Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Processed foods cause more weight gain
Phirrgus
Posts: 1,894 Member
in Debate Club
Thread title paraphrased from article, links/sources etc within article.
https://www.businessinsider.com/how-processed-foods-lead-to-weight-gain-nih-study-2019-5
Personally speaking, the inability/unwillingness to release the food I'm holding and/or stop shoving it into my mouth caused me to gain weight, but to further elaborate, much of that was chicken/fish/veggies/lean beef and so on. I did not partake of massive amounts of what are currently thought of as "processed" foods.
But this seems to be getting thrust back into the public eye, so...thoughts?
https://www.businessinsider.com/how-processed-foods-lead-to-weight-gain-nih-study-2019-5
Groundbreaking research from the US National Institutes of Health suggests for the first time that the relationship is causal: no matter how nutritious they are, processed foods lead people to eat more and gain weight.
Personally speaking, the inability/unwillingness to release the food I'm holding and/or stop shoving it into my mouth caused me to gain weight, but to further elaborate, much of that was chicken/fish/veggies/lean beef and so on. I did not partake of massive amounts of what are currently thought of as "processed" foods.
But this seems to be getting thrust back into the public eye, so...thoughts?
6
Replies
-
Reading the article, the study's conclusion is more accurately described as "people who eat more processed food tend to eat more calories to feel full which causes them to gain weight." It's an important distinction for us calorie counters. I think processed food falls in the same category as added sugar and a bunch of other stuff, where it makes sense to recommend people limit it if they are not tracking their calories and just eating what they feel like until they feel full. But if you are tracking, and fitting things like processed foods and added sugar within your calorie goal, and finding yourself able to stay within it, then there is no real need to limit it.
So on our end as calorie counters, I think if a person has trouble staying within their goals because they are constantly hungry, and they also eat a lot of processed food, then reducing their processed food consumption may be beneficial to try to see if it helps control their hunger cravings. But if they are able to successfully eat it within their goals, it won't cause any more or less weight gain than any non-processed food.57 -
That's basically the point of the article. From the National institute link:Reading the article, the study's conclusion is more accurately described as "people who eat more processed food tend to eat more calories to feel full which causes them to gain weight." It's an important distinction for us calorie counters. I think processed food falls in the same category as added sugar and a bunch of other stuff, where it makes sense to recommend people limit it if they are not tracking their calories and just eating what they feel like until they feel full. But if you are tracking, and fitting things like processed foods and added sugar within your calorie goal, and finding yourself able to stay within it, then there is no real need to limit it.
So on our end as calorie counters, I think if a person has trouble staying within their goals because they are constantly hungry, and they also eat a lot of processed food, then reducing their processed food consumption may be beneficial to try to see if it helps control their hunger cravings. But if they are able to successfully eat it within their goals, it won't cause any more or less weight gain than any non-processed food.Increased availability and consumption of ultra-processed foods have been associated with rising obesity prevalence, but scientists have not yet demonstrated that ultra-processed food causes obesity or adverse health outcomes. Researchers at the NIH investigated whether people ate more calories when exposed to a diet composed of ultra-processed foods compared with a diet composed of unprocessed foods. Despite the ultra-processed and unprocessed diets being matched for daily presented calories, sugar, fat, fiber, and macronutrients, people consumed more calories when exposed to the ultra-processed diet as compared to the unprocessed diet. Furthermore, people gained weight on the ultra-processed diet and lost weight on the unprocessed diet. Limiting consumption of ultra-processed food may be an effective strategy for obesity prevention and treatment.
But the statement that both diets for the test subject were matched for daily presented calories, sugar, fat, fiber, and macronutrients - does that mean calorie amount? They aren't clear there and it gives the impression that people are gaining weight by simply eating those foods.2 -
I have read and dissected the Kevin Hall study. Their are a few reason why people eat more of the hyper processed than less processed. Type of fiber in the food, protein leverage, palatablility of the food just to name a few.5
-
Headline says "processed" but article then corrects to ultraprocessed. More abuse of the term processed, unfortunately. Processed food (maybe ultraprocessed too, depending on how it's defined) is way too diverse to generalize about in this way.
Beyond that, I'm actually not surprised, as I think eating food in more whole forms does tend to be more filling and satisfying, and it takes longer. It's kind of like the advice to eat and not drink your meals (which I don't find to be always true for me, but on average I think lots of cals in drinks, even smoothies, would be less satisfying and thus less filling). The "eating faster" bit is related to this, and is another theory that makes sense to me -- and explains why I find my morning smoothies quite filling (despite drinking and not eating them), as due to the ingredients it takes me way longer to consume the whole thing than it would to just eat a meal of the same cals.
Often people write off these differences to fiber or protein, but I find there's more to why a particular food is filling, which is why I find roasted potatoes super filling, even though they aren't high in fiber or protein, and also find some other foods with similar macros (like bread) not really filling at all.
I also think that there is a lot to foods beyond what has been identified (micros, macros, fiber, sugar), which is one reason I think it's important to try to get micros from whole foods vs. vitamins. I bet there's more in foods that tend to correlate with good health (like vegetables, fruits, etc) than we have identified.7 -
I agree that wasn't clear, but to me that meant they were presented with similarly dense and caloric food in the processed and unprocessed group, and the processed group at more of that food. From the article:The participants' diets were precisely matched so that regardless of whether they were offered processed or unprocessed meals, they were given exactly the same amount of protein, fat, carbs, salt, and sugar to eat. They were instructed to eat as much food as they liked in 60-minute meal windows. They spent two weeks eating a processed diet, then switched and did two more weeks eating fresh meals.Participants consumed, on average, 500 more calories a day on the ultra-processed diet, when meals included foods like hot dogs, freezer pancakes, canned chili, and peanut-butter-and-jelly sandwiches.
It doesn't seem that they are trying to make any claims that eating the same exact calories of processed or unprocessed food will result in weight gain. It's not even clear if the experiment recorded their weight gain. It was more about the caloric value of the food eaten if left to their own choices.4 -
That's basically the point of the article. From the National institute link:Reading the article, the study's conclusion is more accurately described as "people who eat more processed food tend to eat more calories to feel full which causes them to gain weight." It's an important distinction for us calorie counters. I think processed food falls in the same category as added sugar and a bunch of other stuff, where it makes sense to recommend people limit it if they are not tracking their calories and just eating what they feel like until they feel full. But if you are tracking, and fitting things like processed foods and added sugar within your calorie goal, and finding yourself able to stay within it, then there is no real need to limit it.
So on our end as calorie counters, I think if a person has trouble staying within their goals because they are constantly hungry, and they also eat a lot of processed food, then reducing their processed food consumption may be beneficial to try to see if it helps control their hunger cravings. But if they are able to successfully eat it within their goals, it won't cause any more or less weight gain than any non-processed food.Increased availability and consumption of ultra-processed foods have been associated with rising obesity prevalence, but scientists have not yet demonstrated that ultra-processed food causes obesity or adverse health outcomes. Researchers at the NIH investigated whether people ate more calories when exposed to a diet composed of ultra-processed foods compared with a diet composed of unprocessed foods. Despite the ultra-processed and unprocessed diets being matched for daily presented calories, sugar, fat, fiber, and macronutrients, people consumed more calories when exposed to the ultra-processed diet as compared to the unprocessed diet. Furthermore, people gained weight on the ultra-processed diet and lost weight on the unprocessed diet. Limiting consumption of ultra-processed food may be an effective strategy for obesity prevention and treatment.
But the statement that both diets for the test subject were matched for daily presented calories, sugar, fat, fiber, and macronutrients - does that mean calorie amount? They aren't clear there and it gives the impression that people are gaining weight by simply eating those foods.
I think they are clear they aren't matched for calorie amount. "They were instructed to eat as much food as they liked in 60-minute meal windows." The matching was because they did things like add fiber supplement to lemonade in the ultraprocessed option.8 -
At what point during this mysterious process does the evil get added?13
-
Thinking back to my active weight loss phase, I really ate horribly nutritionally speaking. Fast food numerous times a week, all sorts of processed diet foods like frozen entrees and 'franken' foods, I guzzled diet soda, didn't drink water etc etc. And zero exercise. Pretty much what my diet/lifestyle was before I started my weight loss phase, but with less calories. Lost 50lbs, improved all my health markers and corrected a high glucose number.
Fast forward through several years of maintenance and numerous experiments with different styles of eating, including periods where I ate very SAD, and all of my blood-work data/health screenings show that for me it doesn't really seem to matter what I eat, as long as I can keep my weight in check, my numbers are golden. Go figure
8 -
That's basically the point of the article. From the National institute link:Reading the article, the study's conclusion is more accurately described as "people who eat more processed food tend to eat more calories to feel full which causes them to gain weight." It's an important distinction for us calorie counters. I think processed food falls in the same category as added sugar and a bunch of other stuff, where it makes sense to recommend people limit it if they are not tracking their calories and just eating what they feel like until they feel full. But if you are tracking, and fitting things like processed foods and added sugar within your calorie goal, and finding yourself able to stay within it, then there is no real need to limit it.
So on our end as calorie counters, I think if a person has trouble staying within their goals because they are constantly hungry, and they also eat a lot of processed food, then reducing their processed food consumption may be beneficial to try to see if it helps control their hunger cravings. But if they are able to successfully eat it within their goals, it won't cause any more or less weight gain than any non-processed food.Increased availability and consumption of ultra-processed foods have been associated with rising obesity prevalence, but scientists have not yet demonstrated that ultra-processed food causes obesity or adverse health outcomes. Researchers at the NIH investigated whether people ate more calories when exposed to a diet composed of ultra-processed foods compared with a diet composed of unprocessed foods. Despite the ultra-processed and unprocessed diets being matched for daily presented calories, sugar, fat, fiber, and macronutrients, people consumed more calories when exposed to the ultra-processed diet as compared to the unprocessed diet. Furthermore, people gained weight on the ultra-processed diet and lost weight on the unprocessed diet. Limiting consumption of ultra-processed food may be an effective strategy for obesity prevention and treatment.
But the statement that both diets for the test subject were matched for daily presented calories, sugar, fat, fiber, and macronutrients - does that mean calorie amount? They aren't clear there and it gives the impression that people are gaining weight by simply eating those foods.
I think they are clear they aren't matched for calorie amount. "They were instructed to eat as much food as they liked in 60-minute meal windows." The matching was because they did things like add fiber supplement to lemonade in the ultraprocessed option.
The Kevin hall study was.. carbs, fat, protein and fiber. They were all equated..0 -
This makes sense. I always end up adding more processed or hyperpalatable (for me) foods when I'm trying to gain, it's just easier to eat even when I'm feeling full. In a deficit though it doesn't always work. If I have a donut or something as a snack my mental hunger/satisfaction will take over and I still won't overeat, I may even undereat because I feel like the donut took up more calories than it really did (assuming I'm not tracking).1
-
I agree that wasn't clear, but to me that meant they were presented with similarly dense and caloric food in the processed and unprocessed group, and the processed group at more of that food. From the article:The participants' diets were precisely matched so that regardless of whether they were offered processed or unprocessed meals, they were given exactly the same amount of protein, fat, carbs, salt, and sugar to eat. They were instructed to eat as much food as they liked in 60-minute meal windows. They spent two weeks eating a processed diet, then switched and did two more weeks eating fresh meals.Participants consumed, on average, 500 more calories a day on the ultra-processed diet, when meals included foods like hot dogs, freezer pancakes, canned chili, and peanut-butter-and-jelly sandwiches.
It doesn't seem that they are trying to make any claims that eating the same exact calories of processed or unprocessed food will result in weight gain. It's not even clear if the experiment recorded their weight gain. It was more about the caloric value of the food eaten if left to their own choices.
That's basically the point of the article. From the National institute link:Reading the article, the study's conclusion is more accurately described as "people who eat more processed food tend to eat more calories to feel full which causes them to gain weight." It's an important distinction for us calorie counters. I think processed food falls in the same category as added sugar and a bunch of other stuff, where it makes sense to recommend people limit it if they are not tracking their calories and just eating what they feel like until they feel full. But if you are tracking, and fitting things like processed foods and added sugar within your calorie goal, and finding yourself able to stay within it, then there is no real need to limit it.
So on our end as calorie counters, I think if a person has trouble staying within their goals because they are constantly hungry, and they also eat a lot of processed food, then reducing their processed food consumption may be beneficial to try to see if it helps control their hunger cravings. But if they are able to successfully eat it within their goals, it won't cause any more or less weight gain than any non-processed food.Increased availability and consumption of ultra-processed foods have been associated with rising obesity prevalence, but scientists have not yet demonstrated that ultra-processed food causes obesity or adverse health outcomes. Researchers at the NIH investigated whether people ate more calories when exposed to a diet composed of ultra-processed foods compared with a diet composed of unprocessed foods. Despite the ultra-processed and unprocessed diets being matched for daily presented calories, sugar, fat, fiber, and macronutrients, people consumed more calories when exposed to the ultra-processed diet as compared to the unprocessed diet. Furthermore, people gained weight on the ultra-processed diet and lost weight on the unprocessed diet. Limiting consumption of ultra-processed food may be an effective strategy for obesity prevention and treatment.
But the statement that both diets for the test subject were matched for daily presented calories, sugar, fat, fiber, and macronutrients - does that mean calorie amount? They aren't clear there and it gives the impression that people are gaining weight by simply eating those foods.
I think they are clear they aren't matched for calorie amount. "They were instructed to eat as much food as they liked in 60-minute meal windows." The matching was because they did things like add fiber supplement to lemonade in the ultraprocessed option.
Ok I misunderstood that then, thanks - from my standpoint though it does seem like there's something here worth looking into. The more of that type of food I eat, the more I want and I'm not alone apparently.2 -
I mean, some of this is common sense. Take a glass of orange juice vs. an orange. How many oranges are you going to eat? Probably one because it gets you the water and fiber that you need, plus peeling it takes time. Also it's may 60 calories. How many glasses are you going to drink? Depends how thirsty you are, but an average glass is 120 calories and contains no filling fiber.
It takes longer to eat a salad than a bag of chips. The salad has way more fiber that digests slower. And of course it's lower calorie. Same with a chicken breast or a fish fillet vs a bag of Snickers. It's not that processed food makes us gain. It's that it's easy to get into, hyper-palatable, and not very filling. So of course that package of Oreos - eaten repeatedly in large quantities, which is how many of us eat - is going to cause weight gain...not by itself but by the inability to eat just 2 and put the package away.11 -
psychod787 wrote: »
That's basically the point of the article. From the National institute link:Reading the article, the study's conclusion is more accurately described as "people who eat more processed food tend to eat more calories to feel full which causes them to gain weight." It's an important distinction for us calorie counters. I think processed food falls in the same category as added sugar and a bunch of other stuff, where it makes sense to recommend people limit it if they are not tracking their calories and just eating what they feel like until they feel full. But if you are tracking, and fitting things like processed foods and added sugar within your calorie goal, and finding yourself able to stay within it, then there is no real need to limit it.
So on our end as calorie counters, I think if a person has trouble staying within their goals because they are constantly hungry, and they also eat a lot of processed food, then reducing their processed food consumption may be beneficial to try to see if it helps control their hunger cravings. But if they are able to successfully eat it within their goals, it won't cause any more or less weight gain than any non-processed food.Increased availability and consumption of ultra-processed foods have been associated with rising obesity prevalence, but scientists have not yet demonstrated that ultra-processed food causes obesity or adverse health outcomes. Researchers at the NIH investigated whether people ate more calories when exposed to a diet composed of ultra-processed foods compared with a diet composed of unprocessed foods. Despite the ultra-processed and unprocessed diets being matched for daily presented calories, sugar, fat, fiber, and macronutrients, people consumed more calories when exposed to the ultra-processed diet as compared to the unprocessed diet. Furthermore, people gained weight on the ultra-processed diet and lost weight on the unprocessed diet. Limiting consumption of ultra-processed food may be an effective strategy for obesity prevention and treatment.
But the statement that both diets for the test subject were matched for daily presented calories, sugar, fat, fiber, and macronutrients - does that mean calorie amount? They aren't clear there and it gives the impression that people are gaining weight by simply eating those foods.
I think they are clear they aren't matched for calorie amount. "They were instructed to eat as much food as they liked in 60-minute meal windows." The matching was because they did things like add fiber supplement to lemonade in the ultraprocessed option.
The Kevin hall study was.. carbs, fat, protein and fiber. They were all equated..
There are multiple Kevin Hall studies. This one was not matched for calories since you could eat as much as you liked.1 -
I agree that wasn't clear, but to me that meant they were presented with similarly dense and caloric food in the processed and unprocessed group, and the processed group at more of that food. From the article:The participants' diets were precisely matched so that regardless of whether they were offered processed or unprocessed meals, they were given exactly the same amount of protein, fat, carbs, salt, and sugar to eat. They were instructed to eat as much food as they liked in 60-minute meal windows. They spent two weeks eating a processed diet, then switched and did two more weeks eating fresh meals.Participants consumed, on average, 500 more calories a day on the ultra-processed diet, when meals included foods like hot dogs, freezer pancakes, canned chili, and peanut-butter-and-jelly sandwiches.
It doesn't seem that they are trying to make any claims that eating the same exact calories of processed or unprocessed food will result in weight gain. It's not even clear if the experiment recorded their weight gain. It was more about the caloric value of the food eaten if left to their own choices.
That's basically the point of the article. From the National institute link:Reading the article, the study's conclusion is more accurately described as "people who eat more processed food tend to eat more calories to feel full which causes them to gain weight." It's an important distinction for us calorie counters. I think processed food falls in the same category as added sugar and a bunch of other stuff, where it makes sense to recommend people limit it if they are not tracking their calories and just eating what they feel like until they feel full. But if you are tracking, and fitting things like processed foods and added sugar within your calorie goal, and finding yourself able to stay within it, then there is no real need to limit it.
So on our end as calorie counters, I think if a person has trouble staying within their goals because they are constantly hungry, and they also eat a lot of processed food, then reducing their processed food consumption may be beneficial to try to see if it helps control their hunger cravings. But if they are able to successfully eat it within their goals, it won't cause any more or less weight gain than any non-processed food.Increased availability and consumption of ultra-processed foods have been associated with rising obesity prevalence, but scientists have not yet demonstrated that ultra-processed food causes obesity or adverse health outcomes. Researchers at the NIH investigated whether people ate more calories when exposed to a diet composed of ultra-processed foods compared with a diet composed of unprocessed foods. Despite the ultra-processed and unprocessed diets being matched for daily presented calories, sugar, fat, fiber, and macronutrients, people consumed more calories when exposed to the ultra-processed diet as compared to the unprocessed diet. Furthermore, people gained weight on the ultra-processed diet and lost weight on the unprocessed diet. Limiting consumption of ultra-processed food may be an effective strategy for obesity prevention and treatment.
But the statement that both diets for the test subject were matched for daily presented calories, sugar, fat, fiber, and macronutrients - does that mean calorie amount? They aren't clear there and it gives the impression that people are gaining weight by simply eating those foods.
I think they are clear they aren't matched for calorie amount. "They were instructed to eat as much food as they liked in 60-minute meal windows." The matching was because they did things like add fiber supplement to lemonade in the ultraprocessed option.
Ok I misunderstood that then, thanks - from my standpoint though it does seem like there's something here worth looking into. The more of that type of food I eat, the more I want and I'm not alone apparently.
Eating foods where you find it easier to or naturally stop eating at a maintenance or deficit calorie number would be "something here worth looking into."
I suspect the results would be somewhat different with different choices for what constitutes the whole foods diet, however.2 -
-
psychod787 wrote: »
That's basically the point of the article. From the National institute link:Reading the article, the study's conclusion is more accurately described as "people who eat more processed food tend to eat more calories to feel full which causes them to gain weight." It's an important distinction for us calorie counters. I think processed food falls in the same category as added sugar and a bunch of other stuff, where it makes sense to recommend people limit it if they are not tracking their calories and just eating what they feel like until they feel full. But if you are tracking, and fitting things like processed foods and added sugar within your calorie goal, and finding yourself able to stay within it, then there is no real need to limit it.
So on our end as calorie counters, I think if a person has trouble staying within their goals because they are constantly hungry, and they also eat a lot of processed food, then reducing their processed food consumption may be beneficial to try to see if it helps control their hunger cravings. But if they are able to successfully eat it within their goals, it won't cause any more or less weight gain than any non-processed food.Increased availability and consumption of ultra-processed foods have been associated with rising obesity prevalence, but scientists have not yet demonstrated that ultra-processed food causes obesity or adverse health outcomes. Researchers at the NIH investigated whether people ate more calories when exposed to a diet composed of ultra-processed foods compared with a diet composed of unprocessed foods. Despite the ultra-processed and unprocessed diets being matched for daily presented calories, sugar, fat, fiber, and macronutrients, people consumed more calories when exposed to the ultra-processed diet as compared to the unprocessed diet. Furthermore, people gained weight on the ultra-processed diet and lost weight on the unprocessed diet. Limiting consumption of ultra-processed food may be an effective strategy for obesity prevention and treatment.
But the statement that both diets for the test subject were matched for daily presented calories, sugar, fat, fiber, and macronutrients - does that mean calorie amount? They aren't clear there and it gives the impression that people are gaining weight by simply eating those foods.
I think they are clear they aren't matched for calorie amount. "They were instructed to eat as much food as they liked in 60-minute meal windows." The matching was because they did things like add fiber supplement to lemonade in the ultraprocessed option.
The Kevin hall study was.. carbs, fat, protein and fiber. They were all equated..
There are multiple Kevin Hall studies. This one was not matched for calories since you could eat as much as you liked.
The meals were all equated... thus showing the overconsumption of the Hyperpalitable..1 -
To me, this is a common sense study that says ultra processed foods are generally easier to overeat and/or not as satiating. And then an article that to the typical reader makes it sound like the evil processed food is magically making us all fat, and saying this study proves it.
If you are logging, you'll learn quickly which processed foods you can fit into your cals without going hungry. For people who don't want to or can't log, limiting ultra processed food and making whole foods the foundation of your diet will probably help but is no guarantee. Not rocket surgery
The article is especially disingenuous imho saying it proves causality. Eating diets based in ultra processed foods *may* cause a person who does not log and count cals to overeat. But a person who eats mostly whole foods can also easily overeat, especially if they choose a macro distribution or food type distribution that doesn't personally satiate them, or if they are prone to emotional eating, boredom eating, or social eating without controls.
I'm sure I'm not the only one who can hoover down far too many calories of roasted chicken and potatoes or beef stew.18 -
psychod787 wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »
That's basically the point of the article. From the National institute link:Reading the article, the study's conclusion is more accurately described as "people who eat more processed food tend to eat more calories to feel full which causes them to gain weight." It's an important distinction for us calorie counters. I think processed food falls in the same category as added sugar and a bunch of other stuff, where it makes sense to recommend people limit it if they are not tracking their calories and just eating what they feel like until they feel full. But if you are tracking, and fitting things like processed foods and added sugar within your calorie goal, and finding yourself able to stay within it, then there is no real need to limit it.
So on our end as calorie counters, I think if a person has trouble staying within their goals because they are constantly hungry, and they also eat a lot of processed food, then reducing their processed food consumption may be beneficial to try to see if it helps control their hunger cravings. But if they are able to successfully eat it within their goals, it won't cause any more or less weight gain than any non-processed food.Increased availability and consumption of ultra-processed foods have been associated with rising obesity prevalence, but scientists have not yet demonstrated that ultra-processed food causes obesity or adverse health outcomes. Researchers at the NIH investigated whether people ate more calories when exposed to a diet composed of ultra-processed foods compared with a diet composed of unprocessed foods. Despite the ultra-processed and unprocessed diets being matched for daily presented calories, sugar, fat, fiber, and macronutrients, people consumed more calories when exposed to the ultra-processed diet as compared to the unprocessed diet. Furthermore, people gained weight on the ultra-processed diet and lost weight on the unprocessed diet. Limiting consumption of ultra-processed food may be an effective strategy for obesity prevention and treatment.
But the statement that both diets for the test subject were matched for daily presented calories, sugar, fat, fiber, and macronutrients - does that mean calorie amount? They aren't clear there and it gives the impression that people are gaining weight by simply eating those foods.
I think they are clear they aren't matched for calorie amount. "They were instructed to eat as much food as they liked in 60-minute meal windows." The matching was because they did things like add fiber supplement to lemonade in the ultraprocessed option.
The Kevin hall study was.. carbs, fat, protein and fiber. They were all equated..
There are multiple Kevin Hall studies. This one was not matched for calories since you could eat as much as you liked.
The meals were all equated... thus showing the overconsumption of the Hyperpalitable..
Yes, and as explained in your link:
"Meals were designed to be matched for presented calories, energy density, macronutrients, sugar, sodium, and fiber. Subjects were instructed to consume as much or as little as desired. Energy intake was greater during the ultra-processed diet (508±106 kcal/d; p=0.0001), with increased consumption of carbohydrate (280±54 kcal/d; p<0.0001) and fat (230±53 kcal/d; p=0.0004) but not protein (-2±12 kcal/d; p=0.85). Weight changes were highly correlated with energy intake (r=0.8, p<0.0001) with participants gaining 0.8±0.3 kg (p=0.01) during the ultra-processed diet and losing 1.1±0.3 kg (p=0.001) during the unprocessed diet."
(Or, as I said upthread: "This one was not matched for calories since you could eat as much as you liked." I was responding to someone who was wondering whether the difference in weight might be due to something other than calories, since the study said carbs, et al. were equal. But the calories actually consumed were not. It's different from Hall's studies comparing low fat vs low carb which intentionally (and importantly) kept calories consumed equal.)
So they were unrestricted on how much they ate, and those on the hyperpalatable diet ate more calories. It's a test of strategies to control overeating, basically.10 -
psychod787 wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »
That's basically the point of the article. From the National institute link:Reading the article, the study's conclusion is more accurately described as "people who eat more processed food tend to eat more calories to feel full which causes them to gain weight." It's an important distinction for us calorie counters. I think processed food falls in the same category as added sugar and a bunch of other stuff, where it makes sense to recommend people limit it if they are not tracking their calories and just eating what they feel like until they feel full. But if you are tracking, and fitting things like processed foods and added sugar within your calorie goal, and finding yourself able to stay within it, then there is no real need to limit it.
So on our end as calorie counters, I think if a person has trouble staying within their goals because they are constantly hungry, and they also eat a lot of processed food, then reducing their processed food consumption may be beneficial to try to see if it helps control their hunger cravings. But if they are able to successfully eat it within their goals, it won't cause any more or less weight gain than any non-processed food.Increased availability and consumption of ultra-processed foods have been associated with rising obesity prevalence, but scientists have not yet demonstrated that ultra-processed food causes obesity or adverse health outcomes. Researchers at the NIH investigated whether people ate more calories when exposed to a diet composed of ultra-processed foods compared with a diet composed of unprocessed foods. Despite the ultra-processed and unprocessed diets being matched for daily presented calories, sugar, fat, fiber, and macronutrients, people consumed more calories when exposed to the ultra-processed diet as compared to the unprocessed diet. Furthermore, people gained weight on the ultra-processed diet and lost weight on the unprocessed diet. Limiting consumption of ultra-processed food may be an effective strategy for obesity prevention and treatment.
But the statement that both diets for the test subject were matched for daily presented calories, sugar, fat, fiber, and macronutrients - does that mean calorie amount? They aren't clear there and it gives the impression that people are gaining weight by simply eating those foods.
I think they are clear they aren't matched for calorie amount. "They were instructed to eat as much food as they liked in 60-minute meal windows." The matching was because they did things like add fiber supplement to lemonade in the ultraprocessed option.
The Kevin hall study was.. carbs, fat, protein and fiber. They were all equated..
There are multiple Kevin Hall studies. This one was not matched for calories since you could eat as much as you liked.
The meals were all equated... thus showing the overconsumption of the Hyperpalitable..
Yes, and as explained in your link:
"Meals were designed to be matched for presented calories, energy density, macronutrients, sugar, sodium, and fiber. Subjects were instructed to consume as much or as little as desired. Energy intake was greater during the ultra-processed diet (508±106 kcal/d; p=0.0001), with increased consumption of carbohydrate (280±54 kcal/d; p<0.0001) and fat (230±53 kcal/d; p=0.0004) but not protein (-2±12 kcal/d; p=0.85). Weight changes were highly correlated with energy intake (r=0.8, p<0.0001) with participants gaining 0.8±0.3 kg (p=0.01) during the ultra-processed diet and losing 1.1±0.3 kg (p=0.001) during the unprocessed diet."
(Or, as I said upthread: "This one was not matched for calories since you could eat as much as you liked." I was responding to someone who was wondering whether the difference in weight might be due to something other than calories, since the study said carbs, et al. were equal. But the calories actually consumed were not. It's different from Hall's studies comparing low fat vs low carb which intentionally (and importantly) kept calories consumed equal.)
So they were unrestricted on how much they ate, and those on the hyperpalatable diet ate more calories. It's a test of strategies to control overeating, basically.
Fair enough... they should call the study hyperprocessed foods make you eat more of them to feel full than less processed.. Does not quite have the same ring to it! Lol😁6 -
Reading the article, the study's conclusion is more accurately described as "people who eat more processed food tend to eat more calories to feel full which causes them to gain weight." It's an important distinction for us calorie counters.
If you're not acting on the concept of a calorie budget, this is a distinction without a difference. Was it the brakes that made the car stop, or was it friction between the tires and the road? They're not really separable unless you're shopping for new tires.
Of course it's the calories, that's just reality. But the vast majority of overweight people are not counting calories.
"People who eat lots of broccoli and chicken tend to lose more weight than people who eat lots of boxed mac and cheese" isn't a bad message. It isn't a new message either. With all the cleanse and fat burner and carbs cause weight gain, this is at least useful and in the right ballpark.9 -
I read the same article, and I say it's about the best thing to come out about over-processed foods to date. The study participants were fed, not picking out their own food, eating the same amount of calories and macros per day, and their hormones were tested. The two groups also switched places half way through the study, and the results held true for both groups, depending on which group they were in. So yeah, I think this was a good study, and yes, I agree with their findings. Get rid of the cr-ap in our processed foods (CHEMICALS, basically) and I think our obesity problem will plummet. Won't go away complete, but it would help immensely.30
-
But they did not eat the same amount of calories.
I like the study too, and am not remotely surprised at the results. IMO, if not counting, one helpful strategy is to do more home cooking and eat more whole foods. But this does not mean that "processing" or "chemicals" and not calories are the source of weight gain.16 -
poisonesse wrote: »I read the same article, and I say it's about the best thing to come out about over-processed foods to date. The study participants were fed, not picking out their own food, eating the same amount of calories and macros per day, and their hormones were tested. The two groups also switched places half way through the study, and the results held true for both groups, depending on which group they were in. So yeah, I think this was a good study, and yes, I agree with their findings. Get rid of the cr-ap in our processed foods (CHEMICALS, basically) and I think our obesity problem will plummet. Won't go away complete, but it would help immensely.
I am all for cutting out the BS, but everything is made of chemicals. We just need to look at what energy dense Hyperpalitable foods do to our brain. I am still in the IDEA that the human brain was just not meant to consume designed foods that just make us not have a stop button. Some people can control it with portion control. Some, like me, could not. I have read the studies on what unrestricted access to the "Cafeteria Diet" does across the board to all animals...10 -
poisonesse wrote: »I read the same article, and I say it's about the best thing to come out about over-processed foods to date. The study participants were fed, not picking out their own food, eating the same amount of calories and macros per day, and their hormones were tested. The two groups also switched places half way through the study, and the results held true for both groups, depending on which group they were in. So yeah, I think this was a good study, and yes, I agree with their findings. Get rid of the cr-ap in our processed foods (CHEMICALS, basically) and I think our obesity problem will plummet. Won't go away complete, but it would help immensely.
It isn't about chemicals. Ultra processed hyper palatable foods tend to have less fiber and protein, are more calorie dense, and hit all the flavor receptor buttons making them easy to overeat and not filling.18 -
Disclaimer..sorry for all the bolds..for some reason my mobile device is being a pain with the quotes...But they did not eat the same amount of calories.
I like the study too, and am not remotely surprised at the results. IMO, if not counting, one helpful strategy is to do more home cooking and eat more whole foods. But this does not mean that "processing" or "chemicals" and not calories are the source of weight gain.
I'm still a little torn on this. In order for the study to determine that the "processed" foods led to an average 500 calorie increase, they had to have an idea how many calories were being consumed, so some type of counting had to take place, even though it states they were instructed to eat as much as they like.
The participants' diets were precisely matched so that regardless of whether they were offered processed or unprocessed meals, they were given exactly the same amount of protein, fat, carbs, salt, and sugar to eat. They were instructed to eat as much food as they liked in 60-minute meal windows. They spent two weeks eating a processed diet, then switched and did two more weeks eating fresh meals.
And while I'm not clear either on exactly what constitutes "processed" vs ultra processed etc...they do give a good sample of what they considered processed.
Participants consumed, on average, 500 more calories a day on the ultra-processed diet, when meals included foods like hot dogs, freezer pancakes, canned chili, and peanut-butter-and-jelly sandwiches. Those eating processed foods also gained about two pounds in those two weeks. Regardless of the person's weight or sex, they ate more carbs and fat on a processed-food diet.
The difference between processed and unprocessed meals is subtle on the surface; both diet groups ate cereals, eggs, beans, and pastas. However, in the unprocessed group, the ingredients were fresher, with no additives or preservatives in the meals. Additionally, whole foods and unrefined ingredients were used (eggs and potatoes were prepared from scratch, for example).0 -
It's common sense to me that if a food is larger in volume I'm more likely to feel full eating it (they matched for nutrients but did they match for volume?), and that if I like the food enough to want to eat more of it beyond fullness I will be eating more of it beyond fullness. This applies to both processed and minimally processed foods. Try and stop me from overeating nuts or dates because they're low volume and I need a large amount of them to be mentally satisfied.
Only tangentially related to this study, but I think there is one thing I rarely see discussed. If a person's diet is mainly minimally processed because that's their eating preference, would ultra-processed foods have the same effect if matched for volume, not just for nutrients? Would that person be prone to overeating their familiar and preferred diet than they would their less familiar and less preferred diet? We like to classify and generalize, but are we really making the right classifications and reaching for the right data? Would it be fair to say that many of the people tested were very familiar with some of these ultra-processed foods that had a consistent familiar taste and enjoyed them?
I remember watching a documentary (unrelated to nutrition) how a person who lived in a tribe then visited a modern city and ate the food, they lost weight because the meat did not taste like meat, and everything had a weird flavor and texture.4 -
Disclaimer..sorry for all the bolds..for some reason my mobile device is being a pain with the quotes...But they did not eat the same amount of calories.
I like the study too, and am not remotely surprised at the results. IMO, if not counting, one helpful strategy is to do more home cooking and eat more whole foods. But this does not mean that "processing" or "chemicals" and not calories are the source of weight gain.
I'm still a little torn on this. In order for the study to determine that the "processed" foods led to an average 500 calorie increase, they had to have an idea how many calories were being consumed, so some type of counting had to take place, even though it states they were instructed to eat as much as they like.
The participants' diets were precisely matched so that regardless of whether they were offered processed or unprocessed meals, they were given exactly the same amount of protein, fat, carbs, salt, and sugar to eat. They were instructed to eat as much food as they liked in 60-minute meal windows. They spent two weeks eating a processed diet, then switched and did two more weeks eating fresh meals.
And while I'm not clear either on exactly what constitutes "processed" vs ultra processed etc...they do give a good sample of what they considered processed.
Participants consumed, on average, 500 more calories a day on the ultra-processed diet, when meals included foods like hot dogs, freezer pancakes, canned chili, and peanut-butter-and-jelly sandwiches. Those eating processed foods also gained about two pounds in those two weeks. Regardless of the person's weight or sex, they ate more carbs and fat on a processed-food diet.
The difference between processed and unprocessed meals is subtle on the surface; both diet groups ate cereals, eggs, beans, and pastas. However, in the unprocessed group, the ingredients were fresher, with no additives or preservatives in the meals. Additionally, whole foods and unrefined ingredients were used (eggs and potatoes were prepared from scratch, for example).
Replying to "I'm still a little torn on this. In order for the study to determine that the "processed" foods led to an average 500 calorie increase, they had to have an idea how many calories were being consumed, so some type of counting had to take place, even though it states they were instructed to eat as much as they like." (since I cant use bold to highlight it).
I believe the people doing the eating didn't count, i.e., they weren't eating in a calorie-aware way, let alone an intentionally calorie-managing way.
The researchers counted.
That's what folks are getting at in saying this is about satiation, not necessarily processed-ness per se.8 -
But they did not eat the same amount of calories.
I like the study too, and am not remotely surprised at the results. IMO, if not counting, one helpful strategy is to do more home cooking and eat more whole foods. But this does not mean that "processing" or "chemicals" and not calories are the source of weight gain.
Disclaimer..sorry for all the bolds..for some reason my mobile device is being a pain with the quotes...
I'm still a little torn on this. In order for the study to determine that the "processed" foods led to an average 500 calorie increase, they had to have an idea how many calories were being consumed, so some type of counting had to take place, even though it states they were instructed to eat as much as they like.
"The participants' diets were precisely matched so that regardless of whether they were offered processed or unprocessed meals, they were given exactly the same amount of protein, fat, carbs, salt, and sugar to eat. They were instructed to eat as much food as they liked in 60-minute meal windows. They spent two weeks eating a processed diet, then switched and did two more weeks eating fresh meals."
And while I'm not clear either on exactly what constitutes "processed" vs ultra processed etc...they do give a good sample of what they considered processed.
"Participants consumed, on average, 500 more calories a day on the ultra-processed diet, when meals included foods like hot dogs, freezer pancakes, canned chili, and peanut-butter-and-jelly sandwiches. Those eating processed foods also gained about two pounds in those two weeks. Regardless of the person's weight or sex, they ate more carbs and fat on a processed-food diet."
The difference between processed and unprocessed meals is subtle on the surface; both diet groups ate cereals, eggs, beans, and pastas. However, in the unprocessed group, the ingredients were fresher, with no additives or preservatives in the meals. Additionally, whole foods and unrefined ingredients were used (eggs and potatoes were prepared from scratch, for example).
As Ann said, the study did not rely on the eaters self-reporting how much they ate (which is IMO typically unreliable), but told them to eat what they wanted. The researchers gave them enough food (controlled for total cals, fiber, protein, etc.) and let them eat however much they wanted of the larger portions. The researchers then counted what was eaten.
As I quoted from the study above:
"Meals were designed to be matched for presented calories, energy density, macronutrients, sugar, sodium, and fiber. Subjects were instructed to consume as much or as little as desired. Energy intake was greater during the ultra-processed diet (508±106 kcal/d; p=0.0001), with increased consumption of carbohydrate (280±54 kcal/d; p<0.0001) and fat (230±53 kcal/d; p=0.0004) but not protein (-2±12 kcal/d; p=0.85). Weight changes were highly correlated with energy intake (r=0.8, p<0.0001) with participants gaining 0.8±0.3 kg (p=0.01) during the ultra-processed diet and losing 1.1±0.3 kg (p=0.001) during the unprocessed diet."
You can see the menus in the study itself.
I have not had time to look at them again, but although I generally am unsurprised by the results and would have predicted them, I also think that the conclusion that it's "ultraprocessed" vs. whole alone maybe ignores some other distinction in the menus (like fiber coming from fiber added to lemonade, and not food, in the ultraprocessed menu, far fewer veg, stuff like that). I suspect that the menus could be manipulated to change the result, although if we are comparing to "what people eat in real life on a daily basis when picking whole vs. ultraprocessed" it probably does have some real world applicability, mainly for those who are not already mindful about diet and nutrition.
Re modifying the menus, I mean it's possible to choose ultraprocessed options that have more inherent fiber, would include more veg (although it requires more work), and it's also possible to create whole food based menus that people would likely overeat to the same degree (I go to plenty of farm-to-table type restaurants where that's so).* However, I think in the real world, again, the menus chosen are probably more consistent with the differences (although somewhat extreme, as I think most people may eat a mix).
In any case, I think "generally cooking from scratch and eating a good amount of whole foods, esp veg and good sources of fiber and protein" is common sense advice that may well lead to weight loss for someone not already doing that (I also think it can be an easy way to have a healthy diet and its my preferred way to eat). But when someone says the issue is "processing," I think that's an oversimplification, although that's not at all a criticism of the study, more some of the reporting.
*Quick example of what was fed them. One lunch had the ultraprocessed people eat Beef ravioli (Chef Boyardee), Parmesan cheese (Roseli), White bread (Ottenberg), Margarine (Glenview Farms), Diet lemonade (Crystal Light) with NutriSource fiber, and Oatmeal raisin cookies. The whole food people ate Spinach salad with chicken breast, apple slices, bulgur (Bob’s Red Mill), sunflower seeds (Nature’s Promise) and grapes, Vinaigrette made with olive oil,fresh squeezed lemon juice, apple cider vinegar (Giant), ground mustard seed (McCormick), black pepper (Monarch) and salt (Monarch). I see some major differences beyond processing in those two meals (and not that the unprocessed was less palatable, as it sounds much tastier to me).
8 -
Disclaimer..sorry for all the bolds..for some reason my mobile device is being a pain with the quotes...But they did not eat the same amount of calories.
I like the study too, and am not remotely surprised at the results. IMO, if not counting, one helpful strategy is to do more home cooking and eat more whole foods. But this does not mean that "processing" or "chemicals" and not calories are the source of weight gain.
I'm still a little torn on this. In order for the study to determine that the "processed" foods led to an average 500 calorie increase, they had to have an idea how many calories were being consumed, so some type of counting had to take place, even though it states they were instructed to eat as much as they like.
The participants' diets were precisely matched so that regardless of whether they were offered processed or unprocessed meals, they were given exactly the same amount of protein, fat, carbs, salt, and sugar to eat. They were instructed to eat as much food as they liked in 60-minute meal windows. They spent two weeks eating a processed diet, then switched and did two more weeks eating fresh meals.
And while I'm not clear either on exactly what constitutes "processed" vs ultra processed etc...they do give a good sample of what they considered processed.
Participants consumed, on average, 500 more calories a day on the ultra-processed diet, when meals included foods like hot dogs, freezer pancakes, canned chili, and peanut-butter-and-jelly sandwiches. Those eating processed foods also gained about two pounds in those two weeks. Regardless of the person's weight or sex, they ate more carbs and fat on a processed-food diet.
The difference between processed and unprocessed meals is subtle on the surface; both diet groups ate cereals, eggs, beans, and pastas. However, in the unprocessed group, the ingredients were fresher, with no additives or preservatives in the meals. Additionally, whole foods and unrefined ingredients were used (eggs and potatoes were prepared from scratch, for example).
Replying to "I'm still a little torn on this. In order for the study to determine that the "processed" foods led to an average 500 calorie increase, they had to have an idea how many calories were being consumed, so some type of counting had to take place, even though it states they were instructed to eat as much as they like." (since I cant use bold to highlight it).
I believe the people doing the eating didn't count, i.e., they weren't eating in a calorie-aware way, let alone an intentionally calorie-managing way.
The researchers counted.
That's what folks are getting at in saying this is about satiation, not necessarily processed-ness per se.
Distinctions......elude me sometimes
Thanks for the clarification 
0 -
But they did not eat the same amount of calories.
I like the study too, and am not remotely surprised at the results. IMO, if not counting, one helpful strategy is to do more home cooking and eat more whole foods. But this does not mean that "processing" or "chemicals" and not calories are the source of weight gain.
Disclaimer..sorry for all the bolds..for some reason my mobile device is being a pain with the quotes...
I'm still a little torn on this. In order for the study to determine that the "processed" foods led to an average 500 calorie increase, they had to have an idea how many calories were being consumed, so some type of counting had to take place, even though it states they were instructed to eat as much as they like.
"The participants' diets were precisely matched so that regardless of whether they were offered processed or unprocessed meals, they were given exactly the same amount of protein, fat, carbs, salt, and sugar to eat. They were instructed to eat as much food as they liked in 60-minute meal windows. They spent two weeks eating a processed diet, then switched and did two more weeks eating fresh meals."
And while I'm not clear either on exactly what constitutes "processed" vs ultra processed etc...they do give a good sample of what they considered processed.
"Participants consumed, on average, 500 more calories a day on the ultra-processed diet, when meals included foods like hot dogs, freezer pancakes, canned chili, and peanut-butter-and-jelly sandwiches. Those eating processed foods also gained about two pounds in those two weeks. Regardless of the person's weight or sex, they ate more carbs and fat on a processed-food diet."
The difference between processed and unprocessed meals is subtle on the surface; both diet groups ate cereals, eggs, beans, and pastas. However, in the unprocessed group, the ingredients were fresher, with no additives or preservatives in the meals. Additionally, whole foods and unrefined ingredients were used (eggs and potatoes were prepared from scratch, for example).
As Ann said, the study did not rely on the eaters self-reporting how much they ate (which is IMO typically unreliable), but told them to eat what they wanted. The researchers gave them enough food (controlled for total cals, fiber, protein, etc.) and let them eat however much they wanted of the larger portions. The researchers then counted what was eaten.
As I quoted from the study above:
"Meals were designed to be matched for presented calories, energy density, macronutrients, sugar, sodium, and fiber. Subjects were instructed to consume as much or as little as desired. Energy intake was greater during the ultra-processed diet (508±106 kcal/d; p=0.0001), with increased consumption of carbohydrate (280±54 kcal/d; p<0.0001) and fat (230±53 kcal/d; p=0.0004) but not protein (-2±12 kcal/d; p=0.85). Weight changes were highly correlated with energy intake (r=0.8, p<0.0001) with participants gaining 0.8±0.3 kg (p=0.01) during the ultra-processed diet and losing 1.1±0.3 kg (p=0.001) during the unprocessed diet."
You can see the menus in the study itself.
I have not had time to look at them again, but although I generally am unsurprised by the results and would have predicted them, I also think that the conclusion that it's "ultraprocessed" vs. whole alone maybe ignores some other distinction in the menus (like fiber coming from fiber added to lemonade, and not food, in the ultraprocessed menu, far fewer veg, stuff like that). I suspect that the menus could be manipulated to change the result, although if we are comparing to "what people eat in real life on a daily basis when picking whole vs. ultraprocessed" it probably does have some real world applicability, mainly for those who are not already mindful about diet and nutrition.
Re modifying the menus, I mean it's possible to choose ultraprocessed options that have more inherent fiber, would include more veg (although it requires more work), and it's also possible to create whole food based menus that people would likely overeat to the same degree (I go to plenty of farm-to-table type restaurants where that's so).* However, I think in the real world, again, the menus chosen are probably more consistent with the differences (although somewhat extreme, as I think most people may eat a mix).
In any case, I think "generally cooking from scratch and eating a good amount of whole foods, esp veg and good sources of fiber and protein" is common sense advice that may well lead to weight loss for someone not already doing that (I also think it can be an easy way to have a healthy diet and its my preferred way to eat). But when someone says the issue is "processing," I think that's an oversimplification, although that's not at all a criticism of the study, more some of the reporting.
*Quick example of what was fed them. One lunch had the ultraprocessed people eat Beef ravioli (Chef Boyardee), Parmesan cheese (Roseli), White bread (Ottenberg), Margarine (Glenview Farms), Diet lemonade (Crystal Light) with NutriSource fiber, and Oatmeal raisin cookies. The whole food people ate Spinach salad with chicken breast, apple slices, bulgur (Bob’s Red Mill), sunflower seeds (Nature’s Promise) and grapes, Vinaigrette made with olive oil,fresh squeezed lemon juice, apple cider vinegar (Giant), ground mustard seed (McCormick), black pepper (Monarch) and salt (Monarch). I see some major differences beyond processing in those two meals (and not that the unprocessed was less palatable, as it sounds much tastier to me).
That makes sense to me, thanks, although it does seem there's still a world of debate over exactly where the "How processed is this food?" lines are drawn.
I do agree with you by the way - my taste buds enjoy the "ultra-processed" stuff, but the fresh cooked from scratch meals are ultimately more satisfying to me.
I do have to admit (this is my stumbling block) I do still seem to get easily confused over those small distinctions often cited in studies like this...but this is how I learn I guess.2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions