>In fact, the World Health Organisation recommends that for

>>7890393
That graph is woefully incorrect.

Sugar is not unhealthy. The WHO is wrong on this and most other expert guidelines around the world do not limit sugar to any specific amounts, they may at best recommend limited intake more generally. The reason you cannot limit sugar to any specific amount as an expert organization is that there is no good evidence that any specific amount causes actual harm.

Lots of people were already consuming more than the WHO limit in 1900. So in 1900 people were fat and diabetic with heart disease? I don't remember that.

The real problem of our time is excessive intake of fat and animal products, which actually rose massively post-WW2, whereas intake of sugar only increased marginally.

>>7890412
>So in 1900 people were fat and diabetic with heart disease? I don't remember that.

You're 116 years old?

>>7890416

that's why he doesn't remember

already senile

>>7890412
>sugar is not unhealthy
What do you think, /ck/?
Fat, ugly, retarded, or all three?
Go back to your home board little man.

>>7890429
>suger is unhealthy
Many apes live on high sugar diets and they are basically superhumans.

>>7890429
Fat and unhealthy. Probably a 7/10 'go 'Za if weight lose

>>7890429
I am underweight, I don't see how it's relevant though. I smash at least 80g of refined sugar a day, and another 80-100 natural sugars

This guy tried to prove that sugar is bad for you but he realized that his own study is shit and that well-designed studies show no difference between refined sugar and any other carbohydrate.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26376619

>Most recently, our group has reported that supplementing the ad libitum diets of young adults with beverages containing 0%, 10%, 17.5% or 25% of daily energy requirement (Ereq) as HFCS increased lipid/lipoprotein risk factors for CVD and uric acid in a dose-response manner. However, un-confounded studies conducted in healthy humans under a controlled, energy-balanced diet protocol that enables determination of the effects of sugar with diets that do not allow for body weight gain are lacking.
This is a lie. There are plenty of studies comparing high-sugar to high-starch for example. Sugar is no worse than rice. There are also plenty of case studies of people on high-sugar diets exhibiting no negative effects, both in the short and long term.

>Furthermore, recent reports conclude that there are no adverse effects of consuming beverages containing up to 30% Ereq sucrose or HFCS, and the conclusions from several meta-analyses suggest that fructose has no specific adverse effects relative to any other carbohydrate.

>>7890393
>25 grams
this is telling you you can't eat more than one "fruit" a day.

>>7890412
Higher Fructose-Consumption might be to blame.

I probably eat half that, but i'm a hungery skellington. if you don't go around buying pre made stuff it's easy.

>>7890412
Sugar in and of itself is not bad, that much is true. The problem comes from over saturating your body with sugars to the point that your body doesn't recognize insulin anymore because it's producing it all the time. Everything in moderation.

>>7890461
so much for five fruits and vegetables a day

Sucrose or sugars in general?

ITT: people who don't know what a sugar is, or even how our bodies use energy

>>7892324
ITP: Everyone is stupid except me, the expert

>>7890393
Stat: grams per day
Graph: pounds per year

I'm triggered.

>>7890442
Higher Fructose Consumption is were it is at.

>>7892585
Pound is defined by the kg anyway.
It doesn't matter

File: 2011.png (785KB, 872x814px) Image search: [Google]

785KB, 872x814px

I looked it up and WHO meant sugars in general: lactose and fructose too.

So, they also want us to cut down on fruit and milk.

>>7890412
Fluoride is not unhealthy. The doctors are wrong on this and most other expert guidelines around the world do not limit fluoride to any specific amounts, they may at best recommend limited intake more generally. The reason you cannot limit fluoride to any specific amount as an expert organization is that there is no good evidence that any specific amount causes actual harm.

>>7890412
Semen is not unhealthy. The WHO is wrong on this and most other expert guidelines around the world do not limit semen to any specific amounts, they may at best recommend limited intake more generally. The reason you cannot limit semen to any specific amount as an expert organization is that there is no good evidence that any specific amount causes actual harm.

Lots of people were already consuming more than the WHO limit in 1900. So in 1900 people were fat and diabetic with heart disease? I don't remember that.

The real problem of our time is excessive intake of fat and animal products, which actually rose massively post-WW2, whereas intake of semen only increased marginally.

If sugar is bad for us why do monkeys eat so much fruit?

Checkmate, atheists.