Low UPF diet - to think the experts weren’t lying?

Having been around for a decade or two longer than me (if your name means you were born in 1959) doesn’t give you quite the special insight you seem to think it does. Of course there were fat people before there was UPF. (Henry VIII, anyone?) Nobody thinks there weren’t, and nobody thinks UPFs are the only factor in the rise in obesity, so you can put your straw man away. And of course portion sizes have got larger. Nobody is denying that has happened…. I was born in the 70s and I remember it too.
But there has been an enormous jump in obesity which coincides in countries all over the world with the introduction of UPFs.
If it isn’t affecting you (bully for you!) it’s probably because your eating habits were established before this happened. Much of the shocking rise in obesity is among young people and children. And portion size is only one factor. If the food that is put on their plates is calorie dense and low in fibre it’s going to be a heck of a lot harder for them to eat an appropriate portion than it was for those of us who grew up eating relatively small portions of meat and two veg with every meal.

I'd like to drastically reduce my UPF intake, but I'm gluten and lactose intolerant, which makes it harder. Lots of the free-from alternatives are massively full of UPF ingredients. Obviously I can eat lots of good, natural stuff - meat, fish, eggs, fruit, veg, rice etc and some cheese. But things like bread, pasta and flour for home baking are non-UPF for normal versions and UPF for gluten-free ones. It sucks!

Does anyone remember the original Findus crispy pancakes (minced beef) and also M&S steak bakes from 1989? The dog’s bollocks.

Other UPFs from around that time:

that weird fluffy white diet bread
the cuppa soups at the pool after a swim, which served as substantive dinner that night

Fray Bentos and Pukka Pies.
Kraft packets
uncle Bens curry sauce
drinks and sweets with tartrazine, blue and other food dyes
Meat products with no provenance information on them
eggs from battery chickens were the norm … I could go on and on.
this isn’t an argument for UPFs, but the idea it’s all new in last decade is a complete falsehood.

I'm getting sick of this, but I will say what I have already said. Some of us have been around for quite a number of years, and while there certainly weren't the amount of obese people when I was young as there are now, there most definitely were people who were on the large size. I know people who got very large by eating food which was in no way UPF, they simply ate far too much. People are eating more than they used to because portion sizes are larger, why can't you get that? I know, I was there when people ate less - and I'm talking about things like cafes, where they bake their own food. People have got fatter, they don't want to take responsibility for it, so they look around for something to blame. Of course UPFs aren't good for us and we would all be better off eating proper food, but it's a cop out to blame them for everything.

I eat plenty of UPFs myself, but I don't eat any more of them than I do anything else - so these sophisticated techniques don't work on me, or on any of my friends.

I don’t disagree with what you have said at all - there’s good evidence of harm from certain additives and obviously junk food is nutritionally inferior.

Others appear to be claiming that the non-existence evidence exists. There are often posts on MN from people wondering why they still haven’t lost weight despite eating only home cooked UPF food.

Argh sorry it wouldn't let me post the link! Look up the Lancet....UPF consumption linked to higher incidence of cancer.

@SnakesAndArrows it seems like you're looking for evidence that 100 calories of UPF Hovis will make you fatter than 100 calories on non UPF sourdough. If that's the case, I don't think you will find it.... because that's not what the UPF research is saying.

What it is saying is that there's clear evidence that it is easier to overconsume calories on a diet high in UPFs because they are highly palatable and easier to chew and eat. They are designed by the manufacturers to be addictive. As someone upthread said "once you pop you can't stop."

But I don't think weight is the main issue with them, there's also emerging research that some of these additives are harmful to human health and higher UPF consumption may be linked to increase in cancer rates e.g the study below. I do appreciate in this one they're not saying there is a definite cause and effect but with the increase of bowel cancer rates etc in relatively young people something is going on. The more research that emerges about UPFs the more dodgy they are looking.

What really worries me is children's consumption of UPFs in this country. It is higher than adult consumption in many cases and I do think there are a lot of parallels with tobacco 50 years ago or so.....huge corporations lobbying to keep the evidence on how harmful their products are under wraps.

Oh I have searched. And searched and searched. But there’s nothing beyond opinion pieces. There’s a very good meta analysis from the BMJ last year but it doesn’t support what you are saying at all.

You’re making an extraordinary claim, it’s up to you to support that with evidence. I think if you really had any you would post it.

It’s not my job to do this research for you. I’ve managed to work it out, as have lots of scientists. It’s just a weirdly pervading view on MN that our bodies are simple machines and you have to hardly eat anything to lose weight.

Blaming UPFs doesn’t take the blame off the individual. You can choose not to eat them!

The thread is about ultra processed vs everything else, not processed vs unprocessed.

Humans have been processing food for millennia. Ultra processing is more recent and distinct.

You're not being unreasonable to think that non-processed food is better than processed food. However, the AIBU question in your title is unreasonable and difficult to understand! 🫣

I've got no choice but to eat this crap. I'm too disabled to cook. Can't even stay up long enough to make a sandwich without falling over/fainting/ending up in an ambulance. I try to get the least bad things but I miss making my own bread and cooking my fresh meats, fish and veggies. DH can physically cook but he's terrible at it to the point of it coming out worse than freezer/packet stuff. He is good at some things but cooking is not one of them. He has terrible judgement, a bad memory and poor observation skills where raw foods are concerned. He tries but it often ends up in the bin due to tasting awful to the point of inedible. In The Simpsons where Homer tries to prepare Mr Burns breakfast but everything sets fire, that's DH. I swear he could set fire to water. If he cooks a bacon roll, it ends up stinking the entire flat out all day with the smell of burnt meat and looks like burgundy coloured plastic. It could break teeth and cut your gums and gullet. It's rock hard and tastes horrific, like I imagine burnt pig hair tastes and smells.

Saying all that, my previous diet of fresh foods did nothing to prevent me developing heart problems so I don't think it guarantees a long illness free existence. I've been aware about processed foods from a young age as our mum instilled in us the importance of fresh produce. She and my dad both died young despite eating healthy. It can be helpful to eat well etc. but, as I said, no guarantee.

Good luck to you. Sounds as if you're working hard to develop better habits for yourself. I hope you reap the rewards you seek.

And the reason why people are eating more than they used to….

You and those people are missing the point. People are eating more because there is now a class of food, often the most easily accessible one, that is specifically designed, deploying a whole raft of sophisticated techniques utilising everything from chemistry to psychology, to make them eat more.
And funnily enough it is much much harder to eat a healthy amount of it than it is with whole or minimally processed foods. Because the food technologists know what they are doing.

I, and several others on this thread, have already pointed out that people tend to eat far more than they used to, whether that be large portion sizes or constant snacking. But of course that has nothing to do with it, much easier to blame something other than ourselves.

‘Take any sort of blame’?
You are concerned that if we accept the analysis that UPFs are a large part of what has gone wrong with our diet in recent years, people won’t be blaming themselves enough? 🤔

I have never been overweight so I don’t have any personal investment in issues of ‘blame’ and guilt around food, but I find the hypothesis that UPFs are the problem a good deal more plausible than that of a contemporaneous collapse in willpower that just happens to coincide with the large scale introduction of UPFs.

When people quote things like the chopped nuts example above, what they dont say is that, this is insignificant in terms of the overall calorie intake mechanism. Yes there will be a slight change in how the body processes that food, but not so significantly that it would affect your CICO mechanism.

Yes, the process of chopping will damage some of the cell structure, therfore easier for the body to acess the fat/ nutrients.

I'd think you would use less chopped nuts compared to whole ones anyway. Unless you want your breakfast extra nutty. Not a hill I would die on!

Well, my brain prefers to use actual evidence rather than anecdotes from likely unreliable narrators. The only evidence posted so far is a study that in no way supports your theory, and an article in the Washington Post that’s behind a paywall. A cursory literature search hasn’t shown me anything more.

To echo your unpleasant tone, do better.

Jason's are building a new bakery, that should be up and running by June, I believe. So hopefully supply will improve soon!

I miss their wholemeal ciabattin. They aren't making it at the moment.

For the ‘ are all calories equal? ‘ question…

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wellness/2023/06/13/weight-loss-calories-fiber-microbiome/

Tbh weight gain (or not) from eating UPFs is not my main concern with them. It’s other health issues.

As it happens, I am currently trying to shift some weight. So I’m looking at calories on everything. Nine times out of ten, UPFs don’t offer good “value” in terms of calories v volume and satiation. I’d rather “spend” 100 calories on some proper food that will keep me fuller longer, than some UPF that is smaller / less satisfying and I’ll feel hungry again in half an hour.

Maybe not, but as soon as there is any thread on MN regarding weight posters jump on saying it is all the fault of UPFs. Very few seem to be prepared to take any sort of blame themselves.

You cannot be suggesting, though, that a piece of sourdough bread that contains 100 calories is somehow less calorific than a piece of supermarket bread that contains 100 calories. A piece of fish that contains 100 calories is somehow less calorific than a piece of fake meat that contains 100 calories?

This is what I mean about obtuse.

Obviously, as a unit of energy, 1 calorie = 1 calorie. The difference is in how the body uses that calorie, how it stores fat and glucose, the effect of certain foods on the gut microbiome and the way the metabolism shifts and adapts.

It’s why there are so many people on MN saying that if they eat more than 1200 calories a day they gain weight.

Use your brain!

No one (afaik) has said they’re the ‘sole’ cause of weight gain.