Why I am cutting back on sugar
Options
Replies
-
Sugar is not the cause of obesity. Eating too many calories is.[/quote]
Obesity is caused by many factors - too many calories cause obesity. However, Insulin resistance may cause obesity in many individuals, and too much added/free sugar causes insulin resistance. Over time, that one coke spiking your blood glucose could make you insulin resistant.
You do need carbs and a limited amount of sugar for brain and body function, from what I understand. If you eat a range of vegetables and some fruit, you've got more than enough sugar.
There's a lot we don't know yet, but added sugar is emerging as a greater culprit. I have mostly eliminated added sugar from my diet. I eat a lot of fruit and plain yogurt. More controversial is how much complex sugar to eat. Jury is still out.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Or more simply, it is usually true that the average person with maintenance of 2000
but who is eating 2400.....
SAD is a lot more calories than 2400. The average for adults is over 3000 calories per day. Carbs are 50% -> 1500 calories -> nearly 400g. Average sugar consumption is nearly 200g/day, which is about half the carbs - meaning 25% of intake is added sugar.
Take out added sugars and that alone is enough to get rid of the caloric surplus.
So yes - under the current state of SAD is completely legit to say that eating added sugars is making America fat....marketing made us fat.
That I disagree with.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Or more simply, it is usually true that the average person with maintenance of 2000
but who is eating 2400.....
SAD is a lot more calories than 2400. The average for adults is over 3000 calories per day. Carbs are 50% -> 1500 calories -> nearly 400g. Average sugar consumption is nearly 200g/day, which is about half the carbs - meaning 25% of intake is added sugar.
Average doesn't matter, everyone is an individual. I'm sure my hypothetical applies to many people.Take out added sugars and that alone is enough to get rid of the caloric surplus.
If we are talking averages, take out the fat, take out the fast food/convenience food. Take out the weekend excesses or the snacks between meals. Take out the absurdly-sized meals at many restaurants. On and on. The point is focusing on just one thing--as if it wouldn't be replaced if you didn't do more given the wide availability of all kinds of easy to obtain and cheap hyper palatable food--isn't the issue.So yes - under the current state of SAD is completely legit to say that eating added sugars is making America fat.
No more so than that any of several other things (or a combination of things that differ from person to person). Yet for some reason people act as if sugar is the ONLY issue. That's what people are criticizing.
Since you seem to understand that that is false, I don't know why you always seem to be bending over backwards to defend these arguments....marketing made us fat.
That I disagree with.
[/quote]
One thing we can agree on.0 -
FitnessTim wrote: »FitnessTim wrote: »Nobody knows for sure what the "perfect" diet is. All we can do is look at what data is out there and come to our own conclusions. I'm betting on a low sugar diet. Call it personal preference if you want.
If we don't want to try any theory on what we should eat, we can always try to fall back on just maintaining a calorie deficit. The problem is maintaining a calories deficit is not mathematical problem but rather a human problem. If it were that easy nobody would be overweight. The real problem is how can we maintain a calorie deficit in a way that has a reasonable chance of success over time.
By the way, Acg67 (or anyone else), do you have a link that shows a reduction in sugar intake over the past decade? I'm really curious about that because I believe recently that weight gain (in the US) has actually leveled out. I'll need to find that data as well.
http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/food-availability-(per-capita)-data-system.aspx
Are you familiar with post hoc ergo propter hoc?
And you do understand all carbs are sugars? Right?
I was not familiar with the term "post hoc ergo propter hoc" but I am familiar with the concept. You are right that we can't make assumptions about the relation between two events, however I think we can agree that in the absence of controlled studies it is fair to propose theories based on observations. There have been studies that seem to suggest a correlation between sugar and the ability to maintain a healthy weight.
On the other hand, are we to dismiss a theory outright because it can't be 100% proven. Even if I were to reduce my sugar intake and become extremely fit and healthy that would not prove anything but it would give credence to the theory.
Also, I tried to follow your line of reasoning by reading the data you provided but wasn't able to. The average intake globally of sugar and sweeteners has increased in the past decade from 8.7 to 16.8%. Worldwide obesity has more than doubled since 1980. If anything, the data you provided supports the theory that sugar contributes to obesity.
Anyone making strong claims about what is good or bad to eat should have their validity questioned as I have been, deservedly. While it is fair to question what I claim as an opinion, I think if also fair to expect a well reasoned counterargument rather than just dismiss the premise as bogus because it can't be proven. For you part, it appears as if you have attempted to make a valid counterargument but I'm either not capable of seeing the connection to your data or the data is counter to what you are suggesting.
Thank you.0 -
GoPerfectHealth wrote: »FitnessTim wrote: »FitnessTim wrote: »Nobody knows for sure what the "perfect" diet is. All we can do is look at what data is out there and come to our own conclusions. I'm betting on a low sugar diet. Call it personal preference if you want.
If we don't want to try any theory on what we should eat, we can always try to fall back on just maintaining a calorie deficit. The problem is maintaining a calories deficit is not mathematical problem but rather a human problem. If it were that easy nobody would be overweight. The real problem is how can we maintain a calorie deficit in a way that has a reasonable chance of success over time.
By the way, Acg67 (or anyone else), do you have a link that shows a reduction in sugar intake over the past decade? I'm really curious about that because I believe recently that weight gain (in the US) has actually leveled out. I'll need to find that data as well.
http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/food-availability-(per-capita)-data-system.aspx
Are you familiar with post hoc ergo propter hoc?
And you do understand all carbs are sugars? Right?
I was not familiar with the term "post hoc ergo propter hoc" but I am familiar with the concept. You are right that we can't make assumptions about the relation between two events, however I think we can agree that in the absence of controlled studies it is fair to propose theories based on observations. There have been studies that seem to suggest a correlation between sugar and the ability to maintain a healthy weight.
On the other hand, are we to dismiss a theory outright because it can't be 100% proven. Even if I were to reduce my sugar intake and become extremely fit and healthy that would not prove anything but it would give credence to the theory.
Also, I tried to follow your line of reasoning by reading the data you provided but wasn't able to. The average intake globally of sugar and sweeteners has increased in the past decade from 8.7 to 16.8%. Worldwide obesity has more than doubled since 1980. If anything, the data you provided supports the theory that sugar contributes to obesity.
Anyone making strong claims about what is good or bad to eat should have their validity questioned as I have been, deservedly. While it is fair to question what I claim as an opinion, I think if also fair to expect a well reasoned counterargument rather than just dismiss the premise as bogus because it can't be proven. For you part, it appears as if you have attempted to make a valid counterargument but I'm either not capable of seeing the connection to your data or the data is counter to what you are suggesting.
Thank you.
That's not really valid though... Fat has seen a much larger increase than sugar so as per his logic one could argue obesity is caused by fat and use the 80s reasoning for that. The argument against sugar is weak at best, apart from approaching it in a vacuum and saying items rich in added sugar tend to be nutrient poor.0 -
asflatasapancake wrote: »Am I the only one who thinks that sugar is being used as an excuse for why someone is overweight? It isn't that they overeat. It's the sugar's fault. Now they can be unhealthy and a financial burden to the health system and be accepted. Thank you Katie Couric.
No, I completely agree, no one wants to take responsibility for the way they are. I'm typically very small but I put on weight by overeating...and it was mostly things like Chipotle and sushi which I love! I tend to over eat on salty foods and don't really crave surgary foods.0 -
FitnessTim wrote: »asflatasapancake wrote: »Am I the only one who thinks that sugar is being used as an excuse for why someone is overweight? It isn't that they overeat. It's the sugar's fault. Now they can be unhealthy and a financial burden to the health system and be accepted. Thank you Katie Couric.
As an American, was I responsible for my diet growing up? Was it a conscious reasoned choice for me to eat sugary cereals, candy, cola, etc. You can blame my parents but they came from a generation that didn't have to worry as much about what they ate - food was just generally better for you.
On the other hand, the companies that produced and marketed the food knew what they were doing and are still doing. They purposefully make food incredibly hard to resist. Good for them but who should have been responsible for informing the public the negative consequences of eating the food that was pushed on them by expert marketers.
Tell the overwhelming amount of obese children that it is their fault they are overweight. Or tell the parents who constantly struggle to get their kids to eat healthy foods that it is their fault they can't compete with billboards, commercials, Youtube videos and so on that promote junk food.
Ultimately it is my responsibility what I put in my body. I choose to become better informed about what proportions of foods I should eat. However, nobody should be forced to put in the same time and effort I have over the years to achieve reasonably good health.
I’d just like to point out that it is these companies’ job to make their products appealing. What’s more, most are publicly owned companies, so they in fact have a responsibility to shareholders to sell as much product for as much profit as possible. That’s not malevolent, it’s capitalism.
Word. And, ultimately, it's up to the parents or us as grown adults to learn about nutrition. Parent's shouldn't have to compete with billboards. They're parents, and until their children have money of their own, they are in charge of nutrition. Parents who let their children tantrum their way into too much food are only reinforcing terrible habits and get zero sympathy from me.
And I am going to disagree with your final point. I think if more people put in more time and effort into understanding health and nutrition, the world would be a much fitter place. You weren't 'forced' to do it; you chose to do it to improve your life and health. Frankly, I think basic nutrition should be mandatory in schools.
This x100.0 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »Fiber - the fiber in fruit mitigates the effects of fructose in metabolics. There is not enough fiber in yogurt to do that.
Doesn't it depend on how you eat the yogurt? Lots of people eat it WITH fruit or on oatmeal, for example.
I don't add sugar to yogurt (my personal preference is to eat it plain with berries or some other fruit), but if I did and otherwise ate it as I almost always do--with a breakfast including lots of veggies and some fruit--why would the bit of added sugar be an issue?
Yes - context does matter - well I believe it does. I know you have posts that state the same - in a vacuum, sure there's an issue there - but if you eat it with something fibrous or add protein, it would help.
Like white rice - eat white rice unto itself - you'll spike your blood sugar and make that rice store as fat - but that's in a vacuum. Eat white rice with protein and a fibrous veggie (non-starchy), now you balanced off the GI load.
Great point!
In a calorie deficit?
And don't get started with your visceral fat argument. Because it's specious at best.
There's nothing specious about visceral fat. I had it - and I reduced it down to minimal amounts. I think that's trivializing the argument.
Calorie deficits are relative - if you eat a high protein diet, you raise your metabolism to account for the extra protein - it's a relative number. What's the number, you really don't know - it's a best guess - and it's a best estimation based upon the nutritional profile of the food you are eating.
If glycogen is not needed by the muscles, you store it as fat. That doesn't equate to being in a calorie deficit. You can be in a deficit, satisfied muscle glycogen requirements and still store it as fat.
Completely false.
Only when CHO energy intake exceeds TEE does DNL in liver or adipose tissue contribute significantly to the whole-body energy economy. It is concluded that DNL is not the pathway of first resort for added dietary CHO, in humans.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10365981
I know I'm late to the party, but thank everything sacred you posted this. Because my head was going to explode.
He's not the only one who argues this nonsense about storing visceral fat in a deficit from carbohydrate consumption, either. It's mind-boggling.
0 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »GoPerfectHealth wrote: »FitnessTim wrote: »FitnessTim wrote: »Nobody knows for sure what the "perfect" diet is. All we can do is look at what data is out there and come to our own conclusions. I'm betting on a low sugar diet. Call it personal preference if you want.
If we don't want to try any theory on what we should eat, we can always try to fall back on just maintaining a calorie deficit. The problem is maintaining a calories deficit is not mathematical problem but rather a human problem. If it were that easy nobody would be overweight. The real problem is how can we maintain a calorie deficit in a way that has a reasonable chance of success over time.
By the way, Acg67 (or anyone else), do you have a link that shows a reduction in sugar intake over the past decade? I'm really curious about that because I believe recently that weight gain (in the US) has actually leveled out. I'll need to find that data as well.
http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/food-availability-(per-capita)-data-system.aspx
Are you familiar with post hoc ergo propter hoc?
And you do understand all carbs are sugars? Right?
I was not familiar with the term "post hoc ergo propter hoc" but I am familiar with the concept. You are right that we can't make assumptions about the relation between two events, however I think we can agree that in the absence of controlled studies it is fair to propose theories based on observations. There have been studies that seem to suggest a correlation between sugar and the ability to maintain a healthy weight.
On the other hand, are we to dismiss a theory outright because it can't be 100% proven. Even if I were to reduce my sugar intake and become extremely fit and healthy that would not prove anything but it would give credence to the theory.
Also, I tried to follow your line of reasoning by reading the data you provided but wasn't able to. The average intake globally of sugar and sweeteners has increased in the past decade from 8.7 to 16.8%. Worldwide obesity has more than doubled since 1980. If anything, the data you provided supports the theory that sugar contributes to obesity.
Anyone making strong claims about what is good or bad to eat should have their validity questioned as I have been, deservedly. While it is fair to question what I claim as an opinion, I think if also fair to expect a well reasoned counterargument rather than just dismiss the premise as bogus because it can't be proven. For you part, it appears as if you have attempted to make a valid counterargument but I'm either not capable of seeing the connection to your data or the data is counter to what you are suggesting.
Thank you.
That's not really valid though... Fat has seen a much larger increase than sugar so as per his logic one could argue obesity is caused by fat and use the 80s reasoning for that. The argument against sugar is weak at best, apart from approaching it in a vacuum and saying items rich in added sugar tend to be nutrient poor.
But they do tend to have lots of fat!
Indeed, given that the plurality of calories in many so called sweet treats is from fat, the focus on sugar is mystifying to me.
For the record, I'm not anti fat either, but it seems so obvious to me that we are just doing basically the same thing that didn't work in the '80s and '90s, but with sugar instead of fat. Perhaps scapegoating instead of looking at the overall diet is a bad approach?0 -
17% is added sugars and honey according to the FAO document.lemurcat12 wrote: »Or more simply, it is usually true that the average person with maintenance of 2000
but who is eating 2400.....
SAD is a lot more calories than 2400. The average for adults is over 3000 calories per day. Carbs are 50% -> 1500 calories -> nearly 400g. Average sugar consumption is nearly 200g/day, which is about half the carbs - meaning 25% of intake is added sugar.
Take out added sugars and that alone is enough to get rid of the caloric surplus.
So yes - under the current state of SAD is completely legit to say that eating added sugars is making America fat....marketing made us fat.
That I disagree with.
0 -
I stay away from foods or drinks with added sugar, simply because they are not good for me and my body doesn't have any use for it.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »GoPerfectHealth wrote: »FitnessTim wrote: »FitnessTim wrote: »Nobody knows for sure what the "perfect" diet is. All we can do is look at what data is out there and come to our own conclusions. I'm betting on a low sugar diet. Call it personal preference if you want.
If we don't want to try any theory on what we should eat, we can always try to fall back on just maintaining a calorie deficit. The problem is maintaining a calories deficit is not mathematical problem but rather a human problem. If it were that easy nobody would be overweight. The real problem is how can we maintain a calorie deficit in a way that has a reasonable chance of success over time.
By the way, Acg67 (or anyone else), do you have a link that shows a reduction in sugar intake over the past decade? I'm really curious about that because I believe recently that weight gain (in the US) has actually leveled out. I'll need to find that data as well.
http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/food-availability-(per-capita)-data-system.aspx
Are you familiar with post hoc ergo propter hoc?
And you do understand all carbs are sugars? Right?
I was not familiar with the term "post hoc ergo propter hoc" but I am familiar with the concept. You are right that we can't make assumptions about the relation between two events, however I think we can agree that in the absence of controlled studies it is fair to propose theories based on observations. There have been studies that seem to suggest a correlation between sugar and the ability to maintain a healthy weight.
On the other hand, are we to dismiss a theory outright because it can't be 100% proven. Even if I were to reduce my sugar intake and become extremely fit and healthy that would not prove anything but it would give credence to the theory.
Also, I tried to follow your line of reasoning by reading the data you provided but wasn't able to. The average intake globally of sugar and sweeteners has increased in the past decade from 8.7 to 16.8%. Worldwide obesity has more than doubled since 1980. If anything, the data you provided supports the theory that sugar contributes to obesity.
Anyone making strong claims about what is good or bad to eat should have their validity questioned as I have been, deservedly. While it is fair to question what I claim as an opinion, I think if also fair to expect a well reasoned counterargument rather than just dismiss the premise as bogus because it can't be proven. For you part, it appears as if you have attempted to make a valid counterargument but I'm either not capable of seeing the connection to your data or the data is counter to what you are suggesting.
Thank you.
That's not really valid though... Fat has seen a much larger increase than sugar so as per his logic one could argue obesity is caused by fat and use the 80s reasoning for that. The argument against sugar is weak at best, apart from approaching it in a vacuum and saying items rich in added sugar tend to be nutrient poor.
But they do tend to have lots of fat!
Indeed, given that the plurality of calories in many so called sweet treats is from fat, the focus on sugar is mystifying to me.
For the record, I'm not anti fat either, but it seems so obvious to me that we are just doing basically the same thing that didn't work in the '80s and '90s, but with sugar instead of fat. Perhaps scapegoating instead of looking at the overall diet is a bad approach?
You can't soundbite complex approaches. Sensible, long-term approaches don't make for riveting viewing. Who wants to hear be moderate in everything and exercise? Sounds so damned sensible and boring. No 'one weird trick" about it.
On a serious note, what bothers me most is the "science" that springs up around these ideas. There was "science" behind the fat demonization too. A few zealots formed a foregone conclusion, and then did "research" to support it. The same thing is happening now.
0 -
Despite being totally bashed for my poor choice of words "sugar is bad", this has been a great discussion.
Was it my intent to "demonize" sugar? Not really but I'm glad that it caused a great debate.
I think most will agree that sugar is okay in reasonable amounts. We can agree to disagree about what is a reasonable amount. People have made points that it can be much higher than the WHO recommendation and for some people I would agree with that. On the other hand nobody has yet convinced me that the WHO recommendation is not good advice for people in general.
Some people have pointed out that there is a difference between added-sugars and sugars that naturally occur in food. For me personally that is a tricky distinction to make. A glass of orange juice can have no added sugar but would still be a proportionally high percentage of sugar. Even solid foods such as raisins are loaded with sugar.
I used to roll my eyes at anyone who talked about avoiding sugar. I made the same arguments that I've seen here. "It is all about maintaining a calorie deficit.", "I eat as much sugar as I want and I'm in great shape". I know, I've been there. I would have been right there with the other sugar defenders with the subtle implications that anyone who knock sugar is a nut.
What changed my mind was my difficulty with maintaining my weight as I got older. Staying fit in your 20s or even 30s, is much different than staying fit in your 40s. Yes, I know some of the sugar defenders may be in their 40s or older but we are all different. From a physics standpoint a calorie from sugar is the same as a calorie from any other macro-nutrient. However the impact of sugar is very different.
ForbesWe intuitively know that sugar and obesity are linked, but the exact reason why hasn’t been well understood until recently. Research has shown that chronic consumption of added sugar dulls the brain’s mechanism for telling you to stop eating. It does so by reducing activity in the brain’s anorexigenic oxytocin system, which is responsible for throwing up the red “full” flag that prevents you from gorging. When oxytocin cells in the brain are blunted by over-consumption of sugar, the flag doesn’t work correctly and you start asking for seconds and thirds, and seeking out snacks at midnight.
In this thread I've included several references about sugar. I'm not cherry picking data to fit my argument. I just provide links to what I find. If I found a reference that countered my premise I would gladly provide it and consider changing my position. Some have provided plenty of anecdotal evidence and there was a interesting back-and-forth about statistics, but no hard evidence that comes close to countering what can be easily found on the internet.
If the data on sugar were faulty there would be plenty of push back and counter studies from sugar industry and companies that sell sugar sweetened products.
An individual's approach to sugar can vary. One could try the no-carb route and avoid it completely or one could ignore the science completely and just focus on calorie consumption. The best approach is probably somewhere in between.
Would I have a glass of orange juice with breakfast? Absolutely, but as an occasional treat. A hot fudge sundae after dinner? I hope not but never say never.
0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »On a serious note, what bothers me most is the "science" that springs up around these ideas. There was "science" behind the fat demonization too. A few zealots formed a foregone conclusion, and then did "research" to support it. The same thing is happening now.
To clarify the "science" behind the low fat diet was bogus to begin with.
Low-fat diet advice was based on undercooked science
It is right to question the validity of current studies done on sugar but should we dismiss that entirely because a past study was misleading.
It's been over 30 years since the low fat diet was introduced. With the advancements in technology, current research techniques have greatly improved.
Still if people want to wait 30 more years before the studies on sugar have had time to fully proven, that's up to them. For me, I'm going to go with the best information I have at this time.0 -
FitnessTim wrote: »Despite being totally bashed for my poor choice of words "sugar is bad", this has been a great discussion.
Was it my intent to "demonize" sugar? Not really but I'm glad that it caused a great debate.
I think most will agree that sugar is okay in reasonable amounts. We can agree to disagree about what is a reasonable amount. People have made points that it can be much higher than the WHO recommendation and for some people I would agree with that. On the other hand nobody has yet convinced me that the WHO recommendation is not good advice for people in general.
Some people have pointed out that there is a difference between added-sugars and sugars that naturally occur in food. For me personally that is a tricky distinction to make. A glass of orange juice can have no added sugar but would still be a proportionally high percentage of sugar. Even solid foods such as raisins are loaded with sugar.
I used to roll my eyes at anyone who talked about avoiding sugar. I made the same arguments that I've seen here. "It is all about maintaining a calorie deficit.", "I eat as much sugar as I want and I'm in great shape". I know, I've been there. I would have been right there with the other sugar defenders with the subtle implications that anyone who knock sugar is a nut.
What changed my mind was my difficulty with maintaining my weight as I got older. Staying fit in your 20s or even 30s, is much different than staying fit in your 40s. Yes, I know some of the sugar defenders may be in their 40s or older but we are all different. From a physics standpoint a calorie from sugar is the same as a calorie from any other macro-nutrient. However the impact of sugar is very different.
ForbesWe intuitively know that sugar and obesity are linked, but the exact reason why hasn’t been well understood until recently. Research has shown that chronic consumption of added sugar dulls the brain’s mechanism for telling you to stop eating. It does so by reducing activity in the brain’s anorexigenic oxytocin system, which is responsible for throwing up the red “full” flag that prevents you from gorging. When oxytocin cells in the brain are blunted by over-consumption of sugar, the flag doesn’t work correctly and you start asking for seconds and thirds, and seeking out snacks at midnight.
In this thread I've included several references about sugar. I'm not cherry picking data to fit my argument. I just provide links to what I find. If I found a reference that countered my premise I would gladly provide it and consider changing my position. Some have provided plenty of anecdotal evidence and there was a interesting back-and-forth about statistics, but no hard evidence that comes close to countering what can be easily found on the internet.
If the data on sugar were faulty there would be plenty of push back and counter studies from sugar industry and companies that sell sugar sweetened products.
An individual's approach to sugar can vary. One could try the no-carb route and avoid it completely or one could ignore the science completely and just focus on calorie consumption. The best approach is probably somewhere in between.
Would I have a glass of orange juice with breakfast? Absolutely, but as an occasional treat. A hot fudge sundae after dinner? I hope not but never say never.
How about that sugar intake has stayed pretty much the same while obesity has been going up over the last few decades, while at the same time consumption of fat has been going up instead and carbs overall down?
Or that the WHO's guidelines, the guys who want to convince you to eat less sugar, only cite tooth decay and calorie surpluses as their reasons as to why? If there was anything more concrete for why you should that has been proven, they surely would have listed that too, no?0 -
FitnessTim wrote: »Despite being totally bashed for my poor choice of words "sugar is bad", this has been a great discussion.
Was it my intent to "demonize" sugar? Not really but I'm glad that it caused a great debate.
I think most will agree that sugar is okay in reasonable amounts. We can agree to disagree about what is a reasonable amount. People have made points that it can be much higher than the WHO recommendation and for some people I would agree with that. On the other hand nobody has yet convinced me that the WHO recommendation is not good advice for people in general.
Some people have pointed out that there is a difference between added-sugars and sugars that naturally occur in food. For me personally that is a tricky distinction to make. A glass of orange juice can have no added sugar but would still be a proportionally high percentage of sugar. Even solid foods such as raisins are loaded with sugar.
I used to roll my eyes at anyone who talked about avoiding sugar. I made the same arguments that I've seen here. "It is all about maintaining a calorie deficit.", "I eat as much sugar as I want and I'm in great shape". I know, I've been there. I would have been right there with the other sugar defenders with the subtle implications that anyone who knock sugar is a nut.
What changed my mind was my difficulty with maintaining my weight as I got older. Staying fit in your 20s or even 30s, is much different than staying fit in your 40s. Yes, I know some of the sugar defenders may be in their 40s or older but we are all different. From a physics standpoint a calorie from sugar is the same as a calorie from any other macro-nutrient. However the impact of sugar is very different.
ForbesWe intuitively know that sugar and obesity are linked, but the exact reason why hasn’t been well understood until recently. Research has shown that chronic consumption of added sugar dulls the brain’s mechanism for telling you to stop eating. It does so by reducing activity in the brain’s anorexigenic oxytocin system, which is responsible for throwing up the red “full” flag that prevents you from gorging. When oxytocin cells in the brain are blunted by over-consumption of sugar, the flag doesn’t work correctly and you start asking for seconds and thirds, and seeking out snacks at midnight.
In this thread I've included several references about sugar. I'm not cherry picking data to fit my argument. I just provide links to what I find. If I found a reference that countered my premise I would gladly provide it and consider changing my position. Some have provided plenty of anecdotal evidence and there was a interesting back-and-forth about statistics, but no hard evidence that comes close to countering what can be easily found on the internet.
If the data on sugar were faulty there would be plenty of push back and counter studies from sugar industry and companies that sell sugar sweetened products.
An individual's approach to sugar can vary. One could try the no-carb route and avoid it completely or one could ignore the science completely and just focus on calorie consumption. The best approach is probably somewhere in between.
Would I have a glass of orange juice with breakfast? Absolutely, but as an occasional treat. A hot fudge sundae after dinner? I hope not but never say never.
so what is your argument then? that sugar is bad when you get into your 40's because metabolism?
why would orange juice be OK, but a hot fudge sundae is not ok?0 -
FitnessTim wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »On a serious note, what bothers me most is the "science" that springs up around these ideas. There was "science" behind the fat demonization too. A few zealots formed a foregone conclusion, and then did "research" to support it. The same thing is happening now.
To clarify the "science" behind the low fat diet was bogus to begin with.
Low-fat diet advice was based on undercooked science
It is right to question the validity of current studies done on sugar but should we dismiss that entirely because a past study was misleading.
It's been over 30 years since the low fat diet was introduced. With the advancements in technology, current research techniques have greatly improved.
Still if people want to wait 30 more years before the studies on sugar have had time to fully proven, that's up to them. For me, I'm going to go with the best information I have at this time.
Wait. There are advancements in technique. That article talked about causality as a case for the science being undercooked.
Guess where the current status of science is lacking on the sugar front?
0 -
corriebenedict wrote: »I try to avoid all processed foods that contain added sugar and try to only eat natural sugars and even with that I go over the daily recommended goal. There's not much you can eat that doesn't have added sugar that's also quick or "on the run" type snacks so eating a healthier lowered sugar diet not only takes a lot of dedication but it takes a lot of time. I pre-plan my menu's and pre-portion my foods. It's been working weight wise though, I'm finally beating the slump...
I don't find this true for myself. I don't worry about my sugar intake...I avoid nothing. I average about 35g of total sugar daily...which is less than 10% of my daily calories. Most that 35g is from fruit and the bread to do my PB & B sandwich that I eat every morning.
0 -
biggsterjackster wrote: »I stay away from foods or drinks with added sugar, simply because they are not good for me and my body doesn't have any use for it.
My body enjoys homemade apple pie. Strawberry rhubarb too. And even apart from sweets, I'm not sure why adding a little sugar to my rhubarb sauce makes it unhealthy vs. an apple sauce made just with apple sauce.
No one has ever answered that question!
Edit: I should say that I'm not talking about immoderate amounts, of course. I just don't know why it has to be all or nothing. My sugar consumption generally is in line with the WHO recommendations (I think they are reasonable, but it was even before I heard of the WHO recommendations since getting a nutritious diet within my calories for me simply resulted in having limited room for these kinds of extras).
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »biggsterjackster wrote: »I stay away from foods or drinks with added sugar, simply because they are not good for me and my body doesn't have any use for it.
My body enjoys homemade apple pie. Strawberry rhubarb too. And even apart from sweets, I'm not sure why adding a little sugar to my rhubarb sauce makes it unhealthy vs. an apple sauce made just with apple sauce.
No one has ever answered that question!
Just put stuff in the crock pot for homemade applesauce-apples, brown sugar, cinnamon and water-sooo good
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K 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
- 389 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
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 919 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions