Stop singling out sugar
Replies
-
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.
Start taking a look at the average american's belly... Line up 3 people... there will be inevitably be 1 large belly...0 -
What? Please tell me this is sarcasm, and you don't really believe this nonsense...
right and processed sugars block our cells from gatheringOur bodies don't process artificial sweeteners so well, either.
much better nutrition .. you can eat natural sugars and it will do the
opposit which is good..
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
You mean this study?
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa12033880 -
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.
Start taking a look at the average american's belly... Line up 3 people... there will be inevitably be 1 large belly...
What does that have to do with my post, and my point that I enjoy plenty of sugar, but control my weight through meeting my macros and exercise?0 -
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
*News Flash* - Our bodies can process every gram of sugar we ingest, be it 10 grams or 300 grams. I really can't figure out what it is you are trying to say when you imply that our bodies can only process so much sugar.0 -
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?)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.
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.
Sucrose/Sugar is fructose AND glucose... and it is the fructose in the sugar that spells DANGER0 -
^x2Before 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...0 -
Sugar isn't a toxin or a poison or any of the other half-baked nonsense that people throw around.
It is of course high calorie and low nutrition and where it gets you is there's a lot of hidden sugar in things.
But that just means you need to pay attention not that it has to be avoided like some plague carrying flea.0 -
Just kidding, without Sugar there would be no RUM
This made me a forevermore fan of sugar.0 -
"We need to get away from a single nutrient approach and focus on total diet and dietary patterns to improve health."
^ This says it all for me.0 -
You are aware that every sugar, even the natural, unprocessed, directly eaten from the fruit, contains fructose. Right?
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?)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.
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.
Sucrose/Sugar is fructose AND glucose... and it is the fructose in the sugar that spells DANGER0 -
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.
Nice job sifting through all the BS, Kuolo. I'm not sure why some people were having a hard time getting the point. The whole thing was like the tobacco industry in the past telling us how cigarettes will help us lose weight, improve our athletic ability, increase our independence, and make us more attractive.
Anyway, I like the way you put it in perspective.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Fake sweeteners make me sick. I don't eat them.
If sugar was going to make me an addicted, obese person wouldn't I be obese by now? I've never been more than 20 lbs over the weight I am OK with. I've never actually been classified as "overweight" according to my BMI.
I got hooked on cigarettes fast enough so I know addiction is possible for me.
If sugar is POISON how come I'm so quick and agile for my age and size? I'm no youngster here. I'm a middle aged woman. I've started taking weight lifting seriously. I already out-lift most of the women at my gym.
I spent the first 35 years of my life in LA. I was exposed to every fad diet, no sugar, no thingthatortheother food for YEARS. I swear, a ton of folks acted like eating was a suicide attempt unless you ate some crazy fad crap. Chia seeds? REALLY??? Blech!
I got in the habit of challenging them. If your diet is so damn great let's see how strong you are.....
The answer I got every darn time? "Well, yes, um but... you work out a lot...."
NO magical diet, no "special" foods. No "regular food is suicide" crap! It's NOT THE SHOES, THE OVERPRICED GYM OR THE SILLY DIET!
It's hard work, calorie control and using common sense!0 -
Our bodies don't process artificial sweeteners so well, either.
We pee them out quite effectively, don't we ?0 -
In to read later and possibly more based on experience and to lock the thread when it goes completely off the rails later.
FIFY
Anyhow, in...because Big Sugar™.0 -
I have lost 100 pounds and never gave up sugar....and all my health markers are good. So screw that, I'm never giving it up, lol. Everything in moderation.0
-
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?)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.
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.
Sucrose/Sugar is fructose AND glucose... and it is the fructose in the sugar that spells DANGER
Fructose spells DANGER? :laugh: No, no no. Diet Sodas spell DANGER!
0 -
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?)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.
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.
Sucrose/Sugar is fructose AND glucose... and it is the fructose in the sugar that spells DANGER
Fructose spells DANGER? :laugh: No, no no. Diet Sodas spell DANGER!
I lol'd.
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:0 -
Talk to my belly about all the 'processed' sugars it enjoys on a regular basis.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*
Start taking a look at the average american's belly... Line up 3 people... there will be inevitably be 1 large belly...
so one out of three ate too much food...what in the seven hells does that have to do with sugar...???0 -
Talk to my belly about all the 'processed' sugars it enjoys on a regular basis.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*
Start taking a look at the average american's belly... Line up 3 people... there will be inevitably be 1 large belly...
so one out of three ate too much food...what in the seven hells does that have to do with sugar...???
Logic. Pfffffft.
0 -
"We need to get away from a single nutrient approach and focus on total diet and dietary patterns to improve health."
^ This says it all for me.
This is what I got out of it too and I wholeheartedly agree.0 -
The GIFs are so worth reading this tread to it's inevitable end.0
-
books about eating in moderation don't sell too well
Good article mate.
Exactly!!!!
When are people going to start realizing this and stop shelling out hard earned cash on "gimmicks" that make the author money???
I mean that goes for diet books, exercise fads, gimmicky equipment and gadgets. etc.... People can only make money if they find a niche. And creating a niche usually means making a single food group/type of exercise/lifestyle super "good" and categorizing all the others as "super evil"
It's just so that the creator of the program can have "something" to trade mark/patent so they can start collecting profit.
Use moderation. Use common sense. Save your money!!0 -
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?)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.
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.
Your last sentence - no, you cannot use fructose, sucrose and sugar interchangeably in this situation. It's like saying gold and lead are both metals, so you could use gold, metal and lead interchangeably. Or sulphuric acid and water are both liquids, so you could use water, sulphuric acid and liquid interchangeably!! (Are you really saying you can use the terms sucrose and fructose interchangeably?)
In fact using sugar, fructose and sucrose interchangeably is totally missing the point of what these people are actually trying to say. All the studies focussed on one of these things specifically. They specifically state they are different things and have different metabolic pathways. Could I start using the term dextrose as well because it is another type of sugar? No, of course not; your point is totally invalid. My point is that he seems to conflate several different arguments about several different things by seemingly being unable to notice the distinctions drawn in the scientific studies about different kinds of sugar.
I think you are mistaking my quoting the research pieces referenced in the study for my personal arguments. My only point was that it was hilarious IMO that a study that found all these negative things about fructose, was quoted and referenced to say one 'positive' thing about fructose, when in fact if you read the study there was a heck of a lot more bad stuff there than good. So no I don't really care what levels they used in the study - it was from the report, not something I dug up. My only argument was that the article was inconsistent and used inapproriate references. I have no agenda on sugar.
As for your straw man: Can you define 'excessive' consumption of sugar? That is the whole point of this article - it starts with the sentence "Providing the most recent fodder for anti-sugar headlines in several media channels was the World Health Organization (WHO) recommendation to halve intake of sugar" ... It is rallying against the new definition of what is excessive. It wants the line of where 'excessive' starts to be moved to where it is comfortable being. So you could say that actually it is all about excessive consumption of sugar - it's about what you would define as excessive.
Oh and of course sugar is not the SOLE cause of health issues. Seriously? Not even the most rabid anti-sugar campaigner would say this. The point is that it is A cause of health issues, and quite a big one, judging by some of the research referenced in this article. Smoking is not the sole cause of health issues either, but that doesn't mean it's not bad for you.
I'm not going to respond to the rest because I disagree, I don't think you read what I wrote properly, and simply it doesn't matter enough to me to revisit it. Like I said, I don't really care about this, but I think it's a rubbish article that is self-contradictory and uses pretty poor research in a misleading way. Also your post was pretty patronising/rude, for example - "Are you unfamiliar with what the terms "moderation" and "excessive" mean?" - not really worth a proper response, don't you think? Talking to someone like they're stupid is not generally a good way to encourage measured debate.0 -
Oh and of course sugar is not the SOLE cause of health issues. Seriously? Not even the most rabid anti-sugar campaigner would say this. The point is that it is A cause of health issues, and quite a big one, judging by some of the research referenced in this article. Smoking is not the sole cause of health issues either, but that doesn't mean it's not bad for you.
apparently you have not been around here long and heard some of Joanne's claims, or the other people who say that sugar is toxic, poisonous, etc…
So I think there are a lot of people that have made sugar the boogeyman of obesity…
just throwing that out there...0 -
This is hillarious. Sugar is just another food. It grows all around here. It is not the boogie man. No danger Will Robinson. :noway: :laugh:0
-
I'd have to agree that a "study" that is paid for by the people who produce high-fructose corn syrup can't be taken seriously. And I have to wonder why someone would go out of their way to post it. Are they being paid to do so?0
-
I'd have to agree that a "study" that is paid for by the people who produce high-fructose corn syrup can't be taken seriously. And I have to wonder why someone would go out of their way to post it. Are they being paid to do so?
Holy crap you are right! Acg67 would never undertake the herculean task of posting an article he found interesting to a message board where it is relevant unless he was in the pay of Big Sugar! And the original blogger too -- never mind his interest in nutrition subjects, etc. (the whole point of his blog) - clearly a hired henchman for the sweet crystalline oligarchy!
And for the rest of you with your arguments, and studies, and science-y stuff -- sugar scratched my truck, hit on my wife, and kicked my dog. So %&$! sugar.0 -
I'd have to agree that a "study" that is paid for by the people who produce high-fructose corn syrup can't be taken seriously. And I have to wonder why someone would go out of their way to post it. Are they being paid to do so?
Ah, yes...the MFP members who are paid to promote Big Fillintheblank.
:laugh:
Oh, MFP. Don't ever change.
Don't. Ever. Change.0 -
More nonsense..............if the body didn't or couldn't process all the sugar we consumed it wouldn't have ended up in fat reserves.....you will never understand this, but thought I'd let others that may read this understand that what your saying makes no sense at all. It's you inability to understand that is fueling your particular fear mongering and you probably don't even know your doing it.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
You know, you don't have to agree with everyone, but you also don't need to be so disrespectful, either. It is so sad that there isn't appropriate etiquette on these boards. Why can't you make your point without resorting to attacks? Does it just make you feel better? Are you, perhaps, a bully and this is just "your way"? Did your parents, or whoever raised you, forget to instill how important it is to respect your fellow human being? Don't you remember the golden rule of treating others how you want to be treated? Or, most disappointing, is it that you feel these forums are so anonymous that you just don't care?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
- 426 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