Digestery
Diet and food › Ultra-Processed Food › Studies

Randomized trial · measured the question itself

Trial in 350 pregnant women: food counselling did not clearly change birth weight

Baroni and colleagues · Early human development · 2024

Original title: Effect of a lifestyle intervention among pregnant women with overweight on neonatal adiposity: A randomized controlled clinical trial.

Under review. A person has not yet checked this summary against the paper. It is written from the PubMed abstract. Until a person checks it, search engines are asked not to list this page.

What the study found

No difference

The counselling had no effect on baby fat share (β 0.52; 95% CI -1.03, 2.06), fat-free mass or birth weight (β 53.23; 95% CI -87.19, 193.64).

The study at a glance

Type of study
Randomized trial
Who or what was studied
256 people · 350 pregnant women with overweight; 256 babies analyzed for birth weight
What was tested
Three counselling sessions to eat unprocessed and minimally processed foods rather than ultra-processed foods, plus exercise, vs usual care
What it measured
The question itself: death, heart disease, diabetes and cancer
Who has a stake
No stake declared
No competing interests declared.
Journal
Early human development, 2024
Source
PubMed record 38776727. This page is based on the abstract only.

How much this study counts

  • ✓Randomized: people were put into groups by chance, so the groups start out alike.
  • •Medium size: 256 people.
  • ✓Measured the question itself: death, heart disease, diabetes and cancer.
  • ✓No competing interests declared.
  • •Summarized from the PubMed abstract only. The full paper may hold details the abstract leaves out.

✓ Strength– Limit• Note

These points come from fixed rules about the type of study, its size and length, what it measured, and who has a stake. Every study on Digestery gets the same rules.

Where this study sits

Each dot is one on-topic paper on this question. Steps near the top answer the question more directly.

↑ Stronger evidence

  1. Trials in people: death and chronic disease

    2

    1 no difference, 1 harm

    ↑ This study is the ringed dot

  2. Trials in people: other measures

    3

    1 mixed, 1 no direction, 1 harm

  3. Trials in people: lab tests or safety

    1

    1 mixed

  4. Population studies

    17

    1 mixed, 16 harm

  5. Blood levels and genes

    0

    None among the papers we read.

↓ Weaker evidence

  • Points to benefit
  • Mixed
  • No difference
  • No direction
  • Points to harm

How it fits with the other research

The short answer to “Are ultra-processed foods bad for your health?”

Linked to worse health; cause not proven.

Confidence: low. Based on 38 on-topic papers.

Read the full answer

Few other papers sit on the same step, so there is little to compare it with.

  • Counted on the ladder, but not quoted in the page’s main findings.

Other papers on the same step

See all 38 studies on this question

How this page was made

Label

First read of the abstract
Claude Sonnet
Independent second read
Claude Haiku
Differences settled
The reviewer corrected 1 field after reading the abstract. Claude Opus 5.5.
Headline
Claude Sonnet, from the checked study record. A script checked its numbers and wording.
Numbers
Checked against the abstract by a script
“How much this study counts”
Fixed rules, the same for every study
Source check by a person
Not yet. Required before search engines may list this page.

Spot an error? Email a flag with a link to your source, or use the form on the question page.