Am I missing something here?

Man of Honour
Joined
29 Mar 2003
Posts
56,812
Location
Stoke on Trent
Research: Greater Sugar Consumption Corresponds to Higher Weight

Researchers at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis say people in the US have increasingly consumed sugar over the last 30 years and this trend is also reflected in their weight.

In six studies, lead author Huifen Wang and his colleagues studied diet, height and weight of people.

The study results were presented at the American Heart Association´s Nutrition, Physical Activity and Metabolism/Cardiovascular Disease Epidemiology and Prevention scientific sessions.

http://www.upi.com/Health_News/2011/03/27/Study-More-sugar-means-more-weight/UPI-78371301275537/

Me -
This is probably the most obvious thing ever or is it?
Was there a time when greater sugar consumption didn't mean higher weight :confused:
 
Associate
Joined
12 Dec 2005
Posts
574
It might be possible they were linking the greater sugar consumption to people needing more energy to carry out their stressful and work filled life's!

Oh no wait its just another pointless waste of a research opportunity.
 
Permabanned
Joined
31 May 2007
Posts
10,721
Location
Liverpool
Considering the majority of "healthy" food is listed as "fat free" when it's sugar that makes you put on weight, I don't think it's *that* obvious. The majority of people still think "low fat food" = healthy and have absolutely no idea that it's in fact sugar, which is something I find quite bizarre. It probably stems from the crap "weight watchers" and "low fat" crap they come out with. As if weight watchers actually want you to lose weight, they'd have no one to buy their crap any more if they did. :p
 
Soldato
Joined
2 Jun 2004
Posts
18,423
I hate it when foods are advertised as like "now 50% less fat!" or w/e.

We're not all fatties who need to eat nothing but diet food. :/

I'd be perfectly happy if they advertised "now with 2x fat content!". :)
 
Soldato
Joined
1 Jan 2008
Posts
11,039
I think there must be a distinction in how detailed the study was. Does weight just correlate tightly to sugar intake, or is it also influenced by other factors? How much of a problem is it in food? How much of weight gain is attributed to sugar intake or amount of exercise for example?

I would think to even get funding or to consider such a study, there must be more details that are glossed over in that very short article. You do see research like this every now and again and think 'well that's obvious' but I think there's usually more to it than that.
 
Soldato
Joined
2 Jun 2004
Posts
18,423
Well like with crisps, they advertise "now made with sunflower oil!" Thing is though, crisps made with sunflower oil may well be healthier, but they don't taste as good.
 
Soldato
Joined
15 Jul 2008
Posts
3,618
Location
Glasgow
Considering the majority of "healthy" food is listed as "fat free" when it's sugar that makes you put on weight, I don't think it's *that* obvious. The majority of people still think "low fat food" = healthy and have absolutely no idea that it's in fact sugar, which is something I find quite bizarre. It probably stems from the crap "weight watchers" and "low fat" crap they come out with. As if weight watchers actually want you to lose weight, they'd have no one to buy their crap any more if they did. :p

I agree RE sugar content, but most weight watchers stuff is reduced sugar AFAIK.
 
Permabanned
Joined
31 May 2007
Posts
10,721
Location
Liverpool
I agree RE sugar content, but most weight watchers stuff is reduced sugar AFAIK.

It's not really reduced sugar, it's just ridiculously small portion sizes, probably with the aim of making you snack afterwards, and I'm sure the sugar content relative to the weight of the portion is higher than most others. They're still rubbish ready meals anyway.
 
Caporegime
Joined
8 Nov 2008
Posts
29,018
Too high a blood sugar level = apart from glycation, results in the pancreas needing to secrete more and more insulin. This pattern results in weight gain, lowered immune system function. Particularly bad for ladies, although 'tis no good for anyone. Fat (good fats) imo are the most important macro nutrient.
 
Soldato
Joined
20 Oct 2002
Posts
3,467
Location
London, UK
One thing to consider also is the type of sugar used in foods nowadays. A lot of companies in the US prefer to substitute cane sugar with high fructose corn syrup to increase profits. That stuff is nasty, and it's everywhere :(
 
Permabanned
Joined
1 Sep 2010
Posts
11,217
Seems like a pretty obvious conclusion to me, though I'm no scientist. Though I'm guessing they wanted to test how increased intake might affect people's weights differently based on gender, activity, etc.
 
Caporegime
Joined
28 Jun 2005
Posts
48,104
Location
On the hoods
One thing to consider also is the type of sugar used in foods nowadays. A lot of companies in the US prefer to substitute cane sugar with high fructose corn syrup to increase profits. That stuff is nasty, and it's everywhere :(

The Americans love a bit or anti-sugar propaganda. Keep those sugar tariffs in place and continue with the protectionism of their farm industry.
 

fez

fez

Caporegime
Joined
22 Aug 2008
Posts
25,138
Location
Tunbridge Wells
This is what most research seems to come under; either ridiculous ideas that have a one in a million chance of resulting in something useful, or research that tells us exactly what we all already know.

I cringe when I see all these adverts for womens health foods that say "only 70 calories". Wow, so you can starve yourself with this food as it has so little calorific value that it probably nearly takes more energy to digest than than it gives you.

Exercise is the one thing that pretty much every overweight person lacks. You need to exercise to be healthy.
 
Associate
Joined
22 Apr 2006
Posts
313
It's never a good idea to judge scientific research purely on the one or two quotes that get put in the press release. I'm not an expert on this issue but I see a lot of reports that get mis represented basically so Newspapers can run the same old science story.
 
Soldato
Joined
25 Nov 2007
Posts
5,581
Location
London
My advice would be to obtain the articles in question, read at least the abstract, to figure out what exactly they are researching.

Its probably very complicated and very specific.
 
Back
Top Bottom