Calling all sugar addicts!
Options
Replies
-
The original poster only wanted suggestions on how to curb HER OWN sugar intake as she understands it, it wasn't a question to MFP community on the validity of sugar addiction. Most addiction groups have only 1 requirement for membership, (its not test studies), its a desire to stop. In addition, most of those groups say that the substance is only a symptom, that there are other root causes (yes, psychological).
People have many similarities, but they have differences too
Why are some people alcoholics and others arent?
Why do some people live or die from the same cancer and same treatment?0 -
YES! I've read the I Quit Sugar book, as well as David Gillespie's 'The sweet poison'.
It's an addiction - read her book, it's a fast read and will probably scare the hell out of you. My wife and I are getting off the stuff. It appears to ruin and affect every appetite control system your body has in place. What's worse is that the fructose in sugar and HFCS is turned straight to fat and doesn't trip your body's 'I'm full' switch, like glucose does. Gillespie's book is a little more technical, and gets into the biological stuff in more detail than Sara's book, but they're both must-reads.
Yes, read the book. Get it from the library, order it on your kindle, whatever. It will open your eyes.
As the book says, it's a harder addiction to break, in part because it's a lot easier to avoid nicotine and cocaine than it is the sugar that is almost universally shoveled into processed foods. Sugar also triggers that feel-good in your brain, much like other addicting substances.
You really should question the integrity of a book. Many of them cherry pick studies to sell a product. Fructose is converted to glucose by the liver. HFCS is ~ 55% fructose and 45% glucose and follows the same products. Regardless of the macronutrient, the basic laws of thermodynamics apply. I eat 3-5 helps of fruit daily, so if what you said was true, I would be obese. Calories in vs out is the only thing that determines weight loss..
http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/
http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/02/19/a-retrospective-of-the-fructose-alarmism-debate/
HFCS - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20471804
This was on the internet, so it must be true. Eating fruit doesn't make you fat, unless you eat a ton of overripe fruit. Do you do that? In addition to your 3-5 helpings, do you follow them with oreo's and chocolate milk? Probably not. I've read that bears gorge on fruit to get fat before hibernating, as do other mammals that go without food for long periods, like over winters. Maybe you should question your Alan's Blog sources as well. From what I've read, an OVERABUNDANCE of fructose and glucose is stored as fat in the blood. Sugar turns to glucose turns to fat if you eat too much of it. Having your "i'm full" switch turned off allows you to eat more before getting stuffed, therefore more calories, more fat. Pretty simple when you break it down. It's a vicious cycle. You don't have to believe, but perhaps read up a little more.
"Fructose, on the other hand, is processed in the liver. To greatly simplify the situation: When too much fructose enters the liver, the liver can't process it all fast enough for the body to use as sugar. Instead, it starts making fats from the fructose and sending them off into the bloodstream as triglycerides. " Boom, not good.0 -
I posted two peer reviewed scientific articles that used HUMANS as a study and people are still arguing about rodents and if this is real. Oi.
I did not know that your posts were the defining conclusion on sugar addiction ….0 -
I posted two peer reviewed scientific articles that used HUMANS as a study and people are still arguing about rodents and if this is real. Oi.
I did not know that your posts were the defining conclusion on sugar addiction ….
moar snark plz. you're so good at it.
do you do anything else? :flowerforyou:0 -
I posted two peer reviewed scientific articles that used HUMANS as a study and people are still arguing about rodents and if this is real. Oi.
I did not know that your posts were the defining conclusion on sugar addiction ….
moar snark plz. you're so good at it.
do you do anything else? :flowerforyou:
look..its a bird, its a plane…nope, its the white knight of MFP here to the rescue!
Do you just ride to the rescue of every person in distress on MFP?
I think you need a new SOP this one is getting played out real fast….0 -
I posted two peer reviewed scientific articles that used HUMANS as a study and people are still arguing about rodents and if this is real. Oi.
I did not know that your posts were the defining conclusion on sugar addiction ….
moar snark plz. you're so good at it.
do you do anything else? :flowerforyou:
look..its a bird, its a plane…nope, its the white knight of MFP here to the rescue!
Do you just ride to the rescue of every person in distress on MFP?
I think you need a new SOP this one is getting played out real fast….
Your post about the "defining conclusion on sugar addiction …. " was confrontational and rude. There were multiple requests for studies and when they were provided ....crickets
People are just tired of the Cliff Clavens that role in threads to offer unsolicited expert opinions on any subject at all. Worse are the court jesters who just antagonize and offer NO knowledge or substance to the discussion0 -
I have a sweet tooth myself.
No, I have not tried that diet.
I still give in to cravings, but I do so with portion control. I have little 90 calorie m&m cookies currently and low cal ice cream and frozen yogurt. I also bought cocoa coated almonds, which are really good. I also like the Special K brownie bites, although I am actually beginning to get sick of them!0 -
I posted two peer reviewed scientific articles that used HUMANS as a study and people are still arguing about rodents and if this is real. Oi.
I did not know that your posts were the defining conclusion on sugar addiction ….
moar snark plz. you're so good at it.
do you do anything else? :flowerforyou:
look..its a bird, its a plane…nope, its the white knight of MFP here to the rescue!
Do you just ride to the rescue of every person in distress on MFP?
I think you need a new SOP this one is getting played out real fast….
Your post about the "defining conclusion on sugar addiction …. " was confrontational and rude. There were multiple requests for studies and when they were provided ....crickets
People are just tired of the Cliff Clavens that role in threads to offer unsolicited expert opinions on any subject at all. Worse are the court jesters who just antagonize and offer NO knowledge or substance to the discussion
righhhht and that posters previous sarcastic replies to other posters is, however, totally legit…
easy on the faux selective outrage...0 -
I posted two peer reviewed scientific articles that used HUMANS as a study and people are still arguing about rodents and if this is real. Oi.
I did not know that your posts were the defining conclusion on sugar addiction ….
moar snark plz. you're so good at it.
do you do anything else? :flowerforyou:
look..its a bird, its a plane…nope, its the white knight of MFP here to the rescue!
Do you just ride to the rescue of every person in distress on MFP?
I think you need a new SOP this one is getting played out real fast….
Your post about the "defining conclusion on sugar addiction …. " was confrontational and rude. There were multiple requests for studies and when they were provided ....crickets
People are just tired of the Cliff Clavens that role in threads to offer unsolicited expert opinions on any subject at all. Worse are the court jesters who just antagonize and offer NO knowledge or substance to the discussion
righhhht and that posters previous sarcastic replies to other posters is, however, totally legit…
easy on the faux selective outrage...
You know full well that the majority of my posts offer advice, help, support and are totally friendly and not at all combative.
I don't go into threads with the sole purpose of tearing down the OP or questioning his or her belief system. You do. Therein lies the difference my friend.0 -
I posted two peer reviewed scientific articles that used HUMANS as a study and people are still arguing about rodents and if this is real. Oi.
I did not know that your posts were the defining conclusion on sugar addiction ….
moar snark plz. you're so good at it.
do you do anything else? :flowerforyou:
look..its a bird, its a plane…nope, its the white knight of MFP here to the rescue!
Do you just ride to the rescue of every person in distress on MFP?
I think you need a new SOP this one is getting played out real fast….
Your post about the "defining conclusion on sugar addiction …. " was confrontational and rude. There were multiple requests for studies and when they were provided ....crickets
People are just tired of the Cliff Clavens that role in threads to offer unsolicited expert opinions on any subject at all. Worse are the court jesters who just antagonize and offer NO knowledge or substance to the discussion
righhhht and that posters previous sarcastic replies to other posters is, however, totally legit…
easy on the faux selective outrage...
You know full well that the majority of my posts offer advice, help, support and are totally friendly and not at all combative.
I don't go into threads with the sole purpose of tearing down the OP or questioning his or her belief system. You do. Therein lies the difference my friend.
I was not referring to you, but way to make it about yourself.0 -
I posted two peer reviewed scientific articles that used HUMANS as a study and people are still arguing about rodents and if this is real. Oi.
I did not know that your posts were the defining conclusion on sugar addiction ….
moar snark plz. you're so good at it.
do you do anything else? :flowerforyou:
look..its a bird, its a plane…nope, its the white knight of MFP here to the rescue!
Do you just ride to the rescue of every person in distress on MFP?
I think you need a new SOP this one is getting played out real fast….
Your post about the "defining conclusion on sugar addiction …. " was confrontational and rude. There were multiple requests for studies and when they were provided ....crickets
People are just tired of the Cliff Clavens that role in threads to offer unsolicited expert opinions on any subject at all. Worse are the court jesters who just antagonize and offer NO knowledge or substance to the discussion
righhhht and that posters previous sarcastic replies to other posters is, however, totally legit…
easy on the faux selective outrage...
You know full well that the majority of my posts offer advice, help, support and are totally friendly and not at all combative.
I don't go into threads with the sole purpose of tearing down the OP or questioning his or her belief system. You do. Therein lies the difference my friend.
I was not referring to you, but way to make it about yourself.
it's all about me babe. :flowerforyou:0 -
Thanks so much for this. Open forums within the scientific community, whether pro or con, is good.[quote
Sugar Showdown: Science Responds to "Fructophobia"
The scientific community lashed out against "sugar is toxic" sensationalism on Sunday, April 22, identifying it as a distraction from more meaningful areas of research and debate on the causes of obesity and disease.
In a highly attended debate at Experimental Biology 2012 in San Diego sponsored by the Corn Refiners Association, scientists expressed clear frustration about the repeated assaults on sugar both in recent news reports and in the scientific literature.
"You don't often see this at a meeting," said John White, Ph.D., of White Technical Research, to me after the event, referring to what he said was "the groundswell of researchers pushing back" against inflammatory remarks and overstatements.
The symposium organized by the American Society for Nutrition showcased both sides of the controversy surrounding the metabolic effects and health implications of sugar—fructose, sucrose, and high-fructose corn syrup—using latest available and emerging scientific findings.
As the first presenter, White presented data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys showing that no correlation existed between total fructose and the prevalence of obesity and that total added sugars and intake of sugar-sweetened beverages have declined for more than a decade.
"The support for fructose as a metabolic threat at current levels of intake is weak," White affirmed.
White also made the point that high-fructose corn syrup and sucrose are not different, suggesting the former might've been more appropriately called "medium-fructose corn syrup" because of its similarity to table sugar and other sugars.
Presenting a contrasting view, George Bray, M.D., chief division of clinical obesity and metabolism, showed data that soft drink consumption had increased from 1950 to 2000. Sugar-sweetened beverages, he argued, provide add-on calories that lead to weight gain, particularly from intra-abdominal fat.
In what promised to be a highly charged attack on sugar, characteristic of his appearance in media reports, Robert Lustig, M.D., began with a title slide displaying: "Fructose: alcohol without the 'buzz'". He argued that fructose metabolism was similar to that of ethanol's and that a "beer belly" was not far off from a "soda belly."
In his limited time, fast-talking Dr. Lustig quickly explained metabolic pathways and repeated remarks that fructose may be addicting to the brain like ethanol, based on animal research, and that fructose may be several times more likely than glucose to form advanced-glycation end products (a hallmark feature of uncontrolled diabetes).
Next to speak was cardiologist James Rippe, M.D., who presented a convincing argument that while fructose alone may have "qualitative differences," they were not "quantitative differences." He argued that research comparing pure fructose to pure glucose was not relevant to human nutrition.
Sharing White's viewpoint, Dr. Rippe added that there were no metabolic differences between the sugars or fructose by itself—that is, there are no clinically meaningful effects on blood lipids at levels consumed by people normally, and no effects on uric acid or blood pressure.
He said the hot topic was an emotional issue creating a "perfect storm" for mistaken identity.
Dr. Rippe said afterward that Dr. Lustig's logic about fructose being uniquely responsible for disease was like going into "an alternate universe" that just did not stand up to scientific scrutiny. Yet it garners attention because of the public's habit of playing "the blame game" mixed with misconceptions about high-fructose corn syrup.
"People called him on it today," Rippe told me. By going to the media directly, he said, Dr. Lustig didn't have to have the same standards of proof that scientists usually must have.
The last presenter was David Klurfeld, Ph.D., of the United States Department of Agriculture, who rounded out the debate again affirming that there was no evidence suggesting that sugar presented a unique metabolic danger.
"Is there a metabolic difference between sugars? Of course," Klurfeld said, "Is it biologically meaningful?" The answer was that it wasn't, according to the available evidence.
"The dose makes the poison," Klurfeld added. Should there be sugar regulation or taxation? There is insufficient data to justify any decision, Klurfeld said, quipping that whole milk would be next.
A question-and-answer period followed the debate giving a voice to disgruntled attendees who called Dr. Lustig out for suggesting that sugar was a metabolic danger. Dr. Lustig agreed that "everything can be toxic" at a dose, but sugar is abused and addictive.
One commenter (later identified as Richard Black, Ph.D., of Kraft Foods) responded saying that media should stop comparing sugar to cocaine by showing images where the brain lights up in the same areas. "The brain is supposed to light up in response to food," he said.
In an amusing but perhaps humbling moment for Dr. Lustig, he singled out the commenter asking if he had children. The commenter responded that he did. Dr. Lustig then asked him if as infants his children more easily liked sweet foods. The commenter said that, yes, of course they did because breast milk was sweet. Dr. Lustig replied that it was not. His reply caused an immediate reaction (notably, from mostly women) in the room who voiced in unison, "Yes, it is!"
John Sievenpiper, M.D., of St. Michael's Hospital told me after the event he was pleased that the speakers framed their arguments in a way that put the controversy in perspective. As shown in recent meta-analyses of which he co-authored, fructose demonstrated no significant effect on body weight or blood pressure in calorie-controlled trials. Fructose also demonstrated improvement of glycemic control at levels comparable to that obtained in fruit.
"It's hard to change people's minds," Dr. Sievenpiper said, stating concern that people would reduce intake of fruit in response to fears about the metabolic effects of fructose.
Don't miss this Storify story from folks on Twitter using the #sugarshowdown hashtag during the debate. Also, check out video blogger Emily Tomayko's recap on the ASN blog here.
Update 24-May-12: As a follow-up to this report, I've posted an interview with Dr. Sievenpiper here. Hopefully, it will help bring more clarity to the issues and answer several questions people have. If you wish to comment, please do so after reading that post. I've now closed comments on this blog post.
Update 8-June-12: Check out videos (just published) of each of the talks. Here they are: White, Lustig, Bray, Rippe, and Klurfeld. Oh, and there is a video of the Q&A too.
http://evolvinghealthscience.blogspot.com/2012/04/sugar-showdown-science-responds-to.html?spref=tw
A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
[/quote]
did you miss this part ....
" the Corn Refiners Association sponsored the symposium and White and Dr. Rippe receive support from industry."
The corn industry hired their guys to share their science and give the opposition no limited time to present. It also had its own writer do this recap ..... referring to "fast talking Dr. Lustig " ... its like the Iraqi defense minister is back.
Comical0 -
Thanks so much for this. Open forums within the scientific community, whether pro or con, is good.[quote
Sugar Showdown: Science Responds to "Fructophobia"
The scientific community lashed out against "sugar is toxic" sensationalism on Sunday, April 22, identifying it as a distraction from more meaningful areas of research and debate on the causes of obesity and disease.
In a highly attended debate at Experimental Biology 2012 in San Diego sponsored by the Corn Refiners Association, scientists expressed clear frustration about the repeated assaults on sugar both in recent news reports and in the scientific literature.
"You don't often see this at a meeting," said John White, Ph.D., of White Technical Research, to me after the event, referring to what he said was "the groundswell of researchers pushing back" against inflammatory remarks and overstatements.
The symposium organized by the American Society for Nutrition showcased both sides of the controversy surrounding the metabolic effects and health implications of sugar—fructose, sucrose, and high-fructose corn syrup—using latest available and emerging scientific findings.
As the first presenter, White presented data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys showing that no correlation existed between total fructose and the prevalence of obesity and that total added sugars and intake of sugar-sweetened beverages have declined for more than a decade.
"The support for fructose as a metabolic threat at current levels of intake is weak," White affirmed.
White also made the point that high-fructose corn syrup and sucrose are not different, suggesting the former might've been more appropriately called "medium-fructose corn syrup" because of its similarity to table sugar and other sugars.
Presenting a contrasting view, George Bray, M.D., chief division of clinical obesity and metabolism, showed data that soft drink consumption had increased from 1950 to 2000. Sugar-sweetened beverages, he argued, provide add-on calories that lead to weight gain, particularly from intra-abdominal fat.
In what promised to be a highly charged attack on sugar, characteristic of his appearance in media reports, Robert Lustig, M.D., began with a title slide displaying: "Fructose: alcohol without the 'buzz'". He argued that fructose metabolism was similar to that of ethanol's and that a "beer belly" was not far off from a "soda belly."
In his limited time, fast-talking Dr. Lustig quickly explained metabolic pathways and repeated remarks that fructose may be addicting to the brain like ethanol, based on animal research, and that fructose may be several times more likely than glucose to form advanced-glycation end products (a hallmark feature of uncontrolled diabetes).
Next to speak was cardiologist James Rippe, M.D., who presented a convincing argument that while fructose alone may have "qualitative differences," they were not "quantitative differences." He argued that research comparing pure fructose to pure glucose was not relevant to human nutrition.
Sharing White's viewpoint, Dr. Rippe added that there were no metabolic differences between the sugars or fructose by itself—that is, there are no clinically meaningful effects on blood lipids at levels consumed by people normally, and no effects on uric acid or blood pressure.
He said the hot topic was an emotional issue creating a "perfect storm" for mistaken identity.
Dr. Rippe said afterward that Dr. Lustig's logic about fructose being uniquely responsible for disease was like going into "an alternate universe" that just did not stand up to scientific scrutiny. Yet it garners attention because of the public's habit of playing "the blame game" mixed with misconceptions about high-fructose corn syrup.
"People called him on it today," Rippe told me. By going to the media directly, he said, Dr. Lustig didn't have to have the same standards of proof that scientists usually must have.
The last presenter was David Klurfeld, Ph.D., of the United States Department of Agriculture, who rounded out the debate again affirming that there was no evidence suggesting that sugar presented a unique metabolic danger.
"Is there a metabolic difference between sugars? Of course," Klurfeld said, "Is it biologically meaningful?" The answer was that it wasn't, according to the available evidence.
"The dose makes the poison," Klurfeld added. Should there be sugar regulation or taxation? There is insufficient data to justify any decision, Klurfeld said, quipping that whole milk would be next.
A question-and-answer period followed the debate giving a voice to disgruntled attendees who called Dr. Lustig out for suggesting that sugar was a metabolic danger. Dr. Lustig agreed that "everything can be toxic" at a dose, but sugar is abused and addictive.
One commenter (later identified as Richard Black, Ph.D., of Kraft Foods) responded saying that media should stop comparing sugar to cocaine by showing images where the brain lights up in the same areas. "The brain is supposed to light up in response to food," he said.
In an amusing but perhaps humbling moment for Dr. Lustig, he singled out the commenter asking if he had children. The commenter responded that he did. Dr. Lustig then asked him if as infants his children more easily liked sweet foods. The commenter said that, yes, of course they did because breast milk was sweet. Dr. Lustig replied that it was not. His reply caused an immediate reaction (notably, from mostly women) in the room who voiced in unison, "Yes, it is!"
John Sievenpiper, M.D., of St. Michael's Hospital told me after the event he was pleased that the speakers framed their arguments in a way that put the controversy in perspective. As shown in recent meta-analyses of which he co-authored, fructose demonstrated no significant effect on body weight or blood pressure in calorie-controlled trials. Fructose also demonstrated improvement of glycemic control at levels comparable to that obtained in fruit.
"It's hard to change people's minds," Dr. Sievenpiper said, stating concern that people would reduce intake of fruit in response to fears about the metabolic effects of fructose.
Don't miss this Storify story from folks on Twitter using the #sugarshowdown hashtag during the debate. Also, check out video blogger Emily Tomayko's recap on the ASN blog here.
Update 24-May-12: As a follow-up to this report, I've posted an interview with Dr. Sievenpiper here. Hopefully, it will help bring more clarity to the issues and answer several questions people have. If you wish to comment, please do so after reading that post. I've now closed comments on this blog post.
Update 8-June-12: Check out videos (just published) of each of the talks. Here they are: White, Lustig, Bray, Rippe, and Klurfeld. Oh, and there is a video of the Q&A too.
http://evolvinghealthscience.blogspot.com/2012/04/sugar-showdown-science-responds-to.html?spref=tw
A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
did you miss this part ....
" the Corn Refiners Association sponsored the symposium and White and Dr. Rippe receive support from industry."
The corn industry hired their guys to share their science and give the opposition no limited time to present. It also had its own writer do this recap ..... referring to "fast talking Dr. Lustig " ... its like the Iraqi defense minister is back.
Comical
[/quote]0 -
Fructose and sugar is killing us makes for a better documentary no doubt about it and god forbid people/companies that actually make it have something to say....... Maybe, just maybe their scientists could talk intelligently with their scientists about how fructose is killing all the children and how mouse models make a sound foundation for context and dosage......I know I'd like to be there.0
-
Well the symposium was sponsored by the American Society for Nutrition. Just because the Corn Refiners Association help sponsor it, it doesn't necessarily mean the information given is untrue. Even Bray conceded on some points about HFCS that were misrepresented. And other non industry scientist also chimed in. I'm sure that there are other write ups from it. Maybe these will suffice and satisfy you more?did you miss this part ....
" the Corn Refiners Association sponsored the symposium and White and Dr. Rippe receive support from industry."
The corn industry hired their guys to share their science and give the opposition no limited time to present. It also had its own writer do this recap ..... referring to "fast talking Dr. Lustig " ... its like the Iraqi defense minister is back.
Comical
http://sweetenerstudies.com/sites/default/files/resources/files/Scientific-Review-of-Lustigs-Fat-Chance.pdf
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/scientists-conclude-no-significant-metabolic-difference-between-consuming-high-fructose-corn-syrup-and-sugar-198240241.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2012/05/09/high-fructose-corn-syrup-debate-gets-sticky/
A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
I think it's easier as you get older. Your tastebuds mature and change. I used to adore sugary treats but now I find that I can hardly stomach some of them anymore.
Now, I like the way plain yogurt tastes and I used to use the kind with as much sugar as a candy bar. I'm OK with no sugar in my coffee whereas I used to use FIVE. I even got 365 Brand peanut butter for my peanut butter cups.
Yes, I still like a good piece of cake. But it has to be GOOD.
How old do you have to be? I'm going to be 53 this year and have not found this to be true. I mean, sure I want cake to be good, but that was always true. Who wants to eat bad cake?
I've become accustomed to denying myself too many sugary treats, but they still taste as good as ever.
I was wondering the same thing. I'm 49 and love it as much as I did when I was 15, Maybe when we're 90?
0 -
Fructose and sugar is killing us makes for a better documentary no doubt about it and god forbid people/companies that actually make it have something to say....... Maybe, just maybe their scientists could talk intelligently with their scientists about how fructose is killing all the children and how mouse models make a sound foundation for context and dosage......I know I'd like to be there.
People should be able to stick up for their industries, but an article so biased in nature shouldn't be thrown out there as "proof" of anything. Just so your clear, I called the seminar out as ridiculous propaganda, a commercial not much different than a Bounty paper towel ad vs the "leading competition".
Why dont you offer the OP advice on kicking her sugar issue, she never said anything (or did I) about the differences in sugars. She just wants ideas of stopping her habit/addiction.0 -
Well the symposium was sponsored by the American Society for Nutrition. Just because the Corn Refiners Association help sponsor it, it doesn't necessarily mean the information given is untrue. Even Bray conceded on some points about HFCS that were misrepresented. And other non industry scientist also chimed in. I'm sure that there are other write ups from it. Maybe these will suffice and satisfy you more?did you miss this part ....
" the Corn Refiners Association sponsored the symposium and White and Dr. Rippe receive support from industry."
The corn industry hired their guys to share their science and give the opposition no limited time to present. It also had its own writer do this recap ..... referring to "fast talking Dr. Lustig " ... its like the Iraqi defense minister is back.
Comical
http://sweetenerstudies.com/sites/default/files/resources/files/Scientific-Review-of-Lustigs-Fat-Chance.pdf
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/scientists-conclude-no-significant-metabolic-difference-between-consuming-high-fructose-corn-syrup-and-sugar-198240241.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2012/05/09/high-fructose-corn-syrup-debate-gets-sticky/
A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Whoa, I am not fan of Lustag. Just because I call out the the other seminar as a commercial doesnt mean I am signing up for Lustag. The example I was showing by mentioning his name was the dismissive shots the author (not seminar) took at him.
We need unbiased research, and its incredibly difficult to find.
People can go on google, find what you want to say and then post it without qualifying anything..
In this article you selected, http://sweetenerstudies.com/sites/default/files/resources/files/Scientific-Review-of-Lustigs-Fat-Chance.pdf
someone could have gone 1 step farther and see the credibility of the article and Kern, guess who helps pay his bills.
http://www.slideshare.net/SweetenerStudies/flda-breakfast-2013-susan-mitchell-revised-24175598
http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0040005
http://www.foodpolitics.com/2013/11/conflicts-of-interest-in-nutrition-societies-american-society-of-nutrition/
It would be incorrect to assume my position on this. I dont have enough clear information. Circling back to the OP, she wanted help on curing her sugar/habit addiction......... as many don't share your extremely tight definition of what an addiction is, she should have been entitled to here thread, suggestions, without being mocked (by others not you) or have this thread derailed.0 -
Well the symposium was sponsored by the American Society for Nutrition. Just because the Corn Refiners Association help sponsor it, it doesn't necessarily mean the information given is untrue. Even Bray conceded on some points about HFCS that were misrepresented. And other non industry scientist also chimed in. I'm sure that there are other write ups from it. Maybe these will suffice and satisfy you more?did you miss this part ....
" the Corn Refiners Association sponsored the symposium and White and Dr. Rippe receive support from industry."
The corn industry hired their guys to share their science and give the opposition no limited time to present. It also had its own writer do this recap ..... referring to "fast talking Dr. Lustig " ... its like the Iraqi defense minister is back.
Comical
http://sweetenerstudies.com/sites/default/files/resources/files/Scientific-Review-of-Lustigs-Fat-Chance.pdf
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/scientists-conclude-no-significant-metabolic-difference-between-consuming-high-fructose-corn-syrup-and-sugar-198240241.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2012/05/09/high-fructose-corn-syrup-debate-gets-sticky/
A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Whoa, I am not fan of Lustag. Just because I call out the the other seminar as a commercial doesnt mean I am signing up for Lustag. The example I was showing by mentioning his name was the dismissive shots the author (not seminar) took at him.
We need unbiased research, and its incredibly difficult to find.
People can go on google, find what you want to say and then post it without qualifying anything..
In this article you selected, http://sweetenerstudies.com/sites/default/files/resources/files/Scientific-Review-of-Lustigs-Fat-Chance.pdf
someone could have gone 1 step farther and see the credibility of the article and Kern, guess who helps pay his bills.
http://www.slideshare.net/SweetenerStudies/flda-breakfast-2013-susan-mitchell-revised-24175598
http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0040005
http://www.foodpolitics.com/2013/11/conflicts-of-interest-in-nutrition-societies-american-society-of-nutrition/
It would be incorrect to assume my position on this. I dont have enough clear information. Circling back to the OP, she wanted help on curing her sugar/habit addiction......... as many don't share your extremely tight definition of what an addiction is, she should have been entitled to here thread, suggestions, without being mocked (by others not you) or have this thread derailed.
I love it when people make sense. Great post.
0 -
Well the symposium was sponsored by the American Society for Nutrition. Just because the Corn Refiners Association help sponsor it, it doesn't necessarily mean the information given is untrue. Even Bray conceded on some points about HFCS that were misrepresented. And other non industry scientist also chimed in. I'm sure that there are other write ups from it. Maybe these will suffice and satisfy you more?did you miss this part ....
" the Corn Refiners Association sponsored the symposium and White and Dr. Rippe receive support from industry."
The corn industry hired their guys to share their science and give the opposition no limited time to present. It also had its own writer do this recap ..... referring to "fast talking Dr. Lustig " ... its like the Iraqi defense minister is back.
Comical
http://sweetenerstudies.com/sites/default/files/resources/files/Scientific-Review-of-Lustigs-Fat-Chance.pdf
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/scientists-conclude-no-significant-metabolic-difference-between-consuming-high-fructose-corn-syrup-and-sugar-198240241.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2012/05/09/high-fructose-corn-syrup-debate-gets-sticky/
A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Whoa, I am not fan of Lustag. Just because I call out the the other seminar as a commercial doesnt mean I am signing up for Lustag. The example I was showing by mentioning his name was the dismissive shots the author (not seminar) took at him.
We need unbiased research, and its incredibly difficult to find.
People can go on google, find what you want to say and then post it without qualifying anything..
In this article you selected, http://sweetenerstudies.com/sites/default/files/resources/files/Scientific-Review-of-Lustigs-Fat-Chance.pdf
someone could have gone 1 step farther and see the credibility of the article and Kern, guess who helps pay his bills.
http://www.slideshare.net/SweetenerStudies/flda-breakfast-2013-susan-mitchell-revised-24175598
http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0040005
http://www.foodpolitics.com/2013/11/conflicts-of-interest-in-nutrition-societies-american-society-of-nutrition/
It would be incorrect to assume my position on this. I dont have enough clear information. Circling back to the OP, she wanted help on curing her sugar/habit addiction......... as many don't share your extremely tight definition of what an addiction is, she should have been entitled to here thread, suggestions, without being mocked (by others not you) or have this thread derailed.
:flowerforyou:0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 402 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 997 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions