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??
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.
No. I don't. Especially when it is partially my opinion. Look it up yourself.0 -
Why do all sugar threads get hijacked by the same people arguing the same points over and over again?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.
LOL Yes. Roughly half means near half, give or take a few percents. Your not my client. I am really not fussed about educating you with exact numbers. It is the overall trend that I find interesting.
Regardless of the exact numbers, around half of the people in a room would most likely benefit from reducing their sugars. I'll even go out on a limb and say almost no one will benefit from increasing their sugar intake.
And yes, there is a whole lot of opinion in there.
0 -
-
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?
2000 kcal average TDEE, of that take 0.8 per kg absolute minimum protein giving you 224 kcal average, 0.4 per pound of fat is another 540, making 764 kcal from non-carb sources that you need, leaving 1236 kcal that you could get entirely from carbs if you wanted.0 -
_Terrapin_ wrote: »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%.
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.
Pre-diabetes = 38% and diabetes = 14.3%, for a total of 52.4% of total population.
0 -
Why do all sugar threads get hijacked by the same people arguing the same points over and over again?
Because the same people like to make the same wild claims and then not back up their stuff with actual science. And people continuely forget about the most important thing... context.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.
No. I don't. Especially when it is partially my opinion. Look it up yourself.
actually you do, and the fact that you won't speaks volumes.0 -
_Terrapin_ wrote: »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%.
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.
Pre-diabetes = 38% and diabetes = 14.3%, for a total of 52.4% of total population._Terrapin_ wrote: »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%.
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.
Pre-diabetes = 38% and diabetes = 14.3%, for a total of 52.4% of total population._Terrapin_ wrote: »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%.
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.
Pre-diabetes = 38% and diabetes = 14.3%, for a total of 52.4% of total population._Terrapin_ wrote: »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%.
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.
Pre-diabetes = 38% and diabetes = 14.3%, for a total of 52.4% of total population.
It is obviously a national problem. What can we possibly do to improve the numbers? Maybe move a number down and make the issue more acute?
A little history? What was the range Ancil Keys gave to cholesterol as 'high'? I'll help you out a little. It was a range of 120. At the low end for Keys he thought 2XX was on the low end. What do you think happened to the low end of the number as more drugs came in to the market place? Do you see US TV ads for diabetic drugs? Can you link what the rationalization would be for reducing a the pre0diabetic number even lower?
So, if you want people to avoid drugs from 'big pharma' then maybe it would be a good idea to understand how these 'nutitrional values' change.
0 -
Why do all sugar threads get hijacked by the same people arguing the same points over and over again?
It takes two..._Terrapin_ wrote: »Because they do not eat it?0 -
Why do all sugar threads get hijacked by the same people arguing the same points over and over again?
It takes two..._Terrapin_ wrote: »Because they do not eat it?
One side to make wild claims and refuse to back them up properly, and the other to call them out on it...0 -
I agree with you, but not the way you'd prefer.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.html
Yes, I think many of the keto diets promoted on MFP are extremely nutrient poor. Just run it on cronometer and see. Like I said, it's possible to be in ketosis and have a healthy diet, but it takes as much -- likely more -- work as having a vegan diet that meets all nutrient needs, and diets that eschew vegetables in favor of extreme amounts of fat likely aren't cutting it. As I've said before, it seems bizarre to fixate on studies that indicate that excessive sugar is not a good idea, but to ignore all other results of the various population studies relating to nutrition.0 -
_Terrapin_ wrote: »_Terrapin_ wrote: »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%.
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.
Pre-diabetes = 38% and diabetes = 14.3%, for a total of 52.4% of total population._Terrapin_ wrote: »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%.
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.
Pre-diabetes = 38% and diabetes = 14.3%, for a total of 52.4% of total population._Terrapin_ wrote: »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%.
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.
Pre-diabetes = 38% and diabetes = 14.3%, for a total of 52.4% of total population._Terrapin_ wrote: »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%.
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.
Pre-diabetes = 38% and diabetes = 14.3%, for a total of 52.4% of total population.
It is obviously a national problem. What can we possibly do to improve the numbers? Maybe move a number down and make the issue more acute?
A little history? What was the range Ancil Keys gave to cholesterol as 'high'? I'll help you out a little. It was a range of 120. At the low end for Keys he thought 2XX was on the low end. What do you think happened to the low end of the number as more drugs came in to the market place? Do you see US TV ads for diabetic drugs? Can you link what the rationalization would be for reducing a the pre0diabetic number even lower?
So, if you want people to avoid drugs from 'big pharma' then maybe it would be a good idea to understand how these 'nutitrional values' change.
Interesting, and worth thinking about. It turns out cholesterol concerns are a big pile of money funneling woo. Like, all treatment, no actual disease.
I'm not sure that the same scam is present with diabetes - there are definitely life threatening consequences to lack of lifestyle changes or medical treatment.0 -
Well, if cholesterol is a big scam then fine with me. I hope for folks who eat high fat they can find a cardiologist who agrees with them post cardiac event. If you think diabetes isn't headed in the same direction you'd be naive._Terrapin_ wrote: »_Terrapin_ wrote: »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%.
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.
Pre-diabetes = 38% and diabetes = 14.3%, for a total of 52.4% of total population._Terrapin_ wrote: »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%.
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.
Pre-diabetes = 38% and diabetes = 14.3%, for a total of 52.4% of total population._Terrapin_ wrote: »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%.
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.
Pre-diabetes = 38% and diabetes = 14.3%, for a total of 52.4% of total population._Terrapin_ wrote: »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%.
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.
Pre-diabetes = 38% and diabetes = 14.3%, for a total of 52.4% of total population.
It is obviously a national problem. What can we possibly do to improve the numbers? Maybe move a number down and make the issue more acute?
A little history? What was the range Ancil Keys gave to cholesterol as 'high'? I'll help you out a little. It was a range of 120. At the low end for Keys he thought 2XX was on the low end. What do you think happened to the low end of the number as more drugs came in to the market place? Do you see US TV ads for diabetic drugs? Can you link what the rationalization would be for reducing a the pre0diabetic number even lower?
So, if you want people to avoid drugs from 'big pharma' then maybe it would be a good idea to understand how these 'nutitrional values' change.
Interesting, and worth thinking about. It turns out cholesterol concerns are a big pile of money funneling woo. Like, all treatment, no actual disease.
I'm not sure that the same scam is present with diabetes - there are definitely life threatening consequences to lack of lifestyle changes or medical treatment.0 -
Such wild claims as "Hey, you can eat carbs and still be healthy." And "You know, the WHO only tells you to lower your carbs because of calorie content and your teeth, not because it causes cancer or diabetes or any of that other stuff you guys love claiming."I agree with you, but not the way you'd prefer.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »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.html
Yes, I think many of the keto diets promoted on MFP are extremely nutrient poor. Just run it on cronometer and see. Like I said, it's possible to be in ketosis and have a healthy diet, but it takes as much -- likely more -- work as having a vegan diet that meets all nutrient needs, and diets that eschew vegetables in favor of extreme amounts of fat likely aren't cutting it. As I've said before, it seems bizarre to fixate on studies that indicate that excessive sugar is not a good idea, but to ignore all other results of the various population studies relating to nutrition.
I have never found food detail on a ketogenic diet here on MFP. You say you have seen them and determined they are nutrient poor, where are they?
0 -
I've seen people filling their calories with heavy cream.0
-
Or grass fed butter?!? And supplements. Don't forgot the supplements.stevencloser wrote: »I've seen people filling their calories with heavy cream.
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