HOW MUCH SUGAR IS TOO MUCH?
Replies
-
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.
Ohhhh, since the 1950's eh? I wonder what other things have skyrocketed since the 1950s? You know, the post war Boomer generation that saw more people own their own homes, own their own cars, work at desks instead of farm or factory labor, have two person working households.....nah. i'm sure that sugar consumption is the only constant. let's just blame sugar.
glad we settled that0 -
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").
The European Union has higher per-capita sugar consumption than the US.
http://www.helgilibrary.com/indicators/index/sugar-consumption-per-capita
There are about a dozen European countries - including many of the "skinny" ones - with significantly higher per-capita sugar consumption than the US.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.
Except that they are young and typically very active. Older/more sedentary folk simply can't afford it.0 -
Let's make blanket recommendations for everyone based on one subgroup.
that's what people like you always do0 -
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.
Except that they are young and typically very active. Older/more sedentary folk simply can't afford it.
Can we please define "young" and "very active"? Thanks.0 -
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").
The European Union has higher per-capita sugar consumption than the US.
http://www.helgilibrary.com/indicators/index/sugar-consumption-per-capita
There are about a dozen European countries - including many of the "skinny" ones - with significantly higher per-capita sugar consumption than the US.
That's a debatable point. Per capita sugar consumption figures are only estimates--the real numbers are not tracked. Besides, Europeans are, as I said, much more active and they do not, in general, eat processed food with its "hidden" sugars.0 -
Especially those Scandinavian Countries.............why aren't they dead by now.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").
The European Union has higher per-capita sugar consumption than the US.
http://www.helgilibrary.com/indicators/index/sugar-consumption-per-capita
There are about a dozen European countries - including many of the "skinny" ones - with significantly higher per-capita sugar consumption than the US.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.
Except that they are young and typically very active. Older/more sedentary folk simply can't afford it.
So do we have a set age that this all goes downhill??? Just Curious....0 -
So data that doesn't agree with you is flawed, ok, gotcha.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").
The European Union has higher per-capita sugar consumption than the US.
http://www.helgilibrary.com/indicators/index/sugar-consumption-per-capita
There are about a dozen European countries - including many of the "skinny" ones - with significantly higher per-capita sugar consumption than the US.
That's a debatable point. Per capita sugar consumption figures are only estimates--the real numbers are not tracked. Besides, Europeans are, as I said, much more active and they do not, in general, eat processed food with its "hidden" sugars.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.
Except that they are young and typically very active. Older/more sedentary folk simply can't afford it.
Is 42 w/ a desk job old enough/sedentary enough? I lift 4 days/week w/ light to moderate intensity and zero cardio currently.
What health problems should I expect from my higher-than-recommended sugar consumption?0 -
Let's make blanket recommendations for everyone based on one subgroup.
that's what people like you always do
Eh?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.
Could you show where you get the stats for the 'obesity epidemic' tracks perfectly with the rise in sugar consumption?0 -
I'm off to bed--will catch you all in the a.m. Nighty-night.0
-
This got much better.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."
Related to this -- sugar intake, as a percentage of total calorie consumption, has remained pretty stable for the past 100 years. This means a rise in obesity cannot be tied to a rise in intake of any single macro - they're either all "guilty" or none of them are guilty.0 -
I'm off to bed--will catch you all in the a.m. Nighty-night.
So, no citing sources?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.
Except that they are young and typically very active. Older/more sedentary folk simply can't afford it.
Is 42 w/ a desk job old enough/sedentary enough? I lift 4 days/week w/ light to moderate intensity and zero cardio currently.
What health problems should I expect from my higher-than-recommended sugar consumption?
Ppfffftttt... You're practically a BABY!!! Just wait til you're 45! Lol0 -
I'm off to bed--will catch you all in the a.m. Nighty-night.
Thanks for sharing your opinions with us. Nitey nite.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."
Related to this -- sugar intake, as a percentage of total calorie consumption, has remained pretty stable for the past 100 years. This means a rise in obesity cannot be tied to a rise in intake of any single macro - they're either all "guilty" or none of them are guilty.
Agreed. Aragon has a good analyisis of this in the link previously provided. Here is the pertinent extract:
Here’s the latest from the USDA Economic Research Service (ERS), which tracked the percent of total daily calories of the range of food groups from 1970-2007. The actual spreadsheet of the following figures can be downloaded here, click on the “Percents” tab at the bottom (note that these figures are updated regularly by the ERS, so the version you download may be different from what’s reported here) [1]:
Meats, eggs, and nut kcals decreased 4%.
Dairy kcals decreased 3%.
Percentage of fruit kcals stayed the same.
Percentage of vegetable kcals stayed the same.
Flour and cereal product kcals increased 3%.
Added fat kcals are up 7%,
Added sugars kcals decreased 1%
Total energy intake in 1970 averaged 2172 kcal. By 2007 this hiked up to 2775 kcal, a 603 kcal increase.
Taking a hard look at the data above, it appears that the rise in obesity is due in large part to an increase in caloric intake in general, rather than an increase in added sugars in particular.0 -
That's a debatable point. Per capita sugar consumption figures are only estimates--the real numbers are not tracked.
(a) that's a sword that cuts both ways, for all we know Europeans eat even more sugar than the vast quantities being reported,
and,
(b) The error bars are nowhere near big enough to account for nearly double the consumption in some European countries.Besides, Europeans are, as I said, much more active and they do not, in general, eat processed food with its "hidden" sugars.
Oh, so now you're discounted cited evidence without providing any sources AND simultaneously changed the argument.
Gotcha.0 -
That's a debatable point. Per capita sugar consumption figures are only estimates--the real numbers are not tracked. Besides, Europeans are, as I said, much more active and they do not, in general, eat processed food with its "hidden" sugars.
IN for making blanket statements about both the eating habits and activity habits for ALL Europeans! because after all, Europe is just one big ole monolith0 -
I have no idea how much sugar is too much but I indulged in something full of refined sugar last week and felt awful. I usually over ate with cheeses and meats and grain products. I noticed a package of two Pop Tarts and started munching away. Awful Stuff!! My teeth felt like they were vibrating and about a half hour after I had finished these things I felt really down and sluggish. Hadn't had a Pop Tart in years. No more!0
-
That's a debatable point. Per capita sugar consumption figures are only estimates--the real numbers are not tracked. Besides, Europeans are, as I said, much more active and they do not, in general, eat processed food with its "hidden" sugars.
IN for making blanket statements about both the eating habits and activity habits for ALL Europeans! because after all, Europe is just one big ole monolith
As a European..I can say that the not eating processed food with 'hidden sugars' is a pretty incorrect blanket statement also.0 -
I have no idea how much sugar is too much but I indulged in something full of refined sugar last week and felt awful. I usually over ate with cheeses and meats and grain products. I noticed a package of two Pop Tarts and started munching away. Awful Stuff!! My teeth felt like they were vibrating and about a half hour after I had finished these things I felt really down and sluggish. Hadn't had a Pop Tart in years. No more!
I am appalled at your Pop-Tart shaming.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.
Do you have many children playing outside where you live? Are children more sedentary due to 1. Climate Control 2. Video games and to they have 3. Access to ALL food sources in greater quantity 4. Parents concerned their child may be kidnapped/abused 5. The lack of gym time versus gym time 20 years ago. Just curious if some or all of these factors play a role in children and their physical size? Or do you think it is just the sugar?0 -
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.
I'm a gamer as well. My intent with the comment you are quoting was simply to suggest that today's youth is less active. It wasn't to say that all gamers are inactive. The combination of lower activity and increased calorie intake leads to problems that can't necessarily be pinned on sugar.0 -
For some reason I could never actually find that data at ERS. I found this.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."
Related to this -- sugar intake, as a percentage of total calorie consumption, has remained pretty stable for the past 100 years. This means a rise in obesity cannot be tied to a rise in intake of any single macro - they're either all "guilty" or none of them are guilty.
Agreed. Aragon has a good analyisis of this in the link previously provided. Here is the pertinent extract:
Here’s the latest from the USDA Economic Research Service (ERS), which tracked the percent of total daily calories of the range of food groups from 1970-2007. The actual spreadsheet of the following figures can be downloaded here, click on the “Percents” tab at the bottom (note that these figures are updated regularly by the ERS, so the version you download may be different from what’s reported here) [1]:
Meats, eggs, and nut kcals decreased 4%.
Dairy kcals decreased 3%.
Percentage of fruit kcals stayed the same.
Percentage of vegetable kcals stayed the same.
Flour and cereal product kcals increased 3%.
Added fat kcals are up 7%,
Added sugars kcals decreased 1%
Total energy intake in 1970 averaged 2172 kcal. By 2007 this hiked up to 2775 kcal, a 603 kcal increase.
Taking a hard look at the data above, it appears that the rise in obesity is due in large part to an increase in caloric intake in general, rather than an increase in added sugars in particular.
http://www.usda.gov/factbook/chapter2.pdf0 -
That's a debatable point. Per capita sugar consumption figures are only estimates--the real numbers are not tracked. Besides, Europeans are, as I said, much more active and they do not, in general, eat processed food with its "hidden" sugars.
IN for making blanket statements about both the eating habits and activity habits for ALL Europeans! because after all, Europe is just one big ole monolith
As a European..I can say that the not eating processed food with 'hidden sugars' is a pretty incorrect blanket statement also.
I can confirm. Sugar is delicious everywhere.0 -
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:
given that logic we should all be eating at mcdonalds and never eat anywhere else….yet, that is not the case. How do I eat sugar and maintain my weight?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.
Except that they are young and typically very active. Older/more sedentary folk simply can't afford it.
Is 42 w/ a desk job old enough/sedentary enough? I lift 4 days/week w/ light to moderate intensity and zero cardio currently.
What health problems should I expect from my higher-than-recommended sugar consumption?
you are going to die...0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 427 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions