As you may have suspected, this is unlikely to be a good thing. Eating more of this food is associated with a higher risk<\/a> of a smorgasbord of health conditions, including obesity, type 2 diabetes<\/a>, heart disease and various cancers<\/a>.<\/p>\n If, while chomping on a ready meal, you glance at its long ingredients list, you might assume that all its unfamiliar additives are the main reason why.<\/p>\n You\u2019re not totally misguided. Scientists have found evidence that some of the chemicals added to UPFs might lead to poorer health outcomes.<\/p>\n For instance, certain food dyes are associated with hyperactivity in children<\/a>, some preservatives in processed meat have been linked with heightened cancer risk<\/a>, and specific emulsifiers may damage the gut microbiome<\/a>.<\/p>\n Clearly, that\u2019s a problem \u2013 but it\u2019s not the whole story. Increasingly, scientists are pointing to a less obvious culprit: texture.<\/p>\n \u201cThe reason that ultra-processed food is so bad for us isn\u2019t just these additives and emulsifiers,\u201d says Prof Sarah Berry<\/a>, nutrition scientist at King\u2019s College London. <\/p>\n \u201cIt\u2019s partly that, but it\u2019s not all about that. Ultra-processed food generally has had its texture changed so it\u2019s very soft. What that means is, you eat it more quickly, so then you eat more of it.\u201d<\/p>\n It may sound almost too simple to matter \u2013 softer foods are easier to eat. But that small detail is now beginning to reshape how scientists think about ultra-processed foods altogether.<\/p>\n We overconsume UPFs<\/p>\n If you want a clear glimpse of what UPFs do to our daily calorie intake, look to a landmark UPF study<\/a> led by US nutrition scientist Kevin Hall.<\/p>\n For two weeks, the study\u2019s 20 participants ate either a minimally or ultra-processed diet \u2013 and then, for another two weeks, they switched.<\/p>\n Meals were nutritionally matched for calories, carbs, protein, fat, sugar, salt and fibre, and the participants were allowed to eat as much or as little as they liked.<\/p>\n When individuals ate the ultra-processed grub, they ate an average of 500 calories extra per day \u2013 mainly from fat and carbs \u2013 compared to the less processed diet. They also gained almost 1kg (2lb) of weight.<\/p>\n The question is, why? When scientists analysed results from the Hall study, one major difference between the diets stood out: participants ate their ultra-processed meals more quickly.<\/p>\n We eat food faster when it\u2019s softer. And, when manufacturers process food, they often break down ingredients\u2019 natural structure to create soft, melty textures that don\u2019t require laborious munching.<\/p>\n The study\u2019s UPF meals were softer than their minimally processed counterparts, so participants could chow them down without much effort.<\/p>\n \u201cWe\u2019ve been able to show for years and years now that to eat at a faster rate means you\u2019re going to consume more energy,\u201d says Prof Ciar\u00e1n Forde<\/a>, nutrition scientist at Wageningen University, the Netherlands.<\/p>\n In fact, when we speed up our eating by 20 per cent, Forde\u2019s research has shown we tend to eat between 11<\/a> and 15<\/a> per cent more calories.<\/p>\n \u201cEating faster will drive intake up in any format,\u201d he says. \u201cWhatever it might be \u2013 the purest, most unrefined, most minimally processed food in the world \u2013 if you eat it fast, you\u2019ll eat more of it.\u201d<\/p>\n Read more:<\/p>\n People who tend to eat quickly in general are also more likely<\/a> to be overweight, to have higher blood pressure, and to be at risk of type 2 diabetes.<\/p>\n \u201cThe first phase of digestion occurs behind your lips, not down in your stomach,\u201d explains Forde. \u201cYou\u2019re priming the body to receive nutrients, and so how you chew influences how you digest your meal, and how full you feel afterwards.\u201d<\/p>\n When we eat, the muscles around the stomach stretch and gradually start to release fullness signals. But this process doesn\u2019t happen instantaneously.<\/p>\n \u201cThere\u2019s a small lag between eating and the change in chemistry to the brain<\/a>,\u201d says Forde. \u201cWe\u2019ve done studies<\/a> where, if you chew the same calories for longer, you get a stronger satiety secretion.\u201d<\/p>\n That means if the food you\u2019re eating is so soft that you barely need to chew it \u2013 like a lot of UPFs \u2013 you can eat a large portion before your brain gets the message that your body is full.<\/p>\n \u201cOne thing that all junk foods have in common is they\u2019re often softly textured and energy dense,\u201d says Forde. \u201cSo, you\u2019re more likely to consume more calories and not necessarily be aware of it.\u201d<\/p>\n At this point, you might be thinking that not all UPFs are soft. Some are crunchy or chewy \u2013 like protein bars or nutty granola. Wouldn\u2019t those slow you down?<\/p>\n It\u2019s exactly that line of thinking that led Forde to run another experiment. His team developed a trial<\/a> similar to Hall\u2019s \u2013 again with two diets, each followed for two weeks, that were matched for nutrition and likeability.<\/p>\n Except this time both diets were 95 per cent ultra-processed, and the key difference was texture. One diet contained chewier, crunchier, harder foods designed to be eaten slowly, and the other contained softer, spongier, wetter foods that could be eaten quickly.<\/p>\n \u201cWhat we found was really striking,\u201d says Forde. \u201cWith no instructions whatsoever to participants, just by giving them everyday foods in your supermarket, people ate on average about 370 calories less when they slowed down their intake.\u201d<\/p>\n The study\u2019s 41 participants didn\u2019t just consume significantly more on the faster diet; they also gained more body fat, by nearly 500g (1lb).<\/p>\n \u201cOf course, all of the foods in our trial were ultra-processed,\u201d Forde adds. \u201cSo, you can make the statement that \u2018most ultra-processed foods are softly textured and energy dense,\u2019 but we found a whole separate set of ultra-processed foods that were eaten at a slower rate, and reduced intake.\u201d<\/p>\n That marries with evidence from large observational studies<\/a>, which found that not all categories of UPF are equally bad for us.<\/p>\n![\"A](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/UPF-5.jpg\")
Whether sweet or savoury, a plate of UPFs is more likely to be soft and easy to eat, compared to a homemade or minimally processed alternative – Credit: Getty<\/p>\n![\"An](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/UPF-6.jpg\")
Some snacks are crunchy on their first bite, but quickly disintegrate into mush in your mouth, so act like soft food anyway – Credit: Getty
\nNot all UPFs<\/p>\n![\"A](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/UPF-4.jpg\")
Not all UPFs may be terrible for us. Some foods \u2013 such as nutty or wholegrain cereal bars \u2013\u00a0may have more of a bite to them – Credit: Getty<\/p>\n