Soda, pastries, but also cereal bars and spaghetti. The ultraprocesses are. If you are in front of a packaged product whose ingredient list is long and with convoluted names, it is likely to be one of them. The problem is that they know well (too much, perhaps) and some can cause. Its consumption is so widespread that it reaches the palates of millions of people. The cost of this popularity is high, since it has been shown that there are associated with cardiomethabolic diseases.
Now, a new finding puts them again in the center of the debate. A group of researchers from the Global University of London (United Kingdom) proved for the first time as this type of food, even if it follows a healthy guideline, is less effective in losing weight. The study, led by Samuel Dicken, from the Obesity Research Center in London, analyzed for eight weeks the behavior of 55 adults divided into two groups. One of them began the trial with a low type of food in ultraprocessed or MPF for its acronym in English, such as oats soaked during the night or spaghetti to the homemade boloñesa.
After a four -week rest period, during which the participants returned to their usual diet, they changed to a diet with ultraprocessed (UPF, in English) as oat bars for breakfast or a prepared lasagna. The second group followed the reverse order. Both regimes were nutritionally adjusted to the recommendations of the, an official food pattern of that country on how to carry a healthy and balanced diet.
After the trial period, the results of the analysis published in the demonstrated that all participants lost weight, probably as a consequence of better food compared to their usual diet. Despite this, the effect was higher – with a 2.06 %reduction – with the diet low in ultraprocessed than with the UPF diet that had a 1.05 %reduction. “Although the diets were nutritionally balanced, the shape and level of food processing seemed to influence the amount they ate and the feeling of satiety,” said Dicken, at a press conference held on Monday.
The participants received more calories than they needed and were told to eat as much or as little as they wanted. The main author argues that if these results are expanded over a year, there could be a weight reduction of 13% in men and 9% in women with the minimally processed diet, but only a 4% reduction in men and 5% in women with the ultraprocess diet. This, over time, would make “a big difference.” This, according to the authors, remains speculative and would require long -term confirmation.
One of the most curious observations of the investigation is that during the period in which the participants consumed minimally processed foods, several subjects of the monitoring were lost. A person did not comply with the protocol, and five left the study in that phase. In addition, two other people also lost in the same type of diet. , Professor and director of the Human Nutrition Unit of the Rovira I Virgili University, believes that although it is “a fairly complete study”, in that aspect there is “a gray area”.
“Supplementary information could shed more light on these losses. In total, 10 of 50 participants are lost, which represents 20% of the sample,” says Salas-Savadó and adds: “It is a considerable proportion. It is not clear what happened to these people.”
In this regard, the main author assured El País that the study included all the participants who were part of the essay from the beginning. “We evaluate the general effect, regardless of whether they could continue or not,” he explains. And that although they tried to motivate the groups to continue, sometimes it was not possible because the personal circumstances of many participants weighed more.
“Even with these limitations, it is the best we have currently and aligns with epidemiological studies that have shown that high consumption of ultraprocessed foods is associated with a higher risk of diseases and mortality,” says Salas-Savadó.
Ultraprocessed are cheap
The authors gave the participants the same official dietary recommendations of the United Kingdom, but at different times. On the one hand, in a phase with ultra -processed foods and in another with minimally processed foods. Samuel Dicken together with co -author Adrian Brown posted on whether nutritional labeling helps people make healthier dietary decisions.
What they discovered was that, in general, the UPF generally had worse calorie scores, saturated fats, sugar and salt. Despite this, when analyzing the red labels of the traffic light – the system used to indicate unhealthy products – a significant number of UPF did not have the stamps. “This highlights that UPF are a heterogeneous category. Not all are poor in nutrients and nutritional labels alone do not capture the level of processing,” Brown adds.
With all the tests that begin to fall on the table, it is not enough to eat balanced, because you also have to consider the quality. In Spain, 20.3% of the foods that the Spaniards consume are ultraprocessed. There is a need to divert the political approach to individual responsibility for environmental factors that promote obesity, such as the influence of multinationals or the creation of unhealthy food environments.
According to Jordi Salas-Savadó, it is necessary that this type of analysis continue to be carried out, because in the long run it will be important to “incorporate this dimension in the food guides.” Foods have multiple variables: nutritional, degree of processing, presence of potentially toxic additives, and even their environmental impact.
This professor with his colleagues hope to launch, next year, a similar study in the country. They are currently in the project’s writing phase. In any case, Salas-Savadó reiterates that if it is possible to generate more evidence that ultraprocesses have negative effects on health, it will be necessary to think how to intervene at the government level.
“This could translate into more strict recommendations by institutions or even fiscal policies,” concludes this professor.
