Maybe Sugar IS the Devil - US Goverment Diet Recommendations
Replies
-
This thread could use some basic definitions.
1 calorie (1 cal) = the amount of energy it takes to heat 1 gram of water 1 degree Celsius
1 kilocalorie (1 kcal, 1 Cal) = the amount of energy it takes to heat 1000 g of water 1 degree Celsius.
The nutritional calorie is actually the kilocalorie.
Alcohol: a hydrocarbon with a hydroxyl (-OH) group bound to a saturated carbon (all single bonds)
Polyol: an alcohol with multiple hydroxyl groups (-OH)
Sugar Alcohol: a polyol formed when a monosaccharide is reduced (e.g. xylose --> xylitol)
Sugar alcohols are generally digestible, but present in such small quantities in foods that their overall caloric impact is small. They are not "alcohol" in the sense of being ethanol that you're drinking to get drunk.
And @stevencloser is right, sunlight is pure energy, therefore calories. We just don't convert it to biochemical energy in our systems, we require plant intermediaries. The calories involved in food as measured on labels are a crude approximation to what's actually going on in our system; we are not bomb calorimeters.
I really wish there was more comprehensive science literacy at the primary and secondary levels, and that everyone would take chemistry and physics in college the way everyone has to take English and physical education.
0 -
snowflake930 wrote: »NO, just NO.
You need sugar.
Moderation in all things.
Overindulging in any food can be bad for you.
Given that refined sugar has only been produced in the last couple of hundred years, I'm pretty sure humans don't *need* it.0 -
This thread could use some basic definitions.
1 calorie (1 cal) = the amount of energy it takes to heat 1 gram of water 1 degree Celsius
1 kilocalorie (1 kcal, 1 Cal) = the amount of energy it takes to heat 1000 g of water 1 degree Celsius.
The nutritional calorie is actually the kilocalorie.
Alcohol: a hydrocarbon with a hydroxyl (-OH) group bound to a saturated carbon (all single bonds)
Polyol: an alcohol with multiple hydroxyl groups (-OH)
Sugar Alcohol: a polyol formed when a monosaccharide is reduced (e.g. xylose --> xylitol)
Sugar alcohols are generally digestible, but present in such small quantities in foods that their overall caloric impact is small. They are not "alcohol" in the sense of being ethanol that you're drinking to get drunk.
And @stevencloser is right, sunlight is pure energy, therefore calories. We just don't convert it to biochemical energy in our systems, we require plant intermediaries. The calories involved in food as measured on labels are a crude approximation to what's actually going on in our system; we are not bomb calorimeters.
I really wish there was more comprehensive science literacy at the primary and secondary levels, and that everyone would take chemistry and physics in college the way everyone has to take English and physical education.
If that were the case mfp forums could not exist...0 -
Best me to it...
And I am pretty sure the first sugar refineries sprung youn 1500s which is 500 years ago ...0 -
snowflake930 wrote: »NO, just NO.
You need sugar.
Moderation in all things.
Overindulging in any food can be bad for you.
Given that refined sugar has only been produced in the last couple of hundred years, I'm pretty sure humans don't *need* it.
When a person with a scientific understanding of metabolism says 'you need sugar' they are referencing the fact that your body utilizes sugars solely to produce ATP, its energy-storage workhorse molecule. Your metabolic pathways work pretty hard to accomplish this with non-carbohydrate inputs. This is evident when you look at the human metabolic pathways (great reference at Nature)(1) the convergence of the metabolic pathways for carbohydrates, lipids & proteins and (2) several types of cells in your body can only utilize glucose as a source of energy, lacking the enzymes required to convert lipids or proteins to sugars.
There's solid reason why carbohydrate metabolism is central on the metabolic pathway map; and its all driven on glucose. You can force your body into primarily relying on protein & fat as a source of energy, but only within limits; go too far and you wind up with ketoacidosis, which is never, ever a good thing.
0 -
snowflake930 wrote: »NO, just NO.
You need sugar.
Moderation in all things.
Overindulging in any food can be bad for you.
Given that refined sugar has only been produced in the last couple of hundred years, I'm pretty sure humans don't *need* it.
When a person with a scientific understanding of metabolism says 'you need sugar' they are referencing the fact that your body utilizes sugars solely to produce ATP, its energy-storage workhorse molecule. Your metabolic pathways work pretty hard to accomplish this with non-carbohydrate inputs. This is evident when you look at the human metabolic pathways (great reference at Nature)(1) the convergence of the metabolic pathways for carbohydrates, lipids & proteins and (2) several types of cells in your body can only utilize glucose as a source of energy, lacking the enzymes required to convert lipids or proteins to sugars.
There's solid reason why carbohydrate metabolism is central on the metabolic pathway map; and its all driven on glucose. You can force your body into primarily relying on protein & fat as a source of energy, but only within limits; go too far and you wind up with ketoacidosis, which is never, ever a good thing.
The bolded is not correct for the vast majority of people. Only type 1 diabetics, type 2 diabetics who are insulin dependent, and a very few alcoholics ever need to worry about ketoacidosis ( very high blood glucose and very high ketones). People who achieve ketosis nutritionally will not have extraordinarily high ketones, nor will their blood glucose be high.0 -
“There appears to be an underlying assumption that if we can just eliminate the chemical of the decade from the food supply our public health problems will be solved. This intense focus on a single component of the food supply tends to diminish the appropriate focus on the total diet and moderation in consumption.” - As Dr. F. Edward Scarborough, former director of FDA’s Office of Food Labeling, re: “added sugars” on changes to the FDA Nutrition Facts Panel:
There's a lot of politics involved in the sugar recommendations. Enough so that the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC 2015) ignored the federal law about using current scientific evidence and data transparency (Section 301 of Public Law 101-445) and instead waved their hands and said, more or less, "well the WHO says so, that's good enough for us!". No carbohydrate metabolism experts were included on the DGAC 2015, and the review period was set to only 3 months for input. In addition, they bypassed the Nutrition Evidence Library entirely in preference of a "fast-track" of recommendations, thus ignoring policies regarding the selection of data in preference for politically selected reviews.
In 2015 the American Academy of Pediatrics issued a statement on added sugars noting that though added sugars have "no nutritional benefits" (aside from caloric intake, meaning they have no micronutrients) which pointed out the following:At the same time, sugars themselves are not necessarily harmful. Used along with nutrient-rich foods and beverages, added sugars can add substantially to daily calories. Used at extreme levels (i.e. more than 25% to 30% of total calories), sugars can displace other nutrients, resulting in deficiencies. Although added sugars are often presumed to be an independent cause of overweight, this claim has not been proven in studies. The DGA Advisory Committee found that “a moderate body of evidence suggests that under isocaloric controlled conditions, added sugars, including sugar-sweetened beverages, are no more likely to cause weight gain than any other source of energy.” Furthermore, the committee’s evidence review failed to find a causative connection between sugar consumption and type 2 diabetes mellitus, heart disease, or behavioral disorders. Similarly, recent reviews of the relationship between sugar consumption and the nutrient content of the diet found that the
association was nonlinear. Even a moderately high intake of added sugars was not necessarily associated with decrements in dietary nutrient intake. Care should be taken when prohibiting sugar-containing products to avoid compromising overall nutrition among children.
--COUNCIL ON SCHOOL HEALTH, COMMITTEE ON NUTRITION, American Academy of Pediatrics, POLICY STATEMENT Organizational Principles to Guide and Define the Child Health Care System and/or Improve the Health of all Children
Murray, Robert, et al. "Snacks, Sweetened Beverages, Added Sugars, and Schools." Pediatrics 135.3 (2015): 575-583.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
oyChihuahua wrote: »@tomteboda - You, I like.
Aye. Much evidence, very based.0 -
oyChihuahua wrote: »@tomteboda - You, I like.
Aye. Much evidence, very based.
Yes Sir, agreed. Somebody knows their stuff.
0 -
tomteboda, I think I love you.
duh-duh-duh-duhhhhh
But, I wanna know for sure
duh-duh-duh-duhhhhh
So come on and talk sweet science
duh-duh-duh-duhhhhh
I love you...0 -
science...pfft. I will just stick to my "notions" and "common sense"...lol :insertsarcasm:.
0 -
snowflake930 wrote: »NO, just NO.
You need sugar.
Moderation in all things.
Overindulging in any food can be bad for you.
Given that refined sugar has only been produced in the last couple of hundred years, I'm pretty sure humans don't *need* it.
When a person with a scientific understanding of metabolism says 'you need sugar' they are referencing the fact that your body utilizes sugars solely to produce ATP, its energy-storage workhorse molecule. Your metabolic pathways work pretty hard to accomplish this with non-carbohydrate inputs. This is evident when you look at the human metabolic pathways (great reference at Nature)(1) the convergence of the metabolic pathways for carbohydrates, lipids & proteins and (2) several types of cells in your body can only utilize glucose as a source of energy, lacking the enzymes required to convert lipids or proteins to sugars.
There's solid reason why carbohydrate metabolism is central on the metabolic pathway map; and its all driven on glucose. You can force your body into primarily relying on protein & fat as a source of energy, but only within limits; go too far and you wind up with ketoacidosis, which is never, ever a good thing.
The bolded is not correct for the vast majority of people. Only type 1 diabetics, type 2 diabetics who are insulin dependent, and a very few alcoholics ever need to worry about ketoacidosis ( very high blood glucose and very high ketones). People who achieve ketosis nutritionally will not have extraordinarily high ketones, nor will their blood glucose be high.
thats why the poster said "go too far" and did not say "it will happen to everyone" ..
words matter…
0 -
snowflake930 wrote: »NO, just NO.
You need sugar.
Moderation in all things.
Overindulging in any food can be bad for you.
Given that refined sugar has only been produced in the last couple of hundred years, I'm pretty sure humans don't *need* it.
When a person with a scientific understanding of metabolism says 'you need sugar' they are referencing the fact that your body utilizes sugars solely to produce ATP, its energy-storage workhorse molecule. Your metabolic pathways work pretty hard to accomplish this with non-carbohydrate inputs. This is evident when you look at the human metabolic pathways (great reference at Nature)(1) the convergence of the metabolic pathways for carbohydrates, lipids & proteins and (2) several types of cells in your body can only utilize glucose as a source of energy, lacking the enzymes required to convert lipids or proteins to sugars.
There's solid reason why carbohydrate metabolism is central on the metabolic pathway map; and its all driven on glucose. You can force your body into primarily relying on protein & fat as a source of energy, but only within limits; go too far and you wind up with ketoacidosis, which is never, ever a good thing.
The bolded is not correct for the vast majority of people. Only type 1 diabetics, type 2 diabetics who are insulin dependent, and a very few alcoholics ever need to worry about ketoacidosis ( very high blood glucose and very high ketones). People who achieve ketosis nutritionally will not have extraordinarily high ketones, nor will their blood glucose be high.
thats why the poster said "go too far" and did not say "it will happen to everyone" ..
words matter…
Yes words matter but most people can't go to far into ketosis. That is still wrong.
It is IMPOSSIBLE for Ketoacidosis to happen to anyone but insulin dependent diabetics and possibly a few alcoholics.
ETA that diabetics can live in ketosis quite safely if they take insulin. DKA only happens when insulin is very low to nonexistent.0 -
snowflake930 wrote: »NO, just NO.
You need sugar.
Moderation in all things.
Overindulging in any food can be bad for you.
Given that refined sugar has only been produced in the last couple of hundred years, I'm pretty sure humans don't *need* it.
When a person with a scientific understanding of metabolism says 'you need sugar' they are referencing the fact that your body utilizes sugars solely to produce ATP, its energy-storage workhorse molecule. Your metabolic pathways work pretty hard to accomplish this with non-carbohydrate inputs. This is evident when you look at the human metabolic pathways (great reference at Nature)(1) the convergence of the metabolic pathways for carbohydrates, lipids & proteins and (2) several types of cells in your body can only utilize glucose as a source of energy, lacking the enzymes required to convert lipids or proteins to sugars.
There's solid reason why carbohydrate metabolism is central on the metabolic pathway map; and its all driven on glucose. You can force your body into primarily relying on protein & fat as a source of energy, but only within limits; go too far and you wind up with ketoacidosis, which is never, ever a good thing.
The bolded is not correct for the vast majority of people. Only type 1 diabetics, type 2 diabetics who are insulin dependent, and a very few alcoholics ever need to worry about ketoacidosis ( very high blood glucose and very high ketones). People who achieve ketosis nutritionally will not have extraordinarily high ketones, nor will their blood glucose be high.
thats why the poster said "go too far" and did not say "it will happen to everyone" ..
words matter…
Yes words matter but most people can't go to far into ketosis. That is still wrong.
It is IMPOSSIBLE for Ketoacidosis to happen to anyone but insulin dependent diabetics and possibly a few alcoholics.
ETA that diabetics can live in ketosis quite safely if they take insulin. DKA only happens when insulin is very low to nonexistent.
No. It is extremely rare outside of T1 diabetics and alcoholics.
Other instances include:
Severe fasting with lacation: https://nutritionj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12937-015-0076-2
Severe Hyperthyroidism: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/488880
Science tends to involve hedging bets and couching language away from absolutes, so I'd avoid impossible when talking about human medical conditions.0 -
Fair enough.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.8K Introduce Yourself
- 43.9K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions