Book Appointment

The Science Is In: Ultra-Processed Foods Are Driving the Chronic Disease Epidemic

Why This Research Matters for People in Recovery

If you’ve ever felt like certain foods have a grip on you that defies logic—where you eat them despite knowing they make you feel terrible—you’re not imagining things. And it’s not a character flaw.

A landmark three-part Lancet Series on ultra-processed foods (UPFs) and human health was just published, representing the most comprehensive scientific analysis to date of how these foods are reshaping our biology, eating patterns, and risk of chronic disease [1]. For those of us working in eating disorders, food addiction, and mental health nutrition, this research validates what we’ve observed clinically: the problem isn’t just what’s in these foods—it’s how these alter our bodies and brains.

At Nutrition in Recovery, we work with people navigating complex relationships with food—many of whom have histories of addiction, trauma, eating disorders, or all three. This new evidence provides crucial context for understanding why recovery can feel so difficult and why addressing food quality matters as much as addressing food quantity, particularly for the youth. 

What Exactly Are Ultra-Processed Foods?

The research uses the NOVA classification system, which categorizes foods based on the extent and purpose of industrial processing [2]. There are four groups:

UPFs are branded, commercial formulations made from cheap ingredients extracted from whole foods, combined with additives, containing little to no intact food [1]. They’re engineered to be durable, convenient, and—critically—hyperpalatable. Think soft drinks, flavored yogurts, breakfast cereals, packaged snacks, reconstituted meat products, and instant noodles. All the profitable stuff…

What distinguishes UPFs from simply “processed” foods? The presence of ingredients you’d never find in a home kitchen: protein isolates, modified starches, hydrogenated oils, and classes of additives designed to make products look, feel, smell, and taste irresistible—emulsifiers, flavors, flavor enhancers, non-sugar sweeteners, and colorings [1].

Here’s what I tell my clients: if you can’t make it at home—or if the product is designed to be eaten directly from attractive packaging with health claims—you’re probably looking at a UPF.

Three Key Findings That Should Change How We Think About Nutrition

1. UPFs Are Displacing Traditional Diets Worldwide

The Lancet analysis reveals a striking global pattern: UPFs now constitute up to 60% of total energy intake in the United States and over 50% in the UK [3-5]. These aren’t anomalies—the ultra-processed dietary pattern has been steadily displacing traditional food systems centered on whole foods and home cooking for decades [1].

This matters because we’re not just talking about occasional treats. When 50-60% of someone’s calories come from engineered food products, their entire dietary foundation has shifted. Of course there will be accompanying shifts in mental health…

In my clinical experience, many people don’t realize how thoroughly UPFs dominate their intake until we conduct a detailed assessment. Diet sodas, protein bars, flavored coffees, commercial breads, deli meats, condiments—these add up quickly. Even foods marketed as “healthy” or “natural” often qualify as ultra-processed. UPFs also include diet foods, which is why they are particularly relevant for eating disorders.

2. UPFs Degrade Diet Quality Through Multiple Mechanisms

The research identifies several ways UPFs compromise health beyond simple nutrient profiles [1,6]:

Gross nutrient imbalances: A meta-analysis of 13 countries found that higher UPF consumption consistently predicted higher intakes of free sugars, total fat, and saturated fat—and lower intakes of fiber, protein, potassium, magnesium, zinc, and essential vitamins [6].

Overeating and disrupted satiety: Two randomized controlled trials (RCTs) provide compelling evidence. In the landmark NIH study, participants eating an ultra-processed diet consumed approximately 500 extra calories per day compared to a matched non-UPF diet—despite equivalent presented calories, energy density, and macronutrients [7]. A similar Tokyo trial found participants ate 813 extra calories daily on the UPF diet, with significantly fewer chews per calorie [8].

This is critical for people in eating disorder recovery. The standard treatment paradigm often focuses on psychological factors while assuming all calories are equivalent. But these trials demonstrate that the processing of food itself affects how much we eat, independent of its nutrient profile. For someone struggling with binge-type eating, this has enormous implications.

Hyper-palatability and addictive properties: Many UPFs are engineered to deliver rewarding combinations of sugar, fat, and salt in ways that activate dopamine pathways similarly to addictive substances [9,10]. The rapid delivery of these rewarding substances, combined with additives that enhance taste, smell, texture, and mouthfeel, creates products that many people find genuinely difficult to stop eating [10]. 

This isn’t metaphorical addiction. Researchers have found that many commonly consumed UPFs meet the same criteria used to classify tobacco as addictive, including compulsive use and reinforcement [10]. Marketing slogans like “I bet you can’t eat just one” and cereal names like “Krave” aren’t accidents—they’re explicit acknowledgments that these products are designed to be habit-forming [1]. 

Reduced protective phytochemicals: When UPFs dominate the diet, they inevitably crowd out whole foods rich in health-protective compounds. The Lancet analysis estimated that when UPFs represent 75% of caloric intake (not uncommon in the US), the share of fruits, vegetables, and legumes drops to just 4% [6]. 

Increased exposure to harmful compounds: UPF consumption is associated with higher circulating levels of acrylamide, industrial trans-fatty acids, phthalates, bisphenols, and PFAS (so-called “forever chemicals”) [11-14]. These compounds (created during processing or leached from packaging) include known endocrine disruptors linked to metabolic dysfunction [15].

3. The Health Consequences Span Nearly Every Organ System

This is where the evidence becomes overwhelming. The Lancet Series included a systematic review of 104 prospective studies, with meta-analyses of outcomes for which four or more studies were available [1]. High UPF consumption was significantly associated with increased risk of:

 

The pooled risk estimates were remarkably consistent—and comparable in magnitude (though in opposite directions) to the protective effects observed with Mediterranean diet adherence [16].

The depression finding deserves special attention. Six prospective studies consistently showed that higher UPF intake predicted incident depression [17-20]. This aligns with what I’ve been teaching for years: diet quality directly affects brain function, not just through secondary effects on body weight. For every 10% increase in UPF consumption, there’s an approximately 11% higher risk of developing depression [21]. 

What This Means for People in Recovery

For Those With Eating Disorders

Here’s where I must be nuanced—because I work in a field where food rules and restriction can themselves become pathological.

The eating disorder treatment establishment has largely ignored this evidence, and I understand why. For someone with anorexia nervosa, the priority is adequate nutrition, period. Talking about food quality in that context can reinforce harmful restrictions.

But for people with binge-type eating disorders, the picture is more complex. One study of eating disorder patients found that 100% of foods consumed during binge episodes were UPFs [22]. People with bulimia nervosa and binge eating disorder consumed approximately 70% of their calories from UPFs—above the already-high population average [22]. 

This suggests that, for some individuals, the processing characteristics of food may directly contribute to loss-of-control eating. Ignoring this and treating all food as morally equivalent while focusing exclusively on psychological factors may leave a key driver of pathology unaddressed.

The comorbidity of ultra-processed food addiction with eating disorders is associated with worse clinical presentations and higher treatment dropout rates [23-25]. These are the complex cases that don’t respond to manualized treatments.

For Those With Food Addiction

If you meet criteria for ultra-processed food addiction—affecting approximately 14% of the general population and much higher in clinical samples—this research validates your experience [26]. The foods you struggle with aren’t arbitrary; they’re products specifically designed to override your “normal” satiety signals and drive overconsumption.

Understanding this doesn’t mean you’re powerless—but it does mean that recovery requires more than willpower. It requires changing your food environment and addressing the biological changes induced by chronic UPF consumption, including alterations in gut microbiome function, neuroinflammation, and dopamine signaling [1,27]. 

For Those With Depression and Other Mental Health Conditions

Seven randomized controlled trials now demonstrate that depression levels significantly decrease after dietary counseling that encourages the intake of minimally processed foods [28]. These weren’t weight-loss interventions—the studies showing benefit were explicitly designed to change dietary patterns, not body weight.

This is why I advocate for nutritional assessment before psychiatric medication in many cases. Nutritional deficiencies and their biological consequences should be evaluated and addressed as part of comprehensive mental health care.

Beyond Individual Responsibility

I want to be clear: this isn’t about blaming individuals for eating UPFs. The average American food environment makes UPF consumption almost unavoidable without significant privilege, planning, and resources.

The Lancet Series makes explicit what the NOVA classification has always recognized: the purpose of ultra-processing is profit maximization [1]. Cheap ingredients, long shelf lives, hyper-palatability, and aggressive marketing combine to make UPFs enormously profitable—and enormously prevalent.

This has public policy implications that I discuss elsewhere. But for those seeking recovery, the key insight is this: you’re navigating an environment designed to undermine your well-being. Understanding that can relieve shame while motivating strategic change.

Practical Implications

Given all this evidence, what should someone in recovery actually do?

First, assess honestly. Most people underestimate their UPF intake. Talk with a practitioner who understands NOVA classification to evaluate your current dietary patterns.

Second, focus on addition before subtraction. Rather than “eliminating” UPFs (which can trigger restriction mindsets in vulnerable individuals), focus on increasing the intake of minimally processed foods. More vegetables, more legumes, more whole grains, more home cooking.

Third, address the biological substrates. For people with significant UPF-related dysfunction—gut dysbiosis, neuroinflammation, metabolic disruption—functional medicine approaches that assess and address these imbalances can accelerate recovery. This is part of what we offer at Nutrition in Recovery.

Fourth, recognize the environment’s role. Recovery is easier when your home food environment supports it. This means grocery shopping with intention, developing basic cooking skills, and accepting that convenience comes at a cost.

Finally, practice self-compassion. The science is clear: these foods are designed to be hard to resist. Your struggle isn’t weakness—it’s biology responding to an engineered environment.

The Bottom Line

The Lancet Series represents a watershed moment in nutrition science. Over 100 prospective studies, multiple RCTs, and comprehensive meta-analyses converge on a consistent conclusion: ultra-processed foods are fundamentally incompatible with human health.

For those of us in recovery—from eating disorders, addiction, depression, or metabolic disease—this evidence provides both validation and direction. The path forward isn’t calorie counting or macronutrient manipulation. It’s returning to whole foods and their preparation as meals.

This isn’t easy. But understanding the biology makes it more achievable. And you don’t have to do it alone.

 

References

  1. Monteiro CA, Louzada MLC, Steele-Martinez E, et al. Ultra-processed foods and human health: the main thesis and the evidence. Lancet 2025; published online Nov 18. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(25)01565-X
  2. Monteiro CA, Cannon G, Levy RB, et al. Ultra-processed foods: what they are and how to identify them. Public Health Nutr 2019; 22: 936–41.
  3. Juul F, Parekh N, Martinez-Steele E, Monteiro CA, Chang VW. Ultra-processed food consumption among US adults from 2001 to 2018. Am J Clin Nutr 2022; 115: 211–21.
  4. Madruga M, Martínez Steele E, Reynolds C, Levy RB, Rauber F. Trends in food consumption according to the degree of food processing among the UK population over 11 years. Br J Nutr 2023; 130: 476–83.
  5. Wang L, Martínez Steele E, Du M, et al. Trends in consumption of ultraprocessed foods among US youths aged 12–19 years, 1999–2018. JAMA 2021; 326: 519–30.
  6. Martini D, Godos J, Bonaccio M, Vitaglione P, Grosso G. Ultra-processed foods and nutritional dietary profile: a meta-analysis of nationally representative samples. Nutrients 2021; 13: 3390.
  7. Hall KD, Ayuketah A, Brychta R, et al. Ultra-processed diets cause excess calorie intake and weight gain: an inpatient randomized controlled trial of ad libitum food intake. Cell Metab 2019; 30: 67–77.
  8. Hamano S, Sawada M, Aihara M, et al. Ultra-processed foods cause weight gain and increased energy intake associated with reduced chewing frequency: a randomized, open-label, crossover study. Diabetes Obes Metab 2024; 26: 5431–43.
  9. Schulte EM, Avena NM, Gearhardt AN. Which foods may be addictive? The roles of processing, fat content, and glycemic load. PLoS One 2015; 10: e0117959.
  10. Gearhardt AN, DiFeliceantonio AG. Highly processed foods can be considered addictive substances based on established scientific criteria. Addiction 2023; 118: 589–98.
  11. Martínez Steele E, Buckley JP, Monteiro CA. Ultra-processed food consumption and exposure to acrylamide in a nationally representative sample of the US population aged 6 years and older. Prev Med 2023; 174: 107598.
  12. Huybrechts I, Rauber F, Nicolas G, et al. Characterization of the degree of food processing in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition. Front Nutr 2022; 9: 1035580.
  13. Martínez Steele E, Khandpur N, da Costa Louzada ML, Monteiro CA. Association between dietary contribution of ultra-processed foods and urinary concentrations of phthalates and bisphenol in a nationally representative sample of the US population. PLoS One 2020; 15: e0236738.
  14. Naspolini NF, Machado PP, Moreira JC, Asmus CIRF, Meyer A. Maternal consumption of ultra-processed foods and newborn exposure to perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). Cad Saude Publica 2021; 37: e00152021.
  15. Gore AC, Chappell VA, Fenton SE, et al. EDC-2: The Endocrine Society’s second scientific statement on endocrine-disrupting chemicals. Endocr Rev 2015; 36: E1–150.
  16. Guasch-Ferré M, Willett WC. The Mediterranean diet and health: a comprehensive overview. J Intern Med 2021; 290: 549–66.
  17. Adjibade M, Julia C, Allès B, et al. Prospective association between ultra-processed food consumption and incident depressive symptoms in the French NutriNet-Santé cohort. BMC Med 2019; 17: 78.
  18. Gómez-Donoso C, Sánchez-Villegas A, Martínez-González MA, et al. Ultra-processed food consumption and the incidence of depression in a Mediterranean cohort: the SUN Project. Eur J Nutr 2020; 59: 1093–103.
  19. Samuthpongtorn C, Nguyen LH, Okereke OI, et al. Consumption of ultraprocessed food and risk of depression. JAMA Netw Open 2023; 6: e2334770.
  20. Lane MM, Gamage E, Du S, et al. Ultra-processed food exposure and adverse health outcomes: umbrella review of epidemiological meta-analyses. BMJ 2024; 384: e077310.
  21. Wiss D. Counting calories: why it doesn’t work and what to do instead. Webinar presentation. 2025.
  22. Ayton A, Ibrahim A, Duber J, Galvin E. Ultra-processed foods and binge eating: a retrospective observational study. Nutrition 2020; 84: 111023.
  23. Piccinni A, Marazziti D, Vanelli F, et al. Food addiction spectrum: a theoretical model from normality to eating and overeating disorders. Curr Med Chem 2020; 27: 6236–49.
  24. Kalan U, Çağlar AT, İnce FZ. Food addiction in eating disorder patients: a cross-sectional study. Eat Weight Disord 2023; 28: 14.
  25. Munguía L, Gaspar-Pérez A, Jiménez-Murcia S, et al. Food addiction in eating disorders: a cluster analysis approach and treatment outcome. Nutrients 2022; 14: 1084.
  26. Gearhardt AN, Schulte EM. Is food addictive? A review of the science. Annu Rev Nutr 2021; 41: 387–410.
  27. Srour B, Kordahi MC, Bonazzi E, Deschasaux-Tanguy M, Touvier M, Chassaing B. Ultra-processed foods and human health: from epidemiological evidence to mechanistic insights. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 2022; 7: 1128–40.
  28. Firth J, Marx W, Dash S, et al. The effects of dietary improvement on symptoms of depression and anxiety: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Psychosom Med 2019; 81: 265–80.
Tagged , , , ,

Ready to start your journey toward balanced nutrition & wellness?

or follow us on instagram!