So can we put this topic to bed now?

Options
1…34689…12

Replies

  • jonnythan
    jonnythan Posts: 10,161 Member
    Options
    So either: (1) sugar is a causal factor, or (2) cardio-vascular disease causes sugar consumption, or (3) there is some factor not included in the above that causes both.

    Which do you think is most likely?

    (3). The high sugar consumers are also PUFA addicts and smokers that are permanently drunk or stoned.
    Good job selectively quoting my post to remove the part where the authors explained that they controlled for such things. :wink:

    Did you read the full article? I don't have access to it.

    I presume you did, because the abstract didn't actually specify what the authors attempted to adjust for, nor how they actually did so.

    Would you share these details with the rest of the forum please?
  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    Options
    This is EXACTLY why our life expectancy dropped when we discovered how to refine sugar.

    This is sarcasm, right?
  • jonnythan
    jonnythan Posts: 10,161 Member
    Options
    This is EXACTLY why our life expectancy dropped when we discovered how to refine sugar.

    When did that happen?

    image1_7.png
  • ashleyisgreat
    ashleyisgreat Posts: 586 Member
    Options
    In to read later.
  • redladywitch
    redladywitch Posts: 799 Member
    Options
    Love the responses.
  • likitisplit
    likitisplit Posts: 9,420 Member
    Options
    This is EXACTLY why our life expectancy dropped when we discovered how to refine sugar.

    When did that happen?

    image1_7.png

    See. All the info proving the point I was trying to make. None of the work.

    Though I'm pretty sure we were refining sugar before the US was founded
  • jonnythan
    jonnythan Posts: 10,161 Member
    Options
    See. All the info proving the point I was trying to make. None of the work.

    :laugh:

    I've been manipulated!
  • astronomicals
    astronomicals Posts: 1,537 Member
    Options
    when are we going to go back to demonizing fat? or red meat? or high GI foods? or any number of other dumb things...
  • likitisplit
    likitisplit Posts: 9,420 Member
    Options
    See. All the info proving the point I was trying to make. None of the work.

    :laugh:

    I've been manipulated!

    You get so serious when arguing for the value of "empty" calories.
  • jonnythan
    jonnythan Posts: 10,161 Member
    Options
    See. All the info proving the point I was trying to make. None of the work.

    :laugh:

    I've been manipulated!

    You get so serious when arguing for the value of "empty" calories.

    I'm arguing against demonizing particular nutrients. Carbs are bad! Fat is bad! Protein is bad! Sugar is bad! Salt is bad! No.... they're not bad.

    Besides, I'm always serious.

    internet-serious-business.jpg
  • MoreBean13
    MoreBean13 Posts: 8,701 Member
    Options
    See. All the info proving the point I was trying to make. None of the work.

    :laugh:

    I've been manipulated!

    You get so serious when arguing for the value of "empty" calories.

    I'm arguing against demonizing particular nutrients. Carbs are bad! Fat is bad! Protein is bad! Sugar is bad! Salt is bad! No.... they're not bad.

    Is this the point in the thread where someone is supposed to call you an unathletic vegetable hater?

    Just PM me if I'm off the mark. I can come back later.
  • jonnythan
    jonnythan Posts: 10,161 Member
    Options
    See. All the info proving the point I was trying to make. None of the work.

    :laugh:

    I've been manipulated!

    You get so serious when arguing for the value of "empty" calories.

    I'm arguing against demonizing particular nutrients. Carbs are bad! Fat is bad! Protein is bad! Sugar is bad! Salt is bad! No.... they're not bad.

    Is this the point in the thread where someone is supposed to call you an unathletic vegetable hater?

    Just PM me if I'm off the mark. I can come back later.

    If it follows the pattern from last week, I will mention that I recommend people eat several servings of vegetables every day... to which someone with thousands of posts who has argued with me many times on MFP will say something like "PREACH ON jonny you never talk about vegetables ever, and you're not athletic, and all you eat is sugar!"
  • jofjltncb6
    jofjltncb6 Posts: 34,415 Member
    Options
    sugar3.png

    Granted, most of this is while bulking so eating significantly over 2000 calories.

    However, today 22% of calories came from sugar. I seem to be developing a fondness for candy bars that's displacing my ice cream habit.

    Interesting. Near the end of my bulk, I found myself transitioning from ice cream to chocolate milk.
  • PhearlessPhreaks
    PhearlessPhreaks Posts: 890 Member
    Options
    Modus omnibus in rebus, soror, optimum est habitu;
    Nimia omnia nimium exhibent negotium hominibus ex se.

    In everything the middle course is best: all things in excess bring trouble to men.

    ~Plautus, Pænulus, I. 2. 29.

    Good advice for 200BC, still good advice...

    This.
  • Achrya
    Achrya Posts: 16,913 Member
    Options
    See. All the info proving the point I was trying to make. None of the work.

    :laugh:

    I've been manipulated!

    You get so serious when arguing for the value of "empty" calories.

    I'm arguing against demonizing particular nutrients. Carbs are bad! Fat is bad! Protein is bad! Sugar is bad! Salt is bad! No.... they're not bad.

    Is this the point in the thread where someone is supposed to call you an unathletic vegetable hater?

    Just PM me if I'm off the mark. I can come back later.

    If it follows the pattern from last week, I will mention that I recommend people eat several servings of vegetables every day... to which someone with thousands of posts who has argued with me many times on MFP will say something like "PREACH ON jonny you never talk about vegetables ever, and you're not athletic, and all you eat is sugar!"

    I've been told a time or two I clearly just eat junk and don't care about micros/nutrition.

    I find that a simple 'seems legit' seems to both get my amusement across and enrages the other person.
  • Stripeness
    Stripeness Posts: 511 Member
    Options
    Quoted researcher: “Too much sugar does not just make us fat; it can also make us sick.”

    OP: In plain English, sugar is not just bad because it has a lot of calories, it is bad because it "damages the body’s organs directly".

    NO. OP, please do not ever attempt to work as a science writer. The quote by the researcher clearly says "TOO MUCH SUGAR." Even water, consumed in sufficient quantity, will kill you.

    Do most people consume an excessive amount of refined sugar (for values of "excessive" within 3sds of MFP forum norm)? Sure. And it's a great place to start cutting calories, when one takes a look at one's food log.

    However, the idea of sugar being evil - even if it is refined, well-heeled, snooty white cane sugar...that's just silly. It would be nice if we could solve all obesity and health issues by canonizing some ingredients and demonizing others, but it just doesn't work that way.

    "There is no secret ingredient" -Po

    ETA: correcting "you" to "one" for clarity - not personal
  • jonnythan
    jonnythan Posts: 10,161 Member
    Options
    I've been told a time or two I clearly just eat junk and don't care about micros/nutrition.

    I find that a simple 'seems legit' seems to both get my amusement across and enrages the other person.

    That is a fine tip. I like it.
  • jonnythan
    jonnythan Posts: 10,161 Member
    Options
    Quoted researcher: “Too much sugar does not just make us fat; it can also make us sick.”

    OP: In plain English, sugar is not just bad because it has a lot of calories, it is bad because it "damages the body’s organs directly".

    NO. OP, please do not ever attempt to work as a science writer. The quote by the researcher clearly says "TOO MUCH SUGAR." Even water, consumed in sufficient quantity, will kill you.

    Do most people consume an excessive amount of refined sugar (for values of "excessive" within 3sds of MFP forum norm)? Sure. And it's a great place to start cutting calories, when one takes a look at one's food log.

    However, the idea of sugar being evil - even if it is refined, well-heeled, snooty white cane sugar...that's just silly. It would be nice if we could solve all obesity and health issues by canonizing some ingredients and demonizing others, but it just doesn't work that way.

    "There is no secret ingredient" -Po

    ETA: correcting "you" to "one" for clarity - not personal

    Read the article and abstract. The researchers define "too much sugar" and literally say that it "damages the organs directly." At least that's the hypothesis.

    Researchers have a tendency to vastly overreach from their findings. There's a reason most quotes like this come from press releases or news articles about a study rather than the study itself. That sort of thing doesn't generally get past the peer review process. Sometimes it does. I don't have access to the original study so it's hard to say, but it wouldn't surprise me. The AMA is fully on board with sugar demonization these days.
  • ThickMcRunFast
    ThickMcRunFast Posts: 22,511 Member
    Options
    I couldn't read the article because my university doesn't allow access (OP, did you read it?If not, we're all just sort of arguing blindly).

    But the summary clearly states that the findings of this correlation study (no new data in it) say that the consumption of added sugar in excess relates to CVD.

    So...eating in excess leads to problems? Shocking!

    I also found it interesting that the abstract notes a decrease in added sugar consumption in the American population from 2005-2010. Something else must be making us fat.
  • CorvusCorax77
    CorvusCorax77 Posts: 2,536 Member
    Options
    Why does everyone who posts these articles believe that correlation equals causation?
    From the JAMA article:
    After additional adjustment for sociodemographic, behavioral, and clinical characteristics, HRs were 1.00 (reference), 1.07 (1.02-1.12), 1.18 (1.06-1.31), 1.38 (1.11-1.70), and 2.03 (1.26-3.27; P = .004), respectively.
    So either: (1) sugar is a causal factor, or (2) cardio-vascular disease causes sugar consumption, or (3) there is some factor not included in the above that causes both.

    Which do you think is most likely?

    #3, duh.

Categories