I can't do it! I can't live with hunger
Options
Replies
-
psychod787 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »Ohh wow... look at the woo's... would you like me to post the research to back up my statement? Or is it that westerners are kinda soft, hmmm. Tough luck... we are. Hunger has been my constant companion for 2 years. Not the oh... my stomach is growling I need to eat, but that pain in your gut that feels like someone is trying to cut it out. The current low level thud i have now is an upgrade. No where near the people who live and have survived famines though. Mine has been my own doing. I am harder now, but nowhere as hard as those folks. Oh and OP, my question is, what are those 15lbs worth to you? Are they "vanity" pounds? Or, are they "health" pounds? Because anything you do to lose them, you will have to maintain to keep them off.
The "Woo" reaction is going to be removed soon: https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10759987/woo-to-become-disagree/p1
You posted something interesting on another thread about people on controlled diets, increased protein, decreased hunger, and weight loss - maybe repost it here?
Okay, come do my best Ace Ventura impression. To backup my statement I'll say these things. First off, when one looks inside the studies of high protein diets, one sees a spontaneous reduction of calories in obese individuals by 600 to a thousand calories a day. That is when protein is around 30% of total calories. If one looks inside of bland liquid diet studies, there is a reduction in calories to near starvation level diets with no hunger. Inside Kevin Halls most recent study on processed vs. Unprocessed diet, people on an unprocessed diet, the lower reward value, ate an average of 400 calories a day less than people on a process diet. N equals 1 experience, as well. I also work in a highly controlled environment, where food and activity are controlled as close as one can get, outside of a research setting. I have seen men go from 400 lb to 240 lb with little hunger issues. The diet that get is actually very healthy. It's high in fruits vegetables beans lean meats with some added fats. It does not taste very good, so far less rewarding than what they had on the outside. Most of the people, have to get jobs that require activity. Is all this coincidence? Possibly. I think it lines up with many of the Rat and monkey studies I've seen as well.
I saw you post this on the other thread, and I agree with the overall thrust of the post.
But 2x repetition brings out the quibbler in me: On one of the debate threads about the Hall study, some felt the unprocessed diet was not "more palatable" but rather "more filling" - there were opinions on both sides. I'm one who would pick the study's "unprocessed" side to eat myself, hands down, for palatabilty/enjoyment alone if I had to pick one of the two as an unaltered whole.
I guess if people eat less that way, that "why" question is academic. But I kinda hate feeding the idea that highly processed food generally tastes better. To me (and I wasn't the only one), it doesn't, mostly.
Totally agree, as well as with the parts of your post I did not quote.
I enjoyed the discussion over that study, and thought there were lots of interesting ideas why the results were as they were, even among people who thought the results were unsurprising.
I think one reason may be that it's harder to consume cals as quickly on the less processed meals provided, which gives time for satisfaction to kick in and makes mindless eating more difficult.4 -
psychod787 wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »Ohh wow... look at the woo's... would you like me to post the research to back up my statement? Or is it that westerners are kinda soft, hmmm. Tough luck... we are. Hunger has been my constant companion for 2 years. Not the oh... my stomach is growling I need to eat, but that pain in your gut that feels like someone is trying to cut it out. The current low level thud i have now is an upgrade. No where near the people who live and have survived famines though. Mine has been my own doing. I am harder now, but nowhere as hard as those folks. Oh and OP, my question is, what are those 15lbs worth to you? Are they "vanity" pounds? Or, are they "health" pounds? Because anything you do to lose them, you will have to maintain to keep them off.
The "Woo" reaction is going to be removed soon: https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10759987/woo-to-become-disagree/p1
You posted something interesting on another thread about people on controlled diets, increased protein, decreased hunger, and weight loss - maybe repost it here?
Okay, come do my best Ace Ventura impression. To backup my statement I'll say these things. First off, when one looks inside the studies of high protein diets, one sees a spontaneous reduction of calories in obese individuals by 600 to a thousand calories a day. That is when protein is around 30% of total calories. If one looks inside of bland liquid diet studies, there is a reduction in calories to near starvation level diets with no hunger. Inside Kevin Halls most recent study on processed vs. Unprocessed diet, people on an unprocessed diet, the lower reward value, ate an average of 400 calories a day less than people on a process diet. N equals 1 experience, as well. I also work in a highly controlled environment, where food and activity are controlled as close as one can get, outside of a research setting. I have seen men go from 400 lb to 240 lb with little hunger issues. The diet that get is actually very healthy. It's high in fruits vegetables beans lean meats with some added fats. It does not taste very good, so far less rewarding than what they had on the outside. Most of the people, have to get jobs that require activity. Is all this coincidence? Possibly. I think it lines up with many of the Rat and monkey studies I've seen as well.
I saw you post this on the other thread, and I agree with the overall thrust of the post.
But 2x repetition brings out the quibbler in me: On one of the debate threads about the Hall study, some felt the unprocessed diet was not "more palatable" but rather "more filling" - there were opinions on both sides. I'm one who would pick the study's "unprocessed" side to eat myself, hands down, for palatabilty/enjoyment alone if I had to pick one of the two as an unaltered whole.
I guess if people eat less that way, that "why" question is academic. But I kinda hate feeding the idea that highly processed food generally tastes better. To me (and I wasn't the only one), it doesn't, mostly.
Humans are very norm-driven, suggestible. No question corporate food processors work hard to push our natural-selection-installed gustatory buttons. But they also work hard to convince us that all the very-processed foods taste better, and that all the happy pretty people like to eat them: Double barrelled! (Don't help them.)
I'd encourage anyone with satiation problems to eat enough protein, enough healthy fats, and plenty of varied/colorful veggies and fruits . . . the ones they personally find tasty. Giving up enjoyment may not be necessary.
As far as your prison population - or whatever it is - I get that the institution's impetus would not be to provide amazing flavor. It doesn't necessarily follow that amazing flavor is impossible (or even difficult) on a diet "high in fruits vegetables beans lean meats with some added fats".
Both palatability and lower-calorie satiation are possible explanations for the Hall study results. IIRC, they didn't demonstrate which was operating (and time to consume was another possibility brought up in the debate thread). If they didn't support one answer vs. another with research findings, don't assume one (and implicitly support the food processors' thesis that all the cool people think the highly-processed choice always tastes better).
:drinker:
Possible, but another hypothesis is protein leverage. While the diets in Kevin hall's study were roughly the same per gram, it actually took less food to reach that "magic" 15% protein that "seems" to be the norm in tribal diets.
Sure. I personally find protein satiating (despite vegetarian and all that), so I get that viscerally. I'm just saying "don't advocate beyond the clearly demonstrated conclusion", or at least admit you're doing it.
In particular, without the slightest hard proof, I'm encouraging that you not argue this specific point from the palatabilty standpoint, because it's (1) unproven, and (2) potentially unhelpful, because people accept the advertising without much personal testing.
Do you understand where I'm coming from? I like you, iconoclast/provocateur and all. But maybe question harder whether "hyperpalatable" foods really have the taste-power imputed to them? Can you understand what I'm saying, in terms of whether we encourage others to accept orthodoxies , or question them . . . at least at n=1?
I'm not saying I think there's a universal answer. That would be dumb. IMO.
On "hyperpalatable" foods, I think there's a good argument that it's not that they taste better than the homemade version (or other homemade foods), but that homemade foods take work and time and are not generally available all the time everywhere. So in a world where we mostly eat homemade foods, that means we aren't going to so easily mindless eat all the time (as some probably do now). Nor it as easy to eat extra food without thinking much about it.
When ultraprocessed foods are available, and while (IMO) not as tasty, but generally good enough these days to be an okay alternative, and also super cheap and marketed and available everywhere, that kind of mindless eating happens a lot, and if someone is feeling tired and lazy and emotionally drained from other things and not in the habit of cooking or not someone who enjoys cooking, it's easy to get some higher cal ultraprocessed or fast food or delivery option -- NOT because it's so delicious and irresistible, or tastier than what you would make, but because it's fast and easy.4 -
[psychod787 wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »Ohh wow... look at the woo's... would you like me to post the research to back up my statement? Or is it that westerners are kinda soft, hmmm. Tough luck... we are. Hunger has been my constant companion for 2 years. Not the oh... my stomach is growling I need to eat, but that pain in your gut that feels like someone is trying to cut it out. The current low level thud i have now is an upgrade. No where near the people who live and have survived famines though. Mine has been my own doing. I am harder now, but nowhere as hard as those folks. Oh and OP, my question is, what are those 15lbs worth to you? Are they "vanity" pounds? Or, are they "health" pounds? Because anything you do to lose them, you will have to maintain to keep them off.
The "Woo" reaction is going to be removed soon: https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10759987/woo-to-become-disagree/p1
You posted something interesting on another thread about people on controlled diets, increased protein, decreased hunger, and weight loss - maybe repost it here?
Okay, come do my best Ace Ventura impression. To backup my statement I'll say these things. First off, when one looks inside the studies of high protein diets, one sees a spontaneous reduction of calories in obese individuals by 600 to a thousand calories a day. That is when protein is around 30% of total calories. If one looks inside of bland liquid diet studies, there is a reduction in calories to near starvation level diets with no hunger. Inside Kevin Halls most recent study on processed vs. Unprocessed diet, people on an unprocessed diet, the lower reward value, ate an average of 400 calories a day less than people on a process diet. N equals 1 experience, as well. I also work in a highly controlled environment, where food and activity are controlled as close as one can get, outside of a research setting. I have seen men go from 400 lb to 240 lb with little hunger issues. The diet that get is actually very healthy. It's high in fruits vegetables beans lean meats with some added fats. It does not taste very good, so far less rewarding than what they had on the outside. Most of the people, have to get jobs that require activity. Is all this coincidence? Possibly. I think it lines up with many of the Rat and monkey studies I've seen as well.
I saw you post this on the other thread, and I agree with the overall thrust of the post.
But 2x repetition brings out the quibbler in me: On one of the debate threads about the Hall study, some felt the unprocessed diet was not "more palatable" but rather "more filling" - there were opinions on both sides. I'm one who would pick the study's "unprocessed" side to eat myself, hands down, for palatabilty/enjoyment alone if I had to pick one of the two as an unaltered whole.
I guess if people eat less that way, that "why" question is academic. But I kinda hate feeding the idea that highly processed food generally tastes better. To me (and I wasn't the only one), it doesn't, mostly.
Humans are very norm-driven, suggestible. No question corporate food processors work hard to push our natural-selection-installed gustatory buttons. But they also work hard to convince us that all the very-processed foods taste better, and that all the happy pretty people like to eat them: Double barrelled! (Don't help them.)
I'd encourage anyone with satiation problems to eat enough protein, enough healthy fats, and plenty of varied/colorful veggies and fruits . . . the ones they personally find tasty. Giving up enjoyment may not be necessary.
As far as your prison population - or whatever it is - I get that the institution's impetus would not be to provide amazing flavor. It doesn't necessarily follow that amazing flavor is impossible (or even difficult) on a diet "high in fruits vegetables beans lean meats with some added fats".
Both palatability and lower-calorie satiation are possible explanations for the Hall study results. IIRC, they didn't demonstrate which was operating (and time to consume was another possibility brought up in the debate thread). If they didn't support one answer vs. another with research findings, don't assume one (and implicitly support the food processors' thesis that all the cool people think the highly-processed choice always tastes better).
:drinker:
Possible, but another hypothesis is protein leverage. While the diets in Kevin hall's study were roughly the same per gram, it actually took less food to reach that "magic" 15% protein that "seems" to be the norm in tribal diets.
Sure. I personally find protein satiating (despite vegetarian and all that), so I get that viscerally. I'm just saying "don't advocate beyond the clearly demonstrated conclusion", or at least admit you're doing it.
In particular, without the slightest hard proof, I'm encouraging that you not argue this specific point from the palatabilty standpoint, because it's (1) unproven, and (2) potentially unhelpful, because people accept the advertising without much personal testing.
Do you understand where I'm coming from? I like you, iconoclast/provocateur and all. But maybe question harder whether "hyperpalatable" foods really have the taste-power imputed to them? Can you understand what I'm saying, in terms of whether we encourage others to accept orthodoxies , or question them . . . at least at n=1?
I'm not saying I think there's a universal answer. That would be dumb. IMO.
No Anne, no answers for anything, just hypothesis. Though as the saying goes, If it walks like a duck.... get my drift?😏
Sure. I personally find protein satiating (despite vegetarian and all that), so I get that viscerally. I'm just saying "don't advocate beyond the clearly demonstrated conclusion", or at least admit you're doing it.
In particular, without the slightest hard proof, I'm encouraging that you not argue this specific point from the palatabilty standpoint, because it's (1) unproven, and (2) potentially unhelpful, because people accept the advertising without much personal testing.
Do you understand where I'm coming from? I like you, iconoclast/provocateur and all. But maybe question harder whether "hyperpalatable" foods really have the taste-power imputed to them? Can you understand what I'm saying, in terms of whether we encourage others to accept orthodoxies , or question them . . . at least at n=1?
I'm not saying I think there's a universal answer. That would be dumb. IMO.[/quote]
No Anne, no answers for anything, just hypothesis. Though as the saying goes, If it walks like a duck.... get my drift?😏[/quote]
Yeahbut: You finding processed food tastier doesn't mean it's tastier. And my finding it less tasty doesn't mean it's less tasty. There aren't universals in that space. It doesn't even matter what the average is . . . but no one has even demonstrated averages yet. They're being assumed.
We see what people commonly eat. There are myriad possible reasons why they eat it. Optimal tastiness is an assumption.
I think we serve others best by encouraging them to make very open-minded n=1 trials about tastiness, because AFAIK science hasn't much touched that question.
Geese walk like ducks, more or less. They aren't ducks.6 -
[psychod787 wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »Ohh wow... look at the woo's... would you like me to post the research to back up my statement? Or is it that westerners are kinda soft, hmmm. Tough luck... we are. Hunger has been my constant companion for 2 years. Not the oh... my stomach is growling I need to eat, but that pain in your gut that feels like someone is trying to cut it out. The current low level thud i have now is an upgrade. No where near the people who live and have survived famines though. Mine has been my own doing. I am harder now, but nowhere as hard as those folks. Oh and OP, my question is, what are those 15lbs worth to you? Are they "vanity" pounds? Or, are they "health" pounds? Because anything you do to lose them, you will have to maintain to keep them off.
The "Woo" reaction is going to be removed soon: https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10759987/woo-to-become-disagree/p1
You posted something interesting on another thread about people on controlled diets, increased protein, decreased hunger, and weight loss - maybe repost it here?
Okay, come do my best Ace Ventura impression. To backup my statement I'll say these things. First off, when one looks inside the studies of high protein diets, one sees a spontaneous reduction of calories in obese individuals by 600 to a thousand calories a day. That is when protein is around 30% of total calories. If one looks inside of bland liquid diet studies, there is a reduction in calories to near starvation level diets with no hunger. Inside Kevin Halls most recent study on processed vs. Unprocessed diet, people on an unprocessed diet, the lower reward value, ate an average of 400 calories a day less than people on a process diet. N equals 1 experience, as well. I also work in a highly controlled environment, where food and activity are controlled as close as one can get, outside of a research setting. I have seen men go from 400 lb to 240 lb with little hunger issues. The diet that get is actually very healthy. It's high in fruits vegetables beans lean meats with some added fats. It does not taste very good, so far less rewarding than what they had on the outside. Most of the people, have to get jobs that require activity. Is all this coincidence? Possibly. I think it lines up with many of the Rat and monkey studies I've seen as well.
I saw you post this on the other thread, and I agree with the overall thrust of the post.
But 2x repetition brings out the quibbler in me: On one of the debate threads about the Hall study, some felt the unprocessed diet was not "more palatable" but rather "more filling" - there were opinions on both sides. I'm one who would pick the study's "unprocessed" side to eat myself, hands down, for palatabilty/enjoyment alone if I had to pick one of the two as an unaltered whole.
I guess if people eat less that way, that "why" question is academic. But I kinda hate feeding the idea that highly processed food generally tastes better. To me (and I wasn't the only one), it doesn't, mostly.
Humans are very norm-driven, suggestible. No question corporate food processors work hard to push our natural-selection-installed gustatory buttons. But they also work hard to convince us that all the very-processed foods taste better, and that all the happy pretty people like to eat them: Double barrelled! (Don't help them.)
I'd encourage anyone with satiation problems to eat enough protein, enough healthy fats, and plenty of varied/colorful veggies and fruits . . . the ones they personally find tasty. Giving up enjoyment may not be necessary.
As far as your prison population - or whatever it is - I get that the institution's impetus would not be to provide amazing flavor. It doesn't necessarily follow that amazing flavor is impossible (or even difficult) on a diet "high in fruits vegetables beans lean meats with some added fats".
Both palatability and lower-calorie satiation are possible explanations for the Hall study results. IIRC, they didn't demonstrate which was operating (and time to consume was another possibility brought up in the debate thread). If they didn't support one answer vs. another with research findings, don't assume one (and implicitly support the food processors' thesis that all the cool people think the highly-processed choice always tastes better).
:drinker:
Possible, but another hypothesis is protein leverage. While the diets in Kevin hall's study were roughly the same per gram, it actually took less food to reach that "magic" 15% protein that "seems" to be the norm in tribal diets.
Sure. I personally find protein satiating (despite vegetarian and all that), so I get that viscerally. I'm just saying "don't advocate beyond the clearly demonstrated conclusion", or at least admit you're doing it.
In particular, without the slightest hard proof, I'm encouraging that you not argue this specific point from the palatabilty standpoint, because it's (1) unproven, and (2) potentially unhelpful, because people accept the advertising without much personal testing.
Do you understand where I'm coming from? I like you, iconoclast/provocateur and all. But maybe question harder whether "hyperpalatable" foods really have the taste-power imputed to them? Can you understand what I'm saying, in terms of whether we encourage others to accept orthodoxies , or question them . . . at least at n=1?
I'm not saying I think there's a universal answer. That would be dumb. IMO.
No Anne, no answers for anything, just hypothesis. Though as the saying goes, If it walks like a duck.... get my drift?😏
Sure. I personally find protein satiating (despite vegetarian and all that), so I get that viscerally. I'm just saying "don't advocate beyond the clearly demonstrated conclusion", or at least admit you're doing it.
In particular, without the slightest hard proof, I'm encouraging that you not argue this specific point from the palatabilty standpoint, because it's (1) unproven, and (2) potentially unhelpful, because people accept the advertising without much personal testing.
Do you understand where I'm coming from? I like you, iconoclast/provocateur and all. But maybe question harder whether "hyperpalatable" foods really have the taste-power imputed to them? Can you understand what I'm saying, in terms of whether we encourage others to accept orthodoxies , or question them . . . at least at n=1?
I'm not saying I think there's a universal answer. That would be dumb. IMO.
No Anne, no answers for anything, just hypothesis. Though as the saying goes, If it walks like a duck.... get my drift?😏[/quote]
Yeahbut: You finding processed food tastier doesn't mean it's tastier. And my finding it less tasty doesn't mean it's less tasty. There aren't universals in that space. It doesn't even matter what the average is . . . but no one has even demonstrated averages yet. They're being assumed.
We see what people commonly eat. There are myriad possible reasons why they eat it. Optimal tastiness is an assumption.
I think we serve others best by encouraging them to make very open-minded n=1 trials about tastiness, because AFAIK science hasn't much touched that question.
Geese walk like ducks, more or less. They aren't ducks.[/quote]
Well Anne, unfortunately on a calorie counting website, you have to show evidence of your statements. Especially when they venture outside the "mainstream". As far as tastes, that's a very cultural thing. What we find tastier in the say, USA in my case, a French person may find horrid. Though, if we look inside of what goes into the individual cultures taste, we tend to find similar things. Caloric density, absence of bitter flavors, fat, and carbs. When OP is complaining of hunger, showing someone an alternative idea is all one can do. I am stating to be "open". Though when one is looking at the "elephant" so to speak, one must look at ot from all angles. Oh Anne... I question almost everything these days.. lol😁 you know i like you as well..5 -
psychod787 wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »Ohh wow... look at the woo's... would you like me to post the research to back up my statement? Or is it that westerners are kinda soft, hmmm. Tough luck... we are. Hunger has been my constant companion for 2 years. Not the oh... my stomach is growling I need to eat, but that pain in your gut that feels like someone is trying to cut it out. The current low level thud i have now is an upgrade. No where near the people who live and have survived famines though. Mine has been my own doing. I am harder now, but nowhere as hard as those folks. Oh and OP, my question is, what are those 15lbs worth to you? Are they "vanity" pounds? Or, are they "health" pounds? Because anything you do to lose them, you will have to maintain to keep them off.
The "Woo" reaction is going to be removed soon: https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10759987/woo-to-become-disagree/p1
You posted something interesting on another thread about people on controlled diets, increased protein, decreased hunger, and weight loss - maybe repost it here?
Okay, come do my best Ace Ventura impression. To backup my statement I'll say these things. First off, when one looks inside the studies of high protein diets, one sees a spontaneous reduction of calories in obese individuals by 600 to a thousand calories a day. That is when protein is around 30% of total calories. If one looks inside of bland liquid diet studies, there is a reduction in calories to near starvation level diets with no hunger. Inside Kevin Halls most recent study on processed vs. Unprocessed diet, people on an unprocessed diet, the lower reward value, ate an average of 400 calories a day less than people on a process diet. N equals 1 experience, as well. I also work in a highly controlled environment, where food and activity are controlled as close as one can get, outside of a research setting. I have seen men go from 400 lb to 240 lb with little hunger issues. The diet that get is actually very healthy. It's high in fruits vegetables beans lean meats with some added fats. It does not taste very good, so far less rewarding than what they had on the outside. Most of the people, have to get jobs that require activity. Is all this coincidence? Possibly. I think it lines up with many of the Rat and monkey studies I've seen as well.
I saw you post this on the other thread, and I agree with the overall thrust of the post.
But 2x repetition brings out the quibbler in me: On one of the debate threads about the Hall study, some felt the unprocessed diet was not "more palatable" but rather "more filling" - there were opinions on both sides. I'm one who would pick the study's "unprocessed" side to eat myself, hands down, for palatabilty/enjoyment alone if I had to pick one of the two as an unaltered whole.
I guess if people eat less that way, that "why" question is academic. But I kinda hate feeding the idea that highly processed food generally tastes better. To me (and I wasn't the only one), it doesn't, mostly.
Humans are very norm-driven, suggestible. No question corporate food processors work hard to push our natural-selection-installed gustatory buttons. But they also work hard to convince us that all the very-processed foods taste better, and that all the happy pretty people like to eat them: Double barrelled! (Don't help them.)
I'd encourage anyone with satiation problems to eat enough protein, enough healthy fats, and plenty of varied/colorful veggies and fruits . . . the ones they personally find tasty. Giving up enjoyment may not be necessary.
As far as your prison population - or whatever it is - I get that the institution's impetus would not be to provide amazing flavor. It doesn't necessarily follow that amazing flavor is impossible (or even difficult) on a diet "high in fruits vegetables beans lean meats with some added fats".
Both palatability and lower-calorie satiation are possible explanations for the Hall study results. IIRC, they didn't demonstrate which was operating (and time to consume was another possibility brought up in the debate thread). If they didn't support one answer vs. another with research findings, don't assume one (and implicitly support the food processors' thesis that all the cool people think the highly-processed choice always tastes better).
:drinker:
Possible, but another hypothesis is protein leverage. While the diets in Kevin hall's study were roughly the same per gram, it actually took less food to reach that "magic" 15% protein that "seems" to be the norm in tribal diets.
Sure. I personally find protein satiating (despite vegetarian and all that), so I get that viscerally. I'm just saying "don't advocate beyond the clearly demonstrated conclusion", or at least admit you're doing it.
In particular, without the slightest hard proof, I'm encouraging that you not argue this specific point from the palatabilty standpoint, because it's (1) unproven, and (2) potentially unhelpful, because people accept the advertising without much personal testing.
Do you understand where I'm coming from? I like you, iconoclast/provocateur and all. But maybe question harder whether "hyperpalatable" foods really have the taste-power imputed to them? Can you understand what I'm saying, in terms of whether we encourage others to accept orthodoxies , or question them . . . at least at n=1?
I'm not saying I think there's a universal answer. That would be dumb. IMO.
No Anne, no answers for anything, just hypothesis. Though as the saying goes, If it walks like a duck.... get my drift?😏
Yeahbut: You finding processed food tastier doesn't mean it's tastier. And my finding it less tasty doesn't mean it's less tasty. There aren't universals in that space. It doesn't even matter what the average is . . . but no one has even demonstrated averages yet. They're being assumed.
We see what people commonly eat. There are myriad possible reasons why they eat it. Optimal tastiness is an assumption.
I think we serve others best by encouraging them to make very open-minded n=1 trials about tastiness, because AFAIK science hasn't much touched that question.
Geese walk like ducks, more or less. They aren't ducks.
Well Anne, unfortunately on a calorie counting website, you have to show evidence of your statements. Especially when they venture outside the "mainstream". As far as tastes, that's a very cultural thing. What we find tastier in the say, USA in my case, a French person may find horrid. Though, if we look inside of what goes into the individual cultures taste, we tend to find similar things. Caloric density, absence of bitter flavors, fat, and carbs. When OP is complaining of hunger, showing someone an alternative idea is all one can do. I am stating to be "open". Though when one is looking at the "elephant" so to speak, one must look at ot from all angles. Oh Anne... I question almost everything these days.. lol😁 you know i like you as well..
Dear sir, I believe you made the first leap in your post about the Hall study, when you said (what I bolded) "Unprocessed diet, people on an unprocessed diet, the lower reward value, ate an average of 400 calories a day less than people on a process diet.", specifically in what I italicized in this most recent quoting.
Unless you're assigning a remarkably broad intepretation to reward value?
I believe the Hall study didn't find that participants found the unprocessed diet more palatable, more filling, or that it took longer to eat so feelings of satiation had more time to set in (among other theoretically possible interpretations). The study concluded that people ate more calories of the unprocessed food, ad libitum. It didn't decisively conclude a "why", as far as I can see (though protein leverage hypothesis was cited as an unconfirmed potential contributor):Participants did not report significant differences in the pleasantness (4.8±3.1; p=0.13)
or familiarity (2.7±4.6; p=0.57) of the meals between the ultra-processed and
unprocessed diets as measured using 100-point visual analogue scales (Figure 2D).
This suggests that the observed energy intake differences were not due to greater
palatability or familiarity of the ultra-processed diet. Furthermore, differences in the
energy intake-adjusted scores for hunger (-1.7±2.5; p=0.5), fullness (1.1±2.5; p=0.67),
satisfaction (1.9±2.4; p=0.42), and capacity to eat (-2.9±2.5; p=0.25) (Figures 2E) were
not significant between the diets suggesting that they did not differ in their subjective
appetitive properties.
That actually comes perilously close to suggesting that perhaps palatability and satiation were not the reasons, but it was a subjective assessment (not sure how one would get an objective one. . . fMRI?
).
Your prisoner (or whatever) point seems a little iffy on similar terms, because I suspect you don't know whether it's universally "far less rewarding than what they had on the outside" (though I'm sure many would say so). You're the expert in that realm. But it makes me think of the young man, someone I knew personally in college, who thought that the dorm cafeteria food was the best yummy goodness ever, because his mother had been a truly execrable cook.
And in free-living conditions, I think lemurcat12 has made a good point about convenience and availability.
Burden of proof on you, IMO: I think I made no particular claims. I disputed the generality of (what I perceived to be) your claim, using my n=1 as an individual counterexample.
And, once again, I think we agree on the core advice to OP: It would make sense to try some food choices with more protein. What she's eating now doesn't seem profoundly ultraprocessed to me, but there are alternatives to some of her current choices that might be less so, thus might be worth trying. I believe you also had a point about first-worlders benefitting from toughing out hunger more often . . . I'm neutral on that one, as a generality, though as a bit of a hedonist, I'd prefer not to participate in the experiment, given a choice.
As an aside, apologies for duplicating some content and messing up quote tags in one of my PP. I have the delusion that I've fixed that in the embedded quotes in this post.6 -
psychod787 wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »Ohh wow... look at the woo's... would you like me to post the research to back up my statement? Or is it that westerners are kinda soft, hmmm. Tough luck... we are. Hunger has been my constant companion for 2 years. Not the oh... my stomach is growling I need to eat, but that pain in your gut that feels like someone is trying to cut it out. The current low level thud i have now is an upgrade. No where near the people who live and have survived famines though. Mine has been my own doing. I am harder now, but nowhere as hard as those folks. Oh and OP, my question is, what are those 15lbs worth to you? Are they "vanity" pounds? Or, are they "health" pounds? Because anything you do to lose them, you will have to maintain to keep them off.
The "Woo" reaction is going to be removed soon: https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10759987/woo-to-become-disagree/p1
You posted something interesting on another thread about people on controlled diets, increased protein, decreased hunger, and weight loss - maybe repost it here?
Okay, come do my best Ace Ventura impression. To backup my statement I'll say these things. First off, when one looks inside the studies of high protein diets, one sees a spontaneous reduction of calories in obese individuals by 600 to a thousand calories a day. That is when protein is around 30% of total calories. If one looks inside of bland liquid diet studies, there is a reduction in calories to near starvation level diets with no hunger. Inside Kevin Halls most recent study on processed vs. Unprocessed diet, people on an unprocessed diet, the lower reward value, ate an average of 400 calories a day less than people on a process diet. N equals 1 experience, as well. I also work in a highly controlled environment, where food and activity are controlled as close as one can get, outside of a research setting. I have seen men go from 400 lb to 240 lb with little hunger issues. The diet that get is actually very healthy. It's high in fruits vegetables beans lean meats with some added fats. It does not taste very good, so far less rewarding than what they had on the outside. Most of the people, have to get jobs that require activity. Is all this coincidence? Possibly. I think it lines up with many of the Rat and monkey studies I've seen as well.
I saw you post this on the other thread, and I agree with the overall thrust of the post.
But 2x repetition brings out the quibbler in me: On one of the debate threads about the Hall study, some felt the unprocessed diet was not "more palatable" but rather "more filling" - there were opinions on both sides. I'm one who would pick the study's "unprocessed" side to eat myself, hands down, for palatabilty/enjoyment alone if I had to pick one of the two as an unaltered whole.
I guess if people eat less that way, that "why" question is academic. But I kinda hate feeding the idea that highly processed food generally tastes better. To me (and I wasn't the only one), it doesn't, mostly.
Humans are very norm-driven, suggestible. No question corporate food processors work hard to push our natural-selection-installed gustatory buttons. But they also work hard to convince us that all the very-processed foods taste better, and that all the happy pretty people like to eat them: Double barrelled! (Don't help them.)
I'd encourage anyone with satiation problems to eat enough protein, enough healthy fats, and plenty of varied/colorful veggies and fruits . . . the ones they personally find tasty. Giving up enjoyment may not be necessary.
As far as your prison population - or whatever it is - I get that the institution's impetus would not be to provide amazing flavor. It doesn't necessarily follow that amazing flavor is impossible (or even difficult) on a diet "high in fruits vegetables beans lean meats with some added fats".
Both palatability and lower-calorie satiation are possible explanations for the Hall study results. IIRC, they didn't demonstrate which was operating (and time to consume was another possibility brought up in the debate thread). If they didn't support one answer vs. another with research findings, don't assume one (and implicitly support the food processors' thesis that all the cool people think the highly-processed choice always tastes better).
:drinker:
Possible, but another hypothesis is protein leverage. While the diets in Kevin hall's study were roughly the same per gram, it actually took less food to reach that "magic" 15% protein that "seems" to be the norm in tribal diets.
Sure. I personally find protein satiating (despite vegetarian and all that), so I get that viscerally. I'm just saying "don't advocate beyond the clearly demonstrated conclusion", or at least admit you're doing it.
In particular, without the slightest hard proof, I'm encouraging that you not argue this specific point from the palatabilty standpoint, because it's (1) unproven, and (2) potentially unhelpful, because people accept the advertising without much personal testing.
Do you understand where I'm coming from? I like you, iconoclast/provocateur and all. But maybe question harder whether "hyperpalatable" foods really have the taste-power imputed to them? Can you understand what I'm saying, in terms of whether we encourage others to accept orthodoxies , or question them . . . at least at n=1?
I'm not saying I think there's a universal answer. That would be dumb. IMO.
No Anne, no answers for anything, just hypothesis. Though as the saying goes, If it walks like a duck.... get my drift?😏
Yeahbut: You finding processed food tastier doesn't mean it's tastier. And my finding it less tasty doesn't mean it's less tasty. There aren't universals in that space. It doesn't even matter what the average is . . . but no one has even demonstrated averages yet. They're being assumed.
We see what people commonly eat. There are myriad possible reasons why they eat it. Optimal tastiness is an assumption.
I think we serve others best by encouraging them to make very open-minded n=1 trials about tastiness, because AFAIK science hasn't much touched that question.
Geese walk like ducks, more or less. They aren't ducks.
Well Anne, unfortunately on a calorie counting website, you have to show evidence of your statements. Especially when they venture outside the "mainstream". As far as tastes, that's a very cultural thing. What we find tastier in the say, USA in my case, a French person may find horrid. Though, if we look inside of what goes into the individual cultures taste, we tend to find similar things. Caloric density, absence of bitter flavors, fat, and carbs. When OP is complaining of hunger, showing someone an alternative idea is all one can do. I am stating to be "open". Though when one is looking at the "elephant" so to speak, one must look at ot from all angles. Oh Anne... I question almost everything these days.. lol😁 you know i like you as well..
Dear sir, I believe you made the first leap in your post about the Hall study, when you said (what I bolded) "Unprocessed diet, people on an unprocessed diet, the lower reward value, ate an average of 400 calories a day less than people on a process diet.", specifically in what I italicized in this most recent quoting.
Unless you're assigning a remarkably broad intepretation to reward value?
I believe the Hall study didn't find that participants found the unprocessed diet more palatable, more filling, or that it took longer to eat so feelings of satiation had more time to set in (among other theoretically possible interpretations). The study concluded that people ate more calories of the unprocessed food, ad libitum. It didn't decisively conclude a "why", as far as I can see (though protein leverage hypothesis was cited as an unconfirmed potential contributor):Participants did not report significant differences in the pleasantness (4.8±3.1; p=0.13)
or familiarity (2.7±4.6; p=0.57) of the meals between the ultra-processed and
unprocessed diets as measured using 100-point visual analogue scales (Figure 2D).
This suggests that the observed energy intake differences were not due to greater
palatability or familiarity of the ultra-processed diet. Furthermore, differences in the
energy intake-adjusted scores for hunger (-1.7±2.5; p=0.5), fullness (1.1±2.5; p=0.67),
satisfaction (1.9±2.4; p=0.42), and capacity to eat (-2.9±2.5; p=0.25) (Figures 2E) were
not significant between the diets suggesting that they did not differ in their subjective
appetitive properties.
That actually comes perilously close to suggesting that perhaps palatability and satiation were not the reasons, but it was a subjective assessment (not sure how one would get an objective one. . . fMRI? ).
Your prisoner (or whatever) point seems a little iffy on similar terms, because I suspect you don't know whether it's universally "far less rewarding than what they had on the outside" (though I'm sure many would say so). You're the expert in that realm. But it makes me think of the young man, someone I knew personally in college, who thought that the dorm cafeteria food was the best yummy goodness ever, because his mother had been a truly execrable cook.
And in free-living conditions, I think lemurcat12 has made a good point about convenience and availability.
Burden of proof on you, IMO: I think I made no particular claims. I disputed the generality of (what I perceived to be) your claim, using my n=1 as an individual counterexample.
And, once again, I think we agree on the core advice to OP: It would make sense to try some food choices with more protein. What she's eating now doesn't seem profoundly ultraprocessed to me, but there are alternatives to some of her current choices that might be less so, thus might be worth trying. I believe you also had a point about first-worlders benefitting from toughing out hunger more often . . . I'm neutral on that one, as a generality, though as a bit of a hedonist, I'd prefer not to participate in the experiment, given a choice.
As an aside, apologies for duplicating some content and messing up quote tags in one of my PP. I have the delusion that I've fixed that in the embedded quotes in this post.
Point conceded. You MIGHT have a year or two on me in the experience department.😏 I'll catch ya soon... I promise. Catching up on those delts though. Rows work wonders.... lol4 -
Yikes, I really messed up one paragraph in what I wrote - lost all accuracy! - too late to edit, so quoted below with corrections (bolded are additions):I believe the Hall study didn't find that participants found the unprocessed diet more palatable, the unprocessed diet more filling, or that it took longer to eat the unprocessed diet so feelings of satiation had more time to set in (among other theoretically possible interpretations). The study concluded that people ate more calories of the unprocessed food, ad libitum. It didn't decisively conclude a "why", as far as I can see (though protein leverage hypothesis was cited as an unconfirmed potential contributor):
Apologies.4 -
psychod787 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »Ohh wow... look at the woo's... would you like me to post the research to back up my statement? Or is it that westerners are kinda soft, hmmm. Tough luck... we are. Hunger has been my constant companion for 2 years. Not the oh... my stomach is growling I need to eat, but that pain in your gut that feels like someone is trying to cut it out. The current low level thud i have now is an upgrade. No where near the people who live and have survived famines though. Mine has been my own doing. I am harder now, but nowhere as hard as those folks. Oh and OP, my question is, what are those 15lbs worth to you? Are they "vanity" pounds? Or, are they "health" pounds? Because anything you do to lose them, you will have to maintain to keep them off.
The "Woo" reaction is going to be removed soon: https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10759987/woo-to-become-disagree/p1
You posted something interesting on another thread about people on controlled diets, increased protein, decreased hunger, and weight loss - maybe repost it here?
Okay, come do my best Ace Ventura impression. To backup my statement I'll say these things. First off, when one looks inside the studies of high protein diets, one sees a spontaneous reduction of calories in obese individuals by 600 to a thousand calories a day. That is when protein is around 30% of total calories. If one looks inside of bland liquid diet studies, there is a reduction in calories to near starvation level diets with no hunger. Inside Kevin Halls most recent study on processed vs. Unprocessed diet, people on an unprocessed diet, the lower reward value, ate an average of 400 calories a day less than people on a process diet. N equals 1 experience, as well. I also work in a highly controlled environment, where food and activity are controlled as close as one can get, outside of a research setting. I have seen men go from 400 lb to 240 lb with little hunger issues. The diet that get is actually very healthy. It's high in fruits vegetables beans lean meats with some added fats. It does not taste very good, so far less rewarding than what they had on the outside. Most of the people, have to get jobs that require activity. Is all this coincidence? Possibly. I think it lines up with many of the Rat and monkey studies I've seen as well.
Thanks for reposting! I have lots of reactions to this post, but am distracted by "highly controlled environment", which sounds to me like a prison population, and I currently have two episodes left of the finale season of Orange is the New Black. While I of course don't take anything I see on a TV drama as gospel, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if some prisons do take the PolyCon cost-cutting approach to food quality, and I am glad to see the food is much better in your controlled environment, whatever it may be.
I've been musing on the concept of "low palatable" since not long after I learned about "hyper-palatable." Seems to me if there is one, the opposite is quite possible.
I think my lunch smoothie is a low palatable / low reward food. While I do like the taste of it, it is very hard for me to finish. Takes me hours. I keep putting it back in the frig and pulling it back out. It's 34% protein, 29% fat, and 37% carbs with 11 g of fiber. Only the protein powder is ultra processed.1 -
kshama2001 wrote: »I think my lunch smoothie is ... Only the protein powder is ultra processed.
To be a little bit of a contrarian, if 1/3 of your smoothie is a ultra processed ingredient, and after mixing it together, you are processing it into a smoothie...the whole smoothie is bordering on being a "highly processed" food item..
Just a perspective here, no judgement.
2 -
Well I hope all this advice has reached the OP and she has tried some of the great advice and found a way to keep going without feeling hungry all the time. Perhaps she will come back and update us at some point.
5 -
manderson27 wrote: »Well I hope all this advice has reached the OP and she has tried some of the great advice and found a way to keep going without feeling hungry all the time. Perhaps she will come back and update us at some point.
I've been reading every single response. Some have been kinder than others.
Thanks for asking.5 -
chris_in_cal wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »I think my lunch smoothie is ... Only the protein powder is ultra processed.
To be a little bit of a contrarian, if 1/3 of your smoothie is a ultra processed ingredient, and after mixing it together, you are processing it into a smoothie...the whole smoothie is bordering on being a "highly processed" food item..
Just a perspective here, no judgement.
I think you have a misunderstanding of the term "highly processed" when referring to food items. Simply taking a banana and blending it does not render it highly processed, it is the exact same banana with the same nutritional value, including all micronutrients, macronutrients and antioxidants. A highly processed food is one that is broken down, has micronutrients and macronutrients removed or altered, is chemically or manually degraded or has non-nutritive additives. "These foods go through multiple processes (extrusion, molding, milling, etc.), contain many added ingredients and are highly manipulated. Examples are soft drinks, chips, chocolate, candy, ice-cream, sweetened breakfast cereals, packaged soups, chicken nuggets, hotdogs, fries and more. "
So taking an egg, scrambling it and cooking it does not make it a highly processed food, it is just an altered form of a unprocessed or minimally processed food. Blending spinach, still spinach.3 -
I think you have a misunderstanding of the term "highly processed" when referring to food items
Perhaps, but as you wrote it is a spectrum.
At some point there is a difference. Pepsi-co/Lays argue there is not.
"Our GMO chips are canola oil, potatoes, and sea salt" Natural right?
I have spinach. great.
I blend spinach, okay.
I dehydrated it, right.
I add a single naturally occurring anti bacterial.
I grind it into powder.
and so on.
At some point the spinach has become processed food.
This spectrum is how Pepsi-Co argues for fruit juice.
Again, not judging. And I think we share a similar understanding of what highly processed foods are.
3 -
chris_in_cal wrote: »I think you have a misunderstanding of the term "highly processed" when referring to food items
Perhaps, but as you wrote it is a spectrum.
At some point there is a difference. Pepsi-co/Lays argue there is not.
"Our GMO chips are canola oil, potatoes, and sea salt" Natural right?
I have spinach. great.
I blend spinach, okay.
I dehydrated it, right.
I add a single naturally occurring anti bacterial.
I grind it into powder.
and so on.
At some point the spinach has become processed food.
This spectrum is how Pepsi-Co argues for fruit juice.
Again, not judging. And I think we share a similar understanding of what highly processed foods are.
Sir...... When you have the same experience level of @fernt21 .... I might listen to you, until then..... naaa4 -
chris_in_cal wrote: »I think you have a misunderstanding of the term "highly processed" when referring to food items
Perhaps, but as you wrote it is a spectrum.
At some point there is a difference. Pepsi-co/Lays argue there is not.
"Our GMO chips are canola oil, potatoes, and sea salt" Natural right?
I have spinach. great.
I blend spinach, okay.
I dehydrated it, right.
I add a single naturally occurring anti bacterial.
I grind it into powder.
and so on.
At some point the spinach has become processed food.
This spectrum is how Pepsi-Co argues for fruit juice.
Again, not judging. And I think we share a similar understanding of what highly processed foods are.
So here in lies the issue with labelling and terminology when it comes to food items. Most food we eat goes through some sort of "processing" i.e cutting up watermelon into chunks to eat is technically a process right. Some processing actually makes food MORE healthy... cooking tomatoes makes the lycopene bioavailbe to us, versus uncooked raw tomatoes, fermenting foods creates powerful probiotics, adding bacterial culture to milk makes whole natural yogurt, grounding flax seed allows us to digest and absorb the healthy fats versus sucking them down whole just to pass right through our digestive system. However, the term "highly processed" or "ultra-processed" refers specifically to the process of removing valuable nutrients or adding in non-nutritive/harmful ingredients.
In regards to the spinach... blending it does not effect its nutritive qualities, dehydrating it does not remove its nutritive qualitative, freezing it does not remove its nutritive qualities, grinding it into a powder does not remove its nutritive qualities. If I fried it in oil until it was crispy and added salt, then yes it would alter its nutritional potential and also might lead me to eat more than I would otherwise. In regards to the potato chips, the term "all natural" is very different than "highly processed", something can be "all natural" and still be highly processed.
Final note, just because something is unprocessed still doesn't make it a health power house... fresh cut butchers bacon, pork belly, honey, maple syrup, nuts and grains, really almost anything eating in excess isn't going to be great for our waist lines. But a big difference between highly processed and unprocessed foods is that many are severely devoid in micronutrient, antioxidant and probiotic components, which are essential to health and well being (although not for weight loss or gain).9 -
chris_in_cal wrote: »I think you have a misunderstanding of the term "highly processed" when referring to food items
Perhaps, but as you wrote it is a spectrum.
At some point there is a difference. Pepsi-co/Lays argue there is not.
"Our GMO chips are canola oil, potatoes, and sea salt" Natural right?
I have spinach. great.
I blend spinach, okay.
I dehydrated it, right.
I add a single naturally occurring anti bacterial.
I grind it into powder.
and so on.
At some point the spinach has become processed food.
This spectrum is how Pepsi-Co argues for fruit juice.
Again, not judging. And I think we share a similar understanding of what highly processed foods are.
So here in lies the issue with labelling and terminology when it comes to food items. Most food we eat goes through some sort of "processing" i.e cutting up watermelon into chunks to eat is technically a process right. Some processing actually makes food MORE healthy... cooking tomatoes makes the lycopene bioavailbe to us, versus uncooked raw tomatoes, fermenting foods creates powerful probiotics, adding bacterial culture to milk makes whole natural yogurt, grounding flax seed allows us to digest and absorb the healthy fats versus sucking them down whole just to pass right through our digestive system. However, the term "highly processed" or "ultra-processed" refers specifically to the process of removing valuable nutrients or adding in non-nutritive/harmful ingredients.
In regards to the spinach... blending it does not effect its nutritive qualities, dehydrating it does not remove its nutritive qualitative, freezing it does not remove its nutritive qualities, grinding it into a powder does not remove its nutritive qualities. If I fried it in oil until it was crispy and added salt, then yes it would alter its nutritional potential and also might lead me to eat more than I would otherwise. In regards to the potato chips, the term "all natural" is very different than "highly processed", something can be "all natural" and still be highly processed.
Final note, just because something is unprocessed still doesn't make it a health power house... fresh cut butchers bacon, pork belly, honey, maple syrup, nuts and grains, really almost anything eating in excess isn't going to be great for our waist lines. But a big difference between highly processed and unprocessed foods is that many are severely devoid in micronutrient, antioxidant and probiotic components, which are essential to health and well being (although not for weight loss or gain).
I don't really like the focus on terms like processed or ultraprocessed as I think they aren't all that helpful. Rather than arguing about whether or not something is really ultraprocessed it makes more sense to me to focus on the nutrition and other ingredients in that product.
For example, from the definition you gave:
"These foods go through multiple processes (extrusion, molding, milling, etc.), contain many added ingredients and are highly manipulated. Examples are soft drinks, chips, chocolate, candy, ice-cream, sweetened breakfast cereals, packaged soups, chicken nuggets, hotdogs, fries and more. "
It is simply not true that something like ice cream or chips or all packaged soups or sweetened breakfast cereals really fit this mold, and are therefore problematic (as the focus on "highly processed" and other language used to describe them suggest).
It's pretty simple to make ice cream at home using minimally processed ingredients. One can make it without sugar (I have) or with fake sugar (I haven't, but it's common for people who do keto), but even if one includes sugar it's not the "processing" that makes it high cal, but the fact it has sugar and cream. (The non sweet ice cream I made wasn't actually lower cal than ice cream I've made with sugar.)
Even packaged chips are very often just potatoes, salt, and oil, as noted above. I go to a restaurant that has house made chips, and similarly one can make chips at home. Does the frying make them "ultraprocessed" or does it make more sense instead to just note that added oil and frying in the amounts involved here are going to turn a not that high cal food that's often very sating into one that is high cal and many might have difficulty not overeating.
Canned soups usually do have added ingredients some might want to avoid (high sodium), but there's a huge range of packaged soups available. I think focusing on the nutrition and cals and ingredients in the specific soup is more informative.
Sweetened cereals have never been my thing, but you could certainly have a "sweetened cereal" that was just steel cut oats cooked at home to which you added some milk, a bit of sugar, and strawberries. Does the fact you added a little sugar = ultraprocessed? If not, the definition quoted seems to be overgeneralizing.
Also, are the additions to ultraprocessed foods always bad for you or non-nutritive? I think protein powder is unquestionably highly processed, but it can add nutrition without much or anything else. Same with foods that are fortified.
You say that MANY highly processed foods are low nutrient, and seem to concede that the same is true for many minimally processed foods too -- cheese, for example, or a homemade dessert using honey instead of sugar, etc. I would just note that again it makes more sense to look at the specific food, since there certainly are highly processed foods that are not low nutrient -- health-focused pre-made meals, for example. Not my thing, but the nutrition and cals and so on can be perfectly fine.
I guess we could say that it's only the "bad" additions that = ultraprocessing, but then the definition stops being coherent, since it's not actually about the amount of processing.
I tend to prefer to base my diet MOSTLY (not entirely) on less processed foods, since I tend to think the positive qualities of various foods are not all due to the particular things in them that we've isolated and studied, and I do tend to find foods more filling when more whole (whole grain vs refined), although that's not an absolute rule. But I just don't see the various nuances of how processed something is all that helpful. I think it makes sense to just look at the properties of individual foods and how they effect us.
Back to the smoothie -- I'm also a smoothie fan, make ones with fat, protein, and more veg than fruit (I don't currently use protein powder but might use something like tofu, which is also processed). I also find mine filling for the cals (about 400 cals, large volume). But it's absolutely true that many people make smoothies (no more processed, often less, say based mainly on fruit) that are not filling for them for the calories. Some say it's the macros, many just don't find drinking food filling (so that would be the amount of processing for them). I think the key is figuring out how something works for you.6 -
chris_in_cal wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »I think my lunch smoothie is ... Only the protein powder is ultra processed.
To be a little bit of a contrarian, if 1/3 of your smoothie is a ultra processed ingredient, and after mixing it together, you are processing it into a smoothie...the whole smoothie is bordering on being a "highly processed" food item..
Just a perspective here, no judgement.
I think you have a misunderstanding of the term "highly processed" when referring to food items. Simply taking a banana and blending it does not render it highly processed, it is the exact same banana with the same nutritional value, including all micronutrients, macronutrients and antioxidants. A highly processed food is one that is broken down, has micronutrients and macronutrients removed or altered, is chemically or manually degraded or has non-nutritive additives. "These foods go through multiple processes (extrusion, molding, milling, etc.), contain many added ingredients and are highly manipulated. Examples are soft drinks, chips, chocolate, candy, ice-cream, sweetened breakfast cereals, packaged soups, chicken nuggets, hotdogs, fries and more. "
Protein powder is made by breaking down foods (milk, eggs, pea, hemp, etc.) and isolating and extracting the protein, removing or altering some or all of the fat and carbs, and sometimes adding non-nutritive additives. It's a lot farther from whole foods than most of the examples in your quote, barring maybe soft drinks.So taking an egg, scrambling it and cooking it does not make it a highly processed food, it is just an altered form of a unprocessed or minimally processed food. Blending spinach, still spinach.
So taking highly processed protein powder and blending it with fruit and milk or yogurt or whatever does not it make it an unprocessed or lightly processed food, it is just an altered form of a highly processed food. Blending protein powder, still protein powder.
ETA missing "not".2 -
What's funny is a lot of us aware healthy people here on MFP looked at the recent Hall study on highly processed foods, where they had pictures of a plate of highly processed food and did a bit if a double take as at first glance it appeared to be a mainstream 'healthy' meal.
We assumed, Cheetos and Big Gulps.2 -
chris_in_cal wrote: »What's funny is a lot of us aware healthy people here on MFP looked at the recent Hall study on highly processed foods, where they had pictures of a plate of highly processed food and did a bit if a double take as at first glance it appeared to be a mainstream 'healthy' meal.
We assumed, Cheetos and Big Gulps.
I don't think that take is consistent with the discussion of the study that occurred here.
Many of us suggested that they made choices that were rather obviously non filling or likely to be overeaten.2 -
chris_in_cal wrote: »What's funny is a lot of us aware healthy people here on MFP looked at the recent Hall study on highly processed foods, where they had pictures of a plate of highly processed food and did a bit if a double take as at first glance it appeared to be a mainstream 'healthy' meal.
We assumed, Cheetos and Big Gulps.
Bro, I read almost every new study that comes out. ESPECIALLY Kevin Halls studies. I am WELL versed on food reward theory, protein leverage... ect.... In fact, I am a living experiment right now. To quote a man greater than I, "as long as 80-90% of your food is lower energy dense/ low processed, I think you will find a happy weight were maintenance will be far easier." James Kreiger
*Technically, the spinach you buy, it is processed... low processing...4
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 389 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
- 918 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions