no sugar or flour, food addiction?

AnnPT77 wrote: »

neanderthin wrote: »

BartBVanBockstaele wrote: »

cwolfman13 wrote: »

I don't see anything particularly wrong with the old food pyramid or MyPlate. People would be better off if they actually followed those guidelines...they emphasize whole foods, veg, fruit, whole grains, and lean proteins. Problem is nobody ever followed those guidelines. Nowhere in the guidelines does it say eat a ton of junk or sugar.

Indeed. The number one reason that evidence-based guidelines don't have the hoped-for results is that people do not follow them.

The American people have been following the guidelines and not sure why everyone is saying they're not. Everything they wanted people to consume more of, they are, and what they wanted people to eat less of, they did.

I guess what we can conclude, is since the early 80's when they first introduced the food pyramid is, it hasn't really helped mitigate the upward trend of declining health.

Um, wot?

In 2019, 12.3% and 10.0% of surveyed adults met fruit and vegetable intake recommendations, respectively.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7101a1.htm

In 2015–16, 26 percent of Americans age 16 and older reported that they had heard of MyPlate. This is a 6-percentage point increase from 2013–14, when 20 percent reported being aware of MyPlate. Among those who had heard of MyPlate in 2015–16, more than one-third of them (35 percent) indicated that they had tried to follow its recommendations—the same share as in 2013–14.

https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/chart-gallery/gallery/chart-detail/?chartId=92429

The quote tries to put a positive spin on it, but the data says "low awareness, low attempts" . . . and I'd bet long term successful attempts all the way to full compliance are even lower.

You said "everything they wanted people to consume more of, they are, and what they wanted people to eat less of, they did."

It's possible that people trend in the recommended directions via popular press coverage or something, but they don't seem to be actually fully following the guidance. Let's not conflate minor trending with compliance.

Let alone the fact that the My Plate guidelines put a heavy emphasis on appropriate calories, which average people clearly aren't following, based on body weight statistics alone.

Ditto on the exercise recommendations.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db443.htm

I didn't say they were eating and meeting what an appropriate diet should look like, I said they were eating more of what was asked of them.






https://ers.usda.gov/data-products/ag-and-food-statistics-charting-the-essentials/food-availability-and-consumption/

mtaratoot wrote: »

BartBVanBockstaele wrote: »

refactored wrote: »

And yet the consumption of ultra processed foods has increased which is not shown in the graph. I know this is a press release but it may be easier to read for those of us who struggle to read scientific papers. You can find the original study in a link in the release. https://www.nyu.edu/about/news-publications/news/2021/october/ultra-processed-foods.html

We should always be suspicious of articles, even more so of articles that seem to confirm what we think.

Especially if they say that exercise has no impact on weight management.

I think most non-scientists are guilty of looking for evidence to support their claim rather than looking for research that refutes their claim and critiquing that research. I liked your summary of how scientific research is conducted. It was well explained.

By population, the Southern Pacific islands have the highest obesity rates per capita. Now having lived in and visiting islands in those areas, I can attest that it wasn't ultra processed foods that contributed to their girths there. When I lived there (Saipan and having visited Marshall Islands and Palau) the population focused a lot on family/friend gatherings every weekend and partied with food all day. There was never a time I didn't walk the beach and many people I knew (small island) were there and inviting us all the time to eat pig, tons of rice, fried foods and many fruit laden sweets. As well as little exercise for many since at the time, gyms were almost non existent at the time. And this was in the 80's.

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

neanderthin wrote: »

refactored wrote: »

And yet the consumption of ultra processed foods has increased which is not shown in the graph. I know this is a press release but it may be easier to read for those of us who struggle to read scientific papers. You can find the original study in a link in the release. https://www.nyu.edu/about/news-publications/news/2021/october/ultra-processed-foods.html

This was basically gathering and looking at data then drawing a conclusion for a trend, and in this case ultra processed food consumption. Pretty basic really and observational studies based on FFQ'ers like this "study" is about as unreliable any scientific data can get, in other words in the realm of, more studies are needed.

Saying that, what appears to have happened is they only asked what people ate for the current 24hr cycle and wasn't asking people to recall what they ate in the last 6 months on a daily basis and for example expecting people to know what they ate 3 months ago on a tuesday lol. More reliable data basically.

It's not unexpected that people still like the foods they eat and continue to eat. I wonder what the stats will be in a decade or 2, scary thought really. Cheers

There is a very small RCT on the subject (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1550413119302487). It did show that when eating an ultra-processed diet the subjects ingested more calories than when they ate an unprocessed diet. Conducting a long term, large RCT on the matter may well be unethical (https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(21)00027-4/fulltext ).

Could it be that there is something about ultra-processed food that makes it harder to eat within weight stable calorie levels? I can't believe that the answer "yes" to this question is so controversial.

FWIW, there was a long thread here - I don't remember the name - where people opined about the Hall study you just mentioned. It was an interesting thread.

IIRC, a common reaction by quite a few people - reacting to photos/lists of what was in the less-processed meals and more-processed meals - seemed to be that they thought the less processed meals didn't look tasty or appealing, and they wouldn't want to eat them. If that's actually so, that's a pretty simple theory about why people ate less of them in the study. Or, maybe they were more filling, since many here make that claim for less processed foods?

neanderthin wrote: »

AnnPT77 wrote: »

FWIW, there was a long thread here - I don't remember the name - where people opined about the Hall study you just mentioned. It was an interesting thread.

IIRC, a common reaction by quite a few people - reacting to photos/lists of what was in the less-processed meals and more-processed meals - seemed to be that they thought the less processed meals didn't look tasty or appealing, and they wouldn't want to eat them. If that's actually so, that's a pretty simple theory about why people ate less of them in the study. Or, maybe they were more filling, since many here make that claim for less processed foods?

Sounds like a legit counter argument, the food didn't look as good as food manufactured in a labratory.

It wasn't that simple, from memory (so I could be misremembering). Have you seen the photos?

I think they're in this preprint version of the article:

https://osf.io/preprints/nutrixiv/w3zh2/download

While the more processed meals definitely are, a lot of them weren't IMO super-frankenfood-like, just kind of normal. But maybe I'm just desensitized since it was familiar-ish stuff.

My sense was that I would've preferred the less-processed meals if I had to choose either. Seemed like there was IMO some weirdness from the hoops they had to jump through to make the meals equal for calories and the relevant nutrients.

neanderthin wrote: »

AnnPT77 wrote: »

neanderthin wrote: »

AnnPT77 wrote: »

FWIW, there was a long thread here - I don't remember the name - where people opined about the Hall study you just mentioned. It was an interesting thread.

IIRC, a common reaction by quite a few people - reacting to photos/lists of what was in the less-processed meals and more-processed meals - seemed to be that they thought the less processed meals didn't look tasty or appealing, and they wouldn't want to eat them. If that's actually so, that's a pretty simple theory about why people ate less of them in the study. Or, maybe they were more filling, since many here make that claim for less processed foods?

Sounds like a legit counter argument, the food didn't look as good as food manufactured in a labratory.

It wasn't that simple, from memory (so I could be misremembering). Have you seen the photos?

I think they're in this preprint version of the article:

https://osf.io/preprints/nutrixiv/w3zh2/download

While the more processed meals definitely are, a lot of them weren't IMO super-frankenfood-like, just kind of normal. But maybe I'm just desensitized since it was familiar-ish stuff.

My sense was that I would've preferred the less-processed meals if I had to choose either. Seemed like there was IMO some weirdness from the hoops they had to jump through to make the meals equal for calories and the relevant nutrients.

Didn't see any photos, lots of pages of studies though and looks like i could be buzy for a few months going through those lol. I get the point though. Everything is processed and sometimes it difficult to distinguish a discernable difference, especially in a photo, I would imagine. Maybe they should have shown photos from Eleven Madison Park.

Not the NIH link, the osf.io link - it's just a PDF of the Hall study that I think is the one being mentioned. There are photos of all of the meals with food lists, on pages 29-72, one meal per page. Here are a couple of random examples; I think this would be fair use. I feel like maybe people's theories about the meals are a little different than the actual meals, when the study gets discussed here.

I am having a hard time understanding why anyone would be opposed to calling food addiction an addiction if some people find that a helpful way of addressing their issues.

I understand that sometimes naming something gives you power over it, sometimes naming something gives it power over you. But I see the people who are struggling and wanting help and seeking to change wanting to name their problem and be seen. Relating this to drug or alcohol use …It is my observation that some people resist quitting or seriously moderating drinking when they know they should because they fear being labeled an “addict” or an “alcoholic” or even someone with “an alcohol use disorder”. Happily the sober curious movement has made it easier for those of us who have quit for a variety of health and lifestyle reasons to do so without being looked at askance. But a lot of people still resist addressing their issues with alcohol or taking steps to improve overall health when other health concerns make that prudent because of their various misperceptions of available programs. That said this does not seem to be happening with regard to food addictions— why would we ever want to prevent someone who wants to name what is challenging them in the food realm from doing so? If someone wants to call what they are experiencing an addiction how does it harm anyone - the person battling the challenge, or others battling other challenges? Name your demon and slay it. (And if we fear people will simply take some sort of comfort in being able to say they have a disease and do nothing, that is not the parallel to alcoholism or drug use. In those cases if you admit to a disease it means you recognize that you must change your behavior and that you can’t do all the things other people do — why would we think food addicts, properly diagnosed and treated would act differently).

A second observation. Whatever your particular challenge or addiction is, the substance and your inability to use/eat it in the amounts that you would like/healthfully could well be a symptom of a bigger issue. If you are just addressing your mouth/stomach and not your heart/head you may not solve the problem whether it is food or alcohol related. A good therapist or even a primary care phyician willing to schedule you for a longer consultation to truly discuss what is going on in your life may help you unearth solutions to your diet challenges that would otherwise undermine you.

Dieters or those of us just trying to stay healthy in the long term and reset to better habits now and again have our own options that arent exactly “rehabs” but “resets” — they are called spas (I don’t mean the kind where you get facials and pedicures), and I have been to them and find them motivating and a good way to try out new things as well as recharge. I don’t mean to be dismissive of drug/alcohol rehab but the discussions and focus and attention to physical and mental health at good ones seems to serve the same goals of unearthing problematic mental patterns as well a physical patterns and resetting… Structured living/waking/sleeping times,meals that are calculated to meet your calorie and other nutrition goals, lots of group exercise choices, lectures and sessions on nutrition and health issues, meditation and other spiritual healing practices, individual counseling sessions with nutritionists, physical trainers, lab testst/weigh ins etc. they are expensive and require an investment of vacation time, but so would rehab.