WHO: Daily sugar intake 'should be halved'
mufamuscles
Posts: 57
0
Replies
-
Trying to combat symptoms instead of the problem.
It's not sugar that's the problem, their problem is with people having bad teeth and being obese. Both of which have different causes.0 -
Correlation is not causation0
-
Correlation is not causation
Is there really ever a study that can 100% say something causes something else?0 -
Correlation is not causation
Is there really ever a study that can 100% say something causes something else?
Yes, absolutely there are. You run the same test with different groups and control different variables and you find causation.0 -
Correlation is not causation
Very correct. Sugar tends to have less to do with tooth condition than does genetics.
That said, I'm sure eating several multiples more sugar than previously consumed by humans will turn our GRRRREAAT! (Or, you know, not so much...)0 -
OP - giving you a new name! Gonna call you Spoons from now on. You are just stirring *kitten* by mentioning sugar :laugh: :flowerforyou:
But I love watching the debate!!0 -
Correlation is not causation
Is there really ever a study that can 100% say something causes something else?
Yes, absolutely there are. You run the same test with different groups and control different variables and you find causation.
Is there a magic number of studies where someone can officially say "X causes Y" instead of X and Y are correlated? Statistics is basically all about correlations and testing hypotheses. People seem to throw out "Correlation is not causation" all the time on studies, but really that's basically all we can really get is correlations when it comes down to it.0 -
I just saw this on the news. The new recommendations for daily added sugar intake are less than that in a single can of Coke, which spread across a day is not much sugar.
I find the demonising of individual food groups very irritating, as if sugar is wholly responsible for obesity, diabetes, heart disease, etc etc.
ETA I've just found this NHS article which states the recommendations come following studies of tooth decay, which is not how the BBC were portraying it in their piece. http://www.nhs.uk/news/2013/12december/pages/daily-sugar-intake-should-be-cut-study-finds.aspx0 -
It's never (or at least rarely) the studies claiming any causation, but overly enthusiastic journalists trying to report on the study. Like that one that got at least 5 threads about it today.0
-
this has been all over the news in th UK today, they are talking about taxing the stuff with loads of sugar, as here in the UK they have put sugar in everything from bread to ham, and they do not always make it obvious it's there.
People can debate whether sugar is a problem or not all day long, but all we are doing is repeating the tobacco problem. At first we were told smoking was good sexy not a health concern, it actually "helped" lose weight control nerves etc, 40 years ago people were saying tobacco was not a problem, now we say the same about sugar.
Maybe in a few years they will start on wheat and Corn. It seems to be manufacturers filling foods with wheat, corn syrups and sugar that cause the problems, these manufacturers then run the studies or pay for the studies making them biased towards their gains.
We always seem to be working on cleaning up the problems, maybe we should start thinking aboutdealing with the manufacturers, obesity has got worse since they took control of everything,(gov pay offs etc).
Just food for thought
0 -
Correlation is not causation
Is there really ever a study that can 100% say something causes something else?
Yes, absolutely there are. You run the same test with different groups and control different variables and you find causation.
Is there a magic number of studies where someone can officially say "X causes Y" instead of X and Y are correlated? Statistics is basically all about correlations and testing hypotheses. People seem to throw out "Correlation is not causation" all the time on studies, but really that's basically all we can really get is correlations when it comes down to it.
Calorie consumption has gone up drastically in the past 100 years, and due to this, fat and carbohydrate consumption including sugar consumption has also increased. You can't just single out sugar and blame it for the cause of the problems especially when we know concretely that over consumption of calories causes weight gain and obesity, not an over consumption of sugar. 15-20 years ago fat was the devil and you had to eat low fat foods to be healthy without any real explanation of why. Now sugar is the devil and you have to keep sugar consumption low to be healthy. That's complete nonsense. Obesity is caused by an over consumption of calories...period.0 -
In my opinion, it comes down to where the sugar is coming from.
If someone is eating 80 g of sugar daily but their sugar intake is mainly coming from fruits, that's much different than someone who consumes 80 g of sugar daily from soda and cookies.0 -
wrong thread!0
-
In my opinion, it comes down to where the sugar is coming from.
If someone is eating 80 g of sugar daily but their sugar intake is mainly coming from fruits, that's much different than someone who consumes 80 g of sugar daily from soda and cookies.
Why is it different? The body cannot differentiate where the sugar came from and uses it for energy in the same way, regardless of whether it came from a banana or in a mug of tea.0 -
Correlation is not causation
Is there really ever a study that can 100% say something causes something else?
Yes, absolutely there are. You run the same test with different groups and control different variables and you find causation.
Is there a magic number of studies where someone can officially say "X causes Y" instead of X and Y are correlated? Statistics is basically all about correlations and testing hypotheses. People seem to throw out "Correlation is not causation" all the time on studies, but really that's basically all we can really get is correlations when it comes down to it.
Calorie consumption has gone up drastically in the past 100 years, and due to this, fat and carbohydrate consumption including sugar consumption has also increased. You can't just single out sugar and blame it for the cause of the problems especially when we know concretely that over consumption of calories causes weight gain and obesity, not an over consumption of sugar. 15-20 years ago fat was the devil and you had to eat low fat foods to be healthy without any real explanation of why. Now sugar is the devil and you have to keep sugar consumption low to be healthy. That's complete nonsense. Obesity is caused by an over consumption of calories...period.
maybe if you feel strong enough you could give your feedback direct to WHO, they have opened up a consultation
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/notes/2014/consultation-sugar-guideline/en/
the report they made is also there0 -
In my opinion, it comes down to where the sugar is coming from.
If someone is eating 80 g of sugar daily but their sugar intake is mainly coming from fruits, that's much different than someone who consumes 80 g of sugar daily from soda and cookies.
Why is it different? The body cannot differentiate where the sugar came from and uses it for energy in the same way, regardless of whether it came from a banana or in a mug of tea.
That's incorrect. Your body can absolutely tell the difference. Sucrose, fructose, and glucose all provide the same amount of energy per gram, but are processed and used differently throughout the body. Simple carbs are classified as one of two things: monosaccharides or disaccharides. Glucose and fructose are monosaccharides and sucrose is a disaccharide.
The body's "preferred" energy source is glucose. Most carbs we eat are processed into glucose. It's either used immediately for energy or stored in the liver as glycogen. Unlike fructose (found in fruits), glucose requires the secretion of insulin. Insulin lowers blood glucose.
Fructose is totally different from other sugars because it uses a different metabolic pathway. It is also not the preferred energy source for the brain. As I mentioned before, fructose does not cause insulin to be released. It has minimal effect on blood glucose levels. It also does not stimulate the production of leptin (hunger hormone). Glucose does, however. This is why when a person eats a cookie, 30 minutes later they are "hungry" again.
The problem arises when glucose is continuously high. The pancreas can handle this workload for a while; however, over time it becomes overworked and unable to efficiently release insulin. This can result in the chronically elevated blood glucose levels found in type 2 diabetes or metabolic syndrome. At the same time, because insulin release is now inefficient, glucose is no longer being delivered to the cells that need it, resulting in cell starvation. Now the person has a risk of becoming insulin dependent.0 -
In my opinion, it comes down to where the sugar is coming from.
If someone is eating 80 g of sugar daily but their sugar intake is mainly coming from fruits, that's much different than someone who consumes 80 g of sugar daily from soda and cookies.
Why is it different? The body cannot differentiate where the sugar came from and uses it for energy in the same way, regardless of whether it came from a banana or in a mug of tea.
That's incorrect. Your body can absolutely tell the difference. Sucrose, fructose, and glucose all provide the same amount of energy per gram, but are processed and used differently throughout the body. Simple carbs are classified as one of two things: monosaccharides or disaccharides. Glucose and fructose are monosaccharides and sucrose is a disaccharide.
The body's "preferred" energy source is glucose. Most carbs we eat are processed into glucose. It's either used immediately for energy or stored in the liver as glycogen. Unlike fructose (found in fruits), glucose requires the secretion of insulin. Insulin lowers blood glucose.
Fructose is totally different from other sugars because it uses a different metabolic pathway. It is also not the preferred energy source for the brain. As I mentioned before, fructose does not cause insulin to be released. It has minimal effect on blood glucose levels. It also does not stimulate the production of leptin (hunger hormone). Glucose does, however. This is why when a person eats a cookie, 30 minutes later they are "hungry" again.
The problem arises when glucose is continuously high. The pancreas can handle this workload for a while; however, over time it becomes overworked and unable to efficiently release insulin. This can result in the chronically elevated blood glucose levels found in type 2 diabetes or metabolic syndrome. At the same time, because insulin release is now inefficient, glucose is no longer being delivered to the cells that need it, resulting in cell starvation. Now the person has a risk of becoming insulin dependent.
You're hurting your own argument. Almost everything in America that uses added sugar comes from High Fructose Corn Syrup, including soda and cookies...0 -
Meh! My sugar intake is close to 20% of my calories.0
-
this has been all over the news in th UK today, they are talking about taxing the stuff with loads of sugar, as here in the UK they have put sugar in everything from bread to ham, and they do not always make it obvious it's there.
People can debate whether sugar is a problem or not all day long, but all we are doing is repeating the tobacco problem. At first we were told smoking was good sexy not a health concern, it actually "helped" lose weight control nerves etc, 40 years ago people were saying tobacco was not a problem, now we say the same about sugar.
Maybe in a few years they will start on wheat and Corn. It seems to be manufacturers filling foods with wheat, corn syrups and sugar that cause the problems, these manufacturers then run the studies or pay for the studies making them biased towards their gains.
We always seem to be working on cleaning up the problems, maybe we should start thinking aboutdealing with the manufacturers, obesity has got worse since they took control of everything,(gov pay offs etc).
Just food for thought
So should we implement tons of new taxes on sugary items as a deterrent to buying them because some council thinks that is the main cause of obesity, or should we leave it to individuals to decide whether or not they want to consume it or not. You're a human being you don't need someone to tell you what you should or shouldn't eat. I feel the same way about smoking. If you're stupid enough to smoke knowing the risks, who am I or anybody else to tell you not to. If you're stupid enough to eat more than you burn every single day of your life and you become obese, that's fine by me, I'm not going to tell you how to live your life, so don't tell me how to live mine. No matter what they do to the foods, they can't cheat on the nutrition facts labels and the ingredients lists, so you should always know what you're eating...0 -
this has been all over the news in th UK today, they are talking about taxing the stuff with loads of sugar, as here in the UK they have put sugar in everything from bread to ham, and they do not always make it obvious it's there.
People can debate whether sugar is a problem or not all day long, but all we are doing is repeating the tobacco problem. At first we were told smoking was good sexy not a health concern, it actually "helped" lose weight control nerves etc, 40 years ago people were saying tobacco was not a problem, now we say the same about sugar.
Maybe in a few years they will start on wheat and Corn. It seems to be manufacturers filling foods with wheat, corn syrups and sugar that cause the problems, these manufacturers then run the studies or pay for the studies making them biased towards their gains.
We always seem to be working on cleaning up the problems, maybe we should start thinking aboutdealing with the manufacturers, obesity has got worse since they took control of everything,(gov pay offs etc).
Yeah, and then we will all be on pills for nutrients instead of eating. No thanks!Just food for thought
Don't you mean non-food for thought? :laugh:0 -
this has been all over the news in th UK today, they are talking about taxing the stuff with loads of sugar, as here in the UK they have put sugar in everything from bread to ham, and they do not always make it obvious it's there.
People can debate whether sugar is a problem or not all day long, but all we are doing is repeating the tobacco problem. At first we were told smoking was good sexy not a health concern, it actually "helped" lose weight control nerves etc, 40 years ago people were saying tobacco was not a problem, now we say the same about sugar.
Maybe in a few years they will start on wheat and Corn. It seems to be manufacturers filling foods with wheat, corn syrups and sugar that cause the problems, these manufacturers then run the studies or pay for the studies making them biased towards their gains.
We always seem to be working on cleaning up the problems, maybe we should start thinking aboutdealing with the manufacturers, obesity has got worse since they took control of everything,(gov pay offs etc).
Just food for thought
The problems with the "tax it" idea is 1) In the US (I know you said you're in the UK, but this stuff has appeared here as well), people hate taxes and it's basically legislative suicide to propose new ones. Yes, this even applies to states like California, where I live, which is arguably "liberal." People still hate taxes. 2) I'm not sure Pigovian taxes are all that effective.0 -
In my opinion, it comes down to where the sugar is coming from.
If someone is eating 80 g of sugar daily but their sugar intake is mainly coming from fruits, that's much different than someone who consumes 80 g of sugar daily from soda and cookies.
Why is it different? The body cannot differentiate where the sugar came from and uses it for energy in the same way, regardless of whether it came from a banana or in a mug of tea.
That's incorrect. Your body can absolutely tell the difference. Sucrose, fructose, and glucose all provide the same amount of energy per gram, but are processed and used differently throughout the body. Simple carbs are classified as one of two things: monosaccharides or disaccharides. Glucose and fructose are monosaccharides and sucrose is a disaccharide.
The body's "preferred" energy source is glucose. Most carbs we eat are processed into glucose. It's either used immediately for energy or stored in the liver as glycogen. Unlike fructose (found in fruits), glucose requires the secretion of insulin. Insulin lowers blood glucose.
Fructose is totally different from other sugars because it uses a different metabolic pathway. It is also not the preferred energy source for the brain. As I mentioned before, fructose does not cause insulin to be released. It has minimal effect on blood glucose levels. It also does not stimulate the production of leptin (hunger hormone). Glucose does, however. This is why when a person eats a cookie, 30 minutes later they are "hungry" again.
The problem arises when glucose is continuously high. The pancreas can handle this workload for a while; however, over time it becomes overworked and unable to efficiently release insulin. This can result in the chronically elevated blood glucose levels found in type 2 diabetes or metabolic syndrome. At the same time, because insulin release is now inefficient, glucose is no longer being delivered to the cells that need it, resulting in cell starvation. Now the person has a risk of becoming insulin dependent.
You're hurting your own argument. Almost everything in America that uses added sugar comes from High Fructose Corn Syrup, including soda and cookies...
I'm actually not hurting my own argument. What you are talking about is the CONCENTRATED FORM of fructose. I'm referring to the natural form of fructose found in fruits.0 -
Is that fructose that's thinking very hard?I'm actually not hurting my own argument. What you are talking about is the CONCENTRATED FORM of fructose. I'm referring to the natural form of fructose found in fruits.
Chemically, there is no difference.0 -
In my opinion, it comes down to where the sugar is coming from.
If someone is eating 80 g of sugar daily but their sugar intake is mainly coming from fruits, that's much different than someone who consumes 80 g of sugar daily from soda and cookies.
Why is it different? The body cannot differentiate where the sugar came from and uses it for energy in the same way, regardless of whether it came from a banana or in a mug of tea.
That's incorrect. Your body can absolutely tell the difference. Sucrose, fructose, and glucose all provide the same amount of energy per gram, but are processed and used differently throughout the body. Simple carbs are classified as one of two things: monosaccharides or disaccharides. Glucose and fructose are monosaccharides and sucrose is a disaccharide.
The body's "preferred" energy source is glucose. Most carbs we eat are processed into glucose. It's either used immediately for energy or stored in the liver as glycogen. Unlike fructose (found in fruits), glucose requires the secretion of insulin. Insulin lowers blood glucose.
Fructose is totally different from other sugars because it uses a different metabolic pathway. It is also not the preferred energy source for the brain. As I mentioned before, fructose does not cause insulin to be released. It has minimal effect on blood glucose levels. It also does not stimulate the production of leptin (hunger hormone). Glucose does, however. This is why when a person eats a cookie, 30 minutes later they are "hungry" again.
The problem arises when glucose is continuously high. The pancreas can handle this workload for a while; however, over time it becomes overworked and unable to efficiently release insulin. This can result in the chronically elevated blood glucose levels found in type 2 diabetes or metabolic syndrome. At the same time, because insulin release is now inefficient, glucose is no longer being delivered to the cells that need it, resulting in cell starvation. Now the person has a risk of becoming insulin dependent.
You're hurting your own argument. Almost everything in America that uses added sugar comes from High Fructose Corn Syrup, including soda and cookies...
I'm actually not hurting my own argument. What you are talking about is the CONCENTRATED FORM of fructose. I'm referring to the natural form of fructose found in fruits.
And how exactly are they processed by your body differently?0 -
In my opinion, it comes down to where the sugar is coming from.
If someone is eating 80 g of sugar daily but their sugar intake is mainly coming from fruits, that's much different than someone who consumes 80 g of sugar daily from soda and cookies.
Why is it different? The body cannot differentiate where the sugar came from and uses it for energy in the same way, regardless of whether it came from a banana or in a mug of tea.
That's incorrect. Your body can absolutely tell the difference. Sucrose, fructose, and glucose all provide the same amount of energy per gram, but are processed and used differently throughout the body. Simple carbs are classified as one of two things: monosaccharides or disaccharides. Glucose and fructose are monosaccharides and sucrose is a disaccharide.
The body's "preferred" energy source is glucose. Most carbs we eat are processed into glucose. It's either used immediately for energy or stored in the liver as glycogen. Unlike fructose (found in fruits), glucose requires the secretion of insulin. Insulin lowers blood glucose.
Fructose is totally different from other sugars because it uses a different metabolic pathway. It is also not the preferred energy source for the brain. As I mentioned before, fructose does not cause insulin to be released. It has minimal effect on blood glucose levels. It also does not stimulate the production of leptin (hunger hormone). Glucose does, however. This is why when a person eats a cookie, 30 minutes later they are "hungry" again.
The problem arises when glucose is continuously high. The pancreas can handle this workload for a while; however, over time it becomes overworked and unable to efficiently release insulin. This can result in the chronically elevated blood glucose levels found in type 2 diabetes or metabolic syndrome. At the same time, because insulin release is now inefficient, glucose is no longer being delivered to the cells that need it, resulting in cell starvation. Now the person has a risk of becoming insulin dependent.
You're hurting your own argument. Almost everything in America that uses added sugar comes from High Fructose Corn Syrup, including soda and cookies...
I'm actually not hurting my own argument. What you are talking about is the CONCENTRATED FORM of fructose. I'm referring to the natural form of fructose found in fruits.
And how exactly are they processed by your body differently?
I already posted the answer to that question. Not explaining it again.0 -
Correlation is not causation
Is there really ever a study that can 100% say something causes something else?
double-blind randomized controlled trial... but then it's still "evidence suggests"0 -
Correlation is not causation
Is there really ever a study that can 100% say something causes something else?
Yes, absolutely there are. You run the same test with different groups and control different variables and you find causation.
Is there a magic number of studies where someone can officially say "X causes Y" instead of X and Y are correlated? Statistics is basically all about correlations and testing hypotheses. People seem to throw out "Correlation is not causation" all the time on studies, but really that's basically all we can really get is correlations when it comes down to it.
If you set up your study design right to begin with, with a large and diverse enough sample and have proper knowledge of statistics, you only need 1 study. You can say with 99.99% certainty, that x CAUSES y. Though usually we settle for 95% certainty.
If you would like further explanation of sample design and statistics, you can PM me.
My credentials are 4th year PhD candidate in Mathematical Biology.0 -
Correlation is not causation
Is there really ever a study that can 100% say something causes something else?
Yes, absolutely there are. You run the same test with different groups and control different variables and you find causation.
Is there a magic number of studies where someone can officially say "X causes Y" instead of X and Y are correlated? Statistics is basically all about correlations and testing hypotheses. People seem to throw out "Correlation is not causation" all the time on studies, but really that's basically all we can really get is correlations when it comes down to it.
If you have a meta-analysis of a large number of randomized controlled trials then you have pretty convincing evidence. Far more suggestive than a correlation study. (These cost a lot more than correlation studies- which is why they aren't done as much.)0 -
In my opinion, it comes down to where the sugar is coming from.
If someone is eating 80 g of sugar daily but their sugar intake is mainly coming from fruits, that's much different than someone who consumes 80 g of sugar daily from soda and cookies.
Why is it different? The body cannot differentiate where the sugar came from and uses it for energy in the same way, regardless of whether it came from a banana or in a mug of tea.
That's incorrect. Your body can absolutely tell the difference. Sucrose, fructose, and glucose all provide the same amount of energy per gram, but are processed and used differently throughout the body. Simple carbs are classified as one of two things: monosaccharides or disaccharides. Glucose and fructose are monosaccharides and sucrose is a disaccharide.
The body's "preferred" energy source is glucose. Most carbs we eat are processed into glucose. It's either used immediately for energy or stored in the liver as glycogen. Unlike fructose (found in fruits), glucose requires the secretion of insulin. Insulin lowers blood glucose.
Fructose is totally different from other sugars because it uses a different metabolic pathway. It is also not the preferred energy source for the brain. As I mentioned before, fructose does not cause insulin to be released. It has minimal effect on blood glucose levels. It also does not stimulate the production of leptin (hunger hormone). Glucose does, however. This is why when a person eats a cookie, 30 minutes later they are "hungry" again.
The problem arises when glucose is continuously high. The pancreas can handle this workload for a while; however, over time it becomes overworked and unable to efficiently release insulin. This can result in the chronically elevated blood glucose levels found in type 2 diabetes or metabolic syndrome. At the same time, because insulin release is now inefficient, glucose is no longer being delivered to the cells that need it, resulting in cell starvation. Now the person has a risk of becoming insulin dependent.
Finally! Someone who has bothered to read and learn about a topic before posting. Kudos.0 -
In my case (fructose intolerance or w/e name you want to use for it,) I had to lower my sugar intake dramatically. I'm feeling great now. However, I eat lots of basmati rice, so I think there may be an association with carbs and sugars... so many different types. I also don't do well with lactose.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 427 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions