Why Do Some Americans Feel Less Bloated in Europe? What the Evidence Actually Says

Some Americans really may feel less bloated, experience fewer digestive symptoms or even lose weight while spending time in Europe.

What that does not prove is that their chronic inflammation disappeared, that European wheat is inherently safer, or that American food was “poisoning” them.

The distinction matters because there are several legitimate reasons the experience could occur.

The United States consumes substantially more ultra-processed food than many European countries. U.S. and European regulators also take different approaches to food additives. Bread made through long fermentation can differ meaningfully from rapidly produced packaged bread. Physical activity affects gastrointestinal symptoms. And people with certain digestive sensitivities can react very differently to foods that appear nearly identical.

But none of those facts identifies the cause of one person’s before-and-after photographs.

The most defensible conclusion is therefore more interesting than either extreme:

The “Europe effect” is plausible. The claim that a flatter stomach proves American food caused chronic inflammation is not.

The viral Maddy Renne example

The question recently received renewed attention through videos from wellness creator Maddy Renne, who documented dramatic differences in how she said she looked and felt while traveling in France and Italy.

In one widely circulated comparison, Renne showed herself before leaving the United States and again 19 days later in Europe. She said she was eating foods such as pizza, pasta and gelato while exercising less, yet appeared less bloated.

Her experience later received national attention. The Wall Street Journal reported in August 2026 that Renne said she went from a dress size eight to a two during a five-and-a-half-week stay in Nice and experienced less bloating, fatigue and brain fog despite eating substantially more bread, pasta and desserts than she normally did in the United States.

There is no reason to assume those experiences were fabricated.

The problem comes at the next step.

Renne and many people reacting to her videos have described the physical change as evidence that American food keeps people chronically “inflamed.”

A photograph cannot establish that.

Bloating and inflammation are not the same thing

This is the single most important distinction in the entire debate.

The American Gastroenterological Association defines abdominal bloating as the subjective feeling of fullness, swelling, pressure or trapped gas.

Abdominal distention is different: it is an actual visible increase in abdominal girth.

Neither is synonymous with systemic inflammation.

A person can genuinely have a visibly flatter abdomen without experiencing any meaningful change in chronic inflammatory activity.

Conversely, someone can have inflammatory disease without looking visibly bloated.

Inflammation itself is evaluated through clinical context and, when appropriate, laboratory or other testing. C-reactive protein, for example, is a blood marker that rises with inflammation, although even CRP cannot identify the cause or location of inflammation by itself.

A bikini photograph measures none of this.

That means Renne’s comparison can reasonably support:

“My abdomen looks less distended and I feel better in Europe.”

It cannot establish:

“My chronic inflammation fell because American food was poisoning me.”

Those are fundamentally different claims.

What a 19-day before-and-after can — and cannot — tell us

The comparison is essentially an uncontrolled experiment with one participant.

Almost everything changed simultaneously:

• country;
• individual foods;
• brands and recipes;
• portion sizes;
• meal timing;
• sodium intake;
• hydration;
• bowel habits;
• sleep;
• physical activity;
• sitting time;
• alcohol consumption;
• stress;
• menstrual-cycle timing;
• restaurant eating;
• environmental exposures;
• and possibly total calorie intake.

Even the claim of eating “more calories” cannot be established without measuring food intake. People are notoriously poor at estimating calories from memory, particularly when eating unfamiliar restaurant meals.

The photographs also cannot separate changes in body fat from abdominal contents, gas, stool, fluid retention, muscular positioning or normal day-to-day variation.

That doesn’t make the observation worthless.

It makes the observation a clue rather than an experiment.

There really is an American food-system difference

Rejecting the viral explanation entirely would go too far in the opposite direction.

There are meaningful differences between the American and European food environments.

Perhaps the clearest is ultra-processed-food consumption.

According to the CDC’s most recent national analysis, U.S. adults obtained an average 53.0% of their calories from ultra-processed foods during August 2021 through August 2023. For American children and adolescents, it was 61.9%.

An analysis of dietary surveys from European adults estimated an average of about 27.2% of calories from ultra-processed foods across the countries studied, although consumption differed greatly between countries.

These figures are not a perfect head-to-head comparison: the European surveys come from different years and methodologies.

But the broad pattern is difficult to miss.

The average American food environment is considerably more dependent on industrially formulated foods than many European food environments.

France itself is not free of ultra-processed food. A representative French dietary survey estimated about 31% of adults’ calories came from ultra-processed foods, while a large NutriNet-Santé cohort estimated about 36%.

So the actual divide is not:

America = processed food; Europe = natural food.

It is a difference in degree, dietary pattern and specific food environments.

Ultra-processed food is a legitimate health concern

There is also real evidence that high ultra-processed-food consumption is associated with adverse health outcomes.

One of the strongest experiments came from the National Institutes of Health.

Twenty adults lived in an inpatient research center and were alternated between ultra-processed and minimally processed diets. The meals offered were designed to be comparable in presented calories, macronutrients, sugar, sodium and fiber.

When participants ate the ultra-processed diet, they spontaneously consumed about 500 additional calories per day and gained approximately 0.9 kilograms over two weeks. During the minimally processed diet, they lost approximately the same amount.

Research examining inflammation is less definitive but still worth taking seriously.

A 2025 review of 24 human studies found that greater ultra-processed-food intake was frequently associated with higher inflammatory biomarkers, particularly C-reactive protein in adults. Other inflammatory markers showed less consistent results.

That makes this statement reasonable:

A food system heavily dependent on ultra-processed food may contribute to poorer metabolic and inflammatory health at the population level.

It does not make this statement reasonable:

Any person who looks less bloated in France has demonstrated that American food caused their inflammation.

Population evidence and individual causation are not interchangeable.

There is also an important problem with applying the UPF explanation to Renne herself

Renne has described her American diet as unusually restrictive and “clean,” emphasizing whole foods, organic products and avoidance of heavily processed food.

If that characterization is accurate, it actually complicates the most common explanation for her transformation.

The fact that Americans on average consume far more ultra-processed food cannot by itself explain why one person who says she already avoids those foods would improve after leaving the country.

There are possibilities.

Her European and American diets may still differ in ways she isn’t measuring. Ingredients, fermentation, serving size, food preparation and other exposures could change.

But the burden of explanation shifts.

If someone eats minimally processed food in Florida and then pizza, pasta, gelato and cookies in France, “she stopped eating American ultra-processed food” is not enough to solve the mystery.

Something else — or several things — must also be considered.

Are European food additives safer?

This is another area where both sides tend to oversimplify.

The European Union and United States genuinely regulate food ingredients differently.

In the EU, additives must be authorized and included on a positive list specifying how they may be used. Authorization includes a safety assessment and consideration of technological need.

The United States also requires food additives to meet safety requirements, but its system includes the Generally Recognized as Safe, or GRAS, pathway.

Under current U.S. rules, companies that independently conclude a substance qualifies as GRAS have not necessarily been required to notify the FDA before introducing it.

That criticism is not an internet myth.

The FDA itself proposed a major change on August 10, 2026, that would make GRAS notification mandatory for certain uses. The agency explicitly says notification under the existing system is voluntary and that mandatory reporting would give regulators more information about what substances are entering the food supply.

So there is a legitimate regulatory story here.

But regulatory differences cannot be converted automatically into biological conclusions.

An ingredient being permitted in America and restricted in Europe does not prove that the ingredient caused someone’s bloating.

Likewise, European authorization does not make every European processed food inherently healthy.

What about emulsifiers and the gut?

Emulsifiers are a good example of why the evidence deserves more nuance than either “chemicals are poison” or “everything approved is harmless.”

Animal and laboratory studies have produced reasons to investigate whether certain emulsifiers can alter the gut microbiome or intestinal barrier.

Human evidence is still developing.

An especially useful randomized trial published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology in 2026 tested several commonly discussed emulsifiers in healthy adults.

Researchers studied carboxymethylcellulose, polysorbate-80, carrageenan and other compounds after participants first followed an emulsifier-free diet.

The trial found changes in some microbial metabolites. Carrageenan also produced a within-group change in one measure of intestinal permeability.

But compared with placebo, researchers found no significant increase in C-reactive protein, fecal calprotectin or other measured inflammatory endpoints from the emulsifiers.

That is exactly the kind of result that gets lost online.

There is enough evidence to keep studying food additives.

There is not enough evidence to say that routine exposure to American emulsifiers explains Renne’s transformation.

Is European wheat different?

This may be the most popular explanation of all:

“I can’t eat bread in America, but I can eat it in Europe.”

The phenomenon may be real for some individuals.

The usual explanation — that American wheat contains bad gluten while European wheat contains safe gluten — is much shakier.

The United States itself grows multiple classes of wheat with dramatically different characteristics, ranging from low-protein soft red winter wheat to higher-protein hard red wheat and durum.

Europe likewise uses many wheat varieties and production methods.

There simply is no single substance called “American wheat” that can be meaningfully compared with a single substance called “European wheat.”

The culprit may not even be gluten

For some people who believe they are gluten-sensitive, other compounds in wheat may produce the symptoms.

One important candidate is fructans.

Fructans are fermentable carbohydrates and part of the FODMAP family.

In a randomized double-blind crossover trial involving 59 people who described themselves as having non-celiac gluten sensitivity, participants received gluten, fructans or placebo.

Fructans caused more gastrointestinal symptoms and more bloating than gluten. Gluten itself did not produce significantly greater symptoms than placebo.

That does not mean gluten sensitivity doesn’t exist.

It means some people who attribute their symptoms to gluten may actually be responding to another component of wheat-containing foods.

That distinction could help explain why two breads produce different reactions without invoking a fundamentally different European human physiology.

Fermentation may matter — but not because France magically fixes gluten

Traditional fermentation provides another plausible mechanism.

Sourdough fermentation can substantially reduce fructans under the right production conditions. Laboratory studies and bread trials support the ability of selected sourdough cultures to lower FODMAP content.

In a randomized trial involving people with IBS, low-FODMAP rye bread reduced some symptoms, including flatulence, abdominal pain and rumbling, compared with regular rye bread.

But the evidence isn’t uniformly positive.

A separate randomized pilot study compared long-fermented sourdough wheat bread with yeast-fermented wheat bread in people who reported wheat sensitivity and IBS. The sourdough contained fewer FODMAPs, but researchers found no significant improvement in gastrointestinal symptoms between the breads.

So longer fermentation is biologically plausible and may help some people.

It is not proof that “European bread doesn’t cause inflammation.”

And plenty of European bread is mass-produced while plenty of American bakeries use long fermentation.

The relevant variable is the food itself, not the passport stamped on it.

If you have celiac disease, European wheat is not a loophole

This point deserves special emphasis because social-media versions of the claim can become dangerous.

Celiac disease is an immune-mediated disease triggered by gluten found in wheat, barley and rye.

Someone with celiac disease should not experiment with conventional French baguettes or Italian pasta because they believe European wheat is safer.

The National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases recommends lifelong avoidance of gluten for people diagnosed with celiac disease.

Feeling better after eating a particular European bread does not make gluten safe for someone with celiac disease.

What about glyphosate?

Glyphosate has also become a standard explanation for why Americans supposedly tolerate European wheat better.

One common version of the claim says Europe banned glyphosate while the United States sprays wheat with it.

That is false.

The European Union renewed glyphosate’s approval in 2023 through December 15, 2033.

The EU does impose restrictions, including prohibiting its use as a desiccant to control harvest timing or optimize threshing. Individual member states can impose additional restrictions.

Glyphosate is also permitted for agricultural uses in the United States, where food can contain residues subject to EPA tolerances.

The EPA is currently conducting another human-health review of glyphosate and expects an updated risk assessment later in 2026.

That leaves legitimate scientific and regulatory questions about glyphosate.

It does not support the simple claim that European bread is glyphosate-free while American bread is not.

And no evidence connects glyphosate exposure to Renne’s 19-day before-and-after.

Walking is not a trivial explanation

People often respond to this discussion with an equally simplistic dismissal:

“You just walk more in Europe.”

That explanation is frequently offered without evidence — but the mechanism is real.

Physical activity can affect gastrointestinal motility and bloating directly, not merely by burning extra calories.

In a randomized clinical trial involving 94 people with functional abdominal bloating, participants assigned to walk for 10 to 15 minutes after meals experienced significant improvement in several gastrointestinal symptoms. Post-meal walking performed particularly well for postprandial fullness and bloating.

Someone can therefore maintain a similar formal “workout” schedule while changing the amount and timing of low-level movement enough to affect digestion.

Step counts don’t necessarily capture everything either.

Walking immediately after meals, standing more often and interrupting long periods of sitting can differ from performing the same total number of steps at another time of day.

Renne has said she walks extensively at home as well. That makes “she simply walked more” less satisfying as a complete explanation.

But it does not eliminate movement as one variable among many.

The gut-brain connection is also real — and it doesn’t mean symptoms are imaginary

Stress is sometimes invoked dismissively in these conversations: “You’re on vacation, so of course you feel better.”

That framing misunderstands gastrointestinal physiology.

The gut and brain communicate continuously, and disorders of gut-brain interaction are recognized clinical conditions.

The American Gastroenterological Association includes brain-gut behavioral treatments among the therapeutic options for certain patients with bloating and abdominal distention.

Stress can influence visceral sensitivity, gastrointestinal motility and symptom perception.

That does not mean the symptoms are psychological inventions.

It means an individual’s nervous system can change how strongly the gastrointestinal tract responds to the same physical stimulus.

Travel could improve that in one person and worsen it in another.

Menstrual timing alone can change a before-and-after

For menstruating women, another variable is easy to overlook.

Fluid retention changes measurably across the menstrual cycle.

In a study following 62 healthy women over 765 menstrual cycles, self-reported fluid retention varied significantly during the cycle and peaked around the beginning of menstruation.

That does not explain Renne’s results.

We do not know whether the two videos occurred at comparable points in her cycle.

That’s precisely the point.

Without controlling it, one cannot know how much of the visible difference came from food, digestion, fluid shifts or other variables.

The evidence, graded

So why might someone genuinely feel better eating in Europe?

Probably because there is no single “Europe effect.”

Different people may be experiencing different mechanisms.

One person could unconsciously reduce ultra-processed-food intake.

Another may eat bread that has undergone longer fermentation and contains fewer fermentable carbohydrates.

Someone else might walk immediately after every meal.

Another person may eat smaller portions despite feeling as though they are indulging constantly.

Another may respond to different dairy products, wheat varieties, fiber intake, meal timing or sodium exposure.

Another may have IBS, constipation, lactose intolerance, fructose intolerance, non-celiac wheat sensitivity or another gastrointestinal condition whose symptoms change with the new diet.

And some portion of the apparent transformation may simply be water, bowel contents and ordinary biological variation.

These mechanisms can coexist.

That is why trying to explain the entire phenomenon with one ingredient — gluten, glyphosate, seed oils, preservatives or “toxins” — is usually a mistake.

The most interesting experiment happens after you come home

There is a much better way to investigate the experience than comparing America with Europe as two giant categories.

If someone consistently feels better abroad, the useful question is:

What specifically changed?

Instead of purchasing expensive imported products indiscriminately, the person could compare variables systematically:

• similar bread with long versus short fermentation;
• minimally processed versus ultra-processed meals;
• meal timing;
• post-meal walking;
• lactose exposure;
• high- versus low-FODMAP foods;
• sodium;
• fiber;
• alcohol;
• portion sizes;
• sleep;
• bowel habits;
• and symptom timing.

Changing one or two variables at a time provides far more information than changing countries.

Persistent or severe bloating also deserves medical evaluation rather than an endless series of food eliminations. AGA guidance specifically considers conditions including carbohydrate intolerance, celiac disease, constipation, motility disorders and, in selected patients, small-intestinal bacterial overgrowth.

And anyone who suspects celiac disease should ideally be tested before beginning a gluten-free diet, because avoiding gluten beforehand can interfere with diagnostic testing.

The bottom line

Maddy Renne’s before-and-after photographs can be striking without proving what she says they prove.

It is entirely plausible that she experienced less abdominal distention, retained less fluid, felt better and even changed clothing sizes while eating foods in France that she normally avoided in the United States.

That experience should not simply be mocked or dismissed.

There are meaningful differences between the American and European food environments. Americans consume unusually large amounts of ultra-processed food. The United States and European Union regulate additives differently. Fermentation can materially change bread. Certain food ingredients can affect the microbiome, and individual digestive responses vary considerably.

Those are legitimate subjects for research and public policy.

But none establishes that her flatter abdomen represented a reduction in chronic inflammation, much less that an unidentified American ingredient caused it.

The scientifically responsible conclusion is therefore neither “European food is magic” nor “it’s all in your head.”

It is this:

People who feel dramatically better eating abroad may be noticing something real. What we do not yet have is evidence that there is one uniquely European ingredient, one uniquely American toxin or one universal mechanism responsible for it.

That unanswered question is worth investigating.

It just shouldn’t be declared solved by a before-and-after photograph.

References and Further Reading

Gastroenterology and bloating

• American Gastroenterological Association — Evaluation and Management of Belching, Abdominal Bloating and Distention — Clinical guidance defining bloating and distention and outlining recognized causes and management.

• AGA Clinical Practice Update on Evaluation and Management of Belching, Abdominal Bloating, and Distention — Full expert review published in Gastroenterology.

• NIDDK — Symptoms and Causes of Gas in the Digestive Tract — Federal overview of carbohydrate fermentation, gas and functional gastrointestinal disorders.

Ultra-processed food

• CDC/NCHS — Ultra-processed Food Consumption in Youth and Adults: United States, August 2021–August 2023 — Current nationally representative U.S. consumption estimate.

• Ultra-processed Food Consumption in Adults Across Europe — Cross-country analysis of European dietary surveys.

• NIH — Heavily Processed Foods Cause Overeating and Weight Gain — Summary of the controlled NIH inpatient feeding experiment.

• Hall et al. — Ultra-Processed Diets Cause Excess Calorie Intake and Weight Gain — Full randomized controlled feeding study.

• Ultra-Processed Food Consumption and Systemic Inflammatory Biomarkers: A Scoping Review — 2025 review of human research examining UPFs and inflammatory biomarkers.

Food additives and regulation

• European Commission — EU Rules on Food Additives — Official explanation of the EU positive-list authorization system.

• FDA — Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) — Current FDA explanation of the GRAS framework.

• FDA — Substances Generally Recognized as Safe Proposed Rule — August 2026 proposal that would make certain GRAS notifications mandatory.

• Wellens et al. — Effect of Five Dietary Emulsifiers on Inflammation, Permeability, and the Gut Microbiome — 2026 randomized placebo-controlled human trial.

Wheat, fructans and fermentation

• Skodje et al. — Fructan, Rather Than Gluten, Induces Symptoms in Patients With Self-Reported Non-Celiac Gluten Sensitivity — Randomized double-blind crossover challenge separating gluten from fructans.

• Randomized Trial of Low-FODMAP Rye Bread in Irritable Bowel Syndrome — Evidence that bread formulation can influence gastrointestinal symptoms.

• Comparison of Sourdough and Yeast-Fermented Wheat Bread in Wheat-Sensitive People With IBS — Useful counterpoint showing that lower FODMAP content does not necessarily produce symptom improvement.

• NIDDK — Eating, Diet and Nutrition for Celiac Disease — Authoritative guidance explaining why ordinary wheat remains unsafe for people with celiac disease regardless of country.

Glyphosate

• European Commission — Glyphosate Second Renewal — Official EU record confirming approval through December 2033 and its restrictions.

• U.S. EPA — Glyphosate — Current U.S. regulatory status and ongoing 2026 human-health reassessment.

Lifestyle and short-term abdominal changes

• Randomized Trial of Short Post-Meal Walking for Functional Abdominal Bloating — Evidence that brief postprandial activity can improve bloating symptoms.

• Fluid Retention Over the Menstrual Cycle — Prospective data showing substantial cycle-related variation in perceived fluid retention.

Viral case

• The Wall Street Journal — My Secret Diet Is a Trip to Europe — August 2026 reporting on Maddy Renne and other Americans describing the “Europe effect.”

Editorial currency note: FDA food-additive oversight and EPA’s glyphosate review are actively changing. The FDA’s mandatory-GRAS-notification rule was still a proposal as of September 7, 2026, and EPA says an updated glyphosate human-health risk assessment is expected later in 2026. Those sections should be checked again if this article is substantially updated.