This question has been answered
Question

This short report will use information from the two sources to answer

the following questions: • What is "ultra-processed" food? • Why is ultra-processed food bad? • What are some challenges that families face in avoiding ultra-processed food? includes a clear topic sentence / statement of purpose.
Can Home Cooking Reverse the Obesity Epidemic?
A new book argues that for many families with limited time and money, avoiding processed food is not a realistic option.








Credit...


Getty Images




By Anahad O'Connor

-June 12, 2019
-457Many nutrition experts blame processed foods for the obesity epidemic, suggesting that a return to home cooking would turn it around. But now some researchers are pushing back against that idea, arguing that it oversimplifies the obstacles that poor and middle-class families face.
The case against processed foods has been growing. A flurry of studies last month provided new evidence that these foods, which are typically loaded with salt, sugar, fat and chemical additives, heighten the risk of obesity and chronic disease.
Scientists at the National Institutes of Health found that people ate more calories and quickly gained weight on a diet of mostly ultra-processed foods like frozen entrees, diet beverages, fruit juices, pastries, baked potato chips, canned foods and processed meats. Then a pair of large studies in the journal BMJ showed that people who ate significant amounts of these foods had increased mortality rates and cardiovascular disease compared to people who avoided them.
These findings and others prompted health experts — including Dr. Francis Collins, the director of the N.I.H. — to urge Americans to limit their intake of ultra-processed foods. But that might be easier said than done. Highly processed foods have become the dominant food source for many Americans, accounting for almost 60 percent of the calories we eat. Americans across the socioeconomic spectrum consume them in increasing amounts. But studies show that their intake is highest among low-income families. Many households depend on them because they are cheap, convenient and, in some cases, their only option.
ADVERTISEMENT
Continue reading the main story






This link between poverty and processed foods is illustrated in a new book, "Pressure Cooker: Why Home Cooking Won't Solve Our Problems and What We Can Do about It," written by three sociologists who study food, families and inequality. The authors — Sarah Bowen, Joslyn Brenton and Sinikka Elliott — studied 168 poor and middle-class families in North Carolina, a state where one in three adults is obese and one in 10 has diabetes. The researchers followed the families for up to five years and profiled some of them in depth, spending hundreds of hours visiting them in their homes and observing them as they shopped, prepared meals and went about their lives.
Their research challenges the notion, repeated by many nutrition experts, that Americans can reclaim their health and reverse the obesity epidemic if only they would ditch processed foods, get back into the kitchen and make healthy meals from scratch. While that will work for some people, Dr. Bowen and her colleagues argue that it is not a realistic solution for families that have limited time and money. Nor is it necessarily an accurate perception: National surveys show that 48 percent of Americans cook dinner six or seven nights a week, and another 44 percent of people cook two to five nights a week. The data show that low-income families spend more time cooking than wealthier families, and they consume less fast food than middle-class households.

-Unlock more free articles.

But the researchers found that many families faced an array of obstacles to healthy eating. Some of the families they studied lived in food deserts, far from a decent grocery store, and had to spend hours riding a bus to buy groceries or ask friends and relatives for a ride. Many would run out of money at the end of the month and look for ways to stretch what little food they had. Some did not have reliable stoves and refrigerators, or they lacked pots and pans and other basic kitchen tools. Others turned to their local food pantries, which provide a lot of processed foods that are shelf-stable but high in sodium, sugar and other additives, like breakfast cereals, pasta, crackers, packaged snacks, and canned meats and soups.
With so many hurdles in their way, the researchers found, working class families would often shy away from foods that cost more, spoil quickly or require a lot of preparation, and instead turn to things that they could cook easily, store for a long time and stretch into numerous meals.
"If you're strapped for cash and running out of food every month like a lot of families did in our study, the cheapest thing you can buy is ramen, hot dogs and boxed macaroni and cheese," said Dr. Bowen, an associate professor of sociology at North Carolina State University. "We asked everyone in our study what would you buy if you had more money to spend on food, and the most common answer was: 'Fresh fruit for our kids.'"
Editors' Picks


'The Good Lord Bird' Is Good TV. But Mix Art and Slavery at Your Peril.


Fancy Cars, Fine Dining, Creator Mansions, Cash: Triller Is Shelling Out for Talent


How President Trump Ruined Political Comedy
Continue reading the main story






ADVERTISEMENT
Continue reading the main story




According to federal data, 
about 15 million households in America suffer from food insecurity, meaning they do not have enough food to meet their needs. One family profiled in the book — a mother, her two young children and their grandmother — moved into a dilapidated hotel room after they were evicted from their home. The grandmother spends her days watching the children while their mother goes out looking for work. The family gets by with help from food stamps, Medicaid and vouchers that they receive through the Women, Infants and Children program, or WIC. They have no dinner table or even a kitchen. Instead they gather on a bed and eat meals that can be prepared in a microwave, like frozen pizzas.
Another challenge faced by families is that they lack time. About one in six people in the work force have unstable work schedules, and it is not just poor households.
Working parents and professionals across the socioeconomic spectrum report feeling overworked, stressed, tired and eager to find more time to spend with their families. When time is limited, many forgo making healthy meals from scratch at the end of a long day so they can read to their children or help them with their homework.
"Families from all walks of life are trying very hard," said Dr. Elliott, an assistant professor of sociology at the University of British Columbia. "They're doing a lot of cooking, and they're still either feeling like it's not enough or they're just coming up against these larger constraints in their lives that make it hard to cook the way that they would like or to assemble their family around the dinner table."
There are no easy answers. But the researchers say what is needed are policies that better support families, like universal child care, paid parental leave, a higher minimum wage and sick leave. Employers can help by changing the culture of work so that parents can leave in time to pick their kids up at school, spend time with them at home, and still have time to prepare healthy dinners, Dr. Bowen said.
Another solution they propose: Lawmakers can fund universal free lunch programs in schools, which is where many kids get a lot of their daily meals. Making school meals free and nutritious would go a long way to help families.
"The bottom line of what we found is that families are stretched thin and they're up against a lot," said Dr. Elliott. "Our big message is that if we really value healthy families, then we need to figure out ways to support them."
Anahad O'Connor is a staff reporter covering health, science, nutrition and other topics. He is also a bestselling author of consumer health books such as "Never Shower in a Thunderstorm" and "The 10 Things You Need to Eat." 
A version of this article appears in print on June 18, 2019, Section D, Page 6 of the New York edition with the headline: Of Home Cooking and Obesity. Order Reprints | Today's Paper | Subscribe.
Over the past 70 years, ultra-processed foods have come to dominate the U.S. diet. These are foods made from cheap industrial ingredients and engineered to be super-tasty and generally high in fat, sugar and salt.
The rise of ultra-processed foods has coincided with growing rates of obesity, leading many to suspect that they've played a big role in our growing waistlines. But is it something about the highly processed nature of these foods itself that drives people to overeat? A new study suggests the answer is yes.
The study, conducted by researchers at the National Institutes of Health, is the first randomized, controlled trial to show that eating a diet made up of ultra-processed foods actually drives people to overeat and gain weight compared with a diet made up of whole or minimally processed foods. Study participants on the ultra-processed diet ate an average of 508 calories more per day and ended up gaining an average of 2 pounds over a two-week period. People on the unprocessed diet, meanwhile, ended up losing about 2 pounds on average over a two-week period.
Article continues after sponsor message


"The difference in weight gain for one [group] and weight loss for the other during these two periods is phenomenal. We haven't seen anything like this," says Barry Popkin, a nutrition professor at the University of North Carolina who has studied the role of ultra-processed foods in the American diet but was not involved in the current research.
Dariush Mozaffarian, dean of Tufts University's Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy, agrees that the findings are striking. He says what was so impressive was that the NIH researchers documented this weight gain even though each meal offered on the two different diets contained the same total amount of calories, fats, protein, sugar, salt, carbohydrates and fiber. Study participants were allowed to eat as much or as little as they wanted but ended up eating way more of the ultra-processed meals, even though they didn't rate those meals as being tastier than the unprocessed meals.
"These are landmark findings that the processing of the foods makes a huge difference in how much a person eats," says Mozaffarian. That's important, because the majority of foods now sold in the U.S. — and increasingly, around the globe — are ultra-processed.
And ultra-processed foods include more than just the obvious suspects, like chips, candy, packaged desserts and ready-to-eat meals. The category also includes foods that some consumers might find surprising, including Honey Nut Cheerios and other breakfast cereals, packaged white bread, jarred sauces, yogurt with added fruit, and frozen sausages and other reconstituted meat products. Popkin says ultra-processed foods usually contain a long list of ingredients, many of them made in labs. So, for example, instead of seeing "apples" listed on a food label, you might get additives that re-create the scent of that fruit. These are foods designed to be convenient and low cost and require little preparation.
The new research, which appears in the journal Cell Metabolism, was led by Kevin Hall, a senior scientist at the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Hall says he was surprised by his findings, because many people have suspected that it is the high salt, sugar and fat content in ultra-processed foods that drives people to gain weight. But "when you match the diets for all of those nutrients, something about the ultra-processed foods still drives this big effect on calorie intake," Hall says.
To conduct the study, Hall and his colleagues recruited 20 healthy, stable-weight adults — 10 men and 10 women — to live in an NIH facility for a four-week period. All their meals were provided for them.
Participants were randomly assigned to one of two diets for two-week stretches: One group was fed an unprocessed diet full of whole or minimally processed foods like stir-fried beef with vegetables, basmati rice and orange slices. The other group ate an ultra-processed diet of meals like chicken salad made with canned chicken, jarred mayonnaise and relish on white bread, served with canned peaches in heavy syrup. When the two weeks were up, the groups were then assigned to the opposite diet plan.


THE SALT
Is 'Natural Flavor' Healthier Than 'Artificial Flavor'?
Even though the study was small, it was also highly controlled. Researchers knew exactly how many macronutrients and calories participants were eating — and burning, because they took detailed metabolic measurements. The scientists tracked other health markers too, including blood glucose levels and even hormone levels. Hall notes that because participants were housed and closely monitored for weeks in a specialized metabolic ward, these kinds of studies are extremely difficult and expensive to carry out. But the study design also makes the findings that much more significant, Popkin and Mozaffarian both say.
"Putting people in a controlled setting and giving them their food lets you really understand biologically what's going on, and the differences are striking," says Mozaffarian.
Previous studies have linked an ultra-processed diet to weight gain and poor health outcomes, like an increased risk for several cancers and early death from all causes. But these studies were observational, which means they can't show that ultra-processed foods caused these outcomes, only that they are correlated.
Hall says the new study wasn't designed to see what exactly it is about ultra-processed foods that drives overeating, but the findings do suggest some mechanisms.
"One thing that was kind of intriguing was that some of the hormones that are involved in food intake regulation were quite different between the two diets as compared to baseline," Hall says.
For example, when the participants were eating the unprocessed diet, they had higher levels of an appetite-suppressing hormone called PYY, which is secreted by the gut, and lower levels of ghrelin, a hunger hormone, which might explain why they ate fewer calories. On the ultra-processed diet, these hormonal changes flipped, so participants had lower levels of the appetite-suppressing hormone and higher levels of the hunger hormone.
Another interesting finding: Both groups ate about the same amount of protein, but those on the ultra-processed diet ate a lot more carbs and fat. There is a concept, called the protein leverage hypothesis, that suggests that people will eat until they've met their protein needs. Hall says that this seems to be the case in this study and it partially explains the difference in calorie consumption they found. Even though the meals were matched for calories and nutrients, including protein, the ultra-processed meals were more calorie dense per bite. In part, that's because ultra-processed foods tend to be low in fiber, so researchers had to add fiber to the beverages served as part of these meals to match the fiber content of the unprocessed diet. That means participants on the ultra-processed diet might have had to munch through more carbs and fat to hit their protein needs.
And one last finding of note: People ate much faster — both in terms of grams per minute and calories per minute — on the ultra-processed diet. Hall says it might be that, because the ultra-processed foods tended to be softer and easier to chew, people devoured them more quickly, so they didn't give their gastrointestinal tracts enough time to signal to their brains that they were full and ended up overeating.
Hall says his findings have implications for the diet wars — vegan versus low-carb or low-fat diets. "They all have something in common. ... Proponents of healthy versions of those diets suggest that people cut out ultra-processed foods." He says that this elimination might account for at least part of the success that people have on these diets.
Popkin says the take-home message for consumers is, "We should try to eat as much real food as we can. That can be plant food. It can be animal food. It can be [unprocessed] beef, pork, chicken, fish or vegetables and fruits. And one has to be very careful once one begins to go into other kinds of food."
But Popkin says the findings also present a challenge for the global food industry: how to preserve the convenience, abundance and low cost of food without sacrificing health. "Let's see if they can produce ultra-processed food that's healthy and that won't be so seductive and won't make us eat so much extra," he says. "But they haven't yet."

Answered by Expert Tutors
This short report will use information from the two sources to answer the following questions: What is 'ultra-processed' food? Why is ultra-processed...
Get unstuck

378,310 students got unstuck by Course
Hero in the last week

step by step solutions

Our Expert Tutors provide step by step solutions to help you excel in your courses