Stop singling out sugar
Options
Replies
-
"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 -
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
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.8K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 396 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 967 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions