Daily goals: Sugar
Options
Replies
-
I think around half of the population seem to be ables to eat a diet with added sugars and higher carbs. The rest should eat low carbohydrate or, at the very least, moderate carbohydrates.
Insulin resistance is thought to include prediabetes, Type 2 diabetes, PCOS, NAFLD, and Alzheimer's disease as well as other possible neurological diseases (like possibly MS and Parkinson's). Roughly half of North Americans will develop one of these health problems in their lifetime, and sugar intake, along with excessive carbs and obesity, is generally thought to contribute to those problems.
I thought I could eat sugars with no problem until suddenly I couldn't. I have a good mainly friend who loves her sweets and is just slightly overweight. Now in her mid 70s she as Alzheimer's. there was no way to reduction that back in the 80s when she was eating sugars with no apparent problems. I wonder if she could have turned back time and attempted to prevent her dementia with a low sugar diet if she would have... I would have changed things for myself.
In my mind, sugar's only real benefit for the average person is that it tastes good. It as no needed micronutrients and has the potential to contribute to IR problems, never mind the act that those with a higher sugar intake are more likely to develop certain cancers, have a more difficult time beating some cancers, and are more likely to develop CAD.
IMO, the only thing going for added sugars (or a diet high in carbs) is that tastes good. Sugar is a bit of a risk for the (apparently) healthy person, IMO.
Lol so half the population of the world should be low carb?????
And I would be curious to see studies directly linking sugar to cancer...
Sugar is a macronutrient and provides one with energy so it has more of a use than just "tasting good"...
I find cauliflower to not be necessary for anything , does that make it bad too??0 -
I think around half of the population seem to be ables to eat a diet with added sugars and higher carbs. The rest should eat low carbohydrate or, at the very least, moderate carbohydrates.
Insulin resistance is thought to include prediabetes, Type 2 diabetes, PCOS, NAFLD, and Alzheimer's disease as well as other possible neurological diseases (like possibly MS and Parkinson's). Roughly half of North Americans will develop one of these health problems in their lifetime, and sugar intake, along with excessive carbs and obesity, is generally thought to contribute to those problems.
I thought I could eat sugars with no problem until suddenly I couldn't. I have a good mainly friend who loves her sweets and is just slightly overweight. Now in her mid 70s she as Alzheimer's. there was no way to reduction that back in the 80s when she was eating sugars with no apparent problems. I wonder if she could have turned back time and attempted to prevent her dementia with a low sugar diet if she would have... I would have changed things for myself.
In my mind, sugar's only real benefit for the average person is that it tastes good. It as no needed micronutrients and has the potential to contribute to IR problems, never mind the act that those with a higher sugar intake are more likely to develop certain cancers, have a more difficult time beating some cancers, and are more likely to develop CAD.
IMO, the only thing going for added sugars (or a diet high in carbs) is that tastes good. Sugar is a bit of a risk for the (apparently) healthy person, IMO.
Your thinks are not backed up by the actual statistics
It's not half
Please prove otherwise
This makes your entire contention null and void
There is a lot of research going on at the moment about reduced metabolism of glucose in the brain and Alzheimer's to the extent that I believe they are considering it as a diagnostic criteria of early detection
Your premise appears flawed, please bring this research you continually discuss but never provide0 -
I think around half of the population seem to be ables to eat a diet with added sugars and higher carbs. The rest should eat low carbohydrate or, at the very least, moderate carbohydrates.
Insulin resistance is thought to include prediabetes, Type 2 diabetes, PCOS, NAFLD, and Alzheimer's disease as well as other possible neurological diseases (like possibly MS and Parkinson's). Roughly half of North Americans will develop one of these health problems in their lifetime, and sugar intake, along with excessive carbs and obesity, is generally thought to contribute to those problems.
I thought I could eat sugars with no problem until suddenly I couldn't. I have a good mainly friend who loves her sweets and is just slightly overweight. Now in her mid 70s she as Alzheimer's. there was no way to reduction that back in the 80s when she was eating sugars with no apparent problems. I wonder if she could have turned back time and attempted to prevent her dementia with a low sugar diet if she would have... I would have changed things for myself.
In my mind, sugar's only real benefit for the average person is that it tastes good. It as no needed micronutrients and has the potential to contribute to IR problems, never mind the act that those with a higher sugar intake are more likely to develop certain cancers, have a more difficult time beating some cancers, and are more likely to develop CAD.
IMO, the only thing going for added sugars (or a diet high in carbs) is that tastes good. Sugar is a bit of a risk for the (apparently) healthy person, IMO.
Lol so half the population of the world should be low carb?????
And I would be curious to see studies directly linking sugar to cancer...
Sugar is a macronutrient and provides one with energy so it has more of a use than just "tasting good"...
I find cauliflower to not be necessary for anything , does that make it bad too??
Wow, you can really twist a statement. Are you trying to break into politics?
I said roughly half of the world would benefit from eating low or moderate carb. You think this is not true. So you think most people should be high carb? There is no room for individual health differences? Really?
Sugar is part of the carbohydrate macronutrient, which is not required in the diet for health. I don't hear parents saying to their kids, "Be sure to eat your meat and sugar." People can get their glucose without eating carbs, never mind bothering with sugary foods. You know this.
I find cauliflower not necessary for anything either. If you choose to call it bad, that's your opinion. I would just call it yucky unless coated in cheese.
An easy link to possible sugar problems with references. http://authoritynutrition.com/10-disturbing-reasons-why-sugar-is-bad/. I am not looking up stuff for the sake of an argument. I know what I have learned from days of reading on nutrition and health. If one is interested, they'll go looking too. There are a lot of interesting articles and books out there.0 -
I think around half of the population seem to be ables to eat a diet with added sugars and higher carbs. The rest should eat low carbohydrate or, at the very least, moderate carbohydrates.
Insulin resistance is thought to include prediabetes, Type 2 diabetes, PCOS, NAFLD, and Alzheimer's disease as well as other possible neurological diseases (like possibly MS and Parkinson's). Roughly half of North Americans will develop one of these health problems in their lifetime, and sugar intake, along with excessive carbs and obesity, is generally thought to contribute to those problems.
I thought I could eat sugars with no problem until suddenly I couldn't. I have a good mainly friend who loves her sweets and is just slightly overweight. Now in her mid 70s she as Alzheimer's. there was no way to reduction that back in the 80s when she was eating sugars with no apparent problems. I wonder if she could have turned back time and attempted to prevent her dementia with a low sugar diet if she would have... I would have changed things for myself.
In my mind, sugar's only real benefit for the average person is that it tastes good. It as no needed micronutrients and has the potential to contribute to IR problems, never mind the act that those with a higher sugar intake are more likely to develop certain cancers, have a more difficult time beating some cancers, and are more likely to develop CAD.
IMO, the only thing going for added sugars (or a diet high in carbs) is that tastes good. Sugar is a bit of a risk for the (apparently) healthy person, IMO.
Lol so half the population of the world should be low carb?????
And I would be curious to see studies directly linking sugar to cancer...
Sugar is a macronutrient and provides one with energy so it has more of a use than just "tasting good"...
I find cauliflower to not be necessary for anything , does that make it bad too??
Wow, you can really twist a statement. Are you trying to break into politics?
I said roughly half of the world would benefit from eating low or moderate carb. You think this is not true. So you think most people should be high carb? There is no room for individual health differences? Really?
Sugar is part of the carbohydrate macronutrient, which is not required in the diet for health. I don't hear parents saying to their kids, "Be sure to eat your meat and sugar." People can get their glucose without eating carbs, never mind bothering with sugary foods. You know this.
I find cauliflower not necessary for anything either. If you choose to call it bad, that's your opinion. I would just call it yucky unless coated in cheese.
An easy link to possible sugar problems with references. http://authoritynutrition.com/10-disturbing-reasons-why-sugar-is-bad/. I am not looking up stuff for the sake of an argument. I know what I have learned from days of reading on nutrition and health. If one is interested, they'll go looking too. There are a lot of interesting articles and books out there.
So half the population does not mean half the population?
And your "feels" do not equal a valid reason to give up sugar.
I would of thought with all the research you claim to do that you would have something more specific then just pulling a link to ten random studies , which more than likely are are all causation and show no direct link to sugar and cancer...0 -
I think around half of the population seem to be ables to eat a diet with added sugars and higher carbs. The rest should eat low carbohydrate or, at the very least, moderate carbohydrates.
Insulin resistance is thought to include prediabetes, Type 2 diabetes, PCOS, NAFLD, and Alzheimer's disease as well as other possible neurological diseases (like possibly MS and Parkinson's). Roughly half of North Americans will develop one of these health problems in their lifetime, and sugar intake, along with excessive carbs and obesity, is generally thought to contribute to those problems.
I thought I could eat sugars with no problem until suddenly I couldn't. I have a good mainly friend who loves her sweets and is just slightly overweight. Now in her mid 70s she as Alzheimer's. there was no way to reduction that back in the 80s when she was eating sugars with no apparent problems. I wonder if she could have turned back time and attempted to prevent her dementia with a low sugar diet if she would have... I would have changed things for myself.
In my mind, sugar's only real benefit for the average person is that it tastes good. It as no needed micronutrients and has the potential to contribute to IR problems, never mind the act that those with a higher sugar intake are more likely to develop certain cancers, have a more difficult time beating some cancers, and are more likely to develop CAD.
IMO, the only thing going for added sugars (or a diet high in carbs) is that tastes good. Sugar is a bit of a risk for the (apparently) healthy person, IMO.
Lol so half the population of the world should be low carb?????
And I would be curious to see studies directly linking sugar to cancer...
Sugar is a macronutrient and provides one with energy so it has more of a use than just "tasting good"...
I find cauliflower to not be necessary for anything , does that make it bad too??
Wow, you can really twist a statement. Are you trying to break into politics?
I said roughly half of the world would benefit from eating low or moderate carb. You think this is not true. So you think most people should be high carb? There is no room for individual health differences? Really?
it's an arbitrary figure. Maybe 3% in line with us general population? Maybe less ...why even make the proposition, there is no basis for it anywhere ..it's just a way of eating
Sugar is part of the carbohydrate macronutrient, which is not required in the diet for health. I don't hear parents saying to their kids, "Be sure to eat your meat and sugar." People can get their glucose without eating carbs, never mind bothering with sugary foods. You know this.
parents like to tell their kids to eat fruit (fructose), drink their milk (lactose) etc. carbs form the basis of many diets around the world
I find cauliflower not necessary for anything either. If you choose to call it bad, that's your opinion. I would just call it yucky unless coated in cheese.
An easy link to possible sugar problems with references. http://authoritynutrition.com/10-disturbing-reasons-why-sugar-is-bad/. I am not looking up stuff for the sake of an argument. I know what I have learned from days of reading on nutrition and health. If one is interested, they'll go looking too. There are a lot of interesting articles and books out there
how long have you been here? You know authority nutrition is a crackpot site. You know why you can't provide any decent sources for your scare stories don't you ...because they are mass market made up
.
0 -
Insulin resistance is caused by several factors ..sugar consumption isn't one of them directly
Obesity is, genetics can play a part, pregnancy even but not sugar0 -
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.
So you imply that sugar causes medical conditions?
I could understand that a diet lacking in nutrients or exceeding in calories would..but your first sentence is in direct opposition to you second
It's the lack of nutritional balance that leads to issues
Context matters. Excess or added sugars are unnecessary and can be detrimental to nutritional and metabolic health and weight goals. Do you really want to take a position on the other side of that?
Yes
My contention would be, as someone without a medical condition that contraindicates sugar consumption that if I meet my macro and micro nutritional requirements I can fill the rest of my calorie allowance with cotton candy or tablespoons of granulated sugar if I wish with no health detriment (beyond potential dental)
That is a fine contention. You test it and report back when you are 80.
another ridiculous spacious argument. So if someone ate a moderate amount of sugar and dies at age 80 then it must be because of sugar…
conversely, if someone was LC/HF and dies at age 79, we can then make the concussion that the LC/HF lifestyle is what lead to their untimely demise, right? Because there would be no other reason that someone would die of old age…oh wait...
nope0 -
But is there sugar in the glop??stevencloser wrote: »And again with the necessary stuff. If you wanted to only put necessary things in your mouth, multivitamin pills, a shotglass of fat and a few protein shakes made with water should be your daily food, nothing else. I've said that so often now I'm starting to sound like a broken record. Since none of you are going to eat that way, arguing you should stay away from things that aren't necessary is kind of hollow.
Neo could have had a lifetime of steak and wine, but he chose the gloop.
0 -
I keep seeing that half of us population and IR stat bandied about ...I looked for the source once found this on medline
http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/122501-overview#a5
"In the United States, the frequency of insulin resistance is observed to be 3% in the general population; a several-fold increase occurs in individuals with glucose intolerance."
Where is this 50% stat from?
Results In the overall 2011-2012 population, the unadjusted prevalence (using the hemoglobin A1c, FPG, or 2-hour PG definitions for diabetes and prediabetes) was 14.3% (95% CI, 12.2%-16.8%) for total diabetes, 9.1% (95% CI, 7.8%-10.6%) for diagnosed diabetes, 5.2% (95% CI, 4.0%-6.9%) for undiagnosed diabetes, and 38.0% (95% CI, 34.7%-41.3%) for prediabetes; among those with diabetes, 36.4% (95% CI, 30.5%-42.7%) were undiagnosed.
Copied because no one remembers reading this link the last few times it was posted.
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=2434682
I find the standard of proof for suggesting respecting sugar intake levels ridiculous when compared to complete lack of any requirement for advocating unrestricted sugar levels.
The sugar industry has a lot of funds to promote their dying sales. Could there be an industry PR force at work here? Why would anyone care if someone eats less sugar other than the folks selling it?0 -
I keep seeing that half of us population and IR stat bandied about ...I looked for the source once found this on medline
http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/122501-overview#a5
"In the United States, the frequency of insulin resistance is observed to be 3% in the general population; a several-fold increase occurs in individuals with glucose intolerance."
Where is this 50% stat from?
Results In the overall 2011-2012 population, the unadjusted prevalence (using the hemoglobin A1c, FPG, or 2-hour PG definitions for diabetes and prediabetes) was 14.3% (95% CI, 12.2%-16.8%) for total diabetes, 9.1% (95% CI, 7.8%-10.6%) for diagnosed diabetes, 5.2% (95% CI, 4.0%-6.9%) for undiagnosed diabetes, and 38.0% (95% CI, 34.7%-41.3%) for prediabetes; among those with diabetes, 36.4% (95% CI, 30.5%-42.7%) were undiagnosed.
Copied because no one remembers reading this link the last few times it was posted.
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=2434682
I find the standard of proof for suggesting respecting sugar intake levels ridiculous when compared to complete lack of any requirement for advocating unrestricted sugar levels.
The sugar industry has a lot of funds to promote their dying sales. Could there be an industry PR force at work here? Why would anyone care if someone eats less sugar other than the folks selling it?
Okay, so 50% comes from 38% being undiagnosed. Thankfully, the medical profession is aware of these staggering numbers as well as the government(sarcasm). If I remember correctly the total number was around 11%.
0 -
I think around half of the population seem to be ables to eat a diet with added sugars and higher carbs. The rest should eat low carbohydrate or, at the very least, moderate carbohydrates.
Insulin resistance is thought to include prediabetes, Type 2 diabetes, PCOS, NAFLD, and Alzheimer's disease as well as other possible neurological diseases (like possibly MS and Parkinson's). Roughly half of North Americans will develop one of these health problems in their lifetime, and sugar intake, along with excessive carbs and obesity, is generally thought to contribute to those problems.
I thought I could eat sugars with no problem until suddenly I couldn't. I have a good mainly friend who loves her sweets and is just slightly overweight. Now in her mid 70s she as Alzheimer's. there was no way to reduction that back in the 80s when she was eating sugars with no apparent problems. I wonder if she could have turned back time and attempted to prevent her dementia with a low sugar diet if she would have... I would have changed things for myself.
In my mind, sugar's only real benefit for the average person is that it tastes good. It as no needed micronutrients and has the potential to contribute to IR problems, never mind the act that those with a higher sugar intake are more likely to develop certain cancers, have a more difficult time beating some cancers, and are more likely to develop CAD.
IMO, the only thing going for added sugars (or a diet high in carbs) is that tastes good. Sugar is a bit of a risk for the (apparently) healthy person, IMO.
Lol so half the population of the world should be low carb?????
And I would be curious to see studies directly linking sugar to cancer...
Sugar is a macronutrient and provides one with energy so it has more of a use than just "tasting good"...
I find cauliflower to not be necessary for anything , does that make it bad too??
Wow, you can really twist a statement. Are you trying to break into politics?
I said roughly half of the world would benefit from eating low or moderate carb. You think this is not true. So you think most people should be high carb? There is no room for individual health differences? Really?
Sugar is part of the carbohydrate macronutrient, which is not required in the diet for health. I don't hear parents saying to their kids, "Be sure to eat your meat and sugar." People can get their glucose without eating carbs, never mind bothering with sugary foods. You know this.
I find cauliflower not necessary for anything either. If you choose to call it bad, that's your opinion. I would just call it yucky unless coated in cheese.
An easy link to possible sugar problems with references. http://authoritynutrition.com/10-disturbing-reasons-why-sugar-is-bad/. I am not looking up stuff for the sake of an argument. I know what I have learned from days of reading on nutrition and health. If one is interested, they'll go looking too. There are a lot of interesting articles and books out there.
So half the population does not mean half the population?
And your "feels" do not equal a valid reason to give up sugar.
I would of thought with all the research you claim to do that you would have something more specific then just pulling a link to ten random studies , which more than likely are are all causation and show no direct link to sugar and cancer...
Um, yes. "Around half" does basically mean "roughly half". I don't think I contradicted myself. You seem to be doing more word twisting to keep the argument going.
I don't take notes to prove points on the forums. I read it. Take in the information for my own uses and then look for more to read. I am not here to convert anyone to low sugar. I presented my opinion. You disagreed and tried to have some fun with it. Shall we move on?0 -
I think around half of the population seem to be ables to eat a diet with added sugars and higher carbs. The rest should eat low carbohydrate or, at the very least, moderate carbohydrates.
Insulin resistance is thought to include prediabetes, Type 2 diabetes, PCOS, NAFLD, and Alzheimer's disease as well as other possible neurological diseases (like possibly MS and Parkinson's). Roughly half of North Americans will develop one of these health problems in their lifetime, and sugar intake, along with excessive carbs and obesity, is generally thought to contribute to those problems.
I thought I could eat sugars with no problem until suddenly I couldn't. I have a good mainly friend who loves her sweets and is just slightly overweight. Now in her mid 70s she as Alzheimer's. there was no way to reduction that back in the 80s when she was eating sugars with no apparent problems. I wonder if she could have turned back time and attempted to prevent her dementia with a low sugar diet if she would have... I would have changed things for myself.
In my mind, sugar's only real benefit for the average person is that it tastes good. It as no needed micronutrients and has the potential to contribute to IR problems, never mind the act that those with a higher sugar intake are more likely to develop certain cancers, have a more difficult time beating some cancers, and are more likely to develop CAD.
IMO, the only thing going for added sugars (or a diet high in carbs) is that tastes good. Sugar is a bit of a risk for the (apparently) healthy person, IMO.
Lol so half the population of the world should be low carb?????
And I would be curious to see studies directly linking sugar to cancer...
Sugar is a macronutrient and provides one with energy so it has more of a use than just "tasting good"...
I find cauliflower to not be necessary for anything , does that make it bad too??
Wonder what percentage of the population in the blue zones with higher carb diets have T2D or "prediabetes." I'm guessing vanishingly few. It's not the carbs, it's the overall diet.
And personally I highly doubt that replacing a poor high carb diet with a nutrient-poor diet made up mostly of fat, and very high in sat fat, is going to be an improvement overall. I realize that one can have a healthy low carb diet, but the focus on macros vs. nutrients makes it less likely that people will see that as important.0 -
The metabolism of sugar and processing of sugar is very natural, and insulin is natural. It's a balancing act that the body manages every day, with most of us being quite unaware of it.
I would agree with the unaware part until decades of poor choices manifests in metabolic issues. Metabolic disorders, obesity and related issues don't just happen to extreme eaters, they happen to scores eating moderately. So just maybe our version of 'moderate' eating is unbalanced compared with what our bodies can actually handle without malfunctioning. I am simply advocating for respecting the effects of sugar (carbohydrates) and the levels eaten.0 -
I think around half of the population seem to be ables to eat a diet with added sugars and higher carbs. The rest should eat low carbohydrate or, at the very least, moderate carbohydrates.
Insulin resistance is thought to include prediabetes, Type 2 diabetes, PCOS, NAFLD, and Alzheimer's disease as well as other possible neurological diseases (like possibly MS and Parkinson's). Roughly half of North Americans will develop one of these health problems in their lifetime, and sugar intake, along with excessive carbs and obesity, is generally thought to contribute to those problems.
I thought I could eat sugars with no problem until suddenly I couldn't. I have a good mainly friend who loves her sweets and is just slightly overweight. Now in her mid 70s she as Alzheimer's. there was no way to reduction that back in the 80s when she was eating sugars with no apparent problems. I wonder if she could have turned back time and attempted to prevent her dementia with a low sugar diet if she would have... I would have changed things for myself.
In my mind, sugar's only real benefit for the average person is that it tastes good. It as no needed micronutrients and has the potential to contribute to IR problems, never mind the act that those with a higher sugar intake are more likely to develop certain cancers, have a more difficult time beating some cancers, and are more likely to develop CAD.
IMO, the only thing going for added sugars (or a diet high in carbs) is that tastes good. Sugar is a bit of a risk for the (apparently) healthy person, IMO.
Lol so half the population of the world should be low carb?????
And I would be curious to see studies directly linking sugar to cancer...
Sugar is a macronutrient and provides one with energy so it has more of a use than just "tasting good"...
I find cauliflower to not be necessary for anything , does that make it bad too??
Wow, you can really twist a statement. Are you trying to break into politics?
I said roughly half of the world would benefit from eating low or moderate carb. You think this is not true. So you think most people should be high carb? There is no room for individual health differences? Really?
it's an arbitrary figure. Maybe 3% in line with us general population? Maybe less ...why even make the proposition, there is no basis for it anywhere ..it's just a way of eating
Sugar is part of the carbohydrate macronutrient, which is not required in the diet for health. I don't hear parents saying to their kids, "Be sure to eat your meat and sugar." People can get their glucose without eating carbs, never mind bothering with sugary foods. You know this.
parents like to tell their kids to eat fruit (fructose), drink their milk (lactose) etc. carbs form the basis of many diets around the world
I find cauliflower not necessary for anything either. If you choose to call it bad, that's your opinion. I would just call it yucky unless coated in cheese.
An easy link to possible sugar problems with references. http://authoritynutrition.com/10-disturbing-reasons-why-sugar-is-bad/. I am not looking up stuff for the sake of an argument. I know what I have learned from days of reading on nutrition and health. If one is interested, they'll go looking too. There are a lot of interesting articles and books out there
how long have you been here? You know authority nutrition is a crackpot site. You know why you can't provide any decent sources for your scare stories don't you ...because they are mass market made up
3%? No. I've looked it up. I just didn't bother to bookmark it for others.
I know parents tell kids to eat their veggies and drink their milk (that one i don't completely agree with pushing though. Fruit pushing isn't as common in my experiences. you can't disagree that few adults would say eat your sugars. Sugary foods aren't beneficial compared to other foods like veggies.
I posted that quick link because it was the first one to pop up on google and it cited references. Click those. I am not doing anyone else's research.
And I have never read authority nutrition's stuff before. I tend not to bother with blogs.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.
So you imply that sugar causes medical conditions?
I could understand that a diet lacking in nutrients or exceeding in calories would..but your first sentence is in direct opposition to you second
It's the lack of nutritional balance that leads to issues
Context matters. Excess or added sugars are unnecessary and can be detrimental to nutritional and metabolic health and weight goals. Do you really want to take a position on the other side of that?
Yes
My contention would be, as someone without a medical condition that contraindicates sugar consumption that if I meet my macro and micro nutritional requirements I can fill the rest of my calorie allowance with cotton candy or tablespoons of granulated sugar if I wish with no health detriment (beyond potential dental)
That is a fine contention. You test it and report back when you are 80.
another ridiculous spacious argument. So if someone ate a moderate amount of sugar and dies at age 80 then it must be because of sugar…
conversely, if someone was LC/HF and dies at age 79, we can then make the concussion that the LC/HF lifestyle is what lead to their untimely demise, right? Because there would be no other reason that someone would die of old age…oh wait...
nope
still waiting for your "research" that you cited and never listed...0 -
I keep seeing that half of us population and IR stat bandied about ...I looked for the source once found this on medline
http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/122501-overview#a5
"In the United States, the frequency of insulin resistance is observed to be 3% in the general population; a several-fold increase occurs in individuals with glucose intolerance."
Where is this 50% stat from?
Results In the overall 2011-2012 population, the unadjusted prevalence (using the hemoglobin A1c, FPG, or 2-hour PG definitions for diabetes and prediabetes) was 14.3% (95% CI, 12.2%-16.8%) for total diabetes, 9.1% (95% CI, 7.8%-10.6%) for diagnosed diabetes, 5.2% (95% CI, 4.0%-6.9%) for undiagnosed diabetes, and 38.0% (95% CI, 34.7%-41.3%) for prediabetes; among those with diabetes, 36.4% (95% CI, 30.5%-42.7%) were undiagnosed.
Copied because no one remembers reading this link the last few times it was posted.
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=2434682
I find the standard of proof for suggesting respecting sugar intake levels ridiculous when compared to complete lack of any requirement for advocating unrestricted sugar levels.
The sugar industry has a lot of funds to promote their dying sales. Could there be an industry PR force at work here? Why would anyone care if someone eats less sugar other than the folks selling it?
Add on to that the fact that just over 10% of seniors have dementia. I believe your chances of having dementia are 1 in 3 if you make it to 85.
Last I saw, about 25% has NAFLD in the USA.
I lied. I looked up a stat... PCOS is in 5-10% of American women, so 2-5% of the population.
We'll assume some overlap of those disorders. I looks like it would hit around 50%... Roughly.0 -
I think around half of the population seem to be ables to eat a diet with added sugars and higher carbs. The rest should eat low carbohydrate or, at the very least, moderate carbohydrates.
Insulin resistance is thought to include prediabetes, Type 2 diabetes, PCOS, NAFLD, and Alzheimer's disease as well as other possible neurological diseases (like possibly MS and Parkinson's). Roughly half of North Americans will develop one of these health problems in their lifetime, and sugar intake, along with excessive carbs and obesity, is generally thought to contribute to those problems.
I thought I could eat sugars with no problem until suddenly I couldn't. I have a good mainly friend who loves her sweets and is just slightly overweight. Now in her mid 70s she as Alzheimer's. there was no way to reduction that back in the 80s when she was eating sugars with no apparent problems. I wonder if she could have turned back time and attempted to prevent her dementia with a low sugar diet if she would have... I would have changed things for myself.
In my mind, sugar's only real benefit for the average person is that it tastes good. It as no needed micronutrients and has the potential to contribute to IR problems, never mind the act that those with a higher sugar intake are more likely to develop certain cancers, have a more difficult time beating some cancers, and are more likely to develop CAD.
IMO, the only thing going for added sugars (or a diet high in carbs) is that tastes good. Sugar is a bit of a risk for the (apparently) healthy person, IMO.
Lol so half the population of the world should be low carb?????
And I would be curious to see studies directly linking sugar to cancer...
Sugar is a macronutrient and provides one with energy so it has more of a use than just "tasting good"...
I find cauliflower to not be necessary for anything , does that make it bad too??
Wow, you can really twist a statement. Are you trying to break into politics?
I said roughly half of the world would benefit from eating low or moderate carb. You think this is not true. So you think most people should be high carb? There is no room for individual health differences? Really?
Sugar is part of the carbohydrate macronutrient, which is not required in the diet for health. I don't hear parents saying to their kids, "Be sure to eat your meat and sugar." People can get their glucose without eating carbs, never mind bothering with sugary foods. You know this.
I find cauliflower not necessary for anything either. If you choose to call it bad, that's your opinion. I would just call it yucky unless coated in cheese.
An easy link to possible sugar problems with references. http://authoritynutrition.com/10-disturbing-reasons-why-sugar-is-bad/. I am not looking up stuff for the sake of an argument. I know what I have learned from days of reading on nutrition and health. If one is interested, they'll go looking too. There are a lot of interesting articles and books out there.
So half the population does not mean half the population?
And your "feels" do not equal a valid reason to give up sugar.
I would of thought with all the research you claim to do that you would have something more specific then just pulling a link to ten random studies , which more than likely are are all causation and show no direct link to sugar and cancer...
Um, yes. "Around half" does basically mean "roughly half". I don't think I contradicted myself. You seem to be doing more word twisting to keep the argument going.
I don't take notes to prove points on the forums. I read it. Take in the information for my own uses and then look for more to read. I am not here to convert anyone to low sugar. I presented my opinion. You disagreed and tried to have some fun with it. Shall we move on?
No one is twisting your words. You said "roughly half" which would indicate that half the population should be low carb. Giving you the "roughly" part, that would mean that what, 40-50% of the population should do as you think? When I tell a client that they are going to save roughly half off their current costs, I don't come back later and say, well I really only meant ten percent, because I used the qualifier "roughly". Words have meaning, so if you don't believe it half then just give a percent range, rather then trying to use a arbitrary larger number, just because...
no, you presented your opinion as fact and act like you have some research to back it up, and as @rabbitjb pointed out you are using a crack pot site to back up your research claims.
I read the link you posed and there is a lot of "may" "maybe" "might" etc in there, and nothing that would show a direct link between sugar and cancer.
If you have a study that you would like to cite then please do.
0 -
I think around half of the population seem to be ables to eat a diet with added sugars and higher carbs. The rest should eat low carbohydrate or, at the very least, moderate carbohydrates.
Insulin resistance is thought to include prediabetes, Type 2 diabetes, PCOS, NAFLD, and Alzheimer's disease as well as other possible neurological diseases (like possibly MS and Parkinson's). Roughly half of North Americans will develop one of these health problems in their lifetime, and sugar intake, along with excessive carbs and obesity, is generally thought to contribute to those problems.
I thought I could eat sugars with no problem until suddenly I couldn't. I have a good mainly friend who loves her sweets and is just slightly overweight. Now in her mid 70s she as Alzheimer's. there was no way to reduction that back in the 80s when she was eating sugars with no apparent problems. I wonder if she could have turned back time and attempted to prevent her dementia with a low sugar diet if she would have... I would have changed things for myself.
In my mind, sugar's only real benefit for the average person is that it tastes good. It as no needed micronutrients and has the potential to contribute to IR problems, never mind the act that those with a higher sugar intake are more likely to develop certain cancers, have a more difficult time beating some cancers, and are more likely to develop CAD.
IMO, the only thing going for added sugars (or a diet high in carbs) is that tastes good. Sugar is a bit of a risk for the (apparently) healthy person, IMO.
Lol so half the population of the world should be low carb?????
And I would be curious to see studies directly linking sugar to cancer...
Sugar is a macronutrient and provides one with energy so it has more of a use than just "tasting good"...
I find cauliflower to not be necessary for anything , does that make it bad too??
Wow, you can really twist a statement. Are you trying to break into politics?
I said roughly half of the world would benefit from eating low or moderate carb. You think this is not true. So you think most people should be high carb? There is no room for individual health differences? Really?
it's an arbitrary figure. Maybe 3% in line with us general population? Maybe less ...why even make the proposition, there is no basis for it anywhere ..it's just a way of eating
Sugar is part of the carbohydrate macronutrient, which is not required in the diet for health. I don't hear parents saying to their kids, "Be sure to eat your meat and sugar." People can get their glucose without eating carbs, never mind bothering with sugary foods. You know this.
parents like to tell their kids to eat fruit (fructose), drink their milk (lactose) etc. carbs form the basis of many diets around the world
I find cauliflower not necessary for anything either. If you choose to call it bad, that's your opinion. I would just call it yucky unless coated in cheese.
An easy link to possible sugar problems with references. http://authoritynutrition.com/10-disturbing-reasons-why-sugar-is-bad/. I am not looking up stuff for the sake of an argument. I know what I have learned from days of reading on nutrition and health. If one is interested, they'll go looking too. There are a lot of interesting articles and books out there
how long have you been here? You know authority nutrition is a crackpot site. You know why you can't provide any decent sources for your scare stories don't you ...because they are mass market made up
3%? No. I've looked it up. I just didn't bother to bookmark it for others.
I know parents tell kids to eat their veggies and drink their milk (that one i don't completely agree with pushing though. Fruit pushing isn't as common in my experiences. you can't disagree that few adults would say eat your sugars. Sugary foods aren't beneficial compared to other foods like veggies.
I posted that quick link because it was the first one to pop up on google and it cited references. Click those. I am not doing anyone else's research.
And I have never read authority nutrition's stuff before. I tend not to bother with blogs.
sorry, but if you are going to make the claims then you should have the facts/research to back them up.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »I think around half of the population seem to be ables to eat a diet with added sugars and higher carbs. The rest should eat low carbohydrate or, at the very least, moderate carbohydrates.
Insulin resistance is thought to include prediabetes, Type 2 diabetes, PCOS, NAFLD, and Alzheimer's disease as well as other possible neurological diseases (like possibly MS and Parkinson's). Roughly half of North Americans will develop one of these health problems in their lifetime, and sugar intake, along with excessive carbs and obesity, is generally thought to contribute to those problems.
I thought I could eat sugars with no problem unmtil suddenly I couldn't. I have a good mainly friend who loves her sweets and is just slightly overweight. Now in her mid 70s she as Alzheimer's. there was no way to reduction that back in the 80s when she was eating sugars with no apparent problems. I wonder if she could have turned back time and attempted to prevent her dementia with a low sugar diet if she would have... I would have changed things for myself.
In my mind, sugar's only real benefit for the average person is that it tastes good. It as no needed micronutrients and has the potential to contribute to IR problems, never mind the act that those with a higher sugar intake are more likely to develop certain cancers, have a more difficult time beating some cancers, and are more likely to develop CAD.
IMO, the only thing going for added sugars (or a diet high in carbs) is that tastes good. Sugar is a bit of a risk for the (apparently) healthy person, IMO.
Lol so half the population of the world should be low carb?????
And I would be curious to see studies directly linking sugar to cancer...
Sugar is a macronutrient and provides one with energy so it has more of a use than just "tasting good"...
I find cauliflower to not be necessary for anything , does that make it bad too??
Wonder what percentage of the population in the blue zones with higher carb diets have T2D or "prediabetes." I'm guessing vanishingly few. It's not the carbs, it's the overall diet.
And personally I highly doubt that replacing a poor high carb diet with a nutrient-poor diet made up mostly of fat, and very high in sat fat, is going to be an improvement overall. I realize that one can have a healthy low carb diet, but the focus on macros vs. nutrients makes it less likely that people will see that as important.
Nutrient poor? Hardly. This is a quick summary.http://www.ketogenic-diet-resource.com/facts-about-vitamins.html0 -
Sugar, the staff of life. It is natural, and it is needed. Most obviously for infants and diabetics. But glucose runs in your veins too, @yarwell .
Yes, and the point is that glucose runs in my veins irrespective of whether I eat any sugar or indeed carbohydrate at all.
You do understand that ? What's in your blood stream is influenced by, but not wholly dependant on what you eat.
Yes we understand
But there's no issue with eating sugar either
Except that your body stops making glucose when there is enough, but the mouth does not stop eating when there is enough. Relying on your body's feedback loop is lower risk.
How much sugar do you NEED to eat every day to fuel the body?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
- 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
- 999 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions