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.
Hot topics! Sugar in fruit
Options
Replies
-
ForecasterJason wrote: »
I didn't say anything about solving all of life's problems. Autoimmune disorders and allergies can be indirectly related to sugar in fruit. A diet high in sugar can negatively impact the immune system.Alluminati wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Food choice, yes. But IMO inactivity is not at the root of a lot of the problems we have today. I'm talking about more than just weight here, problems like autoimmune diseases and allergies. Rates of those kind of conditions were a lot lower several decades ago.lemurcat12 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »While this is getting away from the OP, I would argue that from an overall health perspective, a lot of kids that grew up decades ago are in better shape than kids today. And I'm not saying that's all attributed to diet. I too know people who are older than me who didn't eat right growing up but aren't necessarily suffering from that today. I'm just saying, times have changed. The food supply isn't what it was then.
It's not the food supply, it's activity (or the lack thereof) and food choice.
That's your problem. You're always looking for the "root" of everything. There's is no one answer that you will find that will solve all of life's problems. What do autoimmune disorders and allergies have to do with sugar in fruit and children's health in the 1950s? Get a grip.
This discussion seems to have taken a turn in defending a high sugar consumption. I claimed that just because some have eaten a high sugar diet as a kid and not suffer from it, doesn't mean that it's necessarily harmless to do so. And now it seems as though a high sugar diet is being justified just because of anecdotal accounts.
A lot of diseases had no diagnosis, they were just unnamed.4 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »85% of the calories in an apple come from fructose. It's piss easy to eat 3-4 apples over a day to get to that amount of fructose, especially if you're "just eating fruit".
I pointed out multiple reasons why the fructose in a apple isn't likely to be absorbed quickly or even completely. There have been many studies showing that fruit consumption is safe as long is it is the whole fruit. In fact it is even bennifical. Additionally, I don't think most people would find eating 3 or 4 apples a day that easy unless the apples were really small. Apples also have a very large amount of fiber. 2 apples is more than a day's worth of fiber.
every "reason" you has posted has been shown to be myth, woo woo, and complete nonsense....I would suggest re-thinking everything that you think that you know about nutrition.
Really? I posted links to controlled studies that that support my points. The lack of natural knowledge here is astounding. No wonder the US is leading the world in obesity.
No you didn't. You posted links to fear mongering websites that cherry picked and misrepresented said studies. Not the same
I did no such thing. I clearly stated that browsing the web shows others talking about the same things and I posted a sample of those sites. The fact that it if fearful to you isn't my problem.
When it comes to cherry picking and misrepresenting studies, much have that is happening all over on every side of the issue. There is a great deal of intentional misrepresenting, a good part of it is from pro-sugar views. The idea that added sugar can be healthy up to 25% of ones calories is really absurd. It that what you are defending?
I'm really getting a kick out of this thread.0 -
And I understand that. But my 4th post on page 16 (when I mentioned "a lot" of sugar consumption) seemed to have sparked a lot of controversy.sunnybeaches105 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I didn't say anything about solving all of life's problems. Autoimmune disorders and allergies can be indirectly related to sugar in fruit. A diet high in sugar can negatively impact the immune system.Alluminati wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Food choice, yes. But IMO inactivity is not at the root of a lot of the problems we have today. I'm talking about more than just weight here, problems like autoimmune diseases and allergies. Rates of those kind of conditions were a lot lower several decades ago.lemurcat12 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »While this is getting away from the OP, I would argue that from an overall health perspective, a lot of kids that grew up decades ago are in better shape than kids today. And I'm not saying that's all attributed to diet. I too know people who are older than me who didn't eat right growing up but aren't necessarily suffering from that today. I'm just saying, times have changed. The food supply isn't what it was then.
It's not the food supply, it's activity (or the lack thereof) and food choice.
That's your problem. You're always looking for the "root" of everything. There's is no one answer that you will find that will solve all of life's problems. What do autoimmune disorders and allergies have to do with sugar in fruit and children's health in the 1950s? Get a grip.
This discussion seems to have taken a turn in defending a high sugar consumption. I claimed that just because some have eaten a high sugar diet as a kid and not suffer from it, doesn't mean that it's necessarily harmless to do so. And now it seems as though a high sugar diet is being justified just because of anecdotal accounts.
You've missed the point. The arguments are not defending "high sugar consumption" but putting the warnings against added sugars into the proper context of overall calorie consumption and a nutrient rich diet.0 -
Right, but I'm pretty sure that my parents and their friends would say that kids and young adults in general didn't need to go to the doctor for these kind of conditions, regardless of whether there was a diagnosis or not. In other words, people were healthier.queenliz99 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I didn't say anything about solving all of life's problems. Autoimmune disorders and allergies can be indirectly related to sugar in fruit. A diet high in sugar can negatively impact the immune system.Alluminati wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Food choice, yes. But IMO inactivity is not at the root of a lot of the problems we have today. I'm talking about more than just weight here, problems like autoimmune diseases and allergies. Rates of those kind of conditions were a lot lower several decades ago.lemurcat12 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »While this is getting away from the OP, I would argue that from an overall health perspective, a lot of kids that grew up decades ago are in better shape than kids today. And I'm not saying that's all attributed to diet. I too know people who are older than me who didn't eat right growing up but aren't necessarily suffering from that today. I'm just saying, times have changed. The food supply isn't what it was then.
It's not the food supply, it's activity (or the lack thereof) and food choice.
That's your problem. You're always looking for the "root" of everything. There's is no one answer that you will find that will solve all of life's problems. What do autoimmune disorders and allergies have to do with sugar in fruit and children's health in the 1950s? Get a grip.
This discussion seems to have taken a turn in defending a high sugar consumption. I claimed that just because some have eaten a high sugar diet as a kid and not suffer from it, doesn't mean that it's necessarily harmless to do so. And now it seems as though a high sugar diet is being justified just because of anecdotal accounts.
A lot of diseases had no diagnosis, they were just unnamed.
0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
And I understand that. But my 4th post on page 16 (when I mentioned "a lot" of sugar consumption) seemed to have sparked a lot of controversy.sunnybeaches105 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I didn't say anything about solving all of life's problems. Autoimmune disorders and allergies can be indirectly related to sugar in fruit. A diet high in sugar can negatively impact the immune system.Alluminati wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Food choice, yes. But IMO inactivity is not at the root of a lot of the problems we have today. I'm talking about more than just weight here, problems like autoimmune diseases and allergies. Rates of those kind of conditions were a lot lower several decades ago.lemurcat12 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »While this is getting away from the OP, I would argue that from an overall health perspective, a lot of kids that grew up decades ago are in better shape than kids today. And I'm not saying that's all attributed to diet. I too know people who are older than me who didn't eat right growing up but aren't necessarily suffering from that today. I'm just saying, times have changed. The food supply isn't what it was then.
It's not the food supply, it's activity (or the lack thereof) and food choice.
That's your problem. You're always looking for the "root" of everything. There's is no one answer that you will find that will solve all of life's problems. What do autoimmune disorders and allergies have to do with sugar in fruit and children's health in the 1950s? Get a grip.
This discussion seems to have taken a turn in defending a high sugar consumption. I claimed that just because some have eaten a high sugar diet as a kid and not suffer from it, doesn't mean that it's necessarily harmless to do so. And now it seems as though a high sugar diet is being justified just because of anecdotal accounts.
You've missed the point. The arguments are not defending "high sugar consumption" but putting the warnings against added sugars into the proper context of overall calorie consumption and a nutrient rich diet.
The point was "a lot" is an undefined amount without context or quantification. Someone eating a nutrient dense diet with plenty of protein, fats, fiber and micronutrients, and an intense training regime will be able to consume significantly more sugar than someone sitting on their hind end playing video games. Even the WHO warnings discuss added sugars in the context of lowering overall calorie consumption. Again, context.2 -
mskessler89 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »jainasiemienkowicz wrote: »So I know there are a million responses already to this, and there's "science" supporting both sides of the argument, but there's a huge difference between processed foods with sugar and the sugar in fruits. Processed foods have more than just added sugar in them, they have added garbage and preservatives and all sorts of not-great things for your body. Because of this, the sugar is processed typically quicker since there isn't any fiber or good stuff to help it be digested. Fruits on the other hand, typically have a decent amount of natural fiber in them, and therefore the sugar is digested more responsibly, almost, by the body. So yes, sugar is sugar and is digested how sugar is digested, but what matters is what else is coming into your body with that sugar that determines how it happens and whether it's really beneficial to your body.
No. There is valid science and then there are discredited charlatans. Read the links I posted previously.
Your science blogger is more likely the charlatan. There are extreme views but there is also a lot of growing research supporting those views. I have yet to hear anyone claim acute toxicity when it comes to fructose. Still there can be little doubt there is way too much fructose being used in processed food.
The reason why it is everyone problem is the growing problems of metabolic disease will continue to drive up the costs of health care for everyone. If you work in the states you are paying for it.
Or, as I said before, we could just stop paying to try and "fix" people's poor dietary choices throughout life, but that belongs in the other thread. Between getting people as a whole to stop eating so much sugar (in any form), and what I just said, either one is about as likely as the other, unfortunately.
Now, allow me to put forth something anecdotal. A co-worker of mine in his mid-60s had been having trouble with his weight for about 15 years. He didn't finally acknowledge there was a problem until he was diagnosed T2D, and ended up having to take insulin pills to regulate his blood sugar levels. The culprit? Oranges. He was eating about five small oranges per day, while at work, under the impression that "fruit is good for weight loss" or some *kitten* he read somewhere. Mandarin oranges have a better fiber to sugar ratio than apples do, and it was still screwing him over. Once he stopped eating those altogether, he was off the insulin pills within two weeks. Upon further reduction of natural sugars and starches (in the form of tomatoes, potatoes and rice), and the resulting caloric deficit, he was out of the obese range within twelve weeks.
My point? Added sugars and natural sugars will screw you up just the same, assuming that you are overconsuming them. It's almost like the body doesn't give a damn where a macronutrient comes from, or something.
I don't doubt your story, I'm sure there are other cases that are similar. However that doesn't mean fruit is as bad as "sweeten beverages" which are really messing up people around the world, especially when it comes to metabolic issues like T2D. The problem with these things is it takes years to manifest. Anyway, most of the obese kids around the world aren't getting that way by eating too much fruit. At least with fruit you get stuff back that is actually good for you too. Also fruit fills you much longer than a soda will. That is the real problem with soda, calories without satisfying hunger.
Strangely enough I don't have real issues with diet drinks, not that there is a great deal of research at least on what the artificial sweetners actually do inside a body. For now I'm assuming that vastly lower amounts needed probably reduces any toxiticy to a non-issue and most of them just pass in urine if they make it to the bloodstream. (Head in the sand approach.) However since cutting back on added sugar I don't drink many diet drinks, I'm mostly just drinking water, straight teas and coffee. Mostly water because it tastes better now and water is the best thing to replaced sweat.
Anyway at least we can agree that too much sugar is a problem.
Seriously??? Aspartame is one of the most researched ingredients out there. We know what happens to it in the body and what the toxicity levels are. Other artificial sweeteners have been thoroughly studied as well. I seriously do not understand why you're in here "debating" when you're so lacking in research. Stop arguing with us for a while, switch from Google to Google Scholar so you can read peer-reviewed studies instead of fear-mongering articles, and come back when you've learned more about this topic and have more to go on than your n=1 experience.
There are a lot of pharmacokinetic studies with artificial sweeteners. What is lacking is the pharmacodyamic studies. In other words we know a lot about what are bodies do to artificial sweeteners but we don't know much about what the artificial sweeteners do to our bodies. On the pharmacodyamic side there is a lot of spectuation, just not many facts. There are many claims about what artificial sweeteners do our bodies and that is where much of the conversity is.
Just to be clear aspartame isn't the only artificial sweetener in use today, there are actually dozens that are used in different phases of food production. Just like sugar, they can't be completely avoided.
I'll leave the fear-mongering to you.1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »The interesting thing about soda to me is, as a kid I drank a lot of it. That said, we were so active as kids that it was never an issue. As I grew older my tastes changed and I drank less of it until now where I don't drink it anymore unless it's the weekend and there is some rum mixed in there.
My point is, and I say this all the time, too much focus is placed on diet and not enough on activity. Is it the added sugar (added calories) that is the problem, or is it a time where more kids are spending time indoors playing xbox and the like?
For kids, I think this is the main part of it, although probably less time moving, more time sitting around playing computer games also equates to more time to sit and eat/drink soda (while playing).
I live in a health-conscious neighborhood, and don't see many overweight kids. I do see lots of parents doing active things with their kids, and soccer and softball/baseball games and such at the local parks and school with parents watching and I know my friends with kids are always taking them to some sporting event or dance class or the like -- I think kids seem less likely to just run around outside like I did growing up (that could be different in the 'burbs, I live in a big city), but parents in my subculture/neighborhood seem to be focused on providing for organized opportunities for active play. But that seems to require either more work or parents who are also into those things in a way that wasn't so true when I was a kid. In part because if we weren't active, there was a lot less to do. (I used to read a lot, so was sedentary that way, and I suppose kids could have watched lots of TV, but my friends did not, and it was common for TV hours to be limited.)
Re soda, we didn't drink a lot as kids -- some, sure, more as a teen than as a small child when it was basically just at restaurants (we did have kool-aid in the summer, though, typically after running around all day). Soda just didn't seem as available to kids -- we didn't have it in the house and wouldn't have walked to the store to buy treats on our own just as a function of where we lived. But mostly it just didn't seem normal to drink huge amounts. I think part of this is what seems culturally normal or expected has changed, both in terms of activity (being completely sedentary would have seemed really weird) and in terms of food choice and amount.
That is a valid point. We didn't have (still don't) a TV when our children were young. The kids rarely missed it and filled their lives with all kinds of activities. Probably the only thing I would have changed is pushing them to eat fruit more instead of having juice. Still my children don't have any weight, energy or health issues. Most kids wouldn't either if it weren't for too much TV/Computer/Phone time. Kids are just like adults and need to be active to be healthy.1 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
So yes, people that have certain diseases have genes that make them more susceptible. But it's not like the genes on their own changed that much in one or two generations. In other words, something else must also be responsible for actually causing the disease to manifest itself in a given individual.ForecasterJason wrote: »
Food choice, yes. But IMO inactivity is not at the root of a lot of the problems we have today. I'm talking about more than just weight here, problems like autoimmune diseases and allergies. Rates of those kind of conditions were a lot lower several decades ago.lemurcat12 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »While this is getting away from the OP, I would argue that from an overall health perspective, a lot of kids that grew up decades ago are in better shape than kids today. And I'm not saying that's all attributed to diet. I too know people who are older than me who didn't eat right growing up but aren't necessarily suffering from that today. I'm just saying, times have changed. The food supply isn't what it was then.
It's not the food supply, it's activity (or the lack thereof) and food choice.
They weren't as prevalent 30-40 years ago because the medical community wasn't able to properly diagnose them, plus the people that do carry the genes for those diseases are having children that carry those genes. As a kid in the 1970s, peanut allergies were for special episodes of Donahue. In the 1990s, wheat allergies were special 1 hour long documentaries on TLC/Discovery.
Have you not heard of evolution or genetic mutation?
People can eat a lot of sugar and not develop any health problems. Hard to believe, but it happens.0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
Right, but I'm pretty sure that my parents and their friends would say that kids and young adults in general didn't need to go to the doctor for these kind of conditions, regardless of whether there was a diagnosis or not. In other words, people were healthier.queenliz99 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I didn't say anything about solving all of life's problems. Autoimmune disorders and allergies can be indirectly related to sugar in fruit. A diet high in sugar can negatively impact the immune system.Alluminati wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Food choice, yes. But IMO inactivity is not at the root of a lot of the problems we have today. I'm talking about more than just weight here, problems like autoimmune diseases and allergies. Rates of those kind of conditions were a lot lower several decades ago.lemurcat12 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »While this is getting away from the OP, I would argue that from an overall health perspective, a lot of kids that grew up decades ago are in better shape than kids today. And I'm not saying that's all attributed to diet. I too know people who are older than me who didn't eat right growing up but aren't necessarily suffering from that today. I'm just saying, times have changed. The food supply isn't what it was then.
It's not the food supply, it's activity (or the lack thereof) and food choice.
That's your problem. You're always looking for the "root" of everything. There's is no one answer that you will find that will solve all of life's problems. What do autoimmune disorders and allergies have to do with sugar in fruit and children's health in the 1950s? Get a grip.
This discussion seems to have taken a turn in defending a high sugar consumption. I claimed that just because some have eaten a high sugar diet as a kid and not suffer from it, doesn't mean that it's necessarily harmless to do so. And now it seems as though a high sugar diet is being justified just because of anecdotal accounts.
A lot of diseases had no diagnosis, they were just unnamed.
People in previous generations didn't go to doctors for a number of reasons. There were financial limitations, scheduling issues, not as many doctors, especially specialists, etc. Heck, my 93 year old Uncle Bob thinks that doctors make you sick. He's not been to a doctor in over 20 years.
The fact that people didn't go to the doctor as often does not mean prior generations were healthier. Seriously, do you even understand correlations?
4 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
So yes, people that have certain diseases have genes that make them more susceptible. But it's not like the genes on their own changed that much in one or two generations. In other words, something else must also be responsible for actually causing the disease to manifest itself in a given individual.ForecasterJason wrote: »
Food choice, yes. But IMO inactivity is not at the root of a lot of the problems we have today. I'm talking about more than just weight here, problems like autoimmune diseases and allergies. Rates of those kind of conditions were a lot lower several decades ago.lemurcat12 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »While this is getting away from the OP, I would argue that from an overall health perspective, a lot of kids that grew up decades ago are in better shape than kids today. And I'm not saying that's all attributed to diet. I too know people who are older than me who didn't eat right growing up but aren't necessarily suffering from that today. I'm just saying, times have changed. The food supply isn't what it was then.
It's not the food supply, it's activity (or the lack thereof) and food choice.
They weren't as prevalent 30-40 years ago because the medical community wasn't able to properly diagnose them, plus the people that do carry the genes for those diseases are having children that carry those genes. As a kid in the 1970s, peanut allergies were for special episodes of Donahue. In the 1990s, wheat allergies were special 1 hour long documentaries on TLC/Discovery.
Have you not heard of evolution or genetic mutation?
People can eat a lot of sugar and not develop any health problems. Hard to believe, but it happens.
I heard doctors comment over and over that 20% of obese people in the states don't have any metabolic issues and 40% of normal weight people are actually metabolically sick and just won't know anything until they develop diabetes or some other problem. Still a lot better odds if you are normal weight.
There are people that can smoke and drink and live to be well over 100, but it is a little rare.
As for me, I'm not blessed with being able to consume large amounts of sugar without issues.1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »The interesting thing about soda to me is, as a kid I drank a lot of it. That said, we were so active as kids that it was never an issue. As I grew older my tastes changed and I drank less of it until now where I don't drink it anymore unless it's the weekend and there is some rum mixed in there.
My point is, and I say this all the time, too much focus is placed on diet and not enough on activity. Is it the added sugar (added calories) that is the problem, or is it a time where more kids are spending time indoors playing xbox and the like?
For kids, I think this is the main part of it, although probably less time moving, more time sitting around playing computer games also equates to more time to sit and eat/drink soda (while playing).
I live in a health-conscious neighborhood, and don't see many overweight kids. I do see lots of parents doing active things with their kids, and soccer and softball/baseball games and such at the local parks and school with parents watching and I know my friends with kids are always taking them to some sporting event or dance class or the like -- I think kids seem less likely to just run around outside like I did growing up (that could be different in the 'burbs, I live in a big city), but parents in my subculture/neighborhood seem to be focused on providing for organized opportunities for active play. But that seems to require either more work or parents who are also into those things in a way that wasn't so true when I was a kid. In part because if we weren't active, there was a lot less to do. (I used to read a lot, so was sedentary that way, and I suppose kids could have watched lots of TV, but my friends did not, and it was common for TV hours to be limited.)
Re soda, we didn't drink a lot as kids -- some, sure, more as a teen than as a small child when it was basically just at restaurants (we did have kool-aid in the summer, though, typically after running around all day). Soda just didn't seem as available to kids -- we didn't have it in the house and wouldn't have walked to the store to buy treats on our own just as a function of where we lived. But mostly it just didn't seem normal to drink huge amounts. I think part of this is what seems culturally normal or expected has changed, both in terms of activity (being completely sedentary would have seemed really weird) and in terms of food choice and amount.
That is a valid point. We didn't have (still don't) a TV when our children were young. The kids rarely missed it and filled their lives with all kinds of activities. Probably the only thing I would have changed is pushing them to eat fruit more instead of having juice. Still my children don't have any weight, energy or health issues. Most kids wouldn't either if it weren't for too much TV/Computer/Phone time. Kids are just like adults and need to be active to be healthy.
This post will be both a concession, and a counterpoint.
1: I was a fat kid, who drank lots of soda, played video games as much as possible, hated being outside, etc. When I say fat, I mean kicking in the door on two-hundred by ten years old.
2: I am now a not fat man, who drinks lots of (diet) soda, plays video games as much as possible (more than when I was a kid), hate being outside, sit on my *kitten* in a truck at work, but I understand how math works now.
My problem was far more on the nutritional side, and most of it due to the fact that I had morbidly obese parents, with a "clean your plate" attitude, and more fried food than I care to remember (badly fried, too, it was horribly cooked, in retrospect). I managed to figure out my numbers, break this way of eating, continue to be sedentary as hell, and not be fat as *kitten*. My brother on the other hand? Michelin man's stunt double, on his best day.
Now, was I in better overall health when I was lifting? Of course. I'll get back to it by the end of this summer, if for no other reason than I might actually be able to see the development process better, now that it isn't hidden under an added 25% of bodyfat. However, most of the arguments against consumption of sugar, hinge on the focus on obesity, especially in juveniles.1 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
So yes, people that have certain diseases have genes that make them more susceptible. But it's not like the genes on their own changed that much in one or two generations. In other words, something else must also be responsible for actually causing the disease to manifest itself in a given individual.ForecasterJason wrote: »
Food choice, yes. But IMO inactivity is not at the root of a lot of the problems we have today. I'm talking about more than just weight here, problems like autoimmune diseases and allergies. Rates of those kind of conditions were a lot lower several decades ago.lemurcat12 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »While this is getting away from the OP, I would argue that from an overall health perspective, a lot of kids that grew up decades ago are in better shape than kids today. And I'm not saying that's all attributed to diet. I too know people who are older than me who didn't eat right growing up but aren't necessarily suffering from that today. I'm just saying, times have changed. The food supply isn't what it was then.
It's not the food supply, it's activity (or the lack thereof) and food choice.
They weren't as prevalent 30-40 years ago because the medical community wasn't able to properly diagnose them, plus the people that do carry the genes for those diseases are having children that carry those genes. As a kid in the 1970s, peanut allergies were for special episodes of Donahue. In the 1990s, wheat allergies were special 1 hour long documentaries on TLC/Discovery.
Have you not heard of evolution or genetic mutation?
People can eat a lot of sugar and not develop any health problems. Hard to believe, but it happens.
I heard doctors comment over and over that 20% of obese people in the states don't have any metabolic issues and 40% of normal weight people are actually metabolically sick and just won't know anything until they develop diabetes or some other problem. Still a lot better odds if you are normal weight.
There are people that can smoke and drink and live to be well over 100, but it is a little rare.
As for me, I'm not blessed with being able to consume large amounts of sugar without issues.
And how does an individual achieve that normal weight to improve their odds of avoiding many metabolic issues? By controlling calories intake, not specifically limiting sugar.
1 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »The interesting thing about soda to me is, as a kid I drank a lot of it. That said, we were so active as kids that it was never an issue. As I grew older my tastes changed and I drank less of it until now where I don't drink it anymore unless it's the weekend and there is some rum mixed in there.
My point is, and I say this all the time, too much focus is placed on diet and not enough on activity. Is it the added sugar (added calories) that is the problem, or is it a time where more kids are spending time indoors playing xbox and the like?
For kids, I think this is the main part of it, although probably less time moving, more time sitting around playing computer games also equates to more time to sit and eat/drink soda (while playing).
I live in a health-conscious neighborhood, and don't see many overweight kids. I do see lots of parents doing active things with their kids, and soccer and softball/baseball games and such at the local parks and school with parents watching and I know my friends with kids are always taking them to some sporting event or dance class or the like -- I think kids seem less likely to just run around outside like I did growing up (that could be different in the 'burbs, I live in a big city), but parents in my subculture/neighborhood seem to be focused on providing for organized opportunities for active play. But that seems to require either more work or parents who are also into those things in a way that wasn't so true when I was a kid. In part because if we weren't active, there was a lot less to do. (I used to read a lot, so was sedentary that way, and I suppose kids could have watched lots of TV, but my friends did not, and it was common for TV hours to be limited.)
Re soda, we didn't drink a lot as kids -- some, sure, more as a teen than as a small child when it was basically just at restaurants (we did have kool-aid in the summer, though, typically after running around all day). Soda just didn't seem as available to kids -- we didn't have it in the house and wouldn't have walked to the store to buy treats on our own just as a function of where we lived. But mostly it just didn't seem normal to drink huge amounts. I think part of this is what seems culturally normal or expected has changed, both in terms of activity (being completely sedentary would have seemed really weird) and in terms of food choice and amount.
That is a valid point. We didn't have (still don't) a TV when our children were young. The kids rarely missed it and filled their lives with all kinds of activities. Probably the only thing I would have changed is pushing them to eat fruit more instead of having juice. Still my children don't have any weight, energy or health issues. Most kids wouldn't either if it weren't for too much TV/Computer/Phone time. Kids are just like adults and need to be active to be healthy.
This post will be both a concession, and a counterpoint.
1: I was a fat kid, who drank lots of soda, played video games as much as possible, hated being outside, etc. When I say fat, I mean kicking in the door on two-hundred by ten years old.
2: I am now a not fat man, who drinks lots of (diet) soda, plays video games as much as possible (more than when I was a kid), hate being outside, sit on my *kitten* in a truck at work, but I understand how math works now.
My problem was far more on the nutritional side, and most of it due to the fact that I had morbidly obese parents, with a "clean your plate" attitude, and more fried food than I care to remember (badly fried, too, it was horribly cooked, in retrospect). I managed to figure out my numbers, break this way of eating, continue to be sedentary as hell, and not be fat as *kitten*. My brother on the other hand? Michelin man's stunt double, on his best day.
Now, was I in better overall health when I was lifting? Of course. I'll get back to it by the end of this summer, if for no other reason than I might actually be able to see the development process better, now that it isn't hidden under an added 25% of bodyfat. However, most of the arguments against consumption of sugar, hinge on the focus on obesity, especially in juveniles.
First congratulations on overcoming rough nutritional start.
I completely agree that the arguments against sweetened beverages is mainly justified by the problems children are facing with obesity.
I never really drank much soda and when I started it was mostly diet soda. I think it was because I have an uncle that was just 7 months older than me. When he was in high school he was already huge. He would drink about 12 cans of coke a day while eating a large bag of Doritos, between lunch and supper. I guess that example spared me. I ran cross country in school so I didn't pick up a lot of weight until my 30's, I did get as bad as 230 pounds at one point. That was just because I was overeating then.0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
So yes, people that have certain diseases have genes that make them more susceptible. But it's not like the genes on their own changed that much in one or two generations. In other words, something else must also be responsible for actually causing the disease to manifest itself in a given individual.ForecasterJason wrote: »
Food choice, yes. But IMO inactivity is not at the root of a lot of the problems we have today. I'm talking about more than just weight here, problems like autoimmune diseases and allergies. Rates of those kind of conditions were a lot lower several decades ago.lemurcat12 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »While this is getting away from the OP, I would argue that from an overall health perspective, a lot of kids that grew up decades ago are in better shape than kids today. And I'm not saying that's all attributed to diet. I too know people who are older than me who didn't eat right growing up but aren't necessarily suffering from that today. I'm just saying, times have changed. The food supply isn't what it was then.
It's not the food supply, it's activity (or the lack thereof) and food choice.
They weren't as prevalent 30-40 years ago because the medical community wasn't able to properly diagnose them, plus the people that do carry the genes for those diseases are having children that carry those genes. As a kid in the 1970s, peanut allergies were for special episodes of Donahue. In the 1990s, wheat allergies were special 1 hour long documentaries on TLC/Discovery.
Have you not heard of evolution or genetic mutation?
People can eat a lot of sugar and not develop any health problems. Hard to believe, but it happens.
I heard doctors comment over and over that 20% of obese people in the states don't have any metabolic issues and 40% of normal weight people are actually metabolically sick and just won't know anything until they develop diabetes or some other problem. Still a lot better odds if you are normal weight.
There are people that can smoke and drink and live to be well over 100, but it is a little rare.
As for me, I'm not blessed with being able to consume large amounts of sugar without issues.
And how does an individual achieve that normal weight to improve their odds of avoiding many metabolic issues? By controlling calories intake, not specifically limiting sugar.
There are studies that show visceral fat increases quickly with sugar sweetened beverages and decreases just a quickly once the sugar is removed. We don't directly have any control of where our bodies store fat, but storing fat around the liver is the worst place as far as metabolic issues go. This liver fat has been attributed to they way that fructose is metabolized.
For example:
http://newsroom.heart.org/news/sugar-sweetened-drinks-linked-to-increased-visceral-fat
This type of problem is behind the claims that all calories are not equal. That doesn't refer to energy but more what the outcome is. If you are normal body weight but have packed on visceral fat, you would be at high risk for metabolic issues. TOFI - Thin on the outside, fat on the inside is not a desirable body type for health. Even a normal weight person still has a good amount of body fat, even as much as 20% of their weight.0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
So yes, people that have certain diseases have genes that make them more susceptible. But it's not like the genes on their own changed that much in one or two generations. In other words, something else must also be responsible for actually causing the disease to manifest itself in a given individual.ForecasterJason wrote: »
Food choice, yes. But IMO inactivity is not at the root of a lot of the problems we have today. I'm talking about more than just weight here, problems like autoimmune diseases and allergies. Rates of those kind of conditions were a lot lower several decades ago.lemurcat12 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »While this is getting away from the OP, I would argue that from an overall health perspective, a lot of kids that grew up decades ago are in better shape than kids today. And I'm not saying that's all attributed to diet. I too know people who are older than me who didn't eat right growing up but aren't necessarily suffering from that today. I'm just saying, times have changed. The food supply isn't what it was then.
It's not the food supply, it's activity (or the lack thereof) and food choice.
They weren't as prevalent 30-40 years ago because the medical community wasn't able to properly diagnose them, plus the people that do carry the genes for those diseases are having children that carry those genes. As a kid in the 1970s, peanut allergies were for special episodes of Donahue. In the 1990s, wheat allergies were special 1 hour long documentaries on TLC/Discovery.
Have you not heard of evolution or genetic mutation?
People can eat a lot of sugar and not develop any health problems. Hard to believe, but it happens.
I heard doctors comment over and over that 20% of obese people in the states don't have any metabolic issues and 40% of normal weight people are actually metabolically sick and just won't know anything until they develop diabetes or some other problem. Still a lot better odds if you are normal weight.
There are people that can smoke and drink and live to be well over 100, but it is a little rare.
As for me, I'm not blessed with being able to consume large amounts of sugar without issues.
And how does an individual achieve that normal weight to improve their odds of avoiding many metabolic issues? By controlling calories intake, not specifically limiting sugar.
There are studies that show visceral fat increases quickly with sugar sweetened beverages and decreases just a quickly once the sugar is removed. We don't directly have any control of where our bodies store fat, but storing fat around the liver is the worst place as far as metabolic issues go. This liver fat has been attributed to they way that fructose is metabolized.
For example:
http://newsroom.heart.org/news/sugar-sweetened-drinks-linked-to-increased-visceral-fat
This type of problem is behind the claims that all calories are not equal. That doesn't refer to energy but more what the outcome is. If you are normal body weight but have packed on visceral fat, you would be at high risk for metabolic issues. TOFI - Thin on the outside, fat on the inside is not a desirable body type for health. Even a normal weight person still has a good amount of body fat, even as much as 20% of their weight.
Do you have a link to the actual study? I can't find it on that page.
0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
So yes, people that have certain diseases have genes that make them more susceptible. But it's not like the genes on their own changed that much in one or two generations. In other words, something else must also be responsible for actually causing the disease to manifest itself in a given individual.ForecasterJason wrote: »
Food choice, yes. But IMO inactivity is not at the root of a lot of the problems we have today. I'm talking about more than just weight here, problems like autoimmune diseases and allergies. Rates of those kind of conditions were a lot lower several decades ago.lemurcat12 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »While this is getting away from the OP, I would argue that from an overall health perspective, a lot of kids that grew up decades ago are in better shape than kids today. And I'm not saying that's all attributed to diet. I too know people who are older than me who didn't eat right growing up but aren't necessarily suffering from that today. I'm just saying, times have changed. The food supply isn't what it was then.
It's not the food supply, it's activity (or the lack thereof) and food choice.
They weren't as prevalent 30-40 years ago because the medical community wasn't able to properly diagnose them, plus the people that do carry the genes for those diseases are having children that carry those genes. As a kid in the 1970s, peanut allergies were for special episodes of Donahue. In the 1990s, wheat allergies were special 1 hour long documentaries on TLC/Discovery.
Have you not heard of evolution or genetic mutation?
People can eat a lot of sugar and not develop any health problems. Hard to believe, but it happens.
I heard doctors comment over and over that 20% of obese people in the states don't have any metabolic issues and 40% of normal weight people are actually metabolically sick and just won't know anything until they develop diabetes or some other problem. Still a lot better odds if you are normal weight.
There are people that can smoke and drink and live to be well over 100, but it is a little rare.
As for me, I'm not blessed with being able to consume large amounts of sugar without issues.
And how does an individual achieve that normal weight to improve their odds of avoiding many metabolic issues? By controlling calories intake, not specifically limiting sugar.
There are studies that show visceral fat increases quickly with sugar sweetened beverages and decreases just a quickly once the sugar is removed. We don't directly have any control of where our bodies store fat, but storing fat around the liver is the worst place as far as metabolic issues go. This liver fat has been attributed to they way that fructose is metabolized.
For example:
http://newsroom.heart.org/news/sugar-sweetened-drinks-linked-to-increased-visceral-fat
This type of problem is behind the claims that all calories are not equal. That doesn't refer to energy but more what the outcome is. If you are normal body weight but have packed on visceral fat, you would be at high risk for metabolic issues. TOFI - Thin on the outside, fat on the inside is not a desirable body type for health. Even a normal weight person still has a good amount of body fat, even as much as 20% of their weight.
Do you have a link to the actual study? I can't find it on that page.
http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/133/4/370
There is actually another one, where teenagers were studied, but I think they went by blood test results. Anyway I'm not sure of how to find it again. I have start saving links ...0 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »The interesting thing about soda to me is, as a kid I drank a lot of it. That said, we were so active as kids that it was never an issue. As I grew older my tastes changed and I drank less of it until now where I don't drink it anymore unless it's the weekend and there is some rum mixed in there.
My point is, and I say this all the time, too much focus is placed on diet and not enough on activity. Is it the added sugar (added calories) that is the problem, or is it a time where more kids are spending time indoors playing xbox and the like?
For kids, I think this is the main part of it, although probably less time moving, more time sitting around playing computer games also equates to more time to sit and eat/drink soda (while playing).
I live in a health-conscious neighborhood, and don't see many overweight kids. I do see lots of parents doing active things with their kids, and soccer and softball/baseball games and such at the local parks and school with parents watching and I know my friends with kids are always taking them to some sporting event or dance class or the like -- I think kids seem less likely to just run around outside like I did growing up (that could be different in the 'burbs, I live in a big city), but parents in my subculture/neighborhood seem to be focused on providing for organized opportunities for active play. But that seems to require either more work or parents who are also into those things in a way that wasn't so true when I was a kid. In part because if we weren't active, there was a lot less to do. (I used to read a lot, so was sedentary that way, and I suppose kids could have watched lots of TV, but my friends did not, and it was common for TV hours to be limited.)
Re soda, we didn't drink a lot as kids -- some, sure, more as a teen than as a small child when it was basically just at restaurants (we did have kool-aid in the summer, though, typically after running around all day). Soda just didn't seem as available to kids -- we didn't have it in the house and wouldn't have walked to the store to buy treats on our own just as a function of where we lived. But mostly it just didn't seem normal to drink huge amounts. I think part of this is what seems culturally normal or expected has changed, both in terms of activity (being completely sedentary would have seemed really weird) and in terms of food choice and amount.
That is a valid point. We didn't have (still don't) a TV when our children were young. The kids rarely missed it and filled their lives with all kinds of activities. Probably the only thing I would have changed is pushing them to eat fruit more instead of having juice. Still my children don't have any weight, energy or health issues. Most kids wouldn't either if it weren't for too much TV/Computer/Phone time. Kids are just like adults and need to be active to be healthy.
This post will be both a concession, and a counterpoint.
1: I was a fat kid, who drank lots of soda, played video games as much as possible, hated being outside, etc. When I say fat, I mean kicking in the door on two-hundred by ten years old.
2: I am now a not fat man, who drinks lots of (diet) soda, plays video games as much as possible (more than when I was a kid), hate being outside, sit on my *kitten* in a truck at work, but I understand how math works now.
My problem was far more on the nutritional side, and most of it due to the fact that I had morbidly obese parents, with a "clean your plate" attitude, and more fried food than I care to remember (badly fried, too, it was horribly cooked, in retrospect). I managed to figure out my numbers, break this way of eating, continue to be sedentary as hell, and not be fat as *kitten*. My brother on the other hand? Michelin man's stunt double, on his best day.
Now, was I in better overall health when I was lifting? Of course. I'll get back to it by the end of this summer, if for no other reason than I might actually be able to see the development process better, now that it isn't hidden under an added 25% of bodyfat. However, most of the arguments against consumption of sugar, hinge on the focus on obesity, especially in juveniles.
First congratulations on overcoming rough nutritional start.
I completely agree that the arguments against sweetened beverages is mainly justified by the problems children are facing with obesity.
I never really drank much soda and when I started it was mostly diet soda. I think it was because I have an uncle that was just 7 months older than me. When he was in high school he was already huge. He would drink about 12 cans of coke a day while eating a large bag of Doritos, between lunch and supper. I guess that example spared me. I ran cross country in school so I didn't pick up a lot of weight until my 30's, I did get as bad as 230 pounds at one point. That was just because I was overeating then.
Thanks, though there is a(n) (unfortunate) side-effect to all of it though. I have precisely zero sympathy or empathy now, for the obese who can't fix themselves, even though they claim to want to. Go down the checklist of all of the supposed factors that predestined people to be morbidly obese, and I hit every single one of them, except for the currently obese box: fat family, poor nutrition as a child, extremely sedentary, consume large quantities of fat/cal, grew up poor, was poor for the first three years of my adult life, live in the hood, blah blah blah.
But considering all that I had working against me, I find it really hard to believe that sugar consumption was my biggest problem. In fact, I am now curious, and will spend a couple of days trying to get a solid guesstimate for what an average day's consumption was for me, at that age, now that I have the tools to do so pretty quickly.4 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
Right, but I'm pretty sure that my parents and their friends would say that kids and young adults in general didn't need to go to the doctor for these kind of conditions, regardless of whether there was a diagnosis or not. In other words, people were healthier.queenliz99 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I didn't say anything about solving all of life's problems. Autoimmune disorders and allergies can be indirectly related to sugar in fruit. A diet high in sugar can negatively impact the immune system.Alluminati wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Food choice, yes. But IMO inactivity is not at the root of a lot of the problems we have today. I'm talking about more than just weight here, problems like autoimmune diseases and allergies. Rates of those kind of conditions were a lot lower several decades ago.lemurcat12 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »While this is getting away from the OP, I would argue that from an overall health perspective, a lot of kids that grew up decades ago are in better shape than kids today. And I'm not saying that's all attributed to diet. I too know people who are older than me who didn't eat right growing up but aren't necessarily suffering from that today. I'm just saying, times have changed. The food supply isn't what it was then.
It's not the food supply, it's activity (or the lack thereof) and food choice.
That's your problem. You're always looking for the "root" of everything. There's is no one answer that you will find that will solve all of life's problems. What do autoimmune disorders and allergies have to do with sugar in fruit and children's health in the 1950s? Get a grip.
This discussion seems to have taken a turn in defending a high sugar consumption. I claimed that just because some have eaten a high sugar diet as a kid and not suffer from it, doesn't mean that it's necessarily harmless to do so. And now it seems as though a high sugar diet is being justified just because of anecdotal accounts.
A lot of diseases had no diagnosis, they were just unnamed.
I'm an amateur historian, who first did a fair amount of work on my family tree. Along with filling out births, marriages, and deaths, I came across causes of death for relatives long gone. People died from all sorts of diseases that are scarcely a threat today. Infant mortality was much higher. My ancestors at times named a new infant after the recently departed child, in the hopes of carrying the family name to adulthood. I'd say one in four births the child did not make it to adulthood. Here's a few causes for you to chew over; complications from diabetes, "consumption", pneumonia, bipolar disorder, polio, sepsis from a cut thumb (no antibiotics), smallpox, Diptheria, and the Spanish Influenza.
By the way, "consumption" was a catch-all diagnosis where the person weakened and died from no known cause. Maybe cancer. We didn't have the advanced diagnostic tools we have today.3 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »The interesting thing about soda to me is, as a kid I drank a lot of it. That said, we were so active as kids that it was never an issue. As I grew older my tastes changed and I drank less of it until now where I don't drink it anymore unless it's the weekend and there is some rum mixed in there.
My point is, and I say this all the time, too much focus is placed on diet and not enough on activity. Is it the added sugar (added calories) that is the problem, or is it a time where more kids are spending time indoors playing xbox and the like?
For kids, I think this is the main part of it, although probably less time moving, more time sitting around playing computer games also equates to more time to sit and eat/drink soda (while playing).
I live in a health-conscious neighborhood, and don't see many overweight kids. I do see lots of parents doing active things with their kids, and soccer and softball/baseball games and such at the local parks and school with parents watching and I know my friends with kids are always taking them to some sporting event or dance class or the like -- I think kids seem less likely to just run around outside like I did growing up (that could be different in the 'burbs, I live in a big city), but parents in my subculture/neighborhood seem to be focused on providing for organized opportunities for active play. But that seems to require either more work or parents who are also into those things in a way that wasn't so true when I was a kid. In part because if we weren't active, there was a lot less to do. (I used to read a lot, so was sedentary that way, and I suppose kids could have watched lots of TV, but my friends did not, and it was common for TV hours to be limited.)
Re soda, we didn't drink a lot as kids -- some, sure, more as a teen than as a small child when it was basically just at restaurants (we did have kool-aid in the summer, though, typically after running around all day). Soda just didn't seem as available to kids -- we didn't have it in the house and wouldn't have walked to the store to buy treats on our own just as a function of where we lived. But mostly it just didn't seem normal to drink huge amounts. I think part of this is what seems culturally normal or expected has changed, both in terms of activity (being completely sedentary would have seemed really weird) and in terms of food choice and amount.
That is a valid point. We didn't have (still don't) a TV when our children were young. The kids rarely missed it and filled their lives with all kinds of activities. Probably the only thing I would have changed is pushing them to eat fruit more instead of having juice. Still my children don't have any weight, energy or health issues. Most kids wouldn't either if it weren't for too much TV/Computer/Phone time. Kids are just like adults and need to be active to be healthy.
This post will be both a concession, and a counterpoint.
1: I was a fat kid, who drank lots of soda, played video games as much as possible, hated being outside, etc. When I say fat, I mean kicking in the door on two-hundred by ten years old.
2: I am now a not fat man, who drinks lots of (diet) soda, plays video games as much as possible (more than when I was a kid), hate being outside, sit on my *kitten* in a truck at work, but I understand how math works now.
My problem was far more on the nutritional side, and most of it due to the fact that I had morbidly obese parents, with a "clean your plate" attitude, and more fried food than I care to remember (badly fried, too, it was horribly cooked, in retrospect). I managed to figure out my numbers, break this way of eating, continue to be sedentary as hell, and not be fat as *kitten*. My brother on the other hand? Michelin man's stunt double, on his best day.
Now, was I in better overall health when I was lifting? Of course. I'll get back to it by the end of this summer, if for no other reason than I might actually be able to see the development process better, now that it isn't hidden under an added 25% of bodyfat. However, most of the arguments against consumption of sugar, hinge on the focus on obesity, especially in juveniles.
First congratulations on overcoming rough nutritional start.
I completely agree that the arguments against sweetened beverages is mainly justified by the problems children are facing with obesity.
I never really drank much soda and when I started it was mostly diet soda. I think it was because I have an uncle that was just 7 months older than me. When he was in high school he was already huge. He would drink about 12 cans of coke a day while eating a large bag of Doritos, between lunch and supper. I guess that example spared me. I ran cross country in school so I didn't pick up a lot of weight until my 30's, I did get as bad as 230 pounds at one point. That was just because I was overeating then.
Thanks, though there is a(n) (unfortunate) side-effect to all of it though. I have precisely zero sympathy or empathy now, for the obese who can't fix themselves, even though they claim to want to. Go down the checklist of all of the supposed factors that predestined people to be morbidly obese, and I hit every single one of them, except for the currently obese box: fat family, poor nutrition as a child, extremely sedentary, consume large quantities of fat/cal, grew up poor, was poor for the first three years of my adult life, live in the hood, blah blah blah.
But considering all that I had working against me, I find it really hard to believe that sugar consumption was my biggest problem. In fact, I am now curious, and will spend a couple of days trying to get a solid guesstimate for what an average day's consumption was for me, at that age, now that I have the tools to do so pretty quickly.
I'm mostly in agreement with adults should be able to fix their obesity problems. It is the young kids that are somewhat disturbing. You did beat the odds though.
Sugar consumption is just part of the issue. In many cases probably a small part of the issue. There have always been some obese people even before sugar was so plentiful. I might be more sensitive to added sugar than most people. I'm just lucky that it is an easy thing to avoid and really the only damage is maybe only eating one desert a month right now. Small price to pay for feeling good. Actually I miss not eating nuts more than desert. I might swaps some nuts into my breakfast, or just add them. Once I get my body fat down to 15% or so, I'll probably add some deserts back in anyways.0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »While this is getting away from the OP, I would argue that from an overall health perspective, a lot of kids that grew up decades ago are in better shape than kids today. And I'm not saying that's all attributed to diet. I too know people who are older than me who didn't eat right growing up but aren't necessarily suffering from that today. I'm just saying, times have changed. The food supply isn't what it was then.
We ate and drank MORE sugar when I was a kid. At that time it was the low fat craze. So this idea that it all has to come down to diet is crazy. Yes diet is important but the big elephant in the room is obvious, kids are just not as active anymore. This is not hard to grasp...1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 400 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 988 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions