Sugar Problems

lorib642

Wheelhouse15 wrote: »

lorib642 wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

adowe wrote: »

Scarecrowsama wrote: »

Not sugar, fruit, that was a mistake.

All fruit should be eaten alone? Why?

Oh, wait, I'm remembering this now, from when my mom bought the Beverly Hills Diet book. Cool.

Is that the one? That was an all fruit different days diet. I actually tried that one for a couple of days.

There was one where you were supposed to eat different types of food seperately. Because they are digested in different areas of the digestive tract I am thinking it was Suzanne Sommers?

I'm not sure where that came from but it was in the Fit For Life Diet by a person who claimed to be a PhD but it was later discovered he got that from a diploma mill (i.e. he just paid for it). I remember that the book also advocated fruit only in the morning and that you shouldn't eat eggs because "eggs stink" -- such a scientific reason.

Oh, thanks, that must have been it. eggs stink lol

DeWoSa

I've been on several threads on MFP and I've seen them devolve in exactly the same way -- someone asks a question, someone else comments that sugar isn't very good for them and they avoid it, and then about three people get their hammers out and start bellowing about FOOD POLICE and SUGAR HATERS! and PROVE YOUR POINT WITH SCIENCE OR SHUT UP FOREVER!!!

Well, here's your chance, boys: prove to all of us that sugar is just fine for everyone all the time. Go ahead, there's a tornado watch here and I'll be up all night. I'll wait for your Google links or whatever.

Unless you are going to go the "I don't have to prove anything to you" route while you are all up in arms about the other kids on the playground.

DeWoSa

I'll go first. Here's one study from the New England Journal of Medicine. The findings are pretty clear:

"In two prospective cohorts of U.S. women and men, we found that greater consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages was associated with a more pronounced genetic predisposition to an elevated BMI and an increased risk of obesity. The findings were further replicated in an independent large cohort of U.S. women. In all three cohorts, the combined genetic effects on BMI and obesity risk among persons consuming one or more servings of sugar-sweetened beverages per day were approximately twice as large as those among persons consuming less than one serving per month."

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1203039

So, that's one for the sugar is a problem side.

DeWoSa

Hey! Here's one, also from the New England Journal of Medicine, that finds that similar calorie intakes do in fact have long term weight gain differences based on the source of the calories! This study took place over 4 years, so you know they worked hard at faking these results!

"Eating more or less of any one food or beverage may change the total amount of energy consumed, but the magnitude of associated weight gain varied for specific foods and beverages. Differences in weight gain seen for specific foods and beverages could relate to varying portion sizes, patterns of eating, effects on satiety, or displacement of other foods or beverages. Strong positive associations with weight change were seen for starches, refined grains, and processed foods. These findings are consistent with those suggested by the results in limited short-term trials: consumption of starches and refined grains may be less satiating, increasing subsequent hunger signals and total caloric intake, as compared with equivalent numbers of calories obtained from less processed, higher-fiber foods that also contain healthy fats and protein. Consumption of processed foods that are higher in starches, refined grains, fats, and sugars can increase weight gain."

"Some foods — vegetables, nuts, fruits, and whole grains — were associated with less weight gain when consumption was actually increased. Obviously, such foods provide calories and cannot violate thermodynamic laws. Their inverse associations with weight gain suggest that the increase in their consumption reduced the intake of other foods to a greater (caloric) extent, decreasing the overall amount of energy consumed. Higher fiber content and slower digestion of these foods would augment satiety, and their increased consumption would also displace other, more highly processed foods in the diet, providing plausible biologic mechanisms whereby persons who eat more fruits, nuts, vegetables, and whole grains would gain less weight over time."

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1014296#t=articleBackground

DeWoSa

I'm not so sure about this one. The professor is from the University of California San Francisco, so we all know those liberals are dirty liars.

http://www.ucsf.edu/news/2009/06/8187/obesity-and-metabolic-syndrome-driven-fructose-sugar-diet

DeWoSa

Here's an article (from the same useless major university over in Calilala land, of course), that discusses research that has found a link between sugared soda and cell decay, leading to disease. Of course, this research is only a month old, so it's got to be too new to be true, right?!

http://www.ucsf.edu/news/2014/10/119431/sugared-soda-consumption-cell-aging-associated-new-study

DeWoSa

Well well! The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition has published some research that links the consumption of sugar to pancreatic cancer! Of course, the study was on Swedish men and women, and aren't they just prone to eating Swedish Fish all the time?

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/84/5/1171.short

DeWoSa

Hey, another American Journal of Clinical Nutrition that finds a strong correlation between high sugar foods and an increased desire to eat more! Or something like that, all that science talk is so confusing.

"Compared with an isocaloric low-GI meal, a high-GI meal decreased plasma glucose, increased hunger, and selectively stimulated brain regions associated with reward and craving in the late postprandial period, which is a time with special significance to eating behavior at the next meal."

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/early/2013/06/26/ajcn.113.064113.abstract

DeWoSa

I could do this all night! But I'm pretty sure I'm about to get scolded for spamming the thread and anyway, the tornado watch is coming to a close. That was a bad storm but no tornados here! I'm tired, and I'm tired of rubbing your noses in your own poop. I'm sure, just like with my dog, it's not going to do any good, and you'll be back on the forums, cracking down on people with your absolute and unshakable belief that anyone with a bad reaction to sugar is a fear-mongering liar troll hysteric.

(On a more serious note, I do want to thank you for giving me something to think about instead of the storm. It really helped me and I had fun instead of being curled up in terror on the bathroom floor.)

Tim_Simons

Sugars shouldn’t make up more than 10% of the energy (calorie intake) you get from food and drink each day. This is about 70g for men and 50g for women, but it varies depending on:
your size
your age
how active you are

Check nutrition labels to help you pick the foods with less added sugar, or go for the low-sugar version. Look for the Carbohydrates figure in the nutrition label to check how much sugar the product contains for every 100g.

Wheelhouse15

DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »

I could do this all night! But I'm pretty sure I'm about to get scolded for spamming the thread and anyway, the tornado watch is coming to a close. That was a bad storm but no tornados here! I'm tired, and I'm tired of rubbing your noses in your own poop. I'm sure, just like with my dog, it's not going to do any good, and you'll be back on the forums, cracking down on people with your absolute and unshakable belief that anyone with a bad reaction to sugar is a fear-mongering liar troll hysteric.

(On a more serious note, I do want to thank you for giving me something to think about instead of the storm. It really helped me and I had fun instead of being curled up in terror on the bathroom floor.)

No, what you would get scolded for is cherry picking data and then jumping to unsupportable, overgeneralized, and ridiculous conclusions. May I suggest a basic course in science before you go back on such silly tirades?

Charlottesometimes23

DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »

I'm not so sure about this one. The professor is from the University of California San Francisco, so we all know those liberals are dirty liars.

http://www.ucsf.edu/news/2009/06/8187/obesity-and-metabolic-syndrome-driven-fructose-sugar-diet

Your link takes me to "Sugar Is a Poison, Says UCSF Obesity Expert Robert Lustig"

Charlottesometimes23

DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »

Here's an article (from the same useless major university over in Calilala land, of course), that discusses research that has found a link between sugared soda and cell decay, leading to disease. Of course, this research is only a month old, so it's got to be too new to be true, right?!

http://www.ucsf.edu/news/2014/10/119431/sugared-soda-consumption-cell-aging-associated-new-study

This link took me to a study looking at telomere length in NHANES participants. It concluded that sugar-sweetened soda consumption was associated with shorter chromosome telomeres (generally a bad thing), but non-carbonated sugar sweetened beverages were not. Additionally, consumption of 100% fruit juice was marginally associated with longer telomeres (considered a good thing, unless it's a cancer cell).

Hang on......isn't fruit juice full of fructose which Lustig claims is toxic?

Charlottesometimes23

DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »

Well well! The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition has published some research that links the consumption of sugar to pancreatic cancer! Of course, the study was on Swedish men and women, and aren't they just prone to eating Swedish Fish all the time?

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/84/5/1171.short

This study was included in a meta-analysis that did not support an association between diets high in glycemic index, glycemic load, total carbohydrates or sucrose and pancreatic cancer risk

http://annonc.oxfordjournals.org/content/23/10/2536.abstract

Topsking2010

Bump

ndj1979

DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »

I could do this all night! But I'm pretty sure I'm about to get scolded for spamming the thread and anyway, the tornado watch is coming to a close. That was a bad storm but no tornados here! I'm tired, and I'm tired of rubbing your noses in your own poop. I'm sure, just like with my dog, it's not going to do any good, and you'll be back on the forums, cracking down on people with your absolute and unshakable belief that anyone with a bad reaction to sugar is a fear-mongering liar troll hysteric.

(On a more serious note, I do want to thank you for giving me something to think about instead of the storm. It really helped me and I had fun instead of being curled up in terror on the bathroom floor.)

you can do what..go on google scholar and post studies that you have not even read? congratulations...

Charlottesometimes23

DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »

Hey, another American Journal of Clinical Nutrition that finds a strong correlation between high sugar foods and an increased desire to eat more! Or something like that, all that science talk is so confusing.

"Compared with an isocaloric low-GI meal, a high-GI meal decreased plasma glucose, increased hunger, and selectively stimulated brain regions associated with reward and craving in the late postprandial period, which is a time with special significance to eating behavior at the next meal."

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/early/2013/06/26/ajcn.113.064113.abstract

This very small study of n=12 obese and overweight people has little to do with sugar. It's about GI and blood flow in the brain region involved in reward but also behaviour (very different to reward). It's impossible to determine from this study that the high GI food is rewarding.

The first two studies were prospective studies of the same population (nurses) with self reported data, height, weight, food frequency questionnaires. They looked at correlation, which we know, doesn't mean causation. One study showed that generally, more calorie dense food (fried potatoes, meats, refined grains, sugar sweetened beverages) were associated with weight gain. No surprise there. The other looking at genetic susceptibility scores and sugar sweetened beverages with what appears to be very little consideration of confounding variables, and little knowledge of the functional role of the susceptibility genes.

So far Diedre, you haven't proven YOUR point. Lustig articles, n = 12 studies....

FWIW, I do believe that some people can have problems with certain highly palatable food, but for most, I think it's more of a habit than an addiction.

Wheelhouse15

Charlottesometimes23 wrote: »

DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »

Hey, another American Journal of Clinical Nutrition that finds a strong correlation between high sugar foods and an increased desire to eat more! Or something like that, all that science talk is so confusing.

"Compared with an isocaloric low-GI meal, a high-GI meal decreased plasma glucose, increased hunger, and selectively stimulated brain regions associated with reward and craving in the late postprandial period, which is a time with special significance to eating behavior at the next meal."

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/early/2013/06/26/ajcn.113.064113.abstract

This very small study of n=12 obese and overweight people has little to do with sugar. It's about GI and blood flow in the brain region involved in reward but also behaviour (very different to reward). It's impossible to determine from this study that the high GI food is rewarding.

The first two studies were prospective studies of the same population (nurses) with self reported data, height, weight, food frequency questionnaires. They looked at correlation, which we know, doesn't mean causation. One study showed that generally, more calorie dense food (fried potatoes, meats, refined grains, sugar sweetened beverages) were associated with weight gain. No surprise there. The other looking at genetic susceptibility scores and sugar sweetened beverages with what appears to be very little consideration of confounding variables, and little knowledge of the functional role of the susceptibility genes.

So far Diedre, you haven't proven YOUR point. Lustig articles, n = 12 studies....

I'm glad someone got a point from her posts since all I got is "Sugar is evil and I hate anyone who disagrees with my views! "