Obesity

[KnittyNorah]

This sort of thing goes down very well in France. I do like a nice rabbit, so too do the French. I also like cooking, but the French can't quite grasp the idea on an English person who can cook. An English *man* who can cook, well that's just infaisable.

The mincer worked overtime when I was given a shoulder of Sudanese baby camel some time in the 1970s, with the suggestion that a shepherds pie would be appreciated … I insisted it was referred to as cameleer's pie.

 

[Reynard]

No it won't. If I turn wheat grains into flour in a hand mill at home, and sieve it to the same sieve size, as Smith's Flour Mills of Worksop with their massive millstones, it will be the same flour. The fibre particles will be the same.

The same goes for other food materials. If I make significant changes to the composition (eg size distribution) of a food, I will change its behaviour in the finished food. So if I had a crap mill and only took my hand made flour down to half grains of wheat, you would have a point. But I don't, my hand powered flour mill works if I put enough work in to mill it down to flour, and if I didn't mill it down to flour it wouldn't work for bread. I'd know if one of my processes were significantly different because that ingredient would then behave differently in the final recipe. Meat mincing, likewise. I can do it a kilo at a time, or a tonne. If one has a different size distribution, let's say if I had a bowl chopper that turned it into a comminute rather than a mince, then it will be obvious, because it won't work in mince recipes.

The point is that meat mincing, flour milling and the like are not different when they are done in a factory, other than the scale of the whole thing. The unit operation remains the same, just like crude oil distilled in a laboratory will generate identical petrol to that distilled in a massive oil refinery still, because the unit operation is the same.


No, same laws of conservation. Different understanding of the principles of unit operations, maybe.

You're going off on a tangent again. The processing done to flour, or simply mincing meat for that matter, is NOT the same as making cottage pie ready meals on an industrial scale. And in any case, the vast majority of flour is made using a succession of rollers to crack the grain rather than rotating millstones. Unless it specifically labelled as "stoneground."

Stoneground flour has to be sifted to remove the bran and produce white flour. Roller-produced flour strips the bran off first, and then the crushed grain gets progressively finer as it goes through the system. Some of that first "cut" ends up as animal feed, but a good deal of it is actually added back into the end product to make 80% extraction flour and wholemeal.

Virtually all food is processed to some degree or other - otherwise we'd still be eating raw meat and apples and nuts off a tree. The conversation is about the ultra processed stuff, which often bears no resemblance to what it actually started out as.

As for the laws of conservation of energy, you never ever get complete conversion.

To put it simply, energy in = energy out + waste. That is an immutable law of physics. Waste is usually (but not always) in the form of heat. In terms of eating food, the waste in the equation is down to how hard your gut has to work to extract the calories in food. The less processed (i.e. closer to its natural state) that something is, the harder your gut has to work in order to extract the calories in it. And the harder it has to work - due to the presence of more fibre, for instance - the less the net output. Given that it is known that our gut finds it easier to extract calories from ultra-processed foods, the maths should self-explanatory.

 

[battered]

You're going off on a tangent again. The processing done to flour, or simply mincing meat for that matter, is NOT the same as making cottage pie ready meals on an industrial scale.

The unit operations for making a cottage pie on an industrial scale are the same as those used at home. Honestly. The pans are bigger, and have steam jackets, that's all. But we still start with chopped onion, oil, fry it a bit, add meat. Add the other veg, water, etc. I've watched it happen, I know the guy's name operating the cooker. The thing is that if the process were different enough to change the nutritional content, the chemistry of the food would be different, and so the process wouldn't work. The fact that the stuff made by Tomek on Prep Pan 1 tastes the same as the original kitchen samples tells you that the cooking operations are the same.

Given that it is known that our gut finds it easier to extract calories from ultra processed food, the maths should self-explanatory.

No, this is not known, unless you are trying to compare, say, whole wheat grains with flour. If you were, then you'd have a point because whole grains will pass through undigested and in one piece. But whole grains won't make bread. My hand milled flour has identical calories to the industrial sort. Because nothing is added or taken away, the grist is identical, and the stuff has no significant differences, once it has been made. If it were different, it wouldn't make bread.

 

[Reynard]

The unit operations for making a cottage pie on an industrial scale are the same as those used at home. Honestly. The pans are bigger, and have steam jackets, that's all. But we still start with chopped onion, oil, fry it a bit, add meat. Add the other veg, water, etc. I've watched it happen, I know the guy's name operating the cooker. The thing is that if the process were different enough to change the nutritional content, the chemistry of the food would be different, and so the process wouldn't work. The fact that the stuff made by Tomek on Prep Pan 1 tastes the same as the original kitchen samples tells you that the cooking operations are the same.

So how do you make mashed potato then? With a giant version of this? Unlikely, I'd say?

This one is identical to mine, btw, except that mine has a blue handle.

No, this is not known, unless you are trying to compare, say, whole wheat grains with flour. If you were, then you'd have a point because whole grains will pass through undigested and in one piece. But whole grains won't make bread. My hand milled flour has identical calories to the industrial sort. Because nothing is added or taken away, the grist is identical, and the stuff has no significant differences, once it has been made. If it were different, it wouldn't make bread.

Again, you're side-stepping the issue. I gave you a link to a good article earlier, and a simple google search threw up quite a few more. As a scientist by training, it is second nature for me to provide references in order to back up a discussion.

And by the way, you obviously have never eaten pumpernickel then, which is made primarily with cracked whole grains.

 

[battered]

You know what, we do make mashed potato with a thing like that. It's a giant auger forcing cooked potatoes through a grid that looks just like that thing there, except 2 feet across

As for pumpernickel, yes I have had it. Different grains, different process. I've compared it to white bread in the UK, and noticed it's not the same. Just like it's a completely different food materi al. Different nutrition info, too.

The article you linked earlier is about processed food being higher in salt and sugar, etc, and about satiety and appetite. There are more calories because you eat more of it and it's got other stuff in it. Not because the calories are more accessible. If you can find me peer reviewed proof to the contrary, then we need to rewrite the nutrition textbooks.

 

[Reynard]

You know what, we do make mashed potato with a thing like that. It's a giant auger forcing cooked potatoes through a grid that looks just like that thing there, except 2 feet across

As for pumpernickel, yes I have had it. Different grains, different process. I've compared it to white bread in the UK, and noticed it's not the same. Just like it's a completely different food materi al. Different nutrition info, too.

The article you linked earlier is about processed food being higher in salt and sugar, etc, and about satiety and appetite. There are more calories because you eat more of it and it's got other stuff in it. Not because the calories are more accessible. If you can find me peer reviewed proof to the contrary, then we need to rewrite the nutrition textbooks.

This should tick your boxes - from Havard: https://theconversation.com/why-most-food-labels-are-wrong-about-calories-35081

As should this, although the emphasis different though equally valid: https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/325194

And the study in the second article was mentioned on the BBC documentary "What are we feeding our kids" that was aired this evening. It is available HERE on the i-player for the next five months. The documentary is certainly thought-provoking and a worthwhile watch if you've an hour to spare. And it backs up a lot of what I and others have been saying all through this thread.

And please, answer me this: if you make mashed potato in exactly the same way as I do in my kitchen - but on a bigger scale, then why does ready-made mashed potato have this godawful gummy, claggy texture?

N.B. I boil my potatoes (I use locally-grown maris pipers) until they're *almost* done, then take the pan off the heat and let the potatoes poach in the hot water until very tender. Then I drain, add pepper, nutmeg, a small lump of butter and a splash of milk. My mash is lovely and fluffy, needing the minimum of mashing, and it's certainly not gummy.

 

[Blue Hills]

Not aware that I ever had a reply to my question above @battered .

Also, can you declare you interest?

You appear to work in the processed food industry?

Declaring my interest - I mostly cook from simple ingredients, eat the minimum of processed food apart from snacks* - as has been said above, most pre-packaged food has a whole host of ingredients in it, mysterious and not so mysterious, I see no need for. And is bulky and expensive by any normal measure.

*It help that I am content to eat similar stuff every day - am no gourmet cook.

 

[battered]

Not aware that I ever had a reply to my question above @battered .

Also, can you declare you interest?

You appear to work in the processed food industry?

Declaring my interest - I mostly cook from simple ingredients, eat the minimum of processed food apart from snacks* - as has been said above, most pre-packaged food has a whole host of ingredients in it, mysterious and not so mysterious, I see no need for. And is bulky and expensive by any normal measure.

*It help that I am content to eat similar stuff every day - am no gourmet cook.

Post no 398.
I'm a technical consultant to tbe food industry, I said earlier, a few pages back.
As for an interest, no. As long as food is manufactured, I'll have work somewhere. Quality/yield/hygiene/efficiency will always need to be improved. That's where I come in.

 

[Blue Hills]

Post no 398.
I'm a technical consultant to tbe food industry, I said earlier, a few pages back.

ta for the reply, honest of you, explains things somewhat.
My attitude is that there is little need for the "food industry" - just simple ingredients - real cooking takes not a lot longer than the industry packaged processed stuff, is cheaper and healthier.
Of course the issue is complicated with kids and their search for novelty/susceptibility to advertising and peer pressure.
I don't count tinned stuff as necessarily processed - some of it is very straightforward stuff.
In my view the government needs to find ways to promote fruit and veg consumption/markets.
I'm lucky in that London is, surprisingly perhaps, still rather blesssed by street food markets.

 

[KnittyNorah]

The fact is that our internal biomes differ greatly - to some extent, at least (and many would say to a large extent), according to our diet. The bacterial content of any animal's digestive system plays a large part in - well - digesting their food. Naturally my gut flora will be vastly different to that of, say, a spider or a mole - but it will also change over time, when my diet changes, and as my overall health changes. So my gut flora as a vegetarian in my mid 70s will be very different to that of my neighbour who is a frequent meat-eater in his 30s. However, his gut flora will also be different to those of his peers who eat a highly-processed diet of Greggs pies, ready meals and fizzy drinks, as N does most of his own cooking and enjoys nothing more than game from the estate on which he works as head gardener together with home (or rather estate) produced veggies, and big pint mugs of tea!

Although there is no such thing as 'thin' bacteria or 'fat' microbes, gut flora definitely helps to regulate metabolism and nutrient absorption - and hence, will have an effect on weight management. How significant that effect is in different individuals, clinical condition , and why, is still part of ongoing and active research, but it is known that a person eating a largely industrially-processed diet will have a different gut flora to the person eating a less-processed diet. The greater difference in their diet, the greater difference in their gut flora. There are links - correlations, if you like - between a highly-processed diet and the incidence of obesity in a society. Correlation is, we can all agree, not causation.

However, it is clear that it is not merely the energy (ie calorie) content of the diet vs the calories of physical activity expended that is the deciding factor in weight gain, loss or maintenance. Ignoring clinical conditions and disorders which may affect such, and looking only at 'well' individuals, gut flora - which I will remind you is different in every individual - helps to determine how much energy your body absorbs, and also how hungry or full you feel.

How much energy your body absorbs from its diet, and how hungry or full you feel, is surely a large part of weight gain, loss, or maintenance?
So even if the industrially-made cottage pie contains exactly the same *ingredients* as the home-made one, they will most likely not be entering similar environments in which to be digested, and the calories thus absorbed in different digestive systems will vary ...

There's a lot of research going on wrt gut flora and the microbiome - naturally much of it is concentrated on illness (such as the concept of faecal transfer of healthy gut flora to the sufferer of C dfficile infection) rather than on the 'well-but-obese', but spin-offs are already happening to a small extent and there will undoubtedly be further developments in the future.

 

[battered]

This should tick your boxes - from Havard: https://theconversation.com/why-most-food-labels-are-wrong-about-calories-35081

As should this, although the emphasis different though equally valid: https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/325194

And the study in the second article was mentioned on the BBC documentary "What are we feeding our kids" that was aired this evening. It is available HERE on the i-player for the next five months. The documentary is certainly thought-provoking and a worthwhile watch if you've an hour to spare. And it backs up a lot of what I and others have been saying all through this thread.

And please, answer me this: if you make mashed potato in exactly the same way as I do in my kitchen - but on a bigger scale, then why does ready-made mashed potato have this godawful gummy, claggy texture?

N.B. I boil my potatoes (I use locally-grown maris pipers) until they're *almost* done, then take the pan off the heat and let the potatoes poach in the hot water until very tender. Then I drain, add pepper, nutmeg, a small lump of butter and a splash of milk. My mash is lovely and fluffy, needing the minimum of mashing, and it's certainly not gummy.

thanks for that. The fi rst, with the rats, does support your view that heavier processing makes the nutrients more available. That's a new one on me, I've not seen a similar study. How significant it is for a mixed die t in the real world remains to be seen. I shall have a chat with my nutritionist friend. The second study, with humans, shows that they are more food when it was heavily processed, and so gained weight. No surprise thefe. That's in line with what we know about appetizing food, speed of eating, and satiety. I'm interested in the psychology of food, which is FAR more important than people think.

Potatoes- probably a combination of water content and mixing time. My guess is that yours are relatively dry and minimally mashed, so the starch grains are unbroken. The manufacture e ones are probably wetter and worked for longer.

 

[battered]

ta for the reply, honest of you, explains things somewhat.
My attitude is that there is little need for the "food industry" - just simple ingredients - real cooking takes not a lot longer than the industry packaged processed stuff, is cheaper and healthier.
Of course the issue is complicated with kids and their search for novelty/susceptibility to advertising and peer pressure.
I don't count tinned stuff as necessarily processed - some of it is very straightforward stuff.
In my view the government needs to find ways to promote fruit and veg consumption/markets.
I'm lucky in that London is, surprisingly perhaps, still rather blesssed by street food markets.

no need for the food industry? Good luck with that. Fortunately for my continued employment there are about 60K people in the UK who see every need for it.

 

[Blue Hills]

no need for the food industry? Good luck with that. Fortunately for my continued employment there are about 60K people in the UK who see every need for it.

I'm not trying to chuck anyone on the employment scrap-heap.
Folk have always used your line whenever anyone tried to question anything.
I well remember it being used all the time about the arnaments industry.
So back to the discussion on food v processed food.
I stress that I'm not being snobby - some of the worst culprits it seems to me on this issue are the retail outfits that like to present themselves at least some of the time as "upmarket".
It's perfectly possibly to eat well, tastily and healthily in my view by limiting your shopping to markets, Lidl and Aldi.

 

[keithmac]

As a family we eat both home made and packet meals. None of us are obese.

Calories in vs calories out and all that, can't out run a bad diet which to me is simply over-eating regardless of how it's prepared.

 

[KnittyNorah]

I shall have a chat with my nutritionist friend.

You are aware, I hope, that the mere title 'nutritionist' means less than nothing and could be legitimately claimed by anyone in CycleChat, a teenage you-tuber out to make some money, someone who is a good cook with a genuine interest in and knowledge of healthy eating - or a weirdo one-food obsessive who thinks tapioca pudding is the final answer to all that ails us ..

Dieticians are the only nutrition professionals to be regulated by law, and governed by an ethical code. They have had an extensive scientific, professional and in-practice education, and must be registered with the HPCP in order to practice and to use the title Dietician.

Graduates from courses which have been accredited by the Association for Nutrition (AfN) - a voluntary body - can have direct entry onto the Association's voluntary register and are then entitled to refer to themselves as Registered Nutritionists, who are considered qualified to provide information about food and healthy eating for the non-ill - a far narrower field than that covered by a dietician, but arguably just as important given that most of us are the non-ill, and that general 'healthy eating' is probably of more benefit to more people than the niceties of faecal donations or specialised dietary treatments for rare genetic diseases which affect the metabolism. However the fact that anyone can claim to be 'a nutritionist' can lead to ... problems ...