If you paid twice as much for the sugar, would it materially impact you?
Comment on Sweet tea
xohshoo@lemmy.world 10 months agoWhoa settle down there
Sucrose is 1:1 glucose/ fructose which is near the optimal 0.8 ratio for fueling endurance activities
I rode 100 miles solo in less than 5 hours Sunday on 360g sucrose in 4 750ml bottles
It’sa lot cheaper than all that fancy SIS/skratch etc
Carbs aren’t poison if you move your body
iopq@lemmy.world 10 months ago
xohshoo@lemmy.world 10 months ago
At this point in my life no. When I was young, for sure
psud@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Sure, but so few people are high energy athletes who can legitimately burn the sugar right away.
My comment was really about the great majority of people for whom sugar consumption is a path to metabolic disease, diabetes, and early death
I still support a tax on sugar as it would reduce consumption overall, but for those wealthy enough to exercise hard a sugar tax would hardly hurt
xohshoo@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Wealthy enough to exercise? Wtf?
Ain’t even going there
psud@lemmy.world 10 months ago
It’s probably a U shaped curve where you can devote (or have to devote) significant time to exercise at very low incomes, but it becomes harder at working poor sort of levels, then easy again at a certain level above poverty
minorsecond@lemm.ee 10 months ago
Yeah I consume near 400g carbs every day and am fine as a competitive powerlifter who also runs (which is rare lol). You just can’t be sitting on your ass all day.