Calorie Counter

You are currently viewing the message boards in:

Why Science Says Sugar Is Bad for Weight Loss - the MFP Hello Healthy Blog

2»

Replies

  • QskimQskim Posts: 1,148Member Member Posts: 1,148Member Member
    Jesus Map..don't get banned for goodness sake ..ain't worth it!

    I used to eat out of bags of sugar too. Still do occasionally.
  • lemurcat12lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886Member Member Posts: 30,886Member Member
    No, I think the number of people who enjoy spoonfuls of sugar enough to have more than a tiny number of calories from it is vanishingly low. Seriously, there is a reason for endurance athletes (of which I am the rankest amateur) to eat gels or other sugary foods, like sports drinks, and most of us *kitten* about the taste. True, an unfortunate number of people probably eat high sugar (and often fat) coffee drinks and lots of sugary soda, though, even if it's so not my thing and dumb to claim it's worse or more addictive than other foods people find tasty (like cheese).

    Far more people overeat cookie dough (sugar + fat) or bacon (fat + protein) or french fries (carbs + fat) or cheese (mostly fat) or (my favorite in all the world) roasted chicken with skin cooked with potatoes and asparagus or brussels sprouts. That anyone could prefer straight sugar to that is inconceivable to me, and I include dopamine (and the fact that the chicken, etc. will spike it) as part of my evidence. Straight sugar is one-dimensional, has no richness of taste at all.
    edited March 2016
  • Christine_72Christine_72 Posts: 16,074Member Member Posts: 16,074Member Member
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    Dvdgzz wrote: »
    The only reason I can see it as a bad thing is because it is much easier to overconsume since it's cheap and tasty. I have it daily. NOM

    Only thing I'd disagree with about this is that plain sugar isn't that tasty (there's a funny article from some years ago in a running or triathlon magazine about a guy who experimented with eating only gels for a week -- wish I could find it for MFP, he didn't enjoy it). What's amazingly tasty is sugar+fat (and also fat+other things, IMO, but I've never had the biggest sweet tooth).

    Haven't read the blog piece yet, but I will force myself to tomorrow!

    clearly you never were the kind of fatty mcfatfat who actually ATE SPOONFULS OF TABLE SUGAR ONE AFTER THE OTHER.

    Yes. 17-year-old-me championed this one.

    There are people here who love their sugar and see no problem not keeping track of it.

    It will be a forever, round and round unwinnable debate.

    Don't let it stress you out so much! you are responsible for your own health and well being, and they theirs :smile:

    edited March 2016
  • yarwellyarwell Posts: 10,573Member Member Posts: 10,573Member Member
    zyxst wrote: »
    "Our fat cells are capable of creating chemical signals that lead to chronic inflammation, especially when you eat too many calories and too much sugar. Chronic inflammation in the body is detrimental because it’s a key indicator of heart disease among other chronic health conditions."

    Can someone versed in science-layman's terms translation tell me WTF that's supposed to mean? To me, I understand it as "too much sugar will make you fat and fat makes chronic inflammation so you'll get heart disease and other nasty things". What's inflammating about fat? How does fat cause me chronic inflammation? What IS chronic inflammation? And since I do eat excess sugar (which automatically turns to fat), how come my GP and blood tests haven't shown this inflammation?

    Have you been tested for C reactive protein, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, and plasma viscosity - these are used as markers of inflammation.

    The mechanism might be something like "As more glucose is delivered to the fat cells, they produce an excess of reactive oxygen species (ROS) which in turn starts an inflammatory cascade within the cell." "Clogging arteries" may be due to inflammation of the arterial wall.

    Further reading at http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/83/2/461S.full or something more readable at https://chriskresser.com/how-inflammation-makes-you-fat-and-diabetic-and-vice-versa/
  • yarwellyarwell Posts: 10,573Member Member Posts: 10,573Member Member
    I don't read the MFP blog very often, but someone mentioned their latest post in another thread. I'm bringing it to the Nutrition Debate forum for comment. Anyone want to take it point by point?

    http://blog.myfitnesspal.com/science-says-sugar-bad-weight-loss/

    P1 The first paragraph says the new dietary guidelines for Americans limits sugar to 10% of daily calories, when in fact the guidelines say 10% of added sugars. The WHO use "free sugars", I haven't looked closely at the US definition of "added". The primary argument in the guidelines is that there isn't room in a typical calorie intake for more than 10% of calories after taking all the other recommendations into account.

    P2 In the second paragraph the increasing global consumption figures arise from increasing per capita consumption in developing countries and/or population growth. In the EU and some countries per capita consumption is level or declining.

    P3 - 20 oz soda, LOL. A can of full sugar soda, which nobody needs to drink, would be about 6.5% of daily calories. Basically the guidelines are saying don't drink sugar sweetened beverages (SSB), without actually saying that.

    P4 Some epidemiology may manage to tease out an association between high intake of SSB and obesity etc, but that's about it. The risk ratios are small, and the high SSB population is often economically challenged too. Some studies have also teased out associations between high intakes of certain fruits and diabetes, or fruit consumption and ovarian cancer, but the signal is not large compared to the background noise.

    P5 Sucrose (table sugar, which I assume is what the author means) is a disaccharide of fructose and glucose, the latter is "blood sugar". It's true to say that with only 5 grams of glucose in circulation in the blood it doesn't take much intake of glucose to increase it a lot and a functioning pancreas will indeed seek to bring it back down again. Starch is a molecule made up of glucose (no fructose) and it breaks down fast and actually raises blood sugar faster than table sugar per 50 grams of carbohydrate. Much of this paragraph is about "glycemic carbohydrates" rather than sugar per se.

    P6 Intake of glycemic carbohydrates will increase insulin levels and this will impair the release of fat from fat cells, also increasing the oxidation of carbohydrate by suppressing oxidation of fat. The glucose is stored in liver and muscle glycogen too, but the primary short term response is to oxidise it for fuel. Increasing adiposity / obesity is implicated in increasing inflammation which may be part of the timeline of type 2 diabetes, artery problems, heart disease etc, as may other factors like persistently elevated blood insulin levels.
  • ForecasterJasonForecasterJason Posts: 2,582Member Member Posts: 2,582Member Member
    try2again wrote: »
    I saw this article too. And the thing is, I've seen different versions of the exact same information from reputable sources for many years. Until I came to MFP, I didn't realize it was a disputed issue. To me, it seems like common sense and quite reasonable. I don't avoid sugar in any form, but is it really so unbalanced to think it could be beneficial to limit it?
    My thoughts exactly.

    My main issue with the article is that it doesn't really acknowledge that eating tremendous amounts of carbs in general (not just added sugar) can also overwork the pancreas and result in excess insulin being released.

    I think the important message is that while added sugar certainly does not have to be cut out from the diet, keeping it within the guidelines should be the goal.
  • HornsbyHornsby Posts: 10,372Member Member Posts: 10,372Member Member
    There always has to be simple answers for simple people. This is one of those cases.
  • Alyssa_Is_LosingItAlyssa_Is_LosingIt Posts: 4,684Member Member Posts: 4,684Member Member
    Hornsby wrote: »
    There always has to be simple answers for simple people. This is one of those cases.

    Yep.
  • stealthqstealthq Posts: 4,307Member Member Posts: 4,307Member Member
    yarwell wrote: »
    zyxst wrote: »
    "Our fat cells are capable of creating chemical signals that lead to chronic inflammation, especially when you eat too many calories and too much sugar. Chronic inflammation in the body is detrimental because it’s a key indicator of heart disease among other chronic health conditions."

    Can someone versed in science-layman's terms translation tell me WTF that's supposed to mean? To me, I understand it as "too much sugar will make you fat and fat makes chronic inflammation so you'll get heart disease and other nasty things". What's inflammating about fat? How does fat cause me chronic inflammation? What IS chronic inflammation? And since I do eat excess sugar (which automatically turns to fat), how come my GP and blood tests haven't shown this inflammation?

    Have you been tested for C reactive protein, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, and plasma viscosity - these are used as markers of inflammation.

    The mechanism might be something like "As more glucose is delivered to the fat cells, they produce an excess of reactive oxygen species (ROS) which in turn starts an inflammatory cascade within the cell." "Clogging arteries" may be due to inflammation of the arterial wall.

    Further reading at http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/83/2/461S.full or something more readable at https://chriskresser.com/how-inflammation-makes-you-fat-and-diabetic-and-vice-versa/

    It would be better if they tested actual interferon pathway and associated pathway activations, but those tests haven't made to the bedside. Maybe someday. The existing tests are 'hey there's something going on' as opposed to the newer ones used in research that are 'hey, you've got a viral infection (or a bacterial infection, or what is likely to be an autoimmune reaction, etc)'.
Sign In or Register to comment.