Sugar linked to heart disease, even in thin folks

Options
1…34689…13

Replies

  • ndj1979
    ndj1979 Posts: 29,136 Member
    Options
    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…
  • randomtai
    randomtai Posts: 9,003 Member
    Options
    :yawn:
  • bcattoes
    bcattoes Posts: 17,299 Member
    Options
    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.
  • brevislux
    brevislux Posts: 1,093 Member
    Options
    piratesarecool4.gif
  • 4realrose8
    4realrose8 Posts: 117 Member
    Options
    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/
  • bcattoes
    bcattoes Posts: 17,299 Member
    Options
    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.
  • randomtai
    randomtai Posts: 9,003 Member
    Options
    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.
  • Acg67
    Acg67 Posts: 12,142 Member
    Options
    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 deficit
  • 4realrose8
    4realrose8 Posts: 117 Member
    Options
    Wow, MFP peeps. You sure are a supportive bunch. Sorry I joined this place.
  • randomtai
    randomtai Posts: 9,003 Member
    Options
    Wow, MFP peeps. You sure are a supportive bunch. Sorry I joined this place.

    Thanks we try. :flowerforyou:

    Gud Luk on yur gerney.
  • bcattoes
    bcattoes Posts: 17,299 Member
    Options
    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.
  • SugaryLynx
    SugaryLynx Posts: 2,640 Member
    Options
    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.
  • 4realrose8
    4realrose8 Posts: 117 Member
    Options
    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.
  • DamePiglet
    DamePiglet Posts: 3,730 Member
    Options
    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.
  • brevislux
    brevislux Posts: 1,093 Member
    Options
    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.
  • 4realrose8
    4realrose8 Posts: 117 Member
    Options
    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.
  • bcattoes
    bcattoes Posts: 17,299 Member
    Options
    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??
  • Acg67
    Acg67 Posts: 12,142 Member
    Options
    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...
  • neanderthin
    neanderthin Posts: 10,022 Member
    Options
    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.
    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.
  • bcattoes
    bcattoes Posts: 17,299 Member
    Options
    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?

Categories