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
Replies
-
GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »I think causes for processed foods to cause weight gain can't be proven for some of the reasons stated above all ready.
Perhaps processed foods where a factor in my obesity but there is no medical way for me to say it was a fact.
What I can say and prove as a medical fact is since I cut out foods with added sugars and any form of any grains over 5 years ago which functionally removes any risk from eating processed foods I did loose 50 pounds the first year. Now over 5 years later I have not regained any of the 50 pounds without thought to the calories that I eat while are mostly from protein and fat food sources. My calories are still about the same but their sources are different than back in 2014 and the prior 40 years. Now at the age of 68 with improved health markers and with never having to go hungry works for me.
I do not know why it does not work for others but then we are all different perhaps.
If you don't think about the calories you eat, or bother tracking them, then how could you possibly know they are the same as they were in the past? One thing is absolutely certain, when you lost 50 pounds, you did so because you were in a caloric deficit, and not because you distributed the same amount of calories to a different food source.
Thankful you are incorrect about my case.. My health started improving in about six weeks then the weight decline started.
What am I incorrect about? Are you really trying to claim that you lost 50 pounds with no caloric deficit? Keto isn't magic Gale, you lost weight because your CI was less than CO. It really is that simple.
Agreed that keto is not magic, but what @GaleHawkins did was adopt a lifestyle that naturally led to a lower sustained calorie intake. Seen with people on many "fad" diets. While not the lifestyle I want to live, i like my fruit and oats, but I will applaud him for sticking to it in the long term.4 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »I think causes for processed foods to cause weight gain can't be proven for some of the reasons stated above all ready.
Perhaps processed foods where a factor in my obesity but there is no medical way for me to say it was a fact.
What I can say and prove as a medical fact is since I cut out foods with added sugars and any form of any grains over 5 years ago which functionally removes any risk from eating processed foods I did loose 50 pounds the first year. Now over 5 years later I have not regained any of the 50 pounds without thought to the calories that I eat while are mostly from protein and fat food sources. My calories are still about the same but their sources are different than back in 2014 and the prior 40 years. Now at the age of 68 with improved health markers and with never having to go hungry works for me.
I do not know why it does not work for others but then we are all different perhaps.
If you don't think about the calories you eat, or bother tracking them, then how could you possibly know they are the same as they were in the past? One thing is absolutely certain, when you lost 50 pounds, you did so because you were in a caloric deficit, and not because you distributed the same amount of calories to a different food source.
Thankful you are incorrect about my case.. My health started improving in about six weeks then the weight decline started.
What am I incorrect about? Are you really trying to claim that you lost 50 pounds with no caloric deficit? Keto isn't magic Gale, you lost weight because your CI was less than CO. It really is that simple.
I am not entirely sure Gale believes what he posts. What I am sure of is that trying to convince him that he is wrong is a waste of time.15 -
People change their minds when something isn't working. The vast majority of us don't question our activity and even less question when they are hitting their goals.
There's no harm in someone believing something that isn't true. The only issue is when they attempt to tell others of this false information and why we rely on objective information to prove/disprove hypothesis.
6 -
When a body is damaged as in chronic health conditions, a consequence of these conditions is inflammation caused by the by-products of life which should normally be eliminated, liver, kidneys etc but instead become stored/filed in cells for want of the normal method of elimination. If someone in this position removes the causes of these "inflammatory" deposits this results in the body being able to start, restart the elimination process reducing the inflammation and fluids etc being removed, whether or not there is an actual calorie deficit.
Most people on here are healthy, normal adults, its only those for whom life has given health challenges who seek out answers to their health problems. My hope is, this majority manage to maintain their healthy life and never become compromised to the point when conventional medicine fails them, prompting them to turn to the book, Unconventional Medicine.
Have a fun life everyone. Do what is right for you and no one else.1 -
When a body is damaged as in chronic health conditions, a consequence of these conditions is inflammation caused by the by-products of life which should normally be eliminated, liver, kidneys etc but instead become stored/filed in cells for want of the normal method of elimination. If someone in this position removes the causes of these "inflammatory" deposits this results in the body being able to start, restart the elimination process reducing the inflammation and fluids etc being removed, whether or not there is an actual calorie deficit.
Most people on here are healthy, normal adults, its only those for whom life has given health challenges who seek out answers to their health problems. My hope is, this majority manage to maintain their healthy life and never become compromised to the point when conventional medicine fails them, prompting them to turn to the book, Unconventional Medicine.
Have a fun life everyone. Do what is right for you and no one else.
Could you please post research links...?3 -
People change their minds when something isn't working. The vast majority of us don't question our activity and even less question when they are hitting their goals.
There's no harm in someone believing something that isn't true. The only issue is when they attempt to tell others of this false information and why we rely on objective information to prove/disprove hypothesis.
True but there is not much anyone can do about it. The internets are full of bogus weight loss theories. The best we can do is try to convince anyone who is willing to be convinced what the truth is. Once it is obvious a person will never believe every attempt to correct ends up just being an opportunity for them to reply with more of the same.
2 -
psychod787 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »I think causes for processed foods to cause weight gain can't be proven for some of the reasons stated above all ready.
Perhaps processed foods where a factor in my obesity but there is no medical way for me to say it was a fact.
What I can say and prove as a medical fact is since I cut out foods with added sugars and any form of any grains over 5 years ago which functionally removes any risk from eating processed foods I did loose 50 pounds the first year. Now over 5 years later I have not regained any of the 50 pounds without thought to the calories that I eat while are mostly from protein and fat food sources. My calories are still about the same but their sources are different than back in 2014 and the prior 40 years. Now at the age of 68 with improved health markers and with never having to go hungry works for me.
I do not know why it does not work for others but then we are all different perhaps.
If you don't think about the calories you eat, or bother tracking them, then how could you possibly know they are the same as they were in the past? One thing is absolutely certain, when you lost 50 pounds, you did so because you were in a caloric deficit, and not because you distributed the same amount of calories to a different food source.
Thankful you are incorrect about my case.. My health started improving in about six weeks then the weight decline started.
What am I incorrect about? Are you really trying to claim that you lost 50 pounds with no caloric deficit? Keto isn't magic Gale, you lost weight because your CI was less than CO. It really is that simple.
Agreed that keto is not magic, but what @GaleHawkins did was adopt a lifestyle that naturally led to a lower sustained calorie intake. Seen with people on many "fad" diets. While not the lifestyle I want to live, i like my fruit and oats, but I will applaud him for sticking to it in the long term.
I completely agree with the bolded, however Gale said he was eating the same amount of calories as before which is what I was responding to.8 -
People change their minds when something isn't working. The vast majority of us don't question our activity and even less question when they are hitting their goals.
There's no harm in someone believing something that isn't true. The only issue is when they attempt to tell others of this false information and why we rely on objective information to prove/disprove hypothesis.
True but there is not much anyone can do about it. The internets are full of bogus weight loss theories. The best we can do is try to convince anyone who is willing to be convinced what the truth is. Once it is obvious a person will never believe every attempt to correct ends up just being an opportunity for them to reply with more of the same.
I mean, this is a debate thread. We can call *kitten* when people make claims that are obviously false.7 -
People change their minds when something isn't working. The vast majority of us don't question our activity and even less question when they are hitting their goals.
There's no harm in someone believing something that isn't true. The only issue is when they attempt to tell others of this false information and why we rely on objective information to prove/disprove hypothesis.
True but there is not much anyone can do about it. The internets are full of bogus weight loss theories. The best we can do is try to convince anyone who is willing to be convinced what the truth is. Once it is obvious a person will never believe every attempt to correct ends up just being an opportunity for them to reply with more of the same.
Precisely. Attempts to silence only make things worse.
The only viable option is to be consistent in presenting objective information and using any and all attempts at persuasive debate.0 -
People change their minds when something isn't working. The vast majority of us don't question our activity and even less question when they are hitting their goals.
There's no harm in someone believing something that isn't true. The only issue is when they attempt to tell others of this false information and why we rely on objective information to prove/disprove hypothesis.
True but there is not much anyone can do about it. The internets are full of bogus weight loss theories. The best we can do is try to convince anyone who is willing to be convinced what the truth is. Once it is obvious a person will never believe every attempt to correct ends up just being an opportunity for them to reply with more of the same.
I mean, this is a debate thread. We can call *kitten* when people make claims that are obviously false.
I don't care. I was just trying to save you the headache I have seen many others get.
Depending on how much time I have to waste I will skim or skip posts made by untrustworthy sources of information.2 -
People change their minds when something isn't working. The vast majority of us don't question our activity and even less question when they are hitting their goals.
There's no harm in someone believing something that isn't true. The only issue is when they attempt to tell others of this false information and why we rely on objective information to prove/disprove hypothesis.
True but there is not much anyone can do about it. The internets are full of bogus weight loss theories. The best we can do is try to convince anyone who is willing to be convinced what the truth is. Once it is obvious a person will never believe every attempt to correct ends up just being an opportunity for them to reply with more of the same.
I mean, this is a debate thread. We can call *kitten* when people make claims that are obviously false.
I don't care. I was just trying to save you the headache I have seen many others get.
Depending on how much time I have to waste I will skim or skip posts made by untrustworthy sources of information.
Great point. That's what I do more and more.0 -
I don't think it's that simple.
The outside of a kernel of corn is not digestible. When you eat whole-kernel corn (on the cob or off the cob), you do partially masticate it. Your body digests what is inside, but not the exterior. If you dry the corn and grind it into meal or masa, that doesn't change what it's made of, you just aren't able to see it after your body is done with it because it's tiny (flour sized) pieces. You still don't digest it even if it's ground up.
As to whether the non-digestible parts of the kernel, or any other plant food, are included when the caloric content is calculated, I have no clue. But there shouldn't be a difference in digestibility if it's masa or on-the-cob. I know if it's REALLY FRESH, corn on the cob has fewer calories because you don't even need butter. Or even to cook it. Just husk it and eat it while standing next to the stalk
This post neglects to account for the process of nixtamalization, and what it does to the digestibility/nutrition of corn when compared to untreated corn.
2 -
grinning_chick wrote: »
I don't think it's that simple.
The outside of a kernel of corn is not digestible. When you eat whole-kernel corn (on the cob or off the cob), you do partially masticate it. Your body digests what is inside, but not the exterior. If you dry the corn and grind it into meal or masa, that doesn't change what it's made of, you just aren't able to see it after your body is done with it because it's tiny (flour sized) pieces. You still don't digest it even if it's ground up.
As to whether the non-digestible parts of the kernel, or any other plant food, are included when the caloric content is calculated, I have no clue. But there shouldn't be a difference in digestibility if it's masa or on-the-cob. I know if it's REALLY FRESH, corn on the cob has fewer calories because you don't even need butter. Or even to cook it. Just husk it and eat it while standing next to the stalk
This post neglects to account for the process of nixtamalization, and what it does to the digestibility/nutrition of corn when compared to untreated corn.
Mea culpa - I did neglect nixtamalization. Masa (nixtamalized and ground corn) is definitely processed. The digestibility is definitely increased, so maybe this process COULD lead to more weight gain. It also is a process that makes nutrients more available so actually healthier to eat. It actually makes corn into a complete protein if I recall correctly. That DEFINITELY could cause more weight gain because you can actually survive on the stuff while you can't on unprocessed corn.
That said, it still doesn't make it so your body digests the hull of the kernels. The process removes the kernels
0 -
For me it's the opposite. It's easier to diet when I eat whatever I want while staying under my calories. I tried that with healthy filling foods but ended up overeating on them because I was subconsciously trying to fill a mental void (that void being variety and flexibility). Now I make sure to get 1 gram of protein (from whatever) per pound of lbm and the rest of my calories come from wherever. I feel 110% better, mentally. Much easier dieting imo.0
-
grinning_chick wrote: »
I don't think it's that simple.
The outside of a kernel of corn is not digestible. When you eat whole-kernel corn (on the cob or off the cob), you do partially masticate it. Your body digests what is inside, but not the exterior. If you dry the corn and grind it into meal or masa, that doesn't change what it's made of, you just aren't able to see it after your body is done with it because it's tiny (flour sized) pieces. You still don't digest it even if it's ground up.
As to whether the non-digestible parts of the kernel, or any other plant food, are included when the caloric content is calculated, I have no clue. But there shouldn't be a difference in digestibility if it's masa or on-the-cob. I know if it's REALLY FRESH, corn on the cob has fewer calories because you don't even need butter. Or even to cook it. Just husk it and eat it while standing next to the stalk
This post neglects to account for the process of nixtamalization, and what it does to the digestibility/nutrition of corn when compared to untreated corn.
Mea culpa - I did neglect nixtamalization. Masa (nixtamalized and ground corn) is definitely processed. The digestibility is definitely increased, so maybe this process COULD lead to more weight gain. It also is a process that makes nutrients more available so actually healthier to eat. It actually makes corn into a complete protein if I recall correctly. That DEFINITELY could cause more weight gain because you can actually survive on the stuff while you can't on unprocessed corn.
That said, it still doesn't make it so your body digests the hull of the kernels. The process removes the kernels
I wasn't quite correct about masa being a complete protein, but I was on track. Nixtamalization DOES transform an amino acid, but it doesn't QUITE make nixtamalized corn a complete protein. If you combine it with beans; however, that IS a complete protein. Without nixtamalization, corn and beans is still not a complete protein, so in this case processing does create a healthier food alternative. Sorry about the misinformation. That's the problem with memory. They say it's the second thing to go.....0 -
Just my personal experience
when I was on WW and I wanted to blast though a plateau, I switched to just clean fresh food, instead of packaged-- for the same points/nutritional value.
Never fails that when I eat as snacks:
-->plain non or low fat yogurt, peanut butter, fruit, piece of whole cheese, nuts...
instead of -->"low fat/low point/low calorie" "snacks" like pre-packaged protein bars, WW bars, low fat "ice cream", etc, I always lose more/get off the plateau with the healthy real eating.
1 -
Just my personal experience
when I was on WW and I wanted to blast though a plateau, I switched to just clean fresh food, instead of packaged-- for the same points/nutritional value.
Never fails that when I eat as snacks:
-->plain non or low fat yogurt, peanut butter, fruit, piece of whole cheese, nuts...
instead of -->"low fat/low point/low calorie" "snacks" like pre-packaged protein bars, WW bars, low fat "ice cream", etc, I always lose more/get off the plateau with the healthy real eating.
Given that WW isn't a true calorie counting system, but a system that assigns "points" to food based on a variety of factors and includes "free foods," I'm not sure there is much relevant here to the point of processed foods causing more weight gain.
A relevant anecdotal experience would involve someone eating only "clean fresh food" for a long enough period of time while burning a certain amount of calories and then comparing the results to a period where they were eating a diet of the same amount of calories that included unclean and unfresh food (which in itself is going to be pretty subjective, but whatever) while burning the same amount of calories.
My understanding of WW is that you can be "on plan" but eat a very different number of calories depending on what foods you choose.4 -
Just my personal experience
when I was on WW and I wanted to blast though a plateau, I switched to just clean fresh food, instead of packaged-- for the same points/nutritional value.
Never fails that when I eat as snacks:
-->plain non or low fat yogurt, peanut butter, fruit, piece of whole cheese, nuts...
instead of -->"low fat/low point/low calorie" "snacks" like pre-packaged protein bars, WW bars, low fat "ice cream", etc, I always lose more/get off the plateau with the healthy real eating.
The concept of "blast through a plateau" tends to create conjecture. You believe that the scale failing to go down is a sign of zero progress but that is false. Fat weight is lost in fractions of a pound per day. Water weight can fluctuate wildly masking the progress. The amount of food volume and waste in your system also adds weight that can mask fat loss.
If you change the way you eat it can cause a change in water retention and/or waste amount causing the scale to go down. Getting caught in this loop of scale manipulation though is a bad sign that what you are doing is not truly sustainable if you must see the scale move to stay motivated. We have even seen people come through here doing some pretty dangerous/disordered things when this type of behavior went unchecked. I remember one woman who was intentionally dehydrating herself to get the scale to move or at least not go back up.
Here is an article to read:
https://physiqonomics.com/the-weird-and-highly-annoying-world-of-scale-weight-and-fluctuations/
It is NORMAL for the scale to hover for weeks at a time. If it goes on for more than a month then you may be looking at a real plateau and you may be eating more than you think.
Gaming the scale though can work against you if you are in a true plateau. You can force your water weight down and make yourself think you are making progress and you are not. This could cause an even longer delay in dealing with the amount of calories you are eating.
It is better to be patient and accept that weight loss happens in the body all the time but will not show up on the scale in a linear fashion. It will be a trend.6 -
There are MUCH processed foods throughout Asia. And their obesity population ISN'T the same percentage as America's. They just happen to eat less calories. That's it.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
6 -
diannethegeek wrote: »Just looking into the background of that first source: https://www.acsh.org/tags/environmental-working-group
Looking at the background of that background:
https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/global-warming/climate-deniers/front-groups/american-council-on-science-and-health-acsh/0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions