Whether you think it is right or not is down to personal tastes and the behaviour of the brands themselves. Having worked with over-caffeinated sugary drink company for years now, they truly are a class leader in protecting and supporting athletes so I will always support their presence in climbing.
Quote from: mattbirddog on January 24, 2024, 02:08:22 pmWhether you think it is right or not is down to personal tastes and the behaviour of the brands themselves. Having worked with over-caffeinated sugary drink company for years now, they truly are a class leader in protecting and supporting athletes so I will always support their presence in climbing.I had this debate with GME regarding their new investment in the Bora cycling team. I'll caveat what I say next with what that confirmed was that I'm an idealist through and through and it's easy enough to have these opinions when such a company aren't offering you any form of cash towards your preferred hobby/career; to put it bluntly, you indirectly benefit from their sponsorship don't you? They're not doing this out of the good of their heart or some love of whichever sport they're dealing with (even if that sport (or participants) takes some kind of benefit from their money), it's simply business. Whereas the product they push is loaded with sugar and their target market isn't middle aged Dads who boulder/used to boulder. I'm sure the cigarette companies did plenty for F1.
Not sure you can put cigarettes and sugary drinks in the same category…
Excess sugar in your diet is really bad for you long term!
I actually mostly agree with Dingdong’s comment. I just wanted to highlight just how bad too much processed sugar is. And how the behaviour of the sugar industry mirrors a lot of how cigarettes were/are marketed too. I think people still overlook it sometimes.
All carbohydrates break down into sugar in the body. "But it's the type of sugar and the rate at which blood sugar rises that matters" I hear you cry. The most demonised form of sugar, fructose, is actually low on the glycemic-index, so how does that add up?
Quote from: Liamhutch89 on January 25, 2024, 09:53:11 amAll carbohydrates break down into sugar in the body. "But it's the type of sugar and the rate at which blood sugar rises that matters" I hear you cry. The most demonised form of sugar, fructose, is actually low on the glycemic-index, so how does that add up?The other 50% of white sugar, glucose, gets full marks on the GI scale though
'Too much', or 'excessive' amounts of anything are bad, literally by definition! Do you think that eating lots of sugar is bad because it isn't very satiating and therefore can more easily lead to over consumption of calories, or do you think sugar is bad independently of the calories it contains? If the former then I would tend to agree, but if the latter then I disagree because the balance of research doesn't support this claim.
I think Liam's reply contains a lot of good points but isn't the whole story with sugar. He focussed on 'fattening' and 'weight gain', but these aren't the only health metrics that matter and that sugar has been linked to. Inflammation for e.g. is another health measure excess sugar is implicated with. The main issue is 'excess', not 'sugar' per se. But excess is still a problem with sugary soft drinks because:The soft drinks industry, supported by the sugar industry, has understandably done a very good marketing job with sugar - a simple example - drinking a can of original Red Bu|l provides the same grams of sugar as drinking an equivalent volume of orange or apple juice. This is true and fair. What isn't apparent from that fact is:- few young people, except perhaps children of a few nutcase fruitarians, consume apple or orange juice in the volume they consume Red Bu|l and equivalent sugary soft drinks. - the freshly squeezed apple and orange juice industry hasn't allocated the same resources and effort into sponsorships of high-profile influencers and marketing in a mission to create a market for their product, that Red Bu|l has done for its product. - there is a sugar levy on sugary soft drinks for good sound scientific reasons. Red Bu|l comparing one sugar-levied sugary soft drink - apple juice - with another sugar-levied sugary soft drink - red bu|l - is comparing one thing you shouldn't drink much of with another thing you shouldn't drink much of.Nothing about slagging off red bu|l or equivalent soft drinks is logical when looked at in isolation, but I think the damage done to young people* by them consuming sugary soft drinks is greater than the sum of the apparent parts. I wonder how Liam or others would think about a climber being sponsored by Bet365 or pr0nHub. Nothing about having a flutter on the horses or a look at pr0n is damaging in moderation. The issue is that for a great many impressionable people who follow 'influencers', moderation is difficult in the face of determined, intelligent, very well-funded marketing and omnipresence of the product in the places they frequent.My idealistic opinion of climbers who've chosen to take the money from the sugary soft drinks industry is lower than if they weren't shilling this particular product. But I'm also a realist. * and adults, but they're adults so should know better.
I’ve always believed, vaguely, that naturally occurring fructose (fruit and some veg). is not harmful because it’s consumed with fibre and cellulose and minerals and so on, whereas as an additive consumed in a refined form, it’s pretty dire.A quick google throws up this perspective from the Guardianhttps://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/21/fructose-poison-sugar-industry-pseudoscience
I tried cutting sugar out of my diet completely this January and I’ve never felt so depressed. Re-introduced a little bit and hey presto my mood is way better. I like the stuff.
