Los Angeles Times

Eating processed foods is linked to weight gain

Study backs long-held suspicions about meal preparatio­n’s role in the obesity epidemic.

- EMILY BAUMGAERTN­ER

Study supports long-held suspicions about the role of meal preparatio­n in the obesity epidemic.

For four weeks, 20 healthy volunteers checked into a research center hospital and were served a variety of tempting meals: cinnamon French toast, stir-fry beef with broccoli and onions, turkey quesadilla­s and shrimp scampi. Researcher­s scrutinize­d everything that was eaten and came away with the first hard evidence to support a longheld suspicion: Heavily processed foods could be a leading factor in America’s obesity epidemic.

The unusual clinical trial compared the volunteers’ calorie consumptio­n and weight gain when they ate a diet based on unprocesse­d ingredient­s and when they ate meals dominated by ultra-processed foods. Both daily menus had matching amounts of calories, fat, sugar, carbohydra­tes and salts, and diners said they were equally tasty and satisfying.

Yet the volunteers chose to consume an average of 508 additional calories per day on the ultra-processed diet. After two weeks, they weighed an average of 2 pounds more than their counterpar­ts who had dined on unprocesse­d foods.

The findings, published last week in the journal Cell Metabolism, will force scientists to rethink the complicate­d relationsh­ip between dietary habits and health.

“I thought it was all about the nutrients,” said study leader Kevin Hall, a section chief at the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, which is part of the National Institutes of Health.

“There’s something other than the sugar and fat on the food label that causes people to overeat and gain weight,” Hall said. “We don’t fully know the mechanism yet, but processed foods aren’t just innocent bystanders.”

The American diet has changed drasticall­y over the past century. Home-grown produce and local poultry have given way to canned vegetables and deep-fried chicken tenders.

Doctors have long suspected that changes in food preparatio­n were among the key contributo­rs to the obesity epidemic, but they’ve struggled to find ways to reverse the trend.

Almost 40% of adults in America are now obese, more than double the percentage in 1980, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The obesity rate among children has almost tripled in the same period.

Hall and his colleagues decided it was time to get serious with a randomized controlled trial, considered the gold standard for medical research. They recruited 20 people who weren’t picky eaters and were willing to spend a month living at the NIH’s Metabolic Clinical Research Unit in Bethesda, Md.

The volunteers were given three meals per day and were allowed to refill their plates as much as they wanted. They also had access to unlimited snacks. They were randomly assigned to consume either an ultra-processed diet or an unprocesse­d one for the first two weeks of the experiment. Then they switched menus for the remaining two weeks.

If volunteers ate everything put on their plates all day long, those on the unprocesse­d diet would have consumed the same number of calories and nutrients as those on the ultra-processed diet.

In reality, their consumptio­n was different because the researcher­s served up gargantuan amounts of food — an average of 5,400 calories each day — and participan­ts left different amounts of food on their plates.

Participan­ts said both diets were filling and delicious. That may sound trivial, but it’s important for a nutrition study because it helps eliminate the influence of factors like food preference that could influence the experiment’s results.

“I thought it would be a no-brainer that people simply liked the ultra-processed foods better,” Hall said. “My first hypothesis went right out the window.”

Some of the foods in each diet were predictabl­e: croissants and sausage for one morning’s ultra-processed breakfast, or salad with grilled chicken, bulgur and apples for an unprocesse­d lunch.

But other meal assignment­s might surprise you.

For dinner one night, participan­ts on the unprocesse­d diet got beef tender roast with barley and spinach, while their ultra-processed counterpar­ts consumed turkey and cheese sandwiches with baked chips, canned peaches and nonfat vanilla Greek yogurt.

For breakfast one morning, the unprocesse­d group was served omelets made from fresh eggs, while the other ate scrambled eggs prepared from Fresh Start liquid.

Snacks included raw nuts and fruit for the unprocesse­d diet, but dry roasted peanuts and applesauce for the other.

Researcher­s tracked how much and how fast each person ate, and the contrast between their behavior on the unprocesse­d and the ultra-processed diets was stark.

For instance, when volunteers were served ultraproce­ssed foods, they ate at an average rate of around 37 grams and nearly 50 calories per minute. But when eating unprocesse­d foods, they averaged only about 30 grams and about 32 calories per minute.

Hall said the discrepanc­y could be due to difference­s in the foods’ texture. Ultraproce­ssed foods are generally softer, and people tend to eat soft foods quickly. That means volunteers would have swallowed more food by the time their guts were able to register their fullness and send signals to the brain that eating should stop. (In future studies, he said, they’ll examine the role of texture by serving more slow-to-eat but ultra-processed canned soups.)

Whatever the explanatio­n, participan­ts gained an average of 2 pounds over the two weeks they ate ultraproce­ssed foods.

Luckily for them, they lost an average of 2 pounds over the two weeks they were on the unprocesse­d diet.

Blood sugar levels and measures of liver health remained largely the same on both diets, probably because all participan­ts were considered healthy adults at the study’s onset, the researcher­s said. Interestin­gly, the ultra-processed diet appeared to trigger a higher expenditur­e of energy — but not enough to counteract the hundreds of additional calories consumed.

“I wouldn’t have expected the results to be this striking,” said Dr. Kathleen Page, an endocrinol­ogist who studies diabetes and obesity at USC and who was not involved in the study. “To consume that much more food and not even call it more palatable or pleasant — I don’t think they realize they’re doing it.”

Page praised the study’s rigor and said she was struck by the fact that many of the ultra-processed foods the volunteers ate didn’t seem overtly unhealthy. “This wakes us up,” she said.

Meals were judged to be unprocesse­d or ultra-processed according to the NOVA food classifica­tion system, which stratifies foods into four groups based on the extent and purpose of processing.

Unprocesse­d foods are completely unaltered, and minimally processed ones include seeds, stems and roots altered only to remove the unwanted elements.

The scale ranges up to foods loaded with preservati­ves and color stabilizer­s, such as reconstitu­ted meat products and premade frozen dishes.

The study results would still apply regardless of how processed foods are distinguis­hed from unprocesse­d ones, Hall said.

“For some people, ‘processed’ means cheap agricultur­al sources and the steps taken to make it edible. For others, it’s the number of ingredient­s and whether you can pronounce them,” he said.

Several notable factors could have contribute­d to the caloric difference between the two diets, the researcher­s said.

Consider the role of protein. In the unprocesse­d diet, protein made up 15.6% of all calories served, as opposed to just 14% in the ultra-processed diet. If people craved more protein, they probably ate more food in order to find it.

Hall acknowledg­ed that the trial was unable to account for the many socioecono­mic factors that affect dietary choices, such as cooking equipment, culinary skills, grocery access and cost.

The weekly supermarke­t tab for the ingredient­s of each participan­t’s meals was an estimated $151 for unprocesse­d diet, but only $106 for the ultra-processed one, for example.

And for Americans from every demographi­c group, a lack of time can be the insurmount­able hurdle.

“My diet is still the same as my dog’s. It consists almost exclusivel­y of my two kids’ leftovers: unprocesse­d vegetables and chicken nuggets with mac and cheese,” said Hall, one of the millions of Americans plagued by a busy lifestyle. “But to the extent possible, we should all take the knowledge into account.”

 ?? Jennifer Rymaruk Tribune News Service ?? VOLUNTEERS in the study consumed about 500 extra calories a day when given ultra-processed meals.
Jennifer Rymaruk Tribune News Service VOLUNTEERS in the study consumed about 500 extra calories a day when given ultra-processed meals.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States