- Aug 15, 2018
- 600
- 346
- 63
Ultra-Processed Foods: Is It the Processing, the Calories, or Something Else?
Been seeing a lot of discussion lately about ultra-processed foods, and I think there's a pretty interesting question here for anyone who's been training and watching their nutrition for a while.
Does food processing itself make a meaningful difference, or does it mostly come down to calories, protein and overall diet quality?
I don't think the answer is quite as simple as either side makes it sound.
There's an interesting NIH study from 2019 that looked at this under controlled conditions.
Researchers took 20 adults and had them eat two different diets for 14 days each:
• One diet was primarily ultra-processed foods.
• The other was primarily minimally processed foods.
Both diets were designed to be comparable in the calories, macronutrients, sugar, sodium and fibre being offered.
Participants could eat as much or as little as they wanted.
The interesting result?
During the ultra-processed portion, participants consumed approximately 508 additional calories per day on average.
They also gained about 0.9 kg during that period, compared with losing approximately 0.9 kg during the minimally processed period.
That's a pretty significant difference for just two weeks.
Here's the actual study:
NIH — Ultra-Processed Diets Cause Excess Calorie Intake and Weight Gain
Now, I wouldn't take one study involving 20 people and declare that every processed food is automatically bad.
That's not what the research proves.
The study also doesn't tell us that processing somehow overrides energy balance.
What it suggests is that the characteristics of the foods we eat may influence how much we naturally end up consuming.
And that's where I think things get interesting for bodybuilding and fitness.
Think about the difference between eating chicken, potatoes and vegetables versus eating a highly palatable packaged meal.
You can technically make both fit the same calorie target.
But are they equally easy to regulate when you're eating according to appetite?
Maybe not.
On the other hand, some processed foods are genuinely useful.
Whey protein is processed.
Greek yogurt involves processing.
Canned beans, frozen vegetables and certain packaged foods can be affordable and convenient.
And anyone who has spent years meal prepping knows that convenience matters.
So I don't think simply labelling everything as processed or unprocessed tells us enough.
There's a difference between a food being processed and a diet being built almost entirely around highly palatable, energy-dense convenience foods.
For people who actually track their intake, here's what I'm curious about:
1. Have any of you noticed a real difference in hunger when eating mostly whole foods versus packaged foods, even with calories and protein matched?
2. During a cutting phase, do you find that food quality matters more for appetite control than it does during a bulk?
3. How much processed food do you realistically eat while maintaining good body composition?
I'm especially interested in hearing from people who've done both approaches for extended periods.
Not just what looks good on paper, but what you could actually stick to.
And one more thing worth discussing:
If two diets deliver the same calories and protein, but one makes you substantially hungrier, are those diets really equivalent from a practical bodybuilding perspective?
Let's hear some real experiences.
— OLYMPIC
Been seeing a lot of discussion lately about ultra-processed foods, and I think there's a pretty interesting question here for anyone who's been training and watching their nutrition for a while.
Does food processing itself make a meaningful difference, or does it mostly come down to calories, protein and overall diet quality?
I don't think the answer is quite as simple as either side makes it sound.
There's an interesting NIH study from 2019 that looked at this under controlled conditions.
Researchers took 20 adults and had them eat two different diets for 14 days each:
• One diet was primarily ultra-processed foods.
• The other was primarily minimally processed foods.
Both diets were designed to be comparable in the calories, macronutrients, sugar, sodium and fibre being offered.
Participants could eat as much or as little as they wanted.
The interesting result?
During the ultra-processed portion, participants consumed approximately 508 additional calories per day on average.
They also gained about 0.9 kg during that period, compared with losing approximately 0.9 kg during the minimally processed period.
That's a pretty significant difference for just two weeks.
Here's the actual study:
NIH — Ultra-Processed Diets Cause Excess Calorie Intake and Weight Gain
Now, I wouldn't take one study involving 20 people and declare that every processed food is automatically bad.
That's not what the research proves.
The study also doesn't tell us that processing somehow overrides energy balance.
What it suggests is that the characteristics of the foods we eat may influence how much we naturally end up consuming.
And that's where I think things get interesting for bodybuilding and fitness.
Think about the difference between eating chicken, potatoes and vegetables versus eating a highly palatable packaged meal.
You can technically make both fit the same calorie target.
But are they equally easy to regulate when you're eating according to appetite?
Maybe not.
On the other hand, some processed foods are genuinely useful.
Whey protein is processed.
Greek yogurt involves processing.
Canned beans, frozen vegetables and certain packaged foods can be affordable and convenient.
And anyone who has spent years meal prepping knows that convenience matters.
So I don't think simply labelling everything as processed or unprocessed tells us enough.
There's a difference between a food being processed and a diet being built almost entirely around highly palatable, energy-dense convenience foods.
For people who actually track their intake, here's what I'm curious about:
1. Have any of you noticed a real difference in hunger when eating mostly whole foods versus packaged foods, even with calories and protein matched?
2. During a cutting phase, do you find that food quality matters more for appetite control than it does during a bulk?
3. How much processed food do you realistically eat while maintaining good body composition?
I'm especially interested in hearing from people who've done both approaches for extended periods.
Not just what looks good on paper, but what you could actually stick to.
And one more thing worth discussing:
If two diets deliver the same calories and protein, but one makes you substantially hungrier, are those diets really equivalent from a practical bodybuilding perspective?
Let's hear some real experiences.
— OLYMPIC