![\"lightweight](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/First-aid-kit-8.jpg\")
<\/a>Does not contain \u201cMalk,\u201d but the actual contents might not be much better.\nSpeaking from a saddle, but this is no high horse<\/p>\n
I will get out in front of this and say I am by all accounts guilty of this. While I\u2019ve shifted away from energy drinks and powders on all but longer rides or the hottest days (+1 point for me!), a have a critical weakness for any 5c candy, especially if its the sour kind (-15-20 points, depending on the day). All cheap candy, Haribo if I\u2019m feeling fancy but anything will do, really, starts as ride food. But just as much of it, if not more, ends up being consumed before or after the ride when it has absolutely zero physiological benefit. It just tastes good.<\/p>\n
So when I say \u201cwe\u201d need to consider our fuelling \/ eating habits, I very much mean \u201cI need to consider my eating habits.\u201d But I very much doubt that I am alone.<\/p>\n
While not many of us ever thought a hot dog was healthy, there\u2019s a growing body of evidence that this sort of ultra-processed Food is far worse for our health than was previously understood. How bad? Well,\u00a0The Guardian<\/a>\u00a0described the latest series of studies, just published in\u00a0<\/a>The Lancet,\u00a0as showing ultra-processed Foods are \u201clinked to harm in every major organ system of the human body and poses a seismic threat to global health.\u201d<\/p>\n That is\u2026 not great.<\/p>\n UPF\u2019s, the largest-study yet shows, are linked to obesity, type 2 diabetes, heart disease and depression, overeating, greater risk of chronic disease, colon cancer.<\/p>\n UPFs are also, the study shows, pervasive in the modern diet. The Guardian points out that UPF are now making up 50 per cent of the western diet (U.S., U.K., Canada, etc.). That is stratified across wealth and age, too. Younger, more disadvantaged and poorer populations can see up to 80 per cent of their diet made up of UPF.<\/p>\n While recreational cyclists and our $5,000-$15,000 bikes are rarely classified as economically disadvantaged, we do cover all age groups. And we do eat a lot of questionable foods in the name of \u201cfuelling\u201d our hobby. What percentage of our diet ends up being UPF-based, if you start factoring in all the ride food we write off as necessary for performance?<\/p>\n What\u2019s ultra-processed and what\u2019s just, er, normally processed?<\/p>\n So, how can you tell if your sports snack is ultra-processed or just, you know, a normal amount of processed? It can be tricky to tell sometimes. Brands are very good at marketing their products to look healthy and, these days, one aspect of that is making it sound \u201cnatural.\u201d<\/p>\n First, processed foods aren\u2019t necessarily bad. Processing can involve any altering of food (like cutting up veggies to freeze them in piles of tasty, little squares. Frozen veggies are still good.). So where\u2019s the line between processed and ultra-processed?<\/p>\n How to identify the good processed foods<\/a><\/p>\n<\/p>\n The Nova scale seems to be the emerging standard for classifying foods as processed or ultra-processed. The presence of certain ingredients, or groups of ingredients, helps classify food<\/p>\n Since its not a single ingredient (but some ingredients are a pretty good canary in the grocery store coal mine) it\u2019s not as simple as saying all packaged sport foods are bad. It is possible to make gels that aren\u2019t ultra-processed, even to make your own. But the vast majority of gels on a shelf will be ultra-processed. It\u2019s also possible to make gummy bears<\/a> that aren\u2019t ultra-processed (depending what you add to them). But, again, most things on a shelf will be.<\/p>\n This is confusing. I want help<\/p>\n Heading to my own drawer of snacks in a panic after seeing a flood of stories about the recent studies (colon cancer!) I wanted to see what I was eating. Obviously I knew some of it was bad. But some bars say they\u2019re organic, others say all natural. Another says \u201c85 per cent organic ingredients.\u201d Does that mean they\u2019re OK?<\/p>\n A few, like Vancouver Island(-ish) staple, Hornby Organic, are actually fine. Others, like my recent CostCo favourite, BoBo\u2019s Oat Bites, were less encouraging despite being certified Organic. Others that I looked up, even some very expensive ones in slick packaging, weren\u2019t so great. Good for getting up the next climb slightly faster, sure, but not great ingredients.<\/p>\n The problem is that marketing meets with a somewhat vague line between normal foods and ultra-processed Foods (grey at the margins. Hot dogs are obviously ultra ultra-processed). If you, like me, find this a bit confusing, or overwhelming, or just want a second opinion, there are a raft of resources to help.<\/p>\n On the go, the Yuka app<\/a> will scan a barcode and tell you the nutrition score (on their own scale) and ingredients. At home, OpenFoodFacts<\/a> breaks down what category on the Nova scale a food falls into, as well as a nutrition score and a \u201cgreen score\u201d related to its manufacturing. It seems to have good coverage of a wide range of foods. EWG<\/a> has its own food score page that breaks down a bunch of different elements of your food, not just processing level. \u00a0(Full disclosure: I don\u2019t know much about these organizations beyond the food score parts of their organisation). These sites aren\u2019t perfect. They gave somewhat inconsistent reviews of the BoBo\u2019s Bites, for instance. But I know a lot more about what I\u2019m eating after looking up a few items.<\/p>\n<\/a>Food and drink. Top view.
\nWhat\u2019s the problem with ultra-processed Foods?<\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n