Scapegoat of this decade: Sugar.

Options
1678911

Replies

  • LiftAllThePizzas
    LiftAllThePizzas Posts: 17,857 Member
    Options
    Man...this girls on a roll today ^^^^^

    How do we trust someone with no face? It's always the faceless ones fighting the war against sugar.
    And they often also have not made any progress in years, yet they hold the magic answer.

    Really, straw man arguments guys? You don't like what someone's saying so you're going to attack them personally?

    Just to clarify, my choosing to no longer log food or monitor my progress with MFP doesn't mean I've made no progress in years.

    Also, never said I had the magic answer. It's hardly a revolutionary idea to think that sugar is unhealthy - it's pretty much basic conventional wisdom at this point.

    You don't do yourselves any favours by attacking posters rather than actually involving yourselves in the real discussion.
    What real discussion? Claiming that "conventional wisdom" agrees with you proves that sugar is 'unhealthy' is a real discussion?

    Your whole "it's either healthy or unhealthy" mentality is a big bucket of fail known as false dichotomy.
  • MyChocolateDiet
    MyChocolateDiet Posts: 22,281 Member
    Options
    Man...this girls on a roll today ^^^^^

    How do we trust someone with no face? It's always the faceless ones fighting the war against sugar.
    And they often also have not made any progress in years, yet they hold the magic answer.

    Really, straw man arguments guys? You don't like what someone's saying so you're going to attack them personally?

    Just to clarify, my choosing to no longer log food or monitor my progress with MFP doesn't mean I've made no progress in years.

    Also, never said I had the magic answer. It's hardly a revolutionary idea to think that sugar is unhealthy - it's pretty much basic conventional wisdom at this point.

    You don't do yourselves any favours by attacking posters rather than actually involving yourselves in the real discussion.
    What real discussion? Claiming that "conventional wisdom" agrees with you proves that sugar is 'unhealthy' is a real discussion?

    Your whole "it's either healthy or unhealthy" mentality is a big bucket of fail known as false dichotomy.

    also it's not conventional wisdom it's just a recent trend in the past decade or so. awhile back we thought whole eggs were bad remember?
  • meeper123
    meeper123 Posts: 3,347 Member
    Options
    good stuff thanks
  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    Options
    Saying sugar's unhealthy isn't just my opinion; it's backed up by numerous studies.
    I don't remember ANYONE arguing moderate amounts of sugar was unhealthy, by the way.

    Right. So it's healthy in some quantities, and not healthy in excessive quantities.

    Just like every other food.

    Got it, thanks.
  • ThickMcRunFast
    ThickMcRunFast Posts: 22,511 Member
    Options
    Man...this girls on a roll today ^^^^^

    How do we trust someone with no face? It's always the faceless ones fighting the war against sugar.
    And they often also have not made any progress in years, yet they hold the magic answer.

    Really, straw man arguments guys? You don't like what someone's saying so you're going to attack them personally?

    Just to clarify, my choosing to no longer log food or monitor my progress with MFP doesn't mean I've made no progress in years.

    Also, never said I had the magic answer. It's hardly a revolutionary idea to think that sugar is unhealthy - it's pretty much basic conventional wisdom at this point.

    You don't do yourselves any favours by attacking posters rather than actually involving yourselves in the real discussion.
    What real discussion? Claiming that "conventional wisdom" agrees with you proves that sugar is 'unhealthy' is a real discussion?

    Your whole "it's either healthy or unhealthy" mentality is a big bucket of fail known as false dichotomy.

    also it's not conventional wisdom it's just a recent trend in the past decade or so. awhile back we thought whole eggs were bad remember?

    hence the FREAKING TITLE OF THE THREAD


    and just fyi, saying "I have facts...its not my job to show you those facts!" is a sure way to make everyone immediately discount you. You keep saying you have all these studies, but refuse to show them? Makes me think you have gotten all your info from blogs. Maybe that's not true, but that is what your argument style screams.

    Anyway, it took me 30 seconds to find this list of studies that says sugar is perfectly healthy in moderate doses for healthy individuals.



    Economic Research Service, USDA. Loss-Adjusted Food Availability Data. Updated Feb 27, 2009. [ERS/USDA]

    King DE, et al. Adherence to healthy lifestyle habits in US adults, 1988-2006. Am J Med. 2009 Ju; 122(6):528-34. [Medline]

    Melanson KJ, et al. High-fructose corn syrup, energy intake, and appetite regulation. Am J Clin Nutr. 2008 Dec;88(6):1738S-1744S. [Medline]

    Soenen S, Westerterp-Plantenga MS. No differences in satiety or energy intake after high-fructose corn syrup, sucrose, or milk preloads. Am J Clin Nutr. 2007 Dec;86(6):1586-94. [Medline]

    Monsivais P, Perrigue MM, Drewnowski A. Sugars and satiety: does the type of sweetener make a difference? Am J Clin Nutr. 2007 Jul;86(1):116-23. [Medline]

    Akhavan T, Anderson GH. Effects of glucose-to-fructose ratios in solutions on subjective satiety, food intake, and satiety hormones in young men. Am J Clin Nutr. 2007 Nov;86(5):1354-63. [Medline]

    Spitzer L, Rodin J. Effects of fructose and glucose preloads on subsequent food intake. Appetite. 1987 Apr;8(2):135-45. [Medline]

    Rodin J, Reed D, Jamner L. Metabolic effects of fructose and glucose: implications for food intake. Am J Clin Nutr. 1988 Apr;47(4):683–9.

    Rodin J. Comparative effects of fructose, aspartame, glucose and water preloads on calorie and macronutrient intake. Am J Clin Nutr 1990;51:428–35. [Medline]

    Rodin J. Effects of pure sugar versus mixed starch fructose loads on food intake. Appetite 1991;17:213–9.[Medline]

    Moran TH. Fructose and satiety. J Nutr. 2009 Jun;139(6):1253S-1256S. Epub 2009 Apr 29. [Medline]

    Teff KL, et al. Dietary fructose reduces circulating insulin and leptin, attenuates postprandial suppression of ghrelin, and increases triglycerides in women. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2004 Jun;89(6):2963-72. [Medline]

    Livesy G. Fructose ingestion: dose-dependent responses in health research. J Nutr. 2009 Jun;139(6):1246S-1252S. Epub 2009 Apr 22. [Medline]

    Dolan LC, et al. Evidence-based review on the effect of normal dietary consumption of fructose on development of hyperlipidemia and obesity in healthy, normal weight individuals. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2010 Jan;50(1):53-84. [Medline]

    Livesey G, Taylor R. Fructose consumption and consequences for glycation, plasma triacylglycerol, and body weight: meta-analyses and meta-regression models of intervention studies. Am J Clin Nutr. 2008 Nov;88(5):1419-37. [Medline]

    White JS. Straight Talk About High-Fructose Corn Syrup: What it is and What it Ain’t. Am J Clin Nutr. 2008 Dec;88(6):1716S-1721S. [Medline]


    Sánchez-Lozada LG, et al. How safe is fructose for persons with or without diabetes? Am J Clin Nutr. 2008 Nov;88(5):1189-90. [Medline]
  • Daiako
    Daiako Posts: 12,545 Member
    Options
    Ed, so do you believe that it is a coincidence that the incidence of obesity started to rise so drastically with the advent of high fructose corn syrup in the U.S.? Do you think that we as a whole nation all the sudden decided to eat so much more and become diabetic from one day to the next?
    Something drastically changed and one of the things that changed significantly is what we add to our food.
    Look at the food labels.
    And yes, I can imagine that there are many people that do polish away several soft drinks a day. And a lot of them are children. And if you pay attention you will notice how the food industry will market their sugar laden drinks (sports drinks , soda) and junk ( so called healthy cereal) to children. So I do not think that 6-7 non diet soft drinks or juices is that unrealistic for some. {In children, less would do the damage as they weigh less). You also have to consider that soft drinks are not the only things that contain HFCS . There are many other processed foods that do. And especially children that grow up in poor families do not necessarily have access to the best nutrition. Like I said, we are responsible for what we eat, but we as a society are also responsible to create an environment where people that may not have that much money should have access to decent food. And with the current policies we really belittle the real problem of obesity. The food industry really shirks its responsibility and lets society pay for the damage they cause by producing cheap and unhealthy food in order to keep their profit margin big (soda has a 90 % profit margin , fruits and vegetables 10% - the fruit and vegetable farmers get NO subsidies - imagine that). We as a society and individuals pay for this damage done by cheap inadequate nutrition by paying for increasing insurance premiums and sky rocketing medical costs. The food industry lobbies in Washington and makes sure that those who really advocate healthy nutrition get silenced while we as a nation get sicker and fatter every day. Our politicians and the USDA do not have enough backbone to do what would be in the public's best interest and subsidize what would be actually good for our health as a nation. Instead they subsidize what fills the deep pockets of some giants in the food industry that do not care what damage their products create. Along the way we damage not only the next generation, our biggest asset we have as a nation, but also our economy as we lose productivity, have rising healthcare costs and as employers contemplate moving jobs abroad because of rising health care premiums. We are way too short sighted when it comes to this issue.
    I grew up in Europe, and I know that some of the additives that we are putting in our foods are not even allowed to be marketed there. We now have children that have type II diabetes, a thing that was not heard of a few years ago and many physicians fear that they will be the first generation with a shorter life span than their parents' generation. This is a huge problem and I do believe that HFCS is one of the culprits and needs to be addressed.

    Just want to say I agree with all of this. You're the only person in here making sense, everyone else is blinded by the negativity that clinging to their precious added sugar causes. They can't imagine life without it, so they tear down those who knows the truth about how harmful it is.

    You're very pretty, but you are wrong in this case.

    I'll have to respectfully disagree.

    Maybe you should try giving up sugar. You'll find that you'll feel better within a week, once your body purges itself of those toxins.

    I'm sorry, I know that you are new, but I agree that you are totally wrong here.

    However, you are very pretty :flowerforyou:

    I'm pretty because I subcribe to a whole food diet that is low in added sugar. My hair is better than ever, my skin glows, my body feels amazing. Anyone could have these results if they were just willing to let go of their addiction to sweets and junk.
  • MyChocolateDiet
    MyChocolateDiet Posts: 22,281 Member
    Options
    I 1.jpg?v=d8e639 sugar, yum!
  • MyChocolateDiet
    MyChocolateDiet Posts: 22,281 Member
    Options
    Ed, so do you believe that it is a coincidence that the incidence of obesity started to rise so drastically with the advent of high fructose corn syrup in the U.S.? Do you think that we as a whole nation all the sudden decided to eat so much more and become diabetic from one day to the next?
    Something drastically changed and one of the things that changed significantly is what we add to our food.
    Look at the food labels.
    And yes, I can imagine that there are many people that do polish away several soft drinks a day. And a lot of them are children. And if you pay attention you will notice how the food industry will market their sugar laden drinks (sports drinks , soda) and junk ( so called healthy cereal) to children. So I do not think that 6-7 non diet soft drinks or juices is that unrealistic for some. {In children, less would do the damage as they weigh less). You also have to consider that soft drinks are not the only things that contain HFCS . There are many other processed foods that do. And especially children that grow up in poor families do not necessarily have access to the best nutrition. Like I said, we are responsible for what we eat, but we as a society are also responsible to create an environment where people that may not have that much money should have access to decent food. And with the current policies we really belittle the real problem of obesity. The food industry really shirks its responsibility and lets society pay for the damage they cause by producing cheap and unhealthy food in order to keep their profit margin big (soda has a 90 % profit margin , fruits and vegetables 10% - the fruit and vegetable farmers get NO subsidies - imagine that). We as a society and individuals pay for this damage done by cheap inadequate nutrition by paying for increasing insurance premiums and sky rocketing medical costs. The food industry lobbies in Washington and makes sure that those who really advocate healthy nutrition get silenced while we as a nation get sicker and fatter every day. Our politicians and the USDA do not have enough backbone to do what would be in the public's best interest and subsidize what would be actually good for our health as a nation. Instead they subsidize what fills the deep pockets of some giants in the food industry that do not care what damage their products create. Along the way we damage not only the next generation, our biggest asset we have as a nation, but also our economy as we lose productivity, have rising healthcare costs and as employers contemplate moving jobs abroad because of rising health care premiums. We are way too short sighted when it comes to this issue.
    I grew up in Europe, and I know that some of the additives that we are putting in our foods are not even allowed to be marketed there. We now have children that have type II diabetes, a thing that was not heard of a few years ago and many physicians fear that they will be the first generation with a shorter life span than their parents' generation. This is a huge problem and I do believe that HFCS is one of the culprits and needs to be addressed.

    Just want to say I agree with all of this. You're the only person in here making sense, everyone else is blinded by the negativity that clinging to their precious added sugar causes. They can't imagine life without it, so they tear down those who knows the truth about how harmful it is.

    You're very pretty, but you are wrong in this case.

    I'll have to respectfully disagree.

    Maybe you should try giving up sugar. You'll find that you'll feel better within a week, once your body purges itself of those toxins.

    I'm sorry, I know that you are new, but I agree that you are totally wrong here.

    However, you are very pretty :flowerforyou:

    I'm pretty because I subcribe to a whole food diet that is low in added sugar. My hair is better than ever, my skin glows, my body feels amazing. Anyone could have these results if they were just willing to let go of their addiction to sweets and junk.

    So let me get this straight. When you were consuming sugar in moderation before your "whole food" diet that is low in added sugar but were possibly eating a diet moderate in added sugar...you were ugly?
  • Otterluv
    Otterluv Posts: 9,083 Member
    Options
    Ed, so do you believe that it is a coincidence that the incidence of obesity started to rise so drastically with the advent of high fructose corn syrup in the U.S.? Do you think that we as a whole nation all the sudden decided to eat so much more and become diabetic from one day to the next?
    Something drastically changed and one of the things that changed significantly is what we add to our food.
    Look at the food labels.
    And yes, I can imagine that there are many people that do polish away several soft drinks a day. And a lot of them are children. And if you pay attention you will notice how the food industry will market their sugar laden drinks (sports drinks , soda) and junk ( so called healthy cereal) to children. So I do not think that 6-7 non diet soft drinks or juices is that unrealistic for some. {In children, less would do the damage as they weigh less). You also have to consider that soft drinks are not the only things that contain HFCS . There are many other processed foods that do. And especially children that grow up in poor families do not necessarily have access to the best nutrition. Like I said, we are responsible for what we eat, but we as a society are also responsible to create an environment where people that may not have that much money should have access to decent food. And with the current policies we really belittle the real problem of obesity. The food industry really shirks its responsibility and lets society pay for the damage they cause by producing cheap and unhealthy food in order to keep their profit margin big (soda has a 90 % profit margin , fruits and vegetables 10% - the fruit and vegetable farmers get NO subsidies - imagine that). We as a society and individuals pay for this damage done by cheap inadequate nutrition by paying for increasing insurance premiums and sky rocketing medical costs. The food industry lobbies in Washington and makes sure that those who really advocate healthy nutrition get silenced while we as a nation get sicker and fatter every day. Our politicians and the USDA do not have enough backbone to do what would be in the public's best interest and subsidize what would be actually good for our health as a nation. Instead they subsidize what fills the deep pockets of some giants in the food industry that do not care what damage their products create. Along the way we damage not only the next generation, our biggest asset we have as a nation, but also our economy as we lose productivity, have rising healthcare costs and as employers contemplate moving jobs abroad because of rising health care premiums. We are way too short sighted when it comes to this issue.
    I grew up in Europe, and I know that some of the additives that we are putting in our foods are not even allowed to be marketed there. We now have children that have type II diabetes, a thing that was not heard of a few years ago and many physicians fear that they will be the first generation with a shorter life span than their parents' generation. This is a huge problem and I do believe that HFCS is one of the culprits and needs to be addressed.

    Just want to say I agree with all of this. You're the only person in here making sense, everyone else is blinded by the negativity that clinging to their precious added sugar causes. They can't imagine life without it, so they tear down those who knows the truth about how harmful it is.

    You're very pretty, but you are wrong in this case.

    I'll have to respectfully disagree.

    Maybe you should try giving up sugar. You'll find that you'll feel better within a week, once your body purges itself of those toxins.

    I'm sorry, I know that you are new, but I agree that you are totally wrong here.

    However, you are very pretty :flowerforyou:

    I'm pretty because I subcribe to a whole food diet that is low in added sugar. My hair is better than ever, my skin glows, my body feels amazing. Anyone could have these results if they were just willing to let go of their addiction to sweets and junk.

    Correlation =\= causation
  • Mistyfied_MD
    Mistyfied_MD Posts: 62 Member
    Options
    There have been just as many studies showing the opposite. Look them up sometime.

    "Just a carb" is a statement that ignores quite a bit. While low glycemic diets are comparable to moderate glycemic diets in terms of weight loss, there have also been studies showing the weight loss to be slightly more efficient. Which is more efficient, I really couldn't say. I can say from personal experience that moving to a lower glycemic diet did seem to spur my weight loss a bit, though not grossly so.

    But more important to people like me, the glycemic index is very important for diabetic dieting, and also those with liver conditions. One loosely-controlled human study I read of showed that a high glycemic diet alone was sufficient for the onset of fatty liver disease. There was another better controlled animal study that had the same findings. Food for thought for all you. Both studies can be found via google.

    Is it possible to lose weight while eating sugar? Sure. I wouldn't argue otherwise, I've done it myself. Is it just as good to lose weight on a diet of sugar versus a better balanced diet? Not for me.
  • Zumaria1
    Zumaria1 Posts: 225 Member
    Options
    Maybe the point should be: what is considered to be a moderate amount of sugar? Or a "healthy" amount of sugar? How much is too much?? Unfortunately, here in the United States, there is so much sugar in everything. I don't think its eating a few apples or having a cupcake here or there that is driving up the obesity and diabetes. I personally think its a cumulative effect, eating alot of foods that have sugars added, and I'm talking about sugar in everything, like jarred pickles, ketchup, things that you would not suspect or think of as "sweet" have sugars added for flavor or preservative. When eaten in excess with other really sweet things like sodas, cakes, donuts, and then add the sedentary lifestyle, its a recipe for bad heath.

    I think the debate is: what is a healthy amount? I know personally I go over almost everyday and I do worry about the health effects. Some say its no big deal, others say no sugar is best. I think its a hot button topic because there is so much conflicting information.
  • MyChocolateDiet
    MyChocolateDiet Posts: 22,281 Member
    Options
    Ed, so do you believe that it is a coincidence that the incidence of obesity started to rise so drastically with the advent of high fructose corn syrup in the U.S.? Do you think that we as a whole nation all the sudden decided to eat so much more and become diabetic from one day to the next?
    Something drastically changed and one of the things that changed significantly is what we add to our food.
    Look at the food labels.
    And yes, I can imagine that there are many people that do polish away several soft drinks a day. And a lot of them are children. And if you pay attention you will notice how the food industry will market their sugar laden drinks (sports drinks , soda) and junk ( so called healthy cereal) to children. So I do not think that 6-7 non diet soft drinks or juices is that unrealistic for some. {In children, less would do the damage as they weigh less). You also have to consider that soft drinks are not the only things that contain HFCS . There are many other processed foods that do. And especially children that grow up in poor families do not necessarily have access to the best nutrition. Like I said, we are responsible for what we eat, but we as a society are also responsible to create an environment where people that may not have that much money should have access to decent food. And with the current policies we really belittle the real problem of obesity. The food industry really shirks its responsibility and lets society pay for the damage they cause by producing cheap and unhealthy food in order to keep their profit margin big (soda has a 90 % profit margin , fruits and vegetables 10% - the fruit and vegetable farmers get NO subsidies - imagine that). We as a society and individuals pay for this damage done by cheap inadequate nutrition by paying for increasing insurance premiums and sky rocketing medical costs. The food industry lobbies in Washington and makes sure that those who really advocate healthy nutrition get silenced while we as a nation get sicker and fatter every day. Our politicians and the USDA do not have enough backbone to do what would be in the public's best interest and subsidize what would be actually good for our health as a nation. Instead they subsidize what fills the deep pockets of some giants in the food industry that do not care what damage their products create. Along the way we damage not only the next generation, our biggest asset we have as a nation, but also our economy as we lose productivity, have rising healthcare costs and as employers contemplate moving jobs abroad because of rising health care premiums. We are way too short sighted when it comes to this issue.
    I grew up in Europe, and I know that some of the additives that we are putting in our foods are not even allowed to be marketed there. We now have children that have type II diabetes, a thing that was not heard of a few years ago and many physicians fear that they will be the first generation with a shorter life span than their parents' generation. This is a huge problem and I do believe that HFCS is one of the culprits and needs to be addressed.

    Just want to say I agree with all of this. You're the only person in here making sense, everyone else is blinded by the negativity that clinging to their precious added sugar causes. They can't imagine life without it, so they tear down those who knows the truth about how harmful it is.

    You're very pretty, but you are wrong in this case.

    I'll have to respectfully disagree.

    Maybe you should try giving up sugar. You'll find that you'll feel better within a week, once your body purges itself of those toxins.

    I'm sorry, I know that you are new, but I agree that you are totally wrong here.

    However, you are very pretty :flowerforyou:

    I'm pretty because I subcribe to a whole food diet that is low in added sugar. My hair is better than ever, my skin glows, my body feels amazing. Anyone could have these results if they were just willing to let go of their addiction to sweets and junk.

    Correlation =\= causation

    inorite. because nobody who ever embarked on a "whole" food low sugar diet ever simultaneously changed their activity levels which could account for those hair, skin, and body feels. also: supplements, hydration, adequate sleep, etc. and so forth all the things people change when they finally decide to get healthy.
  • Daiako
    Daiako Posts: 12,545 Member
    Options
    Ed, so do you believe that it is a coincidence that the incidence of obesity started to rise so drastically with the advent of high fructose corn syrup in the U.S.? Do you think that we as a whole nation all the sudden decided to eat so much more and become diabetic from one day to the next?
    Something drastically changed and one of the things that changed significantly is what we add to our food.
    Look at the food labels.
    And yes, I can imagine that there are many people that do polish away several soft drinks a day. And a lot of them are children. And if you pay attention you will notice how the food industry will market their sugar laden drinks (sports drinks , soda) and junk ( so called healthy cereal) to children. So I do not think that 6-7 non diet soft drinks or juices is that unrealistic for some. {In children, less would do the damage as they weigh less). You also have to consider that soft drinks are not the only things that contain HFCS . There are many other processed foods that do. And especially children that grow up in poor families do not necessarily have access to the best nutrition. Like I said, we are responsible for what we eat, but we as a society are also responsible to create an environment where people that may not have that much money should have access to decent food. And with the current policies we really belittle the real problem of obesity. The food industry really shirks its responsibility and lets society pay for the damage they cause by producing cheap and unhealthy food in order to keep their profit margin big (soda has a 90 % profit margin , fruits and vegetables 10% - the fruit and vegetable farmers get NO subsidies - imagine that). We as a society and individuals pay for this damage done by cheap inadequate nutrition by paying for increasing insurance premiums and sky rocketing medical costs. The food industry lobbies in Washington and makes sure that those who really advocate healthy nutrition get silenced while we as a nation get sicker and fatter every day. Our politicians and the USDA do not have enough backbone to do what would be in the public's best interest and subsidize what would be actually good for our health as a nation. Instead they subsidize what fills the deep pockets of some giants in the food industry that do not care what damage their products create. Along the way we damage not only the next generation, our biggest asset we have as a nation, but also our economy as we lose productivity, have rising healthcare costs and as employers contemplate moving jobs abroad because of rising health care premiums. We are way too short sighted when it comes to this issue.
    I grew up in Europe, and I know that some of the additives that we are putting in our foods are not even allowed to be marketed there. We now have children that have type II diabetes, a thing that was not heard of a few years ago and many physicians fear that they will be the first generation with a shorter life span than their parents' generation. This is a huge problem and I do believe that HFCS is one of the culprits and needs to be addressed.

    Just want to say I agree with all of this. You're the only person in here making sense, everyone else is blinded by the negativity that clinging to their precious added sugar causes. They can't imagine life without it, so they tear down those who knows the truth about how harmful it is.

    You're very pretty, but you are wrong in this case.

    I'll have to respectfully disagree.

    Maybe you should try giving up sugar. You'll find that you'll feel better within a week, once your body purges itself of those toxins.

    I'm sorry, I know that you are new, but I agree that you are totally wrong here.

    However, you are very pretty :flowerforyou:

    I'm pretty because I subcribe to a whole food diet that is low in added sugar. My hair is better than ever, my skin glows, my body feels amazing. Anyone could have these results if they were just willing to let go of their addiction to sweets and junk.

    So let me get this straight. When you were consuming sugar in moderation before your "whole food" diet that is low in added sugar but were possibly eating a diet moderate in added sugar...you were ugly?

    I'm certainly more attractive now than I was before, yes. Being fit and healthy has greatly improved my image.
  • MyChocolateDiet
    MyChocolateDiet Posts: 22,281 Member
    Options
    OMG speaking of suger, I love those little balls they put on cookies...
    sugar_lips_1.jpg those are almost pure sugar right?
  • magerum
    magerum Posts: 12,589 Member
    Options
    There have been just as many studies showing the opposite. Look them up sometime.

    "Just a carb" is a statement that ignores quite a bit. While low glycemic diets are comparable to moderate glycemic diets in terms of weight loss, there have also been studies showing the weight loss to be slightly more efficient. Which is more efficient, I really couldn't say. I can say from personal experience that moving to a lower glycemic diet did seem to spur my weight loss a bit, though not grossly so.

    But more important to people like me, the glycemic index is very important for diabetic dieting, and also those with liver conditions. One loosely-controlled human study I read of showed that a high glycemic diet alone was sufficient for the onset of fatty liver disease. There was another better controlled animal study that had the same findings. Food for thought for all you. Both studies can be found via google.

    Is it possible to lose weight while eating sugar? Sure. I wouldn't argue otherwise, I've done it myself. Is it just as good to lose weight on a diet of sugar versus a better balanced diet? Not for me.

    I raise you actual studies.

    Metabolic and behavioral effects of a high-sucrose diet during weight loss.

    www.ajcn.org/content/65/4/908.full.pdf
    http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism



    Here are studies that show GI didn't make a significant difference

    An 18-mo randomized trial of a low-glycemic-index diet and weight change in Brazilian women

    http://www.ajcn.org/content/86/3/707.abstract

    Conclusions: Long-term weight changes were not significantly different between the HGI and LGI diet groups; therefore, this study does not support a benefit of an LGI diet for weight control. Favorable changes in lipids confirmed previous results.



    Reduced glycemic index and glycemic load diets do not increase the effects of energy restriction on weight loss and insulin sensitivity in obese men and women.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16177201

    In summary, lowering the glycemic load and glycemic index of weight reduction diets does not provide any added benefit to energy restriction in promoting weight loss in obese subjects.



    Long-term effects of 2 energy-restricted diets differing in glycemic load on dietary adherence, body composition, and metabolism in CALERIE: a 1-y randomized controlled trial

    http://www.ajcn.org/content/85/4/1023.abstract?ijkey=57903af923cb2fcdc065ffd37b00a32e22f4c5cf&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha

    Conclusions:These findings provide more detailed evidence to suggest that diets differing substantially in glycemic load induce comparable long-term weight loss.



    No effect of a diet with a reduced glycaemic index on satiety, energy intake and body weight in overweight and obese women.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17923862

    CONCLUSION:

    This study provides no evidence to support an effect of a reduced GI diet on satiety, energy intake or body weight in overweight/obese women. Claims that the GI of the diet per se may have specific effects on body weight may therefore be misleading.



    Diaz EO et. al. Glycaemic index effects on fuel partitioning in humans. Obes Rev. (2006) 7:219-26.

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-789X.2006.00225.x/full

    Summary

    The purpose of this review was to examine the role of glycaemic index in fuel partitioning and body composition with emphasis on fat oxidation/storage in humans. This relationship is based on the hypothesis postulating that a higher serum glucose and insulin response induced by high-glycaemic carbohydrates promotes lower fat oxidation and higher fat storage in comparison with low-glycaemic carbohydrates. Thus, high-glycaemic index meals could contribute to the maintenance of excess weight in obese individuals and/or predispose obesity-prone subjects to weight gain. Several studies comparing the effects of meals with contrasting glycaemic carbohydrates for hours, days or weeks have failed to demonstrate any differential effect on fuel partitioning when either substrate oxidation or body composition measurements were performed. Apparently, the glycaemic index-induced serum insulin differences are not sufficient in magnitude and/or duration to modify fuel oxidation


    HFCS not linked to fatty liver disease

    http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/abs/10.1139/apnm-2012-0322#.UaPWA5G9KSN

    http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/abs/10.1139/y2012-122#.UaPW95G9KSM

    "Recent research indicates an association between brain dysfunction and the pathogenesis of metabolic syndrome. To investigate this, we created a Medline search (up to December 2011) of articles in PubMed. The results indicated that refined carbohydrates, saturated and total fat, high levels of ω-6 fatty acids, and low levels of ω-3 fatty acids and other long chain polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA), all in conjunction with sedentary behaviour and mental stress can predispose to inflammation...."

    EDIT: Formatting
  • bcattoes
    bcattoes Posts: 17,299 Member
    Options

    Honest question, and lets throw out type 1 diabetes from this. Do people who maintain healthy weights/body composition regularly develop insulin sensitvity/diabetes?

    I don't know about "regularly", but yes, being overweight or overfat is not required to develop insulin resistance or diabetes. It probably happens a little later in life than if the person was overweight. I have several friends/relatives around my age (I'm 52) that have never had a weight problem and are now diabetic or insulin resistant.
  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    Options
    I think the debate is: what is a healthy amount? I know personally I go over almost everyday and I do worry about the health effects. Some say its no big deal, others say no sugar is best. I think its a hot button topic because there is so much conflicting information.

    The EU have discussed a limit of 90g (18% of energy on a 2000 cal diet) for total sugars and observed that 45g is a typical adult intake of intrinsic or naturally occurring sugars from fruit, veg and dairy. http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/doc/1008.pdf

    Australia is also using a 90g/day GDA on labelling I think.

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1017237-so-what-s-with-this-sugar-then-faq
  • darkangel45422
    darkangel45422 Posts: 234 Member
    Options
    Man...this girls on a roll today ^^^^^

    How do we trust someone with no face? It's always the faceless ones fighting the war against sugar.
    And they often also have not made any progress in years, yet they hold the magic answer.

    Really, straw man arguments guys? You don't like what someone's saying so you're going to attack them personally?

    Just to clarify, my choosing to no longer log food or monitor my progress with MFP doesn't mean I've made no progress in years.

    Also, never said I had the magic answer. It's hardly a revolutionary idea to think that sugar is unhealthy - it's pretty much basic conventional wisdom at this point.

    You don't do yourselves any favours by attacking posters rather than actually involving yourselves in the real discussion.
    What real discussion? Claiming that "conventional wisdom" agrees with you proves that sugar is 'unhealthy' is a real discussion?

    Your whole "it's either healthy or unhealthy" mentality is a big bucket of fail known as false dichotomy.

    also it's not conventional wisdom it's just a recent trend in the past decade or so. awhile back we thought whole eggs were bad remember?

    Real discussion about the place of sugar in the human diet. Stating that conventional wisdom right now agrees that sugar is unhealthy is simply part of that discussion. And conventional wisdom =/= correct; it just means that it's generally agreed upon by a large number of people - most people agree sugar is unhealthy. In this case I tend to believe it more than the belief that whole eggs were bad, since that belief was based on holding the cholesterol in eggs above all the benefits. Sugar has no benefits that I'm aware of (feel free to enlighten me if there are any health benefits to it) and only drawbacks, so for now I'm gonna stick with it actually being unhealthy.

    I've stated this a couple of times, but I think of healthy and unhealthy as a scale, with some things healthier than others. A food being unhealthy doesn't mean it has no place in a human diet, just that it in and of itself is not conducive to good health (the actual definition of unhealthy). Sugar is one thing that has, so far as I've ever seen, no benefits to human health, and a host of drawbacks (that might be dependent on how much you ingest). That in my opinion makes it unhealthy.
    Saying sugar's unhealthy isn't just my opinion; it's backed up by numerous studies.
    I don't remember ANYONE arguing moderate amounts of sugar was unhealthy, by the way.

    Right. So it's healthy in some quantities, and not healthy in excessive quantities.

    Just like every other food.

    Got it, thanks.

    I think you're confusing "doesn't cause ill effects" with "healthy".

    The way I look at defining things as healthy (as yes, I view healthy/unhealthy as a scale) is that it benefits your overall health (dictionary defines it as conducive to health). Just because a moderate amount of sugar (which, by the way, means you're limiting/moderating sugar, and thus going with my point that limiting/moderating sugar is a good idea) doesn't cause ill effects doesn't mean it benefits your health in any way. I've yet to see a single study showing sugar itself is healthy; there a numerous studies showing it's unhealthy (aka not conducive to good health). Yes, those studies are usually higher amounts of sugar, and I've said multiple times that having some sugar in an otherwise healthy diet isn't a big deal.
  • RunningRichelle
    RunningRichelle Posts: 346 Member
    Options
    Question: Since this is supposed to be about moderation.... how much is moderate?

    http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/GettingHealthy/NutritionCenter/HealthyDietGoals/Sugars-and-Carbohydrates_UCM_303296_Article.jsp

    AHA is saying keep it to 100-150 calories of sugar a day, which comes out to like 25-38g a day.

    So how much sugar is everyone eating?!

    What counts as 'moderation?' Is it the 25g a day, which is apparently the recommendation of big American health institutes?

    Checking out a few things and seeing that 1 pop tart gives you 17g, a banana gives you 14g, a regular-sized Snickers gets you 27g and a flavored Chobani greek yogurt will run you 19g.

    Interesting to note.

    I'd estimate my own sugar intake right around that 25-30g range per day, including fruit sugars.
  • LiftAllThePizzas
    LiftAllThePizzas Posts: 17,857 Member
    Options
    divepike1_zps39a3586b.gif
    Brought to you by sugar.