ArticleEClinicalMedicine2026
The association of plant or animal food origin and processing level with BMI and waist circumference: a prospective cohort study of the UK Biobank.
Article in EClinicalMedicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Body Mass Index (BMI) and waist circumference (WC) gain are key risk factors for cardiometabolic disease and mortality. Although plant-based diets are often promoted for health and sustainability, the rising inclusion of ultra-processed foods (UPF) within these diets raises concerns. This study assessed the associations of food origin (plant vs. animal) and processing level (UPF vs. non-UPF) with BMI and WC increase in a prospective cohort. Methods: A total of 17,374 participants aged 40-69 years from the UK Biobank cohort study were included. Dietary data were collected between 2009 and 2012, and follow-up assessments were conducted between 2012 and 2019. Dietary intake was assessed using a minimum of two and a maximum of five repeated 24-h dietary recalls. Foods were classified by plant or animal origin and processing level using the Nova system. Outcomes were defined separately for BMI and WC as increases of ≥5% and ≥10% from baseline to follow-up. Cox proportional hazards models were applied. Findings: During a mean follow-up of 5.3 years, 2477 cases of ≥5% BMI increase and 4567 of ≥5% WC increase were observed. A 10% higher energy intake from plant-sourced non-UPF was associated with 11% lower hazard of ≥5% BMI increase (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.85-0.92) and 10% lower hazard of ≥5% WC increase (HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.88-0.93). A 10% higher intake of plant-sourced UPF was linked to increased risk of both BMI and WC increase (HR 1.10 and 1.09, respectively). Substitution analyses indicated that a higher contribution of plant-sourced non-UPF, at the expense of UPF (plant or animal), was consistently associated with a lower risk of study outcomes. Interpretation: Our findings highlight the importance of considering food origin alongside processing, showing that plant-sourced non-UPF may confer protective effects, whereas plant-sourced UPF contribute to adverse weight outcomes. Future research is needed to clarify the behavioural and biological mechanisms behind these findings. Funding: This research received funding from World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF UK), as part of the World Cancer Research Fund International grant programme.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.