HOW MUCH SUGAR IS TOO MUCH?
Replies
-
(Roy Baumeister's Chocolate-and-Radish Experiment)
Interesting....
Assuming it's this deal here?
http://my.psychologytoday.com/files/attachments/584/baumeisteretal1998.pdf
This looks like a good read. Thanks for posting about it, it's new to me anyways..
Sure, np. Yeah, the first time I was introduced to it I was like wow, I had no idea. The first thing I thought of was MFP and the different frustrations people go through. This may help explain why.Nice post.
Tigersword posted, just sharing - http://www.cracked.com/article_20789_6-shocking-studies-that-prove-science-totally-broken.html/ - Hilariously awesome.
HAHA! I know right? Thats pretty much the first chapter of Tim Ferriss' Book The 4 Hour Body0 -
You don't need scientific proof. Vegetables, fruits and lots of other carbs are basically sugar complexes. If eating it were toxic, don't you think even the "clean" eater should be dead by now? Toxic mean POISONOUS to the body if the dosage is high enough.Freaks come out of the woodwork when they hear the word sugar :huh:
Joanne, you definitely have balls starting a thread about sugar
I agree with you Joanne, added sugar is toxic. If someone has scientific proof to back up that it's not, I would honestly love to see it. Thank you
A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Ninerbuff: "Toxic mean POISONOUS to the body if the dosage is high enough."
And that is exactly what we are talking about. Even water is toxic if taken in excess. Taking in 500 calories of added sugar every day is not natural nor is it safe long term. Why do you think the American Heart Association is now speaking out about the amount of sugar in the average diet. We have an epidemic of diseases that are highly linked to excessive sugar consumption. Many, many normal-weight seniors have high blood pressure, one cause of which, is high uric acid levels, to which, in turn, sugar consumption is linked. When I stopped eating added sugar, my blood pressure normalized. I no longer need medication. And lest you say that my weight loss caused the drop in blood pressure, I will counter that with the fact that, after I eliminated added sugar, my blood pressure normalized before I lost any significant amount of weight. And if you insist, "Not valid--anecdotal," I would ask you again, why the AHA has expressed concern about the amount of added sugar in the national diet?
Oh--and the man who ate 2000 calories a day of sugar and only 400 calories of real food? If he continued to eat that way after the demonstration I expect he is no longer in the land of the living.0 -
Really?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
This equivalence is not surprising given that both of these sugars contain approximately equal amounts of fructose and glucose, contain the same number of calories, possess the same level of sweetness, and are absorbed identically through the gastrointestinal tract. Research comparing pure fructose with pure glucose, although interesting from a scientific point of view, has limited application to human nutrition given that neither is consumed to an appreciable degree in isolation in the human diet.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23493540
A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
I guess we can go back and forth with articles. I prefer to refer to the gold standards.. with all due respect to the government, I'm with so many other Americans who feel that it has done us more harm than good with respect to the food we eat.
Fructose is metabolized in the liver... too much is the result of obesity in this country and many others and many others coming down the line
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NUTRITION... http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/86/4/895.full0 -
Taking in 500 calories of added sugar every day is not natural nor is it safe long term.
The Swiss consume approximately 140g/day of added sugar, on average. That is 550 calories from added sugars. They are also some of the longest-lived people on the planet.
New Zealanders also consume about that much added sugar, and live just about as long. Add in Belgium and Malta, as well.
Your statement therefore cannot be taken at face value.0 -
You don't need scientific proof. Vegetables, fruits and lots of other carbs are basically sugar complexes. If eating it were toxic, don't you think even the "clean" eater should be dead by now? Toxic mean POISONOUS to the body if the dosage is high enough.Freaks come out of the woodwork when they hear the word sugar :huh:
Joanne, you definitely have balls starting a thread about sugar
I agree with you Joanne, added sugar is toxic. If someone has scientific proof to back up that it's not, I would honestly love to see it. Thank you
A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Ninerbuff: "Toxic mean POISONOUS to the body if the dosage is high enough."
And that is exactly what we are talking about. Even water is toxic if taken in excess. Taking in 500 calories of added sugar every day is not natural nor is it safe long term. Why do you think the American Heart Association is now speaking out about the amount of sugar in the average diet. We have an epidemic of diseases that are highly linked to excessive sugar consumption. Many, many normal-weight seniors have high blood pressure, one cause of which, is high uric acid levels, to which, in turn, sugar consumption is linked. When I stopped eating added sugar, my blood pressure normalized. I no longer need medication. And lest you say that my weight loss caused the drop in blood pressure, I will counter that with the fact that, after I eliminated added sugar, my blood pressure normalized before I lost any significant amount of weight. And if you insist, "Not valid--anecdotal," I would ask you again, why the AHA has expressed concern about the amount of added sugar in the national diet?
Oh--and the man who ate 2000 calories a day of sugar and only 400 calories of real food? If he continued to eat that way after the demonstration I expect he is no longer in the land of the living.
I want to be understood that sugar is not toxic.... the amount that the average american is eating is toxic0 -
(Roy Baumeister's Chocolate-and-Radish Experiment)
Interesting....
Assuming it's this deal here?
http://my.psychologytoday.com/files/attachments/584/baumeisteretal1998.pdf
This looks like a good read. Thanks for posting about it, it's new to me anyways..
"Ego Depletion", Freud (whose theories contributed to the experiment), and psychology, in general, are all BS.0 -
I want to be understood that sugar is not toxic.... the amount that the average american is eating is toxic
Americans aren't even top-20 for consumption of refined sugar, and many of the countries that consume more than the US have noticeably better health outcomes for their populations.
Your claim is not supported by the facts.0 -
You don't need scientific proof. Vegetables, fruits and lots of other carbs are basically sugar complexes. If eating it were toxic, don't you think even the "clean" eater should be dead by now? Toxic mean POISONOUS to the body if the dosage is high enough.Freaks come out of the woodwork when they hear the word sugar :huh:
Joanne, you definitely have balls starting a thread about sugar
I agree with you Joanne, added sugar is toxic. If someone has scientific proof to back up that it's not, I would honestly love to see it. Thank you
A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Ninerbuff: "Toxic mean POISONOUS to the body if the dosage is high enough."
And that is exactly what we are talking about. Even water is toxic if taken in excess. Taking in 500 calories of added sugar every day is not natural nor is it safe long term. Why do you think the American Heart Association is now speaking out about the amount of sugar in the average diet. We have an epidemic of diseases that are highly linked to excessive sugar consumption. Many, many normal-weight seniors have high blood pressure, one cause of which, is high uric acid levels, to which, in turn, sugar consumption is linked. When I stopped eating added sugar, my blood pressure normalized. I no longer need medication. And lest you say that my weight loss caused the drop in blood pressure, I will counter that with the fact that, after I eliminated added sugar, my blood pressure normalized before I lost any significant amount of weight. And if you insist, "Not valid--anecdotal," I would ask you again, why the AHA has expressed concern about the amount of added sugar in the national diet?
Oh--and the man who ate 2000 calories a day of sugar and only 400 calories of real food? If he continued to eat that way after the demonstration I expect he is no longer in the land of the living.
Thank you. I am just trying to help people who are unaware of the danger... For some reason, the subject of sugar is a very, very touchy one.... very similar to what happened with cigarettes... not until the danger was put on the label did everyone sort of fade away. It will just take time but the word is spreading very fast, which I am happy about.
Joanne Moniz
The Skinny on Obesity0 -
Taking in 500 calories of added sugar every day is not natural nor is it safe long term.
The Swiss consume approximately 140g/day of added sugar, on average. That is 550 calories from added sugars. They are also some of the longest-lived people on the planet.
New Zealanders also consume about that much added sugar, and live just about as long. Add in Belgium and Malta, as well.
Your statement therefore cannot be taken at face value.
I suppose you can prove those statements? How about the history of their sugar-habit? Is it, like ours, a post-WWII experiment? (And it should be remembered that Europeans, in general, have been late to the sugar party as, for a number of years after WWII, their biggest problem was getting enough calories in general.) Lastly, there is some evidence that higher activity levels offset SOME of the deleterious effects of eating sugar.0 -
Really?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
This equivalence is not surprising given that both of these sugars contain approximately equal amounts of fructose and glucose, contain the same number of calories, possess the same level of sweetness, and are absorbed identically through the gastrointestinal tract. Research comparing pure fructose with pure glucose, although interesting from a scientific point of view, has limited application to human nutrition given that neither is consumed to an appreciable degree in isolation in the human diet.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23493540
A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
I guess we can go back and forth with articles. I prefer to refer to the gold standards.. with all due respect to the government, I'm with so many other Americans who feel that it has done us more harm than good with respect to the food we eat.
Fructose is metabolized in the liver... too much is the result of obesity in this country and many others and many others coming down the line
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NUTRITION... http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/86/4/895.full
Where does that article say what you are implying it says?0 -
You don't need scientific proof. Vegetables, fruits and lots of other carbs are basically sugar complexes. If eating it were toxic, don't you think even the "clean" eater should be dead by now? Toxic mean POISONOUS to the body if the dosage is high enough.Freaks come out of the woodwork when they hear the word sugar :huh:
Joanne, you definitely have balls starting a thread about sugar
I agree with you Joanne, added sugar is toxic. If someone has scientific proof to back up that it's not, I would honestly love to see it. Thank you
A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Ninerbuff: "Toxic mean POISONOUS to the body if the dosage is high enough."
And that is exactly what we are talking about. Even water is toxic if taken in excess. Taking in 500 calories of added sugar every day is not natural nor is it safe long term. Why do you think the American Heart Association is now speaking out about the amount of sugar in the average diet. We have an epidemic of diseases that are highly linked to excessive sugar consumption. Many, many normal-weight seniors have high blood pressure, one cause of which, is high uric acid levels, to which, in turn, sugar consumption is linked. When I stopped eating added sugar, my blood pressure normalized. I no longer need medication. And lest you say that my weight loss caused the drop in blood pressure, I will counter that with the fact that, after I eliminated added sugar, my blood pressure normalized before I lost any significant amount of weight. And if you insist, "Not valid--anecdotal," I would ask you again, why the AHA has expressed concern about the amount of added sugar in the national diet?
Oh--and the man who ate 2000 calories a day of sugar and only 400 calories of real food? If he continued to eat that way after the demonstration I expect he is no longer in the land of the living.
I want to be understood that sugar is not toxic.... the amount that the average american is eating is toxic
The amount of food in general that the average american is eating ( (and the lack of activity) is toxic as well then.0 -
Freaks come out of the woodwork when they hear the word sugar :huh:
Joanne, you definitely have balls starting a thread about sugar
I agree with you Joanne, added sugar is toxic. If someone has scientific proof to back up that it's not, I would honestly love to see it. Thank you
Have you ever seen or heard of an autopsy report that sited cause of death as 'acute sugar toxicity'?
Yeah, I didn't think so.0 -
You guys are doing it again. Getting hung up on semantics of "what is the definition of toxic" and avoiding the issue at hand.Why do you think the American Heart Association is now speaking out about the amount of sugar in the average diet.
According to them, in the link I posted before, it's only because too much added sugar tends to result in a lot of calories with no nutritional benefit - which tends to result in a surplus of calories and weight gain. They didn't say anything about it leading to any diseases or being toxic or anything else. They said eating too much makes you fat, and too much added sugar can contribute to eating too much. That's all.0 -
Gold standard? That wasn't a study. Bray believes we live in a toxic world.
Really?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
This equivalence is not surprising given that both of these sugars contain approximately equal amounts of fructose and glucose, contain the same number of calories, possess the same level of sweetness, and are absorbed identically through the gastrointestinal tract. Research comparing pure fructose with pure glucose, although interesting from a scientific point of view, has limited application to human nutrition given that neither is consumed to an appreciable degree in isolation in the human diet.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23493540
A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
I guess we can go back and forth with articles. I prefer to refer to the gold standards.. with all due respect to the government, I'm with so many other Americans who feel that it has done us more harm than good with respect to the food we eat.
Fructose is metabolized in the liver... too much is the result of obesity in this country and many others and many others coming down the line
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NUTRITION... http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/86/4/895.full0 -
How about the history of their sugar-habit? Is it, like ours, a post-WWII experiment? (And it should be remembered that Europeans, in general, have been late to the sugar party as, for a number of years after WWII, their biggest problem was getting enough calories in general.)
I was unaware history began in 1945. Global sugar consumption ramped up in the 18th century, and the US was *late* to that party - western Europeans were well ahead of them. In addition, the largest increases in US sugar consumption came in the second half the 19th century, not "post WW2".
There isn't a single fact to support your claims, and you aren't doing your argument any favours by pulling easily disprovable factoids out of thin air.Lastly, there is some evidence that higher activity levels offset SOME of the deleterious effects of eating sugar.
Oh, there we go, the goal post shift has begun in earnest...0 -
You guys are doing it again. Getting hung up on semantics of "what is the definition of toxic" and avoiding the issue at hand.Why do you think the American Heart Association is now speaking out about the amount of sugar in the average diet.
According to them, in the link I posted before, it's only because too much added sugar tends to result in a lot of calories with no nutritional benefit - which tends to result in a surplus of calories and weight gain. They didn't say anything about it leading to any diseases or being toxic or anything else. They said eating too much makes you fat, and too much added sugar can contribute to eating too much. That's all.
To add to this. Table sugar (as compared to say sugars in fruit as that has fiber) is not that satiating. As such, people can easily consume a lot when eating ad lib. Most people on here are not eating ad lib.0 -
When I stopped eating added sugar, my blood pressure normalized. I no longer need medication. And lest you say that my weight loss caused the drop in blood pressure, I will counter that with the fact that, after I eliminated added sugar, my blood pressure normalized before I lost any significant amount of weight.
I wish that worked for me. I've pretty much eliminated added sugar from my diet. BP didn't go down. My doctor wanted me to go on a second medication. But since it's reported to have side effects I don't much like, I'm holding off for a couple of weeks. It seems that as my weight goes down, so does my BP. Hoping if I can get it down a bit more, the one medication will be enough to keep it in check. But I am ALWAYS interested in hearing what has helped people get the BP down. I'll give about anything a shot if it doesn't sound foolish or dangerous.0 -
oh, yeah?I want to be understood that sugar is not toxic.... the amount that the average american is eating is toxic
well, yo MOMMA Is toxic!0 -
Really?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
This equivalence is not surprising given that both of these sugars contain approximately equal amounts of fructose and glucose, contain the same number of calories, possess the same level of sweetness, and are absorbed identically through the gastrointestinal tract. Research comparing pure fructose with pure glucose, although interesting from a scientific point of view, has limited application to human nutrition given that neither is consumed to an appreciable degree in isolation in the human diet.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23493540
A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
I guess we can go back and forth with articles. I prefer to refer to the gold standards.. with all due respect to the government, I'm with so many other Americans who feel that it has done us more harm than good with respect to the food we eat.
Fructose is metabolized in the liver... too much is the result of obesity in this country and many others and many others coming down the line
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NUTRITION... http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/86/4/895.full
Where does that article say what you are implying it says?
I am not implying the article says anything. I posted it as a very reliable source.0 -
Source of what exactly.
Really?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
This equivalence is not surprising given that both of these sugars contain approximately equal amounts of fructose and glucose, contain the same number of calories, possess the same level of sweetness, and are absorbed identically through the gastrointestinal tract. Research comparing pure fructose with pure glucose, although interesting from a scientific point of view, has limited application to human nutrition given that neither is consumed to an appreciable degree in isolation in the human diet.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23493540
A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
I guess we can go back and forth with articles. I prefer to refer to the gold standards.. with all due respect to the government, I'm with so many other Americans who feel that it has done us more harm than good with respect to the food we eat.
Fructose is metabolized in the liver... too much is the result of obesity in this country and many others and many others coming down the line
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NUTRITION... http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/86/4/895.full
Where does that article say what you are implying it says?
I am not implying the article says anything. I posted it as a very reliable source.0 -
Freaks come out of the woodwork when they hear the word sugar :huh:
Joanne, you definitely have balls starting a thread about sugar
I agree with you Joanne, added sugar is toxic. If someone has scientific proof to back up that it's not, I would honestly love to see it. Thank you
Have you ever seen or heard of an autopsy report that sited cause of death as 'acute sugar toxicity'?
Yeah, I didn't think so.
Semantics again. I've never seen an autopsy that said "too much food" either. Maybe that's because food isn't "toxic". But getting fat and dying of a heart attack is. Once you're dead, the "but it wasn't technically 'toxic'" argument will lose some of it's appeal. Point is, arguing over semantics is about winning a fight on the internet. Not much practical, actionable information gained that way.0 -
Freaks come out of the woodwork when they hear the word sugar :huh:
Joanne, you definitely have balls starting a thread about sugar
I agree with you Joanne, added sugar is toxic. If someone has scientific proof to back up that it's not, I would honestly love to see it. Thank you
Have you ever seen or heard of an autopsy report that sited cause of death as 'acute sugar toxicity'?
Yeah, I didn't think so.
Semantics again. I've never seen an autopsy that said "too much food" either. Maybe that's because food isn't "toxic". But getting fat and dying of a heart attack is. Once you're dead, the "but it wasn't technically 'toxic'" argument will lose some of it's appeal. Point is, arguing over semantics is about winning a fight on the internet. Not much practical, actionable information gained that way.
So not toxic?
Good to know.
Semantics . . .0 -
Even in the study itself, it states IF fructose is taken in ONLY by itself, absorption and insulin response is different. However as stated in the study I posted, there really isn't a way to ISOLATE just fructose alone in the human diet.
Really?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
This equivalence is not surprising given that both of these sugars contain approximately equal amounts of fructose and glucose, contain the same number of calories, possess the same level of sweetness, and are absorbed identically through the gastrointestinal tract. Research comparing pure fructose with pure glucose, although interesting from a scientific point of view, has limited application to human nutrition given that neither is consumed to an appreciable degree in isolation in the human diet.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23493540
A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
I guess we can go back and forth with articles. I prefer to refer to the gold standards.. with all due respect to the government, I'm with so many other Americans who feel that it has done us more harm than good with respect to the food we eat.
Fructose is metabolized in the liver... too much is the result of obesity in this country and many others and many others coming down the line
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NUTRITION... http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/86/4/895.full
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 -
I want to be understood that sugar is not toxic.... the amount that the average american is eating is toxic
Americans aren't even top-20 for consumption of refined sugar, and many of the countries that consume more than the US have noticeably better health outcomes for their populations.
Your claim is not supported by the facts.
I would ask you to prove your assertions.
ETA: Apparently Credit Swisse (of all people) are concerned about the economic impact of sugar consumption and disease in the Swiss people: https://www.credit-suisse.com/ca/en/news-and-expertise/topics/health-care.article.html/article/pwp/news-and-expertise/2013/09/en/is-sugar-turning-the-economy-sour.html0 -
Really?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
This equivalence is not surprising given that both of these sugars contain approximately equal amounts of fructose and glucose, contain the same number of calories, possess the same level of sweetness, and are absorbed identically through the gastrointestinal tract. Research comparing pure fructose with pure glucose, although interesting from a scientific point of view, has limited application to human nutrition given that neither is consumed to an appreciable degree in isolation in the human diet.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23493540
A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
I guess we can go back and forth with articles. I prefer to refer to the gold standards.. with all due respect to the government, I'm with so many other Americans who feel that it has done us more harm than good with respect to the food we eat.
Fructose is metabolized in the liver... too much is the result of obesity in this country and many others and many others coming down the line
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NUTRITION... http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/86/4/895.full
Where does that article say what you are implying it says?
I am not implying the article says anything. I posted it as a very reliable source.
So why did you link something that you say does not say anything related to your post?0 -
Gold standard? That wasn't a study. Bray believes we live in a toxic world.
Really?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
This equivalence is not surprising given that both of these sugars contain approximately equal amounts of fructose and glucose, contain the same number of calories, possess the same level of sweetness, and are absorbed identically through the gastrointestinal tract. Research comparing pure fructose with pure glucose, although interesting from a scientific point of view, has limited application to human nutrition given that neither is consumed to an appreciable degree in isolation in the human diet.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23493540
A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
I guess we can go back and forth with articles. I prefer to refer to the gold standards.. with all due respect to the government, I'm with so many other Americans who feel that it has done us more harm than good with respect to the food we eat.
Fructose is metabolized in the liver... too much is the result of obesity in this country and many others and many others coming down the line
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NUTRITION... http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/86/4/895.full
George Bray? lol"George Bray is a leading obesity researcher and is the former director of a CORE facility. He is also Director Emeritus of AOA. Bray has been described by author Ellen Ruppel Shell as a "tireless proselytizer for obesity drugs." A July 2005 Seattle Times article noted:
"A consultant for numerous drug companies for more than three decades, Bray holds patents for such things as low-fat potato chips, a cream to reduce fat thighs, and treatment for metabolic disorders."
Bray was a leading investigator of Roche's Xenical, along with Xavier Pi-Sunyer. The financial disclosure of one study on the drug's effects stated that Bray:
"...has received research grant support for the study of Orlistat from Hoffman-La Roche. He has also received research grants from Johnson & Johnson, Regeneron, Proctor and Gamble, and Novartis and has been a member of advisory boards and speaker bureaus for Johnson & Johnson and Takeda Pharmaceuticals."
These are companies that benefit from the notion that obesity is a disease, rather than an issue of personal responsibility—as do the companies that produced the weight-loss thigh cream he researched. Bray has come under fire for testifying on behalf of fen-phen makers at FDA advisory panel hearings and for being paid for court testimony on behalf of a company whose ephedra product his center researched. In a 2005 interview with CORE's journal, Bray attempted to medicalize excess weight by claiming:
"Since we don't fully understand the causes of obesity, we should take the patient's responsibility out of it. Rather than focusing on the gluttony, sloth, and moral issues, it is far better to address the neurochemical imbalance and why it occurs."0 -
I want to be understood that sugar is not toxic.... the amount that the average american is eating is toxic
Americans aren't even top-20 for consumption of refined sugar, and many of the countries that consume more than the US have noticeably better health outcomes for their populations.
Your claim is not supported by the facts.
I would ask you to prove your assertions.
Google will take you to the primary sources. Between 1870 and 1930, US sugar consumption increased 400%. Between 1930 and today, it has barely increased 25%. You can find the raw numbers at USDA.0 -
I want to be understood that sugar is not toxic.... the amount that the average american is eating is toxic
Americans aren't even top-20 for consumption of refined sugar, and many of the countries that consume more than the US have noticeably better health outcomes for their populations.
Your claim is not supported by the facts.
I would ask you to prove your assertions.
Google will take you to the primary sources. Between 1870 and 1930, US sugar consumption increased 400%. Between 1930 and today, it has barely increased 25%. You can find the raw numbers at USDA.
Apparently, the economic impact of the diseases related to excessive sugar consumption is starting to raise some eyebrows in Switzerland: https://www.credit-suisse.com/ca/en/news-and-expertise/topics/health-care.article.html/article/pwp/news-and-expertise/2013/09/en/is-sugar-turning-the-economy-sour.html
Also--those USDA numbers are meaningless because they are based on production not consumption. The U.S. imports massive quantities of sugar.0 -
Freaks come out of the woodwork when they hear the word sugar :huh:
Joanne, you definitely have balls starting a thread about sugar
I agree with you Joanne, added sugar is toxic. If someone has scientific proof to back up that it's not, I would honestly love to see it. Thank you
Have you ever seen or heard of an autopsy report that sited cause of death as 'acute sugar toxicity'?
Yeah, I didn't think so.
Semantics again. I've never seen an autopsy that said "too much food" either. Maybe that's because food isn't "toxic". But getting fat and dying of a heart attack is. Once you're dead, the "but it wasn't technically 'toxic'" argument will lose some of it's appeal. Point is, arguing over semantics is about winning a fight on the internet. Not much practical, actionable information gained that way.
So not toxic?
Good to know.
Semantics . . .
Sure, if that's how you want to look at it.
It's kind of like saying "Cigarettes will kill you". Technically, cigarettes have never killed anyone. It's lung cancer that kills people. But using an argument like that to say "cigarettes don't kill people" is misleading. Oh, it's true, but it intentionally creates the impression that smoking is safe. That kind of argument is often followed by an anecdotal argument like "a woman in the Ukraine lived to 108 and smoked a pack a day". And it's probably true. But most people look at the available evidence and decide that smoking isn't a great idea and likely has a very strong link to lung cancer. So why make a case that, while technically accurate, goes out of it's way to create a misleading impression?
This sugar nonsense is kind of the same thing. Someone says something like "it causes all kinds of diseases". Meh. That's probably a misinformed statement. Best to just say so. When you start down the "Sugar is fine. Eat all you want." road, you're kind of going off the other way. As soon as you say "Eat all you want" you have to qualify it with IIFYM. So why go there in the first place? Just say what you mean. Bad info is bad info either way.
Not to mention, it's always a dubious way to argue. "Toxic means poisonous". Yup, it does. But it also means "deadly: causing serious harm or death." Could you argue that something like cigarettes that can lead to a result that ultimately results in death is "toxic"? Sure you could. Probably pushing the technical definition, but in colloquial use people say things like that all the time. At what point does a phrase like that stop being a literal statement and become a metaphor? And does it matter when trying to explain a very broad point? The issue is, should I stop smoking or not? How does that tangential logic contribute to the decision?
A lot of people consume a lot of sugar and the AHA is suggesting that it is a contributing factor to over-eating and obesity. Anyone here would suggest that you should try to hit your macros, and there's no question that some people drink enough soda to make that difficult to do that at a calorie deficit, or even at a maintenance level. Would anyone here advise someone to add 10 cans of soda to their diet? The AHA is not saying you can't consume added sugar. They're just saying work it into an otherwise healthy diet in moderation. Sounds exactly like IIFYM.0 -
I want to be understood that sugar is not toxic.... the amount that the average american is eating is toxic
Americans aren't even top-20 for consumption of refined sugar, and many of the countries that consume more than the US have noticeably better health outcomes for their populations.
Your claim is not supported by the facts.
I would ask you to prove your assertions.
ETA: Apparently Credit Swisse (of all people) are concerned about the economic impact of sugar consumption and disease in the Swiss people: https://www.credit-suisse.com/ca/en/news-and-expertise/topics/health-care.article.html/article/pwp/news-and-expertise/2013/09/en/is-sugar-turning-the-economy-sour.html
Yeah, their fear of fat is being turned into a fear of sugar.
Brits Go Nuts over Sugar
The front page of notorious U.K. tabloid the Daily Mail — so notable for hyping scares about everything from cancer to foreigners that somebody made a “headline generator” to show just how ridiculous the paper can be — puts the nutrition nanny-state’s latest implausible claim in stark relief. If the Mail and Robert Lustig-backed pressure group “Action on Sugar” are to be believed, sugar is as bad as tobacco.
They shouldn’t. It’s a common-sense fact that cigarette smoke is harmful from the first inhalation while sugar can (and has) been consumed in moderation for centuries without incident. Likewise, you can’t “catch” obesity or pull it out of the air, like you can with smoky haze. All told, the supposed tobacco equivalence is a claim — like Lustig’s assertion that sugar is “toxic” — that stretches beyond lunacy and is in fact quite irresponsible.
All credible evidence indicates that targeting a single ingredient as the cause of obesity and not fostering a whole-lifestyle approach to weight control will not succeed in reducing obesity. While Lustig and his cohorts pull out of thin air a demand for a law requiring a 30-percent reduction in sugar content, food companies are following science and consumer demand to make changes that will actually help.
Remember the pledge to reduce calories in the food supply by 1.5 trillion per year? The partnership of companies that made the pledge declared success early last year, two full years ahead of schedule. Activists whined that it wasn’t enough (even though the reduction is more effective at reducing calories than the horribly unpopular soda tax they demand would be), and dour food scold Marion Nestle seemed to imply that the companies might be fudging the figures.
Well, the independent analysis is in—and the companies beat their goal by 400%, cutting total calories sold by 6.4 trillion. Consumer demand and voluntary action have succeeded where government programs have failed and will continue to fail. We think there’s a lesson for the Lustig crowd here, but we aren’t holding our breaths expecting them to take it.
*from CCF.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