A new sports science review clarifies why engineered sports foods receive ultra-processed labels and how older endurance athletes can fuel strategically.
In September 2026, the journal Sports Medicine Open published a detailed narrative review examining how athletes use engineered sports nutrition. The comprehensive paper evaluates the growing tension between convenient performance fuels and their frequent classification as ultra-processed foods. The review, titled Ultra-processed Foods and Athletes, is officially identified by DOI 10.1186/s40798-026-01098-7. Authors Sara F. Forbes, Louise M. Burke, and their research team investigated multiple facets of this complex topic.
They analyzed athletes' awareness of food processing, potential human health effects, and the broader environmental implications of sports nutrition. Their work provides much needed clarity on the relationship between engineered products, endurance performance, and long term health. We now have a clear framework for understanding how concentrated fueling tools fit into a balanced athletic diet.
The primary conclusion of the study centers on the significant limitations of the NOVA classification system. Under this popular framework, many commercial sports foods are automatically categorized as ultra-processed. These specialized products often contain ingredients like protein isolates, maltodextrin, emulsifiers, and flavor enhancers. You will rarely find these specific substances sitting in a normal domestic kitchen.
However, the researchers argue that applying this rigid label to performance nutrition creates unnecessary confusion for dedicated athletes. The NOVA classification evaluates foods purely on the nature, extent, and purpose of their industrial processing. It completely ignores a product's performance utility during exercise. It also fails to account for nutritional purpose or the environmental footprint of the food item.
Furthermore, the review emphasizes that this classification system can be highly inconsistent in everyday practice. Plain yogurt might be considered minimally processed, some fruit yogurts are deemed processed, and flavored yogurts suddenly become ultra-processed. Different nutrition experts frequently disagree about how to accurately classify these borderline products.
The researchers state clearly that an ultra-processed label does not automatically mean a sports food is harmful. Evidence associating these engineered foods with adverse health outcomes largely comes from general population research. This broad data cannot be automatically applied to highly active athletes. Endurance athletes have vastly different energy expenditures, daily nutrient requirements, and metabolic eating patterns.
The review describes alternative classification approaches to address the glaring limitations found in NOVA. These include the Siga system and a newer formulation index developed by an international task force. These updated frameworks attempt to evaluate nutritional purpose alongside industrial production methods. This shift could eventually provide athletes with more useful dietary guidelines.
The authors conducted a narrative review of existing scientific literature to understand how athletes perceive these products. They quickly identified a major evidence gap in the current sports science landscape. No published studies had directly examined what athletes actually know or understand about ultra-processed foods. To provide some baseline context, they cited a UK general population study.
In that specific research, only 13 percent of participants correctly categorized all the ultra-processed foods shown to them. Confidence in identifying such foods heavily exceeded actual accuracy among the respondents. The review also detailed food consumption habits across different athletic populations and geographic regions. In a comprehensive survey of 1,145 athletes in Ireland, sensory appeal, health awareness, and performance were the leading food choice determinants.
Sustainability ranked squarely in the lowest quartile for this specific Irish group. Another survey from Australia reported that nearly all athletes and exercisers had consumed sports foods during the previous twelve months. Similarly, approximately 70 percent of German speaking triathletes, cyclists, and runners used a combination of commercial products and everyday foods for their training.
Finding concrete health data on athletes proved incredibly difficult for the researchers. The review found only one single study examining high ultra-processed food consumption alongside fitness measures in an athletic population. That specific study followed elite basketball players and found no differences in cardiovascular fitness or anthropometrics. It did report an altered gut microbiota among the players.
However, suboptimal carbohydrate intake and unusually high fat intake severely complicated the interpretation of those specific results. Researchers faced significant methodological hurdles when trying to compare dietary consumption patterns. The authors noted that available studies consistently use inconsistent classification methods, incredibly small sample sizes, and narrow food questionnaires. Most surprisingly, the review found zero studies linking sports food consumption directly with negative health outcomes in athletes.
Furthermore, no study had ever quantified an athlete's ultra-processed food intake as a percentage of their total daily energy intake. Without that foundational metric, evaluating the true health impact of isolated sports drinks or bars remains practically impossible. You cannot judge a training diet based on a single engineered product. The total nutritional context matters significantly more than the processing category of one isolated snack.
This scientific review clarifies a major fueling dilemma for endurance athletes over thirty five. Hitting my forties brought a harsh reality check to my training routine. The track workouts were not getting slower, but the days after them felt significantly heavier. Instead of forcing my old Tuesday and Thursday intensity schedule, I looked at the data on Masters athletes and muscle protein synthesis.
I pushed my second hard session to Friday, allowing an extra forty eight hours of low intensity recovery. My total weekly volume stayed the same, but the quality of my intervals skyrocketed. That schedule shift completely changed how I approach daily nutrition and specialized fueling. High intensity sessions demand precise carbohydrate availability.
The review notes that commercial items solve real problems for portability, rapid consumption, energy delivery, and gastrointestinal tolerance. You do not need to ban gels or carbohydrate drinks from your toughest speed workouts. They are highly specialized tools designed to deliver a predictable carbohydrate dose while you are moving at race pace. However, the study also validates using ordinary whole foods during steady endurance efforts.
The authors cited a systematic review showing little to no endurance performance difference between carbohydrate supplements and ordinary foods. Athletes can successfully use bananas, raisins, and potatoes to support their long training miles. These whole foods are highly effective, though they can differ from engineered products in fluid content, sodium replacement needs, and packaging. A separate Spanish case study even reported that a grueling ultra-endurance event could be fueled entirely with sustainable, minimally processed foods.
Ambitious athletes must remember that a food first approach does not automatically mean eating minimally processed items. The review assessed Australian Institute of Sport replacement foods and found surprising results. Suggested alternatives within sports food categories could span multiple NOVA processing categories. Replacing a specialized sports gel with honey or another packaged muesli bar may not substantially reduce your overall exposure to processed ingredients.
For added context, an Australian packaged food analysis found that 40 percent of core foods were already ultra-processed. Sustainability is also becoming a highly relevant topic in modern sports nutrition. The review notes that athletes often have larger food related environmental footprints than the general population. This disparity exists primarily because active individuals require significantly more total energy and dietary protein.
Data from Turkish elite athletes linked higher greenhouse gas emissions strongly to red meat and animal protein consumption. A sensible recovery plan after 35 must balance these high energy demands with responsible food choices. If you struggle to balance your demanding performance requirements, working with a qualified sports dietitian is highly recommended. The review explicitly supports their role in managing personal health goals alongside planetary health considerations.
We suggest reserving specialized electrolyte products and sports drinks for intense sessions, difficult carrying conditions, or long priority races. A separate 2026 position statement from the UCI Sports Nutrition Project echoes this measured approach, describing sports supplements as just one component of broader cycling nutrition guidance. Ultimately, your fueling decisions should prioritize functionality and digestive tolerance over rigid processing labels.
Ambitious veteran athletes should use engineered sports foods strategically to meet intense performance demands while anchoring their daily recovery diet in ordinary whole foods.
Follow ReEndure for practical insights on endurance training, recovery, nutrition and healthy aging. Stay connected for new articles, research led guidance and ideas to help you perform better for longer.
Read practical ideas on endurance training, recovery, nutrition and healthy aging to keep progressing for years to come.
Read the Blog