Why I am cutting back on sugar
Replies
-
I stay away from foods or drinks with added sugar, simply because they are not good for me and my body doesn't have any use for it.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »GoPerfectHealth wrote: »FitnessTim wrote: »FitnessTim wrote: »Nobody knows for sure what the "perfect" diet is. All we can do is look at what data is out there and come to our own conclusions. I'm betting on a low sugar diet. Call it personal preference if you want.
If we don't want to try any theory on what we should eat, we can always try to fall back on just maintaining a calorie deficit. The problem is maintaining a calories deficit is not mathematical problem but rather a human problem. If it were that easy nobody would be overweight. The real problem is how can we maintain a calorie deficit in a way that has a reasonable chance of success over time.
By the way, Acg67 (or anyone else), do you have a link that shows a reduction in sugar intake over the past decade? I'm really curious about that because I believe recently that weight gain (in the US) has actually leveled out. I'll need to find that data as well.
http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/food-availability-(per-capita)-data-system.aspx
Are you familiar with post hoc ergo propter hoc?
And you do understand all carbs are sugars? Right?
I was not familiar with the term "post hoc ergo propter hoc" but I am familiar with the concept. You are right that we can't make assumptions about the relation between two events, however I think we can agree that in the absence of controlled studies it is fair to propose theories based on observations. There have been studies that seem to suggest a correlation between sugar and the ability to maintain a healthy weight.
On the other hand, are we to dismiss a theory outright because it can't be 100% proven. Even if I were to reduce my sugar intake and become extremely fit and healthy that would not prove anything but it would give credence to the theory.
Also, I tried to follow your line of reasoning by reading the data you provided but wasn't able to. The average intake globally of sugar and sweeteners has increased in the past decade from 8.7 to 16.8%. Worldwide obesity has more than doubled since 1980. If anything, the data you provided supports the theory that sugar contributes to obesity.
Anyone making strong claims about what is good or bad to eat should have their validity questioned as I have been, deservedly. While it is fair to question what I claim as an opinion, I think if also fair to expect a well reasoned counterargument rather than just dismiss the premise as bogus because it can't be proven. For you part, it appears as if you have attempted to make a valid counterargument but I'm either not capable of seeing the connection to your data or the data is counter to what you are suggesting.
Thank you.
That's not really valid though... Fat has seen a much larger increase than sugar so as per his logic one could argue obesity is caused by fat and use the 80s reasoning for that. The argument against sugar is weak at best, apart from approaching it in a vacuum and saying items rich in added sugar tend to be nutrient poor.
But they do tend to have lots of fat!
Indeed, given that the plurality of calories in many so called sweet treats is from fat, the focus on sugar is mystifying to me.
For the record, I'm not anti fat either, but it seems so obvious to me that we are just doing basically the same thing that didn't work in the '80s and '90s, but with sugar instead of fat. Perhaps scapegoating instead of looking at the overall diet is a bad approach?
You can't soundbite complex approaches. Sensible, long-term approaches don't make for riveting viewing. Who wants to hear be moderate in everything and exercise? Sounds so damned sensible and boring. No 'one weird trick" about it.
On a serious note, what bothers me most is the "science" that springs up around these ideas. There was "science" behind the fat demonization too. A few zealots formed a foregone conclusion, and then did "research" to support it. The same thing is happening now.
0 -
Despite being totally bashed for my poor choice of words "sugar is bad", this has been a great discussion.
Was it my intent to "demonize" sugar? Not really but I'm glad that it caused a great debate.
I think most will agree that sugar is okay in reasonable amounts. We can agree to disagree about what is a reasonable amount. People have made points that it can be much higher than the WHO recommendation and for some people I would agree with that. On the other hand nobody has yet convinced me that the WHO recommendation is not good advice for people in general.
Some people have pointed out that there is a difference between added-sugars and sugars that naturally occur in food. For me personally that is a tricky distinction to make. A glass of orange juice can have no added sugar but would still be a proportionally high percentage of sugar. Even solid foods such as raisins are loaded with sugar.
I used to roll my eyes at anyone who talked about avoiding sugar. I made the same arguments that I've seen here. "It is all about maintaining a calorie deficit.", "I eat as much sugar as I want and I'm in great shape". I know, I've been there. I would have been right there with the other sugar defenders with the subtle implications that anyone who knock sugar is a nut.
What changed my mind was my difficulty with maintaining my weight as I got older. Staying fit in your 20s or even 30s, is much different than staying fit in your 40s. Yes, I know some of the sugar defenders may be in their 40s or older but we are all different. From a physics standpoint a calorie from sugar is the same as a calorie from any other macro-nutrient. However the impact of sugar is very different.
ForbesWe intuitively know that sugar and obesity are linked, but the exact reason why hasn’t been well understood until recently. Research has shown that chronic consumption of added sugar dulls the brain’s mechanism for telling you to stop eating. It does so by reducing activity in the brain’s anorexigenic oxytocin system, which is responsible for throwing up the red “full” flag that prevents you from gorging. When oxytocin cells in the brain are blunted by over-consumption of sugar, the flag doesn’t work correctly and you start asking for seconds and thirds, and seeking out snacks at midnight.
In this thread I've included several references about sugar. I'm not cherry picking data to fit my argument. I just provide links to what I find. If I found a reference that countered my premise I would gladly provide it and consider changing my position. Some have provided plenty of anecdotal evidence and there was a interesting back-and-forth about statistics, but no hard evidence that comes close to countering what can be easily found on the internet.
If the data on sugar were faulty there would be plenty of push back and counter studies from sugar industry and companies that sell sugar sweetened products.
An individual's approach to sugar can vary. One could try the no-carb route and avoid it completely or one could ignore the science completely and just focus on calorie consumption. The best approach is probably somewhere in between.
Would I have a glass of orange juice with breakfast? Absolutely, but as an occasional treat. A hot fudge sundae after dinner? I hope not but never say never.
0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »On a serious note, what bothers me most is the "science" that springs up around these ideas. There was "science" behind the fat demonization too. A few zealots formed a foregone conclusion, and then did "research" to support it. The same thing is happening now.
To clarify the "science" behind the low fat diet was bogus to begin with.
Low-fat diet advice was based on undercooked science
It is right to question the validity of current studies done on sugar but should we dismiss that entirely because a past study was misleading.
It's been over 30 years since the low fat diet was introduced. With the advancements in technology, current research techniques have greatly improved.
Still if people want to wait 30 more years before the studies on sugar have had time to fully proven, that's up to them. For me, I'm going to go with the best information I have at this time.0 -
FitnessTim wrote: »Despite being totally bashed for my poor choice of words "sugar is bad", this has been a great discussion.
Was it my intent to "demonize" sugar? Not really but I'm glad that it caused a great debate.
I think most will agree that sugar is okay in reasonable amounts. We can agree to disagree about what is a reasonable amount. People have made points that it can be much higher than the WHO recommendation and for some people I would agree with that. On the other hand nobody has yet convinced me that the WHO recommendation is not good advice for people in general.
Some people have pointed out that there is a difference between added-sugars and sugars that naturally occur in food. For me personally that is a tricky distinction to make. A glass of orange juice can have no added sugar but would still be a proportionally high percentage of sugar. Even solid foods such as raisins are loaded with sugar.
I used to roll my eyes at anyone who talked about avoiding sugar. I made the same arguments that I've seen here. "It is all about maintaining a calorie deficit.", "I eat as much sugar as I want and I'm in great shape". I know, I've been there. I would have been right there with the other sugar defenders with the subtle implications that anyone who knock sugar is a nut.
What changed my mind was my difficulty with maintaining my weight as I got older. Staying fit in your 20s or even 30s, is much different than staying fit in your 40s. Yes, I know some of the sugar defenders may be in their 40s or older but we are all different. From a physics standpoint a calorie from sugar is the same as a calorie from any other macro-nutrient. However the impact of sugar is very different.
ForbesWe intuitively know that sugar and obesity are linked, but the exact reason why hasn’t been well understood until recently. Research has shown that chronic consumption of added sugar dulls the brain’s mechanism for telling you to stop eating. It does so by reducing activity in the brain’s anorexigenic oxytocin system, which is responsible for throwing up the red “full” flag that prevents you from gorging. When oxytocin cells in the brain are blunted by over-consumption of sugar, the flag doesn’t work correctly and you start asking for seconds and thirds, and seeking out snacks at midnight.
In this thread I've included several references about sugar. I'm not cherry picking data to fit my argument. I just provide links to what I find. If I found a reference that countered my premise I would gladly provide it and consider changing my position. Some have provided plenty of anecdotal evidence and there was a interesting back-and-forth about statistics, but no hard evidence that comes close to countering what can be easily found on the internet.
If the data on sugar were faulty there would be plenty of push back and counter studies from sugar industry and companies that sell sugar sweetened products.
An individual's approach to sugar can vary. One could try the no-carb route and avoid it completely or one could ignore the science completely and just focus on calorie consumption. The best approach is probably somewhere in between.
Would I have a glass of orange juice with breakfast? Absolutely, but as an occasional treat. A hot fudge sundae after dinner? I hope not but never say never.
How about that sugar intake has stayed pretty much the same while obesity has been going up over the last few decades, while at the same time consumption of fat has been going up instead and carbs overall down?
Or that the WHO's guidelines, the guys who want to convince you to eat less sugar, only cite tooth decay and calorie surpluses as their reasons as to why? If there was anything more concrete for why you should that has been proven, they surely would have listed that too, no?0 -
FitnessTim wrote: »Despite being totally bashed for my poor choice of words "sugar is bad", this has been a great discussion.
Was it my intent to "demonize" sugar? Not really but I'm glad that it caused a great debate.
I think most will agree that sugar is okay in reasonable amounts. We can agree to disagree about what is a reasonable amount. People have made points that it can be much higher than the WHO recommendation and for some people I would agree with that. On the other hand nobody has yet convinced me that the WHO recommendation is not good advice for people in general.
Some people have pointed out that there is a difference between added-sugars and sugars that naturally occur in food. For me personally that is a tricky distinction to make. A glass of orange juice can have no added sugar but would still be a proportionally high percentage of sugar. Even solid foods such as raisins are loaded with sugar.
I used to roll my eyes at anyone who talked about avoiding sugar. I made the same arguments that I've seen here. "It is all about maintaining a calorie deficit.", "I eat as much sugar as I want and I'm in great shape". I know, I've been there. I would have been right there with the other sugar defenders with the subtle implications that anyone who knock sugar is a nut.
What changed my mind was my difficulty with maintaining my weight as I got older. Staying fit in your 20s or even 30s, is much different than staying fit in your 40s. Yes, I know some of the sugar defenders may be in their 40s or older but we are all different. From a physics standpoint a calorie from sugar is the same as a calorie from any other macro-nutrient. However the impact of sugar is very different.
ForbesWe intuitively know that sugar and obesity are linked, but the exact reason why hasn’t been well understood until recently. Research has shown that chronic consumption of added sugar dulls the brain’s mechanism for telling you to stop eating. It does so by reducing activity in the brain’s anorexigenic oxytocin system, which is responsible for throwing up the red “full” flag that prevents you from gorging. When oxytocin cells in the brain are blunted by over-consumption of sugar, the flag doesn’t work correctly and you start asking for seconds and thirds, and seeking out snacks at midnight.
In this thread I've included several references about sugar. I'm not cherry picking data to fit my argument. I just provide links to what I find. If I found a reference that countered my premise I would gladly provide it and consider changing my position. Some have provided plenty of anecdotal evidence and there was a interesting back-and-forth about statistics, but no hard evidence that comes close to countering what can be easily found on the internet.
If the data on sugar were faulty there would be plenty of push back and counter studies from sugar industry and companies that sell sugar sweetened products.
An individual's approach to sugar can vary. One could try the no-carb route and avoid it completely or one could ignore the science completely and just focus on calorie consumption. The best approach is probably somewhere in between.
Would I have a glass of orange juice with breakfast? Absolutely, but as an occasional treat. A hot fudge sundae after dinner? I hope not but never say never.
so what is your argument then? that sugar is bad when you get into your 40's because metabolism?
why would orange juice be OK, but a hot fudge sundae is not ok?0 -
FitnessTim wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »On a serious note, what bothers me most is the "science" that springs up around these ideas. There was "science" behind the fat demonization too. A few zealots formed a foregone conclusion, and then did "research" to support it. The same thing is happening now.
To clarify the "science" behind the low fat diet was bogus to begin with.
Low-fat diet advice was based on undercooked science
It is right to question the validity of current studies done on sugar but should we dismiss that entirely because a past study was misleading.
It's been over 30 years since the low fat diet was introduced. With the advancements in technology, current research techniques have greatly improved.
Still if people want to wait 30 more years before the studies on sugar have had time to fully proven, that's up to them. For me, I'm going to go with the best information I have at this time.
Wait. There are advancements in technique. That article talked about causality as a case for the science being undercooked.
Guess where the current status of science is lacking on the sugar front?
0 -
corriebenedict wrote: »I try to avoid all processed foods that contain added sugar and try to only eat natural sugars and even with that I go over the daily recommended goal. There's not much you can eat that doesn't have added sugar that's also quick or "on the run" type snacks so eating a healthier lowered sugar diet not only takes a lot of dedication but it takes a lot of time. I pre-plan my menu's and pre-portion my foods. It's been working weight wise though, I'm finally beating the slump...
I don't find this true for myself. I don't worry about my sugar intake...I avoid nothing. I average about 35g of total sugar daily...which is less than 10% of my daily calories. Most that 35g is from fruit and the bread to do my PB & B sandwich that I eat every morning.
0 -
biggsterjackster wrote: »I stay away from foods or drinks with added sugar, simply because they are not good for me and my body doesn't have any use for it.
My body enjoys homemade apple pie. Strawberry rhubarb too. And even apart from sweets, I'm not sure why adding a little sugar to my rhubarb sauce makes it unhealthy vs. an apple sauce made just with apple sauce.
No one has ever answered that question!
Edit: I should say that I'm not talking about immoderate amounts, of course. I just don't know why it has to be all or nothing. My sugar consumption generally is in line with the WHO recommendations (I think they are reasonable, but it was even before I heard of the WHO recommendations since getting a nutritious diet within my calories for me simply resulted in having limited room for these kinds of extras).
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »biggsterjackster wrote: »I stay away from foods or drinks with added sugar, simply because they are not good for me and my body doesn't have any use for it.
My body enjoys homemade apple pie. Strawberry rhubarb too. And even apart from sweets, I'm not sure why adding a little sugar to my rhubarb sauce makes it unhealthy vs. an apple sauce made just with apple sauce.
No one has ever answered that question!
Just put stuff in the crock pot for homemade applesauce-apples, brown sugar, cinnamon and water-sooo good
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »biggsterjackster wrote: »I stay away from foods or drinks with added sugar, simply because they are not good for me and my body doesn't have any use for it.
My body enjoys homemade apple pie. Strawberry rhubarb too. And even apart from sweets, I'm not sure why adding a little sugar to my rhubarb sauce makes it unhealthy vs. an apple sauce made just with apple sauce.
No one has ever answered that question!
Edit: I should say that I'm not talking about immoderate amounts, of course. I just don't know why it has to be all or nothing. My sugar consumption generally is in line with the WHO recommendations (I think they are reasonable, but it was even before I heard of the WHO recommendations since getting a nutritious diet within my calories for me simply resulted in having limited room for these kinds of extras).
because added sugar is bad, natural sugar is good....< for the sugar is evil folks it really does boil down to this simplistic comparison...
just look at OP's comment about orange juice is OK, but he would not have a hot fudge sundae for dessert...really?0 -
FitnessTim wrote: »Despite being totally bashed for my poor choice of words "sugar is bad", this has been a great discussion.
I don't think you were bashed, but I agree it's been a good discussion, especially for a sugar thread! ;-)I think most will agree that sugar is okay in reasonable amounts.
Quite frequently that's not the case, especially among new posters who just watched Fed Up or some such, and I think that's what a lot of us tend to be reacting to.We can agree to disagree about what is a reasonable amount. People have made points that it can be much higher than the WHO recommendation and for some people I would agree with that. On the other hand nobody has yet convinced me that the WHO recommendation is not good advice for people in general.
Well, in that I AGREED that the WHO recommendation seemed reasonable (but was different from what you were claiming and what many other anti sugar types seem to argue), I never attempted to convince you of such.
The WHO reasoning applies to the population in general, especially people who don't track calories, and like I said before I think it applies pretty well to me. I don't think it applies so well to, say, some endurance athletes. (And it's 5-10% of calories, depending on which one you use, not a hard 25 g as many seem to think.)Some people have pointed out that there is a difference between added-sugars and sugars that naturally occur in food. For me personally that is a tricky distinction to make. A glass of orange juice can have no added sugar but would still be a proportionally high percentage of sugar. Even solid foods such as raisins are loaded with sugar.
Well, wait. It's not SOME PEOPLE who have pointed this out, but specifically the same source you started out by relying on--the WHO. And the WHO (IMO reasonably) considers fruit juice an exception that's basically the same as "added" (or "free") sugar, yes. I'd say the same context ought to mean that adding a bit of sugar to yogurt or oatmeal ISN'T really different from eating them in fruit--the WHO's concern is calories and the nutrient density of foods consumed (and dental hygiene).From a physics standpoint a calorie from sugar is the same as a calorie from any other macro-nutrient. However the impact of sugar is very different.
This is not well-supported at all. It's not what the WHO is saying, either. It might be your personal experience, you might be able to find some articles from the current anti sugar types (Lustig et al.), but that is not convincing, sorry. If you do better cutting out or limiting sugar, that's great. Like I said, I limit added sugar by default, since it's an extra, and most of my diet is made up of other things. IMO, that works better for me than stressing about whether eating a cookie is going to ruin everything, which is the overdramatic reaction that I see from MANY on this site.0 -
Sarasmaintaining wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »biggsterjackster wrote: »I stay away from foods or drinks with added sugar, simply because they are not good for me and my body doesn't have any use for it.
My body enjoys homemade apple pie. Strawberry rhubarb too. And even apart from sweets, I'm not sure why adding a little sugar to my rhubarb sauce makes it unhealthy vs. an apple sauce made just with apple sauce.
No one has ever answered that question!
Just put stuff in the crock pot for homemade applesauce-apples, brown sugar, cinnamon and water-sooo good
Sounds amazing.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Sarasmaintaining wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »biggsterjackster wrote: »I stay away from foods or drinks with added sugar, simply because they are not good for me and my body doesn't have any use for it.
My body enjoys homemade apple pie. Strawberry rhubarb too. And even apart from sweets, I'm not sure why adding a little sugar to my rhubarb sauce makes it unhealthy vs. an apple sauce made just with apple sauce.
No one has ever answered that question!
Just put stuff in the crock pot for homemade applesauce-apples, brown sugar, cinnamon and water-sooo good
Sounds amazing.
It's ridiculously easy to make too-peel and dice up some apples (I did one full 5lb bag and then a partial bag this morning, so around 8lbs before I cored them), mix apples with 1/2 cup brown sugar, 1tsp cinnamon and add to large crockpot-then add one cup of water on top and cook on low for around 6 hours. Fork mash it to desired consistency (my kids like it chunkier), and serve warm or cold
It also makes your house smell wonderful while it's cooking!
eta: it's fantastic warm on top of vanilla ice cream too!0 -
Is this yet another generic 'why I'm not eating sugar' thread, or is it the same one?0
-
And yet isn't that what we all do? None of it is really fully proven is it? Lot's of correlation but very little causation. We read the studies, interpret them and draw our own conclusions. Worry about sugar if you like... don't worry about sugar if you like that as well. For myself, a little bit of everything and not too much of anything. Life is too short to major in the minor.FitnessTim wrote: »Still if people want to wait 30 more years before the studies on sugar have had time to fully proven, that's up to them. For me, I'm going to go with the best information I have at this time.
Eat, train, recover and live...
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions