随机对照试验
背景(考古学)
交叉研究
置信区间
医学
减肥
体质指数
不利影响
试用登记
肥胖
内科学
替代医学
病理
生物
安慰剂
古生物学
作者
Samuel J. Dicken,Friedrich C. Jassil,Adrian Brown,Martins Kalis,C Stanley,Craig Ranson,Tinashe B. Ruwona,Sulmaaz Qamar,Caroline Buck,Ritwika Mallik,Nasser Hamid,Jonathan M. Bird,Alanna Kathleen Brown,Benjamin Norton,Claudia A. M. Gandini Wheeler‐Kingshott,Mark Hamer,Chris van Tulleken,Kevin D. Hall,Abigail Fisher,Janine Makaronidis
出处
期刊:Nature Medicine
[Nature Portfolio]
日期:2025-08-04
卷期号:31 (10): 3297-3308
被引量:46
标识
DOI:10.1038/s41591-025-03842-0
摘要
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 <40 kg m-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 .
科研通智能强力驱动
Strongly Powered by AbleSci AI