Help with sugar intake.
Replies
-
Sugar is bad for you because it has no nutritional value and
1 Is bad for your teeth
2 is bad for your liver causing fatty liver disease
3 causes insulin intolerance and ultimately Diabetes
But please do go right a head and eat it if you want these.
My weight loss issue is my health issue and Id rather not go down the route of illness just because I ate fewer calories without looking at what I was eating too.
1 Brush your teeth.
2 It doesn't cause fatty liver disease.
3 it also doesn't cause diabetes.0 -
What is interesting in this discussion is the advice from the USA people is sugar does not cause diabetes and the advice from the UK people is saying it does. Maybe its the difference on Doctors advice in the 2 countries. Who knows which set of Doctors are right. The UK has targeted sugar in a big way in the last few years as the target to be combat against the rising obese/diabetic population.
Let's look at the statistics.
People in the UK consume about 8 kg more sugar per year than in the US.
http://www.helgilibrary.com/indicators/index/sugar-consumption-per-capita/
35% of people in the US are obese vs. 25% in the UK
http://www.oecd.org/health/Obesity-Update-2014.pdf
9.3% of US people have diabetes vs. 6.25% (1 in 16 in the source) in the UK.
http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/statistics/?referrer=https://www.google.de/
https://www.diabetes.org.uk/Documents/Position statements/Facts and stats June 2015.pdf
So even though the UK consumes an appreciable amount of sugar MORE than the US, they have less obesity and diabetes.
Also the UK diabetes association does NOT say taht sugar causes diabetes.
https://www.diabetes.org.uk/Guide-to-diabetes/What-is-diabetes/Know-your-risk-of-Type-2-diabetes/Diabetes-risk-factors/0 -
Sugar is bad for you because it has no nutritional value and
1 Is bad for your teeth
2 is bad for your liver causing fatty liver disease
3 causes insulin intolerance and ultimately Diabetes
But please do go right a head and eat it if you want these.
My weight loss issue is my health issue and Id rather not go down the route of illness just because I ate fewer calories without looking at what I was eating too.
No. Sugar does not cause diabetes.0 -
Faithful_Chosen wrote: »Dont agree with part 2 of Faithful, as you can read in my previous message, fruit sugars count.
Point is, though, that fruit sugars are wrapped up in this thing called 'fruit', which are little nutrient bombs.If you binge on a gazillion apples, you will go over your calorie goal and gain weight, but because there are a bunch of macro (and micro) nutrients in fruits, you won't really overindulge on those--not easily anyway. If you find yourself going over your sugar goal, turn your gaze to the added sugars, not the fruit sugars. They are not your problem.
That clears things up for me. I understand about not going over the calorie in v calorie out, I also understand that the body treats all sugar the same, but within the calorie count I wanted to stick to the 27 grammes per day, so I will count the hidden sugar, but if it is contained within an apple for example I wont count that. Thanks for taking the time to reply everyone.
0 -
sallymason88 wrote: »Faithful_Chosen wrote: »Dont agree with part 2 of Faithful, as you can read in my previous message, fruit sugars count.
Point is, though, that fruit sugars are wrapped up in this thing called 'fruit', which are little nutrient bombs.If you binge on a gazillion apples, you will go over your calorie goal and gain weight, but because there are a bunch of macro (and micro) nutrients in fruits, you won't really overindulge on those--not easily anyway. If you find yourself going over your sugar goal, turn your gaze to the added sugars, not the fruit sugars. They are not your problem.
That clears things up for me. I understand about not going over the calorie in v calorie out, I also understand that the body treats all sugar the same, but within the calorie count I wanted to stick to the 27 grammes per day, so I will count the hidden sugar, but if it is contained within an apple for example I wont count that. Thanks for taking the time to reply everyone.
If you do want to track and limit sugar, that is how I would do it, too ^_^ I also don't count dairy, by the way, but that's an entirely personal preference!
You are very welcome
0 -
sallymason88 wrote: »Faithful_Chosen wrote: »Dont agree with part 2 of Faithful, as you can read in my previous message, fruit sugars count.
Point is, though, that fruit sugars are wrapped up in this thing called 'fruit', which are little nutrient bombs.If you binge on a gazillion apples, you will go over your calorie goal and gain weight, but because there are a bunch of macro (and micro) nutrients in fruits, you won't really overindulge on those--not easily anyway. If you find yourself going over your sugar goal, turn your gaze to the added sugars, not the fruit sugars. They are not your problem.
That clears things up for me. I understand about not going over the calorie in v calorie out, I also understand that the body treats all sugar the same, but within the calorie count I wanted to stick to the 27 grammes per day, so I will count the hidden sugar, but if it is contained within an apple for example I wont count that. Thanks for taking the time to reply everyone.
You will also get non-added (or intrinsic) sugar in lots of other things, like dairy, vegetables, corn, sweet potatoes, plantains. Sometimes it can be hard to sort out--like there's usually some added sugar in a pasta sauce, but the majority of sugar is going to be from the tomatoes and other vegetables. (I compared my homemade sauce with no added sugar to a commercial brand and there were similar grams of sugar.) Same with yogurt if you get the kind with some added sugar--the majority of the sugar is still likely lactose and perhaps some from added fruit.
It's easy to avoid this confusion (if you care) by making your own pasta sauce and buying plain yogurt and adding fruit (this is what I normally do, although not because of sugar but because I prefer the taste), but if you listen to some of the media you can get paranoid about supposed "hidden sugar" which is really mostly intrinsic sugar.
I personally think a more sensible approach is just to look at your overall diet and see if you are mostly getting sugar from nutrient dense foods or if you are getting a high percentage of sugar--and also calories, many of which may be from fat instead of sugar--from low nutrient items (like sweet treats). If you read the reasons for the sugar limits recommended by the WHO, the NHS, and the AHA, they talk about calories and making sure you have a nutrient dense diet, which those of us monitoring our diets with MFP can see without focusing on specific sugar amounts.0 -
That is all really helpful. Thank you.0
-
Sugar is bad for you because it has no nutritional value and
1 Is bad for your teeth
2 is bad for your liver causing fatty liver disease
3 causes insulin intolerance and ultimately Diabetes
But please do go right a head and eat it if you want these.
My weight loss issue is my health issue and Id rather not go down the route of illness just because I ate fewer calories without looking at what I was eating too.
No. Sugar does not cause diabetes.
You are right, but it is established that high glycemic index carbohydrate (which includes sugars) increases the risk of developing diabetes.
Decreasing high glycemic index carbohydrate (which includes sugars) can reverse 'pre diabetes' and it can return high blood sugar levels to normal in both diabetics and pre diabetics.
Long term High blood sugar levels damages many different parts of the body.
You can only help yourself if you focus on a diet filled with good fats and proteins if you have any diabetic risks.
Carbohydrates are NOT an essential macrnutrient. It is totally OK to focus on eating fat and protein.
I say this as someone who loves carbs/sugars, but as a member of a family with history of diabetes it helps me to minimize the risk by building the nutritional foundation on fats & proteins and relegating carbs to a minimal role in dietary lifestyle.
0 -
Sugar is bad for you because it has no nutritional value and
1 Is bad for your teeth
2 is bad for your liver causing fatty liver disease
3 causes insulin intolerance and ultimately Diabetes
But please do go right a head and eat it if you want these.
My weight loss issue is my health issue and Id rather not go down the route of illness just because I ate fewer calories without looking at what I was eating too.
No. Sugar does not cause diabetes.
You are right, but it is established that high carbohydrate (which includes sugars) increases the risk of developing diabetes.
Decreasing carbohydrate (which includes sugars) can reverse 'pre diabetes' and it can return high blood sugar levels to normal in both diabetics and pre diabetics.
Long term High blood sugar levels damages many different parts of the body.
You can only help yourself if you focus on a diet filled with good fats and proteins if you have any diabetic risks.
Carbohydrates are NOT an essential macrnutrient. It is totally OK to focus on eating fat and protein.
I say this as someone who loves carbs/sugars, but as a member of a family with history of diabetes it helps me to minimize the risk by building the nutritional foundation on fats & proteins and relegating carbs to a minimal role in dietary lifestyle.
No, this is wrong. Eating carbs does not cause diabetes. The extra fat from eating too many carbs (or too many calories from anything) is a risk factor. Again, people are looking at the treatment (reducing carbs) and the symptom (the body's lack of properly managing carbs) and coming to the wrong conclusion.
Good for you to get ahead of the game and start managing blood sugar issues before they manifest, especially because you have the most common risk factor (genetics).
0 -
Carbohydrates do not increase risk of diabetes either.
https://www.diabetes.org.uk/Guide-to-diabetes/What-is-diabetes/Know-your-risk-of-Type-2-diabetes/Diabetes-risk-factors/
http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/myths/
Only people drinking lots of sugar sweetened beverages in particular have been loosely linked to diabetes. Which means it's only correlation between the two. It's not one of the risk factors listed. It is not asked in their online "Calculate your risk" forms.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »Carbohydrates do not increase risk of diabetes either.
https://www.diabetes.org.uk/Guide-to-diabetes/What-is-diabetes/Know-your-risk-of-Type-2-diabetes/Diabetes-risk-factors/
http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/myths/
Only people drinking lots of sugar sweetened beverages in particular have been loosely linked to diabetes. Which means it's only correlation between the two. It's not one of the risk factors listed. It is not asked in their online "Calculate your risk" forms.
Sorry, you are right. Just fixed my post as it was high glycemic index carbs that were correlated to increased risk. Added sugars look like they would fall into high glycemic category.
0 -
stevencloser wrote: »Carbohydrates do not increase risk of diabetes either.
https://www.diabetes.org.uk/Guide-to-diabetes/What-is-diabetes/Know-your-risk-of-Type-2-diabetes/Diabetes-risk-factors/
http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/myths/
Only people drinking lots of sugar sweetened beverages in particular have been loosely linked to diabetes. Which means it's only correlation between the two. It's not one of the risk factors listed. It is not asked in their online "Calculate your risk" forms.
Sorry, you are right. Just fixed my post as it was high glycemic index carbs that were correlated to increased risk.
Still wrong.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »Carbohydrates do not increase risk of diabetes either.
https://www.diabetes.org.uk/Guide-to-diabetes/What-is-diabetes/Know-your-risk-of-Type-2-diabetes/Diabetes-risk-factors/
http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/myths/
Only people drinking lots of sugar sweetened beverages in particular have been loosely linked to diabetes. Which means it's only correlation between the two. It's not one of the risk factors listed. It is not asked in their online "Calculate your risk" forms.
Sorry, you are right. Just fixed my post as it was high glycemic index carbs that were correlated to increased risk.
Still wrong.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/233640210 -
It really deoends on what kind of sugar your having, if its in fruit then dont worry too much about it(don't go crazy or anything) but because its digested with divers the body handles it in a much better way than say juice or cola which really are the root cause if getting fat.
The reason sugar is bad for weight loss, if you have no medical conditions, is because sugar is processed in the liver. As soon as juice gets in your stomach and since there's no fibers to get tour digestiin working the sugar is taken directly to the liver for processing, the liver in order to handle all this extra sugar gets help from the pancreas which pumps insulin to turn sugar into fat to be stored in the closest place, which is to say your stimach, with is why people get beer bellies and big bellies when they eat too.much candy and drink too much pop.0 -
It really deoends on what kind of sugar your having, if its in fruit then dont worry too much about it(don't go crazy or anything) but because its digested with divers the body handles it in a much better way than say juice or cola which really are the root cause if getting fat.
The reason sugar is bad for weight loss, if you have no medical conditions, is because sugar is processed in the liver. As soon as juice gets in your stomach and since there's no fibers to get tour digestiin working the sugar is taken directly to the liver for processing, the liver in order to handle all this extra sugar gets help from the pancreas which pumps insulin to turn sugar into fat to be stored in the closest place, which is to say your stimach, with is why people get beer bellies and big bellies when they eat too.much candy and drink too much pop.
Just no. Sugar is not the root cause of getting "fat".0 -
stevencloser wrote: »Carbohydrates do not increase risk of diabetes either.
https://www.diabetes.org.uk/Guide-to-diabetes/What-is-diabetes/Know-your-risk-of-Type-2-diabetes/Diabetes-risk-factors/
http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/myths/
Only people drinking lots of sugar sweetened beverages in particular have been loosely linked to diabetes. Which means it's only correlation between the two. It's not one of the risk factors listed. It is not asked in their online "Calculate your risk" forms.
Sorry, you are right. Just fixed my post as it was high glycemic index carbs that were correlated to increased risk.
Still wrong.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23364021
Correlation not causation. There is a difference.It really deoends on what kind of sugar your having, if its in fruit then dont worry too much about it(don't go crazy or anything) but because its digested with divers the body handles it in a much better way than say juice or cola which really are the root cause if getting fat.
The reason sugar is bad for weight loss, if you have no medical conditions, is because sugar is processed in the liver. As soon as juice gets in your stomach and since there's no fibers to get tour digestiin working the sugar is taken directly to the liver for processing, the liver in order to handle all this extra sugar gets help from the pancreas which pumps insulin to turn sugar into fat to be stored in the closest place, which is to say your stimach, with is why people get beer bellies and big bellies when they eat too.much candy and drink too much pop.
So much wrong in this that it is impossible to know where to start.0 -
sallymason88 wrote: »i dont have a medical condition, but anything i have read recently points to sugar and not fat being a problem with weight issues. I am in the UK and the latest advice is to half the previous advice of equivalent 14 teaspoons to 7.
Wasn't it in today's BBC news? I follow it closely and what annoys me about those random guidelines is that they are taken out of context. They talk about a can of coke containing whatever amount of sugar giving impression that if you stop drinking coke you'll be fine. I wish there was more done in terms of general education in regards to
basic human biology, macronutrients, nutrition, cooking and fitness. It would lay solid grounds for people to make more informed food choices and eventually ended the the omni present ''obesity problem''.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »What is interesting in this discussion is the advice from the USA people is sugar does not cause diabetes and the advice from the UK people is saying it does. Maybe its the difference on Doctors advice in the 2 countries. Who knows which set of Doctors are right. The UK has targeted sugar in a big way in the last few years as the target to be combat against the rising obese/diabetic population.
Let's look at the statistics.
People in the UK consume about 8 kg more sugar per year than in the US.
http://www.helgilibrary.com/indicators/index/sugar-consumption-per-capita/
So even though the UK consumes an appreciable amount of sugar MORE than the US, they have less obesity and diabetes.
but the UK has little HFCS, add that in and it's a completely different picture...
0 -
stevencloser wrote: »What is interesting in this discussion is the advice from the USA people is sugar does not cause diabetes and the advice from the UK people is saying it does. Maybe its the difference on Doctors advice in the 2 countries. Who knows which set of Doctors are right. The UK has targeted sugar in a big way in the last few years as the target to be combat against the rising obese/diabetic population.
Let's look at the statistics.
People in the UK consume about 8 kg more sugar per year than in the US.
http://www.helgilibrary.com/indicators/index/sugar-consumption-per-capita/
So even though the UK consumes an appreciable amount of sugar MORE than the US, they have less obesity and diabetes.
but the UK has little HFCS, add that in and it's a completely different picture...
HFCS = fructose = sugar ... digested the same as any other fructose.0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »
HFCS = fructose = sugar ... digested the same as any other fructose.
3/10 for accuracy :-) but yes HFCS is pretty similar to sucrose metabolically.
0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »
HFCS = fructose = sugar ... digested the same as any other fructose.
3/10 for accuracy :-) but yes HFCS is pretty similar to sucrose metabolically.
I said fructose. As the PSA used to say, "reading is fundamental." The metabolic difference in the processing of fructose and sucrose does not account for any significant difference in calories or TEF in the human body. It does not account for any diseases such as diabetes ... which is not caused by sugar of any form.
ETA: After a quick look at your diary, you are in no position to give nutritional advice to any human striving for a healthy loss. Numerous net intakes under 600 for a male is dangerously low. Days of 220 total logged calories consumed .
0 -
sallymason88 wrote: »I have lowered my sugar goal to 28 grammes of sugar to reflect the recent advice to keep sugar to 7 teaspoons a day. What puzzles me is the sugar in fruit/veg. can i subtract that figure from the 28, or should i count it. i think that the body will just treat it as it would refined sugar, but i am not sure. i eat a couple of apples a day so it would use up nearly the days quota. any advice is welcome.
I did not read any other replies, so it might have already been said.....
Why are you limiting sugar? Do you have a medical condition, or are you under the impression that it will help you lose weight?
If it's the former, then sugar would include you fruit because sugar is sugar no matter what source it comes from
If it's the latter, cutting back on sugar is not the solution to weight loss. The only requirement to weight loss is taking in less calories than you burn. That's it. 0 -
sallymason88 wrote: »I understand the calorie in, calorie out equation, I was trying to be healthy within that.
Healthy is in the perception.
If I did not allow myself some sweet stuff each day, that would be unhealthy for me.0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Carbohydrates do not increase risk of diabetes either.
https://www.diabetes.org.uk/Guide-to-diabetes/What-is-diabetes/Know-your-risk-of-Type-2-diabetes/Diabetes-risk-factors/
http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/myths/
Only people drinking lots of sugar sweetened beverages in particular have been loosely linked to diabetes. Which means it's only correlation between the two. It's not one of the risk factors listed. It is not asked in their online "Calculate your risk" forms.
Sorry, you are right. Just fixed my post as it was high glycemic index carbs that were correlated to increased risk.
Still wrong.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23364021
Correlation not causation. There is a difference.
Yes, and correlation is the best you will get in study of human diet increasing risk of diseases. Completing a study that proved dietary causation in human disease would be highly unethical. (edit - added dietary)
0 -
I agree with RonRoff. Sugar in all its natural forms is not good for you. Quantities of fruit should be limited. 5 fruit and veg a day should be 5 vegetables a day with a few fruits once in a while. Fruit smoothies contain more sugar than a glass of coke. If you dont drink Coke because of the 7 teaspoons of sugar then you should also not drink fruit sugars. Fruit does have the added benefits of fiber but so do vegetables. Better to wean yourself off the sweet taste and have veg.
Nope. Everything in moderation. There is nothing wrong with sugar at all, and the only time you should have to watch it is (1) you have a medical condition that is affected by sugar or (2) you simply don't care to have over a certain amount of sugar in your diet due to personal reasons.
Weight loss truly is calories in/calories out.0 -
Weak correlation, as in that metadata analysis you linked, is not enough to blame sugar for diabetes. Even the American Diabetes Association lists "Eating too much sugar causes diabetes" as a "Myth".brianpperkins wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Carbohydrates do not increase risk of diabetes either.
https://www.diabetes.org.uk/Guide-to-diabetes/What-is-diabetes/Know-your-risk-of-Type-2-diabetes/Diabetes-risk-factors/
http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/myths/
Only people drinking lots of sugar sweetened beverages in particular have been loosely linked to diabetes. Which means it's only correlation between the two. It's not one of the risk factors listed. It is not asked in their online "Calculate your risk" forms.
Sorry, you are right. Just fixed my post as it was high glycemic index carbs that were correlated to increased risk.
Still wrong.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23364021
Correlation not causation. There is a difference.
Yes, and correlation is the best you will get in study of human diet increasing risk of diseases. Completing a study that proved causation in human disease would be highly unethical.
0 -
It really deoends on what kind of sugar your having, if its in fruit then dont worry too much about it(don't go crazy or anything) but because its digested with divers the body handles it in a much better way than say juice or cola which really are the root cause if getting fat.
The reason sugar is bad for weight loss, if you have no medical conditions, is because sugar is processed in the liver. As soon as juice gets in your stomach and since there's no fibers to get tour digestiin working the sugar is taken directly to the liver for processing, the liver in order to handle all this extra sugar gets help from the pancreas which pumps insulin to turn sugar into fat to be stored in the closest place, which is to say your stimach, with is why people get beer bellies and big bellies when they eat too.much candy and drink too much pop.
Oh my. No. To our body, sugar is sugar.0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »I said fructose.
You actually said "HFCS = fructose = sugar"
which is, as we say here, bollocks. Sure, the metabolic outcome is similar after digestion but HFCS is clearly not just fructose.
HFCS is a solution where the solids are 55% fructose, 40-odd % glucose and a few bits of other stuff.
Don't assume I log everything every day, unless there are entries for at least two meals this almost certainly isn't the case. You'll just end up looking silly if you *kitten*-u-me stuff.0 -
Earlnabby +1
Sugar does not "cause" diabetes.
I'm diabetic, so I do have to limit my sugar intake. That includes added sugar and naturally occurring sugar.
If you don't have a medical condition that requires you to limit your sugar intake, then it is not necessary to do so.
I'm not limiting sugar to lose weight specifically, but because I'm diabetic, limiting sugar will lower my glucose readings. Those lower readings help my body to process foods correctly, which will, in turn, help me to lose weight. Unless you have a medical condition that limits your ability to process sugar (both refined or naturally occurring), you don't really need to worry about this.
Personally, because I'm diabetic and sugar intake is important to me, I try to get most of my sugar from sources that also offer me nutritional value (specifically, I look for sources that are low-moderate in carbohydrate that are moderate-high in fiber). Fruit is an excellent way to do this. Yes, I have to measure it out and be careful when I eat it and what I pair it with, but I enjoy fruits so I work them into my diet. I have tried to find the most bang for my buck (for me, that is berries...YUM).
Best of luck to you.0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Carbohydrates do not increase risk of diabetes either.
https://www.diabetes.org.uk/Guide-to-diabetes/What-is-diabetes/Know-your-risk-of-Type-2-diabetes/Diabetes-risk-factors/
http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/myths/
Only people drinking lots of sugar sweetened beverages in particular have been loosely linked to diabetes. Which means it's only correlation between the two. It's not one of the risk factors listed. It is not asked in their online "Calculate your risk" forms.
Sorry, you are right. Just fixed my post as it was high glycemic index carbs that were correlated to increased risk.
Still wrong.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23364021
Correlation not causation. There is a difference.
Yes, and correlation is the best you will get in study of human diet increasing risk of diseases. Completing a study that proved dietary causation in human disease would be highly unethical. (edit - added dietary)
just found a new one "The consumption of soft drinks,
sweetened-milk beverages and energy from total sweet beverages
was associated with higher type 2 diabetes risk independently
of adiposity."
Diabetologia
DOI 10.1007/s00125-015-3572-1
Prospective associations and population impact of sweet beverage
intake and type 2 diabetes, and effects of substitutions
with alternative beverages
Laura O’Connor & Fumiaki Imamura & Marleen A. H. Lentjes & Kay-Tee Khaw &
Nicholas J. Wareham & Nita G. Forouhi
So maybe don't drink your sugar ?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