How this page evolved

Every published version is kept. Each entry shows what changed and why. Earlier versions can be restored by moderators, but only if the material they rely on is still available.

1. Revision 4Oct 4, 2026, 8:33 AMLiveAI-organised, reviewed

   Added two newer sources: a 2026 systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials (10 studies) finding significantly greater weight gain and eating rate in ultra-processed arms but energy-intake effects that varied with energy density and low evidential certainty; and a 2026 narrative review cataloguing proposed mechanisms and the field's unresolved controversies (NOVA classification, heterogeneity, processing vs nutrient profile).

   • · The main finding was rewritten.
   • · Updated “What the controlled feeding trial shows”.
   • · Added section “What the pooled trial evidence shows”.
   • · Added section “What the population studies show”.
   • · Added section “Why the debate continues”.
   • · Added section “Reading the evidence together”.
   • · Removed section “What the umbrella review of population studies shows”.
   • · Removed section “Reading the two kinds of evidence together”.
   • · 4 new sources cited.
   • · The note on uncertainty changed.
   • · The key takeaways were revised.
   • · 4 new pieces of guidance for specific situations.
   • · 2 new open questions.
2. Revision 3Sep 30, 2026, 6:49 PMAI-organised, reviewed

   Initial Starting Map for a question about whether ultra-processed foods cause weight gain and disease or whether the evidence is overstated. Built from two sources: a small inpatient randomised crossover trial on calorie intake and weight change, and an umbrella review of epidemiological meta-analyses covering 45 pooled analyses and nearly 10 million participants. No contributions are present, so the map rests on the two cited sources and flags the gap between trial and observational evidence.

   • · First published version.