Scapegoat of this decade: Sugar.
Replies
-
This content has been removed.
-
Nobody has argued that it didn't happen. They're arguing that it doesn't have any place in the context of this discussion.Good luck arguing that sugar consumption has not increased in a similar manner to which that image depicts.0 -
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.
<Raises hand!!> I think I know who the well known person is on here your referring too!! ;-)
Sorry, just not so. My sister was a type 1 Diabetic and ultimately died at age 36 from it. And it wasn't because she did not "manage her condition properly or responsibly." Ugh. I am glad you have a friend with diabetes who is healthy, but you may want to reconsider making statements about diabetes in general in the future.
Thu would be another example of going to extreme to prove a point.
Sugar isn't evil!
But diabetics!
When properly managed diabetics are able to fall into the same scope of "sugar isn't evil!"
But I know someone who died, so you're wrong. My anecdote trumps your anecdote.
In reality that case in an outlier, not the norm. The model still fits.
Seriously? I said absolutely nothing about sugar. Not a thing. I responded to the assertion that diabetics "if they've lost feet, or functions of other organs they have not managed their conditions properly or responsibly" is not true in all cases. And they got it and understood what I was saying. I am not trying to trump anyone with my sister's death - I just happen to have very intimate experience with the subject. What, I shouldn't have shared? Should I have privately messaged?
An antedote and outlier...cruel and ugly.
I'm not sure how calling an anecdote (that seemes to be meant to trump Magerum's anecdote) an anecdote is cruel or ugly. Emotional investment doesn't make an anecdote less anecdotal.
I am sorry I presumed your story was on topic.0 -
IN to read and laugh at the certain fear mongering when I get to work Monday.0
-
Good luck arguing that sugar consumption has not increased in a similar manner to which that image depicts.
How come obesity wasn't rampant during the big run-up in consumption between 1860 and 1920? That run-up is bigger than the one post-WW2 through today.
People had to walk. No tv or computers?
post WW2 we had enough aluminum to make tinfoil hats. Before it all went to the war effort.0 -
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.
Oh, for f**k's sake.
I'm one of those people with type 2 diabetes. Thanks for relegating me to helpless-victim status.0 -
It was cruel and ugly and I'm sorry to hear about your sister. Diabetes can be very difficult to manage for some people. Although most diseases have the same underlying pathology, individual differences can result in a large range of responses to management and treatment. Sadly for her sugar (and inability to process it) was the devil.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.
<Raises hand!!> I think I know who the well known person is on here your referring too!! ;-)
Sorry, just not so. My sister was a type 1 Diabetic and ultimately died at age 36 from it. And it wasn't because she did not "manage her condition properly or responsibly." Ugh. I am glad you have a friend with diabetes who is healthy, but you may want to reconsider making statements about diabetes in general in the future.
Thu would be another example of going to extreme to prove a point.
Sugar isn't evil!
But diabetics!
When properly managed diabetics are able to fall into the same scope of "sugar isn't evil!"
But I know someone who died, so you're wrong. My anecdote trumps your anecdote.
In reality that case in an outlier, not the norm. The model still fits.
Seriously? I said absolutely nothing about sugar. Not a thing. I responded to the assertion that diabetics "if they've lost feet, or functions of other organs they have not managed their conditions properly or responsibly" is not true in all cases. And they got it and understood what I was saying. I am not trying to trump anyone with my sister's death - I just happen to have very intimate experience with the subject. What, I shouldn't have shared? Should I have privately messaged?
An antedote and outlier...cruel and ugly.
I do agree with the original assertion that sugar is not the devil for most people, but I also believe that it can be used as a substance of addiction for some people, most likely those with an underlying susceptibility.
Twin and other studies certainly support an underlying genetic vulnerability to addiction. The phenotype is expressed when the individual is environmentally exposed and sensitised to the substance. Neurochemical changes in the brain occur and the individual experiences some or all of the behaviours associated with addiction (binging, craving, withdrawal). I believe that sugar and perhaps other palatable foods can elicit these behavours in biologically vulnerable people. I don't believe that it's a common thing, but I do believe that it's possible.
At the moment the sugar addiction theory is controversial, but there's a good deal of evidence to support it...you just need to perform a Pubmed search. There are also those who oppose it, and it's certainly a hot topic in the field.
I believe that its good to keep an open mind about these things and not have such a polarised (close-minded?) view.
(Directed to the sugar is not addictive brigade) Why is it so important to bang on about something like this and how can you be so certain that your view is the correct view?0 -
It was cruel and ugly and I'm sorry to hear about your sister. Diabetes can be very difficult to manage for some people. Although most diseases have the same underlying pathology, individual differences can result in a large range of responses to management and treatment. Sadly for her sugar (and inability to process it) was the devil.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.
<Raises hand!!> I think I know who the well known person is on here your referring too!! ;-)
Sorry, just not so. My sister was a type 1 Diabetic and ultimately died at age 36 from it. And it wasn't because she did not "manage her condition properly or responsibly." Ugh. I am glad you have a friend with diabetes who is healthy, but you may want to reconsider making statements about diabetes in general in the future.
Thu would be another example of going to extreme to prove a point.
Sugar isn't evil!
But diabetics!
When properly managed diabetics are able to fall into the same scope of "sugar isn't evil!"
But I know someone who died, so you're wrong. My anecdote trumps your anecdote.
In reality that case in an outlier, not the norm. The model still fits.
Seriously? I said absolutely nothing about sugar. Not a thing. I responded to the assertion that diabetics "if they've lost feet, or functions of other organs they have not managed their conditions properly or responsibly" is not true in all cases. And they got it and understood what I was saying. I am not trying to trump anyone with my sister's death - I just happen to have very intimate experience with the subject. What, I shouldn't have shared? Should I have privately messaged?
An antedote and outlier...cruel and ugly.
I do agree with the original assertion that sugar is not the devil for most people, but I also believe that it can be used as a substance of addiction for some people, most likely those with an underlying susceptibility.
Twin and other studies certainly support an underlying genetic vulnerability to addiction. The phenotype is expressed when the individual is environmentally exposed and sensitised to the substance. Neurochemical changes in the brain occur and the individual experiences some or all of the behaviours associated with addiction (binging, craving, withdrawal). I believe that sugar and perhaps other palatable foods can elicit these behavours in biologically vulnerable people. I don't believe that it's a common thing, but I do believe that it's possible.
At the moment the sugar addiction theory is controversial, but there's a good deal of evidence to support it...you just need to perform a Pubmed search. There are also those who oppose it, and it's certainly a hot topic in the field.
I believe that its good to keep an open mind about these things and not have such a polarised (close-minded?) view.
(Directed to the sugar is not addictive brigade) Why is it so important to bang on about something like this and how can you be so certain that your view is the correct view?
Next time I'll add the generic "sorry about your loss" statement before I tell someone that their anecdote is still an anecdotal outlier. Emotionless generic statements are clearly necessary in this environment, least one be accused of cruelty. In fact when one talks of personal tragedy we should express sympathy and say nothing else, and instead allow for a total halt in conversation, just in case we offend.
Beep boop beep.0 -
It was cruel and ugly and I'm sorry to hear about your sister. Diabetes can be very difficult to manage for some people. Although most diseases have the same underlying pathology, individual differences can result in a large range of responses to management and treatment. Sadly for her sugar (and inability to process it) was the devil.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.
<Raises hand!!> I think I know who the well known person is on here your referring too!! ;-)
Sorry, just not so. My sister was a type 1 Diabetic and ultimately died at age 36 from it. And it wasn't because she did not "manage her condition properly or responsibly." Ugh. I am glad you have a friend with diabetes who is healthy, but you may want to reconsider making statements about diabetes in general in the future.
Thu would be another example of going to extreme to prove a point.
Sugar isn't evil!
But diabetics!
When properly managed diabetics are able to fall into the same scope of "sugar isn't evil!"
But I know someone who died, so you're wrong. My anecdote trumps your anecdote.
In reality that case in an outlier, not the norm. The model still fits.
Seriously? I said absolutely nothing about sugar. Not a thing. I responded to the assertion that diabetics "if they've lost feet, or functions of other organs they have not managed their conditions properly or responsibly" is not true in all cases. And they got it and understood what I was saying. I am not trying to trump anyone with my sister's death - I just happen to have very intimate experience with the subject. What, I shouldn't have shared? Should I have privately messaged?
An antedote and outlier...cruel and ugly.
I do agree with the original assertion that sugar is not the devil for most people, but I also believe that it can be used as a substance of addiction for some people, most likely those with an underlying susceptibility.
Twin and other studies certainly support an underlying genetic vulnerability to addiction. The phenotype is expressed when the individual is environmentally exposed and sensitised to the substance. Neurochemical changes in the brain occur and the individual experiences some or all of the behaviours associated with addiction (binging, craving, withdrawal). I believe that sugar and perhaps other palatable foods can elicit these behavours in biologically vulnerable people. I don't believe that it's a common thing, but I do believe that it's possible.
At the moment the sugar addiction theory is controversial, but there's a good deal of evidence to support it...you just need to perform a Pubmed search. There are also those who oppose it, and it's certainly a hot topic in the field.
I believe that its good to keep an open mind about these things and not have such a polarised (close-minded?) view.
(Directed to the sugar is not addictive brigade) Why is it so important to bang on about something like this and how can you be so certain that your view is the correct view?
Next time I'll add the generic "sorry about your loss" statement before I tell someone that their anecdote is still an anecdotal outlier. Emotionless generic statements are clearly necessary in this environment, least one be accused of cruelty. In fact when one talks of personal tragedy we should express sympathy and say nothing else, and instead allow for a total halt in conversation, just in case we offend.
Beep boop beep.
Come on, Chelle. Your reading comprehension skills are just fine. I never commented on sugar, the effect of sugar on diabetics or anyone else. I was very clear about my comment: if you want to talk about the effects of diabetes on people there may be more to it than the poster's experience with his friend. Period. And yes, I guess when I think about it, my experience and my sister's death does trump theirs. What a HUGE win for me! It feels so good maybe I should start seeking out threads where I can throw that down more often - NOT.
My post was neither an anecdote or an "anecdotal outlier" to anything. I would never look at her life or death that way - or anyone else's - including the OP's friend who is a successful diabetic. I honestly still don't understand why you did.0 -
It was cruel and ugly and I'm sorry to hear about your sister. Diabetes can be very difficult to manage for some people. Although most diseases have the same underlying pathology, individual differences can result in a large range of responses to management and treatment. Sadly for her sugar (and inability to process it) was the devil.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.
<Raises hand!!> I think I know who the well known person is on here your referring too!! ;-)
Sorry, just not so. My sister was a type 1 Diabetic and ultimately died at age 36 from it. And it wasn't because she did not "manage her condition properly or responsibly." Ugh. I am glad you have a friend with diabetes who is healthy, but you may want to reconsider making statements about diabetes in general in the future.
Thu would be another example of going to extreme to prove a point.
Sugar isn't evil!
But diabetics!
When properly managed diabetics are able to fall into the same scope of "sugar isn't evil!"
But I know someone who died, so you're wrong. My anecdote trumps your anecdote.
In reality that case in an outlier, not the norm. The model still fits.
Seriously? I said absolutely nothing about sugar. Not a thing. I responded to the assertion that diabetics "if they've lost feet, or functions of other organs they have not managed their conditions properly or responsibly" is not true in all cases. And they got it and understood what I was saying. I am not trying to trump anyone with my sister's death - I just happen to have very intimate experience with the subject. What, I shouldn't have shared? Should I have privately messaged?
An antedote and outlier...cruel and ugly.
I do agree with the original assertion that sugar is not the devil for most people, but I also believe that it can be used as a substance of addiction for some people, most likely those with an underlying susceptibility.
Twin and other studies certainly support an underlying genetic vulnerability to addiction. The phenotype is expressed when the individual is environmentally exposed and sensitised to the substance. Neurochemical changes in the brain occur and the individual experiences some or all of the behaviours associated with addiction (binging, craving, withdrawal). I believe that sugar and perhaps other palatable foods can elicit these behavours in biologically vulnerable people. I don't believe that it's a common thing, but I do believe that it's possible.
At the moment the sugar addiction theory is controversial, but there's a good deal of evidence to support it...you just need to perform a Pubmed search. There are also those who oppose it, and it's certainly a hot topic in the field.
I believe that its good to keep an open mind about these things and not have such a polarised (close-minded?) view.
(Directed to the sugar is not addictive brigade) Why is it so important to bang on about something like this and how can you be so certain that your view is the correct view?
Next time I'll add the generic "sorry about your loss" statement before I tell someone that their anecdote is still an anecdotal outlier. Emotionless generic statements are clearly necessary in this environment, least one be accused of cruelty. In fact when one talks of personal tragedy we should express sympathy and say nothing else, and instead allow for a total halt in conversation, just in case we offend.
Beep boop beep.
Come on, Chelle. Your reading comprehension skills are just fine. I never commented on sugar, the effect of sugar on diabetics or anyone else. I was very clear about my comment: if you want to talk about the effects of diabetes on people there may be more to it than the poster's experience with his friend. Period. And yes, I guess when I think about it, my experience and my sister's death does trump theirs. What a HUGE win for me! It feels so good maybe I should start seeking out threads where I can throw that down more often - NOT.
My post was neither an anecdote or an "anecdotal outlier" to anything. I would never look at her life or death that way - or anyone else's - including the OP's friend who is a successful diabetic. I honestly still don't understand why you did.
In this day and age where diabetes is manageable due to advances in medical technology a statement about the death of someone previous to those advances as an example of how it's always manageable is in fact an outlier. Calling it such is neither cruel not mean, it's merely a statement as to the nature of the experience.
If a perfectly healthy woman dies in childbirth in America it's an outlier. It can be tragic and sad while still being an outlier. If someone brings up that their wife die in childbirth in a discussion about how childbirth is as safe as its ever been, his story (an anecdote) depicts an outlier. I'm really stumped as to how it's cruel to say that.
But this is a post about sugar and diabetes was only brought up as a counterpoint to the OP, not by the OP, and so I shall participate in this derail no further.0 -
It was cruel and ugly and I'm sorry to hear about your sister. Diabetes can be very difficult to manage for some people. Although most diseases have the same underlying pathology, individual differences can result in a large range of responses to management and treatment. Sadly for her sugar (and inability to process it) was the devil.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.
<Raises hand!!> I think I know who the well known person is on here your referring too!! ;-)
Sorry, just not so. My sister was a type 1 Diabetic and ultimately died at age 36 from it. And it wasn't because she did not "manage her condition properly or responsibly." Ugh. I am glad you have a friend with diabetes who is healthy, but you may want to reconsider making statements about diabetes in general in the future.
Thu would be another example of going to extreme to prove a point.
Sugar isn't evil!
But diabetics!
When properly managed diabetics are able to fall into the same scope of "sugar isn't evil!"
But I know someone who died, so you're wrong. My anecdote trumps your anecdote.
In reality that case in an outlier, not the norm. The model still fits.
Seriously? I said absolutely nothing about sugar. Not a thing. I responded to the assertion that diabetics "if they've lost feet, or functions of other organs they have not managed their conditions properly or responsibly" is not true in all cases. And they got it and understood what I was saying. I am not trying to trump anyone with my sister's death - I just happen to have very intimate experience with the subject. What, I shouldn't have shared? Should I have privately messaged?
An antedote and outlier...cruel and ugly.
I do agree with the original assertion that sugar is not the devil for most people, but I also believe that it can be used as a substance of addiction for some people, most likely those with an underlying susceptibility.
Twin and other studies certainly support an underlying genetic vulnerability to addiction. The phenotype is expressed when the individual is environmentally exposed and sensitised to the substance. Neurochemical changes in the brain occur and the individual experiences some or all of the behaviours associated with addiction (binging, craving, withdrawal). I believe that sugar and perhaps other palatable foods can elicit these behavours in biologically vulnerable people. I don't believe that it's a common thing, but I do believe that it's possible.
At the moment the sugar addiction theory is controversial, but there's a good deal of evidence to support it...you just need to perform a Pubmed search. There are also those who oppose it, and it's certainly a hot topic in the field.
I believe that its good to keep an open mind about these things and not have such a polarised (close-minded?) view.
(Directed to the sugar is not addictive brigade) Why is it so important to bang on about something like this and how can you be so certain that your view is the correct view?
Next time I'll add the generic "sorry about your loss" statement before I tell someone that their anecdote is still an anecdotal outlier. Emotionless generic statements are clearly necessary in this environment, least one be accused of cruelty. In fact when one talks of personal tragedy we should express sympathy and say nothing else, and instead allow for a total halt in conversation, just in case we offend.
Beep boop beep.
Come on, Chelle. Your reading comprehension skills are just fine. I never commented on sugar, the effect of sugar on diabetics or anyone else. I was very clear about my comment: if you want to talk about the effects of diabetes on people there may be more to it than the poster's experience with his friend. Period. And yes, I guess when I think about it, my experience and my sister's death does trump theirs. What a HUGE win for me! It feels so good maybe I should start seeking out threads where I can throw that down more often - NOT.
My post was neither an anecdote or an "anecdotal outlier" to anything. I would never look at her life or death that way - or anyone else's - including the OP's friend who is a successful diabetic. I honestly still don't understand why you did.
I am going to have to disagree with your sisters death trumps theirs belief because I am the theirs in this equation (well atleast Mag friend that he is referring too) and I have successfully put my type 2 diabetes into remission with A1c's running an average of 5.3 the last couple years and I did this with my diet and with exercise and losing 300+ pounds.. I eat alot of lean meats, veggies, fruits, and grains, but I also eat ice cream, pop tarts, pure cane sugar, etc... I have worked with a dietician from the time I stepped on my Endo's freight scale at 560 lbs. and she never once directed me to avoid sugar in my diet... I only needed to manage my 3 macro's concentrating on my carb intake first and foremost... if I was eating within my caloric intake, hitting my macro's and exercising daily my endo dr. told me I would reverse all signs of my diabetes which he was spot on, but that I needed to stay diligent because if I stopped any of the things I did to put it into remission it would rear its ugly head and resurface.... This is why it is important to manage the condition which is one thing my sister failed time and time again to do and after 20 years of a bad diet, overweight, refusing to exercise and take car of herself, we finally had to put her on kidney dialysis and as we was getting her dressed to go to one of her appointments when I turned to get her socks out of the draw, I heard a loud noise and turned back to see she had passed and had fallen back on the bed and went to be with the man upstairs at the age of 49 (she passed in 1997). So I don't see where your case trumps mine, I lived with her and watched her recklessly refuse to take care of herself..... Diabetes (especially type 2 from my vantage point) can be control if you are willing to put in the effort.... Atleast this is my experience............0 -
Ed, my "case" TRUMPS no ones! Nor did I say it did - except in exasperation. This isn't a contest. I would never judge you or anyone else who has been through what we have been through with our families who have suffered from diabetes. Whether they took care of themselves or not. And I could not be more happy for you and what you have accomplished. I agree with you entirely, that Type II diabetes is very treatable and even, curable. But it isn't the same thing as Juvenile Type I. Two very different diseases...
My sister, also had kidney failure. And dialysis almost killed her. It wasn't until she had a kidney transplant that she recovered. And did really well. Unfortunately, the immunosuppresion lead to a rare form of tongue cancer that went undiagnosed for many years (her dentist thought is was thrush). It wasn't until our 10 year check up that it was detected. And almost one year later she passed.
I am sincerely sorry for your loss, and mine as well. It can be a horrible disease.0 -
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?
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/24716880/#.UmNSzBxv_i0
Yes - they do.
Personally, my eating choices have very little to do with my weight and appearance compared to the effect of my overall health. Yeah, I look better having lost 35 pounds, but really, it's not THAT big of a deal. I was still athletic and wasn't suffering from any diseases YET. But my blood sugar and cholesterol were gradually creeping towards being a more serious concern and that is what made me change how I eat.
I don't care if it's a fad, I feel better when I don't eat sugar or most grains (and I quit craving them too, which makes it feel quite sustainable.). And my cholesterol and blood sugar have improved.
I guess I don't get where sugar is an "excuse". If you, like me, are concerned about it's effects on you, quit eating added sugar. Or decide that you still think you're bulletproof and eat a twinkie diet and hope that works out long term. I mean, yes - the human body is amazingly capable of surviving on ridiculously imbalanced diets (thinking of that woman I think in the UK who survived for 16 years on nothing but soda... and now has heart problems.) But personally I set higher goals for how I would like to feel than "survival" or mere weight loss. Maybe concerns about sugar are being overblown, but personally, I don't want to take the chance, so I don't eat added sugar anymore. And I feel noticeably better, have lost weight, have improved bloodwork, etc. - so it's worth it to me.0 -
Why is it that people treat food as an all or nothing type of deal? For pretty much everyone (yes, there are outliers), sugar isn't going to wreak havoc on your health. If you want to limit your added sugar intake, go ahead, but cutting out all sugar isn't at all practical or necessary to maintaining a healthy diet. You can have sugar, just don't have all the sugar. Is such a concept really so difficult to grasp?0
-
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?
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/24716880/#.UmNSzBxv_i0
Yes - they do.
Personally, my eating choices have very little to do with my weight and appearance compared to the effect of my overall health. Yeah, I look better having lost 35 pounds, but really, it's not THAT big of a deal. I was still athletic and wasn't suffering from any diseases YET. But my blood sugar and cholesterol were gradually creeping towards being a more serious concern and that is what made me change how I eat.
I don't care if it's a fad, I feel better when I don't eat sugar or most grains (and I quit craving them too, which makes it feel quite sustainable.). And my cholesterol and blood sugar have improved.
I guess I don't get where sugar is an "excuse". If you, like me, are concerned about it's effects on you, quit eating added sugar. Or decide that you still think you're bulletproof and eat a twinkie diet and hope that works out long term. I mean, yes - the human body is amazingly capable of surviving on ridiculously imbalanced diets (thinking of that woman I think in the UK who survived for 16 years on nothing but soda... and now has heart problems.) But personally I set higher goals for how I would like to feel than "survival" or mere weight loss. Maybe concerns about sugar are being overblown, but personally, I don't want to take the chance, so I don't eat added sugar anymd I feel noticeably better, have lost weight, have improved bloodwork, etc. - so it's worth it to me.
So either cut out sugar like you, or eat a twinkie diet and hope for the best? There are other choices. Moderation being one of then. Just because someone does eat sugar that doesn't mean they eat nothing but sugar. There is a middle ground. Someone can incorporate added sugar into an overall healthy diet and still be healthy.0 -
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?
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/24716880/#.UmNSzBxv_i0
Yes - they do.
Personally, my eating choices have very little to do with my weight and appearance compared to the effect of my overall health. Yeah, I look better having lost 35 pounds, but really, it's not THAT big of a deal. I was still athletic and wasn't suffering from any diseases YET. But my blood sugar and cholesterol were gradually creeping towards being a more serious concern and that is what made me change how I eat.
I don't care if it's a fad, I feel better when I don't eat sugar or most grains (and I quit craving them too, which makes it feel quite sustainable.). And my cholesterol and blood sugar have improved.
I guess I don't get where sugar is an "excuse". If you, like me, are concerned about it's effects on you, quit eating added sugar. Or decide that you still think you're bulletproof and eat a twinkie diet and hope that works out long term. I mean, yes - the human body is amazingly capable of surviving on ridiculously imbalanced diets (thinking of that woman I think in the UK who survived for 16 years on nothing but soda... and now has heart problems.) But personally I set higher goals for how I would like to feel than "survival" or mere weight loss. Maybe concerns about sugar are being overblown, but personally, I don't want to take the chance, so I don't eat added sugar anymd I feel noticeably better, have lost weight, have improved bloodwork, etc. - so it's worth it to me.
So either cut out sugar like you, or eat a twinkie diet and hope for the best? There are other choices. Moderation being one of then. Just because someone does eat sugar that doesn't mean they eat nothing but sugar. There is a middle ground. Someone can incorporate added sugar into an overall healthy diet and still be healthy.
QFT0 -
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?
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/24716880/#.UmNSzBxv_i0
Yes - they do.
Personally, my eating choices have very little to do with my weight and appearance compared to the effect of my overall health. Yeah, I look better having lost 35 pounds, but really, it's not THAT big of a deal. I was still athletic and wasn't suffering from any diseases YET. But my blood sugar and cholesterol were gradually creeping towards being a more serious concern and that is what made me change how I eat.
I don't care if it's a fad, I feel better when I don't eat sugar or most grains (and I quit craving them too, which makes it feel quite sustainable.). And my cholesterol and blood sugar have improved.
I guess I don't get where sugar is an "excuse". If you, like me, are concerned about it's effects on you, quit eating added sugar. Or decide that you still think you're bulletproof and eat a twinkie diet and hope that works out long term. I mean, yes - the human body is amazingly capable of surviving on ridiculously imbalanced diets (thinking of that woman I think in the UK who survived for 16 years on nothing but soda... and now has heart problems.) But personally I set higher goals for how I would like to feel than "survival" or mere weight loss. Maybe concerns about sugar are being overblown, but personally, I don't want to take the chance, so I don't eat added sugar anymd I feel noticeably better, have lost weight, have improved bloodwork, etc. - so it's worth it to me.
So either cut out sugar like you, or eat a twinkie diet and hope for the best? There are other choices. Moderation being one of then. Just because someone does eat sugar that doesn't mean they eat nothing but sugar. There is a middle ground. Someone can incorporate added sugar into an overall healthy diet and still be healthy.
Don'tcha just love theses kind of comparisons. Eliminating sugar or living on nothing but soda? Eliminating sugar or just eating twinkies? Fallacious arguments are fallacious. How about an overall balanced diet, hitting macro targets and having a little sugar be part of the equation as Ed has done.
A quote from Lyle McDonald
"In brief, people have a tendency to play this cute little game where a given situation can either be exactly one thing (their preference) or exactly one other thing where that other thing is some ludicrous stupid-*kitten* extreme example that they use to attempt to prove their preference simply by how extreme (and dumb) it is. But compared to something stupid, anything is better by comparison."
Full text: http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nutrition/excluding-the-middle.html0 -
Based on your chart, the British were consuming more sugar in the late 1800s per capita than Americans are currently. Your chart is irrelevant.
http://onlinestatbook.com/2/case_studies/sugar.html
I'm sure somebody is gonna be all "Your online statistics study aide is WRONG, MAN!" But here is a graph of human consumption of sugar, in pounds per year, from the early 1800's to present day.
I like to keep in mind that my digestive system is pretty much identical to a digestive system makin' poops in the 1820's.
Physiologically, it may be possible that putting more and more and more and more of something in (be it alcohol, sugar, fat, protein, or water) starts to throw a few wrenches into the system.0 -
WAIT - so one personal blog sharing the anecdotal story of ONE person means that ALL people regularly get diabetes? That's not how science works.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?
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/24716880/#.UmNSzBxv_i0
Yes - they do.
Personally, my eating choices have very little to do with my weight and appearance compared to the effect of my overall health. Yeah, I look better having lost 35 pounds, but really, it's not THAT big of a deal. I was still athletic and wasn't suffering from any diseases YET. But my blood sugar and cholesterol were gradually creeping towards being a more serious concern and that is what made me change how I eat.
I don't care if it's a fad, I feel better when I don't eat sugar or most grains (and I quit craving them too, which makes it feel quite sustainable.). And my cholesterol and blood sugar have improved.
I guess I don't get where sugar is an "excuse". If you, like me, are concerned about it's effects on you, quit eating added sugar. Or decide that you still think you're bulletproof and eat a twinkie diet and hope that works out long term. I mean, yes - the human body is amazingly capable of surviving on ridiculously imbalanced diets (thinking of that woman I think in the UK who survived for 16 years on nothing but soda... and now has heart problems.) But personally I set higher goals for how I would like to feel than "survival" or mere weight loss. Maybe concerns about sugar are being overblown, but personally, I don't want to take the chance, so I don't eat added sugar anymore. And I feel noticeably better, have lost weight, have improved bloodwork, etc. - so it's worth it to me.0 -
I'm not even suggesting that everyone needs to avoid all sugar (I average 2 servings of fruit a day, and veggies have sugar in them too...), I'm just saying that avoiding added sugar is what makes me feel my best and what improved my personal blood test results.
My mother in law, who has never been overweight, had a stroke from undiagnosed diabetes a couple years ago and still isn't fully recovered. Diabetes isn't something you are immune from because you are thin.
http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=161160
1 in 8 people diagnosed with type 2 diabetes are normal weight - that's "regularly" enough for me to be concerned about it. If you find that statistically insignificant, then feel free to ignore it and carry on eating whatever you want. The whole twinkie diet that I mentioned was because earlier in this thread it was used as "evidence" that sugar isn't bad for you because you can lose weight eating nothing but twinkies. Weight loss is not the same as good health. And "Moderation" is a pretty vague description. My definition of moderate amounts of sugar is the sugar I get in fruits and vegetables. When I eat cookies and candy, I no longer feel as good, mentally and physically. Do what feels right for you.0 -
in...for the science that says fruit sugar is better than "added sugar"
Apple juice used to sweeten a product is defined as an "added sugar" in the UK (strictly a "non-milk extrinsic sugar" - spot the influence of the dairy lobby).0 -
In this day and age where diabetes is manageable due to advances in medical technology
In the UK 100 amputations are carried out each week because of diabetes. I'll buy into the fact that we probably know all we need to know to avoid these things happening, but by encouraging diabetics to eat carbohydrates and back-titrate with meds we're exposing them to harm and we appear to exceed the ability of many to self-manage.
So it would be wrong to make sugar a scapegoat for obesity, diabetes, or diabesity as it is tending to be called as this will simply result in sugar being substituted with maltodextrin, glucose or as the EU are about to permit - fructose, with a "reduces blood sugar elevation" health claim.
We got to current levels of obesity by trying to avoid fat for 40 years (with sugar consumption in the UK per person roughly static) and I hate to think where we would get to trying to avoid sugar - at best no improvement ?0 -
What I think many people are misunderstanding is that not everyone here who agrees that sugar isn't terribly healthy are saying it's an all or nothing approach. I'm in the camp of people who think limiting sugar's a good idea, but that doesn't mean I'm demonizing it or saying that having any sugar in a day will kill you. I eat ice cream every once in a while, and other things with added sugars (since I don't worry too much about naturally occurring sugars in things like fruit); I'm just aware that too much sugar isn't beneficial to my overall healthy lifestyle.
It's not an all or nothing approach, but I don't really think it's that hard to argue that less sugar than the Standard American Diet tends to have is probably a good thing. Can you lose weight eating a crap ton of sugar? Sure. Can you even be healthy eating a lot of sugar? Probably, if you're really good in the rest of your healthy lifestyle - one "weak" area won't negate all the other good areas. But for me, limiting added sugars (which usually means limited processed foods which are also not terribly healthy for you) is part of a healthy lifestyle.
No one would be hurt by limiting sugar - that's pretty much a proven fact since the only benefit to it is that most people think it tastes good. Would we be hurt by eating too much sugar? Most studies suggest yes, or at least that it's unknown. I'm one of those people who'd like to err on the side of eating things that are known to be good for you and not make as much room for questionable products that are unnecessary anyway.0 -
Sugar is addictive for some people. Instead of listening to and speaking opinion instead of fact I would refer you all to open Google scholar and type in sugar addiction. It rally is that easy. If you don't know how to read scientific papers don't worry. Just look out for 'abstract' which gives a summary of the papers findings. Also look at a website called radiant recovery - they have papers which show that sugar addiction has been scientifically proven to high levels of probability (levels of probability are the basis of scientific proof).0
-
Honest question, and lets throw out type 1 diabetes from this. Do people who maintain healthy weights/body composition regularly develop insulin sensitvity/diabetes?
A good question, to which I don't know the answer. The majority of people diagnosed as Type II or insulin resistant (but not all) are overweight, but that doesn't tell you whether the overweight caused the problem or the problem caused the overweight. The only thing we know is that most of them weren't born significantly overweight.
http://www.direct-ms.org/pdf/NutritionNonAuto/Causation of Type 2 Diabetes.pdf "insulin resistance in muscle is the earliest detectable defect in persons in whom type 2 diabetes will later develop" suggests that IR comes before T2D but doesn't help know where the IR comes from.
A longitudinal study at https://www.jci.org/articles/view/7231/table/1 shows some getting fatter without developing IR and others progressing through IR to diabetes (from a higher starting weight).
Perhaps science doesn't yet know the answer ?? Nobody's seeking to finger sugar or fructose as the prime mover in the stuff I've been reading.0 -
bump! will look up those studies too--am interested.0
-
What I think many people are misunderstanding is that not everyone here who agrees that sugar isn't terribly healthy are saying it's an all or nothing approach. I'm in the camp of people who think limiting sugar's a good idea, but that doesn't mean I'm demonizing it or saying that having any sugar in a day will kill you. I eat ice cream every once in a while, and other things with added sugars (since I don't worry too much about naturally occurring sugars in things like fruit); I'm just aware that too much sugarisn't beneficial to my overall healthy lifestyle.
It's not an all or nothing approach, but I don't really think it's that hard to argue that less sugar than the Standard American Diet tends to have is probably a good thing. Can you lose weight eating a crap ton of sugar? Sure. Can you even be healthy eating a lot of sugar? Probably, if you're really good in the rest of your healthy lifestyle - one "weak" area won't negate all the other good areas. But for me, limiting added sugars (which usually means limited processed foods which are also not terribly healthy for you) is part of a healthy lifestyle.
No one would be hurt by limiting sugar - that's pretty much a proven fact since the only benefit to it is that most people think it tastes good. Would we be hurt by eating too much sugar? Most studies suggest yes, or at least that it's unknown. I'm one of those people who'd like to err on the side of eating things that are known to be good for you and not make as much room for questionable products that are unnecessary anyway.
So where does anyone see the OP or anyone else advocating eating "too much sugar" or "a crap ton of sugar"? Magerum didn't. He just said it is the scapegoat of this decade and based on some of the posters here and on the rest of the forum, he's absolutely right! Scan and see how many new threads about sugar were started in the last 24 hours!!
I would almost agree with your statement that no one would be hurt by limiting sugar, but with a slightly different twist. No one would be hurt by managing their sugar intake within reason as part of their overall carb management. Same applies to fats and proteins. It's the restriction mentality and the demonization that I find objectionable (not necessarily from your post) . If you have met your protein goals and fat goals for the day and you still have some left in your carbs after eating mostly nutrient dense carbs and are within your calorie targets. Have a Reese's Peanut Butter cup or 2 if you can fit 'em in. Or some ice cream. Or Magerum's favorite, some pop tarts. In that context, no harm done.
In the end, it is all about, dose and context and no one food should ever be the scapegoat. Haven't we learned that from the whole fats thing of the last 40 years?? It's our responsibility to manage our intake with intelligence and balance.0 -
Bump for later.
I like carbs/ sugar/ sweets/ etc. and don't THINK it affects my well-being very much, but have considered experimenting just to see what happens.0 -
What I think many people are misunderstanding is that not everyone here who agrees that sugar isn't terribly healthy are saying it's an all or nothing approach. I'm in the camp of people who think limiting sugar's a good idea, but that doesn't mean I'm demonizing it or saying that having any sugar in a day will kill you. I eat ice cream every once in a while, and other things with added sugars (since I don't worry too much about naturally occurring sugars in things like fruit); I'm just aware that too much sugarisn't beneficial to my overall healthy lifestyle.
It's not an all or nothing approach, but I don't really think it's that hard to argue that less sugar than the Standard American Diet tends to have is probably a good thing. Can you lose weight eating a crap ton of sugar? Sure. Can you even be healthy eating a lot of sugar? Probably, if you're really good in the rest of your healthy lifestyle - one "weak" area won't negate all the other good areas. But for me, limiting added sugars (which usually means limited processed foods which are also not terribly healthy for you) is part of a healthy lifestyle.
No one would be hurt by limiting sugar - that's pretty much a proven fact since the only benefit to it is that most people think it tastes good. Would we be hurt by eating too much sugar? Most studies suggest yes, or at least that it's unknown. I'm one of those people who'd like to err on the side of eating things that are known to be good for you and not make as much room for questionable products that are unnecessary anyway.
So where does anyone see the OP or anyone else advocating eating "too much sugar" or "a crap ton of sugar"? Magerum didn't. He just said it is the scapegoat of this decade and based on some of the posters here and on the rest of the forum, he's absolutely right! Scan and see how many new threads about sugar were started in the last 24 hours!!
I would almost agree with your statement that no one would be hurt by limiting sugar, but with a slightly different twist. No one would be hurt by managing their sugar intake within reason as part of their overall carb management. Same applies to fats and proteins. It's the restriction mentality and the demonization that I find objectionable (not necessarily from your post) . If you have met your protein goals and fat goals for the day and you still have some left in your carbs after eating mostly nutrient dense carbs and are within your calorie targets. Have a Reese's Peanut Butter cup or 2 if you can fit 'em in. Or some ice cream. Or Magerum's favorite, some pop tarts. In that context, no harm done.
In the end, it is all about, dose and context and no one food should ever be the scapegoat. Haven't we learned that from the whole fats thing of the last 40 years?? It's our responsibility to manage our intake with intelligence and balance.
I use too much and a crap ton because the Standard American Diet is generally agreed upon to be too high in sugar. Managing your sugar would mean limiting it compared to the SAD - that's all I mean. I think it becomes "demonized" as you say because it's being pointed out as being something in the SAD that's too high, so people need to work on lowering it - aka restricting/limiting it compared to their normal diets.
Obviously for some people their sugar intake isn't at the same level as those who eat the SAD, but they're the ones who have already limited their sugar. Eating 1 or 2 peanut butter cups is definitely limited sugar intake compared to most people's SADs.0 -
What I think many people are misunderstanding is that not everyone here who agrees that sugar isn't terribly healthy are saying it's an all or nothing approach. I'm in the camp of people who think limiting sugar's a good idea, but that doesn't mean I'm demonizing it or saying that having any sugar in a day will kill you. I eat ice cream every once in a while, and other things with added sugars (since I don't worry too much about naturally occurring sugars in things like fruit); I'm just aware that too much sugarisn't beneficial to my overall healthy lifestyle.
It's not an all or nothing approach, but I don't really think it's that hard to argue that less sugar than the Standard American Diet tends to have is probably a good thing. Can you lose weight eating a crap ton of sugar? Sure. Can you even be healthy eating a lot of sugar? Probably, if you're really good in the rest of your healthy lifestyle - one "weak" area won't negate all the other good areas. But for me, limiting added sugars (which usually means limited processed foods which are also not terribly healthy for you) is part of a healthy lifestyle.
No one would be hurt by limiting sugar - that's pretty much a proven fact since the only benefit to it is that most people think it tastes good. Would we be hurt by eating too much sugar? Most studies suggest yes, or at least that it's unknown. I'm one of those people who'd like to err on the side of eating things that are known to be good for you and not make as much room for questionable products that are unnecessary anyway.
So where does anyone see the OP or anyone else advocating eating "too much sugar" or "a crap ton of sugar"? Magerum didn't. He just said it is the scapegoat of this decade and based on some of the posters here and on the rest of the forum, he's absolutely right! Scan and see how many new threads about sugar were started in the last 24 hours!!
I would almost agree with your statement that no one would be hurt by limiting sugar, but with a slightly different twist. No one would be hurt by managing their sugar intake within reason as part of their overall carb management. Same applies to fats and proteins. It's the restriction mentality and the demonization that I find objectionable (not necessarily from your post) . If you have met your protein goals and fat goals for the day and you still have some left in your carbs after eating mostly nutrient dense carbs and are within your calorie targets. Have a Reese's Peanut Butter cup or 2 if you can fit 'em in. Or some ice cream. Or Magerum's favorite, some pop tarts. In that context, no harm done.
In the end, it is all about, dose and context and no one food should ever be the scapegoat. Haven't we learned that from the whole fats thing of the last 40 years?? It's our responsibility to manage our intake with intelligence and balance.
I use too much and a crap ton because the Standard American Diet is generally agreed upon to be too high in sugar. Managing your sugar would mean limiting it compared to the SAD - that's all I mean. I think it becomes "demonized" as you say because it's being pointed out as being something in the SAD that's too high, so people need to work on lowering it - aka restricting/limiting it compared to their normal diets.
Obviously for some people their sugar intake isn't at the same level as those who eat the SAD, but they're the ones who have already limited their sugar. Eating 1 or 2 peanut butter cups is definitely limited sugar intake compared to most people's SADs.
So, who here has recommended the SAD? You are the only one who has even mentioned that.0
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