Scapegoat of this decade: Sugar.

magerum

Sugar is the villain of this decade, the scapegoat of choice it seems. In decades past it was carbs in general, fat, salt, cholesterol... Now it is clearly sugar. It's not just here, but in media outlets of all types. We're constantly bombarded with opinions and views, but little (if any) actual proof. We'll stick to here (MFP) for the most part though.

I truly find it amusing all the efforts put forth here to convince or "prove" to people that sugar is addicting and/or inherently bad for you. The addiction camp really just seems to be an effort to remove blame from the individual. Removing personal accountability from the equation with the excuse, "the man mad us fat, sugar is everywhere!" That's all I take from the fear mongering. It's just another excuse to just be fat.

Even if it was addictive, which it is not, it's still a personal responsibility issue. Alcohol and cigarettes are addicting and been proven to be such. They're legal, plentiful and cheap (well booze is). Are you an alcoholic or smoker because of this? I'm open to proof to contest my views, please I beg provide some scientific evidence.



Now on to sugar is inherently bad for you. The "sugar is the debil!" argument. Again, where's the proof? I'm open to reading any scientific proof provided. Sugar is just a carb. It is not inherently bad for you in any way. Why is it the boogey man? Again, because people want something to blame and not take responsibility themselves. Why shouldn't I eat my pop tarts and ice cream every, single day?

My nutrient needs are more than met through my diet and I typically have 1000+ calories of just energy needs daily. You don't get extra credit. Demonizing and telling people they must avoid a food or food group, simply because of fear mongering, helps no one. In fact it is decidedly detrimental to weight control success in the long term, as seen time and again. Just stop with the fear mongering already. Hit your macro and micro (typically easily done through the merit of macro goals), eat whatever you want, don't deprive yourself and you're better positioned for long term success.


Don’t believe me? Consider this study showing that “reduced-calorie diets result in clinically meaningful weight loss regardless of which macronutrients they emphasize.”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19246357

This study which found “diets differing substantially in glycemic load induce comparable long-term weight loss.”- http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17413101

The astounding results of Professor Mark Haub who lost 27lbs and improved markers of health while eating a diet consisting of Twinkies.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html (several good links to sources within this overall article)

The evidence is clear: No foods are inherently bad.

Flexible dieting
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11707550

LiftAllThePizzas

I look forward to hearing/seeing the "evidence" for sugar addiction.

MyChocolateDiet

IN

yarwell

The evidence is clear: No foods are inherently bad.

People with insulin resistance and diabetes may have different experiences. When you've met people with feet missing, eyes that don't work anymore and serious heart problems it does indeed appear that some foods can be bad for you.

But active young healthy people with good insulin sensitivity will probably fit your model.

_John_

The evidence is clear: No foods are inherently bad.

People with insulin resistance and diabetes may have different experiences. When you've met people with feet missing, eyes that don't work anymore and serious heart problems it does indeed appear that some foods can be bad for you.

But active young healthy people with good insulin sensitivity will probably fit your model.

Honest question, and lets throw out type 1 diabetes from this. Do people who maintain healthy weights/body composition regularly develop insulin sensitvity/diabetes?

Achrya

The evidence is clear: No foods are inherently bad.

People with insulin resistance and diabetes may have different experiences. When you've met people with feet missing, eyes that don't work anymore and serious heart problems it does indeed appear that some foods can be bad for you.

But active young healthy people with good insulin sensitivity will probably fit your model.

I like to go to extreme examples to disprove points as well!

Sky? Not blue. Cause color blindness.

darkangel45422

http://www.marksdailyapple.com/the-definitive-guide-to-sugar/#axzz2i6sECFfm

http://www.marksdailyapple.com/diabetes/#axzz2i6sECFfm


Here are two articles that help explain why sugar isn't all that healthy for us. Mark's usually pretty good about linking to the studies he's referring to if you want to look at the actual science; he's just put it all together into one convenient place.


I do agree that it's wrong to demonize any food or say it's something you can never eat; I think the point of life isn't to live by a rigid list of foods you can and can't eat, but to be informed about what different foods do to your body and make the choices you want to and need to to live a happy and healthy life. Is sugar going to play a big role in that? Probably not; it DOES have a lot of drawbacks and not too many good points, but that doesn't mean it can't be a part of your life if that's what you want.

magerum

The evidence is clear: No foods are inherently bad.

People with insulin resistance and diabetes may have different experiences. When you've met people with feet missing, eyes that don't work anymore and serious heart problems it does indeed appear that some foods can be bad for you.

But active young healthy people with good insulin sensitivity will probably fit your model.

I see what you're trying to do there, but if properly managed in both of those cases the same model fits. Again, personal responsibility. I know many type-1 and type-2 diabetics that properly manage their conditions and as a result, can eat what they choose.

If they've lost feet, or functions of other organs they have not managed their conditions properly or responsibly. My closest friend has been type-1 for 33 years, the pinnacle of health & he enjoys any and all foods. A very well known, here, type-2 diabetic has managed to lose over 300 lbs while eating what he wants, are two prime examples. As some anecdotal evidence.

magerum

http://www.marksdailyapple.com/the-definitive-guide-to-sugar/#axzz2i6sECFfm

http://www.marksdailyapple.com/diabetes/#axzz2i6sECFfm


Here are two articles that help explain why sugar isn't all that healthy for us. Mark's usually pretty good about linking to the studies he's referring to if you want to look at the actual science; he's just put it all together into one convenient place.


I do agree that it's wrong to demonize any food or say it's something you can never eat; I think the point of life isn't to live by a rigid list of foods you can and can't eat, but to be informed about what different foods do to your body and make the choices you want to and need to to live a happy and healthy life. Is sugar going to play a big role in that? Probably not; it DOES have a lot of drawbacks and not too many good points, but that doesn't mean it can't be a part of your life if that's what you want.

Really? A low-carb, paleo/primal propaganda site?

eric_sg61

http://www.marksdailyapple.com/the-definitive-guide-to-sugar/#axzz2i6sECFfm

http://www.marksdailyapple.com/diabetes/#axzz2i6sECFfm


Here are two articles that help explain why sugar isn't all that healthy for us. Mark's usually pretty good about linking to the studies he's referring to if you want to look at the actual science; he's just put it all together into one convenient place.


I do agree that it's wrong to demonize any food or say it's something you can never eat; I think the point of life isn't to live by a rigid list of foods you can and can't eat, but to be informed about what different foods do to your body and make the choices you want to and need to to live a happy and healthy life. Is sugar going to play a big role in that? Probably not; it DOES have a lot of drawbacks and not too many good points, but that doesn't mean it can't be a part of your life if that's what you want.

Really? A low-carb, paleo/primal propaganda site?

Saw it coming a mile away...........blog posts passed as science

cwolfman13

ldrosophila

I grew up in the 90's fat was the scapegoat back then. I remember the huge push to avoid saturated fats like palm and coconut when I was starting my low level nutrition classes.

I agree now it's sugar.

I'll never understand the scapegoating though when our Grandma's diet of variety, moderation and balance was always the answer.

darkangel45422

http://www.marksdailyapple.com/the-definitive-guide-to-sugar/#axzz2i6sECFfm

http://www.marksdailyapple.com/diabetes/#axzz2i6sECFfm


Here are two articles that help explain why sugar isn't all that healthy for us. Mark's usually pretty good about linking to the studies he's referring to if you want to look at the actual science; he's just put it all together into one convenient place.


I do agree that it's wrong to demonize any food or say it's something you can never eat; I think the point of life isn't to live by a rigid list of foods you can and can't eat, but to be informed about what different foods do to your body and make the choices you want to and need to to live a happy and healthy life. Is sugar going to play a big role in that? Probably not; it DOES have a lot of drawbacks and not too many good points, but that doesn't mean it can't be a part of your life if that's what you want.

Really? A low-carb, paleo/primal propaganda site?

Saw it coming a mile away...........blog posts passed as science

Propaganda, really? Is that what we call personal opinions based on scientific studies. Also, yes, they're blog posts, but did you notice the part where I specifically stated that there are usually links directly within the blog to the science it's based on? Are textbooks now propaganda simply because they are a bringing together of information in one easy to access place? At least read things before you start making unintelligent criticism.

Commander_Keen

[/quote]
Propaganda, really? Is that what we call personal opinions based on scientific studies. Also, yes, they're blog posts, but did you notice the part where I specifically stated that there are usually links directly within the blog to the science it's based on? Are textbooks now propaganda simply because they are a bringing together of information in one easy to access place? At least read things before you start making unintelligent criticism.
[/quote]

Well actually yea.. You can have scientific studies that can prove or disprove anything you want.
Textbooks can be propaganda depeinding on who is writing it..

IronSmasher

http://www.marksdailyapple.com/the-definitive-guide-to-sugar/#axzz2i6sECFfm

http://www.marksdailyapple.com/diabetes/#axzz2i6sECFfm


Here are two articles that help explain why sugar isn't all that healthy for us. Mark's usually pretty good about linking to the studies he's referring to if you want to look at the actual science; he's just put it all together into one convenient place.


I do agree that it's wrong to demonize any food or say it's something you can never eat; I think the point of life isn't to live by a rigid list of foods you can and can't eat, but to be informed about what different foods do to your body and make the choices you want to and need to to live a happy and healthy life. Is sugar going to play a big role in that? Probably not; it DOES have a lot of drawbacks and not too many good points, but that doesn't mean it can't be a part of your life if that's what you want.

Really? A low-carb, paleo/primal propaganda site?

Saw it coming a mile away...........blog posts passed as science

Propaganda, really? Is that what we call personal opinions based on scientific studies. Also, yes, they're blog posts, but did you notice the part where I specifically stated that there are usually links directly within the blog to the science it's based on? Are textbooks now propaganda simply because they are a bringing together of information in one easy to access place? At least read things before you start making unintelligent criticism.

I have. I've read many of his blogs and an entire one of his books. The guy is an idiot.

Mr_Knight

Mark's usually pretty good about linking to the studies he's referring to if you want to look at the actual science...

Please. Mr. Primal is about as good at "science" as Mr. Taubes.

The guy peddles "Primal" supplements(!) - that's all anybody needs to know about him. The forums on that site of his are filled with more diet idiocy than I thought the internet could contain at one time.

Writing a blog is not science. And neither is linking to a carefully selected subset of studies.

IronSmasher

It's the same as all the people telling you to eat clean, all natural, unprocessed... but buy my ridiculously overly processed 'health shake'?

They keep telling us that people made mistakes in the past, they blamed it all on fat. Blaming a complicated issue on one macronutrient... then say in the next breath that it's all sugar's fault.

ThickMcRunFast

I've always loved this quote from UC Berkeley anthropologist Katharine Milton:

"Do you really think ancestral humans went out and said, “We’re going out to get some French fries today”? No, they said, “With any luck, praying to the sun God, or whomever we revere, we’re hoping to get something to eat.” They don’t care what it is—a lizard, an elephant, a bunch of fruit, roots, a bunch of grubs. The human diet has always been whatever you can get your mitts on that won’t kill you and you can digest. That’s it. Simple as pie."

We are not 'designed' to eat a single diet. Sugar is fine. Fat is fine. Carbs are fine. Protein is fine. Grubs are fine. To say we are 'supposed to eat' a certain way is to grossly misunderstand human evolution.

Iron_Feline

In for science.:drinker:

Actual science - not blogs to sell you some fad pills :noway:

LiftAllThePizzas

The evidence is clear: No foods are inherently bad.

People with insulin resistance and diabetes may have different experiences. When you've met people with feet missing, eyes that don't work anymore and serious heart problems it does indeed appear that some foods can be bad for you.

But active young healthy people with good insulin sensitivity will probably fit your model.

You might as well bring up every food allergy that ever existed too.

LiftAllThePizzas

http://www.marksdailyapple.com/the-definitive-guide-to-sugar/#axzz2i6sECFfm

http://www.marksdailyapple.com/diabetes/#axzz2i6sECFfm


Here are two articles that help explain why sugar isn't all that healthy for us. Mark's usually pretty good about linking to the studies he's referring to if you want to look at the actual science; he's just put it all together into one convenient place.


I do agree that it's wrong to demonize any food or say it's something you can never eat; I think the point of life isn't to live by a rigid list of foods you can and can't eat, but to be informed about what different foods do to your body and make the choices you want to and need to to live a happy and healthy life. Is sugar going to play a big role in that? Probably not; it DOES have a lot of drawbacks and not too many good points, but that doesn't mean it can't be a part of your life if that's what you want.

Really? A low-carb, paleo/primal propaganda site?

Saw it coming a mile away...........blog posts passed as science

Propaganda, really? Is that what we call personal opinions based on scientific studies. Also, yes, they're blog posts, but did you notice the part where I specifically stated that there are usually links directly within the blog to the science it's based on? Are textbooks now propaganda simply because they are a bringing together of information in one easy to access place? At least read things before you start making unintelligent criticism.

Clearly you have it all figured out. Congratulations on your great success!