1 / 2 | Eat a variety of fresh, nutritious foods whenever possible, advises Chao-Pin Li, PhD, professor of medicine and director of the Center for Human Nutrition at the David Geffen School of Medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles. Photo by Klaus Nielsen/Pexels
NEW YORK, June 30 (UPI) — A diet that limits ultra-processed foods isn’t automatically healthier, and the types of foods you eat may be more important than the level of processing used to make them, a new study suggests.
The findings were presented Sunday at the American Academy of Nutrition’s annual meeting in Chicago.
The researchers compared two menus that reflected a typical Western diet – one that emphasized minimally processed foods, according to the NOVA food classification system, and one that emphasized ultra-processed foods.
The system categorizes foods into four groups based on processing-related criteria and was designed by the Center for Epidemiological Studies in Health and Nutrition at the School of Public Health of the University of São Paulo in Brazil.
The less processed meals were more than twice as expensive, less nutritious, and expired three times sooner.
The results suggest that “both ultra-processed and minimally processed foods may score poorly on healthy diets,” Allen Levine, professor emeritus of food science and nutrition at the University of Minnesota in St. Paul, told UPI in an email.
For the study, Levine classified different foods into categories based on the NOVA system.
“Ultra-processed foods also have a longer shelf life and cost less, while having similar healthy eating scores as less-processed foods,” Levine said.
Based on these findings, the researchers noted that it is possible to consume a poor-quality diet even when choosing primarily minimally processed foods.
“The results of this study suggest that building a nutritious diet requires more than considering food processing as defined by NOVA,” lead study researcher Julie Hess said in a news release.
“The concepts of ‘ultra-processed’ and ‘minimally processed’ foods need to be more clearly defined by the nutrition research community,” said Hass, a research nutritionist at the USDA/Agricultural Research Service Grand Forks Human Nutrition Research Center.
Last year, the team published a study showing it’s possible to put together a high-quality menu that adheres to dietary guidelines and still get most of its calories from foods classified as ultra-processed.
In the new study, the researchers asked the opposite question: Can we create a low-quality menu that gets most of its calories from ‘simple’ foods?
To answer this question, the team created a menu of lightly processed options, with 20% of calories coming from ultra-processed foods, and a menu of highly processed options, with 67% of calories coming from ultra-processed foods. The NOVA system determined the level of processing present in each option.
The researchers calculated that the menu’s Healthy Eating Index score was about 43 to 44 out of 100, a relatively low number that reflects low adherence to dietary guidelines among Americans.
They estimated that a less processed meal would cost $34.87 per person per day compared to $13.53 per person per day for a more processed meal, and they also calculated that the median shelf life of a less processed meal was 35 days compared to 120 days for a more processed meal.
The study sheds light on the disconnect between food processing and nutritional value, the researchers say. Some highly nutritious packaged foods are classified as ultra-processed, such as unsweetened applesauce, ultrafiltered milk, liquid egg whites, and some brands of raisins and canned tomatoes.
“When it comes to eating healthy at an affordable price, both nutritional quality and price can be packaged together,” said Joan Salge Blake, R.D., clinical professor and director of the nutrition program at Boston University, who was not involved in the study.
Blake recommends using grocery store flyers and apps to find healthy foods on sale (whether fresh, frozen, canned or packaged), and then planning your weekly meals around them.
“Rather than be intimidated by the level of processing, use the nutrition facts on the label as a guide to decipher the nutritional value of the foods you choose,” she said.
But Dr. Chaoping Li, professor of medicine and director of the Center for Human Nutrition at the David Geffen School of Medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, said ultra-processed foods can contribute significantly to obesity and related chronic diseases when they are high in added sugars, unhealthy fats and artificial additives and low in nutritional value.
“Ultra-processed foods were originally developed to provide a convenient and affordable source of calories with the aim of preventing malnutrition,” Lee said, adding that they are becoming increasingly popular as their ready-to-eat or pre-cooked form often suits consumers’ taste preferences.
She recommends replacing ultra-processed foods with a variety of fresh, nutritious foods whenever possible.
A diet of whole grains, lean protein, healthy fats, fruits and vegetables “ensures you’re getting the vitamins, minerals and other beneficial compounds your body needs,” Lee said.
“Prioritizing the quality of your diet can help prevent chronic disease, increase energy levels, and maintain overall health,” she added.
Liz Weinandy, a registered dietitian and practice instructor at The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center in Columbus, said the study conveys the overall message that the health value of food goes beyond the level of processing it undergoes before it reaches the consumer.
But “I don’t think anyone would disagree that sugary drinks, candy, and snack chips are poor nutritional choices and shouldn’t be consumed on a regular basis,” Weinandy said. “I don’t want to put lipstick on a pig.”
