The food you don't want to stop eating

The food you don't want to stop eating

And why the problem isn't always a lack of willpower.

You open a bag of chips with the idea of eating just a little, but ten minutes later the bag is empty. You take one piece of chocolate, then a second comes, then a third. You eat a whole portion of food, feel physically full, but when dessert appears, it suddenly seems like there's room again.

We usually explain such behavior with a lack of discipline or willpower. But modern nutrition science poses a much more interesting question:

What if some of the foods around us are simply extremely easy to overeat?

Not because the person is weak or "has no control," but because the combination of taste, aroma, texture, energy density, speed of consumption, and easy accessibility can create a food environment very different from the one to which human physiology has been adapted for most of its history.

And this is where the conversation about ultra-processed foods begins.

500 calories that no one planned

In 2019, Kevin Hall's team from the American National Institutes of Health conducted one of the most interesting controlled experiments on the topic.

Participants live in a research center and in different periods receive two types of meals – ultra-processed and unprocessed. They are allowed to eat as much as they want.

The result attracts serious attention: during the ultra-processed meals, participants consumed on average about 500 kcal more per day and gained weight. With the unprocessed meals, energy intake decreased and weight moved in the opposite direction.

This is important because it moves the conversation beyond the old debate:

• Is sugar to blame?
• Are fats to blame?
• Are carbohydrates to blame?

Sometimes the problem isn't one isolated molecule.

The problem may be the very structure of the food and the way it interacts with appetite and satiety systems.

The body doesn't count calories. It receives signals.

The organism doesn't have a built-in calorie counter that notes: "I received 600 kcal, that's enough now."

Instead, it uses multiple parallel signals through which the brain and digestive system assess how much food has entered and when it's time for the meal to end.

Among them are:

• the volume of food in the stomach;
• the stretching of the stomach wall;
• the amount of protein;
• the fiber content;
• the speed of digestion;
• glucose signals;
• hormones released by the gastrointestinal tract;
• nerve signals to the brain;
• taste and aroma;
• our previous experience with the specific food.

When these signals move relatively synchronously, appetite regulation usually works well.

However, modern food technology can separate some of them.

We can get a lot of energy in a small volume, an extremely strong taste stimulus, and the possibility for the food to be eaten in minutes. In such a case, energy can enter faster than the satiety systems can react.

Small volume, huge amount of energy

Compare 100 grams of boiled potatoes with 100 grams of potato chips.

Both foods come from potatoes, but the physiological experience is completely different.

Boiled potato contains a lot of water, occupies a relatively large volume, requires chewing, and carries relatively little energy relative to its weight.

The chip is dehydrated, concentrated, and usually contains a significant amount of added fat. Thus, a small physical volume can deliver several times more energy.

The result is interesting: the stomach receives less volume, the brain receives a very strong taste stimulus, and the energy arrives quickly. A person may have consumed hundreds of calories before the mechanical and hormonal satiety signals have had time to say:

"Enough."

This is one of the fundamental differences between many natural and ultra-processed foods:

Energy can be highly concentrated without the signals for it increasing to the same degree.

The speed of eating matters

There is another factor that we often underestimate – how quickly we can eat a given food.

Compare for example:

• meat;
• whole fruit;
• salad;
• boiled potato;
• nuts;

with a package of extruded snack.

The first group requires mechanical work – biting, chewing, and time. Some industrial snacks, on the other hand, literally melt in the mouth and can be eaten extremely quickly.

This matters because satiety does not occur instantly. The gastrointestinal tract and brain need time to integrate the signals that eating has begun and that enough energy has already been consumed.

If 600 kcal can be eaten in a few minutes, the feedback simply starts to lag.

The food does not need to magically "turn off" satiety.

It is enough to outpace the system.

Why is the combination of fats + carbohydrates so powerful?

Look at the foods that people most often say:

"I can't stop."

Usually among them are:

• pizza;
• ice cream;
• chocolate;
• cookies;
• croissants;
• french fries;
• chips.

Most of them are not just "carbohydrate" or just "fat."

They combine concentrated fats with refined carbohydrates, sweetness or salt, aroma, and specific texture.

In the natural food environment, such concentrations and combinations occur much less frequently. Fruit, for example, may be rich in carbohydrates, but comes together with water, fiber, and cellular structure. Meat may contain a significant amount of fats and proteins, but practically does not contain refined carbohydrates.

When through food technology we combine concentrated fat, starch or sugar, salt, aroma, and easy-to-consume texture in one product, we get a combination that is very pleasant for the brain and very easy to overeat.

Exactly such products are often described as hyper-palatable – hyper-tasty foods.

Dopamine doesn't just mean "pleasure"

Dopamine is often called the "pleasure hormone," but this is an overly simplified description.

It is heavily involved in motivation, learning, anticipation, and reward-seeking.

That's why the desire for a certain food can start even before we taste it.

We may see the packaging, smell the aroma, pass by a favorite restaurant, or simply see a photo. The brain already knows what is likely coming and activates the connection built over time:

signal → food → reward.

This is also the reason why physiological hunger and the desire for food are not the same thing.

We can be completely full and yet experience a very strong desire for a specific product.

"Bliss point" – when the taste is optimized

The food industry has been using sensory tests, consumer panels, and food technology for decades to make products as attractive as possible.

It seeks a combination where the product is:

• sweet enough;
• salty enough;
• fatty enough;
• aromatic enough;
• crispy enough;

without any of these elements becoming so strong that it starts to repel the consumer.

This idea is often described as bliss point.

This does not mean that every food is created as part of some secret neurological plan. The explanation is much simpler: manufacturers have a huge economic incentive for the product to be tasty, desirable, and bought again.

And modern food technology has become extremely good at this.

Crunchiness is also part of the taste

We don't "taste" food only with the tongue.

Eating is a multisensory experience involving:

• smell;
• temperature;
• color;
• sound;
• consistency;
• crispiness;
• the way the food breaks down in the mouth.

All of this affects the sense of reward.

The chip wouldn't be the same if it were soft. The carbonated drink wouldn't create the same experience without the sensation of bubbles. The cracker wouldn't be the same without the characteristic break.

That's why the modern food product is often not just a recipe.

It is a carefully constructed sensory experience.

Why does there always seem to be room for dessert?

Here another interesting mechanism comes into play – sensory-specific satiety, or taste-specific satiety.

We can get full on one taste profile, but our interest in another remains.

After a large salty main course, a person can completely sincerely say:

"I can't eat any more."

Then the dessert appears on the table and suddenly it turns out that they can.

The stomach hasn't mysteriously gotten bigger.

It's just that the new taste restores part of the motivation to eat.

This is also one of the reasons why great variety can increase overall intake. And many ultra-processed products combine several strong taste signals at once – sweet, salty, fatty, umami, sour, and aromatic.

The brain receives constant sensory novelty.

Not all processed food is bad

Here it's important to make a clear distinction.

Processing itself does not turn food into a problem.

For example:

• cooking is processing;
• freezing is processing;
• fermentation is processing;
• pasteurization is processing;
• cheese and yogurt are processed foods;
• canned vegetables are also processed.

Therefore "processed" does not automatically mean "harmful."

The NOVA classification divides foods into four main groups – from unprocessed and minimally processed foods to ultra-processed industrial formulas.

It is precisely the last category that is of particular interest, because there the food is often no longer just a natural product that has undergone processing. It can be a new formula of refined raw materials, fats, starches, sugars, protein fractions, flavorings, emulsifiers, sweeteners, and other technological components.

The difference is substantial.

Can food cause addiction?

Here we need to be careful.

The concept of "food addiction" continues to be the subject of scientific discussion and not every strong desire for chocolate, pizza, or chips should automatically be defined as addiction.

However, in some people, characteristics can be observed that resemble addictive behavior:

• feeling of loss of control;
• continuing consumption despite negative consequences;
• repeated unsuccessful attempts to limit;
• strong desire for specific products;
• eating without physiological hunger.

The interesting thing is that p