Sugar as evil
Replies
-
I simply don't eat REFINED sugar. All sugars are not the devil but
a) refined sugar is literally empty calories
b) it causes you to retain water
c) there are healthier alternatives that actually give you nutrition (ie. whole fruit, yogurt etc)
d) it can cause insulin resistance which can, in turn (in some people) lead to diabetes. This has to be excessive consumption though.
I could go on all day but I won't, just thought Id share my top 4.0 -
LiftAllThePizzas wrote: »LiftAllThePizzas wrote: »
THIS is abuse? REALLY? What moron is flagging these posts?lynn_glenmont wrote: »
I'm not sure what's going on either. Someone decided to flag the post below as well. I don't understand how rules are being enforced. I thought MFP was cracking down on those things.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
I think 'random flagging' should be added to the bingo card.
Not gonna lie, I laughed HARD when I saw this post was flagged.
I have a sneaking suspicion (which could be because the 'culprit' just told me) that they flagged it as a joke.
LOL yeah I can think of at least a dozen people who would have done that. (I would have had it not already been flagged by the time I got there... and was still tempted to flag it again anyway.)0 -
Refined sugar is boring and snobby.
I like my sugar a little rough around the edges, not afraid to curse and slouch a bit, you know.
FIGHT THE POWER, sugar! Don't let outdated etiquette rules make you all "refined!"0 -
-
LiftAllThePizzas wrote: »
YES, LOVEY.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
AlabasterVerve wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »Lustig treats obese children; it has to be heartbreaking to see these kids basically killing themselves with junk food and inactivity. I can forgive the dramatics and its certainly brought attention to the issue which usually results in more money for studies.
Anyway, here's a new article (worth reading, IMO) suggesting too much fructose is a cause for concern:
Restricting Fructose Cuts Liver Fat in Kids
Substituting complex carbs for simple sugars over just 10 days shows meaningful results.
http://www.medpagetoday.com/MeetingCoverage/ENDO/50396
So, more bread, less fruit? There's some paleo people who are gathering their sharp sticks somewhere.
Well, I'd opt for the less sugar, more vegetables option since that confirms what I already believe to be healthful. But the really interesting part, for me, was that the sugar-is-a-carb-track-carbs-not-sugar advice that's commonly given on the forums might be a little too simplistic? Especially for the morbidly obese.
That advice is for weight loss, not nutrition. That point is generally made clear.
Also, if you are on reduced calories reducing non satiating calories from juice and soda would just be common sense. The idea that this means that most people should worry about the fruit they eat seems crazy, though. For most including fruit is probably a healthy thing to do.
The MPF limit of 15% of your total calories from sugar seems pretty reasonable and certainly allows for fruit, vegetables and dairy. If you're exceeding that limit perhaps there's reason to be concerned? I honestly don't know -- and I don't think the science is there yet either -- but I don't think blowing off peoples concerns about sugar and telling them there's nothing to worry about and to track something else is right. Just my opinion.
It's pretty easy to exceed it based on just fruit, veggies, and dairy, and there's no reason I've ever seen to keep all sugar that low, when you know your nutrition and calories are in line. The WHO and AHA do not lend support for that. So I continue to support the forum advice to focus on carbs and fiber and check out your added sugar/the source of your sugar if you don't know where yours is coming from.
But if you want to interpret that study as "eating fruit is scary," go for it.
0 -
if you look at the side of a box of cereal there are nutrients in there
Definitely. Yet there are certain cereals that have more added sugar, especially among the ones for children:
http://www.ewg.org/research/childrens-cereals
0 -
Does added sugar destroy the other nutrients in the cereal?Gianfranco_R wrote: »if you look at the side of a box of cereal there are nutrients in there
Definitely. Yet there are certain cereals that have more added sugar, especially among the ones for children:
http://www.ewg.org/research/childrens-cereals
I wonder why children have a preference for sugary things. I'm sure it's just a totally meaningless coincidence or something. It's not like they're growing (and other than recent generations, active) and have different energy needs or anything.
Also, why is it that there was TONS of sugary cereal in the 70's (anyone remember "Super Sugar Crisp" cereal?) and "a complete breakfast" was described as a bowl of cereal plus "milk, juice, and toast" and yet there wasn't an epidemic of childhood obesity in the 70's?0 -
There's honey in the jungle too. jusk kidding. It's more about the amount of sugar kids are consuming today than an individual brand that has sugar in it. Saying that the consumption of extrinsic sugar has decreased since 2000.LiftAllThePizzas wrote: »
Does added sugar destroy the other nutrients in the cereal?Gianfranco_R wrote: »if you look at the side of a box of cereal there are nutrients in there
Definitely. Yet there are certain cereals that have more added sugar, especially among the ones for children:
http://www.ewg.org/research/childrens-cereals
I wonder why children have a preference for sugary things. I'm sure it's just a totally meaningless coincidence or something. It's not like they're growing (and other than recent generations, active) and have different energy needs or anything.
Also, why is it that there was TONS of sugary cereal in the 70's (anyone remember "Super Sugar Crisp" cereal?) and "a complete breakfast" was described as a bowl of cereal plus "milk, juice, and toast" and yet there wasn't an epidemic of childhood obesity in the 70's?
0 -
Just don't over do sugar, on that note artificial sugar can lead to problems because it tricks the brain thinking that sugar is in the body so the pancreas starts pumping insulin, but there is nothing there to bring down the sugar spike, so now what sugar is in the body is now way lower leading to being hungry from sugar being too low and most likely a high carb cravings to get quick sugar to regulate blood sugar0
-
Honey is a better option for sweetener, its natural occurring sugar, with many vitamins and minerals which outweigh the risk of the calories0
-
Did anyone suggest you not to eat cereals?LiftAllThePizzas wrote: »Does added sugar destroy the other nutrients in the cereal?
Just check the label, especially if you have children. From the report that I linked above:
"The average 6-to-11-yearold
American boy consumes 22 teaspoons of added
sugar every day, and the average girl of that age
consumes 18 teaspoons (Ervin 2012). This means
that many children are consuming double or even
triple the recommended maximum – about seven
teaspoons."
Does this excessive sugar intake explain -alone- the children obesity we observe nowadays? Probably not, but it is wise to remain in the safe side, and to listen to the recommendations.0 -
I simply don't eat REFINED sugar. All sugars are not the devil but
a) refined sugar is literally empty calories
b) it causes you to retain water
c) there are healthier alternatives that actually give you nutrition (ie. whole fruit, yogurt etc)
d) it can cause insulin resistance which can, in turn (in some people) lead to diabetes. This has to be excessive consumption though.
I could go on all day but I won't, just thought Id share my top 4.
A. They are not empty as they are carbs and if you look at the side of a box of cereal there are nutrients in there. They do provide energy. They can aid in replenishment of glycogen. They can help promote insulin releases that are pretty important in muscle growth.
B. None refined carbs do that too.
C. Refer to A. Many of us also include those "healthier alternatives" in our diets because we like them.
D. If you go look, refined sugar is not on the list of diabetes culprits. Over consumption of food leading to obesity is. That's where your excessive consumption line comes in. Excessive consumption of food.
a) They are empty carbs, there is no nutrient in sugar, cereal is usually fortified with synthetic vitamins and minerals as well as including grains which contain nutrients. The nutrient is not from the sugar.I simply don't eat REFINED sugar. All sugars are not the devil but
a) refined sugar is literally empty calories
b) it causes you to retain water
c) there are healthier alternatives that actually give you nutrition (ie. whole fruit, yogurt etc)
d) it can cause insulin resistance which can, in turn (in some people) lead to diabetes. This has to be excessive consumption though.
I could go on all day but I won't, just thought Id share my top 4.
A. They are not empty as they are carbs and if you look at the side of a box of cereal there are nutrients in there. They do provide energy. They can aid in replenishment of glycogen. They can help promote insulin releases that are pretty important in muscle growth.
B. None refined carbs do that too.
C. Refer to A. Many of us also include those "healthier alternatives" in our diets because we like them.
D. If you go look, refined sugar is not on the list of diabetes culprits. Over consumption of food leading to obesity is. That's where your excessive consumption line comes in. Excessive consumption of food.
b) Carbs high in fibre actually assist with the reduction of water retention
c) refer to a
d) Exactly what list are you looking at there? I didn't say it caused diabetes.
0 -
...but there are no vitamins at all, and very few minerals:herrspoons wrote: »This is nonsense. The nutrients in sugar, if we are talking about table sugar (sucrose), are glucose and fructose.
http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/sweets/5592/2
And this is exactly what is usually called "empty calories"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empty_calorie
http://www.choosemyplate.gov/weight-management-calories/calories/empty-calories.html
0 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »
Did anyone suggest you not to eat cereals?LiftAllThePizzas wrote: »Does added sugar destroy the other nutrients in the cereal?
Just check the label, especially if you have children. From the report that I linked above:
"The average 6-to-11-yearold
American boy consumes 22 teaspoons of added
sugar every day, and the average girl of that age
consumes 18 teaspoons (Ervin 2012). This means
that many children are consuming double or even
triple the recommended maximum – about seven
teaspoons."
Does this excessive sugar intake explain -alone- the children obesity we observe nowadays? Probably not, but it is wise to remain in the safe side, and to listen to the recommendations.
I think a lot of children these days are less active than children in the past. Plus there's a much bigger choice of quick snacks and drinks. I'm a teacher and I've seen kids coming into school drinking those disgusting energy drinks and eating crisps, chocolate etc.
I'm on maternity leave now so I can walk my son to school every day, and I see parents driving (who live near enough to walk) and dropping their kids as close as possible to the school gates. There's a mum whose youngest is 3 and he's still in a stroller. My middle one is the same age and she's been walking everywhere since she turned 2. So I think childhood obesity is a lot to do with laziness. Kids are naturally active, but if their parents can't be bothered to take them out, then how do they burn off all their energy?
I have 3 kids...age 5, 3 and 10 months...and the only cereal they have is weetabix. My eldest is at school and he needs to have a decent, filling breakfast, and I don't think something like cocoa pops would fill him up properly. Also, things with too much sugar in seem to make him a bit crazy! He goes a bit wild at birthday parties. As soon as he's eaten some processed party food it's like a switch has been flipped. We do eat things with sugar in, of course, I think cutting it out entirely is excessive and unnecessary, but everything in moderation.0 -
^^ thank youGianfranco_R wrote: »
...but there are no vitamins at all, and very few minerals:herrspoons wrote: »This is nonsense. The nutrients in sugar, if we are talking about table sugar (sucrose), are glucose and fructose.
http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/sweets/5592/2
And this is exactly what is usually called "empty calories"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empty_calorie
http://www.choosemyplate.gov/weight-management-calories/calories/empty-calories.html
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
herrspoons wrote: »Which do you think will kill you first - lack of glucose or lack of vitamin A?
I am more likely to finish under a tram
0 -
DawnieB1977 wrote: »Kids are naturally active, but if their parents can't be bothered to take them out, then how do they burn off all their energy?
Yeah, and probably those parents that can't be bothered to take them out are the same who give them energy drinks, crisps, chocolate etc.
0 -
-
I am bookmarking this for future reference when someone says that "sugar is evil" threads do not exist...
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Clearly not a sock puppet.0
-
This content has been removed.
-
RealFoodisGood wrote: »The relatively small amount of "sugar" from fruits and veggies is likely fine, but the modern diet contains man-made foods containing far more sugar than the ones packaged in plants.
Sugar in relatively elevated doses may not be that good for you - independent of body weight, as this article states. Sugar isn't just "energy"
http://www.drperlmutter.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Am_J_Clin_Nutr-2014-Te_Morenga-ajcn.113.081521.pdf
sugar is sugar ..
eat in a deficit and hit your macros/micros and you will be fine.0 -
This content has been removed.
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions