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
  #46   ^
Old Mon, Jan-02-17, 08:37
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 review in The Guardian by Joanna Blythman

Quote:

The Case Against Sugar review – an unsweetened attack on diet myths

Gary Taubes’s latest assault on the ruinous effect of sugar on our lives and the promotion of fat-free diets is detailed and compelling

For the last 15 years, US journalist Gary Taubes has been the self-nominated public enemy No 1 of the global “healthy eating” establishment. His heresy has been to argue powerfully and publicly that the official diet advice we have been encouraged to follow since the 1970s is fundamentally wrong. It is refined carbohydrates and sugars that we should be avoiding, he says, not fat.

His apostasy was dismissed by many health professionals in a sustained, near operatic chorus of censure. After all, he had committed the cardinal crime of suggesting that august government nutrition professors and the academic researchers who inform them had made an inexcusable error of judgment, with catastrophic consequences: an epidemic of obesity and diet-related ill-health of a magnitude that had no precedent.

Taubes’s latest book, The Case Against Sugar, looks to be less controversial, if only because so-called guardians of public health have of late subtly re-emphasised in government eating guidelines the role of sugar as a dietary villain, adopting what Taubes calls the “we knew it all along” approach. They have yet to admit that the natural saturated fats they have long demonised, such as butter, are healthier than the highly refined liquid oils and polyunsaturated margarine spreads they continue to recommend, even though the scientific inadequacy of this advice is being steadily exposed. In Taubes’s view, major nutrition authorities “have spent the last 50 years blaming dietary fat for our ills while letting sugar off the hook”.

But Taubes is like a terrier with a bone. He won’t let purveyors of this bankrupt diet paradigm get away with a bit of pragmatic sugar reduction tokenism. In order to firmly hammer the nails in the coffin of the case against sugar, he sets out to nail the lie on which it is predicated: that the tidal wave of obesity and type 2 diabetes sweeping the western world is caused by overconsumption and sedentary behaviour. This contention currently forms the bedrock of official nutrition advice worldwide. “The fundamental cause of obesity and [being] overweight is an energy imbalance between calories consumed and calories expended,” is how the World Health Organisation puts it. Custodians of public health have prescribed this “eat less/move more” doctrine for decades, to embarrassingly little effect.

Taubes shows how this “energy balance” explanation of swollen waistlines draws its apparent intellectual credibility from a myth that suits the processed food industry: “There’s no bad food, only bad diets.” Using this “balanced” diet argument, big food can persuade us that we can stay healthy while eating junk daily. This is the warped thinking that allows hospital shops to stock up with fizzy drinks and assorted sweet, starchy rubbish and heap patients’ meal trays with jelly and custard. Government diet advisers can be relied upon to faithfully promote the “everything in moderation” and “a calorie is a calorie” parables, so aiding and abetting food and drink companies’ use of sugar to lend false palatability to their nutritionally degraded products.

Taubes, however, argues that sugars are bad in and of themselves, that they have “a unique physiological, metabolic and endocrinological (hormonal) effect on our bodies”. Sugars are what an evolutionary biologist might call the environmental or dietary switch that triggers a genetic predisposition to obesity and turn an otherwise healthy diet into a harmful one. They are, says Taubes, the most likely triggers of “insulin resistance”, the condition that leads to obesity, diabetes and a number of other diseases, from gout and varicose veins to irritable bowel syndrome and asthma. “Once this process starts, easily digestible, carbohydrate-rich foods aid and abet it.” For Taubes, sugar is at the root of all “the diseases of westernisation”, including cancer, even Alzheimer’s disease, which researchers now increasingly refer to as “type 3 diabetes”. “Put simply,” he writes “without these sugars in our diets, the cluster of related illnesses would be far less common than it is today.”

Like many US books of its type – Nina Teicholz’s Big Fat Surprise is another – there’s a high level of detail in this volume as Taubes unpicks the history of the ubiquitous dogmas dominating diet thinking today that may send the less committed reader looking for an executive summary. But this density and thoroughness befits the scale of the task such authors face: nothing more or less than reversing an entrenched diet orthodoxy in which powerful professional reputations and corporate interests are heavily invested.

Taubes isn’t the only person to challenge the facile idea that we get fat simply because we consume more calories than we expend, but his clear and persuasive argument that obesity is a hormonal disorder, switched on by sugar, is one that urgently needs wider airing. Then we can decide for ourselves whether obesity is really caused by “a perverted appetite” that leads many of us to overeat or by the food processors’ pathological appetite for profit.

• The Case Against Sugar by Gary Taubes is published by Portobello Books (£14.99)

Last edited by JEY100 : Mon, Jan-02-17 at 12:59.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #47   ^
Old Mon, Jan-02-17, 09:30
Liz53's Avatar
Liz53 Liz53 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 6,125
 
Plan: Mostly Fung/IDM
Stats: 165/138.4/135 Female 63
BF:???/better/???
Progress: 89%
Location: Washington state
Default

Re fructose and glucose and HFCS: Calianna, you may find of it of some comfort that regular old corn syrup (like Karo) which is what your mother probably used back then is 100% glucose. If you taste it, it is noticeably less sweet than sugar or HFCS. http://www.thekitchn.com/corn-syrup...fference-196819

In fact, HFCS is named High Fructose Corn Syrup that because it has way more fructose and sweetness than traditional corn syrup.

As far as the difference between HFCS and table sugar, inflammabl, you are right, only 5% difference in amount of glucose, and Taubes (and maybe Lustig as well) treats them as equivalent in damage to the body.

Thanks for the additional reviews, Janet.
Reply With Quote
  #48   ^
Old Mon, Jan-02-17, 12:38
Calianna's Avatar
Calianna Calianna is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,015
 
Plan: Atkins-ish (hypoglycemia)
Stats: 000/000/000 Female 63
BF:
Progress: 50%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Liz53
Re fructose and glucose and HFCS: Calianna, you may find of it of some comfort that regular old corn syrup (like Karo) which is what your mother probably used back then is 100% glucose. If you taste it, it is noticeably less sweet than sugar or HFCS. http://www.thekitchn.com/corn-syrup...fference-196819


Thanks for that information. Of course I was showing definite signs of hyperinsulinism even as a newborn.

Seriously - the day mom brought me home from the hospital, I slept for 14-1/2 hours solid. She called the doctor after the first 10 hours or so, because she was so concerned, and was simply told that I'd wake up when I was hungry. She called again after a couple more hours, and was again assured that I'd wake up when I was hungry. When she called back again after 14-1/2 hours, the doctor finally said it was ok to wake me up to feed me. She tried all the usual stuff to wake me - undressing me, changing my diaper, bathing me, and none of that worked. She finally resorted to snapping the soles of my feet with her fingernails to wake me so she could feed me.

Does anyone else remember playing desktop football with a triangular folded up piece of notebook paper, and how you'd "kick" the paper "football" across the table by forcefully snapping/flicking it with your fingers? That's exactly what mom had to do to the soles of my feet to wake me up, and let me tell you, fingernails snapped with that much force against the soles of your feet is downright painful - she did this a few years ago one time just to show me what she had to do to wake me as a baby, and it HURT as an adult. I can't imagine how it must have felt as an infant, but she'd flick my bare feet until I finally opened my mouth to cry, then immediately shove a bottle in there, flicking as needed to keep me awake enough to finish the bottle. She did this regularly, whenever it was time for a feeding for the first few months of my life (until I was waking up a little more on my own) although since I was automatically sleeping through the night from the time I was born, she didn't bother to wake me up at night to feed me.

The corn syrup may have been 100% glucose, but the sugar hit from all that glucose certainly had the same effect as sugar has always had on me. Despite missing one or two feedings every day due to sleeping through the night from the time I was a newborn, I was a very fat baby - all the excess insulin obviously sent every bit of that glucose straight to fat storage.
Reply With Quote
  #49   ^
Old Mon, Jan-02-17, 23:09
Liz53's Avatar
Liz53 Liz53 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 6,125
 
Plan: Mostly Fung/IDM
Stats: 165/138.4/135 Female 63
BF:???/better/???
Progress: 89%
Location: Washington state
Default

Wow, that's crazy, Calianna. And sad. It sounds as if LCHF was made for you.
Reply With Quote
  #50   ^
Old Tue, Jan-03-17, 05:07
Demi's Avatar
Demi Demi is offline
Posts: 21,758
 
Plan: LCHF
Stats: 215/170/160 Female 5'10"
BF:
Progress: 82%
Location: UK
Default

Another UK review:

Quote:
Can sugar really give you CANCER? Diet author reveals how the smallest amount can trigger health problems such as heart disease and diabetes

  • In the past 30 years obesity rates have doubled, along with the rise of diabetes
  • People who are obese and diabetic also tend to higher risk of cancer and stroke
  • Some experts say we 'eat too damn much', others blame the effects of sugar

Over the past 30 years obesity rates have doubled and the rise in diabetes has been just as unstoppable.

The problem doesn't stop with these conditions — people who are obese and diabetic also tend to have high blood pressure and they have a higher risk of heart disease, cancer, stroke, even Alzheimer's disease.

So what's happening? Something has changed dramatically in our diets, our lifestyle or our environment to trigger these unprecedented epidemics. But what?

The official explanation is that people eat more calories than they burn off and this imbalance is what makes them obese.

The obesity then causes them to develop diabetes.

As a top nutrition expert at Harvard University once said: 'The only trouble with the American diet is that we eat too damn much.'

And the finger of blame has been pointed, if anything, at dietary fat.

The most likely cause, though, lies elsewhere — sugar.

Not because we eat too much, but because sugar has unique physiological, metabolic and hormonal effects in the human body that are likely to directly trigger disorders such as diabetes, heart disease and even cancer.

It might not surprise you to hear that sugar is a bad guy.

After ignoring or downplaying the role of sugars and sweets for a quarter-century, many health authorities have now woken up to the threat and argue that sugar is, in fact, a major cause of obesity and diabetes and should be taxed heavily or regulated to reduce consumption.

But this isn't because they believe sugar directly causes disease; rather they believe that sugar merely represents 'empty calories' that we eat in excess because they taste so good.

By this logic, sugar either displaces other, more nutritious elements of our diet, or simply adds extra, unneeded calories to make us fatter.

The empty calories argument is particularly convenient for the food industry, which would understandably prefer not to see a key constituent of its products — all too often, the key constituent — damned as toxic.

Meanwhile health organisations, including the American Diabetes Association and the American Heart Association, have also found the argument convenient, having spent the past 50 years blaming dietary fat for our ills, while letting sugar off the hook.

So how do we know it's sugar that's the prime suspect for directly making us ill? One clue is that the incidence of diabetes and obesity has risen in parallel with the rise in sugar consumption.

Not just in Western countries, but in those where sugar had never been part of the traditional diet.

For instance, in the Eighties, only one per cent of the Chinese population was diabetic — now that Western-style eating is common it's 11 per cent.

Among the Inuit in Greenland and Canada the result is similar; diabetes was virtually unknown in the Sixties, now it's at nine per cent of the population.

Both increases, as with everywhere else in the world, follow the adoption of a Western-style, sugar-rich diet.

This certainly contains high levels of sugar, but why should that be a major cause of obesity and diabetes? The answer is that it appears to do far more than add to the daily calorie count.

Research dating back to the Sixties, but consistently ignored by dietitians and food regulatory authorities, has directly linked sugar with metabolic syndrome, a cluster of problems which includes putting on weight round the middle and chronic inflammation.

This is how it happens: sugar in the diet, along with other refined carbohydrates, raises blood sugar which then triggers the release of insulin, to move it into cells where it can be burned for fuel.

Everyday table sugar (known as sucrose) is actually made up of two carbohydrates — glucose and fructose — and it's the fructose that makes sugar particularly damaging.

Unlike other carbs, fructose is mostly processed in the liver, where it is turned into fat and seems to trigger a sequence of events that eventually leads to cells becoming resistant to insulin.

As is the case with many drugs, the body needs more insulin to have the same effect.

Insulin resistance is damaging to the body in a number of ways, which results in a cluster of abnormalities known as metabolic syndrome — as well as putting on weight round the middle and chronic inflammation, these include raised blood pressure and an increased amount of fat (triglycerides) in the blood.

Type 2 diabetes is the result of insulin resistance and so are, to some extent, diseases linked with diabetes and obesity such as heart disease, hypertension and Alzheimer's.

Among the most provocative of the implications of this hypothesis is that sugar may cause or exacerbate cancer.

Just as diabetes was rare in traditional societies until they began eating a Western diet, researchers noticed the same was true for cancer.

By the Sixties, public health authorities believed that many cancers were 'potentially preventable' with changes of diet.

About ten years ago scientists discovered that the higher the level of insulin people had in their blood, the greater the chance they would develop cancer.

What's more, giving a diabetes drug that lowered insulin levels was associated with a lower risk of cancer.
But why should cancer, which happens when cells grow out of control, be affected by high levels of insulin?

It's because insulin does many things in the human body, including stimulating cells to multiply and tumours to grow. And it can have another effect that benefits the cancer.

Insulin together with a related hormone called insulin growth hormone turns off one of the programmes that normally kicks in to kill off cells that have turned cancerous (technically known as apoptosis, or cell suicide).

If the high levels of the sugars we consume cause insulin resistance, then it's hard to avoid the conclusion that sugar causes or at least promotes cancer, radical as this may seem, and even though this suggestion is rarely if ever voiced publicly.

There is also a strong case for saying that sugar is also directly responsible for high blood pressure.

Usually the blame is placed on excess salt. It's a simple and concise hypothesis — and it's all too likely wrong.

Eating a lot of salt certainly increases blood pressure as our bodies then automatically retain more water.

This makes the salt in the blood less concentrated and raises blood pressure in the process.

But this salt/hypertension theory has resolutely resisted confirmation in clinical trials.

In other words, cutting salt hasn't been shown to make much difference to the risk of developing hypertension, and even when people do lower salt intake significantly — by 50 per cent, say — it only lowers blood pressure, on average, by two to three points.

The connection between high blood pressure and insulin was first suggested back in 1933. Insulin makes your kidneys retain salt, rather than discarding it in urine.

Hence the more insulin in your blood, the more salt, and the greater the blood pressure. It can also raise blood pressure directly by constricting blood vessels.

It's not immediately obvious that there is a direct link between insulin resistance and Alzheimer's.

But as with cancer, there is a connection with diabetes, and people with diabetes have up to twice the risk of Alzheimer's as those without.

Some researchers are even talking about Alzheimer's as type 3 diabetes.

Among other things, it is thought insulin resistance might directly increase the rate at which the brain accumulates amyloid plaques and tau tangles — classic signs of the disease.

Science is ultimately about explaining what we observe in nature and doing so in the simplest possible way.

The simple explanation adopted by nutrition researchers and public health authorities for our epidemic of chronic disease has been to blame the victims, those who are overweight and obese.

They are guilty of eating too much and exercising too little.

Since the Seventies the authorities have considered it quackery to suggest sugar is responsible. In fact, sugar is the primary suspect.



Adapted from The Case Against Sugar by Gary Taubes (Portobello Books, £14.99).

Gary Taubes is an award-winning U.S. science writer who specialises in diet and nutrition. His previous books include the The Diet Delusion and Why We Get Fat.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/a...e-diabetes.html
Reply With Quote
  #51   ^
Old Tue, Jan-03-17, 06:42
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

Terrific! Love that it is an adaptation of the book's thesis by Gary Taubes himself. I hesitate to use The Daily Mail as a serious source when their journalists write the stories...but I will use this one.
Thanks, Demi
Reply With Quote
  #52   ^
Old Tue, Jan-03-17, 07:29
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

Review in The New York Times by Dan Barber

http://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/02/b...aubes.html?_r=0

Quote:
THE CASE AGAINST SUGAR
By Gary Taubes
365 pp. Alfred A. Knopf. $26.95.

Say your child petitioned for permission to smoke a pack of cigarettes a week. Say his or her logic was that a pack a week is better than a pack a day. No dice, right?

O.K., now substitute sugar for cigarettes.

Comparing the dangers of inhaling cigarettes with chowing down on candy bars may sound like false equivalence, but Gary Taubes’s “The Case Against Sugar” will persuade you otherwise. Here is a book on sugar that sugarcoats nothing. The stuff kills.

Taubes begins with a kick in the teeth. Sugar is not only the root cause of today’s diabetes and obesity epidemics (had these been infectious diseases, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention would have long ago declared an emergency), but also, according to Taubes, is probably related to heart disease, hypertension, many common cancers and Alzheimer’s.

Name a long-term, degenerative disease, and chances are Taubes will point you in the same direction.

Taubes has written extensively about diet and chronic illness, notably in a 2002 New York Times Magazine cover article that challenged the low-fat orthodoxy of the day. Taubes expanded the piece into two books, “Good Calories, Bad Calories” and, several years later, “Why We Get Fat,” in which he argued that the American medical establishment had bungled this century’s biggest health crisis. Bad science and the processed-food industry have colluded to make fat public enemy No. 1 — all the while neglecting carbohydrates, especially the highly processed and easily digested kind. And these are the real culprits in the expansion of our waistlines.

In “The Case Against Sugar,” Taubes distills the carbohydrate argument further, zeroing in on sugar as the true villain. He implicates scientists, nutritionists and especially the sugar industry in what he claims amounts to a major cover-up.

Taubes’s writing is both inflammatory and copiously researched. It is also well timed. In September, a researcher at the University of California, San Francisco, uncovered documents showing that Big Sugar paid three Harvard scientists in the 1960s to play down the connection between sugar and heart disease and instead point the finger at saturated fat. Coca-Cola and candy makers made similar headlines for their forays into nutrition science, funding studies that discounted the link between sugar and obesity.

It’s tempting to predict that Taubes’s hard-charging (and I’ll add game-changing) book will diminish sugar’s dominance, sealing the fate that no ingredient could evade after such public relations disasters. But the history of sugar in this country suggests it won’t be that easy. Here is where Taubes is at his most persuasive, tracing sugar’s unique and intractable place in the American diet.

Start with World War II as an example, when the government smoothed the way for sugar rationing by arguing that sugar was not part of a healthy diet. The American Medical Association agreed and recommended severely limiting consumption. Alarmed by the possibility of an American public that could learn to live without sugar, the industry founded the Sugar Research Foundation to proselytize its benefits. As Taubes sees it, the S.R.F. may have been created in the spirit of other industry-funded research programs — to promote and defend a product — but it helped establish relationships with scientists like the ones recently reported on at Harvard in the 1960s, and it institutionalized an aggressive, attack-dog public relations strategy that remains prevalent and pernicious to this day (tactics that the tobacco industry would also adopt).

With the rise of new calorie-counting dieting fads in the 1950s, the industry responded with a coordinated offensive. Blanketing daily newspapers with advertisements, it argued, successfully it turned out, that since obesity was caused by excess consumption of calories — a calorie was a calorie, dogma at the time — all foods should be restricted equally. Sugar has only 16 calories a teaspoon; why should it be disproportionately demonized?

The 1960s and ’70s saw a similar pattern: another threat in the form of new evidence implicating sugar, another coordinated response.

Just when it looked as if the sugar industry, for all its campaigning, could no longer overrule scientific fact, it was saved by saturated fat. The rising belief that dietary fat consumption was the cause of obesity and heart disease — which had been written about sporadically for decades — suddenly coalesced into fact, shifting the public’s attention away from sugar. This wasn’t planned or paid for. It was just dumb luck. The American Heart Association, long considered unbiased and authoritative, played a crucial role by blaming fat and cholesterol for heart disease. The press, Congress and the Department of Agriculture followed suit.

Then things went totally bananas. High-fructose corn syrup, which is just as deleterious as sugar, got a passing grade from scientists (especially for diabetics!) and went mainstream in the ’80s and ’90s. Same killer, new disguise: Americans were seduced by the sweet stuff all over again. A new category of products presented as health foods, like sports drinks and low-fat yogurt, played a sort of shell game by advertising that the bulk of their calories came from high-fructose corn syrup, without letting on to consumers that this was just another form of sugar. Learning about this made my heart hurt.

So, after decades of scrambled and spurious dietary advice, where are we now? There is a growing consensus in the medical community that a condition known as “metabolic syndrome” is perhaps the greatest predictor of heart disease and diabetes. Signs of the syndrome include obesity, high blood pressure and, more than anything, insulin resistance — which puts a particularly heavy strain on the body.

And what causes insulin resistance and metabolic syndrome? Taubes blames sugar, the “dietary trigger” hiding in plain sight for over half a century. And if he’s right, he could prove its guilt once and for all.

But is he right? Taubes, who no doubt finds the answer blindingly obvious, nonetheless poses the question himself. Is sugar “the primary cause of insulin resistance and metabolic syndrome and therefore obesity, diabetes and heart disease”? His answer: “It certainly could be.”

I know, I know — it’s the prosecutorial equivalent of a deflating balloon. But Taubes explains his caution by reminding us that we are no longer dealing with deficiency diseases, like scurvy, which can be solved with a single magic bullet like vitamin C. We’re talking about degenerative diseases, which take a long time to develop — a lifetime of sweets, in other words — and (frustratingly, if you’re out to prove the hypothesis) don’t develop in everyone.

If you’re like me, you’ve read this review just as I read Taubes’s book — respectfully interested in the history and the facts, but really wanting to be told how much sugar is too much. Taubes anticipates our self-interest, ending the book with a chapter just for us: “How Little Is Still Too Much?” But like some cryptic oracle, he answers the question with still more questions: How many cigarettes are too many cigarettes? What if the person who smoked a pack a week outlived the person who smoked a pack a day? Would we conclude that inhaling a pack of cigarettes a week is safe?

Herein lies Taubes’s key point, and it’s sort of a life lesson. We will never know for certain. Sugar may once again get off scot-free, because there is no definitive experiment or algorithm that can be developed to remove all doubt, no practical way to know for sure to what extent it’s killing us. The only certainty is that Big Sugar will continue to fight for its exoneration. Faced with more damning evidence, the industry will obfuscate rather than enlighten. It will insist that there are “two sides” to the story, and will corral skeptical scientists — readily available on any subject — to invalidate or at least cast doubt on solid medical consensus.

There’s another certainty, too — one that Taubes doesn’t acknowledge. When it comes to our health, sugar itself might be largely to blame, but the story can’t end there. It’s tempting to think — and Taubes insinuates — that if we managed to cut sugar out of our diets altogether, the chronic diseases discussed in this book would disappear. But that ignores a whole ecosystem of issues — our patterns of eating and excess, our poisoned environment — that informs our well-being. Put simply: Remove sugar and we’ll still be sick.

Our job here — and not only here, but with everything from tobacco to global warming — is to override the imperfect, long haul to scientific certainty and instead follow the precautionary principle, which means recognizing what’s staring us in the face and acting on it as if our health hangs in the balance. Because it does.

Dan Barber is the chef and co-owner of Blue Hill and Blue Hill at Stone Barns, and the author of “The Third Plate.”
Reply With Quote
  #53   ^
Old Tue, Jan-03-17, 08:33
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

Quote:
Originally Posted by JEY100
Terrific! Love that it is an adaptation of the book's thesis by Gary Taubes himself. I hesitate to use The Daily Mail as a serious source when their journalists write the stories...but I will use this one.
Thanks, Demi

Ya, that one was good. Really good.

Quote:
Everyday table sugar (known as sucrose) is actually made up of two carbohydrates — glucose and fructose — and it's the fructose that makes sugar particularly damaging.

Unlike other carbs, fructose is mostly processed in the liver, where it is turned into fat and seems to trigger a sequence of events that eventually leads to cells becoming resistant to insulin.


Taubes fans like myself should focus on this fact, "fructose is mostly processed in the liver". Yes 100g of sucrose and fructose have a lower glycemic index than glucose. Yes, it's very easy to measure the GI and it is directly related to the treatment of T1 and T2 diabetes but glucose leaves the liver alone while sucrose and fructose attack it directly and are the cause of metabolic syndrome.

It sure would be better if we addressed the cause of metabolic syndrome rather than the effects.
Reply With Quote
  #54   ^
Old Tue, Jan-03-17, 09:55
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

"...Herein lies Taubes’s key point, and it’s sort of a life lesson. We will never know for certain." - from review.

+1
Reply With Quote
  #55   ^
Old Tue, Jan-03-17, 10:12
Merpig's Avatar
Merpig Merpig is offline
Posts: 6,111
 
Plan: IF/Fung IDM/Potato Hack?
Stats: 375/272.6/175 Female 66 inches
BF:
Progress: 51%
Location: NE Florida
Default

I just got my copy in the mail! Not that I really need convincing about sugar but, alas, I don't always practice what I preach. I love "Good Calories, Bad Calories" so I'm looking forward to this one.
Reply With Quote
  #56   ^
Old Tue, Jan-03-17, 11:00
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

Finished it on my Kindle (well, Kindle app on iPad) last night. Dense reading but well worth it.
Reply With Quote
  #57   ^
Old Tue, Jan-03-17, 11:38
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

Quote:
Originally Posted by bostonkarl
Finished it on my Kindle (well, Kindle app on iPad) last night. Dense reading but well worth it.


What's the narrative like? How does he go about telling the story?
Reply With Quote
  #58   ^
Old Tue, Jan-03-17, 16:43
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 inflammabl
What's the narrative like? How does he go about telling the story?


There's lots of facts, but he makes them into interesting stories along with telling them; he's very much a science writer, but there's also humor, along with plenty of summing up places where he ties together the last several things he told you.

I find him an easy read; even with all the science stuff.
Reply With Quote
  #59   ^
Old Tue, Jan-03-17, 21:33
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

I probably won't buy this one because I'm already convinced sugar is bad but have bought a couple of his other books and they were excellent. I read Good Calories Bad Calories in about four days despite its extreme length, and it was the one thing that convinced me that I must return to and remain on a low carb diet for life. Thanks to Gary Taubes I may be dodging a lot of type 2 diabetes complications as I age.
Reply With Quote
  #60   ^
Old Tue, Jan-03-17, 21:51
Meme#1's Avatar
Meme#1 Meme#1 is offline
Posts: 7,776
 
Plan: Atkins DANDR
Stats: 210/183/160 Female 5'4"
BF:
Progress: 54%
Location: Texas
Default

Have you read "Sugar Crush" by Dr. Richard Jacoby?
It's really good.
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 04:53.


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