Sugar is Evil
Replies
-
Fructose is NOT glucose. They're two different substances, handled in two completely different ways by the body. Glucose is metabolized in the blood stream, fructose is metabolized in the liver. Fructose can be converted into triglycerides, which again, can be stored in fat cells, and again, if you are eating a calorie deficit, they will be converted to glucose and used as energy.
Plus I haven't found any of Dr Lustig's peer reviewed studies. And I really don't understand the thought processes these days. People used to have common sense and think things out. Nowadays if one person yells loud enough and uses scare tactic to prove his or her point about something, suddenly he's right, and the rest of the scientific community are a bunch of liars and idiots that are out to brainwash the world. When did people become so gullible?
This blog article, by the way, does a really great job of countering Lustig's fear mongering.
http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/
I have read it and I am not saying that Lustig's lectures are the same as double-blind clinical trials. I think Lustig has mentioned that the studies don't exist because he is proposing that the "toxic" effect of fructose occurs over many small, repeated exposures and that they would involve thousands of meals, not tens of meals like many clinical studies.
But speaking of using common sense to think things out, I am still interested in your take on Taubes (yes yes, I know, not a research scientist). He seems to be using more common sense than I have seen in many published, peer-reviewed studies. (I'm in a research program so I'm not new to the concept of peer-review. I also know it is far from perfect.)0 -
duplicate post0
-
And what glucose doesn't get used immediately gets carted of to our adipose (fat) tissue for storage.
I refuse to believe this is a serious post. This makes ZERO sense. ZEEEEEERO.0 -
Yes, bread is a rarity and a recent thing. Never mind the fact that people have been eating "refined" carbs and baking bread for 15,000 years and milling and eating rice for 12,000 years, it's a totally new thing and it's the downfall of civilization. Too much of anything is bad for you. Too much protein can ruin your kidneys, too much fat can have an effect on your arteries and heart disease, too much sodium can cause high blood pressure, too much water can over hydrate and dilute the electrolytes in your blood and cause you to lose all motor function, etc. etc.
Nothing is particularly good or bad on it's own. Even most essential vitamins and minerals can be poisonous if you eat too much of them.
Grain consumption is less than 10,000 years old.
And carbs is what affects your artieries and causes heart disease, not fats.
The point is sugar (in any form) be it from starch, fructose, sucrose, etc...............is a toxin, aka a poison.
You REALLY need to read this article:
http://www.fi.edu/learn/brain/carbs.html This is from the Franklin Institue
Here is an excerpt:
"Glucose is the form of sugar that travels in your bloodstream to fuel the mitochondrial furnaces responsible for your brain power. Glucose is the only fuel normally used by brain cells. Because neurons cannot store glucose, they depend on the bloodstream to deliver a constant supply of this precious fuel."
Another article for you to research: Cambridge-
http://journals.cambridge.org/download.php?file=/PNS/PNS53_02/S0029665194000492a.pdf&code=b7464efc7c96906ead870197ef071dd8
"It has long been accepted that the human brain uses glucose as its only metabolic fuel
and, thus, is entirely dependent on glucose for its function. This is in spite of the fact that
the brain contains many enzyme systems theoretically capable of metabolizing non-
glucose substrates such as glycerol, fatty acids, lactate, ketones and amino acids.
Nevertheless, it is true that the brain is the major consumer of glucose in the resting state
and about 10% of the blood glucose is extracted by the brain. Of that glucose, over 90%
is fully oxidized to C02 and water with the generation of high-energy phosphates.
Perhaps about 5 % of brain glucose is metabolized through the hexose monophosphate
shunt and the remainder through glycolysis to lactate and pyruvate, and only a very small
quantity is synthesized into glycogen. The glycogen stores of the brain are very small and
do not provide a useful reservoir of glucose in times of glucose lack."
Another: National Center for Biotechnology Information
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK22436/
"Brain. Glucose is virtually the sole fuel for the human brain, except during prolonged starvation. The brain lacks fuel stores and hence requires a continuous supply of glucose. It consumes about 120 g daily, which corresponds to an energy input of about 420 kcal (1760 kJ), accounting for some 60% of the utilization of glucose by the whole body in the resting state. Much of the energy, estimates suggest from 60% to 70%, is used to power transport mechanisms that maintain the Na+-K+ membrane potential required for the transmission of the nerve impulses. The brain must also synthesize neurotransmitters and their receptors to propagate nerve impulses. Overall, glucose metabolism remains unchanged during mental activity, although local increases are detected when a subject performs certain tasks."
For you to claim that any level or form of glucose is "poison" is misleading and wrong. Your brain REQUIRES glucose. You muscles run on it. Your liver breaks it down, stores it, creates it again then ships it out to the tissue that needs it. Glucose is not a poison, it is a necessary nutrient for our body's function.
As always, moderation in everything. Be smart people.
Our livers can convert all the glucose it needs from protein sources. We don't NEED carbs to accomplish this.
I WANT carbs in the form of vegetables and minimal fruits because I like them. Period, plain and simple.
I never said glucose was a toxin, I said all forms of sugar we ingest, including grains are toxins and contain various anti-nutrients.0 -
I can guarantee that the amount of sugar they consume is significantly less than what the typical American consumes -- pastries and soft drinks and all. You said it yourself when noting that people cook at home and usually cook from scratch. I cook from home most of the time too and I have a bag of sugar that has been with me for years and yet, if I were to start eating at restaurants more and eating a lot more boxed and processed foods, I am sure that I would consume the equivalent of that bag (and more) in a couple months (or even sooner).
I can guarantee you're wrong.
Most countries have diets that are based primarily off carbohydrates. Asian countries have rice as a staple, some also have bread as a staple. European countries have baguette and pastry shops on every corner. Hell, I could spend a week in Germany just eating at one single corner shop and not try all the amazing pastries they have.
But no, you're right, they don't eat as much sugar as much. Hmm, maybe it's that they eat LESS TOTAL FOOD than us. Nah, has to be the sugar!!!!0 -
And what glucose doesn't get used immediately gets carted of to our adipose (fat) tissue for storage.
I refuse to believe this is a serious post. This makes ZERO sense. ZEEEEEERO.
This is true.0 -
One thing to clear up here, "refined sugar" is NOT a nutrient. The orginal source may have had nutrients, ie the corn or the beet and are great for the diet. However, once you remove all of the nutrition, all you have are calories. Now to your other point. People that are able to burn 3000 or more calories a day may be able to eat a good bit of refined sugar without much detriment. Those of us with sedentary jobs don't have the same luxury and eating a lot of added non-nutritious refined sugar is not beneficial. I'm a smaller woman and gain weight on 1800 calories a day (unless I do a couple hours of cardio). I have no room to waste on jelly beans. I do find room for good dark chocolate - but wait, that also has antioxidants, vitamins, minerals, and gasp fiber. I am usually the first to say moderation is the key, but this is one area where I think people should cut back as much as possible. It's also amazing how much sweeter fruit, corn and other natural foods taste when you rdeuce the amount of refined sugar eaten. I will admit to still having some added refined sugar, but I bet in a given day, its less that 4 teaspoons. I used to love a Coke and snickers in the late afternoon. I can't even drink a 12 oz Coke now. It's entirely too sweet. It was not easy getting to this point either. I did it gradually over the last several years. I do think it was well worth it though.
No, calories are a measure of energy. 1 calorie is the energy required to raise the temperature of 1 gram of water by 1 degree Celsius.
A nutrient is:
A substance that provides nourishment essential for growth and the maintenance of life
Now, you can argue that carbs aren't necessary for growth and maintenance of life but in a calorie deficit, they are used to make the body function properly. If you only had 500 calories in a day and they all came from carbs, it would at least keep you alive until the next day. That is a nutrient because it's essential for maintenance of life.
Well, I'm sorry you have a sedentary lifestyle and I'm sorry you can't enjoy some jelly beans in your diet. However, you COULD enjoy some jelly beans in your diet if you adjusted your diet in order to fit them in. That's your choice though and if you're happy with what you're doing, go for it.0 -
But no, you're right, they don't eat as much sugar as much. Hmm, maybe it's that they eat LESS TOTAL FOOD than us. Nah, has to be the sugar!!!!
Of course they eat fewer calories. They weigh less and thus they don't need to eat as much to stay in energy balance. (WTF am I talking about? That doesn't make any sense at all! Oh, but it does....) I would also be interested in hearing what you have to say about the video that I have linked in my signature. Let me know. I'm honestly interested.0 -
Of course they eat fewer calories. They weigh less and thus they don't need to eat as much to stay in energy balance. (WTF am I talking about? That doesn't make any sense at all! Oh, but it does....) I would also be interested in hearing what you have to say about the video that I have linked in my signature. Let me know. I'm honestly interested.
1 hour 27 minutes? Maybe give me the condensed version or some cliff's notes on the seminar? I have to go to the gym.
My point about the European diet is that they have a high carbohydrate diet because they eat high carbohydrate foods. However, they still weigh less than us and have fewer diseases that are based on lifestyle choices.
Using this, I could draw the conclusion that a higher carbohydrate diet would be healthier for us. However, I wouldn't do that because it would be stupid. It would be stupid in the same sense that anyone draws a conclusion that sugar is the reason Americans are unhealthy when our sugar intake is higher because our total calorie intake is higher. Yes, of course we eat a lot of sugar, we eat a lot of food.
What causes the car to break down? The passenger's seat or the engine? Obviously, the higher food consumption and the weight gain associated with higher food consumption (whether it comes from protein, fat or carbs) is leading to our health problems, not people drinking a couple cans of soda a day or eating white bread. If this was the case, all the Europeans and Asians in the world would be extremely unhealthy because that's what their diets are based on.0 -
GROKETTE: Please read-
[quote/]Our livers can convert all the glucose it needs from protein sources. We don't NEED carbs to accomplish this.
I WANT carbs in the form of vegetables and minimal fruits because I like them. Period, plain and simple.
I never said glucose was a toxin, I said all forms of sugar we ingest, including grains are toxins and contain various anti-nutrients.
[quote/]
Protein is not ingested to provide a source of glucose, it is used to build other proteins in the body. Glucose can be built from the breakdown products of protein called amino acids, BUT the body ONLY DOES this during starvation:
http://web.jjay.cuny.edu/~acarpi/NSC/11-nutrients.htm
"Proteins
Proteins are polymers of amino acids. While there are hundreds of thousands of different proteins that exist in nature, they are all made up of different combinations of just 20 amino acids. Proteins are large molecules that may consist of hundreds, or even thousands of amino acids. The 20 amino acids found in nature all have the general structure:
In proteins, many peptide bonds form between many amino acids to create long chains (thus proteins are also called polypeptides because they contain many peptide bonds).
Proteins serve many purposes in the body. Structural proteins such as keratin and collagen are the main ingredients in your hair, muscles, tendons and skin and help give structure to the body. In addition to adding structure, other proteins perform a wide range of functions in the human body. Amylase is a protein that helps your body digest starch, the protein hemoglobin is responsible for transporting oxygen in the blood stream, insulin helps regulate the storage of glucose in the body and the list goes on and on. There are an estimated 100,000 different proteins in the human body alone. Each has a different structure and performs a different function in the body.
Because proteins perform such specific tasks in the body, each protein has to be manufactured in the body to suit the individual's specific needs. When an animal eats protein, that protein is broken down in the digestive tract into its individual amino acids. These amino acids are then recombined in the body in the specific sequence needed to form whichever protein the animal needs at that point in time. Thus protein in food is just a source of amino acids. Some good food sources of protein include beans, milk and cheese, fish and meats."
You see, proteins are broken down into amino acids then stored. Amino Acids are used to build the protein that the body needs.
Amino Acids can be used to synthesize glucose in the liver, but only during a state of starvation. it is the body's last defense after using up Glycogen in the liver and fatty acids from the breakdown of adipose tissue:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starvation_response
"After several days of fasting, all cells in the body begin to break down protein. This releases amino acids into the bloodstream, which can be converted into glucose by the liver. Since much of our muscle mass is protein, this phenomenon is responsible for the wasting away of muscle mass seen in starvation.
However, the body is able to selectively decide which cells will break down protein and which will not. About 2–3 g of protein has to be broken down to synthesise 1 g of glucose; about 20–30 g of protein is broken down each day to make 10 g of glucose to keep the brain alive. However, this number may decrease the longer the fasting period is continued in order to conserve protein.
Starvation ensues when the fat reserves are completely exhausted and protein is the only fuel source available to the body. Thus, after periods of starvation, the loss of body protein affects the function of important organs, and death results, even if there are still fat reserves left unused. (In a leaner person, the fat reserves are depleted earlier, the protein depletion occurs sooner, and therefore death occurs sooner.)"
If glucose(in whatever form) is not ingested, then stores of glycogen are used. After that adipose is broken down into fatty acids and Ketone Bodies. The brain can actually function on ketone bodies, but only for a short period of time. And they are an incredibly inefficient fuel source.
Finally:
You said earlier: "The point is sugar (in any form) be it from starch, fructose, sucrose, etc...............is a toxin, aka a poison. "
Then you said "I never said glucose was a toxin, I said all forms of sugar we ingest, including grains are toxins and contain various anti-nutrients."
Glucose is one form of sugar.
Based on those articles it is proven that glucose is required in our body, and yes it should be ingested to provide adequate fuel for our brain and muscles.
Please provide an source material to prove otherwise.0 -
Of course they eat fewer calories. They weigh less and thus they don't need to eat as much to stay in energy balance. (WTF am I talking about? That doesn't make any sense at all! Oh, but it does....) I would also be interested in hearing what you have to say about the video that I have linked in my signature. Let me know. I'm honestly interested.
1 hour 27 minutes? Maybe give me the condensed version or some cliff's notes on the seminar?
It's not about the calories, it is about having too much insulin in our systems all the time. We eat more and move less because we are fat (caused by the insulin and our bodies not partitioning nutrients appropriately). The calories-in/calories-out paradigm is too simple and doesn't hold up to some basic observations.
That's my short version and it isn't going to make a lot of sense out of context. Listen to it when you have the time. I would like to have an intelligent discussion about its weaknesses and merits.
Edit: Hey, I see you're in Chico. Ever go to NorCal Strength and Conditioning? http://www.norcalsc.com Robb Wolf is pretty well known.0 -
All of this we eat way too much sugar debate is fun, but none of it explains the statistic that Added sugar consumption actually DECREASED by 2% between 1970 and 2009 according to USDA research. That's based on percentage of total calories eaten. The actual number of calories increased by 38, which means people today, in addition eating about 500 total calories more on average than people ate in 1970, are consuming a gigantic 9.5 grams of sugar a day more. Yes, I'm sure those 9 grams are the source of all of the United States health problems. People ate 100.5 grams of added sugar in 1970, and are eating about 110 grams of added sugar now. I'm not seeing the crisis here, unless you're talking about the last 100 years, because my data doesn't go back that far.
I suppose the epidemics have nothing to do with total calories increasing by 500+ a day over the past 40 years, it's definitely just the extra 2 teaspoons of sugar.0 -
Tigersword, you still haven't answered the question I directed at you.0
-
I didn't make my point correctly, I guess. There was plenty of sugar -- I did mention pastries and bread, right? Oh, and full-sugar coke; they do like that. But why are they still so slim? They are slim despite consuming sugar and carbs.
I can guarantee that the amount of sugar they consume is significantly less than what the typical American consumes -- pastries and soft drinks and all. You said it yourself when noting that people cook at home and usually cook from scratch. I cook from home most of the time too and I have a bag of sugar that has been with me for years and yet, if I were to start eating at restaurants more and eating a lot more boxed and processed foods, I am sure that I would consume the equivalent of that bag (and more) in a couple months (or even sooner).
You're right, I don't debate that. I'm one who enjoys sugar, however, and I don't think it's evil, nor do I think carbs are evil. I am one of those "everything in moderation" people that some love to call wrong, but I can't be converted to cutting out specific food groups other than I do religiously avoid PHOs.
I love baking. I have never had a bag of sugar in my house for more than a month or two, much less years. I also love being active, so that works for me. Other than my recent gain (due to unknowingly not eating enough) and subsequent return to my normal weight, I have also never had a weight problem (unless you ask the Armenians I guess, ha!).
I know everyone here enjoys sharing what has worked for them, and that is bound to help others. In that vein, I enjoy sharing the knowledge with people that it is possible to be at a healthy weight for your entire life, with a combination of exercise and proper eating. Proper, to me, means a reasonable consumption of calories from any and all foods. Maybe it's because I'm surrounded by very active people given my hobbies and my lifestyle, however, we are all healthy, very active, and we all eat well without restricting food groups. It can and does work.
It is a shame, however, when our zeal for sharing info turns to righteous indignation and attacks upon others. (this is a generalization, not directed at the person I've quoted above).
Well, I have 300-something calories left so I'm going to go have a coconut milk frozen non-dairy ice cream sandwich. yum!
blessings.0 -
Well, I have 300-something calories left so I'm going to go have a coconut milk frozen non-dairy ice cream sandwich. yum!
Yum indeed! I had my own concoction of coconut milk ice cream for dessert. (Scrape the coconut cream from the top of a can of full fat coconut, whip and freeze. Delish.)0 -
Tigersword, you still haven't answered the question I directed at you.
Are you asking about Gary Taubes? The guy who says exercise is bad for weight loss because it makes you hungry? His conclusions that refined carbs are the culprit still don't account for the fact that refined sugar has DECREASED in consumption over the last 40 years. If there was a substantial increase in refined sugar consumption over the last 40 years in addition to the increases in all of these diseases that "plague humanity," I might possibly see a connection that works. Also, people are eating about 500 calories total more than they were in 1970, and dietary fat consumption has increased by 7%. I always find it interesting to see a scientist who cherry picks studies to fit his point of view, when the overall body of research doesn't agree. I know all scientists do it, but usually the majority rules.
As for whether I've actually read Taubes work, I haven't, but I'm familiar with his research and his viewpoints, and anybody who demonizes one particular food I can't really take seriously, especially when there is a mountain of evidence that raises strong doubts about his conclusions.0 -
refined sugar has DECREASED in consumption over the last 40 years.
I'm really curious as to your source on this fact. I think maybe you're referring to the fact that fewer companies used refined sugar in their processed foods, and instead use corn syrup or high fructose corn syrup. Which is sugar... or worse than sugar... So really you could be right that consumption of "refined sugar" MAY have gone sown but over all consumption of "sugars" has gone up... But then again, I really just am curious to look into your source, if you don't mind sharing
Thanks 0 -
Tigersword, you still haven't answered the question I directed at you.
Are you asking about Gary Taubes? The guy who says exercise is bad for weight loss because it makes you hungry? His conclusions that refined carbs are the culprit still don't account for the fact that refined sugar has DECREASED in consumption over the last 40 years. If there was a substantial increase in refined sugar consumption over the last 40 years in addition to the increases in all of these diseases that "plague humanity," I might possibly see a connection that works. Also, people are eating about 500 calories total more than they were in 1970, and dietary fat consumption has increased by 7%. I always find it interesting to see a scientist who cherry picks studies to fit his point of view, when the overall body of research doesn't agree. I know all scientists do it, but usually the majority rules.
As for whether I've actually read Taubes work, I haven't, but I'm familiar with his research and his viewpoints, and anybody who demonizes one particular food I can't really take seriously, especially when there is a mountain of evidence that raises strong doubts about his conclusions.
C'mon man. You can do better than that? Sure, refined sugar may have gone down, but HFCS have gone waaaaay up!
http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/Sugar/Data.htm
(see table 49 and 52)
You really should read the book first, and only then, come up with your own conclusions.
Edit: Or if you don't want to spend the money on "blasphemous" material, watch the youtube vid. It's free! At least TRY to watch with an open mind and without prejudice. It may change your life.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyXa39ICIrk 0 -
thanks, lockef-
that's what i thought... actually worse than i thought... but anyway, yeah.
terrifying tables.0 -
The Definitive Guide to Insulin, Blood Sugar & Type 2 Diabetes (and you’ll understand it)
BITE ME, ADA
We all know by now that type 2 diabetes is an epidemic. We’re seeing words like crisis and runaway all over the news and in the journals. Heart disease rates have been cut in half since the staggering margarine days of the 1980s, but diabetes has swiftly risen to fill that gaping void and meet the challenge of Completely Unnecessary Disease Epidemic.
Here’s my ultra-simple explanation of the entire insulin/blood sugar/type 2 diabetes mess. Big Agra could really care less about you. That’s just business. The pharmaceutical industry is not in it for the love of life. If that were the case, drugs would be much cheaper. The FDA has to think about public health, but it also has to think about treading carefully on the toes of corporate interests, because that’s how it works when you’re the biggest economy in the world.
When you eat food, the body digests the macronutrients: carbohydrates, proteins – actually many different amino acids – and fats. (Anything it can’t digest, like alcohol or fiber or toxins, either passes right on through or, if it makes it into the bloodstream, gets filtered by your liver, a beast of an organ if there ever was one.) We measure these macronutrients in grams and calories, but your body operates in terms of fuel. If you eat more fuel than your body needs – which most people do – the body is forced to store this excess. This ability to store excess fuel was an evolutionary imperative in a world that was in a state of constant “feast or famine” 50,000 years ago. In terms of Primal Health and our DNA blueprint, humans became very efficient fuel storage specialists and were able to survive the rigors of a hostile environment and pass those very same genes down to you and me. Thanks a lot, Grok!
Bear in mind that every type of carbohydrate you eat is eventually converted to a simple form of sugar known as glucose, either directly in the gut or after a brief visit to the liver. The truth is, all the bread, pasta, cereal, potatoes, rice (stop me when you’ve had enough), fruit, dessert, candy, and sodas you eat and drink eventually wind up as glucose. While glucose is a fuel, it is actually quite toxic in excess amounts unless it is being burned inside your cells, so the body has evolved an elegant way of getting it out of the bloodstream quickly and storing it in those cells.
It does this by having the liver and the muscles store some of the excess glucose as glycogen. That’s the muscle fuel that hard anaerobic exercise requires. Specialized beta cells in your pancreas sense the abundance of glucose in the bloodstream after a meal and secrete insulin, a peptide hormone whose job it is to allow glucose (and fats and amino acids) to gain access to the interior of muscle and liver cells.
But here’s the catch: once those cells are full, as they are almost all the time with inactive people, the rest of the glucose is converted to fat. Saturated fat.
Insulin was one of the first hormones to evolve in living things. Virtually all animals secrete insulin as a means of storing excess nutrients. It makes perfect sense that in a world where food was often scarce or non-existent for long periods of time, our bodies would become so incredibly efficient. How ironic, though, that it’s not fat that gets stored as fat – it’s sugar. And that’s where insulin insensitivity and this whole type 2 diabetes issue get confusing for most people, including your very own government.
If we go back 10,000 or more years, we find that our ancestors had very little access to sugar – or any carbohydrates for that matter. There was some fruit here and there, a few berries, roots and shoots, but most of their carbohydrate fuel was locked inside a very fibrous matrix. In fact, some paleo-anthropologists suggest that our ancestors consumed, on average, only about 80 grams of carbohydrate a day. Compare that to the 350-600 grams a day in the typical American diet today. The rest of their diet consisted of varying degrees of fat and protein. And as fibrous (and therefore complex) as those limited carbohydrate foods were, their effect on raising insulin was minimal. In fact, there was so little carbohydrate/glucose in our ancestor’s diet that we evolved four ways of making extra glucose ourselves and only one way of getting rid of the excess we consume!
Today when we eat too many carbohydrates, the pancreas pumps out insulin exactly as the DNA blueprint tell it to (hooray pancreas!), but if the liver and muscle cells are already filled with glycogen, those cells start to become resistant to the call of insulin. The insulin “receptor sites” on the surface of those cells start to decrease in number as well as in efficiency. The term is called “down regulation.” Since the glucose can’t get into the muscle or liver cells, it remains in the bloodstream. Now the pancreas senses there’s still too much toxic glucose in the blood, so it frantically pumps out even more insulin, which causes the insulin receptors on the surface of those cells to become even more resistant, because excess insulin is also toxic! Eventually, the insulin helps the glucose finds it way into your fat cells, where it is stored as fat. Again – because it bears repeating – it’s not fat that gets stored in your fat cells – it’s sugar.
Over time, as we continue to eat high carbohydrate diets and exercise less, the degree of insulin insensitivity increases. Unless we take dramatic steps to reduce carbohydrate intake and increase exercise, we develop several problems that only get worse over time – and the drugs don’t fix it.
Ready for this? Let’s go:
1) The levels of blood glucose stay higher longer because the glucose can’t make it into the muscle cells. This toxic glucose is like sludge in the bloodstream clogging arteries, binding with proteins to form harmful AGEs (advanced glycated end-products) and causing systemic inflammation. Some of this excess glucose contributes to a rise in triglycerides, increasing risk for heart disease.
2) More sugar gets stored as fat. Since the muscle cells are getting less glycogen (because they are resistant), and since insulin inhibits the fat-burning enzyme lipase, now you can’t even burn stored fat as easily. You continue to get fatter until eventually those fat cells become resistant themselves.
3) It just gets better. Levels of insulin stay higher longer because the pancreas thinks “if a little is not working, more would be better.” Wrong. Insulin is itself very toxic at high levels, causing, among many other maladies, plaque build-up in the arteries (which is why diabetics have so much heart disease) and increasing cellular proliferation in cancers.
4) Just as insulin resistance prevents sugar from entering muscle cells, it also prevents amino acids from entering. So now you can’t build or maintain your muscles. To make matters worse, other parts of your body think there’s not enough stored sugar in the cells, so they send signals to start to cannibalizing your precious muscle tissue to make more – you guessed it – sugar! You get fatter and you lose muscle. Woo hoo!
5) Your energy level drops, which makes you hungry for more carbohydrates and less willing to exercise. You actually crave more of the poison that is killing you.
6) When your liver becomes insulin resistant, it can’t convert thyroid hormone T4 into the T3, so you get those mysterious and stubborn “thyroid problems”, which further slow your metabolism.
7) You can develop neuropathies (nerve damage) and pain in the extremities, as the damage from the excess sugar destroys nerve tissue, and you can develop retinopathy and begin to lose your eyesight. Fun.
Eventually, the pancreas is so darn exhausted, it can’t produce any more insulin and you wind up having to inject insulin to stay alive. Lots of it, since you are resistant. Congratulations, you have graduated to insulin-dependent Type 2 diabetes.
That’s the bad news. And it’s seriously bad. But the good news is that there is a way to avoid all this. It’s all right there in your DNA blueprint. First off, exercise does have a major impact on improving insulin sensitivity since muscles burn your stored glycogen as fuel during and after your workout. Muscles that have been exercised desperately want that glucose inside and will “up regulate” insulin receptors to speed the process. That’s one reason exercise is so critical for type 2 diabetics in regaining insulin sensitivity. It’s also the reason why endurance athletes can eat 400 or 600 grams of carbs a day and stay lean – they burn it all off and make room for more.
Resistance training seems to be as effective as aerobic activity, but a mix of the two is the best. And because you are now “insulin sensitive”, you don’t require as much insulin to store the excess, which “up regulates” all the fat burning enzymes, so you burn your stored fats at a much higher rate throughout the day. Important amino acids and other vital nutrients have access to the cells when insulin sensitivity is high, so you’re building or maintaining muscle and losing fat weight. Go team.
Second, cutting back on carbohydrates, especially the obvious sugars and refined stuff is absolutely essential. Make fresh vegetables the base of your food pyramid. I get rip-roaring furious when I see our government suggesting that we get 60% of our calories from carbohydrates. That’s ridiculous, bordering on criminal. Think about what is optimal for human health from a “primal” perspective. Look at the genetic blueprint. Look at the statistics and studies if you like – or simply observe what’s going on around you at restaurants, movie theaters and school cafeterias – and you’ll begin to understand the implications of a diet out of whack with our design. The evidence is nothing short of overwhelming: carbohydrate intake of the refined, sugary sort is enormously stressful to the body.
Not only should diabetics limit carbohydrate intake – everyone should. We are all, in an evolutionary sense, predisposed to becoming diabetic.
Mainstream opinion is, of course, partly correct in that sugar does not necessarily “cause” diabetes – increasingly, scientific evidence is showing that genetic susceptibility plays a huge role in individuals’ potential for developing diabetes. Well, no kidding! The entire mainstream argument boils down to this: sugar does not cause diabetes; it’s genetic. I couldn’t agree more. I would simply say that our shared genetic susceptibility to insulin resistance, inflammation, cardiovascular disease and obesity shows that any sort of refined sugar or grain is the last thing humans should be eating. Our genetic “primal blueprint” indicates that we are not meant to consume sugar.
http://www.marksdailyapple.com/diabetes/0 -
Thanks, hpsnickers, I love Mark Sisson.
Anyway, as OP, you know what's kind of a bummer? I bet almost no one who commented actually watched the videos I linked. Bummer.0 -
I bet almost no one who commented actually watched the videos I linked. Bummer.
Agreed... most people are already set in their ways. Hopefully there'll be a few open minded people that watch it, and find it helpful.0 -
http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/foodconsumption/FoodGuideSpreadsheets.htmrefined sugar has DECREASED in consumption over the last 40 years.
I'm really curious as to your source on this fact. I think maybe you're referring to the fact that fewer companies used refined sugar in their processed foods, and instead use corn syrup or high fructose corn syrup. Which is sugar... or worse than sugar... So really you could be right that consumption of "refined sugar" MAY have gone sown but over all consumption of "sugars" has gone up... But then again, I really just am curious to look into your source, if you don't mind sharing Thanks
This is my source. It includes all refined sweeteners in the refined category, HFCS, sucrose, glucose, dextrose, fructose, honey, edible syrups, etc. Total Consumption has decreased 2%.Tigersword, you still haven't answered the question I directed at you.
Are you asking about Gary Taubes? The guy who says exercise is bad for weight loss because it makes you hungry? His conclusions that refined carbs are the culprit still don't account for the fact that refined sugar has DECREASED in consumption over the last 40 years. If there was a substantial increase in refined sugar consumption over the last 40 years in addition to the increases in all of these diseases that "plague humanity," I might possibly see a connection that works. Also, people are eating about 500 calories total more than they were in 1970, and dietary fat consumption has increased by 7%. I always find it interesting to see a scientist who cherry picks studies to fit his point of view, when the overall body of research doesn't agree. I know all scientists do it, but usually the majority rules.
As for whether I've actually read Taubes work, I haven't, but I'm familiar with his research and his viewpoints, and anybody who demonizes one particular food I can't really take seriously, especially when there is a mountain of evidence that raises strong doubts about his conclusions.
C'mon man. You can do better than that? Sure, refined sugar may have gone down, but HFCS have gone waaaaay up!
http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/Sugar/Data.htm
(see table 49 and 52)
You really should read the book first, and only then, come up with your own conclusions.
Edit: Or if you don't want to spend the money on "blasphemous" material, watch the youtube vid. It's free! At least TRY to watch with an open mind and without prejudice. It may change your life.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyXa39ICIrk
Again, my source includes HFCS in the refined sweeteners category that decreased. Even including the rise of HFCS, other refined sugars dropped off in consumption, for a net decrease in OVERALL consumption.0 -
Compare that to the 350-600 grams a day in the typical American diet today.
http://www.marksdailyapple.com/diabetes/
I just wanted to point out this quote. According to the USDA's studies on diet, in 2009, the average American consumed 316 grams of total carbs, from fruits, vegetables, caloric sweeteners and grains. Way under Mark's claim of 350-600 grams of carbs a day. These are the things I'm talking about, why inflate numbers and use scare tactics instead of just presenting real facts?0 -
Again, my source includes HFCS in the refined sweeteners category that decreased. Even including the rise of HFCS, other refined sugars dropped off in consumption, for a net decrease in OVERALL consumption.
Please tell me which table you're referring to. The only table that I found that has numbers that you may be referring to are for availability (supply).0 -
One thing to clear up here, "refined sugar" is NOT a nutrient. The orginal source may have had nutrients, ie the corn or the beet and are great for the diet. However, once you remove all of the nutrition, all you have are calories. Now to your other point. People that are able to burn 3000 or more calories a day may be able to eat a good bit of refined sugar without much detriment. Those of us with sedentary jobs don't have the same luxury and eating a lot of added non-nutritious refined sugar is not beneficial. I'm a smaller woman and gain weight on 1800 calories a day (unless I do a couple hours of cardio). I have no room to waste on jelly beans. I do find room for good dark chocolate - but wait, that also has antioxidants, vitamins, minerals, and gasp fiber. I am usually the first to say moderation is the key, but this is one area where I think people should cut back as much as possible. It's also amazing how much sweeter fruit, corn and other natural foods taste when you rdeuce the amount of refined sugar eaten. I will admit to still having some added refined sugar, but I bet in a given day, its less that 4 teaspoons. I used to love a Coke and snickers in the late afternoon. I can't even drink a 12 oz Coke now. It's entirely too sweet. It was not easy getting to this point either. I did it gradually over the last several years. I do think it was well worth it though.
No, calories are a measure of energy. 1 calorie is the energy required to raise the temperature of 1 gram of water by 1 degree Celsius.
A nutrient is:
A substance that provides nourishment essential for growth and the maintenance of life
Now, you can argue that carbs aren't necessary for growth and maintenance of life but in a calorie deficit, they are used to make the body function properly. If you only had 500 calories in a day and they all came from carbs, it would at least keep you alive until the next day. That is a nutrient because it's essential for maintenance of life.
Well, I'm sorry you have a sedentary lifestyle and I'm sorry you can't enjoy some jelly beans in your diet. However, you COULD enjoy some jelly beans in your diet if you adjusted your diet in order to fit them in. That's your choice though and if you're happy with what you're doing, go for it.
To be clear, I said zip about carbs. Carbs are essential to the diet. I was and still am talking about "refined sugar." Refined sugar has had every nutrient, except for the calories, stripped out of it by mechanical and chemical processes. I am trying to point out that the original post had to do with refined sugars as does the documentary. I watched much of it, admittedly not all of it. I don't think anyone with a lick of understanding thinks carbohydrates are inherently bad. I think sugar is great for the body when it is part of an orange, apple, carrot, tomato, wheat..... I don't think small amounts of refined sugar are truly bad; but the way manufactueres add them to food is insidious and most Americans eat much more refined sugar than they realize. I also suspect that a person that is unable to get enough calories to fuel their body can eat more refined sugar without the same level of detriment. That person however is not healther for it, just not going to get fat because they already don't get enough calories or nutrients. Most Americans are not in that situation. It was only about 10 years ago that I really started understanding how much sugar was added to food. My only hope is that documentaries like this will cause discussions like this so people will become more aware.0 -
Compare that to the 350-600 grams a day in the typical American diet today.
http://www.marksdailyapple.com/diabetes/
I just wanted to point out this quote. According to the USDA's studies on diet, in 2009, the average American consumed 316 grams of total carbs, from fruits, vegetables, caloric sweeteners and grains. Way under Mark's claim of 350-600 grams of carbs a day. These are the things I'm talking about, why inflate numbers and use scare tactics instead of just presenting real facts?
And you believe the USDA?????
Anything over 150 grams of carbs per day is way to many unless you are like an Iron Man Triathlete.0 -
0
-
It's not about the calories, it is about having too much insulin in our systems all the time. We eat more and move less because we are fat (caused by the insulin and our bodies not partitioning nutrients appropriately). The calories-in/calories-out paradigm is too simple and doesn't hold up to some basic observations.
That's my short version and it isn't going to make a lot of sense out of context. Listen to it when you have the time. I would like to have an intelligent discussion about its weaknesses and merits.
Edit: Hey, I see you're in Chico. Ever go to NorCal Strength and Conditioning? http://www.norcalsc.com Robb Wolf is pretty well known.
Taubes and Lustig are both wrong
as for cal in/cal out not holding true, there is no controlled studies that actually show that.
and if insulin was so evil, why would Taubes promote a high protein diet, when protein is highly insulinogenic as well.
Taubes theory that obesity is not caused by over eating but over eating is a symptom of obesity is laughably wrong
www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/02/19/a-retrospective-of-the-fructose-alarmism-debate/0 -
If we go back 10,000 or more years, we find that our ancestors had very little access to sugar – or any carbohydrates for that matter. There was some fruit here and there, a few berries, roots and shoots, but most of their carbohydrate fuel was locked inside a very fibrous matrix. In fact, some paleo-anthropologists suggest that our ancestors consumed, on average, only about 80 grams of carbohydrate a day.
I just can't take crap like this seriously.
The part I'm quoting couldn't possibly be more full of BS then it already is. People have been eating grains for a long time. On top of that, PLENTY of paleo populations ate a boatload of fruit because that is what grew naturally in their environment. Are you telling me that the paleo groups that had access to a variety of fruits that grew naturally didn't eat them? Of course that makes sense.
Oh, but maybe we're only talking about paleo people from SPECIFIC areas. That's what we call cherry picking in the epidemiology world and your article is so full of cherry picking that it shouldn't even be brought up.
PS - Protein is insulinogenic. <GASP> But but but....insulin comes from carbs!!!!!0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions