We Can Blame Sugar All We Like – But We're Only Creating More Problems For Ourselves
Replies
-
Huh. That's actually a pretty good article. Thanks for sharing.0
-
Had to Google it - yep, just as I thought. Lustig. I knew Lustig, Taubes or MercoLOLa would be involved, they're all crackpots from the "sugar iz da debilz" school.0
-
-
SarcasmIsMyLoveLanguage wrote: »
No, the article referred to a "documentary" (aka propaganda video) called Sugar Crash. Lustig was one of the people involved in it. He's a longtime anti-sugar crackpot who uses junk science and cherry-picked facts to justify his agenda. The article itself that Wetcoaster linked to was 100% solid.0 -
SarcasmIsMyLoveLanguage wrote: »
No, the article referred to a "documentary" (aka propaganda video) called Sugar Crash. Lustig was one of the people involved in it. He's a longtime anti-sugar crackpot who uses junk science and cherry-picked facts to justify his agenda. The article itself that Wetcoaster linked to was 100% solid.
Got it. I misread your comment.
It's time for me to get off the interwebz now
0 -
What bad thing will happen if added/excess sugar is removed from the modern diet? Answer...nothing.
Nothing bad will happen if people stop eating sugary cereals, or candy. Still plenty of sugars in natural foods.
Comparing it with the fat-scare is unfair. Humans actually NEED fat.0 -
From http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/statistics/Overall Numbers, Diabetes and Prediabetes
Prevalence: In 2012, 29.1 million Americans, or 9.3% of the population, had diabetes.
Approximately 1.25 million American children and adults have type 1 diabetes.
Undiagnosed: Of the 29.1 million, 21.0 million were diagnosed, and 8.1 million were undiagnosed.
Prevalence in Seniors: The percentage of Americans age 65 and older remains high, at 25.9%, or 11.8 million seniors (diagnosed and undiagnosed).
New Cases: 1.4 million Americans are diagnosed with diabetes every year.
Prediabetes: In 2012, 86 million Americans age 20 and older had prediabetes; this is up from 79 million in 2010.
Deaths: Diabetes remains the 7th leading cause of death in the United States in 2010, with 69,071 death certificates listing it as the underlying cause of death, and a total of 234,051 death certificates listing diabetes as an underlying or contributing cause of death.
- See more at: http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/statistics/#sthash.QaOEy1zE.dpuf
Rates of type 2 diabetes have increased markedly since 1960 in parallel with obesity. As of 2010 there were approximately 285 million people diagnosed with the disease compared to around 30 million in 1985.[4][5] Type 2 diabetes is typically a chronic disease associated with a ten-year-shorter life expectancy.[4] Long-term complications from high blood sugar can include heart disease, strokes, diabetic retinopathy where eyesight is affected, kidney failure which may require dialysis, and poor blood flow in the limbs leading to amputations. The acute complication of ketoacidosis, a feature of type 1 diabetes, is uncommon,[6] however hyperosmolar hyperglycemic state may occur."
Dr. Lustig is a crack pot?? Really? Not an educated pediatric endocrinologist from University of California seeing the rise of DMll in children and trying to warn public of what he is seeing happening in clinical practice?0 -
Dr. Lustig is a crack pot?? Really? Not an educated pediatric endocrinologist from University of California seeing the rise of DMll in children and trying to warn public of what he is seeing happening in clinical practice?
For starters, here's one analysis/review by Alan Aragon which analyzes and takes issue with Lustig's half-baked approach and tendency to cherry-pick facts. Peer-reviewed resources are referenced and included below the article.
Lustig falsely demonizes carbohydrates in general, claims that fructose is "a poison" and rails about the evils of high-fructose corn syrup, which is essentially identical to sucrose in molecular construction and how it's metabolized by the human body. He makes numerous other errant claims (detailed in the linked analysis) and completely ignores both context and dosage. He may be well-intentioned, but his research and findings are slipshod and disingenuous.
As for the statistics you listed from diabetes.org, those are often trotted out here by low-carb/keto advocates to advance their agenda. I still await an explanation as to how they reach verifiable/reliable numbers for undiagnosed diabetics, as it would seem that "undiagnosed" by its very definition means that nobody knows the person is diabetic.0 -
Good thought provoking questions but I can't ignore the complications of Type 2 DM and that it is directly related to diet and exercise. I have listened to Lustig's lectures to the public and his Biochem lectures that are not simplified for the general public. He demonizes sugar, not carbohydrates in general. He demonizes all the overly processed foods with sugar including high fructose corn syrup added to increase sales of food. He explains the biochemistry of how sugar is broken down in the body and why high fructose corn syrup while "essential identical to sucrose in molecular construction" it does not tell our brains we have had calories and are full.
"One of the most infamous and controversial sucrose replacements is the manmade sweetener known as high fructose corn syrup (HFCS). It’s made by milling corn down until it turns into corn starch, which is then further processed with water and bacterial and fungi-derived enzymes that break down into short chains of glucose or corn syrup. Add another bacterial enzyme to convert the glucose and you finally have HFCS, which is significantly sweeter than glucose.
Glucose, on the other hand, is considered the body’s energy source. It’s also called blood sugar because it circulates throughout the body and can be used immediately for energy or stored in muscle cells or the liver as glycogen for later use. When it’s digested, glucose provides satiety signals to the brain that fructose cannot provide because it isn’t transported to the brain, telling the body it’s satisfied with what it just consumed. But because glucose isn’t as sweet as fructose, and because of continued consumption, the modern palate has become accustomed to higher levels of sweetness.
When the government placed domestic production quotas and foreign import tariffs on sugar in 1977, the industry turned to HFCS for a cheaper sweetening alternative to sugar, according to Diabetes Health. Between 1970 and 2000, people consumed 30 percent more fructose than they ever had before.
Long-term consumption of sugary drinks can double the risk of diabetes, and part of that risk is due to the excess weight gained from sugar-calories, according to Dr. Walter Willett, the chair of the nutrition department at the Harvard School of Public Health. According to a study published in the American Society for Clinical Nutrition while HFCS has “become a favorite substitute for sucrose in carbonated beverages, baked good, canned fruits, jams and jellies, and dairy products … HFCS constitutes a major source of dietary fructose.”
Alan Aragon even states:
-Towards the end of Lustig’s lecture, he mentions that fructose within fruit is okay because its effect is neutralized by the fiber content.
- I have a great deal of respect for Lustig’s professional accomplishments, and I share his concern for the nation’s penchant for sitting around and overconsuming food and beverages of all sorts.
I guess if you want to ignore the statistics from the American Academy of Diabetes (not just diabetes.org) then go ahead and add a few tablespoons of sugar to that coffee.0 -
That's a nice opinion piece, but actual research shows that highly refined white sugar does have addictive properties and affects the mammalian brain's reward system in much the same way as addictive drugs. For the past two decades, a lot of research (peer-reviewed articles from institutions all over the world) has been published and is still being published that supports the food/sugar addiction model. Heroin addicts have been talking about sugar cravings for decades - this isn't new information.
Just going to copy my post from the other thread, which includes just a fraction of what is available. (Ignore Wilson's work, his claims were made over two decades ago).
Sugar addiction can be tough to beat. Even harder when some refuse to acknowledge the truth about sugar's effects on the brain. Rejecting sugar addiction is old hat; luckily there's been exciting research done that indicates that mammalian brains do become sugar-addicted. Thanks to technology advances that allow for techniques like brain imaging, we can now observe and analyze how sugar really affects the brain (similar to other illicit drugs). And as with any reward center in the brain, acclimation and resulting abnormal behaviors do occur w/r/t sugar. A reward process being natural does not prevent it from moving into the realm of addiction, as we are just now learning. Highly processed, sugar-laden foods do in fact change the brain and produce behaviors much in the same way as seen with traditional drugs. I just saw a presentation given at UoC about refined sugar affecting the fetal brain to such an extent that the person deals with the consequences for life. Refined, highly potent sugar does affect the brain's "addiction center" just as any other "drug". There's loads of research available, much more will be published over the next several years. Here's just a little bit of information from real experts:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2235907/
http://news.mit.edu/2015/decoding-sugar-addiction-0129
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3139704/#S9title
http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2015/01/07/sugar-health-research
http://abc13.com/health/study-sugar-is-as-addictive-as-cocaine/533979/
http://www.healthline.com/health/food-nutrition/experts-is-sugar-addictive-drug
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11733709
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3109725/
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090727102024.htm
https://www.princeton.edu/pr/news/02/q2/0620-hoebel.htm
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1313591?dopt=Abstract?access_num=1313591
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2714381/#__sec1title
I've yet to see a good argument against sugar addiction (that wasn't made by industry). So yes, OP, you are very likely addicted to sugar in some way, no matter what anyone here tells you. And it's hard, because hidden sugars under a variety of ingredient names are in just about everything. And overconsumption is killing us and destroying our bodies. What some folks don't understand is that there is a HUGE difference between the sugar that is found in nature and part of our natural diet (i.e. fruit sugar bound to fiber and nutrients) and the "steroid sugar" we've purified and made potent and coupled with other junk (e.g. donuts). Our brains can handle the sugar in an apple, they cannot handle the beefed up stuff in a donut.
NB: Just to make clear, I am only addressing the idea that sugar is not at all addictive. I make no other claims about choice or personal responsibility.
With that said, I do think industry is partly responsible for the poor state of public health given that a) they put sugar in way too many foods for profit's sake (bliss point), and b) they deliberately misinform the public (by "buying" their way into and polluting academia) in order to maximize profits, just like the cigarette companies used to. And it's not the first time - they tried to discredit and prohibit valid dental research into sugar in the 70s.0 -
0
-
Agree:
The 2015 Dietary Guideline Advisory Committee just released new recommendations to limit added sugars to 10 percent of daily calories. Right now, Americans are eating more sugar than ever before — on average, about 160 pounds a year.
James DiNicolantonio is a cardiovascular research scientist at St. Luke’s Mid-America Heart Institute in Kansas City, Mo. He recently published a comprehensive review of dozens of studies in which he contends that sugar is more dangerous than salt when it comes to risk for heart disease. He says that refined sugar is similar to cocaine — a white crystal extracted from sugar cane rather than coca leaves — and that studies show it can be even more addictive than the recreational drug.0 -
Meh, sugar doesn't have to be "the debil" to be a problem in increased obesity.
Added sugar = more calories. Food processors use high fructose corn syrup as a cheap filler. So, at least in the US, people eating a processed food diet have become accustomed to a higher level of sweetness in foods overall. Eat at even a moderate carb level for awhile then taste a bit of white bread...tastes like cake.
Plus the increased sugar jacking with blood sugar levels...spike and drop leading to increased hunger/eating.
I thought the idea that sugar is usually linked with fat in the diet to be disingenuous. A lot of sugar is in beverages or eaten as candy. The decrease in soda consumption is encouraging.
I scan for HFCS and avoid it 90% of the time. I don't need loads of extra sweetener in my soup, salad dressing, bread, etc. That and trans fats are tops on my avoid list.
The study re:sugar effecting the fetal brain makes me sad. I didn't try to restrict my eating while pregnant partly due to stuff about babies whose mothers were in calorie restriction went on to have a lifelong issue with weight due to developing a thrifty metabolism IIRC. So now I wish I had restricted sugar at least.0 -
That's a nice opinion piece, but actual research shows that highly refined white sugar does have addictive properties and affects the mammalian brain's reward system in much the same way as addictive drugs. For the past two decades, a lot of research (peer-reviewed articles from institutions all over the world) has been published and is still being published that supports the food/sugar addiction model. Heroin addicts have been talking about sugar cravings for decades - this isn't new information.
Just going to copy my post from the other thread, which includes just a fraction of what is available. (Ignore Wilson's work, his claims were made over two decades ago).
Sugar addiction can be tough to beat. Even harder when some refuse to acknowledge the truth about sugar's effects on the brain. Rejecting sugar addiction is old hat; luckily there's been exciting research done that indicates that mammalian brains do become sugar-addicted. Thanks to technology advances that allow for techniques like brain imaging, we can now observe and analyze how sugar really affects the brain (similar to other illicit drugs). And as with any reward center in the brain, acclimation and resulting abnormal behaviors do occur w/r/t sugar. A reward process being natural does not prevent it from moving into the realm of addiction, as we are just now learning. Highly processed, sugar-laden foods do in fact change the brain and produce behaviors much in the same way as seen with traditional drugs. I just saw a presentation given at UoC about refined sugar affecting the fetal brain to such an extent that the person deals with the consequences for life. Refined, highly potent sugar does affect the brain's "addiction center" just as any other "drug". There's loads of research available, much more will be published over the next several years. Here's just a little bit of information from real experts:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2235907/
http://news.mit.edu/2015/decoding-sugar-addiction-0129
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3139704/#S9title
http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2015/01/07/sugar-health-research
http://abc13.com/health/study-sugar-is-as-addictive-as-cocaine/533979/
http://www.healthline.com/health/food-nutrition/experts-is-sugar-addictive-drug
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11733709
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3109725/
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090727102024.htm
https://www.princeton.edu/pr/news/02/q2/0620-hoebel.htm
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1313591?dopt=Abstract?access_num=1313591
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2714381/#__sec1title
I've yet to see a good argument against sugar addiction (that wasn't made by industry). So yes, OP, you are very likely addicted to sugar in some way, no matter what anyone here tells you. And it's hard, because hidden sugars under a variety of ingredient names are in just about everything. And overconsumption is killing us and destroying our bodies. What some folks don't understand is that there is a HUGE difference between the sugar that is found in nature and part of our natural diet (i.e. fruit sugar bound to fiber and nutrients) and the "steroid sugar" we've purified and made potent and coupled with other junk (e.g. donuts). Our brains can handle the sugar in an apple, they cannot handle the beefed up stuff in a donut.
NB: Just to make clear, I am only addressing the idea that sugar is not at all addictive. I make no other claims about choice or personal responsibility.
With that said, I do think industry is partly responsible for the poor state of public health given that a) they put sugar in way too many foods for profit's sake (bliss point), and b) they deliberately misinform the public (by "buying" their way into and polluting academia) in order to maximize profits, just like the cigarette companies used to. And it's not the first time - they tried to discredit and prohibit valid dental research into sugar in the 70s.
Rats, rats, rats, more rats...
I'm also interested in what the hell you think we do to sugar to make it "steroid sugar".0 -
Pollywog_la wrote: »What bad thing will happen if added/excess sugar is removed from the modern diet? Answer...nothing.
Nothing bad will happen if people stop eating sugary cereals, or candy. Still plenty of sugars in natural foods.
Comparing it with the fat-scare is unfair. Humans actually NEED fat.
Low fat never said no fat (there's naturally-occurring fat in whole foods too, like nuts, meat (including fatty fish), avocado, olives) -- you don't need to get fat from sweets or packaged foods or fast food, etc., or even lots of sat fat from dairy or fattier cuts of meat to live. In fact, we are still recommended to limit those things. So it's the same.
And of course we do need sugar to live -- it's just that it's so incredibly important our bodies can create it from other things. That there are people who worry about whether they should reduce or limit their consumption of fruits and even vegetables because "sugar" shows that we've gone overboard, as usual, since it's easier to blame a macro than learn to eat in a sensible way that focuses on nutrient dense foods. Well, not easier, but apparently sexier -- there's more money to be made promoting this line. Apparently we are now doing the reverse of the Snackwell's thing -- making "no sugar" products that have extra fat and sodium and calories. People want a magic bullet.
As for your question, I am in favor of people eating fewer foods with lots of sugar added. I don't eat sugary cereal or candy myself (well, I don't like either), and I eat the foods with added sugar that I like (such as ice cream) in moderation. But wanting those foods removed from the food supply seems extreme. Why should they be, when many enjoy them and the correct answer is not to eat stupidly.
0 -
Decreasing added sugar (and increasing protein and fiber) certainly makes it easier for me to stay in a calorie deficit.0
-
Agree:
The 2015 Dietary Guideline Advisory Committee just released new recommendations to limit added sugars to 10 percent of daily calories. Right now, Americans are eating more sugar than ever before — on average, about 160 pounds a year.
Everything I've seen has said added sugar consumption is down some. Still too high, but at about 14% of calories (vs. the 10% or less recommended--although one can certainly argue that lower would be better). Even this stat is a little misleading, as apparently about 49% of this is from soda (the lion's share) plus other sweetened drinks. While those who consume sweetened drinks tend to get lots and lots of calories (and sugar) from them, I don't believe they are the majority. Even at my fattest I never consumed sweetened drinks (or crazy amounts of sugar).
Does your number include non-added sugar (like from fruits and veg)?
And as someone who has eaten a variety of foods with sugar, from carrots to apples to ice cream, the notion that it's similar to cocaine or super addictive in itself (would you even want to eat plain sugar? ugh) or dangerous in itself simply doesn't pass the red face test. Having a terrible diet and being overweight, yes, both can be quite bad for your health. I'd include drinking tons of calories from soda as "having a terrible diet," sure.0 -
I didn't see any sources in the original article. Zero.0
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »Agree:
The 2015 Dietary Guideline Advisory Committee just released new recommendations to limit added sugars to 10 percent of daily calories. Right now, Americans are eating more sugar than ever before — on average, about 160 pounds a year.
Everything I've seen has said added sugar consumption is down some. Still too high, but at about 14% of calories (vs. the 10% or less recommended--although one can certainly argue that lower would be better). Even this stat is a little misleading, as apparently about 49% of this is from soda (the lion's share) plus other sweetened drinks. While those who consume sweetened drinks tend to get lots and lots of calories (and sugar) from them, I don't believe they are the majority. Even at my fattest I never consumed sweetened drinks (or crazy amounts of sugar).
Does your number include non-added sugar (like from fruits and veg)?
And as someone who has eaten a variety of foods with sugar, from carrots to apples to ice cream, the notion that it's similar to cocaine or super addictive in itself (would you even want to eat plain sugar? ugh) or dangerous in itself simply doesn't pass the red face test. Having a terrible diet and being overweight, yes, both can be quite bad for your health. I'd include drinking tons of calories from soda as "having a terrible diet," sure.
Just curious if anyone ever engages in a thoughtful discussion with you when you pose such logical questions about such an impassioned topic? It certainly doesn't seem so, from the many threads on this topic where I've seen you raise these valid points, but if it ever does happen, can you tag me into the thread? I'd love to see a serious discussion on this that didn't just include a bunch of references to different articles (on both sides).0 -
That's a nice opinion piece, but actual research shows that highly refined white sugar does have addictive properties and affects the mammalian brain's reward system in much the same way as addictive drugs. For the past two decades, a lot of research (peer-reviewed articles from institutions all over the world) has been published and is still being published that supports the food/sugar addiction model. Heroin addicts have been talking about sugar cravings for decades - this isn't new information.
Just going to copy my post from the other thread, which includes just a fraction of what is available. (Ignore Wilson's work, his claims were made over two decades ago).
Sugar addiction can be tough to beat. Even harder when some refuse to acknowledge the truth about sugar's effects on the brain. Rejecting sugar addiction is old hat; luckily there's been exciting research done that indicates that mammalian brains do become sugar-addicted. Thanks to technology advances that allow for techniques like brain imaging, we can now observe and analyze how sugar really affects the brain (similar to other illicit drugs). And as with any reward center in the brain, acclimation and resulting abnormal behaviors do occur w/r/t sugar. A reward process being natural does not prevent it from moving into the realm of addiction, as we are just now learning. Highly processed, sugar-laden foods do in fact change the brain and produce behaviors much in the same way as seen with traditional drugs. I just saw a presentation given at UoC about refined sugar affecting the fetal brain to such an extent that the person deals with the consequences for life. Refined, highly potent sugar does affect the brain's "addiction center" just as any other "drug". There's loads of research available, much more will be published over the next several years. Here's just a little bit of information from real experts:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2235907/
http://news.mit.edu/2015/decoding-sugar-addiction-0129
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3139704/#S9title
http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2015/01/07/sugar-health-research
http://abc13.com/health/study-sugar-is-as-addictive-as-cocaine/533979/
http://www.healthline.com/health/food-nutrition/experts-is-sugar-addictive-drug
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11733709
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3109725/
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090727102024.htm
https://www.princeton.edu/pr/news/02/q2/0620-hoebel.htm
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1313591?dopt=Abstract?access_num=1313591
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2714381/#__sec1title
I've yet to see a good argument against sugar addiction (that wasn't made by industry). So yes, OP, you are very likely addicted to sugar in some way, no matter what anyone here tells you. And it's hard, because hidden sugars under a variety of ingredient names are in just about everything. And overconsumption is killing us and destroying our bodies. What some folks don't understand is that there is a HUGE difference between the sugar that is found in nature and part of our natural diet (i.e. fruit sugar bound to fiber and nutrients) and the "steroid sugar" we've purified and made potent and coupled with other junk (e.g. donuts). Our brains can handle the sugar in an apple, they cannot handle the beefed up stuff in a donut.
NB: Just to make clear, I am only addressing the idea that sugar is not at all addictive. I make no other claims about choice or personal responsibility.
With that said, I do think industry is partly responsible for the poor state of public health given that a) they put sugar in way too many foods for profit's sake (bliss point), and b) they deliberately misinform the public (by "buying" their way into and polluting academia) in order to maximize profits, just like the cigarette companies used to. And it's not the first time - they tried to discredit and prohibit valid dental research into sugar in the 70s.
Rat studies requiring putting the animals on a binge / feast cycle to get the results wanted and articles claiming addiction with no actual link to said study.0 -
I only watched the first few minutes of the video but it basically states added sugar in Ireland as tripled as obesity went up. That's added sugar and added calories. It doesn't look like it went after sugars found in whole foods like fruits, just added sugars where sugar would not be naturally occurring. It doesn't seem like sugar fear mongering to me.... More of a statement of facts: sugar consumption has increased along with obesity. For most people there is a link.
Haven't seen any announcements in the video that all sugar is bad. Does that happen later in the film? If not the article seems like an overreaction.
I'll have to watch the rest later.0 -
Most people could stand to cut out some refined sugars, there is no doubting that, but only because it does not contribute all that many nutrients to a diet and there are a loooooooot of people out there that who do not exercise and eat too much. What are the best things to reduce most likely? Probably the high sugar/high fat treats. The issue arises when someone says this causes obesity. No, it doesn't. Overeating your calories does. Refined sugar can be eaten and be helpful to a person's diet whether it be for quick energy or just to keep them sane and on track cause they like it. The fact still remains that it can be 100% included in a healthy diet with 0 health implications IF all other nutritional needs are on point and most agree with that I think on both sides. It really comes down to whether you want to blame the person for not giving themselves a healthy diet or the sugar/snack industry for selling a product people want. All the arguing in between is semantics.
I am officially done with sugar discussions on MFP. No more reading or replying for me.
...unless I change my mind and fall off the wagon cause it lights up the same receptors MFP forums does, therefore, it must be addictive.0 -
Most people could stand to cut out some refined sugars, there is no doubting that, but only because it does not contribute all that many nutrients to a diet and there are a loooooooot of people out there that who do not exercise and eat too much. What are the best things to reduce most likely? Probably the high sugar/high fat treats. The issue arises when someone says this causes obesity. No, it doesn't. Overeating your calories does. Refined sugar can be eaten and be helpful to a person's diet whether it be for quick energy or just to keep them sane and on track cause they like it. The fact still remains that it can be 100% included in a healthy diet with 0 health implications IF all other nutritional needs are on point and most agree with that I think on both sides. It really comes down to whether you want to blame the person for not giving themselves a healthy diet or the sugar industry for selling a product people want. All the arguing in between is semantics.
I am officially done with sugar discussions on MFP. No more reading or replying for me.
...unless I change my mind and fall off the wagon cause it lights up the same receptors MFP forums does, therefore, it must be addictive.
You know you're addicted to sugar threads
0 -
From http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/statistics/Overall Numbers, Diabetes and Prediabetes
Prevalence: In 2012, 29.1 million Americans, or 9.3% of the population, had diabetes.
Approximately 1.25 million American children and adults have type 1 diabetes.
Undiagnosed: Of the 29.1 million, 21.0 million were diagnosed, and 8.1 million were undiagnosed.
Prevalence in Seniors: The percentage of Americans age 65 and older remains high, at 25.9%, or 11.8 million seniors (diagnosed and undiagnosed).
New Cases: 1.4 million Americans are diagnosed with diabetes every year.
Prediabetes: In 2012, 86 million Americans age 20 and older had prediabetes; this is up from 79 million in 2010.
Deaths: Diabetes remains the 7th leading cause of death in the United States in 2010, with 69,071 death certificates listing it as the underlying cause of death, and a total of 234,051 death certificates listing diabetes as an underlying or contributing cause of death.
- See more at: http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/statistics/#sthash.QaOEy1zE.dpuf
Rates of type 2 diabetes have increased markedly since 1960 in parallel with obesity. As of 2010 there were approximately 285 million people diagnosed with the disease compared to around 30 million in 1985.[4][5] Type 2 diabetes is typically a chronic disease associated with a ten-year-shorter life expectancy.[4] Long-term complications from high blood sugar can include heart disease, strokes, diabetic retinopathy where eyesight is affected, kidney failure which may require dialysis, and poor blood flow in the limbs leading to amputations. The acute complication of ketoacidosis, a feature of type 1 diabetes, is uncommon,[6] however hyperosmolar hyperglycemic state may occur."
Dr. Lustig is a crack pot?? Really? Not an educated pediatric endocrinologist from University of California seeing the rise of DMll in children and trying to warn public of what he is seeing happening in clinical practice?
T2 Diabetes causes high blood sugar - high sugar intake doesn't cause T2D.
Obesity seems to be the main causal factor here, but you can be obese from overeating anything - it doesn't matter if those calories are coming from fat, sugar, or anything else.0 -
Not wanting to enter into the sugar debate... but an interesting observation in the link was about other changes which have contributed to the rise in obesity, such as the increased size of crockery. I also noticed this when we bought new plates recently. In the UK certainly dinner plates seem to be getting bigger and bigger. You can now buy pasta dishes that are the size that serving bowls used to be. When dishing up people just kind of "fill the plate".0
-
You can track the increase in obesity and increased sugar consumption from the 1960s, when women entered the workforce en masse. People very rarely cook anymore ... they basically just "prepare" their food or eat it ready-made. They add water to instant oatmeal or potatoes, heat up a frozen Stouffer's lasagna or pizza, maybe add meat to a frozen package of stir fry vegetables with sauce (or buy the package that already includes meat), make a Hamburger Helper meal, etc. All of these foods tend to be very high in sugar and calories (plus a host of other unhealthy additives).
Let's take an oatmeal breakfast for the average adult:
1 cup Quaker oats, plain cooked
1 tsp brown sugar
1/4 cup plain whole milk
197 calories, 8 grams of sugar
Now let's take the Quaker Instant Oatmeal, Maple and Brown sugar
2 packets, mixed with water
320 calories, 24 grams of sugar
Both meals provide about the same amount of volume, so I wouldn't say that the person eating the instant oatmeal is overeating, necessarily (two packets of instant oatmeal was a standard serving for me, a 5'6" female at 138 pounds), but in the instant oatmeal the sugar is tripled and the calories increased by a third.
Everyone's busy, no one has time, so they opt for the quicker options, swing through to get fast food on the way home. Even those who think they're eating healthy can often be tripped up. Who would think that a Subway 6" Sweet Onion teriyaki chicken sandwich would have 17 grams of sugar, more than a Krispy Kreme doughnut which is 10 grams? A Luna bar's a great snack, right? And it's gluten free? Bonus! But it's also 190 calories and 10 grams of sugar per bar.
Yoplait original red raspberry yogurt has 26 grams of sugar and 170 calories. Compare this to 1/2 cup plain greek yogurt with a teaspoon of honey and 1/2 cup fresh raspberries at 13 grams of sugar and 117 calories.
So yes, there is a real problem with sugar ... and it's not just those guzzling soda and eating ice cream who are consuming too much.0 -
You can track the increase in obesity and increased sugar consumption from the 1960s, when women entered the workforce en masse. People very rarely cook anymore ... they basically just "prepare" their food or eat it ready-made. They add water to instant oatmeal or potatoes, heat up a frozen Stouffer's lasagna or pizza, maybe add meat to a frozen package of stir fry vegetables with sauce (or buy the package that already includes meat), make a Hamburger Helper meal, etc. All of these foods tend to be very high in sugar and calories (plus a host of other unhealthy additives).
Let's take an oatmeal breakfast for the average adult:
1 cup Quaker oats, plain cooked
1 tsp brown sugar
1/4 cup plain whole milk
197 calories, 8 grams of sugar
Now let's take the Quaker Instant Oatmeal, Maple and Brown sugar
2 packets, mixed with water
320 calories, 24 grams of sugar
Both meals provide about the same amount of volume, so I wouldn't say that the person eating the instant oatmeal is overeating, necessarily (two packets of instant oatmeal was a standard serving for me, a 5'6" female at 138 pounds), but in the instant oatmeal the sugar is tripled and the calories increased by a third.
Everyone's busy, no one has time, so they opt for the quicker options, swing through to get fast food on the way home. Even those who think they're eating healthy can often be tripped up. Who would think that a Subway 6" Sweet Onion teriyaki chicken sandwich would have 17 grams of sugar, more than a Krispy Kreme doughnut which is 10 grams? A Luna bar's a great snack, right? And it's gluten free? Bonus! But it's also 190 calories and 10 grams of sugar per bar.
Yoplait original red raspberry yogurt has 26 grams of sugar and 170 calories. Compare this to 1/2 cup plain greek yogurt with a teaspoon of honey and 1/2 cup fresh raspberries at 13 grams of sugar and 117 calories.
So yes, there is a real problem with sugar ... and it's not just those guzzling soda and eating ice cream who are consuming too much.
16 grams of sugar is 64 calories, the difference in the two meals is 123 calories.0 -
You can track the increase in obesity and increased sugar consumption from the 1960s, when women entered the workforce en masse. People very rarely cook anymore ... they basically just "prepare" their food or eat it ready-made. They add water to instant oatmeal or potatoes, heat up a frozen Stouffer's lasagna or pizza, maybe add meat to a frozen package of stir fry vegetables with sauce (or buy the package that already includes meat), make a Hamburger Helper meal, etc. All of these foods tend to be very high in sugar and calories (plus a host of other unhealthy additives).
Let's take an oatmeal breakfast for the average adult:
1 cup Quaker oats, plain cooked
1 tsp brown sugar
1/4 cup plain whole milk
197 calories, 8 grams of sugar
Now let's take the Quaker Instant Oatmeal, Maple and Brown sugar
2 packets, mixed with water
320 calories, 24 grams of sugar
Both meals provide about the same amount of volume, so I wouldn't say that the person eating the instant oatmeal is overeating, necessarily (two packets of instant oatmeal was a standard serving for me, a 5'6" female at 138 pounds), but in the instant oatmeal the sugar is tripled and the calories increased by a third.
Everyone's busy, no one has time, so they opt for the quicker options, swing through to get fast food on the way home. Even those who think they're eating healthy can often be tripped up. Who would think that a Subway 6" Sweet Onion teriyaki chicken sandwich would have 17 grams of sugar, more than a Krispy Kreme doughnut which is 10 grams? A Luna bar's a great snack, right? And it's gluten free? Bonus! But it's also 190 calories and 10 grams of sugar per bar.
Yoplait original red raspberry yogurt has 26 grams of sugar and 170 calories. Compare this to 1/2 cup plain greek yogurt with a teaspoon of honey and 1/2 cup fresh raspberries at 13 grams of sugar and 117 calories.
So yes, there is a real problem with sugar ... and it's not just those guzzling soda and eating ice cream who are consuming too much.
I've asked this in many other threads and haven't gotten a great answer yet. If I have no medical reason to restrict sugars, and am monitoring my calorie intake, why do I need to be wary of those extra grams of sugar in the instant oatmeal, the subway sandwich, the Luna bar, etc...
0 -
stevencloser wrote: »You can track the increase in obesity and increased sugar consumption from the 1960s, when women entered the workforce en masse. People very rarely cook anymore ... they basically just "prepare" their food or eat it ready-made. They add water to instant oatmeal or potatoes, heat up a frozen Stouffer's lasagna or pizza, maybe add meat to a frozen package of stir fry vegetables with sauce (or buy the package that already includes meat), make a Hamburger Helper meal, etc. All of these foods tend to be very high in sugar and calories (plus a host of other unhealthy additives).
Let's take an oatmeal breakfast for the average adult:
1 cup Quaker oats, plain cooked
1 tsp brown sugar
1/4 cup plain whole milk
197 calories, 8 grams of sugar
Now let's take the Quaker Instant Oatmeal, Maple and Brown sugar
2 packets, mixed with water
320 calories, 24 grams of sugar
Both meals provide about the same amount of volume, so I wouldn't say that the person eating the instant oatmeal is overeating, necessarily (two packets of instant oatmeal was a standard serving for me, a 5'6" female at 138 pounds), but in the instant oatmeal the sugar is tripled and the calories increased by a third.
Everyone's busy, no one has time, so they opt for the quicker options, swing through to get fast food on the way home. Even those who think they're eating healthy can often be tripped up. Who would think that a Subway 6" Sweet Onion teriyaki chicken sandwich would have 17 grams of sugar, more than a Krispy Kreme doughnut which is 10 grams? A Luna bar's a great snack, right? And it's gluten free? Bonus! But it's also 190 calories and 10 grams of sugar per bar.
Yoplait original red raspberry yogurt has 26 grams of sugar and 170 calories. Compare this to 1/2 cup plain greek yogurt with a teaspoon of honey and 1/2 cup fresh raspberries at 13 grams of sugar and 117 calories.
So yes, there is a real problem with sugar ... and it's not just those guzzling soda and eating ice cream who are consuming too much.
16 grams of sugar is 64 calories, the difference in the two meals is 123 calories.
123 kcals X 200 days of the year (assuming some breakfast variety) = 24600 extra kcals
24600kcals / 3500kcal/lb = an extra 7 lbs per year (assuming CO doesn't change)0 -
You can track the increase in obesity and increased sugar consumption from the 1960s, when women entered the workforce en masse. People very rarely cook anymore ... they basically just "prepare" their food or eat it ready-made.
I think this is overstated. Most of the parents I know cook, and cooking can be fast and convenient when you know how.
I agree that a higher percentage of the population working outside the home, a ready-made market for convenience foods, and--especially--many people not learning how to cook plays a role. I think this is much harder if cooking is intimidating to you (but also if you don't know anything about nutrition or how to make sensible choices and read a label, which is why I resist the idea that it all comes down to sugar -- that's not furthering the goal of understanding nutrition or what a balanced diet needs, which is more nuanced and requires more than NO SUGAR, SUGAR BAD).They add water to instant oatmeal or potatoes, heat up a frozen Stouffer's lasagna or pizza, maybe add meat to a frozen package of stir fry vegetables with sauce (or buy the package that already includes meat), make a Hamburger Helper meal, etc. All of these foods tend to be very high in sugar and calories (plus a host of other unhealthy additives).
Some people may do this, some may not. You can eat quite healthfully even without cooking. When I first started preparing meals for myself (and did not cook much yet), I might do something silly like eat a bagel with cream cheese for breakfast (trivial amount of sugar, but not a sensible breakfast for me -- I do better with more protein in the morning and don't like bagels enough to waste that many calories on them routinely), but I'd also grab a plain yogurt with berries. Many others I know will eat a non sweetened cereal (I hate cold cereal) with fruit. It also doesn't take any cooking skills to prepare many non sweetened oatmeals. You can get an instant steel cut oats that are just oats. So it's not not wanting to cook that requires one to eat foods with lots of sugar. It's that people may like those foods and choose to eat them. (The same is true with prepackaged dinner and lunch options, etc. -- I like to cook now and don't care for these things, but they aren't all full of sugar or high cal, etc.)
Also, you posit that 320 calories at breakfast is something to be concerned about. I intentionally eat 350 calories for breakfast every day (not much sugar, and no added sugar -- sometimes fruit, sometimes dairy, always veg). I like eating that many calories for breakfast. What would be a problem is if I ate too much over the whole day, because I didn't pay attention to how much I ate (by paying attention I don't mean one must count calories, although doing it for a while can be helpful for many who tend to eat too much).Yoplait original red raspberry yogurt has 26 grams of sugar and 170 calories. Compare this to 1/2 cup plain greek yogurt with a teaspoon of honey and 1/2 cup fresh raspberries at 13 grams of sugar and 117 calories.
So? Both are convenience foods. You can choose either. Some people choose what they prefer.
Fact is that "added sugar" in the American diet does not come largely from yogurt or so-called hidden sugar. I posted stats on this yesterday: about 49% are from sweetened beverages (mostly soda, also energy drinks, sports drinks, fruit drinks, and sugar added to coffee and tea). The next largest category is grain-based desserts (cookies, baked goods). Then candy, and (if memory serves) dairy-based desserts. We were already down to small percentages, and haven't even gotten to sugary cereals yet, which I am willing to bet are ahead of yogurt, let alone the dreaded ketchup.0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7opFCZr1PA
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 422 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions