Help with sugar intake.
Options
Replies
-
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.
I didn't assume you logged everything. I commented on what you log and the indicators there. At least you concede that your logging is as flawed as your postings.
HFCS is processed nearly identically by the body as any other sugar ... not a significant difference worth noting. That's based on research from both sides of the Atlantic.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 ?
Single studies ... again, you're reaching.0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »
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.
I did not say 'causes'.
The ADA tells people who can't process carbs in a healthy manner to eat lots of carbs. I'm not sure why they would promote carb consumption, but the direct information from those doing the research now is a better source.
OP, sorry for the sub discussion.
0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »HFCS is processed nearly identically by the body as any other sugar ... not a significant difference worth noting. That's based on research from both sides of the Atlantic.
Indeed, which is why it is misleading to post a sugar consumption excluding HFCS which was my point.
Whatever insults you care to throw around HFCS is not fructose.
0 -
no problem0
-
brianpperkins wrote: »Single studies ... again, you're reaching.
I'm not "reaching", whatever that is, I'm just sharing a piece of information I just found while looking at the background to the association between sugar intake and diabetes.
0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »Single studies ... again, you're reaching.
I'm not "reaching", whatever that is, I'm just sharing a piece of information I just found while looking at the background to the association between sugar intake and diabetes.
Association =\= causation.
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.
If you are counting sugars then you should include fruit in that 28g total. Sugar is technically sugar no matter where you get it from yet I do believe that added sugars will cause more problems than fruit sugars even if you are still healthy. If you are becoming diabetic or are already one, then those fruit sugars are something that will mess with your insulin and your blood glucose, and ultimately disease control.
All that being said, if you are watching your sugars try low GI sugars like berries. Avocado is wonderful. Not all fruits are created equal when it comes to sugar content or nutritional quality.
If you are trying to limit your overall carb intake (and sugars) you will need to limit your fruit to a certain degree.
Good luck.0 -
It is not the doctors, it is the scientists who study diabetes who are saying that sugar is not the cause, and never has been. Health officials on both sides of the Atlantic are saying that we need to cut sugar consumption in order to reduce obesity and the health risks that accompany it. Obesity is the #2 most common risk factor in diabetes (after genetics) but it is not the sugar consumed, it is the excess fat that puts you at risk.
Unfortunately, because diabetes is a disease of the endocrine system that causes a person to not process carbohydrates and the glucose they put into the bloodstream properly, most people put 2 and 2 together but only came up with 3. Not handling sugar properly is the symptom, not the cause. Scientists don't know what actually trips the switch. Obesity is on the rise, as is diabetes. BUT diabetes is on the rise at a slower rate than obesity is so gaining fat, and the diet that causes you to gain fat, isn't the ultimate trigger.
ETA: I lived through the 80's "eating fat will make you fat" deal and this whole "sugar is the cause of all our ills" is the same thing. In about 20 years it will probably be some amino acid in protein that will make us fat. We are fat because our diets are not balanced, we are eating larger portions, and we are not moving as much as we used to 100 years ago.
So diabetes is not related to sugar intake? You truly believe that?0 -
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.
It is not the doctors, it is the scientists who study diabetes who are saying that sugar is not the cause, and never has been. Health officials on both sides of the Atlantic are saying that we need to cut sugar consumption in order to reduce obesity and the health risks that accompany it. Obesity is the #2 most common risk factor in diabetes (after genetics) but it is not the sugar consumed, it is the excess fat that puts you at risk.
Unfortunately, because diabetes is a disease of the endocrine system that causes a person to not process carbohydrates and the glucose they put into the bloodstream properly, most people put 2 and 2 together but only came up with 3. Not handling sugar properly is the symptom, not the cause. Scientists don't know what actually trips the switch. Obesity is on the rise, as is diabetes. BUT diabetes is on the rise at a slower rate than obesity is so gaining fat, and the diet that causes you to gain fat, isn't the ultimate trigger.
ETA: I lived through the 80's "eating fat will make you fat" deal and this whole "sugar is the cause of all our ills" is the same thing. In about 20 years it will probably be some amino acid in protein that will make us fat. We are fat because our diets are not balanced, we are eating larger portions, and we are not moving as much as we used to 100 years ago.
Obesity is on the rise, along with diabetes, however according to the CDC, 1 out of 3 people in America has prediabetes and 9 out of 10 of them do not know they have it. So the fact that diabetes diagnosis are slower to rise, doesn't actually mean the occurrence of diabetes is.
It's not exactly difficult to determine obesity, whereas testing needs to be done to determine diabetes.
And carbohydrate consumption is definitely connected to the occurrence of diabetes, obviously along with other factors. Even a brand new diagnosed T1D, such as my daughter was 2 years ago, can prolong the "honeymoon period" during the process of the pancreas completely failing by reducing carbs, simply because it gives the system a break from needing so much insulin and helps to make it last longer as its failing.
If you overwork any bodily organ to the degree the pancreas is overworked in a high carb, high calorie diet that continues on for years on end, it will likely fail on you to some level also. How does that not make sense?0 -
nvsmomketo wrote: »It is not the doctors, it is the scientists who study diabetes who are saying that sugar is not the cause, and never has been. Health officials on both sides of the Atlantic are saying that we need to cut sugar consumption in order to reduce obesity and the health risks that accompany it. Obesity is the #2 most common risk factor in diabetes (after genetics) but it is not the sugar consumed, it is the excess fat that puts you at risk.
Unfortunately, because diabetes is a disease of the endocrine system that causes a person to not process carbohydrates and the glucose they put into the bloodstream properly, most people put 2 and 2 together but only came up with 3. Not handling sugar properly is the symptom, not the cause. Scientists don't know what actually trips the switch. Obesity is on the rise, as is diabetes. BUT diabetes is on the rise at a slower rate than obesity is so gaining fat, and the diet that causes you to gain fat, isn't the ultimate trigger.
ETA: I lived through the 80's "eating fat will make you fat" deal and this whole "sugar is the cause of all our ills" is the same thing. In about 20 years it will probably be some amino acid in protein that will make us fat. We are fat because our diets are not balanced, we are eating larger portions, and we are not moving as much as we used to 100 years ago.
So diabetes is not related to sugar intake? You truly believe that?
Nope. Sugar does not cause diabetes.0 -
When they talk about limiting sugars, they're talking about added sugars, not sugar from fruit. Some say 6 tsp and some say 7 tsp. I bet if you re-read whatever you read, it will say that.
They are NOT telling you that you can't eat fruit.
Eat your fruit.
0 -
No one is telling you not to eat any fruit.
A LOT OF SMART PEOPLE ARE TELLING YOU NOT TO DRINK JUICE AND NOT TO EAT INSANE AMOUNTS OF FRUIT.
This isn't that complicated people.0 -
nvsmomketo wrote: »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.
If you are counting sugars then you should include fruit in that 28g total.
Except that she specifically said that her concern about the 28 g number was due to recommendations from authorities such as the NHS, and that number refers only to non-intrinsic (or added) sugars.
We can debate how significant it is to someone monitoring her overall diet carefully (I personally don't see a big deal if someone exchanges some highly processed starches for some added sugar, keeping calories even, for example), but there's absolutely no credible advice that suggests that the general population should keep all sugars under 28 grams, and OP has not suggested that she has some other reason to do so, like a desire to go low carb.
It would be nice if people wouldn't preach low carb as the answer for everyone. It's not.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. Added sugars look like they would fall into high glycemic category.
Setting aside the other objections to this claim, you can't claim that added sugars are in any particular glycemic category, as it depends on what they are added to, rather obviously, and what else is eaten with that food.0 -
Swap out sugar for fibre and track something useful instead0
-
nvsmomketo wrote: »It is not the doctors, it is the scientists who study diabetes who are saying that sugar is not the cause, and never has been. Health officials on both sides of the Atlantic are saying that we need to cut sugar consumption in order to reduce obesity and the health risks that accompany it. Obesity is the #2 most common risk factor in diabetes (after genetics) but it is not the sugar consumed, it is the excess fat that puts you at risk.
Unfortunately, because diabetes is a disease of the endocrine system that causes a person to not process carbohydrates and the glucose they put into the bloodstream properly, most people put 2 and 2 together but only came up with 3. Not handling sugar properly is the symptom, not the cause. Scientists don't know what actually trips the switch. Obesity is on the rise, as is diabetes. BUT diabetes is on the rise at a slower rate than obesity is so gaining fat, and the diet that causes you to gain fat, isn't the ultimate trigger.
ETA: I lived through the 80's "eating fat will make you fat" deal and this whole "sugar is the cause of all our ills" is the same thing. In about 20 years it will probably be some amino acid in protein that will make us fat. We are fat because our diets are not balanced, we are eating larger portions, and we are not moving as much as we used to 100 years ago.
So diabetes is not related to sugar intake? You truly believe that?
Nope. Sugar does not cause diabetes.
I didn't say "cause". You don't think it is related to sugar intake? So theoretically, a fat Inuit should have the same rates of diabetes as a fat N. American who eats most of their calories from processed foods with a high carb content? I know that isn't true.
I am fairly certain that sugar plays a role in developing diabetes, not the only cause, but a role. I think science is moving in that direction too.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »nvsmomketo wrote: »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.
If you are counting sugars then you should include fruit in that 28g total.
Except that she specifically said that her concern about the 28 g number was due to recommendations from authorities such as the NHS, and that number refers only to non-intrinsic (or added) sugars.
We can debate how significant it is to someone monitoring her overall diet carefully (I personally don't see a big deal if someone exchanges some highly processed starches for some added sugar, keeping calories even, for example), but there's absolutely no credible advice that suggests that the general population should keep all sugars under 28 grams, and OP has not suggested that she has some other reason to do so, like a desire to go low carb.
It would be nice if people wouldn't preach low carb as the answer for everyone. It's not.
I don't think I "preached low carbs as the answer to everyone". As many around here say, sugar is sugar. If you count sugars it makes sense to count them all and not skip sugars from fruit, or sugars from a favourite candy, or sugars eaten on a Tuesday when the moon is full. Sugar is sugar.
If she wants to keep sugar below 28g she will need to restrict fruit at some point. If she wants to eat lots of fruit, she shouldn't worry about counting sugars since there is a lot of sugar in fruit.
0 -
Sugar is bad - sugar has no nutritional value - sugar will make you fat.
Don't add sugar to anything - avoid fruit juice - if you want fruit juice eat the whole fruit - avoid processed foods (food industry lie to us to sell their rubbish food) eat whole ingredients - make your meals from basic ingredients - I've upped my protein - upped my fat and slightly reduced carbs - I've binned sugar and with minimal exercise maintained my weight and found the 6 pack that was behind the layer of fat the sugar was keeping in place0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »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.
I didn't assume you logged everything. I commented on what you log and the indicators there. At least you concede that your logging is as flawed as your postings.
HFCS is processed nearly identically by the body as any other sugar ... not a significant difference worth noting. That's based on research from both sides of the Atlantic.
No, this is not correct, as HFCS comes in varying levels of fructose and contains other molecules, such as h20. It's very molecular makeup causes it to be processed differently from other sugars. For example: In sucrose, a chemical bond joins the glucose and fructose. Once one eats, stomach acid and gut enzymes rapidly break down this chemical bond.
In HFCS, no chemical bond joins the glucose and fructose.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
- 393 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
- 936 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions