3 ms·

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.

by dfxm12 8y ago

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-depth/calories/art-20048065 https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/weight-loss/in-...

jjeaff 8y ago
Isn't that the point? Calories are calories, ultra-processed or not. But people eating processed foods will end up eating more calories over all.
buzzdenver 8y ago
Point of the study was to show that "eating a diet made up of ultra-processed foods actually drives people to overeat and gain weight compared with a diet made up of whole or minimally processed foods".
- LanceH 8y ago
  Eating easy to acquire, tasty food drives weight gain over more difficult to prepare, more expensive, less tasty food.
noelsusman 8y ago
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.
- maxxxxx 8y ago
  "calories in calories out" 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.
  - conistonwater 8y ago
    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.
    - maxxxxx 8y ago
      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.
  - nokcha 8y ago
    >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.
    - maxxxxx 8y ago
      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".
conistonwater 8y ago
> Popular science [0] claims that ~3500 calories equals a pound. Kevin Hall, one of the people behind this study, goes to some length explaining why he thinks it's a bad rule. He came up with another that he likes explaining, IIRC it's 10 calories per pound per day. I can't remember where I heard him talk about this, it might have been this talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPi1LQHBWBk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPi1LQHBWBk, he's pretty good at public speaking and explaining.
benj111 8y ago
I don't think your whoops is that much of a whoops. Many things tend to have natural portion sizes. People will tend to go for 1 burger, or 1 chicken breast. I suppose processed food would be more likely to have a natural portion size, could the weight loss then be explained by that portion size being too large, and the natural diet allowed people to better choose their own portion?

by dfxm12 8y ago

jjeaff 8y ago

Isn't that the point? Calories are calories, ultra-processed or not. But people eating processed foods will end up eating more calories over all.

buzzdenver 8y ago

Point of the study was to show that "eating a diet made up of ultra-processed foods actually drives people to overeat and gain weight compared with a diet made up of whole or minimally processed foods".

LanceH 8y ago
Eating easy to acquire, tasty food drives weight gain over more difficult to prepare, more expensive, less tasty food.

noelsusman 8y ago

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.

maxxxxx 8y ago
"calories in calories out" 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.
- conistonwater 8y ago
  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.
  - maxxxxx 8y ago
    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.
- nokcha 8y ago
  >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.
  - maxxxxx 8y ago
    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".

conistonwater 8y ago

> Popular science [0] claims that ~3500 calories equals a pound. Kevin Hall, one of the people behind this study, goes to some length explaining why he thinks it's a bad rule. He came up with another that he likes explaining, IIRC it's 10 calories per pound per day. I can't remember where I heard him talk about this, it might have been this talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPi1LQHBWBk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPi1LQHBWBk, he's pretty good at public speaking and explaining.

benj111 8y ago

I don't think your whoops is that much of a whoops. Many things tend to have natural portion sizes. People will tend to go for 1 burger, or 1 chicken breast. I suppose processed food would be more likely to have a natural portion size, could the weight loss then be explained by that portion size being too large, and the natural diet allowed people to better choose their own portion?