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.
Sugar Addiction Myths
Options
Replies
-
Hawaiian_Iceberg wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »
No, they're not empty in that sense. They're empty in the sense of pointless or unhelpful. They may have some food value, but not enough to give them a meaningful nutritional role in the context in which they're being discussed.That's why the definition of 'empty calorie' has to specify devoid of vitamins, minerals, fiber, essential fats and proteins, I suppose. No macro is used solely to produce energy and for nothing else.
Again, cardio.
That's why dfwesq said within the context in which they're being discussed.
Firstly the term 'empty calorie' makes no sense. A calorie is a unit of measurement for energy. So talking about empty units is a bit silly.
However, the context in which the term has been used is to help fat people understand that the 2 liter bottle of Coke they're chugging down in front of the TV has little nutritional value.
That same 2l of Coke would be very useful to me if I was on a 6 hour cycle ride and was looking for an easy way to refuel. However, I'd be unlikely to use the term "empty calories" in that context.
if you want to argue that sugar should not crowd out other nutrients, then yes I agree; however, that does not make it empty, toxic, etc...4 -
Hawaiian_Iceberg wrote: »In my humble opinion the obesity levels we are seeing in the Western world have a lot to do with the increased sugar levels in our food. (but not the only one)
Globally we consume roughly 173 million tonnes of sugar per year. That is 24 kg per person on average! In the US that's apparently almost 44Kg per person! That's over 170,000 calories which is over 460 per day! That's very high compared to historical levels and has been raising steadily for the last century at least!
Now don't get me wrong I'm not a anti-sugar zelot or a pro-fat crusader, in fact, just because saturated fat might not be as bad as I once thought I see no reason to stick butter in my coffee .
I genuinely believe that a majority of people have no clue how calorific their food is or what their energy needs are.
sugar consumption is actually down ....5 -
NorthCascades wrote: »This is a terrible article. Somebody "debunked" the "myth" that sugar is empty calories by pointing out that it has calories. Stupidest thing I've read in a long time.
how so? If something provides energy, it can't be empty. If anything the empty calorie argument is the dump one.
I think some call sugar an empty calorie because it just has calories.
I guess we could call diet soda "empty flavor" because it just provides flavor... well, and water. And maybe on occasion some micronutrients.
If you can derive energy out of something it is not empty.
Possibly. You could just as easily say the calories in sugar are empty of anything else though. They are just calories.
and what do calories contain?
This is like arguing that a bucket with nothing in it is not empty because it is a bucket.
There are calories in sugar, which some (the majority) will use as a fuel source, but that is all it is - calories.
One could call it empty energy that can raise a gram of water by 1C.
All it has is energy (calories). Sugar calories have nothing else to them.
That's all calories are regardless of source. Energy.
But I get what you're saying, that there isn't anything to sugar other than calories. That isn't strictly true, though. Carbohydrates aren't just metabolized for energy, the molecules are also used in anabolic and other reactions. That's why the definition of 'empty calorie' has to specify devoid of vitamins, minerals, fiber, essential fats and proteins, I suppose. No macro is used solely to produce energy and for nothing else.
Carbs are not empty calories. Vegetables and fruit have a LOT of nutrition in them. Grains have some nutrition too although I think it is often harder for us to access. But I do think sugar is empty calories. Sucrose does not have anything beyond energy, I believe.
It's redeeming quality is that it tastes really good.2 -
Which is essentially what I said. All commercial enterprises exist to make money so yes, some are driven to sell us as much cheap, sugar laden, sweet treats as possible. Their job isn't just to sell you what you want, but to create the want to begin with, through advertising, social media, hype, phony "news" articles and studies etc. I always find it funny when people try to discredit something by saying someone has an agenda. Everyone has an agenda, no one exists simply for altruistic reasons.JohnnyPenso wrote: »This one is especially funny:
Myth 7: Sugary foods are a food industry plot to get us hooked on cheap ingredients
The idea that we are controlled by the food industry is as bad as the idea that we are controlled by sugar. Nobody is piling our shopping trolleys with sweet treats but us.
Sure, it's a myth that the food industry is in business to get us hooked on their products. Really? For what other purpose do they exist but to sell you more of their products?
It's simpler than that. They exist to make money.
The easiest way for a food company to make money is to sell you things you want, at a price you'll pay, and use the least expensive inputs (ingredients and process).
If they could make millions selling people single-serve Brussels sprouts, they'd do it. But candy's more popular.
0 -
I would not consider plant-based sugars, plant-based fat, or animal-based fat empty calories. All contain trace amounts of minerals and vitamins.
For example, both olive oil and granulated sugars are processed from plants. Neither one has been synthesized by humans in a chemical laboratory. Both have trace amounts of minerals and vitamins as tested in the USDA laboratories.
In comparing 100 Calories of each item,
11.31g Oil, olive,
100 Cals, 1.13mg Ca, 0.63mg Fe, 1.13mg K, 2.26mg Na, 16.23mg Vit E, 0.068mg Vit K
Source: https://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/foods/show/660
25.84g Sugars, granulated
100 Cals, 0.29mg Ca, 0.013mg Fe, 0.52mg K, 0.26mg Na, 0.003mg Zn, 0.005 mg Vit B2
Source: https://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/foods/show/63192 -
WinoGelato wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »This is a terrible article. Somebody "debunked" the "myth" that sugar is empty calories by pointing out that it has calories. Stupidest thing I've read in a long time.
how so? If something provides energy, it can't be empty. If anything the empty calorie argument is the dump one.
I think some call sugar an empty calorie because it just has calories.
I guess we could call diet soda "empty flavor" because it just provides flavor... well, and water. And maybe on occasion some micronutrients.
If you can derive energy out of something it is not empty.
Possibly. You could just as easily say the calories in sugar are empty of anything else though. They are just calories.
and what do calories contain?
This is like arguing that a bucket with nothing in it is not empty because it is a bucket.
There are calories in sugar, which some (the majority) will use as a fuel source, but that is all it is - calories.
One could call it empty energy that can raise a gram of water by 1C. All it has is energy (calories). Sugar calories have nothing else to them.
Genuinely curious... when keto folks add fat to things, just for the sake of adding fat, how is that not "empty calories"?
Since people were referring to the USDA use of the term upthread, it absolutely would be considered "empty calories" under the normal definition.
The claim that pizza is junk food (which I know you and I think is silly) is sometimes based on the USDA saying that pizza is the greatest contributor of empty calories to the US diet, and what they mean, specifically, is the fat in the cheese and other added fats (or the fat in stuff like pepperoni).
This assumes that everyone is going to be focused on reducing calories, not eating enough.
It also means, IMO, that "empty calories" doesn't mean "should never be consumed" as it sometimes seems to be taken.1 -
NorthCascades wrote: »This is a terrible article. Somebody "debunked" the "myth" that sugar is empty calories by pointing out that it has calories. Stupidest thing I've read in a long time.
how so? If something provides energy, it can't be empty. If anything the empty calorie argument is the dump one.
I think some call sugar an empty calorie because it just has calories.
I guess we could call diet soda "empty flavor" because it just provides flavor... well, and water. And maybe on occasion some micronutrients.
If you can derive energy out of something it is not empty.
Possibly. You could just as easily say the calories in sugar are empty of anything else though. They are just calories.
and what do calories contain?
This is like arguing that a bucket with nothing in it is not empty because it is a bucket.
There are calories in sugar, which some (the majority) will use as a fuel source, but that is all it is - calories.
One could call it empty energy that can raise a gram of water by 1C. All it has is energy (calories). Sugar calories have nothing else to them.
That's all calories are regardless of source. Energy.
But I get what you're saying, that there isn't anything to sugar other than calories. That isn't strictly true, though. Carbohydrates aren't just metabolized for energy, the molecules are also used in anabolic and other reactions. That's why the definition of 'empty calorie' has to specify devoid of vitamins, minerals, fiber, essential fats and proteins, I suppose. No macro is used solely to produce energy and for nothing else.
Carbs are not empty calories. Vegetables and fruit have a LOT of nutrition in them. Grains have some nutrition too although I think it is often harder for us to access. But I do think sugar is empty calories. Sucrose does not have anything beyond energy, I believe.
It's redeeming quality is that it tastes really good.
nutrition and calories are not one in the same, which seems to be where you are missing the point...
calories = calories
however, they are not all nutritionally the same.
so not really sure where people come up with this low nutrition calories somehow equals "empty calories" line of thinking...1 -
WinoGelato wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »This is a terrible article. Somebody "debunked" the "myth" that sugar is empty calories by pointing out that it has calories. Stupidest thing I've read in a long time.
how so? If something provides energy, it can't be empty. If anything the empty calorie argument is the dump one.
I think some call sugar an empty calorie because it just has calories.
I guess we could call diet soda "empty flavor" because it just provides flavor... well, and water. And maybe on occasion some micronutrients.
If you can derive energy out of something it is not empty.
Possibly. You could just as easily say the calories in sugar are empty of anything else though. They are just calories.
and what do calories contain?
This is like arguing that a bucket with nothing in it is not empty because it is a bucket.
There are calories in sugar, which some (the majority) will use as a fuel source, but that is all it is - calories.
One could call it empty energy that can raise a gram of water by 1C. All it has is energy (calories). Sugar calories have nothing else to them.
Genuinely curious... when keto folks add fat to things, just for the sake of adding fat, how is that not "empty calories"? I know I've seen posts where people have talked about drinking the hamburger grease or at a minimum, not draining it. Others put butter and coconut oil in coffee. As someone who eats a diet with no propensity toward one macro or another (besides a minimum of protein), to me that focus on consuming straight fat seems like empty calories. How is that different than eating something high in sugar for a specific nutritional focus (endurance athletes looking to Goo for a race)?
I think it depends on the fat. Some fats have more nutrition than others. Fats are often attached to a food, like fats in beef. With sugar it is the same. Sugar in strawberries is coming with nutrition. Strawberry flavored candy is not.
Fat that is just added to a diet to raise calories is not all that helpful, IMO.
IME, as a cook and eater, people don't just eat fat for the sake of eating fat (or sugar for the sake of eating sugar). Very often it is added because it makes other foods taste good -- olive or coconut oil to vegetables (or bacon grease for cooking eggs), cheese as an accent in lots of dishes. Similarly, one adds sugar to improve the taste of various foods (depending on your taste, such as in oats or a bit in pasta sauce or in a rhubarb sauce, or in making a BBQ sauce or various uses of honey in cooking).
Then, of course, there are the more recreational uses of both -- cheese, ice cream, cookies -- this isn't just to raise calories or to add nutrients, but because it may make the overall diet more enjoyable, and I see nothing wrong with this, so long as it's in moderation (and if you have reasons to limit one or the other macro, of course). Are there problems with the extent to which high cal low nutrient foods (including both sugar and fat calories, plus refined flour) are in the US diet? (and Canadian too, don't want to be self-centered) ;-) -- absolutely!
I don't have a problem with the term "empty calories" for the same reason I don't have a problem with "junk food." I think most people know what it means and don't assume it means those things are always terrible and it's a dreadful thing to ever let them pass your lips, worthy of shame and guilt. However, I am not convinced it's wildly helpful as a focus since I think some seem to parce "empty calories" to mean "things I personally avoid and not the things I like/find helpful" or "things that should not be in a diet at all" and that's not really what it means. The way it's defined, they are in the diet (often come with other foods) and IMO in moderation (and taking into account the way you personally do best eating) probably help make a diet that is very healthy more satisfying. The point is that the diet as a whole must work and not be unbalanced (as in have too much low nutrient stuff and therefore inadequate nutrients).
I'm actually finding this to be very true for me with fat. Even if low fat (or even 30%) were marginally healthier for me (I am not talking about someone for whom it makes a significant difference), I don't feel as satisfied as on somewhat more and so I am going to stress more about my diet and struggle and need more will power. I resisted believing this for a while, but right now I really think it's true, and if that means my diet has a few more so-called empty calories (that serve a culinary purpose when I add them, always), I think they overall make the diet and me healthier.0 -
Hawaiian_Iceberg wrote: »However, the context in which the term has been used is to help fat people understand that the 2 liter bottle of Coke they're chugging down in front of the TV has little nutritional value.
Do people really need help understanding this? I think people know it, don't they -- no one says they are drinking Coke for the nutrients or because of the health benefits. (They may well say they are drinking it for the energy/caffeine+sugar, though. I love coffee, but I am sure I drink it in part because I enjoy caffeine.)0 -
No, they're not empty in that sense. They're empty in the sense of pointless or unhelpful. They may have some food value, but not enough to give them a meaningful nutritional role in the context in which they're being discussed.That's why the definition of 'empty calorie' has to specify devoid of vitamins, minerals, fiber, essential fats and proteins, I suppose. No macro is used solely to produce energy and for nothing else.
Which is why he definition is the way it is - to define the context. That is because no macro is truly "pointless or unhelpful" beyond providing energy. If that were not the case, such a specific definition would be unnecessary.1 -
Hawaiian_Iceberg wrote: »In my humble opinion the obesity levels we are seeing in the Western world have a lot to do with the increased sugar levels in our food. (but not the only one)
Globally we consume roughly 173 million tonnes of sugar per year. That is 24 kg per person on average! In the US that's apparently almost 44Kg per person! That's over 170,000 calories which is over 460 per day! That's very high compared to historical levels and has been raising steadily for the last century at least!
Now don't get me wrong I'm not a anti-sugar zelot or a pro-fat crusader, in fact, just because saturated fat might not be as bad as I once thought I see no reason to stick butter in my coffee .
I genuinely believe that a majority of people have no clue how calorific their food is or what their energy needs are.
sugar consumption is actually down ....
No it's not. Not even close. The sale of sugar in shops is down. True. However consumption continues to grow.2 -
NorthCascades wrote: »This is a terrible article. Somebody "debunked" the "myth" that sugar is empty calories by pointing out that it has calories. Stupidest thing I've read in a long time.
how so? If something provides energy, it can't be empty. If anything the empty calorie argument is the dump one.
I think some call sugar an empty calorie because it just has calories.
I guess we could call diet soda "empty flavor" because it just provides flavor... well, and water. And maybe on occasion some micronutrients.
If you can derive energy out of something it is not empty.
Possibly. You could just as easily say the calories in sugar are empty of anything else though. They are just calories.
and what do calories contain?
This is like arguing that a bucket with nothing in it is not empty because it is a bucket.
There are calories in sugar, which some (the majority) will use as a fuel source, but that is all it is - calories.
One could call it empty energy that can raise a gram of water by 1C. All it has is energy (calories). Sugar calories have nothing else to them.
That's all calories are regardless of source. Energy.
But I get what you're saying, that there isn't anything to sugar other than calories. That isn't strictly true, though. Carbohydrates aren't just metabolized for energy, the molecules are also used in anabolic and other reactions. That's why the definition of 'empty calorie' has to specify devoid of vitamins, minerals, fiber, essential fats and proteins, I suppose. No macro is used solely to produce energy and for nothing else.
Carbs are not empty calories. Vegetables and fruit have a LOT of nutrition in them. Grains have some nutrition too although I think it is often harder for us to access. But I do think sugar is empty calories. Sucrose does not have anything beyond energy, I believe.
It's redeeming quality is that it tastes really good.
But most people aren't eating straight sugar by the spoonful, just like most people aren't eating straight fat in isolation. I do make things like roasted carrots or butternut squash or sweet potatoes where I drizzle them with olive oil, and add a bit of cumin, chili powder and brown sugar. In that dish - is the sugar bad? Is the fat bad? Are either of those empty calories, since they also are being served with vegetables? Could I make the dish without the sugar or the oil? Sure, I suppose. But why do I need to?
If I have no medical reason to restrict sugar, or fat, and am eating both of them in moderation in my diet - then neither of them are bad (for me). We (the MFP community at large, not you and I specifically) always seem to get into this weird debate where we isolate individual ingredients and try to determine if they are good or bad on the whole, without looking at the overall context of a person's diet. Even when we talk about the whole diet of an individual, it can vary quite a bit from the diet of an elite endurance athlete to the diet of a person who is managing a chronic health condition to the diet of a person who is just trying for a generally healthy, active lifestyle to the diet of a person who hasn't begun to make changes yet. Each one of those diets would be different, so why do we try to apply blanket generalizations like sugar is bad, or sugar is nothing but empty calories, without offering specific, helpful advice to the individual? I get that some people, like you, have a reason to limit sugar and carbs in general, and subsequently increasing fat consumption has health benefits for you. But rather than focusing on why some people do need to make dietary changes and limit certain things - sweeping generalizations such that sugar is BAD for all people, or that it is "empty calories" really isn't the case - when looking at consumption in context.
6 -
Hawaiian_Iceberg wrote: »Hawaiian_Iceberg wrote: »In my humble opinion the obesity levels we are seeing in the Western world have a lot to do with the increased sugar levels in our food. (but not the only one)
Globally we consume roughly 173 million tonnes of sugar per year. That is 24 kg per person on average! In the US that's apparently almost 44Kg per person! That's over 170,000 calories which is over 460 per day! That's very high compared to historical levels and has been raising steadily for the last century at least!
Now don't get me wrong I'm not a anti-sugar zelot or a pro-fat crusader, in fact, just because saturated fat might not be as bad as I once thought I see no reason to stick butter in my coffee .
I genuinely believe that a majority of people have no clue how calorific their food is or what their energy needs are.
sugar consumption is actually down ....
No it's not. Not even close. The sale of sugar in shops is down. True. However consumption continues to grow.
according to this article, it's down and has been going down...
https://www.statnews.com/2016/09/20/sugar-consumption-americans/
quote from the article:
'On average, Americans’ total consumption of caloric sweeteners like refined cane sugar and high-fructose corn syrup is down 15 percent from its peak in 1999, according to government data. That’s when we consumed an average of 111 grams of sugar a day (423 calories).'3 -
Hawaiian_Iceberg wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »
No, they're not empty in that sense. They're empty in the sense of pointless or unhelpful. They may have some food value, but not enough to give them a meaningful nutritional role in the context in which they're being discussed.That's why the definition of 'empty calorie' has to specify devoid of vitamins, minerals, fiber, essential fats and proteins, I suppose. No macro is used solely to produce energy and for nothing else.
Again, cardio.
That's why dfwesq said within the context in which they're being discussed.
Firstly the term 'empty calorie' makes no sense. A calorie is a unit of measurement for energy. So talking about empty units is a bit silly.
However, the context in which the term has been used is to help fat people understand that the 2 liter bottle of Coke they're chugging down in front of the TV has little nutritional value.
That same 2l of Coke would be very useful to me if I was on a 6 hour cycle ride and was looking for an easy way to refuel. However, I'd be unlikely to use the term "empty calories" in that context.
if you want to argue that sugar should not crowd out other nutrients, then yes I agree; however, that does not make it empty, toxic, etc...
Of course it's not toxic and anyone one arguing that is clearly mistaken.
However many many people are gaining weight ,in part ,due to excessive sugars in their diets.1 -
Hawaiian_Iceberg wrote: »Hawaiian_Iceberg wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »
No, they're not empty in that sense. They're empty in the sense of pointless or unhelpful. They may have some food value, but not enough to give them a meaningful nutritional role in the context in which they're being discussed.That's why the definition of 'empty calorie' has to specify devoid of vitamins, minerals, fiber, essential fats and proteins, I suppose. No macro is used solely to produce energy and for nothing else.
Again, cardio.
That's why dfwesq said within the context in which they're being discussed.
Firstly the term 'empty calorie' makes no sense. A calorie is a unit of measurement for energy. So talking about empty units is a bit silly.
However, the context in which the term has been used is to help fat people understand that the 2 liter bottle of Coke they're chugging down in front of the TV has little nutritional value.
That same 2l of Coke would be very useful to me if I was on a 6 hour cycle ride and was looking for an easy way to refuel. However, I'd be unlikely to use the term "empty calories" in that context.
if you want to argue that sugar should not crowd out other nutrients, then yes I agree; however, that does not make it empty, toxic, etc...
Of course it's not toxic and anyone one arguing that is clearly mistaken.
However many many people are gaining weight ,in part ,due to excessive sugars caloriesin their diets.
corrected9 -
Hawaiian_Iceberg wrote: »Hawaiian_Iceberg wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »
No, they're not empty in that sense. They're empty in the sense of pointless or unhelpful. They may have some food value, but not enough to give them a meaningful nutritional role in the context in which they're being discussed.That's why the definition of 'empty calorie' has to specify devoid of vitamins, minerals, fiber, essential fats and proteins, I suppose. No macro is used solely to produce energy and for nothing else.
Again, cardio.
That's why dfwesq said within the context in which they're being discussed.
Firstly the term 'empty calorie' makes no sense. A calorie is a unit of measurement for energy. So talking about empty units is a bit silly.
However, the context in which the term has been used is to help fat people understand that the 2 liter bottle of Coke they're chugging down in front of the TV has little nutritional value.
That same 2l of Coke would be very useful to me if I was on a 6 hour cycle ride and was looking for an easy way to refuel. However, I'd be unlikely to use the term "empty calories" in that context.
if you want to argue that sugar should not crowd out other nutrients, then yes I agree; however, that does not make it empty, toxic, etc...
Of course it's not toxic and anyone one arguing that is clearly mistaken.
However many many people are gaining weight ,in part ,due to excessive sugars caloriesin their diets.
Fixed it for you.8 -
WinoGelato wrote: »Hawaiian_Iceberg wrote: »Hawaiian_Iceberg wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »
No, they're not empty in that sense. They're empty in the sense of pointless or unhelpful. They may have some food value, but not enough to give them a meaningful nutritional role in the context in which they're being discussed.That's why the definition of 'empty calorie' has to specify devoid of vitamins, minerals, fiber, essential fats and proteins, I suppose. No macro is used solely to produce energy and for nothing else.
Again, cardio.
That's why dfwesq said within the context in which they're being discussed.
Firstly the term 'empty calorie' makes no sense. A calorie is a unit of measurement for energy. So talking about empty units is a bit silly.
However, the context in which the term has been used is to help fat people understand that the 2 liter bottle of Coke they're chugging down in front of the TV has little nutritional value.
That same 2l of Coke would be very useful to me if I was on a 6 hour cycle ride and was looking for an easy way to refuel. However, I'd be unlikely to use the term "empty calories" in that context.
if you want to argue that sugar should not crowd out other nutrients, then yes I agree; however, that does not make it empty, toxic, etc...
Of course it's not toxic and anyone one arguing that is clearly mistaken.
However many many people are gaining weight ,in part ,due to excessive sugars caloriesin their diets.
Fixed it for you.
LOL ....read my mind...4 -
Hawaiian_Iceberg wrote: »Hawaiian_Iceberg wrote: »In my humble opinion the obesity levels we are seeing in the Western world have a lot to do with the increased sugar levels in our food. (but not the only one)
Globally we consume roughly 173 million tonnes of sugar per year. That is 24 kg per person on average! In the US that's apparently almost 44Kg per person! That's over 170,000 calories which is over 460 per day! That's very high compared to historical levels and has been raising steadily for the last century at least!
Now don't get me wrong I'm not a anti-sugar zelot or a pro-fat crusader, in fact, just because saturated fat might not be as bad as I once thought I see no reason to stick butter in my coffee .
I genuinely believe that a majority of people have no clue how calorific their food is or what their energy needs are.
sugar consumption is actually down ....
No it's not. Not even close. The sale of sugar in shops is down. True. However consumption continues to grow.
according to this article, it's down and has been going down...
https://www.statnews.com/2016/09/20/sugar-consumption-americans/
quote from the article:
'On average, Americans’ total consumption of caloric sweeteners like refined cane sugar and high-fructose corn syrup is down 15 percent from its peak in 1999, according to government data. That’s when we consumed an average of 111 grams of sugar a day (423 calories).'
Sugar consumption in the US is down from it's peak but it is still several times what organizations like the WHO, CDC, Harvard Med, etc recommend.1 -
NorthCascades wrote: »This is a terrible article. Somebody "debunked" the "myth" that sugar is empty calories by pointing out that it has calories. Stupidest thing I've read in a long time.
how so? If something provides energy, it can't be empty. If anything the empty calorie argument is the dump one.
I think some call sugar an empty calorie because it just has calories.
I guess we could call diet soda "empty flavor" because it just provides flavor... well, and water. And maybe on occasion some micronutrients.
If you can derive energy out of something it is not empty.
Possibly. You could just as easily say the calories in sugar are empty of anything else though. They are just calories.
and what do calories contain?
This is like arguing that a bucket with nothing in it is not empty because it is a bucket.
There are calories in sugar, which some (the majority) will use as a fuel source, but that is all it is - calories.
One could call it empty energy that can raise a gram of water by 1C. All it has is energy (calories). Sugar calories have nothing else to them.
That's all calories are regardless of source. Energy.
But I get what you're saying, that there isn't anything to sugar other than calories. That isn't strictly true, though. Carbohydrates aren't just metabolized for energy, the molecules are also used in anabolic and other reactions. That's why the definition of 'empty calorie' has to specify devoid of vitamins, minerals, fiber, essential fats and proteins, I suppose. No macro is used solely to produce energy and for nothing else.
Carbs are not empty calories. Vegetables and fruit have a LOT of nutrition in them. Grains have some nutrition too although I think it is often harder for us to access. But I do think sugar is empty calories. Sucrose does not have anything beyond energy, I believe.
It's redeeming quality is that it tastes really good.
No, sugar is included in carbohydrates. Carbohydrates (including sucrose) are broken down into monosaccharides. Monosaccharides aren't just metabolized for energy, the molecules are also used in many anabolic and other reactions.
Intermediates of glycolysis are used to synthesize amino acids for example.
The reason sugar is being called empty is that it doesn't provide anything else. Nothing essential (because we can produce our own), and nothing that we (US pop.) tend to be lacking in our diets. By the same logic, oils and solid fats that don't contain essential fatty acids should be considered empty calories. We do tend to get enough fats in our diet. Theoretically, if we were regularly over on protein and if there is/are food\s that are primarily the 11 non-essential amino acids they should also be considered empty.5 -
Hawaiian_Iceberg wrote: »Hawaiian_Iceberg wrote: »In my humble opinion the obesity levels we are seeing in the Western world have a lot to do with the increased sugar levels in our food. (but not the only one)
Globally we consume roughly 173 million tonnes of sugar per year. That is 24 kg per person on average! In the US that's apparently almost 44Kg per person! That's over 170,000 calories which is over 460 per day! That's very high compared to historical levels and has been raising steadily for the last century at least!
Now don't get me wrong I'm not a anti-sugar zelot or a pro-fat crusader, in fact, just because saturated fat might not be as bad as I once thought I see no reason to stick butter in my coffee .
I genuinely believe that a majority of people have no clue how calorific their food is or what their energy needs are.
sugar consumption is actually down ....
No it's not. Not even close. The sale of sugar in shops is down. True. However consumption continues to grow.
Everything I've seen says it's down in the US. What do you have to the contrary? Or are you talking globally where of course it is increasing as the western diet spreads and people in so called developing countries become wealthier on average (thus leading to problems in India and China with obesity and related health issues that can occur even without obesity).
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3155936/
https://www.statnews.com/2016/09/20/sugar-consumption-americans/ [edit, oh this one was linked already -- sorry, ccrdragon!]
https://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/2014/02/25/surprise-american-sugar-consumption-is-on-the-decline
Obviously it is still too high, IMO, but no one is defending the amount of sugar the US population consumes anyway.2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 389 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 919 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions