In the ever-evolving world of nutrition and wellness, WeightWatchers is making a bold move to reconnect with its foundational ethos, just as the debate around ultraprocessed foods (UPFs) grows more nuanced. On August 20, 2025, WeightWatchers executives revealed plans to return to the company’s roots, emphasizing its community support-group culture as a way to stand out in the increasingly competitive telehealth sector. This pivot comes at a time when conversations about what truly constitutes healthy eating have become more complicated than ever.
According to the Daily Express, WeightWatchers is seeking to differentiate itself by leveraging the sense of belonging and mutual encouragement that once made its brand a household name. After several tumultuous years, the company’s leadership believes that rekindling its community-based approach will not only help it regain popularity but also provide much-needed support for individuals navigating the confusing landscape of modern nutrition advice.
Meanwhile, the world of dietary science is abuzz with studies and headlines about ultraprocessed foods—those packaged staples that fill grocery aisles and lunchboxes alike. These foods, often maligned in the media, are now the subject of more nuanced scrutiny. As reported by Medscape Medical News on August 20, 2025, emerging research suggests the healthiness of UPFs isn’t as clear-cut as previously thought. While UPFs are generally linked to higher energy intake, weight gain, and increased risks of cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes, not all UPFs are created equal.
“The UPF category is so broad it borders on useless,” wrote Nicola Guess, PhD, a registered dietitian at the University of Oxford, in a recent essay. “It lumps store-bought whole-grain bread and hummus in with cookies, potato chips, and soda.” This observation highlights the challenge faced by consumers and professionals alike: how to distinguish between foods that are merely convenient and those that are genuinely detrimental to health.
There is widespread agreement among researchers that diets heavy in UPFs are associated with increased energy intake and weight gain. Filippa Juul of SUNY Downstate Health Sciences University and colleagues noted in Nature Reviews Endocrinology that UPFs’ negative effects may stem from their “evolutionarily novel nutritional, physical, and chemical characteristics,” which can influence everything from food reward systems to the microbiome. Their conclusion? “To stem the global rise in obesity, multipronged policy efforts are needed to reduce UPF consumption and create health-promoting food systems.”
A 2024 evidence review led by Samuel Dicken, PhD, of University College London, underscored the role of UPFs in driving obesity. In a randomized controlled trial, Dicken’s team compared a UPF diet to a minimally processed food (MPF) diet over eight weeks. Both diets were nutritionally matched to the UK’s healthy eating guidelines, but the results were telling: the MPF diet led to an average 2% reduction in weight, while the UPF diet produced a 1% reduction. Dicken remarked, “Though a 2% reduction may not seem very big, that is only over eight weeks and without people trying to actively reduce their intake. If we scaled these results up over the course of a year, we’d expect to see a 13% weight reduction in men and a 9% reduction in women on the minimally processed diet, but only a 4% weight reduction in men and 5% in women after the ultraprocessed diet. Over time this would start to become a big difference.”
However, the science is far from settled. As noted by Gunter Kuhnle, professor of nutrition and food science at the University of Reading, “The study suggests that a diet meeting current dietary recommendations is not detrimental to weight maintenance, whether it is ultraprocessed or not.” This sentiment was echoed by other experts who pointed out that both groups in the study lost weight, challenging the notion that all UPFs are inherently bad for waistlines.
So, are all UPFs unhealthy? The answer, it seems, depends on the specifics. Studies often rely on the NOVA classification system, which categorizes foods based on their level of processing. NOVA warns that UPFs are typically nutritionally unbalanced and prone to overconsumption. Yet, dietary guidelines focus less on processing and more on nutritional content—emphasizing moderation of added sugars, saturated fats, and salt.
Recent large-scale studies have shed light on these complexities. Data from over 200,000 US adults found that those consuming the most UPFs were 11% more likely to develop cardiovascular disease and 16% more likely to develop coronary heart disease compared to those eating the least. When results from 19 additional studies were combined, high UPF consumers were 17% more likely to develop cardiovascular disease, 23% more likely to develop coronary heart disease, and 9% more likely to have a stroke. But there’s a twist: “Sugar-sweetened beverages, processed meats, and artificially sweetened beverages were associated with higher [cardiovascular disease] and [coronary heart disease] risk. Conversely, ultraprocessed savory snacks, cold cereals, and yogurt/dairy-based desserts were inversely associated with CVD and CHD risk,” the study authors wrote.
Similarly, the Nurses’ Health Study found that while total UPF consumption is linked to higher type 2 diabetes risk, certain UPFs—such as cereals, dark and whole-grain breads, fruit-based products, and yogurt/dairy desserts—were associated with lower risk. This suggests that lumping all UPFs together may obscure important differences.
To further complicate matters, a proof-of-concept menu was developed that derived over 80% of its calories from UPFs, yet still scored 86 out of 100 on the Healthy Eating Index used by the 2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans. The menu met almost all macro- and micronutrient requirements, falling short only in vitamin D, vitamin E, and choline. “This sample menu did not achieve a perfect score due primarily to excess sodium and an insufficient amount of whole grains,” the researchers noted, but it demonstrated that high UPF diets can, at least on paper, align with many nutritional guidelines.
Despite these findings, experts agree that more research is needed to clarify the health impacts of food additives and processing techniques. The American Heart Association’s recent scientific advisory echoed this call, urging deeper investigation into the nuances of UPFs and their role in modern diets.
As Nicola Guess put it, “We consume too much fast food, too many sugary beverages, too many cakes, doughnuts and chips. And we consume too few legumes, fruits and vegetables. We need better food and nutrition policies that make it easier for people to purchase and consume a healthier diet.”
In this landscape of conflicting studies and evolving guidelines, WeightWatchers’ renewed focus on community support may offer something that scientific consensus can’t: a sense of shared purpose and encouragement. As individuals try to navigate the maze of food choices, perhaps the most powerful tool isn’t just the food on the plate, but the people around the table.
