Sugar its like a poison

Forum rules
The information / discussion in the Cycling Health Forum is not qualified medical advice. Please consult your doctor.
RhapsodyX
Posts: 275
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2013 7:59 pm

Re: Sugar its like a poison

Postby RhapsodyX » Thu Jan 14, 2016 4:53 pm

Aussiebullet wrote:
RhapsodyX wrote:I used to take gels, sports drinks etc. etc. Now I ride on water with a weak solution of "no added sugar" cordial and some salt - sometimes burning over 2900Kj (according to the Power2Max) before eating. From a cycling perspective, sugar (and starch) are effectively drugs of dependency - the more you have, the more you need.


Not sure I understand what your point is.


2,900+ Kj at the cranks, which is something like 12,000Kj energy consumption at the body without refueling.

Bluejay87
Posts: 484
Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 10:46 pm

Re: Sugar its like a poison

Postby Bluejay87 » Thu Jan 14, 2016 4:57 pm

But what is the advantage apart from not having to carry as much food?

Baalzamon
Posts: 5334
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2007 2:23 pm
Location: Yangebup

Re: Sugar its like a poison

Postby Baalzamon » Thu Jan 14, 2016 10:35 pm

RhapsodyX wrote:
Bluejay87 wrote:What kind of training do you do? Long and slow? My weak understanding was you could burn your fat for those kinds of rides, but you really the carbs for the more intense rides.


As long as you mostly stay below the aerobic threshold - no issue. I finished in the mid 50's for Fitz's 165km classic this year, and finished this years AG Gran Fondo in 3:26, 22 minutes faster than my best carb-fueled effort. Anaerobic is a bit limited... and you can still bonk if the energy expenditure exceeds the ability of the liver to create glucose, but there's always SOME stored glycogen going on via gluconeogenesis. For longer efforts (3+ hours) you can use something like superstarch or (somewhat) "carb up" the day before. As I pointed out to a mate - I can carb up the day before, but he can't fat-adapt in a day.


It takes a full year to fully fat adapt, and you have to be careful on a lchf diet that you get enough fats in the first 6 weeks and you get enough potassium, sodium and magnesium otherwise keto flu will happen.
Masi Speciale CX 2008 - Brooks B17 special saddle, Garmin Edge 810
Image

Aussiebullet
Posts: 162
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 8:00 am

Re: Sugar its like a poison

Postby Aussiebullet » Fri Jan 15, 2016 6:41 am

RhapsodyX wrote: 2,900+ Kj at the cranks, which is something like 12,000Kj energy consumption at the body without refueling.




Thanks, your other replies cleared everything else up.

As for needing to be fat adapted to do this I don't think that is the case, although I'll agree do too much time above threshold and things can fall apart fairly soon.
I think 600 cal/hr was the highest rate of fat oxidation seen in athletes in a lab when studying the effects of a high fat diet so if burning north of ~600 cal/hr for long periods then yeh there needs to be some stored glycogen on board otherwise bad things tend to take place either higher rates of muscle catabolism or the dreaded bonk.
In summer due to the heat I regularly wake up and head strait out to beat the heat without food just water for a training session and tap out 3-4hrs of tempo back to back 2 or 3 days in a row then carb load the rest of the day, as was the case on M,T,W.
For longer training rides 5 or 6+hrs; or more intense 3+hr training rides back to back for several days in the cooler months then I'm eating 300 - 400 cal/hr on the bike.
Last edited by Aussiebullet on Fri Jan 15, 2016 10:17 am, edited 1 time in total.

RhapsodyX
Posts: 275
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2013 7:59 pm

Re: Sugar its like a poison

Postby RhapsodyX » Fri Jan 15, 2016 10:08 am

Bluejay87 wrote:But what is the advantage apart from not having to carry as much food?

Stored glycogen is a limited resource, so conserving glycogen for anaerobic efforts means you are far less likely to bonk or get dropped at the end of an event.

RhapsodyX
Posts: 275
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2013 7:59 pm

Re: Sugar its like a poison

Postby RhapsodyX » Fri Jan 15, 2016 10:26 am

Aussiebullet wrote:
RhapsodyX wrote: 2,900+ Kj at the cranks, which is something like 12,000Kj energy consumption at the body without refueling.




Thanks, your other replies cleared everything else up.

As for needing to be fat adapted to do this I don't think that is the case, although I'll agree do too much time above threshold and things can fall apart fairly soon.
I think 600 cal/hr was the highest rate of fat oxidation seen in athletes in a lab when studying the effects of a high fat diet so if burning north of ~600 cal/hr for long periods then yeh there needs to be some stored glycogen on board otherwise bad things tend to take place either higher rates or muscle catabolism or the dreaded bonk.
In summer due to the heat I regularly wake up and head strait out to beat the heat without food just water for a training session and tap out 3-4hrs of tempo back to back 2 or 3 days in a row then carb load the rest of the day, as was the case on M,T,W.
For longer training rides 5 or 6+hrs; or more intense 3+hr training rides back to back for several days in the cooler months then I'm eating 300 - 400 cal/hr on the bike.


For Fitz's I was burning about 800cal/hr, for the AG Fondo it was 940cal/hr. For the Fondo, the only fuel was ~ 36g of SuperStarch, and I didn't carb up before hand. I also didn't carb up before Fitz, but ~36g of SuperStarch and I did eat the sandwiches and cake at the rest stops.
My VO2Max (66ml/kg/min, lab tested 14 months ago) equates to ~1800cal/hr. But I'm a big unit - 192cm, currently 85kg.
(Note : cal/hr based on just assuming that Kj (AT) the wheel is equivalent to cal on the body... I'm probably not 25% efficient, more like 21 - 22% based on W/kg vs VO2Max).

Aussiebullet
Posts: 162
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 8:00 am

Re: Sugar its like a poison

Postby Aussiebullet » Fri Jan 15, 2016 12:18 pm

What was your FTP at the time?

RhapsodyX
Posts: 275
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2013 7:59 pm

Re: Sugar its like a poison

Postby RhapsodyX » Fri Jan 15, 2016 3:39 pm

Aussiebullet wrote:What was your FTP at the time?

Around 360W and 87Kg.

softy
Posts: 1663
Joined: Sat Jan 25, 2014 3:44 pm

Re: Sugar its like a poison

Postby softy » Sat Jan 16, 2016 9:37 pm

I noticed there was a conversation about taxing poor foods to change culture.

I do not support this for three reasons;
1. It discriminates against the companies producing that food.
2. How do you value, index bad foods against tax, we don't even have a clear view what is good or bad
3. It removes freedom of choice, does the government have to tell us what to eat?

an example is tobacco and alcohol, which is worst?
alcohol gets a lot more freedom than tobacco, although they are both legal drugs.

i would argue, alcohol causes more general problems than tobacco. How do you measure degrees of effect on the population.

when we have governments deciding what we should eat, it will be a sad world.

so lets just go down the rabbit hole for a moment......

where do you think this will lead too. Lets be clear, "it will be a fat tax" so lets stop beatening around the bush.

When you put in your tax return, it is based on your BMI, higher BMI more tax, is that fair?
When you go on a plane, you are weighted with your luggage, and pay for the total kilos. Is that fair?

Now this sounds extreme, but lets face it, fat people cost the community more, so why not a fat tax?

Because we are supposed to be a free country and this would clearly be discrimination. So why do it by stealth.

User avatar
mikesbytes
Super Mod
Super Mod
Posts: 18331
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:42 pm
Location: Tempe, Sydney
Contact:

Re: Sugar its like a poison

Postby mikesbytes » Sat Jan 16, 2016 10:15 pm

We already have a kind of poor quality food tax. GST is not applied to base foods and is applied to manufactured foods.
If the R-1 rule is broken, what happens to N+1?

softy
Posts: 1663
Joined: Sat Jan 25, 2014 3:44 pm

Re: Sugar its like a poison

Postby softy » Sat Jan 16, 2016 10:27 pm

mikesbytes wrote:We already have a kind of poor quality food tax. GST is not applied to base foods and is applied to manufactured foods.


I respectfully have to disagree, the 10% tax is on goods and services, they is an argument for it to be on everything, this was made when it was introduced, but base essential items (how they decided these i don't know) was the deal to get it through the upper house. For all intent purposes this is a tax on most things, it really has little to do with good/bad foods.

Nobody
Posts: 8460
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Sugar its like a poison

Postby Nobody » Sun Jan 17, 2016 9:42 am

softy wrote:I noticed there was a conversation about taxing poor foods to change culture.

I do not support this for three reasons;
1. It discriminates against the companies producing that food.
Those companies' products should be discriminated against. Their products are damaging peoples' health and often spreading misinformation in the form of marketing about how "healthy" their unhealthy products are.
softy wrote:2. How do you value, index bad foods against tax, we don't even have a clear view what is good or bad
Define we? The body of science for dietary health has been clear since the '70s. Yet powerful industry interests have prevented (arguably weak) governments from informing their people properly.
http://nutritionfacts.org/video/the-mcgovern-report/
There is a "clear view" of what a good diet is according to the science. It's just not in the food, pharmaceutical, or medical industries' interests for people to know the truth. And it's an inconvenient truth that individuals would also not rather know about. They like their animal products, processed carbs and processed fats.
softy wrote:3. It removes freedom of choice, does the government have to tell us what to eat?
In a country where the government is paying the majority of peoples' health bills, they have an interest and right to be influencing personal decisions that govern health. Like the smoking taxes and laws.

softy wrote:so lets just go down the rabbit hole for a moment......

where do you think this will lead too. Lets be clear, "it will be a fat tax" so lets stop beating around the bush.
Maybe it requires "the hip pocket nerve" to get people to take it seriously.

softy wrote:When you put in your tax return, it is based on your BMI, higher BMI more tax, is that fair?
We are already collectively paying for obesity related illnesses through out increasing medicare levies. To argue the other side; why should people who look after their health have to subsidise people who don't?

softy wrote:When you go on a plane, you are weighted with your luggage, and pay for the total kilos. Is that fair?
Is it fair that the light people are subsidising the heavier people currently? Light people could be paying less of the fuel costs.

softy wrote:Now this sounds extreme, but lets face it, fat people cost the community more, so why not a fat tax? Because we are supposed to be a free country and this would clearly be discrimination. So why do it by stealth.
So what you appear to be saying is that people who look after themselves should continue to have to subsidise the growing number of people who don't. How is that fair?

The majority of people don't really think too much about their long-term health and so "go with the flow" when it comes to diet and social norms. For most, this will eventually lead to obesity and/or chronic diseases. When they decide to change, they find a maze of misinformation which often prevents them from finding the healthiest diet. That is because governments have allowed a profit before people culture. Something to think about next time a loved one's life or health is cut short by a chronic illness. I lost my mother last year to leukemia. If she had known the truth about healthy eating 40 years ago, there is a possibility that she would still be alive and healthy.
Last edited by Nobody on Sun Jan 17, 2016 10:02 am, edited 1 time in total.

softy
Posts: 1663
Joined: Sat Jan 25, 2014 3:44 pm

Re: Sugar its like a poison

Postby softy » Sun Jan 17, 2016 9:56 am

Nobody wrote:
softy wrote:I noticed there was a conversation about taxing poor foods to change culture.

I do not support this for three reasons;
1. It discriminates against the companies producing that food.
Those companies' products should be discriminated against. Their products are damaging peoples' health and often spreading misinformation in the form of marketing about how "healthy" their unhealthy products are.
softy wrote:2. How do you value, index bad foods against tax, we don't even have a clear view what is good or bad
Define we? The body of science for dietary health has been clear since the '70s. Yet powerful industry interests have prevented (arguably weak) governments from informing their people properly.
http://nutritionfacts.org/video/the-mcgovern-report/
There is a "clear view" of what a good diet is according to the science. It's just not in the food, pharmaceutical, or medical industries' interests for people to know the truth. And it's and inconvenient truth that individuals would also not rather know about. They like their animal products, processed carbs and processed fats.
softy wrote:3. It removes freedom of choice, does the government have to tell us what to eat?
In a country where the government is paying the majority of peoples' health bills, they have an interest and right to be influencing personal decisions that govern health. Like the smoking taxes and laws.

softy wrote:so lets just go down the rabbit hole for a moment......

where do you think this will lead too. Lets be clear, "it will be a fat tax" so lets stop beating around the bush.
Maybe it requires "the hip pocket nerve" to get people to take it seriously.

softy wrote:When you put in your tax return, it is based on your BMI, higher BMI more tax, is that fair?
We are already collectively paying for obesity related illnesses through out increasing medicare levies. To argue the other side; why should people who look after their health have to subsidise people who don't?

softy wrote:When you go on a plane, you are weighted with your luggage, and pay for the total kilos. Is that fair?
Is it fair that the light people are subsidising the heavier people currently?

softy wrote:Now this sounds extreme, but lets face it, fat people cost the community more, so why not a fat tax? Because we are supposed to be a free country and this would clearly be discrimination. So why do it by stealth.
So what you appear to be saying is that people who look after themselves should continue to have to subsidise the growing number of people who don't. How is that fair?

The majority of people don't really think too much about their long-term health and "so go with the flow" when it comes to diet and social norms. For most, this will eventually lead to obesity and/or chronic diseases. When they decide to change, they find a maze of misinformation which often prevents them from finding the healthiest diet. That is because governments have allowed a profit before people culture. Something to think about next time a loved one's life or health is cut short by a chronic illness. I lost my mother last year to leukemia. If she had known the truth about healthy eating 40 years ago, there is a possibility that she would be still alive.


I personal, don't believe in adding tax to specific food, i believe it should go straight to the source. Pay more income tax based on how over weight you are (why i placed it in my last post), it appears the above poster agrees.

Raise this at work or at a BBQ, and you will be seen as radical! Extreme! Crazy!
A tax like this on planes was suggested by one of the budjet airlines and was shut down very quickly as discriminatory.

so i don't think the general public are ready for such taxes, every though we are all paying for the fat people.

Nobody
Posts: 8460
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Sugar its like a poison

Postby Nobody » Sun Jan 17, 2016 10:25 am

softy wrote:I personal, don't believe in adding tax to specific food, i believe it should go straight to the source. Pay more income tax based on how over weight you are (why i placed it in my last post), it appears the above poster agrees.

Raise this at work or at a BBQ, and you will be seen as radical! Extreme! Crazy!
A tax like this on planes was suggested by one of the budjet airlines and was shut down very quickly as discriminatory.

so i don't think the general public are ready for such taxes, every though we are all paying for the fat people.
Since in most wealthy countries about two thirds of people are overweight and a third are obese, it's no surprise to find attitudes like you describe. As the situation is only going to get worse from here, the shrinking healthier minority will just have to go on subsidising the majority.

The situation is already too far gone to change without what is considered as extreme action by governments. Most governments have shown they haven't got the strength to stand up against industry and popular opinion for the benefit of the people. So it looks like the medical industry will continue to grow, along with our medicare levies and health insurance premiums.

User avatar
mikesbytes
Super Mod
Super Mod
Posts: 18331
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:42 pm
Location: Tempe, Sydney
Contact:

Re: Sugar its like a poison

Postby mikesbytes » Sun Jan 17, 2016 4:04 pm

softy wrote:
mikesbytes wrote:We already have a kind of poor quality food tax. GST is not applied to base foods and is applied to manufactured foods.


I respectfully have to disagree, the 10% tax is on goods and services, they is an argument for it to be on everything, this was made when it was introduced, but base essential items (how they decided these i don't know) was the deal to get it through the upper house. For all intent purposes this is a tax on most things, it really has little to do with good/bad foods.
Modeled closely on the Irish system, there's a summary on ATO https://www.ato.gov.au/Print-publications/GST-food-guide/?anchor=GSTstatusoffooditems#GSTstatusoffooditems As you can see from the guide that most base foods are exempt and most manufactured foods are not. Not all base foods are good for you and not all manufactured foods are bad for you.
If the R-1 rule is broken, what happens to N+1?

Baalzamon
Posts: 5334
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2007 2:23 pm
Location: Yangebup

Re: Sugar its like a poison

Postby Baalzamon » Tue Jan 19, 2016 9:58 am

Coca-Cola and PepsiCo funded study of diet drinks
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/the-times/cocacola-and-pepsico-funded-study-of-diet-drinks/news-story/3b49e8eccfbc46f2ff431306249ab60d
Who see's the irony here? If you read the article you will see big food names involved in this study all trying to protect their bottom line.
Masi Speciale CX 2008 - Brooks B17 special saddle, Garmin Edge 810
Image

Baalzamon
Posts: 5334
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2007 2:23 pm
Location: Yangebup

Re: Sugar its like a poison

Postby Baalzamon » Tue Jan 19, 2016 10:03 am

Irish study on family showing sugar intake
Masi Speciale CX 2008 - Brooks B17 special saddle, Garmin Edge 810
Image

User avatar
Alien27
Posts: 246
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2012 5:59 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Sugar its like a poison

Postby Alien27 » Tue Jan 19, 2016 11:24 am

softly, your point of view seems to me flawed because it is is based on a flawed understanding of human nature. Our understanding of addiction and choice has progressed far from the freewill model. We are not the logical beings we believe ourselves to be. Most of our decisions are not based on logic and careful evaluation of the facts. We are social emotional beings not logical ones. We can only win over the emotion and addiction for so long. it only takes the addiction to find a way around the logic once and BAM there goes a packet of Tim Tams :lol:

Relying on people to cut food intake and preference good food over bad is NOT going to work, ever not in a million years, we just haven't evolved that way.

Your solution will make things work. Taxing people because they are fat will make them give up and hate themselves even more, not loose weight. You tax the products that are doing the damage not the people that are getting damaged. It works, we have a model in cigarettes, works a treat.

Tax highly processed foods that are high in sugar, fat and salt. Tax them so that they return to government coffers some of the money they are costing the government in health costs. you know it makes sense :P
Tom
Image

User avatar
mikesbytes
Super Mod
Super Mod
Posts: 18331
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:42 pm
Location: Tempe, Sydney
Contact:

Re: Sugar its like a poison

Postby mikesbytes » Tue Jan 19, 2016 1:34 pm

Baalzamon wrote:Coca-Cola and PepsiCo funded study of diet drinks
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/the-times/cocacola-and-pepsico-funded-study-of-diet-drinks/news-story/3b49e8eccfbc46f2ff431306249ab60d
Who see's the irony here? If you read the article you will see big food names involved in this study all trying to protect their bottom line.

Almost no point in reading a study that's funded by the interested parties. And its simply ridiculous to suggest that the product would be better than water. It does show the lengths that manufacturers go to protect their market.

I see for many the wean off liquid path goes something like this Booze -> Soft Drink -> Diet Soft Drink -> Sparkliing Mineral Water -> Water. At some point the calories drop out but the addiction continues and the final leap is away from the need for liquid to be packaged, a bit like feeling naked at a party because you don't have a drink in your hand.

Baalzamon wrote:Irish study on family showing sugar intake
Did you see how it destroyed the child's baby teeth, requiring extraction at 4 years old.
If the R-1 rule is broken, what happens to N+1?

softy
Posts: 1663
Joined: Sat Jan 25, 2014 3:44 pm

Re: Sugar its like a poison

Postby softy » Tue Jan 19, 2016 10:24 pm

Alien27 wrote:softly, your point of view seems to me flawed because it is is based on a flawed understanding of human nature. Our understanding of addiction and choice has progressed far from the freewill model. We are not the logical beings we believe ourselves to be. Most of our decisions are not based on logic and careful evaluation of the facts. We are social emotional beings not logical ones. We can only win over the emotion and addiction for so long. it only takes the addiction to find a way around the logic once and BAM there goes a packet of Tim Tams :lol:

Relying on people to cut food intake and preference good food over bad is NOT going to work, ever not in a million years, we just haven't evolved that way.

Your solution will make things work. Taxing people because they are fat will make them give up and hate themselves even more, not loose weight. You tax the products that are doing the damage not the people that are getting damaged. It works, we have a model in cigarettes, works a treat.

Tax highly processed foods that are high in sugar, fat and salt. Tax them so that they return to government coffers some of the money they are costing the government in health costs. you know it makes sense :P


i think that parallel is a little flawed.

When you tax cigarettes, you are only impacting cigarette users. Taxing so called "bad food"with a added tax, impacts all uses weather they are fat or skinny. I am a normal BMI, and if i want to buy a soft drink, i will have to pay a premium! But i am not the target audience. A fat tax, taxes them directly, same when you fly. Physics says, it takes more fuel to lift more weight, so why should a 50kg person subsidise a 150kg person?

It is a good debate, but one thing is for sure, it is an epidemic and something needs to be done.

User avatar
mikesbytes
Super Mod
Super Mod
Posts: 18331
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:42 pm
Location: Tempe, Sydney
Contact:

Re: Sugar its like a poison

Postby mikesbytes » Wed Jan 20, 2016 2:46 pm

Encouraging the reduction in use of products deemed negative in some way is what we want, but taxation only goes so far. There is a lot of tax on fuel but it seems to do little to restrict usage.

In regards this thread, sugar doesn't get taxed in itself however the manufactured products its used in are. Somehow I doubt that placing a tax on sugar would make that much difference in consumption unless it encouraged the manufacturers to put less in their products.

As per softy something needs to be done and while those discussing in this thread aren't the ones been hit by poor consumption, we still bare the costs of society and what to do isn't cut and dry as with tobacco
If the R-1 rule is broken, what happens to N+1?

User avatar
Howzat
Posts: 726
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2012 7:08 pm

Re: Sugar its like a poison

Postby Howzat » Fri Jun 03, 2016 11:30 am

It depends on the level of tax, don't you think Mike?

Fuel taxes are currently about 37c per litre and fuel is about $1.15. If we decided to set the fuel tax to zero, petrol would be 78c a litre.

Driving a few hundred kms to the beach every weekend might cost under $20 in fuel. So yeah, I think you'd see a lot more discretionary trips being taken, a lot more people leaving the car running to warm it up, with consequent increases road congestion, air pollution, road maintenance, and the usual gang of costly problems. Sure we have those problems now, but they could be even worse than they are.

Currently our policy choice is that the sugar tax should be zero. We also have a big problem with diabetes and obesity associated with over-consumption of sugar.

So let's put a sugar tax, and direct the funds raised to diabetes prevention, which will save another big pile of cash. A sugar tax definitely won't be a fix-all, but definitely will be a step in the right direction.

RhapsodyX
Posts: 275
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2013 7:59 pm

Re: Sugar its like a poison

Postby RhapsodyX » Fri Jun 03, 2016 1:11 pm

Howzat wrote:...
So let's put a sugar tax, and direct the funds raised to diabetes prevention, which will save another big pile of cash. A sugar tax definitely won't be a fix-all, but definitely will be a step in the right direction.


It would need to be a broad definition - it's pretty easy to say "sugar", but anything containing polysaccharides with a high energy density can have the same effect (think : table sugar, maple syrup, honey etc. etc.) and people don't see those as "sugar". And the suggestion is that fructose as an individual component is one of the key drivers as it is processed along the same lines as an alcohol and doesn't drive insulin the way other disaccharides are. Can-o-worms... but worth working through, as the sheer quantity of "sugar" in some products is simply amazing.

And I recently found a "large" jar of Nutella in my house. Think global, act local... I can't even persuade my wife that she shouldn't give in to the children on items like this.

On that note : many cafe's are serving cakes made by a company in Sydney ("Cakes By Tess") that (1) doesn't provide the nutritional information and (b) only claims that they are free from "refined sugar". But the "Nutessa" cake is, not surprisingly, made with Nutella, and I've seen it in two "healthy" stores locally labeled as "sugar free".

User avatar
mikesbytes
Super Mod
Super Mod
Posts: 18331
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:42 pm
Location: Tempe, Sydney
Contact:

Re: Sugar its like a poison

Postby mikesbytes » Fri Jun 03, 2016 2:26 pm

Hence the complexity of any sort of taxation based on the ingredients, as it can be bypassed by sourcing the sugar from a source that isn't taxed.

Any manufactured product that doesn't come with nutritional info needs to avoided or at a minimum assume the worse. Sadly most people wont even think of that. It reminds me of when I switched from buying my lunch to bringing my lunch in from home - there was a noticeable reduction in my muffin top.

"sugar free" is a brave statement, at best its actually saying "no added cane sugar". Is there a regulation on when the statement "sugar free" can be used?
If the R-1 rule is broken, what happens to N+1?

Constantheadwind
Posts: 101
Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2013 8:19 am

Re: Sugar its like a poison

Postby Constantheadwind » Fri Jun 03, 2016 2:51 pm

Don't leave starches out either, not long in the alimentary canal before breakdown to simpler sugar molecules occur.

Return to “Cycling Health”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users