I love how you correctly recognize that mayo isn't evil. For years I've been confused why mayo has been denigrated as being "unhealthy" because it's so low in saturated fats and relatively high in health unsaturated fats. I don't like to eat too much of it because of the calories, but it's not inherently bad and it can replace so many less healthy condiments!
We need to have more critical thinking in all areas of life, least of all nutrition, so thank you.
I am however a bit confused as to why you define calorie dense as being high fat, whilst ignoring carbohydrate, and specifically refined carbohydrate?
Almost all of the food examples you give in each section of ‘unprocessed food’ that has calorie density are foods that contain enormous amounts of sugar.
Sure, if you want to use the simplistic model of some guy burning foods in his shed to heat water.
I think our bodies are a little more complex than that in terms of how we absorb, and utilise food, and the hormonal cascade that each food triggers which has knock on effects etc.
To say that highly refined carbohydrate foods are not calorie dense is misleading. Compared to what? Compared to anything found in nature (except honey), which is how we've evolved to function over a very long period of time, they are extremely calorie dense.
Hey Oliver - I think you're conflating the ideas of calorie-dense foods with calorie-dense diets.
Caloric density when it comes to foods is an objective measure of calories per gram. So fat-rich foods (like some UPFs) will objectively be more calorie dense than other foods.
When it comes to the overall calorie content of the diet, a food's caloric density is just one lever to play with, in addition to other things that Dr Guess mentions like softness/hardness, palatability, water/fiber content, etc. I don't think anyone is claiming that we should be consuming highly refined carb-rich foods... I'm not sure where you saw this claim in this article.
Kareem - when does food become a diet? One and the same, just amounts and frequency eaten.
I read the article as saying; the claim is that UPFs can cause health issues due to over consumption of calories from fat content, and ease of overconsumption because of softness, but that is not a unique quality of UPFs because 'unprocessed' foods such as those listed are also calorie dense from containing refined carbohydrate (and some with fat also). So we should not vilify UPFs.
That doesn't mean UPFs are ok, just because if we ice cream (which is deemed to not be UPF - although there are highly processed ingredients) it has the same over consumption of calories, due to softness, calorie density, lack of fibre etc.
Surely all the foods listed both as UPFs and non UPFs in the article are nutritionally risky?
So the conclusion surely is that UPFs ARE damaging because of the calorie density and ease of over consumption, but so are many 'unprocessed' foods (which are actually processed really if they contain sugar etc). Just because there are other foods not deemed as UPFs that are harmful, doesn't make UPFs any less harmful.
Unless I'm missing something it seems like an argument saying snake bites are claimed to be dangerous, but it's silly to avoid them because scorpions also are - and they're not snakes.... Surely we should be avoiding snakes (UPFs) AND scorpions (high refined carbohydrate foods)
I love how you correctly recognize that mayo isn't evil. For years I've been confused why mayo has been denigrated as being "unhealthy" because it's so low in saturated fats and relatively high in health unsaturated fats. I don't like to eat too much of it because of the calories, but it's not inherently bad and it can replace so many less healthy condiments!
I smiled at CvT being uneasy about profit driven health services like Zoe. Did he publish his book as a charitable endeavour?
This is brilliant
🙌
I enjoy your articles.
We need to have more critical thinking in all areas of life, least of all nutrition, so thank you.
I am however a bit confused as to why you define calorie dense as being high fat, whilst ignoring carbohydrate, and specifically refined carbohydrate?
Almost all of the food examples you give in each section of ‘unprocessed food’ that has calorie density are foods that contain enormous amounts of sugar.
Fat has twice the caloric density of carbs and protein per gram.
Sure, if you want to use the simplistic model of some guy burning foods in his shed to heat water.
I think our bodies are a little more complex than that in terms of how we absorb, and utilise food, and the hormonal cascade that each food triggers which has knock on effects etc.
To say that highly refined carbohydrate foods are not calorie dense is misleading. Compared to what? Compared to anything found in nature (except honey), which is how we've evolved to function over a very long period of time, they are extremely calorie dense.
Hey Oliver - I think you're conflating the ideas of calorie-dense foods with calorie-dense diets.
Caloric density when it comes to foods is an objective measure of calories per gram. So fat-rich foods (like some UPFs) will objectively be more calorie dense than other foods.
When it comes to the overall calorie content of the diet, a food's caloric density is just one lever to play with, in addition to other things that Dr Guess mentions like softness/hardness, palatability, water/fiber content, etc. I don't think anyone is claiming that we should be consuming highly refined carb-rich foods... I'm not sure where you saw this claim in this article.
Kareem - when does food become a diet? One and the same, just amounts and frequency eaten.
I read the article as saying; the claim is that UPFs can cause health issues due to over consumption of calories from fat content, and ease of overconsumption because of softness, but that is not a unique quality of UPFs because 'unprocessed' foods such as those listed are also calorie dense from containing refined carbohydrate (and some with fat also). So we should not vilify UPFs.
That doesn't mean UPFs are ok, just because if we ice cream (which is deemed to not be UPF - although there are highly processed ingredients) it has the same over consumption of calories, due to softness, calorie density, lack of fibre etc.
Surely all the foods listed both as UPFs and non UPFs in the article are nutritionally risky?
So the conclusion surely is that UPFs ARE damaging because of the calorie density and ease of over consumption, but so are many 'unprocessed' foods (which are actually processed really if they contain sugar etc). Just because there are other foods not deemed as UPFs that are harmful, doesn't make UPFs any less harmful.
Unless I'm missing something it seems like an argument saying snake bites are claimed to be dangerous, but it's silly to avoid them because scorpions also are - and they're not snakes.... Surely we should be avoiding snakes (UPFs) AND scorpions (high refined carbohydrate foods)
Another great article Nicola. Thanks for sharing your thoughts and sensible tips.