This seems like a questionably designed study… No shit eating only lasagna (I mean c’mon) and breakfast bars is going to be ineffective at losing weight compared to only spaghetti bolognese, oats soaked in milk, and yoghurt.
Why is that ‘no shit’? If they’re nutritionally comparable (which they specified that the meals were setup to be so) why would it be obviously different?
The issue is caloric density of lasagna and a breakfast bar vs how filling it is. This has little to actually do (at least directly) with how “processed” it is.
That has everything to do with how processed it is. Those foods are more calorie dense because they’ve used equipment to chew, digest, and reassemble those ingredients back into a dense, easy to digest form. This study just gives good evidence to what should be obvious.
The problem with that though is there are easy to digest natural and raw foods. As well as processed foods that are still calorie light.
Sure, there is a correlation because of that denseness tending to be the case in processed foods, but the issue in question is whether its processing itself that intrinsically causes the issue.
For example: If you consume a meal replacement shake that has a ton of fiber and protein, that shake is extremely “processed” but will fill you up quickly.
There are fish that fly and birds that swim. Exceptions certainly exist, but it’s largely irrelevant, especially in the context of this study. You’re acting as if the single meal that happened to be picked out by the reporter is the only thing people were fed. Both groups got a variety of food. If most of the ultra-processed food is more calorically dense than most of the whole foods, that’s just reflecting reality.
This seems like a questionably designed study… No shit eating only lasagna (I mean c’mon) and breakfast bars is going to be ineffective at losing weight compared to only spaghetti bolognese, oats soaked in milk, and yoghurt.
Nobody finished the soaked oats, because soaked oats are slimy and gross.
Why is that ‘no shit’? If they’re nutritionally comparable (which they specified that the meals were setup to be so) why would it be obviously different?
The issue is caloric density of lasagna and a breakfast bar vs how filling it is. This has little to actually do (at least directly) with how “processed” it is.
That has everything to do with how processed it is. Those foods are more calorie dense because they’ve used equipment to chew, digest, and reassemble those ingredients back into a dense, easy to digest form. This study just gives good evidence to what should be obvious.
The problem with that though is there are easy to digest natural and raw foods. As well as processed foods that are still calorie light.
Sure, there is a correlation because of that denseness tending to be the case in processed foods, but the issue in question is whether its processing itself that intrinsically causes the issue.
For example: If you consume a meal replacement shake that has a ton of fiber and protein, that shake is extremely “processed” but will fill you up quickly.
There are fish that fly and birds that swim. Exceptions certainly exist, but it’s largely irrelevant, especially in the context of this study. You’re acting as if the single meal that happened to be picked out by the reporter is the only thing people were fed. Both groups got a variety of food. If most of the ultra-processed food is more calorically dense than most of the whole foods, that’s just reflecting reality.