Hot topics! Sugar in fruit

WinoGelato wrote: »

Christine_72 wrote: »

WinoGelato wrote: »

Christine_72 wrote: »

I just tried looking at 6 diaries (i gave up after that) of the pro sugar supporters on this thread, either they are all closed or they dont log at all... Winogelatos was the only one that was open, and she seems to eat a moderate amount of sugar.

To all of those with closed diaries, how much sugar do you get on average everyday? For full disclosure, I get between 35g and up to 80g max.

Curious what hypothesis you were trying to prove with looking at people's diaries. I don't mind, I have mine open and have no qualms about it, but when you say that you think I eat a moderate amount of sugar - were you expecting it to be higher or lower than that? Also, I hope it is not a surprise that I eat a moderate amount of sugar, since I am an advocate for moderation...

I wasn't sure what to expect, maybe huge amounts of sugar consumption.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that someone would think that, since everyone assumes that those saying there is nothing wrong with eating sugar in moderation are eating nothing but Ding Dongs and Twinkies all day long... but that really wouldn't be moderation, would it?

Spot on. This is the problem. People don't read what is being written. When we say that the WHO message isn't complete or completely accurate, they interpret that to mean we think WHO is wrong and we can eat nothing but sugar. No one is saying to eat Twinkies all day long or, more precisely, to not moderate sugar intake to avoid crowding out necessary nutrition. The fact this even needs to be written shows people aren't reading. WHO is messaging a simplistic point because people don't read carefully or understand nuance. This thread has quite literally been a case in point. If this thread is confusing then please, by all means, follow WHO guidelines.

Gallowmere1984 wrote: »

sunnybeaches105 wrote: »

WinoGelato wrote: »

Christine_72 wrote: »

WinoGelato wrote: »

Christine_72 wrote: »

I just tried looking at 6 diaries (i gave up after that) of the pro sugar supporters on this thread, either they are all closed or they dont log at all... Winogelatos was the only one that was open, and she seems to eat a moderate amount of sugar.

To all of those with closed diaries, how much sugar do you get on average everyday? For full disclosure, I get between 35g and up to 80g max.

Curious what hypothesis you were trying to prove with looking at people's diaries. I don't mind, I have mine open and have no qualms about it, but when you say that you think I eat a moderate amount of sugar - were you expecting it to be higher or lower than that? Also, I hope it is not a surprise that I eat a moderate amount of sugar, since I am an advocate for moderation...

I wasn't sure what to expect, maybe huge amounts of sugar consumption.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that someone would think that, since everyone assumes that those saying there is nothing wrong with eating sugar in moderation are eating nothing but Ding Dongs and Twinkies all day long... but that really wouldn't be moderation, would it?

Spot on. This is the problem. People don't read what is being written. When we say that the WHO message isn't complete or completely accurate, they interpret that to mean we think WHO is wrong and we can eat nothing but sugar. No one is saying to eat Twinkies all day long or, more precisely, to not moderate sugar intake to avoid crowding out necessary nutrition. The fact this even needs to be written shows people aren't reading. WHO is messaging a simplistic point because people don't read carefully or understand nuance. This thread has quite literally been a case in point. If this thread is confusing then please, by all means, follow WHO guidelines.

Unfortunately, this is a problem that extends far beyond MFP, and even the internet in general. I run into this very problem at work on a regular basis. The most basic of instructions seem to elude someone, leading me to believe that they are a complete idiot. However, it almost always turns out to be that they either barely skimmed said directions, or didn't read them at all.

It really is a shame when stupidity seems like the lesser of two evils, when compared to sheer mental laziness.

I don't like assuming someone is stupid or lazy. The other possible assumption is that they're new, still overweight, and working hard to improve their body composition, and trying to understand nutrition. It does take time to shed years of bad information. Most of us who are honest with ourselves know that. Of course, that said, while it is true that I often make that latter assumption, it is also true that I am often wrong.

Zipp237 wrote: »

Gallowmere1984 wrote: »

Zipp237 wrote: »

Added sugars are bad and should be taxed heavily. People can't just eat added sugars and be allowed to get away with it! That has to end! Must be stopped and the sooner the better. Think of the children eating ice cream and Snicker bars, handed to them, tax-free! It almost makes you want to cry, doesn't it? Bad parents. Bad America. Terrible for healthcare as well as health.

Fructose, glucose, galactose...any natural sugar is fine and shouldn't be taxed unless it is concentrated artificially to kill children, because that really is evil. A high tax on added sugars and any artificial kind of sugar is long overdue.

Man, you really are playing the long troll with this, aren't you?
It's almost admirable.

I am entitled to my opinion just like you. I want everyone to be healthy and eat healthy and a tax will help.

You say "sugar" I say "tax"!

I'm no longer arguing it, but will voice my opinion. It is brave to voice an unpopular opinion, so I'll take the admiration. And the congratulations when the tax comes.

Carry on.

mskessler89 wrote: »

dykask wrote: »

sunnybeaches105 wrote: »

dykask wrote: »

WinoGelato wrote: »

J72FIT wrote: »

dykask wrote: »

WinoGelato wrote: »

dykask wrote: »

ndj1979 wrote: »

dykask wrote: »

stevencloser wrote: »

dykask wrote: »

FunkyTobias wrote: »

dykask wrote: »

FunkyTobias wrote: »

dykask wrote: »

FunkyTobias wrote: »

dykask wrote: »

amusedmonkey wrote: »

I don't get the issue with fruit juices anyway outside of the "drinking calories" argument. The sugar in a glass of orange juice is the same sugar that is in the two oranges it was made from. Why would eating 2 oranges be better than drinking them if in a context of a balanced diet you are getting plenty of fiber anyway?

No it isn't the same. Fruit provides sugar and fiber at the same time. If the fiber is in your colon, it doesn't help with the juice hitting the stomach.

Why do you think it's important to get them at the same time?

The fiber makes a gummy mess in your stomach and will drag a good part of the sugar with it into the intestines. That slows the rate of absorption down and gives the liver more time to deal with the fructose. Some of the fructose will even be drug into the large intestine where bacteria will eat it. Kids also enjoy the farts caused by that.

The liver is pretty amazing and pretty fast, but overloading it may be a cause of metabolic issues. At least it has been shown that metabolic disease symptoms can be triggered in as little as two weeks of sweeten beverage consumption. So probably anything that slows the process down is good. Fiber is like a mechanical diet aid.

And you keep ignoring dosage and context.

You would have to drink juice by the gallon to "overload the liver".

Not to mention the fact that fiber is not needed to "drag the sugar into the intestines" since sugar isn't absorbed through the stomach in the first place. It, like all carbohydrates, are absorbed through the intestines.

Gallon? Maybe if it is distilled so only water is left. Seems like you are the one ignoring dosage. No clue what you mean by context. http://www.sugarscience.org/sugar-sweetened-beverages/#.V4cXDI9OKUk

You might want to start looking at real sources, not alarmist websites. It takes a lot more than a glass of juice to overload the liver.

Speed matters.

Maybe if you are diabetic. For others, it really doesn't.

Context.

You context doesn't mean anything. There are now ample studies with sweeten beverages that show modest consumption of them causes metabolic disease symptoms in even a two week period. A theory is too much fructose in the liver causes it to be converted to LDL which leads to non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. It seems that too much isn't much at all if a 12 oz can of soda a day is too much. It is much less of an issue with the glucose because the liver can convert most surplus glucose into glycogen and even store it.

Here is another article on heart disease and sweeten beverages.
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/11/03/health/soda-heart-failure-study/index.html

You know an article is super scientific if it starts with the words "Guys, listen up:".

Just figured it was something you could digest. You don't seem very interested detailed facts.
Seriously pushing for wanton consumption of sugar isn't even something that Coke or Pepsi do anymore. The handwriting is on the wall and more studies are zeroing in on the issues all the time.

saying it is OK to consume sugar moderately along with a diet that hits micros and macros does not equal pushing wanton sugar consumption.

Drinking juice by the gallon isn't consuming sugar moderately.

Who is advocating drinking a gallon of juice, for either adults or children?

stevencloser claimed 'You would have to drink juice by the gallon to "overload the liver".'

One of the random statements not backed up by anything. There are ample studies that show even 12 oz of soda a day has adverse impact on the liver in as little as two weeks. There isn't much difference between juice or soda when it comes to sugar.

I really don't see a lot of problems with eating whole fruit. Takes a lot of eating to get the same sugar that is one glass of juice. Natural limit.

You really think saying, "you would have to drink juice by the gallon" means advocating drinking juice by the gallon?

I can't decide if people just are so caught up in preparing for their next counter statement that they just don't bother to try to understand what another poster is saying, or if they willfully misrepresent a position, or if they truly believe that is what the poster meant when he said "you would have to drink juice by the gallon".

No that isn't it. The root of this is many don't realize how little sugar is really too much sugar. While safe levels are still being determined, the WHO recommends no more than 6 teaspoons (~25 grams) of added sugar or sugar from beverages a day. On can 12 oz can of soda can contain 11 teaspoons of sugar and some juices are even higher than that. 4 oz of juice max is moderation.

http://who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2015/sugar-guideline/en/

In the meantime there is a camp of people that are always posting, you can't claim anything toxic about sugar because no dosage for toxicity has been determined or other such nonsense. In the meantime we know now that the high sugar consumption is wreaking havoc on populations around the world. The problem with toxic side effects is they will very widely for different people. There will never be numbers that are universally correct for everyone. So it comes down to caution or no caution. That is why such a statement is detrimental as it is throwing out any reasonable caution or concern.

They recognize this because too much sugar equals too many calories without adequate nutrition. For those of us who are active and use sugar as fuel or a moderate treat it's not an issue. I frankly get endless entertainment from overweight and sedentary people telling me how my diet is going to hurt me. My diet isn't created for you or them. It's created for an active individual and that is exactly the type of individual WHO is not addressing with this type of health information. Best of luck to you. I hope you can get it all dialed in. The people you're arguing with already have done so for quite a while.

As far as glucose goes I understand your position. That is generally 1/2 of sugar. The concern over the fructose in sugar as we don't directly metabolism it and studies are supporting that it doesn't take too much fructose for the liver to start producing LDL from it. I'm not sure can believe that what is bad for a sedentary person wouldn't also be bad for you. The WHO is actually a world wide organization, most of the world is far more active that say US, UK or AUS.

The calorie argument isn't as strong since sugar is only 4 kc/gram. Clearly many consume way over 100 grams / day and that is a lot of calories but that is also an awful lot of added sugar.

I'm actually much more concerned about a third impact and I have no idea how universal it is. In my case, when I cut deserts which accounted for about 2/3rd the sugar in my diet, my overpowering hunger was greatly reduced. Reducing my added sugar further has helped even more. At least in my case the sugar is driving my hunger.

To the first bolded: it still comes down to calories. If someone is getting 100g of added sugar from soda, they're still eating food. I don't know anyone who's ok going hungry so they can drink 400 calories of soda and stay within their calorie goal. Therefore it's extremely likely they're overconsuming calories. If they're getting 100g of added sugar from food, like cheesecake, they're also getting a big dose of fat, which has a lot of calories. By restricting sugar to 10% of your intake, you're ultimately controlling calories.

To the second bolded: when you cut out desserts, what did you replace those calories with? Protein? Fiber? Fat? You know, things that are generally known to be more satiating? And when you reduced added sugars further, what were the sources? Was it sugared-up fat free yogurt, or was it a combination of sugar and fat, like a breakfast pastry? Most of the time when people say they've cut down/cut out sugar, they really mean they've cut out hyperpalatable foods that include fat.

I didn't replace any calories, I only cut the deserts (and more sugar since then). I didn't make other changes other than to stop snacking on nuts. I'm eating less and have much less hunger. The less added sugar I have the less hunger. Overall I'm eating about 500 kc a day less without the hunger I used to have. I still feel some hunger at times if I haven't eaten for a while, it is just not a driving hunger.

I didn't understand what was going on at first. I have experimented by having an ice cream cone a couple weeks ago, about 20 grams of added sugar. My hunger was much higher a couple hours after that, but not as bad as I used to have. I still eat 3 to 4 servings of fruit in the morning, but that doesn't seem to cause problems. My morning meal is very high in fiber, so that probably helps. It is the same morning meal except it only has 5 grams of added sugar now vs. 17 grams before. My breakfast is large, about 750 kc. Lunch is about the same size or little larger. Supper is normally pretty light, maybe 400 kc. Total averages around 2200 kc / day. Before I was eating closer to 2700 kc / day.

Overall my added sugar wasn't that high, often less than 50 grams a day. I'm just doing better on less than 10 grams a day of added sugar. It is pretty hard to avoid all added sugar unless you make everything from scratch. So things like salad dressing and other sauces still add sugar,

I realize that my approach may not work for others. I just seem to be very hunger driven as my added sugar gets higher. I'm also eating well above my BMR. However I'm experiencing a much higher satiaty level on the same diet sans a bunch of the sugary stuff.