WHO: Daily sugar intake 'should be halved'

caroldavison332

Regardless of the science, if avoiding processed sugarS works for you, go for it. When I don't eat it I feel much less hungry and eat kales, eggplants, tomatoes, Brussell sprouts, etc.

WendyTerry420

Ummmmm.......no, it's not that rare. There are plenty of type 2 diabetics that are not obese.

Do you have a number/percentage to quantify 'plenty'?

Well, I work in a nursing home and I see a fair share. You can google percentages if you want, I don't have a number for you. It's definitely common. http://chriskresser.com/think-skinny-people-dont-get-type-2-diabetes-think-again

Well that doesn't give any numbers or figures or...much of anything, actually. :indifferent:


I did google actually and skimmed a few studies. FIgures are contested, ranging from 1 in 12 (I'd still call that pretty rare) to 1 in 8 (12%, which I'd still consider a very small amount, but perhaps not rare)

Stop it with your quantifications. We're talking a "fair share" here, maybe even "plenty"

replying to the person quoting the stats above sonofabeach's reply (sorry, too lazy to scroll through the thread!) - when there are millions of people in a group (e.g. sufferers of a common illness like type two diabetes) then 1 in 8 to 1 in 12 is actually a very large number of people.

1 in 12 of 1,000,000 people = 83,333 people. That is tens of thousands of people out of every million..... one in twelve is a LOT of people....

also. my granddad had two major heart attacks yet was never obese in his life. And my step granddad on the other side of my family had type 2 diabetes and he was far from obese, he was tall and slender, and he didn't live to be 70, and the diabetes was a factor in why he died.

A large number of people overall is not the same thing as a large portion of a group. I wouldn't consider 8-12.5% of anything to be a large amount.

Isn't that 1 out of 8 to 12 people with Type 2?

1 in 8-12 people with type 2 are non-obese, which is 8.3(repeating)-12.5%.

And I'm done with my hair. BRB, finding pictures of a rampaging sugar monster/sweets to post.

So, no, not "a lot" of Type 2 diabetics are healthy weight, but it is also true that this segment is not "rare." I'm glad this got straightened out last night. I was on the edge of my seat to see if it would be resolved before I had to ask Google.

I was content to call the segment 'fairly uncommon' but apparently that's weasel wording. (Even though common was a claim made by someone else and I was refuting it.)

And again, non-obese=/= healthy weight. Why does everyone keep cutting out those who are overweight? Aren't they people too? Just rude

Agreed!

I'm thinking "not common" makes sense, but now I'm wondering how much of the split is healthy and how much is overweight, non-obese. So many complications....maybe I've just enjoy my muffin and find a new thread... :ohwell:


:laugh:

WendyTerry420

when I use my KitchenAid mixer.

That's just showing off frankly...

Great.

Now I want cake and Nicki Minaj.

These forums are a curse I tell you...

I'm just glad my employer doesn't check our browsing history. And that's all I can say about that. :smokin:

thomaszabel

Amen. I used to be a processed foods junkie. I made the switch over a period of a couple of months to going with whole foods, and now I rarely buy any food from the inside aisles of the store. At first, my body and taste buds didn't like things like kale, brussell sprouts, celery, tomatoes, etc., but after a week or two, that changed.

Now on the rare occasion that I am forced to eat at McDonalds or eat at someone else's house, it still tastes good, but leaves me feeling empty or bad afterwards.

I don't have the money to go completely organic. That gets very expensive. But just switching to non-processed foods has given me more energy and just made me feel great.

And I get plenty of natural sugar. I'm enjoying a big glass of freshly squeezed grapefruit juice right now. No matter what Monsanto and other food corporations say, I'm feeling better and healthier than I have in decades.

LiftAllThePizzas

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.

It's not the number of studies, it's whether or not other things have been eliminated as potential causes.

Especially when you consider sugar and tooth decay, because it's already known that sugar does not directly cause tooth decay.

Achrya

Agreed!

I'm thinking "not common" makes sense, but now I'm wondering how much of the split is healthy and how much is overweight, non-obese. So many complications....maybe I've just enjoy my muffin and find a new thread... :ohwell:


:laugh:

This I can get behind. Me and my Cap'n Crunch are gonna back on out and go play video games.

DamianaKitten

And this my friends is why there will never, ever be peace in the middle east...

Yea, people debating nutrition using scientific research and factual evidence is exactly the same as people killing each other for centuries over opposing views on religion...what?

I probably read way more into that statement than I should have.

I looked at it as more of a "if we are going to argue over stupid **** like sugar, how in the world will we ever be able to work out real, global, problems?"

I disagree with this statement (in bold). The freedom to disagree (i.e. not to be lynched, murdered, "disappeared", jailed or tortured for having a different opinion) is a fundamental part of democracy. Additionally, the ability to disgree and debate issues without getting butthurt and bombing other countries and the ability to just agree to disagree on some matters and allow people to do their own thing, is what enables (or will potentially enable) humans to all get along. Requiring everyone to agree with everyone else is a particularly vile form of oppression.

Note: I know you're not saying everyone has to agree with everyone else... I'm just following that statement to a logical conclusion... humans are *never* going to agree on everything *ever*... we have to learn to live with people who disagree with us. (which actually most people on this forum do very well, I mean there are threads like this with flame wars, but everyone will have forgotten about it and be discussing something else tomorrow....)

While I agree that disagreements shouldn't lead to murder/war/whatever, sugar is a poor example of the larger problems we're facing, especially in the Middle East. If someone physically attacked me for something like nutrition, they'd be crazy. However, when the problem is "my land v. your land" and "my religion over your religion" and things of that nature, it becomes a bit more complex. If humans can't get together and get along on simple issues (nutrition) then it tends to follow that the more intense the issue, the more intense the course of action will be. While it would be nice if everyone could just get along, that's not human nature across the board, yet.

mccindy72

when I use my KitchenAid mixer.

That's just showing off frankly...

Great.

Now I want cake and Nicki Minaj.

These forums are a curse I tell you...

I feel like there's something wrong with you now. Cake - yes. Nikki Minaj - WTF?