How 5 days of eating ultra-processed food can impact your brain
We jest, but recent research reveals just how damaging ultra-processed foods can be.
Research shows that 60% of Americans' daily caloric intake typically comes from ultra-processed foods, which often contain high levels of sodium, refined sugars, cholesterol-spiking fats and other lab-based ingredients.
What's more, a recent study linked exposure to these foods to 32 poor health outcomes, such as a higher risk of cardiovascular disease, cancer, metabolic syndrome, obesity, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, Type 2 diabetes and premature death.
In yet another new study, it gets worse.
Researchers at the Institute for Diabetes Research and Metabolic Diseases of the Helmholtz Center in Munich and the University of Tubingen in Germany found that those adverse effects might be dangerously easy to acquire, and long-lasting, too.
Researchers found that even in the short-term, consuming a high-calorie diet rich in ultra-processed foods impairs brain insulin responsiveness and increases liver fat in healthy men.
These effects linger long after the eating period, according to the researchers.
Insulin regulates appetite and metabolism, and insulin resistance such as the kind triggered by ultra-processed foods compromises this regulation and contributes to obesity, Type 2 diabetes and cognitive dysfunction.
The German team also found a link between ultra-processed food consumption and disruption in the brain's reward learning response. This suggests that as little as five days of overeating can condition the brain for unhealthy eating patterns.
As part of the study, 29 healthy male participants between 19 and 27 were divided into a high-caloric diet (HCD) group and a control group.
Over five days, the HCD group was asked to eat additional daily calories from ultra-processed snack foods. The control group, meanwhile, maintained their regular diet.
The aim of the study was to assess insulin-induced brain activity during three moments: Before the high-caloric diet, during it and one week after subjects returned to eating normally.
The HCD group increased their daily caloric intake by 1,200 calories on average, and liver fat content in that group increased dramatically, while brain insulin responsiveness also increased.
One week after resuming a regular diet, insulin activity was significantly lower in the brain.
Researchers were surprised at the effect short-term HCD had on reward learning, which is the process by which the brain learns to associate behaviours or stimuli with a positive or negative outcome and modify accordingly.
After five days of eating ultra-processed foods, the HCD group showed decreased reward sensitivity and increased punishment sensitivity.
Ultra-processed foods associated with cognitive impairment: Study
Junk food, processed meat paving way for rise of cancer?
After a week of normal eating, this trend let up but didn't fully reverse itself.
'Data suggest that a short-term HCD, rich in sugar and saturated fat, has prolonged effects on the brain that outlast the time frame of its consumption,' according to the research team.
'Habitual daily intake of sweet and fatty snacks has been shown to increase neural responses to food, while decreasing the preference for low-fat food independent of changes in body weight and metabolism.'
The study is gender specific and more research is required, but the team said, 'the brain response to insulin adapts to short-term changes in diet before weight gain and may facilitate the development of obesity and associated diseases.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hamilton Spectator
38 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
RFK Jr. promoted a food company he says will make Americans healthy. Their meals are ultraprocessed
WASHINGTON (AP) — Health secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on Monday praised a company that makes $7-a-pop meals that are delivered directly to the homes of Medicaid and Medicare enrollees. He even thanked Mom's Meals for sending taxpayer-funded meals 'without additives' to the homes of sick or elderly Americans. The spreads include chicken bacon ranch pasta for dinner and French toast sticks with fruit or ham patties. 'This is really one of the solutions for making our country healthy again,' Kennedy said in the video, posted to his official health secretary account, after he toured the company's Oklahoma facility last week. But an Associated Press review of Mom's Meals menu, including the ingredients and nutrition labels, shows that the company's offerings are the type of heat-and-eat, ultraprocessed foods that Kennedy routinely criticizes for making people sick. The meals contain chemical additives that would render them impossible to recreate at home in your kitchen, said Marion Nestle, a nutritionist at New York University and food policy expert, who reviewed the menu for The AP. Many menu items are high in sodium, and some are high in sugar or saturated fats, she said. 'It is perfectly possible to make meals like this with real foods and no ultra-processing additives but every one of the meals I looked at is loaded with such additives,' Nestle said. 'What's so sad is that they don't have to be this way. Other companies are able to produce much better products, but of course they cost more.' Mom's Meals do not have the artificial, petroleum dyes that Kennedy has pressured companies to remove from products, she noted. Mom's Meals said in an emailed response that its food products 'do not include ingredients that are commonly found in ultra-processed foods.' The company does not use synthetic food dyes, high fructose corn syrup, certain sweeteners or synthetic preservatives that are banned in Europe, said Teresa Roof, a company spokeswoman. The meals are a 'healthy alternative' to what many people would find in their grocery stores, said Andrew Nixon, U.S. Health and Human Services spokesman, in response to questions about Mom's Meals. Mom's Meals is one of several companies across the U.S. that deliver 'medically tailored' at-home meals. The meal programs are covered by Medicaid for some enrollees, including people who are sick with cancer or diabetes, as well as some older Americans who are enrolled in certain Medicare health insurance plans. Patients recently discharged from the hospital can also have the meals delivered, according to the company's website. It's unclear how much federal taxpayers spend on providing meals through Medicaid and Medicare every year. An investigation by STAT news last year found that some states were spending millions of dollars to provide medically tailored meals to Medicaid enrollees that were marketed as healthy and 'dietician approved.' But many companies served up meals loaded with salt, fat or sugar — all staples of an unhealthy American's diet, the report concluded. Defining ultraprocessed foods can be tricky. Most U.S. foods are processed, whether it's by freezing, grinding, fermentation, pasteurization or other means. Foods created through industrial processes and with ingredients such as additives, colors and preservatives that you couldn't duplicate in a home kitchen are considered the most processed. Kennedy has said healthier U.S. diets are key to his vision to 'Make America Healthy Again.' His call for Americans to increase whole foods in their diets has helped Kennedy build his unique coalition of Trump loyalists and suburban moms who have branded themselves as 'MAHA.' In a recent social media post where he criticized the vast amount of ultraprocessed foods in American diets, Kennedy urged Americans to make healthier choices. 'This country has lost the most basic of all freedoms — the freedom that comes from being healthy,' Kennedy said. — Aleccia reported from Temecula, Calif.
USA Today
an hour ago
- USA Today
Cuts to NOAA funding could imperil weather forecasts, endanger lives
Retired federal scientists warn Trump administration's proposed NOAA budget cuts could be costly and harm forecast accuracy. The Trump administration's plan to dismantle the nation's atmospheric research programs could set U.S. forecasting back a generation or more, a cadre of retired federal hurricane, weather and ocean scientists warns. The budget proposed by the White House for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is almost half what it was a year ago, and eliminates all funding for the agency's Office of Atmospheric Research, the division that coordinates and conducts weather and climate research across the nation. 'It will stop all progress' in U.S. forecasting, said James Franklin, who retired in 2017 as chief of the National Hurricane Center's forecast specialists. Abolishing that research will be 'a generational loss" of any progress that would have been made over the next 10 years or more, Franklin said. 'We're going to stagnate and we're not going to continue to improve as we go forward.' The atmospheric research office, also referred to as NOAA Research, underpins much of the agency's work and scientific advances, whether it's more accurate forecasting or tracking tsunamis or plumes of chemicals or wildfire smoke, said Franklin and others working to persuade Congress to save the programs. They say defunding the research program would carry great costs − forecast improvements have saved as much as $5 billion per storm − and put lives at risk when forecasts fall short. Dozens of private weather forecasters, TV meteorologists and scholars have expressed similar concerns in social media, broadcasts, blogs and newsletters, saying the degradation of forecast accuracy will affect farmers, aircraft pilots and passengers and millions of other Americans, whether they know it or not. The NOAA cuts, combined with other proposed cuts and a host of canceled grants and contracts across the federal government is being viewed by many scientists and scholars as a sweeping assault on science in the U.S. White House budget would be 40% less for NOAA The White House proposed an estimated direct program budget of $3.5 billion for NOAA, roughly $2.3 billion lower than the current year, an almost 40% reduction. The 2026 line item for NOAA Research is blank, compared to an estimated $608 million in 2025. The only office under the NOAA umbrella slated to see an increase is the National Weather Service, which could see a $71 million increase to its direct program budget, with an estimated total of $1.3 billion. In a June 5 hearing on Capitol Hill, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick defended the cuts, saying NOAA is 'transforming how we track storms and forecast weather with cutting-edge technology.' USA TODAY reached out to the Commerce Department and NOAA for comment about Lutnick's remarks to Congress, but did not receive a response. Former senior NOAA officials say transformative work will cease if the budget cuts are approved, particularly when combined with extensive cuts already made to staffing, research, grants and cooperative programs with dozens of universities. The cuts, including those by the Department of Government Efficiency and Office of Management and Budget, show little practical knowledge of how the nation's weather system operates, said Craig McLean, a former NOAA chief scientist and former assistant administrator for research. He compares the administration cuts to dismantling a car engine, then trying to put it back together without parts whose purpose you don't understand. Conservatives propose reining in "climate change alarm" Many of the steps taken so far reflect the recommendations of the Heritage Foundation's Project 2025, which proposed dismantling NOAA and privatizing weather service operations, specifically targeting the agency's work on climate monitoring and climate change. Project 2025 stated NOAA's six main offices – including its divisions for research, satellites, ocean service, fisheries and marine and aviation operations – form 'a colossal operation that has become one of the main drivers of the climate change alarm industry and, as such, is harmful to future U.S. prosperity.' In a budget document, the White House has stated some of NOAA's research and grant programs 'spread environmental alarm." In mid-June, a team of at least a half dozen people who wrote and produced a website that supports science education and explains complicated science and weather to the public, was terminated. Agency veterans say the administration's campaign against climate research fails to acknowledge the role climate plays in daily weather, and mischaracterizes how NOAA research supports daily forecasts for all kinds of extreme weather. US military takes an abrupt turn after decades of climate change research NOAA research extends far beyond the well-documented changing climate, said Alan Gerard, who recently retired from the agency's Severe Storms Laboratory. For example, he said the cuts could "be disastrous" for improving tornado warnings. Experts say budget cuts put national research network in peril NOAA Research's network of nine laboratories, 16 cooperative institutes and other partnerships with universities collect and share weather data, then use it to develop new forecast models, new tools and better techniques to save lives, Gerard said. The division's work is credited with modeling and forecasting advances that support both the hurricane center and the weather service, including vast improvements in forecasting hurricane track and intensity. John Cortinas, a former deputy assistant administrator for science with OAR, cited a list of forecast-improvement projects now underway. For example, the storms laboratory is developing 'the next generation of radars,' to improve tornado forecasting, Cortinas said. 'But if the White House cuts go as proposed, that lab's gone, that ends.' The Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory is working on the next generation of offshore buoys. The Global Systems Laboratory developed a national weather forecast model and conducts fire-weather and wildfire research. Cortinas said it's now working to improve prediction of hyperlocal extreme rainfall events like those that caused massive flooding last summer in Minnesota and earlier this year in Kentucky. Several projects are rooted in the Weather Research and Forecast Innovation Act, passed by Congress and signed into law by President Donald Trump during the early days of his first term in 2017. A Congressional Research Service report released on June 10, 2025 noted NOAA has not publicly released details on the proposed budget, and stated the available documents do not discuss how NOAA plans to meet the responsibilities it has been assigned. Balloon launches have far-reaching forecast impacts Franklin started his 35-year career at NOAA's Atlantic Oceanographic & Meteorological Laboratory, which includes the Hurricane Research Division. He has spoken often about strides being made to improve forecasting and voiced frustration over hurdles that still exist in forecasting hurricane intensity. Over the past decade, NOAA has shaved the margin of forecast track error by 27% at 36 hours out and 18% at 72 hours out. In 2024, the hurricane center set a record for the most accurate forecasts in its history, according to a preliminary analysis by the center and the Cooperative Institute for Research in the Atmosphere at Colorado State University. 'The 5-day forecast of hurricane track is as accurate as the 3-day forecast was 20 years ago,' Rick Spinrad, NOAA's former administrator told USA TODAY. Franklin fears the budget cuts would jeopardize those improvements. For example, he points to weather balloon launches that have been restricted or discontinued at some weather service offices. The offices are grappling with staffing shortages after the administration fired some probationary employees and offered incentive-based retirements to shrink the size of the federal bureaucracy. It may be hard to conceive that data collected from balloons launched in the Great Plains could affect hurricane forecasts on the East or Gulf coasts, but they can and do, said both Franklin and Gerard. The launches provide crucial information about moisture and prevailing winds in large systems crossing the country that could steer or interact with approaching tropical systems, Franklin said. 'If they pass through an area with less balloon coverage, the forecast might change a bit and get degraded." The larger the area with missing data, he said, the greater the risk of error in a hurricane landfall forecast. Experts say better forecasts save money and lives Franklin and others cited a 2024 study by the National Bureau of Economic Research that found NOAA's Hurricane Forecast Improvement Program has saved roughly $5 billion per hurricane per year in terms of pre-landfall protective spending and post-landfall damages and recovery. "Hurricane response costs become greater when you have a poorer forecast,' he said. 'That's a lot of cost savings that we seem willing to give up here. We're going to turn off all that potential savings by saying we don't care if the forecasts don't continue to get better.' Dinah Voyles Pulver covers climate change, hurricanes and disasters for USA TODAY. Reach her at dpulver@ or dinahvp.77 on Signal.
USA Today
3 hours ago
- USA Today
Leading doctors sue RFK Jr. over COVID-19 vaccines. Here's why.
America's top medical organizations are suing Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. over the agency's COVID-19 vaccine recommendations for children and pregnant people. On May 27, Kennedy said the shot would no longer be included in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's recommended immunization schedule for healthy children and pregnant women, a move that broke with previous expert guidance and bypassed the normal scientific review process. The health secretary also fired all 17 original members of a federal vaccine panel June 9 and quickly appointed eight new members, including some vaccine skeptics. The panel met for the first time on June 25 but did not make COVID-19 vaccine recommendations for the fall. The plaintiffs, which include the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, claim Kennedy's recent decisions were designed to mislead, confuse and desensitize the public to anti-vaccine and anti-science rhetoric. In the July 7 lawsuit filed in Massachusetts, they ask the judge to halt changes made to the COVID-19 vaccine policy. Vaccine panel on thimerosal: What is that and why is there controversy? 'This wasn't just sidelining science,' said AAP President Dr. Susan Kressly. 'It's an attack on the very foundation of how we protect families and children's health. And the consequences could be dangerous.' The American College of Physicians, American Public Health Association, Infectious Diseases Society of America, Massachusetts Public Health Alliance and an anonymous pregnant physician were also listed as plaintiffs. The organizations urge parents and patients to follow medical advice published on their websites. 'We will not stand by while a single federal official unilaterally and effectively strips Americans of their choice to vaccinate with actions that thoroughly disregard overwhelming scientific evidence and decades of established federal processes,' said IDSA President Dr. Tina Tan. 'As a community of clinicians, public health officials and scientists, our focus remains the protection of patients and public health.' USA TODAY reached out to HHS for comment. Adrianna Rodriguez can be reached at adrodriguez@
