My Thoughts on Dietary Advice for a Newb

Training
61

[quote]Gmoore17 wrote:
Simple carbohydrates are also called sugars, or simple sugars. This is the “sugar” you are talking about. Actual “sugar,” is the simple carbohydrate sucrose, which is a disaccharide made of fructose and glucose (both monosaccharides). Yes, all simple carbohydrates are called “sugars” when you look at nutrition labels and such.

Complex carbohydrates - These are called starches. They are COMPOSED OF long strands of simple sugars, but they are NOT called sugar by the scientific community, or by nutrition labels, or anything. Your body has to break them down into the simple sugars, hence why they have a lesser effect on your blood glucose level and take longer to digest.

Fiber - definitely not sugar. Your body cannot break them down into simple sugars, so you do not completely digest them.

So when they say the “sugar” in milk, they are, in essence, saying the carbohydrates in the milk will act similarly to the carbohydrates in that soda or donut (not the exact same because they are different simple sugars, and they still have to be broken down to glucose, but similarly). Because they mean simple sugars.

In sum, all sugars are carbohydrates, but carbohydrates can mean sugars, starches, or fiber. [/quote]

I’ve noticed a lot of nutritional advice around here is based on macros, rather than anything more specific. Does it really matter whether the sugars are simple or complex, if you’re trying to achieve a specific amount of total carbs?

Obviously (?) the availability of simple sugars is quicker but short lived, and the complex ones take more time to become bioavailable, but are available for longer terms… extended release sugar, in a sense. Does it ultimately matter which ones you consume for carbs?

(I suppose I could ask the same for protein too. As far as I know, as long as all the amino acids are available in surplus, it really doesn’t matter much the protein source. But I could be wrong.)

62

[quote]Gmoore17 wrote:

[quote]Chris87 wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]Chris87 wrote:
I didn’t say that all carbs are equal. I said that the terms sugar and carbohydrate mean the same thing. My point is, just because it says “sugar” on the nutrition label of milk, does not mean that this “sugar” is going to act like drinking a soda or eating a donut.[/quote]

Would you mind sharing the difference between the sugars? When to use what and why? Which to avoid and why? I’m interested in your particular view on it.[/quote]

There are much more knowledgable people then I who have authored articles on this site.

[/quote]

LOL clearly. I can’t believe more people aren’t jumping over your “all carbs are sugar. The words are used interchangeably. This is a scientific fact.” That is just plain false.

Very simple explanation (basic stuff that you should learn before you start claiming scientific facts you don’t understand):

Simple carbohydrates are also called sugars, or simple sugars. This is the “sugar” you are talking about. Actual “sugar,” is the simple carbohydrate sucrose, which is a disaccharide made of fructose and glucose (both monosaccharides). Yes, all simple carbohydrates are called “sugars” when you look at nutrition labels and such.

Complex carbohydrates - These are called starches. They are COMPOSED OF long strands of simple sugars, but they are NOT called sugar by the scientific community, or by nutrition labels, or anything. Your body has to break them down into the simple sugars, hence why they have a lesser effect on your blood glucose level and take longer to digest.

Fiber - definitely not sugar. Your body cannot break them down into simple sugars, so you do not completely digest them.

So when they say the “sugar” in milk, they are, in essence, saying the carbohydrates in the milk will act similarly to the carbohydrates in that soda or donut (not the exact same because they are different simple sugars, and they still have to be broken down to glucose, but similarly). Because they mean simple sugars.

In sum, all sugars are carbohydrates, but carbohydrates can mean sugars, starches, or fiber. And you made several arrogant, confident claims trying to make everyone else look stupid that were just not true.
[/quote]

They are called “simple sugars” because all carbohydrates are sugars. Generally if something is refered to as simple, that mean it has one (of whatever, in this case, one sugar).

Sucrose is not “actual sugar”. It is plant sugar, also used as table sugar.

Complex carbohydrates are not called starches. Starches are 1 group of complex carbohydrates. Fiber is also a group of complex carbohydrates. So is cellulose. Your body has to break down all carbohydrates into monosachharide form before it can use them. Disaccharides and polysaccharides both have to be broken down into monosachharides before they can be used. But yet you seem to believe that disaccharides are sugar and polysaccharides are not. This is incorrect.

Fiber is a sugar. It cannot be broken down by your body because you lack the enzymes to do so. This does not mean that fiber is not a sugar. People are lactose intolerant because they lack the enzyme to do so. Does this mean that lactose is not a sugar? No.

When they say the sugar in milk, they are referring to lactose, a disaccharide that has to be broken down into a monosachharide before it can be absorbed.

The sugar in a soda and the sugar in milk are different, because the sugar in milk is a monosaccharide and does not have to be broken down before absorption. Lactose does.

You said:

(not the exact same because they are different simple sugars, and they still have to be broken down to glucose, but similarly)

They are not different simple sugars. Lactose is not even a simple sugar, it’s a disachharide. They do not have to be broken down to glucose. Only lactose has to be broken down. The sugar in soda is fructose, NOT glucose. It does NOT have to be broken down, because sugars do not have to be “broken down to glucose” to be used by the body.

In sum, all sugars are carbohydrates, and all carbohydrates are sugars. Starches and fiber are both sugars.

I have said nothing arrogant, and I have not tried to make anyone look stupid.

I am confident in my statements because they simply are true.

63

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]Gmoore17 wrote:
Simple carbohydrates are also called sugars, or simple sugars. This is the “sugar” you are talking about. Actual “sugar,” is the simple carbohydrate sucrose, which is a disaccharide made of fructose and glucose (both monosaccharides). Yes, all simple carbohydrates are called “sugars” when you look at nutrition labels and such.

Complex carbohydrates - These are called starches. They are COMPOSED OF long strands of simple sugars, but they are NOT called sugar by the scientific community, or by nutrition labels, or anything. Your body has to break them down into the simple sugars, hence why they have a lesser effect on your blood glucose level and take longer to digest.

Fiber - definitely not sugar. Your body cannot break them down into simple sugars, so you do not completely digest them.

So when they say the “sugar” in milk, they are, in essence, saying the carbohydrates in the milk will act similarly to the carbohydrates in that soda or donut (not the exact same because they are different simple sugars, and they still have to be broken down to glucose, but similarly). Because they mean simple sugars.

In sum, all sugars are carbohydrates, but carbohydrates can mean sugars, starches, or fiber. [/quote]

I’ve noticed a lot of nutritional advice around here is based on macros, rather than anything more specific. Does it really matter whether the sugars are simple or complex, if you’re trying to achieve a specific amount of total carbs?

Obviously (?) the availability of simple sugars is quicker but short lived, and the complex ones take more time to become bioavailable, but are available for longer terms… extended release sugar, in a sense. Does it ultimately matter which ones you consume for carbs?

(I suppose I could ask the same for protein too. As far as I know, as long as all the amino acids are available in surplus, it really doesn’t matter much the protein source. But I could be wrong.)[/quote]

Yes it does. Basically, glucose effects insulin. Since simple sugars are digested quicker / converted to glucose quicker / are already glucose, they cause a much greater spike in insulin. When you have high insulin levels, your cells take in nutrients a lot more. This could be fat cells or muscle cells. This is generally why people have simple sugars, and carbs in general, around their workout, to try to shuttle nutrients to their muscles when it is needed. And other than around your workout, you don’t want to be spiking your insulin levels, so complex carbs are better (or, for some people, pretty much all their carbs in the window of pre, peri, post workout).

Protein source generally matters too, similar idea, you want a quick releasing protein (whey isolate/hydrolysate) around your workout, and a slower digesting one otherwise, and especially before bed (casein). There are also particular amino acids specifically responsible for triggering protein synthesis, but I think a lot of people just go with the ‘just ensure you’re getting plenty of protein’ approach.

64

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]Gmoore17 wrote:
Simple carbohydrates are also called sugars, or simple sugars. This is the “sugar” you are talking about. Actual “sugar,” is the simple carbohydrate sucrose, which is a disaccharide made of fructose and glucose (both monosaccharides). Yes, all simple carbohydrates are called “sugars” when you look at nutrition labels and such.

Complex carbohydrates - These are called starches. They are COMPOSED OF long strands of simple sugars, but they are NOT called sugar by the scientific community, or by nutrition labels, or anything. Your body has to break them down into the simple sugars, hence why they have a lesser effect on your blood glucose level and take longer to digest.

Fiber - definitely not sugar. Your body cannot break them down into simple sugars, so you do not completely digest them.

So when they say the “sugar” in milk, they are, in essence, saying the carbohydrates in the milk will act similarly to the carbohydrates in that soda or donut (not the exact same because they are different simple sugars, and they still have to be broken down to glucose, but similarly). Because they mean simple sugars.

In sum, all sugars are carbohydrates, but carbohydrates can mean sugars, starches, or fiber. [/quote]

I’ve noticed a lot of nutritional advice around here is based on macros, rather than anything more specific. Does it really matter whether the sugars are simple or complex, if you’re trying to achieve a specific amount of total carbs?

Obviously (?) the availability of simple sugars is quicker but short lived, and the complex ones take more time to become bioavailable, but are available for longer terms… extended release sugar, in a sense. Does it ultimately matter which ones you consume for carbs?

(I suppose I could ask the same for protein too. As far as I know, as long as all the amino acids are available in surplus, it really doesn’t matter much the protein source. But I could be wrong.)[/quote]

It does because of the insulin response of the different sugars. If you were to only eat monosaccharides as your carbohydrates, your insulin would be constantly spiking very high every time you ate. This would lead to insulin resistance, and then eventually diabetis.

65

[quote]Gmoore17 wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]Gmoore17 wrote:
Simple carbohydrates are also called sugars, or simple sugars. This is the “sugar” you are talking about. Actual “sugar,” is the simple carbohydrate sucrose, which is a disaccharide made of fructose and glucose (both monosaccharides). Yes, all simple carbohydrates are called “sugars” when you look at nutrition labels and such.

Complex carbohydrates - These are called starches. They are COMPOSED OF long strands of simple sugars, but they are NOT called sugar by the scientific community, or by nutrition labels, or anything. Your body has to break them down into the simple sugars, hence why they have a lesser effect on your blood glucose level and take longer to digest.

Fiber - definitely not sugar. Your body cannot break them down into simple sugars, so you do not completely digest them.

So when they say the “sugar” in milk, they are, in essence, saying the carbohydrates in the milk will act similarly to the carbohydrates in that soda or donut (not the exact same because they are different simple sugars, and they still have to be broken down to glucose, but similarly). Because they mean simple sugars.

In sum, all sugars are carbohydrates, but carbohydrates can mean sugars, starches, or fiber. [/quote]

I’ve noticed a lot of nutritional advice around here is based on macros, rather than anything more specific. Does it really matter whether the sugars are simple or complex, if you’re trying to achieve a specific amount of total carbs?

Obviously (?) the availability of simple sugars is quicker but short lived, and the complex ones take more time to become bioavailable, but are available for longer terms… extended release sugar, in a sense. Does it ultimately matter which ones you consume for carbs?

(I suppose I could ask the same for protein too. As far as I know, as long as all the amino acids are available in surplus, it really doesn’t matter much the protein source. But I could be wrong.)[/quote]

Yes it does. Basically, glucose effects insulin. Since simple sugars are digested quicker / converted to glucose quicker / are already glucose, they cause a much greater spike in insulin. When you have high insulin levels, your cells take in nutrients a lot more. This could be fat cells or muscle cells. This is generally why people have simple sugars, and carbs in general, around their workout, to try to shuttle nutrients to their muscles when it is needed. And other than around your workout, you don’t want to be spiking your insulin levels, so complex carbs are better (or, for some people, pretty much all their carbs in the window of pre, peri, post workout).

Protein source generally matters too, similar idea, you want a quick releasing protein (whey isolate/hydrolysate) around your workout, and a slower digesting one otherwise, and especially before bed (casein). There are also particular amino acids specifically responsible for triggering protein synthesis, but I think a lot of people just go with the ‘just ensure you’re getting plenty of protein’ approach.[/quote]

Yep.

66

[quote]Chris87 wrote:

[quote]Gmoore17 wrote:

[quote]Chris87 wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]Chris87 wrote:
I didn’t say that all carbs are equal. I said that the terms sugar and carbohydrate mean the same thing. My point is, just because it says “sugar” on the nutrition label of milk, does not mean that this “sugar” is going to act like drinking a soda or eating a donut.[/quote]

Would you mind sharing the difference between the sugars? When to use what and why? Which to avoid and why? I’m interested in your particular view on it.[/quote]

There are much more knowledgable people then I who have authored articles on this site.

[/quote]

LOL clearly. I can’t believe more people aren’t jumping over your “all carbs are sugar. The words are used interchangeably. This is a scientific fact.” That is just plain false.

Very simple explanation (basic stuff that you should learn before you start claiming scientific facts you don’t understand):

Simple carbohydrates are also called sugars, or simple sugars. This is the “sugar” you are talking about. Actual “sugar,” is the simple carbohydrate sucrose, which is a disaccharide made of fructose and glucose (both monosaccharides). Yes, all simple carbohydrates are called “sugars” when you look at nutrition labels and such.

Complex carbohydrates - These are called starches. They are COMPOSED OF long strands of simple sugars, but they are NOT called sugar by the scientific community, or by nutrition labels, or anything. Your body has to break them down into the simple sugars, hence why they have a lesser effect on your blood glucose level and take longer to digest.

Fiber - definitely not sugar. Your body cannot break them down into simple sugars, so you do not completely digest them.

So when they say the “sugar” in milk, they are, in essence, saying the carbohydrates in the milk will act similarly to the carbohydrates in that soda or donut (not the exact same because they are different simple sugars, and they still have to be broken down to glucose, but similarly). Because they mean simple sugars.

In sum, all sugars are carbohydrates, but carbohydrates can mean sugars, starches, or fiber. And you made several arrogant, confident claims trying to make everyone else look stupid that were just not true.
[/quote]

They are called “simple sugars” because all carbohydrates are sugars. Generally if something is refered to as simple, that mean it has one (of whatever, in this case, one sugar).

Sucrose is not “actual sugar”. It is plant sugar, also used as table sugar.

Complex carbohydrates are not called starches. Starches are 1 group of complex carbohydrates. Fiber is also a group of complex carbohydrates. So is cellulose. Your body has to break down all carbohydrates into monosachharide form before it can use them. Disaccharides and polysaccharides both have to be broken down into monosachharides before they can be used. But yet you seem to believe that disaccharides are sugar and polysaccharides are not. This is incorrect.

Fiber is a sugar. It cannot be broken down by your body because you lack the enzymes to do so. This does not mean that fiber is not a sugar. People are lactose intolerant because they lack the enzyme to do so. Does this mean that lactose is not a sugar? No.

When they say the sugar in milk, they are referring to lactose, a disaccharide that has to be broken down into a monosachharide before it can be absorbed.

The sugar in a soda and the sugar in milk are different, because the sugar in milk is a monosaccharide and does not have to be broken down before absorption. Lactose does.

You said:

(not the exact same because they are different simple sugars, and they still have to be broken down to glucose, but similarly)

They are not different simple sugars. Lactose is not even a simple sugar, it’s a disachharide. They do not have to be broken down to glucose. Only lactose has to be broken down. The sugar in soda is fructose, NOT glucose. It does NOT have to be broken down, because sugars do not have to be “broken down to glucose” to be used by the body.

In sum, all sugars are carbohydrates, and all carbohydrates are sugars. Starches and fiber are both sugars.

I have said nothing arrogant, and I have not tried to make anyone look stupid.

I am confident in my statements because they simply are true.[/quote]

We seem to be getting a lot closer to agreeing except for semantics now. I am disagreeing with your point that the terms “sugar” and “carbohydrates” are interchangeable. I have never seen the term “sugar” be used for starches or fiber, even though they are COMPOSED OF sugars. Simple carbohydrates, on the other hand, are often called sugars. When you see “carbohydrates” on a nutrition facts sheet, it is further divided up into sugar, and fiber, and the rest is starch/complex carbs. So, while all carbohydrates are made up of sugars, the terms are not used interchangeably.

Edited to starch/complex carbs

67

[quote]Gmoore17 wrote:

[quote]Chris87 wrote:

[quote]Jackie_Jacked wrote:

[quote]zephead4747 wrote:

[quote]Jackie_Jacked wrote:
Yeah, my bad, mlupica. ha I lean towards dry and sarcastic and sometimes rub some the wrong way. It’s not deliberate, I just don’t really mince words. Maybe I’m a little old and crotchety too. My apologies.

You were basically right about my point. This is the beginners sections and to make comments about all carbs being equal is irresponsible and then you see all of the bulking gone wrong threads. Besides, wasn’t the whole premise to this thread about making better nutritional choices? How you take care of your body does catch up to you, whether it’s your weight or your health.

Ice Cream? I c wut u did there. Well played. ha
[/quote]

Well said. You don’t need shitty foods to bulk. There is no reason to NOT eat healthy no matter what your goal is, because calorories are extremely easy to come by if you’re clever.[/quote]

As for the carb/sugar debate, I am only going to say this and then drop it:

All sugar are carbs, all carbs are not sugar. Sugar is part of what makes up a carbohydrate. If you look at a nutritional label, carbs and sugar are listed with separate values and they may, or may not be the same. That is not scientific but easy enough for someone new to understand and I speak as someone that does have to watch her blood sugar.

[/quote]

All sugar are carbohydrates, all carbohydrates are sugar.

Carbohydrates are completely made up of what you believe is a “sugar”.

I understand the reasoning behind the listing on nutritional labels. I’m just trying to point out that just because it says “sugar” on milk does not mean it will act the same as what people think “sugar” is.

As I’m sure you know, carbohydrates are devided into 4 groups:

monosaccharides
disaccharides
oligosaccharides
polysaccharides

The sufix to these words, saccharide, lets you know that they are all in the same grouping. Saccharide comes from the greek word sakkaron, which means sugar. So these 4 groups of carbohydrates mean:

1 sugar
2 sugars
multiple sugars
lots of sugars

The words are synonymous. [/quote]

I posted as you were typing this. The words are not synonymous. “Made up of many sugars” and “sugar” does not mean the same thing, due to how your body has to deal with them. You could say the words “Sugar” and “simple sugars” are synonymous, because they are often used to mean the same thing. But “sugar” is not a term used to mean “fiber” or “starch.”
[/quote]

Yes they are.

68

[quote]Gmoore17 wrote:

[quote]Chris87 wrote:

[quote]Gmoore17 wrote:

[quote]Chris87 wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]Chris87 wrote:
I didn’t say that all carbs are equal. I said that the terms sugar and carbohydrate mean the same thing. My point is, just because it says “sugar” on the nutrition label of milk, does not mean that this “sugar” is going to act like drinking a soda or eating a donut.[/quote]

Would you mind sharing the difference between the sugars? When to use what and why? Which to avoid and why? I’m interested in your particular view on it.[/quote]

There are much more knowledgable people then I who have authored articles on this site.

[/quote]

LOL clearly. I can’t believe more people aren’t jumping over your “all carbs are sugar. The words are used interchangeably. This is a scientific fact.” That is just plain false.

Very simple explanation (basic stuff that you should learn before you start claiming scientific facts you don’t understand):

Simple carbohydrates are also called sugars, or simple sugars. This is the “sugar” you are talking about. Actual “sugar,” is the simple carbohydrate sucrose, which is a disaccharide made of fructose and glucose (both monosaccharides). Yes, all simple carbohydrates are called “sugars” when you look at nutrition labels and such.

Complex carbohydrates - These are called starches. They are COMPOSED OF long strands of simple sugars, but they are NOT called sugar by the scientific community, or by nutrition labels, or anything. Your body has to break them down into the simple sugars, hence why they have a lesser effect on your blood glucose level and take longer to digest.

Fiber - definitely not sugar. Your body cannot break them down into simple sugars, so you do not completely digest them.

So when they say the “sugar” in milk, they are, in essence, saying the carbohydrates in the milk will act similarly to the carbohydrates in that soda or donut (not the exact same because they are different simple sugars, and they still have to be broken down to glucose, but similarly). Because they mean simple sugars.

In sum, all sugars are carbohydrates, but carbohydrates can mean sugars, starches, or fiber. And you made several arrogant, confident claims trying to make everyone else look stupid that were just not true.
[/quote]

They are called “simple sugars” because all carbohydrates are sugars. Generally if something is refered to as simple, that mean it has one (of whatever, in this case, one sugar).

Sucrose is not “actual sugar”. It is plant sugar, also used as table sugar.

Complex carbohydrates are not called starches. Starches are 1 group of complex carbohydrates. Fiber is also a group of complex carbohydrates. So is cellulose. Your body has to break down all carbohydrates into monosachharide form before it can use them. Disaccharides and polysaccharides both have to be broken down into monosachharides before they can be used. But yet you seem to believe that disaccharides are sugar and polysaccharides are not. This is incorrect.

Fiber is a sugar. It cannot be broken down by your body because you lack the enzymes to do so. This does not mean that fiber is not a sugar. People are lactose intolerant because they lack the enzyme to do so. Does this mean that lactose is not a sugar? No.

When they say the sugar in milk, they are referring to lactose, a disaccharide that has to be broken down into a monosachharide before it can be absorbed.

The sugar in a soda and the sugar in milk are different, because the sugar in milk is a monosaccharide and does not have to be broken down before absorption. Lactose does.

You said:

(not the exact same because they are different simple sugars, and they still have to be broken down to glucose, but similarly)

They are not different simple sugars. Lactose is not even a simple sugar, it’s a disachharide. They do not have to be broken down to glucose. Only lactose has to be broken down. The sugar in soda is fructose, NOT glucose. It does NOT have to be broken down, because sugars do not have to be “broken down to glucose” to be used by the body.

In sum, all sugars are carbohydrates, and all carbohydrates are sugars. Starches and fiber are both sugars.

I have said nothing arrogant, and I have not tried to make anyone look stupid.

I am confident in my statements because they simply are true.[/quote]

We seem to be getting a lot closer to agreeing except for semantics now. I am disagreeing with your point that the terms “sugar” and “carbohydrates” are interchangeable. I have never seen the term “sugar” be used for starches or fiber, even though they are COMPOSED OF sugars. Simple carbohydrates, on the other hand, are often called sugars. When you see “carbohydrates” on a nutrition facts sheet, it is further divided up into sugar, and fiber, and the rest is starch/complex carbs. So, while all carbohydrates are made up of sugars, the terms are not used interchangeably.

Edited to starch/complex carbs[/quote]

They are refered to like that in nutrition. But scientifically, carboyhdrates and sugars are the same thing.

This is just like the term “organic” . The people in nutrition have no idea what that really means, since all food is already organic.

Look at it this way:

Monosaccharide- sugar. You agree with this. 1 unit of glucose, fructose, etc.

Disaccharide- sugar. You agree with this. 2 units of the above.

Polysaccharide- sugar. You do not agree with this. Multiple units of monosaccharides.

Disaccharides and Polysaccharides are dealt with in the exact same way in the body. Enzymes sever off pieces of monosacharrides until that is all you have left.

It takes a Poly longer to digest, only because there are so many. The process is exactly the same.

Di and Poly saccharides are made of the exact same things, and are digested in the exact same way. You agree that Dis are sugars. So are polys.

69

Oh good the milk and sugars argument is still going on…

70

That’s good you’re in agreement in concept, even if not in terminology.

Hm. So spiked insulin leads to better absorption of nutrients but chronically spiked insulin leads to type 2 diabetes (via insulin resistance). But don’t you always want better absorption of nutrients?

71

[quote]LoRez wrote:
That’s good you’re in agreement in concept, even if not in terminology.

Hm. So spiked insulin leads to better absorption of nutrients but chronically spiked insulin leads to type 2 diabetes (via insulin resistance). But don’t you always want better absorption of nutrients?[/quote]

Not quite. Spiked insulin leads to nutrients being shuttled to your cells. This is what we want for muscle cells, not what we want for fat cells. Hence, spike it around your workout, for the muscle cells.

Type 2-Diabetes occurs because glucose is raised so much/so often, that your body does not respond as well to your body’s release of insulin. (Insulin is released to get your glucose back to normal). So your blood glucose levels stay elevated, which is detrimental to your health in many ways.

72

[quote]Chris87 wrote:

They are refered to like that in nutrition. But scientifically, carboyhdrates and sugars are the same thing.

This is just like the term “organic” . The people in nutrition have no idea what that really means, since all food is already organic.

Look at it this way:

Monosaccharide- sugar. You agree with this. 1 unit of glucose, fructose, etc.

Disaccharide- sugar. You agree with this. 2 units of the above.

Polysaccharide- sugar. You do not agree with this. Multiple units of monosaccharides.

Disaccharides and Polysaccharides are dealt with in the exact same way in the body. Enzymes sever off pieces of monosacharrides until that is all you have left.

It takes a Poly longer to digest, only because there are so many. The process is exactly the same.

Di and Poly saccharides are made of the exact same things, and are digested in the exact same way. You agree that Dis are sugars. So are polys.[/quote]

More semantics. I was more saying that disaccharides are also referred to as “sugar,” (ie table sugar, the disaccharide) and are still generally classified as “simple carbohydrates,” whereas polysaccharides are not. I.e. the “sugar” in milk, is a simple carbohydrate, just as the “sugar” in the soda is. Basically, whenever I’ve seen anyone mention “sugar,” including on nutrition labels, everyone except you is talking about simple carbohydrates, not complex carbohydrates.

73

425×541 39.7 KB

[quote]JLone wrote:
Oh good the milk and sugars argument is still going on…[/quote]

74

[quote]Gmoore17 wrote:

[quote]Chris87 wrote:

They are refered to like that in nutrition. But scientifically, carboyhdrates and sugars are the same thing.

This is just like the term “organic” . The people in nutrition have no idea what that really means, since all food is already organic.

Look at it this way:

Monosaccharide- sugar. You agree with this. 1 unit of glucose, fructose, etc.

Disaccharide- sugar. You agree with this. 2 units of the above.

Polysaccharide- sugar. You do not agree with this. Multiple units of monosaccharides.

Disaccharides and Polysaccharides are dealt with in the exact same way in the body. Enzymes sever off pieces of monosacharrides until that is all you have left.

It takes a Poly longer to digest, only because there are so many. The process is exactly the same.

Di and Poly saccharides are made of the exact same things, and are digested in the exact same way. You agree that Dis are sugars. So are polys.[/quote]

More semantics. I was more saying that disaccharides are also referred to as “sugar,” (ie table sugar, the disaccharide) and are still generally classified as “simple carbohydrates,” whereas polysaccharides are not. I.e. the “sugar” in milk, is a simple carbohydrate, just as the “sugar” in the soda is. Basically, whenever I’ve seen anyone mention “sugar,” including on nutrition labels, everyone except you is talking about simple carbohydrates, not complex carbohydrates.[/quote]

It’s not semantics when it is the topic of the entire discussion. This wasn’t my main point, it was just one sentence behind a bigger post. You decided to discuss it, not me.

Yes disaccharides are refered to as sugar. They are sugar. They are not simple carbohydrates, nor are they classified as such. Only monosachharides are classifies as simple carbohydrates.

The sugar in milk is not simple, it is a disaccharide.

I understand that everyone thinks of mono and disaccharides when they hear the word sugar.

My point was, that although many different carbohydrates are called “sugar”, that does not mean they all act the same in the body. The main difference being lactose, which does not digest nearly as quickly as other sugars. The point being, just because milk contains lactose, doesn’t mean it will lead to the fat gain like sodas, honey buns, etc. will.

75

[quote]Chris87 wrote:
The main difference being lactose, which does not digest nearly as quickly as other sugars. The point being, just because milk contains lactose, doesn’t mean it will lead to the fat gain like sodas, honey buns, etc. will.[/quote]

Why won’t milk lead to fat gains? At least given that milk causes such a huge insulin spike.

(I clipped the rest of it, because the two of you can go on and on and on about that and get nowhere…)

76

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]Chris87 wrote:
The main difference being lactose, which does not digest nearly as quickly as other sugars. The point being, just because milk contains lactose, doesn’t mean it will lead to the fat gain like sodas, honey buns, etc. will.[/quote]

Why won’t milk lead to fat gains? At least given that milk causes such a huge insulin spike.

(I clipped the rest of it, because the two of you can go on and on and on about that and get nowhere…)[/quote]

Well, anything can lead to fat gains if you were to eat enough of it.

What I was trying to say is that stuff like candy, honey buns, etc is going to lead to more fat gain, or a greater chance of it then milk.

77

[quote]Chris87 wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]Chris87 wrote:
The main difference being lactose, which does not digest nearly as quickly as other sugars. The point being, just because milk contains lactose, doesn’t mean it will lead to the fat gain like sodas, honey buns, etc. will.[/quote]

Why won’t milk lead to fat gains? At least given that milk causes such a huge insulin spike.

(I clipped the rest of it, because the two of you can go on and on and on about that and get nowhere…)[/quote]

Well, anything can lead to fat gains if you were to eat enough of it.

What I was trying to say is that stuff like candy, honey buns, etc is going to lead to more fat gain, or a greater chance of it then milk.[/quote]

I guess I phrased the question wrong. Why would they have a higher chance of fat gain than milk?

I was under the impression that milk also causes a huge insulin spike (just like candy, etc.). If they both cause the insulin spike, why is milk a better choice?

78

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]Chris87 wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]Chris87 wrote:
The main difference being lactose, which does not digest nearly as quickly as other sugars. The point being, just because milk contains lactose, doesn’t mean it will lead to the fat gain like sodas, honey buns, etc. will.[/quote]

Why won’t milk lead to fat gains? At least given that milk causes such a huge insulin spike.

(I clipped the rest of it, because the two of you can go on and on and on about that and get nowhere…)[/quote]

Well, anything can lead to fat gains if you were to eat enough of it.

What I was trying to say is that stuff like candy, honey buns, etc is going to lead to more fat gain, or a greater chance of it then milk.[/quote]

I guess I phrased the question wrong. Why would they have a higher chance of fat gain than milk?

I was under the impression that milk also causes a huge insulin spike (just like candy, etc.). If they both cause the insulin spike, why is milk a better choice?[/quote]

That’s not really true. The protein and fat in the milk would at least blunt the insulin response. There are other reasons milk can cause fat gain though… it’s liquid so it’s easy to take in a LOT of calories (but this can be a benefit for those who struggle to gain weight and need cheap, easy calories, even though they’re not the best), and also many people have trouble digesting lactose. Even if they’re not “lactose intolerant,” there are many that are lactose sensitive (not sure what the terminology for it is nowadays), don’t digest it that well, and it causes gas, bloating, other digestive issues. I know since I’ve stopped drinking milk, my physique changes have improved, but it certainly has helped others.

From what I’ve seen, it seems to help new lifters who have trouble putting on mass, but often later on once the lifter has figured out their body more, and how to eat, they end up relying much less on it, or not drinking it at all (obviously not always true but seems to often be the case).

79

[quote]Gmoore17 wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]Chris87 wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]Chris87 wrote:
The main difference being lactose, which does not digest nearly as quickly as other sugars. The point being, just because milk contains lactose, doesn’t mean it will lead to the fat gain like sodas, honey buns, etc. will.[/quote]

Why won’t milk lead to fat gains? At least given that milk causes such a huge insulin spike.

(I clipped the rest of it, because the two of you can go on and on and on about that and get nowhere…)[/quote]

Well, anything can lead to fat gains if you were to eat enough of it.

What I was trying to say is that stuff like candy, honey buns, etc is going to lead to more fat gain, or a greater chance of it then milk.[/quote]

I guess I phrased the question wrong. Why would they have a higher chance of fat gain than milk?

I was under the impression that milk also causes a huge insulin spike (just like candy, etc.). If they both cause the insulin spike, why is milk a better choice?[/quote]

That’s not really true. The protein and fat in the milk would at least blunt the insulin response. There are other reasons milk can cause fat gain though… it’s liquid so it’s easy to take in a LOT of calories (but this can be a benefit for those who struggle to gain weight and need cheap, easy calories, even though they’re not the best), and also many people have trouble digesting lactose. Even if they’re not “lactose intolerant,” there are many that are lactose sensitive (not sure what the terminology for it is nowadays), don’t digest it that well, and it causes gas, bloating, other digestive issues. I know since I’ve stopped drinking milk, my physique changes have improved, but it certainly has helped others.

From what I’ve seen, it seems to help new lifters who have trouble putting on mass, but often later on once the lifter has figured out their body more, and how to eat, they end up relying much less on it, or not drinking it at all (obviously not always true but seems to often be the case).[/quote]

Most of the time when someone eats candy or drinks a soda, the sugar is pretty much the only macronutrient they are consuming. Carbohydrates digest much quicker than fats and protein. However, there are other factors that go into how fast your meal gets absorbed (size of the meal, liquid content, macro breakdown of the meal, what is currently in the small intestine).

When you drink milk (for this example assume it has fat), there are a few reasons the lactose will break down slower. The main ones being the fat and protein content (lactose being a disaccharide has a small effect). Generally soda and candy don’t have protein and fat (a honey bun does, but there’s also a SHIT load of sugar). Also, a lot of the times people drink milk with a meal, which is going to make it digest even slower.

^^^^that post right there has a lot of good points as well. Especially about milk being liquid, so it’s easy to take in a lot of calories. This is a double edged sword. It’s good when you’re trying to add some weight, but a lot of guys will over do it. It’s my personal opinion that this is the reason so many guys have a lot of fat gain on 5x5 style programs (not just milk, but eating too much in general)

80

[quote]Chris87 wrote:

[quote]Gmoore17 wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]Chris87 wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]Chris87 wrote:
The main difference being lactose, which does not digest nearly as quickly as other sugars. The point being, just because milk contains lactose, doesn’t mean it will lead to the fat gain like sodas, honey buns, etc. will.[/quote]

Why won’t milk lead to fat gains? At least given that milk causes such a huge insulin spike.

(I clipped the rest of it, because the two of you can go on and on and on about that and get nowhere…)[/quote]

Well, anything can lead to fat gains if you were to eat enough of it.

What I was trying to say is that stuff like candy, honey buns, etc is going to lead to more fat gain, or a greater chance of it then milk.[/quote]

I guess I phrased the question wrong. Why would they have a higher chance of fat gain than milk?

I was under the impression that milk also causes a huge insulin spike (just like candy, etc.). If they both cause the insulin spike, why is milk a better choice?[/quote]

That’s not really true. The protein and fat in the milk would at least blunt the insulin response. There are other reasons milk can cause fat gain though… it’s liquid so it’s easy to take in a LOT of calories (but this can be a benefit for those who struggle to gain weight and need cheap, easy calories, even though they’re not the best), and also many people have trouble digesting lactose. Even if they’re not “lactose intolerant,” there are many that are lactose sensitive (not sure what the terminology for it is nowadays), don’t digest it that well, and it causes gas, bloating, other digestive issues. I know since I’ve stopped drinking milk, my physique changes have improved, but it certainly has helped others.

From what I’ve seen, it seems to help new lifters who have trouble putting on mass, but often later on once the lifter has figured out their body more, and how to eat, they end up relying much less on it, or not drinking it at all (obviously not always true but seems to often be the case).[/quote]

Most of the time when someone eats candy or drinks a soda, the sugar is pretty much the only macronutrient they are consuming. Carbohydrates digest much quicker than fats and protein. However, there are other factors that go into how fast your meal gets absorbed (size of the meal, liquid content, macro breakdown of the meal, what is currently in the small intestine).

When you drink milk (for this example assume it has fat), there are a few reasons the lactose will break down slower. The main ones being the fat and protein content (lactose being a disaccharide has a small effect). Generally soda and candy don’t have protein and fat (a honey bun does, but there’s also a SHIT load of sugar). Also, a lot of the times people drink milk with a meal, which is going to make it digest even slower.

^^^^that post right there has a lot of good points as well. Especially about milk being liquid, so it’s easy to take in a lot of calories. This is a double edged sword. It’s good when you’re trying to add some weight, but a lot of guys will over do it. It’s my personal opinion that this is the reason so many guys have a lot of fat gain on 5x5 style programs (not just milk, but eating too much in general)[/quote]

All good points, well put.