(© Anastasia - stock.adobe.com)
Global study of 4,000+ people reveals processed food, not lack of exercise, drives obesity epidemic
In A Nutshell
- A global study of 4,213 adults finds that people in wealthier countries actually burn more daily calories than those in traditional lifestyles.
- Obesity in developed nations is not driven by inactivity but by increased intake, especially of ultra-processed foods.
- Physical activity levels did not significantly decline with economic development, challenging common obesity assumptions.
- The percentage of ultra-processed food in the diet was strongly linked to higher body fat, suggesting food quality—not movement—is the key issue.
DURHAM, N.C. — Americans burn more calories daily than people living traditional lifestyles in developing countries. Yet we’re also significantly fatter. How can that be?
A Duke University study of 4,213 people spanning 34 populations worldwide — from Tanzanian hunter-gatherers to Norwegian office workers — shows that expanding waistlines have little to do with becoming less active. What we eat, not how much we move, is the real driver.
The research, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, found that “daily energy expenditures are greater in developed populations, and activity energy expenditures are not reduced in more industrialized populations.” This directly challenges the common assumption that declining physical activity is the main cause of obesity.
As the authors write in the study’s significance section, these results “suggest that dietary intake plays a far greater role than reduced expenditure in the elevated prevalence of obesity associated with economic development.”
Developed Countries Actually Burn More Daily Calories
To measure how many calories people actually burn each day, the researchers used a technique called “doubly labeled water,” which tracks how quickly the body processes certain harmless isotopes over 7 to 14 days. It’s considered the most accurate method available for measuring total energy expenditure in real-world settings.
Surprisingly, the study found that people in more economically developed countries burned more calories per day than those in less developed ones. This wasn’t just because they were taller or heavier, though body size did explain part of the difference. Even after adjusting for weight and muscle mass, the difference in calories burned was modest, only about 6%.
The researchers also expected to see lower physical activity levels in wealthier nations, but that wasn’t the case. Across all 34 populations studied, people in industrialized societies were just as physically active as those in traditional or rural settings. There was “no significant change” in physical activity levels with economic development, meaning people across different lifestyles generally moved their bodies just as much.

How Ultra-Processed Foods Drive Weight Gain
The real difference between countries wasn’t how much people moved. It was what they ate.
Among the 25 populations where dietary data were available, one trend stood out clearly: the more ultra-processed foods people consumed, the more body fat they tended to carry. These foods — like sugary drinks, packaged snacks, and ready-to-eat meals — are industrially made and often contain long lists of ingredients.
According to the researchers, one likely explanation is that these foods are easier to digest, which means the body absorbs more calories from them. Less energy is lost during digestion, and more gets stored. Some studies suggest these foods may also interfere with the body’s hunger signals, causing people to eat more than they need.
Even though people in wealthier countries were burning more calories, they were also eating more; and not just more food overall, but more food that seems to encourage fat storage. Because participants in the study maintained a stable weight during the measurement period, the researchers were able to infer that calorie intake must have closely matched calorie expenditure at the time. That means the high calorie burn in developed countries is matched by equally high consumption, likely driven by food quality rather than quantity alone
What This Means for Fighting Obesity
The researchers emphasize that physical activity is still vital for overall health. It lowers the risk of heart disease, improves mental well-being, and helps maintain a healthy metabolism. But when it comes specifically to obesity, the biggest factor appears to be the kind of food people eat, not how much they move.
Interestingly, the study also found that much of the increase in body mass in wealthier countries came from muscle and lean tissue, not just fat. In other words, better access to nutrition helps support healthy growth, even as it contributes to weight gain. Still, body fat increased more than muscle mass, pointing to a mismatch between calorie intake and the body’s needs.
What stood out most was this: the differences in body fat between rich and poor countries were about 10 times greater than any differences linked to how many calories people burned. That’s a powerful argument for focusing on the food environment — what’s available, affordable, and marketed to people — rather than just telling individuals to exercise more.
For decades, public health campaigns have leaned on the slogan “eat less, move more.” This study suggests it’s time to shift focus. The root of the obesity crisis may not be laziness, but the global rise of ultra-processed foods that are cheap, convenient, and engineered to be overeaten.
Disclaimer: This study is observational and cross-sectional, meaning it cannot establish cause-and-effect relationships. While the data strongly support associations between economic development, ultra-processed food consumption, and obesity, the authors note that more research is needed to clarify the underlying physiological and environmental mechanisms. Additionally, dietary data were only available for a subset of populations.
Paper Summary
Methodology
Researchers analyzed data from 4,213 adults aged 18–60 across 34 populations representing different levels of economic development, from hunter-gatherers to industrialized societies. They used the doubly labeled water method, considered the gold standard for measuring energy expenditure, which tracks isotope depletion in body water over 7–14 days to calculate total daily calories burned. Body composition was measured using deuterium dilution to determine fat-free mass, fat mass, and body fat percentage. Economic development was categorized using the UN Human Development Index, which incorporates measures of wealth, education, and life expectancy. The study also examined dietary data from 25 populations, including the percentage of ultra-processed foods in people’s diets.
Results
Body fat percentage and obesity rates increased significantly with economic development across all populations studied. However, total daily energy expenditure was actually higher in more developed countries, primarily due to larger body sizes. When adjusted for body size, energy expenditure decreased only modestly (6–11%) with development, and this small difference could explain only about one-tenth of the obesity differences between populations. Surprisingly, physical activity energy expenditure showed no significant decline with economic development. Among populations with dietary data, the percentage of ultra-processed foods in the diet was positively correlated with body fat percentage, demonstrating that dietary intake rather than reduced energy expenditure drives obesity in developed countries.
Limitations
The study used cross-sectional data, making it impossible to establish causality in the relationships between economic development, diet, and obesity. Detailed dietary information was available for only 25 of the 34 populations studied. The research could not identify specific environmental, social, or physiological factors that promote increased calorie intake and absorption in developed settings. Some energy expenditure measurements used estimated rather than directly measured basal metabolic rates. The study also couldn’t resolve whether differences in food quality, quantity, digestibility, or other factors drive the dietary effects observed.
Funding and Disclosures
The study was supported by multiple funding sources including the US National Science Foundation, Chinese Academy of Sciences, International Atomic Energy Agency, and various other research institutions. The Doubly Labeled Water Database used in the research is supported by the International Atomic Energy Agency. The authors declared no competing financial interests that could bias the research findings.
Publication Information
The paper “Energy expenditure and obesity across the economic spectrum” was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) on July 14, 2025. The research was conducted by an international consortium of scientists led by Amanda McGrosky (Elon University), Amy Luke (Loyola University), and Herman Pontzer (Duke University), among many other contributors from institutions worldwide. The study is available as an open-access publication under Creative Commons licensing.








When I turned 40, 35 years ago, I was overweight and eating OPF. I also was starting to have health problems. I transitioned to a clean, plant based diet and started to exercise. I lost 45 pounds, have gained about 10 back but my weight has since stabilized. I have no health problems. I am a firm believer in staying away from highly processed food. I also maintain proper portion size which most people do not. They do not understand what they body needs and over consume; hence they are overweight. I have a bunch of fellow oldies that I exercise with at classes who also maintain their weight with real food. All of us have little to no health conditions which we feel is our diligence to lifestyle and proper diet.
Thank you Mister President for persuading Coke to offer cane sugar in place of HFCS.
Sugar is sugar, dingdong. Won’t change a thing. Ask Mexico about it’s obesity problems. Let’s also just ignore that youre fine with a federal employee telling a private corporation to do. Isn’t limited government what the giant orange campaigned on?
This is real simple. American’s are burning more calories than ever before but they then consume even more calories than ever before.and most people don’t exercise much.
I still say it is mostly about the amount consumed. If you look at the typical potion size in the US versus overseas I bet the US is 20-50% larger.
Americans were drinking way more HFCS soda on or before the year 2000 versus today but are much heavier now. Because 90% of your food today is Genetically Engineered. In 2000, GMO food was just beginning to be consumed. You’re eating pretend, fake food.
Because You eat like a pig , look on kids portions in American restaurants
There is no small size cup in Mc D , its starts with Midium, and what about XL drink ?!?
How You can drink that much after Cheeseburger and XL fries
Wake Up America …… Eat everything but reduce portions …
How do pigs eat?
So they’ve spent money on a study to find out that eating too much, especially junk food (processed) makes people fat.
Boondoggle.
Uh. Westerners burn more calories… because we consume more calories. Kind of follows.
To make inferences regarding the quality of the food (ultraprocessed, etc.) in either diet you need to show that for a given amount of caloric intake that a western diet results in more fat stored than a developing world diet.
It seems they didn’t do that with this study “The study also couldn’t resolve whether differences in food quality, *quantity*, digestibility, or other factors drive the dietary effects observed.”
Exactly. This “study” is junkier than junk food. No cause and effect relationships established. Why even take the time time to play with the data? The biased conclusions were identified a priori…classic confirmation bias.
Portion size is a major factor. People in less industrialized areas of the world do not eat the extremely large portions that North Americans do. Westerners also tend to eat too much, usually due to exceeding serving sizes, snacking, and sugary beverages; and they eat until they feel full.
Not new information. Physiologists have known and taught it for decades. “Dr Adkins Diet Revolution”, published in 1972, filtered-down the complexities to an easy explanation of the complex science. In 53 years since, human physiology has not changed.
This is what we’ve known for over 50 years. When the US introduced HFCS (and hydrogenated fats) to basic foods/beverages in the early 1970’s, obesity & diabetes skyrocketed. HFCS was widely used because the gov put tariffs on sugar cane and gave subsidies to corn farmers because it was cheaper, not better, making fuel and cheap sweeteners. And we need to look worldwide. HFCS was banned and/or severely limited in many countries based on health problems. India, Ireland, Sweden, Austria, and Lithuania do not use HFCS at all and Mexico stopped allowing it in soda in 2001. It should be phased out, but until then we have a choice to not buy it.
This is why I had a hard time fundraising for research charities such for heart disease and diabetes. There was very little emphasis on diet changes.