The truth about sugar addiction from a former sugar addict
Options
Replies
-
prettykitty1515 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »girlviernes wrote: »Kyta, you need to provide direct links, not just a study with the links that lead to your opinion.
No, she's saying g she thought she had a sugar addiction but figured out the true issue is moderation.
Our body does not know the difference between sugar, and no sugar is good or bad, therefore if you're limiting sugar it makes sense to moderate wherever you see fit.
Your last two studies are pretty weak because of the manner the studies were conducted.
Well fruit is different due to the fiber content.
Basically, because of my IR, I focus on keeping blood sugar stable. Fruit generally does not have a problematic glycemic load (banana might, not sure) due to fiber. So various sources of sugar/starch can be balanced in different ways, simple portion control, combining with protein, fiber, fat, and perhaps also certain spices like cinnamon.
Yes, I understand the fiber content and the special issues when people have insulin resistance and diabetes, for example, and balance of macros and what we choose to eat based on how we feel But, without an underlying medical condition, it seems to me your body would process all sugar the same. That's where I'm coming from.
Sugars are different on the elemental level. There are differences in how the body processes HFCS, sucrose, fructose, glucose, dextrose, lactose, etc....
Straight fructose emptys more quickly from the stomach than glucose. Fructose (like in pop) can be processed into fat by the liver without being converted to glucose first, like other carbs. Fructose, unlike other carbs, does not down-regulate DNL. The fat that the liver makes with fructose is more likely to become visceral and liver fat.
The sugar in fruit is processed differently than the sugar in pop, which is processed differently than the sugar in a cake, due to dosage and macros/fiber. This can be further changed by the context the sugar was eaten in. All-night cola binge while writing a final exam? Dextrose (glucose+water) sweetened protein recovery drink? Apple slices with some peanut butter as an afternoon snack? All different dosages, sugar types, and contexts, and different impacts to how long digestion takes place and where the calories end up (fat, glycogen storage, immediate metabolic use). Add in metabolic differences (ie sugar sensitive/diabetic/metabolic disease), and there can be a huge difference between the impact of sugar from one source over another.
Fructose and glucose are metabolized differently by the body, however the levels of sugar being consumed in a calorie deficit makes this irrelevant.
With sugar the only time this becomes an issue is when it is consumed in extraordinarily high doses and a lot of the negative studies done on sugar are using exaggerated volumes to prove their points.
The American Heart Association recommends a daily intake of added sugar of no more than 5 teaspoons for women and 9 teaspoons for men.
http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/GettingHealthy/NutritionCenter/HealthyEating/By-Any-Other-Name-Its-Still-Sweetener_UCM_437368_Article.jsp
They focus on sugar in general, saying they don't differentiate, and they say concerns about high fructose corn syrup are misplaced, which basically kills the sugar is evil argument.
And, again--they are talking about moderation. That's a good thing.
Please stop saying sugar is evil. It doesn't help anything.
The website states to worry about more than HFCS - but it does single out added sugar - the limit is for added sugar, not for the naturally occurring sugar in foods like dairy, fruit or vegetables. HFCS in pop is one of the most significant contributers to added sugar intake in the North American diet.
http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1819573#Conclusions
This is one of the studies that the recommendation to limit added sugars is based on. Average adult American takes in 14.9% of calories from added sugar. Significantly higher cardiac deaths found among population consuming more than 25% calories from added sugar than 10% calories from added sugar. About 10% of total population consumed more than 25% of calories from added sugar. Seems like that study where 25% of daily calories was administered as fructose or glucose wasn't as exaggerated as you think. Full text does not appear to be available for free online.
The 5 teaspoons added sugar means about 25 g/sugar (100 calories)/day for a woman. If this is what you mean by moderation, then your moderation is my limited.
Edited to clarify study was regarding added sugars.
Ummm..... I didn't say sugar is evil and you know it. You are intentionally trying to one up.
I said the article kills that argument.
Moderation is key.0 -
prettykitty1515 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »girlviernes wrote: »Kyta, you need to provide direct links, not just a study with the links that lead to your opinion.
No, she's saying g she thought she had a sugar addiction but figured out the true issue is moderation.
Our body does not know the difference between sugar, and no sugar is good or bad, therefore if you're limiting sugar it makes sense to moderate wherever you see fit.
Your last two studies are pretty weak because of the manner the studies were conducted.
Well fruit is different due to the fiber content.
Basically, because of my IR, I focus on keeping blood sugar stable. Fruit generally does not have a problematic glycemic load (banana might, not sure) due to fiber. So various sources of sugar/starch can be balanced in different ways, simple portion control, combining with protein, fiber, fat, and perhaps also certain spices like cinnamon.
Yes, I understand the fiber content and the special issues when people have insulin resistance and diabetes, for example, and balance of macros and what we choose to eat based on how we feel But, without an underlying medical condition, it seems to me your body would process all sugar the same. That's where I'm coming from.
Sugars are different on the elemental level. There are differences in how the body processes HFCS, sucrose, fructose, glucose, dextrose, lactose, etc....
Straight fructose emptys more quickly from the stomach than glucose. Fructose (like in pop) can be processed into fat by the liver without being converted to glucose first, like other carbs. Fructose, unlike other carbs, does not down-regulate DNL. The fat that the liver makes with fructose is more likely to become visceral and liver fat.
The sugar in fruit is processed differently than the sugar in pop, which is processed differently than the sugar in a cake, due to dosage and macros/fiber. This can be further changed by the context the sugar was eaten in. All-night cola binge while writing a final exam? Dextrose (glucose+water) sweetened protein recovery drink? Apple slices with some peanut butter as an afternoon snack? All different dosages, sugar types, and contexts, and different impacts to how long digestion takes place and where the calories end up (fat, glycogen storage, immediate metabolic use). Add in metabolic differences (ie sugar sensitive/diabetic/metabolic disease), and there can be a huge difference between the impact of sugar from one source over another.
Fructose and glucose are metabolized differently by the body, however the levels of sugar being consumed in a calorie deficit makes this irrelevant.
With sugar the only time this becomes an issue is when it is consumed in extraordinarily high doses and a lot of the negative studies done on sugar are using exaggerated volumes to prove their points.
The American Heart Association recommends a daily intake of added sugar of no more than 5 teaspoons for women and 9 teaspoons for men.
http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/GettingHealthy/NutritionCenter/HealthyEating/By-Any-Other-Name-Its-Still-Sweetener_UCM_437368_Article.jsp
They focus on sugar in general, saying they don't differentiate, and they say concerns about high fructose corn syrup are misplaced, which basically kills the sugar is evil argument.
And, again--they are talking about moderation. That's a good thing.
Please stop saying sugar is evil. It doesn't help anything.
The website states to worry about more than HFCS - but it does single out added sugar - the limit is for added sugar, not for the naturally occurring sugar in foods like dairy, fruit or vegetables. HFCS in pop is one of the most significant contributers to added sugar intake in the North American diet.
http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1819573#Conclusions
This is one of the studies that the recommendation to limit added sugars is based on. Average adult American takes in 14.9% of calories from added sugar. Significantly higher cardiac deaths found among population consuming more than 25% calories from added sugar than 10% calories from added sugar. About 10% of total population consumed more than 25% of calories from added sugar. Seems like that study where 25% of daily calories was administered as fructose or glucose wasn't as exaggerated as you think. Full text does not appear to be available for free online.
The 5 teaspoons added sugar means about 25 g/sugar (100 calories)/day for a woman. If this is what you mean by moderation, then your moderation is my limited.
Edited to clarify study was regarding added sugars.
Ummm..... I didn't say sugar is evil and you know it. You are intentionally trying to one up.
I said the article kills that argument.
Moderation is key.
It just gets annoying reading sugar advocates writing "sugar is evil" again and again (see post I replied to). Sugar advocates are the only ones who use that phrase, and it is never their message, so what's the point?
Moderation is thrown around so much that the word is essentially meaningless. So to you, moderation is consuming things at 1/3 the level of the general populace? Or limiting consumption to the level recommended by health authorities? Or does it mean including something in a diet in a proportion clear to you, but not in any way communicated in your post?
And yes, the article kills your argument, that "sugar is sugar". Clearly the type/source of sugar acts differently in the body. That is why added sugars increase the rate cardiovascular deaths, and natural sugars decrease it - hence the limit.0 -
prettykitty1515 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »girlviernes wrote: »Kyta, you need to provide direct links, not just a study with the links that lead to your opinion.
No, she's saying g she thought she had a sugar addiction but figured out the true issue is moderation.
Our body does not know the difference between sugar, and no sugar is good or bad, therefore if you're limiting sugar it makes sense to moderate wherever you see fit.
Your last two studies are pretty weak because of the manner the studies were conducted.
Well fruit is different due to the fiber content.
Basically, because of my IR, I focus on keeping blood sugar stable. Fruit generally does not have a problematic glycemic load (banana might, not sure) due to fiber. So various sources of sugar/starch can be balanced in different ways, simple portion control, combining with protein, fiber, fat, and perhaps also certain spices like cinnamon.
Yes, I understand the fiber content and the special issues when people have insulin resistance and diabetes, for example, and balance of macros and what we choose to eat based on how we feel But, without an underlying medical condition, it seems to me your body would process all sugar the same. That's where I'm coming from.
Sugars are different on the elemental level. There are differences in how the body processes HFCS, sucrose, fructose, glucose, dextrose, lactose, etc....
Straight fructose emptys more quickly from the stomach than glucose. Fructose (like in pop) can be processed into fat by the liver without being converted to glucose first, like other carbs. Fructose, unlike other carbs, does not down-regulate DNL. The fat that the liver makes with fructose is more likely to become visceral and liver fat.
The sugar in fruit is processed differently than the sugar in pop, which is processed differently than the sugar in a cake, due to dosage and macros/fiber. This can be further changed by the context the sugar was eaten in. All-night cola binge while writing a final exam? Dextrose (glucose+water) sweetened protein recovery drink? Apple slices with some peanut butter as an afternoon snack? All different dosages, sugar types, and contexts, and different impacts to how long digestion takes place and where the calories end up (fat, glycogen storage, immediate metabolic use). Add in metabolic differences (ie sugar sensitive/diabetic/metabolic disease), and there can be a huge difference between the impact of sugar from one source over another.
Fructose and glucose are metabolized differently by the body, however the levels of sugar being consumed in a calorie deficit makes this irrelevant.
With sugar the only time this becomes an issue is when it is consumed in extraordinarily high doses and a lot of the negative studies done on sugar are using exaggerated volumes to prove their points.
The American Heart Association recommends a daily intake of added sugar of no more than 5 teaspoons for women and 9 teaspoons for men.
http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/GettingHealthy/NutritionCenter/HealthyEating/By-Any-Other-Name-Its-Still-Sweetener_UCM_437368_Article.jsp
They focus on sugar in general, saying they don't differentiate, and they say concerns about high fructose corn syrup are misplaced, which basically kills the sugar is evil argument.
And, again--they are talking about moderation. That's a good thing.
Please stop saying sugar is evil. It doesn't help anything.
The website states to worry about more than HFCS - but it does single out added sugar - the limit is for added sugar, not for the naturally occurring sugar in foods like dairy, fruit or vegetables. HFCS in pop is one of the most significant contributers to added sugar intake in the North American diet.
http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1819573#Conclusions
This is one of the studies that the recommendation to limit added sugars is based on. Average adult American takes in 14.9% of calories from added sugar. Significantly higher cardiac deaths found among population consuming more than 25% calories from added sugar than 10% calories from added sugar. About 10% of total population consumed more than 25% of calories from added sugar. Seems like that study where 25% of daily calories was administered as fructose or glucose wasn't as exaggerated as you think. Full text does not appear to be available for free online.
The 5 teaspoons added sugar means about 25 g/sugar (100 calories)/day for a woman. If this is what you mean by moderation, then your moderation is my limited.
Edited to clarify study was regarding added sugars.
Ummm..... I didn't say sugar is evil and you know it. You are intentionally trying to one up.
I said the article kills that argument.
Moderation is key.
It just gets annoying reading sugar advocates writing "sugar is evil" again and again (see post I replied to). Sugar advocates are the only ones who use that phrase, and it is never their message, so what's the point?
Moderation is thrown around so much that the word is essentially meaningless. So to you, moderation is consuming things at 1/3 the level of the general populace? Or limiting consumption to the level recommended by health authorities? Or does it mean including something in a diet in a proportion clear to you, but not in any way communicated in your post?
And yes, the article kills your argument, that "sugar is sugar". Clearly the type/source of sugar acts differently in the body. That is why added sugars increase the rate cardiovascular deaths, and natural sugars decrease it - hence the limit.
I'm not a sugar advocate. Read the article. It's about moderating sugar.
0 -
Moderation is key! Great job
I agree that sugar seems like an addiction at times. I just learn not to go overboard and keep logging everything I eat! It's a great feeling at the end of the day when all of my macros are on point! 0 -
herrspoons wrote: »prettykitty1515 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »girlviernes wrote: »Kyta, you need to provide direct links, not just a study with the links that lead to your opinion.
No, she's saying g she thought she had a sugar addiction but figured out the true issue is moderation.
Our body does not know the difference between sugar, and no sugar is good or bad, therefore if you're limiting sugar it makes sense to moderate wherever you see fit.
Your last two studies are pretty weak because of the manner the studies were conducted.
Well fruit is different due to the fiber content.
Basically, because of my IR, I focus on keeping blood sugar stable. Fruit generally does not have a problematic glycemic load (banana might, not sure) due to fiber. So various sources of sugar/starch can be balanced in different ways, simple portion control, combining with protein, fiber, fat, and perhaps also certain spices like cinnamon.
Yes, I understand the fiber content and the special issues when people have insulin resistance and diabetes, for example, and balance of macros and what we choose to eat based on how we feel But, without an underlying medical condition, it seems to me your body would process all sugar the same. That's where I'm coming from.
Sugars are different on the elemental level. There are differences in how the body processes HFCS, sucrose, fructose, glucose, dextrose, lactose, etc....
Straight fructose emptys more quickly from the stomach than glucose. Fructose (like in pop) can be processed into fat by the liver without being converted to glucose first, like other carbs. Fructose, unlike other carbs, does not down-regulate DNL. The fat that the liver makes with fructose is more likely to become visceral and liver fat.
The sugar in fruit is processed differently than the sugar in pop, which is processed differently than the sugar in a cake, due to dosage and macros/fiber. This can be further changed by the context the sugar was eaten in. All-night cola binge while writing a final exam? Dextrose (glucose+water) sweetened protein recovery drink? Apple slices with some peanut butter as an afternoon snack? All different dosages, sugar types, and contexts, and different impacts to how long digestion takes place and where the calories end up (fat, glycogen storage, immediate metabolic use). Add in metabolic differences (ie sugar sensitive/diabetic/metabolic disease), and there can be a huge difference between the impact of sugar from one source over another.
Fructose and glucose are metabolized differently by the body, however the levels of sugar being consumed in a calorie deficit makes this irrelevant.
With sugar the only time this becomes an issue is when it is consumed in extraordinarily high doses and a lot of the negative studies done on sugar are using exaggerated volumes to prove their points.
The American Heart Association recommends a daily intake of added sugar of no more than 5 teaspoons for women and 9 teaspoons for men.
http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/GettingHealthy/NutritionCenter/HealthyEating/By-Any-Other-Name-Its-Still-Sweetener_UCM_437368_Article.jsp
They focus on sugar in general, saying they don't differentiate, and they say concerns about high fructose corn syrup are misplaced, which basically kills the sugar is evil argument.
And, again--they are talking about moderation. That's a good thing.
Please stop saying sugar is evil. It doesn't help anything.
The website states to worry about more than HFCS - but it does single out added sugar - the limit is for added sugar, not for the naturally occurring sugar in foods like dairy, fruit or vegetables. HFCS in pop is one of the most significant contributers to added sugar intake in the North American diet.
http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1819573#Conclusions
This is one of the studies that the recommendation to limit added sugars is based on. Average adult American takes in 14.9% of calories from added sugar. Significantly higher cardiac deaths found among population consuming more than 25% calories from added sugar than 10% calories from added sugar. About 10% of total population consumed more than 25% of calories from added sugar. Seems like that study where 25% of daily calories was administered as fructose or glucose wasn't as exaggerated as you think. Full text does not appear to be available for free online.
The 5 teaspoons added sugar means about 25 g/sugar (100 calories)/day for a woman. If this is what you mean by moderation, then your moderation is my limited.
Edited to clarify study was regarding added sugars.
Ummm..... I didn't say sugar is evil and you know it. You are intentionally trying to one up.
I said the article kills that argument.
Moderation is key.
It just gets annoying reading sugar advocates writing "sugar is evil" again and again (see post I replied to). Sugar advocates are the only ones who use that phrase, and it is never their message, so what's the point?
Moderation is thrown around so much that the word is essentially meaningless. So to you, moderation is consuming things at 1/3 the level of the general populace? Or limiting consumption to the level recommended by health authorities? Or does it mean including something in a diet in a proportion clear to you, but not in any way communicated in your post?
And yes, the article kills your argument, that "sugar is sugar". Clearly the type/source of sugar acts differently in the body. That is why added sugars increase the rate cardiovascular deaths, and natural sugars decrease it - hence the limit.
Moderation to me is a donut once every couple of days, maybe some cookies at the weekend, that sort of thing.
I'd be pretty surprised if that didn't match most people's definition.
Face it, your articles have been debunked and now you're floundering by playing a game of semantics.
Boring.
I agree with this assessment. I might have a serving of lactose free ice cream after dinner.0 -
herrspoons wrote: »prettykitty1515 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »girlviernes wrote: »Kyta, you need to provide direct links, not just a study with the links that lead to your opinion.
No, she's saying g she thought she had a sugar addiction but figured out the true issue is moderation.
Our body does not know the difference between sugar, and no sugar is good or bad, therefore if you're limiting sugar it makes sense to moderate wherever you see fit.
Your last two studies are pretty weak because of the manner the studies were conducted.
Well fruit is different due to the fiber content.
Basically, because of my IR, I focus on keeping blood sugar stable. Fruit generally does not have a problematic glycemic load (banana might, not sure) due to fiber. So various sources of sugar/starch can be balanced in different ways, simple portion control, combining with protein, fiber, fat, and perhaps also certain spices like cinnamon.
Yes, I understand the fiber content and the special issues when people have insulin resistance and diabetes, for example, and balance of macros and what we choose to eat based on how we feel But, without an underlying medical condition, it seems to me your body would process all sugar the same. That's where I'm coming from.
Sugars are different on the elemental level. There are differences in how the body processes HFCS, sucrose, fructose, glucose, dextrose, lactose, etc....
Straight fructose emptys more quickly from the stomach than glucose. Fructose (like in pop) can be processed into fat by the liver without being converted to glucose first, like other carbs. Fructose, unlike other carbs, does not down-regulate DNL. The fat that the liver makes with fructose is more likely to become visceral and liver fat.
The sugar in fruit is processed differently than the sugar in pop, which is processed differently than the sugar in a cake, due to dosage and macros/fiber. This can be further changed by the context the sugar was eaten in. All-night cola binge while writing a final exam? Dextrose (glucose+water) sweetened protein recovery drink? Apple slices with some peanut butter as an afternoon snack? All different dosages, sugar types, and contexts, and different impacts to how long digestion takes place and where the calories end up (fat, glycogen storage, immediate metabolic use). Add in metabolic differences (ie sugar sensitive/diabetic/metabolic disease), and there can be a huge difference between the impact of sugar from one source over another.
Fructose and glucose are metabolized differently by the body, however the levels of sugar being consumed in a calorie deficit makes this irrelevant.
With sugar the only time this becomes an issue is when it is consumed in extraordinarily high doses and a lot of the negative studies done on sugar are using exaggerated volumes to prove their points.
The American Heart Association recommends a daily intake of added sugar of no more than 5 teaspoons for women and 9 teaspoons for men.
http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/GettingHealthy/NutritionCenter/HealthyEating/By-Any-Other-Name-Its-Still-Sweetener_UCM_437368_Article.jsp
They focus on sugar in general, saying they don't differentiate, and they say concerns about high fructose corn syrup are misplaced, which basically kills the sugar is evil argument.
And, again--they are talking about moderation. That's a good thing.
Please stop saying sugar is evil. It doesn't help anything.
The website states to worry about more than HFCS - but it does single out added sugar - the limit is for added sugar, not for the naturally occurring sugar in foods like dairy, fruit or vegetables. HFCS in pop is one of the most significant contributers to added sugar intake in the North American diet.
http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1819573#Conclusions
This is one of the studies that the recommendation to limit added sugars is based on. Average adult American takes in 14.9% of calories from added sugar. Significantly higher cardiac deaths found among population consuming more than 25% calories from added sugar than 10% calories from added sugar. About 10% of total population consumed more than 25% of calories from added sugar. Seems like that study where 25% of daily calories was administered as fructose or glucose wasn't as exaggerated as you think. Full text does not appear to be available for free online.
The 5 teaspoons added sugar means about 25 g/sugar (100 calories)/day for a woman. If this is what you mean by moderation, then your moderation is my limited.
Edited to clarify study was regarding added sugars.
Ummm..... I didn't say sugar is evil and you know it. You are intentionally trying to one up.
I said the article kills that argument.
Moderation is key.
It just gets annoying reading sugar advocates writing "sugar is evil" again and again (see post I replied to). Sugar advocates are the only ones who use that phrase, and it is never their message, so what's the point?
Moderation is thrown around so much that the word is essentially meaningless. So to you, moderation is consuming things at 1/3 the level of the general populace? Or limiting consumption to the level recommended by health authorities? Or does it mean including something in a diet in a proportion clear to you, but not in any way communicated in your post?
And yes, the article kills your argument, that "sugar is sugar". Clearly the type/source of sugar acts differently in the body. That is why added sugars increase the rate cardiovascular deaths, and natural sugars decrease it - hence the limit.
Moderation to me is a donut once every couple of days, maybe some cookies at the weekend, that sort of thing.
I'd be pretty surprised if that didn't match most people's definition.
Face it, your articles have been debunked and now you're floundering by playing a game of semantics.
Boring.
That sounds about right, except, to be honest, in practice I don't do this because I need to buy gluten free stuff and don't often get around to shopping for it. With having a daily Quest bar for a snack, I just don't want sweet treats that much. I did have some GF Peppermint Jo-Jo's when they were out before Christmas. They were sublime. I ate them every few days, 2 or 3 at a time. My husband helped eat them before they went soft.
0 -
Diabetes runs heavily in my family. Even among members who are not noticeably overweight. So if I ever can eat sugar in moderation and not want to scarf the entire container, I'm going with the new WHO recommendation.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/06/health/who-sugar-guidelines/
WHO is encouraging people to consume less than 5% of their total daily calories from sugars.0 -
herrspoons wrote: »prettykitty1515 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »girlviernes wrote: »Kyta, you need to provide direct links, not just a study with the links that lead to your opinion.
No, she's saying g she thought she had a sugar addiction but figured out the true issue is moderation.
Our body does not know the difference between sugar, and no sugar is good or bad, therefore if you're limiting sugar it makes sense to moderate wherever you see fit.
Your last two studies are pretty weak because of the manner the studies were conducted.
Well fruit is different due to the fiber content.
Basically, because of my IR, I focus on keeping blood sugar stable. Fruit generally does not have a problematic glycemic load (banana might, not sure) due to fiber. So various sources of sugar/starch can be balanced in different ways, simple portion control, combining with protein, fiber, fat, and perhaps also certain spices like cinnamon.
Yes, I understand the fiber content and the special issues when people have insulin resistance and diabetes, for example, and balance of macros and what we choose to eat based on how we feel But, without an underlying medical condition, it seems to me your body would process all sugar the same. That's where I'm coming from.
Sugars are different on the elemental level. There are differences in how the body processes HFCS, sucrose, fructose, glucose, dextrose, lactose, etc....
Straight fructose emptys more quickly from the stomach than glucose. Fructose (like in pop) can be processed into fat by the liver without being converted to glucose first, like other carbs. Fructose, unlike other carbs, does not down-regulate DNL. The fat that the liver makes with fructose is more likely to become visceral and liver fat.
The sugar in fruit is processed differently than the sugar in pop, which is processed differently than the sugar in a cake, due to dosage and macros/fiber. This can be further changed by the context the sugar was eaten in. All-night cola binge while writing a final exam? Dextrose (glucose+water) sweetened protein recovery drink? Apple slices with some peanut butter as an afternoon snack? All different dosages, sugar types, and contexts, and different impacts to how long digestion takes place and where the calories end up (fat, glycogen storage, immediate metabolic use). Add in metabolic differences (ie sugar sensitive/diabetic/metabolic disease), and there can be a huge difference between the impact of sugar from one source over another.
Fructose and glucose are metabolized differently by the body, however the levels of sugar being consumed in a calorie deficit makes this irrelevant.
With sugar the only time this becomes an issue is when it is consumed in extraordinarily high doses and a lot of the negative studies done on sugar are using exaggerated volumes to prove their points.
The American Heart Association recommends a daily intake of added sugar of no more than 5 teaspoons for women and 9 teaspoons for men.
http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/GettingHealthy/NutritionCenter/HealthyEating/By-Any-Other-Name-Its-Still-Sweetener_UCM_437368_Article.jsp
They focus on sugar in general, saying they don't differentiate, and they say concerns about high fructose corn syrup are misplaced, which basically kills the sugar is evil argument.
And, again--they are talking about moderation. That's a good thing.
Please stop saying sugar is evil. It doesn't help anything.
The website states to worry about more than HFCS - but it does single out added sugar - the limit is for added sugar, not for the naturally occurring sugar in foods like dairy, fruit or vegetables. HFCS in pop is one of the most significant contributers to added sugar intake in the North American diet.
http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1819573#Conclusions
This is one of the studies that the recommendation to limit added sugars is based on. Average adult American takes in 14.9% of calories from added sugar. Significantly higher cardiac deaths found among population consuming more than 25% calories from added sugar than 10% calories from added sugar. About 10% of total population consumed more than 25% of calories from added sugar. Seems like that study where 25% of daily calories was administered as fructose or glucose wasn't as exaggerated as you think. Full text does not appear to be available for free online.
The 5 teaspoons added sugar means about 25 g/sugar (100 calories)/day for a woman. If this is what you mean by moderation, then your moderation is my limited.
Edited to clarify study was regarding added sugars.
Ummm..... I didn't say sugar is evil and you know it. You are intentionally trying to one up.
I said the article kills that argument.
Moderation is key.
It just gets annoying reading sugar advocates writing "sugar is evil" again and again (see post I replied to). Sugar advocates are the only ones who use that phrase, and it is never their message, so what's the point?
Moderation is thrown around so much that the word is essentially meaningless. So to you, moderation is consuming things at 1/3 the level of the general populace? Or limiting consumption to the level recommended by health authorities? Or does it mean including something in a diet in a proportion clear to you, but not in any way communicated in your post?
And yes, the article kills your argument, that "sugar is sugar". Clearly the type/source of sugar acts differently in the body. That is why added sugars increase the rate cardiovascular deaths, and natural sugars decrease it - hence the limit.
Moderation to me is a donut once every couple of days, maybe some cookies at the weekend, that sort of thing.
I'd be pretty surprised if that didn't match most people's definition.
Face it, your articles have been debunked and now you're floundering by playing a game of semantics.
Boring.
Saying a study is "weak" or that you don't like the author is not debunking it. I'm the one who has provided scientific evidence for my point of view.
If your added sugar intake is limited to a donut or a couple of cookies every couple of days, then yes, your definition of moderation is in line with recommendations. Based on what I've read in some of the sugar threads, not everyone's definition of moderation is.0 -
Congratulations OP! What I took away from your journey is that everyone needs to find their way through the myriad of opinions to what makes their body tick and feel good. What makes *me* tick/work/run/play is to limit sugar/processed food intake - and everyone around me is happiest when I limit - the crash is UGLY. Balance of all nutrients makes a body happy and healthy - wish the wealthy and wise just came along with it!0
-
OldWomanRuns wrote: »and everyone around me is happiest when I limit - the crash is UGLY.
Right there with you! I think that's why my family has gotten good about not pushing treat foods on me as much anymore!
0 -
The 5 teaspoons added sugar means about 25 g/sugar (100 calories)/day for a woman. If this is what you mean by moderation, then your moderation is my limited.
I think you can't really talk about this without reference to individual calorie limit vs. average woman or the like. However, for me, that's pretty much what I mean by moderation. I don't find that I ever need to focus on how much "added sugar" I'm eating, though, but that it tends to be pretty limited when I focus on my overall diet and getting lots of vegetables (ideally 7 servings or so) and adequate protein, as well as my preferred macros and a decent amount of high quality fat.
Maybe that wouldn't be the case if my calorie limit were higher and I might have to worry about where the excess calories came from more, but that's not my issue.0 -
Diabetes runs heavily in my family. Even among members who are not noticeably overweight. So if I ever can eat sugar in moderation and not want to scarf the entire container, I'm going with the new WHO recommendation.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/06/health/who-sugar-guidelines/
WHO is encouraging people to consume less than 5% of their total daily calories from sugars.
Nope. As with the 25 grams recommendation, it refers to only added sugars (or those in things like juice). That's because if you read their reasoning it's not about the effects of sugar, but the connection with extra calories and overall nutrition (and apparently tooth decay, which seems a silly reason). That's also why it's less of a concern if you have a carefully monitored diet and more calories to play with, although for the average person (and me specifically) the numbers are reasonable enough.0 -
Based on what I've read in some of the sugar threads, not everyone's definition of moderation is.
Virtually all of the posts going on about eating donuts constantly are from eliminationists. They are dumb straw men based on the idea that anyone fat (or formerly fat) must be shoving donuts in their mouth constantly.
On the other hand, "sugar is the devil" is something that has been said in these parts non-ironically numerous times.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Diabetes runs heavily in my family. Even among members who are not noticeably overweight. So if I ever can eat sugar in moderation and not want to scarf the entire container, I'm going with the new WHO recommendation.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/06/health/who-sugar-guidelines/
WHO is encouraging people to consume less than 5% of their total daily calories from sugars.
Nope. As with the 25 grams recommendation, it refers to only added sugars (or those in things like juice). That's because if you read their reasoning it's not about the effects of sugar, but the connection with extra calories and overall nutrition (and apparently tooth decay, which seems a silly reason). That's also why it's less of a concern if you have a carefully monitored diet and more calories to play with, although for the average person (and me specifically) the numbers are reasonable enough.
Yep, I should have clarified, thanks! I was strictly thinking of cookies and cake anyway, not berries and fruit.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Based on what I've read in some of the sugar threads, not everyone's definition of moderation is.
Virtually all of the posts going on about eating donuts constantly are from eliminationists. They are dumb straw men based on the idea that anyone fat (or formerly fat) must be shoving donuts in their mouth constantly.
On the other hand, "sugar is the devil" is something that has been said in these parts non-ironically numerous times.
Yep. Those two views are extremes.
Over a five year span, I gained 30 pounds back from the 70 some-odd that I'd original lost, by stuffing what many would call healthy foods into my mouth. I was the Queen of Sugar Free and Low Fat, and I exercised as well. No kidding.
Now, it's moderation for me. That means I watch sugar in my overall diet, just as I do fat, protein, and carbs, because I want a more balanced diet. I also limit caffeine because my body disagrees with it, and eliminate lactose and soy due to intolerance. This means I don't always choose something gooey sweet for desert, but sometimes I do. I've had my glucose tested due to my concerns of family diabetes, but thus far I'm okay.
I refuse to eat donuts, too, but only becauseI absolutely can't stand the taste!
Sorry I'm making you press "spoiler" to find out why I don't eat donuts.
0 -
I refuse to eat donuts, too, but only becauseI absolutely can't stand the taste!
You just haven't found the right donut.
0 -
Thank you, De. That made my day!0
-
I can totally relate. I've lost my desired weight thru exercise and calorie restriction. However, when I eat sweets they don't taste the same, I don't get the same emotional pleasure but I find myself binging on them if I dont put them out of site. For example cookies or snack cakes....open to suggestions0
-
Love the Cronut Burger... hmmm, how to fit that thing into daily budget haha.
Sugarnspice, is this new since you lost the weight, or did you have trouble with those foods before?0 -
I used to be in the same place. Now, I have sweets in my cabinet, fridge, and freezer and don't bother them unless I simply want a serving. The only thing that helped me was to allow myself to eat everything in moderation. After I learned this lesson, those "craving" or "the need to overdo" completely disappeared.sugarnspice33 wrote: »I can totally relate. I've lost my desired weight thru exercise and calorie restriction. However, when I eat sweets they don't taste the same, I don't get the same emotional pleasure but I find myself binging on them if I dont put them out of site. For example cookies or snack cakes....open to suggestions
Sometimes I can't find it in my calorie and macro goals to overindulge and I'll save the treat for another day. However, I have some sugar every day, because I eat fruits and vegetables.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 400 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 990 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions