1. Cocoa Butter - Organic & Fair Trade Certified
    CLICK HERE!
    Dismiss Notice
  2. **NEW** BL11 - Orange, Red & Infrared Therapy Body Light
    CLICK HERE!
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Charcoal Soap - For Deep Cleansing
    CLICK HERE!
    Dismiss Notice
  4. Orange & Red Light Therapy Device - LGS1
    CLICK HERE!
    Dismiss Notice
  5. Organic Cocoa Powder
    CLICK HERE!
    Dismiss Notice
  6. Metabasoap - Handcrafted Soap
    CLICK HERE!
    Dismiss Notice
  7. Cascara Sagrada Powder From Farmalabor In Italy
    CLICK HERE!
    Dismiss Notice
  8. **NEW Mini Body Light** MBL1 - Orange & Red Light Therapy Mini Body Light
    CLICK HERE!
    Dismiss Notice

2014 Study: Normal Sugar Consumption Not Associated With Health Problems

Discussion in 'Scientific Studies' started by burtlancast, Jul 27, 2015.

  1. burtlancast

    burtlancast Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2013
    Messages:
    2,289
    EDIT: I posted this to vindicate carbohydrates in the causation of diabetes, but, as LucH pointed out, it's made by by a scientist bought and paid for by the soft drink industry.

    Sugars and Health Controversies: What Does the Science Say?

    The consumption of sugar and its relation to various potential adverse health consequences are the subjects of considerable debate and controversy. This supplement to Advances in Nutrition provides an expanded summary of a symposium held on 26 April 2014 entitled “Sugars and Health Controversies: What Does the Science Say?” as part of the ASN Scientific Sessions and Annual Meeting at Experimental Biology 2014. The articles in the supplement discuss results of current systematic reviews and meta-analyses as well as randomized controlled trials and draw implications for public policy considerations. In addition, future research gaps are identified. Current research trials conducted with commonly consumed sugars [e.g., sucrose and high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS)] do not support a unique relation to obesity, metabolic syndrome, diabetes, risk factors for heart disease, or nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Neurologic differences in response to studies that used pure fructose compared with pure glucose have not been confirmed using typical sugars that are consumed (i.e., sucrose and HFCS), which contain ∼50% glucose and fructose. We conclude that added sugars consumed in the normal forms in which humans consume them, at amounts typical of the human diet and for the time period studied in randomized controlled trials, do not result in adverse health consequences. Although more research trials are needed in many areas of sugar consumption and health, there is little scientific justification for recommending restricting sugar consumption below the reasonable upper limit recommended by the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2010 of no more than 25% of calories.

    http://advances.nutrition.org/content/6/4/493S.abstract



    Which basically means sugar consumption doesn't cause diabetes.
     
  2. Wilfrid

    Wilfrid Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2012
    Messages:
    583
    Great find, burt.
    Thanks.
    Do you have a link to the full study?
     
  3. LucH

    LucH Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2015
    Messages:
    243
    Link for the study ((pdf)
    http://advances.nutrition.org/search?au ... mit=Submit
    => Not a good idea to download :twisted:

    Whois James M Rippe, MD ?
    http://foodidentitytheft.com/industry-s ... -as-sugar/

    HFCS won’t damage your liver !? It sounds like a joke. No! It’s serious because a doctor tells it has been confirmed by a study! :mrgreen:
    It’s just that scientists and doctors have always been engaged by industry to make products appear safer than they are.
    Industry creates dishes designed to meet three critical satisfaction points. Sugar, fat and salt are making irresistible and enjoyable food. You become a prisoner.
    When fat is added to salt, our senses are confused. We no longer control the cravings … saturation sense is altered / impaired.
    :yellohello
    LucH
     
  4. LucH

    LucH Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2015
    Messages:
    243
    Insulin peak
    I have nothing against sugar when bound to fibers and minerals (fruits).
    But refined sugar is poisonous, especially when it comes as a cavalry charge.
    [highlight=yellow]Insulin modulates the level of IGF-1[/highlight], a growth factor that gives the order of cells to divide, grow, evolve to construct tissues. More the food is abundant, the more insulin, and the more IGF-1 is available to activate the body's growth.
    Source: Dr. Jaques Medard.

    Refined Sugar depletes b1 and b3 levels
    Refined sugar will pump valuable minerals, including vitamin B1 and B3.
    During metabolism, sugar leaves residues that acidify the body and the body will have to compensate with the calcium stores, especially potassium and magnesium.
     
  5. Stuart

    Stuart Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2015
    Messages:
    317
    I always try to go back to the diet that shaped humans throughout their evolution. It always seems to cut through the confusion modern humans generate wnen they attempt to push particular nutritional theories based on their particular interpretation of what human physiology does best on.
    If we didn't evolve to thrive on it , it always turns out to cause problems with health.
    So I can see your point about whole fruits. The confounder seems to be honey which humans have proved willing to endure a world of pain to secure, and have developed a symbiotic relationship with a cute little honey finding expert bird species- the 'honey bird' - which has unfailingly has led humans and pre humans to honey for millenia.
    In fact still ancestral living human societies like the Hadza in Africa and the Australian Aborigines still derive a huge percentage of their calorie intakes from honey. Yet the incidence of T2 diabetes is miniscule.
    Not trying to defend modern high fat/sugar combinations, but where do you think a concentrated sugar like honey fits into human health? It's always eaten traditionally with the comb wax. Do you think that has some protective effect?
     
  6. OP
    burtlancast

    burtlancast Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2013
    Messages:
    2,289
    Well, after a second look at M Rippe, it seems you do have a point. :?

    I was looking at studies contradicting the common assumption that diabetes is caused by excess carbohydrates, but i guess i picked the wrong one.

    Here's another one from 2004: the interesting point is that it concludes diabetes incidence is associated with a higher intake of fats, not carbohydrates.
    Dietary Carbohydrate (Amount and Type) in the Prevention and Management of Diabetes | Diabetes Care


    Dietary Carbohydrate (Amount and Type) in the Prevention and Management of Diabetes
    A statement by the American Diabetes Association


    Does a diet with a high glycemic index or load lead to diabetes?

    Epidemiological studies form the basis for the hypothesis that a diet with a high glycemic load or glycemic index leads to type 2 diabetes. Findings from the Nurses’ Health Study demonstrated a positive association between dietary glycemic index and risk of type 2 diabetes; the relative risk was 1.37 when the highest quintile of glycemic index was compared with the lowest. Similarly, the glycemic load was positively associated with the development of type 2 diabetes (relative risk 1.47) in women (70). More recently, a follow-up study of the participants in the Nurses’ Health Study confirmed the association between glycemic load and risk of type 2 diabetes (71). In men (Health Professionals’ Follow-Up Study), however, neither glycemic load nor glycemic index were associated with diabetes risk, except when adjusted for cereal fiber intake (30). Finally, in the Iowa Women’s Health Study, no significant relationship between glycemic index or glycemic load and the development of type 2 diabetes was observed (72). Thus, although some studies have observed an association between glycemic index or glycemic load and type 2 diabetes, this relationship has been equivocal or absent in others.

    The inconsistency of findings from epidemiological studies may result from the difficulty in predicting glycemic index (and consequently glycemic load) precisely from the dietary assessment tools (food frequency questionnaires) currently in use. Food frequency questionnaires employed to assess dietary intake were not designed to measure glycemic index per se, and data validating their reliability in this regard are limited.

    Of note, there is little evidence that total carbohydrate intake is associated with the development of type 2 diabetes (30,70,73,74). Rather, a stronger association has been observed between total fat and saturated fat intake and type 2 diabetes (75,76), although not all findings are in agreement (30). Additionally, two prospective cohort studies have shown no risk of diabetes from consuming increased amounts of sugar (74,77), and in one study, a negative association was observed between sucrose intake and diabetes risk (72). Intakes of both whole grains (72,78) and dietary fiber (in particular, cereal fiber) are associated with lower risk of type 2 diabetes (30,70–72).

    At this time, there is insufficient information to determine whether there is a relationship between glycemic index or glycemic load of diets and the development of diabetes. Prospective randomized trials will be necessary to confirm the relationship between the type of carbohydrate and the development of diabetes. The relative importance of the glycemic index or load of the diet to the development of obesity will also need to be considered, as excess body fat is the single most important determinant of type 2 diabetes (71). In addition, the findings of the Diabetes Prevention Program, conducted in the U.S., and the Finnish Diabetes Prevention Study clearly demonstrate that moderate weight loss markedly reduces the development of type 2 diabetes in individuals with impaired glucose tolerance (79,80).
     
  7. Wilfrid

    Wilfrid Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2012
    Messages:
    583
    Link for the study ((pdf)
    http://advances.nutrition.org/search?au ... mit=Submit
    => Not a good idea to download :twisted:

    Thanks for the link, LucH.
    However, I still can't download the full text ( unless I pay for it....).
    It's always crucial to have access to the full text rather than an abstract.
    I'm may be wrong but I think Ray consider HCFS harmless,no?
    https://www.litalee.com/shopexd.asp?id=470
    It's seems that Dr Rippe is in line with Ray about HCFS.
     
  8. OP
    burtlancast

    burtlancast Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2013
    Messages:
    2,289
    Ray makes the point fructose by itself is healthy, but HCFS contains starchy material not listed in the ingredients.
     
  9. Wilfrid

    Wilfrid Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2012
    Messages:
    583
    You're making a point.
    Two years ago, I was asking Ray about HCFS' danger regarding health and intestinal inflammation.
    He replied that HCFS was harmless but may be someone on the forum could also ask him about this stuff. To get a straight answer from him. Sometimes Ray re-evaluate his recommendations.
    An example, when I asked him, in 2012, about transdermal absorption rate, he told me about the 4:1 ratio...And recently, it seems that the ratio has changed: "....The oily vitamins are well absorbed, but it depends on the skin, and how often the person washes. 5% is probably a typical absorption. Water soluble vitamins are poorly absorbed, but covering a large area a significant amount is absorbed." ( more in lines with Dr Williams Adrian' research BTW )
    That being said, Ray does not advocate the use of HCFS, it's clear but he seems more than reluctant to believe that this stuff is the big devil that " mainstream" health gurus are warning against.
     
  10. LucH

    LucH Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2015
    Messages:
    243
    When the ancestral tribes ate honey, it was occasional or periodic. No problem then. Good stuff.
    We have now twice or thrice the volume of their liver. See where the problem is ...
    Everything is in the dose.
    :yellohello
    LucH
     
  11. Wilfrid

    Wilfrid Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2012
    Messages:
    583
    Hi LucH,

    Are you a fan, by chance, of " La nutrition.fr "? :D
     
  12. Stuart

    Stuart Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2015
    Messages:
    317
    I agree dose is very important. But for at least four months of the year ,ancestral humans living in climates where bees make honey, make it a HUGE part of their calorie intake. So although seasonal, it certainly isn't only occasional. The bee bird/human symbiosis makes this possible. Until I knew about bee birds, concentrated sugar being only an occasional treat would have seemed reasonable.
    Honey is a seasonal major component of the traditional human diet. That, and the fact that ancestral humans have always supplemented their honey intake with copious amounts of starchy tubers, make so called 'paleo' low carb dietary principles fanciful nonsense.
     
  13. LucH

    LucH Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2015
    Messages:
    243
    No. Thierry Souccar is the boss there. But I get some information from this source. One among others (crossed info).

    One point more to take into account:
    Beware of glycation:
    Glycation is when a sugar binds to a protein (or a lipid, less common). This happens especially beyond a certain threshold (Q and T °). These products accumulate and clog our cells. The body can’t get rid of these products except with much difficulty.
    AGE's = EndProducts Advanced Glycated end products of glycation.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3704564/

    How much : Q AGE : http://blog.paleohacks.com/advanced-gly ... and-aging/

    Personal conclusion: I may eat carbohydrates, but I try not to associate them when roasted. To neutralize some more byproducts (HAP), I add spices (curcuma, thyme, origano) .
    Never eat "meringue", the summum of evil in byproducts, unless you've got a joker :lol:
    Mine is "Anti-glycation formula ".
    :yellohello
    LucH
     
  14. Such_Saturation

    Such_Saturation Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2013
    Messages:
    7,364
    Yah yah don't bore us with Ray Peat, we all know he's wrong :cool:
     
  15. Wilfrid

    Wilfrid Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2012
    Messages:
    583
    Such_, you are scaring me. I was going to post the same quote. :cool:
    I guess a strong paleo influence over here.... :roll:
     
  16. Wilfrid

    Wilfrid Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2012
    Messages:
    583
    I don't get it...according to the study you posted above : " In comparison to the meat and fat groups, the carbohydrate group generally contained lower amounts of AGEs (Table 1 available online at http://www.adajournal.org). This may be due to the often higher water content or higher level of antioxidants and vitamins in these foods, which may diminish new AGE formation. Furthermore, in this food category, most polysaccharides consist of non-reducing sugars, less likely to give rise to AGEs " :wtf:
    Did you mean " I may eat meat and/or fats but I try not to eat them roasted or fried ?" instead of " carbohydrates".
     
  17. LucH

    LucH Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2015
    Messages:
    243
    I may eat = it might happen. That a cirum-locution to say I try not often.
    Let's take one example: Some people add sugar in their bread. I don't (remember: I practice: 80/20% => nutri80/20). Nothing in forbidden unless ...
    To have AGE, a glycation, you must have a sugar + a protein (or sugar + lipid, but less dangerous).
    When a protein is glycated, it means protein is bound to a sugar. That's rubbish for the metabolism. Difficult to get rid of.
    :yellohello
    LucH
     
  18. Such_Saturation

    Such_Saturation Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2013
    Messages:
    7,364
    Perhaps if we write it with steaks and sausages they will read it :cool:
     
  19. Wilfrid

    Wilfrid Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2012
    Messages:
    583
    I think I get it....
    But I still don't understand why you are always refering to the danger of carbs and/or sugar ( in this case as a source of AGE) when the study you posted clearly states that those are the lowest sources of AGE in edible foods ( page 8 of the study you quoted from PubMed)....I wish you, at least, have make some few references about fat and meat consumption that are so abundant in the paleo sphere...and the real danger of consuming too much bacon, for ex.....
    "As much as the Paleo community loves bacon, it needs to be pointed out that it is among the worst offenders in terms of AGE content. Considering many people love frying bacon to a crisp, this is even more of a danger." source: http://blog.paleohacks.com/advanced-gly ... lPzI9.dpuf

    You don't have an agenda for promoting a " paleo way of eating ", do you?
     
  20. Wilfrid

    Wilfrid Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2012
    Messages:
    583
    :mrgreen:
     
Loading...