Dietitians Debunk 10 Sugar Myths | Debunked

Dietitians Mary Matone and Meredith Rofheart debunk 10 myths about sugar. They explain the importance of sugar in our diet, why sugar isn't addictive, and why honey and high-fructose corn syrup aren't better or worse than other added sugars. Instead, we should focus on how much we're consuming — less than 10% of our total daily calories should be coming from added sugars.

0:00 Intro
0:31 Sugar is bad for you
1:16 High-fructose corn syrup is the worst kind of sugar
2:08 Honey and agave are the healthiest alternatives to sugar
2:50 Sugar makes you hyper
3:35 You should cut all sugar from your diet
4:20 Artificial sweeteners are healthier than sugar
5:13 Sugar is only in sweet foods
5:49 Sugar is addictive
6:44 Sugar causes diabetes
7:28 People with diabetes can't eat sugar

MORE DEBUNKED VIDEOS:
Neurologists Debunk 11 Headache And Migraine Myths | Debunked
Allergists Debunk 11 Food Allergy Myths | Debunked
OB-GYNs Debunk 16 Postpartum And Breastfeeding Myths | Debunked

------------------------------------------------------

#SugarMyths #Debunked #ScienceInsider

Science Insider tells you all you need to know about science: space, medicine, biotech, physiology, and more.

Dietitians Debunk 10 Sugar Myths | Debunked

[Liz-ohiy]

I like that they recognized the lack of access to healthy options and presented alternatives too. :)

[erwinlimawan]

One thing of note is that even if sugar isn't as problematic as many people believe it is (and that's a big if), the sugar industry was also involved in many misleading campaigns to shift blame for the source of an unhealthy lifestyle.

This includes the "too much salt is bad for you" (true, but oversimplifies things), and the "low-fat= good" campaign, since sugar is added to replace the fats that were removed, and causes even more problems.

[NickyNooNah]

Does anyone else feel like this video was funded by the sugar industry?
"Sugar doesn't cause diabetes"
"Sugar isn't addictive"
"Sugar isn't bad for you"
"Honey and Agave aren't better alternatives"

[klwnkiller]

After being diagnosed with Type-2 diabetes I began researching about sugar and carbs. I found several doctors on You Tube who claim that sugar is a primary cause of metabolic disease and that Type 2 diabetes is reversible. For 6 months I eliminated all sugar possible from my diet. My blood sugar dropped from average 180 to 110, my A1c went from 7.5 to 6.2 and I lost 30 pounds. I also felt great. I reduced carbs but did not eliminate them. The body creates glucogen from fats and carbs so you can eliminate nearly all sugar from your diet and still maintain safe sugar levels as long as you are still eating carbs and (natural) fats. I did after a time start introducing more carbs back into my diet since I was still losing weight but I have to say that eliminating almost all sugar from my diet did me a lot more benefit than harm. There is also new research that, more and more is pointing to sugar as the primary fuel for cancers.

[seeum]

The problem with these types of discussions is that the term "sugar" can refer to different things in different contexts. In chemistry sugar mainly refers to all carbohydrates, be it monosaccharides (glucose, fructose and galactose), disaccharides (sucrose, maltose and lactose) or polysaccharides (starches, dextrins, cellulose). So, in that sense both table sugar and vegetables are "sugars". But we know that they are different. Table sugar is simple sugar but vegetables are complex sugars or complex carbohydrates which, yes, has the simple sugars but also fiber (polysaccharide) which makes their digestion processes (primarily in terms of time and load) very different.
But an even more important distinction to make is that between glucose and fructose. Both of them are monosaccharides and thus, "sugars" and in terms of their chemical composition are just isomers to each other. But they are VERY different. Fructose is almost twice as sweet as glucose. While glucose can be metabolized by every single cell in the human body fructose can only be metabolized by the liver. While glucose stimulates insulin on consumption, fructose does not. While glucose circulates in the blood, fructose does not. So, "blood sugar" means "blood glucose". Therefore, a tablespoon of table sugar and a tablespoon of glucose will not have the same effect on your blood sugar because they are chemically different things. Consequently, if we take rice and table sugar which have the same amount of "sugars" while rice is mostly glucose table sugar is sucrose (half glucose, half fructose). They are very different.
Say, you consume 120 calories of glucose or sucrose. In case of glucose 24 calories will go to the liver while the other 96 calories will go to the other parts of the body. From the same 120 calories of sucrose 72 calories (12 calories from the glucose part + all 60 calories of fructose) will hit the liver. Additionally, while glucose can be converted to glycogen for later use, fructose can't be. So, not only are we overloading one single organ at once we're also not giving it the chance to store it as a desirable back up source for carbs(glycogen) and forcing the liver to turn it into liver fat. Now, this will happen when you really overload it and that won't normally happen from fruits and vegetables. Because when you look at the fructose content of fruits and vegetables they are not nearly as high as that in processed foods where the sugar has been added in high quantities to make the foods more palatable, addictive and less satiating. Which makes you literally stuff all of that and still want more. This is mainly because of the sweetness of fructose and it being low satiating compared to glucose. This is exactly why our ancestors had so little access to fructose. Firstly, we don't need them at all (they are not an essential nutrient) and we should be having them in very low doses.
And in terms of diabetes (oh boy it's another long rabbit hole). But long story short, type 2 diabetes is the state when your body is so resistant to insulin that the pancreas is making every bit of insulin it can to keep the blood sugar down but it's still not enough. The most common treatment is to just inject more insulin. And what that does is it keeps the blood sugar in control for a while but the resistance soon catches up and now you need more insulin. Then you increase the dose and the resistance increases again. Rinse and repeat. The disease is not treated and it only gets worse. The cause of this wrong treatment to be the norm is trying to treat the symptom and not the disease. Blood sugar rising is only a symptom it's not the disease. The disease is insulin resistance. And that is multifactorial, Diet, sleep, exercise, genetics etc. However, currently, the diabetes epidemic is mainly being driven by processed foods and more specifically refined carbs. For glucose, it's obvious. Refined starches cause tremendous fluctuations in insulin levels and since it's less satiating than non-refined sources(vegetables, fruits) you eat a lot of it before you feel full. So, too much insulin production leads to acute hyperinsulinemia and when this happens every single day it becomes chronic and your body starts to get resistant. GTT tests won't show anything abnormal since blood glucose will be kept under control but your insulin is going out of whack. A proper kraft test can diagnose insulin resistance way before you get full blown diabetes. Now, fructose gets a free pass here since it doesn't make your body release insulin on consumption. So, it can't possibly cause insulin resistance. Or can it. You see even though fructose does not affect insulin levels in the short-term it does in the long term. Continuing from the previous discussion of how all of fructose goes to the liver and a lot of it (and you do eat a lot of it when you do) it will force your liver to turn it into fat through a process called de novo lipogenesis. When this keeps going on everyday your liver fills up, followed by the other parts of your viscera. It's called visceral fat. And visceral fat can directly cause insulin resistance as your body now releases extra insulin to help out the suffocating liver. And you know the rest.
So, the point is that in discussions about sugar the distinction between Glucose and Fructose is extremely significant. The distinction between the sources of sugar is also important but people usually talk about that. What they don't talk about is how different glucose and fructose are.

[Elkx]

Sugar is bad for you
Dieticians: no (but yes)

[Lemitutu]

"Sugar is not addictive."
"When you get a sugar crash you just need to eat more."

These are very questionable statements.

[LukaSauperl]

Based on the definiton of addiction that these two provided, cocaine isn't addictive, I've done it multiple times, (many many months apart) without any withdrawal effects and with no carving to get more of.

From my personal experience I would say that sugar is much more addictive then cocaine or any other drugs that I've tried and I've tried many.
If I see anything that's high in sugar it's only matter of time before I'll go and eat it.
I never get "tricked" into buying cocaine, but I've often gotten "tricked" into buying very sugary stuff.

[Slyyvie]

I feel like they're intentionally arbitrarily choosing when to understand sugar as "glucose that your body breaks down food into" and "white sugar that has no nutritional benefit besides straight calories" and their choices sometimes misunderstand the heart behind the "myths." sugar is NOT just a basic molecule - that's just one of it's definitions. the type of definition they address isn't consistent across the myths they address. smh.

[aurora]

I think one of the big issues with this is that when a lot of people talk about "sugar, " they mean added sugar or refined sugar. The experts here refer to the scientific concept of sugar, but sometimes switch it out with the colloquial concept. I assume that's a problem with editing, but it that some of the things they talk about are more confusing or not totally accurate

[respectfuldebates]

"Sugar is not addictive"

There is a reason why my weight-loss started, AFTER I stopped visiting my dietitian.

[johneby]

I feel like they completely glossed over their own definition of addiction to say sugar isn't addictive. Anything that produces dopamine can be addictive. If you get pleasure from shopping then you begin using it as a coping method and it can become addictive. Which then leads me to believe that perhaps they are playing a bit fast and loose with their other terms.

[Thnielsen]

As my mother taught me many years ago: Everything in moderation. I use that in all aspects of life.

[KenDBerryMD]

You can tell these nice ladies are honest and earnest, and completely lacking in even a basic understanding of human physiology...

[KenDBerryMD]

"Sugar drains you" I agree...

[chneemensch]

You should write a guide about how to misrepresent arguments. Every single one of your points has nothing to do with the argument you are trying to disprove.

[eamonnsiocain]

I cut out added and refined sugar from my diet 40 years ago. I no longer crave it. I get my sugar from whole foods that are not over prepared. I eat small meals frequently and avoid overeating in any given meal. This has helped me to keep my weight down and has helped me to maintain a regular sleep schedule.

[thefisherking]

3:52 wait.. where is the research that says ketosis increases inflammation and brain fog? I've heard from countless people who had the opposite results. And I definitely find energy levels more stable the less sugar I eat. Not on keto FTR. Just not aware of any evidence at all that there's a harmful effect below a certain level of sugar consumption. None. There _is_ research that indicates the human brain preferentially consumes ketones over glucose as well.

[ggipponi]

…And today’s video comes to you thanks to the American Sugar Producers 🤭🤭🤭🤭 this is the FDA dietary recommendations in the 70s ALL OVER AGAIN…

[Hosenanzugtasche]

What I would prefer for these videos is if the experts rephrased the statements because they're typically so oversimplified that the answer is either "it depends" or you can answer it either way and you just pick one, technically correctly, but leaving enough room to dismiss the argument.