Sugar: Is it bad for a healthy person?

I'm more than content ending this argument with a very succinct "you're wrong" because I'm not the one making ridiculous claims. If you're that invested in the argument, find real studies (not Livestrong articles or anything that makes reference to the China study) to support your position and convince everyone here how right you are.

So you brag about having a degree in nutrition and you don't even want to back anything up? Why comment in the first place?
Seems like your bluff just got called and you don't have a good reason. You just like dairy and don't want to admit to yourself that it's unhealthy.
I don't see how I am making ridiculous claims, given that tons of experts and just normal people think that dairy products are unhealthy.
 
So you brag about having a degree in nutrition and you don't even want to back anything up? Why comment in the first place?
Seems like your bluff just got called and you don't have a good reason. You just like dairy and don't want to admit to yourself that it's unhealthy.

No, you're just wrong.

I don't see how I am making ridiculous claims, given that tons of experts and just normal people think that dairy products are unhealthy.

Funny, these actual experts seem to think differently.

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/early/2013/08/14/ajcn.113.059030.short

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/96/4/735.short

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/93/1/158.full
 
People are still believing the saturated fat is bad dogma? Yeezus...
 
So you brag about having a degree in nutrition and you don't even want to back anything up? Why comment in the first place?
Seems like your bluff just got called and you don't have a good reason. You just like dairy and don't want to admit to yourself that it's unhealthy.
I don't see how I am making ridiculous claims, given that tons of experts and just normal people think that dairy products are unhealthy.

A large reason people like him and i don't go into great detail is because we have done this argument so many times its tiresome and people still don't listen. World's most recent meta-analysis on saturated fat, animal proteins etc have been done several times in the last decade disproving the "saturated fat is bad" dogma. Hell, i did my research paper specifically on the lipid hypothesis and saturated fat. If you don't like milk, it isn't necessary for survival, but if you don't have any lactose or casein/whey digestion problems, drink up if you want. I personally don't use much dairy unless its old cheddar or stilton, but meh.

http://www.bmj.com/content/351/bmj.h3978

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2824152/

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/early/2010/01/13/ajcn.2009.27725.abstract
 
Bro-science...its everywhere

Isn't it kind of equally bro science to just assume that it's all fine? I mean, i'm biased, i'm on a LCHF diet. I don't push it on other people. But I do feel way healthier when i've cut out virtually all sugar from my diet.

And in terms of what sugar does to your body functionally it's not actually bro science. So rice / complex carbs doesn't do this. But what a more pure sugar / glucose does is make your pancreas spike and produce a lot of insulin at once. Insulin is just a hormone that processes starches and sugars. When it spikes up from processing sugar the energy you get isn't level for a long time. Insulin spikes, then it drops off. And no, having a banana or some strawberries won't guarantee a fucking major crash in 2 hours. It's going to vary from person to person, how much sugar it takes to make you crash, also what your other sources of energy are.

I do not fully believe that people talking about having like 200+ grams of sugar a day but feeling fine would not possibly feel / be healthier or more level at least if they tried cutting at least just the sugar down. Not even saying 'cut all carbs.'

Where as when your body is in ketosis you generally process fats at a very steady rate. So if before a workout you have a high fat / protein / extremely low carb meal you'll stay level in terms of energy. You won't get like a 'spike' of ketones from having an avacado followed by a crash.
 
Isn't it kind of equally bro science to just assume that it's all fine? I mean, i'm biased, i'm on a LCHF diet. I don't push it on other people. But I do feel way healthier when i've cut out virtually all sugar from my diet.

And in terms of what sugar does to your body functionally it's not actually bro science. So rice / complex carbs doesn't do this. But what a more pure sugar / glucose does is make your pancreas spike and produce a lot of insulin at once. Insulin is just a hormone that processes starches and sugars. When it spikes up from processing sugar the energy you get isn't level for a long time. Insulin spikes, then it drops off. And no, having a banana or some strawberries won't guarantee a fucking major crash in 2 hours. It's going to vary from person to person, how much sugar it takes to make you crash, also what your other sources of energy are.

I do not fully believe that people talking about having like 200+ grams of sugar a day but feeling fine would not possibly feel / be healthier or more level at least if they tried cutting at least just the sugar down. Not even saying 'cut all carbs.'

Where as when your body is in ketosis you generally process fats at a very steady rate. So if before a workout you have a high fat / protein / extremely low carb meal you'll stay level in terms of energy. You won't get like a 'spike' of ketones from having an avacado followed by a crash.

Few issues.

1) Starch is more insulinogenic than sugar. Protein is more insulinogenic than sugar. Most forms of sugar are roughly 50% fructose, which does not require insulin for cellular uptake. It's used directly as fuel in peripheral tissue, or in the liver it's stored as glycogen or used for energy in triglyceride synthesis. Fructose is included in sports drinks/gels because of it's ability to replenish hepatic glycogen stores, and because it's processed at a slower rate than glucose alone.

2) I used to be low/zero-carb. Adding sugar back into my diet was one of the best things I ever did, particularly for my mental health. I don't get big energy crashes or anything, because my diet is not just rich in sugars, but rich in all the nutrients needed to process those sugars. All forms of metabolism are dependent on other nutrients, and most people are deficient in major ones (potassium and magnesium being the most common, and both are integral in sugar metabolism).

3) Even when you're in ketosis, your body is producing at minimum 80g of glucose per day. By instigating "ketosis" you are simply making your body work harder to get glucose, which it needs to live. This process of forcing the body to constantly make it's own glucose can be hard on the body, and a ton of people can't tolerate it.
 
3) Even when you're in ketosis, your body is producing at minimum 80g of glucose per day. By instigating "ketosis" you are simply making your body work harder to get glucose, which it needs to live. This process of forcing the body to constantly make it's own glucose can be hard on the body, and a ton of people can't tolerate it.

It's an absolute double standard but, do you have any sources for this? I'm not an expert, and you can feel free to say i'm talking out of my ass. I'm going off of my current knowledge. I'd just like to see some scholarly peer reviewed article detailing how many many people physically could live worse on a low sugar diet.
 
It's an absolute double standard but, do you have any sources for this? I'm not an expert, and you can feel free to say i'm talking out of my ass. I'm going off of my current knowledge. I'd just like to see some scholarly peer reviewed article detailing how many many people physically could live worse on a low sugar diet.

Are we talking low-sugar or are we talking ketogenic diet? Because with low sugar (and moderate-high starch) diet you are unlikely to see any problems arise, given at least micronutrient needs are being met.

If we are talking ketogenic, I don't think there's ever been a study of otherwise healthy people who have done the diet for over a year, so there's no hard data on the side effects. So you have to understand physiology to see some of the potential downsides to ketogenic diets. I've definitely seen them happen to other people. (Just read some of the testimonials at the 180degreehealth forums and you'll see for yourself. Or just look at Jimmy Moore, who has been slowly killing himself with zero carb for the past 5 years.
 
I think sugar doesn't cause bad to health.. But an abnormal amount of sugar consumption may causes. Keep balance intake between all nutrition's is the best way of diet. Take as many veggies too.
 
If we are talking ketogenic, I don't think there's ever been a study of otherwise healthy people who have done the diet for over a year, so there's no hard data on the side effects.

And yet you felt comfortable suggesting that there are long term negative side effects? Maybe there are? Maybe there aren't? I tried to look up this single individual you claim is 'killing himself' on the Keto diet. And he's a big Keto advocate, can you explain how he's killing himself? Apparently he was like 300+ pounds and now he's healthy and a big keto advocate. I Know that being like 160 doesn't = healthy...

But you keep implying stuff about the negative side effects without providing ANY even anicdotal sources, even this one dude appears to be healthy?

I personally am on a Keto diet yes. But I would not necessarily argue that a Keto diet is what everyone should be on. My argument would be that you should definitely regulate sugar intake recognizing that it does cause insulin spikes which can lead to a crash later. Long term health wise there have also been more negative consequences associated with sugar. All that being said, if you're living a healthy lifestyle, and exercising, you're probably fine eating sugar, especially if it's natural sugar from fruit rather than heavily refined sugars. And complex carbs / starches are again, much different in terms of their effect on your body than sugar.
 
And yet you felt comfortable suggesting that there are long term negative side effects? Maybe there are? Maybe there aren't? I tried to look up this single individual you claim is 'killing himself' on the Keto diet. And he's a big Keto advocate, can you explain how he's killing himself? Apparently he was like 300+ pounds and now he's healthy and a big keto advocate. I Know that being like 160 doesn't = healthy...

But you keep implying stuff about the negative side effects without providing ANY even anicdotal sources, even this one dude appears to be healthy?

I personally am on a Keto diet yes. But I would not necessarily argue that a Keto diet is what everyone should be on. My argument would be that you should definitely regulate sugar intake recognizing that it does cause insulin spikes which can lead to a crash later. Long term health wise there have also been more negative consequences associated with sugar. All that being said, if you're living a healthy lifestyle, and exercising, you're probably fine eating sugar, especially if it's natural sugar from fruit rather than heavily refined sugars. And complex carbs / starches are again, much different in terms of their effect on your body than sugar.

I know there's long term side effects because I've seen them happen to people dozens of times. And if you want to really push the empirical route, yes there have been long term studies on people with GLUT1 disorders. I didn't refer to them initially because they aren't healthy people, and because the long term side effects of the ketogenic diet are still not as bad as their disease or their anticonvulsant medications (in some cases - people still drop out of these studies).

Here's a list of long term side effects observed in some of those studies, and even in a low-carb study in adults. And keep in mind most of these are observed in otherwise completely healthy children with most of them only have GLUT1 disorders and few comorbidities, who should have few metabolic or age-related health problems.
- Poor growth
- Kidney Stones
- Hyperlipidemia
- Prolonged QT Interval
- Cardiomyopathy
- Excessive Brusing
- Optic Neuropathy
- Elevated long-chain fatty acid count
- Vitamin D Deficiency; Osteopenia
- Trace Mineral Deficiency (Copper, potassium, selenium)
- Constipation and diarrhea
- Exacerbation of GERD
- Elevated liver enzymes
- Pancreatitis
- Amenorrhea or irregular menstrual cycles
- Delayed Puberty
- Lethargy (functional hypothyroidism)
- Hair Loss; hair thinning
- Headaches
- Halitosis
- Weakness
- Muscle cramping
- Rash
- Death from cardiac and immune complications (rare event, but they have been observed)

Sources:
http://jcn.sagepub.com/content/16/9/633.full.pdf+html
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1528-1157.2003.57002.x/full
http://ltc.nutes.ufrj.br/constructo... Diet To Treat Obesity and Hyperlipidemia.pdf

And you can't take one glance at Jimmy Moore to know he's falling apart inside. The guy has had serious cardiac and lipid issues ongoing for years now, he just rarely talks about them publicly. He's publicly complained about kidney stones, gout, and heart palpitations over the years, among other things. He's not healthy, and his diet isn't helping.

The problem here is that you don't understand physiology. You can't say that sugar causes insulin spikes, because it doesn't compared to most other foods. And you can't claim that spiking insulin is bad and starches aren't as bad as sugar, because starches spike insulin more than sugar (hell, PROTEIN spikes insulin about as much or more than sugar). And you can't even claim that spiking insulin is bad, because it isn't in the first place. These are intractable facts of human physiology, and if you don't believe them then you're wrong and it's time to start doing some more studying on your own.

If you want a good laymen's starting point on some of the physiology and real science behind carbohydrate intake, start reading Evelyn's old blog posts here: http://carbsanity.blogspot.ca/. She's a tad overzealous and can be a bit annoying but she knows her stuff. Otherwise, start digging up direct scientific sources yourself because your current knowledge is lacking. Not trying to be a dick here or anything, just calling it like it is.
 
Last edited:
Everyone in this thread saying nothing is wrong with sugar are completely delusional. Sugar causes inflammation in the body. 'nuff said
 
Hay quá. Cám ơn bạn đã chia sẻ thông tin bổ ích. Mình đang cần cái này. Cám ơn nhiều nhé.
 
The problem here is that you don't understand physiology. You can't say that sugar causes insulin spikes, because it doesn't compared to most other foods. And you can't claim that spiking insulin is bad and starches aren't as bad as sugar, because starches spike insulin more than sugar (hell, PROTEIN spikes insulin about as much or more than sugar). And you can't even claim that spiking insulin is bad, because it isn't in the first place. These are intractable facts of human physiology, and if you don't believe them then you're wrong and it's time to start doing some more studying on your own.

Would you mind telling me your background in the medical / physiology field?

Also a lot of the bad things you listed, let's talk about those...

A fucking enormous amount of those problems come from people that go on this diet and start eating only fucking meat, cream, fat, etc. They cut out vegetables, they're not having like roasted peppers and lettuce / salads etc. They're eating WAY too fucking much red meat on the diet. That's equivilant to me saying "Well look at all the fuckers that get REALLY fucking fat on normal carb / sugar diets." I could list you hundreds more connected side effects (with causal, not correlative studies) linking high carb / high sugar diets to heart disease, obesity, diabetus, and much worse shit.

But yeah, you can't just stop eating carbs and expect everything to be good.

And let's look at the single study where your entire list of possible side effects came from that you made sure to emphasize... I quote from that same study paper

"Serious complications of the ketogenic diet appear to be rare. Livingston summarized his experience with 1000 patients at Johns Hopkins Hospital in 1972 and reported no serious complications."

Page 634 of that study. Also under every side effect, they basically have a 'simple treatment' method advised... Because every side effect is just someone that doesn't know what the fuck they're doing... IE: Kidney stones: Increase fluid (drink water which btw, high carb people get those as well, that's just not drinking water and having a lot of red meat / salt etc)

Poor Growth: listed treatment "total protein, adequate protein"

Hyperlipidemia (too much fat in your blood): Just like how eating like 90% meat 5% fat 5% carbs will fuck you up, this is something that is only going to happen to someone that's eating 90% fats, 5% protein/meat 5% carbs.

A lot of your other results are also specific to children (Poor growth / delayed puberty especially) since all these studies were done studying epilepsy and not really the nutritional aspects of the diet.


Again I am not terminally defending the diet here. But you don't want to delve into the whole like... dick measuring contest of me pulling up fucking thousands of studies documenting the bad effects sugar has on your body. Because then your argument is "Well don't be retarded with your fucking normal, balanced carb / fat / protein diet."

To which my response will be "Well don't be retarded with your different fucking High fat / protein low carb diet."

Both can be shown to be completely fucking retarded when mismanaged. For example gout is typically caused by an extreme excess of protein.

Otherwise, start digging up direct scientific sources yourself because your current knowledge is lacking. Not trying to be a dick here or anything, just calling it like it is.

Bitch, you've literally picked 3 studies that didn't address ANY nutritional aspects of the diet and were entirely evaluating their efficacy as a way to reduce seizures that mention that it is possible that the diets could have those side effects. You're acting like you have an MD and i'm just a peasant or some shit.

Also you literally linked a blog, where I can't find a bio of who the fuck "evelyn" is. But blogs like that are a DIME a dozen. You can cherry pick tiny studies and little things that support the message you are trying to send which is, in this case that "keto is bullshit"

The blog's fucking header is...

"Welcome all seeking refuge from low carb dogma!

“To kill an error is as good a service as, and sometimes even better than, the establishing of a new truth or fact”
~ Charles Darwin "

That's someone looking for every tiny scrap of evidence they can find including a study they produly linked with like 12 people in it.

"Carbsane's" only actual accreditation listed on twitter (the only place I could find a bio for 'carbsane') is 'blogger'.

I think you are just as much of a bro scientist as anyone else. The difference between me and you is that I accept that everything 'carbsane' and you are saying could be true, but there are also dozens of studies that conclude different things.

Whenever you are LOOKING to make a point you can find research to prove you right. I am not claiming to prove you wrong. I think only idiots go looking for one clear answer and "I'm always fucking right you're always wrong. This diet is bullshit PURE bullshit."

You can tell me I don't know what i'm talking about. And that's ok, but I feel like if I talked to literally any objective, actual, professional, masters / PHD nutritionist about Ketogenic diets / low carb diets they wouldn't DARE give a definitive answer. Because generally an intelligent / objective scientist isn't that stupid. Acting like it's 100% understood, whether the conclusion is that it's bad or good is just wrong. You couldn't pull one study that's relevant to exactly what we're discussing. I wish there were more studies that were applicable to Keto as a general / broad diet for adults / specifically athletic adults.

But to my knowledge I can't really find any, and apparently you couldn't either. So why on earth would you act like it's all bullshit?

There's a reason you can go back to my FIRST post in the thread and see that I'm not even pushing the diet for others, and i'm not willing to say it's super legit / super effective. Because even though it works very well for me and I have a good experience with it. I'm not dumb enough to believe that the positive studies that I have read about it, and my experiences, are enough to conclude that this diet is legit as fuck and the only way to go and other people are idiots.

Where as you seem perfectly confident going with... small studies looking at young kids and teenagers not really evaluating nutrition.

Also as far as my apparently fucking awful understanding of insulin...

"These carbohydrates are composed of sugars (such as fructose and glucose) which have simple chemical structures composed of only one sugar (monosaccharides) or two sugars (disaccharides). Simple carbohydrates are easily and quickly utilized for energy by the body because of their simple chemical structure, often leading to a faster rise in blood sugar and insulin secretion from the pancreas – which can have negative health effects."

Source: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/carbohydrates/carbohydrates-and-blood-sugar/

- Death from cardiac and immune complications (rare event, but they have been observed)

Oh and you said that but the studies actually said that the deaths in their selected long term subjects was unrelated to the diet. A lot of the kids that were getting studied on this diet had SERIOUS systematic health problems...

But yeah

TLDR: Calling me out for not knowing my shit when you link a blog with someone that has no scientific background whose soul purpose in life is to talk shit about low carb diets is pathetic. I'd like to see your scientific credentials. You've googled out of context studies about keto diets and are searching and ONLY looking for / at research that has even slight negative things to say about the keto diet (even the out of context studies all conclude that it's a viable / ok diet, but they weren't actually looking at weight loss / how effective it would be for an athlete or something)

But yeah, in conclusion: You're a bro scientist that doesn't know your shit just as much as I don't. Stop acting like you have an MD.


 
Fat used to be the devil. These days it seems to be sugar.

I am healthy and bulking at the moment. I do quite a bit of BJJ so it's really hard to gain weight while just eating clean. I drink a lot of chocolate milk and regular milk, which makes it easy to reach my calorie goal.

But you have no idea how many people try to get me to stop with the sugar... Apparently it's going to kill me...

Is there anything bad about sugar if you don't have diabetes? Apart from the insulin spike which must suck if you try to lose weight, but that's a non-issue for me.

Lots of athletes are getting early onset diabetes from sugar. How much chocolate milk and milk are you drinking a day?
 
I haven't found it an issue with me, about 1/2 of my carbs come from sugar. I don't count sugar, just the carbs instead so whatever amount of sugar I take in is random. Yesterday I had 224g out of 530g carbs. On a cut, I don't restrict it either.

I haven't had any issues in training, or in the ring either. For long term diabetes I'll have to look into that for myself, but I think if the amount taken in is excessively high. Gorging obese level calories of processed sugar daily, I'm guessing.

Half of your carbohydrates come from sugar, in what form? Fruit? So you're saying yesterday you ate 224 grams of sugar? Lol, what? That is equivalent to almost 6 coca colas.
 
Half of your carbohydrates come from sugar, in what form? Fruit? So you're saying yesterday you ate 224 grams of sugar? Lol, what? That is equivalent to almost 6 coca colas.
Fruits, poptarts, raisins, etc
 
Back
Top