Re: claim: sugar doesn't crowd out nutrients

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 10/10/04 11:07:04 AM Eastern Daylight Time, perspect1111@... writes [about Atkins peaking]:

http://www.foodingredientsfirst.com/newsmaker_article.asp?

idNewsMaker=6625 & fSite=AO545

http://snipurl.com/9o3h

a link there goes to the improbable:

http://www.foodingredientsfirst.com/newsmaker_article.asp?idNewsMaker=6634 & fSite=AO545

http://tinyurl.com/5z2lk

"Added sugars do not affect diet quality- study

Says added sugars do not displaces essential vitamins and minerals in the diet."

wherein links to the press release:

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2004-10/vt-crf100704.php

which says:

In the CFNP study that was supported in part by an unrestricted gift from the Sugar Association, Inc., Forshee and Storey used the same data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey III (NHANES III) that the IOM used in its report but applied an alternative statistical approach. The authors used multiple regression to partition total energy into energy from added sugars and energy from other sources. This approach produced very different results than IOM's original analysis.

"Whereas the IOM reported that increasing added sugars will decrease intakes of some micronutrients, our results showed that the association of energy from added sugars with micronutrient intake was inconsistent and small," Storey said. "Energy from other sources had a much stronger and consistent association with micronutrient intake.

Hard to believe, but hey... it's an observation on statistics.

--

Ken

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 10/12/04 9:41:44 AM Eastern Daylight Time, jwwright@... writes:

I guess what the one is saying is that sucrose does not "displace", ie, remove nutrients from other sources.

yes, and the opposite has been a topic on this group - though this sugar study seems to be claiming that fat ("other sources") is the real culprit that crowds out nutrition

But I'm looking at it more as an possible exercise in creative statistics. In college, we had a book called "How to Lie With Statistics". And everybody probably knows what Mark Twain said. Still, there is some chance that their study is correct. It woiuld be interesting to see a critique/expose of it.

--

KEN

[Guest guest]

Who cares about the wording - it's obvious that if I eat sucrose for energy instead of rice, eg, I will not get the nutrients in rice.

I guess what the one is saying is that sucrose does not "displace", ie, remove nutrients from other sources. But comparing diets with the same calories something has to change, right?

So they are both right, englishwise. (just looking at your post).

Regards.

----- Original Message -----

From: bpinfo@...

Sent: Monday, October 11, 2004 11:40 PM

Subject: Re: [ ] claim: sugar doesn't crowd out nutrients

In a message dated 10/10/04 11:07:04 AM Eastern Daylight Time, perspect1111@... writes [about Atkins peaking]:

http://www.foodingredientsfirst.com/newsmaker_article.asp?idNewsMaker=6625 & fSite=AO545http://snipurl.com/9o3ha link there goes to the improbable:http://www.foodingredientsfirst.com/newsmaker_article.asp?idNewsMaker=6634 & fSite=AO545http://tinyurl.com/5z2lk"Added sugars do not affect diet quality- study Says added sugars do not displaces essential vitamins and minerals in the diet."wherein links to the press release:http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2004-10/vt-crf100704.phpwhich says:In the CFNP study that was supported in part by an unrestricted gift from the Sugar Association, Inc., Forshee and Storey used the same data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey III (NHANES III) that the IOM used in its report but applied an alternative statistical approach. The authors used multiple regression to partition total energy into energy from added sugars and energy from other sources. This approach produced very different results than IOM's original analysis. "Whereas the IOM reported that increasing added sugars will decrease intakes of some micronutrients, our results showed that the association of energy from added sugars with micronutrient intake was inconsistent and small," Storey said. "Energy from other sources had a much stronger and consistent association with micronutrient intake. Hard to believe, but hey... it's an observation on statistics.-- Ken

[Guest guest]

I must suppress my gut feeling to paint sugar as an evil food. Zero nutrients... pretty much your classic empty calories. Strike two, the report was surely funded by the sugar industry which is hurting due to success of "sugar buster/south beach" diet trends. Strike three: I just read a piece in today's newspaper from the largest disability insurer that obesity related claims have doubled since 1996, so we can assume the general population doesn't need any excuses or encouragement to consume more empty calories.

The sugar advocates claims are probably true but so what? Individual foods by themselves are not good or bad (except for transfats which aren't a food). There are good or bad diets made up of combinations of such foods. I don't remember the official term for this, something like "reductio ad absurdia", the argument has been simplified to the point of being meaningless.

IMO what counts is the total diet not individual components. If you can cover your nutritional needs with enough energy budget left to eat sugar, enjoy. Some will argue bad glycemic index effects but if you are practicing CR and your bodies blood sugar control mechanisms are healthy and responsive there should be little consequences.

JR

-----Original Message-----From: bpinfo@... [mailto:bpinfo@...]Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2004 9:55 AM Subject: Re: [ ] claim: sugar doesn't crowd out nutrientsIn a message dated 10/12/04 9:41:44 AM Eastern Daylight Time, jwwright@... writes:

I guess what the one is saying is that sucrose does not "displace", ie, remove nutrients from other sources. yes, and the opposite has been a topic on this group - though this sugar study seems to be claiming that fat ("other sources") is the real culprit that crowds out nutritionBut I'm looking at it more as an possible exercise in creative statistics. In college, we had a book called "How to Lie With Statistics". And everybody probably knows what Mark Twain said. Still, there is some chance that their study is correct. It woiuld be interesting to see a critique/expose of it.-- KEN

[Guest guest]

I don't think we're saying that sucrose "displaces" per se. I think we are sure that sucrose is bad for health (glycation), or let's say bad for longevity, in the sense it promotes insulin secretion. That's ONE theory of aging - not necessarily mine, eg.

I don't see the diff between eating 1200 carbs of sugar versus 1200 carbs of spinach as far as insulin is concerned. Surely, the absolute amount has to be the same, although aging may be more influenced by the insulin peaks with high GI foods.

There are studies which say starches, eg, protect against colon cancer because of lower gut bacterial composition products. But that may be because the people eat more carbos and less animal fat, eg.

So the stats can lie, as you say. Tell me what you WANT the "books" to say, said Mr. .

The knowledge of statistics, since not a science brings with it a certain amount of corruptibility. That can often be ferreted out thru just logic. But the "purists" will argue for data to prove a negative.

In the end we have to determine what we will do as individuals and see who lasts the longest.

And certainly an individual's health problems will dictate a lot about what they will do, regardless of what the journals or even textbooks say. We need to manage the calories. And to get the nutrients we want requires eating more nutrient dense foods versus sugar/corn syrup.

Walford listed potatoes, sweet potatoes, bananas, fiber one cereal, 100% bran cereal, apple butter in "green light" food column. grains, black beans in the "yellow light" column. And "pudding" - I take that to mean his "rice pudding" pg 280.

Another thing is, I've noticed that folks mix up glucose with sucrose. Sucrose GI is not 100 as it is in glucose. I would prefer sucrose to corn syrup because corn syrup is already digested. No chance for the body to schedule the digestion and absorption.

But I surely do not think that sugar crowds out nutrients. I believe that the excess of ingested corn syrup USES the nutrients to build larger bodies. And it doesn't take that many nutrients.

Regards.

----- Original Message -----

From: bpinfo@...

Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2004 9:54 AM

Subject: Re: [ ] claim: sugar doesn't crowd out nutrients

In a message dated 10/12/04 9:41:44 AM Eastern Daylight Time, jwwright@... writes:

I guess what the one is saying is that sucrose does not "displace", ie, remove nutrients from other sources.

yes, and the opposite has been a topic on this group - though this sugar study seems to be claiming that fat ("other sources") is the real culprit that crowds out nutritionBut I'm looking at it more as an possible exercise in creative statistics. In college, we had a book called "How to Lie With Statistics". And everybody probably knows what Mark Twain said. Still, there is some chance that their study is correct. It woiuld be interesting to see a critique/expose of it.-- KEN

[Guest guest]

There are a few unique problems with sugar (and corn syrup). Sugar seems to

cause " dependence " or addiction in some people who wind up craving it .

Sugar causes more hunger (and so defeats CR). And sugar causes dental/gum

problems (also degrading to general health from studies esp heart disease).

That said, I occasionally (for example at a social function) imbibe in small

amounts. Usually that bite of a sweet treat confirms my feelings that I'm

really not missing much and besides, now it usually tastes too cloyingly

sweet for my taste buds.

on 10/12/2004 11:57 AM, jwwright at jwwright@... wrote:

> I don't think we're saying that sucrose " displaces " per se. I think we are

> sure that sucrose is bad for health (glycation), or let's say bad for

> longevity, in the sense it promotes insulin secretion. That's ONE theory of

> aging - not necessarily mine, eg.

>

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 10/12/04 12:00:37 PM Eastern Daylight Time, jwwright@... writes:

I don't think we're saying that sucrose "displaces" per se. I think we are sure that sucrose is bad for health (glycation), or let's say bad for longevity, in the sense it promotes insulin secretion. That's ONE theory of aging - not necessarily mine, eg.

well, the study itself makes a point of refuting the idea that sugar crowds out calories, in fact that seems to be its primary intent.

As far as the insulin theory of aging, it seems to hinge on the idea that insulin resistance creeps ever upwards, and can never be reversed. But studies on whether exercise can decrease insulin resistance are inconclusive. True?

--

Ken

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 10/12/04 11:47:23 AM Eastern Daylight Time, crjohnr@... writes:

I must suppress my gut feeling to paint sugar as an evil food.

the one advantage I'm aware of is that it will result in greater glycogen replenishment after exercise, if taken soon enough. Fanatics tried maltodextrin, to try to get it in even faster.

--

Ken

[Guest guest]

here's what Rakel: Integrative Medicine, 1st ed., says.

Exercise

Exercise may be the single most important factor for preventing and reversing insulin resistance. Exercise improves insulin sensitivity in skeletal muscles and fat tissue, thereby reducing both insulin levels and fasting blood sugar.[2] Adding strength training (weight lifting) to endurance training maintains a high metabolic state that further improves percent body fat, insulin resistance, triglyceride levels, and systolic blood pressure.[3]

Encourage participation in an enjoyable activity that incorporates aerobic conditioning and muscle strengthening. (See Chapter 86 , Writing an Exercise Prescription.)

Weight Loss

The severity of insulin resistance is often in direct proportion to the amount of visceral body fat, despite the person’s age and sex.[4] The location of the fat distribution is also a factor. Central or abdominal accumulation is associated with greater risk.[5]

Encourage a weight loss program that will result in gradual loss over time and that incorporates a regular exercise program and dietary changes. Weight loss of as little as 10 lb has been found to be beneficial.

----- Original Message -----

From: bpinfo@...

Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2004 12:36 PM

Subject: Re: [ ] claim: sugar doesn't crowd out nutrients

In a message dated 10/12/04 12:00:37 PM Eastern Daylight Time, jwwright@... writes:

I don't think we're saying that sucrose "displaces" per se. I think we are sure that sucrose is bad for health (glycation), or let's say bad for longevity, in the sense it promotes insulin secretion. That's ONE theory of aging - not necessarily mine, eg. well, the study itself makes a point of refuting the idea that sugar crowds out calories, in fact that seems to be its primary intent.As far as the insulin theory of aging, it seems to hinge on the idea that insulin resistance creeps ever upwards, and can never be reversed. But studies on whether exercise can decrease insulin resistance are inconclusive. True?-- Ken