Sugar linked to heart disease, even in thin folks

stevencloser

You seem to be very hung up on it being controlled.

bcattoes

You seem to be very hung up on it being controlled.

Because that was the discussion.

stevencloser

And I was trying to tell you that a controlled study is not feasible for this endeavor and talked about the other person's proposition of using mfp and other logging websites as data, filtering out questionable data. Which would arguably result in better results than a controlled stufy of, say, 5 people over the course of a few weeks.

waldo56

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.

Big data analytic as a concept is still poorly understood by many/most. The idea that high value studies can be drawn from this is almost inconceivable.

But there is no doubt that MFP is interested...

“Clearly there’s this explosion of activity happening around the quantified self,” Lee said. “The amount of data that we will have about our personal health is only going to grow. … We really want to advance our ability to help users make meaning from all this data. We really want to analyze the data to help our users be successful.”

http://techcrunch.com/2013/08/11/myfitnesspal-funding/

40 million users generate A LOT of useful data.

ahamm002

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.

Huh? Do you science? You really don't understand the difference between short and long term health effects? Do you have to ask for a mechanism? There are literally uncountable possibilities. One possibility is that foods with added sugar are low in antioxidants and micronutrients. Over the long term, lack of micronutrients and antioxidants could lead to earlier onset of health problems. Another possibility would be diets that are high in foods with added sugar may lead to earlier onset of diabetes.

And OF COURSE glucose is one of our primary fuel sources. That's neither here nor there in regard to this debate. You're trying to use some logic argument that doesn't hold water. Would it be healthy to go around ingesting pure sugar all day? Oh right, it must be okay b/c "glucose is one of our primary fuel sources!" So lets drink pure sugar water all day long, great idea!

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.

That's not the same thing.

bcattoes

And I was trying to tell you that a controlled study is not feasible for this endeavor and talked about the other person's proposition of using mfp and other logging websites as data, filtering out questionable data. Which would arguably result in better results than a controlled stufy of, say, 5 people over the course of a few weeks.

I said, several times actually, that long term controlled studies were impossible. You then started in with MFP and how the sheer volume of it would = control.

Like I said. Full circle.

bcattoes

40 million users generate A LOT of useful data.

Absolultey. And a lot of garbage data.

waldo56

Huh? Do you science? You really don't understand the difference between short and long term health effects? Do you have to ask for a mechanism? There are literally uncountable possibilities. One possibility is that foods with added sugar are low in antioxidants and micronutrients. Over the long term, lack of micronutrients and antioxidants could lead to earlier onset of health problems. Another possibility would be diets that are high in foods with added sugar may lead to earlier onset of diabetes.

1) Science has not proven that you get "extra credit" for more of any micronutrients. There is a reasonably decent case for calcium and Vit D. If your intake is sufficient to avoid deficiency diseases, your intakes is sufficient. The idea that a lack excess micronutrients will lead to the earlier onset of health problems is not supported one bit. Most people's diets are sufficient in micronutrients, at this time there is no proven health benefit to taking a daily multivitamin despite A LOT of studies.

2) Some of the early studies that showed a link between antioxidants and aging/health have not had their results reproduced since in better studies, bringing the value of the earlier studies into question big time. Antioxidant value (above and beyond the amount needed for vitamin intake for the vitamins that are antioxidants) is questionable at best and GROSSLY overexaggerated.

Of course both of these items require the questionable stretch that including added sugar in your diet reduces your micro/antioxident levels.

3) Being fat has been proven to lead to diabetes. Lack of activity has been proven to lead to diabetes. Eating a diet that included added sugar has absolutely NOT been proven to lead to diabetes.

You can replace sugar with any other nutrient (or other) that our bodies are efficient at handling and make the same statement too much over time will lead to problems if it helps you identify the absurdity of the claim about sugar. Water for example. Our bodies efficiently handle water intake. Excess tends to wash out water soluable vitamins (so to speak). Saying that a lifestyle that includes high water intake will lead to the early onset of health problems and possibly to kidney problems just sounds silly and absurd. Yet that is about the same thing you are saying with sugar and long term problems.

waldo56

And OF COURSE glucose is one of our primary fuel sources. That's neither here nor there in regard to this debate. You're trying to use some logic argument that doesn't hold water. Would it be healthy to go around ingesting pure sugar all day? Oh right, it must be okay b/c "glucose is one of our primary fuel sources!" So lets drink pure sugar water all day long, great idea!

Reductio ad absurdum has always been and will always be a stupid argument.

FatFreeFrolicking

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.

I have severe insulin resistance and hypoglycemia and can say that eggs are perfectly fine to eat. I've never had a problem with eggs. You might be different though. You would have to see how they affect you.

Eating a substantial amount of protein at every meal and snack is critical for those with insulin resistance. I don't know whether you have hypoglycemia or not (sometimes comes with IR) but it's even more important for me to eat a lot of protein at every meal and snack due to my low blood sugar. It keeps me from crashing.

NEVER eat carbs alone. Always eat them with protein.

My dietician has me eating 30-45 g carbs per meal and 15-30 g carbs per snack. This helps stabilize insulin and blood glucose and prevents spikes.

Overtime, you learn what foods work for you and what foods you can't tolerate. I know some people who can't eat any carbs in the morning and strictly stick to protein and fat. But others who can eat carbs and still manage their BG throughout the day. If you just have IR without hypoglycemia, that's much easier to manage than IR with hypoglycemia.

ahamm002

Huh? Do you science? You really don't understand the difference between short and long term health effects? Do you have to ask for a mechanism? There are literally uncountable possibilities. One possibility is that foods with added sugar are low in antioxidants and micronutrients. Over the long term, lack of micronutrients and antioxidants could lead to earlier onset of health problems. Another possibility would be diets that are high in foods with added sugar may lead to earlier onset of diabetes.

1) Science has not proven that you get "extra credit" for more of any micronutrients. There is a reasonably decent case for calcium and Vit D. If your intake is sufficient to avoid deficiency diseases, your intakes is sufficient. The idea that a lack excess micronutrients will lead to the earlier onset of health problems is not supported one bit. Most people's diets are sufficient in micronutrients, at this time there is no proven health benefit to taking a daily multivitamin despite A LOT of studies.

2) Some of the early studies that showed a link between antioxidants and aging/health have not had their results reproduced since in better studies, bringing the value of the earlier studies into question big time. Antioxidant value (above and beyond the amount needed for vitamin intake for the vitamins that are antioxidants) is questionable at best and GROSSLY overexaggerated.

Of course both of these items require the questionable stretch that including added sugar in your diet reduces your micro/antioxident levels.

3) Being fat has been proven to lead to diabetes. Lack of activity has been proven to lead to diabetes. Eating a diet that included added sugar has absolutely NOT been proven to lead to diabetes.

You can replace sugar with any other nutrient (or other) that our bodies are efficient at handling and make the same statement too much over time will lead to problems if it helps you identify the absurdity of the claim about sugar. Water for example. Our bodies efficiently handle water intake. Excess tends to wash out water soluable vitamins (so to speak). Saying that a lifestyle that includes high water intake will lead to the early onset of health problems and possibly to kidney problems just sounds silly and absurd. Yet that is about the same thing you are saying with sugar and long term problems.

I never stated that either of the possbilities were proven, simply that they were possibilities among countless others. The point is that there are plenty of possibilities. And you seem to be operating under the assumption that everything is false until proven true in a well designed long term double blinded RTC. Given that such studies don't exist, we have to do the best we can with the data available.

And btw, if you find me a long term prospective cohort study that demonstrates a significant link b/w high water intake and early onset of health problems I'd be very interested. But it doesn't exist, so we don't have to worry about lifestyles high in water intake.

ahamm002

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.

ACG is just messing with you. Most foods are "insulinogenic." Foods high in proteins actually have a pretty high insulin response. BUT, they also cause the release of glucogon which mediates insulins effects. Also, protein slows absorption. So studies that use "area under the curve" to measure insulin response really aren't telling you the full story. There is a significant difference b/w a spike of insulin versus a slow increase and slow decline.

ahamm002

And OF COURSE glucose is one of our primary fuel sources. That's neither here nor there in regard to this debate. You're trying to use some logic argument that doesn't hold water. Would it be healthy to go around ingesting pure sugar all day? Oh right, it must be okay b/c "glucose is one of our primary fuel sources!" So lets drink pure sugar water all day long, great idea!

Reductio ad absurdum has always been and will always be a stupid argument.

Perhaps, but it's not as stupid as saying that foods with added sugar can't be unhealthy because sugar is one of our body's main energy sources.

2Dozen

Given enough time "they" will link anything to anything.

_Terrapin_

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.

68 teaspoons per day........seems like a lot of sugar. Whole lot of white stuff!

_Terrapin_

http://www.livestrong.com/article/493628-much-sugar-allowance-day/

Americans 21 teaspoons per day according to the link.....

magerum

neanderthin

First quest: They would say so and that the study was flawed, yet they don't. They cite the limitations of the study but say it is a good study and useful data. Why do you think that is?

Sec quest: I don't know, I would imagine many since reviews of studies usually produce several different hypotheses, all of which can’t possibly be true.

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!).

If we held all dietary studies up to ACG's standards, there would be zero long term studies on any sort of diet (or lifestyle for that matter) b/c they would all be far too flawed to even consider performing in the first place. In fact if we held all science up to ACG's standards you would be wrong to tell someone that quitting smoking will decrease their risk of lung cancer.

LOL.....not fair really. Epidemiology studies are ok to discuss but not conclusive, even though the media or some well intentioned Dr's will have you believe otherwise.

Epidemiology is how they 'proved' the link between smoking and cancer.

Not being conclusive and being flawed to the point of being a grand conspiracy to waste money are two very different things.

Except in the people that smoke and don't have cancer. Who mention conspiracy.....I think you did.

"link to" does not mean everyone who smokes will get it. Just as being hit by a bus may be linked to death by huge blunt object, yet some may not die. Yet, it still seems valid to me to recommend not being hit by a bus.

You described a conspiracy, I used the word.

I see, so blood being consistently found at murder scenes would assume blood is the cause of death. I love statistics, it's fun. Also, an opposing opinion does not a conspiracy make.

4realrose8

I think we all know that sugar intake effects blood sugar

Normal HbA1C for blood sugar is between 4.0 to 5.6
5.7-6.4 is pre-diabetic
6.5 and above is diabetic range

It should be alarming the the elevated risk for heart disease was at a level of 4.6 which is well within the *normal* range. This is from a study done in 2005 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16157837?dopt=Abstract

"To quote what that study found:
In nondiabetic adults, HbA1c level was not related to CHD risk below a level of 4.6% but was significantly related to risk above that level (P<.001). In diabetic adults, the risk of CHD increased throughout the range of HbA1c levels. In the adjusted model, the Risk Ratio of CHD for a 1 percentage point increase in HbA1c level was 2.36 (95% CI, 1.43-3.90) in persons without diabetes but with an HbA1c level greater than 4.6%. In diabetic adults, the Risk Ratio was 1.14 (95% CI, 1.07-1.21) per 1 percentage point increase in HbA1c across the full range of HbA1c values.

In short, it isn't whether you have diabetes that decides your risk, it's whether you have abnormal blood sugars, and the more abnormal, the more the risk. But "abnormal" blood sugars are those that doctors now treat as normal! "

source http://www.phlaunt.com/diabetes/15945839.php

neanderthin

A1c is not very reliable because of red blood cell turnover and post meal blood glucose testing would be a better indicator , regardless, if someone is diabetic then sugar intake needs to be strictly controlled.

4realrose8

Exactly, neanderthin, HbA1C is not perfect. It tends to UNDERestimate blood sugar control. That only reinforces all the evidence in my post above.

"OTE: When Your A1c May Be Inaccurate

Doctors have a touching faith that the A1c reflects your blood sugar control. Unfortunately, it is misplaced.

The A1c will not reflect your actual blood sugars if:
You have anemia. When you are anemic the A1c will be much lower than the value corresponding to the actual concentrations of glucose in your bloodstream


If you are on dialysis. If you are on dialysis your A1c will also be much lower than the value that reflects your actual blood sugars.


If you have certain genetic variants of the red blood cell. Genetic oddities in your hemoglobin can cause to a much lower than expected A1c.

You should never rely on the A1c alone to monitor your control. Test your blood sugar with a meter after meals frequently enough that you get a good idea of what your blood sugars are doing. If your A1c is much higher or lower than you expect, discuss this with your doctor. If you test after meals and consistently see high blood sugars, trust your meter readings over a low A1c If this happens to you, the fructosamine test may give you a more valid measurement of long term control.

Because there is a growing amount of evidence that it is blood sugars spikes after eating that damage your organs not only the glycation of proteins reflected in the A1c, it is dangerous to think a low A1c means you have nothing to worry about if your post-meal blood sugars are going into the damage zone."

Source http://www.phlaunt.com/diabetes/15945839.php

4realrose8

And to make it clear, the 2005 study was discussing CHD risk in normal NON-diabetic people with normal HbA1c 4.6 or greater.

"In nondiabetic adults, HbA1c level was not related to CHD risk below a level of 4.6% but was significantly related to risk above that level (P<.001)." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16157837?dopt=Abstract

neanderthin

Exactly, neanderthin, HbA1C is not perfect. It tends to UNDERestimate blood sugar control. That only reinforces all the evidence in my post above.

"OTE: When Your A1c May Be Inaccurate

Doctors have a touching faith that the A1c reflects your blood sugar control. Unfortunately, it is misplaced.

The A1c will not reflect your actual blood sugars if:
You have anemia. When you are anemic the A1c will be much lower than the value corresponding to the actual concentrations of glucose in your bloodstream


If you are on dialysis. If you are on dialysis your A1c will also be much lower than the value that reflects your actual blood sugars.


If you have certain genetic variants of the red blood cell. Genetic oddities in your hemoglobin can cause to a much lower than expected A1c.

You should never rely on the A1c alone to monitor your control. Test your blood sugar with a meter after meals frequently enough that you get a good idea of what your blood sugars are doing. If your A1c is much higher or lower than you expect, discuss this with your doctor. If you test after meals and consistently see high blood sugars, trust your meter readings over a low A1c If this happens to you, the fructosamine test may give you a more valid measurement of long term control.

Because there is a growing amount of evidence that it is blood sugars spikes after eating that damage your organs not only the glycation of proteins reflected in the A1c, it is dangerous to think a low A1c means you have nothing to worry about if your post-meal blood sugars are going into the damage zone."

Source http://www.phlaunt.com/diabetes/15945839.php

I guess I'm missing your point. People that don't have blood glucose problems or have diabetes will have higher A1c because of the slower RBC turnover. Basically people are getting diagnosed with elevated A1c and told they may be prediabetic.. when it fact they aren't. Maybe you are saying the same thing I'm not sure.

SunofaBeach14

68 teaspoons per day........seems like a lot of sugar. Whole lot of white stuff!

Wait. The addictive white stuff is sugar?

Half of Miami has been doing it wrong.

4realrose8

Exactly, neanderthin, HbA1C is not perfect. It tends to UNDERestimate blood sugar control. That only reinforces all the evidence in my post above.

"OTE: When Your A1c May Be Inaccurate

Doctors have a touching faith that the A1c reflects your blood sugar control. Unfortunately, it is misplaced.

The A1c will not reflect your actual blood sugars if:
You have anemia. When you are anemic the A1c will be much lower than the value corresponding to the actual concentrations of glucose in your bloodstream


If you are on dialysis. If you are on dialysis your A1c will also be much lower than the value that reflects your actual blood sugars.


If you have certain genetic variants of the red blood cell. Genetic oddities in your hemoglobin can cause to a much lower than expected A1c.

You should never rely on the A1c alone to monitor your control. Test your blood sugar with a meter after meals frequently enough that you get a good idea of what your blood sugars are doing. If your A1c is much higher or lower than you expect, discuss this with your doctor. If you test after meals and consistently see high blood sugars, trust your meter readings over a low A1c If this happens to you, the fructosamine test may give you a more valid measurement of long term control.

Because there is a growing amount of evidence that it is blood sugars spikes after eating that damage your organs not only the glycation of proteins reflected in the A1c, it is dangerous to think a low A1c means you have nothing to worry about if your post-meal blood sugars are going into the damage zone."

Source http://www.phlaunt.com/diabetes/15945839.php

I guess I'm missing your point. People that don't have blood glucose problems or have diabetes will have higher A1c because of the slower RBC turnover. Basically people are getting diagnosed with elevated A1c and told they may be prediabetic.. when it fact they aren't. Maybe you are saying the same thing I'm not sure.

Ultimately, the 2005 study I was referring to, the increase CHD risk was with HbA1c over 4.6 in non-diabetics. I think the slower RBC turnover would be irrelevant with regard to this study because if your HbA1c number was less than 4.6, there was no increased risk for CHD in non-diabetics.

bcattoes

You described a conspiracy, I used the word.

I see, so blood being consistently found at murder scenes would assume blood is the cause of death. I love statistics, it's fun. Also, an opposing opinion does not a conspiracy make.

The oposing opinion was not the conspiracy description. The suggestion that most of the nutrtion science community is purposely doing and supporting useless and flawed studies because they don't want their 'house of cards' to crumble was.

The study didn't say sugar caused anything.

phred_52

Wow, MFP peeps. You sure are a supportive bunch. Sorry I joined this place.

Being from the backwoods of maine, I'm extremely slow on the uptake,:ohwell: but what's to support?

Did the article say we should support all? I just read the heading which said sugar linked to heart disease, even fatal.

Though I will admit I do have a sarcastic and self-depracating sense of humor. Here's sarcasm, even overly intelligent people aren't the brightest bulbs either.

As for sorry about joining mfp, why? Just use the site what it's designed for, and be happy.

Dewymorning

As a data analyst I cringe at the thought of having to clean the data in the MFP database.

OMG.

That would be hideous.

If we are going to do it, it would be better to investigate the food database to filter out all the incorrect data entries instead of trying to do some research on sugar, which no one will ever pay attention to, because the data would be so dirty.

WendyTerry420

68 teaspoons per day........seems like a lot of sugar. Whole lot of white stuff!

Wait. The addictive white stuff is sugar?

Half of Miami has been doing it wrong.

I guess "The Simpsons" isn't aired in Miami.

WendyTerry420

Wow, MFP peeps. You sure are a supportive bunch. Sorry I joined this place.

Being from the backwoods of maine, I'm extremely slow on the uptake,:ohwell: but what's to support?

Did the article say we should support all? I just read the heading which said sugar linked to heart disease, even fatal.

Though I will admit I do have a sarcastic and self-depracating sense of humor. Here's sarcasm, even overly intelligent people aren't the brightest bulbs either.

As for sorry about joining mfp, why? Just use the site what it's designed for, and be happy.

Agreed. First, this is the "Food and Nutrition" board, not the "Motivation and Support" board. So basically, this section is to facilitate discussions about food and nutrition. It would be awfully boring around here without opposing viewpoints being expressed.Second, why do people take it personally if someone has a different viewpoint?