THE ULTRA-PROCESSED PARADOX

The gels and bars that fuel our long rides fall into the increasingly vilified 'ultra-processed' category. But are they really a risk to our health?

- Anita Bean

Ultra-processed foods (UPFs) have become the pantomime villain of modern nutrition. Headlines warn they're driving obesity, heart disease and even early death; social-media feeds buzz with lists of foods to avoid. The debate reignited in October with Joe Wicks's Channel 4 documentary, which saw him create the so-called Killer Protein Bar – a stunt designed to expose just how many dubious additives can be used in a product that is not only legal but marketed as “healthy”. Wicks's bar contained 96 approved ingredients, from sweeteners such as aspartame, to sugar alcohols like xylitol and maltitol, emulsifiers including carboxymethylcellulose, and even carmine, a red dye made from cochineal insects. Each was used within permitted limits, yet together illustrated how highly engineered modern foods can be. The programme's central message was that the UK now eats more UPFs than any nation except the US – many of them products craftily marketed as nutritious.

For cyclists, this debate hits close to home. Energy gels, carb drinks and recovery shakes – staples of endurance fuelling – fall under the UPF label. So, should we be cutting back, or is the current panic missing the point?

What counts as ultra-processed?