Sugar VS Fats, Which is Worse?

Nutrition
41

actionjeff, if you don’t mind me asking, who is your coach?

Despite a few that he forgot dudinator, JMoUs point was well made. And while your example of granulated sugar and whey vs steak and vegies maybe be correct, it’s fundamentally not relevant.

Let’s recap.

1). The OP is talking about a cheat meal. Correct answer: it’s a cheat meal, eat whatever the hell you want, with perhaps more of a focus on fat if you’re on a low fat diet, and more of a focus on carbs if you’re on a low carb diet, but it doesn’t really matter - take the mental break from dieting.

2). Volek is a proponent of low-carb diets, so of course you found a quote of his that supports what you’re saying. Just like someone could find a pritikin quote to illustrate taking heaps of fat out of the diet, or a sears quote to support a balance of all the macros. Take into account your source before posting something as gospel.

3). [quote] Dude your wrong,If you switched sat fat for sugar it would have a profound affect on your physique. [/quote]

Equal calories? Taking into consideration timing? (Sugars during/after training). As someone mentioned above, that could have a beneficial effect on the whole.

4). [quote] And my callsign isnt puss its horsepuss. [/quote]

I’m not really sure how that improves anything at all.

5). Sat fats aren’t the devil that some people make them out to be, but neither are carbs. Despite polarizing arguements and articles to the contrary on this site, people have gotten big and lean on a low fat diet in the past, and they’ll continue to do so.

I think that pretty much /end the thread.

42

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
what the hell is a Tim Tam?[/quote]

Chocolate biscuits.

43

[

Ahhh. Yah I didn’t read the thread in great detail honestly LOL . I like your post

If this is just about one cheat meal I agree with ur point. Doesn’t matter. Although for someone eating low carb or referring I think carbs are definitely going to be superior to fat

quote]danchubb wrote:
actionjeff, if you don’t mind me asking, who is your coach?

Despite a few that he forgot dudinator, JMoUs point was well made. And while your example of granulated sugar and whey vs steak and vegies maybe be correct, it’s fundamentally not relevant.

Let’s recap.

1). The OP is talking about a cheat meal. Correct answer: it’s a cheat meal, eat whatever the hell you want, with perhaps more of a focus on fat if you’re on a low fat diet, and more of a focus on carbs if you’re on a low carb diet, but it doesn’t really matter - take the mental break from dieting.

2). Volek is a proponent of low-carb diets, so of course you found a quote of his that supports what you’re saying. Just like someone could find a pritikin quote to illustrate taking heaps of fat out of the diet, or a sears quote to support a balance of all the macros. Take into account your source before posting something as gospel.

3). Dude your wrong,If you switched sat fat for sugar it would have a profound affect on your physique.

Equal calories? Taking into consideration timing? (Sugars during/after training). As someone mentioned above, that could have a beneficial effect on the whole.

4). And my callsign isnt puss its horsepuss.

I’m not really sure how that improves anything at all.

5). Sat fats aren’t the devil that some people make them out to be, but neither are carbs. Despite polarizing arguements and articles to the contrary on this site, people have gotten big and lean on a low fat diet in the past, and they’ll continue to do so.

I think that pretty much /end the thread.[/quote]

44

hey everyone,

this post really wasn’t about cheat meals, but I get everyones point, the thing which inspired me to write about it was when I played a team sport for a few hours, I was going to go home and eat my normal meal, but due to the matches which normally take 2-3 hours for the whole team, took 4-5 hours with me being unable to go home since I was driving, and there was an afternoon snack and I had to eat something because I was about to starve to death and I was faced with a limited number of options.

and hence, it got me thinking, if you had to break the rules (Not your cheat meal) maybe that late night craving or wahtever, and obviously you want to minimise the damage, would you take sugars or fats…eg a chocolate bar/Coke which everybody knows is packed full of sugar or something deep fried maybe a cheese burger

Thought it might me interesting discussion, because ive asked a few people around my gym and ive got almost a 50-50 divide…

45

As stated already, a caloric surplus in any nutrient will cause weight gain, and chronically will eventually lead to obesity. Obesity being the second largest cause of diabetes besides genetics. However…

I do find it interesting that there are essential fatty acids, and that there are essential protiens(amino acids), but yet there has never been any mention of essential carbohydrates/sugars etc. Something to think about.

Now I am a type II so I am a little biased…but I am cutting sugar/carbs 100% of the time before I cut fat. Especially if it’s at night, Berardi’s work from what I can remember. Yes all nutients will release our famous storage hormone insulin…but it seems logical to think since carbohydrates will spike blood sugar much moreso than the others…that there would be a concurrent larger increase in the production of insulin as well. We all know that higher levels of insulin=bad for a number of reasons. Additionally there are a number of studies which tout the benefits of low carb diets over low fat diets for weight loss. I am sure you could find any number of them on alwyn cosgroves’ blog.

That all being said if your overall diet is already in check in terms of carb intake…or even you have a severe cholesterol problem…well like said above there are so many individual variables that can make one answer correct for one person, but yet wrong for another.

One last interesting note…heavy weight training doesn’t really seem to have much of an effect on my blood glucose levels, if any. That’s not to say there would be no benefit in ingesting carbs at PWO time in terms of protein synthesis etc., just found it interesting.

46

[quote]Airtruth wrote:
philipj wrote:
The sugar is the poor choice. Fats and proteins have existed for 40,000 years. Refined sugar becomes a problem. As someone becomes insulin resistant, the extra weight is sent to the waist area, in men, hip and thigh area for females. Stick with the good fats like fish and krill oil.

ohhhhh so concentrated canola oil, Olive oil, sunflower oil, all existed for 40,000 years. I skilled that history class. Did the black cave men invent fried chicken too?[/quote]

LOL!

47

I fail to see how sugar has any superiority over fats. Why would you ever eat sugar outside of desiring a large insulin spike? On training days that means 1-2x a day and on non training days…um none. The rest of the time, when trying to get lean, you want to minimize insulin. Why do you think coaches always say to eat P+F meals all day except for pre/post workout when you want P+C?

Hmmm maybe because fat is better for you.

Fucking retarded discussion.

48

[quote]waylanderxx wrote:
I fail to see how sugar has any superiority over fats. Why would you ever eat sugar outside of desiring a large insulin spike? On training days that means 1-2x a day and on non training days…um none. The rest of the time, when trying to get lean, you want to minimize insulin. Why do you think coaches always say to eat P+F meals all day except for pre/post workout when you want P+C?

Hmmm maybe because fat is better for you.

Fucking retarded discussion. [/quote]

  1. not all coaches advocate P+F meals all day except workout. I don’t know if you’ve heard, but there is such a thing as a P+C+F meal.

  2. what’s the problem with spiking insulin again? seeing as how fat is stored with nearly 100% efficiency with or without insulin

  3. go ahead and tell me what would happen if someone ate 50g of fat (say, olive oil) over and above their maintenance intake. what happens to the extra calories ingested? where do they go? (hint: around your waist)

49

just wanted to say that in the long run over consuming sugar is probably more damaging to the body than over consuming fat. This is due to glycation, basically having elevated blood sugar levels damages tissue, including arteries. Also, being fat isn’t the single answer to type 2 diabetes. I agree that resistin does increase insulin resistance, but I think it is premature to say that resistin is the single answer.

The funny thing about this argument is that in type 2 diabetics an individual would gain more fat from consuming an equal amount of fat as opposed to consuming the caloric equivalent of sugar. This is due to the body’s inability to uptake glucose into cells, so you just piss the glucose out. For most people it seems easier to cut calories from fat. But whatever, creating the energy deficit while eating enough protein gets the job done.

50

It would be interesting to hear people’s thoughts on nutrient partitioning. For example, which results in greater fat losses? Burning 500 kcals walking or burning 500 kcals sprinting your ass off? The walking results in little metabolic damage, the sprinting however results in significant metabolic damage. This damage requires additional kcals for repair right? So how significant is the difference?

51

[quote]latenight_lifter wrote:
It would be interesting to hear people’s thoughts on nutrient partitioning. For example, which results in greater fat losses? Burning 500 kcals walking or burning 500 kcals sprinting your ass off? The walking results in little metabolic damage, the sprinting however results in significant metabolic damage. This damage requires additional kcals for repair right? So how significant is the difference?
[/quote]

I’m honestly not sure exactly how long you would have to sprint to burn 500 calories but…I only bring that up as it would affect the overall intensity. But, assuming it is all out, or close to it, I would think the sprinting would give you better results due to EPOC. Though there is some argument as to what extent(negligible or substantial).