We Can Blame Sugar All We Like – But We're Only Creating More Problems For Ourselves
Options
Replies
-
WIC is much more restrictive than the general food stamp program, from my understanding, which is why there's the "WIC approved" signs in stores, I'd think.0
-
T2 Diabetes causes high blood sugar - high sugar intake doesn't cause T2D.
Obesity seems to be the main causal factor here, but you can be obese from overeating anything - it doesn't matter if those calories are coming from fat, sugar, or anything else.[/quote]
My favourite ignorant comment of the thread! Thanks for the laugh.
The sky rocketing T2 diabetes in the last couple of generations is just bad genetics and bad luck or a failure to carefully monitor every calorie consumed and expended! And different foods had no different effects on the body or hormones or nothing. I love the simplicity! Makes it so convenient to say that just getting fat causes illness. So everyone, listen up: stop getting fat! It couldn't be possible at all that obesity may actually be a symptom of an underlying problem? Obesity causes T2 diabetes is the the concept that will keep everyone getting sicker and justify never considering that the food matters and allow food manufacturers to do anything they want with the food they produce to increase consumption and maximize profits (oh, and I'm sure you deny/have no clue that food processors spend many dollars on research to maximize consumption and profits... lol).
And why is it so hard for our bodies to know when to stop eating? Why did our ancestors know when to stop eating? And they had no way to count every single calorie or measure how many calories were burned by their activity. Oh my! What totally self-moderating and full of willpower ancestors most of us had... but we didn't inherit those traits. Oh dear, bad luck. But the massive societal change from whole foods to mostly processed high sugar foods would have nothing to do with that of course!
For anyone these days to pretend that a high sugar/processed food diet has no impact on health, or could not possibly be a cause of obesity and T2 diabetes just boggles my mind. Or that obesity is only all about a lack of willpower to moderate food intake and nothing to do with biochemistry is again mind-blowing. But thanks for the entertainment!0 -
Akimajuktuq wrote: »T2 Diabetes causes high blood sugar - high sugar intake doesn't cause T2D.
Obesity seems to be the main causal factor here, but you can be obese from overeating anything - it doesn't matter if those calories are coming from fat, sugar, or anything else.
My favourite ignorant comment of the thread! Thanks for the laugh.
The sky rocketing T2 diabetes in the last couple of generations is just bad genetics and bad luck or a failure to carefully monitor every calorie consumed and expended! And different foods had no different effects on the body or hormones or nothing. I love the simplicity! Makes it so convenient to say that just getting fat causes illness. So everyone, listen up: stop getting fat! It couldn't be possible at all that obesity may actually be a symptom of an underlying problem? Obesity causes T2 diabetes is the the concept that will keep everyone getting sicker and justify never considering that the food matters and allow food manufacturers to do anything they want with the food they produce to increase consumption and maximize profits (oh, and I'm sure you deny/have no clue that food processors spend many dollars on research to maximize consumption and profits... lol).
And why is it so hard for our bodies to know when to stop eating? Why did our ancestors know when to stop eating? And they had no way to count every single calorie or measure how many calories were burned by their activity. Oh my! What totally self-moderating and full of willpower ancestors most of us had... but we didn't inherit those traits. Oh dear, bad luck. But the massive societal change from whole foods to mostly processed high sugar foods would have nothing to do with that of course!
For anyone these days to pretend that a high sugar/processed food diet has no impact on health, or could not possibly be a cause of obesity and T2 diabetes just boggles my mind. Or that obesity is only all about a lack of willpower to moderate food intake and nothing to do with biochemistry is again mind-blowing. But thanks for the entertainment!
Samsies.
Edited to fix borked quotes.0 -
Akimajuktuq wrote: »
T2 Diabetes causes high blood sugar - high sugar intake doesn't cause T2D.
Obesity seems to be the main causal factor here, but you can be obese from overeating anything - it doesn't matter if those calories are coming from fat, sugar, or anything else.
My favourite ignorant comment of the thread! Thanks for the laugh.
Obesity causes T2 diabetes is the the concept that will keep everyone getting sicker and justify never considering that the food matters and allow food manufacturers to do anything they want with the food they produce to increase consumption and maximize profits (oh, and I'm sure you deny/have no clue that food processors spend many dollars on research to maximize consumption and profits... lol).
[/quote]
Wait. Stop the presses. You are saying that a for profit corporation is trying to make their product desirable to consumers? You're right, I had NO IDEA! How dare they try to make their food so palatable that they have effectively removed ALL of my personal choice and responsibility out of the decision making process. They should focus on research to create sub par products that no one wants. That's the best business model, by far...
0 -
Akimajuktuq wrote: »
T2 Diabetes causes high blood sugar - high sugar intake doesn't cause T2D.
Obesity seems to be the main causal factor here, but you can be obese from overeating anything - it doesn't matter if those calories are coming from fat, sugar, or anything else.
My favourite ignorant comment of the thread! Thanks for the laugh.
The sky rocketing T2 diabetes in the last couple of generations is just bad genetics and bad luck or a failure to carefully monitor every calorie consumed and expended! And different foods had no different effects on the body or hormones or nothing. I love the simplicity! Makes it so convenient to say that just getting fat causes illness. So everyone, listen up: stop getting fat! It couldn't be possible at all that obesity may actually be a symptom of an underlying problem? Obesity causes T2 diabetes is the the concept that will keep everyone getting sicker and justify never considering that the food matters and allow food manufacturers to do anything they want with the food they produce to increase consumption and maximize profits (oh, and I'm sure you deny/have no clue that food processors spend many dollars on research to maximize consumption and profits... lol).
And why is it so hard for our bodies to know when to stop eating? Why did our ancestors know when to stop eating? And they had no way to count every single calorie or measure how many calories were burned by their activity. Oh my! What totally self-moderating and full of willpower ancestors most of us had... but we didn't inherit those traits. Oh dear, bad luck. But the massive societal change from whole foods to mostly processed high sugar foods would have nothing to do with that of course!
For anyone these days to pretend that a high sugar/processed food diet has no impact on health, or could not possibly be a cause of obesity and T2 diabetes just boggles my mind. Or that obesity is only all about a lack of willpower to moderate food intake and nothing to do with biochemistry is again mind-blowing. But thanks for the entertainment!
Given the fact that our ancestors didn't have the abundance of food that we do, I'm going to guess that they stopped eating when they ran out of food.
0 -
Akimajuktuq wrote: »
T2 Diabetes causes high blood sugar - high sugar intake doesn't cause T2D.
Obesity seems to be the main causal factor here, but you can be obese from overeating anything - it doesn't matter if those calories are coming from fat, sugar, or anything else.
My favourite ignorant comment of the thread! Thanks for the laugh.
The sky rocketing T2 diabetes in the last couple of generations is just bad genetics and bad luck or a failure to carefully monitor every calorie consumed and expended! And different foods had no different effects on the body or hormones or nothing. I love the simplicity! Makes it so convenient to say that just getting fat causes illness. So everyone, listen up: stop getting fat! It couldn't be possible at all that obesity may actually be a symptom of an underlying problem? Obesity causes T2 diabetes is the the concept that will keep everyone getting sicker and justify never considering that the food matters and allow food manufacturers to do anything they want with the food they produce to increase consumption and maximize profits (oh, and I'm sure you deny/have no clue that food processors spend many dollars on research to maximize consumption and profits... lol).
And why is it so hard for our bodies to know when to stop eating? Why did our ancestors know when to stop eating? And they had no way to count every single calorie or measure how many calories were burned by their activity. Oh my! What totally self-moderating and full of willpower ancestors most of us had... but we didn't inherit those traits. Oh dear, bad luck. But the massive societal change from whole foods to mostly processed high sugar foods would have nothing to do with that of course!
For anyone these days to pretend that a high sugar/processed food diet has no impact on health, or could not possibly be a cause of obesity and T2 diabetes just boggles my mind. Or that obesity is only all about a lack of willpower to moderate food intake and nothing to do with biochemistry is again mind-blowing. But thanks for the entertainment!
If only there was like... some people whose whole job and expertise revolved around finding out the causes and risk factors for certain things, if there was people researching this kind of stuff, let's call them researchers if you will.
If only...
Welp, too bad that there isn't anyone like that. We're still reliant on feelings of good and evil like 3000 years ago.0 -
Akimajuktuq wrote: »Makes it so convenient to say that just getting fat causes illness.
This is what the evidence indicates. Being obese puts you at higher risk for all kinds of illnesses.So everyone, listen up: stop getting fat! It couldn't be possible at all that obesity may actually be a symptom of an underlying problem?
Seems convenient -- I didn't overeat or live too sedentary a lifestyle! No credible evidence to support that.Obesity causes T2 diabetes is the the concept that will keep everyone getting sicker and justify never considering that the food matters and allow food manufacturers to do anything they want with the food they produce to increase consumption and maximize profits (oh, and I'm sure you deny/have no clue that food processors spend many dollars on research to maximize consumption and profits... lol).
Why would obesity causes T2D keep everyone getting sicker? Seems like a good reason not to be overweight or obese. You know, things you have control over.
If you don't want to eat highly processed foods with lots of added sugar, added fat, or sodium, good for you. I don't particularly want to either (because IMO they don't taste good enough to be worth the calories -- my indulgences are mostly homemade, but for some ice creams (which I eat in moderation and much more now that I am not overweight, oddly enough). So I don't. Somehow those food manufacturers don't seem to have the power to control what I eat, even though of course they try to make their foods more appealing to consumers. When I cook for friends and family, I usually try to make my food as appealing as possible, too.And why is it so hard for our bodies to know when to stop eating? Why did our ancestors know when to stop eating?
We evolved in an environment of scarcity and until recently lived in scarcity as well as in societies that restricted consumption through cultural means (as I wrote above, or maybe in some other thread, who knows, even in my childhood people didn't overindulge the way they do now or eat constantly between meals -- the same foods were available in large part, but that wasn't the culture). So would our ancestors have known how to automatically stop eating when they hit the right amount, given a food culture like today (all around, eat whenever you want) even if they'd have the delicacies of their time and not ours? I seriously doubt it. Like I said above, overeating on homemade food or the equivalent has never been difficult for me. (And I never ate a high sugar or highly processed food based diet and yet got fat. How could that have happened?! Oh, right, calories.)0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »susan100df wrote: »I wonder if companies should be required to list calories in readable text when advertising food, especially restaurants. Would it help if Pizza Hut had to list the calories?
Aren't we already requiring this (for chains)? It's being rolled out. [Edit: I see that was addressed long ago. The perils of responding before reading to the end.]
Most of the lunch places around my office and many chains (and all fast food, I believe) locally do this, so I can say it wouldn't have mattered to me when I was overeating. I KNEW I was overeating, and I avoided looking at the calories as much as possible.
However, I am in favor. It's helpful to me now, and many people probably do overeat unintentionally. A Big Mac and large fries, yeah, they know the calories are high. Some of the sandwiches in, say, an Au Bon Pain? It's not always obvious from the menu what would be crazy high and what wouldn't be. Also, I think having to list the calories tends to be a deterrent to having everything be really high, and encourages the restaurant to have some lower cal options.
I don't think this should apply to smaller restaurants (non chains). It's too burdensome, they aren't a huge portion of the restaurant meals in the US (except for people like me who probably dine out more and tend to be more interested in food and thus can be expected to understand better what the calories are likely to be), and people can ask questions (and the restaurant has a huge interest in making customers happy by being responsive and agreeing to alterations requested). Plus, it's not like there's a shortage of chains in the US if people really don't want to eat somewhere without knowing the calories.
On the same topic, I remember a study done some time ago where the amount of non-drive-through calories purchased and eaten were compared at a McDonald's without calories listed, and then at the same McDonald's after calorie info was posted on the ordering menu above the counter.
There was no significant difference after the calories were posted.
I don't think those numbers mean anything to people unless they are actively tracking or have tracked in the past. Otherwise, they seem to be completely ignored.0 -
Akimajuktuq wrote: »And why is it so hard for our bodies to know when to stop eating? Why did our ancestors know when to stop eating? And they had no way to count every single calorie or measure how many calories were burned by their activity. Oh my! What totally self-moderating and full of willpower ancestors most of us had...
The fact that this question can even be asked with a straight face is what boggles my mind.
I assume we're talking about "ancestors" in the sense of before modern food preservation/processing methods, since preserved/processed food seems to be the "devil" of this topic. That being the case, our ancestors didn't have grocery stores or refrigerators or freezers. Without a method of preserving most foods, stockpiling would be basically impossible due to spoilage. They didn't have drive-through restaurants on every corner, or any restaurants at all, for that matter. They ate what they hunted, or grew on their land, or what they traded for within their village/community. Food scarcity was much more common than abundance and a person who overate would probably be castigated for their gluttony because they would literally be taking food out of somebody else's mouth. It wasn't a matter of "they knew when to stop eating" - it was a matter of "they had no choice but to stop eating, because an excess of food wasn't available". They couldn't just run to the grocery store for some tasty snacks or call up the local pizza parlor for an extra large pie. If their hunt wasn't successful or the crops weren't producing, they went hungry.
They were also far more physically active than society today. No cars, no mass transit, no means of transportation other than walking (or riding animals, at some point). The CI<CO equation was logically far different than it is in modern society....is this even a surprise to anybody?
It's also conveniently omitted from such discussions that the life expectancy of our ancestors was far lower than it is in modern society. They weren't the glowing, vibrant, healthy little Paleo warriors that idealists portray. Malnutrition and diseases were much more prevalent and many more died from them than do in modern society.
If we move the time clock even as far ahead as Ye Olde England, obesity was a sign of prosperity and wealth. It signified that you had the means to acquire an abundance of food and lived a life of leisure, as opposed to the peasants/commoners who were still starving, subsistence farming and doing hard manual labor.
This is all common sense, yet is completely ignored by the "sugar and processed foodz iz da debilz" people. Our modern society is obese because we eat too much and don't move enough.0 -
I agree that scare tactics are not a good thing. However the whole bit about it not being addictive is inaccurate, people use physically addictive drugs but still don't do them constantly with no control. To be honest they're are probably more people who can't stop eating sugar than those who can't stop doing physically addictive drugs. Most people who do/try drugs do not have/ever have a problem.0
-
So much good stuff in this thread, want to make some comments..._Terrapin_ wrote: »Bloomberg View: In Mexico, a Soda Tax Success Story. This week's Bloomberg has a short write-up on the tax on soda in Mexico. Paraphrasing the article, sugary drinks are the primary driver of obesity, purchases of sugary drinks dropped 12%, obesity is becoming a global epidemic the greatest group helped by the tax are the poor which has also helps lower their need for medical care which is costly. I can see this becoming a more popular idea in the coming years. Last bullet point: Sugary drinks should be eliminated from the federal food stamps program. Food for thought folks.
Interesting! I bet it will have more of an impact in Mexico than it would in the US. Mexicans spend something like 20-25% of their income on food and Americans spend around 5-10%. That's not to say taxes have no impact, just that I would expect the effect to be greater there than here.susan100df wrote: »While I don't think sugar is the devil, I do know that the foods I overeat have an abundance of sugar. If that ingredient isn't in the food, I have zero interest in overeating it. Thats the same for many people. Discussing is helpful. Being slammed in the forum for wanting to discuss is harmful. Prohibiting the discussion because you don't believe it exists does not help anyone. Just because you don't have the issue, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
I could get plenty obese without ever touching sugary treats. Pizza, Mexican food, Chinese food, BBQ, burgers and french fries, etc. I'd much sooner eat 3,000 calories of Mexican food than I would 3,000 calories of cake, pie, donuts or candy bars. Sweets are actually pretty easy for me to control, they're rarely the thing I have interest in overeating.
Mexican food! Are we related? I could eat ALL of the Mexican food.Christine_72 wrote: »Just because it's savoury doesn't mean there's no sugar in it.. For example, a large Hawaiian pizza which equals 6 smallish slices has 27.6g of sugar. I think one would be hard pressed to find any "junk" food that doesn't contain sugar.
I was pondering this when I was about to call myself one of those people that prefer savory foods. It does seem like sugar gets added to a lot of stuff for flavor. Is sugar somehow in my burrito from my Mexican food restaurant? Possibly.I think it is like alcohol. Not everyone who drinks has a problem with alcohol but can be very critical to those that have a problem. I enjoy this discussion because most posters are writing very thoughtful posts despite what side they are on.
I think there are a lot of parallels between alcohol and sugar (minus that they don't needlessly add alcohol to a bunch of our foods, nor is congress promoting agricultural welfare to keep the beer-makers in business). It's interesting, in any "what am I doing wrong/why am I not losing weight" thread you will always see someone posting that carbs are evil and that's why this person isn't losing weight. But you never see people making the same judgment calls about a glass of wine every night. As long as that glass of wine fits in people's calories, no one freaks out over it. Even though, our body's ability to process alcohol is way more limited than to process carbs which we are really good at. I wonder how many low carb fanatics are actually drinking alcohol frequently but don't see the parallel.The schools themselves? None; those companies don't sponsor schools just to exist. They do, however, sponsor a lot of research which is often conducted at medical schools (at least, any decent medical school should also be conducting medical research).
I am currently reading The Sports Gene (would recommend, very fascinating) and just listened to a bit today where one of the genetic researchers is much more interested in what genetics come into play in athletic performance but there's very little funding for that. So he's studying and publishing papers on childhood obesity because there's plenty of money in that. Even though he complains all of the factors for obesity are likely environmental and that very little can really be done genetics-wise. I never really thought about the fact that the food companies might want to fund genetic obesity research because it shifts the focus away from their possible contributions.stevencloser wrote: »If only there was like... some people whose whole job and expertise revolved around finding out the causes and risk factors for certain things, if there was people researching this kind of stuff, let's call them researchers if you will.
If only...
Welp, too bad that there isn't anyone like that. We're still reliant on feelings of good and evil like 3000 years ago.
Brilliant!0 -
blues4miles wrote: »So much good stuff in this thread, want to make some comments..._Terrapin_ wrote: »Bloomberg View: In Mexico, a Soda Tax Success Story. This week's Bloomberg has a short write-up on the tax on soda in Mexico. Paraphrasing the article, sugary drinks are the primary driver of obesity, purchases of sugary drinks dropped 12%, obesity is becoming a global epidemic the greatest group helped by the tax are the poor which has also helps lower their need for medical care which is costly. I can see this becoming a more popular idea in the coming years. Last bullet point: Sugary drinks should be eliminated from the federal food stamps program. Food for thought folks.
Interesting! I bet it will have more of an impact in Mexico than it would in the US. Mexicans spend something like 20-25% of their income on food and Americans spend around 5-10%. That's not to say taxes have no impact, just that I would expect the effect to be greater there than here.susan100df wrote: »While I don't think sugar is the devil, I do know that the foods I overeat have an abundance of sugar. If that ingredient isn't in the food, I have zero interest in overeating it. Thats the same for many people. Discussing is helpful. Being slammed in the forum for wanting to discuss is harmful. Prohibiting the discussion because you don't believe it exists does not help anyone. Just because you don't have the issue, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
I could get plenty obese without ever touching sugary treats. Pizza, Mexican food, Chinese food, BBQ, burgers and french fries, etc. I'd much sooner eat 3,000 calories of Mexican food than I would 3,000 calories of cake, pie, donuts or candy bars. Sweets are actually pretty easy for me to control, they're rarely the thing I have interest in overeating.
Mexican food! Are we related? I could eat ALL of the Mexican food.Christine_72 wrote: »Just because it's savoury doesn't mean there's no sugar in it.. For example, a large Hawaiian pizza which equals 6 smallish slices has 27.6g of sugar. I think one would be hard pressed to find any "junk" food that doesn't contain sugar.
I was pondering this when I was about to call myself one of those people that prefer savory foods. It does seem like sugar gets added to a lot of stuff for flavor. Is sugar somehow in my burrito from my Mexican food restaurant? Possibly.I think it is like alcohol. Not everyone who drinks has a problem with alcohol but can be very critical to those that have a problem. I enjoy this discussion because most posters are writing very thoughtful posts despite what side they are on.
I think there are a lot of parallels between alcohol and sugar (minus that they don't needlessly add alcohol to a bunch of our foods, nor is congress promoting agricultural welfare to keep the beer-makers in business). It's interesting, in any "what am I doing wrong/why am I not losing weight" thread you will always see someone posting that carbs are evil and that's why this person isn't losing weight. But you never see people making the same judgment calls about a glass of wine every night. As long as that glass of wine fits in people's calories, no one freaks out over it. Even though, our body's ability to process alcohol is way more limited than to process carbs which we are really good at. I wonder how many low carb fanatics are actually drinking alcohol frequently but don't see the parallel.The schools themselves? None; those companies don't sponsor schools just to exist. They do, however, sponsor a lot of research which is often conducted at medical schools (at least, any decent medical school should also be conducting medical research).
I am currently reading The Sports Gene (would recommend, very fascinating) and just listened to a bit today where one of the genetic researchers is much more interested in what genetics come into play in athletic performance but there's very little funding for that. So he's studying and publishing papers on childhood obesity because there's plenty of money in that. Even though he complains all of the factors for obesity are likely environmental and that very little can really be done genetics-wise. I never really thought about the fact that the food companies might want to fund genetic obesity research because it shifts the focus away from their possible contributions.stevencloser wrote: »If only there was like... some people whose whole job and expertise revolved around finding out the causes and risk factors for certain things, if there was people researching this kind of stuff, let's call them researchers if you will.
If only...
Welp, too bad that there isn't anyone like that. We're still reliant on feelings of good and evil like 3000 years ago.
Brilliant!
IT IS THE BEST BOOK EVER!! Ok, I like a lot of fiction better, but it was a fascinating read. I'm not a huge non-fiction reader, but as a geneticist, it was a great read, and I love how I can recommend it to a lot of people who don't understand genetics at all (and they will after reading it).
ETA: I think my favorite fun fact from the book is that while humans need to recover to build muscle, huskies build muscle even while using them. So, dogs that run the Iditarod end up with more muscle than when they started.0 -
I agree that scare tactics are not a good thing. However the whole bit about it not being addictive is inaccurate, people use physically addictive drugs but still don't do them constantly with no control. To be honest they're are probably more people who can't stop eating sugar than those who can't stop doing physically addictive drugs. Most people who do/try drugs do not have/ever have a problem.
While I think it's true that there are more people who can't stop eating sugar...the environmental factors are obviously at play here. Sugar is legally and affordably available almost anywhere. It does not impair my ability to drive. It probably doesn't lower my inhibitions or cause me to make choices I otherwise wouldn't or impair my cognitive function. When a substance is legally prohibited, when you need to go out of your way to obtain it, when you might suffer imprisonment as a result of obtaining it, and it's not cheap, there are a lot more barriers to entry. Alcohol is probably the closest comparison in being legal and the most readily available. But many states have laws that prevent where alcohol can be sold, some even on what day. There are plenty of people who pretty much 'need' a glass of wine with dinner every night but wouldn't call themselves an alcoholic and wouldn't say they are addicted. Most people who consider themselves alcoholics and are in recovery did so because excess alcohol caused them to have other problems (license taken away, loss of job). The penalties of consuming excess sugar are a lot more personal and a lot less societal.0 -
"Sugar is not an addictive substance either; not in the true sense of the word.
If that were the case, sugar addicts would literally eat sugar by the spoon out of the bag. They don't, and so comparing sugar to physically or psychologically addictive drugs is stupid, alarmist, and misleading."
Glory, honor, and all the finest muffins and cookies in the land to this quote. As the most recent offspring of alcoholic after alcoholic after alcoholic after alcoholic and so on back through the generations, I'm so unbelievably tired of hearing about "addiction to sugar".0 -
blues4miles wrote: »So much good stuff in this thread, want to make some comments..._Terrapin_ wrote: »Bloomberg View: In Mexico, a Soda Tax Success Story. This week's Bloomberg has a short write-up on the tax on soda in Mexico. Paraphrasing the article, sugary drinks are the primary driver of obesity, purchases of sugary drinks dropped 12%, obesity is becoming a global epidemic the greatest group helped by the tax are the poor which has also helps lower their need for medical care which is costly. I can see this becoming a more popular idea in the coming years. Last bullet point: Sugary drinks should be eliminated from the federal food stamps program. Food for thought folks.
Interesting! I bet it will have more of an impact in Mexico than it would in the US. Mexicans spend something like 20-25% of their income on food and Americans spend around 5-10%. That's not to say taxes have no impact, just that I would expect the effect to be greater there than here.susan100df wrote: »While I don't think sugar is the devil, I do know that the foods I overeat have an abundance of sugar. If that ingredient isn't in the food, I have zero interest in overeating it. Thats the same for many people. Discussing is helpful. Being slammed in the forum for wanting to discuss is harmful. Prohibiting the discussion because you don't believe it exists does not help anyone. Just because you don't have the issue, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
I could get plenty obese without ever touching sugary treats. Pizza, Mexican food, Chinese food, BBQ, burgers and french fries, etc. I'd much sooner eat 3,000 calories of Mexican food than I would 3,000 calories of cake, pie, donuts or candy bars. Sweets are actually pretty easy for me to control, they're rarely the thing I have interest in overeating.
Mexican food! Are we related? I could eat ALL of the Mexican food.Christine_72 wrote: »Just because it's savoury doesn't mean there's no sugar in it.. For example, a large Hawaiian pizza which equals 6 smallish slices has 27.6g of sugar. I think one would be hard pressed to find any "junk" food that doesn't contain sugar.
I was pondering this when I was about to call myself one of those people that prefer savory foods. It does seem like sugar gets added to a lot of stuff for flavor. Is sugar somehow in my burrito from my Mexican food restaurant? Possibly.I think it is like alcohol. Not everyone who drinks has a problem with alcohol but can be very critical to those that have a problem. I enjoy this discussion because most posters are writing very thoughtful posts despite what side they are on.
I think there are a lot of parallels between alcohol and sugar (minus that they don't needlessly add alcohol to a bunch of our foods, nor is congress promoting agricultural welfare to keep the beer-makers in business). It's interesting, in any "what am I doing wrong/why am I not losing weight" thread you will always see someone posting that carbs are evil and that's why this person isn't losing weight. But you never see people making the same judgment calls about a glass of wine every night. As long as that glass of wine fits in people's calories, no one freaks out over it. Even though, our body's ability to process alcohol is way more limited than to process carbs which we are really good at. I wonder how many low carb fanatics are actually drinking alcohol frequently but don't see the parallel.The schools themselves? None; those companies don't sponsor schools just to exist. They do, however, sponsor a lot of research which is often conducted at medical schools (at least, any decent medical school should also be conducting medical research).
I am currently reading The Sports Gene (would recommend, very fascinating) and just listened to a bit today where one of the genetic researchers is much more interested in what genetics come into play in athletic performance but there's very little funding for that. So he's studying and publishing papers on childhood obesity because there's plenty of money in that. Even though he complains all of the factors for obesity are likely environmental and that very little can really be done genetics-wise. I never really thought about the fact that the food companies might want to fund genetic obesity research because it shifts the focus away from their possible contributions.stevencloser wrote: »If only there was like... some people whose whole job and expertise revolved around finding out the causes and risk factors for certain things, if there was people researching this kind of stuff, let's call them researchers if you will.
If only...
Welp, too bad that there isn't anyone like that. We're still reliant on feelings of good and evil like 3000 years ago.
Brilliant!
IT IS THE BEST BOOK EVER!! Ok, I like a lot of fiction better, but it was a fascinating read. I'm not a huge non-fiction reader, but as a geneticist, it was a great read, and I love how I can recommend it to a lot of people who don't understand genetics at all (and they will after reading it).
ETA: I think my favorite fun fact from the book is that while humans need to recover to build muscle, huskies build muscle even while using them. So, dogs that run the Iditarod end up with more muscle than when they started.
Cool--based on these two posts I just put this on my Kindle. If nothing else, this thread resulted in a great book recommendation!
0 -
Ötzi, a man found in the alps dating from 5300 years ago, was found to have arteriosclerosis and genes that are strongly linked to heart disease. He also had cavaties. I find this particularly interesting because these discoveries are coming out now, but when I read the book "The Man in the Ice: The Discovery of a 5,000-Year-Old Body Reveals the Secrets of the Stone Age" (1995, Konrad Spindler) the author, one of the preeminent experts and the official anthropologist credited with Ötzi's discovery, rhapsodized about the man's perfect health and lack of metabolic problems, speculating that his pure ancient diet protected him. What is now known is that Ötzi had arthritis, Lyme's disease, heart disease, and ulcers, among other things. Dr. Spindler's speculations now are fairly obviously rather fanciful, but at the time they were considered nearly "Facts" by people and are casually quoted by people who don't know any better to this day.
As far as our ancestors go, diabetes has been around forever, with documentation dating all the way back to 1550 B.C.E. (Hesy-Ra, an Egyptian physician). Anthropologists have been discovering that diabetes was common in people in ancient times through analysis and testing of tissues in mummified people. It was named in the early 2nd century by Aretaeus, a greek physician. It was Indian physicians, Sushruta and Charaka, in the 5th century of the C.E. who recognized that some people are born with the disease, while others develop it later, and that those who do later are frequently well-fed and sedentary. It was notably a disease of prosperity!
I'm so glad so many people caught the false claim that our food is causing diabetes. This is absurd. Diabetes a disease of regulation of blood sugars. The no.1 risk factor is.... GENETICS. Yep, you inherited those genes that made lousy enzymes. Sorry. What inactivity and high caloric intake and obesity do is exacerbate the already-present problem. They put stress on your body, so that a small problem becomes bigger. You were hard-wired to have trouble with your blood sugar metabolism. The elevated blood sugar is merely a consequence (albeit a very undesirable one).
According to the WHO, currently 9% of adults worldwide have diabetes. One of the main reasons that you see a LOT more diabetes now is that we aggressively test for it. Knowing the health consequences of untreated diabetes, doctors are keen to look for it. We even have a new diagnosis of "pre-diabetes" which leads to people being treated for their risk of having the disease (as defined by high blood sugar). At some point we're going to start simply analyzing people for whether they carry genes that cause blood sugar dysregulation instead of waiting for symptoms (elevated blood sugar is a symptom) to show up.
Why are people fatter than ever before? Because we have more food available than ever before. For the first time in human history, malnutrition and its associated diseases are not the primary cause of death. This is actually something worth celebrating, rather than romanticizing widespread hunger.0 -
CoffeeNCardio wrote: »"Sugar is not an addictive substance either; not in the true sense of the word.
If that were the case, sugar addicts would literally eat sugar by the spoon out of the bag. They don't, and so comparing sugar to physically or psychologically addictive drugs is stupid, alarmist, and misleading."
Glory, honor, and all the finest muffins and cookies in the land to this quote. As the most recent offspring of alcoholic after alcoholic after alcoholic after alcoholic and so on back through the generations, I'm so unbelievably tired of hearing about "addiction to sugar".
Are you me? ;-)0 -
Ötzi, a man found in the alps dating from 5300 years ago, was found to have arteriosclerosis and genes that are strongly linked to heart disease. He also had cavaties. I find this particularly interesting because these discoveries are coming out now, but when I read the book "The Man in the Ice: The Discovery of a 5,000-Year-Old Body Reveals the Secrets of the Stone Age" (1995, Konrad Spindler) the author, one of the preeminent experts and the official anthropologist credited with Ötzi's discovery, rhapsodized about the man's perfect health and lack of metabolic problems, speculating that his pure ancient diet protected him. What is now known is that Ötzi had arthritis, Lyme's disease, heart disease, and ulcers, among other things. Dr. Spindler's speculations now are fairly obviously rather fanciful, but at the time they were considered nearly "Facts" by people and are casually quoted by people who don't know any better to this day.
As far as our ancestors go, diabetes has been around forever, with documentation dating all the way back to 1550 B.C.E. (Hesy-Ra, an Egyptian physician). Anthropologists have been discovering that diabetes was common in people in ancient times through analysis and testing of tissues in mummified people. It was named in the early 2nd century by Aretaeus, a greek physician. It was Indian physicians, Sushruta and Charaka, in the 5th century of the C.E. who recognized that some people are born with the disease, while others develop it later, and that those who do later are frequently well-fed and sedentary. It was notably a disease of prosperity!
I'm so glad so many people caught the false claim that our food is causing diabetes. This is absurd. Diabetes a disease of regulation of blood sugars. The no.1 risk factor is.... GENETICS. Yep, you inherited those genes that made lousy enzymes. Sorry. What inactivity and high caloric intake and obesity do is exacerbate the already-present problem. They put stress on your body, so that a small problem becomes bigger. You were hard-wired to have trouble with your blood sugar metabolism. The elevated blood sugar is merely a consequence (albeit a very undesirable one).
According to the WHO, currently 9% of adults worldwide have diabetes. One of the main reasons that you see a LOT more diabetes now is that we aggressively test for it. Knowing the health consequences of untreated diabetes, doctors are keen to look for it. We even have a new diagnosis of "pre-diabetes" which leads to people being treated for their risk of having the disease (as defined by high blood sugar). At some point we're going to start simply analyzing people for whether they carry genes that cause blood sugar dysregulation instead of waiting for symptoms (elevated blood sugar is a symptom) to show up.
Why are people fatter than ever before? Because we have more food available than ever before. For the first time in human history, malnutrition and its associated diseases are not the primary cause of death. This is actually something worth celebrating, rather than romanticizing widespread hunger.
0 -
https://bretcontreras.com/sugar-the-sweet-truth/
Sugar – The Sweet Truth
Written by: Menno Henselmans
There are only 2 things that every nutritionist in the world seems to agree on (and we know everyone is a nutritionist these days). Vegetables are good and sugar is bad.
But things aren’t so black and white if we let the light of science shine on sugar. Will sugar make you fat? It depends on your diet.
Specifically, sugar’s effect on your body composition depends on if your diet has a predefined set of macros that you stick to every day or if you just eat until you’re full.
If you eat until you’re full (ad libitum, as researchers call it), and you start adding sugar to your coffee, your oatmeal and your protein shakes, you are most likely going to gain weight (or lose less weight, if you’re in an energy deficit).
The reason is simple. Sugar scores very low on the satiety index. This means it doesn’t fill you up much relative to how much energy you consume. So if you add sugar to a meal, you won’t eat much less of it. In fact, you may eat more of it because it’s tastier (higher palatability, as labcoats say). Adding sugar to your meals will thus generally increase your energy intake.
And since your body follows the laws of physics, specifically the laws of thermodynamics, what happens to your weight depends on your body’s energy balance. You gain weight in an energy surplus, because energy will be stored. You lose weight in an energy deficit, because your body will have to oxidize AKA burn bodily tissue to get enough energy.
Sugar tracking
Ok, so far so obvious. But what we really want to know is this. Is table sugar AKA sucrose (50% glucose, 50% fructose) more fattening than starches like rice or oatmeal when you consume the same amount of calories?
Many studies have compared groups eating a diet with the same macronutrient composition (% protein, % fat, % carbs) that differed only in which carb sources were consumed. The groups eating lots of sugar lose just as much fat without losing more muscle mass than the groups consuming little or no sugar [2-3]. In studies where complex carbs like whole-wheat bread are replaced with sugar but the total caloric intake is kept constant, no body composition changes take place [4].
So as long as you track your macros, having sugar in your diet is in itself not bad for your physique. And it gets even better.
Not so simple
A 6 month study of 390 participants found that this is true for all simple carbs, like fructose (fruit sugar) and lactose (milk sugar): whether you consume simple or complex carbs does not affect your body composition [1]. Or, for that matter, your blood lipids, an important marker of your cardiovascular (heart) health.
While it is easy to classify simple carbs as bad and complex carbs as good, the distinction between simple and complex carbs is in fact completely arbitrary. It is merely a medical tradition that we call carbohydrates with 3 or more sugars ‘complex carbs’ and we call carbohydrates with 1 or 2 sugars ‘simple carbs’.
What about blood sugar?
It is a myth that sugar causes a massive blood sugar spike followed by a complete crash. The effect on a food’s blood sugar is measured by the glycaemic index (GI). Sugar, due to its 50% fructose content, has a GI of ~68, which is a ‘medium’ effect on blood sugar. Sugar even has a lower GI than whole-wheat bread, which has a GI of ~71 [7]. The same applies to the insulin index [6].
What about health?
There are many cultures in tropical climates thriving on diets of up to 90% carbohydrates [8-10]. And we’re not talking oatmeal and broccoli here. These cultures rely on sugary fruits. In fact, honey is the favorite food of the Hadza from Tanzania [9].
Evolution has made sure our bodies can deal with sugar, because it is found in many of the world’s most nutritious foods: fruits. Fruit is in fact one of the foods humans have consumed for the longest period of our genetic existence. It has been a staple in our diet ever since we were still monkeys living in the jungle [5, 11]. And glucose is literally in our blood.
Conclusion
Sugar isn’t bad. Nor is it good. Sugar has empty calories. It doesn’t satiate. But if your overall diet is very nutritious, you are healthy and physically active and you are tracking your macros, sugar won’t make your abs fade into a mountain of lard. You don’t have to live on rice and broccoli. And unless you have a food intolerance, you certainly shouldn’t avoid fruit or dairy because they contain sugar. That’s exactly the kind of broscience that drives bodybuilders into following obsessive and monotone diets that aren’t healthy in psychological or nutritional terms.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 389 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 920 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions