For science- a question about sugar in the diet

2»

Replies

  • sijomial
    sijomial Posts: 19,809 Member
    jennasbarton wrote: »
    sijomial wrote: »
    "For science" - I'm curious why you are making a distinction between added sugar and total sugar?".

    Hi,

    Well this in itself is the point I am trying to get to- is there any point in distinguishing between added sugars and natural ones? I would argue from my own experience that added sugar tends to be in products that are also high calorie or lower GI so cutting them out can help weight loss in those terms but I wonder if people do this more because, as you say, they perceive sugar to be the devil without really knowing what it does or why they are cutting it out.

    For me - I don't distinguish between the sucrose in an apple or the sucrose in a bowl of granulated sugar, chemically the same. (Different foods with different attributes of course but the sucrose in them is the same.)
    I look at the entirety of my diet, but that's too complex message to get across in a sound bite.

    It's similar to road safety campaigns that say "speed kills". Nice simple message that people can understand but it doesn't actually stand up to scrutiny. Speed doesn't kill, it's the impact that kills.....
    But there is a benefit in people being more aware of their speed in built up areas so the simplistic and inaccurate message works despite the subject being far more complex than you can fit on a poster.
  • ahoy_m8
    ahoy_m8 Posts: 3,053 Member
    edited September 2016
    If you're looking for anecdotal input, I track several nutrients but do not track or care about sugar.

    There is a calorie maximum I try to stay under (on average), but otherwise I focus on nutrient minimums, not nutrient maximums. E.g. I try to get minimums of protein, fat & fiber. I like to exceed a 1:3 ratio of w-3:w-6 fats, but I don't worry if I miss that target a couple days.

    ETA: I'm basically saying the same as others. It's the whole picture that matters, not sugar individually. If I can hit my nutritional minimums while staying below my calorie maximum, added sugar foods cause me no harm. It's the nutrient minimum-calorie maximum that keeps everything in balance.
  • Sued0nim
    Sued0nim Posts: 17,456 Member
    This isn't really about science is it

    I think the interesting part of the no added sugar campaign is the whole lowest common denominator marketing that has been taken on board and twisted into "this is bad for you" in people's psyches and common perception

    What it really means...the whole campaign that is...is

    We need to get people to stop consuming so many calories.

    There are too many hyper-palatable, high calorie easily accessible, cheap foods in the market that are easy to overeat

    These foods are a combination of fats, carbs and have added sugar to appeal to palates and make people want more

    Let's tell people to reduce added sugar ..make it the fall guy...that way it's an easy sound bite and anyone following it is going to start to avoid the highly palatable, high calorie easy to get foods

    So people buy into the message "eliminate added sugar" without understanding the why

    And they go off on big long spiels about the evil of sugar ..talk about addiction..when they just really like to eat tasty food

    And they completely ignore the fact that the sugar in an apple or glass of milk is exactly the same chemically as added sugar
    But the extra nutrients and fibre and lower calorie make them far better choices

    People are happy to be sheep it seems. Critical thinking seems to have absconded.

    I'm another who ignores sugar, tracks fibre but has ended up eating close to the recommended amounts by default because I like a healthy rounded diet and watch my calories

Categories