> 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.
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.
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.
Would love to read the original research paper if anyone has access to it. My university unfortunately doesn’t.
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
I believe they are on to something, but wouldn't it be much better if the sample size was larger than just 57 people?
Of course but I'm sure they made the sample size as large as their funding permitted and it's better than nothing.