A recent experimental trial on the health impact of ultra-processed food delivered some surprising results, although the most interesting findings were barely reported in the media. They were also hardly mentioned by the researchers, which is strange given the positive message they contained.
The trial itself was something to be welcomed. A well-conducted experiment where participants were fed either a diet of ultra-processed foods or a diet of minimally processed foods over eight weeks, with both diets carefully selected to meet the healthy eating advice outlined in the UK Eatwell Guide. Food was delivered pre-prepared to the participants’ homes, and the diets were nutritionally similar enough that any large differences in outcomes were likely to be down to the level of processing.
If we really want to understand more about the health impact of food processing, studies like this are exactly what we need. Those of us interested in the field had been awaiting the results of this one with bated breath.
Weight loss with UPFs
The results were surprising because, perhaps contrary to expectations, both diets resulted in weight loss. A lot of the rhetoric around ultra-processed foods would suggest that a completely UPF diet should be hyperpalatable and easy to overconsume, but it would appear that when nutritionally balanced UPFs are selected, that is not the case.
The minimally processed diet did result in more weight loss, but there is an argument that this can be explained by the higher energy density of the UPF foods chosen, something that is known to increase overall intake. It is also worth noting that participants reported an increased liking of the ultra-processed foods, and that although some dropped out of the MPF diet, none gave up on the UPF one.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, reporting led with the fact that the minimally processed diet produced a greater average weight reduction (1.84kg compared to 0.88kg). Headlines such as ‘minimally processed foods double weight loss’ and ‘why whole foods are the real weight loss hack’ abounded. The researchers, some of whom have been vocal UPF critics in the past, suggested their results show that recommending minimally processed foods should be part of healthy eating advice.
Only cursory attention was paid to the fact that the ultra-processed diet still resulted in dropped pounds, despite it being more calorie dense, more enjoyable and, crucially, made from convenient foods that are far easier for people to prepare.
Convenience is not the enemy
It is an often-forgotten truism that the only really healthy food is the food that people actually eat. It is easy to stick to a minimally processed diet if it is being delivered pre-prepared to your door, but over the long term that is likely to be a challenge for many people. It requires time, effort, money and skill, all to produce something which may not be quite as delicious.
Perhaps the headlines should have been that a convenient and tasty UPF diet can result in sustainable weight loss if you pick the right options. Or that the Eatwell Guide is actually pretty good if people stick to it. Conclusions like these could be encouraging for anyone who struggles with food preparation but is keen to eat well.
But as usual in food, convenience is seen as a purely pejorative term, rather than accepting that it might be a benefit. We allow perfect to be the enemy of good, throwing scorn on any suggestion that something practical might also be healthy.
Anyone thinking that such rhetoric is helpful should probably spend some time in the real world.
Anthony Warner, development chef at New Food Innovation
No comments yet