Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

NuggetMDr t1_j8l732a wrote

Haven't we known this for years now?

132

beltalowda_oye t1_j8l97mq wrote

Yes but now we know... harder.

263

NuggetMDr t1_j8l9me3 wrote

Well it's good to make sure I guess

27

Coenclucy t1_j8oja9k wrote

It's never a bad thing to remind those amongst us that know, but still live an unhealthy lifestyle. I'm sure I'm one of those people or I wouldn't have scrolled the comments.

4

Darkhorseman81 t1_j8lor9i wrote

We knew from 1908 to 1936. Over 10000 animal model and 100 human model studies linking 10% sugar 3% salt diet linked to metabolic disorder and dementia.

31

Fjellapeutenvett t1_j8noxsu wrote

10% sugar intake sounds insanely high though. The question is how much normal sugar intake takes a toll on our bodies.

4

Ally_Jzzz t1_j8p0gnq wrote

10% sugar is not that much, right? At least not if you include sugars from fruit, vegetables, dairy, etc. I've been tracking and trying to control my food intake for a couple of weeks and consistently get around 10% of my total energy from sugars. And I don't even drink any beveragea that contain sugar, don't add sugar to any food or drinks myself!

4

Fjellapeutenvett t1_j8p0tim wrote

Well, this study is talking about free sugars, not fructose or lactase. So i wouldnt think your numbers are what they are talking about here, your diet sounds great. Free sugars would be added sugars in pre packaged meals or from sodas, or straight white sugar. If i understood it correctly

8

PLaTinuM_HaZe t1_j8pmiv4 wrote

How much food though is laced with high fructose corn syrup… it’s in your bread, any snack foods, candy, soda, etc. HFCS is everywhere…. Anyone who has done keto before having to track all the nutrition labels knows how bad and widespread the problem has become.

4

Fjellapeutenvett t1_j8qi25z wrote

Not where i live, but i can imagine its bad in the states.

1

PLaTinuM_HaZe t1_j8szd0g wrote

Yup... probably why I don't really eat carbs beyond low carb veggies like cruciferous vegetables or low carb fruits like avocados.

2

Ally_Jzzz t1_j8p285z wrote

Right, I see. Well that does make a big difference indeed. Thanks for clarifying.

2

OfLittleToNoValue t1_j8m9n4o wrote

I've seen many people resist reports like this to (wrongly) blame cholesterol and saturated fat.

27

gfx_bsct t1_j8oy4hc wrote

Saturated fat intake is also associated with cardiovascular disease. Cholesterol doesn't seem to be that useful of an indication, but high presence of Apo B, a lipoprotein which carries cholesterol, is associated with cardiovascular disease

5

bannedPosts t1_j8tonfn wrote

Sugars (looking at you fructose) results in the production of damaged VLDLs which elicit an inflammatory response on blood vessel walls, causing them to leak. Cholesterol's job is to plug leaks.

3

lupuscapabilis t1_j8mn7zj wrote

Well hospitals are still overwhelmingly full of people who ignore this, so it doesn’t seem like it.

15

TenaceErbaccia t1_j8mpnzf wrote

It’s not people that ignore it so much as people who were never educated about reality. The type of people that believe diet soda, gatorade, and vitamin water are health drinks. Marketing and pushing sugar addiction has really done a number on people.

16

ffxivthrowaway03 t1_j8mwj8j wrote

Lets not put diet soda in the same category as gatorade/vitamin water and perpetuate the "diet soda gives you cancer/heart disease/whatever" misinformation. Diet soda is not a "health drink" by any measure despite "health food" already being a vague and meaningless term, but there's no free sugar (or any sugar) in it whereas drinks like gatorade are full of free sugars. This particular study isn't discussing sugar substitutes and their potential effects on long term health.

22

sadi89 t1_j8q29mf wrote

Thank you. This study is purely correlation. It’s not causation. Correlation can give a good place to start when looking for cause but they are in no way the same thing.

2

jakoto0 t1_j8myp3k wrote

But if you're not sedentary and just completed vigorous exercise, some electrolytes in the form of a sports drink for example might still make sense..

−1

katarh t1_j8ni6jp wrote

My hour long resistance training session at the gym doesn't need gatorade, just some water and a good meal afterward.

That marathoner who is on mile 20 and has hit the wall, pushed through it, pooped himself, and is on the verge of passing out and is only still going due to sheer endorphins? Yep, electrolytes make a LOT of sense.

8

jakoto0 t1_j8nlpzk wrote

For sure, that's a stretch though. Any time of vigorous cardio or sport where you're sweating a lot.. I prefer mostly water but you're generally going to benefit from some electrolytes including sugars. Obviously best to get as much you can from normal diet

4

soaklord t1_j8sflx6 wrote

Electrolytes? Yes. Sugars? No. You are better off drinking pickle juice than any "electrolyte" drink. Gatorade, PowerAde, etc. are all full of free sugars. On both of my century rides (100 mile rides) I drank electrolytes in water and ate salty foods (ham and cheese). I did not need sugars to complete either of them.

1

jakoto0 t1_j8sl618 wrote

I guess it's worth noting that many sports drinks (including Gatorade & Powerade) have non-sugar or very little sugar options (gatorlyte I think?) that just have electrolytes. Completely agree with you though, just saying it's worth distinguishing from soda, for example.

2

ffxivthrowaway03 t1_j8ndt5h wrote

Oh absolutely. We need some sugars in our diet, and the occasional gatorade is no more "unhealthy" than anything else. People just want to condense everything to "good" or "bad" as if there's no room for nuance when diet and health are so much more complicated than that.

−2

SilentBeetle t1_j8o0oaf wrote

There is no dietary need for sugar. Our body DOES need glucose, but you don't need to eat sugar to get it.

Your body can and will make the glucose it needs from non-carbohydrate precursors.

5

ffxivthrowaway03 t1_j8o886v wrote

Given that this is /r/science, it's worth pointing out that glucose is a sugar.

We get enough sugars to sustain ourselves from natural sugars in the foods we eat and we don't need added sugars or "table sugar" to survive, but the sugars we need are still sugars.

2

SilentBeetle t1_j8oyz37 wrote

You pointed out that we need some sugar in our diet. Your body does not need to consume any sugar to survive. I'm well aware sugar has many forms.

0

ffxivthrowaway03 t1_j8rr3l4 wrote

If you want to get pedantically technical, we can say that you need to either consume the carbohydrates that will break down specifically into glucose or foods that directly contain glucose itself, but you can't survive with literally 0 glucose.

While we don't need to consume added sugars or already simple glucose, fructose, maltose, or sucrose, we must consume enough carbohydrates that will break down into glucose to support brain function.

Your words specifically were

>There is no dietary need for sugar.

Which is simply untrue, unless your making the argument that we could mainline glucose infused saline or something to avoid eating it, but that's silly.

0

SilentBeetle t1_j8spigl wrote

I'm not sure if you're intentionally missing the point, but the body does not need a dietary source of glucose to survive. Yes the brain needs glucose, but I'll say it again since it looks like you missed it.

Your body can and will make the glucose it needs from non-carbohydrate precursors.

0

grown t1_j8rvt58 wrote

He wasn't attacking you, don't double down on the spot you were specifically incorrect in.

−1

SilentBeetle t1_j8sp55m wrote

I pointed out that we don't need sugar in our diet to survive. Can you explain what was incorrect about what I said?

0

Tikaped t1_j8prinu wrote

We do not need carbs but if you are going to have a healthy diet you will have no other alternative since I do not think popping pills count. But I would love to be proven wrong.

The imporantant point is there should be some room for nuance. When I was young there were litterly no obesy children at my school. Maybe one or two was slightly owerwight in every class. Despite that many ate candies every saturday. Some “free sugar” was not a problem then and does not need to be a problem today.

1

katarh t1_j8nhr2p wrote

Big Sugar still trying to do their damndest to make us blame eggs instead.

12

TheNotSoGreatPumpkin t1_j8o7ou4 wrote

And fat and dietary cholesterol in general.

I’ve eaten about a dozen eggs a week for 50ish years, and my heart health is fine. Just stick to whole foods, move a lot, and don’t eat trash.

Highly processed foods are the real enemy, but that’s where most of the money is. Food corporations will almost literally crap on a plate and serve it up as a sundae.

14

Capable-Site-301 t1_j8lf2b3 wrote

More like decades.

4

kdavis37 t1_j8na96k wrote

Centuries. We've known since the early-middle 1800's at LEAST.

3

TheNotSoGreatPumpkin t1_j8o5yj9 wrote

It’s always confused me the way sugar was treated as a staple for so long.

In descriptions of daily life in the 19th century, you’ll see a provisions list like “flour, canned beans, dried meat, tallow, loaf of sugar…”

When the going was rough, why was it so important for people to have such a useless delicacy as sugar? Even the Donner Party prioritized it if my reading recollection is right.

3

PLaTinuM_HaZe t1_j8pmb04 wrote

Yea and how many studies do you still see trying to push the notion that dietary fat is the problem without controlling for sugar intake in the recipients diets and using cholesterol as their marker despite the 5 meta studies done in the past 20 years not being able to identify any meaningful association between animal fat and heart disease/early mortality. Nutrition science is such a sketchy field as the vast majority of studies are funded by corporations seeking a certain bias in the outcome to support their product.

1

Wise-War-Soni t1_j8rcrrz wrote

I feel like alot of people don’t know anything about health.

1