I don’t drink soft drinks, I can’t remember the last time a drop of any sort of soft drink has touched my tongue. Probably 3+ months. All I drink is tea, water, and milk. Milk has a decent amount of sugar but its not too bad. It is pretty much my only source of sugar I intake daily off the top of my head. However I bought a box full of about 30 aloe vera drinks, I destroyed 4 servings in a couple of minutes which adds up to 65g of sugar.
Just wondering how much I should allow myself to drink per day? How much is acceptable? I would have no problem having another 10 servings tonight, its pretty hard not to, but i can’t imagine all that sugar doing anything good for me.
tldr; how much sugar per day should I be allowing myself.
edit: just realised this is in the wrong section. if a mod could move this that would be nice :).
I think that whatever your macros are, 75 grams of SUGAR per 2500 kcal is probably the point where you are creating a toxic effect. Sugar IS toxic which is why your body either sends it to the liver or muscles as fast as possible. 75 grams if you are not working out. If you work out, experiment with anywhere from 25-75 grams per hour of hard training.
I don’t believe there is a right answer for every person’s body, which is why the body science approach that Charles Poliquin advocates is probably the most sensible - i.e., experiment with different levels of intake, measure or observe your body’s response and overall impact on your performance and physique, and then adjust accordingly. Your mileage may vary; “minimizing” intake is somewhat subjective and might even be related to individual insulin sensitivity.
I don’t actually remember where I first heard it, but 10-20% of total calories from sugar is one general ballpark worth considering. Depending, of course, on your other macros, body comp, goals, training, and a few other variables.
So if you’re eating 4,000 calories a day and trying to add size, you could shoot for allowing anywhere from 100-200g sugar a day. That’s considered from all sources, not just “straight” or added sugar.
Figuring you’re also shooting for at least 2-2.5g of carbs per pound per day, at 165 you’re looking at roughly 330-415g total carbs, so the sugars would end up anywhere from 25-30% of your total carb intake. Again, there are variables and it can/should be tweaked as needed based on what you’re seeing.
I think the “poison” that most refer to is fructose. Fructose has been studied, and when you get to about 50g of fructose per day consistently is when you run into problems. I try to read the fine print when it comes to all studies. There are studies in which they pump rats full of whatever they’re testing , whether it be sugar, aspartame, etc. If you give a rats substances in amounts that would be absurd in proportion to itself, of course there will be problems. The trouble is studies can say whatever they want to these days. I’d just say take all things in moderation and you’ll be fine.
[quote]SirTroyRobert wrote:
I think the “poison” that most refer to is fructose. Fructose has been studied, and when you get to about 50g of fructose per day consistently is when you run into problems. I try to read the fine print when it comes to all studies. There are studies in which they pump rats full of whatever they’re testing , whether it be sugar, aspartame, etc. If you give a rats substances in amounts that would be absurd in proportion to itself, of course there will be problems. The trouble is studies can say whatever they want to these days. I’d just say take all things in moderation and you’ll be fine.[/quote]
The question is what is moderation! People around here just keep telling others to take things in moderation and it means nothing by itself. Is it supposed to be some kind of feeling?
Fructose, and alcohol exceeding about 25 grams a day ends up producing fat deposits in the liver, ie cirrhosis. Rat studies say 4% of total maintenance calories. Fructose and alcohol have to get processed through the liver and apparently the liver can clearly manage about 25 grams a day. That’s a little over 1 alcoholic drink a day for alchohol, or 300-400 calories from fruit, or some split difference of the two. More than that is not moderation.
But ALL sugar is toxic. Sugar is inflammatory. The body has a very strong response to eliminate sugar as fast as f’ing possible! At least more than you can use in a short time frame.
[quote]SirTroyRobert wrote:
I think the “poison” that most refer to is fructose. Fructose has been studied, and when you get to about 50g of fructose per day consistently is when you run into problems. I try to read the fine print when it comes to all studies. There are studies in which they pump rats full of whatever they’re testing , whether it be sugar, aspartame, etc. If you give a rats substances in amounts that would be absurd in proportion to itself, of course there will be problems. The trouble is studies can say whatever they want to these days. I’d just say take all things in moderation and you’ll be fine.[/quote]
The question is what is moderation! People around here just keep telling others to take things in moderation and it means nothing by itself. Is it supposed to be some kind of feeling?
Fructose, and alcohol exceeding about 25 grams a day ends up producing fat deposits in the liver, ie cirrhosis. Rat studies say 4% of total maintenance calories. Fructose and alcohol have to get processed through the liver and apparently the liver can clearly manage about 25 grams a day. That’s a little over 1 alcoholic drink a day for alchohol, or 300-400 calories from fruit, or some split difference of the two. More than that is not moderation.
But ALL sugar is toxic. Sugar is inflammatory. The body has a very strong response to eliminate sugar as fast as f’ing possible! At least more than you can use in a short time frame. [/quote]
Who knows. One day a glass of wine lengthens your life, the next day you see a commercial saying it shortens your life. No one really knows. Moderation is based on perspective. It’s hard to say what is moderate. I’d say don’t be afraid to treat yourself, but treating yourself shouldn’t make of the majority of your diet. If you can get your micro and macro nutrients through 90% of your diet and you treat yourself with the other 10%, I’d say that’s moderation.
Thanks everyone, all really good answers. If 100-200g is an acceptable range then that’s plenty for me I should be able to enjoy my aloe vera comfortably if it feels right through my experimenting. I checked the ingredients before I took my first sip and it stood out to me that it had fructose added. I remembered watching some talks about how high fructose corn syrup is supposed to be the devil so the added fructose had me concerned. Though it doesn’t tell me exactly how much is in there…
I would not waste much of my daily sugar allowance on Aloe Vera. What is so special about it? And you can get virtually zero cal Aloe Vera juice that is just pressed aloe vera and lemon juice. Do people really drink a lot of that stuff? If you are not working out in a day, 200 grams of sugar will definitely put you above the level of optimal insulin sensitivity. Sensitivity (non training day) typically peaks around 150 grams carbs a day per 2500 cals. Maybe higher if you have a low body fat.
[quote]mertdawg wrote:
Sensitivity (non training day) typically peaks around 150 grams carbs a day per 2500 cals. Maybe higher if you have a low body fat.
How much do you weigh?
[/quote]
That’s an interesting figure, at least to me. I used to be extremely overweight (6’2" and 289 lbs), so Shugart’s principles for former fat boys definitely applies to me.
I’ve switched to more whole foods, ditching the PWO shakes, getting carbs primarily from bananas and other fruits, natural popcorn, potatoes, quinoa and the occasional bowl of steel cut oats. On training days I am consuming right at about 150g of carbs for 2900 calories of total intake, and I usually limit carbs to app. 40-50g total, for 2400 calories, on non-training days. I am seeing strength gains and not noticing an increase in fat mass per waist measurements.
First diet sodas are bad, now they are good??? WTF.
I agree with the sentiment that everyone is different enough, that you have to see what works best for you. For me, that is to avoid all sugar, in all forms. When I can do that, I generally loose weight.
[quote]
Who knows. One day a glass of wine lengthens your life, the next day you see a commercial saying it shortens your life. No one really knows. Moderation is based on perspective. It’s hard to say what is moderate. I’d say don’t be afraid to treat yourself, but treating yourself shouldn’t make of the majority of your diet. If you can get your micro and macro nutrients through 90% of your diet and you treat yourself with the other 10%, I’d say that’s moderation. [/quote]
[quote]mertdawg wrote:
I would not waste much of my daily sugar allowance on Aloe Vera. What is so special about it? And you can get virtually zero cal Aloe Vera juice that is just pressed aloe vera and lemon juice. Do people really drink a lot of that stuff? If you are not working out in a day, 200 grams of sugar will definitely put you above the level of optimal insulin sensitivity. Sensitivity (non training day) typically peaks around 150 grams carbs a day per 2500 cals. Maybe higher if you have a low body fat.
How much do you weigh?
[/quote]
It just tastes really good primarily, but if you do a simple google search you will see people praising it for its abundance of vitamins etc. People often use the plant on their skin to treat sun burns etc and as a general moisturiser. I like to drink it. I am 75kg/165lb I eat close to 4kcal a day. I don’t have a particularly low or high bodyfat I guess its about 11%.
JR249 - So you were essentially carb cycling? I have been very keen to try that out for a while.
FatlnlC - Generally speaking, any nutritional info from a .gov site should be disregarded. It isn’t in their best interest to keep us healthy.
[quote]Massthetics wrote:
JR249 - So you were essentially carb cycling? I have been very keen to try that out for a while.
[/quote]
Yes, basically that’s what I have been doing. I don’t have a plethora of extra money to drop on supplements right now, e.g., Indigo, so I am trying to find a healthy balance of carb and fat intake since I have obvious nutrient partitioning issues from having been so obese years ago.
If I up the carbs much more than 200g, even from complex sources, I really start to notice more water retention and fat gain, especially in the waist and chest. Thus, I have to find a way to manipulate carb intake to support LBM, yet avoid rapid BF gain. I can gain scary amounts of fat pretty rapidly with too much unchecked cheating and indulgences too, so those days are gone.
[quote]mertdawg wrote:
Fructose, and alcohol exceeding about 25 grams a day ends up producing fat deposits in the liver, ie cirrhosis. Rat studies say 4% of total maintenance calories. Fructose and alcohol have to get processed through the liver and apparently the liver can clearly manage about 25 grams a day. That’s a little over 1 alcoholic drink a day for alchohol, or 300-400 calories from fruit, or some split difference of the two. More than that is not moderation.[/quote]
Can I get a source on fructose-induced NAFLD in humans (also note that fat deposits is NOT another term for cirrhosis) occurring at a similar intake?
I feel as though you are conflating the results of murine models with humans here. In humans, studies utilizing stable isotope tracers indicate that fructose consumption typically results in ~50% glucose conversion, ~25% lactate, ~15% glycogen, with the rest being oxidized directly or contributing (insignificantly) to DNL.
[quote]mertdawg wrote:
But ALL sugar is toxic. Sugar is inflammatory. The body has a very strong response to eliminate sugar as fast as f’ing possible! At least more than you can use in a short time frame. [/quote]
Well, no.
If ALL sugar was toxic, it wouldn’t be our bodies preferred fuel source. If ALL sugar was toxic, our body wouldn’t manufacture it. If ALL sugar was toxic, our bodies wouldn’t ration it sparingly when supplies were low. If ALL sugar was toxic, our bodies wouldn’t carefully monitor its presence to ensure we always have some in circulation.
[quote]mertdawg wrote:
Fructose, and alcohol exceeding about 25 grams a day ends up producing fat deposits in the liver, ie cirrhosis. Rat studies say 4% of total maintenance calories. Fructose and alcohol have to get processed through the liver and apparently the liver can clearly manage about 25 grams a day. That’s a little over 1 alcoholic drink a day for alchohol, or 300-400 calories from fruit, or some split difference of the two. More than that is not moderation.[/quote]
Can I get a source on fructose-induced NAFLD in humans (also note that fat deposits is NOT another term for cirrhosis) occurring at a similar intake?
I feel as though you are conflating the results of murine models with humans here. In humans, studies utilizing stable isotope tracers indicate that fructose consumption typically results in ~50% glucose conversion, ~25% lactate, ~15% glycogen, with the rest being oxidized directly or contributing (insignificantly) to DNL.
[quote]mertdawg wrote:
But ALL sugar is toxic. Sugar is inflammatory. The body has a very strong response to eliminate sugar as fast as f’ing possible! At least more than you can use in a short time frame. [/quote]
Well, no.
If ALL sugar was toxic, it wouldn’t be our bodies preferred fuel source. If ALL sugar was toxic, our body wouldn’t manufacture it. If ALL sugar was toxic, our bodies wouldn’t ration it sparingly when supplies were low. If ALL sugar was toxic, our bodies wouldn’t carefully monitor its presence to ensure we always have some in circulation.[/quote]
Do you know how much is in circulation? about 4-6 grams. If you take a standard 75 gram carb test, your body will move 72-73 grams of it out of the blood stream as fast as it can to protect you. 95% plus. The difference between good and bad blood sugar control is whether your body removes 97% or just 96% within an hour.
It looks like a higher carb (percentage) diet makes you more insulin sensitive. but the main point is that low carb diets do not increase overall response to a glucose response test. HOWEVER, the lowest mortality occurs with a medium fasting glucose level of about 90-95, NOT low (80) nor high (105).
[quote]mertdawg wrote:
It looks like a higher carb (percentage) diet makes you more insulin sensitive. but the main point is that low carb diets do not increase overall response to a glucose response test. HOWEVER, the lowest mortality occurs with a medium fasting glucose level of about 90-95, NOT low (80) nor high (105). [/quote]
It’d be interesting to find some consensus on what’s acceptable here. I’ve had several blood tests done with a fasting glucose level in the low 100s, yet my diet is pretty dialed in, save for the occasional cheat meal. So some sources say that’s pretty high for a fasting level, and others peg it as acceptable. The doctor’s office told me that for someone of my age and activity level, it’s just a shade below being classified as pre-diabetic.
If ALL sugar was toxic, it wouldn’t be our bodies preferred fuel source. If ALL sugar was toxic, our body wouldn’t manufacture it. If ALL sugar was toxic, our bodies wouldn’t ration it sparingly when supplies were low. If ALL sugar was toxic, our bodies wouldn’t carefully monitor its presence to ensure we always have some in circulation.[/quote]
It is highly toxic. It is Not the preferred fuel source. Your body gets used to burning whatever it’s given. Most people feed it tons of carbs.
The carbs in a plate of pasta are toxic enough to kill you. It’s just that most people have the ability to process and store it fast enough to prevent it doing damage. Some people don’t and without external medication would die from it.
Carbs are probably one of the very few toxic substances most people consistently put in their bodies at levels high enough to kill them if not processed.
[quote]mertdawg wrote:
It looks like a higher carb (percentage) diet makes you more insulin sensitive. but the main point is that low carb diets do not increase overall response to a glucose response test. HOWEVER, the lowest mortality occurs with a medium fasting glucose level of about 90-95, NOT low (80) nor high (105). [/quote]
It’d be interesting to find some consensus on what’s acceptable here. I’ve had several blood tests done with a fasting glucose level in the low 100s, yet my diet is pretty dialed in, save for the occasional cheat meal. So some sources say that’s pretty high for a fasting level, and others peg it as acceptable. The doctor’s office told me that for someone of my age and activity level, it’s just a shade below being classified as pre-diabetic.
[/quote]
Yeah, that isn’t very good. And not just for health but also for muscle building and fat loss.