Help with sugar intake.
Options
Replies
-
stevencloser wrote: »Carbohydrates do not increase risk of diabetes either.
https://www.diabetes.org.uk/Guide-to-diabetes/What-is-diabetes/Know-your-risk-of-Type-2-diabetes/Diabetes-risk-factors/
http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/myths/
Only people drinking lots of sugar sweetened beverages in particular have been loosely linked to diabetes. Which means it's only correlation between the two. It's not one of the risk factors listed. It is not asked in their online "Calculate your risk" forms.
Sorry, you are right. Just fixed my post as it was high glycemic index carbs that were correlated to increased risk. Added sugars look like they would fall into high glycemic category.
0 -
stevencloser wrote: »Carbohydrates do not increase risk of diabetes either.
https://www.diabetes.org.uk/Guide-to-diabetes/What-is-diabetes/Know-your-risk-of-Type-2-diabetes/Diabetes-risk-factors/
http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/myths/
Only people drinking lots of sugar sweetened beverages in particular have been loosely linked to diabetes. Which means it's only correlation between the two. It's not one of the risk factors listed. It is not asked in their online "Calculate your risk" forms.
Sorry, you are right. Just fixed my post as it was high glycemic index carbs that were correlated to increased risk.
Still wrong.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »Carbohydrates do not increase risk of diabetes either.
https://www.diabetes.org.uk/Guide-to-diabetes/What-is-diabetes/Know-your-risk-of-Type-2-diabetes/Diabetes-risk-factors/
http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/myths/
Only people drinking lots of sugar sweetened beverages in particular have been loosely linked to diabetes. Which means it's only correlation between the two. It's not one of the risk factors listed. It is not asked in their online "Calculate your risk" forms.
Sorry, you are right. Just fixed my post as it was high glycemic index carbs that were correlated to increased risk.
Still wrong.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/233640210 -
It really deoends on what kind of sugar your having, if its in fruit then dont worry too much about it(don't go crazy or anything) but because its digested with divers the body handles it in a much better way than say juice or cola which really are the root cause if getting fat.
The reason sugar is bad for weight loss, if you have no medical conditions, is because sugar is processed in the liver. As soon as juice gets in your stomach and since there's no fibers to get tour digestiin working the sugar is taken directly to the liver for processing, the liver in order to handle all this extra sugar gets help from the pancreas which pumps insulin to turn sugar into fat to be stored in the closest place, which is to say your stimach, with is why people get beer bellies and big bellies when they eat too.much candy and drink too much pop.0 -
It really deoends on what kind of sugar your having, if its in fruit then dont worry too much about it(don't go crazy or anything) but because its digested with divers the body handles it in a much better way than say juice or cola which really are the root cause if getting fat.
The reason sugar is bad for weight loss, if you have no medical conditions, is because sugar is processed in the liver. As soon as juice gets in your stomach and since there's no fibers to get tour digestiin working the sugar is taken directly to the liver for processing, the liver in order to handle all this extra sugar gets help from the pancreas which pumps insulin to turn sugar into fat to be stored in the closest place, which is to say your stimach, with is why people get beer bellies and big bellies when they eat too.much candy and drink too much pop.
Just no. Sugar is not the root cause of getting "fat".0 -
stevencloser wrote: »Carbohydrates do not increase risk of diabetes either.
https://www.diabetes.org.uk/Guide-to-diabetes/What-is-diabetes/Know-your-risk-of-Type-2-diabetes/Diabetes-risk-factors/
http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/myths/
Only people drinking lots of sugar sweetened beverages in particular have been loosely linked to diabetes. Which means it's only correlation between the two. It's not one of the risk factors listed. It is not asked in their online "Calculate your risk" forms.
Sorry, you are right. Just fixed my post as it was high glycemic index carbs that were correlated to increased risk.
Still wrong.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23364021
Correlation not causation. There is a difference.It really deoends on what kind of sugar your having, if its in fruit then dont worry too much about it(don't go crazy or anything) but because its digested with divers the body handles it in a much better way than say juice or cola which really are the root cause if getting fat.
The reason sugar is bad for weight loss, if you have no medical conditions, is because sugar is processed in the liver. As soon as juice gets in your stomach and since there's no fibers to get tour digestiin working the sugar is taken directly to the liver for processing, the liver in order to handle all this extra sugar gets help from the pancreas which pumps insulin to turn sugar into fat to be stored in the closest place, which is to say your stimach, with is why people get beer bellies and big bellies when they eat too.much candy and drink too much pop.
So much wrong in this that it is impossible to know where to start.0 -
sallymason88 wrote: »i dont have a medical condition, but anything i have read recently points to sugar and not fat being a problem with weight issues. I am in the UK and the latest advice is to half the previous advice of equivalent 14 teaspoons to 7.
Wasn't it in today's BBC news? I follow it closely and what annoys me about those random guidelines is that they are taken out of context. They talk about a can of coke containing whatever amount of sugar giving impression that if you stop drinking coke you'll be fine. I wish there was more done in terms of general education in regards to
basic human biology, macronutrients, nutrition, cooking and fitness. It would lay solid grounds for people to make more informed food choices and eventually ended the the omni present ''obesity problem''.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »What is interesting in this discussion is the advice from the USA people is sugar does not cause diabetes and the advice from the UK people is saying it does. Maybe its the difference on Doctors advice in the 2 countries. Who knows which set of Doctors are right. The UK has targeted sugar in a big way in the last few years as the target to be combat against the rising obese/diabetic population.
Let's look at the statistics.
People in the UK consume about 8 kg more sugar per year than in the US.
http://www.helgilibrary.com/indicators/index/sugar-consumption-per-capita/
So even though the UK consumes an appreciable amount of sugar MORE than the US, they have less obesity and diabetes.
but the UK has little HFCS, add that in and it's a completely different picture...
0 -
stevencloser wrote: »What is interesting in this discussion is the advice from the USA people is sugar does not cause diabetes and the advice from the UK people is saying it does. Maybe its the difference on Doctors advice in the 2 countries. Who knows which set of Doctors are right. The UK has targeted sugar in a big way in the last few years as the target to be combat against the rising obese/diabetic population.
Let's look at the statistics.
People in the UK consume about 8 kg more sugar per year than in the US.
http://www.helgilibrary.com/indicators/index/sugar-consumption-per-capita/
So even though the UK consumes an appreciable amount of sugar MORE than the US, they have less obesity and diabetes.
but the UK has little HFCS, add that in and it's a completely different picture...
HFCS = fructose = sugar ... digested the same as any other fructose.0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »
HFCS = fructose = sugar ... digested the same as any other fructose.
3/10 for accuracy :-) but yes HFCS is pretty similar to sucrose metabolically.
0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »
HFCS = fructose = sugar ... digested the same as any other fructose.
3/10 for accuracy :-) but yes HFCS is pretty similar to sucrose metabolically.
I said fructose. As the PSA used to say, "reading is fundamental." The metabolic difference in the processing of fructose and sucrose does not account for any significant difference in calories or TEF in the human body. It does not account for any diseases such as diabetes ... which is not caused by sugar of any form.
ETA: After a quick look at your diary, you are in no position to give nutritional advice to any human striving for a healthy loss. Numerous net intakes under 600 for a male is dangerously low. Days of 220 total logged calories consumed .
0 -
sallymason88 wrote: »I have lowered my sugar goal to 28 grammes of sugar to reflect the recent advice to keep sugar to 7 teaspoons a day. What puzzles me is the sugar in fruit/veg. can i subtract that figure from the 28, or should i count it. i think that the body will just treat it as it would refined sugar, but i am not sure. i eat a couple of apples a day so it would use up nearly the days quota. any advice is welcome.
I did not read any other replies, so it might have already been said.....
Why are you limiting sugar? Do you have a medical condition, or are you under the impression that it will help you lose weight?
If it's the former, then sugar would include you fruit because sugar is sugar no matter what source it comes from
If it's the latter, cutting back on sugar is not the solution to weight loss. The only requirement to weight loss is taking in less calories than you burn. That's it.
0 -
sallymason88 wrote: »I understand the calorie in, calorie out equation, I was trying to be healthy within that.
Healthy is in the perception.
If I did not allow myself some sweet stuff each day, that would be unhealthy for me.0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Carbohydrates do not increase risk of diabetes either.
https://www.diabetes.org.uk/Guide-to-diabetes/What-is-diabetes/Know-your-risk-of-Type-2-diabetes/Diabetes-risk-factors/
http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/myths/
Only people drinking lots of sugar sweetened beverages in particular have been loosely linked to diabetes. Which means it's only correlation between the two. It's not one of the risk factors listed. It is not asked in their online "Calculate your risk" forms.
Sorry, you are right. Just fixed my post as it was high glycemic index carbs that were correlated to increased risk.
Still wrong.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23364021
Correlation not causation. There is a difference.
Yes, and correlation is the best you will get in study of human diet increasing risk of diseases. Completing a study that proved dietary causation in human disease would be highly unethical. (edit - added dietary)
0 -
I agree with RonRoff. Sugar in all its natural forms is not good for you. Quantities of fruit should be limited. 5 fruit and veg a day should be 5 vegetables a day with a few fruits once in a while. Fruit smoothies contain more sugar than a glass of coke. If you dont drink Coke because of the 7 teaspoons of sugar then you should also not drink fruit sugars. Fruit does have the added benefits of fiber but so do vegetables. Better to wean yourself off the sweet taste and have veg.
Nope. Everything in moderation. There is nothing wrong with sugar at all, and the only time you should have to watch it is (1) you have a medical condition that is affected by sugar or (2) you simply don't care to have over a certain amount of sugar in your diet due to personal reasons.
Weight loss truly is calories in/calories out.0 -
Weak correlation, as in that metadata analysis you linked, is not enough to blame sugar for diabetes. Even the American Diabetes Association lists "Eating too much sugar causes diabetes" as a "Myth".brianpperkins wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Carbohydrates do not increase risk of diabetes either.
https://www.diabetes.org.uk/Guide-to-diabetes/What-is-diabetes/Know-your-risk-of-Type-2-diabetes/Diabetes-risk-factors/
http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/myths/
Only people drinking lots of sugar sweetened beverages in particular have been loosely linked to diabetes. Which means it's only correlation between the two. It's not one of the risk factors listed. It is not asked in their online "Calculate your risk" forms.
Sorry, you are right. Just fixed my post as it was high glycemic index carbs that were correlated to increased risk.
Still wrong.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23364021
Correlation not causation. There is a difference.
Yes, and correlation is the best you will get in study of human diet increasing risk of diseases. Completing a study that proved causation in human disease would be highly unethical.
0 -
It really deoends on what kind of sugar your having, if its in fruit then dont worry too much about it(don't go crazy or anything) but because its digested with divers the body handles it in a much better way than say juice or cola which really are the root cause if getting fat.
The reason sugar is bad for weight loss, if you have no medical conditions, is because sugar is processed in the liver. As soon as juice gets in your stomach and since there's no fibers to get tour digestiin working the sugar is taken directly to the liver for processing, the liver in order to handle all this extra sugar gets help from the pancreas which pumps insulin to turn sugar into fat to be stored in the closest place, which is to say your stimach, with is why people get beer bellies and big bellies when they eat too.much candy and drink too much pop.
Oh my. No. To our body, sugar is sugar.0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »I said fructose.
You actually said "HFCS = fructose = sugar"
which is, as we say here, bollocks. Sure, the metabolic outcome is similar after digestion but HFCS is clearly not just fructose.
HFCS is a solution where the solids are 55% fructose, 40-odd % glucose and a few bits of other stuff.
Don't assume I log everything every day, unless there are entries for at least two meals this almost certainly isn't the case. You'll just end up looking silly if you *kitten*-u-me stuff.0 -
Earlnabby +1
Sugar does not "cause" diabetes.
I'm diabetic, so I do have to limit my sugar intake. That includes added sugar and naturally occurring sugar.
If you don't have a medical condition that requires you to limit your sugar intake, then it is not necessary to do so.
I'm not limiting sugar to lose weight specifically, but because I'm diabetic, limiting sugar will lower my glucose readings. Those lower readings help my body to process foods correctly, which will, in turn, help me to lose weight. Unless you have a medical condition that limits your ability to process sugar (both refined or naturally occurring), you don't really need to worry about this.
Personally, because I'm diabetic and sugar intake is important to me, I try to get most of my sugar from sources that also offer me nutritional value (specifically, I look for sources that are low-moderate in carbohydrate that are moderate-high in fiber). Fruit is an excellent way to do this. Yes, I have to measure it out and be careful when I eat it and what I pair it with, but I enjoy fruits so I work them into my diet. I have tried to find the most bang for my buck (for me, that is berries...YUM).
Best of luck to you.0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Carbohydrates do not increase risk of diabetes either.
https://www.diabetes.org.uk/Guide-to-diabetes/What-is-diabetes/Know-your-risk-of-Type-2-diabetes/Diabetes-risk-factors/
http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/myths/
Only people drinking lots of sugar sweetened beverages in particular have been loosely linked to diabetes. Which means it's only correlation between the two. It's not one of the risk factors listed. It is not asked in their online "Calculate your risk" forms.
Sorry, you are right. Just fixed my post as it was high glycemic index carbs that were correlated to increased risk.
Still wrong.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23364021
Correlation not causation. There is a difference.
Yes, and correlation is the best you will get in study of human diet increasing risk of diseases. Completing a study that proved dietary causation in human disease would be highly unethical. (edit - added dietary)
just found a new one "The consumption of soft drinks,
sweetened-milk beverages and energy from total sweet beverages
was associated with higher type 2 diabetes risk independently
of adiposity."
Diabetologia
DOI 10.1007/s00125-015-3572-1
Prospective associations and population impact of sweet beverage
intake and type 2 diabetes, and effects of substitutions
with alternative beverages
Laura O’Connor & Fumiaki Imamura & Marleen A. H. Lentjes & Kay-Tee Khaw &
Nicholas J. Wareham & Nita G. Forouhi
So maybe don't drink your sugar ?0
Categories
- 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
- 394 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
- 939 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions