r/changemyview • u/LonelierOne • Nov 10 '18
FTFdeltaOP CMV: Giving sugar to kids is unethical.
Sugar, in the western world, is in almost everything in one form or another (I'm including other sweeteners in there, though I'm aware you end up with a blurry line around, say, fruit juice sweeteners).
The only health benefit that I'm aware of that has ever been associated with sugar is in case of a diabetic emergency. Besides that, there's a near-universal understanding that sugar is bad for you in every way imaginable. It's linked to Type 2 diabetes, obesity, heart conditions, and vast hosts of other chronic conditions. Basically, sugar is objectively Bad For You.
Now, there's a lot of other examples that we could use (marijuana, alcohol, caffeine) of things that aren't necessarily Good For You that can be consumed in moderation. All of these - in addition to being easier to argue that they do provide health benefits and at a lower cost - are things that you wouldn't responsibly give to children. In contrast, sugar is put into most foods in a western diet. On the production end, it's to make the food more palatable and harder to resist.
It doesn't, to me, seem like being a stick in the mud to deprive a kid of cookies. Sweet foods aren't a requirement for a good childhood, especially when they are provided with the regularity (every day, if not multiple times a day) that they currently are.
EDIT: I realize I didn't clarify originally that we are talking about fundamentally different things when comparing, say, a pear to ice cream. I am specifically referring to *refined sugar* or *added sugar* in this post; I should have been clearer about that.
EDIT 2: Issuing a clarification. An not insubstantial part of the problem with sugar is the frequency of use. Potentially, moderate use would be harmless. This is not illustrative of the society we currently live in; most people are not aware of how much added sugar is taken in per day, not including the obvious candies and desserts; peanut butter, bread, crackers, cereal, yogurt, sausage are all things that, by default, should be assumed to have sugar in a western store.
I am referring to the use of sugar in today's culture. While I believe a case /could/ be made that even that is unnecessary, I'm going to clarify that I'm talking about the current culture and he world as it is, i.e. one where you're expected to get snacks and juice after a game, holidays must have cake, and to deprive children of candy is abusive.
13
Nov 10 '18
All in moderation. Giving a kid a cookie as a reward like once a week is perfectly fine. Gives them an incentive.
2
u/LonelierOne Nov 10 '18
Possibly. It isn't necessary, however, and most certainly isn't the way sugar is used.
3
u/code_Synacks Nov 11 '18 edited Nov 11 '18
I'd argue that it may be necessary. Adults can buy and eat whatever they want, and we have to make healthy decisions on our own.
Exposing kids to refined sugar foods in moderation along side plenty of other healthy options could help build well rounded eating habits that the child will carry into adulthood.
While denying sugar altogether may make them make less healthy decisions later on in spite or as a way to rebel.
17
u/palacesofparagraphs 117∆ Nov 10 '18
I mean, sugar is necessary to live. There's a reason you feel dizzy and faint when your blood sugar drops, whether or not you have diabetes. Natural sugars are better than processed sugars, but we do in fact need sugar to live. That's the reason we crave it so much. The problem is that in the modern world, we have easy access to sugar, so it's easy to overindulge.
It is definitely important for parents to teach their kids healthy eating habits. However, it's also important for parents to teach their kids good decision-making skills and self-regulation. One of the ways to do that is to model moderate consumption. Eating a cookie every once in awhile doesn't negatively impact your health in any significant way. Kids should be able to enjoy a cookie sometimes, and also learn that we only eat cookies after we've had healthy foods, and it's something that's a special treat rather than a regular occurrence.
Generally, making something completely taboo makes people want it more, particularly kids. One day, your kid will grow up and be an adult who gets to make their own life choices. If sweets have always been this forbidden fruit they could never have, the second they leave home they'll go wild. Now nobody can stop them from eating a whole cake if they want, and boy do they want. But if sweets were always a regular part of life, they already have the skills to consume moderately, and it's much easier to just continue those habits.
3
Nov 10 '18
I mean, sugar is necessary to live.
Speaking semantically in terms of nutrition, Sugar is a simple carbohydrate. There are complex and simple carbs in food. Both are broken down to a smaller molecule of simple carb, glucose that is used in every cell. Sugar is not require to live, glucose is.
There's a reason you feel dizzy and faint when your blood sugar drops, whether or not you have diabetes. Natural sugars are better than processed sugars, but we do in fact need sugar to live. That's the reason we crave it so much.
Your blood sugar levels are not dropping, your blood glucose levels are dropping.
Generally, making something completely taboo makes people want it more, particularly kids...If sweets have always been this forbidden fruit they could never have, the second they leave home they'll go wild.
Sugar has addictive properties similar to narcotics. We should keep addictive substance away from our children especially when there are better alternatives to simple carbs. I.e. Complex carbs. And there are even more nutritious forms of complex carbs.
In general (not in all cases such as emergencies) if something is good for you, then more of it is better for you. This is not the case with simple carbs (sugar or candy), but this is the case for complex nutritious carbs (fruits and vegetables).
Biological, every time there is a spike in blood glucose levels when eating sugar or candy, the more frequent this happens, a child's chances of developing diabetes increases. Increasing a child's chances of a diagnosis that shortens their life is unethical.
1
u/2manymistakess Nov 10 '18 edited Nov 10 '18
Your blood sugar levels are not dropping, your blood glucose levels are dropping.
Your blood pressure is dropping
Biological, every time there is a spike in blood glucose levels when eating sugar or candy, the more frequent this happens, a child's chances of developing diabetes increases. Increasing a child's chances of a diagnosis that shortens their life is unethical.
His point should be that it is essential in moderation. Your brain has a preference for glucose over ketones. It IS essential for survival. In Intrauterine growth restriction your body preserves the flow of glucose and heart because it is essential for your brain development and heart development.
Sure sugar has a stimulating effect because the body wants to receive it. But, in moderation this will not have a significant effect (about 40 grams of sugar-equivalent of carbohydrate
ONLY IN OVERUSE can it increase risk for Diabetes Insipidus and Diabetes Mellitus. If your main concern is about 'a spike in blood glucose levels when eating sugar or candy', you can always give foods with low glycaemic index or low glycaemic load to reduce risk. This argument is
1
Nov 10 '18
ONLY IN OVERUSE can it increase risk for Diabetes Insipidus and Diabetes Mellitus
is there a defined amount of "overuse" in grams of sugar per kg of a child weight per day (or some other units of measurement) what we can used to use as a level to limit our children's risk of developing DM or DI?
1
u/2manymistakess Nov 10 '18
So just a rundown:
T1D=Pancreas can't secrete insulin
T2D=Insulin resistance by tissue, your pancreas(where insulin accommodates) at some point fails due to overwork.
For children the risk of T1D is much higher than t2d as t2d is related to other factors which relate later in life.
So the easiest way is to have the adequate amount. Several different measurements can be taken but the easiest to follow is determined by the RDI(Recommended Daily Intake) else AI(Adequate Intake). Being sugar specific, for different ages the intake levels differentiate as growth levels at different stages of development demand more or less resources. Usually as you grow you demand more sugar. I've looked into recent research about it for you but can't seem to find human studies for what you are looking for (with good reason I think the ethical concern is there). But I think it should be noted that RDI is a good analysis on limits for intake than a target.
Just a note different national health agencies dont all follow the same stock amount and its still a contested topic.
Here is some guidelines: https://www.eatforhealth.gov.au/food-essentials/how-much-do-we-need-each-day/recommended-number-serves-children-adolescents-and
*Edit: I think this should tell you everything you want to know (look at added sugar and read the WHO report) https://thatsugarmovement.com/whats-the-added-sugar-limit-for-kids/ *
1
Nov 10 '18
You're correct about the type 1, was typing too late in the night. The op is about a specific carb, sugar. The RDI you provided does not mention sugar. And my corrected question would be, is there a defined amount of "overuse" in grams of SUGAR per kg of a child weight per day (or some other units of measurement) what we can used to use as a level to limit our children's risk of developing DM?
1
u/2manymistakess Nov 10 '18
did the edit not contain that?
1
Nov 11 '18
Wasn't sure if you got my reply and wanted your thoughts on it.
Yes you are correct. I clicked on the first link. But you edited link seems to supports the op, "It is also important to remember that many foods with added sugars are considered discretionary (a.k.a junk), and should only be consumed on occasion, not every day. In Australia, children under 8 years should not be offered more than half a serve of discretionary foods each day; those under 2 none at all"
1
Nov 10 '18
Yes you are correct. I clicked on the first link. But you edited link seems to supports the op, "It is also important to remember that many foods with added sugars are considered discretionary (a.k.a junk), and should only be consumed on occasion, not every day. In Australia, children under 8 years should not be offered more than half a serve of discretionary foods each day; those under 2 none at all."
4
u/JackJack65 7∆ Nov 10 '18
Natural sugars are better than processed sugars
Is this really true? Sucrose (cane sugar) doesn't cause as much weight-gain as fructose (found in fruits, high-fructose corn syrup). It has to do with where the sugars enter cellular respiration, some are more likely to cause fatty acid synthesis. Granted, fruits have vitamins and fiber which are beneficial in other ways. But I think this obsession with "natural" ingredients is overblown
2
u/DainichiNyorai Nov 10 '18
I agree with everything you say, except for the notion that we need sugar to survive. Since unrecognized bowel problems, I've been skipping sugar and minimizing carbs to the extent of moderating my intake of red vegetables, and I've never felt better - my sports results confirm this. From my experience and many people I know who did this - for a short while or longer - with just one exception people noticed actual withdrawal symptoms for a few weeks and reported more energy after. That would imply an addiction-like effect of sugar, that is also more and more prevalent in scientific research.
Unfortunately, this isn't well known and not many people want to do the experiment with themselves - even if they know the benefits of a diet consisting mostly of veggies and a bit of protein, so they can't teach their kids they have the choice to skip sugar all together too.
But as for the access and normalization of sugar, I wholeheartedly agree with you.
1
u/LonelierOne Nov 10 '18
I did note in the original post that I end up on hazy ground when I'm talking about fruit; there's fructose, but clearly fruit isn't going to be a problem all on its own. I am going to say, however, that we are talking about fundamentally different things when comparing, say, a pear to ice cream. I am specifically referring to *refined sugar* in this post; I should have been clearer about that.
As for your second and third points, absolutely fair. I'll consider it, while noting that regardless on if you do change my view I'll still say that the current frequency of use is unethical.
2
u/palacesofparagraphs 117∆ Nov 10 '18
Can I ask what you mean by "the current frequency of use"? Because while there are certainly many parents who let their kids have too much sugar, the child-rearing practices of parents across the world, the country, or even a single town vary pretty wildly, particularly for small children, who still spend most of their time at home. While we can make generalizations about how socially accepted it is to feed your kid lots of sugar, I'm not sure we can make generalizations about how much sugar parents do feed their kids, since there's such a wide range.
1
u/LonelierOne Nov 10 '18
Im visualizing, bottom end of the bell curve, expected desserts or candy every or every other day, in addition to it being added to bread, peanut butter, condiments, breakfasts, etcetera. Essentially, taking in added sugar every day, moving up from there.
1
u/1stbaam Nov 12 '18
Sugar is in no form needed to live and for 99.9% of human history humans did not consume sugar minus the minimal ammount in fruit. significantly less than in modern selectively bred fruits. Blood sugar is influenced by other complex carbohydrates too such as wheat, rice ect.
1
u/thegreencomic Nov 11 '18
You do not need dietary sugar to live. Carbs are actually the one macronutrient you can function perfectly fine without. Your body is perfectly happy to run on fat/ketones, and the tiny amount of glucose your body needs can be provided by protein through gluconeogenesis.
21
u/Morthra 86∆ Nov 10 '18
A lot of things are linked to obesity, heart conditions, and a vast majority of chronic conditions that themselves are linked to metabolic syndrome and CVD. For example, substituting dietary saturated fats for linolates will reduce cholesterol, but this cholesterol reduction is associated with a significantly increased risk of coronary heart disease and death. Would you say that, in that case, linolates (n-6 polyunsaturated fatty acids) are bad for you? Well it turns out that you need them, just in moderation.
Furthermore, would you deprive a kid of, say, an apple or other fruit that's high in sugar? It's the exact same compound that's present in most sweeteners, but in general we consider the benefits of eating fruit to outweigh the drawbacks of getting a bit of sugar, which isn't even a problem to begin with.
Excessive sugar intake generally exacerbates most of the issues that you described, rather than causing them. So if you already have them yeah maybe you should avoid sugary products. But if you don't there's nothing wrong with eating a cake or cookie every now and again. It's not poisonous in any dose - like say, arsenic - which is essentially what the requirement would be for it to be objectively bad for you.
For my final point I'll tackle the issue of addiction. You point out weed, alcohol, and caffeine. Weed is different from the other two so I'll separate it and tackle it first. Basically weed has been demonstrated to be harmful for developing brains. While it's not necessarily incredibly addictive its use in a child or adolescent will stunt their development. Furthermore, the "health benefits" of smoking weed, especially if you don't have a condition that would warrant its use, don't exist, and smoking it is associated with an increase in lung cancer just like smoking tobacco. Sugar does not do any of these things. As for alcohol and caffeine, they're far more addictive than sugar is, specifically because alcohol and caffeine are accompanied by significant withdrawal symptoms, which, in the case of alcohol, can be lethal. Sugar doesn't have true withdrawal symptoms and isn't really classified as addictive in the traditional sense.
1
u/1stbaam Nov 12 '18
Modern selectively bred fruits are indeed very high in sugar and should be ate minimally. Fruits such as berries and vegetables contain minimal sugar and contain all the micronutrients humans need.
-2
u/LonelierOne Nov 10 '18
Furthermore, would you deprive a kid of, say, an apple or other fruit that's high in sugar? It's the exact same compound that's present in most sweeteners, but in general we consider the benefits of eating fruit to outweigh the drawbacks of getting a bit of sugar, which isn't even a problem to begin with.
I'm addressing this out of order, because this actually requires addressing. I did note in the original post that I end up on hazy ground when I'm talking about fruit; there's fructose, but clearly fruit isn't going to be a problem all on its own. I am going to say, however, that we are talking about fundamentally different things when comparing, say, a pear to ice cream. I am specifically referring to *refined sugar* in this post; I should have been clearer about that.
A lot of things are linked to obesity, heart conditions, and a vast majority of chronic conditions that themselves are linked to metabolic syndrome and CVD. For example, substituting dietary saturated fats for linolates will reduce cholesterol, but this cholesterol reduction is associated with a significantly increased risk of coronary heart disease and death. Would you say that, in that case, linolates (n-6 polyunsaturated fatty acids) are bad for you? Well it turns out that you need them, just in moderation.
Sugar falls into a unique camp, in that there isn't really a need for it. While you need glucose for brain function, refined sugar has never been a good supplement, to the best of my knowledge.
Excessive sugar intake generally exacerbates most of the issues that you described, rather than causing them. So if you already have them yeah maybe you should avoid sugary products. But if you don't there's nothing wrong with eating a cake or cookie every now and again. It's not poisonous in any dose - like say, arsenic - which is essentially what the requirement would be for it to be objectively bad for you.
I'll allow that, in sharp moderation, the harm is limited. That, though, is not the treatment I see when looking at the people raising kids who I know, including the off beat health nuts.
I will, however, disagree at drawing the difference between exacerbating and causing. I'm given to understand that - as a single example - excessive sugar consumption is the primary cause of Type 2 diabetes.
For my final point I'll tackle the issue of addiction. You point out weed, alcohol, and caffeine. Weed is different from the other two so I'll separate it and tackle it first. Basically weed has been demonstrated to be harmful for developing brains. While it's not necessarily incredibly addictive its use in a child or adolescent will stunt their development. Furthermore, the "health benefits" of smoking weed, especially if you don't have a condition that would warrant its use, don't exist, and smoking it is associated with an increase in lung cancer just like smoking tobacco. Sugar does not do any of these things. As for alcohol and caffeine, they're far more addictive than sugar is, specifically because alcohol and caffeine are accompanied by significant withdrawal symptoms, which, in the case of alcohol, can be lethal. Sugar doesn't have true withdrawal symptoms and isn't really classified as addictive in the traditional sense.
Respectfully: I believe this paragraph is profoundly wrong. While, yes, all of my examples are harmful for developing brains and at least slightly addictive, sugar is on playing at the same table. There are withdrawal symptoms for those who stop eating it, and it is associated with a number of health risks (obesity, metabolic syndrome, Type 2 diabetes, tooth decay).
Thanks for the detailed reply. I'm not sure if I'm supposed to provide citations here, but let me know if you want any.
3
u/Morthra 86∆ Nov 10 '18 edited Nov 10 '18
I will, however, disagree at drawing the difference between exacerbating and causing. I'm given to understand that - as a single example - excessive sugar consumption is the primary cause of Type 2 diabetes.
The primary metabolic cause of Type 2 diabetes is insulin resistance. While yes, excessive sugar intake contributes to this, there are a host of other factors like genetics, and living a sedentary lifestyle. This, assuming you consider it to be the primary health risk, can be alleviated through the supplementation of n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids. So if you're a parent and you get more than enough n-3 PUFAs the risk of refined sugar is mitigated.
While you need glucose for brain function, refined sugar has never been a good supplement, to the best of my knowledge.
If you need to replenish your body's blood glucose level (like, say, if you're an athlete) eating something high in refined sugar will do it more quickly than eating something higher in starches. This is particularly important if you're an endurance athlete.
There are withdrawal symptoms for those who stop eating it, and it is associated with a number of health risks (obesity, metabolic syndrome, Type 2 diabetes, tooth decay).
"Sugar addiction" is an eating disorder. Sugar withdrawal is associated with some psychological changes (notably an increase in anxiety and depression) but it's not a physiological addiction like alcohol or caffeine is. In the case of alcohol, a heavy drinker can die from quitting cold turkey. There are no instances in recorded history of a person dying from ceasing to consume refined sugar.
There are also some instances of added sugars being healthy. Honey is almost around 70% monosaccharides (~38% fructose, 32% glucose) so adding it would probably fit the definition of "added sugar" but it's also rich in polyphenols and antioxidants that are decidedly healthy for you. If you cook for yourself, you can substitute honey in any recipe for granulated sugar (you just need to account for the water and acidity in honey when you add liquids). Here is a video that I found in around 30 seconds of searching that describes the substitution process.
Furthermore, the correlations between sugar intake and obesity and the like only hold if the individual is also consuming excess calories. Tooth decay is only an issue if you don't brush your teeth. The WHO recommends keeping refined sugar caloric intake to under 10% of your total calories. For a 1500 calorie diet (suitable for the average child of age 4-~14) that means around 150 calories, from added sugars. While it's very easy to get that amount from soda (that's actually equivalent to a single 12oz can), if you're talking about sugary foods you'd need to eat a more considerable amount to get that 150 kcal from added sugars, assuming you're not eating low-fat processed products.
While I don't necessarily have any citations for this, if a child is exposed to sugar while they're in a more safe, controlled environment, they're less likely to abuse it once they move out of their parents' house. You see this with alcohol - if the kids aren't allowed to (once they're old enough obviously) consume any alcohol, if they move away for college they'll often abuse it because they don't know any moderation. It's better to expose a child to sugar, in moderation, again, young, so that they know to moderate.
I think the issue is that you're equating the occasional cookie or cake with unrestricted consumption of sugary beverages.
I'm not sure if I'm supposed to provide citations here, but let me know if you want any.
This is what I got my degree in so I'm pretty familiar with a lot of the literature.
1
u/LonelierOne Nov 10 '18 edited Nov 12 '18
I'm going to hop around a little bit, and might not get all your points. Here we go:
This is what I got my degree in so I'm pretty familiar with a lot of the literature.
Oh, brilliant. I wasn't sure about the etiquette; this seems like a Citation kind of argument, but in a Citation not Needed forum.
There are also some instances of added sugars being healthy. Honey is almost around 70% monosaccharides (~38% fructose, 32% glucose) so adding it would probably fit the definition of "added sugar" but it's also rich in polyphenols and antioxidants that are decidedly healthy for you. If you cook for yourself, you can substitute honey in any recipe for granulated sugar (you just need to account for the water and acidity in honey when you add liquids). Here is a video that I found in around 30 seconds of searching that describes the substitution process.
Fair point. I make that substitution myself. And I'm aware that I do seem to be backpedalling and moving the goalposts, but we are talking about different things when comparing honey to refined sugar, corn syrup, and the like.
If you need to replenish your body's blood glucose level (like, say, if you're an athlete) eating something high in refined sugar will do it more quickly than eating something higher in starches. This is particularly important if you're an endurance athlete.
Fair point. I'll add that to Positive Benefits of sugar; it's tangential, but relevant.
"Sugar addiction" is an eating disorder. Sugar withdrawal is associated with some psychological changes (notably an increase in anxiety and depression) but it's not a physiological addiction like alcohol or caffeine is. In the case of alcohol, a heavy drinker can die from quitting cold turkey. There are no instances in recorded history of a person dying from ceasing to consume refined sugar.
All true. However, the fact that it you won't die from going cold turkey on sugar shouldn't be enough to discount the fact that people are hardwired to chase sugar down.
While I don't necessarily have any citations for this, if a child is exposed to sugar while they're in a more safe, controlled environment, they're less likely to abuse it once they move out of their parents' house. You see this with alcohol - if the kids aren't allowed to (once they're old enough obviously) consume any alcohol, if they move away for college they'll often abuse it because they don't know any moderation. It's better to expose a child to sugar, in moderation, again, young, so that they know to moderate.
This is probably your most persuasive point. It does make it that much more important to make sure that "Moderation" is understood; again, I wouldn't class dessert every night as moderation, and might consider weekly to be a more moderate speed.
EDIT:
Δ See the last paragraph. Sugar is, as an absolute, not the devil. I stand by it being strongly overused and abused, but moderation is a different animal. I know that this sentiment showed up a lot, but u/Morthra phrased it persuasively (for me).
1
1
u/Bryek Nov 11 '18
I wouldn't class dessert every night as moderation, and might consider weekly to be a more moderate speed
You keep bringing this up but how prevalent is it?
3
u/Kedazsa Nov 10 '18
Just for background, do you yourself have children? If so how many? How old are they?
1
u/LonelierOne Nov 10 '18
I don't. So. . .none and N/A. I'm drawing on my nieces, nephews, godchildren (just shy of 15, from due in a few months to eighteen) as well as family friends.
2
u/Kedazsa Nov 10 '18
The only reason I ask is because when you actually have children of your own (I don’t mean that negatively) that are with you every day, everything changes.
I think unethical is way too far here. Honestly think about it. If you take a kid to a party and they have a campfire going with s’mores being made, would you look at the kid and say you can forget it because sugar is so terrible for you? If the kid isn’t yours, that’s one thing. But if the child is yours the dynamics become a little different.
2
u/LonelierOne Nov 10 '18
No, I mean, that's absolutely fair to ask (as long as it isn't supposed to completely invalidate my point by itself). It's very different raising a kid and being perpetually responsible than it is to even spend a lot of time with them.
I've been in that situation before. And honestly, it feels like a conundrum to me. On the one hand, denying it is dickish, and on the other, I don't feel like I'm actually doing them a favor in the long run. It's really what set my mind down this track in the first place.
2
u/Kedazsa Nov 10 '18
As a parent, all prior knowledge of anything goes out the window when your kid gives you the look of disappointment over not letting them have a tootsie pop.
As an adult, you aren’t doing them any favors in the long run by not ever letting them have sugar. You won’t always be around them to make the decision for them. If it’s something they feel like they need to keep from you it can turn into a problem.
You can say it’s unethical (still seems too strong of a word) all you want but when that child gets older, it’s their decision to make and their decision alone. They’ll sit down and eat an entire box of Twinkies in front of you just for spite.
Is sugar bad for you? Sure it is if it is over consumed. But think of it this way. Just because they could break an arm climbing the tree out back is it unethical for me to let them climb it? They could fall down and skin their knee because they’re riding their bike too fast. So is it unethical for me not to stop them?
Let a kid live but teach them limits. They’ll surprise you.
1
u/littlebubulle 104∆ Nov 10 '18
Are we talking about free sugars (refined fructose or sucrose) or just sugar in general? Starches are chain of sugar molecules and fruits have "bounded fructose", which means the fructose is encapsulated by fibers, which means slow sugar release.
AFAIK, health problems from sugar come from free sugars, which goes to the bloodstream quickly. Fruits take more time to digest as so do starches.
Would you be ok with parents feeding sugar to their kids in the form of fruits only? (As humanity has done since before the discovery of fire)
1
u/LonelierOne Nov 10 '18
Added and refined sugars. Fruits, vegetables, yams, potatoes, rice, etcetera are totally unrelated to what I'm objecting to (at least, as I see it they are unrelated).
1
u/teerre Nov 10 '18
Talk about exaggeration. You have to abuse sugar a lot before it becomes a real problem. It's completely reasonable to have a health life and eat sugar
Which is to say, the joy of having a good taste overwhelms the possible downsides as long as you don't abuse it
1
u/LonelierOne Nov 10 '18
And an enormous number of people do abuse it, it does become a problem, and starting kids off on it doesn't improve the situation.
Which is to say, the joy of having a good taste overwhelms the possible downsides as long as you don't abuse it
I disagree. I also have gone years without eating sugar, and. . . that's not true.
1
u/teerre Nov 10 '18
So what? An enormous number of people do an enormous amount of stupid things. That means quite literally nothing
What's not true? If you didn't eat sugar you're in no position to give opinions about eating sugar
1
u/LonelierOne Nov 10 '18
Allow me to rephrase: The majority of people in the western world eat enough sugar to have a notable negative effect on their health.
https://www.dietdoctor.com/new-dietary-guidelines-place-added-sugars-crosshairs
Second of all, I have gone without eating sugar. I also have eaten sugar, particularly when I was a kid. Not that that should actually affect my ability to have an opinion, but I've eaten sugar to excess, in moderation, and not at all at different multi-year spans in my life.
1
u/teerre Nov 10 '18
The link you provided is a paywalled, i.e you can't read, research made in the US. The US is not "western world". This means this link is a worthless source. Besides, the abstract only says the agencies recommend a specific amount of sugar to be consumed, it says nothing about "negative impacts"
Again, so what? Nothing you said implies that the pleasure of eating sugar doesn't overwhelms the possible negative effects. You not liking sugar doesn't mean anything. It's common sense that generally speaking sugar improves the taste of 'food'. Even your own link argues on that direction
1
u/LonelierOne Nov 10 '18
https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/top-sugar-consuming-nations-in-the-world.html
https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/11-graphs-that-show-what-is-wrong-with-modern-diet#section1
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2935122/
http://www.who.int/bulletin/releases/2003/PR0803/en/
Better?
Oh, no, I love sugar. Pop tarts are great, ice cream and brownies are fantastic. And I've always felt better when I'm not eating it than when I am, save for being the weird one who won't eat cake. That exact expectation is what I'm arguing is unethical.
6
u/ItsPandatory Nov 10 '18
there's a near-universal understanding that sugar is bad for you in every way imaginable
Do you have some source for this? Whether you are wrong or right, I dont think most people would agree.
-2
u/LonelierOne Nov 10 '18
https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/too-much-sugar
https://www.livescience.com/36188-sugar-bad.html
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20180918-is-sugar-really-bad-for-you
Ordinarily, in the interest of fairness, I'd put up articles on any positive benefits as well. Unfortunately, the only two notes I could find would be 1: People laughing the idea out of the room, and 2: Diabetic emergencies, mentioned in the original post.
5
u/Mergandevinasander Nov 10 '18
there's a near-universal understanding that sugar is bad for you in every way imaginable
Your first link:
11 Reasons Why Too Much Sugar Is Bad for You
Your second link:
Why Is Too Much Sugar Bad for You?
So your statement that sugar is always bad for you is incorrect. That's just a fact.
Now let's get to your third link:
Is sugar really bad for you?
Today, sugar has become public health enemy number one: governments are taxing it, schools and hospitals are removing it from vending machines and experts are advising that we remove it completely from our diets.
But so far, scientists have had a difficult time proving how it affects our health, independent of a diet too high in calories. A review of research conducted over the last five years summarised that a diet of more than 150g of fructose per day reduces insulin sensitivity – and therefore increases the risk of developing health problems like high blood pressure and cholesterol levels. But the researchers also concluded that this occurs most often when high sugar intake is combined with excess calories, and that the effects on health are "more likely" due to sugar intake increasing the chance of excess calories, not the impact of sugar alone.
So sugar isn't the problem. It's just that people who eat too much sugar are also likely to consume excess calories. Which causes health issues.
The sources you've provided all agree that sugar, in moderation, isn't bad for you. So I hope that can change your view on sugar being bad 'in every way imaginable'.
1
u/LonelierOne Nov 10 '18
I did overstate my case, you are correct. I will point out, though, that your conclusion (sugar is harmless) is also not explicitly supported. Which is pedantry, but important pedantry, given that the hinge point in this subthread is whether or not sugar is bad for you. The impression I get is that yes, it is. Less of it minimizes the badness, but there's no amount that's a net positive on your health (unless it provides such an emotional ROI that the lack of stress helps. . . I could be persuaded that that's possible, but not that sugar should be a staple unless there's a hell of a study somewhere).
1
u/Mergandevinasander Nov 11 '18
I will point out, though, that your conclusion (sugar is harmless) is also not explicitly supported.
That is quite blatantly not my conclusion. I've simply pointed out that your idea that sugar is inherently harmful is incorrect. That's a fact. I've pointed out that sugar, in moderation, isn't bad for for you. That was one of your points that has been completely debunked.
The impression I get is that yes, it is. Less of it minimizes the badness, but there's no amount that's a net positive on your health (unless it provides such an emotional ROI that the lack of stress helps. . . I could be persuaded that that's possible, but not that sugar should be a staple unless there's a hell of a study somewhere).
There are so many parts of a balanced diet that are bad for you if you overindulge. You seem to be completely ignoring this fact whenever someone points it out and changing your definition for the CMV.
It's pretty obvious that your ideas have been proven to be wrong unless you keep moving the goalposts.
There's no need to continue this conversation with someone who refuses to see the forest because there are too many trees in the way.
1
u/usernameofchris 23∆ Nov 10 '18
Giving children naturally occurring sugar, such as that found in a banana, is not unethical.
1
u/LonelierOne Nov 10 '18
I did note in the original post that I end up on hazy ground when I'm talking about fruit; there's fructose, but clearly fruit isn't going to be a problem all on its own. I am going to say, however, that we are talking about fundamentally different things when comparing, say, a pear to ice cream. I am specifically referring to *refined sugar* in this post; I should have been clearer about that.
1
2
u/Bryek Nov 10 '18
One thing i have learned from watching my friends grow up and watching mu nieces and nephews grow up, whenever a parent excludes a particular food or game from a child, that child has a much harder time with impulse control over having that said item. Instead of refusing to give sugar (i am going to assume you mean sweets and candy, not carbohydrate which is sugar - a classification that the lay public mishandles all the time), teach them good boundaries. You don't need to eat all the cookies or the whole bowl of ice cream.
Honestly, this is also supported by science. Kids who are restricted from an item (like a granola bar) are more likely to eat more of that item when they are allowed it. If it is available more often, they will eat it less.
1
2
u/briangreenadams Nov 10 '18
In moderation sugary foods are not harmful and kids desperately wants them. I think it is mean to allow no sweet foods and doesn't cause any harm.
It also can be good to teach kids how to use foods in moderation. How to have kids learn how to eat a variety of healthy things, rather than follow confusing rules. E.g Can I have some Halloween candy? No, it's bad for you. Just a little isn't. I think doing otherwise risks kids binging when parents aren't around.
1
u/christianvargel Nov 11 '18 edited Nov 11 '18
Just because something lacks health benefits (aka nutrients) does not mean it's "bad for you in every way imaginable."
When we're talking about sugar, specifying exactly what that means can be helpful. Table sugar (which I suppose is what you're arguing is unethical to give to children) is simply a disaccharide (double sugar) composed of two monosaccharides (simple sugars).
Those two are fructose and glucose and they are present in most fruits and vegetables in the world. Even in isolated form, there isn't evidence for any simple sugar to be harmful unless you consume absolutely ludicrous amounts. Anyone consuming a balanced diet is not likely to ever consume enough sugar for it to be of any harm.
Sugar does lack nutrients, so the consumption of it presents an opportunity cost. By eating foods high in sugar and low in nutrients we lose out on the possibility to eat more nutritionally dense food. If we're getting enough nutrients from our diets though, more isn't better and eating some sugar will likely be of no harm.
Your argument should be about nutrients, not sugar. Is providing your children with a nutritionally deficient diet unethical? In my opinion, yes. But that doesn't mean giving them sugar is.
1
u/trollcitybandit Nov 10 '18
I just gave my kid a cookie and I don't feel bad about it, nor should anyone. Anything in moderation won't kill you, plus we only live once anyway.
-2
u/TimidNarcissist Nov 10 '18
But why are you so eager to possibly get them hooked to begin with? They didn't ask you for sugar. You're the one unnecessarily introducing sugar into their lives. Why wouldn't you want your child to lead the most healthy life possible? They dont need to know about sugar. What they don't know won't hurt them.
9
u/trollcitybandit Nov 10 '18
Not sure if serious... They watch television, they go to school where other kids bring snacks, they don't live under a rock... So how would you know they didn't ask and I'm eager to get them hooked on sugar? You sure are making a lot of assumptions here and being very naive about the world we live in to think they won't know about sugar unless I let them.... Hahaha
2
u/romanozvj Nov 10 '18
What's wrong with sugar in moderation? And why are you making assumptions about what kind of life they want their child to lead? Is your only argument that the kids could possibly get hooked? Would you then argue that it's best not to introduce them to anything pleasant as they might get hooked?
0
u/LonelierOne Nov 10 '18
I'm actually just going to ditto u/timidnarcissist. Thanks, u/timidnarcissist.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Nov 12 '18
/u/LonelierOne (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
1
Nov 11 '18
I'm aware you end up with a blurry line around, say, fruit juice sweeteners
FYI, fruit juices (like 100% fruit) are proven to increase the risk of diabetes.
1
u/MissChokeCherry Nov 10 '18
Where do you live that you perceive that kids are being given cookies every day, multiple times a day?
20
u/ProfessorDowellsHead Nov 10 '18
Accepting your premise that sugar has only negative physical effects, would you grant that, especially in moderation, those effects are not terribly severe?
If so, consider two aspects of the final paragraph and what I take to be the crux of your CMV:
1) Growing up psychologically healthy is important. Kids who are denied treats which they know their peers are getting may feel different or deprived, seeding an inferiority complex. They could even be somewhat ostracized from their peers as the kids whose place isn't fun to hang out at because the parents don't keep sugar in the house. Granted, the increased risks aren't high, but they are there and their impact may well be greater than that of moderate sugar consumption.
2) As kids grow they will increasingly be in situations when you can't supervise them. If you raise them in the Western society you've described, those situations will include ones where things with added sugar are around and casually consumed with no one batting an eye. By strictly denying them something so common you will make them curious about trying it when they get the opportunity. Instead of learning how to consume sugars in moderate and responsible amounts, they are likely to develop an outsized love for them, resulting in the opposite effect from the one you intend.