Disadvantages of Keto diet
Replies
-
stevencloser wrote: »
Who do you think would understand the toxic effects of fructose more, an endocrinologist working with specialists in multiple fields or a solo nutritionist?I've been Dr. Lustig on youtube. Search on "Sugar: The Bitter Truth". He started with asking what the Japanese diet and Aktin's diet have in common. The answer is they are both low fructose diets.
@dykask
Have you read the counterpoint to Dr Lustig's theory about fructose?
https://alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/
Who do you think would understand a part of nutrition more, someone with a masters degree in nutrition or a doctor specializing in something that is not nutrition?
HA! There isn't any nutrition in fructose.
0 -
Check the Ketogains reddit to get accurate, science-based information. Luis Villasenor is known as one of the most knowledgeable people on Keto. Keto Flu is avoidable and does not mean you should stop. It's basically your body detoxing off of carbs and making the switch to burning fat for energy rather than carbs. Please don't listen to the uninformed rhetoric. Read REAL information - not articles from biased sources, especially people trained in "traditional"/old school nutrition. There are many books and articles out there, but as with anything, you have to sift through the b.s. to find the nuggets of wisdom.
I've read enough about keto to see it has real benefits as a WOE for some people. It just struck me as funny that you used the phrase "detoxing off carbs" right before asking people to "read real information." Portraying carbs as "toxic" doesn't effectively make your point. "Adjusting to running on fat instead of carbs" or something similar would be a better turn of phrase.5 -
There are no large dangers to a ketogenic diet. Sure, some people may not do well on it, just like any other diet, but most people are not harmed from this diet.
I'm not an expert, but I have read most keto sources out there, so these are the possible drawbacks that I know of:
In a small minority, dietary fat raises cholesterol in the wrong way. LDL goes up, becomes denser, and triglycerides go up. This is basically the opposite of what most people experience on keto (higher HDL, less dense LDL, lower triglycerides). It isn't common, but keto probably won't suit those people.
If you are competing in any athletic events, especially those requiring very short, large bursts of energy, you probably should not switch to keto about 2 or 3 three months before the event. Keto adaption can take a few months to complete in some. By keto adaption I mean getting your muscles and brain to the point where it prefers/ first uses fat oxidation for fuel over carbs. Yes, people will be making ketones and relying on them for fuel within a few days of changing their diet, but it appears to take a couple of months for your body to truly get used to it. Beyond the keto adaption stage, exercise performance will not suffer. Many people successfully become elite endurance athletes while in ketosis, and many bulk very successfully while in ketosis even if their insulin levels are lower than their sugar fueled counter parts.
Keto breath. Some get it. Most don't. I never did. If anything, my breath improved.
Constipation or diarrhea Some get it and some don't. Mine got looser after cutting back on all that bulking fibre (another bonus - BMs are often smaller). Sometimes these are signs of low sodium, too little or too much fat, too little or too much magnesium, dehydration or just adjusting to the diet.
Some don't like the food. Meat, eggs, nuts, veggies, coconut, olives, avocado, full fat dairy... Good for me.
Some don't realize that they need to increase sodium to 3000-5000 mg per day to replace sodium lost with water weight. Drinking salty broth, adding a teaspoon of salt to water, or taking salt tablets will do the job. If you let electrolytes get low you may experience fatigue, brain fog, headaches, muscle aches and spasms (after Mg and K get low if you let sodium stay low).
Stronger smelling urine.
The benefits (won't be true for everyone):
Most see improved cholesterol and cardiovascular health, even without weight loss.
Blood glucose and insulin resistance (T2D, prediabetes, PCOS, NAFLD, Alzheimers) improve even without weight loss.
Hypoglycemia improves because you are no longer reliant on glucose for fuel. I used to have this. I had the shakes every two hours. It never happens now.
Reduced appetite and carb cravings. It makes it easier for many to lose weight.
Good food. Real food.
Steadier energy for life and activities.
Helps with some pain and autoimmune issues. Possibly due to fewer inflammatory foods.
Smaller poop. Often less stinky poop.
Better skin.
Better mental clarity and cognition.
Can improves hormonal balance.
Bacon.
16 -
I would check out information outside of MFP honestly. You get a lot of opinions and misinformation here. It's often mixed with actual info, but it's difficult to figure out who is providing good info.
I would advise against trusting any site that warns that you can get Ketoacidosis, like Live Strong did, from just eating in such a way that puts you into ketosis. If you are not a Type 1 diabetic, there's no reason to worry about that. Actually, even then, there really is no reason to worry any more than they did eating a high carb diet as it's not caused by what you eat at all. My daughter is a T1D that eats Keto, and she's not had a bit of trouble with Ketoacidosis. Actually, she's finally reached the best health she's had in many years. Including reaching her A1c goal set by her endocrinologist for the first time.
I've been Keto for over a year and I don't miss bread and pasta and ice cream or whatever other food people are convinced they can't live happily without. I eat things in other ways, like lettuce wrapped sandwiches. I'm not sad because it doesn't have bread. That would be sad... I make zucchini noodles instead of pasta... I haven't felt deprived even once. I decided I didn't want them, and so I didn't eat them. The appetite control this way of eating has helped me achieve has made it possible to control cravings and has eliminated those feelings of "I NEED that".
I eat really good food that I enjoy, I feel better than ever and I didn't have even 1 minute of "Keto flu" because I understood the sodium and electrolyte needs that would come from the initial water loss and prevented those symptoms entirely. I didn't have any "carb withdrawal" or "detox" that I know of. I just ate foods that had low or no carbs, replaced fluids and sodium/electrolytes and my body adjusted and did what it's supposed to do... use the food I gave it. I never felt anything but great.9 -
Main problems I have found on keto is keeping electrolytes balanced. That in turn causes tiredness. You pee like crazy! And sweat much more. But I sleep more soundly and no longer need ambien to sleep which is amazing in itself after having to take it nightly for 3 years!!! I have no desire at all for carbs but I do eat leafy greens daily for fiber and vitamins (my carbs average 15-20 mg per day) Some days it's a struggle to eat enough.... I find it much easier to follow than just restricting calories. It is definitely not for everyone but the only way to know is to try it for yourself.6
-
There really aren't too many cons to stop you from trying. I think the pros far outweigh the cons.
My main con was that my fiber intake was low which made toilet time very hard (excuse the pun). But with psyllium husk added in my diet that was sorted. Funny thing was I never really had good fiber in my bad diet anyway? Not sure why this became an issue with keto.
So called keto flu is different from person to person but there are ways to help with this.
It has helped me shed 10kg since the beginning of the year so I stand by it. More info on it here. The worst thing that can happen from trying it is that you find it doesn't help you and you revert back to another diet.1 -
I've been Dr. Lustig on youtube. Search on "Sugar: The Bitter Truth". He started with asking what the Japanese diet and Aktin's diet have in common. The answer is they are both low fructose diets.
@dykask
Have you read the counterpoint to Dr Lustig's theory about fructose?
https://alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/
Yes and that is written by a nutritionist who seems to have a vested interests in asserting it is only calorie consumption causing the issues. Who do you think would understand the toxic effects of fructose more, an endocrinologist working with specialists in multiple fields or a solo nutritionist? My impression of that rebuttal is that he is hoping that people haven't listen closely to Dr. Lustig's presentations. Additionally much of the nitpicks is just from a slight twist on perspective. Alan Aragon even goes to far as saying "His concluding recommendations included kicking out liquid calories except milk, which is generally a good strategy for children." Really? Only children? He is picking on nits and throwing out dubious claims himself.
While some of the points in the blog have validity, the blog really paints a distorted view Dr. Lustig's well put together presentations. So why are you defending comsuming fructose? Sure it can't be always avoided but there way to many forms of sugar are added to foods today is insane. Anyway, I've seen you post your link in multiple threads. Why are you pushing consumption of fructose?
Currently I sure there is really something too avoiding added sugar. By avoiding added sugar I no longer have the driving hunger that prevented me from keeping a calorie deficit. It was after I found something that worked that I then started trying to understand what was going on. So I'm only sharing something that works for me. Cutting back on added sugar has only seem to help me.
This morning I took 10 grams of added sugar out of my breakfast. It still tasted fine. The only harm is my breakfast has about 40 fewer calories in it. I still feel just as satisfied. This will put be below adding 10 grams of sugar a day to my food.
What a strange thing to say that I'm pushing fructose!
Why are you pushing Lustig would be a childish response as you keep posting his link....
Believe what you like but balance is important so it's important that both sides of the argument are presented.
I would defend fructose, or any other kind of sugar, or just about any other kind of food if it fits within someone's personal well balanced overall diet. I'm anti charlatan and pro science not pro fructose.
I'm actually someone who eats a fairly low amount of sugar (except when I'm cycling). Savoury foods are my trigger just as sugar appears to be yours. I do actually agree with you that sugar is added to too many things - adds to the calorie load and often makes things taste too sweet for my taste buds. I eat a fair bit of fruit but rarely add table sugar to anything.
Yes I would take the advice of a world regarded and highly qualified nutritionist on matters of nutrition as a matter of fact. It's not nit-picking to point out the dreadful cherry picking by Lustig to exclude data that not only doesn't support his theory but actually refutes it as being the big issue.
You could just as well pick one of my high calorie triggers foods such as peanuts and demonise them.
Shock, horror! As peanut consumption goes up populations get fatter, so therefore peanuts must be toxic.
It's missing the point.
5 -
What a strange thing to say that I'm pushing fructose!
Why are you pushing Lustig would be a childish response as you keep posting his link....
Believe what you like but balance is important so it's important that both sides of the argument are presented.
I would defend fructose, or any other kind of sugar, or just about any other kind of food if it fits within someone's personal well balanced overall diet. I'm anti charlatan and pro science not pro fructose.
...
You have been defending fructose consumption, a least indirectly. I've seen your link posted multiple times. For the record I didn't post a link I only mentioned where the source of my information about fructose toxicity came from.
Fructose is empty calories and the liver's processing of it is problematic at best. At this point, fructose in drinks appears that it could be root cause of much metabolic disease. Fructose isn't something that can be completely avoided, but it is easy to reduce. In time there will likely be more studies on it, but that takes time. Evidence it mounting thought the too much fructose at least without fiber is a problem.
When I read the blog you linked, Alan came across more like a charlatan. There is room for debate and different views, but his blog is basically nit picking some issues that aren't really related and then saying Dr. Lustig is just wrong because he doesn't assign a dosage for the toxicity. That is a misdirection away from the core issues. He also backs up his points with invalid claims: For example: "High-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is nearly identical to sucrose in structure and function." If that were true, it wouldn't be a syrup it would be a solid. Small differences in molecular structure make different materials. Glucose and fructose are not combined in HFCS as they are in sucrose and they don't even exist in the same ratio, although HFCS could be made that way. The fact that fructose isn't combined with glucose in HFCS can make a big difference in how fructose moves in the body.
To be clear, I'm not recommending avoiding fruit or things like that, personally I enjoy a lot of fruit. I'm recommending avoiding refined sugars in drinks and foods. That isn't a recommendation I came up with. I simply tried it and it is working very well providing relief from the problems that I used to have, such as uncontrollable hunger. Frankly, I think it is also why the ketosis based diets work and high carb diets also work. Any diet that gets people mostly away from modern processed food probably work.
With all the mounting evidence against refined sugars, I'm shocked that you are defending their continued high use.
6 -
Keto is an amazing diet. There's a lot of research to back it up (do a search for peer reviewed studies on ketogenic diet and alzheimer's, for example). IMO, it's the perfect diet.
However, it's a massive commitment. It can be expensive to buy enough good quality meat to keep you satiated for all your meals. If you eat over a certain amount of carbs (varies depending on the person), you will be kicked out ketosis. It's a long-term thing without much room for messing up.
The reality is (again, peer-reviewed studies) you can lose just as much weight without cutting carbs. So it depends on your reasons for doing it. I'm not trying to discourage you, because I'm a big advocate of keto, but I don't follow it myself because personally I find just slightly lowering my carbs, and staying within my calorie allowance, is working just fine.0 -
What a strange thing to say that I'm pushing fructose!
Why are you pushing Lustig would be a childish response as you keep posting his link....
Believe what you like but balance is important so it's important that both sides of the argument are presented.
I would defend fructose, or any other kind of sugar, or just about any other kind of food if it fits within someone's personal well balanced overall diet. I'm anti charlatan and pro science not pro fructose.
...
You have been defending fructose consumption, a least indirectly. I've seen your link posted multiple times. For the record I didn't post a link I only mentioned where the source of my information about fructose toxicity came from.
Fructose is empty calories and the liver's processing of it is problematic at best. At this point, fructose in drinks appears that it could be root cause of much metabolic disease. Fructose isn't something that can be completely avoided, but it is easy to reduce. In time there will likely be more studies on it, but that takes time. Evidence it mounting thought the too much fructose at least without fiber is a problem.
When I read the blog you linked, Alan came across more like a charlatan. There is room for debate and different views, but his blog is basically nit picking some issues that aren't really related and then saying Dr. Lustig is just wrong because he doesn't assign a dosage for the toxicity. That is a misdirection away from the core issues. He also backs up his points with invalid claims: For example: "High-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is nearly identical to sucrose in structure and function." If that were true, it wouldn't be a syrup it would be a solid. Small differences in molecular structure make different materials. Glucose and fructose are not combined in HFCS as they are in sucrose and they don't even exist in the same ratio, although HFCS could be made that way. The fact that fructose isn't combined with glucose in HFCS can make a big difference in how fructose moves in the body.
To be clear, I'm not recommending avoiding fruit or things like that, personally I enjoy a lot of fruit. I'm recommending avoiding refined sugars in drinks and foods. That isn't a recommendation I came up with. I simply tried it and it is working very well providing relief from the problems that I used to have, such as uncontrollable hunger. Frankly, I think it is also why the ketosis based diets work and high carb diets also work. Any diet that gets people mostly away from modern processed food probably work.
With all the mounting evidence against refined sugars, I'm shocked that you are defending their continued high use.
Yes fructose is empty calories - agreed. As is glucose. Both have their place in an overall diet, both come with dangers of over consumption. Both have their positive uses as well beyond personal taste - such as carb gels for endurance athletes which are commonly a 2:1 ratio of maltodextrin and fructose to maximise energy absorption. Both have strong and obvious negatives in that they are calorie dense.
Again as I keep saying the overall diet and lifestyle are important. Obviously slurping carb gels sitting on my bum at work would be foolish, sitting on my bum cycling 100+ miles then they are very handy and totally appropriate.
Processing by the liver is not problematic in a healthy individual. It's simply one of the functions of your liver and digestion as a whole.
Your keep using the word toxic but keep ignoring that dosage needs to be stated. You can say water is toxic remember.
You are mistaken about HFCS. Refined sugar and so-called natural sugar are chemically identical and your body doesn't know the source and cannot process them differently. That fruit comes packaged with "good stuff" doesn't mean the sugar in them is any different at a chemical level.
Your bias is making you focus on fairly irrelevant parts of Aragon's blog. Extrapolating small survey data on children to try to prove a hypothesis for an entire population is incredibly bad science. Unbelievably and suspiciously bad in fact for someone educated to Lustig's level - which makes me doubt his motives. Anyone with an open mind would expand the data analysed and see if the correlation continues. Simply put the correlation falls apart.
I'm glad you have found something that works for. I've found something entirely different that works for me - there's many routes to health.
But please do stop the drama llama stuff of being "shocked" that someone has different views to you. Also don't build straw man arguments - I'm not advocating "continued high use". I would prefer sugar in general was added less as I prefer the taste of the vast majority of foods unsweetened or very moderately sweetened.
You can debate without drama or putting words in people's mouths.
8 -
What a strange thing to say that I'm pushing fructose!
Why are you pushing Lustig would be a childish response as you keep posting his link....
Believe what you like but balance is important so it's important that both sides of the argument are presented.
I would defend fructose, or any other kind of sugar, or just about any other kind of food if it fits within someone's personal well balanced overall diet. I'm anti charlatan and pro science not pro fructose.
...
You have been defending fructose consumption, a least indirectly. I've seen your link posted multiple times. For the record I didn't post a link I only mentioned where the source of my information about fructose toxicity came from.
Fructose is empty calories and the liver's processing of it is problematic at best. At this point, fructose in drinks appears that it could be root cause of much metabolic disease. Fructose isn't something that can be completely avoided, but it is easy to reduce. In time there will likely be more studies on it, but that takes time. Evidence it mounting thought the too much fructose at least without fiber is a problem.
When I read the blog you linked, Alan came across more like a charlatan. There is room for debate and different views, but his blog is basically nit picking some issues that aren't really related and then saying Dr. Lustig is just wrong because he doesn't assign a dosage for the toxicity. That is a misdirection away from the core issues. He also backs up his points with invalid claims: For example: "High-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is nearly identical to sucrose in structure and function." If that were true, it wouldn't be a syrup it would be a solid. Small differences in molecular structure make different materials. Glucose and fructose are not combined in HFCS as they are in sucrose and they don't even exist in the same ratio, although HFCS could be made that way. The fact that fructose isn't combined with glucose in HFCS can make a big difference in how fructose moves in the body.
To be clear, I'm not recommending avoiding fruit or things like that, personally I enjoy a lot of fruit. I'm recommending avoiding refined sugars in drinks and foods. That isn't a recommendation I came up with. I simply tried it and it is working very well providing relief from the problems that I used to have, such as uncontrollable hunger. Frankly, I think it is also why the ketosis based diets work and high carb diets also work. Any diet that gets people mostly away from modern processed food probably work.
With all the mounting evidence against refined sugars, I'm shocked that you are defending their continued high use.
Yes fructose is empty calories - agreed. As is glucose. Both have their place in an overall diet, both come with dangers of over consumption. Both have their positive uses as well beyond personal taste - such as carb gels for endurance athletes which are commonly a 2:1 ratio of maltodextrin and fructose to maximise energy absorption. Both have strong and obvious negatives in that they are calorie dense.
Again as I keep saying the overall diet and lifestyle are important. Obviously slurping carb gels sitting on my bum would be foolish, sitting on my bum cycling 100+ miles then they are very handy and totally appropriate.
Processing by the liver is not problematic in a healthy individual. It's simply one of the functions of your liver and digestion as a whole.
Your keep using the word toxic but keep ignoring that dosage needs to be stated. You can say water is toxic remember.
You are mistaken about HFCS. Refined sugar and so-called natural sugar are chemically identical and your body doesn't know the source and cannot process them differently. That fruit comes packaged with "good stuff" doesn't mean the sugar in them is any different at a chemical level.
Your bias is making you focus on fairly irrelevant parts of Aragon's blog. Extrapolating small survey data on children to try to prove a hypothesis for an entire population is incredibly bad science. Unbelievably bad in fact for someone educated to Lustig's level - which makes me doubt his motives. Anyone with an open mind would expand the data analysed and see if the correlation continues. Simply put the correlation falls apart.
I'm glad you have found something that works for. I've found something entirely different that works for me - there's many routes to health.
But please do stop the drama llama stuff of being "shocked" that someone has different views to you. Also don't build straw man arguments - I'm not advocating "continued high use". I would prefer sugar in general was added less as I prefer the taste of the vast majority of foods unsweetened or very moderately sweetened.
You can debate without drama or putting words in people's mouths.
What? Without glucose we die. Glucose is a lot more than empty calories. Even in ketosis people have to have some glucose. In the liver glucose mostly is combined into glycogen which is very different with what happens to something like fructose. Both are carbohydrates and very similar but they are not the same.
Anyway lets be clear, you came in and basically pushed Aragon's blog. I pointed out just a couple of problems in Aragon's blog and you just say they were irrelevant? That is exactly what Aragon was doing to Lustig's presentation.
Alan Aragon is attacking a presentation, he isn't even referring to Lustig's research. Now you attack Lustig too based on what? Are you an endocrinolist or expert in organic chemistry? I'm not such an expert but I know enough to see that Aragon's arguments are full of holes too. It remains for other research to either support Lustig's research or to refute it. That is how science works. It doesn't matter what bloggers think.
Lustig showed that toxicity pathways and talked about additional research that shows medical causation between refined sugar consumption and metabolic diseases. He didn't deal with how with the issue of how much is safe. He didn't even claim they had scientific proof. Claiming that makes his research invalid is absurd.
It wasn't my intent to put words in your month, but clearly you support Aragon's views by the amount of times you've been posting the link to that blog. By doing that it seems you are just trying to create confusion. Lustig's recommendations at the end of his presentation are basically, don't drink sugary drinks and wait 20 minutes before taken additional food. What is so horrible about that?
4 -
Keto is an amazing diet. There's a lot of research to back it up (do a search for peer reviewed studies on ketogenic diet and alzheimer's, for example). IMO, it's the perfect diet.
However, it's a massive commitment. It can be expensive to buy enough good quality meat to keep you satiated for all your meals. If you eat over a certain amount of carbs (varies depending on the person), you will be kicked out ketosis. It's a long-term thing without much room for messing up.
The reality is (again, peer-reviewed studies) you can lose just as much weight without cutting carbs. So it depends on your reasons for doing it. I'm not trying to discourage you, because I'm a big advocate of keto, but I don't follow it myself because personally I find just slightly lowering my carbs, and staying within my calorie allowance, is working just fine.
There are only a few studies on alzheimers and keto, and they were all preliminary research. You will actually find as many studies with plant based and Mediterranean.0 -
What a strange thing to say that I'm pushing fructose!
Why are you pushing Lustig would be a childish response as you keep posting his link....
Believe what you like but balance is important so it's important that both sides of the argument are presented.
I would defend fructose, or any other kind of sugar, or just about any other kind of food if it fits within someone's personal well balanced overall diet. I'm anti charlatan and pro science not pro fructose.
...
You have been defending fructose consumption, a least indirectly. I've seen your link posted multiple times. For the record I didn't post a link I only mentioned where the source of my information about fructose toxicity came from.
Fructose is empty calories and the liver's processing of it is problematic at best. At this point, fructose in drinks appears that it could be root cause of much metabolic disease. Fructose isn't something that can be completely avoided, but it is easy to reduce. In time there will likely be more studies on it, but that takes time. Evidence it mounting thought the too much fructose at least without fiber is a problem.
When I read the blog you linked, Alan came across more like a charlatan. There is room for debate and different views, but his blog is basically nit picking some issues that aren't really related and then saying Dr. Lustig is just wrong because he doesn't assign a dosage for the toxicity. That is a misdirection away from the core issues. He also backs up his points with invalid claims: For example: "High-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is nearly identical to sucrose in structure and function." If that were true, it wouldn't be a syrup it would be a solid. Small differences in molecular structure make different materials. Glucose and fructose are not combined in HFCS as they are in sucrose and they don't even exist in the same ratio, although HFCS could be made that way. The fact that fructose isn't combined with glucose in HFCS can make a big difference in how fructose moves in the body.
To be clear, I'm not recommending avoiding fruit or things like that, personally I enjoy a lot of fruit. I'm recommending avoiding refined sugars in drinks and foods. That isn't a recommendation I came up with. I simply tried it and it is working very well providing relief from the problems that I used to have, such as uncontrollable hunger. Frankly, I think it is also why the ketosis based diets work and high carb diets also work. Any diet that gets people mostly away from modern processed food probably work.
With all the mounting evidence against refined sugars, I'm shocked that you are defending their continued high use.
Yes fructose is empty calories - agreed. As is glucose. Both have their place in an overall diet, both come with dangers of over consumption. Both have their positive uses as well beyond personal taste - such as carb gels for endurance athletes which are commonly a 2:1 ratio of maltodextrin and fructose to maximise energy absorption. Both have strong and obvious negatives in that they are calorie dense.
Again as I keep saying the overall diet and lifestyle are important. Obviously slurping carb gels sitting on my bum would be foolish, sitting on my bum cycling 100+ miles then they are very handy and totally appropriate.
Processing by the liver is not problematic in a healthy individual. It's simply one of the functions of your liver and digestion as a whole.
Your keep using the word toxic but keep ignoring that dosage needs to be stated. You can say water is toxic remember.
You are mistaken about HFCS. Refined sugar and so-called natural sugar are chemically identical and your body doesn't know the source and cannot process them differently. That fruit comes packaged with "good stuff" doesn't mean the sugar in them is any different at a chemical level.
Your bias is making you focus on fairly irrelevant parts of Aragon's blog. Extrapolating small survey data on children to try to prove a hypothesis for an entire population is incredibly bad science. Unbelievably bad in fact for someone educated to Lustig's level - which makes me doubt his motives. Anyone with an open mind would expand the data analysed and see if the correlation continues. Simply put the correlation falls apart.
I'm glad you have found something that works for. I've found something entirely different that works for me - there's many routes to health.
But please do stop the drama llama stuff of being "shocked" that someone has different views to you. Also don't build straw man arguments - I'm not advocating "continued high use". I would prefer sugar in general was added less as I prefer the taste of the vast majority of foods unsweetened or very moderately sweetened.
You can debate without drama or putting words in people's mouths.
What? Without glucose we die. Glucose is a lot more than empty calories. Even in ketosis people have to have some glucose. In the liver glucose mostly is combined into glycogen which is very different with what happens to something like fructose. Both are carbohydrates and very similar but they are not the same.
Anyway lets be clear, you came in and basically pushed Aragon's blog. I pointed out just a couple of problems in Aragon's blog and you just say they were irrelevant? That is exactly what Aragon was doing to Lustig's presentation.
Alan Aragon is attacking a presentation, he isn't even referring to Lustig's research. Now you attack Lustig too based on what? Are you an endocrinolist or expert in organic chemistry? I'm not such an expert but I know enough to see that Aragon's arguments are full of holes too. It remains for other research to either support Lustig's research or to refute it. That is how science works. It doesn't matter what bloggers think.
Lustig showed that toxicity pathways and talked about additional research that shows medical causation between refined sugar consumption and metabolic diseases. He didn't deal with how with the issue of how much is safe. He didn't even claim they had scientific proof. Claiming that makes his research invalid is absurd.
It wasn't my intent to put words in your month, but clearly you support Aragon's views by the amount of times you've been posting the link to that blog. By doing that it seems you are just trying to create confusion. Lustig's recommendations at the end of his presentation are basically, don't drink sugary drinks and wait 20 minutes before taken additional food. What is so horrible about that?
All I did was post the counter argument to your suggested reading/viewing. There's a lot of lurkers that don't contribute to threads and I think balance is important.
You personally can take it or leave it - I really don't care but neither you or I get to choose what other people post in an open forum. You won't convince me and I won't convince you.
But again you have gone off at a tangent by suggesting I think glucose and fructose are the same. It should be blindingly obvious I know the differences.
And you put words in my mouth - again. Stick to what people say and not what you think they say. I didn't say his research is invalid, I actually said his methods are very bad science.
Frankly your debating style needs some work! (Look up "listening to respond" - it's very educational.)
You push your beliefs and I don't attack you for it - I just completely disagree.
I also completely disagree about Lustig's credibility - but you are welcome to your opinion.
Yes I do think Alan Aragon is a great resource on nutrition in general, his research reviews are really well considered, in my opinion.
I'm not going to respond further as I'm conscious this debate is not in line with the original OP and don't want to derail further.7 -
What a strange thing to say that I'm pushing fructose!
Why are you pushing Lustig would be a childish response as you keep posting his link....
Believe what you like but balance is important so it's important that both sides of the argument are presented.
I would defend fructose, or any other kind of sugar, or just about any other kind of food if it fits within someone's personal well balanced overall diet. I'm anti charlatan and pro science not pro fructose.
...
You have been defending fructose consumption, a least indirectly. I've seen your link posted multiple times. For the record I didn't post a link I only mentioned where the source of my information about fructose toxicity came from.
Fructose is empty calories and the liver's processing of it is problematic at best. At this point, fructose in drinks appears that it could be root cause of much metabolic disease. Fructose isn't something that can be completely avoided, but it is easy to reduce. In time there will likely be more studies on it, but that takes time. Evidence it mounting thought the too much fructose at least without fiber is a problem.
When I read the blog you linked, Alan came across more like a charlatan. There is room for debate and different views, but his blog is basically nit picking some issues that aren't really related and then saying Dr. Lustig is just wrong because he doesn't assign a dosage for the toxicity. That is a misdirection away from the core issues. He also backs up his points with invalid claims: For example: "High-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is nearly identical to sucrose in structure and function." If that were true, it wouldn't be a syrup it would be a solid. Small differences in molecular structure make different materials. Glucose and fructose are not combined in HFCS as they are in sucrose and they don't even exist in the same ratio, although HFCS could be made that way. The fact that fructose isn't combined with glucose in HFCS can make a big difference in how fructose moves in the body.
To be clear, I'm not recommending avoiding fruit or things like that, personally I enjoy a lot of fruit. I'm recommending avoiding refined sugars in drinks and foods. That isn't a recommendation I came up with. I simply tried it and it is working very well providing relief from the problems that I used to have, such as uncontrollable hunger. Frankly, I think it is also why the ketosis based diets work and high carb diets also work. Any diet that gets people mostly away from modern processed food probably work.
With all the mounting evidence against refined sugars, I'm shocked that you are defending their continued high use.
Yes fructose is empty calories - agreed. As is glucose. Both have their place in an overall diet, both come with dangers of over consumption. Both have their positive uses as well beyond personal taste - such as carb gels for endurance athletes which are commonly a 2:1 ratio of maltodextrin and fructose to maximise energy absorption. Both have strong and obvious negatives in that they are calorie dense.
Again as I keep saying the overall diet and lifestyle are important. Obviously slurping carb gels sitting on my bum would be foolish, sitting on my bum cycling 100+ miles then they are very handy and totally appropriate.
Processing by the liver is not problematic in a healthy individual. It's simply one of the functions of your liver and digestion as a whole.
Your keep using the word toxic but keep ignoring that dosage needs to be stated. You can say water is toxic remember.
You are mistaken about HFCS. Refined sugar and so-called natural sugar are chemically identical and your body doesn't know the source and cannot process them differently. That fruit comes packaged with "good stuff" doesn't mean the sugar in them is any different at a chemical level.
Your bias is making you focus on fairly irrelevant parts of Aragon's blog. Extrapolating small survey data on children to try to prove a hypothesis for an entire population is incredibly bad science. Unbelievably bad in fact for someone educated to Lustig's level - which makes me doubt his motives. Anyone with an open mind would expand the data analysed and see if the correlation continues. Simply put the correlation falls apart.
I'm glad you have found something that works for. I've found something entirely different that works for me - there's many routes to health.
But please do stop the drama llama stuff of being "shocked" that someone has different views to you. Also don't build straw man arguments - I'm not advocating "continued high use". I would prefer sugar in general was added less as I prefer the taste of the vast majority of foods unsweetened or very moderately sweetened.
You can debate without drama or putting words in people's mouths.
What? Without glucose we die. Glucose is a lot more than empty calories. Even in ketosis people have to have some glucose. In the liver glucose mostly is combined into glycogen which is very different with what happens to something like fructose. Both are carbohydrates and very similar but they are not the same.
Anyway lets be clear, you came in and basically pushed Aragon's blog. I pointed out just a couple of problems in Aragon's blog and you just say they were irrelevant? That is exactly what Aragon was doing to Lustig's presentation.
Alan Aragon is attacking a presentation, he isn't even referring to Lustig's research. Now you attack Lustig too based on what? Are you an endocrinolist or expert in organic chemistry? I'm not such an expert but I know enough to see that Aragon's arguments are full of holes too. It remains for other research to either support Lustig's research or to refute it. That is how science works. It doesn't matter what bloggers think.
Lustig showed that toxicity pathways and talked about additional research that shows medical causation between refined sugar consumption and metabolic diseases. He didn't deal with how with the issue of how much is safe. He didn't even claim they had scientific proof. Claiming that makes his research invalid is absurd.
It wasn't my intent to put words in your month, but clearly you support Aragon's views by the amount of times you've been posting the link to that blog. By doing that it seems you are just trying to create confusion. Lustig's recommendations at the end of his presentation are basically, don't drink sugary drinks and wait 20 minutes before taken additional food. What is so horrible about that?
Research should be looked at under the parameters of the experiment, how often others can duplicate the research and the application in free living environments. So based on your research, what is the dosage that fructose becomes toxic? Who independently duplicated these results? And how does it apply in free living conditions?
5 -
What a strange thing to say that I'm pushing fructose!
Why are you pushing Lustig would be a childish response as you keep posting his link....
Believe what you like but balance is important so it's important that both sides of the argument are presented.
I would defend fructose, or any other kind of sugar, or just about any other kind of food if it fits within someone's personal well balanced overall diet. I'm anti charlatan and pro science not pro fructose.
...
You have been defending fructose consumption, a least indirectly. I've seen your link posted multiple times. For the record I didn't post a link I only mentioned where the source of my information about fructose toxicity came from.
Fructose is empty calories and the liver's processing of it is problematic at best. At this point, fructose in drinks appears that it could be root cause of much metabolic disease. Fructose isn't something that can be completely avoided, but it is easy to reduce. In time there will likely be more studies on it, but that takes time. Evidence it mounting thought the too much fructose at least without fiber is a problem.
When I read the blog you linked, Alan came across more like a charlatan. There is room for debate and different views, but his blog is basically nit picking some issues that aren't really related and then saying Dr. Lustig is just wrong because he doesn't assign a dosage for the toxicity. That is a misdirection away from the core issues. He also backs up his points with invalid claims: For example: "High-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is nearly identical to sucrose in structure and function." If that were true, it wouldn't be a syrup it would be a solid. Small differences in molecular structure make different materials. Glucose and fructose are not combined in HFCS as they are in sucrose and they don't even exist in the same ratio, although HFCS could be made that way. The fact that fructose isn't combined with glucose in HFCS can make a big difference in how fructose moves in the body.
To be clear, I'm not recommending avoiding fruit or things like that, personally I enjoy a lot of fruit. I'm recommending avoiding refined sugars in drinks and foods. That isn't a recommendation I came up with. I simply tried it and it is working very well providing relief from the problems that I used to have, such as uncontrollable hunger. Frankly, I think it is also why the ketosis based diets work and high carb diets also work. Any diet that gets people mostly away from modern processed food probably work.
With all the mounting evidence against refined sugars, I'm shocked that you are defending their continued high use.
Yes fructose is empty calories - agreed. As is glucose. Both have their place in an overall diet, both come with dangers of over consumption. Both have their positive uses as well beyond personal taste - such as carb gels for endurance athletes which are commonly a 2:1 ratio of maltodextrin and fructose to maximise energy absorption. Both have strong and obvious negatives in that they are calorie dense.
Again as I keep saying the overall diet and lifestyle are important. Obviously slurping carb gels sitting on my bum would be foolish, sitting on my bum cycling 100+ miles then they are very handy and totally appropriate.
Processing by the liver is not problematic in a healthy individual. It's simply one of the functions of your liver and digestion as a whole.
Your keep using the word toxic but keep ignoring that dosage needs to be stated. You can say water is toxic remember.
You are mistaken about HFCS. Refined sugar and so-called natural sugar are chemically identical and your body doesn't know the source and cannot process them differently. That fruit comes packaged with "good stuff" doesn't mean the sugar in them is any different at a chemical level.
Your bias is making you focus on fairly irrelevant parts of Aragon's blog. Extrapolating small survey data on children to try to prove a hypothesis for an entire population is incredibly bad science. Unbelievably bad in fact for someone educated to Lustig's level - which makes me doubt his motives. Anyone with an open mind would expand the data analysed and see if the correlation continues. Simply put the correlation falls apart.
I'm glad you have found something that works for. I've found something entirely different that works for me - there's many routes to health.
But please do stop the drama llama stuff of being "shocked" that someone has different views to you. Also don't build straw man arguments - I'm not advocating "continued high use". I would prefer sugar in general was added less as I prefer the taste of the vast majority of foods unsweetened or very moderately sweetened.
You can debate without drama or putting words in people's mouths.
What? Without glucose we die. Glucose is a lot more than empty calories. Even in ketosis people have to have some glucose. In the liver glucose mostly is combined into glycogen which is very different with what happens to something like fructose. Both are carbohydrates and very similar but they are not the same.
Anyway lets be clear, you came in and basically pushed Aragon's blog. I pointed out just a couple of problems in Aragon's blog and you just say they were irrelevant? That is exactly what Aragon was doing to Lustig's presentation.
Alan Aragon is attacking a presentation, he isn't even referring to Lustig's research. Now you attack Lustig too based on what? Are you an endocrinolist or expert in organic chemistry? I'm not such an expert but I know enough to see that Aragon's arguments are full of holes too. It remains for other research to either support Lustig's research or to refute it. That is how science works. It doesn't matter what bloggers think.
Lustig showed that toxicity pathways and talked about additional research that shows medical causation between refined sugar consumption and metabolic diseases. He didn't deal with how with the issue of how much is safe. He didn't even claim they had scientific proof. Claiming that makes his research invalid is absurd.
It wasn't my intent to put words in your month, but clearly you support Aragon's views by the amount of times you've been posting the link to that blog. By doing that it seems you are just trying to create confusion. Lustig's recommendations at the end of his presentation are basically, don't drink sugary drinks and wait 20 minutes before taken additional food. What is so horrible about that?
All I did was post the counter argument to your suggested reading/viewing. There's a lot of lurkers that don't contribute to threads and I think balance is important.
You personally can take it or leave it - I really don't care but neither you or I get to choose what other people post in an open forum. You won't convince me and I won't convince you.
But again you have gone off at a tangent and suggesting I think glucose and fructose are the same. It should be blindingly obvious I know the differences.
And you put words in my mouth - again. Stick to what people say and not what you think they say. I didn't say his research is invalid, I actually said his methods are very bad science.
Frankly your debating style needs some work! (Look up "listening to respond" - it's very educational.)
You push your beliefs and I don't attack you for it - I just completely disagree.
I also completely disagree about Lustig's credibility - but you are welcome to your opinion.
Yes I do think Alan Aragon is a great resource on nutrition in general, his research reviews are really well considered, in my opinion.
I'm not going to respond further as I'm conscious this debate is not in line with the original OP and don't want to derail further.
I most certainly did not put words in your month in my last post. Perhaps you should proofread what you post. Additionally I haven't read any of Aragon's other posts, as I wasn't positivity impressed by that post that you linked. That one was enough. I've actually listened to a lot of positions from different viewpoints. Those included some of the interviews with Dr. Atkins who actually presented himself very well except with talking about government conspiracies. Probably was a hot button of his.
I can't image anyone seriously taking issues Dr. Lustig's presentations unless they have some interest in protecting the status quo. He was pro exercise, pro eating sensibly and didn't bash diets like LCHF, at least in two presentations I watched. For record, Dr. Lustig was presenting things exactly as a scientist should. It isn't bad science to present findings or ideas to peers, it is part of the scientific process.
If you want to present a counter argument you shouldn't direct it personally and you should stop with the personal attacks. This type of stuff is another disadvantage of ketosis based diets, at least at this site.1 -
What a strange thing to say that I'm pushing fructose!
Why are you pushing Lustig would be a childish response as you keep posting his link....
Believe what you like but balance is important so it's important that both sides of the argument are presented.
I would defend fructose, or any other kind of sugar, or just about any other kind of food if it fits within someone's personal well balanced overall diet. I'm anti charlatan and pro science not pro fructose.
...
You have been defending fructose consumption, a least indirectly. I've seen your link posted multiple times. For the record I didn't post a link I only mentioned where the source of my information about fructose toxicity came from.
Fructose is empty calories and the liver's processing of it is problematic at best. At this point, fructose in drinks appears that it could be root cause of much metabolic disease. Fructose isn't something that can be completely avoided, but it is easy to reduce. In time there will likely be more studies on it, but that takes time. Evidence it mounting thought the too much fructose at least without fiber is a problem.
When I read the blog you linked, Alan came across more like a charlatan. There is room for debate and different views, but his blog is basically nit picking some issues that aren't really related and then saying Dr. Lustig is just wrong because he doesn't assign a dosage for the toxicity. That is a misdirection away from the core issues. He also backs up his points with invalid claims: For example: "High-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is nearly identical to sucrose in structure and function." If that were true, it wouldn't be a syrup it would be a solid. Small differences in molecular structure make different materials. Glucose and fructose are not combined in HFCS as they are in sucrose and they don't even exist in the same ratio, although HFCS could be made that way. The fact that fructose isn't combined with glucose in HFCS can make a big difference in how fructose moves in the body.
To be clear, I'm not recommending avoiding fruit or things like that, personally I enjoy a lot of fruit. I'm recommending avoiding refined sugars in drinks and foods. That isn't a recommendation I came up with. I simply tried it and it is working very well providing relief from the problems that I used to have, such as uncontrollable hunger. Frankly, I think it is also why the ketosis based diets work and high carb diets also work. Any diet that gets people mostly away from modern processed food probably work.
With all the mounting evidence against refined sugars, I'm shocked that you are defending their continued high use.
Yes fructose is empty calories - agreed. As is glucose. Both have their place in an overall diet, both come with dangers of over consumption. Both have their positive uses as well beyond personal taste - such as carb gels for endurance athletes which are commonly a 2:1 ratio of maltodextrin and fructose to maximise energy absorption. Both have strong and obvious negatives in that they are calorie dense.
Again as I keep saying the overall diet and lifestyle are important. Obviously slurping carb gels sitting on my bum would be foolish, sitting on my bum cycling 100+ miles then they are very handy and totally appropriate.
Processing by the liver is not problematic in a healthy individual. It's simply one of the functions of your liver and digestion as a whole.
Your keep using the word toxic but keep ignoring that dosage needs to be stated. You can say water is toxic remember.
You are mistaken about HFCS. Refined sugar and so-called natural sugar are chemically identical and your body doesn't know the source and cannot process them differently. That fruit comes packaged with "good stuff" doesn't mean the sugar in them is any different at a chemical level.
Your bias is making you focus on fairly irrelevant parts of Aragon's blog. Extrapolating small survey data on children to try to prove a hypothesis for an entire population is incredibly bad science. Unbelievably bad in fact for someone educated to Lustig's level - which makes me doubt his motives. Anyone with an open mind would expand the data analysed and see if the correlation continues. Simply put the correlation falls apart.
I'm glad you have found something that works for. I've found something entirely different that works for me - there's many routes to health.
But please do stop the drama llama stuff of being "shocked" that someone has different views to you. Also don't build straw man arguments - I'm not advocating "continued high use". I would prefer sugar in general was added less as I prefer the taste of the vast majority of foods unsweetened or very moderately sweetened.
You can debate without drama or putting words in people's mouths.
What? Without glucose we die. Glucose is a lot more than empty calories. Even in ketosis people have to have some glucose. In the liver glucose mostly is combined into glycogen which is very different with what happens to something like fructose. Both are carbohydrates and very similar but they are not the same.
Anyway lets be clear, you came in and basically pushed Aragon's blog. I pointed out just a couple of problems in Aragon's blog and you just say they were irrelevant? That is exactly what Aragon was doing to Lustig's presentation.
Alan Aragon is attacking a presentation, he isn't even referring to Lustig's research. Now you attack Lustig too based on what? Are you an endocrinolist or expert in organic chemistry? I'm not such an expert but I know enough to see that Aragon's arguments are full of holes too. It remains for other research to either support Lustig's research or to refute it. That is how science works. It doesn't matter what bloggers think.
Lustig showed that toxicity pathways and talked about additional research that shows medical causation between refined sugar consumption and metabolic diseases. He didn't deal with how with the issue of how much is safe. He didn't even claim they had scientific proof. Claiming that makes his research invalid is absurd.
It wasn't my intent to put words in your month, but clearly you support Aragon's views by the amount of times you've been posting the link to that blog. By doing that it seems you are just trying to create confusion. Lustig's recommendations at the end of his presentation are basically, don't drink sugary drinks and wait 20 minutes before taken additional food. What is so horrible about that?
All I did was post the counter argument to your suggested reading/viewing. There's a lot of lurkers that don't contribute to threads and I think balance is important.
You personally can take it or leave it - I really don't care but neither you or I get to choose what other people post in an open forum. You won't convince me and I won't convince you.
But again you have gone off at a tangent and suggesting I think glucose and fructose are the same. It should be blindingly obvious I know the differences.
And you put words in my mouth - again. Stick to what people say and not what you think they say. I didn't say his research is invalid, I actually said his methods are very bad science.
Frankly your debating style needs some work! (Look up "listening to respond" - it's very educational.)
You push your beliefs and I don't attack you for it - I just completely disagree.
I also completely disagree about Lustig's credibility - but you are welcome to your opinion.
Yes I do think Alan Aragon is a great resource on nutrition in general, his research reviews are really well considered, in my opinion.
I'm not going to respond further as I'm conscious this debate is not in line with the original OP and don't want to derail further.
I most certainly did not put words in your month in my last post. Perhaps you should proofread what you post. Additionally I haven't read any of Aragon's other posts, as I wasn't positivity impressed by that post that you linked. That one was enough. I've actually listened to a lot of positions from different viewpoints. Those included some of the interviews with Dr. Atkins who actually presented himself very well except with talking about government conspiracies. Probably was a hot button of his.
I can't image anyone seriously taking issues Dr. Lustig's presentations unless they have some interest in protecting the status quo. He was pro exercise, pro eating sensibly and didn't bash diets like LCHF, at least in two presentations I watched. For record, Dr. Lustig was presenting things exactly as a scientist should. It isn't bad science to present findings or ideas to peers, it is part of the scientific process.
If you want to present a counter argument you shouldn't direct it personally and you should stop with the personal attacks. This type of stuff is another disadvantage of ketosis based diets, at least at this site.
Actually a whole bunch of 'experts' take issue with Lustig and his 'research' for many very interesting reasons.
Google Lustig Debunk if you would like to read some
I rather like sciencebasedmedicine - (and I adore Aragon but that's already been covered) https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/does-the-movie-fed-up-make-sense/
To the OP - I think you should try keto if you like it but my major con regarding the approach is it made me crash and burn and I ended up fatter and unhealthier - so for me, it was a temporary fad that didn't work. That is why the way to your particular calorie balance nirvana must be personal, because it's what works for you and what you can maintain5 -
Thank you. I am almost ready to make a decision. Any new idea?
@megan_h26 Did you decide what to do? To me the most important question to ask yourself is this: Is this way of eating something I can sustain? If you like the foods on your plan and can eat those foods in portions that help you attain and maintain your goals, then you have found the right plan. If you are constantly wishing for food not on your plan, it will be hard to sustain, and a food plan that includes those foods would be better.
4 -
What a strange thing to say that I'm pushing fructose!
Why are you pushing Lustig would be a childish response as you keep posting his link....
Believe what you like but balance is important so it's important that both sides of the argument are presented.
I would defend fructose, or any other kind of sugar, or just about any other kind of food if it fits within someone's personal well balanced overall diet. I'm anti charlatan and pro science not pro fructose.
...
You have been defending fructose consumption, a least indirectly. I've seen your link posted multiple times. For the record I didn't post a link I only mentioned where the source of my information about fructose toxicity came from.
Fructose is empty calories and the liver's processing of it is problematic at best. At this point, fructose in drinks appears that it could be root cause of much metabolic disease. Fructose isn't something that can be completely avoided, but it is easy to reduce. In time there will likely be more studies on it, but that takes time. Evidence it mounting thought the too much fructose at least without fiber is a problem.
When I read the blog you linked, Alan came across more like a charlatan. There is room for debate and different views, but his blog is basically nit picking some issues that aren't really related and then saying Dr. Lustig is just wrong because he doesn't assign a dosage for the toxicity. That is a misdirection away from the core issues. He also backs up his points with invalid claims: For example: "High-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is nearly identical to sucrose in structure and function." If that were true, it wouldn't be a syrup it would be a solid. Small differences in molecular structure make different materials. Glucose and fructose are not combined in HFCS as they are in sucrose and they don't even exist in the same ratio, although HFCS could be made that way. The fact that fructose isn't combined with glucose in HFCS can make a big difference in how fructose moves in the body.
To be clear, I'm not recommending avoiding fruit or things like that, personally I enjoy a lot of fruit. I'm recommending avoiding refined sugars in drinks and foods. That isn't a recommendation I came up with. I simply tried it and it is working very well providing relief from the problems that I used to have, such as uncontrollable hunger. Frankly, I think it is also why the ketosis based diets work and high carb diets also work. Any diet that gets people mostly away from modern processed food probably work.
With all the mounting evidence against refined sugars, I'm shocked that you are defending their continued high use.
Yes fructose is empty calories - agreed. As is glucose. Both have their place in an overall diet, both come with dangers of over consumption. Both have their positive uses as well beyond personal taste - such as carb gels for endurance athletes which are commonly a 2:1 ratio of maltodextrin and fructose to maximise energy absorption. Both have strong and obvious negatives in that they are calorie dense.
Again as I keep saying the overall diet and lifestyle are important. Obviously slurping carb gels sitting on my bum would be foolish, sitting on my bum cycling 100+ miles then they are very handy and totally appropriate.
Processing by the liver is not problematic in a healthy individual. It's simply one of the functions of your liver and digestion as a whole.
Your keep using the word toxic but keep ignoring that dosage needs to be stated. You can say water is toxic remember.
You are mistaken about HFCS. Refined sugar and so-called natural sugar are chemically identical and your body doesn't know the source and cannot process them differently. That fruit comes packaged with "good stuff" doesn't mean the sugar in them is any different at a chemical level.
Your bias is making you focus on fairly irrelevant parts of Aragon's blog. Extrapolating small survey data on children to try to prove a hypothesis for an entire population is incredibly bad science. Unbelievably bad in fact for someone educated to Lustig's level - which makes me doubt his motives. Anyone with an open mind would expand the data analysed and see if the correlation continues. Simply put the correlation falls apart.
I'm glad you have found something that works for. I've found something entirely different that works for me - there's many routes to health.
But please do stop the drama llama stuff of being "shocked" that someone has different views to you. Also don't build straw man arguments - I'm not advocating "continued high use". I would prefer sugar in general was added less as I prefer the taste of the vast majority of foods unsweetened or very moderately sweetened.
You can debate without drama or putting words in people's mouths.
What? Without glucose we die. Glucose is a lot more than empty calories. Even in ketosis people have to have some glucose. In the liver glucose mostly is combined into glycogen which is very different with what happens to something like fructose. Both are carbohydrates and very similar but they are not the same.
Anyway lets be clear, you came in and basically pushed Aragon's blog. I pointed out just a couple of problems in Aragon's blog and you just say they were irrelevant? That is exactly what Aragon was doing to Lustig's presentation.
Alan Aragon is attacking a presentation, he isn't even referring to Lustig's research. Now you attack Lustig too based on what? Are you an endocrinolist or expert in organic chemistry? I'm not such an expert but I know enough to see that Aragon's arguments are full of holes too. It remains for other research to either support Lustig's research or to refute it. That is how science works. It doesn't matter what bloggers think.
Lustig showed that toxicity pathways and talked about additional research that shows medical causation between refined sugar consumption and metabolic diseases. He didn't deal with how with the issue of how much is safe. He didn't even claim they had scientific proof. Claiming that makes his research invalid is absurd.
It wasn't my intent to put words in your month, but clearly you support Aragon's views by the amount of times you've been posting the link to that blog. By doing that it seems you are just trying to create confusion. Lustig's recommendations at the end of his presentation are basically, don't drink sugary drinks and wait 20 minutes before taken additional food. What is so horrible about that?
All I did was post the counter argument to your suggested reading/viewing. There's a lot of lurkers that don't contribute to threads and I think balance is important.
You personally can take it or leave it - I really don't care but neither you or I get to choose what other people post in an open forum. You won't convince me and I won't convince you.
But again you have gone off at a tangent and suggesting I think glucose and fructose are the same. It should be blindingly obvious I know the differences.
And you put words in my mouth - again. Stick to what people say and not what you think they say. I didn't say his research is invalid, I actually said his methods are very bad science.
Frankly your debating style needs some work! (Look up "listening to respond" - it's very educational.)
You push your beliefs and I don't attack you for it - I just completely disagree.
I also completely disagree about Lustig's credibility - but you are welcome to your opinion.
Yes I do think Alan Aragon is a great resource on nutrition in general, his research reviews are really well considered, in my opinion.
I'm not going to respond further as I'm conscious this debate is not in line with the original OP and don't want to derail further.
I most certainly did not put words in your month in my last post. Perhaps you should proofread what you post. Additionally I haven't read any of Aragon's other posts, as I wasn't positivity impressed by that post that you linked. That one was enough. I've actually listened to a lot of positions from different viewpoints. Those included some of the interviews with Dr. Atkins who actually presented himself very well except with talking about government conspiracies. Probably was a hot button of his.
I can't image anyone seriously taking issues Dr. Lustig's presentations unless they have some interest in protecting the status quo. He was pro exercise, pro eating sensibly and didn't bash diets like LCHF, at least in two presentations I watched. For record, Dr. Lustig was presenting things exactly as a scientist should. It isn't bad science to present findings or ideas to peers, it is part of the scientific process.
If you want to present a counter argument you shouldn't direct it personally and you should stop with the personal attacks. This type of stuff is another disadvantage of ketosis based diets, at least at this site.
Lustig doesn't know jack.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vybw1PpO2GY 4 -
What a strange thing to say that I'm pushing fructose!
Why are you pushing Lustig would be a childish response as you keep posting his link....
Believe what you like but balance is important so it's important that both sides of the argument are presented.
I would defend fructose, or any other kind of sugar, or just about any other kind of food if it fits within someone's personal well balanced overall diet. I'm anti charlatan and pro science not pro fructose.
...
You have been defending fructose consumption, a least indirectly. I've seen your link posted multiple times. For the record I didn't post a link I only mentioned where the source of my information about fructose toxicity came from.
Fructose is empty calories and the liver's processing of it is problematic at best. At this point, fructose in drinks appears that it could be root cause of much metabolic disease. Fructose isn't something that can be completely avoided, but it is easy to reduce. In time there will likely be more studies on it, but that takes time. Evidence it mounting thought the too much fructose at least without fiber is a problem.
When I read the blog you linked, Alan came across more like a charlatan. There is room for debate and different views, but his blog is basically nit picking some issues that aren't really related and then saying Dr. Lustig is just wrong because he doesn't assign a dosage for the toxicity. That is a misdirection away from the core issues. He also backs up his points with invalid claims: For example: "High-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is nearly identical to sucrose in structure and function." If that were true, it wouldn't be a syrup it would be a solid. Small differences in molecular structure make different materials. Glucose and fructose are not combined in HFCS as they are in sucrose and they don't even exist in the same ratio, although HFCS could be made that way. The fact that fructose isn't combined with glucose in HFCS can make a big difference in how fructose moves in the body.
To be clear, I'm not recommending avoiding fruit or things like that, personally I enjoy a lot of fruit. I'm recommending avoiding refined sugars in drinks and foods. That isn't a recommendation I came up with. I simply tried it and it is working very well providing relief from the problems that I used to have, such as uncontrollable hunger. Frankly, I think it is also why the ketosis based diets work and high carb diets also work. Any diet that gets people mostly away from modern processed food probably work.
With all the mounting evidence against refined sugars, I'm shocked that you are defending their continued high use.
Yes fructose is empty calories - agreed. As is glucose. Both have their place in an overall diet, both come with dangers of over consumption. Both have their positive uses as well beyond personal taste - such as carb gels for endurance athletes which are commonly a 2:1 ratio of maltodextrin and fructose to maximise energy absorption. Both have strong and obvious negatives in that they are calorie dense.
Again as I keep saying the overall diet and lifestyle are important. Obviously slurping carb gels sitting on my bum would be foolish, sitting on my bum cycling 100+ miles then they are very handy and totally appropriate.
Processing by the liver is not problematic in a healthy individual. It's simply one of the functions of your liver and digestion as a whole.
Your keep using the word toxic but keep ignoring that dosage needs to be stated. You can say water is toxic remember.
You are mistaken about HFCS. Refined sugar and so-called natural sugar are chemically identical and your body doesn't know the source and cannot process them differently. That fruit comes packaged with "good stuff" doesn't mean the sugar in them is any different at a chemical level.
Your bias is making you focus on fairly irrelevant parts of Aragon's blog. Extrapolating small survey data on children to try to prove a hypothesis for an entire population is incredibly bad science. Unbelievably bad in fact for someone educated to Lustig's level - which makes me doubt his motives. Anyone with an open mind would expand the data analysed and see if the correlation continues. Simply put the correlation falls apart.
I'm glad you have found something that works for. I've found something entirely different that works for me - there's many routes to health.
But please do stop the drama llama stuff of being "shocked" that someone has different views to you. Also don't build straw man arguments - I'm not advocating "continued high use". I would prefer sugar in general was added less as I prefer the taste of the vast majority of foods unsweetened or very moderately sweetened.
You can debate without drama or putting words in people's mouths.
What? Without glucose we die. Glucose is a lot more than empty calories. Even in ketosis people have to have some glucose. In the liver glucose mostly is combined into glycogen which is very different with what happens to something like fructose. Both are carbohydrates and very similar but they are not the same.
Anyway lets be clear, you came in and basically pushed Aragon's blog. I pointed out just a couple of problems in Aragon's blog and you just say they were irrelevant? That is exactly what Aragon was doing to Lustig's presentation.
Alan Aragon is attacking a presentation, he isn't even referring to Lustig's research. Now you attack Lustig too based on what? Are you an endocrinolist or expert in organic chemistry? I'm not such an expert but I know enough to see that Aragon's arguments are full of holes too. It remains for other research to either support Lustig's research or to refute it. That is how science works. It doesn't matter what bloggers think.
Lustig showed that toxicity pathways and talked about additional research that shows medical causation between refined sugar consumption and metabolic diseases. He didn't deal with how with the issue of how much is safe. He didn't even claim they had scientific proof. Claiming that makes his research invalid is absurd.
It wasn't my intent to put words in your month, but clearly you support Aragon's views by the amount of times you've been posting the link to that blog. By doing that it seems you are just trying to create confusion. Lustig's recommendations at the end of his presentation are basically, don't drink sugary drinks and wait 20 minutes before taken additional food. What is so horrible about that?
All I did was post the counter argument to your suggested reading/viewing. There's a lot of lurkers that don't contribute to threads and I think balance is important.
You personally can take it or leave it - I really don't care but neither you or I get to choose what other people post in an open forum. You won't convince me and I won't convince you.
But again you have gone off at a tangent and suggesting I think glucose and fructose are the same. It should be blindingly obvious I know the differences.
And you put words in my mouth - again. Stick to what people say and not what you think they say. I didn't say his research is invalid, I actually said his methods are very bad science.
Frankly your debating style needs some work! (Look up "listening to respond" - it's very educational.)
You push your beliefs and I don't attack you for it - I just completely disagree.
I also completely disagree about Lustig's credibility - but you are welcome to your opinion.
Yes I do think Alan Aragon is a great resource on nutrition in general, his research reviews are really well considered, in my opinion.
I'm not going to respond further as I'm conscious this debate is not in line with the original OP and don't want to derail further.
I most certainly did not put words in your month in my last post. Perhaps you should proofread what you post. Additionally I haven't read any of Aragon's other posts, as I wasn't positivity impressed by that post that you linked. That one was enough. I've actually listened to a lot of positions from different viewpoints. Those included some of the interviews with Dr. Atkins who actually presented himself very well except with talking about government conspiracies. Probably was a hot button of his.
I can't image anyone seriously taking issues Dr. Lustig's presentations unless they have some interest in protecting the status quo. He was pro exercise, pro eating sensibly and didn't bash diets like LCHF, at least in two presentations I watched. For record, Dr. Lustig was presenting things exactly as a scientist should. It isn't bad science to present findings or ideas to peers, it is part of the scientific process.
If you want to present a counter argument you shouldn't direct it personally and you should stop with the personal attacks. This type of stuff is another disadvantage of ketosis based diets, at least at this site.
1 -
My point has been clearly made.
In the meantime I'll keep my low refined sugar approach as it is easy and really working well for me. Before I did this, raging hunger was a major issue that prevented me from making progress.3 -
My point has been clearly made.
In the meantime I'll keep my low refined sugar approach as it is easy and really working well for me. Before I did this, raging hunger was a major issue that prevented me from making progress.
I am so lost as to your opinion in this thread. You have previously posted that you are anti-keto because you like fruit, especially fruits that are considered high in sugar (fructose). But, you are anti-sugar.3 -
My point has been clearly made.
In the meantime I'll keep my low refined sugar approach as it is easy and really working well for me. Before I did this, raging hunger was a major issue that prevented me from making progress.
I have low added sugar in my diet, but I am higher carb. Even with 250g of carbs (half sugar; I eat 5-6 servings of fruit a day), I am rarely hungry. So I wouldn't assume those of us not doing low carb are 1. always hungry or 2. always eating junk for.3 -
My point has been clearly made.
In the meantime I'll keep my low refined sugar approach as it is easy and really working well for me. Before I did this, raging hunger was a major issue that prevented me from making progress.
I have low added sugar in my diet, but I am higher carb. Even with 250g of carbs (half sugar; I eat 5-6 servings of fruit a day), I am rarely hungry. So I wouldn't assume those of us not doing low carb are 1. always hungry or 2. always eating junk for.
We are all different and we all use food differently. I wouldn't be able to eat the way you do because I would be starving and most probably putting on weight. Whereas on a keto (LCHF) based diet I find that I'm satiated whilst losing fat around my middle. Can't be too bad if I'm losing weight / fat around the middle whilst simultaneously lowering my Trigs, increasing my HDL and just my overall feeling. Have my blood tests every 6 months.2 -
My point has been clearly made.
In the meantime I'll keep my low refined sugar approach as it is easy and really working well for me. Before I did this, raging hunger was a major issue that prevented me from making progress.
I have low added sugar in my diet, but I am higher carb. Even with 250g of carbs (half sugar; I eat 5-6 servings of fruit a day), I am rarely hungry. So I wouldn't assume those of us not doing low carb are 1. always hungry or 2. always eating junk for.
We are all different and we all use food differently. I wouldn't be able to eat the way you do because I would be starving and most probably putting on weight. Whereas on a keto (LCHF) based diet I find that I'm satiated whilst losing fat around my middle. Can't be too bad if I'm losing weight / fat around the middle whilst simultaneously lowering my Trigs, increasing my HDL and just my overall feeling. Have my blood tests every 6 months.
Not saying lchf is bad..its the insinuation that not eating that way is somehow ineffective and somehow we are all starving due to insulin. I fully support every way of eating but keto/lchf is in now way any more superior of a diet than plant based or iifym or any other (outside of personal preference). And regardless of the diet you follow, you can store fat or burn fat, even if you are only eating 2 meals or 8 meals. Why because all diets adhere to the energy balance equation.6 -
It is completely unsustainable for me. I also have cancer/kidney/liver/thyroid issues that were made worse by it... and I have hypoglycemia. No go. I have no intentions of ever trying that again for as long as I did. I have lost a lot of weight just weighing my food and eating at a deficit.. with no restrictions. I have had Chinese food, birthday cake, rice, crisps, cupcakes, a soda, fruit, bread, and cookies since I started.2
-
My point has been clearly made.
In the meantime I'll keep my low refined sugar approach as it is easy and really working well for me. Before I did this, raging hunger was a major issue that prevented me from making progress.
I have low added sugar in my diet, but I am higher carb. Even with 250g of carbs (half sugar; I eat 5-6 servings of fruit a day), I am rarely hungry. So I wouldn't assume those of us not doing low carb are 1. always hungry or 2. always eating junk for.
We are all different and we all use food differently. I wouldn't be able to eat the way you do because I would be starving and most probably putting on weight. Whereas on a keto (LCHF) based diet I find that I'm satiated whilst losing fat around my middle. Can't be too bad if I'm losing weight / fat around the middle whilst simultaneously lowering my Trigs, increasing my HDL and just my overall feeling. Have my blood tests every 6 months.
Not saying lchf is bad..its the insinuation that not eating that way is somehow ineffective and somehow we are all starving due to insulin. I fully support every way of eating but keto/lchf is in now way any more superior of a diet than plant based or iifym or any other (outside of personal preference). And regardless of the diet you follow, you can store fat or burn fat, even if you are only eating 2 meals or 8 meals. Why because all diets adhere to the energy balance equation.
I never said my way was the right way. Just explained why I'm different to you and couldn't eat the way you do. Eating keto / lchf for me is very sustainable and helps me keep on track for my weight loss and has helped sort out my blood tests. I eat more veggies now than I have ever eaten and I generally feel healthier. Each to their own.
I have a friend that is vegan and doing really well but for me I couldn't do it. Wouldn't be able to sustain it.3 -
lenoresdream wrote: »
Oh goodness that's scary!Annahbananas wrote: »I've tried the Keto diet and I certainly lost weight but it never worked for me long term. I hate restricting foods to the point where i cannot have them.
And a more important issue: my kidneys are only 40% effective after the dieting on Keto . Before the dieting on Keto my kidney functions were 100% because I had an intensive physical before I went into the Police Academy. My endocrinologists are saying it was from me yo yo I got on the Keto diet. Take it for what it's worth, but the Keto diet almost destroyed my kidneys
Plus, I enjoy eating a bowl of spaghetti with parmesan cheese and still lost .6 of a pound that day
I hope your kidneys can recover
http://www.healthline.com/health-news/keto-diet-is-gaining-popularity-but-is-it-safe-121914#60 -
varies on individuals - some the time your body needs to reach ketosis some longer, some just don't.
Up to 2 weeks can be considered a norm - trial and error is your best bet, you will see it for yourself and also realise if kept is for you or not.
So if I still get headaches or other adaptation symptoms after two weeks then I should stop it right?
The adaptation can take longer than two weeks. If you eat extra salt and drink enough water, you might not have a problem adapting. I didn't.1 -
My point has been clearly made.
In the meantime I'll keep my low refined sugar approach as it is easy and really working well for me. Before I did this, raging hunger was a major issue that prevented me from making progress.
I am so lost as to your opinion in this thread. You have previously posted that you are anti-keto because you like fruit, especially fruits that are considered high in sugar (fructose). But, you are anti-sugar.
I'm anti added refined sugar. Sugar can't be completely avoided but we don't need to add more or consume it in a form that is rapidly absorbed. So while I will eat fruit I'll avoid fruit juice. The reason is I do believe fructose is probably too high of concentrations in juice and sugars in liquids are absorbed very quickly into the blood.
As people have pointed out, toxicity is often about the dosage. Eat an apple and over the next 90 minutes about 10 grams of fructose hit your liver. Drink a glass of apple juice and over the next few minutes 25 grams of fructose hit your liver. Probably more than a 10x difference in dosage over time.
Whole fruit has fiber and lots of other nutrients that justify the risks caused by fructose. Also some fruits are vital to me because the reduce the impact of sodium, for example a banana a day.
Generally I'm mostly avoiding processed foods that have added sugar. That is actually pretty easy to do in Japan, I think it would take a lot more work in the US.
The ketosis diets are much more restrictive. But I think the restrictions on carbs forces people to avoid adding sugar. So the diet benefits from that. I'm not really anti-ketosis, I just think it is difficult to achieve, hard to maintain and isn't necessary for weight loss.
In my mind I've have about 4 groups of foods for sugar:
AVOID 100% - sugar in liquids
Mostly AVOID - processed foods (I make an exception for peanut butter and chocolate in small amounts)
RARELY - deserts
OKAY - Foods with fiber and without added sugars.
I may play around with cutting fruit at some point, but currently my hunger is controlled and I'm losing fat so I don't see the need to do that right now.1 -
My point has been clearly made.
In the meantime I'll keep my low refined sugar approach as it is easy and really working well for me. Before I did this, raging hunger was a major issue that prevented me from making progress.
I have low added sugar in my diet, but I am higher carb. Even with 250g of carbs (half sugar; I eat 5-6 servings of fruit a day), I am rarely hungry. So I wouldn't assume those of us not doing low carb are 1. always hungry or 2. always eating junk for.
Not sure how you see any such assumption. I live in Japan, avoiding carbs really isn't an option. Avoiding added sugar is an option. Personally I don't think that carbs in general contributed to obesity, most people simply can't eat enough carbs to become obese. Eating carbs with lots of fats and sugar added, that is a different issue.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions