Study Ties High Blood Sugar To Dementia

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Study Ties High Blood Sugar To Dementia

Posted by timothy on Sunday August 11, 2013 @02:22AM from the news-for-nerds-with-brains dept.

A study published last week in the New England Journal suggests that blood sugar levels may be a more important indicator than previously realized for non-diabetics: high blood sugar levels were linked by the study's authors with increased risk of dementia (summary free; full article paywalled). The study followed more than 2,000 elderly participants, and found a positive correlation between blood glucose levels and development of dementia, both for patients with and without diabetes.

157 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

diabetes is no joke! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-11 02:33 · Score: 0

I'm glad more breakthroughs in understanding how glucose levels affect/effect peoples healths. My mom is a type 2 using insulin. I even show signs of pre-onset with some high sugar levels. It runs in the family. Suffice it say better diet really makes a postive impact as well as activity. It's complicated though. Heredity and external factors play a big part. I look forward to win a gene therapy shot can fix it. To the future!
1. Re: diabetes is no joke! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-11 02:57 · Score: 0
  
  Low blood sugar (Hypoglycemia) is linked with brain damage too.
2. Re:diabetes is no joke! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-11 04:03 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  I was experiencing type II diabetic symptoms with increasing frequency. It was messing up my life.
  Solution?
  Low carb diet. Meats and saturated fats. I cut out breads entirely. If you keep your sugar intakes to about 70 grams per day or less, you're doing well. This meant cutting out most fruit. Even a potato converts into a lot of sugar.
  After a few weeks, all symptoms went away and I feel great today. Been at it for a couple of years now. I used to get super cold fingers in the cold seasons, and I had to cuddle around heaters to stay warm. Not anymore. Also my by body fat has balanced out nicely. I look better than I have in years.
  Turns out, cholesterol and saturated fats are GOOD for you. We've been lied to, yet again, in this particular case, by agribusiness and big pharma.
  Read, "Life Without Bread" for the basics. It could save your life and reverse your mom's condition. $10 for a book or years of misery? Not a hard choice.
3. Re: diabetes is no joke! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-11 04:27 · Score: 0
  
  So what exactly are you eating now after you cut-off even potatoes?
4. Re: diabetes is no joke! by alen · 2013-08-11 05:41 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Quinoa
  Millet
  Brown rice
  Wild rice
  Lots of low glycemic grains out there
5. Re:diabetes is no joke! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-11 05:47 · Score: 0
  
  You should read "Good Calories, Bad Calories" by Gary Taubes. It makes you want to smack all the researchers that got things wrong.
6. Re: diabetes is no joke! by GodfatherofSoul · 2013-08-11 07:36 · Score: 1
  
  Probably an Atkins like diet. About 15 years ago, I did it when people thought it was a fad and got fantastic results. Back then, everyone including my nutrition-major friends dismissed it as a kookie conspiracy theory (the processed sugars, corn syrup, etc.). Now, it's widely accepted.
  
  --
  I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
7. Re: diabetes is no joke! by swalve · 2013-08-11 07:54 · Score: 2
  
  Except by the FDA and nutritionists. Their advice is still low fat, lots of grains.
8. Re: diabetes is no joke! by Dcnjoe60 · 2013-08-11 08:09 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Except by the FDA and nutritionists. Their advice is still low fat, lots of grains.
  That is because the FDA food pyramid is based on the old USDA food pyramid which has since been found out that it's main purpose was to get people to consume specific agricultural products, not for their health benefit but to bolster a sagging farm economy. Even the new FDA myplate program is not about what is the best nutrion, but is designed to combat obesity. The two are not necessarily the same.
  If you want medically based nutrion information, then you should use medical sources. Mayo Clinic, Hopkins, Cleveland Clinic, Harvard Medical and others all have nutrion recommendations, some even with pyramids, that are vastly lower in grains and carbohydrates than what the government food pyramids show. They might not be as extreme as Atkins or the Paleo diets, but they are definitely lower carb than most Americans would be used to (lower red meat, too).
  So, if your nutrionist is still pushing out of date nutrion falsehoods, maybe it's time to find a different nutrionist or at least ask the question why their recommendations seem to differ from what the medical community recommends?
9. Re:diabetes is no joke! by mpe · 2013-08-11 08:49 · Score: 1
  
  I was experiencing type II diabetic symptoms with increasing frequency. It was messing up my life.
  Solution?
  Low carb diet. Meats and saturated fats. I cut out breads entirely. If you keep your sugar intakes to about 70 grams per day or less, you're doing well. This meant cutting out most fruit. Even a potato converts into a lot of sugar.
  
  The amount of dietary glucose T2 diabetics are able to handle varies greatly. For some 70g/day would be far too much. The only sure method is that of "eat to your meter".
  
  Turns out, cholesterol and saturated fats are GOOD for you. We've been lied to, yet again, in this particular case, by agribusiness and big pharma.
  
  Where things get really interesting is that hypocholesterolemia cause similar symptoms to diabetes. Most notably neuopathy.
  
  Read, "Life Without Bread" for the basics. It could save your life and reverse your mom's condition. $10 for a book or years of misery? Not a hard choice.
  
  If someone is taking insulin they need to both adjust their dosage and monitor their blood sugar levels when changing their diet in such a way. Probably even more so if they are T2 since a change of diet could affect insulin resistance making "carb counting" ineffective at working out the correct dosage. After a few weeks, all symptoms went away and I feel great today. Been at it for a couple of years now. I used to get super cold fingers in the cold seasons, and I had to cuddle around heaters to stay warm. Not anymore. Also my by body fat has balanced out nicely. I look better than I have in years.
10. Re: diabetes is no joke! by TechyImmigrant · 2013-08-11 12:08 · Score: 2
  
  I live on eggs, heavy cream, fatty meat and chocolate(90+%). That's how I keep my weight down, control my blood sugar, keep healthy blood lipids and get a proper supply of fat soluble vitamins. You need zero dietary carbs to live.
  
  --
  I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
11. Re: diabetes is no joke! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-11 18:44 · Score: 0
  
  Links to the FDA dietary recommendations please.
  
  And please don't give links to the USDA crap. The USDA is the US Department of AGRICULTURE.
  
  p.s. over the past few decades many US people followed the nutritionists "low fat" diets and got even fatter on them.
12. Re:diabetes is no joke! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-11 20:22 · Score: 0
  
  My mom is a type 2 using insulin. [...] It runs in the family. [...] Heredity and external factors play a big part.
  On should not discount behavior learned in families. One could be tempted to say: my mom is overweight, I am overweight, it must be hereditary - but then again I was made to eat my mom's food for 20 years and now I like the same types of food and ask her recipes when I like a dish. Not to mention behavior like activity levels, eating behavior etc.
13. Re:diabetes is no joke! by Bongo · 2013-08-11 20:30 · Score: 1
  
  It is good to hear. :-)
  There is so much established opinion against low carb / paleo / primal. But if people look they can find various doctors, sportsmen and women, etc. who report good results with their patients and with their own bodies. It is something people can debate to death, but what seem to work for me, being paleo for 3 or 4 years now, I see and feel. My mother in law dismisses it as just something in my head, but when you feel your own body respond, not just for a week or a month, but for years, and not just by one metric like weight, but with becoming leaner, more clear headed, having more energy, and more emotional calm, well, a healthy scepticism is essential, and one also notices how the body is responding.
14. Re: diabetes is no joke! by Bongo · 2013-08-11 20:37 · Score: 1
  
  A lower sugar spike helps but in the end that sugar is still there. The so called healthy "slow release" carbs still release in the end. If the body has too much sugar available it doesn't get round to burning fat. I mean that's the argument, but you'd have to read up to see if it makes sense.
  A simple point about paleo is that before agriculture 12000 years ago you just could not obtain a bowl of grains. And for about 2 million years we were evolving bigger brains as hunter gatherers. So either something radically changed in our bodies in the last 12000 years, or we are eating an unnatural amount of grains.
15. Re: diabetes is no joke! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-11 21:17 · Score: 1
  
  Links to the FDA dietary recommendations please.
  There's a web site http://www.google.com/ where you can enter the information you are looking for and it gives you a list of helpful links. It's really great as you can do your own research, yourself.
16. Re:diabetes is no joke! by dtjohnson · 2013-08-12 00:25 · Score: 1
  
  You point to bread and fruit as causes of your high blood sugar levels but, for most people, the causes are: 1) Overeating 2) eating heavily-sugared high calorie items: (candy, soda pop, donuts, cake, syrups, etc.) For most of us, the sugar from eating bread and fruit is a tiny fraction of the sugar that we get from 1) and 2) so eliminating bread and fruit will not help. Your body converts portions of EVERYTHING that you eat into glucose and it is high glucose levels that the article is referring to. The glucose levels in Type 2 diabetics become too high because the body is constantly overwhelmed by the caloric load being dropped on it and becomes less reactive to the insulin hormone. To put this in simple terms, it is not bread, fruit, potatoes, or 'carbs' that are bad for you...it is TOO MUCH of those or anything else. If you don't spend portions of your day with true hunger pangs caused by low blood sugar, you are over eating.
17. Re: diabetes is no joke! by DeBaas · 2013-08-12 00:34 · Score: 1
  
  Sounds very logical, however my personal (anecdotal) experience does not corroborate that.
  I went slow carbs kind off accidental. I discovered that eating wheat was the cause of gut problems I had. I stopped (replaced mainly by Spelt, which apparently has a much lower effect on insulin production) and within weeks my clothes were too loose. Now two years later I have the same size in my jeans as I had when I was 18.. (lost about 20 kg)
  If you look at the total of carbs I get today, it doesn't differ too much from before. Mostly since I never did eat much processed food or food with white sugar in it. Yet all the 'middle aged' fat is gone.
  So while it sounds logical, ' you get the same amount' , the body does not work as a simple math equation. So far the best fitting explanation I've seen is the effect of insulin produced. Not even glycemic index gives you the full picture. Spelt has a high glycemic index. Yet it made the world of difference for me. But from what I've read, it does seem however that you produce less insulin.
  I think the biggest mistake made is the idea that you can simply count the calories in food and expect that is all there is to it. We are not petri dishes
  
  --
  ---
18. Re:diabetes is no joke! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-12 02:43 · Score: 0
  
  I'm happy you're feeling better, but the cholesterol and saturated fats advice was not lies by agribusiness and big pharma.
  That advice came from the nutritional and public health community. That is, the same community from which you're getting the advice about sugar and carbohydrates.
  I'm not sure how old you are, but I'm frankly getting sick of any advice about nutrition. All of this stuff about carbohydrates is eerily similar to what we heard about fats--epidemiologic and some experimental evidence, backed by solid-sounding theories about how it might work, followed by more careful studies showing it doesn't really matter.
  People have known for years, for example, that dementia is linked to all sorts of cardiovascular problems. Before it was being tied to saturated fat intake.
  To be honest, I suspect that a lot of these associations have to do with behavioral correlations that aren't being controlled for in studies.
  I also think they ignore tremendous individual differences in peoples' metabolisms. Some people, I think, tend to do a lot better on low-carb diets; others on low-fat diets.
  A lot of this is all placebo effects, which can go a long way. You say "type II diabetic symptoms," but like what? Usually what I hear when I hear people talk about those things are the sorts of things you'd encounter when dealing with significant life stressors, like a stressful career or relationship situation--headaches at a particular time of day, feeling lethargic, and so forth.
  I don't mean to criticize your life choices, I'm just saying that I've become deeply skeptical over time that one person's solution will work for everyone, and that the reasons things work for someone are the reasons they thing they do.
  Science is very messy, and most effects reported in the literature are totally false, even those with a large literature base.
19. Re: diabetes is no joke! by AmaDaden · 2013-08-12 04:29 · Score: 1
  
  You're correct but his point is still a valid answer in the general discussion. Most of the studies I've seen point to the main problem with high carbohydrate diets the Glycemic index of the foods eaten, not the number of carbs the food has. Switching over to very low GI foods is comparable to switching to a low carb diet. The short story is the rapid insulin spike and high amounts of glucose slowly causes major damage in the human body. We have little defense against these problems because never before in our history have white bread, white rice, big starchy potatoes, and sugar water been such a large persistent part of our diet. The change in our diet has far out paced evolution.
20. Re: diabetes is no joke! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-12 04:31 · Score: 0
  
  That's the problem with people who refuse to read but believe everything other similarly ignorant people say.
  Slow release carbs do not release "in the end". Because they're absorbed slower in the gut, they provide a small but constant source of energy over many hours so the body can function. Contrast that with sugars and other simple carbs which are immediately available in full quantity and you have to be doing intensive activity to use them up or they will be converted into fat eventually.
21. Re: diabetes is no joke! by AmaDaden · 2013-08-12 04:53 · Score: 1
  
  A lower sugar spike helps but in the end that sugar is still there. The so called healthy "slow release" carbs still release in the end. If the body has too much sugar available it doesn't get round to burning fat. I mean that's the argument, but you'd have to read up to see if it makes sense.
  The slow release makes all the difference. The huge insulin spike that triggers the storage of ALL fat only happens when the glucose hits all at once. Slow release insulin means that both glucose and fat can be burned simultaneously as your body continues to digest the food and introduce more glucose in to your bloodstream.
  
  So either something radically changed in our bodies in the last 12000 years, or we are eating an unnatural amount of grains.
  Or the grains changed recently. White rice and white flower are much, much more recent inventions. Add to that things like the sugar water (soda, juice, and even beer) that we drink at nearly every meal and you can see how much our much our diets have changed in just the past 100 years.
  
  It sounds like your hinting at the Paleo diet with all this. That diet does work but that's because it's a much more strict version of a low GI diet. I'm not going to argue that low GI is just as good as Paleo but it's certainly much simpler to implement and has most of the same benefits.
  
  For anyone who is interested in the details of why low GI diets work and how we are where we are today I recommend the book Good Calories, Bad Calories
22. Re: diabetes is no joke! by Bongo · 2013-08-12 04:59 · Score: 1
  
  I agree, a calorie is not a calorie. Also people are different and some of it is whether they have "damaged" their ability to handle carbs. I have always been skinny and by 40 even I was starting to show love handles but then I used to eat buckets of sugar. It never showed until it started showing.
23. Re:diabetes is no joke! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-12 04:59 · Score: 0
  
  Overeating isn't about willpower. Most often, it's caused by a lack of needed nutrients (and chemical neurotoxins) in the diet. Your body is 'starving' on a metabolic level, and that causes you to binge. Even though you can barely eat another thing. Once you get those missing nutrients (in a healthy way), drop the sugar/grains, and eliminate the various glutimate additives from your diet, the hunger pangs go away. After several weeks, you'll then experience (for possibly the first time in your life) a normal hunger response. Where you have all the willpower required to say no to the things you craved before.
24. Re:diabetes is no joke! by AmaDaden · 2013-08-12 05:02 · Score: 1
  
  The idea that "A calorie is a calorie" has been widely accepted as false by the medical community due to recent studies. What kinds of foods you eat greatly effects how much is stored as fat and how hungry you are.
25. Re: diabetes is no joke! by Bongo · 2013-08-12 06:17 · Score: 1
  
  It depends on whether you end up reducing your carb load overall. Remember diabetics still get told to eat carbs, and if they have problems with insulin, why eat any carbs?? Slow or not. I think the figure is something like I teaspoon of sugar is your normal blood sugar level. Less than 70 grams of carbs a day. If you're inside that then fine. Basically you'll get that from some veggies. So yes ask yourself why it is better to choose slow release, and then asks why no release isn't better yet?
26. Re:diabetes is no joke! by hoggoth · 2013-08-12 09:02 · Score: 1
  
  Same experience here. I cut out all processed carbs, sodas, candy, etc. I eat no potatoes, little pasta, bread and rice. I now realize that my entire life I've felt drained of energy. Now I am sharp and awake all the time.
  
  --
  - For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat /dev/random (may take some time)
Proves Bloomberg correct. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-11 02:40 · Score: 4, Insightful

More ammo in the Bloomberg ammo depot to outlaw enormous sugary drinks and help lower the nation's health care costs by cutting down on seriously obese people. Seriously, nobody needs to drink a quart of highly sweetened liquid (unless you're a 50 pound hummingbird).
1. Re:Proves Bloomberg correct. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-11 02:57 · Score: 0
  
  No one likes a fascist either.
2. Re:Proves Bloomberg correct. by slashmydots · 2013-08-11 02:59 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I don't know about that. People stupid enough to drink a 52 oz, 1000+ calorie drink packed with sugar might not have the best brain to begin with and probably have all around terrible health practices as well.
3. Re:Proves Bloomberg correct. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-11 03:03 · Score: 0
  
  No one likes their parents too.
4. Re:Proves Bloomberg correct. by loufoque · 2013-08-11 03:04 · Score: 1
  
  I've seen people that drink soda during meals.
  The problem is social.
5. Re:Proves Bloomberg correct. by rossdee · 2013-08-11 03:17 · Score: 1
  
  They should outlaw cans.
  Bottles can be resealed and replaced in the fridge, you only need to drink what you want at the time.
  This applies to 1.5 and 2 liter bottles as well as 500 ml
  Are 2l bottle really illegal in NYC or did some higher court strike that law down?
  2L botles is the cheapest way to buy soda/pop
  Actually I drink 50% pop (SunDrop, MT Dew or mello yello) and the other 50% is Lemon-lime Gatorade)
6. Re: Proves Bloomberg correct. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-11 03:27 · Score: 0
  
  It proves Bloomberg is a jerk. Rich people can buy 20 small size drinks with their creme brule. Poor people can't afford that. It's just oppressing people not like him, and the only effect is making the poor even more poor. Hurrah liberalism!
  Some people buy a big coffee and sip it through the afternoon at work.
7. Re:Proves Bloomberg correct. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-11 03:30 · Score: 0
  
  Fascism consists in valuing the group more than its constituents, by definition.
  Nothing to do with fascism, here: no one likes fatties because they are disgusting individuals, not even able to respect themselves (let alone anything), plain and simply.
  Now, fatties buggering the group, directly (wanting to be treated just like anyone else, eg paying only one plane seat while they take two, or even three) or indirectly (having laws enforced on everyone, just because these lardasses have chosen to refuse vouching for themselves), that, for one, is fascism, you worthless disgusting hambeast.
8. Re: Proves Bloomberg correct. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-11 03:30 · Score: 0
  
  I've seen people actually eat something called "dessert". And large meals. Definitely social.
9. Re:Proves Bloomberg correct. by cmdr_tofu · 2013-08-11 03:39 · Score: 1
  
  I drink about a can of soda a week. Usually Stevia sweetened cola or root beer. Why would I want a 2L bottle? It would either encourage me to drink more soda (before it goes flat) or go to waste.
  A better solution would just be a sugary drink tax and that tax could go directly towards subsidizing fruits and vegetables :)
10. Re:Proves Bloomberg correct. by tlambert · 2013-08-11 03:40 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  I don't know about that. People stupid enough to drink a 52 oz, 1000+ calorie drink packed with sugar might not have the best brain to begin with and probably have all around terrible health practices as well.
  The study was about Glucose; the predominant sugar in soda drinks is Fructose, at least in the U.S., and because it lends itself to plumbing-based manufacturing of junk food rather than requiring auger gears to move powdered sweetener around, it's gaining ground in other countries junk food as well.
11. Re:Proves Bloomberg correct. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-11 03:41 · Score: 0
  
  Hi, this is Godwin. I hope the folks at Dice are keeping track of the royalties they owe me for use of my law.
12. Re:Proves Bloomberg correct. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-11 04:09 · Score: 0
  
  No, you actually just made his point for him.
  The people telling fatties what they must do are caring about the group, at the expense of the wishes of the individual. They are the fascists.
  The fatties are effectively capitalists in this situation. Making sure they can get everything they can without a care for the group, in the hope that game theory will just work out and the group will be fine.
13. Re:Proves Bloomberg correct. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-11 04:24 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  1) High Fructose Corn Syrup, the thing used in just about everything is a mixture of about 55/42% fructose and glucose respectively.
  2) Fructose is almost immediately metabolized by the liver into glucose, once it leaves the small intestine.
  So, it's basically the same damn thing to the body anyway.
14. Re:Proves Bloomberg correct. by Charliemopps · 2013-08-11 04:41 · Score: 0
  
  The "nations" healthcare costs are none of Bloombergs fucking business. I don't need him babysitting me. Soft-drink companies are losing more and more money every quarter due to people making informed decisions about their diet. We do not need the government deciding for us. We're perfectly capable of doing it on our own. Where we need the government is to enforce transparency so capitalism can do the work for us. Clear, standardized nutrition labels is what the government should be focused on. Once we have clear info not hyped by advertising reps (see "0% Cholesterol!" or "All Natural") then we can make our own informed decisions about our lives.
15. Re:Proves Bloomberg correct. by Charliemopps · 2013-08-11 04:44 · Score: 0
  
  And they'll use that tax money for the next war instead. Don't be stupid. The last thing we need is more taxes. Our government uses the money we give it to do horrible things. It's like donating to an evil charity, don't do it.
16. Re:Proves Bloomberg correct. by smaddox · 2013-08-11 04:48 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Fructose (which is one half of sucrose - basically the same as high fructose corn syrup) is actually much worse than glucose precisely because it is metabolized by the liver. The metabolic process is very similar to that of ethanol, and the chronic effects are also almost identical. Here's a great presentation by Prof. Robert H. Lustig, MD about the link between sugar consumption and obesity: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM
17. Re:Proves Bloomberg correct. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-11 04:51 · Score: 1
  
  From all the people I have know and worked with (and met, really) during my 49 yrs on this planet, the people with the best health practices and physique has been the dumbest. They have the time for it since when they don't work their brain goes into idle, smart people have a hard time remembering to eat at all as their brains are busy doing other stuff. I have a tested IQ of 141 (US test but I am from Sweden) and I would have to have a keeper to be able to be able to eat well. I can however design some mean software (and hardware too when the need arises).
  Coke and Snickers FTW!
  (BTW. 52 oz would be about 600 kcal and that is if you have no ice in it.... but thats about 1,6 l! To drink that you have to be VERY thirsty, not stupid.)
18. Re: Proves Bloomberg correct. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-11 05:29 · Score: 0
  
  "But don't the poor people understand that we're looking out for their best interests? I have to do a lot of polo, golf, and wind surfing to burn off the calories from a Coca Cola and a rack of ribs. Since they just sit at home waiting for the next opportunity to vote me into office so I can get them more food stamps, they should be happy with tap water and government cheese or else they'll get fat. Then no one will want to make diapered tax deductions with them." -Every politician in the racist Democratic Party.
19. Re:Proves Bloomberg correct. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-11 05:52 · Score: 0
  
  At least cans are smaller.
20. Re:Proves Bloomberg correct. by umghhh · 2013-08-11 06:25 · Score: 1
  
  What is the use of labels if you cannot read?
  I mean labels are good and there is a good reason food industry does not like them. IT does not solve the problem tho, at least not all too big part of it. People need to be educated in that, have ability to update their knowledge and ability to use it which requires a bit of brain and a bit of money too.
21. Re:Proves Bloomberg correct. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-11 06:28 · Score: 0
  
  Fructose (which is one half of sucrose - basically the same as high fructose corn syrup) is actually much worse than glucose precisely because it is metabolized by the liver. The metabolic process is very similar to that of ethanol, and the chronic effects are also almost identical. Here's a great presentation by Prof. Robert H. Lustig, MD about the link between sugar consumption and obesity: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM
  You are making stuff up. Just look at the wikipedia page for Fructose:
  Fructose In Food
  Just because everyone "hates on" the high fructose corn syrup, doesn't mean fructose is bad for you. Just about all the fruit/veg you eat is going to have fructose. Are you trying to say eating apples (high in fructose) are harmful?
22. Re:Proves Bloomberg correct. by mpe · 2013-08-11 07:02 · Score: 1
  
  More ammo in the Bloomberg ammo depot to outlaw enormous sugary drinks and help lower the nation's health care costs by cutting down on seriously obese people.
  
  The majority of most people's dietary glucose isn't from "sugar" however. This typically comes from plant amylopectin (followed by amylose).
  Thus it would actually make more sense to outlaw bread, pasta, potatoes, breakfast cereal, etc. before even considering anything which contains glucose, maltose, sucrose or lactose.
23. Re:Proves Bloomberg correct. by mpe · 2013-08-11 07:20 · Score: 1
  
  The study was about Glucose; the predominant sugar in soda drinks is Fructose, at least in the U.S., and because it lends itself to plumbing-based manufacturing of junk food rather than requiring auger gears to move powdered sweetener around, it's gaining ground in other countries junk food as well.
  
  HFCS is typically 55% fructose and 45% glucose. (Outside of the US it would probably be made from wheat or potatoes rather than maize.) HFCS wouldn't exist without the maize subsidies and sugar tariffs in the US.
  By comparison sucrose is 53% fructose and 53% glucose. The extra 6% coming from the water used in the hydrolysis reaction to split sucrose into fructose and glucose.
  The most important difference is that HFCS has a higher Glycemic Index (GI) than sucrose. Because it can be adsorbed without any digestion being needed.
  Even though it contains less glucose more may end up in the general bloodstream since the liver preferentially converts fructose (and galactose) into fats. (Also liver cells need insulin to take up glucose. Which is not the case for either fructose or galactose.)
24. Re:Proves Bloomberg correct. by Dcnjoe60 · 2013-08-11 08:13 · Score: 1
  
  Plus it isn't just in soft drinks. It's in just about every processed food out there. Why? It's dirt cheap compared to real sugar. So, if you eat peanut butter, you are eating HFCS. If you eat a hamburger at a fast food chain, you are eating HFCS if you think you will go the healthy route and have a salad, you better just have oil and vinegar for the dressing or once again you will have HFCS added to your diet. A little HFCS isn't bad for you, but like MSG, it is so prevalent in all of the foods we eat that it's hard to only get just a little bit.
25. Re:Proves Bloomberg correct. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-11 08:26 · Score: 0
  
  obviously you did not watched the video: fruits have fructose and FIBER, and it is the big difference.
26. Re:Proves Bloomberg correct. by Dcnjoe60 · 2013-08-11 08:32 · Score: 1
  
  I drink about a can of soda a week. Usually Stevia sweetened cola or root beer. Why would I want a 2L bottle? It would either encourage me to drink more soda (before it goes flat) or go to waste.
  A better solution would just be a sugary drink tax and that tax could go directly towards subsidizing fruits and vegetables :)
  Because if you have kids, buying soday by the can is pretty darn expensive. The best solution is to first find out if there is a direct and strong correlation between surary drinks and obesity. Then, decide what to do about it. Chances are, a viable solution would not require a tax or a subsidy for fruits and vegetables, which are pretty high in sugar, too.
  If the culprit really is the sugary drinks, then all one would need to do is look at other western societies where kids drink sugary drinks (Japan is one) and see if obesity is increasing there, too. It's not and the japanese consume even more HFCS than the US does. So, it is something else in the US diet along with the HFCS that is the problem. Most likely, it is plan and simple portion size. In the 1960s, what is a regular hamburger at McDonalds was (and still is) the normal serving. However, today, the menu is full of 1/4 lb and 1/3 lb burgers. The regular fries and drinks are double a normal serving.
  If your goal is to combat obseity, the first place to start would be to have restaurants list not just calories but how many servings you are actually receiving. The reason a Big Mac is 700 calories is because it is actually two servings. It's not enough to say a single serving of Big Mac is 700 calories. It needs to say a Big Mac is two servings at 350 calories each for a total of 700 calories. For the record, I am not picking on McDonalds nor do I actually know the calorie or nutritional content of a Big Mac, I just use it for illustrative purposes.
  Maybe when people find out that they are eating the equivalent of six or seven meals a day, their habits will change. But we will never know if restaraunts are required to report how many servings they are actually serving you.
27. Re:Proves Bloomberg correct. by Dcnjoe60 · 2013-08-11 08:33 · Score: 1
  
  More ammo in the Bloomberg ammo depot to outlaw enormous sugary drinks and help lower the nation's health care costs by cutting down on seriously obese people.
  The majority of most people's dietary glucose isn't from "sugar" however. This typically comes from plant amylopectin (followed by amylose).
  Thus it would actually make more sense to outlaw bread, pasta, potatoes, breakfast cereal, etc. before even considering anything which contains glucose, maltose, sucrose or lactose.
  Shhhhh! Don't cloud the argument with facts.
28. Re:Proves Bloomberg correct. by XcepticZP · 2013-08-11 08:57 · Score: 0
  
  It's hard to read the nutrition labels if you're too busy looking at the price tag.
  
  But I do agree with you. Our schools need a whole lot of reform. Simple things such as nutrition and basic health should be taught in the schools instead of useless subjects with no real application to 90%+ of the population. Instead, we watch them rot the children's brains with useless geography, history, chemistry, high-level math. Those subjects may be interesting and good for someone interested in advancing their education, but for the rest of them it's a bore and chore. If you have to force something down your child's brain, make sure it's useful. And explain to them why it's useful.
29. Re:Proves Bloomberg correct. by Darby · 2013-08-11 11:25 · Score: 1
  
  Because if you have kids, buying soday by the can is pretty darn expensive.
  If you have kids you should never be giving them soda under any circumstances.
  That's fucking child abuse.
30. Re:Proves Bloomberg correct. by Dcnjoe60 · 2013-08-11 11:43 · Score: 1
  
  Because if you have kids, buying soday by the can is pretty darn expensive.
  If you have kids you should never be giving them soda under any circumstances.
  That's fucking child abuse.
  There are other beverages besides soda that have a high sugar content like apple juice, orange juice and grape juice. Soda isn't the only sugary drink that kids drink. Besides, at what age would you allow soda, not until they are 21? Kids run the gamut from birth until at least 18.
31. Re:Proves Bloomberg correct. by haruchai · 2013-08-11 12:21 · Score: 1
  
  The only reason HCFS is so cheap is because of corn subsidies. Get rid of those and it's half the battle.
  
  --
  Pain is merely failure leaving the body
32. Re:Proves Bloomberg correct. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-11 13:46 · Score: 0
  
  Thank you very much for this video. It basically explains how fructose is basically as bad as ethanol (alcohol) I have a feeling we don't tax fructose drinks because it does not cause intoxication, hang overs, etc....
  Bloomberg has it right, but instead we need to tax everything with fructose to fix the problem.
33. Re:Proves Bloomberg correct. by Dcnjoe60 · 2013-08-11 15:13 · Score: 1
  
  The only reason HCFS is so cheap is because of corn subsidies. Get rid of those and it's half the battle.
  That's not true. US places tariffs on imported sugar to protect domestic sugar production. Because of this, actual sugar is overpriced in the US. HFCS is priced on the commodities market, like oil, so while the corn producers do receive a subsidy, the price is really determined by other factors. But, if the US removed the self imposed tariffs, then the price of sucrose would fall to normal like the rest of the world and the demand in the US for HFCS would decline.
  Basically, we aren't subsidizing HFCS, we are making the regular sugar so expensive that there is no need to do so.
34. Re:Proves Bloomberg correct. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-11 15:46 · Score: 1
  
  Capitalism means respecting private property. Nothing more, Billy.
  Forcing others into those ways of your kind is fascist.
  The people enforcing laws about fatties sure are fascists.
  The fatties making me bear the weight of their countless fat rolls sure are fascists.
  Both sure are.
  I for one just don't want being buggered by any kind of fascists.
35. Re:Proves Bloomberg correct. by lxs · 2013-08-11 20:25 · Score: 1
  
  In the 1920s and '30s they would be called Fat Cats. and we still don't like them.
36. Re:Proves Bloomberg correct. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-12 04:36 · Score: 0
  
  But but but ... we are also heavily subsidizing corn production which is why farmers find it more worthwhile to grow corn and make more money selling it at market price than another kind of crop that would grow there. Also, I understand they grow it over and over in the same field instead of rotating with other crops to not drain the soil.
37. Re:Proves Bloomberg correct. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-12 05:11 · Score: 0
  
  I don't know about that. People stupid enough to drink a 52 oz, 1000+ calorie drink packed with sugar might not have the best brain to begin with and probably have all around terrible health practices as well.
  Not stupid. Addicted.
  Outlawing sugar won't address the base issues (individual & corporate) that lead to that addiction in the first place.
  Reclaiming my own health has been an 11-year process of learning how to eat properly, what food additives to avoid, discovering the mental issues that led to self-medication with junk food in the first place, and changing my lifestyle/career so that healing is actually possible. It's a journey with thousands of steps, many setbacks, and one which can't be meaningfully condensed into an easy soundbite. It takes time, and almost nobody with letters after their name will be the least bit interested in helping you figure it out.
38. Re:Proves Bloomberg correct. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-12 05:19 · Score: 0
  
  You're very wrong.
  The liver metabolizes fructose, true. But it can't completely break fructose down, and glucose is only one product of that process. The other products are neurotoxic, and mess with your metabolism. The left-overs that the liver can't get rid of get stored within and around itself. We see the results of this as a greater proportion of abdominal fat. Just like over-consumption of alcohol. Because the liver breaks both down very similarly.
  Eating whole fruits doesn't lead to this, because there's less fructose to start with. Plus the enzymes needed to completely and safely process that fructose are present within the fiber of the fruit itself. But extract the fructose from the fiber and concentrate it, and you have a poison.
39. Re:Proves Bloomberg correct. by haruchai · 2013-08-12 23:57 · Score: 1
  
  Are you sure? From what I've found so far, the tariff on Brazil sugar is 1.5 cents (US$) per kg but they are limited to 155,000 tons. That doesn't seem like enough of a hike to make using sugar unaffordable.
  
  --
  Pain is merely failure leaving the body
40. Re:Proves Bloomberg correct. by Dcnjoe60 · 2013-08-13 07:01 · Score: 1
  
  That is the cane sugar tariff. The beet sugar tariff is something like 29.4 cents per kg. We restrict the amount of cane sugar that can be imported and then tax the shit out of beet sugar which competes directly with most US sugar production.
Coranation does not imply causeway by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-11 02:40 · Score: 1

No way Jose! Stoopid believe print.
Yes, but the next question is by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-11 02:58 · Score: 0

What is the relationship between sugar in the diet and blood sugar levels?
I've at least glanced at a lot of Web articles about most/least healthy foods. Pretty much every food has been attacked by one nutritionist or another, but one group that seems to be universally approved are berries. We're all supposed to eat our berries. Well, guess what. Berries have lots of sucrose.
1. Re:Yes, but the next question is by TechyImmigrant · 2013-08-11 05:15 · Score: 1
  
  Berries have a little bit of sucrose. But I've not seen any real evidence that they are good for you.
  Nutritionists like them because they can't fault them. They don't have many calories, they have 'antioxidants' and they don't have much fructose.
  But nutritionists aren't the ones who paid attention in science class. There is no evidence that antioxidants do anything to help you. There is strong evidence that the opposite is true. That didn't get a mention in the press until Watson (of DNA fame) said it, but it was already common currency amongst the scientists.
  http://io9.com/5975002/james-watson-says-antioxidants-may-actually-be-causing-cancer
  The antioxidants in plants are there to help the plant protect itself against the poisons it evolved to stop you eating it. Humans and other animals have adpated in kind and can tolerate them to some extent.
  We don't know berries are good for you. We have reason to believe they are bad for you, but they're small so you don't get a lot.
  
  --
  I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
2. Re:Yes, but the next question is by TechyImmigrant · 2013-08-11 05:16 · Score: 1
  
  >Berries have a little bit of sucrose.
  Argh. I meant fuctose.
  There's no significant sucrose in berries.
  
  --
  I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
3. Re:Yes, but the next question is by Dcnjoe60 · 2013-08-11 08:34 · Score: 1
  
  >Berries have a little bit of sucrose.
  Argh. I meant fuctose.
  There's no significant sucrose in berries.
  Unless they are chocolate covered or powdered.
4. Re:Yes, but the next question is by mpe · 2013-08-11 08:53 · Score: 1
  
  I've at least glanced at a lot of Web articles about most/least healthy foods. Pretty much every food has been attacked by one nutritionist or another, but one group that seems to be universally approved are berries. We're all supposed to eat our berries. Well, guess what. Berries have lots of sucrose.
  
  Berries tend to be small fruits, with the exception of some tomatoes, so fairly easy to eat a small portion.
5. Re:Yes, but the next question is by TechyImmigrant · 2013-08-11 13:06 · Score: 1
  
  It's a good thing they don't cover meat in sugar power. They don't do they ?!
  
  --
  I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
6. Re:Yes, but the next question is by Dcnjoe60 · 2013-08-11 15:22 · Score: 1
  
  It's a good thing they don't cover meat in sugar power. They don't do they ?!
  No, but they do inject it with HFCS. If people knew everything they ate with HFCS, they'd be only buying food from the farmer's market and local butcher.
7. Re:Yes, but the next question is by TechyImmigrant · 2013-08-11 15:47 · Score: 1
  
  I only buy cow meat that I know is from happy grass fed cows and locally butchered. It costs more, but the extra cost is better than suffering from Western diseases.
  
  --
  I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
8. Re:Yes, but the next question is by Dcnjoe60 · 2013-08-11 16:36 · Score: 1
  
  I only buy cow meat that I know is from happy grass fed cows and locally butchered. It costs more, but the extra cost is better than suffering from Western diseases.
  That would be a smart choice.
evils of sugar by bzipitidoo · 2013-08-11 03:01 · Score: 1
Sugar gets more evil every day. I've heard that sugar causes or is linked to:
- tooth decay
- weight problems
- diabetes
- acne
- dementia
And, I've heard that sugar is acidic, but how and what that means other than that it's somehow bad I don't know. Acidic foods cause faster aging, maybe? Wish I'd known about the link to acne back in high school.
--
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
1. Re:evils of sugar by oodaloop · 2013-08-11 03:19 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Yeah, I hear DNA is acidic too. And viruses have DNA. And many diseases are caused by DNA. Whatever you do, don't eat that stuff!
  
  --
  Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
2. Re:evils of sugar by __aaltlg1547 · 2013-08-11 03:34 · Score: 2
  
  You may have heard that, but sugar isn't acidic. Measure the pH of water before and after adding sugar to see.
3. Re:evils of sugar by tie_guy_matt · 2013-08-11 03:34 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Otto Heinrich Warburg won a nobel prize in the 30's for proving that cancer cells only eat sugar. So you might want to add that to your list as well.
4. Re:evils of sugar by slew · 2013-08-11 03:37 · Score: 2
  
  I've heard that sugar is acidic.
  FWIW, pure sugar is not technically acidic (meaning it has no ionizable excess of H+ in solution). However, the way we metabolize sugar (citric acid cycle, fatty acid storage) creates acids in our bodies. The alkaline diet fad that has been making the rounds has somehow created this misleading impression about sugar.
5. Re:evils of sugar by Samantha+Wright · 2013-08-11 04:14 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Sugar is the most basic kind of energy source. It's extremely important to your body, but as with everything, there are limits on what intake is healthy. (As Stephen Fry once said, 'Well of course too much is bad for you, that's what "too much" means you blithering twat. If you had too much water it would be bad for you, wouldn't it?')
  Don't worry about the dementia thing too much. While it's a very strong correlation, it only increases the risk of developing dementia to 120% of normal for nondiabetics and 140% of normal for diabetics, which is still only about 1-2% of the people in their study.
  As for the other consequences, it may help to understand them a bit better:
  Tooth decay is caused by sugar left on your teeth. You can consume a ton of sugar and never have any tooth issues if you brush aggressively. Cavities are caused by bacteria in your mouth breaking down food left on your teeth, which causes them to release acidic byproducts. Starches like potatoes, corn, and bread are actually much more of a problem, however, and are the primary cause of cavities.
  Gaining weight happens because the human body isn't prepared, evolutionarily, to regulate its own food intake very well. We have a high inclination toward absorbing and storing extra energy because that gives us the best chance of surviving a famine. Because sugar is the most basic kind of food, the body uses it as a clue to say "it's time to absorb nutrients!", hence sugary foods make you gain weight even faster. This is part of the normal purpose of the hormone insulin.
  Diabetes isn't only caused by high sugar intake; it can be inherited too. Technically it's an inability to recognize sugar and absorb it, which (amongst other things) causes gradual starvation if not managed properly. Sugar causes it only if you consume a great deal for a long period of time, which makes your body start to ignore insulin. Diabetes can also be caused by pancreatic damage (type 1) or temporarily by pregnancy.
  Acne is a weird issue; it's also caused by bacteria, in this case sitting on the skin. The immediate cause is a spike in testosterone, which can be induced by a number of sources, because it roughens up the surface of the skin. Sugar is one of those sources, but simply having overactive hormones as a teenager is probably a more dominant issue.
  And as Slew said, sugar isn't acidic, it's just the breakdown of it that gets to be that way. This doesn't really have much of an effect on your body unless you're already suffering from acidosis (acidic blood), and you'd die very quickly if it stopped entirely, so don't worry about it.
  
  --
  Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
6. Re:evils of sugar by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-11 04:41 · Score: 0
  
  Acidic foods cause faster aging, maybe?
  Such as the amino-acids found in protein? Or Vitamin C (ascorbic acid), an essential anti-oxydant?
  I think we can safely call hogwash on that one.
7. Re:evils of sugar by Popocatepetl · 2013-08-11 05:24 · Score: 2
  
  Don't worry about the dementia thing too much. While it's a very strong correlation, it only increases the risk of developing dementia to 120% of normal for nondiabetics and 140% of normal for diabetics, which is still only about 1-2% of the people in their study.
  About a quarter of the participants (524 of 2067) developed dementia over the course of the study. I'm not sure where you got the 1-2% figure. Perhaps you are referring to the p-values, but p indicates how likely it would be to observe the data if the null hypothesis were true.
8. Re:evils of sugar by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-11 05:55 · Score: 0
  
  I'm assuming you realize there's no sucrase in the water to break down the sucrose into glucose and fructose. That's as dumb as saying saturated fat will be solid inside your body.
9. Re:evils of sugar by Samantha+Wright · 2013-08-11 06:02 · Score: 1
  
  Ah, snap. Sorry. I was using the number of measurements. (I promise I know my basic stats, even if not how to read. It's my day job.)
  
  --
  Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
10. Re:evils of sugar by rubycodez · 2013-08-11 06:41 · Score: 1
  
  of course, most the cells in the body run on sugar. try depriving your brain of sugar for a minute and see what happens. call the morgue first and reserve a slab
11. Re:evils of sugar by tie_guy_matt · 2013-08-11 06:44 · Score: 2
  
  I don't agree. Sugary, at least dietary sugar, isn't needed by your body at all. Your body can convert fat to ketones which most cells can use instead of sugar. Your brain and other organs might need some sugar but your body can convert protien into sugar if it really needs to. So in conclusion:
  If you do not eat any protien, you die.
  If you don't eat any fat then you don't get any fat soluble vitamns or essential omega 3 fatty acids, and you die (its called rabbit starvation.)
  If you don't eat any sugar (and restrict carbohydrates because your body will always convert carbs to sugars) then lets see. Um well your breath might smell of ketones. Umm well you might have trouble going to the bathroom since fiber is technically a carbohydrate (might want to still eat high fiber low carb veggies to prevernt that.) Other than that honestly most people just loose weight, lower their blood pressure and cholesterol, and generally feel better. Personally I lost ~50 lbs. Just saying.
12. Re:evils of sugar by tie_guy_matt · 2013-08-11 07:02 · Score: 1
  
  I wouldn't say most of the cells in your body depend on sugar, but some need it. However we do not need to have blood sugar levels as high as most of the pre-diabetic people running around living off of the high sugar typical western diet. And in fact ketogenic diets (diets low in sugar and carbohydrates) do show promise in protecting against some forms of cancer.
13. Re:evils of sugar by Samantha+Wright · 2013-08-11 07:32 · Score: 1
  
  Admittedly that may not have been clear in my post. My point was that you shouldn't fear the molecule, that's all. You'll always be deriving energy from glycolysis, and it'll always be a more efficient energy source.
  
  --
  Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
14. Re: evils of sugar by tie_guy_matt · 2013-08-11 07:57 · Score: 1
  
  There is some sugar in fruits. So there was likely a time when having seasonal fruit taste good was a good thing. However having tons of cheap refined white sugar around all year round is relatively new. Most antique sugar cabinets have locks on them. That is because sugar was rather expensive and the head of the house would only break it out for holidays and such. Of course now we get most of our sugar from high fructose corn syrup which wasn't even food before the 1970's.
15. Re:evils of sugar by mpe · 2013-08-11 08:13 · Score: 1
  
  Sugar is the most basic kind of energy source. It's extremely important to your body, but as with everything, there are limits on what intake is healthy.
  
  On the other hand the human body has a quite limited ability to store glucose and no ability to store fructose or galactose. With none of these being "essential nutrients" either.
16. Re:evils of sugar by Dcnjoe60 · 2013-08-11 08:36 · Score: 1
  Sugar gets more evil every day. I've heard that sugar causes or is linked to:
  tooth decay
  weight problems
  diabetes
  acne
  dementia
  And, I've heard that sugar is acidic, but how and what that means other than that it's somehow bad I don't know. Acidic foods cause faster aging, maybe? Wish I'd known about the link to acne back in high school.
  Sugar causes none of those things. The consumption of sugar, however, may be a different story. As for high school acne, sex hormones are the most likely cause of that, particularly for males.
17. Re: evils of sugar by TechyImmigrant · 2013-08-11 12:05 · Score: 1
  
  Some need glucose. Principally a small subset in the brain.
  All others can get by on glucose or ketones (I.e. fat metabolism). If you are in ketosis, the liver is synthesizing glucose to the level needed by the brain while other tissues go into physiological insulin resistance to preserve the glucose for the brain. This is a good thing. You would be dead otherwise.
  
  --
  I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
18. Re: evils of sugar by haruchai · 2013-08-11 12:30 · Score: 1
  
  The theory I've heard is that it was eating fruit a ready way for our primitive ancestors to get certain nutrients, like vitamin C which can't be synthesized by humans and is not available in meat.
  In fact, we need VitC to absorb iron.
  So it tastes good because it was good for us.
  
  --
  Pain is merely failure leaving the body
19. Re:evils of sugar by pnagel · 2013-08-11 18:37 · Score: 1
  
  Sugar is the most basic kind of energy source.
  I wish I knew where this meme came from.
  Glucose is one of many energy sources that cells can use, but it is far from the only one. Fatty acids, ketones and lactic acid can be utilized for energy too.
  One thing that makes glucose special is that it can be used anaerobically, which makes it useful to fuel sudden bursts of activity that exceed the availability of oxygen. But it is much less efficient when used this way, and some of the other fuels listed above are just as efficient, if not more so, when used normally (aerobically).
  The other thing that make glucose special is that high levels of it are damaging, because glucose is just so darn reactive. Which is why your body has intricate systems for bringining it down - the normal amount of glucose in the blood is just aboud a teaspoon or two, total.
  But somehow we looked at the fact that the body has intricate mechanisms for managing glucose levels, and instead of concluding "glucose is a kind of neccesary evil", we concluded "glucose is the be-all and end-all of energy metabolism, the only fuel that counts".
  Crazy.
20. Re: evils of sugar by kermidge · 2013-08-11 19:01 · Score: 1
  
  As I understand it, which is probably not much, it's kinda simple, and it makes my life easier for dealing with all the crap that's making it more difficult. Also, a little balance goes a long way.
  Glucose is fuel - what cells burn to do their stuff.
  Protein is used to repair and build tissue (which is pretty much everything.)
  Cholesterol is used to build cell walls, connective tissues, fingernails, and such.
  Fat is for stored energy, it tastes good, and helps regulate appetite (the 'appestat'.)
  Excess glucose is converted to fat.
  Calories in = calories out - take in more than you burn, gain weight; take in less, lose.
  Bread is used to make hamburgers easier to hold onto and make it easier to add ketchup and onions, etc. Also a wrapper for pb&j, and toast with eggs and bacon.
  I like brown rice and potatoes (sweet potatoes too), so I eats 'em.
  Veggies add to a meal, and fruits are tasty, so I eat some of them also - and they add easily a slew of minerals used everywhere in the bod for different stuff including repairing bone, and fibre which makes it easier to poop regularly and helps keep the pipes clean.
  Oatmeal is OK, just don't tell anybody you eat it.
  Add some yoghurt and maybe cheese; tastes good and good for you.
  There's other stuff going on, of course, but it's the basics.
  That's about it. YMMV.
  Going by the news over the past year or so I begin to think the only thing that doesn't cause or is highly associated with dementia is dying young. You live long enough, something is gonna get you. The real question becomes if you'll enjoy your second childhood more than your first. I tend to prefer mens sana, corpore sano, at least some reasonable semblance thereof; crapping out too far one way or the other leaves me looking for the off switch while that choice is still possible. The thought of stroking out to living coma or becoming mindless veg gives me the willies. I saw some of that at the nursing home/rehab place and it wasn't pretty.
21. Re:evils of sugar by Samantha+Wright · 2013-08-11 19:10 · Score: 1
  
  If I do subscribe to any memes about glucose in particular, it is because I work with anaerobes most of the time and think of aerobic respiration as a kind of black magic. I have nothing but the utmost respect for our foul-breathed trillion-celled crash-dieting overlords.
  
  --
  Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
22. Re:evils of sugar by kermidge · 2013-08-11 19:20 · Score: 1
  
  Nice summary, thank you.
  As I understood it, the mouth bacterium eats sugar and shits acid which eats the enamel at the gum line, creating an even better home for itself -> plaque -> gingivitis, etc. Apparently there is a cousin that'll live in the same 'ecological niche' that doesn't do this and it's possible to replace the nasty with the benign. Have read on this twice, both sourced from dentistry school at Duke, first time in late '70s; I've only met one dentist who'll admit to the bacteria bit, not any of the rest. Also, we don't start with it - it's acquired exiting the birth canal. Some people are born without it and cannot get tooth decay in the accepted sense unless that bacterium (one of the s. mutans) later takes hold through injury or disease.
  Your two paras 'tween decay and acne oughta go into the texts as a concise statement of the realities. Hat off, etc.
23. Re:evils of sugar by yet+another+SanTiago · 2013-08-11 20:33 · Score: 1
  
  Rabbit starvation is unrelated by avitaminosis or missing essential acids (that would be more long term problem). It is caused by acquiring your energy mostly from proteins (i.e. you have to cut both fats and sugars to get it) and accumulation of excessive toxical byproducts of protein catabolism - proteins are not a good energy source for humans.
24. Re:evils of sugar by kermidge · 2013-08-11 22:30 · Score: 1
  
  Well, was leery of my memory on this.... so eventually spent some time reading
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streptococcus_mutans
  and a few of the included links. Was an eye opener and worth the time. About the only smart thing I've been doing is using baking soda and peroxide for brushing, along with a half-decent mouthwash. Never did find the reference I was looking for but don't want to take the time from other stuff right now to try to find it.
25. Re: evils of sugar by TechyImmigrant · 2013-08-12 04:45 · Score: 1
  
  You need to add the endocrine system in there. That's what upends people's misconceptions about CI=CO. The arrow of causation isn't CI-CO => delta M. It is Food => hormone activity => CI-CO. Weight changes and appetite are mostly a function of the type of food you eat, not its caloric properties.
  I don't think it is simple. I've been studying the science for a few years now. It's really very, very complicated.
  The solution to western metabolic disorders is simple - reduce carbohydrates to as close to zero as possible (E.G. 10g/day) and eat lots of animal fat.
  
  --
  I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
26. Re: evils of sugar by kermidge · 2013-08-12 06:38 · Score: 1
  
  Thanks for the heads up re endocrine. I wasn't trying to minimize the humongous amount of stuff involved in how the body does what it does, rather I was making a simple list, part tongue in cheek, about what I use as a general guide to what I can manage to get, make, and eat on any kind of regular basis, and a bit about why.
  In your sense I am indeed wrong-footed; in my sense, it's what I can do from day to day.
  "I don't think it is simple...
  The solution to western metabolic disorders is simple..."
  Make up your mind. [grin] (I know, apples and oranges, but hey...)
27. Re: evils of sugar by TechyImmigrant · 2013-08-12 08:24 · Score: 1
  
  "I don't think it is simple...
  The solution to western metabolic disorders is simple..."
  The why is not simple and I don't think anyone understands it fully, but we do know a lot. The 'what to do' at the moment is low-carb. There is plenty of evidence, both controlled and epidemiological that shows positive outcomes associates with reduce total carbohydrate intake.
  Your list is fine, except the liking potatoes and rice thing and the CI-CO thing. Stop that :)
  
  --
  I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
28. Re:evils of sugar by romons · 2013-08-12 13:47 · Score: 1
  
  Gaining weight happens because the human body isn't prepared, evolutionarily, to regulate its own food intake very well. We have a high inclination toward absorbing and storing extra energy because that gives us the best chance of surviving a famine. Because sugar is the most basic kind of food, the body uses it as a clue to say "it's time to absorb nutrients!", hence sugary foods make you gain weight even faster. This is part of the normal purpose of the hormone insulin.
  The human body is really good at regulating the intake of natural foods. It is refined foods that we have trouble with. Try to get diabetes by eating only meat and vegetables. It was the introduction of agriculture, and the recent commercial introduction of HFCS that really messed us up. Here are some interesting references.
  Paleolithic Diet.
  Good Calories, Bad Calories
  High Fructose Corn Syrup
  
  --
  Go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company -- Mark Twain
29. Re: evils of sugar by kermidge · 2013-08-12 21:18 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, sorry, can't shake the cheeky today; what I find encouraging is, particularly in just the past decade or two, the larger amount and...tenacity of research into the erstwhile presumed fundamentals, looking far more closely at what goes on inside the various cells (abetted by some mighty fine newer tools, both observational and those related to vastly increased understanding about the intricacies of folding and fit) against the gross nutritional assumptions - we can now start testing and watching in situ what we used to know to be true.
  I've not kept up on this stuff at all but you've spurred me to do some catching up.
  As for my list...tell you what, so long as you'll allow me a bit of brown rice, I'll eschew potatoes in favor of sweet. Heck, they're cheaper and tastier anyway - and last time I looked quite a bit more nutritious also. I will definitely look to shift more from meat and spuds to meat and veg. (One thing that will help me as I get more mobile is to be able to get to the store more often so's to get fresh fruit and veg for daily meals. Hmm, maybe yam skins will hold a burger as well as a bun.) Cheers, and thanks.
30. Re: evils of sugar by rubycodez · 2013-08-16 02:59 · Score: 1
  
  but the healthiest groups of people in the world don't follow that high-fat diet. Rather, complex carbs, little simple carbs, some protein, some fat and much fiber. or if you're French, add more sugar and some wine.
31. Re: evils of sugar by TechyImmigrant · 2013-08-16 03:54 · Score: 1
  
  The healthiest people in the world include people on high fat diets, people on high carbs and daily smoking, people on lots-o-fish and others.
  The correct response to "Oh no I fucked my metabolism on a western diet and now I'm fat" is not to follow a 'healthy' diet like the Inuit or the Tokalus, because it doesn't work. The correct response is to know what is broken and to work around that defect. That is why low-carb works for the western fatties like me.
  If we didn't break our metabolisms with three generations of mitochondrial damage inherited through our mothers and bulk sucrose and wheat in childhood, the primitive diets might work, but that is not the situation we live in.
  
  --
  I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
32. Re: evils of sugar by rubycodez · 2013-08-16 05:19 · Score: 1
  
  wonder if real wheat is a problem, what we call "wheat" in the USA is a sixfold genome bioengineered franken-wheat.
33. Re: evils of sugar by rubycodez · 2013-08-16 05:21 · Score: 1
  
  I think you'd find an asian diet with brown rice, veggies and fruits, and a little lean meat (6 oz or less a day) would shed the pounds too
34. Re: evils of sugar by TechyImmigrant · 2013-08-16 06:22 · Score: 1
  
  Not if your POMC cells in your ventromedial hypothalamus are messed up.
  
  --
  I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
35. Re: evils of sugar by TechyImmigrant · 2013-08-16 06:23 · Score: 1
  
  Wheat may be part of the problem. I don't know if the franken-wheat is significant. I've seen no data either way on old wheat vs. franken wheat.
  
  --
  I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
36. Re: evils of sugar by TechyImmigrant · 2013-08-16 06:27 · Score: 1
  
  This.. http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v14/n7/fig_tab/nn.2867_F1.html
  and this.. attach boilerplate rodent metabolism warning though .. http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v14/n7/full/nn.2867.html
  
  --
  I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
Where have I heard this before? by pellik · 2013-08-11 03:02 · Score: 5, Informative

http://science.slashdot.org/story/07/10/02/0350258/alzheimers-could-be-a-third-form-of-diabetes
1. Re:Where have I heard this before? by toomanyairmiles · 2013-08-11 04:30 · Score: 2
  
  There are already five forms of diabetes. Type 1 (early onset, no pancreatic function, incurable); Type 1.5 (Late onset, no pancreatic function, incurable); Pre Type 2 Diabetes (insulin resistance building, possibly curable); Type 2 (late onset, insulin resistance, some pancreatic function, incurable); and Gestational Diabetes (hormonal imbalance create insulin resistance, temporary). So this might be a sixth.
2. Re:Where have I heard this before? by mpe · 2013-08-11 06:50 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  There are already five forms of diabetes. Type 1 (early onset, no pancreatic function, incurable); Type 1.5 (Late onset, no pancreatic function, incurable); Pre Type 2 Diabetes (insulin resistance building, possibly curable); Type 2 (late onset, insulin resistance, some pancreatic function, incurable); and Gestational Diabetes (hormonal imbalance create insulin resistance, temporary).
  
  Actually you have three groups.
  Auto-immune: T1 and T1.5 (LADA).
  Insulin resistant: Pre-Diabetes, T2 and Gestational Diabetes.
  Mitochondial malfunction: Very misleadingly called Mature Onset Diabetes of the Young (MODY). N.B. it is possible for young people, especially women with PCOS, to have insulin resistance diabetes.
  
  Only insulin resistant diabetes can be reversed (cured). Only in some cases, the degree & length of time of the insulin resistance along with injury to beta cells and liver due to glucotoxicity being possible factors here.
3. Re:Where have I heard this before? by toomanyairmiles · 2013-08-11 07:28 · Score: 1
  
  I went for 'forms' rather than 'groups' because I thought it easier to understand and the distinction seems increasingly important to researchers, pharmacists, and patients. I'd classified MODY as Type 2, although looking back I probably shouldn't have. I'd probably also take back the use of 'cured', as the patients would have a normal range A1c but would still be considered diabetic by most Endocrinologists.
4. Re:Where have I heard this before? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-11 10:51 · Score: 0
  
  The earlier poster left out traumatic diabetes (associated with the surgical removal of the pancreas, such as pancreatic cancer patients), cystic fibrosis triggered Type 1 (because cystic fibrosis messes with *everything*), genetic abnormalities (such as excess X crhromosomes associated with klinefelder's syndrome, which can cause some very odd Type 1), and all the other potential causes. This is why the ADA gave up years ago and labeled them as "Type 1" for insulin dependent, and "Type 2" for non-insulin dependent.
  And for curing Type 1, do take a look at Dr. Faustman's auto-immune work over at Mass. General Hospital, using the BCG vaccine for tuberculosis to trigger auto-immune changes that have been shown to *cure* Type 1 diabetes in lab animals.
5. Re:Where have I heard this before? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-11 20:40 · Score: 0
  
  An then there's Diabetes Insipidus. Which seems to have nothing to do with sugar.
Is this due to increased Vascular Dementia? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-11 03:04 · Score: 3, Interesting

Vascular dementia is caused by the breakdown and rupture of small blood vessels in the brain.
High levels of serum glucose lead to high levels of damage in small blood vessels and the desctuction of 'Highly Vascularized Tissue'.
Chronic kidney disease is a typical outcome of high serum glucose.
Seems like there's a pattern here.
1. Re:Is this due to increased Vascular Dementia? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-11 07:57 · Score: 0
  
  I'm a 45 year type 1 diabetic. My mental alertness is *profoundly* affected by my glucose control, not merely hypoglycemia, but extended hyperglycemia affecting my focal length, my electrolytes due to excessive urination, my muscular endurance, and a dozen other minor factors all adding up to a noticeable deficit of mental capacity. I can certainly understand lower levels of hyperglycemia having mild, cumulative affects.
2. Re:Is this due to increased Vascular Dementia? by swalve · 2013-08-11 08:30 · Score: 1
  
  Seems to make sense. I haven't known too many old people, but the ones who got dementia as they aged were also the ones with diabetes and kidney problems. There could also be a direct blood sugar to brain cell connection. Perhaps higher blood sugar makes the brain form connections differently, or somehow contributes to the plaque formations that sometimes come with dementia.
Brain diabetes by DeathGrippe · 2013-08-11 03:04 · Score: 5, Informative

This is particularly interesting because alzheimer's is now thought, by many researchers, to be a form of "brain diabetes."
There are clinical data which demonstrate that alzheimer's can be reversed to some extent with medium chain triglycerides, which are absorbed by cells directly and provide energy which isn't dependent on glucose uptake.
See: http://www.doctoroz.com/videos/alzheimers-diabetes-brain and http://w.numedica.net/literature/Reger%202004.pdf for more info.
1. Re:Brain diabetes by TechyImmigrant · 2013-08-11 05:04 · Score: 1
  
  The MCTs are inherently ketogenic. The gut and liver separate them out from other fats and metabolize them right away, yielding ketones.
  Given the ketogenic diets not using MCTs are effective in protecting against or reversing the effects of various brain disorders (epilepsy, Alzheimer's, parkinsons etc.) and given that we know some of the mechanisms through which ketones are neuroprotective, it's reasonable to presume it isn't the MCTs directly which help, it's the keytones that they promote.
  If the above is true, then while MCTs may be fine, a proper ketogenic diet would be better, since it improves blood sugar control.
  So quit eating vegetables and start eating lots of saturated fats, eggs and fatty meat if you don't want to go doolally in your old age.
  
  --
  I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
2. Re:Brain diabetes by pellik · 2013-08-11 09:22 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  The MCTs are inherently ketogenic. The gut and liver separate them out from other fats and metabolize them right away, yielding ketones.
  Given the ketogenic diets not using MCTs are effective in protecting against or reversing the effects of various brain disorders (epilepsy, Alzheimer's, parkinsons etc.) and given that we know some of the mechanisms through which ketones are neuroprotective, it's reasonable to presume it isn't the MCTs directly which help, it's the keytones that they promote.
  If the above is true, then while MCTs may be fine, a proper ketogenic diet would be better, since it improves blood sugar control.
  So quit eating vegetables and start eating lots of saturated fats, eggs and fatty meat if you don't want to go doolally in your old age.
  Yes, a diet very high in saturated fats will drastically reduce your chances of experience this or any other disease typically associated with old age.
3. Re:Brain diabetes by brian0918 · 2013-08-12 02:23 · Score: 1
  
  So you openly admit that you still subscribe to the lipid hypothesis?
no it doesn't? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-11 03:05 · Score: 1

if they did a scientific study of banning "large sugar drinks" and noticed that somehow the cost and expense to society and freedom of having taxpayer funded policing of drink sizes somehow was worth it, then maybe i would agree. but thats not what they studied.
they studied the effect of blood glucose on dementia.
sugar might be a poison, but so are a lot of other things. regulating it might be fine, but stupid regulations like "drink size" are not necessarily going to accomplish anything other than wasting taxpayers money. a much more effective regulation would be requiring a warning label on all products containing refined sugar, so then everything from crackers to soup to spaghetti sauce would have it listed on the label.
1. Re:no it doesn't? by mpe · 2013-08-11 07:55 · Score: 1
  
  if they did a scientific study of banning "large sugar drinks" and noticed that somehow the cost and expense to society and freedom of having taxpayer funded policing of drink sizes somehow was worth it, then maybe i would agree. but thats not what they studied.
  
  The size of the cup/glass is also utterly meaningless if you can have as many "refills" as you like (especially if that is via a dispenser in the customer area.)
bugger by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-11 03:14 · Score: 1

Dam looks like im screwed ....anon because i forgot my logon :(
1. Re:bugger by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-11 06:47 · Score: 0
  
  Nonsense, just had a candy bar, life is good, forgot what I was going to say, Oh' well, fuck it.
So imbalanced body chemistry leads to problems? by erroneus · 2013-08-11 04:26 · Score: 4, Insightful

Okay, so perhaps it is over-simplifying the over-all issue and doesn't recognize the increased understanding of what affects what in what ways. It's important, so I'm not going to discount that value.
But the short of it is always this:
1. The body is a chemical machine. It needs good balance. When people screw with it too much beyond its tollerance, it's bad. We know this already. We hear "balanced diet" all the time. Trouble is, "balanced diets" are mostly a lie and because of human diversity, what is balanced for one person isn't balanced for another.
2. People are constantly trying to cut the head off of the body when it comes to illness. If it's "mental illness" they want to blame something mental. If it's something else, they want to blame the body in some way. It's as if this "blood brain barrier" is a thing that people believe contains the soul and spirit of a person. "Magic" right?
It's just not like that. We're all machines through and through. We know chemicals can affect our mood, our judgement, our response time, out ability to think clearly and some would say even enhance our thinking on some ways (I disagree, but okay...) We know we can affect our minds with chemicals and yet we STILL want to believe the mind is separate from the body.
Everyone needs to stop thinking this. Everyone. Laymen, Medical professionals, Police, Justice, Welfare services, Employers and more. Just Everyone.
I see this as completely obvious. Other people still cling to their ideas which are simply and demonstrably wrong.
1. Re:So imbalanced body chemistry leads to problems? by TechyImmigrant · 2013-08-11 05:06 · Score: 2
  
  You are correct. We are a bag of chemical reactions and they all interact. The brain is no exception, particularly when it comes to the metabolism.
  
  --
  I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
2. Re:So imbalanced body chemistry leads to problems? by mpe · 2013-08-11 08:06 · Score: 1
  
  1. The body is a chemical machine. It needs good balance. When people screw with it too much beyond its tollerance, it's bad. We know this already. We hear "balanced diet" all the time. Trouble is, "balanced diets" are mostly a lie and because of human diversity, what is balanced for one person isn't balanced for another.
  
  There is an older phrase "one man's meat is another man's poison". Often a "one size fits all" approach appears in government sponsored dietary advice. (Even such obvious daftness as telling diabetics to eat huge amounts of glucose.)
3. Re:So imbalanced body chemistry leads to problems? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-11 08:34 · Score: 1
  
  Unfortunately, my chemicals tell me that flying spaghetti monster is real. Not as an imaginary or mythical creature, but an actual floating blog of spaghetti that controls the whole world.
4. Re:So imbalanced body chemistry leads to problems? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-11 18:51 · Score: 0
  
  Ditto ... what is balance for one type of body may not be balance for another. We all claim that we are born unique, yet we somehow still think that we want the scientist or researcher to come out with one standard heath care or diet for everyone ... the laziness of our monkey minds!
  Sometimes we are just frustrated of what works for others not working for ourselves, we works for us and not working for others.
  I can't give a straight answer when my kids ask how does cow get so fat if what they eat is just grass? Why elephant and hippo are so huge if they only feed on vegetarian diet?
  Maybe we aught to recognize that we are not what we eat. We are all unique and born with different body frame and growth rate. Recognizing this may help us to be at peace with what we choose to eat or not eat, and not frustrate ourselves by trying to fit into the skinny jeans!
5. Re:So imbalanced body chemistry leads to problems? by kermidge · 2013-08-11 19:51 · Score: 1
  
  You reminded me of "The Body has a Head" by Gustav Eckstein. My takeaway is that we're a chemical-mechanical system of stuff wherein (or whereof) resides a mind. It's a great read, and presents among other things a biographical history to the advance of medical knowledge, the nesting and relation of systems, and the body's striving for homeostasis. Written in 1970 and to this day an indispensable book for anyone who wants to know about their body or of medicine. Sorry, this reads like an advert. Well, maybe so. It's one of a handful of books that I try to keep on my shelf, of the thousands of books I've enjoyed reading and would like to own again.
Another illness that comes from unhealthy diet by satuon · 2013-08-11 04:31 · Score: 2

I wonder how many of the 'stress'-related and weird 'genetic' illnesses just come down to decades of bad diet? I suspect that diet is more important than stress or physical exercise.
1. Re:Another illness that comes from unhealthy diet by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-11 05:41 · Score: 0
  
  I wonder how many of the 'stress'-related and weird 'genetic' illnesses just come down to decades of bad diet? I suspect that diet is more important than stress or physical exercise.
  Yes, not consuming poison on a continual daily basis is more important than exercise.
2. Re:Another illness that comes from unhealthy diet by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-11 13:12 · Score: 0
  
  Personally, I believe our bodies can adapt to just about any diet provided the mind and body are ok with it. Asians have done pretty well on rice.
  The thing is our mind and bodies are gear toward avoiding the "too many chiefs, not enough indians" problem, and likes to shutdown on us in most creative ways when we begin to sense we are no chief.
  There is no mystery here.
  keep calm, carry on.
3. Re:Another illness that comes from unhealthy diet by TechyImmigrant · 2013-08-11 15:21 · Score: 1
  
  > Asians have done pretty well on rice.
  Those Asian's haven't fucked up their VMH with bulk sucrose in childhood.
  
  --
  I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
This wouldn't surprise most diabetics by toomanyairmiles · 2013-08-11 04:40 · Score: 1

I was an undiagnosed Type 2 for a very long time, and since diagnoses it's become clear to me that brain function and mood are very closely tied to my blood sugar levels.

Undiagnosed I would experience bouts of temper or melancholy that came from nowhere in particular, and these have been mostly eliminated since I started to medicate.

When sugars a low it's very hard to think at all, you can't concentrate, and it's hard to coordinate movement. Those that think lows can be cured by simply eating chocolate haven't drunk 10 pints of beer and then tried to find a source of sugar in a three bedroom house!

When sugars are high you can be hyper for a time, before you begin to lose control of your body temperature and the slightest thing can send you into a rage.

Uncontrollable rage is very common indeed in teenage diabetics.
Does this explain... by Applehu+Akbar · 2013-08-11 04:46 · Score: 1

Oprah Winfrey's overwhelming sense of entitlement?
1. Re:Does this explain... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-11 05:55 · Score: 0
  
  No that's having two X's
House is on by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-11 05:15 · Score: 0

That guy knows every ting and I mean every ting. Eddie too.
hello "scientific" minds by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-11 05:44 · Score: 0

I highly suggest you all read Gary Taubes' book "Good Calories, Bad Calories" and then come to your own conclusions regarding what is thought to be common sense when it comes to nutrition. It might open your eyes in a dramatic fashion, as it did mine.
O/T - this article is another illustration by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-11 08:25 · Score: 0

of how good it would be to have research results available to the public. I'd really like to read this study, as it could apply to my family. It might help me support different (probably better) medical treatment for two of them, with benefits for all, from individual to societal levels. Instead, paywall.
1. Re:O/T - this article is another illustration by TechyImmigrant · 2013-08-11 15:23 · Score: 1
  
  > It might help me support different (probably better) medical treatment
  I think you mean dietary treatment.
  Quit with the carbs and sugar. Completely.
  
  --
  I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
How many apples are in a glass of juice? by Guppy · 2013-08-11 12:03 · Score: 2

Just about all the fruit/veg you eat is going to have fructose. Are you trying to say eating apples (high in fructose) are harmful?
Well, if you were to chug them down as a supersized glass of apple juice, probably yes. The composition of that juice isn't too much different from a glass of fructose-sweetened soda. A small 8 oz glass of apple juice takes about 3-4 apples or so to make. If you were to eat those three or four apples whole, you'd feel a bit full; probably take you a while to finish them, too. With the bulk and fiber of the apple removed, the equivalent amount in juice can be consumed in minutes -- without satiating your hunger.
When you suck down a super-sized soda, you are consuming the fructose equivalent of bucketfuls of apples (and possibly doing so within the space of a few minutes). It would take an eating-contest champion to physically match that performance using whole fruit.
1. Re:How many apples are in a glass of juice? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-11 20:30 · Score: 0
  
  Yes! While fruit may be full of fructose (and other sugars), the FIBRE that are in them slows the digestion of said sugars, thus mitigating "spike" effects.
  My rule of thums is: the less processing, the better. Juicing something is also (a whole lot of) processing.
  A dietitian explained to me that mechanically chopping up fibers also reduces their usefulness. In other words, pulping the whole apple (rendering it drinkable without removing fiber, but chopping up the fiber) will not be (much) better than juicing the apple (pressing out the juice and throwing away the fiber).
Cause or effect? by RubberDogBone · 2013-08-11 15:26 · Score: 1

One of my relatives has a serious mental disorder which manifest in many ways but primarily in total lack of self control. And he has a severe sweet tooth. For example, if there is any ice cream or candy on junk food in the house, he is likely to eat all of it on one sitting. It is not at all uncommon to see a half-gallon of ice cream disappear in moments. Or a day spent in nearly continuous eating. Food that should last a week might last a day or two.
As a result of this, the relative has awful glucose control. And as a result of the mental issues, he doesn't care about this or any other aspect of his health. He simply eats whatever he wants. He will not see doctors. And no, there is nothing I can do about it.
He is dooming himself to a life of disease in old age if he manages to live that long. Honestly he's likely to be injured or killed directly by his mental behavior long before something like Alzheimers sets in.

--
Sig for hire.
Re: full article paywalled by kermidge · 2013-08-11 20:05 · Score: 1

Amen. Why you got voted down for making sense I dunno. Maybe they disliked your grammar. Seriously, paywalled research articles are for shit, and if a penny of tax funds went into doing the research, publish it openly.
Heck, I've crunched for World Community Grid since late '04, and last year they announced that a paper was given on the results of one study. I looked forward to reading it, something towards which I'd contributed in however small a manner, only to be allowed to read one para of a paywalled paper (the $40 or so was what I had to spend on getting to doctors' appointments that month). Fuck that. I'll still crunch for WCG because I believe the project contributes to a lot of good research, but I'll no longer have the same happy attitude towards it.