All calories are equal?

pierinifitness
pierinifitness Posts: 2,231 Member
in Food and Nutrition
“People overate and gained more weight when given meals with processed ingredients (hydrogenated oils, HFCS, flavoring, emulsifiers) compared to people given meals with the same caloric & macronutrient composition that did not contain processed ingredients.”

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/05/190516114550.htm

Replies

  • psychod787
    psychod787 Posts: 4,088 Member
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    An interesting discussion of the study is already going on here: https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10744444/processed-foods-cause-more-weight-gain#latest

    Re: "all calories are equal," I'm afraid OP might misunderstand what that means and is falling into the common mistake of thinking "calories" are a synonym for "foods." Rather obviously, all foods are not the same, and have different properties, only one of which is the number of calories they contain (others include macros, micros, sugar, fiber, volume, mouth feel, speed at which it can be eaten, taste, so on). But calories themselves are merely units of energy and are equal just as all miles are an equal length.

    Basically, it means that if you have a deficit of 500 cal you will lose roughly a lb a week with a bad diet, a good diet, a high carb diet, a low carb diet (absent the initial water drop), etc. It says nothing about what diet will help any particular individual keep a 500 cal deficit -- that's something the individual would have to figure out, and people clearly vary. Nor does it say how nutritious/healthy the diet is or how it will make you feel.

    A lot of us found that the study in question basically confirmed common sense and was unsurprising, although still worth having studies on (and the study itself mentioned some additional questions that should be addressed).

    This...
  • pierinifitness
    pierinifitness Posts: 2,231 Member
    I like your suggested conclusion better @MikePTY but it might not be click bait material.
  • mmapags
    mmapags Posts: 8,934 Member
    MikePTY wrote: »
    ssurvivor wrote: »
    Terytha wrote: »
    Seems shady.

    How did they eat more calories than the other group if both groups were given the same calories? What nonsense is this?


    In the study, they were initially given meals of equal calories but were free to eat as many refills/snacks as they wished.


    Basically, overly processed food - particularly shelf stable food - has fewer vitamins minerals and bacteria (for digestion) than minimally processed (fresh) food. So when giving one person a plate of fresh food and another person a plate of processed food, the person who is given the fresh food is more likely to feel satisfied with a single plate, while the person with the processed plate is likely to get "seconds," "thirds," or extra snacks to satiate the body's nutrient cravings.

    For example, say you give one person a large apple and another person a fun-sized bag of m&ms. They're both have ~130 calories, but the person with the apple would feel satisfied with just the apple and (maybe) some water, while the person with the m&ms would need juice (at least) to satisfy his fibre, and Vitamins C & B6 cravings.

    This is kind of missing the point of the study as the food in it was intentionally designed to be similar in caloric value, energy density, and nutritional profile. The study was intended to remove the "ulta-processed food is less nutritious" variable, and see how people responded to the two different groups. So the study showed that even though the food choices has similar nutritional profiles, the group eating the ultra-processed food still ate considerably more.

    That in and of itself is a new research finding and an interesting one that raises some interesting questions worthy of more study. There are many different potential explanations for it, which could be explored in further studies. It could be as simple as the group simply enjoyed the processed food more, which is why they ate more of it. You're much more likely to eat more of food you enjoy than food you don't enjoy.

    This was a high quality study that was done well. The issue is, as with any high quality study, the write ups in the media about it are decidedly low quality. A reasonable conclusion to draw from this study could be "a person who does not control their calories and just eats until they are full is likely to eat more on a diet high in ultra-processed food than someone on a non-processed food diet, even when eating nutritious processed food. This can lead to weight gain as they are more likely to have a calorie surplus." However that isn't sexy and doesn't make good click bait, so it's being reduced to "processed food makes you fat" and somehow "all calories aren't equal," neither of which is what the study was asserting,

    You make excellent point here Mike. It becomes important for people to understand satiety for them and eat in a way that make eating an appropriate amount easier. The companies who make prepared foods that are highly processed (most food is processed to some degree unless one picks it off the tree or plant and eats it) work very hard to make their foods hyperpalatable. They are in business for profit and they want to sell as much as they can. It's not their problem if someone eats too much and has health issues because of it.

Categories