# Ultraprocessed foods documentary



## everydayupsanddowns (May 24, 2021)

Just advertised on BBC Breakfast

Thursday night 9pm ”What are we feeding our kids” on BBC1 I think.

Dr Chris Van Tulleken eats an almost entirely ‘ultraprocessed’ diet for a month and sees what it does to his body.

‘Ultraprocessed’ sounds easy to avoid, but is basically any food with more than one ingredient that you would not find in a domestic kitchen - so essentially includes all supermarket breads, preprepared sauces, wraps, most breakfast cereals, many things packaged and promoted as ‘natural’ or healthy and pretty much the vast majority of other supermarket products too!

Sounds interesting and horrifying in equal measure.


----------



## Robin (May 24, 2021)

everydayupsanddowns said:


> Just advertised on BBC Breakfast
> 
> Thursday night 9pm ”What are we feeding our kids” on BBC1 I think.
> 
> ...


I read an article about this somewhere (sorry, can’t remember where) and the typical day's diet didn’t actually sound too horrific, apart from the sugary snacks between meals, it was basically a bowl of cereal, but not one of the awful sweet ones, a 'healthy' sandwich at lunch, but made with processed white bread, and a supermarket ready meal in the evening. (What was missing was fresh fruit and veg, obviously). What a lot of people would eat, I'd imagine, and not think they’re doing badly.


----------



## Spozkins (May 24, 2021)

I always thought if you couldn't pick it directly from the ground (or kill it I suppose, but I'm a veggy) it probably wasn't very good for you. 

I try to make  my own sauces and the like but it's very time consuming. I'd be interested to see what the response is anyway.


----------



## everydayupsanddowns (May 24, 2021)

Robin said:


> I read an article about this somewhere (sorry, can’t remember where) and the typical day's diet didn’t actually sound too horrific, apart from the sugary snacks between meals, it was basically a bowl of cereal, but not one of the awful sweet ones, a 'healthy' sandwich at lunch, but made with processed white bread, and a supermarket ready meal in the evening. (What was missing was fresh fruit and veg, obviously). What a lot of people would eat, I'd imagine, and not think they’re doing badly.



Yes in the interview it was suggested that for a large proportion of people this is just their regular diet (can’t remember the number, but maybe 3/5ths of food consumed?), and quite how difficult it is to avoid ultraprocessed foods


----------



## everydayupsanddowns (May 24, 2021)

I think there is a call from some quarters to require an ‘ultraprocessed’ label on packaging - but I’d imagine the food industry would be pretty resistant to that!


----------



## adrian1der (May 24, 2021)

Looking forward to this one. If you haven't seen "Supersize Me" it is worth a look. Morgan Spurlock attempts to exist for a month eating only food from McDonalds with interest consequences


----------



## Leadinglights (May 24, 2021)

Something which had not occurred to me is that things like bread and cereals are fortified with folic acid so by cutting those out I have low folate even though I eat lots of veg which have natural folic acid. So have now to take folic acid but am wondering if I need to take anything else with some of the vitamins and minerals that would be in cereals.


----------



## trophywench (May 24, 2021)

Pete read somewhere that it gave Chris erectile dysfunction - told me yesterday when the advert for it was on - and he immediately went EEK!!and was horrified, if it's doing this to me what's it doing to children's brains and bodies  - not surprised he did frankly if that's the case - yes we're both looking forward to watching it!


----------



## travellor (May 24, 2021)

There is an article on what the food classification is on the BBC website. 








						What is ultra-processed food?
					

BBC Food



					www.bbc.co.uk


----------



## Eddy Edson (May 24, 2021)

From an article, a lot of the documentary refers to Kevin Hall's landmark study from 2019: https://www.cell.com/cell-metabolism/pdf/S1550-4131(19)30248-7.pdf 

In a controlled feeding experiment, people consumed ~500 kcal/day more when eating as much as they liked of ultraprocessed food, versus whole foods.  Macronutrient etc matched; equally palatable; bggest diff was that people ate a lot faster, when eating ultraproccessed.

Here he presents the study at a conference: 




I bet 20c more informative than a TV doco.


----------



## travellor (May 24, 2021)

Eddy Edson said:


> From an article, a lot of the documentary refers to Kevin Hall's landmark study from 2019: https://www.cell.com/cell-metabolism/pdf/S1550-4131(19)30248-7.pdf
> 
> In a controlled feeding experiment, people consumed ~500 kcal/day more when eating as much as they liked of ultraprocessed food, versus whole foods.  Macronutrient etc matched; equally palatable; bggest diff was that people ate a lot faster, when eating ultraproccessed.
> 
> ...


I read the preview on the upcoming BBC program. It's sold mainly as a "like for like" replacement of his usual diet. The extra 500 calories a day don't seem to get a great mention. Just the weight gain from eating the "same as normal"


----------



## travellor (May 24, 2021)

It would be interesting to see who thinks their food isn't "ultra processed". 

We all know turkey twizzlers are. 

But just checking tins and bottles, even my tinned tomatoes, cheap end, (In all my curries, chillies, most things I cook in a pan)
Tomatoes (60%), Tomato Juice, Acidity Regulator (Citric Acid).
Apparently that's an "ultra processed food, because of the acidity regulator. 

High end chipotle sauce, all natural,
Tomato (42%), Brown Sugar, Onion, Bramley Apple, White Grape Vinegar, Sea Salt, Smoked Paprika, Chipotle Pepper (1%)
Now, it's all natural, but there are natural sweeteners, colourings, and preservatives, so is that ultra processed?


----------



## pm133 (May 24, 2021)

everydayupsanddowns said:


> I think there is a call from some quarters to require an ‘ultraprocessed’ label on packaging - but I’d imagine the food industry would be pretty resistant to that!



If virtually everything is going to be categorised as "ultraprocessed" then it's not going to be a helpful label either.


----------



## pm133 (May 24, 2021)

travellor said:


> It would be interesting to see who thinks their food isn't "ultra processed".
> 
> We all know turkey twizzlers are.
> 
> ...



That would be my problem with this definition of "ultra-processed" - it's too tight to be of any practical value. There's clearly a difference between having things like chicken nuggets and having things like tinned tomatoes.


----------



## Inka (May 24, 2021)

trophywench said:


> Pete read somewhere that it gave Chris erectile dysfunction - told me yesterday when the advert for it was on - and he immediately went EEK!!and was horrified, if it's doing this to me what's it doing to children's brains and bodies  - not surprised he did frankly if that's the case - yes we're both looking forward to watching it!



On one of the plant-based documentaries (can’t remember which) they, er, used an attachment to measure response during the night, and the difference between the plant-based meal and the normal meaty meal was surprisingly big.


----------



## everydayupsanddowns (May 24, 2021)

pm133 said:


> If virtually everything is going to be categorised as "ultraprocessed" then it's not going to be a helpful label either.



Yes it's a shame isn't it. Would be really useful to have a way of separating the nasties from the 'reasonable' additives and extras. 

But if you give the food industry an inch it'll take a yard, and I am pretty convinved that whatever stipulation you put on (eg a maximum number or percentage of additives) they'd find a way of making some hideous concoction that qualified for a 'clean' label but was actually even worse for you than the old stuff!


----------



## Leadinglights (May 24, 2021)

everydayupsanddowns said:


> Yes it's a shame isn't it. Would be really useful to have a way of separating the nasties from the 'reasonable' additives and extras.
> 
> But if you give the food industry an inch it'll take a yard, and I am pretty convinved that whatever stipulation you put on (eg a maximum number or percentage of additives) they'd find a way of making some hideous concoction that qualified for a 'clean' label but was actually even worse for you than the old stuff!


Everybody assumes E numbers are all bad but some natural things are given an E number. So even that is no real guide.


----------



## travellor (May 24, 2021)

Inka said:


> On one of the plant-based documentaries (can’t remember which) they, er, used an attachment to measure response during the night, and the difference between the plant-based meal and the normal meaty meal was surprisingly big.


That's another one.
I have some plant based "bacon" in my freezer. 
That is so far into the "ultra processed" zone!


----------



## Inka (May 24, 2021)

travellor said:


> That's another one.
> I have some plant based "bacon" in my freezer.
> That is so far into the "ultra processed" zone!



Most of those meat substitutes are foul.I should have given it it’s full name but couldn’t be arsed to write it out  It was a documentary about Whole Food Plant Based diets. No bacon, porcine or otherwise. If I could remember the documentary, it would help. I’m not keen on googling for obvious reasons. I think it was low fat WFPB so mostly veg, fruit, pulses, grains, etc.

Edited to say that I found it. It was The Game Changers. Details here of the specific topic:



.


----------



## travellor (May 24, 2021)

Inka said:


> Most of those meat substitutes are foul.I should have given it it’s full name but couldn’t be arsed to write it out  It was a documentary about Whole Food Plant Based diets. No bacon, porcine or otherwise. If I could remember the documentary, it would help. I’m not keen on googling for obvious reasons. I think it was low fat WFPB so mostly veg, fruit, pulses, grains, etc.
> 
> Edited to say that I found it. It was The Game Changers. Details here of the specific topic:
> 
> ...


Dinner tonight.
Lamb chops, roast potatoes, roast sweet potatoes, green beans, leek, Yorkshire puddings, stuffing, gravy, mushrooms.
3/9 are ultra processed.
The gravy, the Yorkshire puddings, and the stuffing. (Although the stuffing was full of fresh sage and chives from the garden!)
But I have no intention of going back to meat juice and cornflower for gravy, or mixing my own batter for Yorkshire puddings, unless it's toad  in the hole.


----------



## Robin (May 24, 2021)

travellor said:


> Dinner tonight.
> Lamb chops, roast potatoes, roast sweet potatoes, green beans, leek, Yorkshire puddings, stuffing, gravy, mushrooms.
> 3/9 are ultra processed.
> The gravy, the Yorkshire puddings, and the stuffing. (Although the stuffing was full of fresh sage and chives from the garden!)
> But I have no intention of going back to meat juice and cornflower for gravy, or mixing my own batter for Yorkshire puddings, unless it's toad  in the hole.


I always make my own batter, it takes 30 seconds in the food processor, but does that then make it ultra processed?


----------



## Eddy Edson (May 24, 2021)

Just having some additives doesn't make a food "ultraprocessed" on most definitions. See eg the definition cited in Hall's study (link above):

_ ‘‘formulations mostly of cheap industrial sources of dietary energy and nutrients plus additives, using a series of processes’’ and containing minimal whole foods_

(which is taken from the Brazilian NOVA classifications, apparently more or less the current de facto standard, despite imperfections).

So I don't think  eg a can of tomatoes with some preservatives counts.

FWIW, you can see the actual meals used in Hall's study here: https://www.cell.com/cms/10.1016/j....f7d43756-3f67-4557-8322-59a9d143d63c/mmc1.pdf


----------



## pm133 (May 25, 2021)

Leadinglights said:


> Everybody assumes E numbers are all bad but some natural things are given an E number. So even that is no real guide.


And also, of course, not all natural compounds are safe to eat.
Arsenic is a natural compound for example.


----------



## pm133 (May 25, 2021)

everydayupsanddowns said:


> Yes it's a shame isn't it. Would be really useful to have a way of separating the nasties from the 'reasonable' additives and extras.
> 
> But if you give the food industry an inch it'll take a yard, and I am pretty convinved that whatever stipulation you put on (eg a maximum number or percentage of additives) they'd find a way of making some hideous concoction that qualified for a 'clean' label but was actually even worse for you than the old stuff!



And I think that's an excellent point.
We all know intuitively what is good and what is bad.

The problem is legislating for the difference in an environment where, as you rightly say, these manufacturers will find ways of pushing the boundaries.

I did think that maybe we should start making food manufacturers or food processing companies have to go through some series of extended tests to prove their products come under much stricter guidelines on nasty things (whatever that may be) before they can sell to the public - in a similar way to pharmaceutical companies. It's getting to the point that something radical along those lines might be needed.
Maybe, for example, we should ban food which fails on any 2 of the traffic light labels on food. So, you can sell butter which would be red for fat but it must be green for everything else like salt. This would need a lot of thought because I also strongly believe that people have the right to choose what they do to their own bodies. But then it's society which has to foot the bill to heal them when they get ill. Definitely conflicted there.

I would also like them to include carbs on that traffic light system, given the sheer volume of diabetics out there. That might be interesting.


----------



## Eddy Edson (May 25, 2021)

Eddy Edson said:


> Just having some additives doesn't make a food "ultraprocessed" on most definitions. See eg the definition cited in Hall's study (link above):
> 
> _ ‘‘formulations mostly of cheap industrial sources of dietary energy and nutrients plus additives, using a series of processes’’ and containing minimal whole foods_
> 
> ...


And much more detail on NOVA classifications & what "ultraprocessed" means  in an FAO report:  http://www.fao.org/3/ca5644en/ca5644en.pdf


----------



## Leadinglights (May 25, 2021)

We now have the news item this morning on BBC Breakfast that restaurants will have to show calories on the menu which really is not a lot of help to diabetics, perhaps somebody Diabetes UK should be lobbing for Carbs as well.


----------



## helli (May 25, 2021)

My gut feel is that anything with artificial sweeteners is ultraprocessed. 
I have no science to back up this feeling but would rather  reduce the sugar in a recipe or avoid it alltogether than add splenda or any other sugar alternative.
I would feel nervous in a restaurant if it included all carbs in their menus (something I disagree with due to the difficulties for small flexible independent cafes and restaurants but that is a different conversation ... ooops didn't mean to side track, it's just the way my brain works). Anyway, back to the menu including carbs - if a dessert item had low carbs listed, I would be more likely to avoid it because I would suspect it was achieved with artificial sweeteners. 

Thankfully, I am able to maintain my weight and my diabetes management whilst avoiding these but sometimes I wonder if I am misjudging them?


----------



## Leadinglights (May 25, 2021)

helli said:


> My gut feel is that anything with artificial sweeteners is ultraprocessed.
> I have no science to back up this feeling but would rather  reduce the sugar in a recipe or avoid it alltogether than add splenda or any other sugar alternative.
> I would feel nervous in a restaurant if it included all carbs in their menus (something I disagree with due to the difficulties for small flexible independent cafes and restaurants but that is a different conversation ... ooops didn't mean to side track, it's just the way my brain works). Anyway, back to the menu including carbs - if a dessert item had low carbs listed, I would be more likely to avoid it because I would suspect it was achieved with artificial sweeteners.
> 
> Thankfully, I am able to maintain my weight and my diabetes management whilst avoiding these but sometimes I wonder if I am misjudging them?


This is going to be a situation where Damned if you do Damned if you don't. I see what you are saying and perhaps we have become a nanny culture, and people should be left to make their own minds up. However the information should be available for those who request it, just as allergy info has to be. 
I sometimes find people very strange, my OH's sister has to have everything organic, nothing will pass her lips or her dogs lips that isn't and yet she was a smoker for years.


----------



## helli (May 25, 2021)

Leadinglights said:


> This is going to be a situation where Damned if you do Damned if you don't. I see what you are saying and perhaps we have become a nanny culture, and people should be left to make their own minds up. However the information should be available for those who request it, just as allergy info has to be.
> I sometimes find people very strange, my OH's sister has to have everything organic, nothing will pass her lips or her dogs lips that isn't and yet she was a smoker for years.


I think you are referring to my side comment about restaurants listing the carb contents of their meals.
whilst I see the value in it, it means independent restaurants who want to use fresh, local ingredients are restricted in terms of being able to substitute say green beans for brocoli because their supplier has some great fresh beans in season or substituting cream for ice cream when they run out.
l think it stifles culinary creativity and adds extra cost and effort if you are running the kind of establishment that doesn’t just dish up the same fixed menu for months on end.


----------



## travellor (May 25, 2021)

Eddy Edson said:


> Just having some additives doesn't make a food "ultraprocessed" on most definitions. See eg the definition cited in Hall's study (link above):
> 
> _ ‘‘formulations mostly of cheap industrial sources of dietary energy and nutrients plus additives, using a series of processes’’ and containing minimal whole foods_
> 
> ...



Just looking at his meals, there are still a lot of items in the ultra processed group, such as tinned corn, green beans, milk, sausages, sauces, steak, yoghurt, butter, etc that would catch me out.


----------



## Leadinglights (May 25, 2021)

helli said:


> I think you are referring to my side comment about restaurants listing the carb contents of their meals.
> whilst I see the value in it, it means independent restaurants who want to use fresh, local ingredients are restricted in terms of being able to substitute say green beans for brocoli because their supplier has some great fresh beans in season or substituting cream for ice cream when they run out.
> l think it stifles culinary creativity and adds extra cost and effort if you are running the kind of establishment that doesn’t just dish up the same fixed menu for months on end.


Absolutely agree, they would be prevented from making substitutions if requested by the customer, or even having the dish of the day.


----------



## Robin (May 25, 2021)

travellor said:


> Just looking at his meals, there are still a lot of items in the ultra processed group, such as tinned corn, green beans, milk, sausages, sauces, steak, yoghurt, butter, etc that would catch me out.


I think the BBC programme will distinguish between lightly processed, which it thinks is OK, and ultraprocessed.








						What is ultra-processed food?
					

BBC Food



					www.bbc.co.uk


----------



## Inka (May 25, 2021)

Robin said:


> I think the BBC programme will distinguish between lightly processed, which it thinks is OK, and ultraprocessed.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I hope so. That would seem a common sense approach.

I’ve been thinking about the carb listings. I do look up chain restaurants to check carbs sometimes, but I wouldn’t want that imposition on a small individual restaurant. Only ‘factory line’ food would be so regimented that the portions were equal, and if the portion size varied then the nutritional information wouldn’t be accurate anyway. I’m always wary of carb counts and tend to do my own calculations and checks anyway.


----------



## travellor (May 25, 2021)

Robin said:


> I think the BBC programme will distinguish between lightly processed, which it thinks is OK, and ultraprocessed.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Did you have a look at @Eddy Edson  link 

 the actual meals used in Hall's study here: https://www.cell.com/cms/10.1016/j....f7d43756-3f67-4557-8322-59a9d143d63c/mmc1.pdf

they are all in the ultraprocessed food diet.

The actual "bad" diet doesn't look really bad, it's not all take ways and "junk" food. The unprocessed is all top end healthly food. It's not an everyday affordable menu.
It will be an interesting program, if there was no difference in other variables, such as exercise, eg can you eat the healthy food, no exercise, and get fitter, or eat the processed diet, and even with maximum exercise, still get that bad? 
Can there be a happy halfway house that lets me keep the tinned sweetcorn? (To be honest, he probably chose the sweetened variety, I go for the unsweetened, vacuum tined ones now)


----------



## Eddy Edson (May 25, 2021)

travellor said:


> Just looking at his meals, there are still a lot of items in the ultra processed group, such as tinned corn, green beans, milk, sausages, sauces, steak, yoghurt, butter, etc that would catch me out.


Anything with emulsifiers, added flavours etc etc for "ultraprocessed", I think.  Not so much preservatives, as I understand it - they're a marker for "processed" rather than "ultraprocessed".

The BBC categories are just the NOVA categories used by "everybody", including Hall in this study. But they do leave room for different interpretations. 

Hall's position is that there is nothing fundamentally wrong with ultraprocessed food except that (surprisingly, to him) they cause people to eat more. That might also involve eating too much sodium, not enough mucronutrients or fibre, whatever, depending on the individual details of the food - but not necessarily. You can easily imagine and identify ultraprocessed foods which are just fine nutritionally - except that they appear, on average, to cause people to over-eat.

Everybody has assumed reasons for why this is the case based on their preconceptions/cult membership/whatever but Hall himself doesn't know; there's a bunch of different hypotheses which need to be tested. Maybe there are factors which can be addressed, and you can have nutritionally fine, cheap, long-life, tasty ultraprocessed food which doesn't have the same over-eating propensity.

Meanwhile, because the world is dumb, the message is being interpreted as "ultraprocessed = bad because (insert just-so story here)".


----------



## Eddy Edson (May 25, 2021)

travellor said:


> The unprocessed is all top end healthly food. It's not an everyday affordable menu.


Halla argues that introducing eg taxes on ultraprocessed food would be massively regressive -  lots of people just can't afford or just don't have access to wholefoods etc, and he doesn't see how a tax would lead to a situation where poorer people weren't severely hit.

So, again, ultraprocessed food is fundamentally great - tasty, convenient, long-life, potentially nutritious, affordable for ervyone.  It's just that the way it is now, it causes people to over-eat. What to do about that?


----------



## Robin (May 25, 2021)

travellor said:


> Did you have a look at @Eddy Edson link
> 
> the actual meals used in Hall's study here: https://www.cell.com/cms/10.1016/j....f7d43756-3f67-4557-8322-59a9d143d63c/mmc1.pdf
> 
> they are all in the ultraprocessed food diet.


Yes, I did look, and that was my point. Some of the stuff on Hall's meal plan like cheese, cream, etc, would only be on the 'lightly processed' BBC list, unless Hall was using particular brands that add other stuff. I am not familiar with the brand names.


----------



## travellor (May 25, 2021)

Robin said:


> Yes, I did look, and that was my point. Some of the stuff on Hall's meal plan like cheese, cream, etc, would only be on the 'lightly processed' BBC list, unless Hall was using particular brands that add other stuff. I am not familiar with the brand names.



He choose a highly processed burger cheese, and added a fibre supplement to the milks and creams for example, to enable the "ultra processed" label.


----------



## travellor (May 25, 2021)

Eddy Edson said:


> Halla argues that introducing eg taxes on ultraprocessed food would be massively regressive -  lots of people just can't afford or just don't have access to wholefoods etc, and he doesn't see how a tax would lead to a situation where poorer people weren't severely hit.
> 
> So, again, ultraprocessed food is fundamentally great - tasty, convenient, long-life, potentially nutritious, affordable for ervyone.  It's just that the way it is now, it causes people to over-eat. What to do about that?



I think the answer is to look more at the snacks.
they had the biggest opportunity to make a difference for the smallest cost, and the greatest potential for over eating based on the volume to calories.
Crisps, biscuits and peanuts, all dry, calorie dense, and sweet apple sauce, versus fresh oranges and apples, raisins raw almonds, and chopped walnuts.


----------



## nonethewiser (May 25, 2021)

Rather gnaw on right hand than watch these type of programs, eat this don't eat that, give me break man.


----------



## travellor (May 25, 2021)

Eddy Edson said:


> Halla argues that introducing eg taxes on ultraprocessed food would be massively regressive -  lots of people just can't afford or just don't have access to wholefoods etc, and he doesn't see how a tax would lead to a situation where poorer people weren't severely hit.
> 
> So, again, ultraprocessed food is fundamentally great - tasty, convenient, long-life, potentially nutritious, affordable for ervyone.  It's just that the way it is now, it causes people to over-eat. What to do about that?



I just had a look at the menu, and the results from the actual study.
The weight was caused by overeating, due to the calorie increase.
The overeating roughly tied into the increase in speed that the processed food was eaten at.
But the overeating may have been triggered by the food itself, in that the protein ratio was lower, and the way to get the same protein amount was to increase the overall amount of food.
Which makes sense, carbs and fats are cheap fillers, protein is dearer.
Legislate to have a minimum ratio of protein in food, or at least identify low protein foods.

Also, the ultra processed food was comfort food, easy to eat, no great requirement to think about it, and served with copious liquids to wash it down
The un processed food was quite dry, or messy, or some other requirement to think before you could swallow it, and served with no liquids.
So harder to eat, slower, and your stomach will be saying it's full before excessive mouthfuls go in.
Both a fairly easy fix. 
Don't drink with the meal, and serve food that requires effort. (Even the spaghetti rather than macaroni is a slower meal without any other change)


----------



## pm133 (May 25, 2021)

Eddy Edson said:


> Halla argues that introducing eg taxes on ultraprocessed food would be massively regressive -  lots of people just can't afford or just don't have access to wholefoods etc, and he doesn't see how a tax would lead to a situation where poorer people weren't severely hit.



The idea that you need money to eat good quality food is absolutely wrong.
Fresh fruit and vegetables are incredibly cheap and certainly cheaper than anything you'd ever find in a takeaway.

It is extremely easy, quick and cheap to make a meal for a family of four. This is an education issue and a laziness issue.


----------



## pm133 (May 25, 2021)

travellor said:


> I just had a look at the menu, and the results from the actual study.


I have to say I didn't like the look of any of those meals he was eating.

Also it's a bit difficult to judge from photos but it looked like his portion sizes were very large in many cases.


----------



## Sally W (May 26, 2021)

everydayupsanddowns said:


> I think there is a call from some quarters to require an ‘ultraprocessed’ label on packaging - but I’d imagine the food industry would be pretty resistant to that!


Chile are doing just that with children’s junk food apparently. Currently reading Spoon-fed by Professor Spector who says exactly that. The ultra processes foods are the worst, where he believes canned and dried foods are ok. Frustratingly labels aren’t required by law to list all the ingredients so home cooking seems to be the way forward. It’s a shocking but brilliant read which I’d really recommend.


----------



## Eddy Edson (May 26, 2021)

pm133 said:


> The idea that you need money to eat good quality food is absolutely wrong.
> Fresh fruit and vegetables are incredibly cheap and certainly cheaper than anything you'd ever find in a takeaway.
> 
> It is extremely easy, quick and cheap to make a meal for a family of four. This is an education issue and a laziness issue.


I eat mainly fresh plant minimally processed wholefoods & it's certainly more expensive than supermarket ready meals, packaged bread, tinned stuff, breakfast cereal etc etc. It also involves more shopping trips because most of it doesn't keep for long. I can go to the produce & supermarket 2km away, or the small supermarket 50m away and pay 30%+ higher prices. I'm fortunate to have the choice, living in the middle of a fairly large city. Lots of people don't have the options.

Hall comments that his dieticians found it challenging to construct the minimally-processed meals within his govt project budget.

Anyway, it's all anecdotes. I don't really care about anecdotes and opinions, versus data.


----------



## pm133 (May 26, 2021)

Eddy Edson said:


> I eat mainly fresh plant minimally processed wholefoods & it's certainly more expensive than supermarket ready meals, packaged bread, tinned stuff, breakfast cereal etc etc. It also involves more shopping trips because most of it doesn't keep for long. I can go to the produce & supermarket 2km away, or the small supermarket 50m away and pay 30%+ higher prices. I'm fortunate to have the choice, living in the middle of a fairly large city. Lots of people don't have the options.
> 
> Hall comments that his dieticians found it challenging to construct the minimally-processed meals within his govt project budget.
> 
> Anyway, it's all anecdotes. I don't really care about anecdotes and opinions, versus data.


It depends on what you are eating. If you want to eat everything fresh and organic, free of containers then it'll be more expensive.

That's a different issue from suggesting poorer people can easily afford to eat more fruit and veg and learn how to cook simple, healthy meals properly and that this would be much cheaper and healthier than chicken nuggets, Findus crispy pancakes, turkey twizzlers buried in a mountain of baked beans, pizzas, takeaway curries, kebabs and fish suppers.
I know it's cheaper because after years of doing the latter, I have switched to the former and watched my household food bill drastically reduce.


----------



## Eddy Edson (May 27, 2021)

Kevin Hall and others talking about ultraprocessed food on a BBC podcast: 



__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1397923813598187527


----------



## Robin (May 27, 2021)

Eddy Edson said:


> Kevin Hall and others talking about ultraprocessed food on a BBC podcast:
> 
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1397923813598187527


I’m watching the BBC programme at the moment, they’ve just interviewed Kevin Hall talking about his 2019 experiment that found people offered ultraprocessed food ate 500 calories a day more, and put on a kilo in 2 weeks, compared with people offered minimally processed food.
His theory is that ultra processed food is so easy and quick to eat, it bypasses the body's natural signal that you’re full, which only catches up and tells you to stop when you’ve eaten too much.


----------



## Eddy Edson (May 27, 2021)

Robin said:


> I’m watching the BBC programme at the moment, they’ve just interviewed Kevin Hall talking about his 2019 experiment that found people offered ultraprocessed food ate 500 calories a day more, and put on a kilo in 2 weeks, compared with people offered minimally processed food.
> His theory is that ultra processed food is so easy and quick to eat, it bypasses the body's natural signal that you’re full, which only catches up and tells you to stop when you’ve eaten too much.


That's interesting - previous commentary from him gave that as just one hypothesis.


----------



## Robin (May 27, 2021)

Eddy Edson said:


> That's interesting - previous commentary from him gave that as just one hypothesis.


To be fair, it might be just that that's the sound bite the BBC chose to use, it was a short piece.


----------



## trophywench (May 27, 2021)

Having just finished watching it - Chris's brain actually proved that theory.  In the 28 days he stuck to the diet the hunger response had increased by double the amount his 'I feel full' response had reduced.  New pathways between different parts of the brain that we don't normally have (and he didn't pre diet) had been formed, and had not disappeared some months post experiment.

Food for thought most certainly!


----------



## travellor (May 27, 2021)

Very disappointing to be honest.
It quickly became nothing of any substance.


----------



## travellor (May 27, 2021)

trophywench said:


> Having just finished watching it - Chris's brain actually proved that theory.  In the 28 days he stuck to the diet the hunger response had increased by double the amount his 'I feel full' response had reduced.  New pathways between different parts of the brain that we don't normally have (and he didn't pre diet) had been formed, and had not disappeared some months post experiment.
> 
> Food for thought most certainly!


The pathways were not explained.
It was a pleasure response.
We all have them, everyday.


----------



## Robin (May 28, 2021)

travellor said:


> The pathways were not explained.
> It was a pleasure response.
> We all have them, everyday.


The doctor at UCLH where the MRI was done said that the new pathways were more than they’d expect to see develop in one month; that they weren’t pure pleasure reposnses but links to habitual and routine behaviour, such as are seen when people smoke, drink, or take drugs. They did say that there needs to be some proper research done, now they’ve discovered this.


----------



## everydayupsanddowns (May 28, 2021)

travellor said:


> The pathways were not explained.
> It was a pleasure response.
> We all have them, everyday.



I didn’t hear it that way. It was a set of new connections between reward centres in the brain and those that govern food/appetite. In exactly the same way that you would see if taking a known addictive substance. 

Which suggests that the sensory experience of ultraprocessed foods is literally addictive. And that the more of it you have, the more cemented those pathways become, and the more of it you crave. (It’s not like he never ate anything ultraprocessed before, it was the proportion that was different). Which makes me wonder if there may be some sort of ‘tipping point’ where moving back to eating more minimally processed (less addictive) alternatives becomes much harder. Could explain a lot of the difficulty that public health initiatives have encountered over the past 30 years or so.


----------



## everydayupsanddowns (May 28, 2021)

Robin said:


> To be fair, it might be just that that's the sound bite the BBC chose to use, it was a short piece.


I thought it was interesting (if I understood correctly) that the diets in that experiment were carefully matched for salt, sugar, fat etc. So that the basics were the same, but that the ultraprocessed had been ‘optimised’ with extra ingredients to make them more palatable, easier to swallow, more flavour enhanced, and to reach the ‘bliss point’ more reliably. Engineered to make you want to overeat.


----------



## Robin (May 28, 2021)

everydayupsanddowns said:


> I thought it was interesting (if I understood correctly) that the diets in that experiment were carefully matched for salt, sugar, fat etc. So that the basics were the same, but that the ultraprocessed had been ‘optimised’ with extra ingredients to make them more palatable, easier to swallow, more flavour enhanced, and to reach the ‘bliss point’ more reliably. Engineered to make you want to overeat.


Yes, that was very interesting, and alarming!


----------



## Eddy Edson (May 28, 2021)

everydayupsanddowns said:


> I thought it was interesting (if I understood correctly) that the diets in that experiment were carefully matched for salt, sugar, fat etc. So that the basics were the same, but that the ultraprocessed had been ‘optimised’ with extra ingredients to make them more palatable, easier to swallow, more flavour enhanced, and to reach the ‘bliss point’ more reliably. Engineered to make you want to overeat.


Actually, that's not quite right.  In this experiment, the ultraprocessed and minimally processes diets were rated as equally palatable and tasty by the subjects. The only strong difference signal was eating speed, which Hall (at least in the commentary I've seen) doesn't yet have a strong explanation for.


----------



## everydayupsanddowns (May 28, 2021)

Eddy Edson said:


> Actually, that's not quite right.  In this experiment, the ultraprocessed and minimally processes diets were rated as equally palatable and tasty by the subjects. The only strong difference signal was eating speed, which Hall (at least in the commentary I've seen) doesn't yet have a strong explanation for.



Ah that’s interesting. I was inferring from other information in the documentary, having not read the paper. The matching of macronutrients was interesting though I thought.


----------



## Eddy Edson (May 28, 2021)

everydayupsanddowns said:


> Ah that’s interesting. I was inferring from other information in the documentary. The matching of macronutrients was interesting though I thought.


Yes. So Hall's conclusion is that explanations having to do with salt, fat, fibre content don't work.  There's something else going on, apparently not related to nutrient content in any obvious way. 

If you're interested in this stuff, it's well worth looking at the conf presentation youtube I linked upthread somewhere.


----------



## travellor (May 28, 2021)

Eddy Edson said:


> Yes. So Hall's conclusion is that explanations having to do with salt, fat, fibre content don't work.  There's something else going on, apparently not related to nutrient content in any obvious way.
> 
> If you're interested in this stuff, it's well worth looking at the conf presentation youtube I linked upthread somewhere.


The original study claims the overeating may have been triggered by the food itself, in that the protein ratio was lower, and the way to get the same protein amount was to increase the overall amount of food eaten.


----------



## Robin (May 28, 2021)

I’ve always thought that there’s a fatal combination of fat and sugar /refined carb that makes things irresistible, whether ultraprocessed or home made. Who doesn’t accept a second slice of cake when offered, or finish the whole pizza?


----------



## travellor (May 28, 2021)

everydayupsanddowns said:


> I didn’t hear it that way. It was a set of new connections between reward centres in the brain and those that govern food/appetite. In exactly the same way that you would see if taking a known addictive substance.
> 
> Which suggests that the sensory experience of ultraprocessed foods is literally addictive. And that the more of it you have, the more cemented those pathways become, and the more of it you crave. (It’s not like he never ate anything ultraprocessed before, it was the proportion that was different). Which makes me wonder if there may be some sort of ‘tipping point’ where moving back to eating more minimally processed (less addictive) alternatives becomes much harder. Could explain a lot of the difficulty that public health initiatives have encountered over the past 30 years or so.


I just watched that part again. 
He made the comments, that the MRI
"Linked up reward centres of his brain with areas that drive repetitive automotive behaviour"
He did comment it was something you might see in persons with an addiction.

But there was no comparison or reference to any normal behaviour, or other links, just that his had changed.
It was portrayed as the food itself caused it, it could just have been the experience was enjoyable, and yes, he did like eating things like the pizza, or the burger, I know I have some foods I prefer, and others I don't, from the width of the unprocessed to ultra processed spectrum.
I think you are right about the tipping point. After a time all you remember is the food you like to eat, and if the balance swings to junk, taste, texture, ease of eating and filling you quickly, that'll become what you want.

It was a bit like his before and after picture.
Before, standing up straight, neck stretched up, stomach pulled in, chest out, arms straight, after, slouched, head down, everything relaxed for the camera, it wasn't a like for like pose.

I'm certainly not arguing that junk food is bad, just that some of the reporting could have had a better explanation, but that's difficult to do in a one hour program.


----------



## trophywench (May 28, 2021)

Sooo - do you reckon he always has moobs and a 'beer belly' then anyway?


----------



## pm133 (May 28, 2021)

Robin said:


> I’ve always thought that there’s a fatal combination of fat and sugar /refined carb that makes things irresistible, whether ultraprocessed or home made. Who doesn’t accept a second slice of cake when offered, or finish the whole pizza?


I think you're probably right. It's fat, sugar and salt. Pizza and cake are just tastier than carrots.
Nobody ever asked for a second helping of carrots. If anyone turned down cake but asked for a second helping of carrots in my house, I'd be keeping a close eye on them. 

Fat, sugar, salt, chocolate....oh god....sprinkly toppings, fudge.....stop typing....fondant icing, cream, sponge....where are my car keys!!!!


----------



## Robin (May 28, 2021)

pm133 said:


> Fat, sugar, salt, chocolate....oh god....sprinkly toppings, fudge.....stop typing....fondant icing, cream, sponge....where are my car keys!!!!


Aaargh! Stoppit!


----------



## travellor (May 28, 2021)

trophywench said:


> Sooo - do you reckon he always has moobs and a 'beer belly' then anyway?



I can't comment on that, But I know I can suck mine in. 

The two pictures were a give away, he was standing about two inches taller in the "before" one, then the cutaway from the "after" to him talking on camera when he was standing normally showed him looking remarkably better.
I think he altered his posture quite considerably to accentuate features, for the photographs.


----------



## Gwynn (May 28, 2021)

Oh my goodness. I just watched the program with my wife.

I was born in 1953 and raised by my mother who cooked every day (and worked), every day from raw infredients. I grew up on good food. Besides ultra processed food was probablymnot available. I was as skinny as can be.  I only became overweight when in later life I had an office job and ate more of the ultra processed foods as well as ultra processed sweets, cakes, etc,etc.

I was so lucky to have been born then.

However, I almost wrecked things by my later diet, now completely reveresed as are my overweight and diabetes issues AND a whole raft of other health related issues.

Could all just be coincidence, but I feel that it is not,.


----------



## travellor (May 28, 2021)

Gwynn said:


> Oh my goodness. I just watched the program with my wife.
> 
> I was born in 1953 and raised by my mother who cooked every day (and worked), every day from raw infredients. I grew up on good food. Besides ultra processed food was probablymnot available. I was as skinny as can be.  I only became overweight when in later life I had an office job and ate more of the ultra processed foods as well as ultra processed sweets, cakes, etc,etc.
> 
> ...



Born in the 60's
I was overweight as a child.
Unfortunately I think there are some people who do put on weight.
I do remember processed food though.
Mainly snacks, crisps, twix, the KitKat that got the mention in Brazil, chewy sweets from the corner shop, Kraft cheese triangles, but there was also the BirdsEye fish fingers, Kellogg's for breakfast, and fizzy drinks,
I lost weight when I got a part time job.
Same diet though really, but now including Vesta ready meals and tins of spaghetti sauce and curry.
I put on weight again when I moved from the field into office work.
So, ultra processed food has been a large part of my diet I would expect.
(out of curiosity I looked at the cottage cheese I had for lunch. M&S cottage cheese with prawns in a marie rose sauce. While I recognised all the contents, there were 14 of then, so even that counts as ultra processed)


----------



## dellyb (May 28, 2021)

I started to drift off to sleep towards the end, but talking of his brain scan, did he say when the last (third) one was done?  Did he say that that didnt show any movement backwards to previous initial scan?


----------



## Inka (May 28, 2021)

He said it was done a month later @dellyb and that the changes hadn’t gone away.

I, like most people, do eat some UPFs but I think the government should get involved somehow because the sheer quantity of them is shocking. Some of them are real Frankenfoods too. If they’re addictive then children and teens in particular have a struggle ahead.

We don’t need all these foods - or all the takeaway places.


----------



## travellor (May 28, 2021)

Inka said:


> He said it was done a month later @dellyb and that the changes hadn’t gone away.
> 
> I, like most people, do eat some UPFs but I think the government should get involved somehow because the sheer quantity of them is shocking. Some of them are real Frankenfoods too. If they’re addictive then children and teens in particular have a struggle ahead.
> 
> We don’t need all these foods - or all the takeaway places.



He did say that.
He also said how pleased he was he could stop eating that food now his experiment was over, how quickly the weight fell off, and how better he felt.
It wasn't exactly someone whose brain had been rewired to be addicted to it.

He also commented on how a major study was now being funded based on his scans and tests.
That will be very interesting, as well, as his hormone results appeared to be the opposite of present beliefs.


----------



## Lucyr (May 28, 2021)

I’m watching this program tonight, and debate around the details of the results aside, it’s certainly made me think about whether I can make my diet a higher proportion of unprocessed foods to see if that helps


----------



## Inka (May 29, 2021)

travellor said:


> He did say that.
> He also said how pleased he was he could stop eating that food now his experiment was over, how quickly the weight fell off, and how better he felt.
> It wasn't exactly someone whose brain had been rewired to be addicted to it.
> 
> ...



True, but he’s not a child or teen. I think that’s the concern - that children are being wired to seek UPFs. Some of the statistics were scary eg he said 2 out of 3 calories eaten by children/teens came from UPFs. That’s shocking.

As for adults, then I guess it’s about how much willpower, knowledge and motivation we have. There’s also the money aspect mentioned above, and the effect of social changes.


----------



## Lucyr (May 29, 2021)

Does anyone know of sources of more information on the kinds of food that can cause these problems, and how to change your diet? Being constantly hungry is a big problem for me, though I think my diet is a mix of unprocessed and processed foods

E.g. yesterday I had
Breakfast: wrap with a chipolata, scrambled egg, coffee with sweetener and milk
Lunch: latte and crisps (not my standard lunch, was out)
Dinner: vegan chicken Kiev, homemade chips, veg
Snacks: yoghurt, coffee, chocolate

I’m guessing that the Kiev, yoghurt, chocolate, sweeteners, crisps, wrap (and not sure about chipolata) would be the examples of ultraprocessed foods here that could leave you wanting more, and the egg, coffee, chips, milk, veg are the examples of unprocessed or minimally processed foods that might be more satisfying?


----------



## Inka (May 29, 2021)

Yes, I think so @Lucyr so you could look at swapping the wrap for something less processed, swapping/omitting the chipolata, having chicken with maybe a homemade sauce with your chips, etc. Little changes can work well.

As for hunger, Joel Fuhrman talks about something called ‘toxic hunger’. I’ll find his precise definition in a moment and add it here.

Found a link instead.


----------



## Robin (May 29, 2021)

A good rule of thumb mentioned on the programme, was to look at the ingredients on the back of a packet and see if they contain anything that you wouldn’t normally keep in your own kitchen store cupboard, (examples given were monosodium glutamate, stabiliser, emulsifier, etc) and the longer the list, the more processed that food is likely to be.


----------



## Ditto (May 29, 2021)

I was born in 1953! Why wasn't I thin? So not fair.  We relied on school dinners for food but they were 'proper' dinners then, not the muck they give them now. The only thing I wasn't keen on was the rice pudding which had huge blobs in it and the fish pie. I could take or leave the puddings, I'd rather have had two dinners. 

I might have to give up cottage cheese then, one of my faves.


----------



## Robin (May 29, 2021)

Birdy said:


> I might have to give up cottage cheese then, one of my faves


Why? I don’t think it counts as ultra processed, cheese was on the 'lightly processed' list, I think, which was for stuff that’s had something minor done to it to make it palatable or turn it into something, like turning milk into cheese or butter, and just adding a bit of salt for taste and preservation.


----------



## trophywench (May 29, 2021)

Yep - it was that ingredients comparison with what you might have in your own pantry, that struck home with me.  Take something really simple like herbs - think we all know and accept that fresh herbs are seasonal so if you wish to make mint sauce, best start with freshly picked mint ...... but there again, much quicker and easier to pick up a jar of Colman's, isn't it?

Read the ingredients ..... not many of them in anyone's pantry ...... but there again how many tons/gallons of it a day will you consume when you'll only ever have a teaspoon of it every 3 weeks when you have a lamb chop?

So it isn't 'just' a matter of discarding things that have been processed (cos 1. pick mint leaves 2. wash them 3. chop them finely 4.  sprinkle with half a teaspoonful of sugar 4.  add vinegar and water to taste - so mint sauce is always processed!) but weighing up the pros and cons of it so you can choose properly between those that don't actually matter shedloads like the bit of mint sauce occasionally - and whether it's good for you to drink 2 litres of Coca Cola a day at the other end of the scale!


----------



## AndBreathe (May 29, 2021)

Inka said:


> True, but he’s not a child or teen. I think that’s the concern - that children are being wired to seek UPFs. Some of the statistics were scary eg he said 2 out of 3 calories eaten by children/teens came from UPFs. That’s shocking.
> 
> As for adults, then I guess it’s about how much willpower, knowledge and motivation we have. There’s also the money aspect mentioned above, and the effect of social changes.



Inka - I think that's a very simple conclusion to reach; the willpower and motivation, but I would urge all of us not to lose sight of food addiction, and how common it is to one degree or another.

The presentation in the following link is from the Public Health Collaboration Conference in 2018.  The audience were to the vast majority people who believe in wellbeing, and the pursuit thereof, but the little interactive exercise is staggeringly enlightening.

There is quite a bit of work being done into food addiction at the moment.  Very few, if any of those involved report cases of individuals being addicted to steak, chicken or suchlike, but mainly to calorie dense, nutrient scant foodstuffs.


----------



## travellor (May 29, 2021)

trophywench said:


> Yep - it was that ingredients comparison with what you might have in your own pantry, that struck home with me.  Take something really simple like herbs - think we all know and accept that fresh herbs are seasonal so if you wish to make mint sauce, best start with freshly picked mint ...... but there again, much quicker and easier to pick up a jar of Colman's, isn't it?
> 
> Read the ingredients ..... not many of them in anyone's pantry ...... but there again how many tons/gallons of it a day will you consume when you'll only ever have a teaspoon of it every 3 weeks when you have a lamb chop?
> 
> So it isn't 'just' a matter of discarding things that have been processed (cos 1. pick mint leaves 2. wash them 3. chop them finely 4.  sprinkle with half a teaspoonful of sugar 4.  add vinegar and water to taste - so mint sauce is always processed!) but weighing up the pros and cons of it so you can choose properly between those that don't actually matter shedloads like the bit of mint sauce occasionally - and whether it's good for you to drink 2 litres of Coca Cola a day at the other end of the scale!



It's becoming blurrier though.

I have xanthan gum, lecithin, guar gum, arrowroot powder, among other things in my cupboards, 
Baking, sauces, gravies, it all gets used quite regularly.
And even some of the dried herbs, and chilli blends have added, processed ingredients.
The bottles of liquid sauces all have. 
Even the Lee and Perrins has "extracts"
There is a fair chance even the table salt has anti caking chemicals in.


----------



## Robin (May 29, 2021)

Well, the programme wasn’t saying you shouldn’t eat any ultra processed foods, but to limit them.
I've got Lea and Perrins in my cupboard, but I only use a few drops once a week or so.
I had a look through my cupboards, and the worst culprit was Nature Valley Protein bars. Again, something I only eat about once a week, but I’m sure it’s something that people choose thinking ‘it’s healthy'.


----------



## silentsquirrel (May 29, 2021)

Arrowroot was always in my mother's pantry, and I would guess in my grandmother's too.  It's a good treatment for diarrhoea, and also for making a clear glaze for fruit tarts and flans.


----------



## travellor (May 29, 2021)

I'd like to know if there is a "fat" gene.
Processed food isn't new.
Crispy pancakes, Birds Eye breaded fish triangles, Ross fish pies, Boil in the bag cod in parsley sauce, Mccain's oven chips, all food from my childhood.
But, in any family, we all had someone that could eat anything and not get fat. (That wasn't me).
So, why, if you and your brothers/sisters are eating the same foods, why does the result of that eating cause radically different results? I know I didn't eat more than my skinny brother did. 
Maybe it's not the food, maybe it's not the calories, maybe it's not the carbs, maybe it's not the fat.
Maybe, the "fat" gene is getting switched on?  
That's a study i would like to see the results of.


----------



## Leadinglights (May 29, 2021)

travellor said:


> I'd like to know if there is a "fat" gene.
> Processed food isn't new.
> Crispy pancakes, Birds Eye breaded fish triangles, Ross fish pies, Boil in the bag cod in parsley sauce, Mccain's oven chips, all food from my childhood.
> But, in any family, we all had someone that could eat anything and not get fat. (That wasn't me).
> ...


There is the FTO gene but It is thought that there are about 50 genes involved in whether somebody is fat or thin. Research has shown that it is 25% genetic and 75% environmental. So a very complex issue.


----------



## Ditto (May 29, 2021)

I think there is a fat gene and also I think our gut stuff is key. I need to eat kimchi!


----------



## travellor (May 30, 2021)

Birdy said:


> I can't stick to anything! I have given the wrong impression.  I am yet again starting low carb, day 2 and on a roll.  The thing with low carb is, it gives you a great nights' sleep, you feel happy, loads of energy, lose weight and clear skin, and best of all you don't feel hungry, so why the heck do I hanker for rubbish food? I have no idea.



Just read your response on the Newcastle diet thread.
I didn't want to hijack the other thread, while this one is still running, so I hope you don't mind me bringing your comment over here.
It got me thinking, I do like processed foods, but not because it has "processed" ingredients.
The list I made of processed foods from my childhood I wouldn't give freezer space to now.
On the other side of  the coin, someone earlier said no one gets addicted to steak, equally, I wouldn't be addicted to boil in the bag cod in butter sauce.
But equally, I wouldn't be addicted to a MacDonald's burger patty. 
Now, if you put the steak in a MacDonald's Big Mac......
I could do a burger in a bun at home.
But  if I mince my own meat, bake my own bun, put my own lettuce, mayo, cheese, bbq sauce, and there is no processed food, it'll still taste 100 times better than just a dish of minced steak.
It's not the chemicals, it's the mix for me.
Maybe it's just the amount of money the food companies put into making the "perfect" food, and the amount of testing, and feedback, and re formulation it goes through now, to create the best experience. And to be honest, it's not all rubbish food. (Although some is)
Mostly it just makes you eat more, and goes down faster for me.
Try to re create the mix, but alter it, if you can do it enough, you should find a point where it satisfies the "memory" of the rubbish food, but doesn't create the over eating most of the time.


----------



## Cobgirl (May 30, 2021)

We’ve got this recorded, looking forward to watching it. Something does need to be done globally with ultra processed foods. It’s worrying how easy it is to eat them without realising youre doing it


----------



## everydayupsanddowns (May 30, 2021)

travellor said:


> Maybe it's just the amount of money the food companies put into making the "perfect" food, and the amount of testing, and feedback, and re formulation it goes through now, to create the best experience.



I think there’s a lot of truth in that - the programme described the food industry as repeatedly reformulating, tweaking, and focus-group-testing recipes to improve everything from flavour to how it feels in the mouth, how easy it is to swallow, and how long it keeps... looking for the ‘bliss point’ I mentioned in #56


----------

