Excellent 22min video on Sugar, obesity, health, etc

[regentrude]

Does that seriously work?  I read 25% and it won't change the recipe drastically.  I can't stand how sweet baked good recipes are.  I wish I could find a cookbook that just called for less.  I've tried cutting out 50% in some and they flopped.

 

Depends on the recipe. The muffin recipe I often make works well with half the sugar, and I replace the white sugar by brown sugar for more flavor.  But then, I tinker recipes anyway and substitute lots of stuff...

Overall, I prefer my German baking books ;-)

I once brought the neighbor a piece of one of our favorite cakes... sadly she did not like it because it was not sweet enough. A traditional yeast sheet cake would use 3+ cups of flour and less than 1/2 cup of sugar. My American muffin recipe calls for 3/4 cup of sugar per 2 cups of flour.

 

[Tsuga]

Not only are the candy/cookies at eye level to kids, but they are EVERYWHERE. Even in the office supply store, the craft store, etc. You can't get out of Joanne Fabrics without walking past shelf after shelf of random candy. Or check out at office max or Comp USA without seeing a cooler of soda and bags of gummy bears and such. Which I hadn't thought about before, but is crazy.

 

I am jealous that you hadn't thought of this before.

 

My children are so naturally sugar-crazy AND love to touch AND color-sensitive. Those shelves are the bane of my existence.

 

The thing is, I have never bought anything from them. My kids know I'm going to say no. I asked the older one (eight) most recently, "Why do you keep asking?"

 

She said, "It never hurts to ask."

 

Gahhh. I said, "It will hurt to ask if you don't stop. I'm not buying this junk--it's bad for your teeth, your heart, and the packaging and production is bad for the trees and the fish. And..."

 

"Okayokayokay you don't need to lecture me."

 

"Well, if you keep asking I will!"

[ktgrok]

 

 

u really think making sugar hard to get for kids is the way to go?  I don't know that I agree; I think it would only encourage them.  We parents purchase groceries, not kids.  It's up to us to set the standard.  Sure, they can get it outside of the home at times, but if they primarily eat well in our home, we have set a lifelong pattern. 

 

 

 

Well, would you apply that same logic to alcohol or tobacco? As a society we fought the money behind big tobacco, I think we could do it against sugar as well, if we tried. 

[amyco]

Does that seriously work?  I read 25% and it won't change the recipe drastically.  I can't stand how sweet baked good recipes are.  I wish I could find a cookbook that just called for less.  I've tried cutting out 50% in some and they flopped.

 

That's because in some recipes the outcome depends on the chemistry of the sugar reacting to the other ingredients.  Less sugar would equal less structure.  (yes I do watch too much America's Test Kitchen!)

 

[SarahW]

Some sugar is sometimes necessary to "feed" the yeast or other things. But for just bulking, you can swap in a bit of white rice flour or another starch if it's needed. But usually cutting the sugar completely in half works well for me.

 

I agree that American desserts are way too sweet. It drives me nuts. I once had Key Lime Pie at a restaurant in FL that was honest-to-goodness famous for it. It just tasted like sugar. Just sweet, nothing else. It was so disappointing. Same with cheesecake, they all just taste like bland sugar. Has America lost it's sense of tart?

 

Chocolate desserts are also just as bad. I enjoy a 90% chocolate bar on occasion. But it's absolutely ruined my enjoyment of most "normal" chocolate confections. They're usually just a floury sugary mess, and I can barely taste the chocolate. Blah.

 

I once made a pumpkin pie with hardly any sugar and did goat's milk yogurt for the milk and added some rum. Then I whipped up some raw cream with some pure maple syrup to put on top. It was divine. But I don't really enjoy baking, so that's a once in a blue moon sort of thing.

 

I've become a dessert snob. At least it's good for my health! :)

 

[redsquirrel]

Sugar adds tenderness, moisture and (most importantly) shelf life to baked goods. We took lots of the hydrogentated fats out of baked goods, the texture and shelf life has to come from somewhere. It's like the fat free craze of the 1980s-1990s, all that fat was replaced with sugar. Remember those fat-free cookies? Nothing but sugar.

 

One bit of gov't regulation that I am looking forward to is the addition of added sugar on nutrition labels. I don't know when it officially starts, but it was announced earlier this year. I am really happy that information will be made available to the consumer. That is information I can actually use. So, now when I compare flavoured yogurts, I can see which ones have more added sugar across flavours and brands.  And (most importantly) I can finally convince my mom that unflavoured yogurt (the only kind I buy) really does have much less sugar than the flavoured. Maybe when she sees just how much is added, she will believe me...or not, lol. And things like breakfast cereals, I can compare the store brand cheerios and the name brand and see if one has more added sugar. I can think of a lot of ways that information can help me.

 

I know that it is suggested that women have no more than 25 grams of added sugar a day, but until that information is on food labels, there hasn't been an easy way to track that information. 

[ktgrok]

Sugar adds tenderness, moisture and (most importantly) shelf life to baked goods. We took lots of the hydrogentated fats out of baked goods, the texture and shelf life has to come from somewhere. It's like the fat free craze of the 1980s-1990s, all that fat was replaced with sugar. Remember those fat-free cookies? Nothing but sugar.

 

One bit of gov't regulation that I am looking forward to is the addition of added sugar on nutrition labels. I don't know when it officially starts, but it was announced earlier this year. I am really happy that information will be made available to the consumer. That is information I can actually use. So, now when I compare flavoured yogurts, I can see which ones have more added sugar across flavours and brands.  And (most importantly) I can finally convince my mom that unflavoured yogurt (the only kind I buy) really does have much less sugar than the flavoured. Maybe when she sees just how much is added, she will believe me...or not, lol. And things like breakfast cereals, I can compare the store brand cheerios and the name brand and see if one has more added sugar. I can think of a lot of ways that information can help me.

 

I know that it is suggested that women have no more than 25 grams of added sugar a day, but until that information is on food labels, there hasn't been an easy way to track that information. 

 

I'd like to see an actual percentage listed, not just the total grams. Every other thing on there has a percentage, but not sugar. Because if it said "250% of your daily sugar intake" you would be a lot less likely to eat it, you know?

[TranquilMind]

Well, would you apply that same logic to alcohol or tobacco? As a society we fought the money behind big tobacco, I think we could do it against sugar as well, if we tried. 

I think sugar is more ubiquitous in every part of society than alcohol or tobacco.  To suddenly create restrictions on something freely obtained is going to create a black market and make it an even bigger deal.

This is something that parents can control in the early years, and must teach their children to control.  Unlike alcohol or tobacco, which some kids never encounter until adulthood or college, at least. 

[kiana]

regarding sugar in recipes: In most cake recipes you can cut the sugar by a third. You will know if you cut it too much because the cake will fall -- so if it falls, add a little more sugar in the next time you make it. You really need to experiment a little with each recipe -- but start at a third. Some modern recipes (the ones in old cookbooks are a lot less sweet) can be cut by 50% or even more. 

[kiana]

Depends on the recipe. The muffin recipe I often make works well with half the sugar, and I replace the white sugar by brown sugar for more flavor.  But then, I tinker recipes anyway and substitute lots of stuff...

Overall, I prefer my German baking books ;-)

I once brought the neighbor a piece of one of our favorite cakes... sadly she did not like it because it was not sweet enough. A traditional yeast sheet cake would use 3+ cups of flour and less than 1/2 cup of sugar. My American muffin recipe calls for 3/4 cup of sugar per 2 cups of flour.

 

Now I know why my European friends always like my recipes better than my American friends :D

[ktgrok]

I think sugar is more ubiquitous in every part of society than alcohol or tobacco.  To suddenly create restrictions on something freely obtained is going to create a black market and make it an even bigger deal.

This is something that parents can control in the early years, and must teach their children to control.  Unlike alcohol or tobacco, which some kids never encounter until adulthood or college, at least. 

 

Those were the same arguments used against tobacco restrictions (the idea of a black market). But I wasn't talking about restricting sugar, I was talking about restricting the advertising of high sugar products to kids. I'd like to see that stopped the same way we stopped advertising for tobacco that was aimed at kids. There is no black market then, no restriction of the product, just a cessation of advertising of a highly addictive product at people too young to make a true decision about it. 

[regentrude]

Those were the same arguments used against tobacco restrictions (the idea of a black market). But I wasn't talking about restricting sugar, I was talking about restricting the advertising of high sugar products to kids. I'd like to see that stopped the same way we stopped advertising for tobacco that was aimed at kids. There is no black market then, no restriction of the product, just a cessation of advertising of a highly addictive product at people too young to make a true decision about it. 

 

Or parents could simply limit their child's exposure - to both sugar and its advertising.

It would only require limiting or - gasp - eliminating TV for little kids. Which would have other benefits as well.

[MBM]

Here is an NPR interview with Lustig:

 

http://www.npr.org/2013/01/11/169144853/the-fallacies-of-fat

 

Fighting the sugar lobby will not be easy because they are powerful. Lobbyists, usually well-connected and very intelligent lawyers, are advocates who are paid handsomely to get certain interests what they want -- politicians' votes. Media then distributes misinformation/erroneous studies to the general public. Anyone who gets in their way will be threatened or intimidated.

 

I know this because my husband worked on a piece of legislation for about five years and had to testify before committees in both Houses. Things got contentious when he dug in his heels with a part of the legislation that was designed to protect the elderly, widows and orphans -- the most vulnerable. In trying to protect them, he got five years' of intimidation: threatened with a gun and intimidated at work and even on the street when he was walking with me and one of our kids, who was a baby then.

 

My point is that it's a worthwhile endeavor but will be a difficult fight. I hope for better change but after seeing the sh*t my husband had to deal with to protect the vulnerable, I know it won't be easy.

 

The other problem is dealing with traumatized individuals who use food to deal with their unresolved issues.

[Guest]

The cure is education not legislation. As more people come to understand where to find 'sugar' and what it does to the human body, they will start to choose different products. It won't happen quickly but we're getting there.

[MBM]

The cure is education not legislation. As more people come to understand where to find 'sugar' and what it does to the human body, they will start to choose different products. It won't happen quickly but we're getting there.

 

I agree but if people are reading conflicting messages about health, it's difficult for them to make healthy choices. That is what this article was pointing out:

 

http://www.newsweek.com/report-sugar-lobby-threatens-organizations-buries-science-health-effects-256529

 

Years ago when fat was declared bad, Americans began to eat less fat (and more sugar). I think eventually people will cut back on sugar but it will take some time.

[TranquilMind]

Those were the same arguments used against tobacco restrictions (the idea of a black market). But I wasn't talking about restricting sugar, I was talking about restricting the advertising of high sugar products to kids. I'd like to see that stopped the same way we stopped advertising for tobacco that was aimed at kids. There is no black market then, no restriction of the product, just a cessation of advertising of a highly addictive product at people too young to make a true decision about it. 

Well, I have no problem with that, but I think that it will never happen, as sugar is in everything. 

 

Look how they target drugs to the public, even with the long list of horrible side effects.  It is still working.  I can't imagine that any restriction on targeting to kids will have any effect.  They will just target "families" or "moms and dads" instead.  People do stupid things even when they know better. 

[TranquilMind]

Or parents could simply limit their child's exposure - to both sugar and its advertising.

It would only require limiting or - gasp - eliminating TV for little kids. Which would have other benefits as well.

This!!!

[flyingiguana]

I knew someone who worked for General Mills as a high level marketer.

 

She refused to let her kids eat sugar at potlucks.  I mean, we're talking a party here, where there happened to be brownies as a treat at the end of the meal.

 

And yet, she was perfectly content to market her company's sugary junk to all the other children in the world.

[flyingiguana]

We probably need less govt involvement.  If the subsidies to corn growers were cut, our food supply would be in better nutritional balance.  The problem right now is that corn sugars are really, really cheap.  So food manufacturers put lots and lots of them into food as it's a cheap way of getting more people to buy their product. 

 

http://grist.org/article/food-2010-09-21-op-ed-corn-subsidies-make-unhealthy-food-choices/

 

 

[Tsuga]

I think sugar is more ubiquitous in every part of society than alcohol or tobacco.  To suddenly create restrictions on something freely obtained is going to create a black market and make it an even bigger deal.

This is something that parents can control in the early years, and must teach their children to control.  Unlike alcohol or tobacco, which some kids never encounter until adulthood or college, at least. 

 

But kids used to encounter cigarettes on their mothers' laps. The uptake time for many, many years, decades even, was around 12-13.

 

Alcohol used to be given to small children (in tiny amounts) to keep them quiet.

 

The fact that it's not accessible to children now is a result of a very long, hard fight. It didn't just magically happen. And everyone said about tobacco what you are saying about sugar: "They'll do it anyway." "They have to learn moderation." "It's not that bad." "Lots of people can quit any time."

 

And a black market on sugar--you know why I don't think that will happen? Because like tobacco, and alcohol, most people who are that addicted are adults. And most people who aren't addicts don't need it because it's not doing them any good beyond a brief high.

 

It's not like banned books where people will fight for it. People want to have no access to drugs when they are fighting addiction. So many people who have struggled with weight have said this--"It's not like I can stop eating completely."

Right now, if you want to cut sugar, you need to either cook a 100% whole foods diet which (and I know because I did this when my children were small) is extremely time consuming if you are feeding a family, OR you can read every single label and buy only the most expensive prepared things, which we do, and it's flipping expensive.

 

There is no option of "just" not eating sugar. For anyone. To not eat sugar in our society is a huge task and most people will think you're a food Nazi. I mean, all we do is not buy pop or eat fast food. That is IT. But you can see by reactions to my family's food norms--Only three meals a day? No pop? No snacking between meals unless it's a fruit, vegetable, or legume, no added junk? Your kids are suffering!!! They'll rebel!--that people think that is a huge deal.

 

Imagine if we tried to cut sugar. As it is we do end up eating some sugar because there is only ONE cereal (Shredded Wheat) without sugar in it on the shelves.

 

Without legislation to label, and without legislation to say, you need to offer children's cereals that do not taste like a flipping birthday cake or you can't call yourself a food company, without legislation to say, "you don't get the food tax exemption if it is NOT FOOD", it will not happen.

 

If you don't think these companies would leave you on the side of the road dying to make a buck, go to India. Go to the industrial regions of China. People who trust big conglomerates with their food really cannot know how bad these people are, how totally immune they are to morality, and what they are doing to farmers around the world.

 

 

Things got contentious when he dug in his heels with a part of the legislation that was designed to protect the elderly, widows and orphans -- the most vulnerable. In trying to protect them, he got five years' of intimidation: threatened with a gun and intimidated at work and even on the street when he was walking with me and one of our kids, who was a baby then.

 

Yep--this does not surprise me at all. Anyone see that one lawmaker, what was his name, who threatened to throw a reporter off the balcony? Jon Stewart, bless his heart, keeps making fun of that legislator.

 

But those are the people who feed your family if you are not an active, anal-retentive foodie. The people who would throw reporters off balconies, threaten lobbyists with guns. When I briefly worked in politics, the lawyers would have people drive them home for some of the EPA campaigns. They will kill and threaten life for money.

 

These are the people who decide what's in your child's breakfast.

 

There is significant debate about how much of what we do, is determined by our environment. Well one thing I know with certainty: small children's diets are not chosen, and if you hit 14 obese or unhealthy, then it is not your fault. I don't want parents to be making those choices for their kids unknowingly. And if you've never sat beside a fat friend who just cannot lose weight and who is beating herself up, sobbing, over what she looks like and how she feels, who has been fat since childhood, then maybe that's why you're not angry.

 

I have friends in that situation. I wish so badly that their parents had not had the option to just open a package and dump sugar in front of them so that they started even kindergarten, third grade, middle school overweight and without any taste for vegetables. I don't blame them. They did what they knew. They did their best. It is not their fault.

 

They were raised to be sugar addicts and I am so upset about that. I don't think that should be legal, no.

[regentrude]

 

And a black market on sugar--you know why I don't think that will happen? Because like tobacco, and alcohol, most people who are that addicted are adults. And most people who aren't addicts don't need it because it's not doing them any good beyond a brief high.

 

Sugar in moderation has been part of a varied diet for centuries.

People who are not addicts might WANT to eat sugar,  just like people who are not alcoholics might WANT to drink a glass of wine occasionally. The prohibition did not work either.

I might not need it - but I sure reserve the right to WANT Christmas cookies or chocolate and don't need a Nanny state to regulate my diet.

 

 

It's not like banned books where people will fight for it. People want to have no access to drugs when they are fighting addiction. So many people who have struggled with weight have said this--"It's not like I can stop eating completely."

Right now, if you want to cut sugar, you need to either cook a 100% whole foods diet which (and I know because I did this when my children were small) is extremely time consuming if you are feeding a family, OR you can read every single label and buy only the most expensive prepared things, which we do, and it's flipping expensive.

 

There is no option of "just" not eating sugar. For anyone. To not eat sugar in our society is a huge task and most people will think you're a food Nazi. I mean, all we do is not buy pop or eat fast food. That is IT. But you can see by reactions to my family's food norms--Only three meals a day? No pop? No snacking between meals unless it's a fruit, vegetable, or legume, no added junk? Your kids are suffering!!! They'll rebel!--that people think that is a huge deal.

 

Imagine if we tried to cut sugar. As it is we do end up eating some sugar because there is only ONE cereal (Shredded Wheat) without sugar in it on the shelves.

 

I don't see it as such an endeavor or particularly expensive (sugar free whole foods are less expensive than prepared crap anyway) -but I would not wish to.

We chose not to have a TV, which is clearly not the cultural norm in this country. Some people might have thought that we are depriving our kids, shrug. If eating completely sugar free is something counter-cultural that is important to you, you can. And just not buying fast food and pop? I know lots of people who do that, that's not radical.

But again, for almost all people, occasional sugar consumption in moderation is not a problem. There is a long way from beinga  food nazi to raising sugar addicts. So, no pop in the home, but maybe once a moth when eating out - no.big.deal whatsoever. Not going to turn kid into a sugar fiend.

 

 

 

I have friends in that situation. I wish so badly that their parents had not had the option to just open a package and dump sugar in front of them so that they started even kindergarten, third grade, middle school overweight and without any taste for vegetables. I don't blame them. They did what they knew. They did their best. It is not their fault.

They were raised to be sugar addicts and I am so upset about that. I don't think that should be legal, no.

 

Parents do all kinds of stupid things their kids are saddled with for the rest of their lives. I completely agree, nobody should do that to children. But implementing laws restricting everybody's freedom because some parents don't feed their kids properly... very slippery slope, and not in line with fundamental values like personal responsibility and parental authority. (Good luck with any such thing in a country that is not even civilized enough to make beating children against the law.)

[ktgrok]

But kids used to encounter cigarettes on their mothers' laps. The uptake time for many, many years, decades even, was around 12-13.

 

Alcohol used to be given to small children (in tiny amounts) to keep them quiet.

 

The fact that it's not accessible to children now is a result of a very long, hard fight. It didn't just magically happen. And everyone said about tobacco what you are saying about sugar: "They'll do it anyway." "They have to learn moderation." "It's not that bad." "Lots of people can quit any time."

 

And a black market on sugar--you know why I don't think that will happen? Because like tobacco, and alcohol, most people who are that addicted are adults. And most people who aren't addicts don't need it because it's not doing them any good beyond a brief high.

 

It's not like banned books where people will fight for it. People want to have no access to drugs when they are fighting addiction. So many people who have struggled with weight have said this--"It's not like I can stop eating completely."

Right now, if you want to cut sugar, you need to either cook a 100% whole foods diet which (and I know because I did this when my children were small) is extremely time consuming if you are feeding a family, OR you can read every single label and buy only the most expensive prepared things, which we do, and it's flipping expensive.

 

There is no option of "just" not eating sugar. For anyone. To not eat sugar in our society is a huge task and most people will think you're a food Nazi. I mean, all we do is not buy pop or eat fast food. That is IT. But you can see by reactions to my family's food norms--Only three meals a day? No pop? No snacking between meals unless it's a fruit, vegetable, or legume, no added junk? Your kids are suffering!!! They'll rebel!--that people think that is a huge deal.

 

Imagine if we tried to cut sugar. As it is we do end up eating some sugar because there is only ONE cereal (Shredded Wheat) without sugar in it on the shelves.

 

Without legislation to label, and without legislation to say, you need to offer children's cereals that do not taste like a flipping birthday cake or you can't call yourself a food company, without legislation to say, "you don't get the food tax exemption if it is NOT FOOD", it will not happen.

 

If you don't think these companies would leave you on the side of the road dying to make a buck, go to India. Go to the industrial regions of China. People who trust big conglomerates with their food really cannot know how bad these people are, how totally immune they are to morality, and what they are doing to farmers around the world.

 

 

Yep--this does not surprise me at all. Anyone see that one lawmaker, what was his name, who threatened to throw a reporter off the balcony? Jon Stewart, bless his heart, keeps making fun of that legislator.

 

But those are the people who feed your family if you are not an active, anal-retentive foodie. The people who would throw reporters off balconies, threaten lobbyists with guns. When I briefly worked in politics, the lawyers would have people drive them home for some of the EPA campaigns. They will kill and threaten life for money.

 

These are the people who decide what's in your child's breakfast.

 

There is significant debate about how much of what we do, is determined by our environment. Well one thing I know with certainty: small children's diets are not chosen, and if you hit 14 obese or unhealthy, then it is not your fault. I don't want parents to be making those choices for their kids unknowingly. And if you've never sat beside a fat friend who just cannot lose weight and who is beating herself up, sobbing, over what she looks like and how she feels, who has been fat since childhood, then maybe that's why you're not angry.

 

I have friends in that situation. I wish so badly that their parents had not had the option to just open a package and dump sugar in front of them so that they started even kindergarten, third grade, middle school overweight and without any taste for vegetables. I don't blame them. They did what they knew. They did their best. It is not their fault.

 

They were raised to be sugar addicts and I am so upset about that. I don't think that should be legal, no.

 

I am that person. The one crying and sobbing because I just can't make it work. So thank you. 

 

When I saw that cocaine addicted rats will pick sugar over cocaine, it is THAT addictive to some people, and yet it is in 80 percent of food, and in every gas station, office supply store, computer store, etc...that makes me mad. We don't have alcoholics that have to pass by alcohol everytime they buy office paper. Or have to avoid 80 percent of foods to keep from imbibing. We understand that makes it too damn hard when breaking an addiction. 

 

We keep tobacco behind the counter, where kids can't get it, yet put rows upon rows of candy right at eye level. 

 

Yes, the fight is hard. Yes sugar is a huge industry. But big tobacco wasn't exactly a small industry with no power, and we as a country managed to do  it. We can do this too.

[ktgrok]

Sugar in moderation has been part of a varied diet for centuries. 

Small amounts. Until recently it was way too expensive to have much of.

 

People who are not addicts might WANT to eat sugar,  just like people who are not alcoholics might WANT to drink a glass of wine occasionally. The prohibition did not work either.

I might not need it - but I sure reserve the right to WANT Christmas cookies or chocolate and don't need a Nanny state to regulate my diet.

 

No one is saying you can't buy a cookie. Just that maybe sugar should be in cookies, not in tomatoes, at least without labeling. And maybe those cookies should have a label showing what percentage of your daily sugar intake is in them. And hey, maybe they shouldn't have your child's favorite book/cartoon/superhero on them. 

I don't see it as such an endeavor or particularly expensive (sugar free whole foods are less expensive than prepared crap anyway) -but I would not wish to. 

No, they are not. Unless you live on beans and rice. 

 

We chose not to have a TV, which is clearly not the cultural norm in this country. Some people might have thought that we are depriving our kids, shrug. If eating completely sugar free is something counter-cultural that is important to you, you can. And just not buying fast food and pop? I know lots of people who do that, that's not radical.

But again, for almost all people, occasional sugar consumption in moderation is not a problem. There is a long way from beinga  food nazi to raising sugar addicts. So, no pop in the home, but maybe once a moth when eating out - no.big.deal whatsoever. Not going to turn kid into a sugar fiend.

 

When it is in 80 percent of supermarket food, it isn't in moderation anymore. When a school breakfast has more than a day's worth of sugar in it, just to start the day, that isn't in moderation. And it isn't like they are eating cookies for breakfast. It's just IN so many things. 

 

 

 

Parents do all kinds of stupid things their kids are saddled with for the rest of their lives. I completely agree, nobody should do that to children. But implementing laws restricting everybody's freedom because some parents don't feed their kids properly... very slippery slope, and not in line with fundamental values like personal responsibility and parental authority. (Good luck with any such thing in a country that is not even civilized enough to make beating children against the law.)

[TranquilMind]

But kids used to encounter cigarettes on their mothers' laps. The uptake time for many, many years, decades even, was around 12-13.

 

Alcohol used to be given to small children (in tiny amounts) to keep them quiet.

 

The fact that it's not accessible to children now is a result of a very long, hard fight. It didn't just magically happen. And everyone said about tobacco what you are saying about sugar: "They'll do it anyway." "They have to learn moderation." "It's not that bad." "Lots of people can quit any time."

 

And a black market on sugar--you know why I don't think that will happen? Because like tobacco, and alcohol, most people who are that addicted are adults. And most people who aren't addicts don't need it because it's not doing them any good beyond a brief high.

 

It's not like banned books where people will fight for it. People want to have no access to drugs when they are fighting addiction. So many people who have struggled with weight have said this--"It's not like I can stop eating completely."

Right now, if you want to cut sugar, you need to either cook a 100% whole foods diet which (and I know because I did this when my children were small) is extremely time consuming if you are feeding a family, OR you can read every single label and buy only the most expensive prepared things, which we do, and it's flipping expensive.

 

There is no option of "just" not eating sugar. For anyone. To not eat sugar in our society is a huge task and most people will think you're a food Nazi. I mean, all we do is not buy pop or eat fast food. That is IT. But you can see by reactions to my family's food norms--Only three meals a day? No pop? No snacking between meals unless it's a fruit, vegetable, or legume, no added junk? Your kids are suffering!!! They'll rebel!--that people think that is a huge deal.

 

Imagine if we tried to cut sugar. As it is we do end up eating some sugar because there is only ONE cereal (Shredded Wheat) without sugar in it on the shelves.

 

Without legislation to label, and without legislation to say, you need to offer children's cereals that do not taste like a flipping birthday cake or you can't call yourself a food company, without legislation to say, "you don't get the food tax exemption if it is NOT FOOD", it will not happen.

 

If you don't think these companies would leave you on the side of the road dying to make a buck, go to India. Go to the industrial regions of China. People who trust big conglomerates with their food really cannot know how bad these people are, how totally immune they are to morality, and what they are doing to farmers around the world.

 

 

Yep--this does not surprise me at all. Anyone see that one lawmaker, what was his name, who threatened to throw a reporter off the balcony? Jon Stewart, bless his heart, keeps making fun of that legislator.

 

But those are the people who feed your family if you are not an active, anal-retentive foodie. The people who would throw reporters off balconies, threaten lobbyists with guns. When I briefly worked in politics, the lawyers would have people drive them home for some of the EPA campaigns. They will kill and threaten life for money.

 

These are the people who decide what's in your child's breakfast.

 

There is significant debate about how much of what we do, is determined by our environment. Well one thing I know with certainty: small children's diets are not chosen, and if you hit 14 obese or unhealthy, then it is not your fault. I don't want parents to be making those choices for their kids unknowingly. And if you've never sat beside a fat friend who just cannot lose weight and who is beating herself up, sobbing, over what she looks like and how she feels, who has been fat since childhood, then maybe that's why you're not angry.

 

I have friends in that situation. I wish so badly that their parents had not had the option to just open a package and dump sugar in front of them so that they started even kindergarten, third grade, middle school overweight and without any taste for vegetables. I don't blame them. They did what they knew. They did their best. It is not their fault.

 

They were raised to be sugar addicts and I am so upset about that. I don't think that should be legal, no.

I'm not much of a believer in "addiction", except in very rare cases, such as someone shooting you up daily with heroin or something. Then, you would have a hard time breaking that.  Most things we do to ourselves are merely bad habits. 

 

Bad habits are hard to break, but that's life.  I'm not a fan of sugar being in every single thing, of course, but I think we could change that if we refused to buy it.    Sure, there is an option.  People do what they want to do, and when the price is too high of their existing habits, they change them. 

[Wildiris]

For those who can't watch video, here is an article about food and sugar with a list of Do's and Dont's.  

 

 

[TranquilMind]

Sugar in moderation has been part of a varied diet for centuries.

People who are not addicts might WANT to eat sugar,  just like people who are not alcoholics might WANT to drink a glass of wine occasionally. The prohibition did not work either.

I might not need it - but I sure reserve the right to WANT Christmas cookies or chocolate and don't need a Nanny state to regulate my diet.

 

 

I don't see it as such an endeavor or particularly expensive (sugar free whole foods are less expensive than prepared crap anyway) -but I would not wish to.

We chose not to have a TV, which is clearly not the cultural norm in this country. Some people might have thought that we are depriving our kids, shrug. If eating completely sugar free is something counter-cultural that is important to you, you can. And just not buying fast food and pop? I know lots of people who do that, that's not radical.

But again, for almost all people, occasional sugar consumption in moderation is not a problem. There is a long way from beinga  food nazi to raising sugar addicts. So, no pop in the home, but maybe once a moth when eating out - no.big.deal whatsoever. Not going to turn kid into a sugar fiend.

 

 

 

Parents do all kinds of stupid things their kids are saddled with for the rest of their lives. I completely agree, nobody should do that to children. But implementing laws restricting everybody's freedom because some parents don't feed their kids properly... very slippery slope, and not in line with fundamental values like personal responsibility and parental authority. (Good luck with any such thing in a country that is not even civilized enough to make beating children against the law.)

I am totally with you here, and do not need the state regulating my actions, thanks.  They are in our business enough. 

 

Right.  Parents do stupid things.  Stop.  Don't force all parents to jump through hoops to help you stop. 

 

I ask my family to keep a couple items out of the home because they are particularly tempting to me. So they do, to help me out.    I don't need the government controlling it.  I control it.  It's my own darn fault if I stuff it down my gullet. 

[MBM]

The people who would throw reporters off balconies, threaten lobbyists with guns.

 

Just to clarify, my husband has only worked with lobbyists. He's not one himself. lol

[Tsuga]

I'm not much of a believer in "addiction",

 

Well I'm not much of a believer in denying other people's experiences just because I haven't had them myself.

 

So I'm just going to believe that you actually haven't denied this, even though you say otherwise. Instead, I will believe that really, you do have an ability to wrap your mind around things like addiction, or at least take people's words for it.

 

And therefore, we agree.

 

How convenient! I need to try this whole, "It's not my problem so I will just pretend it doesn't exist" thing more often.

[Tsuga]

 

I ask my family to keep a couple items out of the home because they are particularly tempting to me. So they do, to help me out.

 

What if you were seven and your family refused to help you out?

 

Could the government help you then?

[redsquirrel]

And here is the NYT article about Lustig's work, by Gary Taubes. NYT has a limited number of article views per month if you don't have a subscription, just FYI.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/magazine/mag-17Sugar-t.html?pagewanted=all&module=Search&mabReward=relbias%3Ar%2C{%221%22%3A%22RI%3A10%22}&_r=0

 

 

[TranquilMind]

Well I'm not much of a believer in denying other people's experiences just because I haven't had them myself.

 

So I'm just going to believe that you actually haven't denied this, even though you say otherwise. Instead, I will believe that really, you do have an ability to wrap your mind around things like addiction, or at least take people's words for it.

 

And therefore, we agree.

 

How convenient! I need to try this whole, "It's not my problem so I will just pretend it doesn't exist" thing more often.

I drank steadily for 10 years.  It wasn't easy to quit.  I didn't blame anyone else, or some body chemistry I happen to have, or some genetic weakness.  It may have been there, but  *I* put the glass to my lips.  I made a thousand decisions to continue before I ever got to a place where it was a problem.  *I* did it.  I'm responsible.  I'm also responsible for these remaining pounds I need to lose.  *I* ate the sweets and junk food.  I'm the one who did it.  Sure, it's much harder to lose at this age, but it is only the fault of the person in the mirror. 

 

Don't tell me I don't know what I'm talking about regarding what people do to themselves, thanks.  

 

Bad habits are habits we create.  We created them and we can break them. God willing and He certainly will help, if we ask. 

 

[ktgrok]

 

Bad habits are habits we create.  We created them and we can break them. God willing and He certainly will help, if we ask. 

 

I guess all those overweight toddlers just aren't praying hard enough.

[TranquilMind]

I guess all those overweight toddlers just aren't praying hard enough.

No, their parents don't do anything.  No one is talking about toddlers taking responsibility here, as was clearly stated. 

[Katy]

I don't see the problem in regulating sugar added to processed foods while simultaneously not taxing regular sugar in grocery stores. Especially fake sugars like high fructose corn syrup.  I grew up with the rule that I could eat whatever candy I wanted as long as I made it myself (which also involved cleaning it up).  I think it was genius of my mother- I not only learned to cook well, I realized that most of the time candy wasn't worth it.  Anything would take at least 3 hours, and the family would finish it off in less time than that.

[Miss Peregrine]

I don't see the problem in regulating sugar added to processed foods while simultaneously not taxing regular sugar in grocery stores. Especially fake sugars like high fructose corn syrup. I grew up with the rule that I could eat whatever candy I wanted as long as I made it myself (which also involved cleaning it up). I think it was genius of my mother- I not only learned to cook well, I realized that most of the time candy wasn't worth it. Anything would take at least 3 hours, and the family would finish it off in less time than that.

This is excellent! I recently told one of my dds the same thing. I need to stick to it.

[Tsuga]

 

Don't tell me I don't know what I'm talking about regarding what people do to themselves, thanks. 

 

You don't believe in addiction, then I don't believe in you NOT believing in addiction.

 

People don't always thank me for my brilliant insights and telling them what they think (I normally wouldn't but since we are deciding what others believe and have experienced in this conversation, I've gone ahead and decided to make that leap). So this is a nice change. You're most welcome.

 

If you have any other personal experiences that you'd like me to totally invalidate by claiming that I don't believe in them--depression, fibromyalgia, grief, ADHD, anything that I haven't personally dealt with and which I cannot see with my eyes, let me know.

 

I feel like we could solve a lot of people's problems this way.

[TranquilMind]

I don't see the problem in regulating sugar added to processed foods while simultaneously not taxing regular sugar in grocery stores. Especially fake sugars like high fructose corn syrup.  I grew up with the rule that I could eat whatever candy I wanted as long as I made it myself (which also involved cleaning it up).  I think it was genius of my mother- I not only learned to cook well, I realized that most of the time candy wasn't worth it.  Anything would take at least 3 hours, and the family would finish it off in less time than that.

That's a good idea.  Just leave food alone and don't add any crap to it at all, not just sugar.  Works for me. 

 

 

Yes, your mom was a genius. 

[ktgrok]

I don't see the problem in regulating sugar added to processed foods while simultaneously not taxing regular sugar in grocery stores. Especially fake sugars like high fructose corn syrup.  I grew up with the rule that I could eat whatever candy I wanted as long as I made it myself (which also involved cleaning it up).  I think it was genius of my mother- I not only learned to cook well, I realized that most of the time candy wasn't worth it.  Anything would take at least 3 hours, and the family would finish it off in less time than that.

 

FYI, high fructose corn syrup is almost exactly the same as regular table sugar. Both are about half fructose, half glucose. HFCS is just cheaper, so they use it more. 

 

But yes, I don't see the problem with actual sugar in a bag, where you know what you are getting. Heck, I'm not averse to cakes/cookies/etc where you know what you are getting. The problem is in everything else, and with sugar having a list of about 40 something different names, it's too hard for the average (not talking about well educated) but average american to realize what they are getting. 

 

At this point, we even have fructose in baby formula, instead of lactose. We now have obese 6 month olds. 

[Mom-ninja.]

 

If you have any other personal experiences that you'd like me to totally invalidate by claiming that I don't believe in them--depression, fibromyalgia, grief, ADHD, anything that I haven't personally dealt with and which I cannot see with my eyes, let me know.

 

I feel like we could solve a lot of people's problems this way.

Oh, can you then not believe in celiac? Cause maybe then that problem of mine will go away. Other people have told me they don't believe there's such a thing as celiac disease, and yet, sadly, it did not help it go away. Maybe, you're the answer.  :D

[Katy]

FYI, high fructose corn syrup is almost exactly the same as regular table sugar. Both are about half fructose, half glucose. HFCS is just cheaper, so they use it more. 

 

But yes, I don't see the problem with actual sugar in a bag, where you know what you are getting. Heck, I'm not averse to cakes/cookies/etc where you know what you are getting. The problem is in everything else, and with sugar having a list of about 40 something different names, it's too hard for the average (not talking about well educated) but average american to realize what they are getting. 

 

At this point, we even have fructose in baby formula, instead of lactose. We now have obese 6 month olds. 

 

i actually disagree.  I don't feel like googling to find you the studies, but I'm sure that HFCS is linked to more health issues- such as fatty liver and insulin resistance than regular sugar.

[ktgrok]

i actually disagree.  I don't feel like googling to find you the studies, but I'm sure that HFCS is linked to more health issues- such as fatty liver and insulin resistance than regular sugar.

 

Not being snarky, but later, if you have time, I'd love to see some! I know that fructose, in any shape/form, is linked to fatty liver and insulin resistance. But table sugar is half fructose. If you have something different, comparing sucrose (half fructose, half glucose) to HFCS (55 percent fructose, 45 percent glucose) I'm not kidding, I'd like to learn more. I'm learning so much already. 

 

Thanks!

[Katy]

Okay, I will google later when kids are watching Christmas movies.  One factor to think about just from a common-sense standpoint:  HFCS is much less sweet than sugar, but has the same amount of calories, so they put much more of it into processed foods to get the same amount of sweetness, which triggers more insulin. It works well in other areas, like it's a humectant, so the processed food stays shelf-stable and moist instead of getting dry and stale, and with subsidies it's also cheaper than real sugar. So it works fantastic with convenience foods, but for health it's really bad.

 

 

ETA: I agree that calorie for calorie it might be the same from a health standpoint, but if you have to put three times the calories into a commercial cookie to make it the same degree of sweetness as a homemade one, the homemade one is inevitably healthier.

[ktgrok]

Okay, I will google later when kids are watching Christmas movies.  One factor to think about just from a common-sense standpoint:  HFCS is much less sweet than sugar, but has the same amount of calories, so they put much more of it into processed foods to get the same amount of sweetness, which triggers more insulin. It works well in other areas, like it's a humectant, so the processed food stays shelf-stable and moist instead of getting dry and stale, and with subsidies it's also cheaper than real sugar. So it works fantastic with convenience foods, but for health it's really bad.

 

 

ETA: I agree that calorie for calorie it might be the same from a health standpoint, but if you have to put three times the calories into a commercial cookie to make it the same degree of sweetness as a homemade one, the homemade one is inevitably healthier.

 

Everything I've read said it was about the same sweetness as table sugar/sucrose. I'm interested if you have something saying otherwise. As that would make sense. 

[5of5]

Everything I've read said it was about the same sweetness as table sugar/sucrose. I'm interested if you have something saying otherwise. As that would make sense. 

 

Right.  Although some sources say it is sweeter, one quick search turned up the following:

 

"High fructose corn syrup has a clean sweet taste. It is a mixture of fructose and glucose, both of which also have a very clean sweet taste. The level of sweetness depends on the extent to which glucose has been converted to fructose: glucose is less sweet than sucrose (table sugar), and fructose is more sweet. But the commonly used forms have fructose:glucose ratios of 55:45 or 42:58, so they end up being about as sweet as sucrose."

 

This is from: http://www.sweetenerbook.com/hfcs.html

[Katy]

Apparently I was wrong and fructose can be sweeter than sugar (though another article I read said it depended on how concentrated the syrup was, and some studies are misleading because they are using the weaker version of corn syrup instead of the high-fructose one): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2758952

 

Some pubmed abstracts on health implications of corn syrup vs sugar, many of these are in rats:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20424937

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25449399

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24816278

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25242636

 

It's well known that HFCS can induce metabolic issues in rats, this study looked at whether resveratrol can reduce the damage of HFCS (it can): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25238689

 

They've found a way to block the pathway that makes HFCS induce obesity & insulin resistance in rats:  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25187370

 

HFCS is worse for your teeth than sugar:  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24813075

 

There are lots of studies on pub med,  not all of which have HFCS as bad- it has no immediate impact on blood pressure or heart disease, though it does have an immediate impact on triglycerides.

 

 

 

[Tsuga]

Oh, can you then not believe in celiac? Cause maybe then that problem of mine will go away. Other people have told me they don't believe there's such a thing as celiac disease, and yet, sadly, it did not help it go away. Maybe, you're the answer.  :D

 

Yes! I can do that for you!

 

When I was a kid nobody had celiac. Nobody'd even heard of it. People have been eating wheat for generations and nobody's ever had any problem with wheat or milk.* Digestive issues and stomach problems never used to be a problem. We just farted and that was it. We didn't make a big deal of it. Now it's celiac this, lactose intolerant that. People should just eat normally like me.

 

 

 

*SSSSSSSSSSHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

[ktgrok]

Apparently I was wrong and fructose can be sweeter than sugar (though another article I read said it depended on how concentrated the syrup was, and some studies are misleading because they are using the weaker version of corn syrup instead of the high-fructose one): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2758952

 

Some pubmed abstracts on health implications of corn syrup vs sugar, many of these are in rats:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20424937

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25449399

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24816278

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25242636

 

 

 

 

It's well known that HFCS can induce metabolic issues in rats, this study looked at whether resveratrol can reduce the damage of HFCS (it can): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25238689

 

They've found a way to block the pathway that makes HFCS induce obesity & insulin resistance in rats:  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25187370

 

HFCS is worse for your teeth than sugar:  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24813075

 

There are lots of studies on pub med,  not all of which have HFCS as bad- it has no immediate impact on blood pressure or heart disease, though it does have an immediate impact on triglycerides.

 

Of those first studies you listed only one compared and found differences between HFCS and sucrose. The others found differences between straight fructose and sucrose, or just that HFCS was bad, without comparing it to sucrose. The tooth thing finished by saying it was not better than sucrose, and may be worse, which I'm willing to buy. 

 

But most of the stuff we are talking about, with insulin, and fatty liver disease, triglycerides, etc is driving by Fructose, and table sugar is half Fructose, just like HFCS. Glucose does NOT have the same effect, nor does lactose. That's one of the concerns with putting corn syrup in baby formula instead of lactose. 

 

But yeah, fructose, when given in high doses and quckly, is scary stuff. In fuit the fiber should help ease the burden on the liver, thankfully. But still, this is all scary stuff. 

[kiana]

As far as the amount of sugar in things, I know I checked at one point (when I still drank sugary sodas) and the sugar sodas had the same calories as the hfcs.

 

What I really wish is that they made a semisweet soda with 1/2 the sugar rather than making soda addicts choose between full sugar and diet. 

[chocolatechip]

Depends on the recipe. The muffin recipe I often make works well with half the sugar, and I replace the white sugar by brown sugar for more flavor.  But then, I tinker recipes anyway and substitute lots of stuff...

Overall, I prefer my German baking books ;-)

I once brought the neighbor a piece of one of our favorite cakes... sadly she did not like it because it was not sweet enough. A traditional yeast sheet cake would use 3+ cups of flour and less than 1/2 cup of sugar. My American muffin recipe calls for 3/4 cup of sugar per 2 cups of flour.

 

Would you be willing to share one of your cake recipes?

[Mom-ninja.]

Yes! I can do that for you!

 

When I was a kid nobody had celiac. Nobody'd even heard of it. People have been eating wheat for generations and nobody's ever had any problem with wheat or milk.* Digestive issues and stomach problems never used to be a problem. We just farted and that was it. We didn't make a big deal of it. Now it's celiac this, lactose intolerant that. People should just eat normally like me.

 

 

 

*SSSSSSSSSSHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

 

To the bolded.... :smilielol5:  :smilielol5:  :smilielol5:  :smilielol5: