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.
Sugar Addiction Myths
Replies
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »
I think you have that backwards. Such a study would be needed to show that weight loss by itself - rather than the improved diet and/or more exercise that caused someone to lose weight - was responsible for improved overall health. I'm not the one touting weight loss alone as the best way to improve overall health. (To be clear, I think it's certainly helpful. But eating healthier is also helpful, may produce results faster, and can be done at the same time.)janejellyroll wrote: »
Yes, a healthier diet leads to better health more quickly than weight loss does.janejellyroll wrote: »...
Those studies, at best, seem to establish that changing one's diet can lead to favorable changes in some health markers for those who remain obese, at least in short term studies.
No one was arguing that losing weight is bad, just that it takes longer to lose a lot of weight than to change one's diet. I wasn't recommending any kind of template. And I certainly wasn't saying that it's good to be obese.But is there counter-evidence to show that people who lose weight don't experience beneficial changes also? You're arguing that it's better to be obese (and have a diet that fits a certain template) than it is to be a normal weight and eat in a different way. What is the basis for that claim?
Btw, there's no study like the one you asked me to find, that measures the health effects of weight loss in isolation from other factors like dietary changes and increased exercise.
If there is no study that demonstrates that, I don't know what you're basing your claim on.
The obvious reason why there are no studies like that is that people almost never lose weight unless they improve their diet and/or exercise. When you ask for those studies, you're asking for the kind of studies that don't exist.
Btw, there are studies on people who lose weight through liposuction alone. But surgery is a different ballgame and I don't think anyone was suggesting weight loss through surgery as a way to improve health.
There are dozens of stories on MFP where people talked about losing weight without significantly overhauling their diet, and in recent months, there have been several great threads posted as an experiment which demonstrates exactly what you said doesn't happen - that it's possible to lose weight AND improve health markers, even without changing diet to a more nutrient dense one - in most of these, I think the guys intentionally ate less healthfully, to prove their point.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10571895/the-junk-food-diet-seriously/p1
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10348650/cico-still-skeptical-come-inside-for-a-meticulous-log-that-proves-it/p1
There's one more that I can't dig up just now, perhaps someone else can link - an experiment with eating nothing but fast food for a month?
Twinkie Diet and McDonald's Diet.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2534737/I-thought-I-going-die-Man-lost-37lbs-eating-McDonalds-three-months-walking-45-minutes-day.html
Yeah there was one more on the MFP forums that I can't find or remember the OP's name. It was a similar experiment with nothing but fast food, I don't think it was specifically McDonalds.
Anyway - it demonstrates that while no one is really advocating eating nothing but junk food, even for a short period of time - it is possible to lose weight AND improve health markers by doing so. And there are many, many other stories of people who have had similar improvements simply by focusing on losing weight and not a drastic overhaul of their diet.
And just to be clear - I am an advocate of eating a varied and balanced diet that include foods that provide nutrition, satiety, and enjoyment in a calorie appropriate amount for the individual's goals. Just in case I'm accused (again) of saying that nutrition doesn't matter.
It was mitymax96: http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10534218/fast-food-for-the-month
That's it! Thank you!
Did anyone actually look at what he ate for that? Looked like a majority, I'd say 85-90% of his calories are not junk food, they were just from restaurants.
Some seem to think that you can't get anything but junk food if you get it from a fast food place, though -- that's part of what this discussion is about, having a better idea of what "eating healthy" can be.
Yep - this. People come to these boards all the time asking if you can eat xyz food and still lose weight. People say "sure, but you won't be healthy" or "maybe, but you'll feel like crap". So there are three recent examples of people who did experiments to disprove this, with consistently positive results even though they took different approaches to it. Now mitymax is disqualified because the food items he chose at the fast food restaurants were too healthy?
6 -
What I said was I thought your post was "not quite accurate". To me, that means it was close to accurate, but not quite. Then I said what I thought needed clarifying. It sounds like you read that to mean I disagreed 100% and thought what you said was the reverse of the truth.janejellyroll wrote: »There clearly was a misunderstanding, because I do feel like I clearly stated my belief that the portion of the population that maintains a healthy weight will tend to have better health outcomes (regardless of diet) than a hypothetical population that is obese but eating "healthy" and I felt like @dfwesq was disagreeing with that position and stating the reverse. Not sure if our conversation had a misunderstanding from the beginning or if it was introduced later.
I'll take a chance that it might be helpful to explain again what I thought needed clarifying. Where I think your post was inaccurate is that there's a difference between people following some dietary fad and people who actually improve their diets. People who actually improve their diets can see their health improve much faster than they can by becoming non-obese. For an obese person to reach a normal weight takes a lot of time, but making the kind of changes that begin the process of weight loss can happen fairly quickly.
There are studies showing that when obese people lose just a small percentage of their body weight, their overall health improves. But those studies all involve improved diets and/or exercise. That makes it hard to say for sure that the improvements were caused by the weight loss and not by the better diet and/or exercise that led to the weight loss. (And really, the researchers doing those studies don't care, because for practical purposes it makes no difference.) But other studies have shown that just making dietary improvements can improve health fairly quickly.
Thanks for clarifying. What I initially wrote gave the impression that I was referring to dietary fads. I wasn't, I was talking about foods that are commonly touted for weight loss (like the chicken and broccoli discussed earlier). I see now you're talking about a different situation than what I was discussing -- the speed at which someone could improve their health markers is less interesting to me than the initial question about which population would have overall better outcomes (the people who change their diet but stay obese and people at a normal weight). That doesn't mean it can't be interesting to you or other people, of course. It just wasn't what I was discussing.1 -
There are studies showing that when obese people lose just a small percentage of their body weight, their overall health improves. But those studies all involve improved diets and/or exercise.
As I mentioned in my prior post, every study I've seen of weight loss showed improvement, regardless of the diet, and that's what the Twinkie guy and the McD's guy also saw. People on very low carb diets without much in the way of vegetables (and I'm a huge proponent of veg) tend to see huge improvements too.
Do you get better improvements if you eat a more classically nutritious diet? I think it's possible (it would fit my own biases), but I have not seen anything to support that idea. I would be very interested.
Another thing I'd be interested in is a comparison from the health professionals studies of obese people (and overweight people) who have a classically nutritious diet vs. normal weight people in general and then normal weight people who have worse diets in various ways (although I agree there would be a correlation between good diet and normal weight in the study).
The funny thing is -- and yes, I assume you will ignore this -- I actually think we probably agree more than we don't, as I think (1) eating a healthy diet is a good thing to do, (2) for many people (not all) eating a healthy diet can make weight loss easier, and -- most important -- (3) for many people making improvements to the idea could be done easily and gradually. Indeed, I think rather than telling people they should drop their current diet and convert to some fad (even a healthy fad) like super low carb or WFPB or NO added sugar or flour or whatever that encouraging them to see the small changes that could make a huge differences, like reducing sweets and lower nutrition snacks, increasing vegetables in meals, maybe trying fruit instead of a cookie for a snack, looking at sources of protein and fat, choosing higher fiber carbs, etc. -- all of which can be done gradually and are IMO basically common sense is a good idea.
And showing them they do not have to immediately give up all "processed" foods, convenience items, and meals out or take out, but can work those into their current diet by making sensible choices (like mitymax did even in the context of a fast food only diet) can be an important part of this.
The debates about how people who say "you can continue to eat what you like and lose weight" must really be telling people to eat all junk or don't care about nutrition IMO tend to promote extremism and do nothing to encourage people who don't already eat a healthy diet to improve it. They just serve as a forum for a few posters to preen about how other people don't eat healthy or care about nutrition like they do.
I suspect that most of us in this discussion agree in large ways about what healthy eating is and what a sensible diet is and probably even that you can eat some so called junk or, certainly, some sugar or processed food in the context of a good diet without it being unhealthy. Is it possible for you to concede that and maybe talk about some of the things we all agree on, as well as strategy issues?
(Don't worry, I'm not holding my breath, although it would make me happy.)6 -
WinoGelato wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »
I think you have that backwards. Such a study would be needed to show that weight loss by itself - rather than the improved diet and/or more exercise that caused someone to lose weight - was responsible for improved overall health. I'm not the one touting weight loss alone as the best way to improve overall health. (To be clear, I think it's certainly helpful. But eating healthier is also helpful, may produce results faster, and can be done at the same time.)janejellyroll wrote: »
Yes, a healthier diet leads to better health more quickly than weight loss does.janejellyroll wrote: »...
Those studies, at best, seem to establish that changing one's diet can lead to favorable changes in some health markers for those who remain obese, at least in short term studies.
No one was arguing that losing weight is bad, just that it takes longer to lose a lot of weight than to change one's diet. I wasn't recommending any kind of template. And I certainly wasn't saying that it's good to be obese.But is there counter-evidence to show that people who lose weight don't experience beneficial changes also? You're arguing that it's better to be obese (and have a diet that fits a certain template) than it is to be a normal weight and eat in a different way. What is the basis for that claim?
Btw, there's no study like the one you asked me to find, that measures the health effects of weight loss in isolation from other factors like dietary changes and increased exercise.
If there is no study that demonstrates that, I don't know what you're basing your claim on.
The obvious reason why there are no studies like that is that people almost never lose weight unless they improve their diet and/or exercise. When you ask for those studies, you're asking for the kind of studies that don't exist.
Btw, there are studies on people who lose weight through liposuction alone. But surgery is a different ballgame and I don't think anyone was suggesting weight loss through surgery as a way to improve health.
There are dozens of stories on MFP where people talked about losing weight without significantly overhauling their diet, and in recent months, there have been several great threads posted as an experiment which demonstrates exactly what you said doesn't happen - that it's possible to lose weight AND improve health markers, even without changing diet to a more nutrient dense one - in most of these, I think the guys intentionally ate less healthfully, to prove their point.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10571895/the-junk-food-diet-seriously/p1
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10348650/cico-still-skeptical-come-inside-for-a-meticulous-log-that-proves-it/p1
There's one more that I can't dig up just now, perhaps someone else can link - an experiment with eating nothing but fast food for a month?
Twinkie Diet and McDonald's Diet.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2534737/I-thought-I-going-die-Man-lost-37lbs-eating-McDonalds-three-months-walking-45-minutes-day.html
Yeah there was one more on the MFP forums that I can't find or remember the OP's name. It was a similar experiment with nothing but fast food, I don't think it was specifically McDonalds.
Anyway - it demonstrates that while no one is really advocating eating nothing but junk food, even for a short period of time - it is possible to lose weight AND improve health markers by doing so. And there are many, many other stories of people who have had similar improvements simply by focusing on losing weight and not a drastic overhaul of their diet.
And just to be clear - I am an advocate of eating a varied and balanced diet that include foods that provide nutrition, satiety, and enjoyment in a calorie appropriate amount for the individual's goals. Just in case I'm accused (again) of saying that nutrition doesn't matter.
It was mitymax96: http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10534218/fast-food-for-the-month
That's it! Thank you!
Did anyone actually look at what he ate for that? Looked like a majority, I'd say 85-90% of his calories are not junk food, they were just from restaurants.
Some seem to think that you can't get anything but junk food if you get it from a fast food place, though -- that's part of what this discussion is about, having a better idea of what "eating healthy" can be.
Yep - this. People come to these boards all the time asking if you can eat xyz food and still lose weight. People say "sure, but you won't be healthy" or "maybe, but you'll feel like crap". So there are three recent examples of people who did experiments to disprove this, with consistently positive results even though they took different approaches to it. Now mitymax is disqualified because the food items he chose at the fast food restaurants were too healthy?
You said junk food in your post trying to remember who the guy was doing it. You didn't say fast food, you said junk food. You were very clearly trying to put the Twinkie diet and his experience on the same level. Didn't seem like you were trying to show that you could eat healthy at a fast food restaurant, but that you could eat junk food and lose weight.3 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »There are studies showing that when obese people lose just a small percentage of their body weight, their overall health improves. But those studies all involve improved diets and/or exercise.
As I mentioned in my prior post, every study I've seen of weight loss showed improvement, regardless of the diet, and that's what the Twinkie guy and the McD's guy also saw. People on very low carb diets without much in the way of vegetables (and I'm a huge proponent of veg) tend to see huge improvements too.
Do you get better improvements if you eat a more classically nutritious diet? I think it's possible (it would fit my own biases), but I have not seen anything to support that idea. I would be very interested.
Another thing I'd be interested in is a comparison from the health professionals studies of obese people (and overweight people) who have a classically nutritious diet vs. normal weight people in general and then normal weight people who have worse diets in various ways (although I agree there would be a correlation between good diet and normal weight in the study).
The funny thing is -- and yes, I assume you will ignore this -- I actually think we probably agree more than we don't, as I think (1) eating a healthy diet is a good thing to do, (2) for many people (not all) eating a healthy diet can make weight loss easier, and -- most important -- (3) for many people making improvements to the idea could be done easily and gradually. Indeed, I think rather than telling people they should drop their current diet and convert to some fad (even a healthy fad) like super low carb or WFPB or NO added sugar or flour or whatever that encouraging them to see the small changes that could make a huge differences, like reducing sweets and lower nutrition snacks, increasing vegetables in meals, maybe trying fruit instead of a cookie for a snack, looking at sources of protein and fat, choosing higher fiber carbs, etc. -- all of which can be done gradually and are IMO basically common sense is a good idea.
And showing them they do not have to immediately give up all "processed" foods, convenience items, and meals out or take out, but can work those into their current diet by making sensible choices (like mitymax did even in the context of a fast food only diet) can be an important part of this.
The debates about how people who say "you can continue to eat what you like and lose weight" must really be telling people to eat all junk or don't care about nutrition IMO tend to promote extremism and do nothing to encourage people who don't already eat a healthy diet to improve it. They just serve as a forum for a few posters to preen about how other people don't eat healthy or care about nutrition like they do.
I suspect that most of us in this discussion agree in large ways about what healthy eating is and what a sensible diet is and probably even that you can eat some so called junk or, certainly, some sugar or processed food in the context of a good diet without it being unhealthy. Is it possible for you to concede that and maybe talk about some of the things we all agree on, as well as strategy issues?
(Don't worry, I'm not holding my breath, although it would make me happy.)
I posted this earlier, after looking what the McDonald's and Twinkie diets consisted of
(McDonald's Diet) During his 90-day diet, Mr Cisna stuck to a strict limit of 2,000 calories per day and stayed close to the recommended dietary allowances for nutrients. He had his students plan out each of his meals using the fast food franchise's online nutritional information, requiring that they follow the dietary restrictions he set out.
Similar with the Twinkie Diet:
Two-thirds of his total intake came from junk food. He also took a multivitamin pill and drank a protein shake daily. And he ate vegetables, typically a can of green beans or three to four celery stalks.
www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html
In both examples some thought was given to nutrition.1 -
RAD_Fitness wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »
I think you have that backwards. Such a study would be needed to show that weight loss by itself - rather than the improved diet and/or more exercise that caused someone to lose weight - was responsible for improved overall health. I'm not the one touting weight loss alone as the best way to improve overall health. (To be clear, I think it's certainly helpful. But eating healthier is also helpful, may produce results faster, and can be done at the same time.)janejellyroll wrote: »
Yes, a healthier diet leads to better health more quickly than weight loss does.janejellyroll wrote: »...
Those studies, at best, seem to establish that changing one's diet can lead to favorable changes in some health markers for those who remain obese, at least in short term studies.
No one was arguing that losing weight is bad, just that it takes longer to lose a lot of weight than to change one's diet. I wasn't recommending any kind of template. And I certainly wasn't saying that it's good to be obese.But is there counter-evidence to show that people who lose weight don't experience beneficial changes also? You're arguing that it's better to be obese (and have a diet that fits a certain template) than it is to be a normal weight and eat in a different way. What is the basis for that claim?
Btw, there's no study like the one you asked me to find, that measures the health effects of weight loss in isolation from other factors like dietary changes and increased exercise.
If there is no study that demonstrates that, I don't know what you're basing your claim on.
The obvious reason why there are no studies like that is that people almost never lose weight unless they improve their diet and/or exercise. When you ask for those studies, you're asking for the kind of studies that don't exist.
Btw, there are studies on people who lose weight through liposuction alone. But surgery is a different ballgame and I don't think anyone was suggesting weight loss through surgery as a way to improve health.
There are dozens of stories on MFP where people talked about losing weight without significantly overhauling their diet, and in recent months, there have been several great threads posted as an experiment which demonstrates exactly what you said doesn't happen - that it's possible to lose weight AND improve health markers, even without changing diet to a more nutrient dense one - in most of these, I think the guys intentionally ate less healthfully, to prove their point.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10571895/the-junk-food-diet-seriously/p1
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10348650/cico-still-skeptical-come-inside-for-a-meticulous-log-that-proves-it/p1
There's one more that I can't dig up just now, perhaps someone else can link - an experiment with eating nothing but fast food for a month?
Twinkie Diet and McDonald's Diet.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2534737/I-thought-I-going-die-Man-lost-37lbs-eating-McDonalds-three-months-walking-45-minutes-day.html
Yeah there was one more on the MFP forums that I can't find or remember the OP's name. It was a similar experiment with nothing but fast food, I don't think it was specifically McDonalds.
Anyway - it demonstrates that while no one is really advocating eating nothing but junk food, even for a short period of time - it is possible to lose weight AND improve health markers by doing so. And there are many, many other stories of people who have had similar improvements simply by focusing on losing weight and not a drastic overhaul of their diet.
And just to be clear - I am an advocate of eating a varied and balanced diet that include foods that provide nutrition, satiety, and enjoyment in a calorie appropriate amount for the individual's goals. Just in case I'm accused (again) of saying that nutrition doesn't matter.
It was mitymax96: http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10534218/fast-food-for-the-month
That's it! Thank you!
Did anyone actually look at what he ate for that? Looked like a majority, I'd say 85-90% of his calories are not junk food, they were just from restaurants.
Some seem to think that you can't get anything but junk food if you get it from a fast food place, though -- that's part of what this discussion is about, having a better idea of what "eating healthy" can be.
Yep - this. People come to these boards all the time asking if you can eat xyz food and still lose weight. People say "sure, but you won't be healthy" or "maybe, but you'll feel like crap". So there are three recent examples of people who did experiments to disprove this, with consistently positive results even though they took different approaches to it. Now mitymax is disqualified because the food items he chose at the fast food restaurants were too healthy?
You said junk food in your post trying to remember who the guy was doing it. You didn't say fast food, you said junk food. You were very clearly trying to put the Twinkie diet and his experience on the same level. Didn't seem like you were trying to show that you could eat healthy at a fast food restaurant, but that you could eat junk food and lose weight.
Actually I mentioned that mitymax had a thread where he ate fast food. I didn't recall the specifics of what he ate during the experiment. But regardless, why does it have to be one or the other? Fast food and nutrition are not mutually exclusive, I've never said that and often post something to that effect. When posters suggest that those that eat processed food don't care about nutrition or overall health, I always mention the fact that I eat things like Lean Cuisine, fast food, even Hamburger Helper and I don't understand why the consumption of anything processed or convenient is automatically tied to "junk" or nutrient sparse foods.
I wasn't trying to show that you can eat healthy at a fast food restaurant because that wasn't the topic being discussed. It was whether it's possible to lose weight and be healthy without overhauling your diet. Regardless of the choices MityMax made during his experiment, I still think his post is relevant. There are plenty of people who would still look at his diary and not consider it to be "healthy" enough simply because McDonalds and other fast food places are in there.1 -
The primary reason the WHO recommended limiting sugars was to prevent dental caries. Just brush your teeth, folks.2
-
The primary reason the WHO recommended limiting sugars was to prevent dental caries. Just brush your teeth, folks.
You forgot the rest of the paragraph:
"Consuming free sugars increases the risk of dental caries (tooth decay). Excess calories from foods and drinks high in free sugars also contribute to unhealthy weight gain, which can lead to overweight and obesity."
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs394/en/
WHO guidelines on added sugars:
http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/149782/1/9789241549028_eng.pdf
Not sure why the summary sentence mentions dental issues first, the rest of the materials list weight issues with added sugar first.3 -
Packerjohn wrote: »The primary reason the WHO recommended limiting sugars was to prevent dental caries. Just brush your teeth, folks.
You forgot the rest of the paragraph:
"Consuming free sugars increases the risk of dental caries (tooth decay). Excess calories from foods and drinks high in free sugars also contribute to unhealthy weight gain, which can lead to overweight and obesity."
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs394/en/
WHO guidelines on added sugars:
http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/149782/1/9789241549028_eng.pdf
Not sure why the summary sentence mentions dental issues first, the rest of the materials list weight issues with added sugar first.
So brush your teeth and dont eat too excess..got it...3 -
Packerjohn wrote: »The primary reason the WHO recommended limiting sugars was to prevent dental caries. Just brush your teeth, folks.
You forgot the rest of the paragraph:
"Consuming free sugars increases the risk of dental caries (tooth decay). Excess calories from foods and drinks high in free sugars also contribute to unhealthy weight gain, which can lead to overweight and obesity."
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs394/en/
WHO guidelines on added sugars:
http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/149782/1/9789241549028_eng.pdf
Not sure why the summary sentence mentions dental issues first, the rest of the materials list weight issues with added sugar first.
So brush your teeth and dont eat too excess..got it...
Exactly. Things apparently many people have issues with.0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »The primary reason the WHO recommended limiting sugars was to prevent dental caries. Just brush your teeth, folks.
You forgot the rest of the paragraph:
"Consuming free sugars increases the risk of dental caries (tooth decay). Excess calories from foods and drinks high in free sugars also contribute to unhealthy weight gain, which can lead to overweight and obesity."
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs394/en/
WHO guidelines on added sugars:
http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/149782/1/9789241549028_eng.pdf
Not sure why the summary sentence mentions dental issues first, the rest of the materials list weight issues with added sugar first.
Excess calories from any source contribute to weight gain.4 -
stevencloser wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »The primary reason the WHO recommended limiting sugars was to prevent dental caries. Just brush your teeth, folks.
You forgot the rest of the paragraph:
"Consuming free sugars increases the risk of dental caries (tooth decay). Excess calories from foods and drinks high in free sugars also contribute to unhealthy weight gain, which can lead to overweight and obesity."
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs394/en/
WHO guidelines on added sugars:
http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/149782/1/9789241549028_eng.pdf
Not sure why the summary sentence mentions dental issues first, the rest of the materials list weight issues with added sugar first.
Excess calories from any source contribute to weight gain.
True but direct wording from WHO related to added sugar.
Excess calories from foods and drinks high in free sugars also contribute to unhealthy weight gain, which can lead to overweight and obesity
This group along with the CDC and Heart Association apparently feel the need to call out excess calories from added sugar as a specific issue.0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »The primary reason the WHO recommended limiting sugars was to prevent dental caries. Just brush your teeth, folks.
You forgot the rest of the paragraph:
"Consuming free sugars increases the risk of dental caries (tooth decay). Excess calories from foods and drinks high in free sugars also contribute to unhealthy weight gain, which can lead to overweight and obesity."
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs394/en/
WHO guidelines on added sugars:
http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/149782/1/9789241549028_eng.pdf
Not sure why the summary sentence mentions dental issues first, the rest of the materials list weight issues with added sugar first.
Excess calories from any source contribute to weight gain.
True but direct wording from WHO related to added sugar.
Excess calories from foods and drinks high in free sugars also contribute to unhealthy weight gain, which can lead to overweight and obesity
This group along with the CDC and Heart Association apparently feel the need to call out excess calories from added sugar as a specific issue.
so if you become obese from over eating fats then that is OK, because you avoided added sugar??1 -
stevencloser wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »The primary reason the WHO recommended limiting sugars was to prevent dental caries. Just brush your teeth, folks.
You forgot the rest of the paragraph:
"Consuming free sugars increases the risk of dental caries (tooth decay). Excess calories from foods and drinks high in free sugars also contribute to unhealthy weight gain, which can lead to overweight and obesity."
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs394/en/
WHO guidelines on added sugars:
http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/149782/1/9789241549028_eng.pdf
Not sure why the summary sentence mentions dental issues first, the rest of the materials list weight issues with added sugar first.
Excess calories from any source contribute to weight gain.
apparently the new rule is if you get from fat from added sugar that is really bad, but if you get fat from just over consumption of say, fats, than that is just "bad" because no added sugar.
got it?0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »There are studies showing that when obese people lose just a small percentage of their body weight, their overall health improves. But those studies all involve improved diets and/or exercise.
As I mentioned in my prior post, every study I've seen of weight loss showed improvement, regardless of the diet, and that's what the Twinkie guy and the McD's guy also saw. People on very low carb diets without much in the way of vegetables (and I'm a huge proponent of veg) tend to see huge improvements too.
Do you get better improvements if you eat a more classically nutritious diet? I think it's possible (it would fit my own biases), but I have not seen anything to support that idea. I would be very interested.
Another thing I'd be interested in is a comparison from the health professionals studies of obese people (and overweight people) who have a classically nutritious diet vs. normal weight people in general and then normal weight people who have worse diets in various ways (although I agree there would be a correlation between good diet and normal weight in the study).
The funny thing is -- and yes, I assume you will ignore this -- I actually think we probably agree more than we don't, as I think (1) eating a healthy diet is a good thing to do, (2) for many people (not all) eating a healthy diet can make weight loss easier, and -- most important -- (3) for many people making improvements to the idea could be done easily and gradually. Indeed, I think rather than telling people they should drop their current diet and convert to some fad (even a healthy fad) like super low carb or WFPB or NO added sugar or flour or whatever that encouraging them to see the small changes that could make a huge differences, like reducing sweets and lower nutrition snacks, increasing vegetables in meals, maybe trying fruit instead of a cookie for a snack, looking at sources of protein and fat, choosing higher fiber carbs, etc. -- all of which can be done gradually and are IMO basically common sense is a good idea.
And showing them they do not have to immediately give up all "processed" foods, convenience items, and meals out or take out, but can work those into their current diet by making sensible choices (like mitymax did even in the context of a fast food only diet) can be an important part of this.
The debates about how people who say "you can continue to eat what you like and lose weight" must really be telling people to eat all junk or don't care about nutrition IMO tend to promote extremism and do nothing to encourage people who don't already eat a healthy diet to improve it. They just serve as a forum for a few posters to preen about how other people don't eat healthy or care about nutrition like they do.
I suspect that most of us in this discussion agree in large ways about what healthy eating is and what a sensible diet is and probably even that you can eat some so called junk or, certainly, some sugar or processed food in the context of a good diet without it being unhealthy. Is it possible for you to concede that and maybe talk about some of the things we all agree on, as well as strategy issues?
(Don't worry, I'm not holding my breath, although it would make me happy.)
I posted this earlier, after looking what the McDonald's and Twinkie diets consisted of
(McDonald's Diet) During his 90-day diet, Mr Cisna stuck to a strict limit of 2,000 calories per day and stayed close to the recommended dietary allowances for nutrients. He had his students plan out each of his meals using the fast food franchise's online nutritional information, requiring that they follow the dietary restrictions he set out.
Similar with the Twinkie Diet:
Two-thirds of his total intake came from junk food. He also took a multivitamin pill and drank a protein shake daily. And he ate vegetables, typically a can of green beans or three to four celery stalks.
www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html
In both examples some thought was given to nutrition.
I don't think that's inconsistent with what I said, as I think it's quite unlikely that anyone diets for any amount of time without giving some thought to nutrition. Thus, this fake dichotomy between those who care about nutrition and everyone else -- which you are one of the people pushing -- goes away. It certainly does if you are including in the "nutrition" camp people who eat only at McD's.
(I was actually thinking of the FatHead guy -- there seem to be multiple McD only people.)0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »The primary reason the WHO recommended limiting sugars was to prevent dental caries. Just brush your teeth, folks.
You forgot the rest of the paragraph:
"Consuming free sugars increases the risk of dental caries (tooth decay). Excess calories from foods and drinks high in free sugars also contribute to unhealthy weight gain, which can lead to overweight and obesity."
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs394/en/
WHO guidelines on added sugars:
http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/149782/1/9789241549028_eng.pdf
Not sure why the summary sentence mentions dental issues first, the rest of the materials list weight issues with added sugar first.
Weight issues connected with the ease of eating excessive calories when one eats a diet high in added sugars.
It wouldn't seem to apply if one limits calories appropriately.
Of course, then one would have to be careful to get adequate nutrition, IMO, but that can be done.
That said, I think the WHO approach is quite reasonable and not consistent with the common MFP extremism of "all sugar is bad and the worst of all possible foods and we will ignore the fact that the WHO also has concerns with excessive amounts of other kinds of foods" seen earlier in this thread, along with many other sources.1 -
Packerjohn wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »The primary reason the WHO recommended limiting sugars was to prevent dental caries. Just brush your teeth, folks.
You forgot the rest of the paragraph:
"Consuming free sugars increases the risk of dental caries (tooth decay). Excess calories from foods and drinks high in free sugars also contribute to unhealthy weight gain, which can lead to overweight and obesity."
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs394/en/
WHO guidelines on added sugars:
http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/149782/1/9789241549028_eng.pdf
Not sure why the summary sentence mentions dental issues first, the rest of the materials list weight issues with added sugar first.
Excess calories from any source contribute to weight gain.
True but direct wording from WHO related to added sugar.
Excess calories from foods and drinks high in free sugars also contribute to unhealthy weight gain, which can lead to overweight and obesity
This group along with the CDC and Heart Association apparently feel the need to call out excess calories from added sugar as a specific issue.
so if you become obese from over eating fats then that is OK, because you avoided added sugar??
Actually, the WHO sugar guideline got a lot of press because it is new to create a specific limit for added sugar.
People who go on about it -- as we see in this thread -- often ignore that it has had longer standing (and still existing) guidelines about fat and other things:
"For diet, recommendations for populations and individuals should include the following:
achieve energy balance and a healthy weight
limit energy intake from total fats and shift fat consumption away from saturated fats to unsaturated fats and towards the elimination of trans-fatty acids
increase consumption of fruits and vegetables, and legumes, whole grains and nuts
limit the intake of free sugars
limit salt (sodium) consumption from all sources and ensure that salt is iodized
These recommendations need to be considered when preparing national policies and dietary guidelines, taking into account the local situation.
Improving dietary habits is a societal, not just an individual problem. Therefore it demands a population-based, multisectoral, multi-disciplinary, and culturally relevant approach."3 -
Packerjohn, precisely what do you think you are disagreeing with people about.
It seems to me that we are generally agreeing that a wide variety of diets can be healthful and healthful diets can include junk food and the big reason the WHO advises against added sugar is not "sugar addiction" or sugar being uniquely bad, but that it's really easy to overeat and not get enough nutrients IF you happen to eat a diet high in added sugar (and don't otherwise do anything to protect against increased calories or displacing nutrients).
Thus, the WHO wouldn't seem to disagree with common advice like:
Q: Can I lose weight eating junk?
A: Sure (calories are what matter for weight loss), but of course diet quality is relevant to health so you would want to include the junk in moderation and get enough other stuff.
Q: If I eat a piece of pie at grandma's this weekend, will I gain weight?
A: No, not if calories are otherwise in check.
Q: If I am within calories but over on sugar, will I lose weight?
A: Yes. (And the MFP sugar counter isn't always the best way to judge diet quality.)
Q: I can't imagine giving up McD's. Is weight loss hopeless?
A: No, fit it into your calories. For satiety and health, of course, you wouldn't want to live on burgers and fries only, but of course you were not suggesting that you would do that, and an occasional fast food meal within the context of a healthy diet (include the salad if you like) is perfectly possible.9 -
Packerjohn wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »The primary reason the WHO recommended limiting sugars was to prevent dental caries. Just brush your teeth, folks.
You forgot the rest of the paragraph:
"Consuming free sugars increases the risk of dental caries (tooth decay). Excess calories from foods and drinks high in free sugars also contribute to unhealthy weight gain, which can lead to overweight and obesity."
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs394/en/
WHO guidelines on added sugars:
http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/149782/1/9789241549028_eng.pdf
Not sure why the summary sentence mentions dental issues first, the rest of the materials list weight issues with added sugar first.
Excess calories from any source contribute to weight gain.
True but direct wording from WHO related to added sugar.
Excess calories from foods and drinks high in free sugars also contribute to unhealthy weight gain, which can lead to overweight and obesity
This group along with the CDC and Heart Association apparently feel the need to call out excess calories from added sugar as a specific issue.
so if you become obese from over eating fats then that is OK, because you avoided added sugar??
If you have questions you should probably contact the WHO. It's their guideline1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »The primary reason the WHO recommended limiting sugars was to prevent dental caries. Just brush your teeth, folks.
You forgot the rest of the paragraph:
"Consuming free sugars increases the risk of dental caries (tooth decay). Excess calories from foods and drinks high in free sugars also contribute to unhealthy weight gain, which can lead to overweight and obesity."
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs394/en/
WHO guidelines on added sugars:
http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/149782/1/9789241549028_eng.pdf
Not sure why the summary sentence mentions dental issues first, the rest of the materials list weight issues with added sugar first.
Excess calories from any source contribute to weight gain.
True but direct wording from WHO related to added sugar.
Excess calories from foods and drinks high in free sugars also contribute to unhealthy weight gain, which can lead to overweight and obesity
This group along with the CDC and Heart Association apparently feel the need to call out excess calories from added sugar as a specific issue.
so if you become obese from over eating fats then that is OK, because you avoided added sugar??
Actually, the WHO sugar guideline got a lot of press because it is new to create a specific limit for added sugar.
People who go on about it -- as we see in this thread -- often ignore that it has had longer standing (and still existing) guidelines about fat and other things:
"For diet, recommendations for populations and individuals should include the following:
achieve energy balance and a healthy weight
limit energy intake from total fats and shift fat consumption away from saturated fats to unsaturated fats and towards the elimination of trans-fatty acids
increase consumption of fruits and vegetables, and legumes, whole grains and nuts
limit the intake of free sugars
limit salt (sodium) consumption from all sources and ensure that salt is iodized
These recommendations need to be considered when preparing national policies and dietary guidelines, taking into account the local situation.
Improving dietary habits is a societal, not just an individual problem. Therefore it demands a population-based, multisectoral, multi-disciplinary, and culturally relevant approach."
Understand all that. The only reason I brought up the WHO sugar guideline was @tomteboda comment that the sugar guideline was primarily put out there related to dental health.
I was questioning that statement.1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Packerjohn, precisely what do you think you are disagreeing with people about.
It seems to me that we are generally agreeing that a wide variety of diets can be healthful and healthful diets can include junk food and the big reason the WHO advises against added sugar is not "sugar addiction" or sugar being uniquely bad, but that it's really easy to overeat and not get enough nutrients IF you happen to eat a diet high in added sugar (and don't otherwise do anything to protect against increased calories or displacing nutrients).
Thus, the WHO wouldn't seem to disagree with common advice like:
Q: Can I lose weight eating junk?
A: Sure (calories are what matter for weight loss), but of course diet quality is relevant to health so you would want to include the junk in moderation and get enough other stuff.
Q: If I eat a piece of pie at grandma's this weekend, will I gain weight?
A: No, not if calories are otherwise in check.
Q: If I am within calories but over on sugar, will I lose weight?
A: Yes. (And the MFP sugar counter isn't always the best way to judge diet quality.)
Q: I can't imagine giving up McD's. Is weight loss hopeless?
A: No, fit it into your calories. For satiety and health, of course, you wouldn't want to live on burgers and fries only, but of course you were not suggesting that you would do that, and an occasional fast food meal within the context of a healthy diet (include the salad if you like) is perfectly possible.
I merely pointed out in the case of the McDonald's and Twinkie Diets discussed the individuals involved took steps to ensure their nutrition wasn't lacking. Most people reading MeDonald's and Twinkie Diet headlines don't read the part about the steps they took regarding nutrition.
Never said anything about sugar addiction or disputing CICO.1 -
Packerjohn wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »The primary reason the WHO recommended limiting sugars was to prevent dental caries. Just brush your teeth, folks.
You forgot the rest of the paragraph:
"Consuming free sugars increases the risk of dental caries (tooth decay). Excess calories from foods and drinks high in free sugars also contribute to unhealthy weight gain, which can lead to overweight and obesity."
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs394/en/
WHO guidelines on added sugars:
http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/149782/1/9789241549028_eng.pdf
Not sure why the summary sentence mentions dental issues first, the rest of the materials list weight issues with added sugar first.
Excess calories from any source contribute to weight gain.
True but direct wording from WHO related to added sugar.
Excess calories from foods and drinks high in free sugars also contribute to unhealthy weight gain, which can lead to overweight and obesity
This group along with the CDC and Heart Association apparently feel the need to call out excess calories from added sugar as a specific issue.
so if you become obese from over eating fats then that is OK, because you avoided added sugar??
Actually, the WHO sugar guideline got a lot of press because it is new to create a specific limit for added sugar.
People who go on about it -- as we see in this thread -- often ignore that it has had longer standing (and still existing) guidelines about fat and other things:
"For diet, recommendations for populations and individuals should include the following:
achieve energy balance and a healthy weight
limit energy intake from total fats and shift fat consumption away from saturated fats to unsaturated fats and towards the elimination of trans-fatty acids
increase consumption of fruits and vegetables, and legumes, whole grains and nuts
limit the intake of free sugars
limit salt (sodium) consumption from all sources and ensure that salt is iodized
These recommendations need to be considered when preparing national policies and dietary guidelines, taking into account the local situation.
Improving dietary habits is a societal, not just an individual problem. Therefore it demands a population-based, multisectoral, multi-disciplinary, and culturally relevant approach."
Understand all that. The only reason I brought up the WHO sugar guideline was @tomteboda comment that the sugar guideline was primarily put out there related to dental health.
I was questioning that statement.
It's the first thing they say and in other publications they acknowledge that the % of macros has no bearing on weight loss, so the mentioning of weight gain is only because it's easy to overeat if you don't pay attention.1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions