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
Options
Replies
-
once I experienced leaving off most processed sugary foods and drinks I came to a place where desserts made with sugar, or veg with added sugar, disgusts my taste buds, I don't like the feeling it gives me in my mouth.
If that pleases you, that's great.
I am someone who never found that eating some sweet things affected my enjoyment of other, less sweet foods. I still taste fruit as very sweet when consuming sweet foods.* Even when I drank lots of diet coke, I preferred my wine completely dry and never enjoyed sugar in tea or coffee. (But I've also always had much more of a weakness for savory foods than sweet, so I never really overloaded my palate with supersweet things, and find that other than fruit I rarely care for sweet without fat (there are occasional exceptions).)
So even though now I don't eat a lot of added sugar (I don't think the word "processed" adds much here), I eat some (well, not at this exact moment since I'm playing around with low carb, but normally) and am quite pleased I do still enjoy it. My taste has always rejected some desserts as being too sweet for my preference, but not to the point of preferring apple pie without any added sugar.
Ironically, I listened to the Freakonomics podcast mentioned above, and apparently even Lustig agrees with the sugar in apple pie bit: "LUSTIG: Sugar’s celebratory! Sugar’s fun! Sugar’s Apple Pie. Sugar is reward — but once a week."
;-)
Anyway, like I said, my actual point was somewhat different, although if it doesn't interest you, that's cool.
*My dad always ate lemons, and I used to do it too, as a kid. The issue for my mother and sister (who thought this was weird and unpleasant) wasn't lack of sweetness, but extreme sourness, which is a taste that I have always rather liked, although I don't think I'd eat a whole lemon now.0 -
I think we've got off the original topic of the OP !
I realize now that I was really trying to say that eating low sugars, as in a lchf, leads to sweet things tasting sweeter than before.0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »anyway, I found it interesting and it is no way peer reviewed...
It's just one guy's thoughts. If you look at his LinkedIn profile his education is a bachelor's in psychology/law and a master's in IT. No background at all to discuss the pluses and minuses of anything related to nutrition.
Personally don't think sugar is physically addictive, psychologically maybe.
Many people with no more nutritional education than that write diet books or make "documentaries" telling you sugar is horrible for you too.
Oh I agree.
My challenge with the original post is the article debunks a lot of myths, but the "debunking" is done by an individual with no applicable background and no references to any science backing his statements.
No better/worse than sugar demonizers with no background that write blog posts.
Are they myths or not?
Like most agenda driven articles this has some truth, some BS and a lot of spin.
Such as?Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »anyway, I found it interesting and it is no way peer reviewed...
It's just one guy's thoughts. If you look at his LinkedIn profile his education is a bachelor's in psychology/law and a master's in IT. No background at all to discuss the pluses and minuses of anything related to nutrition.
Personally don't think sugar is physically addictive, psychologically maybe.
Many people with no more nutritional education than that write diet books or make "documentaries" telling you sugar is horrible for you too.
Oh I agree.
My challenge with the original post is the article debunks a lot of myths, but the "debunking" is done by an individual with no applicable background and no references to any science backing his statements.
No better/worse than sugar demonizers with no background that write blog posts.
Are they myths or not?
Like most agenda driven articles this has some truth, some BS and a lot of spin.
Such as?
I noticed a few. I'm sure you have good reading comprehension and critical thinking skills. Why don't you read the article again, think about it and post what you've identified as biases?
Because I'm not asking myself, I am asking you....
Sorry you don't want to examine and use your critical thinking/reading skills.
It's a shame. Really something that is worth lifetime development.
yea, I am not the one that refuses to read and answer the question, but keep telling yourself that bro..
I will put you down for "don't know the answer"9 -
The writer wants to grab attention by writing a contrarian article. But many of his arguments are weak. Other people have already talked about his lack of background and credentials.
--As someone else pointed out, the writer's claim about sugar not being empty calories makes no sense. Just because a food has calories doesn't mean those calories are as nutritionally valuable as those in other foods. Calories that fall far short in providing nutrition are called "empty" by nutritionists.
--Never have heard anyone argue that sugar wasn't a necessary ingredient in most sweet deserts. That's a Straw Man argument, or should I call it a Gingerbread Man argument?
--It has been reported since this article appeared that Big Sugar HAS plotted to keep people eating sugar. It paid research scientists starting in the 1960s to minimize the health problems with sugar while making fat the enemy.7 -
This is a terrible article. Somebody "debunked" the "myth" that sugar is empty calories by pointing out that it has calories. Stupidest thing I've read in a long time.7
-
The writer wants to grab attention by writing a contrarian article. But many of his arguments are weak. Other people have already talked about his lack of background and credentials.
--As someone else pointed out, the writer's claim about sugar not being empty calories makes no sense. Just because a food has calories doesn't mean those calories are as nutritionally valuable as those in other foods. Calories that fall far short in providing nutrition are called "empty" by nutritionists.
--Never have heard anyone argue that sugar wasn't a necessary ingredient in most sweet deserts. That's a Straw Man argument, or should I call it a Gingerbread Man argument?
--It has been reported since this article appeared that Big Sugar HAS plotted to keep people eating sugar. It paid research scientists starting in the 1960s to minimize the health problems with sugar while making fat the enemy.
Macronutrients are nutrients. Anything with calories provides some sort of nutrition and what "falls short" depends entirely on the situation. A chicken breast will fall short in providing me with what I need during a long run, where some sugary whatever will do the trick.
And I have seen the article you mention. It failed miserably at providing anything more than circumstancial anecdotes.9 -
NorthCascades wrote: »This is a terrible article. Somebody "debunked" the "myth" that sugar is empty calories by pointing out that it has calories. Stupidest thing I've read in a long time.
how so? If something provides energy, it can't be empty. If anything the empty calorie argument is the dump one.4 -
NorthCascades wrote: »This is a terrible article. Somebody "debunked" the "myth" that sugar is empty calories by pointing out that it has calories. Stupidest thing I've read in a long time.
how so? If something provides energy, it can't be empty. If anything the empty calorie argument is the dump one.
I think some call sugar an empty calorie because it just has calories.
I guess we could call diet soda "empty flavor" because it just provides flavor... well, and water. And maybe on occasion some micronutrients.0 -
NorthCascades wrote: »This is a terrible article. Somebody "debunked" the "myth" that sugar is empty calories by pointing out that it has calories. Stupidest thing I've read in a long time.
how so? If something provides energy, it can't be empty. If anything the empty calorie argument is the dump one.
I think some call sugar an empty calorie because it just has calories.
I guess we could call diet soda "empty flavor" because it just provides flavor... well, and water. And maybe on occasion some micronutrients.
If you can derive energy out of something it is not empty.2 -
stevencloser wrote: »The writer wants to grab attention by writing a contrarian article. But many of his arguments are weak. Other people have already talked about his lack of background and credentials.
--As someone else pointed out, the writer's claim about sugar not being empty calories makes no sense. Just because a food has calories doesn't mean those calories are as nutritionally valuable as those in other foods. Calories that fall far short in providing nutrition are called "empty" by nutritionists.
--Never have heard anyone argue that sugar wasn't a necessary ingredient in most sweet deserts. That's a Straw Man argument, or should I call it a Gingerbread Man argument?
--It has been reported since this article appeared that Big Sugar HAS plotted to keep people eating sugar. It paid research scientists starting in the 1960s to minimize the health problems with sugar while making fat the enemy.
Macronutrients are nutrients. Anything with calories provides some sort of nutrition and what "falls short" depends entirely on the situation. A chicken breast will fall short in providing me with what I need during a long run, where some sugary whatever will do the trick.
And I have seen the article you mention. It failed miserably at providing anything more than circumstancial anecdotes.
It wasn't one article, but several.
The scientists conducted a literature review.
0 -
stevencloser wrote: »The writer wants to grab attention by writing a contrarian article. But many of his arguments are weak. Other people have already talked about his lack of background and credentials.
--As someone else pointed out, the writer's claim about sugar not being empty calories makes no sense. Just because a food has calories doesn't mean those calories are as nutritionally valuable as those in other foods. Calories that fall far short in providing nutrition are called "empty" by nutritionists.
--Never have heard anyone argue that sugar wasn't a necessary ingredient in most sweet deserts. That's a Straw Man argument, or should I call it a Gingerbread Man argument?
--It has been reported since this article appeared that Big Sugar HAS plotted to keep people eating sugar. It paid research scientists starting in the 1960s to minimize the health problems with sugar while making fat the enemy.
Macronutrients are nutrients. Anything with calories provides some sort of nutrition and what "falls short" depends entirely on the situation. A chicken breast will fall short in providing me with what I need during a long run, where some sugary whatever will do the trick.
And I have seen the article you mention. It failed miserably at providing anything more than circumstancial anecdotes.
It wasn't one article, but several.
The scientists conducted a literature review.
Correct. The literature review had significant limitations and no concrete evidence, just circumstantial. All of this is acknowledged in the review. From the review:
Study Limitations
The Roger Adams papers and other documents used in this research provide a narrow window into the activities of 1 sugar industry trade association; therefore, it is difficult to validate that the documents gathered are representative of the entirety of SRF internal materials related to Project 226 from the 1950s and 1960s or that the proper weight was given to each data source. There is no direct evidence that the sugar industry wrote or changed the NEJM review manuscript; the evidence that the industry shaped the review’s conclusions is circumstantial. We did not analyze the role of other organizations, nutrition leaders, or food industries that advocated that saturated fat and dietary cholesterol were the main dietary cause of CHD. We could not interview key actors involved in this historical episode because they have died. jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/25482557 -
NorthCascades wrote: »This is a terrible article. Somebody "debunked" the "myth" that sugar is empty calories by pointing out that it has calories. Stupidest thing I've read in a long time.
how so? If something provides energy, it can't be empty. If anything the empty calorie argument is the dump one.
You're just playing word games.4 -
NorthCascades wrote: »This is a terrible article. Somebody "debunked" the "myth" that sugar is empty calories by pointing out that it has calories. Stupidest thing I've read in a long time.
how so? If something provides energy, it can't be empty. If anything the empty calorie argument is the dump one.
I think some call sugar an empty calorie because it just has calories.
I guess we could call diet soda "empty flavor" because it just provides flavor... well, and water. And maybe on occasion some micronutrients.
If you can derive energy out of something it is not empty.
Possibly. You could just as easily say the calories in sugar are empty of anything else though. They are just calories.
0 -
NorthCascades wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »This is a terrible article. Somebody "debunked" the "myth" that sugar is empty calories by pointing out that it has calories. Stupidest thing I've read in a long time.
how so? If something provides energy, it can't be empty. If anything the empty calorie argument is the dump one.
You're just playing word games.
Yep.
If you Google empty calorie definition you get items similar to this (what most reasonable people would consider empty calories)
A unit of carbohydrate-based energy derived from refined food products that are high in sugars or salts, but essentially devoid of nutritive value, lacking protein, vitamins, dietary fiber, and essential fats. Empty calories are typical of ‘junk’ or snack foods
Examples Potato chips (crisps in the UK), pastries, cakes, soft drinks
http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Empty+calorie
More:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/empty calories
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/empty-calorie
http://www.livestrong.com/article/475404-definition-of-empty-calories/
http://www.med.umich.edu/1libr/Mhealthy/WhatAreEmptyCalories.pdf
http://www.webmd.com/diet/features/beware-empty-calories#1
http://healthyeating.sfgate.com/emptycalorie-foods-vs-nutrientdense-foods-1350.html
http://www.nccor.org/downloads/jada2010.pdf
6 -
Packerjohn wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »This is a terrible article. Somebody "debunked" the "myth" that sugar is empty calories by pointing out that it has calories. Stupidest thing I've read in a long time.
how so? If something provides energy, it can't be empty. If anything the empty calorie argument is the dump one.
You're just playing word games.
Yep.
If you Google empty calorie definition you get items similar to this (what most reasonable people would consider empty calories)
A unit of carbohydrate-based energy derived from refined food products that are high in sugars or salts, but essentially devoid of nutritive value, lacking protein, vitamins, dietary fiber, and essential fats. Empty calories are typical of ‘junk’ or snack foods
Examples Potato chips (crisps in the UK), pastries, cakes, soft drinks
http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Empty+calorie
More:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/empty calories
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/empty-calorie
http://www.livestrong.com/article/475404-definition-of-empty-calories/
http://www.med.umich.edu/1libr/Mhealthy/WhatAreEmptyCalories.pdf
http://www.webmd.com/diet/features/beware-empty-calories#1
http://healthyeating.sfgate.com/emptycalorie-foods-vs-nutrientdense-foods-1350.html
http://www.nccor.org/downloads/jada2010.pdf
And yet when you go running, those are better than a plate of broccoli for your performance.5 -
NorthCascades wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »This is a terrible article. Somebody "debunked" the "myth" that sugar is empty calories by pointing out that it has calories. Stupidest thing I've read in a long time.
how so? If something provides energy, it can't be empty. If anything the empty calorie argument is the dump one.
You're just playing word games.
Yep. It really is just a semantic argument.
If someone is struggling with lack of food, living in a famine, whatever, there are no empty calories. (Although that's not 100% true, as there's rabbit starvation and the like.)
When the issue is most people eating an excess of calories, calories without more are probably at a premium to be cut. That's what the USDA, etc., means with empty calories (which they use for sugar and solid fats, apparently, and ought to use for all the added vegetable oils in stuff if they do not).
The nit I'd pick with the argument isn't that sugar is empty calories, as that is currently defined, but the idea that sugar being empty calories means that it's always bad/needs to be eliminated. You can have a healthy diet that meets micro and macro needs without eliminating sugar, and clearly even in the obese areas of the world there are some uses for sugar, like as a supplement for endurance sports at times. I wouldn't think that consuming some sports beans during a marathon (or even regular jelly beans) lacks benefit. It does provide, simply, easily used calories.1 -
To add to that, are the people arguing over the term "empty calories" actually arguing over anything substantive with respect to sugar? I don't think so.0
-
On the topic of empty calories, I presume nutritionists don't find the actual carbohydrate molecules to be of any worth.
Based on @PackerJohn's posted definition of empty calories, makes me wonder why things like Crisco don't seem to qualify.3 -
On the topic of empty calories, I presume nutritionists don't find the actual carbohydrate molecules to be of any worth.
Based on @PackerJohn's posted definition of empty calories, makes me wonder why things like Crisco don't seem to qualify.
They do, I think.0 -
NorthCascades wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »This is a terrible article. Somebody "debunked" the "myth" that sugar is empty calories by pointing out that it has calories. Stupidest thing I've read in a long time.
how so? If something provides energy, it can't be empty. If anything the empty calorie argument is the dump one.
You're just playing word games.
not sure how it is a word game to say that sugar is not an empty calorie when one derives energy from it.
1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 390 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 921 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions