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.
The Sugar Conspiracy
Replies
-
ETA: There was also an argument about sick people assuming everyone else was sick. Diabetes is one thing, but there is no sickness called "being sensitive to insulin, and sugar", at least if you try to make an argument that there is such a thing, you will be blasted for it (always by people who aren't sensitive to it, of course). All a very circular debate.
Being sensitive to insulin is not a disease because it is the desired, healthy state. It's when your insulin receptors lose their sensitivity that a person develops Insulin Resistantance which IS a disease. Incidentally, Insulin Resistance causes sensitivity to sugar.6 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »
Being sensitive to insulin is not a disease because it is the desired, healthy state. It's when your insulin receptors lose their sensitivity that a person develops Insulin Resistantance which IS a disease. Incidentally, Insulin Resistance causes sensitivity to sugar.
Right, that is what I was referring to, insulin insensitivity (and sugar sensitivity), my bad on the misappropriation.
I read some articles recently about how a high fructose diet during development of the fetus can negatively affect lifelong endocrine, appetite, feeding behavior and fat burning/distribution. (Goran MI, Dumke K, Bouret SG, Kayser B, Walker RW, Blumberg B. The obesogenic effect of high fructose exposure during early development. Nat Rev Endocrinol. 2013 Jun 4;)
I think a big challenge is that many don't see insulin resistance as a disease, but more of a symptom that only occurs after significant weight gain. I believe there is something of predisposition to it, and those who have this underlying genetic issue are the ones that need to strictly control carb and sugar intake (for life). There are others who can eat whatever they want and remain in good health (I know a bunch of them).3 -
Right, that is what I was referring to, insulin insensitivity (and sugar sensitivity), my bad on the misappropriation.
I read some articles recently about how a high fructose diet during development of the fetus can negatively affect lifelong endocrine, appetite, feeding behavior and fat burning/distribution. (Goran MI, Dumke K, Bouret SG, Kayser B, Walker RW, Blumberg B. The obesogenic effect of high fructose exposure during early development. Nat Rev Endocrinol. 2013 Jun 4;)
I think a big challenge is that many don't see insulin resistance as a disease, but more of a symptom that only occurs after significant weight gain. I believe there is something of predisposition to it, and those who have this underlying genetic issue are the ones that need to strictly control carb and sugar intake (for life). There are others who can eat whatever they want and remain in good health (I know a bunch of them).
I've never seen or heard anyone deny that insulin resistance is a legitimate medical condition which warrants special dietary requirements.
And yes, there is a predisposition to insulin resistance and diabetes. In fact, genetics is listed in the top three known causes.
However, for those genetically predisposed to developing insulin resistance/diabetes (but have not yet), the proper preventative measure is not to limit sugar but rather to mitigate the other two known factors, weight and activity level.
It's when insulin resistance actually occurs that sugar intake must be monitored and controlled.6 -
How easy is it for a person to know whether they are insulin resistance? Would it be picked up if someone has a physical with routine blood tests? Do they physically feel badly which would prompt a doctor visit?1
-
How easy is it for a person to know whether they are insulin resistance? Would it be picked up if someone has a physical with routine blood tests? Do they physically feel badly which would prompt a doctor visit?
Not an expert, but should be noticable by any test that has fasting glucose/insulin as part of it which should be any old routine bloodwork I think.1 -
How easy is it for a person to know whether they are insulin resistance? Would it be picked up if someone has a physical with routine blood tests? Do they physically feel badly which would prompt a doctor visit?
@100df I think it is this cluster of health concerns that points to insulin resistance perhaps in an indirect way?
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4129661/0 -
Thanks guys. I don't think I have it but was wondering how someone would find out.0
-
inspirationgreen.com/all-the-different-sugars.html
This is just a list with a blip of info about different kinds of sugars out there.1 -
Diagnosing insulin resistance based on the metabolic syndrome criteria works for some groups but not all ethnic groups. Also, considering that unusually high post meal blood sugars can result while fasting blood sugars remain normal once insulin resistance develops, an A1C test can also be helpful.2
-
GaleHawkins wrote: »inspirationgreen.com/all-the-different-sugars.html
This is just a list with a blip of info about different kinds of sugars out there.
You lost me at "toxic."
Thankfully, that was in the title so I didn't actually waste my time on the rest of it.
7 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »
You lost me at "toxic."
Thankfully, that was in the title so I didn't actually waste my time on the rest of it.
I see that. As a researcher I read the Google blip and if interested I start reading. Editor titles are typically of a negative value when it comes to scientific subjects I find.0 -
Looking things up on the Google doesn't make you a researcher3
-
FunkyTobias wrote: »Looking things up on the Google doesn't make you a researcher
True it makes me a researcher of research. ,+3 -
I gave up on this discussion when I realized it was basically one of a few arguments:
1. People who are sensitive to sugar (for a variety of reasons) who were claiming it should be avoided.
2. People who are not/less sensitive to sugar who were claiming it's harmless in every way.
I didn't really see anyone who was negatively impacted by sugar saying it was OK to eat as much as they wanted, and didn't see anyone who ISNT negatively affected by sugar claiming it should be avoided.
In the end, it was a giant exercise in confirmation bias, and somewhat pointless.
ETA: There was also an argument about sick people assuming everyone else was sick. Diabetes is one thing, but there is no sickness called "being sensitive to insulin, and sugar", at least if you try to make an argument that there is such a thing, you will be blasted for it (always by people who aren't sensitive to it, of course). All a very circular debate.
In the end, avoiding sugar will always be "healthier" for me, calorie intake aside. And if I am wrong, there is zero harm in that approach anyway as added sugar is 0% needed to be healthy. I'd rather err on the side of caution.
Thanks, Henry, for summing this up so well. I agree completely about people using the data they find as confirmation of their point of view, and ignoring the other side of the debate when it disagrees with them.
Also, strongly agree that regardless of whether I am sensitive to sugar, or not sensitive to sugar, there is no nutritional reason for added sugar in our diets. And no harm at all in avoiding it (to be on the safe side).5 -
stevencloser wrote: »
Not an expert, but should be noticable by any test that has fasting glucose/insulin as part of it which should be any old routine bloodwork I think.
When doing fasting bloodwork, it would show if your glucose is high or not. But that could be either because of low production of insulin, or insulin resistance, or a combination of both. It is possible to do a glucose challenge test, and during that test (which normally just measures blood glucose levels) also measure insulin levels. From the two, you could deduce whether you have insulin resistance.
Exercise definitely decreases insulin resistance, but will not have an effect on insulin production. If you don't change your diet, but do start an exercise program, and the fasting glucose levels decrease, then that is evidence for insulin resistance. Once you also change your diet, it is difficult to tease apart the two (without bloodwork being done as mentioned above).1 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »Diagnosing insulin resistance based on the metabolic syndrome criteria works for some groups but not all ethnic groups. Also, considering that unusually high post meal blood sugars can result while fasting blood sugars remain normal once insulin resistance develops, an A1C test can also be helpful.
Agree with both of your comments.1 -
stevencloser wrote: »
Sugar or added sugar?
both0 -
I watched a really good documentary on Netflix called sugar coated. I recommend anyone who can watch it, watch it.3
-
It's not on Netflix where I live. Can you sum it up?
I exercised a little google-fu on it. The keywords are "Big Sugar".
2 -
MissusMoon wrote: »
I'm just so curious to hear what makes it a really good documentary. As opposed to, say, Fed Up.
1 -
Documentaries are great if you want to know a tiny bit on a subject and like moving images with it.6
-
Sugars and Health Controversies: What Does the Science Say?
http://advances.nutrition.org/content/6/4/493S.abstract
Although more research trials are needed in many areas of sugar consumption and health, there is little scientific justification for recommending restricting sugar consumption below the reasonable upper limit recommended by the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2010 of no more than 25% of calories3 -
I think Credit Suisse does a much better job at outlining "what the science says" in their report, Sugar Consumption at a crossroads.
As a bonus they're not funded by ConAgra Foods, Kraft Foods, the Florida Department of Citrus, PepsiCo International, The Coca-Cola Company, the Corn Refiners Association, Weight Watchers International, Dr. Pepper Snapple Group, and various publishers.3 -
AlabasterVerve wrote: »I think Credit Suisse does a much better job at outlining "what the science says" in their report, Sugar Consumption at a crossroads.
As a bonus they're not funded by ConAgra Foods, Kraft Foods, the Florida Department of Citrus, PepsiCo International, The Coca-Cola Company, the Corn Refiners Association, Weight Watchers International, Dr. Pepper Snapple Group, and various publishers.
NM.
0 -
AlabasterVerve wrote: »I think Credit Suisse does a much better job at outlining "what the science says" in their report, Sugar Consumption at a crossroads.
As a bonus they're not funded by ConAgra Foods, Kraft Foods, the Florida Department of Citrus, PepsiCo International, The Coca-Cola Company, the Corn Refiners Association, Weight Watchers International, Dr. Pepper Snapple Group, and various publishers.
It's a financial group. I don't doubt that they know how to do general research but I do doubt they have the proper training to know whether a hypothesis is plausible in the slightest, seeing how at one point they talk about an idea after which sugar somehow creates bodyfat faster than other things which doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
It does show that up to 90+% of doctors have little to no knowledge of nutrition from a survey they did though, at least that is correct, as are probably most of the economical statistics they have in it, though there was a diagram showing calorie consumption that I'm fairly sure was actually the calorie availability from the FAO statistics. I wouldn't place too much money on their interpretations of medical connections though.2 -
Wetcoaster wrote: »Sugars and Health Controversies: What Does the Science Say?
http://advances.nutrition.org/content/6/4/493S.abstract
Although more research trials are needed in many areas of sugar consumption and health, there is little scientific justification for recommending restricting sugar consumption below the reasonable upper limit recommended by the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2010 of no more than 25% of calories
Did you read where they corrected that from 25% to 10%?0 -
Wow, 29 pages now!0
-
GaleHawkins wrote: »
Did you read where they corrected that from 25% to 10%?
The Guidelines? It's <10% ADDED sugar, not total. They also recommend 2 cups of fruit per day, <10% sat fat per day, and a carb range of 45%-65%. The current added sugar recommendation (as with WHO) is obesity focused -- because of the number of discretionary calories that allow one to meet nutritional requirements without going over calories.
I personally am comfortable with <10% added sugar (I tend to consume less than that on most days, and am also okay with the WHO's 5% if possible number), think fruit is kind of optional if one eats lots of vegetables, and that a carb range much broader than that (including low carb) is fine within a sensible diet and if healthy fat and protein targets are met, and also adequate micros are consumed. But I certainly wouldn't point to its recommendations on sugar while ignoring its recommendations overall.
The Guidelines are, IMO, an excellent way to have a healthy balanced diet without having to think that much about the details, and consistent with the advise of most mainstream nutrition experts. If one wants to focus on the details of how to meet needs in a less traditional diet, one can while deviating from the advice in various ways, depending on one's personal health issues (i.e., some people probably don't have to worry about sat fat, despite the various longitudinal studies and the evidence it negatively affects cholesterol for a subset).2 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »
The Guidelines? It's <10% ADDED sugar, not total. They also recommend 2 cups of fruit per day, <10% sat fat per day, and a carb range of 45%-65%. The current added sugar recommendation (as with WHO) is obesity focused -- because of the number of discretionary calories that allow one to meet nutritional requirements without going over calories.
I personally am comfortable with <10% added sugar (I tend to consume less than that on most days, and am also okay with the WHO's 5% if possible number), think fruit is kind of optional if one eats lots of vegetables, and that a carb range much broader than that (including low carb) is fine within a sensible diet and if healthy fat and protein targets are met, and also adequate micros are consumed. But I certainly wouldn't point to its recommendations on sugar while ignoring its recommendations overall.
The Guidelines are, IMO, an excellent way to have a healthy balanced diet without having to think that much about the details, and consistent with the advise of most mainstream nutrition experts. If one wants to focus on the details of how to meet needs in a less traditional diet, one can while deviating from the advice in various ways, depending on one's personal health issues (i.e., some people probably don't have to worry about sat fat, despite the various longitudinal studies and the evidence it negatively affects cholesterol for a subset).
Thanks for correcting the numbers.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 395.8K Introduce Yourself
- 44.1K Getting Started
- 260.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.3K Food and Nutrition
- 47.6K Recipes
- 232.8K Fitness and Exercise
- 448 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.3K Motivation and Support
- 8.2K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 4.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 16 News and Announcements
- 17 MyFitnessPal Academy
- 1.4K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions