- Relationship to Diabetes
- Type 1
- Pronouns
- He/Him
No curry was harmed in the filling of those cardboard boxes.
Also… I was able to witness the birth of the Pot Noodle. was that in the 80s?
-
Please Remember: Members are only permitted to share their own experiences. Members are not qualified to give medical advice. Additionally, everyone manages their health differently. Please be respectful of other people's opinions about their own diabetes management.
-
Learn more about joining the Diabetes UK Support Forum team here: https://forum.diabetes.org.uk/boards/threads/volunteering-opportunities-why-dont-you-join-us.112862/
What determines how many calories people eat during a meal?
- Thread starter Eddy Edson
- Start date
- Status
No curry was harmed in the filling of those cardboard boxes.
Also… I was able to witness the birth of the Pot Noodle. was that in the 80s?
Bruce Stephens
Well-Known Member
- Relationship to Diabetes
- Type 1
wikipedia says 1977, so you're close.
(Which is closer to the end of WW2 than it is to today.)
- Relationship to Diabetes
- Type 1
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Ah i thought they were later! And the year of Star Wars!
Maybe i didn’t have them for a few years.
Bruce Stephens
Well-Known Member
- Relationship to Diabetes
- Type 1
I remember them being new, too, and I don't think I've ever had one.
- Relationship to Diabetes
- Type 1
- Pronouns
- He/Him
I always knew you were a wise individual.
D
Deleted member 21371
Guest
Obviously I did.
Probably in 1977.
And many times since.
Probably in 1977.
And many times since.
Eddy Edson
Well-Known Member
- Relationship to Diabetes
- Type 2
One of the factors discussed in this study is percent of calories in a diet/meal from "hyper-palatable foods" (%HPF). This refers to definitions worked up in https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31689013/ in an effort to provide more of an objective framework than previously available.
Descriptive definitions of palatable foods are simultaneously too broad
because of their categorical nature and too restrictive because of their
lack of specificity. For example, a palatable food description of fast
food suggests that any food sold at a fast food restaurant is a palatable
food. However, some fast food restaurants sell salads and grilled
items, which may or may not be as palatable as a cheeseburger. At the
same time, a definition of fast food does not consider other foods that
may have similar ingredients of fat, sugar, and sodium (and likely similar
effects on palatability) but that would not be considered using this
descriptive definition (e.g., trail mix with chocolate).
Simplistic characterisations of HPF based just on salt, fat, simple carbs etc in isolation are known to be inadequate for various reasons. This study identifies combinations as being key:
Fats + high sodium; fats + simple sugars; and carbs + high sodium.
(There are some overlaps, not surprisingly.)
These combinations promote high palatability. They occur very frequently in what are regarded as "ultrprocessed foods" - but not always; and they sometimes occur in what would not be regarded as UPF.
The current study identifies %HPF, energy density (ED) and eating rate (ER) as factors significantly associated with energy intake per-meal and across meals - ie looking at how much energy intake in a meal is affected by a previous meal - for a broad range of dietary patterns. (Protein's effects are variable and a bit puzzling.)
Because it's just a secondary analysis of two primary studies, it can't establish causality, just associations. There are RCT's in planning and in progress to investigate causal hypotheses - eg an RCT is in progress investigating interactions of %HPF and ED in the context of ultraprocessed vs minimally-processed diets.
One of the primary studies suggested ER as the (surprising) driver for the big 500 kcal/day diffence in energy intake between these diets, matched for macronutrients, sodium, fibre and subjective palatability.
This in-progress RCT will investigate the extent to which that ER difference was actually due to the %HPF/ED combination - replacing the subjective palatability used in the original study with the more objective %HPF measure.
If %HPF + ED explains things sufficiently, then it would suggest how you might make UPF less obesogenic, while retaining the huge benefits - low-cost, long shelf-life, safe, convenient. At any rate, a better framework for eg regulators and companies actually wanting to produce healthy food, than just a simple-minded focus on fats, sugars and sodium in isolation.
If it doesn't, then it means that there's something else going on & hopefully points the way to further research.
But in any case, you have to wonder how the genie gets put back in the bottle, if %HPF is a prime, independent factor. One potentially really interesting little result from the current study which I guess might suggest an opening:
ED and %HPF had the strongest standardized main effects; however, their interaction was negative, meaning that the effect of %HPF was higher for meals with lower ED and vice versa.
Energy dense, highly palatable, high fibre, nutritious, cheap, convenient, long life food to the rescue? Dunno! Anyway, it's all very interesting.
Descriptive definitions of palatable foods are simultaneously too broad
because of their categorical nature and too restrictive because of their
lack of specificity. For example, a palatable food description of fast
food suggests that any food sold at a fast food restaurant is a palatable
food. However, some fast food restaurants sell salads and grilled
items, which may or may not be as palatable as a cheeseburger. At the
same time, a definition of fast food does not consider other foods that
may have similar ingredients of fat, sugar, and sodium (and likely similar
effects on palatability) but that would not be considered using this
descriptive definition (e.g., trail mix with chocolate).
Simplistic characterisations of HPF based just on salt, fat, simple carbs etc in isolation are known to be inadequate for various reasons. This study identifies combinations as being key:
Fats + high sodium; fats + simple sugars; and carbs + high sodium.
(There are some overlaps, not surprisingly.)
These combinations promote high palatability. They occur very frequently in what are regarded as "ultrprocessed foods" - but not always; and they sometimes occur in what would not be regarded as UPF.
The current study identifies %HPF, energy density (ED) and eating rate (ER) as factors significantly associated with energy intake per-meal and across meals - ie looking at how much energy intake in a meal is affected by a previous meal - for a broad range of dietary patterns. (Protein's effects are variable and a bit puzzling.)
Because it's just a secondary analysis of two primary studies, it can't establish causality, just associations. There are RCT's in planning and in progress to investigate causal hypotheses - eg an RCT is in progress investigating interactions of %HPF and ED in the context of ultraprocessed vs minimally-processed diets.
One of the primary studies suggested ER as the (surprising) driver for the big 500 kcal/day diffence in energy intake between these diets, matched for macronutrients, sodium, fibre and subjective palatability.
This in-progress RCT will investigate the extent to which that ER difference was actually due to the %HPF/ED combination - replacing the subjective palatability used in the original study with the more objective %HPF measure.
If %HPF + ED explains things sufficiently, then it would suggest how you might make UPF less obesogenic, while retaining the huge benefits - low-cost, long shelf-life, safe, convenient. At any rate, a better framework for eg regulators and companies actually wanting to produce healthy food, than just a simple-minded focus on fats, sugars and sodium in isolation.
If it doesn't, then it means that there's something else going on & hopefully points the way to further research.
But in any case, you have to wonder how the genie gets put back in the bottle, if %HPF is a prime, independent factor. One potentially really interesting little result from the current study which I guess might suggest an opening:
ED and %HPF had the strongest standardized main effects; however, their interaction was negative, meaning that the effect of %HPF was higher for meals with lower ED and vice versa.
Energy dense, highly palatable, high fibre, nutritious, cheap, convenient, long life food to the rescue? Dunno! Anyway, it's all very interesting.
D
Deleted member 21371
Guest
My feelings towards HPF come and go.
Big Mac's are something I will try in every country I go to, but rarely eat here.
And I don't really repeat them if I visit the country again.
A box of Fox's chocolate biscuits will be eaten in pretty short order at Christmas, but I don't touch them inbetween.
It will be interesting to see what combinations are finally nailed down for these.
Big Mac's are something I will try in every country I go to, but rarely eat here.
And I don't really repeat them if I visit the country again.
A box of Fox's chocolate biscuits will be eaten in pretty short order at Christmas, but I don't touch them inbetween.
It will be interesting to see what combinations are finally nailed down for these.
Eddy Edson
Well-Known Member
- Relationship to Diabetes
- Type 2
Ever since I was a kid I've had a "mode" where I can enjoy really bland and monotonous eating which would probably drive most people completely batsh*t. No sauces, no dressing, mostly raw, mostly unprocessed, the same thing almost every day.
I think of this as being pretty close to many pre-modern diets in many respects - more nutritious because I can get a bigger variety of foods, but the same excellent CV-healthiness, and not obesogenic. I've kept the same or lower weight for 4+ years now. I lost 2kg in June when I had a high fever from COVID and ate hardly anything for a week; I've put back 1kg of that, but I've had to consciously make the effort.
I also think that it's zero surprise that UPF's just swamp "traditional" societies when they are first exposed to them, given that I think my way of eating really would be pretty intolerable for most if they have any alternative. Why do I enjoy it? Dunno!
Putting the genie back in the bottle seems really hard, unless you're a weirdo like me.
Eddy Edson
Well-Known Member
- Relationship to Diabetes
- Type 2
Kevin Hall's talk at the Royal Society symposium on the causes of obesity:
It's titled, "Does ultraprocessed food cause obesity?" but it's mainly Hall's admittedly just-so story about how the food environment became obesogenic from the early/mid 20th century.
Worries about Malthusian catstrophes, technology, govt farm policies, geography => huge increases in food production & huge waste.
"In our efforts to avoid a Malthusian catastrophe, did we do much too quickly?"
It's titled, "Does ultraprocessed food cause obesity?" but it's mainly Hall's admittedly just-so story about how the food environment became obesogenic from the early/mid 20th century.
Worries about Malthusian catstrophes, technology, govt farm policies, geography => huge increases in food production & huge waste.
"In our efforts to avoid a Malthusian catastrophe, did we do much too quickly?"
42istheanswer
Well-Known Member
- Relationship to Diabetes
- Type 2
- Pronouns
- She/Her
I would have to search to find the reference details, but around 11 years ago I was looking into evidence around Baby Led Weaning and found a paper which wasn't directly looking at that but was looking at how many calories were eaten at a finger food type meal, and a more liquid spoon fed type meal with 15 month olds who had Faltering Growth (failure to thrive) compared to a control group of 15 month olds who were gaining expected amounts of weight. They were fed by their main care giver in a lab setting, with various foods available for parents to choose from which the researchers had pre-determined the calories etc for. Babies were allowed to determine how much they ate.
The study found that for the spoon fed meals both groups ate a bigger volume of food, but that each individual baby's intake from self fed meal and spoon (parent) fed meal was approximately the same calories. The babies with Faltering Growth ate significantly less than the control group. They concluded that the babies bodies were able to somehow judge how much food they needed/wanted by the calories not just how much volume they put into their stomachs.
The study found that for the spoon fed meals both groups ate a bigger volume of food, but that each individual baby's intake from self fed meal and spoon (parent) fed meal was approximately the same calories. The babies with Faltering Growth ate significantly less than the control group. They concluded that the babies bodies were able to somehow judge how much food they needed/wanted by the calories not just how much volume they put into their stomachs.
trophywench
Well-Known Member
- Relationship to Diabetes
- Type 1
That'll be two of us then, cos I've never had one either - we are both 100% used to only eating proper food! I have however eaten a number of Vesta offerings before I had my own home and therefore able to 'stink the whole house out with that foreign muck!' with immunity. Good ole MadhurJaffray, who was the only person who'd published a book in English with Indian recipes in that I could find in the mid 1970s. Only snag was I couldn't buy all that many ingredients spice etc wise, or eg gram flour for bhajis in Kidderminster in those days, so had to venture into an Indian supermarket in Handsworth. Oh dear ! I could count up to 3 in Urdu (eck, doh, char) cos dad was with the Pay Corps in India during the War, but not like ASK for anything. Got by cos one of the late teenage daughters worked on the till of the one I chose so she helped me - and also showed me the various different flavour pappadoms (sold in 8s in flattened clear polythene bags, double folded and fastened with two staples, about twice the size of Sharwoods and absolutely not the vaguest idea as to who might have made em or their hygiene rating. The black pepper ones were ruddy fab!)
- Status