It probably did rot their teeth though… (although don’t rodent teeth keep growing all through out their lives?)
That study is very interesting in that it challenges a basic assumption that high sugar diet= shorter lifespan. Maybe it does in some , but not in others, or maybe not at all. It’s always good to have assumptions challenged by actual studies.
That is mouse data. Below is a study based on human data. You can now have your cake and eat it too.
“The lowest mortality risk was found with added sugar intakes between 7.5% and 10% of energy (E%) intake in both cohorts. Intakes >20E% were associated with a 30% increased mortality risk, but increased risks were also found at intakes <5E% [23% in the MDCS and 9% (nonsignificant) in the NSHDS]. Similar U-shaped associations were found for both cardiovascular and cancer mortality in the MDCS. By separately analyzing the different sugar sources, the intake of SSBs was positively associated with mortality, whereas the intake of treats was inversely associated.”
Treats are defined as:
“The solid sugar-rich foods were divided into treats, calculated by combining all pastries, candies, chocolate, and ice cream, and into toppings, calculated by combining all table sugar, sugar cubes, honey, jam, and marmalade (data were not available for other sweet spreads such as nut and chocolate spreads).”
"SSBs were assessed by adding the intakes of carbonated soft drinks, noncarbonated sweetened drinks, and fruit drinks (not pure fruit juices).
For those with hypertension, go for it.
“Higher treat intake was additionally associated with lower systolic BP, and there was a tendency for lower HOMA-IR values with higher intakes (nonsignificant).”
Happy New Year.
Sugar does not directly cause diabetes. Too many calories do.
Thanks Juan that’s beautiful. You can have your cake without frosting and you can’t have a sugar sweetened beverage with it.
Also this was done with self reporting of diet?
Very hard to believe for me. When you add calories from sugar, you subtract minerals and vitamins that come with the foods you have to skip to keep from getting fat. Empty calories are bad, also they cause overeating. I think this falls into the category of what John Ioannidis calls a bad study.
But the mice agree.
Seems there is a misreading of the study. I will post a fuller digest later. Was in flight yesterday, back to NJ. Now back to work.
The Swedes excluded those who were sick, because they wanted to see how many of the “healthy” 50 and 60 year olds would develop illnesses later in life. They interviewed people between 91 and 96. Eighteen years later, in 2014, they checked with the civil register, who among the interviewees had died, and the cause of death. They correlated the cause of death with the earlier obtained interview data on sugar consumption (volume and kind of sugar).
“To identify the cause of death, the Swedish Cause of Death Register was used. Cardiovascular death was identified as International Classification of Diseases (ICD), Ninth Revision (ICD-9), codes 390–459 or ICD, 10th Revision (ICD-10), code I; and cancer death was identified as ICD-9 codes 140–239 or ICD-10 code C-D48.”
“Also this was done with self reporting of diet?”*
It was not a one-time recall. The Swedes asked the interviewees to keep a 7-day diary.
“Dietary intake was assessed using a modified diet history method consisting of a 7-d food diary covering all cooked meals, cold beverages, and dietary supplements; a 168-item food-frequency questionnaire (FFQ) covering the noncooked meals for the past 12 mo; and a 1-h interview to discuss food choices, cooking methods, and portion sizes (using a booklet of photographs of a variety of foods in different portion sizes) of the reported foods in the food diary.”
They subjected the data to statistical analysis, and drew their conclusions.
The Swedes referenced two American studies; and because of the inconsistent findings, decided to conduct their own.
“You can have your cake without frosting and you can’t have a sugar sweetened beverage with it.”
Swedes say you can take sweetened beverages if they are fruit juices [not the fake High-fructose_corn syrup (HCFS) sweetened beverages].
“SSBs were assessed by adding the intakes of carbonated soft drinks, noncarbonated sweetened drinks, and fruit drinks (not pure fruit juices).”
With regard to cake, frosting is okay. They are included in the definition of “treats”. . It is the “toppings” that are to be limited. Toppings are defined below:
The solid sugar-rich foods were divided into treats, calculated by combining all pastries, candies, chocolate, and ice cream, and into toppings, calculated by combining all table sugar, sugar cubes, honey, jam, and marmalade (data were not available for other sweet spreads such as nut and chocolate spreads).
It is not good to be an anti-sugar fascist [guilty Your Honor] on oneself, however .
“For toppings, the highest risk was observed in the lowest intake category of ≤2 servings/wk in both cohorts.”
Ok, you read it more carefully than I did, but it is self reported…and even with a diary and a little talk about it. It sounds like they then use that diet and extrapolate for 18 years out? They didn’t ask again 10 years later if the diet had changed. So maybe the nutjobs (such as myself) that don’t use any extra sugar just lose control later and give up. Or are killed by bacon?
We had a few hundred thousand years of evolution without sugar. A little hungry with some fasting. This kind of blows my mind.
I still think the study design was hopelessly flawed. Maybe I’ll have an Oreo while I think about it. (Just kidding we don’t have any)
Cardiovascular risk: “fruit juice, cookies, cakes, confectionary: no significant association”
JMO: The reason sugar gets such a bad rap is that it is a major source of calories in a poor diet.
They all still rot your teeth…
True, but not so much if you brush after every meal and rinse with mouthwash before going to bed every night. I have been very good about brushing after every meal but not so faithful about rinsing with mouthwash before going to bed. At ~82 I still have (almost) all of my own teeth and I have probably consumed more than my fair share of sugar.
I’ve always eaten sugary stuff whenever I want, and have never had any cavities in 45 years. (My brother is the same.)
Also I don’t take particularly great care of my teeth, I just brush twice per day. Have never flossed.
I’ve always wondered if there’s some kind of genetic aspect to this, since it’s the same for me and my brother . . . I might do a separate post in the forum to get opinions about it!
3 factors are needed for caries develop: environment (care/diet), bacteria, genetics. We can’t change genetics, contact with bacteria is unavoidable so we dentists focus on the 1 factor we can influence environment (so diet and proper care)
Great study. The fact that they performed a cross-over of the two intervention groups and thus used each mouse as its own control makes it even more rigorous.
Too many people online insist that one must avoid sugar as if it is poison, and the online commentary on fructose is even more extreme. Studies like this provide evidence that the harmful effects of sugar/fructose only manifest in the presence of a calorie surplus. You can have a high-sugar diet and still lose body-fat as long as your total calorie intake is below your calorie needs.
I love sugar, sugar gives you something to look forward to, I think a teaspoon of sugar is 10 Cal.
If I rid my diet of sugar, I would be an unhappy, and grumpy man.
I’m not sure I trust this cited study, I wonder about ulterior motives.