Guest Essay by Kip Hansen — 29 March 2025 — 1100 words
Dr. Kevin Hall, at the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH), has recently been conducting “randomized clinical trials to study how diets high in ultra-processed food may cause obesity and other chronic diseases”, and was the lead author of a study, Hall et al. (2019) titled “Ultra-Processed Diets Cause Excess Calorie Intake and Weight Gain: An Inpatient Randomized Controlled Trial of Ad Libitum Food Intake”.
That study is almost always cited in other studies about Ultra-processed Foods (UPFs) as being “…the first and only to show us how ultra-processed diets drive people to consume about 500 extra calories per day, without even realizing it.” As published in Cell Metabolism the results of the study were summarized as:
“Highlights
• 20 inpatient adults received ultra-processed and unprocessed diets for 14 days each
• Diets were matched for presented calories, sugar, fat, fiber, and macronutrients
• Ad libitum intake was ∼500 kcal/day more on the ultra-processed versus unprocessed diet
• Body weight changes were highly correlated with diet differences in energy intake”
This was a very small study – 20 participants – and it showed that over a two-week period participants, who were restricted to the hospital, those eating the so-called UPF diet gained an average of about 2 lbs (1 kg) in the first six days, then their weight held steady (no further increase). Those on the unprocessed menu immediately began to lose weight and continued to do so throughout the 2 week period. (Photographs of the foods actually served are included in the full study report supplement – pdf download here. )
The papers title is false. “ Ultra-Processed Diets Cause Excess Calorie Intake” – ‘Ultra-processed diets’ are not a cause in and of themselves – so this is mis-stated at best. It does appear that the participants preferred the UPF offerings and ate a bit more of them taking in “extra” calories, but notice that the weight gain halted after day six after which their weights remained level. However, for the unprocessed diet, weight loss continued in a linear fashion.
I emailed Dr. Hall and asked him if he thought this weight loss was a problem. Most hospitalists (the doctors generally responsible for patients in a hospital) would be concerned by continued weight loss of their patients. Dr. Hall replied: “Body weight loss on the minimally processed diet was not a concern, especially given that the average body mass index of the study participants was 27 kg/m^2 which is in the overweight range.”
I have issues with the study conclusions – but we will let that go for now. The point being that Dr. Kevin Hall is an anti-UPF advocate. So much so, that he decided to prove that UPFs were addictive.
That meme – “UPFs are addictive” – is ubiquitous in the literature on so-called UPFs. So much so that there are published studies claiming that “14% of adults and 15% of youths” are addicted to UPFs. The mechanism suggested for this “addiction” is : “UPFs triggers addiction-like biological (e.g., dopaminergic sensitization) and behavioral (e.g., withdrawal, use despite consequences) responses”
Dr. Kevin Hall and a group at the National Institutes of Health set out to prove that addictiveness of UPFs by showing that feeding subjects a UPF would produce a dopamine spike, just like additive drugs do.
The study is “Brain dopamine responses to ultra-processed milkshakes are highly variable and not significantly related to adiposity in humans”. Dr. Hall is the lead contact for the paper.
For this study, the journal Cell Metabolism again summarizes:
“Highlights
• PET scans found no significant mean dopamine response to ultra-processed milkshakes
• Individual brain dopamine responses were not significantly related to adiposity
• Greater brain dopamine responses were correlated with fasting hunger levels
• Ad libitum cookie intake was correlated with brain dopamine responses”
Try not to be confused by the reference to “Ad libitum cookie intake”, I’ll explain later.
The study abstract states this more clearly:
“Surprisingly, milkshake consumption did not result in significant postingestive dopamine response in the striatum (p=0.62) nor any striatal subregion (p>0.33) and the highly variable interindividual responses were not significantly related to adiposity (BMI: r=0.076, p=0.51; %body fat: r=0.16, p=0.28). Thus, postingestive striatal dopamine responses to an ultra-processed milkshake were likely substantially smaller than many addictive drugs and below the limits of detection using standard PET methods.”
As an image:
Let’s see if we can put this a little more bluntly:
Paraphrasing editorially: “Dang, our super-duper, purpose-made exemplar of a UPF didn’t produce any dopamine response that we could see. “
But, afterwards, when subjects were offered snacks as part of their post-study lunch, the subjects whose test showed those that liked sweets ate a few more delicious Chips Ahoy! chocolate chip cookies.
In a more detailed discussion later in the paper, the authors say:
“In other words, despite expecting the high fat and sugar formulation of the ultra-processed milkshake to produce a synergistic effect on striatal dopaminergic activity (DiFeliceantonio, Coppin et al. 2018, McDougle, de Araujo et al. 2024), our data suggest that any extracellular dopamine responses following milkshake consumption were smaller than those following ingestion of drugs of abuse. Thus, the narrative that ultra-processed foods high in fat and sugar can be as addictive as drugs of abuse based on their potential to elicit an outsized dopamine response in brain reward regions was not supported by our data.”
Bottom Line:
UPFs are not addictive — they do not produce dopamine spikes that consumers seek to repeat as seen with addictive drugs.
(but they may be delicious!)
# # # # #
Author’s Comment:
Kudos to Dr. Hall and his group for publishing a “negative result” paper. They expected and desired to show the UPFs were just addictive as opioids and other drugs of abuse, but found that they were not. In fact, they did not produce measurable amounts of dopamine.
I extend these kudos even if the paper was published as a matter of policy – registered NIH studies completed must be written up and published – I’m pretty sure of this (not positive).
I suspect that the War on Food will not end now despite that fact that the battle against “addictive UPFs produced by nasty evil international corporations” has been dealt an death blow by real science.
This is not to say that some foods are not “habit forming” – humans like pleasant experiences – they like things that taste good and can form unhealthy repetitive eating habits. Think of those eating giant bags of chips, guzzling orange soda, while binge watching years of old Star Trek episodes. (no, I don’t mean you.)
Thanks for reading.
# # # # #
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Readers ==> Those quick to read will have noticed a publishing glitch which resulted in a double-strike post (same essay repeated far below) and no comment section. This has been corrected – with apologies — apparently my fault.
This reminds me of a study that appeared in a science journal a couple of years ago. It compared “junk food” to a control. It found that junk food led to a greater weight game than the controls which lost weight. It turned out the junk food was made up of tasty things like bacon whereas the controls ate a bland diet
Mike ==> Yes, this study seemed to entire ignore that the subjects in the 2019 weight-gain study enjoyed the so-called UPF meals far more than the non-processed meals. Thus, they ate more — note that the subjects were not required to “eat everything on your plate”.
In the most recent study — they tested subjects for various things like experience of hunger, etc then fed them the super-duper UPF milkshake, with a PET scan to see the [oops! absence of] dopamine response.
bacon by itself is awesome food
This may be controversial:.
Bacon on toasted bread with brown sauce is simply the best way to enjoy a bacon breakfast.
Am I right, or am I right?
Just leave out the bread and sauce. Actually, starch and fat are highly platable together but do lead to elevated insulin level.
I think the concept of UPFs, UltraProcessedFoods, is very ill defined, and rather Luddite. Defining something by how it was made, not what it is, strikes me as an emotional reaction.
This cheese flavored snack was made from goat cheese milked by virgin peasant women, the finest organic wheat reaped by hand, organic vegetable oils, and sea salt—when the end product has the same composition as Cheetos. I consider UPFs as taking marketing too seriously.
Tom ==> You are absolute correct — the FOUR earlier parts of this series make your point very clearly (I hope!).
As long as whisky is classified as a UPF, I don’t give a toss about all their research 🙂
Ultra processed milkshake? They let the blender run for a few extra seconds?
Mark ==> Good one! In reality, they tried to create a simple exemplar of the worst type of food that would fit into the Ultra-Processed Food category, described in their paper as a “high fat and sugar formulation of the ultra-processed milkshake”.
Anything made in the blender is highly processed.
Kip look at the money—lol
The food industry makes $1.4 Trillion dollars/year, $657 billion is gross profit. Health
care in the US costs $3.5Trillion dollars/year, of which 75% goes to chronic metabolic disease.
75% of health care costs could be reversed if we went back to diet of 1970. $1.9 Trillion dollars of health care costs from diet, $1Trillion paid for by federal government.
The per your citation regarding FDA, George Irvine a FDA consultant worked for the Sugar Lobby,
that what’s known in the business world as “Agency Capture”. Take a serious look at the
pharma/television relationship and then give a hard look at say the covid clot shots..
Mr Ed ==> That’s an interesting take, but personally, I don’t think there is any real data to back up the “75% of health care costs could be reversed if we went back to diet of 1970” claim or the claim that “$1.9 Trillion dollars of health care costs from diet”.
i don’t think I made a reference to the FDA….
The Most Dangerous Addiction in America
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLpte98_jR4
How the Sugar Industry Keeps You Hooked
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WX-CCjjcrrM
Take a look at labels on UPF foods and note “natural ingredients” and
see what is really put in there and then take a hard look at when that
was allowed….
Mr Ed ==> This study, the subject of this essay, shows quite clearly that the “UPFs are addictive” meme is false.
Just asserting that “sugar is addictive” does not make it so. This study shows that, in part, that it is NOT so. The high fat high sugar exemplar (custom milk shake) did not spike dopamine.
As for your other topics, I recommend a deeper reading list on diets, obesity, and date coincidence.
Non alcoholic fatty liver disease in children in the US tell me everything
I need to know about diet change since the 70’s. It’s now a common condition.
Watch the above video and listen to the dentist explain what she see’s every day in children’s teeth..it’s from sugar. We all saw the 450lb 5FT young male on a 4wheeler ram a Tesla this week. Not addictive Yea Right../
Gum disease is the greatest cause of decay. A daily swish of 1ml 3% hydrogen peroxide mouth wash will fix that pronto.
I’m a chocoholic, and in +5 years of this regime I have not required a filling, no tooth decay or gum infection. In fact, I’ve not even had so much as a cold.
That is interesting. You could look into xylitol gum also. Apparently it is effective too.
My periodontist made a point of telling me to dilute the peroxide with water to ONE percent for mouthwash – 3% is too strong.
Mr Ed ==> I suggest you read the study that is the topic of this essay — you are free to stick to your guns on the issue despite the science, like most anti-UPFs advocates will do. They will just try to find some other reason to be anti-UPF.
Obviously 450 lb 4-wheelers ramming Teslas prove that UPFs are addictive — I mean, that’s real YouTube science!
Non alcoholic fatty liver disease in young people. The liver
converts excess sugar to fat, sugar kills the liver. High fructose
corn syrup and sugar in the diet is what’s linked to this. You seem
to avoid addressing this health condition. I have a few relatives MD’s
at Mount Sinai
https://www.mountsinai.org/about/newsroom/2019/sugar-addiction-is-real-heres-whats-behind-the-science-and-how-to-quit-abby-haglage
Mr Ed ==> The War on Sugar is not new — it goes back at least to the 1950s and 60s. There are many experts who are quite sure about their positions — but in the end, they are just medical opinions, all with their own chosen evidence streams and interpretations.
You are welcome to them.
It is certainly true that some people consume far too much sugar — but it is not an issue that I have addressed in this essay.
This essay is about the recent study by Kevin Hall and others at NIH that found that UPFs (their milkshake exemplar) do not cause dopamine spikes and therefore are not addictive in the way that drugs of abuse are addictive.
Sugar and glucose are not harmful at all if food intake is deficient. They become a problem when in surplus. The Pritiken diet demonstrates that.
Yea and all the tobacco industry executives testified under
oath before congress in 1994 that nicotine was not addictive,
cuz their science said so.
The medical industrial complex’s integrity was clearly exposed a
few years ago during the covid pandemic. Your piece is another
example of that integrity, I’ve attended several funerals due
to a “safe and effective” product a few years ago. Your piece is
of the same nature.
Mr Ed, it’s not as simple as you seem to think.
My 36-year-old daughter has non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. She has NEVER had much liking for sweets and rarely eats them. When she does, she is VERY self-controlled. She eats mostly organic food. She is gluten-intolerant, so she doesn’t eat a lot of processed grains. And we didn’t buy a lot of chips and soda when our kids were growing up because when the choice was chips or apples, I bought apples.
And by the way – your appeal to authority (“I have a few relatives MD’s at Mount Sinai”) doesn’t impress anybody who actually thinks about things instead of just passively accepting what we are told – and it doesn’t prove anything either.
Mary Jones, Kip also has expressed an “Appeal to Authority” in this piece and yet you ignore that. So curious. Kip calls this series a
“War on Food” it’s more like a War on our Health and National Security
by Big Food/Sugar in my and others opinion
My wife spent many years as a nurse in an endrochronolgy unit.
Many of the patients in that unit with type 2 diabetes have been
advised that if they would loose some weight they could stop
taking insulin but for some reason they can’t/won’t loose weight.
I’ve met more than a few after they approach her in public and
begin a conservation.
Google yielded this—->
Obese children are at the greatest risk for developing NAFLD.
In addition, having type 2 diabetes or pre-diabetes, the metabolic syndrome, or high blood lipids increases the risk of developing NAFLD
70% of our military personnel is currently said be to obese or overweight. This is a national security threat.
https://www.cdc.gov/physicalactivity/resources/unfit-to-serve/index.html
“19% of active-duty service members had obesity in 2020, up from 16% in 2015.”
It’s estimated that 70% of the adults in this country are considered
overweight or obese.
“High fructose corn syrup“
Corn is technically a fruit and has the same fruit-sugar as an apple. Yet medical folks insist fruits are good for people.
My advice: Keep active and eat what you want.
“We all saw the 450lb 5FT young male …”
Nope, we all didn’t.
Man arrested after slamming 4-wheeler into multiple Teslas in Texas
It’s funny how Kip’s point is “they are not addictive” in a medical sense, but Mr.Ed’s point is “people eat too much of it”.
These are not contradictory positions, but Mr. Ed seems to think they are. Kip does not address overuse.
Our processed food company’s have an “Addiction Business Model”
that came in use when Big Tobacco entered the food business.
In UC San Francisco the big tobacco addiction models were given
as part of a legal settlement. There are the Five A’s
of the addiction business model…look it up.. Kip is
in denial..
.How Big Tobacco Intentionally Made Snacks Addictive
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGeh7c56pJc
Why are Processed Foods so Addictive?
Very nice Kip.
Nice (crunch) article (slurp) Kip! I can stop any time I want to with the cookies and shakes. /jk
Very interesting.
David ==> Yes, this brief essay is just to inform readers that the whole “UPFs are addictive because they key big dopamine spikes just like illicit addictive drugs” has been proven to be FALSE.
UPFs do not cause dopamine spikes — they don’t even cause discernible dopamine increases.
The whole hypothesis, widely believed and expected to be confirmed by this NIH sponsored clinical trial, has been shown not to be supported by reality — it just doesn’t happen.
This was very disappointing to Dr. Hall et al. at the NIH — they (and all the other anti-UPF fanatics) were quite sure their hypothesis would be proven correct.
America’s coastal crazies, like the Governor of California, are going to have to find some other reason to try and over-regulated the food industry.
> UPFs do not cause dopamine spikes — they don’t even cause discernible dopamine increases.
Some do. I’m sure I get a dopamine increase after a glass of whisky 🙂
StuM ==> Ah ha, but what size of glass? The poison is in the dose!
I’ve had food. I’ve also had opioids. There is no contest. 🙂
roywspencer ==> Gee, I’ve had the same experience — under medical supervision, of course.
I’ve had opioids too, on prescription, being unable to take aspirin, iboprufen or paracetemol. Apart from pain relief they did nothing for me. I couldn’t understand all of the warnings about addiction. Got off them as fast as I could, and had no temptation whatever to continue.
Now dark chocolate, that’s a different matter!
michel ==> Gotta control your dark choco urges — they can take over your life….
Not sure what the phrase, Ad libitum intake was ∼500 kcal/day more on the ultra-processed versus unprocessed diet means.
It would appear that consuming around 500 kcal/day more on the UPF diet would cause some weight gain.
It also appears that the unprocessed diet was typical of hospital food in being bland & tasteless.
I lost 40 lbs by being confined to a hospital and by being on a no salt diet. As a result I went vegetarian, weight just melted away. Came back later tho.
Nansar07 ==> Sorry you were ill (?) — a no salt diet, if you happen to be “salt sensitive” can cause both high blood pressure and unwanted weight gain.
That is not the issue being discussed in this essay.
Diets and responses to diets are often very individual.
derbix ==> The full pdf of the study is linked in the essay above. There are menus and photographs of the meals offered. Not typical hospital food though….but it does seem that the same people preferred and ate more of the so-called UPF meals.
Yes, you do mean me. I have those behaviors.
Sparta ==> I just didn’t want to single you out publicly…..
How can science totally miss the obvious? Carbs consisting of sugars and starches are highly addictive since the body finds them easy to process. This spikes blood sugar levels and causes hunger pains when they return to normal causing one to eat more frequently. Any fats that you eat along with these easy carbs are not turned into glucose and are stored as body fat. Read about the KETO diet and you will find out that fats without carbs in the diet makes it much easier to attain the desired weight. Also it takes a little time for your body to learn how to create glucose from body fat. It will not do it if carbs are available.
Lost 70 lbs in one year doing keto and not even that strict. It is easy, effective and fun.
Our bodies are not fit to eat carbs all year round in large quantaties. Before agriculture and preservation techniques, carbs were only around just before winter. They were plenty and easy to get, so your body could turn it all into fat because the famine season, namely winter, was about to arrive.
Also read up in the criminals that got insane amounts of carbs into the food pyramid, knowing how bad it was.
Lastly bodies are unique. In research like in the article you should at least compensate for ectomorf, endomorf and mesomorf body types and the form of the weight gain: muscles, fat, fluid, bones.
MR166 ==> It is possible to starve the body into eating itself. “Carbs consisting of sugars and starches” are NOT highly addictive.
The body does find them easy to process. The so-called blood sugar level spiking is a feature not a bug.
Books promoting the keto diet are not science — they are advertising.
“. The so-called blood sugar level spiking is a feature not a bug.”
That is not true at all.
MR166 ==> Everyone has an opinion.
Well, yes, there is very little hard science in the field of nutrition. You are correct that glucose spiking, insulin rising, insulin resistance and diabetes 2 are normal healthy responses to abuse of the body. There is vast clinical experience to show that.
As to keto, true, it is advertising. I go with what works for me.
Yes, many of us can attest to the fact that consuming carbs makes us want more carbs. REDUCE CARB INTAKE. it works.
So from this study there are two food choices, “ultra-processed” and “unprocessed.” Is there no third category, “processed.” Just what makes an unprocessed food into an ultra-processed food. Cooking a steak? Boiling a potato? Dribbling a vinaigrette dressing over lettuce? I can buy bundles of carrots with a bit of original dirt on them or peeled carrots, usually in small sizes. Is one processed and the other unprocessed, or perhaps peeling and packaging in plastic bags is “ultra-processing.”
Without definitions of what is meant by ultra-processed and the other variants, the article makes no sense.
Denis ==> You’ll have to read the first four parts of this series for an answer to that question.
But, short of that, a simple peek at the Wiki for “UPFs” would suffice.
a good size cookie could have 300 calories- an egg typically has 70 calories
real food is better than processed food, by and large
the processed food is addictive only in the sense that it’s easier to slap together a meal for busy people
Joseph ==> Addictive and convenient are not the same thing.
This essay is about a particular study that shows that so-called UPFs are not addictive in the true addictive drug sense, which has been claimed and assumed by nutrition experts for a decade.
How dare you lump an oatmeal, raisin, and walnut cookie into the
UPF category. The ingredients are all healthy!
You left out the oil and sugar. Oats are just glucose.
No what I left out was the 😊 or a /s thinking people could figure out it was meant in jest.
I draw the line at American processed cheesefood slices.
and rightly so….
Wow! What a great disappointment!
I commented on one of your earlier posts on UPFs that this is just a red herring, or canard, to further muddy the waters regarding proper human nutrition; but now you seem to have taken a page out of the climate alarmist guide book! You give NO definition for what exactly constitutes a UPF, and you don’t seem to have done much research into cutting edge nutrition. There is a whole lot going on in the world of nutrition; where, for the first time in 75 years, a possible new essential fatty acid has been discovered. C15:0, or pentadecanoic acid, which is found in high quantities in whole fat dairy products; appears to be necessary for human health! One of the symptoms of a C15:0 deficiency appears to be fatty liver disease, which is at epidemic stages (~25%) in Americans right now!
The human body is a dual fuel machine; it can run on glucose OR ketones! Ketones are what most healthy people are operating on when they wake up in the morning as their blood sugar levels were depleted while they were sleeping. If they continue in ketosis, they will be burning their own body fat stores for fuel; hardly a bad idea for an increasingly overweight population! If they eat something loaded with carbs they will spike their blood insulin levels, and revert to fat deposition! Frequent insulin spikes over many years seems to be closely associated with metabolic syndrome, obesity, and diabetes. If you have an alternative theory, I’m all ears!
Another area that is poorly understood and a potential source of serious health problems is the gut microbiome. Loss of gut bacteria variety is being studied as a cause of numerous health problems, yet many UPFs seem to be linked to this as well! Incidentally, there are somewhere in the neighborhood of 100 studies looking at the benefits of ketogenic diets currently; as well as hundreds of medical doctors using it to reverse obesity, diabetes, metabolic syndrome, and heart disease!
When I want information about proper nutrition, I will continue to look to sources like Dr. Eric Westman, Dr. Ben Bikman, and science writer Gary Taubes. Dr. Westman runs the Lifestyle Medical Center at Duke University where he uses diet to reverse obesity and diabetes. Dr. Bikman is a professor of cell biology and physiology who studies insulin and its effects on metabolism and disease. Gary Taubes is a highly awarded science journalist who has written four books on nutrition science, as well as one on CERN, and one on the “cold-fusion” hoax. He has a MA in journalism from Columbia, but he makes up for it by having a BS in physics from Harvard, and an MS from Stanford in aerospace engineering!
I could go on and on, listing further sources of information; but this rant is getting way too long! To sum it up, I feel rather disappointed in you, Kip; and to me this is a black eye for WUWT as well! You’re normally much better than this!
abo man ==> You do go on and on… This essay is about a single study on UPFs, Part Five of a five part series. Earlier parts are highlighted as “Related” at the end which give the definitions ad nauseam. Of course, a quick peek at the Wiki for UPFs is also easy for readers.
I give no nutrition advice in this essay.
There are a whole lot of opinions about diets for human health and you are welcome to pick your own experts just like everyone else. Some readers may be interested in your list.
There is no such thing as “cutting edge” nutrition — only more and newer opinions mostly intended to sell more nutrition books.
I just write about the science — like this new NIH study featured here.
“Books promoting the keto diet are not science—they are advertising.”
So you’re saying that the diet that has been the mainstay of species Homo for 95% or more of their evolutionary history doesn’t work!? Maybe it IS just a coincidence that ALL modern hunter gatherer cultures that adopt the “Western diet” also soon start developing the “diseases of Western civilization;” including diabetes, heart disease, and even dental caries! 150 years ago these conditions were rare except in the wealthy and the nobility!
“there’s no such thing as ‘cutting edge’ nutrition…” That will come as quite a shock to the hundreds, if not thousands, of scientists who are trying to find the causes behind the rapid, recent increases in metabolic syndrome, diabetes, and numerous degenerative diseases. I’m just disappointed because it appears that someone I respected is a bullshitter who spreads disinformation. I thought we left that for the climate alarmists!
abo man ==> You are certainly welcome to your own views — everyone has one. I have no particular opinion about the Keto Diet — at least not an opinion that is different than the one I have on all these Fad Diets, present and past.
Science is a long and dusty road — every new study, every new field of interest, produces new ideas and some of them pass the test of time and “further study”.
Of course medical researchers are trying to find the cause/causes of “rapid, recent increases in metabolic syndrome, diabetes, and numerous degenerative diseases.” That is their job. That effort is not, and should not be, confined to those who study diets.
“Cutting edge” is just a marketing phrase and in the case of nutrition, just means the latest and most highly promoted.
I would very much like to see some real breakthroughs in the field, I follow the medical journals fairly closely.
Nutrition and diet are one of the fields of science that are highly prone to ‘science fads’ and bandwagoning — both of which are inimical to real progress.
I would be happy to write about any real breakthrough studies in the field if you bring them to my attention. The subject of this essay is one such study: for a decade it has been widely believed in the nutrition/diet arena that UPFs were truly addictive like opioids…producing a rewarding dopamine spike that demanded repetition. When this hypothesis was finally carefully tested in a registered tightly controlled NIH sponsored study, it was found not to be true — UPFs are not addictive in that way. POOF!
A favorite widely touted idea shot down by real science.
THAT is the type of science needed in this field — actually doing definitive science to settle these types of issues.
Kip,
Thanks for your patience with my little temper tantrum! Here are a few of the dozens of papers available at PubMed for your perusal:
K. Dowis & Simran Banga, 2021; PMC8153354; The potential benefits of the ketogenic diet: a narrative review.
Westman, et. al., 2008; PMC2633336; The effect of the LCKD vs the low glycemic index diet on glycemic control of Type 2 diabetes.
Miller, et. al., 2018; PMC5828461; Nutritional ketosis and mitohormesis: potential implications for mitochondrial function and human health.
UPFs are really a distraction. Homemade food with the same macronutrients can be just as unhealthy. All of them could be heathy if you are starving. All sweets are somewhat addictive, dopamine or not.
When humans eat surplus nutrients with glucose, blood glucose rises and insulin is secreted to cause the excess to be stored as fat. If fat is eaten with the glucose, the fat is stored first and insulin increses more until the glucose is stored. That is called the Randle cycle.
Chronic high insulin leads to disease and obesity.
It’s a little more complicated than that….Cf- role of incretins & leptin in appetite regulation and role of insulin in regulating the he balance between lipogenesis & lipolysis. That’s the major role of insulin. It’s role in glucose regulation is only secondary. Remember that only certain renal cells are obligate users of insulin (cf- diabetic ketoacidosis)
To lose weight, one must limit calorie intake, regardless of source, to a level below calorie use. Low carb diets are usually more effective than low fat diets in the long run due to fat’s influence on leptin levels & appetie suppression. You know the old addage about Chinese food (hi carbs/lowfat) and being hungry again.
Diabetes is now considered a CAD equivalent rather than just a risk factor, but it’s unclear if hi glucose levels, insulin levels or some other factor is the causative agent. Even those with well controlled glucose levels remain at high risk for arteriosclerotic complications….and keep in mind that obesity is correlated with disease, but not a cause of disease.
To be “addicting,” a particular substance must exhibit (a) the phenomenon of tachyphylaxis- continually escalating doses required to induce the same biological response of the previous, lower doses, and (2) rebound phenomenon- sudden withdrawal induces an over-shoot response. Eg- DTs– exaggerated neural activity after withdrawal of sedating EtOH…Neither sugar nor fat exhibits either.
We have four types of taste buds…Two of them, that for sweet and that for salt, are attractive. We naturally seek salt and sugar because in Nature- a hunter/gatherer situation, an adequate intake of certain minerals and digestable carb calories is difficult to achieve…..The other two, acid and bitter, are repulsive tastes. Acid suggests rancid, putrified food. Bitter suggests poisonous alkaloids. ….There’s a natural reason kids with young, good taste buds hate veggies and love Twinkies & potato chips.
UPFs are just inexpensive, convenient sources of the things we all naturally crave.
BTW- with one lb of fat containing about 4000 cal, just 100 cal a day (half a can of soda pop) intake above & beyond our daily cal expenditure, we gain a lb of fat every six weeks. ( !!)
GMO-ed foods are overwhelmingly prevalent today – in America. WHY is that?
Do Americans demand GMO-foods? Of course, not.
Europeans and other countries apparently get along without bioengineered foods.
GMO foods are ‘possibly’ OK, but that label covers anything and everything. It is rarely possible to learn precisely what GMO means, and whether that brand of genetic modification is either useful or better – or safe.
As a result, my family never consumes GMO-ed food if we can possibly avoid it. The law to disclose is often voided by simply burying disclosure or using 2 point print that is nearly invisible.
As a result, I treat a ‘smart label’ as proof of biogenetically engineered food: I do not buy that product. Very often, a non-GMO product is less expense and better quality too!