I am not an authority on any topic when it comes to nutrition or fitness and I will never claim to be, I am someone who likes to challenge myself and my own beliefs to continue learning. With that being said I do not preach pseudoscience and try to take the most unbiased and evidenced based approach when it comes to training and nutrition. Also I am sorry if your predetermined beliefs on this subject already have you convinced that I am an idiot, but I would ask you to read this with an open mind.
Recently sugar has been called everything from addictive, deadly, the white devil and etc, I guess it was only time before I saw a local authority do the same. Here is a post by Vero Beach Crossfit on the addictive white stuff http://crossfitverobeach.com/?p=7786, the person doesn't state to avoid sugar at all cost but they word their post negatively and most of it is misleading. I really believe the person who wrote this really cares about their clients and is trying to help them but this does not excuse misinformation that can lead to harm.
First let us tackle the idea that sugar is addictive, when this topic is brought up people love to immediately jump to correlating sugar addiction to drug addictions, like many things it is not that simple. There is no objective consensus on sugar addiction right now, so for someone to say that sugar is addictive or is not is a false statement (1). What seems to be more probable is when sugary fatty foods are overly restricted this creates a biological “need/want” for them that eventually will lead us to giving in and binging on these very palatable foods (sugary fatty foods)(2, 3), but this does not make these foods inherently addictive. I do believe there to be a small population of people who deal with stress by means of over indulging in sugary delights to release a reward effect/dopamine, this then builds a habit of stress eating that some may call addiction but I don't know if I would go that far. People who suffer from the above need help and should look for professional assistance not the internet. For me this raises the question of if we got rid of the unnecessary fear based ideology on such foods and allowed balance and moderation to be acceptable would we see reduced numbers of sugar addicts and a rise in healthier individuals.
When someone talks about sugar I have to wonder, are they talking about sugars that are found in whole foods already? Or are they talking about added sugars from refined grain products, sodas, pre packaged desserts etcetera? There is a difference between these two but don't mis-understand this and believe one to be “bad” or “worse” than the other, in a healthy (physical/psychological) diet both added and dietary sugars can be found. Dietary sugars have the benefit of pairing up with nutritionally sound food; milk and fruit for instance. Milk and fruit are micro nutrient packed foods that taste amazing (for most people) and support a healthy lifestyle. Added sugars are usually prepackaged foods with little to no micronutrient value, this does not make them inherently bad or unhealthy, so one can still implement them in their lifestyle as long as they do not inhibit their overall micronutrient intake and lead to an unintentional calorie surplus (that overtime can lead to weight issues). The USDA does not have an absolute standard on sugar or added sugar intakes, but is this a bad thing? Here is a snippet from the USDA on added sugars and solid fats,
“Foods containing solid fats and added sugars are no more likely to contribute to weight gain than any other source of calories in an eating pattern that is within calorie limits. However, as the amount of solid fats and/or added sugars increases in the diet, it becomes more difficult to also eat foods with sufficient dietary fiber and essential vitamins and minerals, and still stay within calorie limits. For most people, no more than about 5 to 15 percent of calories from solid fats and added sugars can be reasonably accommodated in the USDA Food Patterns, which are designed to meet nutrient needs within calorie limits.” (4)
so it seems that the USDA sets out a flexible approach for people to make intelligent decisions on their sugar intake and not arbitrarily restrict foods or set absolutes. I am a fan of flexibility as evidence leans towards it compared to restrictiveness when it comes to diet adherence (5). So it does seem the USDA has a recommendation when it comes to sugar; dietary sugars enjoy them, in the form of added sugars enjoy them but have balance and moderation.
From the 1950’s - 2000’s we saw a 39 percent increase in caloric sweeteners (combination of sucrose and HFCS), this comes out to be around 155 pounds per year per person (6). In the past couple of decades we have seen a rise in HFCS as the main leader of added sugar being used, but very recently HFCS has been in decline while sucrose has been rising (this is probably from consumers wanting soft drink manufacturers to stop the use HFCS), in 2010 HFCS consumption was around 66 pounds per year and sucrose was 64.5 pounds this totals out to be 130.5 pounds per year per person on average (7). So we seem to be shifting out of HFCS to sucrose being the leader in added sugars and an overall decrease of added sugars in our diet, comparing 2000’s 155 pounds to 2010’s 130.5 pounds (around 15.8 percent decrease). To just state that added sugar has increased is true but I feel to not state that added fats have increased as well to be misleading. After America’s blame on fats for weight increase during the late 80’s and early 90’s (the blame was not warranted) added fats were 67 percent higher than in the 1950’s (6)
“Average use of added fats and oils in 2000 was 67 percent above annual average use in the 1950s (table 2-3). Added fats include those used directly by consumers, such as butter on bread, as well as shortenings and oils used in commercially prepared cookies, pastries, and fried foods. All fats naturally present in foods, such as in milk and meat, are excluded.”
The fact that added fats and added sugars have increased does not make them the root of all disease and evil but rather one should take notice of them in ones diet and eat them according to ones own goals, health status, and preference that still allows for plenty of whole foods.
Our body's preferred main source of energy fuels our brain, kidney, muscles (glycogen) and almost all of our other cellular functions, this energy source is glucose. This brings me to the statement that sugar feeds cancer and that a ketogenic diet can prevent cancer. As I stated above most of our cells use glucose for fuel, so yes sugar does feed cancer just like the rest of our body. With that same logic we should stop taking in oxygen because it allows the cancer to live, do you see how ridiculous that sounds? Even if you we were able to cut out all carbohydrate sources in our diet our body will continue to make glucose from other materials, via Gluconeogenesis and glycogenolysis (10, 11). Some may say that sugars ability to “drive” insulin also aids cancer in growing, the flaw here is that protein is just as insulinogenic as carbs if not more (8, 9), so should we stop eating protein as well? Whats wrong with both cases of the insulin and sugar theory is the fact that no matter what we do there will always be a insulin response and glucose in our blood, if either of those were to stop we would cease to live. There are more than a hundred different types of cancer and if anyone is claiming that one single thing is able to stop all of them (or just uses the blanket term “cancer”) then they take a very over simplistic view on human physiology.
Now back to the ketogenic diet, this diet may help some with brain tumors as recent research (one study) has shown in mice to be beneficial, but the problem with taking this at face value is that this is just one study and it was done on mice. To take a single study and claim truth from it is scientifically wrong, reasearch on any topic builds up through time and each study is just a piece of the puzzle that helps people to piece together the truth (people who are qualified). Who knows, the future of research might show that sugar has a lead role in causing cancer but as of right now the research does not show this (12, 13).
To wrap this up, sugar is not evil and it will not kidnap your kids. Eat foods that you prefer while having most of your diet come from whole foods, eat towards your goals if you have any (surplus or deficit), eat foods that your body tolerates, and for bloody sakes if you want that piece of pie then eat it! Enjoy your life
Sources:
No comments:
Post a Comment