Treat Sugar like Alcohol and Cigarettes

Outstanding article here:
 
http://www.nytimes.com/20...r=2&pagewanted=all

Good article.
 
I'm astounding that fat still retains the status of macro-nutrient whipping boy blamed as the causative ateiology in lifestyle-degenerative diseases, as far as the mainstream is concerned.
 
As opposed to the truth of the matter, in that extreme calorific surpluses enabled via food laden with enzymatically altered sugars are far more likely to blame.
 
 

Not a bad idea really (and good article). Processed sugars do seem to be right on the borderlinne of what constitutes a food/drug in terms of their action, especially on people that are particularly sensitive to them
 
Im sure Im not the only parent here whose witnessed a 2 or 3 year old bouncing off the walls like they'd taken an E from too much sugary sweets and pop...

Is sugar toxic?
No.
Is eating a load of sugar every day bad for you?
Yes.
/thread

daKensta


Is sugar toxic?
No.
Is eating a load of sugar every day bad for you?
Yes.
/thread

 
Is weed toxic? No. Is chainsmoking spliffs all day bad for your? Yes. Is beer toxic? No. Is drinking a 4 pack of stella for breakfast every morning bad for you? Yes. Is MDMA toxic? No. Is popping a handful of E's every night for years bad for you......
 
/restart thread...

daKensta


Is sugar toxic?
No.
Is eating a load of sugar every day bad for you?
Yes.
/thread

You sound like someone who is able to contribute to an intelligent debate. Taxi. 

T_Dawg Jack


Good article.

I'm astounding that fat still retains the status of macro-nutrient whipping boy blamed as the causative ateiology in lifestyle-degenerative diseases, as far as the mainstream is concerned.

As opposed to the truth of the matter, in that extreme calorific surpluses enabled via food laden with enzymatically altered sugars are far more likely to blame.

 
I couldn't agree more with what you just said there!
Actually here in the UK fat is even more vilified that in the US where Atkins is still seen as a legiitmate diet for loosing weight whilst here medical professionals here are almost shocked that someone would attempt something so "dangerous". The fact that you can lower Cholestorol levels whilst on a high fat diet whilst restricting sugar and carb intake to loose fat seems to escape them. I actually think the epidemic of obesity in the developed world is primarily down to sugar intake, certainly most of the overweight people I know, are not that way because they eat mountains of bacon, its because they consume lots of chocolate, sweets and sugar laden fizzy drinks.
Us bodybuilders have know it for years, which is why we primarily use carb restriction as a means to get lean.
 

sillynarbie


Outstanding article here:

http://www.nytimes.com/20...r=2&pagewanted=all

 
Really interesting article, just goes to show how much damage one can do, especially once a lifestyle has essentially got to the point where insulin sensitivity is shafted.

Very good article.

In reality though, who here would cut refined sugar out of their diet forever? I think unless theirs a law passed and food manufacturers are forced to find an alternative, it would be too hard to do it 100% for life. Although the zero sugar soft drinks industry has got huge. In the 80,s 90's all you could get was diet coke and tab i think. But coca cola still number one drink in the world and indont hink that will ever change

The look my grandmother would give me if I said no too a slice of Christmas cake!

tac

daKensta


Is sugar toxic?
No.
Is eating a load of sugar every day bad for you?
Yes.
/thread

Is weed toxic? No. Is chainsmoking spliffs all day bad for your? Yes. Is beer toxic? No. Is drinking a 4 pack of stella for breakfast every morning bad for you? Yes. Is MDMA toxic? No. Is popping a handful of E's every night for years bad for you......

/restart thread...

 
if only there was still mdma in those e's.........

That article is written by Gary Taubes of 'Good calories Bad calories' fame.  I actually suspected that from the very start of the article!
 
I do agree with alot of content in that article. It does seem to have divided those interested in nutrition into either carb 'loving' or carb 'hating' groups!
 
Over the past year or so I have pretty much excluded refined sugar and most grains from my diet. Not only have I lost significant bodyfat, but I was surprised at the improvements in my blood markers for cardiovascular disease (fasting lipids inc HDL & LDL, liver enzymes...).
 
As a GP I do feel that the medical profession is about 10 years behind this idea but hopefully dietary advice will soon change.
 
 

JimRat

Over the past year or so I have pretty much excluded refined sugar and most grains from my diet.

Jim, do you mind me asking why you also decided to exclude grains from your diet?
My diet consists of almost zero sugar, other than some fruit post workout and is also totally wheat and oat free (digestive issues) also.
Would be interesting to hear your perspective if you are a GP.
 
Jay
 

Barrel

JimRat

Over the past year or so I have pretty much excluded refined sugar and most grains from my diet.

Jim, do you mind me asking why you also decided to exclude grains from your diet?
My diet consists of almost zero sugar, other than some fruit post workout and is also totally wheat and oat free (digestive issues) also.
Would be interesting to hear your perspective if you are a GP.

Jay

 
Although most people are probably not truely Gluten sensitive (sufficent for Coeliac Disease diagnosis) there is probably a spectrum of sensitivity resulting in some bloating and mild symptoms of Coeliac disease, IMO.
 
Also many grains contain 'anti-nutrients' (e.g. phytate) which bind useful nutrients (iron, magnesium etc).
 
I think you can quote as much 'scientific evidence' on this topic (and this of course is the basis of valid arguments) but at the end of the day only YOU will know how your body responds to different food groups.

JimRat

at the end of the day only YOU will know how your body responds to different food groups.

Yes I agree, I was experimenting by cutting various foods out of my diet to try and get rid of some pretty nasty digestive issues that I'd had for a while. Within 2 days of stopping gluten, I felt better than I had in a long time. I'm pretty sure its that because if I have any wheat (or oats stragely) it flares up again later the same day.
 
Regarding the original post related to sugars though, what do people think about all the naturally occuring simple sugars (not just glucose and fructose) Are the health concerns outlined only valid regarding refined sugars?

I agree that, without legislation, it would be hard to 100% cut refined sugars permanently out of the diet - but that goes to show how pervasive they've become.
 
400 years ago most of us would have lived and died without EVER tasting refined sugar... until the slave trade opened up sugar plantations in the caribbean and the americas refined sugar was a rare and very high-priced commodity and the province only of the vey wealthy.
 
Most people relied on honey or a little fruit juice for sweetening food, if at all - refined sugar is a very recent addition to the human diet

http://www.alanaragonblog...out-fructose-alarmism/
 
Watch as the rather excellent Alan Aragon dismantles Lustig's arguments. Then Lustig himself turns up in the comments to defend himself, gets taken to school and resorts to quoting how many Youtube hits his video has as evidence of the strength of his argument. And our very own Nigeepoo pops up during the debate too!
 
It's a long read but well worth it. By the end the phrase 'dosage and context' should be burned into your mind!
 
 
 

daKensta


Is sugar toxic?
No.
Is eating a load of sugar every day bad for you?
Yes.
/thread

 
Yep, in a nutshell!

sugar turns to glucose, its a carb, same as bread, cerals, pasta and rice ect....which are also very high in carbs
we are stuffed with this cheap garbage because the profits margins are high, then more profit is made when it makes us ill. Cancer cells love sugar.
 
the problem is mainly the amount of carbs, where ever they come from, washing out all the vitamins and minerals we need for our bodies to function well, damaging our gut flora ect.....roughly 70% of our immune system comes fro the gut.
 

Jorge Cruise? Who next, Mr Motivator?
 

the problem is mainly the amount of carbs, where ever they come from, washing out all the vitamins and minerals we need for our bodies to function well

 
Evidence for that outrageous claim?!

sakuraba

the problem is mainly the amount of carbs, where ever they come from, washing out all the vitamins and minerals we need for our bodies to function well, damaging our gut flora ect.....roughly 70% of our immune system comes fro the gut.

Im not sure i agree with your statement that the problem is carbs where ever the come from. The reason being that complex carbs are much slower to break down to simple sugars, meaning there is a much more gradual release of energy! Add to that the insulin spike with simple sugars is much more likely to facilitate fat storage.
 
Although perhaps overconsumption of even complex carbs can be regarded as an issue too, if the energy that is yeilded from thier digestion is not used it will still be stored as fat deposits.

What I do agree with you over is that over consumptions of sugars can cartainly damage gut flora by aiding the growth of infectious yeasts such as candida for example as well as a number of other complications.

CheekyChappie

daKensta


Is sugar toxic?
No.
Is eating a load of sugar every day bad for you?
Yes.
/thread

Yep, in a nutshell!

 
I dont disagree with Aragon's argument - its just that its largely redundant. The same 'dose and context' argument can be applied to almost ANY drug. Yet it isnt. If we were discussing the legalisation of heroin and someone popped up saying "ah - its all about dose and context, a small amount taken occasionally wont hurt you" then that DOESNT simply end the thread... even though its true.
 
The thing about drugs (and foods with drug-like effects) is that many people CANT stick to low doses, or keep them in context... otherwise there would be no drug, alcohol, or smoking problem of any kind. Aragon is right - but irrelevant.