Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Is Sugar our Biggest Diet Breaker?
svel713
Posts: 141 Member
Doctors say a new study provides 'the strongest evidence to date' that sugar causes health risks, regardless of whether it increases calorie intake
Diet's Composition: "The diet overall had the same fat, protein, carbohydrate, and calorie levels as their previous diets at home, with the carbohydrate from sugar replaced by foods such as bagels, cereals and pasta. Hot dogs, crisps and pizza from local supermarkets all featured in the diet."
Diet's Sugar Cals: "Overall, the total dietary sugar in the meal plan was reduced from 28 per cent to 10 per cent, and fructose from 12 per cent to 4 per cent of total calories."
Satiety: " 'When we took the sugar out, the kids started responding to their satiety cues. They told us it felt like so much more food, even though they were consuming the same number of calories as before, just with significantly less sugar.' "
Opinions on this? I'm asking because I did a similar diet and have had major success, but this is the only study I have that points specifically to what I've done. I've not found anyone else debate sugar vs. non-sweet-tasting carbs.
Diet's Composition: "The diet overall had the same fat, protein, carbohydrate, and calorie levels as their previous diets at home, with the carbohydrate from sugar replaced by foods such as bagels, cereals and pasta. Hot dogs, crisps and pizza from local supermarkets all featured in the diet."
Diet's Sugar Cals: "Overall, the total dietary sugar in the meal plan was reduced from 28 per cent to 10 per cent, and fructose from 12 per cent to 4 per cent of total calories."
Satiety: " 'When we took the sugar out, the kids started responding to their satiety cues. They told us it felt like so much more food, even though they were consuming the same number of calories as before, just with significantly less sugar.' "
Opinions on this? I'm asking because I did a similar diet and have had major success, but this is the only study I have that points specifically to what I've done. I've not found anyone else debate sugar vs. non-sweet-tasting carbs.
2
Replies
-
I do think that in certain quantities sugar is problematic.
That being said, most people on this forum will discredit that study because it was conducted by Dr. Lustig.3 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »I do think that in certain quantities sugar is problematic.
That being said, most people on this forum will discredit that study because it was conducted by Dr. Lustig.
Less people would discredit it if Lustig wasn't seemingly the only person having these sorts of findings. Makes you wonder.3 -
I love sugar... eat it every day: natural, added, artificial... you name it! I lost 28 pounds in 6 months and have kept it off for over 7 months... so I would say "no"...2
-
This content has been removed.
-
ForecasterJason wrote: »I do think that in certain quantities sugar is problematic.
That being said, most people on this forum will discredit that study because it was conducted by Dr. Lustig.
I haven't been on MFP very long. Why don't people like Lustig? He's the only one I can find that's even thought to look at this.
Edit: Just found this. Doesn't look like Lustig is involved?0 -
Table sugar, sometimes labeled as "dehydrated cane juice", is known to cause endorphin release in the human brain. Our brains also get this endorphin release from the eating of fruits and vegetables which also have the component of sugar, though in less abundance than cane and beets. The fruits and vegetables provide also a wide variety of nutrients including vitamins, essential vitamins, protein, and fiber. Sugar does not provide nutrients beyond simple carbs. Consuming foods high in added sugar is very pleasant, from the endorphin release, causing you to want more. These foods often do not provide fiber, leaving you always with room for more, and they often do not provide needed nutrition, causing your body to crave more food in addition to all the sugary stuff you just ate. It is this which causes people with access to Western (civilization) food to tend toward obesity. However, don't you dare tell me that apple pie is bad for me.1
-
ForecasterJason wrote: »I do think that in certain quantities sugar is problematic.
That being said, most people on this forum will discredit that study because it was conducted by Dr. Lustig.
I haven't been on MFP very long. Why don't people like Lustig? He's the only one I can find that's even thought to look at this.
That's the reason. If a singular person - who just so happens to be very medially active with books, a documentary and many TV appearances all revolving around how sugar is gonna kill you - is the only person who gets results like this, it's beyond suspicious looking.2 -
Krisstastic_ wrote: »DoreenaV1975 wrote: »I love sugar... eat it every day: natural, added, artificial... you name it! I lost 28 pounds in 6 months and have kept it off for over 7 months... so I would say "no"...
same as this but 107lbs lost and still losing
Wow! That's awesome...Congrats!!!!!!!
0 -
I personally don't think it's exactly breaking news that sugar consumed in excess is bad for you. I also don't think it's breaking news that the SAD typically contains an overabundance of sugar (among other nutrient deficiencies) and that most people who eat the SAD could stand to substantially reduce their sugar and "junk" food in general.
Does this mean that sugar is inherently "bad"?...I don't think so...sugar has been consumed forever without ill effect. The issue isn't sugar in and of itself...the issue is that a lot of people eat way too much of it. I know people in my office who eat cake for breakfast and wash that down with a Dr. Pepper and then you see them at lunch walking around with a 40 ounce soda to wash down their fries and triple decker bacon burger super sized combo. To that end, a "poor diet" is going to have a lot of other things wrong with it than just sugar.6 -
JeromeBarry1 wrote: »Table sugar, sometimes labeled as "dehydrated cane juice", is known to cause endorphin release in the human brain. Our brains also get this endorphin release from the eating of fruits and vegetables which also have the component of sugar, though in less abundance than cane and beets. The fruits and vegetables provide also a wide variety of nutrients including vitamins, essential vitamins, protein, and fiber. Sugar does not provide nutrients beyond simple carbs. Consuming foods high in added sugar is very pleasant, from the endorphin release, causing you to want more. These foods often do not provide fiber, leaving you always with room for more, and they often do not provide needed nutrition, causing your body to crave more food in addition to all the sugary stuff you just ate. It is this which causes people with access to Western (civilization) food to tend toward obesity. However, don't you dare tell me that apple pie is bad for me.
lol
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
cwolfman13 wrote: »I personally don't think it's exactly breaking news that sugar consumed in excess is bad for you. I also don't think it's breaking news that the SAD typically contains an overabundance of sugar (among other nutrient deficiencies) and that most people who eat the SAD could stand to substantially reduce their sugar and "junk" food in general.
Does this mean that sugar is inherently "bad"?...I don't think so...sugar has been consumed forever without ill effect. The issue isn't sugar in and of itself...the issue is that a lot of people eat way too much of it. I know people in my office who eat cake for breakfast and wash that down with a Dr. Pepper and then you see them at lunch walking around with a 40 ounce soda to wash down their fries and triple decker bacon burger super sized combo. To that end, a "poor diet" is going to have a lot of other things wrong with it than just sugar.
But by staying away from sugar in candies, etc, I don't crave it anymore. I also had that effect of losing about 20% of my appetite. With that, I now see I'm able to meet my calorie limit without going hungry. And I didn't calorie count the whole time.
I'll also note I've never been able to eat a lot. At my worst, I may have been 2lbs overweight. That was from my "one candybar a day" habit. So heavy overeating could never be an issue. Its why I can't go to sit down restaurants like most people can. Its too much food even with the smallest meal and no appetizer.
0 -
Found something after a bit of looking. "Sugars might also alter metabolism by modulating enteroendocrine cells. Enteroendocrine cells are known to act as primary chemoreceptors, sources of gastrointestinal hormones and peptides. Indirect evidence suggests a connection between sugar absorption and the secretion and function of some peptides. Thus, enhanced sugar uptake observed in obesity can augment energy uptake, but also alter sugar transport across the brush border membrane and gastrointestinal hormone release in the intestine."
Higher sugar-sweetened beverage intake was associated with a significantly increased risk of cancer recurrence and mortality in stage III colon cancer patients.
"[W]e found that every 150 kcal/person/day increase in sugar availability (about one can of soda/day) was associated with increased diabetes prevalence by 1.1% (p <0.001) after testing for potential selection biases and controlling for other food types (including fibers, meats, fruits, oils, cereals), total calories, overweight and obesity, period-effects, and several socioeconomic variables such as aging, urbanization and income. No other food types yielded significant individual associations with diabetes prevalence after controlling for obesity and other confounders."
And one I've heard about more in the news: "A recent study published in PLOS ONE by Shariff and colleagues demonstrates that sugar addiction and nicotine dependency may share some common biochemical substrates. In particular, a common mechanism may take place at the level of the neuronal nicotinic acetylcholine receptors (nAChRs). In fact, the authors of the study observed that Varenicline, a partial agonist of nAChRs able to reduce nicotine cravings and withdrawal symptoms, was also able to efficiently reduce sugar consumption in rats."
And a last thought on why Lustig may be the only one. "With an initial annual budget of nearly $800,000 ($3.4 million today) collected from the makers of Dixie Crystals, Domino, C&H, Great Western, and other sugar brands, the association recruited a stable of medical and nutritional professionals to allay the public's fears, brought snack and beverage companies into the fold, and bankrolled scientific papers that contributed to a "highly supportive" FDA ruling, which, the Silver Anvil application boasted, made it "unlikely that sugar will be subject to legislative restriction in coming years.""2 -
This content has been removed.
-
Is this another article about how sugar is going to kill me?3
-
-
Alluminati wrote: »
Who wants to live forever, anyway?2 -
Just not the sugar in fruit, that sugar is magically ok, it is just sugar in breads, candies, and soda that is bad. Our bodies have some way to tell the difference when certain researchers do tests.
7 -
I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that the calories from fat in the cheeseburgers, chicken wings, milk, cheese, sausage, bacon, BBQ, etc. made me a lot fatter than the sugar in the sour patch kids I don't eat.11
-
Carlos_421 wrote: »I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that the calories from fat in the cheeseburgers, chicken wings, milk, cheese, sausage, bacon, BBQ, etc. made me a lot fatter than the sugar in the sour patch kids I don't eat.
You obviously didn't understand the study3 -
makingmark wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that the calories from fat in the cheeseburgers, chicken wings, milk, cheese, sausage, bacon, BBQ, etc. made me a lot fatter than the sugar in the sour patch kids I don't eat.
You obviously didn't understand the study
I didn't read it or even the OP.
I replied directly to the title of the thread.
#sorrynotsorry8 -
makingmark wrote: »Just not the sugar in fruit, that sugar is magically ok, it is just sugar in breads, candies, and soda that is bad. Our bodies have some way to tell the difference when certain researchers do tests.
"Magic" is a weird word to describe how the sugar in fresh fruit is packaged up with dietary fibre and water in convenient calorie controlled units.
OP, I have also found that sugary foods are what I have least control over when I eat them in excess and I have previously lost weight by changing absolutely nothing except hugely cutting my consumption of added sugars. I did it more for my teeth than for my waistline so I didn't have much hesitation about snacking on non-sugary junk food. So anecdotally I'd back you up although I'm more for evidence-based practice generally. I think the science is emerging and coming down on the side of simple carbohydrates and sugars being major contributors to the obesity epidemic.
Currently I don't restrict any particular food type but I definitely still eat less sugar than before and I find that the less I eat the less I crave. When I'm eating it very frequently I'll find myself roaming the house poking around in cupboards for anything sweet, which is really unpleasant.3 -
Opinions on this? I'm asking because I did a similar diet and have had major success, but this is the only study I have that points specifically to what I've done. I've not found anyone else debate sugar vs. non-sweet-tasting carbs.
1. It's in ethnic minority obese children, so a fairly specific sub-group. Heavy soda drinkers probably, another sub-group.
2. It wasn't isocaloric / weight maintaining which it set out to be.
There have been studies making isocaloric substitutions of sugars for other sugars or starches. Results tend to lean in the direction you might expect given the funding source or leanings of the investigator / institution.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »I do think that in certain quantities sugar is problematic.
That being said, most people on this forum will discredit that study because it was conducted by Dr. Lustig.
Less people would discredit it if Lustig wasn't seemingly the only person having these sorts of findings. Makes you wonder.
I can imagine why someone would like us to believe so, but it is not the case.
This Turkish-Italian study, for instance, even calls fructose "a weapon of mass destruction":
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4405421/
Lustig seems a moderate in comparison 0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »I personally don't think it's exactly breaking news that sugar consumed in excess is bad for you. I also don't think it's breaking news that the SAD typically contains an overabundance of sugar (among other nutrient deficiencies) and that most people who eat the SAD could stand to substantially reduce their sugar and "junk" food in general.
Does this mean that sugar is inherently "bad"?...I don't think so...sugar has been consumed forever without ill effect. The issue isn't sugar in and of itself...the issue is that a lot of people eat way too much of it. I know people in my office who eat cake for breakfast and wash that down with a Dr. Pepper and then you see them at lunch walking around with a 40 ounce soda to wash down their fries and triple decker bacon burger super sized combo. To that end, a "poor diet" is going to have a lot of other things wrong with it than just sugar.
Nice thoughts. Of course too much of anything will make someone fat. I'm going to go out on a limb though and say if you look at the diets of the obese vs normal weight, the obese will generally be getting a higher % of their calories from high calorie, nutritionally less dense foods.0 -
DoreenaV1975 wrote: »I love sugar... eat it every day: natural, added, artificial... you name it! I lost 28 pounds in 6 months and have kept it off for over 7 months... so I would say "no"...
Yep, my little n1- I had no problem losing 50ish lbs while consuming sugar in its various forms. Same with now, being several years into maintenance. I also had a high glucose number stabilize into the normal range during this times, along with also having every other health marker improve. I eat all sorts of foods, including sugary ones (last night I had a strawberry shake from Steak n' Shake, fit it into my calories for the day and thoroughly enjoyed it).
For me, I've found that in order to make this whole thing sustainable long term, I needed to learn how to fit in the foods I enjoyed. I haven't cut out anything I like eating, including sugary foods, and I'm a weight loss/maintenance success story 2 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »even calls fructose "a weapon of mass destruction":
Lol - weapon of mass consumption I would say...
3 -
Sugar is fine. Lustig is a quack. Sugar is actually an important nutrient. It provides glucose for the brain, readily available energy for exercise and is a stress reducer. That said, like any other nutrient ( protein and fat included), too much can be problematic. The real question is, "how much is too much?" I say, as long as your macros are balanced, you are eating an appropriate amount of calories and getting plenty of exercise, there is nothing to worry about.6
-
Doctors say a new study provides 'the strongest evidence to date' that sugar causes health risks, regardless of whether it increases calorie intake
Yarwell made the points I would about the study itself and why I am not convinced that it showed what it was trying to.
However, I do think the US diet on average contains too much sugar and that if people are eating 28% of their calories from sugar, as in the example given, that of course it's probably going to be an improvement to reduce it to 10% (which is not especially low--it's what the US Dietary Guidelines currently recommend).
I am also not surprised that kids were overeating more on the 28% sugar diet and having a hard time recognizing satiety given that a lot of the sugar was likely from soda and highly palatable foods that people tend to overeat. This is the reason for the US Dietary Guidelines limit (and WHO's reasoning for their own limit) -- lots of added sugar tends to result in excess calories in the diet as a whole.
I'd guess this is likely to be even more so for kids.2 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »I do think that in certain quantities sugar is problematic.
That being said, most people on this forum will discredit that study because it was conducted by Dr. Lustig.
Most people discredit the notion because it is non sensical...2
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions