YHK - yet another hacker news clone

Food processing influences metabolism and brain activity

29 points gmays 4 hours ago 11 comments

esperent 1 hour ago | parent

From the actual study:

> The non-UPF and UPF test meals were closely matched on meal weight, energy, energy density, macronutrients, available carbohydrate, glycaemic index and load, total dietary fibre, sodium and water (all ≤1.6% deviation between meals; Fig. 1b).

So they did match glycemic index, which the article omits.

tancop 1 hour ago | parent

That means the only options left are micronutrients, specific additives or psychology.

I bet a lot of this is psychosomatic, you expect some food will give you fast energy so your body thinks that means you need it and releases insulin.

eudkfkriEir 25 minutes ago | parent

> That means the only options left are

plus all of the options that are complete unknowns which, in biology, is probably close to 99.999%

nrclark 22 minutes ago | parent

Another option is that it's affected by the order of consumption.

I know somebody who got really into blood glucose monitoring, and she tells me that the order in which she eats a meal affects how much it spikes her glucose. So if she eats a piece of toast followed by a piece of cheese, it causes her a bigger glucose spike than she'd get if she eats the cheese first and then the toast.

Looking at the two meals in the study: if I sat down to eat the processed one, I'd probably start with the veggie straws. If I saw down to eat the unprocessed one, I'd almost certainly start with the egg or the cheese.

edit: and here are some other options: I notice that the unprocessed one is grain-free, vegetarian and has significantly less sucrose. I don't know if any of that makes it more or less healthy, but they're significant differences nutritionally.

PowerElectronix 18 minutes ago | parent

Not only psychology, but training. If your body gets a load of sugar every time it tastes UPF additives, it learns to release insulin on taste to protect itself.

niek_pas 1 hour ago | parent

Would love to read the original research paper if anyone has access to it. My university unfortunately doesn’t.

esperent 1 hour ago | parent

It's linked right at the bottom of the article and you can download the full pdf.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s42255-026-01619-4

TheChaplain 1 hour ago | parent

I believe they are on to something, but wouldn't it be much better if the sample size was larger than just 57 people?

esperent 1 hour ago | parent

Of course but I'm sure they made the sample size as large as their funding permitted and it's better than nothing.

emj 34 minutes ago | parent

This is a good question but not an invalidation of the study. People underestimate the cost of doing large scale surveys, first year researchers become painfully aware of it. There are lots of research were you try to get a quantitative result cheap. But most costs a lot of money (the big studies are usually very well spent money imho)

Example: five years, 10000 participants, $170 million https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/nih-awards-170...

arrrg 28 minutes ago | parent

Larger sample sizes allow you to detect smaller effects. Since a signal was seen here effect size doesn’t seem to be the problem.