» Articles » PMID: 29032787

Ultra-processed Foods, Protein Leverage and Energy Intake in the USA

Overview
Date 2017 Oct 17
PMID 29032787
Citations 47
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objective: Experimental studies have shown that human macronutrient regulation minimizes variation in absolute protein intake and consequently energy intake varies passively with dietary protein density ('protein leverage'). According to the 'protein leverage hypothesis' (PLH), protein leverage interacts with a reduction in dietary protein density to drive energy overconsumption and obesity. Worldwide increase in consumption of ultra-processed foods (UPF) has been hypothesized to be an important determinant of dietary protein dilution, and consequently an ecological driving force of energy overconsumption and the obesity pandemic. The present study examined the relationships between dietary contribution of UPF, dietary proportional protein content and the absolute intakes of protein and energy.

Design: National representative cross-sectional study.

Setting: National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2009-2010.

Subjects: Participants (n 9042) aged ≥2 years with at least one day of 24 h dietary recall data.

Results: We found a strong inverse relationship between consumption of UPF and dietary protein density, with mean protein content dropping from 18·2 to 13·3 % between the lowest and highest quintiles of dietary contribution of UPF. Consistent with the PLH, increase in the dietary contribution of UPF (previously shown to be inversely associated with protein density) was also associated with a rise in total energy intake, while absolute protein intake remained relatively constant.

Conclusions: The protein-diluting effect of UPF might be one mechanism accounting for their association with excess energy intake. Reducing UPF contribution in the US diet may be an effective way to increase its dietary protein concentration and prevent excessive energy intake.

Citing Articles

Short-term effects of high-protein, lower-carbohydrate ultra-processed foods on human energy balance.

Hagele F, Herpich C, Koop J, Grubbel J, Dorner R, Fedde S Nat Metab. 2025; .

PMID: 40082711 DOI: 10.1038/s42255-025-01247-4.


More protein in ultra-processed foods: no shortcut to eating less.

Landberg R, Karlsson T Nat Metab. 2025; .

PMID: 40082710 DOI: 10.1038/s42255-025-01258-1.


Ultra-processed foods and plant-based alternatives impair nutritional quality of omnivorous and plant-forward dietary patterns in college students.

Fedde S, Wiessner M, Hagele F, Muller M, Bosy-Westphal A Sci Rep. 2025; 15(1):4233.

PMID: 39905092 PMC: 11794567. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-025-88578-0.


The Physical Developmental Characterization of Children with Nutritional Deficiencies and Attributed Specific Categories.

Liu J, Qi X, Wang R, Zhang J, Lu S, Xie G Nutrients. 2025; 17(1.

PMID: 39796520 PMC: 11723147. DOI: 10.3390/nu17010086.


Reverse-engineering the Venus figurines: An eco-life-course hypothesis for the aetiology of obesity in the Palaeolithic.

Wells J, Williams F, Desoye G Evol Med Public Health. 2024; 12(1):262-276.

PMID: 39711972 PMC: 11659884. DOI: 10.1093/emph/eoae031.


References
1.
Webster A . Energy partitioning, tissue growth and appetite control. Proc Nutr Soc. 1993; 52(1):69-76. DOI: 10.1079/pns19930038. View

2.
Monteiro C, Levy R, Claro R, de Castro I, Cannon G . Increasing consumption of ultra-processed foods and likely impact on human health: evidence from Brazil. Public Health Nutr. 2011; 14(1):5-13. DOI: 10.1017/S1368980010003241. View

3.
Bray G, Popkin B . Dietary fat intake does affect obesity!. Am J Clin Nutr. 1998; 68(6):1157-73. DOI: 10.1093/ajcn/68.6.1157. View

4.
Weigle D, Breen P, Matthys C, Callahan H, Meeuws K, Burden V . A high-protein diet induces sustained reductions in appetite, ad libitum caloric intake, and body weight despite compensatory changes in diurnal plasma leptin and ghrelin concentrations. Am J Clin Nutr. 2005; 82(1):41-8. DOI: 10.1093/ajcn.82.1.41. View

5.
Willett W . Dietary fat and obesity: an unconvincing relation. Am J Clin Nutr. 1998; 68(6):1149-50. DOI: 10.1093/ajcn/68.6.1149. View