Fitness, Health and Nutrition

daveroberts

  • Minimally Processed Diets Linked to Greater Weight Loss Than Ultra-Processed Ones, Even When Both Follow Healthy Guidelines

    CATEGORY: DIET & WEIGHT

    When two eating patterns both follow national healthy-eating guidelines, the one built mostly from minimally processed foods was linked to about twice as much weight loss as one built from ultra-processed foods over eight weeks. That is the headline from a 2025 randomized trial in which the same people tried both approaches, and it points to something surprising: how your food is made may matter for body weight even when the nutrition on paper looks the same.1

    What “Ultra-Processed” Actually Means

    Ultra-processed foods are items assembled largely from industrial ingredients and additives rather than whole foods you would recognize in a kitchen — think mass-produced packaged breads, reconstituted meats, flavored snacks, and sweetened drinks. Minimally processed foods are whole or lightly handled foods, such as fresh fruit, plain yogurt, eggs, and home-cooked grains. The important twist in this study is that both menus were designed to meet the same official nutrition targets for things like fat, sugar, salt, and fiber. The only major difference was the degree of processing.

    How the Study Worked

    Researchers used a crossover design, meaning each participant served as their own comparison. Fifty adults ate a minimally processed diet for eight weeks and an ultra-processed diet for eight weeks, with a four-week break in between so one phase would not bleed into the next. Both diets were matched to the United Kingdom’s national healthy-eating guide, and food was provided to the participants so the researchers could hold nutrition steady while varying only processing. Body weight was recorded on a calibrated scale, and body composition — how much of that weight is fat versus other tissue — was measured with a standard clinic device. Because people rotated through both diets, the design helps rule out the possibility that one group simply had an easier time to begin with.

    What the Numbers Showed

    On the minimally processed diet, participants lost about 2% of their body weight; on the ultra-processed diet, they lost about 1%.1 In other words, the minimally processed pattern was associated with roughly double the weight loss over the same eight weeks — a difference of about one percentage point of body weight. The reductions in fat mass and in visceral fat, the fat packed around your internal organs, reached statistical significance only on the minimally processed diet. Participants also reported better control over cravings during that phase. These are modest amounts over two months, not dramatic transformations, but they moved consistently in the same direction.

    Why It Might Matter

    The takeaway is not that ultra-processed food is off-limits or that either diet was “bad” — both followed healthy guidelines and both were linked to some weight loss. Rather, the trial suggests that the physical form of food, how quickly it is eaten, and how strongly it drives cravings may nudge body weight independently of the nutrition label. This was a small, short study, so the findings are best read as an early signal rather than the final word, and researchers have since published follow-up discussion of the results. Still, it adds to a growing body of work suggesting that leaning toward less-processed versions of foods you already enjoy may be associated with better weight and cravings outcomes.

    Key Takeaways

    • Over eight weeks, a mostly minimally processed diet was linked to roughly twice the weight loss of an ultra-processed diet, even though both met the same healthy-eating targets.
    • The effects were modest and came from a small, short trial, so they are an early signal rather than a guarantee of results.
    • If managing weight or cravings is a goal for you, choosing less-processed versions of familiar foods is a topic worth raising with your doctor or a registered dietitian, especially before making broader changes to your diet.

    References

    1. Dicken SJ, Jassil FC, Brown A, et al. Ultraprocessed or minimally processed diets following healthy dietary guidelines on weight and cardiometabolic health: a randomized, crossover trial. Nature Medicine. 2025;31(10):3297–3308. link
    For educational purposes only — not medical advice. Consult your clinician before acting on this content.

    Found this useful? Share it!

    Link copied!

    Stay up to date! Subscribe to our FREE weekly newsletter.

  • Replacing Butter With Plant-Based Oils Linked to Lower Risk of Early Death

    CATEGORY: EATING FOR HEART HEALTH

    In a study that followed more than 220,000 adults for up to three decades, swapping a small daily amount of butter for plant-based oils — such as olive, soybean, or canola oil — was linked to roughly a 17% lower risk of dying during the study period. People who ate the most butter had modestly higher death rates than those who ate the least, while the pattern ran the opposite way for plant oils.1

    What the Study Found

    Researchers compared people by how much butter or plant oil they usually ate. Those in the highest butter group had about 15% higher total mortality — death from any cause — than those in the lowest, while those eating the most plant-based oils had about 16% lower total mortality than those eating the least. When the researchers modeled replacing a small daily amount of butter (roughly two teaspoons) with the same amount of plant oil, that swap was associated with about 17% lower total mortality and about 17% lower death from cancer.1

    How the Study Worked

    The findings pool three long-running U.S. studies — the Nurses’ Health Study, Nurses’ Health Study II, and the Health Professionals Follow-up Study — totaling 221,054 adults tracked for as long as 33 years. Every four years, participants reported their eating habits on detailed food questionnaires, and deaths were identified through the National Death Index, with causes confirmed from medical records. Because the outcome here is who lived longer over decades, that long follow-up and repeated diet check-ins are central to the result, not background detail. This was an observational study, meaning it tracks real-world patterns and can show associations but cannot prove that the fats themselves caused the difference.1

    Why the Type of Fat May Matter

    Butter is high in saturated fat, which tends to raise LDL cholesterol — the “bad” cholesterol that can build up in artery walls. Plant-based oils are rich in unsaturated fats, which are generally linked to healthier cholesterol levels and lower inflammation. That biological difference is the leading explanation researchers offer for why the two types of fat lined up with such different long-term outcomes, though a single study like this cannot confirm the mechanism.1

    Keeping It in Perspective

    Because this is observational, people who reached for plant oils may have differed in other ways that affect health, even though the researchers adjusted for many lifestyle factors. The links were also stronger for butter eaten as a spread or in cooking than for the smaller amounts used in baking. The takeaway is not that butter is dangerous in any single meal, but that, across many years, the kind of fat that dominates a person’s diet appears to track with meaningfully different risks.

    Key Takeaways

    • Over up to 33 years, higher butter intake was linked to about 15% higher risk of death, and higher plant-oil intake to about 16% lower risk.
    • Modeling a small daily swap of butter for plant oils was associated with roughly 17% lower total and cancer mortality.
    • Because the study is observational, it shows associations only and cannot prove cause and effect.
    • If you are weighing changes to the fats in your diet — especially alongside cholesterol or heart concerns — your doctor or a registered dietitian can help you sort out what fits your health.

    References

    1. Zhang Y, Chadaideh KS, Li Y, et al. Butter and Plant-Based Oils Intake and Mortality. JAMA Internal Medicine. 2025;185(5):549–560. link
    For educational purposes only — not medical advice. Consult your clinician before acting on this content.

    Found this useful? Share it!

    Link copied!

    Stay up to date! Subscribe to our FREE weekly newsletter.

  • Greater Muscle Strength Linked to Lower Death Risk in Older Women

    CATEGORY: WOMEN’S HEALTH

    In a study of nearly 5,500 women in their 60s through their 90s, those with the greatest muscle strength were about a third less likely to die over the following eight years than those with the least — and the link held even among women who were not meeting standard aerobic exercise guidelines.1

    What the Study Found

    Researchers measured strength two simple ways and split the women into four equal groups, from weakest to strongest. For grip strength — how hard you can squeeze a handheld gauge called a dynamometer — women in the strongest group had about 33% lower risk of death than those in the weakest. For a chair-stand test, which times how quickly you can rise from a chair five times in a row and reflects lower-body strength, the fastest women had about 37% lower risk than the slowest. Both links stayed strong even after accounting for how physically active and fit the women were.1

    How the Study Worked

    The study included 5,472 women who could walk on their own, with an average age of about 79 and a racially and ethnically diverse makeup. Their strength was measured at the start, and they were then followed for an average of 8.3 years, during which 1,964 of them died; deaths were tracked through official records. Because the outcome unfolded over years, that follow-up period is what allowed the researchers to connect a single strength measurement to later survival. This was an observational study, so it can reveal associations but cannot prove that strength itself was the cause.1

    Why Strength May Matter for Longevity

    Muscle strength is increasingly viewed as a window into overall physical resilience. Stronger muscles support balance and lower the chance of falls, help the body handle illness and recovery, and are tied to healthier metabolism. A notable detail here is that the survival link appeared even in women who were not meeting aerobic activity guidelines — the roughly 150 minutes of moderate exercise a week often recommended — suggesting muscle strength may capture something about health that cardiovascular fitness alone does not.1

    Keeping It in Perspective

    As an observational study, it cannot rule out that stronger women were healthier to begin with for other reasons, although the researchers adjusted for many of them. Strength was also measured just once, at the start. The findings do not prove that building strength later in life adds years, but they add to a growing body of evidence that simple measures like grip strength and the ability to rise from a chair track closely with long-term health.

    Key Takeaways

    • Among older women, greater grip strength was linked to about 33% lower risk of death, and faster chair-stand times to about 37% lower risk.
    • The associations held even for women not meeting aerobic exercise guidelines, hinting that strength adds distinct information about health.
    • Because the study is observational, it shows associations only and cannot prove that strength itself lengthens life.
    • Simple strength checks like grip and chair-rise are things you can ask your doctor about; if you are considering strength training, especially with existing health conditions, your provider can help you start safely.

    References

    1. LaMonte MJ, Hyde ET, Nguyen S, et al. Muscular Strength and Mortality in Women Aged 63 to 99 Years. JAMA Network Open. 2026;9(2):e2559367. link
    For educational purposes only — not medical advice. Consult your clinician before acting on this content.

    Found this useful? Share it!

    Link copied!

    Stay up to date! Subscribe to our FREE weekly newsletter.

  • One to Two Bowel Movements a Day Linked to Healthier Gut and Blood Markers

    CATEGORY: GUT & DIGESTIVE HEALTH

    How often you empty your bowels may say more about your overall health than you would think. In a study of more than 1,400 generally healthy adults, going to the bathroom about once or twice a day was linked to the healthiest mix of gut bacteria and blood markers — while patterns at either extreme, from constipation to frequent diarrhea, were associated with early signs of strain on the kidneys or liver.1

    A “Goldilocks Zone” for Bowel Habits

    Researchers sorted people into four ranges: constipation (two or fewer bowel movements per week), low-normal (three to six per week), high-normal (one to three per day), and diarrhea (frequent loose movements). Those in the roughly once-or-twice-a-day range tended to have gut communities rich in fiber-fermenting bacteria — the helpful microbes that break down plant fiber and produce compounds that nourish the lining of your intestines. Move too far in either direction and that healthy balance shifted.1

    What the Blood Markers Showed

    When stool moves too slowly, gut bacteria run low on fiber and switch to fermenting protein instead, producing waste compounds the body then has to clear. In people with constipation, the researchers found higher blood levels of two such compounds — indoxyl sulfate and p-cresol sulfate — that the kidneys filter out, and these were associated with reduced kidney function. At the other end, diarrhea was linked to blood-chemistry patterns that can reflect strain on the liver. In short, both extremes coincided with markers hinting at organs working harder than they should.1

    How the Study Worked

    This was an observational study, meaning it looked for patterns rather than testing a treatment — so it can show associations but cannot prove that bowel habits caused the differences. The team drew on 1,425 generally healthy adults enrolled in a wellness program between 2015 and 2019, combining their self-reported bathroom habits with genetic sequencing of their gut bacteria, blood metabolites (small molecules made during digestion), and standard blood-chemistry tests. Comparing these data across the four frequency groups is how the links to kidney and liver markers emerged.1

    What Tended to Come With a Healthy Range

    People who reported eating a fiber-rich diet, staying well hydrated, and exercising regularly were more likely to fall in the once-or-twice-daily range. Bowel frequency also varied with who people were: younger adults, women, and those with a lower body weight tended toward less frequent movements. Everyday factors such as travel, stress, illness, and medications can shift your pattern too, so a change on its own is a reason to pay attention, not a diagnosis.1

    Key Takeaways

    • In generally healthy adults, roughly one to two bowel movements a day was linked to the healthiest gut bacteria and blood markers.
    • Because this was an observational study, it shows associations only — it cannot prove that bowel frequency causes changes in organ health.
    • Constipation coincided with higher blood levels of bacterial waste compounds tied to reduced kidney function; frequent diarrhea coincided with markers of liver strain.
    • Persistent constipation or diarrhea — or any blood in the stool — is worth raising with your doctor, who can look at the full picture rather than any single number.

    References

    1. Johnson-Martínez JP, Diener C, Levine AE, et al. Aberrant bowel movement frequencies coincide with increased microbe-derived blood metabolites associated with reduced organ function. Cell Reports Medicine. 2024;5(7):101646. link
    For educational purposes only — not medical advice. Consult your clinician before acting on this content.

    Found this useful? Share it!

    Link copied!

    Stay up to date! Subscribe to our FREE weekly newsletter.

  • Weekend Exercise Linked to Lower Death Risk, Similar to Daily Activity

    CATEGORY: EXERCISE & MOVEMENT

    Adults who packed the recommended 150 minutes of weekly moderate-to-vigorous activity into just one or two days had a 32% lower risk of death from any cause than inactive people—a benefit statistically similar to spreading the same activity across the week, according to a large study using wearable trackers.1

    How the Study Worked

    Researchers used data from the UK Biobank, where participants wore an activity tracker for a full week between 2013 and 2015. Based on those readings, people were sorted into three groups: inactive; “weekend warriors,” who reached at least 150 minutes of moderate-to-vigorous activity—movement that noticeably raises your heart rate, such as brisk walking or cycling—with most of it in one or two days; and the regularly active, who reached the same total more evenly. Over a median 8.1 years, 3,965 participants died, including 667 from cardiovascular disease and 1,780 from cancer.

    Total Activity Mattered More Than Timing

    Compared with inactive people, weekend warriors had a 32% lower risk of death from any cause, a 31% lower risk of cardiovascular death, and a 21% lower risk of cancer death. The regularly active had a 26% lower risk of death from any cause. Crucially, there was no meaningful difference in risk between the two active groups—suggesting the total amount of activity, rather than how it was distributed across the week, was the key factor once people reached the recommended level.

    What the Findings Do and Don’t Show

    Because this was an observational study, it shows an association between reaching activity targets and lower death risk, not proof that the activity pattern caused it. People who are more active may also be healthier to begin with. If you are considering changes to how you move—especially if you have a heart or joint condition—your health care provider can help you find an approach that fits.

    Key Takeaways

    • Reaching 150 weekly minutes of activity in 1–2 days was associated with a 32% lower risk of death from any cause.
    • Concentrated and evenly spread activity were linked to similar reductions in risk.
    • This is an association, not proof; check with your provider before changing your activity, especially with existing conditions.

    References

    1. Liao DQ, Li HM, Chen HJ, et al. Association of accelerometer-derived physical activity pattern with the risks of all-cause, cardiovascular disease, and cancer death. Journal of the American Heart Association. 2025;14(8):e039225. link.
    For educational purposes only — not medical advice. Consult your clinician before acting on this content.

    Found this useful? Share it!

    Link copied!

    Stay up to date! Subscribe to our FREE weekly newsletter.

  • More Consistent Sleep Timing Linked to Lower Risk of Death

    CATEGORY: SLEEP & RECOVERY

    People with more regular sleep—going to bed and waking at consistent times from day to day—had roughly a 20% to 48% lower risk of dying from any cause than those with the most irregular schedules, and this consistency predicted death risk more strongly than how long people slept, according to a large study using wearable trackers.1

    How the Study Worked

    Researchers analyzed more than 10 million hours of wrist-tracker data from 60,977 participants in the UK Biobank, a large health research project. Each person received a Sleep Regularity Index score—a measure of how consistent their sleep and wake times were from one day to the next. Participants were then followed for about six years on average, during which 1,859 died. The team compared people across five groups, from least to most regular, adjusting for age, sex, lifestyle, and health factors.

    Regularity Outweighed Duration

    Compared with the least regular sleepers, the four more regular groups had a 20% to 48% lower risk of death from any cause, a 16% to 39% lower risk of cancer death, and a 22% to 57% lower risk of death from heart- and metabolism-related causes. When the researchers weighed sleep regularity against total sleep duration, regularity was the stronger predictor of who died. In other words, the day-to-day rhythm of sleep appeared to matter at least as much as the number of hours.

    What the Findings Do and Don’t Show

    This was an observational study, so it points to an association between regular sleep timing and lower death risk rather than proving one causes the other. Irregular sleep can also be a sign of underlying health issues or life circumstances that affect survival. If your sleep schedule is difficult to keep steady or your rest feels unrefreshing, your health care provider can help you look into why.

    Key Takeaways

    • More consistent day-to-day sleep timing was associated with a 20% to 48% lower risk of death from any cause.
    • Sleep regularity predicted death risk more strongly than sleep duration did.
    • This is an association, not proof; a provider can help if steady, restful sleep is hard to reach.

    References

    1. Windred DP, Burns AC, Lane JM, et al. Sleep regularity is a stronger predictor of mortality risk than sleep duration: a prospective cohort study. Sleep. 2024;47(1):zsad253. link.
    For educational purposes only — not medical advice. Consult your clinician before acting on this content.

    Found this useful? Share it!

    Link copied!

    Stay up to date! Subscribe to our FREE weekly newsletter.

  • Higher Olive Oil Intake Linked to Lower Risk of Dementia-Related Death

    CATEGORY: BRAIN & MENTAL HEALTH

    Adults who consumed at least 7 grams of olive oil a day—roughly half a tablespoon—had a 28% lower risk of dying from dementia over 28 years than those who rarely or never used it, according to a large US study.1

    How the Study Worked

    Researchers tracked 92,383 US health professionals—women in the Nurses’ Health Study and men in the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study—who were free of heart disease and cancer at the start. Every four years, participants reported their diet, including olive oil, on detailed food questionnaires. Over 28 years and more than 2.1 million person-years, 4,751 people died from causes related to dementia, a progressive decline in memory and thinking severe enough to disrupt daily life. Deaths were identified from death records, and the analysis adjusted for lifestyle, health, and genetic factors.

    Replacing Other Fats

    The link between olive oil and lower dementia-related death held regardless of a person’s overall diet quality. In additional modeling, swapping about 5 grams a day of margarine or mayonnaise for the same amount of olive oil was associated with an 8% to 14% lower risk of dementia-related death, while swapping other vegetable oils or butter showed no clear benefit. People carrying two copies of the APOE ε4 gene variant—the strongest common genetic risk factor for Alzheimer’s—were far more likely to die with dementia, but the olive oil association remained after accounting for it.

    What the Findings Do and Don’t Show

    This was an observational study, so it shows an association between olive oil and lower dementia-related death, not proof that olive oil prevents dementia. People who use olive oil may share other brain-protective habits. If you have questions about your own dementia risk or family history, your health care provider is the right person to guide you.

    Key Takeaways

    • Consuming at least half a tablespoon of olive oil daily was associated with a 28% lower risk of dementia-related death.
    • The link held even after accounting for overall diet quality and a major Alzheimer’s risk gene.
    • This is an association, not proof; discuss your personal risk with your health care provider.

    References

    1. Tessier AJ, Cortese M, Yuan C, et al. Consumption of olive oil and diet quality and risk of dementia-related death. JAMA Network Open. 2024;7(5):e2410021. link.
    For educational purposes only — not medical advice. Consult your clinician before acting on this content.

    Found this useful? Share it!

    Link copied!

    Stay up to date! Subscribe to our FREE weekly newsletter.

  • Morning Coffee Drinking Linked to Lower Risk of Death, Especially From Heart Disease

    CATEGORY: HEART & CIRCULATION

    Adults whose coffee drinking was concentrated in the morning had a 16% lower risk of death from any cause and a 31% lower risk of death from heart disease over nearly a decade than people who did not drink coffee—while those who sipped coffee throughout the day showed no such link, according to a large US study.1

    How the Study Worked

    Researchers analyzed 40,725 adults in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, a long-running federal health study, who had reported the timing of their food and drink. Using a statistical method that groups people by behavior, they identified two coffee patterns: a “morning type” (about 36% of participants) and an “all-day type” (about 14%). The patterns were confirmed in a separate group of 1,463 adults who kept seven-day diet records. Over a median follow-up of about 9.8 years, 4,295 participants died, including 1,268 from cardiovascular disease.

    Timing, Not Just Amount

    The lower risk tied to morning coffee held even after the researchers accounted for how much caffeinated and decaffeinated coffee people drank, along with sleep and other factors. Among morning drinkers, drinking more coffee was associated with lower mortality; among all-day drinkers, it was not. The authors suggested that drinking coffee later in the day might interfere with sleep or circadian rhythms—the body’s internal 24-hour clock—though the study was not designed to prove why.

    What the Findings Do and Don’t Show

    This was an observational study, so it can identify an association between morning coffee and lower risk of death but cannot prove the timing caused the difference. Coffee affects people differently, and factors such as heart rhythm, blood pressure, and sleep can shape whether it suits you. Your health care provider can help you weigh how coffee fits your personal heart health.

    Key Takeaways

    • A morning-focused coffee pattern was associated with 16% lower all-cause and 31% lower heart-disease death risk versus not drinking coffee.
    • Drinking coffee all day long was not linked to the same lower risk.
    • These are associations, not proof; talk with your provider about how coffee fits your health.

    References

    1. Wang X, Ma H, Sun Q, et al. Coffee drinking timing and mortality in US adults. European Heart Journal. 2025;46(8):749–759. link.
    For educational purposes only — not medical advice. Consult your clinician before acting on this content.

    Found this useful? Share it!

    Link copied!

    Stay up to date! Subscribe to our FREE weekly newsletter.

  • Higher Dark Chocolate Intake Linked to Lower Type 2 Diabetes Risk

    CATEGORY: METABOLIC & BLOOD SUGAR

    People who ate at least five servings of dark chocolate a week had a 21% lower risk of developing type 2 diabetes—a condition in which the body struggles to keep blood sugar (glucose) at healthy levels—than those who rarely or never ate it, according to a large analysis of three long-running studies of US health professionals.1

    How the Study Worked

    Researchers followed 192,208 people who were free of diabetes, heart disease, and cancer at the start, drawing on the Nurses’ Health Study, its follow-up, and the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study. Participants reported how often they ate chocolate on repeated food questionnaires, and new cases of type 2 diabetes were identified through follow-up surveys and confirmed with a validated questionnaire. Over more than 4.8 million combined person-years of follow-up, 18,862 people developed the condition. A smaller group of 111,654 participants reported dark and milk chocolate separately, which let the team compare the two.

    Dark and Milk Chocolate Differed

    Eating any type of chocolate five or more times a week was linked to a 10% lower rate of type 2 diabetes, but the pattern was strongest for dark chocolate, which is richer in cocoa flavanols—plant compounds thought to influence how the body handles sugar. Each additional weekly serving of dark chocolate was associated with a 3% lower risk. Milk chocolate showed no such link, and higher milk chocolate intake was instead associated with long-term weight gain.

    What the Findings Do and Don’t Show

    Because this was an observational study, it can show an association between dark chocolate and lower diabetes risk but cannot prove the chocolate itself is responsible; other habits of dark chocolate eaters may play a role. The researchers noted that randomized trials are still needed to confirm the effect. If you are wondering how your own eating patterns relate to your blood sugar, that is a conversation to have with your health care provider.

    Key Takeaways

    • In three large cohorts, eating dark chocolate at least five times a week was associated with a 21% lower risk of type 2 diabetes.
    • Milk chocolate showed no similar benefit and was linked to weight gain over time.
    • This is an association, not proof of cause; your provider can help you understand your personal diabetes risk.

    References

    1. Liu B, Zong G, Zhu L, et al. Chocolate intake and risk of type 2 diabetes: prospective cohort studies. BMJ. 2024;387:e078386. link.
    For educational purposes only — not medical advice. Consult your clinician before acting on this content.

    Found this useful? Share it!

    Link copied!

    Stay up to date! Subscribe to our FREE weekly newsletter.

  • Tea Drinking Linked to Slightly Higher Hip Bone Density in Older Women

    CATEGORY: FOODS & NUTRIENTS

    Older women who regularly drank tea had slightly higher hip bone density than those who did not, while very high coffee intake — more than five cups a day — was linked to lower bone density, according to a study that followed nearly 10,000 women for about a decade.1 The differences were small, but they add to a long line of research on how everyday drinks relate to bone health.

    Why bone density matters

    Bone mineral density is a measure of how much mineral is packed into bone, and it is a key marker of osteoporosis — a condition in which bones become weaker and more prone to fracture. Worldwide, roughly one in three women and one in five men over age 50 will experience a fracture linked to fragile bones, making even small shifts in bone density meaningful across a large population.1

    How the study worked

    Researchers at Flinders University used data from the Study of Osteoporotic Fractures, a long-running project that repeatedly measured nearly 10,000 women aged 65 and older over about 10 years. Participants reported their coffee and tea intake through questionnaires at several points, while bone density at the hip and femoral neck — sites closely tied to fracture risk — was measured repeatedly using DXA, a low-dose X-ray scan. Because both diet and bone density were tracked over time, the researchers could examine how long-term drinking patterns related to bone changes.1

    What the researchers found

    Tea drinking was associated with slightly higher total hip bone density — a small but statistically significant difference. Coffee overall showed no clear link to bone density, but drinking more than five cups a day was associated with lower density. The benefit of tea appeared somewhat stronger in women with obesity, while the possible downside of heavy coffee intake was more apparent in women who also drank more alcohol.1

    Possible explanations — and limits

    Tea is rich in compounds called catechins, which laboratory research suggests may support bone formation and slow bone breakdown. Caffeine, by contrast, has been shown in lab studies to interfere modestly with calcium absorption, though the researchers note this effect is small and may be offset by adding milk. Importantly, this was an observational study: it can identify associations but cannot prove that tea strengthens bones or that coffee weakens them. The differences were also slight, and calcium and vitamin D remain the well-established cornerstones of bone health.1

    Key Takeaways

    • In older women, regular tea drinking was linked to slightly higher hip bone density, while more than five cups of coffee a day was linked to lower density.
    • The effects were small and observational — this does not prove tea builds bone or that coffee harms it.
    • If bone health is a concern for you, discuss it with your healthcare provider, who can advise on proven steps such as adequate calcium, vitamin D, and bone-density screening where appropriate.

    References

    1. Liu RY, Liu E. Longitudinal association of coffee and tea consumption with bone mineral density in older women: a 10-year repeated-measures analysis in the Study of Osteoporotic Fractures. Nutrients. 2025;17(23):3660. link.
    For educational purposes only — not medical advice. Consult your clinician before acting on this content.

    Found this useful? Share it!

    Link copied!

    Stay up to date! Subscribe to our FREE weekly newsletter.