I find that the added sugar=bad position is backed up with a lot of studies that don't control for total calories between groups (meaning the total calories are the culprit), or macronutrient ratios not being controlled between groups (meaning lower protein or higher carbohydrates are the culprit). There are a 'massive cloud' of studies which have both of those 2 errors present.
Aside, I realize the study in question did control for total calories, I'd have to read through the full study to be able to comment on it. However, drawing conclusions on the population at large from obese kids with metabolic syndrome and abnormally high sugar consumption isn't exactly "another point" in my books.
I don't think anybody is arguing that any level of sugar consumption is fine, but it's unfair and intellectually dishonest to say 'sugar is bad' or 'sugar is unhealthy'
I agree about my laziness (making my own literature review would be a lot of work), however, controlling for total calories as you suggest could be misleading, because sugar provides lots of calories but often does not reduce hunger:
I don't see how could it be misleading. You trade sweat treats for fullness, and you could even add low calories side meals to balance the count. That's what a lot of diet regimes do and have been proved to work.
Failure to control total calories just about damns the validity of any diet study right off the bat.
You do not simply control for an additional variable when you know there is a direct link between the two. You study it as a dependent variable.
Edit: replaced "fulfillment" with "satiation". Sorry about the vagueness, I thought the meaning was pretty clear from the context.
"fulfilment" is a vague term and you're veering off the topic into a strawman argument
It wouldn't make much sense to keep the groups isocaloric but replace the calories from sugar in one group with say, protein in another. You wouldn't be measuring the same thing any more.
The entire point of the study is comparing monosaccharides to polysaccharides and observing changes in 'health' (excuse the vague terminology). Sugar is substituted with a longer chain carbohydrate in well planned research.
that's just as vague as 'sugar is bad'. Sugar consumption, I would think, varies pretty widely.
This is the first I've heard that controlling for total calories would be misleading and your rationale doesn't make any sense. The inverse is misleading, if you don't control total calories then the conclusions drawn from the study don't represent the variables that were altered.
Hunger is a separate topic, you don't design diets so that people have 'the same level of hunger' between control groups because that's not easily quantifiable and irrelevant.
If most people consuming a lot of added sugar also consume too many calories, and most people not consuming too many calories also don't consume a lot of added sugar, then isn't it still good advice to most people to stop eating so much sugar?
Yeah there's probably some case of some kid eating his weight in bananas and getting obese from that. Or someone that has a lot of added sugar but controls their calories just fine. So sure, the statement "obesity is caused solely by added sugar" or "all added sugar is bad" may not be totally accurate.
But unless you really think that added sugar and calories and obesity are totally unrelated, surely you can agree that the statement "if you're obese you should probably tone down the sugar" makes some sense.
The vast majority of people aren't carefully counting their calories and daily nutrient values. They aren't saying "well if I have this soda I should only have half of my entree". The information "maybe just stay away from the soda" is a net benefit to them.
If you're that guy that's counting all of your calories, sure, maybe the studies that don't control for that won't help you. They're measuring something else. But they're measuring what most people are doing.
Not necessarily, because that may not solve the problem if they are going to eat just as many calories from other sources. I don't know if that actually would be the case; you'd need to study that.
No lol, just no. The study was investigating high sugar consumption in obese children and kids with metabolic disorders. It absolutely was not measuring what 'most people are doing'
> If most people consuming a lot of added sugar also consume too many calories, and most people not consuming too many calories also don't consume a lot of added sugar, then isn't it still good advice to most people to stop eating so much sugar?
This is what I meant by intellectual dishonesty. It's a type of informal fallacy I believe is called appeal to consequences. I'll give you an example.
If it was true that Christianity was correlated with lower incidence of homicide, is it right of me to say that everyone should be Christian? I think that statement would be dishonest and untrue.
> Yeah there's probably some case of some kid eating his weight in bananas and getting obese from that. Or someone that has a lot of added sugar but controls their calories just fine. So sure, the statement "obesity is caused solely by added sugar" or "all added sugar is bad" may not be totally accurate.
Follow that reason to it's logical conclusion. If I believed that sugar was bad and caused obesity, and as a result I decided to eat bacon at every meal instead; I would be in a big caloric surplus and be pretty 'unhealthy' and obese, even though I'm not eatin any sugar. It's pretty obvious that the truth is a lot better and more accurate than creating arbitrary untrue rules.
Personally, the truth is also simpler. Rather than avoid certain macronutrients or lengths of carbohydrate chains, the truth is that too much food is probably unhealthy, and if you are obese you should simply eat less food and exercise more (bringing down your total caloric intake or increasing the amount of energy you burn). That sounds simpler to me than saying, "avoid sugar and carbs because after you eliminate all of those foods it's much harder to be in a caloric surplus even though you still can be unhealthy and obese following those rules"
Have I explained enough why your line of reasoning is really a terrible idea?
Saying I'm advocating counting calories is a strawman argument. Additionally, studies aren't intended to 'help' anybody. They are SUPPOSED to be an research into what is true to add support for or against some argument. The problem here is that the study itself was probably very reasonably written, but it was misinterpreted by an idiotic journalist to be something that it isn't.
Personally I am not willing to trust my health the status quo + what I deem to be the best of science because nutrition science is still in the dark ages, and I believe market forces and human instinct are pushing are food supply in a terrible direction much faster than science can keep up with the problems. Instead I am a proponent of common sense approaches like Michael Pollan advocates because it can save us from a good many pitfalls that will befall us if we wait for the science to be settled. In particular I think there is a mindset in a certain type of science-minded hacker that believes so strongly in their own objectivity that they are willing to place all their faith in science while unwittingly being undermined by their own emotions and cravings.
The overwhelming consensus is that a caloric surplus causes obesity (surprise! eating more than you burn causes you to gain weight) and that obesity is associated with a number of negative health effects.
Nutrition is not in the 'dark ages', it's moving faster than ever. I also never brought up any weird nutrition life hacks, my statement was just that sugar is unfairly demonized when we should be pointing the finger at overconsumption.
I think it's fair to say that you don't have to 'wait for science' to be settled on this issue. Consistent overconsumption of food is definitely "not good for you"
Again, as I stated in my opening sentence, I am not pinning this on you, but it was your appeal to the old calories-in-calories-out trope that compelled me to respond.
I don't see how the knowledge that the body functions based on balancing energy is in any way useless in practice. If you're overweight, with that knowledge, you know that you are overconsuming food or under exercising and you can take appropriate steps based on that knowledge.
No one is suggesting that you get all your calories from skittles, but the notion that a portion of ice cream is going to make you obese in the presence of a well balanced diet is idiotic.
> processed snack that puts one on a glycemic rollercoaster rather than an unprocessed item which will tend not to have the same effect.
Actually there are lots of high glycemic foods that are 'unprocessed'. Additionally if you're consuming a mixed meal (p/f/c) the glycemic index of any one food is irrelevant and tends to be evened out by the presence of the other foods. There's also not a lot of evidence that high glycemic foods are inherently bad for you, couple that with the fact that glycemic index gets 'evened out' in a mixed meal and it's one of the minutia that can be largely ignored. I find it interesting that you focus on a small detail like glycemic index and yet dismiss scientific research in general and a concept as important as conservation of energy.
It just seems like you read through the thread, saw something related to total caloric intake, and felt compelled to weigh in with your personal belief on how it's an unimportant detail to be concerned about.
The point was that correlation is not necessarily causation and often study methodology is overlooked when interpreting evidence.
To be clear I am not dismissing scientific research, I'm saying that often times the people who cite the strongest belief in science are completely subverting the science by selectively using it to justify eating what they want to eat.
Even if total calories are the problem, you still have more to analyze. Depending on how it affects fullness, it could be near-harmless or horrible for you.
Do you mean that having too many carbs is detrimental to health? Because you can have an increased carbohydrate intake without increasing sugar consumption.
The result of the study changes, but it's not invalidated.
Sugar is still bad, but so are other carbs.
You still don't want products to add extra sugar.
I wonder if a tsp a day in my coffee is too much, how about a bubble tea, how about honey nut cheerios once a week etc etc. Without some framework to judge how much is ok we're also left with FUD about any sugar at all.
Any sources that sugar is a drug, addictive or something like that?
Obligatory link because you said "I feel great" : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6rE0EakhG8
[1]: http://www.health.harvard.edu/press_releases/drinking-coffee... -- sorry its annoying.
Nicotine isn't that terrible, but tobacco is way more than just nicotine.
Just like most of the drinks at Starbucks are more than just caffeine, so it's actually a pretty close comparison when you factor in the sugar.
> I don't eat any sweets at all (natural sugars come from the fruits I eat)
Yes, but the average apple, banana, or orange has a lot of sugar content. Many fruits are also acidic and will mess your teeth up a lot worse than a bit of coffee stain will.
Ketosis is a multifaceted, complex, biological process that depends on many variables. However, it is potentially somewhere to start investigating a 'critical limit' to judge how much sugar can be processed by your body.
https://www.reddit.com/r/keto would disagree with you. I myself stay below 20g of carbohydrates per day, and I lose ~3lbs a week on the diet, while eating cheese, meat, and green vegetables. I feel phenomenal, still get to eat food I enjoy, and wouldn't go back to a traditional carbohydrate-heavy diet if I was paid to.
No disagreements on keto being useful for many. For those who want to maintain their weight, though, it's not often the right diet. So I'd argue it's not "general-purpose."
This line gets parroted around here constantly (its just thermodynamics! calories in calories out!), yet more evidence continues to be provided that macronutrient balance matters, as does gut bacteria.
EDIT: What if dieting turns out to be as easy as naturally selecting bacteria for the gut that can't break down carbohydrates easily, and selling it as a probiotic pill that replaces you're existing gut bacteria? Wouldn't that be a huge win for public health policy?
And before anyone comes in and says that's not possible, check out this women who became obese from a fecal transplant from an overweight donor:
http://www.upi.com/Health_News/2015/02/04/Woman-becomes-obes...
Sure, it might be what you need if you start out in an opposite but equally unhealthy state, but in the long run consistent weight loss is fatal.
It might not feel relevant to you, but large parts of the population in the world find themselves in that very situation through no choice of their own.
No. Really, healthy and unhealthy diets aren't binary categories, diets are more are less healthy than others, and there are usually going to be more healthy options than a diet on which you maintain a pre-existing unhealthy excess of body fat.
And, what those diets will have in common, is that you'll lose body fat on them (probably also weight, though that's less certain.)
> Sure, it might be what you need if you start out in an opposite but equally unhealthy state, but in the long run consistent weight loss is fatal.
In the long run, living is fatal, with a 100% mortality rate. But a diet on which you (with your current body weight) are losing weight is not necessarily one on which you will consistently lose weight without limit; one which would maintain a lower but healthy weight will cause you to lose weight while you are above that weight. And would cause you to gain weight if you are below that weight.
Not at all. If you're carrying excessive fat around, you should be modifying your diet in order to shed that excessive fat. If your body composition is healthy, then you should be on a diet that a) is providing both a proper ratio of macronutrients and b) enough calories that you're not losing muscle mass.
It's the kind of topic where it's very hard to prove your point because you need to rely on external references that can always be discredited. Also, people are very passionate because it involves strong political opinions (remember when Mayor Bloomberg tried to ban big gulps of soda in NYC), and also personal feelings (overweight people addicted to sugar).
It's not unlike the discussions on climate change.
Let's be clear, this research is specific, and all it does is add yet another point in a massive cloud of evidence pointing towards the current dietary disaster that is added sugar.
But don't take my word for it, please, do your own quick research on the subject. Look up terms like Sugar+Diet or Sugar+Nutrition on Google scholar. Go through the abstracts, the literature reviews. And stop spreading baseless opinions, especially when it's potentially very harmful to the people reading them.
When you see a comment that poorly defends a valid position, reply by defending it properly, not by pointing out the flaws and/or following up with FUD when you haven't done basic research on the subject.