Sugar, any good for our health?

[Speakpigeon]

I was wondering about sugar, i.e. straight sugar. Is it at all useful for your health in your diet?

Many food packagings claim 100 g of sugar a day as "reference intake" for a diet of 2000 kcal a day. 100 g of sugar a day sounds quite a lot to me!

WHO apparently says you should have 6 to 10% of your calorie intake as sugar. Which apparently translates as around 50 g of sugar a day for 2000 kcal a day. Which still seems a lot to me.

We're not supposed to need any sugar because carbohydrates are transformed into sugars by our body anyway and carbohydrates are digested more slowly that sugar so keep you feel full longer and therefore less hungry.

So, any idea as too the real usefulness of sugar to our health?
EB

 

[J842P]

I suspect that they don't want to recommend something like 0% or else people might avoid things like fruits and vegetables, which contain sugar.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The WHO is on record recommending a reduction of free sugars to less than 10% of energy intake and really wants 5%. Essentially they are saying to eliminate it.

They're not talking about sugars in fruits and vegetable or whole foods, but rather added sugar.

WHO calls on countries to reduce sugars intake among adults and children

The WHO guideline does not refer to the sugars in fresh fruits and vegetables, and sugars naturally present in milk, because there is no reported evidence of adverse effects of consuming these sugars.

 

[bilby]

The WHO is on record recommending a reduction of free sugars to less than 10% of energy intake and really wants 5%. Essentially they are saying to eliminate it.

They're not talking about sugars in fruits and vegetable or whole foods, but rather added sugar.

WHO calls on countries to reduce sugars intake among adults and children

The WHO guideline does not refer to the sugars in fresh fruits and vegetables, and sugars naturally present in milk, because there is no reported evidence of adverse effects of consuming these sugars.

Sugars are sugars. The body uses them for fuel; it makes exactly no difference to the body whether they arrive wrapped up in a strawberry, or as white sugar crystals.

Sugar has a very high energy density, and so a diet high in sugar is likely to be either excessively energy rich, contributing to obesity; Or lacking in other important nutrients - it's easy to eat 10,000kJ a day in sugars, but if you don't want to get fat, then doing so probably implies not eating sufficient fat, protein, or trace nutrients.

As a moderate proportion of your diet, sugars (from any source) are unlikely to be harmful in any way. But as their energy density is high, a moderate proportion doesn't constitute many actual grams of sugar. 50 to 100g/day (from all sources) doesn't seem excessive or unreasonable.

Humans are omnivores, and can thrive on a very wide range of different nutrient proportions in their diet.

And the VAST majority of the 'information' about diet available to the public is total bullshit, and to be viewed with extreme skepticism. In particular, you should NEVER trust a source with 'natural' or 'truth' in the title or URL. Anyone who uses the word 'organic' other than as a reference to carbon chemistry should be ignored and/or ridiculed.

 

[DBT]

Excessive consumption of food that sharply spikes blood sugar levels being the problem in the long term. Processed sugar, being concentrated and quickly absorbed, does that, soft drinks, etc, including foods such as potatoes, crisps, chips, cakes, biscuits....white flour products in general and so on.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

As a diabetic, I can safely say that in my experience, large amounts of sugar is a no-no. Much to be avoided.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Excessive consumption of food that sharply spikes blood sugar levels being the problem in the long term. Processed sugar, being concentrated and quickly absorbed, does that, soft drinks, etc, including foods such as potatoes, crisps, chips, cakes, biscuits....white flour products in general and so on.

That was my subsidiary question, i.e. whether even without sugar in your diet, you can still actually eat so much carbohydrates in one meal, even "whole grain" carbohydrates, that you'll end up with too much sugar in your bloodstream?

Or is it only if you eat "white flour" products and things like potatoes?
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

The WHO is on record recommending a reduction of free sugars to less than 10% of energy intake and really wants 5%. Essentially they are saying to eliminate it.

They're not talking about sugars in fruits and vegetable or whole foods, but rather added sugar.

WHO calls on countries to reduce sugars intake among adults and children

The WHO guideline does not refer to the sugars in fresh fruits and vegetables, and sugars naturally present in milk, because there is no reported evidence of adverse effects of consuming these sugars.

Sugars are sugars. The body uses them for fuel; it makes exactly no difference to the body whether they arrive wrapped up in a strawberry, or as white sugar crystals.

Sugar has a very high energy density, and so a diet high in sugar is likely to be either excessively energy rich, contributing to obesity; Or lacking in other important nutrients - it's easy to eat 10,000kJ a day in sugars, but if you don't want to get fat, then doing so probably implies not eating sufficient fat, protein, or trace nutrients.

As a moderate proportion of your diet, sugars (from any source) are unlikely to be harmful in any way. But as their energy density is high, a moderate proportion doesn't constitute many actual grams of sugar. 50 to 100g/day (from all sources) doesn't seem excessive or unreasonable.

Humans are omnivores, and can thrive on a very wide range of different nutrient proportions in their diet.

And the VAST majority of the 'information' about diet available to the public is total bullshit, and to be viewed with extreme skepticism. In particular, you should NEVER trust a source with 'natural' or 'truth' in the title or URL. Anyone who uses the word 'organic' other than as a reference to carbon chemistry should be ignored and/or ridiculed.

I moved in the last few years from very nearly zero added sugar to perhaps 10 g a day to now at most 15 g a day. But one reason for the WHO's tentative less-than-5% target seems to be to reduce tooth decay. So I think the question is, if we take tooth decay seriously and put that in the balance, whether there are any benefits in having any amount of sugar in your diet and then how much of it.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

As a diabetic, I can safely say that in my experience, large amounts of sugar is a no-no. Much to be avoided.

Isn't that any amount of sugar should be avoided?
EB

 

[bigfield]

Excessive consumption of food that sharply spikes blood sugar levels being the problem in the long term. Processed sugar, being concentrated and quickly absorbed, does that, soft drinks, etc, including foods such as potatoes, crisps, chips, cakes, biscuits....white flour products in general and so on.

That was my subsidiary question, i.e. whether even without sugar in your diet, you can still actually eat so much carbohydrates in one meal, even "whole grain" carbohydrates, that you'll end up with too much sugar in your bloodstream?

Or is it only if you eat "white flour" products and things like potatoes?
EB

If "too much sugar" is a blood glucose level that causes you to convert some glucose to bodyfat, then you can easily eat too much sugar--whether it be as complex carbohydrates or as simple sugars--especially if you live a sedentary lifestyle.

Your organs and muscles are always using energy. They take glucose from your blood to use as fuel (provided your blood glucose level isn't too low), and your body stores the excess blood glucose as bodyfat.

Complex carbs (which are sugar polymers) take longer to convert to glucose than simple sugars, therefore the glucose is released into your blood more slowly. Adding dietary fibre slows the sugar digestion process further by giving your digestive system more work to do. (Dietary fibre also increases the amount of energy your body spends on digestion, slightly increasing your body's demand for glucose.)

See also: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glycemic_index

However it doesn't matter what form the carbs take if you are ingesting more glucose than your body burns as fuel; it's still "too much sugar".

 

[rousseau]

The WHO is on record recommending a reduction of free sugars to less than 10% of energy intake and really wants 5%. Essentially they are saying to eliminate it.

They're not talking about sugars in fruits and vegetable or whole foods, but rather added sugar.

WHO calls on countries to reduce sugars intake among adults and children

The WHO guideline does not refer to the sugars in fresh fruits and vegetables, and sugars naturally present in milk, because there is no reported evidence of adverse effects of consuming these sugars.

Sugars are sugars. The body uses them for fuel; it makes exactly no difference to the body whether they arrive wrapped up in a strawberry, or as white sugar crystals.

Sugar has a very high energy density, and so a diet high in sugar is likely to be either excessively energy rich, contributing to obesity; Or lacking in other important nutrients - it's easy to eat 10,000kJ a day in sugars, but if you don't want to get fat, then doing so probably implies not eating sufficient fat, protein, or trace nutrients.

As a moderate proportion of your diet, sugars (from any source) are unlikely to be harmful in any way. But as their energy density is high, a moderate proportion doesn't constitute many actual grams of sugar. 50 to 100g/day (from all sources) doesn't seem excessive or unreasonable.

Humans are omnivores, and can thrive on a very wide range of different nutrient proportions in their diet.

And the VAST majority of the 'information' about diet available to the public is total bullshit, and to be viewed with extreme skepticism. In particular, you should NEVER trust a source with 'natural' or 'truth' in the title or URL. Anyone who uses the word 'organic' other than as a reference to carbon chemistry should be ignored and/or ridiculed.

I suspect calling sugar delivered by chocolate and sugar delivered by fruit equivalent is an over-simplification of the problem but I don't have any evidence to back up my claim at this time. Otherwise I pretty much agree with your post.

Occasionally I use chocolate as a legitimate food source because at the end of the day it provides energy in a bind, and if not over-done it sates the appetite for a period of time.

The real problem with sugar is that people are drinking 4 Cokes a day, every day of their lives.

 

[rousseau]

Excessive consumption of food that sharply spikes blood sugar levels being the problem in the long term. Processed sugar, being concentrated and quickly absorbed, does that, soft drinks, etc, including foods such as potatoes, crisps, chips, cakes, biscuits....white flour products in general and so on.

That was my subsidiary question, i.e. whether even without sugar in your diet, you can still actually eat so much carbohydrates in one meal, even "whole grain" carbohydrates, that you'll end up with too much sugar in your bloodstream?

Or is it only if you eat "white flour" products and things like potatoes?
EB

If "too much sugar" is a blood glucose level that causes you to convert some glucose to bodyfat, then you can easily eat too much sugar--whether it be as complex carbohydrates or as simple sugars--especially if you live a sedentary lifestyle.

Your organs and muscles are always using energy. They take glucose from your blood to use as fuel (provided your blood glucose level isn't too low), and your body stores the excess blood glucose as bodyfat.

Complex carbs (which are sugar polymers) take longer to convert to glucose than simple sugars, therefore the glucose is released into your blood more slowly. Adding dietary fibre slows the sugar digestion process further by giving your digestive system more work to do. (Dietary fibre also increases the amount of energy your body spends on digestion, slightly increasing your body's demand for glucose.)

See also: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glycemic_index

However it doesn't matter what form the carbs take if you are ingesting more glucose than your body burns as fuel; it's still "too much sugar".

I'd just add that over-doing it is a lot harder to do with complex carbohydrates due to the slow release you mention. Unless you're literally gorging on bread or rice, complex carbs shouldn't be a significant cause of weight gain, whereas a relatively small amount of candy can easily be a cause.

This is why foods like brown bread or brown rice are really ideal: they sate the appetite but the body can handle them more easily.

 

[DBT]

Excessive consumption of food that sharply spikes blood sugar levels being the problem in the long term. Processed sugar, being concentrated and quickly absorbed, does that, soft drinks, etc, including foods such as potatoes, crisps, chips, cakes, biscuits....white flour products in general and so on.

That was my subsidiary question, i.e. whether even without sugar in your diet, you can still actually eat so much carbohydrates in one meal, even "whole grain" carbohydrates, that you'll end up with too much sugar in your bloodstream?

Or is it only if you eat "white flour" products and things like potatoes?
EB

Any food that spikes blood sugar levels quickly is a problem over the long term if consumed excessively. Even whole grain cereals spike blood sugar. You can check glycaemic load (GL) of different foods using online charts;

https://www.health.harvard.edu/dise...lycemic-index-and-glycemic-load-for-100-foods

 

[PyramidHead]

Funny you should ask EB, as I'm currently trying a way of eating that doesn't include any carbs at all, under the educated assumption that they are not necessary for human health and cause more problems than they are worth. I'll be able to weigh in more as my body adjusts to getting its energy from a different source (fat). But to the best of my lay knowledge, meat is a better alternative in the long run to sugar and starch, including all plant matter. This is not to say that all plant matter is harmful, just that I haven't seen any evidence that demonstrates we need it, or ever have needed it, to live long and healthy lives.

 

[Speakpigeon]

If "too much sugar" is a blood glucose level that causes you to convert some glucose to bodyfat, then you can easily eat too much sugar--whether it be as complex carbohydrates or as simple sugars--especially if you live a sedentary lifestyle.

Your organs and muscles are always using energy. They take glucose from your blood to use as fuel (provided your blood glucose level isn't too low), and your body stores the excess blood glucose as bodyfat.

Complex carbs (which are sugar polymers) take longer to convert to glucose than simple sugars, therefore the glucose is released into your blood more slowly. Adding dietary fibre slows the sugar digestion process further by giving your digestive system more work to do. (Dietary fibre also increases the amount of energy your body spends on digestion, slightly increasing your body's demand for glucose.)

See also: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glycemic_index

However it doesn't matter what form the carbs take if you are ingesting more glucose than your body burns as fuel; it's still "too much sugar".

Thanks bigfield.
And I definitely will need to have a close look at the glycemic index. Thanks again.
EB

 

[bilby]

Sugars are sugars. The body uses them for fuel; it makes exactly no difference to the body whether they arrive wrapped up in a strawberry, or as white sugar crystals.

Sugar has a very high energy density, and so a diet high in sugar is likely to be either excessively energy rich, contributing to obesity; Or lacking in other important nutrients - it's easy to eat 10,000kJ a day in sugars, but if you don't want to get fat, then doing so probably implies not eating sufficient fat, protein, or trace nutrients.

As a moderate proportion of your diet, sugars (from any source) are unlikely to be harmful in any way. But as their energy density is high, a moderate proportion doesn't constitute many actual grams of sugar. 50 to 100g/day (from all sources) doesn't seem excessive or unreasonable.

Humans are omnivores, and can thrive on a very wide range of different nutrient proportions in their diet.

And the VAST majority of the 'information' about diet available to the public is total bullshit, and to be viewed with extreme skepticism. In particular, you should NEVER trust a source with 'natural' or 'truth' in the title or URL. Anyone who uses the word 'organic' other than as a reference to carbon chemistry should be ignored and/or ridiculed.

I moved in the last few years from very nearly zero added sugar to perhaps 10 g a day to now at most 15 g a day. But one reason for the WHO's tentative less-than-5% target seems to be to reduce tooth decay. So I think the question is, if we take tooth decay seriously and put that in the balance, whether there are any benefits in having any amount of sugar in your diet and then how much of it.
EB

The only benefits are that it tastes good, and that it is very energy dense (the latter only being important for polar explorers and mountaineers who need LOTS of energy, and minimal weight to carry).

Tooth decay is probably the only real problem with sugar (assuming that kJ intake isn't excessive, and absent any disorders such as diabetes); and in terms of avoiding it, it's sensible to eat very little sugar, and to avoid acid foods containing sugars. So it's better to eat 5g of pH neutral white granulated sucrose, than it is to eat enough acidic fruits to get the same 5g.

It's certainly not necessary to eat sugar. But it may be sensible to eat foods that happen to contain sugars in order to access the micronutrients that they also contain, such as vitamins. So in that sense, it's better to eat strawberries than it is to eat granulated sugar. Or you could eat neither, and get your vitamins from less sugary foods. Humans are omnivorous and can live comfortably on a wide range of different diets.

But the discussion about sugar is dominated by people who conflate health with virtue, and to then sugar is pronounced 'sinful'. It's unwise to argue with people's firmly held religious convictions, if your objective is to increase your own knowledge.

Just about the only simple dietary advice that you can rely on is that any dietary advice that is really simple is almost certainly wrong - Biology is very complex, and omnivores such as humans are very flexible in what they can eat while remaining healthy.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Funny you should ask EB, as I'm currently trying a way of eating that doesn't include any carbs at all, under the educated assumption that they are not necessary for human health and cause more problems than they are worth. I'll be able to weigh in more as my body adjusts to getting its energy from a different source (fat). But to the best of my lay knowledge, meat is a better alternative in the long run to sugar and starch, including all plant matter. This is not to say that all plant matter is harmful, just that I haven't seen any evidence that demonstrates we need it, or ever have needed it, to live long and healthy lives.

I recently reduced my carbohydrate intake a bit in favour of vegetables and I'm broadly satisfied with the result but I don't think I could push it much beyond that!

I wouldn't worry about meat in itself, but I think it would be too complicated to shop for good quality meat I could trust. We had too many food scandals in France over the years to trust providers. The basic issue in this instance is that to adopt a rational diet you need to have the information and it is hard to get the whole picture.

Also, maybe you know about it but there's a specific diet to help with epilepsy based on switching to fat for your calories: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketogenic_diet

Beware that "Studies show that following the diet leads to kidney and gall bladder stones formation and to significant elevations of fatty substances in the blood, changes which could lead to increased risk of heart disease in adult life".
EB

The ketogenic diet is a special high-fat, low-carbohydrate diet (similar to Atkinsdiet) that is used to control seizures in some people with epilepsy. The diet works by mimicking some of the effects of fasting on the body. Usually the body uses carbohydrates (such as sugar, bread, pasta) for its fuel, but because the ketogenic diet is very low in carbohydrates, fats become the primary fuel instead. When you fast, the body first burns its stored supplies of glucose (which we get from the carbohydrates we eat) for the energy it needs to maintain normal body functions. When these energy stores become depleted, the body begins to break down stored body fat for energy. This process produces ketones, substances derived from fat that can be used for energy by many of our vital organs. Along with providing energy to our muscles and brain, for reasons not yet entirely understood, ketones help alleviate seizures in certain children. The diet should be thought of as a form of medical treatment, and therefore adhered to as closely as possible. Some people consider it difficult because it requires strict adherence to an unusual and limited range of foods. Therefore, the diet must be instituted under the careful guidance of your child’s doctor and, usually, an experienced dietician. Two unusual complications are retarded growth due to nutritional deficiency and a buildup of uric acid in the blood, which can lead to kidney stones. Rarely the diet can be associated with inflammation of the pancreas —a complication that may be very serious, or even fatal. While these complications are rare, they highlight the importance of administering this diet under the close supervision of child’s doctor. The biggest unresolved concern related to treatment with the ketogenic diet is its harmful effect on blood fats (cholesterol, triglycerides, and other lipoproteins).Studies show that following the diet leads to kidney and gall bladder stones formation and to significant elevations of fatty substances in the blood, changes which could lead to increased risk of heart disease in adult life.

 

[Speakpigeon]

The only benefits are that it tastes good, and that it is very energy dense (the latter only being important for polar explorers and mountaineers who need LOTS of energy, and minimal weight to carry).

Tooth decay is probably the only real problem with sugar (assuming that kJ intake isn't excessive, and absent any disorders such as diabetes); and in terms of avoiding it, it's sensible to eat very little sugar, and to avoid acid foods containing sugars. So it's better to eat 5g of pH neutral white granulated sucrose, than it is to eat enough acidic fruits to get the same 5g.

It's certainly not necessary to eat sugar. But it may be sensible to eat foods that happen to contain sugars in order to access the micronutrients that they also contain, such as vitamins. So in that sense, it's better to eat strawberries than it is to eat granulated sugar. Or you could eat neither, and get your vitamins from less sugary foods. Humans are omnivorous and can live comfortably on a wide range of different diets.

But the discussion about sugar is dominated by people who conflate health with virtue, and to then sugar is pronounced 'sinful'. It's unwise to argue with people's firmly held religious convictions, if your objective is to increase your own knowledge.

Just about the only simple dietary advice that you can rely on is that any dietary advice that is really simple is almost certainly wrong

Thanks, bilby, that will help.

Biology is very complex, and omnivores such as humans are very flexible in what they can eat while remaining healthy.

Yes, that's what I think I've started to understand recently because I have more time now and more reasons to look into and test moving my diet a bit this way and that way.
EB

 

[humbleman]

Yes, that's what I think I've started to understand recently because I have more time now and more reasons to look into and test moving my diet a bit this way and that way.
EB

Good topic.

What I have understood, is that sugar also affects organs. Some say that "non alcoholic fat liver" might be a condition caused by fructose. Others claim that bad bacteria in the intestines prevail because the over consumption of sugars.

I think they are right in many circumstances.

I knew a woman who used to eat candy, chocolates, Doritos and Pepsi. She was around 35 years old, her eyes a kind of red, but "sick red", no the red from being in front of the computer for hours, but you notice that it was something wrong with her health just by looking the color in her eyes.

She was fluffy fat, it was very notorious. She died at 37.

A guy who -I think- was retarded or similar, and lived in the street near my house close to the river, he used to eat the same, Doritos and orange soda, the two litters bottle (like the woman mentioned above). He also died young.

These are cases of extreme consumption of sugars, however, it prevents me of abusing a diet high in sugars.

In my person, I keep my weight proportional to my height, thanks to trying hard of keeping a balanced diet and doing some exercises. I guess that others can also keep a fit body but their diet is far from being healthy. For this reason, the proportional body is not a sure sign of good health.

I think that today we can't ignore the labels found in products, and that with a constant discipline we learn to enjoy food with less additives which are at the end tasted by harmful to the body.

I might ask if someone knows by experience how harmful is the consumption of those "zero" calories drinks, the ones which supplant sugar and fructose with other additives . So far, the internet is not providing a specific direction, probably because is too early to detect their symptoms in just a few years.

 

[DBT]

High Blood Sugar Levels a Risk Factor for Heart Disease

Diabetics and Non-Diabetics at Increased Risk

''Lowering blood sugar levels could reduce the risk of coronary heart disease in both diabetics and non-diabetics, according to researchers at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and other institutions. The researchers found that Hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c)—a measure of long-term blood glucose level—predicts heart disease risk in both diabetics and non-diabetics. An elevated blood glucose level is the defining feature of diabetes, but until now it was unclear whether elevated glucose levels contributed independently to increasing heart-disease risk. The study is published in the September 12, 2005, issue of Archives of Internal Medicine.

They found that those study participants without diabetes but who had “high normal” HbA1c levels (approximately 5 percent to 6 percent) were at an increased heart disease risk, even after accounting for other factors such as age, cholesterol level, blood pressure, body mass index and smoking. Non-diabetic persons with HbA1c levels of 6 percent or higher had almost a two-fold greater heart disease risk compared to persons with an HbA1c level below 4.6 percent.''