Eating minimally processed meals doubles weight loss even when ultraprocessed foods are healthy, study finds
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.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
an hour ago
- CNN
3 myths about metabolism could be holding you back
EDITOR'S NOTE: The podcast Chasing Life With Dr. Sanjay Gupta explores the medical science behind some of life's mysteries big and small. You can listen to episodes here. (CNN)— Think speeding up your metabolism is key to losing weight? Metabolism has grown into one of the biggest buzzwords in the wellness industry — a tricky code that, if deciphered, is believed to unlock the secrets of weight loss and overall health. Despite the term's ubiquity, one scientist says many people don't understand much of how this basic bodily process works. 'They think it has something to do with how much food we can eat without gaining weight or something like that,' Dr. Kevin Hall told CNN Chief Medical Correspondent Dr. Sanjay Gupta recently on his podcast, Chasing Life. Hall wants to elevate metabolism for different reasons. 'Metabolism is just this incredible biochemical process that basically turns the food that we eat and the oxygen that we breathe into essentially … everything we are and everything we do,' he said. A leading nutrition and metabolism scientist, Hall is well-known for his research on contestants from the reality show 'The Biggest Loser' that helped explain what set participants who kept the weight off apart from those who gained it back. He spent more than two decades at the National Institutes of Health. His later work on ultraprocessed foods investigated its link to obesity, including one study that demonstrated it actively caused participants to overeat. Hall announced his early retirement and exit from NIH in April, citing censorship of how his research findings were communicated. He's now coauthor of the new book 'Food Intelligence: The Science of How Food Both Nourishes and Harms Us' alongside journalist Julia Belluz. Metabolism and weight loss enter conversations arm in arm, but this, according to Hall, can be reductive. 'I just find it incredibly frustrating sometimes that this idea of metabolism, this really beautiful physiological process that is so fundamental to life, is kind of talked about as, 'Oh well, if you take this supplement, you can boost your metabolism and lose weight,'' he explained to Gupta. You can listen to the full episode here. Is a faster or higher metabolism really the highway to weight loss? Hall is here to set the record straight, highlighting three misconceptions about metabolism that show there is more to it than meets the eye. One common belief is that a slower metabolism results in a higher body weight. But mostly, Hall said, the opposite is true. 'Generally, larger people have faster metabolisms than smaller people,' he told Gupta. Hall attributed the pervasiveness of this myth to the way researchers designed early metabolism studies. Scientists initially tried to match up participants' caloric intake to their weight, but they didn't account for the fact that these calorie counts were self-reported. It turned out that those with obesity often underreported the number of calories they ate to a larger degree than their leaner counterparts. This, Hall said, 'led people to a conclusion that, well, if they're eating less calories and they're maintaining their weight, then they must be burning less calories. And maybe the reason why they have obesity is because they have slow metabolisms.' Modern technology now allows researchers to rely on data, not participants' own reports. 'When we actually directly measure people's metabolisms, people with obesity have higher metabolic rates on average than people who are lean,' Hall noted. But the myth that we should be boosting metabolism to treat obesity has stubbornly persisted — and has at times led to deadly consequences. When Stanford University researchers discovered that the chemical compound 2,4-dinitrophenol, or DNP, increased metabolism levels in the 1930s, they enthusiastically promoted it as a safe and effective tool for treating obesity. While DNP did boost metabolism, it also led to side effects that included blindness and death, causing federal drug regulators to quickly withdraw it from the market. 'Maybe,' Hall suggested, 'it shouldn't be too much of a surprise later to realize that with something so fundamentally important to life as metabolism, you can't just turn it up and turn it down with a pharmaceutical drug and not expect some pretty severe side effects, including death.' Like weight, age might not affect metabolism as much as you may assume. 'It turns out that until you get to very advanced ages, we're talking 70s and 80s, it looks like our metabolic rate is roughly constant,' Hall said. There are, of course, changes in the aging body that can impact metabolic rates. People 'past the age of 30 or so,' Hall said, are 'tending to lose muscle mass or tending to lose lean mass, and they're tending to gain fat mass. And that alone is anticipated to result in a lower metabolism.' That's because lean muscle burns more calories than fat. But it's these age-related changes — that are not inevitable — and not age itself, that influence one's metabolism. 'Once you get rid of that effect … it doesn't seem like there's a fundamental aging effect to slow metabolism as, as we get older,' Hall concluded. A couple ways to combat the loss of lean muscle mass as you age is by engaging in twice-a-week strength training and getting enough protein in your diet (but no need to go overboard). Another pillar of metabolism mythology is the idea that a slow metabolism is the enemy of continued weight loss. Interventions such as dieting are believed to slow metabolism to the point that you can't lose any additional weight. But keeping your metabolism from slowing down isn't the key to sustained weight loss, Hall said. In fact, it's just the opposite. 'The people who are most successful at losing weight and keeping it off are the ones who sport the slowest metabolisms or the greatest reductions in metabolism,' he said. 'It's kind of like stretching a spring, right?' The more intensely someone diets or exercises, the more weight they'll lose and the more their metabolism will slow down, he explained in his book. Hall's research showed that a slower metabolism 'didn't seem to determine anyone's ability to lose weight or keep it off in the short or long run.' By uncoupling metabolism from the weight loss conversation, Hall said he hopes everyone can appreciate the phenomenon for what it really is. Misinformation about metabolism 'has really distracted people, I think, from the real beauty of what this is,' he told Gupta. 'It's harnessing the continuous flow of matter and energy in our food and in our breath and powering every cell in our body, as well as the bodies and cells of practically every organism that we have ever encountered,' Hall said. 'It's a fundamental component of life, and it's just incredibly fascinating.' We hope these three insights help you understand your metabolism better. Listen to the full episode here. And join us next week for a new episode of Chasing Life.
CNN
an hour ago
- CNN
3 myths about metabolism could be holding you back
EDITOR'S NOTE: The podcast Chasing Life With Dr. Sanjay Gupta explores the medical science behind some of life's mysteries big and small. You can listen to episodes here. (CNN)— Think speeding up your metabolism is key to losing weight? Metabolism has grown into one of the biggest buzzwords in the wellness industry — a tricky code that, if deciphered, is believed to unlock the secrets of weight loss and overall health. Despite the term's ubiquity, one scientist says many people don't understand much of how this basic bodily process works. 'They think it has something to do with how much food we can eat without gaining weight or something like that,' Dr. Kevin Hall told CNN Chief Medical Correspondent Dr. Sanjay Gupta recently on his podcast, Chasing Life. Hall wants to elevate metabolism for different reasons. 'Metabolism is just this incredible biochemical process that basically turns the food that we eat and the oxygen that we breathe into essentially … everything we are and everything we do,' he said. A leading nutrition and metabolism scientist, Hall is well-known for his research on contestants from the reality show 'The Biggest Loser' that helped explain what set participants who kept the weight off apart from those who gained it back. He spent more than two decades at the National Institutes of Health. His later work on ultraprocessed foods investigated its link to obesity, including one study that demonstrated it actively caused participants to overeat. Hall announced his early retirement and exit from NIH in April, citing censorship of how his research findings were communicated. He's now coauthor of the new book 'Food Intelligence: The Science of How Food Both Nourishes and Harms Us' alongside journalist Julia Belluz. Metabolism and weight loss enter conversations arm in arm, but this, according to Hall, can be reductive. 'I just find it incredibly frustrating sometimes that this idea of metabolism, this really beautiful physiological process that is so fundamental to life, is kind of talked about as, 'Oh well, if you take this supplement, you can boost your metabolism and lose weight,'' he explained to Gupta. You can listen to the full episode here. Is a faster or higher metabolism really the highway to weight loss? Hall is here to set the record straight, highlighting three misconceptions about metabolism that show there is more to it than meets the eye. One common belief is that a slower metabolism results in a higher body weight. But mostly, Hall said, the opposite is true. 'Generally, larger people have faster metabolisms than smaller people,' he told Gupta. Hall attributed the pervasiveness of this myth to the way researchers designed early metabolism studies. Scientists initially tried to match up participants' caloric intake to their weight, but they didn't account for the fact that these calorie counts were self-reported. It turned out that those with obesity often underreported the number of calories they ate to a larger degree than their leaner counterparts. This, Hall said, 'led people to a conclusion that, well, if they're eating less calories and they're maintaining their weight, then they must be burning less calories. And maybe the reason why they have obesity is because they have slow metabolisms.' Modern technology now allows researchers to rely on data, not participants' own reports. 'When we actually directly measure people's metabolisms, people with obesity have higher metabolic rates on average than people who are lean,' Hall noted. But the myth that we should be boosting metabolism to treat obesity has stubbornly persisted — and has at times led to deadly consequences. When Stanford University researchers discovered that the chemical compound 2,4-dinitrophenol, or DNP, increased metabolism levels in the 1930s, they enthusiastically promoted it as a safe and effective tool for treating obesity. While DNP did boost metabolism, it also led to side effects that included blindness and death, causing federal drug regulators to quickly withdraw it from the market. 'Maybe,' Hall suggested, 'it shouldn't be too much of a surprise later to realize that with something so fundamentally important to life as metabolism, you can't just turn it up and turn it down with a pharmaceutical drug and not expect some pretty severe side effects, including death.' Like weight, age might not affect metabolism as much as you may assume. 'It turns out that until you get to very advanced ages, we're talking 70s and 80s, it looks like our metabolic rate is roughly constant,' Hall said. There are, of course, changes in the aging body that can impact metabolic rates. People 'past the age of 30 or so,' Hall said, are 'tending to lose muscle mass or tending to lose lean mass, and they're tending to gain fat mass. And that alone is anticipated to result in a lower metabolism.' That's because lean muscle burns more calories than fat. But it's these age-related changes — that are not inevitable — and not age itself, that influence one's metabolism. 'Once you get rid of that effect … it doesn't seem like there's a fundamental aging effect to slow metabolism as, as we get older,' Hall concluded. A couple ways to combat the loss of lean muscle mass as you age is by engaging in twice-a-week strength training and getting enough protein in your diet (but no need to go overboard). Another pillar of metabolism mythology is the idea that a slow metabolism is the enemy of continued weight loss. Interventions such as dieting are believed to slow metabolism to the point that you can't lose any additional weight. But keeping your metabolism from slowing down isn't the key to sustained weight loss, Hall said. In fact, it's just the opposite. 'The people who are most successful at losing weight and keeping it off are the ones who sport the slowest metabolisms or the greatest reductions in metabolism,' he said. 'It's kind of like stretching a spring, right?' The more intensely someone diets or exercises, the more weight they'll lose and the more their metabolism will slow down, he explained in his book. Hall's research showed that a slower metabolism 'didn't seem to determine anyone's ability to lose weight or keep it off in the short or long run.' By uncoupling metabolism from the weight loss conversation, Hall said he hopes everyone can appreciate the phenomenon for what it really is. Misinformation about metabolism 'has really distracted people, I think, from the real beauty of what this is,' he told Gupta. 'It's harnessing the continuous flow of matter and energy in our food and in our breath and powering every cell in our body, as well as the bodies and cells of practically every organism that we have ever encountered,' Hall said. 'It's a fundamental component of life, and it's just incredibly fascinating.' We hope these three insights help you understand your metabolism better. Listen to the full episode here. And join us next week for a new episode of Chasing Life.
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
How a mother's genes can determine their child's weight for life
A mother's genes could play a role in determining a child's future weight – more so than a father's. Researchers at University College London (UCL) investigated how a parent's weight and genes influence their children's weight and diet from birth to age 17. To make the comparison, researchers used genetic and health data of 2,621 UK families in the Millennium Cohort Study, a UK birth cohort study of individuals born in 2001-2002. The study, published in the journal PLOS Genetics, looked at the BMI of parents and the birthweight of their children. They also looked at the child's diet at ages three, five, seven, 11, 14, and 17. Children's diets were assessed through self-reported records of how often and how much they consumed different food groups, including fruit, vegetables, fast food, and sugary drinks. Researchers then separated the direct effects of inherited genes from the indirect effects of genes that were not inherited. Study authors explained that non-inherited genes can still influence children's outcomes by influencing the development environment, such as conditions in the womb and parenting practices, as these are shaped by parents' genetics. Analysis revealed that while both parents' genetics influence a child's BMI, a mother's BMI continued to affect the child's weight beyond direct genetic inheritance. Researchers suggest this means genetic nurture, where a parent's genes shape the environment they create for their child, might be a big factor in a child's weight. This could be the case if a mother's genes influence her own weight, eating habits, or behaviours during pregnancy, which in turn can affect the child's development and long-term health. Dr Liam Wright, the study's lead author, said: 'Mothers' genetics appear to play an important role in influencing their child's weight over and above the child's genetics. 'In addition to the genes mums directly pass on, our findings suggest that maternal genetics are instrumental in shaping the environment in which the child develops, therefore indirectly influencing the child's BMI too.' Almost a third of children aged two to 15 were considered to be obese or overweight in 2024, according to NHS data. However, researchers acknowledge BMI is not the most accurate way of measuring body fat, particularly among children, and so supplemented their analysis with several other adiposity-related measures, including fat mass. Dr Wright added: 'This isn't about blaming mothers, rather, supporting families to make a meaningful difference to children's long-term health. Targeted interventions to reduce maternal BMI, particularly during pregnancy, could reduce the intergenerational impacts of obesity."
