Active Low-Carber Forums
Atkins diet and low carb discussion provided free for information only, not as medical advice.
Home Plans Tips Recipes Tools Stories Studies Products
Active Low-Carber Forums
A sugar-free zone


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums.
Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!

Go Back   Active Low-Carber Forums > Main Low-Carb Diets Forums & Support > Low-Carb Studies & Research / Media Watch > LC Research/Media
User Name
Password
FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   ^
Old Wed, Aug-25-04, 10:27
eepobee's Avatar
eepobee eepobee is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 365
 
Plan: lc
Stats: 00/00/00 Male 00
BF:
Progress: 106%
Location: NJ
Default Added Sugars, Less Urgency? Fine Print and the Guidelines

By MARIAN BURROS

Published: August 25, 2004

If you want a peek into the fierce debate over whether too much sugar is bad for you, start at the final recommendations of the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee report.

After hours of negotiations by committee members, the report, to be released tomorrow, lacks any direct recommendation that added sugar should be reduced, as previous reports had urged. Yet fairly hidden on Page 6 are details about the hazards of sugar, especially the kind found in soft drinks and sweetened juice beverages. It seems as if the committee wanted to have it both ways.

Should added sugars be considered a health hazard? Until this month, the committee was evenly divided. Trade associations, which play a major part in the government's decisions on its food policy, say no. Nonaffiliated scientific researchers say a resounding yes.

And when the committee looked at two new studies, one published in May, the other published this week, they changed their minds and voted 8 to 3 to conclude that there is a relationship between the consumption of added sugars and health.

Historically, "one of the underlying reasons for the debate about refined sugars is that evidence is not as clear-cut as it is for trans fatty acids or saturated fat," said Dr. Michael Jacobson, executive director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a nutrition advocacy group that frequently criticizes the food industry. "You can use clinical studies to prove the increase in bad cholesterol and no one debates the effects." It has been the "fuzziness" of scientific evidence up to now that has prevented even critics of sugar from "absolutely nailing down the case against sugar," he said.

But most researchers, including Dr. Jacobson, believe the evidence is strong enough.

"The consumption of added sugars and a deficiency of nutrient intake is pretty strong," said Dr. Rachel Johnson, dean of the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences at the University of Vermont, where she is a professor of nutrition and a member of the 2000 dietary guidelines advisory panel that worked on the sugar recommendation.

A study done by Dr. Shanthy Bowman, a nutritionist with the Agricultural Research Service at the Agriculture Department, showed that people who got more than 18 percent of their calories from added sugars had "the least adequately nutritious diets," well below government recommended levels for many nutrients, compared with two other groups in the study, one of which consumed less than 10 percent of calories from added sugars, the other 10 to 18 percent.

The two new peer-reviewed studies add substantially to the literature on the added sugar-obesity connection. One that appeared in the Obesity Research journal in May concludes that "consumption of sugar-added beverages may contribute to weight gain among adolescents, probably due to their contribution to total energy intake."

The study that appears in this week's issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association is part of the large, long-running Nurses' Health Study at Harvard. It concludes that "increased consumption of sugar-sweetened soft drinks is associated with larger weight gain in women independent of other lifestyle and dietary factors."

Dr. Jacobson said that lack of a specific recommendation in the final dietary guidelines, which are expected at the beginning of 2005, "would be shameful, because it diminishes people's concern about a major part of the American diet."

In the previous five sets of guidelines, sugar consumption was addressed among the specific recommendations, which are what most people see. In 1980, it was, "Avoid too much sugar." In 2000, the guidelines said, "Choose beverages and foods to moderate your intake of sugar." But the same 2000 advisory committee also wrote: "There is no direct link between the trend toward higher intake of sugars and increased rates of obesity," and, "There is no consistent association between intake of total sugars and nutrient adequacy."

On the other hand, the 2005 recommendations make the connection: "Compared with individuals who consume small amounts of foods and beverages that are high in added sugars, those who consume large amounts tend to consume more calories but smaller amounts of micronutrients. Although more research is needed, available prospective studies suggest a positive association between consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages and weight gain. A reduced intake of added sugars (especially sugar-sweetened beverages) may help in achieving recommended intakes of nutrients and in weight control."

Three months ago, this statement did not exist.

"In May, there was no conclusive statement saying sugar was related to obesity and only an indirect reference to nutrient deficiency," said Dr. Carlos Arturo Camargo, assistant professor of epidemiology at the Harvard School of Public Health and one of the advisory committee members. "The research was deemed inconclusive."

Dr. Camargo said the vote to include something about sugars was 6 to 6. But after the committee members read the newest studies, they voted 8 to 3 to include the sugar statement. One member was absent, but supported the inclusion.

Still, those words are in the fine print, which usually doesn't reach the public. The major message is "choose carbohydrates wisely." Since the 2005 scientific advisory committee did not include sugar as a major talking point, there is little chance that the Agriculture Department and the Department of Health and Human Services, which for the first time are writing the guidelines, will. The Sugar Association, the Soft Drink Association and the National Food Processors Association are hoping that that is the case.

"We prefer this way to the way it was in previous guidelines," said Cheryl Digges, the director of public policy for the Sugar Association, a trade and lobbying organization for beet and cane sugar growers. "We think there is too much emphasis on sugars. Sugars are just a part of the diet."

"There is no negative health impact for sugar; there never has been," she said. "Every major scientific review found no link between added sugar and any lifestyle disease, including obesity."

Among the research the Sugar Association currently cites to make its point is a 1997 consultation involving the World Health Organization showing that sugars do not play a major part in increasing lifetime diseases. But last year the W.H.O. included sugar as one of the major culprits in worldwide obesity, and the association tried to have the reference removed, enlisting the Department of Health and Human Services in an unsuccessful attempt.

Dr. Cutberto Garza, the chairman of the scientific advisory committee for the 2000 guidelines, said further studies linking sugar and obesity are beside the point.

"There are many strong rationales for limiting sugar intake without having to rely on long-term epidemiological data," he said. "If you have more than 10 percent of your diet from added sugars, then it is very difficult to meet nutrient needs from other components. If they were lumberjacks then I wouldn't worry about them," meaning that those who engage in very strenuous exercise have plenty of room for all kinds of discretionary calories, including those from sugar.

"By saying choose carbs wisely, what does that mean?" he continued. "When we had a guideline about sugar, it was easier for consumers to interpret; but if it's wrapped in carbohydrates it's very difficult for people to understand."

Dr. Walter Willett, chairman of the department of nutrition at the Harvard School of Public Health, sees no shades of gray. "It's very clear now that soft drinks and sweetened beverages do contribute to obesity," he said. "The government can't allow those to be promoted to children."

Dr. Kelly Brownell, director of the Yale Center for Eating and Weight Disorders, is equally convinced.

"It is clear people need to eat less sugar," he said. "To leave out a recommendation on sugar is highly questionable because it's obvious the population is eating too much of it. You can't blame everything on sugar, but it is one important part of the puzzle."

Dr. Camargo acknowledges that the government may not heed the researchers' conclusions.

"If all the final guidelines says is `choose wisely,' nothing will happen," he said. "If there is a will to change, to improve people's health, the government will tell people how to choose what's better and what's worse."

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/25/dining/25WELL.html
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2   ^
Old Wed, Aug-25-04, 10:43
CLASYS's Avatar
CLASYS CLASYS is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 164
 
Plan: Atkins original diet
Stats: 245/210/175 Male 5'6"
BF:
Progress: 50%
Location: New York
Default

"one of the underlying reasons for the debate about refined sugars is that evidence is not as clear-cut as it is for trans fatty acids or saturated fat,"

Yeah, right! There is definite clear-cut evidence about saturated fat:

If you eat too much sugar and too much saturated fat, you will have problems. If you eat even more you will have even more problems.

Yes, very clear-cut!

How's 'bout saturated fat in the presence of hardly any carbs reversing all of these so-called "clear-cut" evidentiary points?

I guess that would be as non-"clear-cut" as saying that the Atkins approach could actually work. And remember, according to these folks, what we do and discuss here doesn't actually exist!

cjl [speaking to you from apparently a portion of the universe that officially doesn't exist in the minds of some official-dom pinheads.]
Reply With Quote
  #3   ^
Old Wed, Aug-25-04, 10:59
selphydeg's Avatar
selphydeg selphydeg is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 550
 
Plan: atkins
Stats: 125/106/100 Female 5 ft 2 in
BF:
Progress: 76%
Default

Quote:
"We prefer this way to the way it was in previous guidelines," said Cheryl Digges, the director of public policy for the Sugar Association, a trade and lobbying organization for beet and cane sugar growers. "We think there is too much emphasis on sugars. Sugars are just a part of the diet."

"There is no negative health impact for sugar; there never has been," she said. "Every major scientific review found no link between added sugar and any lifestyle disease, including obesity."
The vast amount of money spend on this type of study to counter the powerful industry lobbist could have been spent on research are more useful and interesting.
Reply With Quote
  #4   ^
Old Wed, Aug-25-04, 11:01
Angeline's Avatar
Angeline Angeline is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 3,423
 
Plan: Atkins (loosely)
Stats: -/-/- Female 60
BF:
Progress: 40%
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Default

Quote:
Should added sugars be considered a health hazard? Until this month, the committee was evenly divided. Trade associations, which play a major part in the government's decisions on its food policy, say no. Nonaffiliated scientific researchers say a resounding yes.


Why the heck do the trade associations even have a say in this ? What are they going to say, yes sugar is bad for you so tell the public not to buy our products ? They should have NO say whatsover in determining government's food policy. ZERO. If you forgive me this example, It's as if you are having a debate to determine the fate of a person's soul and would turn to the devil and say...hey what do you think we should do.

This is damn near corruption and I don't know why more people aren't up in arms about this. It just confirms the fact that the governement is run by and for special interest groups, not the greater good.
Reply With Quote
  #5   ^
Old Wed, Aug-25-04, 11:04
selphydeg's Avatar
selphydeg selphydeg is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 550
 
Plan: atkins
Stats: 125/106/100 Female 5 ft 2 in
BF:
Progress: 76%
Default

Quote:
This is damn near corruption and I don't know why more people aren't up in arms about this. It just confirms the fact that the governement is run by and for special interest groups, not the greater good.

Don't forget that tax payers also fund many of the studies (as obvious as drink too much soda make your ass fat).
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Can you trust medical researchers? Turtle2003 LC Research/Media 7 Mon, Apr-12-04 02:19
Atkins-Blasting 'Physicians' Committee is a Front Group for PETA tamarian LC Research/Media 2 Tue, Feb-10-04 20:02
"A New Look At The Atkins Diet" gotbeer LC Research/Media 2 Fri, Jan-23-04 15:05
I found this info on Dr. Ellis Ultimate Diet Secrets, in case you are interested. Eveee Low-Carb War Zone 22 Tue, Jan-13-04 20:45


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:31.


Copyright © 2000-2024 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.