The DOI matches its Crossref record; 62 of the 64 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 13 of the 28 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Ultra-Processed Diets Cause Excess Calorie Intake and Weight Gain: An Inpatient Randomized Controlled Trial of Ad Libitum Food Intake
Open accessAbstract
Summary We investigated whether ultra-processed foods affect energy intake in 20 weight-stable adults, aged (mean±SE) 31.2±1.6 y and BMI=27±1.5 kg/m2. Subjects were admitted to the NIH Clinical Center and randomized to receive either ultra-processed or unprocessed diets for 2 weeks immediately followed by the alternate diet for 2 weeks. Meals were designed to be matched for presented calories, energy density, macronutrients, sugar, sodium, and fiber. Subjects were instructed to consume as much or as little as desired. Energy intake was greater during the ultra-processed diet (508±106 kcal/d; p=0.0001), with increased consumption of carbohydrate (280±54 kcal/d; p<0.0001) and fat (230±53 kcal/d; p=0.0004) but not protein (−2±12 kcal/d; p=0.85). Weight changes were highly correlated with energy intake (r=0.8, p<0.0001) with participants gaining 0.9±0.3 kg (p=0.009) during the ultra-processed diet and losing 0.9±0.3 kg (p=0.007) during the unprocessed diet. Limiting consumption of ultra-processed foods may be an effective strategy for obesity prevention and treatment.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
87 Own result · 14 Own method · 11 Own interpretation · 7 Partly supported · 6 No full text of the sources · 3 Supported · 2 Supported so far · 1 Sources not found · 1 No basis given · accuracy not yet measured
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“we calculated that protein leverage could potentially explain at most ~50% of the observed energy intake differences between the diets assuming perfect leverage”
§ Ultra-processed diets cause excess calorie intake and weight gain: An inpatient randomized controlled trial of ad libitum food intake > Results and Discussion > Food Intake
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Hall, 2019 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The indexed passage labeled Abstract (page not provided) defines perfect protein leverage and models its effect on energy intake. It does not report that leverage explains at most ~50% of observed energy-intake differences between diets; its quantitative estimate instead concerns about two-thirds of the rise in mean adult body weight in the US. (LLM, conf=0.88)
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“suggests that the protein leverage hypothesis could partially explain the increase in energy intake with the ultra-processed diet”
§ Ultra-processed diets cause excess calorie intake and weight gain: An inpatient randomized controlled trial of ad libitum food intake > Results and Discussion > Food Intake
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Martinez Steele et al., 2018 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The paper’s conclusions propose that the lower protein density of ultra-processed foods may help account for their association with excess energy intake. Its protein leverage hypothesis section reports that energy intake rose as dietary protein density fell across increasing levels of ultra-processed food consumption. This supports the citing sentence’s tentative explanation, though the source examines dietary associations rather than a controlled ultra-processed diet. (LLM, conf=0.90)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Simpson and Raubenheimer, 2005 source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“the ~85% higher energy density of the non-beverage foods in the ultra-processed versus unprocessed diets (Table 1) likely contributed to the observed excess energy intake”
§ Ultra-processed diets cause excess calorie intake and weight gain: An inpatient randomized controlled trial of ad libitum food intake > Results and Discussion > Food Intake
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites DellaValle et al., 2005 source
- Supportedcites Rolls, 2009 source
The ‘Energy density and satiation’ section reports that changing food energy density changed ad libitum energy intake even when macronutrient proportions were held constant. This supports the cited inference that higher food energy density likely contributed to greater intake; the ~85% comparison is presented as the citing study’s own Table 1 result. (LLM, conf=0.88)
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“However, current dietary assessment methods are insufficient to accurately or precisely measure energy intake outside the laboratory (Schoeller, 1990; Schoeller et al., 2013) and adherence to study diets cannot be guaranteed in free-living subjects.”
§ Ultra-processed diets cause excess calorie intake and weight gain: An inpatient randomized controlled trial of ad libitum food intake > Limitations of Study
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Schoeller, 1990 source
- Partly supportedcites Schoeller et al., 2013 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The section “Might the reporting error have increased in recent years?” says self-reported energy-intake data have too much systematic error to track energy balance. The Conclusions also call self-reported intake fatally flawed, but identify other validated tools to develop for measuring intake in free-living people. The source therefore supports the claim about self-report methods, not its blanket statement about all current dietary assessment methods. (LLM, conf=0.88)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“After the unprocessed diet, fasting glucose and insulin levels tended to decrease compared to baseline and the homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) (Matthews et al., 1985) was significantly decreased compared to baseline.”
§ Ultra-processed diets cause excess calorie intake and weight gain: An inpatient randomized controlled trial of ad libitum food intake > Results and Discussion > Fasting blood measurements
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Matthews et al., 1985 source
The citation is attached to the name of the homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR), identifying the measure used. The paper’s section “HOMA compared with the hyperglycaemic clamp” reports HOMA estimates of insulin resistance; the diet-related decrease is the citing authors’ own result, not a finding attributed to Matthews et al. (LLM, conf=0.92)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“This sample size calculation was informed by previous studies measuring day to day variability of ad libitum energy intake having a standard deviation of about 500–600 kcal/d (Bray et al., 2008; Edholm et al., 1970; Tarasuk and Beaton, 1992).”
§ Ultra-processed diets cause excess calorie intake and weight gain: An inpatient randomized controlled trial of ad libitum food intake > STAR★Methods > QUANTIFICATION AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Bray et al., 2008 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results section (page unavailable) reports substantial day-to-day variation in energy intake, and the Discussion gives an average within-person coefficient of variation of 25%. The paper does not report a standard deviation of 500–600 kcal/d; its mention of 600 kcal describes occasional deviations from a person's average, not the standard deviation. (LLM, conf=0.84)
- Partly supportedcites Edholm et al., 1970 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results (p. 1097) analyse day-to-day variation in recruits’ energy intake, and the Discussion (Vol. 24) describes the variation as strikingly large. However, the retrieved passages do not report an intake standard deviation of about 500–600 kcal/day; the Dietary survey (p. 1095) describes meals served to recruits rather than explicitly identifying the intake as ad libitum. (LLM, conf=0.83)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Tarasuk and Beaton, 1992 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“gaining 0.9±0.3 kg (p=0.009) during the ultra-processed diet”
- Also stated in: § Body weight and composition · plain
“participants gained 0.9±0.3 kg (p=0.009) during the ultra-processed diet”
§ Ultra-processed diets cause excess calorie intake and weight gain: An inpatient randomized controlled trial of ad libitum food intake > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Body weight and composition · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“tended to be increased at dinner (26 ± 13 kcal/day; p = 0.06)”
§ Ultra-processed diets cause excess calorie intake and weight gain: An inpatient randomized controlled trial of ad libitum food intake > Results and Discussion > Food Intake
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“satisfaction (1.9±2.4; p=0.42)”
§ Ultra-processed diets cause excess calorie intake and weight gain: An inpatient randomized controlled trial of ad libitum food intake > Results and Discussion > Appetitive measurements and eating rate
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“differences in the energy intake-adjusted scores for hunger (−1.7±2.5; p=0.5)”
§ Ultra-processed diets cause excess calorie intake and weight gain: An inpatient randomized controlled trial of ad libitum food intake > Results and Discussion > Appetitive measurements and eating rate
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 47
- It may state two separate claims as one. 12
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Previous studies have demonstrated that higher eating rates can result in increased overall energy intake”
- Also stated in: § Appetitive measurements and eating rate · plain
“such that a 20% change in eating rate can impact energy intake by between 10–13%”
§ Ultra-processed diets cause excess calorie intake and weight gain: An inpatient randomized controlled trial of ad libitum food intake > Results and Discussion > Appetitive measurements and eating rate
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites de Graaf and Kok, 2010 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Abstract says that foods eaten quickly lead to high food intake, supporting the qualitative claim in the printed sentence. Our copy does not provide the attributed estimate that a 20% change in eating rate changes energy intake by about 10–13%. (LLM, conf=0.85)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Forde et al., 2013 source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Forde, 2018 source
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Appetitive measurements and eating rate · plain
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Many of the potential negative effects of ultra-processed foods have been hypothesized to relate to their elevated sugar, fat, and sodium content while being low in protein, and fiber (Poti et al., 2017).”
§ Ultra-processed diets cause excess calorie intake and weight gain: An inpatient randomized controlled trial of ad libitum food intake > Limitations of Study
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Poti et al., 2017 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
In “Hypothesized mechanisms through nutrient content” (page unavailable), the review links potential adverse effects to high fat and refined-carbohydrate content and describes ultra-processed foods as high in added sugar and sodium. It also reports lower fiber content, but does not identify low protein as a characteristic or hypothesized mechanism. (LLM, conf=0.84)
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“a previous study suggesting that energy expenditure was ~60 kcal lower for 6 hours following consumption of processed versus unprocessed sandwiches (Barr and Wright, 2010)”
§ Ultra-processed diets cause excess calorie intake and weight gain: An inpatient randomized controlled trial of ad libitum food intake > Results and Discussion > Energy expenditure, physical activity, and energy balance
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Barr and Wright, 2010 source
The Abstract’s Design section says postprandial energy expenditure was measured for 5–6 hours after whole-food and processed-food cheese sandwiches. Its Results section reports 137 kcal for the whole-food meal versus 73.1 kcal for the processed-food meal, a difference of about 64 kcal. (LLM, conf=0.93)
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Another possible explanation is that exercise can prevent changes in insulin sensitivity and glucose tolerance during overfeeding (Walhin et al., 2013).”
§ Ultra-processed diets cause excess calorie intake and weight gain: An inpatient randomized controlled trial of ad libitum food intake > Results and Discussion > Glucose Tolerance
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Walhin et al., 2013 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion reports that daily vigorous exercise mostly prevented the reduction in insulin sensitivity during short-term overfeeding and reduced activity. But the Results state that the glycaemic response to the oral glucose tolerance test was not systematically affected in either group, so the paper does not show that exercise prevented a change in glucose tolerance. (LLM, conf=0.90)
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Overall, compared to the unprocessed diet, the measurements obtained after the ultra-processed diet were largely unchanged from baseline suggesting that these subjects likely consumed a habitual diet high in ultra-processed foods which might be expected given the high prevalence of ultra-processed food consumption in America (Martinez Steele et al., 2016).”
§ Ultra-processed diets cause excess calorie intake and weight gain: An inpatient randomized controlled trial of ad libitum food intake > Results and Discussion > Fasting blood measurements
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Martinez Steele et al., 2016 source
The Results section (‘Distribution of total energy intake by food groups’) reports that ultra-processed foods supplied 57.9% of average US daily calories in 2009–2010. This supports the cited point that consumption was high in America; the citing authors’ suggestion about their own subjects’ habitual diets is not a finding attributed to this source. (LLM, conf=0.94)
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“However, shorter durations of overfeeding have previously been demonstrated to result in rapid impairments in glucose tolerance and insulin sensitivity (Lagerpusch et al., 2012; Walhin et al., 2013), albeit with greater differences in energy intake than the present study.”
§ Ultra-processed diets cause excess calorie intake and weight gain: An inpatient randomized controlled trial of ad libitum food intake > Results and Discussion > Glucose Tolerance
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Lagerpusch et al., 2012 source
- Partly supportedcites Walhin et al., 2013 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion reports reduced insulin sensitivity after seven days of overfeeding combined with reduced physical activity. But the Results state that the glycaemic response to the oral glucose tolerance test was not systematically affected, so the paper does not demonstrate impaired glucose tolerance. Our copy also cannot establish the comparison with the citing study’s energy intake. (LLM, conf=0.88)
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Protein intake was significantly lower during the ultra-processed diet at lunch (−22 ± 6 kcal/day; p = 0.0013)”
§ Ultra-processed diets cause excess calorie intake and weight gain: An inpatient randomized controlled trial of ad libitum food intake > Results and Discussion > Food Intake
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“but was not significantly different from other meals (p > 0.17)”
§ Ultra-processed diets cause excess calorie intake and weight gain: An inpatient randomized controlled trial of ad libitum food intake > Results and Discussion > Food Intake
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“sodium intake was significantly increased during the ultra-processed versus the unprocessed diet (5.8±0.2 g/d vs. 4.6±0.2 g/d; p<0.0001)”
§ Ultra-processed diets cause excess calorie intake and weight gain: An inpatient randomized controlled trial of ad libitum food intake > Results and Discussion > Food Intake
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“there were no significant differences in consumption of total fiber (48.5±2.3 g/d vs. 45.8±2.3 g/d; p=0.41)”
§ Ultra-processed diets cause excess calorie intake and weight gain: An inpatient randomized controlled trial of ad libitum food intake > Results and Discussion > Food Intake
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Neither the order of the diet assignment (p=0.64) nor sex (p=0.28) had significant effects on the energy intake differences between the diets.”
§ Ultra-processed diets cause excess calorie intake and weight gain: An inpatient randomized controlled trial of ad libitum food intake > Results and Discussion > Food Intake
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“that tended to be different from the unprocessed diet (p=0.051)”
§ Ultra-processed diets cause excess calorie intake and weight gain: An inpatient randomized controlled trial of ad libitum food intake > Results and Discussion > Food Intake
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Uric acid decreased after the ultra-processed diet compared with baseline.”
§ Ultra-processed diets cause excess calorie intake and weight gain: An inpatient randomized controlled trial of ad libitum food intake > Results and Discussion > Fasting blood measurements
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Triglycerides and HDL cholesterol were significantly decreased compared to baseline after both diets.”
§ Ultra-processed diets cause excess calorie intake and weight gain: An inpatient randomized controlled trial of ad libitum food intake > Results and Discussion > Fasting blood measurements
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The unprocessed diet led to reduced adiponectin, total cholesterol, hsCRP, and total T3, whereas free T4 and free fatty acids were increased compared to baseline.”
§ Ultra-processed diets cause excess calorie intake and weight gain: An inpatient randomized controlled trial of ad libitum food intake > Results and Discussion > Fasting blood measurements
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“liver fat was not significantly changed after the unprocessed diet (0.95±0.1%; p=0.24)”
§ Ultra-processed diets cause excess calorie intake and weight gain: An inpatient randomized controlled trial of ad libitum food intake > Results and Discussion > Body weight and composition
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“subjects tended to have greater 24hr energy expenditure during the ultra-processed diet (51±27 kcal/d; p=0.06)”
§ Ultra-processed diets cause excess calorie intake and weight gain: An inpatient randomized controlled trial of ad libitum food intake > Results and Discussion > Energy expenditure, physical activity, and energy balance
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and decrease during the unprocessed diet (0.6±0.3 kg; p=0.08)”
§ Ultra-processed diets cause excess calorie intake and weight gain: An inpatient randomized controlled trial of ad libitum food intake > Results and Discussion > Body weight and composition
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The unprocessed diet led to reduced adiponectin, total cholesterol, hsCRP, and total T3, whereas free T4 and free fatty acids were increased compared to baseline.”
§ Ultra-processed diets cause excess calorie intake and weight gain: An inpatient randomized controlled trial of ad libitum food intake > Results and Discussion > Fasting blood measurements
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“fat-free mass tended to increase during the ultra-processed diet (0.5±0.3 kg; p=0.09)”
§ Ultra-processed diets cause excess calorie intake and weight gain: An inpatient randomized controlled trial of ad libitum food intake > Results and Discussion > Body weight and composition
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The unprocessed diet led to reduced adiponectin, total cholesterol, hsCRP, and total T3, whereas free T4 and free fatty acids were increased compared to baseline.”
§ Ultra-processed diets cause excess calorie intake and weight gain: An inpatient randomized controlled trial of ad libitum food intake > Results and Discussion > Fasting blood measurements
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“energy intake was nominally higher than energy expenditure by DLW by 116±111 kcal/d, but this difference was not statistically significant (p=0.31)”
§ Ultra-processed diets cause excess calorie intake and weight gain: An inpatient randomized controlled trial of ad libitum food intake > Results and Discussion > Energy expenditure, physical activity, and energy balance
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“insulin secretion measured by 24-hour urinary C-peptide excretion (38.9±2.8 nmol/d vs. 30.9±2.8 nmol/d; p=0.052)”
§ Ultra-processed diets cause excess calorie intake and weight gain: An inpatient randomized controlled trial of ad libitum food intake > Results and Discussion > Energy expenditure, physical activity, and energy balance
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“or the ultra-processed diet (1.1±0.2%; p=0.74)”
§ Ultra-processed diets cause excess calorie intake and weight gain: An inpatient randomized controlled trial of ad libitum food intake > Results and Discussion > Body weight and composition
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Triglycerides and HDL cholesterol were significantly decreased compared to baseline after both diets.”
§ Ultra-processed diets cause excess calorie intake and weight gain: An inpatient randomized controlled trial of ad libitum food intake > Results and Discussion > Fasting blood measurements
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Baseline liver fat was 1.2±0.1%”
§ Ultra-processed diets cause excess calorie intake and weight gain: An inpatient randomized controlled trial of ad libitum food intake > Results and Discussion > Body weight and composition
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The unprocessed diet led to reduced adiponectin, total cholesterol, hsCRP, and total T3, whereas free T4 and free fatty acids were increased compared to baseline.”
§ Ultra-processed diets cause excess calorie intake and weight gain: An inpatient randomized controlled trial of ad libitum food intake > Results and Discussion > Fasting blood measurements
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The unprocessed diet led to reduced adiponectin, total cholesterol, hsCRP, and total T3, whereas free T4 and free fatty acids were increased compared to baseline.”
§ Ultra-processed diets cause excess calorie intake and weight gain: An inpatient randomized controlled trial of ad libitum food intake > Results and Discussion > Fasting blood measurements
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The unprocessed diet led to reduced adiponectin, total cholesterol, hsCRP, and total T3, whereas free T4 and free fatty acids were increased compared to baseline.”
§ Ultra-processed diets cause excess calorie intake and weight gain: An inpatient randomized controlled trial of ad libitum food intake > Results and Discussion > Fasting blood measurements
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“After the unprocessed diet, fasting glucose and insulin levels tended to decrease compared to baseline and the homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) (Matthews et al., 1985) was significantly decreased compared to baseline.”
§ Ultra-processed diets cause excess calorie intake and weight gain: An inpatient randomized controlled trial of ad libitum food intake > Results and Discussion > Fasting blood measurements
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and the ratio of omega-6 to omega-3 fatty acids (~11:1 vs. 5:1)”
§ Ultra-processed diets cause excess calorie intake and weight gain: An inpatient randomized controlled trial of ad libitum food intake > Results and Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“After the unprocessed diet, fasting glucose and insulin levels tended to decrease compared to baseline and the homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) (Matthews et al., 1985) was significantly decreased compared to baseline.”
§ Ultra-processed diets cause excess calorie intake and weight gain: An inpatient randomized controlled trial of ad libitum food intake > Results and Discussion > Fasting blood measurements
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“average daily glucose levels measured by continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) (99.1±1.3 mg/dl vs. 96.0±1.3 mg/dl; p=0.10) tended to be slightly higher”
§ Ultra-processed diets cause excess calorie intake and weight gain: An inpatient randomized controlled trial of ad libitum food intake > Results and Discussion > Energy expenditure, physical activity, and energy balance
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and not significantly different during the unprocessed diet (−70±75 kcal/d; p=0.36)”
§ Ultra-processed diets cause excess calorie intake and weight gain: An inpatient randomized controlled trial of ad libitum food intake > Results and Discussion > Energy expenditure, physical activity, and energy balance
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The respiratory chamber measurements of energy expenditure were 191±73 kcal/d lower than the DLW measurements during the ultra-processed diet (p=0.02)”
§ Ultra-processed diets cause excess calorie intake and weight gain: An inpatient randomized controlled trial of ad libitum food intake > Results and Discussion > Energy expenditure, physical activity, and energy balance
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Subjects were randomly assigned to either the ultra-processed or unprocessed diet for 2 weeks followed immediately by the alternate diet for the final 2 weeks”
§ Ultra-processed diets cause excess calorie intake and weight gain: An inpatient randomized controlled trial of ad libitum food intake > Results and Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The lack of a run-in period complicates the interpretation of the baseline blood measures in comparison to those obtained at the end of each test diet and all such diet comparisons were potentially confounded by the substantial differences in energy intake and corresponding weight changes.”
§ Ultra-processed diets cause excess calorie intake and weight gain: An inpatient randomized controlled trial of ad libitum food intake > Limitations of Study
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In cases where the individual values for the total body water, N, differed by > 5% from that calculated as 73% of the fat-free mass determined by DXA within a few days of the dose, N was adjusted to agree with the DXA data.”
§ Ultra-processed diets cause excess calorie intake and weight gain: An inpatient randomized controlled trial of ad libitum food intake > STAR★Methods > METHOD DETAILS
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Subjects were blinded to their glucose readings.”
§ Ultra-processed diets cause excess calorie intake and weight gain: An inpatient randomized controlled trial of ad libitum food intake > STAR★Methods > METHOD DETAILS
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The study protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the National Institute of Diabetes & Digestive & Kidney Diseases (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT03407053).”
§ Ultra-processed diets cause excess calorie intake and weight gain: An inpatient randomized controlled trial of ad libitum food intake > STAR★Methods > EXPERIMENTAL MODEL AND SUBJECT DETAILS
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This study was powered to detect a difference in mean ad libitum energy intake over each 14-day test diet period (the primary endpoint) of 125–150 kcal/d in 20 subjects with probability (power) of 0.8 with a Type I error probability of 0.05.”
§ Ultra-processed diets cause excess calorie intake and weight gain: An inpatient randomized controlled trial of ad libitum food intake > STAR★Methods > QUANTIFICATION AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
plainn = 20- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“the dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) methodology used to measure body composition in our study tends to underestimate body fat changes (Pourhassan et al., 2013)”
§ Ultra-processed diets cause excess calorie intake and weight gain: An inpatient randomized controlled trial of ad libitum food intake > Results and Discussion > Body weight and composition
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Pourhassan et al., 2013 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To minimize the influence of fluctuations in body fluids, weight changes during each 14-day diet period were calculated by linear regression.”
§ Ultra-processed diets cause excess calorie intake and weight gain: An inpatient randomized controlled trial of ad libitum food intake > STAR★Methods > METHOD DETAILS
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Metabolizable energy content of mixed diets has been shown to decrease at a rate of ~7.2 kcal per gram of total or insoluble fiber intake, whereas intake of soluble fiber (as supplemented during the ultra-processed diet) does not consistently affect metabolizable energy (Baer et al., 1997).”
§ Ultra-processed diets cause excess calorie intake and weight gain: An inpatient randomized controlled trial of ad libitum food intake > Results and Discussion > Energy expenditure, physical activity, and energy balance
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Baer et al., 1997 source
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Overall, compared to the unprocessed diet, the measurements obtained after the ultra-processed diet were largely unchanged from baseline suggesting that these subjects likely consumed a habitual diet high in ultra-processed foods which might be expected given the high prevalence of ultra-processed food consumption in America (Martinez Steele et al., 2016).”
§ Ultra-processed diets cause excess calorie intake and weight gain: An inpatient randomized controlled trial of ad libitum food intake > Results and Discussion > Fasting blood measurements
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Such fluid shifts may also affect the accuracy and precision of the measured body fat changes (Lohman et al., 2000; Muller et al., 2012).”
§ Ultra-processed diets cause excess calorie intake and weight gain: An inpatient randomized controlled trial of ad libitum food intake > Results and Discussion > Body weight and composition
What the sources say
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“While the 28-day duration of our study was relatively modest, most laboratory-based studies of food intake are typically much shorter in duration, often occurring within a single day of testing with one or two meals (Gibbons et al., 2014).”
§ Ultra-processed diets cause excess calorie intake and weight gain: An inpatient randomized controlled trial of ad libitum food intake > Limitations of Study
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Gibbons et al., 2014 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This was likely due to differences in food quotient between ultra-processed and unprocessed diet periods during the chamber days along with differences in energy intake and energy balance on the days prior to the chamber stays.”
§ Ultra-processed diets cause excess calorie intake and weight gain: An inpatient randomized controlled trial of ad libitum food intake > Results and Discussion > Energy expenditure, physical activity, and energy balance
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In conclusion, our data suggest that eliminating ultra-processed foods from the diet decreases energy intake and results in weight loss whereas a diet with a large proportion of ultra-processed food increases energy intake and leads to weight gain.”
§ Ultra-processed diets cause excess calorie intake and weight gain: An inpatient randomized controlled trial of ad libitum food intake > Limitations of Study
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our study was not designed to identify the cause of the observed differences in energy intake.”
§ Ultra-processed diets cause excess calorie intake and weight gain: An inpatient randomized controlled trial of ad libitum food intake > Limitations of Study
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Because the meals were prepared and presented at no cost to our subjects, and they could not choose their meals or their mode of presentation, our study did not address how consumer choices between ultra-processed versus unprocessed meals may be influenced by cost and convenience.”
§ Ultra-processed diets cause excess calorie intake and weight gain: An inpatient randomized controlled trial of ad libitum food intake > Limitations of Study
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Given that subjects consumed ~46 g/d of total fiber during the unprocessed diet, the vast majority of which was insoluble (~77%), the expected decrease in metabolizable energy amounts to ~330 kcal/d thereby bringing the energy balance calculations into approximate alignment with the measured changes in body energy stores.”
§ Ultra-processed diets cause excess calorie intake and weight gain: An inpatient randomized controlled trial of ad libitum food intake > Results and Discussion > Energy expenditure, physical activity, and energy balance
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Baer et al., 1997 source
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our study did not include a weight-maintenance run-in period or a washout period between test diets.”
§ Ultra-processed diets cause excess calorie intake and weight gain: An inpatient randomized controlled trial of ad libitum food intake > Limitations of Study
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, we attempted to match these nutritional variables in the presented meals to investigate whether other aspects of ultra-processed diets contribute to excess energy intake.”
§ Ultra-processed diets cause excess calorie intake and weight gain: An inpatient randomized controlled trial of ad libitum food intake > Limitations of Study
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“They wore loose fitting clothing throughout the study and were blinded to daily weight and continuous glucose measurements.”
§ Ultra-processed diets cause excess calorie intake and weight gain: An inpatient randomized controlled trial of ad libitum food intake > STAR★Methods > EXPERIMENTAL MODEL AND SUBJECT DETAILS
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper relies on this without support.
Before this trial, no causal link between ultra-processed food intake and human obesity had been established, and no randomized controlled trial had tested whether reducing or increasing ultra-processed foods affects health.
“no causal relationship between ultra-processed food consumption and human obesity has yet been established”
“there has never been a randomized controlled trial demonstrating any beneficial effects of reducing ultra-processed foods or deleterious effects of increasing ultra-processed foods in the diet”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The mean of the measured chamber periods was representative of the 24-hour period.
“All chamber measurement periods were >23 hours and we extrapolated the data to represent 24hr periods by assuming that the mean of the measured periods was representative of the 24hr period.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Within-subject energy intake correlations were zero.
“Using the conservative assumption that within-subject energy intake correlations were zero, over the 14-day diet period each subject was expected to have a mean energy intake with a standard error of about 130–160 kcal/d and the mean energy intake difference between the study diets was therefore estimated to have a standard error of about 190–230 kcal/d.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Adherence to study diets cannot be guaranteed in free-living subjects.
“However, current dietary assessment methods are insufficient to accurately or precisely measure energy intake outside the laboratory (Schoeller, 1990; Schoeller et al., 2013) and adherence to study diets cannot be guaranteed in free-living subjects.”
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Modern ultra-processed foods are specifically designed to bypass human homeostatic satiety signals (Hall et al., 2019).”
From IS OBESITY PHARMACOTHERAPY A LIFETIME COMMITMENT? A STRUCTURED REVIEW OF WEIGHT REGAIN AND STRATEGIES FOLLOWING INCRETIN CESSATION (2026) · cites this paper as Hall et al., 2019
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Furthermore, changes in food processing technology and increasing commercialisation and industrialisation of food30 have increased the consumption of processed foods, which leads to higher caloric intake and weight gain than fibre-rich foods such as whole grains and fruits.31,32”
From Worldwide trends in underweight and obesity from 1990 to 2022: a pooled analysis of 3663 population-representative studies with 222 million children, adolescents, and adults (2024) · cites this paper as [32]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“In the 2-week US NIH trial with 20 participants, the UPF diet led to a gain of 0•9 kg (95% CI 0•9-1•5) in bodyweight and 0•4 kg (0•2-0•6) in fat mass, while the non-UPF diet led to a reduction of 0•9 kg (0•3-1•5) in bodyweight and 0•3 kg (0•1-0•5) in fat mass.56”
From Ultra-processed foods and human health: the main thesis and the evidence (2025) · cites this paper as [56]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“However, the two crossover RCTs on ad libitum UPF and non-UPF diets matched for presented calories and macronutrients and the pilot behavioural intervention study aforementioned found significant effects of the ultra-processed dietary pattern on weight changes.”
From Ultra-processed foods and human health: the main thesis and the evidence (2025) · cites this paper as [56]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Experimental evidence indicates a robust causal relation between ultra-processed diets and increased energy intake and weight gain (approximately 500 kcal (2000 kJ) per day and 0.9 kg during the ultra-processed diet).”
From Ultra-processed food exposure and adverse health outcomes: umbrella review of epidemiological meta-analyses (2024) · cites this paper as [71]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“The mechanisms contributing to the excess consumption effect of diets rich in ultra-processed foods seem to involve the nature of the energy source”
From Ultra-processed food exposure and adverse health outcomes: umbrella review of epidemiological meta-analyses (2024) · cites this paper as [71]
In the citing paper
“Not surprisingly, people gained weight on the ultra-processed diet and lost weight on the unprocessed.”
From Food Addiction and Psychosocial Adversity: Biological Embedding, Contextual Factors, and Public Health Implications (2020) · cites this paper as [228]
In the citing paper
“A recent trial comparing the caloric intake of those on ultra-processed foods (containing minimal whole foods) compared to unprocessed/whole foods for two weeks found ad libitum intake was increased by approximately 500 kcal/day on the ultra-processed diet [228].”
From Food Addiction and Psychosocial Adversity: Biological Embedding, Contextual Factors, and Public Health Implications (2020) · cites this paper as [228]
In the citing paper
“In addition, food availability and exposure to highly palatable, often ultraprocessed foods may affect energy balance.65,66”
From Popular dietary patterns: alignment with American Heart Association 2021 dietary guidance: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. (2023) · cites this paper as [66]
In the citing paper
“This is also supported by the profound impact that diets rich in highly processed food have on body weight by increasing energy intake.[93]”
From The Role of Dietary Advanced Glycation End Products in Metabolic Dysfunction (2021) · cites this paper as [93]
In the citing paper
“The level of processing per se as an independent risk factor, comes from a randomised controlled trial finding that an ultra-processed diet relative to an unprocessed one causes excessive calorie intake and weight gain 57 , and three cohort studies showing an association between UPF consumption and weight gain, obesity, type-2 diabetes or hypertension risk, which remains significant after”
From Ultra‐processed foods and the nutrition transition: global, regional and national trends, food systems transformations and political economy drivers (2020) · cites this paper as [57]
In the citing paper
“This finding aligns with the NIH and Tokyo trials.56,58”
From Ultra-processed foods and human health: the main thesis and the evidence (2025) · cites this paper as [56]
In the citing paper
“Participants consumed approximately 500 kcal more with the UPF diet and ate faster (with a higher energy intake rate), despite equivalent nutrient profiles.56”
From Ultra-processed foods and human health: the main thesis and the evidence (2025) · cites this paper as [56]
In the citing paper
“Short-term RCTs (eg, those by the US NIH 56 and Tokyo Hospital 58 ) have shown consistent and biologically plausible effects of ultra-processed diets on precursors of obesity, including excessive total energy intake and increases in bodyweight and fat mass.”
From Ultra-processed foods and human health: the main thesis and the evidence (2025) · cites this paper as [56]
Citations
Cites
Harris, P. A., Taylor, R., Thielke, R., Payne, J., Gonzalez, N., & Conde, J. G. (2009) · Journal of Biomedical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010 · Cited by 51,384
Matthews, D. R., Hosker, J. P., Rudenski, A. S., Naylor, B. A., Treacher, D. F., & Turner, R. C. (1985) · Diabetologia · doi:10.1007/bf00280883 · Cited by 31,502
Matsuda, M., & DeFronzo, R. A. (1999) · Diabetes Care · doi:10.2337/diacare.22.9.1462 · Cited by 5,621 · cited 1×
“Therefore, insulin sensitivity as measured by the Matsuda index (Matsuda and DeFronzo, 1999) was not significantly different between the ultra-processed and unprocessed diets (3.9 ± 0.2 versus 4.5 ± 0.2, respectively; p = 0.1).”
MethodInfluentialCalibration of the Computer Science and Applications, Inc. accelerometer
FREEDSON, P. S., MELANSON, E., & SIRARD, J. (1998) · Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · doi:10.1097/00005768-199805000-00021 · Cited by 3,825
The UN Decade of Nutrition, the NOVA food classification and the trouble with ultra-processing
Monteiro, C. A., Cannon, G., Moubarac, J.-C., Levy, R. B., Louzada, M. L. C., & Jaime, P. C. (2018) · Public Health Nutrition · doi:10.1017/s1368980017000234 · Cited by 2,333
Ultra‐processed products are becoming dominant in the global food system
Monteiro, C. A., Moubarac, J. ‐., Cannon, G., Ng, S. W., & Popkin, B. (2013) · Obesity Reviews · doi:10.1111/obr.12107 · Cited by 1,827 · cited 1×
“Ultra-pro-cessed foods have become more common worldwide (Monteiro et al., 2013; Moubarac, 2015), now constitute the majority of calories consumed in America (Martı´nez Steele et al., 2016), and have been associated with a variety of poor health outcomes (Fiolet et al., 2018; Mendonc¸a et al.,…”
BackgroundFiolet, T., Srour, B., Sellem, L., Kesse-Guyot, E., Allès, B., Méjean, C., Deschasaux, M., Fassier, P., Latino-Martel, P., Beslay, M., et al. (2018) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.k322 · Cited by 1,057
Martínez Steele, E., Baraldi, L. G., Louzada, M. L. D. C., Moubarac, J.-C., Mozaffarian, D., & Monteiro, C. A. (2016) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009892 · Cited by 838
Doubly Labelled Water: Theory and Practice
Speakman, J. R. (1997) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 739
Which Foods May Be Addictive? The Roles of Processing, Fat Content, and Glycemic Load
LaFata, E. M., Avena, N. M., & Gearhardt, A. N. (2015) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0117959 · Cited by 712 · cited 1×
“…they are typically high in calories, salt, sugar, and fat (Poti et al., 2015) and have been suggested to be engineered to have supernormal appetitive properties (Kessler, 2009; Moss, 2013; Moubarac, 2015; Schatzker, 2015) that may result in pathological eating behavior (Schulte et al., 2015, 2017).”
Background
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Phelps, N. H., Singleton, R. K., Zhou, B., Heap, R. A., Mishra, A., Bennett, J. E., Paciorek, C. J., Lhoste, V. P., Carrillo-Larco, R. M., Stevens, G. A., et al. (2024) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(23)02750-2 · Cited by 2,544
“31,32 In some countries, equitable economic and agricultural policies and food programmes have improved the quality of nutrition, especially for the poor, 33–36 resulting in gains in height, whereas elsewhere weight gain occurred without substantial height gain, leading to increasing obesity.”
Self-citationDynamics of the double burden of malnutrition and the changing nutrition reality
Popkin, B. M., Corvalán, C., & Grummer‐Strawn, L. M. (2019) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(19)32497-3 · Cited by 2,058
Epidemiology and determinants of obesity in China
Pan, X., Wang, L., & Pan, A. (2021) · The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology · doi:10.1016/s2213-8587(21)00045-0 · Cited by 1,587
Popkin, B. M., Du, S., Green, W. D., Beck, M. A., Algaith, T., Herbst, C. H., Alsukait, R. F., Alluhidan, M., Alazemi, N., & Shekar, M. (2020) · Obesity Reviews · doi:10.1111/obr.13128 · Cited by 1,150
Baker, P., Machado, P., Santos, T., Sievert, K., Backholer, K., Hadjikakou, M., Russell, C., Huse, O., Bell, C., Scrinis, G., et al. (2020) · Obesity Reviews · doi:10.1111/obr.13126 · Cited by 1,194
Metadata
- Authors
- Hall, K. D., Ayuketah, A., Brychta, R., Cai, H., Cassimatis, T., Chen, K. Y., Chung, S. T., Costa, E., Courville, A., Darcey, V., Fletcher, L. A., Forde, C. G., Gharib, A. M., Guo, J., Howard, R., Joseph, P. V., McGehee, S., Ouwerkerk, R., Raisinger, K., Rozga, I., Stagliano, M., Walter, M., Walter, P. J., Yang, S., & Zhou, M.
- Affiliations
- National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (US)
- National Institutes of Health (US)
- Singapore Institute for Clinical Sciences (SG)
- National Institute of Nursing Research (US)
- Corresponding author
- Hall, Kevin D.
- ORCID
- Venue
- Cell Metabolism
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2019-07
- Volume
- 30
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 67-77.e3
- ISSN
- 1550-4131 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC7946062
- OpenAlex
- W2946281272
- Cited by
- 1,971
- References
- 64
- Citations by year
- 2026: 311 · 2025: 316 · 2024: 288 · 2023: 254 · 2022: 272 · 2021: 233 · 2020: 218 · 2019: 75
- FWCI
- 183.71
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Update notices
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Cell Metabolism (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Socio-Environmental Systems Modeling (acceptedVersion)
- Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Consumer Attitudes and Food Labeling
- Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Nutrition, Health and Food Behavior
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Nutritional Studies and Diet
- Keywords
- ultra-processed foods, energy intake, weight gain, ad libitum food intake, obesity prevention, obesity treatment, carbohydrate intake, dietary fat intake, protein intake
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Body Composition, Energy Intake, Dietary Fiber, Eating, Energy Metabolism, Female, Humans, Inpatients, Male, Weight Gain
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-09-28, under version 3 of the claim definition (prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-09-28 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
