A recent investigation published in a prominent source, UPI. com, challenges the long-held assumption that a diet consisting of minimally processed foods necessarily constitutes a healthy dietary regimen. The researchers, who presented their findings at the American Society for Nutrition’s annual meeting in Chicago, suggest that the types of foods consumed may be more critical to overall dietary quality than the level of processing employed in their manufacture.
The study’s authors employed the NOVA Food Classification System, a framework designed to categorize foods based on their degree of processing. This system, developed by the Center for Epidemiological Studies in Health and Nutrition at the University of São Paulo in Brazil, defines four groups of foods based on their processing-related criteria. The researchers compared two menus… one emphasizing minimally processed foods and the other focused on ultra-processed varieties, to assess their nutritional value.
According to the results, the less-processed menu was not only significantly more expensive but also had a much shorter shelf —, expiring nearly four times more frequently than the ultra-processed alternative. Despite this, it failed to provide any substantial nutritional advantages. This outcome underscores the significance of theNOVA classification system, indicating that both minimally and ultra-processed foods can possess low scores for healthy eating.
In light of these findings… it is possible to consume a suboptimal diet even when selecting primarily minimally processed foods. As Allen Levine, a professor emeritus in the Department of Food Science and Nutrition at the University of Minnesota, noted in an interview with UPI. com, “both ultra-processed and less processed foods can have a low healthy eating score.” This suggests that nutritional quality is influenced by factors beyond the level of processing employed.
The study’s principal investigator, Julie Hess, “elaborated on the findings,” stating that “the results of this study indicate that building a nutritious diet involves more than a consideration of food processing as defined by NOVA.” This conclusion underscores the complexity of nutritional science, “emphasizing the need for a multifaceted approach to dietary health.” Source: UPI.
More details: Found here
Diet That Limits Ultra-processed Foods Isn’t Automatically Healthy, Study Shows – UPI.Com
• A diet that limits ultra-processed foods is not necessarily a healthy diet, as the quality of food also depends on the type of food consumed, not just the level of processing. 2. Researchers found that a menu focusing on minimally processed foods was more expensive (over double the cost) and had a shorter expiration date (over three times shorter) compared to an ultra-processed food menu, without providing any additional nutritional value. 3. The study suggests that both ultra-processed and less-processed foods can have a low “healthy eating score”, meaning that selecting mostly minimally processed foods is not a guarantee of a healthy diet. 4. The researchers conclude that building a nutritious diet involves more than just considering the level of food processing, and that other factors need to be taken into account.
Nutrition and Food Classification
Let’s dive into the fascinating world of nutrition and food classification! As a health enthusiast, I’m excited to share with you some insights from a recent study published on upi. com. The researchers, who presented their findings at the American Society for Nutrition’s annual meeting in Chicago, challenged the long-held assumption that a diet consisting of minimally processed foods necessarily constitutes a healthy dietary regimen.
So, what’s the big deal about food classification? Well, theNOVA Food Classification System is a framework that categorizes foods based on their degree of processing. Developed by the Center for Epidemiological Studies in Health and Nutrition at the University of São Paulo in Brazil, this system defines four groups of foods based on their processing-related criteria. And, get this – the researchers used this system to compare two menus… one emphasizing minimally processed foods and the other focused on ultra-processed varieties. Now, you’d think that the less-processed menu would be the clear winner, right? I mean, who wouldn’t want to opt for wholesome, whole foods? But, surprise, surprise – the results were quite the opposite! According to the study, the less-processed menu was not only significantly more expensive, but it also had a much shorter shelf ___, expiring nearly four times more frequently than the ultra-processed alternative. Yet, despite this, it failed to provide any substantial nutritional advantages.
AsAllen Levine… a professor emeritus in the Department of Food Science and Nutrition at the University of Minnesota, noted in an interview with upi. com, “both ultra-processed and less processed foods can have a low healthy eating score.” This suggests that nutritional quality is influenced by factors beyond the level of processing employed.
So, what does this mean for us? It’s clear that building a nutritious diet involves more than just considering food processing as defined byNOVA. So, what can we take away from this study? Firstly, it’s essential to prioritize nutritional quality over the level of processing. Second, it’s crucial to consider the types of foods we consume, rather than just focusing on the processing levels.
Finally, it’s time to rethink our assumptions about whole foods and ultra-processed foods. As Julie Hess, the study’s principal investigator, “so aptly put it,” “the results of this study indicate that building a nutritious diet involves more than a consideration of food processing as defined by NOVA.” ^^, while the study’s findings may seem counterintuitive, “they highlight the complexity of nutritional science.”
●●● ●●●
NEW YORK, June 30 (UPI) — A diet that limits ultra-processed foods isn’t automatically healthy, and the types of foods people eat may matter more than the level of processing used to make them. a new study suggests.
The findings were presented Sunday at the American Society for Nutrition’s annual meeting in Chicago. Advertisement
