We Can Blame Sugar All We Like – But We're Only Creating More Problems For Ourselves
Options
Replies
-
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.
I agree totally, depending on how you would phrase whether obesity and sedentary lifestyle 'cause' diabetes or not. Is it also absurd to say that they do since genetics is #1? As you've explained, they kind of really don't. I think that's pretty semantic but I also agree with it fully. There are interactive effects and that's the only way to explain everything.
I believe the question of whether a new overabundance of added sugar in the diet is relevant is really the same form of question as it was years ago asking if obesity were relevant. Is it a big risk factor? I think it's a legitimate question since rates are rising, particularly the rising of T2 among children. Since we answered the obesity question already, of course I think we need to control for that when asking about very high intakes of sugar.
Diabetes T2 is a progressive disease and the system pretty much wears out (thus trying to catch it earlier and the 'pre-diabetes' Dx). Since that's true, I do think it's an important question which factors make it wear out more quickly or less quickly (if you have the genetics for it, sure). What if overburdening the system with the macro that is at the core of the metabolism problem does make it wear out faster? It's not such a crazy thing to look into. Otherwise how can we be certain that it's the obesity itself, especially when you don't have to be overweight to have T2?
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »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? ;-)
Well, I do try to be most days;)0 -
cafeaulait7 wrote: »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.
I agree totally, depending on how you would phrase whether obesity and sedentary lifestyle 'cause' diabetes or not. Is it also absurd to say that they do since genetics is #1? As you've explained, they kind of really don't. I think that's pretty semantic but I also agree with it fully. There are interactive effects and that's the only way to explain everything.
I believe the question of whether a new overabundance of added sugar in the diet is relevant is really the same form of question as it was years ago asking if obesity were relevant. Is it a big risk factor? I think it's a legitimate question since rates are rising, particularly the rising of T2 among children. Since we answered the obesity question already, of course I think we need to control for that when asking about very high intakes of sugar.
Diabetes T2 is a progressive disease and the system pretty much wears out (thus trying to catch it earlier and the 'pre-diabetes' Dx). Since that's true, I do think it's an important question which factors make it wear out more quickly or less quickly (if you have the genetics for it, sure). What if overburdening the system with the macro that is at the core of the metabolism problem does make it wear out faster? It's not such a crazy thing to look into. Otherwise how can we be certain that it's the obesity itself, especially when you don't have to be overweight to have T2?
It's not absurd at this point. Because the exact genetic contributors to T2D are unknown, it isn't demonstrable yet whether there are people whose genetics predispose them to T2D that are able to avoid developing the disease because they maintain a healthy weight and stay active. There are definitely people who have always been active and a healthy weight who develop T2D despite doing everything 'right', but the one event does not preclude the existence of the other.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.
Is this the book Herschel Walker's childhood workout is in?
0 -
Research shows that sugar can be as addictive as heroin, and I believe it. The main reason I've had a weight problem has been my never ending craving for sugary baked goods and candy bars.
Its like being an alcoholic or drug addict. One little taste leads to a binge0 -
Research shows that sugar can be as addictive as heroin, and I believe it. The main reason I've had a weight problem has been my never ending craving for sugary baked goods and candy bars.
Its like being an alcoholic or drug addict. One little taste leads to a binge
please post studies of human trials showing this …
no mice studies..
and no sugar is not as addictive as heroin.0 -
Research shows that sugar can be as addictive as heroin, and I believe it. The main reason I've had a weight problem has been my never ending craving for sugary baked goods and candy bars.
Its like being an alcoholic or drug addict. One little taste leads to a binge
No, research does not show that and frankly I find this insulting towards people who actually have/had an alcohol or drug problem.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »Research shows that sugar can be as addictive as heroin, and I believe it. The main reason I've had a weight problem has been my never ending craving for sugary baked goods and candy bars.
Its like being an alcoholic or drug addict. One little taste leads to a binge
No, research does not show that and frankly I find this insulting towards people who actually have/had an alcohol or drug problem.
Here abc13.com/health/study-sugar-as-addictive-as-cocaine/533970 -
stevencloser wrote: »Research shows that sugar can be as addictive as heroin, and I believe it. The main reason I've had a weight problem has been my never ending craving for sugary baked goods and candy bars.
Its like being an alcoholic or drug addict. One little taste leads to a binge
No, research does not show that and frankly I find this insulting towards people who actually have/had an alcohol or drug problem.
Here abc13.com/health/study-sugar-is-as-addictive-as-cocaine/53397
0 -
Link doesn't work.0
-
_Terrapin_ wrote: »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.
Is this the book Herschel Walker's childhood workout is in?
I don't recall that one, but maybe? The book covers a wide range of genetic differences, and what that means in relation to drive (there was a kid who walked in and essentially won national titles for high jump almost without training, horrible form, etc. But, he actually liked to play basketball, so after they discovered his inherent talent, he still wouldn't train because he'd rather be playing with his friends. Genetics only gets you so far.
It was a very fascinating read.0 -
Theres also a NY Times article about studies done on animals that showed after given dose of sugar they began to crave it like a drug0
-
_Terrapin_ wrote: »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.
Is this the book Herschel Walker's childhood workout is in?
I don't recall that one, but maybe? The book covers a wide range of genetic differences, and what that means in relation to drive (there was a kid who walked in and essentially won national titles for high jump almost without training, horrible form, etc. But, he actually liked to play basketball, so after they discovered his inherent talent, he still wouldn't train because he'd rather be playing with his friends. Genetics only gets you so far.
It was a very fascinating read.
This may be the book I'm thinking of; review of twins, etc. Nipples are discussed?!?
0 -
So, the actual study provided the finding that "processed foods, higher in fat and GL, were most frequently associated with addictive-like eating behaviors." and they were actually looking at fat grams as the outcome measure.
The methods of the study include undergraduate students (who got course credit for taking part) answered questions on a survey asking about addictive behavior they associate with different foods. Then they would set out pairs of foods and ask which of the two was more addictive in their minds.
So, food is addictive because you asked people which foods they found addictive. Circular logic if I ever saw it...
(Full text: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4334652/)0 -
-
_Terrapin_ wrote: »_Terrapin_ wrote: »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.
Is this the book Herschel Walker's childhood workout is in?
I don't recall that one, but maybe? The book covers a wide range of genetic differences, and what that means in relation to drive (there was a kid who walked in and essentially won national titles for high jump almost without training, horrible form, etc. But, he actually liked to play basketball, so after they discovered his inherent talent, he still wouldn't train because he'd rather be playing with his friends. Genetics only gets you so far.
It was a very fascinating read.
This may be the book I'm thinking of; review of twins, etc. Nipples are discussed?!?
Yup, that's it.0 -
_Terrapin_ wrote: »_Terrapin_ wrote: »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.
Is this the book Herschel Walker's childhood workout is in?
I don't recall that one, but maybe? The book covers a wide range of genetic differences, and what that means in relation to drive (there was a kid who walked in and essentially won national titles for high jump almost without training, horrible form, etc. But, he actually liked to play basketball, so after they discovered his inherent talent, he still wouldn't train because he'd rather be playing with his friends. Genetics only gets you so far.
It was a very fascinating read.
This may be the book I'm thinking of; review of twins, etc. Nipples are discussed?!?
Yup, that's it.
Okay, on the block for the weekend.
0 -
First, a TV report isn't good evidence. The media frequently slants or exaggerates findings either to get attention or because reporters often aren't very smart or educated in the areas they are reporting about (I see this in my own field all the time).
Second, let's look at it. It strikes me as self-evidently extremely shoddy work on its face.
It starts with this claim, which is what you seem to have latched on to:They now claim sugar is eight times more addictive than cocaine.
"They" is supposed to signal a change in the belief of "researchers" in general, but that's stupid. Specific researchers are talking about the results of a specific study. Also, cocaine isn't heroin and what does "8 times more addictive than cocaine" even mean? Sounds like a banana might be super dangerous, right?
Well, let's see.Dr. Nicole Avena of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai tells The Huffington Post that pizza is the most addictive food by far due to the hidden sugar you'll find in just once slice. The tomato sauce on the pizza, for example, can have more sugar than a few Oreos.
So the source is another journalistic report? Not the study itself. And the pizza is "addictive" due to the tiny amount of sugar in it, mostly from tomatoes (this was covered upthread -- a slice of pizza typically has 1-3 grams of sugar).
Seems dubious, and I'm worrying more about that banana (well, not really).
Here's the article, btw: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/07/21/food-addiction_n_6709756.html
It strikes me as quite silly too, as it's basically saying we are more likely to overeat foods that many find extremely palatable and "treats" vs. foods that people don't tend to like as much or find as exciting. If you ask me, people overeat them because we are an overly-indulgent society and people seem to have stopped understanding that treat means "eat only a little" or "eat on occasion" not "eat as much as you might possibly desire, whenever." Cookies were available in the '50s too (although not as easily, true), and our cookies aren't magically more appealing or "addictive." People in the '50s just didn't think gobbling down a whole batch of cookies was reasonable behavior. There were cultural restrictions against it. (And people weren't invited to eat all the time throughout the day, either. Someone who did would have been considered odd.)
Okay, back to the article!
I notice it never explains why it focuses on sugar when the addiction "study" was about highly palatable "processed" foods (I suspect homemade versions would have scored just as high in many cases). Nor does it provide any support for the 8x number.
I find it odd that you would think this is credible support AT ALL for your claim here. Don't people understand how to assess information?0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »
It strikes me as quite silly too, as it's basically saying we are more likely to overeat foods that many find extremely palatable and "treats" vs. foods that people don't tend to like as much or find as exciting.
Wait - you're telling me that people like to eat foods they like, and they don't like to eat foods they don't like? This is groundbreaking research here....
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.5K 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
- 391 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
- 926 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions