Good to see that it's being promoted in the UK by the British media
Quote:
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/magazine/...-mess-3l8l6s50z |
Quote:
What a horribly wrong thing to say. It's just abject wilful stupidity. We get fat because too many calories go into fat cells and too little come out of fat cells. It's really very simple but unfortunately people want to pretend something else. |
Quote:
Why does this happen? Why does it happen to proportionately more people now than 50 or 100 years ago? |
Quote:
Sugar. Lustig has made an excellent case against sugar. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnR1RLE3RJw Peter Attila has explained the mathematics of fat cells fairly well. http://eatingacademy.com/weight-los...ons-of-fat-flux . What he uses is most times called a 1-D or lumped parameter model although if you want to get fancy, you can call it a dilation model. No scientist would ever say, "Calories in versus calories out is irrelevant, a gross scientific error." When some deliberately ignorant reporter writes something like that it causes serious people not to take the idea seriously. |
The "calories in/calories out" mantra assumes any calorie from any source which goes in can come out just as easily with enough exercise - that's the gross scientific error.
That premise has problems - It doesn't take into account that an overactive pancreas can produce excessive insulin, forcing even inadequate sugar/starch calories into fat cells before you can possibly use them via exercise. It also doesn't take into account that it's extremely difficult to access the calories stored in fat cells while your body is geared to running on sugar. Our bodies also are not bomb calorimeters - our bodies process calories differently, depending on the type of macronutrient. As I understand it those are the basics of the error in the calories in/calories out premise. There's probably plenty of other fallacies in the assumption that calories in/calories out is all that matters - I just don't have enough knowledge of the biochemical processes to be able to list them all. |
Quote:
OK, agree with you on sugar, not because of calories but because of changes to hormonal milieu. As for what a journalist says, yeah, they often get the details wrong when trying to dumb things down for lay audiences. At least she did not present it as a quote from Gary Taubes. Her eyes probably glazed over when he gave her the long version - it's a lot to take in for someone not well versed in Low Carb. Even though the details are not up to our standards, it's still a relatively positive article, I think. Those interested in a more rigorous explanation of why Sugar is toxic will check out one of Taubes' books. |
Oh I agree the writer is using one part interview based journalism and three parts click bait. Taubes' writing is also one more step removed from the science of Lustig. I guess that makes it four steps removed?
Lustig's approach is particularly compelling as he attacks the problem in multiple ways. He acknowledges the low-carb, anti-insulin argument. He provides a mechanistic chemical pathway argument against sugar. He shows strong correlations between soda consumption, weight gain and t2 diabetes. Last he is clear that while excessive sugar consumption is a strong culprit, it is not the only one and does not explain all the ill health effects seen in international economies. In short it's thorough, multifaceted and self-effacing. What I particularly liked about the article is the statement by Taubes that even the sugar in apples is bad. None of the "added sugar" nonsense for him! PS this was written and corrected by my thumbs. I apologize for typos |
Quote:
Ps again, my thumbs... Can't live with them. Can't live without them. |
And yet Lustig thinks fruit is fine as long as it is consumed whole, not juiced. Nothing makes me hungrier an hour later than fruit.
I like Taubes' argument that sugar is what first compromises the body's ability to deal with carbs. If you eat enough sugar, then you become less able to deal with starches as well. That seems to make sense for societies that consume high carb/low sugar (especially refined sugar). Assuming the Chinese are really eating significantly more refined sugar than they were 50 or 100 or 500 years ago it explains why they are beginning to show metabolic damage even though they've long eaten a relatively huge amount of rice. |
Quote:
I'm sorry but refined or not refined has nothing to do with it. If you mean HFCS, then okay the conversion of glucose to fructose is a problem but fructose is a chemical with no memory of where it came from. |
I think refined sugar is a problem mainly because it is so concentrated, not because it is so different chemically. You can eat a lot of sugar without much effort. If you had to eat 6 or 8 apples to get the same number of carbs as, say, a large piece of chocolate cake, you'd probably give up long before finishing them.
Not following what you mean about the conversion of glucose to fructose.... |
I googled it and found this link explaining the difference, http://healthyeating.sfgate.com/dif...ctose-8704.html I'm sometimes confused by the difference too. Even nice natural cane sugar (sucrose) breaks down into one part glucose (okay-ish) and one part fuctose (bad).
Lustig damns fructose in particular. Not that it's concentrated but that it's the chemical fructose. That's why HFCS justly gets a bad rap. It's near 55% of the bad stuff while white sugar is 50% the bad stuff. "Processed" sweetener is worse if it's HFCS instead of processed sugar because it has higher fructose. Just to make it more confusing... Manufactures need less HFCS to make something as sweet as if they used sugar so banning HFCS would just cause them to switch to white sugar and use more of it thus negating the purpose of a ban. |
The other thing is that fructose raises insulin without raising BG, so if you measure BG you have no warning. ~15 yrs ago fructose was heavily promoted because it didn't raise BG like glucose, but now we know it is worse for you.
|
Quote:
As I said before, I don't know a whole lot about the biochemical processes, but this is extremely interesting to me, as I've had reactive hypoglycemia - more accurately called hyperinsulinism, for my entire life. (I was born back when there was no ready-made baby formula, so the pediatrician would give the new mother a recipe to make the formula, so Mom would put corn syrup in the homemade formula, although I have no idea just how high in fructose standard corn syrup was in those days) (But I digress...) I ate lower carb off-and-on for a few years when I was finally diagnosed as hypoglycemic in the early 70's. At some point after that, fructose was presented as not raising blood sugar (I was occasionally seeing this back in the 80's), and therefore safe for diabetics, and since the hypoglycemia diet I'd been given was essentially the same one they used for diabetics, I gave it a try - although pure fructose was prohibitively expensive as a home-cooking ingredient, so I didn't use it much at all, and therefore didn't notice any real difference from it. However, they also started using HFCS in a lot of processed foods, and I foolishly thought that if fructose was ok for me, then HFCS must be mostly fructose, and ok too. (Remember that there was no google back then - accurate information about what was really in food could be difficult to come by) Thus began the blood sugar roller coaster that lured me back to sugar. I spent the next 2 decades or so in a constant blood sugar cycle, up and down, up and down. Not that I was monitoring my blood sugar (since I wasn't considered a diabetic), but I could certainly feel the effects - eat, experience a quick burst of energy, blood sugar crash within in an hour or two, and either eat to bring it up again (and crash again, then eat again), or sleep for a couple of hours until it started to level out a little bit, then eat to bring it up again (and crash again in an hour or two). If I had only known that fructose was causing me to have such an increase in insulin, I would have avoided it like the plague. After reading this about fructose actually causing the same insulin reaction as glucose, I'm seriously reconsidering the tiny little bit of fruit I eat these days - a few berries, and this time of year, the occasional clementine (Cuties - the smallest ones I've found). |
Demi, thank you for posting The Sunday Times article. I always enjoy reading their position even if written "only by a journalist", which is what Taubes is too ;)
The Sydney Morning Herald lets their Economics Editor take a stab at the No Sugar diet and Taubes book as well. Net down, he gave up sugar and it works. Ditching sugar is a new year diet that might actually work. Here's why. By Peter Martin http://www.smh.com.au/comment/ditch...229-gtjqgt.html Quote:
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 15:27. |
Copyright © 2000-2024 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.