How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat
Options
Replies
-
cstehansen wrote: »I know being your own doctor is very difficult because it takes really digging a lot deeper than just NYT articles and into actual studies and sometimes looking at who funded the studies, the credentials of those doing the studies, whether it was peer reviewed, etc.
It also takes looking at how treatment is working for you personally. Like I have said on other posts, I started my own version of LC just because it made logical sense and saw great results. After doing research on what the "professionals" recommended, I changed to what they said to do and A1c as well as my fasting and PP readings elevated.
I continued to do research and decided to change to keto and within a couple of days saw my fasting and PP readings drop double digits. I can only assume from that my A1c will be lower at my next appt.
That is my version of being my own doctor.
So.... what standard did you use to conclude the lower the A1c level, the better? Any idea what the curves looks like for A1c vs. incidence of complications from diabetes, all-cause mortality, cardiac incidents, fatty liver, etc.? What if rational-sounding experts disagree, as apparently they do on lipid levels, and think at least some of these relationships are non-linear?
As @LauraCoth put it, "at a certain point, you gotta trust someone."
Metabolism is complex, and as @GaleHawkins points out, at least some experts would say we're in the foothills even about what vitamins to take (and, I'm sure, about a lot of why keto seems to work for some people, including many of us here).
In short, there's no reason to think that everything we think we know now is true (or true for without substantial qualification).
But I do agree with you that self-experimentation is indispensable, even if you can't be sure the yardsticks you've chosen are the right length...
2 -
Midnightgypsy0 wrote: »Can't trust politicians or government either. Everyone is in it for the money.
Nobody cares about your health except you.
Amen to that @Midnightgypsy0! I came to the same conclusion about my health very shortly after after starting my lifestyle change a couple of years ago. It's definitely of those sad but true things.
Sometimes the cynical and the accurate overlap, but this specimen seems to embody a particularly dim view of human nature - and one that's contradicted by the very spirit of this forum!
(Or is someone here making a buck off their posts? Please PM me with instructions, and I'll give you a commission....
)
1 -
I can't support a sugar tax. I don't want to give credence to the idea that the government has the right or responsibility to determine what people should or should not be eating. They've consistently gotten it wrong. Sure, I believe that sugar is a harmful food--especially in the massive amounts we consume in the standard diet. But, if we accept that they have the right to discourage its consumption with a tax then we're saying they should do that for all things that are harmful. What will I do when they start to tax beef and other foods with saturated fats? What if they decided to tax eggs? There are studies that suggest coffee is bad for us, they might tax that as well.
Actually, every time the government has made food policies, it has had negative effects on health. There's just no reason to suspect that sugar should be the exception. Foods that I believe are great for health (like meat) could be taxed as harmful to health (and the environment) based on studies that are misleading. That would mean that some people wouldn't be able to eat healthy food, because it would be priced outside their means.
People have a right to eat the foods they believe are best. Different cultures have differing beliefs and they deserve the freedom to eat the foods that fit their upbringing without government interference. I do support education and research into what is and isn't healthy, but not legislation or taxation based on those things.4 -
I can't support a sugar tax. I don't want to give credence to the idea that the government has the right or responsibility to determine what people should or should not be eating. They've consistently gotten it wrong. Sure, I believe that sugar is a harmful food--especially in the massive amounts we consume in the standard diet. But, if we accept that they have the right to discourage its consumption with a tax then we're saying they should do that for all things that are harmful. What will I do when they start to tax beef and other foods with saturated fats? What if they decided to tax eggs? There are studies that suggest coffee is bad for us, they might tax that as well.
Actually, every time the government has made food policies, it has had negative effects on health. There's just no reason to suspect that sugar should be the exception. Foods that I believe are great for health (like meat) could be taxed as harmful to health (and the environment) based on studies that are misleading. That would mean that some people wouldn't be able to eat healthy food, because it would be priced outside their means.
People have a right to eat the foods they believe are best. Different cultures have differing beliefs and they deserve the freedom to eat the foods that fit their upbringing without government interference. I do support education and research into what is and isn't healthy, but not legislation or taxation based on those things.
I agree, which is why I would support getting rid of all the subsidies as well because those are out there to make things they think are better for us cheaper - i.e. subsidies to sugar and corn farmers. Let people choose what they want to consume without any interference.0 -
RalfLott wrote:
Sometimes the cynical and the accurate overlap, but this specimen seems to embody a particularly dim view of human nature - and one that's contradicted by the very spirit of this forum!
(Or is someone here making a buck off their posts? Please PM me with instructions, and I'll give you a commission.... )
cyn·i·cal
ˈsinək(ə)l/
adjective
1.
believing that people are motivated by self-interest; distrustful of human sincerity or integrity.
"cynical attitude"
2.
concerned only with one's own interests and typically disregarding accepted or appropriate standards in order to achieve them.
"cynical manipulation of public opinion"
Politicians fit #2.
Sadly, they are the reason I am a #1.
Most people are wonderful.
Politicians, Lawyers, Business Leaders, not so much...3 -
Anyway, back to our regularly scheduled program.
It's always best to do much research and not trust any single item.
Rather read many and likely the average is about right.
1 -
Midnightgypsy0 wrote: »Anyway, back to our regularly scheduled program.
It's always best to do much research and not trust any single item.
Rather read many and likely the average is about right.
Yeah well, in this case the average is eating 6-10 servings of grains a day. Lol1
