GilRuiz1: DrPainMD: I remember the good old days, when liberals said, "it's my body... I'll do what I want with it."

[i.qkme.me image 400x398]

oh gawd THIS.

/farking 'liberal' hypocrites

BigNumber12: spaten: spaten: Actually tooth decay is a result of the agricultural revolution, thousands of years before refined sugar.

miss marla singer: Fruits of today are MUCH, MUCH sweeter than fruits of the paleolithic era.

I'll have to look into these theories sometime.

Here is a mainstream, one. The data is from prehistoic burials:

Link


It's actually thought that corn domestication was when our dental health really took a nosedive.


/second-hand expert
//wife has a degree in Anthropology

Grains in the Fertile Crescent and the Nile Delta ... Read about it, killer.

Grow local, eat local... I don't know where you live, but chewing ephdrea really helps the gums. Numbs the gums and has other properties.

DrunkenBob: The effects of both are the same.I_Am_Weasel: Everything in moderation, but those who abuse sugar deserve a good caning.

The incidental sugar they add to everything, especially salty foods to hide the quantity of salt they use, undermines one's attempt to track and moderate their sugar intake.

It's farking amazing how much sugar there is in stuff. Let me quote some labels.

1 serving instan miso soup 21% Daily Value of Sodium 510 mg
1 serving instant udon soup 82% Daily Value of Sodium 1970 mg (admittedly it's a large serving at 380 calories/235 g)
1 serving Hon Tsuyu soup base 48% Daily Value of Sodium 1150 mg per 2 Tablespoons

You mix the soup base 8 Tablespoons of water per 2 Tablespoons of soup.

I just cannot believe the amounts of salt that goes into processed foods nowadays. I understand when salt was a method of curing that we used a lot of salt but still...

Altitude5280: Sometimes I can find Coca Cola made with real cane sugar. And it's bottled in Mexico. Rum cokes taste better with sugar than that diet stuff. And my favorite candy is dark chocolate that is at least 70% coaca. I drink my coffee black and think sweet tea is gross.

Passover Coke is your friend. Look for the yellow caps around Passover.

That's salt not sugar. Sorry.

relaxitsjustme: I've have a lot of opinions on this and similar topics but I think it can be boiled down into: don't buy food, buy ingredients and make you own breakfast, lunch and dinner. Yes it takes more time, tough shait. People say we should eat lower on the food chain, I say we should eat lower down the food processing chain. Prepare your own meals and you won't have to worry about too much sugar...too much salt...too much fat...too much dilithium crystals..or whatever it is that is supposed to be killing us.

/eat more vegetables too

This. I cook most of our food and neither of us has a weight problem. I don't use processed or additive loaded stuff and when I do eat it it tastes like sh*t and I feel bloated. Also, I've never seen a fat person that doesn't drink gallons of diet soda.
Common sense people.
boozerman: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: boozerman: KarmicDisaster: I've been eating all low carb/cut the sugar/more fat and protein since last year. It is really hard to do now since the low carb craze died out and we have aisles of "gluten free" hipster crap and no low sugar items in the stores. Got my glucose levels way down, lost 20 lbs, eat all I want when I want. I'll avoid saturated fat when I can, why not, but regular fat, yum.

It's still fairly new research, and some of the methodologies can be questionable, but there is some need to research dietary fat intakes coming from people not getting a variety of fats in their diets and having too high of an omega 6 intake (most normal polyunsaturated fats) and too low of an omega3/sat/monounsaturated fat content. The ratios that seem to have a correlation to problems that need further investigation come about from people going out of their way to get poly fats though (such as using canola oil AND avoiding animal fat)

This is actually why eggs from grass fed hens are better than those from grain fed hens - the omega 3:6 ratios are much closer.


Absolutely. And the actual chicken too. Not to mention grass fed beef. But, if it gets pricey, some fish caps help out a lot too.

We got some grass fed rib eyes last week and they were delicious.

So, my fond memories of my grandmother making me cookies was just a front and she was trying to kill me???

Cyno01: boozerman: Cyno01: miss marla singer: astouffer: More like the corn lobby forcing tariffs on real sugar so they can pump HFCS into everything. Go into a grocery store and find something (short of a single ingredient) without HFCS or sugar.

Sugar is no better or worse than HFCS.

Theres an extra step to digesting sucrose than there is unbonded fructose/glucose. With HFCS, the glucose hits your bloodstream asap, while the fructose heads to the liver and in the absense of cellulose (like if the fructose were coming from fruit), it gets converted pretty much directly to fat. Most HFCS is 55% fructose to 45% glucose, so it IS 10% worse for you than sucrose.

Science!

MAYBE if you are completely fasted and have an empty GI track. That's the magic of digestion and mixed meals though. Most of the time you already either have fiber in your system or have just eaten something with fiber in it with your HFCS consumption, so the point is moot.

Yeah, i dont think so, you know how many people just had a 16oz energy drink for breakfast? People do not get enough fiber to counter their fructose consumption via HFCS. Big Mac + Med fries is 8g of fiber to 58g of HFCS in a 21oz coke, plus whatevers in the bun and the sauce on the burger. I dont know the bonding ratio of cellulose to fructose, but i dont think it would be 1:4.

People eating like that not only aren't even trying, they're farking idiots willfully disregarding their own health.

Tax 'em all and let God give them insulin.

Gawdzila: Dr.Zom: People say this but is there any evidence that today's meals are larger?

They don't have to be. Eating more carbs means that people will tend to eat more often, even with similar-sized meals. Also, undeniably, things like sodas come in MUCH larger sizes than they ever did before. I'm fairly certain that you couldn't go to 7-11 or McDonalds and order one of these monsters:
[i.imgur.com image 335x500]

Now, I'm not gonna rag on soda because Coca Cola is my preferred vice. I love the stuff. But I am also an active person in general, I don't eat dessert very often at all, and I certainly don't consume Double Gulps or 2-liters on a daily basis like some fatarses do. Eat what your activity level can support. If you start to gain weight, either eat less (cut sugar first), or exercise more. I farking love to eat, so I made my choice ;)

I looked it up - the Big Gulp was introduced in 1980. It's older than a lot of Farkers.

KarmicDisaster: Too much saturated fat is definitely bad.

People repeat this like a mantra, but there is really nothing of substance supporting it.
I already linked two articles earlier, here is some more data:

From the American Society of Nutrition, 2010:

Results: During 5-23 y of follow-up of 347,747 subjects, 11,006 developed CHD or stroke. Intake of saturated fat was not associated with an increased risk of CHD (Coronary Heart Disease), stroke, or CVD (Cardiovascular Disease).

Conclusions: A meta-analysis of prospective epidemiologic studies showed that there is no significant evidence for concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of CHD or CVD. More data are needed to elucidate whether CVD risks are likely to be influenced by the specific nutrients used to replace saturated fat.

hey foodies!

BlippityBleep: lulz y'all thought the authoritarian busybodies would stop with tobacco.

How about we start pricing health insurance by the pounds of fat you carry around instead?

guises: Arr, more awful science reporting. This all started when Robert Lustig decided to start going around making declarations about sugar without any evidence to back it up. He may well be right, but none of the studies that would show it have completed yet. That's why crappy articles like this one resort to "some scientists say" and opinions from individuals who are willing to go out on a limb like Lustig.

Poor reporting like this is why you get health fads like the antioxident thing, or "hydrating."

No. Lustig has lots of actual verifiable science on his side. Just because you don't understand it doesn't make it invalid.

I quit eating sugar regularly a year ago. I dropped 30 pounds, my blood pressure and cholesterol returned to normal levels, and I feel 10 times better. I didn't change anything else-- I still eat whatever I want, as long as it doesn't have added sugar in it.

The sugar in prepared foods can be avoided by cooking and eating real food. It's not that hard. Plus, real food tastes a lot better.

I'm not fanatical about it, either. On special occasions, I'll still eat sweet stuff-- tomorrow for Father's Day, one of my sons is making me blueberry scones for breakfast, and a carrot cake with cream cheese icing for supper.

Just because you give up sugar, you don't have to give up sweets. For example, for most breakfasts, I have an oatmeal smoothie, sweetened with stevia. Sometimes it's chocolate, sometimes vanilla, sometimes I make it with frozen unsugared fruit. I grind up the oatmeal in a spice grinder, so you can't really tell it's in the smoothie, but you get that high fiber whole grain thing out of what tastes like a milkshake.

The deal with sugar is not so much that it's toxic. Or at least, it's not any more toxic than alcohol, which is okay in moderation. But Americans are not moderate when it comes to consuming sugar. The increase in sugar consumption tracks very closely with the increase in metabolic disease.

That ought to make folks wonder.

smadge1: hey foodies!
[lh4.googleusercontent.com image 640x413]

Oh yeah? Take this!

Dr.Zom: Gawdzila: Dr.Zom: People say this but is there any evidence that today's meals are larger?

They don't have to be. Eating more carbs means that people will tend to eat more often, even with similar-sized meals. Also, undeniably, things like sodas come in MUCH larger sizes than they ever did before. I'm fairly certain that you couldn't go to 7-11 or McDonalds and order one of these monsters:
[i.imgur.com image 335x500]

Now, I'm not gonna rag on soda because Coca Cola is my preferred vice. I love the stuff. But I am also an active person in general, I don't eat dessert very often at all, and I certainly don't consume Double Gulps or 2-liters on a daily basis like some fatarses do. Eat what your activity level can support. If you start to gain weight, either eat less (cut sugar first), or exercise more. I farking love to eat, so I made my choice ;)

I looked it up - the Big Gulp was introduced in 1980. It's older than a lot of Farkers.

Have you ever een somebody trying to drive with one of those in their lap?

boozerman: Cyno01: boozerman: Cyno01: miss marla singer: astouffer: More like the corn lobby forcing tariffs on real sugar so they can pump HFCS into everything. Go into a grocery store and find something (short of a single ingredient) without HFCS or sugar.

Sugar is no better or worse than HFCS.

Theres an extra step to digesting sucrose than there is unbonded fructose/glucose. With HFCS, the glucose hits your bloodstream asap, while the fructose heads to the liver and in the absense of cellulose (like if the fructose were coming from fruit), it gets converted pretty much directly to fat. Most HFCS is 55% fructose to 45% glucose, so it IS 10% worse for you than sucrose.

Science!

MAYBE if you are completely fasted and have an empty GI track. That's the magic of digestion and mixed meals though. Most of the time you already either have fiber in your system or have just eaten something with fiber in it with your HFCS consumption, so the point is moot.

Yeah, i dont think so, you know how many people just had a 16oz energy drink for breakfast? People do not get enough fiber to counter their fructose consumption via HFCS. Big Mac + Med fries is 8g of fiber to 58g of HFCS in a 21oz coke, plus whatevers in the bun and the sauce on the burger. I dont know the bonding ratio of cellulose to fructose, but i dont think it would be 1:4.

People eating like that not only aren't even trying, they're farking idiots willfully disregarding their own health.

hit enter too early, and can't edit, so I have to finish my thoughts here. Having the energy drink for breakfast, yes, that sugar is going to most likely hit the blood stream fast. And while the example of the McDonald's meal isn't ideal (no veggies to speak of) the fructose in the soda will be slowed to getting to the blood by the other food being consumed. It won't simply pass by the other food, it will be regulated by gastric emptying. Still eating like that on a regular basis will cause problems. People need to embrace veggies, especially if they eat like that.

EbolaNYC: BlippityBleep: lulz y'all thought the authoritarian busybodies would stop with tobacco.

How about we start pricing health insurance by the pounds of fat you carry around instead?

a farker posted this a bit ago: Healthy people cost more than smokers or obese people, and it looks like we should tax healthy people the most.

or, we could use common sense and decency and make it flat rate for everybody because nobody really knows what the hell will happen to them in their life.

aegean: 75% of all medical expenses are because of fat people? Bull crap. This article is just so much garbage.

Yes, people need to be less fat. THat's it.

You fail at reading.

BlippityBleep: EbolaNYC: BlippityBleep: lulz y'all thought the authoritarian busybodies would stop with tobacco.

How about we start pricing health insurance by the pounds of fat you carry around instead?

a farker posted this a bit ago: Healthy people cost more than smokers or obese people, and it looks like we should tax healthy people the most.

or, we could use common sense and decency and make it flat rate for everybody because nobody really knows what the hell will happen to them in their life.

and by tax i mean morality tax bullshiat, and health insurance should cost accordingly, too.

people should be healthy because they want to, not because some asshole/group of assholes coerce you into it.

Sugars. You will die without them...but don't let that stop you.

Obviously the author's auto correct was taught to change high fructose corn syrup to sugar. Not really sure why...

Taxing HFCS is stupid in the U.S. as corn is subsidised. Look there for a solution instead.

Richard Saunders: Sugars. You will die without them...but don't let that stop you.

Err.. but you don't have to EAT glucose to GET glucose. Your body can fabricate it from all sorts of sources.
It is the best sources that are being debated, not whether it is required for cell respiration.

Obligatory link to a talk which explaints it from a chemical perspective. Sugar: The Bitter Truth

It's long, but worth watching.

KarmicDisaster: It looks like the salt intake/death relationship is maybe going to be a curve with a (broad) sweet spot for salt intake. ... I don't worry about the saturated fat much, or salt at all, although I might if I had high blood pressure.

Yeah, I'd agree with that. Blood pressure issues seem highly genetic, and salt intake is not correlated particularly with long term blood pressure problems, although as you said, it is more important for people who already have high BP. My salt intake is astronomical (I'm Mexican -- we make candy that is literally made of salt), but I've never had blood pressure problems and my family in general does not develop them.

said Stewart " ... The focus should be on calorie balance and moderation."

exactly.. just like, say, occupying: at what point do we blame ourselves. stop shoveling food in your damn mouth.

... it's not like it's being forced in, with a gun to your head.

I hate media coverage of medical topics. The evidence does not even come close to any of the claims made here. The "X IS GONNA KILL YOU" followed by "X maybe is not GONNA KILL YOU" followed by "X IS NOT NEARLY THE PROBLEM THAT SCIENTISTS THOUGHT, Y IS THE REAL CULPRIT! (and gonna kill you)" makes it nearly impossible for the average person to trust medical science. The medical community needs to do better "disambiguation".

Richard Saunders: Sugars. You will die without them...but don't let that stop you.

You do need glucose, but the amount that you need, your body MAKES on its own! Yay human body!

Dwedit: [i.imgur.com image 492x441]

Because fruit is sugar-free.

An argument has to be made that the same amount of sugar from fruit is better for you because it's accompanied by a load of fiber. Which is why fruit juice is evil.

Dr.Zom: I looked it up - the Big Gulp was introduced in 1980. It's older than a lot of Farkers.

Sure, it might be older than a lot of Farkers, but coincides nicely with the upwards swing in diabetes and obesity rates.

i wonder how much of the gluten hate is propaganda from the corn industry, too

tell that to sufferers of IBS

iaazathot: Gawdzila: vodka: Yeah right, like all the fat and processing has nothing to do with it. It's all because of sugar.

There is actually very little evidence that fat intake -- even saturated fat -- has anything to do with heart disease or any other malady.
There is plenty of evidence, however, that high sugar intake causes all sorts of problems, including diabetes, obesity, and their attendant health issues.

Now, I'm not saying that sugar is evil, or toxic, or any of that other nonsense. But it IS worse than just about anything else to eat in excess, especially if you lead an inactive lifestyle.


guises: Reverting back to how things were before is not a solution. There's a reason why there was a craze to remove so much fat from our packaged foods - people were getting fat.

//

Our bodies process HFCS very differently than they do honey or raw sugar. That is very important to understand. The HFCS industry is fighting very hard to argue that table sugar and HFCS are exactly the same, but they are not.

The bottom line is that food companies want to increase profits at the cost of the health of the general populace. Yes, we can choose not to eat those products, but that is becoming increasingly difficult, especially for poor people (yep even food is stratified according socio-conomic status).

With food resources being controlled by fewer and fewer corporwant to increase profits at the cost of the health of the general populace. Yes, we can choose not to eat those products, but that is becoming increasingly difficult, especially for poor people (yep even food is stratified according socio-conomic status).

With food resources being controlled by fewer and fewer corporate interests, the ability to avoid HFCS is harder and harder.

Interesting to note that some of those studies in the 1950s did show some pretty interesting evidence that animal based fats increased cancer rates. Some of the most compelling evidence was in China where they could watch fairly homogenous regions during a time of low population motility over a period of a decade or more.

Eating a diet of more than 12% in animal fats and proteins increases your risk of cancer and heart disease fairly significantly. The heart disease can be mitigated by other factors, such as exercise or balancing the diet with other factors to reduce risk. The cancer, not so much. ...

Ah. The China Study... So many flaws.

I'll leave this one to Denise Minger: http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/07/07/the-china-study-fact-or-fallac/