WHO issued new guidelines Wednesday saying only 5% of a person’s total daily calories should come from sugar, half of what the organization previously recommended.
http://www.bbc.com/news/health-26449497
What do you say about it?
You need to be a member of The Frugivore Diet to add comments!
Replies
I personally agree with the article and here is why:
And, they are not quoted as saying to limit fruits and vegetables.
White sugar, refined sugars, high fructose corn syrup, outside of possibly being an energy source, are empty calories. Unlike fruits and vegetables that are nutrient dense, most of these sources are nutrient empty.
Many times, refined sugars are also added to other processed foods which in tandem can cause tooth decay as the article implies (processed grains and starches big culprits), to containing things like gluten that make people sick, to being high in antinutrients like oxalate acid and phytates for example.
So, in conclusion, I agree with the article as it is. The closer we eat foods in natural form, the better for us. Fresh and raw are often better, followed by minimally cooked ie for example, some vitamins like C are destroyed in cooking or become inert during storage.
If in a calorie emergency, sure, eat sugar or drink high fructose based juices, but as soon as possible, get back to nature.
Peace, PK
Seems like a waste of our time and resources, maybe some of those on the panel got fooled by the new sugar is the devil campaign and/or it's more propaganda to keep us focused on the wrong issues.
Is refined sugar a health food? Obviously not, so why do they even need to mention it at all. Is sugar the cause of the major diseases we now have? Not at all as Dr. Mc Dougall explains here> http://www.vegsource.com/news/2015/02/cure-type-2-diabetes-with-sug...
The main claims in that video are inaccurate and deceptive. I happen to admire Dr. McDougall but he could have used better examples.
Since refined sugar is not a health food (it's not even a food) and humans are consuming so much of it; it makes sense that a health organization would recommend using less of it in light of the latest studies. I only wish that the WHO had also recommended an increase in the consumption of fresh fruits and vegetables at the same time.
Macro nutrients seem to take turns at being the new savior or devil (remember when protein was the king of the hill?). Nutrition science is ever evolving and there are few absolutes, all the more reason to question new information objectively.
thanks for the mcdougal video. very interesting and enlightening.
sugar hysteria, originating from people like dr lustig and his studies on mice not humans, very little scientific evidence mostly alarmism and fear-mongering, that has unfortunately become the dogma of the day, and now you have the mainstream media jumping on board and even the WHO. not unlike global warming alarmism. starts with a few scientists making alarmist claims to gain media attention and feel important and get funding, then the government and world organizations joins the club to show that theyre proactive and care for the public, many scheming behind the scenes to impose taxes on evil co2, in this case sugar, and profit from the deluded hysteria.
they claim this only applies to refined sugar and that fruit are fine. but i highly suspect they would recommend against eating loads of bananas and dates. sugar has been scapegoated. sad because people with no real scientific knowledge on nutrition will look at this and avoid sweet fruit which is the ideal food for humans.
"sugar detox"? what a joke, you have these people making ridiculous claims that the nutrient their cells run on is a toxin. sugar a drug because it lights up pleasure centres in the brain?- so does everything else that's pleasurable and good for us. how could people swallow such nonscientific garbage? sugar should be banned or taxed? god the sugar police would ban dates if they had their way. this is sad sad sad
Thanks for the reply! It is interesting that they did not mention fruits. I wonder what they would have to say about high amounts of bananas and dates too.
If you think global warming is alarmist then science may not be your thing. There's TONS of research done on humans and refined sugar. Very easy to find too.
First you state, "they claim this only applies to refined sugar and that fruit are fine" but then you make gross assumptions based on what they didn't say.
"sad because people with no real scientific knowledge on nutrition will look at this and avoid sweet fruit which is the ideal food for humans."
That's because people on both sides of the debate equate refined sugar and whole fruit. More energy should be spent in showing the differences. Actually, fruitarians should use the science on refined sugar to help promote the eating of more whole fruit! Science is not the enemy here.
An attack on refined sugar is not an attack on fruit; just like an attack on sodium chloride (table salt) is not an attack on celery.
looks like people are jumping to conclusions and much more research has to be done on the effects of refined sugar
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/brainwaves/2013/07/15/is-sugar-...
a pleasant excerpt about fruit though:
"In a small but intriguing study, 17 adults in South Africa ate primarily fruit—about 20 servings with approximately 200 grams of total fructose each day—for 24 weeks and did not gain weight, develop high blood pressure or imbalance their insulin and lipid levels."
Not to hijack this thread, but there is indeed a lack of scientific evidence in support of global warming. To me it seems like just a way to tax people out of even more of their money, and control more of what they can and can't do. Global Warming is deeply political in its origin and it maintains its greatest presence in the arena of government and politics.
http://www.nipccreport.org/
About the NIPCC:
"The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) is what its name suggests: an international panel of nongovernment scientists and scholars who have come together to understand the causes and consequences of climate change. Because we are not predisposed to believe climate change is caused by human greenhouse gas emissions, we are able to look at evidence the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) ignores. Because we do not work for any governments, we are not biased toward the assumption that greater government activity is necessary."
Also, are you familiar with statements from Weather Channel founder John Coleman?
http://www.techtimes.com/articles/18641/20141025/global-warning-is-...
I feel that mass scale pollution and destruction of the biosphere is terrible, but I'm not a fan of corporate run governments putting up poor science to justify taxation and regulation.
Best Wishes,
-Chris
"Arguments about sunspots, the earth’s rotation about the sun, the accuracy of temperature measurements, the likely severity of global warming and other theories have all played out over the last 20 years through the scientific literature. The IPCC’s conclusions reflect the fact that the only remaining theory, supported by the evidence, is that global warming is caused by emissions of greenhouse gases, and that human activity is therefore responsible.
The IPCC consensus is now upwards of 95 percent certainty on this point, enough to convince the National Academies of Science across the world, all major scientific institutions and even the US military."
http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energ...
I can't stay long on this topic but wanted to add my 2 cents that when you look at the enormous amounts of dirty money behind the climate change denial campaign it is astounding! And of course a red flag!
-
1
-
2
of 2 Next