Calorie Counter

Message Boards Debate: Health and Fitness
You are currently viewing the message boards in:

Why do people keep defending sugar?

11011131516

Replies

  • psychod787psychod787 Member, Premium Posts: 3,625 Member Member, Premium Posts: 3,625 Member
    My trigger food is... (sorry)... raw carrots. Can take or leave every other food including chocolate (which I love), cakes, biscuits, ice cream, crisps etc. But put a bowl of raw carrots in front of me and I cannot stop 🤷‍♂️

    well, compared to say, ice cream, you are far less likely to overeat on the carrots. I just feel bad for your belly!
  • lemurcat2lemurcat2 Member Posts: 5,662 Member Member Posts: 5,662 Member
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    sijomial wrote: »
    sijomial wrote: »
    Sugar (& other highly processed carbs) has no nutritional benefits, so why are so many people defending it?

    Fruit & veg are good for you because they have high levels of nutrition, and the fibre content helps to mitigate the bad effects of the sugar content.

    So although a lot of people lose weight while keeping their sugar levels high, is this something to be applauded or a reason to defend sugar?


    I have my sugar high because of the 3 servings of fruit I have daily. If I was eating other types of sugar, 6 teaspoons is more than enough.
    I agree with you though: Sugar is not good if you're trying to get tight and tone especially. Once I'm at a good body fat % I plan to drop my sugar to almost nothing.
    High sodium is a huge no for me too; I'll save that for another time

    I've just finished prepping my drinks ahead of a long cycle ride - spooned in 100g of glucose/fructose mix.

    In context that on my ride I will burn in the order of 2000+ calories burning roughly half fat and half glycogen (a form of glucose) please expand on why 400cals of sugar is "not good" for me?

    Bearing in mind "tight & toned" athletes have high energy needs what exactly is the problem with sugar in particular?

    I am really into those articles where athletes share what they eat in an "average" day and I've noticed that a big chunk of them include added sugar, of some kind, in their daily intake. Whether it's coffee with sugar or a post workout baked good or some chocolate after dinner or some Skittles, it's almost always there. And these are people who are carefully monitoring their performance, physical condition, and diet.

    I think there is this perception (not with you, but with many others) that professional/elite athletes are very sparse or punitive with their diets and that just doesn't seem to be the case with most of them. Yes, they're eating lots of nutrient-rich food, but they're also including some foods with lowest nutrient density because it's 1) fueling their training and/or 2) they just enjoy them.

    Agree.
    With a high calorie allowance it actualy becomes extremely easy to hit/exceed all your nutritional needs with calories left over for treats or just simply for fuel in a convenient and/or tasty way.
    I wish some of the "sugar is the devil" crowd could join me on some of my organised and catered long distance rides to open their eyes a bit. All those slim, fit, healthy people (some even in their 80's and in remarkable shape) eating so many carbs including sugar based or sugar containing products......

    Side note - my rough estimate was surprisingly close for today's calorie burn. 2030 net calories and the sugars in my drinks kept my energy levels up and made just a small dent in today's TDEE of about 4,500 cals.
    If I had to subsist on a paltry calorie allowance then clearly I would make different choices.

    To the person disagreeing with a string of posts (including simple questions!) - context matters which is why universal and abitrary limits really don't make sense.

    Realistically, what is someone supposed to do, in circumstances like yours, according to those who feel added sugar should always be avoided?

    Activity needs to be fueled, or weight loss will occur, and not everyone is overweight. (Even overweight people aren't best served by always *maximimizng* deficit.) The fueling point is acute, for long-endurance exercise, since fuel will be needed en route, given limitations on muscle glycogen, and such.

    Most people find protein rather filling. Eating a couple of thousand calories of extra protein . . . well, it could be done, but I don't think it would be comfortable in an exercise context. Wouldn't that be like 5 pounds of cooked chicken breast? Whole fruit or vegetables, ditto, except more volume to get that number of calories, since the fiber doesn't contribute to fueling. Fats are calorie dense, but the combination of high fat intake with hearty exercise is a really bad one for many people (most would need a lot of porta-potties on the route). A couple thousand calories of fat would be nearly *half a pound* of fat (coconut oil, or whatever), if I did the math right. I grant that one could go with partly fat, partly whole-food carbs, partly protein . . . but it's still a lot of food volume, potentially with bad consequences for digestive ease.

    Non-filling, non-digestion-challenging carbs seem like an obvious solution for long-endurance activities. And sugar is kind of the ultimate non-filling, non-digestion-challenging carb.

    So, to the folks who argue we should avoid added sugar religiously: What should an endurance athlete eat, during an endurance activity, to get a couple of thousand extra calories, in a practical way? Do you (sugar avoider) do long endurance activity (multi-hour, fairly intense)? What do you do en route for calorie intake?

    These are 100% sincere questions.

    Unless you are keto adapted I would think you would bonk hard eventually, since digestion of fat and protein isn’t fast enough to fuel a run. Keto endurance athletes don’t need to consume fats during a run, their bodies break down their existing fat, which people have plenty of unless they are literally starving.

    Interesting side note, a study on ultra runners found that their brain mass temporarily dropped after a multi-day ultra. The brain is mostly fat and water.

    Sure. That's pretty much why I'm asking.

    If someone is a long-endurance athlete, and doesn't want to bonk, vomit, or get diarrhea during long events . . . what do people who are very anti-sugar (but not keto) use as a fueling strategy? Or, if they're not themselves long-endurance athletes, what fueling strategy do they suggest for people who are, so as to avoid consuming added sugar?

    I suspect that there are relatively few non-keto, very anti-sugar long-endurance athletes, but that's speculation on my part, not knowledge. And even if those who consider added sugar absolutely to be avoided aren't themselves long-endurance athletes, I'd still like to hear what they'd suggest, even though hearing from people who do do long endurance activities while avoiding added sugar would be even better.

    (For truth in advertising: I'm not a long-endurance athlete, never have been. I've been a short-endurance athlete - yeah, that's a thing - but am a little more lackadaisical now. My only longer-endurance activities (such as endurance trainng sessions) haven't really been a bonking risk for a variety of reasons. I'm still interested in how people think about this, and how their results have played out, if they have applied experience.)

    There are starch-based products that some people use, although mostly because they are supposed to be digestively superior for some. But perhaps the super anti sugar but not low carb folks would choose those.

    Some have whole-foods based strategies (this is a thing for some who are WFPB). Some recommended foods to try (from NoMeatAthlete) are: bananas, baked sweet potatoes, raisins, dates, figs, coconut water, and cherry juice. Seems a bit hard to carry around, however.
  • Diatonic12Diatonic12 Member Posts: 6,325 Member Member Posts: 6,325 Member
    One thing I get tired of with these posts is these people that talk about type 2 diabetes with just an elementary etiology of the disease that they confound the diagnostic methods with the progression of the disease.

    T2D is not merely a disruption of glucose metabolism, it is not caused directly by glucose metabolism, and in fact, the earliest signs of it are not even the disruption in glucose homeostasis.

    Before someone with T2D has high glucose levels, they will actually have problems in fat deposition first, but it is not an easily detected condition. So even if we wanted to go with how T2D starts, it isn't a sugar disorder, it is technically a fat one that becomes a sugar one.


    When it comes to actually treating T2D, overwhelmingly, the treatments that work besides drugs are not dietary interventions focused on sugar, but focused on weight loss, which means fat lost from the body. Most cases that are within 2 years of diagnoses can be treated via losing weight - unfortunately, it tends to be a fair amount of weight in short time, around 15kg, in months. Maintaining that loss maintains the reversals in the conditions.
    I have yet to hear of any study what-so-ever showing such promise via controlling sugar or carbohydrate while maintaining the same weight.




    There's another debate brewing about sugar out there so I brought this here.

    https://blog.myfitnesspal.com/can-your-body-tell-the-difference-between-natural-and-artificial-sugar/


    Magnus, I've worked very hard to maintain a 100 lb weight loss and to turn that T2 ship around. I use added sugars and sweeteners sparingly now. Your post still stands, the focus needs to be maintaining fat loss. Wild swings UP and down and back and forth with your weight won't get you there.

    A T2 spokesman passed on this week. Kidneys failed. All the side effects of T2 are enough for me to draw the line. My cousin had his leg amputated this year. Another one, they kept whittling on her until there was nothing left and she died from all of the complications. This is serious business. I've reread your post many times. It's where the rubber meets the road.



  • ccrdragonccrdragon Member Posts: 2,717 Member Member Posts: 2,717 Member
    Diatonic12 wrote: »
    One thing I get tired of with these posts is these people that talk about type 2 diabetes with just an elementary etiology of the disease that they confound the diagnostic methods with the progression of the disease.

    T2D is not merely a disruption of glucose metabolism, it is not caused directly by glucose metabolism, and in fact, the earliest signs of it are not even the disruption in glucose homeostasis.

    Before someone with T2D has high glucose levels, they will actually have problems in fat deposition first, but it is not an easily detected condition. So even if we wanted to go with how T2D starts, it isn't a sugar disorder, it is technically a fat one that becomes a sugar one.


    When it comes to actually treating T2D, overwhelmingly, the treatments that work besides drugs are not dietary interventions focused on sugar, but focused on weight loss, which means fat lost from the body. Most cases that are within 2 years of diagnoses can be treated via losing weight - unfortunately, it tends to be a fair amount of weight in short time, around 15kg, in months. Maintaining that loss maintains the reversals in the conditions.
    I have yet to hear of any study what-so-ever showing such promise via controlling sugar or carbohydrate while maintaining the same weight.




    There's another debate brewing about sugar out there so I brought this here.

    https://blog.myfitnesspal.com/can-your-body-tell-the-difference-between-natural-and-artificial-sugar/


    Magnus, I've worked very hard to maintain a 100 lb weight loss and to turn that T2 ship around. I use added sugars and sweeteners sparingly now. Your post still stands, the focus needs to be maintaining fat loss. Wild swings UP and down and back and forth with your weight won't get you there.

    A T2 spokesman passed on this week. Kidneys failed. All the side effects of T2 are enough for me to draw the line. My cousin had his leg amputated this year. Another one, they kept whittling on her until there was nothing left and she died from all of the complications. This is serious business. I've reread your post many times. It's where the rubber meets the road.



    This is another reason that I almost never read the blogs on MFP... just SMDH...
  • cmriversidecmriverside Member Posts: 30,418 Member Member Posts: 30,418 Member
    There's no "debate" in that blog post (?)
  • Diatonic12Diatonic12 Member Posts: 6,325 Member Member Posts: 6,325 Member
    There are so many authors of confusion. Maintaining weight loss is everything. If we can't stick the landing then it's Groundhog Day. Starting over and over and over again. I refuse to wait until the end of my life to get this right. I refuse to go on another eating excursion until my final days and then open up my eyes. I'm looking it directly in the eye and dealing with it now.
  • ritzvinritzvin Member, Premium Posts: 2,742 Member Member, Premium Posts: 2,742 Member
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    Some have whole-foods based strategies (this is a thing for some who are WFPB). Some recommended foods to try (from NoMeatAthlete) are: bananas, baked sweet potatoes, raisins, dates, figs, coconut water, and cherry juice. Seems a bit hard to carry around, however.

    + I'd imagine some extra time losses to port-a-potties.
  • janejellyrolljanejellyroll Member Posts: 23,819 Member Member Posts: 23,819 Member
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    sijomial wrote: »
    sijomial wrote: »
    Sugar (& other highly processed carbs) has no nutritional benefits, so why are so many people defending it?

    Fruit & veg are good for you because they have high levels of nutrition, and the fibre content helps to mitigate the bad effects of the sugar content.

    So although a lot of people lose weight while keeping their sugar levels high, is this something to be applauded or a reason to defend sugar?


    I have my sugar high because of the 3 servings of fruit I have daily. If I was eating other types of sugar, 6 teaspoons is more than enough.
    I agree with you though: Sugar is not good if you're trying to get tight and tone especially. Once I'm at a good body fat % I plan to drop my sugar to almost nothing.
    High sodium is a huge no for me too; I'll save that for another time

    I've just finished prepping my drinks ahead of a long cycle ride - spooned in 100g of glucose/fructose mix.

    In context that on my ride I will burn in the order of 2000+ calories burning roughly half fat and half glycogen (a form of glucose) please expand on why 400cals of sugar is "not good" for me?

    Bearing in mind "tight & toned" athletes have high energy needs what exactly is the problem with sugar in particular?

    I am really into those articles where athletes share what they eat in an "average" day and I've noticed that a big chunk of them include added sugar, of some kind, in their daily intake. Whether it's coffee with sugar or a post workout baked good or some chocolate after dinner or some Skittles, it's almost always there. And these are people who are carefully monitoring their performance, physical condition, and diet.

    I think there is this perception (not with you, but with many others) that professional/elite athletes are very sparse or punitive with their diets and that just doesn't seem to be the case with most of them. Yes, they're eating lots of nutrient-rich food, but they're also including some foods with lowest nutrient density because it's 1) fueling their training and/or 2) they just enjoy them.

    Agree.
    With a high calorie allowance it actualy becomes extremely easy to hit/exceed all your nutritional needs with calories left over for treats or just simply for fuel in a convenient and/or tasty way.
    I wish some of the "sugar is the devil" crowd could join me on some of my organised and catered long distance rides to open their eyes a bit. All those slim, fit, healthy people (some even in their 80's and in remarkable shape) eating so many carbs including sugar based or sugar containing products......

    Side note - my rough estimate was surprisingly close for today's calorie burn. 2030 net calories and the sugars in my drinks kept my energy levels up and made just a small dent in today's TDEE of about 4,500 cals.
    If I had to subsist on a paltry calorie allowance then clearly I would make different choices.

    To the person disagreeing with a string of posts (including simple questions!) - context matters which is why universal and abitrary limits really don't make sense.

    Realistically, what is someone supposed to do, in circumstances like yours, according to those who feel added sugar should always be avoided?

    Activity needs to be fueled, or weight loss will occur, and not everyone is overweight. (Even overweight people aren't best served by always *maximimizng* deficit.) The fueling point is acute, for long-endurance exercise, since fuel will be needed en route, given limitations on muscle glycogen, and such.

    Most people find protein rather filling. Eating a couple of thousand calories of extra protein . . . well, it could be done, but I don't think it would be comfortable in an exercise context. Wouldn't that be like 5 pounds of cooked chicken breast? Whole fruit or vegetables, ditto, except more volume to get that number of calories, since the fiber doesn't contribute to fueling. Fats are calorie dense, but the combination of high fat intake with hearty exercise is a really bad one for many people (most would need a lot of porta-potties on the route). A couple thousand calories of fat would be nearly *half a pound* of fat (coconut oil, or whatever), if I did the math right. I grant that one could go with partly fat, partly whole-food carbs, partly protein . . . but it's still a lot of food volume, potentially with bad consequences for digestive ease.

    Non-filling, non-digestion-challenging carbs seem like an obvious solution for long-endurance activities. And sugar is kind of the ultimate non-filling, non-digestion-challenging carb.

    So, to the folks who argue we should avoid added sugar religiously: What should an endurance athlete eat, during an endurance activity, to get a couple of thousand extra calories, in a practical way? Do you (sugar avoider) do long endurance activity (multi-hour, fairly intense)? What do you do en route for calorie intake?

    These are 100% sincere questions.

    Unless you are keto adapted I would think you would bonk hard eventually, since digestion of fat and protein isn’t fast enough to fuel a run. Keto endurance athletes don’t need to consume fats during a run, their bodies break down their existing fat, which people have plenty of unless they are literally starving.

    Interesting side note, a study on ultra runners found that their brain mass temporarily dropped after a multi-day ultra. The brain is mostly fat and water.

    Sure. That's pretty much why I'm asking.

    If someone is a long-endurance athlete, and doesn't want to bonk, vomit, or get diarrhea during long events . . . what do people who are very anti-sugar (but not keto) use as a fueling strategy? Or, if they're not themselves long-endurance athletes, what fueling strategy do they suggest for people who are, so as to avoid consuming added sugar?

    I suspect that there are relatively few non-keto, very anti-sugar long-endurance athletes, but that's speculation on my part, not knowledge. And even if those who consider added sugar absolutely to be avoided aren't themselves long-endurance athletes, I'd still like to hear what they'd suggest, even though hearing from people who do do long endurance activities while avoiding added sugar would be even better.

    (For truth in advertising: I'm not a long-endurance athlete, never have been. I've been a short-endurance athlete - yeah, that's a thing - but am a little more lackadaisical now. My only longer-endurance activities (such as endurance trainng sessions) haven't really been a bonking risk for a variety of reasons. I'm still interested in how people think about this, and how their results have played out, if they have applied experience.)

    There are starch-based products that some people use, although mostly because they are supposed to be digestively superior for some. But perhaps the super anti sugar but not low carb folks would choose those.

    Some have whole-foods based strategies (this is a thing for some who are WFPB). Some recommended foods to try (from NoMeatAthlete) are: bananas, baked sweet potatoes, raisins, dates, figs, coconut water, and cherry juice. Seems a bit hard to carry around, however.

    I once made a WFPB endurance fuel by blending some dates, lemon juice, and salt. It worked pretty well. I wrapped up individual servings in plastic wrap.

    But it didn't seem more effective than my usual Gu pack, so once I knew I could do it I just went back to the usual.

    I know for some people, the fiber in the dried fruit would be a problem. I think a baked sweet potato would be awesome during a long run. It would probably fit in my running vest, I may give it a try.

  • heybalesheybales Member Posts: 17,940 Member Member Posts: 17,940 Member
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    sijomial wrote: »
    sijomial wrote: »
    Sugar (& other highly processed carbs) has no nutritional benefits, so why are so many people defending it?

    Fruit & veg are good for you because they have high levels of nutrition, and the fibre content helps to mitigate the bad effects of the sugar content.

    So although a lot of people lose weight while keeping their sugar levels high, is this something to be applauded or a reason to defend sugar?


    I have my sugar high because of the 3 servings of fruit I have daily. If I was eating other types of sugar, 6 teaspoons is more than enough.
    I agree with you though: Sugar is not good if you're trying to get tight and tone especially. Once I'm at a good body fat % I plan to drop my sugar to almost nothing.
    High sodium is a huge no for me too; I'll save that for another time

    I've just finished prepping my drinks ahead of a long cycle ride - spooned in 100g of glucose/fructose mix.

    In context that on my ride I will burn in the order of 2000+ calories burning roughly half fat and half glycogen (a form of glucose) please expand on why 400cals of sugar is "not good" for me?

    Bearing in mind "tight & toned" athletes have high energy needs what exactly is the problem with sugar in particular?

    I am really into those articles where athletes share what they eat in an "average" day and I've noticed that a big chunk of them include added sugar, of some kind, in their daily intake. Whether it's coffee with sugar or a post workout baked good or some chocolate after dinner or some Skittles, it's almost always there. And these are people who are carefully monitoring their performance, physical condition, and diet.

    I think there is this perception (not with you, but with many others) that professional/elite athletes are very sparse or punitive with their diets and that just doesn't seem to be the case with most of them. Yes, they're eating lots of nutrient-rich food, but they're also including some foods with lowest nutrient density because it's 1) fueling their training and/or 2) they just enjoy them.

    Agree.
    With a high calorie allowance it actualy becomes extremely easy to hit/exceed all your nutritional needs with calories left over for treats or just simply for fuel in a convenient and/or tasty way.
    I wish some of the "sugar is the devil" crowd could join me on some of my organised and catered long distance rides to open their eyes a bit. All those slim, fit, healthy people (some even in their 80's and in remarkable shape) eating so many carbs including sugar based or sugar containing products......

    Side note - my rough estimate was surprisingly close for today's calorie burn. 2030 net calories and the sugars in my drinks kept my energy levels up and made just a small dent in today's TDEE of about 4,500 cals.
    If I had to subsist on a paltry calorie allowance then clearly I would make different choices.

    To the person disagreeing with a string of posts (including simple questions!) - context matters which is why universal and abitrary limits really don't make sense.

    Realistically, what is someone supposed to do, in circumstances like yours, according to those who feel added sugar should always be avoided?

    Activity needs to be fueled, or weight loss will occur, and not everyone is overweight. (Even overweight people aren't best served by always *maximimizng* deficit.) The fueling point is acute, for long-endurance exercise, since fuel will be needed en route, given limitations on muscle glycogen, and such.

    Most people find protein rather filling. Eating a couple of thousand calories of extra protein . . . well, it could be done, but I don't think it would be comfortable in an exercise context. Wouldn't that be like 5 pounds of cooked chicken breast? Whole fruit or vegetables, ditto, except more volume to get that number of calories, since the fiber doesn't contribute to fueling. Fats are calorie dense, but the combination of high fat intake with hearty exercise is a really bad one for many people (most would need a lot of porta-potties on the route). A couple thousand calories of fat would be nearly *half a pound* of fat (coconut oil, or whatever), if I did the math right. I grant that one could go with partly fat, partly whole-food carbs, partly protein . . . but it's still a lot of food volume, potentially with bad consequences for digestive ease.

    Non-filling, non-digestion-challenging carbs seem like an obvious solution for long-endurance activities. And sugar is kind of the ultimate non-filling, non-digestion-challenging carb.

    So, to the folks who argue we should avoid added sugar religiously: What should an endurance athlete eat, during an endurance activity, to get a couple of thousand extra calories, in a practical way? Do you (sugar avoider) do long endurance activity (multi-hour, fairly intense)? What do you do en route for calorie intake?

    These are 100% sincere questions.

    Unless you are keto adapted I would think you would bonk hard eventually, since digestion of fat and protein isn’t fast enough to fuel a run. Keto endurance athletes don’t need to consume fats during a run, their bodies break down their existing fat, which people have plenty of unless they are literally starving.

    Interesting side note, a study on ultra runners found that their brain mass temporarily dropped after a multi-day ultra. The brain is mostly fat and water.

    Sure. That's pretty much why I'm asking.

    If someone is a long-endurance athlete, and doesn't want to bonk, vomit, or get diarrhea during long events . . . what do people who are very anti-sugar (but not keto) use as a fueling strategy? Or, if they're not themselves long-endurance athletes, what fueling strategy do they suggest for people who are, so as to avoid consuming added sugar?

    I suspect that there are relatively few non-keto, very anti-sugar long-endurance athletes, but that's speculation on my part, not knowledge. And even if those who consider added sugar absolutely to be avoided aren't themselves long-endurance athletes, I'd still like to hear what they'd suggest, even though hearing from people who do do long endurance activities while avoiding added sugar would be even better.

    (For truth in advertising: I'm not a long-endurance athlete, never have been. I've been a short-endurance athlete - yeah, that's a thing - but am a little more lackadaisical now. My only longer-endurance activities (such as endurance trainng sessions) haven't really been a bonking risk for a variety of reasons. I'm still interested in how people think about this, and how their results have played out, if they have applied experience.)

    There are starch-based products that some people use, although mostly because they are supposed to be digestively superior for some. But perhaps the super anti sugar but not low carb folks would choose those.

    Some have whole-foods based strategies (this is a thing for some who are WFPB). Some recommended foods to try (from NoMeatAthlete) are: bananas, baked sweet potatoes, raisins, dates, figs, coconut water, and cherry juice. Seems a bit hard to carry around, however.

    I once made a WFPB endurance fuel by blending some dates, lemon juice, and salt. It worked pretty well. I wrapped up individual servings in plastic wrap.

    But it didn't seem more effective than my usual Gu pack, so once I knew I could do it I just went back to the usual.

    I know for some people, the fiber in the dried fruit would be a problem. I think a baked sweet potato would be awesome during a long run. It would probably fit in my running vest, I may give it a try.

    Hmmm - would a bag of those baked sweet potato chips hit the spot? I thought some even had some salt on them.

    Logistics of carrying it would be interesting. Not sure what you'd end up with for a run or how annoying a sound, or how to carry on the bike.

    Perhaps those group rides and running events could put on refueling tables with other refreshments.
  • janejellyrolljanejellyroll Member Posts: 23,819 Member Member Posts: 23,819 Member
    heybales wrote: »
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    sijomial wrote: »
    sijomial wrote: »
    Sugar (& other highly processed carbs) has no nutritional benefits, so why are so many people defending it?

    Fruit & veg are good for you because they have high levels of nutrition, and the fibre content helps to mitigate the bad effects of the sugar content.

    So although a lot of people lose weight while keeping their sugar levels high, is this something to be applauded or a reason to defend sugar?


    I have my sugar high because of the 3 servings of fruit I have daily. If I was eating other types of sugar, 6 teaspoons is more than enough.
    I agree with you though: Sugar is not good if you're trying to get tight and tone especially. Once I'm at a good body fat % I plan to drop my sugar to almost nothing.
    High sodium is a huge no for me too; I'll save that for another time

    I've just finished prepping my drinks ahead of a long cycle ride - spooned in 100g of glucose/fructose mix.

    In context that on my ride I will burn in the order of 2000+ calories burning roughly half fat and half glycogen (a form of glucose) please expand on why 400cals of sugar is "not good" for me?

    Bearing in mind "tight & toned" athletes have high energy needs what exactly is the problem with sugar in particular?

    I am really into those articles where athletes share what they eat in an "average" day and I've noticed that a big chunk of them include added sugar, of some kind, in their daily intake. Whether it's coffee with sugar or a post workout baked good or some chocolate after dinner or some Skittles, it's almost always there. And these are people who are carefully monitoring their performance, physical condition, and diet.

    I think there is this perception (not with you, but with many others) that professional/elite athletes are very sparse or punitive with their diets and that just doesn't seem to be the case with most of them. Yes, they're eating lots of nutrient-rich food, but they're also including some foods with lowest nutrient density because it's 1) fueling their training and/or 2) they just enjoy them.

    Agree.
    With a high calorie allowance it actualy becomes extremely easy to hit/exceed all your nutritional needs with calories left over for treats or just simply for fuel in a convenient and/or tasty way.
    I wish some of the "sugar is the devil" crowd could join me on some of my organised and catered long distance rides to open their eyes a bit. All those slim, fit, healthy people (some even in their 80's and in remarkable shape) eating so many carbs including sugar based or sugar containing products......

    Side note - my rough estimate was surprisingly close for today's calorie burn. 2030 net calories and the sugars in my drinks kept my energy levels up and made just a small dent in today's TDEE of about 4,500 cals.
    If I had to subsist on a paltry calorie allowance then clearly I would make different choices.

    To the person disagreeing with a string of posts (including simple questions!) - context matters which is why universal and abitrary limits really don't make sense.

    Realistically, what is someone supposed to do, in circumstances like yours, according to those who feel added sugar should always be avoided?

    Activity needs to be fueled, or weight loss will occur, and not everyone is overweight. (Even overweight people aren't best served by always *maximimizng* deficit.) The fueling point is acute, for long-endurance exercise, since fuel will be needed en route, given limitations on muscle glycogen, and such.

    Most people find protein rather filling. Eating a couple of thousand calories of extra protein . . . well, it could be done, but I don't think it would be comfortable in an exercise context. Wouldn't that be like 5 pounds of cooked chicken breast? Whole fruit or vegetables, ditto, except more volume to get that number of calories, since the fiber doesn't contribute to fueling. Fats are calorie dense, but the combination of high fat intake with hearty exercise is a really bad one for many people (most would need a lot of porta-potties on the route). A couple thousand calories of fat would be nearly *half a pound* of fat (coconut oil, or whatever), if I did the math right. I grant that one could go with partly fat, partly whole-food carbs, partly protein . . . but it's still a lot of food volume, potentially with bad consequences for digestive ease.

    Non-filling, non-digestion-challenging carbs seem like an obvious solution for long-endurance activities. And sugar is kind of the ultimate non-filling, non-digestion-challenging carb.

    So, to the folks who argue we should avoid added sugar religiously: What should an endurance athlete eat, during an endurance activity, to get a couple of thousand extra calories, in a practical way? Do you (sugar avoider) do long endurance activity (multi-hour, fairly intense)? What do you do en route for calorie intake?

    These are 100% sincere questions.

    Unless you are keto adapted I would think you would bonk hard eventually, since digestion of fat and protein isn’t fast enough to fuel a run. Keto endurance athletes don’t need to consume fats during a run, their bodies break down their existing fat, which people have plenty of unless they are literally starving.

    Interesting side note, a study on ultra runners found that their brain mass temporarily dropped after a multi-day ultra. The brain is mostly fat and water.

    Sure. That's pretty much why I'm asking.

    If someone is a long-endurance athlete, and doesn't want to bonk, vomit, or get diarrhea during long events . . . what do people who are very anti-sugar (but not keto) use as a fueling strategy? Or, if they're not themselves long-endurance athletes, what fueling strategy do they suggest for people who are, so as to avoid consuming added sugar?

    I suspect that there are relatively few non-keto, very anti-sugar long-endurance athletes, but that's speculation on my part, not knowledge. And even if those who consider added sugar absolutely to be avoided aren't themselves long-endurance athletes, I'd still like to hear what they'd suggest, even though hearing from people who do do long endurance activities while avoiding added sugar would be even better.

    (For truth in advertising: I'm not a long-endurance athlete, never have been. I've been a short-endurance athlete - yeah, that's a thing - but am a little more lackadaisical now. My only longer-endurance activities (such as endurance trainng sessions) haven't really been a bonking risk for a variety of reasons. I'm still interested in how people think about this, and how their results have played out, if they have applied experience.)

    There are starch-based products that some people use, although mostly because they are supposed to be digestively superior for some. But perhaps the super anti sugar but not low carb folks would choose those.

    Some have whole-foods based strategies (this is a thing for some who are WFPB). Some recommended foods to try (from NoMeatAthlete) are: bananas, baked sweet potatoes, raisins, dates, figs, coconut water, and cherry juice. Seems a bit hard to carry around, however.

    I once made a WFPB endurance fuel by blending some dates, lemon juice, and salt. It worked pretty well. I wrapped up individual servings in plastic wrap.

    But it didn't seem more effective than my usual Gu pack, so once I knew I could do it I just went back to the usual.

    I know for some people, the fiber in the dried fruit would be a problem. I think a baked sweet potato would be awesome during a long run. It would probably fit in my running vest, I may give it a try.

    Hmmm - would a bag of those baked sweet potato chips hit the spot? I thought some even had some salt on them.

    Logistics of carrying it would be interesting. Not sure what you'd end up with for a run or how annoying a sound, or how to carry on the bike.

    Perhaps those group rides and running events could put on refueling tables with other refreshments.

    I did a 20-miler that had potato chips at an aid station, I'm fully supportive of making this a wider trend, you can't go wrong with chips.
  • lemurcat2lemurcat2 Member Posts: 5,662 Member Member Posts: 5,662 Member
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    sijomial wrote: »
    sijomial wrote: »
    Sugar (& other highly processed carbs) has no nutritional benefits, so why are so many people defending it?

    Fruit & veg are good for you because they have high levels of nutrition, and the fibre content helps to mitigate the bad effects of the sugar content.

    So although a lot of people lose weight while keeping their sugar levels high, is this something to be applauded or a reason to defend sugar?


    I have my sugar high because of the 3 servings of fruit I have daily. If I was eating other types of sugar, 6 teaspoons is more than enough.
    I agree with you though: Sugar is not good if you're trying to get tight and tone especially. Once I'm at a good body fat % I plan to drop my sugar to almost nothing.
    High sodium is a huge no for me too; I'll save that for another time

    I've just finished prepping my drinks ahead of a long cycle ride - spooned in 100g of glucose/fructose mix.

    In context that on my ride I will burn in the order of 2000+ calories burning roughly half fat and half glycogen (a form of glucose) please expand on why 400cals of sugar is "not good" for me?

    Bearing in mind "tight & toned" athletes have high energy needs what exactly is the problem with sugar in particular?

    I am really into those articles where athletes share what they eat in an "average" day and I've noticed that a big chunk of them include added sugar, of some kind, in their daily intake. Whether it's coffee with sugar or a post workout baked good or some chocolate after dinner or some Skittles, it's almost always there. And these are people who are carefully monitoring their performance, physical condition, and diet.

    I think there is this perception (not with you, but with many others) that professional/elite athletes are very sparse or punitive with their diets and that just doesn't seem to be the case with most of them. Yes, they're eating lots of nutrient-rich food, but they're also including some foods with lowest nutrient density because it's 1) fueling their training and/or 2) they just enjoy them.

    Agree.
    With a high calorie allowance it actualy becomes extremely easy to hit/exceed all your nutritional needs with calories left over for treats or just simply for fuel in a convenient and/or tasty way.
    I wish some of the "sugar is the devil" crowd could join me on some of my organised and catered long distance rides to open their eyes a bit. All those slim, fit, healthy people (some even in their 80's and in remarkable shape) eating so many carbs including sugar based or sugar containing products......

    Side note - my rough estimate was surprisingly close for today's calorie burn. 2030 net calories and the sugars in my drinks kept my energy levels up and made just a small dent in today's TDEE of about 4,500 cals.
    If I had to subsist on a paltry calorie allowance then clearly I would make different choices.

    To the person disagreeing with a string of posts (including simple questions!) - context matters which is why universal and abitrary limits really don't make sense.

    Realistically, what is someone supposed to do, in circumstances like yours, according to those who feel added sugar should always be avoided?

    Activity needs to be fueled, or weight loss will occur, and not everyone is overweight. (Even overweight people aren't best served by always *maximimizng* deficit.) The fueling point is acute, for long-endurance exercise, since fuel will be needed en route, given limitations on muscle glycogen, and such.

    Most people find protein rather filling. Eating a couple of thousand calories of extra protein . . . well, it could be done, but I don't think it would be comfortable in an exercise context. Wouldn't that be like 5 pounds of cooked chicken breast? Whole fruit or vegetables, ditto, except more volume to get that number of calories, since the fiber doesn't contribute to fueling. Fats are calorie dense, but the combination of high fat intake with hearty exercise is a really bad one for many people (most would need a lot of porta-potties on the route). A couple thousand calories of fat would be nearly *half a pound* of fat (coconut oil, or whatever), if I did the math right. I grant that one could go with partly fat, partly whole-food carbs, partly protein . . . but it's still a lot of food volume, potentially with bad consequences for digestive ease.

    Non-filling, non-digestion-challenging carbs seem like an obvious solution for long-endurance activities. And sugar is kind of the ultimate non-filling, non-digestion-challenging carb.

    So, to the folks who argue we should avoid added sugar religiously: What should an endurance athlete eat, during an endurance activity, to get a couple of thousand extra calories, in a practical way? Do you (sugar avoider) do long endurance activity (multi-hour, fairly intense)? What do you do en route for calorie intake?

    These are 100% sincere questions.

    Unless you are keto adapted I would think you would bonk hard eventually, since digestion of fat and protein isn’t fast enough to fuel a run. Keto endurance athletes don’t need to consume fats during a run, their bodies break down their existing fat, which people have plenty of unless they are literally starving.

    Interesting side note, a study on ultra runners found that their brain mass temporarily dropped after a multi-day ultra. The brain is mostly fat and water.

    Sure. That's pretty much why I'm asking.

    If someone is a long-endurance athlete, and doesn't want to bonk, vomit, or get diarrhea during long events . . . what do people who are very anti-sugar (but not keto) use as a fueling strategy? Or, if they're not themselves long-endurance athletes, what fueling strategy do they suggest for people who are, so as to avoid consuming added sugar?

    I suspect that there are relatively few non-keto, very anti-sugar long-endurance athletes, but that's speculation on my part, not knowledge. And even if those who consider added sugar absolutely to be avoided aren't themselves long-endurance athletes, I'd still like to hear what they'd suggest, even though hearing from people who do do long endurance activities while avoiding added sugar would be even better.

    (For truth in advertising: I'm not a long-endurance athlete, never have been. I've been a short-endurance athlete - yeah, that's a thing - but am a little more lackadaisical now. My only longer-endurance activities (such as endurance trainng sessions) haven't really been a bonking risk for a variety of reasons. I'm still interested in how people think about this, and how their results have played out, if they have applied experience.)

    There are starch-based products that some people use, although mostly because they are supposed to be digestively superior for some. But perhaps the super anti sugar but not low carb folks would choose those.

    Some have whole-foods based strategies (this is a thing for some who are WFPB). Some recommended foods to try (from NoMeatAthlete) are: bananas, baked sweet potatoes, raisins, dates, figs, coconut water, and cherry juice. Seems a bit hard to carry around, however.

    I'm asking because I'd really like to hear from people who've said they believe we'd all benefit from eliminating added sugar from our eating, or those who've clicked "disagree" (if any) on posts talking about using sugar as part of long-endurance fueling strategies.

    It's nice of so-called "sugar defenders" (sugar moderators) to suggests answers for them, though. :lol:

    I try to be helpful, and besides am procrastinating! I thought you were just curious about what options they would have.

    I suspect this thread doesn't have a lot of (or any?) people who do long-endurance AND are super anti added sugar in all circumstances, but I'd be interested too.
  • lemurcat2lemurcat2 Member Posts: 5,662 Member Member Posts: 5,662 Member
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    sijomial wrote: »
    sijomial wrote: »
    Sugar (& other highly processed carbs) has no nutritional benefits, so why are so many people defending it?

    Fruit & veg are good for you because they have high levels of nutrition, and the fibre content helps to mitigate the bad effects of the sugar content.

    So although a lot of people lose weight while keeping their sugar levels high, is this something to be applauded or a reason to defend sugar?


    I have my sugar high because of the 3 servings of fruit I have daily. If I was eating other types of sugar, 6 teaspoons is more than enough.
    I agree with you though: Sugar is not good if you're trying to get tight and tone especially. Once I'm at a good body fat % I plan to drop my sugar to almost nothing.
    High sodium is a huge no for me too; I'll save that for another time

    I've just finished prepping my drinks ahead of a long cycle ride - spooned in 100g of glucose/fructose mix.

    In context that on my ride I will burn in the order of 2000+ calories burning roughly half fat and half glycogen (a form of glucose) please expand on why 400cals of sugar is "not good" for me?

    Bearing in mind "tight & toned" athletes have high energy needs what exactly is the problem with sugar in particular?

    I am really into those articles where athletes share what they eat in an "average" day and I've noticed that a big chunk of them include added sugar, of some kind, in their daily intake. Whether it's coffee with sugar or a post workout baked good or some chocolate after dinner or some Skittles, it's almost always there. And these are people who are carefully monitoring their performance, physical condition, and diet.

    I think there is this perception (not with you, but with many others) that professional/elite athletes are very sparse or punitive with their diets and that just doesn't seem to be the case with most of them. Yes, they're eating lots of nutrient-rich food, but they're also including some foods with lowest nutrient density because it's 1) fueling their training and/or 2) they just enjoy them.

    Agree.
    With a high calorie allowance it actualy becomes extremely easy to hit/exceed all your nutritional needs with calories left over for treats or just simply for fuel in a convenient and/or tasty way.
    I wish some of the "sugar is the devil" crowd could join me on some of my organised and catered long distance rides to open their eyes a bit. All those slim, fit, healthy people (some even in their 80's and in remarkable shape) eating so many carbs including sugar based or sugar containing products......

    Side note - my rough estimate was surprisingly close for today's calorie burn. 2030 net calories and the sugars in my drinks kept my energy levels up and made just a small dent in today's TDEE of about 4,500 cals.
    If I had to subsist on a paltry calorie allowance then clearly I would make different choices.

    To the person disagreeing with a string of posts (including simple questions!) - context matters which is why universal and abitrary limits really don't make sense.

    Realistically, what is someone supposed to do, in circumstances like yours, according to those who feel added sugar should always be avoided?

    Activity needs to be fueled, or weight loss will occur, and not everyone is overweight. (Even overweight people aren't best served by always *maximimizng* deficit.) The fueling point is acute, for long-endurance exercise, since fuel will be needed en route, given limitations on muscle glycogen, and such.

    Most people find protein rather filling. Eating a couple of thousand calories of extra protein . . . well, it could be done, but I don't think it would be comfortable in an exercise context. Wouldn't that be like 5 pounds of cooked chicken breast? Whole fruit or vegetables, ditto, except more volume to get that number of calories, since the fiber doesn't contribute to fueling. Fats are calorie dense, but the combination of high fat intake with hearty exercise is a really bad one for many people (most would need a lot of porta-potties on the route). A couple thousand calories of fat would be nearly *half a pound* of fat (coconut oil, or whatever), if I did the math right. I grant that one could go with partly fat, partly whole-food carbs, partly protein . . . but it's still a lot of food volume, potentially with bad consequences for digestive ease.

    Non-filling, non-digestion-challenging carbs seem like an obvious solution for long-endurance activities. And sugar is kind of the ultimate non-filling, non-digestion-challenging carb.

    So, to the folks who argue we should avoid added sugar religiously: What should an endurance athlete eat, during an endurance activity, to get a couple of thousand extra calories, in a practical way? Do you (sugar avoider) do long endurance activity (multi-hour, fairly intense)? What do you do en route for calorie intake?

    These are 100% sincere questions.

    Unless you are keto adapted I would think you would bonk hard eventually, since digestion of fat and protein isn’t fast enough to fuel a run. Keto endurance athletes don’t need to consume fats during a run, their bodies break down their existing fat, which people have plenty of unless they are literally starving.

    Interesting side note, a study on ultra runners found that their brain mass temporarily dropped after a multi-day ultra. The brain is mostly fat and water.

    Sure. That's pretty much why I'm asking.

    If someone is a long-endurance athlete, and doesn't want to bonk, vomit, or get diarrhea during long events . . . what do people who are very anti-sugar (but not keto) use as a fueling strategy? Or, if they're not themselves long-endurance athletes, what fueling strategy do they suggest for people who are, so as to avoid consuming added sugar?

    I suspect that there are relatively few non-keto, very anti-sugar long-endurance athletes, but that's speculation on my part, not knowledge. And even if those who consider added sugar absolutely to be avoided aren't themselves long-endurance athletes, I'd still like to hear what they'd suggest, even though hearing from people who do do long endurance activities while avoiding added sugar would be even better.

    (For truth in advertising: I'm not a long-endurance athlete, never have been. I've been a short-endurance athlete - yeah, that's a thing - but am a little more lackadaisical now. My only longer-endurance activities (such as endurance trainng sessions) haven't really been a bonking risk for a variety of reasons. I'm still interested in how people think about this, and how their results have played out, if they have applied experience.)

    There are starch-based products that some people use, although mostly because they are supposed to be digestively superior for some. But perhaps the super anti sugar but not low carb folks would choose those.

    Some have whole-foods based strategies (this is a thing for some who are WFPB). Some recommended foods to try (from NoMeatAthlete) are: bananas, baked sweet potatoes, raisins, dates, figs, coconut water, and cherry juice. Seems a bit hard to carry around, however.

    I once made a WFPB endurance fuel by blending some dates, lemon juice, and salt. It worked pretty well. I wrapped up individual servings in plastic wrap.

    But it didn't seem more effective than my usual Gu pack, so once I knew I could do it I just went back to the usual.

    I know for some people, the fiber in the dried fruit would be a problem. I think a baked sweet potato would be awesome during a long run. It would probably fit in my running vest, I may give it a try.

    I don't like sweet potatoes all that much, so the idea of carrying one around and eating it while running seems really unappealing, but try it and report back!

    I have used a banana right before a race to fuel (also orange juice, but not sure if the anti added sugar in all cases folks are okay with juice). Dried fruit like dried apricots seems appealing to me, but I'm not sure I could stomach it when running. For a bike ride, sure. I did a biking trip where we rode about 50-100 miles a day one time, and other long single day biking events, and while I'd usually get off the bike to eat, stuff like trail mix and fruit worked great.
  • psychod787psychod787 Member, Premium Posts: 3,625 Member Member, Premium Posts: 3,625 Member
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    People keep defending sugar because sugar cannot defend itself.

    Sugar has 6th amendment rights too, my friend. (Paraphrasing Romney, if it's not obvious.)

    I guess guess sugar must have 2nd amendment rights as well. All these people think its deadly!😅
  • rheddmobilerheddmobile Member Posts: 5,621 Member Member Posts: 5,621 Member
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    sijomial wrote: »
    sijomial wrote: »
    Sugar (& other highly processed carbs) has no nutritional benefits, so why are so many people defending it?

    Fruit & veg are good for you because they have high levels of nutrition, and the fibre content helps to mitigate the bad effects of the sugar content.

    So although a lot of people lose weight while keeping their sugar levels high, is this something to be applauded or a reason to defend sugar?


    I have my sugar high because of the 3 servings of fruit I have daily. If I was eating other types of sugar, 6 teaspoons is more than enough.
    I agree with you though: Sugar is not good if you're trying to get tight and tone especially. Once I'm at a good body fat % I plan to drop my sugar to almost nothing.
    High sodium is a huge no for me too; I'll save that for another time

    I've just finished prepping my drinks ahead of a long cycle ride - spooned in 100g of glucose/fructose mix.

    In context that on my ride I will burn in the order of 2000+ calories burning roughly half fat and half glycogen (a form of glucose) please expand on why 400cals of sugar is "not good" for me?

    Bearing in mind "tight & toned" athletes have high energy needs what exactly is the problem with sugar in particular?

    I am really into those articles where athletes share what they eat in an "average" day and I've noticed that a big chunk of them include added sugar, of some kind, in their daily intake. Whether it's coffee with sugar or a post workout baked good or some chocolate after dinner or some Skittles, it's almost always there. And these are people who are carefully monitoring their performance, physical condition, and diet.

    I think there is this perception (not with you, but with many others) that professional/elite athletes are very sparse or punitive with their diets and that just doesn't seem to be the case with most of them. Yes, they're eating lots of nutrient-rich food, but they're also including some foods with lowest nutrient density because it's 1) fueling their training and/or 2) they just enjoy them.

    Agree.
    With a high calorie allowance it actualy becomes extremely easy to hit/exceed all your nutritional needs with calories left over for treats or just simply for fuel in a convenient and/or tasty way.
    I wish some of the "sugar is the devil" crowd could join me on some of my organised and catered long distance rides to open their eyes a bit. All those slim, fit, healthy people (some even in their 80's and in remarkable shape) eating so many carbs including sugar based or sugar containing products......

    Side note - my rough estimate was surprisingly close for today's calorie burn. 2030 net calories and the sugars in my drinks kept my energy levels up and made just a small dent in today's TDEE of about 4,500 cals.
    If I had to subsist on a paltry calorie allowance then clearly I would make different choices.

    To the person disagreeing with a string of posts (including simple questions!) - context matters which is why universal and abitrary limits really don't make sense.

    Realistically, what is someone supposed to do, in circumstances like yours, according to those who feel added sugar should always be avoided?

    Activity needs to be fueled, or weight loss will occur, and not everyone is overweight. (Even overweight people aren't best served by always *maximimizng* deficit.) The fueling point is acute, for long-endurance exercise, since fuel will be needed en route, given limitations on muscle glycogen, and such.

    Most people find protein rather filling. Eating a couple of thousand calories of extra protein . . . well, it could be done, but I don't think it would be comfortable in an exercise context. Wouldn't that be like 5 pounds of cooked chicken breast? Whole fruit or vegetables, ditto, except more volume to get that number of calories, since the fiber doesn't contribute to fueling. Fats are calorie dense, but the combination of high fat intake with hearty exercise is a really bad one for many people (most would need a lot of porta-potties on the route). A couple thousand calories of fat would be nearly *half a pound* of fat (coconut oil, or whatever), if I did the math right. I grant that one could go with partly fat, partly whole-food carbs, partly protein . . . but it's still a lot of food volume, potentially with bad consequences for digestive ease.

    Non-filling, non-digestion-challenging carbs seem like an obvious solution for long-endurance activities. And sugar is kind of the ultimate non-filling, non-digestion-challenging carb.

    So, to the folks who argue we should avoid added sugar religiously: What should an endurance athlete eat, during an endurance activity, to get a couple of thousand extra calories, in a practical way? Do you (sugar avoider) do long endurance activity (multi-hour, fairly intense)? What do you do en route for calorie intake?

    These are 100% sincere questions.

    Unless you are keto adapted I would think you would bonk hard eventually, since digestion of fat and protein isn’t fast enough to fuel a run. Keto endurance athletes don’t need to consume fats during a run, their bodies break down their existing fat, which people have plenty of unless they are literally starving.

    Interesting side note, a study on ultra runners found that their brain mass temporarily dropped after a multi-day ultra. The brain is mostly fat and water.

    Sure. That's pretty much why I'm asking.

    If someone is a long-endurance athlete, and doesn't want to bonk, vomit, or get diarrhea during long events . . . what do people who are very anti-sugar (but not keto) use as a fueling strategy? Or, if they're not themselves long-endurance athletes, what fueling strategy do they suggest for people who are, so as to avoid consuming added sugar?

    I suspect that there are relatively few non-keto, very anti-sugar long-endurance athletes, but that's speculation on my part, not knowledge. And even if those who consider added sugar absolutely to be avoided aren't themselves long-endurance athletes, I'd still like to hear what they'd suggest, even though hearing from people who do do long endurance activities while avoiding added sugar would be even better.

    (For truth in advertising: I'm not a long-endurance athlete, never have been. I've been a short-endurance athlete - yeah, that's a thing - but am a little more lackadaisical now. My only longer-endurance activities (such as endurance trainng sessions) haven't really been a bonking risk for a variety of reasons. I'm still interested in how people think about this, and how their results have played out, if they have applied experience.)

    There are starch-based products that some people use, although mostly because they are supposed to be digestively superior for some. But perhaps the super anti sugar but not low carb folks would choose those.

    Some have whole-foods based strategies (this is a thing for some who are WFPB). Some recommended foods to try (from NoMeatAthlete) are: bananas, baked sweet potatoes, raisins, dates, figs, coconut water, and cherry juice. Seems a bit hard to carry around, however.

    I once made a WFPB endurance fuel by blending some dates, lemon juice, and salt. It worked pretty well. I wrapped up individual servings in plastic wrap.

    But it didn't seem more effective than my usual Gu pack, so once I knew I could do it I just went back to the usual.

    I know for some people, the fiber in the dried fruit would be a problem. I think a baked sweet potato would be awesome during a long run. It would probably fit in my running vest, I may give it a try.

    I don't like sweet potatoes all that much, so the idea of carrying one around and eating it while running seems really unappealing, but try it and report back!

    I have used a banana right before a race to fuel (also orange juice, but not sure if the anti added sugar in all cases folks are okay with juice). Dried fruit like dried apricots seems appealing to me, but I'm not sure I could stomach it when running. For a bike ride, sure. I did a biking trip where we rode about 50-100 miles a day one time, and other long single day biking events, and while I'd usually get off the bike to eat, stuff like trail mix and fruit worked great.

    Frozen orange slices are great in the summer.

    I don’t see any nutritional benefit to eating savory starch rather than sugar, it’s refined carbs either way. Are there really people who have such a fetish about sugar that they would do this?
Sign In or Register to comment.