What does the evidence actually show when we look at plant-based dietary patterns through the lens of food processing? And does classifying foods as "ultra-processed" meaningfully change how we interpret the relationship between plant-based diets and long-term health outcomes?

A recent large prospective cohort analysis examined both healthful and unhealthful plant-based dietary patterns, and importantly, stratified the contributing foods based on whether they were classified as ultra-processed or non-ultra-processed.

In this episode, the study's lead author Dr Alysha Thompson, discusses the many intesresting aspects to the analysis. These include how the dietary indices were constructed, the challenges of applying NOVA classification to self-reported dietary data, the role of residual confounding in observational nutrition research, and the extent to which we can or cannot infer independent effects of processing from these findings.

We also consider the broader implications for the use of processing-based classifications in nutrition science and whether this adds meaningful explanatory value beyond traditional assessments of diet quality.

• [03:02] Interview start
• [05:08] The key research question
• [07:52] Study design
• [17:25] Building diet scores
• [21:11] NOVA classification challenges
• [25:04] Key findings
• [38:30] NOVA debate and stance
• [43:44] Adjustments and mediators
• [48:11] Future research directions
• [54:37] Key ideas (premium-only)

• Go to episode page
• Join the Sigma newsletter for free
• Subscribe to Sigma Nutrition Premium
• Enroll in the next cohort of our Applied Nutrition Literacy course
• Paper: Plant-Based Diets, Ultra-Processed Foods, and Risks of Mortality and Major Chronic Diseases: A Prospective Cohort Study