Coca-Cola and sugar

On The Wright Stuff this morning it was reported that Coca Cola is planning to take their distinctive Coca Cola lorries round various British towns at Christmas and distribute free (small) cans of Coke to children over 12 |(how would they know?). This is portrayed as a generous gesture, meant to contribute to the joyful spirit of Christmas, rather than a marketing ploy.

Yasmin Alabhai-Brown thought it was disgraceful. Richard Madeley thought she was being a "kill joy".

Anya we always stop for ice cream there too!

Next time you hike up Snowdon bags come down the Beddgelert path, there's a lovely home-made ice cream parlour there which will help top up your glycogen reserves

Thanks, anya, the order of food breakdown of carbs, fats, proteins is what I'd always understood too.

Re the PS, I was wondering about the heavy stomach load. I hate feeling over full and it certainly wouldn't make running (or, more probably in my case, dancing) any easier. Quite the reverse. I might need to eat more the day after a particularly strenuous evening of dance but not before.

One of my nieces is a mountaineering maniac (in the best sense!). When she organised a family hike up Snowdon that I went on, she said she suggested having a small carton of squash or fruit juice in one's pocket that one can sip at intervals during the climb. I found that very useful.

PS Bags the problem with eating a slow release food before a run is that 1) it would be bulky in the stomach as it will take time to digest and 2) when you are running your body slows down digestion to divert a greater percentage of its resources to lungs, muscles, heart, etc.. - parts of the body which are in greater need during this kind of exertion.

The body can store quick large amounts of glycogen if given the chance which is why runner build up this supply before a long run.

How the body gets its energy

Sugar will enter the bloodstream and be available for immediate use and then be quickly used up. Our fat reserves are there to be burnt to provide energy when carb supplies start to run down. Your DH is wrong I think. The body is not going to break down muscle until it has used up other available energy sources.

That would only happen when there's nothing else left to use. It wouldn't make sense biologically

DH has talked about that stuff, anya, but he seemed to think it was muscle tissue that got broken down rather than stored fat.
#don'taskmeIhaventaclue

I've a friend who was a hill-runner and she used to carb load before a big day too. Sugar's just an even-quicker-to-where-it's-needed carb. That's the only difference between it and pasta.

Having said that, I've never really understood the pre-exercise carb loading thing. Eating a much slower release food before an energetic day would make much more sense to me instinctively.

Your body is designed to use glycogen stored in muscles as an energy source. When this starts to be depleted (after about 20 minutes) it switches over to accessing fat stores, so 50-50 glycogen and fat use. As you continue running your body starts to use up fat stores more effectively providing water is taken in at regular intervals.

At least this is what we were taught and it must have worked for us.

Good, because as an ex-marathon runner I didn't use or need any energy drinks. We'd carb load pre run on other high carb foods such as pasta.

These 'energy' drinks are yet another useless item flogged by companies to the gullible.

"A calorie is a measurement of energy (a matter of physics), not a value judgment on where that energy goes (a matter of biochemistry)"

“If Michael Phelps eats 5,000 calories a day and swims 10km, there is no problem. "

Sugar is quickly digested and absorbed and ready for use by athletes who need plenty of energy fast, without storing it for later use (as fat), or expecting it to build up muscle. Other fuels are better for slower use. That is why it is consumed in high energy drinks by those who want a boost when their energy levels are flagging. No sensible person is saying that it a good source of nutrients for the body.

"You might find this analysis of the SACN report interesting Crun.
www.zoeharcombe.com/2015/07/sacn-report-carbohydrates-health/
You will note in particular the interesting section on conflicts."

Self-appointed pundits on the internet are not the right place to get peer-reviewed scientific advice. This is the Motive Fallacy, not rational argument.

At a trial the defence barrister is paid by the defendant, and the prosecution barrister paid by the state, perhaps the jury shouldn't believe anything either of them say. Or perhaps they should just find in favour of whichever barrister is paid the least on the grounds that he's the least corrupt.

The general idea is that you judge arguments on their merits, and on the evidence, not the motives of the advocate. If you told me that people will die if they don't get enough to eat, and I reply that your just saying that because you want some of my dinner, have I proved that people can survive without food?

Some arguments are true even when there's a motive for making them, but the idea that the SACN are in hock to the sugar industry after they've just recommended a halving of sugar consumption is downright ridiculous.

Thanks for a great link Mamie- very interesting.

Jingle- you are of course entitled to your opinion- but if

'Can't be bothered to read all these boring links.'.... then why not perhaps leave this thread for those of us who are interested in the science and research behind the theory that 'one calorie is not a calorie' - rather than repeating your disbelief again, and again. We all know what you think now- no need to repeat. Save time and energy (!) and just leave us to it- thanks.

I don't buy this using the carbs from sugar as energy. All food provides energy and there are better sources than empty calories from sugar.

What in earth makes people think sugar is a good source of energy?

I agree Elegran that if you are just talking about fuel for burning then yes, a calorie is just a calorie, but it is not being used in that sense in that quote is it? It is being used to attempt to persuade people to buy and consume sugary food and drink.

Here is an explanation from the American paediatrician, Dr Robert Lustig.

"A calorie is a measurement of energy (a matter of physics), not a value judgment on where that energy goes (a matter of biochemistry). As my book Fat Chance explains, you get sick from inappropriate energy storage (in your liver and muscle), not defective energy balance (bigger love handles). Nonetheless, "a calorie is a calorie" continues to be promulgated by the food industry as their defense against their culpability for the current epidemic of obesity and chronic metabolic disease. (my italics) But it is as dishonest as a three-dollar bill. Here are just four examples that refute this dogma:

Fiber. You eat 160 calories in almonds, but you absorb only 130. The fiber in the almonds delays absorption of calories into the bloodstream, delivering those calories to the bacteria in your intestine, which chew them up. Because a calorie is not a calorie.
Protein. When it comes to food, you have to put energy in to get energy out. You have to put twice as much energy in to metabolize protein as you do carbohydrate; this is called the thermic effect of food. So protein wastes more energy in its processing. Plus protein reduces hunger better than carbohydrate. Because a calorie is not a calorie.
Fat. All fats release nine calories per gram when burned. But omega-3 fats are heart-healthy and will save your life, while trans fats clog your arteries, leading to a heart attack. Because a calorie is not a calorie.
Sugar. This is the "big kahuna" of the "big lie." Sugar is not one chemical. It's two. Glucose is the energy of life. Every cell in every organism on the planet can burn glucose for energy. Glucose is mildly sweet, but not very interesting (think molasses). Fructose is an entirely different animal. Fructose is very sweet, the molecule we seek. Both burn at four calories per gram. If fructose were just like glucose, then sugar or high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) would be just like starch. But fructose is not glucose. Because a calorie is not a calorie."

" “If Michael Phelps eats 5,000 calories a day and swims 10km, there is no problem. If you eat 2,000 calories per day but don’t move, you have a problem. The source can be soda, tortillas, chocolate, sandwiches, fritanga, bagels – there is not any product that in itself causes obesity"."

That is what I think too.

But, of course, the great Zoe Harcombe knows best.

I wqonder if many obese, or even fat, people still drink the sugared cola. I think they may have gone over to the 'light' version.

Exactly Elegran. I have just eaten a baked Bramley with two teasps of dem sugar. And some (no added sugar) custard. I am hoping it will give me the energy to see me through the ironing. And then it will be gone.

Can't be bothered to read all these boring links.

If they are treating the calories in sugar merely as fuel for burning, then it is not a ludicrous argument at all. A calorie is the amount of fuel needed to do a given amount of work, so if you use all the calories you take in to do strenuous work or exercise, then yes, you will not get fat, he is quite right.

However, the sugar does not make any other contribution to the health of the body, so it would not be a good nutrient alone. You would be thin but unhealthy.

No I missed that.
It is almost as if the apologists for sugar think that the more ludicrous the argument the more likely people are to believe it. For example, this quote from the article.
"As Mexico began to grapple with obesity, and soda’s role in it, the industry began to counterattack with the argument it uses everywhere that soda is under siege. “Obesity comes from taking in more calories than you spend,” said Jaime Zabludovsky, chair of the board of ConMexico, the processed food and beverage producers’ group. “If Michael Phelps eats 5,000 calories a day and swims 10km, there is no problem. If you eat 2,000 calories per day but don’t move, you have a problem. The source can be soda, tortillas, chocolate, sandwiches, fritanga, bagels – there is not any product that in itself causes obesity"."
From the board of ConMexico ho-hum.

Did you see the TV programme (September I think) about Mexico and it's love affair with soda, especially Coca Cola?

The photo of the extremely obese young woman apparently sitting and 'exercising' is patently rediculous. What is that level if 'exercise' supposec to achieve?

This is a very long article in today's Guardian, but I think it tells us all we need to know about Mexico, sugar tax and Coca Cola.
Really shocking imo.
www.theguardian.com/news/2015/nov/03/obese-soda-sugar-tax-mexico

Thanks for the link anya

The 'last go' link worked