logo
Eating minimally processed meals doubles weight loss even when ultraprocessed foods are healthy, study finds

Eating minimally processed meals doubles weight loss even when ultraprocessed foods are healthy, study finds

CNNa day ago
Food & health
UKFacebookTweetLink
Follow
People in the United Kingdom lost twice as much weight eating meals typically made at home than they did when eating store-bought ultraprocessed food considered healthy, the latest research has found.
'This new study shows that even when an ultraprocessed diet meets nutritional guidelines, people will still lose more weight eating a minimally processed diet,' said coauthor Dr. Kevin Hall, a former senior investigator at the US National Institutes of Health who has conducted some of the world's only controlled clinical trials on ultraprocessed foods.
'This (study) is the largest and longest randomized controlled clinical trial of ultraprocessed foods to date,' Hall added.
Hall's past research sequestered healthy volunteers from the world for a month at a time, measuring the impact of ultraprocessed food on their weight, body fat and various biomarkers of health. In a 2019 study, he found people in the United States ate about 500 calories more each day and gained weight when on an ultraprocessed diet than when eating a minimally processed diet matched by calories and nutrients.
The weight loss from minimally processed food in the new study was modest — only 2% of the person's baseline weight, said study first author Samuel Dicken, a research fellow at the department of behavioral science and health and the Centre for Obesity Research at University College London.
'Though a 2% reduction may not seem very big, that is only over eight weeks and without people trying to actively reduce their (food) intake,' Dicken said in a statement. 'If we scaled these results up over the course of a year, we'd expect to see a 13% weight reduction in men and a 9% reduction in women.'
Men typically have more lean muscle mass than women, which along with testosterone often gives them a quicker boost over women when it comes to weight loss, experts say.
The study, published Monday in the journal Nature Medicine, provided free ultraprocessed or minimally processed meals and snacks to 55 overweight people in the UK for a total of eight weeks. After a short break, the groups switched to the opposite diet for another eight weeks.
Study participants were told to eat as much or as little of the 4,000 daily calories as they liked and record their consumption in a diary. By the end of the study, 50 people had spent eight weeks on both diets. While the number of participants may seem small at first glance, providing 16 weeks of food and implementing randomized controlled clinical trials can be costly.
For the first eight weeks, 28 people received daily deliveries of minimally processed meals and snacks, such as overnight oats and homemade spaghetti Bolognese.
Minimally processed foods, such as fruits, vegetables, meat, milk and eggs, are typically cooked from their natural state, according to NOVA, a recognized system of categorizing foods by their level of processing.
Concurrently, another 27 people received a daily delivery of ultraprocessed foods — such as ready-to-eat breakfast bars or heat-and-eat lasagna — for eight weeks.
Ultraprocessed foods, or UPFs, contain additives never or rarely used in kitchens and often undergo extensive industrial processing, according to the NOVA classification system.
Because ultraprocessed foods are typically high in calories, added sugar, sodium, and saturated fat and low in fiber, they have been linked to weight gain and obesity and the development of chronic conditions including cancer, cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes and depression. Such foods may even shorten life.
Researchers in this study, however, did something unusual, said Christopher Gardner, Rehnborg Farquhar Professor of Medicine at Stanford University in California who directs the Stanford Prevention Research Center's Nutrition Studies Research Group.
'They tried to make a healthy ultraprocessed diet by picking ultraprocessed foods with the recommended number of fruits, veggies and fiber and lower levels of salt, sugar and saturated fats,' said Gardner, who was not involved in the study.
Both the ultraprocessed and the minimally processed meals had to meet the nutritional requirements of the Eatwell Guide, the UK's official government guidance on how to eat a healthy, balanced diet. The United States has similar dietary guidelines, which are used to set federal nutritional standards.
'This is a very solid study, matching dietary interventions for nutrients and food group distribution, while varying only the contribution of ultra-processed foods,' said Dr. David Katz, a specialist in preventive and lifestyle medicine, in an email. Katz, who was not involved in the study, is the founder of the nonprofit True Health Initiative, a global coalition of experts dedicated to evidence-based lifestyle medicine.
The study's goal was weight loss, which often comes with improved cardiovascular readings, such as lower blood pressure, cholesterol and blood sugar levels.
That happened, but in rather odd and surprising ways, said Marion Nestle, the Paulette Goddard professor emerita of nutrition, food studies and public health at New York University, who was asked to write an editorial to be published with the study.
Instead of gaining weight, people on the ultraprocessed diet chose to eat 120 fewer calories a day, thus losing a small amount of weight. People on the minimally processed diet, however, ate 290 fewer calories a day, thus losing even more weight and some body fat as well.
'One possible explanation is that (people on the minimally processed diet) did not like the 'healthy' meals as much as their usual diets,' Nestle, who was not involved in the research, wrote in the editorial.
'They deemed the minimally processed diet less tasty,' Nestle said. 'That diet emphasized 'real' fresh foods, whereas the ultra-processed diet featured commercially packaged 'healthy' ultra-processed food products such as fruit, nut, and protein bars; sandwiches and meals; drinking yoghurts, and plant-based milks.'
Less than 1% of people in the UK follow all of the government's nutritional recommendations, according to the study, often choosing ultraprocessed foods as the basis of their normal daily intake. In the US, nearly 60% of an adult's calorie consumption is from ultraprocessed foods.
'People in this study were overweight or obese and were already eating a diet high in all kinds of ultraprocessed foods,' Gardner said. 'So the ultraprocessed diet in the study was healthier than their typical normal diet. Isn't that an odd twist?'
People on the minimally processed diet had lower levels of triglycerides, a type of fat in the blood linked to an increased risk of heart disease and stroke, but other markers of heart health didn't vary much between the two diets, according to the study.
There was one notable exception: low-density lipoprotein, or LDL, known as 'bad' cholesterol because it can build up in arteries and create blockages to the heart.
'Surprisingly, LDL cholesterol was reduced more on the ultra-processed diet,' said dietitian Dimitrios Koutoukidis, an associate professor of diet, obesity and behavioral sciences at the University of Oxford, who was not involved in the study.
'This might imply that processing is not as important for heart health if the foods already meet the standard UK healthy eating guidance,' Koutoukidis said in a statement. 'Further research is needed to better understand this.'
According to Hall, the results fit quite nicely with preliminary results from his current study that is still underway. In that research, Hall and his team measured the impact of four configurations of ultraprocessed foods on the health of 36 volunteers. Each lived for a month in the Metabolic Clinical Research Unit of the National Institutes of Health Clinical Center in Bethesda, Maryland.
'When you modify an ultraprocessed diet to have lower energy (calorie) density and fewer highly palatable foods, you can offset some of the effects of ultraprocessed foods in causing excess calorie intake and weight gain,' Hall said.
In other words, choose healthier foods regardless of the levels of processing.
'People don't eat the best ultraprocessed foods, they eat the worst ones, so the take home here is to follow the national guidelines for nutrient quality,' Gardner said.
'Read your nutrient label and choose foods that are low in salt, fat, sugar and calories and high in fiber, and avoid foods with too many additives with unpronounceable names. That's the key to a healthier diet.'
Sign up for CNN's Eat, But Better: Mediterranean Style. Our eight-part guide shows you a delicious expert-backed eating lifestyle that will boost your health for life.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Study: Diets low on processed foods more effective for weight loss
Study: Diets low on processed foods more effective for weight loss

UPI

time3 hours ago

  • UPI

Study: Diets low on processed foods more effective for weight loss

A University College London study suggests weight loss diets are more effective when they eschew ultra-processed foods for minimally-processed sustenance. File Photo by Gary C. Caskey/UPI | License Photo Want to drop some pounds? Drop the ultra-processed foods, a new study says. People lost twice as much weight on a diet with minimally processed foods compared to one with ultra-processed products, even though both diets were nutritionally matched, researchers reported Aug. 4 in the journal Nature Medicine. "The global food system at the moment drives diet-related poor health and obesity, particularly because of the wide availability of cheap, unhealthy food," researcher Chris van Tulleken, an associate professor with the University College London, said in a news release. "This study highlights the importance of ultra-processing in driving health outcomes in addition to the role of nutrients like fat, salt and sugar," van Tulleken said. Ultra-processed foods are made mostly from substances extracted from whole foods, like saturated fats, starches and added sugars. They also contain a wide variety of additives to make them more tasty, attractive and shelf-stable, including colors, emulsifiers, flavors and stabilizers. Examples include packaged baked goods, sugary cereals, frozen pizza, instant soups and deli cold cuts. For this study, researchers recruited 55 adults to take turns eating a diet of minimally processed or ultra-processed eats. For eight weeks, participants ate minimally processed meals like oatmeal or homemade spaghetti Bolognese. Then for another eight weeks, they munched on ultra-processed food like breakfast oat bars or ready-to-eat packaged lasagna. Meals were delivered to the participants' homes, and they were told to eat as much or as little as they wanted. The people were provided more food than they needed, and not told to limit their intake. Both types of diets were nutritionally matched in accordance with U.K. guidelines on a healthy, balanced diet, researchers said. They included recommended levels of saturated fat, protein, carbs, salt, fiber and fruits and veggies. But results show that people lost about 2% of their body weight when eating minimally processed foods, compared with only 1% on the ultra-processed diet. "Though a 2% reduction may not seem very big, that is only over eight weeks and without people trying to actively reduce their intake," said lead researcher Samuel Dicken, a research fellow at the University College London Center for Obesity Research. "If we scaled these results up over the course of a year, we'd expect to see a 13% weight reduction in men and a 9% reduction in women on the minimally processed diet, but only a 4% weight reduction in men and 5% in women after the ultra-processed diet," Dicken said in a news release. "Over time this would start to become a big difference." The observed weight loss corresponded to the average amount of calories people ate on either diet, researchers said. Participants had a daily 290-calorie deficit on the minimally processed diet, but only a 120-calorie deficit when eating ultra-processed foods. Ultra-processed foods tend to be calorie-dense, so people are more likely to take in more energy even if they eat smaller portions. People eating a minimally processed diet also had a twofold greater improvement in their overall control over food cravings, compared to when they ate ultra-processed foods, researchers found. That included a fourfold greater improvement in resisting cravings for savory foods, and a nearly twofold greater improvement in resisting their favorite foods, results show. "The best advice to people would be to stick as closely to nutritional guidelines as they can by moderating overall energy intake, limiting intake of salt, sugar and saturated fat, and prioritizing high-fiber foods such as fruits, vegetables, pulses and nuts," senior researcher Dr. Rachel Batterham, an honorary professor with the University College London Center for Obesity Research, said in a news release. (Pulses include beans, lentils, dried peas and the like.) "Choosing less processed options such as whole foods and cooking from scratch, rather than ultra-processed, packaged foods or ready meals, is likely to offer additional benefits in terms of body weight, body composition and overall health," Batterham added. More information Stanford Medicine has more on ultra-processed foods. Copyright © 2025 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

Dementia Diagnosis Takes an Average of 3 Years: New Data
Dementia Diagnosis Takes an Average of 3 Years: New Data

Medscape

time8 hours ago

  • Medscape

Dementia Diagnosis Takes an Average of 3 Years: New Data

TOPLINE: The average time to diagnosis (TTD) of dementia was 3.5 years in a new meta-analysis, with younger age at onset and having frontotemporal dementia consistently associated with even longer diagnostic intervals. METHODOLOGY: This systematic review and meta-analysis used data from 13 cohort studies published up to December 2024. More than 30,000 patients with a diagnosis of dementia were included, with the age at onset ranging between 54 and 93 years. TTD was defined as the interval between the onset of symptoms, rated by family carers or patients using interviews or medical records, and the final diagnosis. TAKEAWAY: A meta-analysis of 10 studies showed the average TTD across all types of dementia was 3.5 years (95% CI, 2.7-4.3), with moderate-quality evidence. An analysis of six studies showed that the average TTD of young-onset dementia was 4.1 years (95% CI, 3.4-4.9), also with moderate-quality evidence. An analysis by dementia type showed consistently longer TTDs for young-onset Alzheimer's disease (TTD, 4.0 years; 95% CI, 2.7-5.2) and frontotemporal dementia (TTD, 4.7 years; 95% CI, 3.0-6.4). In contrast, TTD in late-onset dementia was 2.9 years (95% CI, 2.6-3.2) in analysis of two studies. IN PRACTICE: 'Timely diagnosis of dementia remains a major global challenge, shaped by a complex set of factors, and specific healthcare strategies are urgently needed to improve it,' lead investigator Vasiliki Orgeta, PhD, Division of Psychiatry, University College London, London, England, said in a press release. 'Clinician training is critical to improve early recognition and referral, along with access to early intervention and individualized support, so that people with dementia and their families can get the help they need,' Orgeta added. SOURCE: The study was published online on July 27 in International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry. LIMITATIONS: Definitions of TTD varied across studies, with different methods used to assess the first symptoms of dementia. The current meta-analysis did not assess factors affecting TTD. Additionally, individuals with severe dementia may not have accurately remembered when they first experienced symptoms, potentially introducing a recall bias. The findings were also not applicable to low- and medium-income countries. DISCLOSURES: The investigators reported having no relevant conflicts of interest. This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

These medications could save thousands of lives – but doctors aren't prescribing them
These medications could save thousands of lives – but doctors aren't prescribing them

Yahoo

time19 hours ago

  • Yahoo

These medications could save thousands of lives – but doctors aren't prescribing them

In 2021, varenicline, the most effective single drug for quitting smoking, was withdrawn from the market in the UK because impurities were found at greater levels than is considered safe. Rapidly, varenicline (then sold under its brand names, Champix and Chantix) became unavailable. This was a disaster for public health. Research from University College London estimated that varenicline being unavailable resulted in about 1,890 more avoidable deaths each year because fewer people were successfully quitting smoking. But there was hope. Cytisine (also known as cytisinicline), a naturally occurring plant-based product that had been used for decades in Eastern Europe, and more recently to great effect elsewhere in the world, was licensed in the UK and made available from January 2024. Even so, there was an extended period when neither were available to people trying to quit smoking in the UK (and in other countries, too). But in the UK at least, things were looking up. Based on a limited but growing body of evidence, cytisine probably works as well as varenicline at helping people quit smoking, and it may be better tolerated with fewer side effects. It may also appeal to more smokers who may want to use a natural product rather than a drug designed in a lab. So, with varenicline withdrawn and a similarly effective treatment available, we should have seen lives saved as people who would have taken varenicline were encouraged to try cytisine instead. Why isn't anyone prescribing it? This didn't happen. Cytisine – despite now being licensed and available in the UK – is still shockingly underused. Since January 2024, only 0.2% of people trying to quit smoking have used it (the same proportion that used it in 2018, when it wasn't even officially available in the UK). Official NHS data from people accessing stop-smoking services in England confirm that only 0.7% were prescribed cytisine in 2024. So why is this? High-profile trials continue to show cytisine's effectiveness for quitting smoking (and even for quitting vaping). Maybe cytisine's relatively complex dosing schedule puts people off. Cytisine starts with six pills a day (one every two hours) and gradually tapers off over a few weeks: more confusing and less convenient than one-a-day varenicline. Another possibility is that the public's attention has shifted. With so much focus in recent years on vaping as a smoking cessation aid, prescription drugs for smoking cessation may have fallen off the radar. It could also be that GPs are reluctant to prescribe cytisine because of its cost and the assumption that local authorities should pay for it, not primary care. While it was once hoped that due to its low-cost availability in Eastern Europe, it would become the 'aspirin of smoking cessation drugs', the licensed product in the UK is now as or more expensive than other drugs. But the simplest explanation is probably the most accurate: not enough people know about cytisine. People who smoke, GPs, pharmacists and even stop-smoking services may not know it's an option. And if no one is talking about it, no one is prescribing it. And even if they do know about it, there may be a lack of confidence in using or prescribing it because it is a new drug. That's a problem. The UK government has made the shift from treating illness to preventing it a central part of its health strategy. Smoking remains the leading cause of preventable death in the country and the world. If we're serious about prevention, then effective smoking cessation support must be top of the agenda. Now, varenicline is available again (without its brand names and reformulated to remove the impurities). This is welcome news, but only 1.1% of past-year smokers reported using varenicline. That's only a quarter of the number from before its withdrawal. This raises an important question: should we return to prescribing varenicline by default, or is it time to consider cytisine as a first-line treatment? Researchers are continuing to learn more about cytisine, but as the evidence in favour of cytisine grows, maybe it needs a PR campaign for both prescribers and people who smoke. None of this is to say that cytisine is a miracle cure, or that it will work for everyone. But that's true of every way to help people quit smoking. Quitting smoking is hard, and people trying to quit need more options, not fewer, and those options need to be visible and accessible. Jonathan Livingstone-Banks is a Lecturer & Senior Researcher in Evidence-Based Healthcare at the University of Oxford. Dimitra Kale is a Senior Research Fellow in Health Psychology at UCL. Lion Shahab is a Professor in Health Psychology at UCL. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store