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
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Surprising Reason Americans Are Still Struggling to Get Off the Couch
Americans were sitting less—until the pandemic hit. From 2013 to early 2020, the average amount of time spent sedentary was on a steady decline, according to a JAMA research letter. Then came lockdowns, remote work, and closed gyms. Now, five years later, we're still not moving the way we used to. The surprising part? It's not the pandemic itself that's holding us back. It's what we kept from that time: virtual meetings, delivery apps, and digital convenience that eliminate nearly all incidental movement. Between 2017 and 2020, average sedentary time hovered around 5.9 hours per day. Despite reopening efforts and a return to daily routines, Americans today are still logging six hours of sitting time daily, and that number hasn't budged since 2021. Experts believe the technology we adopted during lockdowns plays a bigger role than we realize. Zoom meetings replaced office walks. Grocery delivery replaced cart-pushing. And once-automatic steps, like walking into work or grabbing lunch across the street, have quietly disappeared. The shift wasn't temporary. For many, it became the new baseline. And that matters. Yahoo reported that prolonged sitting is linked to a higher risk of heart disease, type 2 diabetes, and even certain cancers. The phrase 'sitting is the new smoking' might sound overused, but it's rooted in the reality that a sedentary lifestyle is still a leading health concern in the U.S. That doesn't mean everyone needs to hit the gym seven days a week. In fact, experts say daily movement—even in small doses—can make a measurable difference. Taking walking breaks, adding 'exercise snacks' throughout the day, or choosing to run errands in person instead of online are all ways to offset the damage of desk-bound days. There's also a growing divide in who's able to get moving again. Gym membership rates hit a record high in 2024, but researchers note that those benefits mostly reach higher-income Americans. For people working multiple jobs or without flexible schedules, building in movement remains a challenge. The solution isn't more pressure. It's more purpose. We don't need to overhaul our lives. We just need to start moving in the right direction, one step at a Reason Americans Are Still Struggling to Get Off the Couch first appeared on Men's Journal on Jul 7, 2025
Scientific American
3 hours ago
- Scientific American
Massive Study Flips Our Story of Addiction and the Brain
For decades, Americans have been told a simple story about addiction: taking drugs damages the brain—and the earlier in life children start using substances, the more likely they are to progress through a 'gateway' from milder ones such as marijuana to more dangerous drugs such as opioids. Indeed, those who start using at younger ages are much more likely to become addicted. But a recent study, part of an ongoing project to scan the brains of 10,000 kids as they move through childhood into adulthood, complicates the picture. It found that the brains of those who started experimenting with cannabis, cigarettes or alcohol before age 15 showed differences from those who did not— before the individuals took their first puff or sip. When paired with an independent trial of a successful prevention program tailored to at-risk kids, the findings suggest better ways to fend off substance use disorders before they start. 'This study is extremely helpful because it begins to outline the brain changes that are seen in teenagers who start to use drugs early,' says Ayana Jordan, an associate professor of psychiatry and population health at NYU Grossman School of Medicine, who was not associated with the project. On supporting science journalism If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today. The findings are 'actually telling you that there are vulnerability factors and identifying them,' says Nora Volkow, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), part of the National Institutes of Health, which funded the research. Published in December 2024 in JAMA Network Open, the new work is part of the ongoing NIDA-led Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development initiative, the largest-ever long-term U.S. study of child brain health and growth. (Like all current NIH projects, it is threatened by the budget cuts imposed by the Trump administration, though Volkow says sustaining it is a top priority for NIDA.) In the new study, children aged nine to 11 underwent regular brain scans for three years. In separate interviews, the participants and their parents also provided information on diet and substance use. Nearly a quarter of the children had used drugs including alcohol, cannabis and nicotine before the study began. Children who started using drugs during the study period had preexisting enlargements in many brain regions and had larger brains overall when the study began than those who did not use drugs, explains lead author Alex Miller, an assistant professor of psychiatry at Indiana University School of Medicine. These youth had many of the same brain differences as children who had begun drug use before the start of the study. In both groups, the outer portion of the brain, called the cortex, also had a larger surface area on average, with more folds and grooves. Having a bulkier and more heavily creased brain is generally linked to higher intelligence, though these factors are far from the only ones that matter. Bigger and groovier isn't always better: during adolescence, natural processes actually 'prune back' some brain areas—so whether size differences are positive depends on the life stage being studied and on the brain regions that should be large at that time. Other research has associated the some of the brain differences found in the study with certain personality traits: curiosity, or interest in exploring the environment, and a penchant for risk-taking. Like having a large brain, curiosity and interest in novelty (which are sometimes measured together as a personality trait called 'openness to experience') are associated with intelligence. But when curiosity is coupled with a strong drive to seek intense sensations and a willingness to take risks without considering the consequences, it's also linked to a higher likelihood of trying drugs. If these early brain differences aren't caused by drugs, where do they come from? They could reflect certain genetic variations or childhood exposure to adverse experiences—both of which have previously been associated with addiction risk. While it's still possible that substances could chemically interfere with brain development, contributing to the elevated risk for addiction among those who start drinking or taking other drugs early, the study suggests that there are other, preexisting factors at play. The brain differences here were only linked to early initiation of drug use —not necessarily to addiction itself. 'More data is needed to see if any of these brain changes are related to disease progression, severity of use or how the teens may respond to treatment,' Jordan says. Research already suggests that early differences can be targeted to improve prevention programs. In fact, a recent trial showed that substance use disorders can be prevented in kids with personality traits that put them at higher risk. Some of the personality traits targeted in this trial have previously been associated with the kinds of brain differences found in the new brain scan study. In the prevention trial, researchers compared Montreal-area schools in which teens received a personality-based intervention in seventh grade with those that did not. The program began by having kids take a validated personality test. Months later, with no reference to the test, teens who scored highest in the traits of impulsiveness, sensation-seeking, hopelessness or sensitivity to anxiety were invited to participate in two 90-minute workshops. These workshops taught cognitive skills aimed at maximizing the strengths and minimizing the weaknesses typically associated with their specific most strongly outlying trait. Five years later, students at the schools that did use the program had 87 percent lower odds of developing substance use disorders. 'It's a 35 percent reduction in the annual growth of substance use disorders across time,' says Patricia Conrod, a professor of psychiatry at the University of Montreal and lead author of the prevention trial. The results were published in the American Journal of Psychiatry in January. Conrod emphasizes that 'risky' traits have pluses as well as minuses. For example, a tendency to seek new experiences can be critical for success in science, medicine and the arts. A willingness to take risks is useful in occupations ranging from firefighting to entrepreneurship. The trick is to help young people manage such predilections safely. In some children she has worked with, who start drugs as early as age 13, Conrod says that 'the drive to self-medicate is so strong; it's really striking. There really is this discomfort with their inner world.' As a result, providing ways to manage these feelings without misusing drugs—and without pathologizing those with outlying traits—can be a powerful way to support healthy development.
Miami Herald
3 hours ago
- Miami Herald
Smaller nuclear reactors spark renewed interest in a once-shunned energy source
ABILENE, Texas - Bolstered by $3.2 million from a former Midland oilman, this West Texas city of 130,000 people is helping the Lone Star State lead a national nuclear energy resurgence. Doug Robison's 2021 donation to Abilene Christian University helped the institution win federal approval to house an advanced small modular nuclear reactor, which might be finished as soon as next year. Small modular reactors are designed to be built in factories and then moved to a site, and require less upfront capital investment than traditional large reactors. The company Robison founded, Natura Resources, is investing another $30.5 million in the project. Only two small modular reactors are in operation, one in China and another in Russia. Natura Resources is one of two companies with federal permits to build one in the U.S. "Nuclear is happening," said Robison, who retired from the oil business and moved to Abilene to launch the company. "It has to happen." Robison's words are being echoed across the country with new state laws that aim to accelerate the spread of projects that embrace advanced nuclear technology - decades after the Three Mile Island and Chernobyl calamities soured many Americans on nuclear power. In the past two years, half the states have taken action to promote nuclear power, from creating nuclear task forces to integrating nuclear into long-term energy plans, according to the Nuclear Energy Institute, which advocates for the industry. "I've been tracking legislation for 18 years, and when I first started tracking, there were maybe five or 10 bills that said the word 'nuclear,'" said Christine Csizmadia, who directs state government affairs at the institute. "This legislative session, we're tracking over 300 bills all across the country." The push is bipartisan. In New York, Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul recently directed the New York Power Authority to build a zero-emission advanced nuclear power plant somewhere upstate - her state's first new nuclear plant in a generation. In Colorado, Democratic Gov. Jared Polis in April signed legislation redefining nuclear energy, which doesn't emit a significant amount of planet-warming greenhouse gases, as a "clean energy resource." The law will allow future plants to receive state grants reserved for other carbon-free energy sources. But no state is more gung-ho than Texas, where Republican Gov. Greg Abbott recently signed legislation creating the Texas Advanced Nuclear Energy Office and investing $350 million in nuclear expansion. "Texas is the energy capital of the world, and this legislation will position Texas at the forefront of America's nuclear renaissance," Abbott wrote in a statement. In addition to legislative action, the Texas A&M University System has invited four nuclear manufacturers to build small modular reactors at the school's 2,400-acre RELLIS campus in the city of Bryan. In Texas and other fast-growing states, rising electricity demands are fueling the push. Tech companies such as Google, Microsoft and Amazon that require a tremendous amount of electricity to power vast data centers are teaming with nuclear developers to provide it. Last October, Google signed an agreement with nuclear energy producer Kairos Power to deploy multiple small modular reactors capable of generating a total of up to 500 megawatts by 2035. Meta, the parent company of Facebook, announced in December that it is also looking to reach a similar deal. Some of the largest data centers require more than 100 megawatts of power capacity, enough to power around 100,000 U.S. households. Constellation Energy announced last September that it would reopen Three Mile Island, shuttered since 2019, as part of a deal with Microsoft to power the tech giant's AI data centers. One of the two reactors at the plant, which is located south of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, partially melted down in 1979. But the remaining reactor reliably produced electricity for the next four decades. "Folks shouldn't sleep on nuclear," Pennsylvania Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro said as he welcomed back workers to the plant recently. "They should be aware of the important clean role it plays in our energy portfolio." But opponents say the renewed interest in nuclear energy is misguided. In Colorado, a coalition of two dozen environmental groups, including the state chapter of the Sierra Club, urged Polis to veto the bill. "The idea that nuclear power is a clean energy source could not be further from the truth," the groups wrote in a letter to the governor. "Nuclear power is the only energy resource that generates dangerous waste that will remain radioactive for thousands of years." Some critics say small modular reactors are actually more expensive than traditional reactors, when they are judged per kilowatt of the energy they produce. And one 2022 study, conducted by researchers at Stanford University and the University of British Columbia, concluded that small modular reactors will produce more radioactive waste than traditional reactors. "There's a pretty healthy skepticism about advanced nuclear projects," said Adrian Shelley, who heads the Texas office of Public Citizen, a nonprofit consumer advocacy group. Shelley said many environmental groups "are just deeply concerned about Texas' ability to responsibly manage nuclear storage and especially nuclear waste in the long term." Ramping up The United States currently has 94 nuclear reactors at 54 plants in 28 states. The oldest began operating at Nine Mile Point in New York in 1969; the newest reactors, Vogtle Units 3 and 4 in Burke County, Georgia, began operating in 2023 and 2024. Scott Burnell, a spokesperson for the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission, said that between the mid-1990s and 2005, there were "no applications at all" for new reactors. In 2007, there was a surge of a dozen applications when the federal government began offering tax incentives. But interest in new reactors plunged again when the fracking boom boosted fossil fuels as an economical power source. Over the past several years, activity has ramped up again. "There are a number of factors that we are seeing drive this increased interest," Burnell said. "Probably the biggest one is the growth in data centers." The commission has approved three new nuclear projects in the past three years, including the one at Abilene Christian University. It is reviewing three other applications and is discussing potential projects with a dozen other nuclear developers, Burnell said. Texas currently has two nuclear plants - Comanche Peak near Glen Rose in North Central Texas and the South Texas Project in Matagorda County on the Gulf Coast. The two plants, each of which has two reactors, provide about 10% of the state's electric power, according to the Texas comptroller. The new small modular reactors would face the same safety standards as these plants. The project at Abilene Christian began when Robison's Natura Resources established a research alliance with that school, the Georgia Institute of Technology, Texas A&M University and the University of Texas at Austin. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission approved the project in 2024. The reactor will be constructed at a laboratory at a different site, but its home already awaits in a trench at the bottom of a cavernous room at Abilene Christian's Dillard Science and Engineering Research Center. The trench is 25 feet deep, 80 feet long and 15 feet wide, with a radiation shield made of concrete 4 feet thick. When the 40-ton reactor is finished, possibly by the end of next year, it will be transported to its home on a flatbed truck. "The future is uncertain, but we're ahead of the pack and moving at an amazing clip," said Rusty Towell, an Abilene Christian engineering and physics professor who is working on the project. "So I think that there's a great reason for optimism." Towell asserted that the project will produce only "small amounts of low-level waste" and that storing it safely will not be a significant challenge. 'What Henry Ford did for cars' John Sharp, the outgoing chancellor of Texas A&M University, said he invited nuclear companies to build small modular reactors at the school to help meet the country's desperate need for more power. He said it made sense to give developers access to the faculty and students at the university's nuclear engineering department. Sharp said his pitch was simple: "Hey, we got some land. We got it next to some really smart people. Would you like to come and build a plant? "And four folks said, 'You betcha.'" Matt Loszak, the 34-year-old CEO of Austin-based Aalo Atomics, one of the companies that answered Sharp's call, said he had two employees 18 months ago. Now he has more than 50. "We want to do for reactors what Henry Ford did for cars," Loszak said, "which is really make them mass manufacturable and make it economical to deploy around the world." Robison said he's been speaking at town halls in Abilene, a conservative community that is home to Dyess Air Force Base, for about five years. He claims the residents are "overwhelmingly excited" about having the small modular reactors at Abilene Christian, he said. "Texas is an energy state," he said. "We understand energy and what happens when you don't have it." Copyright (C) 2025, Tribune Content Agency, LLC. Portions copyrighted by the respective providers.
