Matched whole grain wheat and refined wheat milled products do not differ in glycemic response or gastric emptying in a randomized, crossover trial

Increasing particle size of oat flours decreases postprandial glycemia and increases appetite in healthy adults

Consumption of oats is associated with lowered risks of type 2 diabetes and obesity. However, many oat-based products (e.g., breakfast cereals) use finely milled flours but are associated with health claims based on oats of larger particle sizes. The objective of this study was to test the hypothesis that increasing oat flour particle size will result in lower postprandial glycemia and appetite. Using a randomized-controlled, crossover design, 20 participants (10 males, 10 females; age: 25.3 ± 1.0 years; body mass index: 23.2 ± 0.6 kg/m2) consumed a serving of porridge made using 40 g of coarse (675.7 ± 19.6 µm), whole (443.3 ± 36.2 µm), fine (96.0 ± 2.1 µm), or a commercial (375.9 ± 14.8 µm) oat flour unmatched in available carbohydrate, protein, and dietary fiber content. After a 12-hour overnight fast, blood glucose, insulin, and appetite were measured at 15 to 30-minute intervals over 120 minutes posttreatment consumption. Coarse and whole flours led to lower blood glucose between 30 and 60 minutes (P < .02). Blood glucose area under the curve (AUC) was lower after coarse than fine and commercial oat flours (P < 0.03), and after whole than fine oat flour (P < .002). Both coarse and whole oat flours resulted in lower insulin AUC than finer flours (P < .05). Appetite AUC was lower after the commercial than coarse flour (P < .007). Controlling milling to produce coarser oat flour to add to common foods may have health benefits. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05291351).

Perspective: A Research Roadmap about Ultra-Processed Foods and Human Health for the United States Food System: Proceedings from an Interdisciplinary, Multi-Stakeholder Workshop

Our objective was to convene interdisciplinary experts from government, academia, and industry to develop a Research Roadmap to identify research priorities about processed food intake and risk for obesity and cardiometabolic diseases (CMD) among United States populations. We convened attendees at various career stages with diverse viewpoints in the field. We held a "Food Processing Primer" to build foundational knowledge of how and why foods are processed, followed by presentations about how processed foods may affect energy intake, obesity, and CMD risk. Breakout groups discussed potential mechanistic and confounding explanations for associations between processed foods and obesity and CMD risk. Facilitators created research questions (RQs) based on key themes from discussions. Different breakout groups convened to discuss what is known and unknown for each RQ and to develop sub-RQs to address gaps. Workshop attendees focused on ultra-processed foods (UPFs; Nova Group 4) because the preponderance of evidence is based on this classification system. Yet, heterogeneity and subjectivity in UPF classification was a challenge for RQ development. The 6 RQs were: 1) What objective methods or measures could further categorize UPFs, considering food processing, formulation, and the interaction of the two? 2) How can exposure assessment of UPF intake be improved? 3) Does UPF intake influence risk for obesity or CMDs, independent of diet quality? 4) What, if any, attributes of UPFs influence ingestive behavior and contribute to excess energy intake? 5) What, if any, attributes of UPFs contribute to clinically meaningful metabolic responses? 6) What, if any, external environmental factors lead people to consume high amounts of UPFs? Uncertainty and complexity around UPF intake warrant further complementary and interdisciplinary causal, mechanistic, and methodological research related to obesity and CMD risk to understand the utility of applying classification by degree of processing to foods in the United States.

Ultraprocessed Foods and Obesity Risk: A Critical Review of Reported Mechanisms

Epidemiologic evidence supports a positive association between ultraprocessed food (UPF) consumption and body mass index. This has led to recommendations to avoid UPFs despite very limited evidence establishing causality. Many mechanisms have been proposed, and this review critically aimed to evaluate selected possibilities for specificity, clarity, and consistency related to food choice (i.e., low cost, shelf-life, food packaging, hyperpalatability, and stimulation of hunger/suppression of fullness); food composition (i.e., macronutrients, food texture, added sugar, fat and salt, energy density, low-calorie sweeteners, and additives); and digestive processes (i.e., oral processing/eating rate, gastric emptying time, gastrointestinal transit time, and microbiome). For some purported mechanisms (e.g., fiber content, texture, gastric emptying, and intestinal transit time), data directly contrasting the effects of UPF and non-UPF intake on the indices of appetite, food intake, and adiposity are available and do not support a unique contribution of UPFs. In other instances, data are not available (e.g., microbiome and food additives) or are insufficient (e.g., packaging, food cost, shelf-life, macronutrient intake, and appetite stimulation) to judge the benefits versus the risks of UPF avoidance. There are yet other evoked mechanisms in which the preponderance of evidence indicates ingredients in UPFs actually moderate body weight (e.g., low-calorie sweetener use for weight management; beverage consumption as it dilutes energy density; and higher fat content because it reduces glycemic responses). Because avoidance of UPFs holds potential adverse effects (e.g., reduced diet quality, increased risk of food poisoning, and food wastage), it is imprudent to make recommendations regarding their role in diets before causality and plausible mechanisms have been verified.