Sugar, Science and Regulation

[Chuckanut]

Here's an interesting article on sugar consumption and what one person thinks should and should not be done about it:

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/a...m_source=atltw

IMHO, the author makes a good point. While I personalty have found sugar to be the #1 food for me to gain weight and lose energy, I do not want a repeat of the previous dietary fiasco where we were told to do things like avoid eggs, eat high trans-fat margarine instead of real butter, consume vast amounts of processed grains, and how certain sugar bomb cereals were Heart Healthy. In other words, let's get some real science behind what sugar does or doesn't do before the government starts telling us what we can and can't eat for our own good.

Personally, I will continue limiting processed foods and sugar in my diet. That works well for me. But, I see the point in not having another Witch Hunt, this time with sugar as the source of all evil.

Quote:

While the evidence to date shows zero benefit from sugar and a clear signal of harm, there hasn’t been enough time to fund and conduct definitive trials. Meanwhile, governments naturally feel they can’t wait. Facing panic over the continued, relentless climb in obesity and diabetes rates with no solution in sight, they’ve gone ahead and passed sugar guidelines pinned to exact thresholds, of 10 percent or 5 percent of calories. This advice is clearly well-intentioned. Yet if, as the Annals paper concludes, experts are skirting scientific norms by passing guidelines based on weak evidence, the whole process of guideline-making is effectively watered down. And the need for reliable guidance is no abstract question; indeed, everything from our waistlines to whether we might eat eggs for breakfast depends upon it.

[GrayHare]

If there were indeed "zero benefit from sugar" as the report indicates, sugar would not be so popular.

[Chuckanut]

Quote:

Originally Posted by GrayHare If there were indeed "zero benefit from sugar" as the report indicates, sugar would not be so popular.

There lies the problem. Anybody care for a double chocolate home made brownie?

[audreyh1]

I read somewhere that the sugar industry paid to suppress anti-sugar studies way back in the 60s and 70s which is how fat came to be the lone culprit.

Sugar doesn't bother everyone, so I would hate to see a repeat of the anti-fat craze, "well-intentioned" but lacking science, yet at the same time there is a problem with consuming larger quantities of sugary sodas and cereals. And they shouldn't be marketed as "healthy".

I like my sugar, but we don't make desserts, we don't drink sodas at all, and we generally avoid processed foods. I just use some Demerara sugar in my occasional coffee and tea and we eat some dark chocolate. So we aren't exposed to massive quantities of sugar.

A pet peeve of mine also is the nutrition industry targeting added sugar, when refined carbs, such as flour, are even worse in terms of blood sugar spikes. I remember a popular lunch buffet and the seniors would often head for the "sugar free" desserts such as cakes that were obviously full of flour. I was always tempted to say - it does no good to eat sugar free cake!

Actually, the new labeling identifying added sugar as separate from naturally occurring sugar is a big improvement IMO.

I really hate the products such as dried fruit labeled "no sugar added" that are full of sucralose instead. How about something less sweet? You always have to check - it's usually a gotcha. Bad!

[MRG]

WHO has a 5% recommendation for added sugars(a one time it was 10%). I thought that was driven by dental health issues. Our new 10% recommendation is a place to start.

Obviously there's groups of people who have serious financial investments in the production of sugar. There's also a bunch of people who make millions writing and lecturing about the evils of sugars.

I'd agree that more real research should be done. My recent bloodwork shows too much fasting glucose so I am going back to reducing added sugars.

[cbo111]

I can attest to feeling much better without sugar in my diet. I have always enjoyed my sweets after lunch and dinner. I also experience lots of aches and pains in my elbows, back, knees, and feet, especially after physical activity. I don't like to take pain relievers. So, about a month ago I stopped almost all sugar consumption. I can report a significant reduction in joint pain, plus I lost 4 lbs (which was not my intention as I am not at all overweight). I attribute the improvement to no longer having the inflamatory-inducing sugar in my body.

[IBWino]

I'm firmly in the "sugar is bad" camp, but I agree that we shouldn't be trying to regulate it until we understand its effects. In the mean-time, I consume as little as possible (no sodas, rarely eat dessert, etc.). My wife on the other hand has a sweet-tooth; she keeps chocolates and other candies around for an occasional snack and rarely skips dessert when we go out. However, neither of us has any related health issues.

[sengsational]

As far as I know there is no science saying that sugar (and anything else that spikes a person's insulin levels) is anything but bad for you, long-term. Highly refined foods cause inflammation which causes arterial disease and other bad things. Without inflammation, so many possible bad things just don't happen as fast, or at all.

[O2Bfree]

Quote:

Originally Posted by cbo111 I can attest to feeling much better without sugar in my diet. I have always enjoyed my sweets after lunch and dinner. I also experience lots of aches and pains in my elbows, back, knees, and feet, especially after physical activity. I don't like to take pain relievers. So, about a month ago I stopped almost all sugar consumption. I can report a significant reduction in joint pain, plus I lost 4 lbs (which was not my intention as I am not at all overweight). I attribute the improvement to no longer having the inflammatory-inducing sugar in my body.

I wish my mom would do this! She eats a lot of sugar, and complains a lot about her aching joints. But when I talk to her about the inflammatory effects of sugar and also refined carbs, I get the, "Oh, I'm too old to make changes like that" response. OK, she is 87, but still!

[Amethyst]

I wish this were the case for me. We've long since kicked crackers, pastries, chips, and bagels out of Castle Amethyst; nobody in the house drinks sugar-sweetened soda, and a few years ago I cut my remaining sugar consumption (cookies, candy, snacks) a good 90% for the sake of my teeth. I got better check-ups, and lost 5 pounds, but I did not "feel" better than before. Not that I had been feeling bad or anything, but I have osteoarthritis and it wasn't helped a bit. Rats!

Quote:

Originally Posted by cbo111 I can attest to feeling much better without sugar in my diet. I have always enjoyed my sweets after lunch and dinner. I also experience lots of aches and pains in my elbows, back, knees, and feet, especially after physical activity. I don't like to take pain relievers. So, about a month ago I stopped almost all sugar consumption. I can report a significant reduction in joint pain, plus I lost 4 lbs (which was not my intention as I am not at all overweight). I attribute the improvement to no longer having the inflamatory-inducing sugar in my body.

[H2ODude]

I grew up and spent my career fascinated by and pretty much dedicated to science in one way or another. I find the hijacking of science by food industries, or for that matter any monied interests in trying to push one way or another on so many things, to be horrible. It not only promotes bad policy (sugar's not the problem, fat is) but then allows those who want to denigrate science to point to the eventual reversals as clear evidence that science lacks credibility. Pardon me, DW and I went to a talk by Neil deGrasse Tyson this week in which the topic was the growing science illiteracy in America. Fascinating, but depressing at the same time.

[ls99]

Sugar Industry and Coronary Heart Disease Research | Cardiology | JAMA Internal Medicine | The JAMA Network

SRF = Sugar Research Foundation
............" The SRF sponsored its first CHD research project in 1965, a literature review published in the New England Journal of Medicine, which singled out fat and cholesterol as the dietary causes of CHD and downplayed evidence that sucrose consumption was also a risk factor. The SRF set the review’s objective, contributed articles for inclusion, and received drafts. The SRF’s funding and role was not disclosed." .........

In those days researchers were not required to disclose funding sources or conflicts of interest. Pulling the wool over public's eyes was also not considered unethical.

[Just_Steve]

Just what we need, more regulations in our lives.

[bjorn2bwild]

Stephan Guyenet weighs in with his candid review of Taubes' latest book The Case Against Sugar.

Quote:

His discussion of the history of research on sugar, dietary fat, obesity, and noncommunicable disease is less compelling due to its one-sided nature. For example, The Case Against Sugar portrays an epic struggle decades ago between researchers who believed that saturated fat was the primary cause of coronary heart disease, and those who believed that sugar was. These views are embodied by the American researcher Ancel Keys and the British researcher John Yudkin, respectively.

Bad sugar or bad journalism? An expert review of “The Case Against Sugar”.

[mpeirce]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Just_Steve Just what we need, more regulations in our lives.

+1

Just let people decide for themselves.

[audreyh1]

I believe what they are talking about here, is guidelines, not regulation.

Nevertheless, nutrition guidelines are used for school lunches, etc. so they do have an impact. As well as deciding whether it is appropriate to sell junk food and sugary drinks at schools.

Not everyone gets to "decide for themselves".

[GrayHare]

Quote:

Originally Posted by H2ODude ... DW and I went to a talk by Neil deGrasse Tyson this week in which the topic was the growing science illiteracy in America. Fascinating, but depressing at the same time.

In this age of unformation critical thinking is essential. Lacking broad general knowledge many people accept as fact anything published in a newspaper, or worse, online.

[haha]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bjorn2bwild Stephan Guyenet weighs in with his candid review of Taubes' latest book The Case Against Sugar. Bad sugar or bad journalism? An expert review of “The Case Against Sugar”.

Stephan Guyenet has ragged on Taubes ever since Taubes was hard on him at some lectures several years ago.

Sure Stephan, obesity is multi-factorial, pretty much everything is. But the main purpose of this refrain is weakening the resolve to tackle a very big factor, sugar and refined carbs.

If you are a researcher, and not a particularly prominent one, try to keep all those "more studies needed "balls in the air until something helpful falls into your career.

Ha

[6miths]

Sadly, one cannot legislate common sense. Moderation in all things.

The body cannot store significant amounts of sugar so anything in excess of about 12 hours worth is converted to fat. The idea that the human body will thrive while consistently consuming 25% more calories that it burns and doing minimal physical activity is just not reasonable.

[mpeirce]

Quote:

Originally Posted by audreyh1 I believe what they are talking about here, is guidelines, not regulation. Nevertheless, nutrition guidelines are used for school lunches, etc. so they do have an impact. As well as deciding whether it is appropriate to sell junk food and sugary drinks at schools. Not everyone gets to "decide for themselves".

That's what parents are for.

And parents elect local school boards.