Sugar Sugar Sugar Sugar!
Replies
-
Looks like the wheels are in motion to start reduction of sugar in US, UK and Canada to overcome the increasing obesity crisis. News article just came out today in The Independent newspaper. You can find the article here: http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/sugar-is-the-new-tobacco-cuts-to-amounts-hidden-in-food-could-halt-obesity-epidemic-claim-doctors-9047785.html
Title: 'Sugar is the new tobacco': Cuts to amounts hidden in food could halt obesity epidemic, claim doctors
Article:
The growing obesity epidemic could be “halted or reversed” in less than five years if the food industry makes cuts the amount of “hidden sugar” in our food, leading doctors have said.
Sugar is a major cause of obesity and also increases the risk of type 2 diabetes. Leading experts today launched a new campaign group, Action on Sugar, to alert the public to the high levels of sugar in their food and lobby the government and the food industry to reduce its use of “unnecessary” sugar.
The group, which brings together doctors from the UK, the US and Canada, aims to emulate the reduction in salt levels in our diet. Intake of salt dropped by 15 per cent between 2001 and 2011, leading to a minimum of 6,000 fewer strokes and heart attack deaths per year, saving £1.5bn.
Experts said that if major manufacturers reduced the amount of sugar in their products, adding up to a 20 to 30 per cent decrease in sugar content in three to five years, the obesity epidemic could be stopped in its tracks. Graham McGregor, professor of cardiovascular medicine at the Wolfson Institute of Preventative Medicine and chairman of the new group, said that the Government’s “Responsibility Deals” with the food industry had failed and a new approach was needed.
“This is a simple plan which gives a level playing field to the food industry, and must be adopted by the Department of Health to reduce the completely unnecessary and very large amounts of sugar the food and soft drink industry is currently adding to our foods,” he said.
Children were particularly at risk from high sugar foods and soft drinks, said Simon Capewell, Professor of Clinical Epidemiology at the University of Liverpool. “Sugar is the new tobacco,” he said. “Everywhere, sugary drinks and junk foods are now pressed on unsuspecting parents and children by a cynical industry focused on profit not health.”
The obesity epidemic is costing the UK over £5bn a year, he said, estimating that costs could rise to £50bn by 2050. Nearly two thirds of adults and more than a quarter of children in England are overweight.
A Department of Health spokesperson said it wanted to sign up more company to its Responsibility Deals, which have seen 38 food and drink companies volunteer to improve people’s diets.0 -
Is there some new game going around where we post a list of studies and expect other people to develop our arguments for us? WTF?
Yes, you win when you post evidence supporing your claim. So far you and the others "arguing" against the overwhelming evidence of the link between sugar and obesity have failed to cite a single scrap of proof to support their claims (name calling, dissecting legitimate studies with assumptions, semantic slanting, and posting jokes and GIFs don't cut it).
European Association for the Study of Obesity (2009, May 8). Increased Food Intake Alone Explains Rise In Obesity In United States
This means I win, right?
Judging by the lack of response...Yes.0 -
Looks like the wheels are in motion to start reduction of sugar in US, UK and Canada to overcome the increasing obesity crisis. News article just came out today in The Independent newspaper. You can find the article here: http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/sugar-is-the-new-tobacco-cuts-to-amounts-hidden-in-food-could-halt-obesity-epidemic-claim-doctors-9047785.html
Title: 'Sugar is the new tobacco': Cuts to amounts hidden in food could halt obesity epidemic, claim doctors
Article:
The growing obesity epidemic could be “halted or reversed” in less than five years if the food industry makes cuts the amount of “hidden sugar” in our food, leading doctors have said.
Sugar is a major cause of obesity and also increases the risk of type 2 diabetes. Leading experts today launched a new campaign group, Action on Sugar, to alert the public to the high levels of sugar in their food and lobby the government and the food industry to reduce its use of “unnecessary” sugar.
The group, which brings together doctors from the UK, the US and Canada, aims to emulate the reduction in salt levels in our diet. Intake of salt dropped by 15 per cent between 2001 and 2011, leading to a minimum of 6,000 fewer strokes and heart attack deaths per year, saving £1.5bn.
Experts said that if major manufacturers reduced the amount of sugar in their products, adding up to a 20 to 30 per cent decrease in sugar content in three to five years, the obesity epidemic could be stopped in its tracks. Graham McGregor, professor of cardiovascular medicine at the Wolfson Institute of Preventative Medicine and chairman of the new group, said that the Government’s “Responsibility Deals” with the food industry had failed and a new approach was needed.
“This is a simple plan which gives a level playing field to the food industry, and must be adopted by the Department of Health to reduce the completely unnecessary and very large amounts of sugar the food and soft drink industry is currently adding to our foods,” he said.
Children were particularly at risk from high sugar foods and soft drinks, said Simon Capewell, Professor of Clinical Epidemiology at the University of Liverpool. “Sugar is the new tobacco,” he said. “Everywhere, sugary drinks and junk foods are now pressed on unsuspecting parents and children by a cynical industry focused on profit not health.”
The obesity epidemic is costing the UK over £5bn a year, he said, estimating that costs could rise to £50bn by 2050. Nearly two thirds of adults and more than a quarter of children in England are overweight.
A Department of Health spokesperson said it wanted to sign up more company to its Responsibility Deals, which have seen 38 food and drink companies volunteer to improve people’s diets.
Sounds like an ambitious plan. However, I predict that people will still find a way to over eat themselves into obesity. We evolved to pack on the lbs in time of plenty in preparation for lean times. But now a days those lean times never come.0 -
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673600040411
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=199296
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3623194
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/79/4/537.short
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v482/n7383/full/482027a.html?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20120202
Blogs, a rat study and a paper that literally says as its conclusion:
"this suggests that dietary fructose may contribute to increased energy intake and weight gain. Furthermore, calorically sweetened beverages may enhance caloric overconsumption. Thus, the increase in consumption of HFCS has a temporal relation to the epidemic of obesity, and the overconsumption of HFCS in calorically sweetened beverages may play a role in the epidemic of obesity. "
Translation, excess calories lead to weight gain.
Some recent 2012/2013 studies:
HFCS not linked to fatty liver disease
http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/abs/10.1139/apnm-2012-0322#.UaPWA5G9KSN
http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/abs/10.1139/y2012-122#.UaPW95G9KSM
"Recent research indicates an association between brain dysfunction and the pathogenesis of metabolic syndrome. To investigate this, we created a Medline search (up to December 2011) of articles in PubMed. The results indicated that refined carbohydrates, saturated and total fat, high levels of ω-6 fatty acids, and low levels of ω-3 fatty acids and other long chain polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA), all in conjunction with sedentary behaviour and mental stress can predispose to inflammation...."
www.ajcn.org/content/65/4/908.full.pdf
http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism (Blog, but with cites)0 -
Children were particularly at risk from high sugar foods and soft drinks, said Simon Capewell, Professor of Clinical Epidemiology at the University of Liverpool. “Sugar is the new tobacco,” he said. “Everywhere, sugary drinks and junk foods are now pressed on unsuspecting parents and children by a cynical industry focused on profit not health.”
Sugar is the new tobacco.
Read that again.
Sugar is the new tobacco.
The absurdity of that statement should shock you, but if it fits in with your preexisting conclusion narrative of sugar as evil, then it actually bolsters your opinion instead of shaking you from it in its colossal public health double-speak insanity.
I hope that my point isn't lost under the weight of all this junk.0 -
How can anyone argue with some dude in an Amish hat with an angry face, and another dude whose avatar is just a picture of his junk?
Hey everyone! Shepard Fairey Darth Vader makes a good point!0 -
Children were particularly at risk from high sugar foods and soft drinks, said Simon Capewell, Professor of Clinical Epidemiology at the University of Liverpool. “Sugar is the new tobacco,” he said. “Everywhere, sugary drinks and junk foods are now pressed on unsuspecting parents and children by a cynical industry focused on profit not health.”
Sugar is the new tobacco.
Read that again.
Sugar is the new tobacco.
The absurdity of that statement should shock you, but if it fits in with your preexisting conclusion narrative of sugar as evil, then it actually bolsters your opinion instead of shaking you from it in its colossal public health double-speak insanity.
I hope that my point isn't lost under the weight of all this junk.
0 -
In. Sugar is going kill us all. :laugh:
Hhhhmmmm...think I will have a cup of sugar. :drinker:0 -
In. Sugar is going kill us all. :laugh:
Hhhhmmmm...think I will have a cup of sugar. :drinker:
IKR? Every time I read these threads I start craving sugar cubes.0 -
Looks like the wheels are in motion to start reduction of sugar in US, UK and Canada to overcome the increasing obesity crisis. News article just came out today in The Independent newspaper. You can find the article here: http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/sugar-is-the-new-tobacco-cuts-to-amounts-hidden-in-food-could-halt-obesity-epidemic-claim-doctors-9047785.html
Title: 'Sugar is the new tobacco': Cuts to amounts hidden in food could halt obesity epidemic, claim doctors
Article:
The growing obesity epidemic could be “halted or reversed” in less than five years if the food industry makes cuts the amount of “hidden sugar” in our food, leading doctors have said.
Sugar is a major cause of obesity and also increases the risk of type 2 diabetes. Leading experts today launched a new campaign group, Action on Sugar, to alert the public to the high levels of sugar in their food and lobby the government and the food industry to reduce its use of “unnecessary” sugar.
The group, which brings together doctors from the UK, the US and Canada, aims to emulate the reduction in salt levels in our diet. Intake of salt dropped by 15 per cent between 2001 and 2011, leading to a minimum of 6,000 fewer strokes and heart attack deaths per year, saving £1.5bn.
Experts said that if major manufacturers reduced the amount of sugar in their products, adding up to a 20 to 30 per cent decrease in sugar content in three to five years, the obesity epidemic could be stopped in its tracks. Graham McGregor, professor of cardiovascular medicine at the Wolfson Institute of Preventative Medicine and chairman of the new group, said that the Government’s “Responsibility Deals” with the food industry had failed and a new approach was needed.
“This is a simple plan which gives a level playing field to the food industry, and must be adopted by the Department of Health to reduce the completely unnecessary and very large amounts of sugar the food and soft drink industry is currently adding to our foods,” he said.
Children were particularly at risk from high sugar foods and soft drinks, said Simon Capewell, Professor of Clinical Epidemiology at the University of Liverpool. “Sugar is the new tobacco,” he said. “Everywhere, sugary drinks and junk foods are now pressed on unsuspecting parents and children by a cynical industry focused on profit not health.”
The obesity epidemic is costing the UK over £5bn a year, he said, estimating that costs could rise to £50bn by 2050. Nearly two thirds of adults and more than a quarter of children in England are overweight.
A Department of Health spokesperson said it wanted to sign up more company to its Responsibility Deals, which have seen 38 food and drink companies volunteer to improve people’s diets.
Sounds like an ambitious plan. However, I predict that people will still find a way to over eat themselves into obesity. We evolved to pack on the lbs in time of plenty in preparation for lean times. But now a days those lean times never come.
Yeah, I hear you there.
My question though is what will replace the sugar? Due to the bogus fat scare that started somewhere around 1960, which turned out a bunch of fat free foods which tasted like card board without sugar added to them, we now have the "omg, fat is bad for you" paradigm. If they take the sugar out, what will it be replaced with? Will the fat come back? Will fiber be increased? Will the artificial sweeteners be greater? Will there be more starches, which is kinda funny, because it's still just another carb. I wonder what sort of shift will happen in the macro percentages if they indeed achieve reduction in sugar.0 -
Excessive amounts of almost anything can have negative effects. Hell, you can drown yourself if you drink excessive amounts of water in a short period of time. So is water bad now, too?0
-
great article! thanks for sharing!0
-
How can anyone argue with some dude in an Amish hat with an angry face, and another dude whose avatar is just a picture of his junk?
^this0 -
Is there some new game going around where we post a list of studies and expect other people to develop our arguments for us? WTF?
Yes, you win when you post evidence supporing your claim. So far you and the others "arguing" against the overwhelming evidence of the link between sugar and obesity have failed to cite a single scrap of proof to support their claims (name calling, dissecting legitimate studies with assumptions, semantic slanting, and posting jokes and GIFs don't cut it).
I'm fascinated by your use of "semantic slanting" in response to one of my posts. It's like you learned a new phrase and wanted to find a place to use it. Too bad it isn't applicable, but I admire your effort.
I'm also fascinated that you think your cited studies support your claim. They don't.0 -
sigh, this again.
You people can't even agree on which sugar is bad for you. For some fructose is toxic, yet evidence suggests that aside for with people with medical issues, people have been consuming fruit from since they came down from the trees so clearly that 'toxicity' seems a new thing. For others it's sucrose except that that's also been consumed for a long period of time (before there was sugar cane, we had sugar beets) and has clearly not killed of the human race.
People are fat because they eat too much ... no really ... no secret involved. If you google the twinkie diet you will find that there is no magical sugar fairy that makes people gain weight if they only look at a piece of cake. It's the fact that that piece contains 900 calories and is eaten in addition to 3 meals a day is why people gain weight.0 -
Is there some new game going around where we post a list of studies and expect other people to develop our arguments for us? WTF?
Yes, you win when you post evidence supporing your claim. So far you and the others "arguing" against the overwhelming evidence of the link between sugar and obesity have failed to cite a single scrap of proof to support their claims (name calling, dissecting legitimate studies with assumptions, semantic slanting, and posting jokes and GIFs don't cut it).
"8. Burden of Proof - Who has to prove what to whom? The person making the extraordinary claim has the burden of proving to the experts and to the community at large that his or her belief has more validity than the one almost everyone else accepts. You have to lobby for your opinion to be heard. Then you have to marshal experts on your side so you can convince the majority to support your claim over the one that they have always supported. Finally, when you are in the majority, the burden of proof switches to the outsider who wants to challenge you with his or her unusual claim. Evolutionists had the burden of proof for half a century after Darwin, but now the burden of proof is on creationists. It is up to creationists to show why the theory of evolution is wrong and why creationism is right, and it is not up to evolutionists to defend evolution. The burden of proof is on the Holocaust deniers to prove the Holocaust did not happen, not on Holocaust historians to prove that it did. The rationale for this is that mountains of evidence prove that both evolution and the Holocaust are facts. In other words, it is not enough to have evidence. You must convince others of the validity of your evidence. And when you are an outsider this is the price you pay, regardless of whether you are right or wrong."
–Michael Shermer0 -
doot doot dooo doooooooo0
-
*sigh*
When will moderation become the next fad?
When 25 different fitness gurus can get on the New York Times Bestseller List with it.0 -
Is there some new game going around where we post a list of studies and expect other people to develop our arguments for us? WTF?
Yes, you win when you post evidence supporing your claim. So far you and the others "arguing" against the overwhelming evidence of the link between sugar and obesity have failed to cite a single scrap of proof to support their claims (name calling, dissecting legitimate studies with assumptions, semantic slanting, and posting jokes and GIFs don't cut it).
What was your claim again?0 -
-
Just once I would like to click on a supposedly anti-sugar study and actually have the conclusion say what the poster claims it says.
But, without fail, the conclusion is always 'excess calories and poor lifestyle lead to weight gain' or 'consuming your body mass in aspartame every day is not the best idea'. Then I'm all
0 -
I think that the focus on sugar is good only in as much as it makes us aware of the 'hidden sugars' in processed foods. I love being able to monitor my sugar consumption via myfitnesspal just as I do fat, protein & carbs in general.
0 -
everything in moderation is fine. (except meth...meth is pretty bad in any amount. an bath salts...that **** will make you eat your friends!)
unless you have a medical reason to avoid sugar you really dont have to.
it makes life a little........sweeter.
This had me laughing out loud and not Internet LOL but full laughing. NOTED meth & bath salts are bad!0 -
In to see the poor use of journal references.0
-
balanced diet and moderation
live your life :-)0 -
stumbled on this little tidbit on the scientific american blog:
"In a small but intriguing study, 17 adults in South Africa ate primarily fruit—about 20 servings with approximately 200 grams of total fructose each day—for 24 weeks and did not gain weight, develop high blood pressure or imbalance their insulin and lipid levels."
granted, the study is 40-something years old....
but isn't 200gr quite a bit?
personally, i shoot for ~40gr/day
here's all the sciency stuff that's over my head: http://archive.samj.org.za/1971 VOL XLV Jan-Jun/Articles/03 March/1.3 SOME BIOCHEMICAL EFFECTS OF A MAINLY FRUIT DIET IN MAN, B.J.Meyer, .E.J.F. de Bruin, D.G. du .pdf
I'm on that, its great, losing weight, eating **** load of fruit, better performance in sport, always happy, loads of energy etc..
theres a few of these studies if you snoop around0 -
Interesting that you bring up that article. I have it laying in my spot at the kitchen table. I've been meaning to read it.0
-
In. Sugar is going kill us all. :laugh:
Hhhhmmmm...think I will have a cup of sugar. :drinker:
IKR? Every time I read these threads I start craving sugar cubes.
:laugh: After all the fast food threads yesterday I woke up this morning with an intense craving for Taco Bell lol. Heading there for lunch today :bigsmile:0 -
stumbled on this little tidbit on the scientific american blog:
"In a small but intriguing study, 17 adults in South Africa ate primarily fruit—about 20 servings with approximately 200 grams of total fructose each day—for 24 weeks and did not gain weight, develop high blood pressure or imbalance their insulin and lipid levels."
granted, the study is 40-something years old....
but isn't 200gr quite a bit?
personally, i shoot for ~40gr/day
here's all the sciency stuff that's over my head: http://archive.samj.org.za/1971 VOL XLV Jan-Jun/Articles/03 March/1.3 SOME BIOCHEMICAL EFFECTS OF A MAINLY FRUIT DIET IN MAN, B.J.Meyer, .E.J.F. de Bruin, D.G. du .pdf
I'm on that, its great, losing weight, eating **** load of fruit, better performance in sport, always happy, loads of energy etc..
theres a few of these studies if you snoop around
Lustig probably rationalizes this difference as fructose from fruit is magical...er, I mean, is somehow *different* than fructose from all other sources. I know he claims they are different, probably so studies like this one don't confound his conclusion.0 -
My question is what is so wrong with someone wanting to decrease their sugar consumption? There doesn't have to be a medical or scientific reason for it. It could be simply because they feel better when they don't consume as much sugar, added or otherwise. I limit my sugar consumption because I know that once I start eating something sweet it becomes a habit for me. I try my best to not consume sugar -- I don't drink sweet tea, I don't put sugar in my coffee, I limit my intake of candy and sweets, if I get a mixed drink at a bar I ask for it to be not sweet -- and I also try to avoid and/or limit added sugars in my foods. I read labels, read ingredients to see where the sugar content is and what it is, read the nutrition data and see how many grams of sugar are in a serving of whatever it is I am looking to buy.
I do it because eating too much sugar makes me feel like crap. I avoid aspartame because it's just nasty and tastes fake as does sucrolose and all those other "diet" sugars. I don't need to spout science or search the internet for a billion reasons why sugar is or isn't bad for me I choose to limit my consumption of it for my own reasons. I know how I feel when I have too much and I know how I feel when I limit and/or omit it and I prefer how I feel when I limit.0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMc0_s-M08I
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions