WHO: Daily sugar intake 'should be halved'
Options
Replies
-
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?0 -
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?"0 -
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?
Makes sense to me. Most people base their ideas about sugar on whatever they already believe and then look for supporting evidence for that, much like people and religions.0 -
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.
What about the fact that fructose is almost always found with glucose, even in fruit? That negates your entire argument about fruit being superior because of the fructose present and the fact that it does not illicit an insulin response due to the claimed absence of glucose.Fructose in both the commercial and natural domain has an equal amount of glucose attached to it. You’d have to go out of your way to obtain fructose without the accompanying glucose. Sucrose is half fructose and half glucose. High-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is nearly identical to sucrose in structure and function. Here’s the point I’m getting at: contrary to Lustig’s contentions, both of these compounds have substantial research showing not just their ability to elicit an insulin response, but also their suppressive effect on appetite
Not once did I say fruit contains no glucose. The amount of glucose found in fruit is so minute. It all depends on its glycemic index. You're still not getting the point but that's okay.
Fruit contains about equal parts fructose and glucose so I wouldn't call that minute...
Also the glycemic index was developed for diabetics and if you're not diabetic it's basically irrelevant. The way they determined the glycemic index was they would feed one specific carb BY ITSELF to a person in a fasted state and watch the insulin response during digestion. How often does that happen for a person? Who eats only one specific carb by itself in a fasted state? For most people rarely ever. It has been shown that the glycemic index is washed out and basically irrelevant when carbs are consumed with protein and or fat as both of those macronutrients slow digestion and thus slow the speed in which the carbs are processed resulting in a reduction in the insulin response and even if carbs are eaten alone, but in a fed state, the same situation applies.
It all depends on the fruit.
Irrelevant if you're not diabetic? Lol. If the glycemic index is washed out and basically irrelevant when carbs are consumed with protein and fat, why are so many people diabetic nowadays? It's not from eating protein, healthy fats, and low glycemic fruits. I can promise you that.
It's from over consuming calories in general and becoming obese. Obesity for the most part causes type 2 diabetes, results in insulin resistance, and therefore carbs and sugars must be carefully monitored once you become diabetic. It's very rare to see someone in a healthy weight range have type 2 diabetes and if they do, it is usually because they consume a ridiculous percentage of their caloric intake in carbohydrates and don't eat enough protein or it is genetic.
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. I am comfortable saying, with the information I've been able to dig up, that non-obesity related type 2 diabetes is fairly uncommon.
then it just comes down to a personal opinion about what constitutes "a lot of people" which is not a very scientific term,.
"fairly uncommon" is weasel words... i.e. vague, non-specific statements that are easy to defend because you can just say "oh I don't consider it to mean that." A disease that affects 1 in 100 people is not considered a rare disease... some diseases affect one in a million.... so if something that affects 8-12% of a group isn't considered common, then what words do you use for illnesses that affect only one in ten thousand people?
you need to be a lot more precise in your wording when you make statements like this. Yes you can hold your personal opinion that something that affects 8-12% of a group is "fairly uncommon" but you're just playing with semantics. In terms of cause and effect, i.e. the question as to whether obesity causes diabetes, then the fact that 8-12% of diabetics are not obese would be far too many exceptions to be able to consider obesity as a cause of diabetes. Does it make it worse? I'm sure it does. Does it make it more likely to occur in susceptible individuals? maybe. But there are too many exceptions for it to be the primary cause.0 -
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....)0 -
Are we eating too much sugar? possibly, is it bad for you from a food point of view? yet to be convinced.
I don't track sugar personally and although I don't have a sweet tooth I, would probably be surprised by what I do eat.
Why are we eating so much sugar these days? In my opinion is because populations in general are easily led. We were told in the 80's/90's that fat was bad for you so low fat foods became the fad of age.
Truly reducing fat made food taste like cardboard so some manufacturers added salt and sugar for flavour increasing our salt and sugar intake.
The other way was based on low fat foods needing to have less than (from memory) 30% of their calories from fat. So if a food had 100 calories and 31 of those were from fat it wasn't classed as low fat. Now if you add 100 calories of sugar to the same food 31 of 200 calories come from fat and hey presto its low fat!
Its far cheaper to deal with obesity through scaremongering and demonising foods than it is to educate a population, but there doesn't seem to be much drive to educate people about nutrition.
ETA Grammar0 -
33% of our country is obese, but only 8.3% of the population has type 2 diabetes. Type 2 diabetes is more prevalent in the obese, BUT most obese people do not have diabetes. Also, thin people can have type 2 diabetes as well.
Conclusion-- You don't eat your way to diabetes. It's much more complex than that. We all with type 2 diabetes got the short end of the genetic stick.Source - http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/myths/
Myth: If you are overweight or obese, you will eventually develop type 2 diabetes.
Fact: Being overweight is a risk factor for developing this disease, but other risk factors such as family history, ethnicity and age also play a role. Unfortunately, too many people disregard the other risk factors for diabetes and think that weight is the only risk factor for type 2 diabetes. Most overweight people never develop type 2 diabetes, and many people with type 2 diabetes are at a normal weight or only moderately overweight.
Myth: Eating too much sugar causes diabetes.
Fact: The answer is not so simple. Type 1 diabetes is caused by genetics and unknown factors that trigger the onset of the disease; type 2 diabetes is caused by genetics and lifestyle factors.
Being overweight does increase your risk for developing type 2 diabetes, and a diet high in calories from any source contributes to weight gain. Research has shown that drinking sugary drinks is linked to type 2 diabetes.
The American Diabetes Association recommends that people should limit their intake of sugar-sweetened beverages to help prevent diabetes. Sugar-sweetened beverages include beverages like:
regular soda
fruit punch
fruit drinks
energy drinks
sports drinks
sweet tea
other sugary drinks.
These will raise blood glucose and can provide several hundred calories in just one serving!
See for yourself:
Just one 12-ounce can of regular soda has about 150 calories and 40 grams of carbohydrate. This is the same amount of carbohydrate in 10 teaspoons of sugar!
One cup of fruit punch and other sugary fruit drinks have about 100 calories (or more) and 30 grams of carbohydrate.
- See more at: http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/myths/#sthash.ehRzNdC6.dpuf
QFT0 -
in the UK they have put the added sugars in without public knowledge, after studies were done with rats, they found high fructose corn syrup made the rats more prone to weight gain even eating a healthy diet, it also made it tougher for them to lose weight, it had something to do with the body processing the high fructose corn syrup, so yes overeating is a problem, but it is also known that these sugar additives are causing problems for some people permanently...
In the UK it is difficult to get healthy food that is really grown healthy, with no pesticides etc, it usually is imported and we pay a premium to get it...
We can argue all day long about whether sugar is a problem or not, but in reality sugar is not intended to be the main food group we eat, but unfortunately it is cheap to use so it creates bigger profits, public health takes a back seat to company profits...
We need to eat balanced for individual needs, we all have different needs for different tasks....0 -
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.
What about the fact that fructose is almost always found with glucose, even in fruit? That negates your entire argument about fruit being superior because of the fructose present and the fact that it does not illicit an insulin response due to the claimed absence of glucose.Fructose in both the commercial and natural domain has an equal amount of glucose attached to it. You’d have to go out of your way to obtain fructose without the accompanying glucose. Sucrose is half fructose and half glucose. High-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is nearly identical to sucrose in structure and function. Here’s the point I’m getting at: contrary to Lustig’s contentions, both of these compounds have substantial research showing not just their ability to elicit an insulin response, but also their suppressive effect on appetite
Not once did I say fruit contains no glucose. The amount of glucose found in fruit is so minute. It all depends on its glycemic index. You're still not getting the point but that's okay.
Fruit contains about equal parts fructose and glucose so I wouldn't call that minute...
Also the glycemic index was developed for diabetics and if you're not diabetic it's basically irrelevant. The way they determined the glycemic index was they would feed one specific carb BY ITSELF to a person in a fasted state and watch the insulin response during digestion. How often does that happen for a person? Who eats only one specific carb by itself in a fasted state? For most people rarely ever. It has been shown that the glycemic index is washed out and basically irrelevant when carbs are consumed with protein and or fat as both of those macronutrients slow digestion and thus slow the speed in which the carbs are processed resulting in a reduction in the insulin response and even if carbs are eaten alone, but in a fed state, the same situation applies.
It all depends on the fruit.
Irrelevant if you're not diabetic? Lol. If the glycemic index is washed out and basically irrelevant when carbs are consumed with protein and fat, why are so many people diabetic nowadays? It's not from eating protein, healthy fats, and low glycemic fruits. I can promise you that.
It's from over consuming calories in general and becoming obese. Obesity for the most part causes type 2 diabetes, results in insulin resistance, and therefore carbs and sugars must be carefully monitored once you become diabetic. It's very rare to see someone in a healthy weight range have type 2 diabetes and if they do, it is usually because they consume a ridiculous percentage of their caloric intake in carbohydrates and don't eat enough protein or it is genetic.
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. I am comfortable saying, with the information I've been able to dig up, that non-obesity related type 2 diabetes is fairly uncommon.
then it just comes down to a personal opinion about what constitutes "a lot of people" which is not a very scientific term,.
"fairly uncommon" is weasel words... i.e. vague, non-specific statements that are easy to defend because you can just say "oh I don't consider it to mean that." A disease that affects 1 in 100 people is not considered a rare disease... some diseases affect one in a million.... so if something that affects 8-12% of a group isn't considered common, then what words do you use for illnesses that affect only one in ten thousand people?
you need to be a lot more precise in your wording when you make statements like this. Yes you can hold your personal opinion that something that affects 8-12% of a group is "fairly uncommon" but you're just playing with semantics. In terms of cause and effect, i.e. the question as to whether obesity causes diabetes, then the fact that 8-12% of diabetics are not obese would be far too many exceptions to be able to consider obesity as a cause of diabetes. Does it make it worse? I'm sure it does. Does it make it more likely to occur in susceptible individuals? maybe. But there are too many exceptions for it to be the primary cause.
I'm not playing with sementics. I'm using the terms that were previously used in this conversation (see, I actually bolded the use of 'weasel' words further up.) I never made any claims about obesity as it relate to diabetes (but I suppose you did admit to not wanting to go back to quote so it's possible you aren't sure who said what.) When you get down to it I'm talking about math/percentages.
But I'll try this again. 8% of something isn't common. It isn't a large amount. Just because the base group (the human population) is large doesn't change the fact that 8-12% of 8% of that group is NOT a significant part of that group. I don't care if that percentage actually encompasses millions of people, it is still not a common/a fair share. If I told you 12% of 8% of a pie had apples instead of cherries would you consider apples 'common/a fair amount' of that pie?
End of my point. Anything further anyone takes from what I said is projections of their own and are things I never said.0 -
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?
Makes sense to me. Most people base their ideas about sugar on whatever they already believe and then look for supporting evidence for that, much like people and religions.
sure…so the sugar debate is similar to Christians, jews, and muslims killing/blowing themselves up for centuries over a strip of land that is probably the size of the florida panhandle….legit comparison….0 -
The fact that your eating habits are the only one risk factor in that list you can do anything about and the fact that as stated in other posts, obese people are the vast majority of type 2 diabetics, I would say trying to not be obese is a good way of preventing diabetes.33% of our country is obese, but only 8.3% of the population has type 2 diabetes. Type 2 diabetes is more prevalent in the obese, BUT most obese people do not have diabetes. Also, thin people can have type 2 diabetes as well.
Conclusion-- You don't eat your way to diabetes. It's much more complex than that. We all with type 2 diabetes got the short end of the genetic stick.Source - http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/myths/
Myth: If you are overweight or obese, you will eventually develop type 2 diabetes.
Fact: Being overweight is a risk factor for developing this disease, but other risk factors such as family history, ethnicity and age also play a role. Unfortunately, too many people disregard the other risk factors for diabetes and think that weight is the only risk factor for type 2 diabetes. Most overweight people never develop type 2 diabetes, and many people with type 2 diabetes are at a normal weight or only moderately overweight.
Myth: Eating too much sugar causes diabetes.
Fact: The answer is not so simple. Type 1 diabetes is caused by genetics and unknown factors that trigger the onset of the disease; type 2 diabetes is caused by genetics and lifestyle factors.
Being overweight does increase your risk for developing type 2 diabetes, and a diet high in calories from any source contributes to weight gain. Research has shown that drinking sugary drinks is linked to type 2 diabetes.
The American Diabetes Association recommends that people should limit their intake of sugar-sweetened beverages to help prevent diabetes. Sugar-sweetened beverages include beverages like:
regular soda
fruit punch
fruit drinks
energy drinks
sports drinks
sweet tea
other sugary drinks.
These will raise blood glucose and can provide several hundred calories in just one serving!
See for yourself:
Just one 12-ounce can of regular soda has about 150 calories and 40 grams of carbohydrate. This is the same amount of carbohydrate in 10 teaspoons of sugar!
One cup of fruit punch and other sugary fruit drinks have about 100 calories (or more) and 30 grams of carbohydrate.
- See more at: http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/myths/#sthash.ehRzNdC6.dpuf
QFT0 -
IMHO - I think everyone would benefit form eating moderate natural sugar from fruits and as little refined sugar as possible (or that their diets would allow).
Too much sugar in your diet will increase your risks of inflammation, which in turn will increase your bodies small particle LDL's.0 -
It's very rare to see someone in a healthy weight range have type 2 diabetes and if they do, it is usually because they consume a ridiculous percentage of their caloric intake in carbohydrates and don't eat enough protein or it is genetic.
You left out lack of exercise. My husband is Type II and has been a healthy weight most of his life. He has Type 1 in his family though (mom, grandma, cousin), His biggest thing is lack of exercise since he is disabled. When it's nice out and he goes for a walk regularly, his A1C gets down to 3. In the winter, he has to take extra meds and supplements from lack of exercise.0 -
Sugar consumption SHOULD be halved by most people, frankly.
Most people don't eat a healthy diet that hits appropriate targets for protein, fat, calories, and micros. For a lot of people, their sugar intake is simply too high to hit those goals.
So most people should consume less sugar.
Does that mean there's anything inherently wrong with sugar? No, it doesn't. Eat all the sugar you want as long as you hit appropriate goals in other areas.
And BTW the idea that fructose is fine in fruit but bad if it's "in concentrated form" in some other product is so ridiculous it defies belief.0 -
If your intaking natural sugars such as fruit and honey you should be fine.
If its refined sugar you will have problems reaching to your goal it may take a little longer but we all have those days where our willpower gets the best of us and we just have to give in just make smarter choices, were only human just don't the same thing one day will not hurt. But over time it will
Just make smarter choices. Fruits can not harm you. But process sugar can read your labels very carefully.
"Refined sugar" also comes from nature.
0 -
<anip>
Over consumption isn't normally associated with steak...
Challenge accepted. :laugh:0 -
everyone would benefit from eating moderate sugar from any source.
Too much sugar in your diet is unhealthy, just as too much of anything in your diet is unhealthy
FIFY0 -
Millions of people become obese by over consuming fat as well.
Suzie-Q's, dripping with grease...
(the best one's are from Swope's Drive-Inn in Rich Hill, MO!)
0 -
I never did like The Who . . .
0 -
an apple has 19 grams of sugar..one Milano dark chocolate cooke has 20 grams…which is better?
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 395 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 960 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions