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.

Hot topics! Sugar in fruit

Options
1262729313239

Replies

  • Alluminati
    Alluminati Posts: 6,208 Member
    edited July 2016
    Options
    Alluminati wrote: »
    Alluminati wrote: »
    Alluminati wrote: »
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    kimny72 wrote: »
    kimny72 wrote: »
    I grew up in the 70's in NY. We ate almost exclusively canned, boxed, and frozen food. Fish sticks, tater tots, boxed flavored rice, canned veggies, frozen waffles, Wonder bread, Hostess cupcakes, Chips Ahoy cookies, hot dogs, pasta, ice cream, OJ from concentrate, ice tea mix. We had soda and chips or popcorn once or twice a week. So I'm guessing a lot of sugar and salt, not much protein, and really the only fresh food we ate was meat and a little fruit. Our diet was pretty typical of the middle class families we knew at least.

    However, we spent most of our time running around outside. I was a string bean. Always on the skinny side, until I got to my mid-twenties and got an office job. Having said that, I've never been "overweight" just the high side of healthy. Lost weight in my twenties and thirties by increasing exercise. Lost weight this time by counting calories. I certainly eat a better diet now, but still probably 50% processed/ 50% whole. I eat ice cream, chocolate, cookies, pasta, whenever I want, but in portion sizes that fit my calorie goal. Getting my activity level up while controlling my calories in was the key to getting to my current weight.

    I have always had low blood pressure, normal blood sugar, rarely catch colds and never the flu, haven't taken a prescription medication since I had my last earache when I was a kid. So my n=1 says I was and am fine eating a moderate amount of sugar. My minor problems were caused by not balancing my calories in with my activity level.

    And it's silly to say kids used to be healthier. In the 70's bronchitis and ear infections went around practically every month. There were plenty of "sickly" kids in my school who weren't diagnosed with anything but clearly weren't healthy. There were several children in my elementary and high school classes that we lost to cancer. And as @jgnatca said, if you go back to earlier in the century children suffered from all kinds of health problems we don't even think about anymore.

    Nothing I've read in this never-ending thread has convinced me the problem is anything other than obesity. If obese kids (and adults) ate less of everything and moved a lot more, they would lose weight and improve their health markers.
    So am I correct in that, assuming one is active and at a healthy weight and bodyfat percentage, the only reason why there are more and more people getting certain conditions at a young age is because of random genetic mutations. Still doesn't make sense to me…

    What conditions are children at a healthy weight getting more often?
    Autoimmune diseases and allergies (not necessarily just food, but environmental as well) are two.

    And what does that have to do with sugar?
    As I stated on page 16, "Autoimmune disorders and allergies can be indirectly related to sugar in fruit. A diet high in sugar can negatively impact the immune system, so if one is eating excessive amounts of sugar from fruit then that could become an issue." Of course, that's not to say that sugar in fruit causes those conditions. But if one is eating a lot of sugar and not enough of certain nutrients, then that can have implications for those conditions.

    I looked back to page 16 and I don't see that you posted any studies related to your claims that autoimmune disorders and allergies are indirectly related to sugar in fruit.

    Also curious why fruit causes these issues? I thought you were saying it was only added sugar that was the problem, now you are saying that fruit is really to blame for all of our woes?
    I guess I still wasn't clear enough. Eating excessive amounts of sugar has been shown to negatively impact the immune system. Autoimmune diseases and allergies are related to an immune system not functioning optimally. If one is eating an appropriate amount of sugar, I don't think there's a problem there.

    Then how do you explain a kid who doesn't like fruit, hates sugary treats, doesn't drink soda, and has some of the Big 8 allergies?
    Because there are many other things that impact the function of the immune system aside from sugar. There are a multitude of other dietary factors that may have been involved in your case.
    Like what, pray tell?
    Not enough zinc, vitamin C, or vitamin D are among the dietary factors that can play a role in that. Similarly, an unbalanced diet, especially one that is comprised of generous amounts of low nutrient dense foods with not much highly nutritious food is another factor.

    Being that the child was diagnosed with allergies at 18 months old, after having kept journals for them since they were about 6 months old, your speculation doesn't make any sense. Maybe stop making things up as you go along and really research allergies and auto immune disease before speaking of them, then maybe you'll be able to make your points a little better.
    There are studies that show what a mother eats doing the pregnancy can affect the child's immune system. So what I stated previously still applies.

    How does it apply? The parent was born in the era (60's-80's) where you speculated that people were healthier as children, and the parent was healthy at the time of the birth of the child. Let's not forget the excellent care mothers receive from doctors as well as pre-natal vitamins. No, it doesn't apply.

    Please press 2 to try again.

    eta: sentence structures, sorry
  • J72FIT
    J72FIT Posts: 5,948 Member
    Options
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    This is not support for Jason's argument, which is that even if one does not gain weight and eats a healthful balanced diet that consuming sugar beyond a certain unidentified level (lots!) is going to be harmful.

    (I happen to think the WHO et al. have sensible advise on this, but someone who counts calories and watches overall nutrients and is quite active is going to be able to make an individual decision about the amount of added sugar that is appropriate that might be different, just as many ignore for what they consider good reason the recommendations re sat fat or sodium.)
    My claim is that eating a lot of sugar in the context of a diet that is not healthy overall can lead to a multitude of problems. If one is eating a healthful diet then the effect is most likely going to be minimized.

    If one eats an overall healthful diet, they are by default not eating "a lot" of sugar. That said, eating "a lot" of any singular macro nutrient will more then likely lead to an unhealthy diet that is out of balance. So we come back to square 1. Why single out sugar? I bet if we were having this discussion in the 70's and 80's we'd be talking about fat. Same nonsense...
  • queenliz99
    queenliz99 Posts: 15,317 Member
    Options
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    This is not support for Jason's argument, which is that even if one does not gain weight and eats a healthful balanced diet that consuming sugar beyond a certain unidentified level (lots!) is going to be harmful.

    (I happen to think the WHO et al. have sensible advise on this, but someone who counts calories and watches overall nutrients and is quite active is going to be able to make an individual decision about the amount of added sugar that is appropriate that might be different, just as many ignore for what they consider good reason the recommendations re sat fat or sodium.)
    My claim is that eating a lot of sugar in the context of a diet that is not healthy overall can lead to a multitude of problems. If one is eating a healthful diet then the effect is most likely going to be minimized.

    But you would be wrong!
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Options
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    This is not support for Jason's argument, which is that even if one does not gain weight and eats a healthful balanced diet that consuming sugar beyond a certain unidentified level (lots!) is going to be harmful.

    (I happen to think the WHO et al. have sensible advise on this, but someone who counts calories and watches overall nutrients and is quite active is going to be able to make an individual decision about the amount of added sugar that is appropriate that might be different, just as many ignore for what they consider good reason the recommendations re sat fat or sodium.)
    My claim is that eating a lot of sugar in the context of a diet that is not healthy overall can lead to a multitude of problems. If one is eating a healthful diet then the effect is most likely going to be minimized.

    So you are saying people should, ideally, eat healthfully? I don't think anyone disagrees.

    Where this (boring) tangent started was when you jumped in in response to the argument that what has changed is not kids eating less healthfully than in the past*, but that kids are a lot less active than in the past, to assert that kids eat much worse and more sugar (including lots of sugar from fruit, which you called out as a potential problem) and therefore have more autoimmune diseases and allergies, because sugar.

    That's what people are disagreeing with.

    *For the record, I think activity is the most significant part for childhood obesity, but don't discount the possibility that it is partially diet. There are differences in percentage of children who are obese that tracks various income and race differences, and I think it is possible that in some subcultures eating habits are worse than they used to be for various reasons, and worse than in the country as a whole. I am always amazed at how many people on MFP seem never to have eaten a vegetable and to see it as nearly impossible, as that was assumed -- you would eat your vegetables and they were part of a healthful diet -- when I was growing up. I also think home cooked meals may be less common (not that you can't have good meals that are not home cooked), and there are economic and social reasons for that. I don't think the big difference is sugar in and of itself.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Options
    J72FIT wrote: »
    The thread was fine until...





    ro0sf1b1udso.png
    What I find funny about that is I was simply agreeing with another poster, and then somehow everyone grabbed hold of my agreeing.

    You weren't really agreeing with her, since in her example the person (herself) was not burning off all the sugar, but eating a diet that was too high in calories despite her activity level.
  • ForecasterJason
    ForecasterJason Posts: 2,577 Member
    Options
    Alluminati wrote: »
    Alluminati wrote: »
    Alluminati wrote: »
    Alluminati wrote: »
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    kimny72 wrote: »
    kimny72 wrote: »
    I grew up in the 70's in NY. We ate almost exclusively canned, boxed, and frozen food. Fish sticks, tater tots, boxed flavored rice, canned veggies, frozen waffles, Wonder bread, Hostess cupcakes, Chips Ahoy cookies, hot dogs, pasta, ice cream, OJ from concentrate, ice tea mix. We had soda and chips or popcorn once or twice a week. So I'm guessing a lot of sugar and salt, not much protein, and really the only fresh food we ate was meat and a little fruit. Our diet was pretty typical of the middle class families we knew at least.

    However, we spent most of our time running around outside. I was a string bean. Always on the skinny side, until I got to my mid-twenties and got an office job. Having said that, I've never been "overweight" just the high side of healthy. Lost weight in my twenties and thirties by increasing exercise. Lost weight this time by counting calories. I certainly eat a better diet now, but still probably 50% processed/ 50% whole. I eat ice cream, chocolate, cookies, pasta, whenever I want, but in portion sizes that fit my calorie goal. Getting my activity level up while controlling my calories in was the key to getting to my current weight.

    I have always had low blood pressure, normal blood sugar, rarely catch colds and never the flu, haven't taken a prescription medication since I had my last earache when I was a kid. So my n=1 says I was and am fine eating a moderate amount of sugar. My minor problems were caused by not balancing my calories in with my activity level.

    And it's silly to say kids used to be healthier. In the 70's bronchitis and ear infections went around practically every month. There were plenty of "sickly" kids in my school who weren't diagnosed with anything but clearly weren't healthy. There were several children in my elementary and high school classes that we lost to cancer. And as @jgnatca said, if you go back to earlier in the century children suffered from all kinds of health problems we don't even think about anymore.

    Nothing I've read in this never-ending thread has convinced me the problem is anything other than obesity. If obese kids (and adults) ate less of everything and moved a lot more, they would lose weight and improve their health markers.
    So am I correct in that, assuming one is active and at a healthy weight and bodyfat percentage, the only reason why there are more and more people getting certain conditions at a young age is because of random genetic mutations. Still doesn't make sense to me…

    What conditions are children at a healthy weight getting more often?
    Autoimmune diseases and allergies (not necessarily just food, but environmental as well) are two.

    And what does that have to do with sugar?
    As I stated on page 16, "Autoimmune disorders and allergies can be indirectly related to sugar in fruit. A diet high in sugar can negatively impact the immune system, so if one is eating excessive amounts of sugar from fruit then that could become an issue." Of course, that's not to say that sugar in fruit causes those conditions. But if one is eating a lot of sugar and not enough of certain nutrients, then that can have implications for those conditions.

    I looked back to page 16 and I don't see that you posted any studies related to your claims that autoimmune disorders and allergies are indirectly related to sugar in fruit.

    Also curious why fruit causes these issues? I thought you were saying it was only added sugar that was the problem, now you are saying that fruit is really to blame for all of our woes?
    I guess I still wasn't clear enough. Eating excessive amounts of sugar has been shown to negatively impact the immune system. Autoimmune diseases and allergies are related to an immune system not functioning optimally. If one is eating an appropriate amount of sugar, I don't think there's a problem there.

    Then how do you explain a kid who doesn't like fruit, hates sugary treats, doesn't drink soda, and has some of the Big 8 allergies?
    Because there are many other things that impact the function of the immune system aside from sugar. There are a multitude of other dietary factors that may have been involved in your case.
    Like what, pray tell?
    Not enough zinc, vitamin C, or vitamin D are among the dietary factors that can play a role in that. Similarly, an unbalanced diet, especially one that is comprised of generous amounts of low nutrient dense foods with not much highly nutritious food is another factor.

    Being that the child was diagnosed with allergies at 18 months old, after having kept journals for them since they were about 6 months old, your speculation doesn't make any sense. Maybe stop making things up as you go along and really research allergies and auto immune disease before speaking of them, then maybe you'll be able to make your points a little better.
    There are studies that show what a mother eats doing the pregnancy can affect the child's immune system. So what I stated previously still applies.

    How does it apply? The parent was born in the era (60's-80's) where you speculated that people were healthier as children, and the parent was healthy at the time of the birth of the child. No, it doesn't apply.

    Please press 2 to try again.
    I can see from people I know IRL and see that health as a kid does not automatically equate to good health later in life. I'm not claiming that this was the case in this particular instance, but I do know that certain conditions (like vitamin D insufficiency as a good example) can be missed when doing health checkups. Being healthy doesn't mean that every single blood marker or nutrient level is at an appropriate level.

  • J72FIT
    J72FIT Posts: 5,948 Member
    edited July 2016
    Options
    What is also missing is the notion that once one's nutritional requirements are met, extra calories, regardless of where they come from are a non issue, assuming there is an energy balance. So, a very active kid can in essence eat "a lot" of sugar and still have a healthful diet.
  • J72FIT
    J72FIT Posts: 5,948 Member
    Options
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    J72FIT wrote: »
    The thread was fine until...





    ro0sf1b1udso.png
    What I find funny about that is I was simply agreeing with another poster, and then somehow everyone grabbed hold of my agreeing.

    You weren't really agreeing with her, since in her example the person (herself) was not burning off all the sugar, but eating a diet that was too high in calories despite her activity level.

    Exactly...
  • FunkyTobias
    FunkyTobias Posts: 1,776 Member
    Options
    Alluminati wrote: »
    Alluminati wrote: »
    Alluminati wrote: »
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    kimny72 wrote: »
    kimny72 wrote: »
    I grew up in the 70's in NY. We ate almost exclusively canned, boxed, and frozen food. Fish sticks, tater tots, boxed flavored rice, canned veggies, frozen waffles, Wonder bread, Hostess cupcakes, Chips Ahoy cookies, hot dogs, pasta, ice cream, OJ from concentrate, ice tea mix. We had soda and chips or popcorn once or twice a week. So I'm guessing a lot of sugar and salt, not much protein, and really the only fresh food we ate was meat and a little fruit. Our diet was pretty typical of the middle class families we knew at least.

    However, we spent most of our time running around outside. I was a string bean. Always on the skinny side, until I got to my mid-twenties and got an office job. Having said that, I've never been "overweight" just the high side of healthy. Lost weight in my twenties and thirties by increasing exercise. Lost weight this time by counting calories. I certainly eat a better diet now, but still probably 50% processed/ 50% whole. I eat ice cream, chocolate, cookies, pasta, whenever I want, but in portion sizes that fit my calorie goal. Getting my activity level up while controlling my calories in was the key to getting to my current weight.

    I have always had low blood pressure, normal blood sugar, rarely catch colds and never the flu, haven't taken a prescription medication since I had my last earache when I was a kid. So my n=1 says I was and am fine eating a moderate amount of sugar. My minor problems were caused by not balancing my calories in with my activity level.

    And it's silly to say kids used to be healthier. In the 70's bronchitis and ear infections went around practically every month. There were plenty of "sickly" kids in my school who weren't diagnosed with anything but clearly weren't healthy. There were several children in my elementary and high school classes that we lost to cancer. And as @jgnatca said, if you go back to earlier in the century children suffered from all kinds of health problems we don't even think about anymore.

    Nothing I've read in this never-ending thread has convinced me the problem is anything other than obesity. If obese kids (and adults) ate less of everything and moved a lot more, they would lose weight and improve their health markers.
    So am I correct in that, assuming one is active and at a healthy weight and bodyfat percentage, the only reason why there are more and more people getting certain conditions at a young age is because of random genetic mutations. Still doesn't make sense to me…

    What conditions are children at a healthy weight getting more often?
    Autoimmune diseases and allergies (not necessarily just food, but environmental as well) are two.

    And what does that have to do with sugar?
    As I stated on page 16, "Autoimmune disorders and allergies can be indirectly related to sugar in fruit. A diet high in sugar can negatively impact the immune system, so if one is eating excessive amounts of sugar from fruit then that could become an issue." Of course, that's not to say that sugar in fruit causes those conditions. But if one is eating a lot of sugar and not enough of certain nutrients, then that can have implications for those conditions.

    I looked back to page 16 and I don't see that you posted any studies related to your claims that autoimmune disorders and allergies are indirectly related to sugar in fruit.

    Also curious why fruit causes these issues? I thought you were saying it was only added sugar that was the problem, now you are saying that fruit is really to blame for all of our woes?
    I guess I still wasn't clear enough. Eating excessive amounts of sugar has been shown to negatively impact the immune system. Autoimmune diseases and allergies are related to an immune system not functioning optimally. If one is eating an appropriate amount of sugar, I don't think there's a problem there.

    Then how do you explain a kid who doesn't like fruit, hates sugary treats, doesn't drink soda, and has some of the Big 8 allergies?
    Because there are many other things that impact the function of the immune system aside from sugar. There are a multitude of other dietary factors that may have been involved in your case.
    Like what, pray tell?
    Not enough zinc, vitamin C, or vitamin D are among the dietary factors that can play a role in that. Similarly, an unbalanced diet, especially one that is comprised of generous amounts of low nutrient dense foods with not much highly nutritious food is another factor.

    Being that the child was diagnosed with allergies at 18 months old, after having kept journals for them since they were about 6 months old, your speculation doesn't make any sense. Maybe stop making things up as you go along and really research allergies and auto immune disease before speaking of them, then maybe you'll be able to make your points a little better.
    There are studies that show what a mother eats doing the pregnancy can affect the child's immune system. So what I stated previously still applies.

    I like how you claim "it's been shown " and "there are studies" but never cite anything.
  • ForecasterJason
    ForecasterJason Posts: 2,577 Member
    Options
    J72FIT wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    This is not support for Jason's argument, which is that even if one does not gain weight and eats a healthful balanced diet that consuming sugar beyond a certain unidentified level (lots!) is going to be harmful.

    (I happen to think the WHO et al. have sensible advise on this, but someone who counts calories and watches overall nutrients and is quite active is going to be able to make an individual decision about the amount of added sugar that is appropriate that might be different, just as many ignore for what they consider good reason the recommendations re sat fat or sodium.)
    My claim is that eating a lot of sugar in the context of a diet that is not healthy overall can lead to a multitude of problems. If one is eating a healthful diet then the effect is most likely going to be minimized.

    If one eats an overall healthful diet, they are by default not eating "a lot" of sugar. That said, eating "a lot" of any singular macro nutrient will more then likely lead to an unhealthy diet that is out of balance. So we come back to square 1. Why single out sugar? I bet if we were having this discussion in the 70's and 80's we'd be talking about fat. Same nonsense...
    But you stated that you did eat "a lot" of sugar, so according to what you're saying there means you were eating an unhealthy diet. Which is what my claim on sugar, the immune system, allergies, autoimmune diseases, etc. has been about.

  • J72FIT
    J72FIT Posts: 5,948 Member
    Options
    Marone a mi!
  • J72FIT
    J72FIT Posts: 5,948 Member
    edited July 2016
    Options
    J72FIT wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    This is not support for Jason's argument, which is that even if one does not gain weight and eats a healthful balanced diet that consuming sugar beyond a certain unidentified level (lots!) is going to be harmful.

    (I happen to think the WHO et al. have sensible advise on this, but someone who counts calories and watches overall nutrients and is quite active is going to be able to make an individual decision about the amount of added sugar that is appropriate that might be different, just as many ignore for what they consider good reason the recommendations re sat fat or sodium.)
    My claim is that eating a lot of sugar in the context of a diet that is not healthy overall can lead to a multitude of problems. If one is eating a healthful diet then the effect is most likely going to be minimized.

    If one eats an overall healthful diet, they are by default not eating "a lot" of sugar. That said, eating "a lot" of any singular macro nutrient will more then likely lead to an unhealthy diet that is out of balance. So we come back to square 1. Why single out sugar? I bet if we were having this discussion in the 70's and 80's we'd be talking about fat. Same nonsense...
    But you stated that you did eat "a lot" of sugar, so according to what you're saying there means you were eating an unhealthy diet. Which is what my claim on sugar, the immune system, allergies, autoimmune diseases, etc. has been about.

    I also stated if there is an energy balance, and nutritional needs are met, extra calories from any source are a non issue. So, what would be "a lot" of sugar (calories) for one may not be "a lot" of sugar (calories) for another...
  • ForecasterJason
    ForecasterJason Posts: 2,577 Member
    Options
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    This is not support for Jason's argument, which is that even if one does not gain weight and eats a healthful balanced diet that consuming sugar beyond a certain unidentified level (lots!) is going to be harmful.

    (I happen to think the WHO et al. have sensible advise on this, but someone who counts calories and watches overall nutrients and is quite active is going to be able to make an individual decision about the amount of added sugar that is appropriate that might be different, just as many ignore for what they consider good reason the recommendations re sat fat or sodium.)
    My claim is that eating a lot of sugar in the context of a diet that is not healthy overall can lead to a multitude of problems. If one is eating a healthful diet then the effect is most likely going to be minimized.

    So you are saying people should, ideally, eat healthfully? I don't think anyone disagrees.

    Where this (boring) tangent started was when you jumped in in response to the argument that what has changed is not kids eating less healthfully than in the past*, but that kids are a lot less active than in the past, to assert that kids eat much worse and more sugar (including lots of sugar from fruit, which you called out as a potential problem) and therefore have more autoimmune diseases and allergies, because sugar.

    That's what people are disagreeing with.

    *For the record, I think activity is the most significant part for childhood obesity, but don't discount the possibility that it is partially diet. There are differences in percentage of children who are obese that tracks various income and race differences, and I think it is possible that in some subcultures eating habits are worse than they used to be for various reasons, and worse than in the country as a whole. I am always amazed at how many people on MFP seem never to have eaten a vegetable and to see it as nearly impossible, as that was assumed -- you would eat your vegetables and they were part of a healthful diet -- when I was growing up. I also think home cooked meals may be less common (not that you can't have good meals that are not home cooked), and there are economic and social reasons for that. I don't think the big difference is sugar in and of itself.
    After looking back at that page when I stated that, it appeared as though we were all in agreement after that, until ndj asked what there was to debate. I then brought up J72's post about eating "a lot" of sugar, which is when it really began in earnest.

  • ForecasterJason
    ForecasterJason Posts: 2,577 Member
    Options
    Alluminati wrote: »
    Alluminati wrote: »
    Alluminati wrote: »
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    kimny72 wrote: »
    kimny72 wrote: »
    I grew up in the 70's in NY. We ate almost exclusively canned, boxed, and frozen food. Fish sticks, tater tots, boxed flavored rice, canned veggies, frozen waffles, Wonder bread, Hostess cupcakes, Chips Ahoy cookies, hot dogs, pasta, ice cream, OJ from concentrate, ice tea mix. We had soda and chips or popcorn once or twice a week. So I'm guessing a lot of sugar and salt, not much protein, and really the only fresh food we ate was meat and a little fruit. Our diet was pretty typical of the middle class families we knew at least.

    However, we spent most of our time running around outside. I was a string bean. Always on the skinny side, until I got to my mid-twenties and got an office job. Having said that, I've never been "overweight" just the high side of healthy. Lost weight in my twenties and thirties by increasing exercise. Lost weight this time by counting calories. I certainly eat a better diet now, but still probably 50% processed/ 50% whole. I eat ice cream, chocolate, cookies, pasta, whenever I want, but in portion sizes that fit my calorie goal. Getting my activity level up while controlling my calories in was the key to getting to my current weight.

    I have always had low blood pressure, normal blood sugar, rarely catch colds and never the flu, haven't taken a prescription medication since I had my last earache when I was a kid. So my n=1 says I was and am fine eating a moderate amount of sugar. My minor problems were caused by not balancing my calories in with my activity level.

    And it's silly to say kids used to be healthier. In the 70's bronchitis and ear infections went around practically every month. There were plenty of "sickly" kids in my school who weren't diagnosed with anything but clearly weren't healthy. There were several children in my elementary and high school classes that we lost to cancer. And as @jgnatca said, if you go back to earlier in the century children suffered from all kinds of health problems we don't even think about anymore.

    Nothing I've read in this never-ending thread has convinced me the problem is anything other than obesity. If obese kids (and adults) ate less of everything and moved a lot more, they would lose weight and improve their health markers.
    So am I correct in that, assuming one is active and at a healthy weight and bodyfat percentage, the only reason why there are more and more people getting certain conditions at a young age is because of random genetic mutations. Still doesn't make sense to me…

    What conditions are children at a healthy weight getting more often?
    Autoimmune diseases and allergies (not necessarily just food, but environmental as well) are two.

    And what does that have to do with sugar?
    As I stated on page 16, "Autoimmune disorders and allergies can be indirectly related to sugar in fruit. A diet high in sugar can negatively impact the immune system, so if one is eating excessive amounts of sugar from fruit then that could become an issue." Of course, that's not to say that sugar in fruit causes those conditions. But if one is eating a lot of sugar and not enough of certain nutrients, then that can have implications for those conditions.

    I looked back to page 16 and I don't see that you posted any studies related to your claims that autoimmune disorders and allergies are indirectly related to sugar in fruit.

    Also curious why fruit causes these issues? I thought you were saying it was only added sugar that was the problem, now you are saying that fruit is really to blame for all of our woes?
    I guess I still wasn't clear enough. Eating excessive amounts of sugar has been shown to negatively impact the immune system. Autoimmune diseases and allergies are related to an immune system not functioning optimally. If one is eating an appropriate amount of sugar, I don't think there's a problem there.

    Then how do you explain a kid who doesn't like fruit, hates sugary treats, doesn't drink soda, and has some of the Big 8 allergies?
    Because there are many other things that impact the function of the immune system aside from sugar. There are a multitude of other dietary factors that may have been involved in your case.
    Like what, pray tell?
    Not enough zinc, vitamin C, or vitamin D are among the dietary factors that can play a role in that. Similarly, an unbalanced diet, especially one that is comprised of generous amounts of low nutrient dense foods with not much highly nutritious food is another factor.

    Being that the child was diagnosed with allergies at 18 months old, after having kept journals for them since they were about 6 months old, your speculation doesn't make any sense. Maybe stop making things up as you go along and really research allergies and auto immune disease before speaking of them, then maybe you'll be able to make your points a little better.
    There are studies that show what a mother eats doing the pregnancy can affect the child's immune system. So what I stated previously still applies.

    I like how you claim "it's been shown " and "there are studies" but never cite anything.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12727640
    http://kellymom.com/pregnancy/bf-prep/how_breastmilk_protects_newborns/



  • J72FIT
    J72FIT Posts: 5,948 Member
    Options
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    This is not support for Jason's argument, which is that even if one does not gain weight and eats a healthful balanced diet that consuming sugar beyond a certain unidentified level (lots!) is going to be harmful.

    (I happen to think the WHO et al. have sensible advise on this, but someone who counts calories and watches overall nutrients and is quite active is going to be able to make an individual decision about the amount of added sugar that is appropriate that might be different, just as many ignore for what they consider good reason the recommendations re sat fat or sodium.)
    My claim is that eating a lot of sugar in the context of a diet that is not healthy overall can lead to a multitude of problems. If one is eating a healthful diet then the effect is most likely going to be minimized.

    So you are saying people should, ideally, eat healthfully? I don't think anyone disagrees.

    Where this (boring) tangent started was when you jumped in in response to the argument that what has changed is not kids eating less healthfully than in the past*, but that kids are a lot less active than in the past, to assert that kids eat much worse and more sugar (including lots of sugar from fruit, which you called out as a potential problem) and therefore have more autoimmune diseases and allergies, because sugar.

    That's what people are disagreeing with.

    *For the record, I think activity is the most significant part for childhood obesity, but don't discount the possibility that it is partially diet. There are differences in percentage of children who are obese that tracks various income and race differences, and I think it is possible that in some subcultures eating habits are worse than they used to be for various reasons, and worse than in the country as a whole. I am always amazed at how many people on MFP seem never to have eaten a vegetable and to see it as nearly impossible, as that was assumed -- you would eat your vegetables and they were part of a healthful diet -- when I was growing up. I also think home cooked meals may be less common (not that you can't have good meals that are not home cooked), and there are economic and social reasons for that. I don't think the big difference is sugar in and of itself.
    After looking back at that page when I stated that, it appeared as though we were all in agreement after that, until ndj asked what there was to debate. I then brought up J72's post about eating "a lot" of sugar, which is when it really began in earnest.

    I think because the term "a lot" is relative. If it is enough to cause someone to gain weight and become obese then it would be "a lot" to me. If not, then no...
  • queenliz99
    queenliz99 Posts: 15,317 Member
    Options
    Alluminati wrote: »
    Alluminati wrote: »
    Alluminati wrote: »
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    kimny72 wrote: »
    kimny72 wrote: »
    I grew up in the 70's in NY. We ate almost exclusively canned, boxed, and frozen food. Fish sticks, tater tots, boxed flavored rice, canned veggies, frozen waffles, Wonder bread, Hostess cupcakes, Chips Ahoy cookies, hot dogs, pasta, ice cream, OJ from concentrate, ice tea mix. We had soda and chips or popcorn once or twice a week. So I'm guessing a lot of sugar and salt, not much protein, and really the only fresh food we ate was meat and a little fruit. Our diet was pretty typical of the middle class families we knew at least.

    However, we spent most of our time running around outside. I was a string bean. Always on the skinny side, until I got to my mid-twenties and got an office job. Having said that, I've never been "overweight" just the high side of healthy. Lost weight in my twenties and thirties by increasing exercise. Lost weight this time by counting calories. I certainly eat a better diet now, but still probably 50% processed/ 50% whole. I eat ice cream, chocolate, cookies, pasta, whenever I want, but in portion sizes that fit my calorie goal. Getting my activity level up while controlling my calories in was the key to getting to my current weight.

    I have always had low blood pressure, normal blood sugar, rarely catch colds and never the flu, haven't taken a prescription medication since I had my last earache when I was a kid. So my n=1 says I was and am fine eating a moderate amount of sugar. My minor problems were caused by not balancing my calories in with my activity level.

    And it's silly to say kids used to be healthier. In the 70's bronchitis and ear infections went around practically every month. There were plenty of "sickly" kids in my school who weren't diagnosed with anything but clearly weren't healthy. There were several children in my elementary and high school classes that we lost to cancer. And as @jgnatca said, if you go back to earlier in the century children suffered from all kinds of health problems we don't even think about anymore.

    Nothing I've read in this never-ending thread has convinced me the problem is anything other than obesity. If obese kids (and adults) ate less of everything and moved a lot more, they would lose weight and improve their health markers.
    So am I correct in that, assuming one is active and at a healthy weight and bodyfat percentage, the only reason why there are more and more people getting certain conditions at a young age is because of random genetic mutations. Still doesn't make sense to me…

    What conditions are children at a healthy weight getting more often?
    Autoimmune diseases and allergies (not necessarily just food, but environmental as well) are two.

    And what does that have to do with sugar?
    As I stated on page 16, "Autoimmune disorders and allergies can be indirectly related to sugar in fruit. A diet high in sugar can negatively impact the immune system, so if one is eating excessive amounts of sugar from fruit then that could become an issue." Of course, that's not to say that sugar in fruit causes those conditions. But if one is eating a lot of sugar and not enough of certain nutrients, then that can have implications for those conditions.

    I looked back to page 16 and I don't see that you posted any studies related to your claims that autoimmune disorders and allergies are indirectly related to sugar in fruit.

    Also curious why fruit causes these issues? I thought you were saying it was only added sugar that was the problem, now you are saying that fruit is really to blame for all of our woes?
    I guess I still wasn't clear enough. Eating excessive amounts of sugar has been shown to negatively impact the immune system. Autoimmune diseases and allergies are related to an immune system not functioning optimally. If one is eating an appropriate amount of sugar, I don't think there's a problem there.

    Then how do you explain a kid who doesn't like fruit, hates sugary treats, doesn't drink soda, and has some of the Big 8 allergies?
    Because there are many other things that impact the function of the immune system aside from sugar. There are a multitude of other dietary factors that may have been involved in your case.
    Like what, pray tell?
    Not enough zinc, vitamin C, or vitamin D are among the dietary factors that can play a role in that. Similarly, an unbalanced diet, especially one that is comprised of generous amounts of low nutrient dense foods with not much highly nutritious food is another factor.

    Being that the child was diagnosed with allergies at 18 months old, after having kept journals for them since they were about 6 months old, your speculation doesn't make any sense. Maybe stop making things up as you go along and really research allergies and auto immune disease before speaking of them, then maybe you'll be able to make your points a little better.
    There are studies that show what a mother eats doing the pregnancy can affect the child's immune system. So what I stated previously still applies.

    I like how you claim "it's been shown " and "there are studies" but never cite anything.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12727640
    http://kellymom.com/pregnancy/bf-prep/how_breastmilk_protects_newborns/



    You are posting the wrong links.
  • ForecasterJason
    ForecasterJason Posts: 2,577 Member
    edited July 2016
    Options
    queenliz99 wrote: »
    Alluminati wrote: »
    Alluminati wrote: »
    Alluminati wrote: »
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    kimny72 wrote: »
    kimny72 wrote: »
    I grew up in the 70's in NY. We ate almost exclusively canned, boxed, and frozen food. Fish sticks, tater tots, boxed flavored rice, canned veggies, frozen waffles, Wonder bread, Hostess cupcakes, Chips Ahoy cookies, hot dogs, pasta, ice cream, OJ from concentrate, ice tea mix. We had soda and chips or popcorn once or twice a week. So I'm guessing a lot of sugar and salt, not much protein, and really the only fresh food we ate was meat and a little fruit. Our diet was pretty typical of the middle class families we knew at least.

    However, we spent most of our time running around outside. I was a string bean. Always on the skinny side, until I got to my mid-twenties and got an office job. Having said that, I've never been "overweight" just the high side of healthy. Lost weight in my twenties and thirties by increasing exercise. Lost weight this time by counting calories. I certainly eat a better diet now, but still probably 50% processed/ 50% whole. I eat ice cream, chocolate, cookies, pasta, whenever I want, but in portion sizes that fit my calorie goal. Getting my activity level up while controlling my calories in was the key to getting to my current weight.

    I have always had low blood pressure, normal blood sugar, rarely catch colds and never the flu, haven't taken a prescription medication since I had my last earache when I was a kid. So my n=1 says I was and am fine eating a moderate amount of sugar. My minor problems were caused by not balancing my calories in with my activity level.

    And it's silly to say kids used to be healthier. In the 70's bronchitis and ear infections went around practically every month. There were plenty of "sickly" kids in my school who weren't diagnosed with anything but clearly weren't healthy. There were several children in my elementary and high school classes that we lost to cancer. And as @jgnatca said, if you go back to earlier in the century children suffered from all kinds of health problems we don't even think about anymore.

    Nothing I've read in this never-ending thread has convinced me the problem is anything other than obesity. If obese kids (and adults) ate less of everything and moved a lot more, they would lose weight and improve their health markers.
    So am I correct in that, assuming one is active and at a healthy weight and bodyfat percentage, the only reason why there are more and more people getting certain conditions at a young age is because of random genetic mutations. Still doesn't make sense to me…

    What conditions are children at a healthy weight getting more often?
    Autoimmune diseases and allergies (not necessarily just food, but environmental as well) are two.

    And what does that have to do with sugar?
    As I stated on page 16, "Autoimmune disorders and allergies can be indirectly related to sugar in fruit. A diet high in sugar can negatively impact the immune system, so if one is eating excessive amounts of sugar from fruit then that could become an issue." Of course, that's not to say that sugar in fruit causes those conditions. But if one is eating a lot of sugar and not enough of certain nutrients, then that can have implications for those conditions.

    I looked back to page 16 and I don't see that you posted any studies related to your claims that autoimmune disorders and allergies are indirectly related to sugar in fruit.

    Also curious why fruit causes these issues? I thought you were saying it was only added sugar that was the problem, now you are saying that fruit is really to blame for all of our woes?
    I guess I still wasn't clear enough. Eating excessive amounts of sugar has been shown to negatively impact the immune system. Autoimmune diseases and allergies are related to an immune system not functioning optimally. If one is eating an appropriate amount of sugar, I don't think there's a problem there.

    Then how do you explain a kid who doesn't like fruit, hates sugary treats, doesn't drink soda, and has some of the Big 8 allergies?
    Because there are many other things that impact the function of the immune system aside from sugar. There are a multitude of other dietary factors that may have been involved in your case.
    Like what, pray tell?
    Not enough zinc, vitamin C, or vitamin D are among the dietary factors that can play a role in that. Similarly, an unbalanced diet, especially one that is comprised of generous amounts of low nutrient dense foods with not much highly nutritious food is another factor.

    Being that the child was diagnosed with allergies at 18 months old, after having kept journals for them since they were about 6 months old, your speculation doesn't make any sense. Maybe stop making things up as you go along and really research allergies and auto immune disease before speaking of them, then maybe you'll be able to make your points a little better.
    There are studies that show what a mother eats doing the pregnancy can affect the child's immune system. So what I stated previously still applies.

    I like how you claim "it's been shown " and "there are studies" but never cite anything.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12727640
    http://kellymom.com/pregnancy/bf-prep/how_breastmilk_protects_newborns/



    You are posting the wrong links.
    Yeah, I figured. But are you suggesting that a mother's diet and nutrient levels does not affect the child's immune system? Because if not, then I shouldn't need to provide sources if we agree that it can.

  • kimny72
    kimny72 Posts: 16,013 Member
    Options
    I'm getting dizzy :dizzy:
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Options
    It is known.