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

12467

Replies

  • lemurcat2
    lemurcat2 Posts: 7,885 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.
  • Mov3mor3
    Mov3mor3 Posts: 96 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.
  • psychod787
    psychod787 Posts: 4,099 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
  • psychod787
    psychod787 Posts: 4,099 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....
  • magnusthenerd
    magnusthenerd Posts: 1,207 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.
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 34,175 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.
  • psychod787
    psychod787 Posts: 4,099 Member
    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&ampcf=1
  • psychod787
    psychod787 Posts: 4,099 Member
    kimny72 wrote: »
    psychod787 wrote: »

    But was the important variable that changed "types of foods" or "ease of access to extra food"? If after capture he had instead been fed a controlled diet of yummy processed macaque kibble, would he have still lost weight and improved health? If the people-food his minions were handing him all day were less processed: raw nuts and seeds, avocado wedges, super-sweet grapes, roasted potatoes covered in extra-virgin olive oil... would he still have gotten fat? :wink:

    Who knows? If you have a monkey, we can do this experiment! Lol 🤣
  • psychod787
    psychod787 Posts: 4,099 Member
    Wanted to one of the rodent studies I found.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19401758
  • SeattleBebop1
    SeattleBebop1 Posts: 26 Member
    Someone mentioned the NOVA food classifications. I was curious, and found this:

    https://archive.wphna.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/WN-2016-7-1-3-28-38-Monteiro-Cannon-Levy-et-al-NOVA.pdf
  • kshama2001
    kshama2001 Posts: 28,052 Member
    sardelsa wrote: »
    What strikes me right away when I compare the two groups is the amount of food given in the whole meals group. The time it would take, the amount of chewing involved with those food items. I am exhausted just looking at it especially that dinner and would definitely give up before I would come close to the calorie amount of the processed group. If it were me I'd probably eat a bit more if given the processed but burn a bit more since I had more time to move vs time spent eating

    My home made Thai beef salad (which I love) includes kale and chewy skirt steak. It takes me a LONG time to eat 400 calories worth of it.
  • ceiswyn
    ceiswyn Posts: 2,256 Member
    I’m sure absolutely no weedkillers are used with any other crop. OH NO WAIT.