You can double your weight loss by ditching this cancer-causing food from your diet: study
Participants lost twice as much weight when they adhered to a diet of minimally processed foods (MPFs) compared to one that included ultra-processed foods (UPFs).
UPFs — billed as ready to eat or heat — typically undergo several processing steps, feature additives and preservatives and contain high levels of sodium, refined sugars and cholesterol-spiking fats.
A recent study linked UPF exposure to 32 poor health outcomes, including a higher risk of cardiovascular disease, cancer, metabolic syndrome, obesity, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, Type 2 diabetes and even premature death.
In this latest trial, the UPFs were relatively 'healthy.' Items included store-bought breakfast cereal, granola bars, fruit snacks, flavored yogurt cups, instant noodles and ready-made lasagna.
By contrast, participants on the MPF diet were fed catered meals of overnight oats with fresh fruit, plain yogurt with toasted oats and fruit, handmade fruit and nut bars, freshly made chicken salad, homemade stir fry and spaghetti Bolognese.
While processing levels differed wildly between the two diets, portions and nutritional content were similar.
Researchers matched the diets for calories, sugar, fat, fiber and micronutrients. Both aligned with dietary guidance from the UK government, called the Eatwell Guide (EWG).
Participants lost weight on both diets, but considerably more when they abstained from UPFs. At the end of the eight-week trial, participants on the MPF diet lost 2% of their body weight compared to a 1% loss from the UPF diet.
The results were published this week in the journal Nature Medicine.
While these numbers are small, the trial period was relatively short. When extrapolated over a year, participants on an MPF diet would lose between 9% and 13% of their weight, while those who adhered to the UPF diet would drop 4% to 5%.
In addition to more pounds shed, the MPF diet also correlated to more fat loss, fewer cravings and lower triglycerides.
'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,' said senior study author Rachel Batterham from the UCL Centre for Obesity Research.
Researchers believe some of the weight loss can be attributed to people eating less on the MPF diet since UPFs are 'hyperpalatable.'
Despite the known risks, UPFs can be a tough habit to kick since they have been engineered for convenience and cravings, with a combination of flavors and additives designed to encourage addictive eating behavior.
Comparatively, participants scored the MPF diet lower in taste and flavor ratings, suggesting that they ate less because the food was less compelling and addictive.
Still, researchers noted that people were able to lose weight on the UPF diet, contradicting previous claims that UPFs inhibit weight loss.
Batterham maintains that this is owed in part to this particular UPF diet following nutritional guidelines.
'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 and nuts,' she said.
One situation in which UPFs may edge out their whole food competition? Plant-based meat replacement products.
The new study findings come as packaged foods and frozen meals persist in US diets, with recent research revealing that a shocking 60% of Americans' daily caloric intake comes from UPFs.
While UPFs may not completely sabotage weight loss, they can contribute to a slew of health problems.
A recent study suggested that some UPFs may contain a disturbing amount of microplastics, which are potentially harmful to respiratory, reproductive and mental health.
UPF consumption has also been linked to an increased risk of lung cancer.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Verge
an hour ago
- The Verge
RFK Jr. wants a wearable on every American — that future's not as healthy as he thinks
I keep hearing the same sentence repeating in my head. 'My vision is that every American is wearing a wearable within four years.' RFK Jr., our current secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, said this at a congressional hearing at the end of June. Wearables, he said, are key to the MAHA — Make America Healthy Again — agenda. Kennedy positioned wearables for Americans as a means of 'taking control' or 'taking responsibility' over their health by monitoring how their lifestyle impacts their metrics. In the hearing, he also cited that his friends had shed pounds and 'lost their diabetes diagnosis' thanks to devices like continuous glucose monitors (CGMs). I'm a wearables expert. I obviously don't hate these devices. My problem with Kennedy's 'wearable for every American' vision is that it lends credence to the idea that everyone benefits from wearable technology. It's not that simple. I started wearing a Fitbit in 2014 to lose weight. I'd mysteriously gained 40 pounds in six months. I started running. Dieting. Obsessively tracking my steps, hitting 10,000 to 15,000 a day, rain or shine. I ate as few as 800 calories while logging 15,000 steps daily — for me, roughly 7.5 miles of walking. The promise of all this data, and what Kennedy is touting, is that people will have actionable data to improve their health. I had a ton of data. I could see things weren't adding up. But the way these products and their apps are designed, I didn't know how to 'take control' of my health. Instead, I continued to gain weight. I cried a lot during that time. So did my mom, who took my sudden aversion to carbohydrates as a personal offense. (How can you not eat bap? Bap is life!!) It didn't matter that I improved at running or that I measured everything with a food scale. Each time I went to my doctors, I'd show them my Fitbit data and beg to be taken seriously. My doctors didn't know what to do with what they were being shown. I also didn't know how to communicate what I was seeing effectively. Instead, they suggested everything from 'you must become a vegan' to 'people with slow metabolisms just have to try harder.' By 2016, I'd put on another 20 pounds and, after three years, was diagnosed with polycystic ovary syndrome — a hormonal condition that often causes weight gain and insulin resistance. Wearables helped me realize something was off, but it was a bumpy ride getting to an answer. That's been true of my overall experience. Sure, this tech helped improve aspects of my health. I'm a much more active person. I went from being unable to run a mile to racing two half-marathons, a handful of 10Ks, and several 5Ks. My sleep is more regular. I went from being a night owl to an early riser. I've watched my resting heart rate decrease from around 75 beats per minute while sleeping to around 55 bpm. My cholesterol is lower. My weight has yo-yoed, but overall, I've been able to maintain a 25-pound weight loss from the 60 pounds I gained from PCOS. And, I've put on more muscle. What I haven't shared quite as publicly is that these improvements came at a heavy cost to my mental health. My first three years with wearables wrecked my relationship with food. Despite diligently tracking my data, I didn't get much by way of results. There also wasn't a ton of guidance on how to apply my data learnings in a healthy way. I ended up hyperfixating on trying anything that hinted at helping me reach my goal. I ended up with disordered eating habits. Food logging is also a prominent feature in these wearable apps, so I meticulously weighed and logged everything I ate for years. If I were even 15 calories over budget, I'd go for a five-minute run around the block to burn 50 calories and get myself back under. I avoided social outings because, when eating out, my calorie logs weren't guaranteed to be accurate. If I weren't making enough progress, I'd punish myself by skipping meals. According to my therapist, I had begun showing mild signs of both orthorexia nervosa and anorexia. I also started developing anxiety about my running performance. If I wasn't improving my VO2 Max or mile times, I was failing. It didn't matter that I'd gone from running 16-minute miles to recording a personal best of 8 minutes, 45 seconds. Any time I became injured, my numbers would go down, and I'd feel like a complete failure. When my father died, I was stuck in a funeral home in the Korean countryside, pacing around in circles so that I wouldn't lose my step streak. Ironically, in a bid to please my wearable overlords, I've ended up injuring myself several times through overexercise in the last decade. I'm okay now, thanks to a lot of work in therapy and the help of my loved ones. But healing isn't a one-and-done kind of thing. Ninety-five percent of the time, I use wearables in a much more reasonable way. I take intentional breaks the other five percent of the time, whenever old habits rear their ugly head. Mine isn't a unique experience. Several studies and reports have found that wearables can increase health anxiety. Anecdotally, when a friend or acquaintance gets a new wearable, I usually get one of two types of messages. The first is an obsessive recounting of their data and all the ways they monitor food intake. The other is a flurry of worried texts asking if their low HRV, heart rate, or some other metric is a sign that they're going to die. Most of these messages come from people who have had a recent health scare, and I usually spend the next hour teaching them how to interpret their baseline data in less absolute terms. And therein lies the rub. These devices overloaded the people in my life with too much information but not enough context. How can anyone effectively 'take control of their health' if they're struggling to understand it? There's never been, nor will there ever be, a one-size-fits-all solution. There's never been, nor will there ever be, a one-size-fits-all solution. That's why I'm skeptical that Kennedy's vision is even feasible. Doctors don't always know how to interpret wearable data. Not only that, it'd be a massive undertaking to give every American a wearable. There are dozens, if not hundreds, of products on the market, and everyone's health needs are unique. Would the government subsidize the cost? Where do health insurance companies, FSAs, and HSAs fit into this picture? So far, all we've heard from Kennedy is that the HHS plans to 'launch one of the biggest advertising campaigns in HHS history' to promote wearable use. But even if Kennedy were to solve this logistical nightmare, I take issue with framing wearables as a necessary component in anyone's health journey. You risk creating scenarios where insurance companies use wearables as a means of lowering or raising premiums, similar to how certain car insurance providers use telematics devices to monitor their customers' driving in exchange for discounts. It sounds good in theory, but it also opens the door to discrimination. Some, but not all, illnesses can be treated or prevented through lifestyle changes. Not everyone will experience the darker side of this tech like I have. But I know that many have, and many more will. Some, like me, will eventually find a healthy balance. For others, the healthiest thing they could do is to avoid wearables. Posts from this author will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed. See All by Victoria Song Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed. See All Analysis Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed. See All Column Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed. See All Fitness Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed. See All Gadgets Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed. See All Health Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed. See All Report Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed. See All Science Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed. See All Wearable
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
A New Study Just Linked One Particular Kind of Milk to Better Muscle and Bone Health
Instead of ordering oat milk, maybe you should be opting for goat points A new study from researchers in China analyzed the impact of consuming different types of milk on muscle and bone health while aging. This study used mice to learn about the relationship between sarcopenia, age-related muscle loss, and four different dairy milks. Findings revealed that goat milk (in particular low-fat goat milk and low-fat fortified goat milk) was more effective at supporting muscle regeneration and reducing it seems like everyone is going wild for protein these days, you're not imagining things. According to Cargill's 2025 Protein Profile, 61% of Americans increased their protein intake in 2024. As Grand View Research noted in its 2025 report, the "global protein-fortified food products market size was estimated at $66.8 billion in 2023 and is projected to reach $101.62 billion by 2030." However, according to one new study, you may not need to rely solely on pricey protein-fortified foods and powders to support muscle health. Simply switching up the milk you drink every day could help. In July, researchers from Peking University and Hyproca Nutrition in China published their findings in the journal Food Science & Nutrition, giving greater insight into four dairy products and whether they have the potential to delay the progression of sarcopenia, or age-related muscle loss. "Sarcopenia, characterized by progressive loss of muscle mass and strength, poses a significant public health challenge. However, the specific role of dairy products in preventing sarcopenia is not well understood," the scientists shared. Studies like this are key to finding solutions for a problem that many of us may face. As one research overview explained, on average, 5–13% of people between 60 and 70 years of age are affected by sarcopenia. For people over 80, that increases to 11–50%. To figure out which dairy products can help stave off sarcopenia, the researchers fed dairy-enriched diets to mice for eight weeks. The mice were split into six groups: normal control, sarcopenia, goat whole milk, goat low-fat milk, goat fortified vitamin D, calcium low-fat milk, and bovine (cow) whole milk. The normal control group was given saline throughout the trial — a salt and water solution that acts as a placebo — while the other five groups received dexamethasone injections to induce sarcopenia. At the same time, four groups were fed the milk in their group name. This means that one group did have induced sarcopenia without receiving a dairy supplement, acting as a sarcopenia control group. The team then measured the test subjects' grip strength, weight, bone mineral density, autophagy (the process that allows your body to reuse and recycle damaged cells), muscle morphology (the size and shape of the muscles), metabolism, inflammation, and gut microbial health. Related: Is Coffee the Next Anti-Aging Elixir? This New Research Says Yes They found that while all types of milk helped the mice regain muscle mass and bone strength, the fortified low-fat goat's milk — a version with added vitamin D and calcium — was most effective. As the researchers explained, the goat milk boosted muscle-building signals in the body and lowered levels of key inflammation markers linked to muscle loss. They also noticed one more critical finding in the gut. All of the dairy-fed mice showed shifts in their microbiome, with increases in the beneficial bacteria Leuconostoc. However, only the goat milk-fed mice showed an increase in Lactococcus and Acinetobacter bacteria, which could help reduce inflammation and support the body's metabolism. Need all of this boiled down to simpler terms? "This study demonstrates that different types of dairy products have distinct effects on muscle metabolism, autophagy, inflammation, and gut microbiota in sarcopenia," the authors concluded. "Goat milk, particularly its low-fat and vitamin D/calcium-fortified variants, showed greater benefits in promoting muscle regeneration and reducing inflammation compared to bovine milk, highlighting the importance of dairy composition." Related: Scientists Say This AI-Created Diet Could Help Reduce Your Risk of Dementia It is important to note that many commercial cow milks are fortified with Vitamins A and D, but the researchers do not provide commentary on whether this might come closer to offering the same muscle-regenerating benefits as fortified goat milk. This study was conducted on mice, so the hypothesis has not been proven with humans. Nevertheless, it's one reason to search for goat milk the next time you're strolling through the grocery store or seek out a farmers market to start chatting with your local goat farmer about a regular supply. Read the original article on Food & Wine Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
These tarantulas may have evolved huge genitalia to fend off bloodthirsty females
When scientists discover a new species, they usually name it after the creature's most notable characteristic. So why did a group of scientists recently name a newly discovered genus of tarantulas after satyrs, the famously well-endowed half-goat men from Greek mythology? Like a satyr, the new species have massive members that dwarf those of all other tarantulas, scientists explain in a study published last month in the journal ZooKeys. Females in this genus are extremely aggressive, so scientists speculate that their males evolved ginormous genitals to keep a safer distance during mating. 'New species are found quite regularly, but finding large-sized spiders with such bold behavior and such unique features, that doesn't happen every day,' says Alireza Zamani, an arachnologist at the University of Turku in Finland and co-author of the new find. 'There's a lot that we don't know about our planet.' (Why do these tarantulas have bright blue legs?) Let's talk about tarantula sex Last year, Zamani was poring over old records of tarantula sightings when he noticed something strange. The scientific record, the citizen science platform iNaturalist, and even social media sites were all teeming with reports of tarantulas with massive sex organs in the Arabian Peninsula and the Horn of Africa. Tarantulas, like all spiders, don't have penises; they have palps. Located near the spider's mouth, palps are leg-like appendages that are used for everything from mating to feeding. Males have structures on their palps known as palpal bulbs. The bulbs look like boxing gloves and function like syringes. When it's time to mate, males deposit sperm onto one of their webs and then transfer it to their papal bulbs. Once they have a female in their grasp, they will insert one of their palps into the female's genital opening and deposit their sperm. While palp size varies species to species, the palps that Zamani was seeing were unlike any he had seen before. He contacted researchers in Africa and the Middle East, and eventually got his hands on eight preserved specimens, their impressive palps intact, as well as photos and videos of them in the wild. By studying their structure and DNA, Zamani and his colleagues were able to determine that these tarantulas not only belonged to four new species but also comprised an entirely new genus. They dubbed this new genus Satyrex, which is a combination of Satyr and the Latin word rēx, meaning the spiders in this genus live underground and are 'highly defensive and highly aggressive,' Zamani says. The most aggressive of the bunch is Satyrex ferox. This spider, which is the largest in the genus, has palps that can reach a whopping five centimeters (nearly two inches), making them nearly as long as its longest legs. Their name comes from the Latin word for "fierce." According to Zamani, this spider will assume a defensive posture at the slightest disturbance, raising its front legs and rubbing them together to make a hissing sound. The tarantula tango The researchers speculate that male members of Satyrex may have evolved their huge palps to avoid getting attacked and eaten by females during sex. For many tarantulas, mating is a deadly duel. During such bouts, males strive to inseminate and escape, while females fight to make a meal of their would-be suitors. (See a rare video of tarantula mating.) In nearly all tarantulas, including the new Satyrex species, males have evolved hooks on their front legs that they use to lock the female's fangs in place during mating to stop her from biting them. While these little hooks work for most tarantulas, Zamani suspects they alone are unlikely to protect members of Satyrex from their feisty females. Having huge palps may help male Satyrex spiders maintain a safe(ish) distance from females during mating, he says. 'I think it's a fascinating hypothesis that is very testable,' says Chrissie Painting, a behavioral ecologist who studies mating systems at the University of Waikato in New Zealand. Painting, who was not involved with the study, says these spiders may be in the midst of an evolutionary arms race, with females evolving to become more aggressive in order to snag a snack that can sustain them in motherhood and males evolving better means of mating with them without getting eaten. While more research is needed to confirm this, Painting says, sexual cannibalism is a strong driver of evolution. In other spider species with sexual cannibalism, Painting points out, males have evolved the ability to transfer sperm extremely quickly to reduce their chances of getting eaten while getting it on. (Meet the tarantula named after Johnny Cash.) A broader web of spider diversity Zamani and his colleagues were surprised that the spiders they described in this study had gone undiscovered for so long. But our planet is home to over 1,000 species of tarantulas, and many have yet to be found. 'The reality is that the vast majority of Earth's biodiversity remains undocumented,' he says. When it comes to the range of weird spiders yet to be discovered, these tarantulas may just be the tip. Solve the daily Crossword
