Avoiding ultraprocessed foods might double weight loss
New research suggests that people can lose more weight by avoiding ultraprocessed foods, even those that are typically considered healthy.
The study, published on Aug 5 in the journal Nature Medicine, is the largest and longest clinical trial yet to examine the effects of ultraprocessed foods on weight.
Participants lost twice as much weight when they followed diets made up of minimally processed foods, like pasta, chicken, fruits and vegetables, as they did when they followed diets with ultraprocessed foods that met nutrition standards, such as ready-to-heat frozen meals, breakfast cereals, protein bars and shakes.
Federal officials have been sounding the alarm about ultraprocessed foods, which account for about 70 per cent of the food supply in the United States. Mr Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the health secretary, said that ultraprocessed foods were 'poisoning' Americans, and called them a primary culprit of high rates of obesity and chronic diseases.
Although numerous studies have linked ultraprocessed foods to obesity, most have been observational, meaning they can't prove that the foods directly cause weight gain.
Two previous trials found that adults consumed about 500 to 800 more calories per day when their diets were made up of ultraprocessed foods than when they were made up of minimally processed foods. But those studies were small and short; the larger of the two, conducted at the National Institutes of Health, included 20 participants who followed each diet for just two weeks.
Critics have argued that the results might have been different if the trials were longer, or if they included healthier ultraprocessed foods.
The new study, though still small, was designed to address some of those concerns, said Dr Samuel Dicken, a research fellow at University College London, and the lead author of the study.
Losing weight and body fat
Dr Dicken and his colleagues recruited 55 participants, most of whom were women, ranging in age from their early 20s to their mid-60s, he said. All had body mass indexes in the overweight or obesity ranges, and before the study, about two-thirds of their calories came from ultraprocessed foods – more than the average for adults in Britain.
The researchers designed two diets and provided the meals. Both diets met Britain's nutrition guidelines, with limited sugars, saturated fats and sodium, but one was composed mostly of minimally processed foods, like overnight oats, plain yogurt and scratch-made spaghetti Bolognese; the other was mostly made up of ultraprocessed foods considered healthy, like whole grain breakfast cereals, plant-based milk, flavoured yogurt and frozen lasagna.
Half the participants followed the minimally processed diet for two months, after which they returned to their normal diets for one month. Then they followed the ultraprocessed diet for two months. The other half followed the diets in the opposite order. All could eat as much or as little as they liked.
This kind of 'crossover' study design is strong because it can show how each diet affected each participant, rather than averaging the responses across a group, said Dr Brenda Davy, a professor of nutrition at Virginia Tech, who was not involved in the study.
Most of the participants lost weight on both diets. But on average, they lost more weight during the two months on the minimally processed diet – about 2kg compared with just 1kg on the ultraprocessed diet.
Dr Dicken and his colleagues estimated that if the weight loss had continued over one year, even as it naturally slows with time, it could have added up to 9 per cent to 13 per cent of body weight on the minimally processed diet, compared with just 4 per cent to 5 per cent on the ultraprocessed diet.
The participants also lost more than twice as much body fat on the minimally processed diet than they did on the ultraprocessed diet.
Fewer calories per bite, and fewer food cravings
It was somewhat surprising – and encouraging – that people lost weight on the ultraprocessed diet, said Dr Kevin Hall, a nutrition scientist and a co-author of the study. This was likely because the study's ultraprocessed diet was more nutritious than the typical diets of the participants, he said. But participants still lost more weight on the minimally processed diet – a finding that aligns with those of previous studies.
That may be because minimally processed foods tend to have fewer calories per bite, said Dr Filippa Juul, a nutritional epidemiologist at SUNY Downstate Health Sciences University who was not involved in the study.
And those foods generally have a harder texture that requires more chewing, so people may eat more slowly and consume fewer calories before feeling full, she said.
The participants also reported feeling like they had better control of food cravings on the minimally processed diet. That's surprising, Dr Dicken said, because 'when people lose weight, they tend to want to eat more.' Better craving control may help them keep the weight off longer, he added.
Dr Juul speculated that perhaps following a diet of mostly minimally processed foods may 'reset cravings' and reduce 'food noise,' helping people eat only when they are hungry.
A growing body of evidence
The study was relatively short, Dr Walter C. Willett, a professor of epidemiology and nutrition at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health who was not involved in the study, wrote in an email.
'We need about a year, at minimum, for serious weight loss studies because early changes often reverse or don't continue,' he added.
The researchers could not measure exactly what and when people ate, or how much they consumed, and the participants reported eating some foods besides those provided. And most of the participants were women; men or children may have responded differently, Prof Davy said.
Still, the study suggests that even if a person follows a healthy diet, there is an added benefit to choosing minimally processed foods over ultraprocessed ones, Dr Juul said. Evidence consistently suggests that diets high in ultraprocessed foods can make it harder for people to stay at a healthy weight, she added.
Avoiding ultraprocessed foods can be a challenge, though, since they are so ubiquitous and tend to be cheaper than minimally processed foods, Dr Juul said. She advises choosing foods with recognisable ingredients.
Food manufacturers could help by making more minimally processed products that are convenient, affordable and appealing, she added. 'It's a shift in food culture that's needed.'
You don't have to cut out ultraprocessed foods entirely, Dr Davy said. But try to cook at home as much as you can, focusing on fresh fruits and vegetables, lean proteins and whole grains – 'those things that we know are good for us,' she said. THE NEW YORK TIMES
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Straits Times
2 days ago
- Straits Times
Avoiding ultraprocessed foods might double weight loss
Participants reported feeling like they had better control of food cravings on the minimally processed diet. New research suggests that people can lose more weight by avoiding ultraprocessed foods, even those that are typically considered healthy. The study, published on Aug 5 in the journal Nature Medicine, is the largest and longest clinical trial yet to examine the effects of ultraprocessed foods on weight. Participants lost twice as much weight when they followed diets made up of minimally processed foods, like pasta, chicken, fruits and vegetables, as they did when they followed diets with ultraprocessed foods that met nutrition standards, such as ready-to-heat frozen meals, breakfast cereals, protein bars and shakes. Federal officials have been sounding the alarm about ultraprocessed foods, which account for about 70 per cent of the food supply in the United States. Mr Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the health secretary, said that ultraprocessed foods were 'poisoning' Americans, and called them a primary culprit of high rates of obesity and chronic diseases. Although numerous studies have linked ultraprocessed foods to obesity, most have been observational, meaning they can't prove that the foods directly cause weight gain. Two previous trials found that adults consumed about 500 to 800 more calories per day when their diets were made up of ultraprocessed foods than when they were made up of minimally processed foods. But those studies were small and short; the larger of the two, conducted at the National Institutes of Health, included 20 participants who followed each diet for just two weeks. Critics have argued that the results might have been different if the trials were longer, or if they included healthier ultraprocessed foods. The new study, though still small, was designed to address some of those concerns, said Dr Samuel Dicken, a research fellow at University College London, and the lead author of the study. Losing weight and body fat Dr Dicken and his colleagues recruited 55 participants, most of whom were women, ranging in age from their early 20s to their mid-60s, he said. All had body mass indexes in the overweight or obesity ranges, and before the study, about two-thirds of their calories came from ultraprocessed foods – more than the average for adults in Britain. The researchers designed two diets and provided the meals. Both diets met Britain's nutrition guidelines, with limited sugars, saturated fats and sodium, but one was composed mostly of minimally processed foods, like overnight oats, plain yogurt and scratch-made spaghetti Bolognese; the other was mostly made up of ultraprocessed foods considered healthy, like whole grain breakfast cereals, plant-based milk, flavoured yogurt and frozen lasagna. Half the participants followed the minimally processed diet for two months, after which they returned to their normal diets for one month. Then they followed the ultraprocessed diet for two months. The other half followed the diets in the opposite order. All could eat as much or as little as they liked. This kind of 'crossover' study design is strong because it can show how each diet affected each participant, rather than averaging the responses across a group, said Dr Brenda Davy, a professor of nutrition at Virginia Tech, who was not involved in the study. Most of the participants lost weight on both diets. But on average, they lost more weight during the two months on the minimally processed diet – about 2kg compared with just 1kg on the ultraprocessed diet. Dr Dicken and his colleagues estimated that if the weight loss had continued over one year, even as it naturally slows with time, it could have added up to 9 per cent to 13 per cent of body weight on the minimally processed diet, compared with just 4 per cent to 5 per cent on the ultraprocessed diet. The participants also lost more than twice as much body fat on the minimally processed diet than they did on the ultraprocessed diet. Fewer calories per bite, and fewer food cravings It was somewhat surprising – and encouraging – that people lost weight on the ultraprocessed diet, said Dr Kevin Hall, a nutrition scientist and a co-author of the study. This was likely because the study's ultraprocessed diet was more nutritious than the typical diets of the participants, he said. But participants still lost more weight on the minimally processed diet – a finding that aligns with those of previous studies. That may be because minimally processed foods tend to have fewer calories per bite, said Dr Filippa Juul, a nutritional epidemiologist at SUNY Downstate Health Sciences University who was not involved in the study. And those foods generally have a harder texture that requires more chewing, so people may eat more slowly and consume fewer calories before feeling full, she said. The participants also reported feeling like they had better control of food cravings on the minimally processed diet. That's surprising, Dr Dicken said, because 'when people lose weight, they tend to want to eat more.' Better craving control may help them keep the weight off longer, he added. Dr Juul speculated that perhaps following a diet of mostly minimally processed foods may 'reset cravings' and reduce 'food noise,' helping people eat only when they are hungry. A growing body of evidence The study was relatively short, Dr Walter C. Willett, a professor of epidemiology and nutrition at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health who was not involved in the study, wrote in an email. 'We need about a year, at minimum, for serious weight loss studies because early changes often reverse or don't continue,' he added. The researchers could not measure exactly what and when people ate, or how much they consumed, and the participants reported eating some foods besides those provided. And most of the participants were women; men or children may have responded differently, Prof Davy said. Still, the study suggests that even if a person follows a healthy diet, there is an added benefit to choosing minimally processed foods over ultraprocessed ones, Dr Juul said. Evidence consistently suggests that diets high in ultraprocessed foods can make it harder for people to stay at a healthy weight, she added. Avoiding ultraprocessed foods can be a challenge, though, since they are so ubiquitous and tend to be cheaper than minimally processed foods, Dr Juul said. She advises choosing foods with recognisable ingredients. Food manufacturers could help by making more minimally processed products that are convenient, affordable and appealing, she added. 'It's a shift in food culture that's needed.' You don't have to cut out ultraprocessed foods entirely, Dr Davy said. But try to cook at home as much as you can, focusing on fresh fruits and vegetables, lean proteins and whole grains – 'those things that we know are good for us,' she said. THE NEW YORK TIMES

Straits Times
6 days ago
- Straits Times
US judge rejects states' bid to block Trump diversity research funding cuts
Sign up now: Get ST's newsletters delivered to your inbox FILE PHOTO: U.S. President Donald Trump gestures as he arrives at Lehigh Valley International Airport in Allentown, Pennsylvania, U.S., August 1, 2025. REUTERS/Ken Cedeno/File Photo A federal judge on Friday rejected a bid by 16 Democratic-led states to force U.S. President Donald Trump's administration to restore hundreds of millions of dollars of grants it canceled that support increasing diversity in science, technology, engineering and math fields. Democratic state attorneys general had urged U.S. District Judge John Cronan in Manhattan to block the National Science Foundation from canceling funding awarded to universities designed to increase the participation of women, minorities, and people in those fields, known collectively as STEM. They had argued in a lawsuit filed in May that the Trump administration lacked the power to cap research funding and eliminate diversity programs provided by the NSF that were mandated by Congress and urged the judge to reverse grant terminations that began in April. But Cronan, a Trump appointee, agreed with the administration that a challenge to NSF's already-completed grant terminations could not be pursued in his court but instead could only be taken up by the Court of Federal Claims, a specialist court that hears monetary claims against the U.S. government. He said the states likewise failed to show a new NSF policy stating that research "must aim to create opportunities for all Americans everywhere" and that research projects that preference "subgroups of people" do not reflect the agency's priorities was inconsistent with the agency's governing statute. The same day that policy was posted in April, NSF began canceling grants that had been previously issued that touched on among other topics of diversity, equity and inclusion. Trump has sought to eliminate DEI from the government and society. The states said the policy was inconsistent with the National Science Foundation Act's mandate that the agency award grants "to increase the participation of underrepresented populations in STEM fields." Top stories Swipe. Select. Stay informed. Tech Reporting suspected advanced cyber attacks will provide a defence framework: Shanmugam Business Singapore's US tariff rate stays at 10%, but the Republic is not out of the woods yet Asia Asia-Pacific economies welcome new US tariff rates, but concerns over extent of full impact remain Business ST explains: How Trump tariffs could affect Singapore SMEs, jobs and markets Asia Indonesia's Mount Lewotobi Laki-laki erupts Singapore Thundery showers expected on most days in first half of August Singapore Synapxe chief executive, MND deputy secretary to become new perm secs on Sept 1 Singapore 5 women face capital charges after they were allegedly found with nearly 27kg of cocaine in S'pore But Cronan said NSF's policy did not require it to cease supporting such projects and that it has in fact continued to fund a number of such projects, including at institutions within the plaintiff states. "This evidence powerfully undermines Plaintiffs' argument that the Priority Directive renders this class of projects categorically ineligible for funding," Cronan wrote. NSF declined to comment. A spokesperson for New York Attorney General Letitia James' office, which took the lead for the plaintiffs, said it is reviewing the decision. REUTERS


International Business Times
6 days ago
- International Business Times
Trump Demands Drug Price Cuts in Letters to 17 Pharma Giants Summary
US President Donald Trump has sent letters to 17 major pharmaceutical companies demanding they cut prescription drug prices in the United States. The letters, released Thursday by the White House, outline his plan to match U.S. prices with those in other developed countries. President Donald Trump addessses the nation after U.S. bombed Iran's nuclear facilities X Trump recently signed an executive order requiring drugmakers to offer "most-favored-nation" pricing. This means companies must sell medications to U.S. patients at the lowest price they offer elsewhere. If drug companies do not comply, Trump warned the government could import cheaper alternatives or take other steps. Companies that received the letters include Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, Sanofi, and AstraZeneca. Trump had previously criticized earlier proposals from the industry, saying they prioritized profits over patient care. He also demanded that drugmakers return any excess profits made by raising prices overseas to compensate American taxpayers. Shares of major pharmaceutical firms fell after the announcement. Pfizer, Eli Lilly, and Gilead each dropped by around 2%, while a broader index of drug stocks declined 3%. Trump also suggested a system where companies can sell drugs directly to patients, bypassing middlemen, but only if they agree to international pricing rules. The president gave drugmakers a deadline of September 29 to respond with binding commitments. Health experts are skeptical that companies will meet Trump's demands. Some analysts believe the proposals are unlikely to result in immediate price changes, describing them as more political pressure than enforceable policy. Still, several companies, including Pfizer and Novartis, said they are open to working with the administration. Pfizer confirmed its ongoing talks with Trump officials to improve access and affordability for U.S. patients. U.S. drug prices remain among the highest in the world, with patients often paying nearly three times more than those in other developed countries. Drugmakers argue that sharp price cuts could harm innovation, but Trump insists bold action is needed to protect Americans from high costs.