WHO said limit sugar? The world picture
Replies
-
stevencloser wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Quarter pounder with cheese
Calories: 520
Protein: 29 g
Fat: 26 g
Carbs: 42 g
Sugar: 10 g (40 calories)
(Yep, basically the bun and the ketchup. Is this different than the typical burger elsewhere or even made at home by someone who buys typical supermarket buns and ketchup. Doubtful.)
Medium Fries
Calories: 340
Protein: 4 g
Fat: 16 g
Carbs: 44 g
Sugar: 0 g
Ketchup packet (2) (for the fries)
Calories: 20
Protein: 0 g
Fat: 0 g
Carbs: 4 g
Sugar: 4 g (16 calories) (again, I bet this is the same as at home or any other restaurant, and some of it is from the tomatoes)
The idea that the calories in McD's are significantly from sugar or that people are attracted to fast food because of sugar (instead of salt and fat) always seems to me a weird argument.
Agreed. That being said, here in Germany the amount of sugar in the burgers is about half of that, so there is some room for cutting them.
Americans seem to like sugar in bread. Or maybe we like extra ketchup!0 -
0
-
@nopotofgold the maps show some correlation but not completely. There are outlier nations. What I do notice is the nations with a greater than 30% obesity rate are high stress nations. But in the US it is the southern (generally poorer) States.
Southern is poorer? I thought the poorest country was next to s really rich one up north? O well. Southern comfort food isn't know to be healthy either. Lose lose I guess with what you are saying.0 -
@nopotofgold the maps show some correlation but not completely. There are outlier nations. What I do notice is the nations with a greater than 30% obesity rate are high stress nations. But in the US it is the southern (generally poorer) States.
Lol. Correlation based on what?
Then even if there is a Correlation it means it warrants further studying, which has been done and lo and behold sugar whether it be added or not is not uniquely fattening.0 -
nopotofgold wrote: »
Southern is poorer? I thought the poorest country was next to really rich one up north? O well. Southern comfort food isn't know to be healthy either. Lose lose I guess with what you are saying.
Help me out here. I do want to understand. Poorest country; wouldn't that be Bangladesh or something? Really rich country "up north"? Can't get much more northern than Canada.
I've seen arguments that poor people in the US eat poorly because they can't shop at Whole Foods. I call BS. One can eat very nutritiously on a budget.0 -
So worth watching, Indians trying American candy.
It's weird how candy from other cultures can be so off-putting. I remember being a kid and dying to try Turkish Delight, which I thought must be the most amazing thing (Narnia books), but it was disgusting when I finally tried it. And I had a Russian professor in college who brought back some Russian candy that was absolutely revolting and overly sweet even to my American tastes. Of course, that was at the end of the Cold War, so Russian candy may not have been at its best.
On the other hand, chocolates from other countries (at least those that make it here and I've bothered to try) tend to taste just fine to me.
0 -
IMHO, German dark chocolate is the BEST. Unpatriotic of me, Laura Secord sucks eggs.0
-
The WHO reminds me of why I study nutrition......it helps me understand the bull sh it better.0
-
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 adults0 -
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#latest0 -
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...0 -
i have 100% no idea what anyone in this thread is talking about. have you all been drinking ?0
-
bold what you like. I bolded the recommendations.0
-
*sigh* not a sugar is bad post.0
-
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 things0 -
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.0 -
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.0
-
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?0
-
the analysis of calorie intake trends usually fails to provide an explanation of obesity too, so they're left clutching at straws.0
-
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,
0 -
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.0 -
Because sugar consumption has decreased steadily from 2000.............. BOOM.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.
0 -
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.
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.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?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!)
Because any good statistical analysis includes margin for error.Acg67: Then why did they even mention the accuracy in the limitations?
@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.0 -
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.
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.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?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!)
Because any good statistical analysis includes margin for error.Acg67: Then why did they even mention the accuracy in the limitations?
@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?0 -
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)0 -
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."0 -
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
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
RealFoodisGood 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 on0 -
This content has been removed.
http://youtu.be/DzBGSynNQhY
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions