Am I missing something here?

SexyGreyFox

SexyGreyFox

SexyGreyFox

Man of Honour
Joined
29 Mar 2003
Posts
57,632
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:
 
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.
 
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 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!". :)
 
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.
 
Van Hellseek said:
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!". :)
Click to expand...


its not diet food though. most things with less fat have a raised sugar content.
 
kylew said:
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
Click to expand...

I agree RE sugar content, but most weight watchers stuff is reduced sugar AFAIK.
 
pieplough said:
I agree RE sugar content, but most weight watchers stuff is reduced sugar AFAIK.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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 :(
 
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.
 
Heofz said:
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 :(
Click to expand...

The Americans love a bit or anti-sugar propaganda. Keep those sugar tariffs in place and continue with the protectionism of their farm industry.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom