WHO said limit sugar? The world picture

Options
13

Replies

  • AbsoluteTara79
    AbsoluteTara79 Posts: 266 Member
    Options
    Acg67 wrote: »
    AbsoluteTara79 wrote: »
    I'm not really sure what point this post is driving to? It feels like a veiled "sugar is bad" post. Keep in mind that Public Health organizations exists to educate masses at a very low common denominator of literacy and intellect. So instead of teaching people how things actually work (impossible), they release watered-down guidelines that are good enough proxies for the outcomes they're after. Guidelines may be simpler to understand, hopefully more actionable - but may not give an accurate picture of the science. In other words, the scientists at the WHO understand it's calories in/out - but believe (know?) that a large enough portion of the population is too stupid to understand that.


    From the meta-analyses that is available/linked at WHO:

    What is already known on this topic

    Excessive intakes of dietary sugars have been linked to obesity, and a higher risk of chronic diseases, but the link with obesity is tenuous
    The most consistent association has been between a high intake of sugar sweetened beverages and the development of obesity
    No upper safe limit of intake has been agreed universally, but WHO has suggested that intakes of free sugars should be less than 10% of the total energy intake
    What this study adds

    Among free living people, advice to reduce free sugars was associated with an average 0.80 kg reduction in weight; advice to increase intake was associated with a corresponding 0.75 kg increase
    This parallel effect seems to be due to an altered energy intake; isoenergetic replacement of sugars with other carbohydrates did not result in any change in body weight
    Evidence was less consistent in children than in adults

    That meta analysis was already posted and talked about here, op cares not for the data or actual measurable results.

    http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10118613/have-you-quit-sugar#latest

    Ah - got it. Thanks. Moving along...
  • lbee0030
    lbee0030 Posts: 61 Member
    Options
    i have 100% no idea what anyone in this thread is talking about. have you all been drinking ?
  • jgnatca
    jgnatca Posts: 14,464 Member
    Options
    bold what you like. I bolded the recommendations.
  • jgnatca
    jgnatca Posts: 14,464 Member
    Options
    *sigh* not a sugar is bad post.
  • Acg67
    Acg67 Posts: 12,142 Member
    Options
    jgnatca wrote: »
    bold what you like. I bolded the recommendations.

    You posted the recommendations in another thread, it was pointed out the data said recommendations was based on was iffy at best, so you create a whole new thread, in which you again ignore what the recommendations were based on. You are a part of the problem, blindly parroting things
  • jgnatca
    jgnatca Posts: 14,464 Member
    Options
    I'm appealing to authority, appropriately. You have concluded that the data was iffy. The authors did not.

    Your challenge by the way led me to wonder if world trends indicate anything. Hence a world map.
  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    Options
    a map isn't a trend though, UK sugar consumption per head in 2015 and 1985 are probably the same, obesity is far from the same.
  • neanderthin
    neanderthin Posts: 9,925 Member
    Options
    Unfortunately blaming a single nutrient doesn't address the problem of overconsumption because people will replace calories from one nutrient for another, it always happens. Now if they (WHO) recommended consuming more whole foods, the added sugar obsession would be addressed by default. But omg why do that, right?
  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    Options
    the analysis of calorie intake trends usually fails to provide an explanation of obesity too, so they're left clutching at straws.
  • AbsoluteTara79
    AbsoluteTara79 Posts: 266 Member
    edited March 2015
    Options
    I didn't bold what I "liked". But whatever.

    If you prefer simplistic guidelines to keep you on the path to weight loss, that is great and I'm glad public health agencies serve you. Reducing sugar, as the analysis states, is a proxy/manipulation for reducing overall calorie intake.

    Just don't let your pursuit of convenience get in the way of other people's pursuits of the intricate detail that is behind the recommendations by posting specious logic and laughable map comparisons as a proxy for science. Thanks,
  • Acg67
    Acg67 Posts: 12,142 Member
    Options
    jgnatca wrote: »
    I'm appealing to authority, appropriately. You have concluded that the data was iffy. The authors did not.

    Your challenge by the way led me to wonder if world trends indicate anything. Hence a world map.

    Then why did they even mention the accuracy in the limitations?

    And fun exercise, you can take the same data the WHO used for nutrient intake and show a negative correlation with sugar intake and prevalence in obesity in the United States over the last 15 yrs or so.
  • neanderthin
    neanderthin Posts: 9,925 Member
    Options
    Acg67 wrote: »
    jgnatca wrote: »
    I'm appealing to authority, appropriately. You have concluded that the data was iffy. The authors did not.

    Your challenge by the way led me to wonder if world trends indicate anything. Hence a world map.

    Then why did they even mention the accuracy in the limitations?

    And fun exercise, you can take the same data the WHO used for nutrient intake and show a negative correlation with sugar intake and prevalence in obesity in the United States over the last 15 yrs or so.
    Because sugar consumption has decreased steadily from 2000.............. BOOM.

  • jgnatca
    jgnatca Posts: 14,464 Member
    Options
    yarwell: a map isn't a trend though, UK sugar consumption per head in 2015 and 1985 are probably the same, obesity is far from the same.

    The Canadian Sugar Institute agrees.
    neanderthin: Unfortunately blaming a single nutrient doesn't address the problem of overconsumption because people will replace calories from one nutrient for another, it always happens. Now if they (WHO) recommended consuming more whole foods, the added sugar obsession would be addressed by default. But omg why do that, right?
    Because defining whole foods is a whole lot harder to do than "free sugars"? I mean, we can't even come to consensus on whole foods here on MFP. Besides, switching to whole foods doesn't deal with overconsumption either.
    Yarwell: the analysis of calorie intake trends usually fails to provide an explanation of obesity too, so they're left clutching at straws.

    GEMS analysis has only been around for a few years. There are now just over a dozen dietary profiles identified world-wide. I suspect country breakdown is not fine enough. For instance, there enough regional differences in the US to I think to split the country (the entire country is not going to fat!)
    Acg67: Then why did they even mention the accuracy in the limitations?
    Because any good statistical analysis includes margin for error.

    @AbsoluteTara79, I think you are confusing my observations with personal opinion. I eat all macros/nutrients without shame. (As I shamelessly sip my herbal tea spiced with Splenda). I agree that the WHO guidelines on free sugar consumption is a proxy to reduce calorie intake overall.
  • Acg67
    Acg67 Posts: 12,142 Member
    Options
    jgnatca wrote: »
    yarwell: a map isn't a trend though, UK sugar consumption per head in 2015 and 1985 are probably the same, obesity is far from the same.

    The Canadian Sugar Institute agrees.
    neanderthin: Unfortunately blaming a single nutrient doesn't address the problem of overconsumption because people will replace calories from one nutrient for another, it always happens. Now if they (WHO) recommended consuming more whole foods, the added sugar obsession would be addressed by default. But omg why do that, right?
    Because defining whole foods is a whole lot harder to do than "free sugars"? I mean, we can't even come to consensus on whole foods here on MFP. Besides, switching to whole foods doesn't deal with overconsumption either.
    Yarwell: the analysis of calorie intake trends usually fails to provide an explanation of obesity too, so they're left clutching at straws.

    GEMS analysis has only been around for a few years. There are now just over a dozen dietary profiles identified world-wide. I suspect country breakdown is not fine enough. For instance, there enough regional differences in the US to I think to split the country (the entire country is not going to fat!)
    Acg67: Then why did they even mention the accuracy in the limitations?
    Because any good statistical analysis includes margin for error.

    @AbsoluteTara79, I think you are confusing my observations with personal opinion. I eat all macros/nutrients without shame. (As I shamelessly sip my herbal tea spiced with Splenda). I agree that the WHO guidelines on free sugar consumption is a proxy to reduce calorie intake overall.

    And what is the moe for self reported data?
  • jgnatca
    jgnatca Posts: 14,464 Member
    Options
    The MOE is a couple hundred calories a day. GEMS data measures national food consumption so is unaffected by self-reporting.

    http://www.drsharma.ca/obesity-how-effective-is-self-monitoring-in-weight-management

    http://www.drsharma.ca/when-something-is-not-better-than-nothing

    (Note to self: MOE = Margin of Error)
  • Acg67
    Acg67 Posts: 12,142 Member
    Options
    jgnatca wrote: »
    The MOE is a couple hundred calories a day. GEMS data measures national food consumption so is unaffected by self-reporting.

    http://www.drsharma.ca/obesity-how-effective-is-self-monitoring-in-weight-management

    http://www.drsharma.ca/when-something-is-not-better-than-nothing

    (Note to self: MOE = Margin of Error)

    From your link, sounds like organizations should make recommendations from that sort of data

    "I, for one,happily ignore most of the data that comes from self-reported studies on diet or activity (which, incidentally is the vast majority of research on these issues), never mind that much of these data come from epidemiological studies, where any inference of causality is speculation at best."
  • jgnatca
    jgnatca Posts: 14,464 Member
    Options
    Definitely lots more to learn. This coming decade will be fun to watch for sure.

    http://www.people.com/article/choke-collar-monitors-what-you-eat
  • Acg67
    Acg67 Posts: 12,142 Member
    Options
    RealFoodisGood wrote: »
    Acg67 wrote: »
    jgnatca wrote: »
    bold what you like. I bolded the recommendations.

    You posted the recommendations in another thread, it was pointed out the data said recommendations was based on was iffy at best, so you create a whole new thread, in which you again ignore what the recommendations were based on. You are a part of the problem, blindly parroting things

    Apparently sugar makes you rude too. You must be on a crash. Here, have some more sugar. That's better.

    Sounds about as scientific as what the WHO made their recommendations on

Categories