Can eating mostly Ultra-processed Food help you gain weight?

[audreyh1]

Well, yes!

Extremely informative article about ultra processed food (UPF) and its effects on obesity in populations.

Worth noting: This article doesn’t lump all processed foods together. There is a Nova scale for categorization of degree of processing invented by the Brazilian scientist named below, and only the ones that fit in the 4th “ultra-processed” category were tested against a diet low in ultra processed food.

The concept of UPFs was born in the early years of this millennium when a Brazilian scientist called Carlos Monteiro noticed a paradox. People appeared to be buying less sugar, yet obesity and type 2 diabetes were going up. A team of Brazilian nutrition researchers led by Monteiro, based at the university of Sao Paulo, had been tracking the nation’s diet since the 80s, asking households to record the foods they bought. One of the biggest trends to jump out of the data was that, while the amount of sugar and oil people were buying was going down, their sugar consumption was vastly increasing, because of all of the ready-to-eat sugary products that were now available, from packaged cakes to chocolate breakfast cereal, that were easy to eat in large quantities without thinking about it.

…..

It turned out that, during the weeks of the ultra-processed diet, the volunteers ate an extra 500 calories a day, equivalent to a whole quarter pounder with cheese. Blood tests showed that the hormones in the body responsible for hunger remained elevated on the ultra-processed diet compared to the unprocessed diet, which confirms the feeling I used to have that however much I ate, these foods didn’t sate my hunger.

http://www.theguardian.com/food/202...r-your-shopping-basket-brazil-carlos-monteiro

 

[aja8888]

Yep, really don't need to put any sugar on your Fruit Loops!

 

[braumeister]

Plenty of folks read the ingredients on the package, but not all really understand what they read.

These are just some of the possible words for “sugar” which may appear on a label.

• Agave nectar
• Barley malt syrup
• Beet sugar
• Blackstrap molasses
• Brown rice syrup
• Brown sugar
• Cane crystals (or cane juice crystals)
• Cane sugar
• Caramel
• Coconut sugar or coconut palm sugar
• Corn sweetener
• Corn syrup or corn syrup solids
• Crystalline fructose
• Date sugar
• Dehydrated cane juice
• Demerara sugar
• Dextrin
• Dextrose
• Diastatic malt
• Ethyl maltitol
• Evaporated cane juice
• Florida crystals
• Fructose
• Fruit juice concentrate
• Galactose
• Glucose
• Golden syrup
• Grape sugar
• High-fructose corn syrup
• Honey
• Invert sugar
• Lactose
• Maltodextrin
• Malt syrup
• Maltose
• Maple syrup
• Molasses
• Muscovado sugar
• Palm sugar
• Panela sugar
• Raw sugar
• Rice syrup
• Saccharose
• Sorghum or sorghum syrup
• Sucrose
• Syrup
• Treacle
• Turbinado sugar
• Xylose

 

[audreyh1]

You can avoid this by avoiding most pre-packaged food, especially the shelf-stable variety. And/or look for a very short list or no list.

 

[JoshTrent]

It may be widely thought that Sugars (thank you @braumeister for the comprehensive list!) are the main culprit towards an elevated Blood Sugar level leading to Diabetes, there are other culprits. While Sugar in it's many processed forms, does contribute to poor health, other carbs do as well. One sneaky pest is Corn.. Manufactures of UPF's are including more & more processed corn which has little to no nutritional value.

For 15 years, I have followed a low GI / GL diet of non-processed foods suggested by my DO, and found myself losing weight steadily during the first 10 years. I have never been a soda drinker or had a sweet tooth.. for me it was refined (typically white) carbs, alcohol & starchy veggies. My DO suggested the change in diet to lower my A1C, LDL & Triglycerides. It's been successful - I lost weight, reduced my A1C and Cholesterol.

Of course a little bit of a bad thing never hurt anyone, right? That's why I use Agave Nectar with Tequilla & Lime Juice to make a single margarita on Taco Tuesdays!

 

[Katsmeow]

On the study where people receiving the ultra processed diet ate more food: It is a very interesting study. The two diets were matched in terms of nutrients. However, it is not yet really known why people ate so many more calories while on the ultra processed diet. They rated it just as palatable. I've read various speculation as to why this occurred. But, that study has not yet been done (it will be).

 

[chassis]

Agree that ultra processed food is not good for you.

The article is another endorsement for calories in-calories out. Gaining weight to the tune of 20% calories in excess of need clearly leads to weight gain.

 

[unclemick]

I lost it today - went to store and pigged out on Gelato, Hersey's chocolate and bananas.

Two weeks prior to family reunion this year went Keto/one meal a day - no processed carbs, grass feed beef or pork/chicken. Coffee/tea. Ten pounds and belt two notches - 36 to below 34 waist. Week in the Pocono's "men are chef's women are cooks" gained 4 lbs.

Back in KC after 4 days back on Keto/one meal cycle with low/no processed foods - lost it today.

Heh heh heh - Ice cream with Hersey's chocolate - my drug of choice.

 

[audreyh1]

On the study where people receiving the ultra processed diet ate more food: It is a very interesting study. The two diets were matched in terms of nutrients. However, it is not yet really known why people ate so many more calories while on the ultra processed diet. They rated it just as palatable. I've read various speculation as to why this occurred. But, that study has not yet been done (it will be).

I think that kind of food is carefully designed so that people keep eating it.

 

[audreyh1]

On the study where people receiving the ultra processed diet ate more food: It is a very interesting study. The two diets were matched in terms of nutrients. However, it is not yet really known why people ate so many more calories while on the ultra processed diet. They rated it just as palatable. I've read various speculation as to why this occurred. But, that study has not yet been done (it will be).

Yes I thought that was interesting l because one of the things that makes it easy to overeat ultra processed snacks is low fiber. But DH reminded me they gave that cohort a fiber supplement in a drink.

Thinking about it more however, timing of the fiber probably matters. You need to eat your fiber at the same time you are eating the food to things slow down. How does drinking fiber at a different time help? Also, we’re they getting both soluble and insoluble fiber supplements?

 

[unclemick]

My latest fad is Sten Ekberg on U Tube with a boatload of posts on Keto fasting low carb. He seems to parallel the thread article on processed foods and has ideas why developed countries with corn/rice based diets have followed the developed world into obesity/related health problems.

Alas I grew up on fast foods since a mere youth in the 1950's.

heh heh heh - Trying to get a grip and move toward whole/less and unprocessed but it's difficult to forgo 'the romance' of 'Mel's Diner' ala American Graffiti.

 

[RetiredHappy]

All carbs turn into sugar in the body. The culprit is not "just" sugar.

Low carbs generally equates to weight loss. The issue with most processed foods are that they are oily carbs with little protein and fiber. It is the worst possible combination to eat.

 

[audreyh1]

My latest fad is Sten Ekberg on U Tube with a boatload of posts on Keto fasting low carb. He seems to parallel the thread article on processed foods and has ideas why developed countries with corn/rice based diets have followed the developed world into obesity/related health problems.

Alas I grew up on fast foods since a mere youth in the 1950's.

heh heh heh - Trying to get a grip and move toward whole/less and unprocessed but it's difficult to forgo 'the romance' of 'Mel's Diner' ala American Graffiti.

All carbs turn into sugar in the body. The culprit is not "just" sugar.

Low carbs generally equates to weight loss. The issue with most processed foods are that they are oily carbs with little protein and fiber. It is the worst possible combination to eat.

A good but quite in depth recent book on processed food and how it hurts health is Metabolical by Dr. Robert Lustig.

He points the finger at table sugar/HFCS the hardest (fructose being the main culprit causing a lot of metabolic damage in large quantities).

But he also covers how ultra processed food in general removes so many things critical to human health.

Just eat real food (where did I hear that before?)

 

[Chuckanut]

IIRC, Dr. Lustig is of the opinion that one can get the biggest bang for the effort, by simply giving up added sugar.

Again, IIRC, in his new book he talks about a group of young men with poor metabolic test numbers for their age. They gave up added sugar but otherwise ate the same number of calories using highly processed food just no added sugar. Their test numbers improved dramatically in just a few weeks.

 

[Chuckanut]

Here's one way to identify the levels of processing that food may have been put through.

https://regulatory.mxns.com/en/ultra-processed-foods-nova-classification

Monteiro then developed a food classification system divided into four groups, called NOVA (a name, not an acronym), based on the level of processing:

• Group 1 - Unprocessed or minimally processed foods (fruit, vegetables, eggs, meat, milk, etc.)
• Group 2 - Foods processed in the kitchen with the aim of extending their shelf life. In practice, these are ingredients to be used in the kitchen such as fats, aromatic herbs, etc. to be kept in jars or in the refrigerator to be able to use them later.
• Group 3 - Processed foods. These are the foods obtained by combining foods of groups 1 and 2 to obtain the many food products for domestic use (bread, jams, etc.) made up of a few ingredients
• Group 4 - Ultra-processed foods. They are the ones that use many ingredients including food additives that improve palatability, processed raw materials (hydrogenated fats, modified starches, etc.) and ingredients that are rarely used in home cooking such as soy protein or mechanically separated meat. These foods are mainly of industrial origin and are characterized by a good pleasantness and the fact that they can be stored for a long time.

 

[audreyh1]

But Dr. Lustig still rails against processed food in Metabolical for various things including removing the fiber that is so important to the gut and slowing down absorption.

Plus a lot of it has added sugar anyway to make it more palatable.

So he is very much against ultra-processed food in general.

 

[audreyh1]

Here's a an interesting way to identifhy the levels of processing that food may have been put through. Perhaps it will end some fo the debate regarding the levels of food processing, and what is too much and what processing is OK.

https://regulatory.mxns.com/en/ultra-processed-foods-nova-classification

Yes, that article I shared in the OP explained the Nova system and talks about the scientist who invented it.

 

[Katsmeow]

Yes I thought that was interesting l because one of the things that makes it easy to overeat ultra processed snacks is low fiber. But DH reminded me they gave that cohort a fiber supplement in a drink.

Thinking about it more however, timing of the fiber probably matters. You need to eat your fiber at the same time you are eating the food to things slow down. How does drinking fiber at a different time help? Also, we’re they getting both soluble and insoluble fiber supplements?

The fiber was in the drinks that were served with the meal. As I understand it, the base meals served were similar in nutritional content and calories. However, snacks were available and you could also ask for more food.

David Kessler's book Fast Carbs, Slow Carbs comes up with his explanation for this whole thing. He contends it is due to the fact that ultra processed foods digest very quickly and don't spend much time in the stomach. They are, in effect, pre-digested in many ways. This likes to a lack of satiety and then to overeating. It was interesting in talking about how even whole wheat bread can be highly over processed so that it basically spends almost no time in the stomach. It has the nutritional content advertised, but because of how it is head it is a fast carb, not a slow carb. It isn't like traditionally made whole wheat bread which would break down much more slowly.

The book was very interesting in suggesting it is not the nutritional content of the food that necessarily matters as much as you think it is should. If it is ultra high processed it can act much more like, well, we would expect junk food to act.

That said -- this is a hypothesis of his. They haven't really determined for sure why the people ate so much more in that study. (My understanding is that they do want to know. Kevin Hall (who did the study and who I find very level headed in his research) said about the study a few months ago "The mechanism by which ultraprocessed diets increase energy intake is unknown, but there are many hypotheses."

 

[audreyh1]

David Kessler's book Fast Carbs, Slow Carbs comes up with his explanation for this whole thing. He contends it is due to the fact that ultra processed foods digest very quickly and don't spend much time in the stomach. They are, in effect, pre-digested in many ways. This likes to a lack of satiety and then to overeating. It was interesting in talking about how even whole wheat bread can be highly over processed so that it basically spends almost no time in the stomach. It has the nutritional content advertised, but because of how it is head it is a fast carb, not a slow carb. It isn't like traditionally made whole wheat bread which would break down much more slowly.

The book was very interesting in suggesting it is not the nutritional content of the food that necessarily matters as much as you think it is should. If it is ultra high processed it can act much more like, well, we would expect junk food to act.

That’s very much what Lustig says in Metabolical: it’s what they’ve done to the food.

Yeah “pre-digested” is a good description, resulting in lack of satiety - needing to eat more.

About the fiber - the drink only contained soluble fiber. That’s not good enough. The critical insoluble fiber is missing and that makes a big difference in the gut. Lustig points out that you have to have both as they come in most “real food”.

 

[Katsmeow]

That’s very much what Lustig says in Metabolical: it’s what they’ve done to the food.

Yeah “pre-digested” is a good description, resulting in lack of satiety - needing to eat more.

About the fiber - the drink only contained soluble fiber. That’s not good enough. The critical insoluble fiber is missing and that makes a big difference in the gut. Lustig points out that you have to have both as they come in most “real food”.

Well, I think the main point is that they really don't know at this point why this occurred. Even the main author of the study doesn't know (he certainly has hypotheses I am sure) and they need to do the further research to find the answer (which I understand they intend to do).