Slashdot Mirror
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.
Putting sugars in everything! You can't even buy prepackaged meats without sugar added!
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?
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!
Exactly.
People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
What other country in history has "poor" who can afford to be FAT?
Well, off the top of my head, Brazil.
People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
Racist.
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.
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.)
In other news, bears defecate in the woods, Pope confirmed to be Catholic, and water is wet.
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.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
A small junk-tax would suffice. Only enough to fund initiatives to facilitate better diet.
Don't eat the food!
Never had Mexican fruit-flavored soda? I'm pretty sure you could dunk a string of twine in one and pull out rock candy.
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.
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
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...
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.
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?
They must be *really* fat if they're taking up both 2nd and 3rd place.
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.
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
...or they could just stop subsidizing sugar production.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
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.
Or both. Does the US still get most of its sugar from Hawaii?
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.
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.
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.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
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.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
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.
He once inserted random mutations into his code, just so he could have the experience of debugging.
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."
One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
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.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
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.
Film at eleven.
What's remarkable is that we actually need to be told this.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
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)
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.
227-3517
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.
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.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
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.
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.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Does the Pope shit in the woods?
Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
"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.
Only if you can find a Catholic bear...
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.
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.
In America if their homes are nearby it's usually allowed, but because of urban sprawl it's fairly uncommon as well.
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.
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.
If it's in you sig, it's in your post.
I thought it was conservatives who hated anyone?
This morning when I woke up I hadn't had sugar in over 8 hours.
If anything, I was feeling a bit hungry.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
...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.
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
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.
If it's in you sig, it's in your post.
No.
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.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
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.
Why do people who have weight loss surgery that restricts the amount, but not the type, of food lose weight?
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...
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.
46137
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.
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.
46137
(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.
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.
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.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
The previous pope does.... the current one prefers toilets.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
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.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
They do restrict the type. All people that go on that diet have to do a sugar and carbohydrate reduction lifestyle change.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Mostly because we are lazy fucks down here in the USA.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
"Amazing the amount of stupid wrong statements that are made about over weight people. "
Some even call them overweight.
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.
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?
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
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.
This is just false. And, assuming you're not trolling, it's a really strange thing for anyone to believe.
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.
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.
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.
And we just realised this TODAY! Whoa!
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.
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*
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
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?
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.
If these taxes have the purpose of discouraging use of the product rather than collecting revenue, sure.
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.
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.
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.
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
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!
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.
"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+).
Avantslash: low-bandwidth mobile slashdot.
Stupid and wrong like repeatedly misspelling bowel?
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?
This space intentionally left blank
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.
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)
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.
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
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.
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.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
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.
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).
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.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
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.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
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.
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.
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.
He tried to kill me with a forklift!
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?...
I knew someone who got the surgery but didn't change the diet. He's awfully fat now.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
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.
"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?
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
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.
Yep, this needs to be reiterated, for the slow: TOTAL CALORIES WERE NOT CHANGED.
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.
Yep, zero self control types eat right through the band and go right back to fatty mode.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
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?
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
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?
No, actually it didn't, but nothing stops armchair dictators from getting a hard on thinking about it..
He tried to kill me with a forklift!
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.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
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*)
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
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.
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.
Fanatically anti-fanatical