sugar toxic

sexforjaffacakes

So, is heroine ok in moderation? Anthrax? Cyanide? I mean, if EVERYTHING is OK in moderation...

If no, than the rule doesn't work.

actually, depending on doses yeah, you can take anything in limited quantities. And equally, everything can and will kill you in massive quantities.
No substance will kill you if you take it in a safe amount.

Of course, the safe amount of heroin will be a millionth of the safe amount of sugar.

Elizabeth_C34

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.

Acg67

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

EbbySoo

So, is heroine ok in moderation? Anthrax? Cyanide? I mean, if EVERYTHING is OK in moderation...

If no, than the rule doesn't work.

/facepalm. LOL.

Clarecbear82

Life will be the death of me so I'm just going to enjoy it!

freerange

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.

Acg67

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?

mmapags

What an opportunity to grind some axes! My, My!

theflyingartist

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

:laugh: Oh, irony..

grinch031

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.

JoolieW68

I think I'll go eat a spoonful of brown sugar now. With aspartame on top of it.

Acg67

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

grinch031

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.

Acg67

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.

grinch031

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.

mittensofdoom

"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.

Acg67

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.

weathergirl320

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.

grinch031

"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.

grinch031

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.