The evidence behind PhaseFood

The idea behind cycle eating, is that a menstruating woman has different nutritional needs over her cycle and eating in line with these is known as cycle syncing. Iron-rich foods during your period. Lighter foods in the follicular phase. Bright nutrient-dense foods around ovulation. More carbs and grounding foods in the luteal phase.

Most of the popular framing comes from Alisa Vitti's 2014 book WomanCode and her work at FLO Living. The framework resonated, particularly with women who'd felt underserved by general nutrition advice that ignored the monthly cycle entirely. Bodies do change across the month, and with PhaseFood our emphasis is on you understanding what that means for yourself rather than trying a one-size-fits-all approach.

Most of the specific phase-by-phase claims you'll see online are mechanistically plausible but unproven. The recipes don't seek to treat PMS, balance hormones, or fix any specific symptom.

Sources

1. Hallberg L, Hulthén L. Prediction of dietary iron absorption: an algorithm for calculating absorption and bioavailability of dietary iron. Am J Clin Nutr. 2000;71(5):1147–1160. Link
2. Benton MJ, Hutchins AM, Dawes JJ. Effect of menstrual cycle on resting metabolism: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2020;15(7):e0236025. Link
3. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Premenstrual Syndrome (PMS), FAQ057. Last reviewed November 2025. Link
4. Robinson J, Ferreira A, Iacovou M, et al. Effect of nutritional interventions on the psychological symptoms of premenstrual syndrome in women of reproductive age: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Nutr Rev. 2025;83(2):280–306. Link
5. Teede HJ, Tay CT, Laven JJE, et al. Recommendations from the 2023 international evidence-based guideline for the assessment and management of polycystic ovary syndrome. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2023;108(10):2447–2469. Link
6. Johns Hopkins Medicine. PMOS Diet: expert Q&A with Melinda E. Cater, MS, RD, LDN. Updated May 2026. Link
7. Dietitians Australia. Polyendocrine Metabolic Ovarian Syndrome (PMOS), formerly Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS). Link
8. Varney J, Burgell R, Muir J. Dietary interventions for endometriosis: research update on the FODMAP diet. O&G Magazine (RANZCOG). 2025;27(3). Link
9. American Migraine Foundation. Menstrual Migraine Treatment and Prevention. 2021. Link
10. National Institutes of Health Office of Dietary Supplements. Magnesium: Fact Sheet for Consumers. Link

What PhaseFood calls life stage tailoring is the thing that shifts your recipes based on where you are in your reproductive life: cycling, perimenopause-active, perimenopause-winding-down, menopause and beyond, or not applicable.

The strongest evidence in this whole area is for protein, calcium, iron timing, and the Mediterranean pattern in menopause and beyond. The rest is general adult nutrition with mild adjustments based on what changes physiologically across reproductive life.

Perimenopause, winding down

Periods stopping but not yet twelve months without one. Iron needs drop rapidly. Calcium, protein, and Mediterranean-pattern emphasis become more important.

Menopause and beyond

Twelve months or more since your last period, including menopause itself and the postmenopausal years. This is where the evidence base is strongest.

Not applicable

If you've picked not applicable, your recipes use standard adult nutrition foundations: balanced protein, vegetables, whole grains, healthy fats, varied ingredients. No life-stage-specific framing is added.

Sources

1. National Institutes of Health Office of Dietary Supplements. Iron — Health Professional Fact Sheet. Link
2. National Institutes of Health Office of Dietary Supplements. Calcium — Health Professional Fact Sheet. Link
3. Mamerow MM, Mettler JA, English KL, et al. Dietary protein distribution positively influences 24-h muscle protein synthesis in healthy adults. J Nutr. 2014;144(6):876–880. Link
4. Cano A, Marshall S, Zolfaroli I, et al. The Mediterranean diet and menopausal health: An EMAS position statement. Maturitas. 2020;139:90–97. Link
5. Bauer J, Biolo G, Cederholm T, et al. Evidence-based recommendations for optimal dietary protein intake in older people: a position paper from the PROT-AGE Study Group. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2013;14(8):542–559. Link
6. Estruch R, Ros E, Salas-Salvadó J, et al. Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease with a Mediterranean Diet Supplemented with Extra-Virgin Olive Oil or Nuts. N Engl J Med. 2018;378(25):e34. Link
7. Chen MN, Lin CC, Liu CF. Efficacy of phytoestrogens for menopausal symptoms: a meta-analysis and systematic review. Climacteric. 2015;18(2):260–269. Link
8. NHMRC / NZ Ministry of Health. Nutrient Reference Values for Australia and New Zealand: Calcium. Link
9. New Zealand Food Composition Database. New Zealand FOODfiles 2024. The New Zealand Institute for Plant and Food Research and Ministry of Health. Link
10. Food Standards Australia New Zealand. Australian Food Composition Database, Release 3. Link
11. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service. FoodData Central. Link
12. Public Health England. McCance and Widdowson's The Composition of Foods Integrated Dataset 2021. Link
13. Health Canada. Canadian Nutrient File, 2015. Link
14. Health Canada. Dietary Reference Intakes Tables: Reference Values for Elements. Link
15. NHS. Vitamins and minerals: Iron. Link
16. NHS. Vitamins and minerals: Calcium. Link
17. NHMRC / NZ Ministry of Health. Nutrient Reference Values for Australia and New Zealand: Protein. Link
18. Health Canada. Dietary Reference Intakes Tables: Reference Values for Macronutrients. Link
19. British Nutrition Foundation. Protein. Link
20. Deutz NE, Bauer JM, Barazzoni R, et al. Protein intake and exercise for optimal muscle function with aging: recommendations from the ESPEN Expert Group. Clin Nutr. 2014;33(6):929–936. Link
21. Women's Health Concern (British Menopause Society). Nutrition in menopause, fact sheet. Link

1. Robinson J, Ferreira A, Iacovou M, et al. Effect of nutritional interventions on the psychological symptoms of premenstrual syndrome in women of reproductive age: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Nutr Rev. 2025;83(2):280–306. Link
2. Yuan S, Zhu T, Gu J, et al. Associations of ultra-processed food intake and its circulating metabolomic signature with mental disorders in middle-aged and older adults. Nutrients. 2025;17(9):1582. Link
3. Samuthpongtorn C, Nguyen LH, Okereke OI, et al. Consumption of ultraprocessed food and risk of depression. JAMA Netw Open. 2023;6(9):e2334770. Link
4. Fung TT, Rossato SL, Chen Z, et al. Ultraprocessed foods, unprocessed or minimally processed foods, and risk of frailty in a cohort of United States females. Am J Clin Nutr. 2024;120(1):232–239. Link
5. Hall R, Hernandez AM, Rosas-Rogers S, et al. The association between periconceptional consumption of ultra-processed food and the incidence of adverse pregnancy outcomes. Nutrients. 2026;18(4):627. Link
6. Paula WO, Patriota ESO, Gonçalves VSS, et al. Maternal consumption of ultra-processed foods-rich diet and perinatal outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Nutrients. 2022;14(15):3242. Link
7. Feng Y, Miao H, Li N. Ultra-processed food consumption and risk of infertility in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Public Health. 2026;14:1906808. Link
8. Lin CHX, Gaillard R, Mulders AGMGJ, et al. Periconceptional ultra-processed food consumption in women and men, fertility, and early embryonic development. Hum Reprod. 2026;41(5):722–732. Link
9. US Code of Federal Regulations. 45 CFR 46.204: Research involving pregnant women or fetuses. Link
10. Talebi S, Mehrabani S, Ghoreishy SM, et al. The association between ultra-processed food and common pregnancy adverse outcomes: a dose-response systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2024;24:369. Link
11. Assaf-Balut C, García de la Torre N, Durán A, et al. A Mediterranean diet with additional extra virgin olive oil and pistachios reduces the incidence of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM): a randomized controlled trial: the St. Carlos GDM prevention study. PLoS One. 2017;12(10):e0185873. Link
12. Smith ER, He S, Klatt KC, et al. Limited data exist to inform our basic understanding of micronutrient requirements in pregnancy. Sci Adv. 2021;7(43):eabj8016. Link

The Mediterranean dietary pattern has more replicated, large-scale evidence behind it than almost any other framework in modern nutrition.

It comes from the traditional foodways of southern Italy, Greece, and Spain in the mid-twentieth century. People in these regions were eating a fair amount of fat (mostly olive oil, fish, nuts) and not getting heart disease at the rates American researchers expected. Vegetables, legumes, whole grains, fruit, nuts, seeds, fish, olive oil, herbs, moderate dairy and wine. Less red meat, less processed meat, very little ultra-processed food.

The cardiovascular disease evidence is robust. The PREDIMED trial in Spain followed nearly 7,500 high-cardiovascular-risk adults for around five years and found a 30 percent reduction in major cardiovascular events for participants on a Mediterranean diet supplemented with extra-virgin olive oil or nuts, compared to a low-fat control.1 Multiple meta-analyses of cohort studies, hundreds of thousands of participants combined, have shown 10 to 25 percent reductions in all-cause and cardiovascular mortality associated with higher Mediterranean diet scores.2 Mediterranean dietary patterns also reduce type 2 diabetes risk and improve metabolic markers, blood pressure, triglycerides, HDL cholesterol, across both trial and observational evidence. The cognitive benefits are weaker but pointing in the same direction. The European Menopause and Andropause Society's 2020 position statement specifically endorses the pattern for perimenopause and menopause, citing reductions in cardiovascular risk, weight gain, and possibly hot flash severity.3

The original 2013 PREDIMED paper got retracted from the New England Journal of Medicine in 2018. Researchers found that some participants weren't properly randomised, about 11.6 percent had been enrolled at the household level rather than individually, and one site had inconsistent randomisation procedures. The trial was reanalysed using methods that account for these issues, and the results were republished. The effect estimates remained similar.

The other thing worth knowing: PREDIMED received supplemental food donations from olive oil producers (Hojiblanca, Patrimonio Comunal Olivarero) and nut industry groups (the California Walnut Commission, Borges, Morella Nuts). Several PREDIMED authors have received ongoing funding from these groups in subsequent research. It's all disclosed in the published papers. The broader Mediterranean evidence base is replicated across many independently funded studies, but it's worth knowing about the specific trial that gets cited most.

What we don't know is which components are doing the work. The olive oil specifically? The polyphenols in unprocessed plant foods? The fish? The absence of ultra-processed food? The social and cultural context of long meals shared with family? Almost certainly some combination, and almost certainly the pattern as a whole rather than any single component.

We also don't really know how well it translates outside the Mediterranean. Most of the strongest evidence comes from southern European populations eating regional foods. Whether equivalent benefits accrue when New Zealanders, Australians, or North Americans approximate the pattern with local versions of those foods is a reasonable assumption. It's not been proven with the same trial-grade evidence.

Sources

1. Estruch R, Ros E, Salas-Salvadó J, et al. Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease with a Mediterranean Diet Supplemented with Extra-Virgin Olive Oil or Nuts. N Engl J Med. 2018;378(25):e34. Link
2. Dinu M, Pagliai G, Casini A, et al. Mediterranean diet and multiple health outcomes: an umbrella review of meta-analyses of observational studies and randomised trials. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2018;72(1):30–43. Link
3. Cano A, Marshall S, Zolfaroli I, et al. The Mediterranean diet and menopausal health: An EMAS position statement. Maturitas. 2020;139:90–97. Link

This is the section where PhaseFood's editorial position doesn't align with the NOVA whole foods scale and many nutritionists, however there is significant debate between doctors, nutritionists and researchers about whether seed oils are good for health or not.

We exclude industrial seed oils from our recipes by default. That's our position. The evidence is confusing, conflicting and mostly inconclusive. The studies that suggest they're safe have, in many cases, been funded or co-authored by people with financial relationships to the seed oil industry, which is a fact that very rarely makes it into the public-facing version of the science. Due to this conflict the position of PhaseFood has been to remove them in the recipes. It's a precautionary one based on the available research.

What follows is the research. Read it, weigh it, decide for yourself. The cooking-fats preferences in your Profile control which fats your recipes cook with.

What seed oils actually are

The seed oils people argue about are industrially refined oils high in linoleic acid: soybean, canola, sunflower, safflower, corn, rice bran, cottonseed, grapeseed. They were rare in human diets before about 1900 and now make up 8 to 10 percent of calories in a typical Western diet. They're in almost everything ultra-processed. They're the default cooking oil in most restaurants, including ones that advertise themselves as healthy.

Olive oil and avocado oil are not seed oils. They're pressed from the fruit of the plant, contain less linoleic acid, and aren't the target of the critique.

The mainstream case

That's the mainstream case in its strongest form. It's reasonable. We don't dismiss it.

Where it gets harder

Now the contested part.

The first hard fact about the seed oil debate is that two of the largest randomised trials ever conducted on whether replacing saturated fat with linoleic acid actually reduces deaths from heart disease, the Sydney Diet Heart Study (1966–73) and the Minnesota Coronary Experiment (1968–73), produced findings that the original researchers either didn't fully publish or didn't emphasise. The raw data sat in basements. NIH researcher Christopher Ramsden and colleagues recovered it decades later, and reanalysed both trials. They published the findings in the BMJ in 2013 and 2016.34

Both reanalyses have legitimate methodological concerns: short follow-up, possible trans-fat contamination of the control arm, modest sample sizes. Neither establishes that seed oils cause harm. They also don't align with the confident "PUFAs reduce heart disease deaths" framing that became the public-facing standard.

The second contested piece: linoleic acid in human adipose tissue has more than doubled in the United States since 1959, mirroring the increase in dietary intake.5 Whether it matters for health is the live debate. Researchers including Ramsden and Joseph Hibbeln, also at NIH, have argued in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition that this constitutes "a very large uncontrolled experiment."6 Mainstream nutrition science largely treats the change as biologically inert. Neither side has the evidence to be sure yet.

The third: the ratio of omega-6 to omega-3 fats in your diet. Both are families of polyunsaturated fat that your body can't make, so they have to come from food.15 Omega-6, mainly linoleic acid, comes largely from seed oils and the foods made with them. Omega-3 comes from oily fish such as salmon, sardines and mackerel, and from flaxseed, chia seeds and walnuts.15 You've probably read that modern diets sit at around 16:1 omega-6 to omega-3, while humans evolved eating closer to 1:1 or 4:1. That part is well-supported.6

What's actually debated is whether the ratio itself matters, or whether it's just a roundabout way of saying "you're not eating enough omega-3."

One camp, led by NIH researcher Bill Lands, argues the balance between the two is what counts. Omega-6 and omega-3 fats compete for the same machinery in your body, and that machinery produces signals that turn inflammation up or down. So if omega-6 is dominating, you're tilted toward inflammation regardless of how much omega-3 you're getting in absolute terms.7

The other camp says forget the ratio, what matters is simply how much omega-3 is in your tissues (measured as the "omega-3 index"). They point out that in human trials, cutting dietary omega-6 doesn't reliably lower the inflammatory compounds it's supposed to.

Both sides have solid peer-reviewed evidence.

And then there's the funding problem

This is where I, Lizzy, struggle with all food research, generally there is heavy influence from industry. If you haven't read Marion Nestle's book Unsavory Truth, you should.

The American Heart Association's 2017 Presidential Advisory on Dietary Fats, the document most often cited as the definitive case for seed oils, was issued an official correction later the same year.8 The correction disclosed that one of the co-authors had received research support from Unilever, one of the world's largest manufacturers of seed-oil-based spreads. The original advisory had listed the disclosure as "None."

The 2019 Circulation paper on linoleic acid biomarkers and cardiovascular disease, probably the most-cited recent evidence in favour of seed oils, was partly funded by a restricted grant from Unilever, and two of its authors reported Unilever support. Its senior investigator disclosed fees from one edible-oil company, outside that work.2

NIH spends about $2 billion a year on nutrition research ($1.93 billion in 2019, $2.23 billion in 2023). Private food and agriculture research and development runs at around $20 billion a year, most of it product development.111213 The funding ecosystem is structurally tilted, and that's a fact acknowledged by the people running it. A 2016 systematic review in JAMA Internal Medicine found that industry-sponsored nutrition studies were more likely to reach conclusions favourable to the sponsor than independently funded studies, although the effect didn't reach statistical significance in the pooled analysis.9

What we don't know

Whether typical home use of seed oils, a tablespoon in a stir-fry, a salad dressing, carries any meaningful risk in the context of an otherwise whole-food diet, we don't know.

Sources

1. Hooper L, Martin N, Jimoh OF, et al. Reduction in saturated fat intake for cardiovascular disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020;(8):CD011737. Link
2. Marklund M, Wu JHY, Imamura F, et al. Biomarkers of dietary omega-6 fatty acids and incident cardiovascular disease and mortality. Circulation. 2019;139(21):2422–2436. Link
3. Ramsden CE, Zamora D, Leelarthaepin B, et al. Use of dietary linoleic acid for secondary prevention of coronary heart disease and death: evaluation of recovered data from the Sydney Diet Heart Study. BMJ. 2013;346:e8707. Link
4. Ramsden CE, Zamora D, Majchrzak-Hong S, et al. Re-evaluation of the traditional diet-heart hypothesis: analysis of recovered data from Minnesota Coronary Experiment (1968-73). BMJ. 2016;353:i1246. Link
5. Guyenet SJ, Carlson SE. Increase in adipose tissue linoleic acid of US adults in the last half century. Adv Nutr. 2015;6(6):660–664. Link
6. Blasbalg TL, Hibbeln JR, Ramsden CE, et al. Changes in consumption of omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids in the United States during the 20th century. Am J Clin Nutr. 2011;93(5):950–962. Link
7. Lands B. Consequences of essential fatty acids. Nutrients. 2012;4(9):1338–1357. Link
8. Correction to: Sacks FM et al. Dietary Fats and Cardiovascular Disease: A Presidential Advisory From the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2017;136(25):e505. Link
9. Chartres N, Fabbri A, Bero LA. Association of industry sponsorship with outcomes of nutrition studies: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Intern Med. 2016;176(11):1769–1777. Link
10. Steen JP, Klatt KC, Chang Y, et al. Effect of interventions aimed at reducing or modifying saturated fat intake on cholesterol, mortality, and major cardiovascular events. Ann Intern Med. 2026;179(2):242–255. Link
11. National Institutes of Health. NIH Nutrition Research Report, executive summary (FY2019–2023 figures). Link
12. Fuglie K, Heisey P, King J, et al. Research Investments and Market Structure in the Food Processing, Agricultural Input, and Biofuel Industries Worldwide. USDA Economic Research Service, ERR-130; 2011. Link
13. Food Dive. Food research is chronically underfunded, IFT finds (reporting IFT white paper figures). Link
14. Gharby S. Refining vegetable oils: chemical and physical refining. ScientificWorldJournal. 2022;2022:6627013. Link
15. National Institutes of Health Office of Dietary Supplements. Omega-3 Fatty Acids — Health Professional Fact Sheet. Link

The case for whole foods is the strongest we make on this page. It's also the simplest.

Eating mostly whole foods, real food in something close to its natural form, is one of the most well-supported nutrition recommendations in modern science. Vegetables, legumes, whole grains, fish, eggs, meat, nuts, seeds, fruit, herbs, spices, traditional cooking fats. We don't hedge this part.

A 2024 BMJ umbrella review covered 45 pooled analyses from 14 meta-analyses, spanning about 9.9 million participants. It found associations between high ultra-processed food intake and worse health in 32 of them and none in 13. Most of the evidence was graded low or very low; it was rated convincing for death from cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, and anxiety and common mental disorders.1 A 2019 NIH metabolic ward trial gave 20 adults two diets, one ultra-processed and one minimally processed, matched for calories, fat, protein, carbohydrates, sugar, salt, and fibre. Allowed to eat as much as they wanted, participants ate 500 calories more per day on the ultra-processed diet and gained around 2 pounds in two weeks. They lost weight on the unprocessed diet.2 It's a small study, tightly controlled, and it's the cleanest causal demonstration we have that ultra-processing itself, not just the nutrient profile of ultra-processed foods, drives overconsumption.

The category is not perfectly clean. The most-used definition is the NOVA classification, developed by Brazilian researcher Carlos Monteiro. NOVA category 4 sweeps in everything from sugary drinks and processed snack foods, which are clearly harmful, to packaged sourdough bread, plain yogurt with stabilisers, and infant formula, which aren't obviously harmful. Critics have argued, with peer-reviewed support, that NOVA conflates very different products.3 The harms attributed to ultra-processed food in epidemiological studies are likely driven mostly by sugary drinks, processed meats, refined snacks, and fast food, not by everything in NOVA category 4 equally.

The app is built around one mostly-whole-foods standard: additive-free tinned staples and stock are welcome, packet sauces and seasoning mixes are not, and no recipe uses seed oils, refined sugar or ultra-processed ingredients. There is no strictness setting, because the health signal sits at the ultra-processed boundary and that line is the same for everyone.

One deliberate exception: plant-based meat alternatives. Plant-based mince, vegan sausages and mock chicken sit in NOVA group 4, so they are technically ultra-processed, and the recipe says so when it uses one. We keep them for vegan and vegetarian eaters because they are a dense, practical protein source, and the evidence so far does not show them behaving like the rest of the category. A 2025 meta-analysis of seven randomised trials found that swapping meat for plant-based alternatives lowered LDL cholesterol by about 12% and total cholesterol by 6% over up to eight weeks.4 The Stanford SWAP-MEAT crossover trial, funded by Beyond Meat, found lower LDL and lower TMAO, a gut-derived compound linked to heart disease, during the plant-based phase.5 In the EPIC cohort of 266,000 Europeans followed for eleven years, the ultra-processed subgroups linked to cancer and cardiometabolic multimorbidity were animal-based products and sweetened drinks; plant-based alternatives were not associated with risk.6

That evidence is short-term and not unanimous. An eight-week Singapore trial found no difference between plant-based analogues and meat,7 and a UK Biobank analysis that linked plant-sourced ultra-processed food to heart disease was driven by packaged breads, cakes and biscuits, with meat alternatives under half a percent of intake.8 They also run high in sodium. So they are an occasional anchor rather than the default: tofu, tempeh, legumes, textured vegetable protein and seitan come first.

Not every additive makes a food ultra-processed, and it is worth being precise about which ones do. NOVA draws the line at what it calls cosmetic additives: substances that make a product look, taste or feel like something it is not. Flavours and flavour enhancers, colours, sweeteners, emulsifiers, thickeners and gelling agents, modified starches and protein isolates all put a food in group 4.9 An acid used to set a curd, a culture, rennet, or a preservative that only keeps a food from spoiling does not; those foods sit in group 3, processed, alongside cheese, bread, tinned fish and salted nuts. So a ricotta made from milk, whey, cream, salt and citric acid is a processed food, exactly as it would be if you curdled the milk with lemon juice at home, while a mascarpone thickened with modified starch and carrageenan is ultra-processed. PhaseFood recipes accept the first and rewrite around the second.

Sources

1. Lane MM, Gamage E, Du S, et al. Ultra-processed food exposure and adverse health outcomes: umbrella review of epidemiological meta-analyses. BMJ. 2024;384:e077310. Link
2. Hall KD, Ayuketah A, Brychta R, et al. Ultra-Processed Diets Cause Excess Calorie Intake and Weight Gain. Cell Metab. 2019;30(1):67-77.e3. Link
3. Astrup A, Monteiro CA. Does the concept of "ultra-processed foods" help inform dietary guidelines, beyond conventional classification systems? Am J Clin Nutr. 2022;116(6):1480–1481. Link
4. Fernández-Rodríguez R, et al. Plant-based meat alternatives and cardiometabolic health: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Clin Nutr. 2025;121(2):274–283. Link
5. Crimarco A, et al. A randomized crossover trial on the effect of plant-based compared with animal-based meat on trimethylamine-N-oxide and cardiovascular disease risk factors in generally healthy adults (SWAP-MEAT). Am J Clin Nutr. 2020;112(5):1188–1199. Link
6. Cordova R, et al. Consumption of ultra-processed foods and risk of multimorbidity of cancer and cardiometabolic diseases: a multinational cohort study. Lancet Reg Health Eur. 2023. Link
7. Toh DWK, Fu AS, Mehta KA, et al. Plant-based meat analogs and their effects on cardiometabolic health: an 8-week randomized controlled trial comparing plant-based meat analogs with their corresponding animal-based foods. Am J Clin Nutr. 2024;119(6):1405–1416. Link
8. Rauber F, et al. Implications of food ultra-processing on cardiovascular risk considering plant origin foods: an analysis of the UK Biobank cohort. Lancet Reg Health Eur. 2024;43:100948. Link
9. Monteiro CA, Cannon G, Levy RB, et al. Ultra-processed foods: what they are and how to identify them. Public Health Nutr. 2019;22(5):936–941. Link
10. Dicken SJ, Dahm CC, Ibsen DB, et al. Food consumption by degree of food processing and risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus: a prospective cohort analysis of the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC). Lancet Reg Health Eur. 2024;46:101043. Link
11. Chen Z, Khandpur N, Desjardins C, et al. Ultra-processed food consumption and risk of type 2 diabetes: three large prospective U.S. cohort studies. Diabetes Care. 2023;46(7):1335–1344. Link
12. Kliemann N, Rauber F, Levy RB, et al. Food processing and cancer risk in Europe: results from the prospective EPIC cohort study. Lancet Planet Health. 2023;7(3):e219–e232. Link
13. Dicken SJ, Jassil FC, Brown A, et al. Ultraprocessed or minimally processed diets following healthy dietary guidelines on weight and cardiometabolic health: a randomized, crossover trial. Nat Med. 2025;31(10):3297–3308. Link
14. Wang L, Du M, Wang K, et al. Association of ultra-processed food consumption with colorectal cancer risk among men and women: results from three prospective US cohort studies. BMJ. 2022;378:e068921. Link