I know many humans who have diets not far off from that. Maybe deep fried chicken tenders as a substitute for hamburgers. Granted, most of them eat ketchup, which is a serving of vegetables in some states.
Seriously though, this problem is more common that I think a lot may realize. Something about a high-sugar, high-salt, fast food diet has the long-term effect of destroying peoples' ability to eat other foods. I've seen kids grow up on fast food who find the idea any green vegetable completely revolting.
I see some of my friends not far beyond chicken fingers for every meal and shudder...
So thanks, Mom! You were right. Here's to "Dinner is what I cooked, and if you want something else then breakfast is in 12 hours."
BUT! Their kids eat 3 meals for dinner: pizza, chicken nuggets with French fries, or easy Mac. For lunch they have pb&j, for breakfast eggs or cereal. Chips and candy for snacks. Throw in some applesauce you suck out of little pouches. That's it.
I'm pretty much appalled. The kids seem healthy, although I'm not an expert. But man, they're missing out on literally all the good stuff.
I hope they come around in a couple years. I haven't asked them their plan or anything.
I'm firmly in the camp of not cooking around kids unless they really hate one particular thing, or it's too spicy perhaps, or an allergy.
I literally didn't eat a single vegetable or fruit that wasn't an onion or tomato sauce until age 20, and my diet consisted mostly of "kid food" - hamburgers, hot dogs, breakfast cereal, milk, etc.
Meanwhile, my family was eating lots of home cooked mediterranean meals. I can't count the number of times I'd be eating a hot dog while they were enjoying something like stinky artichokes.
My parents cooked around me. Never forced me to eat anything I didn't like. Never insisted I "just try" a food that was going to make me gag.
Shortly after I turned 20, something just clicked and I started eating everything. Now my diet is more varied than the rest of my family.
Don't force your kids to eat stuff they hate.
If they're not actually malnourished or obese, they'll likely turn out fine. The last thing you want to do is establish a pattern of stress and anguish re: meals and food. That probably never turns out well in the long run.
Not being a parent, I have no idea whether this works. I'd be interested to hear whether anyone has tried an approach like this. I'm sure kids can find some way to defeat it no matter how good it sounds.
Personally, my biggest issue growing up was less pickiness (like a lot of kids, I went through a picky phase and emerged from it not picky), and more that my parents had the classic "finish what's on your plate" rule, which I think has definitely contributed to unhealthy eating habits in adulthood.
We have convinced her to eat other foods, but she gags every time. I suspect she has an eating disorder. She has been seeing a therapist, but I wonder if she needs to see a different therapist who specializes in eating disorders. In any case, she seems physically healthy; she runs and plays and doesn't get hurt.
What's amazing to me is I was completely unaware of these kinds of disorders before she came along. I think she wants to eat veggies (because she really believes us when we say they are good for her), but her body strongly resists.
You eat a raw clam with a "tail", and everything else relatively adjusts itself, re: gag reflex.
When I was a kid, I hated the texture of most foods. They made me gag. It wasn't necessarily the taste, and I really did wish I could eat vegetables because I knew they were good for me. They even smelled and looked good. But I just couldn't get past the texture.
My pediatrician was "old school" and told my parents that I was just a picky eater and not to worry about it. Did I eat dairy? Fortified cereals? Eggs and meat? If so, I'd be fine. His point was that kids just need macronutrients, and the vitamins sprayed on cereal plus a daily supplement was more than enough.
Did I under eat as a result? Probably. Was I a little under weight? Yeah, but not dangerously. Honestly, it probably helped me long term because my weight has never been a problem as an adult. I'm also normal height.
So, did I have an eating disorder? I mean, in a way, maybe. But it was a reaction to a sensation. I didn't have any other reason past "it feels gross in my mouth." I'm not an expert, but doesn't disordered eating need to be accompanied by "wrong thinking?" I had no other cause or motivation for my picky eating.
> she seems physically healthy; she runs and plays and doesn't get hurt
Again, I'm not trying to give advice because I don't know the specifics, but maybe don't worry too much unless she is actually presenting as physically unhealthy. Like, unless blood work shows some nutritional deficiency that can't be corrected with a vitamin supplement.
> She has been seeing a therapist, but I wonder if she needs to see a different therapist
Again, I don't know your situation, so maybe she is seeing a therapist for other reasons - but I believe that being made to see a therapist as a kid for my picky eating would have made things worse, especially since I didn't have any other problems. It may have even made me believe I had other mental problems.
I just didn't like the texture of most foods. Even as a kid I realized how weird that was, and that I should be eating more foods. I just couldn't do it physically until I was older and outgrew it. Now I'm fine. I'm an adventurous eater. I eat anything and everything, and I'm quite healthy.
Side note, I have adult friends who I learned were even pickier eaters than me as kids and who never really grew out of it. They're all fine, if maybe a little underweight.
There's evidence suggesting that super restrictive diets can extend lifespan. Also, hey, some people are just a little bit eccentric and have weird eating habits. Maybe they don't need to be "fixed." ymmv.
I don't understand the idea that not wanting to eat food you hate makes you a "spoiled brat". Adults aren't expected to eat food they hate, and they don't. It's one of the few things kids are forced to do that has no analog in the adult world. This isn't the same thing as teaching a kid how to wake up early or do chores. Eating food you hate isn't like, a necessary life skill.
If a kid is a picky eater, you're usually not cooking up an elaborate meal for them - you throw a hot dog in the microwave or pour them a bowl of cereal. That seems easier than just about any other technique for dealing with a kid who doesn't want to eat "adult" food.
> I can't fathom how one would call this traumatic
It's not traumatic like a car crash, but pick a food that would make you vomit and imagine a person in authority and twice your size trying to force it down your throat. This happened to me in preschool, and it sucked. At home I was allowed to eat (or not eat) in peace.
I wonder how much environment shapes how open one will be to food. Most picky eaters I've met come from places with cultures of TV-centric dinners (America, Australia, UK) opposed to family-centric ones (Japan, Germany, Singapore), which makes me wonder if there's a link or just coincidence in experience.
We were also more involved in the production/acquisition of the food of the day- go fetch some eggs from the hens, go ask the folks next door for some lemon grass, that kind of thing. I really do think being a part of the creation of the meal was good for our development. It certainly made me more interested in tasting what the adults did with the ingredients we brought them!
yeah but like, what makes you think that "what was served" was served with absolutely no concern for what members of the family liked or disliked.
I've often said that if I could get away with not eating - I would not eat anything.
Socially - this is a huge handicap.
Your friend is more likely to die at a younger age and have health problems when they are older.
We take a different approach.
1) We explain to our kids their tastebuds are different and you have to learn to like some of the things that are healthy for you. Then we ask them to eat some to help learn and then then they can fill up on the rest.
2) We bury veg into food. It's amazing what you can grate into bolonaise sauce and similar and no-one knows.
3) Within reasonable bounds they don't have choice. We see some parents pander to their kids dislike. Of course the kids then learn they can refuse and get 'tasty' stuff. When kids have this option naturally they are more likely to push for the alternate and promote how bad veg etc is. To a degree restricting choice makes life easier.
And generally I respect kids are different and our experience of not having issues around this can be luck of the draw, also I think some people simply don't want the extra initial effort to establish boundaries. And as a parent I feel it's our duty to fuel a developing body and mind with the best we can as this is a core foundation for life.
The minute you add Tomatoes + Cheese (found in pizza), you're suddenly fixing a major vitamin A deficiency (that Hamburgers / Potatoes lack).
Like, at least round out the meal with other ultraprocessed foods if you want to prove something.
-----------
What causes bone deficiency? Well, a lack of calcium (also found in cheese) and Vitamin D (needed to process calcium more efficiently), which potatoes also lack.
Pizza, Tacos, and Ice Cream would fix that, no joke, if I'm thinking about the "worst foods" that still hit those vitamins.
I'm not sure below what level constitutes deficiency. Perhaps that small amount is enough.
I'm not sure about the tomato paste either, but if the majority of the paste is the additives and the tomatoes have been heat treated and salted and sugar'd to an inch of their lives, you're not getting anything but calories, like mywittiname's comment suggests.
That's something to keep in mind with any processed foods: many of the materials in them are not there to provide nutrition, and don't.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leprino_Foods
> Leprino supplies cheese to 85% of the pizza market, including Pizza Hut, Domino's, Little Caesars, Papa John's, Hungry Howie's, Tombstone, Tony's, Jack's, and Digiorno.
Unless those veggies are soaked & boiled, fermented, or sprouted, chances are they're adding little nutritional value to your diet and can even cause anemia or other issues if you're just eating them raw.
And yes fermented greens like sauerkraut or kimchi may be better in many ways.
You don't know what you're talking about. See https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00726-017-2493-3 as an example (one of many).
Specifically:
Research has indicated that the profile of the gut microbiota is the key determinant of the levels of tryptophan catabolites (TRYCATs) in the systemic circulation. Consequently, the profile of the gut microbiota is an indirect contributor to the degree to which serotonin is present in the brain. As serotonin is a fundamental neuro-transmitter at every signaling terminus of the gut–brain axis (O’Mahony et al. 2015), this is a consequential fact. Aberrances regarding TRYCATs are known to play a role in the onset and progression of depression, chronic fatigue syndrome, and somatoform disorder (Maes et al. 2007, 2011; Maes and Rief 2012), and aberrances in the levels of neurotoxic and immunomodulatory TRYCATs have been observed in several neurodegenerative and neuroimmune diseases (Morris et al. 2016).
As evidence regarding the impact of the human gut microbiota on the health of the gastrointestinal tract continues to grow, the significant correlation between these factors is becoming indisputable (Klose et al. 2010). Moreover, it is becoming clear that a highly responsive and mutual connection exists between the resident species of the gut microbiota and the host, primarily insofar as the host metabolome status is regulated by the microbiota locally and systemically (Zhang et al. 2015).
Disruptions to the human gut microbiota have widespread implications. For instance, they are associated with diseases external to the intestine, including the systemic immune system, the genital system, the central nervous system, and adipose tissues (Ciarlo et al. 2016)
A few years ago I decided to get serious about my many years of chronic obesity and started deep-dive studying nutrition science. I was appalled by the pervasive lack of scientific rigor in most nutrition science. Even widely accepted parts of public health policy, like the "food pyramid" that was preached to kids in elementary school, were based on shockingly weak observational studies with many uncontrolled confounding variables. Most of the "Large N" studies are based on "diary data." Essentially, asking people via written surveys to estimate what they typically eat and extrapolating that over years. Yeah, not kidding.
In short, I used to assume "nutrition science" was a somewhat rigorous field akin to biology or chemistry but discovered, for the most part, it's not. My N=1 experience has been that cutting out most carbs was tremendously effective for my metabolism type and I lost 85 pounds in 7 months without increased exercise. Since then I've kept it off for four years by sticking to a rigorous low-carb diet. It was difficult for the first few months but my palette and preferences adapted and now I plan to never go back. Eating low carb has the side benefit of cutting out most processed foods which may have helped improve my health. However, I don't recommend what I did for everyone because I've learned that metabolisms vary enough that what worked great for me may not work great for you. Instead, my advice is to do your own reading, develop hypotheses and experiment on yourself until you find a combination that works for your body, lifestyle and goals. Ultimately, weight loss is obviously a function of calories in vs calories out but in practice there are different ways of achieving the necessary caloric deficit. For me, low carb worked because it altered my blood sugar-driven hunger cycle. In all my years of failed dieting I'd never tried cutting carbs before cutting calories. Turns out it's much easier to cut calories when you're not hungry!
It's even worse in fact. The Food Pyramid was originally developed by the US Department of Agriculture, and then edited by the Secretary of Agriculture's Office, which represent the interests of the farming industry. USDA nutritionists initially made some healthier recommendations, but were overruled to cater for farmer's interests.
Here's an excerpt from an essay by Luise Light, one of the USDA nutritionists who's recommendations were rewritten:
"Back in the early ‘80s, I was the leader of a group of top-level nutritionists with the USDA who developed the eating guide that became known as the Food Guide Pyramid.
Carefully reviewing the research on nutrient recommendations, disease prevention, documented dietary shortfalls and major health problems of the population, we submitted the final version of our new Food Guide to the Secretary of Agriculture.
When our version of the Food Guide came back to us revised, we were shocked to find that it was vastly different from the one we had developed. As I later discovered, the wholesale changes made to the guide by the Office of the Secretary of Agriculture were calculated to win the acceptance of the food industry. For instance, the Ag Secretary’s office altered wording to emphasize processed foods over fresh and whole foods, to downplay lean meats and low-fat dairy choices because the meat and milk lobbies believed it’d hurt sales of full-fat products; it also hugely increased the servings of wheat and other grains to make the wheat growers happy. The meat lobby got the final word on the color of the saturated fat/cholesterol guideline which was changed from red to purple because meat producers worried that using red to signify “bad” fat would be linked to red meat in consumers’ minds.
Where we, the USDA nutritionists, called for a base of 5-9 servings of fresh fruits and vegetables a day, it was replaced with a paltry 2-3 servings (changed to 5-7 servings a couple of years later because an anti-cancer campaign by another government agency, the National Cancer Institute, forced the USDA to adopt the higher standard). Our recommendation of 3-4 daily servings of whole-grain breads and cereals was changed to a whopping 6-11 servings forming the base of the Food Pyramid as a concession to the processed wheat and corn industries. Moreover, my nutritionist group had placed baked goods made with white flour — including crackers, sweets and other low-nutrient foods laden with sugars and fats — at the peak of the pyramid, recommending that they be eaten sparingly. To our alarm, in the “revised” Food Guide, they were now made part of the Pyramid’s base. And, in yet one more assault on dietary logic, changes were made to the wording of the dietary guidelines from “eat less” to “avoid too much,” giving a nod to the processed-food industry interests by not limiting highly profitable “fun foods” (junk foods by any other name) that might affect the bottom line of food companies."
You got the story right but the details wrong. The food pyramid and medical advice has pushed low fatx high carb and completely ignores the 50x volume increase of omega6s through seed oils.
The industry lied about grains and sugars, largely based on a faulty Ancel Keys study and promoted by a bunch of corporations like Kelloggs, led by 7th Day Adventists, who thought meat created "impure thoughts". It was bad science, financial corruption and religious ignorance all wrapped in one.
That is one kind of study. There are also studies that measure the amounts of nutrients, or their byproducts, excreted by study subjects. These usually have small study populations or are restricted to hospital patients etc. There are also in vitro studies or in-vivo interventional studies that are most commonly conducted on animal models, like the study in the article.
So like you say, many of the studies that have the largest populations are questionnaire studies, or have populations that are not very representative of the general population. But it's very difficult, if not impossible in practice, to do any other kind of study on a large population, because it's very difficult to observe what a few thousand people eat day-in, day-out. The logistics of such a study would be absolutely mad.
The results of such large-scale diary studies do not have great statistical power, but you are not right to say that there is a "pervasive lack of scientific rigor". A study can be rigorous while having low statistical power. Neither does a study absolutely need to conduct double-blind RCTs to be considered rigorous. For example, cosmologists cannot conduct experiments on black holes. Anyway "rigor" is not well-defined, whereas statistical power is an objective measure that can be calculated from the elements of a study. Whether this is done right is another matter and it depends on the study, but nutrition science is not exceptional in this.
Btw, I'm not a nutritional scientist. But I hear your complain often and while I understand your frustration, I think you're allowing the perfect to be the enemy of the good. We know some things about nutrition, many with low certainty. But, what are we going to do? Ignore all the knowledge and evidence we have because it's not as much or as good as we'd like, and instead ignore the important questions about the food we eat?
Edit: another thing I've noticed is that your comment accuses nutritional science of not being rigorous but at the same time it freely uses concepts from nutritional science, such as "carbohydrates" and "calories". Even grouping foods together in particular groups like "carbs" is a practice that comes from nutritional science. And nutritional science will certainly tell you that carbohydrates are high-energy foods that can cause weight gain if eaten in excess. So you, too, must accept that there is something in the work of nutritional scientsts that is useful to you. In that case, if I were you (if I was trying to adress some problems in the way I eat that is) I'd be very careful not to allow myself to selectively pick only those parts of nutritional science I like, and dismiss all the rest as "sloppy science". It's important to be aware that we all have very strong confirmation biases when it comes to food (me, for example, I make cheese so I'll never, ever believe it can be bad for you).
OMG PROCESSED FOOD CAUSES BONE PROBLEMS </s>
They even avoided including cheese, to increase the size of the calcium deficiency.
One could contrive a "zero processed food" study that yielded identical results.
It is just this vauge idea, "no you know what I mean by processed foods, the bad stuff, stuff in a package". Raw carrots come in a package, are they bad? "no the bad stuff".... so bad food is bad, ok.
If I state "processed foods" I typically mean anything factory made that contains seed oils (cotton seed, sunflower, soybean, canola, etc)
I would throw most sweets into this as well.
Its essentially middle aisle food at the grocery store that is more recognizable as a brand name on a box rather than a plant, animal or dairy product.
Food is complex and people try to find simple rules that prevents us from not consuming a ton of stuff that's not good for us.
Indeed, what many people here are missing is that 'processed' isn't a scientific category, it's an ideological one.
But as far as nutritional advice goes - it's difficult to convey with any brevity or any precision, the plethora of substances added to food due to industrial process that are bad for human health, especially in the long term.
If you're to build a diet and do-able meal plan, shopping plan, and recipe/cooking/prep plan around food, it's easier to just state "processed"/middle-aisle/high-seed-oil/food-in-a-box.
or more simply, focus more on the white list of haves rather than the long list of things you shouldn't - produce, dairy, grass fed/antibiotic meat, pasture raised eggs and light on the whole grains . '
general conversation of "processed foods" evokes this contrary response that seems, frankly, to justify the consumption of Velveeta Shells and Cheese, fast food, Cheese-its, Doritos, and soda. Unless you're running a study that requires precision, this level of autist specificity isn't practically helpful.
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/processed-foods...
Unprocessed or minimally processed foods
Unprocessed foods include the natural edible food parts of plants and animals. Minimally processed foods have been slightly altered for the main purpose of preservation but which does not substantially change the nutritional content of the food. Examples include cleaning and removing inedible or unwanted parts, grinding, refrigeration, pasteurization, fermentation, freezing, and vacuum-packaging. This allows the food to be stored for a greater amount of time and remain safe to eat. Many fresh fruits, vegetables, whole grains, nuts, meats, and milk fall into this category.
Processed culinary ingredients
Food ingredients derived from a minimally processed food by pressing, refining, grinding, or milling. They are typically not eaten on their own but used to prepare minimally processed foods. Examples include oils from plants, seeds, and nuts, or flour and pastas formed from whole grains.
Processed foods
Foods from either of the two previous groups that have added salt, sugar, or fats. Some canned fruits and vegetables, some cheeses, freshly made bread, and canned fish are examples. These foods usually are made from at least 2-3 ingredients and can be readily eaten without further preparation.
Ultra-processed foods
Also commonly referred to as “highly processed foods,” these are foods from the prior group that go beyond the incorporation of salt, sweeteners, or fat to include artificial colors and flavors and preservatives that promote shelf stability, preserve texture, and increase palatability. Several processing steps using multiple ingredients comprise the ultra-processed food. It is speculated that these foods are designed to specifically increase cravings so that people will overeat them and purchase more. They are typically ready-to-eat with minimal additional preparation. Not all but some of these foods tend to be low in fiber and nutrients. Examples are sugary drinks, cookies, some crackers, chips, and breakfast cereals, some frozen dinners, and luncheon meats. These foods may partially if not completely replace minimally processed foods in some people’s diets. One study using data from the U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey found that ultra-processed foods comprised about 60% of total calories in the U.S. diet. [4] An association has been suggested between the increasing sales of ultra-processed foods and the rise in obesity. [3]
My rule of thumb is that "processed food" is the food cooked in one's kitchen, made from base ingredients with added salt, fat or sugar. "Ultra processed food" is the stuff that is not normally made in a kitchen, but in a factory.
n=1 applies to you ya know.
People don't come to weigh 350lbs eating vegetables daily.
The most redeeming ingredient in a burger, fries, and soda combo is the meat patty.