Sugar?

2»

Replies

  • AnvilHead
    AnvilHead Posts: 18,343 Member
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    Cleosweetie wrote: »
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    lynn_glenmont wrote: »
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    aprisar wrote: »
    If you're interested in learning more about sugar misinformation, you might want to watch the documentary mockumentary, Fed Up. It's available on Netflix, as well as on YouTube.

    Fixed it for you.

    OK, but can we all stop misusing the word "mockumentary"? A mockumentary is a film like "Spinal Tap" or "Best in Show," which intends to be funny by "mocking" documentaries or the specific subject of the mockumenary, or both. I don't think films like "Fed Up" intend to be funny. They want you to believe the misinformation they're peddling. "Propaganda" might be a better term, if you want to differentiate them from some idealized, Platonic documentary that is perfectly even-handed.

    I don't find it entirely inappropriate though, because films like "Fed Up", "What the Health", "That Sugar Film", etc. make a complete mockery of truthfulness, honesty, science, basic physiology and nutrition. They're biased, pseudoscientific, propaganda hack jobs. I do agree that there's nothing funny about them, though - they're completely disgusting.

    Wow, I agree in theory about the need to be a critical thinker and demand sources, but this seems like such an over generalization. Do you really fact check/source check every single food/nutrition film that gets released such that you know for sure they are all "propaganda hack jobs"?

    Very often if you are familiar with the topics being discussed it's obvious where they are distorting things or cherry picking or taking things out of context.

    ^ This, exactly. Also, as you learn how to properly vet your sources, you learn who the junk science/snake oil peddlers are and what their agendas/biases are. If their name is attached to something, you already know what they'll be demonizing.
  • Carlos_421
    Carlos_421 Posts: 5,132 Member
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    lynn_glenmont wrote: »
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    aprisar wrote: »
    If you're interested in learning more about sugar misinformation, you might want to watch the documentary mockumentary, Fed Up. It's available on Netflix, as well as on YouTube.

    Fixed it for you.

    OK, but can we all stop misusing the word "mockumentary"? A mockumentary is a film like "Spinal Tap" or "Best in Show," which intends to be funny by "mocking" documentaries or the specific subject of the mockumenary, or both. I don't think films like "Fed Up" intend to be funny. They want you to believe the misinformation they're peddling. "Propaganda" might be a better term, if you want to differentiate them from some idealized, Platonic documentary that is perfectly even-handed.

    I don't find it entirely inappropriate though, because films like "Fed Up", "What the Health", "That Sugar Film", etc. make a complete mockery of truthfulness, honesty, science, basic physiology and nutrition. They're biased, pseudoscientific, propaganda hack jobs. I do agree that there's nothing funny about them, though - they're completely disgusting.

    Exactly. They’re as factually accurate as The Office.
  • AnvilHead
    AnvilHead Posts: 18,343 Member
    edited January 2018
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    lynn_glenmont wrote: »
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    aprisar wrote: »
    If you're interested in learning more about sugar misinformation, you might want to watch the documentary mockumentary, Fed Up. It's available on Netflix, as well as on YouTube.

    Fixed it for you.

    OK, but can we all stop misusing the word "mockumentary"? A mockumentary is a film like "Spinal Tap" or "Best in Show," which intends to be funny by "mocking" documentaries or the specific subject of the mockumenary, or both. I don't think films like "Fed Up" intend to be funny. They want you to believe the misinformation they're peddling. "Propaganda" might be a better term, if you want to differentiate them from some idealized, Platonic documentary that is perfectly even-handed.

    I don't find it entirely inappropriate though, because films like "Fed Up", "What the Health", "That Sugar Film", etc. make a complete mockery of truthfulness, honesty, science, basic physiology and nutrition. They're biased, pseudoscientific, propaganda hack jobs. I do agree that there's nothing funny about them, though - they're completely disgusting.

    Exactly. They’re as factually accurate as The Office.

    As factually accurate as Die Hard, and as scientifically accurate as The Matrix. :D

    Oh, and equally fictitious as either of them.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    louisepaul16 wrote: »
    I am doing a 30 day no added sugar diet. Why? Because I’ve done it before, and it totally changed the way that I ate, it made me avoid most processed foods, as nearly everything has added sugar in it. I cooked every day from scratch, I lost weight, my tastes and cravings changed. I then travelled to the USA for a month and ended up falling off the wagon, so now I’m Back ON the wagon,

    OP was asking about intrinsic sugar, sugar in fruit and veg and dairy. I'm not sure why everyone keeps going on about added sugar when OP was extremely clear.

    Oh, and for the record I've done 30 days no added sugar and eat almost no added sugar now (occasionally I decide to have a dessert, but at the moment I'm doing that at most once a week because I overdid it over the holidays when my mother died and I fell into my old emotional eating to blunt feelings habits and I want to get out of that).

    In any case, it did not and never has "totally changed the way I ate," because I mostly cook from whole foods anyway, and don't really use anything with added sugar in savory meals, unless I have BBQ (which is rare) or occasionally if I use sriracha (which IMO is really too little to care about).
    At the end of the day, sugar provides no nutrition whatsoever (in its added form), but when you eat it as part of fruit, it’s packed with fibre and lots of other micronutrients and vitamins. Because of the fibre not all of the sugar is absorbed and is absorbed at a much slower rate.

    But NO ONE (okay, the vast majority of people) eat added sugar by itself. In addition to "in sweets" (when it is an issue because you are consuming foods with lots of calories -- often from fat more than sugar -- and not many nutrients or fiber or protein), people add sugar to many other foods they consume not on their own. For example, I hate sweetened coffee, but some like it, and a tsp in coffee has few calories and will be consumed, say, with eggs and vegetables, as part of breakfast. Or some prefer oats with a bit of sugar -- oats have fiber, so why is that bad, but a banana (with less fiber than oats, raspberries, and a bit of sugar) okay? I do sometimes add sugar to a rhubarb sauce, and it still has more fiber and less sugar than a sauce made just of apples -- so why is the added sugar inherently bad?
    I just don’t get why as soon as you mention taking sugar out of your diet everyone goes crazy at you, and tells me how ridiculous it is.

    I haven't noticed anyone doing that (and as I said I've done it, and am largely doing it now).

    But again that's not what this thread is about.
    It also does bug me that MFP doesn’t differentiate between added and natural sugars. 10g of sugar from an apple is NOT the same as 10g of sugar from chocolate. And I’m really tired of people telling me it is.

    MFP cannot differentiate, MFP is stuck with what's on packages.

    Personally, I differentiate (I don't care how much sugar I get from fruit or veg so long as I have adequate protein, fat, and fiber, which I always do), and I do limit my sources of added sugar. But I do that by paying attention to my diet as a whole, and just as I think an apple is different from a cookie (although I don't think there's anything wrong with an occasional cookie), I also think there's a difference between eating some oats and raspberries with a little sugar and some plain greek yogurt and veg on the side or some coffee with sugar plus eggs and veg for breakfast vs. eating only donuts for breakfast. The latter can work if the rest of the diet satisfies your nutrient needs, but it's likely to make it harder. The focus on sugar alone vs. diet quality is not, IMO, one that reflects real attention to nutrition.

    That said, I do agree with you that there's a difference between getting sugar from sweets and getting it from fruit and veg, which is why I personally told OP not to worry about sugar from fruit and veg, but to make sure she (or he) had adequate protein, vegetables, healthy fat, and fiber, and the rest would take care of itself, if you stayed within calories.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    louisepaul16 wrote: »
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    louisepaul16 wrote: »
    I am doing a 30 day no added sugar diet. Why? Because I’ve done it before, and it totally changed the way that I ate, it made me avoid most processed foods, as nearly everything has added sugar in it. I cooked every day from scratch, I lost weight, my tastes and cravings changed. I then travelled to the USA for a month and ended up falling off the wagon, so now I’m
    Back ON the wagon,

    At the end of the day, sugar provides no nutrition whatsoever (in its added form), but when you eat it as part of fruit, it’s packed with fibre and lots of other micronutrients and vitamins. Because of the fibre not all of the sugar is absorbed and is absorbed at a much slower rate.

    I just don’t get why as soon as you mention taking sugar out of your diet everyone goes crazy at you, and tells me how ridiculous it is. Whereas when I’ve done low fat or low carb people just nod and go ok. Fat and carbs are essential to our bodies (good fats of course!) but sugar has absolutely no nutritional benefits. Why wouldn’t I cut it out? It also does bug me that MFP doesn’t differentiate between added and natural sugars. 10g of sugar from an apple is NOT the same as 10g of sugar from chocolate. And I’m really tired of people telling me it is.

    MFP doesn't differentiate because the nutrition labels don't, and so how would MFP establish the difference between added and natural sugars? Biochemically, your body doesn't differentiate it either - the sugar in the apple truly is the same as the sugar in a chocolate bar and you may not like me stating that but there are others who may not understand it for whom that information is helpful.

    People continue to reinforce that sugar, even added sugar in moderation can be part of an otherwise balanced diet... because so many people are laboring under the misconception that you have to give up all the foods you enjoy to be successful and that's just not the case. A lot of people never even start trying to lose, or they give up, because they find it too difficult to adhere to. And your story suggests that you have similar experiences, otherwise you wouldn't refer to it as a wagon that you're getting on and off...

    I agree sugar can be enjoyed in moderation. But the majority of people can’t do moderation with sugar. Even on this thread people have been saying 25g a day? That seems really low. Not really. Not in comparison to how much sugar people used to eat in the past.

    People have been saying 25 g per day seems really low for total sugar, which it is.

    Personally, my goal is to go over 25 g of sugar from vegetables, ideally.

    And again, OP asked about sugar from fruit and veg, so I don't know what you are going on about. I think it's wrong to tell OP to worry about how much fruit and veg she eats, assuming her diet is balanced and she's within her calories. And thus I said there was no limit on total sugars (while noting that the WHO recommends less than 5% from added sugars, as OP already knew and had mentioned).
  • aprisar
    aprisar Posts: 5 Member
    edited January 2018
    Suit yourself. I found his approach regarding fats (make sure you eat ample healthy fats, i.e., more than the "official" daily recommended dose) and sugar (i.e., stay away from the refined stuff if you can) works well for me. I don't crave junk when I eat this way. I acknowledge that we're all different and what works for one does not work for all.
  • IamFLmomx5
    IamFLmomx5 Posts: 3 Member
    Just here to second that the WHO's recommended guidelines call for the consumption of no more than 25g of added sugars per day. I know that the OP was asking about the difference between intrinsic sugars and added, but at least one response specifically stated that the WHO has no guidelines re: sugars.

    Here is the link: who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2015/sugar-guideline/en/

    It would be nice to have MFP differentiate between intrinsic and added sugars, but until food labels differentiate it will be nearly impossible for MFP to do so.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    edited January 2018
    IamFLmomx5 wrote: »
    Just here to second that the WHO's recommended guidelines call for the consumption of no more than 25g of added sugars per day. I know that the OP was asking about the difference between intrinsic sugars and added, but at least one response specifically stated that the WHO has no guidelines re: sugars.

    I think I'm the one who talked the most about the WHO guidelines, and that's a complete misstatement of what was said.

    OP had very specifically noted that she (or he) knew about the 25 g limit (which is really a "no more than 10%, ideally no more than 5%, recommendation -- 5% of 2000 is 25 g), but asked "what about sugars from fruit and veg."

    I said -- in response to the actual question asked -- that the WHO and US Dietary Guidelines do not have a recommendation for intrinsic sugars and I've never seen a credible basis for one, so would suggest a good guide for THOSE is to make sure you have enough vegetables, fiber, protein, and healthy fats, and are within your calories, and then you don't have to worry about excessive fruit (or veg).

    I subsequently explained (when someone asked about 25 g) that the WHO did have a recommended limit (25 g based on 5% of 2000 calories) but it applied only to added sugar (and the given reason for it is nutrition and calories and dental caries).

    So I'm really not sure why you think it was claimed that the WHO lacked a limit for added sugar. OP mentioned it in the very first post, after all. I guess you misread my post, but it seems very clear to me.

    I also don't quite get why when OP was very specific that the question was about intrinsic sugars people keep going on about limiting added sugars. My impression -- and I hope I'm wrong, but it really feels that way at times -- is that some so very much want to think that people are telling OP to eat all the Twinkies all the time that they read that in no matter what is said.
  • IamFLmomx5
    IamFLmomx5 Posts: 3 Member
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    I think I'm the one who talked the most about the WHO guidelines, and that's a complete misstatement of what was said.

    My apologies for misreading your statement that the WHO has no dietary guidelines for sugar. While I knew that the OP was asking specifically about intrinsic sugars, I misread that the last sentence was specific to them. I was just trying to clarify by linking to the WHO's sugar recommendations, and certainly did not knowingly misrepresent your statement, whatever you seem to think.

    I also thought the link might be informative for those on the thread who seemed to think that the 25g daily recommendation was extremely low, which it is relative to our modern American diets.
  • kimny72
    kimny72 Posts: 16,011 Member
    aprisar wrote: »
    I also want to apologize for suggesting a film that was about added/ refined sugars. I missed 'intrinsic' in the original question. Despite being a little put off by the tone of the criticism here, I took the criticism as an opportunity to research alternate opinions about the film and found this article which counters many of the film's assumptions. Wanted to share it and to express thanks to the critics. You prompted me to dig more deeply. https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/does-the-movie-fed-up-make-sense/

    Wow, thank you so much for coming back and letting us know and I mean that sincerely :heart:
  • Carlos_421
    Carlos_421 Posts: 5,132 Member
    aprisar wrote: »
    I also want to apologize for suggesting a film that was about added/ refined sugars. I missed 'intrinsic' in the original question. Despite being a little put off by the tone of the criticism here, I took the criticism as an opportunity to research alternate opinions about the film and found this article which counters many of the film's assumptions. Wanted to share it and to express thanks to the critics. You prompted me to dig more deeply. https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/does-the-movie-fed-up-make-sense/

    Glad you looked further into it.
  • aprisar
    aprisar Posts: 5 Member
    edited January 2018
    psuLemon wrote: »
    aprisar wrote: »
    Mark Hyman has an M.D. and is on staff at the Cleveland Clinic. He's one of the leading proponents of functional medicine and is part of the documentary. I would guess he and others highlighted in the film, Fed Up, would not be a part of something un-researched. Maybe watch it before you criticize…

    IMO listening to an MD about nutrition is about the equivalent of going to a dermatologist for a heart problem. While I don't doubt that there is some good advice given, there is also some that would be absurd.

    When i look at real evidence based research, i am looking at people who are educated in nutrition and have dedicated their careers to it like; Eric Helms, Layne Norton, Brad Schoenfeld, Alan Aragon and more.

    Ultimately, if his advice gave gave you a strategy to lose weight, then its fine.

    Thanks for this! Am looking into these folks' research. Norton says about sugar, for example, that it "can be incorporated into a healthy diet, and you can still lose fat and progress towards your goals. But it does come with several drawbacks [such as that it's] not very filling, so it can be easier to overeat than more fibrous foods." https://www.bodybuilding.com/content/the-science-of-sugar-and-fat-loss.html

    And Brad Schoenfeld talks about fructose which relates more specifically to the original question. http://www.lookgreatnaked.com/blog/the-truth-about-fructose/
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    edited January 2018
    IamFLmomx5 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    I think I'm the one who talked the most about the WHO guidelines, and that's a complete misstatement of what was said.

    My apologies for misreading your statement that the WHO has no dietary guidelines for sugar. While I knew that the OP was asking specifically about intrinsic sugars, I misread that the last sentence was specific to them. I was just trying to clarify by linking to the WHO's sugar recommendations, and certainly did not knowingly misrepresent your statement, whatever you seem to think.

    I also thought the link might be informative for those on the thread who seemed to think that the 25g daily recommendation was extremely low, which it is relative to our modern American diets.

    Again, the people who said it was low seemed to think it was referring to ALL sugars (and it would be very low for all sugars unless you don't eat adequate veg or any fruit). That's why I explained (way upthread) that the WHO guideline was less than 5% of calories to ADDED sugars.

    Thanks for acknowledging that you misread my comment.

    I apologize in advance for continuing to disagree, but your assumption that people thought 25 g for added sugars was very low is (I think) incorrect. I went back and looked, and found only one person saying the 25 g was low, and it was discussed in this exchange:
    murp4069 wrote: »
    I'm not sure I've seen a 25g number, but for my own personal health reasons last year I cut back on added sugars. 25g seems a bit low - even if I actively count my sugars on any given day, that's low. If it is not inclusive of fruit and veg, then it may be appropriate. For me, cutting down on added sugars helped curb my sweet tooth, particularly for things like bakery items, ice cream, etc., which in turn made it easier to stay within my calorie goals. I still enjoy those things occasionally, but I rarely if ever get cravings for those types of things anymore.

    Me, responding:
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    The WHO recommendation is less than 10% of total calories, ideally less than 5%. That frequently gets reported as less than 25 g, as that is what 5% would be on 2000 calories. I think that's reasonable, as an average goal (occasional days higher, as well as some lower, would be part of that), but it's ONLY added sugars (or what the WHO calls "free sugars"). It does not apply to inherent sugars like those in fruit, veg, and dairy. (The WHO does count sugars in juice, even 100% juice without added sugar, and honey/syrup/agave nectar as a free sugar, however, not an intrinsic sugar, so those would count toward the 25 g. US Dietary guidelines recommend under 10% of calories, again only for added sugar.)

    OP seems to be talking only about intrinsic sugars, if I am understanding correctly.

    So as you can see, the only comment about 25 g being low thought it included ALL sugars, and specifically noted that it seemed reasonable for only added.

    You aren't the first one to come in here and assume we are all talking about added sugars and saying 25 g is too low for them, which is why I responded with a bit of impatience. I really don't understand it getting read that way, and suspect it's because there's an assumption (or desire to assume?) that others are eating tons of added sugar and pushing it, which is a false claim I see people make on MFP all the time (the "no one cares about nutrition" complaint, which is IMO untrue and frustrating).

Categories