Stop singling out sugar
Replies
-
No, I didn't. Not at any point in time. Perhaps you should read my posts.While you did not say that sugar was evil, you did dispute the real issue is total caloric intake
yes, I did say that. As evidence supports it... and that over consumption of sugar independent of total caloric intake isn't healthy and likely has deleterious effects.
Really? Well that's entirely your right, but considering there are multiple epidemiological studies linking sugar consumption to CVD and other diseases, and multiple trials which show a reduction of sugar consumption improves bio-markers of health, I'm satisfied you're incorrect. How do you counter those?... Depending on how you define over consumption, I think there is a lack of evidence to make those claims.
Really? Show me any evidence of that.It's entirely possible that one could get in sufficient macro and micro nutrients in a hypocaloric state or maintenance AND over consume sugar yet be "healthy" however you want to define healthy and unhealthy
I hope that's not your only evidence.
Problem 1: A small study of 42 overweight women over only six weeks.
Problem 2: Although one diet is higher in sucrose, they are both very similar in carb, fat and protein content. The "low-sucrose" group got the remainder of their carbohydrate from extremely high-GI starches (white rice, white bread) which behave in the body very similarly to sucrose.
Not to mention the data show the low-sucrose group had:
1) greater overall weight-loss;
2) much-better fasting blood-glucose;
3) greater total cholesterol improvement, and;
4) greater LDL-C improvements
... than the high-sucrose group - which rather throws a wrench in your argument.
There is simply no reputable data which suggests a high-sugar diet is healthy.
Do you seriously use the ONE study above (which showed better lab results for the low-sucrose group) to counter the dozens of studies reviewed by medical experts before reaching their positions on limiting overall sugar consumption?
Seriously?0 -
No, I didn't. Not at any point in time. Perhaps you should read my posts.While you did not say that sugar was evil, you did dispute the real issue is total caloric intake
yes, I did say that. As evidence supports it... and that over consumption of sugar independent of total caloric intake isn't healthy and likely has deleterious effects.
Really? Well that's entirely your right, but considering there are multiple epidemiological studies linking sugar consumption to CVD and other diseases, and multiple trials which show a reduction of sugar consumption improves bio-markers of health, I'm satisfied you're incorrect. How do you counter those?... Depending on how you define over consumption, I think there is a lack of evidence to make those claims.
Really? Show me any evidence of that.It's entirely possible that one could get in sufficient macro and micro nutrients in a hypocaloric state or maintenance AND over consume sugar yet be "healthy" however you want to define healthy and unhealthy
I hope that's not your only evidence.
Problem 1: A small study of 42 overweight women over only six weeks.
Problem 2: Although one diet is higher in sucrose, they are both very similar in carb, fat and protein content. The "low-sucrose" group got the remainder of their carbohydrate from extremely high-GI starches (white rice, white bread) which behave in the body very similarly to sucrose.
Not to mention the data show the low-sucrose group had:
1) greater overall weight-loss;
2) much-better fasting blood-glucose;
3) greater total cholesterol improvement, and;
4) greater LDL-C improvements
... than the high-sucrose group - which rather throws a wrench in your argument.
There is simply no reputable data which suggests a high-sugar diet is healthy.
Do you seriously use the ONE study above (which showed better lab results for the low-sucrose group) to counter the dozens of studies reviewed by medical experts before reaching their positions on limiting overall sugar consumption?
Seriously?yes, I did say that. As evidence supports it.
What evidence, the epidemiological "evidence" that you posted, including the recent one in which Lustig was an author and in no way does he have a conflict of interestReally? Well that's entirely your right, but considering there are multiple epidemiological studies linking sugar consumption to CVD and other diseases, and multiple trials which show a reduction of sugar consumption improves bio-markers of health, I'm satisfied you're incorrect. How do you counter those?
Again that's all epidemlogical studies can do is link it to CVD, there are numerous confounders. But where are the trials where increase in sugar consumption worsens the bio markers, particularly ones in which the subjects were in a hypocaloric state?Problem 2: Although one diet is higher in sucrose, they are both very similar in carb, fat and protein content. The "low-sucrose" group got the remainder of their carbohydrate from extremely high-GI starches (white rice, white bread) which behave in the body very similarly to sucrose.
If you take issue with that, how did any of the studies you posted control for high GI starches?Not to mention the data show the low-sucrose group had:
1) greater overall weight-loss;
2) much-better fasting blood-glucose;
3) greater total cholesterol improvement, and;
4) greater LDL-C improvements
... than the high-sucrose group - which rather throws a wrench in your argument.
Wait were any of those significantly different from each other?There is simply no reputable data which suggests a high-sugar diet is healthy.
I suspect all those silly fruitarians will be dropping dead of CVD any min now0 -
Whether or not Lustig assisted in authoring anything shouldn't automatically discredit it. Lustig is focused on fructose more than anything else - and this is a conversation on sugar as a whole.yes, I did say that. As evidence supports it.
What evidence, the epidemiological "evidence" that you posted, including the recent one in which Lustig was an author and in no way does he have a conflict of interest.
Do you consider all epidemiological evidence something we should just ignore? That seems to be your argument...
There are none, because none have been done that I know of.Really? Well that's entirely your right, but considering there are multiple epidemiological studies linking sugar consumption to CVD and other diseases, and multiple trials which show a reduction of sugar consumption improves bio-markers of health, I'm satisfied you're incorrect. How do you counter those?
Again that's all epidemlogical studies can do is link it to CVD, there are numerous confounders. But where are the trials where increase in sugar consumption worsens the bio markers, particularly ones in which the subjects were in a hypocaloric state?
What we *DO* have is evidence that over-consumption of sugar may be unhealthy, combined with evidence that reducing it improves health. Why would you choose to ignore that, and do you suggest people choose to ignore it?
I only looked at the one you posted. If you have issues with the other, YOU can go through those and attempt to discredit them, as I don't have time right now.Problem 2: Although one diet is higher in sucrose, they are both very similar in carb, fat and protein content. The "low-sucrose" group got the remainder of their carbohydrate from extremely high-GI starches (white rice, white bread) which behave in the body very similarly to sucrose.
If you take issue with that, how did any of the studies you posted control for high GI starches?
If you mean statistically, yes.Not to mention the data show the low-sucrose group had:
1) greater overall weight-loss;
2) much-better fasting blood-glucose;
3) greater total cholesterol improvement, and;
4) greater LDL-C improvements
... than the high-sucrose group - which rather throws a wrench in your argument.
Wait were any of those significantly different from each other?
Fasting glucose: The high-sucrose group experienced an improvement of 2.05% from baseline, the low-sucrose group improved 5.8%
Total Cholesterol: The high-sucrose group experienced an improvement of 11.8% from baseline, whereas the low-sucrose group improved by 24.9% - that's a huge difference, and is statistically significant.
LDL: The high-sucrose group experienced an improvement of 3.8% from baseline, whereas the low-sucrose group improved by 27.7% ... again, a HUGE difference and very statistically significant.
Triglycerides - high sucrose group, just over 10%. Low-sucrose group - 22.8%.
All those improvements are statistically significant.
Likely the B12 deficiency will get them first.There is simply no reputable data which suggests a high-sugar diet is healthy.
I suspect all those silly fruitarians will be dropping dead of CVD any min now0 -
Well reasoned, but I guarantee that several will attack this because the Corn Refiners Association was involved and therefore it must be wrong . . .
^^^^^^ Agree.0 -
By the same argument, doesn't that mean people in support of eating ever-increasing amounts of sugar can no longer dispute articles or research that have some Lustig involvement? :-)Well reasoned, but I guarantee that several will attack this because the Corn Refiners Association was involved and therefore it must be wrong . . .
^^^^^^ Agree.0 -
By the same argument, doesn't that mean people in support of eating ever-increasing amounts of sugar can no longer dispute articles or research that have some Lustig involvement? :-)Well reasoned, but I guarantee that several will attack this because the Corn Refiners Association was involved and therefore it must be wrong . . .
^^^^^^ Agree.
No because funding research and conducting research are two separate things? I see the point you're trying to make, but that's comparing two different parts of how research happens.0 -
So we have to ignore bias in cases where those funding the research are biased (and, as-such the entire research team is working toward a specific conclusion), but if a researcher has a bias, regardless of funding source we completely dismiss research?No because funding research and conducting research are two separate things? I see the point you're trying to make, but that's comparing two different parts of how research happens.
That makes sense. . . *rolls eyes*
I'm thinking from what people are saying that this is a case where research is dismissed due to bias ONLY if it suits your opinion on a subject . . .
You can't have it both ways, folks.0 -
That's not how science works. That's how Lustig works. Funding source has no bearing on the research. However, a biased researcher has a direct effect on the research. Also, biased research doesn't pass peer review. Keep in mind, Lustig doesn't do his own research, he specifically cherry picks studies that others have done that support his biased conclusions, while ignoring all research that refutes his conclusions. Your analogy doesn't hold up.
So we have to ignore bias in cases where those funding the research are biased (and, as-such the entire research team is working toward a specific conclusion), but if a researcher has a bias, regardless of funding source we completely dismiss research?No because funding research and conducting research are two separate things? I see the point you're trying to make, but that's comparing two different parts of how research happens.
That makes sense. . . *rolls eyes*
I'm thinking from what people are saying that this is a case where research is dismissed due to bias ONLY if it suits your opinion on a subject . . .
You can't have it both ways, folks.0 -
No0
-
So we have to ignore bias in cases where those funding the research are biased (and, as-such the entire research team is working toward a specific conclusion), but if a researcher has a bias, regardless of funding source we completely dismiss research?No because funding research and conducting research are two separate things? I see the point you're trying to make, but that's comparing two different parts of how research happens.
That makes sense. . . *rolls eyes*
I'm thinking from what people are saying that this is a case where research is dismissed due to bias ONLY if it suits your opinion on a subject . . .
You can't have it both ways, folks.
THIS. I was thinking the same thing as I read through the thread. One lady listed a website that was quickly dismissed for trying to sell something, but no one seems to understand that the Corn Refiner's Association is ALSO selling something??? Who has more to lose???
The main issue is: how much is too much? People keep saying moderation and eat a moderate amount of sugar, but really, the problem is that many, if not most, Americans daily intake is way over the amounts that are recommended to us. So I will continue to read ALL the research and studies, not just those that support what I WANT to think, and draw my own conclusions.0 -
Really? You know him personally and can confirm this?That's not how science works. That's how Lustig works.
What? And you think I don't know how science works? LOL.Funding source has no bearing on the research.
Research funded by a biased source uses biased researchers, period. To think otherwise is exceptionally naive.However, a biased researcher has a direct effect on the research.
Now we KNOW that you don't understand science at all. Bad research of all kinds passes peer-review ALL THE TIME. That's an ugly truth about peer-review that's easily verified.Also, biased research doesn't pass peer review.
Lustig has done considerable research on his own. Taubes certainly cherry-picks, and isn't a researcher ... but Lustig is most-definitely a researcher. Do I agree with everything he says? Certainly not. Do I think his contribution is valuable in getting people to talk about sugar in the diet? Absolutely.Keep in mind, Lustig doesn't do his own research, he specifically cherry picks studies that others have done that support his biased conclusions, while ignoring all research that refutes his conclusions. Your analogy doesn't hold up.
No offense is intended here, but your comment shows you know little about research, less about peer-review and not much about Lustig except some overly-biased opinions of your own. Which, I'm guessing we have to ignore.
*sigh*0 -
The proof, as they say, is in the pudding.0
-
great post newmeadow.0
-
Interesting thread. I read the whole thing. I hope it doesn't disappear due to the controversy this subject excites.
I lost 70 lbs. 8 years ago eliminating cane/corn sugar, potato, legumes and grain. It took eight months. I didn't exercise at all and I had no loose skin. I was 39 going into 40 years of age then. I was still 25 lbs. short of my goal.
I don't have the scientific background or data to explain this but I will list the health benefits I enjoyed by eating this way:
1) Normalized gastrointestinal function - a far cry from where I was before
2) Lifelong cystic acne - gone for the first time in my life. My dermatologist had said my only hope was Accutane - the last resort for acne sufferers and a very dangerous drug. I gave up these foods and it was like a miracle. It took about 6 months to go away.
3) Apnea stopped. And long before the weight came off. It went away 2 weeks into eating this way.
4) Intermittent irregular heartbeat. Had it since I was 12. It went away one week into the diet and never returned (until I picked up the ravioli again 8 months later.)
5) Depression (and I don't use this term loosely). I won't get into the details but I'm talkin' real depression. One month into eating this way I had alleviated 80% of it. I felt like a different person for the first time in my adult life. ( I have never taken any SSRIs)
6) Muscle twitches - another chronic annoyance. Gone early into this.
7) Excess mucous production - alleviated a few days into the diet.
8) Chronic cough. 75% eliminated. The remainder easily controlled with occasional spray albuterol.
9) Tinnitus - gone two weeks into the diet.
10) Debilitating muscle aches/stiffness - my favorite side effect. 75% alleviated the first month. 85% alleviated after 6 months. With no exercise.
11) Chronic colds/flus - never had one during the 8 months. Normally I have six bouts a year.
12) Lifelong Gingivitis despite brushing/flossing - went away.
13) Lifelong seborrheic dermatitis of the scalp. Gone after one week.
14) Crushing fatigue. And I do mean crushing. Lifted 4 months into this way of eating.
15) My voice changed. I had a slight raspy undertone. My voice became completely clear.
16) Chronic sinusitis. Gone.
17) Ocular pain/pressure. Gone.
18) Chronic stinging during urination. Gone within days.
19) Prickly, traveling, nonspecific stabby pains throughout the body. For 16 years. Very scary. After two weeks eating this way they went away.
20) Menstrual abnormalities. I would bleed constantly with a week or two without bleeding and then it would start again. This went on for 5 years. No medical explanation after many checkups. Two months into this way of eating it stopped and never happened again.
That's all I can think of right now.
I've stayed on caloric deficit diets for months at a time and lost two pounds a week. So, yeah, I lost weigh this way and I wasn't that hungry either. But the symptoms above were not alleviated. I lost weight and felt sated but I was sick all the time.
There's something to say about giving up cane sugar/corn sweetener plus grains and starches.
I continued to use artificial sweetener during these 8 months. It was a crutch. I knew it but I did it anyway.
I wasn't on keto or paleo. I ate 3 to 5 fruit servings a day plus a pound or two of vegetables a day. I ate plenty of oil and 4 oz of animal protein at each meal. There was plenty of food and it was good.
I'm back in the starchy sweet foods and drinks again and have stopped logging for about a week now. I feel awful. I want to go back to this way of eating. Also I want to post a daily update of all the health benefits it brings, in real time as a reminder to myself and to whatever extent it can help others. Just typing this out now makes me realize what I have to do. Why squander a blessing like this? If I hadn't experienced it myself I would have never believed it.
I realize everyone doesn't have the same lousy health I do. For folks who can eat bread and pasta and Mounds bars, why not? Go ahead and do it. I would if I could. But I can't eat that food and feel good. I just can't and I know I'm not the only one.
Sounds coincidental!
0 -
Sounds coincidental!
[/quote]
[/quote]
I thought I was onto a winner when cutting grain eliminated my indigestion. You are just showing off though.0 -
Most of all cancers feed off sugar. Want cancer? Eat up. (Only a few rare varieties feed off of one or two amino acids, vast majority of cancers feed off sugar)
I got this from a book written by an educated doctor:
"Cancer as a Metabolic Disease: On the Origin, Management, and Prevention of Cancer" by Thomas N. Seyfried, Ph.D., University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
"The textbook brings together methods and findings regarding the sources and prevention of cancer that Dr. Seyfried has spent years working on at Boston College and Yale University. "
So yeah, just because you CAN live on sugars, doesn't mean it's the best idea, even in moderation. There are other paths. People put on ketogenic diets (high fat, medium protein, low carb diets) can reverse diabetes, reduce cancer tumors (or completely prevent them if they didn't have them yet).
I'd rather trust a Ph.D. who worked at Yale as an assistant professor than an OP I've never heard of. :-)
Do you even science?
Might want to actually read the book before you claim that research done at Yale University is not science, lol.0 -
Most of all cancers feed off sugar. Want cancer? Eat up. (Only a few rare varieties feed off of one or two amino acids, vast majority of cancers feed off sugar)
I got this from a book written by an educated doctor:
"Cancer as a Metabolic Disease: On the Origin, Management, and Prevention of Cancer" by Thomas N. Seyfried, Ph.D., University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
"The textbook brings together methods and findings regarding the sources and prevention of cancer that Dr. Seyfried has spent years working on at Boston College and Yale University. "
So yeah, just because you CAN live on sugars, doesn't mean it's the best idea, even in moderation. There are other paths. People put on ketogenic diets (high fat, medium protein, low carb diets) can reverse diabetes, reduce cancer tumors (or completely prevent them if they didn't have them yet).
I'd rather trust a Ph.D. who worked at Yale as an assistant professor than an OP I've never heard of. :-)
Cancer is not a life form. It doesn't "feed off" anything. It refers to a group of diseases in which abnormal versions of your own body cells continue to replicate without stopping. What causes cancer is mutation, which is naturally occurring and happens all the time. When that mutation also leads to rapid cell division and shoves other cells out of the way, problem.
But since you did mention "rather trust" go to the Mayo Clinic website and see that sugar is listed under cancer myths.
Lol, sorry, but no. Yale research > Mayo Clinic.
And obviously, my lazy formulation of the sentence led you to think I do not know what cancer is. I obviously meant that abnormal cancerous cells feed off sugars only while healthy cells can feed on ketones and sugar. Cells = life form.0 -
Most of all cancers feed off sugar. Want cancer? Eat up. (Only a few rare varieties feed off of one or two amino acids, vast majority of cancers feed off sugar)
I got this from a book written by an educated doctor:
"Cancer as a Metabolic Disease: On the Origin, Management, and Prevention of Cancer" by Thomas N. Seyfried, Ph.D., University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
"The textbook brings together methods and findings regarding the sources and prevention of cancer that Dr. Seyfried has spent years working on at Boston College and Yale University. "
So yeah, just because you CAN live on sugars, doesn't mean it's the best idea, even in moderation. There are other paths. People put on ketogenic diets (high fat, medium protein, low carb diets) can reverse diabetes, reduce cancer tumors (or completely prevent them if they didn't have them yet).
I'd rather trust a Ph.D. who worked at Yale as an assistant professor than an OP I've never heard of. :-)
Cancer is not a life form. It doesn't "feed off" anything. It refers to a group of diseases in which abnormal versions of your own body cells continue to replicate without stopping. What causes cancer is mutation, which is naturally occurring and happens all the time. When that mutation also leads to rapid cell division and shoves other cells out of the way, problem.
But since you did mention "rather trust" go to the Mayo Clinic website and see that sugar is listed under cancer myths.
Lol, sorry, but no. Yale research > Mayo Clinic.
And obviously, my lazy formulation of the sentence led you to think I do not know what cancer is. I obviously meant that abnormal cancerous cells feed off sugars only while healthy cells can feed on ketones and sugar. Cells = life form.
Appeal to authority
Can you please tell me how of these are on humans?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Seyfried+tn0 -
Wow, that's an impressive claim. And completely unsupported by any scientific research to-date.I got this from a book written by an educated doctor:
"People put on ketogenic diets (high fat, medium protein, low carb diets) can reverse diabetes, reduce cancer tumors (or completely prevent them if they didn't have them yet)."
There is growing evidence that a ketogenic diet *MAY* be beneficial in treating certain cancers, but most of the research so-far has had huge attrition rates, and currently the weight of the evidence simply does not support the case you present.
The biggest problem is that keto-adaptation itself is a difficult physiological transition for many people to go through - even healthy people. Keto-adaptation while dealing with cancer and the standard treatments (ie: chemo/radiation therapy, etc.) is just too-much for most study participants to handle.
The things you stated are NOT the opinion of Yale, nor are the ideas endorsed by Yale.Lol, sorry, but no. Yale research > Mayo Clinic.
The complex relationship between dietary sugar and cancer is still being researched. There's overwhelming evidence that links (not proves causation) obesity to certain types of cancer, and most research is leaning towards hyperinsulinemia - as a result of insulin-resistance - being the culprit here, but it's still being studied and there simply is no medical or scientific consensus at this time.0 -
Most of all cancers feed off sugar. Want cancer? Eat up. (Only a few rare varieties feed off of one or two amino acids, vast majority of cancers feed off sugar)
I got this from a book written by an educated doctor:
"Cancer as a Metabolic Disease: On the Origin, Management, and Prevention of Cancer" by Thomas N. Seyfried, Ph.D., University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
"The textbook brings together methods and findings regarding the sources and prevention of cancer that Dr. Seyfried has spent years working on at Boston College and Yale University. "
So yeah, just because you CAN live on sugars, doesn't mean it's the best idea, even in moderation. There are other paths. People put on ketogenic diets (high fat, medium protein, low carb diets) can reverse diabetes, reduce cancer tumors (or completely prevent them if they didn't have them yet).
I'd rather trust a Ph.D. who worked at Yale as an assistant professor than an OP I've never heard of. :-)
Cancer is not a life form. It doesn't "feed off" anything. It refers to a group of diseases in which abnormal versions of your own body cells continue to replicate without stopping. What causes cancer is mutation, which is naturally occurring and happens all the time. When that mutation also leads to rapid cell division and shoves other cells out of the way, problem.
But since you did mention "rather trust" go to the Mayo Clinic website and see that sugar is listed under cancer myths.
Lol, sorry, but no. Yale research > Mayo Clinic.
And obviously, my lazy formulation of the sentence led you to think I do not know what cancer is. I obviously meant that abnormal cancerous cells feed off sugars only while healthy cells can feed on ketones and sugar. Cells = life form.
Appeal to authority
Can you please tell me how of these are on humans?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Seyfried+tn
These are just cherry-picked areas of the book. If you have the actual book, you should read Chapter 20: Case Studies and Person Experiences in Using the Ketogenic Diet for Cancer Management.
It goes over various experiences in using the ketogenic diet on humans, not mice. Of course they go over some research with mice in the beginning, all theories like this have to be tested on animals first.0 -
Wow, that's an impressive claim. And completely unsupported by any scientific research to-date.I got this from a book written by an educated doctor:
"People put on ketogenic diets (high fat, medium protein, low carb diets) can reverse diabetes, reduce cancer tumors (or completely prevent them if they didn't have them yet)."
There is growing evidence that a ketogenic diet *MAY* be beneficial in treating certain cancers, but most of the research so-far has had huge attrition rates, and currently the weight of the evidence simply does not support the case you present.
The biggest problem is that keto-adaptation itself is a difficult physiological transition for many people to go through - even healthy people. Keto-adaptation while dealing with cancer and the standard treatments (ie: chemo/radiation therapy, etc.) is just too-much for most study participants to handle.
The things you stated are NOT the opinion of Yale, nor are the ideas endorsed by Yale.Lol, sorry, but no. Yale research > Mayo Clinic.
The complex relationship between dietary sugar and cancer is still being researched. There's overwhelming evidence that links (not proves causation) obesity to certain types of cancer, and most research is leaning towards hyperinsulinemia - as a result of insulin-resistance - being the culprit here, but it's still being studied and there simply is no medical or scientific consensus at this time.
The author of the book was an assistant professor at Yale for some time and has a college degree. This invariably links him to Yale. People who write articles on Mayo Clinic are the same. They may not even be employed there anymore or at all.
Also, I never claimed anything was the CAUSE of cancer. Nobody knows the exact cause yet. A few rare kinds have been found to be caused by genetic damage, however the cause of the vast majorities of cancer are still unknown. What I said is that cancerous cells feed off of sugar only.
To put it in perspective, it's like saying humans eat food. It doesn't matter where humans come from, they still eat food, and if they stop eating for too long, they die.
This is already becoming well-known. As far as I can remember, I read somewhere that most people constantly have minor forms of cancers, but the body gets it under control. Unfortunately, I can't remember where I read this particular bit of info. Feeding the cancer will only make it worse, not feeding it would obviously act preventive.0 -
Wow, that's an impressive claim. And completely unsupported by any scientific research to-date.I got this from a book written by an educated doctor:
"People put on ketogenic diets (high fat, medium protein, low carb diets) can reverse diabetes, reduce cancer tumors (or completely prevent them if they didn't have them yet)."
There is growing evidence that a ketogenic diet *MAY* be beneficial in treating certain cancers, but most of the research so-far has had huge attrition rates, and currently the weight of the evidence simply does not support the case you present.
The biggest problem is that keto-adaptation itself is a difficult physiological transition for many people to go through - even healthy people. Keto-adaptation while dealing with cancer and the standard treatments (ie: chemo/radiation therapy, etc.) is just too-much for most study participants to handle.
The things you stated are NOT the opinion of Yale, nor are the ideas endorsed by Yale.Lol, sorry, but no. Yale research > Mayo Clinic.
The complex relationship between dietary sugar and cancer is still being researched. There's overwhelming evidence that links (not proves causation) obesity to certain types of cancer, and most research is leaning towards hyperinsulinemia - as a result of insulin-resistance - being the culprit here, but it's still being studied and there simply is no medical or scientific consensus at this time.
The author of the book was an assistant professor at Yale for some time and has a college degree. This invariably links him to Yale. People who write articles on Mayo Clinic are the same. They may not even be employed there anymore or at all.
Also, I never claimed anything was the CAUSE of cancer. Nobody knows the exact cause yet. A few rare kinds have been found to be caused by genetic damage, however the cause of the vast majorities of cancer are still unknown. What I said is that cancerous cells feed off of sugar only.
To put it in perspective, it's like saying humans eat food. It doesn't matter where humans come from, they still eat food, and if they stop eating for too long, they die.
This is already becoming well-known. As far as I can remember, I read somewhere that most people constantly have minor forms of cancers, but the body gets it under control. Unfortunately, I can't remember where I read this particular bit of info. Feeding the cancer will only make it worse, not feeding it would obviously act preventive.
My wife brought up these arguments with her oncologist when she was going through chemo and he laughed at them. Sure, starve the cancer by eating zero sugar and let's see who survives the longest, the cancer or the patient. Good luck with that . . .0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Nods head and as for epidemiological evidence driving policy, points at Willett and his ilk
http://evolvinghealth.wordpress.com/2014/04/27/stop-singling-out-sugar/#more-1196It’s been called “deadly,” “toxic,” and “poison”. Today there’s no shortage of books, news articles, and journal articles singling out the sweet substance as the scapegoat for all of society’s ills. These include obesity, metabolic syndrome factors such as high blood pressure, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), type-2 diabetes, and cardiovascular disease.
Providing the most recent fodder for anti-sugar headlines in several media channels was the World Health Organization (WHO) recommendation to halve intake of sugar in draft guidelines released on March 5 for public consultation (now closed). It provided strong recommendations to reduce intake of free sugars and to limit intake of free sugars to less than 10 percent of calories per day, as well as a conditional recommendation to further reduce free sugars to below 5 percent of calories for additional benefits for body weight and dental caries.
But what does the evidence really say about sugar’s impact on health to warrant such low doses? How does it really compare with other sources of carbohydrates and calories in foods and beverages? And, is the focus on fructose as a monosaccharide warranted in finding a real answer to improving public health? Challenging the WHO and others for spreading fears about sugar unfairly were scientists in a symposium on Saturday, April 26. The event, supported and sponsored by the Corn Refiners Association, took place during the American Society for Nutrition 2014 Scientific Sessions and Annual Meeting at Experimental Biology in San Diego.
Dr. John Sievenpiper, of St. Michael’s Hospital in Toronto, compared all the attention surrounding sugar to that of fat consumption in the 1950s. Like with fat in those earlier years, he said it’s difficult to separate out how fructose-containing sugars contribute to obesity and cardiometabolic disease. A lot of the reason is due to small effects and lack of demonstrated harm of sucrose, high-fructose corn syrup, or fructose over other sources of excess calories in the diet.
“There are many pathways to overconsumption leading to weight gain,” Dr. Sievenpiper said. “Attention needs to remain focused on reducing overconsumption. We need to get away from a single nutrient approach and focus on total diet and dietary patterns to improve health.”
When interpreting results of trial designs relating to sugar, Dr. Sievenpiper said, it’s important to “follow the energy.” For example: Isocaloric or “substitution” trials are those where energy from sugars are substituted for other sources of energy in the diet; hypercaloric or “addition trials” are where energy from sugars are added to the diet; while hypocaloric or “substraction” trials are where energy from sugars are substracted from the diet.
It shouldn’t be surprising that the addition of excess energy from sugars in hypercaloric trials would lead to increased weight gain. There is consistent evidence, Sievenpiper said, that hypercaloric feeding of sugar and fructose promotes weight gain, fasting and postprandial dyslipidemia, raised uric acid levels, and NAFLD. But these effects all are attributable to the excess energy rather than the fructose itself.
The WHO draft recommendations, Dr. Sievenpiper pointed out, were based mainly on evidence that addition of excess energy from sugars increased body weight, which reinforced their current recommendation of 10 percent (Morenga et al 2013). But the recommendation to reduce sugar intake to less than 10 percent and, further, to 5 percent was solely based evidence in reduction of dental caries (Moynihan and Kelly 2012).
On the other hand, Dr. Sievenpiper cited the work of Sigrid Gibson and colleagues showing that a moderate dietary sucrose intake at levels up to 25 percent of energy appear to have no significant adverse effects on metabolism when substituted for starch, at least in the medium term.In addition, reviews published by Dr. Sievenpiper’s lab using controlled feeding trials with fructose at low to moderate doses (in doses normally found in fruit) does not harm body weight, serum fasting or postprandial lipids, uric acid, and NAFLD. At these levels in humans, he said, the evidence even suggests a benefit to blood pressure and glycemic control.
Fructose-Fatty Liver Hypothesis
One of the major sources of controversy surrounding fructose is that because, unlike glucose and other sugars, it’s metabolized primarily by the liver. This fact along with evidence from animal trials has led to concerns that fructose may have a greater likelihood of being converted into fat through de novo lipogenesis. However, Luc Tappy and Kim-Anne Le previously demonstrated that generally less than 3 percent of fructose ends up being converted to fat in typical diets, while the rest ends up burned up as energy or stored as liver glycogen in humans.
But this evidence hasn’t kept the belief that fructose is uniquely harmful from reaching the mainstream, largely because of perpetuation by Dr. Robert Lustig (and his famous YouTube video), as well as others, who have championed the idea and have even likened fructose to ethanol and suggested it contributes to NAFLD. These misguided views are “becoming doctrine,” Dr. Sievenpiper said. And it can lead to confusion about whether or not fruits, which contain varying levels of fructose, should be avoided.
Through a systematic review of published literature, Mei Chung, Ph.D., a research assistant professor at Tufts University School of Medicine, sought to evaluate the effects of different levels and forms of dietary fructose on the incidence or prevalence of NAFLD and on indices of liver health in humans.
Chung provided a summary of the evidence that included five observational studies and 19 interventional studies that investigated a variety of clinical outcomes. The study found that both hypercaloric fructose and glucose diets (excess energy) had similar effects on liver fat and liver enzymes in healthy adults. She said there was “insufficient evidence to draw a conclusion” on liver de novo lipogenesis from the limited amount of intervention studies.
“Based on the indirect comparisons across study findings, the apparent association between indices of liver health and fructose or sucrose intake appear to be confounded by excessive energy intake,” Chung said. She expects the full findings to be published in a peer-reviewed journal soon.
Sweet Policy
Roger Clemens, DrPh, chief science officer of E.T. Horn, discussed matters of policy surrounding sugar intake. He highlighted that there were global efforts to reduce prevalence of obesity through approaches in dietary guidelines, taxation on sugar-sweetened beverages, and restricted access to these products. Approximately 60 countries now recommend limiting intake of added sugar and sugar-sweetened beverages in diverse ways, he said. But these efforts have inconsistent results relative to changes to body weight in targeted populations.
Clemens also warned that what’s driving the policy is epidemiological evidence that can’t establish causation, while the evidence from randomized controlled trials is largely being ignored, although they show that when sugars are isoenergetically exchanged with other carbohydrates they are not associated with weight change. “What evidence do you want to accept?” he charged.
Criticizing the proposed changes to nutrition facts panels by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Clemens also said listing “added sugars” was wrong-headed. “It’s silly and impractical,” he said considering that there are no analytical methods for added sugars, so food producers would have to provide information and maintain records for two years.
There are really no signs that suspicions about sugar are abating among the public. The belief that sugar is “addictive” (similar to illicit drugs) is now becoming pervasive. The major challenge for the scientific community, Clemens said, is how to get the word out about evaluating topics like sugar through the lens of evidence. Through social media, the public has been largely sold that sugar is uniquely harmful, he said. “How can we compete?”
Part of the reason why sugar remains in the spotlight is that “it’s a low hanging fruit,” Dr. Sievenpiper said after the event. He also hedged that by no means does he advice against limiting amounts of sugar or sugar-sweetened beverages in a person’s diet, so long as it’s part of a total dietary pattern designed to yield results in terms of reducing overall energy intake.
It’s advice reminiscent of the old adage of “losing sight of the forest from the trees”—demonizing one nutrient distracts from the overall dietary pattern (with many contributing factors) that deserve attention.
Keep in mind that this is sponsored by The Corn Refiners Association which is similar to Smoking Research by Tobacco Companies. They will say or do anything to ensure that public addiction to their product continues making them wealthy.0 -
Wow, that's an impressive claim. And completely unsupported by any scientific research to-date.I got this from a book written by an educated doctor:
"People put on ketogenic diets (high fat, medium protein, low carb diets) can reverse diabetes, reduce cancer tumors (or completely prevent them if they didn't have them yet)."
There is growing evidence that a ketogenic diet *MAY* be beneficial in treating certain cancers, but most of the research so-far has had huge attrition rates, and currently the weight of the evidence simply does not support the case you present.
The biggest problem is that keto-adaptation itself is a difficult physiological transition for many people to go through - even healthy people. Keto-adaptation while dealing with cancer and the standard treatments (ie: chemo/radiation therapy, etc.) is just too-much for most study participants to handle.
The things you stated are NOT the opinion of Yale, nor are the ideas endorsed by Yale.Lol, sorry, but no. Yale research > Mayo Clinic.
The complex relationship between dietary sugar and cancer is still being researched. There's overwhelming evidence that links (not proves causation) obesity to certain types of cancer, and most research is leaning towards hyperinsulinemia - as a result of insulin-resistance - being the culprit here, but it's still being studied and there simply is no medical or scientific consensus at this time.
The author of the book was an assistant professor at Yale for some time and has a college degree. This invariably links him to Yale. People who write articles on Mayo Clinic are the same. They may not even be employed there anymore or at all.
Also, I never claimed anything was the CAUSE of cancer. Nobody knows the exact cause yet. A few rare kinds have been found to be caused by genetic damage, however the cause of the vast majorities of cancer are still unknown. What I said is that cancerous cells feed off of sugar only.
To put it in perspective, it's like saying humans eat food. It doesn't matter where humans come from, they still eat food, and if they stop eating for too long, they die.
This is already becoming well-known. As far as I can remember, I read somewhere that most people constantly have minor forms of cancers, but the body gets it under control. Unfortunately, I can't remember where I read this particular bit of info. Feeding the cancer will only make it worse, not feeding it would obviously act preventive.
To put it in perspective and all................What about this part?
"Cancer as a Metabolic Disease: On the Origin, Management, and Prevention of Cancer" by Thomas N. Seyfried, Ph.D., University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
I drive through there often (Urbana-Champaign). Ive even been on campus once. Watched an awesome comeback by Tom Brady and the Patriots to beat the Bears down by 3 TDs in the 4th quarter. It was when Soldier Field was getting renovated.
Anyway, according to your Yale argument by invariably being linked to those 2 things I should know all there is about Cancer Prevention as well as how to be a Super Bowl Champion and marry super models. Ive been there and done that, but never got my friggin T-Shirt.0 -
Interesting post. I am also fed up of demonising foods. One of my least favourite phrases is "you shouldn't eat that, it's really fattening". My mum says it all the time and it drives me nuts!
Except that the sugar refined from corn is not food, it is a drug. Coca leaves have been used by aboriginals for thousands of years but became deadly when refined into Cocaine. Food containing naturally occuring sugars is not what is being demonized. What's being demonized is taking a food like corn, removing all the nutrition, and refining it into an addictive drug because it is much more lucrative than selling corn.0 -
Interesting post. I am also fed up of demonising foods. One of my least favourite phrases is "you shouldn't eat that, it's really fattening". My mum says it all the time and it drives me nuts!
Except that the sugar refined from corn is not food, it is a drug. Coca leaves have been used by aboriginals for thousands of years but became deadly when refined into Cocaine. Food containing naturally occuring sugars is not what is being demonized. What's being demonized is taking a food like corn, removing all the nutrition, and refining it into an addictive drug because it is much more lucrative than selling corn.
herp derp0 -
Interesting post. I am also fed up of demonising foods. One of my least favourite phrases is "you shouldn't eat that, it's really fattening". My mum says it all the time and it drives me nuts!
Except that the sugar refined from corn is not food, it is a drug. Coca leaves have been used by aboriginals for thousands of years but became deadly when refined into Cocaine. Food containing naturally occuring sugars is not what is being demonized. What's being demonized is taking a food like corn, removing all the nutrition, and refining it into an addictive drug because it is much more lucrative than selling corn.
LOL
:laugh:
Oh, wait...you were serious?
:huh:0 -
Interesting post. I am also fed up of demonising foods. One of my least favourite phrases is "you shouldn't eat that, it's really fattening". My mum says it all the time and it drives me nuts!
Except that the sugar refined from corn is not food, it is a drug. Coca leaves have been used by aboriginals for thousands of years but became deadly when refined into Cocaine. Food containing naturally occuring sugars is not what is being demonized. What's being demonized is taking a food like corn, removing all the nutrition, and refining it into an addictive drug because it is much more lucrative than selling corn.
0 -
I saw a 20 ounce bottle of soda the other day with 70 grams of HFCS in it. The poster, in this case is ripped, and has had about 70 grams of sugar logged in the last week. That is not the consumption of a sugar advocate?! Granted several days in the last week there are no diet log entries.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions