Stop singling out sugar

DeterminedFee201426

stop defending processed poison ... yea we all like it ... but still same fact matters is processed sugars are bad for our body.. and you can look up for yourself if you really wanna find out dont ask me i dont need to prove anything .. i owe you or what ? not*

tigersword

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:

You mean like basic chemistry and biology? Sucrose, glucose and fructose are the exact same molecules, whether you're talking about a teaspoon of sugar in coffee, or an apple. Molecularly they are exactly the same, and biologically, the human body digests them exactly the same. Besides, you haven't produced any evidence. If you want evidence from others, shouldn't you maybe have evidence of your own?

You really don't understand how science works, do you?

tennisdude2004

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...

Unless the claim maker has no proof or is unable to provide the proof and that said 'lack of proof' is being used to establish that the claim is false. It is at that point the burden switches and the person questioning the claim becomes the burden holder.

lemonsnowdrop

stop defending processed poison ... yea we all like it ... but still same fact matters is processed sugars are bad for our body.. and you can look up for yourself if you really wanna find out dont ask me i dont need to prove anything .. i owe you or what ? not*

Stop defending fear mongering and slinging around ludicrous claims. It's people like you that make the ignorant beginners terrified to take that first step to weight loss.

tennisdude2004

stop defending processed poison ... yea we all like it ... but still same fact matters is processed sugars are bad for our body.. and you can look up for yourself if you really wanna find out dont ask me i dont need to prove anything .. i owe you or what ? not*

Stop defending fear mongering and slinging around ludicrous claims. It's people like you that make the ignorant beginners terrified to take that first step to weight loss.

Agreed, sugar is not the devil.

However, when it comes to reducing calories for a lot of dieters it does become (excuse the pun) low hanging fruit.

You can comfortably cut sugar in certain food without losing many nutrients and have a significant impact on your calorie intake.

tigersword

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...

Unless the claim maker has no proof or is unable to provide the proof and that said 'lack of proof' is being used to establish that the claim is false. It is at that point the burden switches and the person questioning the claim becomes the burden holder.

Not so much. In science a claim is assumed to be false unless proven otherwise. All hypotheses must be falsifiable, and the outcomes are assumed to be false until the experiment proves otherwise. This is how you avoid confirmation bias.

DeterminedFee201426

http://www.globalhealingcenter.com/sugar-problem/refined-sugar-the-sweetest-poison-of-all :smokin: good read it its a full page of it (Refined Sugars)

lemonsnowdrop

http://www.globalhealingcenter.com/sugar-problem/refined-sugar-the-sweetest-poison-of-all :smokin: good read it its a full page of it (Refined Sugars)

You linked to a website trying to sell their products. Not exactly scientific evidence.

ndj1979

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..

lolz really?

so one form of sugar blocks nutrition from cells and the other is good for cells? Pray tell, how do your cells distinguish between these types of sugars?

DeterminedFee201426

added sugar is'nt the devil right . was'nt saying anything about its so bad that it actually cant be eaten in moderate amounts. :yawn: (Sugar)

lemonsnowdrop

added sugar is'nt the devil right . was'nt saying anything about its so bad that it actually cant be eaten in moderate amounts. :yawn: (Sugar)

You said it's processed poison. Are you back pedaling or just not sure about what point you're trying to make?

kuolo

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?

I wasn't suggesting research is free. I was saying that some is less blatantly biased/pre-decided than others.

I mean the whole point of this symposium was to spread the word that HFCS is not bad for you, so it's hardly going to be a balanced summary of the available research.

To answer your question, are you telling me you think this article actually says anything? Because if you read it, it doesn't. It seems to get confused between 'sugar', 'fructose' and 'sucrose', using one then the other apparently interchangeably at times.

If you read the first research piece that is linked, it states in its abstract: Weaknesses included small subject numbers, unclear reporting of allocation, unusual dietary regimes, differences in energy intake, fat composition or fibre between conditions, unhealthy subjects, heterogeneity of results, and selective reporting. Insufficient data were available to draw reliable conclusions.

Hardly compelling evidence there.

The second research piece states: 1 - chronically high consumption of fructose in rodents leads to hepatic and extrahepatic insulin resistance, obesity, type 2 diabetes mellitus, and high blood pressure.
2 - in humans: high fructose intake has indeed been shown to cause dyslipidemia and to impair hepatic insulin sensitivity. Hepatic de novo lipogenesis and lipotoxicity, oxidative stress, and hyperuricemia have all been proposed as mechanisms responsible for these adverse metabolic effects of fructose.
3 - there is compelling evidence that very high fructose intake can have deleterious metabolic effects in humans as in rodents
4 - Epidemiological studies show growing evidence that consumption of sweetened beverages (containing either sucrose or a mixture of glucose and fructose) is associated with a high energy intake, increased body weight, and the occurrence of metabolic and cardiovascular disorders.

Yet a single sentence has been cherry picked to appear to somehow support the agenda of the symposium!

Taking (4) from the previous para, and the whole premise of this article, that sugar is only bad when it leads to excess calories, therefore it is not bad....?!?!?

The other studies that are mentioned but not referenced are basically irrelevant - one compares fructose to sucrose - so it's not in any way saying excess sugar isn't bad, it's looking at the different kinds of sugar.

"sugars are isoenergetically exchanged with other carbohydrates they are not associated with weight change. “What evidence do you want to accept?” he charged." (and what kind of word is 'charged'?!) Yes (see above) the point is that excess sugar leads to excess consumption which leads to all the problems mentioned above, of course if you straight swap carbs for sugar you will not increase weight - and note please that this does not say you will not suffer health consequences, it only says you will not gain weight if you maintain your calorie intake, well duh.

I mean the whole thing is so laughably bad I'm not even going to bother to continue!

Actually I will just end with this quote from one of the doctors: "Dr. Sievenpiper said after the event [...] that by no means does he advice against limiting amounts of sugar or sugar-sweetened beverages in a person’s diet." (sic)

Oh well, that's compelling evidence for the pro-sugar camp, then.

ETA: I don't actually care about any of this stuff, other people can eat what they want as far as I'm concerned, and the HFCS stuff isn't even relevant in the UK... but please can people stop putting up rubbish "science" (smoke and mirrors) that doesn't say anything - now THAT bothers me.

eric_sg61

It's simple, fear-mongering and alarmism sells books, drives trafiic to blogs and youtube channels and in the end confuses the reader. The sinister end game is confusion. What happens when someone is confused? They seek out information. Who will they seek the information from? The ones that generated the confusion in the first place, since they obviously have the answer. In the end, the ones that generate the confusion will happily provide you the answer............for a price!

ndj1979

added sugar is'nt the devil right . was'nt saying anything about its so bad that it actually cant be eaten in moderate amounts. :yawn: (Sugar)

you just said it was processed poison....

change your mind already?

tigersword

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?

I wasn't suggesting research is free. I was saying that some is less blatantly biased/pre-decided than others.

I mean the whole point of this symposium was to spread the word that HFCS is not bad for you, so it's hardly going to be a balanced summary of the available research.

To answer your question, are you telling me you think this article actually says anything? Because if you read it, it doesn't. It seems to get confused between 'sugar', 'fructose' and 'sucrose', using one then the other apparently interchangeably at times.

If you read the first research piece that is linked, it states in its abstract: Weaknesses included small subject numbers, unclear reporting of allocation, unusual dietary regimes, differences in energy intake, fat composition or fibre between conditions, unhealthy subjects, heterogeneity of results, and selective reporting. Insufficient data were available to draw reliable conclusions.

Hardly compelling evidence there.

The second research piece states: 1 - chronically high consumption of fructose in rodents leads to hepatic and extrahepatic insulin resistance, obesity, type 2 diabetes mellitus, and high blood pressure.
2 - in humans: high fructose intake has indeed been shown to cause dyslipidemia and to impair hepatic insulin sensitivity. Hepatic de novo lipogenesis and lipotoxicity, oxidative stress, and hyperuricemia have all been proposed as mechanisms responsible for these adverse metabolic effects of fructose.
3 - there is compelling evidence that very high fructose intake can have deleterious metabolic effects in humans as in rodents
4 - Epidemiological studies show growing evidence that consumption of sweetened beverages (containing either sucrose or a mixture of glucose and fructose) is associated with a high energy intake, increased body weight, and the occurrence of metabolic and cardiovascular disorders.

Yet a single sentence has been cherry picked to appear to somehow support the agenda of the symposium!

Taking (4) from the previous para, and the whole premise of this article, that sugar is only bad when it leads to excess calories, therefore it is not bad....?!?!?

The other studies that are mentioned but not referenced are basically irrelevant - one compares fructose to sucrose - so it's not in any way saying excess sugar isn't bad, it's looking at the different kinds of sugar.

"sugars are isoenergetically exchanged with other carbohydrates they are not associated with weight change. “What evidence do you want to accept?” he charged." (and what kind of word is 'charged'?!) Yes (see above) the point is that excess sugar leads to excess consumption which leads to all the problems mentioned above, of course if you straight swap carbs for sugar you will not increase weight - and note please that this does not say you will not suffer health consequences, it only says you will not gain weight if you maintain your calorie intake, well duh.

I mean the whole thing is so laughably bad I'm not even going to bother to continue!

Actually I will just end with this quote from one of the doctors: "Dr. Sievenpiper said after the event [...] that by no means does he advice against limiting amounts of sugar or sugar-sweetened beverages in a person’s diet." (sic)

Oh well, that's compelling evidence for the pro-sugar camp, then.

ETA: I don't actually care about any of this stuff, people can eat what they want as far as I'm concerned, but please can people stop putting up rubbish "science" that doesn't say anything, now that bothers me.

Heh? You're kind of all over the place in your arguments here. For one thing, what is a "very high fructose intake" and how does that correlate to average human intakes in the real world (hint, it's much higher than normal consumption levels?)

Also, where in any of this article, (or in this thread in general) is there any talk of eating tons of sugar with no consequences? Are you unfamiliar with what the terms "moderation" and "excessive" mean? Excessive intake (of anything, not just sugar) leads to health issues.

The point of this article (and it stands quite well) is that sugar isn't the sole cause of health issues, and shouldn't be demonized as such. Nowhere does it say that excessive consumption of sugar is healthy. That's called a straw man argument.

Oh, and by the way, fructose and sucrose are both sugar, so the terms can be used interchangeably.

QuietBloom

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.

They sponsored the symposium, not all of the studies and trials that were presented there. And who else would you expect to put up that kind of money, honestly? At least you can admit that sugar was only PART of the energy equation you needed to change to get the weight to come off.

Joanne_Moniz

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.

Check the New England Journal of Medicine... I will start making a list in a topic in my group so that it can be referenced in one place.

Joanne Moniz
The Skinny on Obesity Group

QuietBloom

stop defending processed poison ... yea we all like it ... but still same fact matters is processed sugars are bad for our body.. and you can look up for yourself if you really wanna find out dont ask me i dont need to prove anything .. i owe you or what ? not*

Talk to my belly about all the 'processed' sugars it enjoys on a regular basis.

Joanne_Moniz

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.

They sponsored the symposium, not all of the studies and trials that were presented there. And who else would you expect to put up that kind of money, honestly? At least you can admit that sugar was only PART of the energy equation you needed to change to get the weight to come off.

We need to be clear that yes it is part of the problem, not all. Less about quantity; more about quality... less does not mean none. I think most people understand that. We do not need to eliminate all sugar; but we need to bring it to a level where our body can process it... kinda makes sense that a machine cannot process something that does not belong in it ... our bodies are machines. 10 percent of our calories and that is a very reasonable amount.

Joanne Moniz
The Skinny on Obesity Group