Active Low-Carber Forums
Atkins diet and low carb discussion provided free for information only, not as medical advice.
Home Plans Tips Recipes Tools Stories Studies Products
Active Low-Carber Forums
A sugar-free zone


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums.
Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!

Go Back   Active Low-Carber Forums > Main Low-Carb Diets Forums & Support > Low-Carb Studies & Research / Media Watch > LC Research/Media
User Name
Password
FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   ^
Old Tue, Oct-30-12, 12:37
SabreCat50 SabreCat50 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 162
 
Plan: modified Atkins
Stats: 220/188/170 Male 6 ft 1 in
BF:
Progress: 64%
Location: Oakland, Florida, USA
Default Is sugar really that bad for you?

This is from Health.com as seen on CNN.com.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/30/healt...-bad/index.html

Glenn in Omaha
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2   ^
Old Tue, Oct-30-12, 12:45
Nancy LC's Avatar
Nancy LC Nancy LC is offline
Experimenter
Posts: 25,842
 
Plan: DDF
Stats: 202/185.4/179 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 72%
Location: San Diego, CA
Default

Sheer idiocy. There's no requirement for sugar. Your body can create all the glucose it needs from protein.
Reply With Quote
  #3   ^
Old Tue, Oct-30-12, 12:57
jmh's Avatar
jmh jmh is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 480
 
Plan: my own
Stats: 224/182/165 Female 175cm
BF:
Progress: 71%
Location: Was in London, now in NZ
Default

Quote:
Every few years, there's a new food bad guy in town -- and right now, it's sugar. Some experts have even declared it a "poison" that's "killing us."


The implication being that it's a fad. Funny how fat phobia, which is the fashionable 'food bad guy' is never questioned despite there being no evidence of it doing any harm (apart from trans fats of course).
Reply With Quote
  #4   ^
Old Tue, Oct-30-12, 13:04
keith v's Avatar
keith v keith v is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 730
 
Plan: Wheat belly
Stats: 235/220/200 Male 6 feet 2 inches
BF:
Progress: 43%
Location: Minneapolis, MN USA Earth
Default

The next article in the series is titled "Is crack really bad for you?"

Lots of people use crack and function very well in their daily lives, the problem is that people use too damn much of it.
Reply With Quote
  #5   ^
Old Tue, Oct-30-12, 13:14
ojoj's Avatar
ojoj ojoj is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 3,184
 
Plan: atkins
Stats: 210/126/127 Female 5ft 7in
BF:
Progress: 101%
Location: South of England
Default

When I was young, sugar was considered bad for you, caused tooth decay, "sugar" diabetes, made people fat and spotty..... You had it in moderation, sweets and cakes maybe once a week. A small pudding after a meal maybe. Nowadays, sugar isnt allowed to be bad for you. I assume the sugar industry has used its mighty power to remove all trace of sugars badness - nowadays its fruit acid that rots teeth, diabetes is no longer called "sugar" diabetes and its fat that makes you fat and spotty. So its ok to have sweets, candies etc several times a day, have sugar added to processed food and so on!

Of course none of the above has anything to do with the obesity epidemic!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!????????

Jo xxxx
Reply With Quote
  #6   ^
Old Tue, Oct-30-12, 15:42
Zei Zei is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,596
 
Plan: Carb reduction in general
Stats: 230/185/180 Female 5 ft 9 in
BF:
Progress: 90%
Location: Texas
Default

Quote:
Yet could the sweet stuff people have been eating forever really be so terrible?

Yes. It could. And sugar consumption throughout prior human history had to have been pretty limited unless you lived in the tropics with fruit available year-round or raised bees, before mass sugar refining was invented.
Quote:
"We actually need sugar; it's our body's preferred fuel," says Dr. David Katz, director of the Yale University Prevention Research Center

The body knows high blood sugars are dangerous so halts fat burning to deal with sugar/carbs whenever they show up to get rid of them quick. By this reasoning alcohol, not sugar, is the body's preferred fuel because it'll stop everything else go get rid of that even quicker. Because alcohol and excess blood glucose are dangerous, not the body's preferred fuels! Otherwise I must be dead from starvation because I don't drink and avoid carbs.
Reply With Quote
  #7   ^
Old Tue, Oct-30-12, 16:01
M Levac M Levac is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 6,498
 
Plan: VLC, mostly meat
Stats: 202/200/165 Male 5' 7"
BF:
Progress: 5%
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Default

You guys don't mind if I do a point-by-point? Now for a little fun!
Quote:
Every few years, there's a new food bad guy in town -- and right now, it's sugar. Some experts have even declared it a "poison" that's "killing us."

That's true. But sugar has always been a bad guy. There's nothing new about sugar, but there's certainly new research being done on it these days. For example, fructose is studied for its effects on the liver, with the idea that this is where NAFLD comes from.
Quote:
Yet could the sweet stuff people have been eating forever really be so terrible?

That's an exaggeration. Forever is a long time. Let's say instead "for the last 10,000 years", and never in the quantities we eat today. We've been eating more sugar every year for the last 100 years. We now eat about 75-100lbs of sugar per person per year. And we're only counting sugar, not HFCS. But they're the same so it's probably much higher than that.
Quote:
"We actually need sugar; it's our body's preferred fuel," says Dr. David Katz, director of the Yale University Prevention Research Center. "But we eat too damn much of it."

Yes, we need sugar, but not dietary sugar. More specifically, we need glucose in our blood to supply energy for red blood cells, which can only use glucose as fuel. Yes, glucose is the preferred fuel for those red blood cells and a few other cells but that's about it. All other cells prefer fatty acids and ketones. And yes, we eat too damn much of it.
Quote:
Naturally occurring sugar -- which gives fruit, some veggies, and milk their sweet taste — is perfectly healthy. It's added sugar (sweeteners put in during processing and prep) that we need to not OD on.

There's no difference between fruit sugar and table sugar, except perhaps in their proportions of fructose/glucose. So if table sugar is bad, then fruit sugar is just as bad.
Quote:
No need to cut out dessert: The key is to eat strategically.

Yes, I agree. A favorite strategy of members of this forum is to not eat sugar.
Quote:
Happily, some major companies are getting on board. In the past four years, cereal brands have cut back on sugar, the milk industry recently lowered amounts in the chocolate milk served in schools, and Walmart is aiming for 10% less added sugar in select foods by 2015.

None of that makes any difference. We can add sugar by the spoonful ourselves if we want. And we usually do. Hehe, "Low-Sugar Sugar".
Quote:
We turned to experts to clear up the confusion over this tasty temptress. As Katz says, "There's a role for sugar in our diet. After all, what's the point of being healthy if it's not to enjoy living?"

And the role of sugar is to make us not-healthy? Hm, I see your point, Mr Katz.
Quote:
Is there such thing as a sweet tooth?

Yes, sugar love is in your DNA. Researchers have found two sweet-receptor genes that can predict a preference for sweets.

Yes, that's right. Our ancestors had extensive sugar cane agriculture, extensive transformation industry, and extensive world economy to provide refined and pure table sugar to everybody on the planet. And that's where these sweet-receptor genes come from.
Quote:
How much is OK?
...
Read labels; if there's a sweetener in the first few ingredients (some common aliases: evaporated cane juice, high-fructose corn syrup, fruit juice concentrate, agave nectar, fructose, dextrose, and syrup), look for a brand with a low-or no-sugar option.

That's correct. "None" is OK. 70lbs/person/year/20 years gets you diabetes.
Quote:
As sweet as some of these things may taste, they contain relatively small amounts of sugar. Plus, nature's packaging comes with essential vitamins and minerals, along with water and fiber that slow the release of sugars into the bloodstream and prevent insulin spikes.

No, that's incorrect. If you can taste it, then it's already in a free state, i.e. no digestion required for its absorption, therefore immediate absorption.
Quote:
Some sweeteners, like raw honey and sucanat, have trace nutrients, but they're all the same as white sugar in terms of calories -- and some contain even more calories.

But you just said that the real problem with sugar is its effects on the liver. Do these effects come from the calories? You lost me.
Quote:
Is it OK to use calorie-free sweeteners?

Yes! The FDA deems stevia, aspartame (Equal), sucralose (Splenda), and other cal-free sweeteners safe. "Short-term data suggests they're safer than table sugar," says Kimber Stanhope, a nutritional biologist at the University of California-Davis.

Faux sugar won't cause blood-sugar spikes or weight gain -- and all the potential health ills. As Stanhope says, "I use them because I can't afford the extra calories!"

Let me get this straight. When it comes to artificial sweeteners safety, it's fine to use short-term data, but when it comes to low-carb diets safety, you guys are all over it saying there's no long-term data? I understand. It's OK to be biased, as long as the bias is in our favor.

That article is really strange. Sugar is bad, but it's good if you like sugar.
Reply With Quote
  #8   ^
Old Wed, Oct-31-12, 07:16
Cleome's Avatar
Cleome Cleome is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 240
 
Plan: LowCarb/Metformin/IF
Stats: 230/190/130 Female 63"
BF:
Progress: 40%
Default Consider the source

1) Health.com are carb pushers.
Their goal is to sell advertising, magazines, and books.
Nothing to do with Health.

The CarbLovers Diet: Eat What You Love, Get Slim for Life!
by Ellen Kunes: Editor in Chief of Health Magazine and Editorial Director of Health.com. She has more than 25 years of experience in the publishing industry. Prior to Health, Kunes was the Founding Editor of O, The Oprah Magazine, which became one of the most successful launches in magazine history. After O, she became editor-in-chief of Redbook. Earlier in her career, Kunes served as executive editor at Cosmopolitan and Lifestyle Director at McCall's. She has held a variety of editorial posts at such titles as Self, Mademoiselle, and Seventeen.

and Frances Largeman-Roth, RD: a New York Times best selling author and nationally recognized health expert. Frances was the Food and Nutrition Director at Health magazine for nearly eight years. Prior to that, she was part of the editorial team at the Discovery Health Channel, and also held the post of managing editor at FoodFit.com. Frances earned her undergraduate degree from Cornell University and completed her dietetic internship at Columbia University in New York. She's a frequent guest on national TV shows, including the Today Show, Good Morning America, CBS This Morning and CNN. Frances is the author of Feed the Belly: The Pregnant Mom's Healthy Eating Guide (Sourcebooks, Inc., 2009), and co-author of the best selling The CarbLovers Diet and The CarbLovers Diet Cookbook

2) Dr. David Katz, director of the Yale University Prevention Research Center is a carb apologist, often writing up the old myths for the popular media.
Reply With Quote
  #9   ^
Old Wed, Oct-31-12, 08:26
keith v's Avatar
keith v keith v is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 730
 
Plan: Wheat belly
Stats: 235/220/200 Male 6 feet 2 inches
BF:
Progress: 43%
Location: Minneapolis, MN USA Earth
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zei
The body knows high blood sugars are dangerous so halts fat burning to deal with sugar/carbs whenever they show up to get rid of them quick.


Oh wow...I think youre right! That makes complete sense.
It's not the preferred fuel, it's the toxic fuel. Burn it off before any damage occurs!

Your body can burn just about anything, EVEN sugar and alcohol.
Reply With Quote
  #10   ^
Old Wed, Oct-31-12, 10:06
Turtle2003's Avatar
Turtle2003 Turtle2003 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,449
 
Plan: Atkins, Newcastle
Stats: 260/221.8/165 Female 5'3"
BF:Highest weight 260
Progress: 40%
Location: Northern California
Default

Ah, more of Big Sugar's sweet little lies. Gary Taubes is all over them in his latest article.


Link
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:23.


Copyright © 2000-2024 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.