Sugar as evil
Replies
-
This content has been removed.
-
And honey. Don't forget honey, which has more fructose than many HFCS formulations.
Oh well, yes, honey, frankly I have no idea of what Lustig thinks about it.
But please compare the nutrition facts of honey and HFCS:
http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/sweets/5568/2
http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/sweets/5600/2
Honey is a whole food that comes with minerals and vitamins, doesn't give just "empty calories", so I go for it.
0 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »
And honey. Don't forget honey, which has more fructose than many HFCS formulations.
Oh well, yes, honey, frankly I have no idea of what Lustig thinks about it.
But please compare the nutrition facts of honey and HFCS:
http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/sweets/5568/2
http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/sweets/5600/2
Honey is a whole food that comes with minerals and vitamins, doesn't give just "empty calories", so I go for it.
Honey really does not have much in the way of minerals and vitamins at all and HFCS has trace amounts of a few.
The benefit of one food having more nutrients than another assumes that you have not already met your micronutrient goals in any event.0 -
How does this post register as "abuse" to anyone?cwolfman13 wrote: »What lustig is saying is the fructose without the fiber is the problem. While many here don't agree with him my ticker says different to each his own I guess. I eat paleo, workout six days a week and don't eat anything with HFCS and continue to lose and feel pretty great even having hashimoto's thyroid and on meds for that.
My ticker says different too...40 Lbs down and I don't worry about fructose at all....and I just generally kick *kitten* in the fitness department to boot....
0 -
Kind of amazing to leave a thread and see 35 replies. Well, today I went over on sugar, even before I had the small mint chocolate frosted brownie for St. Pat's day at church coffee hours. Breakfast was non fat yogurt, strawberries, blueberries, and tinned mandarin oranges. Let's see if I'm in a diabetic coma by the end of the day.0
-
THIS is abuse? REALLY? What moron is flagging these posts?lynn_glenmont wrote: »
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Lustig treats obese children; it has to be heartbreaking to see these kids basically killing themselves with junk food and inactivity. I can forgive the dramatics and its certainly brought attention to the issue which usually results in more money for studies.
Anyway, here's a new article (worth reading, IMO) suggesting too much fructose is a cause for concern:
Restricting Fructose Cuts Liver Fat in Kids
Substituting complex carbs for simple sugars over just 10 days shows meaningful results.
http://www.medpagetoday.com/MeetingCoverage/ENDO/50396
0 -
LiftAllThePizzas wrote: »
THIS is abuse? REALLY? What moron is flagging these posts?lynn_glenmont wrote: »
I'm not sure what's going on either. Someone decided to flag the post below as well. I don't understand how rules are being enforced. I thought MFP was cracking down on those things.Gianfranco_R wrote: »Gianfranco_R wrote: »
Yeah, but according to dr Lustig fructose in fruit is fine, the problem is the fructose found in high-fructose corn syrup and sucrose (table sugar)christinev297 wrote: »Isn't fructose in fruit? :huh:
http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/
just a blog post, that mostly argues about the epidemiological part of the lecture (which all in all is not that important since epidemiology can prove only correlation, not causation), but doesn't address the biochemical part (where it is explained why fructose is like "alcohol without the buzz"), while Lustig on the other hand has published his study in a peer reviewed journal:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23493539
You understand the difference between a blog post and a peer reviewed article, right?
Anyway, I actually could cosign the conclusions of the blog post, where Aragorn says: "The big picture solution is in managing total caloric balance with a predominance of minimally refined foods and sufficient physical activity". I totally agree, don't you?
Its a blog post with references cited. Just because its a blog, does not mean it should be dismissed out of hand. And Aragon does address the ethanol assertion.
Full text of the study you posted can be found here.
http://advances.nutrition.org/content/4/2/226.full.pdf+html
Note, that the article admits that at a certain dose, ethanol and fructose has been shown to be beneficial and the negative effects are dose dependent.
I am confused about the comment about the epidemiological part of the lecture reference. You say its not important as it can only prove correlation - so you agree that this can be dismissed it appears.
Here is another link to a rebuttal to the fructose alarmism. Its a published article, so it should make you happier
http://advances.nutrition.org/content/4/2/246.full
The American Society for Nutrition does a lot of industry funded studies. The author is a consultant to the food and beverage industry and this was presented at a symposium partially funded by Corn Refiners Association.
I don't know about the actual merits of the argument, just wanted to note that.
The authors affiliations does not make the article invalid - but it is something that should be borne in mind. However, it is completely in line with Aragons 'blog' who is not funded by them.
I found Aragorns post quite sensible and informative. All the science - what do I know- lol, it gives me a headache. I'm not gonna worry about moderate sugar nor think it's healthy to eat a bunch of it. I bet something else kills me. Lol
I think 'random flagging' should be added to the bingo card.0 -
LiftAllThePizzas wrote: »
THIS is abuse? REALLY? What moron is flagging these posts?lynn_glenmont wrote: »
Apparently, caring about grammar is a warnable offense. I won't tell you how I know.0 -
-
I tend to be more lenient when I can tell it's someone with legit questions and a language barrier. Am admittedly more arbitrary in my rage when it's just someone spouting nonsense.0
-
Don't look at me. I don't use the flagging system because it's pretty lame and ambiguous.
Speaking of, we should get a petition going for this possible flagging upgrade:
Honest Flagging System0 -
LiftAllThePizzas wrote: »
THIS is abuse? REALLY? What moron is flagging these posts?lynn_glenmont wrote: »
I'm not sure what's going on either. Someone decided to flag the post below as well. I don't understand how rules are being enforced. I thought MFP was cracking down on those things.Gianfranco_R wrote: »Gianfranco_R wrote: »
Yeah, but according to dr Lustig fructose in fruit is fine, the problem is the fructose found in high-fructose corn syrup and sucrose (table sugar)christinev297 wrote: »Isn't fructose in fruit? :huh:
http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/
just a blog post, that mostly argues about the epidemiological part of the lecture (which all in all is not that important since epidemiology can prove only correlation, not causation), but doesn't address the biochemical part (where it is explained why fructose is like "alcohol without the buzz"), while Lustig on the other hand has published his study in a peer reviewed journal:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23493539
You understand the difference between a blog post and a peer reviewed article, right?
Anyway, I actually could cosign the conclusions of the blog post, where Aragorn says: "The big picture solution is in managing total caloric balance with a predominance of minimally refined foods and sufficient physical activity". I totally agree, don't you?
Its a blog post with references cited. Just because its a blog, does not mean it should be dismissed out of hand. And Aragon does address the ethanol assertion.
Full text of the study you posted can be found here.
http://advances.nutrition.org/content/4/2/226.full.pdf+html
Note, that the article admits that at a certain dose, ethanol and fructose has been shown to be beneficial and the negative effects are dose dependent.
I am confused about the comment about the epidemiological part of the lecture reference. You say its not important as it can only prove correlation - so you agree that this can be dismissed it appears.
Here is another link to a rebuttal to the fructose alarmism. Its a published article, so it should make you happier
http://advances.nutrition.org/content/4/2/246.full
The American Society for Nutrition does a lot of industry funded studies. The author is a consultant to the food and beverage industry and this was presented at a symposium partially funded by Corn Refiners Association.
I don't know about the actual merits of the argument, just wanted to note that.
The authors affiliations does not make the article invalid - but it is something that should be borne in mind. However, it is completely in line with Aragons 'blog' who is not funded by them.
I found Aragorns post quite sensible and informative. All the science - what do I know- lol, it gives me a headache. I'm not gonna worry about moderate sugar nor think it's healthy to eat a bunch of it. I bet something else kills me. Lol
Yeah, it was flagged so quick, my initial thought was WTF? But I saw I had a swear word in there and went back and edited it, that's probably what it was.
0 -
Nah, caring isn't the offense. (If it were I'd be gone long ago.) Expressing it is. It's more like don't ask don't tell.LiftAllThePizzas wrote: »
THIS is abuse? REALLY? What moron is flagging these posts?lynn_glenmont wrote: »
Apparently, caring about grammar is a warnable offense. I won't tell you how I know.0 -
LiftAllThePizzas wrote: »
Nah, caring isn't the offense. (If it were I'd be gone long ago.) Expressing it is. It's more like don't ask don't tell.LiftAllThePizzas wrote: »
THIS is abuse? REALLY? What moron is flagging these posts?lynn_glenmont wrote: »
Apparently, caring about grammar is a warnable offense. I won't tell you how I know.
Ah, so yet another case of "me and my big mouth?"
I'm 45. I should know better by now.0 -
LiftAllThePizzas wrote: »
THIS is abuse? REALLY? What moron is flagging these posts?lynn_glenmont wrote: »
I'm not sure what's going on either. Someone decided to flag the post below as well. I don't understand how rules are being enforced. I thought MFP was cracking down on those things.Gianfranco_R wrote: »Gianfranco_R wrote: »
Yeah, but according to dr Lustig fructose in fruit is fine, the problem is the fructose found in high-fructose corn syrup and sucrose (table sugar)christinev297 wrote: »Isn't fructose in fruit? :huh:
http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/
just a blog post, that mostly argues about the epidemiological part of the lecture (which all in all is not that important since epidemiology can prove only correlation, not causation), but doesn't address the biochemical part (where it is explained why fructose is like "alcohol without the buzz"), while Lustig on the other hand has published his study in a peer reviewed journal:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23493539
You understand the difference between a blog post and a peer reviewed article, right?
Anyway, I actually could cosign the conclusions of the blog post, where Aragorn says: "The big picture solution is in managing total caloric balance with a predominance of minimally refined foods and sufficient physical activity". I totally agree, don't you?
Its a blog post with references cited. Just because its a blog, does not mean it should be dismissed out of hand. And Aragon does address the ethanol assertion.
Full text of the study you posted can be found here.
http://advances.nutrition.org/content/4/2/226.full.pdf+html
Note, that the article admits that at a certain dose, ethanol and fructose has been shown to be beneficial and the negative effects are dose dependent.
I am confused about the comment about the epidemiological part of the lecture reference. You say its not important as it can only prove correlation - so you agree that this can be dismissed it appears.
Here is another link to a rebuttal to the fructose alarmism. Its a published article, so it should make you happier
http://advances.nutrition.org/content/4/2/246.full
The American Society for Nutrition does a lot of industry funded studies. The author is a consultant to the food and beverage industry and this was presented at a symposium partially funded by Corn Refiners Association.
I don't know about the actual merits of the argument, just wanted to note that.
The authors affiliations does not make the article invalid - but it is something that should be borne in mind. However, it is completely in line with Aragons 'blog' who is not funded by them.
I found Aragorns post quite sensible and informative. All the science - what do I know- lol, it gives me a headache. I'm not gonna worry about moderate sugar nor think it's healthy to eat a bunch of it. I bet something else kills me. Lol
I think 'random flagging' should be added to the bingo card.
And this was flagged?!? Is Lustig's publisher a Moofper(MPFER)0 -
LiftAllThePizzas wrote: »
THIS is abuse? REALLY? What moron is flagging these posts?lynn_glenmont wrote: »
I'm not sure what's going on either. Someone decided to flag the post below as well. I don't understand how rules are being enforced. I thought MFP was cracking down on those things.Gianfranco_R wrote: »Gianfranco_R wrote: »
Yeah, but according to dr Lustig fructose in fruit is fine, the problem is the fructose found in high-fructose corn syrup and sucrose (table sugar)christinev297 wrote: »Isn't fructose in fruit? :huh:
http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/
just a blog post, that mostly argues about the epidemiological part of the lecture (which all in all is not that important since epidemiology can prove only correlation, not causation), but doesn't address the biochemical part (where it is explained why fructose is like "alcohol without the buzz"), while Lustig on the other hand has published his study in a peer reviewed journal:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23493539
You understand the difference between a blog post and a peer reviewed article, right?
Anyway, I actually could cosign the conclusions of the blog post, where Aragorn says: "The big picture solution is in managing total caloric balance with a predominance of minimally refined foods and sufficient physical activity". I totally agree, don't you?
Its a blog post with references cited. Just because its a blog, does not mean it should be dismissed out of hand. And Aragon does address the ethanol assertion.
Full text of the study you posted can be found here.
http://advances.nutrition.org/content/4/2/226.full.pdf+html
Note, that the article admits that at a certain dose, ethanol and fructose has been shown to be beneficial and the negative effects are dose dependent.
I am confused about the comment about the epidemiological part of the lecture reference. You say its not important as it can only prove correlation - so you agree that this can be dismissed it appears.
Here is another link to a rebuttal to the fructose alarmism. Its a published article, so it should make you happier
http://advances.nutrition.org/content/4/2/246.full
The American Society for Nutrition does a lot of industry funded studies. The author is a consultant to the food and beverage industry and this was presented at a symposium partially funded by Corn Refiners Association.
I don't know about the actual merits of the argument, just wanted to note that.
The authors affiliations does not make the article invalid - but it is something that should be borne in mind. However, it is completely in line with Aragons 'blog' who is not funded by them.
I found Aragorns post quite sensible and informative. All the science - what do I know- lol, it gives me a headache. I'm not gonna worry about moderate sugar nor think it's healthy to eat a bunch of it. I bet something else kills me. Lol
I think 'random flagging' should be added to the bingo card.
Not gonna lie, I laughed HARD when I saw this post was flagged.0 -
LiftAllThePizzas wrote: »LiftAllThePizzas wrote: »
THIS is abuse? REALLY? What moron is flagging these posts?lynn_glenmont wrote: »
I'm not sure what's going on either. Someone decided to flag the post below as well. I don't understand how rules are being enforced. I thought MFP was cracking down on those things.Gianfranco_R wrote: »Gianfranco_R wrote: »
Yeah, but according to dr Lustig fructose in fruit is fine, the problem is the fructose found in high-fructose corn syrup and sucrose (table sugar)christinev297 wrote: »Isn't fructose in fruit? :huh:
http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/
just a blog post, that mostly argues about the epidemiological part of the lecture (which all in all is not that important since epidemiology can prove only correlation, not causation), but doesn't address the biochemical part (where it is explained why fructose is like "alcohol without the buzz"), while Lustig on the other hand has published his study in a peer reviewed journal:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23493539
You understand the difference between a blog post and a peer reviewed article, right?
Anyway, I actually could cosign the conclusions of the blog post, where Aragorn says: "The big picture solution is in managing total caloric balance with a predominance of minimally refined foods and sufficient physical activity". I totally agree, don't you?
Its a blog post with references cited. Just because its a blog, does not mean it should be dismissed out of hand. And Aragon does address the ethanol assertion.
Full text of the study you posted can be found here.
http://advances.nutrition.org/content/4/2/226.full.pdf+html
Note, that the article admits that at a certain dose, ethanol and fructose has been shown to be beneficial and the negative effects are dose dependent.
I am confused about the comment about the epidemiological part of the lecture reference. You say its not important as it can only prove correlation - so you agree that this can be dismissed it appears.
Here is another link to a rebuttal to the fructose alarmism. Its a published article, so it should make you happier
http://advances.nutrition.org/content/4/2/246.full
The American Society for Nutrition does a lot of industry funded studies. The author is a consultant to the food and beverage industry and this was presented at a symposium partially funded by Corn Refiners Association.
I don't know about the actual merits of the argument, just wanted to note that.
The authors affiliations does not make the article invalid - but it is something that should be borne in mind. However, it is completely in line with Aragons 'blog' who is not funded by them.
I found Aragorns post quite sensible and informative. All the science - what do I know- lol, it gives me a headache. I'm not gonna worry about moderate sugar nor think it's healthy to eat a bunch of it. I bet something else kills me. Lol
I think 'random flagging' should be added to the bingo card.
Not gonna lie, I laughed HARD when I saw this post was flagged.
I have a sneaking suspicion (which could be because the 'culprit' just told me) that they flagged it as a joke.
0 -
AlabasterVerve wrote: »Lustig treats obese children; it has to be heartbreaking to see these kids basically killing themselves with junk food and inactivity. I can forgive the dramatics and its certainly brought attention to the issue which usually results in more money for studies.
Anyway, here's a new article (worth reading, IMO) suggesting too much fructose is a cause for concern:
Restricting Fructose Cuts Liver Fat in Kids
Substituting complex carbs for simple sugars over just 10 days shows meaningful results.
http://www.medpagetoday.com/MeetingCoverage/ENDO/50396
Interesting thanks
0 -
AlabasterVerve wrote: »Lustig treats obese children; it has to be heartbreaking to see these kids basically killing themselves with junk food and inactivity. I can forgive the dramatics and its certainly brought attention to the issue which usually results in more money for studies.
Anyway, here's a new article (worth reading, IMO) suggesting too much fructose is a cause for concern:
Restricting Fructose Cuts Liver Fat in Kids
Substituting complex carbs for simple sugars over just 10 days shows meaningful results.
http://www.medpagetoday.com/MeetingCoverage/ENDO/50396
So, more bread, less fruit? There's some paleo people who are gathering their sharp sticks somewhere.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »Lustig treats obese children; it has to be heartbreaking to see these kids basically killing themselves with junk food and inactivity. I can forgive the dramatics and its certainly brought attention to the issue which usually results in more money for studies.
Anyway, here's a new article (worth reading, IMO) suggesting too much fructose is a cause for concern:
Restricting Fructose Cuts Liver Fat in Kids
Substituting complex carbs for simple sugars over just 10 days shows meaningful results.
http://www.medpagetoday.com/MeetingCoverage/ENDO/50396
So, more bread, less fruit? There's some paleo people who are gathering their sharp sticks somewhere.
Lol. Or more bread less coke and juice. I didn't catch how much they were drinking to begin with, I imagine it was a lot.
0 -
stevencloser wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »Lustig treats obese children; it has to be heartbreaking to see these kids basically killing themselves with junk food and inactivity. I can forgive the dramatics and its certainly brought attention to the issue which usually results in more money for studies.
Anyway, here's a new article (worth reading, IMO) suggesting too much fructose is a cause for concern:
Restricting Fructose Cuts Liver Fat in Kids
Substituting complex carbs for simple sugars over just 10 days shows meaningful results.
http://www.medpagetoday.com/MeetingCoverage/ENDO/50396
So, more bread, less fruit? There's some paleo people who are gathering their sharp sticks somewhere.
Well, I'd opt for the less sugar, more vegetables option since that confirms what I already believe to be healthful. But the really interesting part, for me, was that the sugar-is-a-carb-track-carbs-not-sugar advice that's commonly given on the forums might be a little too simplistic? Especially for the morbidly obese.
Either or, I appreciate the studies being done right now in this area by people with no conflicts of interest to declare -- hopefully they're rigorous.
0 -
AlabasterVerve wrote: »Lustig treats obese children; it has to be heartbreaking to see these kids basically killing themselves with junk food and inactivity. I can forgive the dramatics and its certainly brought attention to the issue which usually results in more money for studies.
Anyway, here's a new article (worth reading, IMO) suggesting too much fructose is a cause for concern:
Restricting Fructose Cuts Liver Fat in Kids
Substituting complex carbs for simple sugars over just 10 days shows meaningful results.
http://www.medpagetoday.com/MeetingCoverage/ENDO/50396
Conversely, the alarmism and cherry picking done by Lustig can also ruin credibility and distract from what is a real issue.
The study is interesting - hopefully they will get more funding to extend it - it was done on very obese kids (not sure what their activity levels were like) and for a short time so it would be good to see a broader population/time scale. To be clear, I am not implying that large doses of fructose for morbidly obese people (kids or adults) is not a bad thing or questioning the study and its application to it's underlying population.0 -
On most days my sugar intake is pretty low, but that is because the foods that I pick tend to be low in sugar. I do feel better when I don't have a lot of sugar in my diet. I don't think sugar itself is evil.0
-
One of the issues with fructose consumption in children is that children are given a lot of juice or juice products with lots of sugar. Parents think they're doing the right thing by giving these children these drinks, but then the children are also eating their regular diet on top of it. Substituting actual food for those juice calories could make a huge difference (an apple is more filling that a bottle of apple juice). When I was growing up, we had orange juice for breakfast and milk with our other meals. We didn't have juice boxes and fruit snacks. Perhaps part of the "sugar" and fructose panic is because so many of us are drinking most of our calories from a very early age, and there are more products on the market to encourage that. I don't think there were two full aisles of beverages (one for juice and juice products and one for soda and flavored waters) in every supermarket.0
-
AlabasterVerve wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »Lustig treats obese children; it has to be heartbreaking to see these kids basically killing themselves with junk food and inactivity. I can forgive the dramatics and its certainly brought attention to the issue which usually results in more money for studies.
Anyway, here's a new article (worth reading, IMO) suggesting too much fructose is a cause for concern:
Restricting Fructose Cuts Liver Fat in Kids
Substituting complex carbs for simple sugars over just 10 days shows meaningful results.
http://www.medpagetoday.com/MeetingCoverage/ENDO/50396
So, more bread, less fruit? There's some paleo people who are gathering their sharp sticks somewhere.
Well, I'd opt for the less sugar, more vegetables option since that confirms what I already believe to be healthful. But the really interesting part, for me, was that the sugar-is-a-carb-track-carbs-not-sugar advice that's commonly given on the forums might be a little too simplistic? Especially for the morbidly obese.
That advice is for weight loss, not nutrition. That point is generally made clear.
Also, if you are on reduced calories reducing non satiating calories from juice and soda would just be common sense (as is the fact that drinking tons of it is probably unhealthy, although I agree the study is interesting). The idea that this means that most people should worry about the fruit they eat seems crazy, though. For most people including fruit is probably a healthy thing to do.0 -
One of the issues with fructose consumption in children is that children are given a lot of juice or juice products with lots of sugar. Parents think they're doing the right thing by giving these children these drinks, but then the children are also eating their regular diet on top of it. Substituting actual food for those juice calories could make a huge difference (an apple is more filling that a bottle of apple juice). When I was growing up, we had orange juice for breakfast and milk with our other meals. We didn't have juice boxes and fruit snacks. Perhaps part of the "sugar" and fructose panic is because so many of us are drinking most of our calories from a very early age, and there are more products on the market to encourage that. I don't think there were two full aisles of beverages (one for juice and juice products and one for soda and flavored waters) in every supermarket.
Interesting, and that's definitely the case for me too, and my sister who is younger (39). We had apple or orange juice with breakfast, milk with lunch and dinner, and really didn't drink much at other times other than water (which was from the sink with ice added, not from a bottle). Soda was a rare treat (if we went to McD's or some other restaurant), not something we had regularly either.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »Lustig treats obese children; it has to be heartbreaking to see these kids basically killing themselves with junk food and inactivity. I can forgive the dramatics and its certainly brought attention to the issue which usually results in more money for studies.
Anyway, here's a new article (worth reading, IMO) suggesting too much fructose is a cause for concern:
Restricting Fructose Cuts Liver Fat in Kids
Substituting complex carbs for simple sugars over just 10 days shows meaningful results.
http://www.medpagetoday.com/MeetingCoverage/ENDO/50396
So, more bread, less fruit? There's some paleo people who are gathering their sharp sticks somewhere.
Well, I'd opt for the less sugar, more vegetables option since that confirms what I already believe to be healthful. But the really interesting part, for me, was that the sugar-is-a-carb-track-carbs-not-sugar advice that's commonly given on the forums might be a little too simplistic? Especially for the morbidly obese.
That advice is for weight loss, not nutrition. That point is generally made clear.
Also, if you are on reduced calories reducing non satiating calories from juice and soda would just be common sense. The idea that this means that most people should worry about the fruit they eat seems crazy, though. For most including fruit is probably a healthy thing to do.
The MPF limit of 15% of your total calories from sugar seems pretty reasonable and certainly allows for fruit, vegetables and dairy. If you're exceeding that limit perhaps there's reason to be concerned? I honestly don't know -- and I don't think the science is there yet either -- but I don't think blowing off peoples concerns about sugar and telling them there's nothing to worry about and to track something else is right. Just my opinion.
@rosebette There's definitely a difference. When I was growing up juice was for breakfast and was served in juice glasses that were a little bigger than a shot glass. And soda was party food.
0 -
Well, a few observations. First of all DNL only happens when there is an excess of carbohydrates and in the presence of an excess of energy. Secondly, fructose is not consumed in isolation and as much glucose was also present.AlabasterVerve wrote: »Lustig treats obese children; it has to be heartbreaking to see these kids basically killing themselves with junk food and inactivity. I can forgive the dramatics and its certainly brought attention to the issue which usually results in more money for studies.
Anyway, here's a new article (worth reading, IMO) suggesting too much fructose is a cause for concern:
Restricting Fructose Cuts Liver Fat in Kids
Substituting complex carbs for simple sugars over just 10 days shows meaningful results.
http://www.medpagetoday.com/MeetingCoverage/ENDO/50396
Interesting thanks
Another observation is getting a 13 year old to admit to the amount of calories or food they normally eat and use that as a base line for consumption. Even though weight loss was not significant, as they stated, I would assume there was some, and if extrapolated over say 1 year, how much weight would have they lost, we know it wasn't glycogen lost in those 10 days. Basically they were consuming in a deficit and DNL doesn't happen then or even at maintenance, so of course DNL would be reduced. Now a study were an excess of calories and carbohydrate's are consumed switching out sugar for other sources and the effect on fat accumulation in the liver might be interesting.
EDIT: my mistake, it was hepatic DNL. Carry on lol.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions