How much sugar grams is to much

NaBroski

If you have your initial calorie and macronutrients set up in a reasonable fashion, and you adhere to approximately a 20% discretionary calorie bank, then these parameters should automatically pigeon-hole your sugar intake into a reasonable target for the majority.

hey man, question - do you think 250g sugar/day is too much or is it alright? to me that seems astronomical, no matter how big you are. I'm only asking because even though we disagree on a lot, you do have a better grasp of nutritional mathematics than I.

See bolded.

CoachReddy

If you have your initial calorie and macronutrients set up in a reasonable fashion, and you adhere to approximately a 20% discretionary calorie bank, then these parameters should automatically pigeon-hole your sugar intake into a reasonable target for the majority.

hey man, question - do you think 250g sugar/day is too much or is it alright? to me that seems astronomical, no matter how big you are. I'm only asking because even though we disagree on a lot, you do have a better grasp of nutritional mathematics than I.

See bolded.

the bolded is not true of you, unfortunately.

tomg33

CoachReddy I actually examined your sources and I'm sure you've read them so I'll highlight the parts of note. Keep in mind I do not think these support your stance that sugar is INHERENTLY unhealthy at all. Also, where I use capitals I am attempting to stress certain parts; I am not yelling

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19704096

"...Although trial data are limited, evidence from observational studies indicates that a higher intake of soft drinks is associated with greater energy intake, higher body weight, and lower intake of essential nutrients..."
"...intake of added sugars greatly exceeds discretionary calorie allowances, regardless of energy needs. In view of these considerations, the American Heart Association recommends reductions in the intake of added sugars..."
This is obviously correct and reasonable

"...In conclusion, to achieve and maintain healthy weights and decrease cardiovascular risk while at the same time meeting essential nutrient needs, the AHA encourages people to consume an overall healthy diet that is consistent with the AHA’s 2006 diet and lifestyle recommendations..."
Do you see how their problem with sugar is that the layperson consumes it, unwittingly exceeds their maintenance calories (and at the expensive of micronutrients), and thus gains weight? Weight loss is the number one method of improving your health, and this paper is exactly right in everything it says. BUT IT NEVER SAYS SUGAR IS DIRECTLY HARMFUL TO YOUR HEALTH!

The second piece is a news article. This is the correct link:
http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/184/5/404.long

"Limitations
Association does not prove causation. Diet is partly determined by sociocultural factors, so diet could be a proxy for other social variables. Correlation studies of this type, particularly when taken in conjunction with other sources of information, have their greatest value in generating hypotheses. Issues of cause and effect can be clarified only by intervention studies in which diet is manipulated, by either supplementation or restriction, and mental health outcome is assessed."
Greatest value in generating hypotheses -- cause and effect can ONLY BE CLARIFIED BY INTERVENTION STUDIES IN WHICH DIET IS MANIPULATED (which this obviously is not)

http://www.aces.edu/dept/extcomm/newspaper/mar12a03.html
This is a newspaper article. Where are the references? But I'll read on.

"The World Health Organization advises restricting sugar consumption to 10 percent of daily calories, while the National Academy of Sciences advises limiting it to 25 percent."
25% is a lot of sugar... Do you agree with this number?
"Also, Keith says, there usually is no harm in physically active athletes supplementing their diet with some sugar, especially in cases where their bodies are burning up calories faster than they can replace them...
...In most cases, athletes won't be adversely affected, simply because they're burning so many calories."
This is distinct compared to a sedentary individual (not us). I wouldn't go as far as saying I'm an athlete but I exercise 6-8 hours a week and I'm sure most people on this forum (hopefully) are very active as well in their pursuit of health. BECAUSE EXERCISE CHANGES EVERYTHING.
Also, a scientist/doctor, as credible as their scientific work may be, cannot have their mere words used as a source without specific references with each claim

http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/GettingHealthy/NutritionCenter/HealthyDietGoals/Sugars-and-Carbohydrates_UCM_303296_Article.jsp
I won't quote this one. It is similar to the first paper (although this is by no means a scientific paper) in that it is clearly recommending limiting sugar intake for the laypeople who do not track their macros and are usually sedentary. If this was the population I was talking to, I too would avoid sugar -- because they're not doing anything else for their health! Again it is not claimed that sugar is directly harmful to your health because of some intrinsic chemical property.

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/779985
The last paper requires access to that particular journal.

kimosabe1

get this-i'm type one diabetic and was over on sugar everyday so I just X'd it out and added vitamins. MFP are sugar virgins....

magerum

CoachReddy I actually examined your sources and I'm sure you've read them so I'll highlight the parts of note. Keep in mind I do not think these support your stance that sugar is INHERENTLY unhealthy at all. Also, where I use capitals I am attempting to stress certain parts; I am not yelling

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19704096

"...Although trial data are limited, evidence from observational studies indicates that a higher intake of soft drinks is associated with greater energy intake, higher body weight, and lower intake of essential nutrients..."
"...intake of added sugars greatly exceeds discretionary calorie allowances, regardless of energy needs. In view of these considerations, the American Heart Association recommends reductions in the intake of added sugars..."
This is obviously correct and reasonable

"...In conclusion, to achieve and maintain healthy weights and decrease cardiovascular risk while at the same time meeting essential nutrient needs, the AHA encourages people to consume an overall healthy diet that is consistent with the AHA’s 2006 diet and lifestyle recommendations..."
Do you see how their problem with sugar is that the layperson consumes it, unwittingly exceeds their maintenance calories (and at the expensive of micronutrients), and thus gains weight? Weight loss is the number one method of improving your health, and this paper is exactly right in everything it says. BUT IT NEVER SAYS SUGAR IS DIRECTLY HARMFUL TO YOUR HEALTH!

The second piece is a news article. This is the correct link:
http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/184/5/404.long

"Limitations
Association does not prove causation. Diet is partly determined by sociocultural factors, so diet could be a proxy for other social variables. Correlation studies of this type, particularly when taken in conjunction with other sources of information, have their greatest value in generating hypotheses. Issues of cause and effect can be clarified only by intervention studies in which diet is manipulated, by either supplementation or restriction, and mental health outcome is assessed."
Greatest value in generating hypotheses -- cause and effect can ONLY BE CLARIFIED BY INTERVENTION STUDIES IN WHICH DIET IS MANIPULATED (which this obviously is not)

http://www.aces.edu/dept/extcomm/newspaper/mar12a03.html
This is a newspaper article. Where are the references? But I'll read on.

"The World Health Organization advises restricting sugar consumption to 10 percent of daily calories, while the National Academy of Sciences advises limiting it to 25 percent."
25% is a lot of sugar... Do you agree with this number?
"Also, Keith says, there usually is no harm in physically active athletes supplementing their diet with some sugar, especially in cases where their bodies are burning up calories faster than they can replace them...
...In most cases, athletes won't be adversely affected, simply because they're burning so many calories."
This is distinct compared to a sedentary individual (not us). I wouldn't go as far as saying I'm an athlete but I exercise 6-8 hours a week and I'm sure most people on this forum (hopefully) are very active as well in their pursuit of health. BECAUSE EXERCISE CHANGES EVERYTHING.
Also, a scientist/doctor, as credible as their scientific work may be, cannot have their mere words used as a source without specific references with each claim

http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/GettingHealthy/NutritionCenter/HealthyDietGoals/Sugars-and-Carbohydrates_UCM_303296_Article.jsp
I won't quote this one. It is similar to the first paper (although this is by no means a scientific paper) in that it is clearly recommending limiting sugar intake for the laypeople who do not track their macros and are usually sedentary. If this was the population I was talking to, I too would avoid sugar -- because they're not doing anything else for their health! Again it is not claimed that sugar is directly harmful to your health because of some intrinsic chemical property.

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/779985
The last paper requires access to that particular journal.

He will not have a response to this. Gracias

tomg33

Perhaps not, but maybe others will see that just because an individual throws out some impressive looking links, doesn't mean they are are evidence for their claims or even valid sources.