How Much Sugar is Too Much? |Project SugarScience

Full article HERE.

These days, sugar is pretty much everywhere in the American diet. A new initiative from the University of California, San Francisco spells out the health dangers of this glut of sugar in clear terms.

For the project, called SugarScience, a team of researchers distilled 8,000 studies and research papers and found strong evidence that overconsumption of added sugar contributes to three major chronic illnesses: heart disease, Type 2 diabetes and liver disease.

Laura Schmidt, a professor of health policy at UCSF, is leading the project. (Dr. Robert Lustig, a longtime anti-sugar crusader, is also on the team.) "Right now, the reality is that our consumption of sugar is out of whack, and until we bring things back into balance, we need to focus on helping people understand what the consequences are to having the average American ... consume too much added sugar," Schmidt says.

As part of its outreach, Schmidt's team has created a user-friendly website and is partnering with health departments across the country to spread the word. The website includes downloadable resources, including television commercials, that public health officials can localize for their own cities.

Even seemingly healthful foods can contain unexpected spoonfuls of sugar.
The Salt
Sweet Tooth Gone Bad: Why 22 Teaspoons Of Sugar Per Day Is Risky
Indulge or resist? Sugar cravings can be a serious challenge.
The Salt
Is Sugar Addiction Why So Many January Diets Fail?
"And that's what SugarScience is all about," Schmidt says. "It's about translating the information that's locked up in the medical journals and sharing it with the public in ways that are understandable."

Health departments from San Francisco to New York City have already agreed to participate in outreach. In a statement, the New York Department of Health called SugarScience a "wonderful resource ... something that can be used by researchers, the public health community and those who just want thorough information."

Schmidt is quick to point to the food environment as a driver in the increase of obesity that America has seen in the last generation. "It's not like Americans suddenly lost their willpower," she says. "The only major change in the diet that explains the obesity epidemic is this steep rise in added sugar consumption that started in the 1980s."

That sugar isn't just making us fat, she says, "it's making us sick."

Schmidt insists the team, which includes researchers from the University of California, Davis and Emory University, is not "anti-sugar." Instead, it wants to help people understand how much sugar is too much.

The average American consumes the equivalent of 19.5 teaspoons a day in added sugars, but there are no federal guidelines recommending a limit. SugarScience suggests the same limits advocated by the American Heart Association and the World Health Organization: no more than 9 teaspoons a day for men and no more than 6 teaspoons a day for women.

But knowing how much sugar you're eating can be challenging. Here are some key facts from the SugarScience website.

Added sugar is hiding in 74 percent of packaged foods. (Proposed changes to the nutrition label would change this by including a separate line for added sugars.)
Fructose, a common type of sugar, can damage your liver more than other kinds of sugar — just like too much alcohol can.
One 12-ounce can of soda a day can increase your risk of dying of heart disease by one-third.
The site also includes tips on concrete steps that people can take to cut down on sugar. The most straightforward way is to stop drinking sugar-sweetened drinks, like sodas, sports drinks and energy drinks, the researchers say. More than one-third of added sugar in the diet comes from sugary drinks.

They also recommend reading nutrition labels. While there are 61 different names for sugar on food labels, SugarScience notes that if the chemical name has an "ose" at the end— as in dextrose, fructose, lactose — there's a good chance it's added sugar.

Dean Schillinger, a professor of medicine at UCSF and a primary care doctor at San Francisco General Hospital, is also part of the SugarScience team. He first came to San Francisco in 1990 at the peak of the AIDS epidemic. "At that point, 1 out of every 2 patients we admitted was a young man dying of AIDS," he says. At that time, there were no treatments, little any doctor could do.

A performer drinks a soda in Ahmedabad, India in 2010. A study found that rising diabetes prevalence in countries like India is strongly tied to sugar consumption.
The Salt
Sugar's Role In Rise Of Diabetes Gets Clearer
Today, he says, there are good treatments, and it's rare to admit someone to the hospital dying of AIDS.

Instead, Schillinger says, that same ward, Ward 5A, where young men died of AIDS is now filled with diabetes patients.

"I feel like we are with diabetes where we were in 1990 with the AIDS epidemic," Schillinger said. "The ward is overwhelmed with diabetes — they're getting their limbs amputated; they're on dialysis. And these are young people. They are suffering the ravages of diabetes in the prime of their life."

But unlike AIDS, where activists pushed hard for action from researchers and governments, there's little activist response for diabetes "because it affects low-income communities disproportionately," Schillinger said. "We're at the point where we need a public health response to it."

The timing of the SugarScience launch is not a coincidence. The UC researchers waited until after the midterm elections when Bay Area residents were voting on two soda tax measures, one of which (in Berkeley) passed. Schmidt says that since the university is a public institution, it could not be seen as trying to sway votes with the announcement of the new initiative.

I visited the website of this effort. They are entirely focused on table sugar and high fructose corn syrup, apparently declining to address the actual sugar and carbohydrate content in our diets. This is about "added sugar." It isn't about inherent sugars, it isn't about sugars already in foods. Honey is ok. Fruit is ok. And worst of all it isn't about carbohydrates ( or even "added" carbohydrates).

I submitted a questions challenging the myopic view but I'm sure it won't ever be answered.

In a huge holiday surprise, SugarScience got back to me. Here is my question and what they answered:

Q) Since simple carbohydrates are processed by the body as sugar, should I cut back on carbs as well as sugars in my diet?

A) This would not be a bad idea, if you were to replace those white carbs with whole grains. About half of table sugar and high fructose corn syrup (on average) is glucose. White carbs (like potatoes, white flour, etc.) are made of chains of glucose molecules. White carbs are broken down in the body to glucose and are then stored as fat or burnt off during activity. Processing removes other nutrients and fibers in white carbs, which could speed up their digestion and absorption. So the short answer is no, that sugars and starches are not much different, other than that your body takes the additional step of breaking the chains of glucoses down for absorption.

I have to commend them for at least admitting that simple carbs a sugar are basically the same thing. Thus their efforts to focus on table sugar and HFCS should also at the very least also encompass simple carbs. Despite that they are still pushing the dogma that you must eat carbs so simple carbs should be replaced by complex carbs.

What do others think of their answer? For those of us with diabetes (particularly those of us who are pancreatically challenged), do the differences between simple and complex carbs mean much?

i think its the answer you can expect, the answer that everyone should disregard. thats too bad.

I would suggest that there is no such thing as a “whole grain” in the American diet.

I agree. We see lots of processed foods that are made from "whole grains" but we rarely see whole grains in our food. If you eat steel cut oatmeal, that is whole grains. But whole wheat bread? I don't think so. That isn't a whole grain.

Personally I sometimes feel mentally messed up about the carbs in fruit. I feel guilty about eating a pear or an orange even when I know I can cover the carbs no problem just like I have to with any meal. Sometimes the hot mess in my brain leads me to making poor food choices instead of fruit which can usually be a good food choice.

I see why eating disorders can be very common in especially diabetics and maybe even more so in T1's. All these mixed messages, "fruit is good" vs "carbs are bad" really leads us into some dark places.

In regular flour the most nutritious parts of the grain are usually not used. Whole grain flour includes these parts, even if the product does not appear as “a whole grain”.

Whenever I see mention of "whole grains" as a healthy dietary component, it reminds me of dietitians that use that term when recommending to diabetics that they should eat "healthy whole grains" as part of their diet. I suspect that whole grains convert to glucose in the blood not much more slowly than refined grains do.

I admire what this organization is trying to do. The evidence that excess sugar causes disease is persuasive.

Good for you, Brian, in trying to get them to see that carbs aren't that much different metabolically than simple table sugar. In addition to limiting added sugar in the typical American's diet, there also needs to be a push to limit the number of carbs in the diet as well. Not nearly as much as diabetics, of course, but people eat an insane number of carbs each day. When I look at what's in people's grocery baskets, I am continually amazed.

I understand, Tim. As yet, I have no way to "cover" carbs so I learned the hard way what fruit was okay for me. I'm lucky that it turned out to be many berries---blueberries, cranberries, raspberries, etc. Lucky because I love berries! I occasionally miss peaches, but only occasionally......Blessings

i agree terry! whenever i am shopping, i cant believe the processed carby stuff people are buying that is marketed as healthy.