Copyright © 2026 Wholly Mountain Health & Fitness | Powered By 
There is an experience almost everyone in America knows. You open a bag of chips intending to eat a few. At some point your hand reaches the bottom.
You were probably not hungry by then. You may not even remember eating the last third of the bag. There was no moment when you decided that what your body needed was another 700 calories of corn chips. The eating simply continued.
Try doing the same thing with baked potatoes. Or apples. Or a pot of lentils.
At some point the body begins to object. The food becomes less interesting. Your stomach fills. You slow down. Another potato starts to look like work.
Something different happens with a Dorito.
For years we have treated that difference as a problem of discipline. People need to control themselves. Count calories. Eat smaller portions. Have more willpower.
Personal responsibility matters. I believe that more than much of the modern health culture seems willing to say. We have considerable control over what enters our homes, what we feed our children and what habits we practice every day. A food company cannot make you buy a bag of Doritos.
But personal responsibility also requires understanding the thing toward which we are supposed to exercise responsibility.
A Dorito is not corn with a little cheese sprinkled on top. It is an industrial product developed through food science, sensory research and manufacturing methods capable of controlling characteristics humans have always used to judge food: salt, fat, starch, acidity, aroma, texture, crunch, moisture, flavor intensity and the speed at which food disappears in the mouth.
The food industry did not invent human appetite. It inherited one built under conditions that looked nothing like a modern supermarket, then learned a great deal about how to work with it.
That is the more interesting story.
Think about what happens when you bite one.
First comes the crunch. Texture is not incidental to our enjoyment of food. A stale chip can contain the same ingredients as a fresh one and become far less appealing. The fracture of the chip, its crispness and the sound it produces are part of the experience.
Food manufacturers study texture because consumers respond to it. They can alter thickness, moisture and structure until a product breaks and dissolves in a way people prefer.
Then something else happens.
The chip disappears.
A Dorito requires little chewing compared with the intact foods from which its ingredients ultimately came. It breaks apart, mixes with saliva and leaves the mouth within seconds. Another chip can follow before much has happened elsewhere in the digestive system.
Food writer Michael Moss has discussed an industry concept sometimes called vanishing caloric density: a food can feel physically insubstantial in the mouth while still delivering substantial calories.
This does not mean the brain is literally fooled into believing the calories ceased to exist. Human appetite is more sophisticated than that. But it points toward something we often ignore when discussing nutrition.
The speed and physical effort required to eat food matter.
Consider corn on the cob. There is biting, chewing and a physical structure to work through.
Now grind corn, refine it, form it into a thin triangle, cook it with oil, cover it in concentrated seasoning and make it crisp enough to collapse after a few bites.
The source may still be corn.
The eating experience has been transformed.
The flavor has been transformed as well. Doritos do not taste simply like corn and cheese. The seasoning combines salt, acids, savory compounds, cheese powders, flavorings and other ingredients into something much more intense than the original grain.
And yet it cannot become so intense that you become tired of it after two chips.
That is an important distinction.
A successful snack needs the first bite to be rewarding while preserving the desire for the next one.
Even the powder left on your fingers extends the experience after the chip has disappeared. The concentrated seasoning remains. You lick it off. Your hand returns to the bag.
Reach. Eat. Lick. Reach.
None of this requires a secret room filled with villains trying to destroy public health. The explanation is more ordinary and, in some ways, more troubling.
A company selling snack food has an obvious reason to make snack food people want to continue eating.
The better they become at doing that, the more difficult our food environment becomes.
The human body is astonishingly sophisticated, but it did not develop in anticipation of a convenience store.
For most of human existence, sweetness meant foods such as ripe fruit or the rare discovery of honey. Salt was valuable. Fat was valuable. Concentrated calories could mean survival.
Our attraction to these things was not a defect.
It kept human beings alive.
The problem arose when we learned to extract the signals from food, concentrate them, recombine them and make them available without season, scarcity or much physical effort.
We learned to separate sugar from the plant that produced it. We extracted oils from foods that once required chewing. We milled grains into powders. We isolated starches. We concentrated flavors. We removed water. We developed textures that barely resist the teeth.
Then we learned how to combine these things.
Refined starch with oil and salt.
Sugar with fat and flour.
Salt with fat and refined carbohydrate.
Aromas and flavorings on top of all three.
Nature certainly gives us sweet foods, fatty foods and starchy foods. What it rarely gives us is the particular combination of concentrated calories, refined ingredients and intense sensory stimulation that now occupies entire aisles of the grocery store.
Your biology is old.
The food is new.
That mismatch deserves far more attention than it receives.
Doritos make the point easy to see, but the same problem extends through much of the modern food supply.
Think about breakfast cereal. An intact grain requires chewing and retains much of its physical structure. We can instead mill grain, cook it, extrude it into shapes, sweeten it, flavor it and create something a child can consume by the bowlful with little chewing.
Both foods can begin as grain. That does not make them metabolically or behaviorally identical.
Think about bread. Compare a dense intact-grain bread with an industrial bun so soft you can compress it into a small ball with one hand.
Think about an orange and orange juice. Peanuts and peanut butter. A potato and a potato chip. Corn and a corn puff.
The question is not whether processing is evil.
Cooking is processing. Freezing is processing. Tofu is processed. Canned beans are processed. Unsweetened soy milk is processed. Grinding flaxseed is processing, and in that case it makes the nutrients more accessible.
The useful question is what the processing has done to the original food.
Has it preserved most of the food's structure, or dismantled it?
Has it made a healthy food easier to prepare, or made concentrated calories easier to consume?
Has it added something useful, or combined refined starch, oil, sugar, salt and flavoring into a product designed around pleasure rather than nourishment?
Those questions tell us far more than the word "processed" by itself.
One of the most important modern nutrition experiments came from the National Institutes of Health.
Researchers brought adults into the NIH Clinical Center and controlled the food they were offered. Participants spent two weeks eating an ultra-processed diet and another two weeks eating an unprocessed diet. The researchers designed the offered diets to be matched across a number of nutritional characteristics.
People could eat as much or as little as they wanted.
On the ultra-processed diet, they ate about 500 additional calories per day.
Nobody instructed them to overeat. Nobody told them they were in the "bad food" group and should lose control.
They simply consumed more.
Over the short experimental period, body weight moved in the expected direction as well: participants gained weight during the ultra-processed phase and lost weight during the unprocessed phase.
That should make us rethink the idea that obesity can be reduced to people refusing to control themselves.
Calories still matter. They have to.
But the type of food we eat can influence how easy it is to consume those calories.
That is a much more useful idea.
Telling someone to "just eat less" while surrounding them with foods that facilitate rapid eating and passive overconsumption is like giving financial advice that consists entirely of the words "spend less money."
True.
Not particularly helpful.
Consider 500 calories of baked potatoes beside 500 calories of potato chips.
The calorie count may be comparable.
Almost everything about eating them is different.
The potatoes contain far more water and physical volume. They require a fork, biting and chewing. Your stomach encounters a substantial amount of food.
The chips have had much of their water removed. Fat has been added. The calories have been concentrated into thin pieces that can be eaten one after another.
This matters because fullness is not produced by a calorie calculator hidden in the stomach.
Satiation develops through signals from the mouth, stomach, intestines, nervous system and brain during the course of eating.
Time matters.
Volume matters.
Food structure matters.
Fiber matters.
Chewing matters.
Energy density matters.
When hundreds of calories can pass through the mouth before those systems have much opportunity to respond, appetite is being asked to solve a problem it did not often encounter in the world in which it developed.
Whole foods tend to put some brakes back into the system.
An apple makes you chew.
Beans fill a bowl.
Vegetables occupy enormous space for relatively few calories.
Intact grains retain structure.
Potatoes contain a great deal of water.
Fruit comes with fiber and cellular structure.
Nuts and seeds contain their fats inside a plant matrix that has to be physically broken apart.
Industrial processing can remove many of these natural impediments.
We then call it a lack of willpower when someone eats the resulting food too fast.
We have spent decades arguing about whether fat is the problem or carbohydrate is the problem.
That argument may have distracted us from something sitting directly in front of us.
Many of the foods people have the greatest difficulty controlling contain both concentrated carbohydrate and fat, often with substantial salt or sugar added.
Potatoes by themselves are mostly starch and water.
Turn them into fries and we add concentrated fat and salt.
Corn is a starchy whole plant food.
Turn it into chips and we add oil, salt and intense seasoning.
Flour, sugar and butter become cookies.
Sugar and cream become ice cream.
Refined flour, oil, sugar and flavorings become pastries.
This is not how most intact foods arrive.
Researchers have begun describing certain combinations as hyper-palatable foods. The terminology is less important than the observation behind it: particular combinations of fat, carbohydrate, sugar and sodium appear to make passive overconsumption easier.
The food industry did not need to discover an addictive chemical and secretly put it into every package.
It found something more useful.
It learned how to combine ordinary ingredients in extraordinary concentrations.
There is another experiment you can perform without a laboratory.
Put six baked potatoes on the kitchen counter.
Now put the caloric equivalent in potato chips into a large bag.
One looks absurd as a snack.
The other looks normal.
Packaging changes our sense of how much food constitutes a unit.
A banana ends.
An apple ends.
A potato ends.
A bag of chips has no biological stopping point. It has a bottom.
The hand can keep returning while the eyes remain on a television, computer or phone.
This is one reason distracted eating deserves more attention.
The food itself has been designed to require little effort, and then we eat it while directing our attention somewhere else.
Reach. Chew. Swallow.
Reach again.
The body is participating in a meal that the conscious mind is barely attending.
This is where I differ from some of the softer language now common in nutrition.
We are often told that every food belongs in a healthy diet and that restricting anything creates an unhealthy relationship with food.
I understand the concern behind that advice. Food anxiety, obsessive restriction and fear are not health either.
But I also think we should be adults about what some of these products are.
There is no nutritional requirement for Doritos.
There is no Doritos deficiency.
The same is true of soda, candy, snack cakes and much of what occupies the center aisles and checkout lanes of modern stores.
You are allowed to decide that some products simply do not deserve a regular place in your home.
That is not an eating disorder.
It can be discernment.
I also would not make claims that the evidence cannot support. I do not think we need to declare every unfamiliar ingredient poisonous to make a serious case against ultra-processed food. MSG has become a symbol of industrial food, but decades of research do not justify treating normal dietary exposure as a universal toxin. The same caution applies to broad claims that genetically engineered foods themselves explain our obesity and metabolic disease epidemics.
There are legitimate questions about the industrial food system, agricultural practices, corporate influence, monocultures, pesticide use and what kind of food economy we want to support. Those discussions deserve seriousness.
But the case against a diet dominated by ultra-processed food is already strong without making claims beyond the evidence.
A Dorito does not need to contain a secret poison to be a poor food.
Look at what it replaced.
Corn was enough.
When I encourage clients to eat beans, lentils, whole grains, potatoes, vegetables, greens, berries, fruit, nuts and seeds, I am not doing it because these foods possess some mystical purity.
They simply cooperate with human physiology.
They contain water.
They contain fiber.
They require chewing.
They occupy space.
Their nutrients remain packaged inside structures created by the plant rather than reconstructed by a food manufacturer.
They tend to make it possible to eat satisfying amounts of food without encountering enormous amounts of concentrated energy.
This is especially important for the people I work with who have spent years trying to lose weight by eating smaller portions of the same food environment that helped create the problem.
A hundred-calorie package of cookies is still a hundred-calorie package of cookies.
You can lose weight eating it.
The question I care about is whether that way of eating makes maintaining a healthy weight easier for the next thirty years.
I would rather build a large bowl of lentil soup with vegetables and potatoes than spend my life practicing heroic restraint around food engineered to make restraint difficult.
This is one of the great advantages of lifestyle medicine when it is practiced sensibly. We stop asking only how to manipulate numbers and begin asking what kind of environment allows the body to function well.
I do not believe health requires living in terror of birthday cake.
I also do not believe we need to reassure ourselves that every industrial food deserves a permanent place in our lives.
Those are not our only choices.
There will be weddings, vacations, holidays, restaurants, children's parties and meals at other people's homes. Human life is larger than a nutrition plan.
But what happens occasionally and what we deliberately stock in our kitchens every week are different questions.
There are foods I would not make part of the normal architecture of a healthy home.
Doritos would be one of them.
Not because eating a chip constitutes a medical emergency. Not because one ingredient makes them poison. Because when I look at the product as a whole, I cannot find a compelling reason to train myself to moderate something that offers little nutritional value and has been made remarkably easy to overconsume.
There are thousands of things in the world we technically can consume.
That does not mean they all deserve equal consideration.
Once you understand how modern food works, the answer is not to spend the rest of your life standing six feet from a bag of chips proving how disciplined you are.
Make the contest less frequent.
Build a home in which the normal foods are foods you actually want your family eating.
Keep fruit where people can see it. Keep frozen berries and vegetables available. Cook potatoes. Make soup. Keep beans and whole grains around. Find healthy sauces you enjoy. Make popcorn from plain kernels if you want something crunchy. Learn how to make simple food taste good.
Feed yourself enough at meals.
Sit down when you eat.
Chew.
Pay attention.
Teach children why some foods are everyday foods and others are not rather than pretending every product in the supermarket is nutritionally interchangeable.
And perhaps most importantly, reclaim the word normal.
It is not normal in any historical sense for human beings to begin the day with fluorescent cereal, drink liquid sugar at lunch, eat refined snacks throughout the afternoon, pick up fast food for dinner and finish the evening with another packaged product.
It has become common.
Common and normal are not necessarily the same thing.
For most of human history, food looked recognizable.
A bean was a bean.
An apple was an apple.
A potato was a potato.
We have now reached a point where some of the most profitable things called food are constructions assembled from fractions of foods, oils, refined starches, sweeteners, flavor systems, colors, emulsifiers and other ingredients until the original plant or animal is difficult to identify.
And then we wonder why our ancient systems of appetite sometimes struggle to regulate intake in this environment.
Perhaps the surprising thing is not that so many people overeat.
Perhaps the surprising thing is how well human appetite works when we give it food it recognizes.
There is an old advertising line associated with potato chips:
Bet you can't eat just one.
For years we treated that as a joke.
The food industry had learned something about us.
It may be time we learned it too.