Stop singling out sugar

Options
24567…12

Replies

  • neanderthin
    neanderthin Posts: 10,017 Member
    Options
    Challenging the WHO and others for spreading fears about sugar unfairly were scientists in a symposium on Saturday, April 26. The event, supported and sponsored by the Corn Refiners Association, took place during the American Society for Nutrition 2014 Scientific Sessions and Annual Meeting at Experimental Biology in San Diego.

    The presence of sponsorship $ always casts a long shadow.

    A previous version of this debate was interesting where Robert Lustig was attacked in the Q&A. Is this year's on line anywhere ?
    . At least Dr's with a motivated sponsor and all the studies you could possibly want pretty much made Lustig appear kinda fanatical, and a few Dr's challenged him directly......making fun of him really. Science is never boring.
  • SunofaBeach14
    SunofaBeach14 Posts: 4,899 Member
    Options
    Not sure a symposium organised and paid for by the Corn Refiners Association is where you should be getting your 'scientific' info on sugar!

    Any non-bought-and-paid-for research out there?

    Actually, no, there isn't. Research costs money and that money has to come from somewhere. Major sponsors include the private sector, government, and universities, each of which will bring it's own biases. This is why research is published, data supplied, and the peer review process is so important. So . . . any actual criticism of the reasoning and research?
  • SunofaBeach14
    SunofaBeach14 Posts: 4,899 Member
    Options
    Challenging the WHO and others for spreading fears about sugar unfairly were scientists in a symposium on Saturday, April 26. The event, supported and sponsored by the Corn Refiners Association, took place during the American Society for Nutrition 2014 Scientific Sessions and Annual Meeting at Experimental Biology in San Diego.

    The presence of sponsorship $ always casts a long shadow.

    A previous version of this debate was interesting where Robert Lustig was attacked in the Q&A. Is this year's on line anywhere ?
    . At least Dr's with a motivated sponsor and all the studies you could possibly want pretty much made Lustig appear kinda fanatical, and a few Dr's challenged him directly......making fun of him really. Science is never boring.

    Lustig has all but been written off by the serious minded. I find it interesting that people will find bias in where the money comes from but will shrug off demonstrated fanaticism by the researcher himself.
  • ndj1979
    ndj1979 Posts: 29,136 Member
    Options
    Valid points raised, but yes the sponsorship of those points is troubling.

    I think added sugar is an issue, and it does lead to excess calories/energy intake in individuals. How often do we see HFCS in foods and wonder why there is any sugar in there? It's important to note that they still advise reducing sugar intake as part of reducing calories, but not doing that in isolation.

    For me, controlling sugar was the domino which led to all my other macros staying in line and my weight to start dropping.

    That's right!! Reducing sugar is the key to weight loss... Quality calories. One does not have to eliminate it but needs to reduce it. Our bodies cannot process all the sugar the average person is eating. It is converted to fat!!!

    Joanne Moniz
    The Skinny on Obesity Group

    and along came joanne…that train is never late…

    sorry, reducing overall calorie intake is the key to weight loss. …quality calories and sugar has nothing to do with it..
  • Jestinia
    Jestinia Posts: 1,153 Member
    Options
    Just woke up, not enough caffeine in my bloodstream yet. Did I miss the part where this article addresses sugar's potential effects on satiety? Because that is what does me in when I eat a lot of sugar. Including sugar from fruit. It's like the reverse of eating low carb for me. Yet naysayers go off on low carb because it has no magical fat burning properties while ignoring its satiety effects. This article seems to be ignoring sugar's satiety affecting properties as well.

    Yeah, if you eat too much you will get fat. If you eat less calories than you burn in a day you will lose weight. But what foods make different people eat too much or more easily stick to a deficit or maintenance? This article, unless I read it sloppily, seems to be missing a huge piece of the puzzle, and therefore, the point.
  • shapefitter
    shapefitter Posts: 900 Member
    Options
    Our bodies don't process artificial sweeteners so well, either.
  • Joanne_Moniz
    Joanne_Moniz Posts: 347 Member
    Options
    Our bodies don't process artificial sweeteners so well, either.


    That's right; it is important not to replace sugar with artificial sugar ingredients... The jury is still out on which is worse!!
  • Acg67
    Acg67 Posts: 12,142 Member
    Options
    Our bodies don't process artificial sweeteners so well, either.

    Proof?
  • DeterminedFee201426
    DeterminedFee201426 Posts: 859 Member
    Options
    Our bodies don't process artificial sweeteners so well, either.
    right and processed sugars block our cells from gathering
    much better nutrition .. you can eat natural sugars and it will do the
    opposit which is good..
  • mumblemagic
    mumblemagic Posts: 1,090 Member
    Options
    Interesting post. I am also fed up of demonising foods. One of my least favourite phrases is "you shouldn't eat that, it's really fattening". My mum says it all the time and it drives me nuts!
  • tigersword
    tigersword Posts: 8,059 Member
    Options
    Our bodies don't process artificial sweeteners so well, either.
    right and processed sugars block our cells from gathering
    much better nutrition .. you can eat natural sugars and it will do the
    opposit which is good..
    What? Please tell me this is sarcasm, and you don't really believe this nonsense...


    It's always funny to me when the only response from people who are insistent that [insert demonized food here] is the problem, that when confronted with research disproving their beliefs, they attack the funding immediately. If their beliefs are correct, then shouldn't they be able to point to science in order to refute the actual data and science? I mean, that's how scientific debate works. You don't disqualify science based on the source, you disqualify it based on the actual data.
  • tennisdude2004
    tennisdude2004 Posts: 5,609 Member
    Options
    Simple sugars in moderation are not unhealthy.

    That's not to say that they are healthy though.

    Apart from a quick source of fuel for the body (which you can get from other sources) they offer very little back nutritionally in return for what they cost in calories.

    It's all down to choice - if you like sugar and can make it fit into your calorie target eat it, enjoy it.

    If you would rather use those calories for other things, or eat the sugar in foods which will offer you more nutrients (and fibre) back for the calorie cost, do that.

    The fact is dietary sugar is not essential for a healthy body and mind, but it does make certain things taste better.

    And for certain athletes or fitness/weight fanatics it is a convenient fuel source.
  • tigersword
    tigersword Posts: 8,059 Member
    Options
    Our bodies don't process artificial sweeteners so well, either.
    right and processed sugars block our cells from gathering
    much better nutrition .. you can eat natural sugars and it will do the
    opposit which is good..
    What? Please tell me this is sarcasm, and you don't really believe this nonsense...


    It's always funny to me when the only response from people who are insistent that [insert demonized food here] is the problem, that when confronted with research disproving their beliefs, they attack the funding immediately. If their beliefs are correct, then shouldn't they be able to point to science in order to refute the actual data and science? I mean, that's how scientific debate works. You don't disqualify science based on the source, you disqualify it based on the actual data.

    Sadly she's not being sarcastic. I guess it's always better to believe what you hear than to actually take the time and read up on how stuff really works.
    I find it very sad that people actually believe that sugar "blocks nutrition" yet at the same time sugar "does the opposite" without seeing the obvious contradiction. I mean, it literally takes 3 seconds of critical thinking to realize that's complete nonsense.
  • freemystery
    freemystery Posts: 184 Member
    Options
    The caveat on sugar, which really should go on every type of food is EVERYTHING in moderation.

    Sugar in isolation is not the culprit when it comes to weight gain, it's quantity, frequency, self-discipline etc so I broadly agree with the OP.

    **from this point, all opinions are my own. I don't claim to speak for everyone.**

    It's not the sugar that made me fat/ unhealthy, it was my own lack of self control. I knew I didn't need to get ANOTHER candy from the box, I did it anyway because I wanted it. I can sit here and blame marketing and advertisers as much as I want. The fact is that I'm a reasonably smart human being with free will and access to resources which can inform my choices. Whether I do something proactive about it or sit back and bleat that it's not MY fault that I eat three desserts at each meal is absolutely my choice.

    Guess which approach is going to bring the change I want?
    Hint: It's not the one that has me looking for shortcuts or excuses. I am not a special snowflake.
  • lemonsnowdrop
    lemonsnowdrop Posts: 1,298 Member
    Options
    Our bodies don't process artificial sweeteners so well, either.
    right and processed sugars block our cells from gathering
    much better nutrition .. you can eat natural sugars and it will do the
    opposit which is good..

    I would love to see some scientific evidence backing this claim.
  • DeterminedFee201426
    DeterminedFee201426 Posts: 859 Member
    Options
    Before people can say that someone word is nonsense they need to make sure they have evidence to prove someone is wrong if you dont have it then best advice to you is to not even put a input :glasses: everyone can have their own opinion but if your trying to correct someone make sure you have proof to back it up :laugh:
  • Acg67
    Acg67 Posts: 12,142 Member
    Options
    Before people can say that someone word is nonsense they need to make sure they have evidence to prove someone is wrong if you dont have it then best advice to you is to not even put a input :glasses: everyone can have their own opinion but if your trying to correct someone make sure you have proof to back it up :laugh:

    Actually the burden of proof is on the claim maker...

Categories