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
-
GaleHawkins wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »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%?
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.
Technically what I corrected was your assertion that the new (2015) Guidelines referred to all sugar, not just added sugar, which is a misrepresentation.
Wetcoaster's citation above (the 25%) was to the 2010 Guidelines, which had different numbers, and was not based on the Guidelines but simply agreed with the number within. There's no reason to assume without more that it would be affected by the change in the 2015 Guidelines, which were for specific reasons.
Couldn't tell if you understood this from your comment, but we all do know that you ignore the Guidelines on many or most things, so I assume it's not a source you focus on, despite your prior comment.7 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »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%?
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).
I think what @lemurcat12 points out is key to what the purpose is of the guidelines. They are not for nutritional scientists; rather, they are for the lay person who does not have the time or resources to analyze the data. Instead, the guidelines provide a reasonable approach which is easy to follow.2 -
I only made it about halfway thru this before getting really frustrated and had to stop. I aopolize in advance if I am repeating something already said in the second half I did not make it to.
It seems like everyone is focusing in on details and missing the bigger picture. Does sugar cause the pleasure centers of the brain to light up? Yes. Does this make us physiologically more likely to eat more sugar? Yes. Is this also true of fats? Yes! And salt? Yep. And whatever particular food is your unique "weakness"? Yes! Do some people seem to have a greater propensity for this to occur with sugar vs fat? I don't know. Probably. And others probably have this occur more with fat vs sugar. Are there others who don't struggle at all with this? Yep. Am I saying that sugar is addictive? Yes. For some. And fats for others. Am I about to get a whole lotta replies telling me I'm an idiot? Probably.6 -
I only made it about halfway thru this before getting really frustrated and had to stop. I aopolize in advance if I am repeating something already said in the second half I did not make it to.
It seems like everyone is focusing in on details and missing the bigger picture. Does sugar cause the pleasure centers of the brain to light up? Yes. Does this make us physiologically more likely to eat more sugar? Yes. Is this also true of fats? Yes! And salt? Yep. And whatever particular food is your unique "weakness"? Yes! Do some people seem to have a greater propensity for this to occur with sugar vs fat? I don't know. Probably. And others probably have this occur more with fat vs sugar. Are there others who don't struggle at all with this? Yep. Am I saying that sugar is addictive? Yes. For some. And fats for others. Am I about to get a whole lotta replies telling me I'm an idiot? Probably.
I totally agree. Sugar is addictive, but perhaps the focus should be spent on educating youth on being healthy and the importance of exercise and unprocessed foods. If the masses keep favoring the overprocessed profit-maximizing foods, our healthy margin of the food market will be screwed too. How about lending a hand when you see somebody drowning in corporate *kitten*? Do you HAVE to? No. Should people have the willpower to resist the bombardment of ads and deliciously manufactured foods? Yes. However, the large companies of the food industry invest in research to make foods "taste" better at a lower cost. To totally disregard this is naive and reinforced ignorance. Also, isn't the whole point of the MFP community to come together and help people out?4 -
jabberwocky918 wrote: »I only made it about halfway thru this before getting really frustrated and had to stop. I aopolize in advance if I am repeating something already said in the second half I did not make it to.
It seems like everyone is focusing in on details and missing the bigger picture. Does sugar cause the pleasure centers of the brain to light up? Yes. Does this make us physiologically more likely to eat more sugar? Yes. Is this also true of fats? Yes! And salt? Yep. And whatever particular food is your unique "weakness"? Yes! Do some people seem to have a greater propensity for this to occur with sugar vs fat? I don't know. Probably. And others probably have this occur more with fat vs sugar. Are there others who don't struggle at all with this? Yep. Am I saying that sugar is addictive? Yes. For some. And fats for others. Am I about to get a whole lotta replies telling me I'm an idiot? Probably.
I totally agree. Sugar is addictive, but perhaps the focus should be spent on educating youth on being healthy and the importance of exercise and unprocessed foods. If the masses keep favoring the overprocessed profit-maximizing foods, our healthy margin of the food market will be screwed too. How about lending a hand when you see somebody drowning in corporate *kitten*? Do you HAVE to? No. Should people have the willpower to resist the bombardment of ads and deliciously manufactured foods? Yes. However, the large companies of the food industry invest in research to make foods "taste" better at a lower cost. To totally disregard this is naive and reinforced ignorance. Also, isn't the whole point of the MFP community to come together and help people out?
I'm quite confused by your post, can you please clarify some things?
I don't understand the bolded part at all - can you say it a different way?
I also think that you are criticizing corporations for trying to make good tasting food at low cost to increase both their sales and their profitability? Isn't that kind of how business works?
Finally, I'm not sure what any of the points you are trying to make have to do with the community of MFP.
7 -
jabberwocky918 wrote: »I only made it about halfway thru this before getting really frustrated and had to stop. I aopolize in advance if I am repeating something already said in the second half I did not make it to.
It seems like everyone is focusing in on details and missing the bigger picture. Does sugar cause the pleasure centers of the brain to light up? Yes. Does this make us physiologically more likely to eat more sugar? Yes. Is this also true of fats? Yes! And salt? Yep. And whatever particular food is your unique "weakness"? Yes! Do some people seem to have a greater propensity for this to occur with sugar vs fat? I don't know. Probably. And others probably have this occur more with fat vs sugar. Are there others who don't struggle at all with this? Yep. Am I saying that sugar is addictive? Yes. For some. And fats for others. Am I about to get a whole lotta replies telling me I'm an idiot? Probably.
I totally agree. Sugar is addictive, but perhaps the focus should be spent on educating youth on being healthy and the importance of exercise and unprocessed foods. If the masses keep favoring the overprocessed profit-maximizing foods, our healthy margin of the food market will be screwed too. How about lending a hand when you see somebody drowning in corporate *kitten*? Do you HAVE to? No. Should people have the willpower to resist the bombardment of ads and deliciously manufactured foods? Yes. However, the large companies of the food industry invest in research to make foods "taste" better at a lower cost. To totally disregard this is naive and reinforced ignorance. Also, isn't the whole point of the MFP community to come together and help people out?
These are great points. The question I have is why are these things adictive? It's not just the pleasure hormomes. sugar releases insulin. Insulin takes some of the food you ate and stores it as fat instead of it being used for energy.
Your body say where's that energy I needed? Your body say we must need more food, it then trigger Ghrelin to make you hungry again. So you eat more. If you eat sugar the process starts all over again.
I do agree we should be coming together, and the food companies are doing a great job of misinformation to keep people from focusing on them.3 -
jabberwocky918 wrote: »I only made it about halfway thru this before getting really frustrated and had to stop. I aopolize in advance if I am repeating something already said in the second half I did not make it to.
It seems like everyone is focusing in on details and missing the bigger picture. Does sugar cause the pleasure centers of the brain to light up? Yes. Does this make us physiologically more likely to eat more sugar? Yes. Is this also true of fats? Yes! And salt? Yep. And whatever particular food is your unique "weakness"? Yes! Do some people seem to have a greater propensity for this to occur with sugar vs fat? I don't know. Probably. And others probably have this occur more with fat vs sugar. Are there others who don't struggle at all with this? Yep. Am I saying that sugar is addictive? Yes. For some. And fats for others. Am I about to get a whole lotta replies telling me I'm an idiot? Probably.
I totally agree. Sugar is addictive, but perhaps the focus should be spent on educating youth on being healthy and the importance of exercise and unprocessed foods. If the masses keep favoring the overprocessed profit-maximizing foods, our healthy margin of the food market will be screwed too. How about lending a hand when you see somebody drowning in corporate *kitten*? Do you HAVE to? No. Should people have the willpower to resist the bombardment of ads and deliciously manufactured foods? Yes. However, the large companies of the food industry invest in research to make foods "taste" better at a lower cost. To totally disregard this is naive and reinforced ignorance. Also, isn't the whole point of the MFP community to come together and help people out?
I can get behind the first bolded portion--more nutrition education is necessary.
Second portion: How do we lend a hand? How do we identify people drowning in corporate bs?
Third portion: I think you underestimate people's intelligence. We are not dumb cows at the mercy of an evil food industry.
Fourth portion: We can help people out in ways that doesn't involve making certain types of food the enemy.
5 -
walker1world wrote: »jabberwocky918 wrote: »I only made it about halfway thru this before getting really frustrated and had to stop. I aopolize in advance if I am repeating something already said in the second half I did not make it to.
It seems like everyone is focusing in on details and missing the bigger picture. Does sugar cause the pleasure centers of the brain to light up? Yes. Does this make us physiologically more likely to eat more sugar? Yes. Is this also true of fats? Yes! And salt? Yep. And whatever particular food is your unique "weakness"? Yes! Do some people seem to have a greater propensity for this to occur with sugar vs fat? I don't know. Probably. And others probably have this occur more with fat vs sugar. Are there others who don't struggle at all with this? Yep. Am I saying that sugar is addictive? Yes. For some. And fats for others. Am I about to get a whole lotta replies telling me I'm an idiot? Probably.
I totally agree. Sugar is addictive, but perhaps the focus should be spent on educating youth on being healthy and the importance of exercise and unprocessed foods. If the masses keep favoring the overprocessed profit-maximizing foods, our healthy margin of the food market will be screwed too. How about lending a hand when you see somebody drowning in corporate *kitten*? Do you HAVE to? No. Should people have the willpower to resist the bombardment of ads and deliciously manufactured foods? Yes. However, the large companies of the food industry invest in research to make foods "taste" better at a lower cost. To totally disregard this is naive and reinforced ignorance. Also, isn't the whole point of the MFP community to come together and help people out?
These are great points. The question I have is why are these things adictive? It's not just the pleasure hormomes. sugar releases insulin. Insulin takes some of the food you ate and stores it as fat instead of it being used for energy.
Pleasure does not make something addictive. It makes it pleasurable. Lots of things are pleasurable (like petting puppies) and yet we don't claim to be unable to resist them.
More significantly, this is simply not how it works. If your body needs energy (i.e., you are at a calorie deficit) your body is not going to store food as fat vs. using it for energy. That would be pretty senseless and inefficient and does not happen in a healthy person.
Also, as I say over and over, I don't know where this idea that ultra processed food is more tasty or harder to resist than good homecooked food comes from. It's just so easily available that people who want to (or are in the habit of) eating all the time or for reasons other than nourishment (snacking for pleasure, hedonic eating) can. We used to not do that because it hadn't become normalized, there were customs that controlled eating (also, people typically expected to eat homecooked food). If you choose to take advantage of the easy availability of ultraprocessed (or any other kind of) food, that's a choice, on you.
All this aside, I agree about education, although the bigger problem (as demonstrated by the woeful ignorance of many about basic history or US gov't or math, which we are also educated about) is that many people seem to retain nothing from what they are taught.6 -
I have done a ton of research on food because of my nerve disease. First I want to say that I am a living example of what some of the things they put in our food can do to your body. My body is pretty clean now that I've changed my diet and usually within minutes of eating something with harmful additives and sugars, my big toe or maybe my whole foot will turn beet red and start to hurt. No food should cause that kind of reaction to the human body!!!! PERIOD
Second, I always crack up at how people rail so hard against OTHERS who believe sugar is the main ISSUE to their weight problem. PEOPLE listen when I tell you that sugar in and of itself is NOT the problem. IT IS THE AMOUNT OF SUGAR they put in every single thing we eat. The amount of sugar that they are putting in our food is to much for the body to deal with and so therefore the body starts breaking down at all levels. You can watch the meteoric rise in diabetes and heart disease literally go thru the roof on any fact chart from the 70's to the present. The line on the graph goes straight up. Why you ask? Because once FAT became the poster child for obesity and heart disease in the 70's, there was so much bad press about fat in our foods that big food had to find another way to sweeten their products up. SUGAR became the go to ingredient for ALL food manufacturers. HAVE YOU EVER WONDERED WHY THEY MEASURE SUGAR IN GRAMS on our food labels? The only people that use the measurement of grams on a reg basis are drug users and dealers. THEY DONT WANT YOU TO BE ABLE TO GET A TRUE VISUAL IDEA OF WHAT SUGAR LOOKS LIKE IN GRAMS. That has been verified by insiders in the industries who have quit citing their conscience getting the best of them. If you want to see a sobering look at what sugar really look like in grams, watch the documentary "SUGAR" on Netflix. It will blow you away when you see the physical representation of how much sugar is in a lot of food that the industry considers to be a healthy choice. Also, THERE ARE ABOUT 25-30 DIFFERENT NAMES BIG FOOD USES TO HIDE THE FACT THAT THERE IS ACTUALLY MORE SUGAR THAN THE LABEL ACTUALLY CITES.
Also If you think that BIG FOOD doesn't have people that are PAID to get on sites all over the INTERNET to try and discredit and humiliate people rallying against the amounts of SUGAR being put into our foods, than you HAVENT BEEN PAYING much attention to what's been happening in our world the last couple decades. Big Food spends HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS Of DOLLARS A YEAR on lobbying their interests with the government. A lot of times BIG. FOODS LAWYERS are the ones actually writing their own legislation. Then they hand it over to the politician/s in their pocket. MONSANTO TRIED DOZENS UPON DOZENS OF TIMES TO GET ASPARTAME APPROVED BY THE FDA THROUGHOUT THE 70's UNSUCCESSFULLY. Each time they submitted for approval, they used different scientists who they bought off and they used the same test results as the last time they were denied. THIS WAS LITERALLY REPEATED SEVERAL DOZENS OF TIMES EACH TIME FAILING TO WIN APPROVAL. At some point there was a regime change and just like that the new men in charge of the FDA finally approved ASPARTAME which has been linked to many different health problems by many different scientists and research firms. That is just one example out of hundreds where BIG FOOD has bought off people to get their products on the shelves. I never had a clue how CROOKED those big food companies were until I started my own research into what I was putting in my body.
I made the decision to eliminate a large portion of those chemicals and additives, especially SUGAR from my diet sometime in the middle of 2014 and in 3 MOS I dropped 25lbs going from 225 to 200. HERES THE KICKER, I did not do one stitch of exercise outside of walking and the occasional round of golf. It was CLEAR to me how much those additives and unhealthy, dangerous chemicals, not to mention the main culprit, SUGAR in our food, was responsible for the epidemic we have in the States with obesity, diabetes and heart disease. Please feel free to google the things I've mentioned in this post to see for yourself how bad Big Food is slowly killing the American public one generation at a time. Sorry for the length but I felt it was important.7 -
I'm not one to complain about length, but paragraph breaks would be helpful.6
-
Nope. Not gonna do it.
1 -
Holy *babysloth*3
-
Yeah, I was going to attempt to reply, but I think I'll just back away slowly...3
-
-
9 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »
As long as you eat 40 hot dogs at a time, it doesn't matter!4 -
rankinsect wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »
As long as you eat 40 hot dogs at a time, it doesn't matter!
Done!2 -
What about the guys who lost weight eating nothing but oreos and twinkies? It certainly isnt healthy, but it will always be calories in and calories out in terms of weight loss.1
-
ninhogorgfan wrote: »What about the guys who lost weight eating nothing but oreos and twinkies? It certainly isnt healthy, but it will always be calories in and calories out in terms of weight loss.
He didn't eat nothing but that. He also supplemented with protein shakes and multis. But yes, CICO does still rule in the end, so far as weight loss or gain goes.0 -
PEOPLE listen when I tell you that sugar in and of itself is NOT the problem. IT IS THE AMOUNT OF SUGAR they put in every single thing we eat. The amount of sugar that they are putting in our food is to much for the body to deal with and so therefore the body starts breaking down at all levels.
...The only people that use the measurement of grams on a reg basis are drug users and dealers.
...I made the decision to eliminate a large portion of those chemicals and additives, especially SUGAR from my diet sometime in the middle of 2014 and in 3 MOS I dropped 25lbs going from 225 to 200.
We are in agreement that the amount of sugar we, as a society, eat is the problem. But I don't think hidden sugar is the biggest problem. IMO, it's that treats are a mainstay rather than few and far between.
Apparently I'm a drug user. Or just a Canadian who uses the metric system.
Congratulations on the weight loss.
1 -
HAVE YOU EVER WONDERED WHY THEY MEASURE SUGAR IN GRAMS on our food labels? The only people that use the measurement of grams on a reg basis are drug users and dealers.
Here, have a map that shows the countries that don't use grams (in red).
13 -
CurlyCockney wrote: »
Indeed, and everyone else is a drug dealer or user. That's why the US military budget is what it is.
I mean, duh! The metric system is the true evil empire.9 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »CurlyCockney wrote: »
Indeed, and everyone else is a drug dealer or user. That's why the US military budget is what it is.
I mean, duh! The metric system is the true evil empire.
You can't decimate things without decimals, get with the programme/program!
8 -
Excellent (non decimal) point!2
-
Wow... Just wow0
-
CurlyCockney wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »CurlyCockney wrote: »
Indeed, and everyone else is a drug dealer or user. That's why the US military budget is what it is.
I mean, duh! The metric system is the true evil empire.
You can't decimate things without decimals, get with the programme/program!
Wait, when did we start killing off exactly 1/10th of things? And isn't decimating something inherently metric?
:coffee:3 -
CurlyCockney wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »CurlyCockney wrote: »
Indeed, and everyone else is a drug dealer or user. That's why the US military budget is what it is.
I mean, duh! The metric system is the true evil empire.
You can't decimate things without decimals, get with the programme/program!
Wait, when did we start killing off exactly 1/10th of things? And isn't decimating something inherently metric?
:coffee:
When we were Romans! And yes it is, which is why non-metric countries have that military budget!
https://youtu.be/9foi342LXQE
:decaff coffee so not feeling the benefit:2 -
well I see this thread has gone of the tracks in a giant ball of liquid magma....0
-
I read wall of text. Went cross eyed several times.
Rolled eyes at every sentence. Holy fearmongering, batman!
Eye rolling burns calories. And grams are teh evils.6 -
we are all scarface now, because grams...8
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions