14 ms·

New research highlights the damage caused by processed food

123 points by jseliger 5y ago

wellthisisgreat 5y ago
Is there a way to buy a Continuous Glucose Monitor (CGM) in the US without dealing with the subscription-based services? I searched after reading this article and there is Nutrisense for $185/month / subscription with 12-months commitment. This is beyond outrageous.
- code_duck 5y ago
  There was a variety of the Freestyle Libre 3 approved for sports, in the EU, that is available OTC. They’re working on approval in the US. https://www.abbott.com/corpnewsroom/strategy-and-strength/abbott-launches-first-glucose-sport-biosensor-for-athletes.html https://www.abbott.com/corpnewsroom/strategy-and-strength/ab... https://diatribe.org/new-libre-sense-cgm-available-over-counter-europe https://diatribe.org/new-libre-sense-cgm-available-over-coun... I’ve actually never heard of the Nutrisense CGM. I have type 1 diabetes and use a Dexcom, which is way more expensive than that. As far as I know, all others (Libre 2, Medtronic, Dexcom) require a prescription in the EU and US.
- GhettoComputers 5y ago
  For what purpose? Use what diabetes use if its that important, or just avoid sugar and carbs, its cheaper and healthier than overgathering data for unhealthy habits.
lytefm 5y ago
If I recall correctly, carbohydrates alone can explain about 1/3 of the variability in postprandial glucose responses [1]. That's a lot, but not the whole story. Variability between individuals and also for the same meals at different times of the day or under different conditions is high. But overall, most of the recent nutritional research shows that grandma/mom was probably right in banning "junk food" and serving "natural" foods. We've invented highly processed foods before having fully adjusted to doing agriculture. At least my better meals (w.r.t the post-meal glucose response) were fairly self-composed whereas frozen pizza & co gave me the worst spikes. [1] source tomorrow, maybe
- code_duck 5y ago
  In my experience (I have type 1 diabetes and wear a glucose monitor) carbohydrates are responsible for pretty much all blood glucose increase. Some people report fat and protein eventually being converted to glucose, hours later, but this doesn’t seem to happen to me. Carbs start a rapid increase in blood glucose about 15 minutes after consumption. The only real variability for me is that my liver also puts out a bunch of glucose in the morning.
JoeNr76 5y ago
Why are we still talking about the CIM? It failed practically every test we threw at it. Sure low carb diets can make you lose weight, but that's because you eat less, not because of insuline.
- wolverine876 5y ago
  Can you give us some sources on that?
  - JoeNr76 5y ago
    This is already 6 years old:https://cei.org/blog/study-wounds-the-carbohydrate-insulin-theory-of-obesity/ https://cei.org/blog/study-wounds-the-carbohydrate-insulin-t... Basically, as long as proteine is controlled for, there is no long term fat-loss difference between dietary compositions. See here for a longer and more recent explanation: https://www.performancelab.com/blogs/nutrition/carbohydrate-insulin-hypothesis-why-its-wrong https://www.performancelab.com/blogs/nutrition/carbohydrate-...
    - wolverine876 5y ago
      Are these just one side in a debate? The accepted consensus of experts? Are we at 'theory of gravity' level of acceptance?
    - timbit42 5y ago
      I'm not sure I'd trust CEI: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/competitive-enterprise-institute/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/competitive-enterprise-instit... Not sure I'd trust Performance Lab either as they're just trying to sell you their health products.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- PeterisP 5y ago
  Well, perhaps carb-related metabolism changes and insulin is a valid mechanism that makes people eat more or less, if that's the case, I'd count it as a success as that offers practical ways to get results.
wolverine876 5y ago
Can someone, maybe even a nutritionist or doctor, recommend an authoritative textbook or course on nutrition? I would need something at the undergraduate or non-specialist graduate level. Being a topic that directly affects every day of the rest of my life, I would like to gain as sophisticated an understanding as a can, given limits of time. I could work through one textbook or course. I know there are not always authoritative answers about nutrition; there is much uncertainty. That's all the more reason to have the knowledge distilled by an expert (who would of course discuss uncertainties).
- zemvpferreira 5y ago
  What interests you specifically? I've never read a nutrition textbook front-to-back but I spend a good portion of my time reading research and opinions on nutrition. I think I've cobbled together a pretty good education on the topic over the past decade. I'm sad to say 99% of what I've read has been hack science, stupidly obvious or minute in importance. It's almost troubling to me how far you can go just following Michael Pollan's old chestnut: eat (real) food, not too much, mostly plants. Barring any intolerances that right there will get you to near-optimal nutrition for general health in 8 words. EDIT: Being guilty of not reading the article before posting, I just noticed my message ties nicely with the content. If you want to look good inside and out, eat food your grand-grandparents would recognise in amounts that wouldn't shock them.
  - wolverine876 5y ago
    In this case, I'm not interested in (further) gradual accumulation of knowledge; I want authoritative fundamentals of nutrition, probably starting with how the body processes food. In my experience, in many cases the latter more efficient (less time, much more knowledge, much more accurate) if I have time to do it. For something as central as nutrition, I will prioritize it.
    - CuriousSkeptic 5y ago
      You might enjoy the crash course youtube channel. I found the pace and depth just about right for my own taste. Episode on metabolism and nutrition: https://youtu.be/fR3NxCR9z2U https://youtu.be/fR3NxCR9z2U
wolverine876 5y ago
A couple things I've wondered about: * The popular fake meats, such as Impossible burgers, seem like ultra-processed foods. Is that right? Are they healthier than meat (a question without a general answer, but worth considering)? They could help with climate change, regardless. * A basic question, but I haven't found an authoritative answer: Warnings about carbohydrates talk about processed foods but are silent on whole grains. Are whole grains a more healthy way to consume carbs?
- friedman23 5y ago
  "Plant based meats" are carbohydrate heavy so they are really only meat-like in terms of taste and texture but fail as meat replacements due to the completely different nutritional profile.
  - blacksmith_tb 5y ago
    Not the case for the aforementioned Impossible Burger[1] which has about twice as much protein as carbs (and quite a bit of fat). But the question of how 'processed' they should be considered is interesting. 1: https://faq.impossiblefoods.com/hc/en-us/articles/360018939274-What-are-the-nutrition-facts-for-Impossible-Burger- https://faq.impossiblefoods.com/hc/en-us/articles/3600189392...
    - code_duck 5y ago
      Also you can discount the fiber portion of the total carbohydrates, since it’s indigestible, and with that it has 3x the protein vs carbs. Meat has zero carbs, though.
- tasty_freeze 5y ago
  Eat the impossible burger for the ethics of it, not for reasons of health.
  - throwamon 5y ago
    ... Or just eat what vegetarians have been eating since forever and keep your ethics AND health?
wilburTheDog 5y ago
If the advice is to eat lower on the food chain - more simple whole foods - instead of highly processed foods and sugary snacks, it seems like good advice. At least it has been in everyone I know who does so. On the other hand if it is an indictment of simple carbohydrates like potatoes, I'd say it's too simplistic. One guy ate nothing but potatoes for two months; his health improved and he lost weight[1]. If it's just simple carbohydrates are bad that shouldn't have happened. 1. https://spudman.com/article/all-potato-diet-eight-years-later-voigt/ https://spudman.com/article/all-potato-diet-eight-years-late...
armchairhacker 5y ago
I posted something like this recently. People don't have long-term willpower. If someone sticks to a diet and exercise routine which makes losing weight easy-ish and natural, there's a good chance they'll lose weight; if their routine makes them constantly hungry, tired, and stressed, there's a good chance they'll gain weight. Ignoring the effects on metabolism, unprocessed food generally causes the former, insulin spikes cause the latter. Even if "CICO" is absolute and 500 calories of broccoli = 500 calories of chocolate, that's not really important. Because 500 calories of broccoli is an insane amount that you probably can't eat even if you tried, while 500 calories of chocolate you can eat and still be hungry afterwards. But there's one caveat: a lot of people find that occasional "cheat meals" make sticking to a diet the other 90% of the time easier. Even some pro athletes and bodybuilders have cheat meals. I really doubt smaller amounts of processed food cause the metabolic changes the article describes or any significant changes, so while the quality of food matters, that doesn't mean people need to avoid junk food entirely.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
  > Because 500 calories of broccoli is an insane amount that you probably can't eat even if you tried You sound like the people who say no one can eat an entire jar of peanut butter in one sitting. I assure you that you are mistaken.
kazinator 5y ago
If you cook, fry, bake, brine or ferment it, it's "processed". Think of the damage doable by unprocessed food: all the pathogens and parasites that can enter your body. The fact you can eat something that is six months old is possible thanks to processing, such as leaving it in the same air-tight container in which it was cooked, a.k.a canning.
- JoeNr76 5y ago
  That's why the scientific literature uses the better term "ultra-processed" to mark the difference between, say a loaf of bread and a chicken nugget.
  - refurb 5y ago
    That’s a subjective distinction. I would say a chicken nugget is just finely ground chicken meat with some binder like egg or flour covered in breading.
    - AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
      Clearly you've never heard of meat glue. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meat_glue https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meat_glue
      - refurb 5y ago
        How is that different than making things like head cheese? You boil bones and connective tissue and make a loaf out of the congealed proteins. It's been done for centuries. Or were our ancestors eating "ultra highly process foods" too?
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
qwerty2021 5y ago
>That Energy Balance Model (EBM) seems to make intuitive sense: we gain weight because we consume more calories than we burn. However, as the authors note in the abstract, “Conceptualizing obesity as a disorder of energy balance restates a principle of physics without considering the biological mechanisms that promote weight gain.” >Instead, in the Carbohydrate Insulin Model (CIM), they offer as an alternative, the types of food we eat—particularly excessive carbohydrates (including added sugars and refined grains)—change our hormonal balance in a way that makes our body store more fat, and that makes us obese. this seems trivial to prove that theory. get a number of test subjects, calculate their BMR via direct calorimetry, restrict their physical activity and feed half of them a diet of supermarket garbage, and the other half a nice and balanced diet, then publish the results. have any of the researches who seek to debunk the laws of thermodynamics attempted to do that?
- rajin444 5y ago
  https://www.wkrn.com/news/professor-loses-weight-on-junk-food-diet/ https://www.wkrn.com/news/professor-loses-weight-on-junk-foo... Anecdotally I’ve done the same. I lost 20 lbs or so eating fast food regularly. I’m able to get to around 12-14% BF like this pretty easy. It might be harder to go leaner.
  - naasking 5y ago
    Yes, energy balance is absolutely, unequivocally true. That said, focusing on energy balance may not be the best therapeutic approach to obesity, which is what the OP was quoting.
frankus 5y ago
I'm a bit more skeptical of the CIM than I was in the past, but the EBM to me just seems hilariously inadequate to explain the obesity crisis. It's like if a patient came to their doctor complaining of water retention, and the doctor said "well clearly you're drinking more than you're excreting" and sent the patient home with instructions to drink less and pee more. My hunch with the CIM is that a human in good health can pretty effortlessly maintain a non-obese weight without much regard for things like macronutrient balance, but that some fairly widespread factor has disrupted that regulation mechanism in a large fraction of the population. That in a sense a keto/low-carb diet is a workaround for a mechanism that's broken in a lot of people, rather than some platonic ideal of how everyone should be eating. As to what broke it, there are some interesting hypotheses here [https://slimemoldtimemold.com https://slimemoldtimemold.com] but no clear answers. I do personally feel a bit better eating a lower glycemic diet (from the standpoint of consistent energy levels), but I haven't achieved any weight loss that way (BMI hovers just under 25).
- JoeNr76 5y ago
  Nah. EBM does explain the obesity crisis. We're just eating more. The average American consumes more than 3,600 calories daily – a 24% increase from 1961, when the average was just 2,880 calories. And that's just the average.
  - briHass 5y ago
    Yes, but why are we eating more? It's not like people in 1961 had more willpower than those in 2021. I think there's some truth to the CIH and palatability. It's pretty hard to argue that food engineering hasn't made super tasty snacks designed to get you hooked. Those same snacks just so happen to mostly be high-carb as well.
    - solarmist 5y ago
      Note: This ignores the factors in the article to keep it simple, those affect many things which contribute to or decrease hunger, satiety, etc. I think it's as simple as the availability and quantity of food in front of us at all times. We're eating just as often as in the past, but portions (of everything) are so much larger and our bodies will eat more if it's available. Satiety is always a lagging indicator to stop eating, so by default we'll over eat if we can. Combine this with food always being available and it doesn't take a genius to figure out where the trend is going to go. This feels even more accurate to me as I've started doing alternative day fasting (because I'm about 50 lbs overweight), but I've been tracking my food intake on days I eat and I'm almost always eating 2500-3500 calories. Stuff adds up quickly. * 500 calories for a bowl of cereal with milk * 1,000 calories for a sandwich from a sandwich shop * 1,000 calories for dinner * 500+ calories from drinks And eating all of that doesn't make me feel stuffed. It's what makes me feel full. Which I know is a good bit more than "just enough" which I've done when I was working out a lot and watching every calorie I ate.
IX-103 5y ago
Can we stop using the term "processed foods"? It's a term so broad as to lose all meaning. Processed foods include anything cooked using any method and processes such as pasteurization and fermentation. Other than fruits and an occasional salad, everything I eat is "processed" (cooked). When I see a headline like this, it literally tells me nothing. (Seriously it groups yogurt the same as root beer) Even what people tend to think of when they think of processed foods, such as ready-to-eat foods, tend to be high in preservatives such as salt, sugar, vitamins, and other food-grade additives--but all of these have different nutritional effects.
- Joakal 5y ago
  Welcome to the same issue with organic, natural and even junk food that all have loose definitions. What word do you like and your definition of it?
  - colechristensen 5y ago
    Don’t use vague broad terms. If something has negative health consequences it’ll be one specific thing, not everything done by a machine.
  - nine_k 5y ago
    Highly processed? Ultra-processed? The idea is that the processing can alter the structure of the food lightly (grilling a steak), moderately (frying a burger), or deeply (making a sausage, with all the extractions, admixing, etc). Deep processing is often used to make less edible things more edible, less palatable things more crave-inducing, and less nutritionally good things more palatable.
  - IX-103 5y ago
    I also have an issue with organic and natural* as well, but that's not exactly on topic. If prefer people to use words that mean things. The article wasn't even about processed foods so much as how there is a nutritional model that shows high carbohydrate/low glycemic index foods are particularly fattening relative to their calorie content. The article could easily (and more accurately) be titled "New research highlights the damage from high carb/high sugar foods". *I mean seriously, vitamin water is "natural"? That stuff is water and sugar alcohol, with a tiny bit of stevia added so it can appear on the ingredients list for people who look for that particular keyword. Those sugar alcohols do occur naturally, I guess, but not usually in foods, and never in such quantities (and never from high fructose corn syrup).
chaganated 5y ago
this was understood & explained generations ago, careers were ruined, and now these johnny-come-latelies come along to take credit and give science the illusion of still functioning.
twofornone 5y ago
The elephant in the room is that, despite the alleged environmental cost and marginal increase in cancer risk, meat (including red meat) is probably one of the most convenient healthy foods that one could consume. Minimal "processing", low glycemic index, high nutrient density, complete proteins - almost as if humans evolved to eat it!
gpsx 5y ago
Warning - opinionated non-expert here. I don't buy that it is as simple as the writeup implies. (I didn't read actual research it is based on however.) Is energy balance true? Yes. But as the paper implies, we don't have direct control of that. I suspect it is _what_ you eat. Does insulin response matter? Yes, I assume so. But that is not the only factor. If you are not getting proper nutrition, your body will ask for more food. Naturally we know what we need. We get a taste for broccoli if we need nutrients in broccoli. But if people have somehow short circuited their food sense and don't realize they need broccoli and instead they eat more hamburgers or fruit loops or whole grain bread, they won't get the nutrition they need, and they will probably still want more food. So insulin response, nutrition, and I am sure there are other things too.
- fartcannon 5y ago
  Humans evolved to eat whatever they could. I can see a direct line from that to eating trash food because its easier.
  - gpsx 5y ago
    I don't know about your first sentence. It seems more likely animals and humans would evolve to eat what they needed. That certainly seems like it would be evolutionarily preferred. But I do agree junk (which didn't exist through most of evolution) is easier to eat and that is part of our problem.
wyldfire 5y ago
People hate on the calorie these days because it's oversimplified and doesn't account for other important nutrition factors. But it's a single value and people can use it very easily. If we had an index or weighted calorie that had some scientific rationale, that could be really interesting to publish as nutrition facts on food labels.
edanm 5y ago
This article reads like this group of contrarian researchers have proven that they are actually right, and that the silly "establishment" scientists are all wrong. In reality, if you don't know much about nutrition, you should really read this as you would any other contrarian group that thinks it knows better than everyone else. 99% of the time, if there is a scientific consensus which is different, it is correct, as I believe it is in this case as well. This study has been fairly widely criticized by most people in the field that I trust.
GhettoComputers 5y ago
This article isn't credible. I eat less calories than I consume and I ate a ton of sugary food like ice cream and dried sugary fruit, but didn't gain weight since CICO matters more than any other model.
nwah1 5y ago
To me the focus on insulin for processed foods may be very incomplete. While refined carbs are bad, the problem is probably more related to the entire gastrointestinal pipeline and immune system. Processed foods are not just high in refined carbs, but also low in fiber, involve emulsifiers, stabilizers, preservatives, pasturization, and more. Fiber is needed for healthy intestines, and may be essential for limiting overall systemic inflammation. High temperatures denature molecules, create a large number of carcinogens: polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, advanced glycation end products, etc. Preservatives like sodium benzoate combine with molecules like citric acid to form benzene and is a problem for many soft drinks. Emulsifiers, i.e. many stuff labelled as "gums", may literally be gumming up your works, making it difficult for your intestines to do their job, causing heartburn, inflammation, etc. I'm not opposed to highly processed things because they are processed with advanced technology. But profit-seeking companies selling things to ignorant shortsighted consumers will maximize for shelf life, taste, and appearance over health almost every time. And it is our fault because deep down we know this.
sleepysysadmin 5y ago
>The comprehensive paper seeks to be the final nail in the coffin I don't know if that's true necessarily, probably over exaggerated. Virtually every diabetes org now recommends keto or keto by a different name and has for years. That isn't going to change. https://www.diabetes.co.uk/keto/ https://www.diabetes.co.uk/keto/ https://www.diabetes.ca/nutrition---fitness/meal-planning/7-day-low-carbohydrate-meal-plan https://www.diabetes.ca/nutrition---fitness/meal-planning/7-... You also have all the major corps realizing carbs are a problem and are now offering carb-free options on their menus. Lettuce wrapped things, etc. Keto hit the 10% market measurement awhile ago and now everyone is reacting. It is hilarious to see 'keto corn chips' and you look at ingredients and it's 99% carbs. It's just a thing now.
throwawayapples 5y ago
'The paper does not say what the article claims. The paper is about proposing a credible alternative model of weight gain and is a call for further research. This article, like most science journalism, is fake news and we need to stop sharing “stories” like this' https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29091249 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29091249

123 points by jseliger 5y ago

Is there a way to buy a Continuous Glucose Monitor (CGM) in the US without dealing with the subscription-based services? I searched after reading this article and there is Nutrisense for $185/month / subscription with 12-months commitment. This is beyond outrageous.

code_duck 5y ago
There was a variety of the Freestyle Libre 3 approved for sports, in the EU, that is available OTC. They’re working on approval in the US. https://www.abbott.com/corpnewsroom/strategy-and-strength/abbott-launches-first-glucose-sport-biosensor-for-athletes.html https://www.abbott.com/corpnewsroom/strategy-and-strength/ab... https://diatribe.org/new-libre-sense-cgm-available-over-counter-europe https://diatribe.org/new-libre-sense-cgm-available-over-coun... I’ve actually never heard of the Nutrisense CGM. I have type 1 diabetes and use a Dexcom, which is way more expensive than that. As far as I know, all others (Libre 2, Medtronic, Dexcom) require a prescription in the EU and US.
GhettoComputers 5y ago
For what purpose? Use what diabetes use if its that important, or just avoid sugar and carbs, its cheaper and healthier than overgathering data for unhealthy habits.

lytefm 5y ago

If I recall correctly, carbohydrates alone can explain about 1/3 of the variability in postprandial glucose responses [1]. That's a lot, but not the whole story. Variability between individuals and also for the same meals at different times of the day or under different conditions is high. But overall, most of the recent nutritional research shows that grandma/mom was probably right in banning "junk food" and serving "natural" foods. We've invented highly processed foods before having fully adjusted to doing agriculture. At least my better meals (w.r.t the post-meal glucose response) were fairly self-composed whereas frozen pizza & co gave me the worst spikes. [1] source tomorrow, maybe

code_duck 5y ago
In my experience (I have type 1 diabetes and wear a glucose monitor) carbohydrates are responsible for pretty much all blood glucose increase. Some people report fat and protein eventually being converted to glucose, hours later, but this doesn’t seem to happen to me. Carbs start a rapid increase in blood glucose about 15 minutes after consumption. The only real variability for me is that my liver also puts out a bunch of glucose in the morning.

JoeNr76 5y ago

Why are we still talking about the CIM? It failed practically every test we threw at it. Sure low carb diets can make you lose weight, but that's because you eat less, not because of insuline.

wolverine876 5y ago
Can you give us some sources on that?
- JoeNr76 5y ago
  This is already 6 years old:https://cei.org/blog/study-wounds-the-carbohydrate-insulin-theory-of-obesity/ https://cei.org/blog/study-wounds-the-carbohydrate-insulin-t... Basically, as long as proteine is controlled for, there is no long term fat-loss difference between dietary compositions. See here for a longer and more recent explanation: https://www.performancelab.com/blogs/nutrition/carbohydrate-insulin-hypothesis-why-its-wrong https://www.performancelab.com/blogs/nutrition/carbohydrate-...
  - wolverine876 5y ago
    Are these just one side in a debate? The accepted consensus of experts? Are we at 'theory of gravity' level of acceptance?
  - timbit42 5y ago
    I'm not sure I'd trust CEI: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/competitive-enterprise-institute/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/competitive-enterprise-instit... Not sure I'd trust Performance Lab either as they're just trying to sell you their health products.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
PeterisP 5y ago
Well, perhaps carb-related metabolism changes and insulin is a valid mechanism that makes people eat more or less, if that's the case, I'd count it as a success as that offers practical ways to get results.

wolverine876 5y ago

Can someone, maybe even a nutritionist or doctor, recommend an authoritative textbook or course on nutrition? I would need something at the undergraduate or non-specialist graduate level. Being a topic that directly affects every day of the rest of my life, I would like to gain as sophisticated an understanding as a can, given limits of time. I could work through one textbook or course. I know there are not always authoritative answers about nutrition; there is much uncertainty. That's all the more reason to have the knowledge distilled by an expert (who would of course discuss uncertainties).

zemvpferreira 5y ago
What interests you specifically? I've never read a nutrition textbook front-to-back but I spend a good portion of my time reading research and opinions on nutrition. I think I've cobbled together a pretty good education on the topic over the past decade. I'm sad to say 99% of what I've read has been hack science, stupidly obvious or minute in importance. It's almost troubling to me how far you can go just following Michael Pollan's old chestnut: eat (real) food, not too much, mostly plants. Barring any intolerances that right there will get you to near-optimal nutrition for general health in 8 words. EDIT: Being guilty of not reading the article before posting, I just noticed my message ties nicely with the content. If you want to look good inside and out, eat food your grand-grandparents would recognise in amounts that wouldn't shock them.
- wolverine876 5y ago
  In this case, I'm not interested in (further) gradual accumulation of knowledge; I want authoritative fundamentals of nutrition, probably starting with how the body processes food. In my experience, in many cases the latter more efficient (less time, much more knowledge, much more accurate) if I have time to do it. For something as central as nutrition, I will prioritize it.
  - CuriousSkeptic 5y ago
    You might enjoy the crash course youtube channel. I found the pace and depth just about right for my own taste. Episode on metabolism and nutrition: https://youtu.be/fR3NxCR9z2U https://youtu.be/fR3NxCR9z2U

wolverine876 5y ago

A couple things I've wondered about: * The popular fake meats, such as Impossible burgers, seem like ultra-processed foods. Is that right? Are they healthier than meat (a question without a general answer, but worth considering)? They could help with climate change, regardless. * A basic question, but I haven't found an authoritative answer: Warnings about carbohydrates talk about processed foods but are silent on whole grains. Are whole grains a more healthy way to consume carbs?

friedman23 5y ago
"Plant based meats" are carbohydrate heavy so they are really only meat-like in terms of taste and texture but fail as meat replacements due to the completely different nutritional profile.
- blacksmith_tb 5y ago
  Not the case for the aforementioned Impossible Burger[1] which has about twice as much protein as carbs (and quite a bit of fat). But the question of how 'processed' they should be considered is interesting. 1: https://faq.impossiblefoods.com/hc/en-us/articles/360018939274-What-are-the-nutrition-facts-for-Impossible-Burger- https://faq.impossiblefoods.com/hc/en-us/articles/3600189392...
  - code_duck 5y ago
    Also you can discount the fiber portion of the total carbohydrates, since it’s indigestible, and with that it has 3x the protein vs carbs. Meat has zero carbs, though.
tasty_freeze 5y ago
Eat the impossible burger for the ethics of it, not for reasons of health.
- throwamon 5y ago
  ... Or just eat what vegetarians have been eating since forever and keep your ethics AND health?

wilburTheDog 5y ago

If the advice is to eat lower on the food chain - more simple whole foods - instead of highly processed foods and sugary snacks, it seems like good advice. At least it has been in everyone I know who does so. On the other hand if it is an indictment of simple carbohydrates like potatoes, I'd say it's too simplistic. One guy ate nothing but potatoes for two months; his health improved and he lost weight[1]. If it's just simple carbohydrates are bad that shouldn't have happened. 1. https://spudman.com/article/all-potato-diet-eight-years-later-voigt/ https://spudman.com/article/all-potato-diet-eight-years-late...

armchairhacker 5y ago

I posted something like this recently. People don't have long-term willpower. If someone sticks to a diet and exercise routine which makes losing weight easy-ish and natural, there's a good chance they'll lose weight; if their routine makes them constantly hungry, tired, and stressed, there's a good chance they'll gain weight. Ignoring the effects on metabolism, unprocessed food generally causes the former, insulin spikes cause the latter. Even if "CICO" is absolute and 500 calories of broccoli = 500 calories of chocolate, that's not really important. Because 500 calories of broccoli is an insane amount that you probably can't eat even if you tried, while 500 calories of chocolate you can eat and still be hungry afterwards. But there's one caveat: a lot of people find that occasional "cheat meals" make sticking to a diet the other 90% of the time easier. Even some pro athletes and bodybuilders have cheat meals. I really doubt smaller amounts of processed food cause the metabolic changes the article describes or any significant changes, so while the quality of food matters, that doesn't mean people need to avoid junk food entirely.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
> Because 500 calories of broccoli is an insane amount that you probably can't eat even if you tried You sound like the people who say no one can eat an entire jar of peanut butter in one sitting. I assure you that you are mistaken.

kazinator 5y ago

If you cook, fry, bake, brine or ferment it, it's "processed". Think of the damage doable by unprocessed food: all the pathogens and parasites that can enter your body. The fact you can eat something that is six months old is possible thanks to processing, such as leaving it in the same air-tight container in which it was cooked, a.k.a canning.

JoeNr76 5y ago
That's why the scientific literature uses the better term "ultra-processed" to mark the difference between, say a loaf of bread and a chicken nugget.
- refurb 5y ago
  That’s a subjective distinction. I would say a chicken nugget is just finely ground chicken meat with some binder like egg or flour covered in breading.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
    Clearly you've never heard of meat glue. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meat_glue https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meat_glue
    - refurb 5y ago
      How is that different than making things like head cheese? You boil bones and connective tissue and make a loaf out of the congealed proteins. It's been done for centuries. Or were our ancestors eating "ultra highly process foods" too?
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]

qwerty2021 5y ago

>That Energy Balance Model (EBM) seems to make intuitive sense: we gain weight because we consume more calories than we burn. However, as the authors note in the abstract, “Conceptualizing obesity as a disorder of energy balance restates a principle of physics without considering the biological mechanisms that promote weight gain.” >Instead, in the Carbohydrate Insulin Model (CIM), they offer as an alternative, the types of food we eat—particularly excessive carbohydrates (including added sugars and refined grains)—change our hormonal balance in a way that makes our body store more fat, and that makes us obese. this seems trivial to prove that theory. get a number of test subjects, calculate their BMR via direct calorimetry, restrict their physical activity and feed half of them a diet of supermarket garbage, and the other half a nice and balanced diet, then publish the results. have any of the researches who seek to debunk the laws of thermodynamics attempted to do that?

rajin444 5y ago
https://www.wkrn.com/news/professor-loses-weight-on-junk-food-diet/ https://www.wkrn.com/news/professor-loses-weight-on-junk-foo... Anecdotally I’ve done the same. I lost 20 lbs or so eating fast food regularly. I’m able to get to around 12-14% BF like this pretty easy. It might be harder to go leaner.
- naasking 5y ago
  Yes, energy balance is absolutely, unequivocally true. That said, focusing on energy balance may not be the best therapeutic approach to obesity, which is what the OP was quoting.

frankus 5y ago

I'm a bit more skeptical of the CIM than I was in the past, but the EBM to me just seems hilariously inadequate to explain the obesity crisis. It's like if a patient came to their doctor complaining of water retention, and the doctor said "well clearly you're drinking more than you're excreting" and sent the patient home with instructions to drink less and pee more. My hunch with the CIM is that a human in good health can pretty effortlessly maintain a non-obese weight without much regard for things like macronutrient balance, but that some fairly widespread factor has disrupted that regulation mechanism in a large fraction of the population. That in a sense a keto/low-carb diet is a workaround for a mechanism that's broken in a lot of people, rather than some platonic ideal of how everyone should be eating. As to what broke it, there are some interesting hypotheses here [https://slimemoldtimemold.com https://slimemoldtimemold.com] but no clear answers. I do personally feel a bit better eating a lower glycemic diet (from the standpoint of consistent energy levels), but I haven't achieved any weight loss that way (BMI hovers just under 25).

JoeNr76 5y ago
Nah. EBM does explain the obesity crisis. We're just eating more. The average American consumes more than 3,600 calories daily – a 24% increase from 1961, when the average was just 2,880 calories. And that's just the average.
- briHass 5y ago
  Yes, but why are we eating more? It's not like people in 1961 had more willpower than those in 2021. I think there's some truth to the CIH and palatability. It's pretty hard to argue that food engineering hasn't made super tasty snacks designed to get you hooked. Those same snacks just so happen to mostly be high-carb as well.
  - solarmist 5y ago
    Note: This ignores the factors in the article to keep it simple, those affect many things which contribute to or decrease hunger, satiety, etc. I think it's as simple as the availability and quantity of food in front of us at all times. We're eating just as often as in the past, but portions (of everything) are so much larger and our bodies will eat more if it's available. Satiety is always a lagging indicator to stop eating, so by default we'll over eat if we can. Combine this with food always being available and it doesn't take a genius to figure out where the trend is going to go. This feels even more accurate to me as I've started doing alternative day fasting (because I'm about 50 lbs overweight), but I've been tracking my food intake on days I eat and I'm almost always eating 2500-3500 calories. Stuff adds up quickly. * 500 calories for a bowl of cereal with milk * 1,000 calories for a sandwich from a sandwich shop * 1,000 calories for dinner * 500+ calories from drinks And eating all of that doesn't make me feel stuffed. It's what makes me feel full. Which I know is a good bit more than "just enough" which I've done when I was working out a lot and watching every calorie I ate.

IX-103 5y ago

Can we stop using the term "processed foods"? It's a term so broad as to lose all meaning. Processed foods include anything cooked using any method and processes such as pasteurization and fermentation. Other than fruits and an occasional salad, everything I eat is "processed" (cooked). When I see a headline like this, it literally tells me nothing. (Seriously it groups yogurt the same as root beer) Even what people tend to think of when they think of processed foods, such as ready-to-eat foods, tend to be high in preservatives such as salt, sugar, vitamins, and other food-grade additives--but all of these have different nutritional effects.

Joakal 5y ago
Welcome to the same issue with organic, natural and even junk food that all have loose definitions. What word do you like and your definition of it?
- colechristensen 5y ago
  Don’t use vague broad terms. If something has negative health consequences it’ll be one specific thing, not everything done by a machine.
- nine_k 5y ago
  Highly processed? Ultra-processed? The idea is that the processing can alter the structure of the food lightly (grilling a steak), moderately (frying a burger), or deeply (making a sausage, with all the extractions, admixing, etc). Deep processing is often used to make less edible things more edible, less palatable things more crave-inducing, and less nutritionally good things more palatable.
- IX-103 5y ago
  I also have an issue with organic and natural* as well, but that's not exactly on topic. If prefer people to use words that mean things. The article wasn't even about processed foods so much as how there is a nutritional model that shows high carbohydrate/low glycemic index foods are particularly fattening relative to their calorie content. The article could easily (and more accurately) be titled "New research highlights the damage from high carb/high sugar foods". *I mean seriously, vitamin water is "natural"? That stuff is water and sugar alcohol, with a tiny bit of stevia added so it can appear on the ingredients list for people who look for that particular keyword. Those sugar alcohols do occur naturally, I guess, but not usually in foods, and never in such quantities (and never from high fructose corn syrup).

chaganated 5y ago

this was understood & explained generations ago, careers were ruined, and now these johnny-come-latelies come along to take credit and give science the illusion of still functioning.

twofornone 5y ago

The elephant in the room is that, despite the alleged environmental cost and marginal increase in cancer risk, meat (including red meat) is probably one of the most convenient healthy foods that one could consume. Minimal "processing", low glycemic index, high nutrient density, complete proteins - almost as if humans evolved to eat it!

gpsx 5y ago

Warning - opinionated non-expert here. I don't buy that it is as simple as the writeup implies. (I didn't read actual research it is based on however.) Is energy balance true? Yes. But as the paper implies, we don't have direct control of that. I suspect it is _what_ you eat. Does insulin response matter? Yes, I assume so. But that is not the only factor. If you are not getting proper nutrition, your body will ask for more food. Naturally we know what we need. We get a taste for broccoli if we need nutrients in broccoli. But if people have somehow short circuited their food sense and don't realize they need broccoli and instead they eat more hamburgers or fruit loops or whole grain bread, they won't get the nutrition they need, and they will probably still want more food. So insulin response, nutrition, and I am sure there are other things too.

fartcannon 5y ago
Humans evolved to eat whatever they could. I can see a direct line from that to eating trash food because its easier.
- gpsx 5y ago
  I don't know about your first sentence. It seems more likely animals and humans would evolve to eat what they needed. That certainly seems like it would be evolutionarily preferred. But I do agree junk (which didn't exist through most of evolution) is easier to eat and that is part of our problem.

wyldfire 5y ago

People hate on the calorie these days because it's oversimplified and doesn't account for other important nutrition factors. But it's a single value and people can use it very easily. If we had an index or weighted calorie that had some scientific rationale, that could be really interesting to publish as nutrition facts on food labels.

edanm 5y ago

This article reads like this group of contrarian researchers have proven that they are actually right, and that the silly "establishment" scientists are all wrong. In reality, if you don't know much about nutrition, you should really read this as you would any other contrarian group that thinks it knows better than everyone else. 99% of the time, if there is a scientific consensus which is different, it is correct, as I believe it is in this case as well. This study has been fairly widely criticized by most people in the field that I trust.

GhettoComputers 5y ago

This article isn't credible. I eat less calories than I consume and I ate a ton of sugary food like ice cream and dried sugary fruit, but didn't gain weight since CICO matters more than any other model.

nwah1 5y ago

To me the focus on insulin for processed foods may be very incomplete. While refined carbs are bad, the problem is probably more related to the entire gastrointestinal pipeline and immune system. Processed foods are not just high in refined carbs, but also low in fiber, involve emulsifiers, stabilizers, preservatives, pasturization, and more. Fiber is needed for healthy intestines, and may be essential for limiting overall systemic inflammation. High temperatures denature molecules, create a large number of carcinogens: polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, advanced glycation end products, etc. Preservatives like sodium benzoate combine with molecules like citric acid to form benzene and is a problem for many soft drinks. Emulsifiers, i.e. many stuff labelled as "gums", may literally be gumming up your works, making it difficult for your intestines to do their job, causing heartburn, inflammation, etc. I'm not opposed to highly processed things because they are processed with advanced technology. But profit-seeking companies selling things to ignorant shortsighted consumers will maximize for shelf life, taste, and appearance over health almost every time. And it is our fault because deep down we know this.

sleepysysadmin 5y ago

>The comprehensive paper seeks to be the final nail in the coffin I don't know if that's true necessarily, probably over exaggerated. Virtually every diabetes org now recommends keto or keto by a different name and has for years. That isn't going to change. https://www.diabetes.co.uk/keto/ https://www.diabetes.co.uk/keto/ https://www.diabetes.ca/nutrition---fitness/meal-planning/7-day-low-carbohydrate-meal-plan https://www.diabetes.ca/nutrition---fitness/meal-planning/7-... You also have all the major corps realizing carbs are a problem and are now offering carb-free options on their menus. Lettuce wrapped things, etc. Keto hit the 10% market measurement awhile ago and now everyone is reacting. It is hilarious to see 'keto corn chips' and you look at ingredients and it's 99% carbs. It's just a thing now.

throwawayapples 5y ago

'The paper does not say what the article claims. The paper is about proposing a credible alternative model of weight gain and is a call for further research. This article, like most science journalism, is fake news and we need to stop sharing “stories” like this' https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29091249 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29091249