Sugar and Heart Disease

~Chameleon~

You might find this journal article useful....

Sugar and Cardiovascular Disease

Summary and Conclusion
As with most other dietary constituents, long-term trial data relating sugar consumption to the development of CVD events are unavailable. Longitudinal cohort studies relating sugar consumption to CVD are equivocal because of the many potential confounders that cannot be adequately controlled in the analyses. Shorter-term studies show consistent adverse effects of sugar consumption on HDL and triglyceride levels, which could accelerate atherosclerosis. High sugar consumption may worsen diabetes control, and the combination of sugar with protein and fats promotes formation of dietary AGEs, which may be especially detrimental to those with diabetes. Although increasing the amount of sugar in an isocaloric diet does not directly lead to changes in energy expenditure or weight gain in controlled feeding studies, high-sugar foods, which are sweet and calorie dense, may increase calorie consumption and lead to weight gain. Furthermore, replacement of whole foods with high-sugar foods compromises attainment of adequate dietary vitamin and mineral intake from whole food sources.

In the absence of definitive evidence, recommendations must rely on professional judgment. No data suggest that sugar intake per se is advantageous, and some data suggest it may be detrimental. The studies above, taken in total, indicate that high sugar intake should be avoided. Sugar has no nutritional value other than to provide calories. To improve the overall nutrient density of the diet and to help reduce the intake of excess calories, individuals should be sure foods high in added sugar are not displacing foods with essential nutrients or increasing calorie intake.

terra_ferma

~Chameleon~ wrote: »

You might find this journal article useful....

Sugar and Cardiovascular Disease

Not as clear cut as the headlines makes you think... surprise surprise... I think I'll carry on with the one teaspoon of sugar in my morning coffee

cherryblossomzel

terra_ferma wrote: »

Not as clear cut as the headlines makes you think... surprise surprise... I think I'll carry on with the one teaspoon of sugar in my morning coffee

It never is. "Scientists think x might be related to y, by an unknown mechanism, and possibly only for some people, under certain conditions" doesn't make nearly as good a headline as "x will kiiiillll you dead, aaarrrgghh!"

terra_ferma

cherryblossomzel wrote: »

It never is. "Scientists think x might be related to y, by an unknown mechanism, and possibly only for some people, under certain conditions" doesn't make nearly as good a headline as "x will kiiiillll you dead, aaarrrgghh!"

I know, I've been looking at the research behind some recent headlines, particularly around obesity, and it's always exactly how you describe it. They always leave something out....

~Chameleon~

cherryblossomzel wrote: »

It never is. "Scientists think x might be related to y, by an unknown mechanism, and possibly only for some people, under certain conditions" doesn't make nearly as good a headline as "x will kiiiillll you dead, aaarrrgghh!"

That's because scientists use evidence based facts rather than headline grabbing sensationalism to report their findings. And besides, nobody bases an opinion or argument on one article alone. It comes from researching a number of studies, collating evidence and making an informed opinion based upon findings. Something most journos and the media seem incapable of doing. But then it wouldn't be newsworthy or in the slightest bit interesting to Joe Public and would most likely go ignored, as I suspect the article I posted up did.

The OP wanted to know how sugar is involved in causing CVD as they'd been previously been led to believe it was caused by high fat diet etc, as had we all by the food industry, so I was merely giving them a starting point to work from with which to do their own research if they so wished. I did highlight one particular statement from the summary which did state adverse effect had been consistently found during short term studies, hence there is undoubtedly a link between the two. Obviously further studies are needed to establish that link and to discover the exact mechanism behind it. This is how science works.

When looking for evidence, however, it's important to seek out science based evidence and check that the studies have not been performed by those with a vested interest to sway the results and statistics which is what happens when the food industry fund research as they can skew the findings to support whatever claim they wish to make to endorse their own products. As we regularly see by the sugar councils in the food industry and why we have been led for so long to believe fat is the culprit in our diet. Many people are now terrified of eating saturated fat (from natural sources, i.e. meat, fish, butter, nuts etc) as they believe it will lead to clogged up arteries etc and will instead resort to unhealthy products such as hydrogenated fats and sugar dense foods which actually cause more harm to them.

terra_ferma

There's gonna be a programme about this very topic on telly tomorrow
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03t8r4h
(the twins are 'proper' doctors by the way)
Apparently it will make the point that both fat and sugar (+carbs) are needed by the body, and that processed foods high in both sugar and fat are the real baddies...
Goodbye low fat, goodbye low carb and welcome the very latest fad diet: clean eating anyone?
Well this means that I'll be following a fad diet for the first time in my life, as that's more or less what I'm doing, but the bad news is that prices of some wholefoods will go up if people start eating them more...

~Chameleon~

terra_ferma wrote: »

but the bad news is that prices of some wholefoods will go up if people start eating them more...

It's already started. Avocados have become extortionately expensive in recent months because they are the "go to" quick snack food to satisfy satiety with both healthy fat and protein

terra_ferma

I actually misunderstood what clean eating is all about, it's very rigid, and a diet that calls my home made organic white bread 'unclean' is not worth bothering about.

~Chameleon~

terra_ferma wrote: »

I actually misunderstood what clean eating is all about, it's very rigid, and a diet that calls my home made organic white bread 'unclean' is not worth bothering about.

It's as rigid as you want to make it. I certainly don't call bread that is made entirely from flour, yeast, sugar, salt and water as "unclean" no matter the source. However, I totally refuse to eat the Chorleywood processed plastic bread

thor

~Chameleon~ wrote: »

When looking for evidence, however, it's important to seek out science based evidence and check that the studies have not been performed by those with a vested interest to sway the results and statistics which is what happens when the food industry fund research as they can skew the findings to support whatever claim they wish to make to endorse their own products. As we regularly see by the sugar councils in the food industry and why we have been led for so long to believe fat is the culprit in our diet.

I agree that vested interests have pointed the finger of blame on high fat diets for many years but I would say that these days there are just as many people who have gone low carb for health reasons and are not too bothered about reducing their fat intake. This may be a better approach to preventing heart disease but it also shows that the food industry is no longer able to manipulate the public as they did in years gone by.