Epidemiological evidence supports a positive association between ultra-processed food (UPF) consumption and BMI. This has led to recommendations to avoid UPF despite very limited evidence establishing causality. Many mechanisms have been proposed and this review critically evaluates selected possibilities for specificity, clarity, and consistency related to food choice (i.e., low cost, shelf-life, food packaging, hyper-palatability, and stimulation hunger/suppression of fullness); food composition (i.e., macronutrients, food texture, added sugar, fat salt, energy density, low calorie sweeteners, and additives); and digestive processes (i.e., oral processing/eating rate, gastric emptying time, gastrointestinal transit time, and microbiome). For some purported mechanisms (e.g., fiber content, texture, gastric emptying, intestinal transit time), data directly contrasting effects of UPF and non-UPF food intake on indices of appetite, food intake and adiposity are available and do not support a unique contribution of UPF. In other instances, data are not available (e.g., microbiome, food additives) or are insufficient (e.g., packaging, food cost, shelf life, macronutrient intake, appetite stimulation) to judge the benefits versus risks of UPF avoidance. There are yet other evoked mechanisms where the preponderance of evidence indicates ingredients in UPF actually moderate body weight (e.g., LCS use for weight management; beverage consumption as it dilutes energy density; higher fat content because it reduces glycemic responses). Because avoidance of UPF holds potential adverse effects (e.g., reduced diet quality, increased risk of food poisoning, food wastage), it is imprudent to make recommendations about their role in diets before causality and plausible mechanisms have been verified.