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.
Why do people keep defending sugar?
Replies
-
kshama2001 wrote: »purplebobkat wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »purplebobkat wrote: »Sugar (& other highly processed carbs) has no nutritional benefits, so why are so many people defending it?
Fruit & veg are good for you because they have high levels of nutrition, and the fibre content helps to mitigate the bad effects of the sugar content.
So although a lot of people lose weight while keeping their sugar levels high, is this something to be applauded or a reason to defend sugar?purplebobkat wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »They can pry my fruit from my cold sticky hands!
Nothing wrong with fruit, it's an important source of many vitamins, minerals & fibre.
But fruit can also be a large source of sugar.
I'm not sure what you're saying here - that added sugar is bad, but inherent/naturally occurring sugar is fine?
How much added sugar is indefensible?- Are you with the WHO, which says people should keep their added sugar (which they call "free sugar") to 10% or less of their daily calories, with more health benefits realized if that is reduced to 5%? https://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2015/sugar-guideline/en/
- Or do you think ALL added sugar is bad?
I tried to keep added sugar at 5% for a while, which lead me to make weird sacrifices which were ultimately unsustainable to me. I probably do best at no more than 10% added sugar.
The problem with added sugar (for me) is that it can also come with lots of calories from fat (ex: ice cream), and often flour (ex: baked goods) and these calories crowd out room for foods that keep me satiated for less calories, like protein.
However, the 3 g of sugar I put in my tea 3 x per day and the 9 g of sugar in my chocolate protein powder, etc., is not a problem for me.
It's actually a really interesting question, of how much sugar is bad for you, and something that I can't see being answered anytime soon.
But my theory is that if it's eaten as a whole food (e.g. an apple) then that seems sensible, but when I eat Haribo that's not very sensible & I would never defend it as a good idea. Just something that I understand is bad for me & have eaten anyway.
I asked this question because I have been reading other posts on mfp today (Self isolating) and found a huge number of people almost attacking others for saying sugar is bad. I wondered why.
I believe there are athletes here who do eat foods like Haribo during endurance events. I would call that good
How many Haribos are bad? Surely one is ok? The serving size I see on a package on Amazon is 13 pieces/30 grams, which has 14 grams of sugar. I'm not sure I would call that bad either. However, if eating one Haribo led you to eat the entire bag (4.5 servings in this bag on Amazon) I have no problem labeling that bad for you.
Usually people do give nuanced answers like I've been doing here. But since this sugar topic comes up all the time, some posters may not include all the context, which may be giving you the impression that they are defending sugar without qualifications.
Labeling Haribo as anything is, in fact, nuanced.
As you mentioned, some athletes do eat Haribo and it has a positive impact on their performance. In that case, Haribo is good.
Another example: someone who is happy to have a serving or two (within their calories, eating a mainly nutritious diet) but would be unhappy if they cut it out, and would "fall off the wagon" or overeat. In this case Haribo is good because it prevents a bad outcome - not everything about a person's health has to do with nutrients.
A third example: someone who chose to eat a serving or two of Haribo (within their calories, eating a mainly nutritious diet), but could have done without. In this case it's neither good nor bad because it didn't cause a bad outcome or prevent a bad outcome.
A fourth example: someone who ate a serving of Haribo, it wasn't enough, they powered through the day white knuckling against the desire to eat more. Did not overeat, but ended the day mentally exhausted. A few more days like that and they're too tired to continue working on managing their calories. In this case, it's bad.
Fifth example is the one you mentioned: someone who couldn't control themselves and overate, either going over calories consistently or crowding out nutrients.
...and so on.
That's why "X is bad" is rarely accurate for any food. You need to specify "X is bad for this person in this situation for this reason". You can say "X is not the most optimal choice to achieve goal Y", like "table sugar is not the most nutrient dense food out there", but it just ends up sounding like stating the obvious. I doubt people are eating table sugar for its nutrient density, but nutrient density is not the only measuring stick for what's "good".17 -
purplebobkat wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »In training for my next Marathon assuming it doesn't get cancelled (12 weeks away), I'm going to run 13-14 miles today and then come home and enjoy a huge slab of cake.
As pp says, "if you don't want to consume sugar, don't." Who's defending it and even if they are, who cares?
Why do stupid questions get entertained by intelligent people with great responses, especially only to be argued with unintelligent responses. Get a hobby or go exercise.
I was once much like OP. It took me LEARNING and having these conversations with many long time members here that no macro-nutrient is "evil". It is all a point of view. If someone is sedentary most of the day, I WOULD suggest lowering added sugar intake, but if someone like a body builder is doing strenuous two a days, some Gatorade or Gummy Bears might help him not "gas out". We have to educated each other. If WE don't, most media outlets will continue using press grabbing pseudo science information, We grow and we learn, or we die from ignorance.
Thank you.
Currently confined to home (Self isolating) so very much sedentary. Lol
There is never a bad question when you're trying to find the real answers. And as @psychod787 stated above, almost all people here on the forums learned some things along the way.
And though stated in a caustic way, the comment by @LoveyChar , if put in proper context, has it's place. An endurance athlete often has more "extra" space in their diet due to burning more calories on a regular basis. And since carbs are often a fuel source, replenishing them with more carbs is often not a bad thing. I personally prefer to maybe hit the micro brewery with a food truck after a long cardio session, but others would prefer a doughnut or piece of cake.
BUT, the same can apply to someone to is more sedentary, as long as they usually eat a more balanced and nutritious selection most of the time. A single choice is not bad, the overall balance of your choices can be. And often the debates and heated arguments are the results of people assuming the extremes of a question or statement, which then turns into straw man debates of ridiculous proportions at times.
But for most of us, unless any certain food is a trigger to excess consumption, we can have that processed sugary sweet now and then, with no fear. Some people even find that restricting such things will just cause them to eventually binge on them. Others can be more disciplined around the clock.
And on very rare occasion, there just might be people who don't appreciate a good piece of cake, pie, ice cream, or even doughnuts. I would probably find this rather disturbing, if not for the fact that it leaves more available for the rest of us.
9 -
People "defend" sugar, because there is a lot of misinformation about it out there. Sugar (unless you have a medical condition that dictates it), is not inherently bad for you. It is a macro-nutrient that provides part of your daily calorie makeup. It "can" be bad for you if you eat too much of it and it causes a calorie surplus, or you are eating too much processed sugar foods and are crowding out other nutrients. But as part of a balanced, calorie controlled diet, it is not "bad" for you. I lost 45 pounds eating plenty of sugar, natural and artificial.
The reason why we fight for it is because the misconceptions make it harder for people to successfully lose weight. A lot of people come here with the notion that they need to cut out or severely reduce their sugar in order to lose weight. In general, people here support keeping it as simple as possible, because the more restrictions you put on yourself, the harder it is going to be to keep on track. Then people fall off and don't lose the weight. So adding "restrict sugar" rather than just "control calories", can make it harder to successfully lose weight. Now, some people may find they need to reduce their sugar intake to successfully stay on their calorie plan. That's okay, and it makes sense for them to restrict it. But not everyone needs to, and they shouldn't feel compelled to because others think it's "bad"20 -
purplebobkat wrote: »Fruit & veg are good for you because they have high levels of nutrition, and the fibre content helps to mitigate the bad effects of the sugar content.
There's no evidence that the sugar in fruit and veg has bad effects that needs to be mitigated.
Some people might have conditions where they need to limit carbs consumed without protein and fiber, and carbs overall, but that doesn't mean that the sugar in fruit and veg is a bad thing in general, just made up for by the other parts. That suggests an attitude where you might think you were better off avoiding the higher net carb fruits or getting nutrition from sources other than whole fruits and veg (vitamin pills, veg powders), and is IMO not a good way to look at food.
What is the case is that it's important to have a balanced, nutrient dense, and calorie-appropriate diet. Added sugar (especially since it so often comes with lots of cals from added fat too) might crowd out more nutritious choices or lead to excess cals, so if that's an issue for someone they should adjust the diet to change that.
I don't have a huge sweet tooth and am typically happy having dessert type foods rarely and in reasonable portions, so I see no reason to even think about added sugar all that much (when I overeat other foods tend to be the culprit).
But sugar is not some demon food (or part of foods, like fruit) that inherently has bad effects.7 -
purplebobkat wrote: »Carbs are a macro nutrient so how can you say they have no nutritional benefit?
That would be the same as saying fat has no nutritional benefit!
Maybe also consider that providing energy is a vital part of your diet which carbs (including sugar) do very well.
Actually I said sugar has no nutritional value. Carbs can be healthy, but sugar is not healthy. So why are so many defending it?
(Just curious)
Why isn't sugar healthy in appropriate amounts?
In what precise way is it unhealthy as part of someone's entire diet?
It's so vital to the functioning of your body you will be forced to create your own in the absense of sufficient dietary carb intake - gluconeogenesis. To say it's not healthy is rather bizarre with no context.
Unjustified comments about diet would prompt me to defend a lot of things and not just sugar!
Saying sugar isn't healthy as a blanket statement is a daft as.....
Cucumber isn't healthy because it's got very little nutrional benefit.
Water isn't healthy as it's lacking all three macro nutrients.
I eat a high carb diet (grains, veg, fruit...) but actually eat a low amount of added sugar.
So please tell me why some sugar in my porridge or a sugary snack when I'm out cycling isn't healthy?
12 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »purplebobkat wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »purplebobkat wrote: »Sugar (& other highly processed carbs) has no nutritional benefits, so why are so many people defending it?
Fruit & veg are good for you because they have high levels of nutrition, and the fibre content helps to mitigate the bad effects of the sugar content.
So although a lot of people lose weight while keeping their sugar levels high, is this something to be applauded or a reason to defend sugar?purplebobkat wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »They can pry my fruit from my cold sticky hands!
Nothing wrong with fruit, it's an important source of many vitamins, minerals & fibre.
But fruit can also be a large source of sugar.
I'm not sure what you're saying here - that added sugar is bad, but inherent/naturally occurring sugar is fine?
How much added sugar is indefensible?- Are you with the WHO, which says people should keep their added sugar (which they call "free sugar") to 10% or less of their daily calories, with more health benefits realized if that is reduced to 5%? https://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2015/sugar-guideline/en/
- Or do you think ALL added sugar is bad?
I tried to keep added sugar at 5% for a while, which lead me to make weird sacrifices which were ultimately unsustainable to me. I probably do best at no more than 10% added sugar.
The problem with added sugar (for me) is that it can also come with lots of calories from fat (ex: ice cream), and often flour (ex: baked goods) and these calories crowd out room for foods that keep me satiated for less calories, like protein.
However, the 3 g of sugar I put in my tea 3 x per day and the 9 g of sugar in my chocolate protein powder, etc., is not a problem for me.
It's actually a really interesting question, of how much sugar is bad for you, and something that I can't see being answered anytime soon.
But my theory is that if it's eaten as a whole food (e.g. an apple) then that seems sensible, but when I eat Haribo that's not very sensible & I would never defend it as a good idea. Just something that I understand is bad for me & have eaten anyway.
I asked this question because I have been reading other posts on mfp today (Self isolating) and found a huge number of people almost attacking others for saying sugar is bad. I wondered why.
I believe there are athletes here who do eat foods like Haribo during endurance events. I would call that good
How many Haribos are bad? Surely one is ok? The serving size I see on a package on Amazon is 13 pieces/30 grams, which has 14 grams of sugar. I'm not sure I would call that bad either. However, if eating one Haribo led you to eat the entire bag (4.5 servings in this bag on Amazon) I have no problem labeling that bad for you.
Usually people do give nuanced answers like I've been doing here. But since this sugar topic comes up all the time, some posters may not include all the context, which may be giving you the impression that they are defending sugar without qualifications.
Labeling Haribo as anything is, in fact, nuanced.
As you mentioned, some athletes do eat Haribo and it has a positive impact on their performance. In that case, Haribo is good.
Another example: someone who is happy to have a serving or two (within their calories, eating a mainly nutritious diet) but would be unhappy if they cut it out, and would "fall off the wagon" or overeat. In this case Haribo is good because it prevents a bad outcome - not everything about a person's health has to do with nutrients.
A third example: someone who chose to eat a serving or two of Haribo (within their calories, eating a mainly nutritious diet), but could have done without. In this case it's neither good nor bad because it didn't cause a bad outcome or prevent a bad outcome.
A fourth example: someone who ate a serving of Haribo, it wasn't enough, they powered through the day white knuckling against the desire to eat more. Did not overeat, but ended the day mentally exhausted. A few more days like that and they're too tired to continue working on managing their calories. In this case, it's bad.
Fifth example is the one you mentioned: someone who couldn't control themselves and overate, either going over calories consistently or crowding out nutrients.
...and so on.
That's why "X is bad" is rarely accurate for any food. You need to specify "X is bad for this person in this situation for this reason". You can say "X is not the most optimal choice to achieve goal Y", like "table sugar is not the most nutrient dense food out there", but it just ends up sounding like stating the obvious. I doubt people are eating table sugar for its nutrient density, but nutrient density is not the only measuring stick for what's "good".
This is why context is so important. Foods are not inherently good or bad. It all depends of the context and the amount for any individual. Blanket pronouncements are rarely accurate or effective.6 -
purplebobkat wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »I think the whole world is self-isolating right now, bobkat.
I'm in Seattle. So. . . yeah.
I hope you're not sick.
Pretty sure I have it, fever, exhaustion & shortness of breath. But don't worry, not leaving the house for any reason till im fully better.
Maybe reading our gardening thread will cheer you up: https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10708195/garden-thread/p1
And for when you are feeling better:
6 -
well sugar could be demonized, my daughters doctor told her sugar is like sandpaper in your veins. And, fruit sugar is not equal to processed granulated sugar, which is the culprit. Processing food is the problem.7
-
penny30030 wrote: »well sugar could be demonized, my daughters doctor told her sugar is like sandpaper in your veins. And, fruit sugar is not equal to processed granulated sugar, which is the culprit. Processing food is the problem.
that's just wrong...... sugar from fruit is just slightly different that refined sugar. Slight difference in glucose to fructose ratios.10 -
psychod787 wrote: »penny30030 wrote: »well sugar could be demonized, my daughters doctor told her sugar is like sandpaper in your veins. And, fruit sugar is not equal to processed granulated sugar, which is the culprit. Processing food is the problem.
that's just wrong...... sugar from fruit is just slightly different that refined sugar. Slight difference in glucose to fructose ratios.
And fruits vary on their glucose to fructose anyway.7 -
penny30030 wrote: »well sugar could be demonized, my daughters doctor told her sugar is like sandpaper in your veins. And, fruit sugar is not equal to processed granulated sugar, which is the culprit. Processing food is the problem.
I would just ask how sugar "like sandpaper" gets in your veins, unless you're shooting it up? I really don't understand this.24 -
snowflake954 wrote: »penny30030 wrote: »well sugar could be demonized, my daughters doctor told her sugar is like sandpaper in your veins. And, fruit sugar is not equal to processed granulated sugar, which is the culprit. Processing food is the problem.
I would just ask how sugar "like sandpaper" gets in your veins, unless you're shooting it up? I really don't understand this.
Unfortunately, many family doctors know little of proper nutrition. They are luck to get a base education in school. Its actually very small. If they do not keep up with the "journals" they do not get updates. Most of what they learn is information from the media. I am lucky now, I have a doc who lifts. It took me a while to find one, but worth it.10 -
psychod787 wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »penny30030 wrote: »well sugar could be demonized, my daughters doctor told her sugar is like sandpaper in your veins. And, fruit sugar is not equal to processed granulated sugar, which is the culprit. Processing food is the problem.
I would just ask how sugar "like sandpaper" gets in your veins, unless you're shooting it up? I really don't understand this.
Unfortunately, many family doctors know little of proper nutrition. They are luck to get a base education in school. Its actually very small. If they do not keep up with the "journals" they do not get updates. Most of what they learn is information from the media. I am lucky now, I have a doc who lifts. It took me a while to find one, but worth it.
You crack me up.
How is "a doctor who lifts" any better, really?
I had a Harvard-graduated doc in internal medicine. She prescribed whatever her little hand-held blackberry told her to. I cannot TELL you the poor advice I got from her over the years. I finally just stopped telling her anything unless I felt like it was pretty danged serious.
Yes. I said blackberry.
12 -
"sugar is like sandpaper in your veins"
Right there is a perfect example of why sugar gets defended.22 -
cmriverside wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »penny30030 wrote: »well sugar could be demonized, my daughters doctor told her sugar is like sandpaper in your veins. And, fruit sugar is not equal to processed granulated sugar, which is the culprit. Processing food is the problem.
I would just ask how sugar "like sandpaper" gets in your veins, unless you're shooting it up? I really don't understand this.
Unfortunately, many family doctors know little of proper nutrition. They are luck to get a base education in school. Its actually very small. If they do not keep up with the "journals" they do not get updates. Most of what they learn is information from the media. I am lucky now, I have a doc who lifts. It took me a while to find one, but worth it.
You crack me up.
How is "a doctor who lifts" any better, really?
I had a Harvard-graduated doc in internal medicine. She prescribed whatever her little hand-held blackberry told her to. I cannot TELL you the poor advice I got from her over the years. I finally just stopped telling her anything unless I felt like it was pretty danged serious.
Yes. I said blackberry.
Actually, he is an ARNP who lifts. Yes, he is the one who actually got me started reading random clinical studies (in some ways, I think me regrets it) and not to believe everything the media says. He is very well versed in nutrition. Though, in many ways I have surpassed him. Kind of happens when one.... uhhh.... obsesses with it for almost 2 years. When I go to see him, he ask my symptoms or ECT, and then will actually ask what I think. That is an odd one BTW. He actually lifts at my gym, so I see him once a week and will bring him new studies I have come into. *kitten* created a monster! He is also fairly young, 40. So, when I speak to him about an issue, he can relate because we are very close in age. He knows I am a nurse as well. Trust? Maybe? Fed up with dealing with me? For sure! lol A blackberry? WHAT? Is it 2007?7 -
Queue the Disagrees, but instead of a direct answer, I'll try to add to the discussion by another means.
And I will talk directly to the OP here.
A better question may have been:
Do you believe sugar is necessary in a diet?
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,44&q=is+sugar+necessary+in+a+diet&btnG=
What is the role of sweeteners vs free sugars in our diet?
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0022034515590377
Or at the least, ask which sugars would you defend being in a diet?
Sucrose, glucose, galactose, lactose, maltose, or xylose?
But I guess, one could start the conversation with:
Do you believe that the sugar industry paid off scientists, and Congress, to conceal the potential dangers of too much sugar in one's diet, especially for young children during their developmental years? Or maybe because of that, if indeed so, that there are still thousands who are committed to believing old or tainted data?
One source of many:
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/09/13/493739074/50-years-ago-sugar-industry-quietly-paid-scientists-to-point-blame-at-fat
From there, one could ask:
Do you believe that there exist parts of a diet that are addictive, and thus create obesity, and not via - a lack of willpower? Do you believe the food industry is tainting our processed foods, by stripping out nutrients, to substitute with their additives - to make people addicted?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5946262/
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0306452203005025
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/british-journal-of-nutrition/article/prevention-and-reversal-of-dietinduced-leptin-resistance-with-a-sugarfree-diet-despite-high-fat-content/B5151988E8E23EB1F7CC75565B2BE069#
Or after reading some of the responses, thus far, one could ask:
Do you believe one can add sugars to their diets, to add calories, to then add (or maintain) weight?
You could also wonder:
If someone lowers their daily sugar intake, in grams, and claims their teeth were whiter in weeks, does this seem plausible? (by lowering significantly).
Or ask what are the choices available that can replace sugar:
What are the choices to natural sugars, from fruits and vegetables, versus raw cane sugar, or processed sugar?
Sweeteners? Monk Fruit? Truvia? Stevia? Sweet and Low?
Is there a reason to avoid natural sugars? What about all those processed sugars?
https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/56-different-names-for-sugar#section9
Is eating something sweet a sin? Is replacing the sugar with sweeteners any better?
Does cutting sugars in the diet help one lose weight? But if that's not a goal, can average people include sugars in a healthy diet? Then we are back to which sugars? sucrose, glucose, galactose, lactose, maltose, or that pesky little xylose? Or is there a natural combination which each person has to find.
On the flip side of this question (you asked), if one were to look at another item found in the diet, salts, would you expect the results to fall in-line with their answers? So your question would have been why do people defend sugars, and do they defend iodized salts? If you found one advocates sweeteners, do they advocate sea salts (non-iodized)?
The reason I ask, is it may give a better insight to their mental beliefs. It would be no different than how, say, one may judge someone speaking about the Keto diet, and ascertaining their views, i.e... whether they state one must not only go organic, but pasture feed organic. Or cage-free free range. And then deeper into the whole stress free raising environment. (You know, where they may advocate playing music to the crops, the cattle, the hens, etc...). I feel you get a better since of how, oh, let's say 'committed' they are.
I'll skip my personal conclusions or opinions. But that probably won't stop many from hitting that Disagree button. And yet, life goes on 3 -
psychod787 wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »penny30030 wrote: »well sugar could be demonized, my daughters doctor told her sugar is like sandpaper in your veins. And, fruit sugar is not equal to processed granulated sugar, which is the culprit. Processing food is the problem.
I would just ask how sugar "like sandpaper" gets in your veins, unless you're shooting it up? I really don't understand this.
Unfortunately, many family doctors know little of proper nutrition. They are luck to get a base education in school. Its actually very small. If they do not keep up with the "journals" they do not get updates. Most of what they learn is information from the media. I am lucky now, I have a doc who lifts. It took me a while to find one, but worth it.
You crack me up.
How is "a doctor who lifts" any better, really?
I had a Harvard-graduated doc in internal medicine. She prescribed whatever her little hand-held blackberry told her to. I cannot TELL you the poor advice I got from her over the years. I finally just stopped telling her anything unless I felt like it was pretty danged serious.
Yes. I said blackberry.
Actually, he is an ARNP who lifts. Yes, he is the one who actually got me started reading random clinical studies (in some ways, I think me regrets it) and not to believe everything the media says. He is very well versed in nutrition. Though, in many ways I have surpassed him. Kind of happens when one.... uhhh.... obsesses with it for almost 2 years. When I go to see him, he ask my symptoms or ECT, and then will actually ask what I think. That is an odd one BTW. He actually lifts at my gym, so I see him once a week and will bring him new studies I have come into. *kitten* created a monster! He is also fairly young, 40. So, when I speak to him about an issue, he can relate because we are very close in age. He knows I am a nurse as well. Trust? Maybe? Fed up with dealing with me? For sure! lol A blackberry? WHAT? Is it 2007?
Well to be fair I stopped listening to that doctor in about 2003 other than for my thyroid meds and a yearly exam. I'm not really even sure on her knowledge of levo.
I think it's awesome you found that ARNP and that he's willing to share knowledge. I know you can be a dog with a bone so I bet he does have to listen as much as he teaches!
I've heard all kinds of whackadoodle things from medical "professionals."
I now listen to a Higher Power. It's basic. Eat whole foods and ocassional treats. Get some exercise. Drink water and get enough sleep. Mostly instinct.
6 -
purplebobkat wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »I think the whole world is self-isolating right now, bobkat.
I'm in Seattle. So. . . yeah.
I hope you're not sick.
Pretty sure I have it, fever, exhaustion & shortness of breath. But don't worry, not leaving the house for any reason till im fully better.
Have you called or seen your doctor? I believe that is indicated for shortness of breath.5 -
purplebobkat wrote: »Sugar (& other highly processed carbs) has no nutritional benefits, so why are so many people defending it?
Fruit & veg are good for you because they have high levels of nutrition, and the fibre content helps to mitigate the bad effects of the sugar content.
So although a lot of people lose weight while keeping their sugar levels high, is this something to be applauded or a reason to defend sugar?
Just wanted to address the part about "highly processed" carbs having no nutritional benefits. Just a quick read of the nutrition label on any packaged food will contradict this assumption. They all contain various amounts of macro and micro nutrients, and can contribute to an overall healthy diet.8 -
psychod787 wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »penny30030 wrote: »well sugar could be demonized, my daughters doctor told her sugar is like sandpaper in your veins. And, fruit sugar is not equal to processed granulated sugar, which is the culprit. Processing food is the problem.
I would just ask how sugar "like sandpaper" gets in your veins, unless you're shooting it up? I really don't understand this.
Unfortunately, many family doctors know little of proper nutrition. They are luck to get a base education in school. Its actually very small. If they do not keep up with the "journals" they do not get updates. Most of what they learn is information from the media. I am lucky now, I have a doc who lifts. It took me a while to find one, but worth it.
this is definitely been my experience! I've heard and seen all sorts of doctors pushing the typical social media fads. Thankfully, my current GP has looked at my success and tells me to just keep doing what I'm doing Her only suggestion was on looking at ways to get more fresh fruits and vegetables at an affordable price, like joining up with a produce sharing group and things like that.
When my best friend had gall bladder surgery 18 months ago, I got into a conversation with the surgeon when he stopped by to check in on her, and he was pushing all the keto and Dr. Fung stuff.
I suppose its like my industry - I"m an electrical engineer; I"m not a mechanical engineer, or a civil engineer, or a chemical engineer. I might have taken a few classes on structures, but that doesn't qualify me to speak to the safety of a bridge's design. If an electrical cable is crossing that bridge, I can talk about that, but that's as far as my expertise goes.9 -
To more directly answer the question "why are people defending it" (and summarize many of the things people have said above), I think the main answers are:
(1) completely untrue things get said, and so many of us think they should be corrected;
(2) it's not really true that sugar has no nutritional benefits in that it provides energy, plus is often packaged with foods that do have nutritional benefits and has specific benefits for those engaging in certain types of exercise activity (for example, I used gels when running a marathon and training for it, and also during some olympic and half ironman distance triathlons and other foods containing added sugar); and
(3) even if added sugar had no other benefits, it is not harmful in moderate amounts within the context of a healthful diet (just as the sugar in fruit causes no harm), and therefore can help people enjoy their diet more and that's not a bad thing. As noted above, I don't have a big sweet tooth, so don't add sugar to food, but if someone finds that a bit of sugar makes their oats more tasty and them more satisfied or their coffee more delicious or enjoys a honey mustard dressing (and thus eats more vegetables) or improves a homemade tomato-based sauce, what harm is that? Why do people react to sugar unlike they react to many other foods that aren't particularly nutritious. I cook with oil or butter and no one asks me why that can be defended or like I should consider it a sinful thing that I do despite it being bad (as it seems you think of eating gummi bears). I didn't mention desserts, but I'd say that's basically the same -- if it's enjoyable and makes your diet overall more satisfying and sustainable, why is it necessary to cut out sugar or feel bad about eating it? The real question is the overall content of the diet as a whole.
I think a lot of people spend way too much time feeling bad about what they do eat and likely not enough time thinking about what they should eat. I find a diet with 10% of cals from added sugar, that is calorie appropriate and includes a lot of vegetables, sufficient protein, and some fruit, as well as plenty of fiber to be a MUCH BETTER diet, on average than one that may cut added sugar to almost 0 but contains very little vegetables or fruit. Thus, for most people I think the focus on just this one component to be oddly excessive.
Obviously one can eat excessive amounts of added sugar (usually with excessive amounts of cals and added fat), but no one defends eating excessive amounts of anything as a healthy practice (we might just disagree on what excessive is).14 -
I find a diet with 10% of cals from added sugar, that is calorie appropriate and includes a lot of vegetables, sufficient protein, and some fruit, as well as plenty of fiber to be a MUCH BETTER diet, on average than one that may cut added sugar to almost 0 but contains very little vegetables or fruit. Thus, for most people I think the focus on just this one component to be oddly excessive.
I agree....8 -
penny30030 wrote: »well sugar could be demonized, my daughters doctor told her sugar is like sandpaper in your veins. And, fruit sugar is not equal to processed granulated sugar, which is the culprit. Processing food is the problem.
What does that actually mean? If you eat sugar your veins will get leaky and fall apart from abrasion?
Also "processing" food is pretty vague, it covers so much. Butter is processed food, it doesn't come out of the cow like that. There are some processes that can be done to food that lowers their nutritional quality and increases their calorie density, and there are some processes that make food safe to eat.9 -
kshama2001 wrote: »purplebobkat wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »purplebobkat wrote: »Sugar (& other highly processed carbs) has no nutritional benefits, so why are so many people defending it?
Fruit & veg are good for you because they have high levels of nutrition, and the fibre content helps to mitigate the bad effects of the sugar content.
So although a lot of people lose weight while keeping their sugar levels high, is this something to be applauded or a reason to defend sugar?purplebobkat wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »They can pry my fruit from my cold sticky hands!
Nothing wrong with fruit, it's an important source of many vitamins, minerals & fibre.
But fruit can also be a large source of sugar.
I'm not sure what you're saying here - that added sugar is bad, but inherent/naturally occurring sugar is fine?
How much added sugar is indefensible?- Are you with the WHO, which says people should keep their added sugar (which they call "free sugar") to 10% or less of their daily calories, with more health benefits realized if that is reduced to 5%? https://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2015/sugar-guideline/en/
- Or do you think ALL added sugar is bad?
I tried to keep added sugar at 5% for a while, which lead me to make weird sacrifices which were ultimately unsustainable to me. I probably do best at no more than 10% added sugar.
The problem with added sugar (for me) is that it can also come with lots of calories from fat (ex: ice cream), and often flour (ex: baked goods) and these calories crowd out room for foods that keep me satiated for less calories, like protein.
However, the 3 g of sugar I put in my tea 3 x per day and the 9 g of sugar in my chocolate protein powder, etc., is not a problem for me.
It's actually a really interesting question, of how much sugar is bad for you, and something that I can't see being answered anytime soon.
But my theory is that if it's eaten as a whole food (e.g. an apple) then that seems sensible, but when I eat Haribo that's not very sensible & I would never defend it as a good idea. Just something that I understand is bad for me & have eaten anyway.
I asked this question because I have been reading other posts on mfp today (Self isolating) and found a huge number of people almost attacking others for saying sugar is bad. I wondered why.
I believe there are athletes here who do eat foods like Haribo during endurance events. I would call that good
How many Haribos are bad? Surely one is ok? The serving size I see on a package on Amazon is 13 pieces/30 grams, which has 14 grams of sugar. I'm not sure I would call that bad either. However, if eating one Haribo led you to eat the entire bag (4.5 servings in this bag on Amazon) I have no problem labeling that bad for you.
Usually people do give nuanced answers like I've been doing here. But since this sugar topic comes up all the time, some posters may not include all the context, which may be giving you the impression that they are defending sugar without qualifications.
You don’t even have to be that good of an athlete to benefit from consuming sugar during endurance events. I use Clif blox which are basically straight sugar to fuel during long runs. My digestive system doesn’t need to be messing with the volume and fiber of a piece of fruit while my muscles are working hard. I love oranges, and eat them before shorter runs, but try eating a big juicy nutritious orange while working at your utmost limit and you are likely to be the winner of the portapotty dash!10 -
penny30030 wrote: »well sugar could be demonized, my daughters doctor told her sugar is like sandpaper in your veins. And, fruit sugar is not equal to processed granulated sugar, which is the culprit. Processing food is the problem.
Neither sugar nor processing food is the problem.
I would say seeing things in polarised extremes is the problem.
Interestingly a packet of table sugar lasts my household for a good 6 months, although we do eat plenty of already high sugar included foods - like cake or chocolate.
But I do not have a problem - my weight is stable ( yay! Calorie counting!) and I have no medical issues.
3 -
In direct answer to OP I would say people defend sugar because other people like yourself attack it.
Or more correctly, they defend including sugar in a calorie appropriate balanced diet rather than demonising it as the enemy.
Context and dosage matter.20 -
paperpudding wrote: »In direct answer to OP I would say people defend sugar because other people like yourself attack it.
Or more correctly, they defend including sugar in a calorie appropriate balanced diet rather than demonising it as the enemy.
Context and dosage matter.
That is the best response.. you win.7 -
I admit to not reading the entire thread.
What proof does anyone have that you need every calorie you consume to be nutrient rich? More nutrients than you need equals more nutrients in your pee. So if you are medically required to control it why not enjoy a sugary snack if you have the calories available?
12 -
paperpudding wrote: »In direct answer to OP I would say people defend sugar because other people like yourself attack it.
Or more correctly, they defend including sugar in a calorie appropriate balanced diet rather than demonising it as the enemy.
Context and dosage matter.
Exactly. The "defenses" of sugar I see are typically people pushing back against ridiculous claims.5 -
I admit to not reading the entire thread.
What proof does anyone have that you need every calorie you consume to be nutrient rich? More nutrients than you need equals more nutrients in your pee. So if you are medically required to control it why not enjoy a sugary snack if you have the calories available?
Obviously I meant unless you are medically required to control it.3
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions