Sugar linked to heart disease, even in thin folks

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.

Roaringgael

Everyone here has some excellent points.
For me the human body is a whole system with many variants, too many calories in makes us fat, unhealthy in many ways.
Genetics play apart in what will go wrong in us first, my family is predisposed to diabetes. I make liver stones at the drop of a hat.
A couple of super skinny people I know have malignant hypertension for various almost unknown reasons. I have very low BP.
We all agree we need to be moderate in what we eat and we need to exercise to mimic the hard work people used to do to survive.
I'm sure sugar probably can pre dispose you to inflammation, particularly if you are genetically inclined to go that way.

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?

These things were not ignored in the study.

As far as I can see there is no mention at all of what the rest of these peoples diets consisted of...all it says is that it did take into account if they were overweight, etc.

I still say that if you're getting 25% of your calories from added sugar, your overall diet is to blame as you are quite likely not getting adequate nutrients. I think these things are far more complicated than X causes Y. I would like to see maybe a cross population with carefully controlled macros at that kind of sugar intake as well as regular exercise and normal body weights and see what the results are.

Again, I think these things are overwhelmingly attributable to overall dietary and fitness lifestyles...and again, I have a really hard time believing someone getting 25% of their intake from added sugar has any as semblance of a balanced or nutritious diet.

concordancia

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.

The lifestyle was taken into account, but this article doesn't address any other nutritional factors. Whether or not the study does is another issue.

Mr_Knight

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

You would find that the actual study doesn't say what either CBS claims it says or what the OP posting the CBS claims it says.

Shocking, I know.

4realrose8

Some other indications of heart disease-- your skin can tell a lot too.

For example if you have skin tags and Acanthosis nigricans, those are indications you have insulin resistance and coronary artery disease, even if your bloodwork is "normal" like mine. My doctor didn't even think to check for that, just did the blood work and said "you are fine".

I also have normal blood pressure.

And, technically, I have normal blood sugar, just insulin resistance. My A1C was just one point below the pre-diabetic range in the high end of normal. But with my history of gestational diabetes, I was pro-active and asked for the metformin script.

My only real documented risks are family history and obesity.

People think it's all about cholesterol, but it's not, especially in women. I have very normal bloodwork for cholesterol, but I am still high risk for other reasons. And women are more likely to die from their first heart attack and by-pass surgery does not really help women who have plaques spread out over the arteries, not one big blockage like men

If you have heart disease in your family, you should especially think about limiting sugar in your diet.

And, look at your skin for signs of CAD and/or insulin resistance. Sugar definitely affects the skin, and as this study shows, what's going on inside your heart/arteries as well.

Cutaneous markers of heart disease-- http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2998827/

Serah87

In. Another thread on sugar is going to kill us!!! :happy:

Mr_Knight

If you have heart disease in your family, you should especially think about limiting sugar in your diet.

If someone is obese, the reality is they need to limit pretty much *everything* in their diet.

DamePiglet

Some other indications of heart disease-- your skin can tell a lot too.



And, look at your skin for signs of CAD and/or insulin resistance. Sugar definitely affects the skin, and as this study shows, what's going on inside your heart/arteries as well.

Cutaneous markers of heart disease-- http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2998827/

How does this study relate to sugar?
At all?
Even the least little bit?

4realrose8

It relates to heart disease. And sugar intake relates to cutaneous signs of CAD.

Some other indications of heart disease-- your skin can tell a lot too.



And, look at your skin for signs of CAD and/or insulin resistance. Sugar definitely affects the skin, and as this study shows, what's going on inside your heart/arteries as well.

Cutaneous markers of heart disease-- http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2998827/

How does this study relate to sugar?
At all?
Even the least little bit?

4realrose8

If you have heart disease in your family, you should especially think about limiting sugar in your diet.

If someone is obese, the reality is they need to limit pretty much *everything* in their diet.

Gee, thanks for the tip.

And, if you are a male and have male pattern baldness that is linked to CAD too, http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/258601.php