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.
Why do people keep defending sugar?
Replies
-
claireychn074 wrote: »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!4 -
rheddmobile wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RockingWithLJ wrote: »purplebobkat 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.1 -
magnusthenerd 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.
4 -
Diatonic12 wrote: »magnusthenerd 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...2 -
There's no "debate" in that blog post (?)0
-
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.1
-
rheddmobile wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RockingWithLJ wrote: »purplebobkat 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.
But that's not who I asked, or why. It truly was a sincere question. I'd like to understand the thought pattern that involves "eliminate added sugar", in this larger context, because it's a different conceptual frame from mine. Yeah, it's none of my business, but trying to understand others' cognitive scaffolding is interesting to me - same reason I like reading autobiographies of people extremely different from me.
I don't like making assumptions, and it seems like *some* sugar advocates/defenders/moderators/whatever here are assuming that the "eliminate all possible added sugar" folks are new to pursuing good nutrition, have fallen intellectual prey to poor "authoritative" sources, are preaching out of new covert evangelism, are not experienced endurance athletes, do not understand how sugar is processed in the body, or other such kinda negative assumptions.
I'd like to hear some of the "eliminate all possible added sugar" advocates about how they experience or think about fueling long-endurance training and competition, when the mainstream of long-endurance sport seems to head straight for gels and such. I'd like to understand the nuances of how they think about this issue, and why.
So far, crickets, on that front.
Like I said, sincere question. My intent is not to be mean. If I disagree on some technical point, I might argue it, but that's about it.5 -
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.2 -
People keep defending sugar because sugar cannot defend itself.
Should the question be, "Why do people keep trashing sugar?"13 -
rheddmobile wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RockingWithLJ wrote: »purplebobkat 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.
4 -
janejellyroll wrote: »rheddmobile wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RockingWithLJ wrote: »purplebobkat 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.3 -
janejellyroll wrote: »rheddmobile wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RockingWithLJ wrote: »purplebobkat 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.0 -
rheddmobile wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RockingWithLJ wrote: »purplebobkat 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.
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.3 -
mullanphylane 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.)6 -
janejellyroll wrote: »rheddmobile wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RockingWithLJ wrote: »purplebobkat 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.1 -
mullanphylane 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!😅3 -
Sugar doesn't even cause weight gain. If you give people a sugar pill and a control group a placebo, there won't be any difference between groups in weight change. 13
-
magnusthenerd wrote: »Sugar doesn't even cause weight gain. If you give people a sugar pill and a control group a placebo, there won't be any difference between groups in weight change.
subtle sir..... very subtle.....
6 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »Sugar doesn't even cause weight gain. If you give people a sugar pill and a control group a placebo, there won't be any difference between groups in weight change.
That probably blew past a lot of people, like a gentle breeze...7 -
janejellyroll wrote: »rheddmobile wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RockingWithLJ wrote: »purplebobkat 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?0 -
rheddmobile wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »rheddmobile wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RockingWithLJ wrote: »purplebobkat 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?
Probably a few, but the main reasons I've seen given for starch vs sugar is that it is easier on the digestive system for some when working out.
I think handling out frozen orange slices during a long race would be amazing.3 -
Oh yes! The research gods smiled upon me this morning. A nice large study of the effect of a high fat diet vs a high carb diet on rats. It is a large study, but basically, when offered a high fat diet pellets, ie 60% vs a low fat pellet, ie, high carb (sugar). The rats introduced to a high fat diet gained weight rapidly and gorged on the high fat pellets. The high carb group maintained their weights. When the hf pellets were removed, the rats "starved" themselves, aka dis inhibition of calories and lost weight. When it was offered again, they binged. I'm going to ruffle a few feathers, but maybe its fat that needs defending? Nope, we known though Dr. Rolls work that when ED is kept constant and protein is equated, people are just as satisfied on a higher % fat meal or an higher % carb meal.
I rest my case.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41593-020-0684-97 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »Sugar doesn't even cause weight gain. If you give people a sugar pill and a control group a placebo, there won't be any difference between groups in weight change.
I think many people have a psychological fear of sugar.
It changed my perspective when I did the calories in calories out experiment. I got lean eating 70% junk food.7 -
psychod787 wrote: »Oh yes! The research gods smiled upon me this morning. A nice large study of the effect of a high fat diet vs a high carb diet on rats. It is a large study, but basically, when offered a high fat diet pellets, ie 60% vs a low fat pellet, ie, high carb (sugar). The rats introduced to a high fat diet gained weight rapidly and gorged on the high fat pellets. The high carb group maintained their weights. When the hf pellets were removed, the rats "starved" themselves, aka dis inhibition of calories and lost weight. When it was offered again, they binged. I'm going to ruffle a few feathers, but maybe its fat that needs defending? Nope, we known though Dr. Rolls work that when ED is kept constant and protein is equated, people are just as satisfied on a higher % fat meal or an higher % carb meal.
I rest my case.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41593-020-0684-9
And then there’s the whole thing of us not being rats.4 -
rheddmobile wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »Oh yes! The research gods smiled upon me this morning. A nice large study of the effect of a high fat diet vs a high carb diet on rats. It is a large study, but basically, when offered a high fat diet pellets, ie 60% vs a low fat pellet, ie, high carb (sugar). The rats introduced to a high fat diet gained weight rapidly and gorged on the high fat pellets. The high carb group maintained their weights. When the hf pellets were removed, the rats "starved" themselves, aka dis inhibition of calories and lost weight. When it was offered again, they binged. I'm going to ruffle a few feathers, but maybe its fat that needs defending? Nope, we known though Dr. Rolls work that when ED is kept constant and protein is equated, people are just as satisfied on a higher % fat meal or an higher % carb meal.
I rest my case.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41593-020-0684-9
And then there’s the whole thing of us not being rats.
Well.... some people are more rat like than they want to admit. A study I have posted several times....
https://osf.io/preprints/nutrixiv/rdjfb/2 -
psychod787 wrote: »rheddmobile wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »Oh yes! The research gods smiled upon me this morning. A nice large study of the effect of a high fat diet vs a high carb diet on rats. It is a large study, but basically, when offered a high fat diet pellets, ie 60% vs a low fat pellet, ie, high carb (sugar). The rats introduced to a high fat diet gained weight rapidly and gorged on the high fat pellets. The high carb group maintained their weights. When the hf pellets were removed, the rats "starved" themselves, aka dis inhibition of calories and lost weight. When it was offered again, they binged. I'm going to ruffle a few feathers, but maybe its fat that needs defending? Nope, we known though Dr. Rolls work that when ED is kept constant and protein is equated, people are just as satisfied on a higher % fat meal or an higher % carb meal.
I rest my case.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41593-020-0684-9
And then there’s the whole thing of us not being rats.
Well.... some people are more rat like than they want to admit. A study I have posted several times....
https://osf.io/preprints/nutrixiv/rdjfb/
I admit I only read the abstract, but since it's "your" study, can you explain a tiny bit? The results are on PBLF vs. ABLC...that's interesting to have such nutritive variation. Seems they would either do it on PB or AB, but not mixed.
It also says there was a 700 calorie difference between the methods. Seems a bit...I don't know...flawed? They are proving three or four different points? Maybe I'm not smart enough, but that study seems to be a throw-away.The PBLF diet resulted in substantially greater glucose and insulin levels whereas the ABLC diet led to increased blood ketones of ~3 mM which is thought to suppress appetite. However, ad libitum energy intake was 689±73 kcal/d lower during the PBLF diet as compared to the ABLC diet (p<0.0001) with no significant differences in appetite ratings or enjoyment of meals. These data challenge the veracity of the carbohydrate-insulin model of obesity and suggest that the PBLF diet had benefits for appetite control whereas the ABLC diet had benefits for lowering blood glucose and insulin.0 -
It's ab libitum, so it looks like it's testing the idea that people eat less on low carb vs. low fat and, specifically, that higher insulin (which the low carb group did have) causes more hunger or fat storage, while more ketones=appetite suppression. And in the study they ate more on low carb, but reported no more hunger, contradicting the hypothesis that insulin drives hunger and ketones kill it.4
-
It's ab libitum, so it looks like it's testing the idea that people eat less on low carb vs. low fat and, specifically, that higher insulin (which the low carb group did have) causes more hunger or fat storage, while more ketones=appetite suppression. And in the study they ate more on low carb, but reported no more hunger, contradicting the hypothesis that insulin drives hunger and ketones kill it.
Right, but what does that have to do with...anything? "Eating less" is great for weight loss, and m a y b e the urge to eat less is more carb based for some people...but still?
It's attempting to prove glucose/insulin/hunger? Or PBLF is better than ABLC? Or?
I would definitely be happier on PBLF for the short term, but at some point I'm going to really have a desire for fats.
In addition the "study" was done in lab (so controlled food intake/measurments, at least that part they got right) BUT it was 20 people for two weeks. Was this ad libitum PB diet all vegetables and whole grains? Was the AB diet all bacon, hamburger and cheese? I mean, two weeks? Seems...not valid to me. Again I read only the abstract but how much "weight" did each group lose? In two weeks not much to be observed other than the ad libitum part, IMO.
And - (edit) NO. They ate less on the PBLF and reported the same amounts of hunger...which is pretty subjective, no? Again, not sure what they're trying to prove here.1 -
psychod787 wrote: »Oh yes! The research gods smiled upon me this morning. A nice large study of the effect of a high fat diet vs a high carb diet on rats. It is a large study, but basically, when offered a high fat diet pellets, ie 60% vs a low fat pellet, ie, high carb (sugar). The rats introduced to a high fat diet gained weight rapidly and gorged on the high fat pellets. The high carb group maintained their weights. When the hf pellets were removed, the rats "starved" themselves, aka dis inhibition of calories and lost weight. When it was offered again, they binged. I'm going to ruffle a few feathers, but maybe its fat that needs defending? Nope, we known though Dr. Rolls work that when ED is kept constant and protein is equated, people are just as satisfied on a higher % fat meal or an higher % carb meal.
I rest my case.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41593-020-0684-9
Leaving aside the merits or importance of the studies for the moment:
Dear, dear Psycho, my honorary internet nephew, I think you're missing the big picture. The demonizing/defending is about the culture and the marketing potential, not about science or rationality at all.
In that big picture, the "demonize fat" idea is old, tired, done, debunked, nearly all its marketing potential knocked out (though there are still vestiges lingering in blogs and among trainers). It was replaced by a "demonize sugar (or carbs)" notion, leading to a whole boatload of profitable books, blogs, diets, programs, and more. Look at the diet bookshelves, newstands, etc.
Now, we're nearing an inflection point: The collective light is beginning to dawn that sugar is not "it", either. Think about that graph, showing our collective sugar intake beginning to drop quite meaningfully, while the "obesity crisis" keeps growing. The "sugar demonizers" are becoming or about to become the old guard, and the "sugar defenders" are part of making way for the next magical, marketable "solution" to obesity. Both camps are helpless, hapless, corpuscles in the bloodstream of culture and marketing opportunity.
What will be next, as "sugar/carbs BAD" continues to lose sway?
Whole food plant based is a candidate, with some rational basis, but the marketing opportunities are a little limited: Supplements? Superfoods? Veggie recipes for people who don't know how to cook? Some revenue there, but not much, mere millions, possibly low billions. Small potatoes.
My money is on something genetic, or microbiome related. Those have the needed elements: Tinge of science (that most of us don't understand, so manipulatable for marketing purposes), hasn't been tried/discredited before (oldies can be revived, but one needs some radical new "hook" to rehab them).
The genetics angle could be drugs or supplements, could be a tarted-up revamp of the somatotype/blood-type style of diet/exercise ideas: It has potential.
Microbiome is the sexy new kid, almost perfect: Supplements, diets, constant stream of new studies to exploit (to create cool-looking footnote links no one follows, let alone reads).
Invest early! Your search for scientific knowledge is touching, but will potentially profit you only in health and physical contentment. For monetary profit, look elsewhere. As the profit goes, there goes the culture.
(Do I need this: But it probably won't help.)
9 -
Definitely gut biome.
So many way$ that one can be exploited, especially right now when Covid is more deadly for overweight people.
Here, buy this DNA test. Only $1200. It will tell you your genetic predisposition for XXX food types. Then eat XXX food types that we sell in these little pretty packages for $99.99 per week. These supplements too, which will prevent you catching the virus.
Done.
That will be $2400, for three months. But! Thin and no covid.
7
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions