Cutting out High-Fructose Corn Syrup--has anyone?
Options
Replies
-
http://uctv.tv/shows/Sugar-The-Bitter-Truth-16717
If you're worried about how it affects your weight, satiety, and health, then you should cut down on all added sugar, not just HFCS. Fruit gets a pass from Dr. Lustig (famous for the above video). But fruit juice is a no according to him.
Many people think he's an alarmist, but he's a pediatric endocrinologist with credentials in diabetes research reviews (he and another author tied up causation between increased consumption of sugar in populations with increased rates of diabetes in those populations). I'll listen to him before some random internet poster who will come tell you sugar is fine in all forms and quantities. Your opinion may vary. Do your own reading and lecture watching, make up your own mind.
Alan Aragon debated him.....judge for yourselves....
http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/02/19/a-retrospective-of-the-fructose-alarmism-debate/
http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/
The man knows his stuff. But he trains elite athletes. Look around you, how many people qualify and therefore probably don't have to worry about excess sugar consumption?
Ad hominem.
Judge the data and the arguments, not the source. Lustig is a moron, and Aragon ate him for lunch.
Not an ad hominem at all. He simply works with people who are far from the typical American.
I don't know if you can out exercise a bad diet, but I can't, and believe me, I tried!
LOL. So we're adding strawmen too, I see.
I see you don't want to consider the issue, you just want to attempt to run me around in pointless circles. You wont' succeed.
If you can out exercise a bad diet (i.e. a lot of added sugar in this case) and if you're convinced added sugar isn't a problem for you despite it causing a rise in diabetes in populations, fine. Eat up.
Strawman. Nobody said you could out exercise a bad diet.But if you're convinced it doesn't cause that rise in diabetes at all, I'd like to see some evidence. Even if I could out exercise a bad diet (and this is after all in large part a weight loss forum so it's relevant to our interests) the diabetes link would give me pause.
http://www.ucsf.edu/news/2013/02/13591/quantity-sugar-food-supply-linked-diabetes-rates
The rise in diabetes is linked to an excess of CALORIES, not just sugar. Please show me any evidence of a link to diabetes in a caloric balance (or deficit).In addition, the food industry seems to want us to continue to consume excess calories largely coming from sugars they add to their foods, then get home from work and burn them off so we don't suffer from obesity related disease and/or sugar consumption related disease.
Even if we could out exercise a bad diet and remain healthy with high added sugar consumption, I find it presumptuous of them to assume none of us has anything better to do than work out for two hours every day if that is not our natural enjoyable inclination.
Another strawman. Nobody is recommending this.
Yes, that is exactly what food companies are attempting to push on us. Don't worry about added sugar and exercise more.
And the study shows added sugar calories is the cause, not just added calories.
Another article: http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0057873
Abstract
While experimental and observational studies suggest that sugar intake is associated with the development of type 2 diabetes, independent of its role in obesity, it is unclear whether alterations in sugar intake can account for differences in diabetes prevalence among overall populations. Using econometric models of repeated cross-sectional data on diabetes and nutritional components of food from 175 countries, we found that every 150 kcal/person/day increase in sugar availability (about one can of soda/day) was associated with increased diabetes prevalence by 1.1% (p <0.001) after testing for potential selection biases and controlling for other food types (including fibers, meats, fruits, oils, cereals), total calories, overweight and obesity, period-effects, and several socioeconomic variables such as aging, urbanization and income. No other food types yielded significant individual associations with diabetes prevalence after controlling for obesity and other confounders. The impact of sugar on diabetes was independent of sedentary behavior and alcohol use, and the effect was modified but not confounded by obesity or overweight. Duration and degree of sugar exposure correlated significantly with diabetes prevalence in a dose-dependent manner, while declines in sugar exposure correlated with significant subsequent declines in diabetes rates independently of other socioeconomic, dietary and obesity prevalence changes. Differences in sugar availability statistically explain variations in diabetes prevalence rates at a population level that are not explained by physical activity, overweight or obesity.0 -
I don't understand the point of cutting something from your diet when others who have freely admit, "I saw no benefits." But to each their own. Good luck to you.
Some people see no benefit because HFCS had no effect on them. Good for them - they had no reaction to it.
Some people, like me, have seen mild benefits - a digestive system that now functions better. Apparently, the foods that have HFCS have negatively affected me and by removing it from my diet, I've seen an improvement...particularly , no more gas/flatulence (which another poster commented as a benefit of cutting out HFCS.)
Everyone's bodies are different. Some people react to food ingredients, others don't....
I also do not like the taste of things with HFCS vs. a similar counterpart with sugar. So there's a benefit - I like the taste.
You don't see the point, then you don't need to cut it out. Problem solved for you. Yay!0 -
http://uctv.tv/shows/Sugar-The-Bitter-Truth-16717
If you're worried about how it affects your weight, satiety, and health, then you should cut down on all added sugar, not just HFCS. Fruit gets a pass from Dr. Lustig (famous for the above video). But fruit juice is a no according to him.
Many people think he's an alarmist, but he's a pediatric endocrinologist with credentials in diabetes research reviews (he and another author tied up causation between increased consumption of sugar in populations with increased rates of diabetes in those populations). I'll listen to him before some random internet poster who will come tell you sugar is fine in all forms and quantities. Your opinion may vary. Do your own reading and lecture watching, make up your own mind.
Alan Aragon debated him.....judge for yourselves....
http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/02/19/a-retrospective-of-the-fructose-alarmism-debate/
http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/
The man knows his stuff. But he trains elite athletes. Look around you, how many people qualify and therefore probably don't have to worry about excess sugar consumption?
Ad hominem.
Judge the data and the arguments, not the source. Lustig is a moron, and Aragon ate him for lunch.
Not an ad hominem at all. He simply works with people who are far from the typical American.
I don't know if you can out exercise a bad diet, but I can't, and believe me, I tried!
LOL. So we're adding strawmen too, I see.
I see you don't want to consider the issue, you just want to attempt to run me around in pointless circles. You wont' succeed.
If you can out exercise a bad diet (i.e. a lot of added sugar in this case) and if you're convinced added sugar isn't a problem for you despite it causing a rise in diabetes in populations, fine. Eat up.
Strawman. Nobody said you could out exercise a bad diet.But if you're convinced it doesn't cause that rise in diabetes at all, I'd like to see some evidence. Even if I could out exercise a bad diet (and this is after all in large part a weight loss forum so it's relevant to our interests) the diabetes link would give me pause.
http://www.ucsf.edu/news/2013/02/13591/quantity-sugar-food-supply-linked-diabetes-rates
The rise in diabetes is linked to an excess of CALORIES, not just sugar. Please show me any evidence of a link to diabetes in a caloric balance (or deficit).In addition, the food industry seems to want us to continue to consume excess calories largely coming from sugars they add to their foods, then get home from work and burn them off so we don't suffer from obesity related disease and/or sugar consumption related disease.
Even if we could out exercise a bad diet and remain healthy with high added sugar consumption, I find it presumptuous of them to assume none of us has anything better to do than work out for two hours every day if that is not our natural enjoyable inclination.
Another strawman. Nobody is recommending this.
Yes, that is exactly what food companies are attempting to push on us. Don't worry about added sugar and exercise more.
And the study shows added sugar calories is the cause, not just added calories.
Another article: http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0057873
Abstract
While experimental and observational studies suggest that sugar intake is associated with the development of type 2 diabetes, independent of its role in obesity, it is unclear whether alterations in sugar intake can account for differences in diabetes prevalence among overall populations. Using econometric models of repeated cross-sectional data on diabetes and nutritional components of food from 175 countries, we found that every 150 kcal/person/day increase in sugar availability (about one can of soda/day) was associated with increased diabetes prevalence by 1.1% (p <0.001) after testing for potential selection biases and controlling for other food types (including fibers, meats, fruits, oils, cereals), total calories, overweight and obesity, period-effects, and several socioeconomic variables such as aging, urbanization and income. No other food types yielded significant individual associations with diabetes prevalence after controlling for obesity and other confounders. The impact of sugar on diabetes was independent of sedentary behavior and alcohol use, and the effect was modified but not confounded by obesity or overweight. Duration and degree of sugar exposure correlated significantly with diabetes prevalence in a dose-dependent manner, while declines in sugar exposure correlated with significant subsequent declines in diabetes rates independently of other socioeconomic, dietary and obesity prevalence changes. Differences in sugar availability statistically explain variations in diabetes prevalence rates at a population level that are not explained by physical activity, overweight or obesity.
Hilarious.
Did the authors even understand basic statistics. That looks like r=.2 or less (very weak correlation). Do you have any supporting evidence that WASN'T authored by LOLstig?0 -
http://uctv.tv/shows/Sugar-The-Bitter-Truth-16717
If you're worried about how it affects your weight, satiety, and health, then you should cut down on all added sugar, not just HFCS. Fruit gets a pass from Dr. Lustig (famous for the above video). But fruit juice is a no according to him.
Many people think he's an alarmist, but he's a pediatric endocrinologist with credentials in diabetes research reviews (he and another author tied up causation between increased consumption of sugar in populations with increased rates of diabetes in those populations). I'll listen to him before some random internet poster who will come tell you sugar is fine in all forms and quantities. Your opinion may vary. Do your own reading and lecture watching, make up your own mind.
Alan Aragon debated him.....judge for yourselves....
http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/02/19/a-retrospective-of-the-fructose-alarmism-debate/
http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/
The man knows his stuff. But he trains elite athletes. Look around you, how many people qualify and therefore probably don't have to worry about excess sugar consumption?
Ad hominem.
Judge the data and the arguments, not the source. Lustig is a moron, and Aragon ate him for lunch.
Not an ad hominem at all. He simply works with people who are far from the typical American.
I don't know if you can out exercise a bad diet, but I can't, and believe me, I tried!
LOL. So we're adding strawmen too, I see.
I see you don't want to consider the issue, you just want to attempt to run me around in pointless circles. You wont' succeed.
If you can out exercise a bad diet (i.e. a lot of added sugar in this case) and if you're convinced added sugar isn't a problem for you despite it causing a rise in diabetes in populations, fine. Eat up.
Strawman. Nobody said you could out exercise a bad diet.But if you're convinced it doesn't cause that rise in diabetes at all, I'd like to see some evidence. Even if I could out exercise a bad diet (and this is after all in large part a weight loss forum so it's relevant to our interests) the diabetes link would give me pause.
http://www.ucsf.edu/news/2013/02/13591/quantity-sugar-food-supply-linked-diabetes-rates
The rise in diabetes is linked to an excess of CALORIES, not just sugar. Please show me any evidence of a link to diabetes in a caloric balance (or deficit).In addition, the food industry seems to want us to continue to consume excess calories largely coming from sugars they add to their foods, then get home from work and burn them off so we don't suffer from obesity related disease and/or sugar consumption related disease.
Even if we could out exercise a bad diet and remain healthy with high added sugar consumption, I find it presumptuous of them to assume none of us has anything better to do than work out for two hours every day if that is not our natural enjoyable inclination.
Another strawman. Nobody is recommending this.
Yes, that is exactly what food companies are attempting to push on us. Don't worry about added sugar and exercise more.
And the study shows added sugar calories is the cause, not just added calories.
Another article: http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0057873
Abstract
While experimental and observational studies suggest that sugar intake is associated with the development of type 2 diabetes, independent of its role in obesity, it is unclear whether alterations in sugar intake can account for differences in diabetes prevalence among overall populations. Using econometric models of repeated cross-sectional data on diabetes and nutritional components of food from 175 countries, we found that every 150 kcal/person/day increase in sugar availability (about one can of soda/day) was associated with increased diabetes prevalence by 1.1% (p <0.001) after testing for potential selection biases and controlling for other food types (including fibers, meats, fruits, oils, cereals), total calories, overweight and obesity, period-effects, and several socioeconomic variables such as aging, urbanization and income. No other food types yielded significant individual associations with diabetes prevalence after controlling for obesity and other confounders. The impact of sugar on diabetes was independent of sedentary behavior and alcohol use, and the effect was modified but not confounded by obesity or overweight. Duration and degree of sugar exposure correlated significantly with diabetes prevalence in a dose-dependent manner, while declines in sugar exposure correlated with significant subsequent declines in diabetes rates independently of other socioeconomic, dietary and obesity prevalence changes. Differences in sugar availability statistically explain variations in diabetes prevalence rates at a population level that are not explained by physical activity, overweight or obesity.
Hilarious.
Did the authors even understand basic statistics. That looks like r=.2 or less (very weak correlation). Do you have any supporting evidence that WASN'T authored by LOLstig?
Dr. Lustig and his colleague who did this research review have the requisite credentials and experience. What are yours again? Sorry if I can't take you as seriously as I do medical experts while you dismiss this with no counter evidence.0 -
http://uctv.tv/shows/Sugar-The-Bitter-Truth-16717
If you're worried about how it affects your weight, satiety, and health, then you should cut down on all added sugar, not just HFCS. Fruit gets a pass from Dr. Lustig (famous for the above video). But fruit juice is a no according to him.
Many people think he's an alarmist, but he's a pediatric endocrinologist with credentials in diabetes research reviews (he and another author tied up causation between increased consumption of sugar in populations with increased rates of diabetes in those populations). I'll listen to him before some random internet poster who will come tell you sugar is fine in all forms and quantities. Your opinion may vary. Do your own reading and lecture watching, make up your own mind.
Alan Aragon debated him.....judge for yourselves....
http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/02/19/a-retrospective-of-the-fructose-alarmism-debate/
http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/
The man knows his stuff. But he trains elite athletes. Look around you, how many people qualify and therefore probably don't have to worry about excess sugar consumption?
Ad hominem.
Judge the data and the arguments, not the source. Lustig is a moron, and Aragon ate him for lunch.
Not an ad hominem at all. He simply works with people who are far from the typical American.
I don't know if you can out exercise a bad diet, but I can't, and believe me, I tried!
LOL. So we're adding strawmen too, I see.
I see you don't want to consider the issue, you just want to attempt to run me around in pointless circles. You wont' succeed.
If you can out exercise a bad diet (i.e. a lot of added sugar in this case) and if you're convinced added sugar isn't a problem for you despite it causing a rise in diabetes in populations, fine. Eat up.
Strawman. Nobody said you could out exercise a bad diet.But if you're convinced it doesn't cause that rise in diabetes at all, I'd like to see some evidence. Even if I could out exercise a bad diet (and this is after all in large part a weight loss forum so it's relevant to our interests) the diabetes link would give me pause.
http://www.ucsf.edu/news/2013/02/13591/quantity-sugar-food-supply-linked-diabetes-rates
The rise in diabetes is linked to an excess of CALORIES, not just sugar. Please show me any evidence of a link to diabetes in a caloric balance (or deficit).In addition, the food industry seems to want us to continue to consume excess calories largely coming from sugars they add to their foods, then get home from work and burn them off so we don't suffer from obesity related disease and/or sugar consumption related disease.
Even if we could out exercise a bad diet and remain healthy with high added sugar consumption, I find it presumptuous of them to assume none of us has anything better to do than work out for two hours every day if that is not our natural enjoyable inclination.
Another strawman. Nobody is recommending this.
Yes, that is exactly what food companies are attempting to push on us. Don't worry about added sugar and exercise more.
And the study shows added sugar calories is the cause, not just added calories.
Another article: http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0057873
Abstract
While experimental and observational studies suggest that sugar intake is associated with the development of type 2 diabetes, independent of its role in obesity, it is unclear whether alterations in sugar intake can account for differences in diabetes prevalence among overall populations. Using econometric models of repeated cross-sectional data on diabetes and nutritional components of food from 175 countries, we found that every 150 kcal/person/day increase in sugar availability (about one can of soda/day) was associated with increased diabetes prevalence by 1.1% (p <0.001) after testing for potential selection biases and controlling for other food types (including fibers, meats, fruits, oils, cereals), total calories, overweight and obesity, period-effects, and several socioeconomic variables such as aging, urbanization and income. No other food types yielded significant individual associations with diabetes prevalence after controlling for obesity and other confounders. The impact of sugar on diabetes was independent of sedentary behavior and alcohol use, and the effect was modified but not confounded by obesity or overweight. Duration and degree of sugar exposure correlated significantly with diabetes prevalence in a dose-dependent manner, while declines in sugar exposure correlated with significant subsequent declines in diabetes rates independently of other socioeconomic, dietary and obesity prevalence changes. Differences in sugar availability statistically explain variations in diabetes prevalence rates at a population level that are not explained by physical activity, overweight or obesity.
Hilarious.
Did the authors even understand basic statistics. That looks like r=.2 or less (very weak correlation). Do you have any supporting evidence that WASN'T authored by LOLstig?
Dr. Lustig and his colleague who did this research have the credentials and experience to do that research. What are yours again? Sorry if I can't take you as seriously as I do medical experts while you dismiss this with no counter evidence.
His critics (posted above) have credentials as well.
The vast majority of obesity researchers do not agree with Lustig's conclusions. Why do you insist on believing him and not them?
Putting this here again so you might actually address the actual arguments.
http://sweetenerstudies.com/sites/default/files/resources/files/Scientific-Review-of-Lustigs-Fat-Chance.pdf
FTAThe major problem with this
book is that the story is incomplete and misleading. It also demonstrates the
author’s lack of understanding of many of the concepts that are presented.
Outlined below are several issues that call into question the veracity of
the information provided within the book. First, however, it is important
to consider the apparent author bias, conflicts of interest and inaccurate
conclusions that are evident throughout the book.0 -
http://uctv.tv/shows/Sugar-The-Bitter-Truth-16717
If you're worried about how it affects your weight, satiety, and health, then you should cut down on all added sugar, not just HFCS. Fruit gets a pass from Dr. Lustig (famous for the above video). But fruit juice is a no according to him.
Many people think he's an alarmist, but he's a pediatric endocrinologist with credentials in diabetes research reviews (he and another author tied up causation between increased consumption of sugar in populations with increased rates of diabetes in those populations). I'll listen to him before some random internet poster who will come tell you sugar is fine in all forms and quantities. Your opinion may vary. Do your own reading and lecture watching, make up your own mind.
Alan Aragon debated him.....judge for yourselves....
http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/02/19/a-retrospective-of-the-fructose-alarmism-debate/
http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/
The man knows his stuff. But he trains elite athletes. Look around you, how many people qualify and therefore probably don't have to worry about excess sugar consumption?
Ad hominem.
Judge the data and the arguments, not the source. Lustig is a moron, and Aragon ate him for lunch.
Not an ad hominem at all. He simply works with people who are far from the typical American.
I don't know if you can out exercise a bad diet, but I can't, and believe me, I tried!
LOL. So we're adding strawmen too, I see.
I see you don't want to consider the issue, you just want to attempt to run me around in pointless circles. You wont' succeed.
If you can out exercise a bad diet (i.e. a lot of added sugar in this case) and if you're convinced added sugar isn't a problem for you despite it causing a rise in diabetes in populations, fine. Eat up.
Strawman. Nobody said you could out exercise a bad diet.But if you're convinced it doesn't cause that rise in diabetes at all, I'd like to see some evidence. Even if I could out exercise a bad diet (and this is after all in large part a weight loss forum so it's relevant to our interests) the diabetes link would give me pause.
http://www.ucsf.edu/news/2013/02/13591/quantity-sugar-food-supply-linked-diabetes-rates
The rise in diabetes is linked to an excess of CALORIES, not just sugar. Please show me any evidence of a link to diabetes in a caloric balance (or deficit).In addition, the food industry seems to want us to continue to consume excess calories largely coming from sugars they add to their foods, then get home from work and burn them off so we don't suffer from obesity related disease and/or sugar consumption related disease.
Even if we could out exercise a bad diet and remain healthy with high added sugar consumption, I find it presumptuous of them to assume none of us has anything better to do than work out for two hours every day if that is not our natural enjoyable inclination.
Another strawman. Nobody is recommending this.
Yes, that is exactly what food companies are attempting to push on us. Don't worry about added sugar and exercise more.
And the study shows added sugar calories is the cause, not just added calories.
Another article: http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0057873
Abstract
While experimental and observational studies suggest that sugar intake is associated with the development of type 2 diabetes, independent of its role in obesity, it is unclear whether alterations in sugar intake can account for differences in diabetes prevalence among overall populations. Using econometric models of repeated cross-sectional data on diabetes and nutritional components of food from 175 countries, we found that every 150 kcal/person/day increase in sugar availability (about one can of soda/day) was associated with increased diabetes prevalence by 1.1% (p <0.001) after testing for potential selection biases and controlling for other food types (including fibers, meats, fruits, oils, cereals), total calories, overweight and obesity, period-effects, and several socioeconomic variables such as aging, urbanization and income. No other food types yielded significant individual associations with diabetes prevalence after controlling for obesity and other confounders. The impact of sugar on diabetes was independent of sedentary behavior and alcohol use, and the effect was modified but not confounded by obesity or overweight. Duration and degree of sugar exposure correlated significantly with diabetes prevalence in a dose-dependent manner, while declines in sugar exposure correlated with significant subsequent declines in diabetes rates independently of other socioeconomic, dietary and obesity prevalence changes. Differences in sugar availability statistically explain variations in diabetes prevalence rates at a population level that are not explained by physical activity, overweight or obesity.
Hilarious.
Did the authors even understand basic statistics. That looks like r=.2 or less (very weak correlation). Do you have any supporting evidence that WASN'T authored by LOLstig?
Dr. Lustig and his colleague who did this research have the credentials and experience to do that research. What are yours again? Sorry if I can't take you as seriously as I do medical experts while you dismiss this with no counter evidence.
His critics (posted above) have credentials as well.
The vast majority of obesity researchers do not agree with Lustig's conclusions. Why do you insist on believing him and not them?
Putting this here again so you might actually address the actual arguments.
http://sweetenerstudies.com/sites/default/files/resources/files/Scientific-Review-of-Lustigs-Fat-Chance.pdf
FTAThe major problem with this
book is that the story is incomplete and misleading. It also demonstrates the
author’s lack of understanding of many of the concepts that are presented.
Outlined below are several issues that call into question the veracity of
the information provided within the book. First, however, it is important
to consider the apparent author bias, conflicts of interest and inaccurate
conclusions that are evident throughout the book.
Source for your 'vast majority' claim please? I haven't read one single abstract countering the research review showing calories from sugar is causation for a rise in diabetes in populations.0 -
http://uctv.tv/shows/Sugar-The-Bitter-Truth-16717
If you're worried about how it affects your weight, satiety, and health, then you should cut down on all added sugar, not just HFCS. Fruit gets a pass from Dr. Lustig (famous for the above video). But fruit juice is a no according to him.
Many people think he's an alarmist, but he's a pediatric endocrinologist with credentials in diabetes research reviews (he and another author tied up causation between increased consumption of sugar in populations with increased rates of diabetes in those populations). I'll listen to him before some random internet poster who will come tell you sugar is fine in all forms and quantities. Your opinion may vary. Do your own reading and lecture watching, make up your own mind.
Alan Aragon debated him.....judge for yourselves....
http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/02/19/a-retrospective-of-the-fructose-alarmism-debate/
http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/
The man knows his stuff. But he trains elite athletes. Look around you, how many people qualify and therefore probably don't have to worry about excess sugar consumption?
Ad hominem.
Judge the data and the arguments, not the source. Lustig is a moron, and Aragon ate him for lunch.
Not an ad hominem at all. He simply works with people who are far from the typical American.
I don't know if you can out exercise a bad diet, but I can't, and believe me, I tried!
LOL. So we're adding strawmen too, I see.
I see you don't want to consider the issue, you just want to attempt to run me around in pointless circles. You wont' succeed.
If you can out exercise a bad diet (i.e. a lot of added sugar in this case) and if you're convinced added sugar isn't a problem for you despite it causing a rise in diabetes in populations, fine. Eat up.
Strawman. Nobody said you could out exercise a bad diet.But if you're convinced it doesn't cause that rise in diabetes at all, I'd like to see some evidence. Even if I could out exercise a bad diet (and this is after all in large part a weight loss forum so it's relevant to our interests) the diabetes link would give me pause.
http://www.ucsf.edu/news/2013/02/13591/quantity-sugar-food-supply-linked-diabetes-rates
The rise in diabetes is linked to an excess of CALORIES, not just sugar. Please show me any evidence of a link to diabetes in a caloric balance (or deficit).In addition, the food industry seems to want us to continue to consume excess calories largely coming from sugars they add to their foods, then get home from work and burn them off so we don't suffer from obesity related disease and/or sugar consumption related disease.
Even if we could out exercise a bad diet and remain healthy with high added sugar consumption, I find it presumptuous of them to assume none of us has anything better to do than work out for two hours every day if that is not our natural enjoyable inclination.
Another strawman. Nobody is recommending this.
Yes, that is exactly what food companies are attempting to push on us. Don't worry about added sugar and exercise more.
And the study shows added sugar calories is the cause, not just added calories.
Another article: http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0057873
Abstract
While experimental and observational studies suggest that sugar intake is associated with the development of type 2 diabetes, independent of its role in obesity, it is unclear whether alterations in sugar intake can account for differences in diabetes prevalence among overall populations. Using econometric models of repeated cross-sectional data on diabetes and nutritional components of food from 175 countries, we found that every 150 kcal/person/day increase in sugar availability (about one can of soda/day) was associated with increased diabetes prevalence by 1.1% (p <0.001) after testing for potential selection biases and controlling for other food types (including fibers, meats, fruits, oils, cereals), total calories, overweight and obesity, period-effects, and several socioeconomic variables such as aging, urbanization and income. No other food types yielded significant individual associations with diabetes prevalence after controlling for obesity and other confounders. The impact of sugar on diabetes was independent of sedentary behavior and alcohol use, and the effect was modified but not confounded by obesity or overweight. Duration and degree of sugar exposure correlated significantly with diabetes prevalence in a dose-dependent manner, while declines in sugar exposure correlated with significant subsequent declines in diabetes rates independently of other socioeconomic, dietary and obesity prevalence changes. Differences in sugar availability statistically explain variations in diabetes prevalence rates at a population level that are not explained by physical activity, overweight or obesity.
Hilarious.
Did the authors even understand basic statistics. That looks like r=.2 or less (very weak correlation). Do you have any supporting evidence that WASN'T authored by LOLstig?
Dr. Lustig and his colleague who did this research have the credentials and experience to do that research. What are yours again? Sorry if I can't take you as seriously as I do medical experts while you dismiss this with no counter evidence.
His critics (posted above) have credentials as well.
The vast majority of obesity researchers do not agree with Lustig's conclusions. Why do you insist on believing him and not them?
Putting this here again so you might actually address the actual arguments.
http://sweetenerstudies.com/sites/default/files/resources/files/Scientific-Review-of-Lustigs-Fat-Chance.pdf
FTAThe major problem with this
book is that the story is incomplete and misleading. It also demonstrates the
author’s lack of understanding of many of the concepts that are presented.
Outlined below are several issues that call into question the veracity of
the information provided within the book. First, however, it is important
to consider the apparent author bias, conflicts of interest and inaccurate
conclusions that are evident throughout the book.
Source for your 'vast majority' claim please? I haven't read one single abstract countering the research review showing calories from sugar is causation for a rise in diabetes in populations.
Of course you haven't. It's a poorly designed study in a low-impact journal. Most researchers wouldn't be bothered with it.
Read the literature on diabetes causes, and Lustig is the sole voice demonizing sugar.
And we can add "shifting the burden of proof" to your list of logical fallacies. YOU made the claim, it's up to YOU to support it.
Got anyone other than LOLstig?0 -
Of course you haven't. It's a poorly designed study in a low-impact journal. Most researchers wouldn't be bothered with it.
Read the literature on diabetes causes, and Lustig is the sole voice demonizing sugar.
And we can add "shifting the burden of proof" to your list of logical fallacies. YOU made the claim, it's up to YOU to support it.
Got anyone other than LOLstig?
He is far from the sole person warning about excess sugar consumption. I watch lectures from nutritionists, researchers, and doctors almost daily discussing added sugar and diabetes, dementia, and satiety. Is it just sugar? Hell no. No one is saying it's just sugar. But it's a key component according to the people with the education and training to discuss it.
You remind me of the tobacco industry's attempts to divorce smoking from cancer. Oh, there's no absolute proof (when they know full well there almost never is in science), oh it's a witch hunt, oh it's a choice. Oh personal responsibility (while they targeted children, just as snack food companies do today).0 -
Care to address any of the actual criticisms? Or are you going to just keep dancing around?
And please cite the "other researchers" who are pointing to sugar as a cause independent of caloric intake and/or obesity. I'm waiting.0 -
Care to address any of the actual criticisms? Or are you going to just keep dancing around?
And please cite the "other researchers" who are pointing to sugar as a cause independent of caloric intake and/or obesity. I'm waiting.
I don't have the degree and training, I didn't do the research, I'm not dancing with you. Neither of us has the credentials.
Nor am I doing your research for you. Not when it's so easy for anyone to do. Just go to google and type in almost any combination of sugar processed food obesity dementia satiety metabolic lectures abstracts and if you want to just watch videos of lectures narrow the search to videos. You'll hit gold.
Edit: Also google scholar desperately needs a university sponsored lecture search. If it exists, I can't find it, but it would sure help with narrowing it down.0 -
Care to address any of the actual criticisms? Or are you going to just keep dancing around?
And please cite the "other researchers" who are pointing to sugar as a cause independent of caloric intake and/or obesity. I'm waiting.
I don't have the degree and training, I didn't do the research, I'm not dancing with you. Neither of us has the credentials.
Nor am I doing your research for you. Not when it's so easy for anyone to do. Just go to google and type in almost any combination of sugar processed food obesity dementia satiety metabolic lectures abstracts and if you want to just watch videos of lectures narrow the search to videos. You'll hit gold.
Yes. That's the beauty of the internet. Anyone can write a blog featuring their opinions.0 -
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/high-fructose-corn-syrup/
"What does all this mean?:
So, what are the take-home messages from all of this?
HFCS 42 and HFCS 55 have essentially the same amount of fructose, as a fraction of their total sugar, as honey, sucrose (cane or beet sugar) or maple syrup/sugar (to be agonizingly precise, HFCS has slightly less, and HCFS 55 has slightly more).
HFCS 42 and HFCS 55 have an equal or smaller amount of fructose, as a fraction of their total sugar, as many commonly consumed fruits.
Agave syrup has higher fructose content than any type of HFCS except HFCS 90.
For people who are worried about their health or their children’s health — and who isn’t, these days — the data suggest that the best choice is to reduce intake of all sweeteners containing fructose. That includes not only the evil HFCS, but also natural cane sugar, molasses (which is just impure cane sugar), brown sugar (ditto) and honey. Even “unsweetened” (no added sugar) fruit juices need to be considered when limiting your family’s fructose intake.
Finally, the best nutritional advice is to eat everything in moderation — and that includes sweets. While a diet high in fructose may increase your risk of obesity, diabetes and heart disease — maybe — a fructose-free diet is not guaranteed to prevent those diseases. Eat a variety of foods, including a small amount of sweets, get enough exercise, watch your (and your children’s) weight and see your doctor for regular health check-ups.
And stop worrying that HFCS is poisoning you and your children. "0 -
-
Care to address any of the actual criticisms? Or are you going to just keep dancing around?
And please cite the "other researchers" who are pointing to sugar as a cause independent of caloric intake and/or obesity. I'm waiting.
I don't have the degree and training, I didn't do the research, I'm not dancing with you. Neither of us has the credentials.
Nor am I doing your research for you. Not when it's so easy for anyone to do. Just go to google and type in almost any combination of sugar processed food obesity dementia satiety metabolic lectures abstracts and if you want to just watch videos of lectures narrow the search to videos. You'll hit gold.
Yes. That's the beauty of the internet. Anyone can write a blog featuring their opinions.
Indeed. But not everyone can lecture at universities and colleges and get their work peer reviewed. Plenty of which exists. For anyone who wants to know more.0 -
I don't understand the point of cutting something from your diet when others who have freely admit, "I saw no benefits." But to each their own. Good luck to you.
Brett, at least 3 people have mentioned cutting out adverse effects by cutting HFCS. That is hardly "seeing no benefits". Just because it makes no difference for some people doesn't mean the same is true for everyone.
I bought a case of eyeshadow once and the first time I tried it, my skin started burning almost immediately. Even after flushing the area with water over and over again, the skin around my eye remained puffy and red, painful. Lots of people probably used that eyeshadow with no adverse effects, but the same was not true for me.
You need to learn and understand that the effects things cause on people are not universal.
I also get the very-sleepy thing after eating certain (HFCS-having!) foods, and others have mentioned that cutting HFCS eliminated that feeling.
@Sundaemonday: I'm glad to hear that it's helped cut down on cravings for you. I hope it will be the same for me.
ooh that La Croix looks neat--does they taste pretty good?Some people see no benefit because HFCS had no effect on them. Good for them - they had no reaction to it.
Some people, like me, have seen mild benefits - a digestive system that now functions better. Apparently, the foods that have HFCS have negatively affected me and by removing it from my diet, I've seen an improvement...particularly , no more gas/flatulence (which another poster commented as a benefit of cutting out HFCS.)
Everyone's bodies are different. Some people react to food ingredients, others don't....
I also do not like the taste of things with HFCS vs. a similar counterpart with sugar. So there's a benefit - I like the taste.
You don't see the point, then you don't need to cut it out. Problem solved for you. Yay!
I'm not arguing these statements ... I just want to point out that this sounds like the same things that are argued for another "evil sweetener" out there.
I think we all need to keep these ideas in mind. If you don't have reactions to HFCS (or aspartame or other such) then feel free to enjoy in moderation ... but don't assume that everyone should do the same. If you have reactions to any of the above, then by all means avoid them! Just don't preach that everyone should cut them out because of your reaction. [I'm not accusing either of the quoted posters of doing either, I'm using the general "you"].
My husband has a severe allergy to mint. Does that mean no one should eat mint because it can kill one person in thousands? No. Should we pretend that the allergy is all in his mind and he should go ahead and eat it, because we don't have those reactions? No.
Why do we this for sweeteners, etc?0 -
Care to address any of the actual criticisms? Or are you going to just keep dancing around?
And please cite the "other researchers" who are pointing to sugar as a cause independent of caloric intake and/or obesity. I'm waiting.
I don't have the degree and training, I didn't do the research, I'm not dancing with you. Neither of us has the credentials.
Nor am I doing your research for you. Not when it's so easy for anyone to do. Just go to google and type in almost any combination of sugar processed food obesity dementia satiety metabolic lectures abstracts and if you want to just watch videos of lectures narrow the search to videos. You'll hit gold.
Yes. That's the beauty of the internet. Anyone can write a blog featuring their opinions.
Indeed. But not everyone can lecture at universities and colleges and get their work peer reviewed. Plenty of which exists. For anyone who wants to know more.
Well, I know how bodies work. I know that sugar and carbs refill glycogen stores which are depleted by exercise. I know that sedentary people who consume sugar in excess are at risk for diabetes because their bodies simply have no use for the sugar. For optimal health everyone should be at a healthy weight for their height, moderately active and eating a balanced diet. None of this translates to "sugar is bad for you."0 -
Care to address any of the actual criticisms? Or are you going to just keep dancing around?
And please cite the "other researchers" who are pointing to sugar as a cause independent of caloric intake and/or obesity. I'm waiting.
I don't have the degree and training, I didn't do the research, I'm not dancing with you. Neither of us has the credentials.
Nor am I doing your research for you. Not when it's so easy for anyone to do. Just go to google and type in almost any combination of sugar processed food obesity dementia satiety metabolic lectures abstracts and if you want to just watch videos of lectures narrow the search to videos. You'll hit gold.
Yes. That's the beauty of the internet. Anyone can write a blog featuring their opinions.
Indeed. But not everyone can lecture at universities and colleges and get their work peer reviewed. Plenty of which exists. For anyone who wants to know more.
Well, I know how bodies work. I know that sugar and carbs refill glycogen stores which are depleted by exercise. I know that sedentary people who consume sugar in excess are at risk for diabetes because their bodies simply have no use for the sugar. For optimal health everyone should be at a healthy weight for their height, moderately active and eating a balanced diet. None of this translates to "sugar is bad for you."
Okay, no argument. But most of us are sedentary. Even working out a few times a week with moderate exercise isn't going to do the trick. Not when processed foods are loaded with added sugar. And wouldn't we have to time vigorous daily hour long plus workouts to burn instead of store the sugar?
That is no doubt what the food companies would suggest. Never mind satiety issues that make out exercising a bad diet even harder, not everyone can and not everyone wants to do daily vigorous exercise during a set window of time revolving around their sugar intake. And if one were to do this daily, wouldn't there be greater health benefits from eating nutrient dense foods to fuel that workout instead?
Personally, if I'm going to put more wear and tear on my joints and spine, get all sweaty and hot, and take the time to work out every day, I'm going to try to be as healthy as I can be. So I wouldn't want the sugar anyway.
Some might find this panel on processed foods and food politics interesting:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxtQPYgPzFA 0 -
Well you seem set on doing it no matter what the response. So I wish you luck, but I don't know why you asked in that case.
Um, what? Where have I said that I am definitely going to cut HFCS? I don't think I've said anything of the sort. All I've done is corrected you on some incorrect statements you had made--that no one here had mentioned any benefits. Is your reading comprehension really that poor or do you just enjoy jumping to erroneous conclusions for no reason?0 -
I go for pure sugar or cane sugar.
Yes I have cut off from HFCS and no one question me why. It's my story and I'm sticking to it with no explanation.
Exactly.
If you dont want to eat HFCS then don't. If you feel better not eating them then what is the big deal ? If you want to eat HFCS then do it. If you feel better eating them great. I have seen no scientific evidence proving that if you dont eat them then its bad. So if some one chooses not to eat them why all the whopala ?0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 400 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 988 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions