Study: Cutting Sugar From Diet Shows Immediate Health Benefits (wiley.com)

turp182 writes: As reported in TIME and other news sources, a recent study found that reducing sugar intake in obese children caused several biological health markers to improve over a short period of time (9 days). Summarizing the results: "Overall, their fasting blood sugar levels dropped by 53%, along with the amount of insulin their bodies produced since insulin is normally needed to break down carbohydrates and sugars. Their triglyceride and LDL levels also declined and, most importantly, they showed less fat in their liver." The full study is available online.

Comments

Note if we can stop..

[Anonymous Coward]

Putting sugars in everything! You can't even buy prepackaged meats without sugar added!

Re:Note if we can stop..

[Anonymous Coward]

Most prepackaged meats do not contain sugar.

Re:Note if we can stop..

[Frigga's Ring]

I'm not a nutritionist, but from what I've read and watched, very little food at the grocery store does not contain sugar (or corn syrup). Kraft Recipes lists sugar or corn syrup as one of the top ingredients for most of their Oscar Mayer brand prepackaged cold cuts - http://www.kraftrecipes.com/pr...

Re:Note if we can stop..

[beelsebob]

Depends... If you're in Europe, you're right. If you're in the US, the parent poster is right.

Re:Note if we can stop..

[Zalbik]

Try buying actual "food" at the grocery store rather than prepackaged boxes of chemicals.

Vegetables have shockingly low amounts of sugar. Similarly with flour, eggs, rice, beans, meat, etc.

Re: Note if we can stop..

[Anonymous Coward]

Lol chemicals.

Re:Note if we can stop..

[Kohath]

Try buying actual "food" at the grocery store rather than prepackaged boxes of chemicals.

Will it make me talk like a complete douchebag? Is that what happened to you?

Re: Note if we can stop..

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you ever read the ingredients of prepackaged food? Hint: it doesn't contain just one ingredient.

Re:Note if we can stop..

[Anonymous Coward]

You know what GP was talking about?
prepackaged meats
So shut up.

Re: Note if we can stop..

[Kohath]

Have you ever read the ingredients of prepackaged food? Hint: it doesn't contain just one ingredient.

I think one of those chemicals keeps people from being preachy know-it-all douchebags. People without that chemical in their system spend their time annoying everyone around them with a weird sort of self-focused food-related righteousness, as if you think you discovered eating itself and everyone else around you needs to know how superior you are at it.

Re:Note if we can stop..

[ClickOnThis]

Vegetables have shockingly low amounts of sugar. Similarly with flour, eggs, rice, beans, meat, etc.

Flour, rice and other carbs may have low amounts of sugar, but our bodies turn them into sugar pretty quickly.

Re:Note if we can stop..

[turp182]

Stick with Boar's Head deli meats. They are more expensive, but it's quality meat.

Cheap meat is very chemical laden (sugar isn't the half of it).

Re:Note if we can stop..

[JoeMerchant]

That produce department runs at a loss - it's just there to make people feel good that they're buying some "real" food too. Most of what is there is genetically modified to be as big and heavy as possible while still resembling the namesake commodity, with no regard to nutritional content and little regard to taste. Almost all of what is there is produced on the world Ag market and container shipped to you, picked at the peak of shelf life and delivered just in time to not spoil before you get it to the car.

Try growing your own, if you can still get your hands on decent seed stock, or pay double+ for "real" organics, if you stores in your state even carry them. The difference is remarkable - and if you do try growing your own, you'll appreciate how cheap the "real" organics actually are.

Meanwhile, the wage-slaves of the world who have enough time to skip the fast food restaurants barely have time to shop for pre-processed packaged foods at the grocery store - are you actually expecting them to take time out to prepare food instead of preparing their children for the NCLB standardized tests or watching 4 hours of passive entertainment a night?

Re:Note if we can stop..

[WolphFang]

Wrong. MOST pre-packaged meats contain different kinds of added sugar. If it is a muscle meat and the label says "carbs > 0" it most likely has had a sugar or sugar analogue under a pseudonym added.

Re: Note if we can stop..

[Anonymous Coward]

And don't forget to drink your ovaltine.

Seriously, stop using the word chemical like that.

Re:Note if we can stop..

[Lumpy]

In other words, everyone needs to stop being lazy idiots and start learning how to prepare real food. Buy basic foods, learn to cook. dont freaking add sugar to feed your sugar addiction.

Mmmm, I'll make this nice salad and douse it in this sugar based dressing!

Re:Note if we can stop..

[nospam007]

"Stick with Boar's Head deli meats. "

Yesterday, the WHO told us we'd get cancer from Boar's deli meats.

Re:Note if we can stop..

[garyoa1]

Very true. Problem is, it's addictive. (Go ahead. Try to stop using it) Not to mention it tastes good. If it's not added, most foods would just sit on the shelf and rot. Kind of a catch-22 for the producers and the customers.

Re:Note if we can stop..

[mjwx]

Try buying actual "food" at the grocery store rather than prepackaged boxes of chemicals.

Vegetables have shockingly low amounts of sugar. Similarly with flour, eggs, rice, beans, meat, etc.

Whilst I'm a fan of buying fresh (I.E. I go to a greengrocer and a butcher rather than a supermarket for foods) I generally prefer not sounding like a crazy hippy when pointing it out.

But I digress

Flour is basically all carbohydrates. Sugar is basically a complex carbohydrate.

That isn't to say it's inherently bad for you per se, but modern diets tend to contain far too much carbohydrates and we generally should cut down on carbs in favour of meats, fruits and vegetables.

Back to the bit where I don't want to sound like a batshit insane hippy... maaaaaan, but people tend to go to extremes when %AUTHORITY% says %FOOD THING% is bad. People tend to try to cut it out completely rather than just cut down to normal levels with it. Salt is a good example as many western nations are now having widespread iodine deficiencies because they've cut out their main source of iodine, which was iodised (table) salt. The thing is, our bodies do require and benefit from a small quantity of these "bad" foods, we need a little sugar, a little salt and a few carbs. We just don't need them in the quantities we currently take them in.

Healthy eating advice hasn't changed much in the last few decades, things like soda, crisps, chips, fries et al. are in the eat less category. Lean meats, vegetables, fruits, nuts, legumes et al. are in the eat more categories. The only things that are in the eat never category are things like drain cleaner and candy you find on the ground. So to say maybe you should drink water instead of a soda doesn't mean you can never have a soda, rather it means you probably shouldn't have that second soda.

Re:Note if we can stop..

[Anonymous Coward]

"...or watching 4 hours of passive entertainment a night?"

Yes, I am.

Re:Note if we can stop..

[ClickOnThis]

You know what GP was talking about?
prepackaged meats
So shut up.

And Zalbik was talking about alternatives to packaged meats.

Shut up yourself.

Re:Note if we can stop..

[Anonymous Coward]

> Flour, rice and other carbs may have low amounts of sugar, but our bodies turn them into sugar pretty quickly.

The difference between "really, really fast" and "pretty quickly" is the difference between triggering dynamite and burning kindling. Speed really makes a difference in how your body metabolizes food, especially in feedback loops like food, insulin, exercise, and glucagon.

Re:Note if we can stop..

[turp182]

They make great turkey and chicken deli style (the cajun and blackened varieties are quite good as well).

Re:Note if we can stop..

[KGIII]

Hmm... Do you have a citation for that produce department running at a loss? I modeled pedestrian traffic and that included needing to prioritize traffic to optimal areas based on projected profit margins. (Yes, foot traffic is optimized and no, you're not immune.) As near as I know, the bakery operates at close to a loss but not quite a loss - they're able to write down donations and destroyed goods (as they can in the produce section). There are loss leaders - usually on something called an 'end cap' but those are not always loss leaders - they're actually sometimes more expensive.

Anyhow, I can go on but I'll be interested in your citation. The data may have changed in eight years but it seems unlikely. With write-downs the produce section was, as I recall, one of the higher profit areas where fresh dairy was one of the lowest profit areas but one of the greatest traffic draws (which is why it's in the back and on the left, usually).

Re:Note if we can stop..

[Anonymous Coward]

Salt is a good example as many western nations are now having widespread iodine deficiencies because they've cut out their main source of iodine, which was iodised (table) salt.

[citation needed]

Healthy eating advice hasn't changed much in the last few decades, things like soda, crisps, chips, fries et al. are in the eat less category. Lean meats, vegetables, fruits, nuts, legumes et al. are in the eat more categories. The only things that are in the eat never category are things like drain cleaner and candy you find on the ground. So to say maybe you should drink water instead of a soda doesn't mean you can never have a soda, rather it means you probably shouldn't have that second soda.

Actually, nutritionists typically advise that you don't drink more than a couple of sodas per week. And I say this as someone who was, until quite recently, addicted to soda. Yeah, cutting back is hard. I have to deal with it.

Re:Note if we can stop..

[JoeMerchant]

Maybe Florida is backwards, in the early 1990s I worked in one of our bigger more successful grocery chains Publix, and at the time Produce was a money pit, losses due to spoilage invariably ate whatever profits the department made. They would cycle potential store managers through Produce as department heads to see if they could manage to stem the bleeding before giving them an Assistant manager spot.

It could all be in the accounting, if you don't get charged for the stuff that spoils it would be profitable.

Also, for foot traffic patterns, most Publix in towns I have lived in seem to have Produce in the back corner, opposite dairy, but I have seen other brand stores that keep Produce up front... might be shopper demographics.

Re:Note if we can stop..

[Anonymous Coward]

Very true. Problem is, it's addictive. (Go ahead. Try to stop using it) Not to mention it tastes good. If it's not added, most foods would just sit on the shelf and rot. Kind of a catch-22 for the producers and the customers.

You do realize that there is a simple remedy which is readily available to the consumer, right? In most instances, if you want more salt or sugar in that processed whatever you can...wait for it...just add more! Seriously, most every household in America has a salt shaker and a bowl of sugar readily available. Just add more, according to taste; problem solved. On the other hand, those of us who are trying to cut back on the salt and sugar have little recourse to take out the sugar or salt which has already been added in processing. In too many instances the processed foods with low salt/low sugar alternatives are scarce as hen's teeth.

Re:Note if we can stop..

[Anonymous Coward]

That produce department runs at a loss

My local Safeway sells broccoli for $1.99 per lb. I doubt if they are taking a loss on that, especially since the Asian grocery store around the corner sells it for $0.49/lb.

Re:Note if we can stop..

[cfalcon]

The point of the study was that breads and other types of carbs don't hit you the same way sugar does.

Not saying those things are great, but they are not identical to sugar.

Re:Note if we can stop..

[cfalcon]

No, they said that some processed meats (including things like bacon) increase cancer risk slightly. Also note that Boar's Head, like most deli meats, doesn't just do red meat- you can get like, turkey. I sorta doubt the study even included stuff like deli beef.

Re:Note if we can stop..

[KGIII]

It is changed per demographics thus the qualifier. And no, it's not all being written off - it's more subtle than that. Additionally... One of the reasons they like produce (and the bread) is because the smell. The smell makes you salivate and makes you hungry. So there's that aspect as well. It doesn't, however, really run at a loss in the end of the year accounting. The pre-packaged bread stuff is actually pretty profitable as are the pre-packaged snacks but that's a whole other topic.

During certain times of the year they may need to just write their losses off which makes it balance, for the quarter, on the books. As an aside, as I understand it, they actually get more from writing it off which is why much of it isn't donated even though there's some small amount of shelf life left. There are also certain times of year when the produce section is quite profitable (this varies by grocer). Those that can get local produce save a ton and actually often charge more for it. Over all, if I recall correctly, only a small portion of the year and only certain items are at a loss and the whole thing tends to be pretty profitable compared to the bakery and fresh dairy.

I'm not sure when you worked at Publix, specifically in Florida, but you may have noticed they did a design change in 2006-2008 region. I'm unable to disclose who did the work on that. I can say that I'm sort of familiar. ;-) They're trying something new and I don't know what the results have been. They were changing some stores, see the panhandle region, to put some of the dairy in center and not too far from the front. However, walking there, that's another matter. Unless you cut through the checkout counter (usually full or blocked by the little plastic chain if not busy or has traffic in it) then check the layout again. You'll probably find it takes you about the same amount of time to reach as it would for any other store - and they still shunt traffic off to the right, where available - though some additional designs were to be tested. It's actually not too difficult to shut a store down for a two week span and re-do the layout. Properly done, they can still keep the door open if it's not a huge remodel.

As I said, I don't know the newest metrics or what's changed in the design phase which is why I asked for a citation. I also don't know what Publix has done but I am curious. There's one of the "newer" model stores, a good size store, just across the bridge into Panama City Beach. It's down on the left - like you're headed out to the golf courses and State Park. If you get curious and are in the area, check that one out. They used the above mention model - where you can see stuff but still need to walk around to get it. Hint: You're meant to be distracted by the pretty colors and then the smell that hits with the bakery which should be on the right as I recall. There's probably a big barrier between you as you go to the right, that's there for a reason.

Re: Note if we can stop..

[ltbarcly]

I'm sorry you don't have the willpower to eat good food. I'm sorry. You are still the one that is wrong, even if being reminded of it causes you shame, which causes you to lash out rather than facing your failure.

Re: Note if we can stop..

[Kohath]

You don't know me. I'm a guy that lost 100+ pounds by ignoring "eat healthy food" and other diet advice. And I managed to do it without becoming a preachy know-it-all douchebag.

Re: Note if we can stop..

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a conservative. Every fucking one of you is a preachy know-it-all douchebag, you insensitive clod1

Re: Note if we can stop..

[ltbarcly]

I don't know you, but you seem to get really angry that someone would suggest that it is obvious that you can get healthy food, and that pre-packaged food isn't healthy.

So I am totally with you, if you exercise, you can eat food that is not good for you and lose weight. I mean look at soldiers in basic training, or swimmers, or cyclists, or rock climbers, or anyone who engages in intense physical activity regularly. You'll never find someone who is fat, and lots of people in those groups eat a whole lot of junk food.

That's pretty much besides the point. You are getting really angry at people for saying to "eat healthy food". The fact that you lost 100 pounds tells me that you struggled with being heavier than you wanted. You probably didn't lose the weight on your first try. You probably tried to do things like cut out soda and fast food and other junk food, but you couldn't stick to it. This probably made you upset and led to feelings of shame, as it would for anybody who truly wanted to do something that requires will power, but didn't succeed. You later lost the weight another way, and pretty much there are only two ways to lose weight, healthy diet, or exercise (or both of course).

Anyway, the point is, when you are feeling this anger at people who advocate healthy food, you are really just trying to avoid feeling the shame at failing to have the willpower to control what you consumed. To avoid feeling that shame, you are basically getting worked up at people who advocate eating healthy food, because they are 'stupid douchebags', and "who would want to just eat healthy food that is stupid and pointless and if I can get upset enough about someone suggesting it I can stay focused on that and not be hard on myself."

It's ok, nobody has perfect self control, and good for you for finding a way to get to your goal that fit with your personality.

Re: Note if we can stop..

[Anonymous Coward]

I am not a NUTRITIONIST

You might as well be. It's not a legally protected term, like dietician is. "Nutritionist" is to dietician what "healer" is to surgeon, or "toothiologist" is to dentist.

Re:Note if we can stop..

[Anonymous Coward]

I dropped the meat, and is living a sugar-based vegan diet. The tradeoff makes me as healthy as a meat eater not eating sugar. It is worth it. How can one live without sugar?!

Re:Note if we can stop..

[angel'o'sphere]

Perhaps you should read a book about how fast flour versus pasta versus rice actually is converted into sugar. You would be surprised ;D

Re:Note if we can stop..

[Anonymous Coward]

> Vegetables have shockingly low amounts of sugar.

True, but the industry is about to change it. Super-sweet corn certainly does contain sugar, beans are turned into backed beans, meat is injected with sugar solutions, and flour is turned into cake.

The problem is that the consumer buys stuff that is sugary. Better labeling might help, or regulation.

Re:Note if we can stop..

[angel'o'sphere]

Salt is a good example as many western nations are now having widespread iodine deficiencies because they've cut out their main source of iodine, which was iodised (table) salt
That is actually not a good example.
First of all most slat sold is noniodine salt. So if you want iodine salt, you need to buy a Special salt that actually contains it, or "sea salt" thatcontains a lot of various other salts as it gets not special treated.
And finally: you can savely bet that every westerner is eating to much salt, regardless of his eating habits at home: every prepared food contains to much of it, and many "much to much" of it.
In most countris two slices of bread already contain the amount of slat you need per day.

Anyway, my much to much was exagerated, as our kidneys are made by nature in a way that they remove excess salt from our system. To really have to much salt in your system, you need to do plenty of wrongs.

Re: Note if we can stop..

[Anonymous Coward]

Losing weight isn't necessarily a sign of good health. There is a right and wrong way to do it.

Re: Note if we can stop..

[Anonymous Coward]

I work in central IT for one of the largest food chains in the US. I see aggregate reports on a daily basis and I have access to the pet store analytics. Overall produce, bakery, and meat are the profit leaders. Some stores lose money on particular items which is why we shrink those sections in some stores or share baking duty between stores. In poor performing meat departments we'll shift from fresh products to packaged burgers, sausage, and meats because they have double the shelf life. If your store lost money on produce it was just an anomaly. I will say some stores are very special and have very atypical buying patterns. The only more profitable section in the store is preprepared food. Sandwiches, roast chicken, and things like that. We and most other food stores are expanding that offering big time because it's so lucrative. It also lets us reduce our spoilage in a big way.

Re: Note if we can stop..

[Kohath]

I don't know you, but you seem to get really angry that someone would suggest that it is obvious that you can get healthy food, and that pre-packaged food isn't healthy.

Not angry. Just don't like people being assholes to each other.

So I am totally with you, if you exercise, you can eat food that is not good for you and lose weight.

I didn't really exercise that much either. I walked 1 hour per day. The thing that mattered was eating less. Not eating "healthy", eating less.

I mean look at soldiers in basic training, or swimmers, or cyclists, or rock climbers, or anyone who engages in intense physical activity regularly. You'll never find someone who is fat, and lots of people in those groups eat a whole lot of junk food.

Look at those pictures of the famine in Ethiopia in the 80s. They lost weight. It wasn't because they got too much exercise or ate too "healthy".

You are getting really angry at people for saying to "eat healthy food".

Just don't be such a douchebag about it.

But also, eating "healthy" food is not necessary for weight loss. You can easily gain weight eating "healthy" food. And calling a particular food "unhealthy" is usually unfair and uninformed, and it misses the point that the amount and the overall pattern are what matters. Eating one cookie isn't "unhealthy".

The fact that you lost 100 pounds tells me that you struggled with being heavier than you wanted. You probably didn't lose the weight on your first try.

I had to stop listening to lots of bad diet advice. People saying the way I was doing it wasn't the "healthy" way -- as if I wasn't somehow going to be a lot healthier having lost the weight because I didn't follow their instructions. Other people saying it's impossible to lose weight that way. Nope. It's possible.

This probably made you upset and led to feelings of shame, as it would for anybody who truly wanted to do something that requires will power, but didn't succeed.

I'm not a drama queen, so no, not really.

You later lost the weight another way, and pretty much there are only two ways to lose weight, healthy diet, or exercise (or both of course).

Nope. I went with the 3rd way. When hungry, don't eat. Eat later. Then eat a small meal -- something I really like eating. (Usually something someone would call "junk food", but some douchebag somewhere will complain about any food except lettuce.) Walk an hour a day. Repeat for a long time.

Anyway, the point is, when you are feeling this anger at people who advocate healthy food, you are really just trying to avoid feeling the shame at failing to have the willpower to control what you consumed. To avoid feeling that shame, you are basically getting worked up at people who advocate eating healthy food, because they are 'stupid douchebags', and "who would want to just eat healthy food that is stupid and pointless and if I can get upset enough about someone suggesting it I can stay focused on that and not be hard on myself."

Nope, that doesn't sound like me. "Eat healthy food" didn't help. Insisting it's the only answer is incorrect, and people should stop listening to that nonsense if it's not working for them.

Re: Note if we can stop..

[RavenLrD20k]

...when you are feeling this anger at people who advocate healthy food, you are really just trying to avoid feeling the shame at failing...

I just feel anger at people who advocate. Period. I don't care if it's your god (or lack thereof), your eating habits, your exercise routine, or any other aspect of your lifestyle. If it works for you...great. Glad to hear it. The instant you become preachy and say that everyone should be living that way...now we have a problem; and I don't care if I agree with your message (in your case, I agree with most of it... but seriously. Shut the fuck up.). If you're preaching to me, you have made a judgement on me that I don't believe in your "flavor of the month" and feel that I must be set on the straight and narrow to your way of doing things. At that moment I'll make my own judgement and regardless of the merit of your argument, I will declare you a douchebag. Actually, with that last line in your post... I'll go so far as call you a condescending douchebag.

I normally don't have time for your type... but there may be some slight hope that you would examine what you're posting and come to the realisation that you're not doing anyone a service and alienating the ears that would listen... and maybe I won't come across another condescending post from you in the future. Then again...if I do, no skin off my back because I don't have to live with you.

Re: Note if we can stop..

[Anonymous Coward]

First and most important remark.

Modern food products contain way too much sugar. Mostly good for the producer, in shelf life, taste (addiction), color, crust, price. Bad for the consumer health wise.

Re: Note if we can stop..

[Cro Magnon]

Have you ever read the ingredients of prepackaged food? Hint: it doesn't contain just one ingredient.

What's bad is when the first ingredient that I recognize as food is halfway down the list.

Re:Note if we can stop..

[Anonymous Coward]

Still better than pure sugar, as energy is wasted when turning carbs into sugars. Also, the body can limit the amount of sugar entering at once when it creates it itself.

Re:Note if we can stop..

[div_2n]

The reason most store bought produce lacks in taste has little to do with genetic modification and everything to do with when it was picked. Tomatoes, for example, are not typically picked when they are fully ripe. The natural ripening process is what generates all the flavor and most of the nutritional goodness. You can simulate this yourself with a tomato plant at home. Just pick a tomato way before it ripens. Set it in a bowl with ripened tomatoes and once it turns red, taste it. Then compare it to tomatoes that ripened on the vine from the same plant.

Re: Note if we can stop..

[Anonymous Coward]

Which of those chemicals do you think is hazardous and why? Be specific.

Re: Note if we can stop..

[_UnderTow_]

... And I managed to do it without becoming a preachy know-it-all douchebag.

You might want to rethink that assertion.

Re:Note if we can stop..

[thegarbz]

Try growing your own, if you can still get your hands on decent seed stock, or pay double+ for "real" organics, if you stores in your state even carry them. The difference is remarkable - and if you do try growing your own, you'll appreciate how cheap the "real" organics actually are.

Yeah no. I see little quality difference between supermarket and nice farmers markets or any other kind of fresh produce suppliers. As for growing your own you're under the assumption that people have the facilities to do so. I don't even have a balcony where I live and the local council is not going to appreciate me digging up the sidewalk to plant some greenery on the street. I don't for a moment believe that there's some magic health benefit to growing some fruit at home vs buying it. I do believe you it's cheaper, but no where near as plentiful.

Back when I used to live in a house my next door neighbour had a live in Italian grandma who converted the entire back yard to a farm. They still ended up buying a lot of fruit because they couldn't keep up, and back when I was growing my own veggies for example I think maybe 1/10th of the vegetables we used were from my own garden because a) things don't grow instantly, and b) they were smaller than the store bought ones so we needed more of them.

Meanwhile, the wage-slaves of the world who have enough time to skip the fast food restaurants barely have time to shop for pre-processed packaged foods at the grocery store - are you actually expecting them to take time out to prepare food instead of preparing their children for the NCLB standardized tests or watching 4 hours of passive entertainment a night?

As for preparing food this panders to the idiocy of people. Preparing food takes less time than having a shower for most people. Cooking takes a lot but it does not need to be a supervised activity, AND it can be done WHILE draining your brain on the TV. I feel like slapping people when they bring the "not enough time" excuse.

Re: Note if we can stop..

[Anonymous Coward]

No need to read books, us type 1 diabetics know this everytime we poke our fingers. Pasta is often so slow to digest the insulin kicks in first and almost knocks me over.

Re:Note if we can stop..

[3.5 stripes]

You've got that backwards, carbohydrates are basically complex sugars.

Re:Note if we can stop..

[Anonymous Coward]

I love how you absolve the "wage slaves" of all responsibility for their choices, it's cute.

Re: Note if we can stop..

[Anonymous Coward]

Dihydrogen monoxide. That shit is scarry. I read that if you drink enough of it, it can cause dilutional hyponatremia! The FDA should ban this already! Haven't enough people died already from DHMO?!

Re: Note if we can stop..

[Kohath]

...Anyway, the point is, when you are feeling this anger at people who advocate healthy food, you are really just trying to avoid feeling the shame at failing to have the willpower to control what you consumed. To avoid feeling that shame, you are basically getting worked up at people who advocate eating healthy food...

Also, you know some people just don't want to join your food religion, right? It's not a willpower or shame issue. Some of us don't want to obey the food taboos you believe in. I know you're sure you have "the one true answer", but try to understand that belief systems vary. We all didn't read that article in The Atlanic or wherever that you got your food-epiphany from. Or we read it and we don't care.

Re: Note if we can stop..

[ltbarcly]

Haha, "Food Taboos".

"Sugar is bad for you, don't drink multiple cans of soda per day"

"Empty calories are bad for you"

I'm sure you getting to be 100+ pounds overweight had nothing to do with the food you ate, right?

Re: Note if we can stop..

[ltbarcly]

So you think it's not hypocritical to take issue with people sharing their views, but insist that they conform to your views about not being able to share views?

I mean that is a really dumb and internally inconsistent position to take.

Re: Note if we can stop..

[david_thornley]

I'm sorry you don't have the willpower to eat good food. I'm sorry. You are still the one that is wrong, even if being reminded of it causes you shame, which causes you to lash out rather than facing your failure.

Seriously, if eating "good food" makes you this obnoxious, hit McDonald's once in a while. You are saying, to a person you don't really know, that they don't have willpower, can't resist the temptation of junk food, know that you're right, and are ashamed of doing what you say.

Re:Note if we can stop..

[david_thornley]

Sugars are carbohydrates. It's an inclusive term. Some carbohydrates are complex, and those are probably better for you than the simple ones that break down into glucose fast.

Re:Note if we can stop..

[Anonymous Coward]

I used to own a grocery store. My produce department was the most profitable portion of the business. Mark-up on produce is often 100%. The challenge is to eliminate spoilage. Mark-up on canned goods and dry goods is often only a few percent, but there is much less spoilage, but still if one can in a case gets damaged the entire profit from that case of canned goods may be lost. I only handled frozen meat, and cheeses, and they are quite profitable, but the produce department sold much larger quantities so it outperformed frozen meat and cheese. There is almost NO genetically modified produce. All of it may be carefully bred using normal methods of plant pollination, but it is NOT genetically modified. However when you go to the canned goods, everything with corn or soybeans in it is likely genetically modified. You have everything backwards. And there is nothing about "organic" seed that keeps it from being genetically modified. You don't seem to understand what organic even means.

Re: Note if we can stop..

[Kohath]

"Sugar is bad for you..."

Too much sugar is bad for you.

"Empty calories are bad for you"

Too many empty calories are bad for you.

Also, calories aren't really "empty". And when you have low blood sugar because you're hungry, a small amount of "empty" calories are good for you. Gatorade is mostly "empty" calories, for example.

I'm sure you getting to be 100+ pounds overweight had nothing to do with the food you ate, right?

I ate too much. Then I lost the weight by eating less.

Note the difference between this approach and declaring specific foods taboo or "unhealthy".

Re: Note if we can stop..

[ltbarcly]

I don't know them, but I do know they took the time to have and transcribe a little fit, lashing out at someone for suggesting what is just factually true, that there are better and worse foods in grocery stores and you will be more healthy if you buy and eat the healthy foods.

Having a little fit and lashing out at someone for something so totally non-controversial is coming from something emotionally charged. And I was right, he was in fact overweight and wasn't able to stop eating unhealthy foods, so he ended up basically skipping meals instead.

Re: Note if we can stop..

[ClickOnThis]

IANA nutritionist or MD, but I recall being told by someone who is both that metabolism of carbs is slowed down if they're combined with something else. So, have butter on your bread -- don't just eat it plain.

Pasta is partly protein (made with eggs, right?) so I suppose it makes sense that its conversion to sugar is slower than purer carbs.

Good luck with management of your diabetes.

Re: Note if we can stop..

[ltbarcly]

Gatorade is strictly bad for you, with the exceptions of dying in a famine, dying of insulin overdose.

Even if you are an endurance athlete, drinking sugar water is bad for you. It can improve performance, but it isn't good for you at all.

Any empty calories are bad for you, unless you are eating too few calories. So if you are in a famine, eat empty calories to top up. You aren't dying of famine, you are overweight. Any empty calories are worse for you than just not eating those empty calories. So any empty calories are too many, for you.

Sugar beverages, soda, gatorade, etc, are only bad for YOU. There is no point in YOUR life where drinking sugar water or eating candy is better for you than not doing so.

I look forward to your next rationalization.

Re: Note if we can stop..

[Anonymous Coward]

DHMO causes addiction and it's so potent that it can go from mother to fetus. Millions of children are born addicted to DHMO.

Re: Note if we can stop..

[Kohath]

Any empty calories are bad for you, unless you are eating too few calories.

Yes. Calories are good for people who have too few and bad for people who have too many.

Re: Note if we can stop..

[kmoser]

Yes. Calories are good for people who have too few and bad for people who have too many.

For various definitions of "too".

Re:Note if we can stop..

[kmoser]

The point of the study was that breads and other types of carbs don't hit you the same way sugar does.

Not saying those things are great, but they are not identical to sugar.

Solution: bake that sugar into a breadlike cake and it will no longer be bad for you.

Re: Note if we can stop..

[jxander]

Gatorade is strictly bad for you, with the exceptions of dying in a famine, dying of insulin overdose.

But... it's got what plants crave. It's got electrolytes.

Re:Note if we can stop..

[lsatenstein]

There is even sugar added to fast-food hamburgers!

Re:Note if we can stop..

[JoeMerchant]

In Florida (where Publix dominates the grocery market by a wide margin) we have an upstart with 2 stores that just carries produce and meat: Fresh Field Farms. They sell their produce and meats at significant markdown from Publix, organic and grass-fed at Fresh Field are sold for the price of normal stuff at Publix, and Fresh Field will have lots of commodity produce for 1/2 or less what Publix is selling it at, especially things that are locally sourced like strawberries and blueberries.

It could be that Publix (and the wider grocery industry) has shifted strategy on Produce and started charging what it costs them, especially Publix now that they've pretty much driven the competition out of the state. I haven't had "inside" grocery info for about 20 years now. Back then, grapes would sell for $0.49 to $0.79 a pound, these days they're selling these gigantic things that look like they've been fertilizer pumped to the limit and charging $2 to $4 a pound most of the time.

Re: Note if we can stop..

[P-niiice]

The carbs in wheat products spike blood sugar just like sugar. Sugar free means nothing unless you reduce carbs overall.

Re: Note if we can stop..

[davell logan]

I fully agree, everything you buy has some type of sugar added.

Re: Note if we can stop..

[jwhitener]

I know you are being funny... but sadly, 99% of the US thinks food like these are real food: http://jamesbirdguess.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/hamburger-helper-logo1.jpg

Lots of kids grow up eating only processed crap in a box.

Re:Note if we can stop..

[Anonymous Coward]

Check your definition of food. Unless you live in Antarctica there is plenty of fresh food without added sugar available.

Re:Note if we can stop..

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes but it's not the same. Eating starch is better than eating sugar. This is exactly what TFA is about.

Re: Note if we can stop..

[ltbarcly]

Please take the time to give us more of your sarcasm and wisdom. You clearly should be giving out advice about nutrition, guy who was 100+ pounds overweight.

Re: Note if we can stop..

[Anonymous Coward]

Eww. I'd rather eat from a dumpster than touch disgusting McDonald's shit.

Re: Note if we can stop..

[tbannist]

Here's a hint: Sometimes people lash out at the messenger because they dislike the message, but sometimes people lash out at the messenger because they dislike the messenger.

And I was right, he was in fact overweight and wasn't able to stop eating unhealthy foods, so he ended up basically skipping meals instead.

There is absolutely no evidence to conclude that you were right (or wrong) in any way, shape, or form. We don't know how much food he was eating before and after he lost his weight, we don't know what he was eating, and we don't even know what his starting and ending weights were. Concluding you are correct based on such scant evidence makes your other positions far less credible because it implies you are willing to accept a position with virtually nothing to support it.

Even though I'm inclined to agree with you that one of the steps to healthy living is to avoid too much processed junk food, your attitude and behaviour makes it difficult to agree with you.

Re: Note if we can stop..

[Anonymous Coward]

More like gained 100 pounds. We do know you, tubby.

Re: Note if we can stop..

[morgauxo]

You did?

So if not when still losing weight how did it happen then?

Re:Note if we can stop..

[tbannist]

Salt is a good example as many western nations are now having widespread iodine deficiencies because they've cut out their main source of iodine, which was iodised (table) salt.

[citation needed]

Here's a Lancet published study that found that Iodine deficiency in the United Kingdom was around 70% in 2011. Of course, that's just one study, the WHO put the rate in North America at around 10% in 2004, and this study put the rate of iodine deficiency in Australia between 50% (for pregnant women) to 75% for the volunteers. It's not clear to me whether the samples in the studies are unrepresentative, if the WHO is underestimating the levels of deficiency, or if there has been a rapid rise in the level of deficiency. Regardless, it looks like North Americans are likely getting enough iodine, the WHO result seems to be somewhat confirmed by Stats Canada who estimate that only about 30% of Canadians are not getting enough iodine. The level is higher than the WHO estimate but much lower than the UK and Australian measurements. This could be a cultural difference if North Americans are much more liberal with their salt than comparable overseas populations.

Re: Note if we can stop..

[tbannist]

According to the regular medical correspondent on the radio this morning, this study supposedly found the opposite. When the test subjects replaced fructose with other carbohydrates the subjects experienced across the board health improvements in a remarkably short period.

Apparently, they reduced consumption of fructose from 12% of dietary intake to 4%. I would like to see the results duplicated for confirmation, but if so, it points to a serious problem with North American food supplies. High fructose corn syrup seems to be used to sweeten almost everything, and according to these results it is making us sick(er).

Re: Note if we can stop..

[Kohath]

I was a fat kid. I lost weight after I grew up and started making my own decisions instead of doing what my parents told me.

Also, I did not give out "advice". But here's some advice: try to be less of a douchebag.

Re: Note if we can stop..

[Slashdot Parent]

(Usually something someone would call "junk food", but some douchebag somewhere will complain about any food except lettuce.)

I'm just going to be honest. From the other side of the Internet, you are coming across sounding like an asshole. Perhaps others are also being assholes, but that doesn't change the way that you come across.

My experience has been somewhat similar, but somewhat different from yours. I, too, was overweight, and my doctor was giving me a hard time about all sorts of things. Cholesterol, blood pressure, problems in my blood chemistry, and god knows what else. He said that I'd need to go on blood pressure and cholesterol meds soon.

Well, I got my weight down to healthy levels and suddenly all of my other levels were in the normal range, as well. I'm sure it's different for different people, but for me, it seemed being overweight was causing a bunch of health problems.

As for losing weight, as you note, the answer is always "eat less". But the trick bit is how do you do that? It's a simple matter to eat 1500 calories worth of potato chips and soda, yet still feel starving again in a few hours. When most people (myself included) feel hungry and there is food around, the answer is to eat the food, whatever it is. Most people lack the willpower--over the long run--to say, "I'm starving, there is food right here that will take away my pain, but I know that it will make me fat so I'm just not going to eat it." They can deny themselves once. They can deny themselves twice. But sooner or later, they will give in. Some people have above-average willpower, and it sounds like you might be one of those people. That's great for you, but it won't work for most people.

What worked for me was keeping a food log of what I ate, how much, how many calories it was, and most importantly, how long it made me feel satisfied for. Only once I had that information could I eat less without feeling hungry and irritable. And it just so happened that the foods with the highest satiety to calories ratio were high in fiber and protein. Fats also led to satiety, but tended to pack a higher calorie wallop. Anyway, those high in fiber/protein foods tended to be what most people call "health foods". Vegetables, nuts, hard cheeses, cottage cheese, etc. What most people call "junk food" was the worst. It had high calories, but did hardly sated me at all.

So in order to lose weight, I simply banished junk food from my reach and I stock health foods and water in easy reach. I drink water all day long, and when I'm hungry, I snack on high protein/fiber things.

After a while, I started doing weight training. This provides further motivation to continue with the healthy eating, as I am much happier seeing myself looking muscular than seeing my old self. Make no mistake: working out did not help in the "eat less" department. It's definitely got me eating more. But now I'm more concerned with how I look in the mirror rather than a number on a scale. I would advise people starting out in weight loss not to add in exercise as it tends to lead to overeating, and as the old saying goes, "You can't outrun your fork."

I guess my point is that, while I agree with you that eating less is the way to lose weight, I have to point out that for most people, the secret to eating less is to eat "healthy food". Apparently you did not need that, but I definitely did and still do. And for the record, I still eat junk food. But I only do so a few times a week.

Re: Note if we can stop..

[Kohath]

When most people (myself included) feel hungry and there is food around, the answer is to eat the food, whatever it is. Most people lack the willpower--over the long run--to say, "I'm starving, there is food right here that will take away my pain, but I know that it will make me fat so I'm just not going to eat it." They can deny themselves once. They can deny themselves twice. But sooner or later, they will give in. Some people have above-average willpower, and it sounds like you might be one of those people.

Not having ready-to-eat food around is the best way to avoid this. I can't avoid eating snacks, so I don't buy any snacks I don't intend to eat right away. Willpower can fail, so I don't set myself up to fail.

Stocking up on lots of "healthy" snacks is counterproductive in my case.

Re: Note if we can stop..

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't sound like you need the help. You're already there.

Re:Note if we can stop..

[Anonymous Cow Ward]

Any box that doesn't have a hard vacuum inside is full of chemicals.

Re: Note if we can stop..

[ltbarcly]

I only responded when he called the GP a douchebag a few times just for suggesting that processed foods are bad for you.

And said type 2 diabetics everywhere...

[Anonymous Coward]

Duh.

Re:And said type 2 diabetics everywhere...

[zieroh]

Exactly.

Re:And said type 2 diabetics everywhere...

[grimmjeeper]

In other news, bears defecate in the woods, Pope confirmed to be Catholic, and water is wet.

Re: And said type 2 diabetics everywhere...

[binarylarry]

Does the Pope shit in the woods?

Re: And said type 2 diabetics everywhere...

[grimmjeeper]

Only if you can find a Catholic bear...

Re: And said type 2 diabetics everywhere...

[Lumpy]

The previous pope does.... the current one prefers toilets.

New study shows...

[Anonymous Coward]

Eating less food makes fat kids less fat!!!!

Re:New study shows...

[dejitaru]

Actually not really, if you're speaking of the size of the portions, because it is determined all by calories (and type of calories), which can vary depending on what you eat regardless of the size of the meal. e.g. the weight of a big mac obliviously has much more calories than the same weight in fruit. Plus, eating less doesn't really help much if they have a very sedentary lifestyle.

Re:New study shows...

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong, eating the wrong foods make people fat.

You could eat 2000 calories of sugar a day and get fat, but eat 10,000 calories of whole fruits (even sugary fruits as long as it's whole fruit the wait nature intended it to be eaten) and veggies and all you'll do is shit a lot. Other than that, you'll be healthy and not fat. Our diet is completely fucked up, world wide.

Every single person trying to count calories is wrong. Just change what you eat. The amount doesn't matter that much as long as you are eating whole fruits and veggies. Watch the dairy, meat, grains, nuts, etc and other than that you're golden.

Re:New study shows...

[Kohath]

No, it's not possible for a person to eat 10000 calories of whole fruits in 1 day. Fruit has relatively low calorie density. 10000 calories is like 80 or 90 bananas or apples. It's impossible. This is why eating whole fruits and vegetables helps -- you get full on fewer calories.

If you eat only 500 calories of sugar a day and nothing else, you will also lose weight.

Re:New study shows...

[Frnknstn]

Wow, you are so wrong. The human body (and our microbial friends in our stomachs) are extremely good at digesting food. For any reasonable amount of food, KJ in = KJ stored + KJ expended.

It doesn't matter if it's fruit or Coke, you keep those calories. Plus, there is more energy in a banana than in the same weight of Coke.

Re:New study shows...

[Frnknstn]

You are not exactly wrong, just slightly. 10 000 kcal of bananas is about 10 kg.

10 000 kcal is 25 litres of Coke, or 5 kg of avocados, or 4 kg of Big Macs.

None of those amounts are reasonable to consume.

Re: New study shows...

[Anonymous Coward]

And they lose their Amrrican citizenship.

Re:New study shows...

[thinkwaitfast]

Why do people who have weight loss surgery that restricts the amount, but not the type, of food lose weight?

Re:New study shows...

[frnic]

Amazing the amount of stupid wrong statements that are made about over weight people. I know it is easy to think of the ages old "calories in - calories out" adage, but that has been proven wrong in so many studies it is not worth even talking about any more.

More important is WHAT you eat, not how much, and exciting recent studies that have been confirmed in numerous countries show that there is a direct relationship between bowl bacteria and weight gains/losses. The current theory is that there is a hormone that "regulates" your weight much the way a thermostat does, by maintaining a set point. If you gain too much weight, because of a material unbalance in your bowls the set point can ratchet up, but it is almost impossible to adjust it back down.

The new studies of bowl bacteria have all shown a direct connection to this set point and by balancing the bacteria from over weight people by transplants from skinny people the over weight people will lose weight with little or no change in diet.

Of course your theory is so much cooler since you can blame 100,000,000 people for being lazy over eaters with no will power, instead of facing the truth.

Oh wait, this is Slashdot, sorry, I thought you would care, my bad...

Re:New study shows...

[labnet]

Wow, you are so wrong. The human body (and our microbial friends in our stomachs) are extremely good at digesting food. For any reasonable amount of food, KJ in = KJ stored + KJ expended.

It doesn't matter if it's fruit or Coke, you keep those calories. Plus, there is more energy in a banana than in the same weight of Coke.

No you are wrong as well.
  KJ food input = KJ stored + KJ expended (effort) + KJ expelled (urine + feces)

Gut microbe has a big impact on what consumed calories are absorbed by the body.

Re:New study shows...

[Hognoxious]

there is a direct relationship between bowl bacteria and weight gains/losses

Correct. If you eat out of dirty dishes chances are you'll get a dose of Montezuma's revenge and the pounds will literally fall out of your asshole.

Re:New study shows...

[Lumpy]

You are missing the biggest self regulating part of fruits. Eat a lot of them and they come out the other end under high pressure. Just go ahead and eat 2 pints of blueberrys and see if you can make it to the toilet.

Re:New study shows...

[Lumpy]

They do restrict the type. All people that go on that diet have to do a sugar and carbohydrate reduction lifestyle change.

Re:New study shows...

[nospam007]

"Amazing the amount of stupid wrong statements that are made about over weight people. "

Some even call them overweight.

Re: New study shows...

[Anonymous Coward]

Fruits have sugar (glucose).

Re:New study shows...

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm yes and no, 500 calories of sugar will put your body in starvation mode while it stores the surplus of sugar as fat in your body. With 500 calories of only sugar, your body will 'digest' its own muscles and thus will lose weight. But the loss of muscles is replaced with the fat from sugars. Since muscles are heavier than fat, you'll eventually lose weight but will look heavier.

Re:New study shows...

[Kohath]

This is just false. And, assuming you're not trolling, it's a really strange thing for anyone to believe.

Re:New study shows...

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong.

All sugars are not equal. Watch this film (That Sugar Film):

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3892434/

The sucrose in sugar gets split into glucose and fructose. The body is not very good at dealing with fructose so that is quickly turned into fat by the liver and due to the higher level of insulin in the blood from the glucose, the fatty fructose gets absorbed by cells and stored "for later use."

The body responds to fibre and fat as an effective way of saying "hey, I know you've eaten something" whereas with Coke, the calories are "empty" and there is no effective feedback mechanism from your body to indicate how many calories you've consumed. That plus the highs the body gets from sugar effectively results in the brain being addicted to sugar.

A softdrink table for sugar content:
http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2014/jun/12/how-much-sugar-is-in-your-fizzy-drink ... 1 sugar cube is ~4g.

A normal can of Coke or Pepsi is the equivalent to 8 cubes of sugar mixed into water.

Re:New study shows...

[KGIII]

I can do that. I live in the land of the Wild Maine Blueberry. I've easily eaten that amount while pretending to help rake them for a buddy who owns a bunch of fields. I was even drinking at the same time. I actually eat a lot of blueberries. :/ They're like my favorite fruit and about the only fruit I eat on a regular basis that hasn't been preserved - even then, I still make and eat nommy blueberry jelly. (I can't quite make jam with blueberries, it just doesn't come out right.) I make a nommy blueberry pie, too. Get me some fresh whipped cream from the farm nearby and eat the hell out of that.

Oh man... I'm in Buffalo, still. I'm not actually sure if anything close sells blueberries. Damn you. Damn you all to hell. *grumbles*

Re:New study shows...

[cfalcon]

Isn't the study exactly that it is not this simple? Isn't that why they replaced the sugar, not with "less calories" or "less carbs" but with equivalent amounts of carbs and calories, but NOT added sugar?

Re:New study shows...

[Wycliffe]

Watch the dairy, meat, grains, nuts, etc and other than that you're golden.

I agreed with you up until this point. Meat is fairly low calorie. You don't get fat eating meat. Likewise with nuts and dairy. You can drink as much milk and eat as much cheese as you want. If the average person did nothing but cut out their processed sugar they would never gain weight and if they want to lose weight then cut out the carbs (corn/wheat/rice/potatoes). That's it, that's all you need to do. I guarantee that if you eliminate sugar (and similiar things like honey) that you will be healthier than 90% of the USA population and if you also eliminate corn/wheat/rice/potatoes from your diet then you will be healthier than 99% of the USA population.

Re:New study shows...

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, you are so wrong. The human body (and our microbial friends in our stomachs) are extremely good at digesting food. For any reasonable amount of food, KJ in = KJ stored + KJ expended.

It doesn't matter if it's fruit or Coke, you keep those calories. Plus, there is more energy in a banana than in the same weight of Coke.

No you are wrong as well.

  KJ food input = KJ stored + KJ expended (effort) + KJ expelled (urine + feces)

Gut microbe has a big impact on what consumed calories are absorbed by the body.

Not just the fault of gut microbiome, but consider the simple and accepted fact that :

High insulin levels shut down metabolism of stored body fat. Repeat that in your mind.. better yet, write it down and put it where you will see it every day.. you cannot get away from this fact! If you consume that much carbohydrate , you may be able to burn some of it off with exercise, but the kicker that will kick your ass (and this should sound very familiar to most of you who exercise habitually...)
is that all of your energy is being derived from a portion of the small amount of carbohydrates that you are able to use for energy, and the rest of it is being packed away as body fat.. body fat that while your insulin levels remain that high, you will not be able to burn until you are able to lower your insulin levels and enter a ketogenic (fat burning) state.

Re:New study shows...

[Anonymous Coward]

As a million people have said, including here - the problem is with 500 calories of sugar you won't be nearly satiated. 500 calories of brocolli and nuts ... well, you'll be hungry but not ravenous

Re:New study shows...

[hankwang]

"KJ food input = KJ stored + KJ expended (effort) + KJ expelled (urine + feces)"

Technically correct. But kJ in urine means you have diabetes; kJ in feces in any form that can be processed by bacteria would give you tremendous intestonal upset. Think of people with lactose intolerance; because they don't digest/absorb milk sugar in the upper intestine, bacteria will do so in the lower intestine.

A more important difference is in the "kJ expended", which involves more than physical exercise. The digestion process itself wastes energy (generates heat) and brown fat in the body continually convert food kJ to heat kJ, with large individual variation and generally more in children/young people than in older people (40+).

Re: New study shows...

[cyber-vandal]

Stupid and wrong like repeatedly misspelling bowel?

Re:New study shows...

[bingoUV]

kJ in feces in any form that can be processed by bacteria

What about kJ in feces that ARE bacteria? Gut flora in general.

30% of shit is typically made of gut flora. They eat your food, multiply, come out as shit.

Re: New study shows...

[getuid()]

You're both wrong.

kJ-intake = kJ-spent(working) + kJ-spent(heating) + kJ-spent(maintenance) + kJ-expelled.

Expelled part is indeed small.

Heating is a huge chunk, unless you're in thermal equilibrium with your surroundings (i.e. "dead" in medical terms). Varies greatly on individual basis - why do you think some folks are always freezing, and others never?

Maintenance ist also a large part: replacing tissue, hair, lubricating joints etc. You're also less prone to illness when you're well-fed (not obese - that would be dysfunction of its own).

Re:New study shows...

[angel'o'sphere]

Those fruit examples only hold if you are not used to eat lots of fruits, or for special fruits: e.g. I have no idea about blue berries.
But eating one kg of fruits over an hour is no problem for me, nor for any person I know in person.

Re:New study shows...

[angel'o'sphere]

Meat is fairly low calorie. Wrong! Meat has the same amount of calories than carbs per weight.

You don't get fat eating meat. True, because proteins can not be converted into fat. However as most eat either contains fat or is cooked in/with fat, you might gain fat from that.

Likewise with nuts and dairy. Wrong!. Nuts contain lots of fat, eat to much and it gets stored in your fat cells.

You can drink as much milk and eat as much cheese as you want. Wrong! Cheese contains fat in noticeable amounts and sugar. Eat to much of it and you burn the sugar only while the body is storing the fat in your fat cells. However: you likely won't eat a kg of cheese a day, if you ment this as limiting factor.

If the average person did nothing but cut out their processed sugar they would never gain weight Wrong! Carbs get converted into sugar. It only is a question how quickly the carbs you eat get converted, you are right if you eat carbs like brown rice, where it takes very long.

and if they want to lose weight then cut out the carbs (corn/wheat/rice/potatoes). Half true. But instead of cutting random stuff I rather would suggest to read a book about it and check what you eat and cut with a good aim the right stuff. E.g. 500kCal Spaghetti Bolognese don't have the same effect on your body as 500kCal fatty Frens Fries.

Re:New study shows...

[Wycliffe]

I challenge you to find a single obese person that didn't get that way by eating a huge amount of refined sugar. There are plenty of cultures that eat a ton of potatoes, rice, etc... but don't have the obesity problem of the USA. Likewise with bacon, sausage, etc... If you tried REALLY hard, you might be able to gain weight without eating sugar but in the real world, those people don't exist. If you're worried about getting fat, just stop eating sugar.

Re:New study shows...

[3.5 stripes]

You are wrong about protein not being able to be converted to fat, just because it doesn't happen easily does not mean it cannot happen.

Re:New study shows...

[david_thornley]

I knew someone who got the surgery but didn't change the diet. He's awfully fat now.

Re:New study shows...

[Lumpy]

Yep, zero self control types eat right through the band and go right back to fatty mode.

Re:New study shows...

[angel'o'sphere]

It is impossible.

The molecules are completely different.

Or can you convert water into oil? You can't ... plain and simple. Perhaps you could invent a process where you strip the H2O from the H, and get C from somewhere and recombine it int oils ... for proteins that is impossible in the human body.

Re:New study shows...

[angel'o'sphere]

I challenge you to find a single obese person that didn't get that way by eating a huge amount of refined sugar.
First of all: why do you challenge me? What is the stupid point of that?
Secondly: if they have the wrong gut bacteria, they get fat from eating stuff normal persons can not even digest. You are an idiot.
And thirdly: you as easy get fat from potatoes fried as french fries or wedges with ketchup. Refined sugar is not needed at all.
If you tried REALLY hard, you might be able to gain weight without eating sugar but in the real world, those people don't exist.
That is complete bollocks. Hint: in Europe e don't have that refined sugar problem, but still fat people. You get from Pizza, e.g. Easy actually ...

Read a book about nutrition before you cause havoc amoung your family or friends. (*facepalm*)

Re:New study shows...

[Anonymous Coward]

Proteins are digested and broken down into amino acids.

Glucogenic amino acids are converted into glucose.

Excess glucose is converted and stored as fat.

Causes cancer

[Citizen of Earth]

What does it do for me if I'm not an obese child? Or, should we file this in the "causes cancer" circular filing cabinet?

Re:Causes cancer

[Anonymous Coward]

Life causes cancer..

captcha: bogeymen

Re:Causes cancer

[fwarren]

The Warburg Effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Cancer loves sugar. Cancer cells consume sugar at 8 times the rate of normal cells. Warburg won the Nobel prize for this discovery.

Yes both sugar and flour are bad for you. There is thing called "Diseases of Western Civilization" and they come along when sugar and flour start showing up in your diet.

Re:Causes cancer

[Anonymous Coward]

Lowers your cholesterol, lowers risk of diabetes and keeps your appetite at the proper level. The benefits of cutting sugar just pile on.

Re:Causes cancer

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't have to be obese to have insulin resistance not to mention the other factors listed right in the blurb...
 
but since you know everything go right on ahead killing yourself with sugar. We don't need people who thumb their nose at science.

Re:Causes cancer

[Anonymous Coward]

News flash. Living will surely lead to death ...

Live life on your own terms, but no complaining if your terms are bad.

Re:Causes cancer

[kheldan]

Yes both sugar and flour are bad for you. There is thing called "Diseases of Western Civilization" and they come along when sugar and flour start showing up in your diet.

Sure thing, chief. Then there's the study that came out recently that says washing your body with soap is actually terrible for you. All in all it sounds like we're supposed to drop everything, including our clothes, and go back to living in the trees, eating whatever grubs and berries we can forage. So much for evolution. :-(

"Saliva causes cancer, but only if swallowed in small amounts over a long period of time." - George Carlin

Re:Causes cancer

[mspohr]

If you can't figure this out, I don't think we can help you.

Re:Causes cancer

[jedidiah]

Since flour and sugar pretty much coincide with civilization in general and the ability to record anything, the idea that "disease suddenly appears" is a pretty obvious thing. Whether or not it's anything to get hysterical about is another matter.

It still beats the alternative.

Re:Causes cancer

[alvinrod]

All in all it sounds like we're supposed to drop everything, including our clothes, and go back to living in the trees, eating whatever grubs and berries we can forage.

Do we also need to go back to living in fear of our own shadows as well?

Come to think of it did we ever stop to begin with?

Re:Causes cancer

[avandesande]

You don't have to be obese or overweight to develop type 2 diabetes.

Re: Causes cancer

[bill_mcgonigle]

I eliminated sugar, wheat, caffeine, and dairy. I lost 80lbs, cut my risk of heart disease by more than half (per blood labs) and my hair started to grow back (vitamins and meditation help to a lesser degree). I was able to start running and lifiting and the ladies are way interested. But go ahead and munch on Doritos and Mt. Dew if you prefer - a goatee should compensate.

Oh, and I have literally hundreds of delicious dishes I can make without doing any foraging. Just shop the outer perimeter of the grocery store and experience real food.

Re:Causes cancer

[butchersong]

He didn't say "Diseases of Civilization" he said "Diseases of Western Civilization". As in the modern late 20th century American diet.

Re:Causes cancer

[Anonymous Coward]

But washing your body completely over IS bad for you. Very bad.

Your body evolved in a world of infection.
It literally evolved to WORK with that infection to manage itself.

If you were to be brought up, from a child, to adulthood, you'd actually not even make it TO adulthood actually, you'd die a seriously agonising death.
Your immune system bases its sensitivity on past infection. If your body detects no infection, it SHITS itself so hard because it has never experienced that situation before. So it dials the sensitivity up. Still nothing? Up again. HEY, there you are, you pesky completely innocent bacteria!
Boom, you now have autoimmune. (one of the major reasons it has exploded in numbers in western regions that have poor, read:exhaustive, cleaning habits)
Washing too much is stupidly bad for you.

One thing that is also horribly bad for you is eating sterile foods. So, in other words, anything not as close to raw as it gets.
Minimizing non-raw foods will GREATLY improve your health. It has been proven so many times it isn't even funny.
And look there, again, yet another report showing the dangers of processed foods.
Stick with meats that are as close to death-to-plate as possible. At least then you will limit the requirements for preservation as well as have all the naturally occurring bacteria present in their bodies.
Fish are one of the easiest to do this with. Chicken, Turkey and similar next up. Red meats harder. (pigs especially)

Don't eat clean foods, clean yourself "just enough", use perfume and deodorant, done.
Hell, if anything, dry-clean yourself more than wet-clean. Dry-clean just involves using a towel and rubbing yourself over, or a brush, or a stone.
It is far better for your skins health, and those that practice it generally have far superior skin health for a longer age than those that wet-clean and more so those who vigorously clean themselves all over for long periods.
Your body hates sterility. Absolutely hates it.
Avoid it at all cost and your health will improve. Dramatically.
Your own immune system is your biggest enemy. Don't piss it off.

Re: Causes cancer

[operagost]

Congratulations, but I don't know what you're trying to prove. We're talking about sugar in obese kids.

Re:Causes cancer

[phantomfive]

Flour is part of pretty near every civilization in the world.

Re: Causes cancer

[Anonymous Coward]

I eliminated sugar, wheat, caffeine, and dairy.

And you replaced them with 10,000% of the RDA of smug. Congratulations, douche!

Re:Causes cancer

[Anonymous Coward]

America didn't invent sugar or flour.

Re: Causes cancer

[Anonymous Coward]

Ohhh, poor kitty is upset that he must change his diet? Yes, dear poor kitty, it is a really harsh world and it is understandable that you get angry if others made the smart move years ago.

Re:Causes cancer

[R3d M3rcury]

Since flour and sugar pretty much coincide with civilization in general [...]

Don't forget power and women.

Re:Causes cancer

[fredgiblet]

Your own immune system is your biggest enemy. Don't piss it off.

Sounds like it wants a fight, I'm gonna get myself some HIV and fight back!

Re:Causes cancer

[Kohath]

Not getting shot and killed in WW2 at the age of 22 causes cancer. Also not dying of smallpox before your 12th birthday.

Re: Causes cancer

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice try, bill-mcgonigle, but we know it's you. MOOOOOO, say the smug cows.

Re: Causes cancer

[Anonymous Coward]

Chinamen eat beans and rice, Japanese eat rice and raw fish, Africans eat potatoes and monkey. Its pretty well only Americans and Europeans that eat bread.

Re: Causes cancer

[Anonymous Coward]

But we invented bacon, and that is all that matters. Go U.S.A.!!

Re:Causes cancer

[Anonymous Coward]

From your own link:

>Today, mutations in oncogenes and tumor suppressor genes are thought to be responsible for malignant transformation, and the Warburg effect is considered to be a result of these mutations rather than a cause.[9][10]

I think you're full of shit. Cancer existed before modern western civ.

Re: Causes cancer

[Anonymous Coward]

You had my full attention right up to "vitamins and medication"

Re: Causes cancer

[phantomfive]

Americans eat meat and potatoes.

China - wheat/rice/millet flour (how do you think they make steamed buns?)
Japan - rice flour (mochi, yummmm)
Ancient (and much of modern) Americas - corn flour
India - Wheat flour (for naan, roti)
Europe/America - Wheat flour

Seriously, if you're anti-grain, you're probably following a fad diet.

Re: Causes cancer

[Anonymous Coward]

A 114 year old person died yesterday in Washington state.

I bet they used to wake up every morning grateful they only ever ate rice cakes and drank only rainwater.

Re: Causes cancer

[Type44Q]

I eliminated sugar, wheat, caffeine, and dairy.

I can attest to this: I eliminated all of the above (plus quite a bit more) several years ago and my moods, focus/clarity, stamina, strength, skin/muscle tone and lots more have improved so much that at [nearly] 43, I look younger than I have in over a decade and feel healthier than I ever have. People laugh at me when I tell them my age and they boggle in disbelief when I show them the D.O.B. on my ID...

Re:Causes cancer

[Type44Q]

Then there's the study that came out recently that says washing your body with soap is actually terrible for you.

And, genius, there's solid science (mainly to do with our symbiotic relationship with nitrobacter) backing that theory so why don't you do yourself a favor and shut the fuck up; your ignorance reeks profoundly.

Re: Causes cancer

[Wahakalaka]

10 sec Google search: http://www.health.harvard.edu/... It's pretty well established that excessive sugar, especially refined sugar, is all kinds of bad for you, regardless of age or weight. There's hippy holistic "science," and then there's actual science. The effects of sugar are pretty far into the latter.

Re:Causes cancer

[del_diablo]

The "option" is terms of "civilized foods" isn't better. There is Rice, Maize and Turnips.
Then again, we have only been in modern times for the last 200 years. Thats only 3-5 consecutive full lifetime studies. Aging and the human body is already weird, our ability to digest food is even weirder.

Re: Causes cancer

[Anonymous Coward]

Beware confirmation bias. All the people who tried what you tried and didn't see great results aren't looking to brag about it. Kind of like Alcoholics Anonymous, they claim a very high success rate -- as long as you don't count all the people who have dropped out of the program, once you count those guys the success rate is no better than just going cold turkey on your own.

Re:Causes cancer

[Anonymous Coward]

let me guess... you're in the SCA and think the Middle Ages were a great time. You know when people put off bathing because it was something those "evil" Romans did; spent most of their lives in filth, even the royalty, much to the detriment to their health and stank to high heaven. Do you hang your clothes over a vat of old piss to delouse them, too? Most if, not all of the Old Testament Jewish rules from what food to eat, how to wash, where to dispose of your shit, and even not sodomizing each other all come down to one thing: staying healthy

Re:Causes cancer

[Anonymous Coward]

"Cancer consumes sugar, therefor sugar causes cancer!" I'm a REAL scientist! Look at me look at me!

People that aren't molecular biologists discussing what causes cancer is like people that aren't rocket scientists discussing rocket science. Yet somehow people loooove to be "experts" on the former yet not on the latter. Just like how you are a "total expert in economics even though the most education I have in it is a B in the required highschool economics class". Perhaps one should take a step back from giving and advice or pretending to have an informed opinion and ask yourself "Wait, do I actually have any clue wtf I'm talking about, or am I on mount stupid? http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2475 "

Re: Causes cancer

[JoeMerchant]

4 digit user number pegs you at 40+, there's a saying about the ladies and dog turds: the older they are, the easier they are to pick up.

Re: Causes cancer

[kheldan]

You guys (including the POS AC's) know what? I can almost certainly guarantee my diet is better than any of yours is. Aside from my day job I'm a semi-pro athlete on a road racing team. Want to know what the vast majority of my diet consists of? Boneless skinless chicken breast, vegetables, fruits, whole grains, and damned little sugar and alcohol. Yes, there's lunch meat, because what the hell am I going to have for lunch? My bodyfat percentage is somewhere between 9 and 12 percent (depending on the time of year), I have tons of lean muscle (especially compared to the average schmuck) and endurance through the roof. I'm 50 and don't even come close to looking it. Know what else? I used to be over 300 pounds with ruined knees, weak, sickly, and ruined knees. No obesity, no diabetes, no heart disease, no chronic illnesses or conditions of any kind other than allergies (which are not my fault, thanks mom). Do I occasionally like steak or a hamburger or barbecue? Hell, yes. Not giving it up, no matter what these jackoffs at the W.H.O. say, because I don't think the so-called 'risks' are anywhere near as dire and they're making them out to be.

Re: Causes cancer

[Anonymous Coward]

that is meditation

Re:Causes cancer

[Anonymous Coward]

Now there's a straw man if I ever saw one. Get your head outta your own asshole, kid. Shitty food *is* bad for you. Doesn't take a genius to spot that one.

Re:Causes cancer

[nospam007]

"What does it do for me if I'm not an obese child?"

Then you'll be the one the fat bully takes the money from.

Re:Causes cancer

[nospam007]

"Yes both sugar and flour are bad for you. "

Exatcly! Also, noodles are flour too, and just like rice and french fries, 100 gr have around 350 calories.
Sou you'd better eat the fries.

Re: Causes cancer

[nospam007]

"Congratulations, but I don't know what you're trying to prove. We're talking about sugar in obese kids."

He met the kids and they was him.

Re: Causes cancer

[nospam007]

"I eliminated sugar, wheat, caffeine, and dairy."

'And you replaced them with 10,000% of the RDA of smug.'

Not quite, for that, he must give up TV as well.

Re: Causes cancer

[nospam007]

"You had my full attention right up to "vitamins and medication"

You know that subluxations can cause dyslexia?
Ask for Dr. Bob.

Re: Causes cancer

[nospam007]

'I eliminated sugar, wheat, caffeine, and dairy.'

"I can attest to this: I eliminated all of the above (plus quite a bit more) ..."

Let me guess: spouse and friends?

Re:Causes cancer

[nospam007]

"Don't eat clean foods, clean yourself "just enough", use perfume and deodorant, done."

Over here in Europe, we already tried that for a several couples of hundred years, didn't work so well.

In France OTOH ...

Re: Causes cancer

[Type44Q]

Let me guess: spouse and friends?

Yeah (*sigh*); they were so taken aback by the improvements to my character that they simply couldn't stand the sight of themselves any longer... :p

Re:Causes cancer

[nospam007]

"Since flour and sugar pretty much coincide with civilization in general and the ability to record anything, the idea that "disease suddenly appears" is a pretty obvious thing. "

And what's funny is, is that the reason to invent a recording system in the first place was to count the 'sugar'.

Re:Causes cancer

[Anonymous Coward]

Because 'everybody should completely eliminate all sugar from your diet' is exactly what the study said, you fucking idiot. It was a study of a small cohort of obese Latino and African-American children, who saw a fast and observable improvement across a range of health indicators when the amount of sugar in their diet was reduced. Do you seriously have a problem with saying 'maybe fat kids should cut back on candy'?

I mean, what the fuck is wrong with you people? 'Herp derp sounds like a scientist is trying to step on my Jeebus-given libertee so I dun built this here giant slippery slope and I'm going push everybody down by making extreme hysterical claims then trying to pass those off as though you made them, not me.'

Re:Causes cancer

[nospam007]

"America didn't invent sugar or flour."

No, but they invented the bottled sugary softdrink.

Re:Causes cancer

[nospam007]

"News flash. Living will surely lead to death ..."

From older news: "The less you eat, the longer you live" and ...damn, now I have completely forgotten what my point was. I'm going to bed.

Re: Causes cancer

[Anonymous Coward]

Look at all the people who care.

Quickly, or you will miss them.

Re: Causes cancer

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, you fixed your ruined knees through diet and exercise?

I think there's a book tour in your future!

Re:Causes cancer

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice try, but it was the English, French and Swedes who did that.

Schweppes, one of the first mass marketers of soda, was German-Swiss.

Re: Causes cancer

[KGIII]

I eat worse than all of you but I'm as fit as a fiddle and look at least ten years younger than I am - if I hide the graybeard. Hell, if I shave I get carded - I'm 58. I'm also part Micmac - North Eastern Native American tribe, we look young unless we stay out in the Sun and, well, you are aware that I'm on /., so...

I, literally, forget to eat some days. I get distracted and just don't get hungry. Sometimes I eat like a bear. I do tend to be active, at my age I kind of should, so there's that but I'm not especially active or anything. I have workout equipment that collects dust. I'd drive to the kitchen, if I could. So, no, I'm not especially active but I garden, hunt, fish, and do shit around the house when I'm home.

I also do an inordinate amount of drugs but I don't drink any more. I drank for about 45 years (I'm only 56, do the math if you'd like) but that had to go as I stopped being a functional drunk after retirement. I'm told I have the constitution of a horse.

I don't think I should be taken as normal, however. I don't think there's much normal about me. I've always been pretty lucky. I don't get a lot of my food from the store, either. However, I didn't always have that luxury. *shrugs* Dunno, really. Anecdotes are kind of silly but I figured that I'd throw mine into the mix.

Oh, I smoke *and inhale* cigars. I'm expecting a visit from the Big C any day now. So far, so good.

Re: Causes cancer

[KGIII]

I tried AA. I drank the whole time but I went to meetings. Eventually I quit on my own. It came close to putting me in the hospital, or so I'm told. I don't remember a good portion of it. The whole week and a half is kind of a blur. If you're an old drinker and going to quit - do in detox. If you need help, go to a group therapy session and not to A.A. because A.A. kind of sucks balls. A fair number of them actually used to go out drinking, after meetings, with me. The rest were just bitter drunks or liars sitting around telling war stories in a game of one-ups-manship.

Re:Causes cancer

[KGIII]

That's not the usual post about Jews. Who are you and what did you do with our racist AC troll?

Re:Causes cancer

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but there is no evidence whatsoever that sugar causes cancer. The EFFECTS of sugar may do (i.e. obesity), but ingesting sugar does not cause cancer. In fact very few foods can cause cancer. Basically, superfoods aren't superfoods, most foods can't cause cancer (and even those that do only raise the base line risk by a minuscule amount). Eat what you want, just do it in moderation and make sure you eat some fibre and exercise. Your body needs sugar, just not the amounts that are present in modern processed foods.

Re:Causes cancer

[Anonymous Coward]

The constant sight of grossly obese children will give you eye cancer.

Re: Causes cancer

[Gavagai80]

You got two years younger while writing the post. Impressive.

Re: Causes cancer

[KGIII]

Huh? That doesn't make any sense. Are you confusing me with someone else? You're welcome to scroll back through all of my posts, I'm sure I've mentioned my age many times. I'm sure they'll scale with the year mentioned. (Technically, I'm not quite 58 but it saves some time rather than explaining that I'm about a month away from that.) I don't believe I've fat fingered anything tonight. So, I'm guessing you've confused me for someone else.

Re: Causes cancer

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeap, but his dad is still smoking, drinking and chasing women.

Re: Causes cancer

[matria]

Interestingly, but purely anecdotal, as I aged I began having the usual "control problems" that older ladies tend to have. Then, totally unrelated, just to see if anything would happen, I cut out all wheat products for six weeks. Surprisingly, after about three weeks I noticed no more "control problems". Also I was sleeping better. Then I started eating limited amounts of wheat products, maybe bread or pasta two or three times a week. Within a week "control problems" were back. Now, if you were me, what would you do about wheat products in your diet?

Re: Causes cancer

[Anonymous Coward]

Your HAIR grew back? Pics or it didn't happen.

Re: Causes cancer

[EvilAlphonso]

Hell, if I shave I get carded - I'm 58. I'm also part Micmac... I drank for about 45 years (I'm only 56, do the math if you'd like)

I believe that is what he was talking about

Re: Causes cancer

[Anonymous Coward]

You need to look at the fossil record. The teeth of people before agriculture are surprising excellent. Almost no tooth problems. The teeth of people after agriculture are surprisingly bad. Almost everyone today has multiple cavities or tooth issues. We've gotten better at caring for our teeth than we used to, but a long time before that our teeth didn't need any caring.

Re:Causes cancer

[Anonymous Coward]

You are exaggerating....I stopped using soap 5 years ago except for the "5 parts" - face [seldom], armpits, crouch, arse and feet [daily]. Guess what - there is no bad smell, no-one notices anything unusual about my hygiene level [people hardly believe me when I tell them this] but rashes, allergic reactions, enemas - all went down and disappeared entirely.

I also concur with GP about sugar and flour. Remove sugar altogether, cut heavily on the flour. 1 year later - fit as Chuck Norris :), energy level up, hormonal level up, faster metabolism, end of gas, bloating, end of "after lunch slump", more hard-on [no kidding!] - basically I got younger.

Another funny thing which was mentioned above in the discussion - I need less food now. Here is what I eat yesterday for instance

Breakfast - 150 ml of yogurt diluted with water
Lunch - 400 ml of home made chicken soup [total meat inside - two small wings] + 1 cucumber
Dinner - 250 gram fried fish [gurnard] + 1 cucumber

Now tell me, if you follow the wisdom from a few decades back , can a 80-85 kg male survive on this amount of "calories" provided cycling 2-5 km per day, 3-4 times per week amateur level body building + running , never using elevators and so on...

So, the amount of nutrients we extract from food is highly arbitrary and truly depends on the balance of your gut flora [I started this diet due to such imbalance that was proven more than once with lab tests]

Honestly, grain might have been necessary to start the civilization but it is bad for you....really it is. And sugar is the devil himself...

Check my posts if you will - I have described the story more than once here...

Cheers,
Evtim [posting AC due to mod points]

Re:Causes cancer

[angel'o'sphere]

Actually frensh fries have the worst "glycemic index" of all "starch" (hydrocarbon based) foods, and the added oil/fat makes it a good combo to gain weight ;D and a very bad combo to lose weight.

Hint: the idea spread in the web that 1 cal is 1 cal is a myth.

The body has a prefered order in which it either burns or stores nutritiens.

Sugar + fat and slightly less worse carbs + fat, trigger (depending on sugar and hence isulin level) the "fat storing process".

Re: Causes cancer

[KGIII]

Ha! I did fat finger it. LOL Woops.

Re:Causes cancer

[Anonymous Coward]

Refined flour is a newer invention. Bran is good. Levels out the spikes.

Re:Causes cancer

[avandesande]

That's not true. Sugar was extremely rare into Victorian times when they started growing sugar beets.

Re: Causes cancer

[devent]

That's why people who advocate healthy food are seen as dicks. Come down from your condescending high horse and maybe more people would listen to you. Do you really think you are going to help people by insulting them like "But go ahead and munch on Doritos and Mt. Dew if you prefer - a goatee should compensate."? Most people will just think that you are a dick. Or "experience real food.", like you are the expert who decides what is "real" food and what isn't.

Re: Causes cancer

[thegarbz]

I eliminated sugar, wheat, caffeine, and dairy. I lost 80lbs, cut my risk of heart disease by more than half (per blood labs) and my hair started to grow back (vitamins and meditation help to a lesser degree). I was able to start running and lifiting and the ladies are way interested. But go ahead and munch on Doritos and Mt. Dew if you prefer - a goatee should compensate.

I decided to start using my legs instead of my arse and did the same thing sans changing my diet. Not to mention there's just as many studies showing benefits of caffeine as there are downsides so maybe just changing what I eat is not a magic answer to an otherwise shitty stationary blob of a lifestyle.

Re:Causes cancer

[thegarbz]

Before you correlate things with diet you should investigate minority groups living abroad. Diseases of Western Civilisation often have not only to do with the civilisation but the people and how susceptible they are to it.

Also if you think eastern civilisations don't consume sugar or flour you're living in a fantasy world. I couldn't find a non-sugary drink last time I was in China which wasn't beer or tea. When we went out for dinner anyone who didn't drink either of the above went with coke or purple fanta.

Re: Causes cancer

[CaptainLard]

I did fat finger it.

???

You just said you were fit as a fiddle!

Re: Causes cancer

[david_thornley]

I eat the wrong stuff and often get my age underestimated by fifteen years.

Re: Causes cancer

[Yunzil]

Yeah, because it was impossible for you to start running and lifting before.

Re:Causes cancer

[Anonymous Coward]

You should go look up some information on the skyrocketing rate of diabetes and obesity in those eastern civilizations, chum. As they've stopped eating their "traditional" foods, and started consuming more of those cokes and purple fanta drinks, their rates of "Diseases of Western Civilization" have gone up dramatically.

https://www.idf.org/BRIDGES/ma...

China has the world’s largest diabetes epidemic, and it continues to grow at a fearsome pace. Rapidly rising rates of diabetes have been seen in previous studies, and the most recent research found that China has overtaken the USA in terms of diabetes prevalence: according to the latest data, 11.6% of Chinese adults have diabetes. The Chinese diabetes population stands at some 114 million people — about a third of all people with diabetes.

Kind of undermines your "it's because they're not genetically predisposed to it," argument, huh?

Re: Causes cancer

[Anonymous Coward]

What's wrong with caffeine and dairy (unless you're lactose-intolerant)? Caffeine before exercise actually helps boost your fat-burning. Dairy is a good protein source, if fermented it may also improve your bacteriome.

Re: Causes cancer

[fatwilbur]

You must have some special circumstances as not all of those are bad. Coffee is actually very healthy for you, contains a good dose of anti-oxidants, and has been proven to cut risk of diabetes drastically (improvement has been shown with up to 6 cups per day).

Also, dairy gets a bad rap for some reason, but dairy is evolution-formulated mammal food. It contains copious amounts of fat and protein that are extremely good for you, and is also fortified with vitamins A & D.Go check one of those expensive protein shakes - you'll find the same size glass of regular milk has almost as much protein and calories (taking whole milk). I was always quite skinny and had major problems eating enough calories to gain weight, but 6 months after starting to drink a lot of dairy (and a light exercise routine) you can see my muscles through my shirt. Ladies are similarly interested.

But yes if you have a weight problem adding more calories isn't going to help you, but that has nothing to do with dairy other than the fact it's high in calories. They're all good calories.

Re: Causes cancer

[tigersha]

Serious question. What do you eat exactly?

Re:Causes cancer

[tigersha]

So do safety belts. Ever since they were introduced more people died of cancer!

and so therefore?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think most people know this. Why the constant repetition on slashdot? Is someone pushing for government intervention like a crazy tax on sugar?

Re:and so therefore?

[psyclone]

Why shouldn't the government regulate sugar just like alcohol and nicotine for the benefit of the entire society?

(I'm not saying they should, but it's interesting to think about, and has happened with local governments reducing soda intake such as in schools and cities.)

Re:and so therefore?

[Faust6]

A small junk-tax would suffice. Only enough to fund initiatives to facilitate better diet.

Re:and so therefore?

[jedidiah]

...or they could just stop subsidizing sugar production.

Re:and so therefore?

[Faust6]

Or both. Does the US still get most of its sugar from Hawaii?

Re:and so therefore?

[CastrTroy]

I think it would be too hard to tax sugar because it exists in so much of the food we eat. Orange juice contains almost as much sugar as soft drinks. Would be be taxing orange juice the same as soft drinks? How would bulk bags of sugar be taxed? If you buy it for baking, but only use it sparingly, you aren't really doing much harm to your body. But if you use it to make cookies or cakes or something with a large amount of sugar per serving, then you are going to have health problems.

Re:and so therefore?

[smooth wombat]

Because look at all the tax money spent over the decades on initiatives to facilitate a better lifestyle by pointing out the dangers of drug use.

Everyone knows they're smarter than the experts and keep snorting, injecting, smoking and swallowing everything they can get their hands on.

Since that didn't work, the government implemented a tax to force people to hand over their money to private companies so all of the above people can keep doing what they're doing, secure in the knowledge they never have to change anything they do because someone else will pick up the tab.

Even now communities are spending scarce taxpayer money to make sure people don't have to suffer the effects of heroin usage because having the person not doing the drug in the first place would make too much sense. It's simply easier to take from everyone else than it is make the person take responsibility for their actions.

It's amazing how the anti-government, anti-big brother crowd on here jumps at the chance to interject big government into people's lives, especially through taking their money.

Re:and so therefore?

[Anonymous Coward]

Please tell me your amazing plan to stop people from doing drugs, oh mighty genius of slashdot!

Re:and so therefore?

[Anonymous Coward]

The /. crowd is selectively anti-big government and anti-big brother. To be fair, the two major sides of United States politics alternately rely on pro-big and pro-small government arguments. More often the right is pro-small and left is pro-big, but they swap as one becomes more politically expedient than the other.

Re:and so therefore?

[Anonymous Coward]

The last bag of sugar I bought was like two years ago, and it gets used two spoons at a time into my coffee lol. They could double the price of the sugar with a tax and I'd be fine with that.

Re:and so therefore?

[operagost]

You're assuming they should be regulating alcohol and nicotine.

Many of the problems in society are due to the cronyism and outright corruption involved with "regulation" of those substances, which mostly involves taxation and a bunch of social initiatives which mostly keep the lawyers, marketers, and insurance companies wealthy.

Re:and so therefore?

[Anonymous Coward]

It gets most of its sugar from corn.

Re:and so therefore?

[Anonymous Coward]

Gun to the head of anyone caught with heroin, meth, or crack.
*BLAM*

Worked for many Asian countries when dealing with Opium.

Re:and so therefore?

[fredgiblet]

The vast, VAST majority comes from highly subsidized corn. HFCS is in everything because it's so cheap, it's so cheap because we're basically paying farmers to grow it while simultaneously refusing to import sugar at reasonable rates.

Re:and so therefore?

[Anonymous Coward]

That epic fail can also have to do with the fact that most of antidrugs campaigns have negative information content or in other words are outright lies - like 'a joint kills' and some other such. We do not know it for sure of course but would imagine an intelligent information policy and as intelligent classified drugs policy could possibly help more and if not then at least people would not take you for a lying basterd.

Re:and so therefore?

[rsborg]

...or they could just stop subsidizing sugar production.

This is the smartest comment in the entire post so far. While we're at it lets stop subsidizing corn to create HFCS (and other idiocies like ethanol) as well...
No need for a tax when we can instead stop handing out freebies that are corrupting our diets instead.

There - something both progressives and libertarians can get behind.

Re:and so therefore?

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone else read that as a small-junk tax, poor bastards can't even get a tax break.

Re:and so therefore?

[Anonymous Coward]

> Or both. Does the US still get most of its sugar from Hawaii?

Lol. The sugar plantations in Hawaii have been fallow for 20 years.

Re:and so therefore?

[JoeMerchant]

Hawaii slashed sugar production in the 70s, it's only grown as a hobby there now.

South Florida still has a booming political sugar growing machine, but, as others have said, Corn took over around about the time that New Coke came out (late 80s) - and it still dominates the sweetener with calories category in the US food supply.

Re:and so therefore?

[JoeMerchant]

(Real) farmers own a lot of land, which is sort of like saying: they have significant assets. They also have a lot of free time to schmooze with their politicians.

Corn growing interests in the United States have deep roots and will vigorously resist any efforts to trim their subsidies.

Re:and so therefore?

[JoeMerchant]

If New York City can ban large soda cups, we can pass any kind of tax we want.

Start with processed foods (those comprised of 3 or more source ingredients) - and hit anything with calories with a per-calorie tax. 160kCal in 12oz of Coca-Cola, seems like we should start at $0.001 per kCal to me, or $1 on a 6 pack of 12oz cans of Coke.

Calories derived from protein could be exempt. I'd say that fat might get a reduced rate compared to carbs, so maybe tax by the gram instead of the kCal.

Re:and so therefore?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because people need to take responsibility for their actions. Don't blame the boogy man, McDonalds, or Kraft, or anyone else for their bad habits.

I recently had acute Pancreatitis. It was my second time. I am reasonably healthy and work out occasionally but my eating was killing me. My Triglycerides have been averaging in the above 700 for 15 years. Since getting that in August, I've lost 45 lbs (10 while in the hospital on an IV) and I am down to 200. First time in 20 years. At fist checkup since leaving the hospital and my Tri is 86 my blood pressure dropped to 110, my resting pulse dropped to the lower 70's. My sugar levels have dropped and stabilized (I was not diabetic but my levels were creeping up). I am in my mid 40's How did I do it? Eating better and working out more. There is NO shortcuts man. Pills, fake workouts, skipping meals or even "splurging" do not work. Pay attention to what you eat. Stick with whole grains, no sugar, lower fat things and meats. Nothing tricky about it. I cut out ALL junk food. No chips, no wheat unless whole, green beans instead of mac-n-cheese as a side and cut back on the portions and stick to it.
Watch labels close though, pay attention to the actual serving size when comparing fat/carbs.
- Don't think something that is "100 calories per serving" is any better for you than anything else. That 100 calories maybe for a 15 gram serving when plain old crackers my have 180 calories but a 28 gram portion size. That same product may have 2x the fat as something else.
- Watch the triangle of sodium, fat, and carbs. Most products that are labeled as "low fat" typically have more carbs and sugars added and things labeled "low carb" may have more fat. Both probably have more sodium.
- A "salad" is not healthy, well it can be but is usually not. Anything besides a light balsamic vinaigrette is high in fat and/or carbs. Look all you want, you wont find a healthy dressing. Use the triangle rule above when comparing dressing. You'll see it.

A good example of my experience and changes? Before I would eat two grilled sandwiches for lunch. Egg, cheese, ham or bacon, and some ketchup. Now i eat egg beater egg, lean ham, lettuce, no fat mayo in a whole wheat wrap. If still hungry, maybe 1/2 cup of plain greek no fat yogurt (0 fat, 5 carbs, 11 protein). It is close but the difference is about 6 grams fat and 20 carbs compared to 40 grams of fat and over 100 carbs. 3 times a day and that adds up quick. My morning coffee? No sugar anymore, I tried some of those substitute sugars and just went with no sugar. I don't need it now. I sip my wife's coffee on occasion and can't believe how sweet it tastes.

Did the government force me to do it? No

Re:and so therefore?

[russotto]

If New York City can ban large soda cups, we can pass any kind of tax we want.

They couldn't, that was overturned. So take your behavior modification taxes and go home. Fat kids shouldn't eat so much sugar, the rest of us are just fine.

Re:and so therefore?

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that you're pulling such an opinion out of your ass in the face of the actual numbers of people that smoke today versus 30 years ago in the U.S.

The methods deployed while flawed have proven themselves effective in the case of nicotine. If we regulated weed instead of banning it our prison system would be significantly less populated and the Mexican cartels that everyone loves to be afraid of wouldn't be getting near the income they enjoy today so they would lose a lot of their power as well.

Re:and so therefore?

[JoeMerchant]

Yeah, we'll just stuff the tobacco, alcohol and MJ taxes too, right?

It isn't a ban, it's an economic incentive to make a healthy choice - one that will save the tax base when it comes time to bury your skinny butt - fat butts are a lot more expensive in the years before they die, and they also tend to die during their "productive" years a lot more than skinny ones.

Re:and so therefore?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, I wouldn't call it a "hobby," exactly. HC&S operates the last remaining commercial sugar plantation, but they produce 150k-200k tons of sugar per year.

Re:and so therefore?

[Anonymous Coward]

Leaving aside the stupidity of the 'War on Drugs' and treating social ills as crimes...

Authoritarian solutions are always so simple-minded and blithely evil.

What's the worse offense: getting high, or killing someone in cold blood?

Re:and so therefore?

[russotto]

Yeah, we'll just stuff the tobacco, alcohol and MJ taxes too, right?

If these taxes have the purpose of discouraging use of the product rather than collecting revenue, sure.

It isn't a ban, it's an economic incentive to make a healthy choice

The government isn't my mother, and I don't need it to be. Nor do I want the government to be anyone else's mother.

- one that will save the tax base when it comes time to bury your skinny butt - fat butts are a lot more expensive in the years before they die, and they also tend to die during their "productive" years a lot more than skinny ones.

Sure, severe calorie restriction has been shown to extend life. Just what I want, to live to 100 eating like a concentration camp inmate. I'd rather live to 80 and not be hungry all the time.

Re:and so therefore?

[Gavagai80]

So what about those who are thin and poor? Do we pretend they don't exist and try to force them into a weight loss diet?

Re:and so therefore?

[psyclone]

Did the government force me to do it? No

But a scary health intervention did encourage you to change. And how much did that hospitalization cost the rest of us insurance and tax payers? When you could have been eating more healthy all along -- encouraged by education and incentives by paying more for unhealthy food and less for healthy food.

Re:and so therefore?

[JoeMerchant]

Rice is not a processed food, neither are fresh vegetables, meats, juices, milk, etc.

I presume before something like this got through the legislative process, it would have exemptions for WIC items and processed foods with a blush of "healthy" on them produced in any of the committee members' home districts.

Re:and so therefore?

[JoeMerchant]

Sadly, the government is everybody's mother. They tell you that you have to wear clothes in public, they tell you when you can and can't consume alcohol, they tell you how to drive, and taxes are usually more about behavior modification than they are revenue collection - sure, revenue plays a part, but how often have you heard debates over new "revenue neutral" budget proposals, that's 100% about behavior modification.

I'm not talking about calorie taxes so we can all live forever, but I am talking about paying for the corn subsidy with a food-consumer tax on high-fructose corn syrup. If we want to grow "cheap corn" for fuel, fine, but don't give the world free refills on $0.99 44oz sodas while you are at it.

When I was growing up (late 70s) I thought it was absurd what restaurants charged for soda - the consumer price was astronomical compared to the cost of goods. Well, the world has moved on and now you can get "any size soda you want for 0.99" because, what really costs the money is the storefront that you are taking space up in, and next is the labor cost for the person who takes your money and gives you the soda - the paper in the cup probably costs more to deliver to the consumer than the corn syrup in the product.

When I was growing up, people in line at Kmart took up roughly half the space that people in line at WalMart do today, if you want to talk about what end of the economic spectrum is going to be most influenced by that kind of tax, it's going to be the ones who don't pay for their own health care, but instead get it out of the emergency room at "county hospital" when they have their diabetic seizures. These people do need some government mothering, unless you want a significant part of the population sitting in "Internet Cafe" gambling joints, giving away what little money they have in exchange for the dream that they might "hit it big, this time" while they smoke, drink, and eat themselves into very expensive medical conditions that end up being even more costly in the long run because they are under-treated in sub-standard healthcare facilities that are funded by the taxpayers.

Poor decisions that kill quickly are mostly well regulated these days, poor decisions that are killing people slowly and expensively still seem to need some help.

Re:and so therefore?

[Anonymous Coward]

It did not cost you a thing. I have the same coverage from work I've had for 15 years.

I KNOW I was eating wrong, I changed it myself after getting out from the hospital. When I left the hospital, I was given a larger prescription of Tricor, a second drug (forgot the name), a blood sugar monitor, and a prescription for Niacin with a mention that I need to eat healthy. I never got the prescriptions filled because my regular doctor said to wait for 1 month for things to stabilize before he'd suggest making those changes.
I had no desire to change habits before because I did not think I would get it again. Like I said, people need to be responsible for their actions (or inactions), and stop blaming others. It was 100% my fault I was not eating healthy. The "eduction" card does not apply in many situations, just about every dude and girl in the world knows how a pregnancy happens and knows how to put rubbers on but yet we still blame the government and education because they do not care enough to take precautions. They need to blame themselves. There is very little consequences either because the government (you and I) will step in soften the blow. This perpetuates.

Re:and so therefore?

[3.5 stripes]

No, actually it didn't, but nothing stops armchair dictators from getting a hard on thinking about it..

Re:and so therefore?

[tbannist]

The vast, VAST majority comes from highly subsidized corn. HFCS is in everything because it's so cheap, it's so cheap because we're basically paying farmers to grow it while simultaneously refusing to import sugar at reasonable rates.

And fructose is specifically what the diets in this study reduced (from 28% to 10%) and generated nearly immediate health benefits. The Sugar Industry Association's response was a bit amusing. Of course, they say the study isn't large enough or long enough to make any solid conclusions (and they're probably right, it should be replicated, and larger and longer term studies should be done). The amusing part is where they try to explain away the observed benefits by claiming that the benefits might be caused weight loss induced by the dietary change and not directly by the high fructose sugar reduction. I find it amusing because they are basically arguing that high fructose corn syrup is making Americans fat and therefore sick, instead of just making them sick.

It looks like it's time for them to bring out the commercial where the government slaps the ice cream out of the hands of children again to remind Americans that it's their god given right to be eat garbage. And that a food industry that knows they're slowly poisoning you should be help completely free of responsibility for lying to you about it, after all, if you believe what they're saying, you're the idiot. I wish I was kidding about the last part, but I watched the Merchants of Doubt documentary last night, and one of the pro-tobacco scientists said exactly that. To his mind, the Tobacco companies are completely blameless for lying to you because after all, if they told you the truth you wouldn't buy their product. It's entirely the fault of smokers for believing anything that he and the tobacco companies have to say. It's libertarianism for the win.

Mental health benefits as well

[Zargg]

My fiance has cut sugar out of her diet and found that her general mood is much happier and more consistent. After a day of eating sugar she would be really depressed and down, low energy and such, but now she has more physical and mental energy on a normal basis. That sugar crash really is killer!

Re:Mental health benefits as well

[truck_soccer]

My brother stopped drinking soda and lost 40 lbs. He also walks like 8 miles a day at his job which probably helped.

Re:Mental health benefits as well

[Anonymous Coward]

Lol, no energy while eating sugar. When will these wives tales end?

Re:Mental health benefits as well

[Anonymous Coward]

yes, the walking 8 miles a day would burn up most of the calories that he would consume if he followed the standard 2000 calories a day diet.

Wait

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait...so cutting sugar from your diet lowers your blood sugar levels??? These crazy scientists! What will they think of next?

Re:Wait

[Kellamity]

And we just realised this TODAY! Whoa!

Here come the anti-American twits

[Anonymous Coward]

"Oh lookie how FAT Americans are!"

What other country in history has "poor" who can afford to be FAT?

Re: Here come the anti-American twits

[Anonymous Coward]

Mexico has the largest obese population in the world.

Re:Here come the anti-American twits

[zieroh]

What other country in history has "poor" who can afford to be FAT?

Well, off the top of my head, Brazil.

Re: Here come the anti-American twits

[Anonymous Coward]

Racist.

Re: Here come the anti-American twits

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry! I mean wetbacks!

Re:Here come the anti-American twits

[halivar]

Mexico, for one. But on a more serious note, during the Thirty Years War in the early 17th century, when all the great powers of Europe were carving up Germany like a Christmas goose, and many of the foreigners not used to the so-called "German diet" blew up like houses. Most notable was Gustavus Adolphus, King of Sweden, who grew so fat in just a few years that his horse couldn't outrun Catholic cavalry, and was killed. Today, mid-western Americans of Swedish descent carry on the proud tradition of dying of bratwurst.

Re: Here come the anti-American twits

[Anonymous Coward]

UK is in 2nd/3rd last time I checked.

Re: Here come the anti-American twits

[Anonymous Coward]

But let's face the real problem. Most countries but American made food/drinks which are loaded with sugars! Yes... Mexico, South America and much of the world! I do believe the problem starts and ends with America!

Re:Here come the anti-American twits

[Anonymous Coward]

All of Europe, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, Canada and probably a few more.

Re: Here come the anti-American twits

[halivar]

Never had Mexican fruit-flavored soda? I'm pretty sure you could dunk a string of twine in one and pull out rock candy.

Re:Here come the anti-American twits

[Anonymous Coward]

I live in a developing nation. There are loads of people who are both malnourished and fat here. They eat loads of white rice, processed meat and sugary snacks, because this stuff is cheap.

Re: Here come the anti-American twits

[Anonymous Coward]

And there you've nailed it on the head! You can buy a bag of Doritos for the price of an apple which is really fucked up!

Re:Here come the anti-American twits

[F.Ultra]

He wasn't to fat for his horse, he simply got lost in the massive fog at Lützen. Well known fact in Sweden since we celebrate his death every year om the 6th of November.

Re: Here come the anti-American twits

[labnet]

Yes, because they are one of the largest consumers of soft drink.
I saw a doco recently, where even in hill tribes in Mexico, they put Coke in baby bottles!!!
Coke et al, are the new cigarette companies.

Re: Here come the anti-American twits

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is it "fucked up"? A sealed bag of chips will last for months/years, is stable at a wide range of temperatures, and requires only enough case packaging to prevent crushing or puncturing. An apple, on the other hand, is a perishable good that must be carefully picked, sorted, washed, packed, transported and stored under reasonably cool/dry conditions, and must be discarded if it isn't sold within a few weeks. No evil sugar conspiracy needed to explain the price differential.

Re: Here come the anti-American twits

[Kohath]

Also, Doritos are basically corn and salt. Corn and salt are cheaper than fruit the day they're harvested/mined. Why wouldn't you expect them to be cheaper at the store?

The reason those people in "a developing nation" (as described above) are merely malnourished rather than hungry/starving is because they can get cheap food.

Re:Here come the anti-American twits

[TranquilVoid]

Well known fact in Sweden since we celebrate his death every year om the 6th of November

Wow you guys must really hate him! Let it go, he lived four centuries ago.

Re:Here come the anti-American twits

[angel'o'sphere]

You got carried away. Gustaf Adolf was the king of sweden, hence they celebrate his death day. Not sure, but I think he was the first protestantic swedish king? Anyway, he brought a broke and run down Sweden up into a small super power in the north of Europe.

Re:Here come the anti-American twits

[F.Ultra]

It's a culture difference that probably is very hard for foreigners to understand but we Swedes tend to "celebrate" military losses and deaths of kings. Mostly celevrated is the deaths of Gustaf II Adolf (which is his Swedish name) and King Charles XII both in November (the 6th and the 30th). Our biggest military failure, which is the Wasa Ship which sank at it's christening, is something that we are wery proud of and display in a museum :)

We hade one "incident" on a prior workplace where we had a French CEO visiting on the 6th of November and when he noticed that every one where eating a special cake (as one does in the memory of Gustaf II Adolf) or own CEO then said "we celebrate that the Germans killed our king", the french guy looked like he was on candid camera or something :-D

Re:Here come the anti-American twits

[bingoUV]

People are more used to the word "observe" with sad occasions than "celebrate". "Celebrate" isn't wrong, but are you sure you Swedes are using the correct English term when communicating with people from other countries?

Re:Here come the anti-American twits

[F.Ultra]

Yes we don't observer, we celebrate. As I wrote there is even a special cake http://www.ritorno.se/wp-conte... that you eat to celebrate the death of Gustavus Adolphus. Other deaths are observed or commemorated depending upon the person or situation but Gustavus Adolphus in particular is celebrated.

School Lunch

[rgbscan]

Just more reasons for school lunches that suck. Maybe we can classify Fruity soda drinks a "fruit" the same way congress said pizza was a "vegetable" #ThanksObama :-P

Re:School Lunch

[Anonymous Coward]

Pizza is a vegetable was a Republican spending bill:

"On November 14th, 2011, the Associated Press[15] reported that U.S. House Republicans put forth a spending bill that would bar the USDA from changing its nutritional guidelines for school lunches, which would’ve required more green vegetables and set a higher qualification for tomato paste to be counted as vegetables from 2 tablespoons to a a half-cup. The article also revealed that part of the spending bill would protect the status of tomato paste on pizza as a vegetable at the request of food companies supplying the nation’s school cafeterias."

source: http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/events/pizza-is-a-vegetable

Re:School Lunch

[halivar]

In other words, Republicans were protecting the sacred, time-honored tradition of shitty cafeteria pizza. You can have my cardboard pizza when you pry it from my cold, dead hands.

Re:School Lunch

[codeAlDente]

I'm with you dude. Refined sugar is a drug and schools are the pushers. My kids school hands out sugary crap like candy, but they'd be pissed if I showed up and passed out similarly harmful drugs.

Re:School Lunch

[CastrTroy]

I don't understand why school cafeterias are so pervasive in the united states. In Canada, none of the primary schools (grades K-8) even have cafeterias in them. Parents make a lunch and send it with their kids. In highschools, there's usually cafeterias, but most students I know will still bring their own lunch as it's usually cheaper, tastes better, and is also more healthy.

Re:School Lunch

[packrat0x]

American schools require a cafeteria in order to qualify for Federal funding. Never mind that 80-90% or more of American school funding is from state, county, parrish, and/or city taxes. And NEVER ask how much it costs to comply with this and other federal rules.
     

Re:School Lunch

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, liberals really are that angry, stupid and unfunny.

Re:School Lunch

[Anonymous Coward]

In highschools, there's usually cafeterias, but most students I know will still bring their own lunch as it's usually cheaper, tastes better, and is also more healthy.

Don't the kids have the option of temporarily leaving the school during the lunch hour if their homes are nearby? That's the case in England.

Re:School Lunch

[operagost]

In the USA, we have entire classes of foods banned from schools because some of the kids are allergic to them.

We also have parents who can't be bothered to feed their children, so our schools have to make and serve them breakfast and even dinner too-- forget about packing a lunch when they don't even have any food at home. We have SNAP, but they still can't seem to provide three squares. Maybe these people are eating all the food themselves and sending the kids out to dig in the trash.

I'm glad you can make it work up there. Frankly, I'm stunned.

Re:School Lunch

[Anonymous Coward]

You seem extremely confused. The angry, stupid, unfunny people self-identify as members of the Conservative cult. Even their "comics" aren't funny.

Re:School Lunch

[fredgiblet]

In America if their homes are nearby it's usually allowed, but because of urban sprawl it's fairly uncommon as well.

Re:School Lunch

[fredgiblet]

There's a lot of kids who get most of their calories from their schools because their families are poor and they use the cafeteria (with a reduced cost lunch plan) to feed them. Also there's a fair amount of laziness and/or overwork as well. I personally took lunch to school usually though.

Re:School Lunch

[Kohath]

No.

Re:School Lunch

[Anonymous Coward]

The angry, stupid, unfunny people self-identify as members of the Conservative cult. Even their "comics" aren't funny.

I dunno, The Donald is giving me immeasurable quantities of free entertainment right now.

The punch line will be when he says or does something so utterly stupid and repugnant, his poll numbers go over a cliff and he drops out.

Re:School Lunch

[Lumpy]

Mostly because we are lazy fucks down here in the USA.

Re:School Lunch

[Anonymous Coward]

Or if you turned up and started handing out candy to kids...

What about adults?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is the resultant benefit the same/increased/reduced?

Let me get this straight:

[kheldan]

We're now not supposed to eat meat of any kind, or sugar, or alcohol, avoid carbs, avoid fat.. would someone like to point out some peer-reviewed University studies that show that drinking water will actually kill you? Then we can all be totally healthy and just kill ourselves in 3 days from dehydration, rather than having to wait out the several months it takes to die of starvation.

Re:Let me get this straight:

[swb]

The risks of dihydrogen monoxide are pretty well publicized.

http://www.dhmo.org/

Re:Let me get this straight:

[truck_soccer]

not supposed to eat meat of any kind, or sugar, or alcohol, avoid carbs, avoid fat.

Correct. We are not supposed to eat. That would be insensitive to those with an osmotic metabolism.

Re:Let me get this straight:

[mspohr]

Actually, just don't eat meat or sugar.
This study substituted starchy carbs for sugar to show the beneficial effects of eliminating sugar.
Fat is OK... just not animal fat... vegetable fat is fine.

Re:Let me get this straight:

[SirSlud]

We're now not supposed to eat meat of any kind

If you want to misrepresent what was said, that's your prerogative. The WHO didn't recommend not eating meat, only not to eat processed/smoked meats, and to limit red meat. As usual, the concept of moderation goes *woosh* over people's heads as they furiously go about constructing their strawmen ..

Re:Let me get this straight:

[kyubre]

Or anything offensive to Islam, unless you've had sex with it first.

Re:Let me get this straight:

[freeze128]

I live with the belief that alcohol beats fat, so it's OK to have a beer with your burger.

Re:Let me get this straight:

[Faust6]

Another case of throwing our hands up in the air over lazy misrepresentation of the consensus today. No, "everything" is not bad for you. Published research is not prescriptive - no reputable source states we ought not consume ANY level of sugar to be healthy, nor alcohol. It's possible to be healthy by choosing a diet lower in carbs OR fat, and it's widely thought essential to include both in our diets. To say nothing of the fact that not all carbohydrates and fats are created equal.

Re:Let me get this straight:

[jedidiah]

What you are describing is not "moderation", especially the part that includes "not to eat".

Re:Let me get this straight:

[PuckSR]

I get it. All of this is confusing.
How about we don't get caught up in food trends?

The link between processed meat and cancer has been known for almost 100 years. One of the first two things the FDA did was regulate nitrates in sausage and ban sarsaparilla. We can be pretty confident that both of those things will kill you.
Alcohol? We banned that for nearly a decade because of rampant alcohol abuse and death.

Sugar? Fat? Red Meat? Who knows at this point. Don't worry about it too much.

Re:Let me get this straight:

[internerdj]

I heard a segment on America's Test Kitchen who presented a general summary of his research that essentially said that the people with the longest lifespan tend to have the lowest lifetime caloric intake. He noted clearly there is a cut off point to the benefits of eating less, but eating less of everything over a lifetime is indeed a positive as long as you aren't starving your cells of what they need. At this point, I've forgotten the author, so you can take it with a grain of salt if you don't mind risking your heart health with an increase in your sodium intake...

Re:Let me get this straight:

[bmxeroh]

But those are the best meats!

Re:Let me get this straight:

[moeinvt]

"Fat is OK... just not animal fat... vegetable fat is fine."

Completely backwards. Homo Sapiens evolved on a diet containing animal fat. The vegetable oils and especially the hydrogenated vegetable oils are heavily processed and totally unnatural. Factors such as shelf life, not human health drove the development of these substances. The fats that you actually find in nature such as animal fats and unsaturated fats from various seeds and nuts are much healthier than the processed stuff.

Re:Let me get this straight:

[operagost]

Except for the trans fats... oh dear. We ate those because someone said lard was bad. And we ate palm oil, because it wasn't animal fat, but it's saturated fat. Oh dear. Wait, saturated fats aren't actually that bad now, are they?

There's a reason people are frustrated. Stop ridiculing them.

Re:Let me get this straight:

[Thelasko]

As usual, the concept of moderation goes *woosh* over people's heads as they furiously go about constructing their strawmen.

Except these stories never seem to focus on moderation. They focus on "cutting". You can't cut everything, you will starve. However, it seems our society has rejected moderation as something viable.

My personal opinion is, eating will kill you. Not eating will kill you faster. We're all going to die at some point. Eat just enough of whatever you want so you don't starve. Don't eat more than that.

Re:Let me get this straight:

[Thelasko]

I heard a segment on America's Test Kitchen who presented a general summary of his research that essentially said that the people with the longest lifespan tend to have the lowest lifetime caloric intake. He noted clearly there is a cut off point to the benefits of eating less, but eating less of everything over a lifetime is indeed a positive as long as you aren't starving your cells of what they need. At this point, I've forgotten the author, so you can take it with a grain of salt if you don't mind risking your heart health with an increase in your sodium intake...

This is the most sensible, and rational thought on nutrition I have ever heard. It's basically what I said above. Eat just enough of whatever you want to keep you alive, and nothing more.

Re:Let me get this straight:

[fredgiblet]

100% of people who have died have consumed water at some point in their lives.

Re:Let me get this straight:

[Anonymous Coward]

Homo Sapiens evolved on a diet containing raw animal fat.
 
Get back to eating it up, bitch. If you cook it then you're a lying hypocrite.
 
Oh, and when I say raw meat I don't just mean the cocks you're use to sucking. You dirty bird faggot.

Re:Let me get this straight:

[Thelasko]

"The observation that laboratory rats not only live longer but also have fewer age-associated diseases when their food intake is restricted dates back to the 1930s."

Re:Let me get this straight:

[serviscope_minor]

The vegetable oils and especially the hydrogenated vegetable oils are heavily processed and totally unnatural.

No that's silly. Plain vegtable oil is entirely natural and unprocessed and exists to a greater ot lesser extent in a lot of vegetables, especially seeds. Lumping plain vegetable oil and hydrogenated vegetable oil together as "unnatural" is completely nonsensical.

Re:Let me get this straight:

[vovin]

Excessive sodium is completely harmless, provided it comes with the requisite fluids.
Too little sodium is however quite deadly. Only control for sodium if you are in fact suffering from hyper tension. Otherwise err on the side of more rather than less sodium in your diet.

Re:Let me get this straight:

[JMZero]

This actually doesn't hold as well for humans as it does for mice - overall, humans tend to live longer if they're moderately overweight. This - http://healthland.time.com/201... - is kind of a fluffy article, but it's a good summary of the research.

Nothing in diet/health is simple (despite 95% of the comments in this thread saying that "it's obviously X").

Re:Let me get this straight:

[vovin]

I know, allergies right?

Re:Let me get this straight:

[Anonymous Coward]

Homo sapiens also evolved to be dead at 30, long before such things become a problem.

Re:Let me get this straight:

[JoeMerchant]

Water kills:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:Let me get this straight:

[phantomfive]

Lumping plain vegetable oil and hydrogenated vegetable oil together as "unnatural" is completely nonsensical.

As is judging food quality based on whether it is natural or not.

Re:Let me get this straight:

[fahrbot-bot]

We're now not supposed to eat meat of any kind, or sugar, or alcohol, avoid carbs, avoid fat.. would someone like to point out some peer-reviewed University studies that show that drinking water will actually kill you? Then we can all be totally healthy and just kill ourselves in 3 days from dehydration, rather than having to wait out the several months it takes to die of starvation.

Okay, so you're going to freak out about *this*: Breathing causes death. Proof? 100% of all dead people were habitual breathers.

Re:Let me get this straight:

[fahrbot-bot]

The vegetable oils and especially the hydrogenated vegetable oils are heavily processed and totally unnatural.

No that's silly. Plain vegtable oil is entirely natural and unprocessed and exists to a greater ot lesser extent in a lot of vegetables, especially seeds. Lumping plain vegetable oil and hydrogenated vegetable oil together as "unnatural" is completely nonsensical.

Define natural and "unprocessed". Not all are processed as simply as you think. Take Soybeans for example:

(1) The soybeans are first cleaned, dried and dehulled prior to oil extraction.
(2) The soybeans are also heated to about 75C to coagulate the soy proteins to make the oil extraction easier.
(3) The soybeans are cut in flakes which are put in a percolation extractors and immersed with a solvent, normally hexane.
(4) The hexane is separated from the soybean oil in evaporators. The evaporated hexane is recovered and returned to the extraction process.
(5) The hexane free crude soybean oil is then further purified.

(6) The crude soybean oil still contains many oil-insoluble and oil-soluble impurities that needs to be removed. The oil-insoluble material are removed with filtration and the soluble materials is removed with different processes including degumming (removing of phosphatides), alkali refining (washing with alkaline solution to remove free fatty acids, colorants, insoluble matter and gums) and bleaching (with activated earth or activated carbon to remove colour and other impurities.

Re:Let me get this straight:

[kheldan]

I'm actually mocking the whole stupid thing because none of this is going to change anything. People like and eat meat, people like and eat sweet things. People who want to be healthier and people who don't give a damn will act accordingly, regardless of what anyone says; nobody is getting scared into or out of anything. It's all just a rediculous waste of time.

Re:Let me get this straight:

[radarskiy]

On the other hand, the only way to lose weight is through your lungs.

Re: Let me get this straight:

[ljw1004]

Or:

1) the olives are stuck in a barrel and squished

2) there is no step 2

Re:Let me get this straight:

[Anonymous Coward]

Too little sodium is however quite deadly.

I guess it's a good thing that almost no one in the western world gets too little sodium in their diet, eh? Seriously, do you know of anyone who is suffering from having too little sodium in their diet? Anyone?

Only control for sodium if you are in fact suffering from hyper tension. Otherwise err on the side of more rather than less sodium in your diet.

Actually, most westerners err quite a bit on the side of too much sodium. It is so bad in fact that we have an epidemic of hypertension in the West. If most of us were to switch the numbers on our sodium and potassium intake, we could make a pretty serious dent in the hypertension epidemic. But that is easier said than done. Just about any processed food has sodium added to it. Breads, cereals, canned veggies; almost anything in the stores with a wrapper around it has sodium added to it. And the amounts of sodium added to foods is actually going up at an alarming rate. A couple of decades ago, anything with more than ~20% of the US RDA of sodium was considered hideously excessive. Today, it is actually getting harder and harder to find any of those prepared frozen dinners with anything less than 40% of the US RDA of sodium. If I didn't know any better I would think that food manufacturers were actually trying to kill us!

Re:Let me get this straight:

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm actually mocking the whole stupid thing because none of this is going to change anything. People like and eat meat, people like and eat sweet things. People who want to be healthier and people who don't give a damn will act accordingly, regardless of what anyone says; nobody is getting scared into or out of anything. It's all just a rediculous waste of time.

While I agree with you up to a point, I think the salient point is that WHO is bringing this to public attention so that consumers can make informed decisions. No one is saying you are no longer allowed to eat bacon, sausages, or red meat. They have merely pointed out the health consequences of your dietary choices. Why should anyone object to giving the public basic knowledge about diet and health so they can make more informed decisions? I personally don't think that being a better informed consumer is a waste of my time. I guess YMMV.

Re:Let me get this straight:

[Anonymous Coward]

They didn't even do that. They recommended you reduce the intake. It causes cancer, but the overall risk increase is very, very small. It increases the risk of bowel cancer from 5% to 6% over a lifetime.

Re:Let me get this straight:

[Brulath]

However most vegetable oils are high in omega-6, which is correlated with arthritis amongst the usual crowd: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omega-6_fatty_acid#Suggested_negative_health_effects. It's used in pro-inflammatory immune responses, which are useful, but when consumed in excess (relative to omega-3, which is pretty hard to get given the 30:1 ratio most people apparently eat) it seems like it might not be so useful. Humans certainly didn't evolve with the ability to digest massive quantities of seed oil unimpeded by the fibrous seed itself. It looks like saturated fats and olive oil are still better for you, just for different reasons.

Re:Let me get this straight:

[turp182]

This story was exactly about moderation, getting sugar down to 10% of caloric intake (about a third of what it was before).

Re:Let me get this straight:

[thegarbz]

Yet plain vegtable oil is one of the least consumed oils out there. For a while the most popular oils were those passed over a palladium catalyst in the presence of pure hydrogen at pressure. It makes fats spreadable, it makes oil decomposition take place at a higher temperature and best of all it doesn't go off so you can run your big deep fryer over and over again until you can't see to the bottom anymore.

It's the American way.

Re:Let me get this straight:

[Anonymous Coward]

As long as you understand that you're trashing your liver and cutting years off of your life, go ahead!

Re:Let me get this straight:

[kheldan]

While I agree with you up to a point, I think the salient point is that WHO is bringing this to public attention so that consumers can make informed decisions

I think you're giving the average consumer way too much credit for their level of intelligence and education in thinking that they can actually make an 'informed decision' about anything like this; what passes for an 'informed decision' in their case amounts to 'asking someone they think is credible (whether they are or not) and blindly accepting what they're told', without any cross-checking or independent research. Yes, I'm cynical as hell, what's your point?

No one is saying you are no longer allowed to eat bacon, sausages, or red meat.

I never said anyone was preventing me

They have merely pointed out the allegedhealth consequences of your dietary choices.

There, fixed that for you. There is a completely rational agenda the U.N., and by extension the W.H.O., have for promoting vegetarianism, they're overstating the so-called 'health risks' of eating meat in the first place, and I'm not accepting any of it, and before you say it: you have to read their website, it goes out of it's way to promote vegetarianism by attempting to debunk every question someone might have about why not eating meat will actually damage your health in the long run, and it's all the same arguments you hear from any zealous vegetarian, naturally sans any of the actual problems you'd have trying to get enough high-quality protein without getting too many carbs and too much fiber, every day.

Why should anyone object to giving the public basic knowledge about diet and health so they can make more informed decisions?

There you go assuming the average jackoff can make 'informed decisions', silly you.

I personally don't think that being a better informed consumer is a waste of my time.

..and there you go, assuming that YOU can make an 'informed decision', when it's apparent you're swallowing what the W.H.O. saying, hook, line, and sinker. My analysis of you, based on just your comments here? You're either a troll, or you're very, very average, and as such are not qualified to make pronouncements on this subject, or to make 'informed decisions' about your own dietary choices and health in general.

Re:Let me get this straight:

[cfalcon]

That's a fallacy. Life expectancy for a newborn was 30, but that's because the odds of reaching childhood were way worse than today. You weren't an old man at 30- you just had some dead siblings who didn't make it to 4.

Re: Let me get this straight:

[K10W]

Or:

1) the olives are stuck in a barrel and squished

2) there is no step 2

some natural oils are processed. With olives that depends on grades as some is pressed such as EVO, some is chemically washed from pressed pulp with all the oil that could be recovered mechanically removed. Processing of other oils differ but some is mere clarification which doesn't affect the productr a lot, just clear oil sells better as people assume cloudy stuff is bad.

Re:Let me get this straight:

[Faust6]

It's a rather shallow, short-sighted way of looking at it, but stick to your convictions if you like.

Re:Let me get this straight:

[Anonymous Coward]

And a vodka with your lard. Stronger fat, stronger alcohol.

Re:Let me get this straight:

[bingoUV]

Ok, so you probably haven't read TFA or TFS. This particular /. story is not about someone telling others about the dangers of meat. It is almost the opposite.

You are welcome. Save your "W. H. O. is promoting vegetarianism" posts for some other day.

Re:Let me get this straight:

[bingoUV]

One lung at a time?

Relevant PSA:

[truck_soccer]

Don't eat the food!

We've already known this for over 40 years.

[Anonymous Coward]

For over a decade now, Dr. Eades clinic has done years of diet research with their patients and have been able to reduce and even eliminate in many cases Type II diabetes with mere diet change. (tl;dr; paleo-ish). They've done bloodwork on thousands of patients and have shown that in as little as two weeks and even sometimes less, switching to their recommended diet allowed nearly all blood markers to return to within normal, healthy ranges, including cholesterol.

Yudkin's book "Pure, White, and Deadly" was published in 1972 advising from the then already-currently-known-studies how dangerous sugar was in the human diet--and this was *before* sugar consumption in the West increased 5-10-fold, and before the advent of the even-worse HFCS experiment on the entire population began.

The body is a remarkably self-regulating and healing machine. It's amazing we can survive for as long as we do with continued toxin intake (and even the chronic effects for the vast majority are manageable)--and yet not surprising to me in the least that the body can return itself to a much healthier state so quickly after the toxins cease to be ingested. Our bodies want, really badly, to regulate into a healthy state.

Getting people to understand that our modern diet consists of slowly poisoning ourselves is the real battle to fight.

Re:We've already known this for over 40 years.

[vovin]

The news here isn't that it is a new revelation which it is not. The news here is that this is mainstream media publicity. It means that something will be done. Of course the first thing something will be the sugar lobby maligning the study and spinning it every direction. If the sugar lobby is successful this will be forgotten and never brought up again. If the sugar lobby fails then several things may happen. Such as public support for sugar subsidies could finally fall. Processed foods could reduce sugar (from the 'bliss point') and/or FDA regulation adding sugar content to the existing packaging nutritional details.

Sugar control - register/tax/control

[cheap.computer]

it is likely after this report the govt will find ways to impose heavy penalty and taxes on sugar cane growers, require them to register their crop, confiscate sweeter variety of sugar cane and limit the number of acres they can cultivate on... or may be this is aimed at destroying economies of sugar exporting countries like Brazil, Thailand, Cuba etc...

Re:Sugar control - register/tax/control

[swb]

Actually, an excise tax on sugar makes a ton of sense.

As someone who has done a LCHF diet (and lost a lot of weight with it), it's astonishing how many foods you wouldn't assume have sugar in them in fact have sugar in them. Their makers add sugar because it's a cheap way to jack up flavor or replace fat (which would have provided flavor).

Making sugar more expensive at the producer/wholesale level would make these products more expensive and food producers would have to find another way to get the benefits they're looking for and possibly even remove it completely.

The challenges would be making sure that it didn't JUST target basic sugar from beets or cane, but encompassed the whole range of sugar-like sweeteners, from HFCS to some of the refined fruit juices used for their fructose content.

The other challenge would be the scores of agricultural lobbies, from the powerful sugar grower's lobby to the various fruit production lobbies who sell their crops for use as sweeteners or juice. The orange growers already have an exemption from alcohol excise taxes -- their low-value juice gets turned into a cheap alcohol called "blend" which is used in low cost liquor (part of the reason its low cost is that grain alcohol has a higher excise tax).

Re: Sugar control - register/tax/control

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit! Florida has major corporations growing sugar cane in America! Read up on the destruction of the Everglades by sugar agriculture. Taxes won't be imposed, ever! Or maybe long after we're dead. Don't forget who runs the Corporate States of America!

Re:Sugar control - register/tax/control

[fredgiblet]

I don't think the sugar grower's lobby is very strong in America. If it was we wouldn't have HFCS at all.

Re:Sugar control - register/tax/control

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303678404579533760760481486

http://www.conspiracyclub.co/2015/03/05/lustig-sugar-1972-supression/

Re:Sugar control - register/tax/control

[Anonymous Coward]

No, they are the reason why we have HFCS. They support the tariffs on imported sugar, which makes regular sugar more expensive than it should be. HFCS took the place of a "low cost" sweetener for price sensitive products because of the high cost of sugar. Helll, the sugar lobby is why we didn't annex Cuba and make it a state after the Spanish American War.

Thanks for the Diabetes.

[Anonymous Coward]

Can confirm. Have dropped 90 percent of sugar & carbohydrates (Grains, Rice, Potatoes) from my diet, as a result of having been diagnosed with Type II Diabetes. Too late to recover Pancreas, however attendant diseases (Eye damage, kidney damage, Gout & arthritis are no longer giving me grief. I am down to one cold or less per Canadian winter, and my weight drops about a kg (2.2 lb) per month. Almost down to normal BMI.

Yes, it is also a genetic predisposition, but if I had known what not to eat 40 years ago, I might still have a pancreas.

Time to revise the food guide. Grain & Cane are not food for people.

Re:Thanks for the Diabetes.

[zmender]

Grain & Cane are not food for people.

There are about 15 starchy plants that provides about 90% of all caloric intakes for human around the world. Perhaps if you didn't abuse the caloric consumption, you would not have had the problem today. Besides, what is your food intake like now? Do you think it's feasible to push your diet to the population around the world?

Perhaps, instead of blaming grains, sugars, and carbohydrates, you should look at your own overconsumption / under exercise as the key culprit as a cause for the variety of problems you are facing. I can point out so many cultures that primarily consumes a grain-based staple diet with long expectancy. I challenge you to provide me with example of a culture / subculture that lives to above-average life expectancy with low health problem that is heavily based on a meat-based diet.

Re:Thanks for the Diabetes.

[hey!]

I can point out so many cultures that primarily consumes a grain-based staple diet with long expectancy. I challenge you to provide me with example of a culture / subculture that lives to above-average life expectancy with low health problem that is heavily based on a meat-based diet.

Denmark has the highest meat consumption rate in the world -- some 17% higher per capita than the US -- and has a life expectancy at birth of 80 years which puts it in the top quintile. New Zealanders are the second biggest carnivores in the world, eating only 3 kg per capita less meat than Danes, and boast a life expectancy of 83 years. But of course they're both very wealthy countries (thus the high meat consumption) with socialized medicine.

No the problem with the obesity epidemic in the US isn't carbs per se or meat. I think it's time. Americans eat rushed; we eat while multitasking; and vendors offer prepared convenience foods which fit that lifestyle. These foods are usually calorie dense; if not they are engineered for easy, mindless eating which defeats any claims for low calories per serving. It's very easy for an American to eat as thousand calories at a sitting while being scarcely aware he's consumed anything at all.

Your experiences may vary from mine, but I found my answer to weight gain, diabetes and arthritis by simply slowing down. I set a timer for fifteen minutes to half an hour depending on the meal size, and make the meal last that long. The result is I experience natural satiety before I've snarfed down thousands of calories. It's by far the easiest and most effective weight loss / blood sugar control strategy I've ever tried.

Of course when you're eating much less, it pays to think a bit more about what it is you're eating. I try to have some meat for protein, some veg for fiber and minerals, and enough carbs I don't feel tired, plus essential fats from either fish or plant sources, but it's not a problem if I go over or under on some category on one day. I find how I feel is a function of several days of eating exercise and rest.

Re:Thanks for the Diabetes.

[stongef]

Statistics are interesting, but they don't tell the whole story. Long life expectancy is nice, but we need data on the quality of life in the later years. Some interesting data about this can be found in The Blue Zones book, about the special areas where people live the longest, and healthiest. For me, the second thing to look for in a diet after health is sustainability. The Danes or the New Zealanders' diet might work now, but will be unsustainable for a planet with 11 billion humans on it. The oceans are getting empty fast, we are currently running out of land to feed all the animals we eat, the climate situation is dire and raising animals accounts for 17% to 50% of all greenhouse gas emissions, depending on who you listen to. The movie Cowspiracy is an interesting point of view on the subject ...

Re:Thanks for the Diabetes.

[Anonymous Coward]

There's no scientific evidence that all meat is bad. It's an ideology. I can understand going vegetarian/vegan for ethical or ecological reasons, but the health argument is bunk.

For reducing energy intake, when you feel hungry, drink water and eat a salad first. You could as well eat toilet paper instead of lettuce (similar nutrient content), the point is to fill your stomach.

Re:Thanks for the Diabetes.

[Sardaukar86]

I set a timer for fifteen minutes to half an hour depending on the meal size, and make the meal last that long. The result is I experience natural satiety before I've snarfed down thousands of calories. It's by far the easiest and most effective weight loss / blood sugar control strategy I've ever tried.

I think this is an important point that is often overlooked in these discussions. In my limited experience, obese and overweight people almost universally swill down their food very quickly. This nicely defeats the body's satiation mechanism as you describe.

Why doesn't the media vet these studies

[Anonymous Coward]

I already know the answer to the question, but still it would be nice for the media to maybe have a, I dunno, scientist in the related field actually examine the study to see how thorough it is in reaching its conclusion. I'm not a scientist, but having read the Methodology section, it appears that the group tested were Latino and African American youths that were "identified as high habitual sugar consumers (>15% sugar and >5% fructose)." At the beginning they tested to establish baseline weight, glucose levels, blood pressure, etc., and then were given planned meals for 9 days. On the 10th day, they were tested again, and, lo and behold, their readings were dramatically improved! To me, the reported conclusion in Time and other media seems to suggest that sugar = bad for everybody, when the actual study seems to conclude that if your diet is habitually high in sugar and you cut back, you'll see health improvements. Of course, I'm not a writer for Time or any other media, so what the hell do I know?

Re:Why doesn't the media vet these studies

[desdinova 216]

Two reasons:

1. research and fact checking costs money.
2. Fear sells. note. these are in no particular order.

Wow

[tomhath]

They must be *really* fat if they're taking up both 2nd and 3rd place.

Re:Wow

[truck_soccer]

The 2 plane tickets for 1 person kind of fat.

Eliminating sugar makes you angry

[trout007]

I gave up sugar and I became very angry as I went through what can only be described as withdrawal symptoms. Eventually I started eating again after a few months. I noticed almost everything we eat is super sweet. Fruit tastes like candy and soda was not palatable. Health benefits was everything mentioned except LDL which stayed high. Still a fun experiment.

Re:Eliminating sugar makes you angry

[Anonymous Coward]

Had a similar, but not too similar experience when dropping sugar.

I aimed for 28 days without carbs unless I was working out, but only made it 17 before I couldn't handle it anymore. I was not lethargic or moody or angry, though it pissed me off when at lunch I was eating home-cooked chicken (no seasoning, yumm) and I could smell pizza being brought into the building over 100 feet away. It was so overwhelming I could name the toppings without looking. I'm not talking whole pizza's either, nobody else could smell it, but I was smelling individual slices. I can't tell you how sweet and pungent breakfast pastries smelled, it was like inhaling sugar.

Another odd side effect is when you run out of fat to use for fuel you start metabolizing protein and instantly start sweating due to the energy demand. While you're metabolizing fats it's not terrible, kind of like "is it hot in here?". Once you flip to protein it's like having a fever without feeling sick, not comfortable, but pretty miserable and a little worrisome since it feels like a fever.

Later on I actually made it two months with this goal using planned cheat meals (4x a week) to get around the issue of smelling everything and torturing myself. Prior to the diet I had been a Coca-Cola lover, afterwards it (to this day, 6 years later) tastes like some chemical liquid concoction that is not meant to be consumed. I can only drink Dr. Pepper, 7up/sprite/sierra mist, any kind of orange soda and root beer, with the latter being borderline too sweet.

I dropped 40 lbs in 60 days.

Re:Eliminating sugar makes you angry

[Anonymous Coward]

Wanted to add, I had blood work done halfway through the 2 month diet to make sure I wasn't really screwing up my system. The Doctor took one look at the results and asked "Are you a vegetarian?"

My diet was literally Oatmeal, Bacon, Eggs, Chicken, Tri-Tip and Salmon except cheats which were usually pepperoni pizza(my fave) and soda.

Seriously.

Re:Eliminating sugar makes you angry

[Anonymous Coward]

It is definitely addictive. You can quit it for months, then have just one cupcake at a birthday party and end up on a week-long sugar-eating binge, after which you find you've somehow gained 20 pounds in just one week. Like most addictive things, you can't just cut back on it. If you don't quit entirely, you won't quit at all.

To anyone considering eliminating sugar from their diet, I recommend obtaining a lot of diet soda. Using diet soda I've managed to avoid sugar for 10 months. Lost 30 pounds over the first six months despite no other dietary restrictions. Ceased to lose weight after that for unknown reasons, despite still having another 30 to go before I reach a normal weight, but I haven't regained any weight either, so still a positive change in my view. Can't seem to break the addiction to the diet soda either, but at least it isn't trying to kill me.

Re:Eliminating sugar makes you angry

[Anonymous Coward]

You can quit it for months, then have just one cupcake at a birthday party and end up on a week-long sugar-eating binge, after which you find you've somehow gained 20 pounds in just one week

20 pounds is 70,000 calories... that's a lot of cupcakes in a week!

Re:Eliminating sugar makes you angry

[trout007]

I switched to coffee and heavy cream.

Ketogenic diet works also

[doomer]

Yep. Only I went on a ketogenic diet (similar but very few carbs) and saw an immediate impact on my blood glucose (80s, no spikes). Excess carbs (including sugar) are likely responsible for the epidemic of metabolic diseases we are seeing. That includes obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and some cancers. See Taubes' "Good Calories, Bad Calories" for the ugly details.

Define Sugar...

[Thelasko]

carbohydrates? glucose? fructose? galactose? sucrose? maltose? lactose?

If you cut them all, what would you eat? Meat causes cancer. Where would you get the calories necessary to survive?

Seems to me we have spent thousands of years to come to the same conclusions as the ancient Greeks. "Nothing to Excess."

Re:Define Sugar...

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed. What needs to be cut is processed foods with sugar added which is usually sucrose or high fructose corn syrup. Whole fruit and whole grains without those added sugars are good for you and cutting out non-processed carbohydrates is just dumb.

American is fat because of things like there being two version of apple sauce at my grocery store with the exact same labeling except one says No Sugar Added. Moreover, the packaging makes it seem that the no sugar added is the special version and it is lower on the shelf and has less shelf space. It is just apples and maybe vitamin C as preservative. While the default version I see countless mom's buying for their kids is nearly the identical product and packaging without "No Sugar Added" on the front because it has a few grams of cane sugar added per serving.

Come on people wake up, it is your stupid choices that got us into this mess. Start educating yourself and making the right choices. No, that hungry man dinner for $4 that you can microwave and touts it is 2lbs of food, is not a good idea while you sit sedentary in front of the TV for another night. Go for a fucking walk, talk to you neighbors, leave your gun at home and eat your broccoli.

Re:Define Sugar...

[Anonymous Coward]

I know it's hard, but you could read the full article:

Isocaloric fructose restriction and metabolic improvement in children with obesity and metabolic syndrome

Dietary fructose is implicated in metabolic syndrome, but intervention studies are confounded by positive caloric balance, changes in adiposity, or artifactually high amounts. This study determined whether isocaloric substitution of starch for sugar would improve metabolic parameters in Latino (n=27) and African-American (n=16) children with obesity and metabolic syndrome.

Dr. Lustig has been campaigning against fructose for years.

Re:Define Sugar...

[thinkwaitfast]

Am I the only person left who doesn't eat processed foods? And never really has. Buying processed food is expensive.

Re:Define Sugar...

[david_thornley]

Never trust "no sugar added" or other similar phrases on labels. The nutritional label required in the US lists the number of grams of sugar per serving, and tells you the number of servings in the package. You can rely on that.

Re:Define Sugar...

[Anonymous Coward]

Define excess.

I think a reasonable definition of cutting sugar is, not added, not in the first 4 or 5 ingredients. No fruit juice either; the main difference between HFCS and filtered apple juice is the flavor.

Re:Define Sugar...

[Anonymous Coward]

Define meat. You can't summarize "processed and red meat could cause cancer" with "meat causes cancer".

Eat less sugar, be more healthy

[roc97007]

Film at eleven.

What's remarkable is that we actually need to be told this.

cutting sugar

[Anonymous Coward]

I made a real effort this past summer to cut out sugar. For about three weeks I wasn't taking in white sugar. I was still eating some carbs like white flour but much reduced. I wasn't eating canned or premade grocery store food. My intake consisted of eggs from our chickens, beef (hamburgers mostly), chicken (although fried with white flour), popcorn (no white flour crackers and no candy of course) and protein shakes that had 1 or 2g of carbs per. (sugar...)

I even stopped drinking diet pop and went with water instead. (I want to drop caffeine...)

The first thing you notice is you're hardly hungry. Although this time (second time in the last 10 years or so) I felt much more sick than I did the first time. I was pretty miserable. And so part of it is you're too sick to eat. haha.

I started feeling better and eating food.

It was clear to me that I felt a lot better...

Unfortunately, sugar is an addiction... and I've fallen off the wagon... I intend to try again soon. (my problem is I picked up diet soda again... and that dragged me back into all the sweets)

Small Details Matter - Consider the study group.

[pubwvj]

"reducing sugar intake in obese children"

Small Details Matter - Consider the study group. They started out with abnormal people, the obese. Sugars are a normal part of our diet. The problem is not sugars but overconsumption.

No way.

[Anonymous Coward]

I am going to die. It is a fact.

I will *NOT* socially ostracize myself by being pungent and rejecting every dish served at every popular restaurant. Normal social interaction is an important component of my psychological health and I will not sacrifice that in a misguided effort to add another decade of being old to the end of my (now) lonely life.

I will use soap so I don't stink. I will eat ordinary food like everyone else. I will have friends that want to hang out with me and do fun things with me. And...I will die happy.

Re:No way.

[nospam007]

"Normal social interaction is an important component of my psychological health and I will not sacrifice that in a misguided effort to add another decade of being old to the end of my (now) lonely life."

If 'shaking hands' is finally discovered as the single most important cause of death, you will change your perception of what 'normal social interaction' is, just like you learned to wash your hands in the bathroom.

Re:No way.

[Boronx]

You'll eventually be socially ostracized, too. In America, not only do we eat shit and call it normal food, but we don't care about old people, either.

Re:Liberals want to control what you can eat.

[desdinova 216]

I thought it was conservatives who hated anyone?

Not quite immediate

[davidwr]

This morning when I woke up I hadn't had sugar in over 8 hours.

If anything, I was feeling a bit hungry.

You missed the point

[s.petry]

The point is that for at least 3 generations we were taught that Starches and sugars were not just healthy, but necessary in larger quantities. Average people didn't just make this shit up, it was taught in schools at the insistence of Governments (which we could argue is at the behest of large corporations, but that is a different discussion).

You should try less to look like a self righteous prick and much harder to comprehend a few sentences of text.

Re: You missed the point

[ljw1004]

Who was taught to ingest sugar in large quantities?

The only ones who taught that were Coke and other ads. Not schools. Not government.

Re: You missed the point

[thegarbz]

We weren't taught to ingest large quantities of sugar, we were literally force fed it. Cut sugar out completely and you effectively can't go shopping anymore, even basics provided by a bakery or butcher now include that wonderful substance.

As for being taught bad habits, I remind you about the food triangle which literally had starchy high-carb sources of "nutrition" that the body literally converts straight to sugar as it's largest category above any greenery. Protein was found further up the chain right underneath the good old chocolate bar.

Re: You missed the point

[Faust6]

"Cut sugar out completely and you effectively can't go shopping anymore". If it comes in a box, I would believe it. Veg, meat and whole grains are clear of added sugar and plentiful, but that aside, the sugar content of a trailmix bar -- or a dab of bbq sauce, or a single cookie -- is a far-cry from a can of soda or orange juice, which ranges usually from 40g and above. If the glycemic load isn't monstrous I'd say you're in the clear.

Re: You missed the point

[thegarbz]

or a single cookie -- is a far-cry from a can of soda or orange juice

A single cookie maybe. 2 cookies, and you're eating a whole can of coke worth of sugar. You need less than half the amount of cookie to hit the same sugar as a soft drink.

A dab of bbq source, for sure. But since when is a dab of bbq sauce the only thing in your meal? Consider maybe making some Bolognese. A 35g tub of tomato concentrate paste has 3.5g sugar (same % as a bottle of coke). Typical can of tomatoes lower, only half as much sugar as coke. There's a reason for all of this too. Our brains are conditioned through all the shit we eat to associate a magic percentage of sugar with a pleasurable taste. So it's worth looking in the shops how many of the normal ingredients you see have exactly that magical 8-12% range of sugar (obviously I'm not talking about the chocolate isle here).

But we can also stay away from boxes, an Orange 9% sugar so a can of coke. Apple? 10% more than a can of coke. Vegetables fair much better but they are still around half the can of coke metric. Nuts are better still. A peanut has around 4% sugar, just don't get it in buttered form or you're drinking coke again.

Cutting sugar out of your diet may literally leave you starving. Now staying away from processed crap on the other hand is sound advice, but don't pretend zero sugar is possible while eating any kind of normal food consumed by people all over the world.

Re: You missed the point

[Anonymous Coward]

> We weren't taught to ingest large quantities of sugar, we were literally force fed it.

Yeah. I don't really remember anyone shoving sugar-laden foods in my mouth, making me chew and swallow. Maybe I've repressed the memory.

Or maybe you don't know what "literally" or "force-feeding" actually mean.

Re: You missed the point

[Anonymous Coward]

So when I was a kid, there was this thing called the food pyramid. Eat 6-11 servings of carbs a day! The new food plate thing has that reduced, but it's still like 25% of total caloric intake is in some form of carbs or another.

Re: You missed the point

[Faust6]

"Cutting sugar out of your diet may literally leave you starving... don't pretend zero sugar is possible while eating any kind of normal food consumed by people all over the world" - That's disingenuous. We both know we're talking about processed, granulated sugar. Whole foods by definition don't have added sugar. They may vary along the glycemic index with complex sugars and carbs but tend to have copious soluble or insoluble fibre. The "paleo" fad for example, if followed to the letter, effectively cuts out refined sugar completely. So yeah, it's possible. But nowhere will you see a reputable study read that we OUGHT to cut out sugar (i.e. refined sugar), just what happens when we do.
But that aside, we don't really disagree. My point in the previous comment is that it's possible to drastically reduce sugar consumption while still enjoying products with refined sugar to a modest degree. And I realize that "modest degree" is rather arbitrary but I trust people can use their own discretion. Aside from USDA guide and the like there's no accurate metric available to the public as per "ideal" levels, so the only widespread recommendation is "cutting down". Staying away from processed crap, as you say, is sound advice.

Re: You missed the point

[thegarbz]

We both know we're talking about processed, granulated sugar.

Were we? Because processed granulated sugar is not something that specified on the side of any package. And sugar free orange juice is not magically healthier than water simply because someone didn't convert it into tiny crystals first.

Actually nutritionally it would seem all sugars are treated equally in studies and research, so rather than talk about cutting sugar to zero, why not talk about minimising or designating a normal intake. Afterall our body derives energy from it and needs it to survive.

Re: You missed the point

[Faust6]

"Because processed granulated sugar is not something that specified on the side of any package" - er, it's in the ingredients list. Glucose-fructose, or just sugar. "so rather than talk about cutting sugar to zero" - you're basically having a semantic argument with yourself at this point

Re: You missed the point

[Faust6]

"Actually nutritionally it would seem all sugars are treated equally in studies and research" - red herring. The makeup of isolated sugars found within produce are not under scrutiny; one type of sugar in itself has the same overall effect on our systems as any other. It's just the fact that those extracted, most popularly from sugarcane, are a) used so generously in products, and alone as an accompanyment, as to raise overall level of consumption in individuals, and b) isolated as it is, a high-glycemic food, skyrocket blood-glucose concentration and increase chances of diabetes.

Re: You missed the point

[thegarbz]

I won't argue with that. But until people realise that substituting 1L of coke with 1L of Apple juice with "no added sugar but with extra vitamin A" is not exactly a perfectly sound health choice I'm calling it like it is.

There is sugar in everything and we should absolutely be reducing our intake. But I will smack anyone who will buy something with no added sugar and then claim they are living a sugar free lifestyle.

Re:Small Details Matter - Consider the study group

[vovin]

Selecting only for sugar, regardless of calorie intake, makes for a massive shift in health indicators.

Humans simply have not evolved to handle the amount of sugar that is available in our diets today. Modern diets and processed foods, even honey and fresh juices, just have far more bio-available sugars that can be metabolized for an extended period of time. Add fat to the sugar it because a deadly combo so controlling for fat will extend the amount of time you can maintain a high sugar diet. Kill the sugar and you can basically have all the fat you want because you body will go back to burning it for energy.

B...b...but! It's not right to fat shame!

[Anonymous Coward]

B..b..b..but! It's not right to fat shame! All bodies are beautiful! Health at every size! All men should be attracted to fat women! Curvy Girls Rock! In fact, saying anything against obesity gets you kicked off reddit!

wow is this a general health Magazine or....

[Anonymous Coward]

I though this was /.

did I stumble into "health & Nature", "national Geographic?"
Oh wait,,
D H I
* e *
* a *
* d *
* s *

Im sorry, I just plum forgot..

Re:Liberals want to control what you can eat.

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously. You have +2 and AC has -1.

Too many benefits to name

[mcrbids]

I've been dealing with metabolic syndrome for years, and so far, my blood sugar remains in normal range, weight, cholesterol, etc. is normal, though I do still take some pills to reduce hypertension. I started with The Diabetes Diet by Dr. Bernstein which laid out the relationship between sugar, blood sugar, and diabetes decades ago. Bernstein is literally the guy who changed the treatment of diabetes in the 1970s and at least doubled the life expectancy of diabetics.

If I keep my diet to simple meats and vegetables, I feel far better, sustaining much higher energy and work performance levels, even as my blood sugars stay down (A1C of 6.0) and "all the numbers get better".

Starch, simple sugars and saturated fats are just death. Just stay away. Granted, that means that you can't eat at least half of what the grocery store sells, but are those deep fried starch crackers really all that great?

...And?

[ElectricHellKnight]

I'm sure this has been said before, but I'm not going to read through 200+ comments before I post. Anyway...

Who gives a shit? Seriously? I'm sick of all these "health studies" anyway. If eating this or that shaves ten seconds off your lifespan, does it really matter? Here's the news for all of you out there on your fad diets telling everyone else that they shouldn't consume sugar, meat, caffeine, dairy, or whatever the latest "evil" ingredient is: You're going to die anyway. Sorry, but all the healthy eating in the world won't keep you alive forever. When your number comes up, it's over. I know death is a scary thing, especially when you don't believe in an afterlife, and I know that deep down most of you are probably scared shitless and wish to delay the inevitable as long as you possibly can. Good for you.

But for the rest of us, we don't feel like living to 120 and spending the last decades of our lives pissing in our beds and being a burden on everyone around us. I'd rather not live a "perfect" lifestyle, enjoy some greasy-sugary-caffeinated-salted foods (everything in moderation), and not constantly be worried that everything I put in my stomach is going to kill me.

Re:...And?

[Anonymous Coward]

But for the rest of us, we don't feel like living to 120 and spending the last decades of our lives pissing in our beds and being a burden on everyone around us. I'd rather not live a "perfect" lifestyle, enjoy some greasy-sugary-caffeinated-salted foods (everything in moderation), and not constantly be worried that everything I put in my stomach is going to kill me.

Which is absolutely your right. Meanwhile, (most of?) the rest of us want to make informed decisions about diet and exercise. So, go ahead and deconstruct the science or methodology of the study, if you like. But please don't imagine that you are striking a brave pose all the while that you are screaming and sticking your head in the sand. That's just plain sad.

Re:...And?

[ElectricHellKnight]

Which is absolutely your right. Meanwhile, (most of?) the rest of us want to make informed decisions about diet and exercise. So, go ahead and deconstruct the science or methodology of the study, if you like. But please don't imagine that you are striking a brave pose all the while that you are screaming and sticking your head in the sand. That's just plain sad.

I would hardly say I'm "striking a brave pose", nor am I "screaming and sticking my head in the sand." Just stating my opinion, which if I'm not mistaken is exactly what these comment sections are for.

And because I can't resist... I'll tell you what's sad, people who post as AC ;)

Re:...And?

[Riddler Sensei]

This is just wrong. A human is a vibrant, strong, and brilliant creature. To that end the pursuit of health is a humanistic endeavor. We were meant to live days that are both many in count and excellent in nature. You're proposing that living fewer days in relative sickness and malaise is preferable to a long and energetic life, so long as certain indulgences are more frequently met.

Life on the Dew and Doritos is so much shorter, and worse, than life on the avocado and deadlift.

Re:...And?

[ElectricHellKnight]

You're proposing that living fewer days in relative sickness and malaise is preferable to a long and energetic life, so long as certain indulgences are more frequently met.

Life on the Dew and Doritos is so much shorter, and worse, than life on the avocado and deadlift.

I'm not proposing that at all, nor am I Iiving on "Dew and Doritos" (in fact I find one of the two utterly disgusting). All I'm saying is that is it worth giving up all the foods one likes so that one can squeeze out a few extra years? Some of us aren't dudebros who care about impressing our gym teachers, and don't feel as though life "on the avocado and deadlift" is a particularly fun or exciting life. I don't think eating some shitty food (in moderation) is living in "relative sickness" to someone who spends all their free time at the fitness club.

Again, note the in moderation, so you stop assuming that I'm advocating a life of pizza deliveries and never leaving the computer chair.

this is not new ...

[geraint-nz]

Prof. John Yudkin published research implicating sugar as long ago as the late 1950s and published a book "Pure White and Deadly" in 1972. Of course, the sugar industry went all out to destroy him. Now we should treat the sugar industry like we treated the tobacco industry, prosecute, regulate and class action.

That Sugar Film (2014)

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3892434/

By changing his diet from being vegetable and fat based to sugar based (WITHOUT changing the number of calories or changing exercise), the subject PUT ON WEIGHT.

It took about a month for symptoms to be observable in blood tests, etc, and about the same time again for there to be evidence of the body cleaning itself up.

Watch that movie and show it to friends and family.

Fructose

[kybred]

If you read the full article you see that they are talking about fructose, which is 50% of table sugar. Dr. Lustig has several videos on YouTube of his talks on the problems that fructose causes. I have determined that fructose (or perhaps sugar in general) was the cause of my 'digestive' problems. By greatly reducing my sugar (and thus fructose) intake I've almost eliminated (poor choice of word?) my problems.

Re:Small Details Matter - Consider the study group

[Anonymous Coward]

Selecting only for sugar, regardless of calorie intake, makes for a massive shift in health indicators.

Humans simply have not evolved to handle the amount of sugar that is available in our diets today. Modern diets and processed foods, even honey and fresh juices, just have far more bio-available sugars that can be metabolized for an extended period of time. Add fat to the sugar it because a deadly combo so controlling for fat will extend the amount of time you can maintain a high sugar diet. Kill the sugar and you can basically have all the fat you want because you body will go back to burning it for energy.

THIS!

Ok, I have very little to add other than I am a type 1 diabetic and have a large amount of experience (20 years) going down the "What they don't tell you about nutrition" rabbit hole.

So many people do not realize when they see this how deep this rabbit hole goes.

It is not just "not consuming sugar" like we are eating cake constantly, rather it is realizing and making the ongoing effort to quantify and reduce carbohydrates in your diet in a controlled way and this is not as easy as that sentence makes it sound. (IE it is not just willpower, it is knowing all the crazy ways that carbohydrates are sneaked into your diet and eliminating them one by one.)

You need to avoid (and this is just the major ones in my experience, not even close to being an exhaustive list)

1- artificial sweeteners (did you know that equal has dextrose in it? dextrose is a simple sugar! so if you use equal, you are consuming sugar, despite what the idiots that make it advertise. I don't know who in the government they paid off to avoid being prosecuted for all the false advertising but.. it is on the ingredients list on the packaging.. don't believe me? Read it sometime!)

2- All Breads, All fruit, most vegetables (some are ok, generally the ones that grow above ground are ok, the root and tuber style ones.. are loaded with carbs.. I mean nobody will ever tell you that carrots have carbohydrates, but they do and people wonder where all the sugar is coming from!) and you have to watch (if you are insulin resistant.. check your waistline if you are wondering.. but having even a little bulge there is a diabetic trait!) your protein intake very carefully because the body makes it's own carbs from proteins and no one will tell you that not keeping your protein intake very close to 20% of total calories can result in your blood sugars being high and this is one of those things that is worse when you are dieting, that is you will have more unpredictable blood sugar spikes out of nowhere.

3- You need to get something around 75% of your daily calories from fatty acid sources and it will take an adjustment period for your body to adapt to this. (again this is upside down and backwards relative to conventional medical wisdom, but it works, there is documentation going all the way back to the 1930s that supports it and the evidence against it is based on bad science.) Once you get over the adjustment period though, you will be able to burn stored body fat and will feel much much much much much much better than you did. You will not want to go back.

4- Want to raise your good cholesterol? Eat more saturated fat! Want to lower your triglycerides? reduce your carb intake! Want to lower your LDL? consume plant based fatty acids and the correct 2:1 ratio of omega 6 to omega 3 essential fatty acids in your diet! I have been told by several doctors that I was going to have a heart attack by age 35 if I didn't take statins. I have never taken a statin and I was able to cut my LDL and triglycerides to lower than the recommended level for type 1 diabetics as recommended by the heart association (which is a crazy ldl level of below 70 mg/dll and under 100 for triglycerides.. but you can do it with diet alone unless you have some other underlying medical issue.) with only changing to a ketogenic diet!

In summary of this, It is my experience that the subject of the a

The modern world kills the dysregulated.

[dsmatthews9379]

In the past we had many other evolutionary forces acting on us, now we are eliminating a section of the human gene pool by using abundance. It makes you wonder what selection pressure we will inflict on ourselves next. It can't be endocrine disruptors, because we are already doing that and they are also liked to the obesity problem. Perhaps it will be an electronic form of hedonism that will cull the next lot of humans and they tap away at virtual pleasure buttons while neglecting their physical well-being? Oh wait that is already happening too!

Not that sugar is good, but

[Anonymous Coward]

I have trouble believing there would be that much change in blood sugar levels in non-diabetic people.

I've won quite a few bets with people downing a Coke and 4 doughnuts, then doing finger glucose readings at 30 minutes and 1 hour, normally they see results lower than pre-sugar levels as the body is so good at insulin regulation in non-diabetic people.

starches AND sugar?

[Anonymous Coward]

In Alabama public school I was taught that sugar (top of food pyramid along with fat) was to be consumed least of all. Where the hell were you told to eat as much sugar as grain?

Re:Small Details Matter - Consider the study group

[Gaerek]

It's not about removing sugar from your diet. It's about removing refined/processed sugar in the amounts we currently have. Compare an apple to a hostess cupcake. They both have about the same amount of sugar. But the apple has fiber, vitamins, and is digested/absorbed more slowly than the cupcake. The cupcake has, sugar, flour, and some other chemicals. It's also immediately absorbed into your system, getting that insulin flowing in an effort to store the excess sugar. And what do you think excess sugar is stored as? Not sugar, that's for sure. Unfortunately, sugar is added to almost everything, so getting rid of it is incredibly difficult.

However, it's something I've managed to do. The first 3 weeks I cut sugar/processed grains from my diet (nothing else changed), I lost 25lbs. (For the record, at the time, I started, I was 34 years old, 6'5" tall and weighed in at almost 390lbs. Sticking to this, and slowly adding in exercise (started as walking, then walking fast, then to jogging/running) it's a year later, I'm just under 300lbs, I have more energy than I did in high school, I'm happier (forgot to mention I had struggled with depression) and I just feel good.

If you're interested in reading more, read "Why we get fat and what we can do about it" by Gary Taubes http://www.amazon.com/Why-We-G... . This book changed and possibly saved my life.

Re:Small Details Matter - Consider the study group

[Anonymous Coward]

From the abstract: It's a isocaloric swap, so the total calories aren't changed. The problem is overconsumption *of sugar*.

(results on fat kids probably apply to more readers here than not)

Stupid question...

[chrysrobyn]

I have a stupid question... If the fat mass fell by a mean of 0.3 kg, and the fat free mass fell by a mean of 0.6 kg, what's making up that fat free mass? Water would be an easy culprit, but does that indicate that less sugar resulted in less water retention, or that the subjects also decreased their sodium intake concurrently? I think it's easy to blame sugar for some of the effects, but I'm not convinced it's the only variable that was changed.

Re:Stupid question...

[bingoUV]

One glucose molecule in the body stays along with 36 water molecules. Do the math.

File this under...

[DarthVain]

No shit. Things everyone knows.

That said, my Mom has always been a bit of a heath nut. There isn't a Christmas that goes by that I don't get some book or recipe book on some sort of healthy eating, most of which I ignore and don't use. However there was one I did read cover to cover, though its name alludes me now... Anyway it wasn't so much a recipe book as it was a book on food health, and once you got reading, it was fairly obvious that the main point that they were trying to make with the overall theme was: Sugar is very bad for you. Much of which has to do with how fast you can metabolize it. How fast you metabolize it depends on how refined it is. So things like white cane sugar or HFCS being very refined, get metabolized very fast, which is sort of a shock and awe to your system, overloading it, and causing it to try and take other measures to keep up with processing it. The book was quick to point out things like white rice, white bread, etc... are all very refined, which means that the sugar within gets converted at an alarming rate. However the alternatives, like brown rice, or whole wheat, health benefits like slightly better fiber aside, means that it is less refined, which means it does take your body longer to break it down into sugar, which means it can more easily handle the processing of that sugar as it arrives at deliberate rate rather than in a tidal wave of sugar production.

So yeah, I've tried to actively cut out sugar where possible. It is difficult as anything processed will probably be full of it, and sometimes alternatives are not readily available... Also sometimes you just want the real thing... If I am going to have pizza, I am not going to ruin it by making it whole wheat for example. I do what I can however, and the only place I ever actually add sugar is in my morning coffee, and there I try to be reasonable.

Oh on another point similar to yours, things thought of as "healthy" that are simply filthy with sugar are fruit juices. From a sugar shock perspective they are terrible for you. However at the same time, if you actually eat a piece of fruit it takes the body a bit longer to break it down in many cases.

The Twinkie Diet

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/

By changing his diet from being meat, grain and vegetable based to sugar based (and REDUCING the number of calories without changing exercise), the subject LOST WEIGHT.

No surprise

[Anonymous Coward]

The secret of excellent health is: eat good, exercise regularly, ditch games, play physical sports and generally not be a nerd.

It's only half the sugar that's bad.

[RonTheHurler]

Sugar (sucrose) is two things -- glucose (also called dextrose) and fructose in a 50/50 split.

"High fructose" just means 55% fructose, 45% glucose.

According to the scientist in this lecture (link below), it's only the fructose that's bad for you, no matter what percentage is in your source.
Fructose is found in fruit too, but that's not as bad because fruit is also high in fiber, unlike a soda or candy bar. Fiber seems to mitigate the fructose.
Also, fructose is almost as bad for your liver as alcohol. Soda or beer. Same difference to the liver. (There's a whole lot more fructose in a soda than there is alcohol in a beer.) Think about that the next time you five your kids a soda.

We switched to using dextrose instead of sucrose and increased our fiber. The results were notable.

Here's the video -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re:It's only half the sugar that's bad.

[Anonymous Coward]

> Also, fructose is almost as bad for your liver as alcohol. Soda or beer. Same difference to the liver.

This is flat-out false. Lustig has an axe to grind and books to sell. He cherry-picks his data to paint a misleading picture of sugar in the diet, I wouldn't trust him any further than I could throw his book.

Why ethnic bias?

[abies]

"For their study, the scientists recruited 43 children between the ages of 9 and 18 who were considered at particularly high risk of diabetes and related disorders. All the subjects were black or Hispanic and obese"

White children were not willing to participiate, are not obese or just not available in given area?

Re:Small Details Matter - Consider the study group

[Faust6]

Yes. I like how people like to play dumb with ridiculous semantic arguments about what constitutes sugar. Obviously these studies refer to granulated sugar, not those found in vegetables and fruit. The level of insoluble fibre in plant matter reduces the insulin needed to break down sugars.. add to that, they are more complex, and there's less of it.

Re:Small Details Matter - Consider the study group

[Faust6]

Yep, this needs to be reiterated, for the slow: TOTAL CALORIES WERE NOT CHANGED.

Re:Liberals want to control what you can eat.

[cfalcon]

The best part about the two party system is all the people convinced that half the nation is totally wrong about everything at all times. If these parties believed what they say would elevate the nation to some elemental transcendent state, they would flip a coin and all follow that path, and if ruin followed, they'd all about face and go the other way. Since there's only two possibilities, this would absolutely solve everything, right?