Cohort studycited by the Tayebat archiveabstract only checked A-UPF-08 standard review
Ultra-processed food and weight gain in Spain
Ultraprocessed food consumption and risk of overweight and obesity: the University of Navarra Follow-Up (SUN) cohort study.
Overview
Mendonça RD et al.. Am J Clin Nutr 2016 · PMID 27733404 · DOI 10.3945/ajcn.116.135004
Highest consumers had 26% higher risk of becoming overweight.
Does the study support the specific claim? Yes · Methodological quality: moderate
Plain-language summary
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
Is UPF associated with incident overweight/obesity?
- How was the study done?
Prospective cohort, FFQ.
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
8,451; 1,939 incident cases; Middle-aged graduates not overweight at baseline
- What was actually found?
Highest vs lowest quartile HR 1.26 (1.10-1.45); P trend 0.001.
- How large was the observed effect?
HR 1.26 (1.10-1.45)
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Association.
- What are the study's limitations?
NOVA misclassification possible; Residual confounding; Self-reported diet
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Supports C-UPF-02.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
High.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Causation.
Scientific in-depth review
1. Full reference
- Authors
- Mendonça RD, Pimenta AM, Gea A, de la Fuente-Arrillaga C, Martinez-Gonzalez MA, Lopes AC, Bes-Rastrollo M
- Journal
- Am J Clin Nutr
- Year
- 2016
- Identifier
- PMID 27733404 DOI 10.3945/ajcn.116.135004
- Verification
- verified – PubMed E-utilities efetch, 2026-10-25
- Retracted
- no
- Corrections
- none
- Extent checked
- abstract only
- Conflicts of interest and funding
No COI statement
2. Research question
Is UPF associated with incident overweight/obesity?
3. Study design and population
- Study design
- Cohort study – Prospective cohort, FFQ.
- Population
Middle-aged graduates not overweight at baseline
- Country
Spain
- Period
Median 8.9 y
- Sample size
8,451; 1,939 incident cases
- Inclusion and exclusion criteria
Not overweight/obese at baseline
4. Methods and endpoints
- Exposure / intervention
UPF consumption quartiles
- Comparator
Lowest quartile
- Endpoints
Incident overweight/obesity
- Statistical methods
Cox
5. Actual results
- Results
Highest vs lowest quartile HR 1.26 (1.10-1.45); P trend 0.001.
- Absolute risks
not reported
- Authors' conclusion
UPF associated with higher risk of overweight/obesity.
6. Strengths
- Prospective
7. Weaknesses
- NOVA misclassification possible
- Residual confounding
- Self-reported diet
8. Risk of bias
- Orienting tool
- ROBINS-E
- Type of assessment
- simplified assessment (abstract only)
- Full formal assessment
- no
- Overall risk of bias
- some concerns
- Rationale
Confounding.
9. Assessment of the statistical interpretation
Moderate HR.
10. Relevance to the specific claim
Supports C-UPF-02.
11. Independent contrary findings
None.
12. Transferability to Germany and Europe
High.
13. Overall methodological judgement
Supportive.
| Multidimensional assessment | |
|---|---|
| Authenticity of the source | verified |
| Methodological quality | moderate |
| Risk of bias | some concerns |
| Precision of results | moderate |
| Directness | direct |
| Reproducibility | replicated |
| Consistency with the overall evidence | consistent |
| Regional transferability | high |
| Adequacy of the interpretation (by the archive) | not applicable |
14. Open questions
Causality.
15. Linked fact checks
Use by the Tayebat archive
Note: according to the archive, the studies were compiled by the archive operators. Whether Dr. Elawady himself cited this study is not established.
- What the archive says about the study
Listed in the archive bibliography only (no archive interpretation card).
- A. What was actually studied?
UPF and obesity.
- B. What did the authors find?
HR 1.26.
- C. What conclusions do the authors themselves draw?
As above.
- D. What does the archive derive from it?
Supports weight claim.
- E. Is this derivation scientifically justified?
Consistent.
- Adequacy of the interpretation (by the archive)
- not applicable