Ultraprocessed foods lead to obesity

MichaelB

Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Site Team
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
40,747
Location
Chicagoland
The thread title isn’t anything new for members here. What made this article stand out was not the conclusions but the research methodology, which seems much more thorough. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-new-theory-of-obesity/

A snippet
Hall has done two small but rigorous studies that contradict common wisdom that faults carbohydrates or fats by themselves. In both experiments, he kept participants in a hospital for several weeks, scrupulously controlling what they ate. His idea was to avoid the biases of typical diet studies that rely on people’s self-reports, which rarely match what they truly eat. The investigator, who has a physics doctorate, has that discipline’s penchant for precise measurements. His first study found that, contrary to many predictions, a diet that reduced carb consumption actually seemed to slow the rate of body fat loss. The second study, published this year, identified a new reason for weight gain. It found that people ate hundreds more calories of ultraprocessed than unprocessed foods when they were encouraged to eat as much or as little of each type as they desired. Participants chowing down on the ultraprocessed foods gained two pounds in just two weeks.
 
Possible. Maybe. In a nutshell do you eat out too much and where? Do you feed your kids easy to make food at home that is not nutritious? Age old battle with working families. Time to prepare, energy levels, commitment, etc.
 
Even though this article is much better than most, I'd really like to see the data.

How exactly did they define "low" for a low carb diet?
What were the actual percentages of macronutrients (protein, fat, carbs) consumed in each stage of the study?
etc., etc.
 
I believe it. I've noticed that when I eat mostly Red Vines I gain more weight than when I eat mostly broccoli.
 
From the article
In Hall’s carb study, 10 men and nine women, all obese, were sequestered in a hospital ward at the National Institutes of Health and fed a high-carbohydrate/low-fat diet for two weeks. Then they left for a short time and returned to repeat another two-week stint. For the first five days of each stay, the balance was kept at 50 percent carbohydrate, 35 percent fat and 15 percent protein, with calorie intakes matched to their energy expenditure—measured in a specially constructed metabolic chamber—to ensure they neither gained nor lost weight. Over the next six days of each stay, they ate a diet with 30 percent fewer calories from the carb category.

Links to the papers
https://www.cell.com/cell-metabolism/pdf/S1550-4131(19)30248-7.pdf
https://www.cell.com/cell-metabolism/pdf/S1550-4131(15)00350-2.pdf
https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/104/2/324/4564649
 
Seems likely ultraprocessed = tastes better. So the study showed that food that tastes better gets consumed at a greater rate. Whoda thunk?
 
From the first paper, total consumption was:
DietUltraprocessed %Unprocessed%
Carb49.246.3
Fat34.735.0
Protein16.118.7
So the difference was indeed minimal. Also interesting that both HDL and triglycerides went down over the study, with the Unprocessed diet giving a much greater reduction in HDL. Strange.
 
Seems likely ultraprocessed = tastes better. So the study showed that food that tastes better gets consumed at a greater rate. Whoda thunk?

+1

The science of "food engineering". It's express purpose is to encourage over-consumption, also known as "hedonic eating". The term refers to intake driven not by metabolic need but by the reward experienced by consuming the food, particularly relevant for highly palatable energy-dense foods.
 
Interesting article. I suspect that the success of low carb diets is not so much due to eating less carbs as it is due to eating far less processed foods.
 
Interesting article. I suspect that the success of low carb diets is not so much due to eating less carbs as it is due to eating far less processed foods.

That includes eating less of everything that's an option. No one I know pigs out on brussel sprouts.
 
No one I know pigs out on brussel sprouts.

I've tried pigging out on brussel sprouts that have been roasted with olive oil. They are loaded with fiber and end up filling my gut pretty quickly!
 
If they were kept in a hospital for several weeks, how much exercise were they getting? If you lounge on the couch all day, it's kind of obvious what kinds of foods are going to lead to obesity more than others. If you have a healthy/active lifestyle and get a good amount of exercise regularly it's not as much an issue - what you put in versus what you burn off.
 
Seems likely ultraprocessed = tastes better. So the study showed that food that tastes better gets consumed at a greater rate. Whoda thunk?
Exactly. The researchers have demonstrated that they have a firm grasp of the obvious.
 
I believe it. I've noticed that when I eat mostly Red Vines I gain more weight than when I eat mostly broccoli.

For the next month, try Red Vines/broccoli at 50/50. That's what's called a balanced diet.

It's like investing. You may not want 100% stock, nor 100% bond. A balanced anything is usually better than a hardcore 100% of something.

Why is that true? I don't know, but nature likes a balance.
 
Last edited:
Interesting article. I suspect that the success of low carb diets is not so much due to eating less carbs as it is due to eating far less processed foods.


+1, totally agree with this. Our bodies are just not designed to eat all of the ultra-processed junk many of us eat these days. Based on my experience (sample size of 1, I know), when I stick to eating mostly real/whole foods, my weight stays good, I feel good, and my blood test numbers are all good also. If I eat like that, I really don't feel the need to count carbs at all.

I read an article the other day where the author basically said the same thing, but put another way. He said most of the problem is not carbs per se, but "acellular" carbs. In other words, the whole food containing carbs (such as potatoes, grains, etc) has been ground up/processed into a flour or powder, breaking down the cell walls in the process. He believed that consuming quantities of acellular carbs provokes a much higher insulin response (for one thing), which can lead to weight gain and related issues (metabolic disorder). Again, such highly processed/pulverized foods are not something humans evolved eating (until quite recently in our evolutionary history), so it makes sense that the body does not handle them very well.
 
This is why I try to consume as much Irish Coffee as possible.
It contains all four major food groups:
  • Alcohol
  • Caffeine
  • Sugar
  • Fat

No ultraprocessed ingredients, just real food.
And it must be good for me because it always puts a smile on my face. :D
 
Funny, I'm sure my mother was not familiar with all the science, but growing up, she didn't want any of that processed food in the house.

No Sugar Frosted Flakes, no Devil Dogs, No Twinkies . . .
 
Funny, I'm sure my mother was not familiar with all the science, but growing up, she didn't want any of that processed food in the house.

No Sugar Frosted Flakes, no Devil Dogs, No Twinkies . . .



Instead I’d have Captain Crunch, Little Smokies and Hostess Cupcakes
 
This is why I try to consume as much Irish Coffee as possible.
It contains all four major food groups:
  • Alcohol
  • Caffeine
  • Sugar
  • Fat

No ultraprocessed ingredients, just real food.
And it must be good for me because it always puts a smile on my face. :D


It depends on what your definition of "good" is.

We have heard the phrase about "not being able to wipe the smile off a dead person's face". Can early death be good? Yes it is, to that person.
 
I am continually amazed that mankind has survived to see the current age of paranoia. Our generation grew up just fine without car seats, bike helmets and playgrounds with "safe" surfaces. We ate Frosted Flakes, eggs & bacon, TV dinners, and canned corned beef hash. We walked to and from school alone. And we survived! What are the odds?
 
This is consistent with a study I read about several years ago. Two groups of college age young men were feed a lunch consisting of a grilled cheese sandwich. One group had sandwiches made with store bought white bread and American processed cheese slices. The other had homemade whole wheat bread and real Cheddar cheese. Calories were equal.



Guess which group had the better insulin response? The one that had whole wheat bread with real cheese.
 
I am continually amazed that mankind has survived to see the current age of paranoia. Our generation grew up just fine without car seats, bike helmets and playgrounds with "safe" surfaces. We ate Frosted Flakes, eggs & bacon, TV dinners, and canned corned beef hash. We walked to and from school alone. And we survived! What are the odds?


There is definitely more junk/fast food around today then in my day but another big change is the sedentary lifestyle of the kids. As kids we were always outside playing in the woods, riding bikes, or playing ball. In my current neighborhood there are quite a few kids but I rarely see any of them outside.
 
Back
Top Bottom