Daily goals: Sugar
Options
Replies
-
DeguelloTex wrote: »
When the standard for evaluating potential bad outcomes is that they "can" happen, apparently we all need to behave as if they have happened. Or, I suppose, at least pray that they don't happen.lemurcat12 wrote: »cafeaulait7 wrote: »This is a easy read that I think those who are linking sugar to IR and talking if massively inflated statistics may wish to read
http://www.niddk.nih.gov/health-information/health-topics/Diabetes/insulin-resistance-prediabetes/Pages/index.aspx
How are insulin resistance and prediabetes diagnosed?
Health care providers use blood tests to determine whether a person has prediabetes, but they do not usually test specifically for insulin resistance. Insulin resistance can be assessed by measuring the level of insulin in the blood.
However, the test that most accurately measures insulin resistance, called the euglycemic clamp, is too costly and complicated to be used in most health care providers’ offices. The clamp is a research tool used by scientists to learn more about glucose metabolism. Research has shown that if blood tests indicate prediabetes, insulin resistance most likely is present.
What causes insulin resistance?
Although the exact causes of insulin resistance are not completely understood, scientists think the major contributors to insulin resistance are excess weight and physical inactivity.
...
Other Causes
Other causes of insulin resistance may include ethnicity; certain diseases; hormones; steroid use; some medications; older age; sleep problems, especially sleep apnea; and cigarette smoking.
Can insulin resistance and prediabetes be reversed?
Yes. Physical activity and weight loss help the body respond better to insulin. The Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) was a federally funded study of 3,234 people at high risk for diabetes.
The DPP and other large studies proved that people with prediabetes can often prevent or delay diabetes if they lose a modest amount of weight by cutting fat and calorie intake and increasing physical activity—for example, walking 30 minutes a day, 5 days a week.
TL:DR- lose weight, move more...sugar is irrelevant
For your TLDR, you don't mean that sugar is irrelevant once you have a condition, do you? Diabetes is a serious enough condition that I think we should be super careful about not sounding like we're telling diabetics or other IR folks to eat all the cake
And believe me, I'd jump on being able to eat all the cake with little provocation! Darnit...except that high BG kills nerves and kills people and all sorts of unfortunate things like that! It's awful and scary, and that's actually for real. Sugar is the debil for some folks (along with other kinds of carbs).
The apple vs a cookie for my levels appears to be related to how fast the glucose enters the system via the transport of the sugars, btw, y'all. My insulin can't wipe it out as quickly as when fiber, etc, slows the rate of absorption of the sugar. That's not just me, lol, but it is one I see all the time on my own BG monitor. I still try to find cookies I can eat! The apples so far have won out on the monitor
My cobbler made with very little added sugar and mostly fruit and butter isn't as bad as a cookie, though! That's a win. The fats help slow the absorption, so buttery dessert it is (occasionally)
This isn't the case for everyone, though. I have a friend who is struggling with T2D, and he has worse responses when he eats sugary/carby things that also have sat fat. I thought that was weird until I reached it a little, and apparently it's common and a known response.
Bigger point -- and not aimed at you, as the thread has drifted -- is that I don't see why all the T2D stuff has to come in with response to every question. Not everyone needs to eat like a diabetic.
I wonder how people with such an outlook on potential risks and dangers manage to strap themselves into a car and drive to the grocery store, though.
A valid point Tex
0 -
Unless you want to have a medical condition you should consider worrying about sugar.
There are many things you body needs and if you are displacing those things and substituting unneeded sugar calories instead, eventually you will have nutritional or metabolic consequences.
Sugar is fun to eat, don' mistake it for necessary.
With the bold statement, you are basically saying sugar causes medical conditions. Which ones?
This thread is about limits on sugar in MFP which OP was told to ignore with a statement used frequently here - "unless you have a medical condition there is no reason to worry about sugar."
Sugar, needs at least as much concern and limiting as other macros, and given the correlation with our huge increase in sugar consumption and a correlated increase in metabolic issues is does warrent extra concern for levels in diet.0 -
The onus is on you to back up your claims because you made the statement in the first place.Unless you want to have a medical condition you should consider worrying about sugar.
There are many things you body needs and if you are displacing those things and substituting unneeded sugar calories instead, eventually you will have nutritional or metabolic consequences.
Sugar is fun to eat, don' mistake it for necessary.
What medical condition would sugar cause in the context of a diet that hits micros and macros??
Hmm. I've done my research. Start reading.
I'm not going to reduce several years of reading to links. Google works great if anyone wants to explore the topic. Hint, stay away from individuals blogs except to find links to actuals studies.0 -
***waves hands mysteriously*** "Oooh, look, squirrel!!"Unless you want to have a medical condition you should consider worrying about sugar.
There are many things you body needs and if you are displacing those things and substituting unneeded sugar calories instead, eventually you will have nutritional or metabolic consequences.
Sugar is fun to eat, don' mistake it for necessary.
With the bold statement, you are basically saying sugar causes medical conditions. Which ones?
This thread is about limits on sugar in MFP which OP was told to ignore with a statement used frequently here - "unless you have a medical condition there is no reason to worry about sugar."
Sugar, needs at least as much concern and limiting as other macros, and given the correlation with our huge increase in sugar consumption and a correlated increase in metabolic issues is does warrent extra concern for levels in diet.
0 -
The increase in sugar consumption was at the same rate as the increase in total calories. But of course there's no way our decreased activity and increased consumption could be the cause of an increase in metabolic issues. Nah. Just sugar. It's getting tiring.0
-
stevencloser wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
You?, I haven't the slightest clue. You could be one of those people who break all the science, eat garbage and your body finds a way to cope without harm. You could be a very rare bird with a special formula that works just for you.
DeguelloTex: What's sugar going to do to me?
You: Dunno, you could be someone who can "eat garbage" without harm.
Thus, you have just equated eating sugar -- including the sugar in the apple the OP asked about -- with eating garbage.
Wish that wasn't so typical of these discussions, but it is.
Op was told not to worry about sugar numbers based on y'all's anecdotal experiences. DT tried to turn it into what sugar was going to do to him. I don't care that you all have no issues with sugar, it is about general sugar concerns. I attempted to point this out.
OP really doesn't need to hear your personal lack of sugar worries projected onto his surpassing mfps suggested limits. Chances are since OP is on mfp monitoring, is asking about sugar limits and eating over mfps limit that maybe they could use some help in the other direction of sugar consumption?
Yeah, just because the general public doesn't have issues with sugar doesn't mean there are no general sugar concerns. Wait.
The fact that so many people, including diabetics, are telling you there's no need to be overly restrictive in your sugar should tell you something. Evidently it does not.
An estimated half the US population is projected to have some level of insulin resistance. If you look at overweight and obese populations, the proportion is probably even higher here on MFP. The audience here is more likely than not to have issues with sugar/carbs. That alone validates the need to hear both sides of the conversation about sugar.
Re:diabetics - you do understand that some T2 diabetes can be reversed or remissioned by tight carb restrictions? And some T1 diabetics can manage their blood sugar better and decrease drugs with tight carb restriction? Diabetics being treated with drugs must eat carbohydrates at a level that matches the level their drugs are optimised for - is that why the diabetic mentioned must eat carbs?
Sugar does not cause any medical condition, and it certainly does not cause diabetes, and I doubt it causes insulin resistance, but I think you already know that. I know this because several of my aunts on one side of my family have diabetes (most Type I, one insulin dependent from childhood), and most of them were not big sweet eaters.
Besides this, sugar has zilch to do with weight loss because it's calories in/calories out.
Excess sugar does play a role in T2, not t1 (you knew t1 is not diet related, right?). Excess sugar displaces calories that contain nutrition your body needs.0 -
Unless you want to have a medical condition you should consider worrying about sugar.
There are many things you body needs and if you are displacing those things and substituting unneeded sugar calories instead, eventually you will have nutritional or metabolic consequences.
Sugar is fun to eat, don' mistake it for necessary.
What medical condition would sugar cause in the context of a diet that hits micros and macros??
Hmm. I've done my research. Start reading.
Show me one medical condition that specifically states that sugar causes that medical condition... I am talking causation, not correlation.
Dental Caries.
Technically, bacteria is what causes decay... sugars/starches are a source of fuel for that bacteria. Other things such as frequent meals and poor hygiene can contribute too.
But honestly, do you really consider tooth decal a medical condition?
Dr, money, pain? Medical.
Pretty much entirely avoidable through diet if you want to restrict carbs to low level.0 -
I also find it convenient that "undiagnosed" people are included in that count. If they're undiagnosed, that means nobody knows exactly how many there are so you can make any kind of outlandish claims as you want. But then again, unsubstantiated claims dovetail nicely with junk science.
This is a statistics based projection based on the number of undiagnosedpeople uncovered by medical testing of the sample population who participated in the study.0 -
Also apparently? Added sugar ingestion went down by almost a quarter between 2000 and 2008
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/94/3/726.full0 -
Unless you want to have a medical condition you should consider worrying about sugar.
There are many things you body needs and if you are displacing those things and substituting unneeded sugar calories instead, eventually you will have nutritional or metabolic consequences.
Sugar is fun to eat, don' mistake it for necessary.
What medical condition would sugar cause in the context of a diet that hits micros and macros??
Hmm. I've done my research. Start reading.
Show me one medical condition that specifically states that sugar causes that medical condition... I am talking causation, not correlation.
Dental Caries.
Technically, bacteria is what causes decay... sugars/starches are a source of fuel for that bacteria. Other things such as frequent meals and poor hygiene can contribute too.
But honestly, do you really consider tooth decal a medical condition?
Dr, money, pain? Medical.
Pretty much entirely avoidable through diet if you want to restrict carbs to low level.
Citation needed.0 -
0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
Fits well with my link. Though my link says added sugar went down from 100something to almost 75.0 -
Late to the party. Let me explain. No, there is too much, let me sum up:
- I am T2Dm
- I did not get it by eating too much sugar. I got it by eating too much food and by taking antidepressants for a long period of time (one of the lesser risk factors. Other medications like statins are also a known risk factor)
- People who develop T2Dm typically have a combination of 2 or more risk factors. Genetics being the most common, excess weight being the second most common.
- I was diagnosed with an A1C of 7.3.
- I don't know (or care) if I am IR or my body does not produce enough insulin. The results are the same, as is the management
- I do NOT watch my sugar intake
- I DO watch my total carb intake, keeping it to less than 180 g daily
- I am in total remission
- I do not take medication, my remission is due to diet and exercise only
- My last A1C (done a week ago) was 5.0
- I am not unusual OR special. Most who are in remission have done it exactly the way I have (according to my Certified Diabetes Educator doctor)
0 -
The onus is on you to back up your claims because you made the statement in the first place.Unless you want to have a medical condition you should consider worrying about sugar.
There are many things you body needs and if you are displacing those things and substituting unneeded sugar calories instead, eventually you will have nutritional or metabolic consequences.
Sugar is fun to eat, don' mistake it for necessary.
What medical condition would sugar cause in the context of a diet that hits micros and macros??
Hmm. I've done my research. Start reading.
I'm not going to reduce several years of reading to links. Google works great if anyone wants to explore the topic. Hint, stay away from individuals blogs except to find links to actuals studies.
Ahh yess the I have the information but I am not going to provide evidence argument is back....0 -
christinev297 wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »All I can say if people choose to eat excess sugar over the recommended amounts then hope and pray that research never comes out proving it causes disease or medical conditions.
I'm not pro or against, and have zero interest in debating about sugar. I have an open mind and choose not to nitpick or mock those who believe sugar is not a necessary part of our diet.
I have noticed though, that not a week goes by where I don't read or hear the negative impact sugar can have. It cant all possibly be baseless. .
Everyone has they their own diet path they choose to follow, and if it works for them then who am I to judge.
and some of these negative health impacts on people who get adequate nutrition and hit their calories goals are…?
Not sure how you can say that you don't want to debate it, then come in here and debate it, and then make some kind of strange statement about "reading stuff" about how sugar is bad, and not even referencing how it is bad….
That's the thing, I read the headlines but have only ever skimmed the articles. What I'm hearing is on the TV or in our weekly/daily paper. I'm in Australia, and the last 6mths it's just been constantly mentioned, and never in a positive way, so much so that I almost switch off now. I've never researched on the internet, because as we all know, anyone can find links to back up what they want to hear.
I'm still on the fence, erring more to the lower sugar side. I am one of the people who are hoping and praying that years of excess carbs and sugars aren't going to come back and bite me on the *kitten*. And truthfully I am sick to death of seeing young obese kids and their parents shoving sugar laden foods and drinks down their gullets. That alone is enough to put me off. Yes i know activity level and calories play a part... But so does food choice.
As for the debating thing, It just doesn't interest me, I don't have the time or the energy to drag a thread on for 10+ pages with neither side backing down. It never goes anywhere and NO-ONE ever changes their mind, so i honestly don't see the point..
so you have no evidence to back up anything you are claiming?
As for obesity, too many calories leads to people being obese. Trying to single out one macronutrient as the source of the obesity epidemic is ridiculous.
So you don't have the time or energy to debate this, but you keep coming back to debate this? interesting concept...
As for your first and last sentence, re-read my last paragraph :huh: And i did indeed say calories are to blame also.
The fact that you're asking for "evidence" proves you didn't read my post correctly.
People on either side can post 1,000 links backing up their claims. But they will be poo pooed if they don't line up with whomever believes what. I've been around here long enough and seen enough sugar et al threads to know there is no point. people love their sugar and carbs (and I don't blame them), they will hang on to them for dear life.
Actually, you blamed parents shoveling sugar down their kids throats,and I did not see one word about calories in your quote.
People also love fats, but I don't you see you making spacious claims about fats being the cause of the obesity epidemic, but for some reason you are fixated on sugar; I wonder why that is?
For the record, the sugar is evil crew tend not to have 1000 links on their sides, they just have correlational links between sugar and X outcome, which when looked at in depth have no real correlation at all….
The moderation crew and the no limits on sugar crew also got no links, so quantity of links aren't really a meaningful point.
Fat and protein consumption levels are pretty stable over the decades. Carbohydrate and sugar consumption increases pretty much cover our increase in calories over the same time period, which also happens to correlate with an explosion of metabolic diseases.
The most credible way to start addressing reduction in calories is.. ?0 -
Unless you want to have a medical condition you should consider worrying about sugar.
There are many things you body needs and if you are displacing those things and substituting unneeded sugar calories instead, eventually you will have nutritional or metabolic consequences.
Sugar is fun to eat, don' mistake it for necessary.
With the bold statement, you are basically saying sugar causes medical conditions. Which ones?
This thread is about limits on sugar in MFP which OP was told to ignore with a statement used frequently here - "unless you have a medical condition there is no reason to worry about sugar."
Sugar, needs at least as much concern and limiting as other macros, and given the correlation with our huge increase in sugar consumption and a correlated increase in metabolic issues is does warrent extra concern for levels in diet.
Yes , and the advice given to op was that it was fine to consume it in the context of hitting micros , macros, and hitting calorie targets.
Then the pseudoscience and fear mongering started...0 -
christinev297 wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »All I can say if people choose to eat excess sugar over the recommended amounts then hope and pray that research never comes out proving it causes disease or medical conditions.
I'm not pro or against, and have zero interest in debating about sugar. I have an open mind and choose not to nitpick or mock those who believe sugar is not a necessary part of our diet.
I have noticed though, that not a week goes by where I don't read or hear the negative impact sugar can have. It cant all possibly be baseless. .
Everyone has they their own diet path they choose to follow, and if it works for them then who am I to judge.
and some of these negative health impacts on people who get adequate nutrition and hit their calories goals are…?
Not sure how you can say that you don't want to debate it, then come in here and debate it, and then make some kind of strange statement about "reading stuff" about how sugar is bad, and not even referencing how it is bad….
That's the thing, I read the headlines but have only ever skimmed the articles. What I'm hearing is on the TV or in our weekly/daily paper. I'm in Australia, and the last 6mths it's just been constantly mentioned, and never in a positive way, so much so that I almost switch off now. I've never researched on the internet, because as we all know, anyone can find links to back up what they want to hear.
I'm still on the fence, erring more to the lower sugar side. I am one of the people who are hoping and praying that years of excess carbs and sugars aren't going to come back and bite me on the *kitten*. And truthfully I am sick to death of seeing young obese kids and their parents shoving sugar laden foods and drinks down their gullets. That alone is enough to put me off. Yes i know activity level and calories play a part... But so does food choice.
As for the debating thing, It just doesn't interest me, I don't have the time or the energy to drag a thread on for 10+ pages with neither side backing down. It never goes anywhere and NO-ONE ever changes their mind, so i honestly don't see the point..
so you have no evidence to back up anything you are claiming?
As for obesity, too many calories leads to people being obese. Trying to single out one macronutrient as the source of the obesity epidemic is ridiculous.
So you don't have the time or energy to debate this, but you keep coming back to debate this? interesting concept...
As for your first and last sentence, re-read my last paragraph :huh: And i did indeed say calories are to blame also.
The fact that you're asking for "evidence" proves you didn't read my post correctly.
People on either side can post 1,000 links backing up their claims. But they will be poo pooed if they don't line up with whomever believes what. I've been around here long enough and seen enough sugar et al threads to know there is no point. people love their sugar and carbs (and I don't blame them), they will hang on to them for dear life.
Actually, you blamed parents shoveling sugar down their kids throats,and I did not see one word about calories in your quote.
People also love fats, but I don't you see you making spacious claims about fats being the cause of the obesity epidemic, but for some reason you are fixated on sugar; I wonder why that is?
For the record, the sugar is evil crew tend not to have 1000 links on their sides, they just have correlational links between sugar and X outcome, which when looked at in depth have no real correlation at all….
The moderation crew and the no limits on sugar crew also got no links, so quantity of links aren't really a meaningful point.
Fat and protein consumption levels are pretty stable over the decades. Carbohydrate and sugar consumption increases pretty much cover our increase in calories over the same time period, which also happens to correlate with an explosion of metabolic diseases.
The most credible way to start addressing reduction in calories is.. ?
That's not true and you know it, the proponents of everything in moderation on this thread consistently provide links...Gale and Yarwell provide links too...the only person who never ever does is you it seems0 -
christinev297 wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »All I can say if people choose to eat excess sugar over the recommended amounts then hope and pray that research never comes out proving it causes disease or medical conditions.
I'm not pro or against, and have zero interest in debating about sugar. I have an open mind and choose not to nitpick or mock those who believe sugar is not a necessary part of our diet.
I have noticed though, that not a week goes by where I don't read or hear the negative impact sugar can have. It cant all possibly be baseless. .
Everyone has they their own diet path they choose to follow, and if it works for them then who am I to judge.
and some of these negative health impacts on people who get adequate nutrition and hit their calories goals are…?
Not sure how you can say that you don't want to debate it, then come in here and debate it, and then make some kind of strange statement about "reading stuff" about how sugar is bad, and not even referencing how it is bad….
That's the thing, I read the headlines but have only ever skimmed the articles. What I'm hearing is on the TV or in our weekly/daily paper. I'm in Australia, and the last 6mths it's just been constantly mentioned, and never in a positive way, so much so that I almost switch off now. I've never researched on the internet, because as we all know, anyone can find links to back up what they want to hear.
I'm still on the fence, erring more to the lower sugar side. I am one of the people who are hoping and praying that years of excess carbs and sugars aren't going to come back and bite me on the *kitten*. And truthfully I am sick to death of seeing young obese kids and their parents shoving sugar laden foods and drinks down their gullets. That alone is enough to put me off. Yes i know activity level and calories play a part... But so does food choice.
As for the debating thing, It just doesn't interest me, I don't have the time or the energy to drag a thread on for 10+ pages with neither side backing down. It never goes anywhere and NO-ONE ever changes their mind, so i honestly don't see the point..
so you have no evidence to back up anything you are claiming?
As for obesity, too many calories leads to people being obese. Trying to single out one macronutrient as the source of the obesity epidemic is ridiculous.
So you don't have the time or energy to debate this, but you keep coming back to debate this? interesting concept...
As for your first and last sentence, re-read my last paragraph :huh: And i did indeed say calories are to blame also.
The fact that you're asking for "evidence" proves you didn't read my post correctly.
People on either side can post 1,000 links backing up their claims. But they will be poo pooed if they don't line up with whomever believes what. I've been around here long enough and seen enough sugar et al threads to know there is no point. people love their sugar and carbs (and I don't blame them), they will hang on to them for dear life.
Actually, you blamed parents shoveling sugar down their kids throats,and I did not see one word about calories in your quote.
People also love fats, but I don't you see you making spacious claims about fats being the cause of the obesity epidemic, but for some reason you are fixated on sugar; I wonder why that is?
For the record, the sugar is evil crew tend not to have 1000 links on their sides, they just have correlational links between sugar and X outcome, which when looked at in depth have no real correlation at all….
The moderation crew and the no limits on sugar crew also got no links, so quantity of links aren't really a meaningful point.
Fat and protein consumption levels are pretty stable over the decades. Carbohydrate and sugar consumption increases pretty much cover our increase in calories over the same time period, which also happens to correlate with an explosion of metabolic diseases.
The most credible way to start addressing reduction in calories is.. ?
you need a link to tell you to hit micros and macros and fill in the rest of your calories as needed, really?
Funny, the link posted early showed sugar consumption going down the past ten years, but obesity continuing to rise, but that does not matter does it?
To the bold part, I can't believe that is even a question. The most creditable way to to address a reduction in calories is, wait for it…..EAT LESS Calories….
officially *mind blown*
Edit - The only one not posting links or studies in this thread is you. For some reason your "years of research" is more closely guarding than the launch codes for nuclear weapons….0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
From the chart's author -
Refined carbohydrate and sugar are certainly part of the cause of the obesity epidemic, but these data are consistent with a large body of research suggesting that there's more to the story. Obesity is caused by a number of interacting diet and lifestyle factors, most of which can be traced back to major socioeconomic changes in this country over the last century. These have affected the way we interact with food, the composition of our food, and other aspects of our lifestyle that cause genetically susceptible people to gain fat.
That is all I'm saying.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 401 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
- 992 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions