Cutting processing, not nutrition, may double weight loss success

• In a new UCL-led trial, people eating minimally processed foods lost twice as much weight as those on ultra-processed diets even though both meals were nutritionally matched.

• The study used a randomized crossover design: participants spent eight weeks on one diet, had a four-week washout, then switched allowing each person to serve as their own control.

• Diets followed the UKs Eatwell Guide, ensuring both processed and less-processed meals were balanced but the level of processing still made a big difference.
  

A new, real-world experiment shows that simply eating less processed food might help you drop those extra pounds even when your meals are supposed to be equally healthy.

The study compared two diets that looked the same on paper but one was made up of fresh, minimally processed meals, and the other packed with store-bought, ultra-processed versions.

The results? The less processed menu won the weight-loss race and by a big margin.

Previous research has linked ultra-processed foods with poor health outcomes, researcher Dr. Samuel Dicken said in a news release. But not all ultra-processed foods are inherently unhealthy based on their nutritional profile.

The main aim of this trial was to fill crucial gaps in our knowledge about the role of food processing in the context of existing dietary guidance, and how it affects health outcomes such as weight, blood pressure and body composition, as well as experiential factors like food cravings.

The study

Researchers from University College London recruited 55 adults in England. They all had body mass indices between 25 and 40 and habitually ate more than half of their calories from ultra-processed food.

They split participants into two groups: one started eating minimally processed meals things like homemade spaghetti Bolognese or overnight oats for eight weeks. After a four-week wash-out returning to their normal diet, they switched to the ultra-processed diet (like breakfast oat bars or ready-meal lasagne).

The other group did the diets in the opposite order. Both menus followed the UK Eatwell Guide, so calories and nutrients were carefully matched including red flags like sugar, salt, and overall balance.

Results: Twice the weight loss, same nutrients

Heres the bottom line: even though both diets were thoughtfully designed to be healthy, the minimally processed diet led to twice the weight loss compared to its ultra-processed counterpart. Thats not just a little double the effectiveness.

This matters because it shows processing level itself not just calories or nutrients can influence weight loss.

So, if youre looking for a simple, practical way to boost your results, cooking at home and swapping processed convenience foods for fresh alternatives could be a surprisingly powerful move.

The best advice to people would be to stick as closely to nutritional guidelines as they can by moderating overall energy intake, limiting intake of salt, sugar and saturated fat, and prioritizing high-fiber foods such as fruits, vegetables, pulses, and nuts, researcher Professor Rachel Batten said in a news release.

Choosing less processed options such as whole foods and cooking from scratch, rather than ultra-processed, packaged foods or ready meals, is likely to offer additional benefits in terms of body weight, body composition and overall health.

Findings from a recent study explore coffee contaminants so you can sip smarter

• Fifty-seven coffee products from 45 top-selling brands were tested in a wide-ranging chemical screening.

• Results found trace amounts of glyphosate, widespread AMPA (even in organic coffee), acrylamide, and phthalates varying by roast, packaging, and origin.

• For the cleanest cup: reach for dark or light roasts, avoid medium, and prefer bagged or pod packaging over cans; organic options still had AMPA.
  

Coffee fuels our mornings and brings people together but whats actually in that cup?

The Clean Label Project, a nonprofit that works to bring transparency to consumer products, teamed up with a lab to uncover what might be hiding beyond the nutrition facts.

Spoiler: safe on the label doesnt always mean clean in the beans.

The study

The organization sampled 57 bestselling coffee products from 45 brands. They made their picks based on results from Nielsen, SPINS, Amazon, and organic market listings.

Researchers ran 7,069 contaminant tests. Everything from heavy metals (lead, cadmium, arsenic, mercury) to mycotoxins, pesticides, phthalates, glyphosate, and AMPA (a glyphosate breakdown product) was measured.

The tests were conducted in an ISO/IEC 17025accredited lab using advanced techniques.

The results

Heres what they found:

• Glyphosate turned up in just two samples but AMPA showed up in 72% of them, including every single organic coffee, even though glyphosate is banned in organic farming.

• Acrylamide, a byproduct of high-temp roasting, was in 100% of the samples. Though each cup was within EU limits, typical servings could push daily exposure beyond safety thresholds. Interestingly, light and dark roasts contained less acrylamide than medium roasts, and canned coffee had more than bagged or pod varieties.

• Phthalates, linked to hormone disruption and other health concerns, were found in 70% of samples especially in canned and pod packaging.

Choosing cleaner coffee

So, what can you do to make your cup of joe a little more guilt-free?

• Opt for light or dark roasts, and steer clear of medium roasts when possible.

• Go for coffees in bags or pods over cans to minimize phthalate exposure.

• Organic doesnt guarantee AMPA-free, but it typically has fewer industrial contaminants.

• Consider the region coffees from Africa tended to have lower heavy-metal levels, while volcanic Hawaiian soil often meant higher levels.
  

The Clean Label Project also identified 16 coffees that deliver on safety and purity, which means consumers can feel good about buying and drinking them. Heres the list:

• 365 Whole Foods Market Caramel Medium Roast (bag)

• Starbucks Colombia (pod)

• Camerons Vanilla Hazlenut (bag)

• Counter Culture Forty-six (bag)

• Dunkin Hazelnut (bag)

• Eight OClock Original Roast (bag)

• Fabula Dark Roast (pod)

• Great Value French Roast (pod)

• Groundwork Organic Ethiopia (bag)

• ILLY Classico (can)

• Kicking Horse Three Sisters (bag)

• Nespresso Diavolitto (pod)

• Newmans Own Special Blend (pod)

• Peace Coffee Birchwood (bag)

• San Francisco Rainforest Blend (pod)

• Seattles Best Post Alley (bag)

ufts-led research shows calories from dollar store food nearly doubled from 2008 to 2020

By Truman Lewis of ConsumerAffairs

The digital divide hasn't closed. What are the options?

AOL, one of the last major providers of dial-up internet in the United States, will soon retire its decades-old service. The shutdown marks the end of an era for the distinctive screech and hiss of a modem connection and leaves a small but significant number of Americans facing a tough question: whats next if you still cant get broadband?

Although the FCC says more than 90% of U.S. households now have access to broadband, millions still live in areas where high-speed internet is unavailable, unreliable, or unaffordable. For many rural residents, AOLs dial-up was slow but dependable, using the same copper telephone lines that power landline calls.

The end of dial-up wont directly cut people off from the internet, but it will force them to seek alternatives often at higher costs or with more complicated setups.

Alternatives to dial-up in 2025

1. Satellite Internet
Providers like Starlink, HughesNet, and Viasat can reach nearly anywhere in the country. Starlinks newer low-Earth-orbit satellites offer far better speeds and lower latency than traditional satellite services, but equipment costs can top $500 and monthly plans often exceed $100.

2. Fixed Wireless Access (FWA)
Companies like Verizon, T-Mobile, and AT&T offer home internet via 4G LTE or 5G networks. If your cell signal is strong, speeds can rival cable, with prices starting around $50/month. However, rural areas with weak coverage may not benefit.

3. Mobile Hotspots
Using a smartphone or a dedicated hotspot device, users can connect laptops and desktops to cellular data. This is a flexible option but can be expensive if your carriers data caps are low. It, like fixed wireless, may not work in rural areas or in more urbanized areas with lots of network congestion.

4. DSL and Fiber (Where Available)
Some regions still have DSL providers operating over phone lines much faster than dial-up but slower than modern broadband. Where fiber has expanded, its the gold standard, offering gigabit speeds.

5. Community and Municipal Networks
A growing number of towns are building their own broadband infrastructure or partnering with nonprofits to deliver affordable internet access, often with grant funding.

The loss of AOL dial-up underscores the ongoing challenges in bridging Americas digital divide. Federal and state broadband initiatives, along with private investment, are racing to expand access but for some, the transition may be bumpy.