Yes! Sugar IS the enemy.

josiereside

I'm tracking everything I eat (thanks, scanner on my phone!), and I can't believe how much sugar is in "healthy" foods. My question: How do I control it? Or will it get easier over time: BTW: just joined MFP this month.

What do you mean by this "can't believe how much sugar is in "healthy" foods"? What "healthy" foods are you finding a lot of sugar in?

peanut butter, for starters

My PB, Crazy Richards Natural has only 2 grams of sugar. I know I have seen some PB's listed as natural but there are sugars added... Crazy Richards only ingredient is peanuts.. must read labels.

mmapags

One problem I see is we have become accustomed (in America at least) to need shock, humor, witty comments and sensationalism to get and keep our attention. It's almost silly at times. I always picture Al Gore on the scissor lift. I am guilty of this as well, hence the title to my thread. So, minus 1 point for me I guess. Damn, I did it again, minus 2.

Anyway, if you get passed all the bs, Lustig makes some good points. He also makes some questionable points. But I think the most interesting point is how sugar (in all forms) has been added to almost everything. Why is this? Well, because most sugar comes from corn. Corn is one crop that is heavily subsided by the US government. Therefore, it is very cheap relative to everything else. Food companies need to make a profit and one of the ways they entice people to buy their food is to make it taste good. There's nothing wrong with this in my eyes. Everyone wants food that tastes good. So, what are some ways to make food taste good? You can add all kinds of spices and herbs. Yet, most spices are very expensive. You can also add some sweetness. So, maybe add some fresh blueberries to yogurt. Again, this can get expensive and fruit has a short shelf life. So, let’s add pure sugar (mostly in the form of corn syrup), because sugar is very cheap. Let’s also add salt instead of a bunch of spices, because salt is relatively cheap and it serves a dual purpose by preserving the food.

My point is economics plays a big roll. I was watching an interview this morning about how school lunch programs are underfunded. So, in order to make the food edible, they add sugar because they need to stay under budget. And that’s my beef. Sure, you can just say shut up and take responsibility and I completely agree. But, as Ned Flanders’s wife would say "would somebody please think of the children!" It is kind of sickening of how sugary foods are directly marketed to children. I mean if you watch Saturday morning cartoons they are all over the place. I know, you can just tell the parents to be parents, but I can't really comment on that since I am not a parent. Although, I think it's only the parents business to influence a child on how and what to eat.

Is sugar evil? No, of course not. Just like alcohol isn't evil or tobacco, etc. I think there is a limit though and that is where personal responsibility comes in, but also, I think we as a society should at least know all the facts about why it can be harmful and at what level. I mean we know how harmful tobacco and alcohol can be at certain levels, but we're not going to outlaw them.

Overall, your post is well thought out. A couple of things to consider. The economic argument works in reverse also. Markets are driven by supply and demand. If we read labels and don't buy things overladen with sugar, the food manufacturers will modify thier products in a way that will increase sales. And added sugar foods will not sell well thus becoming a smaller part of the market. This happened back in the 70s with the low fat craze. And it's happened in the fast food industry with McDonalds and the like offering chicken sandwiches and salad and the like.

Secondly, it's up to parents what thier kids eat at school. We've raised (or are still raising in the case of the last 2) a total of 6. We make heathy lunches for them that they pack and take with them. Most, not all, school lunch programs suck!! If people choose that option, they are feeding the demand side of the market economics.

In my opinion, it is not that hard to be an informed consumer and eat in a reasonably healthy way with mostly nutrient dense whole food close to the source and minimally processed. Is it as convenient as just grabbing some overly processed preprepared thing off a shelf? No. But no one is holding a gun to anyone's head and saying they have to have some junk washed down with a gallon of coke!

Personal responsibility and common sense trump all. All Lustigs and his ilk's fear mongering does is create alarmism on the one side of the equation and scepticism on the other. Look how many people in this thread are taking Lustigs word as gospel. And this is only one of several on this topic where this is going on. It just breeds and feeds orthorexia.

CoachReddy

One problem I see is we have become accustomed (in America at least) to need shock, humor, witty comments and sensationalism to get and keep our attention. It's almost silly at times. I always picture Al Gore on the scissor lift. I am guilty of this as well, hence the title to my thread. So, minus 1 point for me I guess. Damn, I did it again, minus 2.

Anyway, if you get passed all the bs, Lustig makes some good points. He also makes some questionable points. But I think the most interesting point is how sugar (in all forms) has been added to almost everything. Why is this? Well, because most sugar comes from corn. Corn is one crop that is heavily subsided by the US government. Therefore, it is very cheap relative to everything else. Food companies need to make a profit and one of the ways they entice people to buy their food is to make it taste good. There's nothing wrong with this in my eyes. Everyone wants food that tastes good. So, what are some ways to make food taste good? You can add all kinds of spices and herbs. Yet, most spices are very expensive. You can also add some sweetness. So, maybe add some fresh blueberries to yogurt. Again, this can get expensive and fruit has a short shelf life. So, let’s add pure sugar (mostly in the form of corn syrup), because sugar is very cheap. Let’s also add salt instead of a bunch of spices, because salt is relatively cheap and it serves a dual purpose by preserving the food.

My point is economics plays a big roll. I was watching an interview this morning about how school lunch programs are underfunded. So, in order to make the food edible, they add sugar because they need to stay under budget. And that’s my beef. Sure, you can just say shut up and take responsibility and I completely agree. But, as Ned Flanders’s wife would say "would somebody please think of the children!" It is kind of sickening of how sugary foods are directly marketed to children. I mean if you watch Saturday morning cartoons they are all over the place. I know, you can just tell the parents to be parents, but I can't really comment on that since I am not a parent. Although, I think it's only the parents business to influence a child on how and what to eat.

Is sugar evil? No, of course not. Just like alcohol isn't evil or tobacco, etc. I think there is a limit though and that is where personal responsibility comes in, but also, I think we as a society should at least know all the facts about why it can be harmful and at what level. I mean we know how harmful tobacco and alcohol can be at certain levels, but we're not going to outlaw them.

Overall, your post is well thought out. A couple of things to consider. The economic argument works in reverse also. Markets are driven by supply and demand. If we read labels and don't buy things overladen with sugar, the food manufacturers will modify thier products in a way that will increase sales. And added sugar foods will not sell well thus becoming a smaller part of the market. This happened back in the 70s with the low fat craze. And it's happened in the fast food industry with McDonalds and the like offering chicken sandwiches and salad and the like.

Secondly, it's up to parents what thier kids eat at school. We've raised (or are still raising in the case of the last 2) a total of 6. We make heathy lunches for them that they pack and take with them. Most, not all, school lunch programs suck!! If people choose that option, they are feeding the demand side of the market economics.

In my opinion, it is not that hard to be an informed consumer and eat in a reasonably healthy way with mostly nutrient dense whole food close to the source and minimally processed. Is it as convenient as just grabbing some overly processed preprepared thing off a shelf? No. But no one is holding a gun to anyone's head and saying they have to have some junk washed down with a gallon of coke!

Personal responsibility and common sense trump all. All Lustigs and his ilk's fear mongering does is create alarmism on the one side of the equation and scepticism on the other. Look how many people in this thread are taking Lustigs word as gospel. And this is only one of several on this topic where this is going on. It just breeds and feeds orthorexia.

I... I... I agree with you. About all of this...

what's happening?

EDIT: ah damnit. I agreed up until the orthorexia bit. well hey, 95% isn't bad.

mmapags

Overall, your post is well thought out. A couple of things to consider. The economic argument works in reverse also. Markets are driven by supply and demand. If we read labels and don't buy things overladen with sugar, the food manufacturers will modify thier products in a way that will increase sales. And added sugar foods will not sell well thus becoming a smaller part of the market. This happened back in the 70s with the low fat craze. And it's happened in the fast food industry with McDonalds and the like offering chicken sandwiches and salad and the like.

Secondly, it's up to parents what thier kids eat at school. We've raised (or are still raising in the case of the last 2) a total of 6. We make heathy lunches for them that they pack and take with them. Most, not all, school lunch programs suck!! If people choose that option, they are feeding the demand side of the market economics.

In my opinion, it is not that hard to be an informed consumer and eat in a reasonably healthy way with mostly nutrient dense whole food close to the source and minimally processed. Is it as convenient as just grabbing some overly processed preprepared thing off a shelf? No. But no one is holding a gun to anyone's head and saying they have to have some junk washed down with a gallon of coke!

Personal responsibility and common sense trump all. All Lustigs and his ilk's fear mongering does is create alarmism on the one side of the equation and scepticism on the other. Look how many people in this thread are taking Lustigs word as gospel. And this is only one of several on this topic where this is going on. It just breeds and feeds orthorexia.

I... I... I agree with you. About all of this...

what's happening?

EDIT: ah damnit. I agreed up until the orthorexia bit. well hey, 95% isn't bad.

You musta woke up a little smarter today is all I can figure. :drinker:

CoachReddy

Overall, your post is well thought out. A couple of things to consider. The economic argument works in reverse also. Markets are driven by supply and demand. If we read labels and don't buy things overladen with sugar, the food manufacturers will modify thier products in a way that will increase sales. And added sugar foods will not sell well thus becoming a smaller part of the market. This happened back in the 70s with the low fat craze. And it's happened in the fast food industry with McDonalds and the like offering chicken sandwiches and salad and the like.

Secondly, it's up to parents what thier kids eat at school. We've raised (or are still raising in the case of the last 2) a total of 6. We make heathy lunches for them that they pack and take with them. Most, not all, school lunch programs suck!! If people choose that option, they are feeding the demand side of the market economics.

In my opinion, it is not that hard to be an informed consumer and eat in a reasonably healthy way with mostly nutrient dense whole food close to the source and minimally processed. Is it as convenient as just grabbing some overly processed preprepared thing off a shelf? No. But no one is holding a gun to anyone's head and saying they have to have some junk washed down with a gallon of coke!

Personal responsibility and common sense trump all. All Lustigs and his ilk's fear mongering does is create alarmism on the one side of the equation and scepticism on the other. Look how many people in this thread are taking Lustigs word as gospel. And this is only one of several on this topic where this is going on. It just breeds and feeds orthorexia.

I... I... I agree with you. About all of this...

what's happening?

EDIT: ah damnit. I agreed up until the orthorexia bit. well hey, 95% isn't bad.

You musta woke up a little smarter today is all I can figure. :drinker:

haha maybe so.

ajaxe432

One problem I see is we have become accustomed (in America at least) to need shock, humor, witty comments and sensationalism to get and keep our attention. It's almost silly at times. I always picture Al Gore on the scissor lift. I am guilty of this as well, hence the title to my thread. So, minus 1 point for me I guess. Damn, I did it again, minus 2.

Anyway, if you get passed all the bs, Lustig makes some good points. He also makes some questionable points. But I think the most interesting point is how sugar (in all forms) has been added to almost everything. Why is this? Well, because most sugar comes from corn. Corn is one crop that is heavily subsided by the US government. Therefore, it is very cheap relative to everything else. Food companies need to make a profit and one of the ways they entice people to buy their food is to make it taste good. There's nothing wrong with this in my eyes. Everyone wants food that tastes good. So, what are some ways to make food taste good? You can add all kinds of spices and herbs. Yet, most spices are very expensive. You can also add some sweetness. So, maybe add some fresh blueberries to yogurt. Again, this can get expensive and fruit has a short shelf life. So, let’s add pure sugar (mostly in the form of corn syrup), because sugar is very cheap. Let’s also add salt instead of a bunch of spices, because salt is relatively cheap and it serves a dual purpose by preserving the food.

My point is economics plays a big roll. I was watching an interview this morning about how school lunch programs are underfunded. So, in order to make the food edible, they add sugar because they need to stay under budget. And that’s my beef. Sure, you can just say shut up and take responsibility and I completely agree. But, as Ned Flanders’s wife would say "would somebody please think of the children!" It is kind of sickening of how sugary foods are directly marketed to children. I mean if you watch Saturday morning cartoons they are all over the place. I know, you can just tell the parents to be parents, but I can't really comment on that since I am not a parent. Although, I think it's only the parents business to influence a child on how and what to eat.

Is sugar evil? No, of course not. Just like alcohol isn't evil or tobacco, etc. I think there is a limit though and that is where personal responsibility comes in, but also, I think we as a society should at least know all the facts about why it can be harmful and at what level. I mean we know how harmful tobacco and alcohol can be at certain levels, but we're not going to outlaw them.


Well put my friend, as I am quick to assume sugar is completely bad based off Lustwig's words, I have taken a back seat to my previous thoughts. Can we point the main cause of obesity at sugar????some say yes, some say no, but overall it is not innocent in any sense. Looking at how much consumption of sugar was consumed in the 1930's and today is eye opening to say the least. As of everything else that plays a role (Low activity, chemicals in our foods and our air, genetics) -but the point is there is so many factors, it is hard or almost impossible to figure the main cause. Futhermore, the only real fight we have against obesity I feel, is credible knowledge to teach people who don't know.

kayemme

i didn't get that he was saying "sugar is evil"

i heard, "sugar without fiber (simple carb) runs through the body very quickly and if it is not expended outwardly [moving] then it will rest in your organs."

which loosely translates to "most of your sugars should accompany fiber (complex carbs)"

there was a bunch of other stuff he said in between to prove his point.

i watched this video about a year ago... since then i've been tracking my sugar to fiber ratio, which allow s me (predominantly vegetarian) to not get swept up in a carb craze, but make sure that i'm getting nutrient dense food. i've been known to trick myself for sweets, so this is how i keep myself on track. more here


http://www.thinkingaboutnutrition.com/2011/11/the-sugar-to-fiber-dietary-ratio/

dixiewhiskey

Everyone eats sugar... I just prefer not to each much of it. *shrug*

taylorwaylor

bump... i just watched the whole thing..

mmapags

i didn't get that he was saying "sugar is evil"

i heard, "sugar without fiber (simple carb) runs through the body very quickly and if it is not expended outwardly [moving] then it will rest in your organs."

No one has addressed the context and dose question in all this. Additionally, I believe part of the key is above. If you are regularly doing intensive exercise and not overindulging (meaning keeping whatever your intake of sugar is to reasonable doses) you expend the sugar and it does not reside in any unsafe abundance in your tissue.

Additionaly, sugar of anykind is rarely consumed in a vacumn. It is usually part of a meal with fiber, fat and protein. Not always, but usually.

kayemme

Additionaly, sugar of anykind is rarely consumed in a vacumn. It is usually part of a meal with fiber, fat and protein. Not always, but usually.

this is the only part where I would disagree, at least in the Standard American Diet (SAD). Most Americans keep a sugar to fiber ratio of anywhere between 12:1 and 18:1, when in reality it should be equal. I aim for under 5:1 which, depending on my day, may even permit a can of soda.

Most days I'm well under 3:1, but this isn't about me except I've been testing this idea for a while. Whenever I follow it faithfully, I lose weight almost effortlessly. If I slack off and go back on the SAD (which never goes full-blown, but even at half-way) I gain weight.

I am also considerably more active than most people (all day kind of active).