So can we put this topic to bed now?

Pretty sobering evidence on sugar is now in:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health-and-fitness/health/sugar-damages-the-bodys-organs-directly-new-findings-suggest/article16664804

“The new paradigm hypothesizes that sugar has adverse health effects above any purported role as ‘empty calories’ promoting obesity,” Laura Schmidt, a researcher at the Philip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies at the University of California San Francisco writes in the journal. “Too much sugar does not just make us fat; it can also make us sick.”

In plain English, sugar is not just bad because it has a lot of calories, it is bad because it "damages the body’s organs directly".

The remaining question is, how much sugar is safe. And the answer is not at all clear.

"The U.S. Institute of Medicine recommends that people not consume more than 25 per cent of their daily calories in added sugars. The World Health Organization, for its part, sets the threshold at 10 per cent. But the American Heart Association recommends that women get no more than five per cent of their daily calories from sugar, and men not exceed 7.5 per cent."

The upper end of this range (25% of daily calories) is obviously a LOT of sugar. But the lower end of 5%-7.5% is really not that high at all.

And it's worth emphasizing that they are talking about added sugars - not about the sugar you naturally get in fruit, for example.

There have been a lot of heated arguments about the safety of sugar on these boards. It's getting to the point where the science is clear enough that most of us will want to watch our sugar in the same way as, say, we watch our intake of sodium or polyunsaturated fat.

Well, at least we agree on the bolded. I think watching my sugar is exactly as important as watching sodium and polyunsaturated fat- that is to say, not at all important. Because science.

Why does everyone who posts these articles believe that correlation equals causation?



Now I'm going to bed.

hey now... is that directed at me?? :laugh:

Not at all... I just wanted to work those murderous sugar doughnuts into the thread.

Uh no. Because there was no reference to the primary research. And a quick search of PubMed netted me zilch.

Umm, wut? They stated the author, the journal and the date of publication. But if that's not enough for you, here is the link:

https://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1819573

Why does everyone who posts these articles believe that correlation equals causation?

From the JAMA article:

After additional adjustment for sociodemographic, behavioral, and clinical characteristics, HRs were 1.00 (reference), 1.07 (1.02-1.12), 1.18 (1.06-1.31), 1.38 (1.11-1.70), and 2.03 (1.26-3.27; P = .004), respectively.

So either: (1) sugar is a causal factor, or (2) cardio-vascular disease causes sugar consumption, or (3) there is some factor not included in the above that causes both.

Which do you think is most likely?