I like sugar

SymphonynSonata

Sugar is the devil!

Do Satanists worship sugar?

eric_sg61

Sugar is the devil!

paganstar71

I completely lost my first reply due to this damned iPad, it refreshed the page when I minimised the browser, grr!

Cheers; taken me a little time to have a read of these.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2673878/ Against real world consumption

What drinks just contain fructose, but no sucruose/glucose? Doesn't sound 'real' world to me. I did check, but apparently OJ, say, has sucrose as the highest proportion of sugars.
In the real world, how many people actually get 25% of their calories from sugary drinks? Some do probably, I appreciate. And I would actually agree that overweight/obese people may want to look at more complex carbs.

The reason why fructose is isolated for study explained:
"Several studies did not find adverse effects of dietary fructose on serum lipids in healthy participants (23–25). However, these studies either compared fructose to sucrose or were outpatient studies that did not provide meals to participants. Because sucrose is composed of 50% fructose, it is not an optimal reference. Moreover, rigorous control of nutrient intake requires the provision of meals. Thus, these studies were probably not reliable for assessing the effects of dietary fructose on serum lipids." 

"In an effort to gain additional insight into the effects of fructose on plasma lipids, we compared high- and low-fructose diets in 24 healthy volunteers (12 men and 12 women; 6 of each gender aged <40 y and 6 of each gender aged >40 y) (28). All participants consumed 2 isocaloric diets for 6 wk. One diet provided 17% of energy as fructose. The other diet was sweetened with glucose and was nearly devoid of fructose. Diet order was assigned randomly using a balanced crossover design. Both diets were composed of common foods and contained nearly identical amounts of carbohydrate, protein, fat, fiber, cholesterol, and saturated, monounsaturated, and polyunsaturated fatty acids. All meals were prepared in the metabolic kitchen of the University of Minnesota General Clinical Research Center. The fructose diet resulted in higher fasting total and LDL plasma cholesterol at d 28, but this effect did not persist at d 42 (Table 2). The plasma triglyceride responses to the diets differed by gender. The fructose diet had no significant effect on fasting or postprandial plasma triglycerides in women (Table 2, Fig. 2). However, in men, the fructose diet produced significantly higher fasting and postprandial plasma triglycerides. This effect persisted through d 42. On d 42 of the fructose diet, daylong plasma triglycerides (estimated by determining the area under the response curves) in men were 32% greater than during the glucose diet. A more recent study by Teff et al. (16) demonstrated an acute elevation in plasma triglycerides in women fed high-fructose test meals. Thus, the effect of dietary fructose to raise plasma triglycerides appears to occur in both men and women." - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2714385/#!po=30.5556

http://www.champspublichealth.com/writedir/ab33Dietary Sugars Intake and Cardiovascular Health.pdf

The summary of this basically starts with 'CICO'., some of which is from sugars.
What point are you trying to make with this?

Sugar consumption levels.

LDL pattern B correlation with added sugar/fructose http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=185711

I got a little lost with this; could you point me towards where it discusses the actual types (sizes) of LDL?
Also, interesting to see that men that eat a log of sugar actually had the lowest LDL levels (and women the highest for the same). Perhaps the message should be more specific? :P
They don't make it clear how much life style is taken in to account for this. As you mention, again at best a correlation.

This link is better: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/94/2/479.long 
This is the first study to show adverse effects of low to moderate consumption of fructose- glucose-, and sucrose-containing beverages over a period of only 3 wk on LDL size and other parameters of lipid and glucose metabolism as well as on inflammatory response in healthy young men. Even with lower doses (40 g sugar/d), which provided just 6.5% of daily energy in the form of SSBs, adverse effects could be observed with regard to LDL particle size and distribution, waist-to-hip ratio, fasting glucose, and inflammatory markers. Previous studies in humans have also shown negative effects of high fructose consumption, mainly with regard to dyslipidemia and insulin resistance, but these studies provided ≥25% of daily energy in the form of fructose, amounts which are rarely consumed in everyday life (15
16).

Pancreatic cancer http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/70/15/6368.full and http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/14/9/2098.full

Erm, not sure if the second one is supposed to support your point?
>>>>
In these two prospective cohort studies combined, we did not observe a significant increase in the risk of pancreatic cancer among participants who reported higher consumption of sugar-sweetened soft drinks weekly when compared with those who largely abstained.
<<<<
It goes on then about CICO and overweight being an issue.
It does go on to say
>>>>
In summary, although we failed to find a significant overall relation between sweetened soft drinks and pancreatic cancer risk in both cohorts combined, our data may suggest a modestly higher pancreatic cancer risk associated with higher consumption of sugar-sweetened soft drinks among women as well as those who are overweight. Although we cannot exclude the possibility of residual confounding by other factors associated with sugar-sweetened soft drink consumption,
<<<<
With the women, again.
Have been slowly going through the first one, but it's certainly 'pushing' my knowledge levels a bit separating the wheat from the chaff. If you happen to understand it better, I'd love to hear the pertinent points

The first link basically says that sugar will encourage the rapid growth of pancreatic cancer cells, both glucose and fructose.

The follow on study from the second link is here: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/84/5/1171.full and addresses previous studies.

"Results: During a mean follow-up of 7.2 y, we identified 131 incident cases of pancreatic cancer. The consumption of added sugar, soft drinks, and sweetened fruit soups or stewed fruit was positively associated with the risk of pancreatic cancer. The multivariate hazard ratios for the highest compared with the lowest consumption categories were 1.69 (95% CI: 0.99, 2.89; P for trend = 0.06) for sugar, 1.93 (1.18, 3.14; P for trend = 0.02) for soft drinks, and 1.51 (0.97, 2.36; P for trend = 0.05) for sweetened fruit soups or stewed fruit.
Conclusion: High consumption of sugar and high-sugar foods may be associated with a greater risk of pancreatic cancer."

"In the current study, the associations of added sugar and soft drink consumption with pancreatic cancer risk did not vary across strata of BMI or physical activity (P for interaction > 0.45 for all)."

Kidney disease and high blood pressure http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/86/4/899.full#sec-10 plus a bunch of other stuff.

This one very clearly says that causation can NOT be shown.
I could not find a decent explanation of if lifestyle was taken account of. Also, when talking about history, they both gloss over consumption in India and don't consider that people these days of ALL statuses are considerably more sedentary.
Over the last 50 years there's been a massive increase in the sedenttry life style. Sure, some where in the past, never mind the motorcar, things like lifts, elevators, even toilets on every floor of a house and the like becoming much more common have made it a lot easier for more to live a lot more sedentary lifestyle.

Quotes from the link include:
"In another study, the administration of sucrose supplements resulted in weight gain, a significant rise in serum triacylglycerols, and a rise in systolic blood pressure (47). An increase in blood pressure was also observed in healthy adults fed a diet of 33% sucrose for 6 wk but not when diets of 5% or 18% sucrose were fed (48). Others have also reported that diets enriched in either sucrose (49) or fructose (50) cause impaired glucose tolerance and insulin resistance. Notably, most of these diets provided fructose in the range of 400–800 kcal/d, which is within the upper range of what is currently being ingested in the United States."

"One unique aspect of fructose is that it is the only sugar that raises uric acid concentrations, and this can be shown in both humans (56) and rodents (57). Fructose enters hepatocytes and other cells (including tubular cells, adipocytes, and intestinal epithelial cells), where it is completely metabolized by fructokinase with the consumption of ATP; unlike in glucose metabolism, there is no negative regulatory mechanism to prevent the depletion of ATP. As a consequence, lactic acid and uric acid are generated in the process, and uric acid concentrations may rise by 1–4 mg/dL after the ingestion of a large fructose-based meal (58)."

"Uric acid has now been found to be an independent predictor of hypertension in 15 of 16 published studies, including a recent report by the Framingham Heart Study group (70–85). Uric acid is also an independent predictor of obesity (86), hyperinsulinemia (87), and renal disease (88). Furthermore, uric acid concentrations are elevated in the vast majority (89%) of adolescents with new-onset hypertension, and in pilot studies, the lowering of uric acid concentrations was found to reduce blood pressure in these subjects (89, 90). A recent prospective, controlled trial also reported that the lowering of uric acid concentrations in patients with hyperuricemia and renal disease resulted in significantly slower renal progression and a significant (13 mm Hg) fall in systolic blood pressure that was not observed in the controls (91). Whereas more clinical studies are clearly needed, these data suggest that uric acid may contribute to the cardiorenal disease epidemic."

In other words sugar and fructose has been shown to raise uric acid concentrations which are in turn associated with high blood pressure and renal (kidney) disease. 'Independent predictor' shows a clear link between sugar and these symptoms and diseases.

And then there are the humanitarian aspects - sugar kills in many ways: http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/10/16/13866856-mystery-kidney-disease-decimates-central-america-sugarcane-workers?lite
“Not only is the production of sugar killing people, but the consumption of it is killing people,” said Jason Glaser of La Isla Foundation, a nonprofit group he founded to focus attention on the epidemic and fund research that he hopes will solve the mystery. “It's bad for you and it's bad for workers.”

Fit_Natasha

A sample of one is not science. There could have been a million other factors.
While there are many studies, there is no conclusive evidence that eating a moderate amount of sugar as part as a healthful diet and exercise regimen has any ill effects. There are people that THINK it may have ill effects. But there is no evidence that indisputably says, sugar is bad for you as part of an otherwise healthful diet and exercise lifestyle.

I never claimed it to be a science. You told your story, I told you mine. If you are carefully log in all food that you eat, you will notice that everything has sugar (potatoes, milk, tomatoes, etc.). So by the end of the day, even without any sugar in my coffee and tea, without any baked goods, I am still often over my sugar limits. Or what do you call "moderation"?

Unknown

This content has been removed.

Fit_Natasha

A sample of one is not science. There could have been a million other factors.
While there are many studies, there is no conclusive evidence that eating a moderate amount of sugar as part as a healthful diet and exercise regimen has any ill effects. There are people that THINK it may have ill effects. But there is no evidence that indisputably says, sugar is bad for you as part of an otherwise healthful diet and exercise lifestyle.

I never claimed it to be a science. You told your story, I told you mine. If you are carefully log in all food that you eat, you will notice that everything has sugar (potatoes, milk, tomatoes, etc.). So by the end of the day, even without any sugar in my coffee and tea, without any baked goods, I am still often over my sugar limits. Or what do you call "moderation"?

Yes you did, when you said, "Saying that, you may not see any damages from sugar now. It does not mean that sugar does not do any damage to your body in a long term. I am not saying that we should completely cut it off, but it definitely need to be limited."

You said this as a fact, and not as just your story. You are telling everyone that sugar is damaging them. I am saying that your sample of one is not a science-based conclusion/

No, I didn't. It was MY conclusion, based on MY experience and research. I never claimed it to be scientific. The same as this one was yours:

"There's a lot of talk right now about everyone cutting sugar to lose weight. Do what you want, BUT YOURE NUTS! Sugary yummies are so good. And, they will not stop you from reaching your goals.

Eat smart, add sugar, and enjoy your life. You only get one chance to do it right. ".

No science there either.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

Paindoesnthurt

carbohydrates are sugar and sugar turns into glucose straight away and is hence the body's peferred fuel and energy source. cutting out sugars completely for a long term period can lead to have thyroid problems. However. Refined sugar is what you should avoid. You may argue but trust me I have numerous studies to say so. Raw honey? No problem. Sweet potatoes in fair amounts? Who's stopping you? Fruits? They're good for you! That refined sugar that's in chocolate on the shelves and all other products? No brainer it'll be bad.

Also you have to consider diabetics. Diabetics have to control their sugar intake (carbs), and if you have too many carbs, and training isn't your full tme job, then you too can risk being diabetic. Remember though that is only if it's in excess. As long as you train and use your carbs and not just lye down in front of the computer all day till night and sleep then go ahead, have your carbohydrates

Karen_LM

Simple: you eat very few of them. He never said he gorged and overindulged, he said he ate amounts that fell within his dietary allowance. Anyone used to paying close attention to their intake should be able to fit in a bit of something. Sounds like OP is a male with a heavy workout habit and large (2600) calorie allowance and correspondingly large quantity of carb grams available so so particularly easy for him. A small female with low activity levels would find it harder to manage, but i have had times when i planned in a glass of wine or a slice or birthday cake because, on a particular day, i valued those carbs vs. my usual carbs.

I get the whole IIFYMacros thing. And, I agree that for success you are better off not restricting any specific food.

However, can someone please explain how you balance your micro nutrients when eating such calorie dense foods?

Overall, I am trying to adhere to IIFYMacros and IIFYMicros...

Just a thought

edited to clean up typos

Karen_LM

I love sugar too but after watching both my grandparents go on insulin shots for diabetes and then my mom being diagnosed with diabetes I was like lets just enjoy sugars every once in a while. I eat it on a special occasion. If diabetes didn't run in the family I would probably eat it more.

Basing your decisions on your own experience and genetic beackground? EXCELLENT! You win!

Karen_LM

Nevermind

knoxoverstreet2

My wife's daily healthy lifestyle blog has some great posts about sugar: http://fuel-for-the-journey.com

Unknown

This content has been removed.