That's almost as I understand it.
Except that I'd say that, before the gym, if one has been eating properly, one's glycogen stores ought to be pretty well topped-up and you won't need the "sports" drink.
After the gym, the average person doesn't need a "sports" drink to replenish their glycogen stores, just going home and having their dinner would do that.

Yeah, it depends on how long/hard you're training and what you're training for. If, for example, you're trying not to lose any lean tissue and you've just done an intense workout, waiting until you've got showered, driven home and made your tea might not be the best idea.

Another point is that your glycogen stores can only be so full, so if you're training for a long time, you might need to refuel during your workout.

You're quite correct though when you say that most people don't need to routinely use sports drinks, it was merely an example I picked to illustrate a point.

Isn't that the body's way of telling you that you've done enough?

So you should stop in the middle of a marathon (or a tennis match, or whatever) because your glycogen stores are depleted?

The nutritionist featured on the Panorama programme referred to by another poster suggested that 'sports' drinks could have a minor benefit for a small percentage of athletes performing at an elite level, but he was absolutely unequivocal that for the average joe doing his regular work-out, they have no benefit whatsoever.

We've tried to discourage their use at our junior rugby club but as has been alluded to, some lads think they 'need' them to get through a session; our parents were shocked when we told them that the average bottle contains 9-10 teaspoons of sugar and thankfully, their use is decreasing. We're advocating water or squash for hydration, and a milk-based drink within 40 mins of post-training to aid recovery.

Bit of an uphill struggle though, when you've got Mo Farah and Jessica Ennis working against you.

I don't think it's necessarily just elite athletes who can benefit from using sports drinks, but I certainly accept the point that you have to be working pretty hard to necessitate their use. If, for example, I play two hours of five-a-side back to back as I've been known to do, I'll knock back a bottle of Lucozade Sport in between the two games. I wouldn't, however, tend to use them during a normal gym workout.

The amount of sugar in one of the drinks (dental health aside) is only harmful if your body isn't working hard enough (or long enough) to utilise it.

At bloody last! After 50 years of being fed (no pun intended), what many of us knew was pure bollox, US scientists now think [url=http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/start-spreading-the-news--saturated-fat-is-not-so-bad-says-study-8482321.htmlbutter & lard may not have been so bad after all[/url

That'll be the millionaire Mo Farah and the millionaire Jessica Ennis ?

Indeed, some of which millions came from being the faces of Lucozade Sport and Powerade, respectively.

I'd actually quite like to have Jessica Ennis working against me. Mo, not so much.

To be fair to those manufacturers though, there isn't a cat in hells chance that they'd get kids to drink those appalling slimey concoctions without a sports superstar saying that they owe everything to "these slimy sports drinks", have you ever tasted any of them, if you haven't yet tasted Gatorade then save yourself the trouble, I've drunk it for you and now know what drinking the scum off the top of a summer pond must be like.

I don't begrudge them their millions; it could be argued though that it's a little irresponsible to be the face of a product that is marketed as a 'sports' drink for the masses when all the evidence indicates otherwise, but I don't fancy myself in an argument against the darlings of London 2012.

I've tasted a few of the drinks myself - they range from bland to noxious; I make my own 'sport' drink and have done for years - 1 part orange juice, fill up with water and a pinch of salt - that's hydrated me through several thousand miles of cycling, with flap-jacks for fuel and a couple of pints of real ale as a hearty recovery drink. Everything in moderation and all that jazz.

Thats almost EXACTLY the same formula that we use on our C2C rides every year, even down to the salt in the orange juice

Just seen an ad for Honey Cheerios - 'Now with more honey'. What say you, Minty?!

No thank you. I'm entirely happy with something eggy, made with eggs I've bought direct from a farmer. I even get double yolkers these days.

But, but...more honey!

Honey is wonderful. I love honey.

But not on cardboard.

It's very sugary, honey is. I thought you'd have considered it to be one step above radioactive waste.

In moderation, honey is fine, as is a spoon of sugar on your strawberries [uoccasionally[/u.
The problems occur when people are ingesting kilos of the stuff per month.
If we look at the vending machines in workplaces, what is in them?
Mainly sugary confectionery and sugary drinks.
At my previous place of work, my desk was near the machine and I was amazed at the number of people visiting the machine twice or three times a day.

I agree that it's fine in moderation, and have said so throughout this thread. I rather thought Minty viewed the stuff as the sweet-tasting work of the devil though.

Lovely in moderation.



The GI levels for various food make interesting reading.

According to [url=http://www.health.harvard.edu/newsweek/Glycemic_index_and_glycemic_load_for_100_foods.htmHavard Medical School[/url:

Whole wheat bread (average) 71

Lucozade 95+10

Orange juice 50

All Bran 55

Cornflakes 93

Special K 69

Museli (average) 66

Oatmeal 55

Banana 62

Pear 38

Raisins 64

Grapefruit 25

Carrots 35

Potato (boiled) 82

Honey 61

Full-fat milk 41

I had to go [url=http://lowcarbdiets.about.com/od/whattoeat/a/glycemicindlist.htmelsewhere to find data on what we'd call 'sugar'[/url:

"Sucrose (granulated table sugar) most 58-65, 2 studies much higher, bringing the average to 68 (sucrose is half glucose and half fructose)"

I think their 'whole grain bread' is what we would call 'granary'. Wholemeal bread is usually in the low fifties. I found it odd that banana cake made with sugar has a lower GI than banana cake made without sugar.

I suppose it depends on what other ingredients would be used instead of sugar.

But I deliberately used what should be a decent source.

I'm not doubting its accuracy, just pointing out that the result is a little counter-intuitive.

I think quite a lot is, in terms of diet – or at least in terms of the mainstream diet advice for the last 30-40 years. The whole issue of saturated fat, specifically from natural sources, has meant that, when people are saying that butter is way healthier for you than one of the low-fat spreads, it sounds 'wrong'.

Similarly, what we were saying about fruit: some fruits have a high GI, some have a low figure. All fruits are not equal, in effect, in those terms.

And what you were saying about honey is interesting, in that the average for honey is little different than that for ordinary sugar.

Now clearly there are plenty of ways in which honey is vastly better than sugar. But the whole GI thing does seem to make sense.

I'm not remotely suggesting that everyone should stop eating any sugar – I'm certainly not going to stop making marmalade or the occasional cake, for instance – but so much goes back to the dual issue of people not realising how much sugar there is in processed foods, including often in foods that are marketed as healthy (particularly 'low fat' – see above) and even in fresh foods – fruits.

It strikes me that there's a similarity here with something I read once from a doctor who had been asked by a woman about salt. She was apparently worried that her husband salted his food at the table. The doctor said that that wasn't the problem – it was all the salt in processed foods that you didn't realise was there.