“Ultra-Processed” Foods
I’m going to refer to processed foods often in this chapter. Technically, all foods are processed on some level. Fruits and vegetables are often rinsed before sold, and even that is considered a form of processing. Animal meat is processed on wildly varying levels (a rotisserie chicken is far less processed than a hot dog). In this book, when I say “processed foods,” I’m really referring to ultra-processed foods, which are defined below by Carlos Monteiro, PhD, MD.
“Ultra-processing is used to make products from combinations of ingredients extracted from whole foods, usually with little or even no whole foods. Typically, series of processes are used, in the creation of the ingredients and also in the creation of the products, which also usually contain some or many preservatives and cosmetic additives. They are formulated to be hyper-palatable, of long duration, and are usually packaged ready to consume. They are very profitable, and aggressively marketed. They are the end product of a chain of processes.”
Food Comparisons
To make all of the upcoming comparisons and examples simple, I’m going to use 100 grams as the base amount of food.35 The weight of food is fascinating in how it relates to its calorie content. You’ll see why eating fruits and vegetables lead you to eating significantly fewer calories. The numbers are shocking.
Simple as Possible, Not Simpler
“Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.”
~ Albert Einstein
One of the greatest problems in the weight loss industry is oversimplified claims. The following claims may be true in certain circumstances, but not as blanket statements:
“Carbs make us fat.”
“Calories in, calories out.”
“Fat makes us fat.”
These popular explanations for human weight gain and loss are simple. Unfortunately, they violate Einstein’s rule above because they are simpler explanations than necessary. The biological mechanisms of weight are extraordinarily complex, and while they can be simplified to an applicable degree, these are (way) too simple to be accurate.
You can only come up with simple, true, and effective solutions if you thoroughly understand the problem, which is why this is a book and not a one liner—“Hey, just take small steps to weight loss!” Great depth of research and analysis went into the Mini Habits for Weight Loss strategy.
The Process of Getting to Effective and Simple Solutions
When we have a basic, but not masterful, understanding of a challenge, we come up with complicated solutions, as beautifully captured in this quote:
“I would have written a shorter letter, but I did not have the time.”
~ Blaise Pascal
Simple, concise, and effective solutions take the most time and effort to create. Computers are a great example—one computer used to take up an entire room! Computer programming started on physical “punch cards.” In order to tell the room-sized computer what to do, you’d mark the cards in particular spots and make a deck to feed into the computer. Our computing solution was cumbersome and complicated because we hadn’t yet mastered the technology.
As our understanding of technology has improved, so have computers. They are many multitudes smaller, more powerful, more intuitive, and easier to use and understand. The masterful depth of understanding we’ve gained for this technology has made computers easier to use.
As understanding improves, solutions get closer to Einstein’s "simple as possible" ideal. But if understanding is wrong altogether, people will create solutions that seem to be simple and correct, but they’re often simpler than necessary and therefore incorrect, and that’s what we have in the weight loss industry. Obesity rates have gotten worse despite the research and money we’ve thrown at it, which suggests that we haven’t improved our understanding of the problem.
“Carbs make us fat”
If carbs make us fat, then why was a Harvard professor able to lose 27 pounds on a diet of carb-heavy processed food for two months (famously called “The Twinkie Diet”)? Why do so many cultures remain lean with high-carb diets? It doesn’t take much to discredit this idea, because carbohydrates have been eaten for thousands of years without associated weight issues.
And yet, low-carb diets appear to be fairly successful for weight loss in the short term (when adhered to). Do carbs make us fat or not? That’s the wrong question, because the concept of “carbs make us fat” is simpler than necessary.
“Calories in, Calories out”
If counting calories is the answer, why does traditional calorie counting math suggest we should all weigh over 900 pounds by now?36 What about the proven role of hormones to moderate food intake over the long term? What about the “fat set point,” which is governed by the central nervous system, not by how many 100-calorie snack packs you eat?
And of course, if only calories matter, why do many studies (that we discussed in the introduction) provide compelling evidence that restricting calories now makes us gain even more weight later? Calorie restriction has been shown to drop your metabolism and make your body prone to store fat.
The amount of calories we consume obviously matters some and plays a role in weight management. But do calorie surpluses make us fat and calorie deficits make us thin? That’s the wrong question, because the concept of “calories in, calories out” is simpler than necessary.
“Fat Makes Us Fat”
If fat makes us fat, then why does coconut oil (as fatty as a fat can be, and mostly saturated!) appear to reduce abdominal fat and aid weight loss efforts?37 Why do many high-fat diets lead to weight loss? If fat is the reason behind weight loss, then high-fat diets should make weight loss impossible, but they seem to do the opposite in many cases.
And yet, fat is generally less satiating, contains more calories per gram, and can be eaten in higher quantities than carbs or protein. Does fat make us fat or not? That’s the wrong question, because the concept of “fat makes us fat” is simpler than necessary.
These explanations don’t account for the big picture. There are many ways to lose weight in the short term, meaning even the worst ideas (see Twinkie diet) can be “validated.” The Twinkie diet didn’t prove that only calories matter: it showed that you can probably lose weight in two months if you don’t eat enough food. We already knew that. Sustainability matters unless you only care about weight loss in the summer.
Non-Calorie Weight Loss Factors
The dietary factors that regulate weight include: food nutrition, calorie density, insulin resistance, leptin resistance, inflammation, genetic disposition to weight gain, food satiety, and food satisfaction (i.e., the hedonic reward system). This doesn’t mean the solutions are complex—don’t forget this is a book about doing easy mini habits—it only means that calorie counting is wrong because it says that only calories matter. The amount of calories we eat does matter, but it’s not all that matters and it does not matter most.
The first law of thermodynamics states that energy can transfer to a different form, but it cannot be created or destroyed. Applied to our bodies, if you take in more energy than you expel, then you will weigh more. This is obvious, like saying that a room full of puppies has fewer puppies in it if some puppies leave the room. When it comes to the weight battle, the key question is what strategy makes your fat “leave the room” for good.
The obvious solution so many people try is to eat fewer calories and burn more to create a deficit. This works in the short term, but feeling hungry all the time and wrecking your metabolism isn’t a permanent solution, is it? Even if you were willing to remain hungry all of the time to be thinner, it would be a constant temptation and frustration; only willpower superheroes win that war.
Besides, calorie restriction has far worse consequences than mere hunger. In the introduction, we covered studies showing that extended calorie restriction caused an alarming propensity for weight gain in rats and humans. (If you know any rats, please let them know about these studies.) In the Minnesota Starvation
Experiment, one of the primary observations was that most of the men became depressed and emotionally distressed from eating too few calories.38 The body isn’t meant to change this way, and it reacts accordingly. Our goal isn’t to stop eating so much food (calorie counting); it’s to figure out why we eat too much food—on a biological and emotional level—and how to reverse that.
The Truth about Weight Loss
Food can be separated into three groups: whole foods, ultra-processed foods, and everything in-between. The simple as possible (but not simpler than necessary) truth about weight loss is that ultra-processed foods are the primary reason why we gain weight and fail to lose it.
Ultra-processed foods can be further broken down into carbs, fats, or calories, but at that point, we run into problems. It’s not any one of those factors that make processed foods weight-gaining—it’s all of them, plus a lack of nutrition, inflammatory ingredients, and poor satiety. Thus, we can’t go any simpler than “ultra-processed foods cause weight gain” and “unprocessed whole foods aid weight loss.” When you look at the calories or macronutrients of processed food and draw overarching conclusions (as many have done), you incorrectly include many healthy, weight-friendly foods that happen to be high in fat, calories, or carbs.
Let’s talk about macronutrients, and then calories.
Macronutrient Wars
Many weight loss discussions today revolve around macronutrients (carbs, fat, and protein). For example, The American Heart Association has been recommending a low-fat diet for many years. This is terrible. Here’s how it started.
In the middle of the 20th century, scientists were in a frenzy to find the reason for the rapid increase of obesity and heart disease rates in the USA. Then, in 1955, United States President Dwight Eisenhower suffered a left anterior myocardial infarction (i.e., a heart attack). This amplified that frenzy.
Nutritionist Ancel Keys led us to the door of dietary fat as the culprit of the problem, because he studied seven countries’ dietary habits and heart disease statistics. His data showed a trend of fat consumption correlating with heart disease. Some say that he only picked the countries which supported his hypothesis, and left out countries like Norway, where the diet is high in fat but heart disease is low, or Chile, where the diet is low in fat but heart disease is high.
Nevertheless, the low-fat revolution was born. The food industry loved it because they had a brilliant new marketing angle: low-fat foods. They had just one problem: fat makes food taste better. In order to offset the poorer taste of low-fat foods, they added more sugar. They solved the taste problem, and made everyone fatter in the process. In recent years, people have warmed up to the idea that fat isn’t all bad, and sugar (and carbohydrates in general) have been under intense scrutiny from various experts and new diets.
Too few recognize the broader issue of focusing on macronutrients. Many have gone from demonizing fats to demonizing carbohydrates. We now have one battle of fats vs. carbs and a separate battle of macronutrients vs. calories. These are both the wrong battles!
Between fats and carbs, which one is the cause of weight gain and the preventer of weight loss? Neither. There are good and bad fats for weight loss, and there are good and bad carbs for weight loss.
Macronutrients are not the problem or the solution. That philosophy equates a boiled potato to a French fry to a pile of sugar to brown rice because “they’re carbs.” It equates coconut oil to lard to trans fat to saturated fat to unsaturated fat to soybean oil to fish oil because “they’re fats.” It’s nonsense.
I’m Not a Conspiracy Theorist, but…
What would be the result be—and for the record, I say this semi-jokingly and to provoke some thoughts—if the processed food industry could manipulate the obesity argument to change from healthy vs. unhealthy food to a macronutrient or calorie debate?
The processed food industry is cunning. If they are somehow behind this macronutrient focus, they are not just cunning, they’re (evil) geniuses. The way they design and meticulously test food to be addictive in texture, flavor, and taste is impressive, but to manipulate how we see weight loss to sustain robust sales would be a they-should-make-a-movie-out-of-this level of corrupt brilliance.
As with calorie counting, a focus on macronutrients changes “processed food” to just food. It simplifies food into carbs, fat, and protein, and all foods, processed and unprocessed, contain those. Basically, when macronutrients are the focus, there’s no distinction between processed and unprocessed foods.
If the only difference between an avocado and a fat-free cupcake is that they have different macronutrient profiles, we can eat whichever one fits our diet better. Or better yet, since cupcakes are so delightful, we could choose what specialized type of cupcake we want without the consequences of whatever macronutrient we believe is evil at the time. Food scientists could create low-fat cupcakes, sugar-free cupcakes, low-sodium cupcakes, and gluten-free cupcakes, and, by appealing to so many different macronutrient-based diets, it would translate into more products, more sales, and more revenue. (And yes, all of those cupcake varieties actually exist.)
What’s the only motivator more powerful than desire? Fear. People’s fear of fat would lead them to select fat-free yogurt (that’s loaded with sugar). If it’s carbs they fear, they’d buy artificially sweetened desserts instead of “scary” whole fruit with natural fructose. The only thing more lucrative than a person eating a regular cupcake for pleasure is a person eating a specialized type of cupcake out of fear.
A widespread focus on macronutrients combined with modified foods is the ultimate fear weapon to provoke sales in more food niches. Since processed food is created in labs and produced in factories, it can be manipulated to have any macronutrient profile the scientists desire. Take out the fat? No problem. Take out the sugar? Easy. Take out the sodium? Done. Natural food, on the other hand, can’t morph like that. A blueberry, one of the most effective weight loss foods in the world, will always contain some sugar (fructose).
Is it just a coincidence that the prevailing theories give processed food such a significant advantage over natural foods? It’s possibly coincidence, but look at the data on obesity. You will see in numerous studies that processed food’s fingerprints are all over the obesity crime scene, with millions dead and billions currently overweight with associated health problems. It makes you wonder why else we’d still be looking at macronutrients. Even though the meteoric rise of processed food has coincided with the meteoric rise in obesity worldwide (like a pair of synchronized swimmers), too many people are still focused on “fats and carbs.”
Consider this: fats and carbs have both been eaten as long as food has existed. (That’s a long time.) Common sense has to play a role in the debate about what’s really causing obesity. Obesity didn’t skyrocket when carbs and fat were introduced; it skyrocketed when these new kinds of ultra-processed carbs and fat were introduced.
Asian cultures have traditionally eaten a very high carbohydrate diet (with lots of white, carbtastic rice), and they’ve remained fit and healthy overall. White rice is nutritionally inferior to brown rice, but it is still a one-ingredient food. Scandinavian countries have low death rates and relatively low obesity rates, and eat a high fat diet. It’s not because they eat fat or carbs; it’s because the fat and carbs they eat most often are better quality than countries with widespread obesity.
Speaking of quality, let’s talk about calories, where quantity is a common, but incorrect focal point.
The Inequality of Calories
Every calorie you consume has a unique hormonal and metabolic impact in your body. Two foods of the same caloric value are different in biological satisfaction, perceived satisfaction, satiety, insulin response, nutrient content (which affects the health and function of our organs), and energy distribution, all of which can impact your behavior and weight in the short and long term. With the “calories in, calories out” (CICO) way of thinking, these factors are considered irrelevant, even thoug
h they will affect your food decisions, including how many calories you feel compelled to eat.
To be clear, overeating the right foods could potentially cause weight gain—it’s possible—but it’s challenging to do because of their typically high satiety-to-calorie ratio, nutritional value, and body-healing compounds. Also, let’s not only deal in extremes. The goal isn’t to overstuff ourselves while eating the right foods. Hunger levels span from hungry to satiated to full to “belt-snapping.” The goal is smooth and consistent satiety, not bouncing from extreme calorie restriction to bingeing (yo-yo dieting). If we eat good food to satiety, we can lose weight, feel satisfied, and not have to deal with the issues that arise from undereating.
Mini Habits for Weight Loss: Stop Dieting. Form New Habits. Change Your Lifestyle Without Suffering. Page 6