Sugar linked to heart disease, even in thin folks

4realrose8

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/study-too-much-sugar-is-linked-to-fatal-heart-disease/

Achrya

Tagging, for after my nap.

_Zardoz_

I'm afraid that study doesn't really prove anything. As the methodolgy used does not prove any causal link. All it does is muddy the water even more

chezjuan

Title should be "Too much added sugar linked to heart disease"

From the article:

The researchers focused on sugar added to processed foods or drinks, or sprinkled in coffee or cereal. Even foods that don't taste sweet have added sugar, including many brands of packaged bread, tomato sauce and salad dressing. Naturally occurring sugar, in fruit and some other foods, wasn't counted.

and

Adults who got at least 25 percent of their calories from added sugar were almost three times more likely to die of heart problems than those who consumed the least - less than 10 percent.

I would think that people getting 25% of their total calories from added sugar alone would be deficient in many nutrients (both macro and micro).

ETA: Now I've piqued my curiosity and did some math, it would definitely be possible to meet your goals on a diet containing 25% added sugar if, other than the sugar, you are very carb-conscious. On a 2000 calorie diet, assuming 45% carbs, you would have 225g of carbs available. 25% of total calories becomes 125g of carbs, leaving 100g of carbs. But I also think that a person who would eat 25% of their calories from added sugar generally would not be the type of person who would watch their macros and micros that closely. I do understand that there are exceptions, and I wonder if they have a better statistical outcome (25% of calories from added sugars, but meet all macro and micro goals).

LolBroScience

I'm afraid that study doesn't really prove anything. As the methodolgy used does not prove any causal link. All it does is muddy the water even more

QFT, useless study is useless.

mschicagocubs

I better throw up my banana!

wheird

Methodology is bad.

DamePiglet

i'd be interested in reading the actual publication, not CBS reporters' take on it.

Acg67

RGv2

I suppose...

In.

SugaryLynx

In to read later. Maybe I'll read it while I eat my Caribbean coconut Talenti...

Cranquistador

:indifferent:

bcattoes

I'm afraid that study doesn't really prove anything. As the methodolgy used does not prove any causal link. All it does is muddy the water even more

How so? How do you think a study to prove long term affects of added sugar should be done?

BeachGingerOnTheRocks

I'm afraid that study doesn't really prove anything. As the methodolgy used does not prove any causal link. All it does is muddy the water even more

How so? How do you think a study to prove long term affects of added sugar should be done?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/trevorbutterworth/2014/02/06/sweet-and-sour-the-media-decided-fructose-was-bad-for-america-but-science-had-second-thoughts/

bcattoes

i'd be interested in reading the actual publication, not CBS reporters' take on it.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24493081

I believe this is it.

ninerbuff

Yay another anti sugar thread.

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

WendyTerry420

In for sugar!

bcattoes

I'm afraid that study doesn't really prove anything. As the methodolgy used does not prove any causal link. All it does is muddy the water even more

How so? How do you think a study to prove long term affects of added sugar should be done?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/trevorbutterworth/2014/02/06/sweet-and-sour-the-media-decided-fructose-was-bad-for-america-but-science-had-second-thoughts/

??? I'm not sure how this answers my questions.

This is about the media telling us HFCS and fructose in general is bad. What does that have to do with this scientific study, other than the obvious that getting info from mainstream media and thinking it's accurate scientific information is a bad idea?

Wetcoaster

Sucrose, High-Fructose Corn Syrup, and Fructose, Their Metabolism and Potential Health Effects: What Do We Really Know?

http://advances.nutrition.org/content/4/2/236.long




Conclusions

So, what do we really know about the metabolism, endocrine responses, and health effects of sucrose, HFCS, and fructose? At present, we believe that the following conclusions are warranted. First, there is no unique relationship between HFCS and obesity. Second, there is broad scientific consensus that there are no significant metabolic or endocrine response differences or differences in health-related effects between HFCS and sucrose. Third, the metabolism and health effects of both HFCS and sucrose are different from those observed in studies that compare pure fructose with pure glucose, neither of which is consumed to any appreciable degree in the human diet. Fourth, recent randomized clinical trials have suggested that there are no adverse effects on total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol or HDL cholesterol at amounts ranging up to the 90th percentile level of fructose consumption, although other investigators have shown increases in cholesterol and/or LDL cholesterol in subjects consuming either sucrose or HFCS (66, 68–70), so further research studies are needed to clarify this issue. There is, however, a reliable increase in triglycerides from consumption of elevated levels of carbohydrates (particularly simple sugars), which merits further exploration.




Cox et al. (100) reported that fructose consumption at 25% of calories compared with glucose at 25% of calories acutely increased uric acid profiles. However, research in our laboratory comparing HFCS with sucrose yielded identical responses and no increases in acute levels of uric acid in either normal weight or obese women (101, 102). Moreover, a recently completed trial in our research laboratory in which individuals consumed up to 30% of calories (90th percentile population consumption level for fructose) over a 10-wk period did not show any increase in uric acid. Thus, the issue of whether increased fructose consumption results in increases in uric acid or blood pressure remains in dispute. It should be pointed out that Maersk et al. (69) reported increased visceral adipose tissue in response to 6 wk of consumption of 1 L/d of sucrose-sweetened cola. Increased visceral adipose tissue is an established risk factor for metabolic syndrome. However, research in our laboratory did not confirm these findings. Whether fructose consumption results in increased risk factors for metabolic syndrome also remains in dispute. Studies exploring whether fatty infiltration of the liver or muscle occurs in response to fructose consumption have produced disparate findings. Differences in duration of these studies (research studies varying in length from 4 to 10 wk) have not shown any increases in liver or muscle fatty infiltration in response to fructose consumption, whereas the Maersk et al. 6-mo study did show this phenomenon. This indicates that further research studies, perhaps of longer duration, are required to resolve this issue.




Taken together, these findings suggest that we must be very cautious when attributing adverse health consequences to the consumption of fructose, HFCS, or sucrose, particularly at normal population consumption levels. More randomized, controlled trials at normal levels of consumption using commonly consumed sugars are necessary to resolve these issues. In the meantime, it is important to recognize that scientific debates of this nature do not take place in a vacuum. These discussions have enormous potential to confuse and alarm the public, making the need to frame results with appropriate caution and minimize speculation imperative.

mustgetmuscles1

Out

BeachGingerOnTheRocks

I'm afraid that study doesn't really prove anything. As the methodolgy used does not prove any causal link. All it does is muddy the water even more

How so? How do you think a study to prove long term affects of added sugar should be done?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/trevorbutterworth/2014/02/06/sweet-and-sour-the-media-decided-fructose-was-bad-for-america-but-science-had-second-thoughts/

??? I'm not sure how this answers my questions.

This is about the media telling us HFCS and fructose in general is bad. What does that have to do with this scientific study, other than the obvious that getting info from mainstream media and thinking it's accurate scientific information is a bad idea?

The point was that science hasn't been able to confirm that sugar is the sole culprit of ailing health. The above article, and the HFCS studies are flawed in much the same way. If the entire diet isn't taken into consideration, the methodology is flawed. Saying sugar is the cause of heart disease in diets that are lacking in micronutrients is lazy.

ahamm002

I'm afraid that study doesn't really prove anything. As the methodolgy used does not prove any causal link. All it does is muddy the water even more

This is a prospective cohort study. While it has many possible areas for error, it's better than any other studies we have to look at right now. Good luck designing a long term RTC of this topic!

bcattoes

I'm afraid that study doesn't really prove anything. As the methodolgy used does not prove any causal link. All it does is muddy the water even more

How so? How do you think a study to prove long term affects of added sugar should be done?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/trevorbutterworth/2014/02/06/sweet-and-sour-the-media-decided-fructose-was-bad-for-america-but-science-had-second-thoughts/

??? I'm not sure how this answers my questions.

This is about the media telling us HFCS and fructose in general is bad. What does that have to do with this scientific study, other than the obvious that getting info from mainstream media and thinking it's accurate scientific information is a bad idea?

The point was that science hasn't been able to confirm that sugar is the sole culprit of ailing health. The above article, and the HFCS studies are flawed in much the same way. If the entire diet isn't taken into consideration, the methodology is flawed. Saying sugar is the cause of heart disease in diets that are lacking in micronutrients is lazy.

I realize science hasn't proved causality. It rarely does. It simply finds enough correlation so that causality is accepted. But why do you say they didn't take the entire diet into consideration?

The study (though maybe not the article) says:

These findings were largely consistent across age group, sex, race/ethnicity (except among non-Hispanic blacks), educational attainment, physical activity, health eating index, and body mass index. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Most US adults consume more added sugar than is recommended for a healthy diet. We observed a significant relationship between added sugar consumption and increased risk for CVD mortality.

cwolfman13

My issue is this...if someone is consuming 25% of their diet in added sugar, they're probably not meeting all of their nutrient requirements to begin with. To boot, they're likely over-consuming in general which leads to being over-fat which we know leads to numerous other medical conditions. Add to that, these individuals probably don't get much in the way of intentional exercise which is also a detriment to their health...all of these things are ignored and somehow sugar is isolated and linked to heart disease.

Is it the sugar, or is it the overwhelmingly ****ty diet and most probable lack of activity that should be linked to heart disease?

bcattoes

My issue is this...if someone is consuming 25% of their diet in added sugar, they're probably not meeting all of their nutrient requirements to begin with. To boot, they're likely over-consuming in general which leads to being over-fat which we know leads to numerous other medical conditions. Add to that, these individuals probably don't get much in the way of intentional exercise which is also a detriment to their health...all of these things are ignored and somehow sugar is isolated and linked to heart disease.

Is it the sugar, or is it the overwhelmingly ****ty diet and most probable lack of activity that should be linked to heart disease?

These things were not ignored in the study.

marypatmccue

In. Because, if I had 25% of my intake from added sugar, my life would be so much more awesome.....! :flowerforyou:

michael300891

First up, you wouldn't be able to do, financially and realistically for adherance an RCT on long-term effect of sugar intake, thus longitudinal studies are all we get.

Yes they are horrendously flawed by bad reporting, inability to prove causality etc.

Positives:

At least this study was designed for this purpose, and not just tagged on as an interesting side study, like the outcomes for many longitudinal studies are (A bad example: Lets study 1000 people for ten years. Right lets see what happened, oh meat causes cancer).

It is a prospective not a retrospective study - retrospective is even worse as dietary recall is an appalling measure.

Negatives:

As we've already mentioned its not an RCT


Summary: The conclusion matches to a reasonable degree what short-term RCTs have found again outlining concern for excessive sugar intake. The key word of course being excessive (and relative to your goals, rest of diet, exercise patterns etc).

---

Doctoral Researcher in Exercise Adaptation and Metabolism

BeachGingerOnTheRocks

I'm afraid that study doesn't really prove anything. As the methodolgy used does not prove any causal link. All it does is muddy the water even more

How so? How do you think a study to prove long term affects of added sugar should be done?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/trevorbutterworth/2014/02/06/sweet-and-sour-the-media-decided-fructose-was-bad-for-america-but-science-had-second-thoughts/

??? I'm not sure how this answers my questions.

This is about the media telling us HFCS and fructose in general is bad. What does that have to do with this scientific study, other than the obvious that getting info from mainstream media and thinking it's accurate scientific information is a bad idea?

The point was that science hasn't been able to confirm that sugar is the sole culprit of ailing health. The above article, and the HFCS studies are flawed in much the same way. If the entire diet isn't taken into consideration, the methodology is flawed. Saying sugar is the cause of heart disease in diets that are lacking in micronutrients is lazy.

I realize science hasn't proved causality. It rarely does. It simply finds enough correlation so that causality is accepted. But why do you say they didn't take the entire diet into consideration?

The study (though maybe not the article) says:

These findings were largely consistent across age group, sex, race/ethnicity (except among non-Hispanic blacks), educational attainment, physical activity, health eating index, and body mass index. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Most US adults consume more added sugar than is recommended for a healthy diet. We observed a significant relationship between added sugar consumption and increased risk for CVD mortality.

There is also, among this study group, a high nitrate consumption, saturated fat consumption, and a lack of consumption of micronutrients.

I think more actual focus on the combination of factors should be considered rather than selecting one component of the diet. Like the study a couple posts above this one states, until scientists can figure out a way to have better controlled trials, mere correlation does not equal causation.

But honestly, what do I care? I'm not advocating sugar consumption any more than I'm declaring sugar to be evil. I'm merely stating that scientists are aware that the clinical trials are flawed, and that the hype about it is at this point in time unwarranted.

Acg67

i'd be interested in reading the actual publication, not CBS reporters' take on it.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24493081

I believe this is it.

NHANES?

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0076632

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/37918/title/Opinion--A-Wolf-in-Sheep-s-Clothing/

bcattoes

I'm afraid that study doesn't really prove anything. As the methodolgy used does not prove any causal link. All it does is muddy the water even more

How so? How do you think a study to prove long term affects of added sugar should be done?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/trevorbutterworth/2014/02/06/sweet-and-sour-the-media-decided-fructose-was-bad-for-america-but-science-had-second-thoughts/

??? I'm not sure how this answers my questions.

This is about the media telling us HFCS and fructose in general is bad. What does that have to do with this scientific study, other than the obvious that getting info from mainstream media and thinking it's accurate scientific information is a bad idea?

The point was that science hasn't been able to confirm that sugar is the sole culprit of ailing health. The above article, and the HFCS studies are flawed in much the same way. If the entire diet isn't taken into consideration, the methodology is flawed. Saying sugar is the cause of heart disease in diets that are lacking in micronutrients is lazy.

I realize science hasn't proved causality. It rarely does. It simply finds enough correlation so that causality is accepted. But why do you say they didn't take the entire diet into consideration?

The study (though maybe not the article) says:

These findings were largely consistent across age group, sex, race/ethnicity (except among non-Hispanic blacks), educational attainment, physical activity, health eating index, and body mass index. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Most US adults consume more added sugar than is recommended for a healthy diet. We observed a significant relationship between added sugar consumption and increased risk for CVD mortality.

There is also, among this study group, a high nitrate consumption, saturated fat consumption, and a lack of consumption of micronutrients.

I think more actual focus on the combination of factors should be considered rather than selecting one component of the diet. Like the study a couple posts above this one states, until scientists can figure out a way to have better controlled trials, mere correlation does not equal causation.

But honestly, what do I care? I'm not advocating sugar consumption any more than I'm declaring sugar to be evil. I'm merely stating that scientists are aware that the clinical trials are flawed, and that the hype about it is at this point in time unwarranted.

Neither am I "advocating sugar consumption any more than I'm declaring sugar to be evil". But this is a good study, with good informatoin. Ignore it, be frightened by it, take it into consideration when next you eat, whatever.

I don't know what "hype" you refer to, but I doubt many scientists would call this a flawed study, or agree that added sugar in the diet is not a concern.

Ang108

Title should be "Too much added sugar linked to heart disease"

From the article:

The researchers focused on sugar added to processed foods or drinks, or sprinkled in coffee or cereal. Even foods that don't taste sweet have added sugar, including many brands of packaged bread, tomato sauce and salad dressing. Naturally occurring sugar, in fruit and some other foods, wasn't counted.

and

Adults who got at least 25 percent of their calories from added sugar were almost three times more likely to die of heart problems than those who consumed the least - less than 10 percent.

I would think that people getting 25% of their total calories from added sugar alone would be deficient in many nutrients (both macro and micro).

ETA: Now I've piqued my curiosity and did some math, it would definitely be possible to meet your goals on a diet containing 25% added sugar if, other than the sugar, you are very carb-conscious. On a 2000 calorie diet, assuming 45% carbs, you would have 225g of carbs available. 25% of total calories becomes 125g of carbs, leaving 100g of carbs. But I also think that a person who would eat 25% of their calories from added sugar generally would not be the type of person who would watch their macros and micros that closely. I do understand that there are exceptions, and I wonder if they have a better statistical outcome (25% of calories from added sugars, but meet all macro and micro goals).

I think you have hit the nail on the head. I agree that it is safe to assume that those people who eat a lot of added sugar ( most common in processed foods or bakery goods ) are not overly health conscious in other areas of their diet. It irks me to no end when people here encourage others to eat sugar, because there are no " peer reviewed " studies that sugar does harm, while not considering that those who drink a couple of liters of full sugar soft drinks usually don't eat a lemon juice dressed salad with a steamed chicken breast to accompany those dozens of spoon fulls of extra sugar.
I live in a culture where the average person ingests 68 teaspoons of sugar a day almost exclusively from soft drinks, mostly because our water is bad and soft drinks are cheaper then bottled water ( thank you Coca Cola & Pepsi !). However apart from that people do not eat much sugar, because most eat a fairly natural diet and do not eat much junk.
This has caused that Mexico now is the #1 country in the world as far as overweight is concerned, but the % of those who are obese is still relatively low. I do not know if that can be blamed on the lots-of-sugar-in-soft-drinks-but-otherwise-healthy-diet, but it would be interesting to find out.