Key takeaways
- Nutrient-matched UPF and non-UPF meals produced different insulin and energy responses in a recent study.
- Researchers at Virginia Tech used matched 300-calorie meals fMRI to evaluate the brain’s reward regions following meal consumption.
- The researchers want to examine specific additives and processing steps still to isolate health effects.
Nutrition researchers have investigated why ultra-processed food (UPF) consumption often parallels poor health outcomes. Scientists at Virginia Tech, US, report that two meals with the same nutrition label still send the body and brain in different directions — a finding that they say may offer a “candidate mechanism” for evaluating if corresponding health problems are a result of the nutrient composition in UPFs or the processing itself.
Alexandra DiFeliceantonio, PhD, associate professor at Virginia Tech’s Fralin Biomedical
“If you look at that population-level data, people who consume large amounts of UPFs have higher rates of poor health outcomes: obesity, cardiac events, type 2 diabetes, and even some metrics of mental health,” she says.
What has been missing is a clean test, according to the study. Much of the evidence comparing processed and unprocessed diets also changed the fat, sugar, fiber, and protein, which the study says left the mechanism tangled.
Higher insulin after UPF
Published in Nature Metabolism, the study matched the two meals on calories, carbohydrate, fat, protein, fiber, sodium, water, and weight. The paper reports the match held within 1.6% on every measure, and extended to glycemic index and glycemic load.The study matches nutrients between UPF and non-UPF meals to isolate the possible effects of processing.
Zach Hutelin, the study’s first author and a researcher at the institute, says the plates were engineered to look the same on paper.
“The two meals are matched within 1% of carbs, fat, proteins, calories, water, and salt,” he says. “If these meals had a processed foods are high in fat, they’re high in sugar, they’re low in fiber, and they’re low in protein,” she says. “But if we artificially hold all of those things constant, is there something about the processing that leads to a different outcome?”
Additives under scrutiny
On a separate day, all 57 participants viewed pictures of the foods inside a functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) scanner while the machine tracked blood flow. The researchers analyzed scans from 52 after excluding five for head movement, task performance, or equipment failure.
The results show that insulin runs higher and longer after the nutrient-matched ultra-processed meal.
Among the 29 participants with usable metabolic and brain data, differences in how much carbohydrate people burned after each meal tracked activity in the ventral striatum and caudate, regions tied to motivation and reward. Across the 52-person imaging group, an auction task found that participants would not pay more for UPFs than for non-UPF ones.
The study stops well short of a verdict on long-term health. Participants were healthy-weight adults between 18 and 45, every meal was a single 300-calorie pairing, and the measurements ran for hours, not years.
The authors also flag other gaps. The protein own. Additionally, the ultra-processed meal carried more additives, and the team did not measure the physical or chemical structure of the foods beyond total fiber
DiFeliceantonio says the next step is to identify which aspects of processing drive the different health effects.
“We want to examine specific factors, such as commercial additives or specific processing steps, that might lead to different metabolic responses,” she concludes.
All content and features on this website are copyrighted with all rights reserved. The full details can be found in our
Save in your AI
Transform Food & Agriculture Europe 2026
Halls 7 & 8, Dubai World Trade Centre, Dubai, UAE
