So, how much sugar do you consume?

dastardly00

Over the past year or so I've been trying to steadily reduce my sugar intake.

I've managed to really cut down on the amount of sweets, chocolate, fizzy sugary drinks and other crap I have, and as a result my sugar intake has decreased. These days I rarely have sweets, the majority of the chocolate I eat is the Moser (70% cocoa solids) chocolate from Aldi, and if I have a fizzy drink, it's the sugar-free/diet version.

My daily sugar intake usually comes from the following: 400ml of 2% low-fat milk (~20g of sugar); an apple (~14g); a banana (~14g); 170g of Greek yogurt (~7g); 15g of no-added sugar jam (~7g); 100g of grapes (~15g) home-made protein bar (~5g); and 30g of whey protein (~4g).
This brings me up to a rough total of 80-90g of sugar per day.
Add in the odd bar of chocolate or a glass of orange juice or some more milk, and my sugar intake spikes up a good bit.

My daily sugar consumption (from my food diary on myfitnesspal) for the last 90 days is shown below (just to note, that peak in the middle is from a day that I did 120km of cycling! :P).



So, my question to the healthy folks of this forum is: how much sugar do you consume? I'd like to get an idea of how other posters keep their sugar intake down. I'll add a poll as well

dor843088

Most of the food you consume ends up as sugar anyway so I dont stress about it and neither should you.

siochain

Carbs in general or just Glucose, sucrose, Fructos etc as in ingredients ?

siochain

dor843088 wrote: »

Most of the food you consume ends up as sugar anyway so I dont stress about it and neither should you.

I world say this should be of concern, the effects from the sugars that come from the body breaking down a wholesome meat and two veg dinner is going to be very different than those coming from consuming the equivalent amount of sugars from sweets.

dastardly00

siochain wrote: »

Carbs in general or just Glucose, sucrose, Fructos etc as in ingredients ?

Whatever is labeled as sugar on the nutritional info (in reference to the poll). But if you know what portion is glucose, sucrose, fructose, that'd actually be interesting to know and nutrionally relevant I'm sure.

Sephya

dastardly00 wrote: »

how much sugar do you consume? I'd like to get an idea of how other posters keep their sugar intake down.

alot more than 160g keep sugar down? not me.

rubadub

dastardly00 wrote: »

Whatever is labeled as sugar on the nutritional info (in reference to the poll).

Full sugar lilt & cidona have less sugar than skimmed milk per 100ml, which is about half of what is in coke which is frequently said to contain *insert stupid number* spoons of sugar per can.

I'd be less worried about the natural sugars in the milk.

siochain

dastardly00 wrote: »

Whatever is labeled as sugar on the nutritional info (in reference to the poll). But if you know what portion is glucose, sucrose, fructose, that'd actually be interesting to know and nutrionally relevant I'm sure.

Sorry can't help much, must stuff in the press don't have a label and the ones that do have feck all sugar (oils, nuts...)

dor843088

siochain wrote: »

I world say this should be of concern, the effects from the sugars that come from the body breaking down a wholesome meat and two veg dinner is going to be very different than those coming from consuming the equivalent amount of sugars from sweets.

Is that your opinion or is it based on something more than that ? Last time I checked almost everything we consume is converted to glucose be it a carrot or a candy cane .

dor843088

w.youtube.com/watch?v=_TlKBIOGXrA&feature=youtube_gdata_player

siochain

dor843088 wrote: »

Is that your opinion or is it based on something more than that ? Last time I checked almost everything we consume is converted to glucose be it a carrot or a candy cane .

Yes and no, depends on if your in a calorie deficit or what the particular needs of the body at that time.

Macros and broken down into micro nutrients and utilised accordingly by our bodies with the help of insulin.

Protein converts to amino acids and if they are not utilised by the body they are converted to glucose or fat. Or if needed converted straight to glucose if there has been a shortage of the other two macros.

Fat converts to fatty acids and if they are not used right away for energy they convert to triglycerides and then on to our fat cells.

But then that wasn't what I was pointing out. I am saying that you should be concerned about the source of your sugars as in highly processed or the ones converted naturally.


Above is high level there are some other intermediary steps but you get the idea?

dor843088

siochain wrote: »

Yes and no, depends on if your in a calorie deficit or what the particular needs of the body at that time.

Macros and broken down into micro nutrients and utilised accordingly by our bodies with the help of insulin.

Protein converts to amino acids and if they are not utilised by the body they are converted to glucose or fat. Or if needed converted straight to glucose if there has been a shortage of the other two macros.

Fat converts to fatty acids and if they are not used right away for energy they convert to triglycerides and then on to our fat cells.

But then that wasn't what I was pointing out. I am saying that you should be concerned about the source of your sugars as in highly processed or the ones converted naturally.


Above is high level there are some other intermediary steps but you get the idea?

But why should I be concerned if the sugars I consume are simple or not since they are going to be broken down into simple sugars anyway.

siochain

try google or read a few books.

Give a man a fish \ teach a man to fish an all that......

dor843088

siochain wrote: »

try google or read a few books.

Give a man a fish \ teach a man to fish an all that......

I didnt want to be educated I was challenging you to give me a reason.

siochain

One simple reason why I would be concerned where my source of sugars comes from

Having one of the following for breakfast

Option 1. Two apples: The average apple lets say has 14g of sugar. Primarily due to the apples fiber content the blood sugar levels will rise slower and have a better satiety effect.

Option 2. 28g of sugar straight up: sugar rises and falls quickly, craving more sugary and possibly processed foods with low nutritional value.

Over a period of time option 2 will have negative health consequences.

If you have a different opinion do share.

dor843088

siochain wrote: »

One simple reason why I would be concerned where my source of sugars comes from

Having one of the following for breakfast

Option 1. Two apples: The average apple lets say has 14g of sugar. Primarily due to the apples fiber content the blood sugar levels will rise slower and have a better satiety effect.

Option 2. 28g of sugar straight up: sugar rises and falls quickly, craving more sugary and possibly processed foods with low nutritional value.

Over a period of time option 2 will have negative health consequences.

If you have a different opinion do share.

Over a period of time option 2 will have what negative health consequences?

siochain

dor843088 wrote: »

Over a period of time option 2 will have what negative health consequences?

Are you trolling or care to enlighten the tread with your thoughts?

dor843088

siochain wrote: »

Are you trolling or care to enlighten the tread with your thoughts?

Not trolling at all . You posted that sugar intake should be of concern . I asked you why and have not had an answer as of yet. The simple answer is the only sugar that MAY be of any concern to anyone in regards to limiting its intake for health purposes is fructose and even the science is sketchy at best . Your argument was based on satiety , fair enough but im not worried about it and neither should anyone else who has a reasonably active lifestyle .

siochain

dor843088 wrote: »

I asked you why and have not had an answer as of yet.

gave a clear answer as to why i would be concerned, there are several more. But over to you now and please share your facts.

Your argument was based on satiety

False, satiety, the fact that sugars are consumed at the same time pectin, stable blood sugar are 3 examples of the benefit of the sugars coming from whole foods.

The simple answer is the only sugar that MAY be of any concern to anyone in regards to limiting its intake for health purposes is fructose and even the science is sketchy at best .

Is a diet based on high quantities of sugar sustainable for good health versus a diet whereby the only sugars are naturally derived from whole unprocessed food sources?

Sephya

siochain wrote: »

Is a diet based on high quantities of sugar sustainable for good health versus a diet whereby the only sugars are naturally derived from whole unprocessed food sources?

sugar = the bodys preferred fuel

siochain

Sephya wrote: »

sugar = the bodys preferred fuel

processed sugar = bodies preferred way of swelling existing fat cells and creating new ones.


processed sugar = bodies preferred way of fueling diabetes

Sephya

siochain wrote: »

processed sugar = bodies preferred way of swelling existing fat cells and creating new ones.

every cell in the body prefers glucose, therefore it will rarely store glucose.

i'm not saying the body can't store glucose. It can, but it would rather use it than go through the process of storing it.

if the body has to choose between glucose and fat, it will use the glucose which it prefers and store the fat which would supply more calories in a time of need.

siochain wrote: »

processed sugar = bodies preferred way of fueling diabetes

lol

siochain

Sephya wrote: »

every cell in the body prefers glucose

true because there is no processing required and its a very efficient energy source. Problem is the average joe consume to much sugar and that's why the average joe will develop some form of cancer, diabetes or CVD.



[/quote] therefore it will rarely store glucose. [/quote] false, look around any town in Ireland all those fat people are due to over consumption of processed foods containing hight levels of sugar and trans fats.

[/quote]i'm not saying the body can't store glucose. [/quote] now your talking

[/quote]It can, but it would rather use it than go through the process of storing it. [/quote]. Wrong in the majority to people





lol[/quote] share the joke

Sephya

siochain wrote: »

true because there is no processing required and its a very efficient energy source. Problem is the average joe consume to much sugar and that's why the average joe will develop some form of cancer, diabetes or CVD.

the average joe consumes way to much fat, not sugar.

siochain

Sephya wrote: »

the average joe consumes way to much fat, not sugar.

That's so 20 years ago . Take some time do some research.

Sephya

siochain wrote: »

That's so 20 years ago . Take some time do some research.

you're assuming i haven't..

mike65

Processed sugars are the enemy.

I don't add sugar to anything and I don't have a diet which tends to be big on the kind of food stuffs which have a lot of sugar added (baked beans, pizzas, ketchup etc).

siochain

mike65 wrote: »

Processed sugars are the enemy.

I don't add sugar to anything and I don't have a diet which tends to be big on the kind of food stuffs which have a lot of sugar added (baked beans, pizzas, ketchup etc).

Mike as a matter if interest have you always eaten like that or did you at some point make a conscious decision to make a change?

If it was the latter what difference did it make to you?

siochain

Sephya wrote: »

you're assuming i haven't..

Yeah it seems pretty clear but I would be open to seeing the results of your research. Please share.

Stench Blossoms

Sephya wrote: »

you're assuming i haven't..

Very clear you haven't.

mike65

siochain wrote: »

Mike as a matter if interest have you always eaten like that or did you at some point make a conscious decision to make a change?

If it was the latter what difference did it make to you?

I'm diabetic type 1 since childhood so I'm aware of sugars and carbs and the differences between the two and differences between types of sugar and carbs. Ultimately my energy intake is best described as "low impact" and slow burn in nature (starchy and fibrous)

dor843088

Anti sugar havent a clue brigade are too many to argue in here . Still not a valid reason to be concerned with sugar intake . Satiety lol . Blood sugar levels lol . Two rediculous arguments when some of your favourite health nut touted veggies have a higher gi than sugar. Add that to the fact that sugar (with maybe the exception of sugary drinks) is not consumed in isolation. Therefore its gi score is irrelevant and so is its satiety rating and evil blood sugar raising properties.

Ps resorting to strawman arguments saying that veggies are better than sugar makes your argument look even weaker than it already is . Stick to the point . Why someone should be concerned with sugar intake.

siochain

dor843088 wrote: »

Anti sugar havent a clue brigade are too many to argue in here . Still not a valid reason to be concerned with sugar intake . Satiety lol . Blood sugar levels lol . Two rediculous arguments when some of your favourite health nut touted veggies have a higher gi than sugar. Add that to the fact that sugar (with maybe the exception of sugary drinks) is not consumed in isolation. Therefore its gi score is irrelevant and so is its satiety rating and evil blood sugar raising properties.

Ps resorting to strawman arguments saying that veggies are better than sugar makes your argument look even weaker than it already is . Stick to the point . Why someone should be concerned with sugar intake.

Your the expect and really convincing with the replies of 'lol'

Calling you out as you are talking total BS and contributes nothing constructive to the tread. Offer us one clue that you know what you are talking about.

Mr. CooL ICE

dor843088 wrote: »

Satiety lol . Blood sugar levels lol . Two rediculous arguments when some of your favourite health nut touted veggies have a higher gi than sugar. Add that to the fact that sugar (with maybe the exception of sugary drinks) is not consumed in isolation. Therefore its gi score is irrelevant and so is its satiety rating and evil blood sugar raising properties.

Who said GI score was relevant or otherwise?

dor843088

LordChessington wrote: »

Who said GI score was relevant or otherwise?

Siochain stated unstable blood sugar as a reason to limit sugar.

siochain

Yes the average Joe who gets little or no exercise should be concerned about sugar consumption

siochain wrote: »

Calling you out as you are talking total BS and contributes nothing constructive to the tread. Offer us one clue that you know what you are talking about.

Still waiting?

Some light reading.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23763695
Resolved: there is sufficient scientific evidence that decreasing sugar-sweetened beverage consumption will reduce the prevalence of obesity and obesity-related diseases.
Hu FB.
Source
Departments of Nutrition and Epidemiology, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA 02115, USA. frank.hu@channing.harvard.edu
Abstract
Sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) are the single largest source of added sugar and the top source of energy intake in the U.S. diet. In this review, we evaluate whether there is sufficient scientific evidence that decreasing SSB consumption will reduce the prevalence of obesity and its related diseases. Because prospective cohort studies address dietary determinants of long-term weight gain and chronic diseases, whereas randomized clinical trials (RCTs) typically evaluate short-term effects of specific interventions on weight change, both types of evidence are critical in evaluating causality. Findings from well-powered prospective cohorts have consistently shown a significant association, established temporality and demonstrated a direct dose-response relationship between SSB consumption and long-term weight gain and risk of type 2 diabetes (T2D). A recently published meta-analysis of RCTs commissioned by the World Health Organization found that decreased intake of added sugars significantly reduced body weight (0.80 kg, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.39-1.21; P < 0.001), whereas increased sugar intake led to a comparable weight increase (0.75 kg, 0.30-1.19; P = 0.001). A parallel meta-analysis of cohort studies also found that higher intake of SSBs among children was associated with 55% (95% CI 32-82%) higher risk of being overweight or obese compared with those with lower intake. Another meta-analysis of eight prospective cohort studies found that one to two servings per day of SSB intake was associated with a 26% (95% CI 12-41%) greater risk of developing T2D compared with occasional intake (less than one serving per month). Recently, two large RCTs with a high degree of compliance provided convincing data that reducing consumption of SSBs significantly decreases weight gain and adiposity in children and adolescents. Taken together, the evidence that decreasing SSBs will decrease the risk of obesity and related diseases such as T2D is compelling. Several additional issues warrant further discussion. First, prevention of long-term weight gain through dietary changes such as limiting consumption of SSBs is more important than short-term weight loss in reducing the prevalence of obesity in the population. This is due to the fact that once an individual becomes obese, it is difficult to lose weight and keep it off. Second, we should consider the totality of evidence rather than selective pieces of evidence (e.g. from short-term RCTs only). Finally, while recognizing that the evidence of harm on health against SSBs is strong, we should avoid the trap of waiting for absolute proof before allowing public health action to be taken.
© 2013 The Author. obesity reviews © 2013 International Association for the Study of Obesity.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23948693
Ann Nutr Metab. 2013;63(1-2):96-102. doi: 10.1159/000353207. Epub 2013 Aug 14.
Health significance of fat quality in the diet.
Nettleton JA, Villalpando S, Cassani RS, Elmadfa I.
Source
ScienceVoice Consulting, Denver, Colo., USA.
Abstract
This paper summarizes three presentations on the global and Latin American perspectives on the health significance of fat quality in the diet given at the 16th Congress of the Society of Latin American Nutrition in Havana, Cuba, November 11-16, 2012. Dietary fat quality contributes to the risk of the leading chronic diseases and is more important than fat quantity in reducing the risk of chronic disease mortality, especially from cardiovascular disease (CVD). In many countries, the consumption of saturated fats exceeds the recommended limit of 10% energy (%E) and intakes of polyunsaturated fats (PUFAs) are often below the recommended range of 6-11%E. Consumption of long-chain ω-3 PUFAs is especially low. In many Latin American countries, high consumption of carbohydrates, especially sugars, contributes to obesity, diabetes, hypertension and CVD, while intakes of total fat and PUFAs may be low. Thus, dietary fat recommendations must consider the dietary fat patterns of each country. Nutrition counseling can be effective in teaching individuals and families to modify their food intake patterns and control the major risk factors for chronic disease.
Copyright © 2013 S. Karger AG, Basel.
PMID: 23948693 [PubMed - in process]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23999278
Beverage-Consumption Patterns and Associations with Metabolic Risk Factors among Low-Income Latinos with Uncontrolled Type 2 Diabetes.
Wang ML, Lemon SC, Olendzki B, Rosal MC.
Abstract
In the United States, Latinos experience disproportionately higher rates of type 2 diabetes and diabetes-related complications than non-Latino whites. Sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) consumption is strongly associated with increased risk of developing type 2 diabetes. Reducing caloric intake, particularly from energy-dense, low-nutrient foods or beverages, can be an effective and key strategy for metabolic and weight control. However, little is known about the contribution of various types of beverages, including but not limited to SSBs, to total caloric intake among Latinos with type 2 diabetes. Low-income Latinos (87.7% Puerto Rican) participating in a diabetes self-management intervention trial (N=238) provided cross-sectional, descriptive data on beverage-consumption patterns, anthropometric outcomes, and metabolic characteristics. Beverages accounted for one fifth of the total daily caloric intake. SSBs and milk beverages, respectively, contributed 9.6% of calories to overall daily caloric intake. Interventions directed at diabetes risk factors among low-income Latinos with diabetes can benefit from consideration of beverage-consumption behaviors as an important strategy to reduce caloric and sugar intake.
Copyright © 2013 Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
KEYWORDS:
Beverage consumption, Latinos, Low-income, Type 2 diabetes

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24273064

Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Intake and the Risk of Type I and Type II Endometrial Cancer among Postmenopausal Women.
Inoue-Choi M, Robien K, Mariani A, Cerhan JR, Anderson KE.
Source
Authors' Affiliations: Division of Epidemiology and Community Health, School of Public Health, University of Minnesota; Masonic Cancer Center, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine; Division of Epidemiology, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester, Minnesota; and Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health and Health Services, George Washington University, Washington, District of Columbia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND:
Sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) intake has been associated with an increased risk of obesity and type II diabetes. However, its association with endometrial cancer is unclear.
METHODS:
We evaluated dietary intake of SSB, fruit juice, sugar-free beverages, sweets/baked goods, starch, and sugars among 23,039 postmenopausal women in the Iowa Women's Health Study. Incident estrogen-dependent type I and estrogen-independent type II endometrial cancers were identified via linkage with the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results Registry. Risks of type I and type II endometrial cancers were separately compared by energy-adjusted dietary intake in Cox proportional hazards regression models.
RESULTS:
From 1986 to 2010, 506 type I and 89 type II incident endometrial cancers were identified. An increased risk of type I endometrial cancer was observed with increasing SSB intake after adjustment for body mass index (BMI) and other cofounders (Ptrend = 0.0005). Compared with nondrinkers of SSB, the risk was 78% higher [95% confidence intervals (CI), 1.32-2.40] among women in the highest quintile of SSB intake. The observed association was not modified by BMI, physical activity, history of diabetes, or cigarette smoking. Higher risk of type I endometrial cancer was also observed with higher intake of sugars. None of the dietary items included in the analysis was associated with type II endometrial cancer risk.
CONCLUSION:
Higher intake of SSB and sugars was associated with an increased risk of type I, but not type II, endometrial cancer.
IMPACT:
SSB intake may be a risk factor for type I endometrial cancer regardless of other lifestyle factors. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 22(12); 2384-94. ©2013 AACR

dor843088

All that just to prove nothing . The correlation between fat people and sugar is obvious. However correlation does not mean causation. I could make a correlation between being black in the U.S and going to prison but that doesnt mean the colour of my skin makes me commit crimes. You have proved nothing . Show me a study where intake of sugar can be confirmed as the cause for any negative health issues not a bull**** correlation study.

siochain

siochain wrote: »

Calling you out as you are talking total BS and contributes nothing constructive to the tread. Offer us one clue that you know what you are talking about.

still waiting?

dor843088

siochain wrote: »

still waiting?

Still waiting on what ? Me to prove to you I know what im talking about? What a bull**** question is that what you have resorted to ? It should be really easy to come up with just one reason to avoid or limit sugar no? Youv had all day. Lol

dor843088

Resorting to quizzing me over what I do and do not know ?

siochain

dor843088 wrote: »

Resorting to quizzing me over what I do and do not know ?

are you for real? That's what you have been doing of anyone that posts here and you can't offer anything to the tread except some BS from a bodybuilding youtube clip.

Seriously getting for you now.

dor843088

siochain wrote: »

are you for real? That's what you have been doing of anyone that posts here and you can't offer anything to the tread except some BS from a bodybuilding youtube clip.

Seriously getting for you now.

youv had all day to prove the bull**** youv been spouting and hqve failed miserably and even tried to con me and look superior with a few bull**** studies in which you thought correlation would prove your point but only succeeded in making yourself look silly and not even understand the studies yourself . You have no business questioning me as you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. You come into this thread spout rubbish and when asked to back it up try to con your way out with a load of rubbish . Im done dealing with you now . Goodbye.

siochain

dor843088 wrote: »

youv had all day to prove the bull**** youv been spouting and hqve failed miserably and even tried to con me and look superior with a few bull**** studies in which you thought correlation would prove your point but only succeeded in making yourself look silly and not even understand the studies yourself . You have no business questioning me as you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. You come into this thread spout rubbish and when asked to back it up try to con your way out with a load of rubbish . Im done dealing with you now . Goodbye.

pubmed V's bodybuilder youtube clip. Let me think

in all fairness most primary school kids would tell you too much sugar is not good for us.

Mr. CooL ICE

dor843088 wrote: »

You come into this thread spout rubbish and when asked to back it up try to con your way out with a load of rubbish

Not a hint of irony...

mike65

Someone is eating too much sugar.