We Can Blame Sugar All We Like – But We're Only Creating More Problems For Ourselves
Options
Replies
-
Its nice to see some constructive discussion which was the whole point of the post.0
-
cafeaulait7 wrote: »There are so many studies that show so many conflicting things that I think I'd probably want to watch my added sugar a little even before I got hyperglycemia... or flip that coin and do the opposite if I felt like it. It's just not settled science. Most of life is not settled science, so that's no big deal, but I just can't come to one side 100%.
The reason pre-diabetes and worse are mentioned is of course because that's what usually comes to mind in knowing that some carbs can be objectively called 'bad' for many folks. But actually there are all kinds of coronary risks that are shown in various studies related to sugar/carbs (and other studies with different findings). The discussion of whether sugar is 'bad' kind of has to go there, imho.
But that's like the old days of arguing about butter and coronary risks. It's natural to go there, and it may be true or untrue because the science isn't good enough yet to tell. What that means we each do isn't etched in stone, because how could it be?
Meh, actually my plan's pretty etched in stone now. Hyperglycemia settles it pretty well for an individual, lol. And I loooove sugar, dammit.
So, stop yourself and ask a few questions. What was the pre-diabetic number in the US(the standard being used) and what was it 5, 10, 20 years ago. Now, coronary disease. The marker for coronary disease at one time was cholesterol. The total number, not ratios. The number was 240, then dropped to 220, and eventually some physicians would tell you at 200 it is creeping up. Do you see a trend? The backdrop is 'CAD' or 'metabolic syndrome'. Medication si and will continue to be a driver for the numbers or whatever metric is selected. Sugar i today what fat was years ago. One factor, not they factor, is diet. Genetics, personal history, family history, play roles along with diet. Give it some thought and then read the studies you are referencing above. Make sense?
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
No one said that but you.
On the other side, let's not pretend that added sugar is some kind of required or necessary nutrient. Added sugar is pretty much something that we eat for fun, not nutritional needs. It is completely expendable with zero negative effects.0 -
_Terrapin_ wrote: »cafeaulait7 wrote: »There are so many studies that show so many conflicting things that I think I'd probably want to watch my added sugar a little even before I got hyperglycemia... or flip that coin and do the opposite if I felt like it. It's just not settled science. Most of life is not settled science, so that's no big deal, but I just can't come to one side 100%.
The reason pre-diabetes and worse are mentioned is of course because that's what usually comes to mind in knowing that some carbs can be objectively called 'bad' for many folks. But actually there are all kinds of coronary risks that are shown in various studies related to sugar/carbs (and other studies with different findings). The discussion of whether sugar is 'bad' kind of has to go there, imho.
But that's like the old days of arguing about butter and coronary risks. It's natural to go there, and it may be true or untrue because the science isn't good enough yet to tell. What that means we each do isn't etched in stone, because how could it be?
Meh, actually my plan's pretty etched in stone now. Hyperglycemia settles it pretty well for an individual, lol. And I loooove sugar, dammit.
So, stop yourself and ask a few questions. What was the pre-diabetic number in the US(the standard being used) and what was it 5, 10, 20 years ago. Now, coronary disease. The marker for coronary disease at one time was cholesterol. The total number, not ratios. The number was 240, then dropped to 220, and eventually some physicians would tell you at 200 it is creeping up. Do you see a trend? The backdrop is 'CAD' or 'metabolic syndrome'. Medication si and will continue to be a driver for the numbers or whatever metric is selected. Sugar i today what fat was years ago. One factor, not they factor, is diet. Genetics, personal history, family history, play roles along with diet. Give it some thought and then read the studies you are referencing above. Make sense?
I'm not thinking of the estimated number of pre-diabetics or its change over time or anything, though. I get that that is in large part just the metrics used, absolutely. Like the number of obese people in the US now vs before the criteria change, yeah.
I'm talking about studies that are much more direct than that, so the impact on insulin resistance would be what was measured, for instance. A big impact is still a big impact, no matter what you'd label the level of insulin resistance. It's still compared to controls, of course. Well, not in all studies, but I'm not saying that I think most studies are done as well as they could be, lol. That's true for both kinds of results.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
No one said that but you.
On the other side, let's not pretend that added sugar is some kind of required or necessary nutrient. Added sugar is pretty much something that we eat for fun, not nutritional needs. It is completely expendable with zero negative effects.
The same can be said for saturated fat, but you won't hear that from the "sugar is the debil, eat all the baconz" crew.0 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
No one said that but you.
On the other side, let's not pretend that added sugar is some kind of required or necessary nutrient. Added sugar is pretty much something that we eat for fun, not nutritional needs. It is completely expendable with zero negative effects.
The same can be said for saturated fat, but you won't hear that from the "sugar is the debil, eat all the baconz" crew.
I love eating sugar and am not crazy over bacon. Fats are required, sugar is not. I think saturated fats are the better choice for my fat intake as I prefer my fats 'nature-made'.0 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
No one said that but you.
On the other side, let's not pretend that added sugar is some kind of required or necessary nutrient. Added sugar is pretty much something that we eat for fun, not nutritional needs. It is completely expendable with zero negative effects.
The same can be said for saturated fat, but you won't hear that from the "sugar is the debil, eat all the baconz" crew.
I eat both sugar and bacon. Both in moderation and within the context of an overall reasonably well-rounded diet. Because I enjoy them, they taste great and they're not harmful in moderation.0 -
What I meant was what number was used to determine if someone is pre-diabetic? The number has been lowered to 'set' a 'net' for a greater number of people. IR is greatly impacted by a few things. If people would exercise(walk, run, cycle, lift, swim, etc) they 'd see improvement in the markers.cafeaulait7 wrote: »_Terrapin_ wrote: »cafeaulait7 wrote: »There are so many studies that show so many conflicting things that I think I'd probably want to watch my added sugar a little even before I got hyperglycemia... or flip that coin and do the opposite if I felt like it. It's just not settled science. Most of life is not settled science, so that's no big deal, but I just can't come to one side 100%.
The reason pre-diabetes and worse are mentioned is of course because that's what usually comes to mind in knowing that some carbs can be objectively called 'bad' for many folks. But actually there are all kinds of coronary risks that are shown in various studies related to sugar/carbs (and other studies with different findings). The discussion of whether sugar is 'bad' kind of has to go there, imho.
But that's like the old days of arguing about butter and coronary risks. It's natural to go there, and it may be true or untrue because the science isn't good enough yet to tell. What that means we each do isn't etched in stone, because how could it be?
Meh, actually my plan's pretty etched in stone now. Hyperglycemia settles it pretty well for an individual, lol. And I loooove sugar, dammit.
So, stop yourself and ask a few questions. What was the pre-diabetic number in the US(the standard being used) and what was it 5, 10, 20 years ago. Now, coronary disease. The marker for coronary disease at one time was cholesterol. The total number, not ratios. The number was 240, then dropped to 220, and eventually some physicians would tell you at 200 it is creeping up. Do you see a trend? The backdrop is 'CAD' or 'metabolic syndrome'. Medication si and will continue to be a driver for the numbers or whatever metric is selected. Sugar i today what fat was years ago. One factor, not they factor, is diet. Genetics, personal history, family history, play roles along with diet. Give it some thought and then read the studies you are referencing above. Make sense?
I'm not thinking of the estimated number of pre-diabetics or its change over time or anything, though. I get that that is in large part just the metrics used, absolutely. Like the number of obese people in the US now vs before the criteria change, yeah.
I'm talking about studies that are much more direct than that, so the impact on insulin resistance would be what was measured, for instance. A big impact is still a big impact, no matter what you'd label the level of insulin resistance. It's still compared to controls, of course. Well, not in all studies, but I'm not saying that I think most studies are done as well as they could be, lol. That's true for both kinds of results.0 -
I heard bacon.
Nice article, OP.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
No one said that but you.
On the other side, let's not pretend that added sugar is some kind of required or necessary nutrient. Added sugar is pretty much something that we eat for fun, not nutritional needs. It is completely expendable with zero negative effects.
I eat alligator for fun....and the wooden stick. What food do you eat and think 'I need the nutrient specific to this food item'? I get the idea it isn't necessary but I enjoy it and need energy. If we outlawed soda for example, could you imagine the bottling companies believing people would buy bottled water? Oh wait.
0 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
No one said that but you.
On the other side, let's not pretend that added sugar is some kind of required or necessary nutrient. Added sugar is pretty much something that we eat for fun, not nutritional needs. It is completely expendable with zero negative effects.
The same can be said for saturated fat, but you won't hear that from the "sugar is the debil, eat all the baconz" crew.
The other problem seems to be at least a few of this same group are choosing to dismiss the research suggesting saturated fat may not be the best source of fats while railing against sugar. It's all about individual risk analysis and choice management in either case.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: I find it fascinating which risks people are willing to take in the name of their dietary world view.0 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
No one said that but you.
On the other side, let's not pretend that added sugar is some kind of required or necessary nutrient. Added sugar is pretty much something that we eat for fun, not nutritional needs. It is completely expendable with zero negative effects.
The same can be said for saturated fat, but you won't hear that from the "sugar is the debil, eat all the baconz" crew.
The other problem seems to be at least a few of this same group are choosing to dismiss the research suggesting saturated fat may not be the best source of fats while railing against sugar. It's all about individual risk analysis and choice management in either case.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: I find it fascinating which risks people are willing to take in the name of their dietary world view.
No matter what you eat, you're taking risks according to somebody. Question is, who do you believe and how neurotic are you willing to be to eliminate all potential risks, no matter how remote they are? And how do you overcome the fact that genetics plays as much (or maybe more) of a part in disease/wellness as nutrition itself?
Here, this will really throw a wrench in the works: Everybody who eats any kind of food, ever, will die. Scientifically proven and empirically validated. Now what?0 -
-
Assuming that is accurate, very minimal added sugar. When I lived in Okinawa, I don't recall ever seeing big bags of sugar except in the "Westernized" stores. It was sold more in ounces, not pounds.to the bolded part, nope. When I was overweight my problem was fatty foods like philly cheesesteaks, fried chicken, mozzarella sticks, buffalo wings, and lots of beer ….
and from speaking with @lemurcat12 she had the same problem as I did….
so your premise is not correct.
I'll add myself to the list of those that eat fattier foods when I overeat, but at times combined with sugar (cookies, cheesecake, etc). Assuming you are correct on @lemurcat12 's position, that would give us an N=3. And to clarify, I made it clear that the threads on sugar are nothing but my opinion. But I'd bet you a beer that if we scrolled through the first 10 or so pages on the forums, there are more threads that identify sugar as the problem as compared to fats. Not that I even really would agree that sugar alone would be the problem, but for whatever reason that is what most people identify as struggling with.
I think I understand why these threads pop up (repeatedly).
1. Low-carb sells books and air time. It has for about 20 years now
3. There are several celebrity "doctors" and "health experts" actively promoting this (see 1)
4. And following the low-carb advice above, people wind up having to give up almost all carbs (particularly in the early stages... I remember even milk was off-limits during phase 1 atkins). This is an elimination diet, and elimination diets are rough.
5. Trying to give so much up creates a lot of despair.
6. The foods they're giving up are not just sugary/fatty, they're also EASY. You buy a box of oreos, there's nothing to opening the box and eating a dozen of them. Odds are you're going to have to cook that chicken breast, or at the very least reheat it. And meat alone is something we're not culturally attenuated to consume, so that means preparing a carbohydrate and possibly a side with it. You've eaten half a dozen oreos in the time it took to assemble a ham sandwich.
7. People are lazy. This is no insult. I'm lazy, too. This is why so many people (myself included) grab a can of soda instead of carefully prepping fresh fruit and placing it into a freshly cleaned water infuser that we'll have to wash out afterwards. Its why most people will eat an apple or a banana, but not cut up melon for a mid-morning snack. Its also why people open new threads on topics which are already on the front page. Because they're lazy. They want to say something, and they don't want to read through what's already been there. MFP has a pretty basic sorting/search function, so some of the fault lies with them.
Once you understand that high-fat, high-carb snacks are tasty, satiating, and easy, the phenomenon of overindulgence on them becomes much easier to understand from a psychological standpoint. It has nothing to do with addiction and everything to do with utilizing the fewest resources to meet a desire.
Good points, but I'd see 1-5 as applicable to just about anything these days. It seems to me that many people want a "trendy" diet recommended by a celebrity, attached to lack of facts, etc. And restrictions work great for some people, yet fail for others, when in fact the main problem is just eating less of everything usually.
Numbers 6 & 7 I mostly agree with, but make an exception that ready made proteins are much more common now too, but usually cost more. Ready made meats, jerky, beans, etc, etc are all over the place, and people tend to not eat them over the fatty and/or sugar laden stuff. The same applies to drinks, with plenty of low or no carb versions readily available, even in travel portions such as the Mio and other type bottles and packets.
As for the psychological aspect, it's not missed at all by me. I'd even include marketing as an influence on some, yet all the marketing in the world for beef jerky doesn't bring sales in line with the processed stuff that people crave. As for addiction, I've already stated it really doesn't matter to me if it's physiological or psychological/behavioral, it's a problem that quite a few seem to deal with. Resources to meet the desire are often right in our pockets in the form of money, which we spend however we want. But having just run out for some food stuff, my wife and daughter wanted a "munchy". I was smart enough to buy a bag of peanut M&Ms. Bringing home cheese or a meat platter would have resulted in another trip....My personal tl/dr version on the matter of sugar.
I don't think it is either the devil or the greatest carb ever. I don't care if the professional community calls is addictive or not, nor do I really care if food is considered addictive or not. I don't care how any individual labels it or chooses not to. I don't think sugar (or fats combined with sugar) are needed for mental health.
But that said, I think more people struggle with added sugars and processed sugar/fatty food than they do with sugars and fats in more natural forms. I don't notice many posts about "help, I'm addicted to chicken breast!", or "I can't quit eating fatty hams!", but I see threads on issues cutting (mostly added) sugars over and over, and over again.
For me personally, I view it in a similar way to what some have stated here. I fit in delicious treats (often sugar and fat heavy) when I want or can within overall balance. But I don't binge on those things, and never felt out of control with them. I can understand that for others there lack of control with the issue makes it more of a trigger type food for them, so they choose to limit it. And at the end of the day, even when I want to indulge, I find that finding foods that combine nutrients is easier to do than to eat foods high in certain things and devoid of other nutrients. It just makes it easier to balance the overall diet that way. And eating that way usually means having less sugar. Not that I think it is evil, just that I won't seek out such a simple carb very often...
I pretty much agree with all the above. I don't advocate for the point of view that unlimited added sugar is perfectly okay and won't cause any issues, but I strongly disagree with Lustig, Taubes, Mercola et al's extremist views that sugar is "poison", the root of all obesity and health problems, and should be avoided at all costs. Especially when their points of view are backed only with pseudoscience and cherry-picked facts, and they disregard all studies which have findings to the contrary.
Anti-sugar zealots often point to the "Standard American Diet" and pretend that it means sitting on your couch while shoveling pounds of pure sugar down your throat all day to the exclusion of all other foods/nutrients. It's very binary thinking and completely ignores context and dosage within the diet. Added sugar, in moderation and within the context of an overall well-balanced diet, is not the devil they're making it out to be.
I understand why some people exclude sugary treats from their diets when they have problems with moderation and it creates bingeing issues. In those cases, it probably is best to not have it available to you at all and to avoid it whenever possible. But let's address the true problem: It's a self-control issue, not the fact that "sugar is the devil". People want rationalizations that take the person out of the equation because it's easier to feel it's not their fault if they believe sugar is "bad" or "addictive" (how many times have we seen that particular contention on MFP?). But the fact is, sugar is just sugar. It's a simple carb, part of a macronutrient class - not some villain wearing a black hat and lurking in the alleys trying to draw you in to a life of obesity and diabetes. Just like every other macronutrient, it's harmless in moderation but can be unhealthy if taken to extremes and to the exclusion of other nutrients.
Completely agree that most of it is a control issue. But at some level most people have control issues in regards to something, many of which are not considered addictive. And for the ones that are, I don't think people with real addictions use that as a way to escape personal accountability. Most of the alcoholics and drug addicts I've met completely own their part in their addictions. They might think certain events or circumstances helped them find the addiction, but don't want to state that they have no part in creating the problem.
As for myself, I had a drinking problem and rarely drink at all now, even though I'm not an alcoholic in a clinical sense. For me ridding myself of it except for on occasion was the best route. And if I have a planned "drinking allowed" day, event, etc, I still don't drink if I'm stressed or have anything going on that might let me self medicate to remove myself from the stresses. It was just an easy way to mask issues when I drank more, so rarely drinking at all is my best path.Wetcoaster wrote: »Its nice to see some constructive discussion which was the whole point of the post.
Agreed. You've been on a roll lately with some good though provoking stuff.
As for the late in the thread comments (I'm tired of fighting this multi quote thing), there is one easy answer to the bacon vs sugar thing. Maple Brown Sugar Bacon! BOOM!0 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
No one said that but you.
On the other side, let's not pretend that added sugar is some kind of required or necessary nutrient. Added sugar is pretty much something that we eat for fun, not nutritional needs. It is completely expendable with zero negative effects.
The same can be said for saturated fat, but you won't hear that from the "sugar is the debil, eat all the baconz" crew.
The other problem seems to be at least a few of this same group are choosing to dismiss the research suggesting saturated fat may not be the best source of fats while railing against sugar. It's all about individual risk analysis and choice management in either case.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: I find it fascinating which risks people are willing to take in the name of their dietary world view.
No matter what you eat, you're taking risks according to somebody. Question is, who do you believe and how neurotic are you willing to be to eliminate all potential risks, no matter how remote they are? And how do you overcome the fact that genetics plays as much (or maybe more) of a part in disease/wellness as nutrition itself?
Here, this will really throw a wrench in the works: Everybody who eats any kind of food, ever, will die. Scientifically proven and empirically validated. Now what?
Ha! Exactly, which is why I put in the bit about it all being about individual risk analysis and choice management, but I think you got to it better than I did.
I also really agreed with what you wrote a few posts ago, @AnvilHead, and think too much of anything ends up probably being an issue. It means, for me at least, that moderation in all things is the risk I'm personally willing to take.0 -
Of course moderation is a problem that many, if not most overweight and obese individuals struggle with . If not, most of us wouldn't have gotten in that state to begin with.
Personally I find it easier to practice self-control at the grocery store than during the rest of my week. Now, if you excuse me, there's pickled herring in the fridge calling my name.0 -
Also, re: pre-diabetes. Its a new diagnosis. It didn't exist prior to 2007. So finding stats on it 10, 15, 20 years ago would be impossible.0
-
Of course moderation is a problem that many, if not most overweight and obese individuals struggle with . If not, most of us wouldn't have gotten in that state to begin with.
Personally I find it easier to practice self-control at the grocery store than during the rest of my week. Now, if you excuse me, there's pickled herring in the fridge calling my name.
Agreed. My point was that sugar isn't the problem, lack of moderation is. In fact if I was ranking factors contributing to obesity, I'd rank 1) "super-sized" portions and 2) a society that views physical activity/labor as inconvenient rather than beneficial, far higher on the ladder of causative factors than the "evil" sugar.
Societal obesity is because we eat too much and don't move enough, not because we eat sugar. And many of the health issues that anti-sugar zealots attribute to sugar (diabetes, insulin resistance, metabolic syndrome as a whole, etc.) actually correlate much more closely to obesity itself than to sugar consumption. In their eagerness to promote their agenda, they (deliberately or otherwise) confuse correlation with causation.
Sure, many obese people have terrible diets. But 350-pound people with 60% bodyfat are going to suffer obesity-related medical issues whether they got to 350 pounds eating pure sugar, cheeseburgers or broccoli and chicken breasts. There are plenty of calorie-dense foods that aren't loaded with sugar - so is Lustig claiming that a person who got to 350 pounds by eating steak, cheese, "bulletproof coffee" and triple cheeseburgers is healthier than the one who got there by eating Ding-Dongs, Twinkies, candy bars and donuts? Only the latter person will suffer medical issues, because of the demon sugar? Mind. Blown.0 -
Agreed. My point was that sugar isn't the problem, lack of moderation is. In fact if I was ranking factors contributing to obesity, I'd rank 1) "super-sized" portions and 2) a society that views physical activity/labor as inconvenient rather than beneficial, far higher on the ladder of causative factors than the "evil" sugar.
Societal obesity is because we eat too much and don't move enough, not because we eat sugar. And many of the health issues that anti-sugar zealots attribute to sugar (diabetes, insulin resistance, metabolic syndrome as a whole, etc.) actually correlate much more closely to obesity itself than to sugar consumption. In their eagerness to promote their agenda, they (deliberately or otherwise) confuse correlation with causation.
Sure, many obese people have terrible diets. But 350-pound people with 60% bodyfat are going to suffer obesity-related medical issues whether they got to 350 pounds eating pure sugar, cheeseburgers or broccoli and chicken breasts. There are plenty of calorie-dense foods that aren't loaded with sugar - so is Lustig claiming that a person who got to 350 pounds by eating steak, cheese, "bulletproof coffee" and triple cheeseburgers is healthier than the one who got there by eating Ding-Dongs, Twinkies, candy bars and donuts? Only the latter person will suffer medical issues, because of the demon sugar? Mind. Blown.
I agree 100% with you
I think I was responding to someone else but deleted the "quotes" from them and decided that 2-3 similar posts had been made in the anti-sugar vein.
My first semester in college, I took political science. My professor gave an example that I've never forgotten. She pulled out a graph with the incidence of fatal traffic accidents over the previous 20 years in Detroit, with a clear upward trend. Then she pulled out another graph showing the incidence of dog heartworm during the same period in Detroit. Laying them over one another, she gave us the high R-value for correlation of the two. "Clearly, if you believed correlation is causation, then heartworm in dogs causes fatal traffic accidents" she said.0 -
...My first semester in college, I took political science. My professor gave an example that I've never forgotten. She pulled out a graph with the incidence of fatal traffic accidents over the previous 20 years in Detroit, with a clear upward trend. Then she pulled out another graph showing the incidence of dog heartworm during the same period in Detroit. Laying them over one another, she gave us the high R-value for correlation of the two. "Clearly, if you believed correlation is causation, then heartworm in dogs causes fatal traffic accidents" she said.
LOL, that's a great example!
Yes, many specious arguments can be made when equating correlation with causation. It certainly does make for a convenient way for people with an agenda to ignore the science which doesn't agree with their desired conclusions, though. 0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 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
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 916 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions