Stop singling out sugar
Replies
-
bump0
-
Do facts?Opinions vary0 -
This is a VERY MISLEADING statistic - and overall isn't remotely true.No, sugar consumption has stayed the same in America for 20 years.
It *is* true that the consumption of Cane and Beet sugars has remained relatively constant the past 20 years, but the total consumption of all caloric sweeteners (which also includes corn sweeteners such as HFCS, etc.) continues to rise, and has never been static.
Also of note, the USDA lumps "fruit juice" into FRUIT instead of in sugars - which is a travesty and further skews the statistics.
Those who believe "sugar consumption as stayed the same in America for 20 years" are believing a load of hogwash. It's still continuing to rise. Period. (See the USDA Agriculture Fact Book, profiling food consumption in America for references.)
The absolute truth is total consumption of sugars continues to rise ...0 -
Tell it to my diabeetus.0 -
Those who believe "sugar consumption as stayed the same in America for 20 years" are believing a load of hogwash. It's still continuing to rise. Period. (See the USDA Agriculture Fact Book, profiling food consumption in America for references.)
The absolute truth is total consumption of sugars continues to rise ...
http://www.usda.gov/factbook/chapter2.pdf only gets us to 2000.
www.ers.usda.gov/.../LossAdjusted_Food_Availability/sugar.xls gives us the following grams/day per head for 20 years to 2012, "all caloric sweeteners" ie sucrose + HFCS + honey + glucose etc etc (not fruit juice)
107.3
110.6
112.6
115.6
117.2
117.9
119.9
118.6
116.9
116.7
113.0
112.0
113.0
111.3
107.1
107.5
103.2
105.0
104.3
103.70 -
Most of all cancers feed off sugar. Want cancer? Eat up. (Only a few rare varieties feed off of one or two amino acids, vast majority of cancers feed off sugar)
I got this from a book written by an educated doctor:
"Cancer as a Metabolic Disease: On the Origin, Management, and Prevention of Cancer" by Thomas N. Seyfried, Ph.D., University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
"The textbook brings together methods and findings regarding the sources and prevention of cancer that Dr. Seyfried has spent years working on at Boston College and Yale University. "
So yeah, just because you CAN live on sugars, doesn't mean it's the best idea, even in moderation. There are other paths. People put on ketogenic diets (high fat, medium protein, low carb diets) can reverse diabetes, reduce cancer tumors (or completely prevent them if they didn't have them yet).
I'd rather trust a Ph.D. who worked at Yale as an assistant professor than an OP I've never heard of. :-)0 -
This content has been removed.
-
I don't even0
-
0 -
Those who believe "sugar consumption as stayed the same in America for 20 years" are believing a load of hogwash. It's still continuing to rise. Period. (See the USDA Agriculture Fact Book, profiling food consumption in America for references.)
The absolute truth is total consumption of sugars continues to rise ...
http://www.usda.gov/factbook/chapter2.pdf only gets us to 2000.
www.ers.usda.gov/.../LossAdjusted_Food_Availability/sugar.xls gives us the following grams/day per head for 20 years to 2012, "all caloric sweeteners" ie sucrose + HFCS + honey + glucose etc etc (not fruit juice)
107.3
110.6
112.6
115.6
117.2
117.9
119.9
118.6
116.9
116.7
113.0
112.0
113.0
111.3
107.1
107.5
103.2
105.0
104.3
103.7
I love data. Pretty hard to argue with this. I'm sure though, that the sugar fear mongerers will ignore this post.0 -
Most of all cancers feed off sugar. Want cancer? Eat up. (Only a few rare varieties feed off of one or two amino acids, vast majority of cancers feed off sugar)
I got this from a book written by an educated doctor:
"Cancer as a Metabolic Disease: On the Origin, Management, and Prevention of Cancer" by Thomas N. Seyfried, Ph.D., University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
"The textbook brings together methods and findings regarding the sources and prevention of cancer that Dr. Seyfried has spent years working on at Boston College and Yale University. "
So yeah, just because you CAN live on sugars, doesn't mean it's the best idea, even in moderation. There are other paths. People put on ketogenic diets (high fat, medium protein, low carb diets) can reverse diabetes, reduce cancer tumors (or completely prevent them if they didn't have them yet).
I'd rather trust a Ph.D. who worked at Yale as an assistant professor than an OP I've never heard of. :-)
Do you even science?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.
This is my take on it also.
I think it should be quite understandable why sugar has become a boogey man. It's just like in old times when they thought night air caused fevers. It wasn't the night air, it was the mosquitoes that came with it. They just made the correlation but misunderstood the causation.
Foods with high sugar contents tend to be calorie-dense and very compelling to eat. If you eat such foods regularly without counting calories and only with regard to satiety, you will probably eat a calorie surplus without even realizing it.
So maybe there is nothing unhealthy about the chemicals of sugars at all. But people have made the correlation between sugary food and weight gain. It's not because there is anything magical about sugar - diet composition has very little effect on body mass. It's simply because sugary foods are compelling to eat and are calorie dense.0 -
Well, that's fascinating, EXCEPT the Loss-Adjusted Food Availability Data Series does not measure actual consumption (And they state that right on their web-page). And the ERS consumption data differs from other data. (But then again, the USDA is an agriculture marketing agency, not a health agency.)http://www.usda.gov/factbook/chapter2.pdf only gets us to 2000.
www.ers.usda.gov/.../LossAdjusted_Food_Availability/sugar.xls gives us the following grams/day per head for 20 years to 2012, "all caloric sweeteners" ie sucrose + HFCS + honey + glucose etc etc (not fruit juice)
By comparison, the CDC (Centers for Disease Control) finds that added sugar consumption continues to rise in the USA. I'd personally believe the health agency on this statistic before I would the agency that supports/markets-for those that process refined sugars.
EDIT: FYI - I'm big enough to admit I made a mistake in my review of the information - the CDC data I reviewed was mostly-based on SSB's (Sugar-sweetened beverages). It DOES appear that consumption of added sugars *did* decrease between 2000 and 2008. There appears to be little reliable data for the past 5-6 years, however.0 -
Well, that's fascinating, EXCEPT the Loss-Adjusted Food Availability Data Series does not measure actual consumption (And they state that right on their web-page). And the ERS consumption data differs from other data. (But then again, the USDA is an agriculture marketing agency, not a health agency.)http://www.usda.gov/factbook/chapter2.pdf only gets us to 2000.
www.ers.usda.gov/.../LossAdjusted_Food_Availability/sugar.xls gives us the following grams/day per head for 20 years to 2012, "all caloric sweeteners" ie sucrose + HFCS + honey + glucose etc etc (not fruit juice)
By comparison, the CDC (Centers for Disease Control) finds that added sugar consumption continues to rise in the USA. I'd personally believe the health agency on this statistic before I would the agency that supports/markets-for those that process refined sugars.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/94/3/726.full0 -
Yup, seen it ... please see my edit above...0 -
Most of all cancers feed off sugar. Want cancer? Eat up. (Only a few rare varieties feed off of one or two amino acids, vast majority of cancers feed off sugar)
I got this from a book written by an educated doctor:
"Cancer as a Metabolic Disease: On the Origin, Management, and Prevention of Cancer" by Thomas N. Seyfried, Ph.D., University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
"The textbook brings together methods and findings regarding the sources and prevention of cancer that Dr. Seyfried has spent years working on at Boston College and Yale University. "
So yeah, just because you CAN live on sugars, doesn't mean it's the best idea, even in moderation. There are other paths. People put on ketogenic diets (high fat, medium protein, low carb diets) can reverse diabetes, reduce cancer tumors (or completely prevent them if they didn't have them yet).
I'd rather trust a Ph.D. who worked at Yale as an assistant professor than an OP I've never heard of. :-)
Cancer is not a life form. It doesn't "feed off" anything. It refers to a group of diseases in which abnormal versions of your own body cells continue to replicate without stopping. What causes cancer is mutation, which is naturally occurring and happens all the time. When that mutation also leads to rapid cell division and shoves other cells out of the way, problem.
But since you did mention "rather trust" go to the Mayo Clinic website and see that sugar is listed under cancer myths.0 -
EDIT: FYI - I'm big enough to admit I made a mistake in my review of the information - the CDC data I reviewed was mostly-based on SSB's (Sugar-sweetened beverages). It DOES appear that consumption of added sugars *did* decrease between 2000 and 2008. There appears to be little reliable data for the past 5-6 years, however.
That being said, people are still eating too much, and over-consumption of sugar is still strongly-related to CVD and other health-issues.
http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=18195730 -
EDIT: FYI - I'm big enough to admit I made a mistake in my review of the information - the CDC data I reviewed was mostly-based on SSB's (Sugar-sweetened beverages). It DOES appear that consumption of added sugars *did* decrease between 2000 and 2008. There appears to be little reliable data for the past 5-6 years, however.
That being said, people are still eating too much, and over-consumption of sugar is still strongly-related to CVD and other health-issues.
http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1819573
Lest face reality, it's not the over consumption of sugar, as already noted by the statistics above, it's the over consumption of calories and larger than life quantities.0 -
EDIT: FYI - I'm big enough to admit I made a mistake in my review of the information - the CDC data I reviewed was mostly-based on SSB's (Sugar-sweetened beverages). It DOES appear that consumption of added sugars *did* decrease between 2000 and 2008. There appears to be little reliable data for the past 5-6 years, however.
That being said, people are still eating too much, and over-consumption of sugar is still strongly-related to CVD and other health-issues.
http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1819573
Lest face reality, it's not the over consumption of sugar, as already noted by the statistics above, it's the over consumption of calories and larger than life quantities.
Unfortunately, too many people choose to reject this reality and substitute their own...
...probably because it fits their preconceived notion that sugar (and even more hilariously, *added* sugar) is the boogeyman and not the seemingly more likely culprit of total overall calories...perhaps because cutting out sugar seems easier than reducing calories. It's certainly easier to sell a book/program/membership with this perspective.0 -
There's compelling evidence against what you say in regards to CVD, except when the over-abundance of calories also includes an over-abundance of sugar. We KNOW that Tg/HDL-C is one of the strongest predictors of CVD risk - and we know that reducing the percentage of sugar (regardless of calories consumed) in the diet reduces triglycerides, and helps improve the HDL-C ratio. As such, over-consumption of sugar is an issue.Lest face reality, it's not the over consumption of sugar, as already noted by the statistics above, it's the over consumption of calories and larger than life quantities.
The guidelines on total sugar recommendations are based-on some fairly sound science.
It's true that the old guidelines on saturated fat and cholesterol intake never were based on sound science, but the guidelines on sugar in the diet is, and that science has stood the tests of time and scrutiny.
There is extremely strong evidence that over-consumption of sugar is strongly-linked to CVD and other health issues. To ignore that evidence and focus solely on the calorie issue isn't sound advice.
Sure, sugar (whether added or not) can be part of a healthy, balanced diet - in moderation. However, the statistics still show sugar isn't being consumed in moderation by the general population.0 -
When it comes to weight-loss, I agree. Sugar isn't the primary culprit, calories are.Lest face reality, it's not the over consumption of sugar, as already noted by the statistics above, it's the over consumption of calories and larger than life quantities.
Unfortunately, too many people choose to reject this reality and substitute their own...
...probably because it fits their preconceived notion that sugar (and even more hilariously, *added* sugar) is the boogeyman and not the seemingly more likely culprit of total overall calories...perhaps because cutting out sugar seems easier than reducing calories. It's certainly easier to sell a book/program/membership with this perspective.
When it comes to your health, however, over-consumption of sugar is most-certainly NOT healthy, regardless of what weight you are at. The science bears that out.0 -
There's compelling evidence against what you say in regards to CVD, except when the over-abundance of calories also includes an over-abundance of sugar. We KNOW that Tg/HDL-C is one of the strongest predictors of CVD risk - and we know that reducing the percentage of sugar (regardless of calories consumed) in the diet reduces triglycerides, and helps improve the HDL-C ratio. As such, over-consumption of sugar is an issue.Lest face reality, it's not the over consumption of sugar, as already noted by the statistics above, it's the over consumption of calories and larger than life quantities.
The guidelines on total sugar recommendations are based-on some fairly sound science.
It's true that the old guidelines on saturated fat and cholesterol intake never were based on sound science, but the guidelines on sugar in the diet is, and that science has stood the tests of time and scrutiny.
There is extremely strong evidence that over-consumption of sugar is strongly-linked to CVD and other health issues. To ignore that evidence and focus solely on the calorie issue isn't sound advice.
Sure, sugar (whether added or not) can be part of a healthy, balanced diet - in moderation. However, the statistics still show sugar isn't being consumed in moderation by the general population.
As for strong evidence, what do you think of this?
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0076632
What are your thoughts on making policy off epidemiological studies?0 -
When it comes to weight-loss, I agree. Sugar isn't the primary culprit, calories are.Lest face reality, it's not the over consumption of sugar, as already noted by the statistics above, it's the over consumption of calories and larger than life quantities.
Unfortunately, too many people choose to reject this reality and substitute their own...
...probably because it fits their preconceived notion that sugar (and even more hilariously, *added* sugar) is the boogeyman and not the seemingly more likely culprit of total overall calories...perhaps because cutting out sugar seems easier than reducing calories. It's certainly easier to sell a book/program/membership with this perspective.
When it comes to your health, however, over-consumption of sugar is most-certainly NOT healthy, regardless of what weight you are at. The science bears that out.
What is considered "over" consumption? Would it be possible to over consume sugar yet still be at maintenance or in a deficit?0 -
I'll be the first to state that there's issues with 24 hour nutritional intake questionnaires, which is why I don't rely solely upon those in making any decisions myself.As for strong evidence, what do you think of this?
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0076632
The fact is, with regards to the NHANES data (like all intake questionnaires) under-reporting is very likely. This, however, doesn't change the fact that the reporting of sugar intake has increased. I doubt people have drastically changed their reporting habits, since under-reporting has been habitual for 50+ years in this type of questionnaire.
BTW the link your provided as-well-as other research on the reliability of food-intake questionnaires would suggest that sugar consumption is actually HIGHER than reported - as it's well-established that people under-report its intake.
I *really* like the following quote when it comes to this particular subject (sugar consumption) - This is taken from the AHA position statement on Sugar and Cardiovascular Disease:What are your thoughts on making policy off epidemiological studies?
Just a few studies (and the link the the position paper quoted above) are as-follows:In the absence of definitive evidence, recommendations must rely on professional judgment. No data suggest that sugar intake per se is advantageous, and some data suggest it may be detrimental. The studies above, taken in total, indicate that high sugar intake should be avoided. Sugar has no nutritional value other than to provide calories. To improve the overall nutrient density of the diet and to help reduce the intake of excess calories, individuals should be sure foods high in added sugar are not displacing foods with essential nutrients or increasing calorie intake.
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/257108.php
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/242259.php
http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/106/4/523.full
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24493081
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/84/5/1171.full
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/02/130201100149.htm
http://www.aacr.org/home/public--media/aacr-in-the-news.aspx?d=3217
http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/120/11/1011.full.pdf0 -
There's the tricky part - that depends on who you talk to (differing targets come from the WHO, the CDC, the ADA, etc...) ... Not only that, but different people's genetics play a factor in it. (As an example, over 1/3rd of my siblings and cousins of my generation have been diagnosed with either Type I or Type II diabetes. It's quite likely my family member's limits differ from those without that kind of history.)What is considered "over" consumption?
Data from studies all over the world would suggest, however, that limiting sugar to 10% or fewer of overall calories is certainly prudent.
Calorically? Of course. Sure, you can do the "twinkie diet" and still be in a deficit and lose weight ... But it's most-certainly not nutritionally complete, is it? I doubt anyone would argue that.Would it be possible to over consume sugar yet still be at maintenance or in a deficit?0 -
When it comes to weight-loss, I agree. Sugar isn't the primary culprit, calories are.Lest face reality, it's not the over consumption of sugar, as already noted by the statistics above, it's the over consumption of calories and larger than life quantities.
Unfortunately, too many people choose to reject this reality and substitute their own...
...probably because it fits their preconceived notion that sugar (and even more hilariously, *added* sugar) is the boogeyman and not the seemingly more likely culprit of total overall calories...perhaps because cutting out sugar seems easier than reducing calories. It's certainly easier to sell a book/program/membership with this perspective.
When it comes to your health, however, over-consumption of sugar is most-certainly NOT healthy, regardless of what weight you are at. The science bears that out.
What is considered "over" consumption? Would it be possible to over consume sugar yet still be at maintenance or in a deficit?
Yes!0 -
In the absence of definitive evidence, recommendations must rely on professional judgment. No data suggest that sugar intake per se is advantageous, and some data suggest it may be detrimental. The studies above, taken in total, indicate that high sugar intake should be avoided. Sugar has no nutritional value other than to provide calories. To improve the overall nutrient density of the diet and to help reduce the intake of excess calories, individuals should be sure foods high in added sugar are not displacing foods with essential nutrients or increasing calorie intake.
Just a few studies (and the link the the position paper quoted above) are as-follows:
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/257108.php
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/242259.php
http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/106/4/523.full
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24493081
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/84/5/1171.full
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/02/130201100149.htm
http://www.aacr.org/home/public--media/aacr-in-the-news.aspx?d=3217
http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/120/11/1011.full.pdf
Now hasn't there been studies on various levels of sugar consumption while in a hypocaloric state or at maintenance for various lengths of time and there were no significant differences in blood markers of health etc when macros and cals were controlled?0 -
I've yet to see any study that compares a diet high in sugars to one that's lower in sugars that has favorable outcomes for the high-sugar diet.Now hasn't there been studies on various levels of sugar consumption while in a hypocaloric state or at maintenance for various lengths of time and there were no significant differences in blood markers of health etc when macros and cals were controlled?
I've seen studies showing no significant difference among various types of sugars (ie: fructose vs. sucrose vs. glucose) but not any studies showing high-sugar diets are superior in any way to diets lower in sugar.
Remember, I'm not saying sugar is evil. I'm saying that MOST people in the USA likely over-consume it. The statistics show anywhere between 15-18% of calories come from sugar (depending on demographics, year, etc.) and the evidence is showing that a little less (around 10%) would likely be better.
Do you argue this?0 -
0 -
I've yet to see any study that compares a diet high in sugars to one that's lower in sugars that has favorable outcomes for the high-sugar diet.Now hasn't there been studies on various levels of sugar consumption while in a hypocaloric state or at maintenance for various lengths of time and there were no significant differences in blood markers of health etc when macros and cals were controlled?
I've seen studies showing no significant difference among various types of sugars (ie: fructose vs. sucrose vs. glucose) but not any studies showing high-sugar diets are superior in any way to diets lower in sugar.
Remember, I'm not saying sugar is evil. I'm saying that MOST people in the USA likely over-consume it. The statistics show anywhere between 15-18% of calories come from sugar (depending on demographics, year, etc.) and the evidence is showing that a little less (around 10%) would likely be better.
Do you argue this?
While you did not say that sugar was evil, you did dispute the real issue is total caloric intake and that over consumption of sugar independent of total caloric intake isn't healthy and likely has deleterious effects. Depending on how you define over consumption, I think there is a lack of evidence to make those claims. It's entirely possible that one could get in sufficient macro and micro nutrients in a hypocaloric state or maintenance AND over consume sugar yet be "healthy" however you want to define healthy and unhealthy
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/65/4/908.full.pdf0
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