AI Insight
This meta-analysis of 10 randomized controlled trials found that ultra-processed foods (UPF) were associated with increased eating rate and weight gain compared to less processed foods. Energy intake also tended to be higher with UPF consumption, though statistical significance varied across different analytical models. The effects on energy intake appeared to depend on whether the ultra-processed foods had higher energy density than their less processed counterparts, suggesting that energy density rather than processing level per se may explain the observed differences.
Why it matters
These findings suggest that the link between ultra-processed foods and weight gain may be mediated by their energy density rather than the processing itself. This has important implications for dietary guidelines and food policy, indicating that matching nutrient profiles is critical when studying the independent effects of food processing on health outcomes.
⚠️ Preprint – Noch nicht peer-reviewed
Dieser Artikel wurde noch nicht von unabhängigen Experten begutachtet. Die Ergebnisse sind vorläufig und sollten mit Vorsicht interpretiert werden.
Ultra-processed food (UPF) may contribute to increased energy intake and weight gain, but evidence synthesis from randomised controlled trials (RCT) is lacking. A pre-registered systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs was conducted comparing UPF with less processed food (LPF) on energy intake and/or body weight in humans. Secondary analyses (meta-regression and sub-group) examined effects of UPF on appetite sensations, eating rate, palatability and considered the role of nutrient profile in explaining results. Ten eligible studies were included. UPF trial arms tended to have higher energy intake (standardised mean differences [SMDs]=0.18-0.44), but statistical significance varied between analytic models. Weight gain (SMD=0.65) and eating rate (SMD=0.96) were significantly greater in UPF trial arms. No significant differences in palatability, appetite sensations or energy intake later in the day were observed. Diets (UPF vs. LPF) used in trials were not matched for nutrient profile. Effects on energy intake varied if UPFs were higher (SMD=0.71) or similar (SMD=0.02) in energy density. Current RCTs are suggestive that UPFs may increase energy intake and body weight; however, results may be explained by energy density of foods used. Further research is needed to understand whether the level of processing impacts health outcomes independent to nutrient profile.