Ultra-processed foods drive overeating and weight gain: in an NIH randomized trial, people ate about 500 kcal more per day and gained 0.9 kg in two weeks on an ultra-processed diet.
Original statement
الدليل التجريبي الحاسم جاء من تجربة هول العشوائية ... فالأكل من الأطعمة فائقة المعالجة دفعهم لاستهلاك 508 سعرة زائدة يومياً وزيادة 0.9 كغ في أسبوعين، بينما خسر نفس الأشخاص 0.9 كغ على الحمية غير المُعالَجة.
verbatim according to source. Translation by the project; the Arabic wording is authoritative.
Translation
Ultra-processed foods drive overeating and weight gain: in an NIH randomized trial, people ate about 500 kcal more per day and gained 0.9 kg in two weeks on an ultra-processed diet.
Origin
- Source status
- Archive editors
- Attribution
- Archive editors (study selection and narrative are the archive's, not necessarily Elawady's)
- Origin
- https://eltayebat.com/rule/ultra-processed-foods/
- Attribution uncertainty
- The archive homepage states that the forbidden-food section is supported by research 'independently of Dr. Diaa's words'. No evidence was found that Elawady himself cited these studies.
- Claimed mechanism
Hyper-palatability, energy density, eating rate (not specified by archive).
- Claimed health effect
Excess energy intake, weight gain, obesity.
- Population concerned
Adults, children
- Geographic restriction by Elawady
none found
Scientific assessment
Mostly true – Correct at its core, but with limitations or minor inaccuracies.
Certainty of evidence: moderate – Further research may still affect the assessment.
1. What was claimed?
UPF diets cause overeating and weight gain.
2. What is demonstrably correct?
Hall 2019 (A-UPF-01): +508 ± 106 kcal/day, +0.9 kg vs -0.9 kg. Dicken 2025 (I-UPF-01): within guideline-compliant diets, weight loss was greater on minimally processed food (-2.06% vs -1.05%; difference -1.01%, 95% CI -1.87 to -0.14).
3. What is wrong or exaggerated?
Calling one 20-person, 4-week inpatient trial 'decisive' is an overstatement; long-term effects are not tested in trials.
4. What remains unclear?
Which features of UPF drive the effect: eating rate, texture and energy density explain part of it (I-UPF-102, I-UPF-124); long-term effects are untested.
5. Which studies support it?
A-UPF-01 (Hall 2019), I-UPF-01 (Dicken 2025), Hamano 2024 (I-UPF-101; +813.5 kcal/day in 9 Japanese men), A-UPF-08, A-UPF-09, A-UPF-10.
6. Which studies contradict it?
No trial shows the opposite, but limiting evidence exists: within UPF diets, slower-eating textures reduced intake by 369 kcal/day (Forde 2026, I-UPF-102); with fixed preloads, processing did not change later intake (Barros 2026, I-UPF-124); a 2026 review argues that feeding trials do not establish causation beyond energy density and nutrients (I-UPF-123).
7. What applies to Germany and Europe?
Applicable; I-UPF-01 was conducted in England.
8. What is known about Egypt?
No Egypt-specific data.
9. What practical conclusion is appropriate?
Choosing mainly minimally processed foods may help weight control.
Assessment details
- Rationale for certainty of evidence
Two randomized crossover feeding trials (US inpatient, n=20, 2 weeks per diet; UK outpatient, n=55, 8 weeks per diet) point the same way; supported by cohorts (A-UPF-08, A-UPF-09) and a systematic review in children (A-UPF-10). Trials are short and small; mechanisms are unresolved.
- Source quality
Archive reports Hall 2019 accurately; 'the decisive evidence' overstates a 20-person, 4-week trial.
- Regional transferability
High: the 2025 UK trial (I-UPF-01) was conducted in England within national dietary guidelines.
- Individual exceptions
Responses varied between individuals.
- Regional scope of the claim
- general (biological/medical)
- Last reviewed
- 26 October 2026 provisional
Scientific evidence in detail
True only under certain conditions – The claim holds only for certain doses, groups of people, preparations or circumstances.
Research question: In adults, do ad libitum UPF diets, compared with minimally processed diets, increase energy intake and weight (Hall 2019: +500 kcal/day, +0.9 kg in 2 weeks)?
Research question in detail (PICO)
- Population
- Adults
- Intervention or exposure
- Ultra-processed diet
- Comparison
- Unprocessed/minimally processed diet
- Geographic scope
- universal biology
- Outcomes
- Energy intake
- Body weight
Study results as reported by the authors. Our assessment follows below.
What speaks for the claim?
Ultra-processed vs unprocessed diet in hospital
Hall KD et al.. Cell Metab 2019 · PMID 31105044 · DOI 10.1016/j.cmet.2019.05.008 Randomised controlled trialfull text, structured risk-of-bias assessmentHall 2019 inpatient RCT: +508 kcal/day and +0.9 kg on UPF.
- Actual result
- +508 +/- 106 kcal/d; +0.9 vs -0.9 kg.
- Methodological quality
- high (metabolic ward crossover), small
- Relevance
- direct
- Limitations
- n=20; 2 weeks per diet.
Ultra-processed vs minimally processed healthy diets in England
Dicken SJ et al.. Nat Med 2025 · PMID 40760353 · DOI 10.1038/s41591-025-03842-0 Randomised controlled trialfull text, structured risk-of-bias assessmentDicken 2025 (UK, 8 weeks): more weight loss on minimally processed than UPF diet within guidelines.
- Actual result
- Difference -1.01% (-1.87 to -0.14).
- Methodological quality
- moderate-high
- Relevance
- direct
- Limitations
- Order effect.
Ultra-processed diet trial in Japanese men
Hamano S et al.. Diabetes Obes Metab 2024 · PMID 39267249 · DOI 10.1111/dom.15922 Randomised controlled trialabstract checkednewly addedHamano 2024 (Japan): +813.5 kcal/day and +1.1 kg on UPF.
- Actual result
- +813.5 (342.4-1284.7) kcal/d.
- Methodological quality
- low (n=9, open-label)
- Relevance
- direct
- Limitations
- Very small.
What speaks against the claim?
Eating speed and ultra-processed diets
Forde CG et al.. Am J Clin Nutr 2026 · PMID 41314613 · DOI 10.1016/j.ajcnut.2025.11.012 Randomised controlled trialabstract checkednewly addedForde 2026: within UPF diets, slower-eating textures reduced intake by 369 kcal/day.
- Actual result
- -369 (221-517) kcal/d.
- Methodological quality
- high (2-week RCT)
- Relevance
- indirect (UPF vs UPF)
- Limitations
- Industry ties of first author.
Ultra-processed vs unprocessed meals of the same calories
Barros LM et al.. Appetite 2026 · PMID 42633852 · DOI 10.1016/j.appet.2026.108761 Randomised controlled trialabstract checkednewly addedBarros 2026: with fixed preloads, processing did not change later intake.
- Actual result
- -24.5 (-87 to 38) kcal.
- Methodological quality
- low (n=19, 1 day)
- Relevance
- direct
- Limitations
- Short.
Critique of ultra-processed food feeding trials
Ludwig DS. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 2026 · PMID 42063358 · DOI 10.1080/10408398.2026.2664043 Narrative reviewabstract checkednewly addedLudwig 2026 review: feeding trials do not establish causation beyond energy density and nutrients.
- Actual result
- Narrative.
- Methodological quality
- low (opinion)
- Relevance
- direct
- Limitations
- No data.
What does the overall evidence say?
Editorial assessment based on the studies above – not itself a study result.
Which position is better supported?
Short-term ad libitum trials consistently show higher intake and weight gain on typical UPF diets; part of the effect is explained by energy density and eating rate rather than processing per se.
Why some studies weigh more
Randomised feeding trials (Hall, Dicken, Hamano) outweigh critiques; mechanistic trials (Forde, Teo, Barros) qualify what drives the effect.
Is a causal relationship established? Probable Randomised but short; mechanism partly non-specific to processing.
Remaining uncertainty
Long-term effects; which features matter.
Justified conclusion
Archive reports Hall 2019 correctly; 'drive overeating' is supported for typical UPF diets in the short term.
Why do studies seem to disagree?
Hall/Hamano (ad libitum, whole-day UPF vs unprocessed) vs Barros (fixed preloads, one day) answer different questions; Forde shows variation within UPF.
Does this depend on the country?
- General biological effects
- Biological mechanisms (energy density, eating rate, additives) are universal.
- Eating habits
- Mostly European and US diets studied; Egyptian UPF intake not quantified in the literature found (PubMed search: 2 hits, neither relevant).
- Origin of the food
- Not relevant.
- Contaminants
- Not relevant.
- National production conditions
- Product formulations differ by country.
- Legal rules
- No legal UPF category in EU or (as far as checked) Egypt.
- Actual monitoring data
- No Egyptian monitoring data.
A regional difference that changes the conclusion is not supported by robust data.
Statistical re-check
- 95% CI from mean +/- SE – 300 to 716 kcal/day. recalculated
- CI midpoint/SE – Consistent; SE about 240 kcal/day. recalculated
- CI midpoint – Consistent (369). recalculated
Certainty of the overall evidence (GRADE, simplified)
- Main outcome
- Short-term energy intake on UPF diets
- Starting level
- high (randomised trials)
- Reasons for downgrading
- imprecision (small trials)
- indirectness (short duration)
- Result
- moderate
Simplified assessment by a single reviewer, following the GRADE approach; not a formal GRADE panel. GRADE rates the body of evidence for one outcome, not individual studies.
Search strategy
Documented literature searches for this review (search strings in the original database syntax).
| Database | Date | Search | Looking for | Hits | Included |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Europe PMC | 26 October 2026 | ("ultra-processed" OR "ultraprocessed") AND ("energy intake" OR "ad libitum" OR "weight") AND (PUB_TYPE:"Randomized Controlled Trial" OR TITLE:randomized OR TITLE:randomised OR TITLE:crossover) AND PUB_YEAR:[2019 TO 2026] | both directions | 442 | |
| Europe PMC | 26 October 2026 | ("ultra-processed" OR "ultraprocessed") AND (TITLE:obesity OR TITLE:overweight OR TITLE:"body weight" OR TITLE:adiposity) AND (PUB_TYPE:"Meta-Analysis") AND PUB_YEAR:[2020 TO 2026] | supporting evidence | 31 | |
| PubMed | 26 October 2026 | (ultra-processed[ti] OR ultraprocessed[ti]) AND ("energy intake"[tiab] OR "weight gain"[tiab]) AND (randomized controlled trial[pt] OR crossover[tiab]) | supporting evidence | 26 | |
| Europe PMC | 26 October 2026 | ("ultra-processed" OR "ultraprocessed") AND ("energy density" OR "hyperpalatab*") AND (TITLE:diet* OR TITLE:intake) AND PUB_YEAR:[2021 TO 2026] AND (PUB_TYPE:"Randomized Controlled Trial" OR PUB_TYPE:"Clinical Trial") | contradicting evidence | 35 | |
| PubMed | 26 October 2026 | (ultra-processed[ti] OR ultraprocessed[ti]) AND ("eating rate"[tiab] OR texture[tiab] OR "energy density"[tiab] OR hyperpalatab*[tiab]) AND (trial[tiab]) | contradicting evidence | 20 |
How deeply was this checked?
9 linked studies: 2 checked in full text (2 of them with a structured risk-of-bias assessment), 7 on the basis of the abstract, 0 bibliographically only. No formal assessment with two independent reviewers and no independent human expert review has taken place yet.
Last scientific review: 26 October 2026
History of the verdict
- 25 October 2026 · Phase 1 · Initial assessment: Mostly true (moderate)
- 26 October 2026 · Phase 4 (systematic evidence review) · Re-examined with extended evidence; verdict unchanged: Mostly true (moderate)
Replication (Hamano) and mechanistic trials (Forde, Barros) refine but do not overturn the conclusion.
New sources: I-UPF-101 I-UPF-102 I-UPF-123 I-UPF-124
In plain language
In a US hospital experiment, 20 people ate about 500 calories more each day when given ultra-processed food and gained weight, while they lost weight on unprocessed food. A larger 2025 trial in England found more weight loss on a minimally processed diet, even when both diets followed national healthy-eating advice. These trials are short, but they support the archive's point.
Studies on this claim
Studies supporting the claim (6)
-
Ultra-processed vs unprocessed diet in hospital
Hall KD et al.. Cell Metab 2019 · PMID 31105044 · DOI 10.1016/j.cmet.2019.05.008Randomised controlled trialcited by the Tayebat archivefull text, structured risk-of-bias assessment★ key studyPeople ate about 500 calories more per day and gained weight on ultra-processed food.
Does the study support the specific claim? Yes · Methodological quality: high · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim
Original publication · Scientific details
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
Do ultra-processed foods affect energy intake?
- How was the study done?
Inpatient randomized crossover trial, 2 weeks per diet, ad libitum.
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
20; Weight-stable adults, mean age 31, BMI 27
- What was actually found?
Energy intake +508 ± 106 kcal/day on UPF (p=0.0001); carbohydrate +280, fat +230 kcal/day; protein unchanged; weight +0.9 ± 0.3 kg (UPF) vs -0.9 ± 0.3 kg (unprocessed).
- How large was the observed effect?
+508 kcal/day; +0.9 kg vs -0.9 kg
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Ultra-processed food can make people eat more.
- What are the study's limitations?
Only 20 people, 2 weeks per diet, in hospital conditions; no washout between diets; participants knew which diet they ate; the cause of the extra eating (e.g. energy-dense food, faster eating) is not clear.
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Core evidence for C-UPF-02.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
High.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Long-term health outcomes.
-
Ultra-processed food and weight gain in Spain
Mendonça RD et al.. Am J Clin Nutr 2016 · PMID 27733404 · DOI 10.3945/ajcn.116.135004Cohort studycited by the Tayebat archiveabstract checkedHighest consumers had 26% higher risk of becoming overweight.
Does the study support the specific claim? Yes · Methodological quality: moderate · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim
Original publication · Scientific details
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
Is UPF associated with incident overweight/obesity?
- How was the study done?
Prospective cohort, FFQ.
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
8,451; 1,939 incident cases; Middle-aged graduates not overweight at baseline
- What was actually found?
Highest vs lowest quartile HR 1.26 (1.10-1.45); P trend 0.001.
- How large was the observed effect?
HR 1.26 (1.10-1.45)
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Association.
- What are the study's limitations?
NOVA misclassification possible; Residual confounding; Self-reported diet
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Supports C-UPF-02.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
High.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Causation.
-
Ultra-processed food and BMI in France
Beslay M et al.. PLoS Med 2020 · PMID 32853224 · DOI 10.1371/journal.pmed.1003256Cohort studycited by the Tayebat archiveabstract checkedEach 10% more ultra-processed food: 11% higher risk of overweight.
Does the study support the specific claim? Yes · Methodological quality: moderate · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim
Original publication · Scientific details
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
Is UPF associated with BMI change and overweight/obesity?
- How was the study done?
Prospective cohort with repeated 24-h records.
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
110,260; 7,063 overweight and 3,066 obese incident; Adults, 78% women
- What was actually found?
BMI gain beta 0.02 per 10%; overweight HR 1.11 (1.08-1.14); obesity HR 1.09 (1.05-1.13).
- How large was the observed effect?
HR 1.11 overweight
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Association.
- What are the study's limitations?
NOVA misclassification possible; Residual confounding; Self-reported diet; Selection bias (authors)
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Supports C-UPF-02.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
High.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Causation.
-
Ultra-processed food and body fat in children
Costa CS et al.. Public Health Nutr 2018 · PMID 28676132 · DOI 10.1017/S1368980017001331Systematic reviewcited by the Tayebat archiveabstract checkedMost studies found more body fat in children eating more ultra-processed foods, including sweets and soft drinks.
Does the study support the specific claim? Yes · Methodological quality: low · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim
Original publication · Scientific details
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
Is UPF associated with body fat in children/adolescents?
- How was the study done?
Systematic review (no meta-analysis).
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
26 studies (15 cohorts); Healthy children and adolescents
- What was actually found?
Most studies of UPF groups and soft drinks found positive associations with body fat.
- How large was the observed effect?
Not pooled
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Association.
- What are the study's limitations?
No pooling; Heterogeneous exposures
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Supports C-UPF-02.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
Moderate.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Causation.
-
Ultra-processed vs minimally processed healthy diets in England
Dicken SJ et al.. Nat Med 2025 · PMID 40760353 · DOI 10.1038/s41591-025-03842-0Randomised controlled trialindependent cross-checkfull text, structured risk-of-bias assessment★ key studyBoth diets led to weight loss, but about twice as much on minimally processed food.
Does the study support the specific claim? Yes · Methodological quality: high · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim
Original publication · Scientific details
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
Effect of UPF vs MPF within national dietary guidelines on weight.
- How was the study done?
2x2 crossover randomized controlled feeding trial, 8 weeks per diet, ad libitum.
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
55 randomized; 50 ITT; Adults with BMI 25-<40 and habitual UPF >=50% kcal
- What was actually found?
MPF -2.06% (-2.99 to -1.13); UPF -1.05% (-1.98 to -0.13); difference -1.01% (-1.87 to -0.14), P=0.024; Cohen's d -0.48. Mild GI adverse events common on both.
- How large was the observed effect?
-2.06% vs -1.05% weight
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Processing level may matter even in healthy diets.
- What are the study's limitations?
About 50 people, mostly women and health workers, 8 weeks per diet; the difference between diets was about 1 kg; dropouts happened only on the minimally processed diet; the order of the diets influenced the result.
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Supports C-UPF-02 (replicates direction of Hall 2019).
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
High (England).
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
It cannot show long-term effects on weight or disease, nor that UPF are harmful when a diet otherwise follows healthy guidance (both diets led to weight loss).
-
Ultra-processed diet trial in Japanese men
Hamano S et al.. Diabetes Obes Metab 2024 · PMID 39267249 · DOI 10.1111/dom.15922Randomised controlled trialindependent cross-checkabstract checkedIn 9 men, one week of ultra-processed food led to eating about 800 kcal more per day and gaining 1.1 kg more weight.
UPF diet: +813.5 kcal/day and +1.1 kg vs non-UPF in a 9-person crossover.
Does the study support the specific claim? Yes · Methodological quality: low · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim
Original publication · Scientific details
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
To test UPF effects on weight and intake.
- How was the study done?
Randomised crossover trial.
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
9 overweight men.
- What was actually found?
More intake and weight gain on UPF; less chewing.
- How large was the observed effect?
+813.5 kcal/day; +1.1 kg.
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Ultra-processed meals may make it easy to overeat.
- What are the study's limitations?
Tiny, short, open-label.
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Supports C-UPF-02.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
Moderate.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Cannot show long-term effects.
No study in this group is marked as key.
Studies contradicting or limiting the claim (2)
-
Critique of ultra-processed food feeding trials
Ludwig DS. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 2026 · PMID 42063358 · DOI 10.1080/10408398.2026.2664043Narrative reviewindependent cross-checkabstract checkedA 2026 review argues that short feeding studies cannot prove that ultra-processed foods cause obesity.
Argues that feeding trials do not establish UPF as a cause of obesity beyond energy density and nutrients.
Does the study support the specific claim? No · Methodological quality: low · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim
Original publication · Scientific details
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
To appraise UPF feeding trials.
- How was the study done?
Narrative review.
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
Not applicable.
- What was actually found?
Evidence called inconclusive.
- How large was the observed effect?
Not applicable.
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Causation is not settled.
- What are the study's limitations?
Opinion piece.
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Limits C-UPF-02.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
Applicable.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Does not show UPF are harmless.
-
Ultra-processed vs unprocessed meals of the same calories
Barros LM et al.. Appetite 2026 · PMID 42633852 · DOI 10.1016/j.appet.2026.108761Randomised controlled trialindependent cross-checkabstract checkedWhen people ate fixed portions, ultra-processed meals did not make them eat more at the next meal.
With fixed preloads, UPF did not change later energy intake or satiety (n=19, one day).
Does the study support the specific claim? No · Methodological quality: moderate · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim
Original publication · Scientific details
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
To separate processing from energy density.
- How was the study done?
Randomised crossover trial.
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
19 young adults.
- What was actually found?
No effect of processing on later intake.
- How large was the observed effect?
-24.5 kcal (-87 to 38).
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Calorie density and eating speed may matter more than processing.
- What are the study's limitations?
Tiny, one-day.
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Limits C-UPF-02.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
Moderate.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Cannot show UPF diets do not cause overeating over days.
No study in this group is marked as key.
Studies with mixed or unclear results (1)
-
Eating speed and ultra-processed diets
Forde CG et al.. Am J Clin Nutr 2026 · PMID 41314613 · DOI 10.1016/j.ajcnut.2025.11.012Randomised controlled trialindependent cross-checkabstract checkedWhen ultra-processed meals were chosen to be eaten slowly, people ate about 370 kcal less per day than with fast-to-eat ultra-processed meals.
Overeating on UPF diets depends on eating rate/texture; slow-eating UPF diets reduced intake by 369 kcal/day.
Does the study support the specific claim? Partly · Methodological quality: high · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim
Original publication · Scientific details
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
To test whether eating rate drives intake on UPF diets.
- How was the study done?
Randomised crossover trial, 2 weeks per diet.
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
41 young adults.
- What was actually found?
Slower-to-eat UPF meals reduced intake; weight unchanged.
- How large was the observed effect?
-369 kcal/day (221-517).
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
How fast food is eaten matters, not only whether it is processed.
- What are the study's limitations?
Short; healthy young adults; industry ties of first author.
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Qualifies C-UPF-02.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
Applicable.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Cannot show that UPF is harmless.
No study in this group is marked as key.
Regional context
Germany / EU
Applicable; I-UPF-01 was conducted in England.
Egypt
No Egypt-specific data.
What applies in my country?
General scientific assessment
Mostly true Trials support that UPF diets lead to higher calorie intake and less weight loss; the evidence is short-term.
The following areas of food safety are relevant to this statement:
- Additives and processing
- Controls, imports, recalls, labelling
Choose a country to see the checked information for it.
Limits: legal rules describe what is allowed, not what every single food contains. Measurement data come from samples and are meaningful only together with their method details.
Country of residence or purchase Compare with another country
References
- Ultra-Processed Diets Cause Excess Calorie Intake and Weight Gain: An Inpatient Randomized Controlled Trial of Ad Libitum Food Intake.. Hall KD et al.. Cell Metab 2019 · PMID 31105044 · DOI 10.1016/j.cmet.2019.05.008
- Ultraprocessed food consumption and risk of overweight and obesity: the University of Navarra Follow-Up (SUN) cohort study.. Mendonça RD et al.. Am J Clin Nutr 2016 · PMID 27733404 · DOI 10.3945/ajcn.116.135004
- Ultra-processed food intake in association with BMI change and risk of overweight and obesity: A prospective analysis of the French NutriNet-Santé cohort.. Beslay M et al.. PLoS Med 2020 · PMID 32853224 · DOI 10.1371/journal.pmed.1003256
- Consumption of ultra-processed foods and body fat during childhood and adolescence: a systematic review.. Costa CS et al.. Public Health Nutr 2018 · PMID 28676132 · DOI 10.1017/S1368980017001331
- Ultraprocessed or minimally processed diets following healthy dietary guidelines on weight and cardiometabolic health: a randomized, crossover trial.. Dicken SJ et al.. Nat Med 2025 · PMID 40760353 · DOI 10.1038/s41591-025-03842-0
- Ultra-processed foods cause weight gain and increased energy intake associated with reduced chewing frequency: A randomized, open-label, crossover study.. Hamano S et al.. Diabetes Obes Metab 2024 · PMID 39267249 · DOI 10.1111/dom.15922
- Is the experimental evidence on ultra-processed food and obesity reliable?. Ludwig DS. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 2026 · PMID 42063358 · DOI 10.1080/10408398.2026.2664043
- Effect of ultra-processed-rich versus ultra-processed-free preload meals at high and low energy density on ad libitum energy intake: a randomized crossover trial.. Barros LM et al.. Appetite 2026 · PMID 42633852 · DOI 10.1016/j.appet.2026.108761
- Eating rate has sustained effects on energy intake from ultraprocessed diets: a 2-week ad libitum dietary randomized controlled crossover trial.. Forde CG et al.. Am J Clin Nutr 2026 · PMID 41314613 · DOI 10.1016/j.ajcnut.2025.11.012