The Global Obesity Epidemic

[dann]

I read it.

What was your take away?

I made my take very clear: "No, they don't have blinders and dark shades on just because they don't accept your pretty one-dimensional explanation.
Nobody has claimed that crappy food is good. I mention it all the time, in particular when pointing at the difference between the rich and the poor in this respect, i.e. obesity, but why ignore the other environmental factors I mentioned in post 510? "stress, sedentary work, processed foods, additives, other chemicals (e.g. flame retardants).""

The title was " Unanswered Questions.. " after all.

Yes, it was. It's how science progresses. Some questions are answered. Others aren't, and new questions pop up.

It had strange stuff in it, like:

Although people with obesity are less active, they do not spend less total energy on activity.

What does that mean?

I assume that it means that an obese person climbing the stairs or riding a bike spends more energy doing so than somebody who is not overweight. I know how wearing a heavy backpack while doing those things makes me spend more energy.

What advances?

Advances in the study of the causes of obesity, obviously:

By building on the considerable advances made in the past 50 years, the study of the causes of obesity promises to be a rich area for discovery that may be transformative for the lives of millions of people. Improving our understanding of environmental drivers and how these interact with genetic composition is vital to making future inroads to this serious medical condition.

Physical activity and dietary choices are personal choices.

Of course, it's more complicated than just making a good choice.

Children don't have a choice about what's brought to the table or how much they are encouraged to be physically active, and they grow up to pass bad choices on down to the next generation, while they are continuously bombarded with flashy propaganda about " The Real Thing, Having it Their Way, Deserving a Break Today and how Finger Licking Good " it is.

Sometimes children pass bad choice on to the next generation. Sometimes they don't. Sometimes society changes infrastructure and access to food in ways that makes it convenient for people to exercise more or eat healthier. Or the opposite. Sometimes societies even make it impossible to get hold of foodstuffs that used to kill people. I don't see any consumers demanding that hydrogenated fats be brought back. (If I did, I would suspect that it was astroturfing.) Eating that **** was a choice made for them by industry.

People's good or bad choices depend on things like that. The "personal choices" you can make as a rich person concerning exercise and diet are obviously different from the ones you can make if you are poor. The level of stress you are exposed to also differs.

 

[dann]

A post in another (old) thread, the one about fat-shaming, just occurred to be. It is a great example of how infrastructure impacts the obesity pandemic - positively or negatively. And the post is mainly based on an article in a U.S. newspaper!

 

[Planigale]

A post in another (old) thread, the one about fat-shaming, just occurred to be. It is a great example of how infrastructure impacts the obesity pandemic - positively or negatively. And the post is mainly based on an article in a U.S. newspaper!

The best put down ever!

As a medical student I saw an elderly Jewish man as a patient, he had type 2 diabetes, circulatory problems and bad breathing; i commented that he should lose some weight, he replied,

"You know my dear, I have been fat all my life even in Belsen i was chubby, I'm not going to change now."

I did glance at his arm then, where there was an old faint tattoo.

Not sure where this gets us with the environment vs. genetics argument.

 

[dann]

It sounds incredible.
Did he mention if he was on the kitchen staff in Belsen?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

An interesting story but says little about why The worldwide prevalence of obesity nearly tripled between 1975 and 2016.

Here are some numbers for the USA.

You have to dig, but the genetic information is there, and significant.

Our genes account for somewhere between 40-70% of the likelihood of having obesity.

That's a bigger number than I would have suspected, but...

We inherit our genes from our parents, and it has been estimated that 40-70% of our chance of having obesity is due to our genes. There have now been hundreds of genes identified which can contribute to the risk of obesity. Most of these genes by themselves have a small effect, but when combined can significantly increase the risk for obesity. While our genes play a fundamental role in influencing our risk for obesity, how our genes interact with our environment can impact this risk, in both good and bad ways. While our genes influence our risk for obesity; the impact of their contribution can be modified by environmental factors such as our lifestyle habits.

I find it hard to believe that genes would have trumped the environment at Belsen for the average inmate..

What do they say about processed food?

Processed food, now seen across the globe, is contributing to the rapid rise in obesity

Most notably, there has been a significant increase in processed foods which are widely available, calorie-dense, nutrient-poor, affordable and heavily promoted. The desirable taste and textures of processed foods, combined with the appealing packaging and extensive marketing, are associated with brain appetitive control systems that increase appetite, food motivation, and food reward value and can result in increased food intake. Typically, processed foods are also much cheaper than more nutritionally beneficial and unprocessed foods which further displaces healthy food consumption, especially in more disadvantaged populations.

The obesity epidemic has emerged in the last 40 years, and mirrors these changes in the food environment. Once associated with Western diets, the increase in processed foods is now seen in many low- and middle-income countries and is undermining local diets and contributing to the rapid rise in obesity.

 

[dann]

I assume it's a rhetorical question, but since you ask what they say about processed foods, their answer is that it is contributing to the rapid rise in obesity.
Contributing!

Besides, they also "aim to increase understanding of the role of physical activity and exercise in obesity and weight management. The dossier will also explore global recommendations and country-specific case studies on policies and interventions that have been or should be implemented to increase physical activity."

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Where do you think the focus should be?

I avoided this earlier because it alludes to CICO, which seems to be controversial and over-simplistic.

What causes obesity? In its simplest sense, the body gains fat when it stores excess energy, and this excess energy arises from consuming more food energy than is burnt in physiological metabolism.

...and

...in some cases it may be a genetic disorder but in most cases it arises from living in an environment that allows and encourages low levels of physical activity, extended sedentary behaviour and plentiful consumption of food, especially food rich in energy (e.g. in the form of fats, oils, sugars and starches).

How do you convince people to move more and eat less ( high calorie, nutritionally defecient, processed foods.)?

 

[angrysoba]

Where do you think the focus should be?

I avoided this earlier because it alludes to CICO, which seems to be controversial and over-simplistic.



...and






How do you convince people to move more and eat less ( high calorie, nutritionally defecient, processed foods.)?

CICO is not remotely controversial. You have a calorie surplus, you will put on weight. A calorie deficit, you will lose weight.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

CICO is not remotely controversial. You have a calorie surplus, you will put on weight. A calorie deficit, you will lose weight.

I don't disagree. It seems to put some people in a tizzy when discussed here, so I was being preemptive.

 

[dann]

Where do you think the focus should be?

Why are you so adamant that there should be one focus only?

I avoided this earlier because it alludes to CICO, which seems to be controversial and over-simplistic.

I don't think it's controversial. It can't be. But it is over-simplistic because CICO doesn't explain why people consume more energy than they burn, i.e. appetite. Ignoring the (usually) very physiological phenomenon of appetite as a regulator leads some people blame obesity on lack of willpower. It explains how people get fat (as physics), but it ignores why people get fat (dysfunctional appetite). In other words, CICO pretends to explain obesity, but doesn't.

...and

...in some cases it may be a genetic disorder but in most cases it arises from living in an environment that allows and encourages low levels of physical activity, extended sedentary behaviour and plentiful consumption of food, especially food rich in energy (e.g. in the form of fats, oils, sugars and starches).

Why do you present a quotation mentioning "low levels of physical activity, extended sedentary behaviour and plentiful consumption of food, especially food rich in energy ..." and then hilite only one of them?
I could understand it if somebody had denied or ignored that processed foods play an important role in obesity, but I haven't seen anybody do so in this thread.

How do you convince people to move more and eat less ( high calorie, nutritionally defecient, processed foods.)?

I have mentioned several times, in this and other threads, how you make people move more! I have also mentioned several times that the ban (yes, an actual ban!) on trans fats removed that **** from the shelves. There were no protests from consumers (they hardly noticed!), and consumers weren't the ones who had demanded that it be added to the stuff they eat in the first place. And industry complied. It wasn't that big a deal anyway. Trans fats had just been slightly more convenient for the processed-food industry.

So people didn't have to decide between the two options: Do I buy the bread that clogs up my arteries and gives me a heart attack or do I buy the bread that doesn't and tastes exactly the same?

I recently posted this in the climate thread. It's not about obesity, but ...

Uddannelsesinstitutioner siger farvel til oksekød i kantinen (DR.dk, Sep 8, 2023)
Educational institutions in Denmark will no longer serve beef, which is allegedly responsible for 55 percent of CO₂ emissions from food consumed by Danes.

In general, people are not the ones who demand unhealthy (or environmentally harmful) options, unless we are talking about something they have already become addicted to (like tobacco).
There aren't usually many protest when canteens switch to healthier options. If it happens, then it's usually for political reasons, like when some Danish kindergartens didn't want to serve pork for the sake of children from Muslim families! That one really got the Danish racists all riled up, almost to MAGA levels! I am pretty sure that if they had said that they would start serving chicken instead of pork because it's cheaper and healthier, it would have upset nobody (except for the pig farmers, probably.)

My point is that I disagree with your question: Often, it is not about convincing people to move more and eat less the same way that it wasn't about convincing people to stop eating stuff with trans fats. Often it's a question that can be solved by nudging: By making it convenient and attractive to move more and eat less ****** food. As it is, some people don't have much of a choice. And the ones who do, rich people, aren't usually the ones who don't exercise and don't eat healthy food.

I have already mentioned one way of making exercise convenient and attractive. There are many others, but poor people rarely have access to them. Healthy food usually tastes better than unhealthy food. Rich people know that because they have access to it, both financially and locationally. Poor people often don't, which is how 'convenience' food can turn into a habit of choice. (But accessibility, financially and locationally, is s precondition of changing the habit.)

So make healthy food convenient and convenience food inconvenient. I don't think ordinary consumers will be the problem, but industry no doubt will be, and they will try to make their consternation (i.e. endangered profits) seem to be coming from the people. They are very good at that!

 

[Skeptical Greg]

I could understand it if somebody had denied or ignored that processed foods play an important role in obesity, but I haven't seen anybody do so in this thread.

Funny, that's what you seem to be pushing back on and minimizing when I mention it.

I believe the processed foods are at the heart of the problem.
Their increased consumption over the last 60 or so years mirrors the problem.

However, it is a cat that would be difficult to put back in the bag.

 

[bigred]

Nah. Bad diets and lack of exercise in general are the problem, and both are fed (pardon the pun) by bad attitudes. This is being made much more complicated than it is IMO.

 

[angrysoba]

Nah. Bad diets and lack of exercise in general are the problem, and both are fed (pardon the pun) by bad attitudes. This is being made much more complicated than it is IMO.

Okay, so all we need to do, as a society, is eat more healthily, exercise more and have better attitudes.

Glad that’s fixed.

 

[dann]

Funny, that's what you seem to be pushing back on and minimizing when I mention it.

I believe the processed foods are at the heart of the problem.
Their increased consumption over the last 60 or so years mirrors the problem.

However, it is a cat that would be difficult to put back in the bag.

It seems so to you because you have been pushing processed foods as the one and only cause of obesity:

As has been mentioned before, the problem is the availability of cheap, calorie dense, nutritionally lacking, grain and sugar based processed foods.

I assume that this is also the reason why you objected to an article that described how the problem of obesity is much more complicated than your one-dimensional explanation.

 

[dann]

An interesting story but says little about why The worldwide prevalence of obesity nearly tripled between 1975 and 2016.

But it appears to have started much earlier, at least in Denmark:

Tal fra mellemkrigsårene viser, at der allerede dengang var en stigning i antallet af mennesker med overvægt, viser nyt dansk studie.
I et nyt studie, der netop er udgivet i tidsskriftet Scientific Advances, beskriver et dansk forskerhold, at tendensen begyndte flere årtier før 1970’erne.
»Vi kan se, at der sker en gradvis forhøjelse i BMI hos de mest overvægtige allerede fra 1930’erne,« fortæller Thorkild Sørensen, der er medforfatter på det nye studie, og som de seneste 50 år har forsket i overvægt.
»Det, vi kalder fedmeepidemien, udviklede sig meget tidligere og på en anden måde, end vi regnede med. Vi har før troet, at der skete et slags boom i 1970’erne, men nu kan vi se, at det har taget tilløb i den tungeste fjerdedel af befolkningen i mange år før det.«
Epidemien med overvægt begyndte, længe før fjernsyn og burgere kom til Danmark. (Videnskab.dk, Sep 13, 2023)

Numbers from the years between WW1 and WW2 show that there was already an increase in the number of overweight people, according to a new Danish study.
In a new study, which has just been published in the journal Scientific Advances, a Danish research team describes that the trend began several decades before the 1970s.
"We can see that there is a gradual increase in the BMI of the most obese as early as the 1930s," says Thorkild Sørensen, who is co-author of the new study and has been researching obesity for the past 50 years.
"What we call the obesity epidemic started much earlier and in a different way than we expected. We used to think that there was a kind of boom in the 1970s, but now we can see that it has taken hold in the heaviest quarter of the population many years earlier than that."
The obesity epidemic began a long time before TV and burgers came to Denmark

Emergence of the obesity epidemic preceding the presumed obesogenic transformation of the society (ScienceAdvances, Sep 13, 2023)

I wonder if they still have blood or tissue samples from people back then. It would be interesting to see what kind of chemicals they were exposed to. They may not have had burgers and TV back then, but "Margarine made from partially hydrogenated soybean oil began to replace butterfat. Partially hydrogenated fat such as Crisco and Spry, sold in England, began to replace butter and lard in baking bread, pies, cookies, and cakes in 1920." (Trans fat: History, Wiki)
And there's Tetraethyllead in fuel (Wiki):

In 1924, Standard Oil of New Jersey (ESSO/EXXON) and General Motors created the Ethyl Gasoline Corporation to produce and market TEL. Deepwater, New Jersey, across the river from Wilmington, was the site for production of some of DuPont's most important chemicals, particularly TEL. After TEL production at the Bayway Refinery was shut down, Deepwater was the only plant in the Western hemisphere producing TEL up to 1948, when it accounted for the bulk of the Dupont/Deepwater's production.

ETA: I remember my aunt (born 1916) using an awful lot of margarine. She was a nurse, treating patients in their homes, bicycling from patient to patient. She never got fat, but my uncle, who was much less physically active, did.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

A little news to brighten your day..

Heart disease is the number one cause of death in the US, but if that's not enough:

Heart disease deaths linked to obesity have tripled in 20 years, study found: ‘Increasing burden’

MORE THAN HALF THE WORLD'S POPULATION WILL BE OBESE OR OVERWEIGHT BY 2035, SAYS NEW REPORT

The authors pointed out that they're not blaming anyone — but are "calling for a focus on the societal, environmental and biological factors involved in the conditions," as Reuters noted.

No matter what, we must not blame anyone or anything..

Let's see how that works out as a solution.

 

[Orphia Nay]

A little news to brighten your day..

Heart disease is the number one cause of death in the US, but if that's not enough:

Heart disease deaths linked to obesity have tripled in 20 years, study found: ‘Increasing burden’

The authors pointed out that they're not blaming anyone — but are "calling for a focus on the societal, environmental and biological factors involved in the conditions," as Reuters noted.

No matter what, we must not blame anyone or anything..

Let's see how that works out as a solution.

Mustn't blame anything?

I hilighted the bit you ignored.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Yes, lets focus on those things.

Where does cheap, calorie dense, nutritionally deficient processed foods fall into those categories?

All of them?

 

[dann]

Where does COVID-19 fall into those categories?

Nearly 100,000 more people with cardiovascular disease than expected have died since the start of the pandemic in England, according to our analysis published today.
It means that, on average, there have been over 500 additional deaths a week involving cardiovascular disease, since the pandemic began.

There are likely many contributing factors, including extreme and widespread pressure on NHS services and Covid-19.

There have been more excess deaths involving cardiovascular conditions than any other disease groups in this analysis – a total of 96,540 since 21st March 2020, the analysis of data from the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities (OHID) finds.
Nearly 100,000 more deaths involving heart conditions and stroke than usual since pandemic began (BritishHeartFoundation, June 22, 2023)

COVID-19 Surges Linked to Spike in Heart Attacks (Cedars-Sinai, Oct 24, 2022)
TODAY: Young People Are More Likely to Die of Heart Attacks Post-COVID, Study Finds. But Why? (Cedars-Sinai, Mar 3, 2023)

Is there any reason to focus on one cause of heart disease and ignore all others?!

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Where does obesity fall into the category of COVID-19 related deaths?

CDC study finds about 78% of people hospitalized for Covid were overweight or obese

 

[dann]

Yes, so what's your point in the context?
It is no surprise that obesity helps clog the arteries. So does C-19. Each one of those two things can lead to cardiac arrest on its own. In combination, even more so.

In other words, more than one thing can cause heart disease, and more than one thing can cause obesity.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

The topic is the global obesity epidemic.

Why are more people becoming more obese all over the globe?
Obesity doesn't cause heart disease or COVID-19 but it does exacerbate them.

Without obesity, fewer people would die of both of those things.

Obesity also contributes to kidney, liver failure and other problems.

Obesity IS the problem.

Obesity is the problem, and the driver of obesity is cheap, calorie dense, nutritionally deficient processed food.

The food processors disguise the problem as a solution to hunger and starvation, when in fact, obese people are starving and hungry.

Meanwhile the medical community is playing ignorant of what the problem is.

 

[8enotto]

Mexico rates high on national obesity numbers. Yet many here don't eat or even want highly processed food products.
Fresh fruits and vegetables aren't costly, in very few places are they difficult to source. Meanwhile one fast food meal can cost more than all the ingredients in a meal for a family.

It's in how it is prepared. Traditional recipes call for lots of grease and fatty meat type things in them. Tortillas are corn flour and lard. Mole is literally ground up dried chili peppers and grease.

It's long standing traditional food. A national heritage if you will.

Many suffer diabetes and have family members with it, they swore off sodas and drink plain water, or fresh fruits made into a drink without added sugar.
And still the obesity and related illness epidemic stays on. But don't you dare suggest another obvious source of the cause.

 

[Orphia Nay]

Yes, lets focus on those things.

Where does cheap, calorie dense, nutritionally deficient processed foods fall into those categories?

All of them?

Yes, but that doesn't mean it's the only cause of obesity.

Is that really what you're arguing?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Yes, but that doesn't mean it's the only cause of obesity.

Is that really what you're arguing?

Of course it's not the only cause anymore than gasoline is the only thing that makes an automobile engine work,
however, it is the one single thing that makes it possible.

The rise of the obesity epidemic coincides with the rise of widely available calorie dense, nutritionally deficient processed food.
It didn't rise with a dramatic change in genetics or culture or environmental change per se, even though those things become part of the vicious circle brought on by number one.

What do you think would happen if it were no longer so easily available?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Mexico rates high on national obesity numbers. Yet many here don't eat or even want highly processed food products.
Fresh fruits and vegetables aren't costly, in very few places are they difficult to source. Meanwhile one fast food meal can cost more than all the ingredients in a meal for a family.

It's in how it is prepared. Traditional recipes call for lots of grease and fatty meat type things in them. Tortillas are corn flour and lard. Mole is literally ground up dried chili peppers and grease.

It's long standing traditional food. A national heritage if you will. Many suffer diabetes and have family members with it, they swore off sodas and drink plain water, or fresh fruits made into a drink without added sugar.
And still the obesity and related illness epidemic stays on. But don't you dare suggest another obvious source of the cause.

How long has obesity been a problem in Mexico?

What is the correlation between rising obesity in Mexico and eating patterns?

 

[8enotto]

Obesity and prosperity walk hand in hand in Mexico. I don't know that it is "rising obesity" as much as rising prosperity and unchanged eating patterns.

The same fatty foods in smaller quantities are needed calories to survive. In excess and with more leasure time, less physical labor is where problems begin. It doesn't take long to go from 32 to 36 waist size by just not going to work.

Many of my friends and family that do little physical labor suffer weight issues. Those like myself that do only physical labor and work full weeks do not.
We all eat the same things.
(Well, most of us. I won't eat anything with heavy chili peppers or veggies anyway)

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Obesity and prosperity walk hand in hand in Mexico. I don't know that it is "rising obesity" as much as rising prosperity and unchanged eating patterns.

The same fatty foods in smaller quantities are needed calories to survive. In excess and with more leasure time, less physical labor is where problems begin. It doesn't take long to go from 32 to 36 waist size by just not going to work.

Many of my friends and family that do little physical labor suffer weight issues. Those like myself that do only physical labor and work full weeks do not.
We all eat the same things.
(Well, most of us. I won't eat anything with heavy chili peppers or veggies anyway)

That is another interesting view of the problem

FWIW Mexico sits at # 46 out of 200 on this chart for adult males, while The US is at #14.

Ranking (% obesity by country)

There was a time when corpulence was a sign of prosperity, with little if any other implications.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Just headlined today:

New heart syndrome identifies link among obesity, diabetes and kidney disease

As more Americans are being diagnosed with multiple chronic health problems at younger ages, for the first time, the American Heart Association is identifying a new medical condition that reflects the strong links among obesity, diabetes and heart and kidney disease.

It goes on and on but it identifies different stages, including:

Stage 1: Someone who is overweight with a lot of abdominal fat or who has prediabetes. People in stage 1 would be advised to follow a healthy lifestyle, with a goal of at least 5% weight loss. In other words, being overweight is the first stage of being at risk for CVD, which is the number one cause of death in the US.


Re the highlighted:

Why aren't health care professionals already doing that without this call to action by The American Heart Association?

 

[dann]

Aren't they?!

 

[dann]

New drug from Eli Lilly works on appetite much like Novo Nordic's Wegowy and Ozempic.

Millions of Americans struggling with obesity now have access to a newly approved weight-loss drug — Zepbound — an injectable medication with the same ingredient as the diabetes drug Mounjaro, which has been shown to curb hunger cravings and help shed pounds.
What to know about Zepbound, the newest weight-loss drug (WashingtonPost, Nov 8, 2023)

Not for poor people without health insurance: "The list price of Mounjaro is $1,023.04 per month, according to Lilly."

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Just saw this:

US panel recommends children with obesity start counseling from age 6

The stupid it burns.

I didn't even read the article.

Someone let me know if I should have.

What's the chances the counseling includes some kind of delivery of healthy meals that are more appealing to kids than Kool-Aid and Chicken McNuggets, along with a personal trainer.

 

[angrysoba]

Just saw this:

US panel recommends children with obesity start counseling from age 6

The stupid it burns.

I didn't even read the article.

Someone let me know if I should have.

What's the chances the counseling includes some kind of delivery of healthy meals that are more appealing to kids than Kool-Aid and Chicken McNuggets, along with a personal trainer.

I don't know, but I am struggling to understand what this means....

Obesity in children and adolescents through age 19 is defined as having a body mass index – a ratio of weight to height – higher than 95% of youngsters of the same age and gender.

Nearly one in five U.S. children and teens fall into this category, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Huh? How can 20% of X make up 5% of X? Am I missing something?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

I don't know, but I am struggling to understand what this means....
....

I was just trying to be sarcastic about the idea of a 6 year old being counseled about their obesity problem..

Do they council abused children? Something with that in mind might be in order..

It's not your fault, and all that.

 

[angrysoba]

I was just trying to be sarcastic about the idea of a 6 year old being counseled about their obesity problem..

Do they council abused children? Something with that in mind might be in order..

It's not your fault, and all that.

That still doesn't help me with the maths.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

That still doesn't help me with the maths.

Can't help you there..

Have you seen some of the numbers regarding absolute vs relative risk when it comes to drug effectiveness?

They use the number that shines the best light on what they are trying to sell..

Maybe something similar going on here..

Maybe they are saying 20% is 5% of 100% in a round-about way..

 

[jrhowell]

That still doesn't help me with the maths.

I dug around on the CDC site for a while before finding a page that states the charts of child BMI percentiles are based on data from 1963 to 1980. So it is a comparison of historical BMI to current.

 

[angrysoba]

I dug around on the CDC site for a while before finding a page that states the charts of child BMI percentiles are based on data from 1963 to 1980. So it is a comparison of historical BMI to current.

Ah, okay thanks! That makes more sense now.

 

[The Atheist]

You might want to take a seat before reading this one...

Body positivity movement funded by junk food manufacturers.

 

[sir drinks-a-lot]

Obesity is the problem, and the driver of obesity is cheap, calorie dense, nutritionally deficient processed food.

Can you (or someone) explain why it matters that the cheap, calorie dense food is nutritional deficient and processed?

In other words, if we had cheap, calorie dense, nutritionally adequate processed food , would we not still have a global obesity epidemic? Or does the fact that it is nutritionally deficient cause people to eat more? Perhaps we're conditioned to think that eating more will automatically satisfy some nutritional need our lizard brains are noticing we require.

I can't see how the fact that food is "processed" can have that much to do with anything, unless the claim is that by processing foods in certain ways they can be made more cheap, calorie dense, nutritionally deficient. I'm sure that's true, but most food we eat is also processed in some way. This may just be a nitpick, I'm more interested in the question about nutritionally deficient foods.