5 ms·
It honestly should say something along the lines of: -Most nutritionists agree you shouldn't have more than 5g of sugar outside of fruit sources- A can of cok
by bliblah 7y ago
It honestly should say something along the lines of:
-Most nutritionists agree you shouldn't have more than 5g of sugar outside of fruit sources-
A can of coke have well over 25g
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- dominotw 7y ago>-Most nutritionists agree you shouldn't have more than 5g of sugar outside of fruit sources- Do they? seems like a weird random number.
- frankbreetz 7y agoWhat about 5 g is weird or random?
- isoskeles 7y agoHow about 6g or 4g?
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- pembrook 7y agoThe fact is, there is no peer reviewed research proving that eating 5g per day, or 6g or 7g or 9g or 2g for that matter will have any material impact on health. It’s an arbitrarily chosen number. Just like most thinking around food and diet, these things are highly influenced by current trends. Obsessing over arbitrarily specific numbers in your diet is missing the point. Just make a conscious effort to consume sugar in moderation and you’ll be fine.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- nightski 7y agoThe number is useful because it gives a target. Consume in moderation is a joke because moderation means different things to different people. Of course it's OK to go over or under the 5g number. That's not the point.
- SilasX 7y agoIf obsessing over specific numbers is missing the point, then so is reporting official-sounding over-precise figures about a "recommended limit". Sugar is bad for you? Fine. Any given unit of sugar will have worse outcomes than the absence of that sugar? Fair enough. "Hey, we're reporting 5g as some special, significant threshold that suggests we have actual evidence of things really ramping up at that point that suggests no subjective gain could outweigh the damage to your health, when, in reality, it was just pulled out of thin air"? No. Forget that noise.
- EForEndeavour 7y agoThe AHA recommends a maximum added-sugar intake of 25 g/day (6 teaspoons/day) for women, and 39 g/day (9 teaspoons/day) for men. Similarly, the WHO recommends that no more than 10% of total calories ("ideally less than 5%") should come from added sugar, which works out to 25 grams for a 2000-kcal diet. For comparison, the average American consumes roughly 70 grams of added sugar per day. [1] I can't find a specific source for a ceiling of 5 g/day, but it's pretty uncontroversial that more added sugar is never better. The lower you set your maximum intake, the harder it is to maintain, since sugar is added to so many foods. 5 g/day is a somewhat arbitrary cutoff that's lower than official recommended maximums, but this doesn't imply that there should be no limit. Pick one. Or start with "as little sugar as practical," log how much sugar you end up consuming under this plan (using a food diary, food scale, etc.), and adjust as needed. [1] http://sugarscience.ucsf.edu/the-growing-concern-of-overconsumption.html http://sugarscience.ucsf.edu/the-growing-concern-of-overcons...
- isoskeles 7y ago> official recommended maximums I don't know what this means. Are you referring to the manual that came with human existence or are you referring to what the FDA says?
- EForEndeavour 7y agoMy comment above explicitly describes what I refer to as "official recommended maximums": the maximum daily intakes recommended by the AHA and WHO (among others around the globe), presumably through an audit by domain experts of the totality of epidemiological and clinical evidence, together with an unknown amount of interference from non-scientific interests. To address your analogy, researchers are in a sense writing the Missing Manual for Humans, as our species didn't come with one. You're free to accept or refute these recommendations, but I personally am inclined to put at least some trust into their collective efforts. Or if you trust different recommendations more so than these, I'd love to see them.
- isoskeles 7y ago
- SilasX 7y agoYeah, and a weird pre-condition. "Have all the sugar you want, as long as it's from fruit juice"? I don't even think the high-carb low fat advocates would go along with that. That's insane.
- paulcole 7y agoWhat about vegetable sources?
- gwbas1c 7y agoBecause of the fiber in fruits and vegetables, your body digests them more slowly. Thus, the sugar enters your bloodstream more slowly. It's kind of like the difference between drinking a beer on a full stomach versus an empty stomach. In this case, 25g of sugar entering your bloodstream quickly is quite unhealthy. (Related: If you want to understand this better, stop consuming refined sugar for about a month. Then go eat a peep on an empty stomach. You'll feel an intense sugar rush.)
- paulcole 7y agoI was asking in response to: > Most nutritionists agree you shouldn't have more than 5g of sugar outside of fruit sources- So nutritionists do or don’t agree that it should also include vegetable sources? Related: I’m T1 diabetic and my partner had to call 911 last week because of hypoglycemia. If I hadn’t consumed 25g of sugar quickly the result would’ve been quite unhealthy.
- EForEndeavour 7y agoNon-starchy vegetables have negligible sugar. Diabetics can eat as much as they want. http://www.diabetes.org/food-and-fitness/food/what-can-i-eat/making-healthy-food-choices/non-starchy-vegetables.html http://www.diabetes.org/food-and-fitness/food/what-can-i-eat... Starchy vegetables like potato, corn, and peas are nutritionally distinct from non-starchy veggies. But their sugar is packaged with vegetable fibre, which results in slower absorption than if you drank the same amount of sugar in liquid form on an empty stomach. It feels a bit redundant to point out to a T1D that fruits are far higher in sugar than non-starchy veggies, which is why OP specifically mentioned fruit sources of sugar.
- SilasX 7y agoIf I listened to nutritionists, I'd eat 11 servings of bread a day and no meat.