Fat or Sugar - which one is the 666?
Discussion
None, both are awesome.
ETA... in moderation of course.
Tbh I've been eating too much sugar during the day and I get enough glucose as it is, so it's not really doing me much help, but sugar around training can definitely help... as for sugar (we're talking about the super sweet, super insulin spiking refined stuff here, right?) aiding PWO with the absorption of protein I think is actual b
ks. In fact, food timing is mostly bks as has been proven.
And as for fat... very important for keeping good test levels. I would not want to be eating too little fat. Sat, unsat, polyunsat or trans.
So, in summary, I think fat is really important (in any guise) and I also think that simple sugars do have their benefits but definitely not as important.
This is of course if you are a relatively active person and into weight training. More important to most people is just the calories your eating regardless of their source.
ETA... in moderation of course.
Tbh I've been eating too much sugar during the day and I get enough glucose as it is, so it's not really doing me much help, but sugar around training can definitely help... as for sugar (we're talking about the super sweet, super insulin spiking refined stuff here, right?) aiding PWO with the absorption of protein I think is actual b
ks. In fact, food timing is mostly bks as has been proven.And as for fat... very important for keeping good test levels. I would not want to be eating too little fat. Sat, unsat, polyunsat or trans.
So, in summary, I think fat is really important (in any guise) and I also think that simple sugars do have their benefits but definitely not as important.
This is of course if you are a relatively active person and into weight training. More important to most people is just the calories your eating regardless of their source.
Edited by mu0n on Wednesday 23 October 11:32
mu0n said:
as for sugar (we're talking about the super sweet, super insulin spiking refined stuff here, right?)
NO - doubt the doctor has even thought about that. Sugar, as in sugar!
aiding PWO with the absorption of protein I think is actual bks. In fact, food timing is mostly bks as has been proven you have claimed before.
NO - doubt the doctor has even thought about that. Sugar, as in sugar!
aiding PWO with the absorption of protein I think is actual b
ks. In fact, food timing is mostly bks as AnonSpoilSport said:
mu0n said:
as for sugar (we're talking about the super sweet, super insulin spiking refined stuff here, right?)
NO - doubt the doctor has even thought about that. Sugar, as in sugar!
aiding PWO with the absorption of protein I think is actual bks. In fact, food timing is mostly bks as has been proven you have claimed before.
NO - doubt the doctor has even thought about that. Sugar, as in sugar!
aiding PWO with the absorption of protein I think is actual b
ks. In fact, food timing is mostly bks as And yes it has been proven in various articles.
Meal timing is BS as is the 'anabolic window' which is open for roughly 48 hours IIRC.
The only timing that should be important really is pre workout for energy levels.
I really cannot be arsed to go over all the stuff from the last thread on this, but:
it's easy to mine-quote selected articles and claim 'proof'
you didn't prove anything last time, nor did your sources (please for Christ's sake don't quote them again!)
you didn't convince some of us last time round, or would have many bodybuilders, athletes and their nutritionists and s&c coaches
So, on this, I'm out as they say.
Besides, it's off topic because the thread refers to the comparison of the dangers of excess sugar intake compared with saturated fat intake - often demonised even when not to excess; see some of the stupid recommendations for minute amounts some physicians and their media stooges have suggested over the years.
it's easy to mine-quote selected articles and claim 'proof'
you didn't prove anything last time, nor did your sources (please for Christ's sake don't quote them again!)
you didn't convince some of us last time round, or would have many bodybuilders, athletes and their nutritionists and s&c coaches
So, on this, I'm out as they say.
Besides, it's off topic because the thread refers to the comparison of the dangers of excess sugar intake compared with saturated fat intake - often demonised even when not to excess; see some of the stupid recommendations for minute amounts some physicians and their media stooges have suggested over the years.
goldblum said:
Fats and Carbs share common metabolic pathways so for the body to work efficiently both are needed. Carbs are better taken in their complex form.
Simple carbs, i.e. sugar, are completely unnecessary.
I'll go with that! Certainly for most of us/most purposes. The insulin injecting, sugar swigging bodybuilders having a singular purpose, as part of their chemical roulette game...Simple carbs, i.e. sugar, are completely unnecessary.
To be fair, with regards to fat and sugar intake, it is aimed at the masses who are lazy, non-exercising folk.
Although I'd say the issue is overeating more than anything, then looking at the macro breakdown after that. It's really not as important when you look at the bigger picture.
For example, a regular meal from McD's (say a Big Mac meal with a coke) would be over 1,000 calories in one sitting. You don't need to eat too much more during the day to go over the amount of calories your sedentary lifestyle body will use up.
Although I'd say the issue is overeating more than anything, then looking at the macro breakdown after that. It's really not as important when you look at the bigger picture.
For example, a regular meal from McD's (say a Big Mac meal with a coke) would be over 1,000 calories in one sitting. You don't need to eat too much more during the day to go over the amount of calories your sedentary lifestyle body will use up.
My interest in posting was the issue of saturated fats, how they had been slated and the attempt to frighten the mass population into avoiding them, yet being pushed into eating loads of refined junk including glucose syrup and the rest.
I watch my sugar intake very carefully, don't give a hoot about how many eggs, cheese, units of milk etc. I have and have a cholesterol level varying between the high 2s and 3.0 on the last test - in my 50s. I might be wrong and end up with a nasty shock but my fear of having a heart attack is hovering just above zero!
But if I do get one and die I promise to post back to confirm, just not sure whether to use this thread or the Clairvoyant one...
I watch my sugar intake very carefully, don't give a hoot about how many eggs, cheese, units of milk etc. I have and have a cholesterol level varying between the high 2s and 3.0 on the last test - in my 50s. I might be wrong and end up with a nasty shock but my fear of having a heart attack is hovering just above zero!
But if I do get one and die I promise to post back to confirm, just not sure whether to use this thread or the Clairvoyant one...
Edited by AnonSpoilSport on Wednesday 23 October 12:01
AnonSpoilSport said:
My interest in posting was the issue of saturated fats, how they had been slated and the attempt to frighten the mass population into avoiding them, yet being pushed into eating loads of refined junk including glucose syrup and the rest.
I watch my sugar intake very carefully, don't give a hoot about how many eggs, cheese, units of milk etc. I have and have a cholesterol level varying between the high 2s and 3.0 on the last test - in my 50s. I might be wrong and end up with a nasty shock but my fear of having a heart attack is hovering just above zero!
But if I do get one and die I promise to post back to confirm, just not sure whether to use this thread or the Clairvoyant one...
You'll be fine. Eskimoes and some Native American Indians ate a very high saturated fat, medium protein, very low carb diet for thier whole life. They also had low cholesterol, low blood pressure, no tooth decay, no kidney stones, etc etc, in fact much better health than most people today. I watch my sugar intake very carefully, don't give a hoot about how many eggs, cheese, units of milk etc. I have and have a cholesterol level varying between the high 2s and 3.0 on the last test - in my 50s. I might be wrong and end up with a nasty shock but my fear of having a heart attack is hovering just above zero!
But if I do get one and die I promise to post back to confirm, just not sure whether to use this thread or the Clairvoyant one...
Edited by AnonSpoilSport on Wednesday 23 October 12:01
Gassing Station | Health Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff