Sugar as evil
Replies
-
What lustig is saying is the fructose without the fiber is the problem. While many here don't agree with him my ticker says different to each his own I guess. I eat paleo, workout six days a week and don't eat anything with HFCS and continue to lose and feel pretty great even having hashimoto's thyroid and on meds for that.0
-
Heck. Fructose is the sugar in fruit.0
-
Gianfranco_R wrote: »
Yeah, but according to dr Lustig fructose in fruit is fine, the problem is the fructose found in high-fructose corn syrup and sucrose (table sugar)christinev297 wrote: »Isn't fructose in fruit? :huh:
Aahhh ok. Kinda makes sense
0 -
This post ended up going elsewhere, under "Introduce Yourself," but I really wanted it to go under this topic.
Here's my question:
I have a few friends who are of normal body weight and fairly healthy who are really focused on sugar intake for themselves and their children. I don't mean just not eating sweets, baked goods and packaged stuff like pop tarts, but not buying orange juice anymore for their families, not eating sweetened yogurts, giving up cereal, and even limiting fruit intake. They talk about how eating more than two tablespoons leads to sugar addiction, type II diabetes, etc. I'm married to a diabetic myself, so there are certain things I naturally don't keep in my house, and he has to track his sugar. However, he is overweight and has a genetic history of type II in his family.
For myself, I still eat cereal that has some sweeteners, eat a protein or granola bar that has some sugar for a snack, and I don't limit fruit, and will even eat some canned or jarred fruit if it's canned in juice. The only reason I don't drink orange juice is that it has too many calories and I'd rather eat an orange. I hadn't been tracking my sugar macros because I have been more concerned with fat and cholesterol, since that's a health issue for me. I just changed the MFP settings so it will display sugar, too, and there are some days when I go over on the sugar. If I have calories left for the day, should I avoid fruit and just eat a protein snack? Am I putting myself at risk even with even a slightly higher level of sugar intake? I don't have diabetes in my family, and I am for the most part eating within my calorie limits.
In your case I would not worry about the sugar... you don't seem to be going very high in it the way you are eating now....track what you are concerned with for YOU, (fat, cholesterol). Enjoy your fruits and occasional treats.
Keep up the good work.
0 -
-
What lustig is saying is the fructose without the fiber is the problem. While many here don't agree with him my ticker says different to each his own I guess. I eat paleo, workout six days a week and don't eat anything with HFCS and continue to lose and feel pretty great even having hashimoto's thyroid and on meds for that.
My ticker says different too...40 Lbs down and I don't worry about fructose at all....and I just generally kick *kitten* in the fitness department to boot....0 -
MFP gives me around 60 grams a day (I net around 1200 calories). Some days I do exceed that. However, MFP doesn't distinguish between added sugar and naturally occurring sugar, just as it doesn't distinguish between unhealthy saturated fats and healthy fats in olive oil or nuts.
Saturated fats are not inherently unhealthy.
Our bodies do not distinguish between added sugar and naturally occurring sugar (sugar is natural, but I assume you mean sugar naturally occurring in other foods). However, sugar from fruit for example will also give you fiber and other nutrients that basic table sugar will not.
That being said, issues with high sugar intake may arise due to having excessive amounts so that you are either eating too many calories (easy to do as its not that satiating) and/or limiting your diet to the extent that it is not otherwise balanced (e.g. having a good mix of nutrients). Foods high in added sugar may also be a trigger food for some individuals.
Outside of medical reasons where you should be limiting carbs in general, if you are getting a good mix of nutrient dense foods, hitting your calories, getting reasonable macros, not having an issue with adherence then there is no reason to limit your sugar intake, especially if active. By hitting your calories and macros and getting a good balance of nutrient dense foods, you pretty much automatically limit added sugars.
[Note: certain athletes such as endurance athletes tend to have a high amount of fast acting carbs for performance reasons].0 -
What lustig is saying is the fructose without the fiber is the problem. While many here don't agree with him my ticker says different to each his own I guess. I eat paleo, workout six days a week and don't eat anything with HFCS and continue to lose and feel pretty great even having hashimoto's thyroid and on meds for that.
Calorie deficits tend to be pretty effective for weight loss.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Food is not evil.
Sugar/carbs are toxic to my body however. They are not evil however but in my case if I put them in my body it would be evil of me.0 -
I'd be willing to discuss sugar being evil if we are going to be talking about the history of the sugar industry and the Carribean slave trade.
Otherwise? No. Just....no.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=W9yPdhL6L3o0 -
What lustig is saying is the fructose without the fiber is the problem. While many here don't agree with him my ticker says different to each his own I guess. I eat paleo, workout six days a week and don't eat anything with HFCS and continue to lose and feel pretty great even having hashimoto's thyroid and on meds for that.
If you have Hashimoto's then low carb is often preferable. Paleo is generally low carb. It has nothing to do with HFCS. You have a medical condition that generally responds well to low carb. Not everyone has a medical condition.0 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »
Yeah, but according to dr Lustig fructose in fruit is fine, the problem is the fructose found in high-fructose corn syrup and sucrose (table sugar)christinev297 wrote: »Isn't fructose in fruit? :huh:
Why is HFCS and sucrose an issue?0 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »
Yeah, but according to dr Lustig fructose in fruit is fine, the problem is the fructose found in high-fructose corn syrup and sucrose (table sugar)christinev297 wrote: »Isn't fructose in fruit? :huh:
http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/
just a blog post, that mostly argues about the epidemiological part of the lecture (which all in all is not that important since epidemiology can prove only correlation, not causation), but doesn't address the biochemical part (where it is explained why fructose is like "alcohol without the buzz"), while Lustig on the other hand has published his study in a peer reviewed journal:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23493539
You understand the difference between a blog post and a peer reviewed article, right?
Anyway, I actually could cosign the conclusions of the blog post, where Aragorn says: "The big picture solution is in managing total caloric balance with a predominance of minimally refined foods and sufficient physical activity". I totally agree, don't you?0 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »Gianfranco_R wrote: »
Yeah, but according to dr Lustig fructose in fruit is fine, the problem is the fructose found in high-fructose corn syrup and sucrose (table sugar)christinev297 wrote: »Isn't fructose in fruit? :huh:
http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/
just a blog post, that mostly argues about the epidemiological part of the lecture (which all in all is not that important since epidemiology can prove only correlation, not causation), but doesn't address the biochemical part (where it is explained why fructose is like "alcohol without the buzz"), while Lustig on the other hand has published his study in a peer reviewed journal:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23493539
You understand the difference between a blog post and a peer reviewed article, right?
Anyway, I actually could cosign the conclusions of the blog post, where Aragorn says: "The big picture solution is in managing total caloric balance with a predominance of minimally refined foods and sufficient physical activity". I totally agree, don't you?
The blog post listed numerous resources to scientific journal articles.
0 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »Gianfranco_R wrote: »
Yeah, but according to dr Lustig fructose in fruit is fine, the problem is the fructose found in high-fructose corn syrup and sucrose (table sugar)christinev297 wrote: »Isn't fructose in fruit? :huh:
http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/
just a blog post, that mostly argues about the epidemiological part of the lecture (which all in all is not that important since epidemiology can prove only correlation, not causation), but doesn't address the biochemical part (where it is explained why fructose is like "alcohol without the buzz"), while Lustig on the other hand has published his study in a peer reviewed journal:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23493539
You understand the difference between a blog post and a peer reviewed article, right?
Anyway, I actually could cosign the conclusions of the blog post, where Aragorn says: "The big picture solution is in managing total caloric balance with a predominance of minimally refined foods and sufficient physical activity". I totally agree, don't you?
Its a blog post with references cited. Just because its a blog, does not mean it should be dismissed out of hand. And Aragon does address the ethanol assertion.
Full text of the study you posted can be found here.
http://advances.nutrition.org/content/4/2/226.full.pdf+html
Note, that the article admits that at a certain dose, ethanol and fructose has been shown to be beneficial and the negative effects are dose dependent.
I am confused about the comment about the epidemiological part of the lecture reference. You say its not important as it can only prove correlation - so you agree that this can be dismissed it appears.
Here is another link to a rebuttal to the fructose alarmism. Its a published article, so it should make you happier
http://advances.nutrition.org/content/4/2/246.full
0 -
The dose makes the poison. This is true of pretty much everything we ingest.
edited for spelling error.0 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »Gianfranco_R wrote: »
Yeah, but according to dr Lustig fructose in fruit is fine, the problem is the fructose found in high-fructose corn syrup and sucrose (table sugar)christinev297 wrote: »Isn't fructose in fruit? :huh:
http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/
just a blog post, that mostly argues about the epidemiological part of the lecture (which all in all is not that important since epidemiology can prove only correlation, not causation), but doesn't address the biochemical part (where it is explained why fructose is like "alcohol without the buzz"), while Lustig on the other hand has published his study in a peer reviewed journal:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23493539
You understand the difference between a blog post and a peer reviewed article, right?
Anyway, I actually could cosign the conclusions of the blog post, where Aragorn says: "The big picture solution is in managing total caloric balance with a predominance of minimally refined foods and sufficient physical activity". I totally agree, don't you?
Its a blog post with references cited. Just because its a blog, does not mean it should be dismissed out of hand. And Aragon does address the ethanol assertion.
Full text of the study you posted can be found here.
http://advances.nutrition.org/content/4/2/226.full.pdf+html
Note, that the article admits that at a certain dose, ethanol and fructose has been shown to be beneficial and the negative effects are dose dependent.
I am confused about the comment about the epidemiological part of the lecture reference. You say its not important as it can only prove correlation - so you agree that this can be dismissed it appears.
Here is another link to a rebuttal to the fructose alarmism. Its a published article, so it should make you happier
http://advances.nutrition.org/content/4/2/246.full
The American Society for Nutrition does a lot of industry funded studies. The author is a consultant to the food and beverage industry and this was presented at a symposium partially funded by Corn Refiners Association.
I don't know about the actual merits of the argument, just wanted to note that.
0 -
-
Gianfranco_R wrote: »Gianfranco_R wrote: »
Yeah, but according to dr Lustig fructose in fruit is fine, the problem is the fructose found in high-fructose corn syrup and sucrose (table sugar)christinev297 wrote: »Isn't fructose in fruit? :huh:
http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/
just a blog post, that mostly argues about the epidemiological part of the lecture (which all in all is not that important since epidemiology can prove only correlation, not causation), but doesn't address the biochemical part (where it is explained why fructose is like "alcohol without the buzz"), while Lustig on the other hand has published his study in a peer reviewed journal:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23493539
You understand the difference between a blog post and a peer reviewed article, right?
Anyway, I actually could cosign the conclusions of the blog post, where Aragorn says: "The big picture solution is in managing total caloric balance with a predominance of minimally refined foods and sufficient physical activity". I totally agree, don't you?
Its a blog post with references cited. Just because its a blog, does not mean it should be dismissed out of hand. And Aragon does address the ethanol assertion.
Full text of the study you posted can be found here.
http://advances.nutrition.org/content/4/2/226.full.pdf+html
Note, that the article admits that at a certain dose, ethanol and fructose has been shown to be beneficial and the negative effects are dose dependent.
I am confused about the comment about the epidemiological part of the lecture reference. You say its not important as it can only prove correlation - so you agree that this can be dismissed it appears.
Here is another link to a rebuttal to the fructose alarmism. Its a published article, so it should make you happier
http://advances.nutrition.org/content/4/2/246.full
The American Society for Nutrition does a lot of industry funded studies. The author is a consultant to the food and beverage industry and this was presented at a symposium partially funded by Corn Refiners Association.
I don't know about the actual merits of the argument, just wanted to note that.
The authors affiliations does not make the article invalid - but it is something that should be borne in mind. However, it is completely in line with Aragons 'blog' who is not funded by them.0 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »Gianfranco_R wrote: »
Yeah, but according to dr Lustig fructose in fruit is fine, the problem is the fructose found in high-fructose corn syrup and sucrose (table sugar)christinev297 wrote: »Isn't fructose in fruit? :huh:
http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/
just a blog post, that mostly argues about the epidemiological part of the lecture (which all in all is not that important since epidemiology can prove only correlation, not causation), but doesn't address the biochemical part (where it is explained why fructose is like "alcohol without the buzz"), while Lustig on the other hand has published his study in a peer reviewed journal:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23493539
You understand the difference between a blog post and a peer reviewed article, right?
Anyway, I actually could cosign the conclusions of the blog post, where Aragorn says: "The big picture solution is in managing total caloric balance with a predominance of minimally refined foods and sufficient physical activity". I totally agree, don't you?
Its a blog post with references cited. Just because its a blog, does not mean it should be dismissed out of hand. And Aragon does address the ethanol assertion.
Full text of the study you posted can be found here.
http://advances.nutrition.org/content/4/2/226.full.pdf+html
Note, that the article admits that at a certain dose, ethanol and fructose has been shown to be beneficial and the negative effects are dose dependent.
I am confused about the comment about the epidemiological part of the lecture reference. You say its not important as it can only prove correlation - so you agree that this can be dismissed it appears.
Here is another link to a rebuttal to the fructose alarmism. Its a published article, so it should make you happier
http://advances.nutrition.org/content/4/2/246.full
.0 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »Gianfranco_R wrote: »
Yeah, but according to dr Lustig fructose in fruit is fine, the problem is the fructose found in high-fructose corn syrup and sucrose (table sugar)christinev297 wrote: »Isn't fructose in fruit? :huh:
http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/
just a blog post, that mostly argues about the epidemiological part of the lecture (which all in all is not that important since epidemiology can prove only correlation, not causation), but doesn't address the biochemical part (where it is explained why fructose is like "alcohol without the buzz"), while Lustig on the other hand has published his study in a peer reviewed journal:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23493539
You understand the difference between a blog post and a peer reviewed article, right?
Anyway, I actually could cosign the conclusions of the blog post, where Aragorn says: "The big picture solution is in managing total caloric balance with a predominance of minimally refined foods and sufficient physical activity". I totally agree, don't you?
Its a blog post with references cited. Just because its a blog, does not mean it should be dismissed out of hand. And Aragon does address the ethanol assertion.
Full text of the study you posted can be found here.
http://advances.nutrition.org/content/4/2/226.full.pdf+html
Note, that the article admits that at a certain dose, ethanol and fructose has been shown to be beneficial and the negative effects are dose dependent.
I am confused about the comment about the epidemiological part of the lecture reference. You say its not important as it can only prove correlation - so you agree that this can be dismissed it appears.
Here is another link to a rebuttal to the fructose alarmism. Its a published article, so it should make you happier
http://advances.nutrition.org/content/4/2/246.full
The American Society for Nutrition does a lot of industry funded studies. The author is a consultant to the food and beverage industry and this was presented at a symposium partially funded by Corn Refiners Association.
I don't know about the actual merits of the argument, just wanted to note that.
The authors affiliations does not make the article invalid - but it is something that should be borne in mind. However, it is completely in line with Aragons 'blog' who is not funded by them.
I found Aragorns post quite sensible and informative. All the science - what do I know- lol, it gives me a headache. I'm not gonna worry about moderate sugar nor think it's healthy to eat a bunch of it. I bet something else kills me. Lol
0 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »Gianfranco_R wrote: »
Yeah, but according to dr Lustig fructose in fruit is fine, the problem is the fructose found in high-fructose corn syrup and sucrose (table sugar)christinev297 wrote: »Isn't fructose in fruit? :huh:
http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/
just a blog post, that mostly argues about the epidemiological part of the lecture (which all in all is not that important since epidemiology can prove only correlation, not causation), but doesn't address the biochemical part (where it is explained why fructose is like "alcohol without the buzz"), while Lustig on the other hand has published his study in a peer reviewed journal:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23493539
You understand the difference between a blog post and a peer reviewed article, right?
Anyway, I actually could cosign the conclusions of the blog post, where Aragorn says: "The big picture solution is in managing total caloric balance with a predominance of minimally refined foods and sufficient physical activity". I totally agree, don't you?
Its a blog post with references cited. Just because its a blog, does not mean it should be dismissed out of hand. And Aragon does address the ethanol assertion.
Full text of the study you posted can be found here.
http://advances.nutrition.org/content/4/2/226.full.pdf+html
Note, that the article admits that at a certain dose, ethanol and fructose has been shown to be beneficial and the negative effects are dose dependent.
I am confused about the comment about the epidemiological part of the lecture reference. You say its not important as it can only prove correlation - so you agree that this can be dismissed it appears.
Here is another link to a rebuttal to the fructose alarmism. Its a published article, so it should make you happier
http://advances.nutrition.org/content/4/2/246.full
The American Society for Nutrition does a lot of industry funded studies. The author is a consultant to the food and beverage industry and this was presented at a symposium partially funded by Corn Refiners Association.
I don't know about the actual merits of the argument, just wanted to note that.
The authors affiliations does not make the article invalid - but it is something that should be borne in mind. However, it is completely in line with Aragons 'blog' who is not funded by them.
I found Aragorns post quite sensible and informative. All the science - what do I know- lol, it gives me a headache. I'm not gonna worry about moderate sugar nor think it's healthy to eat a shitload of it. I bet something else kills me. Lol
I don't disagree at all. The published articles are all well and good, but blogs/articles that articulate things in a way that is easy to digest (but actually cite the sources for their assertions as well) are very welcome imo.
Be active, don't go overboard, eat a balanced diet, don't make it harder than it needs to be.
0 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »Gianfranco_R wrote: »
Yeah, but according to dr Lustig fructose in fruit is fine, the problem is the fructose found in high-fructose corn syrup and sucrose (table sugar)christinev297 wrote: »Isn't fructose in fruit? :huh:
http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/
just a blog post, that mostly argues about the epidemiological part of the lecture (which all in all is not that important since epidemiology can prove only correlation, not causation), but doesn't address the biochemical part (where it is explained why fructose is like "alcohol without the buzz"), while Lustig on the other hand has published his study in a peer reviewed journal:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23493539
You understand the difference between a blog post and a peer reviewed article, right?
Anyway, I actually could cosign the conclusions of the blog post, where Aragorn says: "The big picture solution is in managing total caloric balance with a predominance of minimally refined foods and sufficient physical activity". I totally agree, don't you?
Its a blog post with references cited. Just because its a blog, does not mean it should be dismissed out of hand. And Aragon does address the ethanol assertion.
Full text of the study you posted can be found here.
http://advances.nutrition.org/content/4/2/226.full.pdf+html
Note, that the article admits that at a certain dose, ethanol and fructose has been shown to be beneficial and the negative effects are dose dependent.
I am confused about the comment about the epidemiological part of the lecture reference. You say its not important as it can only prove correlation - so you agree that this can be dismissed it appears.
Here is another link to a rebuttal to the fructose alarmism. Its a published article, so it should make you happier
http://advances.nutrition.org/content/4/2/246.full
The American Society for Nutrition does a lot of industry funded studies. The author is a consultant to the food and beverage industry and this was presented at a symposium partially funded by Corn Refiners Association.
I don't know about the actual merits of the argument, just wanted to note that.
The authors affiliations does not make the article invalid - but it is something that should be borne in mind. However, it is completely in line with Aragons 'blog' who is not funded by them.
I found Aragorns post quite sensible and informative. All the science - what do I know- lol, it gives me a headache. I'm not gonna worry about moderate sugar nor think it's healthy to eat a shitload of it. I bet something else kills me. Lol
I don't disagree at all. The published articles are all well and good, but blogs/articles that articulate things in a way that is easy to digest (but actually cite the sources for their assertions as well) are very welcome imo.
Be active, don't go overboard, eat a balanced diet, don't make it harder than it needs to be.
Yup, if I do that I feel great, just eat your veggies mama was right.
0 -
Just because its a blog, does not mean it should be dismissed out of hand.
In fact, I agreed with his overall conclusions, did you miss that?
Here is another link to a rebuttal to the fructose alarmism. Its a published article, so it should make you happier
http://advances.nutrition.org/content/4/2/246.full
Definitely, yes, much more serious, and please note that also this study doesn't deny that excess of fructose can be harmful, he says: "1 conclusion stands clear: fructose is safe at typical intake levels but can produce adverse metabolic effects when abused".
To be in the safe side, probably is enough to follow the USDA or AHA recommendations about limiting added sugar.0 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »Just because its a blog, does not mean it should be dismissed out of hand.
In fact, I agreed with his overall conclusions, did you miss that?
Here is another link to a rebuttal to the fructose alarmism. Its a published article, so it should make you happier
http://advances.nutrition.org/content/4/2/246.full
Definitely, yes, much more serious, and please note that also this study doesn't deny that excess of fructose can be harmful, he says: "1 conclusion stands clear: fructose is safe at typical intake levels but can produce adverse metabolic effects when abused".
To be in the safe side, probably is enough to follow the USDA or AHA recommendations about limiting added sugar.
I did not miss it.
I also saw that in the study - which is very different than the alarmist slant you get from Lustig - which is the point of the article and of Aragon's rebuttal of his claims.0 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »
Yeah, but according to dr Lustig fructose in fruit is fine, the problem is the fructose found in high-fructose corn syrup and sucrose (table sugar)christinev297 wrote: »Isn't fructose in fruit? :huh:
And honey. Don't forget honey, which has more fructose than many HFCS formulations.0 -
The more active you are, the less any of this stuff matters.
Which is yet another reason why it's good to be very active.
:drinker:
0 -
-1
-
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions