HOW MUCH SUGAR IS TOO MUCH?
Replies
-
It's the extra 500 calories kids are consuming from added sugar in general, not the fructose in them.I get more sugar than that from fruit. :noway:
1) If you are tracking total energy intake, setting your macros reasonably, and eating "mostly whole foods" and limiting your "junk food" to a reasonable portion of total calories then you don't really need to bother tracking sugar at all.
2) The AHA recommendations are based on added sugars and they exclude naturally occurring sugars.
EDIT: In fact, I'll type more.....
It's important to note a few things: The American Heart association is basing their sugar recommendation on roughly half (give or take) of one's discretionary calorie intake. You can see evidence of that from this study which is where their sugar recommendations are coming from.
http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/120/11/1011.full.pdf
They are basically giving a range of discretionary calories (calories that you are free to spend once nutrient needs are met with the other calories) from about 10 to 20% and then taking roughly half of that coming straight from added sugar.
So in short, this recommendation (again, by the AHA) is based on total energy intake.
For an active male who may maintain on 3000 calories, they would recommend 512 discretionary calories of which 288kcals could come from added sugars. Note that this does not include naturally occurring sugars which is somewhat silly since it's all sugar.
Finally, note in the text that one concern of added sugars it that it causes people to expand their discretionary intake beyond their recommended limits which could effect nutrient sufficiency of the overall diet. If this is their reason for limiting sugar to half of the discretionary calories then you could basically double that sugar limit provided that you're still sticking to a reasonable discretionary intake.
I think it is safe to assume that hose who are eating mostly whole foods do not need to worry because eating mostly whole foods would keep total sugar at about 10 percent. But it is the "average" american that does need to worry. The average american is eating almost 90 grams of sugar a day. So much about nutrition is so confusing to most people, through no fault of their own. Good health and fitness is not really that difficult to understand without all the confusion that has been thrown at everyone... low this.. low that... It has all been driven by money at the expense of our health. I's criminal, in my opinion.
Medical experts are suggesting keeping FRUCTOSE at 25 grams and that is why 10 percent of calories is what is recommended; that would include all sugar, including natural sugar. It is not the glucose in the sugar that is the problem; it is the fructose.
What I always say is the proof is in the pudding. When sugar is reduced to about that level, everything gets better, not just weight!
Joanne Moniz
The Skinny on Obesity Group
http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/
Our greatest single exposure to fructose is in added sugar (sucrose, which is 50% fructose, and high fructose corn syrup). Fructose in excess acts like a "fat switch". All mammals will seek a source of fructose in order to add fat in anticipation of food scarcity. As an example, black bears will gorge on massive quantities of wild blueberries at the end of summer in order to spur fat production (as preparation for hibernation). When we gorge on sugar, we are doing exactly the same thing...only thing is--"winter" never comes. Check out the research on this subject that is being done at the University of Colorado by the team headed by Richard J. Johnson, M.D. chief of the renal division at their medical center there.
So basically it has little to do with over consumption as the reason we as a society are getting fat and the blame can squarely be placed on some add sugars as the trigger...... Good to know....... :drinker:
Eating sugar spurs over consumption of all foods. Almost EVERY item on McDonald's menu has added sugar in it. Hmmm--I wonder why that is? Could it be that they have figured out that if they add sugar to any food, that we will eat more of it!!! :laugh:
How did I manage to lose 312 lbs. without tracking a single gram of sugar?? I reduced my caloric intake, set my macros to 40/30/30, began exercising and lost weight, weird concept but it worked for me....0 -
What about the worlds population that isn't obese but also eat sugar, why aren't they fat?
It's the extra 500 calories kids are consuming from added sugar in general, not the fructose in them.I get more sugar than that from fruit. :noway:
1) If you are tracking total energy intake, setting your macros reasonably, and eating "mostly whole foods" and limiting your "junk food" to a reasonable portion of total calories then you don't really need to bother tracking sugar at all.
2) The AHA recommendations are based on added sugars and they exclude naturally occurring sugars.
EDIT: In fact, I'll type more.....
It's important to note a few things: The American Heart association is basing their sugar recommendation on roughly half (give or take) of one's discretionary calorie intake. You can see evidence of that from this study which is where their sugar recommendations are coming from.
http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/120/11/1011.full.pdf
They are basically giving a range of discretionary calories (calories that you are free to spend once nutrient needs are met with the other calories) from about 10 to 20% and then taking roughly half of that coming straight from added sugar.
So in short, this recommendation (again, by the AHA) is based on total energy intake.
For an active male who may maintain on 3000 calories, they would recommend 512 discretionary calories of which 288kcals could come from added sugars. Note that this does not include naturally occurring sugars which is somewhat silly since it's all sugar.
Finally, note in the text that one concern of added sugars it that it causes people to expand their discretionary intake beyond their recommended limits which could effect nutrient sufficiency of the overall diet. If this is their reason for limiting sugar to half of the discretionary calories then you could basically double that sugar limit provided that you're still sticking to a reasonable discretionary intake.
I think it is safe to assume that hose who are eating mostly whole foods do not need to worry because eating mostly whole foods would keep total sugar at about 10 percent. But it is the "average" american that does need to worry. The average american is eating almost 90 grams of sugar a day. So much about nutrition is so confusing to most people, through no fault of their own. Good health and fitness is not really that difficult to understand without all the confusion that has been thrown at everyone... low this.. low that... It has all been driven by money at the expense of our health. I's criminal, in my opinion.
Medical experts are suggesting keeping FRUCTOSE at 25 grams and that is why 10 percent of calories is what is recommended; that would include all sugar, including natural sugar. It is not the glucose in the sugar that is the problem; it is the fructose.
What I always say is the proof is in the pudding. When sugar is reduced to about that level, everything gets better, not just weight!
Joanne Moniz
The Skinny on Obesity Group
http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/
Our greatest single exposure to fructose is in added sugar (sucrose, which is 50% fructose, and high fructose corn syrup). Fructose in excess acts like a "fat switch". All mammals will seek a source of fructose in order to add fat in anticipation of food scarcity. As an example, black bears will gorge on massive quantities of wild blueberries at the end of summer in order to spur fat production (as preparation for hibernation). When we gorge on sugar, we are doing exactly the same thing...only thing is--"winter" never comes. Check out the research on this subject that is being done at the University of Colorado by the team headed by Richard J. Johnson, M.D. chief of the renal division at their medical center there.
So basically it has little to do with over consumption as the reason we as a society are getting fat and the blame can squarely be placed on some add sugars as the trigger...... Good to know....... :drinker:
Eating sugar spurs over consumption of all foods. Almost EVERY item on McDonald's menu has added sugar in it. Hmmm--I wonder why that is? Could it be that they have figured out that if they add sugar to any food, that we will eat more of it!!! :laugh:0 -
Are you saying that bears have diabetes and atherosclerosis from eating too much fructose? Also massive amounts generally means in excess of daily requirements, which then leads to fat accumulation, not from fructose.......
Animals don't seek out fructose they seek foods in general for fat accumulation for hibernation and survival purposes. Your on a mission to prove yourself right.
It's the extra 500 calories kids are consuming from added sugar in general, not the fructose in them.I get more sugar than that from fruit. :noway:
1) If you are tracking total energy intake, setting your macros reasonably, and eating "mostly whole foods" and limiting your "junk food" to a reasonable portion of total calories then you don't really need to bother tracking sugar at all.
2) The AHA recommendations are based on added sugars and they exclude naturally occurring sugars.
EDIT: In fact, I'll type more.....
It's important to note a few things: The American Heart association is basing their sugar recommendation on roughly half (give or take) of one's discretionary calorie intake. You can see evidence of that from this study which is where their sugar recommendations are coming from.
http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/120/11/1011.full.pdf
They are basically giving a range of discretionary calories (calories that you are free to spend once nutrient needs are met with the other calories) from about 10 to 20% and then taking roughly half of that coming straight from added sugar.
So in short, this recommendation (again, by the AHA) is based on total energy intake.
For an active male who may maintain on 3000 calories, they would recommend 512 discretionary calories of which 288kcals could come from added sugars. Note that this does not include naturally occurring sugars which is somewhat silly since it's all sugar.
Finally, note in the text that one concern of added sugars it that it causes people to expand their discretionary intake beyond their recommended limits which could effect nutrient sufficiency of the overall diet. If this is their reason for limiting sugar to half of the discretionary calories then you could basically double that sugar limit provided that you're still sticking to a reasonable discretionary intake.
I think it is safe to assume that hose who are eating mostly whole foods do not need to worry because eating mostly whole foods would keep total sugar at about 10 percent. But it is the "average" american that does need to worry. The average american is eating almost 90 grams of sugar a day. So much about nutrition is so confusing to most people, through no fault of their own. Good health and fitness is not really that difficult to understand without all the confusion that has been thrown at everyone... low this.. low that... It has all been driven by money at the expense of our health. I's criminal, in my opinion.
Medical experts are suggesting keeping FRUCTOSE at 25 grams and that is why 10 percent of calories is what is recommended; that would include all sugar, including natural sugar. It is not the glucose in the sugar that is the problem; it is the fructose.
What I always say is the proof is in the pudding. When sugar is reduced to about that level, everything gets better, not just weight!
Joanne Moniz
The Skinny on Obesity Group
http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/
Our greatest single exposure to fructose is in added sugar (sucrose, which is 50% fructose, and high fructose corn syrup). Fructose in excess acts like a "fat switch". All mammals will seek a source of fructose in order to add fat in anticipation of food scarcity. As an example, black bears will gorge on massive quantities of wild blueberries at the end of summer in order to spur fat production (as preparation for hibernation). When we gorge on sugar, we are doing exactly the same thing...only thing is--"winter" never comes. Check out the research on this subject that is being done at the University of Colorado by the team headed by Richard J. Johnson, M.D. chief of the renal division at their medical center there.
You are wrong about that--check our Dr. Johnson's research. I couldn't care less about being right. I care that people get the information they need to get well.
I'm saying that Dr. Johnson and his team believe that metabolic syndrome is a normal condition for animals heading into hibernation and that it reverses itself over the course of the winter. Of course, almost all animals have a metabolic advantage over us in that they produce uricase which reduces uric acid to urea. We have the gene for producing uricase but it is non-functional. Therefore, we pay much higher penalties for gorging on fructose. Dr. Jonson's group observed the fructose "fat switch" across the animal kingdom, citing a tropical fish in (Brazil I think it was) that only eats the fruit off a tree that drops its fruit in the water once a year. The fish get very fat eating the fruit and then don't eat again until a year later when the fruit drops in the water again. Interesting, no?
0 -
What about the worlds population that isn't obese but also eat sugar, why aren't they fat?
It's the extra 500 calories kids are consuming from added sugar in general, not the fructose in them.I get more sugar than that from fruit. :noway:
1) If you are tracking total energy intake, setting your macros reasonably, and eating "mostly whole foods" and limiting your "junk food" to a reasonable portion of total calories then you don't really need to bother tracking sugar at all.
2) The AHA recommendations are based on added sugars and they exclude naturally occurring sugars.
EDIT: In fact, I'll type more.....
It's important to note a few things: The American Heart association is basing their sugar recommendation on roughly half (give or take) of one's discretionary calorie intake. You can see evidence of that from this study which is where their sugar recommendations are coming from.
http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/120/11/1011.full.pdf
They are basically giving a range of discretionary calories (calories that you are free to spend once nutrient needs are met with the other calories) from about 10 to 20% and then taking roughly half of that coming straight from added sugar.
So in short, this recommendation (again, by the AHA) is based on total energy intake.
For an active male who may maintain on 3000 calories, they would recommend 512 discretionary calories of which 288kcals could come from added sugars. Note that this does not include naturally occurring sugars which is somewhat silly since it's all sugar.
Finally, note in the text that one concern of added sugars it that it causes people to expand their discretionary intake beyond their recommended limits which could effect nutrient sufficiency of the overall diet. If this is their reason for limiting sugar to half of the discretionary calories then you could basically double that sugar limit provided that you're still sticking to a reasonable discretionary intake.
I think it is safe to assume that hose who are eating mostly whole foods do not need to worry because eating mostly whole foods would keep total sugar at about 10 percent. But it is the "average" american that does need to worry. The average american is eating almost 90 grams of sugar a day. So much about nutrition is so confusing to most people, through no fault of their own. Good health and fitness is not really that difficult to understand without all the confusion that has been thrown at everyone... low this.. low that... It has all been driven by money at the expense of our health. I's criminal, in my opinion.
Medical experts are suggesting keeping FRUCTOSE at 25 grams and that is why 10 percent of calories is what is recommended; that would include all sugar, including natural sugar. It is not the glucose in the sugar that is the problem; it is the fructose.
What I always say is the proof is in the pudding. When sugar is reduced to about that level, everything gets better, not just weight!
Joanne Moniz
The Skinny on Obesity Group
http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/
Our greatest single exposure to fructose is in added sugar (sucrose, which is 50% fructose, and high fructose corn syrup). Fructose in excess acts like a "fat switch". All mammals will seek a source of fructose in order to add fat in anticipation of food scarcity. As an example, black bears will gorge on massive quantities of wild blueberries at the end of summer in order to spur fat production (as preparation for hibernation). When we gorge on sugar, we are doing exactly the same thing...only thing is--"winter" never comes. Check out the research on this subject that is being done at the University of Colorado by the team headed by Richard J. Johnson, M.D. chief of the renal division at their medical center there.
So basically it has little to do with over consumption as the reason we as a society are getting fat and the blame can squarely be placed on some add sugars as the trigger...... Good to know....... :drinker:
Eating sugar spurs over consumption of all foods. Almost EVERY item on McDonald's menu has added sugar in it. Hmmm--I wonder why that is? Could it be that they have figured out that if they add sugar to any food, that we will eat more of it!!! :laugh:
Isn't it obvious? They don't have access to excessive calories in general, but that is beginning to change. Rising rates of obesity are occurring in almost all developing nations now. Sugar has become very inexpensive and as consumption rates rocket all over the world, the obesity rate tracks perfectly with it. Mexico just overtook the U.S. as the fattest nation and there are several other semi-developed nations that are in the running. http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/news/america-fattest-obese-un-144341236.html
ETA: By the way, the Central American sugar cane workers are typically NOT overweight but they are paying dearly for their sugar-habit. They are paying with their lives--sooner, rather than later.0 -
TIL that sugar is the Swiss army knife of food. No matter what type of demonizing you wish to accomplish, sugar can be blamed for it.
Triggers automatic fat storage, even in a deficit. Check.
Makes kids lethargic and keeps them from being active. Check.
Can be added to menu items by nefarious restaurants because they know that we will become addicted and buy ever more food from them. Check
Causes mysterious diseases and syndromes whether they can be detected by modern testing procedures or not. Check.
Wow. It's a miracle that mankind survived all this time when our most basic food supply is so clearly toxic to our survival.0 -
Hopefully you do more research because as far as the food supply goes, protein and fat have far more AGE's in them than sugar or carbs, and I'm talking 20 to 50 times more........again, you need to understand better about the message your conveying.tinfoil hat and head to basement time folks…
in….for more sugar scaring….
Go read about Advanced Glycation Endproducts (AGEs).0 -
I wouldn't expect any. Going back over a year and seeing most days your total sugar was well under 75g a day seems down right low. And yet for me trying to eat only "healthy" foods and no junk (whole grains and lots of fruits and vegetables) it wasn't unusual for my sugar to exceed 150g a day even though I was eating more than 1,000 fewer calories than you.I wonder what health problems I'm supposed to have from my sugar consumption.
I think instead of telling people that sugar doesn't matter in a calorie controlled diet more people would benefit from some total sugar recommendations.
How about me then? I'm usually >100g and often closer to 200g. What problems should I expect? So far, through 42+ years, I've enjoyed excellent health. Perhaps because I've kept my total calories at a level such that I'm not overweight/obese?
(Don't be misled by last week when I was out of town on business.)0 -
What about the worlds population that isn't obese but also eat sugar, why aren't they fat?
It's the extra 500 calories kids are consuming from added sugar in general, not the fructose in them.I get more sugar than that from fruit. :noway:
1) If you are tracking total energy intake, setting your macros reasonably, and eating "mostly whole foods" and limiting your "junk food" to a reasonable portion of total calories then you don't really need to bother tracking sugar at all.
2) The AHA recommendations are based on added sugars and they exclude naturally occurring sugars.
EDIT: In fact, I'll type more.....
It's important to note a few things: The American Heart association is basing their sugar recommendation on roughly half (give or take) of one's discretionary calorie intake. You can see evidence of that from this study which is where their sugar recommendations are coming from.
http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/120/11/1011.full.pdf
They are basically giving a range of discretionary calories (calories that you are free to spend once nutrient needs are met with the other calories) from about 10 to 20% and then taking roughly half of that coming straight from added sugar.
So in short, this recommendation (again, by the AHA) is based on total energy intake.
For an active male who may maintain on 3000 calories, they would recommend 512 discretionary calories of which 288kcals could come from added sugars. Note that this does not include naturally occurring sugars which is somewhat silly since it's all sugar.
Finally, note in the text that one concern of added sugars it that it causes people to expand their discretionary intake beyond their recommended limits which could effect nutrient sufficiency of the overall diet. If this is their reason for limiting sugar to half of the discretionary calories then you could basically double that sugar limit provided that you're still sticking to a reasonable discretionary intake.
I think it is safe to assume that hose who are eating mostly whole foods do not need to worry because eating mostly whole foods would keep total sugar at about 10 percent. But it is the "average" american that does need to worry. The average american is eating almost 90 grams of sugar a day. So much about nutrition is so confusing to most people, through no fault of their own. Good health and fitness is not really that difficult to understand without all the confusion that has been thrown at everyone... low this.. low that... It has all been driven by money at the expense of our health. I's criminal, in my opinion.
Medical experts are suggesting keeping FRUCTOSE at 25 grams and that is why 10 percent of calories is what is recommended; that would include all sugar, including natural sugar. It is not the glucose in the sugar that is the problem; it is the fructose.
What I always say is the proof is in the pudding. When sugar is reduced to about that level, everything gets better, not just weight!
Joanne Moniz
The Skinny on Obesity Group
http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/
Our greatest single exposure to fructose is in added sugar (sucrose, which is 50% fructose, and high fructose corn syrup). Fructose in excess acts like a "fat switch". All mammals will seek a source of fructose in order to add fat in anticipation of food scarcity. As an example, black bears will gorge on massive quantities of wild blueberries at the end of summer in order to spur fat production (as preparation for hibernation). When we gorge on sugar, we are doing exactly the same thing...only thing is--"winter" never comes. Check out the research on this subject that is being done at the University of Colorado by the team headed by Richard J. Johnson, M.D. chief of the renal division at their medical center there.
So basically it has little to do with over consumption as the reason we as a society are getting fat and the blame can squarely be placed on some add sugars as the trigger...... Good to know....... :drinker:
Eating sugar spurs over consumption of all foods. Almost EVERY item on McDonald's menu has added sugar in it. Hmmm--I wonder why that is? Could it be that they have figured out that if they add sugar to any food, that we will eat more of it!!! :laugh:
Isn't it obvious? They don't have access to excessive calories in general, but that is beginning to change. Rising rates of obesity are occurring in almost all developing nations now. Sugar has become very inexpensive and as consumption rates rocket all over the world, the obesity rate tracks perfectly with it. Mexico just overtook the U.S. as the fattest nation and there are several other semi-developed nations that are in the running. http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/news/america-fattest-obese-un-144341236.html
ETA: By the way, the Central American sugar cane workers are typically NOT overweight but they are paying dearly for their sugar-habit. They are paying with their lives--sooner, rather than later.
So it IS about excess calories then?0 -
TIL that sugar is the Swiss army knife of food. No matter what type of demonizing you wish to accomplish, sugar can be blamed for it.
Triggers automatic fat storage, even in a deficit. Check.
Makes kids lethargic and keeps them from being active. Check.
Can be added to menu items by nefarious restaurants because they know that we will become addicted and buy ever more food from them. Check
Causes mysterious diseases and syndromes whether they can be detected by modern testing procedures or not. Check.
Wow. It's a miracle that mankind survived all this time when our most basic food supply is so clearly toxic to our survival.
Our excessive sugar consumption is a rather short-term experiment. In 1900, the average person ate only 5 pounds of sugar per year. Due to a constant price drop throughout the last century, consumption has been skyrocketing--especially since the early 1950s. And the "obesity epidemic" has tracked perfectly with the rise in sugar consumption. It is estimated that the average person eats 120-150 pounds of sugar per year at present although it is thought that consumption may be dropping as more and more people clue into how destructive it is to health.0 -
I don't track sugar=> my heart doesn't know how much sugar i get => what my heart doesn't know can't hurt it.0
-
No I'm talking Italy, France, you know, other Countries that have equal opportunities and generally start their day with pastries and sweetened coffee. You have convinced yourself by selecting data that agrees with your thinking.....why not try and look at data that refutes what you think so you have some balance and less emotion invested because your starting to sound more like a believer than someone interested in the science behind nutrition......which apparently you are not apposed to. Just trying to help.
What about the worlds population that isn't obese but also eat sugar, why aren't they fat?
It's the extra 500 calories kids are consuming from added sugar in general, not the fructose in them.I get more sugar than that from fruit. :noway:
1) If you are tracking total energy intake, setting your macros reasonably, and eating "mostly whole foods" and limiting your "junk food" to a reasonable portion of total calories then you don't really need to bother tracking sugar at all.
2) The AHA recommendations are based on added sugars and they exclude naturally occurring sugars.
EDIT: In fact, I'll type more.....
It's important to note a few things: The American Heart association is basing their sugar recommendation on roughly half (give or take) of one's discretionary calorie intake. You can see evidence of that from this study which is where their sugar recommendations are coming from.
http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/120/11/1011.full.pdf
They are basically giving a range of discretionary calories (calories that you are free to spend once nutrient needs are met with the other calories) from about 10 to 20% and then taking roughly half of that coming straight from added sugar.
So in short, this recommendation (again, by the AHA) is based on total energy intake.
For an active male who may maintain on 3000 calories, they would recommend 512 discretionary calories of which 288kcals could come from added sugars. Note that this does not include naturally occurring sugars which is somewhat silly since it's all sugar.
Finally, note in the text that one concern of added sugars it that it causes people to expand their discretionary intake beyond their recommended limits which could effect nutrient sufficiency of the overall diet. If this is their reason for limiting sugar to half of the discretionary calories then you could basically double that sugar limit provided that you're still sticking to a reasonable discretionary intake.
I think it is safe to assume that hose who are eating mostly whole foods do not need to worry because eating mostly whole foods would keep total sugar at about 10 percent. But it is the "average" american that does need to worry. The average american is eating almost 90 grams of sugar a day. So much about nutrition is so confusing to most people, through no fault of their own. Good health and fitness is not really that difficult to understand without all the confusion that has been thrown at everyone... low this.. low that... It has all been driven by money at the expense of our health. I's criminal, in my opinion.
Medical experts are suggesting keeping FRUCTOSE at 25 grams and that is why 10 percent of calories is what is recommended; that would include all sugar, including natural sugar. It is not the glucose in the sugar that is the problem; it is the fructose.
What I always say is the proof is in the pudding. When sugar is reduced to about that level, everything gets better, not just weight!
Joanne Moniz
The Skinny on Obesity Group
http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/
Our greatest single exposure to fructose is in added sugar (sucrose, which is 50% fructose, and high fructose corn syrup). Fructose in excess acts like a "fat switch". All mammals will seek a source of fructose in order to add fat in anticipation of food scarcity. As an example, black bears will gorge on massive quantities of wild blueberries at the end of summer in order to spur fat production (as preparation for hibernation). When we gorge on sugar, we are doing exactly the same thing...only thing is--"winter" never comes. Check out the research on this subject that is being done at the University of Colorado by the team headed by Richard J. Johnson, M.D. chief of the renal division at their medical center there.
So basically it has little to do with over consumption as the reason we as a society are getting fat and the blame can squarely be placed on some add sugars as the trigger...... Good to know....... :drinker:
Eating sugar spurs over consumption of all foods. Almost EVERY item on McDonald's menu has added sugar in it. Hmmm--I wonder why that is? Could it be that they have figured out that if they add sugar to any food, that we will eat more of it!!! :laugh:
Isn't it obvious? They don't have access to excessive calories in general, but that is beginning to change. Rising rates of obesity are occurring in almost all developing nations now. Sugar has become very inexpensive and as consumption rates rocket all over the world, the obesity rate tracks perfectly with it. Mexico just overtook the U.S. as the fattest nation and there are several other semi-developed nations that are in the running. http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/news/america-fattest-obese-un-144341236.html
ETA: By the way, the Central American sugar cane workers are typically NOT overweight but they are paying dearly for their sugar-habit. They are paying with their lives--sooner, rather than later.0 -
10 percent is recommended; and 10 percent of 1200 is 30 GRAMS, 1500 is 38 grams and 2000 is 50 grams.
10% on 2000 calories is 50g/day. That's, like, 2 Snickers bars.
Doesn't seem like a particularly restrictive guideline....0 -
What about the worlds population that isn't obese but also eat sugar, why aren't they fat?
It's the extra 500 calories kids are consuming from added sugar in general, not the fructose in them.I get more sugar than that from fruit. :noway:
1) If you are tracking total energy intake, setting your macros reasonably, and eating "mostly whole foods" and limiting your "junk food" to a reasonable portion of total calories then you don't really need to bother tracking sugar at all.
2) The AHA recommendations are based on added sugars and they exclude naturally occurring sugars.
EDIT: In fact, I'll type more.....
It's important to note a few things: The American Heart association is basing their sugar recommendation on roughly half (give or take) of one's discretionary calorie intake. You can see evidence of that from this study which is where their sugar recommendations are coming from.
http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/120/11/1011.full.pdf
They are basically giving a range of discretionary calories (calories that you are free to spend once nutrient needs are met with the other calories) from about 10 to 20% and then taking roughly half of that coming straight from added sugar.
So in short, this recommendation (again, by the AHA) is based on total energy intake.
For an active male who may maintain on 3000 calories, they would recommend 512 discretionary calories of which 288kcals could come from added sugars. Note that this does not include naturally occurring sugars which is somewhat silly since it's all sugar.
Finally, note in the text that one concern of added sugars it that it causes people to expand their discretionary intake beyond their recommended limits which could effect nutrient sufficiency of the overall diet. If this is their reason for limiting sugar to half of the discretionary calories then you could basically double that sugar limit provided that you're still sticking to a reasonable discretionary intake.
I think it is safe to assume that hose who are eating mostly whole foods do not need to worry because eating mostly whole foods would keep total sugar at about 10 percent. But it is the "average" american that does need to worry. The average american is eating almost 90 grams of sugar a day. So much about nutrition is so confusing to most people, through no fault of their own. Good health and fitness is not really that difficult to understand without all the confusion that has been thrown at everyone... low this.. low that... It has all been driven by money at the expense of our health. I's criminal, in my opinion.
Medical experts are suggesting keeping FRUCTOSE at 25 grams and that is why 10 percent of calories is what is recommended; that would include all sugar, including natural sugar. It is not the glucose in the sugar that is the problem; it is the fructose.
What I always say is the proof is in the pudding. When sugar is reduced to about that level, everything gets better, not just weight!
Joanne Moniz
The Skinny on Obesity Group
http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/
Our greatest single exposure to fructose is in added sugar (sucrose, which is 50% fructose, and high fructose corn syrup). Fructose in excess acts like a "fat switch". All mammals will seek a source of fructose in order to add fat in anticipation of food scarcity. As an example, black bears will gorge on massive quantities of wild blueberries at the end of summer in order to spur fat production (as preparation for hibernation). When we gorge on sugar, we are doing exactly the same thing...only thing is--"winter" never comes. Check out the research on this subject that is being done at the University of Colorado by the team headed by Richard J. Johnson, M.D. chief of the renal division at their medical center there.
So basically it has little to do with over consumption as the reason we as a society are getting fat and the blame can squarely be placed on some add sugars as the trigger...... Good to know....... :drinker:
Eating sugar spurs over consumption of all foods. Almost EVERY item on McDonald's menu has added sugar in it. Hmmm--I wonder why that is? Could it be that they have figured out that if they add sugar to any food, that we will eat more of it!!! :laugh:
Isn't it obvious? They don't have access to excessive calories in general, but that is beginning to change. Rising rates of obesity are occurring in almost all developing nations now. Sugar has become very inexpensive and as consumption rates rocket all over the world, the obesity rate tracks perfectly with it. Mexico just overtook the U.S. as the fattest nation and there are several other semi-developed nations that are in the running. http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/news/america-fattest-obese-un-144341236.html
ETA: By the way, the Central American sugar cane workers are typically NOT overweight but they are paying dearly for their sugar-habit. They are paying with their lives--sooner, rather than later.
So it IS about excess calories then?
Of course--but is is also about the spur to overeating that sugar consumption provides. A daily dose of 500 calories devoid of other nutrients is simply not going to work well for anyone but particularly those who are battling the diseases that are associated with excessive consumption of it.0 -
Interesting caveat to this Dr Johnson's research paper:
"A key difficulty in proving that sugars play a participatory role in the epidemic of cardiorenal disease is separating the effect of fat intake and the effect of sugar intake. That is, survival for thousands of years was based on our ability to store triacylglycerol for survival during times when food was scarce. Since the industrial revolution, food has been plentiful, and obesity has increased because of the innate nature to store triacylglycerols in the face of excessive caloric intake. However, whereas an increased intake of calories as fat can cause obesity and obesity can lead to insulin resistance, it is our hypothesis that only sugars can directly lead to insulin resistance. In addition, for the past 20 y there has been a push to lower fat intake, and the result of these programs has been a marked increase in the prevalence of obesity. Interestingly, during this period, the level of fructose intake increased considerably. Another difficulty in showing causation in human studies of the effect of fructose on the incidence of cardiorenal disease, independent of obesity, is that obesity and fructose intake track together. Thus, whereas animal studies have shown a causal effect of fructose on cardiorenal markers, independent of obesity, causation cannot be shown in human studies."0 -
Except for the people that consume sugar but are not overweight or have lost weight....
What about the worlds population that isn't obese but also eat sugar, why aren't they fat?
It's the extra 500 calories kids are consuming from added sugar in general, not the fructose in them.I get more sugar than that from fruit. :noway:
1) If you are tracking total energy intake, setting your macros reasonably, and eating "mostly whole foods" and limiting your "junk food" to a reasonable portion of total calories then you don't really need to bother tracking sugar at all.
2) The AHA recommendations are based on added sugars and they exclude naturally occurring sugars.
EDIT: In fact, I'll type more.....
It's important to note a few things: The American Heart association is basing their sugar recommendation on roughly half (give or take) of one's discretionary calorie intake. You can see evidence of that from this study which is where their sugar recommendations are coming from.
http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/120/11/1011.full.pdf
They are basically giving a range of discretionary calories (calories that you are free to spend once nutrient needs are met with the other calories) from about 10 to 20% and then taking roughly half of that coming straight from added sugar.
So in short, this recommendation (again, by the AHA) is based on total energy intake.
For an active male who may maintain on 3000 calories, they would recommend 512 discretionary calories of which 288kcals could come from added sugars. Note that this does not include naturally occurring sugars which is somewhat silly since it's all sugar.
Finally, note in the text that one concern of added sugars it that it causes people to expand their discretionary intake beyond their recommended limits which could effect nutrient sufficiency of the overall diet. If this is their reason for limiting sugar to half of the discretionary calories then you could basically double that sugar limit provided that you're still sticking to a reasonable discretionary intake.
I think it is safe to assume that hose who are eating mostly whole foods do not need to worry because eating mostly whole foods would keep total sugar at about 10 percent. But it is the "average" american that does need to worry. The average american is eating almost 90 grams of sugar a day. So much about nutrition is so confusing to most people, through no fault of their own. Good health and fitness is not really that difficult to understand without all the confusion that has been thrown at everyone... low this.. low that... It has all been driven by money at the expense of our health. I's criminal, in my opinion.
Medical experts are suggesting keeping FRUCTOSE at 25 grams and that is why 10 percent of calories is what is recommended; that would include all sugar, including natural sugar. It is not the glucose in the sugar that is the problem; it is the fructose.
What I always say is the proof is in the pudding. When sugar is reduced to about that level, everything gets better, not just weight!
Joanne Moniz
The Skinny on Obesity Group
http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/
Our greatest single exposure to fructose is in added sugar (sucrose, which is 50% fructose, and high fructose corn syrup). Fructose in excess acts like a "fat switch". All mammals will seek a source of fructose in order to add fat in anticipation of food scarcity. As an example, black bears will gorge on massive quantities of wild blueberries at the end of summer in order to spur fat production (as preparation for hibernation). When we gorge on sugar, we are doing exactly the same thing...only thing is--"winter" never comes. Check out the research on this subject that is being done at the University of Colorado by the team headed by Richard J. Johnson, M.D. chief of the renal division at their medical center there.
So basically it has little to do with over consumption as the reason we as a society are getting fat and the blame can squarely be placed on some add sugars as the trigger...... Good to know....... :drinker:
Eating sugar spurs over consumption of all foods. Almost EVERY item on McDonald's menu has added sugar in it. Hmmm--I wonder why that is? Could it be that they have figured out that if they add sugar to any food, that we will eat more of it!!! :laugh:
Isn't it obvious? They don't have access to excessive calories in general, but that is beginning to change. Rising rates of obesity are occurring in almost all developing nations now. Sugar has become very inexpensive and as consumption rates rocket all over the world, the obesity rate tracks perfectly with it. Mexico just overtook the U.S. as the fattest nation and there are several other semi-developed nations that are in the running. http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/news/america-fattest-obese-un-144341236.html
ETA: By the way, the Central American sugar cane workers are typically NOT overweight but they are paying dearly for their sugar-habit. They are paying with their lives--sooner, rather than later.
So it IS about excess calories then?
Of course--but is is also about the spur to overeating that sugar consumption provides. A daily dose of 500 calories devoid of other nutrients is simply not going to work well for anyone but particularly those who are battling the diseases that are associated with excessive consumption of it.0 -
What about the worlds population that isn't obese but also eat sugar, why aren't they fat?
It's the extra 500 calories kids are consuming from added sugar in general, not the fructose in them.I get more sugar than that from fruit. :noway:
1) If you are tracking total energy intake, setting your macros reasonably, and eating "mostly whole foods" and limiting your "junk food" to a reasonable portion of total calories then you don't really need to bother tracking sugar at all.
2) The AHA recommendations are based on added sugars and they exclude naturally occurring sugars.
EDIT: In fact, I'll type more.....
It's important to note a few things: The American Heart association is basing their sugar recommendation on roughly half (give or take) of one's discretionary calorie intake. You can see evidence of that from this study which is where their sugar recommendations are coming from.
http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/120/11/1011.full.pdf
They are basically giving a range of discretionary calories (calories that you are free to spend once nutrient needs are met with the other calories) from about 10 to 20% and then taking roughly half of that coming straight from added sugar.
So in short, this recommendation (again, by the AHA) is based on total energy intake.
For an active male who may maintain on 3000 calories, they would recommend 512 discretionary calories of which 288kcals could come from added sugars. Note that this does not include naturally occurring sugars which is somewhat silly since it's all sugar.
Finally, note in the text that one concern of added sugars it that it causes people to expand their discretionary intake beyond their recommended limits which could effect nutrient sufficiency of the overall diet. If this is their reason for limiting sugar to half of the discretionary calories then you could basically double that sugar limit provided that you're still sticking to a reasonable discretionary intake.
I think it is safe to assume that hose who are eating mostly whole foods do not need to worry because eating mostly whole foods would keep total sugar at about 10 percent. But it is the "average" american that does need to worry. The average american is eating almost 90 grams of sugar a day. So much about nutrition is so confusing to most people, through no fault of their own. Good health and fitness is not really that difficult to understand without all the confusion that has been thrown at everyone... low this.. low that... It has all been driven by money at the expense of our health. I's criminal, in my opinion.
Medical experts are suggesting keeping FRUCTOSE at 25 grams and that is why 10 percent of calories is what is recommended; that would include all sugar, including natural sugar. It is not the glucose in the sugar that is the problem; it is the fructose.
What I always say is the proof is in the pudding. When sugar is reduced to about that level, everything gets better, not just weight!
Joanne Moniz
The Skinny on Obesity Group
http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/
Our greatest single exposure to fructose is in added sugar (sucrose, which is 50% fructose, and high fructose corn syrup). Fructose in excess acts like a "fat switch". All mammals will seek a source of fructose in order to add fat in anticipation of food scarcity. As an example, black bears will gorge on massive quantities of wild blueberries at the end of summer in order to spur fat production (as preparation for hibernation). When we gorge on sugar, we are doing exactly the same thing...only thing is--"winter" never comes. Check out the research on this subject that is being done at the University of Colorado by the team headed by Richard J. Johnson, M.D. chief of the renal division at their medical center there.
So basically it has little to do with over consumption as the reason we as a society are getting fat and the blame can squarely be placed on some add sugars as the trigger...... Good to know....... :drinker:
Eating sugar spurs over consumption of all foods. Almost EVERY item on McDonald's menu has added sugar in it. Hmmm--I wonder why that is? Could it be that they have figured out that if they add sugar to any food, that we will eat more of it!!! :laugh:
Isn't it obvious? They don't have access to excessive calories in general, but that is beginning to change. Rising rates of obesity are occurring in almost all developing nations now. Sugar has become very inexpensive and as consumption rates rocket all over the world, the obesity rate tracks perfectly with it. Mexico just overtook the U.S. as the fattest nation and there are several other semi-developed nations that are in the running. http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/news/america-fattest-obese-un-144341236.html
ETA: By the way, the Central American sugar cane workers are typically NOT overweight but they are paying dearly for their sugar-habit. They are paying with their lives--sooner, rather than later.
So it IS about excess calories then?
Of course--but is is also about the spur to overeating that sugar consumption provides. A daily dose of 500 calories devoid of other nutrients is simply not going to work well for anyone but particularly those who are battling the diseases that are associated with excessive consumption of it.
So why all the other posts that were off left field re bears and fish?
ETA; I can get 500 cals devoid of nutrients and still hit my required nutrient - so it is not as simple as 'it will cause issues' just as it is not as simple as 'it will not cause issues. We need to stop projecting our own issues on others.0 -
That's about 1 banana, 1 orange, and less than half an apple for someone at 1200 calories. No vegetables.
AMERICAN HEART ASSOCIATION IS NOW WARNING US
Americans are swallowing 22 teaspoons of sugar each day, and it's time to cut way back, the American Heart Association says.
What's way back? 10 percent is recommended; and 10 percent of 1200 is 30 GRAMS, 1500 is 38 grams and 2000 is 50 grams.
Joanne Moniz
The Skinny on Obesity Group
According to the American Heart Association:
The American Heart Association recommends eating eight or more fruit and vegetable servings every day. An average adult consuming 2,000 calories daily should aim for 4.5 cups of fruits and vegetables a day. Also, variety matters, so try a wide range of fruits and veggies.
Your message conflicts with AHA recommended intake of fruits and vegetables (which have natural sugar). Are we missing some information here?
Don't you state that fructose gets automatically stored as fat? (or is that Skullshank?)
If this were true, then why does the AHA recommend that much fruit?
A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
That's the confounding issue with a lot of this, sugar or fructose gets demonized but we're usually dealing with a population of people who are overconsuming calories and reducing activity through lots of video-game-triggered-*kitten*-sitting.
Yeah, so let's demonize another group. :explode:
I'm an avid gamer and I do triathlons - your stereotypes are sorely in need of updating.0 -
Let's make blanket recommendations for everyone based on one subgroup.0
-
No I'm talking Italy, France, you know, other Countries that have equal opportunities and generally start their day with pastries and sweetened coffee. You have convinced yourself by selecting data that agrees with your thinking.....why not try and look at data that refutes what you think so you have some balance and less emotion invested because your starting to sound more like a believer than someone interested in the science behind nutrition......which apparently you are not apposed to. Just trying to help.
What about the worlds population that isn't obese but also eat sugar, why aren't they fat?
It's the extra 500 calories kids are consuming from added sugar in general, not the fructose in them.I get more sugar than that from fruit. :noway:
1) If you are tracking total energy intake, setting your macros reasonably, and eating "mostly whole foods" and limiting your "junk food" to a reasonable portion of total calories then you don't really need to bother tracking sugar at all.
2) The AHA recommendations are based on added sugars and they exclude naturally occurring sugars.
EDIT: In fact, I'll type more.....
It's important to note a few things: The American Heart association is basing their sugar recommendation on roughly half (give or take) of one's discretionary calorie intake. You can see evidence of that from this study which is where their sugar recommendations are coming from.
http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/120/11/1011.full.pdf
They are basically giving a range of discretionary calories (calories that you are free to spend once nutrient needs are met with the other calories) from about 10 to 20% and then taking roughly half of that coming straight from added sugar.
So in short, this recommendation (again, by the AHA) is based on total energy intake.
For an active male who may maintain on 3000 calories, they would recommend 512 discretionary calories of which 288kcals could come from added sugars. Note that this does not include naturally occurring sugars which is somewhat silly since it's all sugar.
Finally, note in the text that one concern of added sugars it that it causes people to expand their discretionary intake beyond their recommended limits which could effect nutrient sufficiency of the overall diet. If this is their reason for limiting sugar to half of the discretionary calories then you could basically double that sugar limit provided that you're still sticking to a reasonable discretionary intake.
I think it is safe to assume that hose who are eating mostly whole foods do not need to worry because eating mostly whole foods would keep total sugar at about 10 percent. But it is the "average" american that does need to worry. The average american is eating almost 90 grams of sugar a day. So much about nutrition is so confusing to most people, through no fault of their own. Good health and fitness is not really that difficult to understand without all the confusion that has been thrown at everyone... low this.. low that... It has all been driven by money at the expense of our health. I's criminal, in my opinion.
Medical experts are suggesting keeping FRUCTOSE at 25 grams and that is why 10 percent of calories is what is recommended; that would include all sugar, including natural sugar. It is not the glucose in the sugar that is the problem; it is the fructose.
What I always say is the proof is in the pudding. When sugar is reduced to about that level, everything gets better, not just weight!
Joanne Moniz
The Skinny on Obesity Group
http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/
Our greatest single exposure to fructose is in added sugar (sucrose, which is 50% fructose, and high fructose corn syrup). Fructose in excess acts like a "fat switch". All mammals will seek a source of fructose in order to add fat in anticipation of food scarcity. As an example, black bears will gorge on massive quantities of wild blueberries at the end of summer in order to spur fat production (as preparation for hibernation). When we gorge on sugar, we are doing exactly the same thing...only thing is--"winter" never comes. Check out the research on this subject that is being done at the University of Colorado by the team headed by Richard J. Johnson, M.D. chief of the renal division at their medical center there.
So basically it has little to do with over consumption as the reason we as a society are getting fat and the blame can squarely be placed on some add sugars as the trigger...... Good to know....... :drinker:
Eating sugar spurs over consumption of all foods. Almost EVERY item on McDonald's menu has added sugar in it. Hmmm--I wonder why that is? Could it be that they have figured out that if they add sugar to any food, that we will eat more of it!!! :laugh:
Isn't it obvious? They don't have access to excessive calories in general, but that is beginning to change. Rising rates of obesity are occurring in almost all developing nations now. Sugar has become very inexpensive and as consumption rates rocket all over the world, the obesity rate tracks perfectly with it. Mexico just overtook the U.S. as the fattest nation and there are several other semi-developed nations that are in the running. http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/news/america-fattest-obese-un-144341236.html
ETA: By the way, the Central American sugar cane workers are typically NOT overweight but they are paying dearly for their sugar-habit. They are paying with their lives--sooner, rather than later.
Europeans may appear to eat a lot of sugar but their per capita consumption is quite a bit lower than ours--only the U.K have levels that are similar to ours (and they also have an "obesity epidemic"). Also, if you'll remember, I said that sugar consumption needs to be restricted to correspond with activity level. Europeans do a great deal of walking, hiking, cycling, etc.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.7K Getting Started
- 260.1K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.8K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 415 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.9K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.6K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.5K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions