So can we put this topic to bed now?

Options
12467…12

Replies

  • RhonndaJ
    RhonndaJ Posts: 1,615 Member
    Options
    Let's not get our panties too much in a bunch over this.

    2000 cals * 1/4 = 500 cals of ADDED sugar.

    500 cals /4 cal/gram = 125 grams.

    125 grams of sugar = 1/2 cup of sugar, or around 24 teaspoons!

    That's a lot... Just saying... Cant' see how anybody can say that's a good thing...

    I keep going back to basic maths.

    How the heck does someone take in that much added sugar.
    Not from fruit or veg, but ADDED sugar.
  • mumblemagic
    mumblemagic Posts: 1,090 Member
    Options
    Ahh correlation/causation arguments again. Gotta love em.
  • neanderthin
    neanderthin Posts: 9,970 Member
    Options
    Let's not get our panties too much in a bunch over this.

    2000 cals * 1/4 = 500 cals of ADDED sugar.

    500 cals /4 cal/gram = 125 grams.

    125 grams of sugar = 1/2 cup of sugar, or around 24 teaspoons!

    That's a lot... Just saying... Cant' see how anybody can say that's a good thing...

    I keep going back to basic maths.

    How the heck does someone take in that much added sugar.
    Not from fruit or veg, but ADDED sugar.
    There is a percentage of the population where the food they choose is mostly the sugary refined type from the collected data, however small that might be, it exists.....I would imagine it would be a sub quintile based on FFQ of the group that mostly represents the SAD. just a guess though.
  • nehushtan
    nehushtan Posts: 566 Member
    Options
    Posts like this remind me of the song The Nightfly by Donald Fagen,

    "So you say there's a race of men in the trees,
    You're for tough legislation, thanks for calling
    I wait all night for calls like these."
  • Iron_Feline
    Iron_Feline Posts: 10,750 Member
    Options
    Let's not get our panties too much in a bunch over this.

    2000 cals * 1/4 = 500 cals of ADDED sugar.

    500 cals /4 cal/gram = 125 grams.

    125 grams of sugar = 1/2 cup of sugar, or around 24 teaspoons!

    That's a lot... Just saying... Cant' see how anybody can say that's a good thing...

    I keep going back to basic maths.

    How the heck does someone take in that much added sugar.
    Not from fruit or veg, but ADDED sugar.

    fizzy drinks - one can of coke is 35g

    It really isn't that hard tbh.
  • jofjltncb6
    jofjltncb6 Posts: 34,415 Member
    Options
    Ahh correlation/causation arguments again. Gotta love em.

    blah blah blah SUGAR IS BAD! because SCIENCE!

    That's all you need to know.


    (Well, I mean, only *added* sugar is bad. Naturally occurring sugar is magical...because fiber.)
  • Yanicka1
    Yanicka1 Posts: 4,564 Member
    Options
    In because
  • Akimajuktuq
    Akimajuktuq Posts: 3,037 Member
    Options
    I don't know about that particular study and I know there's lots of people here who love their sugar and freak out at any suggestion that it may be harmful.... but..... speaking from only personal experience the health improvements that I have had since eliminating all sugars (and grains), except those occurring naturally in vegetables and fruits, are life-changing. Prediabetes, GERD, sleep apnea, depression, BED, chronic fatigue/pain, morbid obesity, and many other problems, all completely gone. Only about 15 pounds left to lose to be in the best shape of my entire life (at over 40!).

    So kudos to those that can enjoy their sugar in "moderation" or who can eat as much as they want without ill effect. I couldn't, so I stopped and my life is better off without it. What I'm doing is sustainable for ME and may be worth considering for those with similar health problems (metabolic disorders).
  • fitformidlife
    fitformidlife Posts: 103
    Options
    In because it gives me an excuse to post a baby:

    sugar_baby_meme.jpg
  • SezxyStef
    SezxyStef Posts: 15,268 Member
    Options
    "Robert Lustig is a pediatric endocrinologist at the University of California, San Francisco" so the OP refers to something coming from a member of his backing band ? No bias there then, clearly.

    If he is mentioned that is enough for me to lol...

    In for the funnies

    *eats chocolate*
  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    Options
    I'm not sure how anyone would go about constructing a "causation" study on sugar intake especially if it leads to adverse health consequences

    Has been done with 10 and 25% (from memory) of calories from sucrose. Looked at lipid profiles and other "indicators of heart health" rather than retrospectively looking at events like the OP.

    Sucrose is "Generally regarded as safe" by the FDA so it isn't like you're doing a Thalidomide trial.
  • Akimajuktuq
    Akimajuktuq Posts: 3,037 Member
    Options
    Let's not get our panties too much in a bunch over this.

    2000 cals * 1/4 = 500 cals of ADDED sugar.

    500 cals /4 cal/gram = 125 grams.

    125 grams of sugar = 1/2 cup of sugar, or around 24 teaspoons!

    That's a lot... Just saying... Cant' see how anybody can say that's a good thing...

    I keep going back to basic maths.

    How the heck does someone take in that much added sugar.
    Not from fruit or veg, but ADDED sugar.

    fizzy drinks - one can of coke is 35g

    It really isn't that hard tbh.

    And don't forget the "healthy" breakfast meal replacements that come in at over 40 grams of sugar. One of those and a can of pop and a sweetened latte, not to mention the packaged solid foods full of sugar (cereal, cookies, fruit snacks etc).. Seriously, I know people hitting this level of sugar, and higher, every day. Even here at MFP because "it fits in their macros". The default macro setting gives me 250-300 grams of carbs per day! Some people don't track their sugar separately because it "doesn't matter". smh
  • krawhitham
    krawhitham Posts: 831 Member
    Options
    another article from The Globe and Mail:
    "Sugar is the New Tobacco"

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health-and-fitness/health-advisor/sugar-is-the-new-tobacco-heres-why/article16571374/

    A quote from this gem:
    "Knowing that there are now more obese people in the world than there are starving must motivate some change. The apple cart is well and truly upset: A predictive study published in 2008 by Harvard and MIT researchers suggests that, if we continue the current numbers trend in North America, it is believed that 100 per cent of the population will be overweight or obese by 2050."

    "it is believed?" yeah, that's solid right there.

    Sugar is being demonized just like tobacco was/still is. Sorry, for anyone who hates tobacco, but I don't. And I'm incredibly healthy. Just do everything in moderation and the rest is really left up to chance...
  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    Options
    "Robert Lustig is a pediatric endocrinologist at the University of California, San Francisco" so the OP refers to something coming from a member of his backing band ? No bias there then, clearly.

    If he is mentioned that is enough for me to lol...

    to be fair the OP reports an "invited commentary" from one of Lustig's colleagues. The actual study now I've drilled down to it was done by people from Harvard and CDC.
  • EricMurano
    EricMurano Posts: 825 Member
    Options
    This thread drove me to eating a whole jar of sugar with a spoon. See you in HELLLL!
  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    Options
    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?

    (3). The high sugar consumers are also PUFA addicts and smokers that are permanently drunk or stoned.
  • Iron_Feline
    Iron_Feline Posts: 10,750 Member
    Options
    I don't know about that particular study and I know there's lots of people here who love their sugar and freak out at any suggestion that it may be harmful.... but..... speaking from only personal experience the health improvements that I have had since eliminating all sugars (and grains), except those occurring naturally in vegetables and fruits, are life-changing. Prediabetes, GERD, sleep apnea, depression, BED, chronic fatigue/pain, morbid obesity, and many other problems, all completely gone. Only about 15 pounds left to lose to be in the best shape of my entire life (at over 40!).

    So kudos to those that can enjoy their sugar in "moderation" or who can eat as much as they want without ill effect. I couldn't, so I stopped and my life is better off without it. What I'm doing is sustainable for ME and may be worth considering for those with similar health problems (metabolic disorders).

    And none of those improvement have to do with you losing 77lbs? (congrats by the way - great achievement :flowerforyou: )

    This is the problem with comments like this - was it the sugar or the additional 77lbs. If reducing added sugar helps you lose weight and meet your goals then great - but please don't claim that it caused all those issues alone. I suspect the 77lb had a little to do with it.
  • Iron_Feline
    Iron_Feline Posts: 10,750 Member
    Options
    Let's not get our panties too much in a bunch over this.

    2000 cals * 1/4 = 500 cals of ADDED sugar.

    500 cals /4 cal/gram = 125 grams.

    125 grams of sugar = 1/2 cup of sugar, or around 24 teaspoons!

    That's a lot... Just saying... Cant' see how anybody can say that's a good thing...

    I keep going back to basic maths.

    How the heck does someone take in that much added sugar.
    Not from fruit or veg, but ADDED sugar.

    fizzy drinks - one can of coke is 35g

    It really isn't that hard tbh.

    And don't forget the "healthy" breakfast meal replacements that come in at over 40 grams of sugar. One of those and a can of pop and a sweetened latte, not to mention the packaged solid foods full of sugar (cereal, cookies, fruit snacks etc).. Seriously, I know people hitting this level of sugar, and higher, every day. Even here at MFP because "it fits in their macros". The default macro setting gives me 250-300 grams of carbs per day! Some people don't track their sugar separately because it "doesn't matter". smh

    I don't track sugar because in the context of a healthy balance diet it doesn't matter.
  • twixlepennie
    twixlepennie Posts: 1,074 Member
    Options
    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?

    Probably 3. They attempted to adjust the results for a few things, but not a whole lot really. The content of the remainder of the diet and body composition are two big ones.

    WTH were you when we sent up the jonnythan signal
    K7txspj.jpg

    in a different thread earlier today??

    You just made me laugh out loud and I snorted diet coke across the table-and I'm actually at Mcds right now so it's even funnier :laugh:
  • DamePiglet
    DamePiglet Posts: 3,730 Member
    Options

    You just made me laugh out loud and I snorted diet coke across the table-and I'm actually at Mcds right now so it's even funnier :laugh:

    heeheehee let's put it to good use, shall we?

Categories