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.
The Sugar Conspiracy
Options
Replies
-
I just found this study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4632450/
Excess sugar consumption may promote adverse changes in hepatic and total body insulin resistance. Debate continues over the effects of sugars at more typically consumed levels and whether the identity of the sugar consumed is important. In the present study participants (20–60 years old) were randomly assigned to one of five groups, three that consumed low fat milk with added fructose containing sugars in amounts equivalent to the 50th percentile of fructose consumption (US), one which consumed low-fat milk sweetened with glucose, and one unsweetened low-fat milk control group. The intervention lasted ten weeks. In the entire study population there was less than 1 kg increase in weight (73.6 ± 13.0 vs. 74.5 ± 13.3 kg, p < 0.001), but the change in weight was comparable among groups (p > 0.05). There were no changes in fasting glucose (49 ± 0.4 vs. 5.0 ± 0.5 mmol/L), insulin (56.9 ± 38.9 vs. 61.8 ± 50.0 pmol/L), or insulin resistance, as measured by the Homeostasis Model Assessment method (1.8 ± 1.3 vs. 2.0 ± 1.5, all p > 0.05). These data suggest that added sugar consumed at the median American intake level does not produce changes in measures of insulin sensitivity or glucose tolerance and that no sugar has more deleterious effects than others.
I love that this study took the approach of what the average person in the US consumes for added sugar. Anyone consuming 28% of their calories from sugar has way more problems than simply eating too much sugar.
Exactly! Just because some people can not control themselves around foods with added sugar does not make the foods with added sugar bad. I can not for the life of me understand how this is not a simple discussion. Talk about analysis paralysis! How did we lose the ability to use common sense?!?! This thread is mind numbing...10 -
I just found this study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4632450/
Excess sugar consumption may promote adverse changes in hepatic and total body insulin resistance. Debate continues over the effects of sugars at more typically consumed levels and whether the identity of the sugar consumed is important. In the present study participants (20–60 years old) were randomly assigned to one of five groups, three that consumed low fat milk with added fructose containing sugars in amounts equivalent to the 50th percentile of fructose consumption (US), one which consumed low-fat milk sweetened with glucose, and one unsweetened low-fat milk control group. The intervention lasted ten weeks. In the entire study population there was less than 1 kg increase in weight (73.6 ± 13.0 vs. 74.5 ± 13.3 kg, p < 0.001), but the change in weight was comparable among groups (p > 0.05). There were no changes in fasting glucose (49 ± 0.4 vs. 5.0 ± 0.5 mmol/L), insulin (56.9 ± 38.9 vs. 61.8 ± 50.0 pmol/L), or insulin resistance, as measured by the Homeostasis Model Assessment method (1.8 ± 1.3 vs. 2.0 ± 1.5, all p > 0.05). These data suggest that added sugar consumed at the median American intake level does not produce changes in measures of insulin sensitivity or glucose tolerance and that no sugar has more deleterious effects than others.
I love that this study took the approach of what the average person in the US consumes for added sugar. Anyone consuming 28% of their calories from sugar has way more problems than simply eating too much sugar.
Exactly! Just because some people can not control themselves around foods with added sugar does not make the foods with added sugar bad. I can not for the life of me understand how this is not a simple discussion. Talk about analysis paralysis! How did we lose the ability to use common sense?!?! This thread is mind numbing...
Mind numbing is right. People saying that sugar is bad won't be happy until we all agree to never consume added sugar ever again, cross my heart and hope to die! Even the studies being posted only show that high levels are deleterious, not moderate levels.0 -
I think the no sugar crowd have their eyes and ears closed. I think they are just talking to themselves. I mean, the concept of dosage is not a hard one...4
-
this - so much this ^^^ (both posts above this one!)1
-
I just found this study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4632450/
Excess sugar consumption may promote adverse changes in hepatic and total body insulin resistance. Debate continues over the effects of sugars at more typically consumed levels and whether the identity of the sugar consumed is important. In the present study participants (20–60 years old) were randomly assigned to one of five groups, three that consumed low fat milk with added fructose containing sugars in amounts equivalent to the 50th percentile of fructose consumption (US), one which consumed low-fat milk sweetened with glucose, and one unsweetened low-fat milk control group. The intervention lasted ten weeks. In the entire study population there was less than 1 kg increase in weight (73.6 ± 13.0 vs. 74.5 ± 13.3 kg, p < 0.001), but the change in weight was comparable among groups (p > 0.05). There were no changes in fasting glucose (49 ± 0.4 vs. 5.0 ± 0.5 mmol/L), insulin (56.9 ± 38.9 vs. 61.8 ± 50.0 pmol/L), or insulin resistance, as measured by the Homeostasis Model Assessment method (1.8 ± 1.3 vs. 2.0 ± 1.5, all p > 0.05). These data suggest that added sugar consumed at the median American intake level does not produce changes in measures of insulin sensitivity or glucose tolerance and that no sugar has more deleterious effects than others.
I love that this study took the approach of what the average person in the US consumes for added sugar. Anyone consuming 28% of their calories from sugar has way more problems than simply eating too much sugar.
Exactly! Just because some people can not control themselves around foods with added sugar does not make the foods with added sugar bad. I can not for the life of me understand how this is not a simple discussion. Talk about analysis paralysis! How did we lose the ability to use common sense?!?! This thread is mind numbing...
Common sense left the planet a long time ago.4 -
And these studies. Hell you can pick near all of them apart and make them mean whatever you want them to
mean. They are almost not worth the paper they are printed on. Correlation is not, has never been and never will be causation...0 -
aqsylvester wrote: »If not Lustig, do you trust the Mayo Clinic?
Recent studies have shown that added sugars, particularly those containing fructose, are a principal driver of diabetes and pre-diabetes, even more so than other carbohydrates. Clinical experts writing in Mayo Clinic Proceedings challenge current dietary guidelines that allow up to 25% of total daily calories as added sugars, and propose drastic reductions in the amount of added sugar, and especially added fructose, people consume.
From the May Clinic proceedings:
Added Fructose
A Principal Driver of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and Its Consequences
http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196(15)00040-3/abstract
This sounds like an issue of dosage. Not that fructose is "toxic."
I tend to avoid HFCS for other reasons, but am not convinced that there's much difference between it (55% fructose) and sucrose (50% fructose), and the amount in individual fruits varies once you add up the fructose and sucrose therein.
What I have seen is that there's a possible link between high soda consumption and insulin resistance, but there you have a variety of factors (although I personally would advise against high consumption of sugary sodas for lots of reasons). I am also aware of the Lustig sugar vs. starch study (which I believe this is referring to), and that's been discussed in one of these threads. There are so problems with the methodology, including that the kids lost weight when it was supposed to be calories equal. Do I believe that cutting added sugar, especially in sugary drinks, and replacing it with starch may often result in more satiety and a better overall diet? Yes. Do I think those kids were eating an insanely high sugar diet? Also yes. I don't think that supports the claim that fructose is inherently toxic if in added form (i.e., sucrose or fructose).1 -
aqsylvester wrote: »Good luck debating the differences/similarities of sugar, water, and oxygen toxicity!
Ok.
Water and oxygen toxicity are real things that can kill in a matter of hours.
Glucose toxicity takes years of overconsumption and then contributes to insulin resistance, which can be diagnosed, managed, and even reversed. (http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/13/6/610)
A fit person worrying about glucose toxicity strikes me a bit like a person in Antarctica worrying about catching malaria from mosquito bites.6 -
I wouldn't say this is accurate in all cases, because I am fit, active, and yet have had toxic levels of glucose circulating in my bloodstream.aqsylvester wrote: »Good luck debating the differences/similarities of sugar, water, and oxygen toxicity!
Ok.
Water and oxygen toxicity are real things that can kill in a matter of hours.
Glucose toxicity takes years of overconsumption and then contributes to insulin resistance, which can be diagnosed, managed, and even reversed. (http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/13/6/610)
A fit person worrying about glucose toxicity strikes me a bit like a person in Antarctica worrying about catching malaria from mosquito bites.
4 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »Now, as for the percentage of people that are eating 28% of their calories from sugar, that's probably a different story.
Perhaps, but the POINT is that no one is saying it's a good idea to do so. As I understood the debate, it was between those saying added fructose (which is never pure fructose, so we are talking about sucrose and HFCS) is inherently toxic, and those (like me) saying that fructose is fructose, but of course dosage matters.0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »Nvm.
Could be. I don't really know much about it except that it takes a long, long time to even get close to killing you.0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
I wouldn't say this is accurate in all cases, because I am fit, active, and yet have had toxic levels of glucose circulating in my bloodstream.aqsylvester wrote: »Good luck debating the differences/similarities of sugar, water, and oxygen toxicity!
Ok.
Water and oxygen toxicity are real things that can kill in a matter of hours.
Glucose toxicity takes years of overconsumption and then contributes to insulin resistance, which can be diagnosed, managed, and even reversed. (http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/13/6/610)
A fit person worrying about glucose toxicity strikes me a bit like a person in Antarctica worrying about catching malaria from mosquito bites.
Oh wow, that sounds scary! I hope it's under control now. May I ask, how did you find out your levels were toxic?0 -
Well maybe toxic isn't the right word to use (because it wasn't anything extreme), but I found out my levels were higher than they should have been. And I have gotten it under better control now.ForecasterJason wrote: »
I wouldn't say this is accurate in all cases, because I am fit, active, and yet have had toxic levels of glucose circulating in my bloodstream.aqsylvester wrote: »Good luck debating the differences/similarities of sugar, water, and oxygen toxicity!
Ok.
Water and oxygen toxicity are real things that can kill in a matter of hours.
Glucose toxicity takes years of overconsumption and then contributes to insulin resistance, which can be diagnosed, managed, and even reversed. (http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/13/6/610)
A fit person worrying about glucose toxicity strikes me a bit like a person in Antarctica worrying about catching malaria from mosquito bites.
Oh wow, that sounds scary! I hope it's under control now. May I ask, how did you find out your levels were toxic?
0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
Well maybe toxic isn't the right word to use (because it wasn't anything extreme), but I found out my levels were higher than they should have been. And I have gotten it under better control now.ForecasterJason wrote: »
I wouldn't say this is accurate in all cases, because I am fit, active, and yet have had toxic levels of glucose circulating in my bloodstream.aqsylvester wrote: »Good luck debating the differences/similarities of sugar, water, and oxygen toxicity!
Ok.
Water and oxygen toxicity are real things that can kill in a matter of hours.
Glucose toxicity takes years of overconsumption and then contributes to insulin resistance, which can be diagnosed, managed, and even reversed. (http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/13/6/610)
A fit person worrying about glucose toxicity strikes me a bit like a person in Antarctica worrying about catching malaria from mosquito bites.
Oh wow, that sounds scary! I hope it's under control now. May I ask, how did you find out your levels were toxic?
Thanks for replying! I'm glad you have it under better control now.
I like seeing your comments. You have a way of stating an opposing or "devil's advocate" viewpoint without being antagonistic or condescending. 2 -
aqsylvester wrote: »Good luck debating the differences/similarities of sugar, water, and oxygen toxicity!
At levels far above the ADI, you start experiencing deleterious effects, at even higher dosage, you die.
There. I just described toxicity of literally every chemical on earth, including, but not limited to:
Fat, protein, carbohydrates, sugar in particular, oxygen, water, Vitamin C.6 -
Happened upon this piece today. It discusses the term "toxic" as applied to sugar. In a nutshell he says there are no acute toxicity levels of sugar but there are arguably chronic toxicity levels. http://eatingacademy.com/nutrition/is-sugar-toxic
Fair warning though, he is in the "anti-sugar" crowd whether or not he admits his bias.
1 -
aqsylvester wrote: »mskessler89 wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »mskessler89 wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »mskessler89 wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »mskessler89 wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »KombuchaKat wrote: »I read, and enjoyed, Lustig's book. It's worth it just for the in depth description of how the human metabolism works. He does not say we need to cut out all sugar. He only says we need to educate ourselves on how much sugar we are taking in and lower it to a reasonable level. He found that doing this helped his many patients, sick children either with endocrine problems due to cancer or chronic obesity, etc. Many of these children were lower income and their parents were not educated on nutrition and bought what was covered by food stamps (that's another "conspiracy" in itself). Too much sugar messes with your hunger/full hormones and is a contributor to chronic obesity.
I wonder how many people who call Lustig some kind of maniac actually bothered to read his extremely well researched and interesting book...which again does not say you can't ever eat sugar for the rest of your life.
Lustig, the man who can't decide if he thinks if Fructose is toxic for you?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQ6LhzCrPpk
Lustig, the man who apparently once said that sugar is somehow fat and carbs in one?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7QXFJNKWXs
Are we talking about the same Robert Lustig here?
WOW! Whoever made that first "debunking video" is either really stupid or thinks that everyone else is.
Lustig states, "There is no foodstuff on the planet that has fructose that is poisonous for you, it is all good." He clearly means whole foods from nature, explaining why our bodies and brains love the taste--it's been great for evolution! Until now... when the fructose is removed from the safe source, refined, and increased, yes, it becomes toxic. How is this a hard concept to grasp?
Because it isn't toxic. How is that a hard concept to grasp?
Seriously, the video "debunks" nothing. Only someone completely ignorant about the issue would think Lustig caught got contradicting himself. Smh.
You didn't answer the question.
Ahahaha. Let's just agree to disagree on that one. I'm with Lustig. You can look at his science. My point was the video is dumb dumb dumb.
His science is based on rodent studies, studies with extremely high levels of fructose that aren't good for anyone, and broad (incorrect) generalizations. For example, he claims that fructose in nature is fine becomes it comes with lots of fiber. There's more sugar and less fiber in a banana than in certain granola bars. Based on his logic of fiber being present, which is the better choice, the natural item or the processed one?
Refining and processing sugar does not cause toxicity. Dosage does.
No, he does plenty of studies with humans. Here's a recent one:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-10/uoc--och102115.php
As I said, with human studies, he uses extremely high levels of fructose that we already know are damaging. These kids were getting 28% of their calories from sugar. On a 2000 calorie diet, that's 140g, so approximately 70g of fructose. He still doesn't prove that fructose is harmful in moderate dosage in the context of a balanced diet.
Dosage. Context. These things matter.
No, you said, "His science is based on rodent studies, studies with extremely high levels of fructose that aren't good for anyone." It's easy to scroll back and read.
The comma was meant to separate rodent studies from human studies, but if the best you can do is pick apart my phrasing because you have no real science to stand on, I'll let you have that.
Honey, all I've shared with you so far is what I would call "science." You've given me none. And no response to the Mayo Clinic Proceedings either. I think I understand what's going on here.
Here then, have a few:
http://jn.nutrition.org/content/139/6/1246S.long
Without reference to metabolic effects of fructose per se, what might 100 g/d fructose in a diet imply? This amount corresponds to ∼400 kcal/d or ∼20% of energy intake for a sedentary person of energy requirement 2000 kcal/d. Persons consuming >100 g/d of sugars are potentially eating in excess of their energy requirement or may be at risk of certain micronutrient deficiencies (15). This issue then stops being a fructose issue and becomes a whole-diet issue.
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10408390903461426
The purpose of this review was to critically evaluate the existing database for a causal relationship between the ingestion of fructose in a normal, dietary manner and the development of hyperlipidemia or increased body weight in healthy, normal weight humans, using an evidence-based approach. The results of the analysis indicate that fructose does not cause biologically relevant changes in TG or body weight when consumed at levels approaching 95th percentile estimates of intake.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/88/5/1419.long
In conclusion, efforts to reduce fructose consumption could exchange a risk in one group (dyslipidemia in high or very high consumers) for a risk in another group (dysglycemia among moderate or higher consumers). Moderate fructose consumption (<50 g/d, or <10% ME) appears acceptable and potentially beneficial. Whereas a long-term (2-y) study has been conducted on 50 g fructose/d (4), the effect of higher doses on longer-term quality of life in those with elevated dysglycemia or elevated dyslipidemia remains to be studied. Finally, the present observations on HbA1c and FPTG are also relevant for health professionals who are using these markers as potential indicators of disease progression and drug efficacy.
As for your Mayo Clinic reference, they're battling against guidelines allowing for 25% of calories from added sugars. Once again, DOSAGE.
I'll go through your other study later, but I would suspect the correlation of sugar to diabetes is where we start getting above 50g of fructose per day. Because, dosage.
I'll say it again. Dosage.
Right, dosage. So you admit fructose is toxic when you get too much of it? Nice.
Water is toxic when you get too much of it1 -
aqsylvester wrote: »Good luck debating the differences/similarities of sugar, water, and oxygen toxicity!
Too much water
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/strange-but-true-drinking-too-much-water-can-kill/
Too much oxygen
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-oxygen-dilemma/
2 -
I gave up on this discussion when I realized it was basically one of a few arguments:
1. People who are sensitive to sugar (for a variety of reasons) who were claiming it should be avoided.
2. People who are not/less sensitive to sugar who were claiming it's harmless in every way.
I didn't really see anyone who was negatively impacted by sugar saying it was OK to eat as much as they wanted, and didn't see anyone who ISNT negatively affected by sugar claiming it should be avoided.
In the end, it was a giant exercise in confirmation bias, and somewhat pointless.
ETA: There was also an argument about sick people assuming everyone else was sick. Diabetes is one thing, but there is no sickness called "being sensitive to insulin, and sugar", at least if you try to make an argument that there is such a thing, you will be blasted for it (always by people who aren't sensitive to it, of course). All a very circular debate.
In the end, avoiding sugar will always be "healthier" for me, calorie intake aside. And if I am wrong, there is zero harm in that approach anyway as added sugar is 0% needed to be healthy. I'd rather err on the side of caution.5 -
I'm looking for someone to dive into this thread and patronise everyone. Can someone help me find someone like that?7
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
- 390 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
- 922 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions