Processed Sugar

Shipwrecked sailors who ate and drank nothing but sugar and rum for nine days surely went through some of this trauma; the tales they had to tell created a big public relations problem for the sugar pushers. This incident occurred when a vessel carrying a cargo of sugar was shipwrecked in 1793. The five surviving sailors were finally rescued after being marooned for nine days. They were in a wasted condition due to starvation, having consumed nothing but sugar and rum. The eminent French physiologist F. Magendie was inspired by that incident to conduct a series of experiments with animals, the results of which he published in 1816. In the experiments, he fed dogs a diet of sugar or olive oil and water. All the dogs wasted and died.

The shipwrecked sailors and the French physiologist's experimental dogs proved the same point. As a steady diet, sugar is worse than nothing. Plain water can keep you alive for quite some time. Sugar and water can kill you. Humans [and animals] are "unable to subsist on a diet of sugar".

So, the major benefit to sugar is that you will die quicker. Enjoy!

LOL.

You will die on any diet that doesn't satisfy essential nutritional requirements. You'll die eating only protein. You'll die eating only fat. I guess those don't have any major benefits, either.

To the OP. Major benefit of sugar (processed or no) is a super-quick energy boost that's also about as easy to digest as you're going to get. There's a reason sugar is commonly used for endurance athletes to refuel mid-event.

That said, the refuel gels taste like :sick: and most people don't need sugar for this purpose. So, yeah. Because people enjoy sweet tasting foods is pretty much it.

Because once I've met my nutritional needs for the day (or have planned out how I'll meet them), I get no additional benefit from eating extra nutrients. So after that point, I'm not eating for a purpose other than enjoyment and to meet my energy requirements.

Wolverine, good name, good character, and good question.

I guess if we look at it totally unbiased, (haha - that's a laugh, right) then we can allow people to have free will and eat ringdings and cereals with processed sugar without judgment.

But since most people (including myself) are self-righteous instead of confident in our beliefs, we have to pass judgment, assume people are unreal or ignorant and take polar opposite stances on the sugar issue, from calling it crack/cocaine (don't get me started on that garbage), gateway food, poison, or something we cannot control, to something we need, are ok to have as much as we want to making sure we keep it moderated, or just eat what we want and keep it within macros.

Look, if it's me, I say that if I could live on an island that had wild boar, pineapples, bees, fish and bananas and roots, I'd be happy to live on it forever, even if I was alone. But we live in the industrial age where everything is reduced to its most base elements and mixed with everything else and reformed to look like something it was supposed to be originally.

I love the pipe dream and if I could go without buying anything prepared I'd be happy (even "whole oats" oatmeal is processed, hence the steel cut oat craze and that's kinda processed too.) But sometimes I have to buy butter and processed oats because it's cheap and convenient. And sometimes I buy chocolate chips because I want to make cookies for my friends (and me of course.)

And I have no idea what my post has to do with the thread. I'll shut up now.

... what benefits a person might get from eating, let's say yogurt with added refined sugar, to eating plain yogurt with added fruits? Because let's me honest, many people who are struggling with obesity will try to go on a caloric deficit, but still eat the same food with very low nutritional benefits to do it in a healthy way. And protein, carbs and carbs are not the only thing our bodies need. So when it comes about energy, we can get it from fruits and veggies, instead of eating a cheesecake, ice cream or pastries, because I will be getting things my body needs along with the glucose I'll be eating.

To answer this specific point. Two issues:

1) taste, again

I am not going to eat that yogurt without sugar in it. I hate unsweetened yogurt. Fruit is not sweet enough on it's own to counter the bitter/sour taste I despise. I also intensely dislike honey in many things including yogurt, so that's not a solution. For me, if I needed to eat the yogurt, I need yogurt + fruit + sugar.

2) calorie count

As you pointed out, most people here are trying to lose fat. Most count calories to do it. Which do you think is higher calorie - a teaspoon of sugar, or enough fruit to equal the sweetness of a teaspoon of sugar? Hint: it's the fruit. So, if you don't need the fruit for other reasons, just sugar is the better choice, calorie-wise.

nutritional benefits - very few.

Nothing good or bad about sugar. It serves a purpose but when it comes to nutrition - pretty much neutral.

Energy

I have a hard time peeling an orange when on my bicycle.

Is energy a nutritional benefit?

Some would say yes, some would say no. Why don't we see what the OP has to say as he is the one who asked the question.

I'm waiting on an explanation on whether energy is a direct nutritional benefit. But that aside, that's energy which is a 'possible' benefit and not sugar.

Energy is generated from calories and there's plenty of more beneficial sources of calories than sugar.

I think this thread is a bit of a no goer. The simple answer to the question is no sugar is not nutritionally beneficial. But most of us agree there's nothing bad about processed sugar in moderation.

That cannot be answered without context...which has been requested...of the actual OP who actually asked the question.

And your simple answer may of may not be correct in the opinion of others, especially as we have not had the term defined.

More beneficial does not make less beneficial things not benefical btw.

I'm not suggesting that sugar is not beneficial.

Like you pointed out, not being pro sugar doesn't make me anti sugar!

It has its place in a balanced diet.

You maybe right and I am reading the context into the question. I have read the question as a micro nutrient based question (if that's wrong then my bad).

Nutrition is not only about micronutrients.

you are correct.

But the OP used the wording nutritional benefits - which I read as a benefit at a micro nutrient base.

Again if the OP didn't mean this then - hands up my bad.

Actually, the OP explained what he meant earlier.

Plantation Unsulphered Blackstrap Molasses:

1 tbsp = 42 calories

%20 calcium
%20 iron
%17 potassium

That is a heck of a lot of nutrition in 42 calories. I use it for baking, I eat it off the spoon, yes I have to be careful because I will crave it, but not as bad as I'd crave something like cookies or cake.

I don't eat white sugar, but I sure as heck see no reason not to eat this type of sugar.

Also, the "processed" buzzword raises flags. Do you maintain that my rhubarb sauce would have been more acceptable had I just used honey?

If the point of eating sugar is to add flavor to your foods, then it is possible that your sauce may have tasted "better" were you to have used honey rather than white sugar. Honey has a flavor all its own. But again, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and if honey freaks you out (my husband's grandpa calls it "bee *kitten*" and wouldn't touch it with a ten-foot pole, not even in a survival situation), then perhaps your sauce did taste better with just plain sugar.

Honey doesn't freak me out (how did I imply that, I wonder). I like it and use it in other things. It just wouldn't have added to (or worked easily in) this particular sauce. (As an aside, I've actually found that I can do a rhubarb sauce with dried cherries and vinegar that doesn't involve any sugar and tastes just as good, but the point remains that this is a perfectly reasonable use of sugar and the idea that the sugar is "processed"--obtained from the cane--and thus somehow terrible to use, whereas other forms of sugar, like that from the cherries or honey or, say, just eating a banana is weird.)

Basically, the reason a distinction is made between lactose and sugar in fruit and added sugar seems to be that the former come with nutrients and the fruit with fiber too. But if you add sugar to other foods to make them more palatable--like my rhubarb--you are essentially using the sugar as a way of eating fiber and nutrients. I don't see any reason that would be worse just because the sugar is "added" vs. being contained in the plant I'm eating on its own. Same argument for adding sugar to oatmeal (although I don't like that personally) or any number of other uses. The demonizing of the sugar for being "added" or "processed" seems more superstitious than based in reality.

And that's why I brought up honey. There's really no reason why adding honey would be better or worse for you, so why the focus on "processed" sugar? (Also, don't the bees count as good little processors?)

If the only benefit is energy or taste, then certainly maple syrup, honey, stevia or agave would be better.

Why?

Actually, to expand on that last, let's compare the chocolate chip cookies (I'll leave out the walnuts, though I approve of adding them, since my one recipe at MFP doesn't have them). To make it fair, I decided to do the cookies with dark chocolate rather than semi-sweet. I think that would be fun to try.

In my cookie recipe, one cookie has 196 calories. If you run the numbers, about 10.75 calories per cookie is from white sugar, although another 23 calories are from brown sugar. So a combined 34 calories from "processed" sugar per cookie, oh no. A bit more from the dark chocolate, but not a lot, maybe 5 calories from sugar (more from the other ingredients, obviously). I could be wrong, but I get the impression that many people assume that the sugar contributes much more to the overall calories.

Where are the other calories from? Well, of course, butter. About 90.5/cookie (nearly half the calories). And also flour, about 28.5 calories.

So the argument is made that what's terrible about these cookies is the sugar, and that they become non toxic if you replace the 34 calories of "processed" sugar with a similar number of calories of sugar from maple syrup and if you replace the 90 or so calories of butter with somewhat more calories from coconut oil.

Why? Even granting that maple syrup has some good things that are not in the sugar, in the amounts we are talking about it's not significant, and there are almost certainly less caloric ways than maple syrup to get those things.

I'll save the defense of butter for a thread about why butter is the devil. They seem less popular around here.

To be clear, I think it's great if people want to play around with different ways to make cookies and if you don't want to eat sugar (or cookies) I couldn't really care less. Go for it. But when claims are made about cookies being unhealthy (even in moderation) because they contain sugar, let's examine the claim. (I haven't made cookies for months, so I have no particular investment here. I just find this discussion interesting.)

This thread is a good example of context being both important and lacking.

If you can present evidence that sugar has harmful effects within a nutrient sufficient diet where energy intake is appropriate for the individual and his/her goals, then I'm all ears. And my first question will be "how much sugar is harmful" and "to whom".

When sugar either causes total calories to be in excess or it displaces needed nutrients in the diet then this is also problematic. But it DOESNT ALWAYS DO THIS as that depends on CONTEXT.

There is growing evidence that sugar increases diabetes in populations independent of calorie intake and other factors. But like tobacco it's going to be awhile before it's generally accepted. And the industry making so much of its money off white sugar and corn syrup will, like the tobacco industry, do its best to ensure that as many years as possible pass before the general public accepts the evidence.

http://www.ucsf.edu/news/2013/02/13591/quantity-sugar-food-supply-linked-diabetes-rates

"The researchers had to rely on food-availability data for this study instead of consumption data because no large-scale international databases exist to measure food consumption directly. "

This thread is a good example of context being both important and lacking.

If you can present evidence that sugar has harmful effects within a nutrient sufficient diet where energy intake is appropriate for the individual and his/her goals, then I'm all ears. And my first question will be "how much sugar is harmful" and "to whom".

When sugar either causes total calories to be in excess or it displaces needed nutrients in the diet then this is also problematic. But it DOESNT ALWAYS DO THIS as that depends on CONTEXT.

There is growing evidence that sugar increases diabetes in populations independent of calorie intake and other factors. But like tobacco it's going to be awhile before it's generally accepted. And the industry making so much of its money off white sugar and corn syrup will, like the tobacco industry, do its best to ensure that as many years as possible pass before the general public accepts the evidence.

http://www.ucsf.edu/news/2013/02/13591/quantity-sugar-food-supply-linked-diabetes-rates

"The researchers had to rely on food-availability data for this study instead of consumption data because no large-scale international databases exist to measure food consumption directly. "

That's right. Like I said, growing evidence, but it's going to take time. Not enough yet, and of course big money is fighting to muddy the waters just as much as they can.

But from everything I've read, it will eventually be accepted based on sufficient evidence, just like the cancer and tobacco link. And like human caused climate change, for that matter.

It will still come down to dose and context.

Metabolically speaking can you please explain the difference between fructose from table sugar and fructose from a candy bar?

This thread is a good example of context being both important and lacking.

If you can present evidence that sugar has harmful effects within a nutrient sufficient diet where energy intake is appropriate for the individual and his/her goals, then I'm all ears. And my first question will be "how much sugar is harmful" and "to whom".

When sugar either causes total calories to be in excess or it displaces needed nutrients in the diet then this is also problematic. But it DOESNT ALWAYS DO THIS as that depends on CONTEXT.

There is growing evidence that sugar increases diabetes in populations independent of calorie intake and other factors. But like tobacco it's going to be awhile before it's generally accepted. And the industry making so much of its money off white sugar and corn syrup will, like the tobacco industry, do its best to ensure that as many years as possible pass before the general public accepts the evidence.

http://www.ucsf.edu/news/2013/02/13591/quantity-sugar-food-supply-linked-diabetes-rates

"The researchers had to rely on food-availability data for this study instead of consumption data because no large-scale international databases exist to measure food consumption directly. "

That's right. Like I said, growing evidence, but it's going to take time. Not enough yet, and of course big money is fighting to muddy the waters just as much as they can.

But from everything I've read, it will eventually be accepted based on sufficient evidence, just like the cancer and tobacco link. And like human caused climate change, for that matter.

It will still come down to dose and context.

Sure it will. But how many smokers do you know who just have one? Some of us have the same issue with sugary foods. I know I do. And I am one of the rare people who can take or leave cigarettes.

This thread is a good example of context being both important and lacking.

If you can present evidence that sugar has harmful effects within a nutrient sufficient diet where energy intake is appropriate for the individual and his/her goals, then I'm all ears. And my first question will be "how much sugar is harmful" and "to whom".

When sugar either causes total calories to be in excess or it displaces needed nutrients in the diet then this is also problematic. But it DOESNT ALWAYS DO THIS as that depends on CONTEXT.

There is growing evidence that sugar increases diabetes in populations independent of calorie intake and other factors. But like tobacco it's going to be awhile before it's generally accepted. And the industry making so much of its money off white sugar and corn syrup will, like the tobacco industry, do its best to ensure that as many years as possible pass before the general public accepts the evidence.

http://www.ucsf.edu/news/2013/02/13591/quantity-sugar-food-supply-linked-diabetes-rates

"The researchers had to rely on food-availability data for this study instead of consumption data because no large-scale international databases exist to measure food consumption directly. "

That's right. Like I said, growing evidence, but it's going to take time. Not enough yet, and of course big money is fighting to muddy the waters just as much as they can.

But from everything I've read, it will eventually be accepted based on sufficient evidence, just like the cancer and tobacco link. And like human caused climate change, for that matter.

It will still come down to dose and context.

Sure it will. But how many smokers do you know who just have one? Some of us have the same issue with sugary foods. I know I do. And I am one of the rare people who can take or leave cigarettes.

The question is a relevant, this topic is not about smoking. The evidence that smoking is harmful is overwhelming. We cannot say that about sugar.

Edit: irrelevant. I'm using recording software so some of these have errors.