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.
> 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.
I actually used to lose more weight when I was really poor than I am now. I'd buy like a single Totino's pizza at 660 calories for around a $1 and I could make that plus maybe a sandwich or a burrito from Taco Bell or something last me all day. Probably had about 1200-1400 calories a day most days, and spent $3 or less.
Now I'm spending like $10-20 a meal for two meals, and I'm probably consuming well over 2000 calories a day, probably 3000 a lot of days, eating things like Poke and Mediterranean salads and the like (not exclusively, I have unhealthy meals also).
I realize I am just anecdata and not representative of poor eating habits in general. Studies seem to suggest that was an anomaly.
I had Totino's pizza again the other day. Still good, still can get them for $1.50 or less. Just seems like I need to eat a lot healthier as far as food quality now, at least on average.
Reminds me of the time I was eating whole plant vegan food. We went to Nandos Peri Peri, a famous Peruvian chain. I ordered salad for like 8 or 9 bucks, but was extremely hungry when I got back to my desk. So I checked the calories on their menu, and the salad had 40 calories.
That's too simple. Some foods digest better than others. I can eat the same calories from potato chips or a lentil dish but my digestion and later on weight change will be very different.
>Some foods digest better than others. I can eat the same calories from potato chips a lentil dish but my digestion and laster on weight change will be very different.
The food that exits your body without being digested falls into the "calories out" category. "Calories in calories out" does indeed represent a simple thermodynamic truth, although unfortunately the "calories out" component can be rather difficult to determine in practice.
That way makes sense but I don't think the people who use that phrase mean it that way. Usually they seem to say "a calorie is a calorie no matter where it comes from".
While no individual person may deliberately do this, the gestalt does a motte & bailey with this, where "calories in = calories out" means that people are wrong to think about how different calories affect the body differently and interact with all the feedback loops in the body and dieting is just a matter of applying willpower harder and eating less, until you challenge it, at which point it's suddenly just a tautological thermodynamic truth that apparently is being thrown into the discussion for basically no reason and with no particular purpose in mind.
It really needs to just be retired. At its best its an unhelpful tautological statement, at its worst, inflammatory and thought-terminating. Not much reason to keep dragging it in to every diet discussion.
I once tried to look up on google scholar what difference different digestibility made, and if I remember correctly with respect to fiber (the main kind of thing that reduces digestibility) you have to eat like twice the recommended amount of fiber just to reduce the total calories by like a 100. It was something like 80g of fiber, which isn't something you can easily eat without restructuring your whole diet. So the effect is there, but the way you explain it neglects to ask how big the effect is.
Food is much more complex than fiber vs. calories. I am not a scientist there but I observe myself and others a lot. When I eat certain foods I can eat a lot without weight gain, my digestions works, my mind works, I go to the bathroom regularly. When I eat junk food, I gain weight, I feel sluggish and I often get constipated. Unless I am very special, which I don't think I am, I assume other people experience the same thing.
There are additional factors on both the in and out side, but they all work in favor of losing weight. In other words, there is a maximum amount of energy in the food you eat, and a minimum amount of energy required for sustaining your being and physical activity. There simply is is no way around this.
