Processed food makes you put on weight?

[Number Six]

First of all, I have a general idea of what is meant by "processed" foods but I wonder if it has a commonly used definiton for it.

But the real reason I write is that I just saw Bill Clinton say on TV that eating processed food will make you gain weight compared to eating non-processed food even if you eat the same amount of calories and exercise the same amount. He says that even with everything else being equal, eating processed food makes your metabolism slow. I don't deny it could be true but I've never heard it before and it sounds like it has woo potential so I thought I'd see if others here know anything about it.

[Lisa Simpson]

Well, the nutrition classes I've been taking are constantly stressing a calorie is a calorie is a calorie. Calories in must be less than calories out for weight loss. However, processed foods will raise your blood sugar faster than unprocessed foods (example: white bread vs. whole wheat bread) which could affect your body. A glance through my main textbook does not mention processed food slowing your metabolism. That's usually due to age, inactivity and/or medical problems.

[JoeEllison]

Sounds like serious woo, but might be accurate to some extent. Your body does deal with different foods in different ways. Processed foods might have more refined sugar and less fiber... to a limited extent, it could have some effect on how your digestion and blood sugar work.

[ChristineR]

Processed food almost by definition provides more calories, by weight, by volume, and by serving because its easier to eat and contains more concentrated foods like sugar and fat.

That's the usual reason to avoid it. But if I'm reading your question right, the answer is maybe. Unprocessed food generally contains more fiber, which is only partly digested, and counted differently depending on how the calorie content of the food was calculated.

Processed food calories reach the bloodstream more quickly, which results in a higher rise in blood sugar, which may possibly result in a higher percentage of the calories being stored as fat, and may also make you feel sluggish. But that's a very complicated process effected by all sorts of things, so I wouldn't count on it.

[Kaylee]

On a related note, processed foods that contain more sugar and/or MSG can have the side effect of increasing instead of satisfying one's appetite in many (not all) people.

[casebro]

I've lost 25 pounds in the last two months, since I quit eating carbs. Like bread, rice, taters. It just seemed so easy to control my appetite. No breakfast or lunch needed, meat and veggies for dinner. Perhaps there is some truth to the "Sugar Busters Diet", glycemic index, things like that. For me, anyhow. Another 25 ought to put me in fighting weight.

Appetite control is the key to weight loss- if you are hungry all the time, you won't lose weight. Processed foods might be bad for appetite- making you hungry the next day?

But Clinton is a crooked lawyer, what is he doing giving dietary advice?

[Slimething]

I don't believe it per se. I'll fall in line behind Lisa.

Processed food has a lot of meanings but, in this case, I believe we're all refering to "ready to eat" meals and snacks (chips, TV dinners, ice cream, breaded sea food, etc.). If so, the ingredients in these products may be of a different recipe or lower quality than we'd use ourselves if cooking the same thing (shortening instead of butter or olive oil, too much sugar, too much salt, milkfats instead of milk, etc.) and such components can give you more calories per mouthful than if you had cooked them yourself.

Also, consider lifestyle. I know very few people make their own tater chips but, what if you did instead of popping open a bag and diving in? In general, there would be less likelihood that you would binge and, as these things are a pain to make, even less chance that you'd have chips instead of an apple.

It's a complicated issue but, no, I don't believe that processed foods lower your metabolism. I think it's more a case of laziness and gorging than anything else.

ETA: I just noticed that we have three Graduate Posters in a row who don't have avatars! Good for us! Reading posts without avatars is less fattening than reading posts with. It's true!

[Jorghnassen]

I'll have to agree with others, while a calorie is a calorie, the difference is really what's in the processed food compared to the homemade version.

So you can make your own hamburger patty and it will contain essentially ground beef (mostly protein, some fat), or buy ready made ones, and those contain ground beef, soy protein, starches, salt etc... A local (well, technically national) TV show actually compared a lot of different brands, it turns out most had more fat than protein, and at least one of the "good" ones (with more protein than fat) reported a fat content on the label that was 1/4 less than what the show's scientific analysis measured (meaning you can't even trust the labels). If you bother to read the nutritional info, you can see how fat, filled with sugar and full of sodium most processed foods are (especially the cheaper brands with more filler), and, at least in Canada, those daily intakes numbers are meant for men between 18 and 24 so they tend to be an underestimate of the actual proportion for the general population.

[casebro]

ETA: I just noticed that we have three Graduate Posters in a row who don't have avatars! Good for us! Reading posts without avatars is less fattening than reading posts with. It's true!

I've always believed that Totems are Woo.

At the very least, things akin to nick names ought to be bestowed by others, not chosen.

Hmmm, maybe I ought to start a thread: What avatars would you assign to other posters?
What forum?

[YouBelieveWHAT?]

C'mon!

Everybody knows that just thinking about food puts weight on! :)

Yesterday I read in another thread (sorry, can't remember which on it was) something like, "Clever people don't need no stinkin' avatars!

So there!

YBW