panorama - UPF

[OttoGraph]

Having watched this program 5/6/2023 to think it proves not all calories are the same. The twins eat the same meals, but one eat fresh and the other ultra pressed foods of the same protein, size etc but one twin lost a kilo and the other gained a kilo in 2 weeks

But overall calories still count.
Post menopausal but still able to lose weight eating Family sized bags of minstrels/M&M’s & malteasers, a bag of crisps and cake each day because I do so whilst sticking to a calorie deficit.

Yes my diet is now appalling, but I’m a size 10 as opposed to the size 14 I was when eating healthy, home cooked meals!

What!! How are you doing that? Literally just calorie counting and ignoring the nutritional aspect?

But overall calories still count
Post menopausal but still able to lose weight eating Family sized bags of minstrels/M&M’s & malteasers, a bag of crisps and cake each day because I do so whilst sticking to a calorie deficit

I agree with this. I can eat nothing but junk food and will lose weight because I stick to a calorie allowance.

I eat very little UPF post menopausal and weight slowly creeping up. Little UPF does not equal weight loss but probably better health for most but not all people

I'm 61 and have been overweight for years. I only managed to lose weight when I started a zero processed food diet. It wasn't just for weight loss - my bloods were all over the place, pre diabetic, gout, high blood pressure, inflammation markers etc.
After 3 months my bloods are all back to normal, I've been able to cut my meds in half and my blood pressure is going down as are my ankles which were very swollen.
So Im vegetarian and only eat food I have cooked and also lots of raw food. I do eat eggs. I don't use anything processed like margerine or butter, white rice or pasta, only a small amount of potatoes, no quorn or anything like that.
No added salt, no sugar and you have to make your own stock without salt.
To be fair the food is bland and you literally cannot eat a huge amount of it because it is very fibrous and filling so weight loss is inevitable.
But the startling effect was on my blood results.
I feel healthy too, somuch better and the black circles under my eyes have gone.
I used to be able to eat crisps and chocolate and still lose weight but that just doesn't happen when you get to your 60's or 70's.
I've really gained my life back.

I'm a little sceptical about this. Weight naturally fluctuates a bit, and it can be quite normal to go up or down a bit over a fortnight even if you don't make any changes to your diet. Plus we'd need to see what happened when they ate the same for two weeks to see if they have the same metabolism. And a sample of two people over 2 weeks is not scientifically sound.

I think the "it's not about calories" message is quite misleading, because if we eat more than our bodies need, we will gain weight. Many UPFs are designed to be hyperpalatable and it's very easy to eat far too much of them in a way that would be harder with fruit and vegetables, say. Cutting them out is always going to be good for you. But in my experience, watching my calories has always resulted in corresponding weight loss and I do believe the posters who say that it's possible to eat UPFs and be thin. Whether you can eat them and be healthy is another matter!

I don’t think that’s a particularly scientific experiment, they are twins not the same person. Their entire routine would need to be the exact same, down to fidgeting which just isn’t possible.

I agree with other posters, if I ate garbage but still kept it calorie controlled I would lose weight.

My diet varies, I eat a big proportion of healthy food but if I want a ‘treat’ I’m not going for some sort of fake healthy version, I just eat the real thing. So I have chocolate, biscuits and sweets pretty much most days but very portion controlled.

Equally you can a gain weight only eating ‘whole’ foods if you eat too much.

I’ve experienced a lot of people who complain about not being able to lose weight, or moaning that they gain weight if they ‘look’ at a dessert and in every single case I can say that with everything I know about how they eat (regularly going away with them and spending days at a time together) that how they eat is the problem, they just don’t want to see it.

But the startling effect was on my blood results.

the twins had all there bloods taken before and afterwards, the bloods for the UPF were very different from the twin without the UPF in her diet

Their entire routine would need to be the exact same, down to fidgeting which just isn’t possible. its about the effects of the UPF on the body, so they would behave as normal, one lost weight from how they normally were and one gained from how they normally were. Not suggesting that if you counted calories eating garbage you wouldn't lose weight - its that eating natural food you'd lose more eating the same amount of calories

I’m something of a yo-yo-er (so always putting a bit on the going to lose it) and the hard and fast rule is: you will lose weight if you’re at a calorie deficit. No matter what you eat.

Its why I’d never even think about a fad diet

If between regular walking around + a spin class and workout at the gym + a long walk I also eat crisps, chocolate, drink pop etc and still be at a calories deficit.

The problem with UPF is that it disrupts the systems that regulate your hunger which makes sticking to a low calorie diet really hard in the long run. Sure, you can lose weight, but you’ll always be hungry. This is exacerbated by the face that consistent calorie counting is really onerous but made lots easier by eating UPF because you don’t have to do calculations that you would with home made food.

Theres a growing body of evidence that people don’t overeat whole foods in nearly the same way that they overeat UPF.

You’re right that a study of 2 doesn’t make for great science. I think Kevin Halls larger trial provides much better evidence https://clinicalcenter.nih.gov/about/news/newsletter/2019/summer/story-01.html

This isn't a scientific study. You can't point to exactly what the differences are that caused the effect because their are too many variables and a sample size of 2.

If the calories were the same then the 'weight' they lost or gained won't long term changes.

My initial guess is that it's likely to be water loss on the 'healthy' twin who probably cut down on salt. And an increase in water retention on the twin who had UPF (which I suspect will have also been a higher salt diet).

I'm not commenting on whether ultra processed foods are good or bad. Just hate when this sort of report is cited as though it's equivalent to actual research. It doesn't prove or show anything other than that a set of twins ate a different diet which contained the same calories and weighed different amounts at the end.

Real weightloss (particularly thinking fat loss) is driven by a calories deficit. It doesn't matter what you eat - the speed at which you lose weight is entirely down to the deficit you're at. Fluctuations are almost always down to either fibre/physical food intake, water retention/loss or miscalculation on the deficit.

This is often why people often lose loads initially and then it slows. You overhaul your diet - often meaning you drop calories and salt. So you lose weight and water weight. Then it slows and people don't adjust for their new BMR and wonder why their weight loss is slowing. Or they vastly under eat and their BMR drops but they don't account for that.

Me and DH are serial yo-yo dieters. I lose weight consistently week to week based on my BMR and calories deficit. Ie. For every 3500 deficit I lose 1lb and it comes off at the exact rate you'd expect. This is because I'm very restricted on what I eat/drink, what time of day I eat and drink and when I weigh myself. I'm super consistent. DH is no where near as consistent so whilst he trends perfectly at the exact rate you'd expect for the deficit his actual weigh ins vary massively so his graph is all over the place from week to week.

It was very interesting, but more research is needed. I've been suspicious of aspartame and other sweeteners for a long time. I didn't know about the emulsifiers. It's certainly made me look at the food I eat more carefully and I'm going to switch from mass produced bread because that's quite an easy switch for me.
But it depends on what your long term goal is - if it's purely weight loss then you might turn to UPFs such as diet foods, low cal varieties. If you goal is to eat healthy and natural then cut out UPFs, but that doesn't necessarily equal weight loss unless you are in a calorie deficit. Overall, I think reducing UPFs is a good thing.

I have not touched aspartame for years. I’m ok with some UPFs but prefer to stay away from artificial preservatives and sweeteners.

The rest of Europe has banned the higher levels and UK hasn't - so like the USA will allow this until its proved to be harmful. Id rather our nationals weren't;t experimented upon and with 50% of UK food from UPF whilst the rest of Europe is at 25% its a ticking time bomb for health

Sorry but that’s rubbish. I don’t eat UPF foods and I’m not hungry all the time, in fact it’s more filling eating foods you’ve made from scratch. And as for it’s easier to calorie count with UPFs and therefore easier to lose weight, I’ve heard it all now.
If you eat sensibly you don’t need to calorie count all the time.
Funnily enough UPFs weren’t largely available 70 years ago and you don’t see many pictures of fat people.
Not eating UPFs has massive health benefits.

@Busbygirl sorry - I think I worded my post badly. I completely agree with you.

What i was (clumsily) trying to say was that research seems to suggest that UPF disrupts the systems that regulate hunger. So people over eat when they eat UPF as the mechanisms in our bodies that tell us we’re full don’t work properly when we eat UPF.

The Kevin Hall study I linked to earlier is the most impactful study on that so far. It’s also worth taking a look at the charges to Chris van Tullekins brain after a month eating 80% UPF.

Thanks for clarifying Jumbleandkitchen. Makes sense now.
link to Chris Van T is interesting too

How is your cholesterol, BP and liver function? Now they are saying evidence of diabetes and dementia linked to UPF as well..

@JumbleAndKitchen the link to the study is interesting - they stayed in the center for a month so a very controlled study on food

@OttoGraph

I’d really recommend reading Ultra Processed People . Im listening on Audible. It’s been the press associated with the recent release of this book, and associated TV programmes, podcasts etc that is why everyone is talking about UPF at the moment.

I think the industry that manufactures these UPFs has a well-deserved shitstorm coming its way. They have been pushing this message for years that obesity is down to “personal responsibility” when their products override all mechanisms of self control and hunger regulation.

And now the NHS has to pick up the tab whilst these companies pocket their profits.

Just caught up on this on iPlayer, interesting topic, but bloody hell, it was almost unwatchable: The suspenseful muzak and slo-mo videos of general public walking around town interspersed with 5 mins of science strung out over half an hour. Has Panorama always been this crap?

@LakeFlyPie - I haven’t seen the Panorama but Panorama has always annoyed me so I’m not surprised!