The study that they cite just confirms basic "calories in, calories out" knowledge. The diets (processed v. "whole") were supposed to be matched on calories, yet the participants were able to eat...
The study that they cite just confirms basic "calories in, calories out" knowledge. The diets (processed v. "whole") were supposed to be matched on calories, yet the participants were able to eat as much as they wanted. So, the control is already out the window. Processed foods are more calorically dense, so it's no wonder participants ate ~500 calories more a day on the processed foods diet.
1 lb. of fat = ~3500 calories. 500 calories in excess over a 14 day period is a total of 7000 excess calories, which equals a 2 lb. fat gain, which is what the study showed. So, while it may be easier to consume more calories in processed foods, they are not inherently going to cause you to gain weight over non-processed foods so long as you're minding your caloric intake. If the study truly controlled for caloric intake I highly doubt you'd see any changes in weight between the two groups. If weight gain is the only metric they're judging health on, I would say processed foods and non-processed foods are equally healthy as a calorie is a calorie, after all. Nutrient density is really what should be looked at, though.
That said, I think cooking from scratch is better, as far as taste goes. But when you start oiling pans and putting butter in everything scratch cooking can easily be as calorically dense as processed foods.
Unsurprisingly, time and money are the biggest constraints when it comes to cooking from scratch. You'll never beat the efficiency and bulk purchasing power of a huge chain. Hell, one of my cheapest meals (a tuna sandwich) runs me about $2.50-3.00. You can get three McDoubles for that.
I think you misunderstood. The study matched groups for the same "presented calories", which I believe means they offered both groups meals with the same amounts of carbs, fats, proteins, etc, but...
The diets (processed v. "whole") were supposed to be matched on calories, yet the participants were able to eat as much as they wanted. So, the control is already out the window.
I think you misunderstood. The study matched groups for the same "presented calories", which I believe means they offered both groups meals with the same amounts of carbs, fats, proteins, etc, but participants were free to eat as much as they liked. In fact, the study in your link specifically says so ...
Subjects were instructed to consume as much or as little as desired.
So, I think the point of the study is that, as you noted, processed foods are more calorie-dense and so people tend to eat more calories as a result.
The study that they cite just confirms basic "calories in, calories out" knowledge. The diets (processed v. "whole") were supposed to be matched on calories, yet the participants were able to eat as much as they wanted. So, the control is already out the window. Processed foods are more calorically dense, so it's no wonder participants ate ~500 calories more a day on the processed foods diet.
1 lb. of fat = ~3500 calories. 500 calories in excess over a 14 day period is a total of 7000 excess calories, which equals a 2 lb. fat gain, which is what the study showed. So, while it may be easier to consume more calories in processed foods, they are not inherently going to cause you to gain weight over non-processed foods so long as you're minding your caloric intake. If the study truly controlled for caloric intake I highly doubt you'd see any changes in weight between the two groups. If weight gain is the only metric they're judging health on, I would say processed foods and non-processed foods are equally healthy as a calorie is a calorie, after all. Nutrient density is really what should be looked at, though.
That said, I think cooking from scratch is better, as far as taste goes. But when you start oiling pans and putting butter in everything scratch cooking can easily be as calorically dense as processed foods.
Unsurprisingly, time and money are the biggest constraints when it comes to cooking from scratch. You'll never beat the efficiency and bulk purchasing power of a huge chain. Hell, one of my cheapest meals (a tuna sandwich) runs me about $2.50-3.00. You can get three McDoubles for that.
I think you misunderstood. The study matched groups for the same "presented calories", which I believe means they offered both groups meals with the same amounts of carbs, fats, proteins, etc, but participants were free to eat as much as they liked. In fact, the study in your link specifically says so ...
So, I think the point of the study is that, as you noted, processed foods are more calorie-dense and so people tend to eat more calories as a result.