nutritious than their non-processed counterparts. If you go back to the original post, that would probably be more clear. A lot folks seem to struggle with reading comprehension here on MFP. Or are being intentionally obtuse.
Also, I've seen numbers that upwards of 75% of the population in the US is deficient in magnesium. Even mainstream media like CNN has picked that sort of thing up (see link). It seems like Americans' bodies are not regulating magnesium all that well, likely because they aren't getting enough in their diet.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/31/health/magnesium-deficiency-health/
I find it ironic that you are going on about lack of reading comprehension and people being obtuse when the original post was simply about weight loss. No mention of nutrition and certainly no mention of magnesium deficiency.
Really? We're limited to only what the OP asks? Is that how the forums work?
So, when someone else on the thread mentions that she can't understand why there would be any nutritional difference between processed and non-processed foods, we're not allowed the address that? Or you think that means you lack reading comprehension skills? Hmmmm....You also might want to look up what the word ironic actually means.
Why look up the definition of ironic? Almost no one uses it in the dictionary / literary jargon sense of the word.
LOL...
0 -
Yes, I think satiety is extremely commonly addressed when we get a post like "hypothetically, could I lose weight eating only junk food?" I know I always mention it, as well as general health and how one would feel. For example, I say in theory someone could lose weight eating 1200 if only cake, but I'd feel horrible if I tried and I suspect I simply could not manage to stick to 1200 (or even 1500), at least not unless it were an experiment I had high incentive to stick to.
Here, OP indicated that she ate a mostly nutritious, whole-foods diet, so I don't see satiety as an issue. I eat some ice cream or the like regularly within my calorie goals (or perhaps some pork shoulder vs. pork chops), and have no issue with satiety because I eat lots of food that's satisfying and filling to me (and tons of vegetables and protein). 100% vs. 90% or whatever really shouldn't make that big a difference.
Beyond that, I really don't understand why people keep assuming that "processed food" = not nutritious or not satiety promoting. As I've mentioned several times, the most common processed foods I eat are ones that make my breakfast more filling -- specifically lowfat dairy like cottage cheese or greek yogurt or smoked salmon or protein powder. I also find Quest bars pretty filling, and while I'd never sub ice cream for a meal or anything I find it perfectly filling as a dessert. (OP specifically mentioned a FiberOne bar, which I've never had, but sounds like it might have, well, lots of fiber and be a small dessert vs. her main diet.)
As for processed foods that are considered "junk" food by some, I had a Giordano's pizza slice for lunch on Friday (spinach stuffed). I had it due to a work thing -- Giordano's is not my favorite and usually would not be considered worth the calories to me -- but one slice with salad fit into my calories fine and was actually extremely filling. I had a ton of vegetables that day too, so imagine the processed pizza won't ruin my nutrition.0 -
lindsey1979 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »Lourdesong wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »
Literally all processed food is low in magnesium? So my processed, GNC vitamin tablets, with the magnesium: 300%, are low in magnesium?lindsey1979 wrote: »
What are the chances someone eating some but not all processed foods becomes magnesium deficient? How likely would it get to the extent that the person is actually eating to try to get in magnesium?lindsey1979 wrote: »
You sound like you're saying the person saying eating some ice cream won't hurt you is extrapolating into ridiculousness. Lemur's remark was to head off the straw men that has happened repeatedly when CICOphants talk about calories being the important thing.lindsey1979 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »OP didn't ask about eating all "junk" food or even about junk food at all.
Here's what she said:Yes, my primary question was if I eat 1500 of mostly unprocessed foods (lean proteins, fruit, veggies) compared to 1500 calories of "whatever" foods (keeping in mind that I try to eat really well throughout the day but processed in the terms of maybe an ice cream treat at night or a latte if it fit in my calories) will my loss be the same?
Not only did she stipulate same calories, but I for one would not find the satiety difference between the two options mentioned much at all.
I'll add, again, that I don't understand this notion that "processed" means not nutritious or not satisfying. Many of the more processed things I eat (stuff like smoked salmon or dairy or protein powder) are foods that I specifically use to make my breakfast more filling.
One example of the less nutritious aspect of highly processed foods is the lack of magnesium. An overwhelming amount of the population is magnesium deficient (I've seen number at 70%+ of the US population) and this is largely attributed to our processing of foods -- that it strips out certain natural vitamins and minerals or that the highly processed foods interfere with absorption. I'm sure there are other examples, but that's one.
This is silly, because it assumes one either eats mostly processed foods (and what you really mean here is ultra processed) or none. What the OP asked about was the difference in weight loss between eating mostly whole foods and a nutritious diet plus some processed stuff vs. no processed stuff.
So, let's assume I eat a good diet with lots of fish and greens and finish off the day with some ice cream (as the OP suggested). Am I going to become magnesium deficient? No, I will not. Am I going to lose weight? Depends on the calories I consume, of course.
You can always extrapolate into ridiculousness. That extrapolation doesn't negate the initial premise in itself. To not understand that difference is silly.
Someone down thread asked about examples, I responded with examples of potential issues. Not every post has to respond solely to the OP's questions -- people can ask other related questions and others can respond. That's sort of the purpose of a discussion.
What does someone's specific diet composition of highly processed foods to non-highly processed foods have to do with the inherent lack of magnesium in the highly processed foods?
Yes, your overall deficiency likely will changed based upon your consumption either due to direct or indirect means, but the lack of magnesium in highly processed foods remains the same. And, yes, you can compensate based on your amount consumed or by taking supplements (as many do). It's not an all-or-nothing situation like that person posits. To pretend that it's absolute is silly unless you're talking about certain things that are very dangerous at low levels like mercury or other toxic compounds -- but that really isn't an issue in highly processed foods (or isn't supposed to be).
To date, I'm not even familiar with studies that show mineral deficiency (other than salt) even affecting appetite, only some correlations that micro-nutrient deficiencies are common in the obese.
I don't know what the chances are from someone eating some but all highly processed foods -- I just gave you the facts as I've read them. That magnesium deficiency is incredibly common in the US population and a major contributor to that (perhaps even the main contributor) is the highly processing of foods because it strips out magnesium or has additives that impede its absorption.
No, not necessarily. I don't know anyone that consider vitamin supplements to be a "processed food" in the context of processed versus whole food discussions. Are you being intentionally obtuse?
The processing of many highly processed foods (especially grain products) results in the stripping of naturally occurring magnesium (and other vitamins/minerals) or has additives that impede absorption. Of course, there are always exceptions. But, as general trends go, that's the hypothesis.
If you see examples of foods that folks recommend to boost your magnesium, they'll almost all whole food examples (not counting supplements, of course). Things like leafy greens like spinach or kelp, legumes, squash or pumpkin seeds. You don't generally see crackers, cookies, bread, etc. cited as ways to increase your magnesium levels.
Deficiency doesn't appear to be an issue except among people who have other health problems. The body regulates magnesium levels pretty efficiently. Apparently it's also difficult to test for magnesium levels in people anyway. Also it appears magnesium is quite ubiquitous. Bread and fortified cereals are cited as good sources in this NIH article as well.
https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/Magnesium-HealthProfessional/#h5
I'm not understanding why you're going on about magnesium.
Magnesium was just an example from the earlier query about how processed food can be less nutritious than their non-processed counterparts. If you go back to the original post, that would probably be more clear. A lot folks seem to struggle with reading comprehension here on MFP. Or are being intentionally obtuse.
Also, I've seen numbers that upwards of 75% of the population in the US is deficient in magnesium. Even mainstream media like CNN has picked that sort of thing up (see link). It seems like Americans' bodies are not regulating magnesium all that well, likely because they aren't getting enough in their diet.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/31/health/magnesium-deficiency-health/
I find it ironic that you are going on about lack of reading comprehension and people being obtuse when the original post was simply about weight loss. No mention of nutrition and certainly no mention of magnesium deficiency.
Really? We're limited to only what the OP asks? Is that how the forums work?
So, when someone else on the thread mentions that she can't understand why there would be any nutritional difference between processed and non-processed foods, we're not allowed the address that? Or you think that means you lack reading comprehension skills? Hmmmm....You also might want to look up what the word ironic actually means.
Why look up the definition of ironic? Almost no one uses it in the dictionary / literary jargon sense of the word.
Some of us actually do mean what we say and say what we mean. We actually are concerned with diction and proper word choice. And definitions of words often include colloquial uses as well as more technical or literary definitions. It's why words can have more than one definition or proper use. You'd think that would be important to someone that is talking smack on another's reading comprehension skills. But maybe that's just me.
But, hey, some people struggle here with basic reading comprehension. Proper diction is probably asking waaaaay too much. I'm sure someone will chime in on how this is not what the OP originally asked so they don't understand why this exchange has occurred. Oy vey.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 394 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 943 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions