Daily goals: Sugar
Replies
-
@cafeaulait7 yes it goes without saying but even diabetics can rely on sugar
AlsoPollywog_la wrote: »
This is true. Needs to be repeated.
insitute of medicine
https://iom.nationalacademies.org/Reports/2002/Dietary-Reference-Intakes-for-Energy-Carbohydrate-Fiber-Fat-Fatty-Acids-Cholesterol-Protein-and-Amino-Acids.aspx
"Adults should get 45 percent to 65 percent of their calories from carbohydrates, 20 percent to 35 percent from fat, and 10 to 35 percent from protein. Acceptable ranges for children are similar to those for adults, except that infants and younger children need a slightly higher proportion of fat (25 -40 percent).
- See more at: https://iom.nationalacademies.org/Reports/2002/Dietary-Reference-Intakes-for-Energy-Carbohydrate-Fiber-Fat-Fatty-Acids-Cholesterol-Protein-and-Amino-Acids.aspx#sthash.oWKUjJOf.dpuf"0 -
It makes me laugh everytime i see that.. and its also amazing that the US keeps dropping their levels for "prediabetes". I can only imagine why... i mean its not like funding or anything else would be tied to those numbers.
Funding?!? Numbers?!? Well you may be on to something. IDK capitalist society, opportunity is ripe, funding.....hmmm....
0 -
This is a easy read that I think those who are linking sugar to IR and talking if massively inflated statistics may wish to read
http://www.niddk.nih.gov/health-information/health-topics/Diabetes/insulin-resistance-prediabetes/Pages/index.aspx
How are insulin resistance and prediabetes diagnosed?
Health care providers use blood tests to determine whether a person has prediabetes, but they do not usually test specifically for insulin resistance. Insulin resistance can be assessed by measuring the level of insulin in the blood.
However, the test that most accurately measures insulin resistance, called the euglycemic clamp, is too costly and complicated to be used in most health care providers’ offices. The clamp is a research tool used by scientists to learn more about glucose metabolism. Research has shown that if blood tests indicate prediabetes, insulin resistance most likely is present.
What causes insulin resistance?
Although the exact causes of insulin resistance are not completely understood, scientists think the major contributors to insulin resistance are excess weight and physical inactivity.
...
Other Causes
Other causes of insulin resistance may include ethnicity; certain diseases; hormones; steroid use; some medications; older age; sleep problems, especially sleep apnea; and cigarette smoking.
Can insulin resistance and prediabetes be reversed?
Yes. Physical activity and weight loss help the body respond better to insulin. The Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) was a federally funded study of 3,234 people at high risk for diabetes.
The DPP and other large studies proved that people with prediabetes can often prevent or delay diabetes if they lose a modest amount of weight by cutting fat and calorie intake and increasing physical activity—for example, walking 30 minutes a day, 5 days a week.
TL:DR- lose weight, move more...sugar is irrelevant
Wait. SO excess weight and inactivity.......2 things. If you improve those 2 things you'd improve your condition. Seems so straightforward and yet, for some, they'll keep up with excuses to avoid them. Steroid use too?!? Wow. I am not surprised you found this information. I wish for people with these conditions they'd actually follow this advice instead of avoiding it.0 -
_Terrapin_ wrote: »
Wait. SO excess weight and inactivity.......2 things. If you improve those 2 things you'd improve your condition. Seems so straightforward and yet, for some, they'll keep up with excuses to avoid them. Steroid use too?!? Wow. I am not surprised you found this information. I wish for people with these conditions they'd actually follow this advice instead of avoiding it.
I may miss the answer to this because I have to get off the computer and these threads so often go poof, but are you saying that every case of diabetes or even IR is reversible with lifestyle changes? Improvement means many different things on an individual basis, so please don't think everyone with diabetes is basically lazy, fat and stupid. How unfair.
If you know of any study that showed reversed diabetes for every non-control subject, I'm all ears! That's with any method, including medication, much less with taking up jogging and dropping pounds.0 -
cafeaulait7 wrote: »
I may miss the answer to this because I have to get off the computer and these threads so often go poof, but are you saying that every case of diabetes or even IR is reversible with lifestyle changes? Improvement means many different things on an individual basis, so please don't think everyone with diabetes is basically lazy, fat and stupid. How unfair.
If you know of any study that showed reversed diabetes for every non-control subject, I'm all ears! That's with any method, including medication, much less with taking up jogging and dropping pounds.
I think you'd like to infer something I never said which isn't unusual for the internet and public forums. I think, so clarity for you in this case, I said if people would exercise it would improve their outcome. Avoiding it is their choice. Knowing a part of an answer to someone's situation and they avoid it is sort of like using a dull saw to cut down a tree. You may cut the tree or you may not. If you need a study to prove something the medical community widely accepts then I'd suggest looking for those studies.
Friends I have on here and IRL with diabetes understand their condition and have taken action to improve their lives.0 -
Pollywog_la wrote: »
Fructose is handled by your liver. So yes, not all sugars have the same effect on your body. Excess fructose may look good good on the glycemic index, but that can be deceptive.
http://www.sugar-and-sweetener-guide.com/glycemic-index-for-sweeteners.html
Sucrose and high fructose corn syrup contain glucose and fructose. Glucose is needed by some cells and can be used for energy by all cells. So much so, your body can make glucose if it is needed. Fructose is not needed, your body cannot make it and your liver is the only way to metabolize the large amounts common in the modern diet. If it is overburdened, that fructose is converted to fat. It is also associated with insulin resistance.
In the past, people usually only had fructose seasonally, and then from healthy fruit sources, not the added fructose we have now in it seems like most processed foods.
Fructose is consumed much more now than in the last century and earlier...of course that is going to have an effect
http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/
And if you think people never preserved fruits to be able to eat them out of season or trade them from countries where they grow over longer periods of time you're sorely mistaken.0 -
The ironic thing is, its the same fear mongering that occured in the 80s and 90s with fat... pretty much verbatim.
Yup. And back when I grew up kids would eat an after school snack or a dessert (only if we ate our veggies, though, and not before dinner so as to spoil our appetites) and cake at birthday parties and yet we weren't fat -- almost no one was. That we've lost all understanding of moderation today and that some parents seem not to know what a healthy balanced meal is or to be able to feed such to their kids and therefore allow unlimited snacking and sugary drinks does not mean that sugar is the issue or that we all should cut out sugar (and nearly all carbs, rolling eyes).
If someone likes that, whatever, but the idea that it's important for health for the population as a whole is a reach, and an unsupported one. Obviously it's possible to consume excessive amounts of added sugar and a poor and calorie inappropriate diet may well be linked to that, but to bring this thread back to OP's question -- I don't know why OP's question about apples and sweetened greek yogurt provokes such preaching and examples. It's kind of offensive, as OP said nothing about whether it was okay to eat enormous amounts of calories from soda and cake or the like.
Again, if we look at blue zone diets, they don't involve loads of added sugar, obviously, but they might involve plenty of fruit and they don't at all suggest that lowering carbs is necessary for health. In fact, they tend to suggest that the healthiest diets would involve a good amount of carbs (but that the choice of carbs, like the choice of fats and protein sources, is significant).0 -
What i typically find with people that say they are hungry on carbs, is they tend to eat the wrong ones, more often or not because they didnt have much fiber. And since they transitioned to low carb, they are now limited on what they can choose from, which they then turn to more veggies.
To keep me full with 50% carbs, its fruits, veggies, greek yogurt, protein bagels, oatmeal and high fiber breads (arnold brand - US)
Yes, this is what I've noticed as well. People generalize too much. (They often also complain about the supposed non filling nature of "carb" treats that are really just as much fat.)0 -
cafeaulait7 wrote: »
For your TLDR, you don't mean that sugar is irrelevant once you have a condition, do you? Diabetes is a serious enough condition that I think we should be super careful about not sounding like we're telling diabetics or other IR folks to eat all the cake
And believe me, I'd jump on being able to eat all the cake with little provocation! Darnit...except that high BG kills nerves and kills people and all sorts of unfortunate things like that! It's awful and scary, and that's actually for real. Sugar is the debil for some folks (along with other kinds of carbs).
The apple vs a cookie for my levels appears to be related to how fast the glucose enters the system via the transport of the sugars, btw, y'all. My insulin can't wipe it out as quickly as when fiber, etc, slows the rate of absorption of the sugar. That's not just me, lol, but it is one I see all the time on my own BG monitor. I still try to find cookies I can eat! The apples so far have won out on the monitor
My cobbler made with very little added sugar and mostly fruit and butter isn't as bad as a cookie, though! That's a win. The fats help slow the absorption, so buttery dessert it is (occasionally)
This isn't the case for everyone, though. I have a friend who is struggling with T2D, and he has worse responses when he eats sugary/carby things that also have sat fat. I thought that was weird until I reached it a little, and apparently it's common and a known response.
Bigger point -- and not aimed at you, as the thread has drifted -- is that I don't see why all the T2D stuff has to come in with response to every question. Not everyone needs to eat like a diabetic.0 -
When the standard for evaluating potential bad outcomes is that they "can" happen, apparently we all need to behave as if they have happened. Or, I suppose, at least pray that they don't happen.lemurcat12 wrote: »
This isn't the case for everyone, though. I have a friend who is struggling with T2D, and he has worse responses when he eats sugary/carby things that also have sat fat. I thought that was weird until I reached it a little, and apparently it's common and a known response.
Bigger point -- and not aimed at you, as the thread has drifted -- is that I don't see why all the T2D stuff has to come in with response to every question. Not everyone needs to eat like a diabetic.
I wonder how people with such an outlook on potential risks and dangers manage to strap themselves into a car and drive to the grocery store, though.
0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »When the standard for evaluating potential bad outcomes is that they "can" happen, apparently we all need to behave as if they have happened. Or, I suppose, at least pray that they don't happen.
I wonder how people with such an outlook on potential risks and dangers manage to strap themselves into a car and drive to the grocery store, though.
A valid point Tex
0 -
With the bold statement, you are basically saying sugar causes medical conditions. Which ones?
This thread is about limits on sugar in MFP which OP was told to ignore with a statement used frequently here - "unless you have a medical condition there is no reason to worry about sugar."
Sugar, needs at least as much concern and limiting as other macros, and given the correlation with our huge increase in sugar consumption and a correlated increase in metabolic issues is does warrent extra concern for levels in diet.0 -
The onus is on you to back up your claims because you made the statement in the first place.
I'm not going to reduce several years of reading to links. Google works great if anyone wants to explore the topic. Hint, stay away from individuals blogs except to find links to actuals studies.0 -
***waves hands mysteriously*** "Oooh, look, squirrel!!"
This thread is about limits on sugar in MFP which OP was told to ignore with a statement used frequently here - "unless you have a medical condition there is no reason to worry about sugar."
Sugar, needs at least as much concern and limiting as other macros, and given the correlation with our huge increase in sugar consumption and a correlated increase in metabolic issues is does warrent extra concern for levels in diet.
0 -
The increase in sugar consumption was at the same rate as the increase in total calories. But of course there's no way our decreased activity and increased consumption could be the cause of an increase in metabolic issues. Nah. Just sugar. It's getting tiring.0
-
Sugar does not cause any medical condition, and it certainly does not cause diabetes, and I doubt it causes insulin resistance, but I think you already know that. I know this because several of my aunts on one side of my family have diabetes (most Type I, one insulin dependent from childhood), and most of them were not big sweet eaters.
Besides this, sugar has zilch to do with weight loss because it's calories in/calories out.
Excess sugar does play a role in T2, not t1 (you knew t1 is not diet related, right?). Excess sugar displaces calories that contain nutrition your body needs.0 -
Technically, bacteria is what causes decay... sugars/starches are a source of fuel for that bacteria. Other things such as frequent meals and poor hygiene can contribute too.
But honestly, do you really consider tooth decal a medical condition?
Dr, money, pain? Medical.
Pretty much entirely avoidable through diet if you want to restrict carbs to low level.0 -
I also find it convenient that "undiagnosed" people are included in that count. If they're undiagnosed, that means nobody knows exactly how many there are so you can make any kind of outlandish claims as you want. But then again, unsubstantiated claims dovetail nicely with junk science.
This is a statistics based projection based on the number of undiagnosedpeople uncovered by medical testing of the sample population who participated in the study.0 -
Also apparently? Added sugar ingestion went down by almost a quarter between 2000 and 2008
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/94/3/726.full0 -
Dr, money, pain? Medical.
Pretty much entirely avoidable through diet if you want to restrict carbs to low level.
Citation needed.0 -
0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
Fits well with my link. Though my link says added sugar went down from 100something to almost 75.0 -
Late to the party. Let me explain. No, there is too much, let me sum up:
- I am T2Dm
- I did not get it by eating too much sugar. I got it by eating too much food and by taking antidepressants for a long period of time (one of the lesser risk factors. Other medications like statins are also a known risk factor)
- People who develop T2Dm typically have a combination of 2 or more risk factors. Genetics being the most common, excess weight being the second most common.
- I was diagnosed with an A1C of 7.3.
- I don't know (or care) if I am IR or my body does not produce enough insulin. The results are the same, as is the management
- I do NOT watch my sugar intake
- I DO watch my total carb intake, keeping it to less than 180 g daily
- I am in total remission
- I do not take medication, my remission is due to diet and exercise only
- My last A1C (done a week ago) was 5.0
- I am not unusual OR special. Most who are in remission have done it exactly the way I have (according to my Certified Diabetes Educator doctor)
0 -
I'm not going to reduce several years of reading to links. Google works great if anyone wants to explore the topic. Hint, stay away from individuals blogs except to find links to actuals studies.
Ahh yess the I have the information but I am not going to provide evidence argument is back....0 -
Actually, you blamed parents shoveling sugar down their kids throats,and I did not see one word about calories in your quote.
People also love fats, but I don't you see you making spacious claims about fats being the cause of the obesity epidemic, but for some reason you are fixated on sugar; I wonder why that is?
For the record, the sugar is evil crew tend not to have 1000 links on their sides, they just have correlational links between sugar and X outcome, which when looked at in depth have no real correlation at all….
The moderation crew and the no limits on sugar crew also got no links, so quantity of links aren't really a meaningful point.
Fat and protein consumption levels are pretty stable over the decades. Carbohydrate and sugar consumption increases pretty much cover our increase in calories over the same time period, which also happens to correlate with an explosion of metabolic diseases.
The most credible way to start addressing reduction in calories is.. ?0 -
This thread is about limits on sugar in MFP which OP was told to ignore with a statement used frequently here - "unless you have a medical condition there is no reason to worry about sugar."
Sugar, needs at least as much concern and limiting as other macros, and given the correlation with our huge increase in sugar consumption and a correlated increase in metabolic issues is does warrent extra concern for levels in diet.
Yes , and the advice given to op was that it was fine to consume it in the context of hitting micros , macros, and hitting calorie targets.
Then the pseudoscience and fear mongering started...0 -
The moderation crew and the no limits on sugar crew also got no links, so quantity of links aren't really a meaningful point.
Fat and protein consumption levels are pretty stable over the decades. Carbohydrate and sugar consumption increases pretty much cover our increase in calories over the same time period, which also happens to correlate with an explosion of metabolic diseases.
The most credible way to start addressing reduction in calories is.. ?
That's not true and you know it, the proponents of everything in moderation on this thread consistently provide links...Gale and Yarwell provide links too...the only person who never ever does is you it seems0 -
The moderation crew and the no limits on sugar crew also got no links, so quantity of links aren't really a meaningful point.
Fat and protein consumption levels are pretty stable over the decades. Carbohydrate and sugar consumption increases pretty much cover our increase in calories over the same time period, which also happens to correlate with an explosion of metabolic diseases.
The most credible way to start addressing reduction in calories is.. ?
you need a link to tell you to hit micros and macros and fill in the rest of your calories as needed, really?
Funny, the link posted early showed sugar consumption going down the past ten years, but obesity continuing to rise, but that does not matter does it?
To the bold part, I can't believe that is even a question. The most creditable way to to address a reduction in calories is, wait for it…..EAT LESS Calories….
officially *mind blown*
Edit - The only one not posting links or studies in this thread is you. For some reason your "years of research" is more closely guarding than the launch codes for nuclear weapons….0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
From the chart's author -
Refined carbohydrate and sugar are certainly part of the cause of the obesity epidemic, but these data are consistent with a large body of research suggesting that there's more to the story. Obesity is caused by a number of interacting diet and lifestyle factors, most of which can be traced back to major socioeconomic changes in this country over the last century. These have affected the way we interact with food, the composition of our food, and other aspects of our lifestyle that cause genetically susceptible people to gain fat.
That is all I'm saying.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 395.5K Introduce Yourself
- 44.1K Getting Started
- 260.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.2K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.7K Fitness and Exercise
- 447 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.2K Motivation and Support
- 8.2K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 4.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 16 News and Announcements
- 1.3K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.9K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions