Is There a Safe Amount of Sugar?

iStock_000015705504Small-650x432

After last week’s alert about sugar and heart disease, some people – including a representative from the Swedish National Food Agency (issuing official dietary guidelines) – drew a funny conclusion.

They agreed that sugar is hazardous to the heart, but claimed that the study showed that if you kept your sugar intake below about 8 percent of your energy intake, you wouldn’t be at an increased risk.

This is somewhat embarrassing. It turns out that the group that ate the least sugar in the study consumed about that much (7.4%). The most obvious reason for this group being the healthiest, was that no other group ate less sugar!

So now you know. If you eat only 7.4 percent sugar, you’ll not be at an increased risk… compared to others that eat more sugar.

Using the same logic we could do a study of people who smoke 10, 20 or 30 cigarettes daily. If the people smoking 10 cigarettes per day were found to be the healthiest it would “prove” that smoking this amount of cigarettes per day is safe.

Science according to the Swedish National Food Agency.

More

New Study: Does Sugar Cause Heart Disease?

Doctors Warn: “Sugar is the New Tobacco”

Is Sugar Toxic?

95 comments

Top comments

  1. Cindy
    I have a somewhat radical belief- that the job of cancer cells is to reduce the amount of excess sugar in the blood. I've worked in cancer research for over a decade and I can usually predict when a cancer drug is working for someone (their blood glucose level goes up) and when it stops working (their blood glucose level goes down).

    It always amazes me that oncologists use PET scans to determine the cancer activity in the body (by determining the amount of glucose uptake in tumors) and then tell their patients to drink carbohydrate laden drinks and eat high carb foods to stay "healthy".

    I believe that no processed sugar is good for you-and that regular intake could be especially bad if it's "feeding" cancer cells.

    Read more →
  2. Penny
    I would just like to say I've been doing LCHF for a little over one month and I am so happy with it! I have lost belly fat, my mood has changed so drastically it scared me a little: the unknown reason for happiness is strange to me but I love it! I don't crave or want sweets, and I was a sugar-holic before. I don't tell many people about my lifestyle change for fear of attack, but it wont change my mind: I am living proof it works! My husband and family are so happy with my change to being a positive person. They are trying it now, too. I don't ever write on public forums, but this has changed my life for the better and I will never go back!
    Read more →
1 2

All comments

  1. FrankG
    What a bizarre comment. If you are sincere Simmone, then I wonder why you even visit this or any other "so called health blog". ???

    So bizarre that I do actually question your sincerity in making this comment.

    It is probably correct to say that "this way of eating is not possible for all" but that does not makes liars or mass hysterics out of those who find it is very doable.

    I don't see anyone here trying to force this way of eating on anyone else. Mostly those who visit this site seem to be interested in at least trying LCHF but there is no pressure to do so and and I can't help it if you or anyone else feels powerless to resist the command of an on-line blog to take control of your life.

    Real whole food, locally sourced and seasonal is not only a VERY sustainable way of life, I am convinced that is is the ONLY sustainable way of feeding the World.

    Reply: #55
  2. robert
    Please...

    A lot of people will only by the best motor oil, the best gasoline, the best tires... for their cars. No expenses spared. A well-cared-for machine will last and happily do its job for a long time.

    Why is it so hard to accept that some people apply the same concept to their body. Maybe you're still young and healthy. Good for you.

    But let me tell you what. Once you start getting a bit older and things don't run as smoothly as they used to be, and you see people around you (friends, parents...) getting issues that most likely are diet / lifestyle related, you start asking yourself: do I want to go that way?

    My personal answer to that is clearly: no.

    I have enough health anomalies already, I don't want diabetes and related issues on top of that. Neither diet-induced, nor statin-induced.

    I've made an informed decision to eat "clean" (real food only, no grains, no processed crap, home cooked) and my mind is set to continue until I drop dead.

    I try to stick to this decision. Sometimes I slip, but I think right now I can still tolerate a bit of ice-cream once a month. And for emergencies, there is always "mascarpone + berries".

    As far as the food-industry goes... I simply don't buy their stuff on a regular basis. Some products I can still tolerate once in a while in small quantities (see above), but the stuff that offends me I simply do not buy. It simply doesn't exist, I don't see it anymore, I don't crave it anymore.

    I didn't see a miraculous weight loss or a land-slide improvement of my health, but I wasn't obese in the first place. And some damage might not be reversible as well.

    Granted, the first 2 months into this way of eating were hell (shakes, sweating, craving, always tired, you name it, I had it), but that went away finally.

    The main purpose (for me) of this way of eating is to prevent further damage to my health. Blood tests indicate it works.

    Maybe vegetarianism / vaganism / 80-10-10 / fruitarianism works for some people (at least for a while), but not for me. I know for a fact that if I went back to pizza, bread, cake, tons of fruit etc. I would inflate like a helium balloon. Not going to happen.

    Finally, a quote from Prof. Tim Noakes:

    "We are each an experiment of one. Keep experimenting. Listen to everyone's advice. Don't necessarily believe anyone"

  3. Murray
    I do find it somewhat difficult to sustain real food LCHF, which I have followed without falling off the proverbial wagon for over six years. It is easy enough when I can do my own shopping where I know good sources and do my own cooking. Indeed, this has resulted in cooking becoming an avocation and the food in our is generally a culinary delight. Eating out, however, is problematic, especially if I have no say in the restaurant selection. A group went to breakfast ice at a supposed good breakfast place (one of the group raved about it) but the menu was hardly suitable to me. I ordered a poached egg, a side of spinach and hollandaise sauce. I could tell something was wrong the first bite (well, even seeing it) and after a quick inquiry with the cook, the server said the sauce was thickened with flour. "He says Hollandaise sauce is always thickened with flour; that's how its made." Sure. Fortunately I always carry some 100% chocolate and nuts, in case of restaurant flame outs such as that.

    Of course I adopt a Nietzchean attitude and attempt to transform a disadvantage into an advantage. When I travel, much of the adventure now is searching for and locating good food sources. One meets like-minded food artisans and learns a lot from them.

  4. JanC
    Simmone and Gray, I have been low (but not very low) carb since 2008. I have never been very overweight and my diet for years was largely vegetarian with whole grains - everything home prepared from scratch. In my fifties, however, I did start to get a bit fatter and that wasn't OK with me, so I reduced my starchy carbs and lost 1 stone (14lb).

    It's very easy to follow a low-carb diet and, since I don't think I have blood sugar issues, I can eat starchy carbs in the form of tubers in small amounts. My weight has been stable since 2008. I don't think it is healthy to fill up with carbs unless you have a highly physical job, and so if you don't have weight and blood sugar problems and you are young, you may well find that you could follow a diet such as Chris Kresser's, which is based on Paleo, and have starchy carbs from roots and tubers. But if you are overweight, I know that a low/moderately low-carb diet works, is tasty and incredibly easy to adopt as a lifestyle. If you have blood sugar problems you probably need to do what many people following this blog do and cut your carbs right down.

    I don't find it a problem not to eat a pizza and I can have something sugary like a piece of cake as a treat very, very occasionally and enjoy it. I don't fall off the wagon, because it's just my normal way of eating: healthily, with meat, fish, eggs, cheese, nuts, butter, coconut oil, olive oil, vegetables, fruit, but no grains except for small amounts of white rice. What's not to like?

  5. Simmone
    Frank - Why is it a bizarre comment? You make lots of comments on this blog and I and others are expected to take them at face value and accept your sincerity.

    I fail to see where I questioned real food being the best way to eat and I also fail to see where I said that this site is 'forcing' anyone to eat this way.

    My point was and still is, is that anyone asking for help or questioning anything Dr Andreas says is verbally attacked and that the general feeling on reading the diet advice on here is 'just do it.'

    Reply: #56
  6. FrankG
    It is bizarre because it makes no sense. Yes there may be some commenters who come across as hostile -- I can hardly blame them with some of the trolls we get here -- but on the whole I find the folks here very reasonable and supportive.. especially to those who may be having trouble with their LCHF approach. There is no pressure to "just do it" -- show me where that has been said... other than in your own perception. Take it or leave it.. don't like what you read here.. guess what you can do..?

    You seem upset that you think I have put words in to your mouth after you just accused many here (including myself I assume ) of being bogus, mass hysterics and/or liars. Seriously?

    What exactly is Dr Andreas "selling" that he should be so ashamed of? Sure he has a book... heck it is not even translated into English... wow.. what a savvy business decision by a snake-oil salesman.. do ya think?

    You don't seem to like or trust the people here.. so why read here.. what is your point? And sure I may seem hostile to you now.. guess what.. I don't take kindly to being called a liar.

    You can personally choose to take my consistent comments on face-value or not.. entirely up to you but without proof you have no grounds to call anyone here a liar... no matter how "sincerely" you may think it.

    You try to restate your point but surely it is obvious that is NOT what you wrote in your earlier comment.

    Based on all this I sincerely wonder if you are just trying to get a raise or a reaction -- just another troll tactic.

  7. Simmone
    I rest my case.
    Reply: #58
  8. FrankG
    What a complete waste of time.. now perhaps we can get back to the job of discussing the merits, or otherwise, of LCHF, among those with a genuine interest in the topic; while continuing to support those who stand to benefit from it.
  9. J-Play
    Very hostile place Doc. Getting a rep for it too.
    Reply: #60
  10. FrankG
    You want to see hostile, try Free The Animal :-P

    Meantime where the heck are all these new aliases springing up from???

  11. Simmone
    I didn't realise that this was your site Frank. I'm sorry I wouldn't have posted with my own alias, I would have used yours.

    Maybe we should all just post under FrankG or in fact this should be the FrankG blog.

    :)

    Reply: #62
  12. FrankG
    Sarcasm? I thought you were done... if you are not, I'm still waiting to hear you explain your hostility towards Dr Andreas and what he is "selling".

    And sure yes, there are many "regulars" who comment here often.. over time you can see how consistent or otherwise, they are and whether their posts makes sense and seem reasonable ... or not.

    Call me crazy but I tend not to go out of may way visit web-sites where I have no interest in what is being discussed... that seems like a perverse and bizarre past-time to me unless there is some ulterior motive.

    And at the risk of repeating myself "...sure I may seem hostile to you now.. guess what.. I don't take kindly to being called a liar."

  13. FrankG
    A site as popular as this is quickly becoming, evidently attracts some oddballs and its fair share of trolls... so please excuse me if I am a little leery of an anonymous alias who appears to have read here a while but not actively commented before -- especially when they only seem to have negative comment about the site and those whose visit here.
  14. Simmone
    To repeat myself, again. The overall tone of this site is 'do it my way or you are stupid' and anyone with an opposing view is attacked; as you have so beautifully demonstrated.

    I come here and read the Doctors ideas because I am open minded and I think (I think, not know) that he makes sense a lot of the time.

    I come here and post under my name because I am not you, I am me and I will decide what I write and what I say.

    You are bogus Frank; you pretend to be helpful to those wanting help with their diet and when they question you, you attack. What you write screams 'I know it all.' You don't know it all and neither does the Doctor.

    We all need to question everyone and everything and not follow blindly, just because we are told too.

  15. NS
    Francois,

    I think Charles' point is that eating strictly LCHF seems to cause potentially serious issues in people. Are you familiar with Jimmy Moore's cholesterol numbers? His LDLps are in the 3000+ levels - this is something he (openly if hesitatingly) wears as some sort of badge of honor. There has been argument on this blog as to the value/worth of those numbers....are you aware of Dr. Dayspring's position on this? Dayspring is incidentally a low carber himself. But even as Dr. Eenfeldt has himself mentioned, the fact is that nobody knows the long term effects of LCHF, of such high particle numbers, and that is the case in part because no (known) societies have ever eaten this way. JM's 83% fat regimen trumps even the Inuits 70% levels.....and they eat berries in warmer months and I doubt they worry about carb or fructose counts!

    Among doctors' first responsibilities, as pledged by the Hippocratic Oath, is to do no harm to their patients. They would do well to remember notwithstanding the silliness of positing RCTs as apriori medical truth first-cause prerequisites that the longest living societies on earth generally eat in more balanced ways. The mediterranean diet comes to mind.....higher fat, lower carb, but lots of fiber-carbs such as fruits and vegetables.

    Reply: #88
  16. FrankG
    No Simmone... I "attacked" you (your choice of word not mine) because you called me A LIAR not because we have differing ideas about LCHF.

    I make no claim to know "it all" but everything I do claim, is backed up with either personal experience (which you can choose to take or leave) and/or research... which you could read for yourself and make your own determination --- independently of whether you believe me or not.

    If you think this site does not foster an attitude of question everything and everyone then you really need to read more of it than you clearly have already.

    Now you say the Doctor Andreas "...makes sense a lot of the time" while just above you wrote... "To Dr Andreas, I say shame on you. You are the hypnotist and are selling a diet just as those who came before you have done; Weight Watchers, Slimming World and Cambridge - to name a few." So which is it??? See what i mean about consistency?

    I guess this is me "pretend[ing] to be helpful to those wanting help with their diet and when they question you, you attack" in my first response to Gray..? "If you need additional help, support or just suggestions about LCHF then please ask away, I can't promise anything but many of the folks here are open to helping others."

  17. Simmone
    A lot of the time is not the same as all of the time. There are aspects of the Doctors recommendations that are similar to and indeed mimic the main stream diet industry and for this he should be ashamed; we have to stop treating people as generic and treat them as individuals.

    Setting up a site that gives out advice on nutrition should encompass all aspects of the self, because food is not just eaten by the hungry.

    Making promises to those that are desperate to lose weight and heal themselves when this does not always happen is shameful. There are forums where people eating this way do not feel the miraculous benefits that you seem to claim. Should I call them liars too?

    Reply: #68
  18. FrankG
    If you genuinely want a reasonable discussion then I'd suggest that first an apology to those you called liars would be in order. I have already lost any respect I may have had for you, so you may find it an uphill struggle to continue on with me... maybe others still have some patience left with you.

    I also didn't see how you are now trying to rationalise what you just wrote, with your earlier generally damning comments about Dr Andreas. Maybe you are trying to save face by back-peddling... again an apology might help to smooth the way... otherwise, for me you are just wasting breath and time.

    This site is about an LCHF approach... is that not clear enough?

    I have read my share of comments here from those where LCHF was not all they had expected or hoped... it happens... why on earth would I assume they are liars?

    Maybe now we can get this post back on topic.

  19. Simmone
    In control Frank? With you in charge no-one else would dare comment.

    Well done.

  20. JanC
    Simmone, I think one point that might be worth mentioning is that Dr Andreas recommends a LCHF diet for his patients and has found it to be successful, and that is why he started the blog. Some people don't get the results they are looking for with it and I think it's perfectly fine to say so on these comments. Usually lots of people will come up with suggestions to help. But anyone who follows this blog regularly knows that it's been a lifesaver for many people. Others, like me, adapt it to suit them. I'm pretty sure, though, that anyone would lose weight (if that is what they need) if they seriously cut down on the starchy carbs and don't go overboard with the added fat. You can include good natural fats in your meals without worrying that they will make you ill or fat, but eat sufficient to feel satisfied. I also think that it's best not to believe that you can eat a mountain of fat if you want to lose weight. Having said that, I know some people eat very large amounts of fat. It's a case of finding out what works for you, but a home-prepared meal that is low in starchy carbs, to me, is more likely than not going to get results.

    I'm an editor who works on a number of diet books and most of them are shockingly lacking because they base their whole regimen on lowering calories without really changing the way people eat. Most of them talk about reading labels and choosing low-cal/low-fat alternatives - a deeply depressing way to go through life while trying to lose weight. Any weight loss is unlikely to be lasting and it doesn't cure a person's craving for sugar because most diets allow sugary foods as a 'treat' - even every day! Many calorie-counting diets are even based on eating lots of processed foods, because the authors say they are 'being realistic'! I cannot believe that anyone who has looked at the food you can buy today would consider that processed foods have a place in any kind of healthy diet.

    Real foods, not processed foods; low in carbs, keep off the wheat especially. Many, many people are getting results this way, BUT you have to keep asking questions if it doesn't work for you. People aren't lying because they have successfully controlled illness and regained great health by living this way - lots of people can testify to its benefits.

    Reply: #74
  21. charlwes grashow
    How may people on this forum get their markers of inflammation (hsCRP, homocysteine, etc.) tested on a regular basis?

    How many get blood lipid tests like NMR/VAP on a regular (yearly) basis?

    If you had high LDL-C, LDL-P, would that concern you or do you just rely on the TG/HDL ratio?

    If you had high LDL-C, LDL-P BUT markers of inflammation were low would you be concerned?

    Has anyone here gotten a CT Calcium Score test done?

    Has anyone here gotten a Carotid Duplex Bilateral ultrasound test done?

    If you went on a LC/VLC/HF diet to lose weight how did you modify the diet when you reached your goal weight? Reduce calories, modify the macronutrient percentages?

    Replies: #72, #73
  22. Murray
    Lots of questions.

    Starting at the end, when a person is losing weight they are burning stored fat. So the percentage of caloric energy from fat goes up, which is good for many reasons, including reduced oxidative stress burning fat instead of sugar. So when I reached my goal weight, I kept the same percentage of energy from fat, which meant increasing the ratio of dietary fat, so the ratio of fat burned for energy stayed the same. So the absolute amount of carbs and protein stays the same and dietary fat increases to sustain the same rate of fat burning.

    As for the tests, here in Canada we have socialized medicine and few of those tests are available. There are a few so-called executive medical programs that charge a fee and are permitted to do some tests "outside the system." I've done this for years now. NMR is not even available in Canada. I think one of the executive programs sends blood to the US for analysis. As for other tests, my LDL-C is higher than official guidelines recommend, but my inflammation markers are essentially zero (below measured tolerance). My TRG:HDL hovers around 0.25. My LDL-P is higher than average, but so is HDL-P and the ratio is ideal. No calcium, but I supplement K2 so I expected that. BP 95/65. My Lp(a) is essentially zero (below measured tolerance) so no indication of LDL oxidation. The physician and dietician have concluded my high total C is the result of diet. (I see you are still eating lots of coconut oil.) I can change total-C wildly for visit to visit by changing what I eat, anywhere from 4.0 to 11.0. Subjectively, I feel best and have much better skin above 7.0, so that is where I aim. More coconut oil.

  23. Mike T
    Hi Charles,

    I am new to this forum and not sure how I stack up against the rest of the regulars, but I am in generally good health and 3 years ago decided after much research to give the LCHF lifestyle a go to see if I could reverse the steady weight gain and chronic inflammation I was experiencing. I probably cycle in and out of ketosis on a regular basis, but don't obsess too much about it. I like Mark Sisson's approach of 80/20 and self experiment on occasion.

    1. Rarely
    2. Same
    3. Would only be worried if they were discordant Low or Normal LDL-C/ High LDL-P
    4. Sames as above
    5. No
    6. No
    7. I actually found that when I got to my goal weight I had to increase my calories as less of my energy was coming from my fat tissues. I have tried to increase carb intake, especially after intense workouts, but find that it can really through off my appetite and seems to increase signs of underlying inflammation. It goes without saying that it is processed carbs and added sugars that seem impact me the most, so I avoid them except for special occasions.

  24. Francois
    JanC,

    You are a publisher. Great. I am an author. Would you mind giving the name of the publishing house? I'd love to take a look at what you have published. I may have something for you.

  25. 1 comment removed
  26. Johnny D
    I'm just a struggling diabetic trying to find some answers. But as far as I've been able to figure out sugar has been a dietary bump in the wrong direction in nutrition. It is a substance that is addictive to the brain and should be a controlled substance. Sugars in there original form can be eaten in season in moderation. I have no ego to inflate or career to enhance.
    Reply: #78
  27. Penny
    I would just like to say I've been doing LCHF for a little over one month and I am so happy with it! I have lost belly fat, my mood has changed so drastically it scared me a little: the unknown reason for happiness is strange to me but I love it! I don't crave or want sweets, and I was a sugar-holic before. I don't tell many people about my lifestyle change for fear of attack, but it wont change my mind: I am living proof it works! My husband and family are so happy with my change to being a positive person. They are trying it now, too. I don't ever write on public forums, but this has changed my life for the better and I will never go back!
  28. Francois
    Johnny D, please search "Dr Jason Fung" on Youtube. I also recommend that you refer your doctor to this youtube video. Dr Fung is colleague of mine, a Canadian nephrologist (kidney doctor) who got tired of seeing patients destroy their kidneys with diabetes. He devised - as far as I know - the only intensive program to actually reverse type 2 diabetes and stop medication. His video explains his program (in a nutshell, LCHF diet and skipping breakfast) and gives many success stories of his patients. Also read this blog's diabetes section. Andreas did a phenomenal job at presenting the evidence. For recepies, see http://www.authoritynutrition.com.

    Hope this helps.

  29. charles grashow
    http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/02/19/learning-to-cut-the-sugar/?_...

    Q. A lot of studies lately have extolled the health benefits of the Mediterranean diet. Do you favor one diet or cuisine over another?

    A.I don’t have any money on any specific cuisine or diet. I think they could all work, and they all did work at one time. But now they don’t because they’re processed.

    Pioppi, Italy, is where the Mediterranean diet was centered. Did they have pasta? No. It was meat and vegetables, and some red wine and olive oil. The bottom line is every country has its cuisine, and every cuisine works for that country. But there’s one thing that doesn’t work for any country: processed food. And any country that adopts processed food, which is now everywhere, is getting sick. This is why I want to be known as the anti-processed food guy, not the anti-sugar guy.

    Q.A lot of the recipes in your book use fruit to add sweet flavors. Was this a way to limit refined sugar?

    A Exactly. People always say to me, “What about fruit? It has sugar.” But I have nothing against fruit, because it comes with its inherent fiber, and fiber mitigates the negative effects. The way God made it, however much sugar is in a piece of fruit, there’s an equal amount of fiber to offset it.

    There’s only one notable exception: grapes. Grapes are just little bags of sugar. They don’t have enough fiber for the amount of sugar that’s in them. But I have nothing against real food, and that includes real fruit. Eat all the fruit you want. It’s only when you turn it into juice that I have a problem with it, because then it loses its fiber.

    SO - Dr Robert Lustig says "Eat all the fruit you want!"

  30. bill
    Lustig - Fat Chance - page 69. 'nuff said.
  31. Charles Grashow
    The article in the NY Times was published today - 2/19/14 - 'nuff said redux!
    Replies: #82, #83
  32. FrankG
    And Dr Lustig's "Sugar The Bitter Truth" was posted to YouTube Jul 30, 2009... even way back then he said the same thing about fruit... the toxin being packaged with the cure/buffer...

    SO - you think this is news to anyone here Charles???

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

  33. FrankG
    I'd draw your attention to Murray's comment #23 on this same topic...

    "There seems to be a qualitative difference between free-base, acellular sugar and cell-encased sugar, much as there is a qualitative difference between poppy seed dressing and codeine-opium-morphine-heroin. Weston Price's work indicates acellular sugar and starch wreaks havoc on dental health, jaw and nasal development and overall health, which cultures eating cellular sugar and starch did not experience. Our dentist remarked that our son was the only kid he has seen as a patient with perfect occlusion and every other kid in his class by eighth grade was wearing or had worn braces. Something is amiss.

    Apart from careful observation by the likes of Dr. Price, the science is still far too rudimentary to conclude there is a safe dose of acellular sugar. Acellular sugar is immediately bio available to undesirable bacteria in the upper gut. Studies suggest this alone accounts for part of the obesity problem and digestive issues such as acid reflux. Cellular sugar remains unavailable until digestive juices or beneficial bacteria further along have breached fibrous cellular walls. The sugar is released in an environment with beneficial bacteria and enzymatic byproducts of bacterial activity. This apparently buffers the rate of sugar absorption and otherwise transmogrifies the digestive process, so digestion of encased sugar may be as different from acellular sugar as poppy seeds are from morphine. The science is still rudimentary, but experience indicates serious issues.

    Of course, too much cellular sugar in fruit can in principle overwhelm any buffering or other mitigating effect. 50 grams of 50% glycemic acellular sugar would in theory be rate equivalent to 100 grams at 25% glycemic cellular sugar. This arbitrarily assumes linearity, so perhaps after exceeding a threshold of tolerance for cellular sugar the buffer and mitigating effects are overwhelmed. Again, the science is just not there yet. The evidence of epigenetic systemic inflammation above 40% carbs in the diet suggests the body senses when diet exceeds that hypothetical limit of well tolerated cellular sugar and starch."

    http://www.dietdoctor.com/safe-amount-sugar/comment-page-1#comment-79966

    Reply: #84
  34. Charles Grashow
    Lustig said today - " I have nothing against real food, and that includes real fruit. Eat all the fruit you want. It’s only when you turn it into juice that I have a problem with it."

    SO - what's the upper limit of fruit if Lustig says eat all you want?

    http://www.bmj.com/content/347/bmj.f5001

    "Our findings suggest the presence of heterogeneity in the associations between individual fruit consumption and risk of type 2 diabetes. Greater consumption of specific whole fruits, particularly blueberries, grapes, and apples, is significantly associated with a lower risk of type 2 diabetes, whereas greater consumption of fruit juice is associated with a higher risk."

    "In three prospective cohorts of US men and women, we found that the associations with risk of type 2 diabetes differed significantly among individual fruits: greater consumption of blueberries, grapes, apples, bananas, and grapefruit were significantly associated with a reduced risk of type 2 diabetes. Most of these associations were quite consistent among three cohorts. Additionally, differences in the glycemic index/glycemic load values of fruits did not account for the association of specific fruits with risk of type 2 diabetes. Moreover, greater fruit juice consumption was associated with an increased risk, and substitution of whole fruits for fruit juice was associated with a lower risk, except for strawberries and cantaloupe."

  35. FrankG
    Whereas of course, I clearly need to point out for you that "too much cellular sugar in fruit" varies from individual to individual... my own tolerance to ANY from of sugar is very low thanks to Metabolic Syndrome with Type 2 Diabetes... as the saying goes "your mileage may vary"

    ...but then recognising these nuances of the real world, tend to undermine any black or white extremes; which trolls like you tend to thrive on.

    "Lower risk" does not mean "optimal"... see the original blog post for an explanation of this idea ... is 5 cigarettes a day a "lower risk" than 20? Does that make 5 a day good for you?:-P

  36. Michelle
    You have to find out what works for you; we are all different and at least no one can argue with that.
  37. Galina L.
    I disagree with you, Simone. I tried several diet approaches during my life-time, and LC is indeed very different because it keeps the person who eats in a such way not hungry and provides good energy level, it also compatible with modern life-style. I cook all food at home, but I never have a problem to find a LC food at restaurants and fast-food places when I travel. Of course, I don't buy pasties, bread, cookies, candies, rice. Sometimes I make nut-based cookies or cakes at home for special occasions. Not eating "filler" foods may sound expensive, but we as a family eat less often and smaller volumes of food now. It is more a budget redistribution. I eat a LC food since November 2007, and never had a reason to regret it.
  38. Logan
    The Hippocratic Oath is not legally binding and most doctors don't follow it. Dr. Eenfeldt avoids giving medical advice here for obvious legal liability issues. Hence readers of this blog are not his patients.

    That's my 2 cents worth that nobody asked for.

  39. Logan
    I have a more scientific questions regarding the sugar -> insulin -> body fat connection.

    How much insulin does it take to store a gram of fat?

    How much sugar is needed to produce the amount of insulin needed to store a gram of fat?

    In the calorie-in/calorie-out paradigm all we need to know for energy balance is total energy consumed/burned. But in the LCHF paradigm the focus is more on insulin, I'm hoping there are studies out there quantifying this relationship?

    I see percentages tossed out there for Fat-Protein-Carb ratios, but I'm not convinced ratios are the way to calculate our macro nutrient needs. I've read anywhere from .5g to 1.5g of protein per pound of lean weight, depending on activity/stress levels. And while some question how much fiber is needed, I think the RDA is something like 28g.

    Now if the sole function of insulin is to store body fat from dietary sugar, then most of us probably don't need any sugar in our diet. But if insulin serves other functions, then we may need some sugar to stimulate insulin production, if that is the case, then it might be useful to know how much sugar is needed for those other functions?

    Once we know how much protein, fiber and sugar we need then we can fill in the rest of our calorie requirements with fat.

    Replies: #90, #91, #92, #96
  40. bill
    Logan:

    A person doesn't need to consume any food at all to have
    their body produce insulin. It is possible to have a
    spike of insulin by just thinking about food.

    I'm guessing measurements you're after would be
    virtually impossible.

  41. Mike T
    There is no requirement for sugar and you do not require it to produce insulin. Insulin is a master hormone in the body and is involved in many processes and unless you have T1 diabetes your only issue would be producing too much if you follow the current dietary guidelines.
  42. Johnny D
    Is there a safe amount of sugar? answer No! Not for me anyway;)
  43. Max
    here's a 45. Minute Video from German NDR TV. It's all about how "little" sugar we sometimes, in very special situations allow ourselves: to "treat" us.

    But then again, there is no immediate pain so no one will ever complain.

    "ach das ist sooooooooh, süss. Und niedlich und (langfristig) tödlich.
    Aber es tut ja nicht, sofort, weh deshalb schreit auch niemand auf. "

    http://www.ardmediathek.de/tv/45-Min/Zeitbombe-Zucker/NDR-Fernsehen/V...

    Reply: #95
  44. Robert
    That is a pretty nice documentary. It seems all of the kids of the family are severely addicted to sugar, the daughters are too fat already. The "1 week without sugar" experiment was half-arsed. They compensated by eating tons oft fruit.
  45. Zepp
    Well actually.. insulin dont store that much fat.. its ASP that store the moste!

    Insulin acts more to inhibit the lipolysis and counter the betaoxidation.. i.e. it acts more in the out fase!

    You dont need to eat anything to get a normal insulin level.

    Its this that many things rise insulin.. for normal reasons.. and if one have problems with hyperinsulinemia/metabolic syndrome.. (many have) one like to get it more normal.. and just rise when it should!

    Its a way to explain the big picture.. high glucose levels leads to high insulin levels, leads to inhibit lipolysis and inhibit betaoxidation.. the fat that was stored get stuck!

    You was supose to live on that fat betwen meals.. if you then have hyperinsulinemia.. your blood sugar get lower and you get hungry again, eats more, store some more fat.. its a merrygorund!

1 2

Leave a reply

Reply to comment #0 by

Older posts