Sugar linked to heart disease, even in thin folks
Replies
-
That's right, you overate and you got fat and you overate by eating sugary things which is quite common. It's also common that a lower carb diet where you remove sugars make the food choices more satiating, more filling and you ended up eating fewer overall calories and lost weight. Basically you can't control your bingeing and lower carb remedied you of that, which is a good thing, I also cosume lower carb for that reason.........but it's not the sugar that causes weight gain, it's your inability to monitor you eating......right?Look, I've been on the diet merry go round for decades. I know all the diets. I know how my body responds and I know what it craves.
When I did a low carb, high fat diet about 2,000 calories I lost weight. How is that possible when I'm not even 5'2" and didn't work out formally at the time? Because I reduced my carbs to 20 grams and my body burned the fat.
And, I lost the desire to binge. I have NEVER gone to the pantry for a salad or a chicken breast or a pound of bacon or a stick of butter. But sugar/carbs-- bread, crackers, cookies, cakes, muffins, granola bars, sugary drinks etc.? Oh yeah! That is what I overeat.
I do think my body has some sort of issue with sugar. Not sure if it's exactly like addiction, but for sure very similar. Also, I have insulin resistance. For sure, I have some kind of thrifty genetics, too. I was born at almost 10.5 pounds and I certainly wasn't overeating in utero. My mother was/is not obese and was not diabetic during pregnancy either. How in the heck did I end up so big? I won some genetic lottery, I suppose.
I'd love to be able to eat sugar and it not effect me. But, right now, my physiology seems to be saying it's better to limit it significantly. And medical research plus my family history is confirming my personal experience with sugar.0 -
Sugar has some effect on opioids and dopamine which is a neurotransmitter and effects motivated reward behavior traits, so some people and it seems a growing number of them where sugar does effect their food choice and consumption. Removing sugar brings hormones seems to lessen or eliminate this problem, and it appears it works for you. I suggest you continue, and possibly introduce some higher GI foods periodically so that your not going to feel totally deprived. Fruit works for me.
That's right, you overate and you got fat and you overate by eating sugary things which is quite common. It's also common that a lower carb diet where you remove sugars make the food choices more satiating, more filling and you ended up eating fewer overall calories and lost weight. Basically you can't control your bingeing and lower carb remedied you of that, which is a good thing, I also cosume lower carb for that reason.........but it's not the sugar that causes weight gain, it's your inability to monitor you eating......right?Look, I've been on the diet merry go round for decades. I know all the diets. I know how my body responds and I know what it craves.
When I did a low carb, high fat diet about 2,000 calories I lost weight. How is that possible when I'm not even 5'2" and didn't work out formally at the time? Because I reduced my carbs to 20 grams and my body burned the fat.
And, I lost the desire to binge. I have NEVER gone to the pantry for a salad or a chicken breast or a pound of bacon or a stick of butter. But sugar/carbs-- bread, crackers, cookies, cakes, muffins, granola bars, sugary drinks etc.? Oh yeah! That is what I overeat.
I do think my body has some sort of issue with sugar. Not sure if it's exactly like addiction, but for sure very similar. Also, I have insulin resistance. For sure, I have some kind of thrifty genetics, too. I was born at almost 10.5 pounds and I certainly wasn't overeating in utero. My mother was/is not obese and was not diabetic during pregnancy either. How in the heck did I end up so big? I won some genetic lottery, I suppose.
I'd love to be able to eat sugar and it not effect me. But, right now, my physiology seems to be saying it's better to limit it significantly. And medical research plus my family history is confirming my personal experience with sugar.0 -
I think you missed the link in this thread that showed that medical research actually shows that sugar itself has nothing to do with obesity. It's the media that has invented that story.
That's right, you overate and you got fat and you overate by eating sugary things which is quite common. It's also common that a lower carb diet where you remove sugars make the food choices more satiating, more filling and you ended up eating fewer overall calories and lost weight. Basically you can't control your bingeing and lower carb remedied you of that, which is a good thing, I also cosume lower carb for that reason.........but it's not the sugar that causes weight gain, it's your inability to monitor you eating......right?Look, I've been on the diet merry go round for decades. I know all the diets. I know how my body responds and I know what it craves.
When I did a low carb, high fat diet about 2,000 calories I lost weight. How is that possible when I'm not even 5'2" and didn't work out formally at the time? Because I reduced my carbs to 20 grams and my body burned the fat.
And, I lost the desire to binge. I have NEVER gone to the pantry for a salad or a chicken breast or a pound of bacon or a stick of butter. But sugar/carbs-- bread, crackers, cookies, cakes, muffins, granola bars, sugary drinks etc.? Oh yeah! That is what I overeat.
I do think my body has some sort of issue with sugar. Not sure if it's exactly like addiction, but for sure very similar. Also, I have insulin resistance. For sure, I have some kind of thrifty genetics, too. I was born at almost 10.5 pounds and I certainly wasn't overeating in utero. My mother was/is not obese and was not diabetic during pregnancy either. How in the heck did I end up so big? I won some genetic lottery, I suppose.
I'd love to be able to eat sugar and it not effect me. But, right now, my physiology seems to be saying it's better to limit it significantly. And medical research plus my family history is confirming my personal experience with sugar.0 -
High carb dieting is linked to heart disease...
I mean linked means nothing... Although the studies are starting to show that high carb diet is a risk factor for heart disease... So eat that fat and protein! 0 -
I really have a hard time with this stuff (links to disease) and the studies indicate that yes, high carb diets are linked to disease, but which carbs and in what context. Traditional diets around the world that could be and are considered high carb have no evidence of that. You know where I'm going, I'm sure.High carb dieting is linked to heart disease... I mean linked means nothing... Although the studies are starting to show that high carb diet is a risk factor for heart disease... So eat that fat and protein!0 -
I really have a hard time with this stuff (links to disease) and the studies indicate that yes, high carb diets are linked to disease, but which carbs and in what context. Traditional diets around the world that could be and are considered high carb have no evidence of that. You know where I'm going, I'm sure.High carb dieting is linked to heart disease... I mean linked means nothing... Although the studies are starting to show that high carb diet is a risk factor for heart disease... So eat that fat and protein!
Oh I get it... That's why I eat what (generally) makes me happy (in moderation). For me, a 40/30/30 Zone diet approach makes me feel best.0 -
All of you bashing this study are a bunch of sugar addicts.
It's your drug of choice.
It's okay. I understand. Sugar is so sweet, how could it be evil?
lmfao! Thanks, I needed that. I love these threads0 -
People really need to learn the difference between causation, correlation and .... coincidence.0 -
Look, I've been on the diet merry go round for decades. I know all the diets. I know how my body responds and I know what it craves.
When I did a low carb, high fat diet about 2,000 calories I lost weight. How is that possible when I'm not even 5'2" and didn't work out formally at the time? Because I reduced my carbs to 20 grams and my body burned the fat.
And, I lost the desire to binge. I have NEVER gone to the pantry for a salad or a chicken breast or a pound of bacon or a stick of butter. But sugar/carbs-- bread, crackers, cookies, cakes, muffins, granola bars, sugary drinks etc.? Oh yeah! That is what I overeat.
Salads generally require assembly and chicken breast requires cooking. Neither one would be in my pantry besides canned chicken.
Know what IS easily accessible in my pantry and requires no cooking/ prep? What can I veg out in front of the TV noshing on mindlessy? You guessed it - crackers, chips, cookies, etc.
I'm not demonizing pantry-friendly foods, I am saying that I can easily waaaaay overdo them if I don't exercise portion control.
Again, if you need to avoid them, go right ahead, but all this "sugar causes all the diseases" and "you're just a bunch of addicts" stuff is just plain silly.0 -
I didn't get obese overeating protein and fat. I got obese overeating SUGAR.
So, no, obesity is not the CAUSE of heart disease or diabetes. But sugar is a prime suspect.
*raises hand* i consume sugar and am not obese…also, at last physical blood work was basically perfect….
oh, and overeating calories made you fat, no sugar…
if you want do an experiment…cut out all sugar and eat 5000 calories a day and see if you gain, lose, or maintain...0 -
Look, I've been on the diet merry go round for decades. I know all the diets. I know how my body responds and I know what it craves.
When I did a low carb, high fat diet about 2,000 calories I lost weight. How is that possible when I'm not even 5'2" and didn't work out formally at the time? Because I reduced my carbs to 20 grams and my body burned the fat.
And, I lost the desire to binge. I have NEVER gone to the pantry for a salad or a chicken breast or a pound of bacon or a stick of butter. But sugar/carbs-- bread, crackers, cookies, cakes, muffins, granola bars, sugary drinks etc.? Oh yeah! That is what I overeat.
by eliminating carbs you eliminated calories, which put you in a caloric deficit. Calories in vs calories out..
working out has nothing to do with weight loss…if you eat less then you need to maintain you can lose weight while not exercising…0 -
:yawn:0
-
I love how they say they don't count "fruit sugar" but "added sugar" was only counted..
At the molecular level your body breaks down all sugars the same ….This is like saying smoking cigarettes is linked to lung cancer, but you can smoke tobacco out of a pipe and be fine….good freaking lord...
No, it's not really. Like most good studies, this study was specific. It was looking at the long term affects of added sugar in the diet. Fruit comes with its own sugar so it doesn't count as added sugar.
A better tobacco correlation would be to include smokeless tobacco in a study on the effects of smoking.0 -
0 -
I'm so tired of the "calories in vs. calories out" oversimplification, as if obese people who struggle to lose weight are lazy, stupid idiots.
For some people, it just doesn't work that way.
Read this. I'm similar to cluster C. http://life.nationalpost.com/2013/12/10/jennifer-sygo-losing-weight-is-not-as-simple-as-calories-in-calories-out-as-we-may-all-have-different-rates-of-shedding-pounds/0 -
I'm so tired of the "calories in vs. calories out" oversimplification, as if obese people who struggle to lose weight are lazy, stupid idiots.
For some people, it just doesn't work that way.
Read this. I'm similar to cluster C. http://life.nationalpost.com/2013/12/10/jennifer-sygo-losing-weight-is-not-as-simple-as-calories-in-calories-out-as-we-may-all-have-different-rates-of-shedding-pounds/
I haven't read all the replies so maybe the discussion has strayed from the study, but this study had nothing to do with obesity. It was about added sugar and it's relationship to CVD deaths.0 -
I'm so tired of the "calories in vs. calories out" oversimplification, as if obese people who struggle to lose weight are lazy, stupid idiots.
For some people, it just doesn't work that way.
Read this. I'm similar to cluster C. http://life.nationalpost.com/2013/12/10/jennifer-sygo-losing-weight-is-not-as-simple-as-calories-in-calories-out-as-we-may-all-have-different-rates-of-shedding-pounds/
I'm tired of the excuses people come up with for why they can't lose weight and make things more complicated than they need to be.0 -
I'm so tired of the "calories in vs. calories out" oversimplification, as if obese people who struggle to lose weight are lazy, stupid idiots.
For some people, it just doesn't work that way.
Read this. I'm similar to cluster C. http://life.nationalpost.com/2013/12/10/jennifer-sygo-losing-weight-is-not-as-simple-as-calories-in-calories-out-as-we-may-all-have-different-rates-of-shedding-pounds/
Right, since there are tons and tons of people that lose fat eating in a surplus and gain fat eating at a deficit0 -
Wow, MFP peeps. You sure are a supportive bunch. Sorry I joined this place.0
-
Wow, MFP peeps. You sure are a supportive bunch. Sorry I joined this place.
Thanks we try. :flowerforyou:
Gud Luk on yur gerney.0 -
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.
The study does NOT say X causes Y. It doesn't say anything causes anything. It does, however say that they accounted for diet.
I would be willing to bet you are never going to see a long term study with carefully controlled macros. Any long term study is going to use survey data or a study group so small and specific that the results would be useless. It's impossible to find a large group of people representing enough different cohorts of population who are willing to have their diet carefully controlled and montiored for years.0 -
Wow, MFP peeps. You sure are a supportive bunch. Sorry I joined this place.
I'm sorry, did you want coddled and told you're a special snowflake who calories in vs out doesn't apply to? It's not true, so I guess my support is that I won't lie to you.0 -
I'm so tired of the "calories in vs. calories out" oversimplification, as if obese people who struggle to lose weight are lazy, stupid idiots.
For some people, it just doesn't work that way.
Read this. I'm similar to cluster C. http://life.nationalpost.com/2013/12/10/jennifer-sygo-losing-weight-is-not-as-simple-as-calories-in-calories-out-as-we-may-all-have-different-rates-of-shedding-pounds/
I haven't read all the replies so maybe the discussion has strayed from the study, but this study had nothing to do with obesity. It was about added sugar and it's relationship to CVD deaths.
Yes, it did stray from the original post. I posted an article that I thought would be informative. I hope it helps someone who reads it.0 -
Wow, MFP peeps. You sure are a supportive bunch. Sorry I joined this place.
Honey, you are mis-informed (like so many) and inundated with misinformation. We are trying to clear that up.
That means that we actually ARE supportive.
Why would you be sorry to join a site that has tools to log your nutrition and exercise and has helped so many? You're only hurting yourself.0 -
Look, people are here to be fit and healthy. There's zero tolerance in this community for fad diets and pseudo-science, and this is what you're experiencing right now. Sorry you've become discouraged, and I hope you don't leave this site because you got the bad side of MFP. But if you go around trying to convince people to ban an entire food group because it's evil, then yes, you will obviously have people confronting you. All those fads: avoid gluten, avoid sugar, avoid fats, avoid carbs, avoid whatever because everyone now says they're bad and not because you have an actual specific problem with one of them, is distracting people from the fact that to be healthy you need to keep a balanced diet and get some exercise. When people ban one thing they often go overboard with another. The result is almost always failure.
Oh, and by the way, I almost don't eat refined sugar at all. Still this link isn't helpful though I'm supposed to be on your side.0 -
When you have insulin resistance, it's not so simple as just calories in vs. calories out. When you have insulin resistance, it does matter where those calories come from 100 calories from Cocoa puffs, vs. 100 calories from an egg are not treated the same in your body.
But whatever. Forget research. Forget about individual metabolisms and physiological reactions to different macros. You all know it it all.0 -
Wow, MFP peeps. You sure are a supportive bunch. Sorry I joined this place.
I'm sorry, did you want coddled and told you're a special snowflake who calories in vs out doesn't apply to? It's not true, so I guess my support is that I won't lie to you.
Perhaps she just wanted civility instead of sarcasm??0 -
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.
The study does NOT say X causes Y. It doesn't say anything causes anything. It does, however say that they accounted for diet.
I would be willing to bet you are never going to see a long term study with carefully controlled macros. Any long term study is going to use survey data or a study group so small and specific that the results would be useless. It's impossible to find a large group of people representing enough different cohorts of population who are willing to have their diet carefully controlled and montiored for years.
Good thing self reported data is remotely accurate, oh wait...0 -
They account for diet in the respect to their FFQ, which is limited at best and most peoples accuracy for recalling on a daily basis is, well, take a guess. I can't really remember what I ate Feb. 12, 2014 let alone what I ate on the same date last year, or that following thursday.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.
The study does NOT say X causes Y. It doesn't say anything causes anything. It does, however say that they accounted for diet.
I would be willing to bet you are never going to see a long term study with carefully controlled macros. Any long term study is going to use survey data or a study group so small and specific that the results would be useless. It's impossible to find a large group of people representing enough different cohorts of population who are willing to have their diet carefully controlled and montiored for years.0 -
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.
The study does NOT say X causes Y. It doesn't say anything causes anything. It does, however say that they accounted for diet.
I would be willing to bet you are never going to see a long term study with carefully controlled macros. Any long term study is going to use survey data or a study group so small and specific that the results would be useless. It's impossible to find a large group of people representing enough different cohorts of population who are willing to have their diet carefully controlled and montiored for years.
Good thing self reported data is remotely accurate, oh wait...
Do you have proof that it is not remotely accurate?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