Quizno's Subs

[Brad Johnson]

the more highly processed it is, the less nutrition it has, and the worse it is for you.

According to whom?  I see a lot of health nazi stuff about this but very, very little supporting evidence past the usual pop-nutrition propaganda.  "Processed" could be made to mean anything.  Nutritional content is nutritional content whether it's been "processed" or not.

Brad

[Paddy]

Typically 'processing' involves removing something from the food. For example when whole grains are refined
the bran and the coat of the grain are often removed.  It loses nutrients and fiber. These smart businessmen then package up the stuff they removed and sell it back to us suckers as 'supplements'. 

Preocessing removes good stuff from food and adds chemicals, preservatives, colorings and a bunch of other sythentic crap.

Not good.  Eating foods closest to the 'natural state' is best for you.

[Brad Johnson]

I still don't buy it.  "Processing", in the nominal sense, means any change, be it grinding, mashing, heating, cooling, stripping, adding, etc.  Whether that change is good or bad is specific to the item and the way it is handled.  The term "processed" has been used ad nauseum by the food-police nutjobs to denote something bad or harmful, to the point where it is synonymous with unhealthy products.  In reality it is simply a term that denotes a forced change from a previous state.

Just because something is "processed" is irrelevant.  On a strictly technical level you could call any cut of beef "processed".  After all, it has been altered from its natural state.  If water has been filtered to remove impurities, it's been processed because it isn't like it came out of the ground (or the lake, or the cistern, or whatever).  Heck, cooking is the ultimate "processing".  The heat creates all kinds of reactions and alterations.  Some are good, some are bad.  Again, it depends on the item and how it's cooked.

Now, does that mean I think that a grain with the bran removed is just as good for you as a gran without?  No.  It means that I am separating the terminology from any specific procedure.  Using "processing" to describe something as unhealthy is like using the terms "metal" or "plastic".  It covers a very broad spectrum of items, issues, conditions, and potential results, both positive and negative. 

I stopped parroting the food goobers years ago when I realized the truth.  Saying that "processed food is bad" is a gross misnomer.  It is a catch-all phrase coined by people who didn't know any better, didn't care to learn the truth, or were out to scare you or their legislator into their way of thinking.  Each item and each process is unique in its properties and outcome.  I would much rather have "processed" water that's had baterial contanimants and heavy metals removed than to have a "natural" apple covered in fly feces (which is natural, too). 

The "anti-processed" mindset has become so appallingly pervasive that a good friend of mine won't touch distilled water because it "can't be as good as real water."  She will not be swayed, either.  I have actually heard her utter the phrase "That water isn't real water" more than once.  Give.  Me.  Strenth.     If I try to show her the truth she gets all over me.  She's called me any number of things, most of which can't be repeated here.  Suffice it to say that she is convinced I've been brainwashed by "big food."  Lord forbid I try to use a little actual science to try and sway her.  Science, any science, is like instant MEGO juice for her.  Her usual response is to launch into some off-the-wall regurgitation of pop-nutrition hearsay that one of her friends forwarded to her in an e-mail.

Brad

[grislyatoms]

Brad,

Riley stated " As a general rule, the more highly processed it is, the less nutrition it has, and the worse it is for you."

He didn't state "All processed foods are bad for you."

I try to avoid highly processed stuff too.

[mtnbkr]

Generally, I view "processed" as in balogna vs ham cut from a cured shoulder or cheese wiz compared to blocks of cheddar.

Chris

[Manedwolf]

Generally, I view "processed" as in balogna vs ham cut from a cured shoulder or cheese wiz compared to blocks of cheddar.

Chris

Agreed. Even in simpler things. A potato cut into pieces, tossed into boiling peanut oil, then taken out and salted with sea salt, vs. potato chips with an ingredients list that reads like a chemistry lab's contents.

The one I really go "yuck" at is the so-called "yogurt" covered things like yogurt-covered pretzels or cereal with yogurt-covered bits. It's not yogurt at all, it's pretty much a composite of partially hydrogenated cottonseed oil and corn syrup solids. Yuck.

[Brad Johnson]

Brad,

Riley stated " As a general rule, the more highly processed it is, the less nutrition it has, and the worse it is for you."

Even inferring that processing is "generally" bad is, in my opinion, a gross and intentional misuse of the terminology.  At the very least it is a broad generaliztion that lacks any real meaning and is only used to inflame a "generally" ignorant society to a state of panic more unhealthy than the foods and processes in question.

In the context of nutritional value it's an irrelevant term.  I take each food and each process on its own unique merits.  I don't give a rat's rear where or how it's "processed".  That's worrying for worry's sake.  and is a useless waste of time.  What matters is the "right now" condition of the food on my plate and how it affects my body and mind.

A potato cut into pieces, tossed into boiling peanut oil, then taken out and salted with sea salt, vs. potato chips with an ingredients list that reads like a chemistry lab's contents.

To the "processed food" nazis it doesn't matter.  Both are processed, so both are equally bad for you.

Now I will say the bologna statement had an impact on me.  It made me hungry... 

Brad

[BrokenPaw]

Generally, I view "processed" as in balogna vs ham cut from a cured shoulder or cheese wiz compared to blocks of cheddar.

Chris,

Cheez Whiz and Velveeta aren't actually processed very much.  The Kraft plant out on Ball's Ford Road is actually a Velveeta mine.  Cheez Whiz is one of the by-products of the mining process, but it doesn't burn, so they can't flare it off the way natural gas is flared off at oil rigs.   

Gods, my kids are going to have a warped perspective on the world.
-BP 

[Gewehr98]

All just various degrees of the Barking Moonbat disease.

The "anti-processed" mindset has become so appallingly pervasive that a good friend of mine won't touch distilled water because it "can't be as good as real water."  She will not be swayed, either.  I have actually heard her utter the phrase "That water isn't real water" more than once.  Give.  Me.  Strenth.

I'd tell her that the water she drinks today was peed out by various lifeforms over the history of the earth before it ended up in the aquifer one more time for her consumption.   

[mtnbkr]

The problem with "processing" is that it *can* make a particular food item less healthy than you'd otherwise expect.  This doesn't include foods cooked from scratch at home, but stuff that's prepackaged and sold at stores (canned foods with lots of additives, substitutes, etc).

I have some vegan/strict vegetarian friends and even they aren't as strict as your water fearing friend.

Chris

[Paddy]

OK, one simple question: If all this 'processing' is so benign, why is this country full of huge overweight waddling fatasses who can't stop stuffing their mouths?

I think it's because they're not getting the basic nutrition they need from all this plastic food. So they eat more and more of it because their bodies are screaming for nutrients.  They pack on the weight and fill themselves full of chemicals and preservatives.  No thanks.

No 'food nazi' here.  Let anybody eat whatever they want.  Let the lardasses keel over and get them the hell out of my way 

Manedwolf, I think you're right.  I ate Quizno's four days last week and by the 5th day I wasn't feeling too good.  It bound me up and I felt toxic. 

[Gewehr98]

OK, one simple question: If all this 'processing' is so benign, why is this country full of huge overweight waddling fatasses who can't stop stuffing their mouths?

Because they'd be overweight waddling fatasses if they ate simple unprocessed fats and didn't exercise those calories off, too.

Eat at Wendy's 5 days a week, and exercise just your thumbs on the X-Box controller, or just your typing fingers in the office cubicle, and you'll be wearing elastic waistband trousers, too.   

It ain't rocket science.

[Paddy]

The question was why?.  It's not just a few X-Box playing nerds.  Men, women, adolescents, even children are getting humongous.  Yes, they eat too much, but why do they eat too much?

[Brad Johnson]

The problem with "processing" is that it *can* make a particular food item less healthy than you'd otherwise expect.  This doesn't include foods cooked from scratch at home, but stuff that's prepackaged and sold at stores (canned foods with lots of additives, substitutes, etc).

I have some vegan/strict vegetarian friends and even they aren't as strict as your water fearing friend.

Chris

That it can make something less healthy isn't in question.  My issue is that so many people use can and does interchageably, though most of the time it is either unintentional or based on a lack of experience/knowledge.  What really makes my hackles stand on end is when people intentionally misuse the terminology.  They sneak in just enough sound-good everyday terminology to pull the wool over the eyes of those who are trusting their health and wellfare to these so-called experts.  In this case it has become so pervasive that refutation of the disparity creates more than a little animosity.

I have the same issue with people who confuse possible and probable.  Just because something might happen doesn't mean it will.  Anything is possible, but probability is dictated by issue and circumstance.

If all this 'processing' is so benign, why is this country full of huge overweight fatasses who can't stop stuffing their mouths?

You've tried to merge a procedure and a mindset.  They are two distinctly seperate issues.

I think it's because they're not getting the basic nutrition they need from all this plastic food. So they eat more and more of it because their bodies are screaming for nutrients.  They pack on the weight and fill themselves full of chemicals and preservatives.  No thanks.

It is a simple matter of poor nutritional choices and even poorer lifestyle choices. It has exactly zero to do with "plastic food."  They choose a calorie-laden Coke over a glass of iced tea.  They eat a double cheeseburger instead of roasted chicken with grilled vegtables.  They sit on the couch and watch Seinfeld instead of walking around the block or taking the kids to the park.  They consume more calories than they burn.  They calories they do consume lack nutritional value because they don't take the time to care, they just grab the next bag of whatever tickles their fancy.

Blaming "processed food" for the weight problem in America is exactly like blaming guns for crime.  The problem isn't the object, it's the person making the choices.

"Chemicals and preservatives" is an unrelated issue.  Bringing it into the debate on an unrelated topic is right out of the food police "scare you into our way of thinking" playbook.  

The question was why?.  It's not just a few X-Box playing nerds.  Men, women, adolescents, even children are getting humongous.  Yes, they eat too much, but why do they eat too much?

Because THEY CHOOSE TO.  The propose anything else is to presume that they have no free will and that their actions are either pre-determined or controlled by outside forces.

Brad

[Manedwolf]

The question was why?.  It's not just a few X-Box playing nerds.  Men, women, adolescents, even children are getting humongous.  Yes, they eat too much, but why do they eat too much?

Right now, it's a vicious circle. People choose to eat too much, and food merchants are selling quantity as value.

Name me some places where you can get a SMALL sandwich anymore. Like just enough, half a grilled chicken sandwich or something, not a ginormous sandwich with two heavy sides, something blopped with mayo, or a "wrap" the size of a five-inch cannon shell?

Anyone remember when "muffins" were little things that were eight to a tray, not the gigantic 800-calorie things with streusel toppings they are now?  A tiny corn muffin fresh from the oven is wonderful, a pat of butter tucked into it. But the ubiquitous heavy, moist and sickly-sweet "muffins" I see for sale every place would make me sick if I ate a whole one.

I was fortunate to find some place close to work that will do a 5oz grilled burger with a pickle on the side, and that's it. That's plenty!

[Paddy]

"Chemicals and preservatives" is an unrelated issue.  Bringing it into the debate on an unrelated topic is right out of the food police "scare you into our way of thinking" playbook. 

OK. It's a conspiracy.  It isn't an 'unrelated issue'.  You body consumes nutrients getting rid of all that added crap, which compounds the problem.

Unless you've got a degree in Nutrition, Brad, I'll take the advice of those who do.

[mtnbkr]

The bigger problem IMO is that it's VERY easy to eat too many calories.  You can get 1000 calories in a sitting when you're chowing down on a double quarter pounder with an extra large fries washed down with a large coke.  If you tried to eat 1000 calories worth of fruits and vegetables at one time, you'd explode.  Start counting calories, it'll frighten you how much you consume in a day.  I count calories and find it's very difficult to stay under 2000/day.  I rarely drink sodas and eat a lot of fruit and vegetables.  Even still, I frequently bump up against 2000 and sometimes 2500. 

Chris

[K Frame]

The question was why?.  It's not just a few X-Box playing nerds.  Men, women, adolescents, even children are getting humongous.  Yes, they eat too much, but why do they eat too much?

He gave you the answer WHY.

The American lifestyle is FAR more sedentary today than it was even 30 years ago.

It's also not the processing of foods that is the main culprit, it's the QUANTITY.

A few years ago I met up with some Europeans I knew who were making their first trips to the United States.

They were absolutely aghast at the enormous portions they got at restaurants. One "American sized" meal would be good for two or three European meals.

[mtnbkr]

Maned, I frequently get a kids meal at fast food joints because that's about the only way to get a reasonable portion.

Chris

[K Frame]

"If you tried to eat 1000 calories worth of fruits and vegetables at one time, you'd explode."

You might be able to do it with avocados or olives. Both are relatively high in calories due to the high oil content.


As far as chemical preservatives go, there is no reliable data that even hints at chemical preservatives causing increased weight among Americans.

If that were really true, virtually every nation on earth would be equally affected.

[Manedwolf]

They were absolutely aghast at the enormous portions they got at restaurants. One "American sized" meal would be good for two or three European meals.

In my experience, some traditional European meals (French, German, Italian) might seem to have a lot of food, but that's done when the eating is a social thing spaced out over several hours of conversation and courses of food, not shoveled into one's mouth in five minutes.

A traditional Irish breakfast is thick-cut bacon, tomatoes, eggs, ham, white and black puddings (sausages made with oatmeal and pig's blood, respectively), sometimes oatmeal as well, and soda bread, but it's a leisurely meal, and was typically consumed by people who then went out and worked their asses off, burning off those calories. 

[K Frame]

"not shoveled into one's mouth in five minutes..."

 

Hey Chris, I think he's calling you! 

[Paddy]

He gave you the answer WHY.

The American lifestyle is FAR more sedentary today than it was even 30 years ago.

It's also not the processing of foods that is the main culprit, it's the QUANTITY.

That's the "HOW", not the "WHY".

What caused the demand for increased portion sizes?  Lack of nutrients in overprocessed food. Simple. 

[Brad Johnson]

Unless you've got a degree in Nutrition, Brad, I'll take the advice of those who do.

Two years ago January I had a degreed, board-certified nutritionist beat me over the head with the "refined sugar" argument, but couldn't tell me what "refined" sugar actually was.  When she did finally offer an explanation it was the bleaching process they use for white flour.  The doctor was sitting right there in the room with us, nodding his head in agreement.

My jaw about hit the floor.

So, a licensed, certified nutritionist and a medical doctor hadn't the foggiest clue about what is probably the single most common nutritional myth on the planet.  Just because they went to school and have letters after their name doesn't make them any less human, or any less susceptable to bad information.  I spend a great deal of time researching the facts before I haul off and make a decision on something as critical as my nutrional needs.  Most of that time is getting to the bottom of the mountain of bad information.  

I want to know why something is bad, not presume it's that way because someone on Good Morning America said so. Unfortunately, I find that a great deal of nutritional "advice" isn't.  It's someone's opinion of nutrition based on a questionable interpretation of shaky source data.

What caused the demand for increased portion sizes?  Lack of nutrients in overprocessed food. Simple.

Um, no.  It was restaurants trying to keep their customer base by offering larger portions for the same price, thus giving the consumer a sense of "better value for my money."

Start counting calories, it'll frighten you how much you consume in a day.

Amen, brother.  I would venture a guess that most people's estimation of the daily caloric intake is wrong by about, oh, a hundred percent or so.  Mine was.

Some people will tank up on fruit thinking it's a free ride.  It isn't.  That sweet little treat contains calories, too, in the form of natural sugars.  The average apple has 50-60 calories.  Bananas have 115-130.  For comparison, an avocado has 190-200 calories (mostly from the oils).  In case you didn't know, avocados can be as high as 70% oil by weight.  Good oil, but oil nonetheless and loaded with calories (around 9 per gram, if memory serves).

Brad

[Manedwolf]

Maned, I frequently get a kids meal at fast food joints because that's about the only way to get a reasonable portion.
Chris

That's what I do if I get ice cream. The kiddie-sized portion is quite enough. At least in this area, a regular is like three scoops of full-cream ice cream. I'd be physically ill if I ate that.

And yes, giant-sized portions is a very cheap way for food vendors to offer a perception of value at actually very little increase in cost to them. It's not the amount of food that costs the most, it's the prep time for each individual item. Besides, they can (and do) doublesize something while keeping the same amount of meat or other expensive ingredient as the original, just adding more fillers like starches to make the portion bigger.

Hence the giant-looking "pile" entrees at places like Friday's that are actually really mostly mashed potatoes, fried onions and other dirt-cheap ingredients stacked with the same amount of meat as the old-style small steak. It's a lot more food, but costs little, if any more for them.