What can we do about ultraprocessed foods?(knowablemagazine.org)
knowablemagazine.org
What can we do about ultraprocessed foods?
https://knowablemagazine.org/article/food-environment/2023/what-can-we-do-about-ultraprocessed-foods
13 comments
Very interesting article. Some tibdits:
> To study ultraprocessed foods, researchers must be able to define them, and even this is contentious. Food preparation involves processes like grinding, cooking, fermenting and pasteurizing — methods that have long been used to make foods safer and more digestible, palatable and storable. But according to the most widely used classification system, called NOVA, ultraprocessed foods are distinguished by additional industrial techniques, like hydrolysis, hydrogenation and extrusion, and with ingredients like emulsifiers, thickeners, flavors and other additives that are rarely found in home kitchens.
> Unlike observational studies, randomized controlled trials can provide direct evidence that a particular diet causes health issues, but so far, only one short-term trial of this type has been published. In the tightly controlled study, led by National Institutes of Health nutrition and metabolism scientist Kevin Hall and published in 2019, 20 participants lived at a clinical center for one month and were offered either minimally processed foods or ultraprocessed foods for two weeks, then the other for two weeks. The meals were matched for overall calories, carbohydrates, sugar, fiber, fat, protein and salt, and participants were told they could eat as much or as little as they liked.
> During two weeks on the ultraprocessed diet, participants ate an average of 508 more calories per day and gained about two pounds, the study found; during two weeks on the minimally processed diet, they lost about the same amount.
> One possible explanation is energy density, or the number of calories per gram of food. In Hall’s 2019 NIH trial, for example, energy density was higher for the ultraprocessed foods, primarily because they contained less water, than for the minimally processed foods. Previous research has shown that people tend to consume more calories when they eat energy-dense foods, perhaps because the foods are less physically filling to the gastrointestinal tract and allow for more calories to be consumed in a shorter amount of time, interfering with normal satiety signaling. When Hall and colleagues looked back at 2,733 meals served in two NIH trials comparing different types of diets, they found that energy density was one of the most important determinants of calorie intake within a given meal.
My own subjective experience is that three factors affect how much I eat of a given meal:
1- How much you have to chew. E.g. a steak, even if well marbled, is more filling than the same amount of ground meat.
2- Calorie density. Steamed veggies, beans and soups are very filling relative to the calories they contain.
3- Macronutrient balance. When I stuff myself with veggies I reach an unpleasant status in which I feel both physically full while at the same time I still want to eat more. This doesn't happen with meals that are more balanced in macronutrients, specifically meals that provide adequate protein and some carbohydrates.
My go-to meals to feel satisfied these days are bean stews with chewable veggies such as carrots and corn. Whole-wheat wraps with salad and boiled eggs or chicken breast are also rather filling when I feel the need for extra protein.
I cook these in batches and keep them in the fridge so that they are ready to eat at a moment's notice.
> To study ultraprocessed foods, researchers must be able to define them, and even this is contentious. Food preparation involves processes like grinding, cooking, fermenting and pasteurizing — methods that have long been used to make foods safer and more digestible, palatable and storable. But according to the most widely used classification system, called NOVA, ultraprocessed foods are distinguished by additional industrial techniques, like hydrolysis, hydrogenation and extrusion, and with ingredients like emulsifiers, thickeners, flavors and other additives that are rarely found in home kitchens.
> Unlike observational studies, randomized controlled trials can provide direct evidence that a particular diet causes health issues, but so far, only one short-term trial of this type has been published. In the tightly controlled study, led by National Institutes of Health nutrition and metabolism scientist Kevin Hall and published in 2019, 20 participants lived at a clinical center for one month and were offered either minimally processed foods or ultraprocessed foods for two weeks, then the other for two weeks. The meals were matched for overall calories, carbohydrates, sugar, fiber, fat, protein and salt, and participants were told they could eat as much or as little as they liked.
> During two weeks on the ultraprocessed diet, participants ate an average of 508 more calories per day and gained about two pounds, the study found; during two weeks on the minimally processed diet, they lost about the same amount.
> One possible explanation is energy density, or the number of calories per gram of food. In Hall’s 2019 NIH trial, for example, energy density was higher for the ultraprocessed foods, primarily because they contained less water, than for the minimally processed foods. Previous research has shown that people tend to consume more calories when they eat energy-dense foods, perhaps because the foods are less physically filling to the gastrointestinal tract and allow for more calories to be consumed in a shorter amount of time, interfering with normal satiety signaling. When Hall and colleagues looked back at 2,733 meals served in two NIH trials comparing different types of diets, they found that energy density was one of the most important determinants of calorie intake within a given meal.
My own subjective experience is that three factors affect how much I eat of a given meal:
1- How much you have to chew. E.g. a steak, even if well marbled, is more filling than the same amount of ground meat.
2- Calorie density. Steamed veggies, beans and soups are very filling relative to the calories they contain.
3- Macronutrient balance. When I stuff myself with veggies I reach an unpleasant status in which I feel both physically full while at the same time I still want to eat more. This doesn't happen with meals that are more balanced in macronutrients, specifically meals that provide adequate protein and some carbohydrates.
My go-to meals to feel satisfied these days are bean stews with chewable veggies such as carrots and corn. Whole-wheat wraps with salad and boiled eggs or chicken breast are also rather filling when I feel the need for extra protein.
I cook these in batches and keep them in the fridge so that they are ready to eat at a moment's notice.
I think it's fiber. Fiber has a moderating effect on uptake of food. Without it you get a rise in blood sugar, insulin response, and then glycogen is stored as fat.
Fiber does everything you say.
However, it doesn't address for example why e.g. ground meat is less filling than whole meat, which is why I used it as an example. There appears to be something about the process of chewing that induces fullness. It could be something as simple as the additional time it takes to consume the food allows for our satiety to catch up with the amount of food we have eating. The article talks about "texture" instead, but it appears to refer to the same idea.
Fiber-rich foods alone don't seem sufficient to provide satiety either. Consume a head of broccoli and you will feel physically full, as your stomach will be stretched, but you will still want more food. This makes sense, as you have not consumed an adequate amount of calories or protein.
However, it doesn't address for example why e.g. ground meat is less filling than whole meat, which is why I used it as an example. There appears to be something about the process of chewing that induces fullness. It could be something as simple as the additional time it takes to consume the food allows for our satiety to catch up with the amount of food we have eating. The article talks about "texture" instead, but it appears to refer to the same idea.
Fiber-rich foods alone don't seem sufficient to provide satiety either. Consume a head of broccoli and you will feel physically full, as your stomach will be stretched, but you will still want more food. This makes sense, as you have not consumed an adequate amount of calories or protein.
Ground beef is more palatable than whole beef because of fat. It’s mostly fat, like an 80% chuck. Meanwhile, even a fatty tenderloin is only 25-30% fat.
Potatoes are more interesting to consider than a head of broccoli though since they are one of the most satiating foods and it’s easier to ask why one food is satiating than why another is not.
Potatoes are more interesting to consider than a head of broccoli though since they are one of the most satiating foods and it’s easier to ask why one food is satiating than why another is not.
Perhaps I've misunderstood, but 80% ground beef has 20% fat, making it less than a 25-30% far tenderloin (can't confirm that number, just going with yours), which seems to invalidate your claim.
Yeah, you're right. I'm not sure how I butchered that so badly. The thought of ground beef being 80-95% fat even sounded absurd to me as I was writing it.
Not that person, but I believe you're right. I think it's to do with muscle fiber - breaking the connections between the meat is fully pre-empted by grinding, and I theorize a connection between the mechanics of chewing and satiety.
> Ground beef is more palatable than whole beef because of fat. It’s mostly fat, like an 80% chuck. Meanwhile, even a fatty tenderloin is only 25-30% fat
You got that backwards, as others have pointed out. 80% chuck is 80% lean and 20% fat. Simply look at the different grades of ground meat and compare their appearance. 95% "extra lean" ground meat is a darker shade of brown while 70% "medium" ground meat is much whiter due to the higher fat content.
You got that backwards, as others have pointed out. 80% chuck is 80% lean and 20% fat. Simply look at the different grades of ground meat and compare their appearance. 95% "extra lean" ground meat is a darker shade of brown while 70% "medium" ground meat is much whiter due to the higher fat content.
I think it's the combination of fiber and water somehow. You can eat less calories worth of fresh applies than you can get from either apple juice or dried apples.
One thought I've had is that the key beneficial thing of healthy natural food is that it has intact cells.
One thought I've had is that the key beneficial thing of healthy natural food is that it has intact cells.
> You can eat less calories worth of fresh applies than you can get from either apple juice or dried apples.
Fresh apples need to be chewed much more than either juice or dried apples.
Fresh apples need to be chewed much more than either juice or dried apples.
Is this a trick question?
I know. It seems obvious yet it's still hard to wean most of us off them.
It's garbage like crisps, biscuits, cakes, chocolate bars, burgers, sandwiches, fast food, takeaway food, ready meals.
If we're talking about regular sounding foods which have been tampered with, these are surely simply "processed" foods.