SUGAR IS EVERY DAMN WHERE!!!

Sublog

33 grams of sugar is supposed to be my limit according to MFP, I take in over 100 grams of sugar and I feel like I'm eating pretty well! What are you guys getting in one day for sugar intake!!! I feel like that's what I need to eliminate to shrink my belly, but SUGAR'S EVERY DAMN WHERE!!!!

I eat 200g per day.

Still lose weight. I must be a wizard!

akaOtherWise

So much bad information in here. Luckily people like Acg67 are here with actual real information. monosaccarides are monosaccarides. end of discussion.

tigersword

oh, yay! the full-of-holes and questions princeton study again!

So you're advocating man made sources of sugar over natural sources that humans have been consuming for thousands and thousands of years? Yeah, I see no holes in that logic what so ever...

The more humans mess with the origins of a food, the more you should avoid it. Case in point, hydrogenated oils/trans fats. Or are those ok as well?

Not all trans fats are bad. Some of them are healthy.

As for sugar, man made or not, doesn't matter. And to be fair, it's all man made at this point. Humans have been genetically engineering plants for food for 10,000 years.

akaOtherWise

you miss the point. the study was faulty. the results, as a result, are questionable. they wound up with data that contradicted itself inside the study and when put up against other joint studies. add to this the fact that UC-Davis did a similar study ... only, well, they studied the effects of HFCS on real human people vs. lab rats ... and came out saying there is no reason to believe there is a difference in how the body handles HFCS vs. sugar.

this x10000

JustinM86

oh, yay! the full-of-holes and questions princeton study again!

So you're advocating man made sources of sugar over natural sources that humans have been consuming for thousands and thousands of years? Yeah, I see no holes in that logic what so ever...

The more humans mess with the origins of a food, the more you should avoid it. Case in point, hydrogenated oils/trans fats. Or are those ok as well?

you miss the point. the study was faulty. the results, as a result, are questionable. they wound up with data that contradicted itself inside the study and when put up against other joint studies. add to this the fact that UC-Davis did a similar study ... only, well, they studied the effects of HFCS on real human people vs. lab rats ... and came out saying there is no reason to believe there is a difference in how the body handles HFCS vs. sugar.

I don't care if they're metabolized the same, the effects are different. There's more to it than how these sugars are metabolized. They effect the brain and body differently. Can you get fat eating to many fruits? Absolutely. Consuming un-natural sources of sugar have a more devastating effect on body chemistry. There's a reason why there is more prevalence of: diabetes, heart disease, cancer, obesity. People haven't changed, our food has.

SherryTeach

I am averaging about 30 grams of sugar, nearly all from fruit. I do eat one Hershey Bliss every afternoon. My rationale is that the antioxidants in the dark chocolate are healthy. Chocolate is good for the mood. And one of them is about the size of a postage stamp. Oh, and they are delicious.

tigersword

oh, yay! the full-of-holes and questions princeton study again!

So you're advocating man made sources of sugar over natural sources that humans have been consuming for thousands and thousands of years? Yeah, I see no holes in that logic what so ever...

The more humans mess with the origins of a food, the more you should avoid it. Case in point, hydrogenated oils/trans fats. Or are those ok as well?

you miss the point. the study was faulty. the results, as a result, are questionable. they wound up with data that contradicted itself inside the study and when put up against other joint studies. add to this the fact that UC-Davis did a similar study ... only, well, they studied the effects of HFCS on real human people vs. lab rats ... and came out saying there is no reason to believe there is a difference in how the body handles HFCS vs. sugar.

I don't care if they're metabolized the same, the effects are different. There's more to it than how these sugars are metabolized. They effect the brain and body differently. Can you get fat eating to many fruits? Absolutely. Consuming un-natural sources of sugar have a more devastating effect on body chemistry. There's a reason why there is more prevalence of: diabetes, heart disease, cancer, obesity. People haven't changed, our food has.

Metabolizing = effects on the body.

You can't say it's the same, but different. That's called a logical fallacy. Glucose and fructose are glucose and fructose. Also, just so you know, HFCS is NOT man made. They take the natural sugars from corn, and blend them together. It's no different than extracting sucrose from beets or sugar cane. They extract the glucose and fructose from corn, and mix them in the proportions they want. It's not a science experiment, it's a recipe.

Acg67

oh, yay! the full-of-holes and questions princeton study again!

So you're advocating man made sources of sugar over natural sources that humans have been consuming for thousands and thousands of years? Yeah, I see no holes in that logic what so ever...

The more humans mess with the origins of a food, the more you should avoid it. Case in point, hydrogenated oils/trans fats. Or are those ok as well?

you miss the point. the study was faulty. the results, as a result, are questionable. they wound up with data that contradicted itself inside the study and when put up against other joint studies. add to this the fact that UC-Davis did a similar study ... only, well, they studied the effects of HFCS on real human people vs. lab rats ... and came out saying there is no reason to believe there is a difference in how the body handles HFCS vs. sugar.

I don't care if they're metabolized the same, the effects are different. There's more to it than how these sugars are metabolized. They effect the brain and body differently. Can you get fat eating to many fruits? Absolutely. Consuming un-natural sources of sugar have a more devastating effect on body chemistry. There's a reason why there is more prevalence of: diabetes, heart disease, cancer, obesity. People haven't changed, our food has.

Effects of high-fructose corn syrup and sucrose consumption on circulating glucose, insulin, leptin, and ghrelin and on appetite in normal-weight women. Nutrition. 2007 Feb;23(2):103-12.

RESULTS:

No significant differences between the two sweeteners were seen in fasting plasma glucose, insulin, leptin, and ghrelin (P > 0.05). The within-day variation in all four items was not different between the two visits (P > 0.05). Net areas under the curve were similar for glucose, insulin, and leptin (P > 0.05). There were no differences in energy or macronutrient intake on day 2. The only appetite variable that differed between sweeteners was desire to eat, which had a higher area under the curve the day after Suc compared with HFCS

Twenty-four-hour endocrine and metabolic profiles following consumption of high-fructose corn syrup-, sucrose-, fructose-, and glucose-sweetened beverages with meals. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 87, No. 5, 1194-1203, May 2008

http://www.ajcn.org/content/87/5/1194.full

Results:In 34 subjects, 24-h glucose, insulin, leptin, ghrelin, and TG profiles were similar between days that sucrose or HFCS was consumed. Postprandial TG excursions after HFCS or sucrose were larger in men than in women. In the men in whom the effects of 4 sweeteners were compared, the 24-h glucose and insulin responses induced by HFCS and sucrose were intermediate between the lower responses during consumption of fructose and the higher responses during glucose. Unexpectedly, postprandial TG profiles after HFCS or sucrose were not intermediate but comparably high as after pure fructose.

akaOtherWise

Metabolizing = effects on the body.

You can't say it's the same, but different. That's called a logical fallacy. Glucose and fructose are glucose and fructose. Also, just so you know, HFCS is NOT man made. They take the natural sugars from corn, and blend them together. It's no different than extracting sucrose from beets or sugar cane. They extract the glucose and fructose from corn, and mix them in the proportions they want. It's not a science experiment, it's a recipe.

Wish I could rep you and Acg67. Awesome posts. But you know, anti-HFCS'ers gonna anti-HFCS.

tsh0ck

oh, yay! the full-of-holes and questions princeton study again!

So you're advocating man made sources of sugar over natural sources that humans have been consuming for thousands and thousands of years? Yeah, I see no holes in that logic what so ever...

The more humans mess with the origins of a food, the more you should avoid it. Case in point, hydrogenated oils/trans fats. Or are those ok as well?

you miss the point. the study was faulty. the results, as a result, are questionable. they wound up with data that contradicted itself inside the study and when put up against other joint studies. add to this the fact that UC-Davis did a similar study ... only, well, they studied the effects of HFCS on real human people vs. lab rats ... and came out saying there is no reason to believe there is a difference in how the body handles HFCS vs. sugar.

I don't care if they're metabolized the same, the effects are different. There's more to it than how these sugars are metabolized. They effect the brain and body differently. Can you get fat eating to many fruits? Absolutely. Consuming un-natural sources of sugar have a more devastating effect on body chemistry. There's a reason why there is more prevalence of: diabetes, heart disease, cancer, obesity. People haven't changed, our food has.

sigh.

you know what's changed? our activity level. that's the No. 1 reason for the rise in obesity.

Acg67

Metabolizing = effects on the body.

You can't say it's the same, but different. That's called a logical fallacy. Glucose and fructose are glucose and fructose. Also, just so you know, HFCS is NOT man made. They take the natural sugars from corn, and blend them together. It's no different than extracting sucrose from beets or sugar cane. They extract the glucose and fructose from corn, and mix them in the proportions they want. It's not a science experiment, it's a recipe.

Wish I could rep you and Acg67. Awesome posts. But you know, anti-HFCS'ers gonna anti-HFCS.

It's easier to have a bogeyman to blame for everything

akaOtherWise

It's easier to have a bogeyman to blame for everything

I blame Robert Lustig for a lot of this and the hate towards sugar all together. If I remember correctly, Alan Aragon shut down every claim Lustig made bashing both of them to which Lustig had nothing to even come back with lol

Buy hey, if he continues to get all this media coverage along with peoples money, why not keep telling people it's all toxic? Everyone always wants something to blame for their problems. Obese people either eat too much or don't move enough...but instead of admitting this they want to say, "Oh, sugar is the reason I am this way, not because I am lazy". And don't even get me started on that Prinston study referenced above lol

JustinM86

So, aside from HFCS being metabolized the same as natural sugars, there's no true drawback to consuming it? I can not think of many foods of any true nutritonal value that have HFCS contained within them. Sugar is sugar, yes. I don't see any benefit from The consumption of HFCS aside from the fact that it's usually cheaper. A few pieces of fruit may contain the same sugar content as a cup of soda, but the nutrient profile is completely different. Quality over quantity.

tigersword

So, aside from HFCS being metabolized the same as natural sugars, there's no true drawback to consuming it? I can not think of many foods of any true nutritonal value that have HFCS contained within them. Sugar is sugar, yes. I don't see any benefit from The consumption of HFCS aside from the fact that it's usually cheaper. A few pieces of fruit may contain the same sugar content as a cup of soda, but the nutrient profile is completely different. Quality over quantity.

Another logical fallacy. We aren't talking about nutrients, we're talking about natural sugar vs HFCS. Micronutrients have nothing to do with the conversation, because there are thousands of potential food sources for micronutrients, and discretionary calories come into play, once micronutrient needs are fulfilled.

It is possible to overdose on some vitamins and antioxidants, which can lead to making your health worse.

Also, Snickers bars contain HFCS. They also contain peanuts, which are a good protein and fat source. If I've hit my fruit limit for the day, but need some sugar, protein, and fat, then a Snickers bar is relatively healthy choice, compared to an apple. Food doesn't exist in a vacuum. It's all a matter of context and overall diet.

LesterBlackstone

I blame Robert Lustig for a lot of this and the hate towards sugar all together. If I remember correctly, Alan Aragon shut down every claim Lustig made bashing both of them to which Lustig had nothing to even come back with lol

LOL @ Aragon with his "science" and "logic". All you need to do is look at the number of YouTube hits to see who is right.

So, aside from HFCS being metabolized the same as natural sugars, there's no true drawback to consuming it? I can not think of many foods of any true nutritonal value that have HFCS contained within them. Sugar is sugar, yes. I don't see any benefit from The consumption of HFCS aside from the fact that it's usually cheaper. A few pieces of fruit may contain the same sugar content as a cup of soda, but the nutrient profile is completely different. Quality over quantity.

Way to move the goalposts there, champ.

wackyfunster

People will believe ANYTHING rather than just admit that calories in-calories out is weight loss/gain boils down to.

If people spent half as much time focusing on BODY COMPOSITION instead of weight, i.e. preserving lean muscle mass vs. avoiding "TEH EBIL CABROHIDRATES" we would have a lot fewer skinny-fat people running around.

Also, all the low-carbers completely neglect the ASP pathway of fat metabolism due to being completely uneducated as to how the body creates and metabolizes fat in the first place.

This thread pops up like 3x/day

BR3ANDA

I dont usually have a problem with my sugar intake, I have anywhere from 25-60g a day, all from natural sources like fruits and veggies or dairy. I have stopped adding sugar to anything. Heres a good read on added sugar from the Mayo Clinic:
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/added-sugar/MY00845

Cristofori44

I agree that sugar in general in not the villain it has been made out to be--the same way red meat was declared to be a culprit in the 70s and oat bran the savior in the 80s.

But I also think HFCS--which by the way is genetically modified--is not the same as fruit, which has been pointed out, has other nutrients.

Saying HFCS is just "sugar" and therefore does not present a danger is like saying a doughnut is just as healthy as oatmeal because a doughnut has roughly the same amount of carbs in a half cup of oatmeal.

Also, the HFCS lobby on the board has been peddling the fiction that because HFCS is roughly 55 percent fructose, it is no worse than table sugar at roughly 50 percent fructose. Unfortunately, studies have shown that in soft drinks the fructose level has been raised, often as high as 64 percent.

http://phys.org/news/2010-10-high-fructose-corn-syrup-soda-fructose.html

Because fructose makes a drink sweet, you can bet manufacturers will raise the concentrations to sell drinks.

Sometimes, packaged and overly processed foods cannot be trusted.

AZKristi

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/10879824/ns/today-today_health/t/ah-sugar-sugar-quit-your-sweetness-addiction/

Unless you have a medical reason to limit all sugars, consider the difference between naturally occurring and added sugars.

LesterBlackstone

But I also think HFCS--which by the way is genetically modified--is not the same as fruit, which has been pointed out, has other nutrients.

I don't think you understand what "genetically modified" means.

Saying HFCS is just "sugar" and therefore does not present a danger is like saying a doughnut is just as healthy as oatmeal because a doughnut has roughly the same amount of carbs in a half cup of oatmeal.

Also, the HFCS lobby on the board has been peddling the fiction that because HFCS is roughly 55 percent fructose, it is no worse than table sugar at roughly 50 percent fructose. Unfortunately, studies have shown that in soft drinks the fructose level has been raised, often as high as 64 percent.

The difference (in a 12 oz Coke) is a whopping 3.5 grams of fructose!!!!!!