Scapegoat of this decade: Sugar.

yarwell

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).

yarwell

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 ?

darkangel45422

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.

davert123

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).

yarwell

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.

april1445

bump! will look up those studies too--am interested.

mmapags

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.

aimforhealthy

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.

darkangel45422

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.

mmapags

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.

darkangel45422

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.

Well the entire thread is about people cracking down on sugar (whether you call it recommending limiting sugar, demonizing it, making it a scapegoat, etc.). That negative view of sugar comes from the overconsumption of sugar in the SAD. I said that I agree that limiting sugar (compared to the SAD consumption) is probably healthy, but that doesn't mean it's an all or nothing approach.

The call to limit sugar is directed to those eating the SAD or other similar diets high in sugar - it's not directed at those eating a healthy diet with a peanut butter cup for dessert.

LiftAllThePizzas

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?

The existence of MFP is the answer to that question.

ThickMcRunFast

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.

Well the entire thread is about people cracking down on sugar (whether you call it recommending limiting sugar, demonizing it, making it a scapegoat, etc.). That negative view of sugar comes from the overconsumption of sugar in the SAD. I said that I agree that limiting sugar (compared to the SAD consumption) is probably healthy, but that doesn't mean it's an all or nothing approach.

The call to limit sugar is directed to those eating the SAD or other similar diets high in sugar - it's not directed at those eating a healthy diet with a peanut butter cup for dessert.

Magerum says several times in the first post that this discussion is about whether or not sugar is inherently bad for you. You seem to agree that it is not. Why the hypoerbole and hysterics and stories about mainlining twinkies?

I cannot find a person here who has ever advocated a diet consisting solely of cake and pepsi (although there was that guy who talked about only drinking milk). I have found people who say "if you meat your nutritional needs and have calories left, feel free to have that cake or pepsi. I just don't get the crazed reactions some people have to that statement.

As far as being 'hurt' by limiting sugar...well, you won't die from it. But just because you won't die from doing something doesn't make it a reason to do it. You can also limit the amount of oxygen you breathe in. Hey, you don't need 21%! You can do just fine at 18%. Some athletes do it! Your body doesn't need that extra oxygen, so why use it? Too much oxygen causes swelling in your lungs, after all. so Its clearly bad for you and should be limited to the lowest level possible. Sure you may feel dizzy and foggy for a while on your lower oxygen diet, but you'll get used to it. (I'm not trying to bash you, but these are all arguments I've heard on MFP, just with 'oxygen' replacing 'sugar'.)

In conclusion: Cake. And pepsi. And oxygen.

darkangel45422

Not sure if this is actually aimed at me or just everyone in general, but since it's quoting my post I'll go with it.

I wasn't the one using twinkies as examples, or going into hyperbole or hysterics. I actually don't agree that sugar isn't inherently bad - to me it's like other "junk" foods: unhealthy, but adding some unhealthy things to an otherwise healthy diet won't do much damage to your lifestyle. Now yes, there is sugar in things that are healthy like fruit, but in those cases it's more a case of the good benefits of fruit outweighing the bad drawbacks (depends on the situation whether it would outweigh it, since some people can choose to cut back on fruit without any negative side effects).

Oxygen and sugar are very different since you actually need oxygen to survive, whereas you don't need sugar. But that analogy is flawed in other bigger ways as well. Limiting/cutting out sugar doesn't hurt you at all, having sugar MIGHT hurt, and too much definitely hurts (or at least that seems to be what most if not all studies show that I've seen). Limiting oxygen definitely can/does hurt you (depends how much you limit), having oxygen is absolutely necessary for you, and too much definitely hurts. Overall, you need oxygen and there's nothing bad about having oxygen. You don't need sugar and it might hurt you to have some.

So overall, no, I don't agree with the OP and others that defend sugar's place in our diets. I think cutting it out entirely is totally fine and probably healthy. I won't say it's necessary, because it's not - for one thing, it's not conclusively proven that even a small amount of sugar is harmful, and for another, even some bad in an otherwise good diet won't be a big deal. I don't go in for an all or nothing point of view on things; even if I believe it's unhealthy in and of itself, that doesn't mean it can't be part of your diet ever. I mean, heck, trans fats are pretty unanimously agreed to be bad for you in any amount, but I'll still eat it sometimes in a food I really want; I'm just aware of my choices.

LiftAllThePizzas

You don't need sugar?

Ok. You don't need happiness to live either.

In the end you are taking it to such an absurd extreme that it doesn't even matter whether or not it's true. And this is why the OP is right on point about people being hysterical and demonizing sugar.

And sugar is "unhealthy" in what universe? Sorry but health is not a red bar that hovers over your head as you walk around and gets shorter when you eat sugar.

gertudejekyl

I agree with you completely:flowerforyou:

ThickMcRunFast

I see absolutely no reason to cut sugar from a metabolic perspective. Forcing ketosis (since the 'you don't need sugar' argument was brought up) by limiting sugar to a bare minimum is essentially punishing your body for no good reason. Your body's first resort for any ATP-requiring activity, from a short all-out sprint to an extended run is carbohydrate-derived glycogen. Sure, you can force your body to do it another way, but that's survival, not healthy metabolism. You can survive for a long time doing it, because the body is awesome, but to say that its healthier than eating a moderate amount of sugar? That's just not true. Ketogenic diets were developed for children with severe epilepsy who were resistant to anti-seizure meds. Doctors aren't even entirely sure why it works for them, but suspect its the high fat content. Any medical website you go to will advise that the diet should be avoided because it is very hard to follow, and I quote "unhealthy for children or adults". It is not a key to weight loss and a healthy psychological relationship with food, it is a last resort for parents who are desperate to help their seizure-ridden children.

I don't suspect I will change anyone's mind who is here, but I am mostly writing for lurkers now.

shadow2soul

And sugar is "unhealthy" in what universe? Sorry but health is not a red bar that hovers over your head as you walk around and gets shorter when you eat sugar.

I dunno. I just got hit with a few pieces of candy corn and my red health bar is almost gone. I'm not the only one either. Other people are falling to the ground as I type this. Darn candy corn and all that sugar. :laugh:


***not one bit serious. GW2 Halloween event***

darkangel45422

I never said you had to completely eliminate sugar or carbs; I think that'd probably be very difficult for most people and unnecessary since science has yet to show that a small amount is harmful. I do however think eating less than the SAD typically includes is a good thing. That's ALL I was saying. I'm not sure how anyone interpreted my posts to mean life-long ketosis.

And not everyone thinks sugar=happy. For some people maybe, but others who don't routinely ingest much sugar probably think other foods are much tastier and thus make them happier, so that particular argument - "You don't need sugar? Ok. You don't need happiness to live either" - is personal and ridiculous.

I'm not sure how saying that eating less sugar than is typical in the Standard American Diet is an absurd extreme, but if it is for you then that's your choice - I'll stick to mine. It's not demonizing sugar or getting hysterical about it to say that eating less than the SAD typically includes might be a good idea.

And sugar is unhealthy according to numerous studies. Health might not be a little bar above your head, but I do believe the healthiness of foods is a scale, and sugar is on the low end compared to many other foods. So yes, sugar is unhealthy. Just like trans fats. Doesn't mean I'm somehow demonizing it or getting hysterical, just stating something that seems to be, especially recently, supported by science. Eating less than most SADs include is probably good for you, but some probably won't kill you. Again, like I've stated a number of times, it's not an all or nothing approach that I personally follow or advocate - have your candy bar once in a while, or whatever else it is that's sugary that you want. In the end it's about the long run not each individual food choice, and each person's going to have a different lifestyle.