wolfchild

This paragraph is taken directly out of Hammer Nutrition:


We believe that fructose, sucrose, glucose, and other simple sugars (mono-and disaccharides) are poor carbohydrate sources for fueling your body during exercise. Also for optimal health you should restrict your intake of these simple sugars


For endurance athletes, the primary problem with fuels containing simple sugars is that they must be mixed in weal 6-8% solutions in order to match body fluid osmolality parameters( 280-303 mOsm) and thus be digested with any efficiency. Unfortunately, solutions mixed and consumed at this concentration only provide, at the most, about 100 calories per hour, inadequate for maintaining energy production on a hourly basis for most athletes. Using 6-8% solution to obtain adequate calories means your fluid intake becomes so high that it causes discomfort and bloating, and you may possibly overhydrate to point of fluid intoxication.


You can't make a double or triple strength mixture from a simple sugar-based carbohydrate fuel in hopes of obtaining adequate calories because the concentration of that mixture, now far beyond the 6-8% mark, will remain in your stomach until sufficiently diluted, which may cause substantial stomach distress. You can drink more fluids in hopes of self diluting the overly concentrated mixture, but remember that you'll increase the risk of overhydration. However, if you don't dilute with more water and electrolytes, your body will recruit these from other areas that critically need them and divert them to digestive system to deal with the concentrated simple sugar mix. This can result in a variety of stomach-related distresses, not to mention increased cramping potential.


The bottom line is that simple sugar-based drinks or gels have to be mixed and consumed at a very dilute and calorically weak concentrations in order to be digested with any efficiency. A simple sugar-based product used at a properly mixed concentrations cannot provide adequate calories to sustain energy production. Any way you look at it, fuels containing simple sugars are inefficient and therefore not recommended during prolonged exercise.


Complex carbohydrates ( polysaccharides) are the best choice for endurance athletes, as they allow your digestive system to rapidly and efficiently process a greater volume of calories, providing steady energy. Unlike simple sugars, which match body osmolality at 6-8% solutions, complex carbohydrates match body fluid osmolality ate substantially more concentrated 15-18% solutions. Even at this seemingly high concentration, complex carbohydrates ( maltodextrins/glucose polymers) will empty the stomach at the same efficient rate as normal body fluids, providing up to three times more calories for energy production then simple sugar mixtures. This means that you can fulfill you caloric requirements without running the risk of overhydration or other stomach-related maladies.

Heathpack 

Complex carbs in the form of polysaccharides in solution are different from the complex carbs in the "real food" that you advocated that I use up thread in lieu of a gel. "Real food" sources of complex carbs are typically things like bread, potatoes, legumes which require more digestion in order to be absorbed than do polysaccharides in solution and also contain other macronutrients such as protein & fat, which are more slowly digested/absorbed.

Most gels (which you seemed to be opposed to previously) contain both sugars and polysaccharides. You eat one and then drink water. They are very similar in macronutrient composition to the drinks your Hammer quote refers to.

However, a polysaccharide is just a chain of simple sugars. When they hit your body, they have the same exact effect as simple sugars. What Hammer is discussing quite correctly is the delivery mechanism for getting the desired result of maximal simple sugars floating in your blood stream while cycling and doing it ASAP. *Not* the same thing as the health benefits of getting your carbs via low glycemic index foods that are slowly absorbed in part because of their fiber, fat and/or protein content.

I know at this point you're going to the Hammer Nutrition web site & cutting/pasting because you really want to be right. But the reality is that you don't have the best understanding of this stuff.

Real food= great option off the bike, or for people riding at low or moderate intensity. Your best bet for overall health maintence

Sugar (both simple sugars and polysaccharides in solution which can be quickly absorbed and immediately used as sugar)= the best fuel for intense cycling efforts

Fatty acids= the predominant fuel for aerobic efforts and a fuel source that it's worth training your body to shuttle around/use efficiently (ie with fasted training)

What and how you should fuel depends completely on what your priorities are. Telling any cyclist that they don't need simple sugars and they they should just fuel with "real food" is overly simplistic. The correct approach is to understand what the cyclist is doing on a bike- at what intensity & for how long- and how well-trained they are o the effort. The on-bike & off-bike reccomendations for a great many cyclists should be very different.

sprince

The "reasonable limits" part is what means different things to different people. For me that means a couple chocolate chip cookies on Christmas day, a little cranberry sauce at thanksgiving and a handful of fresh blackberries a couple times a month. But for some that may mean a daily candy bar, dessert after dinner, half a dozen gels on a 50 mile ride, and enough simple sugars in processed foods to get a hummingbird from Maine to South America and back again with no rest stops.

Machka 

WOW! I'm sorry to hear your diet is so restrictive. Diabetes?

FXjohn

I don't eat much sugar whatsoever and I'm not diabetic. Not sure why you'd assume something like that. Not everyone is into empty calories. I like getting my carbs from fruit, grains and potatoes. Soda has no appeal at all.

Machka 

I just can't imagine such a restrictive diet as he described, if it weren't done for a serious medical issue. Practically no fruit?? Only handful of fresh blackberries a couple times a month?

Life wouldn't be worth living if I couldn't have bananas, apples, mandarins, kiwi fruit, rockmelon, pineapple, honeydew, peaches, berries of all sorts, apricots, dragon fruit, custard apples, grapes, lychee, watermelon, nectarines, cherries, and especially mangoes.

sprince

Nope, no health problems, eat whatever I want, don't own a scale and don't count calories or carbs. There was never a conscious decision to omit sugar, but over time replacing junk with healthy foods, sugar or any overly sweet foods have lost their appeal.

Heathpack 

So are you saying that you believe fruit to be junk food because it contains sugar?

wolfchild

So if somebody avoids or restricts alcohol or beer does that mean that they are alcoholics ?...I don't think so...Just because somebody restricts or avoids consuming refined sugars doesn't mean that they have health problems.
I don't have any health problems and I can tolerate sugar pretty well, but I just choose to avoid it because sugar doesn't do anything for me and there are absolutely no health benefits and no advantages to eating refined sugar and there is a lot of evidence pointing to adverse health issues associated with regular sugar consumption.
I would rather practice moderate beer consumption then moderate sugar consumption. If I had a choice between a bottle of Gatorade and a bottle of strong dark beer I would choose beer....As for fruit consumption, all I can say is that I've never been much of a fruit person and I don't carve fruits. The only fruit I eat regularly is about 2 bananas a day. I much prefer to eat a load of vegetables per day then to eat a load of fruits.

sprince

Nothing wrong with fruit in moderation. Big difference between fruit and refined sugars.

wolfchild

Our modern fruit produced by modern farming has a lot more sugar then fruits of the old days or fruits found in the wild. Modern fruits are produced to satisfy peoples cravings for sweet things and not to provide any health benefits. Excessive daily consumption of fruits and fruit juices will promote fat gain just like eating refined sugars.

Machka 

So why only a few blackberries in your diet?

Machka 

Only if you eat more calories than you're burning. It's all calories in < calories out.

Machka 

Personally, I wouldn't choose either. I'd pick water.

Generally speaking I prefer not to drink my calories. I'd rather eat a large juicy mango. Yum-yum!!

FXjohn

raw fruit is better, you get the benefit of the fiber.

sprince

The birds and squirrels usually get to them first.

I've never been a much of a fruit person and don't crave sweets. I get cravings for things like nuts, hot peppers, broccoli and cocoa. The other morning I playing with my new toy, a magic bullet blender. Made a protein drink with half a dozen blackberries, a heaping tablespoon of cocoa powder, a big scoop of soy protein and milk. It tasted very sweet to me, so I thought my wife might like it. I think her exact words were something like "uuugh! what the ****! oh my god this is sooo bitter! how can you drink this ****?".

gear64

And me

wolfchild

Why soy protein ??...Are there any advantages to using soy protein instead of whey protein ??

Heathpack 

Lol, totally.

Ok so now you're going to quote me Hammer Nutrition articles advocating ingredients like maltodextrin because they are "complex carbs". Even though maltodextrin is not found in nature, is a 100% engineered food, and (depending on how it's engineered) has a higher glycemic index than glucose?

Yet we're supposed to reject fruit because it's been bred over history to be sweeter, despite fruit containing all kinds of positives like fiber, unique phytonutrients not found in other foods, vitamins, minerals, and antioxidants.

And you give me nutrition advice for a type of race that it turns out you've never even done.

Total bike forum cliche.

Now excuse while I choose my morning snack from one of the following things that I just hauled home from the farmers market: raspberries, blueberries, blackberries, peaches or pluots. Or perhaps from one of the fruits in my fridge: cherries, grapes, watermelon, oranges, or apples. Hmm. Tough choices. I'm sure I'll be packing on the pounds eating like this

RandomEncounter

This is because a bit of that sugar will be on the surface of your teeth and promote the growth of harmful bacteria, especially if it's a sticky kind of food. Any food has the same effect, but sugar has a higher energy density. Floss and brush after every meal and you're good to go. Or at least floss and rinse.

Heathpack 

Well, I decided to go with a breakfast of poached eggs over toasted sourdough spread with duxelles, a perfectly ripe peach, and a small pot of white chai tea with <gasp!> a bit of brown sugar.

I can feel the pounds packing on and the cancer cells growing as we speak!

sprince

Like the taste, and it is $5 lb vs $11 lb for whey. As far as protein quality, there is no difference. Whey digests a bit faster. Some men are terrified of soy because of an association with phytoestrogens and the unfounded belief that it will make you grow boobs like Dolly Parton. Good thing IMHO, it keeps the prices down

Machka 

Sounds delicious!!

We're in the middle of winter here, so I'm rather limited in my fruit choices right now. Can't wait until some of those come back into season again.

Seattle Forrest

And again, this shows that the public has bought into all kinds of myths about food. Like "sugar is the devil."

Seattle Forrest

Himalayan blackberries grow like a weed here, and they're in fruit now. Everybody in Seattle - including yours truly - is picking as many as possible, and freezing what we can't eat now. I mostly turn mine into smoothies with protein powder. The parks are lined and fairly well picked over but there's a bike path about 15 miles south of me that nobody seems to know about.