What we eat is making us obese and sick - but science shows solutions are within reach

"In it, 20 adults ate one of two diets, which were identical in nutrients and differed only in their level of processing. Participants who ate ultra-processed foods (UPFs) consumed about 500 kilocalories more per day and gained weight, whereas those on a minimally processed diet lost weight. The results offered strong evidence that many industrially produced foods can override satiety signals and drive overeating. And it made Hall one of the most influential figures in nutritional science."

"It digs deeper into the implications of the 2019 study - that the harms of processed foods can't be reduced to their fat, sugar or salt content alone, and that the prevalent government strategy of politely asking companies to tweak their recipes by cutting salt or sugar content, say, is unlikely to address rising obesity rates. Unfortunately, the execution only partly lives up to the promise."

"In this wide-ranging primer on food science, Hall and Belluz revisit many food-related misconceptions. They debunk the idea that cutting 500 kilocalories a day reliably leads to the loss of half a kilogram a week and that "broken metabolism" explains obesity - as Hall highlighted in his role as a scientific adviser to the reality television programme The Biggest Loser, in which contestants attempt extreme weight loss."

A controlled feeding trial showed people consuming ultra-processed foods ate roughly 500 extra kilocalories daily and gained weight, while those on minimally processed diets lost weight. Ultra-processed foods can blunt satiety and promote overeating beyond effects of fat, sugar, or salt content. Relying on simple calorie-cutting heuristics ignores metabolic compensations that alter expected weight loss. Reformulating products by modestly reducing sugar or salt is unlikely to reverse rising obesity because processing itself affects appetite regulation. Most habitual diets already provide sufficient protein, and many supplements and consumer glucose-monitoring tools lack robust clinical evidence of benefit.

Read at Nature