Sugar Sugar Sugar Sugar!

Options
12357

Replies

  • ThickMcRunFast
    ThickMcRunFast Posts: 22,511 Member
    Options
    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

    eXMF9.jpg
  • Zetty
    Zetty Posts: 5
    Options
    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.:smile:
  • JourneyingJessica
    JourneyingJessica Posts: 261 Member
    Options

    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!
  • EvgeniZyntx
    EvgeniZyntx Posts: 24,208 Member
    Options
    In to see the poor use of journal references.
  • cookieshop
    cookieshop Posts: 16
    Options
    balanced diet and moderation

    live your life :-)
  • kennie2
    kennie2 Posts: 1,171 Member
    Options
    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
  • arabianhorselover
    arabianhorselover Posts: 1,488 Member
    Options
    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.
  • twixlepennie
    twixlepennie Posts: 1,074 Member
    Options
    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:
  • jofjltncb6
    jofjltncb6 Posts: 34,415 Member
    Options
    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.
  • just_Jennie1
    just_Jennie1 Posts: 1,233
    Options
    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.
  • QuietBloom
    QuietBloom Posts: 5,413 Member
    Options
    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.

    I didn't see anyone say there was anything wrong with it.
  • just_Jennie1
    just_Jennie1 Posts: 1,233
    Options
    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.

    I didn't see anyone say there was anything wrong with it.

    No?
    Why do you need sources? It's sugar. Everyone knows that sugar is da debil. No cite needed.
    FTFY


    sugar is not the enemy.

    remember when fat used to be the enemy?
    wheat was the enemy once too.
    oh and CARBS!!!! those evil evil carbs!!

    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.

    Any time there is a post about someone wanting to decrease their sugar intake or try to eliminate added sugars, fake sugars etc. a snarky debate ensues.
  • Holly_Roman_Empire
    Holly_Roman_Empire Posts: 4,440 Member
    Options
    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.

    There's nothing wrong with wanting to reduce your sugar intake. The only wrong thing is when articles state that sugar is the number one reason for obesity.
  • delicious_cocktail
    delicious_cocktail Posts: 5,797 Member
    Options
    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.

    He also claims they are indistinguishable. He claims that they are identical, and also claims that they're fundamentally different.

    Not in a zen way or a contextually meaningful way, but in a self-contradicting way.

    This is why I really would prefer that when people poop out links to studies in a thread, that they be prepared to discuss them, rather than just leave them in a burning paper bag on my doorstep.

    Not saying, just saying.
  • QuietBloom
    QuietBloom Posts: 5,413 Member
    Options
    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.

    I didn't see anyone say there was anything wrong with it.

    No?
    Why do you need sources? It's sugar. Everyone knows that sugar is da debil. No cite needed.
    FTFY


    sugar is not the enemy.

    remember when fat used to be the enemy?
    wheat was the enemy once too.
    oh and CARBS!!!! those evil evil carbs!!

    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.

    Any time there is a post about someone wanting to decrease their sugar intake or try to eliminate added sugars, fake sugars etc. a snarky debate ensues.

    The snarky debate ensues when false claims are made about sugar.
  • auddii
    auddii Posts: 15,357 Member
    Options
    'By the 18th century the marriage of sugar and slavery was complete. Every few years a new island—Puerto Rico, Trinidad—was colonized, cleared, and planted. When the natives died, the planters replaced them with African slaves. ' excerpt from the National Geographic article...interesting choice of words.

    The natives didn't die they were killed and 'planters' did bring African slaves to those islands and countries. Ever hear of the Taino Indians? Most people haven't, they're no longer around, when they didn't work the Spanish murdered them in masse. But the part on sugar...quite accurate(yes, sarcasm).
    Ok, completely random side note, but I just read about the Taino indians this morning. Everyone assumes that the Spanish killed them all off, but many Jamaican sprinters have recently been genetically tested by people interested in why so many Jamaican sprinters are at the top of their class. Many of these sprinters have mitochondrial DNA that places them all from the same region of Jamaica. Decedents of the Marooners. These were some of the strongest slaves that escaped from the British while the British were trying to wrestle the island from the Spanish. (Strongest because the area they chose to inhabit was completely dependable because it was surrounded by sheer cliffs, but required a lot strength to gain access, plus they were able to fight off the British while vastly out numbered.)

    Anyways, they pinpointed that about 10% of their DNA was from the Taino Indians, so while it was thought that they were completely wiped out by the Spanish, it is far more likely that some escaped to the more remote parts of the island and then began living with the Marooners.
  • delicious_cocktail
    delicious_cocktail Posts: 5,797 Member
    Options
    Nice, harveler.
  • Achrya
    Achrya Posts: 16,913 Member
    Options
    art-thou-angry-brethren.jpg
  • jofjltncb6
    jofjltncb6 Posts: 34,415 Member
    Options
    Nice, harveler.

    Huh? Did I miss something?

    ETA: Oh, is a post now missing?

    ETAM: LOL.
  • Sarauk2sf
    Sarauk2sf Posts: 28,072 Member
    Options
    Nice, harveler.

    Huh? Did I miss something?

    ETA: Oh, is a post now missing?

    lmao...did the charming young man just call the people who were arguing against his context lacking, cherry picked, and 'not on point' studies fat?

    Good debating skills there!

Categories