British Frozen Dinners Beat TV Chefs' Recipes for Nutrition

Recipes in cookbooks written by British television chefs had more calories and less fiber than frozen meals manufactured by British supermarket chains. Sophie Bushwick reports

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Home-cooked meals are healthier than frozen ones, right? Actually, it depends on the chef who wrote your cookbook. A new study found that British TV chefs' recipes have more calories and less fiber than frozen meals. The work is in the British Medical Journal. [Simon Howard, Jean Adams and Martin White, Nutritional content of supermarket ready meals and recipes by television chefs in the United Kingdom: cross sectional study]

Researchers compared the nutritional information of 200 meals, all hot entrees for everyday consumption. Half were based on recipes in cookbooks written by British television chefs, and half were frozen meals manufactured by British supermarket chains.

The World Health Organization has issued nutritional guidelines designed to help consumers avoid diet-related diseases. And not one of the meals in the study complied with these standards. Still, the ready-to-eat meals were healthier than the cookbook recipes. A single serving of a frozen meal had significantly fewer calories, as well as less fat, than a serving of a cookbook recipe. Plus, the ready-made meals had more fiber.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Although the scope of this study is limited, it certainly suggests that TV chefs—in England at least—need to, bam!, kick the nutrition up a notch.

—Sophie Bushwick

[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe