Fat Production Doubled by Sugar Consumption
Quote:
https://www.technologynetworks.com/...sumption-346750 |
Quote:
Has anyone else noticed that this is a new trend? Forty years ago, we were told that sugar had less than half the calories of fat, so it was ok. Quote:
I've never felt satiation from sugary anything - just the desire for more, more, more sugar. Sugary drinks were the worst - spike the blood sugar, causing a blood sugar crash, and the fluid doesn't last long enough in the stomach to make you feel full more than a few minutes. Quote:
I wonder how long it will be before they stop to think about the fact that starches (including those in hearthealthywholegrains) convert to glucose even faster than sugar? Quote:
I hope this is a step along the way to realizing that simply cutting out added sugars doesn't help all that much in those who are already dealing with metabolic issues. If you cut the added sugars way back, and there's still a problem, maybe they'll see that the naturally occurring sugars need to be cut back as well. |
Not surprising, but it all comes down to "how you tell the story" or define sugar in this case. Focusing on refined, manufactured sugars is hardly the whole story.
Quote:
Good observations, fully agree. |
Sadly, most people in most fields are not really that well educated, but rather are, at best, well-trained. They are taught a bunch of "facts" that they simply accept at face value and that they then regurgitate for the rest of their career. This is as true for doctors, lawyers, and engineers as it is for nutritionists, economists, and psychiatrists. Depressingly few people in any field are taught to truly understand and think and critique what they are being taught. The result is what we see -- that diabetics are told to eat the very things that drive the progression of their disease because the people giving the advice simply accept what the textbooks and the government guidelines state despite the fact that those same textbooks and guidelines contain all of the necessary information to see how asinine this is. But things do change, even against this entrenched tide. It would be interesting to quantify the cost and lives lost associated with the process, however.
|
Quote:
I remember back in Grammar school, in the 60s, being told that whereas one could get a good grade at "O" level (usually sat at 16) by rote learning and regurgitation of facts, in order to do well at "A" level (usually sat at 18), one would have to demonstrate the ability to critique and show original thought. Nowadays it seems to me that even at University students are only rewarded for parroting what lecturers and textbooks tell them with thought only required at PhD and beyond (and even then, still safer to support the orthodox line). |
Quote:
Completely agree. In fact, the whole notion of memorizing vs comprehension has been turned upside down. When I required my students to be able to derive the small-signal models for transistors from the constitutive equations I was criticized by several students for forcing them to memorize things instead of understanding them. But when I asked them what they meant, they referred to prior classes that only required them to regurgitate and use the models without any requirement at all that they have any comprehension of where those models came from, let alone why they are valid and what the limitations of them are. Yet this is what they believed constituted "understanding" and not "memorization". Having said that, they did have a point in that their approach to being able to derive the models was not to understand what the models mean and how they can be derived from the constitutive equations, but rather to simply memorize the derivations presented in class without having the slightest clue what was going on because that's the learning model all of their prior "education" had instilled in them. |
Quote:
What an excellent summing up of so much of the problem. So many confuse expertise with a good memory... |
The more I ponder this study, the more I realize how this works in OVERDRIVE when its my own body. I can have several little blocks of Lily's chocolate, which is flavored with stevia. But ONE little block of regular chocolate, or ONE dried cherry with added sugar -- instead of just a fresh cherry -- and I'm ready to unhinge the fridge door.
Obviously my body "locks up all my fuel" with even small amounts of sugar, and my body begins to starve. Since that's how it feels :) |
Quote:
It would be interesting to see what half as much fructose, instead of just as much sucrose, would do. It's possible that the short-term capacity for increasing fat production in response to a fructose dose was just already saturated with half as much fructose. There's an old study on sugar overconsumption--I think by Flatt and Acheson?--where with massive overconsumption of carbohydrate, it took several days for fat production to hit a much higher point than at the beginning. |
For decades we have been told that high fat diets will kill us and we need to eat more grains.
Corporate agriculture spreads these lies in order to boost profits. After all corporations need perpetually increasing profits to keep the stockholders from jumping ship. So they create bogus studies, and then give huge donations to entities that 'educate' the professionals and the population. Tell a lie enough times and people will believe it. We've been on the low fat diet for decades and we get fatter and less healthy. Isn't that enough evidence for anyone? No, those who have been gaslighted have the attitude "My mind is already made up, don't confuse me with the facts." But the facts speak for themselves. All you have to do is to be open to them. I've been keto since it was called Atkins Induction and the doctor says I have a heart and circulatory system of a healthy person 20 years younger than myself. He actually said it is amazing. I get one two-day mild cold every 15 years or so (usually when I go off plan on a vacation) and I am on zero meds at 74 years old. Don't tell me keto is bad for me and sugars/starches are good for me. |
Quote:
I know it sounds like a conspiracy theory, but it's TRUE. :agree: Corporations routinely do this. It always comes to lawsuits, and eventually the lies are uncovered. But it's a long struggle and in the meantime, they make far more money than the settlements ever come to. The Ford Pinto had a famous problem with bursting into flames during an accident. I'm sure none of the higher executives at Ford drove Pintos. Problem -- for them -- solved. But the bigger picture is much more confusing to me. Here we come to the amazing part: in a novel, there would be a secret cabal who eats the way we do. But that's not what is happening. They act like they believe their own propaganda in certain key ways. Oh, I'm not saying they're vegan: unless they are pretending and it suits their purposes to do so. (And I think every most of the public vegans fall into this category. Look at the constant "outing" of vegans eating in public in ways they tell their followers not to.) There are two paths to "health" in this country. One is to eat food pyramid and take pharmaceutical drugs to deal with the inevitable symptoms of chronic metabolic disease. The other is to eat with an eye towards low carb and good nutrition, and study any drugs we might take with some informed consideration. What path is being taken by the people who are making all this money? I've seen the menus at the fancy restaurants. They eat plenty of grains and sugar along with the steaks. I'm sure they have excellent health care and they take the drugs their doctors prescribe. They should know better... but they are still on the WRONG path. They are falling for what they are selling! |
It's not a conspiracy at all, it's the hidden problem in capitalism (not that I can think of a better way).
In my small businesses, all I need to do is to make enough money to pay the help and myself and keep up with inflation. Anything else is necessary. If a corporation did that, their stock would stay level, the stockholders would jump ship, and the corporation would collapse. The corporation needs perpetual profits, each quarter making more profit than the previous one to keep the stockholders happy. So they will do anything to get you to buy their products, even if their product is junk food. To be aware of this point will give you enough skepticism to analyze the test data; who sponsored it, how was it run, was it published in a respected, peer-reviewed journal, was it repeated by an independent party, etc. ??? I know that Archer-Daniels-Midland sponsored tests that manipulated statistics to indicate that eating more grains improved your heart health. The presented this to the American Heart Association along with millions of dollars per year in donations. The donations were given without strings, but the AHA knows if it wants to keep the money coming, it had better stick with those bogus tests. Like I said, capitalism is a great system, but like any system, it has it's faults. I wish I know how to fix it, but I'm not that smart in that category. Bob |
Just head that during Reagan's administration, funding for NIH was decreased, leaving s vacuum filled by corporate money. Results of any study is tainted .
|
My DH, and I agree, says well-regulated capitalism seems to have the best results. It also encourages "good actors," who cultivate their employees, treat them fairly, and make decisions about longevity and public reputation.
Treating customers fairly and this kind of managed competition (trust-busting for the win!) creates a market which gives the proper feedback. But this slant to the stock market we deal with now only benefits a bunch of liars, cheaters, and thieves. |
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:11. |
Copyright © 2000-2024 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.