Summary of hyperpalatable foods and their overlap with UPF
- Hyperpalatable foods are described as triggering reward responses and encouraging continued eating
- Hyperpalatability and ultra‑processing are distinct concepts that frequently overlap
- Some non-UPFs can still be hyperpalatable due to nutrient combinations
- Quantitative definitions identify nutrient thresholds strongly linked with overeating risks
- Energy density and texture can interact to influence intake
Critics of ultra-processed foods often focus on the concept of hyperpalatability - meaning foods are engineered for overconsumption.
But is hyperpalatability always synonymous with ultra-processing, or is the reality more complex?
What is hyperpalatability?
Hyperpalatability is often used to describe foods that trigger the brain’s reward system, leading to overconsumption.
It can also be associated with consumers continuing to eat after feeling full.
It is often linked to ultra-processed foods. Many critics of ultra-processed foods suggest that they are designed to be hyperpalatable, and thus lead to increased consumption.
But is ultra-processing synonymous with hyperpalatability, or are they simply two categories which often converge?
What is the Nova Classification?
The Nova Classification groups foods into one of four groups, based on their processing.
The first group, minimally processed foods, includes whole foods such as eggs, milk, fruits and seeds. Foods in this group are relatively unprocessed. Group two, processed culinary ingredients, are substances derived from group one foods, such as salt, sugar, lard, butter and oils. The third group, processed foods, are usually group one foods with group two ingredients added to them, often using traditional processing methods, and include fresh bread, ham, bacon, and simple cheeses.
The fourth group, ultra-processed foods, are products created mostly through industrial processes, and often contain little-to-no whole foods. These include doughnuts, frozen pizza, crisps, pre-packaged bread, and many processed meats.
Hyperpalatability is “a distinct construct from ultra-processing”, says researcher Tera L Fazzino from the University of Kansas. Therefore, it is not inherently linked to ultra-processed foods, just often correlated with them.
“In our work we have found that ultra-processed foods, which undergo extensive industrial processing, are often designed with hyperpalatable nutrient combinations,” she says.
Foods that are not ultra-processed still have the potential to be hyperpalatable. Even an omelette, cooked with eggs, vegetables, meat, oil and salt, could be hyperpalatable due to high sodium and fat content.
Hyperpalatability and Yuka
The ‘hyperpalatability’ concept is not broadly used as a way of assessing the health quality of foods.
Health food app Yuka, which takes into account a food’s nutrient and additive content when assessing health, does not use hyperpalatability as one of its measures.
Yuka bases its criteria on label-based methods and recognised standards such as Nutri-Score, explains a spokesperson. Hyperpalatability does not appear on labels, and there is yet no internationally recognised standard assessing it.
While hyperpalatability is not measured, ultra-processed foods are “strongly penalised in our system through high sugar, fat, salt, calories and risky additives”.
Can hyperpalatability be objectively defined?
This begs the question: if the concept is not used even by strong critics of UPF such as Yuka, can it be objectively defined?
No, suggests researcher Ciarán Forde of Wageningen University and Research. In his view, “palatability cannot be defined as a property of the food, but rather is a characteristic of the individual’s appraisal of the foods physical and sensory qualities.” The concept of hyperpalatability has “no scientific standing”, he says.
Forde has previously worked for Nestlé, and has received financial support for research from other big name FMCGs.
It is not possible to predict whether or not a food is palatable, he suggests, based purely on said food’s composition, as it represents the subjective, emotional response to sensations rather than anything objectively present in a food itself.
There is currently no official definition of hyperpalatability which can be put to practical use. Nevertheless, there are working definitions with significant traction.
A working definition of hyperpalatability
One paper has outlined a quantitative definition which is broadly cited in research on ultra-processed foods.
It developed three groups of highly palatable foods, defined by nutrient content.
The first group included foods containing more than 25% kcal from fat and at least 0.30% sodium by weight. The second group were foods with more than 20% kcal from fat and more than 20% from sugar. The third included those foods with more than 40% kcal from carbohydrates and at least 0.20% sodium in weight. This definition was for solid foods only.
Foods with pairs of ingredients at these levels are not found in nature, says researcher Fazzino, who was one of the study’s authors.
Despite the fact that hyperpalatability is not synonymous with UPF, there was a strong overlap. Matching the criteria to a database of US foods, it did not capture any fresh or raw fruits, meat or fish. The vast majority of fried or sweet foods (83%-92%) were in scope of the definition.
Around 49% of foods labelled as reduced or no fat, sugar, salt or calories, were also found to meet the definition.
The study also suggested that the method of preparation or processing was often key to determining palatability.
A later study found that the higher the percentage of food was that met this definition of hyperpalatable foods, the greater the energy intake. It also found that larger amounts of palatable foods meant participants were more likely to eat when full. However, it should be noted that this study was self-reported.
Texture and energy density
Forde, on the other hand, does not think that the term ‘hyperpalatability’ is useful, suggesting that “discussing foods or nutrient combinations using this term is worthless”. Rather than linking such specific nutrient combinations to overconsumption, he looks at energy content and its relationship with texture.
One study, for which Forde was a researcher, says that energy density will often influence energy intake. Such energy density will often depend on texture. A softer texture may lead one to eat more quickly and consume more energy; vice-versa for a harder texture. Energy density may also have an effect on palatability.
It is the interplay between energy density and texture (which affects how fast one eats) that influences energy intake.
“You will consume more energy from softly textured energy dense foods, but you will also consume considerably less when you are presented with harder, slower to eat, lower energy dense foods.”
