Why is sugar 'bad'?

[themonkay]

...

So, you're saying, sugar is toxic?



trololoolol

[BlackHeart.au]

Sugar can be a substance of abuse and lead to a natural form of addiction. “Food addiction” = Binge eating.

It's been advised total sugar caloric intake should be at 10%

[ErikTheElectric]

Sugar can be a substance of abuse and lead to a natural form of addiction. “Food addiction” = Binge eating.

It's been advised total sugar caloric intake should be at 10%

Was waiting for you to come in and post something like this..

[3nergy]

Insulin resistance + food cravings

[VmissileX]

That is alot of studies to read WP.

How do you expect me to read all of those?

[DAaaMan64]

That is alot of studies to read WP.

How do you expect me to read all of those?

Even if I read them, comprehending them would be a bigger challenge.

[alan aragon]

No need to overcomplicate things beyond the principle that sugar is biologically neutral AS LONG AS IT'S NOT OVERCONSUMED. Anyone painting sugar (or carbs in general) to be inherently harmful needs to loosen up the tinfoil hattery. Here's a good review on the topic: http://advances.nutrition.org/content/4/2/236.long

[mynameisuntz]

Some things never change.

Nerds.

[WonderPug]

No need to overcomplicate things beyond the principle that sugar is biologically neutral AS LONG AS IT'S NOT OVERCONSUMED. Anyone painting sugar (or carbs in general) to be inherently harmful needs to loosen up the tinfoil hattery. Here's a good review on the topic: http://advances.nutrition.org/content/4/2/236.long

While, the dose makes the poison, for those with with metabolic syndrome or diabetes, for example, typical levels of sugar consumption (or other CHO's) can be exacerbate the underlying dysregulation and, thus, it would be inherently harmful.

[alan aragon]

While, the dose makes the poison, for those with with metabolic syndrome or diabetes, for example, typical levels of sugar consumption (or other CHO's) can be exacerbate the underlying dysregulation and, thus, it would be inherently harmful.

Let's take bets on the OP's diabetic or MetSyn status

Also - low-carb/keto hasn't emerged victorious as the superior solution for the management of diabetes. See: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23364002

[TheFugitive]

No need to overcomplicate things beyond the principle that sugar is biologically neutral AS LONG AS IT'S NOT OVERCONSUMED. Anyone painting sugar (or carbs in general) to be inherently harmful needs to loosen up the tinfoil hattery. Here's a good review on the topic: http://advances.nutrition.org/content/4/2/236.long

Good read AA

[alan aragon]

Sugar can be a substance of abuse and lead to a natural form of addiction. “Food addiction” = Binge eating.

Um... No. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20056521

Everyone go ahead & read this: http://ac.els-cdn.com/S0149763414002...756683414cbbfd

[Gxp23]

Literally started adding sugar back into my coffee and tea. So good.

[WonderPug]

Also - low-carb/keto hasn't emerged victorious as the superior solution for the management of diabetes. See: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23364002

I think it's fair to say that we hold different positions and that there's evidence of varying quality to support both positions.

That said, for those interested in an alternative interpretation of relevant research, I suggest reading the full-text of all the citations I posted earlier in this thread as well as the article entitled Dietary carbohydrate restriction as the first approach in diabetes management: Critical review and evidence base, which appeared in the January, 2015 edition of the journal Nutrition (full-text and abstract quoted below), and the full-text of all of the cited references contained therein in order to draw your own conclusions from your synthesis of the available evidence:

•We present major evidence for low-carbohydrate diets as first approach for diabetes.
•Such diets reliably reduce high blood glucose, the most salient feature of diabetes.
•Benefits do not require weight loss although nothing is better for weight reduction.
•Carbohydrate-restricted diets reduce or eliminate need for medication.
•There are no side effects comparable with those seen in intensive pharmacologic treatment

The inability of current recommendations to control the epidemic of diabetes, the specific failure of the prevailing low-fat diets to improve obesity, cardiovascular risk, or general health and the persistent reports of some serious side effects of commonly prescribed diabetic medications, in combination with the continued success of low-carbohydrate diets in the treatment of diabetes and metabolic syndrome without significant side effects, point to the need for a reappraisal of dietary guidelines. The benefits of carbohydrate restriction in diabetes are immediate and well documented. Concerns about the efficacy and safety are long term and conjectural rather than data driven. Dietary carbohydrate restriction reliably reduces high blood glucose, does not require weight loss (although is still best for weight loss), and leads to the reduction or elimination of medication. It has never shown side effects comparable with those seen in many drugs. Here we present 12 points of evidence supporting the use of low-carbohydrate diets as the first approach to treating type 2 diabetes and as the most effective adjunct to pharmacology in type 1. They represent the best-documented, least controversial results. The insistence on long-term randomized controlled trials as the only kind of data that will be accepted is without precedent in science. The seriousness of diabetes requires that we evaluate all of the evidence that is available. The 12 points are sufficiently compelling that we feel that the burden of proof rests with those who are opposed.

[theathleteNR1]

The white sugar I have at home is 20 calories and 5 carbs per 5 grams. So I can easily add a couple of spoonfuls to my oats and make them a billion times more delicious for almost no harm.

Yet if I do this in front of my health conscious friends/family they have a breakdown like wtf are you doing, how can you eat sugar like that? Do you want to get fat? Lose all your gains??

Is it just brainwashing that sugar = bad or what?

sugar is good man don't stress it man. a carb is a carb for your body, go 50/50 with it.

[alan aragon]

I think it's fair to say that we hold different positions and that there's evidence of varying quality to support both positions.

That said, for those interested in an alternative interpretation of relevant research, I suggest reading the full-text of all the citations I posted earlier in this thread as well as the article entitled Dietary carbohydrate restriction as the first approach in diabetes management: Critical review and evidence base, which appeared in the January, 2015 edition of the journal Nutrition (full-text and abstract quoted below), and the full-text of all of the cited references contained therein in order to draw your own conclusions from your synthesis of the available evidence:

•We present major evidence for low-carbohydrate diets as first approach for diabetes.
•Such diets reliably reduce high blood glucose, the most salient feature of diabetes.
•Benefits do not require weight loss although nothing is better for weight reduction.
•Carbohydrate-restricted diets reduce or eliminate need for medication.
•There are no side effects comparable with those seen in intensive pharmacologic treatment

The inability of current recommendations to control the epidemic of diabetes, the specific failure of the prevailing low-fat diets to improve obesity, cardiovascular risk, or general health and the persistent reports of some serious side effects of commonly prescribed diabetic medications, in combination with the continued success of low-carbohydrate diets in the treatment of diabetes and metabolic syndrome without significant side effects, point to the need for a reappraisal of dietary guidelines. The benefits of carbohydrate restriction in diabetes are immediate and well documented. Concerns about the efficacy and safety are long term and conjectural rather than data driven. Dietary carbohydrate restriction reliably reduces high blood glucose, does not require weight loss (although is still best for weight loss), and leads to the reduction or elimination of medication. It has never shown side effects comparable with those seen in many drugs. Here we present 12 points of evidence supporting the use of low-carbohydrate diets as the first approach to treating type 2 diabetes and as the most effective adjunct to pharmacology in type 1. They represent the best-documented, least controversial results. The insistence on long-term randomized controlled trials as the only kind of data that will be accepted is without precedent in science. The seriousness of diabetes requires that we evaluate all of the evidence that is available. The 12 points are sufficiently compelling that we feel that the burden of proof rests with those who are opposed.

Puggy, consider the fact that what you quoted was a narrative review rather than a meta-analysis or a systematic review such as Ajala et al, which has a higher degree of quality/rigor. Also note that the lead author of the work you quoted (Richard Feinman) is a well-known anti-carber, same goes for other authors involved with the review (Fine, Volek. Westman, etc). Very predictable views were presented.

In contrast, I'll quote Ajala et al's systematic review/meta-analysis:

"In conclusion, our review of the existing literature on low-carbohydrate, low-GI, Mediterranean, and high-protein diets suggests that these diets may be effective in improving various markers of cardiovascular risk in people with diabetes and could have a wider role in the management of diabetes. Dietary behaviors and choices are often personal, and it is usually more realistic for a dietary modification to be individualized rather than to use a one-size-fits-all approach for each person."

[WonderPug]

Puggy, consider the fact that what you quoted was a narrative review (not a meta-analysis or a systematic review such as Ajala et al), and its lead author is a well-known anti-carber, same goes for other authors involved with the review (Fine, Volek. Westman, etc). Very predictable views presented.

Firstly, I cited a large body of studies in this thread -- studies performed by many different researchers in addition to the single article you noted.

More to the point, I would urge people interested in the subject to review the vast body of research, including the relatively large volume I cited previously in this thread, drawing conclusions based on the quality of each study's design and the preponderance of findings calibrated to study design.

I would not recommend that people discount the percentage of studies I cited that may have been performed by those who you content are "well-known anti-carber['s]", just as I would not suggest people discount studies by folks that you might cite merely because they may hold a different bias.

Simply put, I'd urge people to weight evidence based on merit.

[alan aragon]

PS - I don't have any cute pug or pin-prick graphics, so I'll just have to post video.

[alan aragon]

Firstly, I cited a large body of studies in this thread -- studies performed by many different researchers in addition to the single article you noted.

More to the point, I would urge people interested in the subject to review the vast body of research, including the relatively large volume I cited previously in this thread, drawing conclusions based on the quality of each study's design and the preponderance of findings calibrated to study design.

I would not recommend that people discount the percentage of studies I cited that may have been performed by those who you content are "well-known anti-carber['s]", just as I would not suggest people discount studies by folks that you might cite merely because they may hold a different bias.

Simply put, I'd urge people to weight evidence based on merit.

Pug, you know the bias is pretty bad when you can predict the conclusions of the paper by reading the list of authors. Be cautious of what you buy into.

[WonderPug]

Pug, you know the bias is pretty bad when you can predict the conclusions of the paper by reading the list of authors. Be cautious of what you buy into.

Finding faults with study design is fine, but discounting research based on the author of a percentage of the research cited is not fine, in my opinion.

We should revisit this topic in a decade or two, when vastly more research is available. It will be interesting to see how this unfolds.

[alan aragon]

Finding faults with study design is fine, but discounting research based on the author of a percentage of the research cited is not fine, in my opinion.

I'm talking about your overall approach here. You have a very strong keto/low-carb bias, and I'm seeing this despite the evidence presented (once again, see Ajala et al's systematic review/meta-analysis). And if you think that Volek, Fine, Feinman, et al are not biased toward the supremacy of low-carb/keto, then you need to open your eyes a bit more, my friend.

[alan aragon]

And to be clear - I would never automatically dismiss a paper based on the authors. I would just be extra cautious, especially in this case.

[germaine07]

And to be clear - I would never automatically dismiss a paper based on the authors. I would just be extra cautious, especially in this case.

Skeptical yet open-minded is how I like to describe my approach

[germaine07]

Finding faults with study design is fine, but discounting research based on the author of a percentage of the research cited is not fine, in my opinion.

We should revisit this topic in a decade or two, when vastly more research is available. It will be interesting to see how this unfolds.

The research funded by NUSI will certainly shed a bit more light on the topic!

I always find the premise behind ketogenic diets as a therapeutic aid for those with blood sugar problems, such as T2DM or IR, viable, however, in my opinion, it doesn't really stack better than the Med diet, which is abundant in CHO, when compared in the literature.

In saying that, I will read everything you have posted here, as there may some stuff I have never came across

[germaine07]

If you have a few minutes to spare, look up Dr Robert Lustig. He is brilliant man that has a viewpoint of sugar that may change the way you think of it. I have been following this doctor's studies for years.. he knows his business. Youtube search: "sugar -- the elephant in the kitchen."

Wow, people jumped on you hard.

Lustig presents a rather, overly outrageous, argument in my opinion.

[WonderPug]

Lustig presents a rather, overly outrageous, argument in my opinion.

He and Taubes have inadvertently hurt the credibility of a highly creditable hypothesis.

[germaine07]

It's been advised total sugar caloric intake should be at 10%

That's added sugar, not CHO in general.

[germaine07]

He and Taubes have inadvertently hurt the credibility of a highly creditable hypothesis.

In saying that, I actually like Taubes. I think he is actually a smart guy, I just think he has an overly simplistic, and arguably incorrect, view on what causes the obesity epidemic. It is likely multifactorial, and to blame almost entirely on insulin, is in my opinion too simplistic.

[DirtyTrickster]

[desslok]

Some things never change.

Nerds.

Came in to post this