Calorie Counter

You are currently viewing the message boards in:

Processed foods cause more weight gain

12357

Replies

  • PhirrgusPhirrgus Posts: 1,904Member Member Posts: 1,904Member Member
    @lemurcat2 I use the term 'junk food' quite a bit as most folks are familiar with what type of food it's referencing. Much easier than banging out "ultra-high processed hyperpalatable low nutrient foods" :D

    One of the things I've noticed about me is that in spite of getting more facts straight these days, those times I do indulge and am feeling bloated or lethargic my mind snaps back to the need to "eat clean" for a while. "Unlearned" thoughts/behaviors/programming dies a slow slow death sometimes.
  • PhirrgusPhirrgus Posts: 1,904Member Member Posts: 1,904Member Member
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    Phirrgus wrote: »
    @lemurcat2 I use the term 'junk food' quite a bit as most folks are familiar with what type of food it's referencing. Much easier than banging out "ultra-high processed hyperpalatable low nutrient foods" :D

    One of the things I've noticed about me is that in spite of getting more facts straight these days, those times I do indulge and am feeling bloated or lethargic my mind snaps back to the need to "eat clean" for a while. "Unlearned" thoughts/behaviors/programming dies a slow slow death sometimes.

    Lots of people here don't like the term junk food, but I like it fine, with the caveat that people don't 100% agree on what junk food is. My point, I think, was that a food can be ultraprocessed (since that was the topic of the study) and not junk food. For example, lots of convenience food made to appeal to the healthy eating crowd: an Evol frozen meal that's basically just brown rice, beef, and vegetables, or some seasoned baked tofu, a flavored greek yogurt (as brought up before) with fake sugar. Many such examples. And that's without getting into lots of low cal sauces and seasonings, like a premade Korean BBQ sauce (I just impulse bought one to try, in fact).

    I loathe the term "clean eating" (not picking on you) but I would likely be considered a "clean eater" by a lot of those who label themselves as such, in part just because I'm a food snob (an issue I had when getting fat too, sadly, so it's not that protective). As I've said many times in this thread, I find the results of the study unsurprising and I think for many people moving more toward cooking at home from whole foods and mindful of what's in your food can be very helpful (for me it goes along with eating only at mealtimes too). But there was a time when I was so hung up on eating completely "clean" (I would have said "natural" which is an equally stupid term), that I sabotaged myself by making cooking and eating stressful and beating myself up for things that were totally fine and ultimately resulting in what had been eating and fun (cooking most of my food) into something that felt stressful and unsustainable. Getting over that mindset and realizing I didn't have to be a purist and that I could buy a salad from a quick serve place like Protein Bar or Pret or wherever without it being somehow nutritionally inferior (probably higher sodium but eh, I don't have a reason to worry about sodium) just because it would fit the label of "ultraprocessed" was very helpful for me. Even something like a turkey sandwich at Potbelly's in a pinch (normal cals compared to my regular lunch, fewer veg) doesn't make me feel bad or bloated or anything (for me that's more about overeating or sometimes really high fat/sodium, as I tend to get it if I indulge in a big restaurant meal even if it's pretty wholesome in terms of ingredients, which is something I'm learning).

    That's why I like to focus on the specifics about foods rather than focusing on whether they technically fit the processed or ultraprocessed or unprocessed camps.
    I didn't take it as picking on me @lemurcat2 :) Slight misunderstanding maybe...I only use defining terms like that to simplify conversation, I don't apply them to myself.

    I thought (and think) this whole conversation and study is interesting, and maybe gives some new insights, but in the end, regardless of what I'm eating it still all comes back to how much I choose to eat - that's really how I approach every day. I just noted that it's interesting how some bits of the study line up with my personal experiences, that's all.
  • AnnPT77AnnPT77 Posts: 12,193Member Member Posts: 12,193Member Member
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    Phirrgus wrote: »
    @lemurcat2 I use the term 'junk food' quite a bit as most folks are familiar with what type of food it's referencing. Much easier than banging out "ultra-high processed hyperpalatable low nutrient foods" :D

    One of the things I've noticed about me is that in spite of getting more facts straight these days, those times I do indulge and am feeling bloated or lethargic my mind snaps back to the need to "eat clean" for a while. "Unlearned" thoughts/behaviors/programming dies a slow slow death sometimes.

    Lots of people here don't like the term junk food, but I like it fine, with the caveat that people don't 100% agree on what junk food is. My point, I think, was that a food can be ultraprocessed (since that was the topic of the study) and not junk food. For example, lots of convenience food made to appeal to the healthy eating crowd: an Evol frozen meal that's basically just brown rice, beef, and vegetables, or some seasoned baked tofu, a flavored greek yogurt (as brought up before) with fake sugar. Many such examples. And that's without getting into lots of low cal sauces and seasonings, like a premade Korean BBQ sauce (I just impulse bought one to try, in fact).
    I think the classic example of the bolded is protein powder. People sometimes react poorly if one refers to it as a "processed food", but I think it's about as ultraprocessed as foods get. (I don't think they get a pass on that definition by extracting and concentrating the believed-nutritious ingredients, rather than extracting and concentrating the believed-hyperpalatable ones.)

    But I don't consider it junk food at all. (That's if I fell in with what I think people mean by "junk food".)

    In general, I don't find all these vague categories at all helpful: Junk, clean, natural, whole, fast food (when it's used as a broad characterization of the food itself, rather than the convenience/cost side of things), even the processed and unprocessed terms we're discussing right now.

    Nutritionally, as the basis of my overall way of eating, I'm skeptical of foods that are extremely distant from the very general kind of eating that's been natural-selection-tested among human groups for centuries to millennia. Fortunately, that set of diverse food traditions includes many foods I enjoy and am happy to eat: Fruit and vegetables and grains and beans for sure, but also yogurt, tofu, commerical packaged convenience products with pretty much the same ingredients that I'd use if I made them myself, etc.

    I also don't worry, once a good nutritional foundation is laid, whether I eat minor amounts of really crazy modern (not time-tested) foods (I can't think of any examples right now that I do eat, maybe Taco Flavor Doritos?)
    I loathe the term "clean eating" (not picking on you) but I would likely be considered a "clean eater" by a lot of those who label themselves as such, in part just because I'm a food snob (an issue I had when getting fat too, sadly, so it's not that protective).
    <major snip of useful comments, for reply length>
    . . . I like to focus on the specifics about foods rather than focusing on whether they technically fit the processed or ultraprocessed or unprocessed camps.

    Yes. I've had people here (who, as MFP friends, could see my diary) call me a "clean eater" even (and I fuss mildly when that happens). (I guess they missed the occasional Taco Doritos?).

    To the bolded: Exactly. Getting this right, IMO, is all about balancing appropriate calories, reasonable nutrition, satiation, energy level, social connection via food, practicality, general all-round happiness, and probably other factors I'm forgetting. Rules around vague categories like "processed" or "clean" make it more complicated, for me, without helping at all with the core issues.

    But I still find the study useful and interesting, from that "brick in the wall of well-founded knowledge" standpoint I mentioned upthread.
  • lemurcat2lemurcat2 Posts: 3,368Member Member Posts: 3,368Member Member
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    But I still find the study useful and interesting, from that "brick in the wall of well-founded knowledge" standpoint I mentioned upthread.

    I totally agree (as well as with the rest of your past two posts). I'm not arguing against the study, just discussing what it might mean and then disputing some (IMO inaccurate) takes on it.
    Phirrgus wrote: »
    I didn't take it as picking on me @lemurcat2 :) Slight misunderstanding maybe...I only use defining terms like that to simplify conversation, I don't apply them to myself.

    I didn't think you did and got what you meant, but because I took the "clean" thing and ran with it I didn't want you to think I was mistakenly trying to "correct" you or something. I think you and I are largely on the same page here.
  • After41After41 Posts: 10Member Member Posts: 10Member Member
    I think there is a lot more to why they gained weight than just because it was processed food. Many people can eat processed foods all the time and stay the same weight. Humans are too complex to be put in a box.
  • psychod787psychod787 Posts: 2,450Member, Premium Member Posts: 2,450Member, Premium Member
    I only say "junk food" because I am just too kitten lazy to type hyperprocessed energy dense Hyperpalitable foods. Lol You can lose and maintain weight on ANY food.... it's what is maintainable and IMHO EASIER. The issue in have is that there are SOME studies that show after weight loss appetite ramps up. Kevin Hall showed roughly 100 cals for every kilogram lost. We are not sure I'd this is linear or If it plateaus. What's easier for the average American. 1000 calories of McDonalds or lean meats, veggies, potatoes, whole grains, friuts... ect? Just MY LAST 2 cents.. lol
  • psychod787psychod787 Posts: 2,450Member, Premium Member Posts: 2,450Member, Premium Member
    psychod787 wrote: »
    I only say "junk food" because I am just too kitten lazy to type hyperprocessed energy dense Hyperpalitable foods. Lol You can lose and maintain weight on ANY food.... it's what is maintainable and IMHO EASIER. The issue in have is that there are SOME studies that show after weight loss appetite ramps up. Kevin Hall showed roughly 100 cals for every kilogram lost. We are not sure I'd this is linear or If it plateaus. What's easier for the average American. 1000 calories of McDonalds or lean meats, veggies, potatoes, whole grains, friuts... ect? Just MY LAST 2 cents.. lol

    I lied.... we know on many controlled studies... when protein and fiber are equated... you lose, gain, or maintain on almost any diet. The problem with this is.... bump pa pum bum.... we live in a would where people have free access to food and a lab is not controlling calories....
  • magnusthenerdmagnusthenerd Posts: 808Member Member Posts: 808Member Member
    Another thing to keep in mind about processed foods is that they also contain ingredients that often interfere with the body's ability to regulate appetite. Some ingredients actually prevent your body from receiving the signal that it is full, so you are more likely to keep eating/feel hungry. While I believe that calorie counting is king, I do believe what you consume also has an affect on you. For example, I may only have 140 calories of cheese-its (and not go over my 1200 calories), but I tell you what, nothing seems to make my weight go up like cheese-its; much of it seems to be water weight (as it is easily lost when I stop eating cheese-its). From experiences like these, I do think what you eat matters, not just how much. The less processed food I eat, the leaner and better I feel (and the happier my scale is).

    Yeah, I too want to know the special orexigenic agent they used in processed foods.
  • AnnPT77AnnPT77 Posts: 12,193Member Member Posts: 12,193Member Member
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    But I still find the study useful and interesting, from that "brick in the wall of well-founded knowledge" standpoint I mentioned upthread.

    I totally agree (as well as with the rest of your past two posts). I'm not arguing against the study, just discussing what it might mean and then disputing some (IMO inaccurate) takes on it.
    <rest of post snipped for reply length>

    Sure. I didn't think you were arguing against the study. I added that part more for general readers (if there are any ;) ): Having just argued that I didn't find the processed/unprocessed categories very useful to me in a day-to-day practical sense, I wanted to underscore that that didn't mean I thought the study itself was pointless.
  • psychod787psychod787 Posts: 2,450Member, Premium Member Posts: 2,450Member, Premium Member
Sign In or Register to comment.