inflammation-avoiding foods that cause inflammation ?

I am not going to join in the argument. To answer your question, yes, I avoid inflammation causing foods, and have weight loss to prove it is a factor for some people, not a gimmick.

I haven't looked into it much, but a good friend of mine is eating an "anti-inflammatory" diet, and it has helped with joint pain, back pain, and neck pain that was all related to inflammation. She has also lost a lot of weight on the diet, though that was not the main goal of the change in eating habits.

Why would you credit the diet, and not the weight loss for the reduction in your friend's pain? I had all kinds of chronic pain vanish when I lost 60 pounds, after all, that's 60 less pounds that joints have to try and support, ergo, less pain.

Why wouldn't you credit the diet? It could very well be a combination of the difference in foods and the weight loss.

Search the forums for a thread called "Gluten is the Devil" by GorillaEsquire. It discusses gluten rather than inflammation (though they're probably related), but it does show how changing the type of food eaten can quickly have a beneficial effect.

It is known that obese people have much higher levels of inflammation in the body---whether it is a cause of the obesity or the result of the obesity is not yet known. A diet that is high in fructose (sugar is 50% fructose) is known to produce greater amounts of inflammation in the body.

So, are you advocating no longer eating fruit? Lots and lots of fructose in fruit. Who knew fruit was that bad for everyone?

I haven't looked into it much, but a good friend of mine is eating an "anti-inflammatory" diet, and it has helped with joint pain, back pain, and neck pain that was all related to inflammation. She has also lost a lot of weight on the diet, though that was not the main goal of the change in eating habits.

Why would you credit the diet, and not the weight loss for the reduction in your friend's pain? I had all kinds of chronic pain vanish when I lost 60 pounds, after all, that's 60 less pounds that joints have to try and support, ergo, less pain.

Why wouldn't you credit the diet? It could very well be a combination of the difference in foods and the weight loss.

Search the forums for a thread called "Gluten is the Devil" by GorillaEsquire. It discusses gluten rather than inflammation (though they're probably related), but it does show how changing the type of food eaten can quickly have a beneficial effect.

It is known that obese people have much higher levels of inflammation in the body---whether it is a cause of the obesity or the result of the obesity is not yet known. A diet that is high in fructose (sugar is 50% fructose) is known to produce greater amounts of inflammation in the body.

So, are you advocating no longer eating fruit? Lots and lots of fructose in fruit. Who knew fruit was that bad for everyone?

No---fruit is VERY good for you--it is packed with nutrients (and it really is not that high in fructose). The amount of fructose in a can of soda (which is usually sweetened with high fructose corn syrup) is equivalent to the amount of fructose in a dozen oranges. I don't know anyone who eats a dozen oranges at a time--but even a young child could drink a can of soda. Besides, because of the fiber that fruit contains, the fructose is released into the body very slowly, mitigating its effects. It isn't like the jolt of fructose that you get from a can of soda or a very sugary dessert. I eat a couple of pieces of fruit almost every day (although I usually avoid fruits that are particularly high in fructose--like dried fruit. But, if I feel like having some raisins, I simply account for it in my total of fructose. I usually try to limit fructose consumption to 15-20 grams a day, which allows me to have a couple of pieces of fruit (but no sugar in anything). I don't like bananas (which are pretty high in fructose--especially very ripe ones where the starch has been converted to sugar).

Tiger'sword,

You said:You are aware that the speed of sugar entering your blood stream is dependent on total food intake, aren't you?

My reply: Of course---no need to be condescending. Dietary fat has the effect of evening out blood sugar spikes that DO COME from the consumption of starch and sugar. It has been demonstrated over and over that blood sugar levels are most affected by the consumption of "simple carbohydrates" but that the consumption of protein and fat at the same meal have the effect of "slowing down" the absorption of those simple carbs. There is a recent Harvard Med study that demonstrated that trans-palmitoleic acid (found in full-fat dairy) does an admirable job in preventing Type II diabetes because it is thought to slow the absorption of mono-saccharides and dis-accharides. I assume you understand the current thinking on how Type II diabetes occurs? Exercise has a mitigating effect on the simple carb->high blood sugar->high insulin->insulin resistance (over time)->Type II diabetes, but it is unlikely to prevent Type II diabetes, if the diet is not addressed as well. As we age, our blood sugar levels climb independent of how much exercise we get (we slow down in our ability to tolerate exercise anyway).

You said: "The only way you will get a major sugar rush from drinking one serving of soda is if you are completely fasted before drinking it, as the other food in your digestive system will all impact the speed with which nutrients (including glucose and fructose) are absorbed. "

My reply: This is a sweeping generalization. Individuals vary a great deal in their ability to absorb sugar isomers. Glucose tolerance tests show that there is a wide range of bodily performance on that test. We are complex bio-chemical machines with a great deal of variability in our habits and environmental circumstances. Google "obesegens" to see how chemicals in the environment can influence our ability to effectively manage fat deposition and utilization. Many health professionals are alarmed over the consumption of high fructose corn syrup---something that does not exist in nature--and it appears to negatively affect bodily processes. Surely, you are not suggesting that soda pop is anything other than empty calories?

You said: "And the human body is actually terribly inefficient at absorbing fructose anyway, so you are never going to get any kind of wild "jolt" as you call it from fructose, as the human digestive system physically can't absorb it quickly."

My reply: Yes, but when fructose is eaten in combination with another sugar--glucose (and such would be the case of high fructose corn syrup), the absorption of fructose increases. Again, it is simply not "one-size-fits-all". On one hand, some people lack the enzyme necessary for converting fructose into glucose and thus cannot absorb fructose AT ALL. They must eliminate fructose from their diet in order to prevent gastric problems. On the other hand, some new research suggests that there are still other obese individuals whose bio-chemistry is such that they appear to be able to convert blood glucose into fructose!

You said: "This is why diabetics track carbs, and not sugar, because focusing on any one particular type of carb is missing the forest for the trees. People around here get way too focused on tiny details, that they end up having absolutely no understanding of the big picture."

My reply: And you do?

You said: "Drinking one 12 oz can of soda, included with a varied and balanced diet that reaches sufficient macronutrient and micronutrient goals will have no negative effect on health. Consuming 2 liters of soda, preventing a person from reaching sufficient macro and micronutrient levels, will have a negative effect on health. Since you're focusing solely on the sugar, that's where you will lay the blame, when the reality is malnutrition is the problem due to a lack of nutrients, the actual amount of sugar consumed is irrelevant."

My reply: You are swimming against the stream with this one. There is a LOT of research on the ill effects of ANY soda consumption because of the enhanced uptake of fructose that occurs with consumption of that product. The body does not metabolize fructose exactly the same way as glucose, and the liver will convert extra fructose to fat much more readily than it will convert extra glucose to fat. Eating processed sugar of any sort is calorie-dense, non-nutrition that most people simply cannot afford in the maintenance of good health.