How safe/pure are our ingredients?

[K8memphis]

This would be the epitome ultimate beyond peer reviewed in every medical journal in every country in every century standard throughout the Milky Way. (pun intended)

If a child tells their Grandma that they want cookies for supper Grandma would say, "No, child, because they are not good for you."

Cookies are a treat. Main ingredient obviously is sugar.

Sugar is a treat food, not a mainstay food.

Sugar is added into So Much of our foodstuffs. It just ain't good for us.

Huff and puff and blow the house down. Sugar is not a good or wholesome food product.

Even our fruits are being cultivated sweeter. Yeah, I read that somewhere. Shoot me because I don't know where. Listen, if you ate an orange as a kid and ate one now or a grape you know they are sweeter now.

*Remember my point is that sugar is at least as bad as trans fats.

[slkinsey]

That's not the way it works. Trans-fats are not naturally-occurring in any meaningful quantity, and there is strong and generally accepted scientific evidence that (a) consumption in reasonable amounts has certain negative health consequences and (b) there are viable alternatives to its use.

Sucrose and other sugars, on the other hand, are naturally occurring in abundance. Furthermore, there is no strong or generally accepted scientific evidence that the consumption of sucrose or any refined sugars in reasonable amounts has any particular negative health consequences.

What does have negative health consequences is the overconsumption of calories, and the pervasive use of refined sugars in refined foods (also an area where trans fats were overused) has certainly contributed to that.

But, the standard is not for the non-alarmists to "prove that white sugar is not harmful for your pancreas and skin and cardiovascular system." Rather, the standard is for those who make the positive claims to prove them. Recitations of what Grandma says do not constitute meaningful support of your positions.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that it's healthy or won't have any health consequences if someone were to take in 100% of his calories in sucrose and pop a multivitamin each day. (Then again, one could say the same thing about a diet that relies too much upon meat, fish, citrus, leafy green raw vegetables, etc. as the main source of calories.) But there is no credible evidence saying that a teaspoon of sugar in one's morning tea and a slice of pie for dessert represents a major health risk.

Edited December 20, 2007 by slkinsey (log)

[K8memphis]

the point is that the burden of proof is on you.

←

The point is where are the peer-reviewed documents to support the claim that white sugar is of benefit to the pancreas or cardiovascular system. Because it is indeed a detriment. It's as bad as trans fats. It's probably worse than trans fats because it is so widespread in it's use.

If we can agree on 'everything in moderation' then at a minumum we should be able to agree that sweeteners esp white sugar are used far beyond moderation.

[Nathan]

most people overeat in general..that's why most people are fat.

what does that have to do with anything?

edit: in other words, you're confused. no one is disputing that sugar is overused. but that is completely irrelevant to this discussion. as I said, overconsumption is not an intrinsic property of refined sugar.

Edited December 20, 2007 by Nathan (log)

[K8memphis]

That's not the way it works.  Trans-fats are not naturally-occurring in any meaningful quantity, and there is strong and generally accepted scientific evidence that  (a) consumption in reasonable amounts has certain negative health consequences and (b) there are viable alternatives to its use.

Sucrose and other sugars, on the other hand, are naturally occurring in abundance.  Furthermore, there is no strong or generally accepted scientific evidence that the consumption of sucrose or any refined sugars in reasonable amounts has any particular negative health consequences.

What does have negative health consequences is the overconsumption of calories, and the pervasive use of refined sugars in refined foods (also an area where trans fats were overused) has certainly contributed to that.

But, the standard is not for the non-alarmists to "prove that white sugar is not harmful for your pancreas and skin and cardiovascular system."  Rather, the standard is for those who make the positive claims to prove them.  Recitations of what Grandma says do not constitute meaningful support of your positions.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that it's healthy or won't have any health consequences if someone were to take in 100% of his calories in sucrose and pop a multivitamin each day.  (Then again, one could say the same thing about a diet that relies too much upon meat, fish, citrus, leafy green raw vegetables, etc. as the main source of calories.)  But there is no credible evidence saying that a teaspoon of sugar in one's morning tea and a slice of pie for dessert represents a major health risk.

←

God forbid the pie is made with Crisco or we'll all die a horrible death.

[slkinsey]

Last I checked, Crisco was not banned. And, for what it's worth, I think it's pretty silly to ban trans-fats in all applications. There's no reason pie crusts shouldn't be made with Crisco. On the other hand, I'd prefer that the pie crusts be made with butter and lard, which is not only natural but more healthful than using Crisco.

[paulraphael]

The point is where are the peer-reviewed documents to support the claim that white sugar is of benefit to the pancreas or cardiovascular system.

No one made such a claim.

Although it wouldn't be hard to find a diet that includes a reasonable amount of white sugar that's healthy.

Because it is indeed a detriment. It's as bad as trans fats.

If you're looking for research to support this claim, I'm afraid you'll be disappointed.

It's probably worse than trans fats because it is so widespread in it's use.

This could be true, but now you're talking about diets, not ingredients. It's a more productive kind of discussion.

Without getting into the politics of the ban, I believe that artificial trans fats are as deserving of demonization as any ingredient could be. Because 1) their negative health effects, even in relatively small quantities, are heavily documented (their ability to raise ldl cholesterol levels is several times higher than regular saturated fat); 2) if you didn't make the food, you don't know if they're in there unless you're actively asking or inspecting labels; and 3) there are reasonable substitutes.

The same can't be said for sugar, which is one of the body's primary nutrients. As with anything else, too much is too much, but there's nothing fundamentally harmful about it (if you can find actual evidence that "refined sugar" is processed by the body in ways significantly different from the sugars in fruits, I'd love to see it. Hint: I've looked.)

Edited December 20, 2007 by paulraphael (log)

[natter]

I think that arguing whether or not too much white sugar is bad for you is a moot point. What concerns me more is why such a radical increase in average sugar consumption. Is it for artificially extending shelf lives, or to cover up the use of inferior ingredients?

It seems to me that increased sugar consumption is not the problem, but a symptom of the problem. The problem being the glorification of profit margins at the expense of all else, including quality and healthfulness. Its not just the food industry though, it's in every field.

As far as the trans-fats controversy goes, I'm not too savvy about it. Is it a case of trans-fats producing superior products, or is it also a case of profit margins?

[paulraphael]

It seems to me that increased sugar consumption is not the problem, but a symptom of the problem...

The NY Times did an interesting series on obesity in the u.s. a year or two back. They pinned a lot of it on opportunity, in the form of huge, cheap portions, made possible by the incredibly low price of corn, made possible by Nixon's butchering of the country's farm subsidy program back in the '70s.

Short version: the government used to pay farmers not to produce surplusses in glut years, so the food supply stayed stable. Now they pay farmers to produce no matter what, driving prices down, encouraging more overproduction, leading to a permanent glut. When you go to McDonalds, you are surrounded by corn. The beef is essentially cow-processed corn (it's what they're fed); the 72oz soft drinks are mostly corn syrup; the fries are fried mostly in corn oil. It's all practically free, so the portions are huge, and we're raised on "value meals" the size of a wheelbarrow.

And this is the second time we've had a corn glut in the U.S. The first time was in colonial days, but back then instead of turning it into junk food they turned it into cheap booze. European travel agents organized corn liquor tours of the colonies, for tourists who wanted to slum a little and get wasted all across the new world.

Edited December 21, 2007 by paulraphael (log)

[Nathan]

I think that arguing whether or not too much white sugar is bad for you is a moot point. What concerns me more is why such a radical increase in average sugar consumption. Is it for artificially extending shelf lives, or to cover up the use of inferior ingredients?

It seems to me that increased sugar consumption is not the problem, but a symptom of the problem. The problem being the glorification of profit margins at the expense of all else, including quality and healthfulness. Its not just the food industry though, it's in every field.

As far as the trans-fats controversy goes, I'm not too savvy about it. Is it a case of trans-fats producing superior products, or is it also a case of profit margins?

←

there's an increase in average portion size (combined with much more sedentary lifestyles).....this is due to food being (relatively) far cheaper than ever before.

as far as sugar being a higher percentage portion of the average diet...the reverse is probably true.

people have less of a sweet tooth today then they did in the past. I know this runs against CW but it's true. look at cocktail recipes from a hundred years ago...or culinary recipes. their palates were quite a bit different.

[slkinsey]

Nathan, that might be true in terms of savory dishes and cocktails. But, in general I think America has a sweet palate compared to other cultures. And those 100+ year old cocktails might seem sweet to you and me, but not so much to the people drinking "Apple Pie Martinis" in the Dubuque TGI Friday's.

Taken as a percentage of the average diet, it's hard to say off the cuff whether sugar consumption has radically increased -- because, of course, the average daily calorie count in general has radically increased over the last 150 years. Even if the percentage has remained the same (and I think it's likely it has increased simply as a function of the fact that people eat far more processed foods today) it could still be a lot more sugar.

However, one chance I've noticed over the last 3.5 decades is the huge increase in soda, juice and other high-calorie drinks among American children. When I was a kid, we had Coca-Cola around the house maybe 3-4 times a year, total. Nowadays, it's not uncommon for a family to consume more than 2 liters of full sugar soda per person per week. When I was a "tween" there was maybe one overweight kid in my entire elementary school class. Now the average is probably at least 35% (if not 50% or more). The one fundamental difference in diet I can see between 4th graders now and 4th graders in the 1970s is the extra calories from beverages. As adults, there is (sometimes) less drinking of full-sugar cold drinks, but this is compensated with increased consumption of things like a "grande gingerbread pumpkin latte" at Starbuck's.

Edited December 20, 2007 by slkinsey (log)

[natter]

there's an increase in average portion size (combined with much more sedentary lifestyles).....this is due to food being (relatively) far cheaper than ever before.

as far as sugar being a higher percentage portion of the average diet...the reverse is probably true.

people have less of a sweet tooth today then they did in the past. I know this runs against CW but it's true. look at cocktail recipes from a hundred years ago...or culinary recipes. their palates were quite a bit different.

I think that looking at recipes is a little misleading. Take for example cocktail recipes, they might be germane to cocktail bars, but your average bar goer is not drinking one of these cocktails. They are having simple highball, vodka and cranberry for example, and the cranberry juice has added sugar. Also there is the popularity of flavored vodkas and rums, etc. which are abounding in added sugar.

Same goes with food. Most people aren't using superior products, but are using cheaper processed ingredients which have added sugar and salt and such. And the real problem, I think, is that the people who are more prone to consuming all this excess sugar are more likely the people who can't afford all that great healthcare we have in the US.

Also, I don't think that looking at percentages is as important as looking at the aggregate consumption. Like so many other things, it's the aggregate sugar consumption that causes health problems.

[Nathan]

I agree with the aggregate consumption points.

my point was that the CW that our palates our sweeter today runs against a counter-data point when you actually look at old recipes.

[paulraphael]

However, one chance I've noticed over the last 3.5 decades is the huge increase in soda, juice and other high-calorie drinks among American children.

My girlfriend works in a hospital in the Bronx. She's had patients who are obese. huge, huge people, and often with horrible related problems like diabetes and heart disease.

More than once, when asked about their diet, they've said "I don't eat anything." Since this sounded suspicious, she'd press them on it, and discover that they really did eat next to nothing. But they drank coke by the 2-liter bottle. It didn't cross their minds that they're getting a bajillion calories from this diet (and nothing else). They were completely mystified by their health problems.

[natter]

I agree with the aggregate consumption points.

my point was that the CW that our palates our sweeter today runs against a counter-data point when you actually look at old recipes.

←

I agree that our palates may not be as sweet, but I don't think that all of the sugar is necessarily because of sweetness for sweetness sake. As I said before it's to cover up the use of inferior ingredients. And so added sugar is to bring the prepared products up to snuff flavorwise. I think that rather than enriching the food's flavor, all the added sugar just serves to deaden the palate of average consumers, which only leads to the need for more sugar (or salt or whatever else).

[Nathan]

hmm...that's certainly possible.

[K8memphis]

Last I checked, Crisco was not banned.  And, for what it's worth, I think it's pretty silly to ban trans-fats in all applications.  There's no reason pie crusts shouldn't be made with Crisco.  On the other hand, I'd prefer that the pie crusts be made with butter and lard, which is not only natural but more healthful than using Crisco.

←

Crisco changed it's formula and removed the trans fats and it's a softer product now.

[K8memphis]

However, one chance I've noticed over the last 3.5 decades is the huge increase in soda, juice and other high-calorie drinks among American children.

My girlfriend works in a hospital in the Bronx. She's had patients who are obese. huge, huge people, and often with horrible related problems like diabetes and heart disease.

More than once, when asked about their diet, they've said "I don't eat anything." Since this sounded suspicious, she'd press them on it, and discover that they really did eat next to nothing. But they drank coke by the 2-liter bottle. It didn't cross their minds that they're getting a bajillion calories from this diet (and nothing else). They were completely mystified by their health problems.

←

So are you saying the consumption of the sweet Coke was bad for thier health? This supports my view. If sugar does not creat health problems why would they be obese and ill. I thought you said it was calories alone.

two liters = 67.6280451 US fluid ounces

There's about 100 calories in 8 ounces so like under 900 calories for one bottle

If I was 21 and my same stats then I would need about 2196 calories during a typical day to maintain my current weight. I could handle two and half 2-liter bottles and maintain if caloric intake alone would do it. Of course I could not, those kids could not and...

You are proving my point.

But on the peer review thing. I think I hit the jackpot without having to look up a bunch of stuff.

click go there & scroll down past the 147 ways sugar can suck. Dude, that's a lotta citings. Looks fairly significant in the documentation department. Y'all know that stuff is out there anyway.

Natter, if it's a moot point why are people disagreeing with that premise?

Sugar has addicting properties that's why it's in so much stuff. I'll go find my sources for that but that's why. Lots of stuff tastes better with sugar in it.

edited to say --oops my link for the citings doesn't fully get you there--you gotta click around.

Ok suffice it to say Nancy Appleton has a ton of reasons why sugar can ruin your health she lists a ton of resources. Click around there if you want to learn more.

www.nancyappleton.com

She cites these among many others:

1. Sanchez, A., et al. "Role of Sugars in Human Neutrophilic Phagocytosis," American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. Nov 1973;261:1180-1184.

3. Goldman, J., et al. "Behavioral Effects of Sucrose on Preschool Children." Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology.1986;14(4):565-577.

4. Scanto, S. and Yudkin, J. "The Effect of Dietary Sucrose on Blood Lipids, Serum Insulin, Platelet Adhesiveness and Body Weight in Human Volunteers," Postgraduate Medicine Journal. 1969;45:602-607.

5. Ringsdorf, W., Cheraskin, E. and Ramsay R. "Sucrose,Neutrophilic Phagocytosis and Resistance to Disease," Dental Survey. 1976;52(12):46-48.

*None of this is new stuff either. It's been known for decades.

Edited to stick to egullet copyright boundaries.

Edited December 21, 2007 by K8memphis (log)

[K8memphis]

One can't have it both ways on the coke issue. If the sugar laden drink was good for them they would not be sick and obese. They should be able to consume two and half 2-liter bottles daily by caloric consumption and be ok if that's all they are drinking and eating.

Merely skimming some of the titles in the motherload list I provided will show that scientific proof exists and white sugar certainly has been thoroughly researched and documented. Fact is we like white sugar and it is very bad for us. It is at least as bad as trans fats no matter how agitated one may become. Viola.

[Darcie B]

However, one chance I've noticed over the last 3.5 decades is the huge increase in soda, juice and other high-calorie drinks among American children.  When I was a kid, we had Coca-Cola around the house maybe 3-4 times a year, total.  Nowadays, it's not uncommon for a family to consume more than 2 liters of full sugar soda per person per week.  When I was a "tween" there was maybe one overweight kid in my entire elementary school class.  Now the average is probably at least 35% (if not 50% or more).  The one fundamental difference in diet I can see between 4th graders now and 4th graders in the 1970s is the extra calories from beverages.  As adults, there is (sometimes) less drinking of full-sugar cold drinks, but this is compensated with increased consumption of things like a "grande gingerbread pumpkin latte" at Starbuck's.

←

When I was a kid (~30 years ago) my family (and most of my friends' families) had soda available 24/7. Maybe it was a Midwest thing, but I drank at least 1 soda per day; usually more. But we didn't have many fat kids. I think the real difference is the amount of exercise. I lived in a small town and kids were constantly riding their bikes, going to the park to play, and running around like crazy at recess (plus we had gym 3x week). I don't see kids outside much anymore.

[Pebs]

[K8memphis]

It is more than possible to substitute the ingredient old Crisco, the one with the trans fat, for the hypothesis that a little sugar or a little trans fats, a little Crisco is not bad for you. However old Crisco is bad for you according to those who have decided it should be eliminated from active duty in some areas. Sugar, white sugar is as bad. Ask a diabetic if white sugar is bad. Ask me how my health has improved by eliminating white sugar et al and how it nose dives when I add it back in.

Sorry, I don't understand all the terminology on the scientific pages. I'm not a scientist. I understand that this research is critical to some of us to be able to understand the simple truth I am sharing but I don't understand all the jargon. It appears that there's studies that support these conclusions but I can't really figure out what they're talking about.

It is easy to see the difference if one chooses to eliminate processed sugar from their diet. The improvement in one's health is staggering. It's good. It is important.

Our bodies can make allowance for all types of things we ingest that are counterproductive to our health. Sugar happens to be one of them but it does catch up with yah. Obviously as a baker/cake decorator I've had more than my fair of sugary substances. Well no more. And I've known about the hazards since my early 20's. I have simply watched my body come to fully reject this in my diet and be able to maintain my weight. It's a teeter totter. No sugar my weight is fine, Introduce sugar my weight gain is dramatic. I am not alone in this.

I like to bring this to people's attention because of the good it does to get off sugar. No one has to believe me. No one need be agitated. Especially if I can neither produce nor understand the scientific research.

I still believe it. It still works.

[paulraphael]

I still believe it. It still works.

←

I don't have any problem with you stating your opinion like this. You're telling us your subjective experience and letting us draw our own conclusions.

It's important to understand the difference between this kind of experiment and a scientific one. "This seems to have worked for me" doesn't let anyone else draw firm conclusions, because the sample size of the experiment is 1 (you), there are no controls for the many other variables in your diet and your life, and so no way to absolutely separate the change in sugar consumption from other factors. And there's no way to control for any influence brought to bear by your expectations of the result.

This doesn't mean what you experienced isn't true, only that it's impossible to draw any conclusions that would have scientific weight.

If someone did a study on a hundred people, including a control group that received a placebo treatment, did it double-blind (so neither the researchers nor the subjects knew who was in the placebo group), and changed only one variable in the diets and lifestyles of the experiment group (refined sugar consumption) and then measured both objective results (like blood lipid levels) and subjective results (how they subjects feel), you'd have the basis for solid scientific evidence.

There are mountains of such evidence showing negative health effects from even moderate quantities of trans fats. There is no such evidence, that I can find, against moderate amounts of refined sugar. And none that I can find showing important differences between refined and unrefined sugars.

[Nathan]

One can't have it both ways on the coke issue. If the sugar laden drink was good for them they would not be sick and obese. They should be able to consume two and half 2-liter bottles daily by caloric consumption and be ok if that's all they are drinking and eating.

←

No one said it was GOOD FOR YOU!

Look at it this way. 1-4 alcoholic drinks a day can, in fact, be "good for you."

but if you drink too much, you'll die.

so?

Edited December 21, 2007 by Nathan (log)

[Chris Amirault]

Folks, this topic left its stated purpose long ago, and most posts are now simply reiterations of past positions. As there's nothing left to discuss productively, we're shutting it down. Thanks.