Sugar is Evil

1235»

Replies

  • RangerSteve
    RangerSteve Posts: 437
    And you believe the USDA?????

    Anything over 150 grams of carbs per day is way to many unless you are like an Iron Man Triathlete.

    Tin foil fat.
  • RangerSteve
    RangerSteve Posts: 437
    I bet almost no one who commented actually watched the videos I linked. Bummer.

    Agreed... most people are already set in their ways. Hopefully there'll be a few open minded people that watch it, and find it helpful.

    It has NOTHING to do with being set in your ways and everything to do with physiology, biology, anatomy and chemistry.

    All this BS talk about insulin from refined sugars completely ignores that protein also spikes insulin. All this talk about paleo diet being the truth and the way completely ignores that plenty of paleo groups had carbs in their diet if that's what grew naturally in their area. All this talk about grains being the cause of obesity and other health issues COMPLETELY ignores that most of the world (Asia, Europe, Africa) have a carb based diet and don't have a lot of the problems that are associated with the health issues that the United States have.

    I know it's a maddening concept but MAYBE, JUST MAYBE Americans eat too much food and don't exercise enough and that's what is causing the health issues here. I know I know, it's too outlandish to understand.....it MUST be the sugar.
  • tigersword
    tigersword Posts: 8,059 Member
    Also look here, page 3...

    http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/SSS/aug05/sss24301/sss24301.pdf

    That research is up to 1999, when Americans consumed an all time high of added sweeteners, they've been steadily dropping ever since. Caloric sweetener consumption has gone down by 17 grams per day between 1999-2009.
  • tigersword
    tigersword Posts: 8,059 Member

    If we go back 10,000 or more years, we find that our ancestors had very little access to sugar – or any carbohydrates for that matter. There was some fruit here and there, a few berries, roots and shoots, but most of their carbohydrate fuel was locked inside a very fibrous matrix. In fact, some paleo-anthropologists suggest that our ancestors consumed, on average, only about 80 grams of carbohydrate a day.

    I just can't take crap like this seriously.

    The part I'm quoting couldn't possibly be more full of BS then it already is. People have been eating grains for a long time. On top of that, PLENTY of paleo populations ate a boatload of fruit because that is what grew naturally in their environment. Are you telling me that the paleo groups that had access to a variety of fruits that grew naturally didn't eat them? Of course that makes sense.

    Oh, but maybe we're only talking about paleo people from SPECIFIC areas. That's what we call cherry picking in the epidemiology world and your article is so full of cherry picking that it shouldn't even be brought up.


    PS - Protein is insulinogenic. <GASP> But but but....insulin comes from carbs!!!!!

    My favorite part in this article is how when you really break down everything and weed out all the inflated claims, he readily comes right out and says it's got nothing to do with how many carbs we eat, it's the fact that people are more sedentary, which causes them to not burn off glycogen efficiently, which causes glucose to build up in the bloodstream and get stored as fat. Even the article admits that it's not the sugar or carbs that are bad, it's the fact that people aren't active enough to burn them off that causes the problems.
  • lockef
    lockef Posts: 466
    That research is up to 1999, when Americans consumed an all time high of added sweeteners, they've been steadily dropping ever since. Caloric sweetener consumption has gone down by 17 grams per day between 1999-2009.

    The data goes up to 2004. I don't disagree that consumption has steadily going down, but it's still way over what we used to comsume. Where is this data that says added sugar consumption dropped 2% between 1970 and 2009?
    All of this we eat way too much sugar debate is fun, but none of it explains the statistic that Added sugar consumption actually DECREASED by 2% between 1970 and 2009 according to USDA research.
  • ninerbuff
    ninerbuff Posts: 48,961 Member
    Being skinny does not make you healthy. Someone can be skinny and still have heart disease.

    Not "demonizing" sugar, but don't try to argue that sugar is healthy. There are zero health benefits to sugar.
    Disagree. All carbs are a form of sugar.
  • auntiebabs
    auntiebabs Posts: 1,754 Member
    bump
  • tigersword
    tigersword Posts: 8,059 Member
    That research is up to 1999, when Americans consumed an all time high of added sweeteners, they've been steadily dropping ever since. Caloric sweetener consumption has gone down by 17 grams per day between 1999-2009.

    The data goes up to 2004. I don't disagree that consumption has steadily going down, but it's still way over what we used to comsume. Where is this data that says added sugar consumption dropped 2% between 1970 and 2009?
    "U.S. consumption of sugars added to food items increased by 23 percent between 1985 and 1999." That's the very first sentence of the pdf you linked to. Plus that article only takes into account sweeteners on it's own, it doesn't factor in the amount of total calories, or the percentage of calories that sweeteners consist of. While the number of units of sweeteners has increased since 1985, the actual percentage has gone down, because people are eating more total calories now than they were before.

    All of this we eat way too much sugar debate is fun, but none of it explains the statistic that Added sugar consumption actually DECREASED by 2% between 1970 and 2009 according to USDA research.
    http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/foodconsumption/FoodGuideSpreadsheets.htm

    Check out the spreadsheet titled calories. It lists the per capita consumption of calories, with data going back to 1970, when they first started tracking it, up until 2009.
  • questionablemethods
    questionablemethods Posts: 2,174 Member
    Tigersword, you still haven't answered the question I directed at you.

    Are you asking about Gary Taubes? The guy who says exercise is bad for weight loss because it makes you hungry? His conclusions that refined carbs are the culprit still don't account for the fact that refined sugar has DECREASED in consumption over the last 40 years. If there was a substantial increase in refined sugar consumption over the last 40 years in addition to the increases in all of these diseases that "plague humanity," I might possibly see a connection that works. Also, people are eating about 500 calories total more than they were in 1970, and dietary fat consumption has increased by 7%. I always find it interesting to see a scientist who cherry picks studies to fit his point of view, when the overall body of research doesn't agree. I know all scientists do it, but usually the majority rules.

    As for whether I've actually read Taubes work, I haven't, but I'm familiar with his research and his viewpoints, and anybody who demonizes one particular food I can't really take seriously, especially when there is a mountain of evidence that raises strong doubts about his conclusions.

    I am mostly just thinking about his ideas that while, yes, you can look at calorie consumption and say "Hey, it has gone up and that must be why we are getting fatter" but you can also say "Of course calorie consumption has gone up, how else would we be maintaining/increasing our collective girth." His point that there is no arrow of causality in the calories in/calories out equation and that there are numerous observations that cannot be explained by just assuming that people are gluttons and sloths. Like the overweight mothers in Mexico (I think?) bringing in their critically undernourished babies -- are the mothers gorging themselves at the expense of their babies?

    I'm not saying his carbohydrate idea is spot on, but I am intrigued by the whole "we are not fat because we are eating more, but our fat is causing us to eat more" notion. Which then raises the question of what is setting off the cycle of metabolic dysfunction? I'm just not convinced that it can ALL be boiled down to eating more and moving less.

    It doesn't sound like you've actually watched his talk, though. In any cause, I found this blog last night which has some very interesting criticisms of the Taubes's carbohydrate hypothesis (and some spirited debate in the 500+ comments -- only half of which I got through before my eyes started to cross): http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2011/08/carbohydrate-hypothesis-of-obesity.html

    I also watched his talk from the Ancestral Health Symposium: https://player.vimeo.com/video/27927729 (By the way, he sites numbers for sugar consumption going back to the 1800's, I believe, but I wasn't taking notes.)

    I'm interested in your take (and anyone else paying attention to this thread). Not for the sake of sparking a fight, but because I'm interested in these questions and I would rather do more than bark back and forth at people in the comments.

    Cheers!

    Edit to add a link to this blog post, which was probably posted right about the time my eyes were crossing trying to read through the comments on his other post (linked above): http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2011/08/roadmap-to-obesity.html

    "According to USDA data, Americans today eat an astonishing 425 more calories per day than they did in 1970** (11). That is the reason for the obesity epidemic, plain and simple. However, that fact doesn't tell us why we're eating more calories, so its usefulness is limited."
  • Aokark
    Aokark Posts: 25
    I come from Sweden, I've lived here in Miami for almost 2 years now.
    I can definitely see the difference in everyday activities. I can't of course speak for everywhere or everyone but from what I've seen where I live it's quite major.

    Anyone who has been to Sweden (and of course some other European countries) would know what I'm talking about.

    Take parking as an example, I can go to any grocery store and see people waiting to park next to the doors, rather than park 10 parking spots further away. I would even walk to the store, get my stuff and walk back.

    And if you're going shopping, it's like if you can't find parking next to the store you want to go to, then you will cancel the whole thing because forbid if you would have to walk 10 minutes.

    People look at me weird when they forget something in their car and I run down to get it!

    There are sooooo many more things I've seen but I'm sure people get the point.

    I thought it was quite common knowledge that it wasn't like this if you go back in time, even in the US
  • VickiMitkins
    VickiMitkins Posts: 249 Member
    You mentioned you were sorry I had a sedentary lifestyle. That's not quite correct. I have a sedentary job. Outside of work I'm quite active. It's just not enough to allow for eating a lot of empty calories I don't need. A lot of people out there have jobs or lifestyles that don't allow them to move as much as others. When that's the case, they have to be more careful and knowledgeable about what is consumed. Several people are quoting research about insulin, metabolic syndrome, carbs, etc, etc. Anyone that has taken even one college level class in statistics know that results can be readily skewed one way or the other - on purpose or by accident. I heartily think that just about every single person posting to this thread is correct.
    people should eat more protien
    people should eat fewer carbs
    people should eat more complex carbs
    people should eat more simple carbs
    unrefined sugars in foods are good for you
    refined sugar provides needed energy
    people or too sedentary and don't move enough
    people eat too much and don't move enough
    humans are efficient at making sugar and storing fat.
    All are true to one degree or another. Figuring out how true and how these truths interact is the puzzle. :smile:

    One thing to clear up here, "refined sugar" is NOT a nutrient. The orginal source may have had nutrients, ie the corn or the beet and are great for the diet. However, once you remove all of the nutrition, all you have are calories. Now to your other point. People that are able to burn 3000 or more calories a day may be able to eat a good bit of refined sugar without much detriment. Those of us with sedentary jobs don't have the same luxury and eating a lot of added non-nutritious refined sugar is not beneficial. I'm a smaller woman and gain weight on 1800 calories a day (unless I do a couple hours of cardio). I have no room to waste on jelly beans. I do find room for good dark chocolate - but wait, that also has antioxidants, vitamins, minerals, and gasp fiber. I am usually the first to say moderation is the key, but this is one area where I think people should cut back as much as possible. It's also amazing how much sweeter fruit, corn and other natural foods taste when you rdeuce the amount of refined sugar eaten. I will admit to still having some added refined sugar, but I bet in a given day, its less that 4 teaspoons. I used to love a Coke and snickers in the late afternoon. I can't even drink a 12 oz Coke now. It's entirely too sweet. It was not easy getting to this point either. I did it gradually over the last several years. I do think it was well worth it though.

    No, calories are a measure of energy. 1 calorie is the energy required to raise the temperature of 1 gram of water by 1 degree Celsius.

    A nutrient is:

    A substance that provides nourishment essential for growth and the maintenance of life

    Now, you can argue that carbs aren't necessary for growth and maintenance of life but in a calorie deficit, they are used to make the body function properly. If you only had 500 calories in a day and they all came from carbs, it would at least keep you alive until the next day. That is a nutrient because it's essential for maintenance of life.

    Well, I'm sorry you have a sedentary lifestyle and I'm sorry you can't enjoy some jelly beans in your diet. However, you COULD enjoy some jelly beans in your diet if you adjusted your diet in order to fit them in. That's your choice though and if you're happy with what you're doing, go for it.

    To be clear, I said zip about carbs. Carbs are essential to the diet. I was and still am talking about "refined sugar." Refined sugar has had every nutrient, except for the calories, stripped out of it by mechanical and chemical processes. I am trying to point out that the original post had to do with refined sugars as does the documentary. I watched much of it, admittedly not all of it. I don't think anyone with a lick of understanding thinks carbohydrates are inherently bad. I think sugar is great for the body when it is part of an orange, apple, carrot, tomato, wheat..... I don't think small amounts of refined sugar are truly bad; but the way manufactueres add them to food is insidious and most Americans eat much more refined sugar than they realize. I also suspect that a person that is unable to get enough calories to fuel their body can eat more refined sugar without the same level of detriment. That person however is not healther for it, just not going to get fat because they already don't get enough calories or nutrients. Most Americans are not in that situation. It was only about 10 years ago that I really started understanding how much sugar was added to food. My only hope is that documentaries like this will cause discussions like this so people will become more aware.
  • ninerbuff
    ninerbuff Posts: 48,961 Member
    Actually carbs are non essential. Protein and fats are essentials.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories