Siúcra Packets - Taking the Piss??

Parsley

Was just reading the side of the ole pack of sugar today over breakfast, on the sides it has loads of spurious sh*te along the lines of "a high carbohydrate, low fat diet is key for fat loss" and other things along those lines. It also claimed to be "moderate GI".

Grab a pack and have a look yerselves. How're they allowed away with this crap?

El_Dangeroso

Parsley wrote: »

Was just reading the side of the ole pack of sugar today over breakfast, on the sides it has loads of spurious sh*te along the lines of "a high carbohydrate, low fat diet is key for fat loss" and other things along those lines. It also claimed to be "moderate GI".

Grab a pack and have a look yerselves. How're they allowed away with this crap?

But it is moderate GI..:D

I actually noticed that the other day when I bought a packet of sugar for the first time in ages. (Relatives staying and they haven't yet succumbed to my nagging on the evils of sugary tea )

I had a good chuckle. The best bit was 'Sugar consumption has shown no association with chronic diseases'. Hahaha! I really want their source on that one. Even if it was true (it's not) why oh why would you draw attention to the fact that some people have said that refined sugar consumption causes chronic disease? Someone needs to go back to marketing school methinks.

teacosy

Maybe you have your sugars mixed up? Sucrose not really the big bad wolf it's often believed to be. A recent review of the evidence;

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20047137

Mellor

Parsley wrote: »

Was just reading the side of the ole pack of sugar today over breakfast, on the sides it has loads of spurious sh*te along the lines of "a high carbohydrate, low fat diet is key for fat loss" and other things along those lines. It also claimed to be "moderate GI".

Grab a pack and have a look yerselves. How're they allowed away with this crap?

Well, because one is an opinion and the the other is a true fact etc

El_Dangeroso

teacosy wrote: »

Maybe you have your sugars mixed up? Sucrose not really the big bad wolf it's often believed to be. A recent review of the evidence;

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20047137

Hehehe, just read the full text of that paper for a laugh (did you?).. better than stand-up comedy. Check out the funding source..

I'm having candyfloss for dinner!:D

teacosy

Temple_Grandin wrote: »

Hehehe, just read the full text of that paper for a laugh (did you?).. better than stand-up comedy. Check out the funding source..

I'm having candyfloss for dinner!:D

Fair enough so. But why don't you find me the reputable, recent review of the evidence for Sucrose (table sugar) CAUSING chronic disease, i.e. heart disease, cancers etc. If it's so obvious it shouldn't be too difficult!

Macha

teacosy wrote: »

Fair enough so. But why don't you find me the reputable, recent review of the evidence for Sucrose (table sugar) CAUSING chronic disease, i.e. heart disease, cancers etc. If it's so obvious it shouldn't be too difficult!

*Drumroll*

El_Dangeroso

teacosy wrote: »

Fair enough so. But why don't you find me the reputable, recent review of the evidence for Sucrose (table sugar) CAUSING chronic disease, i.e. heart disease, cancers etc. If it's so obvious it shouldn't be too difficult!

Why would I bother? Anyone with half a brain knows that sugar is bad for you.

I'm not gonna do your research for you. If you want to believe that sugar has been unfairly demonised then off you go. If you want to actually look at papers that weren't funded by the sugar industry to cherry-pick and manipulate results (examining the effects of sugar while statistically controlling for glycemic load, do you not see the inherent contradiction in the abstract?) then I'll get you started:

Sugar and Obesity

Sugar and triglycerides

Sugar and Diabetes

But I suspect you don't want to do any research, 'cos you've already made up your mind.

teacosy

Temple_Grandin wrote: »

Why would I bother? Anyone with half a brain knows that sugar is bad for you.

I'm not gonna do your research for you. If you want to believe that sugar has been unfairly demonised then off you go. If you want to actually look at papers that weren't funded by the sugar industry to cherry-pick and manipulate results (examining the effects of sugar while statistically controlling for glycemic load, do you not see the inherent contradiction in the abstract?) then I'll get you started:

Sugar and Obesity

Sugar and triglycerides

Sugar and Diabetes

But I suspect you don't want to do any research, 'cos you've already made up your mind.

Hmmmm. I'm really not looking for a argument on this one. Believe it or not I spend much of my working life reading nutrition research. The evidence really isn't there for a direct association between sugar intake and many chronic diseases. For example, even for people with diabetes, we allow moderate intakes of free sugars (up to 50 g/day).

The key word, as with most foods, is moderate. Nothing wrong with a bit of table sugar here and there, even if you have diabetes. using a bit of table sugar in your porridge or tea won't give you diabetes, cancer or any other major disease ( although it won't do your teeth any favours if you don't have good dental hygiene). And i don't work for Siucra.

El_Dangeroso

teacosy wrote: »

Hmmmm. I'm really not looking for a argument on this one.

I apologise, I really thought that you were.

teacosy wrote: »

I Believe it or not I spend much of my working life reading nutrition research. The evidence really isn't there for a direct association between sugar intake and many chronic diseases. For example, even for people with diabetes, we allow moderate intakes of free sugars (up to 50 g/day).

The key word, as with most foods, is moderate. Nothing wrong with a bit of table sugar here and there, even if you have diabetes. using a bit of table sugar in your porridge or tea won't give you diabetes, cancer or any other major disease ( although it won't do your teeth any favours if you don't have good dental hygiene). And i don't work for Siucra.

Ahh moderation, has to be the vaguest word in existence. If you spend your working life researching nutrition then you know the whole point of eating food is to provide your body with nutrients. Sugar not only contains no micronutrients at all, it actively consumes nutrients in it's digestion (B vits, vitamin C, other anti-oxidants).

The fact is that refined sugar ONLY does bad things in the body, and you don't need a single gram of it to live a healthy life. I think good nutrition is all about getting the most nutritional bang for your calorie buck.

Not all sugars are to be completely avoided, but refined sugar is something we can all benefit from living without.

(BTW I hope the people advocating 50g/day refined sugars for diabetics eventually get the ass sued off them for malpractice, absolutely ridiculous situation :mad:)

teacosy

Temple_Grandin wrote: »

I apologise, I really thought that you were.



Ahh moderation, has to be the vaguest word in existence. If you spend your working life researching nutrition then you know the whole point of eating food is to provide your body with nutrients. Sugar not only contains no micronutrients at all, it actively consumes nutrients in it's digestion (B vits, vitamin C, other anti-oxidants).

The fact is that refined sugar ONLY does bad things in the body, and you don't need a single gram of it to live a healthy life. I think good nutrition is all about getting the most nutritional bang for your calorie buck.

Not all sugars are to be completely avoided, but refined sugar is something we can all benefit from living without.

(BTW I hope the people advocating 50g/day refined sugars for diabetics eventually get the ass sued off them for malpractice, absolutely ridiculous situation :mad:)

I'm not sure any amount of evidence is going to convince you that there's nothing wrong with a bit of sugar here and there!
I understand that many people hold some very strong views on nutrition. However, i also know that for many many aspects of nutrition, the situation is far from black and white. It is a very complicated science.

El_Dangeroso

teacosy wrote: »

I'm not sure any amount of evidence is going to convince you that there's nothing wrong with a bit of sugar here and there!
I understand that many people hold some very strong views on nutrition. However, i also know that for many many aspects of nutrition, the situation is far from black and white. It is a very complicated science.

What evidence exactly? That one single badly constructed and biased review? If you can show me a population that consumes refined sugar and has very very low rates of cancer, heart-disease, stroke and diabetes, then I'll take that into consideration. Personally I've yet to come across one.

I'm well aware nutrition is a very complicated science and contradictions abound. That's why I look to the foods that have sustained healthy populations with low rates or even complete absence of chronic disease or the so-called 'diseases of civilisation' for thousands of years. They all vary in macronutrient ratios, but they all have a few things in common. One of those things is a complete lack of refined sugars.

There is not one defensible thing about recommending refined sugar as 'part of a balanced diet'. If you really really want to eat it then fine, it's your choice but don't pretend for a second it's not without an eventual consequence.

teacosy

Temple_Grandin wrote: »

There is not one defensible thing about recommending refined sugar as 'part of a balanced diet'. If you really really want to eat it then fine, it's your choice but don't pretend for a second it's not without an eventual consequence.

Right so, i'll take my chances.