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

[AusBoundDD]

Nearly 6 months ago I made it my New Year’s resolution to start eating a low UPF diet in hopes of losing some weight for a once in a lifetime trip, alongside just being healthier in general. Honestly it has been life changing! I’ve lost nearly 10kg without really having to think about it - no restricting or anything like that and in general I just feel so much better. UPFs like crisps, ready meals, even basic supermarket bread don’t feel like ‘real’ food anymore and no longer appeal. On the occasion that I do choose to eat something UPF (which for me is no big deal, im not strict!) it just isn’t as enjoyable as it used to be. I’d choose some sourdough over a loaf of Hovis any day when previously I used to hate it! I feel much fuller + satisfied for longer and rarely get the urge to snack.

Obviously it has its downsides - much less convenience food so cooking takes longer (PITA when doing lunch/dinner prep after a long day at work!), ingredients are more expensive so my shopping bill has gone up but all in all it’s a decision I don’t regret. Honestly I think that this way of eating should be the future.

Anyone else feel this way?

Of course they weren’t. We need to fuel our bodies.

I think you are right - it's just it is easier to not eat more calories than you need if you eat whole foods. There is something about the processing that makes many people want to eat much more.

I know that. I was just using it as an example of skewed portion sizes.

Let me explain it in layman's terms with a simple example:
100g of almonds have around 50g of fat . 100g of whole almonds = 575 calories.

100g of ground almonds = 610 calories.

Simply by processing/ grinding the almonds, you add calories.

Now, this is because because of the cell structure of almonds. In whole almonds, our bodies can not digest all the fat / calories that are associated with almonds, only about 90% of it.
If you grind (process) the almonds, you are breaking down the cell structure of the whole almonds. Making the fats more accessible to our bodies through digesting. Suddenly,99% of the fat can be absorbed by the body.

A little side effect is, that the undigestable part of the almonds are adding bulk/ fibre to our diet. Your body will work hard and burn some calories trying to digest all of the almonds without success.

On a small scale, it's irrelevant and has little effect. But if this happens meal after meal with a fraction of every food you eat, it will add up and lead to some weight loss.

How patronising you are. Yes, there is a food matrix effect that affects availability of calories for absorption to a small extent. A diet that encourages a fast gut transit time will also have an effect on absorption.

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?

However, I know which I’d prefer to eat, and I know which is more nutritious. I just think there’s no need to wrap healthy eating messages up in pseudoscience.

Eat less, mostly plants, and move more.

I'm annoyed with myself for getting invested with this but.....
I usually have berries with nuts and Greek yoghurt for breakfast.
I recently bought chopped Brazil nuts thinking they would sprinkle further IYSWIM, and I would have less weight of nuts that way. (I don't want to get into the habit of weighing food again, unless for a recipe)
....but is chopping them considered processed, by your example? Will they have more cals per 100g in that form?

I wasn't actually eating like that to lose weight, it was a pleasant side effect. Once my emotional issues were sorted out then I returned to normal eating, but still didn't return to my previous weight.

The point I was making is that it isn't eating UPFs which makes people gain weight, portion sizes have increased greatly and it doesn't actually matter what you are eating, it is the amount that you eat. I eat a fair number of UPFs, alongside lots of proper food, and my weight rarely increases - if it does I just eat a bit less and off it goes again. I never "diet", I eat whatever I want.

People overthink this stuff. Obviously we should be eating healthy food, but this insistence that UPFs are the sole cause of weight gain is simply a very convenient excuse!

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

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!

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.

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.

For the ‘ are all calories equal? ‘ question…

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

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.

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.

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!

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.

‘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.

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.

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'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.

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! 🫣

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.

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

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.

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.