The Sugar Addiction Taboo(theatlantic.com)
theatlantic.com
The Sugar Addiction Taboo
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/01/the-sugar-addiction-taboo/282699/
9 comments
> At UCSF, he's generally considered a bit of a quack
You have also stated that every epidemiology researcher is a quack, save ~5. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7002375
You have also stated that every epidemiology researcher is a quack, save ~5. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7002375
In the first few minutes of "Sugar, the Bitter Truth" he shows that the average daily caloric intake has increased on average something like ~200 calories in recent decades, shows it's mostly sugar calories, then spends the rest of the video explaining info that supports his hypothesis that it's the fructose, ignoring that people are simply eating more and not using that extra energy, so they get fatter.
Every scientific claim I hear I run through this http://norvig.com/experiment-design.html and "Sugar, the Bitter Truth" raised a lot of alarm bells for me.
Every scientific claim I hear I run through this http://norvig.com/experiment-design.html and "Sugar, the Bitter Truth" raised a lot of alarm bells for me.
I tried looking before to see if there were any studies done on mice, say, feeding them diets with the same caloric value, but different proportions of fat, protein, sugar. Wanted to know if there's any evidence that eating more sugar makes you get fatter. Wasn't able to find anything.
> I, working with grad students at UCSF and elsewhere, have picked apart the materials and methods of his studies and found numerous statistical errors which make us doubt the validity of his conclusions.
Have you published your work anywhere? I'd like to read it.
Have you published your work anywhere? I'd like to read it.
Sorry, nope. The content of discussions in journal clubs are generally considered confidential.
What is your assessment of the reputability of those journals where Lustig has published?
And the reference to those statistical or other errors or is this just ad hominem?
Not mine, but here: http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2013/02/28/no-its-not-the-...
the more fundamental problem with the study was that (if you read carefulyl) they found the same effect with glucose as they did fructose. You have to carefully read the chart/figure labels to figure that part out though :-(
the more fundamental problem with the study was that (if you read carefulyl) they found the same effect with glucose as they did fructose. You have to carefully read the chart/figure labels to figure that part out though :-(
The author of this article is Robert Lustig, so there is a lot of relevant background out there about his views and the reception. Here is one of his well known youtube lectures about sugar: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM&list=TLQCIoJBjuT4.... Wikipedia has some background as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Lustig.
In short, know the source here. His view is thought provoking but not without controversy, and not widely accepted in the medical community.
In short, know the source here. His view is thought provoking but not without controversy, and not widely accepted in the medical community.
Based on wikipedia, he seems to have more knowledge of the subject that the "medical community" would have, to be honest, given he has the following qualifications:
Robert H. Lustig, MD
Nationality: American
Education: MIT, Cornell University Medical College
Medical career
Profession: clinical medical practice, teaching and research
Field: neuroendocrinology, pediatric endocrinology
Institutions: University of California, San Francisco, UCSF Benioff Children's Hospital
Specialism: childhood obesity
Research: biochemical, neural, hormonal and genetic influences contributing to obesity
I don't know too much about him, but I'm curious as to whether or not any of his detractors have similar specialties. On the surface, most of the data would seem to agree with Dr. Lustig.
Robert H. Lustig, MD
Nationality: American
Education: MIT, Cornell University Medical College
Medical career
Profession: clinical medical practice, teaching and research
Field: neuroendocrinology, pediatric endocrinology
Institutions: University of California, San Francisco, UCSF Benioff Children's Hospital
Specialism: childhood obesity
Research: biochemical, neural, hormonal and genetic influences contributing to obesity
I don't know too much about him, but I'm curious as to whether or not any of his detractors have similar specialties. On the surface, most of the data would seem to agree with Dr. Lustig.
It's not impossible for a person to have stellar research credentials, yet be a terrible research MD.
Could you point to the data which agrees with Lustig? can you vouch for its accuracy, compared to, say, some data people who don't agree with him?
I've talked extensively with people in the Biochemistry dept at UCSF (my phd is from biophysics there) and they mostly seem to think he's a buffoon.
Could you point to the data which agrees with Lustig? can you vouch for its accuracy, compared to, say, some data people who don't agree with him?
I've talked extensively with people in the Biochemistry dept at UCSF (my phd is from biophysics there) and they mostly seem to think he's a buffoon.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/79/4/537.full
http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/106/4/523.full
Admittedly, This isn't my area of expertise. However that's a 30 second google search compared to your "people I know say he's a buffoon" argument.
Given you are an anonymous voice in the inter-webs who may not even know how to get to UCSF, I'm pretty comfortable with my current assessment.
I can certainly be convinced otherwise, but "my buddies think he's a kook" is not exactly doing it for me.
(I'm confused ~ downvotes? There is absolutely nothing beyond ad homenem provided against me by dekhn, and yet I'm downvoted? Am I missing something here?)
http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/106/4/523.full
Admittedly, This isn't my area of expertise. However that's a 30 second google search compared to your "people I know say he's a buffoon" argument.
Given you are an anonymous voice in the inter-webs who may not even know how to get to UCSF, I'm pretty comfortable with my current assessment.
I can certainly be convinced otherwise, but "my buddies think he's a kook" is not exactly doing it for me.
(I'm confused ~ downvotes? There is absolutely nothing beyond ad homenem provided against me by dekhn, and yet I'm downvoted? Am I missing something here?)
Duno about the downvotes, but in short the first link says "may" in the title and the abstract concludes with this pointless statement "Thus, the increase in consumption of HFCS has a temporal relation to the epidemic of obesity, and the overconsumption of HFCS in calorically sweetened beverages may play a role in the epidemic of obesity." which tells me as a scientist nothing.
The second article isn't very helpful either.
We are looking for high quality data that meets the criteria required to make nutritional advice:
1) almost certainly needs to be a controlled clinical trial with double blinding 2) needs to be replicated by multiple indepdendent groups who do not share data or methods or design before publishing 3) after that, get a Cochrane REview and ideally also allow Glantz and others to pick apart the methodology.
The second article isn't very helpful either.
We are looking for high quality data that meets the criteria required to make nutritional advice:
1) almost certainly needs to be a controlled clinical trial with double blinding 2) needs to be replicated by multiple indepdendent groups who do not share data or methods or design before publishing 3) after that, get a Cochrane REview and ideally also allow Glantz and others to pick apart the methodology.
From my second link:
In the absence of definitive evidence, recommendations must rely on professional judgment. No data suggest that sugar intake per se is advantageous, and some data suggest it may be detrimental. The studies above, taken in total, indicate that high sugar intake should be avoided. Sugar has no nutritional value other than to provide calories. To improve the overall nutrient density of the diet and to help reduce the intake of excess calories, individuals should be sure foods high in added sugar are not displacing foods with essential nutrients or increasing calorie intake.
Can you point me to something substantial that suggests I should not consider the above accurate? I appreciate that evidence in support of the Lustig claims may not be complete, but evidence against them seems non existent. Why should I ignore what seems obvious?
In the absence of definitive evidence, recommendations must rely on professional judgment. No data suggest that sugar intake per se is advantageous, and some data suggest it may be detrimental. The studies above, taken in total, indicate that high sugar intake should be avoided. Sugar has no nutritional value other than to provide calories. To improve the overall nutrient density of the diet and to help reduce the intake of excess calories, individuals should be sure foods high in added sugar are not displacing foods with essential nutrients or increasing calorie intake.
Can you point me to something substantial that suggests I should not consider the above accurate? I appreciate that evidence in support of the Lustig claims may not be complete, but evidence against them seems non existent. Why should I ignore what seems obvious?
Sure. Let's remember that Lustig's goal is to actually ban substances which he says are causing MASSIVE HARM to people.
First, the conclusion that it's detriment is admitted by the authors as being uncertain "some data suggest it may".
Second, most people in the area would say that in the absence of data showing harm, one should not conclude something is harmful, and then take action.
Third, let's turn their argument around. They state: "in the absence of evidence, use professional judgment. If something has no use, it should be avoided." OK. If that's their professional judgement, then to be fair it should apply to everything in their demesne, right? AKA, if there is somethign which is not absolutely necessary, and might be detrimental, these authors would say to avoid it entirely.
However, sugar makes food more palatable. So there are patients who don't want to eat food (cancer patients on chemo) but if the food is more palatable they eat it. Even sometimes getting kids to eat food is hard- shall I not add salt, or sugar if it gets them to eat a meal? Taken to its logical conclusion, their suggestion would shut down nearly all free choices that we make which have marginal risk concerns.
First, the conclusion that it's detriment is admitted by the authors as being uncertain "some data suggest it may".
Second, most people in the area would say that in the absence of data showing harm, one should not conclude something is harmful, and then take action.
Third, let's turn their argument around. They state: "in the absence of evidence, use professional judgment. If something has no use, it should be avoided." OK. If that's their professional judgement, then to be fair it should apply to everything in their demesne, right? AKA, if there is somethign which is not absolutely necessary, and might be detrimental, these authors would say to avoid it entirely.
However, sugar makes food more palatable. So there are patients who don't want to eat food (cancer patients on chemo) but if the food is more palatable they eat it. Even sometimes getting kids to eat food is hard- shall I not add salt, or sugar if it gets them to eat a meal? Taken to its logical conclusion, their suggestion would shut down nearly all free choices that we make which have marginal risk concerns.
AKA, if there is somethign which is not absolutely necessary, and might be detrimental, these authors would say to avoid it entirely.
That seems to be a bit of a strawman based on an exaggeration of the quoted passage in the parent comment.
That seems to be a bit of a strawman based on an exaggeration of the quoted passage in the parent comment.
I don't agree at all. That's what the authors say, quite directly!
Here's a quick take down on Lustig's sugar and fructose phobia.
http://www.andrewkimblog.com/2013/02/quick-commentary-on-dr-...
Sucrose alongside adequate nutrients to process it is good for you. Sweet fruits and honey are not to be avoided.
http://www.andrewkimblog.com/2013/02/quick-commentary-on-dr-...
Sucrose alongside adequate nutrients to process it is good for you. Sweet fruits and honey are not to be avoided.
Lustig hasn't rejected "sweet fruits". He acknowledges that they're okay since they slow/retard the distribution of sugar during digestion.
There is no need to slow or retard the distribution of sugar. Insulin and your liver will deal with incoming sugars just fine. Fruit juices are a very good source of calories and minerals.
It is, however, widely accepted on HN that you should be eating pure paleo or keto, that carbs of any sort are bad, and that fructose is the equivalent of a Schedule I drug (highly addictive, highly toxic, no known benefits).
No, it's not widely accepted on HN that palo or keto is the only healthy diet. However, suger is pretty widely accepted here to be highly addictive and to offer no known benefits besides tasting great.
(in re people with hereditary fructose intolerance) "And they’re among the healthiest people on the planet. "
FFS, The Atlantic should be embarrassed to publish articles with "correlation is causation" fallacies of this magnitude in them. This is standard food woo thinking: "people who heavily scrutinized and evaluated everything they ate because they have a strong adverse reaction to X means that not eating X will make YOU healthy too!"
Not considered: that maybe the simple act of THINKING before shoving whatever's handy into one's maw might be the health-inducing factor.
See also: "It has been found that laboratory research causes cancer in rats." Which, as it turns out, may actually hold some non-snarky truth - http://www.nature.com/news/chilly-lab-mice-skew-cancer-studi...
FFS, The Atlantic should be embarrassed to publish articles with "correlation is causation" fallacies of this magnitude in them. This is standard food woo thinking: "people who heavily scrutinized and evaluated everything they ate because they have a strong adverse reaction to X means that not eating X will make YOU healthy too!"
Not considered: that maybe the simple act of THINKING before shoving whatever's handy into one's maw might be the health-inducing factor.
See also: "It has been found that laboratory research causes cancer in rats." Which, as it turns out, may actually hold some non-snarky truth - http://www.nature.com/news/chilly-lab-mice-skew-cancer-studi...
Personally I think it's an acceptable observation. Even if reduced levels of dietary fructose are not directly responsible for their health, it seems extremely feasible that an ordinary person could elect to follow the model of avoiding fructose, and expect to benefit, because they will replicate the patterns of fructose avoidance, healthy-food-selection and all.
Do you see what I am saying? The two unique features of these people are fructose intolerance, and avoiding fructose. Unless fructose intolerance confers health, the act of avoiding fructose must aide in health. The precise reason for the improvement in health isn't important, if all you (on an individual basis) desire is to replicate their healthful results.
Do you see what I am saying? The two unique features of these people are fructose intolerance, and avoiding fructose. Unless fructose intolerance confers health, the act of avoiding fructose must aide in health. The precise reason for the improvement in health isn't important, if all you (on an individual basis) desire is to replicate their healthful results.
Objectively speaking, that is unlikely a valid observation. Anyone with any dietary intolerance is more likely to read product labels, and thus more aware of what is in their food. It is not necessarily true, then, that avoiding fructose alone is making a label-conscious shopper healthier.
But someone with a fructose intolerance reads labels to avoid fructose. If you are tolerant of fructose, but decide to eliminate it from your diet anyway, how would you not start reading labels and becoming conscious of the ingredients?
> FFS, The Atlantic should be embarrassed to publish articles with "correlation is causation" fallacies of this magnitude in them. This is standard food woo thinking: "people who heavily scrutinized and evaluated everything they ate because they have a strong adverse reaction to X means that not eating X will make YOU healthy too!"
You basically just described all of epidemiology and why it has been so bad for nutritional research.
You basically just described all of epidemiology and why it has been so bad for nutritional research.
That's not completely fair. There are at least 4 or 5 good epidemiologists publishing high quality research out there!@
I know it's nit-picky of me, but this sort of stuff drives me nuts:
Food should confer wellness, not illness.
These sorts of platitudes that try to look "deep"... really put a bitter aftertaste on the tail end of articles that were serviceable otherwise.
Food should confer wellness, not illness.
These sorts of platitudes that try to look "deep"... really put a bitter aftertaste on the tail end of articles that were serviceable otherwise.
Interesting article. I'm just a little disappointed that they distinguished glucose and fructose early on then went on to using the ambiguous 'sugar'. It sounded like a lot of this only applies to the fructose when they said glucose is "not that much fun".
Agreed, they let glucose off the hook way, way too easily.
If you are eating no 'sweet' sugar yet addicted to pretzels, pizza, bagels, and cereal with low fat milk - and thinking you're healthy because it's 'whole grain', like I was over a year ago, you may be killing yourself.
Your body doesn't need to ingest any carbs at all to survive, only protein and fat are required, and you can tolerate a lot more energy from fat than protein.
I count myself among the 33%-50% of the population that is carb intolerant and should avoid carbs at all cost. I've been on a wheat free, LCHF, close to ketogenic diet^H^H^Hlifestyle for a year and have been astounded at how well it works.
Sure, some people can tolerate low fat high carb diets even as they get older. But they're making a lot of other people sick by pushing those diets on us.
If you are eating no 'sweet' sugar yet addicted to pretzels, pizza, bagels, and cereal with low fat milk - and thinking you're healthy because it's 'whole grain', like I was over a year ago, you may be killing yourself.
Your body doesn't need to ingest any carbs at all to survive, only protein and fat are required, and you can tolerate a lot more energy from fat than protein.
I count myself among the 33%-50% of the population that is carb intolerant and should avoid carbs at all cost. I've been on a wheat free, LCHF, close to ketogenic diet^H^H^Hlifestyle for a year and have been astounded at how well it works.
Sure, some people can tolerate low fat high carb diets even as they get older. But they're making a lot of other people sick by pushing those diets on us.
I devised for myself a no-sugar "dog food" recipe to use for all breakfasts and lunches for the rest of my life, and dinners when what the family eats is not suitable. Contrasting with my diet before, there is a noteworthy decrease in the amount of time I spend thinking about food now.
Before, I would have cravings and seek out food when I wasn't really hungry. Now, when I get hungry, I eat until I am no longer hungry, then stop. Afterward, I'm not hungry and not thinking at all about food for at least the next 6-12 hours. The hardest part is coordinating social meal schedules with people who now seem to be either eating or talking about food almost constantly.
Without sugar, I don't feel deprived or lacking one bit. And since my "dog food" is mainly comprised of three commodity food ingredients, it's very easy on the budget, too. I have noticed myself becoming more smug, though, so I have to be careful not to judge other people for their food choices.
Before, I would have cravings and seek out food when I wasn't really hungry. Now, when I get hungry, I eat until I am no longer hungry, then stop. Afterward, I'm not hungry and not thinking at all about food for at least the next 6-12 hours. The hardest part is coordinating social meal schedules with people who now seem to be either eating or talking about food almost constantly.
Without sugar, I don't feel deprived or lacking one bit. And since my "dog food" is mainly comprised of three commodity food ingredients, it's very easy on the budget, too. I have noticed myself becoming more smug, though, so I have to be careful not to judge other people for their food choices.
That sounds interesting. Can you share the recipe and/or the method you used to derive it?
In order of decreasing mass:
eggs, chia seed, coconut oil, diatomaceous earth, Azomite, KCl, NaCl, pulverized vitamin pills, MgSO4, borax
It may still need a tiny bit of KI, methylsilanetriol, and betaine, but those are a bit harder to obtain. I tried to work out the ratios such that a 2200 kcal portion would come in above the minimum requirement and below the tolerable upper limit for all nutrients, where those amounts are known. Since commercial vitamin pills usually go on the USRDA values, it isn't exactly how I want it, but I have been using the color imparted to my urine by the massive excess of some of the B vitamins to determine if I need to drink more water or not.
I prepare the non-egg ingredients separately, and combine them before cooking. The result is similar to scrambled eggs, except somehow manages to have less flavor than eggs alone. Seasoning is essential for palatibility. Capsaicin and onion powder seem to work best.
eggs, chia seed, coconut oil, diatomaceous earth, Azomite, KCl, NaCl, pulverized vitamin pills, MgSO4, borax
It may still need a tiny bit of KI, methylsilanetriol, and betaine, but those are a bit harder to obtain. I tried to work out the ratios such that a 2200 kcal portion would come in above the minimum requirement and below the tolerable upper limit for all nutrients, where those amounts are known. Since commercial vitamin pills usually go on the USRDA values, it isn't exactly how I want it, but I have been using the color imparted to my urine by the massive excess of some of the B vitamins to determine if I need to drink more water or not.
I prepare the non-egg ingredients separately, and combine them before cooking. The result is similar to scrambled eggs, except somehow manages to have less flavor than eggs alone. Seasoning is essential for palatibility. Capsaicin and onion powder seem to work best.
Sounds like soylent.
Here's another recipe. Unsweetened soy/almond milk, large scoop of sugar-free whey protein powder with vitamins. One banana, and/or other fruit/veggies, ground flaxseed for fiber.
Here's another recipe. Unsweetened soy/almond milk, large scoop of sugar-free whey protein powder with vitamins. One banana, and/or other fruit/veggies, ground flaxseed for fiber.
Yeah, what is it?
High fat diets boost endotoxin absorption and catecholamines. It's also very difficult to eat high fat without getting too much unsaturated fat, which accumulates over time causing inflammation and aging. High protein diets boost catecholamines.
The long standing conventional wisdom that you want to be a sugar/carb burner is correct. Your cells function best on a steadily available supply of glucose backed with plenty of glycogen. Fructose is protective against stress, so a decent amount of sucrose is desirable.
The long standing conventional wisdom that you want to be a sugar/carb burner is correct. Your cells function best on a steadily available supply of glucose backed with plenty of glycogen. Fructose is protective against stress, so a decent amount of sucrose is desirable.
Actually science will challenge your beliefs on carbs. I won't go medical journal on you, but this guy will, referring to the doctor:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2c2Oq-Pi2o
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2c2Oq-Pi2o
It's not difficult. Just buy a 5 gallon bucket of virgin coconut oil. The medium-chain saturated fats in coconut oil are very friendly to your body.
Have fun forcing down coconut oil to get enough calories. Wouldn't you enjoy the taste and convenience of a glass of grape juice?
Tongue says yes. Liver says no. Brain considers both opinions, and sides with liver.
I slather my salads with olive oil. Very tasty and doc says my numbers are great.
I think that it's important for one to make a distinction between addiction and dependency.
They're different. You can be addicted to a substance or activity, without having any physical dependence on it. Yet people often use addiction to describe both scenarios, making it ambiguous.
One can get addicted to virtually anything imaginable.
They're different. You can be addicted to a substance or activity, without having any physical dependence on it. Yet people often use addiction to describe both scenarios, making it ambiguous.
One can get addicted to virtually anything imaginable.
How would you define addiction then? Pure psychological withdrawal vs pure physical withdrawal? I'm asking - I use the terms a bit differently.
Both physical and psychological withdrawals would constitute addictions, but the word "addiction" alone is ambiguous. Dependency specifically refers to physical withdrawal.
Some addictions don't even have withdrawal symptoms at all, but are practiced largely due to inertia or some lack of motivation. Internet addiction is often one of these.
Some addictions don't even have withdrawal symptoms at all, but are practiced largely due to inertia or some lack of motivation. Internet addiction is often one of these.
The research cited by Dr. Lustig demonstrates that sugar causes both mental and physical addiction. It's more addictive than cocaine: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM
Where do you draw the line on "physical dependence" though? Arguably even the most-pure psychological addiction can even be crammed in there if given sufficient force, since you'll produce chemical imbalances if you're in withdrawal, like "I lack coffee. Bring it or someone dies." headaches.
(serious question, btw. I'm not sure where I draw it, so it usually ends up subjective, which I would like to minimize.)
There is of course the extreme, like with our physical dependence on vitamin C. Somewhere back in our evolution we lost the ability to synthesize it, probably because it was abundant in food. Now we die if we don't get it. I doubt you are referring to that, though.
(serious question, btw. I'm not sure where I draw it, so it usually ends up subjective, which I would like to minimize.)
There is of course the extreme, like with our physical dependence on vitamin C. Somewhere back in our evolution we lost the ability to synthesize it, probably because it was abundant in food. Now we die if we don't get it. I doubt you are referring to that, though.
I draw the line on addictions which produce no withdrawal symptoms. They exist. As I mentioned in my previous post, Internet addiction can be like this for some people. They compulsively spend excessive time on the web due to inertia or some emotional issue. But if you take them away on a long-term vacation without regular access to the Internet, they will feel no withdrawal or overbearing need to do so.
That's a pretty reasonable line. I'm guessing this is a case-by-case basis then, though? Some internet-addiction-withdrawals can be severe (or specifically, sometimes cause rather severe depression), though of course that's cherry-picking.
edit: not to imply case-by-case is bad. People are weird and very varied, any hard-line is likely to have straddlers.
edit: not to imply case-by-case is bad. People are weird and very varied, any hard-line is likely to have straddlers.
Just another BS title for the people working on the DSM, and a doctor to extend his legacy by creating a catchy, all-encompassing term that stands to plague the world for decades.
You're not ADD, you're all-wound-up because your sitting in a chair for 8 hours a day only to come home and do homework for another hour, sit down and eat for another hour, shower, hygiene, etc for another hour, then finally bed. Nowadays kids spend probably a minimum of 12 hours doing sedentary work. Now combine that time spent sitting with a diet high in sugar, caffeine, and artificial food...
OF COURSE YOU HAVE BUILT UP ENERGY.
The recent work of Doctors(mostly Psychiatrists) is absolutely ridiculous and the people producing the fodder for mass hysteria (ADHD, ADD, Schizo, etc,) need to be held accountable for the mis-diagnosis they've created in the society(not to mention the lawsuits they're going to be facing when in 10 years we find out that the reason for all of these new mass-diseases are these new mass-drugs))
The ONLY classification of "addiction" should be to things that have TRULY addicting chemical qualities that can be proven in simple placebo A/B testing. All OTHER work is worthless because in the human mind, anything is liable to become "addictive". I can become addicted to carrots, that doesn't make carrots "addictive"(chemically) and doesn't necessarily warrant a doctor prescribing me with loads of drugs or classifying me inside of some kind of medical label for the DSM.
The only reason sugar is treated any different is because the potential fame and money. Not the mention the likelihood nowadays that the study was funded by the same corporation that stands to benefit from the results.
* I can only hope that my generation is the one that stands to really study how powerful the mind and the body are, rather than today's generation of simply patching the problem with a bandaid called Adderall.
You're not ADD, you're all-wound-up because your sitting in a chair for 8 hours a day only to come home and do homework for another hour, sit down and eat for another hour, shower, hygiene, etc for another hour, then finally bed. Nowadays kids spend probably a minimum of 12 hours doing sedentary work. Now combine that time spent sitting with a diet high in sugar, caffeine, and artificial food...
OF COURSE YOU HAVE BUILT UP ENERGY.
The recent work of Doctors(mostly Psychiatrists) is absolutely ridiculous and the people producing the fodder for mass hysteria (ADHD, ADD, Schizo, etc,) need to be held accountable for the mis-diagnosis they've created in the society(not to mention the lawsuits they're going to be facing when in 10 years we find out that the reason for all of these new mass-diseases are these new mass-drugs))
The ONLY classification of "addiction" should be to things that have TRULY addicting chemical qualities that can be proven in simple placebo A/B testing. All OTHER work is worthless because in the human mind, anything is liable to become "addictive". I can become addicted to carrots, that doesn't make carrots "addictive"(chemically) and doesn't necessarily warrant a doctor prescribing me with loads of drugs or classifying me inside of some kind of medical label for the DSM.
The only reason sugar is treated any different is because the potential fame and money. Not the mention the likelihood nowadays that the study was funded by the same corporation that stands to benefit from the results.
* I can only hope that my generation is the one that stands to really study how powerful the mind and the body are, rather than today's generation of simply patching the problem with a bandaid called Adderall.
The liver converts fructose into glucose.
While glucose is not essential, energy is, and glucose is the preferred energy for cellular metabolism (glycogen). Outside being in a sustained energy-surplus fructose is of little consequence.
Energy-balance (digested food calories - energy exerted living) is magnitudes more important than the macronutrient content of your diet.
While glucose is not essential, energy is, and glucose is the preferred energy for cellular metabolism (glycogen). Outside being in a sustained energy-surplus fructose is of little consequence.
Energy-balance (digested food calories - energy exerted living) is magnitudes more important than the macronutrient content of your diet.
> Energy-balance (digested food calories - energy exerted living) is magnitudes more important than the macronutrient content of your diet.
That's a convenient fallacy which is so often repeated that it is simply assumed to be true, but some -- such as Gary Taubes, Dr. Lustig (the author of this article), Dr. Eric Westman, and others -- argue the exact opposite: the macronutrient content of one's diet matters very much. Different macronutrients provoke differing endocrinological responses. Our bodies are biological, not mechanical machines, and we process carbohydrates differently than fats or protein. It isn't controversial and it shouldn't come as a shock. New research is showing that the hormone cascade brought about by certain foods -- and by adipose tissue itself -- has an enormous impact on our health.
The problem is that people want to oversimplify nutrition into universal equation which assumes that everyone is the same, and they often cite epidemiological nutritional studies -- notorious for being inaccurate and unreliable -- to do so. The truth is probably more complicated: the diet that keeps one person healthy might make another fat and sick, and it's primarily dependent upon genetics, not physics.
For more on this, read any of Taubes's books. They are quite compelling. Dr. Lustig has written a few himself.
That's a convenient fallacy which is so often repeated that it is simply assumed to be true, but some -- such as Gary Taubes, Dr. Lustig (the author of this article), Dr. Eric Westman, and others -- argue the exact opposite: the macronutrient content of one's diet matters very much. Different macronutrients provoke differing endocrinological responses. Our bodies are biological, not mechanical machines, and we process carbohydrates differently than fats or protein. It isn't controversial and it shouldn't come as a shock. New research is showing that the hormone cascade brought about by certain foods -- and by adipose tissue itself -- has an enormous impact on our health.
The problem is that people want to oversimplify nutrition into universal equation which assumes that everyone is the same, and they often cite epidemiological nutritional studies -- notorious for being inaccurate and unreliable -- to do so. The truth is probably more complicated: the diet that keeps one person healthy might make another fat and sick, and it's primarily dependent upon genetics, not physics.
For more on this, read any of Taubes's books. They are quite compelling. Dr. Lustig has written a few himself.
I prefer to read biochemistry books. this is my current bible http://www.amazon.com/Advanced-Nutrition-Metabolism-Sareen-G...
Every single hospital-ward double blind clinical trial over the last 100 years says exactly the same thing: net energy balance is what determines how fat you are, no matter the macronutrient content of the diet.
Nutrition's role in lifelong health is a LOT more complicated. What your lifetime Vitamin D levels probably matters a lot. But over a lifetime, eating a diet of mostly whole foods, and in amounts scaled to activity is going to give you benefits that will completely drown out what kind of fat you ate over the last 30 years or if you ate pop tarts for breakfast.
My point is, if you're fat and unfit, it's not any particular macronutrient's fault.
Every single hospital-ward double blind clinical trial over the last 100 years says exactly the same thing: net energy balance is what determines how fat you are, no matter the macronutrient content of the diet.
Nutrition's role in lifelong health is a LOT more complicated. What your lifetime Vitamin D levels probably matters a lot. But over a lifetime, eating a diet of mostly whole foods, and in amounts scaled to activity is going to give you benefits that will completely drown out what kind of fat you ate over the last 30 years or if you ate pop tarts for breakfast.
My point is, if you're fat and unfit, it's not any particular macronutrient's fault.
> Every single hospital-ward double blind clinical trial over the last 100 years says exactly the same thing: net energy balance is what determines how fat you are, no matter the macronutrient content of the diet.
Here's my problem with this: the energy balance theory is the status quo, yet for as many studies as you can dig up to support it, you'll also find conflicting observations (some of which also go back over 100 years). I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm simply saying that the hormone theory of obesity shouldn't be disregarded solely because it doesn't fit the status quo. It needs to be tested.
Another problem I have is that the energy balance theory is just too convenient. It's a greay way to dismiss obesity as a simple failure of willpower, and to dismiss the obese as being morally inferior to the rest of us. In other words, our judgmental attitude toward obesity could be blinding us to its real cause. Let's test the hormone theory, and if it turns out wrong, we've only learned more about obesity. If it turns out correct, we could possibly save many lives and prevent a lot of suffering.
That said, I find it absurd to believe that only energy balance matters. In effect, this predicts that despite the dozens of hormones involved in human metabolism, it all boils down to caloric content. That doesn't make any sense to me. Taubes actually wrote an interesting thought experiment on this: http://garytaubes.com/2012/11/what-would-happen-if-thoughts-...
Here's my problem with this: the energy balance theory is the status quo, yet for as many studies as you can dig up to support it, you'll also find conflicting observations (some of which also go back over 100 years). I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm simply saying that the hormone theory of obesity shouldn't be disregarded solely because it doesn't fit the status quo. It needs to be tested.
Another problem I have is that the energy balance theory is just too convenient. It's a greay way to dismiss obesity as a simple failure of willpower, and to dismiss the obese as being morally inferior to the rest of us. In other words, our judgmental attitude toward obesity could be blinding us to its real cause. Let's test the hormone theory, and if it turns out wrong, we've only learned more about obesity. If it turns out correct, we could possibly save many lives and prevent a lot of suffering.
That said, I find it absurd to believe that only energy balance matters. In effect, this predicts that despite the dozens of hormones involved in human metabolism, it all boils down to caloric content. That doesn't make any sense to me. Taubes actually wrote an interesting thought experiment on this: http://garytaubes.com/2012/11/what-would-happen-if-thoughts-...
Energy balance is the physics of biochemistry; there is no arguing away the laws of thermodynamics. If you get heavier, it's because you consumed more energy than you used over a period of time. There is no other way to gain or lose weight* (no matter the proportion of muscle/fat that's gained or lost).
I think you are confusing weight & body composition with "health". They are interconnected but not the same thing. I believe (and it is just a belief) that a lifetime of staying lean (& strong) is the single best way to maximizes the health benefits of a diet, whatever that diet may be. You can't eat "unhealthy" amounts of any macronutrient if you're eating to stay lean (<15% body fat for men).
Don't pull out the "a simple failure of willpower" straw man; I never claimed that.
Hormones play a HUGE role in metabolism. My bedtime reading is how the chemical reactions they drive fit into human metabolism. you're comment seems to make them out to be "magical", which I suspect is due to your ignorance of them. I highly recommend reading up on them, just not via the media (Taubes only gives you his choice of the science), but via biochemistry text books like "Advanced Nutrition and Human Metabolism" http://www.amazon.com/Advanced-Nutrition-Metabolism-Sareen-G...
* there are extreme exceptions; liposuction is one way. :P
I think you are confusing weight & body composition with "health". They are interconnected but not the same thing. I believe (and it is just a belief) that a lifetime of staying lean (& strong) is the single best way to maximizes the health benefits of a diet, whatever that diet may be. You can't eat "unhealthy" amounts of any macronutrient if you're eating to stay lean (<15% body fat for men).
Don't pull out the "a simple failure of willpower" straw man; I never claimed that.
Hormones play a HUGE role in metabolism. My bedtime reading is how the chemical reactions they drive fit into human metabolism. you're comment seems to make them out to be "magical", which I suspect is due to your ignorance of them. I highly recommend reading up on them, just not via the media (Taubes only gives you his choice of the science), but via biochemistry text books like "Advanced Nutrition and Human Metabolism" http://www.amazon.com/Advanced-Nutrition-Metabolism-Sareen-G...
* there are extreme exceptions; liposuction is one way. :P
> Energy balance is the physics of biochemistry; there is no arguing away the laws of thermodynamics. If you get heavier, it's because you consumed more energy than you used over a period of time. There is no other way to gain or lose weight* (no matter the proportion of muscle/fat that's gained or lost).
I'm not claiming that the body can somehow defy the laws of thermodynamics. Obviously to become "heavier" one must consume more energy than one expends, but to lose fat -- specifically fat, not muscle tissue or bone or water -- the question is this: how important is the role of hormones in fat regulation? Does an increased insulin load, coupled with insulin resistance caused by long-term exposure to chronically high insulin levels, promote greater fat storage? And does this greater mass of fat, which itself is a hormonally active organ, affect the body in a way that results in illness and further weight gain?
Would an endocrinologist tell a diabetic that macronutrient content doesn't matter? Should we give that same advice to people with metabolic syndrome or those who are at risk of developing it? If insulin resistance is the primary cause of Type 2 Diabetes, and insulin is the primary hormone involved in fat storage -- both non-controversial statements -- then wouldn't it make sense for those at risk of developing T2DM to eat foods that produced a minimal insulin response?
Read Taubes's thought experiment I linked above. If you're willing to make nutrition texts bedtime reading, then you will at least find it interesting, even if you disagree with it. Though Taubes is not a scientist and he doesn't claim to be, he does make a compelling argument.
> Don't pull out the "a simple failure of willpower" straw man; I never claimed that.
It wasn't intended to target you specifically, but this attitude is pervasive, even among medical professionals. There are people out there who would much rather believe that every obese patient is just a lazy glutton who can't control himself. I know a few of these people myself, one of whom is a prominent oncologist. Science requires that we put aside our biases and assumptions.
> Hormones play a HUGE role in metabolism. My bedtime reading is how the chemical reactions they drive fit into human metabolism. you're comment seems to make them out to be "magical", which I suspect is due to your ignorance of them.
I'm not claiming hormones are magical. I am merely suggesting that their known role in fat regulation might also play a critical role in obesity. It's been a while since I studied the topic in any great depth, so I can't compete with your bedtime reading, and I don't want to link spam, so I'm keeping it simple.
Anyway, I believe the science will eventually shed some light on this issue. There are clinical trials in the planning stages right now, so hopefully we won't have long to wait.
I'm not claiming that the body can somehow defy the laws of thermodynamics. Obviously to become "heavier" one must consume more energy than one expends, but to lose fat -- specifically fat, not muscle tissue or bone or water -- the question is this: how important is the role of hormones in fat regulation? Does an increased insulin load, coupled with insulin resistance caused by long-term exposure to chronically high insulin levels, promote greater fat storage? And does this greater mass of fat, which itself is a hormonally active organ, affect the body in a way that results in illness and further weight gain?
Would an endocrinologist tell a diabetic that macronutrient content doesn't matter? Should we give that same advice to people with metabolic syndrome or those who are at risk of developing it? If insulin resistance is the primary cause of Type 2 Diabetes, and insulin is the primary hormone involved in fat storage -- both non-controversial statements -- then wouldn't it make sense for those at risk of developing T2DM to eat foods that produced a minimal insulin response?
Read Taubes's thought experiment I linked above. If you're willing to make nutrition texts bedtime reading, then you will at least find it interesting, even if you disagree with it. Though Taubes is not a scientist and he doesn't claim to be, he does make a compelling argument.
> Don't pull out the "a simple failure of willpower" straw man; I never claimed that.
It wasn't intended to target you specifically, but this attitude is pervasive, even among medical professionals. There are people out there who would much rather believe that every obese patient is just a lazy glutton who can't control himself. I know a few of these people myself, one of whom is a prominent oncologist. Science requires that we put aside our biases and assumptions.
> Hormones play a HUGE role in metabolism. My bedtime reading is how the chemical reactions they drive fit into human metabolism. you're comment seems to make them out to be "magical", which I suspect is due to your ignorance of them.
I'm not claiming hormones are magical. I am merely suggesting that their known role in fat regulation might also play a critical role in obesity. It's been a while since I studied the topic in any great depth, so I can't compete with your bedtime reading, and I don't want to link spam, so I'm keeping it simple.
Anyway, I believe the science will eventually shed some light on this issue. There are clinical trials in the planning stages right now, so hopefully we won't have long to wait.
> Does an increased insulin load, coupled with insulin resistance caused by long-term exposure to chronically high insulin levels, promote greater fat storage?
> And does this greater mass of fat, which itself is a hormonally active organ, affect the body in a way that results in illness and further weight gain?
These are very good questions. Here's what I know (caveat it may not be complete, but I am confident it is accurate):
1: Hmm, chronically high insulin levels is caused by chronically eating too much. Beef spikes insulin just as much as table sugar (http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/66/5/1264.full.pdf#page=1&...). So I would say the problem of "chronically high insulin levels" is a problem of eating too much food, not too much sugar.
2: This is a hugely interesting area of thinking for me. Which fat though? White or brown adipose tissue? Brown fat is darker in colour due to it's huge cellular density of mitochondria when compared to white adipose tissue. It's essential fat-buringing fat, and plays a role in regulating temperature. It basically burns fat to warm us up when we're cold. This is why Michael Phelps can eat 10 million calories a day. 6 hours a day in water requires allocating a LOT of calories to maintain core body temp. We have learned SO much about fat tissue recently, but I don't think we have all the answers yet.
I noticed this red-flag from the thought-experiment:
> We know the liver will turn some of this fructose into fat and if the fructose is delivered quickly
Yep, but less than 1% is converted into fat (http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/9/1/89), and this is in a state of caloric surplus. The thought-experiment method is for the subjects to eat calories to match their TDEE (Total Daily Energy Expenditure), so it's much more likely that none of this fructose will be converted into fat, it's more likely to completely converted into glucose by the liver.
> Let’s assume two things for the sake of argument. the sugar in A’s diet causes A to become insulin resistant. And second, insulin works to put fat in fat tissue.
I would say both assumptions are fallacious. Eating @ TDEE means 100% of the food energy is used up, and fat cannot be made from nothing. More sugar in this case does not cause insulin resistance, beef stimulates insulin release into the blood just as much as sugar does, so one can't isolate a single macronutrient like that. Also, the "insulin works to put fat in fat tissue" is misleading at best and completely wrong at worst, depending on how you interpret it. Insulin works to move nutrients into cells. More insulin in the blood is a signal there is food calories available, so insulin also stops fat cells from releasing their fat. This makes total sense; why dip into your savings when you just got a fist full of cash? The point where your body transitions towards fat storage is the point where your energy intake exceed energy expenditure; again just simply eating less solves this.
My statements are all for average healthy people. I totally agree metabolic-syndromes like diabetes should be treated differently. But the VAST majority of people are fat because they sustain consuming more energy than they use. The micro-variables like how stressed you are (and therefor how much cortisol hormone is present) matter, but nothing gets diet-induced hormones working as they should better (in healthy people) by just eating food-energy (whatever the macros) to match your activity over the long run.
> And does this greater mass of fat, which itself is a hormonally active organ, affect the body in a way that results in illness and further weight gain?
These are very good questions. Here's what I know (caveat it may not be complete, but I am confident it is accurate):
1: Hmm, chronically high insulin levels is caused by chronically eating too much. Beef spikes insulin just as much as table sugar (http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/66/5/1264.full.pdf#page=1&...). So I would say the problem of "chronically high insulin levels" is a problem of eating too much food, not too much sugar.
2: This is a hugely interesting area of thinking for me. Which fat though? White or brown adipose tissue? Brown fat is darker in colour due to it's huge cellular density of mitochondria when compared to white adipose tissue. It's essential fat-buringing fat, and plays a role in regulating temperature. It basically burns fat to warm us up when we're cold. This is why Michael Phelps can eat 10 million calories a day. 6 hours a day in water requires allocating a LOT of calories to maintain core body temp. We have learned SO much about fat tissue recently, but I don't think we have all the answers yet.
I noticed this red-flag from the thought-experiment:
> We know the liver will turn some of this fructose into fat and if the fructose is delivered quickly
Yep, but less than 1% is converted into fat (http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/9/1/89), and this is in a state of caloric surplus. The thought-experiment method is for the subjects to eat calories to match their TDEE (Total Daily Energy Expenditure), so it's much more likely that none of this fructose will be converted into fat, it's more likely to completely converted into glucose by the liver.
> Let’s assume two things for the sake of argument. the sugar in A’s diet causes A to become insulin resistant. And second, insulin works to put fat in fat tissue.
I would say both assumptions are fallacious. Eating @ TDEE means 100% of the food energy is used up, and fat cannot be made from nothing. More sugar in this case does not cause insulin resistance, beef stimulates insulin release into the blood just as much as sugar does, so one can't isolate a single macronutrient like that. Also, the "insulin works to put fat in fat tissue" is misleading at best and completely wrong at worst, depending on how you interpret it. Insulin works to move nutrients into cells. More insulin in the blood is a signal there is food calories available, so insulin also stops fat cells from releasing their fat. This makes total sense; why dip into your savings when you just got a fist full of cash? The point where your body transitions towards fat storage is the point where your energy intake exceed energy expenditure; again just simply eating less solves this.
My statements are all for average healthy people. I totally agree metabolic-syndromes like diabetes should be treated differently. But the VAST majority of people are fat because they sustain consuming more energy than they use. The micro-variables like how stressed you are (and therefor how much cortisol hormone is present) matter, but nothing gets diet-induced hormones working as they should better (in healthy people) by just eating food-energy (whatever the macros) to match your activity over the long run.
> 1: Hmm, chronically high insulin levels is caused by chronically eating too much. Beef spikes insulin just as much as table sugar (http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/66/5/1264.full.pdf#page=1&...). So I would say the problem of "chronically high insulin levels" is a problem of eating too much food, not too much sugar.
Yes, beef does have a high insulin response, but when total consumption is taken into account, and satiety, eating beef will have a lesser effect than eating jellybeans. Look at the insulin scores in the publication you cited. Those with the highest scores, as a group, are snacks and confectionaries, foods that are commonly eaten in Western countries. Some of the worst offenders in the groups tested are: beans, potatoes, white bread, jellybeans, etc. -- carbohydrates.
> 2: This is a hugely interesting area of thinking for me. Which fat though? White or brown adipose tissue? Brown fat is darker in colour due to it's huge cellular density of mitochondria when compared to white adipose tissue. It's essential fat-buringing fat, and plays a role in regulating temperature. It basically burns fat to warm us up when we're cold. This is why Michael Phelps can eat 10 million calories a day. 6 hours a day in water requires allocating a LOT of calories to maintain core body temp. We have learned SO much about fat tissue recently, but I don't think we have all the answers yet.
In this case we're talking almost exclusively about excess visceral fat, though the role of other fats in obesity and disease is, as you said, not fully known.
>> Let’s assume two things for the sake of argument. the sugar in A’s diet causes A to become insulin resistant. And second, insulin works to put fat in fat tissue. > I would say both assumptions are fallacious. Eating @ TDEE means 100% of the food energy is used up, and fat cannot be made from nothing.
True, but activity level must be taken into account. Fat can't be made from nothing, but the patient could reduce his overall activity level as he becomes fatter, which would make excess calories available for storage as fat. In other words, we could have causality backwards: being lazy doesn't necessarily make you fat, but becoming fat could certainly make you lazy.
> Also, the "insulin works to put fat in fat tissue" is misleading at best and completely wrong at worst, depending on how you interpret it. Insulin works to move nutrients into cells. More insulin in the blood is a signal there is food calories available, so insulin also stops fat cells from releasing their fat. This makes total sense; why dip into your savings when you just got a fist full of cash?
If insulin stops fat cells from releasing fat, then wouldn't it make sense to keep insulin levels as low possible? That means reducing carbohydrate and protein intake, and increasing dietary fat consumption to compensate: in short, a low-carb, high-fat diet.
> The point where your body transitions towards fat storage is the point where your energy intake exceed energy expenditure; again just simply eating less solves this.
Does it though? Obese people have much higher concentrations of circulating leptin than the general population, and they can become leptin resistant. What happens if we tell these people to eat less, and move more? Chances are, they're going to become very hungry. I would argue that eating less isn't enough. They need to eat less insulinogenic foods, and compensate by increasing dietary fat to satiety.
> My statements are all for average healthy people. I totally agree metabolic-syndromes like diabetes should be treated differently. But the VAST majority of people are fat because they sustain consuming more energy than they use. The micro-variables like how stressed you are (and therefor how much cortisol hormone is present) matter, but nothing gets diet-induced hormones working as they should better (in healthy people) by just eating food-energy (whatever the macros) to match your activity over the long run.
Fair enough. That's the commonly held belief at least, but I disagree. I think we have an incomplete picture. However, I believe in the scientific method, so I'd really like to see clinical trials (not epidemiological studies) to fully test the hormone theory. As I said earlier, if it's wrong, then we haven't lost anything, and we've learned more about the role hormones play in obesity. If it's correct, then the impact on nutrition and obesity will be enormous. It's worth looking into.
Yes, beef does have a high insulin response, but when total consumption is taken into account, and satiety, eating beef will have a lesser effect than eating jellybeans. Look at the insulin scores in the publication you cited. Those with the highest scores, as a group, are snacks and confectionaries, foods that are commonly eaten in Western countries. Some of the worst offenders in the groups tested are: beans, potatoes, white bread, jellybeans, etc. -- carbohydrates.
> 2: This is a hugely interesting area of thinking for me. Which fat though? White or brown adipose tissue? Brown fat is darker in colour due to it's huge cellular density of mitochondria when compared to white adipose tissue. It's essential fat-buringing fat, and plays a role in regulating temperature. It basically burns fat to warm us up when we're cold. This is why Michael Phelps can eat 10 million calories a day. 6 hours a day in water requires allocating a LOT of calories to maintain core body temp. We have learned SO much about fat tissue recently, but I don't think we have all the answers yet.
In this case we're talking almost exclusively about excess visceral fat, though the role of other fats in obesity and disease is, as you said, not fully known.
>> Let’s assume two things for the sake of argument. the sugar in A’s diet causes A to become insulin resistant. And second, insulin works to put fat in fat tissue. > I would say both assumptions are fallacious. Eating @ TDEE means 100% of the food energy is used up, and fat cannot be made from nothing.
True, but activity level must be taken into account. Fat can't be made from nothing, but the patient could reduce his overall activity level as he becomes fatter, which would make excess calories available for storage as fat. In other words, we could have causality backwards: being lazy doesn't necessarily make you fat, but becoming fat could certainly make you lazy.
> Also, the "insulin works to put fat in fat tissue" is misleading at best and completely wrong at worst, depending on how you interpret it. Insulin works to move nutrients into cells. More insulin in the blood is a signal there is food calories available, so insulin also stops fat cells from releasing their fat. This makes total sense; why dip into your savings when you just got a fist full of cash?
If insulin stops fat cells from releasing fat, then wouldn't it make sense to keep insulin levels as low possible? That means reducing carbohydrate and protein intake, and increasing dietary fat consumption to compensate: in short, a low-carb, high-fat diet.
> The point where your body transitions towards fat storage is the point where your energy intake exceed energy expenditure; again just simply eating less solves this.
Does it though? Obese people have much higher concentrations of circulating leptin than the general population, and they can become leptin resistant. What happens if we tell these people to eat less, and move more? Chances are, they're going to become very hungry. I would argue that eating less isn't enough. They need to eat less insulinogenic foods, and compensate by increasing dietary fat to satiety.
> My statements are all for average healthy people. I totally agree metabolic-syndromes like diabetes should be treated differently. But the VAST majority of people are fat because they sustain consuming more energy than they use. The micro-variables like how stressed you are (and therefor how much cortisol hormone is present) matter, but nothing gets diet-induced hormones working as they should better (in healthy people) by just eating food-energy (whatever the macros) to match your activity over the long run.
Fair enough. That's the commonly held belief at least, but I disagree. I think we have an incomplete picture. However, I believe in the scientific method, so I'd really like to see clinical trials (not epidemiological studies) to fully test the hormone theory. As I said earlier, if it's wrong, then we haven't lost anything, and we've learned more about the role hormones play in obesity. If it's correct, then the impact on nutrition and obesity will be enormous. It's worth looking into.
I thought thyroid hormone and resting metabolism played into it to some degree. Like if you go too low on protein, the metabolism will crash and the person will get even fatter.
That is a big oversimplification. You can go watch Lustig's 'Bitter Truth' video for the biochemical details. The TL;DR is that fructose has some special properties which allow it to permeate your cells and organs whether they want the fructose or not. There are also some very nasty byproducts from the metabolism of fructose that are not present when metabolizing glucose by itself.
I've seen it. His data shows it's the increase of calorie consumption over time. This was mostly sugar (Honey, table sugar, HFCS are all around half fructose), but it was the sustained increase in energy intake over years that's the cause. Even if fructose has some special role in promoting more of a fat-storage bias in metabolism, it's due to eating too much, not due to the fructose; eating less (or scaling activity with food intake) solves both problems.
What if eating fructose makes you eat more? That has certainly been the case for me.
how do you know that? There are so many possible confounding variables that make that claim doubtful.
When I avoid carbs, I lose weight. I don't get cravings for the foods that normally led me to overeat. It's an anecdote, so feel free to take it with a grain of sugar, but Taubes and Lustig improved my life a great deal.
Every gram of stored carbs (glycogen) gets stored with ~3g of water. By cutting carbs you use up stored carbs and rapidly lose this water-weight. This is why low-carb diets work so well at first, But it's not fat you're losing.
The first week or two of weight loss is indeed mostly water, but I weight 40 pounds less than when I started avoiding carbs. It works for me.
Another crutch for the general public's pathetic listlessness to bettering their diets. It's addictive in the way that marijuana is addictive: People are so used to it and therefore trick themselves into thinking they need that good feeling it provides; quitting overly-sugary stuff or marijuana cold turkey will not cause one's body to go into any sort of physiological distress (pulled that phrase out of my ass) as one would with heroin.
"general public's pathetic listlessness to bettering their diets"
This is a terrible way to associate with and think about people.
There is another rampant addiction going around, phycological dependance on the feeling of smug satisfaction in one's own superiority given by partaking in – and to a larger degree talking about – the latest fad in ( health | diet | environment | programming language | life ).
This is a terrible way to associate with and think about people.
There is another rampant addiction going around, phycological dependance on the feeling of smug satisfaction in one's own superiority given by partaking in – and to a larger degree talking about – the latest fad in ( health | diet | environment | programming language | life ).
Anecdotal warning, but I experienced really, really intense headaches for the first seven days after removing all forms of sugar from my diet. After that however it was really easy and right now I feel great and EVERYTHING tastes much, much sweeter.
In total I went 8 weeks without any sugar. I have no plans to ever return to incorporating it into my diet. I consider this move to be one of the best things I've done since removing nicotine and alcohol completely from my life.
In total I went 8 weeks without any sugar. I have no plans to ever return to incorporating it into my diet. I consider this move to be one of the best things I've done since removing nicotine and alcohol completely from my life.
What do you mean by "all forms of sugar"? Do you mean you stopped eating foods that were mostly sugar, or had a disproportionate amount of sugar, or stopped using sugar as an additive? Because if taken literally, you couldn't eat any fruit, vegetables and most bread.
Well I know personally I have switched to a "keto" diet, and continue to stay on it not due to weight loss but just the amazing concentration levels and feeling I get while on it.
You are limited to essentially 20g of carbs a day total. This is enough to get a healthy dose of vegetables (not fruit of any kind - leafy greens) and that is about it. Maybe a dollup of sriracha.
Either way, after being on the diet for a couple months I had one bite of a chocolate bar and let me tell you, the flavor was 1000x more intense and I felt no need for more after the first bite.
Of course this is one person's experience, YMMV.
You are limited to essentially 20g of carbs a day total. This is enough to get a healthy dose of vegetables (not fruit of any kind - leafy greens) and that is about it. Maybe a dollup of sriracha.
Either way, after being on the diet for a couple months I had one bite of a chocolate bar and let me tell you, the flavor was 1000x more intense and I felt no need for more after the first bite.
Of course this is one person's experience, YMMV.
People go on low carbohydrate or ketogenic diets and feel better because cortisol and adrenaline levels are boosted. It's like getting a cortisone shot. This affect can last a year or two. But then eventually stress hormone resistance develops and the whole thing falls apart with some ugly health consequences. People get crashed testosterone and thyroid levels and brain fog.
Sustained low carb is a bad idea. You are mimicking the metabolism of starvation. For the most part you want to be operating with glycogen topped up.
Sustained low carb is a bad idea. You are mimicking the metabolism of starvation. For the most part you want to be operating with glycogen topped up.
>You are mimicking the metabolism of starvation
Really? Because I feel a heck of a lot less hungry, and sometimes need to remind myself that it's past time to eat breakfast or lunch.
Really? Because I feel a heck of a lot less hungry, and sometimes need to remind myself that it's past time to eat breakfast or lunch.
I should have been clearer. I was specifically referring to simple carbohydrates (glucose, fructose etc) and avoiding all and for a period of 8 weeks I consumed no fruit. During that time I consumed the main bulk of my diet consisted of legumes and vegetables. All meals were prepared and cooked by either myself or my wife.
We did consume rye bread, but that was made ourselves and used only the amount of sugar needed to activate the yeast.
After 8 weeks I have returned fruit into my diet, but always whole.
The point I was trying to make on the root comment in this, was that simply going cold turkey on sugar, in my case, wasn't hassle free because of the headaches, but it was worth it.
We did consume rye bread, but that was made ourselves and used only the amount of sugar needed to activate the yeast.
After 8 weeks I have returned fruit into my diet, but always whole.
The point I was trying to make on the root comment in this, was that simply going cold turkey on sugar, in my case, wasn't hassle free because of the headaches, but it was worth it.
right. if parent is talking about switching to a ketogenic diet (hardly any carbs), feeling bad for a few weeks is entirely normal as your brain switches over to ketones for fuel. and your fluid / sodium levels adjust (one needs higher sodium intake during transition). and if parent cut out gluten, that has been reported to have opiate-like withdrawl symptoms as well.
sources: the art and science of low carb living, wheat belly
sources: the art and science of low carb living, wheat belly
Well that's funny because I deliberately upped my sugar intake and improved my health and well being.
It can be surprisingly difficult to find food without lots of sugar or HFCS in it these days, especially if you are unable (for whatever reason) to cook from raw ingredients.
It's a thorny issue.
It's a thorny issue.
Indeed, and you find sugar in all sorts of places you might not expect. For example, Sriracha hot sauce: would you have guessed that the second ingredient is sugar?
It's a tricky line. I cook a lot and I don't have a sweet tooth in general (though I have some particular favorite sweets, of course). I've come to realize that I'm actually deficient in knowing when I should use sugar as an ingredient; because I only think of it as a sweetener (and have little desire to sweeten the food I cook), I've become ignorant of when you need to use it (for texture, to offset an undesirable sour or bitter flavor, or for other chemical properties).
> to offset an undesirable sour or bitter flavor
It's better to err on the side you're on, because that justification covers quite a lot of ground. For instance, it's hard to find tomato without sugar in prepared food. Or anything else without sugar, actually.
Seems that food companies are afraid of "tasting bad" and just throw sugar in there willy-nilly, with the consequences now in plain sight, to say the least.
It's better to err on the side you're on, because that justification covers quite a lot of ground. For instance, it's hard to find tomato without sugar in prepared food. Or anything else without sugar, actually.
Seems that food companies are afraid of "tasting bad" and just throw sugar in there willy-nilly, with the consequences now in plain sight, to say the least.
Yes but just about any other hot sauce is safe. It is actually really easy to avoid HFCS. My girlfriend & I were laughing the other day as we have been on keto for about a month and we rarely go into the center isles of the grocery store anymore. Produce -> Meat Dpt -> Dairy -> Sauces/Spices -> Done.
Interesting heuristic...how do you handle canned vegetables, beans for instance? Or do you just soak them?
Unfortunately for this particular diet beans are off limits (rather high in carbs). That does not mean they are unhealthy or anything, just that they do not work with this particular diet.
We primarily only buy fresh vegetables. Lots of cabbage, spinach, lettuce, mushrooms, onions, peppers, asparagus).
We primarily only buy fresh vegetables. Lots of cabbage, spinach, lettuce, mushrooms, onions, peppers, asparagus).
If you use it in the suggested amounts I believe it is only a gram or two of extra sugar. Not enough to make much of a difference.
Yes, I would have guessed. Can people not taste how sweet it is?
I don't think that this is entirely fair.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/10/01/dining/nacho-g...
You could probably argue convincingly that sugar and doritos are actually more compelling to the public, because they are specifically engineered to defeat our body's natural mechanisms for regulating diet.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/10/01/dining/nacho-g...
You could probably argue convincingly that sugar and doritos are actually more compelling to the public, because they are specifically engineered to defeat our body's natural mechanisms for regulating diet.
Such a lazy dismissal of a complex issue. It is entirely possible that there is a spectrum of susceptibility to fructose addiction. Just because it is easy for me to drink alcohol and not get addicted does not mean that it is equally easy for every person to not become addicted. I do not look down upon alcoholics and I certainly do not look down upon the obese. It is a medical problem that we need to figure out.
If you entertain the idea that some but not all people have a susceptibility to fructose addiction and then consider that a very large portion of the food supply is 'supplemented' with sugar you can begin to imagine just one of the reasons why obesity has been on such a rise.
If you entertain the idea that some but not all people have a susceptibility to fructose addiction and then consider that a very large portion of the food supply is 'supplemented' with sugar you can begin to imagine just one of the reasons why obesity has been on such a rise.
Actually there are symptoms shown when one reduces sugar intake. Nothing quite like heroin or other opiates though.
Robert Lustig is a research doctor. he works at UCSF (it's where my PhD in Biophysics is from), and sees patients there- highly obese, atypical patients. He promotes a particular position about metabolism and health. However - and this is the key thing - he has NOT published data which is convincing to reasonable scientists to support his position. At UCSF, he's generally considered a bit of a quack (personal comments from a number of professional scientists who work there).
Here is a list of Lustig's publications. http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&q=author:...
I, working with grad students at UCSF and elsewhere, have picked apart the materials and methods of his studies and found numerous statistical errors which make us doubt the validity of his conclusions. I won't claim that we have evidence he is being fraudful- it's more likely just an example of poor scientific behavior.
I'll give Lustig credit for one thing. Sugar- the Bitter Truth is one of the finest examples of manipulative sophistry I've ever seen. After seeing that I realized that most scientists are doing an absurdly poor job manipulating the public.