Subscribe to The Tonic
Two years ago, the term “ultra-processed food” barely registered in wellness conversations. Now, it’s everywhere, with UPFs blamed for obesity, heart disease, diabetes, depression, and more.
They’ve even sparked rare political unity, with advocates on both sides of the aisle calling for tighter regulation of their marketing and sales.
But before you toss every snack bar and frozen entrée in your kitchen, let’s take a closer look at the evidence.
First, what makes a food “ultra-processed”? Think long ingredient lists full of refined oils, modified starches, preservatives, and flavor enhancers. These aren’t just junk foods—they’re carefully engineered to be affordable, convenient, and, yes, nearly irresistible.
A groundbreaking 2019 study by NIH researcher Kevin Hall (View Study) brought some rigor to the debate. His randomized controlled trial showed that participants on a diet high in UPFs consumed about 500 more calories per day than those eating minimally processed foods, despite the two diets being matched for sugar, fat, and fiber. This calorie surplus led to predictable weight gain. No bueno.
Fast forward to the present day, and Hall is back with fresh data, and the results are even more striking. In a new study with four distinct diet groups, participants on an energy-dense, hyper-palatable UPF diet consumed 1,000 more calories daily than those on a minimally processed diet.
That’s not a typo: one thousand extra calories.
Here’s where it gets interesting: not all UPFs are created equal. Another group in Hall’s study ate ultra-processed foods that were less calorie-dense and less engineered for irresistibility. Their calorie intake and weight loss mirrored the minimally processed group.
Interestingly, this suggests that the core problem may not be “processing” itself but the combination of calorie density and hyper-palatability engineered into so many modern foods.
Of course, these findings come with caveats. The study is small (18 participants), and the full data won’t be available until mid-2025. Still, Hall’s work reinforces what many of us already suspect: foods designed to be addictive are harder to regulate and easier to overeat.
The key takeaway? While it’s tempting to vilify UPFs outright, the nuance matters. Not all UPFs are equal offenders, and their impact on health seems to hinge on their calorie content and how engineered they are to keep you reaching for more.
As this conversation unfolds, one thing remains clear: focusing on whole, nutrient-dense foods—whether they’re technically processed or not—is a safe bet for your health in 2025. And for those unavoidable snack cravings? Maybe reach for something that won’t keep you coming back for seconds…or thirds.
Enjoyed the article? Subscribe.
Comentarios