“If you are bitter at heart, sugar in the mouth will not help you”

August 25, 2009 7:33 PM

American Heart Association: American men should not consume more than 150 calories of sugar a day[pdf], American women 100 calories. paper[pdf]
posted by bigmusic (88 comments total)

Well...too late for today.

That Irish mousse cake was goood though.
posted by Miko at 7:45 PM on August 25, 2009 [1 favorite]

.
posted by Miko at 7:45 PM on August 25, 2009 [1 favorite]

I just ate a cake. Cake doesn't have any sugar in it, right?
posted by infinitywaltz at 7:47 PM on August 25, 2009

That's no more than 150 calories of added sugar per day. This does not include naturally occurring (intrinsic) sugars, which are "sugars that are an integral part of whole fruit, vegetable, and milk products."

The reporting on this has not made that distinction very clear.
posted by jedicus at 7:53 PM on August 25, 2009 [2 favorites]

being as I dont usually have pie for breakfast, I feel myself quite safe here. hey, does anyone know how much sugar is in a bottle of red wine? not too much, right?

guys?

guys????
posted by supermedusa at 8:00 PM on August 25, 2009 [2 favorites]

At least I'm doing something right. The only added sugar I consume is from the occasion slice of cake or piece of dark chocolate. Added sugar is sneaky though, it shows up in a lot of processed foods and bread.
posted by MaryDellamorte at 8:03 PM on August 25, 2009

Well there goes my eating a whole bowl of sugar a day routine.
posted by The Deej at 8:08 PM on August 25, 2009 [1 favorite]

150 calories is ~3 tablespoons of sugar; ~40 grams of sucrose which incorporates 20 grams of fructose + 20g of glucose.

Or one regular can of coke.

I recently bought 4 12 packs of the Sucrolose Diet Coke, but honestly I'm getting tired of the metallic aftertaste that lasts all day. Coke Zero is a similiar taste. Guess I'll just have to go back to Brita water. It's not that bad once you get used to it.
posted by @troy at 8:09 PM on August 25, 2009

That's no more than 150 calories of added sugar per day.

I'm pretty sure that the sugar is intrinsic to the half-pint of rum raisin ice cream I just ate.
posted by StickyCarpet at 8:20 PM on August 25, 2009

If I live the way the American Heart Association (and all the other health nags) say I should live, then I might as well be dead for all the good that living would do me. What's the point of being alive if you can't enjoy it?
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 8:23 PM on August 25, 2009 [7 favorites]

No more chocolate pickles for you!
posted by netbros at 8:30 PM on August 25, 2009 [1 favorite]

Heart disease doesn't sound enjoyable to me, Chocolate Pickle.
posted by MaryDellamorte at 8:31 PM on August 25, 2009 [5 favorites]

Are you still a bartender, Mary? Because if you are, I'd like a vodka tonic, please. Malaria doesn't sound enjoyable either.
posted by box at 8:35 PM on August 25, 2009

What's the point of being alive if you can't enjoy it?

An interesting philosophy. I don't imagine it goes very far though, once doing anything vaguely pleasurable becomes an end in itself. There's an argument that excessive enjoyment has become the norm, that is perhaps valid.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 8:40 PM on August 25, 2009 [1 favorite]

Tonic water doesn't sound very enjoyable either — at least, not without some gin in it.
posted by nebulawindphone at 8:45 PM on August 25, 2009

You only live once- make it quick.
posted by potch at 8:45 PM on August 25, 2009 [1 favorite]

What is your point, Box?
posted by MaryDellamorte at 8:45 PM on August 25, 2009

Marion Nestle, a professor of nutrition and food studies at New York University who wasn't involved with the document, said it was a significant departure from previous recommendations, in part because "nobody has ever said it quite so forcefully."

What, Dr. Entemann and Dr. Sara Lee weren't available for comment?

The problem with the recommendation is summed up in the last sentence. The current nutrition labels don't break out good sugars (like fruit) and bad sugars (yummy cakes and pies). Also everything is on the nutrition labels is in grams so talking about it in terms of calories and tablespoons isn't that helpful. Unless your only sugar you consume is heaping teaspoons of table sugar added to your morning coffee.
posted by birdherder at 8:53 PM on August 25, 2009 [1 favorite]

The current nutrition labels don't break out good sugars (like fruit) and bad sugars (yummy cakes and pies).

In one sense, you've already sort of lost this battle if you're reading the labels of packaged goods that contain the many forms of added sugars, and just looking at the 'sugars' line rather than evaluating the number of sugar-based ingredients listed. If you eat/cook from whole foods, it's very easy to tell how much sugar is being added to your food as separate from naturally occuring sugars from plant ingredients.
posted by Miko at 9:00 PM on August 25, 2009

What's the point of being alive if you can't enjoy it?

Everyone always says that, and then they have a heart attack.
posted by dirigibleman at 9:00 PM on August 25, 2009 [7 favorites]

Names for added sugars in an ingredient list include brown sugar, corn sweetener, corn syrup, dextrose, fructose, fruit juice concentrates, glucose, high fructose corn syrup, honey, invert sugar, lactose, maltose, malt syrup, molasses, raw sugar, sucrose, and syrup.

posted by Miko at 9:04 PM on August 25, 2009 [3 favorites]

Names for added sugars in an ingredient list include...

I see that (admittedly non-exhaustive) list omits the favorite sugar euphemism of the organic food industry: 'evaporated cane juice.'
posted by jedicus at 9:13 PM on August 25, 2009 [7 favorites]

Oh yeah, good call.
posted by Miko at 9:17 PM on August 25, 2009

That's no more than 150 calories of added sugar per day. This does not include naturally occurring (intrinsic) sugars, which are "sugars that are an integral part of whole fruit, vegetable, and milk products."

Look, I just want to know one thing, should any of this change my level of beer consumption?
posted by furiousxgeorge at 9:21 PM on August 25, 2009

They'll pry that C₁₂H₂₂O₁₁ out of my cold, dead .....

Wait, never mind.
posted by blucevalo at 9:30 PM on August 25, 2009

Well, good luck with that, AHA.
posted by Hardcore Poser at 9:30 PM on August 25, 2009

Also everything is on the nutrition labels is in grams so talking about it in terms of calories and tablespoons isn't that helpful.

One gram of sugar = 3.8 kcal = 3.8 Calories.

Thus, 150 Calories = 39.5 g of sugar.

A pint of beer has 216 mg of sugar. Therefore, you may consume 182.7 pints of Twisted Thistle per day before running an increased risk of suddenly collapsing of a heart attack.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 9:39 PM on August 25, 2009

This evening I had possibly the best dessert ever: Cake and Shake. It might have some sugar in it.
posted by fieldtrip at 9:40 PM on August 25, 2009

Is their point mainly that "sugar = poison," or "watch your sugar consumption, tubby, because you're overweight." I mean, if you're fit and not overweight, does your sugar consumption really matter much (assuming your entire diet isn't Mike & Ikes chased down by Jolt)?
posted by maxwelton at 9:43 PM on August 25, 2009 [2 favorites]

When I was a kid, the running joke was "Everything I enjoy doing is either illegal, immoral, or fattening." To which we now must add "or causes cancer or heart disease."

There isn't anything enjoyable that you can't find some health "authority" somewhere who will say that it's bad for your health and you shouldn't do it.

Mencken said that Puritanism was "the haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy." It used to be that Puritans were religious and worried that those happy people were doomed to hell.

No one takes that kind of Puritan seriously any more. Nowadays a different kind of Puritan has emerged, who worry that those who the happy are going to die of cancer or heart disease.

Still a bunch of damned killjoys, though, who want to make others miserable for their own good.
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 9:51 PM on August 25, 2009

I mean, if you're fit and not overweight, does your sugar consumption really matter much (assuming your entire diet isn't Mike & Ikes chased down by Jolt)?

It's hard to say, but not being overweight doesn't mean you're automatically healthy. Outward appearances aside, overdoses of sugar will assault your liver, of which you only have one. There's certainly a correlation between disease and diet, established from comparing the aggregate health of people from industrialized and developing nations.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 9:53 PM on August 25, 2009

I'm just going to go ahead and pretend I never saw this. Any of it.
posted by Astro Zombie at 9:58 PM on August 25, 2009 [2 favorites]

It's okay for men to eat more than 100 calories of paper a day though, right?
posted by aubilenon at 10:00 PM on August 25, 2009

The only sugar I consume is in the form of GRAIN ALCOHOL. And the rainwater is 100% PURE. Good for my ESSENCE.
posted by abc123xyzinfinity at 10:09 PM on August 25, 2009 [2 favorites]

Eating a healthy diet does not equal being unhappy and living a boring life. There are some of us who, when we eat an unhealthy diet, get depressed and unhappy. I think the key to what all the "killjoy" health experts are trying to say is that you need to eat sugars and fats in moderation. They aren't saying you can't have it, but you can't have it in excess everyday.
posted by MaryDellamorte at 10:26 PM on August 25, 2009 [2 favorites]

The current nutrition labels don't break out good sugars (like fruit) and bad sugars (yummy cakes and pies).

What's the difference? I mean, a cup of grapes has 24 grams of sugar, whereas a snickers bar has 31.

If you're already at 126 or 76 grams for the day, either one would put you over the top. So why would one be worse then the other? (other then all the fat in the snickers bar, of course)
posted by delmoi at 10:29 PM on August 25, 2009

Remember when Atkins was all the rage and you could get low-carb ice-cream sweetened with sugar alcohols?

Good times.
posted by delmoi at 10:30 PM on August 25, 2009

...Therefore, you may consume 182.7 pints of Twisted Thistle per day...

Yes. But remember, by pint #25 you'll be puking about 95% of what you drink, so the real number is actually on the order of thousands.

And yeah, you can get a break on weekends.
posted by qvantamon at 10:40 PM on August 25, 2009

They aren't saying you can't have it, but you can't have it in excess everyday.

Sometimes "they" are saying "you can't have it". I think that if "they" thought they could get away with it, they'd use the full power of the law to force me (and everyone else) to live what "they" think is a virtuous life.

I don't want someone else to run my life for me, for my own good, because they think they're wiser than I am.

Fortunately, the American Heart Autocracy doesn't yet have legislative power, and I still can ignore them without landing in jail.

Which is exactly what I intend to do. Even if it kills me.
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 10:45 PM on August 25, 2009 [1 favorite]

While I was waiting for the bus tonight (after a very edifying evening looking at the Rembrandt exhibition-- complete with a Genuine Vermeer!) I had a HagenDaas caramel ice cream bar on a stick with an added chocolate coating that had crunchy bits in it.

A life without the occasional one of these is a much sadder life, imo. [/not diabetes-ist]
posted by jokeefe at 10:59 PM on August 25, 2009

I think that if "they" thought they could get away with it, they'd use the full power of the law to force me (and everyone else) to live what "they" think is a virtuous life.

Your party is the one that wants to outlaw abortion and birth control.

Which is exactly what I intend to do. Even if it kills me.

Cutting out your heart to spite the Democrats.
posted by dirigibleman at 11:00 PM on August 25, 2009 [1 favorite]

the American Heart Autocracy doesn't yet have legislative power

It's true, They want your heart, foolish hooman!
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 11:03 PM on August 25, 2009

Your party is the one that wants to outlaw abortion and birth control.

I don't have a party.
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 11:08 PM on August 25, 2009

first they came for your penis and no one said anything, then they came for your chocolate pickle...
posted by geos at 11:09 PM on August 25, 2009 [1 favorite]

I don't have a party.

You should join one. More sugar for you.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 11:09 PM on August 25, 2009

Bad news, folks: non-sugar-eaters die every day. No need to look for eternal life in dieting; it's not gonna happen unless you can somehow manage an oxygen-free diet.

Threads like this one do make me wonder one thing: why is it that people who believe they have made "the healthy choice" for themselves trumpet their participation in it and put down those who are uninterested? I once had someone accuse me of putting "poison" in my tea when I added a spoonful of sugar. Where does the attitude come from? A craving for validation? Misery loves company? If enough other people agree with you, you feel less like you're into a fad?

What's the difference? I mean, a cup of grapes has 24 grams of sugar, whereas a snickers bar has 31.

This is a dangerous question. Did you see the trainwrecks in the previous threads about high fructose corn syrup?
posted by Maximian at 11:17 PM on August 25, 2009

Marion Nestle, a professor of nutrition and food studies at New York University who wasn't involved with the document, said it was a significant departure from previous recommendations, in part because "nobody has ever said it quite so forcefully."

What, Dr. Entemann and Dr. Sara Lee weren't available for comment?

Marion Nestle is tha author of Food Politics, which is a really amazing book that really changed how I view food. I eat so much better after reading it. I highly recommend it
posted by 5_13_23_42_69_666 at 11:31 PM on August 25, 2009 [1 favorite]

I think that if "they" thought they could get away with it, they'd use the full power of the law to force me (and everyone else) to live what "they" think is a virtuous life.

Your party is the one that wants to outlaw abortion and birth control.

WTF? Is everyone who likes junk food a republican now? Last I checked, deliciousness wasn't a partisan issue.

Food puritanism is just as bad as the kind that opposes sex, drugs, and Rock 'n' Roll, and I oppose all of them. It happens that lots of food puritans are otherwise liberal, Bill Maher would be a good example. That doesn't mean everyone who isn't one supports the republicans.
posted by delmoi at 11:33 PM on August 25, 2009 [4 favorites]

I don't have a party.

I have a party. But nobody came. So I'm eating the cake all by myself. Crying. Burma Shave.
posted by qvantamon at 11:40 PM on August 25, 2009 [6 favorites]

That doesn't mean everyone who isn't one supports the republicans.

In some cases, however, the mere threat of low blood sugar appears to bring out the conspiracy theorist.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 11:44 PM on August 25, 2009

Is everyone who likes junk food a republican now?

No, but people saying that recommendations by a non-profit, non-government group will soon carry the force of law by our government (see also: death panels, forced suicide of troops) tend to vote for a particular party.
posted by dirigibleman at 12:12 AM on August 26, 2009 [2 favorites]

My brother-in-law got a stent put into his cardiac artery yesterday, the widow-maker artery, same as mine, almost the exact same location; I spoke with him today, welcomed him to 'The Stent Club'. I guarantee you that he was not saying a word about how it's okay to live for the moment, eat whatever you want, we're all gonna die anyways, blah blah blah. Nope, none of that. He's more aware now of how thin is the ice we walk on, he does not want to fall through, he's having a pretty sweet life just now, watching his grandkids grow up, traveling some with my sister, enjoying this whole retired thing. He does not want to croak. You get close to it and it brings things into sharp focus -- this thing is beautiful.
posted by dancestoblue at 12:13 AM on August 26, 2009 [9 favorites]

The Deej: "Well there goes my eating a whole bowl of sugar a day routine."

Well they did say that "intrinsic" sugar didn't count, and I'd say that sugar is pretty much intrinsic to sugar, so as long as you don't add that sugar to anything, it's not "added sugar," and you should therefore be just fine.

Eat up!
posted by Kadin2048 at 12:34 AM on August 26, 2009 [3 favorites]

Does it say anything about people who aren't American? What are the guidelines for the rest of us?
posted by idiomatika at 1:16 AM on August 26, 2009 [1 favorite]

I once had someone accuse me of putting "poison" in my tea when I added a spoonful of sugar. Where does the attitude come from?

...if I may.

Short answer: fructose metabolism is nasty stuff and best avoided.

In general I think the science is pretty solid -- though admittedly all over the place -- that every excess calorie you metabolize cuts your lifespan by a minute.

Eat up, buttercup.
posted by @troy at 1:32 AM on August 26, 2009

A pint of beer has 216 mg of sugar. Therefore, you may consume 182.7 pints of Twisted Thistle per day before running an increased risk of suddenly collapsing of a heart attack.

Actually the alcohol content has to go to the liver, where it gets processed into triglycerides and other nasty things that result in fatty liver etc.
posted by @troy at 1:38 AM on August 26, 2009

white sugar and butter sammich ( on wonder bread, of course!)...my childhood treat.
posted by billybobtoo at 2:48 AM on August 26, 2009

In general I think the science is pretty solid -- though admittedly all over the place -- that every excess calorie you metabolize cuts your lifespan by a minute.

I'd be interested in seeing the science behind this. I'm also not clear on what you mean...do you mean every extra calorie you consume, every extra calories you store as fat, or every extra calorie you burn, presumably by doing something other than breathing and heating your various goos to 98.6F?

I'm not disputing it, I'm just curious, and I'm especially curious as to the mechanism.
posted by maxwelton at 3:24 AM on August 26, 2009

Is their point mainly that "sugar = poison," or "watch your sugar consumption, tubby, because you're overweight."

From the WSJ article:

"We're trying to make reasonable recommendations around the amount of sugar in a diet that enables people to achieve or maintain a healthy weight," said Rachel Johnson, associate provost and professor of nutrition at the University of Vermont in Burlington and lead author of the statement.

It looks like they're not saying "Refined sugar will kill you," but rather "Refined sugar will give you a sweet tooth, which will make you fat, which will kill you."
posted by haltingproblemsolved at 4:27 AM on August 26, 2009

> if I may

Oh right, this video. It's so great to live in an age where a plausible video presentation instantly convinces thousands of people. "This video changed my life and I know it will change yours too!" You want to be saved, right? In the USA, the degree of credulity where diet is concerned is astounding.

Eat up, buttercup.

There's that attitude again.

What are fad dieters after, exactly? It's never the common-sense advice they push with their insults and "are you saved?" mentality, only ritual and sacrifice ("don't eat X", "eat Y every day", etc, where X and Y are innocuous). Moderate calorie intake is obvious and fundamental. The evidence that sugar is not poisonous in and of itself is all around you, not least in that the the body fundamentally metabolizes sugars into energy. My grandfather lived to the age of 85 and died of a heart attack. Poisoned by sugar? I doubt it. My grandmother died of ovarian cancer a few years before that. Poisoned by sugar? No. How long do you have to live to win the game?
posted by Maximian at 4:44 AM on August 26, 2009 [1 favorite]

Isn't a sugar beet a kind of vegetable? Surely that makes the two spoons I put in my tea the good kind, right?
posted by PeterMcDermott at 4:47 AM on August 26, 2009

Yeah, sorry @troy, the AHA isn't saying sugar is poison, only that it contains lots of calories you probably won't notice.
posted by haltingproblemsolved at 4:50 AM on August 26, 2009

FAT chance of this happening.
posted by monkeyJuice at 5:08 AM on August 26, 2009

Maximiam: the entire point of that particular video is that fructose metabolism is different to the metabolism of glucose. You can rail against the attitude displayed by @troy all you want, but your quote "the body fundamentally metabolizes sugars into energy" isn't true for fructose: fructose gets metabolised pretty much straight to fat solely by the liver, like alcohol does. Glucose on the other hand gets used as a direct source of energy almost everywhere in the body.

Now, obviously that fat can be used as a supply of energy, but the route via which it does so is far less direct than it is for glucose.
posted by pharm at 5:22 AM on August 26, 2009

If only this led to less-sweetened products, rather than yet another wave of "lite" processed foods. i'm looking at you, tomato sauce. you too, bread.
posted by pernoctalian at 5:50 AM on August 26, 2009

So, I'm drinking a frappucino which (according to the label) is 200 calories and has 31g of sugar. Am I done for the day then? Serious question.
posted by desjardins at 6:25 AM on August 26, 2009

This is another reason I am glad I am not American.
posted by srboisvert at 6:37 AM on August 26, 2009

You can have like 6 more grams of sugar, desjardins, apparently.

150 calories of sugar is like 37.5 grams of sugar. That's how much is in half of one of those Ben & Jerry's pint tubs.
posted by AceRock at 7:14 AM on August 26, 2009

Fortunately, the American Heart Autocracy doesn't yet have legislative power, and I still can ignore them without landing in jail.

Nobody expects the American Heart Autocracy Death Panel.

Where's the birth certificate?
posted by grouse at 7:27 AM on August 26, 2009 [2 favorites]

Maximiam: the entire point of that particular video is that fructose metabolism is different to the metabolism of glucose. You can rail against the attitude displayed by @troy all you want, but your quote "the body fundamentally metabolizes sugars into energy" isn't true for fructose: fructose gets metabolised pretty much straight to fat solely by the liver,

From Wikipedia: The primary food sources of fructose are fruits, vegetables, and honey

Right! Don't eat vegetables! Got it!
posted by Comrade_robot at 7:37 AM on August 26, 2009 [2 favorites]

Look, it's a RULE! Guys, we just need to follow this RULE, and we will all be healthy! It's how things work, if you do what the rules say, then you can do anything outside of the rules, because if it was important, it'd be a RULE!

See, I don't need to read the article to know this is a guideline and that there's reasoning I should follow, only that there is a rule. I will bitch and whine when I am still in poor health, and I will be very sad and complain that this rule is unfair.

They could have told me "eating lots of sugary stuff is bullshit, and here are the ingredients that identify this bullshit, so don't eat a lot of it" but that doesn't compress to a soundbite I can moan about. They actually did say this, but it's easier to make it into a one-note issue that I can whine about.
posted by mikeh at 7:57 AM on August 26, 2009

This is what this country has come to.

A non-profit organization dedicated to preventing heart disease puts out a recommendation that limiting sugar intake will lead to less obesity and related heart problems -- something you would think would be pretty obvious and non-controvercial -- and people froth at the mouth about government health Nazis making sugar illegal.

It's no wonder we can't get a sane healthcare system in this country.

"Those fucking fascists at the American Heart Autocracy aren't going to tell me how to do CPR!"
posted by dirigibleman at 9:02 AM on August 26, 2009 [3 favorites]

I generally only drink soda to combat the Irish flu. I was just finishing my can of Dr Pepper when I saw this. Looked at the label 40g of sugar.

Great, now I'm hung over and guilty.
posted by lumpenprole at 10:02 AM on August 26, 2009 [1 favorite]

Comrade_robot: Compare the amount of frucose in 1 apple with the amount in 1 can of coke.

1 apple = about 6g fructose
1 can of coke = about 20g of fructose, plus the same amount of glucose, plus salt to make you thirsty (so you drink more) plus caffeine (which is a diuretic, so you drink more).

The fructose in the apple also carries along a bunch of solid stuff and is contained in a cellular matrix so a) you get the 'I am full' message from eating (which you don't with the coke) and b) the absorption rate is slower, which is generally better for your body.
posted by pharm at 11:35 AM on August 26, 2009 [5 favorites]

Oh, and these days the primary source of fructose is the average US resident's diet is probably High Fructose Corn Syrup. Admittedly that is a vegetable product.
posted by pharm at 11:37 AM on August 26, 2009

Comrade_Robot: Right! Don't eat vegetables! Got it!

A cup of grapes weighs ~150 grams, and contains about 12 grams of fructose.

A whole 15oz can of beets--quite a sweet vegetable--contains about .4 grams of fructose.

It seems unlikely that one would take in too much fructose if they only consumed it in the form of fruits and vegetables, instead of things that derive their sweetness from added sugars or HFCS, etc.

Regardless, I interpret these kinds of reports less as the food police coming to take away my pleasure in life, and more as giving me information so I can make informed choices. I don't find education and information threatening--I know how to exercise my free will and how to base decisions on a combination factors that, yes, include my appetites and desires as well as my knowledge. I don't think that makes me a fascist, a nazi, or some kind of elitist.

Freaking out and getting all strident and defensive at the dissemination of the results of scientific studies strikes me as fairly juvenile behavior.

Also, agricultural products don't get outlawed in the U.S. just because they are unhealthy--even ones that have pretty much NO healthy use, and when used as intended, kill people. Tobacco springs to mind. Politics seems to do a fine job of making sure bad choices continue to be ours to make. So chill.
posted by ViolaGrinder at 12:37 PM on August 26, 2009 [2 favorites]

What, Dr. Entemann and Dr. Sara Lee weren't available for comment?

Ha ha, funny. But just so there's less to laugh about in the world, I believe Dr. Nestle pronounces her name not like the multi-national conglomeration of evilness, but like the cute snuggly word that sounds like "nessle" (rhymes with "wrestle").
posted by ViolaGrinder at 12:43 PM on August 26, 2009

Maximian: why is it that people who believe they have made "the healthy choice" for themselves trumpet their participation in it and put down those who are uninterested?

There's quite a few people like me who don't trumpet it because we only bring it up when it's relevant (in, say, certain AskMes), but you wouldn't know that, because we don't trumpet it. Sorry you've had to suffer others' evangelism though.

The evidence that sugar is not poisonous in and of itself is all around you,

Concentrated sugar is the issue for many people. I cut added sugar out because it gives me brain fog and then it puts me to hours of entirely unrestful sleep. I noticed this after I'd cut out all sources of concentrated sugar for a year, no desserts, no jam jellies syrups honey etc, no fruit juice, no tropical fruits, and limited consumption of domestic fruits and sweet vegetables like carrots, and then spent another year experimenting with adding all that stuff back in. I eat fruit and sweet veg in moderation now, and none of the rest, and I read all ingredient labels before I buy anything processed. Bottom line for me personally is, it's not worth it.

All of the above is offered not to put anybody down for eating desserts or whatever, but solely in the interest of explaining that for at least one individual, this dietary decision was made for reasons other than "misery loves company" or susceptibility to fads. IME and I've read that many others experience this too, the sugar cravings (misery) go away after you get used to not ingesting them all the time.
posted by cybercoitus interruptus at 1:22 PM on August 26, 2009

They have one of the best fun-sucking machines ever invented.
posted by chairface at 1:25 PM on August 26, 2009

@troy, thanks for linking the Lustig video. I just hit the part where he goes into detail about fructose vs glucose (44 min in). I'll be fwding the link on.
posted by cybercoitus interruptus at 1:32 PM on August 26, 2009

Holy crap, you have to watch 44 minutes of video to get to the relevant part? No wonder people want to evangelise - it is self-validation that makes them feel like that was a worthwhile use of their time.
posted by rorycberger at 1:55 PM on August 26, 2009

Nobody expects the American Heart Autocracy Death Panel.

They also do weddings and bar mitzvahs. No one expected them to, but they do.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 2:20 PM on August 26, 2009

"They have one of the best fun-sucking machines ever invented."

Yeah, but you should really see what they've done with solar power.*

"This does not include naturally occurring (intrinsic) sugars, which are "sugars that are an integral part of whole fruit, vegetable, and milk products.""

So I'm giving one of my kids an orange at the car wash and this extremely fat woman with her chubby kid sucking down - 'sugar free' 'froot' or whatever roll up thing it was - tells me "you shouldn't give them those, they're full of sugar, I read it."
Now I'm in pretty good shape (man, I gotta stop lifting these weights tho, they're making my arms all puffy) but I'm positively Olympian next to this woman. Plus I'm wearing my logo gym shirt. What is it that makes folks not believe the evidence of their own senses?
My kid - bit of tummy fat with strong legs, bright eyes, healthy glow, active. Her kid - sullen, 1/2 lidded eyes, bloated. Her kid is eating a strip of flattened overprocessed green plastic and I'm out of line for giving my kid an orange?

Y'know, I give my kids honey instead of the concentrated bile or whatever it is in cough syrup. Works ok.
Studies like this are helpful. But for some reason people have this idea that natural foods are somehow not as good as processed foods with labels or some such. After I exercise I usually eat bananas and such for the potassium, etc..
I see guys drinking the "power stroke" or "Uber jag-off" powder mixes or whatever all the time. Know what's in it that helps you recover after a work out? Potassium.
(Yeah, yeah, other stuff too. But I make my own smoothies, often with honey, 'cos muscles seem to like, y'know, glucose).
Just seems like folks get pushed more to buy something out of a box or container.


*no, that's not a non sequitur.
posted by Smedleyman at 4:02 PM on August 26, 2009 [1 favorite]

Listen, if studies like this make them take crap like HFCS out of staple food like bread...then Yay! (There is no reason on earth for any sugar to be the 3rd ingredient in sliced bread. I make bread all the time, and don't use sugar/honey except in sweet breads and donuts. It's absurd that sugars are in all but two main brands of bread.) And applesauce...it's absurd how many labels I have to read to find the applesauce that doesn't have HFCS. Apples are sweet...why the hell are you adding sugars?

There are a ton of processed food that have sugars of some denomination added where they don't need to be. If studies like this make the companies realize that they could be liable in a lawsuit...maybe, just maybe they'll reconfigure recipes to get rid of the junk. Everyone wins.

All that said; the odds of me giving up brown sugar in my coffee, or raw sugar in my tea...next to none...gods willing I never develop diabetes. Also, they'll have to pry the chocolate out of my hands. I swear to you, chocolate is the only thing that stands between me, an orange numbered jumpsuit and a huge pile of bodies about 3 days a month.
posted by dejah420 at 7:12 PM on August 26, 2009 [1 favorite]

mmm chocolate.
posted by Smedleyman at 9:43 PM on August 26, 2009

Are there no more adults left in America?

The AHA gives the kind of advice that responsible parents used to give, e.g. eat healthy, limit sweets.

Americans then react to that advice by going into meltdown mode, throwing tantrums, questioning who gives them the right to tell us what to do, and even speculating whether or not this is a slippery slope to totalitarianism.

Maybe the AHA needs to adjust the maturity level of their message to something more like "shut up and eat a nectarine or you're grounded".
posted by Davenhill at 12:45 AM on August 27, 2009 [5 favorites]

The AHA: Because I said so!
posted by dirigibleman at 1:06 AM on August 27, 2009

And of course the sugar producers are spewing bullshit - and the PhD they hired will undoubtedly, fortunately, become something of a pariah from the rest of their field.

Davenhill, you're forgetting that this is America. Reasonable adults who actually act like adults are in the minority. Otherwise, it's a nation of mostly overgrown children.
posted by kldickson at 8:28 AM on August 27, 2009