sugar toxic
Replies
-
I think I'll go eat a spoonful of brown sugar now. With aspartame on top of it.0
-
So, is heroine ok in moderation? Anthrax? Cyanide? I mean, if EVERYTHING is OK in moderation...
If no, than the rule doesn't work.
Just because it's white and kinda powdery doesn't mean sugar behaves like cocaine. Though, I suppose snorting lines of confectioner's sugar would probably do some damage to your nostrils not unlike snorting cocaine. I can't imagine how bad of a headache you'd get though... sheesh...
Seriously though, this argument is ridiculous. The human body needs sugar and converts most our food to glucose for fuel. Lustig is a loudmouth quack who has made a LOT of money with his anti-sugar campaign and gotten his face on every major network as well.
The guy has routinely been shot down when confronted with facts based in unbiased randomized studies (Alan's blog is only one example of where his theories just don't stand up in the face of science). The truth of the obesity epidemic in this country is that cheap high-calorie low-nutrient food is becoming a staple of life, and physical activity levels are too low among the general public. Eat less, move more. This should be our approach to dealing with this crisis, not blaming a single sub-macronutrient.
"Eat less, move more" has been the mainstream approach for decades and it has failed time and time again.
And I suppose you'd have a better recommendation to improve adherence? Keeping in mind that low carb approaches typically have pretty terrible adherence rates compared to other diets0 -
So, is heroine ok in moderation? Anthrax? Cyanide? I mean, if EVERYTHING is OK in moderation...
If no, than the rule doesn't work.
Just because it's white and kinda powdery doesn't mean sugar behaves like cocaine. Though, I suppose snorting lines of confectioner's sugar would probably do some damage to your nostrils not unlike snorting cocaine. I can't imagine how bad of a headache you'd get though... sheesh...
Seriously though, this argument is ridiculous. The human body needs sugar and converts most our food to glucose for fuel. Lustig is a loudmouth quack who has made a LOT of money with his anti-sugar campaign and gotten his face on every major network as well.
The guy has routinely been shot down when confronted with facts based in unbiased randomized studies (Alan's blog is only one example of where his theories just don't stand up in the face of science). The truth of the obesity epidemic in this country is that cheap high-calorie low-nutrient food is becoming a staple of life, and physical activity levels are too low among the general public. Eat less, move more. This should be our approach to dealing with this crisis, not blaming a single sub-macronutrient.
"Eat less, move more" has been the mainstream approach for decades and it has failed time and time again.
And I suppose you'd have a better recommendation to improve adherence? Keeping in mind that low carb approaches typically have pretty terrible adherence rates compared to other diets
I think low carb diets fail because of bad infomation, and that the majority doesn't eat that way. So its almost impossible to avoid foods that go against the diet. Eat less, move more fails because it doesn't address what I think is the key problem with it, hunger, which is caused by continuing to eat the wrong foods because "a calories is a calorie"
I watched the 90 minute Lustig video and Aragon's critique and the comments surrounding it are all pretty weak. Maybe because I sorta understand the background behind the carb/sugar/insulin hypothesis, so I don't take every thing Lustig said too literally. Like arguing for how many posts about the Japanese diet. I think his point is understood, they don't eat sugar like the Americans do.0 -
I think low carb diets fail because of bad infomation, and that the majority doesn't eat that way. So its almost impossible to avoid foods that go against the diet. Eat less, move more fails because it doesn't address what I think is the key problem with it, hunger, which is caused by continuing to eat the wrong foods because "a calories is a calorie"
I watched the 90 minute Lustig video and Aragon's critique and the comments surrounding it are all pretty weak. Maybe because I sorta understand the background behind the carb/sugar/insulin hypothesis, so I don't take every thing Lustig said too literally. Like arguing for how many posts about the Japanese diet. I think his point is understood, they don't eat sugar like the Americans do.
Some food for thought, is it they are eating the wrong types of foods, or the mindset of dieting makes one less satisfied?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21574706
And I don't think low carb diets fail because of bad information, just that they overly restrictive to some, and that's why they have a lower adherence
As far as Lustig goes, if you're going to say sugar/fructose is toxic, you have to clarify in what dosages, which he fails to do.0 -
I think low carb diets fail because of bad infomation, and that the majority doesn't eat that way. So its almost impossible to avoid foods that go against the diet. Eat less, move more fails because it doesn't address what I think is the key problem with it, hunger, which is caused by continuing to eat the wrong foods because "a calories is a calorie"
I watched the 90 minute Lustig video and Aragon's critique and the comments surrounding it are all pretty weak. Maybe because I sorta understand the background behind the carb/sugar/insulin hypothesis, so I don't take every thing Lustig said too literally. Like arguing for how many posts about the Japanese diet. I think his point is understood, they don't eat sugar like the Americans do.
Some food for thought, is it they are eating the wrong types of foods, or the mindset of dieting makes one less satisfied?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21574706
And I don't think low carb diets fail because of bad information, just that they overly restrictive to some, and that's why they have a lower adherence
As far as Lustig goes, if you're going to say sugar/fructose is toxic, you have to clarify in what dosages, which he fails to do.
I think leptin deficiency is the primary reason why someone in a post-weight loss state regains the weight. Leptin deficiency drives excessive hunger and less calories burned than someone naturally at the same weight, and the person's appetite becomes so perversive that they go off the diet. In calorie restriction they simply stop counting and eat freely. In low carb, they just give up the carb restriction and eat freely. I still think everyone would have an easier time if the population at large cut down on sugars and refined carbs, as it wouldn't be as easy to go off the diet when the leptin levels drop too low.0 -
"Eat less, move more" has been the mainstream approach for decades and it has failed time and time again.
How is that? I have yet to see any evidence about the diabetes jogging epidemic or hypertension weight lifting scare.
Probably because most humans continue to eat calorie dense food and sit on the couch.0 -
I think low carb diets fail because of bad infomation, and that the majority doesn't eat that way. So its almost impossible to avoid foods that go against the diet. Eat less, move more fails because it doesn't address what I think is the key problem with it, hunger, which is caused by continuing to eat the wrong foods because "a calories is a calorie"
I watched the 90 minute Lustig video and Aragon's critique and the comments surrounding it are all pretty weak. Maybe because I sorta understand the background behind the carb/sugar/insulin hypothesis, so I don't take every thing Lustig said too literally. Like arguing for how many posts about the Japanese diet. I think his point is understood, they don't eat sugar like the Americans do.
Some food for thought, is it they are eating the wrong types of foods, or the mindset of dieting makes one less satisfied?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21574706
And I don't think low carb diets fail because of bad information, just that they overly restrictive to some, and that's why they have a lower adherence
As far as Lustig goes, if you're going to say sugar/fructose is toxic, you have to clarify in what dosages, which he fails to do.
I think leptin deficiency is the primary reason why someone in a post-weight loss state regains the weight. Leptin deficiency drives excessive hunger and less calories burned than someone naturally at the same weight, and the person's appetite becomes so perversive that they go off the diet. In calorie restriction they simply stop counting and eat freely. In low carb, they just give up the carb restriction and eat freely. I still think everyone would have an easier time if the population at large cut down on sugars and refined carbs, as it wouldn't be as easy to go off the diet when the leptin levels drop too low.
I think you're putting a tad too many eggs in the leptin basket. And i'm not sure people would necessarily have an easier time if they cut down on sugars and refined grains, you leave out the fact that those are cheap and not everyone has the availability nor money to cut them out and some may just miss them too much, and that will lead to them dropping their diet even quicker.0 -
I think low carb diets fail because of bad infomation, and that the majority doesn't eat that way. So its almost impossible to avoid foods that go against the diet. Eat less, move more fails because it doesn't address what I think is the key problem with it, hunger, which is caused by continuing to eat the wrong foods because "a calories is a calorie"
I watched the 90 minute Lustig video and Aragon's critique and the comments surrounding it are all pretty weak. Maybe because I sorta understand the background behind the carb/sugar/insulin hypothesis, so I don't take every thing Lustig said too literally. Like arguing for how many posts about the Japanese diet. I think his point is understood, they don't eat sugar like the Americans do.
Some food for thought, is it they are eating the wrong types of foods, or the mindset of dieting makes one less satisfied?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21574706
And I don't think low carb diets fail because of bad information, just that they overly restrictive to some, and that's why they have a lower adherence
As far as Lustig goes, if you're going to say sugar/fructose is toxic, you have to clarify in what dosages, which he fails to do.
I think leptin deficiency is the primary reason why someone in a post-weight loss state regains the weight. Leptin deficiency drives excessive hunger and less calories burned than someone naturally at the same weight, and the person's appetite becomes so perversive that they go off the diet. In calorie restriction they simply stop counting and eat freely. In low carb, they just give up the carb restriction and eat freely. I still think everyone would have an easier time if the population at large cut down on sugars and refined carbs, as it wouldn't be as easy to go off the diet when the leptin levels drop too low.
I think you're putting a tad too many eggs in the leptin basket. And i'm not sure people would necessarily have an easier time if they cut down on sugars and refined grains, you leave out the fact that those are cheap and not everyone has the availability nor money to cut them out and some may just miss them too much, and that will lead to them dropping their diet even quicker.
this is true. i agree with this. the US is the only nation where the people in poverty have an obesity problem. we are the only nation that's impovershed are overweight. and its because the cheapest foods have the highest sugar, refined starches, chemicals, etc. the cheap stuff.0 -
"Eat less, move more" has been the mainstream approach for decades and it has failed time and time again.
How is that? I have yet to see any evidence about the diabetes jogging epidemic or hypertension weight lifting scare.
Probably because most humans continue to eat calorie dense food and sit on the couch.
Failed as in the majority gain back the weight eventually, and even end up at a higher weight than they started. Failed in that moving more leads to eating more. Otherwise all marathon runners should be skinny right? I run 5-6 hours a week at about 1000 calories an hour, which means 5000-6000 calories I burn extra each week. I should be losing nearly 2 lbs, yet I'm on an ad lib diet and my weight hasn't changed in the past 2 months. Why, because Calories IN and OUT are affected by hormones more than behavior. I *coincidentally* eat just precisely the amount of calories my body needs to avoid both weight loss and weight gain. How convenient.0 -
I think low carb diets fail because of bad infomation, and that the majority doesn't eat that way. So its almost impossible to avoid foods that go against the diet. Eat less, move more fails because it doesn't address what I think is the key problem with it, hunger, which is caused by continuing to eat the wrong foods because "a calories is a calorie"
I watched the 90 minute Lustig video and Aragon's critique and the comments surrounding it are all pretty weak. Maybe because I sorta understand the background behind the carb/sugar/insulin hypothesis, so I don't take every thing Lustig said too literally. Like arguing for how many posts about the Japanese diet. I think his point is understood, they don't eat sugar like the Americans do.
Some food for thought, is it they are eating the wrong types of foods, or the mindset of dieting makes one less satisfied?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21574706
And I don't think low carb diets fail because of bad information, just that they overly restrictive to some, and that's why they have a lower adherence
As far as Lustig goes, if you're going to say sugar/fructose is toxic, you have to clarify in what dosages, which he fails to do.
I think leptin deficiency is the primary reason why someone in a post-weight loss state regains the weight. Leptin deficiency drives excessive hunger and less calories burned than someone naturally at the same weight, and the person's appetite becomes so perversive that they go off the diet. In calorie restriction they simply stop counting and eat freely. In low carb, they just give up the carb restriction and eat freely. I still think everyone would have an easier time if the population at large cut down on sugars and refined carbs, as it wouldn't be as easy to go off the diet when the leptin levels drop too low.
I think you're putting a tad too many eggs in the leptin basket. And i'm not sure people would necessarily have an easier time if they cut down on sugars and refined grains, you leave out the fact that those are cheap and not everyone has the availability nor money to cut them out and some may just miss them too much, and that will lead to them dropping their diet even quicker.
I know there are alot of politics involved here. I don't think healthier food is that much more costly, but I do think eliminating highly processed foods would probably cause healthier food to go up in cost due to increased demand.
I think if the obesity problem is going to go away, then sugar and refined carbs need to be demonized like alcohol and tobacco. Sure there are plenty of people who can tolerate them just fine, but I think people who are overweight need to severely restrict them. If they were able to "eat in moderation" like is so often recommended, then they wouldn't be fat in the first place.0 -
I think low carb diets fail because of bad infomation, and that the majority doesn't eat that way. So its almost impossible to avoid foods that go against the diet. Eat less, move more fails because it doesn't address what I think is the key problem with it, hunger, which is caused by continuing to eat the wrong foods because "a calories is a calorie"
I watched the 90 minute Lustig video and Aragon's critique and the comments surrounding it are all pretty weak. Maybe because I sorta understand the background behind the carb/sugar/insulin hypothesis, so I don't take every thing Lustig said too literally. Like arguing for how many posts about the Japanese diet. I think his point is understood, they don't eat sugar like the Americans do.
Some food for thought, is it they are eating the wrong types of foods, or the mindset of dieting makes one less satisfied?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21574706
And I don't think low carb diets fail because of bad information, just that they overly restrictive to some, and that's why they have a lower adherence
As far as Lustig goes, if you're going to say sugar/fructose is toxic, you have to clarify in what dosages, which he fails to do.
I think leptin deficiency is the primary reason why someone in a post-weight loss state regains the weight. Leptin deficiency drives excessive hunger and less calories burned than someone naturally at the same weight, and the person's appetite becomes so perversive that they go off the diet. In calorie restriction they simply stop counting and eat freely. In low carb, they just give up the carb restriction and eat freely. I still think everyone would have an easier time if the population at large cut down on sugars and refined carbs, as it wouldn't be as easy to go off the diet when the leptin levels drop too low.
I think you're putting a tad too many eggs in the leptin basket. And i'm not sure people would necessarily have an easier time if they cut down on sugars and refined grains, you leave out the fact that those are cheap and not everyone has the availability nor money to cut them out and some may just miss them too much, and that will lead to them dropping their diet even quicker.
I know there are alot of politics involved here. I don't think healthier food is that much more costly, but I do think eliminating highly processed foods would probably cause healthier food to go up in cost due to increased demand.
I think if the obesity problem is going to go away, then sugar and refined carbs need to be demonized like alcohol and tobacco. Sure there are plenty of people who can tolerate them just fine, but I think people who are overweight need to severely restrict them. If they were able to "eat in moderation" like is so often recommended, then they wouldn't be fat in the first place.
sugar consumption has decreased over the last decade yet obesity has increased, I'm unsure on refined carb intake though.0 -
Nobody has to believe anything. As an experiment, remove sugar from the diet for a month or two and see how you feel at the end of that period.
No difference?
Then go ahead and keep it in your diet -- no big deal. My own experience is that i've felt better overall since I've removed it, so I'm going to keep it out of my lifestyle. That, of course, won't be everyone's experience.
I also have a familiy history of cancer, heart disease and diabetes -- maybe none of it is related to sugar; however, I choose to believe that sugar is one of those deadly variables that shorten life along with smoking, drinking and stress.
My father smoked and died of cancer of the gums. I don't smoke. My grandfather dies of complications related diabetes -- he ate really bad -- his brother also died of a heart attack and had similar eating habits. My grandfather also had a sister sister that lived well into her nineties -- she ate like a bird and did not smoke and was ambivalent towards "treats".
That is all anecdotal, but it has left an impression on me and gets more meaninful to me as I get older. Twenty years ago I probably would have ignored someone like Dr. Lustig.
Some people have different experiences and maybe a much better family health history. Don't believe anything. Do your own research and experiment.0 -
I think low carb diets fail because of bad infomation, and that the majority doesn't eat that way. So its almost impossible to avoid foods that go against the diet. Eat less, move more fails because it doesn't address what I think is the key problem with it, hunger, which is caused by continuing to eat the wrong foods because "a calories is a calorie"
I watched the 90 minute Lustig video and Aragon's critique and the comments surrounding it are all pretty weak. Maybe because I sorta understand the background behind the carb/sugar/insulin hypothesis, so I don't take every thing Lustig said too literally. Like arguing for how many posts about the Japanese diet. I think his point is understood, they don't eat sugar like the Americans do.
Some food for thought, is it they are eating the wrong types of foods, or the mindset of dieting makes one less satisfied?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21574706
And I don't think low carb diets fail because of bad information, just that they overly restrictive to some, and that's why they have a lower adherence
As far as Lustig goes, if you're going to say sugar/fructose is toxic, you have to clarify in what dosages, which he fails to do.
I think leptin deficiency is the primary reason why someone in a post-weight loss state regains the weight. Leptin deficiency drives excessive hunger and less calories burned than someone naturally at the same weight, and the person's appetite becomes so perversive that they go off the diet. In calorie restriction they simply stop counting and eat freely. In low carb, they just give up the carb restriction and eat freely. I still think everyone would have an easier time if the population at large cut down on sugars and refined carbs, as it wouldn't be as easy to go off the diet when the leptin levels drop too low.
I think you're putting a tad too many eggs in the leptin basket. And i'm not sure people would necessarily have an easier time if they cut down on sugars and refined grains, you leave out the fact that those are cheap and not everyone has the availability nor money to cut them out and some may just miss them too much, and that will lead to them dropping their diet even quicker.
I know there are alot of politics involved here. I don't think healthier food is that much more costly, but I do think eliminating highly processed foods would probably cause healthier food to go up in cost due to increased demand.
I think if the obesity problem is going to go away, then sugar and refined carbs need to be demonized like alcohol and tobacco. Sure there are plenty of people who can tolerate them just fine, but I think people who are overweight need to severely restrict them. If they were able to "eat in moderation" like is so often recommended, then they wouldn't be fat in the first place.
sugar consumption has decreased over the last decade yet obesity has increased, I'm unsure on refined carb intake though.
True, but if Lustig is correct, then chronic over-consumption of fructose leading up to around the early 2000s when it seemed to have peaked, could have led to insulin resistance and/or chronically high fasted insulin levels that led to a general intolerance to carbs in many individuals, particularly the refined carbs even excluding sugar. Plus it doesn't help that we are an aging population. This is my understanding how of fructose may lead to an obesity epidemic.0 -
I think low carb diets fail because of bad infomation, and that the majority doesn't eat that way. So its almost impossible to avoid foods that go against the diet. Eat less, move more fails because it doesn't address what I think is the key problem with it, hunger, which is caused by continuing to eat the wrong foods because "a calories is a calorie"
I watched the 90 minute Lustig video and Aragon's critique and the comments surrounding it are all pretty weak. Maybe because I sorta understand the background behind the carb/sugar/insulin hypothesis, so I don't take every thing Lustig said too literally. Like arguing for how many posts about the Japanese diet. I think his point is understood, they don't eat sugar like the Americans do.
Some food for thought, is it they are eating the wrong types of foods, or the mindset of dieting makes one less satisfied?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21574706
And I don't think low carb diets fail because of bad information, just that they overly restrictive to some, and that's why they have a lower adherence
As far as Lustig goes, if you're going to say sugar/fructose is toxic, you have to clarify in what dosages, which he fails to do.
I think leptin deficiency is the primary reason why someone in a post-weight loss state regains the weight. Leptin deficiency drives excessive hunger and less calories burned than someone naturally at the same weight, and the person's appetite becomes so perversive that they go off the diet. In calorie restriction they simply stop counting and eat freely. In low carb, they just give up the carb restriction and eat freely. I still think everyone would have an easier time if the population at large cut down on sugars and refined carbs, as it wouldn't be as easy to go off the diet when the leptin levels drop too low.
I think you're putting a tad too many eggs in the leptin basket. And i'm not sure people would necessarily have an easier time if they cut down on sugars and refined grains, you leave out the fact that those are cheap and not everyone has the availability nor money to cut them out and some may just miss them too much, and that will lead to them dropping their diet even quicker.
I know there are alot of politics involved here. I don't think healthier food is that much more costly, but I do think eliminating highly processed foods would probably cause healthier food to go up in cost due to increased demand.
I think if the obesity problem is going to go away, then sugar and refined carbs need to be demonized like alcohol and tobacco. Sure there are plenty of people who can tolerate them just fine, but I think people who are overweight need to severely restrict them. If they were able to "eat in moderation" like is so often recommended, then they wouldn't be fat in the first place.
sugar consumption has decreased over the last decade yet obesity has increased, I'm unsure on refined carb intake though.
True, but if Lustig is correct, then chronic over-consumption of fructose leading up to around the early 2000s when it seemed to have peaked, could have led to insulin resistance and/or chronically high fasted insulin levels that led to a general intolerance to carbs in many individuals, particularly the refined carbs even excluding sugar. Plus it doesn't help that we are an aging population. This is my understanding how of fructose may lead to an obesity epidemic.
And what effect does fructose have on insulin secretion?0 -
I think low carb diets fail because of bad infomation, and that the majority doesn't eat that way. So its almost impossible to avoid foods that go against the diet. Eat less, move more fails because it doesn't address what I think is the key problem with it, hunger, which is caused by continuing to eat the wrong foods because "a calories is a calorie"
I watched the 90 minute Lustig video and Aragon's critique and the comments surrounding it are all pretty weak. Maybe because I sorta understand the background behind the carb/sugar/insulin hypothesis, so I don't take every thing Lustig said too literally. Like arguing for how many posts about the Japanese diet. I think his point is understood, they don't eat sugar like the Americans do.
Some food for thought, is it they are eating the wrong types of foods, or the mindset of dieting makes one less satisfied?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21574706
And I don't think low carb diets fail because of bad information, just that they overly restrictive to some, and that's why they have a lower adherence
As far as Lustig goes, if you're going to say sugar/fructose is toxic, you have to clarify in what dosages, which he fails to do.
I think leptin deficiency is the primary reason why someone in a post-weight loss state regains the weight. Leptin deficiency drives excessive hunger and less calories burned than someone naturally at the same weight, and the person's appetite becomes so perversive that they go off the diet. In calorie restriction they simply stop counting and eat freely. In low carb, they just give up the carb restriction and eat freely. I still think everyone would have an easier time if the population at large cut down on sugars and refined carbs, as it wouldn't be as easy to go off the diet when the leptin levels drop too low.
I think you're putting a tad too many eggs in the leptin basket. And i'm not sure people would necessarily have an easier time if they cut down on sugars and refined grains, you leave out the fact that those are cheap and not everyone has the availability nor money to cut them out and some may just miss them too much, and that will lead to them dropping their diet even quicker.
I know there are alot of politics involved here. I don't think healthier food is that much more costly, but I do think eliminating highly processed foods would probably cause healthier food to go up in cost due to increased demand.
I think if the obesity problem is going to go away, then sugar and refined carbs need to be demonized like alcohol and tobacco. Sure there are plenty of people who can tolerate them just fine, but I think people who are overweight need to severely restrict them. If they were able to "eat in moderation" like is so often recommended, then they wouldn't be fat in the first place.
sugar consumption has decreased over the last decade yet obesity has increased, I'm unsure on refined carb intake though.
True, but if Lustig is correct, then chronic over-consumption of fructose leading up to around the early 2000s when it seemed to have peaked, could have led to insulin resistance and/or chronically high fasted insulin levels that led to a general intolerance to carbs in many individuals, particularly the refined carbs even excluding sugar. Plus it doesn't help that we are an aging population. This is my understanding how of fructose may lead to an obesity epidemic.
And what effect does fructose have on insulin secretion?
I don't recall that fructose directly leads to secretion of insulin, but it is believed to cause insulin resistance in the liver, and even Stephen Guyenet who opposes the insulin hypothesis talks about this.0 -
I don't recall that fructose directly leads to secretion of insulin, but it is believed to cause insulin resistance in the liver, and even Stephen Guyenet who opposes the insulin hypothesis talks about this.
I'll help you out and you can read up on purposed theories on how excess fructose consumption can lead to insulin resistance
Elliott, S et al. Fructose, weight gain, and the insulin resistance syndrome. Am J Clin Nutr November 2002 vol. 76 no. 5 911-922
http://www.ajcn.org/content/76/5/911.full0 -
I don't recall that fructose directly leads to secretion of insulin, but it is believed to cause insulin resistance in the liver, and even Stephen Guyenet who opposes the insulin hypothesis talks about this.
I'll help you out and you can read up on purposed theories on how excess fructose consumption can lead to insulin resistance
Elliott, S et al. Fructose, weight gain, and the insulin resistance syndrome. Am J Clin Nutr November 2002 vol. 76 no. 5 911-922
http://www.ajcn.org/content/76/5/911.full
Okay so what I am to take from this article? That it does or doesn't cause insulin resistance or that we don't know? I guess in the face of controversial science, I choose the null hypothesis to be the one that actually relates to my own observations. "Eat less, move more" leaves quite a few of my observations unexplained and really seems like nonsense to me. "Fructose->insulin resistance->Carb intolerance->overeating->weight gain" actually makes a bit more sense to me and explains more of my observations (but not all of them). I'm going to default to that one because it seems to actually make a difference in my own health and continue to watch the debate unfold.0 -
I don't recall that fructose directly leads to secretion of insulin, but it is believed to cause insulin resistance in the liver, and even Stephen Guyenet who opposes the insulin hypothesis talks about this.
I'll help you out and you can read up on purposed theories on how excess fructose consumption can lead to insulin resistance
Elliott, S et al. Fructose, weight gain, and the insulin resistance syndrome. Am J Clin Nutr November 2002 vol. 76 no. 5 911-922
http://www.ajcn.org/content/76/5/911.full
Okay so what I am to take from this article? That it does or doesn't cause insulin resistance or that we don't know? I guess in the face of controversial science, I choose the null hypothesis to be the one that actually relates to my own observations. "Eat less, move more" leaves quite a few of my observations unexplained and really seems like nonsense to me. "Fructose->insulin resistance->Carb intolerance->overeating->weight gain" actually makes a bit more sense to me and explains more of my observations (but not all of them). I'm going to default to that one because it seems to actually make a difference in my own health and continue to watch the debate unfold.
That they don't know quite yet but caution against high fructose combined with a high fat diet. It was more to give you some of the purposed theories on how fructose can contribute to insulin resistance, see the whole section on that, skip the first paragraph talking about dogs and rats0 -
I don't recall that fructose directly leads to secretion of insulin, but it is believed to cause insulin resistance in the liver, and even Stephen Guyenet who opposes the insulin hypothesis talks about this.
I'll help you out and you can read up on purposed theories on how excess fructose consumption can lead to insulin resistance
Elliott, S et al. Fructose, weight gain, and the insulin resistance syndrome. Am J Clin Nutr November 2002 vol. 76 no. 5 911-922
http://www.ajcn.org/content/76/5/911.full
Okay so what I am to take from this article? That it does or doesn't cause insulin resistance or that we don't know? I guess in the face of controversial science, I choose the null hypothesis to be the one that actually relates to my own observations. "Eat less, move more" leaves quite a few of my observations unexplained and really seems like nonsense to me. "Fructose->insulin resistance->Carb intolerance->overeating->weight gain" actually makes a bit more sense to me and explains more of my observations (but not all of them). I'm going to default to that one because it seems to actually make a difference in my own health and continue to watch the debate unfold.
That they don't know quite yet but caution against high fructose combined with a high fat diet. It was more to give you some of the purposed theories on how fructose can contribute to insulin resistance, see the whole section on that, skip the first paragraph talking about dogs and rats
Yeah I've read some of this from other sites, but I usually don't remember all the details. I didn't know if you were trying to prove/disprove something or just sharing info that you thought I might be interested in. Thanks for the info though.0 -
I'm with you and I just watched the 90 mins on youtube where he explains it all. 'Bitter Truth'
Worth a view before folks write this guy off.
-t"Dr. Robert Lustig, a pediatric endocrinologist at the University of California, believes the high amount of sugar in the American diet, much of it in processed foods, is killing us."
OK, that does not sounds crazy to me. I have to agree with that.
"And as Dr. Sanjay Gupta reports, new scientific research seems to support his theory that sugar is toxic, including some linking the excess ingestion of sugars to heart disease."
That is widely believed. Ever seen Food Matters?
I don't understand the haters who posted before me. I have never heard of this Lustig guy but sounds like he is on the right path.0 -
Nobody has to believe anything. As an experiment, remove sugar from the diet for a month or two and see how you feel at the end of that period.
No difference?
Then go ahead and keep it in your diet -- no big deal. My own experience is that i've felt better overall since I've removed it, so I'm going to keep it out of my lifestyle. That, of course, won't be everyone's experience.
I also have a familiy history of cancer, heart disease and diabetes -- maybe none of it is related to sugar; however, I choose to believe that sugar is one of those deadly variables that shorten life along with smoking, drinking and stress.
My father smoked and died of cancer of the gums. I don't smoke. My grandfather dies of complications related diabetes -- he ate really bad -- his brother also died of a heart attack and had similar eating habits. My grandfather also had a sister sister that lived well into her nineties -- she ate like a bird and did not smoke and was ambivalent towards "treats".
That is all anecdotal, but it has left an impression on me and gets more meaninful to me as I get older. Twenty years ago I probably would have ignored someone like Dr. Lustig.
Some people have different experiences and maybe a much better family health history. Don't believe anything. Do your own research and experiment.
A sensible response - You are a breath of fresh air!!0 -
0
-
FYI, when flexible dieters were compared to strict dieters, flexible dieters were far more successful. Let's move away from this nonsensical garbage that it's sugar's fault. Eat less and move more is the only proven way to work. The problem is people think a slim(mer) figure gives them the permission to shove food endlessly down their gullet post-diet, which simply contributes to fat being gained back.
Wait! I'm wrong. It's sugar. Obviously. Sugar gets up, goes into your mouth, and makes you fat.0 -
FYI, when flexible dieters were compared to strict dieters, flexible dieters were far more successful. Let's move away from this nonsensical garbage that it's sugar's fault. Eat less and move more is the only proven way to work. The problem is people think a slim(mer) figure gives them the permission to shove food endlessly down their gullet post-diet, which simply contributes to fat being gained back.
Wait! I'm wrong. It's sugar. Obviously. Sugar gets up, goes into your mouth, and makes you fat.
How exactly is 'eat less and move more' a proven way to work? And have you heard of leptin and does it not matter? Is the primary reason for long-term diet failure because people think they have permission to shove food endlessly down their gullet post-diet?0 -
And to all you Primal followers and Sisson fans, if you believe that sugar is toxic, Sisson is trying to kill you
Take a look at the ingredients of his Primal Fuel
Speaking of people bringing up arguments that no one else did, WHF does that have to do with anything.
I don't know, maybe the topic? Wasn't this thread started to talk about if sugar is toxic or not?
right, so why did you bring up primal? We know, but to say the reason would not make me popular with the mods around here0 -
Oh geez, there's a difference in actual "poison" compared to correlations of illness because the people who were sick ate sugar.So, is heroine ok in moderation? Anthrax? Cyanide? I mean, if EVERYTHING is OK in moderation...
If no, than the rule doesn't work.
I've eaten lots of sugar DAILY, with no adverse reaction or "poisoning". Relax and have a candy bar.
A.C.E. Certified Personal & Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
It wouldn't be if people actually followed it."Eat less, move more" has been the mainstream approach for decades and it has failed time and time again.
A.C.E. Certified Personal & Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
And to all you Primal followers and Sisson fans, if you believe that sugar is toxic, Sisson is trying to kill you
Take a look at the ingredients of his Primal Fuel
Speaking of people bringing up arguments that no one else did, WHF does that have to do with anything.
I don't know, maybe the topic? Wasn't this thread started to talk about if sugar is toxic or not?
right, so why did you bring up primal? We know, but to say the reason would not make me popular with the mods around here
Seeing as as their were some Primal/Paleo adherents in the thread, it was to make them aware that if sugar was indeed toxic, Sisson was trying to poison them. If you think otherwise, go ahead and let's hear it0 -
Yep, I'm dying from aspartame. Have my daily dose at least 2 times.
A.C.E. Certified Personal & Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
FYI, when flexible dieters were compared to strict dieters, flexible dieters were far more successful. Let's move away from this nonsensical garbage that it's sugar's fault. Eat less and move more is the only proven way to work. The problem is people think a slim(mer) figure gives them the permission to shove food endlessly down their gullet post-diet, which simply contributes to fat being gained back.
Wait! I'm wrong. It's sugar. Obviously. Sugar gets up, goes into your mouth, and makes you fat.
but what defines a flexible diet to you? to me counting calories and doing all sorts of math and living within certain limitations and having to work out extra if i splurge a little seems restrictive. i just choose to make good food decisions MOST of the time and work out a little (3 or 4 days a week) and if i want a treat i have one. i dont count anything and i dont adhere to any nutrient paramaters. i eat when i feel hungry and eat what tastes good. i dont eat food that makes me feel sick or gives me digestive problems. and if i want dessert i have it and i DONT feel guilty about it. oh and i have lost 35 lbs. the thought of actually counting calories and monitoring everything i eat seems restrictive and a pain. and i would much rather not have to do a bunch of math and adding. as long as i have a general idea of what goes on my plate i am fine. how is that not something to live with?0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0UDeydlEDM
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.5K 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
- 427 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