THE TREATMENT of ultra-processed food addiction (UPFA) in individuals with comorbid eating disorders (EDs), emphasizing the challenges in choosing between abstinence-based and moderation-based nutrition interventions, was investigated in a recent study. Although UPFA is not officially recognized as a clinical diagnosis, it is increasingly observed in clinical settings, especially among those with EDs. The study highlights the complexity of treating patients with dual conditions, pointing to the need for tailored, individualized treatment plans.
The research presents three case vignettes that showcase different recovery trajectories when patients with eating disorder symptoms explore an abstinence-based approach. The findings suggest that while some patients benefit from abstinence, others may experience harm, showing better progress with a moderation-based strategy. This divergence underscores the difficulty many patients and clinicians face when choosing between these two polarizing approaches.
The study advocates for a nuanced treatment strategy that combines elements of both abstinence and moderation, adjusted according to each patient’s unique circumstances. Key factors such as genetic vulnerability, upbringing, and neurobiological, psychological, and cultural considerations should be comprehensively assessed to ensure the most effective treatment. The authors stress the importance of cross-disciplinary collaboration, emphasizing that no one-size-fits-all solution exists. They argue for more research to develop evidence-based, patient-centered interventions for UPFA, especially when co-occurring with other food-related disorders.
This research provides a crucial perspective on the challenges of treating UPFA and EDs, urging clinicians to adopt flexible, well-rounded approaches to treatment.
Reference:
Thompson SP et al. Abstinence-based treatment of comorbid eating disorders and ultra-processed food addiction. Front Psychiatry. 2025:16:1586490.
