>> Article Here

Now I have to wonder if they'll still allow their "heart check" logo to be emblazoned upon boxes of Cocoa Puffs?

Full text of AHA SUGAR guidelines here

Interview with the author here

What applies to SUGAR also applies to Fructose ~ HFCS and derivatives and it's arguable that fructose has more damaging (uric acid raising potential)

Also be aware that the carbonation process activates methylglyoxal MG that raises insulin, glucose, uric acid levels higher than would be. So sweetened carbonated beverages are more dangerous than non carbonated drinks with the same calorie count, But that doesn't mean that you can safely drink any amount of fruit juice.

Yes.

I find it interesting that Chris and Kara Mohr continue to recommend fruit consumption even after saying:



But eating fruit is OK:



How is eating fruit recommended while fructose is not? Is there something different about added fructose than the fructose in fruit?

They answer this question:



OK. So drinking a fructose drink (fruit juice or soda) that has, say, 25 grams of "added" sugar is to be avoided ... but eating a banana with 25 grams of sugar is OK? Is this because the fructose isn't "added"?

I think part of what they're going after is portion control. You can eat one apple or one banana...but most people can't eat more than that!

Also, they are probably really "into" fiber, and fruit does have plenty of that. I didn't see where they were even recommending fruit juice (altho' they made note that 100% fruit juice is not as bad as the sugary stuff), so that's already progress. And people do have to eat something...eating real fruit is definitely better than eating a candy bar, and it's a stepping-stone to a better diet in general.

The AHA is coming along nicely...we can't expect them to change EVERYTHING overnight!

There's the idea that if it's not added but rather an integral part of the food, then it's natural and healthful. The truth is that it doesn't matter where it comes from, it does the same thing once eaten and digested. But try to convince anybody of this just for kicks.


That implies that sugar is food. Because it implies that eating too much is what causes heart disease. The truth is that we are being poisoned. Because the reality is that sugar is toxic, regardless of where it comes from.


It's not obvious here but that's the exact definition of the Mediterranean diet. As far as I know, there's a boatload of sugars in fruits, some vegetables and all grains. However, since it contains a boatload of other stuff which nourish us, then our appetite is satisfied and we don't remain forever hungry. It's a step in the right direction but it's far from being good. It's merely less bad.

And how the hell do you reconcile eating "grains" and avoiding "grain-based foods"?!?

I can eat the grain but I can't eat the foods based on grains? What to do, what to do. Pff, don't they realize that HFCS is made from grains?

I think most people get far, far less fructose from eating actual whole fruit than they do from drinking/eating manufactured stuff.

So do I. Which makes the whole "added sugars" argument fallacious.

And of course there is no evidence that most people with a healthy metabolism cannot eat fruit and grains. NOT as much as the typical American diet (300-500 grams of carbs). Dosage makes the poison.

ps - as a diabetic I cannot.

If you're looking for evidence, that's going to be hard to come by as the damage that grains do take decades to show up, and there are few examples of societies not eating grain nowadays. I wish someone would quickly go out and take blood samples from the few relatively unsullied hunter gather groups out there now so we could get some idea of what kinds of differences there might be between grain eaters and non-grain eaters.

Other than that, we have anthropological evidence of shorter stature, worse bones, more dental issues when humans turned from HG to grain eating. And historical evidence from earlier in the century, such as Taubes wrote about.

I think that, my own body's reaction to grains, plus what we know about evolution is good enough for me to decide that humans aren't currently designed (evolved) to eat grains. We can survive but they'll take their toll eventually, unless you're genetically gifted.

Fruit is another matter. I think we've probably been eating fruit a lot longer than grains. However, not in the quantities we currently do and certainly not concentrated into high fructose doses!

I was actually hoping to show this to my hard headed father, but I think it would just make him even more confused. The AHA keep talking around in circles.


Like this little gem right here, taken from their Sugars 101 page:
http://www.heart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=3068932

Make up your minds people! If it's not harmful, then how does it contribute to obesity?!?!

Thanks for the links. I read the AHA statement and it has a surprising amount of stuff in there.

I think the message is not clear yet because the politics is not clear yet. Plus, I don't think they WANT the message about sugar to be clear . Giving Big Food time to reformulate and respin the products.

Using measurements, for example, that no one uses in real life. Teaspoons of sugar? Does anyone use them any more? I see people with packets but never teaspoons.

sugar as percent of discretionary calories? The people I know pay no attention to that.

The info I see people really using is on labels. do you think we'll see a line for added sugars? That would be cool.

Oat Groats vs Oat Muffins = Steak vs Bologna.

From this link (thanks Diane):
http://www.heart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=3068932

I will hold them to their word. They wrote them, they should be responsible for the consequences incurred.

That quoted paragraph is an outright lie, obviously fallacious and maliciously misleading. All sugars are harmful in quantities just like any other substance. To claim otherwise is to invite poisoning through ignorance if not stupidity. The body needs sugars, well it needs glucose. However, it does not need dietary sugars or glucose, the liver can produce all the the glucose the body needs. Glucose is a nutrient, however it is quite toxic in quantity especially when eaten chronically.

The second paragraph deals with calories and obesity. As if sugars contribute to obesity only by virtue of their caloric content. If that was true, then how come study after study show that we can eat more calories and still lose weight, if we merely cut sugars? To argue calories is a safe position for the AHA. The alternative is that they admit that sugars are indeed harmful to the point of causing atherosclerosis. Taubes shows as much in GCBC.

The third and last paragraph says to limit our intake of added sugars to no more than 100-150 calories per day. Excuse me if I use my brain for a moment but where the hell do they get that figure, if not out of their azz, and how can they be sure that it will fit everybody? As far as I know, there are many here who would continue to grow fat and sick by eating just that much sugar every day.

Like I said, outright lie, obviously fallacious, and maliciously misleading.

There is one thing I am absolutely certain of, the AHA can't tell the truth. Ever.