Abstract
BACKGROUND: The "clean eating" trend suggests that consuming fewer processed foods is important for healthy diets. Yet, a diet of mostly ultra-processed foods (UPFs) can meet recommendations from the Dietary Guidelines for Americans. Whether a diet comprised mostly of simple ingredient foods can provide a low-quality diet remains unexplored. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to compare the diet quality, shelf stability, and cost of 2 similar nutrient-poor menus, one containing primarily UPFs and the other containing less-processed foods (LPW), as defined by the Nova classification system. METHODS: A "Western" menu using LPW was developed to match the meals and recipes of a menu that contained more-processed foods (MPW). Processing level was determined using the Nova classification system. Final menus were assessed for nutrient quality and Healthy Eating Index (HEI) score. Shelf stability of foods/ingredients on both menus was determined from food storage guidance manuals. The condition of each food item when purchased (room temperature, frozen, refrigerated) was used to estimate the number of days until expiration. Food costs were determined from prices at grocery chains in Fall 2023. RESULTS: The LPW had similar nutrient density and diet quality scores to the MPW (HEI scores of 44 and 43, respectively). The LPW included 20% energy (kcal) from UPFs, whereas the MPW included 67% energy from UPFs. Relative percentages of shelf-stable, frozen, and refrigerated foods were similar. Using the Kaplan-Meier survival analysis method, median time to expiration of the LPW menu items was 35 d compared with 120 d for the MPW items. The "per person" cost reflecting only the amount of the food used in the menu was $15.91/d for the LPW and $9.85/d for the MPW. CONCLUSIONS: Less-processed menus can have comparable diet quality with more-processed menus although being more costly and less shelf stable.