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
Options
Replies
-
@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"
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.
2 -
@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"
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.8 -
rheddmobile wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »The article is deceptive in my opinion, especially in regards to the quote shown in the OP.
The study provided NOTHING but "ultra-processed" foods to one group and NOTHING but fresher, more whole foods to the other.
The article mentions that each group was given an equal amount of protein, fat and carbs but then later concedes that the ultra-processed group ate more fat and carbs than the other.
What actually happened was they put the same amount of each macro on the table for each group but didn't control how much of each macro either group consumed.
The ultra-processed group ate less protein and more fat/carbs which is easy to comprehend, considering the amount of protein in hot dogs and pb&j sandwiches is far less than in whole meats.
All this shows is that "ultra-processed" foods tend to be:
1) highly palatable
2) calorie dense
3) lower in protein than more whole foods
4) less satiating than more whole foods
This typically leads to overeating in those whose diet consists mainly (or entirely as in the case of this study) of "ultra-processed" foods.
Thus, the claim that processed foods cause weight gain remains false. The link between processed foods and weight gain remains correlative as the actual cause of weight gain is overeating.
I think a better study would have included these two groups, a third that was offered a mix of whole and processed foods, then two more that are fed similarly to the first two groups, but with actual consumption of calories controlled.
Exactly. I could put the same amount of calories in Oreo's and milk on one table, and rice on another table, and I would imagine that most people would eat more calories worth of Oreo's because they are more calorie dense, and less satiating. It would be far easier to over indulge on a hyper palatable, calorie dense food. That doesn't mean that processed foods are the reason for the obesity epidemic. This is why most people who give good advice on this site tend to advocate for a varied diet consisting of whole foods and the occasional treat. Everything in moderation. The problem is, a lot of processed foods are quick and easy, and it can be very easy to move less and eat more especially when people are busy and don't have a lot of extra free time.
Actually it does mean that processed foods are the reason for the obesity epidemic, in that the ready availability of processed, hyper-palatable foods changes the way a large number of people choose to eat. When a behavior is epidemic, what that means is that many people have all decided to behave in a new way at the same exact time for some reason. The amount of willpower in America hasn’t sharply declined since the 50’s. The amount of people who believe in the common-sense phrase “everything in moderation” hasn’t gone down. Human nature hasn’t changed. What has changed is the environment, which makes it more likely that the same exact kind of people will trend towards different choices.
It doesn’t matter, when looking at an epidemic, that a few individuals buck the trend by making the harder choice to seek out and cook whole foods. Because epidemics of behavior aren’t measured on an individual level, they are measured at a population level.
Oh, so it is all the foods fault, and individuals bear no responsibility whatsoever in their obesity? Thats good to know. I had no idea that there was no such thing as processed foods in the past and they suddenly appeared and made people fat. You say the amount of willpower in America hasn't sharply declined since the 50's, and that may be true, but I believe that advances in technology has led to a society where the average human moves less and eats more. People have more sedentary jobs now than they did in the past. Almost everything is automated now and doesn't require manual labor. Want to play baseball? Great, turn on your PS4 instead of meeting your friends at the sandlot. Blaming foods is such a cop out and its just another way to avoid taking responsibility for our choices.22 -
@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"
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 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.
1 -
@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"
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).
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.4 -
rheddmobile wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »The article is deceptive in my opinion, especially in regards to the quote shown in the OP.
The study provided NOTHING but "ultra-processed" foods to one group and NOTHING but fresher, more whole foods to the other.
The article mentions that each group was given an equal amount of protein, fat and carbs but then later concedes that the ultra-processed group ate more fat and carbs than the other.
What actually happened was they put the same amount of each macro on the table for each group but didn't control how much of each macro either group consumed.
The ultra-processed group ate less protein and more fat/carbs which is easy to comprehend, considering the amount of protein in hot dogs and pb&j sandwiches is far less than in whole meats.
All this shows is that "ultra-processed" foods tend to be:
1) highly palatable
2) calorie dense
3) lower in protein than more whole foods
4) less satiating than more whole foods
This typically leads to overeating in those whose diet consists mainly (or entirely as in the case of this study) of "ultra-processed" foods.
Thus, the claim that processed foods cause weight gain remains false. The link between processed foods and weight gain remains correlative as the actual cause of weight gain is overeating.
I think a better study would have included these two groups, a third that was offered a mix of whole and processed foods, then two more that are fed similarly to the first two groups, but with actual consumption of calories controlled.
Exactly. I could put the same amount of calories in Oreo's and milk on one table, and rice on another table, and I would imagine that most people would eat more calories worth of Oreo's because they are more calorie dense, and less satiating. It would be far easier to over indulge on a hyper palatable, calorie dense food. That doesn't mean that processed foods are the reason for the obesity epidemic. This is why most people who give good advice on this site tend to advocate for a varied diet consisting of whole foods and the occasional treat. Everything in moderation. The problem is, a lot of processed foods are quick and easy, and it can be very easy to move less and eat more especially when people are busy and don't have a lot of extra free time.
Actually it does mean that processed foods are the reason for the obesity epidemic, in that the ready availability of processed, hyper-palatable foods changes the way a large number of people choose to eat. When a behavior is epidemic, what that means is that many people have all decided to behave in a new way at the same exact time for some reason. The amount of willpower in America hasn’t sharply declined since the 50’s. The amount of people who believe in the common-sense phrase “everything in moderation” hasn’t gone down. Human nature hasn’t changed. What has changed is the environment, which makes it more likely that the same exact kind of people will trend towards different choices.
It doesn’t matter, when looking at an epidemic, that a few individuals buck the trend by making the harder choice to seek out and cook whole foods. Because epidemics of behavior aren’t measured on an individual level, they are measured at a population level.
Oh, so it is all the foods fault, and individuals bear no responsibility whatsoever in their obesity? Thats good to know. I had no idea that there was no such thing as processed foods in the past and they suddenly appeared and made people fat. You say the amount of willpower in America hasn't sharply declined since the 50's, and that may be true, but I believe that advances in technology has led to a society where the average human moves less and eats more. People have more sedentary jobs now than they did in the past. Almost everything is automated now and doesn't require manual labor. Want to play baseball? Great, turn on your PS4 instead of meeting your friends at the sandlot. Blaming foods is such a cop out and its just another way to avoid taking responsibility for our choices.
Indeed. The contrast within my lifetime is dramatic in the ways you mention (I'm 63, born 1955). Roomba, riding lawn mowers (or lawn services) as the common option, so many conveniences (technology or paid services) that obviate chores nearly everyone used to do, in ways big and little. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with this, but it's simple fact that the differences are diverse and (in sum) dramatic.
Also, the change in ready availability of ready-to-eat food choices 24/7, nearly everywhere, affects the activity factor, not just the intake. It used to spend up a few calories to make a snack, and probably 50 or so to make a meal. Now there's the drive-through. Everywhere. Everywhen. With cupholders and consoles in your car designed to facilitate convenient immediate consumption.
Natural selection will have wired us, I suspect, toward conserving energy (moving less) when possible, and toward storing energy (over-eating) when possible. Add in, in many first-world culture contexts, a perception that doing less for oneself is a bit of a status symbol; and that eating/drinking is now socially acceptable in a huge range of contexts where even 50 years ago it would've been seen as a little odd. We're fine-tuning all those factors to an extreme in the fortunate first-world contexts, and (in a cross-population average sort of sense), an obesity crisis is kind of an obvious outcome. (Without claiming either reduced willpower, or any strange magical power of ultraprocessed food. Food is ubiquitous, and that ultraprocessed kind tends to be extra-pleasurable (to many) and not very filling: That's it.)
I think, overall, I'm coming down somewhere between the two of you. I agree with Rhedd about the ubiquity of easy food choices that aren't satiating as being a factor in the population-wide picture, and with wmd about it having more factors than just the food itself, and in feeling that people individually ought to have some common sense, insight, and responsibility for their own choices. (Not that I did, myself, for decades! Though I guess I didn't blame the food . . . .).
ETA: If you parse out the stats from the obesity epidemic, we only need a fairly moderate calorie swing, low hundreds daily IIRC, to account for it. A little lower CO, a little higher CI, gets you there pretty easily. To explain a few hundred daily, it doesn't take a giant conspiracy or change in human nature.8 -
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).20
-
AmandaOmega wrote: »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).
I'm curious what ingredients those are? I haven't heard of this before.7 -
AmandaOmega wrote: »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).
What ingredients are you talking about?
Cheez-its aren't satisfying because they have no fiber, low protein, just straight up carbs with a bit of fat. And they make you gain water weight because they're salty - that hasn't nothing to do with gaining fat or hunger signals.
I tend to eat a decent amount of convenience foods, but I choose many of them carefully to make sure I'm hitting my fiber and protein goals. They fill me up the same way whole foods with similar macros would fill me up. It's the food that has processed out all the satiating components and has dramatic taste profiles (salt, sugar, spice) that fails us appetite wise. It's more what ultra=processed foods are missing, not what they contain. That's why some people don't find protein shakes filling - they have a lot of protein, but no fiber and not enough digestion required to keep them full.13 -
AmandaOmega wrote: »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).
I know the ingredients in Cheez-its that make you more likely to feel hungry: 1. fat (makes the volume smaller - think fried vs baked potatoes) 2. dehydration (makes the weight of the food smaller - think raisins vs grapes). These ingredients can easily be found in minimally processed food. The ingredient that makes you retain water weight: salt.
It's fine to have foods you don't want to eat, but I'm hoping you're making an informed choice based on what foods make dieting harder for you, not by a generalized definition that may include foods you like but don't allow yourself to have just because they fall into a certain category. (regardless of water weight gain, because that has nothing to do with fat loss)6 -
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.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.1 -
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.2
-
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.. lol1
-
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....1 -
AmandaOmega wrote: »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.2 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »AmandaOmega wrote: »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.
It's called Love, you guys. Love.9 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »AmandaOmega wrote: »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.
It's called Love, you guys. Love.
So that's why I lost weight when Karen left and took the kids...12 -
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.3 -
While anecdotal... interesting article about what a hyperprocessed diet does to other animals... then a switch back to a so call "healthy" diet..
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.inverse.com/amp/article/51379-uncle-fat-macaque-monkey-thailand&ved=2ahUKEwiP9K7vl6_iAhWhq1kKHWDoCE0QFjAAegQIBRAB&usg=AOvVaw34THxY1sjnkn_Cigm07wFx&cf=11 -
psychod787 wrote: »While anecdotal... interesting article about what a hyperprocessed diet does to other animals... then a switch back to a so call "healthy" diet..
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.inverse.com/amp/article/51379-uncle-fat-macaque-monkey-thailand&ved=2ahUKEwiP9K7vl6_iAhWhq1kKHWDoCE0QFjAAegQIBRAB&usg=AOvVaw34THxY1sjnkn_Cigm07wFx&cf=1
No more fruit smoothies for him.
More anecdotal incoming, aside from being almost as hairy as he is, I gained my extra weight on all good food. It perplexed the heck out of me as I couldn't understand how I could eat "healthy" yet still gain weight...7
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 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
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 913 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions