How do I talk my Mom off the "Sugar is Toxic" ledge?

kshama2001 wrote: »

Mom keeps seeing these types of articles in the Times:

https://www.nytimes.com/guides/smarterliving/how-to-stop-eating-sugar
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/magazine/mag-17Sugar-t.html

She also has a book on brain health with the same attitude. (I don't know the title off hand.)

I've started by asking her how many grams of added sugar she consumes per day. (I already know the answer is a lot less than the average American. For starters, she doesn't drink sweetened beverages.)

Now, I'd need more than "Lustig is a quack" or "Taubes is a quack." I'd need something reputable debunking their theories. (Not random blog posts.)

I've read here a lot that our bodies don't know the difference between sugar from fruit and sugar from added sugar - are there reputable sources for this?

BTW, she's not trying to lose weight and in fact struggles to stay above Underweight because she is very very active, especially for her age (80).

TIA

Although sugar isn't "toxic" the way that the NYT and some other publishers perpetuate, it isn't that healthy, either. If she wants to limit her sugar intake there is nothing wrong with that, and if you are trying to have her get more calories purely from sugar, especially simple sugar, that is not a healthy idea. I'd suggest healthy fats, which pack a lot of calories into a small amount, to raise her caloric intake and get/keep her weight at a healthy level, and let her avoid sugar if she wishes.

Fructose (fruit sugar) causes the same or similar reactions in our body that sucrose (simple sugar) does, but it also typically comes with vitamins, minerals, antioxidants, and some fiber, which is why fruits aren't considered unhealthy the way plain sugar is.

She's 80.

Good luck.

Fructose separated from the fruit is just like eating any other sugar, but that's completely different than eating fruit where the fructose is not separated. Straight sugar has zero nutrition, there's no healthy amount because it isn't nutritious.

I don't understand? You want your mom to eat sugar or think that it isn't bad?

I'm afraid the base line messages of these blog posts aren't wrong. The blog posts definitely use quite a bit of fear mongering, but "debunking" the idea that added sugar is bad for you is going to be hard and probubly dis-reputable. Added sugar is the cause of the obesity epidemic in the US and one of the leading causes of heart disease (https://www.nature.com/articles/ijo2008204). Added sugar also shows evidence of being a significantly addictive substance (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2007.04.019).

The reason the sugar in fruit is more tolerable is because fruit contains nutrients and vitamins that we also need. But yes, all sugar, fruit or refined is broken down by our bodies the same way because it is all a carb, it is just that sugar in fruit has more nutrients than refined. (https://www.acefitness.org/education-and-resources/lifestyle/blog/6263/natural-sugars-vs-processed-sugars-is-there-a-difference)

So in moderation we say sugar from fruit is ok because of the nutrients they provide us with, and we even can do better by eliminating some fruits where the nutritional value does NOT out weigh the sugar value, like apples, mangos and pineapple and dried fruits like raisins and apricots. These fruits don't provide much nutrition but have a lot of sugar in them.

Added sugar is terrible for you, that is why for diets you have to cut out so many of these additives because excess sugar is converted directly to fat in your system because your body doesn't know how to process it.
If your goal is for your mother to gain weight is should not be through sugar. It should be through healthy carbs like whole wheats and grains, proteins and healthy fats like fish and avacados! But it would probably benefit her to stay away from fear mongering blogs and articles and instead read journal publications and peer reviewed articles instead. Google Scholar has many articles that are reputable, with out the propaganda tactics.

Added sugars, in appropriate quantities sure won't hurt a healthy person but they are not needed. She's 80, healthy and active. If she needs more calories due to her activity she may want to get them from additional protein as opposed to added sugars. There is stronger and stronger data suggesting older people would be better off with higher protein consumption. Sample article:
http://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/releases/2014/Q1/elderly-women-may-benefit-from-higher-amounts-of-protein.html

Or maybe some additional fruit with the fiber it provides for digestive health.

Given your description, maybe more people should be doing whatever she has been.

TynaBaby17 wrote: »

I don't understand? You want your mom to eat sugar or think that it isn't bad?

I'm afraid the base line messages of these blog posts aren't wrong. The blog posts definitely use quite a bit of fear mongering, but "debunking" the idea that added sugar is bad for you is going to be hard and probubly dis-reputable. Added sugar is the cause of the obesity epidemic in the US and one of the leading causes of heart disease (https://www.nature.com/articles/ijo2008204). Added sugar also shows evidence of being a significantly addictive substance (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2007.04.019).

That is not what your quoted article says - it says there MAY be some correlation between high consumption of soft drinks (sugar source) and obesity, but there is no directly established connection between the two. The real cause of obesity is over-consumption of CALORIES from any source, and obesity leads to heart disease and other problems.

As to the addictive nature of sugar - again, nope. They are trying to say that sugar is addictive because it lights up the dopamine receptors in the brain, the problem with trying to make that correlation is that ANY pleasurable activity causes the same response.

I agree with Aaron's take on the matter - is this really a battle that you want to take on with your 80 year old mom?

stevencloser wrote: »

vermilionflower wrote: »

Fructose separated from the fruit is just like eating any other sugar, but that's completely different than eating fruit where the fructose is not separated. Straight sugar has zero nutrition, there's no healthy amount because it isn't nutritious.

1houndgal wrote: »

kshama2001 wrote: »

Mom keeps seeing these types of articles in the Times:

https://www.nytimes.com/guides/smarterliving/how-to-stop-eating-sugar
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/magazine/mag-17Sugar-t.html

She also has a book on brain health with the same attitude. (I don't know the title off hand.)

I've started by asking her how many grams of added sugar she consumes per day. (I already know the answer is a lot less than the average American. For starters, she doesn't drink sweetened beverages.)

Now, I'd need more than "Lustig is a quack" or "Taubes is a quack." I'd need something reputable debunking their theories. (Not random blog posts.)

I've read here a lot that our bodies don't know the difference between sugar from fruit and sugar from added sugar - are there reputable sources for this?

BTW, she's not trying to lose weight and in fact struggles to stay above Underweight because she is very very active, especially for her age (80).

TIA

On fruit, fruit has vitamins/bioflavnoids/minerals and some fiber, than does refined sugar. Sugar are empty calories, devoid of healthy nutrients except for carbs.

You guys DO know that there's a minimum amount of calories your body needs, right? If you were only eating the nutrients your body needs, the essential fats and proteins, and carbs only from the most nutritious, green vegetables for their minerals and vitamins... you'd starve to death eventually because that's something like 800 calories.

But there's no reason to be getting those calories from simple sugars. Complex carbs, protein, and healthy fats are all better ways to meet those caloric needs than bags of skittles, although both options will do the job of keeping you alive.

JMcGee2018 wrote: »

stevencloser wrote: »

vermilionflower wrote: »

Fructose separated from the fruit is just like eating any other sugar, but that's completely different than eating fruit where the fructose is not separated. Straight sugar has zero nutrition, there's no healthy amount because it isn't nutritious.

1houndgal wrote: »

kshama2001 wrote: »

Mom keeps seeing these types of articles in the Times:

https://www.nytimes.com/guides/smarterliving/how-to-stop-eating-sugar
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/magazine/mag-17Sugar-t.html

She also has a book on brain health with the same attitude. (I don't know the title off hand.)

I've started by asking her how many grams of added sugar she consumes per day. (I already know the answer is a lot less than the average American. For starters, she doesn't drink sweetened beverages.)

Now, I'd need more than "Lustig is a quack" or "Taubes is a quack." I'd need something reputable debunking their theories. (Not random blog posts.)

I've read here a lot that our bodies don't know the difference between sugar from fruit and sugar from added sugar - are there reputable sources for this?

BTW, she's not trying to lose weight and in fact struggles to stay above Underweight because she is very very active, especially for her age (80).

TIA

On fruit, fruit has vitamins/bioflavnoids/minerals and some fiber, than does refined sugar. Sugar are empty calories, devoid of healthy nutrients except for carbs.

You guys DO know that there's a minimum amount of calories your body needs, right? If you were only eating the nutrients your body needs, the essential fats and proteins, and carbs only from the most nutritious, green vegetables for their minerals and vitamins... you'd starve to death eventually because that's something like 800 calories.

But there's no reason to be getting those calories from simple sugars. Complex carbs, protein, and healthy fats are all better ways to meet those caloric needs than bags of skittles, although both options will do the job of keeping you alive.

Agree. Fruits are considered complex carbs. Do you agree that eating a few fruits can serve the purpose?

As for Skittles, might be fuel for Marshawn Lynch to go Beastmode. Or for aiding someone having a hypoglycemic episode. I limit my "sugar" intake, and limit high glycemic index foods.

Please don't turn this into a sugar argument, please!

OP didn't say she wants her mom to EAT ALL DA SUGARZ. She said she struggles to keep weight on and is now concerned that sugar is toxic.

1. Keeping weight on is very important for the elderly.
2. Sugar is not toxic.

@kshama2001 I don't know of the sources you are looking for. Your best bet might be to parallel the current no-sugar craze with other now debunked crazes she would be familiar with, like eggs or fat, etc.

In the meantime, I would think steering her to natural sugars and making sure she has enough fat and protein will give her something positive to focus on and give her another way to get her calories in until the hysteria (hopefully) blows over.

I agree with others that it might not be a battle worth fighting right now, as she will no doubt continue to see articles about this for awhile which will stand against whatever better sources you provide. So it might be better to focus on how to keep it from being harmful to her right now. Good luck!