This white powder will kill me one day(jacquesmattheij.com)
jacquesmattheij.com
This white powder will kill me one day
http://jacquesmattheij.com/this-white-powder-will-kill-me-one-day
191 comments
I have just quit sugar cold turkey. Carbohydrates in general, actually. (< 20 grams per day.) One thing that I will highly recommend to everyone who is trying to do this: small amounts of powdered Psyllium supplement. The best known brand in the US is Metamucil. This might set off some mental alarms, as it is marketed as a "laxative." However, it's just a concentrated source of soluble fiber that acts to bulk up material passing through the gut, helping to keep it passing through. This prevents many of the disadvantages of eating mostly foods that are rich in proteins and fats. The instructions on this stuff allow for 1 to 3 doses per day. I'm only taking 1/2 a dose at any one time, so it's acting more as a fiber supplement.
That said, I also cook and eat lots of vegetables. (Green beans are quick and great! Just rinse them, steam them, and don't eat any inedible looking ends. It's best if you don't overcook them.) I never feel run down after meals any more like I used to, though I can still feel a bit tired after a particularly high fat meal. On the whole, I have a lot more energy, though I have been told that I'm a lot more irritable now. Maybe it's time to do some programming "in anger?"
That said, I also cook and eat lots of vegetables. (Green beans are quick and great! Just rinse them, steam them, and don't eat any inedible looking ends. It's best if you don't overcook them.) I never feel run down after meals any more like I used to, though I can still feel a bit tired after a particularly high fat meal. On the whole, I have a lot more energy, though I have been told that I'm a lot more irritable now. Maybe it's time to do some programming "in anger?"
There is a major misconception that all carbs are bad. Specifically bad sources: refined sugar, high-fructose corn syrup (much worse than sugar), grains (wheat - gluten, is the worst, worse than sugar; rice, etc...), and legumes (particularly soy beans).
Sweet potatoes as carbs are very good for you; fruit (particularly pears, apples, coconut - very good for you, pineapple, bananas).
The topic is quite complicated and difficult to navigate, but there's a lot of good information out there. Particularly in the primal/paleo lifestyle (which I think is a little bit extreme but the knowledge and rationale is sound).
Sweet potatoes as carbs are very good for you; fruit (particularly pears, apples, coconut - very good for you, pineapple, bananas).
The topic is quite complicated and difficult to navigate, but there's a lot of good information out there. Particularly in the primal/paleo lifestyle (which I think is a little bit extreme but the knowledge and rationale is sound).
> high-fructose corn syrup (much worse than sugar)
> gluten, is the worst, worse than sugar
These sound like dubious claims to me. Do you have a citation?
> gluten, is the worst, worse than sugar
These sound like dubious claims to me. Do you have a citation?
It's not just dubious it's wrong. Gluten is a protein, not a carb.
And to say legumes are bad when they are actually by far the best kind of carb you can eat is nuts. (Nuts are good too.)
And to say legumes are bad when they are actually by far the best kind of carb you can eat is nuts. (Nuts are good too.)
Most people think bread is a carb, which there are many carbs coming from it - you also get gluten in that mix. You're right that it is a protein [gluten] and not a carb but this is a classic example of an unhelpful HN comment thread where pedanticism is slowly taking over unless my writing has the quality of oral debate speech followed by scientific citations.
Bread is a carb and a protein, obviously.
You think you were helpful and I am not because you believe what you say. But you have not stopped to consider that perhaps you are simply wrong and I am calling you out on it.
Your problem is that you wrote something wrong - doubly wrong. You wrote that gluten is a carb, and that it's bad for you. But not only is it not a carb, it's also not bad for you unless you are sensitive to it. Wheat is what took humanity from weak scattered encampments to full civilizations, it's not called the staff of life for nothing.
And when you added the legumes are bad for you, all doubt I had if perhaps you were right vanished.
You think you were helpful and I am not because you believe what you say. But you have not stopped to consider that perhaps you are simply wrong and I am calling you out on it.
Your problem is that you wrote something wrong - doubly wrong. You wrote that gluten is a carb, and that it's bad for you. But not only is it not a carb, it's also not bad for you unless you are sensitive to it. Wheat is what took humanity from weak scattered encampments to full civilizations, it's not called the staff of life for nothing.
And when you added the legumes are bad for you, all doubt I had if perhaps you were right vanished.
I never said you weren't helpful! I think you're being pedantic - asking for sources on everything! If you ask for a scientific opinion on why something is bad or not for you; you can come up with sources for both sides!
I'm telling you straight up, STOP being pedantic! This is a discussion forum, not a scientific peer-review!
"...all doubt I had if perhaps you were right vanished." who the hell wants to even have a reasoned conversation with you? I sure don't - I'm willing to be educated or have my mind changed but now you're both being pedantic and throwing insulting sentences into the mix COMPLETELY throwing out my desire to be educated BY YOU.
Fuck off. You're an example of what's wrong with Hacker News IMHO - this used to be a great place for conversation but its devolved heavily into a hostile discussion environment.
I'm telling you straight up, STOP being pedantic! This is a discussion forum, not a scientific peer-review!
"...all doubt I had if perhaps you were right vanished." who the hell wants to even have a reasoned conversation with you? I sure don't - I'm willing to be educated or have my mind changed but now you're both being pedantic and throwing insulting sentences into the mix COMPLETELY throwing out my desire to be educated BY YOU.
Fuck off. You're an example of what's wrong with Hacker News IMHO - this used to be a great place for conversation but its devolved heavily into a hostile discussion environment.
I asked for sources? Are you confusing me for other people who replied?
And I never said anything even remotely pedantic. (Thinking gluten is a carb is not pedantic - it's wrong.)
You have been told you were wrong from a whole bunch of different people, but somehow decided they were all me. It's interesting to speculate on why you did that. A mental defense against being told you were wrong perhaps?
It's time for you to go restart your eduction on this matter from scratch - and not from me.
And I never said anything even remotely pedantic. (Thinking gluten is a carb is not pedantic - it's wrong.)
You have been told you were wrong from a whole bunch of different people, but somehow decided they were all me. It's interesting to speculate on why you did that. A mental defense against being told you were wrong perhaps?
It's time for you to go restart your eduction on this matter from scratch - and not from me.
HFCS and sugar are almost identical - both are about half fructose and half glucose. I don't think one is significantly worse than the other.
Sucrose (sugar) is a glucose bonded to a fructose.
HFCS is a solution of unbonded fructose and glucose. The most common HFCS is 45% glucose / 55% fructose.
HFCS may be worse for you if fructose is worse for you. That said, the concentrations aren't that much different.
HFCS is a solution of unbonded fructose and glucose. The most common HFCS is 45% glucose / 55% fructose.
HFCS may be worse for you if fructose is worse for you. That said, the concentrations aren't that much different.
The bond in sucrose makes little difference. We've evolved to break that bond very easily. Since the internet tends to be a big fan of Lustig's sugar video, can I just cite him as saying they're the same?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sucrose#Metabolism_of_sucrose
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sucrose#Metabolism_of_sucrose
I've seen the video. I made no claims that the bond between the sugars in sucrose made a different. I was mostly attempting to explain the difference.
> HFCS may be worse for you if fructose is worse for you. That said, the concentrations aren't that much different.
I'm not going to dig out the citations (because I'm not sure where I'd find them) but I'm pretty certain I read recently in a credible source:
* Fructose is worse for you
* ... but HFCS and sugar contain similar amounts
* HFCS is really bad for you
* ... but no worse for you than sugar (which is also really bad for you)
I'm not going to dig out the citations (because I'm not sure where I'd find them) but I'm pretty certain I read recently in a credible source:
* Fructose is worse for you
* ... but HFCS and sugar contain similar amounts
* HFCS is really bad for you
* ... but no worse for you than sugar (which is also really bad for you)
Maybe 'not by much,' but the difference is that sucrose as a 50/50 split of fructose-glucose, and HFCS has a 55/45 split. So if Fructose is bad for you, then HFCS has a higher concentration than sucrose (though only a 5% difference).
>There is a major misconception that all carbs are bad.
Define "bad".
Lots of these posts seem to come around to the same few topics so if you've read this before, safely move one.
But, IMO, carbs are about your fitness goals. The way carbs interact with your body dictate that they should be considered in conjunction with your fitness goals. I don't consider carbs "bad", but I do consider them completely misunderstood.
When I'm trying to lose weight, say for a meet or a show or perhaps for getting ready for my preseason, I limit carbs and use my own modified carb-cycling routine.
When I'm trying to get much stronger and gain weight, I use another version of my own modified carb-cycling routine.
Carbs are the key. Of course carbs aren't bad (so I agree with the overall statement), but they can be extremely detrimental for someone looking to lose weight or a sendentar person looking to just maintain.
I've written about this extensively in my fitness books. Each book recommends a certain general food philosophy based on the goals of the book generally geared around carbs: type to consume, when to consume and how much. I firmly believe that if more people understood the interaction with carbs and the hormones in their body they would have the capability of leading healthier lives.
Define "bad".
Lots of these posts seem to come around to the same few topics so if you've read this before, safely move one.
But, IMO, carbs are about your fitness goals. The way carbs interact with your body dictate that they should be considered in conjunction with your fitness goals. I don't consider carbs "bad", but I do consider them completely misunderstood.
When I'm trying to lose weight, say for a meet or a show or perhaps for getting ready for my preseason, I limit carbs and use my own modified carb-cycling routine.
When I'm trying to get much stronger and gain weight, I use another version of my own modified carb-cycling routine.
Carbs are the key. Of course carbs aren't bad (so I agree with the overall statement), but they can be extremely detrimental for someone looking to lose weight or a sendentar person looking to just maintain.
I've written about this extensively in my fitness books. Each book recommends a certain general food philosophy based on the goals of the book generally geared around carbs: type to consume, when to consume and how much. I firmly believe that if more people understood the interaction with carbs and the hormones in their body they would have the capability of leading healthier lives.
What you've written here is pretty much what I meant to write in my comment. What is the name of your book by chance?
> high-fructose corn syrup (much worse than sugar)
This is controversial at best (see, for example, http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/the-sweetener-...). I know there's money behind corn/HFCS, but what is your source for this claim?
This is controversial at best (see, for example, http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/the-sweetener-...). I know there's money behind corn/HFCS, but what is your source for this claim?
While this seems reasonable, and I whole-heartedly endorse your push for sources, it does call to mind a corn-industry sponsored commercial I saw a while back about HFCS that I found amusing. It said, "Sugar is sugar; your body can't tell the difference!" which sounded common-sensical buuut fructose, sucrose... well, lactose is a sugar too, and some of our bodies seems to be able to tell the difference there!
Of course, this isn't evidence one way or the other for the claim in question, really. Bad arguments for side A aren't arguments for side B - just hoping others find it as amusing as I did.
Of course, this isn't evidence one way or the other for the claim in question, really. Bad arguments for side A aren't arguments for side B - just hoping others find it as amusing as I did.
I know that ad. I always angrily yell at the TV, "yes they're the same: equally bad!"
> There is a major misconception that all carbs are bad.
For people in general, they aren't. For me in particular, they might be especially bad. In any case, I'm essentially doing the Atkins Diet as an experiment. (I suspect I'm pre-diabetic.)
For people in general, they aren't. For me in particular, they might be especially bad. In any case, I'm essentially doing the Atkins Diet as an experiment. (I suspect I'm pre-diabetic.)
This is a little. It off topic and I could be really wrong but why don't you try a low calorie diet in general for 2 weeks followed by a healthy, balanced diet inc. both your proteins and complex carbs rather than doing the Atkins diet?
I've read in a few places that restricting your diet to 600 calories a day for 2 weeks has shown a reversal in type 2 diabetes. If you believe you're pre-diabetic, perhaps this may help? If it works for full blown diabetics, could it also work for a pre-diabetic?
There are tonnes of pages in Google on this but the jist is that this study was done at the Uni of Newxastle and it's funnily enough called the 'Newcastle diet'. Here's a link with more info: http://www.diabetes.co.uk/diet/newcastle-study-600-calorie-d...
I've read in a few places that restricting your diet to 600 calories a day for 2 weeks has shown a reversal in type 2 diabetes. If you believe you're pre-diabetic, perhaps this may help? If it works for full blown diabetics, could it also work for a pre-diabetic?
There are tonnes of pages in Google on this but the jist is that this study was done at the Uni of Newxastle and it's funnily enough called the 'Newcastle diet'. Here's a link with more info: http://www.diabetes.co.uk/diet/newcastle-study-600-calorie-d...
600 calories a day is hard. Atkins is easy. I suspect both approaches will work, but Atkins will succeed more often because adherence is easier.
> I've read in a few places that restricting your diet to 600 calories a day for 2 weeks has shown a reversal in type 2 diabetes. If you believe you're pre-diabetic, perhaps this may help? If it works for full blown diabetics, could it also work for a pre-diabetic?
That's excellent information. Thanks!
That's excellent information. Thanks!
Also called "South Beach" diet.
I'm not grokking how legumes are bad, can you please elaborate?
Most plants evolved mechanisms to stop their seeds and sprouts being eaten and digested. Legumes can be toxic to eat raw, contain aflatoxins and cause digestive issues - but they don't contribute much to your diet besides a bit of protein.
And most humans developed a method to make inedible foods edible: cooking.
This sounds like a keto diet. If so, welcome! :)
http://reddit.com/r/keto
http://reddit.com/r/keto
It's interesting you mention diet coke, the whole artificial sugars are probably doing as much damage and your right to mention them as any artifical sugar substitute is designed to feed into that sugar addiction/stimulate taste buds and will effect how you taste and eat food.
I'm still on my transition phase, having moved from desert spoons to teas spoon in my coffee and diet softdrinks, though I do like a full fat cola with food. But have been interested in this berry they have which makes bitter/sour things taste sweeter. That is something that does seem to be a more palatable approach to quelling sugar addiction and could make for a rather nice cup of coffee, evern the cheaper stuff. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synsepalum_dulcificum is the bean which I'm on about and you may of heard of it already in the name `miracle fruit`.
All that said, I don't think anybody can name a person that has regretted giving up sugar, though I'm happy to sit in the moderatly decling usage and wont deny it.
But we all blame the sweets as children, even though as children we have a bias towards sweet tasting foods. This is genetic and a health preserving one as well as sour/bitter foods are in general covers most posioness edibles and it is not until we get older do we loose that bias and aquire a more palatable acceptance to bitter/sour tasting foods and drinks. Our eyesight also is biased to the red spectrum when were younger and biases towards blue as we get older, again red being dangerous in nature.
So geneticly there are reasons we are all born sugar addicts, and given the reasons and the way civilisation is modernising forward then it is a trait that may eventualy drop from our genetic code, though that will still be a long way away due to the benifit it serves babies and small children who are still learning what and what they can and can not eat.
I'm still on my transition phase, having moved from desert spoons to teas spoon in my coffee and diet softdrinks, though I do like a full fat cola with food. But have been interested in this berry they have which makes bitter/sour things taste sweeter. That is something that does seem to be a more palatable approach to quelling sugar addiction and could make for a rather nice cup of coffee, evern the cheaper stuff. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synsepalum_dulcificum is the bean which I'm on about and you may of heard of it already in the name `miracle fruit`.
All that said, I don't think anybody can name a person that has regretted giving up sugar, though I'm happy to sit in the moderatly decling usage and wont deny it.
But we all blame the sweets as children, even though as children we have a bias towards sweet tasting foods. This is genetic and a health preserving one as well as sour/bitter foods are in general covers most posioness edibles and it is not until we get older do we loose that bias and aquire a more palatable acceptance to bitter/sour tasting foods and drinks. Our eyesight also is biased to the red spectrum when were younger and biases towards blue as we get older, again red being dangerous in nature.
So geneticly there are reasons we are all born sugar addicts, and given the reasons and the way civilisation is modernising forward then it is a trait that may eventualy drop from our genetic code, though that will still be a long way away due to the benifit it serves babies and small children who are still learning what and what they can and can not eat.
> the whole artificial sugars are probably doing as much damage
Wikipedia says:
> Aspartame has been found to be safe for human consumption by more than ninety countries worldwide, with FDA officials describing aspartame as "one of the most thoroughly tested and studied food additives the agency has ever approved" and its safety as "clear cut", but has been the subject of several controversies, hoaxes and health scares.
Do you have a reference for that assertion?
Wikipedia says:
> Aspartame has been found to be safe for human consumption by more than ninety countries worldwide, with FDA officials describing aspartame as "one of the most thoroughly tested and studied food additives the agency has ever approved" and its safety as "clear cut", but has been the subject of several controversies, hoaxes and health scares.
Do you have a reference for that assertion?
Historicaly artificial sweetners of some types have been proven to increase the chances of cancer and I have. I also said probably as nothing is fully proven until many many years later as we all know. In general it is one of those open debates that again only time proves. As for specifics there was no one report I have refered to or any one sweetner, again why I used the term probably. Not everybody has died from smoking a cigerrette or the effects of, everybody is different and all the FDA approval means that it is safe by there standards, based upon there results at that point in time and unless something comes along to prove otherwise to a unaceptable level then that won't change. I drink diet soda, its a acceptable risk in my book. That said natural alternatives have by definition been tested over a longer time with the effects upon humans as a rule and pretty much most people are much happier with that assurance over FDA approval. The thing is you can find assertions arguing both ways as it is still one of those nothing truely proven one way or another situations. I find the thought that any product I purchase in the UK that has it, has a warning label by law. But a fairer way to look at it would be are there are no references on that wiki page you refer to in that it is healther than sugar, so I will stand by my statement that it is probably doing as much damage.
Your first two sentences contradict each other. In addition to that, there's quite a few assertions and leaps of logic in the rest of the post, especially in the last sentence.
However, the point is, artificial sweeteners have been around for quite some time, and there haven't been any indications that sweeteners cause cancer. On top of that, there have been numerous studies by the FDA and other organizations in Europe, all coming to the same conclusion. So unless you are implying a lack of credibility in those institutions, I don't see how claiming "sweeteners probably increase chances of cancer" as anything but fear mongering.
However, the point is, artificial sweeteners have been around for quite some time, and there haven't been any indications that sweeteners cause cancer. On top of that, there have been numerous studies by the FDA and other organizations in Europe, all coming to the same conclusion. So unless you are implying a lack of credibility in those institutions, I don't see how claiming "sweeteners probably increase chances of cancer" as anything but fear mongering.
"sweeteners probably increase chances of cancer" you said that, I didn't. I said "sweetners are probably as bad for you" in the context of a comparision with sugar.
Fact the FDA has banned unbanned and rebanned and unbanned so many of these artificial seetners that even they over time you can see why people are so unsure becasue historicaly that is how they have been themselfs. I also stated I drink diet soft drinks which contain them, my choice so you can see that fear mongering is realy my main agenda, clearly.
Now if a institution changes it's mind more than once, I'm sure some aspect of there crdibility is in question. I live in the UK said products have warning and given that, I have resonable doubts about them being 100% safe in every aspect of use, but it is an acceptable risk and may or may not even be a risk at all, we just don't know.
I'm not saying there bad, I'm not saying there good, there have been some that currently appear to do no harm and some that are stilll banned or withdrawn from market historicaly, there are many types of artificial sweetners, some are currently banned some are currently allowed and in that when I say they are probably just as bad as sugar then that is exactly what I mean, there is no 100% prove either way that they are not are that they are, they could be less bad than sugar and they could be alot worse, sorry I didn't quantify it with exact brands but if anybody knew the exact answear then great, but they don't so I excersise resonable doubts.
Until somebody can clearly state that artificial sweetners are safer than sugar overall with regards to health then the debate will always carry on.
Fact the FDA has banned unbanned and rebanned and unbanned so many of these artificial seetners that even they over time you can see why people are so unsure becasue historicaly that is how they have been themselfs. I also stated I drink diet soft drinks which contain them, my choice so you can see that fear mongering is realy my main agenda, clearly.
Now if a institution changes it's mind more than once, I'm sure some aspect of there crdibility is in question. I live in the UK said products have warning and given that, I have resonable doubts about them being 100% safe in every aspect of use, but it is an acceptable risk and may or may not even be a risk at all, we just don't know.
I'm not saying there bad, I'm not saying there good, there have been some that currently appear to do no harm and some that are stilll banned or withdrawn from market historicaly, there are many types of artificial sweetners, some are currently banned some are currently allowed and in that when I say they are probably just as bad as sugar then that is exactly what I mean, there is no 100% prove either way that they are not are that they are, they could be less bad than sugar and they could be alot worse, sorry I didn't quantify it with exact brands but if anybody knew the exact answear then great, but they don't so I excersise resonable doubts.
Until somebody can clearly state that artificial sweetners are safer than sugar overall with regards to health then the debate will always carry on.
Aren't most artificial sweeteners only 40-50 years old? Asbestos has been used for 4500 years but only in the past 100 have we realized its dangerous.
If you buy packaged food from stores, you're regularly consuming dozens of compounds that have been around for a comparable amount of time to sucralose and whose long term effects are comparably poorly known. If you drive a car more than 10 miles a day, your cost benefit analysis would be better spent on figuring out how to reduce that than on trying to mitigate the tiny odds that a randomly singled-out food additive might be causing some marginal health effect.
Also, you can't really compare the way things were vetted for safety over a century ago to how they are vetted today.
Also, you can't really compare the way things were vetted for safety over a century ago to how they are vetted today.
I think the point is that vetting is a ongoing process and the asbestos example is one were something has been approved for use over a period and then later in its life-cycle found to have enough negatives to make it not be use. We know more about the moon than the human brain so what truely effects it and how is something we still learn and in that down the line the prospect of things changing and the FDA changing there mind is something that has and does happen and in that we accept there judgment for our safty.
The comparision to vetting safty a centuary ago and now is valid as in 100 years time we will have even better vetting and products in common use today could possibly be banned by the standards in 100 years time. That is also within a humans lifetime (given how long we will be living by then, statisticaly speaking as a trend). So the comparision is whislt not a dierct comparision but one of highlighting how time effects oppinion based upon new data collected over that period. If atifical sweetners still approaved in 100 years time then great, but it is a bet I would not take.
The comparision to vetting safty a centuary ago and now is valid as in 100 years time we will have even better vetting and products in common use today could possibly be banned by the standards in 100 years time. That is also within a humans lifetime (given how long we will be living by then, statisticaly speaking as a trend). So the comparision is whislt not a dierct comparision but one of highlighting how time effects oppinion based upon new data collected over that period. If atifical sweetners still approaved in 100 years time then great, but it is a bet I would not take.
>I think the point is that vetting is a ongoing process and the asbestos example is one were something has been approved for use over a period and then later in its life-cycle found to have enough negatives to make it not be use.
And again, there's just no comparison between the state of science today and the state of science a century ago. For a point of reference, the idea of blinded and randomized trials was a new concept when asbestos first came under suspicion.
The implication that the efficacy of science will improve in the next 100 years comparably to how it did in the last 100 years is spurious. Scientific understanding is being continually refined, but it is not a linear progression. Take the difference between our understanding of the shape of the earth in 800BC vs. 600BC; the model went from a flat earth to a spherical earth. That's a giant leap in 200 years. Then in the next 350 years they nailed down the size of the earth to within about 20% of the true value. An impressive advance, but surely a lesser one. Then, over the next 2250 years, we've gotten a more accurate measurement of the size of the planet, and noticed that it's a bit oblate rather than a perfect sphere. As science advances, the rate of progress slows; that's just how it works.
And again, there's just no comparison between the state of science today and the state of science a century ago. For a point of reference, the idea of blinded and randomized trials was a new concept when asbestos first came under suspicion.
The implication that the efficacy of science will improve in the next 100 years comparably to how it did in the last 100 years is spurious. Scientific understanding is being continually refined, but it is not a linear progression. Take the difference between our understanding of the shape of the earth in 800BC vs. 600BC; the model went from a flat earth to a spherical earth. That's a giant leap in 200 years. Then in the next 350 years they nailed down the size of the earth to within about 20% of the true value. An impressive advance, but surely a lesser one. Then, over the next 2250 years, we've gotten a more accurate measurement of the size of the planet, and noticed that it's a bit oblate rather than a perfect sphere. As science advances, the rate of progress slows; that's just how it works.
[deleted]
[deleted]
I personally have taken the stance that there is negative campaigning going on from both sides, dirtying the science. This is why you keep seeing people cry out that the sweeteners cause cancer - it's one of those easy, believable, fear-inducing lies that is also difficult to either prove or dismiss.
The best words I have to say in favor of artificial sweeteners are - you aren't seeing high-profile lawsuits claiming health damages. Lots of FUD, no money. On the other hand, real sugar has a few easily discovered examples, generally derived from the sugar being used in products with "nutritious" or "healthy" labelling:
http://www.inquisitr.com/226431/nutella-settles-lawsuit-for-...
http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-204_162-2926923.html
The best words I have to say in favor of artificial sweeteners are - you aren't seeing high-profile lawsuits claiming health damages. Lots of FUD, no money. On the other hand, real sugar has a few easily discovered examples, generally derived from the sugar being used in products with "nutritious" or "healthy" labelling:
http://www.inquisitr.com/226431/nutella-settles-lawsuit-for-...
http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-204_162-2926923.html
There's some evidence that sweeteners harm gut flora. Here's a random study I found on splenda affecting the gut flora of rats:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18800291
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18800291
A panel of experts from multiple universities (including Duke, where the study originated) smacked that study down pretty hard: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19567260
[deleted]
Aspartame is perfectly safe physically. It does affect how you perceive taste of course. Your brain links the sweetness of the aspartame with the caffeine high. But remember caffeine alone is addictive anyway so I don't think this is anything to worry about.
Oh I totaly agree the level of risk from unknown factors later on is less impacting than the effects of worrying about it. Suppose in some ways artificial sweetners are like methadone.
Just as an aside, that "miracle fruit" (available as tablets made from dried fruit from ThinkGeek if you can't find a local source) is an absolute lifesaver for people suffering from serious illnesses that put them off their feed.
My own experience leads me to think that the body goes through a process that runs something like this: "I don't know what's happening, but I feel like crap. Maybe it's something I ate? Let's crank up the anti-poisoning safeguards, just to be safe." Unfortunately, since both bitter and sour can be indicators of unsafe foods, with the safeguards cranked up, everything that has even a hint of tartness or bite tastes like absolute crap. Suppressing the gag reflex is difficult, and reverse peristalsis after healthy meals is not uncommon. Turning off the tongue's ability to detect bitter and sour makes almost all healthy foodstuffs palatable (although you should probably expect to undergo a little bit of cognitive dissonance -- Brussels sprouts aren't supposed to taste like almost-overripe plums, they just do after sucking on one of these little pills).
They won't give you back your appetite, but they sure make eating feel a lot less like a punishment for unspecified crimes in a previous life or some such.
My own experience leads me to think that the body goes through a process that runs something like this: "I don't know what's happening, but I feel like crap. Maybe it's something I ate? Let's crank up the anti-poisoning safeguards, just to be safe." Unfortunately, since both bitter and sour can be indicators of unsafe foods, with the safeguards cranked up, everything that has even a hint of tartness or bite tastes like absolute crap. Suppressing the gag reflex is difficult, and reverse peristalsis after healthy meals is not uncommon. Turning off the tongue's ability to detect bitter and sour makes almost all healthy foodstuffs palatable (although you should probably expect to undergo a little bit of cognitive dissonance -- Brussels sprouts aren't supposed to taste like almost-overripe plums, they just do after sucking on one of these little pills).
They won't give you back your appetite, but they sure make eating feel a lot less like a punishment for unspecified crimes in a previous life or some such.
Thank you, glad to hear that it not only works but has other possibilities with regards to health.
Oh and doube thanks about that brussel sprout insight, you may of very well saved christmas/thanksgiving dinner from many a argument.
Congratulations! But I should note that it is very very difficult to quit refined sugar completely. Many things that are not sweet at all can have sugar or hfcs added to them. This includes most bread, pizza, ketchup, all kinds of sauces and marinades, most salad dressings, etc.
Tragically, when cheap hfcs appeared, the food industry decided to start putting the stuff everywhere. Now it is very hard to avoid it even if you do not eat anything sweet.
Tragically, when cheap hfcs appeared, the food industry decided to start putting the stuff everywhere. Now it is very hard to avoid it even if you do not eat anything sweet.
It's very difficult to quit it completely, but quite easy to find food that doesn't derive the majority of its calories from sugar.
I consciously quit sugar about 6 months ago, and lost a ton of weight, and feel much better for it. However, I recently had to travel to the US for work, and avoiding sugar there was near on impossible. You guys have the chips stacked against you...
I consciously quit sugar about 6 months ago, and lost a ton of weight, and feel much better for it. However, I recently had to travel to the US for work, and avoiding sugar there was near on impossible. You guys have the chips stacked against you...
I also love interesting teas and find that Red Rose orange pekoe tea is delightful without any sweeteners. It used to advertise as being "only available in Canada" but surely that's no longer true. (What fool would limit their business to such a small market?)
> Newegg.com does not currently ship internationally; we only deliver to locations within the United States and to Puerto Rico.
Granted, Newegg are retailers rather than manufacturers, but country-based product restrictions are surprisingly common[0].
[0]: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22we+only+ship+to+locations...
Granted, Newegg are retailers rather than manufacturers, but country-based product restrictions are surprisingly common[0].
[0]: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22we+only+ship+to+locations...
As a kid, my Grandmother weaned me off soda (and she wasn't sly about it---she outright told me what she was doing). At first, she got me to drink iced tea with as much sugar as I wanted. Once I got to the point of drinking tea out of habit, she then had me slowly lower the amount of sugar I added.
These days, I prefer unsweetened iced tea. I may add sugar to hot tea (usually black teas) but not often. I also found that soda tastes a bit odd to me these days.
These days, I prefer unsweetened iced tea. I may add sugar to hot tea (usually black teas) but not often. I also found that soda tastes a bit odd to me these days.
Buried lede: sugar is bad for you.
While the entry notes some well-known harms of sugar, it fails to note a few thing points:
- Sugar withdrawal can be modestly severe, but it's not physiologically habituating, and a couple of weeks of abstinence will get you through the worst of it.
- Quantity, quality, and timing matter. Keeping total carbohydrate low (~50 - 150g day) will minimize much of the effects. Keeping sugars/carbs mostly low-glycemic minimizes the negative impacts. Consuming carbs in the morning or post-exercise (when body stores are naturally depleted) puts them where they can be utilized immediately (liver and muscle glycogen stores, not converted to fats).
- Much of the sugar in the standard American / standard western diet (SAD/SWD) is in the form of hidden, added sugars in processed foods. A teaspoon of added sugar in tea is minimal. The 10 teaspoons in a 12 oz. can of Coke (or any other soft drink) are rather more. Or the sugars in various canned, prepared, baked, or other foods. Make your own food or eat raw / natural / unprepared foods and you'll greatly reduce your sugar intake.
- Exercise, both strength training and cardio, change how your body processes sugar, and greatly reduces the negative effects of same.
Something's going to kill you. Need not be sugar.
You have agency.
While the entry notes some well-known harms of sugar, it fails to note a few thing points:
- Sugar withdrawal can be modestly severe, but it's not physiologically habituating, and a couple of weeks of abstinence will get you through the worst of it.
- Quantity, quality, and timing matter. Keeping total carbohydrate low (~50 - 150g day) will minimize much of the effects. Keeping sugars/carbs mostly low-glycemic minimizes the negative impacts. Consuming carbs in the morning or post-exercise (when body stores are naturally depleted) puts them where they can be utilized immediately (liver and muscle glycogen stores, not converted to fats).
- Much of the sugar in the standard American / standard western diet (SAD/SWD) is in the form of hidden, added sugars in processed foods. A teaspoon of added sugar in tea is minimal. The 10 teaspoons in a 12 oz. can of Coke (or any other soft drink) are rather more. Or the sugars in various canned, prepared, baked, or other foods. Make your own food or eat raw / natural / unprepared foods and you'll greatly reduce your sugar intake.
- Exercise, both strength training and cardio, change how your body processes sugar, and greatly reduces the negative effects of same.
Something's going to kill you. Need not be sugar.
You have agency.
> Sugar withdrawal can be modestly severe, but it's not physiologically habituating, and a couple of weeks of abstinence will get you through the worst of it.
Simple carbs spike serotonin levels, and then collapse them soon afterwards. People want to feel good, so they eat more sugar, which leads to another spike. This is by definition addictive!
It is also a vicious cycle. Too much sugar consumption can lead to obesity, which can then lead to depression, and of course sugar is already a person's go to treatment for feeling "down".
Thus the cycle continues.
Simple carbs spike serotonin levels, and then collapse them soon afterwards. People want to feel good, so they eat more sugar, which leads to another spike. This is by definition addictive!
It is also a vicious cycle. Too much sugar consumption can lead to obesity, which can then lead to depression, and of course sugar is already a person's go to treatment for feeling "down".
Thus the cycle continues.
When you say obesity can lead to depression, what do you mean? (I'm not asking for a citation or evidence ... rather, just clarification on your meaning).
Do you mean that obese people suffer reduced self-esteem which leads to depression, or do you refer to some kind of bio-chemical linkage? (Or something else entirely?)
Do you mean that obese people suffer reduced self-esteem which leads to depression, or do you refer to some kind of bio-chemical linkage? (Or something else entirely?)
I probably should have said "phyiscally" rather than "physiologically".
Heroin withdrawal can kill.
Sugar withdrawal will not.
Heroin withdrawal can kill.
Sugar withdrawal will not.
Actually, as someone who has treated many people over the past week for heroin withdrawal, I would like to add that heroin withdrawal very very rarely kills people unless they have an underlying medical condition like coronary artery disease that can become worse with stress. On the other hand, alcohol, benzos, and baclofen withdrawal are much more common ways that people die.
Off the top of my head, a large part of his problem seems to be the need to overdramatize issues like this.
If he's that biorythmically dependant upon sugar, then the likely problem is that he's not getting sufficient sugar elsewhere in his diet. He could reduce the sugar in his tea while adding fruit and likely achieve the same end more effectively (while upping fibre intake, for example).
But phrasing this as a problem of addiction to a "poison" is a loaded approach that closes off less dramatic and likely much more effective measures. And honestly, if his weight's not a problem, then relax and enjoy your addiction--you could have it a lot worse :)
If he's that biorythmically dependant upon sugar, then the likely problem is that he's not getting sufficient sugar elsewhere in his diet. He could reduce the sugar in his tea while adding fruit and likely achieve the same end more effectively (while upping fibre intake, for example).
But phrasing this as a problem of addiction to a "poison" is a loaded approach that closes off less dramatic and likely much more effective measures. And honestly, if his weight's not a problem, then relax and enjoy your addiction--you could have it a lot worse :)
>adding fruit
Just a sidenote: fruits are carby, so you still have the same problem if you replace wheat/sugar with fruit. They are slightly better for you because of the balance of fiber, but if you just replace wheat and sugar for fruit you are likely to end up similar health issues.
Just a sidenote: fruits are carby, so you still have the same problem if you replace wheat/sugar with fruit. They are slightly better for you because of the balance of fiber, but if you just replace wheat and sugar for fruit you are likely to end up similar health issues.
Even though an apple might have up to half the sugar of a 12-oz can of Coca-Cola, somehow it affects my body completely differently.
From a Coke, you feel the stimulation and then the drop in energy afterwards.
An apple just makes me feel good. There's no over-stimulation like sugar, and no drop in energy afterwards.
It's well known that the body processes sugars in foods very differently (sodas, honey, fruits, etc.). Unfortunately, not much is known about why or how, from what I know.
But something to keep in mind: humans have been eating fruits, presumably as long as we've existed. Drinks and desserts with concentrated cane sugar is a new thing. It wouldn't be surprising if evolution has adapted us well to the former (in moderation), but not that latter.
From a Coke, you feel the stimulation and then the drop in energy afterwards.
An apple just makes me feel good. There's no over-stimulation like sugar, and no drop in energy afterwards.
It's well known that the body processes sugars in foods very differently (sodas, honey, fruits, etc.). Unfortunately, not much is known about why or how, from what I know.
But something to keep in mind: humans have been eating fruits, presumably as long as we've existed. Drinks and desserts with concentrated cane sugar is a new thing. It wouldn't be surprising if evolution has adapted us well to the former (in moderation), but not that latter.
Yes, it is harder to overeat or get addicted on natural fresh fruits, and there's less of a negative effect. But if you do, you're still back to square one: significant insulin spikes, a tendency to turn those calories to fat just like pure sugar, and some of the detrimental health effects mentioned in the article.
You mentioned honey, and I don't know which group you assigned it to, but many people make this mistake: honey is "natural", but it is every bit as pure and unhealthy a sugar as high fructose corn syrup, or similar.
You mentioned honey, and I don't know which group you assigned it to, but many people make this mistake: honey is "natural", but it is every bit as pure and unhealthy a sugar as high fructose corn syrup, or similar.
You don't think that difference could have a lot to do with the caffiene content of the Coca-Cola?
Definitely not -- a Coke stimulates for maybe an hour, then leaves you with less energy for around an hour. Like everything else with lots of processed sugar.
Whereas caffeine stimulates for several hours, and I never feel less energy afterwards with caffeine.
The effect is definitely the sugar.
Whereas caffeine stimulates for several hours, and I never feel less energy afterwards with caffeine.
The effect is definitely the sugar.
It's the fiber in fruit that slows down the sugar release and provides energy longer.
The fiber present in fruit blunts the impact of the sugars they contain (addressing the "quality" issue I mentioned elsewhere). Fruits differ strongly in their glycemic indices (apples are low, grapes tend to be high), so they're not all the same. That said, whole fruit (as opposed to juice, in which much of the fiber is removed) is a reasonably good food choice. Especially for breakfast or post-workout.
>The fiber present in fruit blunts the impact of the sugars they contain (addressing the "quality" issue I mentioned elsewhere).
Some, but not enough to discount the fact that it is essentially sugar you're eating.
>That said, whole fruit (as opposed to juice, in which much of the fiber is removed) is a reasonably good food choice. Especially for breakfast or post-workout.
I think that's problematic though. People use fruit as a food choice, a mainstay of their diet, thinking it's healthy because it's "natural" or a similar line of reasoning. But it's still sugar and needs to be eaten sparingly just like candy or cake. A lot of fruits have a GI of candy bars, and almost all are in the blood sugar disrupting range of starches, refined wheat, etc, that should be eaten in very limited quantifies. For breakfast, that depends, if you are eating it with a lot of protein and fat, and it's a small amount, sure. But just eating mostly fruit for breakfast is a bad idea.
Some, but not enough to discount the fact that it is essentially sugar you're eating.
>That said, whole fruit (as opposed to juice, in which much of the fiber is removed) is a reasonably good food choice. Especially for breakfast or post-workout.
I think that's problematic though. People use fruit as a food choice, a mainstay of their diet, thinking it's healthy because it's "natural" or a similar line of reasoning. But it's still sugar and needs to be eaten sparingly just like candy or cake. A lot of fruits have a GI of candy bars, and almost all are in the blood sugar disrupting range of starches, refined wheat, etc, that should be eaten in very limited quantifies. For breakfast, that depends, if you are eating it with a lot of protein and fat, and it's a small amount, sure. But just eating mostly fruit for breakfast is a bad idea.
"Some, but not enough to discount the fact that it is essentially sugar you're eating."
I have to respectfully disagree with you about fruits. Fruit is more than just sugar, it's a source of vitamins and minerals and it should not intentionally be limited from your diet. Of course you need to eat a variety of different fruits (and vegetables).
"A lot of fruits have a GI of candy bars..."
Can you give some examples?
A piece of fruit and a candy bar are not nutritionally equivalent even if they share the same GI. In fact, most fruits are low in GI. See for yourself by going to the University of Sydney GI database.
http://www.glycemicindex.com/foodSearch.php
We all need to eat fruit and vegetables daily as part of a healthy diet. It's misleading to claim that fruit can cause health issues or should be limited in your diet without providing evidence to back it up.
Even people with Type 2 diabetes are not discouraged from eating fruits. See the advice here for example from Diabetes UK (a charity). They are a credible and trustworthy source of advice for people with diabetes in the UK.
http://www.diabetes.org.uk/MyLife-YoungAdults/Food-and-diet/...
One final link, a 2011 report from Cancer Research UK found that over 40% of cancers diagnosed in the UK were from avoidable lifestyle choices. For men, the number one culprit was tobacco. Number two culprit? Lack of fruit and vegetables in the diet.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-16031149
I have to respectfully disagree with you about fruits. Fruit is more than just sugar, it's a source of vitamins and minerals and it should not intentionally be limited from your diet. Of course you need to eat a variety of different fruits (and vegetables).
"A lot of fruits have a GI of candy bars..."
Can you give some examples?
A piece of fruit and a candy bar are not nutritionally equivalent even if they share the same GI. In fact, most fruits are low in GI. See for yourself by going to the University of Sydney GI database.
http://www.glycemicindex.com/foodSearch.php
We all need to eat fruit and vegetables daily as part of a healthy diet. It's misleading to claim that fruit can cause health issues or should be limited in your diet without providing evidence to back it up.
Even people with Type 2 diabetes are not discouraged from eating fruits. See the advice here for example from Diabetes UK (a charity). They are a credible and trustworthy source of advice for people with diabetes in the UK.
http://www.diabetes.org.uk/MyLife-YoungAdults/Food-and-diet/...
One final link, a 2011 report from Cancer Research UK found that over 40% of cancers diagnosed in the UK were from avoidable lifestyle choices. For men, the number one culprit was tobacco. Number two culprit? Lack of fruit and vegetables in the diet.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-16031149
> Fruit is more than just sugar, it's a source of vitamins and minerals and it should not intentionally be limited from your diet.
You can dump a bunch of vitamins into a bottle of coke, that doesn't mean you can eat it without limit and remain healthy. The carbs are still there, and if fruit makes up a significant number of the calories you intake, you are going to have all the same problems you have when you eat a large number of carbs per day from other sources like candy and pasta, just to a somewhat lesser degree. With fruit, you still don't want to go over the daily number of carbs (~40).
>Even people with Type 2 diabetes are not discouraged from eating fruits. See the advice here for example from Diabetes UK (a charity). They are a credible and trustworthy source of advice for people with diabetes in the UK.
First of all, the site you listed is fairly low quality and significantly out of date:
>All fruit and vegetables are low in fat and calories and a good source of vitamins and minerals.
This isn't the nineties. Fat isn't considered bad for you according to any modern scientific theory except to some degree in relationship to heart disease, and for diabetes patients, is beneficial because it helps stabilize your blood sugar.
Secondly, yes, you should eat small amounts of fruit per day and large amounts of vegetables a day. I never claimed otherwise but the site simply fails to point out that fruit should be taken in significantly lesser quantities than vegetables.
>A piece of fruit and a candy bar are not nutritionally equivalent even if they share the same GI. In fact, most fruits are low in GI. See for yourself by going to the University of Sydney GI database.
Searching for individual foods is a terrible way to compare GI levels. And no, most fruit is not "low in GI", most are high and compare to starchy foods and even candy, as I stated earlier. Fruits like tomatoes that are not sugary/starchy are considered vegetables btw.
>Number two culprit? Lack of fruit and vegetables in the diet.
That's somewhat irrelevant. It's the combination of fruits and vegetables that keeps you healthy, and honestly, you probably could do without sugary fruits entirely if you ate enough quantity and variety of vegetables. It's the fresh plant material rich in minerals/vitamins that's good for you. In any case, small amounts of fruit should be sufficient to add nutritional value and not pose a risk, just as small amounts candy shouldn't pose a risk if eat in very small doses.
You can dump a bunch of vitamins into a bottle of coke, that doesn't mean you can eat it without limit and remain healthy. The carbs are still there, and if fruit makes up a significant number of the calories you intake, you are going to have all the same problems you have when you eat a large number of carbs per day from other sources like candy and pasta, just to a somewhat lesser degree. With fruit, you still don't want to go over the daily number of carbs (~40).
>Even people with Type 2 diabetes are not discouraged from eating fruits. See the advice here for example from Diabetes UK (a charity). They are a credible and trustworthy source of advice for people with diabetes in the UK.
First of all, the site you listed is fairly low quality and significantly out of date:
>All fruit and vegetables are low in fat and calories and a good source of vitamins and minerals.
This isn't the nineties. Fat isn't considered bad for you according to any modern scientific theory except to some degree in relationship to heart disease, and for diabetes patients, is beneficial because it helps stabilize your blood sugar.
Secondly, yes, you should eat small amounts of fruit per day and large amounts of vegetables a day. I never claimed otherwise but the site simply fails to point out that fruit should be taken in significantly lesser quantities than vegetables.
>A piece of fruit and a candy bar are not nutritionally equivalent even if they share the same GI. In fact, most fruits are low in GI. See for yourself by going to the University of Sydney GI database.
Searching for individual foods is a terrible way to compare GI levels. And no, most fruit is not "low in GI", most are high and compare to starchy foods and even candy, as I stated earlier. Fruits like tomatoes that are not sugary/starchy are considered vegetables btw.
>Number two culprit? Lack of fruit and vegetables in the diet.
That's somewhat irrelevant. It's the combination of fruits and vegetables that keeps you healthy, and honestly, you probably could do without sugary fruits entirely if you ate enough quantity and variety of vegetables. It's the fresh plant material rich in minerals/vitamins that's good for you. In any case, small amounts of fruit should be sufficient to add nutritional value and not pose a risk, just as small amounts candy shouldn't pose a risk if eat in very small doses.
The reason that peer pressure to do drugs is so intense is that for those doing the pressuring, you look like a crazy person.
They look at the vast majority of people in their environment who do drugs on a regular basis, often throughout their entire lives, and appear to be fine and happier for it. Then they look at you and, since you are in the minority, immediately conclude that you are overreacting.
I grew up with a few friends who abstained from drugs completely. As they grew older and gained perspective, they slowly let down their guard and most of them fell into familiar patterns of reasonably healthy, occasional drug use. A few others had drug problems.
The fact is that a minority of people have the right mix of personality, circumstances and chemistry to become addicts. To make the decision to abstain from any kind of drug use, you are eliminating the small chance that you could become an addict, which is commendable. But what you don't know is that eliminating that chance comes at a great cost. What your peers were trying to tell you was "dude, trust us, it's worth the risk!" A good friend might have said, "friend, if you never take risks, you'll never experience the full richness of life!"
If I were your friend, I would say, quite honestly, that I cannot, almost as a rule, trust anybody who has not tried a variety of mind altering substances. The insight that they provide is, in my opinion, essential to developing an open mind and a deeper perspective on life. Moreover I would be wary of anybody so, to me, risk averse.
But your argument would still be that I don't properly understand the risks. Perhaps that is true, but here is my point:
I respect your decision to eliminate the risk of your becoming an addict, but I don't think that it is appropriate for you to be indignant. Rather, you should be sorrowful.
They look at the vast majority of people in their environment who do drugs on a regular basis, often throughout their entire lives, and appear to be fine and happier for it. Then they look at you and, since you are in the minority, immediately conclude that you are overreacting.
I grew up with a few friends who abstained from drugs completely. As they grew older and gained perspective, they slowly let down their guard and most of them fell into familiar patterns of reasonably healthy, occasional drug use. A few others had drug problems.
The fact is that a minority of people have the right mix of personality, circumstances and chemistry to become addicts. To make the decision to abstain from any kind of drug use, you are eliminating the small chance that you could become an addict, which is commendable. But what you don't know is that eliminating that chance comes at a great cost. What your peers were trying to tell you was "dude, trust us, it's worth the risk!" A good friend might have said, "friend, if you never take risks, you'll never experience the full richness of life!"
If I were your friend, I would say, quite honestly, that I cannot, almost as a rule, trust anybody who has not tried a variety of mind altering substances. The insight that they provide is, in my opinion, essential to developing an open mind and a deeper perspective on life. Moreover I would be wary of anybody so, to me, risk averse.
But your argument would still be that I don't properly understand the risks. Perhaps that is true, but here is my point:
I respect your decision to eliminate the risk of your becoming an addict, but I don't think that it is appropriate for you to be indignant. Rather, you should be sorrowful.
> I cannot, almost as a rule, trust anybody who has not tried a variety of mind altering substances.
EXCUSE ME? I'm sorry, but give me a fucking break!
I work hard, hit my deadlines, contribute to open source, am loyal to my friends, ready to help at the drop of a hat, and I'm risk-taking enough to be an entrepreneur, yet, look out, I can't be trusted because I choose not to smoke it up? How does that follow logically?
I've attended many parties through the years (the early ones were what are so commonly called "drinking parties" because, well, they're college and high school kids getting drunk), and I grew up in a family who enjoy with a few beers after work and on the weekends.
And throughout this exposure, I've never once had even the slightest itch to actually partake, despite the incredible amounts of peer pressure. But I attended the parties, I hung out with my friends and watched them get drunk (and later high, as they experimented further), and never once I did think "Hey, these conversations are so stimulating, I should totally do this too to improve my cognitive faculty."
No, I thought "Hey, you continue doing what you're doing. Me? I'm going to go back to playing the piano and talking with whomever is coherent enough to hold a conversation, and tomorrow, we'll laugh about all the stupid shit you won't remember doing."
Instead, watching folks get drunk, and holding conversations with folks who were high has only helped to strengthen my complete lack of desire to do these drugs. Not because of some aversion to risk, but because I just frankly don't like what I see in people when they are under the influence - they're generally just idiots.
And yet, despite all this, I know I can trust the trustworthy and not trust the untrustworthy, and I do not hold it against someone if they choose to enjoy certain recreational drugs. Indeed, despite my teetotalism, I paid for the open bar at my wedding.
Frankly, your almost complete trust-wise dismissal based on such a trivial criterion as "willingness to do drugs" is as closed-minded as I can imagine. At least I haven't completely written off an entire section of the population because of a disagreement in how we spend free time.
EXCUSE ME? I'm sorry, but give me a fucking break!
I work hard, hit my deadlines, contribute to open source, am loyal to my friends, ready to help at the drop of a hat, and I'm risk-taking enough to be an entrepreneur, yet, look out, I can't be trusted because I choose not to smoke it up? How does that follow logically?
I've attended many parties through the years (the early ones were what are so commonly called "drinking parties" because, well, they're college and high school kids getting drunk), and I grew up in a family who enjoy with a few beers after work and on the weekends.
And throughout this exposure, I've never once had even the slightest itch to actually partake, despite the incredible amounts of peer pressure. But I attended the parties, I hung out with my friends and watched them get drunk (and later high, as they experimented further), and never once I did think "Hey, these conversations are so stimulating, I should totally do this too to improve my cognitive faculty."
No, I thought "Hey, you continue doing what you're doing. Me? I'm going to go back to playing the piano and talking with whomever is coherent enough to hold a conversation, and tomorrow, we'll laugh about all the stupid shit you won't remember doing."
Instead, watching folks get drunk, and holding conversations with folks who were high has only helped to strengthen my complete lack of desire to do these drugs. Not because of some aversion to risk, but because I just frankly don't like what I see in people when they are under the influence - they're generally just idiots.
And yet, despite all this, I know I can trust the trustworthy and not trust the untrustworthy, and I do not hold it against someone if they choose to enjoy certain recreational drugs. Indeed, despite my teetotalism, I paid for the open bar at my wedding.
Frankly, your almost complete trust-wise dismissal based on such a trivial criterion as "willingness to do drugs" is as closed-minded as I can imagine. At least I haven't completely written off an entire section of the population because of a disagreement in how we spend free time.
Thank you. Not being trustworthy for not using drugs is a completely new one to me, I've seen companies that test their employees for drugs (a practice that I abhore, and as an employer never engaged in) but this takes it to a whole new level.
I don't see any reason to consider all those who haven't experienced various altered states of consciousness to be inherently untrustworthy. That said, if you haven't experienced these things then you probably can't fully understand the large swaths of civilization that were inspired by them: art, language, architecture, writing, film, religion, etc. And the odds are that if you can't fully understand something, then you can't properly value it.
Alas it is too late to edit. Let me clarify what I mean by "trust", as it is a vague word that includes a range between trusting somebody with your life and trusting somebody to remain sane under ordinary conditions.
What I mean by "trust" is deep friendship trust. The kind of trust that's necessary for a best-friendship, love affair, or business partnership.
It's true, my statement was a bit hyperbolic, though I would stress that it is very personal. I meant to say something somewhat like that I'm simply very unlikely to get along with somebody who unilaterally shuns drugs. It is more a conclusion from observation than a matter of principle.
What I mean by "trust" is deep friendship trust. The kind of trust that's necessary for a best-friendship, love affair, or business partnership.
It's true, my statement was a bit hyperbolic, though I would stress that it is very personal. I meant to say something somewhat like that I'm simply very unlikely to get along with somebody who unilaterally shuns drugs. It is more a conclusion from observation than a matter of principle.
[deleted](2)
Let me guess, do you smoke tobacco? If so, have you tried to quit?
It is very untrue that only a minority of people have the right mix of personality, circumstances and chemistry to become addicts. There are indeed drugs which are not particularly addicting for most of us (eg marijuana, LSD). There are other drugs which most people who try them will not do them enough to get addicted (eg heroin and alcohol - though alcohol is one of the few where withdrawal symptoms can kill addicts). And then there are drugs which really do wind up causing addiction in a large portion of people who use them (eg tobacco, caffeine, crack).
Furthermore even if the odds of getting messed up by drugs is small, the potential consequences are not. For instance if I look at relatives I find one who died from lung cancer caused by smoking, another whose brain is still scrambled many years after quitting meth, another who has a constant battle to avoid becoming a crack-head, and yet another who is permanently messed up from fetal alcohol syndrome. Note, I'm not going to friends here - just looking at siblings, nieces, and nephews, including those by marriage. (Yes, I do come from a large family...)
I personally use mind-altering substances responsibly and in moderation. But given how wrong it can go, I would NEVER push someone to use them who was not comfortable. And I would NEVER pooh pooh the risks.
It is very untrue that only a minority of people have the right mix of personality, circumstances and chemistry to become addicts. There are indeed drugs which are not particularly addicting for most of us (eg marijuana, LSD). There are other drugs which most people who try them will not do them enough to get addicted (eg heroin and alcohol - though alcohol is one of the few where withdrawal symptoms can kill addicts). And then there are drugs which really do wind up causing addiction in a large portion of people who use them (eg tobacco, caffeine, crack).
Furthermore even if the odds of getting messed up by drugs is small, the potential consequences are not. For instance if I look at relatives I find one who died from lung cancer caused by smoking, another whose brain is still scrambled many years after quitting meth, another who has a constant battle to avoid becoming a crack-head, and yet another who is permanently messed up from fetal alcohol syndrome. Note, I'm not going to friends here - just looking at siblings, nieces, and nephews, including those by marriage. (Yes, I do come from a large family...)
I personally use mind-altering substances responsibly and in moderation. But given how wrong it can go, I would NEVER push someone to use them who was not comfortable. And I would NEVER pooh pooh the risks.
Every single person I know that does drugs performs at or less than their potential. I've never done anything except for caffeine and alcohol, but this perspective you write about is overrated when it comes at the cost of performance, work ethic, and the possible risk of life altering addiction. It should, of course, be legal to do so.
Part of the reason why people want others to use the same drug is to feel less guilty about their using. That goes for people pressuring others to drink alcohol at parties, in high school to try cigarettes, in college to try marijuana, and other substances. The fact that there is a person in a group who is consciously not using the drug brings the idea to mind that using that particular drug might not be the best long term investment. Note that this does not apply to friendly advice given once (which I have no problem with), but it certainly applies to repeated social pressure or emotional blackmail. Even the grandparent borders on that territory: if you don't use drugs you can't be trusted, you have neither an open mind nor a deep perspective, and you're a wimp.
If anybody who is encouraging others to use a drug wants to see the other side of the coin, try ordering a tea or water instead of a beer at a bar, and see how people react. Repeatedly I have been asked what I wanted to drink, answered tea or water, and a couple of minutes later a beer arrives. Don't be so boring, it's here now, drink it! Note that sometimes I do drink alcoholic beverages, so it's not even that they want me to experience something new. I never replace other people's drinks by tea, heck I've gladly helped people buy marijuana (legally).
P.S. my kid brother is addicted to cigarettes and it's certainly not because one day somebody suggested it to him as friendly advice and he thought "Wow, you're right, smoking cigarettes would be so beneficial for me".
If anybody who is encouraging others to use a drug wants to see the other side of the coin, try ordering a tea or water instead of a beer at a bar, and see how people react. Repeatedly I have been asked what I wanted to drink, answered tea or water, and a couple of minutes later a beer arrives. Don't be so boring, it's here now, drink it! Note that sometimes I do drink alcoholic beverages, so it's not even that they want me to experience something new. I never replace other people's drinks by tea, heck I've gladly helped people buy marijuana (legally).
P.S. my kid brother is addicted to cigarettes and it's certainly not because one day somebody suggested it to him as friendly advice and he thought "Wow, you're right, smoking cigarettes would be so beneficial for me".
> Part of the reason why people want others to use the same drug is to feel less guilty about their using.
I think that about sums it up.
I think that about sums it up.
To be fair, the stigma attached to people who use these drugs is, I think, wrong. I call it "wrong" because I think the negative associations with "doing drugs" contribute to the rate of bad experiences and, given that people are going to use drugs, I'd rather they not have bad trips.
I think it's unwise but not immoral. And a person who has taken a drug and is having a difficult experience shouldn't be thinking thoughts like, "this is wrong and I knew it is wrong and that's why I'm suffering" because that will enhance the bad-trip/panic-attack element but, instead, "I made a decision and now I'm having this experience and the only thing I can do is learn from it".
I like the Eastern approach to morality better than the Abrahamic one. Negative actions aren't "immoral" and don't make you a "dirty" person; they're unskillful and, given that we've been in samsara for a long time, we've all done a lot of extremely unskillful things.
I think it's unwise but not immoral. And a person who has taken a drug and is having a difficult experience shouldn't be thinking thoughts like, "this is wrong and I knew it is wrong and that's why I'm suffering" because that will enhance the bad-trip/panic-attack element but, instead, "I made a decision and now I'm having this experience and the only thing I can do is learn from it".
I like the Eastern approach to morality better than the Abrahamic one. Negative actions aren't "immoral" and don't make you a "dirty" person; they're unskillful and, given that we've been in samsara for a long time, we've all done a lot of extremely unskillful things.
For me it is really simple: other people get to use their bodies as they see fit and I get to use mine the same way. I don't judge my friends that drink, smoke or do drugs. If that is what they think is the best way for them to live then that is their freedom.
Exactly.
I think you're right on about sugar. The amount of it that people are consuming is ridiculous. Obesity in the U.S. is a real problem. I've seen people ruin their lives with soda. One person I know is at least 300 pounds (135 kg) and most of it is from soda. He drinks, on average, 4 20-oz (590mL) bottles per day. That's 960 empty calories, or a pound of fat every 4 days (!).
Also, I know a couple people who are now dealing with the end stages of diabetes. Really ugly stuff.
I think you're right on about sugar. The amount of it that people are consuming is ridiculous. Obesity in the U.S. is a real problem. I've seen people ruin their lives with soda. One person I know is at least 300 pounds (135 kg) and most of it is from soda. He drinks, on average, 4 20-oz (590mL) bottles per day. That's 960 empty calories, or a pound of fat every 4 days (!).
Also, I know a couple people who are now dealing with the end stages of diabetes. Really ugly stuff.
Well it seems to me that when you said:
"> Part of the reason why people want others to use the same drug is to feel less guilty about their using.
I think that about sums it up."
that is an extremely negative judgement.
So you think that anyone who recommends a drug to you is doing do for the selfish reason that this makes them feel "less guilty" about something they actually consider wrong?
Bizarre. Judgmental. And very wrong.
"> Part of the reason why people want others to use the same drug is to feel less guilty about their using.
I think that about sums it up."
that is an extremely negative judgement.
So you think that anyone who recommends a drug to you is doing do for the selfish reason that this makes them feel "less guilty" about something they actually consider wrong?
Bizarre. Judgmental. And very wrong.
I've used psilocybin twice and both times it busted me out of a long-lasting and difficult bout of depression. I should use psilocybin more often to maintain a healthy and happy outlook on life (or maybe just quit the startup world and do something more sane).
You might not know which people you know use drugs. Unfortunately, due to the illegality of many useful and helpful drugs, more harmful ones have become popular. Not all drugs are created equal.
You might not know which people you know use drugs. Unfortunately, due to the illegality of many useful and helpful drugs, more harmful ones have become popular. Not all drugs are created equal.
That's pretty disingenuous. 23 million Americans have used drugs/alcohol to the point of needing treatment: http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2011/09/08/study-22-million-am...
That's 7% of the population, including children under 12. Take the pre-peer-pressure group out and it starts to look more like Russian Roulette. I'd hardly call that a risk worth taking.
From your link, that was the number that the study authors estimated needed treatment. However only about 11% actually got treatment, and the #1 cause of not getting treatment is that they did not think they needed it.
There undoubtably was a lot of denial involved. But without knowing more about the biases of the authors, there is a real possibility that they are being overly quick to assume that people need treatment when someone else may conclude that they do not.
There undoubtably was a lot of denial involved. But without knowing more about the biases of the authors, there is a real possibility that they are being overly quick to assume that people need treatment when someone else may conclude that they do not.
[deleted]
If I were your friend, I would say, quite honestly, that I cannot, almost as a rule, trust anybody who has not tried a variety of mind altering substances. The insight that they provide is, in my opinion, essential to developing an open mind and a deeper perspective on life. Moreover I would be wary of anybody so, to me, risk averse.
Disagree strongly. I won't discuss personal experiences (real name) and my own usage history is actually quite moderate and I haven't used any (including alcohol beyond one drink) in 4 years, but I've known some heavy users, studied a bit of psychopharmacology, and probably know more about these drugs than you do.
It's true that most people who use psychedelics have positive experiences. These drugs probably shouldn't be illegal (even though I think it is extremely unwise, for most people, to use them). Some of them are probably safer than alcohol.
Still, I think you exaggerate the insight you get out of drug use. You had that creative and spiritual potential inside of you. It's just that most adults are too uptight to unlock it without a chemical crutch, but it's there and people have been experiencing it for centuries without using psychoactive substances.
People who start using drugs regularly start attributing everything that is interesting, creative, or spiritual in their life to the substances they ingest, the "plant teachers". I'm not talking about addiction because the most interesting drugs are generally non-addictive psychedelics, so much as a kind of subtle reliance that creeps up on a person. It can be very destructive in the long term, and yes, I've seen people destroy their minds with psychedelic overuse.
It's important to separate artifacts (visuals, strange thoughts, perceptions of paranormal ability) from the real stuff-- insight, clarity, spiritual experience. Drugs provide a lot of artifacts and some insight. Meditation provides almost no artifacts but more insight. At my age (29) I'm pretty solidly convinced that artifacts are not desirable. Some are beautiful, some are terrifying, but all involve divorce from reality. What we should be doing is diving into reality and figuring out ways to improve it (mostly through mundane processes like being better people, learning, and treating each other better). Karma's real, and the better your actions are, the better your experiences will be.
Psychedelics seem to be karmic accelerators. They seem to speed up time 100-1000x in that regard: months or years of psychological change, growth or decay, and karmic fruition in a few hours. That might seem like a good thing, but it's often dangerous. You might be "3 months away" from a psychological crisis that, if you actually had that much time to address and resolve the issue, you could weather.
I'm not saying no one should use drugs-- indigenous Americans who use low doses of psychedelics for spiritual purposes seem to have no problem-- but if you do it, you're on the bleeding edge of something that no one understands very well, and in a very demanding (if you're a typical drone, you should never go on a trip on a normal weekend; you need at least 2 office-free days on each end) and intolerant society like ours, it can lead to some really bad outcomes. Worse than the drugs themselves is the way society reacts to them and the changes in people who use them. I've seen people lose jobs because of otherwise manageable HPPD and spiral out of control from there.
Finally, drugs are unnecessary. You can have interesting experiences without them. Most of what makes a good shrooms trip great is spending 6 hours in nature in a somewhat meditative state. How many adults go out into park and sit and think for 6 hours? Almost none, and if they had the mindfulness skill to do this, we'd have a better world. If you learn how to meditate (I don't want to trivialize this because spiritual growth is a lifelong effort, but you can become basically capable pretty quick) you can have experiences of similar quality-- if it's important to you and you make the time. No, you won't get many artifacts through meditation, but I've seen enough people go actually insane not to want artifacts.
Disagree strongly. I won't discuss personal experiences (real name) and my own usage history is actually quite moderate and I haven't used any (including alcohol beyond one drink) in 4 years, but I've known some heavy users, studied a bit of psychopharmacology, and probably know more about these drugs than you do.
It's true that most people who use psychedelics have positive experiences. These drugs probably shouldn't be illegal (even though I think it is extremely unwise, for most people, to use them). Some of them are probably safer than alcohol.
Still, I think you exaggerate the insight you get out of drug use. You had that creative and spiritual potential inside of you. It's just that most adults are too uptight to unlock it without a chemical crutch, but it's there and people have been experiencing it for centuries without using psychoactive substances.
People who start using drugs regularly start attributing everything that is interesting, creative, or spiritual in their life to the substances they ingest, the "plant teachers". I'm not talking about addiction because the most interesting drugs are generally non-addictive psychedelics, so much as a kind of subtle reliance that creeps up on a person. It can be very destructive in the long term, and yes, I've seen people destroy their minds with psychedelic overuse.
It's important to separate artifacts (visuals, strange thoughts, perceptions of paranormal ability) from the real stuff-- insight, clarity, spiritual experience. Drugs provide a lot of artifacts and some insight. Meditation provides almost no artifacts but more insight. At my age (29) I'm pretty solidly convinced that artifacts are not desirable. Some are beautiful, some are terrifying, but all involve divorce from reality. What we should be doing is diving into reality and figuring out ways to improve it (mostly through mundane processes like being better people, learning, and treating each other better). Karma's real, and the better your actions are, the better your experiences will be.
Psychedelics seem to be karmic accelerators. They seem to speed up time 100-1000x in that regard: months or years of psychological change, growth or decay, and karmic fruition in a few hours. That might seem like a good thing, but it's often dangerous. You might be "3 months away" from a psychological crisis that, if you actually had that much time to address and resolve the issue, you could weather.
I'm not saying no one should use drugs-- indigenous Americans who use low doses of psychedelics for spiritual purposes seem to have no problem-- but if you do it, you're on the bleeding edge of something that no one understands very well, and in a very demanding (if you're a typical drone, you should never go on a trip on a normal weekend; you need at least 2 office-free days on each end) and intolerant society like ours, it can lead to some really bad outcomes. Worse than the drugs themselves is the way society reacts to them and the changes in people who use them. I've seen people lose jobs because of otherwise manageable HPPD and spiral out of control from there.
Finally, drugs are unnecessary. You can have interesting experiences without them. Most of what makes a good shrooms trip great is spending 6 hours in nature in a somewhat meditative state. How many adults go out into park and sit and think for 6 hours? Almost none, and if they had the mindfulness skill to do this, we'd have a better world. If you learn how to meditate (I don't want to trivialize this because spiritual growth is a lifelong effort, but you can become basically capable pretty quick) you can have experiences of similar quality-- if it's important to you and you make the time. No, you won't get many artifacts through meditation, but I've seen enough people go actually insane not to want artifacts.
Thank you for this wonderful comment. It really encapsulates my thoughts on the matter but I have been unable to express it so elegantly - even to myself.
Drugs truly are unnecessary. People do themselves a great disservice to believe that through drugs they gain valuable, worthy insight. It's there! You, who took that drug, had that insight inside you. Drugs are not a key to some hidden wealth of wisdom and knowledge.
(I occasionally drink and smoke marijuana, so I am by no means antagonizing against those who do.)
Drugs truly are unnecessary. People do themselves a great disservice to believe that through drugs they gain valuable, worthy insight. It's there! You, who took that drug, had that insight inside you. Drugs are not a key to some hidden wealth of wisdom and knowledge.
(I occasionally drink and smoke marijuana, so I am by no means antagonizing against those who do.)
[deleted]
Why should I try recreational drugs? I see very little benefit and a noticeable risk.
Conversely, I fly airplanes for fun and have a wonderful time doing it. Should I look down on people who have never tried that, the way you stupidly look down on people who don't agree with you on drugs?
Conversely, I fly airplanes for fun and have a wonderful time doing it. Should I look down on people who have never tried that, the way you stupidly look down on people who don't agree with you on drugs?
Don't you find that in some way, you _do_ "look down" on those who don't at least try flying recreationally?
I know many of the sub-cultures I'm involved in do exactly that. Motorcycle riders. Musicians. DJs. Burners. HackerSpace members. Artists. All of those circles of friends of mine have some level of scorn/pity for people not participating in their specific thing.
You _shouldn't_ take drugs if it doesn't interest you to do so. Anyone who tries to pressure you into going so should be avoided. Just the same as you'd consider someone trying to pressure people into flying, as opposed to offering an opportunity and backing off if there's no interest shown - would be being a jerk.
I know many of the sub-cultures I'm involved in do exactly that. Motorcycle riders. Musicians. DJs. Burners. HackerSpace members. Artists. All of those circles of friends of mine have some level of scorn/pity for people not participating in their specific thing.
You _shouldn't_ take drugs if it doesn't interest you to do so. Anyone who tries to pressure you into going so should be avoided. Just the same as you'd consider someone trying to pressure people into flying, as opposed to offering an opportunity and backing off if there's no interest shown - would be being a jerk.
There's a huge gulf between the sort of mild sense of superiority a lot of hobbies confer on those who partake, and saying that you couldn't trust anybody who hasn't tried your hobby.
Personal anecdote: I just started a ~30-50g carb a day diet 15 days ago. I had maybe 2 days of withdrawal from all the sugar/carbs I used to consume, but afterwards had way more energy than I ever did in recent memory. (Assuming you eat the right amount of fat/protein.) After 2 weeks I've also lost 10 lbs (4.53 kg). I recommend everyone give it a try to see how it changes your daily routine and general sense of health.
I've done that a number of times, and I always feel like I have more energy, lose weight, etc. It's fantastic.
But the problem is, carbs are so damned tasty. I always wind up starting to eat a few french fries, a piece of croissant in the morning, a bit of crusty baguette, a bit of cherry pie, a homemade chocolate-chip cookie, a buttered toasted English muffin, a waffle, kettle potato chips, a hamburger with bun, a slide of brick oven thin-crust pizza...
...and pretty soon you're back to where you were before. I eat a lot less carbs now than I used to, and make sure they always have high fat content so I eat less (lots of olive oil on bread/pizza, cookies with lots of butter, etc.), and also try to make sure they're tasty enough to be worth it.
But it's really hard to say no to so many of the delicious things out there!
But the problem is, carbs are so damned tasty. I always wind up starting to eat a few french fries, a piece of croissant in the morning, a bit of crusty baguette, a bit of cherry pie, a homemade chocolate-chip cookie, a buttered toasted English muffin, a waffle, kettle potato chips, a hamburger with bun, a slide of brick oven thin-crust pizza...
...and pretty soon you're back to where you were before. I eat a lot less carbs now than I used to, and make sure they always have high fat content so I eat less (lots of olive oil on bread/pizza, cookies with lots of butter, etc.), and also try to make sure they're tasty enough to be worth it.
But it's really hard to say no to so many of the delicious things out there!
Dude....carb-cycling! Seriously, this is the way to go. This one variant of the carb-cycling I used to cut down for various reason (mentioned earlier in the post).
What I do: 6.5 days of VLC (Very Low Carb) of just protein+fat+green veggies (my typical meal is eggs, bacon and broccoli), less than 30g. On the 7th day, I go carb nuts at night, 2-3 hrs before bed. I don't limit carbs in this to low-GI, either, I eat what I want. I just make sure to get quality protein and keep it low fat as well.
As an added bonus, on the 7th day, just before I go carb nuts, I hit the gym and really, really blast whatever body part I want to see grow. The carbs I consume later are going to spike my insulin so if I make sure my body is primed to actually use the insulin spike, I can actually grow a bit of muscle. BONUS!
What I do: 6.5 days of VLC (Very Low Carb) of just protein+fat+green veggies (my typical meal is eggs, bacon and broccoli), less than 30g. On the 7th day, I go carb nuts at night, 2-3 hrs before bed. I don't limit carbs in this to low-GI, either, I eat what I want. I just make sure to get quality protein and keep it low fat as well.
As an added bonus, on the 7th day, just before I go carb nuts, I hit the gym and really, really blast whatever body part I want to see grow. The carbs I consume later are going to spike my insulin so if I make sure my body is primed to actually use the insulin spike, I can actually grow a bit of muscle. BONUS!
Where do you get your energy from then? Are you just eating masses of fat and protein?
That's usually the case. Colloquially known as the paleo diet.
The same as our ancestors did for tens of thousands of years. Remember, dense carbohydrates like wheat and carb-rich potatoes are a very recent phenomenon in human history.
The same as our ancestors did for tens of thousands of years. Remember, dense carbohydrates like wheat and carb-rich potatoes are a very recent phenomenon in human history.
Anatomical modernity of humans is about 200,000 years, flour processing is around 30,000 years. Sorry, I fail to see that as being recent.
I'm curious, where are you getting 30,000 years from?
From what I know, any kind of significant flour processing arose together with the agricultural revolution, which produces large quantities of wheat for the first time. The agricultural revolution started around 12,000 years ago (but then still had to spread), and Wikipedia mentions:
"It was discovered around 6000 BC that wheat seeds could be crushed between simple millstones to make flour."
In widespread evolutionary terms, we've only been generally been eating flour for a few thousand years.
Homo sapiens has been around for 200k years, but that is just the tip of the iceberg of the much longer evolutionary process that led to us. We and our ancestors have been eating meats, fats, fruits and vegetables for millions of years.
So our high-carbohydrate flour-eating diet is certainly a sudden and recent disruption of our diet, and it is reasonable to expect that there's no way that, in just 100-200 human generations, the gene makeup of homo sapiens could so quickly adapt in a healthy way to such a drastically different diet.
From what I know, any kind of significant flour processing arose together with the agricultural revolution, which produces large quantities of wheat for the first time. The agricultural revolution started around 12,000 years ago (but then still had to spread), and Wikipedia mentions:
"It was discovered around 6000 BC that wheat seeds could be crushed between simple millstones to make flour."
In widespread evolutionary terms, we've only been generally been eating flour for a few thousand years.
Homo sapiens has been around for 200k years, but that is just the tip of the iceberg of the much longer evolutionary process that led to us. We and our ancestors have been eating meats, fats, fruits and vegetables for millions of years.
So our high-carbohydrate flour-eating diet is certainly a sudden and recent disruption of our diet, and it is reasonable to expect that there's no way that, in just 100-200 human generations, the gene makeup of homo sapiens could so quickly adapt in a healthy way to such a drastically different diet.
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/10/08/1006993107.abst...
But in widespread use probably quite a bit less.
But in widespread use probably quite a bit less.
Yes, e.g. breakfast: 3 fried eggs, 2 links of sausage (or bacon) plus a load of vegetables. Snacks are things like a small handful of nuts, berries, avocado, 4% one-serving packs of cottage cheese, etc. Lots of steaks, chicken, turkey and lots of vegetables. To me, it's a great diet because you eat a lot of great tasting food!
I can see it now; Soft drink cans with sugar will start having to do pictures akin to the smoking ones. First there will be the small label warning, then the larger ones, then the full blown pictures of somebody out of a horror movie type extreme. Heck even a picture of dirty British teeth (I'm a Brit so I'm allowed that one pandering to cliché). It will happen eventually.
But that is only if people start using it irresponsibly, like anything, be it water, any vitamin, in excess will not work out great for you. It is when it starts having a noticeable effect upon many that laws and acts change. That is one drive of change, but probably the first sign will be insurance forms asking how many sugars you have in your coffee and how many per week/day.
But as long as I don't have to hovel outside a fire door in the poring rain to get my sugar fix then I'm not too worried about my addiction, worry causes more ill health than the excess sugar I consume and in that I raise my cup (though I did use brown sugar and I'm talking the supermarket version).
But that is only if people start using it irresponsibly, like anything, be it water, any vitamin, in excess will not work out great for you. It is when it starts having a noticeable effect upon many that laws and acts change. That is one drive of change, but probably the first sign will be insurance forms asking how many sugars you have in your coffee and how many per week/day.
But as long as I don't have to hovel outside a fire door in the poring rain to get my sugar fix then I'm not too worried about my addiction, worry causes more ill health than the excess sugar I consume and in that I raise my cup (though I did use brown sugar and I'm talking the supermarket version).
Might I recommend spellcheck
That I can do, involves copy and pasting but it has been done, I better appologise for my grammer now, though feedback well receieved and thank you for that.
Grammer? Appologise? receieved?
Maybe you can set your browser to use English as the default language, then words that are spelled wrong will show up with a red underline.
Maybe you can set your browser to use English as the default language, then words that are spelled wrong will show up with a red underline.
I'm kind of surprised to see this one on HN, it definitely wasn't the intention, there is no link to hacking here as far as I can see.
That said, now that it is there it is a great source of feedback, for all those that have made constructive suggestions in this thread and in the comments on the blog post, thank you very much, and I will certainly take some of those suggestions to heart and implement them.
That said, now that it is there it is a great source of feedback, for all those that have made constructive suggestions in this thread and in the comments on the blog post, thank you very much, and I will certainly take some of those suggestions to heart and implement them.
I skimmed the comments and did not see this obvious suggestion: you are not really drinking tea, you are drinking tea-coke. Just start drinking the real stuff, a few leaves of green Chinese tea in hot water. I usually go for longjing tea. It is a tad sour with chocolate fragrance. No one would ever add sugar in this dope.
You can try chinese tea. It tastes horrible with sugar.
It also sounds like you're addicted to caffeine. You're probably addicted to Gluten as well.
The paleo/primal food lifestyle would probably interest you greatly.
(notably, sugar is my most major vice - I kicked gluten, caffeine, alcohol, and many other substances a long time ago. I still consume wheat here and there, but sugar (particularly in juice) is the worst.
The paleo/primal food lifestyle would probably interest you greatly.
(notably, sugar is my most major vice - I kicked gluten, caffeine, alcohol, and many other substances a long time ago. I still consume wheat here and there, but sugar (particularly in juice) is the worst.
You're not alone: sugar is the only thing I'm really addicted to, other than maybe the Internet.
The only thing that has worked for me is going completely cold turkey for my two big sugar vices: candy and soda. I haven't had candy in about a year, and I haven't touched soda in three or four years. It gets easier...I don't really crave either of those things ever anymore. I still eat things that have sugar, but I don't really go overboard with anything other than candy and soda, so it's not a problem.
Quit cold turkey; some of us can't handle moderation for some things.
The only thing that has worked for me is going completely cold turkey for my two big sugar vices: candy and soda. I haven't had candy in about a year, and I haven't touched soda in three or four years. It gets easier...I don't really crave either of those things ever anymore. I still eat things that have sugar, but I don't really go overboard with anything other than candy and soda, so it's not a problem.
Quit cold turkey; some of us can't handle moderation for some things.
"Extra frustrating because I know just how bad taking in these quantities of sugar is."
Well, the same thing can be said about anything. Drink water in excess and it can and will kill you (the dose makes the poison). These pieces are frustrating because they take something (fats, sugars, carbs, etc.) that is perfectly healthy in moderation and within a balanced diet and position it as a vice when in fact the vice is the person's over-indulgence. A better title would have been: "Something that I consume too much of will kill me one day".
Well, the same thing can be said about anything. Drink water in excess and it can and will kill you (the dose makes the poison). These pieces are frustrating because they take something (fats, sugars, carbs, etc.) that is perfectly healthy in moderation and within a balanced diet and position it as a vice when in fact the vice is the person's over-indulgence. A better title would have been: "Something that I consume too much of will kill me one day".
"I drink tea, lots of it, several liters per day...If I don’t drink my tea my head feels like mush."
Sugar may be a red herring here. That sounds like a massive caffeine dependency.
Sugar may be a red herring here. That sounds like a massive caffeine dependency.
Yeah... several liters a day?? That's absolutely insane. That is not healthy at all.
AFAIK, there's only been one recorded death from lethal tea poisoning. I think it was something like 14 liters a day.
200 cups a day can be lethal, but the water poisoning will probably get you first.
The real dangers are alcohol + caffeine (the caffeine stops you getting tired, so you can drink more), or caffeine powder (one spoon can kill you).
Several liters probably isn't healthy though.
200 cups a day can be lethal, but the water poisoning will probably get you first.
The real dangers are alcohol + caffeine (the caffeine stops you getting tired, so you can drink more), or caffeine powder (one spoon can kill you).
Several liters probably isn't healthy though.
The headline is pure hyperbole. He thinks he has a problem because he gets a fuzzy head when he doesn't drink his tea. That's caffeine withdrawal.
I ruled out caffeine addiction already, it's the sugar.
I would really encourage you to revisit that assumption. I'm sorry to challenge you on this, but unless the tea you drink has very low levels of caffeine, you are ingesting quite a bit of the drug each day, levels that would cause dependency and addiction. The fuzzy head thing is a typical description of caffeine withdrawal.
Why do you think otherwise?
Why do you think otherwise?
There are many kinds of tea, some with more, some with less caffeine. For a lark I finally tried the lightest in caffeine tea that there is: hot water. And as long as the sugar was there the same kick was present. As far as the science of it is concerned, I have no clue what the exact pathways are but the effect is tangible enough that I think I can rule out psychosomatic effects as well, though it is always hard to be 100% sure of this.
Best of luck to you regardless. My opinion would be hard to change on this issue without really exploring the details your caffeine consumption and the particulars of how you became convinced that that's not what it is. I don't want to badger you about it. Maybe just file this thought away somewhere. Caffeine is a drug, and you may be ingesting large quantities of it daily. That will affect you.
I'm reading this article while drinking bottle of Red Bull and eating chocolate. Through the first paragraph I'm telling to myself "he is going to talk about sugar, he is going to talk about sugar".
Then it comes. He says "Sugar" and I scream "Fuck!!!"
Then it comes. He says "Sugar" and I scream "Fuck!!!"
You didn't get that from the title? You must be new here ;)
I too was pretty much addicted to sugar. Mostly dessert-like foods and soda. There are a few things that will help reduce the sugar cravings:
- Eat a little more protein. No need to go crazy, but just have more protein.
- Eat more fiber. Very few people eat enough fiber. Eat more fruits and vegetables. Fruits are a great way to get some sugar, but the fructose in fruit is absorbed more slowly than a cookie.
- Have some cinnamon. I sprinkle a little cinnamon on everything. Occasionally I'll even take a cinnamon tablet. Supposedly helps with cravings.
- Drink more water. When I pretty much stopped having sugar I was having 3-4 liters (roughly a gallon) of water a day.
- Eat good fats. Nuts, peanut butter, almond butter, avocados, etc. Helps with cravings too.
- And of course exercise. There are too many good things exercise does for you.
I have pretty much stopped having sugar (other than in social situations i.e. given a piece of birthday cake). I drink my coffee black, no sugar in my tea, and don't drink any more soda.
- Eat a little more protein. No need to go crazy, but just have more protein.
- Eat more fiber. Very few people eat enough fiber. Eat more fruits and vegetables. Fruits are a great way to get some sugar, but the fructose in fruit is absorbed more slowly than a cookie.
- Have some cinnamon. I sprinkle a little cinnamon on everything. Occasionally I'll even take a cinnamon tablet. Supposedly helps with cravings.
- Drink more water. When I pretty much stopped having sugar I was having 3-4 liters (roughly a gallon) of water a day.
- Eat good fats. Nuts, peanut butter, almond butter, avocados, etc. Helps with cravings too.
- And of course exercise. There are too many good things exercise does for you.
I have pretty much stopped having sugar (other than in social situations i.e. given a piece of birthday cake). I drink my coffee black, no sugar in my tea, and don't drink any more soda.
It sure sounds like he's addicted to caffeine, and just happens to put sugar in his tea.
First I thought that, too, but he mentions explicitly that tea alone doesn't work for him. So I tend to agree with what someone else on this thread said, that he might need to simply up his intake of nutrients in his diet. Especially protein and fat which produce more stable energy levels.
Unless he's drinking decaf, several liters of iced tea intake a day would almost certainly indicate addiction and dependency.
Replace 'tea' in this article with cocaine. The cocaine alone doesn't do it for him, he requires there to be some sugar in it. And then blaming the sugar withdrawal for his fuzzy head.
That's basically what's happening here. Except that people tend to ignore that caffeine is a drug that can have some pretty pronounced effects when used a lot and over a long time.
Replace 'tea' in this article with cocaine. The cocaine alone doesn't do it for him, he requires there to be some sugar in it. And then blaming the sugar withdrawal for his fuzzy head.
That's basically what's happening here. Except that people tend to ignore that caffeine is a drug that can have some pretty pronounced effects when used a lot and over a long time.
I agree - I have a much more difficult time getting relaxed when I have had too much black/green tea or coffee. I do use honey, so I cannot attest to what the effects would be without.
No, on second thought, I will take that back. When I need to drive for another 4 hours or code for another 3, I will sometimes drink straight black coffee, and as long as I do not eat, I will get quite a rush (and probably grind my teeth quite a bit). And if I do either drink past the afternoon, sleep that night will be sketchy/non-refreshing.
No, on second thought, I will take that back. When I need to drive for another 4 hours or code for another 3, I will sometimes drink straight black coffee, and as long as I do not eat, I will get quite a rush (and probably grind my teeth quite a bit). And if I do either drink past the afternoon, sleep that night will be sketchy/non-refreshing.
> that caffeine is a drug that can have some pretty pronounced effects when used a lot and over a long time.
As an avid coffee-drinker - what are these effects? I've read upon caffeine and I've found no clear evidence for permanent harm or good out of coffee.
As an avid coffee-drinker - what are these effects? I've read upon caffeine and I've found no clear evidence for permanent harm or good out of coffee.
Dependency is the big one relevant to the OP. Withdrawal can impact energy, mood, cognitive function, and cause bad headaches, among other things, I'm sure. Caffeine use can also compromise sleep, raise blood pressure, and increase anxiety. Caffeine intoxication is an acute state and has a range of effects as well, but that's not really what you're asking about.
The wikipedia article actually has a good summary of some of these issues as well as others.
You'll notice that the higher dosages given in that article as being risk factors for things are within the range of 'several liters of iced tea.'
The wikipedia article actually has a good summary of some of these issues as well as others.
You'll notice that the higher dosages given in that article as being risk factors for things are within the range of 'several liters of iced tea.'
This. Far too many people believe fat is bad and don't understand that simple carbs and fat are the most easily converted to energy for the brain.
And yet there are multiple cogent (though possibly/probably specious) comments already about the evils of sugar with not so much as a nod to the caffeine. It's an apt illustration of the pseudo-scientific and faddish stuff that proliferates about diet, fitness, and mental health even on otherwise intelligent forums online.
A computing parallel would be "All this bloatware is killing my machine. It's so bad I have to regularly run [well-known heinous, performance-killing malware] to fix it."
I honestly wouldn't be that surprised to see a follow-up post later where the author reveals that he was checking to see whether this would exactly happen.
It's pretty frustrating to watch.
A computing parallel would be "All this bloatware is killing my machine. It's so bad I have to regularly run [well-known heinous, performance-killing malware] to fix it."
I honestly wouldn't be that surprised to see a follow-up post later where the author reveals that he was checking to see whether this would exactly happen.
It's pretty frustrating to watch.
Something to consider regarding artificial sweeteners: your digestive tract has the same sweet-taste receptors as the taste buds on your tongue. It uses these to decide when to activate sugar metabolizing/storage pathways. Since artificial sweeteners activate the receptors on your tongue, it is reasonable to assume that they also activate the ones in your digestive tract, thus misleading your body about how much sugar it has consumed and causing it to respond inappropriately, probably causing something like a sugar crash as your body releases insulin to combat an influx of sugar that never arrives.
I can only speak for myself, but this is exactly what happens when I consume artificial sweeteners. I get tired, cranky, and hungry about 30 minutes afterwards. I switched from the 'milkshake' style protein drinks after workouts to pure whey isolate and my late night food cravings stopped completely. Too bad the whey isolate tastes, well, awful isn't strong enough of a word.
I can't tell if this article is completely serious or partially tongue-in-cheek. The bit that really stuck out at me:
"If I don’t use sugar ... then I simply get ... very low on energy. ... I’m not sure what the link is here, all I know is that without that chemical in my bloodstream for some reason I can’t get my head in first gear, let alone second or third."
I found it hard to take that seriously, given that your body will put sugar in your bloodstream regardless of what you eat, and without any sugar in your bloodstream you would quickly die.
Of course, the overall point of the article still stands.
"If I don’t use sugar ... then I simply get ... very low on energy. ... I’m not sure what the link is here, all I know is that without that chemical in my bloodstream for some reason I can’t get my head in first gear, let alone second or third."
I found it hard to take that seriously, given that your body will put sugar in your bloodstream regardless of what you eat, and without any sugar in your bloodstream you would quickly die.
Of course, the overall point of the article still stands.
Dunno about any one else, but I suddenly went right off sugar, suddenly it tasted foul.
I have no idea why at all. I used to have 2 teaspoons in coffee, like normal coke, sprinkle it over cereal and fruit, and so on. One day I made my usual coffee and it was just sickly. I chucked it down the sink and made a new one with out sugar and its was fantastic. Same for everything else. Weird, but there it is.
I have no idea why at all. I used to have 2 teaspoons in coffee, like normal coke, sprinkle it over cereal and fruit, and so on. One day I made my usual coffee and it was just sickly. I chucked it down the sink and made a new one with out sugar and its was fantastic. Same for everything else. Weird, but there it is.
Try keeping a glass of water by you and drink that whenever you feel like having a cup of tea. If you can swap even half of your tea intake for water you'll start to feel much better within a few days since the caffeine and sugar is actually dehydrating you.
I can't help but wonder if you had acquired a taste for beer as a teenager whether you would have less of a sweet tooth now...
I can't help but wonder if you had acquired a taste for beer as a teenager whether you would have less of a sweet tooth now...
Abstaining from sugar, tobacco, alcohol, or marijuana seems kind of silly to me. I know that the culture on HN is to try to empower people to be supermen and do extraordinary things. But, when I think of the dedication required to abstain from all these things given the environment I live in, I feel anxiety.
I think anxiety and stress is something that is much more harmful to me than smoking a blunt or drinking a glass of whiskey. I never understood why some people take such a black and white (simple) perspective on this. I guess the only reason I could see is if someone very close to them died from one of these vices, but that is kind of an irrational reaction. I understand it, but wouldn't advocate anyone reacting that way.
In short, I don't really see how soft drugs or unhealthy foods in moderate quantity are really harmful in the grand scheme of things.
I think anxiety and stress is something that is much more harmful to me than smoking a blunt or drinking a glass of whiskey. I never understood why some people take such a black and white (simple) perspective on this. I guess the only reason I could see is if someone very close to them died from one of these vices, but that is kind of an irrational reaction. I understand it, but wouldn't advocate anyone reacting that way.
In short, I don't really see how soft drugs or unhealthy foods in moderate quantity are really harmful in the grand scheme of things.
Your brain consumes a lot of energy, and it feeds off the sugar. I am not sure what studies have been done about intense concentration and conscious brain activity involved in coding and so forth, but I can see why your brain has developed a habit of relying on sugar.
Sugar is actually more addictive than many other drugs. Rats often preferred it to cocaine and got addicted to it just like a drug.
http://sarvahealthandwellness.com/?p=402 http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2008/12/12/22428/
You might try varying the sugar to brown sugar or honey. Or eat fruits such as grapes which are a source of glucose! Also, apples have been known to wake you up in the morning better than coffee.
Sugar is actually more addictive than many other drugs. Rats often preferred it to cocaine and got addicted to it just like a drug.
http://sarvahealthandwellness.com/?p=402 http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2008/12/12/22428/
You might try varying the sugar to brown sugar or honey. Or eat fruits such as grapes which are a source of glucose! Also, apples have been known to wake you up in the morning better than coffee.
I have never taken narcotics. I have no interest in alcohol or tobacco. These days, the thought of sex is revolting. Peer pressure means little to me: I avoid people as much as possible, which helps. If I didn't, I might have to listen to self-serving, fatuous nonsense about how I ought to have an open mind about taking drugs or drinking, or at least take the trouble to examine every controlled substance on a case-by-case basis, despite a lack of interest and time. My justification for not doing so: I am rational, according to a cost-benefit analysis I haven't done. (Which is to say, I don't need a reason.)
That said, I've tried to reduce my sugar intake--no sugar in coffee, etc, but this has been difficult.
That said, I've tried to reduce my sugar intake--no sugar in coffee, etc, but this has been difficult.
Why do you think it is "self-serving" to suggest that you ought to have an open mind? If you don't want to take the trouble to investigate subjects which are of no interest to you, and for which you are just too darn busy, that is just fine, you don't need a reason.
You might choose to live your life in a cardboard box, after all, as long as you're happy there. Plenty of people will think you are missing out on life, though. But since you avoid people, you wouldn't care, I guess. Have a good one...
You might choose to live your life in a cardboard box, after all, as long as you're happy there. Plenty of people will think you are missing out on life, though. But since you avoid people, you wouldn't care, I guess. Have a good one...
Why do you think I wrote that it is self-serving to suggest that I ought to have an open mind per se, when I wrote that it was self-serving to suggest that I ought to have an open mind about taking drugs or drinking? When you figure out what led you to distort my meaning, you should have the answer to your question.
[deleted]
Some people much smarter than myself, like Dr. Robert Lustig at UCSF, believe that sugar is the main cause for "diseases of affluence" like diabetes, heart disease, and cancer. I've been on the Paleo diet, which eschews refined sugar, for over four years. I've lost a lot of weight and feel better than I have felt in many years. I know this is just an n=1 study and doesn't vilify sugar in isolation, but I believe it played a huge role in making me healthier. Sugar is just as bad as those other drugs and maybe more so. Eating it is like shooting yourself, but with a very slow moving bullet. It'll catch up to you at some point.
Rather than dropping the sugar from your tea, try finding some good coffee and drinking it black. That way, you're not getting almost the same experience but without the sugar. You're getting a radically different experience with most of the same chemicals. Not that this is guaranteed to work, by a long shot, but it seems worth a try.
Edited to add: The above assumes it's mostly psychosomatic, which seems quite possible and worth testing but isn't anything like guaranteed. If there is a nutritional component then eating more, smaller meals may help. I assume you're eating breakfast in the first place?
Edited to add: The above assumes it's mostly psychosomatic, which seems quite possible and worth testing but isn't anything like guaranteed. If there is a nutritional component then eating more, smaller meals may help. I assume you're eating breakfast in the first place?
[deleted]
You can buy pure sucralose (the stuff in splenda) online for $10/ounce. It's around 600 times as sweet as sugar, so that's equivalent to paying about 25¢/lb of sugar.
The upsides are that there are no documented negative health effects, it tastes pretty much like sugar, and it has no calories.
The downsides are that it doesn't work like sugar chemically (you can't caramelize it or use it to activate yeast), and that you have to dilute it (I like to just make a very sweet sucralose+water solution to sweeten things with, but you could easily cut it with some other powder like maltodextrin).
The upsides are that there are no documented negative health effects, it tastes pretty much like sugar, and it has no calories.
The downsides are that it doesn't work like sugar chemically (you can't caramelize it or use it to activate yeast), and that you have to dilute it (I like to just make a very sweet sucralose+water solution to sweeten things with, but you could easily cut it with some other powder like maltodextrin).
And what happens after you eat this stuff for 50 years or so?
It has been extensively studied (it's been around for 36 years), and there's no reason to believe anything will happen to you whatsoever. Keep in mind that you only eat one six hundredth as much as you would sugar.
Conversely, imagine if sugar were a newly discovered sweetening compound, seeking FDA approval. They wouldn't get past one safety trial before "serious concerns about long term effects" knocked it out of the running.
Analyzing the relative risks of sugar and sucralose, there is just no case to be made for sugar being the safer bet.
Conversely, imagine if sugar were a newly discovered sweetening compound, seeking FDA approval. They wouldn't get past one safety trial before "serious concerns about long term effects" knocked it out of the running.
Analyzing the relative risks of sugar and sucralose, there is just no case to be made for sugar being the safer bet.
You might be dead. Then again, I expect to be dead in 50 years regardless...
What about your children?
That's pointless speculation, and you can play that game all day until you're arguing that nothing is safe. How can we really be sure, after all, that trace compounds from sea salt aren't causing slight DNA damage that will turn our descendants 150 generations down the line into eight-legged mutants?
The fact is that there is no more reason to believe that sucralose will have some as yet unobserved negative health effect than there is to believe that it will have some as yet unobserved health benefit.
The fact is that there is no more reason to believe that sucralose will have some as yet unobserved negative health effect than there is to believe that it will have some as yet unobserved health benefit.
Same could be said about salt — and salt really seems to be way worse. It is everywhere (but you can avoid it if you cook your own food and take care of what you put in it). It's quite an addiction too, as one can feel food to be tasteless when not using it (because we end up using it in excess everywhere).
I wonder how abundance of almost everything we want (foods, variety, condiments and abuse) will affect our (my) generation when we're old…
I wonder how abundance of almost everything we want (foods, variety, condiments and abuse) will affect our (my) generation when we're old…
Large amounts of sodium are bad for you, of course, but it doesn't fill you with cheap energy and mild euphoria.
Ahhh but if you offset that with cans of diet cola you they will reduce that excess sodium. Salt+soda balanced diets work. Also don't forget a little fat, milk before a meal will also actualy reduce the amount of food you absorb. Whilst were on about eating more then reducing your vitimin D by avoiding sunlight will effect the vitimin C's ability to take on and absorb foods. But a adict can argue anything, even a salt, sugar caffine, never going out addict :-).
Rule of thumb everything is bad for you, some take larger amounts than others so in that everything in moderation works best.
Also worth noting that if you work in a very hot enviroment were you sweat alot then as well as water salt tablets are required, signs of low sodium are headaches, aches, and flu like sympton feeling and generaly feeling shit, too much salt may be bad for you in general in the longterm but not enough can be more detremental.
Rule of thumb everything is bad for you, some take larger amounts than others so in that everything in moderation works best.
Also worth noting that if you work in a very hot enviroment were you sweat alot then as well as water salt tablets are required, signs of low sodium are headaches, aches, and flu like sympton feeling and generaly feeling shit, too much salt may be bad for you in general in the longterm but not enough can be more detremental.
[deleted]
> salt really seems to be way worse
Citation? From what I understand, salt can be harmful for people who already have high blood pressure, but there isn't any real proof that salt is harmful for people with normal blood pressure.
Evidence seems to be strongly accumulating that sugar/carbs are very unhealthy. For salt (in people with normal blood pressure), there isn't actually convincing evidence, from what I'm aware. And there are real risks associated with eating too little salt.
Citation? From what I understand, salt can be harmful for people who already have high blood pressure, but there isn't any real proof that salt is harmful for people with normal blood pressure.
Evidence seems to be strongly accumulating that sugar/carbs are very unhealthy. For salt (in people with normal blood pressure), there isn't actually convincing evidence, from what I'm aware. And there are real risks associated with eating too little salt.
>And there are real risks associated with eating too little salt.
Salt intake is a necessity for life.
Salt intake is a necessity for life.
Why is this on the front page?
I actually like these health articles appearing on HN - I understand it's not on-topic, but the majority of people here sit on computers all day so the occasional tip is useful.
I guess you could argue being healthier makes you a better entrepreneur/engineer/etc?
I guess you could argue being healthier makes you a better entrepreneur/engineer/etc?
Because jacquesm is a well-known HN user.
Quitting sugar is hard without a diet replacing it that satiates your appetite on a daily basis. I highly recommend Why We Get Fat: And What to Do About It. Basically, an Atkins diet. That means eat as much as you want, but low carbs, high protein, high fat (including sat. fats, but no tranfats, etc.), high vegetable diet (and few fruits too, fruits are sugar.)
But fruit has fibre, which counteracts the sugar in them, so eating fruit is ok.
But fruit juice is a different matter as the pulp has been removed.
But fruit juice is a different matter as the pulp has been removed.
Yeah, I'm kind of amazed by people who won't drink a Coke because it's unhealthy, but have no problem downing a 20 oz orange juice.
The sugar in it may be natural, but it's still a mind-blowing amount of it.
The sugar in it may be natural, but it's still a mind-blowing amount of it.
If you're in the US Coke has corn syrup rather than sugar.
I found Stickk and chains.cc aren't bad for kicking habits. I'm currently trying to quit sugar. If I don't, I give $200 to a disliked politician.
It's depending on me not lying, but making that committment has already made it a lot easier.
17 days in so far, and hasn't been hard, after total failure before.
It's depending on me not lying, but making that committment has already made it a lot easier.
17 days in so far, and hasn't been hard, after total failure before.
Ooh, do you know about Beeminder? Cold turkey is probably fine for sugar but if you want to gradually wean yourself, or if you want to build in some flexibility like averaging at most 2 days of the week where you eat sugar (without pre-specifying which days those would be) then Beeminder's more quantitative approach should work better. Good luck either way!
Danny (of Beeminder)
Danny (of Beeminder)
Try drinking tea without sugar? Better to wean off the caffeine, though.
Use honey or brown sugar. Quit drinking sodas and other crap you don't know how much sugar was poured into. Problem solved.
Quitting carbohydrates altogether is a stupid idea. Don't do it.
Quitting carbohydrates altogether is a stupid idea. Don't do it.
Brown sugar is no better for you than white sugar. http://www.seattlepi.com/lifestyle/health/article/Reality-Ch... Xylitol is my preferred sugar substitute. It's lower in calories, and it has a much lower glycemic index. It also helps prevent cavities.
Well, in Brazil you can buy real brown sugar (raw sugar). I don't known the crap they sell elsewhere under this name. You can even buy it in blocks here (google "rapadura").
The problem isn't in the calories, which is equivalent per gram with refined sugar, but the fact refined lacks many nutrients. The article you mention is full of crap and doesn't link to any studies, but I can tell you raw sugar has ~5mg per 100g of Iron alone. Refined sugar has absolutely zero. In a 2000kcal diety, you're consuming 50g of sugar daily. You're getting along 1/4 of daily Iron intake if raw sugar is used, for free. I'm not even going to mention Magnesium, which 70% of the world's population is deficient on. I wouldn't say the benefits are negligible.
About Xylitol... what's the point in using an artificial sweetener that lacks any nutrients just because is has lower calories? Just cut caloric crap from the diet. The only benefit is for diabetics.
The problem isn't in the calories, which is equivalent per gram with refined sugar, but the fact refined lacks many nutrients. The article you mention is full of crap and doesn't link to any studies, but I can tell you raw sugar has ~5mg per 100g of Iron alone. Refined sugar has absolutely zero. In a 2000kcal diety, you're consuming 50g of sugar daily. You're getting along 1/4 of daily Iron intake if raw sugar is used, for free. I'm not even going to mention Magnesium, which 70% of the world's population is deficient on. I wouldn't say the benefits are negligible.
About Xylitol... what's the point in using an artificial sweetener that lacks any nutrients just because is has lower calories? Just cut caloric crap from the diet. The only benefit is for diabetics.
Try stevia, which (as far as we know) is a totally non-toxic sweetener. It doesn't work for everything, but I think it'd be just fine for tea.
Milk & Honey for your tea, folks =]
[deleted]
When I go to a restaurant, usually the only non-alcoholic things I can bear to drink are unsweetened tea and water. I really don't know how people can bear to drink the rest of the stuff. Putting sugar in drinks is nasty. Drinks with artificial sweeteners taste even worse.
On the other hand, I hear the Chinese put salt in tea sometimes. That would be even worse. So how can I complain.
On the other hand, I hear the Chinese put salt in tea sometimes. That would be even worse. So how can I complain.
Sensationalist headlines! YAY!
And seriously if your head feels disconnected without tea... you could probably use some exercise.
And seriously if your head feels disconnected without tea... you could probably use some exercise.
"I vowed to simply abstain from any drug at all. No Beer, Wine, Spirits, smokes, hash, coke or other dope for me. I wanted to be healthy and to live as long as possible while keeping my body in as good a shape as I could."
Well Jacques, it is quite strange and disappointing to see that you have spent your life following such a simplistic approach to human brain chemistry.
You seem to have accepted uncritically the message promulgated by your local government about the effects of psychoactive chemicals, that is, that alcohol, "smokes", hash, coke, or "other dope" is bad for your health, and will reduce your lifespan.
In the first place, does it seem rational to you to group the effects of such a wide range of different chemicals together? Tobacco and alcohol, for example, have nothing in common chemically or pharmacologicaly. Their effects on your health or longevity are completely independent of each other. What they have in common is that they have a psychologically pleasant effect, like the other varieties of "dope" you mention.
Perhaps you have bought into the Calvinistic worldview that what is pleasurable must be ultimately harmful. Do you not indulge in such temptingly wicked practices as dancing and umm, recreational sex either?
How about an item by item rational, scientific approach to each chemical? I'm not going to attempt to be exhaustive here, as anyone can look up a hundred resources, but, as a first approach, I think that your strategy of "complete abstention" is misguided at best. Of course anything can be overdone to the point of being harmful, even internet usage, so all of my comments below apply only to moderate, reasonable, sensible use.
Alcohol: Legal, moderate addictive potential, overuse increases violence and recklessness. Numerous studies have shown than moderate usage is beneficial to health. Overuse causes liver problems and Korsakoff's Syndrome. Social lubricant enjoyed around the world.
Tobacco: Legal, highly addictive, carcinogenic. Mental stimulant.
Cannabis: Illegal. Barely to zero addictive potential, cancer preventative/therapy. No known overdose. Stimulates creative ideas. Dissolves obedience to authoritarian world-views.
Coke: Illegal. Highly addictive. Mental stimulant. Causes holes in internasal septum and generally manic asshole behavior.
Psychedelics: Illegal. Highly NON-addictive. A large proportion of users say they have caused the most significant experiences of their entire lives. No known physical effects.
Personally, although I agree with you about sugar, I'm really more concerned that you have accepted a bland, timid, dumbed-down, boring, government-dictated life, than that you are taking any serious health risks.
I think you should take a few risks and get out a little, before you die. How about a fat spliff, a hearty Merlot, and an Ayahuasca trip to the Amazon? You never know, you might find that you've been living your life so far in black and white.
Well Jacques, it is quite strange and disappointing to see that you have spent your life following such a simplistic approach to human brain chemistry.
You seem to have accepted uncritically the message promulgated by your local government about the effects of psychoactive chemicals, that is, that alcohol, "smokes", hash, coke, or "other dope" is bad for your health, and will reduce your lifespan.
In the first place, does it seem rational to you to group the effects of such a wide range of different chemicals together? Tobacco and alcohol, for example, have nothing in common chemically or pharmacologicaly. Their effects on your health or longevity are completely independent of each other. What they have in common is that they have a psychologically pleasant effect, like the other varieties of "dope" you mention.
Perhaps you have bought into the Calvinistic worldview that what is pleasurable must be ultimately harmful. Do you not indulge in such temptingly wicked practices as dancing and umm, recreational sex either?
How about an item by item rational, scientific approach to each chemical? I'm not going to attempt to be exhaustive here, as anyone can look up a hundred resources, but, as a first approach, I think that your strategy of "complete abstention" is misguided at best. Of course anything can be overdone to the point of being harmful, even internet usage, so all of my comments below apply only to moderate, reasonable, sensible use.
Alcohol: Legal, moderate addictive potential, overuse increases violence and recklessness. Numerous studies have shown than moderate usage is beneficial to health. Overuse causes liver problems and Korsakoff's Syndrome. Social lubricant enjoyed around the world.
Tobacco: Legal, highly addictive, carcinogenic. Mental stimulant.
Cannabis: Illegal. Barely to zero addictive potential, cancer preventative/therapy. No known overdose. Stimulates creative ideas. Dissolves obedience to authoritarian world-views.
Coke: Illegal. Highly addictive. Mental stimulant. Causes holes in internasal septum and generally manic asshole behavior.
Psychedelics: Illegal. Highly NON-addictive. A large proportion of users say they have caused the most significant experiences of their entire lives. No known physical effects.
Personally, although I agree with you about sugar, I'm really more concerned that you have accepted a bland, timid, dumbed-down, boring, government-dictated life, than that you are taking any serious health risks.
I think you should take a few risks and get out a little, before you die. How about a fat spliff, a hearty Merlot, and an Ayahuasca trip to the Amazon? You never know, you might find that you've been living your life so far in black and white.
I don't know you, and I'm pretty sure that you don't know me if you want to suggest that I've been living my life in black and white. Oh, and Colombia is indeed a beautiful country, I spent quite a bit of time there. I couldn't comment on 'fat spliffs' or 'Merlot' but I think that it is quite possible to enjoy life without those. I don't judge people that use this stuff, they govern their bodies as they see fit, I govern mine as I see fit.
Some people need drugs to loosen up, I can assure you I'm plenty loose without that.
> I'm really more concerned that you have accepted a bland, timid, dumbed-down, boring, government-dictated life
I appreciate your concern, but I promise you that that is not the case.
Some people need drugs to loosen up, I can assure you I'm plenty loose without that.
> I'm really more concerned that you have accepted a bland, timid, dumbed-down, boring, government-dictated life
I appreciate your concern, but I promise you that that is not the case.
I don't know you, and I can't comment on Colombia, as I have never experienced it. Of course, I can enjoy life without that possibly hazardous trip. I'm only suggesting to you that there are non-governmentally approved,very worthwhile, and perfectly healthy experiences that you are missing out on, as I have chosen to pass on Colombia.
Each to his own. I enjoy your posts enormously. Maybe some day you will have a change of heart and post about a life changing mushroom trip one day. Stay loose!
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2011/10/03/drug-in...
Each to his own. I enjoy your posts enormously. Maybe some day you will have a change of heart and post about a life changing mushroom trip one day. Stay loose!
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2011/10/03/drug-in...
My taste changed within just a couple of weeks. By the third or fourth week if I accidentally drank sweetened iced tea instead of unsweetened I would nearly spit it out due to the awful taste. I also cut out all artificial sweeteners, effectively eliminating any experience of sweetness from my diet. I think previously I had drunk so much Diet Coke and eaten so many sugary things that I had conditioned myself to need that sweet taste on a regular schedule. I think one thing that helped was that I started making tea using high-quality, whole-leaf teas from adagio.com. They have such interesting flavors, I find they don't need sugar.
I'm not sure I can speak to the work-related effects of not eating sugar since I was spending most of the time in the hospital with my friend. I can say that my overall mood became much more stable; there were no more mid-afternoon crashes and I genearlly found I had more energy. Being about 360 pounds at the time, this one dietary change was enough for me to lose 60 pounds over the next 12 months while still leading a mostly sedentary lifestyle.