ADVERTISEMENT

It's True: Processed food diets DO make you fat

Joes Place

HR King
Aug 28, 2003
142,674
151,306
113
Highlights

  • 20 inpatient adults received ultra-processed and unprocessed diets for 14 days each
  • Diets were matched for presented calories, sugar, fat, fiber, and macronutrients
  • Ad libitum intake was ∼500 kcal/day more on the ultra-processed versus unprocessed diet
  • Body weight changes were highly correlated with diet differences in energy intake

Summary
We investigated whether ultra-processed foods affect energy intake in 20 weight-stable adults, aged (mean ± SE) 31.2 ± 1.6 years and BMI = 27 ± 1.5 kg/m2. Subjects were admitted to the NIH Clinical Center and randomized to receive either ultra-processed or unprocessed diets for 2 weeks immediately followed by the alternate diet for 2 weeks.

Meals were designed to be matched for presented calories, energy density, macronutrients, sugar, sodium, and fiber. Subjects were instructed to consume as much or as little as desired.

Energy intake was greater during the ultra-processed diet (508 ± 106 kcal/day; p = 0.0001), with increased consumption of carbohydrate (280 ± 54 kcal/day; p < 0.0001) and fat (230 ± 53 kcal/day; p = 0.0004), but not protein (−2 ± 12 kcal/day; p = 0.85).

Weight changes were highly correlated with energy intake (r = 0.8, p < 0.0001), with participants gaining 0.9 ± 0.3 kg (p = 0.009) during the ultra-processed diet and losing 0.9 ± 0.3 kg (p = 0.007) during the unprocessed diet.

Limiting consumption of ultra-processed foods may be an effective strategy for obesity prevention and treatment.

1-s2.0-S1550413119302487-fx1.jpg


https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1550413119302487?via=ihub

https://www.realclearscience.com/qu...ocessed_food_leads_to_massive_overeating.html


So, wanna lose weight? Just skip the Fad Diet Du Jour, and track/limit the amounts of processed/ultra-processed foods you eat.
 
  • Like
Reactions: irunlikeAcieEarl
Subjects were instructed to consume as much or as little as desired.

Energy intake was greater during the ultra-processed diet

Am I reading this correctly that people eating unprocessed food simply ate less of it?

Shouldn’t the headline be:
It’s True: Too much food makes you fat.
 
Am I reading this wrong?

Did the ultra-processed food people eat around 500 more calories per day than the other group? Would that be a weight difference of 2 pounds of fat in 2 weeks?

Also, it seems to me that 70 grams of carbohydrates more than another person would lead to greater glycogen storage and more water retention.

Am I missing something?
 
  • Like
Reactions: unIowa
Am I reading this wrong?

Did the ultra-processed food people eat around 500 more calories per day than the other group? Would that be a weight difference of 2 pounds of fat in 2 weeks?

Also, it seems to me that 70 grams of carbohydrates more than another person would lead to greater glycogen storage and more water retention.

Am I missing something?

2 groups

they started out split into half eating processed foods, half not.
The food they were presented was equal calories.

Those eating the processed food decided they needed more, which was the difference in intake.

Then, halfway through, they swapped the groups. Exact same thing happened - only the group that had been overeating was satisfied with the unprocessed food amount and didn't overeat anymore. The group that had been eating healthy foods and switched onto the processed diets started eating the additional amounts and gained weight.
 
What’s considered processed food ?

What’s the difference between a hamburger from Burger King and the one your mom makes?
 
Those eating the processed food decided they needed more,

Or they wanted more of it because it tasted better?
Did they survey folks about their subjective preference regarding the two diets?

Your headline really made me think eating the same amount of processed food as unprocessed food had different results, but that isn’t actually the case described.
Eating too much makes you fat.
 
Or they wanted more of it because it tasted better?

Either they were still hungry after it (typical with higher carb/sugar loaded foods) or they craved more of it because it tasted better.

They were able to titrate their own food intake in the study. On average, individuals eating pre-portioned and less/non processed foods were happy with those portions, ate less and lost weight.

Those eating pre-portioned processed/ultraprocessed foods craved more, ate more and gained weight.

The SAME people on each of the presented diets had the same basic results.
 
I set that up on a tee for you.

I assume we are talking about the buns being processed?

Or the mayo I put on OPs mom’s buns.
Oh, you process the everliving isht out of those buns. It's a process for sure. I like to give a strong taste test for mayo. A high five if it's so good it gets appreciated like Pringles.
 
Either they were still hungry after it (typical with higher carb/sugar loaded foods) or they craved more of it because it tasted better.

They were able to titrate their own food intake in the study. On average, individuals eating pre-portioned and less/non processed foods were happy with those portions, ate less and lost weight.

Those eating pre-portioned processed/ultraprocessed foods craved more, ate more and gained weight.

The SAME people on each of the presented diets had the same basic results.
I've always had an appetite issue. I had a breakdown of 23and me data and I have a polymorphism w/ gherlin. Anyway, since I've been doing keto 5.5 days a week I've noticed if I break during the week the carbs from rice make my appetite crazy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: unIowa
Am I reading this wrong?

Did the ultra-processed food people eat around 500 more calories per day than the other group? Would that be a weight difference of 2 pounds of fat in 2 weeks?

Also, it seems to me that 70 grams of carbohydrates more than another person would lead to greater glycogen storage and more water retention.

Am I missing something?

And more insulin production and insulin is what signals your body to store fat. If you want to lose weight eat low glycemic foods. Note, low glycemic foods typically are not processed foods.
 
Either they were still hungry after it (typical with higher carb/sugar loaded foods) or they craved more of it because it tasted better.

They were able to titrate their own food intake in the study. On average, individuals eating pre-portioned and less/non processed foods were happy with those portions, ate less and lost weight.

Those eating pre-portioned processed/ultraprocessed foods craved more, ate more and gained weight.

The SAME people on each of the presented diets had the same basic results.
I've always had an appetite issue. I had a breakdown of 23and me data and I have a polymorphism w/ gherlin. Anyway, since I've been doing keto 5.5 days a week I've noticed if I break during the week the carbs from rice make my appetite crazy.

Yes bc insulin signals to the body to start storing fat and burn up the glucose. Also when insulin is present the body cannot really access its fat storage so when that glucose is burned up your body requires more of it. The challenge becomes when people get into constant eating cycles and their insulin is always elevated bc of it they get to a point where they can rarely ever access their fat storage so they eat more often (typically carby foods) which in turn keeps insulin elevated and you get this cycle of hardly ever being able to access your fat storage.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joes Place
Just a study of one but I can tell you when I quit all soda and most fast foods out 3 years ago I feel a lot better and quickly got back in shape.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: unIowa
Just a study of one but I can tell you when I quit all soda and most fast foods out 3 years ago I feel a lot better and quickly got back in shape.

For nearly 20 years I have cycled to eating what I want when football season arrives, then eating healthy when the warm weather starts to come. I don't count calories and eat all I want, but eat every couple of hours, try to drink only water (except for my morning coffee) and eat as close to natural as possible. Lean meats and fish, fruits and veggies, low fat and ultra filtered dairy or non hyper processed alternatives, organic breads and grains (no white stuff or hyper processed breads, and snacks. No white sugar or flour. )
20-25lb difference at each peak every year. It actually melts off faster than it goes on.
 
Absolutely nothing to do with the original post or study....

The "scientists" don't take into account how different everyone is.

Some people smoke like chimneys and don't get cancer!

Some people work in the coal mine for 30 years and don't get black lung disease!

Some people eat crap food and they don't get fat!

But the "scientists" soldier on... trying to shoehorn everyone into their generalist conclusions.

If the "scientists" really wanted to do some good, they'd figure out how genetics plays into all this, and develop a model that would actually tell people what the risks are based on their individual profile. But that will never happen, because that would be politically incorrect and lead to lawsuits when they're still wrong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: unIowa
The "scientists" don't take into account how different everyone is.

Some people smoke like chimneys and don't get cancer!

Some people work in the coal mine for 30 years and don't get black lung disease!

Some people eat crap food and they don't get fat!

But the "scientists" soldier on... trying to shoehorn everyone into their generalist conclusions.

If the "scientists" really wanted to do some good, they'd figure out how genetics plays into all this, and develop a model that would actually tell people what the risks are based on their individual profile. But that will never happen, because that would be politically incorrect and lead to lawsuits when they're still wrong.

There are two things I would focus on if I am someone trying to figure this out:

1. I would get a blood gluecose monitor so I can see what foods are having what type of blood sugar response and for how long in my body. This will give you a good idea of how much insulin your pancreas might be pumping out or keeping active in the system. The longer it takes for you to clear your blood glucose the more you should restrict sugars and refined carbs.

2. To @Joes Place 's point I would also look at cutting out processed foods. Giving up sugar and refined carbs will do a lot of that but I would also look at getting out of using vegtible oils and eating foods with vegetible oils in them. Now vegtible oils (Canola Oil, Corn Oil, Soybean Oil, Peanut Oil, Sunflower Oil, Safflower Oil, Cottonseed Oil, Grapeseed Oil, Margarine, Shortening, Any fake butter substitutes) seem to be in almost everything in the middle isles of your grocery so it may be difficult but if you have committed to giving up processed foods and refined cabs/sugars then you likely will be taking a lot of these things out anyways. Replace these oils with olive oil, avacado oils, coconut oils, grass fed butter, etc.

I would also suggest staying away from really lean meats if you think you have issues with insulin resistance/metabolic syndrome as lean meats will typically be higher in protien density and protien does have a blood gluecose response in the body as some of it does get converted naturally by the body into gluecose. Also, saturated fat isn't the devil that it has been made out to be especially if you are not eating high sugar/carb foods and staying away from those bad/toxic/pro-inflamitory oils I mentioned above.
 
Also, saturated fat isn't the devil that it has been made out to be especially if you are not eating high sugar/carb foods and staying away from those bad/toxic/pro-inflamitory oils I mentioned above.

Yes - saturated fats aren't "good" for you, but in limited amounts aren't as bad as advertised. Just eat more unsaturated fats and 'good' oils.

Stay away from the hydrogenated oils and palm kernel oils - many of the rest - canola, soy, etc are not bad for you, but again, they are in lots of processed foods and the refined flours, etc along with those oils aren't so good.

The point here on glycemic index is worth paying close attention to. Some people have problems with refined sugar intake, some do not - and that's a major point for triggering weight gain.

Quick oats (and those little packets) are fast-carbs and behave mostly like sugar when you eat them, because they are loaded with sugar and you digest the oats quickly, crave more, and trigger a big insulin response to create and store fat.

Whole rolled oats are better, because they have a lower glycemic index and digest slower.

Steel cut oats are best, because you digest them slowest, and when your body requires more time and energy to digest foods, "a calorie is no longer a calorie", because of the energy input required for you to digest it. The processed foods and fast carbs make you hungrier and take almost no energy to digest, so you are storing more of the calories you eat as fat, instead of using any of them for digesting the whole grains or fiber you would with less-processed foods.

Yes, some people are "lucky" and process the sugars easily w/o big glycemic swings. However, based on the fact that a very large percentage of Americans are obese nowadays, that is not the norm, and the advice in this article is worth heeding for those trying to lose weight. Limit the processed foods you eat; pay attention to the glycemic index of the things you eat.
 
  • Like
Reactions: unIowa
Yes - saturated fats aren't "good" for you, but in limited amounts aren't as bad as advertised. Just eat more unsaturated fats and 'good' oils.

Stay away from the hydrogenated oils and palm kernel oils - many of the rest - canola, soy, etc are not bad for you, but again, they are in lots of processed foods and the refined flours, etc along with those oils aren't so good.

The point here on glycemic index is worth paying close attention to. Some people have problems with refined sugar intake, some do not - and that's a major point for triggering weight gain.

Quick oats (and those little packets) are fast-carbs and behave mostly like sugar when you eat them, because they are loaded with sugar and you digest the oats quickly, crave more, and trigger a big insulin response to create and store fat.

Whole rolled oats are better, because they have a lower glycemic index and digest slower.

Steel cut oats are best, because you digest them slowest, and when your body requires more time and energy to digest foods, "a calorie is no longer a calorie", because of the energy input required for you to digest it. The processed foods and fast carbs make you hungrier and take almost no energy to digest, so you are storing more of the calories you eat as fat, instead of using any of them for digesting the whole grains or fiber you would with less-processed foods.

Yes, some people are "lucky" and process the sugars easily w/o big glycemic swings. However, based on the fact that a very large percentage of Americans are obese nowadays, that is not the norm, and the advice in this article is worth heeding for those trying to lose weight. Limit the processed foods you eat; pay attention to the glycemic index of the things you eat.

I would say some people, especially those in or approaching metabolic syndrome should stay under 20 net carbs per day regardless if they are quick release or slow digesting carbs...it just is what it is for some people. I also don't buy into a calorie is a calorie and I don't think you do either especially for those with some form of insulin resistance (as you stated now most of the country) as high levels of insulin won't allow you to unlock your fat storage and IMO this is the reason that heavy people or those with some form of insulin resistance get hungry so often. If you can't unlock your stored enegry bc of the insulin hormone and it is storing gluecose bc of it is high then you can't lose weight, hell you can't even stay even in that state (it is why most diabetics who start insulin treatment to clear sugars in their blood end up gaining 10-15 pounds the first few months after starting treatment...the added insulin just crams those carbs into fat storage. Sadly the use of that added insulin just leads to more insulin resistance and that is why people end up needing more and more and why diabetis is called a progressive diesese, although thousands have been able to reverse all markers of diabetus and discounte all meds by moving over to a LCHF diet).

Also, check out this article on dietary saturated fats, you might change your mind on the science if you keep your mind open bc frankly the science of today is showing that the science of the past (as it pertains to nutrition) was incomplete at best:

As the diet-heart hypothesis evolved in the 1960s and 1970s, the focus shifted from the effect of dietary fat on total cholesterol to LDL cholesterol. However, changes in LDL cholesterol are not an actual measure of heart disease itself. Any dietary intervention might influence other, possibly unmeasured, causal factors that could affect the expected effect of the change in LDL cholesterol. This possibility is clearly shown by the failure of several categories of drugs to reduce cardiovascular events despite significant reductions in plasma LDL cholesterol levels.151617 LDL cholesterol can also be reduced through diet in ways that do not reduce the risk of coronary heart disease; for instance, when saturated fat is replaced by carbohydrates, this lowers LDL cholesterol but also reduces HDL cholesterol and increases triglycerides.5 In the past, these effects were considered less important as researchers and the pharmaceutical industry focused on the effect of the reduction of LDL cholesterol.

Since the 1980s, studies on the LDL cholesterol biomarker itself and the effects of dietary fats on other biomarkers of disease have revealed a more complicated situation. Researchers now widely recognise the existence of a range of LDL particles with different physicochemical characteristics, including size and density, and that these particles and their pathological properties are not accurately measured by the standard LDL cholesterol assay.18 Hence assessment of other atherogenic lipoprotein particles (either LDL alone, or non-HDL cholesterol including LDL, intermediate density lipoproteins, and very low density lipoproteins, and the ratio of serum apolipoprotein B to apolipoprotein A1) have been advocated as alternatives to LDL cholesterol in the assessment and management of cardiovascular disease risk.17192021 Moreover, blood levels of smaller, cholesterol depleted LDL particles appear more strongly associated with cardiovascular disease risk than larger cholesterol enriched LDL particles,22 while increases in saturated fat intake (with reduced consumption of carbohydrates) can raise plasma levels of larger LDL particles to a greater extent than smaller LDL particles.22 In that case, the effect of saturated fat consumption on serum LDL cholesterol may not accurately reflect its effect on cardiovascular disease risk. While polyunsaturated fats and monounsaturated fats reduce LDL cholesterol levels, their effects on cardiovascular disease risk factors that are associated with lipoprotein particles are less clear. Although uncertainty exists about the causal role, if any, of elevated triglycerides or low HDL cholesterol levels in coronary heart disease, there has been continued interest because of their association with insulin resistance and metabolic syndrome, and their relevance in global populations.1923 Notably, these lipid markers improve—that is, triglycerides decrease or HDL cholesterol increases—when saturated, monounsaturated, or polyunsaturated fats replace carbohydrates.

Trans unsaturated fatty acids (trans fats) are an example of a fatty acid category whose effects on lipid biomarkers of cardiovascular disease risk are consistent with their association with cardiovascular disease events in prospective cohort studies. When substituted for other macronutrients, these fatty acids, such as those in industrially produced hydrogenated oils, have been shown to increase levels of LDL cholesterol and the number of atherogenic lipoproteins (LDL and very low density lipoproteins), while also increasing triglycerides and reducing HDL cholesterol and LDL particle size.24

https://www.bmj.com/content/361/bmj.k2139
 
Also, check out this article on dietary saturated fats, you might change your mind on the science if you keep your mind open bc frankly the science of today is showing that the science of the past (as it pertains to nutrition) was incomplete at best:

Good news for me, because I like cheese. And regular whipped cream vs. the fake CoolWhip stuff.

I just try to not OD on any of it.

But to your point: diets with fats in them don't necessarily make you fat (the opposite, actually); it's the diets with high glycemic index foods that you digest quickly that are worse. So it's, again, highly processed, refined foods that we've grown to love in America which are the really bad things for our health and weight gain.
 
These are really long posts and conversations that all come back to calories in and calories out.

Eat foods with more fat and protein, feel more full, eat less calories.

Eat food with less fat, eat less calories.

Eat hyperpalatable food that is more than likely high in calories, eat more calories.
 
These are really long posts and conversations that all come back to calories in and calories out.

Eat foods with more fat and protein, feel more full, eat less calories.

Eat food with less fat, eat less calories.

Eat hyperpalatable food that is more than likely high in calories, eat more calories.
Pretty much.
 
These are really long posts and conversations that all come back to calories in and calories out.

Eat foods with more fat and protein, feel more full, eat less calories.

Eat food with less fat, eat less calories.

Eat hyperpalatable food that is more than likely high in calories, eat more calories.

The law of thermodynamics does not apply to nutrition, it’s already been proven, as there are hormones in play that need to be taken into account. Your body is making constant adjustments to how it regulates its system outside of calories.

You should probably read some of those really long posts.
 
The law of thermodynamics does not apply to nutrition, it’s already been proven, as there are hormones in play that need to be taken into account. Your body is making constant adjustments to how it regulates its system outside of calories.

You should probably read some of those really long posts.
start at 12.30

 
  • Like
Reactions: unIowa
ADVERTISEMENT