EXCESS SUGAR CAUSES OBESITY-MUST READ!

18910111214»

Replies

  • kk_inprogress
    kk_inprogress Posts: 3,077 Member
    Read the whole thing...and all it did was make me want to do a human study: you avoid sugar and I'll go eat some ice cream and well see who dies first. Clearly no one is giving in, so

    /endthread
  • FatFreeFrolicking
    FatFreeFrolicking Posts: 4,252 Member
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    Acg67 wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    mantium999 wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    Bronty3 wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    Bronty3 wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    tigersword wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    mccindy72 wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    mccindy72 wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    Hornsby wrote: »

    "Alan's Blog" is not a peer reviewed medical journal. This guy's main claim to fame seems to be that he writes for Men's Health magazine and has a book of his own that he likes to promote. He's not even a scientist or a medical doctor.

    Here's a good one. It even has a lot of science in it. http://anthonycolpo.com/why-you-cant-trust-the-abc-to-report-the-truth-about-diet-exercise-fat-loss/

    ANOTHER blog...from a guy selling books with names like "The Fat Loss Bible".

    LOL!

    And... you didn't bother to read it. Of course. There's a lot of actual science in it. Just because it's a blog doesn't mean it isn't worth reading, or factual. You seem determined to run around with your eyes closed. While defending someone who just had an opinion that's being debunked with science. (which you'd know if you'd read the link)

    It debunks nothing.

    While a few blogs are worth reading they are nothing more than a starting point. To really understand an issue, or to discredit someone, you need "actual science". ..not yet another guy trying to convince you to buy his diet book instead of someone else's. The guy has several diet books...I really don't think relying on his blog to discredit someone whose theory hurts his book sales makes sense.

    You should read things from a wide range of viewpoints...not just the blogs that you agree with.
    So, everyone else should read from a wide variety of viewpoints, but you can instantly dismiss all other viewpoints? Alan Aragon's blog is fantastic, the man has advanced degrees in human nutrition and is a published author in peer reviewed journals. He's not just trying to sell a book, he's trying to educate. If you actually read the blog, he doesn't try to sell any product in that entry, he's strictly taking Lustig's claims and refuting them with actual science. He even gets into an actual debate with Dr. Lustig himself in the comments section, which Alan easily won, as once he debunked Lustig's claims with peer reviewed references, Dr. Lustig was reduced to defending himself by stating that his video is popular, so he's right, no matter what the evidence actually says.

    Lustig also has advanced degrees...degrees that took more years of study than the guy with the blog. He also has published many research articles.

    And typically when people are trying to sell a book, they don't mention it in an article attacking a competing viewpoint. That's not how it works. He has an agenda.

    Lustig advertises his book at the beginning of the article. It's a link to amazon so you can buy it. Also, he's an endocrinologist. He probably has less training in nutrition than someone with an advanced degree in nutrition. My friend is a doctor and has less knowledge than me about bones because, unless you specialize in it, you just get an introduction to it in anatomy. Other studies have been done that claim that added sugar consumption does not lead to obesity, but instead it's overeating and not moving. Why do you believe Lustig's study over the others?

    Sorry, I would trust an endocrinologist over a nutritionist any day. If you want to manage your health differently, that is your right. I have several doctor friends. My infectious disease specialist friend knows less about nutrition than me. My endocrinologist friend knows much more...and deals with it daily in his work.

    Why are you taking what Lustig says as the end all be all? There are studies out there that come to different conclusions. He doesn't even list any references in his article that are meaningful and support his claims. You say you want references, yet don't need them from the guy you are defending.

    I already stated this. It's not just Lustig. I am not basing my opinions off of one man's statements or work. I have read many studies by many people and I find the overall body of evidence that sugar is addictive and just plain bad for you very compelling. Lustig is really not even an important part of that.

    Even major health organizations are telling people to drastically reduce sugar. This isn't a radical idea.

    That's interesting, but the the scientists researching eating/food addiction disagree with you that any food substance is addictive. And surely had it been truly proven addictive, major health organizations would be calling for its banning now, wouldn't they?

    Did you miss the recent thread on this? There were sources for that finding of the substance itself not having been proven to be addictive in humans at this point. You cannot go by rat studies.

    This one is quite thorough:

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763414002140

    Some scientists disagree. Others agree. That's the point...there is no definitive "proof" one way or the other...just evidence that suggests one thing or the other. I have seen contradictory studies. I tend to agree with those that find it it is addictive because what they describe happening makes sense to me in terms of logic and it fits extremely well with my personal experience. BTW, they aren't all rat studies. There have been various studies on humans on the various effects of ingesting sugar. No one study is perfect or conclusive...but I have read enough that I am convinced for now.

    That being said...I haven't read this specific study, but I will give it a read soon. My mind is open, so if new research starts to contradict my opinion I am open to it.

    In terms of health organizations, they are very very slow to react and very hesitant to change their stance on long held beliefs. Many of them also face a lot of political pressure. So...just because they haven't called for an outright ban on something that even I will admit the evidence is inconclusive on, doesn't mean that there isn't something there. More work needs to be done, I have said that many times. But it doesn't make sense to categorically dismiss the hypothesis.

    Post one human study. Lots of people would be interested in reading it. Claiming to have read research that you cant provide doesn't help support anything.
    I don't keep all these things in a file ready to go to "win" the Internet. There have been human studies done. If you don't believe it, okay then. That doesn't harm me in any way. I still am not eating sugar.

    Must be hard to eat zero carb

    Here we go again with someone pretending to confuse avoiding added sugar with being zero carb. Great! One Internet point for you!!!!!

    PSA: added fructose is no different than natural fructose.

    Do you have a non rat study proving this?

    Your body cannot tell the difference between natural sugar and added sugar. Both are chemically identical. It's basic science.
  • mccindy72
    mccindy72 Posts: 7,001 Member
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    Acg67 wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    mantium999 wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    Bronty3 wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    Bronty3 wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    tigersword wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    mccindy72 wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    mccindy72 wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    Hornsby wrote: »

    "Alan's Blog" is not a peer reviewed medical journal. This guy's main claim to fame seems to be that he writes for Men's Health magazine and has a book of his own that he likes to promote. He's not even a scientist or a medical doctor.

    Here's a good one. It even has a lot of science in it. http://anthonycolpo.com/why-you-cant-trust-the-abc-to-report-the-truth-about-diet-exercise-fat-loss/

    ANOTHER blog...from a guy selling books with names like "The Fat Loss Bible".

    LOL!

    And... you didn't bother to read it. Of course. There's a lot of actual science in it. Just because it's a blog doesn't mean it isn't worth reading, or factual. You seem determined to run around with your eyes closed. While defending someone who just had an opinion that's being debunked with science. (which you'd know if you'd read the link)

    It debunks nothing.

    While a few blogs are worth reading they are nothing more than a starting point. To really understand an issue, or to discredit someone, you need "actual science". ..not yet another guy trying to convince you to buy his diet book instead of someone else's. The guy has several diet books...I really don't think relying on his blog to discredit someone whose theory hurts his book sales makes sense.

    You should read things from a wide range of viewpoints...not just the blogs that you agree with.
    So, everyone else should read from a wide variety of viewpoints, but you can instantly dismiss all other viewpoints? Alan Aragon's blog is fantastic, the man has advanced degrees in human nutrition and is a published author in peer reviewed journals. He's not just trying to sell a book, he's trying to educate. If you actually read the blog, he doesn't try to sell any product in that entry, he's strictly taking Lustig's claims and refuting them with actual science. He even gets into an actual debate with Dr. Lustig himself in the comments section, which Alan easily won, as once he debunked Lustig's claims with peer reviewed references, Dr. Lustig was reduced to defending himself by stating that his video is popular, so he's right, no matter what the evidence actually says.

    Lustig also has advanced degrees...degrees that took more years of study than the guy with the blog. He also has published many research articles.

    And typically when people are trying to sell a book, they don't mention it in an article attacking a competing viewpoint. That's not how it works. He has an agenda.

    Lustig advertises his book at the beginning of the article. It's a link to amazon so you can buy it. Also, he's an endocrinologist. He probably has less training in nutrition than someone with an advanced degree in nutrition. My friend is a doctor and has less knowledge than me about bones because, unless you specialize in it, you just get an introduction to it in anatomy. Other studies have been done that claim that added sugar consumption does not lead to obesity, but instead it's overeating and not moving. Why do you believe Lustig's study over the others?

    Sorry, I would trust an endocrinologist over a nutritionist any day. If you want to manage your health differently, that is your right. I have several doctor friends. My infectious disease specialist friend knows less about nutrition than me. My endocrinologist friend knows much more...and deals with it daily in his work.

    Why are you taking what Lustig says as the end all be all? There are studies out there that come to different conclusions. He doesn't even list any references in his article that are meaningful and support his claims. You say you want references, yet don't need them from the guy you are defending.

    I already stated this. It's not just Lustig. I am not basing my opinions off of one man's statements or work. I have read many studies by many people and I find the overall body of evidence that sugar is addictive and just plain bad for you very compelling. Lustig is really not even an important part of that.

    Even major health organizations are telling people to drastically reduce sugar. This isn't a radical idea.

    That's interesting, but the the scientists researching eating/food addiction disagree with you that any food substance is addictive. And surely had it been truly proven addictive, major health organizations would be calling for its banning now, wouldn't they?

    Did you miss the recent thread on this? There were sources for that finding of the substance itself not having been proven to be addictive in humans at this point. You cannot go by rat studies.

    This one is quite thorough:

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763414002140

    Some scientists disagree. Others agree. That's the point...there is no definitive "proof" one way or the other...just evidence that suggests one thing or the other. I have seen contradictory studies. I tend to agree with those that find it it is addictive because what they describe happening makes sense to me in terms of logic and it fits extremely well with my personal experience. BTW, they aren't all rat studies. There have been various studies on humans on the various effects of ingesting sugar. No one study is perfect or conclusive...but I have read enough that I am convinced for now.

    That being said...I haven't read this specific study, but I will give it a read soon. My mind is open, so if new research starts to contradict my opinion I am open to it.

    In terms of health organizations, they are very very slow to react and very hesitant to change their stance on long held beliefs. Many of them also face a lot of political pressure. So...just because they haven't called for an outright ban on something that even I will admit the evidence is inconclusive on, doesn't mean that there isn't something there. More work needs to be done, I have said that many times. But it doesn't make sense to categorically dismiss the hypothesis.

    Post one human study. Lots of people would be interested in reading it. Claiming to have read research that you cant provide doesn't help support anything.
    I don't keep all these things in a file ready to go to "win" the Internet. There have been human studies done. If you don't believe it, okay then. That doesn't harm me in any way. I still am not eating sugar.

    Must be hard to eat zero carb

    Here we go again with someone pretending to confuse avoiding added sugar with being zero carb. Great! One Internet point for you!!!!!

    PSA: added fructose is no different than natural fructose.

    Do you have a non rat study proving this?

    Says the person who posted a rat study.
  • mccindy72
    mccindy72 Posts: 7,001 Member
    It is baffling, Moiaussi, that you continue to argue and battle in this thread to try and 'win' your side of the argument, while accusing everyone else of wanting to win the argument. Not one of us has claimed to 'win' anything, but asked you to simply read our links to evidence contrary to your claims, which you then refuse to read on the basis that you refute the scientific merit of the authors. When we ask you for links to any evidence to support your claims, so we can read it (as we are all trying to have an open mind and wanting to read this evidence you say you've read multiple times over the years), you keep saying you don't keep a file of it. That's fine, if you don't have it on file, Google it up and link it for us. You've read it, it can't be that hard to find. I (and I know many of my compatriots here) will be happy to read it. Don't you see the problem here?
This discussion has been closed.