Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Sugar Addiction Myths
Options
Replies
-
NorthCascades wrote: »This is a terrible article. Somebody "debunked" the "myth" that sugar is empty calories by pointing out that it has calories. Stupidest thing I've read in a long time.
how so? If something provides energy, it can't be empty. If anything the empty calorie argument is the dump one.
I think some call sugar an empty calorie because it just has calories.
I guess we could call diet soda "empty flavor" because it just provides flavor... well, and water. And maybe on occasion some micronutrients.
If you can derive energy out of something it is not empty.
Possibly. You could just as easily say the calories in sugar are empty of anything else though. They are just calories.
and what do calories contain?
This is like arguing that a bucket with nothing in it is not empty because it is a bucket.
There are calories in sugar, which some (the majority) will use as a fuel source, but that is all it is - calories.
One could call it empty energy that can raise a gram of water by 1C.
All it has is energy (calories). Sugar calories have nothing else to them.
That's all calories are regardless of source. Energy.
But I get what you're saying, that there isn't anything to sugar other than calories. That isn't strictly true, though. Carbohydrates aren't just metabolized for energy, the molecules are also used in anabolic and other reactions. That's why the definition of 'empty calorie' has to specify devoid of vitamins, minerals, fiber, essential fats and proteins, I suppose. No macro is used solely to produce energy and for nothing else.
Carbs are not empty calories. Vegetables and fruit have a LOT of nutrition in them. Grains have some nutrition too although I think it is often harder for us to access. But I do think sugar is empty calories. Sucrose does not have anything beyond energy, I believe.
It's redeeming quality is that it tastes really good.
nutrition and calories are not one in the same, which seems to be where you are missing the point...
calories = calories
however, they are not all nutritionally the same.
so not really sure where people come up with this low nutrition calories somehow equals "empty calories" line of thinking...
The fact that nutrition and calories are not the same is my point. Something that just has calories is empty of nutrition or other healthful factors.2 -
I'm not defining this term in a new way or refining its definition. I'm pointing out the meaning it already has.
No, they're not empty in that sense. They're empty in the sense of pointless or unhelpful. They may have some food value, but not enough to give them a meaningful nutritional role in the context in which they're being discussed.That's why the definition of 'empty calorie' has to specify devoid of vitamins, minerals, fiber, essential fats and proteins, I suppose. No macro is used solely to produce energy and for nothing else.
Which is why he definition is the way it is - to define the context. That is because no macro is truly "pointless or unhelpful" beyond providing energy. If that were not the case, such a specific definition would be unnecessary.
It's not macros that are referred to as empty calories - it's foods. Typically foods like candy, sugary drinks and desserts, potato chips, and the like that contribute primarily unneeded extra calories and little else of importance. That's not to say they are devoid of nutrients, just that whatever they contribute could just as easily be obtained from much more nutritious or lower-calorie foods. And to reiterate, the term is only used where extra calories are not an asset, which is the case with most people in developed countries.
Why are you pointing out a definition I already referred to and did not contradict? The reason I refer to macros is because if there is no macro that contributes energy alone, then it should be self-evident that there can be no food that contributes energy alone.
As a side note, just for fun, I googled "endurance empty calories" and found this gem in a pubmed article https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3892627:
"it is possible that vitamin B-complex supplementation is useful in sports with a high energy expenditure, because of the unavoidable consumption of 'empty calories' i.e. food products with a low nutrient density." Is it even possible that an athlete MUST consume so many Gus, sports drinks, etc that they can't fit in enough vitamin B? Certainly sounds like BS to me.1 -
Let's all try to discuss this reasonably. You and I know I didn't say that you said this.i would also like to know where in this thread someone said consume sugar to the avoidance of all other nutrients...????????
When you and others say that foods like refined table sugar aren't empty calories you're putting yourself at odds with doctors and nutritionists who describe them that way. For example, these articles (of many) use the term "empty calories" in contrast to other healthier foods.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26190228
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27990339
You did say, several times that they are not empty calories:NorthCascades wrote: »This is a terrible article. Somebody "debunked" the "myth" that sugar is empty calories by pointing out that it has calories. Stupidest thing I've read in a long time.
how so? If something provides energy, it can't be empty. If anything the empty calorie argument is the dump one.if you want to argue that sugar should not crowd out other nutrients, then yes I agree; however, that does not make it empty, toxic, etc...
Those weren't the only posts, and you weren't the only one - just giving examples.not sure how it is a word game to say that sugar is not an empty calorie when one derives energy from it.
Don't get me wrong - you're free to disagree with how doctors and nutritionists characterize foods. But if you do, don't be too surprised if people interpret it as disagreeing with their recommendations.
(Edited to change the order of paragraphs.)
I clearly said where you quoted me that sugar should be reduced if it crowds out nutrients...and I never once said eat sugar to the exclusion of nutrients...
Saying sugar is not empty does not make one anti nutrition it makes one factually correct4 -
NorthCascades wrote: »This is a terrible article. Somebody "debunked" the "myth" that sugar is empty calories by pointing out that it has calories. Stupidest thing I've read in a long time.
how so? If something provides energy, it can't be empty. If anything the empty calorie argument is the dump one.
I think some call sugar an empty calorie because it just has calories.
I guess we could call diet soda "empty flavor" because it just provides flavor... well, and water. And maybe on occasion some micronutrients.
If you can derive energy out of something it is not empty.
Possibly. You could just as easily say the calories in sugar are empty of anything else though. They are just calories.
and what do calories contain?
This is like arguing that a bucket with nothing in it is not empty because it is a bucket.
There are calories in sugar, which some (the majority) will use as a fuel source, but that is all it is - calories.
One could call it empty energy that can raise a gram of water by 1C. All it has is energy (calories). Sugar calories have nothing else to them.
That's all calories are regardless of source. Energy.
But I get what you're saying, that there isn't anything to sugar other than calories. That isn't strictly true, though. Carbohydrates aren't just metabolized for energy, the molecules are also used in anabolic and other reactions. That's why the definition of 'empty calorie' has to specify devoid of vitamins, minerals, fiber, essential fats and proteins, I suppose. No macro is used solely to produce energy and for nothing else.
Carbs are not empty calories. Vegetables and fruit have a LOT of nutrition in them. Grains have some nutrition too although I think it is often harder for us to access. But I do think sugar is empty calories. Sucrose does not have anything beyond energy, I believe.
It's redeeming quality is that it tastes really good.
nutrition and calories are not one in the same, which seems to be where you are missing the point...
calories = calories
however, they are not all nutritionally the same.
so not really sure where people come up with this low nutrition calories somehow equals "empty calories" line of thinking...
The fact that nutrition and calories are not the same is my point. Something that just has calories is empty of nutrition or other healthful factors.
Nope, not when they all have the same unit of energy...
By your definition some fats would also be empty..0 -
stevencloser wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »
No, they're not empty in that sense. They're empty in the sense of pointless or unhelpful. They may have some food value, but not enough to give them a meaningful nutritional role in the context in which they're being discussed.That's why the definition of 'empty calorie' has to specify devoid of vitamins, minerals, fiber, essential fats and proteins, I suppose. No macro is used solely to produce energy and for nothing else.
Again, cardio.
For the maybe 2-3% of the population that runs 30+ or so miles a week (or bike, swim an equivalent amount) you have a point. For the rest it's low nutrient/high calorie (i.e., empty calorie) food.
Now nothing wrong with some level of low nutrient/high calorie food in the diet. I believe the WHO recommends no more than 10% of total calories come from added sugars.
http://sugarscience.ucsf.edu/the-growing-concern-of-overconsumption/#.WQiBr9ryuUk
This would be the case for a typical individual. Someone on a low calorie diet would most likely need to eat a smaller % to ensure proper nutrition. An endurance athlete could eat a higher %.
A good and long workout will burn as much if not more calories than those 10%. That's just 200 calories for the 2000 kcal standard human used in most places. It doesn't take too much to get that much.
I agree a long workout will burn more than the 10% mentioned. That is why I said it would be reasonable for people exercising for a long time to consume more than 10% of their calories in less nutrient dense foods. An I believe most dietitians would agree.
Fact of the matter is the number of people participating in those type of workouts you describe is pretty minimal as a % of the total population.
I'd disagree with the assumption that so little of the population is doing workouts that exceed 10% of their sedentary TDEE.
Your original post was discussing people that do long hard workouts. Someone doing a workout that uses calories around 10% of their sedentary TDEE is not doing a long hard workout.
Just me, but to use running as an example I'd think you'd need to be talking 5 miles + before even thinking about calling something a long workout. I.maintain there is a very small percentage of the population doing that. Short cardio bouts do not require any special emphasis on carbs in the diet.1 -
Curious then how you meant for your statement that it's no wonder that people get the idea that there is an anti-nutrition contingent on this site, to be interpreted?
8 -
NorthCascades wrote: »This is a terrible article. Somebody "debunked" the "myth" that sugar is empty calories by pointing out that it has calories. Stupidest thing I've read in a long time.
how so? If something provides energy, it can't be empty. If anything the empty calorie argument is the dump one.
I think some call sugar an empty calorie because it just has calories.
I guess we could call diet soda "empty flavor" because it just provides flavor... well, and water. And maybe on occasion some micronutrients.
If you can derive energy out of something it is not empty.
Possibly. You could just as easily say the calories in sugar are empty of anything else though. They are just calories.
and what do calories contain?
This is like arguing that a bucket with nothing in it is not empty because it is a bucket.
There are calories in sugar, which some (the majority) will use as a fuel source, but that is all it is - calories.
One could call it empty energy that can raise a gram of water by 1C. All it has is energy (calories). Sugar calories have nothing else to them.
That's all calories are regardless of source. Energy.
But I get what you're saying, that there isn't anything to sugar other than calories. That isn't strictly true, though. Carbohydrates aren't just metabolized for energy, the molecules are also used in anabolic and other reactions. That's why the definition of 'empty calorie' has to specify devoid of vitamins, minerals, fiber, essential fats and proteins, I suppose. No macro is used solely to produce energy and for nothing else.
Carbs are not empty calories. Vegetables and fruit have a LOT of nutrition in them. Grains have some nutrition too although I think it is often harder for us to access. But I do think sugar is empty calories. Sucrose does not have anything beyond energy, I believe.
It's redeeming quality is that it tastes really good.
nutrition and calories are not one in the same, which seems to be where you are missing the point...
calories = calories
however, they are not all nutritionally the same.
so not really sure where people come up with this low nutrition calories somehow equals "empty calories" line of thinking...
The fact that nutrition and calories are not the same is my point. Something that just has calories is empty of nutrition or other healthful factors.
Nope, not when they all have the same unit of energy...
By your definition some fats would also be empty..
Yeah. I said that too.2 -
LOL ....read my mind...
Of course what you both corrected are accurate sentences. I wouldn't disagree with them at all. I mean how could you. Any calorific surplus will make you fat over time.
However, I bet you a pound to a pinch of *kitten* most obese people have an excessive amount of sugar in their diets.
2 -
Packerjohn wrote: »
according to this article, it's down and has been going down...
https://www.statnews.com/2016/09/20/sugar-consumption-americans/
quote from the article:
'On average, Americans’ total consumption of caloric sweeteners like refined cane sugar and high-fructose corn syrup is down 15 percent from its peak in 1999, according to government data. That’s when we consumed an average of 111 grams of sugar a day (423 calories).'
Sugar consumption in the US is down from it's peak but it is still several times what organizations like the WHO, CDC, Harvard Med, etc recommend.
My figures were global. I'm not an American and it not an America only problem.
http://www.sucden.com/statistics/4_world-sugar-consumption
1 -
Let's all try to discuss this reasonably. You and I know I didn't say that you said this.i would also like to know where in this thread someone said consume sugar to the avoidance of all other nutrients...????????
When you and others say that foods like refined table sugar aren't empty calories you're putting yourself at odds with doctors and nutritionists who describe them that way. For example, these articles (of many) use the term "empty calories" in contrast to other healthier foods.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26190228
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27990339
You did say, several times that they are not empty calories:NorthCascades wrote: »This is a terrible article. Somebody "debunked" the "myth" that sugar is empty calories by pointing out that it has calories. Stupidest thing I've read in a long time.
how so? If something provides energy, it can't be empty. If anything the empty calorie argument is the dump one.if you want to argue that sugar should not crowd out other nutrients, then yes I agree; however, that does not make it empty, toxic, etc...
Those weren't the only posts, and you weren't the only one - just giving examples.not sure how it is a word game to say that sugar is not an empty calorie when one derives energy from it.
Don't get me wrong - you're free to disagree with how doctors and nutritionists characterize foods. But if you do, don't be too surprised if people interpret it as disagreeing with their recommendations.
(Edited to change the order of paragraphs.)
Well, yeah, PubMed lists 80 studies that use the expression "empty calories" or "empty calorie" in their abstract.
Google Scholar (where you can perform a full text search) lists 8920 results.
So, yes, I think we can conclude that it is an expression commonly used in the nutrition field.3 -
Packerjohn wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »
No, they're not empty in that sense. They're empty in the sense of pointless or unhelpful. They may have some food value, but not enough to give them a meaningful nutritional role in the context in which they're being discussed.That's why the definition of 'empty calorie' has to specify devoid of vitamins, minerals, fiber, essential fats and proteins, I suppose. No macro is used solely to produce energy and for nothing else.
Again, cardio.
For the maybe 2-3% of the population that runs 30+ or so miles a week (or bike, swim an equivalent amount) you have a point. For the rest it's low nutrient/high calorie (i.e., empty calorie) food.
Now nothing wrong with some level of low nutrient/high calorie food in the diet. I believe the WHO recommends no more than 10% of total calories come from added sugars.
http://sugarscience.ucsf.edu/the-growing-concern-of-overconsumption/#.WQiBr9ryuUk
This would be the case for a typical individual. Someone on a low calorie diet would most likely need to eat a smaller % to ensure proper nutrition. An endurance athlete could eat a higher %.
A good and long workout will burn as much if not more calories than those 10%. That's just 200 calories for the 2000 kcal standard human used in most places. It doesn't take too much to get that much.
I agree a long workout will burn more than the 10% mentioned. That is why I said it would be reasonable for people exercising for a long time to consume more than 10% of their calories in less nutrient dense foods. An I believe most dietitians would agree.
Fact of the matter is the number of people participating in those type of workouts you describe is pretty minimal as a % of the total population.
I'd disagree with the assumption that so little of the population is doing workouts that exceed 10% of their sedentary TDEE.
Your original post was discussing people that do long hard workouts. Someone doing a workout that uses calories around 10% of their sedentary TDEE is not doing a long hard workout.
Just me, but to use running as an example I'd think you'd need to be talking 5 miles + before even thinking about calling something a long workout. I.maintain there is a very small percentage of the population doing that. Short cardio bouts do not require any special emphasis on carbs in the diet.
That just makes it even sillier to talk about empty calories. On hard workouts you need it, on light workouts you can still take them. 200 calories burned is 200 calories burned is 200 calories of whatever you feel like eating where it doesn't matter if it's nutritious or not because you needed the nutrition in the 200 calories less you would've had without the exercise already. Again, I'm not gonna take a plate of broccoli into the gym or out on a run. Not when I'm going for a long one and not when I don't have much time and only do a short and easy one.2 -
Hawaiian_Iceberg wrote: »LOL ....read my mind...
Of course what you both corrected are accurate sentences. I wouldn't disagree with them at all. I mean how could you. Any calorific surplus will make you fat over time.
However, I bet you a pound to a pinch of *kitten* most obese people have an excessive amount of sugar in their diets.
I bet you ten pounds to a pinch of kittens that most obese people have an excessive amount of everything in their diets and sugar is seldom even the main source.9 -
I would not consider plant-based sugars, plant-based fat, or animal-based fat empty calories. All contain trace amounts of minerals and vitamins.
For example, both olive oil and granulated sugars are processed from plants. Neither one has been synthesized by humans in a chemical laboratory. Both have trace amounts of minerals and vitamins as tested in the USDA laboratories.
In comparing 100 Calories of each item,
11.31g Oil, olive,
100 Cals, 1.13mg Ca, 0.63mg Fe, 1.13mg K, 2.26mg Na, 16.23mg Vit E, 0.068mg Vit K
Source: https://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/foods/show/660
25.84g Sugars, granulated
100 Cals, 0.29mg Ca, 0.013mg Fe, 0.52mg K, 0.26mg Na, 0.003mg Zn, 0.005 mg Vit B2
Source: https://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/foods/show/6319
Wow, sugar is higher in K than olive oil!
0 -
I would not consider plant-based sugars, plant-based fat, or animal-based fat empty calories. All contain trace amounts of minerals and vitamins.
For example, both olive oil and granulated sugars are processed from plants. Neither one has been synthesized by humans in a chemical laboratory. Both have trace amounts of minerals and vitamins as tested in the USDA laboratories.
In comparing 100 Calories of each item,
11.31g Oil, olive,
100 Cals, 1.13mg Ca, 0.63mg Fe, 1.13mg K, 2.26mg Na, 16.23mg Vit E, 0.068mg Vit K
Source: https://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/foods/show/660
25.84g Sugars, granulated
100 Cals, 0.29mg Ca, 0.013mg Fe, 0.52mg K, 0.26mg Na, 0.003mg Zn, 0.005 mg Vit B2
Source: https://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/foods/show/6319
Wow, sugar is higher in K than olive oil!
Per 100 Calories olive oil is higher in Potassium (K) than granulated sugars. Vitamin K is different than Potassium (K), and as tested, there is no trace Vitamin K in granulated sugars.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »I bet you ten pounds to a pinch of kittens that most obese people have an excessive amount of everything in their diets and sugar is seldom even the main source.
Really? What would you think is the main source? (Genuine question)
0 -
Hawaiian_Iceberg wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »
according to this article, it's down and has been going down...
https://www.statnews.com/2016/09/20/sugar-consumption-americans/
quote from the article:
'On average, Americans’ total consumption of caloric sweeteners like refined cane sugar and high-fructose corn syrup is down 15 percent from its peak in 1999, according to government data. That’s when we consumed an average of 111 grams of sugar a day (423 calories).'
Sugar consumption in the US is down from it's peak but it is still several times what organizations like the WHO, CDC, Harvard Med, etc recommend.
My figures were global. I'm not an American and it not an America only problem.
http://www.sucden.com/statistics/4_world-sugar-consumption
You are correct, it sure is a developed world problem. Thanks for the clarification.1 -
stevencloser wrote: »Hawaiian_Iceberg wrote: »LOL ....read my mind...
Of course what you both corrected are accurate sentences. I wouldn't disagree with them at all. I mean how could you. Any calorific surplus will make you fat over time.
However, I bet you a pound to a pinch of *kitten* most obese people have an excessive amount of sugar in their diets.
I bet you ten pounds to a pinch of kittens that most obese people have an excessive amount of everything in their diets and sugar is seldom even the main source.
I'm sure you're correct that obese people have too much of everything in their diet. Following is a list of top 10 sources of calories in the US diet. You could get nit picky whether added sugar is the main source of calories (as it would depend in some cases on the specific recipes), but added sugars (along with unhealthy fats) are a significant component of several of them.
What Americans Eat: Top 10 sources of calories in the U.S. diet
Grain-based desserts (cakes, cookies, donuts, pies, crisps, cobblers, and granola bars)
Yeast breads
Chicken and chicken-mixed dishes
Soda, energy drinks, and sports drinks
Pizza
Alcoholic beverages
Pasta and pasta dishes
Mexican mixed dishes
Beef and beef-mixed dishes
Dairy desserts
http://www.health.harvard.edu/healthy-eating/top-10-sources-of-calories-in-the-us-diet
Pretty pathetic list IMO.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »
No, they're not empty in that sense. They're empty in the sense of pointless or unhelpful. They may have some food value, but not enough to give them a meaningful nutritional role in the context in which they're being discussed.That's why the definition of 'empty calorie' has to specify devoid of vitamins, minerals, fiber, essential fats and proteins, I suppose. No macro is used solely to produce energy and for nothing else.
Again, cardio.
For the maybe 2-3% of the population that runs 30+ or so miles a week (or bike, swim an equivalent amount) you have a point. For the rest it's low nutrient/high calorie (i.e., empty calorie) food.
Now nothing wrong with some level of low nutrient/high calorie food in the diet. I believe the WHO recommends no more than 10% of total calories come from added sugars.
http://sugarscience.ucsf.edu/the-growing-concern-of-overconsumption/#.WQiBr9ryuUk
This would be the case for a typical individual. Someone on a low calorie diet would most likely need to eat a smaller % to ensure proper nutrition. An endurance athlete could eat a higher %.
A good and long workout will burn as much if not more calories than those 10%. That's just 200 calories for the 2000 kcal standard human used in most places. It doesn't take too much to get that much.
I agree a long workout will burn more than the 10% mentioned. That is why I said it would be reasonable for people exercising for a long time to consume more than 10% of their calories in less nutrient dense foods. An I believe most dietitians would agree.
Fact of the matter is the number of people participating in those type of workouts you describe is pretty minimal as a % of the total population.
I'd disagree with the assumption that so little of the population is doing workouts that exceed 10% of their sedentary TDEE.
Your original post was discussing people that do long hard workouts. Someone doing a workout that uses calories around 10% of their sedentary TDEE is not doing a long hard workout.
Just me, but to use running as an example I'd think you'd need to be talking 5 miles + before even thinking about calling something a long workout. I.maintain there is a very small percentage of the population doing that. Short cardio bouts do not require any special emphasis on carbs in the diet.
That just makes it even sillier to talk about empty calories. On hard workouts you need it, on light workouts you can still take them. 200 calories burned is 200 calories burned is 200 calories of whatever you feel like eating where it doesn't matter if it's nutritious or not because you needed the nutrition in the 200 calories less you would've had without the exercise already. Again, I'm not gonna take a plate of broccoli into the gym or out on a run. Not when I'm going for a long one and not when I don't have much time and only do a short and easy one.
The nutritional guidelines of the WHO and others suggest no more than 10% of total calories from added sugars. If you burn 200 extra calories in exercise, you would "earn" and additional 20 calories of added sugar.2 -
Packerjohn wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »
No, they're not empty in that sense. They're empty in the sense of pointless or unhelpful. They may have some food value, but not enough to give them a meaningful nutritional role in the context in which they're being discussed.That's why the definition of 'empty calorie' has to specify devoid of vitamins, minerals, fiber, essential fats and proteins, I suppose. No macro is used solely to produce energy and for nothing else.
Again, cardio.
For the maybe 2-3% of the population that runs 30+ or so miles a week (or bike, swim an equivalent amount) you have a point. For the rest it's low nutrient/high calorie (i.e., empty calorie) food.
Now nothing wrong with some level of low nutrient/high calorie food in the diet. I believe the WHO recommends no more than 10% of total calories come from added sugars.
http://sugarscience.ucsf.edu/the-growing-concern-of-overconsumption/#.WQiBr9ryuUk
This would be the case for a typical individual. Someone on a low calorie diet would most likely need to eat a smaller % to ensure proper nutrition. An endurance athlete could eat a higher %.
A good and long workout will burn as much if not more calories than those 10%. That's just 200 calories for the 2000 kcal standard human used in most places. It doesn't take too much to get that much.
I agree a long workout will burn more than the 10% mentioned. That is why I said it would be reasonable for people exercising for a long time to consume more than 10% of their calories in less nutrient dense foods. An I believe most dietitians would agree.
Fact of the matter is the number of people participating in those type of workouts you describe is pretty minimal as a % of the total population.
I'd disagree with the assumption that so little of the population is doing workouts that exceed 10% of their sedentary TDEE.
Your original post was discussing people that do long hard workouts. Someone doing a workout that uses calories around 10% of their sedentary TDEE is not doing a long hard workout.
Just me, but to use running as an example I'd think you'd need to be talking 5 miles + before even thinking about calling something a long workout. I.maintain there is a very small percentage of the population doing that. Short cardio bouts do not require any special emphasis on carbs in the diet.
That just makes it even sillier to talk about empty calories. On hard workouts you need it, on light workouts you can still take them. 200 calories burned is 200 calories burned is 200 calories of whatever you feel like eating where it doesn't matter if it's nutritious or not because you needed the nutrition in the 200 calories less you would've had without the exercise already. Again, I'm not gonna take a plate of broccoli into the gym or out on a run. Not when I'm going for a long one and not when I don't have much time and only do a short and easy one.
The nutritional guidelines of the WHO and others suggest no more than 10% of total calories from added sugars. If you burn 200 extra calories in exercise, you would "earn" and additional 20 calories of added sugar.
If you check around you will find most sports nutrition authorities will suggest complex carbs as opposed to simple sugars as the main source of workout fuel.
Interesting article:
https://www.afpafitness.com/research-articles/endurance-nutrition-guide
(sorry meant to include with the above post)0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 390 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 921 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions