Octopus Overlords

Max Peck wrote:

Jeff V wrote:BTW, many smoothies are high in sugar; they are pretty much banned from my diet (although my wife is rather addicted to avocado smoothies). Healthy things processed into a less healthy form does not equal healthy product.

It depends on what ingredients go into them, doesn't it? I'd avoid using things like fruit juice, but if kefir, banana, strawberries and carrots are healthy before going in a blender, how do they become unhealthy after being slurried?

The trouble is not in the quality of the ingredients...it's the quantity at once. Eat too much fructose in a sitting and the body has no recourse but convert it to fat. Eat three or four strawberries and a carrot over an hour? Now we are talking. Blend it up and drink it in 5 minutes? Not so much.

LawBeefaroni wrote:It's the old choose three scenario:
Cheap
Healthy
Fast

OK, I pick those three.

Same..I have to buy cheap though. Poor people are forced into bad diets. I still remember them teaching the food pyramid in school and I think that is now a defunct thing.

malchior wrote:

Max Peck wrote:

Jeff V wrote:BTW, many smoothies are high in sugar; they are pretty much banned from my diet (although my wife is rather addicted to avocado smoothies). Healthy things processed into a less healthy form does not equal healthy product.

It depends on what ingredients go into them, doesn't it? I'd avoid using things like fruit juice, but if kefir, banana, strawberries and carrots are healthy before going in a blender, how do they become unhealthy after being slurried?

The trouble is not in the quality of the ingredients...it's the quantity at once. Eat too much fructose in a sitting and the body has no recourse but convert it to fat. Eat three or four strawberries and a carrot over an hour? Now we are talking. Blend it up and drink it in 5 minutes? Not so much.

Fair enough, and in general I wouldn't necessarily disagree (I have an occasional smoothie as a treat, not as a regular meal replacement), but in Blackhawk's case it might be a viable way to get some of the foods he'd like to be eating into a form that he can actually swallow while still being palatable (keeping things like portion control in mind).

Really, though, this is a problem he should be discussing with his doctor and a dietitian, not random weirdos (speaking just for myself) on the intertubes.

Unagi wrote:

LawBeefaroni wrote:It's the old choose three scenario:
Cheap
Healthy
Fast

OK, I pick those three.

Two, dammit, two.



Like I said, you can get to three eventually but if you want to go from zero to cooking in one day, you're going to have to start with two.

Max Peck wrote:

malchior wrote:

Max Peck wrote:

Jeff V wrote:BTW, many smoothies are high in sugar; they are pretty much banned from my diet (although my wife is rather addicted to avocado smoothies). Healthy things processed into a less healthy form does not equal healthy product.

It depends on what ingredients go into them, doesn't it? I'd avoid using things like fruit juice, but if kefir, banana, strawberries and carrots are healthy before going in a blender, how do they become unhealthy after being slurried?

The trouble is not in the quality of the ingredients...it's the quantity at once. Eat too much fructose in a sitting and the body has no recourse but convert it to fat. Eat three or four strawberries and a carrot over an hour? Now we are talking. Blend it up and drink it in 5 minutes? Not so much.

Fair enough, and in general I wouldn't necessarily disagree (I have an occasional smoothie as a treat, not as a regular meal replacement), but in Blackhawk's case it might be a viable way to get some of the foods he'd like to be eating into a form that he can actually swallow while still being palatable (keeping things like portion control in mind).

Really, though, this is a problem he should be discussing with his doctor and a dietitian, not random weirdos (speaking just for myself) on the intertubes.

Juicified plant matter also destroys many of the healthy benefits of the original packaging, like fiber.

Kraken wrote: What else you got going on that's more important?

A combination of things, including being a single father 50% of the time (and on those days I'm lucky to have an hour or two out of the day that isn't tied up, and I'm not going to spend my one hour stirring a pot.) The other days are a bit harder to explain, and touch on the psychology of autists, so I'll just say that I'm busy and hard to interrupt.

Blackhawk wrote:

Kraken wrote: What else you got going on that's more important?

A combination of things, including being a single father 50% of the time (and on those days I'm lucky to have an hour or two out of the day that isn't tied up, and I'm not going to spend my one hour stirring a pot.) The other days are a bit harder to explain, and touch on the psychology of autists, so I'll just say that I'm busy and hard to interrupt.

I don't think the question was actually questioning what you're doing, but more gently reminding you that of all the projects in the world, taking care of yourself and your health is the most important one of all of those.

Jeff V wrote:Juicified plant matter also destroys many of the healthy benefits of the original packaging, like fiber.

If you're juicing and removing the solid matter, absolutely. If it's being blended as a whole, the fiber content doesn't decrease just because it's in smaller pieces.

Jeff V wrote:Juicified plant matter also destroys many of the healthy benefits of the original packaging, like fiber.

Using a juicer removes fiber, by design, but pulverising in a blender does not -- everything that goes into the blender is regurgitated back out, just in a post-chewed form. The only downside (that I'm aware of) in that respect is that the slurried plant matter can be less satiating, which can lead to overeating if you aren't mindful of portion sizes.

It just occurred to me that I may be using concepts like pre-chewed, regurgitation and slurry as a psychological lever to counter the reduced satiation by making a smoothie feel just a little disgusting...

MHS wrote:
I don't think the question was actually questioning what you're doing, but more gently reminding you that of all the projects in the world, taking care of yourself and your health is the most important one of all of those.

Gotcha, but I do take care of myself (well, up until the last year and a half since I got sick.) I just do it without elaborate, hours-long cooking sessions. Perhaps if I had the money and a store to always have good, fresh ingredients and quality tools on hand. I don't. As it is, cooking is a mind-numbing chore that I do because I have to eat. That's part of it, too, I think. I don't enjoy eating, either. I want to get the whole thing over with and out of the way. If I could get by without eating, I would.

Blackhawk wrote: I don't enjoy eating, either. I want to get the whole thing over with and out of the way. If I could get by without eating, I would.

If I could please borrow this mindset? I'd weigh about 40 pounds less (which I should.) I love eating. I love food.

I too love food.
I am the guy that reads food blogs, the NY Times restaurant reviews, I even bought a scale so I can make my french press coffee with more precision and control. I want to go to Aliena in Chicago, but I need a date for that! I love to go online and look for new things to cook, (and I do cook some of them!). I am about 25 pounds overweight. But I am working on that, working out, eating healthier. But still, foooood! A great meal with family and wine is one of the most cherished experiences I have had.

What I really love is cooking for other people. My family, my friends, them smiling and telling me I have done a good job fills me with pride! Also, cooking is a form of exercise, not just stirring, but lifting and pulling and burning (don't get burned). I hear wooing women with cooking is a good strategy, just one I have not done yet.

But, I understand not everyone is a food geek like me. I also understand people have different constraints in life and don't have the time to geek out on cool food stuff!

MHS wrote:

Blackhawk wrote:

Kraken wrote: What else you got going on that's more important?

A combination of things, including being a single father 50% of the time (and on those days I'm lucky to have an hour or two out of the day that isn't tied up, and I'm not going to spend my one hour stirring a pot.) The other days are a bit harder to explain, and touch on the psychology of autists, so I'll just say that I'm busy and hard to interrupt.

I don't think the question was actually questioning what you're doing, but more gently reminding you that of all the projects in the world, taking care of yourself and your health is the most important one of all of those.

Thanks for chiming in; that was in fact what I meant. Prioritizing mealtimes is (to me) far more rewarding than "stirring a pot," but I've spent the past 10 years gradually acquiring the tools and knowledge to do that. It doesn't take much -- I work in a 1940s-era kitchen -- but one does need to be motivated, and BH is not.

Kraken wrote: It doesn't take much -- I work in a 1940s-era kitchen -- but one does need to be motivated, and BH is not.

In my own defense, I'm very motivated. I'm just not motivated towards elaborate cooking. Elaborate cooking is only one aspect of food. There are lots of things that are cheap and healthy that can be cooked in either minutes, or can be cooked hands-off (ie - take food from bag, place food on hot thing, come back on half an hour.)

Perhaps I just got tired of stores here in rural Indiana that only stock foods for "home cookin' ", where nearly every decent recipe requires a list of things that most people around here have never heard of, therefore the stores don't stock, or if they do are perishable, old, and cost more than I can normally afford to spend on a whole day's meals. It is only in the past four or five years that I have been able to find hummus within a 40 mile drive.

I just ran out of idea when I found that foods with one particular texture give me problems now. I was hoping for a few more ideas in that regard - I have the rest of my menu well in hand. I'm set for main dishes, vegetables, proteins, salads. It is mostly just sides and snacks that are causing headaches.

Just as my input. I have quit smoking and taken up running and as a by-product have learned a few things about the fat burning as a old(er) male.

Short backstory; I have never had a weight issue and have always been able to bulk up and tone with minimal effort of weight lifting. did Shotokan Karate for about 3.5 years and earned my Sho dan (1st degree black belt). I have generally been able to eat whatever, whenever without issue. I generally do not like fast food, and have not had any, except pizza about 3 times a year, for the last 10 years or so. I would rather just eat an apple than eat that stuff. It is just me, not saying anything else.

Never had any problems injury-wise or health wise.

As I aged, the fat built up around the midsection and it is increasingly hard to get rid of it. Having a kid and real life doesn't exactly make for easy training and exercise time either.

Here is what I have learned which is known. As you age, your body, obviously, does not process things the same, so just eating right and exercising is not going to "melt the fat off" unless your body is familiar with burning the fat. You probably already know the ease of your body burning calories: carbs<protein<fat. so unless you get enough protein in one form or another, your body will start consuming your muscle to compensate. you have to do cardio and weight lift plus consume enough protein to offset the body self consumption and then it will go to fat.
So this goes against that Max Peck was saying that eating fewer calories will cause your body to burn fat. Not true. You body will actually, if given too many carbs, start storing more as fat as an evolutionary response to "lean times." your muscle will be consumed first, most likely.


Everyone's body is different, and even though one member says "consume less and the fat starts to go down," your physiology is different, and you will have to find what works for you. That is why there is no magic diet . I'm not picking on Max, just using his quote as it is the most concise.

I have found that eating some meat but otherwise vegetarian (my wife is a vegetarian) is best for me. I feel better but I also know when my body is off in one way or another. Always have. But I also love vegetables and will eat any vegetable raw, and most cooked.

Lately I have generally be able to mentally be satisfied with a normal portion of chicken or fish, dark green veggies (usually broccoli or spinach/ Kale combo) and maybe rice. Or I'll have veggies with beans adn rice.

I am trying to eat "closer to the earth" not in a friggin' hippie sense, but eating less processed things, within budget and reason. No organic crap, which is a total scam - USDA "Organic" pesticides? it is still pesticide.

I make squat for income, and the majority of the grocery bill is fruit and veggies - they are way more expensive than processed stuff.

I'm just trying to encourage you (whomever) to find what is best for you, but keep at it and it will happen. It may take a few weeks to see results, but persist. you may have to try different combos or eating grapefruit and an egg every mornign or whatever. something will work for you, I wish I had the immediate answer.

Or you may see immediate results (usually water loss) and then plateau, but keep at it. Your body is just trying to adjust to the new lifestyle; it will work, just don't get discouraged!

Blackhawk wrote:

Kraken wrote: It doesn't take much -- I work in a 1940s-era kitchen -- but one does need to be motivated, and BH is not.

In my own defense, I'm very motivated. I'm just not motivated towards elaborate cooking. Elaborate cooking is only one aspect of food. There are lots of things that are cheap and healthy that can be cooked in either minutes, or can be cooked hands-off (ie - take food from bag, place food on hot thing, come back on half an hour.)

You're a motivated person, but you're not motivated to cook.


Raw chicken breast, oil, salt, pepper, greens. There's nothing elaborate about that. Salad in about 15 minutes. Once you learn how. It's a skill, not something you just do from the get-go. I think that's the motivation Kraken is talking about, diving in and learning how to cook the way you want (non-elaborate, quick, cheap).

A nonny mouse wrote:You body will actually, if given too many carbs, start storing more as fat as an evolutionary response to "lean times." your muscle will be consumed first, most likely.

But I do want my body to consume my hyper-developed beer muscle first!

Here is a great write up from Fivethirtyeight about why you-cant-trust-what-you-read-about-nutrition. Very interesting read. Even between the three co-workers in the article, they have very different diets with different results.

Binktopia wrote:Here is a great write up from Fivethirtyeight about why you-cant-trust-what-you-read-about-nutrition. Very interesting read. Even between the three co-workers in the article, they have very different diets with different results.

I was one of the ones who filled out the survey! They were right, it was hard to fill out.

The BBC has an interesting article on why the calorie is broken (or at least insufficient as a way of measuring food intake for many people).

For all of the reasons given in the article, this is still the most important thing to remember:

None of this means that the calorie is a useless concept. Inaccurate as they are, calorie counts remain a helpful guide to relative energy values: standing burns more calories than sitting; cookies contain more calories than spinach

I've never attempted to map out an equation where "if I eat this many calories and run this many miles, I will lose this much weight by the end of the week." Now, you might qualify the statement that calories in - calories burned = weight gain/loss by saying "effective calories in" and "your particular metabolic calorie burn in a given activity", but it still really comes down to the same thing: calories being absorbed vs. calories being expended. Until we have a more precise way of measuring things, most people will probably be better off using published data and then doing your best to make the differential as large as possible within sensible limits.

We've had a few different threads on this, but I think this one is the best to post the news: the key to weight loss is diet quality, not quantity:

Anyone who has ever been on a diet knows that the standard prescription for weight loss is to reduce the amount of calories you consume.

But a new study, published Tuesday in JAMA, may turn that advice on its head. It found that people who cut back on added sugar, refined grains and highly processed foods while concentrating on eating plenty of vegetables and whole foods — without worrying about counting calories or limiting portion sizes — lost significant amounts of weight over the course of a year.

...

It also suggests that health authorities should shift away from telling the public to obsess over calories and instead encourage Americans to avoid processed foods that are made with refined starches and added sugar, like bagels, white bread, refined flour and sugary snacks and beverages, said Dr. Dariush Mozaffarian, a cardiologist and dean of the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University.

Meh. I had a chocolate cupcake (topped with some nutritious pecans) for lunch today because my dinner of beer and soft pretzel last night yielded no leftovers.

I do wish they'd settle on a definition of what constitutes 'processed foods' before using the term in articles. Depending on who you ask, it can be anything from Twinkies and bacon to fresh chopped vegetables and pre-washed fruit.

Jeff V wrote: ↑Wed Feb 21, 2018 2:27 pm Meh. I had a chocolate cupcake (topped with some nutritious pecans) for lunch today because my dinner of beer and soft pretzel last night yielded no leftovers.

Oh, there are leftovers. You just can't get at them unless you force your body to burn some fat.

Blackhawk wrote: ↑Wed Feb 21, 2018 3:18 pm I do wish they'd settle on a definition of what constitutes 'processed foods' before using the term in articles. Depending on who you ask, it can be anything from Twinkies and bacon to fresh chopped vegetables and pre-washed fruit.

As a general rule, I think that it's based on the ingredients list. If the ingredients list has more than one entry, it's "processed food". If it's a long series of unpronounceable chemical compounds, it's "highly processed food".

Right, historically we were advised to avoid "processed"meats because they included things like nitrates or added salt. While they're still not good for someone with a sodium restricted diet, they're not in the same "processed" category as frozen pizza or white bread.

I'm confused over the idea of a processed label being utilized for chopped vegetables or fruit - unless they're being canned or jarred or bagged and things are being added.

RunningMn9 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 21, 2018 5:08 pm

Blackhawk wrote: ↑Wed Feb 21, 2018 3:18 pm I do wish they'd settle on a definition of what constitutes 'processed foods' before using the term in articles. Depending on who you ask, it can be anything from Twinkies and bacon to fresh chopped vegetables and pre-washed fruit.

As a general rule, I think that it's based on the ingredients list. If the ingredients list has more than one entry, it's "processed food". If it's a long series of unpronounceable chemical compounds, it's "highly processed food".

Ingredient names aren't a great measure, either. Many unpronounceable ingredients are actually beneficial and healthy, some added specifically for their health benefits. I can't tell my in-laws to avoid anything they don't recognize, when things like alpha tocopherol, riboflavin, and pyridoxine appear on lists.

I mean, the only thing I could see being practical would be to give foods a processing score. Additives and processes with no effect on humans would be neutral, harmful ingredients would lower the score, and beneficial ingredients would raise it (on second thought, better make them neutral as well.) Include it along with the nutrition info. After all, if we can get junk science added to labels, we should be able to put some real science on there.

Blackhawk wrote: ↑Wed Feb 21, 2018 5:38 pm
I mean, the only thing I could see being practical would be to give foods a processing score. Additives and processes with no effect on humans would be neutral, harmful ingredients would lower the score, and beneficial ingredients would raise it (on second thought, better make them neutral as well.) Include it along with the nutrition info. After all, if we can get junk science added to labels, we should be able to put some real science on there.

You realize the processed food industry is probably second to only the NRA in terms of owning politicians? This is a group that got pizza approved as a health food when an attempt was made to healthy-up the school lunch program. They are extremely aggressive when it come to discouraging people from using fresh produce and other unprocessed ingredients.

Blackhawk wrote: ↑Wed Feb 21, 2018 5:38 pm Ingredient names aren't a great measure, either. Many unpronounceable ingredients are actually beneficial and healthy, some added specifically for their health benefits.

That's not the question you asked. You asked what they meant by "processed foods". Processed foods are those that have been...processed. In other words, they contain multiple ingredients.

A bag of carrots and a bag of pea pods from the produce section are not processed. A can of Del Monte Peas and Carrots in the grocery aisle is processed (with added water, sugar and sea salt).

On it's own, "processed" isn't healthy or unhealthy. But some people open that can of peas and carrots and think they are eating peas and carrots, which are healthy. But they're eating water-logged peas and carrots that are soaked in sugar and salt. That's obviously different than eating raw carrots and peas from pea pods.

RunningMn9 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 21, 2018 10:52 pm

Blackhawk wrote: ↑Wed Feb 21, 2018 5:38 pm Ingredient names aren't a great measure, either. Many unpronounceable ingredients are actually beneficial and healthy, some added specifically for their health benefits.

That's not the question you asked. You asked what they meant by "processed foods".

Actually, I didn't. I said, "I do wish they'd settle on a definition of what constitutes 'processed foods' " Yes, technically anything that has been altered from the state it was in when it was taken out of the ground has been processed, but that isn't how the term is actually used. The term is most commonly used to refer to foods that have been heavily altered in such a way as to make them unhealthy.

Telling (as every article seems to +) people to avoid processed foods, then using the same term for Slim Jims that applies to a pre-sliced melon or otherwise unaltered frozen peas is counterproductive when it comes to telling people what to avoid.

Thus my statement that we need to settle on a definition.

Blackhawk wrote: ↑Wed Feb 21, 2018 11:16 pm The term is most commonly used to refer to foods that have been heavily altered in such a way as to make them unhealthy.
:
Thus my statement that we need to settle on a definition.

We must travel in different circles. The most commonly used definition I've heard has nothing to do with "heavily altered" or "unhealthy". The most commonly used definition is simply all the stuff in the store except the outer rim. While that's not 100% accurate, that's a pretty close approximation. In any case, eating whole foods obviates the need for most "healthy" additives.

RunningMn9 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 21, 2018 11:41 pm

Blackhawk wrote: ↑Wed Feb 21, 2018 11:16 pm The term is most commonly used to refer to foods that have been heavily altered in such a way as to make them unhealthy.
:
Thus my statement that we need to settle on a definition.

We must travel in different circles. The most commonly used definition I've heard has nothing to do with "heavily altered" or "unhealthy". The most commonly used definition is simply all the stuff in the store except the outer rim. While that's not 100% accurate, that's a pretty close approximation.

Apparently. It's hard to find an article on diet or health out there that doesn't simply advise people to 'avoid processed foods' or use 'processed food' as some sort of nutritional boogeyman.

RunningMn9 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 21, 2018 11:41 pmIn any case, eating whole foods obviates the need for most "healthy" additives.

Which is great for people that live in proximity to an affordable grocery store.

Blackhawk wrote: ↑Wed Feb 21, 2018 11:59 pm It's hard to find an article on diet or health out there that doesn't simply advise people to 'avoid processed foods' or use 'processed food' as some sort of nutritional boogeyman.

Right. I don't understand what the issue is. I just tried to explain what "processed foods" generally means.

It just means processed food, and I provided an example that compared the processed to the unprocessed version of the same food and explained why they recommend the non-processed version.

It's expensive as fuck to shop that way, I get that. The nutritional advice probably stands though (since the articles are likely focused on nutrition, and not affordable nutrition). To make food cheap, a processor has to make a LOT of it, and it has to last a long time. That means processing (and adding flavor back in that's removed in the processing) and preservatives.

I'm actually confused as to why this is such an arguable topic. Articles tend to use 'processed foods' in such a way that people on the lower half of the bell curve end up with no idea what is problematic and what is not. It isn't like telling a quasi-educated in-law, "Check for trans fat. If it has it, avoid it." There is no simple way to concisely explain to them which processed foods are bad for their health, and which are not, and how to recognize those things a week later in the store.

And it tends to lead to people guessing and spreading their guesses around as advice, too. I've seen a lot of this on social media, the latest being a belief that frozen vegetables are poisoning kids, probably because someone saw that they count as 'processed' by the technical definition, but not getting that it isn't what the health articles are referring to.

There are a number of frozen vegetables that are starting to fall under the "processed" label. A lot of frozen vegetables now include some kind of sauce.

I'm hardly a nutritionist, but as a rule there's a number of things that I would look to avoid - sugar, saturated fats, sodium. Those are the big issues with processed foods (for me).

I've transitioned almost entirely to whole foods, and it's a bit more expensive, but it seems to be significantly healthier for me, so I'll deal with it. More than the cost though, it's a lot of work. When you are only working with raw ingredients, cooking times are always much longer (mostly because of additional prep times) and you have to learn how to season stuff.

RunningMn9 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 21, 2018 11:41 pm The most commonly used definition is simply all the stuff in the store except the outer rim.

You correctly said that this idea isn't 100% correct but I always had that definition. The bakery section is in the outer rim of my grocery stores. The dried beans, frozen veggies (w/o sauces), spices, and condiments are in the inner section. I get the idea but it's really too simplistic.

Sweet! Free reign in the bakery, dairy, canned biscuits, and the meat department. Pigs in a blanket using Polish sauage wrapped around entire cheesesticks! The picture of health, here I come!

RunningMn9 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 22, 2018 12:51 am There are a number of frozen vegetables that are starting to fall under the "processed" label. A lot of frozen vegetables now include some kind of sauce.

I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that that sauce contains either high fructose corn syrup or some other sugar additive. We do buy some frozen veggies. I'll have to be on the lookout for this.

For me, "processed foods" as a theme isn't a fix, but it's a helluva good place to start. I didn't care until I was creeping up on 40 and still a very unhealthy weight. If it's been stripped down and chemically built up, is that really good nutrition? It may have flavor, but it isn't anything like what your body evolved to consume over the vast history of humanity.

Since I started dodging added sugars in foods and simple carbs, it's pretty much automatically ruled out almost every kind of processed good.

Our food bill has gone up somewhat, but the increased costs are also offset somewhat by not going out to eat every third night.