Sugars
Options
Replies
-
Say what?!
Sugar is sugar....fearnsey71 wrote: »You only need to worry about the processed sugars. Sugar from fruit & veg eaten in it's raw state is generally ok because it still contains fibre, which will take the body longer to convert into energy. It's when you blend the fruit (either into smoothies or into juice) that the sugar becomes an issue. The fibre is pretty much removed and the body processes the sugars much more quickly. Well this is what i was told when I went through my diabetes clinics (I'm type 2). I lost my first 14lb just cutting out as much process sugar as possible. When that left me plateauing I then started CICO and exercise and I've lost another 17lb and thats since the 10th of March this year.
Personally I take into much sugar and I can see it on my body it's not carbs or anything like that due to the fact that im very carb conscious. My lower stomach fat comes from high sugars and I have asked plenty of trainers and watch plenty of documents about it from multiple trains and they all tell me the same it's the sugars. My opinion like said I can see it affecting my body. Keep in mind I do hit a calorie deflect 90% of the time. I just think you hit a certain point and you do have to watch it imo
0 -
Sugar is sugar....fearnsey71 wrote: »You only need to worry about the processed sugars. Sugar from fruit & veg eaten in it's raw state is generally ok because it still contains fibre, which will take the body longer to convert into energy. It's when you blend the fruit (either into smoothies or into juice) that the sugar becomes an issue. The fibre is pretty much removed and the body processes the sugars much more quickly. Well this is what i was told when I went through my diabetes clinics (I'm type 2). I lost my first 14lb just cutting out as much process sugar as possible. When that left me plateauing I then started CICO and exercise and I've lost another 17lb and thats since the 10th of March this year.
Personally I take into much sugar and I can see it on my body it's not carbs or anything like that due to the fact that im very carb conscious. My lower stomach fat comes from high sugars and I have asked plenty of trainers and watch plenty of documents about it from multiple trains and they all tell me the same it's the sugars. My opinion like said I can see it affecting my body. Keep in mind I do hit a calorie deflect 90% of the time. I just think you hit a certain point and you do have to watch it imo
That's ridiculous and completely inaccurate. You do know that many trainers have never taken a course in nutrition before, right? I use them for exercise advice and that's about it. (Documentaries are as equally useless in this case.)
0 -
stevencloser wrote: »
Let me first reiterate what I said - that long term AND excess refined sugar intake can cause medical issues (NOT that any refined sugar intake at all is a problem). The link you provided proves that point. From that very link:stevencloser wrote: »
And excess and long-term refined sugar intake.ihatetodietalways wrote: »Diabetes Epidemic & You, by Dr. J.R. Kraft. He is a renowned doctor in Chicago and he publishes the fact that fasting glucose can miss 20% of diabetics. Yes. He has looked at 15,000 people from age 3-90. There is a lot of information in this book.
And there are TONS of papers about low carb diets. Phinney, Volek, Pulmetter, Noakes, Attia, and others are leading the research.
Stop telling people to eat sugars and instead tell them, go check your fasting insulin with a simple blood test at the doctor. Furthermore, since insulin resistance is a true phenomenon (it is observed before pre-diabetes), we may want to give our pancreas a break and take the carbs slowly. I don't vilify sugar and carbs. There are people who chose to limit them. That is all.
You are equating people with a medical reason for reducing carbs with people who have normal pancreatic function (the majority of the population). They are not the same. Too many carbs does not cause insulin resistance, diabetes, etc. The inability to properly regulate blood glucose is the main SYMPTOM of those medical issues. The causes are many and include:- genetics
- excess weight
- age
- long term use of certain medications, including statins and antidepressants
Nope.
http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/myths/
Note, that says sugar-sweetened beverages should be avoided to PREVENT diabetes, not simply to manage one's existing diabetes.The American Diabetes Association recommends that people should avoid intake of sugar-sweetened beverages to help prevent diabetes. Sugar-sweetened beverages include beverages like:
regular soda
fruit punch
fruit drinks
energy drinks
sports drinks
sweet tea
other sugary drinks
In fact, the ADA source you linked supports the idea that long term and (not or) excess refined sugar intake can cause diabetes. It supports the intake of sugars and desserts in moderated amounts as part of a balanced diet and specifically tells people to avoid drinks with high added sugar contents.
Have you read it? It specifically lists that sugar doesn't cause diabetes, just that consumption of sugar sweetened beverages in particular (no other food things, just drinks with sugar in it) is correlated with diabetes. A phrase whose underlying truth that can range from something like the connection betweeen the amount of people swimming and ice cream sales being correlated to possible causation.
Yes, I read it. But apparently, you haven't read what I repeatedly wrote here. That added sugars in high amounts and over long term is not a cause of diabetes but a risk factor. The relevant post I replied to here was listing risk factors for metabolic disease, not causes, and I added sustained high amount of added sugar intake as one such factor.
Then you read it but didn't understand. Sugar is not a risk factor named. They go specifically out of their way to tell you that eating too much sugar is not a risk in itself.
Being overweight is a risk factor.
Sugar sweetened beverages (again, NOT sugar, sugar sweetened beverages specifically, nothing else) seem to be linked to diabetes.
Something that's linked to something else may or may not have anything to do with it.
The amount of people swimming is linked to ice cream sales. If you put the two in a graph you can see clear correlation, often between the same individuals. Doesn't mean that one causes the other or is a risk factor of the other.0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »
No, it was not that or any other dairy product.
Since no one else is playing...
It was cauliflower. 10 grams of sugar.
You ate a pound of cauliflower ?0 -
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »
For the record, no I don't think there's anything to worry about in OP's diet which goes over sugars due to fruits.mantium999 wrote: »
A fact I acknowledged at the very outset - by saying that high amounts of added sugar was a risk factor rather than a cause of disease. But in case I didn't make it clearer, yes, I agree that they are not saying to avoid sugary drinks ONLY because of sugar.
Well, they raise blood sugar because they have added sugar... I mean you can't get sugar from no sugar, right? And consistently (and artificially) elevated blood sugar levels are a risk factor for diabetes for those who currently do not have the disease.
Let me first reiterate what I said - that long term AND excess refined sugar intake can cause medical issues (NOT that any refined sugar intake at all is a problem). The link you provided proves that point. The From that very link:stevencloser wrote: »
And excess and long-term refined sugar intake.ihatetodietalways wrote: »Diabetes Epidemic & You, by Dr. J.R. Kraft. He is a renowned doctor in Chicago and he publishes the fact that fasting glucose can miss 20% of diabetics. Yes. He has looked at 15,000 people from age 3-90. There is a lot of information in this book.
And there are TONS of papers about low carb diets. Phinney, Volek, Pulmetter, Noakes, Attia, and others are leading the research.
Stop telling people to eat sugars and instead tell them, go check your fasting insulin with a simple blood test at the doctor. Furthermore, since insulin resistance is a true phenomenon (it is observed before pre-diabetes), we may want to give our pancreas a break and take the carbs slowly. I don't vilify sugar and carbs. There are people who chose to limit them. That is all.
You are equating people with a medical reason for reducing carbs with people who have normal pancreatic function (the majority of the population). They are not the same. Too many carbs does not cause insulin resistance, diabetes, etc. The inability to properly regulate blood glucose is the main SYMPTOM of those medical issues. The causes are many and include:- genetics
- excess weight
- age
- long term use of certain medications, including statins and antidepressants
Nope.
http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/myths/
Note, that says sugar-sweetened beverages should be avoided to PREVENT diabetes, not simply to manage one's existing diabetes.The American Diabetes Association recommends that people should avoid intake of sugar-sweetened beverages to help prevent diabetes. Sugar-sweetened beverages include beverages like:
regular soda
fruit punch
fruit drinks
energy drinks
sports drinks
sweet tea
other sugary drinks
In fact, the ADA source you linked supports the idea that long term and (not or) excess refined sugar intake can cause diabetes. It supports the intake of sugars and desserts in moderated amounts as part of a balanced diet and specifically tells people to avoid drinks with high added sugar contents.
you left off this little caveat at the end of the list:
These will raise blood glucose and can provide several hundred calories in just one serving!
so they are recommended to be avoided to keep blood sugar down and avoid a mass dose of calories in one serving, not just because they have sugar.
I have no quarrel with CICO - in fact, I believe in it. The point I was making is simply that added sugars in excess amounts ARE a risk factor in diabetes and other metabolic troubles, not that it is the only factor, nor that no added sugar should be consumed whatsoever if one hopes to avoid these diseases, nor any insane thing of that sort. That consumption of added sugars in high amounts long term is a factor is supported by the American Diabetes Association.
OK but my point is they are not saying avoid it JUST because of sugar….
Would the OP's sugar intake, based on her post, be seen as excessive, and thereby be putting her at risk for disease? It seems the tangents of sugars increasing risks of disease that the OP never mentioned, caused her to abandon this thread. I wonder if she ever found a useful answer to her particular question?
Then why on God's green earth are you here preaching about the evils of excess sugar intake? No one here is advocating for excess sugar intake, or excess food intake, period. If one is otherwise meeting their other macronutrient needs, is eating at maintenance or below by monitoring their overall caloric intake, then they're not intaking excess anything, right? Is anyone here saying "OMG I totes only eat doughnuts and Twinkies all day and everyone on this board should do the exact thing because it's perfectly healthy!"
No? No one is saying that. The anti-sugar brigade on a calorie-counting website is useless (aside from going around humble bragging about their nutritional superiority). We are all keeping sugar intake low because we are counting calories. Prolonged and excess calorie intake, no matter the source, will eventually lead to obesity, which can in turn lead to heart disease, diabetes, etc.
Christ.
This is endemic on here. People come on as if they're debating people eating SAD instead of conscientious dieters. It's ridiculous.
KNOW YOUR AUDIENCE.
Great post, Alyssa.
0 -
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »
For the record, no I don't think there's anything to worry about in OP's diet which goes over sugars due to fruits.mantium999 wrote: »
A fact I acknowledged at the very outset - by saying that high amounts of added sugar was a risk factor rather than a cause of disease. But in case I didn't make it clearer, yes, I agree that they are not saying to avoid sugary drinks ONLY because of sugar.
Well, they raise blood sugar because they have added sugar... I mean you can't get sugar from no sugar, right? And consistently (and artificially) elevated blood sugar levels are a risk factor for diabetes for those who currently do not have the disease.
Let me first reiterate what I said - that long term AND excess refined sugar intake can cause medical issues (NOT that any refined sugar intake at all is a problem). The link you provided proves that point. The From that very link:stevencloser wrote: »
And excess and long-term refined sugar intake.ihatetodietalways wrote: »Diabetes Epidemic & You, by Dr. J.R. Kraft. He is a renowned doctor in Chicago and he publishes the fact that fasting glucose can miss 20% of diabetics. Yes. He has looked at 15,000 people from age 3-90. There is a lot of information in this book.
And there are TONS of papers about low carb diets. Phinney, Volek, Pulmetter, Noakes, Attia, and others are leading the research.
Stop telling people to eat sugars and instead tell them, go check your fasting insulin with a simple blood test at the doctor. Furthermore, since insulin resistance is a true phenomenon (it is observed before pre-diabetes), we may want to give our pancreas a break and take the carbs slowly. I don't vilify sugar and carbs. There are people who chose to limit them. That is all.
You are equating people with a medical reason for reducing carbs with people who have normal pancreatic function (the majority of the population). They are not the same. Too many carbs does not cause insulin resistance, diabetes, etc. The inability to properly regulate blood glucose is the main SYMPTOM of those medical issues. The causes are many and include:- genetics
- excess weight
- age
- long term use of certain medications, including statins and antidepressants
Nope.
http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/myths/
Note, that says sugar-sweetened beverages should be avoided to PREVENT diabetes, not simply to manage one's existing diabetes.The American Diabetes Association recommends that people should avoid intake of sugar-sweetened beverages to help prevent diabetes. Sugar-sweetened beverages include beverages like:
regular soda
fruit punch
fruit drinks
energy drinks
sports drinks
sweet tea
other sugary drinks
In fact, the ADA source you linked supports the idea that long term and (not or) excess refined sugar intake can cause diabetes. It supports the intake of sugars and desserts in moderated amounts as part of a balanced diet and specifically tells people to avoid drinks with high added sugar contents.
you left off this little caveat at the end of the list:
These will raise blood glucose and can provide several hundred calories in just one serving!
so they are recommended to be avoided to keep blood sugar down and avoid a mass dose of calories in one serving, not just because they have sugar.
I have no quarrel with CICO - in fact, I believe in it. The point I was making is simply that added sugars in excess amounts ARE a risk factor in diabetes and other metabolic troubles, not that it is the only factor, nor that no added sugar should be consumed whatsoever if one hopes to avoid these diseases, nor any insane thing of that sort. That consumption of added sugars in high amounts long term is a factor is supported by the American Diabetes Association.
OK but my point is they are not saying avoid it JUST because of sugar….
Would the OP's sugar intake, based on her post, be seen as excessive, and thereby be putting her at risk for disease? It seems the tangents of sugars increasing risks of disease that the OP never mentioned, caused her to abandon this thread. I wonder if she ever found a useful answer to her particular question?
Then why on God's green earth are you here preaching about the evils of excess sugar intake? No one here is advocating for excess sugar intake, or excess food intake, period. If one is otherwise meeting their other macronutrient needs, is eating at maintenance or below by monitoring their overall caloric intake, then they're not intaking excess anything, right? Is anyone here saying "OMG I totes only eat doughnuts and Twinkies all day and everyone on this board should do the exact thing because it's perfectly healthy!"
No? No one is saying that. The anti-sugar brigade on a calorie-counting website is useless (aside from going around humble bragging about their nutritional superiority). We are all keeping sugar intake low because we are counting calories. Prolonged and excess calorie intake, no matter the source, will eventually lead to obesity, which can in turn lead to heart disease, diabetes, etc.
Christ.
You can take the name of any Gods or Deities you like, but your very reaction about "anti-sugar" brigade shows the problem I am trying to address. There are a lot of people here - yourself included, it would seem - who are perfectly reasonable in their own approach to diet and nutrition but have a fit when anyone dares suggest that excess sugar intake can have adverse health effects (more so than excess fiber intake, for example).
I began my participation in this thread in order, specifically, to respond to a blanket claim that sugar is not bad (as opposed to a more precise and correct claim that it isn't bad in all quantities).
You are frustrated that I am "preaching" about the evils of excess sugar intake, yet you have no trouble painting with a broad brush anyone who has a legitimate concern about the effects of added sugars and calling them all part of some "anti-sugar brigade." Your automatic assumption that anyone who raises concerns about sugars at all must be a militant anti-sugar warrior is the problem here, more than my stating facts about sugar that you don't really seem to disagree with.
As for concerns about sugar being raised on a calorie-counting site, one reason to do so is that excess sugar intake makes maintaining one's calorie goal difficult, not simply because sugary foods themselves contain calories but also because of cravings it tends to create.
Nice straw man building. While derailing a thread to ... what? Pontificate on a pet issue?
And you missed the point completely.
NO ONE HERE ADVOCATED EXCESS SUGAR CONSUMPTION FROM ADDED SUGARS.
This thread started about FRUIT.
0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »I'm going to hate myself for this but @stevencloser , perhaps you can confirm this for me...
Aren't most of the findings on SSB following from either the cohort studies (which are correlational and more likely to be related to consumption with calorie-dense and/or fast food) and studies done with straight glucose beverages in amounts unlikely to be consumed normally?
Probably. A lot of nutrition "science" is epidemiology, which finds things like a high risk of {insert complaint} in the upper decile consumers of {insert bogey food or component} while failing to notice that this decile is also the poorest / smokers / alcoholic / unfit / obese. In other words the studies demonstrate that the healthy people don't consume an excess of {insert bogey food or component} and therefore don't have {insert complaint}
There is little solid science in humans showing the effect of substituting (say) 50g a day of starch with glucose or fructose while maintaining the same calories and macro balance.
0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »
No, it was not that or any other dairy product.
Since no one else is playing...
It was cauliflower. 10 grams of sugar.
You ate a pound of cauliflower ?
Yup. I routinely eat about that at times.
No gas either.
It was roasted with smoked paprika and utterly delicious. I was having a hungry day.
0 -
0
-
Well, they raise blood sugar because they have added sugar... I mean you can't get sugar from no sugar, right? And consistently (and artificially) elevated blood sugar levels are a risk factor for diabetes for those who currently do not have the disease.
Blood glucose arises from any digestible carbohydrate not just sugar let alone "added" or "refined" sugar. Your liver also makes it - one aspect of diabetes is overproduction internally, you don't get a high fasting blood sugar from what you ate.
0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »I'm going to hate myself for this but @stevencloser , perhaps you can confirm this for me...
Aren't most of the findings on SSB following from either the cohort studies (which are correlational and more likely to be related to consumption with calorie-dense and/or fast food) and studies done with straight glucose beverages in amounts unlikely to be consumed normally?
Probably. A lot of nutrition "science" is epidemiology, which finds things like a high risk of {insert complaint} in the upper decile consumers of {insert bogey food or component} while failing to notice that this decile is also the poorest / smokers / alcoholic / unfit / obese. In other words the studies demonstrate that the healthy people don't consume an excess of {insert bogey food or component} and therefore don't have {insert complaint}
There is little solid science in humans showing the effect of substituting (say) 50g a day of starch with glucose or fructose while maintaining the same calories and macro balance.
That's what I've thought, because I know we've been around the whole SSB/diabetes risk thing on the boards before and when everyone actually dug into the research, the confounding factors made it far less than a black and white issue.
0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »I'm going to hate myself for this but @stevencloser , perhaps you can confirm this for me...
Aren't most of the findings on SSB following from either the cohort studies (which are correlational and more likely to be related to consumption with calorie-dense and/or fast food) and studies done with straight glucose beverages in amounts unlikely to be consumed normally?
Probably. A lot of nutrition "science" is epidemiology, which finds things like a high risk of {insert complaint} in the upper decile consumers of {insert bogey food or component} while failing to notice that this decile is also the poorest / smokers / alcoholic / unfit / obese. In other words the studies demonstrate that the healthy people don't consume an excess of {insert bogey food or component} and therefore don't have {insert complaint}
There is little solid science in humans showing the effect of substituting (say) 50g a day of starch with glucose or fructose while maintaining the same calories and macro balance.
That's what I've thought, because I know we've been around the whole SSB/diabetes risk thing on the boards before and when everyone actually dug into the research, the confounding factors made it far less than a black and white issue.
Yeah, that's why I always try to mention that "a link" may or may not mean anything at all.0 -
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »
For the record, no I don't think there's anything to worry about in OP's diet which goes over sugars due to fruits.mantium999 wrote: »
A fact I acknowledged at the very outset - by saying that high amounts of added sugar was a risk factor rather than a cause of disease. But in case I didn't make it clearer, yes, I agree that they are not saying to avoid sugary drinks ONLY because of sugar.
Well, they raise blood sugar because they have added sugar... I mean you can't get sugar from no sugar, right? And consistently (and artificially) elevated blood sugar levels are a risk factor for diabetes for those who currently do not have the disease.
Let me first reiterate what I said - that long term AND excess refined sugar intake can cause medical issues (NOT that any refined sugar intake at all is a problem). The link you provided proves that point. The From that very link:stevencloser wrote: »
And excess and long-term refined sugar intake.ihatetodietalways wrote: »Diabetes Epidemic & You, by Dr. J.R. Kraft. He is a renowned doctor in Chicago and he publishes the fact that fasting glucose can miss 20% of diabetics. Yes. He has looked at 15,000 people from age 3-90. There is a lot of information in this book.
And there are TONS of papers about low carb diets. Phinney, Volek, Pulmetter, Noakes, Attia, and others are leading the research.
Stop telling people to eat sugars and instead tell them, go check your fasting insulin with a simple blood test at the doctor. Furthermore, since insulin resistance is a true phenomenon (it is observed before pre-diabetes), we may want to give our pancreas a break and take the carbs slowly. I don't vilify sugar and carbs. There are people who chose to limit them. That is all.
You are equating people with a medical reason for reducing carbs with people who have normal pancreatic function (the majority of the population). They are not the same. Too many carbs does not cause insulin resistance, diabetes, etc. The inability to properly regulate blood glucose is the main SYMPTOM of those medical issues. The causes are many and include:- genetics
- excess weight
- age
- long term use of certain medications, including statins and antidepressants
Nope.
http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/myths/
Note, that says sugar-sweetened beverages should be avoided to PREVENT diabetes, not simply to manage one's existing diabetes.The American Diabetes Association recommends that people should avoid intake of sugar-sweetened beverages to help prevent diabetes. Sugar-sweetened beverages include beverages like:
regular soda
fruit punch
fruit drinks
energy drinks
sports drinks
sweet tea
other sugary drinks
In fact, the ADA source you linked supports the idea that long term and (not or) excess refined sugar intake can cause diabetes. It supports the intake of sugars and desserts in moderated amounts as part of a balanced diet and specifically tells people to avoid drinks with high added sugar contents.
you left off this little caveat at the end of the list:
These will raise blood glucose and can provide several hundred calories in just one serving!
so they are recommended to be avoided to keep blood sugar down and avoid a mass dose of calories in one serving, not just because they have sugar.
I have no quarrel with CICO - in fact, I believe in it. The point I was making is simply that added sugars in excess amounts ARE a risk factor in diabetes and other metabolic troubles, not that it is the only factor, nor that no added sugar should be consumed whatsoever if one hopes to avoid these diseases, nor any insane thing of that sort. That consumption of added sugars in high amounts long term is a factor is supported by the American Diabetes Association.
OK but my point is they are not saying avoid it JUST because of sugar….
Would the OP's sugar intake, based on her post, be seen as excessive, and thereby be putting her at risk for disease? It seems the tangents of sugars increasing risks of disease that the OP never mentioned, caused her to abandon this thread. I wonder if she ever found a useful answer to her particular question?
Then why on God's green earth are you here preaching about the evils of excess sugar intake? No one here is advocating for excess sugar intake, or excess food intake, period. If one is otherwise meeting their other macronutrient needs, is eating at maintenance or below by monitoring their overall caloric intake, then they're not intaking excess anything, right? Is anyone here saying "OMG I totes only eat doughnuts and Twinkies all day and everyone on this board should do the exact thing because it's perfectly healthy!"
No? No one is saying that. The anti-sugar brigade on a calorie-counting website is useless (aside from going around humble bragging about their nutritional superiority). We are all keeping sugar intake low because we are counting calories. Prolonged and excess calorie intake, no matter the source, will eventually lead to obesity, which can in turn lead to heart disease, diabetes, etc.
Christ.
You can take the name of any Gods or Deities you like, but your very reaction about "anti-sugar" brigade shows the problem I am trying to address.
You are ignoring the context of this thread and what people actually said to make up a problem that you are then pretending to address.There are a lot of people here - yourself included, it would seem - who are perfectly reasonable in their own approach to diet and nutrition but have a fit when anyone dares suggest that excess sugar intake can have adverse health effects (more so than excess fiber intake, for example).
Absolutely no one has a problem with the idea that excess sugar intake can have negative health effects (including, in large part that it often results in excess calories or nutritionally deficient diets--the WHO reasoning that many of us have repeatedly agreed with). As I said above, the debate is over what "excess" is, and here we are addressing a question about a limit of 24 grams that applies to ALL sugar and thus is a terrible guideline, IMO. (It is also neither the current MFP guideline nor one recommended by an reputable source--all limits that low are based on added sugar only.)
Often it is suggested that ANY added sugar is bad (and here we have someone claiming that plus that two pieces of fruit are too much) and that's what we are arguing against. Whenever someone mentions excess sugar consumption, people support and suggest ways to reduce it. IMO, it's patently obvious that eating excess sugar when trying to lose weight isn't helpful or especially healthy but everyone already knows that, so why pretend like I think others are dumb just to grandstand? Instead, I'm concerned about the numerous worries I see from people who think (due to rhetoric from people like Lustig and his even more extreme disciples) that fruit is bad, that including ANY sweets in your diet is bad or will prevent a loss even within your calories, that sugar is "addictive" and to blame for people's weight issues, etc. This is all bad yet common information among dieting folks.I began my participation in this thread in order, specifically, to respond to a blanket claim that sugar is not bad (as opposed to a more precise and correct claim that it isn't bad in all quantities).
Again, you are intentionally ignoring context. Everything is bad in excess--saying something isn't bad doesn't mean "go insane with it." Among other things, everyone says "within your calories and a nutritionally balanced diet" which makes it basically impossible to be extreme or eat huge amounts of sugar regularly (unless you are an endurance athlete and in pretty good shape/a bigger person, I suppose). The specific person we were talking to here was looking at a limit of 24 grams for ALL sugar! This is why you are being grouped with those who are anti all sugar--suggesting this is at all a thread about excess consumption raises questions about why you think that, as two pieces of fruit or the other things that have been recommended here are NOT excess, IMO (and I told you what I'd consider excess and not upthread).As for concerns about sugar being raised on a calorie-counting site, one reason to do so is that excess sugar intake makes maintaining one's calorie goal difficult, not simply because sugary foods themselves contain calories but also because of cravings it tends to create.
There are NO indications that this is relevant to OP's post, and many, many people don't experience cravings just because they eat food with sugar. Indeed, I tend to think that's a psychological reaction basically encouraged by labeling sugar as a whole "bad." Thus, bringing it in out of the blue as a reason to avoid sugar and to claim that eating any sugar makes meeting a calorie goal difficult--when OP was specifically asking the common question about whether sugar mattered IF you, among other things, were meeting that goal, and when everyone had said that IF you are meeting your goal it's not a problem--supports the conclusion that you ARE part of the more extreme anti sugar sorts. Clearly if someone tries and cannot meet their limit then they should figure out what's going on and look at whether there's some reason they are overeating despite knowing what they should eat.
I am strongly in favor of understanding yourself, your diet, and why you eat as you do, as well as where your excess calories are coming from, as I think everyone here is. What bothers me is that all of you who focus first and only on sugar seem to have decided that sugar is a problem for everyone and to want to transfer your own prior issues onto the rest of us. If I had approached my diet by cutting sugar, I wouldn't have lost weight as well as I did, because most of my excess calories weren't related to sweet foods. (Neither do I have a problem or lack of self-control with carbs, as is also commonly asserted as some truth that must apply to everyone.)0 -
Well, they raise blood sugar because they have added sugar... I mean you can't get sugar from no sugar, right? And consistently (and artificially) elevated blood sugar levels are a risk factor for diabetes for those who currently do not have the disease.
Blood glucose arises from any digestible carbohydrate not just sugar let alone "added" or "refined" sugar. Your liver also makes it - one aspect of diabetes is overproduction internally, you don't get a high fasting blood sugar from what you ate.
Adding to that, yes you can get sugar from no sugar. Through a process called gluconeogenesis. @deaniac830 -
stevencloser wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »I'm going to hate myself for this but @stevencloser , perhaps you can confirm this for me...
Aren't most of the findings on SSB following from either the cohort studies (which are correlational and more likely to be related to consumption with calorie-dense and/or fast food) and studies done with straight glucose beverages in amounts unlikely to be consumed normally?
Probably. A lot of nutrition "science" is epidemiology, which finds things like a high risk of {insert complaint} in the upper decile consumers of {insert bogey food or component} while failing to notice that this decile is also the poorest / smokers / alcoholic / unfit / obese. In other words the studies demonstrate that the healthy people don't consume an excess of {insert bogey food or component} and therefore don't have {insert complaint}
There is little solid science in humans showing the effect of substituting (say) 50g a day of starch with glucose or fructose while maintaining the same calories and macro balance.
That's what I've thought, because I know we've been around the whole SSB/diabetes risk thing on the boards before and when everyone actually dug into the research, the confounding factors made it far less than a black and white issue.
Yeah, that's why I always try to mention that "a link" may or may not mean anything at all.
So the "risk factor" in this case is probably coming down to a "better safe than sorry" recommendation since there's a light correlative link, but there are so many other confounding factors, there's NO WAY anyone could say there's a definite link.
Bottom line? Anyone using "risk factor" doesn't know how the research works and is on really shaky ground trying to prove a point with it.
0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »
I'm going to guess Greek yogurt.mamapeach910 wrote: »Oh anti-sugar crusaders? I once got a heaping whack of sugar on a day where I ate no fruit. No added refined sugar. I was over my MFP limits.
How did this happen. There was one single food in my diary that had the most grams of sugar. Guess what it was.
I think, in your zealotry to rail against sugar, you have failed to help the OP by bringing in such issues as refined sugars, excess consumption of said refined sugars, insulin resistance, and diabetes.
Well done derailing the thread.
She just wanted to know if she could eat fruit. You didn't even ask about her health status before you went off on a pet topic.
Nicely played.
Now guess the mystery, sugar-laden food item from my day.
And imo, OP is fine with her fruit.
No, it was not that or any other dairy product.
Since no one else is playing...
It was cauliflower. 10 grams of sugar.
I was thinking potato. Can I get 1/2 a point for color? Can we get a ruling from the East German judge?
0 -
_Terrapin_ wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »
I'm going to guess Greek yogurt.mamapeach910 wrote: »Oh anti-sugar crusaders? I once got a heaping whack of sugar on a day where I ate no fruit. No added refined sugar. I was over my MFP limits.
How did this happen. There was one single food in my diary that had the most grams of sugar. Guess what it was.
I think, in your zealotry to rail against sugar, you have failed to help the OP by bringing in such issues as refined sugars, excess consumption of said refined sugars, insulin resistance, and diabetes.
Well done derailing the thread.
She just wanted to know if she could eat fruit. You didn't even ask about her health status before you went off on a pet topic.
Nicely played.
Now guess the mystery, sugar-laden food item from my day.
And imo, OP is fine with her fruit.
No, it was not that or any other dairy product.
Since no one else is playing...
It was cauliflower. 10 grams of sugar.
I was thinking potato. Can I get 1/2 a point for color? Can we get a ruling from the East German judge?
I'm part German and in a good mood. I'll give you the half point.
0 -
I knew the answer so figured it would be unfair to "guess." ;-)0
-
_Terrapin_ wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »
I'm going to guess Greek yogurt.mamapeach910 wrote: »Oh anti-sugar crusaders? I once got a heaping whack of sugar on a day where I ate no fruit. No added refined sugar. I was over my MFP limits.
How did this happen. There was one single food in my diary that had the most grams of sugar. Guess what it was.
I think, in your zealotry to rail against sugar, you have failed to help the OP by bringing in such issues as refined sugars, excess consumption of said refined sugars, insulin resistance, and diabetes.
Well done derailing the thread.
She just wanted to know if she could eat fruit. You didn't even ask about her health status before you went off on a pet topic.
Nicely played.
Now guess the mystery, sugar-laden food item from my day.
And imo, OP is fine with her fruit.
No, it was not that or any other dairy product.
Since no one else is playing...
It was cauliflower. 10 grams of sugar.
I was thinking potato. Can I get 1/2 a point for color? Can we get a ruling from the East German judge?
I'll allow it.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »
For the record, no I don't think there's anything to worry about in OP's diet which goes over sugars due to fruits.mantium999 wrote: »
A fact I acknowledged at the very outset - by saying that high amounts of added sugar was a risk factor rather than a cause of disease. But in case I didn't make it clearer, yes, I agree that they are not saying to avoid sugary drinks ONLY because of sugar.
Well, they raise blood sugar because they have added sugar... I mean you can't get sugar from no sugar, right? And consistently (and artificially) elevated blood sugar levels are a risk factor for diabetes for those who currently do not have the disease.
Let me first reiterate what I said - that long term AND excess refined sugar intake can cause medical issues (NOT that any refined sugar intake at all is a problem). The link you provided proves that point. The From that very link:stevencloser wrote: »
And excess and long-term refined sugar intake.ihatetodietalways wrote: »Diabetes Epidemic & You, by Dr. J.R. Kraft. He is a renowned doctor in Chicago and he publishes the fact that fasting glucose can miss 20% of diabetics. Yes. He has looked at 15,000 people from age 3-90. There is a lot of information in this book.
And there are TONS of papers about low carb diets. Phinney, Volek, Pulmetter, Noakes, Attia, and others are leading the research.
Stop telling people to eat sugars and instead tell them, go check your fasting insulin with a simple blood test at the doctor. Furthermore, since insulin resistance is a true phenomenon (it is observed before pre-diabetes), we may want to give our pancreas a break and take the carbs slowly. I don't vilify sugar and carbs. There are people who chose to limit them. That is all.
You are equating people with a medical reason for reducing carbs with people who have normal pancreatic function (the majority of the population). They are not the same. Too many carbs does not cause insulin resistance, diabetes, etc. The inability to properly regulate blood glucose is the main SYMPTOM of those medical issues. The causes are many and include:- genetics
- excess weight
- age
- long term use of certain medications, including statins and antidepressants
Nope.
http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/myths/
Note, that says sugar-sweetened beverages should be avoided to PREVENT diabetes, not simply to manage one's existing diabetes.The American Diabetes Association recommends that people should avoid intake of sugar-sweetened beverages to help prevent diabetes. Sugar-sweetened beverages include beverages like:
regular soda
fruit punch
fruit drinks
energy drinks
sports drinks
sweet tea
other sugary drinks
In fact, the ADA source you linked supports the idea that long term and (not or) excess refined sugar intake can cause diabetes. It supports the intake of sugars and desserts in moderated amounts as part of a balanced diet and specifically tells people to avoid drinks with high added sugar contents.
you left off this little caveat at the end of the list:
These will raise blood glucose and can provide several hundred calories in just one serving!
so they are recommended to be avoided to keep blood sugar down and avoid a mass dose of calories in one serving, not just because they have sugar.
I have no quarrel with CICO - in fact, I believe in it. The point I was making is simply that added sugars in excess amounts ARE a risk factor in diabetes and other metabolic troubles, not that it is the only factor, nor that no added sugar should be consumed whatsoever if one hopes to avoid these diseases, nor any insane thing of that sort. That consumption of added sugars in high amounts long term is a factor is supported by the American Diabetes Association.
OK but my point is they are not saying avoid it JUST because of sugar….
Would the OP's sugar intake, based on her post, be seen as excessive, and thereby be putting her at risk for disease? It seems the tangents of sugars increasing risks of disease that the OP never mentioned, caused her to abandon this thread. I wonder if she ever found a useful answer to her particular question?
Then why on God's green earth are you here preaching about the evils of excess sugar intake? No one here is advocating for excess sugar intake, or excess food intake, period. If one is otherwise meeting their other macronutrient needs, is eating at maintenance or below by monitoring their overall caloric intake, then they're not intaking excess anything, right? Is anyone here saying "OMG I totes only eat doughnuts and Twinkies all day and everyone on this board should do the exact thing because it's perfectly healthy!"
No? No one is saying that. The anti-sugar brigade on a calorie-counting website is useless (aside from going around humble bragging about their nutritional superiority). We are all keeping sugar intake low because we are counting calories. Prolonged and excess calorie intake, no matter the source, will eventually lead to obesity, which can in turn lead to heart disease, diabetes, etc.
Christ.
You can take the name of any Gods or Deities you like, but your very reaction about "anti-sugar" brigade shows the problem I am trying to address.
You are ignoring the context of this thread and what people actually said to make up a problem that you are then pretending to address.There are a lot of people here - yourself included, it would seem - who are perfectly reasonable in their own approach to diet and nutrition but have a fit when anyone dares suggest that excess sugar intake can have adverse health effects (more so than excess fiber intake, for example).
Absolutely no one has a problem with the idea that excess sugar intake can have negative health effects (including, in large part that it often results in excess calories or nutritionally deficient diets--the WHO reasoning that many of us have repeatedly agreed with). As I said above, the debate is over what "excess" is, and here we are addressing a question about a limit of 24 grams that applies to ALL sugar and thus is a terrible guideline, IMO. (It is also neither the current MFP guideline nor one recommended by an reputable source--all limits that low are based on added sugar only.)
Often it is suggested that ANY added sugar is bad (and here we have someone claiming that plus that two pieces of fruit are too much) and that's what we are arguing against. Whenever someone mentions excess sugar consumption, people support and suggest ways to reduce it. IMO, it's patently obvious that eating excess sugar when trying to lose weight isn't helpful or especially healthy but everyone already knows that, so why pretend like I think others are dumb just to grandstand? Instead, I'm concerned about the numerous worries I see from people who think (due to rhetoric from people like Lustig and his even more extreme disciples) that fruit is bad, that including ANY sweets in your diet is bad or will prevent a loss even within your calories, that sugar is "addictive" and to blame for people's weight issues, etc. This is all bad yet common information among dieting folks.I began my participation in this thread in order, specifically, to respond to a blanket claim that sugar is not bad (as opposed to a more precise and correct claim that it isn't bad in all quantities).
Again, you are intentionally ignoring context. Everything is bad in excess--saying something isn't bad doesn't mean "go insane with it." Among other things, everyone says "within your calories and a nutritionally balanced diet" which makes it basically impossible to be extreme or eat huge amounts of sugar regularly (unless you are an endurance athlete and in pretty good shape/a bigger person, I suppose). The specific person we were talking to here was looking at a limit of 24 grams for ALL sugar! This is why you are being grouped with those who are anti all sugar--suggesting this is at all a thread about excess consumption raises questions about why you think that, as two pieces of fruit or the other things that have been recommended here are NOT excess, IMO (and I told you what I'd consider excess and not upthread).As for concerns about sugar being raised on a calorie-counting site, one reason to do so is that excess sugar intake makes maintaining one's calorie goal difficult, not simply because sugary foods themselves contain calories but also because of cravings it tends to create.
There are NO indications that this is relevant to OP's post, and many, many people don't experience cravings just because they eat food with sugar. Indeed, I tend to think that's a psychological reaction basically encouraged by labeling sugar as a whole "bad." Thus, bringing it in out of the blue as a reason to avoid sugar and to claim that eating any sugar makes meeting a calorie goal difficult--when OP was specifically asking the common question about whether sugar mattered IF you, among other things, were meeting that goal, and when everyone had said that IF you are meeting your goal it's not a problem--supports the conclusion that you ARE part of the more extreme anti sugar sorts. Clearly if someone tries and cannot meet their limit then they should figure out what's going on and look at whether there's some reason they are overeating despite knowing what they should eat.
I am strongly in favor of understanding yourself, your diet, and why you eat as you do, as well as where your excess calories are coming from, as I think everyone here is. What bothers me is that all of you who focus first and only on sugar seem to have decided that sugar is a problem for everyone and to want to transfer your own prior issues onto the rest of us. If I had approached my diet by cutting sugar, I wouldn't have lost weight as well as I did, because most of my excess calories weren't related to sweet foods. (Neither do I have a problem or lack of self-control with carbs, as is also commonly asserted as some truth that must apply to everyone.)
@lemurcat12 it's official ... I have a girl-crush0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.4K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions