Help with sugar intake.

AlabasterVerve

nvsmomketo wrote: »

SLLRunner wrote: »

nvsmomketo wrote: »

So diabetes is not related to sugar intake? You truly believe that?

Nope. Sugar does not cause diabetes.

I didn't say "cause". You don't think it is related to sugar intake? So theoretically, a fat Inuit should have the same rates of diabetes as a fat N. American who eats most of their calories from processed foods with a high carb content? I know that isn't true.

I am fairly certain that sugar plays a role in developing diabetes, not the only cause, but a role. I think science is moving in that direction too.

@nvsmomketo I think you'd probably find this blog post by Dr. Malcom Kendrick as interesting as I did. He's states unequivocally the current hypothesis is wrong and that a better hypothesis starts with excess carbs and sugar.

What happens to the carbs – part II

stevencloser

AlabasterVerve wrote: »

nvsmomketo wrote: »

SLLRunner wrote: »

nvsmomketo wrote: »

So diabetes is not related to sugar intake? You truly believe that?

Nope. Sugar does not cause diabetes.

I didn't say "cause". You don't think it is related to sugar intake? So theoretically, a fat Inuit should have the same rates of diabetes as a fat N. American who eats most of their calories from processed foods with a high carb content? I know that isn't true.

I am fairly certain that sugar plays a role in developing diabetes, not the only cause, but a role. I think science is moving in that direction too.

@nvsmomketo I think you'd probably find this blog post by Dr. Malcom Kendrick as interesting as I did. He's states unequivocally the current hypothesis is wrong and that a better hypothesis starts with excess carbs and sugar.

What happens to the carbs – part II

The picture draws a weird conclusion. Kinda like "There's chain smokers who never get lung cancer, ergo smoking doesn't cause cancer."

lemurcat12

nvsmomketo wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

nvsmomketo wrote: »

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.

If you are counting sugars then you should include fruit in that 28g total.

Except that she specifically said that her concern about the 28 g number was due to recommendations from authorities such as the NHS, and that number refers only to non-intrinsic (or added) sugars.

We can debate how significant it is to someone monitoring her overall diet carefully (I personally don't see a big deal if someone exchanges some highly processed starches for some added sugar, keeping calories even, for example), but there's absolutely no credible advice that suggests that the general population should keep all sugars under 28 grams, and OP has not suggested that she has some other reason to do so, like a desire to go low carb.

It would be nice if people wouldn't preach low carb as the answer for everyone. It's not.

I don't think I "preached low carbs as the answer to everyone". As many around here say, sugar is sugar. If you count sugars it makes sense to count them all and not skip sugars from fruit, or sugars from a favourite candy, or sugars eaten on a Tuesday when the moon is full. Sugar is sugar.

If she wants to keep sugar below 28g she will need to restrict fruit at some point. If she wants to eat lots of fruit, she shouldn't worry about counting sugars since there is a lot of sugar in fruit.

Take it up with the WHO and the NHS and the AHA, as that's where the numbers she's referring to come from. And since they are really concerned with sugar as a proxy for nutritional content and calories, they don't focus on fruit (juice and honey, sure).

nvmomketo

AlabasterVerve wrote: »

nvsmomketo wrote: »

SLLRunner wrote: »

nvsmomketo wrote: »

So diabetes is not related to sugar intake? You truly believe that?

Nope. Sugar does not cause diabetes.

I didn't say "cause". You don't think it is related to sugar intake? So theoretically, a fat Inuit should have the same rates of diabetes as a fat N. American who eats most of their calories from processed foods with a high carb content? I know that isn't true.

I am fairly certain that sugar plays a role in developing diabetes, not the only cause, but a role. I think science is moving in that direction too.

@nvsmomketo I think you'd probably find this blog post by Dr. Malcom Kendrick as interesting as I did. He's states unequivocally the current hypothesis is wrong and that a better hypothesis starts with excess carbs and sugar.

What happens to the carbs – part II

Thanks for that link. I DID find it interesting.

You eat too much carbohydrate/sugar
You produce too much insulin
This forces your body to store fat
You become obese
At a certain point insulin resistance develops to block further weight gain
This resistance becomes more and more severe until…
You become diabetic

That is basically how I have come to think of T2DM, and it fits me very well. I have never been obese, have great HDL, too low triglcerides, low blood pressure, but slightly high normal LDL and prediabetes. I don't fit the usual model.

Up to my 30's I ate everything, mostly high carb (which wasn't ideal for my undiagnosed celiac disease), and was very fit running half marathons, climbing mountains a few days per week, and could bench press my (lighter) weight. I used to arm wrestle the football players in classroom, and beat them far more often than they expected.

In my thirties in started to fall apart. I had 3 kids, was quite fatigued (probably due to my unrecognized health issues) and I started to use food for energy, and eventually higher carb foods for even more energy. Then I neded to eat more frequently, every 2-3 hours, to keep that energy going.

At first I added produce, baked goods (muffins, cookies or crackers) and treats (diet cola) as my boost, without greatly increasing calories. Once I discovered I needed to be gluten free I lost some weight eating a moderate to high carb diet.

When I was 39 I first discovered my blood glucose was higher than it should be. Surprising because I was barely overweight, not yet 40, and had great labs. I tried to moderate my carbs and failed miserably and repeatedly by gaining more weight over the last 2 years.

At this time my sugar cravings were a distraction from my life. I started eating pop and/or candy to get my sugar/energy hit. I knew it wasn't good for me but I would feel poorly when I had low carbs. Those behaviors took me frmly into prediabetes at 5'8" and about 175lbs - not obese but overweight by a good 10lbs (according to BMI). Lucky for me I carry that weight fairly well due to a large frame. I know, I know... we overweight people all say we have a big frame, but my dad played professional football and my chest, measured below and above my breasts at my armpits, is 36" like a small would be in men's clothing. I'm not petite.

To me, it seemed as though I became prediabetic, presumably partially from a high carb diet which caused fluctations in insulin, then I ate more carbs, gained weight, and became more prediabetic, wanting to eat high sugar carbs.

Now, I am eating low carbs, not prediabetic, eating at a calorie deficit, and losing weight (about 10lbs in the last month) without any substantial sugar or carb cravings. That article resonates with me and my experiences.

nvmomketo

Apologies to the OP. I hijacked your thread.

umayster

nvsmomketo wrote: »

Apologies to the OP. I hijacked your thread.

I enjoyed it! lots of similarities to your story, minus the celiac.

sallymason88

its ok, i got my answer along the way !

jennifer_417

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.

Neither sugar nor fat cause weight issues. Only eating more calories than you burn does.

umayster

AlabasterVerve wrote: »

nvsmomketo wrote: »

SLLRunner wrote: »

nvsmomketo wrote: »

So diabetes is not related to sugar intake? You truly believe that?

Nope. Sugar does not cause diabetes.

I didn't say "cause". You don't think it is related to sugar intake? So theoretically, a fat Inuit should have the same rates of diabetes as a fat N. American who eats most of their calories from processed foods with a high carb content? I know that isn't true.

I am fairly certain that sugar plays a role in developing diabetes, not the only cause, but a role. I think science is moving in that direction too.

@nvsmomketo I think you'd probably find this blog post by Dr. Malcom Kendrick as interesting as I did. He's states unequivocally the current hypothesis is wrong and that a better hypothesis starts with excess carbs and sugar.

What happens to the carbs – part II

Thanks, great link and read! I'm understanding it as the Doc proposing that eating excess carbs causes diabetes, right?

sales283

stevencloser wrote: »

No to all of those. Sugar isn't bad, or your fruit would be bad too. It has nutritional value, carbs and calories for energy for your body to use, and it won't make you fat unless you're at a calorie surplus.

Sugar IN fruit is fine; which is what I said. Refined Sugar has no nutritional value AT ALL.
Extracting fruit juice is not a good idea as you are mainly concentrating sugars. Humans do not NEED added sugars.

Just out of interest are you based in USA?

zaxx1953

"Carbs and calories for your body to use..."

Right, and if you're very very active, or someone training like Michael Phelps, go ahead and eat as much fruit and even indulge in juice as often as you like.

OTOH, if you wake up and drive your subaru to the cubicle and sit there for 8 hours and then drive ...etc. etc....

MAYBE eating for energy isn't a smart philosophy.

Just a thought.

stevencloser

zaxx1953 wrote: »

"Carbs and calories for your body to use..."

Right, and if you're very very active, or someone training like Michael Phelps, go ahead and eat as much fruit and even indulge in juice as often as you like.

OTOH, if you wake up and drive your subaru to the cubicle and sit there for 8 hours and then drive ...etc. etc....

MAYBE eating for energy isn't a smart philosophy.

Just a thought.

You know that the vast majority of your burned calories come from just living, right?

sales283 wrote: »

stevencloser wrote: »

No to all of those. Sugar isn't bad, or your fruit would be bad too. It has nutritional value, carbs and calories for energy for your body to use, and it won't make you fat unless you're at a calorie surplus.

Sugar IN fruit is fine; which is what I said. Refined Sugar has no nutritional value AT ALL.
Extracting fruit juice is not a good idea as you are mainly concentrating sugars. Humans do not NEED added sugars.

Just out of interest are you based in USA?

The sugar IN fruit also doesn't have any nutritional value besides calories. The fruit does. The sugar is just sugar. So unless you're regularly eating spoons of pure white sugar, this isn't a comparison you can make.