WEIGHT LOSS DOUBLED ON THIS DIET
A diet built around minimally processed foods helped people shed twice as much weight as one heavy on ultra-processed meals—even when both diets offered similar nutrients and let people eat as much as they wanted. That’s the big takeaway from a new long-term study out of University College London, published in Nature Medicine, which suggests that how food is processed may matter as much as what’s actually in it.
The study followed 55 adults who rotated between two eight-week diets: one based on minimally processed foods (think overnight oats or homemade spaghetti Bolognese), and the other packed with ultra-processed options (like breakfast bars or ready-made lasagna). After each round, participants took a four-week break on their usual diets before switching to the other eating plan. Both diets were carefully matched for fat, protein, carbs, fiber, salt, and even included plenty of fruits and vegetables. Participants received more food than they could possibly eat, delivered straight to their doors, and were told to eat as much or as little as they liked—no calorie counting or restrictions.
At the end of each eight-week stint, everyone lost some weight compared to their usual eating habits. But the group on the minimally processed diet saw about a 2% reduction in body weight, versus just over 1% for those on the ultra-processed diet. That works out to a daily calorie deficit of 290 calories on the minimally processed diet, compared to just 120 on the ultra-processed one—without anyone trying to eat less.
The real kicker? The weight lost on the minimally processed diet mainly came from fat and body water, while muscle mass stayed the same. This points to a healthier shift in body composition—not just weight loss for the sake of a smaller number on the scale.
Beyond the scale, people eating minimally processed foods also found it easier to control cravings. They reported better overall craving control, especially for savory foods, and were more likely to resist the foods they craved most. Even as they lost more weight (which can sometimes make cravings worse), their urge to snack or overeat went down.
Dr. Samuel Dicken, the study’s first author, said the main goal was to figure out if food processing itself—apart from the usual suspects like fat, salt, and sugar—plays a role in health outcomes. The answer seems to be yes. “The effect was nearly double on the minimally processed diet,” Dicken explained. “Scale that up to a year, and you’d expect a 13% drop in weight for men and 9% for women—compared to just 4% and 5% with the ultra-processed diet.”
Other health markers, like blood pressure, cholesterol, and liver function, didn’t show significant differences between diets, at least in this time frame. Researchers say longer studies will be needed to see if those numbers shift over time.
Professor Chris van Tulleken, another author, pointed out the bigger picture: Our modern food system makes unhealthy eating almost unavoidable, given the sheer amount of cheap, ultra-processed food on offer. He argues that policies and food industry practices, not just individual choices, play a massive part in diet-related health problems. Measures like warning labels, marketing limits, and price incentives could help make healthy diets more achievable for everyone.
Professor Rachel Batterham, the study’s senior author, noted that almost no one in the UK sticks to all the government’s Eatwell Guide recommendations. Most people go for more ultra-processed foods than they should. That’s why swapping out packaged meals and snacks for whole, minimally processed options—even without strict calorie limits—might be a practical way for more people to improve their weight and health.
Bottom line: When it comes to losing weight and taming cravings, what you eat is about more than just the nutrition label. Swapping ultra-processed foods for meals closer to their natural state could make a real difference—even if you don’t eat less.
Comments
Post a Comment