Juul · The British journal of nutrition 2018 · cross-sectional study · n=15977

Ultra-processed food consumption and excess weight among US adults.

Cited 481 times in the scientific literature.

Level 4 - case-series / case-control

Cross-sectional survey analysis

PubMed 29729673 · doi:10.1017/S0007114518001046 · record verified 2026-08-26

What was done

Cross-sectional analysis of 15,977 US adults aged 20–64 from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES 2005–2014). Dietary intake was assessed using 24-hour recalls and categorized by NOVA classification. Anthropometric measures included measured height, weight, and waist circumference. Multivariable linear and logistic regression models evaluated associations between ultra-processed food consumption (percentage of total energy) and BMI, waist circumference, overweight (BMI ≥ 25 kg/m²), obesity (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m²), and abdominal obesity (waist circumference ≥ 102 cm for men, ≥ 88 cm for women).

What was found

Comparing the highest (≥74.2% of energy) to lowest (≤36.5% of energy) consumption categories of ultra-processed foods, high intake was associated with a 1.61 kg/m² higher BMI (95% CI 1.11, 2.10) and a 4.07 cm larger waist circumference (95% CI 2.94, 5.19). High consumption was associated with higher odds of overweight (OR 1.48; 95% CI 1.25, 1.76), obesity (OR 1.53; 95% CI 1.29, 1.81), and abdominal obesity (OR 1.62; 95% CI 1.39, 1.89; P for trend < 0.001 for all). Significant interactions were found with female sex for BMI (P = 0.002), waist circumference (P = 0.008), and overweight status (P < 0.001).

Why it matters

Provides nationally representative evidence from the US linking high ultra-processed food consumption to higher rates of general and abdominal obesity, highlighting potential sex-specific vulnerability.

Limits

The cross-sectional design cannot establish causality or determine the direction of the relationship. Dietary intake was captured via 24-hour recall, which is vulnerable to measurement error and recall bias. Only adults aged 20–64 were analyzed, and unmeasured lifestyle confounders could influence the observed associations.

Cited by