Sugar is killing you.

mccindy72

HI OP - I just read your opening statement. If you are going to try to tell me that eating fruit (eating a fresh orange or apple) is going to make me fat, then I reject your opening statement.

I will eat an orange and an apple and a banana and watermelon and cherries and ugli fruit over cookies, cakes, ice cream, brownies, etc, not only because there are many nutrients in fruit (vitamins, fiber, juice, refreshment and sweetness), and also because they really taste good and satisfy my sweet tooth without having to eat processed sugary snacks for that reason.

Are cookies, cakes, brownies and ice cream considered processed if I make them myself?

Chewing is a process, by the time any of this food hits your belly, it's processed. I'm eating a damned cookie if I want one. Or a banana if I want one. They both have sugar. Perfectly fine either way.

PROCESSED - meaning desserts and sweets and things other than fruit usually made with white sugar - the stuff that I crave being a sugar addict that made me fat. (cookies, cake, brownies, pastries, etc.. For YOU ,, you might be able to eat that, but for me, I'm doing well without.)

you realize that some fruits have more sugar then a service of ice cream right?

and there is no difference, at the molecular level sugar is sugar….your body does not distinguish between where sugar comes from.

I see a lot of people on this site posting that, and it doesn't make any sense at all. Do you think that the second you eat something that it's instantly converted down to it's base molecules?

do you really think your body distinguishes between types of sugar? Do you really think it is possible to say that one is addicted to "added sugar" but that same "addict" can then eat 20 ounces of fruit a day?

Don't change the subject. Sure, a molecule of fructose may be a molecule of fructose. But that's neither here nor there when discussing a complex system. Foods have to be processed by your body BEFORE they turn into base molecules.

So while there is no difference b/w two solitary fructose molecules from different sources, there is a big difference in the metabolic response b/w eating an apple and eating an equivalent caloric amount of HFCS.

In regard to "sugar addiction," it makes perfect sense that foods that taste better would more addictive.

interesting concept ..so by your logic, I can be addicted to crack-cocaine, but not powder cocaine....

You can become addicted to either one. But which one is known to be more addictive?

I don't know any crack heads that are not addicted to cocaine...

I really don't know where this analogy came from. But sugar addiction is more likely 2/2 to the taste and our brain's reward center, not individual molecules. Since fruit and cupcakes taste a lot different I'm not sure why you would think addiction would to either would cross over.

Are we all still in agreement that sugar " addiction" is a real thing? And that it is exclusive to "processed" sugars? Because bacon

FIFY

ndj1979

HI OP - I just read your opening statement. If you are going to try to tell me that eating fruit (eating a fresh orange or apple) is going to make me fat, then I reject your opening statement.

I will eat an orange and an apple and a banana and watermelon and cherries and ugli fruit over cookies, cakes, ice cream, brownies, etc, not only because there are many nutrients in fruit (vitamins, fiber, juice, refreshment and sweetness), and also because they really taste good and satisfy my sweet tooth without having to eat processed sugary snacks for that reason.

Are cookies, cakes, brownies and ice cream considered processed if I make them myself?

Chewing is a process, by the time any of this food hits your belly, it's processed. I'm eating a damned cookie if I want one. Or a banana if I want one. They both have sugar. Perfectly fine either way.

PROCESSED - meaning desserts and sweets and things other than fruit usually made with white sugar - the stuff that I crave being a sugar addict that made me fat. (cookies, cake, brownies, pastries, etc.. For YOU ,, you might be able to eat that, but for me, I'm doing well without.)

you realize that some fruits have more sugar then a service of ice cream right?

and there is no difference, at the molecular level sugar is sugar….your body does not distinguish between where sugar comes from.

I see a lot of people on this site posting that, and it doesn't make any sense at all. Do you think that the second you eat something that it's instantly converted down to it's base molecules?

do you really think your body distinguishes between types of sugar? Do you really think it is possible to say that one is addicted to "added sugar" but that same "addict" can then eat 20 ounces of fruit a day?

Don't change the subject. Sure, a molecule of fructose may be a molecule of fructose. But that's neither here nor there when discussing a complex system. Foods have to be processed by your body BEFORE they turn into base molecules.

So while there is no difference b/w two solitary fructose molecules from different sources, there is a big difference in the metabolic response b/w eating an apple and eating an equivalent caloric amount of HFCS.

In regard to "sugar addiction," it makes perfect sense that foods that taste better would more addictive.

interesting concept ..so by your logic, I can be addicted to crack-cocaine, but not powder cocaine....

You can become addicted to either one. But which one is known to be more addictive?

I don't know any crack heads that are not addicted to cocaine...

I really don't know where this analogy came from. But sugar addiction is more likely 2/2 to the taste and our brain's reward center, not individual molecules. Since fruit and cupcakes taste a lot different I'm not sure why you would think addiction would to either would cross over.

Are we all still in agreement that sugar " addiction" is a real thing? And that it is exclusive to "processed" sugars? Because fiber (or some other explanation)?

yes, that appears to be the case...

dmenchac

lol

msf74

What's killing people is lack of knowledge of HOW much they are consuming which why there's a weight issue with just about every industrialized country.

Complicating approaches to "eat less, move more" just helps to confuse people more.

Guaranteed that unless someone has a health/hormonal issue, "eating less, moving more" will be fine for 90% of the people who need to lose weight.

A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

I think it is less to do with information then skills.

Knowing you have to eat less (food) and move more I think is common knowledge. It is also pretty much seems to be a failure as a message given how prevalent obesity still is today.

Knowing you must be in a calorie deficit or eat less doesn't equip people with the skills to actually achieve that state in practice. Knowing you must eat less does not give people the skills to moderate their intake of highly palatable food especially if it has become a compulsive habit.

Which brings us back to sugar. I can't get no satisfaction isn't just a song by the Rolling Stones.

Most people know, quite consciously, that demolishing a packet of biscuits, a tray of cake and a litre of fizzy pop probably won't assist them in their efforts to slim down. Yet they still do it. Why? It's not because they lack willpower or some other laughable notion. It's because they lack the skills to do so...

OK, now I'm curious. Let's ignore people that have compulsive disorders and the like - I agree they're going to need help with food issues. But for the normal person who just loves to eat cookies, cakes, and drink soda ... what skill\s do they lack that they can't put down or not buy one (or even part of one) of the cookies, cake and soda?

The skill to distinguish natural satiety from the mind's desire to over eat and act on it.

Some people can regulate their weight and appetite quite naturally and stop when they've had enough as they have internalised this skill unconsciously. Some people need to work on it consciously.

Will elaborate tomorrow. I am out and posting from my phone is just painful...

butterfli7o

<-- Was eating peanut M&Ms while reading this.

GBrady43068

Let's talk statistics here. What are the top 10 countries that consume the most sugar in the world? Well if you don't know here they are:

Macedonia 73.8
Belize 65.5
Swaziland 56.9
Cuba 56.6
Trinidad & Tobago 55.3
Barbados 52.7
Brazil 51.7
Costa Rica 50.6
New Zealand 49.2
St. Kitt & Nevis 49.0

WHAT? The US didn't make the top 10?

Now let's check the obesity rates of these countries.

Macedonia- Est. 298,512 Population 2,040,085
Belize- 39,938 272,945
Swaziland- 171,087 1,169,241
Cuba- 2,310,000 11,000,000
Trinidad/Tobago- 399,000 1,330,000
Barbados- 283,221 195,422
Brazil- 26,938,323 184,101,109
Costa Rica- 1,440,000 4,800,000
New Zealand- 1,373,333 4,443,000
St. Kitt and Nevis


http://www.rightdiagnosis.com/o/obesity/stats-country.htm

So with this info, you'd think they would be the most obese nations in the world too, but they aren't.

A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

It's cause the fatties are dying young...from y'know...the sugar

lizzardsm

HI OP - I just read your opening statement. If you are going to try to tell me that eating fruit (eating a fresh orange or apple) is going to make me fat, then I reject your opening statement.

I will eat an orange and an apple and a banana and watermelon and cherries and ugli fruit over cookies, cakes, ice cream, brownies, etc, not only because there are many nutrients in fruit (vitamins, fiber, juice, refreshment and sweetness), and also because they really taste good and satisfy my sweet tooth without having to eat processed sugary snacks for that reason.

Are cookies, cakes, brownies and ice cream considered processed if I make them myself?

Chewing is a process, by the time any of this food hits your belly, it's processed. I'm eating a damned cookie if I want one. Or a banana if I want one. They both have sugar. Perfectly fine either way.

PROCESSED - meaning desserts and sweets and things other than fruit usually made with white sugar - the stuff that I crave being a sugar addict that made me fat. (cookies, cake, brownies, pastries, etc.. For YOU ,, you might be able to eat that, but for me, I'm doing well without.)

you realize that some fruits have more sugar then a service of ice cream right?

and there is no difference, at the molecular level sugar is sugar….your body does not distinguish between where sugar comes from.

I see a lot of people on this site posting that, and it doesn't make any sense at all. Do you think that the second you eat something that it's instantly converted down to it's base molecules?

do you really think your body distinguishes between types of sugar? Do you really think it is possible to say that one is addicted to "added sugar" but that same "addict" can then eat 20 ounces of fruit a day?

Don't change the subject. Sure, a molecule of fructose may be a molecule of fructose. But that's neither here nor there when discussing a complex system. Foods have to be processed by your body BEFORE they turn into base molecules.

So while there is no difference b/w two solitary fructose molecules from different sources, there is a big difference in the metabolic response b/w eating an apple and eating an equivalent caloric amount of HFCS.

In regard to "sugar addiction," it makes perfect sense that foods that taste better would more addictive.

interesting concept ..so by your logic, I can be addicted to crack-cocaine, but not powder cocaine....

You can become addicted to either one. But which one is known to be more addictive?

I don't know any crack heads that are not addicted to cocaine...

I really don't know where this analogy came from. But sugar addiction is more likely 2/2 to the taste and our brain's reward center, not individual molecules. Since fruit and cupcakes taste a lot different I'm not sure why you would think addiction would to either would cross over.

There's this salty taste I'm addicted to... but I've heard it's actually made up of mostly sugar.

^^^^^^Seriously?!? How did you all miss this?? LOL

littleburgy

Then I shall die happy.

julialdr

HI OP - I just read your opening statement. If you are going to try to tell me that eating fruit (eating a fresh orange or apple) is going to make me fat, then I reject your opening statement.

I will eat an orange and an apple and a banana and watermelon and cherries and ugli fruit over cookies, cakes, ice cream, brownies, etc, not only because there are many nutrients in fruit (vitamins, fiber, juice, refreshment and sweetness), and also because they really taste good and satisfy my sweet tooth without having to eat processed sugary snacks for that reason.

I think you misread or misunderstood my opening statement. A) I do not believe sugar is going to kill you. The title was meant in jest as it is the title of the article quoted and I was saying that I understand your body cannot differentiate between sources of sugar. It will process sugar from a soda the same way it will process sugar from a juice. Neither is necessarily harmful.

I eat a TON of sugar and have no plans on stopping any time soon.

julialdr

In the single human study I’m aware of that linked fructose to a greater next-day appetite in a subset of the subjects, 30% of total daily energy intake was in the form of free fructose [12]. This amounts to 135 grams, which is the equivalent of 6-7 nondiet soft drinks. Is it really that groundbreaking to think that polishing off a half-dozen soft drinks per day is not a good idea? Demonizing fructose without mentioning the dose-dependent nature of its effects is intellectually dishonest. Like anything else, fructose consumed in gross chronic excess can lead to problems, while moderate amounts are neutral, and in some cases beneficial [13-15].

Thanks, this is the kind of response I was hoping for!

ahamm002

HI OP - I just read your opening statement. If you are going to try to tell me that eating fruit (eating a fresh orange or apple) is going to make me fat, then I reject your opening statement.

I will eat an orange and an apple and a banana and watermelon and cherries and ugli fruit over cookies, cakes, ice cream, brownies, etc, not only because there are many nutrients in fruit (vitamins, fiber, juice, refreshment and sweetness), and also because they really taste good and satisfy my sweet tooth without having to eat processed sugary snacks for that reason.

Are cookies, cakes, brownies and ice cream considered processed if I make them myself?

Chewing is a process, by the time any of this food hits your belly, it's processed. I'm eating a damned cookie if I want one. Or a banana if I want one. They both have sugar. Perfectly fine either way.

PROCESSED - meaning desserts and sweets and things other than fruit usually made with white sugar - the stuff that I crave being a sugar addict that made me fat. (cookies, cake, brownies, pastries, etc.. For YOU ,, you might be able to eat that, but for me, I'm doing well without.)

you realize that some fruits have more sugar then a service of ice cream right?

and there is no difference, at the molecular level sugar is sugar….your body does not distinguish between where sugar comes from.

I see a lot of people on this site posting that, and it doesn't make any sense at all. Do you think that the second you eat something that it's instantly converted down to it's base molecules?

do you really think your body distinguishes between types of sugar? Do you really think it is possible to say that one is addicted to "added sugar" but that same "addict" can then eat 20 ounces of fruit a day?

Don't change the subject. Sure, a molecule of fructose may be a molecule of fructose. But that's neither here nor there when discussing a complex system. Foods have to be processed by your body BEFORE they turn into base molecules.

So while there is no difference b/w two solitary fructose molecules from different sources, there is a big difference in the metabolic response b/w eating an apple and eating an equivalent caloric amount of HFCS.

In regard to "sugar addiction," it makes perfect sense that foods that taste better would more addictive.

interesting concept ..so by your logic, I can be addicted to crack-cocaine, but not powder cocaine....

You can become addicted to either one. But which one is known to be more addictive?

I don't know any crack heads that are not addicted to cocaine...

I really don't know where this analogy came from. But sugar addiction is more likely 2/2 to the taste and our brain's reward center, not individual molecules. Since fruit and cupcakes taste a lot different I'm not sure why you would think addiction would to either would cross over.

Are we all still in agreement that sugar " addiction" is a real thing? And that it is exclusive to "processed" sugars? Because fiber (or some other explanation)?

yes, that appears to be the case...

LOL, I never brought up sugar addiction. And for the record I'm not 100% sure it exists. It might just be another facet of compulsive eating. You're the one who brought it up, I guess it was another attempt to change the subject away from your ridiculous theory.

ahamm002

HI OP - I just read your opening statement. If you are going to try to tell me that eating fruit (eating a fresh orange or apple) is going to make me fat, then I reject your opening statement.

I will eat an orange and an apple and a banana and watermelon and cherries and ugli fruit over cookies, cakes, ice cream, brownies, etc, not only because there are many nutrients in fruit (vitamins, fiber, juice, refreshment and sweetness), and also because they really taste good and satisfy my sweet tooth without having to eat processed sugary snacks for that reason.

Are cookies, cakes, brownies and ice cream considered processed if I make them myself?

Chewing is a process, by the time any of this food hits your belly, it's processed. I'm eating a damned cookie if I want one. Or a banana if I want one. They both have sugar. Perfectly fine either way.

PROCESSED - meaning desserts and sweets and things other than fruit usually made with white sugar - the stuff that I crave being a sugar addict that made me fat. (cookies, cake, brownies, pastries, etc.. For YOU ,, you might be able to eat that, but for me, I'm doing well without.)

you realize that some fruits have more sugar then a service of ice cream right?

and there is no difference, at the molecular level sugar is sugar….your body does not distinguish between where sugar comes from.

I see a lot of people on this site posting that, and it doesn't make any sense at all. Do you think that the second you eat something that it's instantly converted down to it's base molecules?

do you really think your body distinguishes between types of sugar? Do you really think it is possible to say that one is addicted to "added sugar" but that same "addict" can then eat 20 ounces of fruit a day?

Don't change the subject. Sure, a molecule of fructose may be a molecule of fructose. But that's neither here nor there when discussing a complex system. Foods have to be processed by your body BEFORE they turn into base molecules.

So while there is no difference b/w two solitary fructose molecules from different sources, there is a big difference in the metabolic response b/w eating an apple and eating an equivalent caloric amount of HFCS.

In regard to "sugar addiction," it makes perfect sense that foods that taste better would more addictive.

interesting concept ..so by your logic, I can be addicted to crack-cocaine, but not powder cocaine....

You can become addicted to either one. But which one is known to be more addictive?

I don't know any crack heads that are not addicted to cocaine...

I really don't know where this analogy came from. But sugar addiction is more likely 2/2 to the taste and our brain's reward center, not individual molecules. Since fruit and cupcakes taste a lot different I'm not sure why you would think addiction would to either would cross over.

Are we all still in agreement that sugar " addiction" is a real thing? And that it is exclusive to "processed" sugars? Because fiber (or some other explanation)?

Well that depends on the definition of addiction. Are you using the DSM V? Or is your definition of addiction based on bad after school specials about drugs?

DamePiglet

PS I'm from Iowa too. :drinker:

Great, now I have to move.

don't worry I beat you to it and went to a place that values health and wellness, though I will admit Iowa is pretty great as far as midwest states go.

There's that elitist attitude we all love so much.

wait you're in Denver though - CO is pretty rad too when it comes to health and general well-being.

I'm from the midwest. Lived there for 22 years. I don't appreciate the broad sweeping generalizations of how us midwesterners value health and wellness.

I am too, and obesity rates are significantly higher in the midwest than they are on either coast, though CO is a bastion of awesomeness stuck in the middle. It's not a broad, sweeping generalization it's just statistical fact.

The US has more than 2 coasts.
Just stop.

cwsreddy

PS I'm from Iowa too. :drinker:

Great, now I have to move.

don't worry I beat you to it and went to a place that values health and wellness, though I will admit Iowa is pretty great as far as midwest states go.

There's that elitist attitude we all love so much.

wait you're in Denver though - CO is pretty rad too when it comes to health and general well-being.

I'm from the midwest. Lived there for 22 years. I don't appreciate the broad sweeping generalizations of how us midwesterners value health and wellness.

I am too, and obesity rates are significantly higher in the midwest than they are on either coast, though CO is a bastion of awesomeness stuck in the middle. It's not a broad, sweeping generalization it's just statistical fact.

The US has more than 2 coasts.
Just stop.

only two that matter. lets be honest. :laugh: :flowerforyou:

DamePiglet

PS I'm from Iowa too. :drinker:

Great, now I have to move.

don't worry I beat you to it and went to a place that values health and wellness, though I will admit Iowa is pretty great as far as midwest states go.

There's that elitist attitude we all love so much.

wait you're in Denver though - CO is pretty rad too when it comes to health and general well-being.

I'm from the midwest. Lived there for 22 years. I don't appreciate the broad sweeping generalizations of how us midwesterners value health and wellness.

I am too, and obesity rates are significantly higher in the midwest than they are on either coast, though CO is a bastion of awesomeness stuck in the middle. It's not a broad, sweeping generalization it's just statistical fact.

The US has more than 2 coasts.
Just stop.

only two that matter. lets be honest. :laugh: :flowerforyou:

Oh hai...
Let's be honest...

Tigg_er

PS I'm from Iowa too. :drinker:

Great, now I have to move.

don't worry I beat you to it and went to a place that values health and wellness, though I will admit Iowa is pretty great as far as midwest states go.

There's that elitist attitude we all love so much.

wait you're in Denver though - CO is pretty rad too when it comes to health and general well-being.

I'm from the midwest. Lived there for 22 years. I don't appreciate the broad sweeping generalizations of how us midwesterners value health and wellness.

I am too, and obesity rates are significantly higher in the midwest than they are on either coast, though CO is a bastion of awesomeness stuck in the middle. It's not a broad, sweeping generalization it's just statistical fact.

The US has more than 2 coasts.
Just stop.

only two that matter. lets be honest. :laugh: :flowerforyou:

Oh hai...
Let's be honest...

That made me hurt oh !

kammyrios

who is still not actually a scientist and just a blogger.

salon and aragon are no different in that - in this particular case - they are both mouthpieces for studies, neither has done the research themselves.

Thank you!! People act like because it's from Salon it's automatically worthless.

That's a reasonable starting point.

Personally, I find all my credible information from Huffington Post and Wikipedia.

Me too!

Wtn_Gurl

HI OP - I just read your opening statement. If you are going to try to tell me that eating fruit (eating a fresh orange or apple) is going to make me fat, then I reject your opening statement.

I will eat an orange and an apple and a banana and watermelon and cherries and ugli fruit over cookies, cakes, ice cream, brownies, etc, not only because there are many nutrients in fruit (vitamins, fiber, juice, refreshment and sweetness), and also because they really taste good and satisfy my sweet tooth without having to eat processed sugary snacks for that reason.

I think you misread or misunderstood my opening statement. A) I do not believe sugar is going to kill you. The title was meant in jest as it is the title of the article quoted and I was saying that I understand your body cannot differentiate between sources of sugar. It will process sugar from a soda the same way it will process sugar from a juice. Neither is necessarily harmful.

I eat a TON of sugar and have no plans on stopping any time soon.

Hi - thanks! What you are saying may be true… however, some people want different results from different food… you can have a cookie or cake or whatever and I prefer to have the nutrients from the apple. actually I'm really craving tangerines right now - juicy and sweet.

Wtn_Gurl

Down another pound today

Something must be working.

BenjaminMFP88

I'm so glad I'm on a site filled with so many certified Dr. and Dietitians. Please tell me where you learned all your biochemistry? Oh you read 2 or 3 "studies"?... K