Cutting Back Sugar Improves Obese Children's Health in Just 10 Days(well.blogs.nytimes.com)
well.blogs.nytimes.com
Cutting Back Sugar Improves Obese Children's Health in Just 10 Days
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/10/27/cutting-sugar-improves-childrens-health-in-just-10-days/
415 comments
Also, this very important piece of title is omitted: "...with obesity and metabolic syndrome". Sugar is getting too much bad press already (along with meat, white bread and computer games). Nothing is just black & white. </rant>
Title should be:
"Substitution of starch for added sugars improves health of children suffering from obesity, metabolic syndrome, and high habitual added sugar consumption."
But then it seems slightly less groundbreaking.
"Substitution of starch for added sugars improves health of children suffering from obesity, metabolic syndrome, and high habitual added sugar consumption."
But then it seems slightly less groundbreaking.
I think the result is still interesting. There's a whole lifestyle called "IIFYM" or If It Fits your Macros which suggests that the macronutrient breakdown (% carbs/fat/protein) is the main factor in growth/health, and that you can eat whatever IIFYM.
This study contradicts that by showing health improvement while maintaining macronutrient breakdown, albeit in obese kids. Is this replicable in adults and/or normal weight people? Who knows? Still a pretty interesting result IMO.
This study contradicts that by showing health improvement while maintaining macronutrient breakdown, albeit in obese kids. Is this replicable in adults and/or normal weight people? Who knows? Still a pretty interesting result IMO.
I agree completely. In my experience I'd say roughly 50% of patients we see in primary care have essentially no clue when it comes to nutrition, then maybe 40% or so have a decent understanding of the macros and percentages on US food labels, and the remaining 10% are actually well-versed on the subject.
This study should be an eye opener for that 40% who largely believe "all carbs are created equal".
But on the flip side, you have people that believe only "processed" carbs/sugars are bad. You wouldn't believe how many diabetics think they're doing themselves a huge favor by switching from Coke to apple juice, or from pasta to mashed potatoes.
I'm tempted to start a tangential rant here but I'll just say that I generally try to avoid fructose. Yes, fruits contain fructose in addition to other nutrients, but my personal opinion is that high-sugar foods (including certain fruits like cherries, grapes, and bananas as well as cookies and chocolate bars) should be considered a treat and used sparingly.
This study should be an eye opener for that 40% who largely believe "all carbs are created equal".
But on the flip side, you have people that believe only "processed" carbs/sugars are bad. You wouldn't believe how many diabetics think they're doing themselves a huge favor by switching from Coke to apple juice, or from pasta to mashed potatoes.
I'm tempted to start a tangential rant here but I'll just say that I generally try to avoid fructose. Yes, fruits contain fructose in addition to other nutrients, but my personal opinion is that high-sugar foods (including certain fruits like cherries, grapes, and bananas as well as cookies and chocolate bars) should be considered a treat and used sparingly.
> This study should be an eye opener for that 40% who largely believe "all carbs are created equal".
All carbs pretty much are equal, it tends to be the amount of fiber that comes with the carb that changes things. This study was about fructose, not sugar in general, and we've known for a long time that fructose behaves differently from other carbs due to the way it is metabolized in the liver.
All carbs pretty much are equal, it tends to be the amount of fiber that comes with the carb that changes things. This study was about fructose, not sugar in general, and we've known for a long time that fructose behaves differently from other carbs due to the way it is metabolized in the liver.
> All carbs pretty much are equal, it tends to be the amount of fiber that comes with the carb that changes things.
Anecdotally-empirically, a lot of Type 2's have found carbs, fiber or no fiber, are just bad news. For at least those with a specific variation of Type 2 (still as-yet not clearly understood, but there is growing consensus that there are many different "sub-types" of Type 1 and Type 2, each of which responding well to different treatment protocols), it doesn't matter how much fiber you eat with a scoop of carbs once the metabolic syndrome manifests itself with a high enough insulin resistance response.
With enough carbs (as few as 50g for some) the end result at that stage of the condition is still a highly-adverse event, a high blood sugar spike above 100 mg/dL. Even if the spike is controlled down within 1-2 hours, there is a lot of accumulating evidence that it isn't the duration or absolute value of high blood sugars, but the spikes (the occurrence of any delta in the first place) themselves that cause cellular damage.
In a few years, we will hopefully start accumulating a flood of highly-granular, anonymized biometric sampling data, ideally tagged with true/false flags of known and suspected genetic markers (but not enough DNA data to individually dox someone). Has someone solved the problem of publishing biometrics with tagged DNA data, and be able to update the DNA tags as our understanding of genetic markers improves over time, without risking doxxing an individual from the genetic marker tags?
Anecdotally-empirically, a lot of Type 2's have found carbs, fiber or no fiber, are just bad news. For at least those with a specific variation of Type 2 (still as-yet not clearly understood, but there is growing consensus that there are many different "sub-types" of Type 1 and Type 2, each of which responding well to different treatment protocols), it doesn't matter how much fiber you eat with a scoop of carbs once the metabolic syndrome manifests itself with a high enough insulin resistance response.
With enough carbs (as few as 50g for some) the end result at that stage of the condition is still a highly-adverse event, a high blood sugar spike above 100 mg/dL. Even if the spike is controlled down within 1-2 hours, there is a lot of accumulating evidence that it isn't the duration or absolute value of high blood sugars, but the spikes (the occurrence of any delta in the first place) themselves that cause cellular damage.
In a few years, we will hopefully start accumulating a flood of highly-granular, anonymized biometric sampling data, ideally tagged with true/false flags of known and suspected genetic markers (but not enough DNA data to individually dox someone). Has someone solved the problem of publishing biometrics with tagged DNA data, and be able to update the DNA tags as our understanding of genetic markers improves over time, without risking doxxing an individual from the genetic marker tags?
I highly doubt that it's possible to publish such data anonymously. There are less than ten billion people, about 33 bits are enough to identify everyone individually. If you publish a couple dozen genetic markers you almost certainly have very few people who share the same pattern.
See http://33bits.org/2009/12/02/the-entropy-of-a-dna-profile/
See http://33bits.org/2009/12/02/the-entropy-of-a-dna-profile/
Fascinating, thanks for a great link. Could publishing health research data in the opposite direction help?
Today we hand medical researchers large databases pre-filled with the data they seek.
As we move into a world of increasingly ubiquitous biometric monitoring, asymptotically trending towards real-time, could the data gathering be flipped around instead? Individuals become the only ones who own their detailed DNA profile (the profile with billions of base pairs stored), held on either a personal device with suitable encrypted backups (ideal) or held on their behalf by a trusted service (encrypted with a key only the individual holds). Researchers send out requests for specific data ("weekly blood pressure of males between 20-60, with these genetic markers, starting now/5-years-ago"). Individuals either manually approve matching requests or set up approval "subscriptions"/rules. Requests matched with data sources get anonymized data of course.
Researchers not only can get data this way, they get a continuous, crowd-sourced data feed. Longitudinal studies might get easier to set up through this kind of channel. There isn't a way to ID someone by their feed and the researchers' requested, limited matching genetic markers alone, unless an attacker systematically breaks into multiple research databases, and starts building a Palantir-like correlation amongst all the hacked databases; that dramatically raises the detection risk to the attacker. Another attack is an overly-broad set of genetic markers in a single request, and those requests can be auto-denied before even getting into the brokering system. Short-term, we can prohibit the collection of any part of the 13-base-pair CODIS markers, though long-term we have to assume that CODIS or its future successors will eventually expand to a larger set of markers (and in the far, far future, possibly the entire sequenced genome).
Today we hand medical researchers large databases pre-filled with the data they seek.
As we move into a world of increasingly ubiquitous biometric monitoring, asymptotically trending towards real-time, could the data gathering be flipped around instead? Individuals become the only ones who own their detailed DNA profile (the profile with billions of base pairs stored), held on either a personal device with suitable encrypted backups (ideal) or held on their behalf by a trusted service (encrypted with a key only the individual holds). Researchers send out requests for specific data ("weekly blood pressure of males between 20-60, with these genetic markers, starting now/5-years-ago"). Individuals either manually approve matching requests or set up approval "subscriptions"/rules. Requests matched with data sources get anonymized data of course.
Researchers not only can get data this way, they get a continuous, crowd-sourced data feed. Longitudinal studies might get easier to set up through this kind of channel. There isn't a way to ID someone by their feed and the researchers' requested, limited matching genetic markers alone, unless an attacker systematically breaks into multiple research databases, and starts building a Palantir-like correlation amongst all the hacked databases; that dramatically raises the detection risk to the attacker. Another attack is an overly-broad set of genetic markers in a single request, and those requests can be auto-denied before even getting into the brokering system. Short-term, we can prohibit the collection of any part of the 13-base-pair CODIS markers, though long-term we have to assume that CODIS or its future successors will eventually expand to a larger set of markers (and in the far, far future, possibly the entire sequenced genome).
> With enough carbs (as few as 50g for some) the end result at that stage of the condition is still a highly-adverse event, a high blood sugar spike above 100 mg/dL. Even if the spike is controlled down within 1-2 hours, there is a lot of accumulating evidence that it isn't the duration or absolute value of high blood sugars, but the spikes (the occurrence of any delta in the first place) themselves that cause cellular damage.
The "normal" threshold for an oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) at 2 hours post-load (75g glucose after fasting) is 140mg/dL. Where is this research indicating that a spike above 100mg/dL is "highly-adverse"? All the research I have seen, and the position of the ADA, is that it is normal to go well above that after a heavy carb load.
I have seen claims by Dr. Richard Bernstein and his adherents that the ADA is wrong and that "normal" is much lower and flatter than they claim. I have seen no supporting research on this, and even active criticism of that idea fro various medical researchers.
The "normal" threshold for an oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) at 2 hours post-load (75g glucose after fasting) is 140mg/dL. Where is this research indicating that a spike above 100mg/dL is "highly-adverse"? All the research I have seen, and the position of the ADA, is that it is normal to go well above that after a heavy carb load.
I have seen claims by Dr. Richard Bernstein and his adherents that the ADA is wrong and that "normal" is much lower and flatter than they claim. I have seen no supporting research on this, and even active criticism of that idea fro various medical researchers.
My bad, sorry, my post should read 140 mg/dL. I was thinking of some (minority) of the more aggressive patients sharing their experiences on diabetesdaily.com forums, and they are holding down to below 100 mg/dL post-prandial, to aim for as close to below 140 mg/dL OGTT as possible; I'm interested in reading their stories because that cohort is self-reporting far more success at stopping medication, and still respond "normally" to OGTT and A1c tests, so that they fall into the "insulin resistant but not cured" category.
> Anecdotally-empirically, a lot of Type 2's have found carbs, fiber or no fiber, are just bad news.
Sure, I wasn't talking about diabetic people.
> In a few years, we will hopefully start accumulating a flood of highly-granular, anonymized biometric sampling data, ideally tagged with true/false flags of known and suspected genetic markers (but not enough DNA data to individually dox someone). Has someone solved the problem of publishing biometrics with tagged DNA data, and be able to update the DNA tags as our understanding of genetic markers improves over time, without risking doxxing an individual from the genetic marker tags?
I also hope that this is the future. Unfortunately we're probably not going to do much better than HIPAA when this technology is widely available and being used. I'm not sure how to prevent the GATTACA side effects, but it feels like the health advances might be worth it.
Sure, I wasn't talking about diabetic people.
> In a few years, we will hopefully start accumulating a flood of highly-granular, anonymized biometric sampling data, ideally tagged with true/false flags of known and suspected genetic markers (but not enough DNA data to individually dox someone). Has someone solved the problem of publishing biometrics with tagged DNA data, and be able to update the DNA tags as our understanding of genetic markers improves over time, without risking doxxing an individual from the genetic marker tags?
I also hope that this is the future. Unfortunately we're probably not going to do much better than HIPAA when this technology is widely available and being used. I'm not sure how to prevent the GATTACA side effects, but it feels like the health advances might be worth it.
> Even if the spike is controlled down within 1-2 hours, there is a lot of accumulating evidence that it isn't the duration or absolute value of high blood sugars, but the spikes (the occurrence of any delta in the first place) themselves that cause cellular damage.
Can you link to anything about that?
Can you link to anything about that?
Batty GD, Kivimäki M, Smith GD, Marmot MG, Shipley MJ. Post-challenge blood glucose concentration and stroke mortality rates in non-diabetic men in London: 38-year follow-up of the original Whitehall prospective cohort study. Diabetologia. 2008 July;51(7):1123-6.
Polhill TS, Saad S, Poronnik S, Fulcher GR, Pollock CR. Short-term peaks in glucose promote renal fibrogenesis independently of total glucose exposure. Am J Physiol Renal Physiol. 2004 Aug;287(2):F268-73.
http://diabetes.diabetesjournals.org/content/52/1/102.full
Polhill TS, Saad S, Poronnik S, Fulcher GR, Pollock CR. Short-term peaks in glucose promote renal fibrogenesis independently of total glucose exposure. Am J Physiol Renal Physiol. 2004 Aug;287(2):F268-73.
http://diabetes.diabetesjournals.org/content/52/1/102.full
Thanks for the links.
I don't really think these studies show that acute blood sugar level elevation is causing the damage you are talking about. The first one talks about how TII diabetics tend to have lower β-cell count and higher apoptosis frequency, but that doesn't mean they go through waves of apoptosis more frequently (ie: during blood sugar spikes), it means that they have a lower life span. The study doesn't establish causality, so it's unclear whether diabetics have lower β-cell count because they are diabetic, or whether lower β-cell causes diabetes. It is a great study though, pretty well designed and building on kind of amazing resources from the Mayo Clinic.
The second study is interesting but extremely limited due to the fact that it was does in vitro. The problem is that it's talking about kidney fibrosis, or scarring of the kidney due to inability to regenerate. But when you remove much of the kidney and the surrounding body and then attack the kidney with glucose of course there is damage. That doesn't mean that in vivo the body can't deal with it. Kidneys do have a hard time regenerating, so it's an interesting foundational study, but I'd hardly call it "a lot of accumulating evidence."
I don't really think these studies show that acute blood sugar level elevation is causing the damage you are talking about. The first one talks about how TII diabetics tend to have lower β-cell count and higher apoptosis frequency, but that doesn't mean they go through waves of apoptosis more frequently (ie: during blood sugar spikes), it means that they have a lower life span. The study doesn't establish causality, so it's unclear whether diabetics have lower β-cell count because they are diabetic, or whether lower β-cell causes diabetes. It is a great study though, pretty well designed and building on kind of amazing resources from the Mayo Clinic.
The second study is interesting but extremely limited due to the fact that it was does in vitro. The problem is that it's talking about kidney fibrosis, or scarring of the kidney due to inability to regenerate. But when you remove much of the kidney and the surrounding body and then attack the kidney with glucose of course there is damage. That doesn't mean that in vivo the body can't deal with it. Kidneys do have a hard time regenerating, so it's an interesting foundational study, but I'd hardly call it "a lot of accumulating evidence."
Fantastic synopses, thanks.
I'll readily grant this can reasonably be construed as suggestive but not "a lot of accumulating evidence", my bad for phrasing it improperly. To me this line of research is raising interesting questions warranting further digging, in a "hm, I wasn't expecting that result going by the received wisdom" way.
Following the sporadic posts of Type 2 patients in online forums self-reporting success at getting off conventional treatment protocols, what appears to come up in common among them is what is currently considered (by the ADA and similar outfits in other nations) radically aggressive methodology to blood glucose control; <100 mg/dL post-prandial is not considered out of line in that crowd, and they avoid spikes as much as possible. A very small number have been at it for 20+ years and well into their 60-70's, and are reporting no long-term disabilities commonly associated with advanced stages of the metabolic disorder. They tend to be in very low (<50 mg/day) carb or even ultra-low (<20 mg/day) carb regimens, or constant ketosis, or varying fasting cycles, with varying amounts of exercise, or a combination of all of the above, with lot of nuances thrown in by each individual. A lot of what they practice directly goes against published large institutional guidelines, but it is really difficult to argue against the end results in their comprehensive blood panels and other bio-markers, so it is a fascinating case to me of the impact of an N=1 / DIY / Quantified Self ethos that increasingly more people are embracing with the aid of increasingly better technology. I find it really exciting that increasingly more laypeople are empirically "science'ing the shit out of this" (to paraphrase "The Martian") with a continuous hypothesis-test-adjust loop upon themselves. It is definitely not science by any conventional means, but as haphazard as it is, it is yielding in a startling number of cases exceptionally better results than the average and mean Type 2 patient experience.
I'll readily grant this can reasonably be construed as suggestive but not "a lot of accumulating evidence", my bad for phrasing it improperly. To me this line of research is raising interesting questions warranting further digging, in a "hm, I wasn't expecting that result going by the received wisdom" way.
Following the sporadic posts of Type 2 patients in online forums self-reporting success at getting off conventional treatment protocols, what appears to come up in common among them is what is currently considered (by the ADA and similar outfits in other nations) radically aggressive methodology to blood glucose control; <100 mg/dL post-prandial is not considered out of line in that crowd, and they avoid spikes as much as possible. A very small number have been at it for 20+ years and well into their 60-70's, and are reporting no long-term disabilities commonly associated with advanced stages of the metabolic disorder. They tend to be in very low (<50 mg/day) carb or even ultra-low (<20 mg/day) carb regimens, or constant ketosis, or varying fasting cycles, with varying amounts of exercise, or a combination of all of the above, with lot of nuances thrown in by each individual. A lot of what they practice directly goes against published large institutional guidelines, but it is really difficult to argue against the end results in their comprehensive blood panels and other bio-markers, so it is a fascinating case to me of the impact of an N=1 / DIY / Quantified Self ethos that increasingly more people are embracing with the aid of increasingly better technology. I find it really exciting that increasingly more laypeople are empirically "science'ing the shit out of this" (to paraphrase "The Martian") with a continuous hypothesis-test-adjust loop upon themselves. It is definitely not science by any conventional means, but as haphazard as it is, it is yielding in a startling number of cases exceptionally better results than the average and mean Type 2 patient experience.
I agree with much of what you're saying, even though I don't think the science strongly supports it (yet). A lot of cool stuff going on right now.
I want to be clear though: there is certainly evidence that very high blood sugar causes significant damage, sometimes permanent, I'm not contesting that. How high "very high" is varies, and as far as I know doesn't really happen in people who aren't diabetic. All I'm saying is I don't think blood sugar spikes are bad for non-diabetics, but they certainly are for diabetics.
I want to be clear though: there is certainly evidence that very high blood sugar causes significant damage, sometimes permanent, I'm not contesting that. How high "very high" is varies, and as far as I know doesn't really happen in people who aren't diabetic. All I'm saying is I don't think blood sugar spikes are bad for non-diabetics, but they certainly are for diabetics.
OK but when people talk about "carbs" they aren't talking about chemicals, they're talking about foods.
Nobody is ever going to know what the chemical composition of a potato is, it's just a potato. Fibre, water, protein content is "carbs" when it's in a potato.
Nobody is ever going to know what the chemical composition of a potato is, it's just a potato. Fibre, water, protein content is "carbs" when it's in a potato.
Fixing notation would definitely help talking about nutrition. Scientific terms should be used precisely, or not used at all. Dear diet industry: invent your own words, or capture the generic ones. Start with 'magic'.
I'm not really sure what you are saying, sorry.
a carbohydrate refers to a molecule made up of a chain of carbon atoms bonded with hydrogen atoms (if I remember correctly from Organic Chemistry).
There are plenty of different molecules, such as Sucrose, Glucose, etc, which are all forms of carbohydrate molecules.
But when people refer to "carbs", they're not referring to the chemical molecule, but most likely processed carbohydrates such as bread.
Hopefully that's more clear
There are plenty of different molecules, such as Sucrose, Glucose, etc, which are all forms of carbohydrate molecules.
But when people refer to "carbs", they're not referring to the chemical molecule, but most likely processed carbohydrates such as bread.
Hopefully that's more clear
But a potato isn't processed, and people call it carbs.
I imagine the "carbs" label extends to both processed/unprocessed/simple/complex carbohydrates, which I think potato belongs to "simple" and "unprocessed" (according to this[1] website).
[1] http://www.ehow.com/about_4613535_chemical-makeup-potato.htm...
[1] http://www.ehow.com/about_4613535_chemical-makeup-potato.htm...
No, potatoes have some simple carbs but they are predominantly starches, which are complex carbs.
Now I'm lost. Isn't that all categories of carbohydrate, meaning they're correct?
Just a quick note; but "sugar in general" contains fructose. Given that you're talking about simple sugars.
Right...specifically fructose, not sugar in general...
sucrose = glucose + fructose - water
lactose = glucose + galactose - water
maltose = glucose + glucose - water
Based on this study, I would guess that replacing all HFCS with an equivalent-sweetness amount of regular corn syrup (all glucose) would immediately result in significant improvements to the public health, even though the sweetened products would have more calories per serving.
"Sugar" is composed of fructose and glucose. Do you mean carbohydrates in general?
I guess we are getting pretty semantic. I meant simple sugars, of which glucose and fructose are two, not sucrose, which is "table sugar," and is partially fructose and glucose.
You're right though, it probably would've been more helpful for me to say carbohydrates in general.
You're right though, it probably would've been more helpful for me to say carbohydrates in general.
IIFYM is a layer of complexity on top of Calorie Counting. If Calorie Counting is "Eat whatever you want as long as you eat below X Calories" IIFYM says, "Hit your calorie mark, but make sure you have enough Fats/Proteins/Carbs". It's not shocking that it would work since it is strictly better than Calorie Counting which also works, but its goal is primarily Body Composition, IE becoming leaner. There is plenty of room to improve on top of that by improving the quality of the nutrient sources and managing micronutrients.
This study isn't a contradiction. It just says that micronutrients matter, which is pretty uncontroversial.
This study isn't a contradiction. It just says that micronutrients matter, which is pretty uncontroversial.
Likewise, IIFY (Macros + sugar) would be another improvement.
AFAIK, IIFYM also notes that you need vitamins etc. They don't try to make it seem like you can eat sugar cubes, chicken breast and avocado and be healthy.
> They don't try to make it seem like you can eat sugar cubes, chicken breast and avocado and be healthy.
Most of the people I see practicing IIFYM believe exactly this.
They routinely top off with donuts and candy to hit the high carb count needed to gain weight. It's way easier than trying to choke down a pound of brown rice every day.
IIFYM is probably not a bad diet for a teenage boy or steroid user trying to pack on weight while doing a high volume of work. Everyone else will put on a lot of unwanted fat.
Most of the people I see practicing IIFYM believe exactly this.
They routinely top off with donuts and candy to hit the high carb count needed to gain weight. It's way easier than trying to choke down a pound of brown rice every day.
IIFYM is probably not a bad diet for a teenage boy or steroid user trying to pack on weight while doing a high volume of work. Everyone else will put on a lot of unwanted fat.
>IIFYM is probably not a bad diet for a teenage boy or steroid user trying to pack on weight while doing a high volume of work. Everyone else will put on a lot of unwanted fat.
That would depend on both your total calorie count and your macro breakdown. IIFYM determines what percentage of your calories should come from each of carbs, fats and proteins. So if your calorie count is suitable for your height, weight and activity level, then your macro breakdown isn't going to cause you to gain weight. If your breakdown is out of whack, then you're going to end up feeling tired, hungry or otherwise malnourished, but it shouldn't cause you excessive weight gain outside of water retention. The calorie counting needs to be more accurate than the macro breakdown.
That would depend on both your total calorie count and your macro breakdown. IIFYM determines what percentage of your calories should come from each of carbs, fats and proteins. So if your calorie count is suitable for your height, weight and activity level, then your macro breakdown isn't going to cause you to gain weight. If your breakdown is out of whack, then you're going to end up feeling tired, hungry or otherwise malnourished, but it shouldn't cause you excessive weight gain outside of water retention. The calorie counting needs to be more accurate than the macro breakdown.
Why are they trying to gain weight? They can't convert donut into muscle. Donuts for a sugar feed while working out, sure.
There are many body functions besides muscle growth and fat burning. These functions require vitamins.
Is it really news? Verbose food labels break down Carbs further into fiber/sugar/polysaccharides for a reason.
That sugar vs. starches makes a difference is hardly news either if you just take a look at glycemic index/insulin response.
And that the kind of fatty acids make a difference in fats is also an aspect going beyond macronutrient breakdown. So really, "fits your macros" has never been sufficient.
Making a distinction between glucose and fructose has been more controversial and it's good to see it studied more.
That sugar vs. starches makes a difference is hardly news either if you just take a look at glycemic index/insulin response.
And that the kind of fatty acids make a difference in fats is also an aspect going beyond macronutrient breakdown. So really, "fits your macros" has never been sufficient.
Making a distinction between glucose and fructose has been more controversial and it's good to see it studied more.
I like your line of thought, but this is no refutation of IIFYM or "eat less if you're fat" unless they performed this substitution isocalorically. Eating fast sugars instead of equivalent slow starches makes me crave more sooner, and eat more.
Someone else here (a medical doctor) has commented before along the lines of "It's OK for healthy people to eat sugar. It's when you're unhealthy (i.e. metabolic syndrome) that you should avoid it."
Well, how do you think the unhealthy people got that way in the first place? Yes, healthy people can deal with moderate or immoderate sugar intake better than people with metabolic syndrome. But at the margin you are probably degrading your health anyway.
Well, how do you think the unhealthy people got that way in the first place? Yes, healthy people can deal with moderate or immoderate sugar intake better than people with metabolic syndrome. But at the margin you are probably degrading your health anyway.
People's bodies are not linear systems.
Eat too little carbohydrates, and you'll die. Eat too much, and you'll die. Your claim that any increase must lead to the same marginal results is absurd.
Eat too little carbohydrates, and you'll die. Eat too much, and you'll die. Your claim that any increase must lead to the same marginal results is absurd.
Actually it's disputed wether carbs are needed at all. It might be possible to function on fat alone (for energy) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketosis
This is not really the point of the thread and I know what you are trying to say but your example is bad. You don't need to eat any carbohydrates at all. Your body can manufacture enough glucose for your brain on its own.
I have to contest the "eat too little and you'll die" statement. Human's can survive (and thrive) on zero carbohydrate diets. Gluconeogensis will provide any glucose the body requires.
The bad effects of sugar on teeth are almost invariable. So even for healthy people there are downsides.
ALSO, the general effects of sugar on aging and immune system are not so good either in general.
ALSO, the general effects of sugar on aging and immune system are not so good either in general.
That completely changes the story. The HN title should be edited.
Exactly. Also: "...comparable percentages of protein, fat, and carbohydrate as their self-reported diet". Self-reported? That must be really reliable, let's just skip control group...
The problem is that the HN title is sensationalistic without merit.
The problem is that the HN title is sensationalistic without merit.
Self reported is unfortunately very common in nutritional studies, for obvious reasons. I don't think it makes sense to dismiss a single study for having the same flaws as most others, as opposed to the general recognition that nutritional science findings are baseline less robust.
I wouldn't cut them so much slack. The study is either reliable or it isn't. And it wouldn't take them much more effort to make the results significant in some way.
In this case, I think that just giving these children the self-reported diet would yield massive effects on their health, sugar or no sugar. I am quite sure children with obesity problems don't know their real diet - not because they are dishonest, but because we (as people) are very efficient at hiding the uncomfortable truths from ourselves.
In this case, I think that just giving these children the self-reported diet would yield massive effects on their health, sugar or no sugar. I am quite sure children with obesity problems don't know their real diet - not because they are dishonest, but because we (as people) are very efficient at hiding the uncomfortable truths from ourselves.
Newspapers usually don't cite their sources because they don't want to drive traffic away or get their facts proven wrong. Subarine PR and native ads are where sources get cited.
It constantly frustrates me how news articles never cite research articles, they always just mention "a study" and the author, leaving me to fumble around for 10 minutes to find the actual study. Does anyone know why this is SOP?
Because journalism is a systematically dishonest profession populated largely by people who do not want their readers to be able to catch their mistakes and do not want to give credit to the researchers who made the discovery that earned the clicks for the news article. They care about entertaining, not informing; the truth or falsehood of what they are writing is irrelevant to them, except as a constraint that might impede the telling of a sensational story (all else being equal, a story is more sensational if it is true than if it is fiction). Like PageRank-hungry SEO scum, they will only name sources if they think some of that the source's credibility will rub off on their article, never vice versa.
It's really depressing how cynical that is. (Developer working at the NYTimes here).
The actual reason links to studies are often left off articles (particularly in cases like this with sharp deadline pressure to publish fast before the competition) is that the software powering the editing and publishing workflow really badly needs improvement. An incredible amount of work and knowledge goes into a story like this.
Versioning rich text through many different software tools designed for writing/editing and publishing across many platforms is hard. Sometimes people copy/paste by hand and in doing so a link can go missing. The news industry needs more technologists to work on these problems. We're hiring for people to do that, by the way: http://developers.nytimes.com/careers/
(Also, the link to the study is now in.)
The actual reason links to studies are often left off articles (particularly in cases like this with sharp deadline pressure to publish fast before the competition) is that the software powering the editing and publishing workflow really badly needs improvement. An incredible amount of work and knowledge goes into a story like this.
Versioning rich text through many different software tools designed for writing/editing and publishing across many platforms is hard. Sometimes people copy/paste by hand and in doing so a link can go missing. The news industry needs more technologists to work on these problems. We're hiring for people to do that, by the way: http://developers.nytimes.com/careers/
(Also, the link to the study is now in.)
It's cynical because that's what we, regular readers of news, have to deal with. NYT may be top of the line, but sadly it's not above the line.
Now I don't want it to sound dismissive or personal in any way, but tell me - if say, few of great software devs now drop everything they do and come to NYT to help, sit down for months and develop the most awesome software package the world of press has ever seen, will it actually solve the quality issues articles have? And more importantly, if sold to other papers, will it suddenly solve their problems?
Will it make journalism honest and trustworthy instead of lies and clickbait bullshit?
I'm not sure how much blame to put on broken publishing workflow, a lot of this seems really to be about broken incentives - "deadline pressure to publish fast before the competition" that leads to the "many articles, as sensationalist as possible, truth be damned" mentality, especially in the management layer.
But you did give me a pause here. Only recently I had a chance to peek at internals of a tiny part of manufacturing industry, and oh boy how much money they waste on badly designed software, which is badly designed because of deadline pressure and top management pressuring to iterate over a broken software package (and then messing with the process) instead of scrapping it altogether and doing it right. Maybe software is more to blame than I thought.
Now I don't want it to sound dismissive or personal in any way, but tell me - if say, few of great software devs now drop everything they do and come to NYT to help, sit down for months and develop the most awesome software package the world of press has ever seen, will it actually solve the quality issues articles have? And more importantly, if sold to other papers, will it suddenly solve their problems?
Will it make journalism honest and trustworthy instead of lies and clickbait bullshit?
I'm not sure how much blame to put on broken publishing workflow, a lot of this seems really to be about broken incentives - "deadline pressure to publish fast before the competition" that leads to the "many articles, as sensationalist as possible, truth be damned" mentality, especially in the management layer.
But you did give me a pause here. Only recently I had a chance to peek at internals of a tiny part of manufacturing industry, and oh boy how much money they waste on badly designed software, which is badly designed because of deadline pressure and top management pressuring to iterate over a broken software package (and then messing with the process) instead of scrapping it altogether and doing it right. Maybe software is more to blame than I thought.
> Now I don't want it to sound dismissive or personal in any way, but tell me - if say, few of great software devs now drop everything they do and come to NYT to help, sit down for months and develop the most awesome software package the world of press has ever seen, will it actually solve the quality issues articles have?
This actually happened and that's how we got d3.js. It didn't fix journalism though.
This actually happened and that's how we got d3.js. It didn't fix journalism though.
Oh, didn't know the origin story; I only thought they just like it over there. D3 is absolutely awesome!
>Will it make journalism honest and trustworthy instead of lies and clickbait bullshit?
You get what you pay for, which online tends toward nothing.
You get what you pay for, which online tends toward nothing.
It turns out that paying people to talk to you, although it can work, tends to get them to tell you what you want to hear. Often, this is "lies and clickbait bullshit." (Think of a stereotypical Soviet government report.) Markets work very well for lots of things, but they can't establish honesty and trustworthiness. Instead, they need honesty and trustworthiness to function.
Still, it's better than them getting paid to tell you what someone else wants you to hear.
Still, it's better than them getting paid to tell you what someone else wants you to hear.
I don't recall ever having a problem with any actual reporting.
My objection is with the editorials. I've all but stopped reading "the news" (NYT, WSJ, Economist, my local paper, etc) as a result.
My objection is with the editorials. I've all but stopped reading "the news" (NYT, WSJ, Economist, my local paper, etc) as a result.
This is the best sort of thing that happens at HN.
"I don't like [thing]" "I work at [thing], come help me fix it"
"I don't like [thing]" "I work at [thing], come help me fix it"
You miss that the subject changed from media in general to NY Times. It is like mixing apples and ... well, rotten pears.
(Not claiming that NY Times is perfect. Of course. There are other good sources, too. But NYTimes isn't like the media I grew up with. At 20 I realized that all their coverage of subjects which I knew beyond the surface was garbage, at best. My specific example is DN, the largest Swedish morning paper, but could be most of the media.)
I'd be happy to be corrected of course.
(Not claiming that NY Times is perfect. Of course. There are other good sources, too. But NYTimes isn't like the media I grew up with. At 20 I realized that all their coverage of subjects which I knew beyond the surface was garbage, at best. My specific example is DN, the largest Swedish morning paper, but could be most of the media.)
I'd be happy to be corrected of course.
I'm glad to see that the link to the study is now in. Also, the current version of the article includes phrases like "the study’s lead author, Dr. Robert Lustig"; did it originally? I can't find the link to the version history of the post.
I'm skeptical of this "software" explanation. Software can of course make citation management much easier, but I see lots of articles that don't even bother to mention the lead author of a cited publication; and how did the software get that way in the first place? The software reflects the priorities of the corrupt organization that produced it.
I'm skeptical of this "software" explanation. Software can of course make citation management much easier, but I see lots of articles that don't even bother to mention the lead author of a cited publication; and how did the software get that way in the first place? The software reflects the priorities of the corrupt organization that produced it.
Having a chance to peek at a tiny area in manufacturing process, I can sort of imagine software replacing a more manual process by something faster, but much more messy and generally worse. It starts with three layers of corporate management above a subcontractor hired to write the software. Of course all requirements go through the entire chain, in what resembles and adult version of the game of telephone (aka. "deaf phone" or "Chinese whispers", the latter being particularly appropriate since what I saw, I saw in China...).
Somebody could probably sit down with the journalists for few weeks and come up with a software package that would fit their needs perfectly - if the development consisted of direct communication between the developers and journalists/editorial staff, without any management middlemen in between. Alas, that's not how software is procured in large organizations.
But I'm also skeptical. It could explain NYT's problems, but it doesn't explain the even worse problems every other news outlet has.
Somebody could probably sit down with the journalists for few weeks and come up with a software package that would fit their needs perfectly - if the development consisted of direct communication between the developers and journalists/editorial staff, without any management middlemen in between. Alas, that's not how software is procured in large organizations.
But I'm also skeptical. It could explain NYT's problems, but it doesn't explain the even worse problems every other news outlet has.
The reason articles about studies leave out a link to the paper is that the software doesn't support it? Why not just put the URL in, or just cite it normally?
Yeah. I can imagine they have lots of problems with preventing tidbits of information from getting lost in an environment of multiple people chaning the same block of free-form text, but if the article is literally about some particular paper, then starting the file with:
NOTE: Study "Effects of X on Y given XYZ" by Researcher N. Here, http://address-to-paper.org
(not the placeholder, the actual data) should help. I don't see such a line getting lost, and even if they happen to publish it by accident instead of incorporating into the text (as sometimes happens, things slip through), it would still reach the same goal anyway.
NOTE: Study "Effects of X on Y given XYZ" by Researcher N. Here, http://address-to-paper.org
(not the placeholder, the actual data) should help. I don't see such a line getting lost, and even if they happen to publish it by accident instead of incorporating into the text (as sometimes happens, things slip through), it would still reach the same goal anyway.
Good luck in your work, but unfortunately it wasn't the tech stack that prevented NYT from publishing the warrantless wiretapping story in due time.
The NYT managed to put together an absolutely massive printing and diatribution operation. If editorial cared about putting a citation in a story, they would do it. Getting a journal citation right is no harder than spelling the scientist's name right. Tech talent is not the blocker.
> sharp deadline pressure to publish fast before the competition
Sounds like the problem lies here and not on the technical side of writing, editing and publishing text.
I wonder what part of this decadence is imputable to ad revenu. If I were very naive, I would say all of it.
Sounds like the problem lies here and not on the technical side of writing, editing and publishing text.
I wonder what part of this decadence is imputable to ad revenu. If I were very naive, I would say all of it.
What a refreshingly cynical argument!
Cynical, yes. Accurate, unfortunately so. I worked for a small weekly paper for a number of years. Weeklies are still very community oriented and immune to many of the diseases that afflict large city dailies or national news outlets. Still, if you aren't selling advertising, you aren't in business, and advertisers don't want to see their ad next to something that either offends sensibilities or bores the hell out of readers.
You can wish it weren't so, or call it cynical, but that IS the reason they don't add a link to the source in the article. God help us all if people clicked away from the site, learned more about the topic than the reporter, or had the piece go over their head.
You can wish it weren't so, or call it cynical, but that IS the reason they don't add a link to the source in the article. God help us all if people clicked away from the site, learned more about the topic than the reporter, or had the piece go over their head.
(Edit: I misread your "unfortunately so" as "unfortunately no" and I was super confused.)
I find your comment disheartening because I was kind of hoping that I was guessing wrong. Can I still hope that things are not quite as bad at the NY Times as at local weeklies?
I find your comment disheartening because I was kind of hoping that I was guessing wrong. Can I still hope that things are not quite as bad at the NY Times as at local weeklies?
It's just a guess.
My local newspaper's website never links to outside pages, always to previous articles within the site. I assume it is to prevent readers to go wander off.
I was going to link to a piece Dave Winer wrote on scripting news some years ago:
http://www.scripting.com/2005/12/12.html#howToMakeMoneyOnThe...
Where he talks about encouraging outgoing traffic.
But one of the more interesting links in that post has gone "evil-dark" (expired, taken by squatters, endless unclosable javascript "your iOS app is inf1ected!!1one! Call us to fix it! Have your credit card ready!"
So by your newspaper linking only to itself, it could be that they actually hope to avoid this dead link behavior. (Although it would be better that it was a self link that went to a vetted link repository.)
I'm really not a web guy, so I'm surprised that this problem hasn't been solved for most content management systems.
http://www.scripting.com/2005/12/12.html#howToMakeMoneyOnThe...
Where he talks about encouraging outgoing traffic.
But one of the more interesting links in that post has gone "evil-dark" (expired, taken by squatters, endless unclosable javascript "your iOS app is inf1ected!!1one! Call us to fix it! Have your credit card ready!"
So by your newspaper linking only to itself, it could be that they actually hope to avoid this dead link behavior. (Although it would be better that it was a self link that went to a vetted link repository.)
I'm really not a web guy, so I'm surprised that this problem hasn't been solved for most content management systems.
Linkrot is a huge problem, and we need IPFS or a similar system to prevent it.
It makes it harder for the reader to find mistakes and harder for the paper to sensationalize. It diminishes the ability to use a study as either commercial or political propaganda (which is not to say the studies themselves aren't commercial or political propaganda in the first place).
Media outlets want viewership more than anything else and the way to get and keep viewership is to tell people what they want to hear. It's why media outlets always have a consistent "slant"; MSNBC people watch MSNBC because it aligns more directly with their worldview than Fox News, and vice-versa. There is minimal tolerance within the audience for a host or pundit that appears to disagree on important factors.
You'll never see Bill 'O Reilly and Rachel Maddow on the same network, because that network would not have any viewers; conservatives want their conservative beliefs reinforced, liberals want their liberal beliefs reinforced, and both will only consume media that performs that function. Most people are not open to having their beliefs challenged even slightly.
All that said, I do find such articles often do state the university and/or the professors that were involved in the study or studies. Some of it may just be convention established before hyperlinks existed, though in many cases, the actual study is not publicly accessible.
Media outlets want viewership more than anything else and the way to get and keep viewership is to tell people what they want to hear. It's why media outlets always have a consistent "slant"; MSNBC people watch MSNBC because it aligns more directly with their worldview than Fox News, and vice-versa. There is minimal tolerance within the audience for a host or pundit that appears to disagree on important factors.
You'll never see Bill 'O Reilly and Rachel Maddow on the same network, because that network would not have any viewers; conservatives want their conservative beliefs reinforced, liberals want their liberal beliefs reinforced, and both will only consume media that performs that function. Most people are not open to having their beliefs challenged even slightly.
All that said, I do find such articles often do state the university and/or the professors that were involved in the study or studies. Some of it may just be convention established before hyperlinks existed, though in many cases, the actual study is not publicly accessible.
Joe Scarborough has a 95% lifetime rating from the American conservative Union, and he's on msnbc. Your statements are a lot more universal than the evidence supports and there are plenty of people who don't run for the hills if their network of choice has a diversity of viewpoints.
Personal POV doesn't have to align with what you spend your day spouting on TV.
"Morning Joe" is a different type of program than the primetime "rage pundits" and Scarborough is one of MSNBC's more moderate hosts, but he still spends his day pandering to MSNBC's core audience. Bias goes much deeper than the words that do or don't come out of a host's mouth; the networks sets the agenda, frames the debate, and procures the guests that will cater to their primary viewership target, and Scarborough passively rides the gravy train. Anchors are performers more than anything, putting on the show that the network has paid them to put on.
What politician is going to turn down the opportunity to have his face in front of tens of thousands of viewers for 2 hours every day, even if it means he has to play nice with the other side?
If there were plenty of people who wanted a "diversity of viewpoints", you'd see this in the marketplace. Could you point out one place where this is actually true? Even NPR, which has a much smaller profit motive and thus should be less concerned with viewership and more concerned with integrity, panders constantly to its audience and refrains from creating a "diversity of viewpoints".
How often do you hear a fair story on NPR about what the conservatives perceive as problems with abortion or same-sex marriage (meaning, a story that doesn't reduce these, either the beliefs and or the believers, to a gross caricature)? Never, because it would make NPR's listener base really mad, because they don't agree that there are problems with those things.
Very few, if any, news outlets are neutral. They pander to their audience's beliefs and they set the dialogue by choosing the stories to give airtime and feed to the base.
Even the "neutral stories" are framed to push a specific viewpoint. They usually go like this: open up with a brief, slanted statement of events. Call someone who supports your POV and ask for their comment. Spend 2 minutes making their argument and bringing it in. About 75% through, put on a 1 or 2 sentence clip from the other side that basically amounts to "we disagree because bad reason x" (bad reason provided either by editing the clip or selecting a bad rep of opposite viewpoint), and then follow it up with another comment from the first person, the person whose argument and authority you spent the first 74% of the story establishing, that says "Well, bad reason x is just ridiculous". Then sign off.
I guarantee you 90% of TV and radio news stories that discuss a news event in a supposedly "neutral" way approximate that pattern. They do it because they're trying to reinforce the beliefs that they believe will make them more money.
"Morning Joe" is a different type of program than the primetime "rage pundits" and Scarborough is one of MSNBC's more moderate hosts, but he still spends his day pandering to MSNBC's core audience. Bias goes much deeper than the words that do or don't come out of a host's mouth; the networks sets the agenda, frames the debate, and procures the guests that will cater to their primary viewership target, and Scarborough passively rides the gravy train. Anchors are performers more than anything, putting on the show that the network has paid them to put on.
What politician is going to turn down the opportunity to have his face in front of tens of thousands of viewers for 2 hours every day, even if it means he has to play nice with the other side?
If there were plenty of people who wanted a "diversity of viewpoints", you'd see this in the marketplace. Could you point out one place where this is actually true? Even NPR, which has a much smaller profit motive and thus should be less concerned with viewership and more concerned with integrity, panders constantly to its audience and refrains from creating a "diversity of viewpoints".
How often do you hear a fair story on NPR about what the conservatives perceive as problems with abortion or same-sex marriage (meaning, a story that doesn't reduce these, either the beliefs and or the believers, to a gross caricature)? Never, because it would make NPR's listener base really mad, because they don't agree that there are problems with those things.
Very few, if any, news outlets are neutral. They pander to their audience's beliefs and they set the dialogue by choosing the stories to give airtime and feed to the base.
Even the "neutral stories" are framed to push a specific viewpoint. They usually go like this: open up with a brief, slanted statement of events. Call someone who supports your POV and ask for their comment. Spend 2 minutes making their argument and bringing it in. About 75% through, put on a 1 or 2 sentence clip from the other side that basically amounts to "we disagree because bad reason x" (bad reason provided either by editing the clip or selecting a bad rep of opposite viewpoint), and then follow it up with another comment from the first person, the person whose argument and authority you spent the first 74% of the story establishing, that says "Well, bad reason x is just ridiculous". Then sign off.
I guarantee you 90% of TV and radio news stories that discuss a news event in a supposedly "neutral" way approximate that pattern. They do it because they're trying to reinforce the beliefs that they believe will make them more money.
Because news organizations are still operating under a newsprint paradigm where citations are considered a waste of ink. Like I'm not saying they actually still think about column inches, but that's how this became standard and people are still just following the standard. This is actually a good litmus test to see if a news organization has moved to the online-first mindset or not.
It might be correlated to journals that charge $70.00 per paper. If the NYT publishes a story citing a journal, the journal may go back, see that the NYT never actually bought the paper and a journalist just got a copy from somewhere, and then try to sue the NYT. The 'study' may be a weasel word that is used to avoid this outcome. And yes, over one article this is frivolous, but if the journal waits a few years and amasses 100 instances where this happened, then the NYT may actually go to court.
That's definitely not the case... Journals provide news outlets with complimentary copies of papers specifically so that they can be written about. Often, but not always, they're even provided in advance of official publication.
Ahhh, so it is laziness then. I should have known, never assume conspiracy when idiocy will do.
How so?
Borrowing material from the library is a "thing" as far as I know.
I don't think you have to own a copy of something to write about it. That would be insane.
Borrowing material from the library is a "thing" as far as I know.
I don't think you have to own a copy of something to write about it. That would be insane.
Because they are now competing with blogs for readership.
In my experience blogs are usually much better about citing studies than newspapers.
Most readers are not on university networks and so would not be able to read the study anyway, except in rare cases of open access journals.
So what? Whether or not you give someone credit for their work or provide evidence for a claim you make is not contingent on your audience's having immediate access to the fulltext of your source. If the source exists, you cite it, and link to it -- period.
It's not about the audience not having access.
It's that the reporter is getting access without having ever paid for it. (Pirating, reading from another article, etc)
It's that the reporter is getting access without having ever paid for it. (Pirating, reading from another article, etc)
Nobody could ever prove how the author accessed it. It just isn't even an issue, legally or otherwise.
Setting aside the fact that it is a non-issue, in any case many news agencies have various DB subscriptions, most public libraries have DB access, most universities have 'reader' accounts which grant access to these DBs for like $100 a year, etc.
Any reporter who wants to access an article legitimately can easily do so. Else, they really do not belong in the profession of journalism, which relies on practitioners being resourceful and researching things in order to convey accurate information to others.
Setting aside the fact that it is a non-issue, in any case many news agencies have various DB subscriptions, most public libraries have DB access, most universities have 'reader' accounts which grant access to these DBs for like $100 a year, etc.
Any reporter who wants to access an article legitimately can easily do so. Else, they really do not belong in the profession of journalism, which relies on practitioners being resourceful and researching things in order to convey accurate information to others.
Shoot. I could have sworn this thread was nested under Balgair's comment about journals that charge $70 per paper. I must have misread something.
I almost think that's a good thing. It would be a talking point for gathering support for widespread open access policy.
So only cite open access articles (like this one). It'd certainly be a win for the public.
The New York Times is especially guilty of this, the more so in its health and science reporting. I noted and specifically called out, IIRC, the LA Times for specifically referencing and linking a source.
The Times needs to get with the times.
The Times needs to get with the times.
I noticed nobody in the thread seems to be pointing this out, so I'll do it:
Scientific research articles are very often behind a paywall. So citing them wouldn't really give the reader much more information.
Scientific research articles are very often behind a paywall. So citing them wouldn't really give the reader much more information.
Because most news organizations are not rigorous and care more about clicks than journalism.
I completely removed added sugar from my diet for the past 6 months. It is hard to describe how my life changed.
I am much better at swimming, less tired, I eat a lot less. I lost weight the first 3 months and now my weight is very stable.
Cutting added sugar is not very hard but it requires some willingness.
The food producers put sugar everywhere: bread, red beans, smoked salmon, yogurt, etc. You just need to read the ingredients to avoid it. You will quickly learn which type of product is ok and which type is not.
Today I am more attracted to a fruit than a cup cake or an ice cream, and it feels good :)
I am much better at swimming, less tired, I eat a lot less. I lost weight the first 3 months and now my weight is very stable.
Cutting added sugar is not very hard but it requires some willingness.
The food producers put sugar everywhere: bread, red beans, smoked salmon, yogurt, etc. You just need to read the ingredients to avoid it. You will quickly learn which type of product is ok and which type is not.
Today I am more attracted to a fruit than a cup cake or an ice cream, and it feels good :)
I have become so wary of comments about lifestyle or diet changes that result in a bevy of subjective improvements. Like when people start running and they have all these wonderful side effects — more energy, better sleep, mood improvements, etc — where in my experience I really didn't experience any of it when I trained for a triathlon a couple years back. It just reminds me of infomercial testimonials. I need to see double-blind clinical trials that prove the effects outperform placebo at this point. It all sounds logical, because "sugar bad" but I have become far too skeptical these days.
Double blind dietary study? It would be quite hard to fool someone into thinking they are eating cupcakes when they are really eating a bowl of unsweetened oatmeal.
Dietary studies are very hard. There is no conspiracy preventing rigorous studies, they are just really hard. You need a large enough sample, you need to control the subjects very tightly (people don't self-report accurately), and you need to do it for long enough to see if the effects are lasting or illusory.
If you want real science here, we need to change our expectations and think in terms of $10B not $10M. Probably still a good investment in health, comparable to cancer research.
Until that time, what are you using to make your dietary decisions, given there's not much real science behind any of it?
Dietary studies are very hard. There is no conspiracy preventing rigorous studies, they are just really hard. You need a large enough sample, you need to control the subjects very tightly (people don't self-report accurately), and you need to do it for long enough to see if the effects are lasting or illusory.
If you want real science here, we need to change our expectations and think in terms of $10B not $10M. Probably still a good investment in health, comparable to cancer research.
Until that time, what are you using to make your dietary decisions, given there's not much real science behind any of it?
I completely agree that it would be very difficult to perform such studies, if not impossible, but that doesn't make me desire them any less. Instead I've become very skeptical of everything and – if you'll pardon the pun – follow my gut instincts.
I find maintaining a high level of skepticism tends to dissipate any longterm benefits of the placebo effect. So sometimes I'll try a fad, or a lifestyle change, but hold my judgement until months later and most of the time I'm left disappointed in the overall results.
Other than that, I follow the golden rule of health and nutrition: "everything in moderation".
I find maintaining a high level of skepticism tends to dissipate any longterm benefits of the placebo effect. So sometimes I'll try a fad, or a lifestyle change, but hold my judgement until months later and most of the time I'm left disappointed in the overall results.
Other than that, I follow the golden rule of health and nutrition: "everything in moderation".
"Everything in moderation" is just a tautology. "Moderation" for kale is different from "moderation" for sugar is different from "moderation" for opiates. "Everything in moderation" means "the right amount of everything," which is just begging the question of what the right amount is in the first place.
Ah, thank you for articulating the problem I have with that statement that I could never quite put my finger on.
I would not agree it means "the right amount of everything". That would be "everything in the right amount". I take "everything in moderation" to mean not too much of anything, using your best judgement of what too much is. It's subjective and based on intuition, to be sure, but I think everyone has a decent understanding about when they are having too much of something. And I fully admit it's not a great tautology. But in lieu of better science, at least it's something.
Also thank you for using "begging the question" correctly.
Skepticism is fine. But that doesn't mean you can't take someone's advice and just try it. Sometimes it works out, some times it does not. But it's just optimizing what works for "you". This is something you'll never find in a clinical study no matter how good.
> Sometimes it works out, some times it does not
Actually, it almost always works out, at least initially. The problem is, the benefits go away; that's how placebo works. I'm just wary of getting my hopes up these days so I'm very careful about what drastic lifestyle changes I make now. Beyond that, I'm also tired of people guilt-tripping everyone else every time they make one of these lifestyle changes. Everyone rushes from one fad to the next and along the way we all feel a little worse about ourselves.
Actually, it almost always works out, at least initially. The problem is, the benefits go away; that's how placebo works. I'm just wary of getting my hopes up these days so I'm very careful about what drastic lifestyle changes I make now. Beyond that, I'm also tired of people guilt-tripping everyone else every time they make one of these lifestyle changes. Everyone rushes from one fad to the next and along the way we all feel a little worse about ourselves.
"It would be quite hard to fool someone into thinking they are eating cupcakes when they are really eating a bowl of unsweetened oatmeal."
I would be willing to be fed slurry through a tube, if it provided good information.
I would be willing to be fed slurry through a tube, if it provided good information.
This does assume the form factor and visual re-enforcements don't contribute to the effect. You can call this "placebo" if you want, but the perception is real and might not have a clear "alternative placebo".
I would recommend trying it yourself. I always had problems with my knees, wrists and elbows to the point where pretty much any kind of exercise caused lot of pain. Then I spent a month at a yoga ashram where all food was made fresh without any sugar. After two weeks the joint pain was almost completely gone.
I am now on a low-sugar diet and my joints are still doing well. When I eat some sugar after half an hour my wrist and elbow start to hurt again.
I have tried this a few times and the effect is totally reproducible. This experience makes me wonder how many people who have arthritis and other inflammatory diseases could reduce their symptoms with a low/no sugar diet.
Keeping weight off is also much easier with low sugar.
My advice is: Keep it a try. Stay off sugar for a month and see if you notice any changes. There is nothing to lose (besides a few pounds).
I am now on a low-sugar diet and my joints are still doing well. When I eat some sugar after half an hour my wrist and elbow start to hurt again.
I have tried this a few times and the effect is totally reproducible. This experience makes me wonder how many people who have arthritis and other inflammatory diseases could reduce their symptoms with a low/no sugar diet.
Keeping weight off is also much easier with low sugar.
My advice is: Keep it a try. Stay off sugar for a month and see if you notice any changes. There is nothing to lose (besides a few pounds).
Re-read your comment and tell me it doesn't sound like an informercial testimonial. It worked for you. That's great. Placebo is a hell of a drug. Staying off sugar is a huge pain in the ass because it's in everything, it's delicious, and it makes me happy when I eat it. If I told you that I gave up tap water and strictly drank bottled water for a month, and my knees felt better and I had more energy and I was able to reproduce the effect, would you take it on faith and try drinking bottled water for a month?
Let's say, for the sake of argument, this is just a placebo effect. Does it really matter? If it provides a noticeable, reproducible result that improves someones life, who cares? Is it guaranteed to work for you? No, but there's no guarantee with a double blind tested, well researched method either.
It's giving up sugar, not ingesting plutonium. Worst case scenario you don't get the 'infomercial results', but it most likely will still improve your overall health
It's giving up sugar, not ingesting plutonium. Worst case scenario you don't get the 'infomercial results', but it most likely will still improve your overall health
How can I tell somebody about my personal experiences without sounding like an infomercial? And why do you call it placebo? I have gone back and forth several times with the same results every time.
Maybe my body is different from anybody else's body and my results apply only to me. That's obviously a possibility.
Maybe my body is different from anybody else's body and my results apply only to me. That's obviously a possibility.
Dude, why so much hate?
What use would be an infomercial recommending to stop eating sugar?
In the abstract you're right, however in this case there are actually links between eating sugar and inflammation in the body. Sugar affecting arthritis is not a new concept; there's plenty of studies on the topic already out there and the relationship between sugar and cytokines in the body. I'd say that's fairly far from a placebo effect.
I'd think about it carefully and see if it had some plausible scientific explanation. I'd look at the cost of trying it and the cost of not trying it. And then I'd try it for a month or not. It's a month! In a lifetime, it's not a long stretch of time. If there's a real benefit you win, if there's no benefit you learned something. (Keep in mind the above line on considering costs and whether I'd do it in the first place -- that's meant to put a bound on costs.)
There are probably places in the US where switching to bottled water would be a great idea, sadly. Northern Iowa, for instance, is struggling to remove nitrates from its drinking water (nitrates affect oxygen transport by blood), and in parts of Pennsylvania fracking has led to flaming tap water. If you live there, it might not be a bad idea to try your example of a silly experiment.
There are probably places in the US where switching to bottled water would be a great idea, sadly. Northern Iowa, for instance, is struggling to remove nitrates from its drinking water (nitrates affect oxygen transport by blood), and in parts of Pennsylvania fracking has led to flaming tap water. If you live there, it might not be a bad idea to try your example of a silly experiment.
That sugar is inflammatory sounds pretty likely, though. Actually, the Wikipedia article on sugar states that food with a high glycemic load cause inflammation.
Thank you for this. So many people online make diet and exercise seem like some silver bullet, and it's fascinating how much it has been accepted as a silver bullet, yet in my experience it was no big deal.
Though I've noticed that most of the silver bullet testimonials come from US citizens. Could be that the standard American diet is way, WAY crappier than most. Where I come from(somewhere in Africa), fast food and sugary foods are for the wealthy, while organic whole foods is for ordinary folk. So maybe I wasn't eating so badly before, that's why I didn't feel the 'magical' effects I read about from US citizens.
Though I've noticed that most of the silver bullet testimonials come from US citizens. Could be that the standard American diet is way, WAY crappier than most. Where I come from(somewhere in Africa), fast food and sugary foods are for the wealthy, while organic whole foods is for ordinary folk. So maybe I wasn't eating so badly before, that's why I didn't feel the 'magical' effects I read about from US citizens.
Yup it's a US centric problem. Before coming to the US I would never consider "maintaining a healthy weight" (I've lived in the UAE and India before). The sedentary lifestyle and abundance of cheap (I mean really cheap) sugary products is the root cause.
One of the striking things to me when I moved to the US was the waistlines of people who were considered to be living below or around the poverty line. I was like "They seem to be well fed, in what sense are they poor?"
> Before coming to the US I would never consider "maintaining a healthy weight" (I've lived in the UAE and India before).
To be fair, the UAE has approximately the same obesity rate as the US.
To be fair, the UAE has approximately the same obesity rate as the US.
Yes it is, amongst locals. Not expats.
And sugary products in the UAE aren't as cheap as they are in the US.
so...not a "US centric problem" then
I am not saying this is the solution to all people who are overweight or anything like that.
I am only saying that for someone like me who was clearly addicted go suggar, the result is clearly here.
I tried to stop eating too much since I was ~17 years old and I was never able to do so until I cut added sugar.
I am only speaking for myself (and for my dad who needs to cut added sugar :))
I am only saying that for someone like me who was clearly addicted go suggar, the result is clearly here.
I tried to stop eating too much since I was ~17 years old and I was never able to do so until I cut added sugar.
I am only speaking for myself (and for my dad who needs to cut added sugar :))
Eating too much sugar and then bringing it down to "normal" levels is one thing, but cutting it out of your diet completely is another. I think eating too much of anything is going to have negative side-effects and bringing that consumption back to normal levels will have the reverse effect. It doesn't seem particularly compelling to me. Sugar is no more harmful to us than most of the other chemicals we consume when done in moderation, so I feel it's being unfairly singled out.
It's being "unfairly" singled out because it's being "unfairly" added to most processed foods. Why is it added? Because it's addicting, people will always want more, and are therefore willing to pay for it. Want your food product to sell more? Add sugar. It's nice that you think people should "just eat normal levels", but it's extremely hard in practice when the food landscape is heavily saturated in the stuff, especially the cheaper products. Healthy food, or "moderate" behavior, exists alongside a mountain of more appealing options in the moment, especially considering cost.
Go to the grocery (in the US), and look at many products attractive to children. Notice the heavy prevalence of added sugar. Unfairly singled out? lmfao
Go to the grocery (in the US), and look at many products attractive to children. Notice the heavy prevalence of added sugar. Unfairly singled out? lmfao
> Why is it added?
Because it's delicious.
Why do people eat too much sugar? Because they like delicious things and eating delicious things makes them happy. Maybe we should focus on why people use food to feel happy rather than why food is manufactured to make people feel happy.
Because it's delicious.
Why do people eat too much sugar? Because they like delicious things and eating delicious things makes them happy. Maybe we should focus on why people use food to feel happy rather than why food is manufactured to make people feel happy.
> Maybe we should focus on why people use food to feel happy rather than why food is manufactured to make people feel happy.
That's not really fair. I agree with your general skepticism in this thread (there's a reason that most of these studies show small effects due to dietary modifications but most anecdotes of the same are "and now everything is amazing!"), but the human body is designed to crave things like fat and sugar and to feel good when they're acquired.
Some kind of ascetic lifestyle -- where we can remove the desire for the pleasure of eating -- may be possible, but the physical design of the body and our reward system indicates that enjoyment from eating food is built right in.
It would be like ignoring people perpetuating fraud and instead only trying to solve all the ways that the human brain is susceptible to it.
That's not really fair. I agree with your general skepticism in this thread (there's a reason that most of these studies show small effects due to dietary modifications but most anecdotes of the same are "and now everything is amazing!"), but the human body is designed to crave things like fat and sugar and to feel good when they're acquired.
Some kind of ascetic lifestyle -- where we can remove the desire for the pleasure of eating -- may be possible, but the physical design of the body and our reward system indicates that enjoyment from eating food is built right in.
It would be like ignoring people perpetuating fraud and instead only trying to solve all the ways that the human brain is susceptible to it.
You responded to a rhetorical question and completely ignored my response to your ridiculous claim that sugar is being unfairly singled out. Why is that?
Because it's delicious
It's not though. It's only delicious for people who have high sugar intake. And besides, deliciousness is subjective and orthogonal to nutrition, while nutritional value is largely objective (we hope).
Smoking is bad for you, so it's illegal for minors to buy and it's illegal to even smoke with a minor in the car. High sugar intake is bad for you, so it's illegal to advertise sweets to children /s.
Maybe we should focus on why people use food to feel happy rather than why food is manufactured to make people feel happy.
You really think for us to have any hope of changing the prevalence of obesity is to get people to change their behavior, instead of minimizing the accessibility and prevalence of the environment which reinforces said behavior? It'd be great to do both, but realistically...? Get millions of people to change their behavior and opt for the more expensive / less flavorful foods? (And I mean less flavorful in a subjective sense, since they're used to very sweet, very salty things.)
Because it's delicious
It's not though. It's only delicious for people who have high sugar intake. And besides, deliciousness is subjective and orthogonal to nutrition, while nutritional value is largely objective (we hope).
Smoking is bad for you, so it's illegal for minors to buy and it's illegal to even smoke with a minor in the car. High sugar intake is bad for you, so it's illegal to advertise sweets to children /s.
Maybe we should focus on why people use food to feel happy rather than why food is manufactured to make people feel happy.
You really think for us to have any hope of changing the prevalence of obesity is to get people to change their behavior, instead of minimizing the accessibility and prevalence of the environment which reinforces said behavior? It'd be great to do both, but realistically...? Get millions of people to change their behavior and opt for the more expensive / less flavorful foods? (And I mean less flavorful in a subjective sense, since they're used to very sweet, very salty things.)
You guys just love arguing about semantics.
We can't convince others with an aggressive tone. Like I'm doing. But we can definitely win over an audience.
We can't convince others with an aggressive tone. Like I'm doing. But we can definitely win over an audience.
> > Why is it added?
> Because it's delicious.
You can't possibly be this ignorant of nutrition. Do you really think sugar is somehow objectively and universally delicious (excluding the trivial definition in which almost every taste is "delicious" in that it contributes to the overall palette of flavor)?
I didn't quite cut sugar out of my diet but around college I stopped eating as much, and I now found most of the desserts or candy one would find in the supermarket to be too sweet for my tastes, as well as most "normal" sweetened drinks (by contrast to e.g. many fruits). How does that mesh with your claim that sugar is added because it's simply "delicious", as opposed to other's model of a feedback loop between amt of sugar consumed and amt of sugar desired?
You can't possibly be this ignorant of nutrition. Do you really think sugar is somehow objectively and universally delicious (excluding the trivial definition in which almost every taste is "delicious" in that it contributes to the overall palette of flavor)?
I didn't quite cut sugar out of my diet but around college I stopped eating as much, and I now found most of the desserts or candy one would find in the supermarket to be too sweet for my tastes, as well as most "normal" sweetened drinks (by contrast to e.g. many fruits). How does that mesh with your claim that sugar is added because it's simply "delicious", as opposed to other's model of a feedback loop between amt of sugar consumed and amt of sugar desired?
Sugar is addictive. It is therefore a drug. Like it or not.
Stop eating it for a few weeks and you will find food with a lot of added sugar disgusting (eg: coke).
Stop eating it for a few weeks and you will find food with a lot of added sugar disgusting (eg: coke).
> Sugar is addictive. It is therefore a drug. Like it or not.
Addictiveness has nothing to do with whether or not something is a drug. Like it or not.
Addictiveness has nothing to do with whether or not something is a drug. Like it or not.
I agree, most of the life changing experiences people describe sound a lot like they were depressed and now they're not.
I ran in excess of 32 miles a week for several years and the only side effect I had from it was blisters.
I ran in excess of 32 miles a week for several years and the only side effect I had from it was blisters.
If the only change 32 miles a week had on your body was blisters then you must of been in rather great shape to begin with. No cardio improvement? No muscle gain? No weight loss? For the vast majority of Americans I have a feeling this would not be the case.
I transitioned to running in college when I got too old for most basketball leagues so I was in pretty good at the time.
I started running again a few years ago after a 5 year hiatus from any regular physical activity. I logged my Time, Avg/Max HR, and Calories burned for each run and there really wasn't much of a change in metrics over the 3 year period I tracked them. My heart rate was surprisingly stable and run times reduced gradually but only about a minute a year.
Maybe if I was incredibly unhealthy but I generally eat well and at my worst I've only been 20-30lbs over weight. I know that sounds like a lot but I'm 6'5" and my "ideal" body weight is 190lbs which is kind of ridiculous.
I started running again a few years ago after a 5 year hiatus from any regular physical activity. I logged my Time, Avg/Max HR, and Calories burned for each run and there really wasn't much of a change in metrics over the 3 year period I tracked them. My heart rate was surprisingly stable and run times reduced gradually but only about a minute a year.
Maybe if I was incredibly unhealthy but I generally eat well and at my worst I've only been 20-30lbs over weight. I know that sounds like a lot but I'm 6'5" and my "ideal" body weight is 190lbs which is kind of ridiculous.
Sounds like it worked great for you.
Some folks would argue that if you're in reasonably good physical condition, you're not going to see big results from any exercise program. The contention is that diet controls much of your body composition and all those other effects people are talking about. I don't know if I agree, but it's an interesting idea; the remaining hunter-gatherers in east Africa don't expend more calories than us even though they do a lot more physical activity every day. My own experience is that once I got used to biking 50 miles a week it had no effect on my body shape or composition.
However, once I stopped eating a few things that continually gave me sinus problems I didn't even realize I had, I did feel less depressed :)
However, once I stopped eating a few things that continually gave me sinus problems I didn't even realize I had, I did feel less depressed :)
What were you eating that gave you sinus problems?
Surprisingly, wheaty foods. I was not a very nice person in the mornings for decades, because my face hurt. I thought that is what being tired felt like. My old roommate still mentions that I'm a grumpy morning person because that is all she ever knew.
Then I stopped eating wheat and I stopped feeling like someone punched me in the front side of the head. It was truly bizarre. I had no idea.
Then I stopped eating wheat and I stopped feeling like someone punched me in the front side of the head. It was truly bizarre. I had no idea.
I'm also curious about foods that may be related to sinus problems.
Like when people start running and they have all these wonderful side effects
— more energy, better sleep, mood improvements
I think there may be an evolutionary aspect to it as we started of as nomads and the lifestyle that we live currently is the result of the industrial revolution and hence quite recent.
Well, I pretty much did the same thing and lost 35 lbs. I know my electronic scale can't be influenced by the placebo effect.
That said, I'm not trying to say sugar is 100% bad for you. I'm sure removing 100% of the sugar from the human body will cause it to fail. Just saying that if you're one of those knocking down 2 bottles of mountain dew and a candy bar everyday, you should probably stop.
That said, I'm not trying to say sugar is 100% bad for you. I'm sure removing 100% of the sugar from the human body will cause it to fail. Just saying that if you're one of those knocking down 2 bottles of mountain dew and a candy bar everyday, you should probably stop.
>I'm sure removing 100% of the sugar from the human body will cause it to fail.
Why? You can get the needed carbs in other forms. Is sugar required to be eaten? I don't think so.
Why? You can get the needed carbs in other forms. Is sugar required to be eaten? I don't think so.
[deleted]
I don't know... it would be pretty difficult to argue "sugar good" as a lifestyle/diet change. BTW, there are plenty of studies that prove this.
EDIT: Don't want to say 'prove' but would mostly purport the argument that "sugar bad".
EDIT: Don't want to say 'prove' but would mostly purport the argument that "sugar bad".
I challenge you to live without sugar of any kind. Sugar is not only undeniably good for us, it's completely necessary for survival. What we're debating here is the amount one should consume and that's where things start to get fuzzy.
I'm sorry, but how is sugar "completely necessary for survival"? Can you point to any studies that back that up?
I'm not a nutritionist, but from my layman understanding, carbohydrates break down to glucose during digestion, so any "good" carb source (oatmeal, beans, peas, etc.) will affect blood sugar levels.
But even those carbs aren't necessary for survival. After a period of time, the body (and yes, the brain as well) will adapt to use other sources of energy, such as ketones, which are a fats/lipids by-product. Even then, with no carb intake, glucose can be generated from non-carbs via gluconeogenesis, if needed.
Low-carb high-fat diets have been a life-saver for diabetics, helping reduce or eliminate their reliance on insulin, and that's pretty much proof the human body doesn't need sugar for survival.
I'm not a nutritionist, but from my layman understanding, carbohydrates break down to glucose during digestion, so any "good" carb source (oatmeal, beans, peas, etc.) will affect blood sugar levels.
But even those carbs aren't necessary for survival. After a period of time, the body (and yes, the brain as well) will adapt to use other sources of energy, such as ketones, which are a fats/lipids by-product. Even then, with no carb intake, glucose can be generated from non-carbs via gluconeogenesis, if needed.
Low-carb high-fat diets have been a life-saver for diabetics, helping reduce or eliminate their reliance on insulin, and that's pretty much proof the human body doesn't need sugar for survival.
Did you, in addition to training for the triathlon change your diet? I tried it both ways (not for a triathlon, but general fitness)
1) Not changing my diet
2) Changing my diet (less meat, minimal processed food, no coffee, etc.).
There was a massive positive difference with 2). IMO, a person's diet is way, way more important than his/her exercise regime.
There was a massive positive difference with 2). IMO, a person's diet is way, way more important than his/her exercise regime.
I think it really depends on your natural baseline though, doesn't it? Someone that is not used to any kind of physical activity will enjoy greater benefits after a few weeks of regular exercise and his experience of the whole thing would be completely different I reckon.
Skepticism can be nullified from the big-picture point-of-view. Look at any one subject in isolation and it will get confusing fast. Look at everything as a highly-connected orchestra or puzzle and things may come into focus.
I try to orient my skepticism towards "things that don't make sense".
What does it mean for something to "make sense" exactly?
> It is hard to describe how my life changed
I've sought out these types of experiences but never see the dramatic changes that other people do.
For a time, I cut sugar out of my diet. I didn't notice any changes other than my desire to eat sweet foods went away. I did experience the flu like symptoms for a few days, but that passed. Now, if I really binge on sugar, I get a headache, but consuming it moderation doesn't make me feel any different than when I had cut it out completely.
I've also experimented with cutting out caffeine, eating vegetarian, different sleep patterns, and different exercise routines. Only messing with my sleep had much effect (I need it, duh).
I've sought out these types of experiences but never see the dramatic changes that other people do.
For a time, I cut sugar out of my diet. I didn't notice any changes other than my desire to eat sweet foods went away. I did experience the flu like symptoms for a few days, but that passed. Now, if I really binge on sugar, I get a headache, but consuming it moderation doesn't make me feel any different than when I had cut it out completely.
I've also experimented with cutting out caffeine, eating vegetarian, different sleep patterns, and different exercise routines. Only messing with my sleep had much effect (I need it, duh).
Being a minor pedant - the sugar in Smoked Salmon isn't really 'the food producers putting sugar everywhere', it's part of how the Salmon is cured before it's smoked. Rubs and cures are fairly typically a mix of salt and sugar along with herbs and spices - the sugar is a pretty integral part of the process rather than being an additional ingredient.
Not to mention its a very small amount of sugar. I noticed in the study they replaced added sugars with simple carbs (bagels/chips). Makes me wonder if the best strategy is just reducing all sugar/simple carbs across the board and replacing with low GI or high fat foods.
This works for me, I lost 65 lbs over a year. Now that I hit my goals I eat very low carb (< 20 net grams) for breakfast/lunch and low/moderate carb for supper (30-60 net grams).
It's more about the quantity of sugar than the fact the salmon has sugar. When people say cut added sugar out of your diet, they're talking about removing a single food item that might have 20-45 grams of sugar.
Why? Binding factors? Aesthetics? Is there any alternative (perhaps more expensive)?
I smoke my own salmon. After cutting the salmon, you let it sit in a mixture of salt and sugar overnight. From my understanding, the salt pulls moisture out of the fish - it's impressive how much moisture is pulled out. The fish starts out sitting in a bowl of salt and sugar, and in the morning the bowl is filled with liquid. You rinse all the salt and sugar off, dry the fish on racks, and then put it in a smoker.
I've been told the sugar is used to keep the fish from becoming overly salty, but I imagine it serves other purposes as well. I'd love to know what that is. We've started experimenting with using less sugar, but it seems the fish would get really salty if you cut too much sugar out.
Here's a picture of the fish drying: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151063519684708&l=...
and after it comes out of the smoker: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151064652569708&l=...
I've been told the sugar is used to keep the fish from becoming overly salty, but I imagine it serves other purposes as well. I'd love to know what that is. We've started experimenting with using less sugar, but it seems the fish would get really salty if you cut too much sugar out.
Here's a picture of the fish drying: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151063519684708&l=...
and after it comes out of the smoker: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151064652569708&l=...
Hey man: That's some sexy looking salmon. Nice!
That's a lot of fish. 'Your own salmon' hopefully doesn't refer to your own consumption ;-)
Are you crazy!?! That looks like a few days worth of salmon for me (if I could afford it) :-)
I live in southeast Alaska, so this is a day's catch once in a while. We try to keep a steady stock of smoked fish in the freezer and in the fridge.
But we pay through the nose for crappy fruit and vegetables!
But we pay through the nose for crappy fruit and vegetables!
Sugar is a preservative; it directly combats spoilage through osmotic effects, and does it indirectly in a couple different ways.
More importantly, since it was historically used to cure meats, it's become an important part of the flavor profile of those products. It's the same with nitrates and ham and bacon; without them, it just doesn't taste like bacon, which is why "uncured bacon" is usually a pretty deceptive product.
More importantly, since it was historically used to cure meats, it's become an important part of the flavor profile of those products. It's the same with nitrates and ham and bacon; without them, it just doesn't taste like bacon, which is why "uncured bacon" is usually a pretty deceptive product.
See dekhn's comment:
> Sugar is added to cured salmon because it helps prevent the growth of microorganisms. When this process was originally developed, food spoilage was a huge problem (it meant the difference between survival and death) while metabolic disorders were rare.
> Sugar is added to cured salmon because it helps prevent the growth of microorganisms. When this process was originally developed, food spoilage was a huge problem (it meant the difference between survival and death) while metabolic disorders were rare.
Adding sugar reduces the water activity, which inhibits microbial growth.
Sugar is added to cured salmon because it helps prevent the growth of microorganisms. When this process was originally developed, food spoilage was a huge problem (it meant the difference between survival and death) while metabolic disorders were rare.
One more thing: I did that because I wanted to eat all the time. When I learned than sugar is addictive, I stopped.
I would like to back that up. I used to be the guy that ordered miltiple additional portions of fries all the time. I thought I really liked fries.
Eventually I figured out it was the sugar filled ketchup that was doing it to me. Now I eat fries without ketchup and do not usually order additional portions (unless I am really hungry). Best of all, I do not feel like I am starving myself. When I do not have ketchup, I do not get the desire to eat more.
Eventually I figured out it was the sugar filled ketchup that was doing it to me. Now I eat fries without ketchup and do not usually order additional portions (unless I am really hungry). Best of all, I do not feel like I am starving myself. When I do not have ketchup, I do not get the desire to eat more.
I can eat fries without ketchup just fine. My issue is with the salt. Give me more of that wonderful NaCl.
Fortunately no issue with NaCl. It has been demonized but turns out, humans with their salty blood are exquisitely tuned to regulate salt. Most of us have absolutely no problem with any amount of salt.
any amount of salt
Less Salt water than you might think can kill you. Lower levels can also prove deadly when your body is stressed.
However, long term effects do seem limited.
Less Salt water than you might think can kill you. Lower levels can also prove deadly when your body is stressed.
However, long term effects do seem limited.
There's that lady that deliberately lived for months on a raft in the ocean, drinking only salt water. I'm doubting that salt water is terribly harmful.
Very similar stories on my side... I used to need a lot of food to feel "satisfied" or "full". Now, a regular meal, like my wife who has always eat small portion and healthy food, and I am good until the next meal.
I eat them with mayo. I wonder if that has sugar? Anyway, still crave them, eat as many as I find on my plate (and half of what's on my wife's plate).
This. 100 times.
I've had the same experience (and a few relapses, but I do know better).
I've had the same experience (and a few relapses, but I do know better).
I've cut it out for the most part as well, and I (as anecdotal as it is of course) completely agree.
I've also lost 35 lbs since the beginning of summer as well, with few other specific changes than learning to pass up sweet stuff.
Naturally, it's calories in vs. calories out for weight loss, but there seems to be a dangerous feedback loop when it comes to me and sugar. Easiest way to exercise will power for me is to just say no altogether.
I've also lost 35 lbs since the beginning of summer as well, with few other specific changes than learning to pass up sweet stuff.
Naturally, it's calories in vs. calories out for weight loss, but there seems to be a dangerous feedback loop when it comes to me and sugar. Easiest way to exercise will power for me is to just say no altogether.
I agree with you on the benefits, but I did find it quite hard to get rid of added sugars from my diet. As you said it's basically in 90% of products you find at the grocery store, so the only way is to buy raw foods only and do a lot of cooking.
I work remotely from home, so I have time to choose what to buy and time to cook everyday, but otherwise I don't think I could do it easily.
I have seen a bunch of friends trying with the same feedback.
I think the key is to do it very strictly for a few weeks. Otherwise, you have a hard time understanding some of your feelings. When you completely stop, you can clearly see the difference.
Sometimes, I think I am too strict so I take a peace of cake, and I usually regrets eat because I have this weird feeling an hour later.
Also, I want to insist on the fact that I had a lot of junk food while I was younger, and I think the effect on my body was big.
My observation is that people who grew up eating healthy don't have the same problems.
I think the key is to do it very strictly for a few weeks. Otherwise, you have a hard time understanding some of your feelings. When you completely stop, you can clearly see the difference.
Sometimes, I think I am too strict so I take a peace of cake, and I usually regrets eat because I have this weird feeling an hour later.
Also, I want to insist on the fact that I had a lot of junk food while I was younger, and I think the effect on my body was big.
My observation is that people who grew up eating healthy don't have the same problems.
>> Today I am more attracted to a fruit than a cup cake or an ice cream, and it feels good :)
I had a buddy who has convinced me to do this as well and says everything tastes better when you re-align your taste buds so to speak. He says all his fruit tastes sweeter, vegetables and other foods have more flavor when he stopped eating processed sugar.
Clearly, you've had the same experience.
I had a buddy who has convinced me to do this as well and says everything tastes better when you re-align your taste buds so to speak. He says all his fruit tastes sweeter, vegetables and other foods have more flavor when he stopped eating processed sugar.
Clearly, you've had the same experience.
Exactly, that is why I say it is hard to describe, there is too many things changes.
Give me a plain yogurt and a fruit and I am as happy as I was with an Häagen-Dazs® ice cream :)
Give me a plain yogurt and a fruit and I am as happy as I was with an Häagen-Dazs® ice cream :)
What do you mean by "added sugar"?
What about carbohydrates, which have "added sugar" (because they ARE sugar by default?)
What about high-sugar fruits like bananas, citrus, and red apples, which often have as much sugar as processed snacks?
Or do you mean that you eat low glycemic index foods?
What about carbohydrates, which have "added sugar" (because they ARE sugar by default?)
What about high-sugar fruits like bananas, citrus, and red apples, which often have as much sugar as processed snacks?
Or do you mean that you eat low glycemic index foods?
Seems like you're aware of the relationship between gluclose and fiber, since you built up to glycemic index as your final question, but for those that don't know:
Fiber content in foods affect how the human body absorbs glucose. High-sugar fruits generally have decent quantities of fiber which mitigates the rate at which ingested glucose enters the bloodstream. At least this is my understanding of it from my nutritional scientist, sister, but I'm no medical professional. For more details, fiber:
"Attracts water and forms a viscous gel during digestion, slowing the emptying of the stomach and intestinal transit, shielding carbohydrates from enzymes, and delaying absorption of glucose,[62] which lowers variance in blood sugar levels"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dietary_fiber#Effects_of_fiber...
Also, compare an orange vs orange juice:
Orange Glycemic Index = 40
Orange Juice Glycemic Index = 50
http://www.health.harvard.edu/healthy-eating/glycemic_index_...
Fiber content in foods affect how the human body absorbs glucose. High-sugar fruits generally have decent quantities of fiber which mitigates the rate at which ingested glucose enters the bloodstream. At least this is my understanding of it from my nutritional scientist, sister, but I'm no medical professional. For more details, fiber:
"Attracts water and forms a viscous gel during digestion, slowing the emptying of the stomach and intestinal transit, shielding carbohydrates from enzymes, and delaying absorption of glucose,[62] which lowers variance in blood sugar levels"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dietary_fiber#Effects_of_fiber...
Also, compare an orange vs orange juice:
Orange Glycemic Index = 40
Orange Juice Glycemic Index = 50
http://www.health.harvard.edu/healthy-eating/glycemic_index_...
Carbohydrates are not "added sugar".
High-sugar fruits are not "added sugar".
Added sugar = sugar which is added to a product, and shows up on the ingredient list.
The only fruits you would worry about is fruit juice, because good luck eating 10-12 apples in one session, but you can drink 10-12 apples worth of juice without any problems.
High-sugar fruits are not "added sugar".
Added sugar = sugar which is added to a product, and shows up on the ingredient list.
The only fruits you would worry about is fruit juice, because good luck eating 10-12 apples in one session, but you can drink 10-12 apples worth of juice without any problems.
I can eat 8-9 bananas in one session. I prefer smoothies because it is harder to get the necessary calories from fruit in whole form.
I have had this discussion so many times. I am pretty sure he means "refined" fructose. I.e. fructose that is removed from it's natural state and put into concentrated form. This is basically crystaline sugar and high fructose corn syrup.
Fructose that appears naturally is not bad for you. The reason is that naturally appearing fructose usually appears with fiber, and it is usually locked in plant cells. The body is perfectly capable of processing this type of sugar. There was a Japanese study where they had people eating large quantities of apples, and their blood tests did not show any of the negative effects associated with large intakes of sugar.
The only naturally occurring sugar one should be weary of is honey.
Also carbohydrates are not sugar by default. Sugar is a type of carbohydrate, but there are other types that are not sugar and should not be confused with it. There are also other sugars (other than fructose) that are perfectly fine. Glucose for example, is not bad for you in any form.
There has been a lot of confusing science done by assuming that all carbohydrates are the same. And while they do have similar molecular structures the way they are processed by the body is very different so they should not be mixed up.
Fructose that appears naturally is not bad for you. The reason is that naturally appearing fructose usually appears with fiber, and it is usually locked in plant cells. The body is perfectly capable of processing this type of sugar. There was a Japanese study where they had people eating large quantities of apples, and their blood tests did not show any of the negative effects associated with large intakes of sugar.
The only naturally occurring sugar one should be weary of is honey.
Also carbohydrates are not sugar by default. Sugar is a type of carbohydrate, but there are other types that are not sugar and should not be confused with it. There are also other sugars (other than fructose) that are perfectly fine. Glucose for example, is not bad for you in any form.
There has been a lot of confusing science done by assuming that all carbohydrates are the same. And while they do have similar molecular structures the way they are processed by the body is very different so they should not be mixed up.
I recommend you take a couple of university courses in biochemistry and energy metabolism and then reread what you just wrote. It's full of inaccuracies that you probably notice right away after you've learned the basics.
I've only learned what I know on the topic from readings here and there, as well as a bit of research when I'm particularly motivated. I personally didn't notice an overwhelming amount of incorrect information in his post, so I'd like to take the opportunity to ask you to expand on this comment.
I don't think anybody is going to take some university courses in order to find the factual inaccuracies in a comment they wrote, so to be more helpful in dispelling these inaccuracies, could you possibly list a few of them and some relevant terms/concepts that could act as stepping stones to finding the correct information?
I am genuinely curious on the topic, but don't always know where to start and what data is bought and paid for by biased parties. I have been curious since first asked strong proponents of "natural" foods to explain to me why fruit full of sugar was supposedly better for you than anything else full of the same amount of sugar and received answers that were quite unsatisfactory.
I don't think anybody is going to take some university courses in order to find the factual inaccuracies in a comment they wrote, so to be more helpful in dispelling these inaccuracies, could you possibly list a few of them and some relevant terms/concepts that could act as stepping stones to finding the correct information?
I am genuinely curious on the topic, but don't always know where to start and what data is bought and paid for by biased parties. I have been curious since first asked strong proponents of "natural" foods to explain to me why fruit full of sugar was supposedly better for you than anything else full of the same amount of sugar and received answers that were quite unsatisfactory.
Ok then what are some of the inaccuracies? I am just curious so I know I will get my monies' worth when I take those biochemistry courses.
> The only naturally occurring sugar one should be weary of is honey.
Can you give some background on that? Is it because it's already been processed once (by bees), and therefore is less suitable for human consumption?
Can you give some background on that? Is it because it's already been processed once (by bees), and therefore is less suitable for human consumption?
I think it has more to do with the fact that it is just sugar by itself. From what I've read, it seems that the context of the sugar is what makes it "good" or "bad", and that's because the effects are measured by how the food affects your blood sugar after eating it. This is tracked in the metric known as the glycemic index of the food. In fruits it is with fiber and plant material that results in your body taking longer to process the sugars and doesn't give a spike in blood sugar like eating the same amount of refined sugar would. Honey is just lacking the context that most natural sugars is and is thus more similar to refined sugar.
I suspect, based on the lines previous to that one, that the statement is related to the fact that honey is basically a high-sugar syrup. About 80% sugar, 17% water, and 3% "other". For comparison, simple syrup is 50% sugar and maple syrup is 60% sugar.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honey#Nutrition_and_compositio...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maple_syrup#Food_and_nutrition
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honey#Nutrition_and_compositio...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maple_syrup#Food_and_nutrition
> carbohydrates [...] ARE sugar
Sucrose (table sugar) breaks down into fructose and glucose (as does corn syrup). On the other hand starch breaks down, after a couple of steps, into just glucose. Glucose is your basic fuel that is used by the muscles, etc, directly. Fructose has to be metabolized by the liver first, with some bad side effects if you have too much. The study that the (currently) top post links to is specifically about "fructose restriction". So we're not talking about carbohydrates in general.
Bananas and apples do have fructose, but it's not "added" sugar. However, if you take apple juice (or as I see on labels a lot, pear juice) and use it as an ingredient, that would be added sugar.
Sucrose (table sugar) breaks down into fructose and glucose (as does corn syrup). On the other hand starch breaks down, after a couple of steps, into just glucose. Glucose is your basic fuel that is used by the muscles, etc, directly. Fructose has to be metabolized by the liver first, with some bad side effects if you have too much. The study that the (currently) top post links to is specifically about "fructose restriction". So we're not talking about carbohydrates in general.
Bananas and apples do have fructose, but it's not "added" sugar. However, if you take apple juice (or as I see on labels a lot, pear juice) and use it as an ingredient, that would be added sugar.
A lot of breads in North America have a lot of added sugars. You have to actually go out of your way to find breads that aren't sweetened significantly.
> A lot of breads in North America have a lot of added sugars.
The sugar feeds the yeast to make the bread rise. No sugar == solid lump of rock-hard bread-rock.
Sugar is one of the key ingredients in Western-style fluffy loaves, particularly wholegrain flours which need an accelerated fermentation process so that they rise before being 'set' by cooking. Which is nicely ironic since we've been conditioned that wholegrain is the healthy choice!
Sugar also helps to prevent staling, which is critical in home-baked breads which barely last 12 hours even with that assistance.
The sugar feeds the yeast to make the bread rise. No sugar == solid lump of rock-hard bread-rock.
Sugar is one of the key ingredients in Western-style fluffy loaves, particularly wholegrain flours which need an accelerated fermentation process so that they rise before being 'set' by cooking. Which is nicely ironic since we've been conditioned that wholegrain is the healthy choice!
Sugar also helps to prevent staling, which is critical in home-baked breads which barely last 12 hours even with that assistance.
I'm not saying we should have NO sugar in our bread. But it's to the point where if you google "Why is American bread so sweet?" you'll find countless examples of Europeans comparing American bread to cake.
This is well beyond the scope of "feeding the yeast".
This is well beyond the scope of "feeding the yeast".
The amount is tiny though. I make my own bread, and you can use just half a teaspoon in a loaf, it's just to get the yeast going, and they probably metabolise most of it. I've also experimented with using part milk so they use the lactose instead, and this also gives a nice consistency to the bread (still working on further improving this though!)
This is incorrect. It's perfectly possible to make light fluffy bread without adding sugar. Sugar might be added to accelerate the process for economic reasons, but that's something else.
There are breads that DON'T have sugar in them?! Where do I find these mysterious breads?
ADDED sugar. As in "let's dump a bunch of refined white sugar or high fructose corn syrup in this dough to make it sell better to our sugar-addicted customers."
When I lived in the UK, I started making my own bread (I'm from Germany, we have a bit of a reputation for our bread). I have a rye sourdough from which I bake a rye and wheat mixed loaf. It's quite heavy -- slightly over 1kg for a large loaf tin (IKEA DRÖMMAR, to be precise) -- but stores well and I really enjoy the taste. The sourdough is my fridge pet (so to say), but since it lives in the fridge, it needs to be fed only once every two to three weeks, or whenever you bake it. I've had it for 1½ years now.
Picking a very standard "squashy" British loaf, the ingredients are [1]:
Wheat Flour (with added Calcium, Iron, Niacin, Thiamin), Water, Yeast, Salt, Soya Flour, Fermented Wheat Flour, Emulsifiers: E472e, E481, Vegetable Fat (Rapeseed, Palm), Flour Treatment Agent: Ascorbic Acid
This seems typical of all of them. The only ones with sugar are a couple of wholegrain ("brown bread") ones.
(I don't blame you for baking your own. I made good use of the German bakery when I lived in London, and I'm not German.)
[1] http://www.tesco.com/groceries/product/details/?id=256174499
Wheat Flour (with added Calcium, Iron, Niacin, Thiamin), Water, Yeast, Salt, Soya Flour, Fermented Wheat Flour, Emulsifiers: E472e, E481, Vegetable Fat (Rapeseed, Palm), Flour Treatment Agent: Ascorbic Acid
This seems typical of all of them. The only ones with sugar are a couple of wholegrain ("brown bread") ones.
(I don't blame you for baking your own. I made good use of the German bakery when I lived in London, and I'm not German.)
[1] http://www.tesco.com/groceries/product/details/?id=256174499
American bread and European breads (including British) are a bit different -- Americans like a sweeter loaf. A traditional American sandwich bread often has milk and/or sugar. The milk increases sweetness.
King Arthur flour recipe: http://www.kingarthurflour.com/recipes/classic-sandwich-brea...
random blog: http://chefinyou.com/2012/08/27/white-bread/
Wonder bread etc just use high fructose corn syrup and honey. Cheaper than milk, can say lactose-free.
King Arthur flour recipe: http://www.kingarthurflour.com/recipes/classic-sandwich-brea...
random blog: http://chefinyou.com/2012/08/27/white-bread/
Wonder bread etc just use high fructose corn syrup and honey. Cheaper than milk, can say lactose-free.
I didn't do it because of sugars, but I'm glad that none are added -- after a couple of months or so, I had enough of supermarket bread ;) There are easier ways to make your own bread though, soda bread is particularly quick and easy (although you'd typically use a bit of sugar for the yeast). It's literally 1h (ok, maybe 1h10m) from stepping into the kitchen to taking the loaf out of the oven.
Your local non-industrial bakery.
Basically, when it is written "sugar" in the ingredients, I don't eat it.
I eat fruits but not dry fruits or fruit juice / smoothie etc. I eat bread and pasta. I don't eat snack bar.
I try to eat food with a low glycimic index but I know bread has a high one.
I eat fruits but not dry fruits or fruit juice / smoothie etc. I eat bread and pasta. I don't eat snack bar.
I try to eat food with a low glycimic index but I know bread has a high one.
> What do you mean by "added sugar"?
I tried this for about 9 months, and then a year later, for about a month and a half.
I can massively agree with this:
At least part of the problem was that it's virtually impossible to get away from sugar; you'll eat something you thought wouldn't be sweet, but it is, and suddenly you have chocolate smeared around your mouth sitting in a field of candy wrappers...
Watching my wife try and give up sugar was also an education. Wild mood swings, bargaining, secret consumption ... it was quite something. We're both pretty athletically shaped and very active, but giving up sugar was comfortably ... impossible.
I have had excellent results recently eating 90% of my meals from a paleo food delivery service. I don't think I can get behind any of the "science" the paleo community puts forward, but eating balanced and very high quality meals had made many parts of my body much happier.
I can massively agree with this:
> It is hard to describe how my life changed.
> Cutting added sugar is not very hard but it requires
> some willingness.
At least part of the problem was that it's virtually impossible to get away from sugar; you'll eat something you thought wouldn't be sweet, but it is, and suddenly you have chocolate smeared around your mouth sitting in a field of candy wrappers...
Watching my wife try and give up sugar was also an education. Wild mood swings, bargaining, secret consumption ... it was quite something. We're both pretty athletically shaped and very active, but giving up sugar was comfortably ... impossible.
I have had excellent results recently eating 90% of my meals from a paleo food delivery service. I don't think I can get behind any of the "science" the paleo community puts forward, but eating balanced and very high quality meals had made many parts of my body much happier.
I take issue with this because was it really the sugar or were you reducing and eliminating other bad elements from your diet? Cup cakes and ice cream, for example -- it's not the sugar -- it's the high fat combined with sugar causing you problems.
Good point. My feeling is that this rule of cutting added sugar is a good rule to actually eat mostly healthy food. There is counter example to that of course. I am not doing a scientific study, I am just tired to gain weight if I don't run 3 times a week.
There's nothing wrong with high fat on its own. Sugar on its own is not good (might as well eat anything else, you'll save your teeth). But put the two together and you get heart disease.
One way to improve your diet is just to pay attention to it. And you're paying a lot of attention to your diet. Unfortunately your anecdote isn't very helpful to learn specifically about sugar.
Fruit has a lot of sugar in it, too. Do you avoid fruit as well?
1. Fruit is not healthy in large quantities. (Everything in moderation?)
2. If you eat fruit in its natural form (with the fiber etc), it has a much lower glycemic index than processed. Also consider the glycemic index and load of an apple is much lower than a potato.
Its worth noting that in the form of something like a smoothy, a person can consume more fruit than would be possible eating actual fruit. Imagine a counter top of fruit turning into a single large smoothy...
2. If you eat fruit in its natural form (with the fiber etc), it has a much lower glycemic index than processed. Also consider the glycemic index and load of an apple is much lower than a potato.
Its worth noting that in the form of something like a smoothy, a person can consume more fruit than would be possible eating actual fruit. Imagine a counter top of fruit turning into a single large smoothy...
Fruit is perfectly healthy in large quantities if it is raw with nothing added. The human body is very capable of processing the sugars in fruit.
It's when those sugars get extracted and concentrated we run into trouble. Juices and smoothies are more dangerous because they concentrate the sugars while removing fiber. This decreases the liver's ability to process the sugar. But actual refined sugar is most dangerous.
It's when those sugars get extracted and concentrated we run into trouble. Juices and smoothies are more dangerous because they concentrate the sugars while removing fiber. This decreases the liver's ability to process the sugar. But actual refined sugar is most dangerous.
Do you have any evidence to back this up? Glucose is glucose and fructose is fructose as far as I know. There are no fundamental chemical changes.
You should check out Dr. Lustig's youtube videos and his papers. He cites plenty of evidence. He also explains the mechanism by which fructose is processed by the liver, and why the fructose in fruits does not cause problems.
Ah, Lustig. Many of his fellow doctors are not on board with his conclusions: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-katz-md/sugar-health-evi...
In its natural form sugar is not singled out and thus other molecules from the fruit influence its absorption. For example, vitamin C in its oxidized form is transported by the same receptors as glucose (GLUT4) and quercetin is very good inhibitor of glucose transport.
I still doubt tho, that high quantities of fruit are good for you. One of the reasons is that current forms of fruit we eat are selected toward sweater taste.
I still doubt tho, that high quantities of fruit are good for you. One of the reasons is that current forms of fruit we eat are selected toward sweater taste.
I've read a few papers that suggest our bodies absorb sugars differently in the presence of other chemicals that are present in the fruits themselves, but not in the processed versions? I think this is one of those papers?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2871121/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2871121/
This is all on a continuum, I would concur that large quantities of raw fruit is far better for you than the same payload in say Coca Cola.
But is stands that it is possible to become insulin resistant from eating raw fruit, and this is simply not possible from eating eggs for example.
In regards to insulin resistance there is an upper bounds of healthy fruit consumption, just there is with almost any food (although for some foods the consideration may bot be blood sugar, but rather be total calories or omega-6 poly-fat, etc)
But is stands that it is possible to become insulin resistant from eating raw fruit, and this is simply not possible from eating eggs for example.
In regards to insulin resistance there is an upper bounds of healthy fruit consumption, just there is with almost any food (although for some foods the consideration may bot be blood sugar, but rather be total calories or omega-6 poly-fat, etc)
Most days I get 80% of my calories from fruit. Actually, eggs increase the risk of diabetes.
http://nutritionfacts.org/video/eggs-and-diabetes/
http://nutritionfacts.org/video/eggs-and-diabetes/
That is very unlikely, show me some real science (not the one flawed study from a few years ago). Type II diabetes is severe insulin resistance. A food like eggs don't have sugar, your body doesn't produce insulin when you eat them, therefore its not possible through any known mechanism for them to contribute to type II diabetes.
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/...
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/577051/Birmingham-Universit...
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/...
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/577051/Birmingham-Universit...
A food doesn't need sugar to produce insulin. A steak produces as much insulin as pure sugar.
>A food doesn't need sugar to produce insulin.
This is true. But non carbs have a much lower insulin response.
>A steak produces as much insulin as pure sugar.
Are you saying grams of protein to grams of sugar? A steak has a smaller insulin response than a piece of bread, not only that, the shape of the spike is drastically different.
This is true. But non carbs have a much lower insulin response.
>A steak produces as much insulin as pure sugar.
Are you saying grams of protein to grams of sugar? A steak has a smaller insulin response than a piece of bread, not only that, the shape of the spike is drastically different.
If eggs do anything they decrease risk of diabetes. They may, or may not, be bad if you already have type 2.
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/eggs/
"Recent research has shown that moderate egg consumption—up to one a day—does not increase heart disease risk in healthy individuals (1, 2) and can be part of a healthy diet."
"Recent research has shown that moderate egg consumption—up to one a day—does not increase heart disease risk in healthy individuals (1, 2) and can be part of a healthy diet."
How would smoothies remove the fiber. You're just grinding up the fruit, not taking anything out. All the fiber should still be there.
In what way does a smoothie remove fiber from fruit?
Dried fruit is also incredibly deceptive.
Actually, most fruit is fine even in pretty darn large quantities, due to the fact that the sugar is absorbed slowly, and it is paired with phytonutrients that have anti-oxidant and anti-inflammatory properties.
Bananas and dates are the main exceptions to this.
Bananas and dates are the main exceptions to this.
Fruit does not have added sugar and the fiber in fruit helps slow the digestion of the fructose greatly dampening the negative effects of the sugar. Plus fruit is loaded with naturally occurring vitamins essential to the human body.
Sugar in fruits is not added sugar.
It actually is. Except it's not added between growing and fruit and consuming it, but before growing the fruit. Fruit have been bred and genetically engineered for high sugar content for millennia.
... none of this is to bash fruit - they are definitely a much better alternative to sugary drinks and even fruit juices, due to their low glycemic load. But still, it's important to remember that fruit, especially some fruit, are far from being sugar free.
... none of this is to bash fruit - they are definitely a much better alternative to sugary drinks and even fruit juices, due to their low glycemic load. But still, it's important to remember that fruit, especially some fruit, are far from being sugar free.
Added sugars refers to sugar carbohydrates added to food and beverages during their production.(artificially)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Added_sugar
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Added_sugar
[deleted]
That statement seems to draw a narrow definition of "fruit". Olives have no sugar. Tomatoes and cucumbers have very little. All three are fruits and good staples in any diet.
Using the botanical definition in a culinary context doesn't make any sense.
Alright, let's just go with olives alone, then.
Do you drink coffee?
I do! Why?
Without sugar or you add something other like cinnamon?
Coffee without anything. Has been like that even before I cut added sugar.
I've always drank black coffee. Occasionally I will add a little skim milk, but that's more to cool it down if I'm in a hurry. Have never added sugar.
A lot of people (like myself) enjoy coffee black. If you prefer a cream you can add unsweetened coconut or almond milk.
This is almost surely placebo effect
Given the amount of time wasted on diet/nutrition fads I'm starting to thing the US government should actually do some science on these issues.
Given the amount of time wasted on diet/nutrition fads I'm starting to thing the US government should actually do some science on these issues.
You mean like the article you're commenting on?
ya, the one where placebo (sugar pill) is documented to work in many times in lieu of actual narcotics.
"Tom Sanders, professor emeritus of nutrition and dietetics at King’s College London, said the study needed to be viewed “with some scepticism” because it was uncontrolled. It did not compare the children with a similar group who continued to eat a high-sugar diet. The comparison instead was made with their weight and health before the study while on their usual diet. “But it is well known that obese children underestimate and under-report food intake, particularly of soft drinks and snack foods,” said Sanders.
“This is a fundamental flaw in the study. It is likely that the changes in metabolic outcomes observed can be explained by the experimental diet providing fewer calories than the children’s usual intake.”
“This is a fundamental flaw in the study. It is likely that the changes in metabolic outcomes observed can be explained by the experimental diet providing fewer calories than the children’s usual intake.”
>The proposed changes have been strongly opposed by the food industry as unscientific. The Sugar Association, a trade group, said the F.D.A. was “making assertions that lack adequate scientific evidence,” and the Grocery Manufacturers Association criticized the standards the agency used to establish the daily value as being “inadequate.”
That's the tobacco industry smoke-screening evidence about the dangers of smoking all over again.
That's the tobacco industry smoke-screening evidence about the dangers of smoking all over again.
But also sounds like, for example, producers of vaccines arguing against that one study that vaccines cause autism. Just because they have an ulterior motive in defending their product doesn't mean they're wrong.
Every medical researcher argues that vaccines don't cause Autism. There is literally no study published in any serious peer reviewed journal that suggests otherwise.
You mean, except that one study which started it...
It's crazy to start freaking out over something just because of one small study, especially if it's something that didn't seem to have any observable negative effects until then.
It's crazy to start freaking out over something just because of one small study, especially if it's something that didn't seem to have any observable negative effects until then.
But vaccine producers can also point to a long list of independent studies to underline their arguments. Probably there are also some studies that fail to find any correlation between high sugar intake in kids and negative health signals.
But I doubt those are very many or very thorough studies.
But I doubt those are very many or very thorough studies.
By the same token, there are lots of skinny people who consume sugar with no ill effects. There isn't money to be made off of them since they aren't paying for obesity related medical services or supporting the dieting industry. Medical research isn't done on healthy people because it doesn't pull in the big grant money nor do they buy pharmaceuticals. The media doesn't report on them because there isn't anything sensational about normal people doing normal things. There is a huge confirmation bias against all sorts of "bad" foods because the people who are unaffected by them are systematically ignored.
Vaccines are a bad example.
Andrew Wakefield received money from lawyers preparing a MMR lawsuit without disclosing the fact. His research was shown to be false in multiple followup studies, he was shown to have falsified data, he lost his medical license, and The Lancet formally retracted Wakefield's 1998 paper. He also had a paper retracted by the The American Journal of Gastroenterology.
The other issue was the reporting on the study.
Andrew Wakefield received money from lawyers preparing a MMR lawsuit without disclosing the fact. His research was shown to be false in multiple followup studies, he was shown to have falsified data, he lost his medical license, and The Lancet formally retracted Wakefield's 1998 paper. He also had a paper retracted by the The American Journal of Gastroenterology.
The other issue was the reporting on the study.
The obesity epidemic is clearly the new tobacco epidemic, but the health effects are worse, and unhealthy food is harder to avoid than smoking ever was. You can't abstain from eating like you can smoking, and ask any addict how hard it is to stay clean when everyone around you isn't.
Plus at least tobacco was attractive though right guys? /s
https://36.media.tumblr.com/a31b0a77b878143a5f3b3904c2a012d9...
Plus at least tobacco was attractive though right guys? /s
https://36.media.tumblr.com/a31b0a77b878143a5f3b3904c2a012d9...
Not to mention just how wrong the name "Grocery Manufacturers Association" sounds.
Throw in that two of the world's largest corporations are little more than glorified sugar pushers - Coke and Pepsi - and you have a replay of the 90's tobacco scene. Just Coke and Pepsi together represent a sugar ecosystem worth perhaps half a trillion dollars globally (their market caps + companies directly dependent on them + retail).
The upside is, those companies are slowly dying. Coke's sales the last three years:
$48 billion > $46.8b > $45.8b
We can add trash like McDonald's into this, their last three years of sales:
$27.5 billion > $28.1b > $27.4b
These types of companies will continue to bleed sales and struggle in the next decade as consumers seek alternatives.
The upside is, those companies are slowly dying. Coke's sales the last three years:
$48 billion > $46.8b > $45.8b
We can add trash like McDonald's into this, their last three years of sales:
$27.5 billion > $28.1b > $27.4b
These types of companies will continue to bleed sales and struggle in the next decade as consumers seek alternatives.
Alternatives like Diet Coke? But don't hesitate to put your money where your mouth is and buy Coke put options.
I recently cut out sugar and also quit diet drinks. I've heard that aspartame can have sugar-like effects, particularly triggering food cravings. I used to drink two, three sometimes more 7-11 style Big Gulps every day. Cutting them out has made a difference in my subjective quality of life but it's hard to describe.
A Big Gulp is 40 oz; I'd imagine cutting out 120 oz daily of anything would have a notable impact on your overall state.
For comparison, the most current recommendation I could find was for 64 oz of water a day -- about half of your prior soda intake.
For comparison, the most current recommendation I could find was for 64 oz of water a day -- about half of your prior soda intake.
I only drank diet drinks. 0 calories but lots of aspartame.
>consumers seek alternatives
>Buy put coke options
What if coke is able to change their business and provide those healthy alternatives?
A big what if, admittedly, since the dopamine hit provided by sugar is what drives excess consumption of the product. But never say never.
>Buy put coke options
What if coke is able to change their business and provide those healthy alternatives?
A big what if, admittedly, since the dopamine hit provided by sugar is what drives excess consumption of the product. But never say never.
Then I guess Coke won't "continue to bleed sales and struggle" as the parent suggested?
Note that Coke ALREADY provides "healthy alternatives" (they sell bottled water if that's your thing). And also note that the parent has no idea what part of Coke's product line the dip in sales was caused by, whether it's an industry-wide phenomenon or not, etc. etc.
That's because the parent is just some armchair financial analyst spouting nonsense.
Note that Coke ALREADY provides "healthy alternatives" (they sell bottled water if that's your thing). And also note that the parent has no idea what part of Coke's product line the dip in sales was caused by, whether it's an industry-wide phenomenon or not, etc. etc.
That's because the parent is just some armchair financial analyst spouting nonsense.
> What if coke is able to change their business and provide those healthy alternatives?
That was the implication of the post, yes, hence the mention of sugar-free drinks they already produce.
That was the implication of the post, yes, hence the mention of sugar-free drinks they already produce.
I just watched a documentary [0] about sugar last weekend and they also compared it extensively to the tobacco industry. The sugar industry is just trying to spread enough FUD ("doctors agree, smoking is good!") so that while none of them can definitely prove that sugar is harmless, they can at least make sure that there isn't a common consensus on the issue which prevents further action.
Oh, and the "adequate scientific evidence" that they are looking for is something absurd like a study where you would give kids sugar and follow their daily lives for 40 years and then see if it has negatively impacted their health. We don't even have that strong scientific evidence against tobacco to date.
[0] http://sugarcoateddoc.com/
Oh, and the "adequate scientific evidence" that they are looking for is something absurd like a study where you would give kids sugar and follow their daily lives for 40 years and then see if it has negatively impacted their health. We don't even have that strong scientific evidence against tobacco to date.
[0] http://sugarcoateddoc.com/
No it isn't. It's the proposed changes being unscientific. It really hard to explain how sugar could be the culprit when its consumption didn't increase.
Edit: I would just add that the name makes the result even more suspect, he seems to be the only person pushing this fructose hypothesis. I wouldn't take the results seriously until it's replicated by somebody with no connection to him.
Edit: I would just add that the name makes the result even more suspect, he seems to be the only person pushing this fructose hypothesis. I wouldn't take the results seriously until it's replicated by somebody with no connection to him.
Critical omission from title: obese children.
These are kids whose livers are already suffused with fatty tissue, not average kids.
These are kids whose livers are already suffused with fatty tissue, not average kids.
Mean age is 13.3 ± 2.7 and the mean body weight is 93.0 ± 22.1 (~205lbs) at study start. That's pretty big for a 13 year-old.
the CDC says 50th percentile is about 100 lbs.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-average-weight-of-a-13-yea...
http://www.cdc.gov/growthcharts/data/set1clinical/cj41c021.p...
93 kg puts them at something like 90th / 95th percentile.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-average-weight-of-a-13-yea...
http://www.cdc.gov/growthcharts/data/set1clinical/cj41c021.p...
93 kg puts them at something like 90th / 95th percentile.
So the mean height would have to be around 5'11 for them to just be "overweight" and not "obese". Which seems unlikely for a group of young teens.
Obesity in children is measured a bit differently. They use BMI-for-age percentiles, not Straight BMI.
From the CDC:
Overweight is defined as a BMI at or above the 85th percentile and below the 95th percentile for children and teens of the same age and sex. Obesity is defined as a BMI at or above the 95th percentile for children and teens of the same age and sex.
From the CDC:
Overweight is defined as a BMI at or above the 85th percentile and below the 95th percentile for children and teens of the same age and sex. Obesity is defined as a BMI at or above the 95th percentile for children and teens of the same age and sex.
The study was on obese children. The paper says on day 0 they had a mean BMI of 35.6 ± 6.4.
Ok, we added 'obese' to the title.
Yeah, color me not shocked that taking away a major source of calories would cause obese kids to lose weight.
They didn't take away a major source of calories. They replaced calories that came from added sugar with calories from, amongst many other things, potatoes.
So their overall calorie intake stayed at a similar level, their processed sugar intake dropped.
So their overall calorie intake stayed at a similar level, their processed sugar intake dropped.
Note : the study selected children who were considered to be "particularly high risk of diabetes and related disorders. All the subjects were black or Hispanic and obese, and had at least one or more symptoms of metabolic syndrome, a cluster of risk factors that includes hypertension, high blood sugar, abnormal cholesterol and excess body fat around the waist."
I did not read that there was a control group.
I did not read that there was a control group.
The paper discusses this:
However, there are some limitations to our paradigm. Athough inclusion of a separate external control group would have been optimal, it would have presented novel challenges of its own, such as: 1) if subjects under- or over-estimated their baseline fructose consumption, then providing them their reported daily fructose content would be problematic; 2) altering each subject's diet while trying to maintain the baseline fructose content would require changes in liquid versus solid, which may also result in caloric change, altered absorption, and altered satiety; and 3) our participants were all patients in an obesity program. We did not believe that maintaining fructose at the same level, even within a study, is commensurate with the message that the change in macronutrient composition is important for their health, and in order to use the study as an “educational moment.” Furthermore, others have looked longitudinally at children with obesity over time without any intervention, but still within the confines of a study, and had seen no changes in metabolic outcomes [39]. Rather, each participant served as his or her own control. Our paradigm of dietary sugar and fructose restriction, which included mid-study dietary adjustments to compensate for weight loss, resulted in a 4% decrease in percentage of calories from carbohydrate, a 2% increase in percentage of calories from protein, and a small increase in dietary fiber, which could have reduced macronutrient absorption [18], flux of fructose to the liver, and also increased satiety. Recognizing that consumption data by recall is routinely underestimated [24], we made every effort to maintain our participants' baseline weight throughout the 10-day study interval, and even increased the caloric allotment partway through the cohort, yet a decline of 0.9 ± 0.2 kg was noted during the 10 days.
However, there are some limitations to our paradigm. Athough inclusion of a separate external control group would have been optimal, it would have presented novel challenges of its own, such as: 1) if subjects under- or over-estimated their baseline fructose consumption, then providing them their reported daily fructose content would be problematic; 2) altering each subject's diet while trying to maintain the baseline fructose content would require changes in liquid versus solid, which may also result in caloric change, altered absorption, and altered satiety; and 3) our participants were all patients in an obesity program. We did not believe that maintaining fructose at the same level, even within a study, is commensurate with the message that the change in macronutrient composition is important for their health, and in order to use the study as an “educational moment.” Furthermore, others have looked longitudinally at children with obesity over time without any intervention, but still within the confines of a study, and had seen no changes in metabolic outcomes [39]. Rather, each participant served as his or her own control. Our paradigm of dietary sugar and fructose restriction, which included mid-study dietary adjustments to compensate for weight loss, resulted in a 4% decrease in percentage of calories from carbohydrate, a 2% increase in percentage of calories from protein, and a small increase in dietary fiber, which could have reduced macronutrient absorption [18], flux of fructose to the liver, and also increased satiety. Recognizing that consumption data by recall is routinely underestimated [24], we made every effort to maintain our participants' baseline weight throughout the 10-day study interval, and even increased the caloric allotment partway through the cohort, yet a decline of 0.9 ± 0.2 kg was noted during the 10 days.
I'll quote part of your quote, because it's interesting:
> We did not believe that maintaining fructose at the same level, even within a study, is commensurate with the message that the change in macronutrient composition is important for their health, and in order to use the study as an “educational moment.”
This is a very bad excuse to avoid a control group. There are many unknown factors that are difficult to estimate. For example: Did the children also change the fat consumption because a doctor was going to examine them in a few days? Did they change some habits, like walking to medical center instead of no walking? I can invent a few more, because it's very difficult to guess the baseline and the changes in the subjects.
To be sure that "the change in macronutrient composition is important for their health" you need a scientific study. And to be sure that the study is reliable you need a control group.
> We did not believe that maintaining fructose at the same level, even within a study, is commensurate with the message that the change in macronutrient composition is important for their health, and in order to use the study as an “educational moment.”
This is a very bad excuse to avoid a control group. There are many unknown factors that are difficult to estimate. For example: Did the children also change the fat consumption because a doctor was going to examine them in a few days? Did they change some habits, like walking to medical center instead of no walking? I can invent a few more, because it's very difficult to guess the baseline and the changes in the subjects.
To be sure that "the change in macronutrient composition is important for their health" you need a scientific study. And to be sure that the study is reliable you need a control group.
Wait, the original study didn't mention a control group, or the NYTimes didn't mention it? Those are very different.
Great catch.
It's possible that participating in a study of high risk people has a subtle influence on eating behavior such that these biomarkers might be altered over a 10 day time course anyway. I'm pretty sure that this change wouldn't be as large as the experimental group's results, but you never know.
It's possible that participating in a study of high risk people has a subtle influence on eating behavior such that these biomarkers might be altered over a 10 day time course anyway. I'm pretty sure that this change wouldn't be as large as the experimental group's results, but you never know.
You don't always need a control group for short term studies like this. If for example you want to know what altitude people pass out then having people stick around at sea level is pointless.
Actually, I am a bit unimpressed by the body weight data. You can see clearly in their individual data that there are a ton of errors in readings, and while the SEM is low by the final day, I'm not sure you can make much of that information when so many of the individuals had daily swings >1kg.
It does look like OGTT changes are dependent on weight change (post-hoc weight-gaining group did not see the same benefit as the total cohort).
To me, the diastolic BP, baseline fasting insulin, and OGTT AUC are the real stars here.
It does look like OGTT changes are dependent on weight change (post-hoc weight-gaining group did not see the same benefit as the total cohort).
To me, the diastolic BP, baseline fasting insulin, and OGTT AUC are the real stars here.
[deleted]
[deleted]
This article has all the hallmarks of poor science:
1) very small study size
2) very short study period
3) self reported consumption
4) marginal p-values
5) highly biased first author.
I completely agree. I'm surprised that the HN community, which so often points out poor science in other articles, in this case seems to include a lot of people posting personal anecdotes about their diets.
For those people, I think it's very nice that you had a good experience dieting. Your story isn't science however, and the rest of us aren't going to learn anything generalizable from it. Perhaps you should be posting to a reddit support group?
For those people, I think it's very nice that you had a good experience dieting. Your story isn't science however, and the rest of us aren't going to learn anything generalizable from it. Perhaps you should be posting to a reddit support group?
Did you mean to reply to another comment? I didn't say anything about dieting.
I'm curious what the consensus is around Lustig and his work. He seems to have impeccable credentials in medicine and nutrition. He seems forthright with the science, but I don't have the requisite biochemistry skills to evaluate it myself.
I'm don't know if he's biased or just right. I'm happy to hear a refutation of his arguments.
For those unfamiliar, here's the talk the probably gave rise his noteriety: https://youtu.be/dBnniua6-oM. It's long, but it's interesting.
I'm don't know if he's biased or just right. I'm happy to hear a refutation of his arguments.
For those unfamiliar, here's the talk the probably gave rise his noteriety: https://youtu.be/dBnniua6-oM. It's long, but it's interesting.
the extremely poor quality of this study and the irresponsible PR campaign that has accompanied it is enough reason not to take him seriously.
Agreed on 1-4 but you lost me at #5. Explain?
You should always consider the bias of the author of a paper when evaluating it. THe author has a vested interest in seeing an outcome. Many authors permit their bias to allow themselves to overanalyze a poorly designed study. Lustig has a history of doing this, for example he published papers previously where the evidence led to a different conclusion; in particular, he selectively analyzed his data to support his conclusion, but direct analysis showed the opposite.
>for example he published papers previously where the evidence led to a different conclusion
I did not know this. Could you share the papers you're talking about?
I did not know this. Could you share the papers you're talking about?
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal....
read the paper carefully.
read the paper carefully.
I cut back my kid's syntactic sugar, and he developed a Lisp.
There's a very revealing and entertaining documentation about the rise of sugar in our lives, drawing parallels between the tobacco lobby and the sugar lobby: Sugar Coated (2015). Highly recommended. It was streaming on tvo, but somehow the stream does not work anymore. I only found a german version on arte.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4425138/
http://www.arte.tv/guide/de/054774-000/die-grosse-zuckerlueg...
http://tvo.org/video/documentaries/sugar-coated (not working)
In some ways, sugar is even harder to control than tobacco. Smoking is a choice, but sugar is essential for living. It plays a big role in our society. Remember the last birthday party/christmas/anything without sugar overdose?... Me neither.. And its hard to prove that over-consumption is unhealthy.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4425138/
http://www.arte.tv/guide/de/054774-000/die-grosse-zuckerlueg...
http://tvo.org/video/documentaries/sugar-coated (not working)
In some ways, sugar is even harder to control than tobacco. Smoking is a choice, but sugar is essential for living. It plays a big role in our society. Remember the last birthday party/christmas/anything without sugar overdose?... Me neither.. And its hard to prove that over-consumption is unhealthy.
With all the discussion going on here, I would like to pop up a quick question:
How can one go about learning about nutrition?
I have tried many, many times to do this, but I always run into these problems:
1: I can't find a "big picture" overview of the field, and thereby learn which areas to focus on
2: Most of what I find seems to be anecdata, or poorly constructed studies "We followed these 7 people..."
3: The rest of which I find is always biased by what the author is trying to promote - Low Carbs! No Carbs! Water! Fruit fruit fruit!!! and suffers from points 1 and 2 above...
I would really like some good recommendations for books on learning nutrition science. From the ground (coffee) up.
How can one go about learning about nutrition?
I have tried many, many times to do this, but I always run into these problems:
1: I can't find a "big picture" overview of the field, and thereby learn which areas to focus on
2: Most of what I find seems to be anecdata, or poorly constructed studies "We followed these 7 people..."
3: The rest of which I find is always biased by what the author is trying to promote - Low Carbs! No Carbs! Water! Fruit fruit fruit!!! and suffers from points 1 and 2 above...
I would really like some good recommendations for books on learning nutrition science. From the ground (coffee) up.
Start here:
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nutrition/a-primer-on-nutri...
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nutrition/a-primer-on-nutri...
Then explore the rest of the site: http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nutrition
When you're ready, start reading LeanGains:
http://www.leangains.com/2010/10/top-ten-fasting-myths-debun...
http://www.leangains.com/2010/04/leangains-guide.html
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nutrition/a-primer-on-nutri...
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nutrition/a-primer-on-nutri...
Then explore the rest of the site: http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nutrition
When you're ready, start reading LeanGains:
http://www.leangains.com/2010/10/top-ten-fasting-myths-debun...
http://www.leangains.com/2010/04/leangains-guide.html
This is not a book, but could be a starting point: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/
Thanks for the link!
But I still have problem 1: A big picture view of the field.
I am looking for a kinda Cliff's Notes of the nutrition field. Then I feel a lot of the sections on that site I would be better prepared to deal with in an informed way.
But I still have problem 1: A big picture view of the field.
I am looking for a kinda Cliff's Notes of the nutrition field. Then I feel a lot of the sections on that site I would be better prepared to deal with in an informed way.
Read Good Calories, Bad Calories by Taubes.
I'm not sure how this is news to anyone these days. There are a billion and one places you could go on the web, see on TV, read in books, or even speak with neighbours and the same advice would be given. Lots of sugar = bad. Less sugar = generally good.
The human body is quite remarkable in it's ability to adapt, the only thing this article adds is the '10 days' portion (pun intended), but even that isn't too surprising!
The human body is quite remarkable in it's ability to adapt, the only thing this article adds is the '10 days' portion (pun intended), but even that isn't too surprising!
I'm seeing a lot of reactions that seem to imply the current situation with added sugar is okay, and that this research can be dismissed as being too specific in terms of sample subjects.
Let's be clear, this research is specific, and all it does is add yet another point in a massive cloud of evidence pointing towards the current dietary disaster that is added sugar.
But don't take my word for it, please, do your own quick research on the subject. Look up terms like Sugar+Diet or Sugar+Nutrition on Google scholar. Go through the abstracts, the literature reviews. And stop spreading baseless opinions, especially when it's potentially very harmful to the people reading them.
When you see a comment that poorly defends a valid position, reply by defending it properly, not by pointing out the flaws and/or following up with FUD when you haven't done basic research on the subject.
Let's be clear, this research is specific, and all it does is add yet another point in a massive cloud of evidence pointing towards the current dietary disaster that is added sugar.
But don't take my word for it, please, do your own quick research on the subject. Look up terms like Sugar+Diet or Sugar+Nutrition on Google scholar. Go through the abstracts, the literature reviews. And stop spreading baseless opinions, especially when it's potentially very harmful to the people reading them.
When you see a comment that poorly defends a valid position, reply by defending it properly, not by pointing out the flaws and/or following up with FUD when you haven't done basic research on the subject.
You certainly aren't upholding your own statements by defending your position properly.
I find that the added sugar=bad position is backed up with a lot of studies that don't control for total calories between groups (meaning the total calories are the culprit), or macronutrient ratios not being controlled between groups (meaning lower protein or higher carbohydrates are the culprit). There are a 'massive cloud' of studies which have both of those 2 errors present.
Aside, I realize the study in question did control for total calories, I'd have to read through the full study to be able to comment on it. However, drawing conclusions on the population at large from obese kids with metabolic syndrome and abnormally high sugar consumption isn't exactly "another point" in my books.
I don't think anybody is arguing that any level of sugar consumption is fine, but it's unfair and intellectually dishonest to say 'sugar is bad' or 'sugar is unhealthy'
I find that the added sugar=bad position is backed up with a lot of studies that don't control for total calories between groups (meaning the total calories are the culprit), or macronutrient ratios not being controlled between groups (meaning lower protein or higher carbohydrates are the culprit). There are a 'massive cloud' of studies which have both of those 2 errors present.
Aside, I realize the study in question did control for total calories, I'd have to read through the full study to be able to comment on it. However, drawing conclusions on the population at large from obese kids with metabolic syndrome and abnormally high sugar consumption isn't exactly "another point" in my books.
I don't think anybody is arguing that any level of sugar consumption is fine, but it's unfair and intellectually dishonest to say 'sugar is bad' or 'sugar is unhealthy'
Who is being "unfair and intellectually dishonest"? The idea is not that 'sugar is bad' or 'sugar is unhealthy', but that sugar is bad and unhealthy as it is being used in our current society. I thought this was pretty clear in the first comment. This is why much of the research that comes up uses the HFS for reference levels.
I agree about my laziness (making my own literature review would be a lot of work), however, controlling for total calories as you suggest could be misleading, because sugar provides lots of calories but often does not reduce hunger:
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/254512.php
I agree about my laziness (making my own literature review would be a lot of work), however, controlling for total calories as you suggest could be misleading, because sugar provides lots of calories but often does not reduce hunger:
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/254512.php
> however, controlling for total calories as you suggest could be misleading, because sugar provides lots of calories but often does not reduce hunger
I don't see how could it be misleading. You trade sweat treats for fullness, and you could even add low calories side meals to balance the count. That's what a lot of diet regimes do and have been proved to work.
I don't see how could it be misleading. You trade sweat treats for fullness, and you could even add low calories side meals to balance the count. That's what a lot of diet regimes do and have been proved to work.
[deleted]
Controlling more parameters so that there are fewer variables between test cases being compared usually reduces the degree to which an experiment is misleading. (Ideally, one parameter would vary and "all else is held constant").
Failure to control total calories just about damns the validity of any diet study right off the bat.
Failure to control total calories just about damns the validity of any diet study right off the bat.
Many studies measure total calories as well as sugar. The study linked above explains the correlation between the two. High sugar provides little satiety, leading to higher total caloric intake because you tend to eat the sugar in addition the other, satiating calorie sources.
You do not simply control for an additional variable when you know there is a direct link between the two. You study it as a dependent variable.
Edit: replaced "fulfillment" with "satiation". Sorry about the vagueness, I thought the meaning was pretty clear from the context.
You do not simply control for an additional variable when you know there is a direct link between the two. You study it as a dependent variable.
Edit: replaced "fulfillment" with "satiation". Sorry about the vagueness, I thought the meaning was pretty clear from the context.
Which is a reason why you have to control total calories to know that sugar consumption is actually a detriment to health (and at what quantities) and not just a caloric surplus.
"fulfilment" is a vague term and you're veering off the topic into a strawman argument
"fulfilment" is a vague term and you're veering off the topic into a strawman argument
Yes, and here is the thing: you can't control for the total calories and vary only sugar intake. The change in sugar has to be offset by something else to keep the calories constant. So then to know whether a sugar change is responsible, we have to try different experiments with the same delta in sugar, but varying compensating substitutions.
I think you're missing the point.
It wouldn't make much sense to keep the groups isocaloric but replace the calories from sugar in one group with say, protein in another. You wouldn't be measuring the same thing any more.
The entire point of the study is comparing monosaccharides to polysaccharides and observing changes in 'health' (excuse the vague terminology). Sugar is substituted with a longer chain carbohydrate in well planned research.
It wouldn't make much sense to keep the groups isocaloric but replace the calories from sugar in one group with say, protein in another. You wouldn't be measuring the same thing any more.
The entire point of the study is comparing monosaccharides to polysaccharides and observing changes in 'health' (excuse the vague terminology). Sugar is substituted with a longer chain carbohydrate in well planned research.
> The idea is not that 'sugar is bad' or 'sugar is unhealthy', but that sugar is bad and unhealthy as it is being used in our current society.
that's just as vague as 'sugar is bad'. Sugar consumption, I would think, varies pretty widely.
This is the first I've heard that controlling for total calories would be misleading and your rationale doesn't make any sense. The inverse is misleading, if you don't control total calories then the conclusions drawn from the study don't represent the variables that were altered.
Hunger is a separate topic, you don't design diets so that people have 'the same level of hunger' between control groups because that's not easily quantifiable and irrelevant.
that's just as vague as 'sugar is bad'. Sugar consumption, I would think, varies pretty widely.
This is the first I've heard that controlling for total calories would be misleading and your rationale doesn't make any sense. The inverse is misleading, if you don't control total calories then the conclusions drawn from the study don't represent the variables that were altered.
Hunger is a separate topic, you don't design diets so that people have 'the same level of hunger' between control groups because that's not easily quantifiable and irrelevant.
Does it matter?
If most people consuming a lot of added sugar also consume too many calories, and most people not consuming too many calories also don't consume a lot of added sugar, then isn't it still good advice to most people to stop eating so much sugar?
Yeah there's probably some case of some kid eating his weight in bananas and getting obese from that. Or someone that has a lot of added sugar but controls their calories just fine. So sure, the statement "obesity is caused solely by added sugar" or "all added sugar is bad" may not be totally accurate.
But unless you really think that added sugar and calories and obesity are totally unrelated, surely you can agree that the statement "if you're obese you should probably tone down the sugar" makes some sense.
The vast majority of people aren't carefully counting their calories and daily nutrient values. They aren't saying "well if I have this soda I should only have half of my entree". The information "maybe just stay away from the soda" is a net benefit to them.
If you're that guy that's counting all of your calories, sure, maybe the studies that don't control for that won't help you. They're measuring something else. But they're measuring what most people are doing.
If most people consuming a lot of added sugar also consume too many calories, and most people not consuming too many calories also don't consume a lot of added sugar, then isn't it still good advice to most people to stop eating so much sugar?
Yeah there's probably some case of some kid eating his weight in bananas and getting obese from that. Or someone that has a lot of added sugar but controls their calories just fine. So sure, the statement "obesity is caused solely by added sugar" or "all added sugar is bad" may not be totally accurate.
But unless you really think that added sugar and calories and obesity are totally unrelated, surely you can agree that the statement "if you're obese you should probably tone down the sugar" makes some sense.
The vast majority of people aren't carefully counting their calories and daily nutrient values. They aren't saying "well if I have this soda I should only have half of my entree". The information "maybe just stay away from the soda" is a net benefit to them.
If you're that guy that's counting all of your calories, sure, maybe the studies that don't control for that won't help you. They're measuring something else. But they're measuring what most people are doing.
> If most people consuming a lot of added sugar also consume too many calories, and most people not consuming too many calories also don't consume a lot of added sugar, then isn't it still good advice to most people to stop eating so much sugar?
Not necessarily, because that may not solve the problem if they are going to eat just as many calories from other sources. I don't know if that actually would be the case; you'd need to study that.
Not necessarily, because that may not solve the problem if they are going to eat just as many calories from other sources. I don't know if that actually would be the case; you'd need to study that.
> They're measuring something else. But they're measuring what most people are doing.
No lol, just no. The study was investigating high sugar consumption in obese children and kids with metabolic disorders. It absolutely was not measuring what 'most people are doing'
> If most people consuming a lot of added sugar also consume too many calories, and most people not consuming too many calories also don't consume a lot of added sugar, then isn't it still good advice to most people to stop eating so much sugar?
This is what I meant by intellectual dishonesty. It's a type of informal fallacy I believe is called appeal to consequences. I'll give you an example.
If it was true that Christianity was correlated with lower incidence of homicide, is it right of me to say that everyone should be Christian? I think that statement would be dishonest and untrue.
> Yeah there's probably some case of some kid eating his weight in bananas and getting obese from that. Or someone that has a lot of added sugar but controls their calories just fine. So sure, the statement "obesity is caused solely by added sugar" or "all added sugar is bad" may not be totally accurate.
Follow that reason to it's logical conclusion. If I believed that sugar was bad and caused obesity, and as a result I decided to eat bacon at every meal instead; I would be in a big caloric surplus and be pretty 'unhealthy' and obese, even though I'm not eatin any sugar. It's pretty obvious that the truth is a lot better and more accurate than creating arbitrary untrue rules.
Personally, the truth is also simpler. Rather than avoid certain macronutrients or lengths of carbohydrate chains, the truth is that too much food is probably unhealthy, and if you are obese you should simply eat less food and exercise more (bringing down your total caloric intake or increasing the amount of energy you burn). That sounds simpler to me than saying, "avoid sugar and carbs because after you eliminate all of those foods it's much harder to be in a caloric surplus even though you still can be unhealthy and obese following those rules"
Have I explained enough why your line of reasoning is really a terrible idea?
Saying I'm advocating counting calories is a strawman argument. Additionally, studies aren't intended to 'help' anybody. They are SUPPOSED to be an research into what is true to add support for or against some argument. The problem here is that the study itself was probably very reasonably written, but it was misinterpreted by an idiotic journalist to be something that it isn't.
No lol, just no. The study was investigating high sugar consumption in obese children and kids with metabolic disorders. It absolutely was not measuring what 'most people are doing'
> If most people consuming a lot of added sugar also consume too many calories, and most people not consuming too many calories also don't consume a lot of added sugar, then isn't it still good advice to most people to stop eating so much sugar?
This is what I meant by intellectual dishonesty. It's a type of informal fallacy I believe is called appeal to consequences. I'll give you an example.
If it was true that Christianity was correlated with lower incidence of homicide, is it right of me to say that everyone should be Christian? I think that statement would be dishonest and untrue.
> Yeah there's probably some case of some kid eating his weight in bananas and getting obese from that. Or someone that has a lot of added sugar but controls their calories just fine. So sure, the statement "obesity is caused solely by added sugar" or "all added sugar is bad" may not be totally accurate.
Follow that reason to it's logical conclusion. If I believed that sugar was bad and caused obesity, and as a result I decided to eat bacon at every meal instead; I would be in a big caloric surplus and be pretty 'unhealthy' and obese, even though I'm not eatin any sugar. It's pretty obvious that the truth is a lot better and more accurate than creating arbitrary untrue rules.
Personally, the truth is also simpler. Rather than avoid certain macronutrients or lengths of carbohydrate chains, the truth is that too much food is probably unhealthy, and if you are obese you should simply eat less food and exercise more (bringing down your total caloric intake or increasing the amount of energy you burn). That sounds simpler to me than saying, "avoid sugar and carbs because after you eliminate all of those foods it's much harder to be in a caloric surplus even though you still can be unhealthy and obese following those rules"
Have I explained enough why your line of reasoning is really a terrible idea?
Saying I'm advocating counting calories is a strawman argument. Additionally, studies aren't intended to 'help' anybody. They are SUPPOSED to be an research into what is true to add support for or against some argument. The problem here is that the study itself was probably very reasonably written, but it was misinterpreted by an idiotic journalist to be something that it isn't.
I don't mean this applies to you, but I think one danger that we have to be aware of is our emotional desire for tasty and convenient foods to drive us to look for any potential flaw in a methodology of a study which shows them to be harmful. There's also an analogue with industry-funded studies where they unethically suppress results that don't agree with their goal.
Personally I am not willing to trust my health the status quo + what I deem to be the best of science because nutrition science is still in the dark ages, and I believe market forces and human instinct are pushing are food supply in a terrible direction much faster than science can keep up with the problems. Instead I am a proponent of common sense approaches like Michael Pollan advocates because it can save us from a good many pitfalls that will befall us if we wait for the science to be settled. In particular I think there is a mindset in a certain type of science-minded hacker that believes so strongly in their own objectivity that they are willing to place all their faith in science while unwittingly being undermined by their own emotions and cravings.
Personally I am not willing to trust my health the status quo + what I deem to be the best of science because nutrition science is still in the dark ages, and I believe market forces and human instinct are pushing are food supply in a terrible direction much faster than science can keep up with the problems. Instead I am a proponent of common sense approaches like Michael Pollan advocates because it can save us from a good many pitfalls that will befall us if we wait for the science to be settled. In particular I think there is a mindset in a certain type of science-minded hacker that believes so strongly in their own objectivity that they are willing to place all their faith in science while unwittingly being undermined by their own emotions and cravings.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say, taken in context your post is like a non sequitur in the thread.
The overwhelming consensus is that a caloric surplus causes obesity (surprise! eating more than you burn causes you to gain weight) and that obesity is associated with a number of negative health effects.
Nutrition is not in the 'dark ages', it's moving faster than ever. I also never brought up any weird nutrition life hacks, my statement was just that sugar is unfairly demonized when we should be pointing the finger at overconsumption.
I think it's fair to say that you don't have to 'wait for science' to be settled on this issue. Consistent overconsumption of food is definitely "not good for you"
The overwhelming consensus is that a caloric surplus causes obesity (surprise! eating more than you burn causes you to gain weight) and that obesity is associated with a number of negative health effects.
Nutrition is not in the 'dark ages', it's moving faster than ever. I also never brought up any weird nutrition life hacks, my statement was just that sugar is unfairly demonized when we should be pointing the finger at overconsumption.
I think it's fair to say that you don't have to 'wait for science' to be settled on this issue. Consistent overconsumption of food is definitely "not good for you"
The problem is if you eat 100 calories of sugar you will be hungry again in 30 minutes, whereas if you eat 100 calories of protein/fat/complex carbs you will be satiated far longer. The first-law-of-thermodynamics approach is nutrition is often cited around here, but it's a trite truism that is useless in practice, and it is oft used as justification by many to eat a processed snack that puts one on a glycemic rollercoaster rather than an unprocessed item which will tend not to have the same effect.
Again, as I stated in my opening sentence, I am not pinning this on you, but it was your appeal to the old calories-in-calories-out trope that compelled me to respond.
Again, as I stated in my opening sentence, I am not pinning this on you, but it was your appeal to the old calories-in-calories-out trope that compelled me to respond.
"Hunger" is subjective and a completely different topic to the discussion at hand.
I don't see how the knowledge that the body functions based on balancing energy is in any way useless in practice. If you're overweight, with that knowledge, you know that you are overconsuming food or under exercising and you can take appropriate steps based on that knowledge.
No one is suggesting that you get all your calories from skittles, but the notion that a portion of ice cream is going to make you obese in the presence of a well balanced diet is idiotic.
> processed snack that puts one on a glycemic rollercoaster rather than an unprocessed item which will tend not to have the same effect.
Actually there are lots of high glycemic foods that are 'unprocessed'. Additionally if you're consuming a mixed meal (p/f/c) the glycemic index of any one food is irrelevant and tends to be evened out by the presence of the other foods. There's also not a lot of evidence that high glycemic foods are inherently bad for you, couple that with the fact that glycemic index gets 'evened out' in a mixed meal and it's one of the minutia that can be largely ignored. I find it interesting that you focus on a small detail like glycemic index and yet dismiss scientific research in general and a concept as important as conservation of energy.
It just seems like you read through the thread, saw something related to total caloric intake, and felt compelled to weigh in with your personal belief on how it's an unimportant detail to be concerned about.
The point was that correlation is not necessarily causation and often study methodology is overlooked when interpreting evidence.
I don't see how the knowledge that the body functions based on balancing energy is in any way useless in practice. If you're overweight, with that knowledge, you know that you are overconsuming food or under exercising and you can take appropriate steps based on that knowledge.
No one is suggesting that you get all your calories from skittles, but the notion that a portion of ice cream is going to make you obese in the presence of a well balanced diet is idiotic.
> processed snack that puts one on a glycemic rollercoaster rather than an unprocessed item which will tend not to have the same effect.
Actually there are lots of high glycemic foods that are 'unprocessed'. Additionally if you're consuming a mixed meal (p/f/c) the glycemic index of any one food is irrelevant and tends to be evened out by the presence of the other foods. There's also not a lot of evidence that high glycemic foods are inherently bad for you, couple that with the fact that glycemic index gets 'evened out' in a mixed meal and it's one of the minutia that can be largely ignored. I find it interesting that you focus on a small detail like glycemic index and yet dismiss scientific research in general and a concept as important as conservation of energy.
It just seems like you read through the thread, saw something related to total caloric intake, and felt compelled to weigh in with your personal belief on how it's an unimportant detail to be concerned about.
The point was that correlation is not necessarily causation and often study methodology is overlooked when interpreting evidence.
Your comment is fair. I definitely acknowledge you didn't deserve my trigger reaction, and yes it is a bit of a non-sequitur. Like I said, it's not about you, but just a pattern that I've seen in my years on HN and generally with many startup-types with unhealthy lifestyles.
To be clear I am not dismissing scientific research, I'm saying that often times the people who cite the strongest belief in science are completely subverting the science by selectively using it to justify eating what they want to eat.
To be clear I am not dismissing scientific research, I'm saying that often times the people who cite the strongest belief in science are completely subverting the science by selectively using it to justify eating what they want to eat.
If macronutrient balance is the problem, then you still want to stop adding sugar, and also not add other carbs in similar ways.
Even if total calories are the problem, you still have more to analyze. Depending on how it affects fullness, it could be near-harmless or horrible for you.
Even if total calories are the problem, you still have more to analyze. Depending on how it affects fullness, it could be near-harmless or horrible for you.
I don't understand what you mean by 'If macronutrient balance is the problem, then you still want to stop adding sugar'. We're talking about analysis of study methodology.
Do you mean that having too many carbs is detrimental to health? Because you can have an increased carbohydrate intake without increasing sugar consumption.
Do you mean that having too many carbs is detrimental to health? Because you can have an increased carbohydrate intake without increasing sugar consumption.
Let's assume the study is valid except that it failed to correct for macronutrient balance. It failed to replace sugar with pure carbs. Let's say this made a difference.
The result of the study changes, but it's not invalidated.
Sugar is still bad, but so are other carbs.
You still don't want products to add extra sugar.
The result of the study changes, but it's not invalidated.
Sugar is still bad, but so are other carbs.
You still don't want products to add extra sugar.
Do you happen to know the thresholds at which added sugar become detrimental?
I wonder if a tsp a day in my coffee is too much, how about a bubble tea, how about honey nut cheerios once a week etc etc. Without some framework to judge how much is ok we're also left with FUD about any sugar at all.
I wonder if a tsp a day in my coffee is too much, how about a bubble tea, how about honey nut cheerios once a week etc etc. Without some framework to judge how much is ok we're also left with FUD about any sugar at all.
Sugar is a drug, the more you eat it the more you need to satisfy your "sweet tooth" craving. Honey nut cherrios sounds healthy but look at the sugar content, that stuff is not good for you. I've basically eliminated all unnatural sugars from my diet, and I feel great. I don't eat any sweets at all (natural sugars come from the fruits I eat) . Also caffeine is a drug, drinking coffee everyday isn't good for you. The fact that your drinking it every day means you are already addicted, try going 3 days without it. It builds up your tolerance for caffeine and you need more and more of it to get the effects. Also it's bad for your teeth (stains 'em). I am going to get downvoted for this but seriously, Starbucks has a great business model (get people addicted to coffee, and the profits will keep rolling in for a customer's entire lifetime..much like the tobacco industry back in the day.. luckily caffeine isn't nearly as bad as nicotine)
Coffee's positives extend life[1], therefore i disagree its "not good for you" . As well decaf coffee goes through some gnarly processes, i'd rather risk the caffeine and have unadulterated antioxidants et al.
Any sources that sugar is a drug, addictive or something like that?
Obligatory link because you said "I feel great" : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6rE0EakhG8
[1]: http://www.health.harvard.edu/press_releases/drinking-coffee... -- sorry its annoying.
Any sources that sugar is a drug, addictive or something like that?
Obligatory link because you said "I feel great" : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6rE0EakhG8
[1]: http://www.health.harvard.edu/press_releases/drinking-coffee... -- sorry its annoying.
> luckily caffeine isn't nearly as bad as nicotine
Nicotine isn't that terrible, but tobacco is way more than just nicotine.
Just like most of the drinks at Starbucks are more than just caffeine, so it's actually a pretty close comparison when you factor in the sugar.
Nicotine isn't that terrible, but tobacco is way more than just nicotine.
Just like most of the drinks at Starbucks are more than just caffeine, so it's actually a pretty close comparison when you factor in the sugar.
Gonna point out that I drink coffee every day and going without it cold turkey also doesn't affect me. I don't suffer any withdrawal symptoms.
> I don't eat any sweets at all (natural sugars come from the fruits I eat)
Yes, but the average apple, banana, or orange has a lot of sugar content. Many fruits are also acidic and will mess your teeth up a lot worse than a bit of coffee stain will.
> I don't eat any sweets at all (natural sugars come from the fruits I eat)
Yes, but the average apple, banana, or orange has a lot of sugar content. Many fruits are also acidic and will mess your teeth up a lot worse than a bit of coffee stain will.
yes but the difference is manufactured sugar vs real sugar found in nature. Think about all the chemicals and the processes Aspartame goes through to get the effect of "200x" sweeter than sucrose.. that stuff doesn't come free. (same goes for anything labelled "Diet" or "Zero"...wow same great taste and 0 calories? what's the catch?..yeah..it's your health)
What're the sources that aspartame consumption in regular amounts is more harmful than fructose sources in regular amounts? Fructose is just a chemical, too, isn't it?
I do not know the thresholds at which added sugar becomes detrimental. That limit probably varies wildly with other conditions such as exercise and intake of other nutrients. However, I do know that added sugar is not necessary for a healthy diet. So you don't have an upper limit, but you do have a lower one!
A ketogenic diet recommends less than ~30g of carbohydrates a day. A gram of sugar is a gram of carbohydrates.
Ketosis is a multifaceted, complex, biological process that depends on many variables. However, it is potentially somewhere to start investigating a 'critical limit' to judge how much sugar can be processed by your body.
Ketosis is a multifaceted, complex, biological process that depends on many variables. However, it is potentially somewhere to start investigating a 'critical limit' to judge how much sugar can be processed by your body.
30g of carbohydrates a day seems extremely low. The ketogenic diet is not a general-purpose diet, it's a therapeutic diet used to treat specific medical conditions. Also, sugars are only a specific type of carbs, so carbohydrate intake should not be compared directly to sugar intake.
> The ketogenic diet is not a general-purpose diet, it's a therapeutic diet used to treat specific medical conditions.
https://www.reddit.com/r/keto would disagree with you. I myself stay below 20g of carbohydrates per day, and I lose ~3lbs a week on the diet, while eating cheese, meat, and green vegetables. I feel phenomenal, still get to eat food I enjoy, and wouldn't go back to a traditional carbohydrate-heavy diet if I was paid to.
https://www.reddit.com/r/keto would disagree with you. I myself stay below 20g of carbohydrates per day, and I lose ~3lbs a week on the diet, while eating cheese, meat, and green vegetables. I feel phenomenal, still get to eat food I enjoy, and wouldn't go back to a traditional carbohydrate-heavy diet if I was paid to.
I don't have any opinions on the diet itself, but if you're losing 3 lbs a week, this means that either you started out very obese or haven't been on the diet for very long. I'm glad it's working for you now but this doesn't necessarily mean that the diet will be the optimal for 10+ years.
Very true! I started at 200lbs (I'm 5' 6", 32 years old) and cut out soda. That got me down to ~175lbs. Keto is helping me get down to ~150lbs.
And once you're at 150, it's only 50 weeks until you are weightless!
No disagreements on keto being useful for many. For those who want to maintain their weight, though, it's not often the right diet. So I'd argue it's not "general-purpose."
No disagreements on keto being useful for many. For those who want to maintain their weight, though, it's not often the right diet. So I'd argue it's not "general-purpose."
That's awesome, I hope it keeps working out for you.
Since when did the discussion about diet's healthiness turn into weight loss discussion? You can lose 1.36 kg per week on any diet if you restrict calories, for example, but that's not really relevant here.
> You can lose 1.36 kg per week on any diet if you restrict calories
This line gets parroted around here constantly (its just thermodynamics! calories in calories out!), yet more evidence continues to be provided that macronutrient balance matters, as does gut bacteria.
EDIT: What if dieting turns out to be as easy as naturally selecting bacteria for the gut that can't break down carbohydrates easily, and selling it as a probiotic pill that replaces you're existing gut bacteria? Wouldn't that be a huge win for public health policy?
And before anyone comes in and says that's not possible, check out this women who became obese from a fecal transplant from an overweight donor:
http://www.upi.com/Health_News/2015/02/04/Woman-becomes-obes...
This line gets parroted around here constantly (its just thermodynamics! calories in calories out!), yet more evidence continues to be provided that macronutrient balance matters, as does gut bacteria.
EDIT: What if dieting turns out to be as easy as naturally selecting bacteria for the gut that can't break down carbohydrates easily, and selling it as a probiotic pill that replaces you're existing gut bacteria? Wouldn't that be a huge win for public health policy?
And before anyone comes in and says that's not possible, check out this women who became obese from a fecal transplant from an overweight donor:
http://www.upi.com/Health_News/2015/02/04/Woman-becomes-obes...
That pill would be awesome. I would actually be willing to try one of those fecal transplants, if I could find someone who has a very high metabolism. It's a bit of a strange thing to ask someone, though. I have a relative with IBS, and he swore he'd never do it, even if there was a good chance at curing his disease. I guess it grosses out most people, but I don't really care.
If you're interested: http://www.openbiome.org/
Isn't a diet you lose weight from the very defintion of an unhealthy diet?
Sure, it might be what you need if you start out in an opposite but equally unhealthy state, but in the long run consistent weight loss is fatal.
It might not feel relevant to you, but large parts of the population in the world find themselves in that very situation through no choice of their own.
Sure, it might be what you need if you start out in an opposite but equally unhealthy state, but in the long run consistent weight loss is fatal.
It might not feel relevant to you, but large parts of the population in the world find themselves in that very situation through no choice of their own.
> Isn't a diet you lose weight from the very defintion of an unhealthy diet?
No. Really, healthy and unhealthy diets aren't binary categories, diets are more are less healthy than others, and there are usually going to be more healthy options than a diet on which you maintain a pre-existing unhealthy excess of body fat.
And, what those diets will have in common, is that you'll lose body fat on them (probably also weight, though that's less certain.)
> Sure, it might be what you need if you start out in an opposite but equally unhealthy state, but in the long run consistent weight loss is fatal.
In the long run, living is fatal, with a 100% mortality rate. But a diet on which you (with your current body weight) are losing weight is not necessarily one on which you will consistently lose weight without limit; one which would maintain a lower but healthy weight will cause you to lose weight while you are above that weight. And would cause you to gain weight if you are below that weight.
No. Really, healthy and unhealthy diets aren't binary categories, diets are more are less healthy than others, and there are usually going to be more healthy options than a diet on which you maintain a pre-existing unhealthy excess of body fat.
And, what those diets will have in common, is that you'll lose body fat on them (probably also weight, though that's less certain.)
> Sure, it might be what you need if you start out in an opposite but equally unhealthy state, but in the long run consistent weight loss is fatal.
In the long run, living is fatal, with a 100% mortality rate. But a diet on which you (with your current body weight) are losing weight is not necessarily one on which you will consistently lose weight without limit; one which would maintain a lower but healthy weight will cause you to lose weight while you are above that weight. And would cause you to gain weight if you are below that weight.
> Isn't a diet you lose weight from the very defintion of an unhealthy diet?
Not at all. If you're carrying excessive fat around, you should be modifying your diet in order to shed that excessive fat. If your body composition is healthy, then you should be on a diet that a) is providing both a proper ratio of macronutrients and b) enough calories that you're not losing muscle mass.
Not at all. If you're carrying excessive fat around, you should be modifying your diet in order to shed that excessive fat. If your body composition is healthy, then you should be on a diet that a) is providing both a proper ratio of macronutrients and b) enough calories that you're not losing muscle mass.
I don't think a subreddit is an authority on anything. Please provide more substantive evidence, such as peer-reviewed scientific literature.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2367001/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3945587/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2716748/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3826507/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4113752/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23651522
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3945587/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2716748/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3826507/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4113752/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23651522
Everyone who posts lipids on /r/keto has horrible cholesterol. Then the other readers of the sub chime in that it's okay to have high cholesterol. Don't worry about it! Check out this TED talk!
[deleted]
[deleted]
It would be great if you could back up your statements with citations so the burden of proof wasn't on me doing research in Google Scholar.
"Search for these terms on Google Scholar" is a pretty good citation.
It is actually less useful that sending people to the library. Google scholar is just an index and often points to papers that require a payment (without we knowing if the article is good or not). If instead OP would give a citation then one could go directly to that source.
His biggest point was "there's a tremendous body of research about X", though. Unless there's a magical meta paper that supports that, it's difficult to cite something specific.
Okay, so instead of 1000 people seeing the exact links, now 1000 people all have to do a search and find them themselves.
> I'm seeing a lot of reactions that seem to imply the current situation with added sugar is okay, and that this research can be dismissed as being too specific in terms of sample subjects.
It's the kind of topic where it's very hard to prove your point because you need to rely on external references that can always be discredited. Also, people are very passionate because it involves strong political opinions (remember when Mayor Bloomberg tried to ban big gulps of soda in NYC), and also personal feelings (overweight people addicted to sugar).
It's not unlike the discussions on climate change.
It's the kind of topic where it's very hard to prove your point because you need to rely on external references that can always be discredited. Also, people are very passionate because it involves strong political opinions (remember when Mayor Bloomberg tried to ban big gulps of soda in NYC), and also personal feelings (overweight people addicted to sugar).
It's not unlike the discussions on climate change.
Ya, it's the usual HN comment section crap. Everybody's an expert.
My mother always told me how angry it made her to see obese children.
If you're an obese adult, it sucks and there are things to say, but whatever you do you. But kids don't know, kids need to be taught. And you're basically 100% responsible for any kind of extra weight on your child.
If you're an obese adult, it sucks and there are things to say, but whatever you do you. But kids don't know, kids need to be taught. And you're basically 100% responsible for any kind of extra weight on your child.
When experimenting with intermittent fasting (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermittent_fasting) I have also observed that my lust for sweets and other "unhealthy" foods completely disappeared. Somehow after a grace period the taste (In my subjective experience) gets much more aligned to foods that we know are considered healthy. I think adjusting ones diet to minimise sugar and highly processed food can do wonders for ones general health and well-being.
Great, so scientist are now telling me what my mom had been telling me for years. I guess I should listen to my mom more often.
I believe it (not having read the article). I went Paleo when my blood sugar finally went from borderline diabetic to your blood sugar is now diabetic, you either get results or go on pills at my doctors suggestion. Just had my three month bloodwork done and the reduction in blood sugar and cholesterol are staggering.
I saw a couple of videos' through the UCSF web portal by this guy (Lustig) a few years ago. I can summarize what he said about various diets. The Paleo and Atkins diets work not because what they include but by what they exclude; processed carbs, sugar, and booze.
Another comment. Dr Lustig is a pediatric endocrinologist. If you start looking though the literature. Doctors, nutritionists, etc are all doing research to prove low fat diets work. And high fat diets are bad. And it's all about will power. The pediatric endocrinologists started working the processed carbs, sugar (fructose) are bad angle about ten to fifteen years ago. Probably about five years ago they became absolutely convinced this is correct.
Another comment. Dr Lustig is a pediatric endocrinologist. If you start looking though the literature. Doctors, nutritionists, etc are all doing research to prove low fat diets work. And high fat diets are bad. And it's all about will power. The pediatric endocrinologists started working the processed carbs, sugar (fructose) are bad angle about ten to fifteen years ago. Probably about five years ago they became absolutely convinced this is correct.
They don't mention any kind of blind? Maybe the kids just improved because they were receiving attention...
As an anecdote, 10 days ago I decided to try and go nuclear with sugar and high GI foods (bread, rice, etc) for a month after watching this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wyeor3z9EdQ
The first week I've been feeling odd and lethargic with the second day including flu-like symptoms. In little more than one week I've lost 1.5kg (~3 lbs). Now I start to feel more energetic and tomorrow I'll be hitting the gym for the first time since I started. If I manage to lose 10 lbs, I'll probably stick to the diet for some months more. (I needed to lose 40 lbs or so anyways)...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wyeor3z9EdQ
The first week I've been feeling odd and lethargic with the second day including flu-like symptoms. In little more than one week I've lost 1.5kg (~3 lbs). Now I start to feel more energetic and tomorrow I'll be hitting the gym for the first time since I started. If I manage to lose 10 lbs, I'll probably stick to the diet for some months more. (I needed to lose 40 lbs or so anyways)...
We're on almost the exact same timeline. The only added sugar I get right now is from about 2 grams in balsamic vinaigrette salad dressing. I've dropped roughly 10 pounds. My goal is to stay sugar free until Thanksgiving, then see how I feel after pigging out and the next couple days after.
Edit: btw I was already in good shape. A little bit of belly fat but I can still wear slim clothes. So for me at least the effect is there despite starting in the normal weight range.
Edit: btw I was already in good shape. A little bit of belly fat but I can still wear slim clothes. So for me at least the effect is there despite starting in the normal weight range.
I have started with slight overweight, but I'm a regular in the gym so I'm in good (muscular) shape, I just need to drop some extra lbs.
Before cutting sugar and high GI foods, I had to do 4-5 days of intensive cardio in order to drop 2 lbs in one week. Now I'm losing them almost without exercising (only walking here and there)...
My goal is to adjust my diet to a minimum of sugar (complex carbs, fruits, raw honey, etc) that allows me to stay in my BMI and 6–13% BFP (I was at 5% in my early 20s!)
Before cutting sugar and high GI foods, I had to do 4-5 days of intensive cardio in order to drop 2 lbs in one week. Now I'm losing them almost without exercising (only walking here and there)...
My goal is to adjust my diet to a minimum of sugar (complex carbs, fruits, raw honey, etc) that allows me to stay in my BMI and 6–13% BFP (I was at 5% in my early 20s!)
Counter anecdote: check out Durianrider. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W02aYmy1lcg High-carb, low fat.
I followed a diet with that kind of macros for several years, it definitely works wonders. Ate a lot of complex carbs (oats, white pasta, white rice, etc) seven days a week... But cutting sugars I think it's more of an overall health choice. Sugar causes inflammation everywhere in the body which leads to many serious diseases [0] ...
After a detox period of few months I'll start to slowly reintroduce healthier complex carbs (brown rice, brown pasta, etc). In the meantime I'll just get carbs from veggies...
The bolus of blood sugar that accompanies a meal or snack of highly refined carbohydrates (white bread, white rice, French fries, sugar-laden soda, etc.) increases levels of inflammatory messengers called cytokines. Eating whole-grain bread, brown rice, and other whole grains smooths out the after-meal rise in blood sugar and insulin, and dampens cytokine production.[0]
[0] http://www.health.harvard.edu/family_health_guide/what-you-e...
After a detox period of few months I'll start to slowly reintroduce healthier complex carbs (brown rice, brown pasta, etc). In the meantime I'll just get carbs from veggies...
The bolus of blood sugar that accompanies a meal or snack of highly refined carbohydrates (white bread, white rice, French fries, sugar-laden soda, etc.) increases levels of inflammatory messengers called cytokines. Eating whole-grain bread, brown rice, and other whole grains smooths out the after-meal rise in blood sugar and insulin, and dampens cytokine production.[0]
[0] http://www.health.harvard.edu/family_health_guide/what-you-e...
>The first week I've been feeling odd and lethargic with the second day including flu-like symptoms.
You are describing carb withdrawal symptoms to a T.
You are describing carb withdrawal symptoms to a T.
[deleted]
I can almost understand why Soylent makes headlines here, but articles about sugar being bad for you and bacon being bad for you? There are a hundred other places online I can read about this.
It's not about you; it's about getting the message to those who need it. And that's an awful lot of people who are over-indebted to the success and productivity of the food producing industries worldwide.
I posted a comment earlier today describing my own experience. I never said that everybody should stop eating food with added sugar, I just said it worked for me.
One main thing we don't mention in this thread is that sugar is addictive. Cutting sugar was hard like quitting somking was hard. If you never got addicted like I was, I guess it os hard to understand the problem. But when you are addicted it is hard to just know if you are hungry or not. So I choosed to go on the other extreme which works better for me.
One main thing we don't mention in this thread is that sugar is addictive. Cutting sugar was hard like quitting somking was hard. If you never got addicted like I was, I guess it os hard to understand the problem. But when you are addicted it is hard to just know if you are hungry or not. So I choosed to go on the other extreme which works better for me.
I read an interesting article on how excess sugar clogs the tiny blood vessels and tissues where there aren't really any blood vessels.
Circulation in these areas won't be as great by the nature of things so clogging them up has a greater impact. It prevents nutrient/waste flow to tissues. Just think about that for a bit. Accumulating waste and blocking delivery of nutrients.
Balancing sugar intake and moving around, even if it's just walking, on a regular basis will fix you up real fast.
Circulation in these areas won't be as great by the nature of things so clogging them up has a greater impact. It prevents nutrient/waste flow to tissues. Just think about that for a bit. Accumulating waste and blocking delivery of nutrients.
Balancing sugar intake and moving around, even if it's just walking, on a regular basis will fix you up real fast.
Robert Lustig, first author on this paper, has written a very accessible book on the same topic titled "Fat Chance" [0]. I enjoyed it, although I can't vouch for all of the science.
Full disclosure: I did stop eating sugary food after reading and watching some of Lustig's presentations, and I'm generally pleased with the results.
[0] http://amzn.to/1S7LmQY
Full disclosure: I did stop eating sugary food after reading and watching some of Lustig's presentations, and I'm generally pleased with the results.
[0] http://amzn.to/1S7LmQY
This is a very good first step - now we need more research into whether this holds for non-obese kids who are not Hispanic or black.
I.e. does cutting out almost all added sugars from the diet of a normal weight kid improve health outcomes?
Also note that the lead Author is Robert Lustig - I first ran into a lecture called "The bitter truth" by him against Sugar. So it seems to be a pet crusade of his (not that that invalidates the result).
I.e. does cutting out almost all added sugars from the diet of a normal weight kid improve health outcomes?
Also note that the lead Author is Robert Lustig - I first ran into a lecture called "The bitter truth" by him against Sugar. So it seems to be a pet crusade of his (not that that invalidates the result).
Sure, I noticed an immediate difference when I cut back on extraneous sugar content like soda and junk food. I also lost about 15 pounds over the course of a month. I noticed a mild withdrawal but once you get past that and as time goes on, you crave it less and less. The human body does need a certain amount to function but those amounts are easily obtained via a healthy diet with plenty of fruits and vegetables.
"the findings add to the argument that all calories are not created equal."
Well pardon my french but no fcking sht. Anyone person/system who strictly counts calories and completely looks over the fact that there are literally millions of other organisms involved in the digestive/energy process gets no love from me. Unfortunately its not as simple as calories in/calories out.
I think the problem here is that of BMI. While it is true that BMI is not always accurate as a measure of fitness, it usually is for people who go around saying that BMI doesn't mean anything. It is only incorrect for people who are extremely muscular, and those people know they're fit enough because they have other measures (like precise measures of body composition) to tell them.
So while it is true that not all calories are created equal, the people who most often seem to go around saying that seem to be the same people who refuse to pay attention to portion size and then bitch about not losing weight because they're only eating healthy foods.
So while it is true that not all calories are created equal, the people who most often seem to go around saying that seem to be the same people who refuse to pay attention to portion size and then bitch about not losing weight because they're only eating healthy foods.
>While it is true that BMI is not always accurate as a measure of fitness
You're right. I've never seen a fit person complain about the inaccuracy of BMI in anything other than a joking manner. It isn't precise, but it's "good enough" for the majority of people. It's a heuristic.
On the other hand, people who are clearly in poor shape love to scream up and down about how inaccurate BMI is at determining fitness levels. Ironic because BMI generally puts non-active people in a positive light. If we switched to body-fat percentage something tells me a lot of these folks would be clamoring to get BMI back since it under-reports people who have low enough mass to be not considered obese, but too high body fat to be healthy (thus are at greater risk for diabetes etc).
You're right. I've never seen a fit person complain about the inaccuracy of BMI in anything other than a joking manner. It isn't precise, but it's "good enough" for the majority of people. It's a heuristic.
On the other hand, people who are clearly in poor shape love to scream up and down about how inaccurate BMI is at determining fitness levels. Ironic because BMI generally puts non-active people in a positive light. If we switched to body-fat percentage something tells me a lot of these folks would be clamoring to get BMI back since it under-reports people who have low enough mass to be not considered obese, but too high body fat to be healthy (thus are at greater risk for diabetes etc).
You make it sound so obvious but there are many many people who still think in these terms. I recently had a comment in /r/science downvoted into oblivion for saying not all calories are created equal.
I wonder how many of those people are counting the calories in their own feces to get an accurate measurement...
>its not as simple as calories in/calories out.
For weight loss it is that simple though.
I'm not arguing overall health or anything like that, just fat (energy store) loss.
For weight loss it is that simple though.
I'm not arguing overall health or anything like that, just fat (energy store) loss.
It is not that simple, simply because you cannot calculate the amount or rate of absorption. Your intestinal bacteria acts and reacts to changing foodstuffs. For example if your eating a consistent diet of the same foods regularly, your intestinal bacteria will become more efficient at breaking down the food over time. If you suddenly switch foods, it can become less efficient. That could be the case in this study.
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/brainwaves/the-food-figh...
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/brainwaves/the-food-figh...
Counting calories isn't an exact science (yet), but it is simple and objectively effective for weight loss. Even if not exact, you really only need to be "close enough" with a good margin for error built in.
I get frustrated when people complicate weight loss when explaining methods to people who are interested in losing weight, rather than just boiling it down to the fundamentals (intake less calories/energy than you burn). All the competing fad methods are based around this fundamental with their own spin (and usually tie in a product that the user becomes dependent on to maintain weightless).
I get frustrated when people complicate weight loss when explaining methods to people who are interested in losing weight, rather than just boiling it down to the fundamentals (intake less calories/energy than you burn). All the competing fad methods are based around this fundamental with their own spin (and usually tie in a product that the user becomes dependent on to maintain weightless).
Lustig just doesn't give up. He has already been crushed by Alan Aragon five years ago.
http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/02/19/a-retrospective-of-...
http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/02/19/a-retrospective-of-...
Credentials would tend to support the practicing endocrinologist. Also, the data Lustig really had to go get was the causal inference where increasing fructose had a delayed response of increased metabolic syndrome. That study has been done now.
There is something called blue zone food, Okinawa islands. There have been a studies of the people who live longest and what they eat.
The study concluded you should cut down on sugar and white flour. Use fresh locally produced food and avoid processed foods.
The study concluded you should cut down on sugar and white flour. Use fresh locally produced food and avoid processed foods.
Even the New York Times is not immune to the impulse towards click-baity, misleading article titles.
[deleted]
Sugar is the drug that makes us sick, but we keep it (and I love it in many different forms). I'm addicted to it...
Just in time for Halloween!
Go watch Forks over Knives on Netflix.
Anyone's health
bruu_(4)
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/oby.21371/abstrac...
PDF:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/oby.21371/pdf
Lustig, R. H., Mulligan, K., Noworolski, S. M., Tai, V. W., Wen, M. J., Erkin-Cakmak, A., Gugliucci, A. and Schwarz, J.-M. (2015), Isocaloric fructose restriction and metabolic improvement in children with obesity and metabolic syndrome. Obesity. doi: 10.1002/oby.21371
As an aside, it's very strange that the article is not cited in the NYTimes post. A journalist should at least give the DOI at the bottom if there is not a link to the article in the body of the text.
Edit: I left this same comment on the NYTimes article and the text now links to the journal (though my comment was not approved). Seems like a win! NYTimes editorial staff: thank you!