• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

74 percent of food products have added sugar [W:65]

EMNofSeattle said:
Alternate thread title, 74% of food is incredibly delicious.

:peace
Click to expand...


from the article "In the same 'cast, Lustig said that we need to drastically reduce average daily consumption of sugar — from 22 teaspoons now to 9 teaspoons for men and to 6 teaspoons for women — if we are to avoid the illnesses that otherwise result, and "there's no way to do it with the current food supply."
 
zyzygy said:
You have to really watch the salt when making bread. It's easy to overdo it.
Click to expand...

You can get high enough to kill the yeast....I worked for a caterer who had a roll recipe that was too high, we used to make dough balls and freeze them, she kept not understanding why after only a week or so in the freezer they would not rise. Besides bread is better with the salt down, and then with a nicely salted butter over it, her idea was bad from the get go.
 
I do think added sugar and sweet products harm us. They make for calorie dense foods and people over indulge resulting in unhealthy weight.
 
digsbe said:
I do think added sugar and sweet products harm us. They make for calorie dense foods and people over indulge resulting in unhealthy weight.
Click to expand...

Robert Lustig: How Worried Should We Be About Sugar? : NPR

About Robert Lustig's TED Talk

Sugar is a major culprit in diseases such as obesity, diabetes and dementia—and because it's in almost everything we consume, Dr. Robert Lustig says it's time to get more proactive.

About Robert Lustig

Robert Lustig is Professor of Pediatrics in the Division of Endocrinology at University of California, San Francisco, and Director of the Weight Assessment for Teen and Child Health (WATCH) Program at UCSF.
 
shrubnose said:
Half a teaspoon in two cups of coffee adds up to 1 teaspoon a day total.

I don't drink any soft drinks.I do drink half a pint of orange juice every day but I'm not going to count the natural sweetness in that.
Click to expand...

that's good, just two cups per day.
 
Militant_Vegan_ said:
wow, That's pretty high


"
The past couple of runs, I've been listening to Kelly Brownell of the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale interview Dr. Robert Lustig of the University of California at San Francisco. (Part 1, "Childhood Obesity"| Part 2, "Sugar and Processed Food") Yesterday, I was bowled over — OK, just figuratively, I did actually keep running — by Lustig's saying that 80 percent of the 600,000 food product sold have added sugar.

*I* am convinced that added sugar is pervasive, but I never would have guessed it was thus. (I inquired about the stat, first with Lustig and then with UNC's Barry Popkin, whom Lustig pointed to as his source. The final figure was more like 74 percent, Popkin said, and will be published in the next month or two.)

In the same 'cast, Lustig said that we need to drastically reduce average daily consumption of sugar — from 22 teaspoons now to 9 teaspoons for men and to 6 teaspoons for women — if we are to avoid the illnesses that otherwise result, and "there's no way to do it with the current food supply."

74 percent of food products have added sugar | Michael Prager
Click to expand...

How much sugar is in something does not mean much just as the 2000 calorie a day thing is a joke. It is calories burned vs calories consumed. Truthfully if I eat under 3-4k calories a day, I start gaining weight, I am large framed and work a physically strenuous job, while a smaller framed woman who works at a computer all day with no exercise might need less than 2000 to maintain weight.

It is all proportional to your physical build, metabolism, and lifestyle. The only really bad sugar is high fructose corn syrup, and that is because the body can nonly handle small amounts before it starts doing the same damage to the liver as heavy drinking. In normal amounts though it does not hurt anything, since the body can process high fructose, just not constant large quantities.
 
beerftw said:
How much sugar is in something does not mean much just as the 2000 calorie a day thing is a joke. It is calories burned vs calories consumed. Truthfully if I eat under 3-4k calories a day, I start gaining weight, I am large framed and work a physically strenuous job, while a smaller framed woman who works at a computer all day with no exercise might need less than 2000 to maintain weight.

It is all proportional to your physical build, metabolism, and lifestyle. The only really bad sugar is high fructose corn syrup, and that is because the body can nonly handle small amounts before it starts doing the same damage to the liver as heavy drinking. In normal amounts though it does not hurt anything, since the body can process high fructose, just not constant large quantities.
Click to expand...

cane sugar is just as bad as high fructose sugar.
 
The problem of course is that this is where we are:

sugar+5.jpg

And the minders are telling us that we should/need to go to 144.

There is no sense of reality.

I believe that this under is mislabeled, it should be HFCS and other sugars,,,but now that I see that I dont know how to delete
 

Attachments

  • Data+7.jpg
    Data+7.jpg
    14.4 KB · Views: 50
Hawkeye10 said:
I find that American deserts are too sweet by lot, this is a good place to cut sugar. I am still waiting for science to get to the bottom of if artificial sugars are bad for us, if they are not then drinks are another good place to cut.

I do think that the M.V. is on the mark in this thread.

:thumbs:
Click to expand...

Too sweet? try some british candy and deserts, they make our stuff look unsweet.
 
Militant_Vegan_ said:
cane sugar is just as bad as high fructose sugar.
Click to expand...

In actuality no not by a longshot, the body can process cane sugar, and other sugars just fine, but can only process concentrated fructose in limited quantities.

If you generally mean sugar is bad, well they did a stufy in the 1700's about that, they had 2 dogs and fed one only water and the other water loaded with sugar, and the one that ate severe loads of sugar died faster than the other. They did the experiment to see if sugar would work as cheap feed for livestock since it was high in calories.
 
beerftw said:
Too sweet? try some british candy and deserts, they make our stuff look unsweet.
Click to expand...

No thanks, I refuse to eat even the American stuff...I do a fair amount of desert catering, usually cutting the sugar 20%. I get a lot of compliments for being different, everyone around seems to have the sugar on blast. Thing is at a certain point the sugar gets so high that it weakens the flavor, everything gets swamped by the sugar rush. I have no idea why people would want that, plus the extra calories and stress on the body to boot.
 
Last edited:
beerftw said:
In actuality no not by a longshot, the body can process cane sugar, and other sugars just fine, but can only process concentrated fructose in limited quantities.

If you generally mean sugar is bad, well they did a stufy in the 1700's about that, they had 2 dogs and fed one only water and the other water loaded with sugar, and the one that ate severe loads of sugar died faster than the other. They did the experiment to see if sugar would work as cheap feed for livestock since it was high in calories.
Click to expand...

i trust the author of the article more than I do you.

"The researchers found that for every additional 150 calories of sugar (the amount that's in a 12-ounce can of soda) available per person per day, the prevalence of diabetes in the population rose 1 percent. They compared that against an additional 150 calories from any type of food, which caused only a 0.1 percent increase in the population's diabetes rate over the past decade."

Sugar's Role In Rise Of Diabetes Gets Clearer : The Salt : NPR
 
beerftw said:
In actuality no not by a longshot, the body can process cane sugar, and other sugars just fine, but can only process concentrated fructose in limited quantities.

If you generally mean sugar is bad, well they did a stufy in the 1700's about that, they had 2 dogs and fed one only water and the other water loaded with sugar, and the one that ate severe loads of sugar died faster than the other. They did the experiment to see if sugar would work as cheap feed for livestock since it was high in calories.
Click to expand...

I was reading not long ago that the fact that the body processes different sugars and carbs differently seems to be a recent revelation. Just goes to show how little we know about this stuff, we should be very careful to not oversell ideas of what a "healthy" diet is.
 
Militant_Vegan_ said:
i trust the author of the article more than I do you.

"The researchers found that for every additional 150 calories of sugar (the amount that's in a 12-ounce can of soda) available per person per day, the prevalence of diabetes in the population rose 1 percent. They compared that against an additional 150 calories from any type of food, which caused only a 0.1 percent increase in the population's diabetes rate over the past decade."

Sugar's Role In Rise Of Diabetes Gets Clearer : The Salt : NPR
Click to expand...

They say that but these were the same people who said diabetes skips a generation, and my father is proof that is false. The same scientists who swore butter was unhealthy and pushed margerine, my aunt personally dealt with scientists who pushed it, and they admitted butter was healthier, but they pushed artificial butter because everyone was scared of a heart attack.

Same people who screamed that cholesterol in food controls blood cholesterol, and since then scientists have been saying otherwise. Lifetime vegans have died of high cholesterol, and lifetime bacon fanatics have had low cholesterol. No one still knows even for sure, but they are starting to believe genetics plus overall diet affect blood cholesteral, rather than cholesteral in food.

I can go on all day how wrong so many of these food scientists have been.
 
beerftw said:
They say that but these were the same people who said diabetes skips a generation, and my father is proof that is false. The same scientists who swore butter was unhealthy and pushed margerine, my aunt personally dealt with scientists who pushed it, and they admitted butter was healthier, but they pushed artificial butter because everyone was scared of a heart attack.

Same people who screamed that cholesterol in food controls blood cholesterol, and since then scientists have been saying otherwise. Lifetime vegans have died of high cholesterol, and lifetime bacon fanatics have had low cholesterol. No one still knows even for sure, but they are starting to believe genetics plus overall diet affect blood cholesteral, rather than cholesteral in food.

I can go on all day how wrong so many of these food scientists have been.
Click to expand...

just trust the food industry and believe what they tell you, then.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom