sugar toxic

AeolianHarp

Because there is scientific evidence that fat metabolism is regulated by the body. Its not up for debate, it is true. To what extent is really where the debate comes in. Everyone knows environment can affect both your calorie consumption and energy expenditure, but I happen to think the data shows more compellingly that the body rules over the mind.

So, the reason people are becoming fatter than before is because more bodies are being produced that want to be fat thus the body forces the mind to overeat so they can die faster?

You'll have to show me this compelling data because this sounds like some voodoo horse ****.

Acg67

Because there is scientific evidence that fat metabolism is regulated by the body. Its not up for debate, it is true. To what extent is really where the debate comes in. Everyone knows environment can affect both your calorie consumption and energy expenditure, but I happen to think the data shows more compellingly that the body rules over the mind.

So, the reason people are becoming fatter than before is because more bodies are being produced that want to be fat thus the body forces the mind to overeat so they can die faster?

You'll have to show me this compelling data because this sounds like some voodoo horse ****.

Sounds vaguely like Taubes' Insulin Hypothesis of Obesity

grinch031

Because there is scientific evidence that fat metabolism is regulated by the body. Its not up for debate, it is true. To what extent is really where the debate comes in. Everyone knows environment can affect both your calorie consumption and energy expenditure, but I happen to think the data shows more compellingly that the body rules over the mind.

So, the reason people are becoming fatter than before is because more bodies are being produced that want to be fat thus the body forces the mind to overeat so they can die faster?

You'll have to show me this compelling data because this sounds like some voodoo horse ****.

I'd say my beliefs are more in line with the idea that the quality of foods we eat and our genetics ultimately determine the health of our fat metabolism and whether we end up thin or fat.

sipseyab

"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.

I am in total agreement with you. I cut out ALL HFCS and have virtually no sugar cravings any more. I don't understand what's so hard to believe about this information.

grinch031

Because there is scientific evidence that fat metabolism is regulated by the body. Its not up for debate, it is true. To what extent is really where the debate comes in. Everyone knows environment can affect both your calorie consumption and energy expenditure, but I happen to think the data shows more compellingly that the body rules over the mind.

So, the reason people are becoming fatter than before is because more bodies are being produced that want to be fat thus the body forces the mind to overeat so they can die faster?

You'll have to show me this compelling data because this sounds like some voodoo horse ****.

Sounds vaguely like Taubes' Insulin Hypothesis of Obesity

Lustig says the same thing, just that fructose gets the ball rolling.

Acg67

Because there is scientific evidence that fat metabolism is regulated by the body. Its not up for debate, it is true. To what extent is really where the debate comes in. Everyone knows environment can affect both your calorie consumption and energy expenditure, but I happen to think the data shows more compellingly that the body rules over the mind.

So, the reason people are becoming fatter than before is because more bodies are being produced that want to be fat thus the body forces the mind to overeat so they can die faster?

You'll have to show me this compelling data because this sounds like some voodoo horse ****.

Sounds vaguely like Taubes' Insulin Hypothesis of Obesity

Lustig says the same thing, just that fructose gets the ball rolling.

And how much is considered excessive?

LinzCurlyQ

Toniights Episode is

"if you sniff splenda you die"

This made me laugh

PoochPottery

bump

grinch031

Because there is scientific evidence that fat metabolism is regulated by the body. Its not up for debate, it is true. To what extent is really where the debate comes in. Everyone knows environment can affect both your calorie consumption and energy expenditure, but I happen to think the data shows more compellingly that the body rules over the mind.

So, the reason people are becoming fatter than before is because more bodies are being produced that want to be fat thus the body forces the mind to overeat so they can die faster?

You'll have to show me this compelling data because this sounds like some voodoo horse ****.

Sounds vaguely like Taubes' Insulin Hypothesis of Obesity

Lustig says the same thing, just that fructose gets the ball rolling.

And how much is considered excessive?

I don't remember if he actually defines what is excessive, but I think from one of his lectures he recommended something like only one soda per day worth of added sugar.

Acg67

Because there is scientific evidence that fat metabolism is regulated by the body. Its not up for debate, it is true. To what extent is really where the debate comes in. Everyone knows environment can affect both your calorie consumption and energy expenditure, but I happen to think the data shows more compellingly that the body rules over the mind.

So, the reason people are becoming fatter than before is because more bodies are being produced that want to be fat thus the body forces the mind to overeat so they can die faster?

You'll have to show me this compelling data because this sounds like some voodoo horse ****.

Sounds vaguely like Taubes' Insulin Hypothesis of Obesity

Lustig says the same thing, just that fructose gets the ball rolling.

And how much is considered excessive?

I don't remember if he actually defines what is excessive, but I think from one of his lectures he recommended something like only one soda per day worth of added sugar.

Which is silly, that would mean that the amount he defines as excessive totally leaves out the energy requirements of the person consuming it.

grinch031

Because there is scientific evidence that fat metabolism is regulated by the body. Its not up for debate, it is true. To what extent is really where the debate comes in. Everyone knows environment can affect both your calorie consumption and energy expenditure, but I happen to think the data shows more compellingly that the body rules over the mind.

So, the reason people are becoming fatter than before is because more bodies are being produced that want to be fat thus the body forces the mind to overeat so they can die faster?

You'll have to show me this compelling data because this sounds like some voodoo horse ****.

Sounds vaguely like Taubes' Insulin Hypothesis of Obesity

Lustig says the same thing, just that fructose gets the ball rolling.

And how much is considered excessive?

I don't remember if he actually defines what is excessive, but I think from one of his lectures he recommended something like only one soda per day worth of added sugar.

Which is silly, that would mean that the amount he defines as excessive totally leaves out the energy requirements of the person consuming it.

I guess because he hasn't proven in controlled studies that X amount of fructose in the form of added sugars causes obesity and disease, that he must be full of crap, right?

I understand your skepticism, and I have a small amount myself, but its not a risk I'm willing to take and I wouldn't tell people (who have weight problems) to eat as much sugar as they like, just watch their calorie intake because I don't think that's going to help them. I don't believe that obesity is so multifactorial that we can't find a primary root cause, but I'm interested to see how this sugar thing plays out.

Acg67

I guess because he hasn't proven in controlled studies that X amount of fructose in the form of added sugars causes obesity and disease, that he must be full of crap, right?

I understand your skepticism, and I have a small amount myself, but its not a risk I'm willing to take and I wouldn't tell people to eat as much sugar as they like, just watch their calorie intake because I don't think that's going to help them. I don't believe that obesity is so multifactorial that we can't find a primary root cause, but I'm interested to see how this sugar thing plays out.

]

The point was, saying an arbitrary amount of sugar would be excessive for everyone is silly. Clearly, someone who is petite and sedentary and someone who is bigger and works out 5x a week would have different energy requirements and the amount of sugar that would be considered excessive would be scaled to the energy requirements. Most likely consistently eating more than 20-25% of your daily cals in the form of added sugar isn't the greatest idea.

grinch031

I guess because he hasn't proven in controlled studies that X amount of fructose in the form of added sugars causes obesity and disease, that he must be full of crap, right?

I understand your skepticism, and I have a small amount myself, but its not a risk I'm willing to take and I wouldn't tell people to eat as much sugar as they like, just watch their calorie intake because I don't think that's going to help them. I don't believe that obesity is so multifactorial that we can't find a primary root cause, but I'm interested to see how this sugar thing plays out.

]

The point was, saying an arbitrary amount of sugar would be excessive for everyone is silly. Clearly, someone who is petite and sedentary and someone who is bigger and works out 5x a week would have different energy requirements and the amount of sugar that would be considered excessive would be scaled to the energy requirements. Most likely consistently eating more than 20-25% of your daily cals in the form of added sugar isn't the greatest idea.

I'm not sure why he would feel the need to scale it to the individual person's energy needs. He thinks people should be eating none at all because its unnecessary and does more harm than good. He recommends people eat their sugar in the form of fruit.

Acg67

I guess because he hasn't proven in controlled studies that X amount of fructose in the form of added sugars causes obesity and disease, that he must be full of crap, right?

I understand your skepticism, and I have a small amount myself, but its not a risk I'm willing to take and I wouldn't tell people to eat as much sugar as they like, just watch their calorie intake because I don't think that's going to help them. I don't believe that obesity is so multifactorial that we can't find a primary root cause, but I'm interested to see how this sugar thing plays out.

]

The point was, saying an arbitrary amount of sugar would be excessive for everyone is silly. Clearly, someone who is petite and sedentary and someone who is bigger and works out 5x a week would have different energy requirements and the amount of sugar that would be considered excessive would be scaled to the energy requirements. Most likely consistently eating more than 20-25% of your daily cals in the form of added sugar isn't the greatest idea.

I'm not sure why he would feel the need to scale it to the individual person's energy needs. He thinks people should be eating none at all because its unnecessary and does more harm than good. He recommends people eat their sugar in the form of fruit.

And what's the difference metabolically speaking between sugar from fruit to let's say sucrose or HFCS

grinch031

I guess because he hasn't proven in controlled studies that X amount of fructose in the form of added sugars causes obesity and disease, that he must be full of crap, right?

I understand your skepticism, and I have a small amount myself, but its not a risk I'm willing to take and I wouldn't tell people to eat as much sugar as they like, just watch their calorie intake because I don't think that's going to help them. I don't believe that obesity is so multifactorial that we can't find a primary root cause, but I'm interested to see how this sugar thing plays out.

]

The point was, saying an arbitrary amount of sugar would be excessive for everyone is silly. Clearly, someone who is petite and sedentary and someone who is bigger and works out 5x a week would have different energy requirements and the amount of sugar that would be considered excessive would be scaled to the energy requirements. Most likely consistently eating more than 20-25% of your daily cals in the form of added sugar isn't the greatest idea.

I'm not sure why he would feel the need to scale it to the individual person's energy needs. He thinks people should be eating none at all because its unnecessary and does more harm than good. He recommends people eat their sugar in the form of fruit.

And what's the difference metabolically speaking between sugar from fruit to let's say sucrose or HFCS

Lustig loves fiber. He says the fiber, micro-nutrients, and satiating effect you get from eating whole fruits makes it safe for consumption, unlike HFCS or sucrose mixed with water or other low-nutrient mixture.

neanderthin

I guess because he hasn't proven in controlled studies that X amount of fructose in the form of added sugars causes obesity and disease, that he must be full of crap, right?

I understand your skepticism, and I have a small amount myself, but its not a risk I'm willing to take and I wouldn't tell people to eat as much sugar as they like, just watch their calorie intake because I don't think that's going to help them. I don't believe that obesity is so multifactorial that we can't find a primary root cause, but I'm interested to see how this sugar thing plays out.

]

The point was, saying an arbitrary amount of sugar would be excessive for everyone is silly. Clearly, someone who is petite and sedentary and someone who is bigger and works out 5x a week would have different energy requirements and the amount of sugar that would be considered excessive would be scaled to the energy requirements. Most likely consistently eating more than 20-25% of your daily cals in the form of added sugar isn't the greatest idea.

I'm not sure why he would feel the need to scale it to the individual person's energy needs. He thinks people should be eating none at all because its unnecessary and does more harm than good. He recommends people eat their sugar in the form of fruit.

And what's the difference metabolically speaking between sugar from fruit to let's say sucrose or HFCS

Lustig loves fiber. He says the fiber, micro-nutrients, and satiating effect you get from eating whole fruits makes it safe for consumption, unlike HFCS or sucrose mixed with water or other low-nutrient mixture.

Ludtig forgets that people can do both, eat fruit and HFCS is say a pop. It's always about context and dosage and lifestyle. Suggestig the obvious when something is overconsumed is silly.

rebeccap13

So as long as sugar is coming from a more nutrient dense source it's okay to eat and not toxic?

grinch031

So as long as sugar is coming from a more nutrient dense source it's okay to eat and not toxic?

Lustig implies when you eat it the way nature intended, you are not going to over-consume it. Do you think you could possibly eat the same amount of sugar in a day through whole fruits as you could through soda? So the premise is that we know its toxic when taken in high doses during experiments, and based on the known physiology its probably toxic when chronically taken at lesser doses over a long period of time. Its also linked to diseases in less controlled studies with other confounding variables. To what extent we don't know, but we should error on the side of caution. You gotta take it or leave it for what it is.

tigersword

So as long as sugar is coming from a more nutrient dense source it's okay to eat and not toxic?

Lustig implies when you eat it the way nature intended, you are not going to over-consume it. Do you think you could possibly eat the same amount of sugar in a day through whole fruits as you could through soda? So the premise is that we know its toxic when taken in high doses during experiments, and based on the known physiology its probably toxic when chronically taken at lesser doses over a long period of time. Its also linked to diseases in less controlled studies with other confounding variables. To what extent we don't know, but we should error on the side of caution. You gotta take it or leave it for what it is.

I eat 2-3 apples a day. That's roughly the same amount of sugar in a can of soda, so yes, I could very easily eat the same amount of sugar in fruit as I can get from sodas. And I eat apples a whole lot more often than I drink soda. Apples every day, soda maybe once a month.

And apples aren't the only fruit I eat regularly.

mmapags

Is there a difference metabolically in how our bodies process sugar from an apple which digests more slowly due to it's fiber content and theoretically delivers sugar into the bloodstream in a more measured pace and something like soda that delivers it very rapidly? Considering dose being equal.

tigersword

Is there a difference metabolically in how our bodies process sugar from an apple which digests more slowly due to it's fiber content and theoretically delivers sugar into the bloodstream in a more measured pace and something like soda that delivers it very rapidly? Considering dose being equal.

If you eat in a vacuum, theoretically, yes. However, if you eat some bread or some brown rice, say a turkey sandwich on whole grain bread, and then wash it down with a soda, then the fiber from the bread will slow the absorption of the sugar exactly the same way as the fiber in an apple. Remember, food takes HOURS to digest and be processed. Even if you eat an hour before drinking the soda, the fiber will still be in your digestive system and will still slow the sugar absorption.

That's honestly the real flaw in the fructose is bad argument, as fructose only seems to cause problems when it's in very high amounts, and eaten completely on it's own, which never happens outside of a controlled laboratory setting.

SoDamnHungry

I think it makes sense. That said, I'll be having Jelly Bellies and a Cadbury Creme Egg today.

weathergirl320

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?

Yes, the primary reason for failure is the lack of acknowledgement of how much they eat. It's been shown that thinner people report more calories than they actually ate and fatter people report less calories than they actually ate. Humans are accountable for themselves. There are millions of successful people who have gone under 10% and maintain physiques in the 10-15% range.

Now, of course, hormones and genetics play an incredibly large role but please don't use leptin as an excuse for someone to stay at 20%. People fail because they have no clue what to do once they've achieved that body. They don't understand what reverse dieting is. Reverse dieting exists to help normalize hormones, especially leptin.

On diet breaks:
"The physiological stuff is the stuff I talk about all the time here on the site, on the forum and elsewhere. When folks diet and lose weight/fat, the body adjusts metabolic rate downwards. While a majority of this is simply due to weighing less (smaller bodies burn fewer calories), there is also an adaptive component, a greater decrease in metabolic rate than would be predicted due to changes in things like leptin, insulin, thyroid hormones, etc.

By moving to roughly maintenance for a couple of weeks, many of those hormones are given time to recover. Thyroid hormones come back up, as does leptin. This is a big part of the reason for the recommendation to raise carbs to 100-150 grams per day as a minimum.

Thyroid hormones are distinctly sensitive to carbohydrate intake as are leptin levels (especially in the short-term). Just raising calories but keeping the diet very low carb doesn’t accomplish everything hormonally I want the full diet break to do."

Any way you slice it, a caloric deficit must be present for fat to be lost. If you currently are not losing weight then you must decrease it more. Yes, your body can adapt to a certain intake. Why do you think a bodybuilder starts at, for example, 3000 calories and, by the end of the cut, ends up at 2000? Stalls happen. Hormones change. But once you're done dieting, you should REVERSE diet. People go off a diet by simply eating. They have no idea how much they're really eat and their body is primed to gain fat.

So, to extent, you're correct. It is proven that post-diet you are primed to put fat back and it's quite possible to put all of it back on. It happens all the time. But is it leptin's fault? Is it the hormones? Or is it a lack of knowledge on post-dieting tactics? Increased fat storage post-dieting is negative effects on hormones, which is why reverse dieting exists. One should seek to be strict post-dieting only for a little while longer to ensure that they properly come off the diet and normalize hormones.

But if we take your position, we have removed accountability yet we can't do that. Fat gain post-dieting is the dieter's fault. Yes, they're more susceptible to fat gain but please do not suggest that it isn't the dieter's fault. The fat gain could not exist without the dieter picking up more food than they need and stuffing it in their gullet. Plain and simple, no other way around that. If it were the hormone's fault then fat gain would exist regardless of food intake.

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?

I am failing to see your point. Flexible dieting is something that is flexible to fit someone's lifestyle. It's not particularly definable hence FLEXIBLE.

because in an earilier thread you gave you all mighty opinion that the only way that works is to weigh your food and count calories and exercise and monitor your calories. i disagree completely. how do you have a life with a diet like that???? do you bring a food scale to a restaurant??? do you keep a calorie counter in your pocket??? and have to log every single thing you eat? and what if you go over? you have to "brn it off"?? that would make me feel guilty for everything i eat and i choose to have a healthy relationship with food. meaning i eat what i want, and what makes me feel good, and what is good for my body, and i most certainly dont feel guilty. how do you have a pic nic? or go to a party? or anything social for that matter??? that is most certainly NOT flexible IMO. and maybe our opinions differ on what is considered flexible, which is fine, but i would much rahter diet by the parameters i previously explained than have to count calories or weigh my food or portions.

freerange

I guess because he hasn't proven in controlled studies that X amount of fructose in the form of added sugars causes obesity and disease, that he must be full of crap, right?

I understand your skepticism, and I have a small amount myself, but its not a risk I'm willing to take and I wouldn't tell people to eat as much sugar as they like, just watch their calorie intake because I don't think that's going to help them. I don't believe that obesity is so multifactorial that we can't find a primary root cause, but I'm interested to see how this sugar thing plays out.

]

The point was, saying an arbitrary amount of sugar would be excessive for everyone is silly. Clearly, someone who is petite and sedentary and someone who is bigger and works out 5x a week would have different energy requirements and the amount of sugar that would be considered excessive would be scaled to the energy requirements. Most likely consistently eating more than 20-25% of your daily cals in the form of added sugar isn't the greatest idea.

So you're saying as long as you burn it, there is no harm?

freerange

However, if you eat some bread or some brown rice, say a turkey sandwich on whole grain bread, and then wash it down with a soda, then the fiber from the bread will slow the absorption of the sugar exactly the same way as the fiber in an apple. Remember, food takes HOURS to digest and be processed. Even if you eat an hour before drinking the soda, the fiber will still be in your digestive system and will still slow the sugar absorption.

Exactly the same way? Really, got any studies proven that?

freerange

So as long as sugar is coming from a more nutrient dense source it's okay to eat and not toxic?

Lustig implies when you eat it the way nature intended, you are not going to over-consume it. Do you think you could possibly eat the same amount of sugar in a day through whole fruits as you could through soda? So the premise is that we know its toxic when taken in high doses during experiments, and based on the known physiology its probably toxic when chronically taken at lesser doses over a long period of time. Its also linked to diseases in less controlled studies with other confounding variables. To what extent we don't know, but we should error on the side of caution. You gotta take it or leave it for what it is.

I eat 2-3 apples a day. That's roughly the same amount of sugar in a can of soda, so yes, I could very easily eat the same amount of sugar in fruit as I can get from sodas. And I eat apples a whole lot more often than I drink soda. Apples every day, soda maybe once a month.

And apples aren't the only fruit I eat regularly.

I get mixed up, aren't you the guy that eats 8 pounds of meat in one meal and declare yourself primal?

mmapags

Is there a difference metabolically in how our bodies process sugar from an apple which digests more slowly due to it's fiber content and theoretically delivers sugar into the bloodstream in a more measured pace and something like soda that delivers it very rapidly? Considering dose being equal.

If you eat in a vacuum, theoretically, yes. However, if you eat some bread or some brown rice, say a turkey sandwich on whole grain bread, and then wash it down with a soda, then the fiber from the bread will slow the absorption of the sugar exactly the same way as the fiber in an apple. Remember, food takes HOURS to digest and be processed. Even if you eat an hour before drinking the soda, the fiber will still be in your digestive system and will still slow the sugar absorption.

That's honestly the real flaw in the fructose is bad argument, as fructose only seems to cause problems when it's in very high amounts, and eaten completely on it's own, which never happens outside of a controlled laboratory setting.

Makes sense. Thanks. So the conclusion I might draw then is in low (undetermined) dose and as part of an otherwise balanced and healthy diet, no problem?

Acg67

I guess because he hasn't proven in controlled studies that X amount of fructose in the form of added sugars causes obesity and disease, that he must be full of crap, right?

I understand your skepticism, and I have a small amount myself, but its not a risk I'm willing to take and I wouldn't tell people to eat as much sugar as they like, just watch their calorie intake because I don't think that's going to help them. I don't believe that obesity is so multifactorial that we can't find a primary root cause, but I'm interested to see how this sugar thing plays out.

]

The point was, saying an arbitrary amount of sugar would be excessive for everyone is silly. Clearly, someone who is petite and sedentary and someone who is bigger and works out 5x a week would have different energy requirements and the amount of sugar that would be considered excessive would be scaled to the energy requirements. Most likely consistently eating more than 20-25% of your daily cals in the form of added sugar isn't the greatest idea.

So you're saying as long as you burn it, there is no harm?

Studies on sugar consumption in a hypocaloric state don't show the adverse metabolic effects you tend to see in studies with subjects consuming maintenance or a surplus

tigersword

However, if you eat some bread or some brown rice, say a turkey sandwich on whole grain bread, and then wash it down with a soda, then the fiber from the bread will slow the absorption of the sugar exactly the same way as the fiber in an apple. Remember, food takes HOURS to digest and be processed. Even if you eat an hour before drinking the soda, the fiber will still be in your digestive system and will still slow the sugar absorption.

Exactly the same way? Really, got any studies proven that?

It's basic biology. Your body recognizes food only on a molecular level. Oatmeal with sugar added and an apple are both treated the same way from a molecular standpoint, as it pertains to the nutrition. The sugar added to the oatmeal (and the sugars in the oats themselves) are both broken down in the exact same manner as the sugars in the apple, and the fiber in the oats is treated the same way as the fiber in the apple. The body absorbs what part of the fiber it can, and the rest just passes through, slowing digestion down as it goes.

The human digestive tract doesn't recognize or understand the concept of various food items, it sees "sucrose, glucose, aspartic acid, tryptophan, retinol, riboflavin, iron, fructose, linoleic acid, etc. Recognizing "orange," or "steak," or "soda" is strictly a thought process, it has no effect on how the food is processed and used.

tigersword

So as long as sugar is coming from a more nutrient dense source it's okay to eat and not toxic?

Lustig implies when you eat it the way nature intended, you are not going to over-consume it. Do you think you could possibly eat the same amount of sugar in a day through whole fruits as you could through soda? So the premise is that we know its toxic when taken in high doses during experiments, and based on the known physiology its probably toxic when chronically taken at lesser doses over a long period of time. Its also linked to diseases in less controlled studies with other confounding variables. To what extent we don't know, but we should error on the side of caution. You gotta take it or leave it for what it is.

I eat 2-3 apples a day. That's roughly the same amount of sugar in a can of soda, so yes, I could very easily eat the same amount of sugar in fruit as I can get from sodas. And I eat apples a whole lot more often than I drink soda. Apples every day, soda maybe once a month.

And apples aren't the only fruit I eat regularly.

I get mixed up, aren't you the guy that eats 8 pounds of meat in one meal and declare yourself primal?

Nope, I've never called myself primal, I don't believe in labels, but if I had to pick a "named diet," I probably would have to choose the Mediterranean Diet.