Have you Quit Sugar?
Options
Replies
-
MrCoolGrim wrote: »When looking at a nutrient label where it states hypothetically 5 grams of sugar, does that include all the other chemicals that are listed that are basically sugar e.g. Corn Syrup & Dextrose?
It took me a while to dig this up. From the Canadian Food Inspection Agency:
"Sugars include all mono- and disaccharides, including sucrose, fructose, glucose, glucose-fructose, maltose, etc. Sugars must be declared in the Nutrition Facts table as "sugars" and are only permitted to be expressed by their total value."
Corn Syrup is a combination of glucose and fructose so it would also be included in the total sugars. Dextrose is an "ose" so it would be listed as part of the sugar total as well.0 -
MrCoolGrim wrote: »When looking at a nutrient label where it states hypothetically 5 grams of sugar, does that include all the other chemicals that are listed that are basically sugar e.g. Corn Syrup & Dextrose?
It took me a while to dig this up. From the Canadian Food Inspection Agency:
"Sugars include all mono- and disaccharides, including sucrose, fructose, glucose, glucose-fructose, maltose, etc. Sugars must be declared in the Nutrition Facts table as "sugars" and are only permitted to be expressed by their total value."
Corn Syrup is a combination of glucose and fructose so it would also be included in the total sugars. Dextrose is an "ose" so it would be listed as part of the sugar total as well.
So would you say that unless people are educated on how to read labels and nutrition facts on a global level that over consumption of sugar is pretty much inevitable on a global scale and can be classified as an epidemic? Just like drug use!0 -
MrCoolGrim wrote: »MrCoolGrim wrote: »When looking at a nutrient label where it states hypothetically 5 grams of sugar, does that include all the other chemicals that are listed that are basically sugar e.g. Corn Syrup & Dextrose?
It took me a while to dig this up. From the Canadian Food Inspection Agency:
"Sugars include all mono- and disaccharides, including sucrose, fructose, glucose, glucose-fructose, maltose, etc. Sugars must be declared in the Nutrition Facts table as "sugars" and are only permitted to be expressed by their total value."
Corn Syrup is a combination of glucose and fructose so it would also be included in the total sugars. Dextrose is an "ose" so it would be listed as part of the sugar total as well.
So would you say that unless people are educated on how to read labels and nutrition facts on a global level that over consumption of sugar is pretty much inevitable on a global scale and can be classified as an epidemic? Just like drug use!
No, I would not say that. Basic nutrition education is all that is needed and most get that in a school health class. Knowing and doing are two completely different things. Most know that high calorie foods are not the best for them as the bulk of their diet, they just don't care to take the time and effort to choose better options.
0 -
MrCoolGrim wrote: »MrCoolGrim wrote: »When looking at a nutrient label where it states hypothetically 5 grams of sugar, does that include all the other chemicals that are listed that are basically sugar e.g. Corn Syrup & Dextrose?
It took me a while to dig this up. From the Canadian Food Inspection Agency:
"Sugars include all mono- and disaccharides, including sucrose, fructose, glucose, glucose-fructose, maltose, etc. Sugars must be declared in the Nutrition Facts table as "sugars" and are only permitted to be expressed by their total value."
Corn Syrup is a combination of glucose and fructose so it would also be included in the total sugars. Dextrose is an "ose" so it would be listed as part of the sugar total as well.
So would you say that unless people are educated on how to read labels and nutrition facts on a global level that over consumption of sugar is pretty much inevitable on a global scale and can be classified as an epidemic? Just like drug use!
No, I would not say that. Basic nutrition education is all that is needed and most get that in a school health class. Knowing and doing are two completely different things. Most know that high calorie foods are not the best for them as the bulk of their diet, they just don't care to take the time and effort to choose better options.
But I am talking on a Global level. Alot of countries do not require nutrional facts put on there labels and its not taught in school. I do agree to anextent that its all about choices and better options but not everyone knows what they are.0 -
Not entirely. I'm LCHF but I do get some sugar from low carb veggies, berries, and Greek yogurt. I cut out a lot of sugar, but it would be very difficult to cut it out completely. I'm guessing you mean sugary "junk" food, though, not fruits and veggies. I think that's what is usually meant when someone says they are cutting out sugar. And, yes, *I* consider it junk food. For me. Not necessarily for anyone else.
Same for me. I eat very low carb but it is nearly impossible to cut out naturally occurring sugars completely. Over the past month I have had between 4 g to 21 g sugar/day, with an average of 10 g/day.0 -
This is how the WHO worded it, and they are writing for an international audience:
"Free sugars refer to monosaccharides (such as glucose, fructose) and disaccharides (such as sucrose or table sugar) added to foods and drinks by the manufacturer, cook or consumer, and sugars naturally present in honey, syrups, fruit juices and fruit juice concentrates."
It would only be an epidemic if people are getting sick from free sugars. And they're not. There's an obesity epidemic.
On the GEMS database, there are five food clusters that fall within the WHO guidelines (C03, C07, C09, C13, and C16). Countries that eat sugar within the guidelines include many African countries, Australia, UK, France, China, Indochina and most of Asia (excludes India). No "epidemics" there.
0 -
This is how the WHO worded it, and they are writing for an international audience:
"Free sugars refer to monosaccharides (such as glucose, fructose) and disaccharides (such as sucrose or table sugar) added to foods and drinks by the manufacturer, cook or consumer, and sugars naturally present in honey, syrups, fruit juices and fruit juice concentrates."
It would only be an epidemic if people are getting sick from free sugars. And they're not. There's an obesity epidemic.
On the GEMS database, there are five food clusters that fall within the WHO guidelines (C03, C07, C09, C13, and C16). Countries that eat sugar within the guidelines include many African countries, Australia, UK, France, China, Indochina and most of Asia (excludes India). No "epidemics" there.
Again this is where I get a little confused. Sugars are definitely linked to diabetes which in turn is on the rise on a major level and should be a huge concern. Non conclusive studies suggest high sugar intake may cause heart disease, cancer and other diseases. So how do you differentiate the difference of what an epidemic if its obesity or sugar? If a person is eating with in there caloric amount but most of the calories are from processed foods hence sugar, how can you say it only relates to obesity?0 -
MrCoolGrim wrote: »This is how the WHO worded it, and they are writing for an international audience:
"Free sugars refer to monosaccharides (such as glucose, fructose) and disaccharides (such as sucrose or table sugar) added to foods and drinks by the manufacturer, cook or consumer, and sugars naturally present in honey, syrups, fruit juices and fruit juice concentrates."
It would only be an epidemic if people are getting sick from free sugars. And they're not. There's an obesity epidemic.
On the GEMS database, there are five food clusters that fall within the WHO guidelines (C03, C07, C09, C13, and C16). Countries that eat sugar within the guidelines include many African countries, Australia, UK, France, China, Indochina and most of Asia (excludes India). No "epidemics" there.
Again this is where I get a little confused. Sugars are definitely linked to diabetes which in turn is on the rise on a major level and should be a huge concern. Non conclusive studies suggest high sugar intake may cause heart disease, cancer and other diseases. So how do you differentiate the difference of what an epidemic if its obesity or sugar? If a person is eating with in there caloric amount but most of the calories are from processed foods hence sugar, how can you say it only relates to obesity?
The official guys at diabetes.org only link sugary drinks to diabetes, not sugar from other stuff. And even that is probably mostly from simply more calories -> being overweight and being overweight being a risk factor.0 -
Again, the WHO studies aren't taking into account that the people who are consuming those high levels of sugar in drinks, sugary snacks, etc. are also taking in excess calories in numerous other foods, as well. Without doing an actual double blind SCIENTIFIC study, you cannot just blindly go around saying that the sugar is what is causing the obesity. You have to actually have people only consume excess amounts of sugar, without the excess calories overall. Unbelievable.0
-
Again, the WHO studies aren't taking into account that the people who are consuming those high levels of sugar in drinks, sugary snacks, etc. are also taking in excess calories in numerous other foods, as well. Without doing an actual double blind SCIENTIFIC study, you cannot just blindly go around saying that the sugar is what is causing the obesity. You have to actually have people only consume excess amounts of sugar, without the excess calories overall. Unbelievable.
cosign ...0 -
Simple answer is yes... all processed sugars. I still eat fruits and veggies.
0 -
I have not say I quit sugar but I do try to limit my intake of added sugar.0
-
Again this is where I get a little confused. Sugars are definitely linked to diabetes which in turn is on the rise on a major level and should be a huge concern. Non conclusive studies suggest high sugar intake may cause heart disease, cancer and other diseases. So how do you differentiate the difference of what an epidemic if its obesity or sugar? If a person is eating with in there caloric amount but most of the calories are from processed foods hence sugar, how can you say it only relates to obesity?
As a type 2 in remission, I'll give this a try. Sugar did not cause my diabetes. My inability to process sugars/carbs are signs of diabetes. Being overweight was definitely a risk factor, but even slim people on paleo diets can develop diabetes.
Food can't be an epidemic. An epidemic is a spread of a disease.0 -
MrCoolGrim wrote: »Can someone please explain to me the difference between natural sugar and processed or refined sugar? To my understanding sugar is sugar regardless the source.
The actual sugar, whether it is sucrose, glucose, maltose, lactose, fructose, etc. is used by the body in the exact same way.
Some will come up with the argument that "fruit is packed with fiber and nutrients along with the sugar". That is true, but does not affect the actual sugar your body is using and what it does with it once it enters the bloodstream. It may affect how long it takes to get there, but not what it does.
That is splitting hairs, though. There is a difference in how your body reacts when it gets a slow steady dose vs a quick slam to the system all at once. A beer and a shot may have the same amount of alcohol, but nursing the beer for a half hour is going to affect you differently than doing shot in one go. Your liver, and the rest of your body, has the same issue when you have strawberries vs a strawberry pop tart. If you're running or riding a bike, you have the means to diffuse some of the backlog. If you're sitting at your desk posting on the internet, not so much.0 -
MrCoolGrim wrote: »Can someone please explain to me the difference between natural sugar and processed or refined sugar? To my understanding sugar is sugar regardless the source.
The actual sugar, whether it is sucrose, glucose, maltose, lactose, fructose, etc. is used by the body in the exact same way.
Some will come up with the argument that "fruit is packed with fiber and nutrients along with the sugar". That is true, but does not affect the actual sugar your body is using and what it does with it once it enters the bloodstream. It may affect how long it takes to get there, but not what it does.
That is splitting hairs, though. There is a difference in how your body reacts when it gets a slow steady dose vs a quick slam to the system all at once. A beer and a shot may have the same amount of alcohol, but nursing the beer for a half hour is going to affect you differently than doing shot in one go. Your liver, and the rest of your body, has the same issue when you have strawberries vs a strawberry pop tart. If you're running or riding a bike, you have the means to diffuse some of the backlog. If you're sitting at your desk posting on the internet, not so much.
I fail to understand this comparison. If I take a shot of whiskey and have nothing else for four hours, and my friend drinks a beer over one hour and has nothing for the same four hours....are you trying to say that I am more drunk then my friend, because shot? My example assumes are both similar height and weight...
if I have a strawberry or a poptart and I am in a calorie deficit, guess what happens? I lose weight.
Or is your claim that the person eating a strawberry will lose more weight because fruit sugar?0 -
Again, the WHO studies aren't taking into account that the people who are consuming those high levels of sugar in drinks, sugary snacks, etc. are also taking in excess calories in numerous other foods, as well. Without doing an actual double blind SCIENTIFIC study, you cannot just blindly go around saying that the sugar is what is causing the obesity. You have to actually have people only consume excess amounts of sugar, without the excess calories overall. Unbelievable.
cosign ...
I am not talking about only obesity. Over consumption of sugar has ill effects and has been proven in some studies where people only did consume exess amounts of sugar with out overall exces calories.
Robert Lustig, MD, a pediatric endocrinologist at UCSF Benioff Children's Hospital and the paper's senior author, said:
"Epidemiology cannot directly prove causation. But in medicine, we rely on the postulates of Sir Austin Bradford Hill to examine associations to infer causation, as we did with smoking.
You expose the subject to an agent, you get a disease; you take the agent away, the disease gets better; you re-expose and the disease gets worse again. This study satisfies those criteria, and places sugar front and center."
0 -
MrCoolGrim wrote: »Again, the WHO studies aren't taking into account that the people who are consuming those high levels of sugar in drinks, sugary snacks, etc. are also taking in excess calories in numerous other foods, as well. Without doing an actual double blind SCIENTIFIC study, you cannot just blindly go around saying that the sugar is what is causing the obesity. You have to actually have people only consume excess amounts of sugar, without the excess calories overall. Unbelievable.
cosign ...
I am not talking about only obesity. Over consumption of sugar has ill effects and has been proven in some studies where people only did consume exess amounts of sugar with out overall exces calories.
Robert Lustig, MD, a pediatric endocrinologist at UCSF Benioff Children's Hospital and the paper's senior author, said:
"Epidemiology cannot directly prove causation. But in medicine, we rely on the postulates of Sir Austin Bradford Hill to examine associations to infer causation, as we did with smoking.
You expose the subject to an agent, you get a disease; you take the agent away, the disease gets better; you re-expose and the disease gets worse again. This study satisfies those criteria, and places sugar front and center."
the whole beginning of this, and the person to whom I was responding, was talking about WHO's discussion of sugar causing obesity worldwide in developed countries.0 -
0
-
MrCoolGrim wrote: »Again, the WHO studies aren't taking into account that the people who are consuming those high levels of sugar in drinks, sugary snacks, etc. are also taking in excess calories in numerous other foods, as well. Without doing an actual double blind SCIENTIFIC study, you cannot just blindly go around saying that the sugar is what is causing the obesity. You have to actually have people only consume excess amounts of sugar, without the excess calories overall. Unbelievable.
cosign ...
I am not talking about only obesity. Over consumption of sugar has ill effects and has been proven in some studies where people only did consume exess amounts of sugar with out overall exces calories.
Robert Lustig, MD, a pediatric endocrinologist at UCSF Benioff Children's Hospital and the paper's senior author, said:
"Epidemiology cannot directly prove causation. But in medicine, we rely on the postulates of Sir Austin Bradford Hill to examine associations to infer causation, as we did with smoking.
You expose the subject to an agent, you get a disease; you take the agent away, the disease gets better; you re-expose and the disease gets worse again. This study satisfies those criteria, and places sugar front and center."
most of Lusting's stuff has been refuted and/or debunked..
here is Alan Aragon pretty much taking Lusting apart: http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/
Please least the ill effects that you are claiming sugar causes...0 -
MrCoolGrim wrote: »Can someone please explain to me the difference between natural sugar and processed or refined sugar? To my understanding sugar is sugar regardless the source.
The actual sugar, whether it is sucrose, glucose, maltose, lactose, fructose, etc. is used by the body in the exact same way.
Some will come up with the argument that "fruit is packed with fiber and nutrients along with the sugar". That is true, but does not affect the actual sugar your body is using and what it does with it once it enters the bloodstream. It may affect how long it takes to get there, but not what it does.
That is splitting hairs, though. There is a difference in how your body reacts when it gets a slow steady dose vs a quick slam to the system all at once. A beer and a shot may have the same amount of alcohol, but nursing the beer for a half hour is going to affect you differently than doing shot in one go. Your liver, and the rest of your body, has the same issue when you have strawberries vs a strawberry pop tart. If you're running or riding a bike, you have the means to diffuse some of the backlog. If you're sitting at your desk posting on the internet, not so much.
I fail to understand this comparison. If I take a shot of whiskey and have nothing else for four hours, and my friend drinks a beer over one hour and has nothing for the same four hours....are you trying to say that I am more drunk then my friend, because shot? My example assumes are both similar height and weight...
if I have a strawberry or a poptart and I am in a calorie deficit, guess what happens? I lose weight.
Or is your claim that the person eating a strawberry will lose more weight because fruit sugar?
No, I said no such thing, but thanks for playing psychic. When you take a shot, the alcohol arrives at your liver in one dose. When you drink a beer, the alcohol trickles in to your liver over time. The same is true of sugars. Carbs that are digested immediately will hit the liver in one dose. Carbs that are digested slowly over time will reach the liver in smaller amounts over a longer period. No matter if you have the shot or the beer, the strawberries or the pop tart, your liver doesn't function any faster or slower. What it's not using is stored as liver fat.0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8eQ_8JogcwCategories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 396 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 934 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions