Scapegoat of this decade: Sugar.

show previous quotes

The evidence is clear: No foods are inherently bad.

People with insulin resistance and diabetes may have different experiences. When you've met people with feet missing, eyes that don't work anymore and serious heart problems it does indeed appear that some foods can be bad for you.

But active young healthy people with good insulin sensitivity will probably fit your model.

I see what you're trying to do there, but if properly managed in both of those cases the same model fits. Again, personal responsibility. I know many type-1 and type-2 diabetics that properly manage their conditions and as a result, can eat what they choose.

If they've lost feet, or functions of other organs they have not managed their conditions properly or responsibly. My closest friend has been type-1 for 33 years, the pinnacle of health & he enjoys any and all foods. A very well known, here, type-2 diabetic has managed to lose over 300 lbs while eating what he wants, are two prime examples. As some anecdotal evidence.

<Raises hand!!> I think I know who the well known person is on here your referring too!! ;-)

Dammit, Ed...

...not everything is about you.





Oh, wait...I think you're right. This actually is.

:embarassed:

*ahem*

Sorry about that.

show previous quotes

If sugar were magically made into an impossible molecule and there was no more sugar ever in the world, would there be any impact to the health and/or weight of human beings? I don't know, but I suspect there might be.

Considering it would make the krebs cycle impossible and mitochondria in your trillions of cells into a big waste of space, yeah I suspect it might have a slight impact...

Glucose is essential for all life in the known universe, so the result would be an extinction of all known life.

Don't they make you learn photosynthesis at your school?

show previous quotes

If sugar were magically made into an impossible molecule and there was no more sugar ever in the world, would there be any impact to the health and/or weight of human beings? I don't know, but I suspect there might be.

Considering it would make the krebs cycle impossible and mitochondria in your trillions of cells into a big waste of space, yeah I suspect it might have a slight impact...

Glucose is essential for all life in the known universe, so the result would be an extinction of all known life.

Don't they make you learn photosynthesis at your school?

Acinetobacter would thrive. As would several other non-oxidase bacteria. But hey, carry on.

show previous quotes

If sugar were magically made into an impossible molecule and there was no more sugar ever in the world, would there be any impact to the health and/or weight of human beings? I don't know, but I suspect there might be.

Considering it would make the krebs cycle impossible and mitochondria in your trillions of cells into a big waste of space, yeah I suspect it might have a slight impact...

Glucose is essential for all life in the known universe, so the result would be an extinction of all known life.

Don't they make you learn photosynthesis at your school?

Acinetobacter would thrive. As would several other non-oxidase bacteria. But hey, carry on.

Interesting, I don't know anything about this type of bacteria. Where do they get their energy from?

show previous quotes

If sugar were magically made into an impossible molecule and there was no more sugar ever in the world, would there be any impact to the health and/or weight of human beings? I don't know, but I suspect there might be.

Considering it would make the krebs cycle impossible and mitochondria in your trillions of cells into a big waste of space, yeah I suspect it might have a slight impact...

Glucose is essential for all life in the known universe, so the result would be an extinction of all known life.

Don't they make you learn photosynthesis at your school?

It was a hypothetical and the scope was the human body. Sure someone could also ramble on for days about what it would mean if the laws of the universe could be magically changed/suspended, but that wasn't really the point of the question, was it?

Honestly, I think sugar CAN have some part in it. My mother was addicted to sugar. I found out when she lost around 20 lbs by cutting out caloric drinks. She used to drink 6 cups of very sweet chocolate milk and now she stopped drinking it, her sugar cravings became a lot less and her taste has improved a 100%. She won't even use sweetener in her tea now because it is too sweet for her.

So is sugar the reason people get overweight? No. But it can sure as hell be an important contributor.

So she cut her calories and lost weight, interesting.

The fact that some of the calories came from sugar is irrelevant. Protein* and fat can also be an important contributor to gaining weight. It doesn't make it the devil.

Edit: * I orginally wrote carbs but I had mean protein

Honestly, I think sugar CAN have some part in it. My mother was addicted to sugar. I found out when she lost around 20 lbs by cutting out caloric drinks. She used to drink 6 cups of very sweet chocolate milk and now she stopped drinking it, her sugar cravings became a lot less and her taste has improved a 100%. She won't even use sweetener in her tea now because it is too sweet for her.

So is sugar the reason people get overweight? No. But it can sure as hell be an important contributor.

There's a big difference between 'doing something to excess' and 'being addicted.'

show previous quotes

Honestly, I think sugar CAN have some part in it. My mother was addicted to sugar. I found out when she lost around 20 lbs by cutting out caloric drinks. She used to drink 6 cups of very sweet chocolate milk and now she stopped drinking it, her sugar cravings became a lot less and her taste has improved a 100%. She won't even use sweetener in her tea now because it is too sweet for her.

So is sugar the reason people get overweight? No. But it can sure as hell be an important contributor.

So she cut her calories and lost weight, interesting.

The fact that some of the calories came from sugar is irrelevant. Carbs and fat can also be an important contributor to gaining weight. It doesn't make it the devil.

Just wanted to point out that sugar IS a carb.

But I agree in theory; demonizing a food / food group is wrong. What's actually helpful is learning the up and downsides to different foods so you can decide how you want them to be a part of your life.

LOL, I meant to type protein - opps, my bad :blushing:

I've edited - but added a note showing my edit.

show previous quotes

The evidence is clear: No foods are inherently bad.

People with insulin resistance and diabetes may have different experiences. When you've met people with feet missing, eyes that don't work anymore and serious heart problems it does indeed appear that some foods can be bad for you.

But active young healthy people with good insulin sensitivity will probably fit your model.

I see what you're trying to do there, but if properly managed in both of those cases the same model fits. Again, personal responsibility. I know many type-1 and type-2 diabetics that properly manage their conditions and as a result, can eat what they choose.

If they've lost feet, or functions of other organs they have not managed their conditions properly or responsibly. My closest friend has been type-1 for 33 years, the pinnacle of health & he enjoys any and all foods. A very well known, here, type-2 diabetic has managed to lose over 300 lbs while eating what he wants, are two prime examples. As some anecdotal evidence.

<Raises hand!!> I think I know who the well known person is on here your referring too!! ;-)

Sorry, just not so. My sister was a type 1 Diabetic and ultimately died at age 36 from it. And it wasn't because she did not "manage her condition properly or responsibly." Ugh. I am glad you have a friend with diabetes who is healthy, but you may want to reconsider making statements about diabetes in general in the future.

Thu would be another example of going to extreme to prove a point.

Sugar isn't evil!
But diabetics!
When properly managed diabetics are able to fall into the same scope of "sugar isn't evil!"
But I know someone who died, so you're wrong. My anecdote trumps your anecdote.

In reality that case in an outlier, not the norm. The model still fits.

It seems like a lot of comments are in vein of "It never happened to me so it must not be real". Other posters give examples of illnesses directly affected or caused by insulin resistance and it's thrown out as an anomaly. Is it so difficult to believe that another person's body would react differently than your own? Especially when that body may be a different gender or 20 years older?

I was diagnosed with a rare neurological disorder that for now is idiopathic, the only way doctors know how to treat it is with medication, surgery, and a diet that eliminates insulin resistance. So my diet is sugar free and low carb, not because I target sugar as a 'scapegoat', but because if I stay on an insulin resistant diet I may get to remission.

I'm sorry you've had so much trouble, that sounds like it is very hard to deal with.

However, you are still an outlier, and far from the norm. Would you suggest that everyone do a low sugar, low carb diet because of your medical condition?

The fact is that if you have no underlying medical condition, there is zero reason to demonize sugar.

This content has been removed.

show previous quotes

It seems like a lot of comments are in vein of "It never happened to me so it must not be real". Other posters give examples of illnesses directly affected or caused by insulin resistance and it's thrown out as an anomaly. Is it so difficult to believe that another person's body would react differently than your own? Especially when that body may be a different gender or 20 years older?

I was diagnosed with a rare neurological disorder that for now is idiopathic, the only way doctors know how to treat it is with medication, surgery, and a diet that eliminates insulin resistance. So my diet is sugar free and low carb, not because I target sugar as a 'scapegoat', but because if I stay on an insulin resistant diet I may get to remission.

I'm sorry you've had so much trouble, that sounds like it is very hard to deal with.

However, you are still an outlier, and far from the norm. Would you suggest that everyone do a low sugar, low carb diet because of your medical condition?

The fact is that if you have no underlying medical condition, there is zero reason to demonize sugar.

I would never suggest that and didn't suggest it in my post. If you want to actually read what I wrote, I said different people react differently to the same substance. Claiming those people are 'demonizing' sugar is ridiculous.

And if you had read the op and the thread you would have seen that no one is suggesting that people with legitimate medical conditions should eat all the sugar.

BUT

people with no health issues can eat sugar and it is not the demon that people make it out to be. People without a medical condition do not react differential to sugar and your outlier story (while horrible and I am sorry) isn't really relevant in this discussion.

show previous quotes

http://onlinestatbook.com/2/case_studies/sugar.html

I'm sure somebody is gonna be all "Your online statistics study aide is WRONG, MAN!" But here is a graph of human consumption of sugar, in pounds per year, from the early 1800's to present day.

I like to keep in mind that my digestive system is pretty much identical to a digestive system makin' poops in the 1820's.

Physiologically, it may be possible that putting more and more and more and more of something in (be it alcohol, sugar, fat, protein, or water) starts to throw a few wrenches into the system.

Funny graphs aside; What is this supposed to prove? That we ingest more sugar now? That is all that link and graph shows. It neither states if that is good, bad, or indifferent. Let alone any reason not to.

YES! That's exactly what I wanted to throw into the ring- we ingest a much larger amount of sugar now. I don't want to go hollering around that it's good, bad or indifferent . I just want to point out that fact so people can draw their own conclusions from it and use it to do their own digging and deciding.

I consider it a point worth thinking about, given the topic.

To the dudes snarking at me about not knowing the difference between correlation and causation- you guys who posted the graphs about pirates and cyclones and mexico lemons (BTW, WTF?!) I think you are missing that the image I posted isn't correlating sugar consumption to ANYTHING except time.
The two axes are time and sugar consumption, not sugar consumption and death, not sugar consumption and the rate of flying giraffes, not sugar consumption and the rate of poops per minute in a female gerbil.... the axes (and therefore the implied correlation and/or causation you've been having fun with) denote time and sugar consumption. Good luck arguing that sugar consumption has not increased in a similar manner to which that image depicts.

*Edited because I left a comma where I shouldn't have, and I can't be having that.

show previous quotes

The evidence is clear: No foods are inherently bad.

People with insulin resistance and diabetes may have different experiences. When you've met people with feet missing, eyes that don't work anymore and serious heart problems it does indeed appear that some foods can be bad for you.

But active young healthy people with good insulin sensitivity will probably fit your model.

I see what you're trying to do there, but if properly managed in both of those cases the same model fits. Again, personal responsibility. I know many type-1 and type-2 diabetics that properly manage their conditions and as a result, can eat what they choose.

If they've lost feet, or functions of other organs they have not managed their conditions properly or responsibly. My closest friend has been type-1 for 33 years, the pinnacle of health & he enjoys any and all foods. A very well known, here, type-2 diabetic has managed to lose over 300 lbs while eating what he wants, are two prime examples. As some anecdotal evidence.

<Raises hand!!> I think I know who the well known person is on here your referring too!! ;-)

Sorry, just not so. My sister was a type 1 Diabetic and ultimately died at age 36 from it. And it wasn't because she did not "manage her condition properly or responsibly." Ugh. I am glad you have a friend with diabetes who is healthy, but you may want to reconsider making statements about diabetes in general in the future.

I am very sorry for your lose. I still stand by my position that diabetes is a manageable disease. I am not trying to detract from its seriousness or impact on ones life. It is however, especially with todays technology, manageable while maintaining the freedom to eat what you enjoy.

Thank you for being gracious. I agree that technology has really improved treatment and we are much closer to a cure than ever. My sister died years ago before many of these advances. I would caution you though, there are still MANY juvenile diabetics that are considered "brittle" and their disease is much more difficult to manage and the consequences are heartbreaking. Thankfully, they are unlike your friend and majority of people that can do just what you describe, manage their diabetes.

And in case anyone misunderstands what I have said, I am not talking about sugar - apologies for the off-topic. Because we all know that never happens on these forums.