
Study Finds Ultra-Processed Foods Drive Weight Gain - tshannon
https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2019/05/16/723693839/its-not-just-salt-sugar-fat-study-finds-ultra-processed-foods-drive-weight-gain
======
ChuckMcM
This is pretty interesting, the paper is here: [https://www.cell.com/cell-
metabolism/fulltext/S1550-4131(19)...](https://www.cell.com/cell-
metabolism/fulltext/S1550-4131\(19\)30248-7)

I liked the experimental method, two weeks on one diet the two weeks on the
other without restricting food intake.

I've been doing some dieting of late and made the facetious conclusion that if
you limit your diet choices to only foods you don't particularly like to eat,
you lose weight :-). But the converse of people working very hard to make
their food really tasty (generally by adding sugar and salt according to the
paper) people consume more than they need.

I'm not sure what we could do about it though, we can encourage better eating
choices but there is a limit on how much that works.

~~~
pault
I mostly agree, but I've never spared the fat when dieting, just the carbs.
You can make a highly varied diet of delicious food if you're cool with fat
(you have to be very conscious of how many calories you're consuming, though,
because it's very easy to go overboard). A Kale salad with an oil-based
dressing and absolutely loaded with nuts and cheese is not something I would
consider a chore to eat.

~~~
stcredzero
_A Kale salad with an oil-based dressing and absolutely loaded with nuts and
cheese is not something I would consider a chore to eat._

That depends. Eat anything a bit too often, and it becomes a chore. As you
note above, the diet being "highly varied" is very important.

~~~
Ultramanoid
There are people who eat literally the same meals every day, for years, and
the opposite would stress them for a number of reasons. There was a recent
article about it linked in HN too, I think ?

~~~
internet_user
there is some anec-data that very repetitive diet, as long as it actually
covers all your nutritional needs, is actually better for you, health-wise.

Some guess it has to do with immune system activation, GI biome optimized for
digestion of these repetitive specific foods you eat, etc.

I often wonder if benefits of keto actually come not only from ketones
themselves, but also from the fact that keto diets are often very limited, and
often to often (relatively) hypoallergenic foods.

------
dfxm12
_Study participants on the ultra-processed diet ate an average of 508 calories
more per day and ended up gaining an average of 2 pounds over a two-week
period._

Is this a fair trial? Popular science [0] claims that ~3500 calories equals a
pound. Well, 508 extra calories a day for 14 days = 7112 calories, or about 2
pounds worth of calories.

Edit: whoops! I was missing the fact that the people in the trial controlled
how much they ate themselves. I incorrectly assumed that they were given the
food.

0 - [https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/weight-
loss/in-...](https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/weight-loss/in-
depth/calories/art-20048065)

~~~
noelsusman
It is calories in calories out, as always, but the point is that the processed
diet drives more calorie consumption. The same people were given both diets
and told to eat as much or as little as they wanted. They consumed more
calories when given the processed diet, and thus gained weight.

~~~
radcon
> but the point is that the processed diet drives more calorie consumption

My main gripe with this line of argument is that people rarely take price into
account. It's pretty expensive to eat 2,000 calories of fresh food vs. 2,000
calories of junk food. I don't think it's some intrinsic quality of the food
that's causing people to gain weight. I think many people who struggle with
weight will eat as much as their money can get them, and your dollar goes a
lot farther when you're buying junk food.

I also think we have a serious affordability problem when it comes to things
like fruits, vegetables, lean meat, etc. People say fruit is cheap and sure,
you might be able to get an Apple for $1, but that doesn't get you many
calories. You need to fill out your diet with a lot of stuff like rice and
beans if you're trying to eat cheap _AND_ healthy. It's even worse if you look
at prepared food, e.g. $11 for a 400 calorie salad at Panera. Assuming all
your calories come at the same cost, you're spending $1,600 _per month_ on
food.

A fresh salad shouldn't be a luxury that only the rich can afford, but that
seems to be the current state of affairs.

~~~
swsieber
> I don't think it's some intrinsic quality of the food that's causing people
> to gain weight.

This study seems to suggest that there is some intrinsic quality that causes
them to eat more of it, and thus gain weight.

I'm not saying that money isn't a concern (it is). But the money concern
doesn't negate the intrinsic qualities.

------
jniedrauer
I'm not a scientist, and my experience is anecdotal. But there is something
very very wrong with most of the food in our grocery stores. I had nearly
debilitating GI issues and body composition problems until I completely cut
out processed foods and started cooking from scratch. My symptoms cleared up
within weeks, I lost 35 lbs almost effortlessly, and I've never felt better.

I think what we're feeding the general public is a health hazard and should be
much more strongly regulated.

~~~
chrisco255
I think what people choose to eat is extremely personal to them. I'm glad you
made a lifestyle choice that benefitted you, but I would shudder the thought
of living in a society where the government tells you exactly what you can and
can't eat.

Education, public awareness, these kind of initiatives I can get behind.
Regulation of food intake, is a step too far.

FWIW, I've eaten processed, fried, GMO foods my whole life (and consume fast
food drive thru at least 5-6 times a week) and have no health issues
whatsoever. But I try to not eat to excess and I exercise regularly.

~~~
billmalarky
>I think what people choose to eat is extremely personal to them. I'm glad you
made a lifestyle choice that benefitted you, but I would shudder the thought
of living in a society where the government tells you exactly what you can and
can't eat.

This canned "the government shouldn't choose what I eat" argument is
reductionist to the point of deficiency at best, and disingenuous at worse.

The fact is an unregulated free market forces choices on us no different than
government regulation. The quality and type of food a consumer has access to
is highly dependent on market decisions — that is the food demanded by other
consumers — not individual decisions. The problem is consumers in the US at
large are either ignorant about health/nutrition or just plain don't
prioritize the future (sustainable health) over the present (what I'm eating
was iteratively designed in a lab to maximize my immediate dopamine hit).

Good regulation isn't binary. You can regulate the food industry to protect
consumers from predatory/harmful practices (such as engineering food so that
consumers overeat by "growth hacking" food via salt/sugar/fat in order to
drive revenue growth) while still allowing an abundance of dietary choices.

>FWIW, I've eaten processed, fried, GMO foods my whole life (and consume fast
food drive thru at least 5-6 times a week) and have no health issues
whatsoever. But I try to not eat to excess and I exercise regularly.

Some people smoke two packs a day and die at the ripe old age of 100. The vast
majority of smokers die significantly earlier than average. Much like you
wouldn't consider a lottery ticket a wise investment even if it pays off, you
shouldn't interpret your personal health and dietary experience to much other
than good fortune. Your experience is an outlier in the face of mountains of
data that tell a different and honestly quite depressing story.

Lastly, I know sometimes tone can be misinterpreted easily in text. So if my
comment came off as brash or an attack etc, please re-read it with a polite
and friendly tone in mind. I'm passionate about this topic because I want to
help.

~~~
chrisco255
Don't equivocate eating food to smoking. There is no evidence that someone who
consumes a healthy level of calories (whether those calories are wheat-based,
meat-based, potato-based, etc) are putting themselves on any kind of path to
cancer or heart disease.

Carbs are carbs. Protein is protein. Fat is fat. Sure, some types of foods
(including fried foods) have excessive calories for the average American
lifestyle. That's been known for decades. But there is no evidence that
calories from broccoli are any less or more cancerous than calories from
potatoes or bread or vegetable oil.

My experience is not an outlier.

This guy has eaten 30,000 Big Macs, perfectly healthy:
[https://people.com/food/mcdonalds-big-mac-supersize-me-
don-g...](https://people.com/food/mcdonalds-big-mac-supersize-me-don-gorske-
world-record/)

Studies on diets with a variety of macros (but the same calories):
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19246357](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19246357)
CONCLUSIONS: Reduced-calorie diets result in clinically meaningful weight loss
regardless of which macronutrients they emphasize.

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17413101](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17413101)
CONCLUSIONS: These findings provide more detailed evidence to suggest that
diets differing substantially in glycemic load induce comparable long-term
weight loss.

~~~
sneak
Carbs are not carbs (high vs low GI, for example), and fat is not fat (trans
fats vs MCT, for example). Many other factors go into whether or not input
calories are digested, whether or not input calories are stored (and whether
or not as glycogen), and whether or not input calories end up as long-term
fat.

It isn’t that simple.

That said, that’s absolutely no argument for regulation. People should be free
to entirely destroy themselves seeking short-term dopamine hits—if they so
choose. It is staunchly immoral to impede them.

~~~
billmalarky
>That said, that’s absolutely no argument for regulation. People should be
free to entirely destroy themselves seeking short-term dopamine hits—if they
so choose. It is staunchly immoral to impede them.

This ignores the entire premise of my comment, which is that people's choices
in this context are not made in a vacuum.

If the market demands unhealthy food, then that is what the food industry will
supply, and thus be the option made generally available to all.

The food industry has exploited human evolutionary traits (cravings for
salt/sugar/fat and other nutrients that are high-value in moderation but
detrimental in excess) to push the market in a direction that boosts
consumption (and thus revenue growth) at a cost to our health.

~~~
sneak
The cost to people’s health is not caused by “the food industry”. It is
caused, moment by moment, by those same people _choosing to harm themselves_.

Grocery stores still sell broccoli and chicken. People choose to buy oreos and
croissants and other refined carbs. That’s not “the food industry”.

It’s variously described, but “consumer choice” and “market demands” don’t
really capture it. It boils down to other adult humans, just like you and I,
choosing what they want to spend their money on, choosing what foods they want
to eat.

It is nobody’s place but the eater to tell them what they should or should not
be doing. Full stop.

------
fitnesshealth
Many Study Says that Ultra Processed Foods Drive weight gain, but according to
BMJ published processed foods contain 90% Added sugar, and that increase type
2 diabetes or heart disease. Here is
[https://www.fitnesshealthforever.com/](https://www.fitnesshealthforever.com/)
many health awareness tips for people.

Ultra Processed Foods Lists 1\. Boxed cake mix 2\. Soft drinks 3\. Packaged
bread and buns 4\. Fast food burgers 5\. Instant noodles 6\. Energy bars

that is some ultra processed food list that is also shown on NOVA report.

------
mlrtime
Here is two pieces of diet advice:

1) At the grocery store, shop the edges (Fruit, Vegetables, Meat, Fish) just
stay away from things with a nutrition label.

2) Don't drink calories. Water, Tea, Coffee (no artificial sweeteners).

Fixes most peoples problems.

~~~
ramblerman
stevia should be fine, imo

~~~
mlrtime
I agree, but I wanted to give advice that is healthy and easy to follow. You
don't need to look at any labels. Just eat real food.

------
jedrek
The basic problem with processed foods is that they mimic the qualities of
natural foods.

If you leave kids to eat whatever they want with an abundance of food, they
will create a perfectly balanced, healthy diet. They did a study of this in
the 1950s and the kids who had certain vitamin deficiencies would naturally
even go for the fish oil they needed to supplement their levels back up.

Take something as simple as bacon flavored potato chips: you eat them, and
your body thinks it's getting the protein it needs, but it's not, it's getting
something that mimics protein. But your body's kind of dumb, so it wants more
chips, because they should have protein in them!

Almost every obese person out there is someone who's had their natural
feedback loop completely destroyed by learned behavior. They don't feel "full"
the way people without eating issues do.

~~~
maxxxxx
Add to that our sedentary but stressful lifestyle. When I am backpacking for a
few days I don't eat much and have almost no food cravings. But as soon as I
am in the office I start eating all kinds of crap I would normally never
touch. I think the same happens to kids in school being forced to sit still
for hours.

"Almost every obese person out there is someone who's had their natural
feedback loop completely destroyed by learned behavior. They don't feel "full"
the way people without eating issues do. "

I am really sorry for kids that grow up on frozen dinners and junk food. I
have read that your food tastes develop in the first few years so if your
parents have bad food habits you have a very good chance to be imprinted with
them for a life time.

~~~
logfromblammo
I have had some mild success with "do not talk to me about food except at
mealtimes" in conjunction with "canonical mealtime is between 6 and 8 PM, and
absolutely nothing past 10 PM".

What I really need now is an AR ad-blocker--like Joo-Janta context-sensitive
sunglasses--that will detect food-related advertisements and displays in the
real world and blot them out with black rectangles and/or white noise.

Being hungry stimulates appetite, but so too does just _thinking about food_.
And after priming my awareness of it, nearly everyone around me does something
or other to make me think about food, and quite a lot are doing it
intentionally, to get at my money. (Even just reading this thread is sort of
screwing me up for the rest of the day.) I get the sense that Pavlov's dogs
might get fat if someone followed them around all the time, continually
ringing that bell.

Even my office has that stupid kitchenette right outside the door, with people
frequently in there messing with the coffee and fridge and microwave. So then
I close my door and blot out the world, and I can easily ride out hours 11
through 20 of fasting. Unless someone sends "donuts in the lab" over e-mail,
or "Food Truck X is in the parking lot until 12:00". _Aargh._

So now I'm sitting here with one part of my brain telling itself, "No, you are
_not_ really hungry. That's the spoiled punk asshole part of your brain trying
to get you to eat by injecting obsessive thoughts about food." Any little
thing can set that douchebag off, and then it's a fight for the entire rest of
the day. When out alone in the wild, or isolated in a sealed box, no one cares
whether you eat or starve, so that "go eat something" lobe never gets
triggered externally. But the instant you're back, there's that 20-foot-tall
Big Mac on a billboard telling you what exit to take. Even if you don't get
off and buy one, it wakes up the appetite jerk, who starts offering unhelpful
alternative suggestions. And it only shuts up after continuously whining for
many hours, or when sleeping.

------
goda90
While I'm sure they're considerably better than processed foods, I wonder how
the whole fruits, grains, and vegetables that have been selectively bred, or
genetically modified to be all about tastiness(or growth speed, shelf life,
etc) would stack up against other strains. All tomatoes can't possibly be
equal, so it'd be interesting to see studies like this, but comparing a roma
tomato, vs heirloom or something.

~~~
cwkoss
Vegetables have been getting larger, but nutritional density is decreasing. I
think I read vegetables are something like 20% less nutritionally dense than
50 years ago.

~~~
maxxxxx
From what I have read they are selected for looks, taste and ease of storage
and transportation. There is no consideration for nutritional value.

~~~
corysama
Consumers don't have tricorders to scan two tomatoes and compare their
relative nutrition. Meanwhile, they are extremely sensitive to price and
appearance differences in their groceries.

It's a bad situation for everybody. But, selecting for nutrition over
appearance would go almost completely unnoticed by anyone except for how it
made the accountants and shareholders sad.

I can dream about a marketing campaign focused on nutritional value. But, in
the end, I expect consumers would brush it off as BS and buy up all the cheap,
pretty, non-local, out-of-season produce anyway :/

------
challenger22
I often wonder how much the difficulty of chewing a food effects how healthy
its consumers are. Processed foods are "pre-chewed" and easy to eat very
quickly.

~~~
asark
A lot of foods that are really bad for you are kind of a pain to make. Potato
chips. Fried chicken. Anything deep fried, really. Coffee cake. Chocolate chip
cookies aren't hard but aren't exactly make-on-a-whim either and require
resting the dough for a good long while if you want them to be really good.
Most stuff that's easy to eat within minutes of a craving without having it
prepared in advance are whole fruit or salads or something like that. Nuts are
probably among the worst ready-to-eat foods but at least they're full of
protein and vitamins, and arguably their eat-quickly-ability is well balanced
with their nutrition level _if_ you buy them in the shell, which prevents
tossing back whole handfuls at once. The truly bad stuff takes planning,
unless you buy it already made.

[EDIT] oh man, crackers! A fair amount of effort for a pretty small yield in a
home kitchen, even using electric mixers and such. Enough of a pain you'd
hesitate to just eat them as-is rather than using them as one part of a larger
meal. But a whole box is a couple bucks at the store....

~~~
matchbok
My rule lately for junk/bad food: I only eat it if I take the time to make it
myself. Works pretty well!

------
jonplackett
Processed _food_ is not really food.

It’s just designed to be really, really cheap to make (so usually bad quality
ingredients + sugar), sell for a premium based on marketing (often bullshit
health claims like added vitamins c or just nice cartoons), sit on a shelf for
ages without going rotten (lots of preservatives, or more sugar and definitely
no fibre to help level out that sugar spike) and be very morish (more added
sugar / caffeine / salt).

It’s a product designed by a big corporation to make them as much money as
possible. At no point is anyone thinking about making food.

It’s hardly a surprise that it’s non-functional as actual nutrition, and
equally unsurprising it’s going to make you ill.

But some of it does taste pretty good.

------
simonebrunozzi
What's the measurable difference between "processed" and "ultra-processed"
foods?

~~~
noelsusman
[https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-
core/c...](https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-
core/content/view/2A9776922A28F8F757BDA32C3266AC2A/S1368980017000234a.pdf/un_decade_of_nutrition_the_nova_food_classification_and_the_trouble_with_ultraprocessing.pdf)

See page 5 of the pdf.

------
xchaotic
Basically processed food is much more dense in calories so you can easily eat
more calories than you need. You'd have to eat a lot of vegetables and salad
to get calories. The study is new, but the conclusion is ' hacker diet' \-
people eating processed food ate more calories than they burned so they gained
weight.

If you want to lose weight just burn more calories than you eat.

Usually the easiest solution is a mix of better diet and some moderate
exercise regime that burns some calories and increases your metabolism.

------
tolstoshev
I suspect emulsifiers are playing a bigger role than people realize. They wash
away your gut mucus layer so that bacteria can't live there. This study didn't
get much attention when it came out, but I think it will prove to be
prophetic:
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5940336/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5940336/)

------
mullingitover
Refined sugar and alcohol are the worst for me. I can easily stay in my target
BMI range without doing any diet plan apart from eliminating these two things.

The refined sugar especially seems to aggravate my appetite. It's been shown
that drinking a sugared soft drink before a meal increases the amount of food
you'll eat, and that's definitely been my experience. At the beginning of this
month I eliminated sugar and alcohol from my diet. No other change, and I've
lost 5 lbs so far. In the past I've used this diet hack for longer stretches
and easily dropped ~30 lbs in four months.

------
jhallenworld
Here is the paper:

[https://www.cell.com/cell-
metabolism/fulltext/S1550-4131(19)...](https://www.cell.com/cell-
metabolism/fulltext/S1550-4131\(19\)30248-7)

I'm comparing with the Nurses Health Study results:

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Mozaffarian%2C+D.%...](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Mozaffarian%2C+D.%2C+et+al.%2C+Changes+in+diet+and+lifestyle+and+long-
term+weight+gain+in+women+and+men.+N+Engl+J+Med%2C+2011.+364%2825%29%3A+p.+2392-404).

------
m3kw9
Tastes good, cost less, uses substitute ingredients that is higher in calories
but less nutrition, in turn it digests faster causing you to eat more. That’s
processed foods.

------
johnkpaul
This paper seems to assume that "ultra-processed" is a previously defined
term. Is there an agreed upon definition somewhere?

~~~
jolmg
There's a Wikipedia article:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-
processed_food](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-processed_food)

That links to a report from a United Nations organization that also uses the
term:

[http://www.fao.org/3/a-i4690e.pdf](http://www.fao.org/3/a-i4690e.pdf)

On page 30, there's a section titled "Group 4: Ultra-processed food and drink
products" which describes what an ultra-processed food or drink is.

That PDF also has 10 references to papers that use the term in their title.

~~~
wcunning
Wikipedia article linked also says "As of 2018 the concept is loose and
evolving" linking to a newer article than the UN report, so why would I think
this paper used the UN definition?

The Wikipedia article further goes on to state "The utility of the NOVA
classification has been subject to criticism. However, a 2018 publication from
the founders of the NOVA classification uncovered misleading and incorrect
statements in the critical appraisal, as well as non-disclosed conflicts of
interest."

Basically, I don't see a terribly agreed upon definition. Things point several
ways, and the GP's concern about definition is entirely valid.

~~~
denzil_correa
> so why would I think this paper used the UN definition?

Because if you read the paper from the OP link, the authors cite that their
definition of ultra-processed food is from Monteiro et al 2008 viz. the same
UN definition the OP refers to which is widely agreed upon.

------
matthewaveryusa
Isn't this study a bit unfair in that the ultra-processed diet was 508
calories more per day than the minimally processed one?

~~~
hombre_fatal
That's how many extra calories one group ate than the other. It wasn't
prescribed.

The article explains reasons why, like how the appetite-suppressing hormone
was found in much different levels between the two groups.

------
emanuensis
Easy to digest food for us ... is also easy to digest for bacteria, so they
can forget about us and go straight to the source:
[https://phys.org/news/2019-05-overfed-bacteria-people-
sick.h...](https://phys.org/news/2019-05-overfed-bacteria-people-sick.html)

~~~
aitchnyu
Reminds me of the manufactured sugar that feeds C Difficile strains in our
guts and kills people. [https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/01/the-curious-
case-of-...](https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/01/the-curious-case-of-a-
boring-sugar-that-may-have-unleashed-a-savage-plague/)

------
chrchr
I wondered what exactly they meant by "ultra-processed" foods. I looked into
it, and found that they were using the NOVA classification system:

[https://world.openfoodfacts.org/nova](https://world.openfoodfacts.org/nova)

It has a reasonable explanation of what is meant by ultra-processed.

------
MagicPropmaker
Note:

> "But is it something about the highly processed nature of these foods itself
> that drives people to overeat?"

It's still _overeating_ that drives weight gain. It's just easier to do with
highly processed foods that are calorie dense and not "psychologically"
filling....

~~~
jodrellblank
"Overeating drives weight gain" is like "more movement on the gas pedal causes
speeding". Yes, but uninteresting. "Loud rock music makes people drive faster"
is not saying the same thing, and is interesting.

Even if it reduces back to "they're going faster because they move the gas
pedal more".

------
buildzr
It's interesting that the "ultra-processed" food example they give here is
quesadillas, refried beans and diet lemonade. Not exactly the typical example
of pre-packaged cookies and chips.

Another interesting thing is they're saying that stir-fried beef and veggies
over basmati rice was not as processed. Both examples include meat, veggies
and carbs (rice vs bread), is the simple addition of cheese enough to make
quesadillas "ultra-processed"? The form factor? I certainly would never have
come to that conclusion on my own. Is there a guide for this?

We need some better definitions here, maybe it's a little too cynical of me,
but I'm wondering if all this study discovered is which foods tasted better.

~~~
Malician
The quesadillas have, like most frozen foods in the grocery store, their
calories primarily come from highly processed corn/wheat. I suspect that's a
big part of the issue.

~~~
buildzr
They don't say anything about the quesadillas being frozen in the article at
least - but regardless, I'd say it's probably a similar amount to the calories
from rice in a stir fry on rice dish. I eat about 1/2 cup (uncooked) of rice
with my stirfry typically, ~350 calories compare with the flour tortillas I
normally use at under 200 calories each. Most basmati rice is white which I'd
say is just about as "processed" as most flour.

I'm not sure what the exact definition of "processed" being used is though so
I can't say for certain. But both are being stripped of outer layer, mixed
with water and cooked. I suppose you need a tablespoon or so of oil to cook
the tortillas but I'm assuming you're sautéing the veggies for the stir fry in
oil too.

I just don't get what processed means in this context.

------
sebringj
I would guess based on what I've read the absorption rate of energy is too
fast with highly processed food, while the opposite, eating fibrous plant
material seems to be very good for you as you have a far slower energy intake,
in relative terms.

~~~
Gibbon1
Working understanding at this point for me is highly processed food results in
chronically high insulin levels.

Insulin signals your cells to convert glucose to fat and store it. Insulin
also inhibits leptin receptors which tell your brain to keep your pie hole
closed.

Likely your gastro-intestinal nervous system also has a good idea of how much
reserves it has stored. Processed food confuses it.

~~~
sebringj
So I like your details... so in this case, the "intake" being too fast results
in the body storing the excess energy as fat. I noticed that I feel more tired
in general when I eat this kind of fast food crap. Side note on top of this I
started skipping breakfast now so have a built in fasting period each day and
my energy has gone way up in terms of being present.

------
mixedCase
For a study that mentions keto/low-carb diets directly a few times I would've
loved to see a group consuming these "ultra-processed foods" but selecting
only from those with low glycemic index/carb count.

~~~
mcfunk
Me too, since keto wisdom is that highly processed oils (e.g. seed and
"vegetable" oils) should be eliminated, presumably from some hormonal impact,
but I've never seen any research on that. It's not hard to avoid canola oil
usually, so I don't think much of it.

~~~
syn0byte
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11417387](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11417387)

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20930468](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20930468)

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4365303/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4365303/)

------
gwbas1c
But processed foods taste so good...

It reminds me of what a friend, who'd been through AA said: She can abstain
from alcohol, drugs, and sex. But she can't stop eating.

------
babyslothzoo
This should have been obvious to anyone for ages now.

Ultra processed foods are almost always significantly higher in calories.

~~~
jodrellblank
Shouldn't the "obvious" conclusion be that you'd eat less of them, because you
got enough calories sooner?

------
paulsutter
"Hyper-palatable" is probably a better label than "Ultra-processed". The
problem isn't the processing, the problem is that its just hard to stop eating
food like Doritos, chocolate chip cookies, etc. And while I love simple food
like lentil soup, yet feel no compulsion to eat more than a serving.

~~~
maxxxxx
I once read an article where they interviewed food scientists for something
like Doritos and they had very intricate science around foods that don't
satisfy you so you keep eating. In one sense it was really interesting how
sophisticated these foods actually are but on the other hans it's amazing how
much damage they are doing to the health of the country.

------
sparrish
That's cause they taste so darn good you want to eat more of them.

~~~
hombre_fatal
> Study participants were allowed to eat as much or as little as they wanted,
> but ended up eating way more of the ultra-processed meals, even though they
> didn't rate them as being tastier than the unprocessed meals.

~~~
goda90
Tastier is pretty subjective, and they weren't comparing them side by side.
But something can probably be said about shifting tastes as you eat a certain
kind of food repeatedly. I know if I'm eating healthy for awhile, then have a
super rich dessert, it overwhelms me, as if my taste buds have adapted towards
the healthy food.

~~~
hombre_fatal
Sure, but the article also explains things like how the appetite-suppressing
hormone was found in much higher levels in the group consuming unprocessed
foods.

So I think I'd focus on facts like that before circling back to "well, it was
probably tastier, they just didn't know it."

------
quantguy11959
Did they control for food taste and preferences ? It could simply be the
processed food happened to taste better as well. Not sure if pleasantness and
familiarity cover that.

------
wcunning
20 people for 14 days on one diet then 14 days on another. I don't see how
this is a terribly illuminating study. This is not sufficient time or
statistical sample to extrapolate to, well, really anything. What confounding
factors were unrevealed by the small sample size? What structural problems are
introduced by such a short time span?

We need to either collectively start ignoring these studies on somebody's 5
fraternity brothers over a weekend, or we need to start demanding more people,
longer time horizons and better controls for confounding factors. I'm pretty
disappointed to see NPR hocking this crap or Cell publishing it.

