Chocolate bars! Good or bad?

SIMONFREESE

I love chocolate bars. And being someone that cycles 60 to 80 miles a week, have always assumed that I can eat them as part of my diet, a bar or two a day.

However, I'm trying to improve my fitness to become quicker overall off road. Is chocolate going to be a bad thing?

Trying to keep the question simple, I'm aware that overall chocolate is not good, but wondered if I can get away with it or if I should cut down if I want to improve my fitness.

Any advice appreciated!

mrfpb

energy gels have about 100 kCals from sugar , chocolate has a greater mix of nutrients - especially if you have something with fruit or nuts but usually 200-300 kCals. You burn around 400-600 kCals an hour when cycling, so go for it.

SME

Got to admit to loving Twirl bars, probably two a day!! But, although I think I can justify the calories, I realise it's not the healthiest thing out there and have recently had bananas instead - cheaper, healthier, less calories.

But... the vending machines at work don't have any! :-(

SIMONFREESE

Sounds like I shouldn't worry then! I was thinking that saturated fats might be a bad thing regardless of energy use, is this just a fallacy?

mrfpb

SIMONFREESE wrote:

Sounds like I shouldn't worry then! I was thinking that saturated fats might be a bad thing regardless of energy use, is this just a fallacy?

To be honest, if your turnover of calories is about level, then burning the fat calories will happen just as well as if you were taking on sugar calories via gels or energy drinks. Do you measure calories burned on a ride? A HRM can help measure this. I say don't worry about it.

.blitz

Can't ride away from a bad diet

As the saying goes

drlodge

I'm a fruit & nut case.

fenix

OK - so 60-80 miles a week is probably somewhere round 2400 Calories to 3200 calories burnt. (based on my last bike ride anyway).

If you're averaging 1.5 Mars bars a day - at 260 calories a bar - thats 2730 calories eaten.

So basically your cycling is burning of your chocolate bars and no more.

So you're pretty neutral.

That said - if you're putting on weight - cut out the choccie.

The Rookie

Chocolate is fast energy release, best to eat just as you start or mid ride to top up energy levels, after the ride (or when not riding) you'll get a spike and crash in blood sugar and feel hungry again after 45mins to an hour!

keef66

SIMONFREESE wrote:

Sounds like I shouldn't worry then! I was thinking that saturated fats might be a bad thing regardless of energy use, is this just a fallacy?

Some of the nutters who walk across the polar icecaps can't consume enough calories. Ranulph Fiennes was eating butter and still losing weight...

Monty Dog

Most bike computers over-estimate calorie consumption and as you get fitter, you develop more efficiency / lean burn - I reckon I burn about half of what my Garmin tells me. Better of eating something which takes longer to digest / doesn't create blood sugar spikes

diy

The problem with Calories burned vs calories eaten, is that you also need to remove your TDEE for the hours you were exercising. e.g.
Assume I have a TDE of 2600kcal I'll burn 60% of that during the day and 40% overnight, so If I'm cycling 2 hours burning 1000kcal - and planning to eat an extra 1000kcal - I'm out 260kcal

Chocolate is not a good source of energy because its too spiky. You are better off with something that releases more slowly. Exercise wont stop all the downsides of a high sugar diet, unless you are literally exercising hard within 20 mins of consumption.