Active Low-Carber Forums
Atkins diet and low carb discussion provided free for information only, not as medical advice.
Home Plans Tips Recipes Tools Stories Studies Products
Active Low-Carber Forums
A sugar-free zone


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums.
Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!

Go Back   Active Low-Carber Forums > Main Low-Carb Diets Forums & Support > Low-Carb Studies & Research / Media Watch > LC Research/Media
User Name
Password
Register FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #16   ^
Old Fri, Dec-16-16, 16:46
GRB5111's Avatar
GRB5111 GRB5111 is offline
Posts: 1,902
 
Plan: Ketogenic (LCHFKD)
Stats: 227/186/185 Male 6' 0"
BF:
Progress: 98%
Location: Herndon, VA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WereBear
There was a stretch where I was stopping at a local convenience store for coffee on my way to work. Every morning I would see people with their own ritual; buying lunch and snacks on their way to work. And I remember getting short lunches, and shorter breaks. What that comes down to is either cigs or Sno-Balls.

In days gone by when I was at work daily in a company with a cafeteria, I was fascinated to observe what people selected for their meals while walking through the line. Styrofoam containers filled with fries and lathered with ketchup with a coke to wash it down was an every-day occurrence by some. Why make it complicated with anything else. Certainly not the food pyramid choice in these cases, it was off the charts and it's interesting that many years ago, I was "fascinated" by these food choices. An alternate choice of nothing would have been healthier, but low blood sugar drives irrational choices.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #17   ^
Old Sat, Dec-17-16, 13:56
Dodger's Avatar
Dodger Dodger is offline
Posts: 8,249
 
Plan: Paleoish
Stats: 225/175/175 Male 71.5 inches
BF:18%
Progress: 100%
Location: Longmont, Colorado
Default

Back when I was young and ignorant, I would eat a snickers bar and drink a Dr. Pepper for lunch.
Reply With Quote
  #18   ^
Old Mon, Dec-19-16, 06:26
thud123's Avatar
thud123 thud123 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 4,174
 
Plan: ~25NC/IF
Stats: 342.2/185.9/000 Male 72 inches
BF:
Progress: 46%
Default

I've been following this and am looking forward to his book. Go Gary! I was visiting a family last week, one that knows the benefits of avoiding sugar, and they still use it quite a bit. The family is not fat, nor in dire health. What I do see though, as was in the case of myself, a very ingrained habit of indulging with it at the oddest times, like after a full meal.

Something is not right here and I think that something is sucrose and maybe more precisely, fructose. That's just my wild speculation.
Reply With Quote
  #19   ^
Old Mon, Dec-19-16, 08:12
inflammabl's Avatar
inflammabl inflammabl is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,826
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 296/220/205 Male 71 inches
BF:25%?
Progress: 84%
Location: Upstate South Carolina
Default

I wish I could go back to my childhood and not eat any sugary cereals.
Reply With Quote
  #20   ^
Old Mon, Dec-19-16, 09:44
GRB5111's Avatar
GRB5111 GRB5111 is offline
Posts: 1,902
 
Plan: Ketogenic (LCHFKD)
Stats: 227/186/185 Male 6' 0"
BF:
Progress: 98%
Location: Herndon, VA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thud123
What I do see though, as was in the case of myself, a very ingrained habit of indulging with it at the oddest times, like after a full meal.

Something is not right here and I think that something is sucrose and maybe more precisely, fructose. That's just my wild speculation.

That's the insidious part of eating stuff that is considered a harmless part of the normal diet that, unknowingly, does untold health damage accumulating over many years where the symptoms appear when the situation is acute, or in some cases, too late to take 100% corrective actions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by inflammabl
I wish I could go back to my childhood and not eat any sugary cereals.

Ditto. That's exactly what it would take to undo much of the damage we experience when symptoms emerge later in life.
Reply With Quote
  #21   ^
Old Mon, Dec-19-16, 10:32
bostonkarl's Avatar
bostonkarl bostonkarl is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 259
 
Plan: Atkins - Modified
Stats: 215/174.6/150 Male 5'5"
BF:
Progress: 62%
Location: Washington DC
Default

I have my new motto (from the Men's Journal review article):

"Sugar is like heroin to me," Taubes says. "I'm never satisfied with a sweet. I could eat until I get sick."

This. This. This. This. OMG This.
Reply With Quote
  #22   ^
Old Tue, Dec-20-16, 07:46
WereBear's Avatar
WereBear WereBear is offline
Posts: 9,965
 
Plan: Epi-Paleo/IF
Stats: 220/161/150 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 84%
Location: USA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bostonkarl
I have my new motto (from the Men's Journal review article):

"Sugar is like heroin to me," Taubes says. "I'm never satisfied with a sweet. I could eat until I get sick."

This. This. This. This. OMG This.


Yep. I will never look at Pixy Stix the same way as I did as a child
Reply With Quote
  #23   ^
Old Tue, Dec-20-16, 16:49
Zei Zei is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,220
 
Plan: Carb reduction in general
Stats: 230/213/180 Female 5 ft 9 in
BF:
Progress: 34%
Location: Texas
Default

Pixy stix certainly aren't healthy, but among candies they're maybe the lesser evil because they (and Sweet Tarts and similar things) are made with glucose (dextrose) and no fructose. It's sad people are made to think agave syrup is a healthy "natural" alternative to sugar because it's got so much refinery-manufactured fructose that I like to think of it as like high fructose corn syrup on steroids.
Reply With Quote
  #24   ^
Old Wed, Dec-21-16, 05:47
JEY100's Avatar
JEY100 JEY100 is offline
To Good Health!
Posts: 9,491
 
Plan: IF Fung/LC Westman/Primal
Stats: 222/171/169 Female 5' 9"
BF:45%/25.3%/24%
Progress: 96%
Location: NC
Default

Seriously?

And Shameful.

Quote:
Some experts said the Annals review appeared to be an attempt by the industry to undermine sugar guidelines from the World Health Organization and other health groups that urge children and adults to consume fewer products with added sugar, such as soft drinks, candy and sweetened cereals. The paper, they say, is reminiscent of tactics once used by the tobacco industry, which for decades enlisted scientists to become “merchants of doubt” about the health hazards of smoking. “This comes right out of the tobacco industry’s playbook: cast doubt on the science,” said Marion Nestle, a professor of nutrition, food studies and public health at New York University who studies conflicts of interest in nutrition research. “This is a classic example of how industry funding biases opinion. It’s shameful.”


Study Tied to Food Industry Tries to Discredit Sugar Guidelines


DECEMBER 19, 2016 AT 5:00 PM
from Health News - The New York Times by ANAHAD O’CONNOR

Quote:
A prominent medical journal on Monday published a scathing attack on global health advice to eat less sugar. Warnings to cut sugar, the study argued, are based on weak evidence and cannot be trusted. But the review, published in The Annals of Internal Medicine, quickly elicited sharp criticism from public health experts because the authors have ties to the food and sugar industries.

The review was paid for by the International Life Sciences Institute, a scientific group that is based in Washington, D.C., and is funded by multinational food and agrochemical companies including Coca-Cola, General Mills, Hershey’s, Kellogg’s, Kraft Foods and Monsanto. One of the authors is a member of the scientific advisory board of Tate & Lyle, one of the world’s largest suppliers of high-fructose corn syrup. Critics say the medical journal review is the latest in a series of efforts by the food industry to shape global nutrition advice by supporting prominent academics who question the role of junk food and sugary drinks in causing obesity, Type 2 diabetes and other health problems. A report in September showed that those efforts began in the 1960s when the sugar industry paid scientists to cast doubt on the link between sugar and heart disease and promote saturated fat as the culprit instead.

More recently, The New York Times found that Coca-Cola had been funding scientists who played down the connection between sugary drinks and obesity. And The Associated Press reported in June that food companies paid for studies that claimed candy-eating children weigh less. Some experts said the Annals review appeared to be an attempt by the industry to undermine sugar guidelines from the World Health Organization and other health groups that urge children and adults to consume fewer products with added sugar, such as soft drinks, candy and sweetened cereals. The paper, they say, is reminiscent of tactics once used by the tobacco industry, which for decades enlisted scientists to become “merchants of doubt” about the health hazards of smoking. “This comes right out of the tobacco industry’s playbook: cast doubt on the science,” said Marion Nestle, a professor of nutrition, food studies and public health at New York University who studies conflicts of interest in nutrition research. “This is a classic example of how industry funding biases opinion. It’s shameful.”

But the scientists behind the paper said more scrutiny of sugar guidelines was needed. The researchers reviewed guidelines issued by the W.H.O. and eight other agencies around the world and said the case against sugar was based on “low-quality” evidence. “The conclusion of our paper is a very simple one,” said Bradley C. Johnston, a professor of clinical epidemiology at the University of Toronto and McMaster University and the lead author of the new paper. “We hope that the results from this review can be used to promote improvement in the development of trustworthy guidelines on sugar intake.” Dr. Johnston said he recognized that his paper would be criticized because of its ties to industry funding. But he said he hoped people would not “throw the baby out with the bathwater” by dismissing the conclusion that sugar guidelines should be developed with greater rigor. He also emphasized that he was not suggesting that people eat more sugar. The review article, he said, questions specific recommendations about sugar but “should not be used to justify higher intake of sugary foods and beverages.” The industry-funded review comes as health authorities around the world are increasingly taking steps to curb the amount of sugar people consume.

Last year, the W.H.O. said adults and children should restrict their intake of sugar from most foods — other than fruit, vegetables and milk — to 10 percent of their daily calories. The W.H.O. said it relied on the latest scientific evidence, which showed that adults and children consuming a lot of sugar were more likely to gain weight or become obese. In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration has promised new labeling rules that require food companies to disclose added sugars. Recently, six local governments approved taxes on soft drinks. And in Britain, the health agency Public Health England called for strict limits on daily sugar intake. The Annals review gave poor ratings to all of the sugar guidelines it evaluated, saying the quality of the evidence they were based on was “low to very low.” It said that the guidelines were generally not transparent about how the recommendations were reached and that most of them failed to include disclosures about potential conflicts of interest among their authors.

But Barry Popkin, a professor of nutrition at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said he was stunned that the paper was even published at all because its authors “ignored the hundreds of randomized controlled trials” that have documented the harms of sugar. “They ignored the real data, created false scores, and somehow got through a peer review system that I cannot understand,” he said. “It is quite astounding.” Dr. Christine Laine, editor in chief of The Annals of Internal Medicine, defended the journal’s decision to publish the industry-funded review. She said in an interview that the journal made decisions based on the quality of the research, not the source of funding. “We thought that this was something that our readers would be interested in, and we thought the methods of the systematic review were high quality,” Dr. Laine said. “We decided to go ahead and publish it despite the fact that we’re completely aware that the funding source has a relationship with the food and beverage industry.”

Dr. Dean Schillinger, chief of the University of California, San Francisco, division of general internal medicine at San Francisco General Hospital, said that it was fine to question the quality of nutrition guidelines and to hold them to high standards but that in this case, the researchers and their financial backers had an obvious agenda. “They’re hijacking the scientific process in a disingenuous way to sow doubt and jeopardize public health,” Dr. Schillinger said. Dr. Schillinger, who co-wrote an accompanying editorial criticizing the methodology of the Annals review, disclosed that he had served as a paid expert for the City of San Francisco last year when it was sued by the beverage industry for requiring warning labels on soft drink advertisements.

Other experts agreed with the study’s point that more rigor was needed in issuing nutrition guidelines but said the current guidelines should go much further. Dariush Mozaffarian, a cardiologist and the dean of the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University, who has served as a peer reviewer on the sugar guidelines issued by the W.H.O. and the American Heart Association, said there was strong scientific evidence that sugar contributed to adverse health conditions like weight gain and Type 2 diabetes.

But, he said, most guidelines that urge people to limit sugar say nothing about reducing refined starches, even though studies suggest that both are equally harmful. “It’s unfair to single out sugar and not starch,” he said. “I would like to see recommendations to limit both sugar and starch. But that’s half the calories in the food supply.”


http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/19/w...sugar.html?_r=0

MedPage Cardiology on the same study: http://www.medpagetoday.com/Cardiol...rdioBrief/62168

Last edited by JEY100 : Wed, Dec-21-16 at 06:01.
Reply With Quote
  #25   ^
Old Wed, Dec-21-16, 06:30
WereBear's Avatar
WereBear WereBear is offline
Posts: 9,965
 
Plan: Epi-Paleo/IF
Stats: 220/161/150 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 84%
Location: USA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JEY100
From the quoted article:

But, he said, most guidelines that urge people to limit sugar say nothing about reducing refined starches, even though studies suggest that both are equally harmful. “It’s unfair to single out sugar and not starch,” he said. “I would like to see recommendations to limit both sugar and starch. But that’s half the calories in the food supply.”


Agreed. But that is a really tough sell: now we're talking vegetables! To most people.
Reply With Quote
  #26   ^
Old Wed, Dec-21-16, 07:36
inflammabl's Avatar
inflammabl inflammabl is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,826
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 296/220/205 Male 71 inches
BF:25%?
Progress: 84%
Location: Upstate South Carolina
Default

Just a note, when people talk about "added sugar" I know they are not science based as there is no difference to the body between added sugar and sugar. People are making some sort of moral argument when they talk about "added".

Second, “It’s unfair to single out sugar and not starch,” is a silly statement. Of course there's a difference to at least the causes of obesity. Only in very few places is "half the calories in the food supply" not starches yet only in high sugar consuming areas is obesity an issue.

Lustig's argument against sugar is outstanding, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM
Reply With Quote
  #27   ^
Old Wed, Dec-21-16, 13:11
Nancy LC's Avatar
Nancy LC Nancy LC is offline
Experimenter
Posts: 45,207
 
Plan: Paleo 99.5%
Stats: 210/170/160 Female 67.5"
BF:
Progress: 80%
Location: San Diego, CA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by inflammabl
Just a note, when people talk about "added sugar" I know they are not science based as there is no difference to the body between added sugar and sugar. People are making some sort of moral argument when they talk about "added".

Second, “It’s unfair to single out sugar and not starch,” is a silly statement. Of course there's a difference to at least the causes of obesity. Only in very few places is "half the calories in the food supply" not starches yet only in high sugar consuming areas is obesity an issue.

Lustig's argument against sugar is outstanding, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

Both very good points. Also, sugar is half fructose while starches become 100% glucose when converted into sugar. Fructose, well... that stuff is bad in the quantities that it gets consumed in nowadays.
Reply With Quote
  #28   ^
Old Thu, Dec-22-16, 06:07
JEY100's Avatar
JEY100 JEY100 is offline
To Good Health!
Posts: 9,491
 
Plan: IF Fung/LC Westman/Primal
Stats: 222/171/169 Female 5' 9"
BF:45%/25.3%/24%
Progress: 96%
Location: NC
Default

Even Mars, maker of MMs and Skittles, condemns this paper for causing more confusion..and they are a member of the sponsoring lobby group.

https://apnews.com/cb26ddb939114d8e...-paper-on-sugar
Reply With Quote
  #29   ^
Old Tue, Dec-27-16, 07:58
JEY100's Avatar
JEY100 JEY100 is offline
To Good Health!
Posts: 9,491
 
Plan: IF Fung/LC Westman/Primal
Stats: 222/171/169 Female 5' 9"
BF:45%/25.3%/24%
Progress: 96%
Location: NC
Default

Book released today. DietDoctor posts a chapter from it:
https://www.dietdoctor.com/chapter-...ubes-case-sugar
Reply With Quote
  #30   ^
Old Tue, Dec-27-16, 08:42
WereBear's Avatar
WereBear WereBear is offline
Posts: 9,965
 
Plan: Epi-Paleo/IF
Stats: 220/161/150 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 84%
Location: USA
Default

Mine just showed up in my Kindle. And there's an upcoming holiday weekend!

Love Taubes' writing. Looking forward.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:44.


Copyright © 2000-2017 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.