Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.

Is Sugar our Biggest Diet Breaker?

Options
2»

Replies

  • CBAOW
    CBAOW Posts: 10 Member
    Options
    makingmark wrote: »
    Just not the sugar in fruit, that sugar is magically ok, it is just sugar in breads, candies, and soda that is bad. Our bodies have some way to tell the difference when certain researchers do tests.

    "Magic" is a weird word to describe how the sugar in fresh fruit is packaged up with dietary fibre and water in convenient calorie controlled units.

    OP, I have also found that sugary foods are what I have least control over when I eat them in excess and I have previously lost weight by changing absolutely nothing except hugely cutting my consumption of added sugars. I did it more for my teeth than for my waistline so I didn't have much hesitation about snacking on non-sugary junk food. So anecdotally I'd back you up although I'm more for evidence-based practice generally. I think the science is emerging and coming down on the side of simple carbohydrates and sugars being major contributors to the obesity epidemic.

    Currently I don't restrict any particular food type but I definitely still eat less sugar than before and I find that the less I eat the less I crave. When I'm eating it very frequently I'll find myself roaming the house poking around in cupboards for anything sweet, which is really unpleasant.
  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    Options
    svel713 wrote: »
    Opinions on this? I'm asking because I did a similar diet and have had major success, but this is the only study I have that points specifically to what I've done. I've not found anyone else debate sugar vs. non-sweet-tasting carbs.

    1. It's in ethnic minority obese children, so a fairly specific sub-group. Heavy soda drinkers probably, another sub-group.
    2. It wasn't isocaloric / weight maintaining which it set out to be.

    There have been studies making isocaloric substitutions of sugars for other sugars or starches. Results tend to lean in the direction you might expect given the funding source or leanings of the investigator / institution.
  • Gianfranco_R
    Gianfranco_R Posts: 1,297 Member
    Options
    stevencloser wrote: »
    ForecasterJason wrote: »
    I do think that in certain quantities sugar is problematic.

    That being said, most people on this forum will discredit that study because it was conducted by Dr. Lustig.

    Less people would discredit it if Lustig wasn't seemingly the only person having these sorts of findings. Makes you wonder.

    I can imagine why someone would like us to believe so, but it is not the case.
    This Turkish-Italian study, for instance, even calls fructose "a weapon of mass destruction":
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4405421/
    Lustig seems a moderate in comparison :smile:
  • Packerjohn
    Packerjohn Posts: 4,855 Member
    Options
    cwolfman13 wrote: »
    I personally don't think it's exactly breaking news that sugar consumed in excess is bad for you. I also don't think it's breaking news that the SAD typically contains an overabundance of sugar (among other nutrient deficiencies) and that most people who eat the SAD could stand to substantially reduce their sugar and "junk" food in general.

    Does this mean that sugar is inherently "bad"?...I don't think so...sugar has been consumed forever without ill effect. The issue isn't sugar in and of itself...the issue is that a lot of people eat way too much of it. I know people in my office who eat cake for breakfast and wash that down with a Dr. Pepper and then you see them at lunch walking around with a 40 ounce soda to wash down their fries and triple decker bacon burger super sized combo. To that end, a "poor diet" is going to have a lot of other things wrong with it than just sugar.

    Nice thoughts. Of course too much of anything will make someone fat. I'm going to go out on a limb though and say if you look at the diets of the obese vs normal weight, the obese will generally be getting a higher % of their calories from high calorie, nutritionally less dense foods.
  • ReaderGirl3
    ReaderGirl3 Posts: 868 Member
    edited May 2016
    Options
    DoreenaV1975 wrote: »
    I love sugar... eat it every day: natural, added, artificial... you name it! I lost 28 pounds in 6 months and have kept it off for over 7 months... so I would say "no"...

    Yep, my little n1- I had no problem losing 50ish lbs while consuming sugar in its various forms. Same with now, being several years into maintenance. I also had a high glucose number stabilize into the normal range during this times, along with also having every other health marker improve. I eat all sorts of foods, including sugary ones (last night I had a strawberry shake from Steak n' Shake, fit it into my calories for the day and thoroughly enjoyed it).

    For me, I've found that in order to make this whole thing sustainable long term, I needed to learn how to fit in the foods I enjoyed. I haven't cut out anything I like eating, including sugary foods, and I'm a weight loss/maintenance success story :)
  • msf74
    msf74 Posts: 3,498 Member
    Options
    Gianfranco_R wrote: »
    even calls fructose "a weapon of mass destruction":

    Lol - weapon of mass consumption I would say...
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Options
    svel713 wrote: »
    Doctors say a new study provides 'the strongest evidence to date' that sugar causes health risks, regardless of whether it increases calorie intake

    Yarwell made the points I would about the study itself and why I am not convinced that it showed what it was trying to.

    However, I do think the US diet on average contains too much sugar and that if people are eating 28% of their calories from sugar, as in the example given, that of course it's probably going to be an improvement to reduce it to 10% (which is not especially low--it's what the US Dietary Guidelines currently recommend).

    I am also not surprised that kids were overeating more on the 28% sugar diet and having a hard time recognizing satiety given that a lot of the sugar was likely from soda and highly palatable foods that people tend to overeat. This is the reason for the US Dietary Guidelines limit (and WHO's reasoning for their own limit) -- lots of added sugar tends to result in excess calories in the diet as a whole.

    I'd guess this is likely to be even more so for kids.
  • J72FIT
    J72FIT Posts: 5,948 Member
    Options
    ForecasterJason wrote: »
    I do think that in certain quantities sugar is problematic.

    That being said, most people on this forum will discredit that study because it was conducted by Dr. Lustig.

    Most people discredit the notion because it is non sensical...
  • The_Enginerd
    The_Enginerd Posts: 3,982 Member
    Options
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    svel713 wrote: »
    Doctors say a new study provides 'the strongest evidence to date' that sugar causes health risks, regardless of whether it increases calorie intake

    However, I do think the US diet on average contains too much sugar and that if people are eating 28% of their calories from sugar, as in the example given, that of course it's probably going to be an improvement to reduce it to 10% (which is not especially low--it's what the US Dietary Guidelines currently recommend).

    I am also not surprised that kids were overeating more on the 28% sugar diet and having a hard time recognizing satiety given that a lot of the sugar was likely from soda and highly palatable foods that people tend to overeat. This is the reason for the US Dietary Guidelines limit (and WHO's reasoning for their own limit) -- lots of added sugar tends to result in excess calories in the diet as a whole.
    I believe that the guideline is 10% of calories from added sugar.

    I got fat from eating too much Mexican food. Candy and sweets are not an issue for me. I just started into my last bag of leftover Halloween candy that I bought on sale the day after. Just on sale Christmas and Easter candy left, I might get through them by next Christmas at the rate I'm going, which is one serving (~200 calories) of treats/day.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    edited May 2016
    Options
    The_Enginerd wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    svel713 wrote: »
    Doctors say a new study provides 'the strongest evidence to date' that sugar causes health risks, regardless of whether it increases calorie intake

    However, I do think the US diet on average contains too much sugar and that if people are eating 28% of their calories from sugar, as in the example given, that of course it's probably going to be an improvement to reduce it to 10% (which is not especially low--it's what the US Dietary Guidelines currently recommend).

    I am also not surprised that kids were overeating more on the 28% sugar diet and having a hard time recognizing satiety given that a lot of the sugar was likely from soda and highly palatable foods that people tend to overeat. This is the reason for the US Dietary Guidelines limit (and WHO's reasoning for their own limit) -- lots of added sugar tends to result in excess calories in the diet as a whole.
    I believe that the guideline is 10% of calories from added sugar.

    Yes, that's true. It looks like they were replacing foods with added sugar here, though. http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/10/27/cutting-sugar-improves-childrens-health-in-just-10-days/?_r=0

    I suspect that replacing the foods with fruit would not have prevented the results, personally, and I didn't catch that it was 10% all sugar here, which would be low potentially depending on how much dairy, fruit, and vegetables are included.
    I got fat from eating too much Mexican food. Candy and sweets are not an issue for me. I just started into my last bag of leftover Halloween candy that I bought on sale the day after. Just on sale Christmas and Easter candy left, I might get through them by next Christmas at the rate I'm going, which is one serving (~200 calories) of treats/day.

    I'm not suggesting that sweets are an issue for everyone. They weren't a big issue for me either. The fact remains that these children seem to have been eating quite a lot of added sugar, and that it's not terribly surprising that they found their diets more satiating when they cut back and had some other positive effects (although hard to isolate the cause).
  • Gamliela
    Gamliela Posts: 2,468 Member
    Options
    I think what I do is switch processed sugar for the sugar in fruit and dairy because I like to indulge in yogurt and fruit for my treats. I don't have a sweet tooth, I have a 'fat tooth', so yogurt and fruit with a dolop of nut butter would exite me more than a bottle of coke or candies.

    Its good on that the science people keep on taking the time and money for all these studies on sugar and keep telling us stuff I guess but nothing seems conclusive so everybody still gets to choose what kind of sugars they want to eat or drink. So far anyway with the exception that in Great Britain you pay a tax if you eat processed sugar.
  • The_Enginerd
    The_Enginerd Posts: 3,982 Member
    edited May 2016
    Options
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    I'm not suggesting that sweets are an issue for everyone. They weren't a big issue for me either. The fact remains that these children seem to have been eating quite a lot of added sugar, and that it's not terribly surprising that they found their diets more satiating when they cut back and had some other positive effects (although hard to isolate the cause).

    That comment on sugar not being an issue for me was intended to be a response in general to some of the comments in this thread, not to your above comment. But that is quite true, I could EASILY eat thousands of calories in treats like cookies/chocolate in one sitting because they aren't very satiating and are very tasty.
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,874 Member
    Options
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    cwolfman13 wrote: »
    I personally don't think it's exactly breaking news that sugar consumed in excess is bad for you. I also don't think it's breaking news that the SAD typically contains an overabundance of sugar (among other nutrient deficiencies) and that most people who eat the SAD could stand to substantially reduce their sugar and "junk" food in general.

    Does this mean that sugar is inherently "bad"?...I don't think so...sugar has been consumed forever without ill effect. The issue isn't sugar in and of itself...the issue is that a lot of people eat way too much of it. I know people in my office who eat cake for breakfast and wash that down with a Dr. Pepper and then you see them at lunch walking around with a 40 ounce soda to wash down their fries and triple decker bacon burger super sized combo. To that end, a "poor diet" is going to have a lot of other things wrong with it than just sugar.

    Nice thoughts. Of course too much of anything will make someone fat. I'm going to go out on a limb though and say if you look at the diets of the obese vs normal weight, the obese will generally be getting a higher % of their calories from high calorie, nutritionally less dense foods.

    Absolutely...

    When I determined that I wanted to be healthier, leaner, and more fit, I looked around at the handful of my friends that were such and observed that on the whole they ate very healthfully and they ate lean...much better than I was eating...and they were active and exercised regularly. I personally drank a lot of soda and ate a pretty high fat diet and didn't do much with myself except sit on my patio smoking cigarettes and drinking beer. I'm about 180* from where I was about 4 years ago.

Categories