Ultraprocessed or minimally processed diets following healthy dietary guidelines on weight and cardiometabolic health: a randomized, crossover trial
Dicken SJ, Jassil FC, Brown A, Kalis M, Stanley C, Ranson C, Ruwona T, Qamar S, Buck C, Mallik R, Hamid N, Bird JM, Brown A, Norton B, Gandini Wheeler-Kingshott CAM, Hamer M, van Tulleken C, Hall KD, Fisher A, Makaronidis J, Batterham RL
Nature medicine · 78 citations
Review labels
Neutral facts our review recorded about how this study was done. They describe method, never whether we like the result.
How it was studied
- Design
- Randomized controlled trial (indexed by PubMed)
- Studied in
- People
- Main outcome
- Health markers and function
- Intake measured by
- Food provided by researchers
Who paid for it
- Funding
- Independent funding
- University or hospital
- Cleveland Clinic
- Nonprofit
- British Dietetic Association
- Government
- National Institute for Health and Care Research
- Nonprofit
- British Heart Foundation
- Nonprofit
- Ataxia UK
- Nonprofit
- Society for Endocrinology
- Government
- European Commission
- Nonprofit
- Rosetrees Trust
- University or hospital
- University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
- Government
- National Institutes of Health
- Government
- Medical Research Council
- Government
- National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases
- Government
- National Institute for Health Research (NIHR)
- Government
- EC | Horizon 2020 Framework Programme (EU Framework Programme for Research and Innovation H2020)
- Grants
- British Heart Foundation (SP/F/20/150002); Rosetrees Trust (PGL21/10079); Medical Research Council (MR/S026088/1); National Institutes of Health (945539); Rosetrees Trust (PGL22/100041); Medical Research Council (945539); Medical Research Council (MR/N013867/1); National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR303041)
Based on 14 listed funder(s) and full-text disclosure statement.
Publication
- Published
- 2025-08-04 · Nat Med · vol. 31 · issue 10 · pp. 3297–3308
- Publisher
- Nature Portfolio
- Cited
- 107 citations · more than 100% of similar papers · 95.0× the field average
- Impact
- Top 10% most cited in its field
- References
- 57 works
- Access
- Open access (hybrid journal) · CC-BY
- Research areas
- Consumer Attitudes and Food Labeling · Diet and metabolism studies · Nutritional Studies and Diet
- Keywords
- Medicine, Randomized controlled trial, Context (archaeology), Crossover study, Confidence interval, Weight loss, Body mass index, Adverse effect, Trial registration, Internal medicine, Obesity, Biology
- MeSH
- humans, cardiovascular diseases, body weight, weight loss, body mass index, cross-over studies, nutrition policy, food handling, adult, aged, middle aged, female, male, diet, healthy
21 authors
From GB, CH, IT
- Samuel James Dicken · correspondingUniversity of East London; National Institute for Health and Care Research; The London College; University College London
- Friedrich C. JassilUniversity College Hospital; National Institute for Health and Care Research; University Hospital of Geneva; World Obesity Federation; University College London
- Adrian Carl BrownUniversity College Hospital; National Institute for Health and Care Research; World Obesity Federation; University College London
- Monika KalisWorld Obesity Federation; University College London
- Chloe StanleyNational Institute for Health and Care Research; World Obesity Federation; University College London
- Chaniqua RansonNational Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery; University College London
Abstract
Ultraprocessed food (UPF) consumption is associated with noncommunicable disease risk, yet no trial has assessed its health impact within the context of national dietary guidelines. In a 2 × 2 crossover randomized controlled feeding trial, 55 adults in England (body mass index ≥25 to -2, habitual UPF intake ≥50% kcal day-1) were provided with two 8-week ad libitum diets following the UK Eatwell Guide: (1) minimally processed food (MPF) and (2) UPF, in a random order. Twenty-eight people were randomized to MPF then UPF, and 27 to UPF then MPF; 50 participants comprised the intention-to-treat sample. The primary outcome was the within-participant difference in percent weight change (%WC) between diets, from baseline to week 8. Participants were blinded to the primary outcome. MPF (%WC, -2.06 (95% confidence interval (CI), -2.99, -1.13) and UPF (%WC, -1.05 (95% CI, -1.98, -0.13)) resulted in weight loss, with significantly greater %WC on MPF (Δ%WC, -1.01 (95% CI, -1.87, -0.14), P = 0.024; Cohen's d, -0.48 (95% CI, -0.91, -0.06)). Mild gastrointestinal adverse events were common on both diets. Findings indicate greater weight loss on MPF than UPF diets and needing dietary guidance on food processing in addition to existing recommendations. Clinicaltrials.gov registration: NCT05627570 .
Abstract via Europe PMC. Copyright remains with the authors or publisher (CC BY).
Community trust
Loading…
How much do you trust this study's findings?
Comments
Sign in to rate, comment on or flag this study.Sign inSomething wrong here?
Flag this study if its information, labels or funding look wrong. An editor reviews every flag.
Sign in to rate, comment on or flag this study.Sign inEducational information about published research. Not medical advice, and not a recommendation to start or stop anything.