Stop singling out sugar

32sami

bump

RllyGudTweetr

Opinions vary

Do facts?

albertabeefy

No, sugar consumption has stayed the same in America for 20 years.

This is a VERY MISLEADING statistic - and overall isn't remotely true.

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 ...

kikityme

Tell it to my diabeetus.

yarwell

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

Thoth8

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. :-)

stevencloser

I don't even

Vigilance88

QuietBloom

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.

prattiger65

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?

maillemaker

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.

albertabeefy

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)

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.)

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.

Acg67

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)

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.)

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.full

albertabeefy

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/94/3/726.full

Yup, seen it ... please see my edit above...

FireOpalCO

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.

albertabeefy

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

psuLemon

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.

jofjltncb6

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.

albertabeefy

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.

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.

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.