Why are they allowing this in our food?

Originally posted by Bedlam
Unless you're a cow, you won't be rendering cellulose back into glucose.

Quite right - In a human it is known as dietary fibre, I was just pointing out that sugar is everywhere in many forms, so blanketing sugar as "bad" is false. This is also why they list carbs and sugar separately. That said, plants naturally contain very high amounts of sugar, the very same sugar you will find in a Mars bar or Cola. In fact, a Mars bar and an Apple contain around the same amount of Sugar.

Originally posted by Bedlam
Totally inaccurate.And of course, it presupposes that I was getting the bulk of my calories from fruit juice, which is also laughable.

Not at all, on both counts. I was just highlighting that for someone who says they didn't try a coke until their teens but drank fruit juice made from fresh ingredients is not really limiting their sugar intake as opposed to someone who did drink coke. I would imagine that, seeing as you said you lived on a farm, you consumed a fair amount of fresh fruit, vegetables etc - these can contain as much sugar as any confectionery. Again, I was merely highlighting the false thinking behind the whole fresh fruit = good - Yes, it is good and full of vitamins, but in the context of this thread, ie sugar intake, it is no better than sweets.

Originally posted by lewman
Yes I can imagine a nation of over 1.2 billion people finding it hard to enforce such laws, especially due to the land mass and the cost of policing such policies.

They have more Police than any Western nation, plus a plethora of officials to run the bureaucracy, not to mention the other security services.

Originally posted by lewman
You mention plants needing sugar to grow, I have a question that I hope you can answer. I have heard that when eating asparagus (without butter etc added) your body burns more calories than are in the asparagus.
Does this mean asparagus somehow burns away the calories or does it not use sugar to grow?

If that is true (I don't know - I dislike asparagus and don't know much about it) then it will be because digesting it takes more energy than the energy you get out of it. Of course it needs sugar to grow, it is a photosynthetic plant.

Here you go - explains negative calorie food quite nicely

We need sugar to live. Our bodies use it- one organ of note that needs it is your brain (glucose)...

What we do not need to live is- High Fructose Corn Syrup- which is what makes those sweet items unhealthy. Having some M&Ms once in a while wouldn't be a problem if it weren't made from HFCS (which is in turn made from GMO corn).

reply to post by Hushabye


HFCS is very popular in the US, but not widely used anywhere else. Apparently this is due to high sugar prices in the USA. In Europe, we still use the old fashioned sugar from cane and in the UK, we use sugar from beets.

Also, current regulations in Europe strictly control (if not outright ban) GMO products from food as well...

reply to post by stumason


Be wary of your beet sugar too- beets are a large GMO crop in the US as well.

i suspect sugar is not the hazard we are worried about. the real hazard is all the chemical crap they use to "replace" sugar. in fact i was startled the other day when i found an article on sugar cane, the plant that most "real sugar" comes from. i was astounded by what i read.

Health & Nutrition Benefits of Eating Sugarcanes
Sugarcane, being low on glycemic index, helps keep the body fit and healthy.
Sugarcane juice has been found to be very beneficial for preventing as well as treating sore throat, cold and flu. Since sugarcane has no simple sugar, it can be enjoyed by diabetics without any fear. However, they intake should still be limited for people suffering from type-2 diabetes.
Being alkaline in nature, sugarcane juice helps the body in fighting against cancer, especially prostate and breast cancer. Sugarcane provides glucose to the body, which is stored as glycogen and burned by the muscles, whenever they require energy. Therefore, it is considered to be one of the best sources of energy.
If you have been exposed to heat and physical activity for too long, drink sugarcane juice. It will help hydrate the body quickly.
Sugarcane is believed to strengthen stomach, kidneys, heart, eyes, brain, and sex organs.
Sugarcane juice is an excellent substitute for aerated drinks and cola. Sugarcane clears the urinary flow and also helps the kidney to perform its functions smoothly.
Sugarcane juice has been found to be good for those who are suffering from febrile disorders. Febrile disorders are responsible for causing fevers, which can result in a great amount of protein loss from the body.
Liberal consumption of sugar cane juice provides the necessary protein and other food elements to the body. Sugarcane is beneficial for micturation, caused due to high acidity, along with genorrhoea, enlarged prostate, cyctitis and nepthritis. Mixing sugarcane juice with lime juice, ginger juice and coconut water will give better results. Sugarcane juice is said to speed up the recovery process after jaundice. As sugarcane consists of carbohydrates, in good quantities, it serves to refresh and energize the body. It supplies instant energy to working muscles and for this reason, it is also known to maximize performance in sports and endurance.
Sugarcane is also good for digestion, as it can effectively work as a mild laxative because of its high potassium content.

lifestyle.iloveindia.com...

now mind you this is sugar cane, and sugar cane juice they are talking about not refined sugar. but i can't see refined sugar, from sugar cane being all that bad either unless of course they add in other chemicals. admittedly "sugar" does tend to be addictive (mmm sugar sandwiches, or just plain icing sugar with a spoon).

what really startled me was the fact that "Since sugarcane has no simple sugar, it can be enjoyed by diabetics without any fear. However, they intake should still be limited for people suffering from type-2 diabetes.". keep in mind people with type 2 diabetes have to watch ALL types of sugar intake, including REAL FRUIT, and everything else. but i would have thought that "sugar cane" would have been a definite no no for what a lot of people term "sugar diabetes".

i really have to ask if "sugar" is the problem we are told it is. i drink a TON of coke, my friends have laughingly referred to me as a coke addict, (rather true i'm afraid since i get headaches if i don't have enough ) heck i even have been known to bring my own coke from home while i am in the states since i can't stand that coke made with corn crap they sell there, tho "Mexican coke" will do (also made with "real" sugar). i have been known to drink over 4l of coke a day. i like my candy as well as sugary snack foods, heck even things like sugar sandwiches and just plain sugar, drink mixes (without water), etc. yet i am NOT the one in the family that suffers from diabetes, or even being "fat". it strikes me as odd that when i think about it the ones in my family that have been diabetics and are on the "large size", are the same ones who eat the diet crap, in fact my father ended up with diabetes a few years after he started to drink diet soda pop instead of regular, as well as cutting down on "sugar" using sugar replacements and "diet" stuff instead of regular stuff, part of trying to loose weight he had from working a sit down job for years. seems rather odd that is the ones that replaced sugar for other chemical stuff, are the very ones that are "diabetic", while those of us that eat "real sugar" are the ones without diabetes. the same seems to be true with weight, those who eat all the "diet" crap, and stuff with the "corn crap" in it in place of sugar are the ones that are overweight, while those of us that just don't care and continue with "real sugar" are the ones that are NOT overweight. the same can be said for other people i know.

reply to post by Hushabye


Not in the UK - at the moment anyway

Changes are afoot in the EU to allow more GMO crops - that said, I personally don't have an issue with them either. We have been modifying crops and animals for millennia - the problem I have is making them more resistant to pesticides, which means they want to use them more when I think they should be using them less...

reply to post by stumason


HFCS was ADM's getaround to get sugar cheaply because sugar production was expensive in the US. In places like the Caribbean, South, and Central America, it could be produced cheaply so the US government put restrictions on its import to bolster domestic production. This drove prices up to keep money in local producers' pockets. ADM managed to get HFCS going and it's now in some huge percentage of processed foods. If I'm not mistaken, studies have shown that HFCS doesn't trigger a satisfaction reaction in our brains, so we keep craving it despite having had our share of sugar.

Looking at typical diets in Europe, there's a lot of fatty foods that one would think would contribute to obesity just as much as the typical US diet, but the one thing US food has in excess is HFCS. I'm convinced that HFCS is very closely tied to the obesity problem in the US, moreso than just about anything else.

ADM's grip on the industry (in cahoots with the likes of Monsanto and Cargill et al) and their lobbying has steered government subsidies their way at the expense of small farms. They are evil beyond compare.

lollies and sweets.

Were never made of 100% good for you things.

"There's too much sugar in my candy officer!!"

I think the problem should not be "Why do they do this?!" it should be "Why do parents feed their kids nothing but sugar and then complain about the sugar!"

Treats. They should simply be treats. Before treats meant once in while, and not for breakfast.

Originally posted by Happy1
reply to post by lewman

 

Hienz ketchup is loaded with sugar - thank you, john kerry hienz. our new secretary of state.

Is that why heinz has gone to pot lately?

They've stopped making delicious everythings for anytimes, and gone into US politics?

beanz meanz heinz...

reply to post by bluloa


sugar? it is the least of my worry seriously there is much more harmful than sugar. At least it can be processed normally by the body unlike synthetic sweeteners...

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by Bedlam

 

It always makes me chuckle reading stuff like this - people assume because they made it "fresh" it is somehow better (often it might be) and then get high and mighty about them doing it..

1 apple, on average, contains 34g of carbohydrates of which 26g of is sugar.

One thing people also forget is that plants use sugar, derived from photosynthesis, to build their entire structure. Cellulose is a complex sugar and it makes up the bulk of a plants mass.

So even those who profess to be living a "healthy" lifestyle based on eating fresh fruit and vegetables, then crow about, are probably consuming just as much sugar as someone who lives off cola and mars bars.

However, sugar does not necessarily equal bad - there are many types and it is required in our diet.

edit on 4/5/13 by stumason because: (no reason given)

Exactly. I think a lot of people throw in conspiracy angles simply to make things sound more dastardly when they mention it. I do know that an inclusion of processed sugar in ample quantities is not good for you. And to add the amount of total sugars in something, in processed sugar in a plastic bag serves to imply a wrong comparison.

I have 3-4 teaspoons in my mug of coffee, soup cup really.. more a bowl with a handle, and if I counted it all I'd have to post it in kg bags.. lol

so I don't need added detriment to an already cranky system. but factor in the times a normal person would have a treat, with all the processed sugar they willingly take, and then compare it to the levels of sugars taken in by everything else, and you should be ok. It's people who consume nothing but mars bars or doritos and pepsi, who need to be hand held as they cross the road. Sadly, instead it means that we get people telling us how to cross the road every time we go to cross it... why did the chicken cross the road? the hungry people were too buggered to go get it.

ahh but we don't live in a world were common sense prevails. instead of helping people survive on their own, they throw short sighted preventative legislation at everyone for everything. Then make laws up to convict people who don't understand legalese when they're the sort of person who didn't know not to eat kfc in his bed at 2am.

Hell, in England during the war kids were given candied carrots as treats. A carrot, boiled in sugar syrup. nom nom nom, but you never saw old mrs waffle saying her daughter polly was obese because they never told them it was soaked in sugar.

Originally posted by billdadobbie
mushrooms keep them in the dark and feed them on sxxt nuff said folks

And aren't they versatile little buggers

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by Bedlam

 

It always makes me chuckle reading stuff like this - people assume because they made it "fresh" it is somehow better (often it might be) and then get high and mighty about them doing it..

1 apple, on average, contains 34g of carbohydrates of which 26g of is sugar.

One thing people also forget is that plants use sugar, derived from photosynthesis, to build their entire structure. Cellulose is a complex sugar and it makes up the bulk of a plants mass.

So even those who profess to be living a "healthy" lifestyle based on eating fresh fruit and vegetables, then crow about, are probably consuming just as much sugar as someone who lives off cola and mars bars.

However, sugar does not necessarily equal bad - there are many types and it is required in our diet.

edit on 4/5/13 by stumason because: (no reason given)

Yes but cellulose doesn't have calories, aka fiber.

A medium size apple has 19g carbohydrates, 3g of which is fiber, no where near 34g.
www.fatsecret.com...

Seems you forget more than "people".

Originally posted by stumason

Originally posted by Bedlam
Unless you're a cow, you won't be rendering cellulose back into glucose.

Quite right - In a human it is known as dietary fibre, I was just pointing out that sugar is everywhere in many forms, so blanketing sugar as "bad" is false. This is also why they list carbs and sugar separately. That said, plants naturally contain very high amounts of sugar, the very same sugar you will find in a Mars bar or Cola. In fact, a Mars bar and an Apple contain around the same amount of Sugar.

Given the context of your statements, that makes no sense. The more obvious explanation is that you didn't know that and are attempting to cover your rear, or you were intentionally being deceptive. BS is BS and spinning is spinning.

A "Mars Bar" has 37g carbs and zero fiber, not even close to an apple. The fiber slows digestion as well essentially reducing the total carbs since it won't spike your blood sugar as much. As well as delaying the onset of hunger thereby reducing total daily calories.
www.sparkpeople.com...

You can be proud of your weight if you want, but not your ignorance on here.

reply to post by Turq1


It entirely depends on the breed and size of apple, if you're going to pedantic...

A medium Granny Smith contains only 14g sugar, whereas a medium Gala contains around 17g and a Cox apple around 20g. Obviously, the larger the apple, the more sugar. Large apples can contain upwards of 30g sugar and more.

A large orange which can have more than 20g's of sugar, grapes can be as much as 20% sugar by weight.

The point I was making was not about how much sugar an apple has, but rather the simple fact that fruits are probably the highest source of sugar alongside junk food in our diet yet no-one ever says they are bad, despite many having the same sugar content as a chocolate bar.

It is telling, actually, that rather than debate that point you are pedantic instead about the precise amount of sugar in an apple which is just daft as there are many, many types of apple which varying amounts of sugar in them.

Too many people here seem to think sugar is sugar... People please learn the background first, before commenting on these matters, it just comes of "dumb"... No offense to anybody...

There are many types of different sugars. depending on how they are extracted/created, how they are processed etc.

Generally we can easily separate two main groups of sugars.

1) Natural Sugars, which are part of food groups, for example fruit, (organic) milk etc. These contain lots additional nutritional value, that is the reason they are mostly healthy, although anything can be overused.
2) Refined Sugars, which are extracted from different plants and processed afterwards to remove "impurities" contain no nutritional value, but calories. The processing removes all fiber, vitamins, minerals etc.

Sugar that is inside an apple and HFCS (sugar) used in many candybars can not even be compared each other. They are too different. A person can eat as much as apples as he wants to, it does not affect health. Although candybar diet will most likely cause lots of health problems, from obesity to diabetes etc.

The sugar contect of the products mentioned in the OP is mostly very unhealthy. These are different refined sugars, especially HFCS, and eating these a lot is very unhealthy. Most refined sugars have high glycomic index, which mean they cause "sugar spikes", which causes several health related issues + is not nutritional at all. In the mornings it is not suggested to eat different high-glycemic index foods. Refined sugars trigger insulin release, which promotes storage of fat.

Table sugars are just empty calories as are other refined sugars used in different mass-production products. They have no real nutritional value.

I do not know how US yogghurts are made, although here overally yogghurts are healthy. Everything depends on the producers though, as different producers have different "recipes" for their products.

I personally do not prohibit sugars for myself, although I do not eat much of these. Maybe a candy-bar, some cake every couple of weeks, I do not drink sodas though. For desserts I just eat different fruits. Never had any weight related/blood-sugar related issues. The best way is just eating natural organic products: Fruits, even sugar cane is fine, as the sugar there is not processed yet. The glycomic index of fruits is usually low and they have lots of nutritional value, so eating these is healthy, while any product with refined should be used very moderately, if at all. I am not some health guru or something, occasionally these are good, although daily such foods are not good for health and probably that is one of the main causes behind US obesity issues.

Nobody is making people buy products, although I believe laws should do something about it. Especially HFCS is not healthy at all, in EU its production is regulated well, although in US nearly every product (with sugars) contains it and that is not good. When nearly every product contains refined sugars (which after all taste well), it is hard for many people, especially children and younger adults to eat these moderately, especially as the advertising on these matters is strong.

I am not some health guru or something. I am not saying anybody to quit refineds sugars. These taste well and after all, its your body and you live only once, although I just suggest that these should be eaten very moderately in order to avoid the negative effects. For most people, at the end, these come out and they can only blame themselves (or sometimes their parents for bad genetics or the government)

PS. Anybody who says they drink a lot of sodas or eat lots of sugary foods, they are either lucky genetics or the negative effects on these have not came across yet

reply to post by stumason


The sugar in apple can not be compared to sugars used in products.

Natural vs Refined sugar - there is too much difference between those.

Originally posted by Turq1
Given the context of your statements, that makes no sense. The more obvious explanation is that you didn't know that and are attempting to cover your rear, or you were intentionally being deceptive. BS is BS and spinning is spinning.

If you say so... I actually clarified what I was talking about by pointing out that fruit and vegetables have high sugar contents and merely elaborated that they are pretty much entirely sugar in one form or another.

Rather than me "spinning" or "not knowing" - bollocks. I know full well a human being has a hard time digesting plant matter, which is actually one of the reasons we cook the food as it breaks down the cellular wall and allows the nutrients contained therein to be released. I would suggest you don't try to put words in my mouth.

Originally posted by Turq1
A "Mars Bar" has 37g carbs and zero fiber, not even close to an apple.

Like I said earlier, it depends on the type and size of apple. You're merely being facetious by splitting hairs. A large Braeburn will contain almost as much sugar as a Mars bar at around 30 odd grams.. Again (and I really don't know why I need to keep repeating this) I used this as examples to merely illustrate that fruit is high in sugar. Whether it has exactly (or more or less) sugar is neither here nor there really.

Now, you might accuse me of being selective by choosing a Braeburn, which is sweet. I could say the same about you picking your figures out. Again, it is merely for illustrative purposes and just displays how petty you're being by trying to split hairs over the exact sugar content (which is never exact and varies from apple to apple) rather than the point I was making.

Originally posted by Turq1
The fiber slows digestion

No, it doesn't - cellulose is an insoluble fibre. Now who doesn't know what they're talking about.

Originally posted by Turq1
You can be proud of your weight if you want, but not your ignorance on here.

indeed....

reply to post by Cabin


Sugar is sugar! Well actually it isn't as there are different types, but glucose is glucose and fructose is fructose. By and large, what we describe as sugar in food is glucose (unless using that Corn syrup which is fructose) and it matters not whether it is from a fruit directly or refined from a plant - the end product remains the same on the molecular level.

Explain to me the difference...

Originally posted by Cabin
Too many people here seem to think sugar is sugar...

That's rich...lets begin....

Originally posted by Cabin
Generally we can easily separate two main groups of sugars.

1) Natural Sugars, which are part of food groups, for example fruit, (organic) milk etc. These contain lots additional nutritional value, that is the reason they are mostly healthy, although anything can be overused.
2) Refined Sugars, which are extracted from different plants and processed afterwards to remove "impurities" contain no nutritional value, but calories. The processing removes all fiber, vitamins, minerals etc.

First off, you've started out with an erroneous assumption and went badly wrong from there.

Sugar, whether it comes directly from a fruit or is refined is sugar. End of. The vitamins, minerals etc do not come from the sugar, but rather the rest of the plant matter you have consumed. It is rich you take this "informed" stance yet get something so basic glaringly wrong!

Originally posted by Cabin
Sugar that is inside an apple and HFCS (sugar) used in many candybars can not even be compared each other.

Quite right, but your assumptions are way off. Suagr in an apple largely takes the form of (outside of cellulose) glucose. HFCS is fructose, so yes they are different. However, outside the US, HFCS is not used but rather refined cane/beet sugar which is glucose.

Originally posted by Cabin
They are too different. A person can eat as much as apples as he wants to, it does not affect health.

Again, quite wrong. People with Type 2 diabetes have to watch their sugar intake, be it from chocolate, sweets or fruit.

Although candy bar diet will most likely cause lots of health problems, from obesity to diabetes etc.

Originally posted by Cabin
The sugar contect of the products mentioned in the OP is mostly very unhealthy. These are different refined sugars, especially HFCS, and eating these a lot is very unhealthy.

Seeing as this was from Ireland, I strongly suspect that HCFS wasn't used, as it is not popular and is largely a GMO product, so unless it is marked on the packet it contains such, then it won't be HCFS. You are getting your knickers in a twist and seem to be unable to differentiate between different sugar types, their sources and what sugar actually is.

Originally posted by Cabin
Most refined sugars have high glycomic index, which mean they cause "sugar spikes", which causes several health related issues + is not nutritional at all. In the mornings it is not suggested to eat different high-glycemic index foods. Refined sugars trigger insulin release, which promotes storage of fat.

Jebus - the reason refined sugars have a high GI is because they are concentrated. Sugar is still sugar - there is naff all difference between refined glucose and glucose you get from fruit.

Originally posted by Cabin
Table sugars are just empty calories as are other refined sugars used in different mass-production products. They have no real nutritional value.

All sugar is empty calories..... Come on man...