Sugar

[JDelage]

Hi,

What is your take on sugar (the sweet stuff, not starch)? Is that something that should be pretty much extirpated from a diet? It sounds like it doesn't provide anything not already covered by other foods and is potentially detrimental to insulin sensitivity, T. production, fat loss (fructose), etc...

I'm thinking of trying 1 month eating "balanced" but removing all sweets (fruits, deserts, treats), as an experiment.

Thanks,

Joss

[Jordan Feigenbaum]

I don't think it's a big deal at all provided you're hitting you're daily macro, calorie, and fiber goals. If you do that with 'x' amount of sugar vs 'y' amount of sugar I doubt you'll notice a difference outside of the placebo effect.

[Milo's Ghost]

I don't think it's a big deal at all provided you're hitting you're daily macro, calorie, and fiber goals. If you do that with 'x' amount of sugar vs 'y' amount of sugar I doubt you'll notice a difference outside of the placebo effect.

You're not on Robert Lustig's Christmas card list, are you?

[Sean Herbison]

I don't think it's a big deal at all provided you're hitting you're daily macro, calorie, and fiber goals. If you do that with 'x' amount of sugar vs 'y' amount of sugar I doubt you'll notice a difference outside of the placebo effect.

I agree with this, provided that you're not the type of person to go totally overboard. 30g/day vs 60g/day won't matter, but I wouldn't recommend 300g/day, even if you can fit it in your macros.

[tnumrych]

removing all sweets (fruits, deserts, treats), as an experiment.

Give me dark chocolate or give me death. You couldn't pry that bar from my cold dead hands.

[Jordan Feigenbaum]

You're not on Robert Lustig's Christmas card list, are you?

I like his stuff on fructose and openly telling people not to eat sugar is a good stock recommendation for a behavioral change even if it, the sugar content of the diet in and of itself, is not that important in a literal sense.

I agree with this, provided that you're not the type of person to go totally overboard. 30g/day vs 60g/day won't matter, but I wouldn't recommend 300g/day, even if you can fit it in your macros.

Why?

[Milo's Ghost]

I like his stuff on fructose and openly telling people not to eat sugar is a good stock recommendation for a behavioral change even if it, the sugar content of the diet in and of itself, is not that important in a literal sense.

You're not in the 'sugar is poison' camp, comparing it to alcohol as a toxin, etc. Which I think is interesting to think about but I'm not sure I'm convinced.

But isn't his argument that it's the fructose in sugar (and HFCS) that causes the problems?

Also, is your 'sugar is cool' stance just meant for athletes? Would you suggest the same thing for a typical sedentary American (let's say one who might be a little fluffy but not grossly overweight or with diabetes/metabolic syndrome, obviously)?

[Jordan Feigenbaum]

You're not in the 'sugar is poison' camp, comparing it to alcohol as a toxin, etc. Which I think is interesting to think about but I'm not sure I'm convinced.

The poison is in the dose....like everything else.

But isn't his argument that it's the fructose in sugar (and HFCS) that causes the problems?

His argument is that too much fructose is bad, not necessarily that sugar. People actually need to start defining their terms when discussing this, i.e. when saying sugar do you mean table sugar (sucrose), or glucose as a component of carbohydrate-containing foods, or what? When I say sugar, I mean glucose, lactose, sucrose, or other non-fibrous, non-complex carbohydrates.

Also, is your 'sugar is cool' stance just meant for athletes? Would you suggest the same thing for a typical sedentary American (let's say one who might be a little fluffy but not grossly overweight or with diabetes/metabolic syndrome, obviously)?

I think it's fine in the right amount, i.e. one that produces favorable changes in body weight, fat mass, and supports normal biological functions. This amount of "sugar" and carbs, in general, will be lower than an "athlete".

[Milo's Ghost]

The poison is in the dose....like everything else.

Agreed. But that means there (could) be a difference between 60g/day and 300g/day. I do not know where that line is.

His argument is that too much fructose is bad, not necessarily that sugar. People actually need to start defining their terms when discussing this, i.e. when saying sugar do you mean table sugar (sucrose), or glucose as a component of carbohydrate-containing foods, or what? When I say sugar, I mean glucose, lactose, sucrose, or other non-fibrous, non-complex carbohydrates.

I mean sucrose/HFCS. I took the OP to mean that as well when he talked about giving up 'desserts and sweets,' along with straight fructose ('fruit'), but I should have been more precise. What I mean is fructose, and specifically the fructose content in sucrose/HFCS. As does Lustig, as you mentioned.

I eat dextrose (figuratively) and lactose (literally) by the gallon. I'd snort the stuff (the dex, not the milk), but people would think it's something else.

I think it's fine in the right amount, i.e. one that produces favorable changes in body weight, fat mass, and supports normal biological functions. This amount of "sugar" and carbs, in general, will be lower than an "athlete".

Harsh putting athlete in quotes, but fair enough.

[Sean Herbison]

Why?

Why? Well, basically the first part of your post.

I like his stuff on fructose and openly telling people not to eat sugar is a good stock recommendation for a behavioral change even if it, the sugar content of the diet in and of itself, is not that important in a literal sense

Nothing against sugar specifically, just the mindset that generally, but not always, goes with it, at least in large amounts. At the same time, I don't think having a neurosis about sugar intake is a useful outlook either.