Stop singling out sugar
Replies
-
This content has been removed.
-
Road HouseOpinions vary0 -
The reducing sugar argument is not just about calorific content per se. It is more about how the body metabolises it and how certain receptors depend on sugar for growth, such as cancers etc. Also, fructose is indicated as a protagonist . However, the fructose in honey is seen as a wonderful, topical, application in treating gun shot wounds !
I think the main problem with the 'evil' sugar is that it has also been used , widely, to replace natural healthy fats in foods and created the 'low fat' epidemic being seen as the healthy alternative. I prefer the more fat less carb approach as it suits my metabolic process. I suppose that to get to the bottom of any research, and its usefulness, you need to find who commissioned the report in the first place. There is much mis-direction these days, and generally, you will find a great manipulation of the data to satify a certain agenda. For example, who would of thought that increasing your cholesterol is paramount to remain healthy, (as long as it's the HDL levels of course), again, this goes against everything we thought we knew about disease and its precursors, and the causes of our ills'.
I see that oxidisation is the main offender in so many of our health issues and surely, with mass produced foods, this will only increase.0 -
I think sugar is an amazing thing.
From it we can make amazing foods like cake and bicuits.
What we need is a practice called moderation.0 -
Great post and enjoyed reading it
I am not sure who the sponsor was makes it any less relevant than articles that have been sensationalized in order to sell a book such as those by Lustig but that my personal opinion.
Will either of the above make me change my mind about sugar? No probably not and I will continue to eat moderate amounts while it fits into my calorie goal, provided I remain satiated, am losing weight and my health markers are fine0 -
Right, your posting suggests that your a believer in bad vs good food, so this post makes sense. A little over the top though. Misinformation and posing with a signature like Joanne does, needs to be criticized diligently and who knows maybe even you may start to understand that sugar, potatoes or mayonnaise are not the foods of mass destruction.
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 -
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?
Complains about someone being disrespectful and then resorts to personal attacks . . .0 -
SO in...0
-
I'm one of those poor folks who get migraines from artificial sweeteners. The equivalent of one can of diet soda will do it to me, and yes I get them even when I ingest them accidentally. (There may be an artificial sweetener out there that doesn't do it, but I'm not going to make myself a guinea pig whenever a new one hits the market.)
The "sugar is sugar" argument isn't technically true. On a molecular level it isn't true and when baking it isn't true, heck even cane sugar and beet sugar give different baking results, and they are both sucrose and 95% identical. The difference for the human body may be moot at a certain point assuming low to medium intake and a mix from all sources, it's the outliers I worry about (the I drink nothing but Mountain Dew crowd) . I admit I don't trust HFCS and its proliferation into everything, but I'm not going to throw a hissy fit if the restaurant uses ketchup that contains it.
/The funny thing is I get less annoyed by the "that's pseudo science, no it's not" back and forth than by people ignoring grammar rules and failing to write in complete sentences. I'm forced to reread their sentences five times.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 DANGER
yes; I am aware of that0 -
. 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.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 ?
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.
True.
And what of the point when the funding comes from the public treasury as approved by Congress? Any of these guys following that money? The key difference is I can choose whether or not to purchase corn products. I can not choose how much I pay in taxes or how that money is spent. There's no boycotting public revenue agents. (without a shotgun, that is:laugh: )0 -
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*
processed poison....I have no defense, I do enjoy an occasional beer0 -
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.
I was one of those. I didn't want to try to lose weight because I thought that meant I had to give up chocolate and beer. Thank God I found the MFP forums and learned the truth. But I put it off for years because life without chocolate or beer is not a life worth living.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/NEJMoa1203388
The need to lower consumption of sugar is hard to swallow, as evidenced here among so many that do not want to believe what the medical field is telling us, but for our health, we need to reduce the consumption of sugar dramatically from where it is now. The average american is eating exorbitant amounts..
These studies, I know, are time consuming to read.. an excerpt... The significant intervention effect for the change in BMI observed at 1 year, together with the findings of de Ruyter et al. involving children 5 to 12 years of age (reported elsewhere in the Journal),21 provides support for public health guidelines that recommend limiting consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages.22
The need to lower consumption of sugar is hard to swallow, as evidenced here among so many that do not want to believe what the medical field is telling us, but for our health, we need to reduce the consumption of sugar dramatically from where it is now. The average american is eating exorbitant amounts..0 -
.., nope0
-
Totally addicted to sugar over here. Only decided to diet when I realized I could still have some and keep within my limits. I don't bother to pay attention to articles like this, it's all speculation, there will be a million other articles saying sugar is great for you.0
-
Also, it is better to have real sugar than those artificial sweeteners, aspartame, sucralose... those are so bad for you in a million different ways, I have a combination of stevia sweetener (which comes from a plant) and regular white sugar if I need to reduce calories.0
-
It is quite funny to see people using these overly restrictive diets based on their beliefs for no benefits.
But good on you. Keep fighting that fight.0 -
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.
THIS. SO MUCH THIS.0 -
Lol, sugar...lol oh my...I won't say more :-D0
-
Lol, sugar...lol oh my...I won't say more :-D
I didn't understand your post...(are you pro-sugar as part of a balanced diet? Anti-sugar believing that sugar is inherently evil and somehow a special kind of carb?)...so I clicked through to read your food diary for some context clues, but nothing...so now I just have to guess.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Name a couple of those million different reasons please.Also, it is better to have real sugar than those artificial sweeteners, aspartame, sucralose... those are so bad for you in a million different ways, I have a combination of stevia sweetener (which comes from a plant) and regular white sugar if I need to reduce calories.
I don't know of a million reasons but I know aspartame triggers my migraines, I'm still mourning my loss of Diet Dew a year later
0 -
bump for further study......0
-
This content has been removed.
-
I'm one of those poor folks who get migraines from artificial sweeteners. The equivalent of one can of diet soda will do it to me, and yes I get them even when I ingest them accidentally. (There may be an artificial sweetener out there that doesn't do it, but I'm not going to make myself a guinea pig whenever a new one hits the market.)
The "sugar is sugar" argument isn't technically true. On a molecular level it isn't true and when baking it isn't true, heck even cane sugar and beet sugar give different baking results, and they are both sucrose and 95% identical. The difference for the human body may be moot at a certain point assuming low to medium intake and a mix from all sources, it's the outliers I worry about (the I drink nothing but Mountain Dew crowd) . I admit I don't trust HFCS and its proliferation into everything, but I'm not going to throw a hissy fit if the restaurant uses ketchup that contains it.
/The funny thing is I get less annoyed by the "that's pseudo science, no it's not" back and forth than by people ignoring grammar rules and failing to write in complete sentences. I'm forced to reread their sentences five times.
Suclarose gives me migraines. I have no problem with aspartame or stevia.0 -
Totally addicted to sugar over here. Only decided to diet when I realized I could still have some and keep within my limits. I don't bother to pay attention to articles like this, it's all speculation, there will be a million other articles saying sugar is great for you.
Sugar is great. I've never needed anyone to tell me that. :bigsmile: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/NEJMoa1203388
The need to lower consumption of sugar is hard to swallow, as evidenced here among so many that do not want to believe what the medical field is telling us, but for our health, we need to reduce the consumption of sugar dramatically from where it is now. The average american is eating exorbitant amounts..
These studies, I know, are time consuming to read.. an excerpt... The significant intervention effect for the change in BMI observed at 1 year, together with the findings of de Ruyter et al. involving children 5 to 12 years of age (reported elsewhere in the Journal),21 provides support for public health guidelines that recommend limiting consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages.22
The need to lower consumption of sugar is hard to swallow, as evidenced here among so many that do not want to believe what the medical field is telling us, but for our health, we need to reduce the consumption of sugar dramatically from where it is now. The average american is eating exorbitant amounts..
No, sugar consumption has stayed the same in America for 20 years. And the final study conclusion is that the sugar soda and diet soda children weighed the same after two years. What do you do, stop reading once you've read something that confirms your bias?0 -
I feel somewhat sorry for those people who can't be responsible for their actions and must find an appropriate demon to place the blame on. I was fat.......I ate too much. I am losing weight because I am eating less. The demonizers are doing such a disservice to people who don't know better.0
-
This content has been removed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions