Sugar and Sitting; The new Trans Fats and Smoking

[Boges]

Health officials always need something to scare us with.

http://lifehacker.com/5879536/how-sitting-all-day-is-damaging-your-body-and-how-you-can-counteract-it

Do you sit in an office chair or on your couch for more than six hours a day? Then here are some disturbing facts: Your risk of heart disease has increased by up to 64 percent. You're shaving off seven years of quality life. You're also more at risk for certain types of cancer. Simply put, sitting is killing you. That's the bad news. The good news: It's easy to counteract no matter how lazy you are.

Yes because office jobs are a new thing. Back in the days of Yore people didn't sit all day at sewing machines or drill presses or anything. But now that people spend their days on a computer, THEY'RE KILLING THEMSELVES!!!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2424396/Sugar-dangerous-drug-time-come-smoking-style-health-warnings-says-Dutch-health-chief.html

Sugary foods and drinks should come with a smoking-style health warning, according to a leading Dutch health expert.

Paul van der Velpen, head of Amsterdam's health service, said that sugar is ‘the most dangerous drug of our time’.

The health chief - from a city that has a famously liberal attitude to cannabis - added that sugar is a drug like alcohol and tobacco and that its use should be discouraged.

I'm not saying Sugar is good for you but people are now saying it should be a controlled substance? That even if you work off the calories it's still going to kill you?

I read this morning that you shouldn't have more than 6 teaspoons a day. So a double double is a third of your daily intake?

People have been consuming sugar for hundreds of years. Sugary treats are nothing new.

Solving the obesity epidemic is going to take a more nuanced approach than telling people everything is bad for them.

People understand calories and know smoking is bad. But now they have to refrain from sitting and avoiding sugar and salt like the plague? What about sugars in fruits? Is fruit the next target for the people that what to make everyone afraid of everything they consume?

I'm not really putting forward any specific argument, I just notice now that a healthy lifestyle is a moving target and it just seems to me that there are people that need to justify their existence by putting forward studies to tell us that everything we do is bad.

Edited March 6, 2014 by Boges

[Topaz]

Sugar causes diabetes and also grows cancers and today's food has too too many sugars, salts and white flour.

[Boges]

Sugar causes diabetes and also grows cancers and today's food has too too many sugars, salts and white flour.

But should these things be controlled substances. A teaspoon of sugar is only 16 calories.

[BubberMiley]

Maybe it's all a fraud like global warming.

[bud]

But should these things be controlled substances. A teaspoon of sugar is only 16 calories.

an average canadian consume 26 teaspoons a day. it's usually refined sugar that is consumed, which is high in fructose. fructose turns into liver fat which prevent the liver from processing insulin properly. this leads to type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and stroke.

[Boges]

an average canadian consume 26 teaspoons a day. it's usually refined sugar that is consumed, which is high in fructose. fructose turns into liver fat which prevent the liver from processing insulin properly. this leads to type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and stroke.

Even if you're sufficiently active?

[Bonam]

Even if you're sufficiently active?

Nope and that's of course the problem. Unlike tobacco, which is purely harmful, sugar is something that people need to live. Depending on one's activity level, one can validly want or need much more sugar without incurring negative health effects. The way forward is educating people about and encouraging/incentivizing active lifestyle, healthy weight, etc, not banning sugary foods and drinks.

[Guest]

I think the problem lies with the ways the food industry puts sugar in their products. As Bud mentioned, it's in the processing. The sugar you get naturally from your daily apple or orange is not doing you the same harm as the high fructose corn syrup you will get from a packaged pudding.

Perhaps not banning sugar, but banning highly processed forms of sugar is the way to go.

[Bonam]

I think the problem lies with the ways the food industry puts sugar in their products. As Bud mentioned, it's in the processing. The sugar you get naturally from your daily apple or orange is not doing you the same harm as the high fructose corn syrup you will get from a packaged pudding.

Perhaps not banning sugar, but banning highly processed forms of sugar is the way to go.

Nope, there's nothing wrong with high fructose corn syrup. Calories in, calories out, that's all there is to it. It may be easier to get more calories when you consume foods with processed sugars, but that's about it.

What kind of society do you want to live in where the government tells you you can't have a candy bar or an ice cream? Someone can be perfectly healthy and want the occasional treat.

Keep the government out of our sugar.

[Guest]

I'm pretty sure the body processes HFCS differently from naturally occurring sugars. Plus the process to come up with the product introduces some harmful chemicals into the body.

I don't think the government should tell you that you can't have a candy bar. It should tell the candy bar makers what they can't put in one.

The government doesn't tell you that you can't fill your gas tank. It tells the gas station they can't put lead in the gas.

[bleeding heart]

Is the government not already IN our sugar, through subsidy programs (including corn, much of which is used for its sugar), which is exactly why sugary foods are often so cheap, which is certainly one of the reasons we consume so much of it?

[Boges]

Corn is also used for fuel. . . and yummy bourbon.

Edited March 6, 2014 by Boges

[BubberMiley]

Keep the government out of our sugar.

How do you feel about government inspectors making sure your sugar doesn't exceed the minimum amount of rat feces allowed? Less libertarian all of a sudden?

[Moonlight Graham]

Nope and that's of course the problem. Unlike tobacco, which is purely harmful, sugar is something that people need to live. Depending on one's activity level, one can validly want or need much more sugar without incurring negative health effects. The way forward is educating people about and encouraging/incentivizing active lifestyle, healthy weight, etc, not banning sugary foods and drinks.

You don't need refined, processed sugars to live. You get plenty from fruits & veggies etc. You can't eat crappy foods, like processed sugars, in anything but trace amounts without incurring negative health effects, no matter how active you are, because you would always be healthier if you didn't eat those foods. Straight down to the cellular level & efficiency of your organs.

But banning these substances is probably not the way to go. If anything, crappy processed foods could be taxed, so that healthy alternatives are cheaper than the artificial processed garbage instead of vice-versa (or even to offset rising healthcare costs from eating these foods and/or subsidize healthy food prices), and people should be better educated about how bad these foods are.

That said, how is that parents who regularly feed their children meals that are garbage (like sugary cereals, or drinks loaded with processed sugars ie: Sunny D) shouldn't be accused of child abuse?

[Boges]

That said, how is that parents who regularly feed their children meals that are garbage (like sugary cereals, or drinks loaded with processed sugars ie: Sunny D) shouldn't be accused of child abuse?

So you think feeding a kid fruit loops in the morning is child abuse? I'd argue that's an extreme position.

Most people would say it's about balance. Sugar has been around for awhile and obesity hasn't always been such a problem. Soda, for example, has been around for coming on 150 years.

[carepov]

That said, how is that parents who regularly feed their children meals that are garbage (like sugary cereals, or drinks loaded with processed sugars ie: Sunny D) shouldn't be accused of child abuse?

One reason is that it would be impossible to objectively define and then prove the difference between regularly and occasionally.

Another reason is that having your parent accused of child abuse is probably more harmful than regularly eating meals that are garbage.

[bleeding heart]

Boges makes a good point; the health and obesity problems we are facing is not solely due to refined sugar. There is a complex array of factors, and no doubt a lessening of physical activity is a key one.

It's one of the few cases in which the "when we were kids" argument is actually true, I believe.

[Boges]

Boges makes a good point; the health and obesity problems we are facing is not solely due to refined sugar. There is a complex array of factors, and no doubt a lessening of physical activity is a key one.

It's one of the few cases in which the "when we were kids" argument is actually true, I believe.

I think inactivity is way more a culprit than food. Is physical activity being encouraged as much in schools these days? We had video games when I was a kid but we also played street hockey. We actually went out when it snowed.

I've heard anecdotes in the media about how sports during recess has been discouraged or how recess gets cancelled because of any adverse weather all together.

Also what about PD in schools? Is it mandatory anymore?

[carepov]

Diet and lifestyle go hand-in-hand:

"Americans are fat because they eat too much and exercise too little. But they eat too much and exercise too little because they’re addicted to sugar, which not only makes them fatter but, after the initial sugar rush, also saps their energy, beaching them on the couch. “The reason you’re watching TV is not because TV is so good,” he said, “but because you have no energy to exercise, because you’re eating too much sugar.”

The solution? Stop eating so much sugar. When people cut back, many of the ill effects disappear."

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2013/08/sugar/cohen-text

[Boges]

I don't agree that sugar automatically makes you lazy. Often after consuming sugar, I need to do some sort of physical activity.

The idea of an energy drink or a coffee full of sugar gets you going in the morning sort or goes contradictory to that.

[Guest]

That said, how is that parents who regularly feed their children meals that are garbage (like sugary cereals, or drinks loaded with processed sugars ie: Sunny D) shouldn't be accused of child abuse?

So you think feeding a kid fruit loops in the morning is child abuse? I'd argue that's an extreme position.

I would say giving a child unfettered access to canned pop and sweets is tantamount to child abuse. Allowing regulated consumption of sugar (or any unhealthy food) as an occasional treat is fine.

[WestCoastRunner]

Nope, there's nothing wrong with high fructose corn syrup. Calories in, calories out, that's all there is to it. It may be easier to get more calories when you consume foods with processed sugars, but that's about it.

Actually, that's not about it.

"Digestive health: HFCS can cause bloating and gas. This is because large amounts of HFCS feed the natural bacteria in our intestines, which produce gas. To reduce gas, avoid consuming large amounts of HFCS by choosing water and 100% fruit juice instead of soft drinks and sweetened fruit beverages."

I actually heard an interesting conversation on CBC radio the other day and the guest was a dietitian who said that our bodies cannot tell the difference between fruit juice and a glass of pop. If we want fruit juice, it is highly recommended to eat the fruit.

And I don't think it's a matter of keeping government out of our sugars. It's a matter of adopting a healthy and active lifestyle early in life. That usually carries forward into adulthood with healthy habits. When you adopt a healthy lifestyle, you tend to not want or crave refined sugars.

[Moonlight Graham]

Boges makes a good point; the health and obesity problems we are facing is not solely due to refined sugar. There is a complex array of factors, and no doubt a lessening of physical activity is a key one.

It's one of the few cases in which the "when we were kids" argument is actually true, I believe.

Yes, activity is one factor. Concentrated, processed sugars are also not the only bad ingredients/foods we eat in too high an amount.

[Moonlight Graham]

I would say giving a child unfettered access to canned pop and sweets is tantamount to child abuse. Allowing regulated consumption of sugar (or any unhealthy food) as an occasional treat is fine.

That's basically what I'm saying. Foods of poor nutrition should be occasional treats, not regular parts of meals, and certainly not the regular main part of a meal (like fruit loops). It pains me to say this because I love fruit loops haha.

Maybe the whole "child abuse" thing is a bit excessive but if parents let their kids eat high amounts of garbage foods than I think you could an argument.

[Guest]

That's basically what I'm saying. Foods of poor nutrition should be occasional treats, not regular parts of meals, and certainly not the regular main part of a meal (like fruit loops). It pains me to say this because I love fruit loops haha.

Maybe the whole "child abuse" thing is a bit excessive but if parents let their kids eat high amounts of garbage foods than I think you could an argument.

Yeah, I think so too. A parent wouldn't let their kids smoke, or drink alcohol. Allowing them to eat junk food with no controls is equally bad for their physical health.

Probably worse for their mental health, due to the effect of their obesity on their social lives.