WHO: Daily sugar intake 'should be halved'

Options
«1345678

Replies

  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,911 Member
    Options
    Trying to combat symptoms instead of the problem.
    It's not sugar that's the problem, their problem is with people having bad teeth and being obese. Both of which have different causes.
  • AJ_G
    AJ_G Posts: 4,158 Member
    Options
    Correlation is not causation
  • MelRC117
    MelRC117 Posts: 911 Member
    Options
    Correlation is not causation

    Is there really ever a study that can 100% say something causes something else?
  • AJ_G
    AJ_G Posts: 4,158 Member
    Options
    Correlation is not causation

    Is there really ever a study that can 100% say something causes something else?

    Yes, absolutely there are. You run the same test with different groups and control different variables and you find causation.
  • Greytfish
    Greytfish Posts: 810
    Options
    Correlation is not causation

    Very correct. Sugar tends to have less to do with tooth condition than does genetics.

    That said, I'm sure eating several multiples more sugar than previously consumed by humans will turn our GRRRREAAT! (Or, you know, not so much...)
  • TX_Rhon
    TX_Rhon Posts: 1,549 Member
    Options
    OP - giving you a new name! Gonna call you Spoons from now on. You are just stirring *kitten* by mentioning sugar :laugh: :flowerforyou:

    But I love watching the debate!!
  • MelRC117
    MelRC117 Posts: 911 Member
    Options
    Correlation is not causation

    Is there really ever a study that can 100% say something causes something else?

    Yes, absolutely there are. You run the same test with different groups and control different variables and you find causation.

    Is there a magic number of studies where someone can officially say "X causes Y" instead of X and Y are correlated? Statistics is basically all about correlations and testing hypotheses. People seem to throw out "Correlation is not causation" all the time on studies, but really that's basically all we can really get is correlations when it comes down to it.
  • KarenJanine
    KarenJanine Posts: 3,497 Member
    Options
    I just saw this on the news. The new recommendations for daily added sugar intake are less than that in a single can of Coke, which spread across a day is not much sugar.

    I find the demonising of individual food groups very irritating, as if sugar is wholly responsible for obesity, diabetes, heart disease, etc etc.

    ETA I've just found this NHS article which states the recommendations come following studies of tooth decay, which is not how the BBC were portraying it in their piece. http://www.nhs.uk/news/2013/12december/pages/daily-sugar-intake-should-be-cut-study-finds.aspx
  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,911 Member
    Options
    It's never (or at least rarely) the studies claiming any causation, but overly enthusiastic journalists trying to report on the study. Like that one that got at least 5 threads about it today.
  • kitticus15
    kitticus15 Posts: 152 Member
    Options
    this has been all over the news in th UK today, they are talking about taxing the stuff with loads of sugar, as here in the UK they have put sugar in everything from bread to ham, and they do not always make it obvious it's there.

    People can debate whether sugar is a problem or not all day long, but all we are doing is repeating the tobacco problem. At first we were told smoking was good sexy not a health concern, it actually "helped" lose weight control nerves etc, 40 years ago people were saying tobacco was not a problem, now we say the same about sugar.

    Maybe in a few years they will start on wheat and Corn. It seems to be manufacturers filling foods with wheat, corn syrups and sugar that cause the problems, these manufacturers then run the studies or pay for the studies making them biased towards their gains.

    We always seem to be working on cleaning up the problems, maybe we should start thinking aboutdealing with the manufacturers, obesity has got worse since they took control of everything,(gov pay offs etc).

    Just food for thought :)
  • AJ_G
    AJ_G Posts: 4,158 Member
    Options
    Correlation is not causation

    Is there really ever a study that can 100% say something causes something else?

    Yes, absolutely there are. You run the same test with different groups and control different variables and you find causation.

    Is there a magic number of studies where someone can officially say "X causes Y" instead of X and Y are correlated? Statistics is basically all about correlations and testing hypotheses. People seem to throw out "Correlation is not causation" all the time on studies, but really that's basically all we can really get is correlations when it comes down to it.

    Calorie consumption has gone up drastically in the past 100 years, and due to this, fat and carbohydrate consumption including sugar consumption has also increased. You can't just single out sugar and blame it for the cause of the problems especially when we know concretely that over consumption of calories causes weight gain and obesity, not an over consumption of sugar. 15-20 years ago fat was the devil and you had to eat low fat foods to be healthy without any real explanation of why. Now sugar is the devil and you have to keep sugar consumption low to be healthy. That's complete nonsense. Obesity is caused by an over consumption of calories...period.
  • FatFreeFrolicking
    FatFreeFrolicking Posts: 4,252 Member
    Options
    In my opinion, it comes down to where the sugar is coming from.

    If someone is eating 80 g of sugar daily but their sugar intake is mainly coming from fruits, that's much different than someone who consumes 80 g of sugar daily from soda and cookies.
  • mufamuscles
    mufamuscles Posts: 57
    Options
    wrong thread!
  • KarenJanine
    KarenJanine Posts: 3,497 Member
    Options
    In my opinion, it comes down to where the sugar is coming from.

    If someone is eating 80 g of sugar daily but their sugar intake is mainly coming from fruits, that's much different than someone who consumes 80 g of sugar daily from soda and cookies.

    Why is it different? The body cannot differentiate where the sugar came from and uses it for energy in the same way, regardless of whether it came from a banana or in a mug of tea.
  • kitticus15
    kitticus15 Posts: 152 Member
    Options
    Correlation is not causation

    Is there really ever a study that can 100% say something causes something else?

    Yes, absolutely there are. You run the same test with different groups and control different variables and you find causation.

    Is there a magic number of studies where someone can officially say "X causes Y" instead of X and Y are correlated? Statistics is basically all about correlations and testing hypotheses. People seem to throw out "Correlation is not causation" all the time on studies, but really that's basically all we can really get is correlations when it comes down to it.

    Calorie consumption has gone up drastically in the past 100 years, and due to this, fat and carbohydrate consumption including sugar consumption has also increased. You can't just single out sugar and blame it for the cause of the problems especially when we know concretely that over consumption of calories causes weight gain and obesity, not an over consumption of sugar. 15-20 years ago fat was the devil and you had to eat low fat foods to be healthy without any real explanation of why. Now sugar is the devil and you have to keep sugar consumption low to be healthy. That's complete nonsense. Obesity is caused by an over consumption of calories...period.


    maybe if you feel strong enough you could give your feedback direct to WHO, they have opened up a consultation


    http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/notes/2014/consultation-sugar-guideline/en/

    the report they made is also there
  • FatFreeFrolicking
    FatFreeFrolicking Posts: 4,252 Member
    Options
    In my opinion, it comes down to where the sugar is coming from.

    If someone is eating 80 g of sugar daily but their sugar intake is mainly coming from fruits, that's much different than someone who consumes 80 g of sugar daily from soda and cookies.

    Why is it different? The body cannot differentiate where the sugar came from and uses it for energy in the same way, regardless of whether it came from a banana or in a mug of tea.

    That's incorrect. Your body can absolutely tell the difference. Sucrose, fructose, and glucose all provide the same amount of energy per gram, but are processed and used differently throughout the body. Simple carbs are classified as one of two things: monosaccharides or disaccharides. Glucose and fructose are monosaccharides and sucrose is a disaccharide.

    The body's "preferred" energy source is glucose. Most carbs we eat are processed into glucose. It's either used immediately for energy or stored in the liver as glycogen. Unlike fructose (found in fruits), glucose requires the secretion of insulin. Insulin lowers blood glucose.

    Fructose is totally different from other sugars because it uses a different metabolic pathway. It is also not the preferred energy source for the brain. As I mentioned before, fructose does not cause insulin to be released. It has minimal effect on blood glucose levels. It also does not stimulate the production of leptin (hunger hormone). Glucose does, however. This is why when a person eats a cookie, 30 minutes later they are "hungry" again.

    The problem arises when glucose is continuously high. The pancreas can handle this workload for a while; however, over time it becomes overworked and unable to efficiently release insulin. This can result in the chronically elevated blood glucose levels found in type 2 diabetes or metabolic syndrome. At the same time, because insulin release is now inefficient, glucose is no longer being delivered to the cells that need it, resulting in cell starvation. Now the person has a risk of becoming insulin dependent.
  • AJ_G
    AJ_G Posts: 4,158 Member
    Options
    In my opinion, it comes down to where the sugar is coming from.

    If someone is eating 80 g of sugar daily but their sugar intake is mainly coming from fruits, that's much different than someone who consumes 80 g of sugar daily from soda and cookies.

    Why is it different? The body cannot differentiate where the sugar came from and uses it for energy in the same way, regardless of whether it came from a banana or in a mug of tea.

    That's incorrect. Your body can absolutely tell the difference. Sucrose, fructose, and glucose all provide the same amount of energy per gram, but are processed and used differently throughout the body. Simple carbs are classified as one of two things: monosaccharides or disaccharides. Glucose and fructose are monosaccharides and sucrose is a disaccharide.

    The body's "preferred" energy source is glucose. Most carbs we eat are processed into glucose. It's either used immediately for energy or stored in the liver as glycogen. Unlike fructose (found in fruits), glucose requires the secretion of insulin. Insulin lowers blood glucose.

    Fructose is totally different from other sugars because it uses a different metabolic pathway. It is also not the preferred energy source for the brain. As I mentioned before, fructose does not cause insulin to be released. It has minimal effect on blood glucose levels. It also does not stimulate the production of leptin (hunger hormone). Glucose does, however. This is why when a person eats a cookie, 30 minutes later they are "hungry" again.

    The problem arises when glucose is continuously high. The pancreas can handle this workload for a while; however, over time it becomes overworked and unable to efficiently release insulin. This can result in the chronically elevated blood glucose levels found in type 2 diabetes or metabolic syndrome. At the same time, because insulin release is now inefficient, glucose is no longer being delivered to the cells that need it, resulting in cell starvation. Now the person has a risk of becoming insulin dependent.

    You're hurting your own argument. Almost everything in America that uses added sugar comes from High Fructose Corn Syrup, including soda and cookies...
  • WendyTerry420
    WendyTerry420 Posts: 13,274 Member
    Options
    Meh! My sugar intake is close to 20% of my calories.
  • AJ_G
    AJ_G Posts: 4,158 Member
    Options
    this has been all over the news in th UK today, they are talking about taxing the stuff with loads of sugar, as here in the UK they have put sugar in everything from bread to ham, and they do not always make it obvious it's there.

    People can debate whether sugar is a problem or not all day long, but all we are doing is repeating the tobacco problem. At first we were told smoking was good sexy not a health concern, it actually "helped" lose weight control nerves etc, 40 years ago people were saying tobacco was not a problem, now we say the same about sugar.

    Maybe in a few years they will start on wheat and Corn. It seems to be manufacturers filling foods with wheat, corn syrups and sugar that cause the problems, these manufacturers then run the studies or pay for the studies making them biased towards their gains.

    We always seem to be working on cleaning up the problems, maybe we should start thinking aboutdealing with the manufacturers, obesity has got worse since they took control of everything,(gov pay offs etc).

    Just food for thought :)

    So should we implement tons of new taxes on sugary items as a deterrent to buying them because some council thinks that is the main cause of obesity, or should we leave it to individuals to decide whether or not they want to consume it or not. You're a human being you don't need someone to tell you what you should or shouldn't eat. I feel the same way about smoking. If you're stupid enough to smoke knowing the risks, who am I or anybody else to tell you not to. If you're stupid enough to eat more than you burn every single day of your life and you become obese, that's fine by me, I'm not going to tell you how to live your life, so don't tell me how to live mine. No matter what they do to the foods, they can't cheat on the nutrition facts labels and the ingredients lists, so you should always know what you're eating...
  • WendyTerry420
    WendyTerry420 Posts: 13,274 Member
    Options
    this has been all over the news in th UK today, they are talking about taxing the stuff with loads of sugar, as here in the UK they have put sugar in everything from bread to ham, and they do not always make it obvious it's there.

    People can debate whether sugar is a problem or not all day long, but all we are doing is repeating the tobacco problem. At first we were told smoking was good sexy not a health concern, it actually "helped" lose weight control nerves etc, 40 years ago people were saying tobacco was not a problem, now we say the same about sugar.

    Maybe in a few years they will start on wheat and Corn. It seems to be manufacturers filling foods with wheat, corn syrups and sugar that cause the problems, these manufacturers then run the studies or pay for the studies making them biased towards their gains.

    We always seem to be working on cleaning up the problems, maybe we should start thinking aboutdealing with the manufacturers, obesity has got worse since they took control of everything,(gov pay offs etc).



    Yeah, and then we will all be on pills for nutrients instead of eating. No thanks!


    Just food for thought :)

    Don't you mean non-food for thought? :laugh:

Categories