Sugar as evil
Replies
-
and it is hard to cut back on since it is in everything - read your labels and you will see.
I never understand why people claim this, although I blame Katie Couric. It's extremely easy to cut back. I read labels and log my food, and have never been surprised by something containing sugar when I expected it not to. I don't eat a ton of pre-packaged foods with labels, though, and I have always read my labels so I knew what was in the ones I buy. But if we are to focus on "most people," while it's nice to fret about some sugar in pasta sauce just for fun (I don't understand buying jarred pasta sauce personally, but I confess to being obnoxious and judgmental on occasion), chances are that anyone really eating excess sugar could tell you pretty easily how to reduce the sugar he or she is eating (eat fewer cookies or drink fewer sodas, perhaps).0 -
Hm. I've seen obesity linked to cholesterol and triglyceride levels. I think we underestimate the effects of chronic stress and cortisol. But I don't see sugar listed as a cause. Source?
She was hardly out of left field with her comment, not sure why someone laughed at her. A quick google search showed many recent articles on this.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/alicegwalton/2014/02/03/more-evidence-that-sugar-is-harming-our-hearts/0 -
Hm. I've seen obesity linked to cholesterol and triglyceride levels. I think we underestimate the effects of chronic stress and cortisol. But I don't see sugar listed as a cause. Source?
She was hardly out of left field with her comment, not sure why someone laughed at her. A quick google search showed many recent articles on this.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/alicegwalton/2014/02/03/more-evidence-that-sugar-is-harming-our-hearts/
I have reverse my heart disease eating sugary things, explain that??0 -
Her comment struck me as non responsive to the OP's question (should I eat fruit if at my sugar limit?) and also not really responsive to the discussion to this point, so sort of out of the blue. I admit I always find it weird when someone comments in a way that seems to suggest they haven't read the prior comments or are choosing just to ignore them.
I am actually interested in a response to the bit I commented on.0 -
Hm. I've seen obesity linked to cholesterol and triglyceride levels. I think we underestimate the effects of chronic stress and cortisol. But I don't see sugar listed as a cause. Source?
She was hardly out of left field with her comment, not sure why someone laughed at her. A quick google search showed many recent articles on this.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/alicegwalton/2014/02/03/more-evidence-that-sugar-is-harming-our-hearts/
article on forbes that does not even link to the full text study ...
All it says is that it is a review of studies and does not even list the activity levels, age, gender, etc of said reviewed studies participants..
so I am going with a no on this one..
yea, if you are obese/overweight/out of shape and tend to get a majority of your calories from sugar then I can see the link.
I don't think anyone on this forum is suggesting getting a majority of your calories from sugar....
0 -
Hm. I've seen obesity linked to cholesterol and triglyceride levels. I think we underestimate the effects of chronic stress and cortisol. But I don't see sugar listed as a cause. Source?
She was hardly out of left field with her comment, not sure why someone laughed at her. A quick google search showed many recent articles on this.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/alicegwalton/2014/02/03/more-evidence-that-sugar-is-harming-our-hearts/
I have reverse my heart disease eating sugary things, explain that??
There are many things that cause heart disease (just losing weight is often the best thing), I was just pointing out that excess sugar has been linked. I don't even know if it's true, but it's reasonable of her to mention and question it I think.
0 -
On other matters, there has been discussion about the continued medical warnings about excess sat fat (for similar reasons) and some of the same people who are anti sugar were dismissive on the grounds that they have no cholesterol issues. I'm sympathetic to that--I also have never had any cholesterol issues, and I suspect the biggest positive thing many could do is lose weight anyway--but you'd think more people would get that a lot of the sugar paranoia is basically identical to the fat paranoia of old, and unlikely to be any more helpful.
This point was made by another poster early on in the thread.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »On other matters, there has been discussion about the continued medical warnings about excess sat fat (for similar reasons) and some of the same people who are anti sugar were dismissive on the grounds that they have no cholesterol issues. I'm sympathetic to that--I also have never had any cholesterol issues, and I suspect the biggest positive thing many could do is lose weight anyway--but you'd think more people would get that a lot of the sugar paranoia is basically identical to the fat paranoia of old, and unlikely to be any more helpful.
This point was made by another poster early on in the thread.
I never had issues with high cholesterol, even when I obeist.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »On other matters, there has been discussion about the continued medical warnings about excess sat fat (for similar reasons) and some of the same people who are anti sugar were dismissive on the grounds that they have no cholesterol issues. I'm sympathetic to that--I also have never had any cholesterol issues, and I suspect the biggest positive thing many could do is lose weight anyway--but you'd think more people would get that a lot of the sugar paranoia is basically identical to the fat paranoia of old, and unlikely to be any more helpful.
This point was made by another poster early on in the thread.
I would question whether limiting sugar and especially added or refined sugars would not be more helpful in a diet than limiting fat.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »On other matters, there has been discussion about the continued medical warnings about excess sat fat (for similar reasons) and some of the same people who are anti sugar were dismissive on the grounds that they have no cholesterol issues. I'm sympathetic to that--I also have never had any cholesterol issues, and I suspect the biggest positive thing many could do is lose weight anyway--but you'd think more people would get that a lot of the sugar paranoia is basically identical to the fat paranoia of old, and unlikely to be any more helpful.
This point was made by another poster early on in the thread.
I would question whether limiting sugar and especially added or refined sugars would not be more helpful in a diet than limiting fat.
So are you saying sugar leads to high cholesterol??0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »On other matters, there has been discussion about the continued medical warnings about excess sat fat (for similar reasons) and some of the same people who are anti sugar were dismissive on the grounds that they have no cholesterol issues. I'm sympathetic to that--I also have never had any cholesterol issues, and I suspect the biggest positive thing many could do is lose weight anyway--but you'd think more people would get that a lot of the sugar paranoia is basically identical to the fat paranoia of old, and unlikely to be any more helpful.
This point was made by another poster early on in the thread.
I would question whether limiting sugar and especially added or refined sugars would not be more helpful in a diet than limiting fat.
So are you saying sugar leads to high cholesterol??
Um, no I didn't say anything even close to that. ???0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »On other matters, there has been discussion about the continued medical warnings about excess sat fat (for similar reasons) and some of the same people who are anti sugar were dismissive on the grounds that they have no cholesterol issues. I'm sympathetic to that--I also have never had any cholesterol issues, and I suspect the biggest positive thing many could do is lose weight anyway--but you'd think more people would get that a lot of the sugar paranoia is basically identical to the fat paranoia of old, and unlikely to be any more helpful.
This point was made by another poster early on in the thread.
I would question whether limiting sugar and especially added or refined sugars would not be more helpful in a diet than limiting fat.
I think for most it would be (I personally find fat more satiating, and that includes saturated fat), but the point is that focusing on one macronutrient and all foods containing it, so that "no sugar!" or "no fat!" become markers of healthiness independent of anything else about the product--see the Walden Farms discussion--is really a distraction from what you ideally should focus on to have a healthy diet overall.
For example, the number of people convinced that eating fruit might be unhealthy or that sugar should ideally be eliminated isn't all that different from people thinking Snackwells are some kind of health food.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »On other matters, there has been discussion about the continued medical warnings about excess sat fat (for similar reasons) and some of the same people who are anti sugar were dismissive on the grounds that they have no cholesterol issues. I'm sympathetic to that--I also have never had any cholesterol issues, and I suspect the biggest positive thing many could do is lose weight anyway--but you'd think more people would get that a lot of the sugar paranoia is basically identical to the fat paranoia of old, and unlikely to be any more helpful.
This point was made by another poster early on in the thread.
I would question whether limiting sugar and especially added or refined sugars would not be more helpful in a diet than limiting fat.
So are you saying sugar leads to high cholesterol??
Um, no I didn't say anything even close to that. ???
Well, Lemurcat was talking about cholesterol, so I was wondering.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »On other matters, there has been discussion about the continued medical warnings about excess sat fat (for similar reasons) and some of the same people who are anti sugar were dismissive on the grounds that they have no cholesterol issues. I'm sympathetic to that--I also have never had any cholesterol issues, and I suspect the biggest positive thing many could do is lose weight anyway--but you'd think more people would get that a lot of the sugar paranoia is basically identical to the fat paranoia of old, and unlikely to be any more helpful.
This point was made by another poster early on in the thread.
I would question whether limiting sugar and especially added or refined sugars would not be more helpful in a diet than limiting fat.
So are you saying sugar leads to high cholesterol??
Um, no I didn't say anything even close to that. ???
Okay, I get where the question came from now (after re-reading). Of the two - overeating fat, overeating sugar - I'd say sugar would likely have a more negative affect on cholesterol for most people.0 -
Hm. I've seen obesity linked to cholesterol and triglyceride levels. I think we underestimate the effects of chronic stress and cortisol. But I don't see sugar listed as a cause. Source?
She was hardly out of left field with her comment, not sure why someone laughed at her. A quick google search showed many recent articles on this.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/alicegwalton/2014/02/03/more-evidence-that-sugar-is-harming-our-hearts/
I have reverse my heart disease eating sugary things, explain that??
There are many things that cause heart disease (just losing weight is often the best thing), I was just pointing out that excess sugar has been linked. I don't even know if it's true, but it's reasonable of her to mention and question it I think.
And that leads to the same argument again, what is excess? How does training and lifestyle impact that marker that would make something excess? Context. No one likes to apply context.
Training and lifestyle would make a big difference, I think. More activity would allow for more (maybe a lot more). What is excess in grams is debatable and will never be exact, but I think we all pretty much agree there is such a thing and a consensus was reached by most -
"The big picture solution is in managing total caloric balance with a predominance of minimally refined foods and sufficient physical activity". -Alan Aragon
He says probably around 50g? I think in added, others say more, others less, and yeah some say none (not me).
Edited to fix quotes0 -
herrspoons wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »On other matters, there has been discussion about the continued medical warnings about excess sat fat (for similar reasons) and some of the same people who are anti sugar were dismissive on the grounds that they have no cholesterol issues. I'm sympathetic to that--I also have never had any cholesterol issues, and I suspect the biggest positive thing many could do is lose weight anyway--but you'd think more people would get that a lot of the sugar paranoia is basically identical to the fat paranoia of old, and unlikely to be any more helpful.
This point was made by another poster early on in the thread.
I would question whether limiting sugar and especially added or refined sugars would not be more helpful in a diet than limiting fat.
Surely you should limit both?
This too, for me anyway.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »On other matters, there has been discussion about the continued medical warnings about excess sat fat (for similar reasons) and some of the same people who are anti sugar were dismissive on the grounds that they have no cholesterol issues. I'm sympathetic to that--I also have never had any cholesterol issues, and I suspect the biggest positive thing many could do is lose weight anyway--but you'd think more people would get that a lot of the sugar paranoia is basically identical to the fat paranoia of old, and unlikely to be any more helpful.
This point was made by another poster early on in the thread.
I would question whether limiting sugar and especially added or refined sugars would not be more helpful in a diet than limiting fat.
I think for most it would be (I personally find fat more satiating, and that includes saturated fat), but the point is that focusing on one macronutrient and all foods containing it, so that "no sugar!" or "no fat!" become markers of healthiness independent of anything else about the product--see the Walden Farms discussion--is really a distraction from what you ideally should focus on to have a healthy diet overall.
For example, the number of people convinced that eating fruit might be unhealthy or that sugar should ideally be eliminated isn't all that different from people thinking Snackwells are some kind of health food.
Maybe. But I don't see many posts from people convinced that fruit is unhealthy.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »On other matters, there has been discussion about the continued medical warnings about excess sat fat (for similar reasons) and some of the same people who are anti sugar were dismissive on the grounds that they have no cholesterol issues. I'm sympathetic to that--I also have never had any cholesterol issues, and I suspect the biggest positive thing many could do is lose weight anyway--but you'd think more people would get that a lot of the sugar paranoia is basically identical to the fat paranoia of old, and unlikely to be any more helpful.
This point was made by another poster early on in the thread.
I never had issues with high cholesterol, even when I obeist.
Neither did I, nor with insulin resistance, for that matter. I might have if I'd stayed fat longer, but I'd never had any bad test results when I decided to lose weight.
Quite often people who lose by any diet improve their test results, though.0 -
Why is sugar worse than fat? Because sugar is the new boogeyman? Hey, I watched my sugar for years. Read the labels. Watched it all. But many items full of sugar, like fruits, I tolerated just fine while some carbohydrates (i.e. white rice) hit this diabetic like a ton of bricks.
When my weight came off, so did the cholesterol markers, so did the diabetes. No big changes to my diet other than portions. I eat more sugar these days because I can.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »On other matters, there has been discussion about the continued medical warnings about excess sat fat (for similar reasons) and some of the same people who are anti sugar were dismissive on the grounds that they have no cholesterol issues. I'm sympathetic to that--I also have never had any cholesterol issues, and I suspect the biggest positive thing many could do is lose weight anyway--but you'd think more people would get that a lot of the sugar paranoia is basically identical to the fat paranoia of old, and unlikely to be any more helpful.
This point was made by another poster early on in the thread.
I never had issues with high cholesterol, even when I obeist.
Neither did I, nor with insulin resistance, for that matter. I might have if I'd stayed fat longer, but I'd never had any bad test results when I decided to lose weight.
Quite often people who lose by any diet improve their test results, though.
I think high cholesterol is genetics, I could be wrong, but on my side of the family their is no high cholesterol, but my hubby who skinny as toothpick most of his life except the last few years, has always had high cholesterol and it runs on his side of the family.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »On other matters, there has been discussion about the continued medical warnings about excess sat fat (for similar reasons) and some of the same people who are anti sugar were dismissive on the grounds that they have no cholesterol issues. I'm sympathetic to that--I also have never had any cholesterol issues, and I suspect the biggest positive thing many could do is lose weight anyway--but you'd think more people would get that a lot of the sugar paranoia is basically identical to the fat paranoia of old, and unlikely to be any more helpful.
This point was made by another poster early on in the thread.
I would question whether limiting sugar and especially added or refined sugars would not be more helpful in a diet than limiting fat.
I think for most it would be (I personally find fat more satiating, and that includes saturated fat), but the point is that focusing on one macronutrient and all foods containing it, so that "no sugar!" or "no fat!" become markers of healthiness independent of anything else about the product--see the Walden Farms discussion--is really a distraction from what you ideally should focus on to have a healthy diet overall.
For example, the number of people convinced that eating fruit might be unhealthy or that sugar should ideally be eliminated isn't all that different from people thinking Snackwells are some kind of health food.
Maybe. But I don't see many posts from people convinced that fruit is unhealthy.
I've seen a ton.
Even the current one is really a question about that: if at my sugar limit (according to MFP), should I avoid fruit?
I also was told by another poster during this thread that eating more dairy and fruit than your MFP sugar limit is probably dangerous.0 -
Why is sugar worse than fat? Because sugar is the new boogeyman? Hey, I watched my sugar for years. Read the labels. Watched it all. But many items full of sugar, like fruits, I tolerated just fine while some carbohydrates (i.e. white rice) hit this diabetic like a ton of bricks.
When my weight came off, so did the cholesterol markers, so did the diabetes. No big changes to my diet other than portions. I eat more sugar these days because I can.
I wouldn't say that sugar is worse than fat. I said limiting sugar is probably better than limiting fat. And by limiting I mean low, as in low sugar vs low fat.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »On other matters, there has been discussion about the continued medical warnings about excess sat fat (for similar reasons) and some of the same people who are anti sugar were dismissive on the grounds that they have no cholesterol issues. I'm sympathetic to that--I also have never had any cholesterol issues, and I suspect the biggest positive thing many could do is lose weight anyway--but you'd think more people would get that a lot of the sugar paranoia is basically identical to the fat paranoia of old, and unlikely to be any more helpful.
This point was made by another poster early on in the thread.
I would question whether limiting sugar and especially added or refined sugars would not be more helpful in a diet than limiting fat.
I think for most it would be (I personally find fat more satiating, and that includes saturated fat), but the point is that focusing on one macronutrient and all foods containing it, so that "no sugar!" or "no fat!" become markers of healthiness independent of anything else about the product--see the Walden Farms discussion--is really a distraction from what you ideally should focus on to have a healthy diet overall.
For example, the number of people convinced that eating fruit might be unhealthy or that sugar should ideally be eliminated isn't all that different from people thinking Snackwells are some kind of health food.
Maybe. But I don't see many posts from people convinced that fruit is unhealthy.
I've seen a ton.
Even the current one is really a question about that: if at my sugar limit (according to MFP), should I avoid fruit?
I also was told by another poster during this thread that eating more dairy and fruit than your MFP sugar limit is probably dangerous.
We think differently I guess. Someone asking if they are getting too much sugar from fruit doesn't translate to 'I think fruit is unhealthy' for me.
ETA: I realize there are some who are afraid of all sugar, even naturally occurring sugar, but I think it's the definite minority.0 -
In this study, age was the primary marker for higher cholesterol.
bmj.com/content/1/5644/595
This study found that controlling fats had a higher impact on cholesterol.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/18/4/237.short
0 -
In this study, age was the primary marker for higher cholesterol.
bmj.com/content/1/5644/595
This study found that controlling fats had a higher impact on cholesterol.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/18/4/237.short
I only read the abstract, but that second study is comparing different types of fats.0 -
much plenty bro science - Real science says ... it depends on if you are sensitive to it or not. If you are not sensitive then sugar is no problem, if you are sensitive then leave it alone at all costs.0
-
If you're referring to my posts in this thread -- which I think you are -- I never said anything of the sort.lemurcat12 wrote: »<snip>
I also was told by another poster during this thread that eating more dairy and fruit than your MFP sugar limit is probably dangerous.
0 -
herrspoons wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Why is sugar worse than fat? Because sugar is the new boogeyman? Hey, I watched my sugar for years. Read the labels. Watched it all. But many items full of sugar, like fruits, I tolerated just fine while some carbohydrates (i.e. white rice) hit this diabetic like a ton of bricks.
When my weight came off, so did the cholesterol markers, so did the diabetes. No big changes to my diet other than portions. I eat more sugar these days because I can.
I wouldn't say that sugar is worse than fat. I said limiting sugar is probably better than limiting fat. And by limiting I mean low, as in low sugar vs low fat.
Logically, by implication that's exactly what you're saying.
No, it's not at all.0
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