HOW MUCH SUGAR IS TOO MUCH?
Replies
-
Glazed donut in hand...YUM!
But seriously - actually nevermind.
Really shouldn't eat glazed donuts -- not healthy. That's why I choose to eat, as a healthy alternative, glazed yeast rings:
0 -
With reference to the 500 extra calories... We can still eat low calorie and unknowingly go overboard on fructose, the main culprit in the fight against obesity..... That is the problem at hand
Do you have any evidence that fructose can prevent fat loss or lead to fat gain under conditions of energy restriction?
I'm not aware that such evidence exists. Fructose is not the main culprit of obesity and you should consider sources outside of Dr. Lustig. Some have already been presented in this thread.
We know that eating in a caloric excess causes weight gain but obesity itself is a complex issue that can't be pinned on a singular food ingredient or an entire macronutrient.0 -
SideSteel: fighting irrational food phobia and indecipherable low res infographics with actual information and helpful practical advice, one post at a time.
He's like a nutritional caped crusader.
Except he's not wearing a cape...
He should be.
As long as he doesn't start wearing his underpants over this trousers it's all good
I don't wear underpants.
Are you trying to kill me? You can't be smart and not wear underpants. That's just mean.0 -
This may help some of you decide whether you want to cut down on sugar.
Recent research published in American Journal of Medicine (JAMA)
A rigorously done new study shows that those with the highest sugar intake had a four-fold increase in their risk of heart attacks compared to those with the lowest intakes. That's 400 percent! Just one 20-ounce soda increases your risk of a heart attack by about 30 percent.
This study of more than 40,000 people, published in JAMA Internal Medicine, accounted for all other potential risk factors including total calories, overall diet quality, smoking, cholesterol, high blood pressure, obesity and alcohol.
http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1819573
Bottom line is this - fat doesn't cause heart disease, but sugar does. I had a nice hard-boiled egg for breakfast today!0 -
Bottom line is this - eggs don't cause heart disease, but sugar does.
Yeesh.0 -
This may help some of you decide whether you want to cut down on sugar.
Recent research published in American Journal of Medicine (JAMA)
A rigorously done new study shows that those with the highest sugar intake had a four-fold increase in their risk of heart attacks compared to those with the lowest intakes. That's 400 percent! Just one 20-ounce soda increases your risk of a heart attack by about 30 percent.
This study of more than 40,000 people, published in JAMA Internal Medicine, accounted for all other potential risk factors including total calories, overall diet quality, smoking, cholesterol, high blood pressure, obesity and alcohol.
http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1819573
Bottom line is this - eggs don't cause heart disease, but sugar does. I had a nice hard-boiled egg for breakfast today!
You seriously need to reconsider your definition of cause. The above study draws a correlation between sugar intake and CVD risk factors.0 -
Ok I'm in on this. Table sugar eaten by the spoonful isn't running rampant across the U.S. Wealthy countries tend to have an abundance of food high in calories and low in nutrition. None of this is new information. We are over stressed, over worked and under paid which leads to hectic lifestyles and little time to plan / cook healthy meals. It's a lifestyle choice. Once you decide to prioritize your health - or it chooses for you because you become diabetic or other illness which requires you to watch your diet - then choices become more in focus. Personally I feel crappy when I eat too much processed food (which was my entire life until recently) and just really enjoy the way I feel now since I've started eating more wisely.0
-
Elaborate. I truly doubt that people are getting obese eating too much fruit.With reference to the 500 extra calories... We can still eat low calorie and unknowingly go overboard on fructose, the main culprit in the fight against obesity..... That is the problem at hand
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness industry for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
I'm starting to believe that maybe she donked a kettlebell off her head.With reference to the 500 extra calories... We can still eat low calorie and unknowingly go overboard on fructose, the main culprit in the fight against obesity..... That is the problem at hand
weird. i thought manipulation of facts to the point that they become outright lies in order to scare people into believe food propaganda was the problem at hand. i'll guess i'll re-read the thread to make sure we're on the same page
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness industry for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
This may help some of you decide whether you want to cut down on sugar.
Recent research published in American Journal of Medicine (JAMA)
A rigorously done new study shows that those with the highest sugar intake had a four-fold increase in their risk of heart attacks compared to those with the lowest intakes. That's 400 percent! Just one 20-ounce soda increases your risk of a heart attack by about 30 percent.
This study of more than 40,000 people, published in JAMA Internal Medicine, accounted for all other potential risk factors including total calories, overall diet quality, smoking, cholesterol, high blood pressure, obesity and alcohol.
http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1819573
Bottom line is this - fat doesn't cause heart disease, but sugar does. I had a nice hard-boiled egg for breakfast today!
How many of those 40,000 people actually had heart-attacks, I wonder?
How many people commonly said to have high risk of cardiovascular disease actually have heart-attacks? how many have heart-attacks when they are said to be low risk?
... these researchers need to keep themselves in a job somehow, I suppose.0 -
The big difference bewteen a discussion board of performance driven life long athletes and one centered around recovering from significant overeating? Sugar debates.0
-
The big difference bewteen a discussion board of performance driven life long athletes and one centered around recovering from significant overeating? Sugar debates.
Let's not forget "what counts as water" . . .0 -
The big difference bewteen a discussion board of performance driven life long athletes and one centered around recovering from significant overeating? Sugar debates.
Which one am I?0 -
The big difference bewteen a discussion board of performance driven life long athletes and one centered around recovering from significant overeating? Sugar debates.
Which one am I?
You MUST be Wilford Brimley.0 -
This may help some of you decide whether you want to cut down on sugar.
Recent research published in American Journal of Medicine (JAMA)
A rigorously done new study shows that those with the highest sugar intake had a four-fold increase in their risk of heart attacks compared to those with the lowest intakes. That's 400 percent! Just one 20-ounce soda increases your risk of a heart attack by about 30 percent.
This study of more than 40,000 people, published in JAMA Internal Medicine, accounted for all other potential risk factors including total calories, overall diet quality, smoking, cholesterol, high blood pressure, obesity and alcohol.
http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1819573
Bottom line is this - fat doesn't cause heart disease, but sugar does. I had a nice hard-boiled egg for breakfast today!
How many of those 40,000 people actually had heart-attacks, I wonder?
How many people commonly said to have high risk of cardiovascular disease actually have heart-attacks? how many have heart-attacks when they are said to be low risk?
... these researchers need to keep themselves in a job somehow, I suppose.
If you're not even going to skim the abstract of the study, it's probably best if you don't comment on it at all.0 -
With reference to the 500 extra calories... We can still eat low calorie and unknowingly go overboard on fructose, the main culprit in the fight against obesity..... That is the problem at hand
We can still go overboard on anything and get fat. However, we have this handy dandy calorie tracking thingy here.0 -
joanne, im thrilled to see you managed to figure out how to rotate your picture.
now to solve the caps-lock issue...
side note: as a graphic designer, i do appreciate a good infographic...so thanks for that.0 -
My rage just kicked in. Later gators
0 -
If you're not even going to skim the abstract of the study, it's probably best if you don't comment on it at all.
I actually read the whole study, which is mostly about sugary beverages, and it tells a whole lot more than the 830-odd "CVD-related deaths" over 160,000-odd "person-years" does.
Individual risk-level is still less binary than the posted abstract would have you believe, and it didn't show causation it simply showed association. This is actually written at the very end of the "discussion" portion of the study. They didn't find an increased risk in black Americans or men, though those groups had the highest consumption of added sugar. The suggestion is there, but the connections are tenuous.0 -
If you're not even going to skim the abstract of the study, it's probably best if you don't comment on it at all.
I actually read the whole study, which is mostly about sugary beverages, and it tells a whole lot more than the 830-odd "CVD-related deaths" over 160,000-odd "person-years" does.
Individual risk-level is still less binary than the posted abstract would have you believe, and it didn't show causation it simply showed association. This is actually written at the very end of the "discussion" portion of the study. They didn't find an increased risk in black Americans or men, though those groups had the highest consumption of added sugar. The suggestion is there, but the connections are tenuous.
So how does that not answer your question?0 -
So how does that not answer your question?
Oh, I see what you're getting at.
CVD is not synonymous with "heart-attack"... it was largely tongue-in-cheek. A person cannot validly base their opinion on an abstract that inadequately represents the research therein, particularly if they misinterpret what the risk is.0 -
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 had a feeling it had to do with added sugar rather than naturally occuriing ones, as I go over 25gms a day. I try to keep my sugar at 25grms or lower.0 -
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 had a feeling it had to do with added sugar rather than naturally occuriing ones, as I go over 25gms a day. I try to keep my sugar at 25grms or lower.
What is special about "added" as compared to "naturally occurring" sugars? I mean, what differences are there at a molecular level?0 -
Elaborate. I truly doubt that people are getting obese eating too much fruit.With reference to the 500 extra calories... We can still eat low calorie and unknowingly go overboard on fructose, the main culprit in the fight against obesity..... That is the problem at hand
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness industry for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
Fruit?? of course not. Sugar is made up of glucose and fructose and fructose is the problem. It is NOT metabolized as glucose is... Simplicity does not need to be complicated. A healthy diet is low in sugar and that way of eating helps one to lose weight and maintain an ideal weight.. plain and simple0
-
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 had a feeling it had to do with added sugar rather than naturally occuriing ones, as I go over 25gms a day. I try to keep my sugar at 25grms or lower.
What is special about "added" as compared to "naturally occurring" sugars? I mean, what differences are there at a molecular level?
none
end thread/0 -
Fruit?? of course not. Sugar is made up of glucose and fructose and fructose is the problem. It is NOT metabolized as glucose is... Simplicity does not need to be complicated. A healthy diet is low in sugar and that way of eating helps one to lose weight and maintain an ideal weight.. plain and simple
ummm negtative..calorie deficit is what leads to losing weight.
fruit also contains glucose, so I am not sure what your point is. "The molecular structure and composition of sugar molecules is the same no matter where they come from" - Joy Dubost, R.D0 -
Fruit?? of course not. Sugar is made up of glucose and fructose and fructose is the problem. It is NOT metabolized as glucose is... Simplicity does not need to be complicated. A healthy diet is low in sugar and that way of eating helps one to lose weight and maintain an ideal weight.. plain and simple
If you are claiming that fructose is a problem but fruit is obviously not a problem then what happens to the fructose in these items? Why is this fructose ok, but other fructose is not?
0 -
Simplicity does not need to be complicated.
It seems to me that caloric deficit is simplicity. Being overly concerned about sugar is complicated.
I'll just pass on the food demonizing & fear mongering and focus on my well-balanced diet, thanks.0 -
Joanne try and make a logical argument against why nature put fructose in any whole food if what you believe to be true, which is, fructose is a problem. Your talking a bit like a kool aid drinking deciple.........that's not logical. I suspect no conversation is going to make any sense to you and it'll have to be the learning curve we all have to go through in this complicated landscape called nutritional science. Fruit is made up of glucose and fructose and simplicity doesn't have to be complicated.Fruit?? of course not. Sugar is made up of glucose and fructose and fructose is the problem. It is NOT metabolized as glucose is... Simplicity does not need to be complicated. A healthy diet is low in sugar and that way of eating helps one to lose weight and maintain an ideal weight.. plain and simple 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