UKC

Energy snacks with no sugar or preservative.

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 Andy Morley 17 Feb 2016
I'm sure this question has been asked a lot, so I'm hoping there will be lots of ready answers. I want a reasonably cheap and convenient (i.e. easy to stuff in a rucksack) source of energy for sessions at the climbing wall, days out walking and at the crag. I used to use cereal/ breakfast bars for this or even chocolate but I want to cut added sugar and certain preservatives out of my diet.

Ideal would be something made of oats, almonds and dried fruit with zero added sugar and no sulphur dioxide, wrapped as a bar. I've tried making this myself but it's a huge faff and the bars fall apart. I don't mind butter or safe vegetable oils. The less processing involved in the ingredients the better. What's out there at the moment that's like that and what other options are there to do the same thing?
 Baron Weasel 17 Feb 2016
In reply to Andy Morley:

Trek and Nakd bars. As a sugar dodger though I still find them too sweet and find salami to be the best slow release energy bar for me.
 The Potato 17 Feb 2016
In reply to Andy Morley:
can I just point out that dried fruit contains a lot of sugar. The same goes for fruit juices which people still think are healthy yet are usually quite acidic and high in sugar (check the nutrition information and see how much 'carbohydrate of which sugars' per 100g.
Table sugar is glucose and fructose, dried fruit not surprisingly contains fructose. Fructose takes a little longer to digest than glucose but not much, either way you are getting a sugar spike which is something you are trying to avoid.

Nakd bars are pretty much what you are describing just pressed fruit nuts cocoa etc.
You can easily make these things yourself and there are recipes online, my suggestion would be the following -
get a blender or nutribullet or similar, add some dry oats and a mixed seeds (sunflower, pumpkin etc) and ground almonds, and grind to a powder, add dates and a little water and blend / mash untill you can roll it in to a balls. Wrap them in clingfilm and keep it in the fridge until needed

Edit - ive just realised how silly it is to say ' can I just point out' because we then proceed and say it anyway whether the other person wants to hear it or not. sorry!

2nd edit / addendum - search online for Glycaemic index of foods, this will show you how sugary their carbohydrates are. Its not as straightforward as saying 'sugar'. The lower the GI the slower the energy is released or the lower amount of energy it contains. As Baron Weasel said meat is a good one for slow release high energy, however i personally avoid processed meats which contain a lot of 'crap' such as nitrites and sulphites which have been shown to be harmful to us and even says on the packaging for nitrites - has been associated with food intolerances!
A boiled egg is probably a good one, or a home made scotch egg? Home made Jerky?
Post edited at 12:02
 CurlyStevo 17 Feb 2016
In reply to Andy Morley:

How about a banana and a handful of mixed nuts?
1
 jkarran 17 Feb 2016
In reply to Andy Morley:

An carrot and a sandwich?

What do you actually like to eat? I'd start with that, just make it and put a portion in a lunchbox/tub.
jk
1
 Robert Durran 17 Feb 2016
In reply to Pesda potato:

> Dried fruit not surprisingly contains fructose.

Yes, but that's natural fructose, not chemical fructose, so its good for you
1
OP Andy Morley 17 Feb 2016
In reply to Robert Durran:

> Yes, but that's natural fructose, not chemical fructose, so its good for you

I think it's good in the sense that it doesn't "spike" in your bloodstream in the way refined sugars do. "Natural and unprocessed = healthy" is a good rule of thumb, but I'm aware it doesn't apply across the board.

Bananas I use a lot, but they go off and I don't always have them - it's good to have something with a longer shelf-life for those days when I've run out, and also for variety.
Dried fruit I'm starting to avoid unless I've soaked it and rinsed it a few times (sulphur dioxide), which takes away a lot of the convenience.
Nuts are good, I use almonds for the protein and a few Brazil's.
Salami, I've heard from various places that processed meats, particularly cured ones involving things like potassium nitrate are rather bad for you, which is a shame as I really love things like chorizo.
I live air-dried beef like you get in the Italian Alps and Aldi has started to do it so I must check the ingredients list.
Sandwiches - I used to take them but I'm trying to eliminate regular bread made from highly processed flour, so again I need some alternatives with a longer shelf-life than whole meal bread - multi-grain crispbreads are good but expensive
I'll check out Trek and Nakd to see if they have sugar in them.
Boiled eggs - great suggestion!

Any more?
 jkarran 17 Feb 2016
In reply to Andy Morley:

> Salami, I've heard from various places that processed meats, particularly cured ones involving things like potassium nitrate are rather bad for you, which is a shame as I really love things like chorizo.
> I live air-dried beef like you get in the Italian Alps and Aldi has started to do it so I must check the ingredients list.

What's the point in life without things you love? We don't live forever either way.

> Sandwiches - I used to take them but I'm trying to eliminate regular bread made from highly processed flour, so again I need some alternatives with a longer shelf-life than whole meal bread - multi-grain crispbreads are good but expensive

Your local baker will sell decent bread. Alternatively it's trivial to make your own, either in batches for the freezer or on a rolling program baking every other day. Likewise with the salami, it's quite possible to make your own.
jk
 More-On 17 Feb 2016
In reply to Andy Morley:

If you want convenient to complement 'real' food then how about energy gels? They will live in you rucksack/bag for years and give you a boost when you need it. They won't be the cheapest solution you will find, but as a long-lived, convenient source of energy they work very well.
Personally I like SIS Go gels as you don't need to take water with them and I can get them down my neck in marathons etc, but there are lots of consistencies out there.
OP Andy Morley 17 Feb 2016

> What's the point in life without things you love? We don't live forever either way.

Interesting philosophical question. My answer would be that sometimes the things I love can be mutually exclusive to an extent and more generally, every single choice you make precludes other things that you could have chosen to eat/ do/ be.

What to people think about milk and cocoa powder (as opposed to drinking chocolate)? Some people can't digest milk but if you can, a flask of cocoa with no added sugar is great on a cold day. What are people's views on skimmed milk, which some people claim is a highly 'altered food' and therefore 'bad' - does it have sugar added and is semi-skimmed or full cream better if you're not fussed about the fat, which I'm not?
OP Andy Morley 17 Feb 2016
In reply to More-On:
> If you want convenient to complement 'real' food then how about energy gels? They will live in you rucksack/bag for years and give you a boost when you need it. They won't be the cheapest solution you will find, but as a long-lived, convenient source of energy they work very well.

Not heard of these - thanks, I'll do some research. If you know about this stuff, what do you think about protein shakes, creatin and all that? I tend to avoid it in favour of 'natural' foods but I'm open to persuasion. I've certainly found that increasing my protein intake when I'm doing heavy sessions at the wall or gym has radically reduced aching muscles during the night.
Post edited at 13:21
 cathsullivan 17 Feb 2016

> I think it's good in the sense that it doesn't "spike" in your bloodstream in the way refined sugars do. "Natural and unprocessed = healthy" is a good rule of thumb, but I'm aware it doesn't apply across the board.

Sadly, the glycaemic index of food isn't as easy as natural/unnatural (although I agree that it's not a bad start, because I get the impression GI is influenced by how processed things are to some extent).

When I looked into this, I got the impression that what's also important is how you combine foods together. Because the glycaemic response is a result of the entire 'meal' rather than each component separately.

Rules of thumb for myself that I came up with when researching this are:
1. Try and eat foods that are less processed (whether commercially or at home).
2. Try and get slightly fewer of my daily calories from foods that are high in sugars/carbs.
3. If eating foods that have relatively large amounts of sugars/carbs try and eat them alongside something that is higher in fat or protein.
4. If eating foods that have relatively large amounts of sugar/carbs try and do it during a session of physical activity.

So, in terms of how to identify snacks, I would personally, use those rules of thumb combined with whatever info I can get about the glycaemic index of foods (you can buy books - I have a small book with lists in, published by Collins, I think). So, I started doing things like going for a mix of nuts and dried apricots rather than raisins on their own and I started making flapjack with nuts and seeds in it and as little sugar as I could manage and have it still stick together well enough. And, in the past where I would have had two bits of toast and one egg, I now have one small bit of toast and two eggs.

All of the things I read about GI led me to the conclusion that added sugar (notwithstanding how complicated it is to really define this) is very bad for us and fibre is really good for us. I didn't start investigating this, or change my diet, because I wanted to lose weight. It was more just that I am generally interested in things like this and started to get the impression that it might be more healthy and better for energy levels to pay some attention to GI/sugar. But I did lose weight (not exactly a controlled experiment, I know) without having any perception of being hungry or denying myself things. I remember in the 80s there was a thing called the Fplan diet - Audrey somebody or other wrote a book about it. I think, at that time, there was growing awareness of fibre and related health issues. Am thinking that Audrey was right - and all of this stuff isn't really quite as new-fangled as it seems. We've known for ages that highly processed stuff is bad for you but it seems the idea is gathering evidence and popularity (and it seems that the old idea that a calorie is a calorie whether it comes from fat or sugar is not correct).
Post edited at 13:25
 jkarran 17 Feb 2016
In reply to Andy Morley:

Of the two choices, skimmed or whole milk it's probably the latter that contains more 'additives' (if either contain any) since it needs to be kept emulsified. I suspect though it's just done mechanically.
jk
 Dave B 17 Feb 2016
In reply to Pesda potato:

Wasn't there some work on the affects on blood sugar of different foods actually being quite individual to a single person rather than generally lab testable per se. All do to with gut bacteria or something. I am vague on details etc., but someone out there may be more informed than I (or is it 'me').Of course you might guess that sugar would generally give a high blood sugar effect, but other foods were meant to be different...


 kevin stephens 17 Feb 2016
In reply to Andy Morley:

Soreens Maltloaf

 More-On 17 Feb 2016
In reply to Andy Morley:

I came across SIS at cyclo cross races in the early 90s and found that a combination of gels, bars and their recovery shakes, alongside real food, got me through and helped me recover from long walks/runs/bike rides. As I like longer days out they are a real boon as they don't disintegrate in your pack and are easy to eat after many hours on the go.
As you say more protein has certainly helped me avoid sore muscles and I find the protein shakes or bars a convenient sources.
I'm afraid I don't know about creatine etc - at my bumbly level of running and climbing cursory research suggested it wasn't necessary so I haven't looked at it in any great depth. Others on here have I'm sure and can no doubt offer a more in depth analysis.
 Bob Hughes 17 Feb 2016
In reply to Andy Morley:

broccoli and cheese
 bigbobbyking 17 Feb 2016
In reply to More-On:

> If you want convenient to complement 'real' food then how about energy gels? They will live in you rucksack/bag for years and give you a boost when you need it. They won't be the cheapest solution you will find, but as a long-lived, convenient source of energy they work very well.

Aren't these full of the refined sugar that the OP wants to avoid? Or are they different in someway?

 More-On 17 Feb 2016
In reply to bigbobbyking:

The SIS ones are maltodextrin based so have very little 'sugar' content IIRC.
1
 krikoman 17 Feb 2016
In reply to Andy Morley:

Sausages!?
OP Andy Morley 17 Feb 2016
In reply to cathsullivan:

> All of the things I read about GI led me to the conclusion that added sugar (notwithstanding how complicated it is to really define this) is very bad for us and fibre is really good for us.......... We've known for ages that highly processed stuff is bad for you but it seems the idea is gathering evidence and popularity (and it seems that the old idea that a calorie is a calorie whether it comes from fat or sugar is not correct).

This is my gut feel too. What do you think of the 'five plus two' diet? I'm not sure about the 'eat anything you want on non-fast days' bit.
http://www.bbcgoodfood.com/howto/guide/what-52-diet

But more to my original point, how do you combine healthy eating with convenience? I'm getting ever so slightly jaded with bananas and apples and I'm not convinced that nuts and seeds give me that energy boost I need on a cold day outdoors... There are some very good suggestions above, the Trek bars have added sugar but the Nakd bars don't - what do people think of them?
 krikoman 17 Feb 2016
In reply to jkarran:

> Of the two choices, skimmed or whole milk it's probably the latter that contains more 'additives' (if either contain any) since it needs to be kept emulsified. I suspect though it's just done mechanically.

> jk

Homogenised, no additives

http://www.purepackage.com/2009/02/why-is-milk-homogenised/
In reply to Andy Morley:
Redskin peanut with medjool dates and bananas.
OP Andy Morley 17 Feb 2016
In reply to More-On:

> I came across SIS at cyclo cross races in the early 90s and found that a combination of gels, bars and their recovery shakes, alongside real food, got me through and helped me recover from long walks/runs/bike rides. As I like longer days out they are a real boon as they don't disintegrate in your pack and are easy to eat after many hours on the go.
> As you say more protein has certainly helped me avoid sore muscles and I find the protein shakes or bars a convenient sources.

OK, so I confess, I have this prejudice against 'Frankenstein foods'. I'm always a bit mistrustful of stuff made in a lab. Am I being narrow-minded here or is there some sense in eating 'natural'..?
2
OP Andy Morley 17 Feb 2016
In reply to krikoman:


As I read it, that research seemed quite scary!
 Sealwife 17 Feb 2016
In reply to Andy Morley:

Nakd bars taste pretty good. That's as far as my research on them goes.

5:2 diet - Mr Sealwife has been doing this for a few weeks and has been having good results, although he has found he feels the cold on the days he is fasting. He is also fairly grumpy on these days.

I tried it a few years back and found that apart from the first week, it didn't really work for me at all - I get all the grumpy, food obsessed feelings and none of the weight loss. Maybe it's because I don't really have much to lose anyway or it could be (as I have read elsewhere) that it works better for men than for middle aged women.
 ianstevens 17 Feb 2016
In reply to Andy Morley:

It's easy to make these yourself: equal parts dates, ground nuts (your choice) and dried fruit (again, your choice) and blend to a paste. Cut into bars or roll into balls, clingfilm and keep in the fridge.
 dollydog 17 Feb 2016
In reply to Andy Morley:

bananas are very high in sugar
 More-On 17 Feb 2016
In reply to Andy Morley:

> ... is there some sense in eating 'natural'..?

For the majority of your intake I think 'normal' food is the way forward as it's tasty and cheap, and may even be good for you!
It's when I need long lasting/tough and/or easily digestible as well that I like the SIS stuff.
FWIW for a day out of 30+ miles I take cold pasta, oatcakes, biltong/dried sausage, maltloaf and some gels/bars. A nice mix of carbs and protein, convenient and most importantly tasty...
 Jim Fraser 17 Feb 2016
In reply to Andy Morley:

Energy snacks with no sugar? You're having a laugh aren't you?


Slow release version.
In the morning, get a bag of rolled oats and empty a pile onto a plate. Get a bottle of full cream milk and pour it over the oats. Allow to soak for a minute or two and then eat. Depending upon how big the pile is and how hard you are working, you should be able to manage all day on that. This is the sort of thing that the Macedonian and Roman Empires were built on.

Snack version.
Half litre of full cream milk.
1
 krikoman 17 Feb 2016
In reply to Andy Morley:

> As I read it, that research seemed quite scary!

I read this, "Lesions within artery wails result from this attack",and it negates the rest of the scaremongering for me. My artery wails are just fine, thanks.

I does have some benefits in the the milk lasts longer before it goes sour, so much so that I've drunk milk 20 days after the use by date, without my wails falling apart.
OP Andy Morley 17 Feb 2016
In reply to dollydog:

> bananas are very high in sugar

As I understand it, it's a different kind of sugar (natural fructose) than the sort that comes in a bag (refined sucrose). Are bananas an exception?
1
OP Andy Morley 17 Feb 2016
In reply to ianstevens:

> It's easy to make these yourself: equal parts dates, ground nuts (your choice) and dried fruit (again, your choice) and blend to a paste. Cut into bars or roll into balls, clingfilm and keep in the fridge.

This sounds interesting. Is it the dates that provide the 'glue' to keep it together?
 cathsullivan 17 Feb 2016
In reply to Andy Morley:

> This is my gut feel too. What do you think of the 'five plus two' diet? I'm not sure about the 'eat anything you want on non-fast days' bit.

I am far too greedy to do fasting and I don't feel the need to lose any weight, so have never really looked into it.

> But more to my original point, how do you combine healthy eating with convenience?

I haven't really found a way of taking the hard work out of making sure I get to eat what I prefer in sufficient quantities when I'm out and about. I spend quite a lot of time packaging up food to take with me to the wall or to work and I can see why most people probably wouldn't have the time or inclination. But I tend not to enjoy the food I can buy when I'm out and about (depends on your options, of course - mine are limited a lot of the time to nasty sandwhiches and/or vending machine fodder) so I mostly opt to spend the extra time on faffing about preparing food. I often take salads places with me so as to avoid eating shop bought sandwhiches - with bulghar wheat, spelt, brown rice, wholemeal pasta, tuna, pulses, cheese etc. I freeze a lot of stuff in single portions and sometimes take things to work and microwave them (e.g., stews, soups or curries of some kind or other). I bought some individual pie dishes, which are really good, as instead of making one pie (e.g., shepherd's pie with sweet potato mash or similar) I make four small ones and then freeze them. You can prize them out of the dishes once they're frozen and wrap them in freezer bags, and then just put them in a bowl at work and microwave them. Felafal are fairly portable - and you can take some salad to go with them quite easily. It's fairly easy for me as I work at home a lot, I only have to prepare food for myself, and I enjoy cooking and learning about food. So, I am mostly happy to spend the extra time, but I'm not sure you can have easy and convenient without sacrificing healthy and economical.
 jkarran 17 Feb 2016
In reply to krikoman:

My wails are more worried about the dihydrogenmonoxide contamination in milk. Why do we put up with this in our milk it's lethal by inhalation! It's not even something we add, the cows pick this potentially deadly industrial solvent up from their environment before passing it into their milk undigested!
jk
1
 RockAngel 17 Feb 2016
In reply to Andy Morley:

Banana. No added sugars or preservatives
 ianstevens 17 Feb 2016
In reply to Andy Morley:

Yes. Quite a lot of sugar though due to the use of two fruits.
 Robert Durran 17 Feb 2016
In reply to Andy Morley:

> As I understand it, it's a different kind of sugar (natural fructose).

Is there such a thing as unnatural fructose and, if so, is it chemically different from natural fructose?

And what does "processed" mean? Is anything cooked processed? Does adding one thing to another and mixing them up mean they have been processed?

It strikes me there is probably a lot of mumbo jumbo talked using words like "natural" and "processed". Either something is good for you or it is not.
 Big Ger 17 Feb 2016
In reply to Andy Morley:

Beer.
 Å ljiva 17 Feb 2016
In reply to Robert Durran: another vote for nakd bars and this place do some good stuff
http://primaljoy.co.uk/
MarkJH 17 Feb 2016
In reply to Andy Morley:
> As I understand it, it's a different kind of sugar (natural fructose) than the sort that comes in a bag (refined sucrose). Are bananas an exception?

In some ways it is. Bananas contain approximately equal amounts of fructose and glucose (and some sucrose), whilst refined sugar is just plain sucrose. However, sucrose is a disaccharide that cannot be absorbed until it is broken down into its constituent parts which just happens to be equal quantities of glucose and fructose. So, from a metabolic point of view, the sugar that you get in bananas is roughly equivalent to that which comes out of a bag. Obviously bananas have a lot going for them (nutritionally) over and above the sugar content.
Post edited at 21:04
 mountainbagger 17 Feb 2016
In reply to Andy Morley:

Another vote for Nakd bars, and also Fruitus bars: http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/?ie=UTF8&keywords=fruitus+bars&tag=mh0a9-...

These are as an alternative to energy gels, snack bars or other sweets. They are NOT a satisfactory alternative to cheese, sausage rolls, pork pies or salted nuts.
OP Andy Morley 17 Feb 2016
In reply to MarkJH:

> So, from a metabolic point of view, the sugar that you get in bananas is roughly equivalent to that which comes out of a bag.

I think the difference is that if you get the same amount of sucrose from refined sugar, it comes in a 'spike' which can be harmful to some (though not all) individuals. If you get it from fructose, because the body has to metabolise it, it doesn't come all at once and so is better for some people, and arguably anyone benefits from the slower release because you don't usually need your energy in a sudden burst. What you get from bananas is more sustained I believe.


 jimjimjim 17 Feb 2016
In reply to Andy Morley:

Brown rice, a tin of fish mixed with raw chopped onion and pepper. A few dates after with a cinnamon tea. My regular lunch
OP Andy Morley 17 Feb 2016
In reply to cathsullivan:

> I haven't really found a way of taking the hard work out of making sure I get to eat what I prefer in sufficient quantities when I'm out and about. I spend quite a lot of time packaging up food to take with me to the wall or to work and I can see why most people probably wouldn't have the time or inclination.

I think you're right - it's hard to avoid time and effort. Tonight I did two hours at the wall followed by an hour's Jujitsu followed by another few routes at the wall so I need something with plenty of carbs. I took some tabbouleh with lots of couscous in a placcy tub to keep me going, which worked well, but I'd rather not have to mess with spoons and tubs when I go outdoors. I like to have something I can take out of my sack, stuff in a pocket and munch on the move if need be. That's why bars would be so good, if it weren't for the sugar! But I'm going to try these Nakd things and see if I like them. Also, date, oat and nut balls sound good - I hadn't thought of making things like that in balls; far less likely to fall apart than trying to make bars!
 Dr.S at work 17 Feb 2016
In reply to Andy Morley:

vodka
 Anti-faff 17 Feb 2016
In reply to jkarran:
It's an outrage! It persists in your body for so long after ingestion too, I found some in my tears the other morning and I only ever eat all natural organic foods like quinoa, brioche and crude oil. Goodness knows how it got there.
 jimjimjim 18 Feb 2016
In reply to Andy Morley:

A fellow jiujitsu guy. Bjj or trad?
 Strachan 18 Feb 2016
In reply to Andy Morley:

I'm sorry to be a pedant but a large amount of what you are saying about sugars I feel needs correction. For one thing, you say that 'refined sucrose' creates a 'spike', where 'natural fructose' does not. In fact sucrose must first be hydrolysed at the o-glycosidic bond, to give fructose and glucose monosaccharide units. Glucose is then metabolised, via the pathway we call glycolysis. Fructose enters fructolysis, which then converges with glycolysis when a common intermediate is formed. The point being, that fructose is able to be metabolised more rapidly when consumed in monosaccharide form, than when it is necessary to break down disaccharide sucrose first, and so the reverse holds true if anything. (Cleavage of the glycosidic bond is very fast, but regardless, it is certainly true to say that monosaccharides must pass through a shorter metabolic pathway).

It is true that if you take in an equivalent amount of fructose as molecular fructose as opposed to in sucrose form, then the glucose component of sucrose is of course omitted. That is naturally going to lead to a smaller energy release, but of course this can be mitigated by eating half as much of a sucrose source instead.

I am also unsure of the issue with sulphur dioxide. I have not looked into it, but as a gas, I find it difficult to believe that it is present in foods in considerable quantity, though I am willing to be proven wrong. That said, it just seems there are bigger health risks in every day life that could be avoided instead. It is like the debate about decaff drinks: caffeine can have undesirable physiological effects on some people, but decaffination often uses chlorinated solvents such as DCM, so really, is it worth trying to avoid these things, because there is always something else just as nasty that hasn't been considered?

Energy gels are essentially designed to get blood glucose levels to spike as hard and as high as possible in the minimum time. So they are definitely not what you are after. They contain fructose (exactly the same as in a piece of fruit, forget about this idea of 'refined' when comparing like for like; fructose and fructose are chemically and biochemically identical!), and maltodextrin. Maltodextrins are just oligosaccharides of glucose subunits, that are almost instantly converted to glucose by enzymes in the saliva. they are chosen over glucose itself purely to avoid an overpoweringly sweet taste. I am a big believer in energy gels whilst cycling, but they will certainly give a big blood sugar spike, think of them as emergency fuel. In terms of composition energy gels are essentially the same as the much-maligned high fructose corn syrup, or even sucrose, once the body splits it into glucose and fructose, although the ratios of glucose and fructose will likely vary.

Fundamentally the thing to remember is that carbohydrates are the body's primary fuel source. It is possible to access the energy in proteins etc but via convoluted metabolic routes. I would stick to proteins for recovery, and tune the types of carbs used as fuel. Don't think about refined/unrefined, natural/ unnatural, as these words are completely irrelevant so far as chemistry and physiology are concerned (in the same way that many people wrongly interpret the words man-made, or synthetic, as being synonymous with harm or toxicity where chemicals are concrned). Instead, consider that complex carbohydrates will need to enter a longer metabolic route, with the energy release accordingly slowed. So in order to fuel activity over a longer period, a range of carbs should be taken in, to cover a range of timescales. It is also worth eating carbs in advance of exercise, in order to store enough glycogen to fuel the first hour or so of work. Proteins can't be stored, after all, and fats can be stored, but not accessed in a hurry during exercise. Processed meats are also, beyond being extremely questionable as a fuel source, likely to be far more harmful in terms of carcinogenicity etc than taking in sugars of any kind.

I honestly wouldn't worry about a blood sugar spike during vigorous exercise, as your body will be crying out for the carbs anyway- they aren't going to hang around, especially once glycogen stores have been depleted.

In case you hadn't guessed, I'm a chemist, not a dietician, but that's just my thoughts and hopefully some useful info.
1
 More-On 18 Feb 2016
In reply to Strachan:

That's very informative about maltodextrin, thank you. I suppose I never notice a 'high' as I keep fueled up these days after several episodes of running on empty...
 BelleVedere 18 Feb 2016
In reply to More-On:

but maltodextrin converts to sugar quickly when digested - iirc - great for energy on the bike when you're starting to fade - but i wouldn't use every day

Oatcakes? (i like the cheese ones)
boiled potatoes are a bit of a thing with the fast boys in the club.
folded pizza

also this book seems right up your street http://feedzonecookbook.com/portables/
OP Andy Morley 18 Feb 2016
In reply to jimjimjim:

> A fellow jiujitsu guy. Bjj or trad?

I've only been doing it a few months so I haven't yet got my head around the various types. Here's the web-page:
http://www.kajuenryu.com
OP Andy Morley 18 Feb 2016
In reply to Strachan:

> I'm sorry to be a pedant but a large amount of what you are saying about sugars I feel needs correction.

With this sort of subject matter, scientific knowledge is always useful

> For one thing, you say that 'refined sucrose' creates a 'spike', where 'natural fructose' does not. In fact sucrose must first be hydrolysed at the o-glycosidic bond, to give fructose and glucose monosaccharide units. Glucose is then metabolised, via the pathway we call glycolysis. Fructose enters fructolysis, which then converges with glycolysis when a common intermediate is formed. The point being, that fructose is able to be metabolised more rapidly when consumed in monosaccharide form, than when it is necessary to break down disaccharide sucrose first, and so the reverse holds true if anything. (Cleavage of the glycosidic bond is very fast, but regardless, it is certainly true to say that monosaccharides must pass through a shorter metabolic pathway).

The problem is though, that's a complex and in-depth explanation which takes time to assimilate, which is why a lot of people go for heuristics like natural/unnatural just to get them round the supermarket shelves when they're in a hurry. However, I always hated it at school when the science teachers simplified explanations because that often distorted things and confused me so I'm going to try to get my head around this. You're saying that monosaccharide fructose is quicker to convert to what - glucose? Or is it burned to create energy directly as fructose? And is the monosaccharide form of fructose the sort most commonly found in fruits?

> It is true that if you take in an equivalent amount of fructose as molecular fructose as opposed to in sucrose form, then the glucose component of sucrose is of course omitted. That is naturally going to lead to a smaller energy release, but of course this can be mitigated by eating half as much of a sucrose source instead.

So where does the concept of 'slow release' come in? - It's a claim that's often made for bananas for instance.

> I am also unsure of the issue with sulphur dioxide. I have not looked into it, but as a gas, I find it difficult to believe that it is present in foods in considerable quantity, though I am willing to be proven wrong.

Sulphur dioxide a fungicide and anti-discolourant used in drying fruit. I had a cold I couldn't shake off last December and was diagnosed with winter asthma - some inhalers cleared it up pretty fast but I've noticed that dried fruit seems to provoke it to come back. Whether that's a direct effect or whether it's psychological because I know it's there and have heard it triggers asthma is hard to say.
http://www.livestrong.com/article/317156-the-health-risks-of-sulfur-dioxide...

> That said, it just seems there are bigger health risks in every day life that could be avoided instead. It is like the debate about decaff drinks: caffeine can have undesirable physiological effects on some people, but decaffination often uses chlorinated solvents such as DCM, so really, is it worth trying to avoid these things, because there is always something else just as nasty that hasn't been considered?

I couldn't cope without copious amounts of tea

> Energy gels are essentially designed to get blood glucose levels to spike as hard and as high as possible in the minimum time. So they are definitely not what you are after. They contain fructose (exactly the same as in a piece of fruit, forget about this idea of 'refined' when comparing like for like; fructose and fructose are chemically and biochemically identical!), and maltodextrin. Maltodextrins are just oligosaccharides of glucose subunits, that are almost instantly converted to glucose by enzymes in the saliva. they are chosen over glucose itself purely to avoid an overpoweringly sweet taste. I am a big believer in energy gels whilst cycling, but they will certainly give a big blood sugar spike, think of them as emergency fuel. In terms of composition energy gels are essentially the same as the much-maligned high fructose corn syrup, or even sucrose, once the body splits it into glucose and fructose, although the ratios of glucose and fructose will likely vary.

I can feel a tendency to go all heuristic here and say 'gels = unnatural and I don't understand the biochemistry, so leave alone!'

> Fundamentally the thing to remember is that carbohydrates are the body's primary fuel source. It is possible to access the energy in proteins etc but via convoluted metabolic routes. I would stick to proteins for recovery, and tune the types of carbs used as fuel.

Just what I've been doing

> Don't think about refined/unrefined, natural/ unnatural, as these words are completely irrelevant so far as chemistry and physiology are concerned (in the same way that many people wrongly interpret the words man-made, or synthetic, as being synonymous with harm or toxicity where chemicals are concrned).

It is such a complex subject that the urge to adopt heuristics (rules of thumb) can be almost irresistible if you're a lay-person!

> Instead, consider that complex carbohydrates will need to enter a longer metabolic route, with the energy release accordingly slowed. So in order to fuel activity over a longer period, a range of carbs should be taken in, to cover a range of timescales. It is also worth eating carbs in advance of exercise, in order to store enough glycogen to fuel the first hour or so of work.

This makes perfect sense to me and matches what I've heard/ read and what I've been doing.

> Proteins can't be stored, after all, and fats can be stored, but not accessed in a hurry during exercise. Processed meats are also, beyond being extremely questionable as a fuel source, likely to be far more harmful in terms of carcinogenicity etc than taking in sugars of any kind.

I've heard there's a window of about an hour and a half, within which it's useful to take protein for repair after exercise. I've also been operating on the principle that protein immediately before or during exercise is good, just from the common-sense perspective that it must take a bit of time to work its way through. I eat almonds and drink skimmed milk during exercise and have an egg or a kipper or some mackerel just after if I can.

> I honestly wouldn't worry about a blood sugar spike during vigorous exercise, as your body will be crying out for the carbs anyway- they aren't going to hang around, especially once glycogen stores have been depleted.

Yeah, I understand, but then it's probably easy to overdo it and consume more sugary food than your body actually needs, which is why I've stopped taking cereal bars with me, except as iron rations for any major emergency that might happen outdoors.

> In case you hadn't guessed, I'm a chemist, not a dietician, but that's just my thoughts and hopefully some useful info.

Much appreciated, thanks!
OP Andy Morley 18 Feb 2016
In reply to BelleVedere:

> also this book seems right up your street http://feedzonecookbook.com/portables/

That looks really interesting - thanks. To your other point, when I go climbing on the Western grit and I'm in a hurry, I dive into the oatcake shop in Leek that opens at 'silly O'clock' and grab one oatcake for breakfast and one for later. The ones with cheese and bacon and maybe mushrooms seem to keep best. Fantastic little shop!
 Robert Durran 18 Feb 2016
In reply to Andy Morley:

There seems to be a big anti sugar feeling at the moment due to the highly publicised fact that too many people are living on soft drinks etc and getting fat and diabetic etc. But, presumably, as long as you are actually burning the calories, that shouldn't be a problem. So the only problem with sugars is the "spike" or lack of slow release. I know this might seem a daft or at least hypothetical idea, but might the ideal solution be to be fitted up with an intravenous glucose drip with a tap so that you can get almost instant energy on demand - crank it up on uphill sections and so on?
1
MarkJH 18 Feb 2016
In reply to Andy Morley:

> ..... You're saying that monosaccharide fructose is quicker to convert to what - glucose? Or is it burned to create energy directly as fructose? And is the monosaccharide form of fructose the sort most commonly found in fruits?

Fructose is a monosaccharide. When you consume sucrose (a disaccharide), it first has to be digested into its constituent monosaccharides (glucose and fructose in equal amounts). The point is, that the sugar content of bananas is already equal quantities of glucose and fructose. Functionally there is no difference between consuming refined sugar and sugar from bananas. In fact, the sugar from bananas is very slightly more accessible as it does not need to be digested.

> So where does the concept of 'slow release' come in? - It's a claim that's often made for bananas for instance.

That is more likely to be due to the starch content of bananas. i.e. it is separate from the sugar.
 The Potato 18 Feb 2016
In reply to Andy Morley:

Which is all pretty much what I said in my first reply, but I doubt many read that!
OP Andy Morley 18 Feb 2016
In reply to MarkJH:

Thanks, that's very helpful.
OP Andy Morley 18 Feb 2016
In reply to Robert Durran:

> There seems to be a big anti sugar feeling at the moment due to the highly publicised fact that too many people are living on soft drinks etc and getting fat and diabetic etc. But, presumably, as long as you are actually burning the calories, that shouldn't be a problem. So the only problem with sugars is the "spike" or lack of slow release.

Given that I've had all this helpful advice and information, I guess I should 'fess-up to my hidden agenda. I got diagnosed as pre-diabetic at the beginning of 2014. I've lost a stone and a half since then and am way fitter and stronger but it hasn't gone away, so I'm going to attempt to reverse it using some radical dieting that I've read about. While I'm building up to doing that (not the sort of thing to do on a whim) I'm aiming to keep my routine diet as sparse as possible and pared right to the bone when it comes to refined sugar. Not 100% scientific I guess but probably a good idea.

 jkarran 18 Feb 2016
In reply to Andy Morley:

Ask you GP to refer you to a qualified dietitian. If you're with BUPA they have a specialist telephone helpline for people in your position. At least that way you'll end up with a diet that's appropriate, balanced and not so miserable you can live with it and stick to it in the long term.
jk
OP Andy Morley 18 Feb 2016
In reply to jkarran:
> Ask you GP to refer you to a qualified dietitian. If you're with BUPA they have a specialist telephone helpline for people in your position. At least that way you'll end up with a diet that's appropriate, balanced and not so miserable you can live with it and stick to it in the long term.

I've tried that, but got nowhere with him.
Post edited at 14:41
Shearwater 18 Feb 2016
 jkarran 18 Feb 2016
In reply to Andy Morley:

The NHS also has a program https://www.england.nhs.uk/ourwork/qual-clin-lead/diabetes-prevention/ worth having a read, see what's available. You'll get a much better outcome with evidence based advice from a professional.
jk
OP Andy Morley 18 Feb 2016
In reply to jkarran:

> The NHS also has a program https://www.england.nhs.uk/ourwork/qual-clin-lead/diabetes-prevention/ worth having a read, see what's available. You'll get a much better outcome with evidence based advice from a professional.

Looks useful, I'll get in touch with them. All my GP said was to say he would endorse two kinds of diet, and in my case would recommend the 5:2 - he didn't mention this programme, maybe he didn't know about it. I guess that from his perspective, in me he's looking at someone who's lean, fit, doesn't drink, eats a healthy diet and does lots of exercise. Compared with most people I see in the waiting room there, I'm super healthy so why would he divert NHS resources to me? But as the websight you shared says, there's 5 million of us and taking the bigger picture into account, it's got to be useful to reduce the risk of those people becoming an increasing drain on the system.

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...