A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.
rule #1: be kind
<--- rules currently under construction, see current pinned post.
2024-11-11
"In the two-month trial, 14 adults who were overweight or obese and regularly consumed UPFs successfully reduced their UPF intake by almost half.
Lead author Dr. Charlotte Hagerman noted the food industry’s role in making quitting difficult for UPFs. Despite a small sample size, the results were promising: participants reduced their daily calorie intake by over 600 calories, sugar consumption by 50%, saturated fat by 37%, and sodium by 28%. They also reported losing an average of 7.7 pounds."
tl;dr: when you eat less, you've eaten less, and you lose weight
Yes, and also ultra processed foods can be more calories for less food. It’s relatively hard to overeat raw whole vegetables compared to Oreos.
So you can end up eating more, feeling full, while still reducing overall calorie intake. (Though maybe that’s what you meant in the first place.)
True, but in this study, there was no increase in consumption of other types of food.
You are missing the key point being the quality of calory...
Reduce shite calory, eat good calory.
It's a little hard to tease out some of the details here but if I'm reading it right calories were cut by about 500 a day. UPF (junk food) was decreased by a third and there was zero attempt at blinding or using a control. Oh and each person got $100 to put towards groceries each week.
After the end of the 8 weeks people lost an average of 7.7 pounds, Which is acceptable because anything more than 2 pounds a week is unsustainable and this just under one pound a week is slow enough that the body won't recognize that it's being starved and retaliate. So it sucks you have to go slow but slow wins long term. But buried in the details is that the standard deviation was 6.6 pounds meaning someone might have lost just 1.1 pounds and someone else might have lost 14.3. there is no way to tell from the released data what that standard deviation of a whopping 86% looked like in the individual level. I don't know if I could bring myself to publish a study with a standard deviation of 86%. I'd be afraid of getting bullied in the break room.
There should be a $100 per week for groceries study with zero interventions like counseling. Do you know how much healthier I would eat with $100 a week? I don't buy boxed mac and cheese because I want to. I buy it because I can't buy anything else.
It's kinda weird that UPFs accounted for 75% of the subjects diet to begin with. But then I see people's shopping carts and the amount of calories consumed as liquid sugar is insane. And I'm guilty of drinking too much ginger ale myself.
Ultra Processed People by Chris Van Tulleken is a great read on the topic of UPF and tackles several of the claims in this thread such as is this just cico in disguise, and UPF as a health tax on the poor. I'd recommend it!