Sugar linked to heart disease, even in thin folks

stevencloser

Many people fudge entries on MFP and sites like it. It is far from controlled. Second, it would focus on people actively trying to control weight, so would not be a broad study across all cohorts.

For a controlled study, diet would need to be monitored 24 hours a day, every day, for years. Not self reported. Prisoners could be a viable option, but even then it would narrow it to a specific cohort.

The power of megavolume is that data quality stops mattering. Volume creates the control.

MFP for example could very easily reverse engineer the caloric values of all foods and give more accurate data than labels do.

You are still relying on the subjects to enter what they consume correctly. Self reliance is not control. Volume is not control. If it were, there would no need for this discussion.

High volume does iron out occasional wrong entries, as long as not too many are faulty.

DamePiglet

With that said my days are numbered :noway: :grumble:

I'm dead already. RIP, me.:sick:

SugaryLynx

With that said my days are numbered :noway: :grumble:

I'm dead already. RIP, me.:sick:

Noooo. You can't die. We all really liked youuuuu♡

bcattoes

Many people fudge entries on MFP and sites like it. It is far from controlled. Second, it would focus on people actively trying to control weight, so would not be a broad study across all cohorts.

For a controlled study, diet would need to be monitored 24 hours a day, every day, for years. Not self reported. Prisoners could be a viable option, but even then it would narrow it to a specific cohort.

The power of megavolume is that data quality stops mattering. Volume creates the control.

MFP for example could very easily reverse engineer the caloric values of all foods and give more accurate data than labels do.

You are still relying on the subjects to enter what they consume correctly. Self reliance is not control. Volume is not control. If it were, there would no need for this discussion.

High volume does iron out occasional wrong entries, as long as not too many are faulty.

Cool, then this study data is valid.

Greytfish

A better tobacco correlation would be to include smokeless tobacco in a study on the effects of smoking.

Smokeless tobacco? Or do you mean vaporized nicotine oil?

I was refering to things such as snuff and chewing tobacco, but anything tobacco product that is not smoked or not tobacco should not be included in a study on smoking tobacco.

What relevance would smokeless tobacco have to do with the effects of smoking?

If you were discussing the effects of nicotine consumption that might make sense, though that has been thoroughly studied.

Greytfish

Many people fudge entries on MFP and sites like it. It is far from controlled. Second, it would focus on people actively trying to control weight, so would not be a broad study across all cohorts.

For a controlled study, diet would need to be monitored 24 hours a day, every day, for years. Not self reported. Prisoners could be a viable option, but even then it would narrow it to a specific cohort.

The power of megavolume is that data quality stops mattering. Volume creates the control.

MFP for example could very easily reverse engineer the caloric values of all foods and give more accurate data than labels do.

You are still relying on the subjects to enter what they consume correctly. Self reliance is not control. Volume is not control. If it were, there would no need for this discussion.

High volume does iron out occasional wrong entries, as long as not too many are faulty.

In a population largely comprised of people with a broadly demonstrated lack of self regulation and control? Really?

waldo56

You're wasting your time trying to argue rationally here. The cool kids have decided we can't blame sugar for anything. Therefore we must demonize all studies that demonstrate added sugar may actually be unhealthy (the horror!).

To consider sugar "unhealthy" you need to have a very poor understanding of human physiology and metabolism.

Our body is extremely efficient at converting all digestible carbs into sugar. Our bodies can directly metabolize sugar and it runs through our veins. Our brains run on sugar (unless in keytosis, which is more of a protection mechanism than preferred). Sugar is clearly a nutrient we are highly developed to utilize, between all our various systems.

To consider sugar poison or even unhealthy conveys a gross lack of understanding of human physiology.

It is possible to consume too much, but this is true of all nutrients, macro or micro, even water. How much is too much as always is context dependent.

Please don't put words into my mouth. Did I say sugar was unhealthy? Nope, but too much added sugar in your diet is likely to be unhealthy in the long run.

By what mechanism would the long run differ from the short term?

This speaks to my point about understanding physiology. How exactly would this occur? We have extensive systems designed to efficiently use sugar in the body. Why is there a difference in the long term. By what mechanism?

Glucose (sugar) is one of the fundamental sources of energy for humans.

Therefore we must demonize all studies that demonstrate added sugar may actually be unhealthy (the horror!)

Clearly you didn't say or imply that sugar in unhealthy. I'm putting words in your mouth.

bcattoes

A better tobacco correlation would be to include smokeless tobacco in a study on the effects of smoking.

Smokeless tobacco? Or do you mean vaporized nicotine oil?

I was refering to things such as snuff and chewing tobacco, but anything tobacco product that is not smoked or not tobacco should not be included in a study on smoking tobacco.

What relevance would smokeless tobacco have to do with the effects of smoking?

None, that was my point.

Greytfish

A better tobacco correlation would be to include smokeless tobacco in a study on the effects of smoking.

Smokeless tobacco? Or do you mean vaporized nicotine oil?

I was refering to things such as snuff and chewing tobacco, but anything tobacco product that is not smoked or not tobacco should not be included in a study on smoking tobacco.

What relevance would smokeless tobacco have to do with the effects of smoking?

None, that was my point.

Except that's a terrible proxy for studying the effect of added sugars vs. naturally occurring sugars. In both smoke and smokeless tobacco, the commonality of the nicotine is the most destructive component. So, that parallel woul argue that sugar in all forms is dangerous?

stevencloser

Many people fudge entries on MFP and sites like it. It is far from controlled. Second, it would focus on people actively trying to control weight, so would not be a broad study across all cohorts.

For a controlled study, diet would need to be monitored 24 hours a day, every day, for years. Not self reported. Prisoners could be a viable option, but even then it would narrow it to a specific cohort.

The power of megavolume is that data quality stops mattering. Volume creates the control.

MFP for example could very easily reverse engineer the caloric values of all foods and give more accurate data than labels do.

You are still relying on the subjects to enter what they consume correctly. Self reliance is not control. Volume is not control. If it were, there would no need for this discussion.

High volume does iron out occasional wrong entries, as long as not too many are faulty.

In a population largely comprised of people with a broadly demonstrated lack of self regulation and control? Really?

Which is why MFP would be better suited than "hey we give you 50 bucks if you tell us what you're eating for a year."

Greytfish

High volume does iron out occasional wrong entries, as long as not too many are faulty.

In a population largely comprised of people with a broadly demonstrated lack of self regulation and control? Really?

Which is why MFP would be better suited than "hey we give you 50 bucks if you tell us what you're eating for a year."

How, exactly?

waldo56

Many people fudge entries on MFP and sites like it. It is far from controlled. Second, it would focus on people actively trying to control weight, so would not be a broad study across all cohorts.

For a controlled study, diet would need to be monitored 24 hours a day, every day, for years. Not self reported. Prisoners could be a viable option, but even then it would narrow it to a specific cohort.

The power of megavolume is that data quality stops mattering. Volume creates the control.

MFP for example could very easily reverse engineer the caloric values of all foods and give more accurate data than labels do.

You are still relying on the subjects to enter what they consume correctly. Self reliance is not control. Volume is not control. If it were, there would no need for this discussion.

High volume does iron out occasional wrong entries, as long as not too many are faulty.

Plus you could improve the quality of your dataset by filtering out low quality data.

When your starting point is data megavolume, even heavy filtering still results in data megavolume.

In all matters of heath, the big data revolution is going to be massive. And it has barely even begun.

Science is gaining access to datasets that were virtually unimaginable even a decade ago. Big data analysis is a whole other type of study that at this point has very few actual studies. That will change, big time, in the coming years. IBM has bet the farm on big data analysis, GE is right behind them.

bcattoes

A better tobacco correlation would be to include smokeless tobacco in a study on the effects of smoking.

Smokeless tobacco? Or do you mean vaporized nicotine oil?

I was refering to things such as snuff and chewing tobacco, but anything tobacco product that is not smoked or not tobacco should not be included in a study on smoking tobacco.

What relevance would smokeless tobacco have to do with the effects of smoking?

None, that was my point.

Except that's a terrible proxy for studying the effect of added sugars vs. naturally occurring sugars. In both smoke and smokeless tobacco, the commonality of the nicotine is the most destructive component. So, that parallel woul argue that sugar in all forms is dangerous?

Well, one can argue whatever they choose, but if you want to study something specific, you limit the study to the specific.

bcattoes

Many people fudge entries on MFP and sites like it. It is far from controlled. Second, it would focus on people actively trying to control weight, so would not be a broad study across all cohorts.

For a controlled study, diet would need to be monitored 24 hours a day, every day, for years. Not self reported. Prisoners could be a viable option, but even then it would narrow it to a specific cohort.

The power of megavolume is that data quality stops mattering. Volume creates the control.

MFP for example could very easily reverse engineer the caloric values of all foods and give more accurate data than labels do.

You are still relying on the subjects to enter what they consume correctly. Self reliance is not control. Volume is not control. If it were, there would no need for this discussion.

High volume does iron out occasional wrong entries, as long as not too many are faulty.

In a population largely comprised of people with a broadly demonstrated lack of self regulation and control? Really?

Which is why MFP would be better suited than "hey we give you 50 bucks if you tell us what you're eating for a year."

Even if that were true, better suited =/= controlled.

stevencloser

High volume does iron out occasional wrong entries, as long as not too many are faulty.

In a population largely comprised of people with a broadly demonstrated lack of self regulation and control? Really?

Which is why MFP would be better suited than "hey we give you 50 bucks if you tell us what you're eating for a year."

How, exactly?

Because the people here come here for the sole reason of logging their calories out of their own volition.
Ergo, I'd accuse most people on here of being more accurate when logging their food than a person who only does it because they get money.

Greytfish

The specific being....?

bcattoes

The specific being....?

In the caseof the OP? Added sugar in the diet.

stevencloser

Many people fudge entries on MFP and sites like it. It is far from controlled. Second, it would focus on people actively trying to control weight, so would not be a broad study across all cohorts.

For a controlled study, diet would need to be monitored 24 hours a day, every day, for years. Not self reported. Prisoners could be a viable option, but even then it would narrow it to a specific cohort.

The power of megavolume is that data quality stops mattering. Volume creates the control.

MFP for example could very easily reverse engineer the caloric values of all foods and give more accurate data than labels do.

You are still relying on the subjects to enter what they consume correctly. Self reliance is not control. Volume is not control. If it were, there would no need for this discussion.

High volume does iron out occasional wrong entries, as long as not too many are faulty.

In a population largely comprised of people with a broadly demonstrated lack of self regulation and control? Really?

Which is why MFP would be better suited than "hey we give you 50 bucks if you tell us what you're eating for a year."

Even if that were true, better suited =/= controlled.

You could have a completely controlled study with that. Only problem would be no one wants to finance that.
So I'd prefer a study where you can assume that the data they get is the most accurate that is possible over random person who's never done it before and will never do it again.
You could even really easily filter out people who logged a constant calorie deficit but didn't lose weight cause there would definitely be something wrong there .

Greytfish

High volume does iron out occasional wrong entries, as long as not too many are faulty.

In a population largely comprised of people with a broadly demonstrated lack of self regulation and control? Really?

Which is why MFP would be better suited than "hey we give you 50 bucks if you tell us what you're eating for a year."

How, exactly?

Because the people here come here for the sole reason of logging their calories out of their own volition.
Ergo, I'd accuse most people on here of being more accurate when logging their food than a person who only does it because they get money.

That assumption has no basis in fact.

Someone paid to log their food is not less likely to accurately track their food than people with a demonstrated pattern of inability to track what they eat. Given that most people got here because they cannot track what they eat (assuming, of course that they were not actively trying to become as obese as possible at some point as a life goal), there's no reason to think that they are better suited to to the task now.

stevencloser

People who log a deficit but not lose weight can be filtered out. MFP already has all that data fully graphed out for the user.
And coming here has the benefit for the people that they can actually write down their stuff. Tracking in your head what you're eating is by far not as easy as writing it down. Unless you wrote it down for a long time and already can tell how many calories something will have by looking at it.

Greytfish

deleted double post

bcattoes

People who log a deficit but not lose weight can be filtered out. MFP already has all that data fully graphed out for the user.
And coming here has the benefit for the people that they can actually write down their stuff. Tracking in your head what you're eating is by far not as easy as writing it down. Unless you wrote it down for a long time and already can tell how many calories something will have by looking at it.

I would suggest doing a search on the forums for posts about not logging a binge, or not logging when eating at a restaurant, or not logging exercise, or any of the other reasons people give for not logging. And those are only the ones that admit to fudging entries.

Then do a search re: not logging weight gain and see all the posts about that.

Then look up the word 'control' and see if it really applies to sites like MFP.

4realrose8

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.

Why would you eat eggs, they are insulinogenic!

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/66/5/1264.full.pdf+html

Never heard of this. Need to do more research. Maybe I need to eat more fish/meat at breakfast instead. Thanks for the info.

LiftAllThePizzas

Many people fudge entries on MFP and sites like it. It is far from controlled. Second, it would focus on people actively trying to control weight, so would not be a broad study across all cohorts.

For a controlled study, diet would need to be monitored 24 hours a day, every day, for years. Not self reported. Prisoners could be a viable option, but even then it would narrow it to a specific cohort.

The power of megavolume is that data quality stops mattering. Volume creates the control.

MFP for example could very easily reverse engineer the caloric values of all foods and give more accurate data than labels do.

You are still relying on the subjects to enter what they consume correctly. Self reliance is not control. Volume is not control. If it were, there would no need for this discussion.

High volume does iron out occasional wrong entries, as long as not too many are faulty.

That's only true if errors are similar in magnitude on both sides.

Greytfish

People who log a deficit but not lose weight can be filtered out. MFP already has all that data fully graphed out for the user.
And coming here has the benefit for the people that they can actually write down their stuff. Tracking in your head what you're eating is by far not as easy as writing it down. Unless you wrote it down for a long time and already can tell how many calories something will have by looking at it.

You're glossing over the fact that you're touting people with poor food tracking as good exaples of tracking ability just because they have a program that plugs in some of their information?

It may be harder to accurately assess your macros and micros in detail without recording, but it's not at all difficult to track what you're eating. That's exactly what people who don't have an unhealthy relationship with food do all the time. That's how they never become overweigt or obese in the first place.

bcattoes

Many people fudge entries on MFP and sites like it. It is far from controlled. Second, it would focus on people actively trying to control weight, so would not be a broad study across all cohorts.

For a controlled study, diet would need to be monitored 24 hours a day, every day, for years. Not self reported. Prisoners could be a viable option, but even then it would narrow it to a specific cohort.

The power of megavolume is that data quality stops mattering. Volume creates the control.

MFP for example could very easily reverse engineer the caloric values of all foods and give more accurate data than labels do.

You are still relying on the subjects to enter what they consume correctly. Self reliance is not control. Volume is not control. If it were, there would no need for this discussion.

High volume does iron out occasional wrong entries, as long as not too many are faulty.

In a population largely comprised of people with a broadly demonstrated lack of self regulation and control? Really?

Which is why MFP would be better suited than "hey we give you 50 bucks if you tell us what you're eating for a year."

Even if that were true, better suited =/= controlled.

You could have a completely controlled study with that. Only problem would be no one wants to finance that.
So I'd prefer a study where you can assume that the data they get is the most accurate that is possible over random person who's never done it before and will never do it again.
You could even really easily filter out people who logged a constant calorie deficit but didn't lose weight cause there would definitely be something wrong there .

Most of the long term epidemiological nutritional studies being done right now use health professionals, not a random person who has never done it before. I would imagine that many MFP members have never logged food before.

But none of that matters. A controlled study doesn't rely on your opinion of data accuracy. In a controlled study the subjects are controlled. MFP members are not controlled.

stevencloser

People who log a deficit but not lose weight can be filtered out. MFP already has all that data fully graphed out for the user.
And coming here has the benefit for the people that they can actually write down their stuff. Tracking in your head what you're eating is by far not as easy as writing it down. Unless you wrote it down for a long time and already can tell how many calories something will have by looking at it.

I would suggest doing a search on the forums for posts about not logging a binge, or not logging when eating at a restaurant, or not logging exercise, or any of the other reasons people give for not logging. And those are only the ones that admit to fudging entries.

Then do a search re: not logging weight gain and see all the posts about that.

Then look up the word 'control' and see if it really applies to sites like MFP.

Not logging a small gain is not going to fudge the numbers as long as it goes down overall. If I weighed myself every day, the graph would go up and down constantly but would still be 35 pounds lower now than when I started.
Same with a single time binge eating.
If you're not logging so often that it would be an issue, the graphs would have more holes than swiss cheese. À la "that guy ate at a deficit for half a year but hasn't lost a single pound." It would show.

stevencloser

Many people fudge entries on MFP and sites like it. It is far from controlled. Second, it would focus on people actively trying to control weight, so would not be a broad study across all cohorts.

For a controlled study, diet would need to be monitored 24 hours a day, every day, for years. Not self reported. Prisoners could be a viable option, but even then it would narrow it to a specific cohort.

The power of megavolume is that data quality stops mattering. Volume creates the control.

MFP for example could very easily reverse engineer the caloric values of all foods and give more accurate data than labels do.

You are still relying on the subjects to enter what they consume correctly. Self reliance is not control. Volume is not control. If it were, there would no need for this discussion.

High volume does iron out occasional wrong entries, as long as not too many are faulty.

In a population largely comprised of people with a broadly demonstrated lack of self regulation and control? Really?

Which is why MFP would be better suited than "hey we give you 50 bucks if you tell us what you're eating for a year."

Even if that were true, better suited =/= controlled.

You could have a completely controlled study with that. Only problem would be no one wants to finance that.
So I'd prefer a study where you can assume that the data they get is the most accurate that is possible over random person who's never done it before and will never do it again.
You could even really easily filter out people who logged a constant calorie deficit but didn't lose weight cause there would definitely be something wrong there .

Most of the long term epidemiological nutritional studies being done right now use health professionals, not a random person who has never done it before. I would imagine that many MFP members have never logged food before.

But none of that matters. A controlled study doesn't rely on your opinion of data accuracy. In a controlled study the subjects are controlled. MFP members are not controlled.

As I said. No one wants to finance a controlled study of this. Unless it has a laughably low amount of people and a short time span. And if it had, then the results would be useless because too small sample size and too short for long term effects.

So in the end, we can have a useless controlled study or a not as useless non-controlled study.

bcattoes

People who log a deficit but not lose weight can be filtered out. MFP already has all that data fully graphed out for the user.
And coming here has the benefit for the people that they can actually write down their stuff. Tracking in your head what you're eating is by far not as easy as writing it down. Unless you wrote it down for a long time and already can tell how many calories something will have by looking at it.

I would suggest doing a search on the forums for posts about not logging a binge, or not logging when eating at a restaurant, or not logging exercise, or any of the other reasons people give for not logging. And those are only the ones that admit to fudging entries.

Then do a search re: not logging weight gain and see all the posts about that.

Then look up the word 'control' and see if it really applies to sites like MFP.

Not logging a small gain is not going to fudge the numbers as long as it goes down overall. If I weighed myself every day, the graph would go up and down constantly but would still be 35 pounds lower now than when I started.
Same with a single time binge eating.
If you're not logging so often that it would be an issue, the graphs would have more holes than swiss cheese. À la "that guy ate at a deficit for half a year but hasn't lost a single pound." It would show.

*sigh* You seem to be missing the big point. Seriously, look up the word control.

bcattoes

Many people fudge entries on MFP and sites like it. It is far from controlled. Second, it would focus on people actively trying to control weight, so would not be a broad study across all cohorts.

For a controlled study, diet would need to be monitored 24 hours a day, every day, for years. Not self reported. Prisoners could be a viable option, but even then it would narrow it to a specific cohort.

The power of megavolume is that data quality stops mattering. Volume creates the control.

MFP for example could very easily reverse engineer the caloric values of all foods and give more accurate data than labels do.

You are still relying on the subjects to enter what they consume correctly. Self reliance is not control. Volume is not control. If it were, there would no need for this discussion.

High volume does iron out occasional wrong entries, as long as not too many are faulty.

In a population largely comprised of people with a broadly demonstrated lack of self regulation and control? Really?

Which is why MFP would be better suited than "hey we give you 50 bucks if you tell us what you're eating for a year."

Even if that were true, better suited =/= controlled.

You could have a completely controlled study with that. Only problem would be no one wants to finance that.
So I'd prefer a study where you can assume that the data they get is the most accurate that is possible over random person who's never done it before and will never do it again.
You could even really easily filter out people who logged a constant calorie deficit but didn't lose weight cause there would definitely be something wrong there .

Most of the long term epidemiological nutritional studies being done right now use health professionals, not a random person who has never done it before. I would imagine that many MFP members have never logged food before.

But none of that matters. A controlled study doesn't rely on your opinion of data accuracy. In a controlled study the subjects are controlled. MFP members are not controlled.

As I said. No one wants to finance a controlled study of this. Unless it has a laughably low amount of people and a short time span. And if it had, then the results would be useless because too small sample size and too short for long term effects.

So in the end, we can have a useless controlled study or a not as useless non-controlled study.

And we have come full circle.