By Kevin Kolodziejski
A cycling rival said it to me about 30 years ago. Remembering it still makes me smile.
After thoroughly thumping him in our area’s traditional spring time trial, he asked if he could accompany me on the base-miles ride he knew I did afterwards. Sometime during the ride, he told me that when I passed him in the race on the climb before the turnaround, he checked his heart rate monitor. He saw a number two beats higher than what he knew to be his max and knew his race was over.
He asked what my heart rate had been. I told him that I hadn’t worn a heart rate monitor during the race, that, in fact, I had never worn one, not even while training. You would’ve thought I told him I practice bike handling skills by adding 50 pounds of air pressure to 18-millimeter tires, dropping gravel in the turns of a series of switchbacks, and then descending. And then he said those words I so fondly remember.
“You should be a member of the freaking Mensa Society.”
Me, a Mensa Member?
For my pacing acumen? What a laugh. For there had been more than a few TTs where I started too hard or pushed too big a gear and screwed the pooch because of it. But hey, I wasn’t about to share that with a rival, friendly one or not. Though I’m more than willing to share whatever cycling-related knowledge I possess with you — as well as this bit of tangentially related trivia.
One of Mensa International’s purposes is “to identify and foster human intelligence for the benefit of humanity,” according to their website. And to join, all you need to do is “take an approved intelligence test — one which has been properly administered and supervised; and in that test, you need to attain a score within the upper two percent of the general population.” Good luck with that.
But no luck is needed for you to foster one specific type of human intelligence that benefits your health, your weight, and consequently your cycling. Not according to new findings published last week in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (AJCN). In this case, all you need is to let your innate nutritional intelligence shine through.
Unfortunately, there’s something that can cloud or even eclipse this inbred acuity: ultraprocessed food (UPF).
The Ultraprocessed Food Eclipse
And UPFs are ubiquitous.
Data derived from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) conducted between August 2021 and August 2023 found that those 19 years of age and older received 53 percent of their calories from UPFs. Those younger consumed even more, 61.9 percent. According to Carlos Monteiro, the Brazilian epidemiologist who coined the term in 2009, UPFs are “industrial formulations made entirely or mostly from substances extracted from foods (oils, fats, sugar, starch, and proteins), derived from food constituents (hydrogenated fats and modified starch), or synthesized in laboratories from food substrates or other organic sources (flavor enhancers, colors, and several food additives used to make the product hyperpalatable).” The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention also calls them “hyperpalatable,” as well as “energy-dense, low in dietary fiber, contain[ing] little or no whole foods, while having high amounts of salt, sweeteners, and unhealthy fats.”
Whatever you choose to call them, Americans are evidently eating lots of them.
What Else Is Evident
But what’s just as evident to Jeff Brunstrom is “when people are offered unprocessed options, they intuitively select foods that balance enjoyment, nutrition, and a sense of fullness, while still reducing overall energy intake. [That] our dietary choices aren’t random –- in fact, we seem to make much smarter decisions than previously assumed, when foods are presented in their natural state.” Brunstrom, a Professor of Experimental Psychology at the University of Bristol expresses this view in a University of Bristol press release after he, colleagues, and a few top U.S. nutritional experts, reanalyzed data from a May 2019 Cell Metabolism study to create the aforementioned one published in AJCN.
The 2019 study concluded by suggesting eating less ultraprocessed foods may be an “effective strategy” to prevent obesity as well as treat it. It began when 20 “weight-stable adults” about 30 years of age spent four weeks at the National Institutes of Health Clinical Center and had all their meals prepared for them during that time. Each received an ultraprocessed diet for two weeks and an unprocessed diet for 2 weeks. All meals served contained the same number of calories, macronutrients, sugar, sodium, and fiber.
Most importantly, participants were instructed to consume as much or as little food as they desired during each meal.
While on the ultraprocessed diet, participants ate, on average, 508 more calories per day and gained, on average, 2 pounds in the two weeks. While on the unprocessed diet they lost, on average, 2 pounds. In all likelihood, this “seminal” study will remain best known for this 4-pound weight swing and exposing how eating UPFs can lead to unnecessary calorie consumption and weight gain. But when Brunstrom’s crew reanalyzed the data, they detected something else that may very well prove to be just as valuable in the battle versus obesity.
The New Finding
When participants followed the unprocessed food diet, they ate more fruits and veggies instead of “more calorific” unprocessed foods, “like steak, pasta, and cream.” In fact, they ate so many fruits and veggies that when compared to their two weeks on the ultraprocessed diet, participants ate 57 percent more food by weight — yet they lost two pounds. But that’s not the real reason why the presser calls this new discovery “further weight” to the theory of “inbuilt nutritional intelligence.” It’s because, as study co-author Mark Schatzker and author of The Dorrito Effect and The End of Craving explains, by loading up on fruits and veggies the participants received ample amounts of essential vitamins and minerals.
But if the participants would’ve loaded up on higher-calorie unprocessed food, they would’ve eventually developed micronutrient insufficiencies. Insufficiencies that didn’t occur on the ultraprocessed diet, understandably, because ultraprocessed foods are fortified with synthetic vitamins and minerals (since they’re nutritional wastelands without them). All of which is why you should now take a moment, do a quick review of your current eating habits, and ask yourself what’s essentially today’s title.
The Question You Need to Ask Yourself
“Has eating UPFs altered my food IQ?”
If you think the answer’s yes, there’s only one thing to do. Replace many, if not most, of the ultraprocessed foods you eat with unprocessed ones for two or three weeks — and give the matter no more thought.
For if Brunstrom and his colleagues are correct, this will allow your innate nutritional intelligence to shine through.
Kevin Kolodziejski began his writing career in earnest in 1989. Since then he’s written a weekly health and fitness column and his articles have appeared in magazines such as “MuscleMag,” “Ironman,” “Vegetarian Times,” and “Bicycle Guide.” He has Bachelor and Masters degrees in English from DeSales and Kutztown Universities.
A competitive cyclist for more than 30 years, Kevin won two Pennsylvania State Time Trial championships in his 30’s, the aptly named Pain Mountain Time Trial 4 out of 5 times in his 40s, two more state TT’s in his 50’s, and the season-long Pennsylvania 40+ BAR championship at 43.