3 comments

  • esperent48 minutes ago
    From the actual study:<p>&gt; The non-UPF and UPF test meals were closely matched on meal weight, energy, energy density, macronutrients, available carbohydrate, glycaemic index and load, total dietary fibre, sodium and water (all ≤1.6% deviation between meals; Fig. 1b).<p>So they did match glycemic index, which the article omits.
  • niek_pas46 minutes ago
    Would love to read the original research paper if anyone has access to it. My university unfortunately doesn’t.
    • esperent33 minutes ago
      It&#x27;s linked right at the bottom of the article and you can download the full pdf.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.nature.com&#x2F;articles&#x2F;s42255-026-01619-4" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.nature.com&#x2F;articles&#x2F;s42255-026-01619-4</a>
  • TheChaplain42 minutes ago
    I believe they are on to something, but wouldn&#x27;t it be much better if the sample size was larger than just 57 people?
    • esperent33 minutes ago
      Of course but I&#x27;m sure they made the sample size as large as their funding permitted and it&#x27;s better than nothing.