By Kevin Kolodziejski
And One to Say ‘Yes’ to Added Sugars Sometimes
When I reached the base of a climb on solo rides feeling less than lighthearted and unquestionably heavy-legged years ago, I would sometimes do what’s now embarrassing to admit. In an attempt to both amuse and energize myself — but only if no homeowners were about — I’d shout out, “Scotty, we need more power!”
You need not be a Trekkie to know that’s what Captain Kirk often said in many of the original Star Trek episodes when the USS Enterprise was in danger or needed to engage its weapon system. And you need not bestow upon me the Vulcan salute for evoking that phrase.
But you do need to know that on all your rides — hilly or not, or solo or not — you do indeed have a Scotty by your side. But it’s not a person. It’s two muscle groups, the quadriceps and the hamstrings and also known as the thighs when they work in tandem.
And if your rides followed Robert’s Rules of Order, there’d be little discussion about that fact, only a vote. After which, the presiding officer would announce a cycling-appropriate variation of “The ayes have it.”
The Thighs Have It
Half of your pedaling power, that is.
While there’s a good chance you do already know that, there’s a better one you don’t know this. “The thighs have it” is also a perfectly apropos statement about something that can adversely affect your cycling and your overall health.
That is intramuscular fat.
While we tend to see muscle and fat as opposites, healthy muscle actually contains about 1.5 percent fat. The muscles of obese individuals can have more than 5 percent fat, and as you age, obese or not, the percentage can be double that. These higher percentages present health problems. Increases in intramuscular fat have not only been associated with a loss of strength and mobility, but also an increased risk of chronic disease.
So it’s no surprise that in the press release about a paper presented at the annual meeting of the Radiological Society of North America last December 4, its author notes that higher amounts of intramuscular fat in the thighs have been “associated with [the] onset and progression of knee osteoarthritis” in studies “from our group [of researchers] and others.” Yet the paper authored by Dr. Zehra Akkaya does contain a big surprise.
“The more ultra-processed foods people consumed, the more intramuscular fat they had in their thigh muscles.”
UPFs Linked to Intramuscular Fat
Akkaya and other researchers at the Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging at the University of California, San Francisco came to this conclusion by first analyzing data from 666 individuals who, based on initial MRIs, were not afflicted with any type of osteoarthritis. Their average age was 60 and average body mass index 27, the middle number of the Overweight range according to the CDC. During the yearlong study, however, these individuals were far from average when it came to consuming UPFs. While typical U.S. adults according to the American Medical Association get 57 percent of their daily calories from them, the 666 studied only averaged about 40 percent.
Despite this discrepancy, MRIs of their thigh muscles at years’ end still showed streaks of fat where you’d expect muscle to be — the degree to which correlated to the amount of UPFs consumed. This held true “regardless of caloric intake or physical activity.”
But UPF consumption not only adversely affects the muscle quality of those 60 and older. A study published in the February 2024 issue of Frontiers in Nutrition found that to be true for those between the ages of 20 and 59, too.
Another Study Links UPFs to Intramuscular Fat
By reviewing data gathered on more than 10,000 adults between those ages as part of the National Health and Nutritional Examination Surveys from 2011 to 2018 researchers found “participants with the highest UPFs intake exhibited a 60 percent increased risk of low muscle mass.” So the study’s conclusion links heavy consumption of UPFs to a “potential adverse impact on muscle health” while noting that heavy consumption is “modifiable.”
Which would mean eating fewer UPFs, right? But a paper published in Frontiers in Public Health last December suggests another kind of modification: changing the types of UPFs consumed.
And that doing so can positively affect the most important muscle of them all, your heart.
Could a Bit of Sugar Actually Help Your Heart?
In this study, researchers took a second look at self-reported dietary data supplied by nearly 70,000 Swedes in both 1997 and 2009. This new analysis divided the amount of added sugar they consumed into three categories: 1.) sweetened toppings, such as table sugar, jam, marmalade, or honey; 2.) sweetened treats, such as ice cream, pastries, and chocolate; and 3.) sweetened beverages, primarily but not limited to sodas. Researchers then checked the participants’ medical histories and found that those who reported drinking more than eight sweetened beverages per week had a 19 percent increased risk of stroke, an 18 percent increased risk of heart failure, and a 31 percent increased risk of aneurysm when compared to those who drank less than one per week.
Yet “negative linear associations” were detected between their intake of sweetened treats and all seven of the heart problems considered, which is as significant as it is unexpected. For it means when intake went up, the seven heart problems went down. Negative linear outcomes were also evident between the intake of sweetened toppings and two of the seven heart problems, heart failure and aortic stenosis. Moreover, when total sugar intake was assessed, those who ingested the least, strangely enough, had the highest overall cardiovascular risk.
But Who’s Deciding ‘Moderation’?
Before you embrace an all-things-in-moderation approach and start eating more foods with added sugars as a way to help your heart and thereby your cycling, you need to know what moderation constitutes in this case — because most Americans don’t. According to the USDA, the average American consumes 34 teaspoons of sugars a day, which equates to about 25 percent of a 2,500-calorie-a-day diet.
That’s more than triple what this study considered to be moderate and found to be best for heart health.
Kevin Kolodziejski began his writing career in earnest in 1989. Since then he’s written a weekly health and fitness column and his articles have appeared in magazines such as “MuscleMag,” “Ironman,” “Vegetarian Times,” and “Bicycle Guide.” He has Bachelor and Masters degrees in English from DeSales and Kutztown Universities.
A competitive cyclist for more than 30 years, Kevin won two Pennsylvania State Time Trial championships in his 30’s, the aptly named Pain Mountain Time Trial 4 out of 5 times in his 40s, two more state TT’s in his 50’s, and the season-long Pennsylvania 40+ BAR championship at 43.
Is there an agreed upon definition of UPF?
I left this article wanting some more definition of UPFs, and some conclusions.
Wish this article could have been sweetened with citations of the actual studies. Left instead with a lot of Hmmmm.
Minimum number of processes for food i would eat is two. Pick fruit from my tree and wash before consuming….. that’s two processes. Let’s count the processes for a hamburger that one would make at home. 1) butcher slaughters local grass fed core, 2) butcher cuts up meat, 3) butcher grinds meat, 4) butcher packages ground meat for me to take home, 5) i mix seasonings into meat, 6) i make patties, 7) i BBQ patties, & 8) I put burger on a bun with condiments. Are any of those processes bad? Do they somehow make the burger bad for you? How many processes make food ultra processed?
I don’t like the term processed as processing is not necessarily bad. What’s bad are the chemical additives that we can’t pronounce. “Denatured food,” if you will, is bad for you.
Minimum number of processes for food i would eat is two. Pick fruit from my tree and wash before consuming….. that’s two processes. Let’s count the processes for a hamburger that one would make at home. 1) butcher slaughters local grass fed core, 2) butcher cuts up meat, 3) butcher grinds meat, 4) butcher packages ground meat for me to take home, 5) i mix seasonings into meat, 6) i make patties, 7) i BBQ patties, & 8) I put burger on a bun with condiments. Are any of those processes bad? Do they somehow make the burger bad for you? How many processes make food ultra processed?
I don’t like the term processed as processing is not necessarily bad. What’s bad are the chemical additives that we can’t pronounce. “Denatured food,” if you will, is bad for you.