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
-
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.23 -
@magnusthenerd A fat one that becomes a sugar one. Ayup. Do you know how many physicians address obesity head-on. Not very many. You are correct.
2 -
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.
Now do TD1.
2 -
gadorlogor wrote: »To much added sugar will "mess" up your heart and lead to insulin resistance and weight gain.
The reason why it leads to weight gain is because your body is essentially something with zero nutritional value but an extremely high caloric count. So you wind up wasting your caloric limit on useless food, thus gaining weight while at the same time being starved nutritionally.
Non-added sugar however is different, because it one contains lots of nutrients and two has high amounts of fiber which limits the glycemic index of the food. Increasing the time over which glucose thus insulin is released. Which is why complex carbohydrates are better, than simple carbohydrates like sugar. Because non-added sugars take longer to hit your blood it allows them to be actually "used", instead of stored as fat immediately like added sugar is. (Both should be limited though, just added sugars more so)
Sugar,however ,hits your blood stream immediately and releases all that glucose at once, instead of over time, putting you on the path to diabetes through increased insulin resistance.
There is no reason to eat an excess of added sugar, it only hurts and is bad for energy (see sugar crashes) not good.
There is no defense for it.
Oh wanted to mention. Glycemic index means Jack and squat when foods are eaten in a mixed meal.8 -
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 time0 -
The human body need a little bit of everything... moderation it the key4
-
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.
Now do TD1.
I know the comment is being tongue in cheek, so in that vein I think T1D had good marketing in being called juvenile diabetes. It is harder for people to demonize a disease as if it is purely a lifestyle consequence when it shows up in innocent kids. T1D is in most cases an autoimmune disease with the body attacking its own pancreas cells.5 -
magnusthenerd 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.
Now do TD1.
I know the comment is being tongue in cheek, so in that vein I think T1D had good marketing in being called juvenile diabetes. It is harder for people to demonize a disease as if it is purely a lifestyle consequence when it shows up in innocent kids. T1D is in most cases an autoimmune disease with the body attacking its own pancreas cells.
Actually, I was being serious (for once!). You did a good job of explaining TD1 and I tend to focus on the sugar not causing diabetes aspect because...well...if people could see what I eat, I should have been in a diabetic coma a loooooooooooooong time ago. 1 -
@magnusthenerd In a nutshell and not the whole bushel, one of the best descriptions I've ever read about the progression of T2. You've described my history to a Texas Tea and I'm going to memorize it for my relatives.0
-
Assuming i'm eating 3500 calories a day because of high TDEE (that used to be me) what would be the negative effects of me drinking 500 calories of pepsi if the rest of my diet consists of nutrient dense foods? Asking all the anti-sugar folks.8
-
Assuming i'm eating 3500 calories a day because of high TDEE (that used to be me) what would be the negative effects of me drinking 500 calories of pepsi if the rest of my diet consists of nutrient dense foods? Asking all the anti-sugar folks.
Well, you're wasting precious calories on soda when you could be eating cake!
23 -
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?13 -
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.14 -
5
-
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
Guess my body never got that memo 17 -
RockingWithLJ wrote: »Sugar is not good if you're trying to get tight and tone especially
Why?
Haha! How do you disagree with a question?6 -
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.11 -
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.9 -
A biology class really helps the understanding of this topic. It goes into cellular respiration, and what really happens with the two different types of sugars we eat. Highly recommend it at your local community college or khan academy.
With that said, I don’t keep table sugar in the house. For me, sugary things are like cigarettes. I won’t go buy a pack 99 days, but when I do, I can’t leave the pack alone.
My almond milk is unsweetened. My sodas are diet. No cereals for me. I don’t quite know why, but I get that sugar crash real bad if I eat or drink sugary stuff. Makes me jittery until I eat something.
I would say that if you live a lifestyle where you can put the sugars to work, allow your body to process them, then you do you. But if you don’t, your body will convert it into fat and bad cholesterol that will affect your heart and bloodstream, leading to other diseases.
The liver can be your best friend or your worst enemy.1 -
worth pointing out that quite a few of the really avid anti-sugar people in this post tend to be newbs to a diet site....so they likely [1] haven't quite figured this nutrition/fueling thing out yet for themselves, and [2] while possible, they probably are not endurance athletes.11
-
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.
I'm picturing myself on my next long run just opening a jar of coconut oil and eating it with a spoon!
Less comically, I did a run a few years ago that included little fat bomb packs in the goody bag. I think it was macadamia nut butter? They were packaged just like Gu. I didn't use it as fuel (like you mentioned, I was worried about the potential consequences for my poor carbohydrate-accustomed stomach), but apparently it is a thing. I wound up putting it on toast, which probably would have horrified the company!
5 -
josh2452180 wrote: »A biology class really helps the understanding of this topic. It goes into cellular respiration, and what really happens with the two different types of sugars we eat. Highly recommend it at your local community college or khan academy.
With that said, I don’t keep table sugar in the house. For me, sugary things are like cigarettes. I won’t go buy a pack 99 days, but when I do, I can’t leave the pack alone.
My almond milk is unsweetened. My sodas are diet. No cereals for me. I don’t quite know why, but I get that sugar crash real bad if I eat or drink sugary stuff. Makes me jittery until I eat something.
I would say that if you live a lifestyle where you can put the sugars to work, allow your body to process them, then you do you. But if you don’t, your body will convert it into fat and bad cholesterol that will affect your heart and bloodstream, leading to other diseases.
The liver can be your best friend or your worst enemy.
If sugary foods are triggers for you, sure, don't keep them in the house.
But conflating from that to the body will convert any sugars to fat and affect your cholesterol and heart and liver - that is just silly.
As well as having no sense of context or dosage.
Nobody is suggesting eating mountains of sugar every day.
But everyone's heart, liver etc can cope fine with sensible amounts as part of a balanced diet.
10 -
paperpudding wrote: »josh2452180 wrote: »A biology class really helps the understanding of this topic. It goes into cellular respiration, and what really happens with the two different types of sugars we eat. Highly recommend it at your local community college or khan academy.
With that said, I don’t keep table sugar in the house. For me, sugary things are like cigarettes. I won’t go buy a pack 99 days, but when I do, I can’t leave the pack alone.
My almond milk is unsweetened. My sodas are diet. No cereals for me. I don’t quite know why, but I get that sugar crash real bad if I eat or drink sugary stuff. Makes me jittery until I eat something.
I would say that if you live a lifestyle where you can put the sugars to work, allow your body to process them, then you do you. But if you don’t, your body will convert it into fat and bad cholesterol that will affect your heart and bloodstream, leading to other diseases.
The liver can be your best friend or your worst enemy.
If sugary foods are triggers for you, sure, don't keep them in the house.
But conflating from that to the body will convert any sugars to fat and affect your cholesterol and heart and liver - that is just silly.
As well as having no sense of context or dosage.
Nobody is suggesting eating mountains of sugar every day.
But everyone's heart, liver etc can cope fine with sensible amounts as part of a balanced diet.
I apologize for not being clear. If the body has excess calories in the form of sugar, it will tend to convert it into fat and contribute to adding cholesterol to the blood stream. Same with excess fats, for that matter. Sugars can just be metabolized faster for storage or oxidation. If the body has its stores of glycogen...what else can it convert to? And the liver will be fine either way.
The last two parts of your statement are exactly what I said.0 -
The body will convert excess calories into fat, regardless of them being sugar or not.
IMO, focus on adequate fiber and your sugar intake will take care of itself...12 -
josh2452180 wrote: »My almond milk is unsweetened. My sodas are diet. No cereals for me.
Ditto this for me as well. (I'd rather save the calories for elsewhere in items where I get no benefit -taste or performance-wise- from the sugar, so I do buy the 30 cal/cup unsweetened versus the 80 cal/cup sweetened. I do add Splenda and/or artificially sweetened & flavored syrup along with it to my coffee though).
I do diet soda when I'm somewhere where I'm tempted to boredom snack.
Cereal is completely a trigger food for me, so it doesn't come into the house. (Most starchy things - sugary or not - are triggery for me)
(I will, however, be gobbling down those fruit snacks &/or mini clif bars @ ~ mile 20ish though). (And quite probably some ice cream a few miles before the end unless I'm in a savory-craving mood instead of sweet). (Lately, it's been more savory than sweet.. Last month, however, it was very much sweet).
2 -
josh2452180 wrote: »A biology class really helps the understanding of this topic. It goes into cellular respiration, and what really happens with the two different types of sugars we eat. Highly recommend it at your local community college or khan academy.
I find it odd to suggest that "biology" says something about "the two types of sugar." There aren't 2 types of sugar, but many more than that (and I'm just talking about those that appear in nature, in milk and plants). From the rest of your post, I think you may be distinguishing "added" (or "table") sugar -- although in fact added sugar varies from just table sugar (i.e, sucrose) -- from "intrinsic sugar," but the reference to the liver makes me wonder if you are talking about fructose vs. glucose.
For what it's worth, table sugar (sucrose) is a compound made up of fructose + glucose, about 50% each, and your body easily separates the sucrose back into fructose and glucose. HFCS is about 60% fructose and 40% sucrose. Fruits typically contain a combination of sucrose, fructose, and glucose, but the percentages vary a lot -- some fruits have much fructose than others.
Thus, the idea that table sugar is one kind of sugar and fruit sugar is another is an error. As addressed at length in prior posts by a number of us, the real difference between sugary foods (fruit vs a donut) is what else is in it besides the sugar. That's also why adding a bit of sugar to some oats and berries isn't going to have some magical ill effect.
Obviously it's easier for many people to overdo sugar (and the fat, other refined carbs, and cals that come along with it), than fruit, largely because fruit is lower cal per volume.
Re: fructose vs. glucose, yes fructose is processed by the liver so excessive fructose can potentially be a problem for the liver, but again it's not like table sugar is one and fruit is the other. They are both combinations.9 -
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.
I probably should've added (now too late to edit): I'm aware of the "become fat adapted" keto line of thinking. I don't know who the drive-by disagreer(s) are, but a decent number of the people in this thread who want to eliminate added sugar seem not to be pursuing keto, based on comments about fruits, etc. I admit I'm a skeptic about keto being somehow vital, given the full sweep of human dietary history, but think it's fine for people to pursue if it suits them, and I do see people talking about some endurance athletes considering it a plus to train fat-adaptation via keto. (Some of those athletes, in my understanding, still do dose higher carbs around activity, at least at times, but that's not something I have sound knowledge about. It's obvious that the overwhelming majority of long-endurance athletes rely on carbohydrates for fueling.)
0 -
The body will convert excess calories into fat, regardless of them being sugar or not.
IMO, focus on adequate fiber and your sugar intake will take care of itself...
Also, the body seems to prefer storing fat intake as fat, for efficiency's sake, if it has that option. De novo lipogenesis from carbs, in my understanding, is not the preferred pathway, though obviously it's typically part of the picture in calorie excess.6 -
josh2452180 wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »josh2452180 wrote: »A biology class really helps the understanding of this topic. It goes into cellular respiration, and what really happens with the two different types of sugars we eat. Highly recommend it at your local community college or khan academy.
With that said, I don’t keep table sugar in the house. For me, sugary things are like cigarettes. I won’t go buy a pack 99 days, but when I do, I can’t leave the pack alone.
My almond milk is unsweetened. My sodas are diet. No cereals for me. I don’t quite know why, but I get that sugar crash real bad if I eat or drink sugary stuff. Makes me jittery until I eat something.
I would say that if you live a lifestyle where you can put the sugars to work, allow your body to process them, then you do you. But if you don’t, your body will convert it into fat and bad cholesterol that will affect your heart and bloodstream, leading to other diseases.
The liver can be your best friend or your worst enemy.
If sugary foods are triggers for you, sure, don't keep them in the house.
But conflating from that to the body will convert any sugars to fat and affect your cholesterol and heart and liver - that is just silly.
As well as having no sense of context or dosage.
Nobody is suggesting eating mountains of sugar every day.
But everyone's heart, liver etc can cope fine with sensible amounts as part of a balanced diet.
I apologize for not being clear. If the body has excess calories in the form of sugar, it will tend to convert it into fat and contribute to adding cholesterol to the blood stream. Same with excess fats, for that matter. Sugars can just be metabolized faster for storage or oxidation. If the body has its stores of glycogen...what else can it convert to? And the liver will be fine either way.
The last two parts of your statement are exactly what I said.
if the body has excess calories in the form of anything, it converts to fat - that is how weight gain works.
It isnt something unique to sugar.
5
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