Digestery
Diet and food › Ultra-Processed Food › Studies

Trial, not randomized · measured other health measures

Trial in 50 adults: hard-texture meals cut intake by 21% of food weight

Teo and colleagues · The American journal of clinical nutrition · 2022

Original title: Texture-based differences in eating rate influence energy intake for minimally processed and ultra-processed meals.

Under review. A person has not yet checked this summary against the paper. It is written from the PubMed abstract. Until a person checks it, search engines are asked not to list this page.

What the study found

Mixed

Hard-texture meals were eaten slower and cut intake by 21% (food weight) and 26% (energy). Least energy came from hard minimally processed (482.9 kcal), most from soft ultra-processed (789.4 kcal).

The study at a glance

Type of study
Trial, not randomized
Who or what was studied
50 people · 50 healthy-weight adults, average age 24.4
What was tested
Four lunches eaten as much as wanted: soft or hard food, each minimally processed or ultra-processed
What it measured
Other health or performance measures
Trial registration
NCT04589221
Who has a stake
No disclosure in PubMed
No disclosure in PubMed.
Journal
The American journal of clinical nutrition, 2022
Source
PubMed record 35285882. This page is based on the abstract only.

How much this study counts

  • –Not randomized: the groups may differ in ways that affect the result.
  • •Medium size: 50 people.
  • •Measured other health measures, not death, heart disease, diabetes and cancer itself.
  • •The PubMed record has no conflict-of-interest statement.
  • •Summarized from the PubMed abstract only. The full paper may hold details the abstract leaves out.

✓ Strength– Limit• Note

These points come from fixed rules about the type of study, its size and length, what it measured, and who has a stake. Every study on Digestery gets the same rules.

Where this study sits

Each dot is one on-topic paper on this question. Steps near the top answer the question more directly.

↑ Stronger evidence

  1. Trials in people: death and chronic disease

    2

    1 no difference, 1 harm

  2. Trials in people: other measures

    3

    1 mixed, 1 no direction, 1 harm

    ↑ This study is the ringed dot

  3. Trials in people: lab tests or safety

    1

    1 mixed

  4. Population studies

    17

    1 mixed, 16 harm

  5. Blood levels and genes

    0

    None among the papers we read.

↓ Weaker evidence

  • Points to benefit
  • Mixed
  • No difference
  • No direction
  • Points to harm

How it fits with the other research

The short answer to “Are ultra-processed foods bad for your health?”

Linked to worse health; cause not proven.

Confidence: low. Based on 38 on-topic papers.

Read the full answer

Few other papers sit on the same step, so there is little to compare it with.

Other papers on the same step

See all 38 studies on this question

How this page was made

Label

First read of the abstract
Claude Sonnet
Independent second read
Claude Haiku
Differences settled
The two reads differed. The reviewer checked the abstract and kept the first read. Claude Opus 5.5.
Headline
Claude Sonnet, from the checked study record. A script checked its numbers and wording.
Numbers
Checked against the abstract by a script
“How much this study counts”
Fixed rules, the same for every study
Source check by a person
Not yet. Required before search engines may list this page.

Spot an error? Email a flag with a link to your source, or use the form on the question page.