Processed Sugar

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

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.

Let me add, anyone paying attention fifty or sixty years ago to the first murmurs about smoking who quit might have extended his or her lifespan years or decades. We should think about that when we read about possible harmful effects of anything we are exposed to.

Just glanced over quickly, but one thing I don't think was mentioned was addictive qualities. Why would someone eat something with no nutritional benefit other than calories (energy)....what about addiction? Smoking, alcohol, and drugs are also addictive. Small amounts won't hurt you, with alcohol (specifically wine), it could can even be beneficial in moderate amounts....the moment you become addicted, it's hard to stop. I would argue that diet sweeteners, although they lack calories (which can be seen as a benefit) can ALSO be addicting...and are probably worse for your body...although they are also processed.

Sugar is good because unsweetened chocolate makes me gag, and I eat chocolate almost daily.

Otherwise, most of the approximately 32g of sugar (on average) I consume daily come from fruits/veggies. I didn't give up sugar purposefully, or entirely (ice cream and birthday cake!). I just found that for where I personally am now, maximizing my macros within my calorie goal, lends itself only selectively to obviously sugary items.

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.

That is a different issue - behavioral v physiological. The ability to portion control certain foods. Same could be said for peanut butter.

Wait, huh? This genuinely confuses me.

Do you seriously think we're all just sitting around eating sugar-laden foods for their health benfefits?

That's a serious question, because if I'm understanding you right, this whole thing is moot. I haven't read the whole thread yet. Nobody's arguing that eating "all the sugar" is good for you.

It tastes nice. If I have calories left over to have a sugary snack, I will. But only if I've met my other dietary needs.

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.

My point is we didn't used to be able to say that about tobacco, either. It took decades. Why not be on the safe side now? Especially someone like me, with diabetes running heavily on one side of my family and that diabetes is not linked to obesity. Many of my family who suffer from it aren't even overweight.

Heh. I'm talking myself out of buying another jar of molasses now when this runs out. For sure I will stop buying it if I find myself going back to grab another tablespoonful too often.

I feel like we are slowly working up to this:

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.

That is a different issue. The ability to portion control certain foods. Same could be said for peanut butter.

No it isn't a different issue. If you consume more of something than you should for your health and you know it, who cares if it's nicotine or sugar? Obviously there is a pull there that counteracts our ability to look after our health properly. And it's not about just any food. I don't know about anyone else on here, but I've sure as hell never overeaten raw spinach. And I like spinach. Sugar does wonky things to the human body, that is well known. And it does very wonky things to the brains of rats. Addictive things. And that is well known.

It is a different issue - you were noting behavioral issues - in that you over-consume. And no, it is not 'well known' that sugar does wonky things to the body.

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.

My point is we didn't used to be able to say that about tobacco, either. It took decades. Why not be on the safe side now?

Because at some point you have to ask yourself whether you're wearing a tinfoil hat. I don't believe we have evidence indicating that we need to entirely remove sugar from our diets. Back to dosage.

Especially someone like me, with diabetes running heavily on one side of my family and that diabetes is not linked to obesity. Many of my family who suffer from it aren't even overweight.

Are you claiming that obesity is not a risk factor to diabetes?