If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Orlando Sentinel)   Sugar is killing us   (orlandosentinel.com) divider line 442
    More: Obvious, American Love, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Orlando Regional Medical Center, uc san francisco, Community Reinvestment Act, metabolic diseases, toxic substances, sugars  
•       •       •

17602 clicks; posted to Main » on 16 Jun 2012 at 10:00 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



442 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-06-16 09:38:28 PM
Everything in moderation, but those who abuse sugar deserve a good caning.
 
2012-06-16 09:41:28 PM
Yes but it's so sweet and tasty!

/seriously i'm not giving up sugar, I'd rather it kill me than stop eating it.
 
2012-06-16 10:01:12 PM
Again?

http://www.fark.com/comments/6916277/Scientists-say-sugar-is-as-toxic - as-alcohol-there-should-be-a-drinking-age-for-soft-drinks

http://www.fark.com/comments/7024982/The-sugar-in-candy-booze-may-be- t oxic-Dear-God-What-does-this-mean-for-Skittlebru

http://www.fark.com/comments/6691392/Eating-too-much-sugar-can-lead-t o -sagging-skin-cancer-overwhelming-urge-to-shout-Im-cuckoo-for-Cocoa-Pu ffs
 
2012-06-16 10:02:07 PM
lulz y'all thought the authoritarian busybodies would stop with tobacco.
 
2012-06-16 10:02:17 PM
Sugar or corn syrup?
 
2012-06-16 10:02:21 PM
First you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the weemen.
 
2012-06-16 10:02:37 PM
eliminating added sugars - could reverse America's deadliest and costliest ills, including obesity, diabetes, high blood pressure, heart disease and many cancers, experts say.

Yeah right, like all the fat and processing has nothing to do with it. It's all because of sugar.
 
2012-06-16 10:03:12 PM
img28.imageshack.us
So is AIR
 
2012-06-16 10:03:54 PM

LarryDan43: Sugar or corn syrup?


i wonder how much of the gluten hate is propaganda from the corn industry, too.
 
2012-06-16 10:04:24 PM
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.
 
2012-06-16 10:04:52 PM

I_Am_Weasel: Everything in moderation, but those who abuse sugar deserve a good caning.


Someone should beet you for that.
 
2012-06-16 10:04:53 PM
It's not the sugar that's killing people. They keep putting that shiat in DHMO. THAT is what's killing us.
 
2012-06-16 10:04:58 PM
Sugar Life is killing us
 
2012-06-16 10:05:11 PM
I_Am_Weasel:
Everything in moderation, but those who abuse sugar deserve a good caning.

chzjustcapshunz.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-06-16 10:07:17 PM
All well and good until you realize that beer contains sugar. At which point, fark you, "medical experts."

In all seriousness, it's not sugar that's killing the fatties, it's eating 7,000 calories a day. It just so happens that that diet contains a lot of sugar.
 
2012-06-16 10:08:15 PM
Sugar has long been known to be unhealthy. Many peer-reviewed articles, and media scare stories, including Fark references, have shown that. But the rush to tax and/or ban is simply farking stupid. Let people KNOW, by all means, and then let them decide.

/ Farking control freaks...
 
2012-06-16 10:08:22 PM
Sugar is addictive and works like a drug in that it makes people feel good and they desire increasingly large quantities of it to maintain that feeling. Fatties need rehab and counseling.
 
2012-06-16 10:08:23 PM
2.bp.blogspot.com

Wanted for questioning.
 
2012-06-16 10:08:26 PM
You can pry it from my cold, dead hands.

/it isn't sugar that is killing us
//How about the fact that we all sit on our asses and stare at a screen for 10 hours a day?
 
2012-06-16 10:08:34 PM
So my diet of red wine, bourbon, meat, poultry, cheese, eggs, sausage and the occasional salad is ok then?
 
2012-06-16 10:10:20 PM
After counting up all the things I'm doing to shorten my life expectancy it turns out I've actually been dead for fourteen years.

SCIENCE!
 
2012-06-16 10:11:01 PM

kukukupo:
/it isn't sugar that is killing us
//How about the fact that we all sit on our asses and stare at a screen for 10 hours a day?


Clearly the way to end obesity is to shut down all the porn sites.
 
2012-06-16 10:12:01 PM

Red Shirt Blues: So my diet of red wine, bourbon, meat, poultry, cheese, eggs, sausage and the occasional salad is ok then?


Works for the French and they have a far lower rate of heart disease than Americans.
 
2012-06-16 10:12:20 PM
 
2012-06-16 10:13:06 PM
Ok, first step is to require manufacturers to stop adding it to everything they make.
 
2012-06-16 10:13:06 PM

Creoena: kukukupo:
/it isn't sugar that is killing us
//How about the fact that we all sit on our asses and stare at a screen for 10 hours a day?

Clearly the way to end obesity is to shut down all the porn sites.


That's not a good idea. The increased periodic heart rate is probably the only thing keeping some people alive.

/fap
 
2012-06-16 10:13:30 PM
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.
 
2012-06-16 10:13:44 PM
I wonder if these scare stories are coming up only because nobody has yet found a way to pimp sugar with pretentious foodie bullshiat like they do with other unhealthful-when-overdone products like coffee, alcohol, and even salt.
 
2012-06-16 10:14:39 PM

GeneralJim: Sugar has long been known to be unhealthy. Many peer-reviewed articles, and media scare stories, including Fark references, have shown that. But the rush to tax and/or ban is simply farking stupid. Let people KNOW, by all means, and then let them decide.

/ Farking control freaks...


People who abuse sugar have health problems. Those health problems cost EVERYONE money by increasing the cost of private health insurance and the taxes that people pay towards medicare.

/let's throw some gas on this fire
 
2012-06-16 10:15:00 PM
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."
 
2012-06-16 10:15:01 PM
www.billboard.com

I said a hip, hop, a hippity hop and a bee bop till ya don't stop...
 
2012-06-16 10:15:11 PM

kukukupo: You can pry it from my cold, dead hands.

/it isn't sugar that is killing us
//How about the fact that we all sit on our asses and stare at a screen for 10 hours a day?


We? You must have a mouse in your pocket.
 
2012-06-16 10:15:39 PM
Ach, who cares?
 
2012-06-16 10:16:50 PM

astouffer: Go into a grocery store and find something (short of a single ingredient) without HFCS or sugar.


Try the kosher section. I was pleasantly surprised to find that the kosher-for-Passover version of Fox's U-Bet chocolate syrup was made with proper sugar, although it's made with HFCS for most of the rest of the year.

/catholic, so what the fark do i know
 
2012-06-16 10:17:07 PM

Creoena: kukukupo:
/it isn't sugar that is killing us
//How about the fact that we all sit on our asses and stare at a screen for 10 hours a day?

Clearly the way to end obesity is to shut down all the porn sites.


i.chzbgr.com
 
2012-06-16 10:18:16 PM
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.
 
2012-06-16 10:19:37 PM

Moonfisher: Sugar is addictive and works like a drug in that it makes people feel good and they desire increasingly large quantities of it to maintain that feeling. Fatties need rehab and counseling.



I crave sweets right after a meal but I find that if I can just ignore it for an hour the craving will subside.
 
2012-06-16 10:22:22 PM
I'd really like to see what would happen if, instead of reducing the amount of sugar, they just replaced HFCS with cane sugar.
 
2012-06-16 10:22:42 PM
i.imgur.com

Because fruit is sugar-free.
 
2012-06-16 10:23:26 PM

LarryDan43: Sugar or corn syrup?


I'm old enough to remember the 70s and 80s when everybody ate sugar all the time and yet no one was really fat. Fat people were an anomaly. And more importantly, YOU NEVER SAW MUFFINTOPS.

I repeat, that roll of fat around the middle of an otherwise normal shaped human, was rare as hell. That never showed up until HFCS started being added to everything. There's something about that shiat that condenses fat around the middle.
 
2012-06-16 10:23:31 PM
Fat people don't cost the system big gobs of money anymore than the smokers--they tend to die before they get elderly and become REALLY expensive.

All you health freaks, you're costing all of us, you selfish preeks. Put down the tofu and eat some fries for heaven's sake.
 
2012-06-16 10:24:46 PM

Gulper Eel: astouffer: Go into a grocery store and find something (short of a single ingredient) without HFCS or sugar.

Try the kosher section. I was pleasantly surprised to find that the kosher-for-Passover version of Fox's U-Bet chocolate syrup was made with proper sugar, although it's made with HFCS for most of the rest of the year.

/catholic, so what the fark do i know


Passover Coke is the best thing ever.
 
2012-06-16 10:26:15 PM

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.


Dark Chocolate Reeses Peanut Butter Cups.
 
2012-06-16 10:26:52 PM

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.
 
2012-06-16 10:27:08 PM
I remember the good old days, when liberals said, "it's my body... I'll do what I want with it."
 
2012-06-16 10:27:41 PM
Dr...

"sugar is bad, makes ya fat"

Dr. Receiving grant money...

"sugar is black death multiplying your redundant protoplasm while desecrating your insides like bot fly larva eating it's way through a cow brain"
 
2012-06-16 10:28:14 PM

trivial use of my dark powers: Fat people don't cost the system big gobs of money anymore than the smokers--they tend to die before they get elderly and become REALLY expensive.

All you health freaks, you're costing all of us, you selfish preeks. Put down the tofu and eat some fries for heaven's sake.



It costs more to care for healthy people who live years longer, according to a Dutch study that counters the common perception that preventing obesity would save governments millions of dollars.

The researchers found that from age 20 to 56, obese people racked up the most expensive health costs. But because both the smokers and the obese people died sooner than the healthy group, it cost less to treat them in the long run.
On average, healthy people lived 84 years. Smokers lived about 77 years, and obese people lived about 80 years. Smokers and obese people tended to have more heart disease than the healthy people.
Cancer incidence, except for lung cancer, was the same in all three groups. Obese people had the most diabetes, and healthy people had the most strokes. Ultimately, the thin and healthy group cost the most, about $417,000, from age 20 on.
The cost of care for obese people was $371,000, and for smokers, about $326,000.
The results counter the common perception that preventing obesity will save health systems worldwide millions of dollars.

"Lung cancer is a cheap disease to treat because people don't survive very long," van Baal said. "But if they are old enough to get Alzheimer's one day, they may survive longer and cost more."
 
2012-06-16 10:29:26 PM
What a lame attempt at covering the fact that they're just looking for another way to pillage pockets. Of course it won't reduce consumption. It'll just cost US more money.
 
2012-06-16 10:31:18 PM
Dr Lustig is a vile hack that has very little to no understanding of human physiology. He is the one responsible for this fear mongering. Kind of reminds me of the fear mongering that was done against saturated fats, leading us to use transfats instead, which turned out to be way more dangerous. Why is everybody ignoring the fact that since 1975 our average daily calorie consumption has gone up more than 200 calories a day, our lives have become more sedentary, and public knowledge of nutrition has actually declined because of a bunch of fear mongering snake oil salesmen?

It's really a simple equation:

calorie consumption up + activity down= more obesity. But I guess that's too simple, doesn't give you something to blame, and isn't interesting enough to sell books about.
 
2012-06-16 10:31:30 PM

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.


Um... Stop. Seriously. You are obviously a moron. Do you know what the "H" in HFCS stands for? High. As in HIGH fructose corn syrup. HFCS has HIGH fructose, while sugar has NO fructose at all. So yeah, HFCS is far worse than sugar. I hope the corn lobby paid you well for your public schilling.

/sarcasm off
 
2012-06-16 10:31:42 PM
If only science could come up with a cure for nagging...
 
2012-06-16 10:32:10 PM
I work with about 15 surgeons-5 of whom do back surgeries, it is quite common for them to tell patients to loose say.....100 (!) pounds before even possibly talking about surgery. Even though the relative merits of BMI are debated, someone with a BMI of 49.8 is a human cue ball. How can the skeletal structure function when its so over loaded? I see it all day, every day. It's getting so bad, that even the largest wheel chairs aren't quite big enough for some patients.......let alone getting them through the exam room door......
 
2012-06-16 10:33:26 PM

Artist: I work with about 15 surgeons-5 of whom do back surgeries, it is quite common for them to tell patients to loose say.....100 (!) pounds before even possibly talking about surgery. Even though the relative merits of BMI are debated, someone with a BMI of 49.8 is a human cue ball. How can the skeletal structure function when its so over loaded? I see it all day, every day. It's getting so bad, that even the largest wheel chairs aren't quite big enough for some patients.......let alone getting them through the exam room door......


Is this a "yo mama so fat" joke gone horribly askew?
 
2012-06-16 10:33:57 PM

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: 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.

Um... Stop. Seriously. You are obviously a moron. Do you know what the "H" in HFCS stands for? High. As in HIGH fructose corn syrup. HFCS has HIGH fructose, while sugar has NO fructose at all. So yeah, HFCS is far worse than sugar. I hope the corn lobby paid you well for your public schilling.

/sarcasm off


I know you are being sarcastic but it is surprising how so many people don't know that table sugar is half fructose and half sucrose. And that people think eating fruit is very good when that's just ALL fructose. Sigh.
 
2012-06-16 10:35:12 PM

I_Am_Weasel: Everything in moderation, but those who abuse sugar deserve a good caning.


I see it-what you did there.
 
2012-06-16 10:36:29 PM

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: 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.

Um... Stop. Seriously. You are obviously a moron. Do you know what the "H" in HFCS stands for? High. As in HIGH fructose corn syrup. HFCS has HIGH fructose, while sugar has NO fructose at all. So yeah, HFCS is far worse than sugar. I hope the corn lobby paid you well for your public schilling.

/sarcasm off


You seriously almost had me pissed off, until I saw your slashy. Good job.
 
2012-06-16 10:36:48 PM
Link

Sorry I couldn't find the whole song...
 
2012-06-16 10:37:14 PM

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.


HFCS is a liquid and therefore needs preservatives to to avoid spoilage during shipping and warehousing (usually sulfites are added). Granulated sugar is dry and can be warehoused for six months without the need for preservatives.
 
2012-06-16 10:37:48 PM

vodka: eliminating added sugars - could reverse America's deadliest and costliest ills, including obesity, diabetes, high blood pressure, heart disease and many cancers, experts say.

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


.There is too much money made by Big Pharma to allow anything or anyone to "cure" anything.

i.ytimg.com
 
2012-06-16 10:38:11 PM

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
 
2012-06-16 10:38:21 PM

Dr.Zom: LarryDan43: Sugar or corn syrup?

I'm old enough to remember the 70s and 80s when everybody ate sugar all the time and yet no one was really fat. Fat people were an anomaly. And more importantly, YOU NEVER SAW MUFFINTOPS.

I repeat, that roll of fat around the middle of an otherwise normal shaped human, was rare as hell. That never showed up until HFCS started being added to everything. There's something about that shiat that condenses fat around the middle.


As much as I love blaming corporations for stuff, HFCS is simply no different than sugar. It's about the same ratio of glucose and fructose, the ONLY difference is that in sucrose (sugar), there's a weak bond between them, making it a disaccharide form.

That bond gets broken before absorption into the digestive system, and it breaks pretty quickly. Then it's identical glucose+fructose molecules to HFCS.
 
2012-06-16 10:38:46 PM
I wonder who sponsored the page break that puts this sentence at the end of the first page:

"Eliminating all sugar is a very drastic approach," said Michelle Stewart, a registered dietitian and certified diabetes educator from Hollywood, Fla. "The all-or-nothing approach doesn't work. It's not sustainable."

And this sentence on the next page, which most readers will not click through to:

All foods fit in a healthy diet, said Stewart, a paid consultant for theCoca-Cola Co. "Sugar is completely safe and should not be treated like alcohol. Having a healthy, balanced diet doesn't mean giving up everything that tastes good. The focus should be on calorie balance and moderation."

/adjusts tinfoil
 
2012-06-16 10:38:51 PM

Elephantman: trivial use of my dark powers: Fat people don't cost the system big gobs of money anymore than the smokers--they tend to die before they get elderly and become REALLY expensive.

All you health freaks, you're costing all of us, you selfish preeks. Put down the tofu and eat some fries for heaven's sake.


It costs more to care for healthy people who live years longer, according to a Dutch study that counters the common perception that preventing obesity would save governments millions of dollars.

The researchers found that from age 20 to 56, obese people racked up the most expensive health costs. But because both the smokers and the obese people died sooner than the healthy group, it cost less to treat them in the long run.
On average, healthy people lived 84 years. Smokers lived about 77 years, and obese people lived about 80 years. Smokers and obese people tended to have more heart disease than the healthy people.
Cancer incidence, except for lung cancer, was the same in all three groups. Obese people had the most diabetes, and healthy people had the most strokes. Ultimately, the thin and healthy group cost the most, about $417,000, from age 20 on.
The cost of care for obese people was $371,000, and for smokers, about $326,000.
The results counter the common perception that preventing obesity will save health systems worldwide millions of dollars.

"Lung cancer is a cheap disease to treat because people don't survive very long," van Baal said. "But if they are old enough to get Alzheimer's one day, they may survive longer and cost more."


You see as a smoker I'm doing my patriotic duty as an American. I support American jobs (tobacco growers and cigarette makers) I shop local (mom and pop liquor store near me) I support the government (cigarette taxes and dying quicker to save them even more money)...but yet we are still considered sub-human...run out of bars...banned from beaches..now even banned from smoking in our own homes. Us smokers should be celebrated for our selfless service to this country. We sacrifice ourselves so that the non-smokers can die a long agonizing death in retirement homes without the guilt of overtaxing the government to provide for them. We should all get a medal of Freedom for smoking! We should get a national holiday! I want a parade dammit with those big balloons of cartoon characters! I am a smoker! I do it for the world!
 
2012-06-16 10:39:26 PM
We've went to drinking straight water around here, going on four months now. As well as cutting out candy, etc.

/A time or two a week we'll mix in some sugar-free Kool-Aid with the drinking water in a glass.
//Only other sugar we get is from ice cream or cookies, which are had in moderation maybe every two weeks on a night off. Mostly for the kids.
 
2012-06-16 10:39:48 PM

miss marla singer: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: 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.

Um... Stop. Seriously. You are obviously a moron. Do you know what the "H" in HFCS stands for? High. As in HIGH fructose corn syrup. HFCS has HIGH fructose, while sugar has NO fructose at all. So yeah, HFCS is far worse than sugar. I hope the corn lobby paid you well for your public schilling.

/sarcasm off

I know you are being sarcastic but it is surprising how so many people don't know that table sugar is half fructose and half sucrose. And that people think eating fruit is very good when that's just ALL fructose. Sigh.


By Sucrose I mean glucose, of course.
 
2012-06-16 10:41:08 PM

Elephantman: trivial use of my dark powers: Fat people don't cost the system big gobs of money anymore than the smokers--they tend to die before they get elderly and become REALLY expensive.

All you health freaks, you're costing all of us, you selfish preeks. Put down the tofu and eat some fries for heaven's sake.


It costs more to care for healthy people who live years longer, according to a Dutch study that counters the common perception that preventing obesity would save governments millions of dollars.

The researchers found that from age 20 to 56, obese people racked up the most expensive health costs. But because both the smokers and the obese people died sooner than the healthy group, it cost less to treat them in the long run.
On average, healthy people lived 84 years. Smokers lived about 77 years, and obese people lived about 80 years. Smokers and obese people tended to have more heart disease than the healthy people.
Cancer incidence, except for lung cancer, was the same in all three groups. Obese people had the most diabetes, and healthy people had the most strokes. Ultimately, the thin and healthy group cost the most, about $417,000, from age 20 on.
The cost of care for obese people was $371,000, and for smokers, about $326,000.
The results counter the common perception that preventing obesity will save health systems worldwide millions of dollars.

"Lung cancer is a cheap disease to treat because people don't survive very long," van Baal said. "But if they are old enough to get Alzheimer's one day, they may survive longer and cost more."


Show off.
 
2012-06-16 10:43:11 PM

Elephantman: It costs more to care for healthy people who live years longer, according to a Dutch study that counters the common perception that preventing obesity would save governments millions of dollars.


I've heard of a study along those lines, funded by the tobacco industry. I'm not saying that it's wrong, but I'd really like to read that - do you have a reference?
 
2012-06-16 10:43:59 PM

Blackwind: We've went to drinking straight water around here, going on four months now. As well as cutting out candy, etc.

/A time or two a week we'll mix in some sugar-free Kool-Aid with the drinking water in a glass.
//Only other sugar we get is from ice cream or cookies, which are had in moderation maybe every two weeks on a night off. Mostly for the kids.


Good for you. That gay water shiat tastes horrible.
 
2012-06-16 10:44:05 PM

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.


A Princeton University study shows this isn't true.
 
2012-06-16 10:44:10 PM
If sugar is killing people, well, they it is their own fault. If they are weak, let them die. Blaming people's weakness on some inanimate molecule brings out my sarcastic disdain.

If someone does not care about themselves enough to spend a trivial amount of effort to correct the problem, why should I care for them?

They have free will, which means that they can be come fat, useless gobs to their heart's content, just don't ever expect me to lift one finger (save the middle one) for them or spend a single cent or effort on their behalf. If you are a fat gob, I will not move out of the way for you to get your fat sack past me. Dying of adult onset diabetes - tough, you should allowed to die painfully if you can not pay for the problem you created.

BTW, sugar is great. Weak fat gobs of human lard are not.
 
2012-06-16 10:44:16 PM
Just eat the farking shiat and die already.
 
2012-06-16 10:44:57 PM

boozerman: calorie consumption up + activity down= more obesity. But I guess that's too simple, doesn't give you something to blame, and isn't interesting enough to sell books about.


One of the reasons calorie consumption is up is because of all the added sugar in everything. Remember the "fat is bad" craze decades ago when everything started coming out in low fat versions? Guess what they replaced the fat with? That's right, sugar. Put the fat back in and take the sugar out, and people will eat fewer calories because your system tells your brain you are full sooner when you eat fat compared to sugar.
 
2012-06-16 10:46:30 PM

Snapper Carr: I_Am_Weasel: Everything in moderation, but those who abuse sugar deserve a good caning.

Someone should beet you for that.


Unrefined and corny.
 
2012-06-16 10:46:59 PM

GeneralJim: Sugar has long been known to be unhealthy. Many peer-reviewed articles, and media scare stories, including Fark references, have shown that. But the rush to tax and/or ban is simply farking stupid. Let people KNOW, by all means, and then let them decide.

/ Farking control freaks...


What the hell, I'll bite. Evolutionary biology shows that we've evolved to need coercion. The general populace can't control its appetite for sugar, so the state has to do it for them. I, for one, welcome our new Sugar Police overlords. Don't worry, you still have the right to bear arms.
 
2012-06-16 10:47:15 PM

Oznog: Dr.Zom: LarryDan43: Sugar or corn syrup?

I'm old enough to remember the 70s and 80s when everybody ate sugar all the time and yet no one was really fat. Fat people were an anomaly. And more importantly, YOU NEVER SAW MUFFINTOPS.

I repeat, that roll of fat around the middle of an otherwise normal shaped human, was rare as hell. That never showed up until HFCS started being added to everything. There's something about that shiat that condenses fat around the middle.

As much as I love blaming corporations for stuff, HFCS is simply no different than sugar. It's about the same ratio of glucose and fructose, the ONLY difference is that in sucrose (sugar), there's a weak bond between them, making it a disaccharide form.

That bond gets broken before absorption into the digestive system, and it breaks pretty quickly. Then it's identical glucose+fructose molecules to HFCS.


I wasn't blaming corporations for anything. Nor was I saying that HFCS are the devil. All I'm saying is I see a grantedly anecdotal link between HFCS and that roll of fat around the middle that people get these days. Think about it, fat people get fat all over - they don't just gain weight around their middle in a roll.

I live in an area very popular with young people. I would say that half the women have this roll of fat. Their legs aren't fat, their asses aren't fat, their arms aren't fat, it's just the middle. This is not normal.
 
2012-06-16 10:47:19 PM
Hey, you know, cyanide is just carbon and nitrogen, so it really can't hurt you.
 
2012-06-16 10:47:38 PM
I cut most sugar (and heavy starches) out of my diet back in mid January. Since that time, I've lost around 30 - 40lbs, and most of that was within the first month or two. I can't and won't claim that I feel terribly much better for it, but the scale pretty much says it all.

The first few weeks of cutting sugar and excess carbs from your diet can be tough -- you'll definitely end up with cravings for sweet things and bread. However, after a while, that goes away, and then you don't even miss it.

Actually, that's a lie. The cravings definitely dissipate over time, but every now and then you get uncontrollable urges to go all out and eat icecream or chocolate.
 
2012-06-16 10:48:48 PM

Whatthefark: 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.

A Princeton University study shows this isn't true.


I will give it to you that it takes less HFCS to do more damage. So I suppose table sugar is marginally better than HFCS..
I'm just annoyed with people who think they're doing their body a favor by eating sugar instead of HFCS... It's all bad for you!
 
2012-06-16 10:49:31 PM

Dwedit: Because fruit is sugar-free.


Ancient people who ate lots of fruit still left skeletons with heads full of pearly white teeth. They didn't use toothpaste, either.

Anyone who tries to tell you refined sugar is the same as all sugars is full of shiat, or trying to kill you.
 
2012-06-16 10:49:46 PM

Whatthefark: 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.

A Princeton University study shows this isn't true.


Before I click on this link and read the study, I want to be sure it's not another rat study. Since rats have a radically different physiology than humans and digest fructose differently than we do. Fructose in rats adds fat really easily because of De novo lipogenesis, an event that is very rare to see in humans, unless you are eating ungodly amounts of pure fructose.

So, before I click, rat or human study?
 
2012-06-16 10:50:15 PM

trivial use of my dark powers: Fat people don't cost the system big gobs of money anymore than the smokers--they tend to die before they get elderly and become REALLY expensive.

All you health freaks, you're costing all of us, you selfish preeks. Put down the tofu and eat some fries for heaven's sake.


Fat people cost money, diabetes is one of the most expensive preventable, reversible conditions out there... we spend billions of dollars a year on enabling people to continue with unhealthy lifestyles... there are some diabetes causes that are not food-induced, but I'd wager that a vast majority of current cases are sugar intake related.
 
2012-06-16 10:50:22 PM

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


Like before corn subsidies made junk food so cheap?
 
2012-06-16 10:50:53 PM

I_Am_Weasel: Everything in moderation, but those who abuse sugar deserve a good caning.


My mom used to make the best pickled watermelon rinds. I have to get that recipe.

Sugar and salt are preservatives for the dumbasses, who don't know how to preserve food for the winter or need long term food that won't spoil, i.e. zombie apocalypse or camping.
 
2012-06-16 10:51:09 PM

Whatthefark: 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.

A Princeton University study shows this isn't true.


Wow, thanks for that. I'd never read it before.

In addition to causing significant weight gain in lab animals, long-term consumption of high-fructose corn syrup also led to abnormal increases in body fat, especially in the abdomen, and a rise in circulating blood fats called triglycerides.

Holy crap I was right!
 
2012-06-16 10:51:21 PM

MarkEC: Put the fat back in and take the sugar out, and people will eat fewer calories because your system tells your brain you are full sooner when you eat fat compared to sugar.


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. Obviously replacing that with sugar didn't make anything better, but we need to find a way to do it without so much fat AND sugar.

Really the problem with processed foods isn't the processing, it's the packaging - making food edible when it has to sit on a shelf for god knows how long means adding lots of crap to it. Sugar, fat, and salt replace the essential oils and flavonoids that make foods taste good, but are too volatile to sit on a shelf for that long.
 
2012-06-16 10:51:33 PM

MrHappyRotter: I cut most sugar (and heavy starches) out of my diet back in mid January. Since that time, I've lost around 30 - 40lbs, and most of that was within the first month or two. I can't and won't claim that I feel terribly much better for it, but the scale pretty much says it all.

The first few weeks of cutting sugar and excess carbs from your diet can be tough -- you'll definitely end up with cravings for sweet things and bread. However, after a while, that goes away, and then you don't even miss it.

Actually, that's a lie. The cravings definitely dissipate over time, but every now and then you get uncontrollable urges to go all out and eat icecream or chocolate.


Yep, my boyfriend lost 40lbs on a ketogenic diet, and I lost about 12 when I did it. The more I read about carbs, the more disgusted I get about putting them in my body.

Every once in a while I will eat something sugary (like when I was in NY last month, I had to have cheesecake!), but it's the fact that most people CAN'T practice moderation that is the problem.
 
2012-06-16 10:52:14 PM

boozerman: So, before I click, rat or human study?


Oh, please. Click the link, you pussy.
 
2012-06-16 10:52:33 PM

J. Frank Parnell: Dwedit: Because fruit is sugar-free.

Ancient people who ate lots of fruit still left skeletons with heads full of pearly white teeth. They didn't use toothpaste, either.

Anyone who tries to tell you refined sugar is the same as all sugars is full of shiat, or trying to kill you.


Fruits of today are MUCH, MUCH sweeter than fruits of the paleolithic era.
 
2012-06-16 10:53:06 PM

boozerman: Whatthefark: 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.

A Princeton University study shows this isn't true.

Before I click on this link and read the study, I want to be sure it's not another rat study. Since rats have a radically different physiology than humans and digest fructose differently than we do. Fructose in rats adds fat really easily because of De novo lipogenesis, an event that is very rare to see in humans, unless you are eating ungodly amounts of pure fructose.

So, before I click, rat or human study?


Rat study.
 
2012-06-16 10:54:51 PM
I have definitely noticed a serious change in my overall sense of well being since I cut out most sugar. I recently drastically altered my diet, one of the things being junk food and soda (regular or diet). I've had a few diet sodas over the last month, whereas I was drinking a few per day every day for years. And buying regular soda on the weekend, candy bars, etc. I do still put a few packets of sugar in my first coffee of the day, but thats a drop in the river compared to how much overall sugar I was getting into, not even considering the amount of junk carbs i was getting from chips and reese cups.

It was really surprising just how much it was affecting me. I've been very active since my early twenties in terms of working out, but around 9 months ago something kicked in and while I didnt stop exercising, crap food just started getting into me, and it just became easy to eat shiat. I know it was my own fault, but i was definitely craving it on par with nicotine or anything else addictive (from experience).

I'm now down 12lbs, with about 25 to go to get back to my ideal weight. Crap food habits can literally get into anyone, I dont judge. And it is addicitve. and there is definitely a difference for the better that you will notice if you give it up. I'm horny more often, I swear my skin and face looks healthier. I'm not shiatting 3x a day.

Once I get back down to 200, I will definitely allow myself a treat once in a while. york peppermint patty or something. But for now until I get to that and feel i have full control of my compulsions again, no more!

/fark Sugar
 
2012-06-16 10:55:06 PM

MarkEC: boozerman: calorie consumption up + activity down= more obesity. But I guess that's too simple, doesn't give you something to blame, and isn't interesting enough to sell books about.

One of the reasons calorie consumption is up is because of all the added sugar in everything. Remember the "fat is bad" craze decades ago when everything started coming out in low fat versions? Guess what they replaced the fat with? That's right, sugar. Put the fat back in and take the sugar out, and people will eat fewer calories because your system tells your brain you are full sooner when you eat fat compared to sugar.


You can blame the nutrients all you want, people are eating more than they used to. And doing less. Food is even more clearly labeled now than it ever was. Sugar isn't the villain, carbs aren't the villain, fat isn't the villain, over consumption of calories is the villain. That's in our control. People have lost grasp of moderation. And it is possible.

I do, myself, compose my diet of mostly whole and lightly processed foods. I enjoy some added sugar every day as well. But I have found buying eggs, meat, cheese dairy, whole grain pastas, rice, oats, veggies, etc that my grocery bill went down when I made the change from highly processed foods. People just don't want to take time or accountability anymore, that's fine. Don't blame the sugar though.
 
2012-06-16 10:56:12 PM

J. Frank Parnell: Dwedit: Because fruit is sugar-free.

Ancient people who ate lots of fruit still left skeletons with heads full of pearly white teeth. They didn't use toothpaste, either.

Anyone who tries to tell you refined sugar is the same as all sugars is full of shiat, or trying to kill you.


Actually tooth decay is a result of the agricultural revolution, thousands of years before refined sugar.
 
2012-06-16 10:58:22 PM

Dwedit: Because fruit is sugar-free.


Fruit has natural sugars AND fiber which in combination, the fiber prevents a lot of the sugar absorption in the body making it healthier.

If your great grandmother wouldn't recognize the food you are eating you probably shouldn't eat it.
 
2012-06-16 10:58:38 PM
Dammit, Sugar, stop killing people.
25.media.tumblr.com
 
2012-06-16 10:59:11 PM

phedex: I have definitely noticed a serious change in my overall sense of well being since I cut out most sugar. I recently drastically altered my diet, one of the things being junk food and soda (regular or diet). I've had a few diet sodas over the last month, whereas I was drinking a few per day every day for years. And buying regular soda on the weekend, candy bars, etc. I do still put a few packets of sugar in my first coffee of the day, but thats a drop in the river compared to how much overall sugar I was getting into, not even considering the amount of junk carbs i was getting from chips and reese cups.

It was really surprising just how much it was affecting me. I've been very active since my early twenties in terms of working out, but around 9 months ago something kicked in and while I didnt stop exercising, crap food just started getting into me, and it just became easy to eat shiat. I know it was my own fault, but i was definitely craving it on par with nicotine or anything else addictive (from experience).

I'm now down 12lbs, with about 25 to go to get back to my ideal weight. Crap food habits can literally get into anyone, I dont judge. And it is addicitve. and there is definitely a difference for the better that you will notice if you give it up. I'm horny more often, I swear my skin and face looks healthier. I'm not shiatting 3x a day.

Once I get back down to 200, I will definitely allow myself a treat once in a while. york peppermint patty or something. But for now until I get to that and feel i have full control of my compulsions again, no more!

/fark Sugar


Good work. Hope it continues that way...
 
2012-06-16 11:01:45 PM

guises: Really the problem with processed foods isn't the processing, it's the packaging - making food edible when it has to sit on a shelf for god knows how long means adding lots of crap to it. Sugar, fat, and salt replace the essential oils and flavonoids that make foods taste good, but are too volatile to sit on a shelf for that long.


Fat is one of the ingredients taken out to prolong shelf life, not added in.

Try an experiment, make a batch of brownies made with the current recipe on the Hershey's coco package, and one with the recipe from 30 years ago with 1/2 pound of butter. Then eat them on different days and see how many you can eat before you start to feel full. The old recipe will seem so much richer than the new recipe, that you will feel fuller with far fewer calories eaten. Fat being taken out of food was not because of obesity, but because of the link to heart disease that has not been proven.
 
2012-06-16 11:03:04 PM
I'm okay with regulations that keep corporations from killing us. Nothing in the article says we can't grow our tobacco and sugar cane in the backyard.
Really, the only anti-government type that has any credibility is the subsistence farmer. America has had tea baggers throughout its entire history. For most of that time, they weren't considered credible unless they wore homespun.
 
2012-06-16 11:03:21 PM
Sometimes, I want to go through the grocery store and cover every "low fat", "less fat", and "no fat" marking on packages with stickers that say "high sugar content".
 
2012-06-16 11:03:23 PM
No shiat.
 
2012-06-16 11:03:39 PM

frestcrallen: . The general populace can't control its appetite for sugar, so the state has to do it for them.


Not entirely. I'm noticing a lot of HFCS free items in the supermarket lately..such as the quite a few major brands of Ketchup and fruit juices. That was primary driven by consumer demand for HFCS free items. Just look at the popularity of Mexican CocaCola. Even cambell soups are now made with less salt-- which is more inline with their original soup salt content. Their tomato soup is still far to sweet for me tho....it didn't used to be that sweet. A 1 cup serving is 24 grams of sugar---a snickers bar is 30 grams.
 
2012-06-16 11:04:10 PM

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.
 
2012-06-16 11:04:12 PM

I_Am_Weasel: Everything in moderation, but those who abuse sugar deserve a good caning.


Old joke, but I gave it a [Funny!] nonetheless.
 
2012-06-16 11:04:18 PM

MarkEC: guises: Really the problem with processed foods isn't the processing, it's the packaging - making food edible when it has to sit on a shelf for god knows how long means adding lots of crap to it. Sugar, fat, and salt replace the essential oils and flavonoids that make foods taste good, but are too volatile to sit on a shelf for that long.

Fat is one of the ingredients taken out to prolong shelf life, not added in.

Try an experiment, make a batch of brownies made with the current recipe on the Hershey's coco package, and one with the recipe from 30 years ago with 1/2 pound of butter. Then eat them on different days and see how many you can eat before you start to feel full. The old recipe will seem so much richer than the new recipe, that you will feel fuller with far fewer calories eaten. Fat being taken out of food was not because of obesity, but because of the link to heart disease that has not been proven.


You are much better at explaining things than I am. I will refrain from saying "THIS" to everything you say... but it is implied.
 
2012-06-16 11:07:52 PM

cmunic8r99: Sometimes, I want to go through the grocery store and cover every "low fat", "less fat", and "no fat" marking on packages with stickers that say "high sugar content".


I think I've found my new hobby.
 
2012-06-16 11:08:47 PM

optikeye: Their tomato soup is still far to sweet for me tho....it didn't used to be that sweet.


Do a 6 oz can tomato paste, 3/4 c. water, and 1 1/2 c. milk. Add in about 1/2 tsp. sugar (or less, to taste), a pinch or two of salt, and spices/seasonings to taste. It's almost as quick as canned tomato soup but you can control the salt & sugar content of it.

/To make it even healthier, use skim milk.
//Even better? Coconut milk.
 
2012-06-16 11:09:03 PM
I dropped my soda intake to one day a month starting at the beginning of the year and I've lost 20 pounds without doing a lick of exercise, so Im getting a kick...
 
2012-06-16 11:12:01 PM
Having not read the thread or TFA, I still want to say that when I abstained from sugar, I thought that even fruit was super sweet. Seriously, a banana was almost too sweet for me. These days, I just eat whatever I want within reason, and avoid stupid shiat like "low fat", while eating reasonable foods like bacon, eggs and high quality meats and veggies. It's never been easier to maintain my weight, even while drinking more booze than the average farker. If anything, eating high quality fats and protein while avoiding crap carbs as much as possible has made it harder to gain weight. And I desperately need to gain farkin' weight. I'm 5' 10" and 155 lbs, male, and I eat bacon, eggs and potatoes every day for breakfast. My blood work is phenomenal, and I'm so awesome I don't even need to be at the gym in 26 minutes. The gym comes to me.

/Need more coconut oil.
//That stuff is my bestestest friend evar
 
2012-06-16 11:12:49 PM

Gulper Eel: I wonder if these scare stories are coming up only because nobody has yet found a way to pimp sugar with pretentious foodie bullshiat like they do with other unhealthful-when-overdone products like coffee, alcohol, and even salt.


let me introduce you to

Evaporated Cane Juice

ecx.images-amazon.com
 
2012-06-16 11:13:34 PM
Remember when "fat" was the enemy...and everyone switched to Margarine instead of real butter? Until we found out about transfats in the margarine where worse for you than butterfats.

I know people raised in the 80's that think real butter doesn't taste like 'butter' and only like squeeze bottles of parkay and 'butter spreads'.
 
2012-06-16 11:14:40 PM
Seriously, the left is more authoritarian then the right and have less of a clue. Un-Constitutional Control by both sides. I guess you could make a 10th Amendment argument, States rights and all, but this isn't in the realm of government.

/Resident of the Peoples Republic of California
 
2012-06-16 11:16:32 PM

boozerman:
You can blame the nutrients all you want, people are eating more than they used to. And doing less. Food is even more clearly labeled now than it ever was. Sugar isn't the villain, carbs aren't the villain, fat isn't the villain, over consumption of calories is the villain. That's in our control. People have lost grasp of moderation. And it is possible..


People say this but is there any evidence that today's meals are larger? I remember regularly eating meals as a kid that would dwarf anything you'll find at say, the Olive Garden.
 
2012-06-16 11:16:34 PM

Dwedit: Because fruit is sugar-free.


A good reason that the body evolved to use glucose as its basic fuel is that fructose is harder to deal with. Basically more damage potential..
 
2012-06-16 11:16:47 PM

MarkEC: Fat is one of the ingredients taken out to prolong shelf life, not added in.


It's not about prolonging shelf life, it's about making old food still feel moist when you eat it. They certainly do take out unsaturated fats for the sake of prolonging shelf life, but they often add more heavily saturated fats back in - saturated fats stay good for a very long time and have a higher melting point, which gives a better feel in the mouth for many foods.

There's no debate that fat makes you feel fuller for longer, but it also has more than double the calories of carbohydrates or protein so that's not exactly the end-all of the matter.
 
2012-06-16 11:16:55 PM

phedex: I have definitely noticed a serious change in my overall sense of well being since I cut out most sugar. I recently drastically altered my diet, one of the things being junk food and soda (regular or diet). I've had a few diet sodas over the last month, whereas I was drinking a few per day every day for years. And buying regular soda on the weekend, candy bars, etc. I do still put a few packets of sugar in my first coffee of the day, but thats a drop in the river compared to how much overall sugar I was getting into, not even considering the amount of junk carbs i was getting from chips and reese cups.

It was really surprising just how much it was affecting me. I've been very active since my early twenties in terms of working out, but around 9 months ago something kicked in and while I didnt stop exercising, crap food just started getting into me, and it just became easy to eat shiat. I know it was my own fault, but i was definitely craving it on par with nicotine or anything else addictive (from experience).

I'm now down 12lbs, with about 25 to go to get back to my ideal weight. Crap food habits can literally get into anyone, I dont judge. And it is addicitve. and there is definitely a difference for the better that you will notice if you give it up. I'm horny more often, I swear my skin and face looks healthier. I'm not shiatting 3x a day.

Once I get back down to 200, I will definitely allow myself a treat once in a while. york peppermint patty or something. But for now until I get to that and feel i have full control of my compulsions again, no more!

/fark Sugar


Very nice.

Here are a few tips:

To get sugar out of your coffee, switch to lightly roasted. Dark roasted is the norm because it helps mask the bad flavor of cheap beans (which is why it's so dark roast is so prevalent in coffee chains -- they're using cheap beans). The darker you roast the beans, the more bitter the coffee tastes, which is what drives people to put sugar in it.

With breakfast, if you haven't done it yet, try steel cut oatmeal. Very low in calories, and it easily absorbs the flavor of sweetener, so all it takes is a little brown suger to sweeten it up. Also, it's dirt cheap -- buy it in the bulk grain section of the supermarket rather than already canned.

Greek Yogurt. It's the food of gods. Low in calories and very high in protein. My favorite by far is Chobani. You can also use plain greek yogurt as a dairy substitute for cooking.

If you want to have just a salad for a meal but find it's not filling enough, add a legume to it. Low in calories, high in protein and fiber.

Cut out pasta and replace with farro.
 
2012-06-16 11:17:24 PM

optikeye: Remember when "fat" was the enemy...and everyone switched to Margarine instead of real butter? Until we found out about transfats in the margarine where worse for you than butterfats.

I know people raised in the 80's that think real butter doesn't taste like 'butter' and only like squeeze bottles of parkay and 'butter spreads'.


not true at all. Born in '81. real butter is amazing. I still have nightmares about my mom making popcorn and melting margarine to pour on it. yech.

/They also microwaved hamburgers wrapped in saran wrap.
 
2012-06-16 11:17:30 PM

Jack Kerouac:
/Need more coconut oil.
//That stuff is my bestestest friend evar


Coconut oil protip: Use it to make popcorn the old fashioned way in a lidded pot on the stovetop. With just the littlest bit of salt sprinkled on, it's the best popcorn you've ever had.

/Bonus idea for weight gain: Fry up some bacon. Leave the grease in the pan. Crumble bacon into a grilled cheese sandwich you cook in the bacon grease. The bread will toast up perfectly with molten bacon cheese inside, because bacon fat has a high smoke point. You can get that sandwich hotter than with butter or plant oils before it brown/blackens.
 
2012-06-16 11:17:45 PM

optikeye: Remember when "fat" was the enemy...and everyone switched to Margarine instead of real butter? Until we found out about transfats in the margarine where worse for you than butterfats.


And now people buy sugar and fat free food that is instead full of mysterious chemicals, many of which turn out to be bad for us each year.
 
2012-06-16 11:18:47 PM

Jack Kerouac: Having not read the thread or TFA, I still want to say that when I abstained from sugar, I thought that even fruit was super sweet. Seriously, a banana was almost too sweet for me. These days, I just eat whatever I want within reason, and avoid stupid shiat like "low fat", while eating reasonable foods like bacon, eggs and high quality meats and veggies. It's never been easier to maintain my weight, even while drinking more booze than the average farker. If anything, eating high quality fats and protein while avoiding crap carbs as much as possible has made it harder to gain weight. And I desperately need to gain farkin' weight. I'm 5' 10" and 155 lbs, male, and I eat bacon, eggs and potatoes every day for breakfast. My blood work is phenomenal, and I'm so awesome I don't even need to be at the gym in 26 minutes. The gym comes to me.

/Need more coconut oil.
//That stuff is my bestestest friend evar


I have had so many people tell me to cut sugar, eliminate refined carbs, etc. It's almost impossible for me to do that! The more I think about reducing my intake of sugar/refined carbs, the more I want it! But then my personal trainer told me NOT to cut carbs but to simply increase my proteins. He suggested eggs, protein shakes, etc. - lots of high-protein, low-carb meals. Suddenly, I stopped eating those refined carbs, not because I was TRYING to avoid them, but because the protein kept my sugar levels stable and I wasn't craving them at all. Had he told me to cut the carbs, I would've had a heck of a time doing it. But instead he gave me something to replace them with, and I no longer wanted them.
 
2012-06-16 11:23:06 PM
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
 
2012-06-16 11:23:38 PM

Dr.Zom: boozerman:
You can blame the nutrients all you want, people are eating more than they used to. And doing less. Food is even more clearly labeled now than it ever was. Sugar isn't the villain, carbs aren't the villain, fat isn't the villain, over consumption of calories is the villain. That's in our control. People have lost grasp of moderation. And it is possible..

People say this but is there any evidence that today's meals are larger? I remember regularly eating meals as a kid that would dwarf anything you'll find at say, the Olive Garden.


I haven't looked in to any research on meal size except for studies debunking that whole "eat 6-7000" times a day bullshiat. But, if I had to hazard a guess, I'd say that calories are more distributed through out the day. I remember growing up, we got 3 meals a day and ate very little in between and really only drank water or milk between meals. I'd say more calorie dense beverages and snacks are being consumed through out the day, which will point people without an understanding of physiology to blame the fat/sugar in those things, rather than the added calories.
 
2012-06-16 11:24:50 PM

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.


This is actually quite wrong.
The reason isn't that people were getting fat, the reason is that someone published a highly flawed study back in the 50's that insinuated that the Western lifestyle was unhealthy simply by looking at heart disease rates in other countries. However, it failed to take into account any other primarily Western activities such as smoking (EXTREMELY ubiquitous during that time), and ignored data from other many other countries that didn't fit their conclusions.

/Here is a peer-reviewed article on the subject that you may find illuminating
//Science, Vol.291
///Another one from Men's Health
 
2012-06-16 11:25:22 PM
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
 
2012-06-16 11:25:46 PM

optikeye: Remember when "fat" was the enemy...and everyone switched to Margarine instead of real butter? Until we found out about transfats in the margarine where worse for you than butterfats.

I know people raised in the 80's that think real butter doesn't taste like 'butter' and only like squeeze bottles of parkay and 'butter spreads'.


Heh I use butter on most things but as a kid we used imperial margarine a lot. I still use it on muffins and things like banana bread. It just doesn't taste the same without it.
 
2012-06-16 11:25:56 PM
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.
 
2012-06-16 11:26:12 PM

optikeye: Remember when "fat" was the enemy...and everyone switched to Margarine instead of real butter? Until we found out about transfats in the margarine where worse for you than butterfats.

I know people raised in the 80's that think real butter doesn't taste like 'butter' and only like squeeze bottles of parkay and 'butter spreads'.


I grew up in the 80's and have never heard that. However, the anti-fat thing is engrained in my head. I remember being a kid and thinking, hey pasta isn't bad for me because it has low fat and other such ideas.

I'm not much of a sugar consumer in the sense that I don't eat sweets, I don't drink regular soda (yes I know how bad diet is as well but I still like it from time to time :/), and I never add sugar to anything like drinks or cereal. I do like beer/wine and fruit though so there is that.

However, it's become quite disturbing to me to read labels and find out how basically everything gets sugar added to it, even foods that aren't sweet in the slightest bit. Since I hate sweet flavors, I always thought I was avoiding sugar consumption for the most part, but I didn't realize I was eating it in basically every processed food I bought :/.

I've just resigned to the fact that we can't win if we eat processed food. And by processed, I don't just mean twinkies and chips. Unfortunately almost all the food sold is processed to some degree though. It seems like unless you're out there growing your own vegetables, hunting your own meat, milking your own cow, and harvesting your own chicken eggs you're screwed. Or at least that's what the fear-mongering articles that get published every hour have lead me to believe.
 
2012-06-16 11:26:42 PM

miss marla singer: I know you are being sarcastic but it is surprising how so many people don't know that table sugar is half fructose and half sucrose[glucose]. And that people think eating fruit is very good when that's just ALL fructose. Sigh.


yeah. And table salt is 50% Sodium, a metal that explodes on contact with water, and 50% Chlorine, a gas used for warfare in WWI.

So it must be super badass!

/chemistry, how does it work?
 
2012-06-16 11:26:54 PM
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.
 
2012-06-16 11:27:38 PM

Dr.Zom: boozerman:
You can blame the nutrients all you want, people are eating more than they used to. And doing less. Food is even more clearly labeled now than it ever was. Sugar isn't the villain, carbs aren't the villain, fat isn't the villain, over consumption of calories is the villain. That's in our control. People have lost grasp of moderation. And it is possible..

People say this but is there any evidence that today's meals are larger? I remember regularly eating meals as a kid that would dwarf anything you'll find at say, the Olive Garden.


The physical size of the food or the room it takes up on a plate may not be larger, but the caloric intake is higher.

For example, a typical meal when I was growing up would have been fresh caught fish, green beans from the field, corn on the cob and sweet tea. As much of it as you could eat. Still, even three platefuls of that meal probably has less calories than your typical extra value meal.
 
2012-06-16 11:28:34 PM

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.

This is actually quite wrong.
The reason isn't that people were getting fat, the reason is that someone published a highly flawed study back in the 50's that insinuated that the Western lifestyle was unhealthy simply by looking at heart disease rates in other countries. However, it failed to take into account any other primarily Western activities such as smoking (EXTREMELY ubiquitous during that time), and ignored data from other many other countries that didn't fit their conclusions.

/Here is a peer-reviewed article on the subject that you may find illuminating
//Science, Vol.291
///Another one from Men's Health


This. (I never do that)
 
2012-06-16 11:28:56 PM

Gawdzila: /Here is a peer-reviewed article on the subject that you may find illuminating
//Science, Vol.291
///Another one from Men's Health


Thanks for the links. I'll read them, though not right this instant.
 
2012-06-16 11:29:19 PM

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!
 
2012-06-16 11:30:33 PM
Again? It keeps attacking each year. At least according to fark articles
 
2012-06-16 11:31:13 PM

spaten: J. Frank Parnell: Dwedit: Because fruit is sugar-free.

Ancient people who ate lots of fruit still left skeletons with heads full of pearly white teeth. They didn't use toothpaste, either.

Anyone who tries to tell you refined sugar is the same as all sugars is full of shiat, or trying to kill you.

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


i158.photobucket.com

Came to say this. Glad that you seem to have it covered.
 
2012-06-16 11:32:07 PM

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!


Well, I think the issue is that people who demand real sugur be used in things like soft drinks instead of HFCS are missing the larger issue.
 
2012-06-16 11:32:50 PM

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)
 
2012-06-16 11:33:36 PM
"Not all calories equal"
Yes, yes they are equal. A calorie is a unit of energy. One calorie is exactly the same as every other calorie. What you mean to say is that not all FOOD is handled the same way by our bodies.
 
2012-06-16 11:34:41 PM

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.
 
2012-06-16 11:34:47 PM

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
 
2012-06-16 11:34:52 PM

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.
 
2012-06-16 11:35:28 PM

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

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 ;)
 
2012-06-16 11:36:41 PM
Who would have thought a substance we use in an entirely too large of quantities in just about every food product we eat would turn out to be bad for us?
 
2012-06-16 11:37:00 PM

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


Liberals walk this way! And conservatives walk this way!
/laugh track
 
2012-06-16 11:37:09 PM

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.
 
2012-06-16 11:39:14 PM

J. Frank Parnell: Dwedit: Because fruit is sugar-free.

Ancient people who ate lots of fruit still left skeletons with heads full of pearly white teeth. They didn't use toothpaste, either.

Anyone who tries to tell you refined sugar is the same as all sugars is full of shiat, or trying to kill you.


That's because they died before they hit 20.
 
2012-06-16 11:41:36 PM
Gold coast slave ship bound for cotton fields,
Sold in a market down in new orleans.
Scarred old slaver know he's doin alright.
Hear him whip the women just around midnight.
Ah brown sugar how come you taste so good
(a-ha) brown sugar, just like a young girl should
A-huh.

Drums beating, cold english blood runs hot,
Lady of the house wondrin where it's gonna stop.
House boy knows that he's doin alright.
You should a heard him just around midnight.
Ah brown sugar how come you taste so good
(a-ha) brown sugar, just like a black girl should
A-huh.

I bet your mama was a tent show queen, and all her boy
Friends were sweet sixteen.
Im no schoolboy but I know what I like,
You should have heard me just around midnight.

Ah brown sugar how come you taste so good
(a-ha) brown sugar, just like a young girl should.

I said yeah, I said yeah, I said yeah, I said
Oh just like a, just like a black girl should.

I said yeah, I said yeah, I said yeah, I said
Oh just like, just like a black girl should.
 
2012-06-16 11:42:48 PM

thornhill: 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!

Well, I think the issue is that people who demand real sugur be used in things like soft drinks instead of HFCS are missing the larger issue.


It's true, I hate the corn lobby. But also, I'd rather they use sugar in sodas because sugar tastes better.
They say your body handles it the same (not sure that that's quite true), but my tongue sure doesn't.
 
2012-06-16 11:43:51 PM
Geez, do I have to do everything?

fitnessforce.ca

images.wikia.com
 
2012-06-16 11:45:05 PM

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)



Yes. I'm conflicted on the fat intake issue. Obviously too much fat is bad, in that it is a lot of calories in a small volume, why eat it if there is something else. Too much saturated fat is definitely bad. Some types of fat are "good" and you need them, but it begins to look like you need a variety in your diet. So my current priority in picking what to eat is:

1) carbs (subtract the fiber).
2) Then saturated fat
3) Try to eat healthy fats, but I don't avoid foods because of fat if they are low carb.
Obviously I don't want to scarf down a bunch of palm kernel oil or anything, but fat is lower priority on my list after carbs. Just my crazy diet, but I've lost weight, my cholesterol is down, my blood sugar is down, and I eat all I want and I feel great. I've had to make more of my own foods though, especially breads, and it is hard to eat out. Eating out I order a steak and substitute the potatoes for a veggie or get fish or salad or eggs and substitute or give away the toast.
 
2012-06-16 11:47:23 PM
if they ban sugar, I'll probably have to buy it from a dealer and inject it.
 
2012-06-16 11:47:40 PM

thornhill: 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!

Well, I think the issue is that people who demand real sugur be used in things like soft drinks instead of HFCS are missing the larger issue.


Yes both are bad for you, but HFCS is cheaper than cane sugar, which means it tends to be used as a sweetener in more foods and in larger amounts.
 
2012-06-16 11:49:02 PM

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
 
2012-06-16 11:49:32 PM

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.
 
2012-06-16 11:49:38 PM

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.
 
2012-06-16 11:50:49 PM

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...
 
2012-06-16 11:51:39 PM

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.

paxholley.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-06-16 11:52:04 PM
That's salt not sugar. Sorry.
 
2012-06-16 11:52:07 PM

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.
 
2012-06-16 11:52:53 PM
So, my fond memories of my grandmother making me cookies was just a front and she was trying to kill me???
 
2012-06-16 11:53:48 PM

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.
 
2012-06-16 11:54:01 PM
Tax 'em all and let God give them insulin.
 
2012-06-16 11:54:27 PM

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.
 
2012-06-16 11:55:12 PM

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.
 
2012-06-16 11:55:57 PM
hey foodies!
lh4.googleusercontent.com
 
2012-06-16 11:56:21 PM

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?
 
2012-06-16 11:57:34 PM

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.
 
2012-06-16 11:57:40 PM
 
2012-06-16 11:57:48 PM

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


Oh yeah? Take this!

guyarts.com
 
2012-06-16 11:58:39 PM

kukukupo: You can pry it from my cold, dead hands.

/it isn't sugar that is killing us
//How about the fact that we all sit on our asses and stare at a screen for 10 hours a day?


No, no, it's entirely the fault of sugar/corn syrup/transfats/partially hydrogenated soybean oil/smegma.

If only they could find the proper foods, we could sit on our asses 24/7 and actually look like The Rock at the end of the week.
 
2012-06-16 11:58:45 PM

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?
 
2012-06-16 11:59:40 PM

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.
 
2012-06-17 12:00:42 AM

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.
 
2012-06-17 12:01:20 AM

Boudica's War Tampon: smadge1: hey foodies!
[lh4.googleusercontent.com image 640x413]

Oh yeah? Take this!

[guyarts.com image 600x744]


mattcbr.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-06-17 12:01:29 AM

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.
 
2012-06-17 12:02:12 AM

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.
 
2012-06-17 12:02:25 AM
Sugars. You will die without them...but don't let that stop you.
 
2012-06-17 12:03:47 AM
Obviously the author's auto correct was taught to change high fructose corn syrup to sugar. Not really sure why...
 
2012-06-17 12:04:21 AM

Gawdzila: 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.


And for that matter, another thing that goes against conventional lore is that greatly reduced intake of salt was also correlated with higher likelihood of death. It looks like the salt intake/death relationship is maybe going to be a curve with a (broad) sweet spot for salt intake. That's why I'm considering carbs first, fat second,and really I only consider the fat because it is concentrated calories when I could be eating more of something else. I don't worry about the saturated fat much, or salt at all, although I might if I had high blood pressure.
 
2012-06-17 12:05:10 AM
Taxing HFCS is stupid in the U.S. as corn is subsidised. Look there for a solution instead.
 
2012-06-17 12:05:33 AM
We went through the whole "sugar is bad" thing when I was a wee lass. For a while it was all about how sugar was evil, and everyone went for honey or maltose as a sweetener because of Evil Sugar Manufacturers. For a while it was thought that WHITE sugar was bad so everyone was using brown sugar, till they finally realized brown sugar is just white sugar with molasses.

Then it was RAW sugar, because it was the "processing" that made white sugar bad sugar, and those little packets of "Raw" sugar were showing up in coffee shops. For a while it was corn syrup or Karo, because that wasn't the kind of sugar that was over processed.

Then it was something else--Splenda, I believe--and then for a while regular white sugar was okay again. Now we're back to oo bad sugar evil. I'm going to invest in honey futures and a new "Raw Sugar" franchise, just to plan ahead.
 
2012-06-17 12:07:27 AM

frestcrallen: GeneralJim: Sugar has long been known to be unhealthy. Many peer-reviewed articles, and media scare stories, including Fark references, have shown that. But the rush to tax and/or ban is simply farking stupid. Let people KNOW, by all means, and then let them decide.

/ Farking control freaks...

What the hell, I'll bite. Evolutionary biology shows that we've evolved to need coercion. The general populace can't control its appetite for sugar, so the state has to do it for them. I, for one, welcome our new Sugar Police overlords. Don't worry, you still have the right to bear arms.


What's hillarious is that people decrying the government's influence gloss over the billions of marketing dollars that go into marketing to coerce you into eating the stuff. Yeah, you have free will...right after this commercial break...

I used to love my students who would practically sob that behavior can't be measured or quantified whenever that concept would mean that we could measure racism or other bad things. Typically these same kids were business majors studying marketing/communications. I would point out that marketing firms spend oodles of money to do just that and get them to make decisions agains their own best interests.

Some people are just stupid.
 
2012-06-17 12:09:19 AM

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.
 
2012-06-17 12:10:17 AM

spaten: Seriously, the left is more authoritarian then the right and have less of a clue.


Actually, anybody who identifies with the "left" or the "right" is more authoritarian than anybody else.

The rest of us just point and laugh.
 
2012-06-17 12:13:40 AM
 
2012-06-17 12:15:12 AM

Red Shirt Blues: So my diet of red wine, bourbon, meat, poultry, cheese, eggs, sausage and the occasional salad is ok then?


Actually, it probably is.
 
2012-06-17 12:16:12 AM

Gyrfalcon: We went through the whole "sugar is bad" thing when I was a wee lass. For a while it was all about how sugar was evil, and everyone went for honey or maltose as a sweetener because of Evil Sugar Manufacturers. For a while it was thought that WHITE sugar was bad so everyone was using brown sugar, till they finally realized brown sugar is just white sugar with molasses.

Then it was RAW sugar, because it was the "processing" that made white sugar bad sugar, and those little packets of "Raw" sugar were showing up in coffee shops. For a while it was corn syrup or Karo, because that wasn't the kind of sugar that was over processed.

Then it was something else--Splenda, I believe--and then for a while regular white sugar was okay again. Now we're back to oo bad sugar evil. I'm going to invest in honey futures and a new "Raw Sugar" franchise, just to plan ahead.


Pretty much why i said fark it and just stopped caring about what is in the food that i eat. I eat what I want and don't care if it is organic, regular, HFCS, sugar, or anything else. I just eat it because it tastes good. My basic diet was, quit drinking so much and quit eating so much, and exercise from time to time That was it. It may not work for everyone but it works for me.
 
2012-06-17 12:17:01 AM

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.
 
2012-06-17 12:17:13 AM
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.
 
2012-06-17 12:17:34 AM
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".
 
2012-06-17 12:19:40 AM

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!
 
2012-06-17 12:20:25 AM

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.
 
2012-06-17 12:20:53 AM

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.

This is actually quite wrong.
The reason isn't that people were getting fat, the reason is that someone published a highly flawed study back in the 50's that insinuated that the Western lifestyle was unhealthy simply by looking at heart disease rates in other countries. However, it failed to take into account any other primarily Western activities such as smoking (EXTREMELY ubiquitous during that time), and ignored data from other many other countries that didn't fit their conclusions.

/Here is a peer-reviewed article on the subject that you may find illuminating
//Science, Vol.291
///Another one from Men's Health


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 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.
 
2012-06-17 12:21:16 AM

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.
 
2012-06-17 12:21:57 AM

Gyrfalcon: We went through the whole "sugar is bad" thing when I was a wee lass. For a while it was all about how sugar was evil, and everyone went for honey or maltose as a sweetener because of Evil Sugar Manufacturers. For a while it was thought that WHITE sugar was bad so everyone was using brown sugar, till they finally realized brown sugar is just white sugar with molasses.

Then it was RAW sugar, because it was the "processing" that made white sugar bad sugar, and those little packets of "Raw" sugar were showing up in coffee shops. For a while it was corn syrup or Karo, because that wasn't the kind of sugar that was over processed.

Then it was something else--Splenda, I believe--and then for a while regular white sugar was okay again. Now we're back to oo bad sugar evil. I'm going to invest in honey futures and a new "Raw Sugar" franchise, just to plan ahead.


Actually, based on the comments in this thread, it seems that now hfcs is bad... Yeah, that's it. Just replace hfcs with real refined sugar! Then our sedentary lifestyles and overeating will be nullified.
 
2012-06-17 12:22:12 AM

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


If you could come up with a diet that provided all the required nutrients you need in their natural form, but didn't have any sugars... well, I'd buy you a coke.
What you said about sugars you could also say about fats.
 
2012-06-17 12:24:07 AM

iaazathot: 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.


I thought the China Study was debunked.
 
2012-06-17 12:24:29 AM

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


A solution? When politics and money are involved? Are you insane? That'll never work. WE MUST HAVE OUTRAGE!
 
2012-06-17 12:24:53 AM
i wonder how much of the gluten hate is propaganda from the corn industry, too

tell that to sufferers of IBS
 
2012-06-17 12:25:05 AM

miss marla singer: 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!


The human body is a pretty amazing chemistry set. You can put in just about any edible material from twinkies to steak to organic kale, and our bodies will break down and rearrange the molecules to supplant whatever it is we need at that time.
 
2012-06-17 12:26:11 AM

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


Gluconeogenesis

Suck it, dietary carbs!
 
2012-06-17 12:28:36 AM

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/
 
2012-06-17 12:29:22 AM

WhippingBoy: iaazathot: 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.

I thought the China Study was debunked.


It was.
 
2012-06-17 12:30:18 AM

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Blackwind: We've went to drinking straight water around here, going on four months now.

Good for you. That gay water shiat tastes horrible.


LOL...funny how that works out. My wife and I never drank sodas or even fruit juice, so we were surprised when our kids took up Coke (not sodas..."Coca-Cola") after they moved away from home as young adults. The older one simply will not drink straight water. He says it tastes bad. We have good well water and a quality multi-stage filter/RO (not a softener or anything that puts shiat in the water), but he still won't drink it unless we make lemonade or o.j. with it. He says he can't stand it without flavor and some sweetness.

This is not just when he's at our house. His wife says he does the same thing at home and work. Strange.

Any of you Farkers experience this? Can 15 years of drinking sodas make you dislike plain water?
 
2012-06-17 12:33:40 AM

WhippingBoy: iaazathot: 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.

I thought the China Study was debunked.


I know that this body of work is very unpopular here in the US, particularly amongst food manufacturers and some food scientists. I know that there is an active attempt to ignore or bury that body of research. I am not sure that it has been debunked, although some might claim so. It was vociferously attacked by various parties, and while their may have been problems with the methodology in some aspects, I think that it is foolish to ignore the research as a whole.

It isn't my area of specialty, I have a cursory interest through my wife who is a Howard Hughes biochemistry major and medical provider. She has used the conclusions of those studies to help her diabetic patients, along with other data and protocols. The results she achieves, via data tracking, are pretty amazing when compared to the standard management practices alone (medication with minor adjustments to diet, for example).

I am sure there are those who will say that those studies hold no validity.
 
2012-06-17 12:34:19 AM

StoneColdAtheist: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Blackwind: We've went to drinking straight water around here, going on four months now.

Good for you. That gay water shiat tastes horrible.

LOL...funny how that works out. My wife and I never drank sodas or even fruit juice, so we were surprised when our kids took up Coke (not sodas..."Coca-Cola") after they moved away from home as young adults. The older one simply will not drink straight water. He says it tastes bad. We have good well water and a quality multi-stage filter/RO (not a softener or anything that puts shiat in the water), but he still won't drink it unless we make lemonade or o.j. with it. He says he can't stand it without flavor and some sweetness.

This is not just when he's at our house. His wife says he does the same thing at home and work. Strange.

Any of you Farkers experience this? Can 15 years of drinking sodas make you dislike plain water?


Well, I don't know if this explains it, but I'm sort of the opposite. I'm from a southern family and we'd have pitchers of sweet tea with dinner every night. I'm talking 2 cups of sugar sweet. Now, as an adult, I drink mainly water, or if I'm at a restaurant I might order an unsweetened tea. Every once in a while the order will get messed up and I'll take a sip of sweet tea and it tastes like syrup to me.
 
2012-06-17 12:34:44 AM

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.


It's not called high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) anymore; it's "corn sugar" now.
 
2012-06-17 12:35:35 AM

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Actually, based on the comments in this thread, it seems that now hfcs is bad... Yeah, that's it. Just replace hfcs with real refined sugar! Then our sedentary lifestyles and overeating will be nullified.


I don't recall anyone making that particular claim.
 
2012-06-17 12:38:52 AM

Gawdzila: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Actually, based on the comments in this thread, it seems that now hfcs is bad... Yeah, that's it. Just replace hfcs with real refined sugar! Then our sedentary lifestyles and overeating will be nullified.

I don't recall anyone making that particular claim.


I am pretty drunk right now, so I may have simply made up all those "hfcs is in everything! and the body processes differently than sugar!" comments. To my credit though, that is a popular sentiment in past sugar threads.
 
2012-06-17 12:40:26 AM

Dr.Zom: LarryDan43: Sugar or corn syrup?

I'm old enough to remember the 70s and 80s when everybody ate sugar all the time and yet no one was really fat. Fat people were an anomaly. And more importantly, YOU NEVER SAW MUFFINTOPS.


So true.

I'm a grad student, though I'm in my 30's. Walking around campus nowadays, I see a HUGE difference between the size of students when I first went to college (1995) and today. Even in that brief 12 year period, there's a notable difference in the size in students.

I'm a married 30-something MOTHER and I'm skinnier than most 18 year olds on campus. How is that friggin' possible?
 
2012-06-17 12:43:21 AM

StoneColdAtheist: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Blackwind: We've went to drinking straight water around here, going on four months now.

Good for you. That gay water shiat tastes horrible.

LOL...funny how that works out. My wife and I never drank sodas or even fruit juice, so we were surprised when our kids took up Coke (not sodas..."Coca-Cola") after they moved away from home as young adults. The older one simply will not drink straight water. He says it tastes bad. We have good well water and a quality multi-stage filter/RO (not a softener or anything that puts shiat in the water), but he still won't drink it unless we make lemonade or o.j. with it. He says he can't stand it without flavor and some sweetness.

This is not just when he's at our house. His wife says he does the same thing at home and work. Strange.

Any of you Farkers experience this? Can 15 years of drinking sodas make you dislike plain water?



I mean, that's kind of like me. But I *never* liked plain water, not even before I had a Coca Cola vice.
I do sometimes crave water, for instance after a workout, but I've never thought it had a particularly good flavor. If I had a choice I'd always doctor it up with something, and it doesn't have to be sweet either. Even just a chunk of lemon does wonders.
 
2012-06-17 12:43:38 AM

StoneColdAtheist: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Blackwind: We've went to drinking straight water around here, going on four months now.

Good for you. That gay water shiat tastes horrible.

LOL...funny how that works out. My wife and I never drank sodas or even fruit juice, so we were surprised when our kids took up Coke (not sodas..."Coca-Cola") after they moved away from home as young adults. The older one simply will not drink straight water. He says it tastes bad. We have good well water and a quality multi-stage filter/RO (not a softener or anything that puts shiat in the water), but he still won't drink it unless we make lemonade or o.j. with it. He says he can't stand it without flavor and some sweetness.

This is not just when he's at our house. His wife says he does the same thing at home and work. Strange.

Any of you Farkers experience this? Can 15 years of drinking sodas make you dislike plain water?


Yeah. I was like that for a while. Will they drink sprite and fruit sodas or just coke? The lack of caffeine might be a factor.

Cold water "tastes" better, like 75% ice. Now I can even tolerate water I left in the car on a hot day if I'm thirsty. I miss central texas water, though, that tasted best. Around here it's all farking lakes and it tastes dusty.
 
2012-06-17 12:44:34 AM

trivial use of my dark powers: Fat people don't cost the system big gobs of money anymore than the smokers--they tend to die before they get elderly and become REALLY expensive.

All you health freaks, you're costing all of us, you selfish preeks. Put down the tofu and eat some fries for heaven's sake.


9/10. Well done.
 
2012-06-17 12:45:28 AM
Whoops...I messed up my up there. Pardon my error.
 
2012-06-17 12:45:30 AM

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: StoneColdAtheist: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Blackwind: We've went to drinking straight water around here, going on four months now.

Good for you. That gay water shiat tastes horrible.

LOL...funny how that works out. My wife and I never drank sodas or even fruit juice, so we were surprised when our kids took up Coke (not sodas..."Coca-Cola") after they moved away from home as young adults. The older one simply will not drink straight water. He says it tastes bad. We have good well water and a quality multi-stage filter/RO (not a softener or anything that puts shiat in the water), but he still won't drink it unless we make lemonade or o.j. with it. He says he can't stand it without flavor and some sweetness.

This is not just when he's at our house. His wife says he does the same thing at home and work. Strange.

Any of you Farkers experience this? Can 15 years of drinking sodas make you dislike plain water?

Well, I don't know if this explains it, but I'm sort of the opposite. I'm from a southern family and we'd have pitchers of sweet tea with dinner every night. I'm talking 2 cups of sugar sweet. Now, as an adult, I drink mainly water, or if I'm at a restaurant I might order an unsweetened tea. Every once in a while the order will get messed up and I'll take a sip of sweet tea and it tastes like syrup to me.


That's how I feel about regular soda. I stopped drinking it 14 years ago, but I took a sip of someone's cherry coke the other day thinking hey I haven't had that in years and it sounds good right now, and it was absolutely vile. I can't imagine drinking those on a regular basis. It's like smoking though, when I quit, the smell of cigarette smoke made me want to vomit.
 
2012-06-17 12:48:56 AM

miss marla singer: miss marla singer: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: 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.

Um... Stop. Seriously. You are obviously a moron. Do you know what the "H" in HFCS stands for? High. As in HIGH fructose corn syrup. HFCS has HIGH fructose, while sugar has NO fructose at all. So yeah, HFCS is far worse than sugar. I hope the corn lobby paid you well for your public schilling.

/sarcasm off

I know you are being sarcastic but it is surprising how so many people don't know that table sugar is half fructose and half sucrose. And that people think eating fruit is very good when that's just ALL fructose. Sigh.

By Sucrose I mean glucose, of course.


Yes but the caloric density of fruit is generally lower than the kinds of foods you'd otherwise get your sugar from in the normal American diet. It also contains other good stuff like vitamins and fiber.

Sugar is not bad in moderation. The problem is that moderation is in short supply.
 
2012-06-17 12:49:01 AM

Artist: I work with about 15 surgeons-5 of whom do back surgeries, it is quite common for them to tell patients to loose say.....100 (!) pounds before even possibly talking about surgery. Even though the relative merits of BMI are debated, someone with a BMI of 49.8 is a human cue ball. How can the skeletal structure function when its so over loaded? I see it all day, every day. It's getting so bad, that even the largest wheel chairs aren't quite big enough for some patients.......let alone getting them through the exam room door......


I briefly worked in hospital admin. I remember several discussions regarding hiring for the "lift team," the hospital employees who have to move the fatties to and from beds, operating tables, examination tables, etc. Patients are so big now that you have to be nearly superhuman strong to move some of these patients.
 
2012-06-17 12:52:44 AM

Jument: miss marla singer: miss marla singer: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: 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.

Um... Stop. Seriously. You are obviously a moron. Do you know what the "H" in HFCS stands for? High. As in HIGH fructose corn syrup. HFCS has HIGH fructose, while sugar has NO fructose at all. So yeah, HFCS is far worse than sugar. I hope the corn lobby paid you well for your public schilling.

/sarcasm off

I know you are being sarcastic but it is surprising how so many people don't know that table sugar is half fructose and half sucrose. And that people think eating fruit is very good when that's just ALL fructose. Sigh.

By Sucrose I mean glucose, of course.

Yes but the caloric density of fruit is generally lower than the kinds of foods you'd otherwise get your sugar from in the normal American diet. It also contains other good stuff like vitamins and fiber.

Sugar is not bad in moderation. The problem is that moderation is in short supply.


It's not "fewer calories" that make fruit moderately more healthy... It's the fiber that prevents the bloodstream from absorbing all the sugar.
 
2012-06-17 12:57:41 AM

FizixJunkee: Artist: I work with about 15 surgeons-5 of whom do back surgeries, it is quite common for them to tell patients to loose say.....100 (!) pounds before even possibly talking about surgery. Even though the relative merits of BMI are debated, someone with a BMI of 49.8 is a human cue ball. How can the skeletal structure function when its so over loaded? I see it all day, every day. It's getting so bad, that even the largest wheel chairs aren't quite big enough for some patients.......let alone getting them through the exam room door......

I briefly worked in hospital admin. I remember several discussions regarding hiring for the "lift team," the hospital employees who have to move the fatties to and from beds, operating tables, examination tables, etc. Patients are so big now that you have to be nearly superhuman strong to move some of these patients.


Whenever I see those giant lardpiles wheeling about in their Hoverounds, I can only wonder to myself how they let it get to that point. Don't you get to a point, far before that, where you look in the mirror and think, "Jeezus, I'm farking HUGE! I can hardly walk under my own power! I need to do something about it!"


/Yay fizix! :D
 
2012-06-17 12:59:25 AM

rosebud_the_sled: If sugar is killing people, well, they it is their own fault. If they are weak, let them die. Blaming people's weakness on some inanimate molecule brings out my sarcastic disdain.

If someone does not care about themselves enough to spend a trivial amount of effort to correct the problem, why should I care for them?

They have free will, which means that they can be come fat, useless gobs to their heart's content, just don't ever expect me to lift one finger (save the middle one) for them or spend a single cent or effort on their behalf. If you are a fat gob, I will not move out of the way for you to get your fat sack past me. Dying of adult onset diabetes - tough, you should allowed to die painfully if you can not pay for the problem you created.

BTW, sugar is great. Weak fat gobs of human lard are not.


www.blogcdn.com

Hates hearing his name mispronounced
 
2012-06-17 01:00:50 AM

miss marla singer: Jument: miss marla singer: miss marla singer: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: 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.

Um... Stop. Seriously. You are obviously a moron. Do you know what the "H" in HFCS stands for? High. As in HIGH fructose corn syrup. HFCS has HIGH fructose, while sugar has NO fructose at all. So yeah, HFCS is far worse than sugar. I hope the corn lobby paid you well for your public schilling.

/sarcasm off

I know you are being sarcastic but it is surprising how so many people don't know that table sugar is half fructose and half sucrose. And that people think eating fruit is very good when that's just ALL fructose. Sigh.

By Sucrose I mean glucose, of course.

Yes but the caloric density of fruit is generally lower than the kinds of foods you'd otherwise get your sugar from in the normal American diet. It also contains other good stuff like vitamins and fiber.

Sugar is not bad in moderation. The problem is that moderation is in short supply.

It's not "fewer calories" that make fruit moderately more healthy... It's the fiber that prevents the bloodstream from absorbing all the sugar.


I don't think it works that way, but who cares?

If you ate nothing but apples, I'd need to eat nearly 20 of them a day to get enough calories to maintain my current weight. That would be seriously difficult. Now think about a processed food high in sugar and imagine how easy it would be to overeat.

That's what I mean by caloric density. You may wish to bingle it.
 
2012-06-17 01:01:08 AM
Why has it become acceptable for girls and young women to wear clothing that doesn't fit? Muffintops aren't cute or OK.

/ off my lawn
 
2012-06-17 01:04:49 AM

Gawdzila: FizixJunkee: Artist: I work with about 15 surgeons-5 of whom do back surgeries, it is quite common for them to tell patients to loose say.....100 (!) pounds before even possibly talking about surgery. Even though the relative merits of BMI are debated, someone with a BMI of 49.8 is a human cue ball. How can the skeletal structure function when its so over loaded? I see it all day, every day. It's getting so bad, that even the largest wheel chairs aren't quite big enough for some patients.......let alone getting them through the exam room door......

I briefly worked in hospital admin. I remember several discussions regarding hiring for the "lift team," the hospital employees who have to move the fatties to and from beds, operating tables, examination tables, etc. Patients are so big now that you have to be nearly superhuman strong to move some of these patients.

Whenever I see those giant lardpiles wheeling about in their Hoverounds, I can only wonder to myself how they let it get to that point. Don't you get to a point, far before that, where you look in the mirror and think, "Jeezus, I'm farking HUGE! I can hardly walk under my own power! I need to do something about it!"


/Yay fizix! :D


I always err on the side of thinking someone has a medical condition and can't walk. But I was on the bus one day and saw a huge woman trying to maneuver her scooter out the door. After bumping in the seats 10 or 11 times... she stood up and lifted the scooter to position it properly to ride off the bus. Yea...

//CSB
 
2012-06-17 01:05:59 AM
Lor M. Ipsum:
GeneralJim: Sugar has long been known to be unhealthy. Many peer-reviewed articles, and media scare stories, including Fark references, have shown that. But the rush to tax and/or ban is simply farking stupid. Let people KNOW, by all means, and then let them decide.

/ Farking control freaks...


People who abuse sugar have health problems. Those health problems cost EVERYONE money by increasing the cost of private health insurance and the taxes that people pay towards medicare.

/let's throw some gas on this fire

Okay, I'll play along...

That's WHY you don't want government health care -- it gives the government at least a logical reason why they should have their grubby little fingers in every part of your life. (Not that employer-provided insurance is much better...)


andrewjrivers.com
 
2012-06-17 01:07:45 AM

Dr.Zom: LarryDan43: Sugar or corn syrup?

I'm old enough to remember the 70s and 80s when everybody ate sugar all the time and yet no one was really fat. Fat people were an anomaly. And more importantly, YOU NEVER SAW MUFFINTOPS.

I repeat, that roll of fat around the middle of an otherwise normal shaped human, was rare as hell. That never showed up until HFCS started being added to everything. There's something about that shiat that condenses fat around the middle.


I came of age in the sixties-early 70s, and sugar was everywhere. My mom served rice with butter and sugar for chrissakes. And yet, what you say is true. When I look back on the one girl in our neighborhood, that's right, one girl, who we thought of as 'fat', she would be totally unremarkable [insert anus joke here] in a lot of schools nowadays. My guess is that the causal factor is not one thing. It is increasingly sedentary lifestyles, abundance of food in huge portions (compare the 6 oz. Coke bottle from the 30s and 40s to the Big Gulp), and perhaps the change in the type of sweeteners used.
 
2012-06-17 01:07:51 AM
I think many people, myself included, don't realize how much sugar and HFCS there is in everything, even things that aren't sweet. Try to find sugar-free toast bread, for instance. It's really hard.A
 
2012-06-17 01:08:08 AM
FTA:As mounting evidence leads to the tart truth that sugar is a toxic substance and fueling America's biggest health problems, more medical experts are going sugar-free, and more policymakers are seeking ways to clamp down on its consumption

Well since this person has no farking idea what the word "toxic" actually means, I think I won't waste my team reading the rest of the article because I can already tell he is a complete dumbass.
 
2012-06-17 01:10:08 AM
Refined sugars and starches are a metabolic problem because humans weren't made for today's Western diet, said Dr. Devendra Mehta, a pediatric gastroenterologist at Orlando Regional Medical Center.

Right because we know Japanese and Italian who have huge diets of starches are all more over weight than Americans... OH wait that's not farking true at all!!!
 
2012-06-17 01:10:42 AM

reubendaley: www.blogcdn.com

Hates hearing his name mispronounced


Wil Arneat? He's awesome. I wouldn't want to be friends with him or anything. I just like his characters.
 
2012-06-17 01:11:01 AM

qualtrough: Dr.Zom: LarryDan43: Sugar or corn syrup?

I'm old enough to remember the 70s and 80s when everybody ate sugar all the time and yet no one was really fat. Fat people were an anomaly. And more importantly, YOU NEVER SAW MUFFINTOPS.

I repeat, that roll of fat around the middle of an otherwise normal shaped human, was rare as hell. That never showed up until HFCS started being added to everything. There's something about that shiat that condenses fat around the middle.

I came of age in the sixties-early 70s, and sugar was everywhere. My mom served rice with butter and sugar for chrissakes. And yet, what you say is true. When I look back on the one girl in our neighborhood, that's right, one girl, who we thought of as 'fat', she would be totally unremarkable [insert anus joke here] in a lot of schools nowadays. My guess is that the causal factor is not one thing. It is increasingly sedentary lifestyles, abundance of food in huge portions (compare the 6 oz. Coke bottle from the 30s and 40s to the Big Gulp), and perhaps the change in the type of sweeteners used.


Me too. Hardly anyone was fat. Rice,butter, sugar and milk, yum. Fast food was a rare treat.
I remember people putting sugar on fruit salad and grapefruit.
Also all the kids walked or rode their bikes to school.
 
2012-06-17 01:12:37 AM
Anyone who makes a statement like "Sugar is a toxin," is either a fear monger or a moron. Reason is that we absolutely rely on a sugar, glucose, to live. It is a metabolic intermediary and important source of energy. You have no glucose in you, you will die.

There are many sugars out there, sucrose, the common table sugar is 50/50 glucose and fructose. Fructose is the sugar you find in plants a whole lot, also in honey, and of course HFCS. There are also more complex sugars like maltose, lactose, and so on.

So the concept of "sugar" being toxic is just retarded. No, a sugar is a requisite for life and is present in your blood at all times. Now, could one of the other sugars be problematic? Maybe, but then of course we'd need to see some research showing how and why. After all if you are talking about table sugar, sucrose, it is as mentioned a 50/50 combo of glucose and fructose. You can't very well argue that the glucose part is toxic, and as mentioned fructose is what you get in fruit so unless you are arguing that is toxic that's out too. That would only leave some strange combo as being bad and you'd have to have some good evidence to back that up.

So as I said, either a fear monger or a moron if you call it a toxin.
 
2012-06-17 01:12:47 AM

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom:

Well, I don't know if this explains it, but I'm sort of the opposite. I'm from a southern family and we'd have pitchers of sweet tea with dinner every night. I'm talking 2 cups of sugar sweet. Now, as an adult, I drink mainly water, or if I'm at a restaurant I might order an unsweetened tea. Every once in a while the order will get messed up and I'll take a sip of sweet tea and it tastes like syrup to me.


Ditto.

I grew up on syrupy sweet tea of the South; now I have no taste for it whatsoever. I still drink plenty of tea, both hot and cold, but unsweetened (not even with artificial sweeteners). I do drink filtered water here in SoCal---the water, straight from the tap, tastes like Hugh Hefner's swimming pool---though I do drink straight-from-the-tap water when I'm visiting family in flyover country (and it's delicious....so much better than anything I've had here in California).

That said, I do drink Mexican Coke a couple times a week (the stuff made with cane sugar and not high-fructose corn syrup). Mexican Coke just tastes better to me, though largely due to being stored in a glass bottled rather than a plastic bottle I speculate.
 
2012-06-17 01:13:07 AM

phedex: optikeye: Remember when "fat" was the enemy...and everyone switched to Margarine instead of real butter? Until we found out about transfats in the margarine where worse for you than butterfats.

I know people raised in the 80's that think real butter doesn't taste like 'butter' and only like squeeze bottles of parkay and 'butter spreads'.

not true at all. Born in '81. real butter is amazing. I still have nightmares about my mom making popcorn and melting margarine to pour on it. yech.

/They also microwaved hamburgers wrapped in saran wrap.


Yep, this right here.
As soon as I moved out, I never touched margarine again. Almost 30yrs. ago.

/yipes. mah lawn
 
2012-06-17 01:14:03 AM
Or maybe this is actually the problem.

4.bp.blogspot.com

The US has one of the highest calorie diets of the world. The US does not have the highest starch diet in the world. The US has one of the highest ratings of obesity in the world.

It's not farking rocket science.
 
2012-06-17 01:15:18 AM

coco ebert: I think many people, myself included, don't realize how much sugar and HFCS there is in everything, even things that aren't sweet. Try to find sugar-free toast bread, for instance. It's really hard.A


That's been my big shock as well. I was making a turkey sandwich the other day and I looked at the labels of this delicious garlic mustard I love and saw it had sugar, then I looked at the dill pickles and saw they contained HFCS. It's probably a minor amount, but I was still surprised as I don't associate either of these foods with having sugar since they're not sweet. It's been happening a lot lately now that I'm aware. So much for just not eating sweets :/.
 
2012-06-17 01:15:54 AM
Dr.Zom:
LarryDan43: Sugar or corn syrup?

I'm old enough to remember the 70s and 80s when everybody ate sugar all the time and yet no one was really fat. Fat people were an anomaly. And more importantly, YOU NEVER SAW MUFFINTOPS.

I repeat, that roll of fat around the middle of an otherwise normal shaped human, was rare as hell. That never showed up until HFCS started being added to everything. There's something about that shiat that condenses fat around the middle.

To inject some reality here, people started (on average) gaining a lot of weight when "low fat" became the diet "magic words." The HFCS thing is just a coincidence. HFCS is simply cheaper sugar than cane sugar. The idea that fat is worse for someone than, well, anything else, is simply wrong. Sugars (including HFCS) are the problem, and when "low fat" stuff came out, they often replaced the fats with starches, which are sugar by the time they reach your stomach.

Fat is really only bad in combination with refined carbohydrates. Together, they make plaque on your arteries. Without that, one can be overweight without necessarily being unhealthy. Blaming fat for making people fat is, literally, magical thinking. For most, fat is the way that the body stores extra carbohydrates for, ahem, "leaner times."
 
2012-06-17 01:16:13 AM

Corvus: Refined sugars and starches are a metabolic problem because humans weren't made for today's Western diet, said Dr. Devendra Mehta, a pediatric gastroenterologist at Orlando Regional Medical Center.

Right because we know Japanese and Italian who have huge diets of starches are all more over weight than Americans... OH wait that's not farking true at all!!!


They remain insulin sensitive because their foods aren't packed with all the crap ours are.
 
2012-06-17 01:16:26 AM
Thanks for the personal perspectives on my son's disinclination to drink plain water. At first I thought it was just youthful rebellion, and that it would go away with time. Hasn't happened though. Odd.
 
2012-06-17 01:17:45 AM
What a population who has a diet manly of simple starches may look like:

factsanddetails.com

They are not fat. They are thin. They eat less calories then people in the US do. When Asians move to the US and eat a high calorie diet with less starch the get fatter.
 
2012-06-17 01:17:47 AM

TheMysticS:
As soon as I moved out, I never touched margarine again. Almost 30yrs. ago.

/yipes. mah lawn


Thirded.

\real butter only
\\accept no substitutes
 
2012-06-17 01:18:46 AM

miss marla singer: Corvus: Refined sugars and starches are a metabolic problem because humans weren't made for today's Western diet, said Dr. Devendra Mehta, a pediatric gastroenterologist at Orlando Regional Medical Center.

Right because we know Japanese and Italian who have huge diets of starches are all more over weight than Americans... OH wait that's not farking true at all!!!

They remain insulin sensitive because their foods aren't packed with all the crap ours are.


HOW DOES THAT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH BEING FAT BASED ON STARCH?!!! You are changing the subject!!!
 
2012-06-17 01:19:53 AM

sycraft: Anyone who makes a statement like "Sugar is a toxin," is either a fear monger or a moron. Reason is that we absolutely rely on a sugar, glucose, to live. It is a metabolic intermediary and important source of energy. You have no glucose in you, you will die.

There are many sugars out there, sucrose, the common table sugar is 50/50 glucose and fructose. Fructose is the sugar you find in plants a whole lot, also in honey, and of course HFCS. There are also more complex sugars like maltose, lactose, and so on.

So the concept of "sugar" being toxic is just retarded. No, a sugar is a requisite for life and is present in your blood at all times. Now, could one of the other sugars be problematic? Maybe, but then of course we'd need to see some research showing how and why. After all if you are talking about table sugar, sucrose, it is as mentioned a 50/50 combo of glucose and fructose. You can't very well argue that the glucose part is toxic, and as mentioned fructose is what you get in fruit so unless you are arguing that is toxic that's out too. That would only leave some strange combo as being bad and you'd have to have some good evidence to back that up.

So as I said, either a fear monger or a moron if you call it a toxin.


Oh, it isn't a direct toxin. However, if it isn't balanced in the diet with fiber, protein, and other things at reasonable levels, it can cause the pancreas and the liver to go off the rails, producing fat people, diabetes, and other things.

Just from a time correlative observation, the introduction of HFCS into the vast majority of processed food products (1996), seems hard to ignore. As we find people eating less balanced diets and we realize that fructose is processed in the body differently than sucrose and other sugars, it is hardly unreasonable to look at HFCS as part of the problem.

Remember, water makes up 70% of our bodies, try drinking a couple of gallons of it and see what happens (you go into a coma and die).
 
2012-06-17 01:19:54 AM
You think glucose is a toxin? Try living without it, and we'll see what happens.
 
2012-06-17 01:21:32 AM

miss marla singer: Corvus: Refined sugars and starches are a metabolic problem because humans weren't made for today's Western diet, said Dr. Devendra Mehta, a pediatric gastroenterologist at Orlando Regional Medical Center.

Right because we know Japanese and Italian who have huge diets of starches are all more over weight than Americans... OH wait that's not farking true at all!!!

They remain insulin sensitive because their foods aren't packed with all the crap ours are.


You guys defending this do this all the time you change the subject when you are shown wrong. Where was I talking about insulin? I was talking about weight gain. These idiots are saying simple starches cause weight gain not calories. That is Bull shiat!! Why are you changing the subject. saying simple sugars/starches can modify insulin has NOTHING to do with weight gain.
 
2012-06-17 01:22:50 AM

Corvus: What a population who has a diet manly of simple starches may look like:

[factsanddetails.com image 517x312]

They are not fat. They are thin. They eat less calories then people in the US do. When Asians move to the US and eat a high calorie diet with less starch the get fatter.


Actually, their health problems are multiplying there as they adopt Western diets, no moving necessary. Again, what starches/sugars and what else is in the diet to balance that out?
 
2012-06-17 01:23:43 AM

Corvus: miss marla singer: Corvus: Refined sugars and starches are a metabolic problem because humans weren't made for today's Western diet, said Dr. Devendra Mehta, a pediatric gastroenterologist at Orlando Regional Medical Center.

Right because we know Japanese and Italian who have huge diets of starches are all more over weight than Americans... OH wait that's not farking true at all!!!

They remain insulin sensitive because their foods aren't packed with all the crap ours are.

HOW DOES THAT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH BEING FAT BASED ON STARCH?!!! You are changing the subject!!!


No...I'm certainly not changing the subject. Carbs/starches effect the blood sugar, which effects insulin... which effects weight gain. Asians remain insulin sensitive, generally, because their traditional food isn't full of extra sugar which, as time goes on, would make them insulin resistant (and gain weight)...
 
2012-06-17 01:24:05 AM

iaazathot: sycraft: Anyone who makes a statement like "Sugar is a toxin," is either a fear monger or a moron. Reason is that we absolutely rely on a sugar, glucose, to live. It is a metabolic intermediary and important source of energy. You have no glucose in you, you will die.

There are many sugars out there, sucrose, the common table sugar is 50/50 glucose and fructose. Fructose is the sugar you find in plants a whole lot, also in honey, and of course HFCS. There are also more complex sugars like maltose, lactose, and so on.

So the concept of "sugar" being toxic is just retarded. No, a sugar is a requisite for life and is present in your blood at all times. Now, could one of the other sugars be problematic? Maybe, but then of course we'd need to see some research showing how and why. After all if you are talking about table sugar, sucrose, it is as mentioned a 50/50 combo of glucose and fructose. You can't very well argue that the glucose part is toxic, and as mentioned fructose is what you get in fruit so unless you are arguing that is toxic that's out too. That would only leave some strange combo as being bad and you'd have to have some good evidence to back that up.

So as I said, either a fear monger or a moron if you call it a toxin.

Oh, it isn't a direct toxin. However, if it isn't balanced in the diet with fiber, protein, and other things at reasonable levels, it can cause the pancreas and the liver to go off the rails, producing fat people, diabetes, and other things.

Just from a time correlative observation, the introduction of HFCS into the vast majority of processed food products (1996), seems hard to ignore. As we find people eating less balanced diets and we realize that fructose is processed in the body differently than sucrose and other sugars, it is hardly unreasonable to look at HFCS as part of the problem.

Remember, water makes up 70% of our bodies, try drinking a couple of gallons of it and see what happens (you go into a coma and die).


The introduction of HFCS and heavily processed foods also coincides with a rise in allergies and such.
 
2012-06-17 01:25:12 AM

Corvus: miss marla singer: Corvus: Refined sugars and starches are a metabolic problem because humans weren't made for today's Western diet, said Dr. Devendra Mehta, a pediatric gastroenterologist at Orlando Regional Medical Center.

Right because we know Japanese and Italian who have huge diets of starches are all more over weight than Americans... OH wait that's not farking true at all!!!

They remain insulin sensitive because their foods aren't packed with all the crap ours are.

You guys defending this do this all the time you change the subject when you are shown wrong. Where was I talking about insulin? I was talking about weight gain. These idiots are saying simple starches cause weight gain not calories. That is Bull shiat!! Why are you changing the subject. saying simple sugars/starches can modify insulin has NOTHING to do with weight gain.


You're certainly getting riled up. Insulin has a LOT to do with weight gain. There are many books on the topic... but if you want it broken down simply, here's this guy: http://blog.massivehealth.com/infographics/Carbs_are_killing_you/
 
2012-06-17 01:25:56 AM

LoneWolf343: You think glucose is a toxin? Try living without it, and we'll see what happens.


I heard some other idiot say this once in person. They have no farking clue what the word "toxin" means and they want us to take them serious on thier BS of pretending the obesity epidemic of the last 30 years was cause 10,000 years ago. They are a bunch of idiots.

Sugar is a "toxin" great show me deaths from OD of direct ingestion of sugar! I'll bet someone here I can ingest any amount of sugar that's possible cosumable and not die. Anything else that is a real toxin there is some point you will die from taking it.

The word "unhealthy" and "toxin" is not mean the same thing. And if you think it doesn't you don't know shiat about what you are talking about.
 
2012-06-17 01:25:57 AM
Problem is, the AMA has become nothing more than a mouthpiece (pun intended) for the anti everything crowd.

Next week in Chicago, delegates to the American Medical Association - a group that creates much of the country's medical advice
 
2012-06-17 01:26:15 AM

Corvus: miss marla singer: Corvus: Refined sugars and starches are a metabolic problem because humans weren't made for today's Western diet, said Dr. Devendra Mehta, a pediatric gastroenterologist at Orlando Regional Medical Center.

Right because we know Japanese and Italian who have huge diets of starches are all more over weight than Americans... OH wait that's not farking true at all!!!

They remain insulin sensitive because their foods aren't packed with all the crap ours are.

You guys defending this do this all the time you change the subject when you are shown wrong. Where was I talking about insulin? I was talking about weight gain. These idiots are saying simple starches cause weight gain not calories. That is Bull shiat!! Why are you changing the subject. saying simple sugars/starches can modify insulin has NOTHING to do with weight gain.


You are completely and utterly wrong on that point. You are making a ridiculous reductionist argument and ignoring systemic effects.
 
2012-06-17 01:29:17 AM

miss marla singer: Corvus: miss marla singer: Corvus: Refined sugars and starches are a metabolic problem because humans weren't made for today's Western diet, said Dr. Devendra Mehta, a pediatric gastroenterologist at Orlando Regional Medical Center.

Right because we know Japanese and Italian who have huge diets of starches are all more over weight than Americans... OH wait that's not farking true at all!!!

They remain insulin sensitive because their foods aren't packed with all the crap ours are.

HOW DOES THAT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH BEING FAT BASED ON STARCH?!!! You are changing the subject!!!

No...I'm certainly not changing the subject. Carbs/starches effect the blood sugar, which effects insulin... which effects weight gain. Asians remain insulin sensitive, generally, because their traditional food isn't full of extra sugar which, as time goes on, would make them insulin resistant (and gain weight)...


YES. YES YOU ARE.

Japanese eat a shiat load of rice!!! White race is a simple starch. This article and these Paleo idiots say simple starches make you fat.


Ok answer me this then:

Do Japanese eat a lot of white rice?
Is Japanese a simple starch?
Are Japanese more then then Americans?
So is the statement that simple starches make you fat not calories bullshiat?

I know you will dodge it because I've talked to people who use the Paleo diet as a religion before and they always change the subject.
 
2012-06-17 01:30:07 AM

Corvus: miss marla singer: Corvus: miss marla singer: Corvus: Refined sugars and starches are a metabolic problem because humans weren't made for today's Western diet, said Dr. Devendra Mehta, a pediatric gastroenterologist at Orlando Regional Medical Center.

Right because we know Japanese and Italian who have huge diets of starches are all more over weight than Americans... OH wait that's not farking true at all!!!

They remain insulin sensitive because their foods aren't packed with all the crap ours are.

HOW DOES THAT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH BEING FAT BASED ON STARCH?!!! You are changing the subject!!!

No...I'm certainly not changing the subject. Carbs/starches effect the blood sugar, which effects insulin... which effects weight gain. Asians remain insulin sensitive, generally, because their traditional food isn't full of extra sugar which, as time goes on, would make them insulin resistant (and gain weight)...

YES. YES YOU ARE.

Japanese eat a shiat load of rice!!! White race is a simple starch. This article and these Paleo idiots say simple starches make you fat.


Ok answer me this then:

Do Japanese eat a lot of white rice?
Is Japanese white rice a simple starch?
Are Japanese more then then Americans?
So is the statement that simple starches make you fat not calories bullshiat?

I know you will dodge it because I've talked to people who use the Paleo diet as a religion before and they always change the subject.


FTFM
 
2012-06-17 01:30:46 AM

Corvus: Are Japanese more FAT then then Americans?


FTFM
 
2012-06-17 01:32:05 AM

PillsHere: coco ebert: I think many people, myself included, don't realize how much sugar and HFCS there is in everything, even things that aren't sweet. Try to find sugar-free toast bread, for instance. It's really hard.A

That's been my big shock as well. I was making a turkey sandwich the other day and I looked at the labels of this delicious garlic mustard I love and saw it had sugar, then I looked at the dill pickles and saw they contained HFCS. It's probably a minor amount, but I was still surprised as I don't associate either of these foods with having sugar since they're not sweet. It's been happening a lot lately now that I'm aware. So much for just not eating sweets :/.


It's really quite amazing. I only started noticing because my hubby is Swiss and is a chef and he couldn't believe how hard it was to find foods without sugar or HFCS in the U.S.in Switzerland there's a lot less of that kind of thing. I think in the end you just have to cook with as many basic ingredients as possible. Even bread!!
 
2012-06-17 01:32:56 AM

iaazathot: Corvus: miss marla singer: Corvus: Refined sugars and starches are a metabolic problem because humans weren't made for today's Western diet, said Dr. Devendra Mehta, a pediatric gastroenterologist at Orlando Regional Medical Center.

Right because we know Japanese and Italian who have huge diets of starches are all more over weight than Americans... OH wait that's not farking true at all!!!

They remain insulin sensitive because their foods aren't packed with all the crap ours are.

You guys defending this do this all the time you change the subject when you are shown wrong. Where was I talking about insulin? I was talking about weight gain. These idiots are saying simple starches cause weight gain not calories. That is Bull shiat!! Why are you changing the subject. saying simple sugars/starches can modify insulin has NOTHING to do with weight gain.

You are completely and utterly wrong on that point. You are making a ridiculous reductionist argument and ignoring systemic effects.


What am I lying about?

Japanese people don't eat white rice? They are not skinner then Americans?

Why is it just renecnelt the last few decades people are getting fat when we have been eatting mostly simple grains for 10,000 years?

Why is it people who have total no grain diets and no sugar are fat?
 
2012-06-17 01:33:52 AM

Corvus: miss marla singer: Corvus: miss marla singer: Corvus: Refined sugars and starches are a metabolic problem because humans weren't made for today's Western diet, said Dr. Devendra Mehta, a pediatric gastroenterologist at Orlando Regional Medical Center.

Right because we know Japanese and Italian who have huge diets of starches are all more over weight than Americans... OH wait that's not farking true at all!!!

They remain insulin sensitive because their foods aren't packed with all the crap ours are.

HOW DOES THAT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH BEING FAT BASED ON STARCH?!!! You are changing the subject!!!

No...I'm certainly not changing the subject. Carbs/starches effect the blood sugar, which effects insulin... which effects weight gain. Asians remain insulin sensitive, generally, because their traditional food isn't full of extra sugar which, as time goes on, would make them insulin resistant (and gain weight)...

YES. YES YOU ARE.

Japanese eat a shiat load of rice!!! White race is a simple starch. This article and these Paleo idiots say simple starches make you fat.


Ok answer me this then:

Do Japanese eat a lot of white rice?
Is Japanese a simple starch?
Are Japanese more then then Americans?
So is the statement that simple starches make you fat not calories bullshiat?

I know you will dodge it because I've talked to people who use the Paleo diet as a religion before and they always change the subject.



Speaking about something you don't/refuse to understand =/= changing the subject.

You don't have a grasp on what "insulin sensitive" means... and I really don't feel like explaining it right now. But if one is insulin sensitive, they are not affected by carbs in the way an insulin resistant person is. The more insulin sensitive a person is, the less likely they are to gain weight from carbs.
 
2012-06-17 01:34:33 AM

Corvus: They are not fat. They are thin. They eat less calories then people in the US do. When Asians move to the US and eat a high calorie diet with less starch the get fatter.


Rice is not that high on the glycemic index, frankly, and it comes with fiber.
You'll also note that they eat very few sweets by comparison to us.
 
2012-06-17 01:35:40 AM
Oh and to answer the questions...

Do Japanese eat a lot of white rice?
Yes.

Is Japanese a simple starch?
No, it's a culture....

Are Japanese more then then Americans?
I don't understand what that even means.

So is the statement that simple starches make you fat not calories bullshiat?
Not when referring to insulin resistant people.
 
2012-06-17 01:36:49 AM

iaazathot: Corvus: miss marla singer: Corvus: Refined sugars and starches are a metabolic problem because humans weren't made for today's Western diet, said Dr. Devendra Mehta, a pediatric gastroenterologist at Orlando Regional Medical Center.

Right because we know Japanese and Italian who have huge diets of starches are all more over weight than Americans... OH wait that's not farking true at all!!!

They remain insulin sensitive because their foods aren't packed with all the crap ours are.

You guys defending this do this all the time you change the subject when you are shown wrong. Where was I talking about insulin? I was talking about weight gain. These idiots are saying simple starches cause weight gain not calories. That is Bull shiat!! Why are you changing the subject. saying simple sugars/starches can modify insulin has NOTHING to do with weight gain.

You are completely and utterly wrong on that point. You are making a ridiculous reductionist argument and ignoring systemic effects.


Here is the people who eat the "healthy" no grains diet and mostly eat only high fat meats.


a4.ec-images.myspacecdn.com

Look how farking thin they are!!! They eat a diet that according to the paleo fans they should be thin as tooth picks!!
 
2012-06-17 01:37:34 AM

Corvus: miss marla singer: Corvus: miss marla singer: Corvus: Refined sugars and starches are a metabolic problem because humans weren't made for today's Western diet, said Dr. Devendra Mehta, a pediatric gastroenterologist at Orlando Regional Medical Center.

Right because we know Japanese and Italian who have huge diets of starches are all more over weight than Americans... OH wait that's not farking true at all!!!

They remain insulin sensitive because their foods aren't packed with all the crap ours are.

HOW DOES THAT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH BEING FAT BASED ON STARCH?!!! You are changing the subject!!!

No...I'm certainly not changing the subject. Carbs/starches effect the blood sugar, which effects insulin... which effects weight gain. Asians remain insulin sensitive, generally, because their traditional food isn't full of extra sugar which, as time goes on, would make them insulin resistant (and gain weight)...

YES. YES YOU ARE.

Japanese eat a shiat load of rice!!! White race is a simple starch. This article and these Paleo idiots say simple starches make you fat.


Ok answer me this then:

Do Japanese eat a lot of white rice?
Is Japanese a simple starch?
Are Japanese more then then Americans?
So is the statement that simple starches make you fat not calories bullshiat?

I know you will dodge it because I've talked to people who use the Paleo diet as a religion before and they always change the subject.


Wow, I think I see spittle coming out. Pretty sure Japanese is a culture not a starch, dude.

You are missing a whole lot in your simple argument. Japanese people do eat a lot of rice. They also eat a lot of fish (protein), vegetables, and bean protein. If you were to replace those other elements with just rice, you would encounter an increase in health problems. One of which would be an overload of the pancreas and insulin production, creating weight gain with calories staying the same. Without fiber and/or protein to balance the sugar intaken, you would be doing damage to your system. That is simple biochemistry.

Your claim that you can eat unlimited sugar with no ill health is simply crazy.

You won't find a nutritionist/doctor/biochemist anywhere who would argue against that conclusion.
 
2012-06-17 01:38:51 AM

miss marla singer: Corvus: miss marla singer: Corvus: miss marla singer: Corvus: Refined sugars and starches are a metabolic problem because humans weren't made for today's Western diet, said Dr. Devendra Mehta, a pediatric gastroenterologist at Orlando Regional Medical Center.

Right because we know Japanese and Italian who have huge diets of starches are all more over weight than Americans... OH wait that's not farking true at all!!!

They remain insulin sensitive because their foods aren't packed with all the crap ours are.

HOW DOES THAT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH BEING FAT BASED ON STARCH?!!! You are changing the subject!!!

No...I'm certainly not changing the subject. Carbs/starches effect the blood sugar, which effects insulin... which effects weight gain. Asians remain insulin sensitive, generally, because their traditional food isn't full of extra sugar which, as time goes on, would make them insulin resistant (and gain weight)...

YES. YES YOU ARE.

Japanese eat a shiat load of rice!!! White race is a simple starch. This article and these Paleo idiots say simple starches make you fat.


Ok answer me this then:

Do Japanese eat a lot of white rice?
Is Japanese a simple starch?
Are Japanese more then then Americans?
So is the statement that simple starches make you fat not calories bullshiat?

I know you will dodge it because I've talked to people who use the Paleo diet as a religion before and they always change the subject.


Speaking about something you don't/refuse to understand =/= changing the subject.

You don't have a grasp on what "insulin sensitive" means... and I really don't feel like explaining it right now. But if one is insulin sensitive, they are not affected by carbs in the way an insulin resistant person is. The more insulin sensitive a person is, the less likely they are to gain weight from carbs.


Why do you refuse to answer my questions?

Yes, yes. The "I don't feel like explaining" but you argue and say I am wrong, but then when I show you your points are wrong it's "well I am right but I am not going to answer the huge flaws in my logic." This is a religion to you. It's not based on facts.
 
2012-06-17 01:39:05 AM

Corvus: Ok answer me this then:

Do Japanese eat a lot of white rice?
Is Japanese white rice a simple starch?
Are Japanese more then then Americans?
So is the statement that simple starches make you fat not calories bullshiat?



Your understanding of this seems very simplistic to me. There are a multitude of sources of starch, and not all of them are the same. Further, you're neglecting the difference in simple sugar intake (i.e. Twinkies) and lifestyle. I know you think you have a concise and fool-proof debunking of the whole idea that starches are bad for you, but the simple fact is that you're making a an argument so oversimplified as to be useless.
 
2012-06-17 01:39:29 AM
Corvus... I'm not sure if you're intentionally being ignorant thick-headed (imagine that!... an idiot on the internet!) or if you truly lack reading comprehension.
But I also don't care because I'm going to bed since I work tomorrow. Enjoy.
 
2012-06-17 01:40:00 AM

Corvus: iaazathot: Corvus: miss marla singer: Corvus: Refined sugars and starches are a metabolic problem because humans weren't made for today's Western diet, said Dr. Devendra Mehta, a pediatric gastroenterologist at Orlando Regional Medical Center.

Right because we know Japanese and Italian who have huge diets of starches are all more over weight than Americans... OH wait that's not farking true at all!!!

They remain insulin sensitive because their foods aren't packed with all the crap ours are.

You guys defending this do this all the time you change the subject when you are shown wrong. Where was I talking about insulin? I was talking about weight gain. These idiots are saying simple starches cause weight gain not calories. That is Bull shiat!! Why are you changing the subject. saying simple sugars/starches can modify insulin has NOTHING to do with weight gain.

You are completely and utterly wrong on that point. You are making a ridiculous reductionist argument and ignoring systemic effects.

Here is the people who eat the "healthy" no grains diet and mostly eat only high fat meats.


[a4.ec-images.myspacecdn.com image 600x450]

Look how farking thin they are!!! They eat a diet that according to the paleo fans they should be thin as tooth picks!!


Dude, I don't give a rat's ass about he Paleo diet. I am talking about straight up biochemistry here.
 
2012-06-17 01:40:15 AM

iaazathot: Your claim that you can eat unlimited sugar with no ill health is simply crazy.


WHERE DID I MAKE THIS CLAIM?
Show me where I said this or apologies!


You are making a strawman argument.
 
2012-06-17 01:40:59 AM

Corvus: miss marla singer: Corvus: miss marla singer: Corvus: miss marla singer: Corvus: Refined sugars and starches are a metabolic problem because humans weren't made for today's Western diet, said Dr. Devendra Mehta, a pediatric gastroenterologist at Orlando Regional Medical Center.

Right because we know Japanese and Italian who have huge diets of starches are all more over weight than Americans... OH wait that's not farking true at all!!!

They remain insulin sensitive because their foods aren't packed with all the crap ours are.

HOW DOES THAT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH BEING FAT BASED ON STARCH?!!! You are changing the subject!!!

No...I'm certainly not changing the subject. Carbs/starches effect the blood sugar, which effects insulin... which effects weight gain. Asians remain insulin sensitive, generally, because their traditional food isn't full of extra sugar which, as time goes on, would make them insulin resistant (and gain weight)...

YES. YES YOU ARE.

Japanese eat a shiat load of rice!!! White race is a simple starch. This article and these Paleo idiots say simple starches make you fat.


Ok answer me this then:

Do Japanese eat a lot of white rice?
Is Japanese a simple starch?
Are Japanese more then then Americans?
So is the statement that simple starches make you fat not calories bullshiat?

I know you will dodge it because I've talked to people who use the Paleo diet as a religion before and they always change the subject.


Speaking about something you don't/refuse to understand =/= changing the subject.

You don't have a grasp on what "insulin sensitive" means... and I really don't feel like explaining it right now. But if one is insulin sensitive, they are not affected by carbs in the way an insulin resistant person is. The more insulin sensitive a person is, the less likely they are to gain weight from carbs.

Why do you refuse to answer my questions?

Yes, yes. The "I don't feel like explaining" but you argue and say I am wrong, but then when I sho ...


No, I answered your questions. You haven't proven anything expect that there is some connectivity issue in your brain. Good luck with that!
 
2012-06-17 01:42:28 AM
All you have to do is travel the world a bit to see why Americans are so fat. It's really not that hard to understand. People here eat crap, they are not active, and they eat portions that are too big. That's it. Why is this so hard to comprehend? I guess because to paraphrase Chris Rock, there's no money in the simple answer.
 
2012-06-17 01:42:32 AM

Gawdzila: Corvus: Ok answer me this then:

Do Japanese eat a lot of white rice?
Is Japanese white rice a simple starch?
Are Japanese more then then Americans?
So is the statement that simple starches make you fat not calories bullshiat?


Your understanding of this seems very simplistic to me. There are a multitude of sources of starch, and not all of them are the same. Further, you're neglecting the difference in simple sugar intake (i.e. Twinkies) and lifestyle. I know you think you have a concise and fool-proof debunking of the whole idea that starches are bad for you, but the simple fact is that you're making a an argument so oversimplified as to be useless.


So this idea of sugar and strches are bad only counts for... HIGH CALORIE ITEMS! WOw amazing?

Is WHITE RICE A SIMPLE STARCH? Yes or No?

Why do you refuse to answer these simple questions?

The Paleo guys say this shiat but then when question on i, it amazing has more rules that they hide behind.
 
2012-06-17 01:44:58 AM

coco ebert: All you have to do is travel the world a bit to see why Americans are so fat. It's really not that hard to understand. People here eat crap, they are not active, and they eat portions that are too big. That's it. Why is this so hard to comprehend? I guess because to paraphrase Chris Rock, there's no money in the simple answer.


I think people need to look at their utility bills. We spend an enormous amount of money on an enormous amount of energy to cool our houses so our bodies don't have to ramp energy consumption to cool ourselves through sweating. We're fat because we're cool.
 
2012-06-17 01:45:21 AM

miss marla singer: Corvus: miss marla singer: Corvus: miss marla singer: Corvus: miss marla singer: Corvus: Refined sugars and starches are a metabolic problem because humans weren't made for today's Western diet, said Dr. Devendra Mehta, a pediatric gastroenterologist at Orlando Regional Medical Center.

Right because we know Japanese and Italian who have huge diets of starches are all more over weight than Americans... OH wait that's not farking true at all!!!

They remain insulin sensitive because their foods aren't packed with all the crap ours are.

HOW DOES THAT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH BEING FAT BASED ON STARCH?!!! You are changing the subject!!!

No...I'm certainly not changing the subject. Carbs/starches effect the blood sugar, which effects insulin... which effects weight gain. Asians remain insulin sensitive, generally, because their traditional food isn't full of extra sugar which, as time goes on, would make them insulin resistant (and gain weight)...

YES. YES YOU ARE.

Japanese eat a shiat load of rice!!! White race is a simple starch. This article and these Paleo idiots say simple starches make you fat.


Ok answer me this then:

Do Japanese eat a lot of white rice?
Is Japanese a simple starch?
Are Japanese more then then Americans?
So is the statement that simple starches make you fat not calories bullshiat?

I know you will dodge it because I've talked to people who use the Paleo diet as a religion before and they always change the subject.


Speaking about something you don't/refuse to understand =/= changing the subject.

You don't have a grasp on what "insulin sensitive" means... and I really don't feel like explaining it right now. But if one is insulin sensitive, they are not affected by carbs in the way an insulin resistant person is. The more insulin sensitive a person is, the less likely they are to gain weight from carbs.

Why do you refuse to answer my questions?

Yes, yes. The "I don't feel like explaining" but you argue and say I am wrong, but then wh ...


No you didn't you are dodging.

Is white rice a simple starch?

Do Japanese eat more simple starches then Americans?

Are Japanese thinner or fatter then Americans in general?

You dodged those questions. The "Paleo relgion" always dodges these questions.
 
2012-06-17 01:46:32 AM

Corvus: Gawdzila: Corvus: Ok answer me this then:

Do Japanese eat a lot of white rice?
Is Japanese white rice a simple starch?
Are Japanese more then then Americans?
So is the statement that simple starches make you fat not calories bullshiat?


Your understanding of this seems very simplistic to me. There are a multitude of sources of starch, and not all of them are the same. Further, you're neglecting the difference in simple sugar intake (i.e. Twinkies) and lifestyle. I know you think you have a concise and fool-proof debunking of the whole idea that starches are bad for you, but the simple fact is that you're making a an argument so oversimplified as to be useless.

So this idea of sugar and strches are bad only counts for... HIGH CALORIE ITEMS! WOw amazing?

Is WHITE RICE A SIMPLE STARCH? Yes or No?

Why do you refuse to answer these simple questions?

The Paleo guys say this shiat but then when question on i, it amazing has more rules that they hide behind.


The fact that you're too stupid to understand science doesn't mean everyone else is wrong. When someone gives an answer you can't comprehend and you accuse them of "changing the subject", it doesn't make you right. It makes you an idiot. Congratulations. (or maybe a troll?)
 
2012-06-17 01:46:56 AM

Corvus: Why do you refuse to answer my questions?


They have, you're just not understanding it.
The fact that you say this...

Corvus: Where was I talking about insulin? I was talking about weight gain. .... saying simple sugars/starches can modify insulin has NOTHING to do with weight gain.


...proves that you don't have even the most cursory knowledge to begin to have this debate. Insulin has a HUGE amount to do with weight gain and blood sugar regulation. It is all related.
 
2012-06-17 01:47:39 AM

coco ebert: All you have to do is travel the world a bit to see why Americans are so fat. It's really not that hard to understand. People here eat crap, they are not active, and they eat portions that are too big. That's it. Why is this so hard to comprehend? I guess because to paraphrase Chris Rock, there's no money in the simple answer.


Why is it hard to comprehend: Because a couple of people want to get rich selling books to suckers so they are trying to pretend people can eat all the fat they want and it's ok even though the entire medical community thinks he is full of shiat.
 
2012-06-17 01:48:11 AM
I've answered your question numerous times in numerous ways... unable to understand my answer=/=me dodging the question.

Goodnight all.
 
2012-06-17 01:48:40 AM

Corvus: LoneWolf343: You think glucose is a toxin? Try living without it, and we'll see what happens.

I heard some other idiot say this once in person. They have no farking clue what the word "toxin" means and they want us to take them serious on thier BS of pretending the obesity epidemic of the last 30 years was cause 10,000 years ago. They are a bunch of idiots.

Sugar is a "toxin" great show me deaths from OD of direct ingestion of sugar! I'll bet someone here I can ingest any amount of sugar that's possible cosumable and not die. Anything else that is a real toxin there is some point you will die from taking it.

The word "unhealthy" and "toxin" is not mean the same thing. And if you think it doesn't you don't know shiat about what you are talking about.


You are correct, you did not say that. I misread the above quote. However, your basic argument is still reductionistic and pretty irrational.
 
2012-06-17 01:48:47 AM
Good god Drew Curtis is on Fox News right now. God is dead.
 
2012-06-17 01:49:33 AM

Boudica's War Tampon: coco ebert: All you have to do is travel the world a bit to see why Americans are so fat. It's really not that hard to understand. People here eat crap, they are not active, and they eat portions that are too big. That's it. Why is this so hard to comprehend? I guess because to paraphrase Chris Rock, there's no money in the simple answer.

I think people need to look at their utility bills. We spend an enormous amount of money on an enormous amount of energy to cool our houses so our bodies don't have to ramp energy consumption to cool ourselves through sweating. We're fat because we're cool.


I know you're joking but since we're on the topic- it really bothers me how people leave their AC on WHEN THEY'RE NOT IN THE HOUSE. I mean, really? So you're hot for the first couple of minutes when you get home means you waste energy the whole time you're away from the house? Ugh.
 
2012-06-17 01:49:46 AM

Gawdzila: Corvus: Why do you refuse to answer my questions?

They have, you're just not understanding it.
The fact that you say this...
Corvus: Where was I talking about insulin? I was talking about weight gain. .... saying simple sugars/starches can modify insulin has NOTHING to do with weight gain.
...proves that you don't have even the most cursory knowledge to begin to have this debate. Insulin has a HUGE amount to do with weight gain and blood sugar regulation. It is all related.


Ok where are the answers to my questions:

Do Japanese eat lots of white rice? Is white rice a simple starch?

Do Japanese weigh more then Americans?

Where is that answered? I see people trying to change the subject because they are afraid of answering those simple questions
 
2012-06-17 01:52:17 AM

iaazathot: Corvus: LoneWolf343: You think glucose is a toxin? Try living without it, and we'll see what happens.

I heard some other idiot say this once in person. They have no farking clue what the word "toxin" means and they want us to take them serious on thier BS of pretending the obesity epidemic of the last 30 years was cause 10,000 years ago. They are a bunch of idiots.

Sugar is a "toxin" great show me deaths from OD of direct ingestion of sugar! I'll bet someone here I can ingest any amount of sugar that's possible cosumable and not die. Anything else that is a real toxin there is some point you will die from taking it.

The word "unhealthy" and "toxin" is not mean the same thing. And if you think it doesn't you don't know shiat about what you are talking about.

You are correct, you did not say that. I misread the above quote. However, your basic argument is still reductionistic and pretty irrational.


How is it irrational?

They say simple starches make you fat. Is that not true now? I thought that was the hole idea are you denying they think simple starches make you fat not calories?


You were the one who lied and made up a statement I never said and then didn't apologize for what you did. Why do you must lie if your argument is actually based on fact?
 
2012-06-17 01:52:49 AM

Corvus: Is WHITE RICE A SIMPLE STARCH? Yes or No?


Are you retarded?
I already explained this: a food's effect on your metabolic system cannot simply be categorized as "Simple Starch: Yes/No".
Rice contains starch, but it isn't the same as, say, a potato, and not remotely like a soda. If you have to simplify the discussion this much in order to make your point, it means your point is not worth making.
 
2012-06-17 01:53:35 AM

Corvus: Ok answer me this then:

Do Japanese eat a lot of white rice?
Is Japanese a simple starch?
Are Japanese more then then Americans?
So is the statement that simple starches make you fat not calories bullshiat?


They also eat lots and lots of fish, soybean products, soups, and very small portions of red-meat.

There's a similar phenomena with the french diet which is high in fats, butter, sauces, breads and wine with meals.
But again they eat much smaller portions than Americans and green salads and fresh veggies. Plus they take their time to eat instead of 'fast food' 20 min lunches.

Same goes for Mediterranean diets--small portions of red meats, grains like couscous, and lots of fish and vegetables and of course olive oil.

Trying to look at one key item in a diet that's bad--is ignoring the balance of meal.

IMHO for Americans it's portion size and high sugars and eat quick until bloated and feed again a bit later makes the US fat.
 
2012-06-17 01:54:26 AM

iaazathot: Corvus: LoneWolf343: You think glucose is a toxin? Try living without it, and we'll see what happens.

I heard some other idiot say this once in person. They have no farking clue what the word "toxin" means and they want us to take them serious on thier BS of pretending the obesity epidemic of the last 30 years was cause 10,000 years ago. They are a bunch of idiots.

Sugar is a "toxin" great show me deaths from OD of direct ingestion of sugar! I'll bet someone here I can ingest any amount of sugar that's possible cosumable and not die. Anything else that is a real toxin there is some point you will die from taking it.

The word "unhealthy" and "toxin" is not mean the same thing. And if you think it doesn't you don't know shiat about what you are talking about.

You are correct, you did not say that. I misread the above quote. However, your basic argument is still reductionistic and pretty irrational.


So is sugar a "toxin"? Do you admit that's a false statement made by the "paleo religion"? or that it's just "unhealthy" which was my actual point that you mischaracterized?
 
2012-06-17 01:55:39 AM

Corvus: Why is it people who have total no grain diets and no sugar are fat?


I don't know. You asked me this yesterday. I still don't know.
 
2012-06-17 01:56:07 AM

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.

This is actually quite wrong.
The reason isn't that people were getting fat, the reason is that someone published a highly flawed study back in the 50's that insinuated that the Western lifestyle was unhealthy simply by looking at heart disease rates in other countries. However, it failed to take into account any other primarily Western activities such as smoking (EXTREMELY ubiquitous during that time), and ignored data from other many other countries that didn't fit their conclusions.

/Here is a peer-reviewed article on the subject that you may find illuminating
//Science, Vol.291
///Another one from Men's Health

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 corpor ...


Wait a sec, the body doesn't break HFCS down with glycolysis like every other sugar?
 
2012-06-17 01:56:14 AM

Gawdzila: Corvus: Is WHITE RICE A SIMPLE STARCH? Yes or No?

Are you retarded?
I already explained this: a food's effect on your metabolic system cannot simply be categorized as "Simple Starch: Yes/No".
Rice contains starch, but it isn't the same as, say, a potato, and not remotely like a soda. If you have to simplify the discussion this much in order to make your point, it means your point is not worth making.


So the idea that making simple starches from the agricultural revolution makes us now fat is a bunch of BS because it's more complicated then that?

So under the Paleo religion diet white rice is fine to eat?
 
2012-06-17 01:57:00 AM
Speaking about something you don't/refuse to understand =/= changing the subject.

You don't have a grasp on what "insulin sensitive" means... and I really don't feel like explaining it right now. But if one is insulin sensitive, they are not affected by carbs in the way an insulin resistant person is. The more insulin sensitive a person is, the less likely they are to gain weight from carbs.

Why do you refuse to answer my questions?

Yes, yes. The "I don't feel like explaining" but you argue and say I am wrong, but then wh ...

No you didn't you are dodging.

Is white rice a simple starch?

Do Japanese eat more simple starches then Americans?

Are Japanese thinner or fatter then Americans in general?

You dodged those questions. The "Paleo relgion" always dodges these questions.


Yes, white rice is a simple starch.

Yes, Japanese people eat more white rice than Americans on average, more than likely.

No, Japanese people do NOT eat more simple starches than Americans. They eat more white rice (you are committing a huge logical fallacy right there, just to clue you in).

Japanese are thinner, on average, than Americans, but that is changing, because they are adopting a higher sugar intake with more Westernized diets.

Also, insulin production and sensitivity, as has been pointed out to you multiple times, has a huge impact on weight gain. This is pretty common scientific knowledge.

So, I have pointed out the huge logical hole in your sophist's argument.

With that, I am going to kill zombies on the old xbox, enjoy an 18 year old bourbon, and then go to sleep.
 
2012-06-17 01:57:48 AM

Mitch Mitchell: Corvus: Why is it people who have total no grain diets and no sugar are fat?

I don't know. You asked me this yesterday. I still don't know.


Well according to the paleo religion diet it's impossible. However we see it all the time with people who have diets of fish and fat sea mammals. So Hmmm makes you think.
 
2012-06-17 01:59:42 AM
1.bp.blogspot.com

wondering what the fuss is about
 
2012-06-17 02:00:55 AM

iaazathot: No, Japanese people do NOT eat more simple starches than Americans. They eat more white rice (you are committing a huge logical fallacy right there, just to clue you in).


So white rice and pasta which italians eat are ok to eat under the paleo religion diet?

Funny that's not what I have read.

You are still not answer my questions. I wonder why. You guys talk like people who believe in intelligent deisgn "You wouldn't understand" or just giving insults. People with facts are usually happy to share them and don't insult or pretend they have some secret knowledge they don't want to share.
 
2012-06-17 02:02:20 AM

Corvus: ...insulin has NOTHING to do with weight gain.



insulin-for-life.com

insulin injection sites

Do the Japanese eat a mixture of both high fat and simple carbs? Do paleos? Does the typical American?

/looks NSFW as a thumbnail image,but its not
 
2012-06-17 02:02:24 AM

iaazathot: Japanese are thinner, on average, than Americans, but that is changing, because they are adopting a higher sugar intake with more Westernized diets.


So Japanese diet is not increasing in calories too?? You are saying their calorie intake is the same as they are getting fatter? Or your just ignoring that point?
 
2012-06-17 02:04:23 AM

Vlad_the_Inaner: Corvus: ...insulin has NOTHING to do with weight gain.


[insulin-for-life.com image 300x280]

insulin injection sites

Do the Japanese eat a mixture of both high fat and simple carbs? Do paleos? Does the typical American?

/looks NSFW as a thumbnail image,but its not


Stop changing the subejct. I am talking about directly.

You are changing the subject like I knew you guys would.


Why is it that the diet of Japanese and italians who have a diet of more simple carbs are thinner then us?

stop changing the subject.
 
2012-06-17 02:06:00 AM

Corvus: Ok where are the answers to my questions:

Do Japanese eat lots of white rice? Is white rice a simple starch?

Do Japanese weigh more then Americans?

Where is that answered? I see people trying to change the subject because they are afraid of answering those simple questions



They are not afraid, and they HAVE given you answers. They just aren't the answers you want.

Here is your straightforward and truthful answer:
Your questions are uselessly simplistic and are constructed specifically to create a strawman of what you're arguing against by ignoring ALL relevant peripheral data and knowledge. If anyone answers your questions in the way you want them to, you will create an out-of-context quote that ignores every relevant piece of information we've given you, and you will repeat that quote ad-infinitum as if it were some kind of proof of your correctness. Nobody appreciates someone who "debates" simply by ignoring every piece of information given to him and repeating his original, irrelevant set of trap questions louder and louder until someone gets annoyed enough to answer them.

You've demonstrated no knowledge that is relevant to the discussion, nor any ability to learn from what other people tell you. Learn to address people's criticisms of your line of reasoning; either rebut them or concede, but simply repeating the same line over and over and over is just annoying and unworthy of any more attention.

Sadly, despite all the explanations we've given, I anticipate you'll ask yet again whether rice is a simple starch.
*facepalm*
I guess that's why they have an ignore list.
 
2012-06-17 02:06:04 AM

Vlad_the_Inaner: Do the Japanese eat a mixture of both high fat and simple carbs? Do paleos? Does the typical American?


Do the Japanese eat a diet of less caloriess? YES. Do Americans? NO

See I answer the questions, I don't try to change the subject like you.
 
2012-06-17 02:06:29 AM

boozerman: 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.

This is actually quite wrong.
The reason isn't that people were getting fat, the reason is that someone published a highly flawed study back in the 50's that insinuated that the Western lifestyle was unhealthy simply by looking at heart disease rates in other countries. However, it failed to take into account any other primarily Western activities such as smoking (EXTREMELY ubiquitous during that time), and ignored data from other many other countries that didn't fit their conclusions.

/Here is a peer-reviewed article on the subject that you may find illuminating
//Science, Vol.291
///Another one from Men's Health

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 f ...


My understanding is that the liver processes fructose a bit differently than glucose, and more readily shifts it to fat storage than glucose. There are even studies coming out showing that excessive fructose may be linked to liver scarring, another issue, I realize, but still interesting.
 
2012-06-17 02:08:32 AM

Gawdzila: Corvus: Ok where are the answers to my questions:

Do Japanese eat lots of white rice? Is white rice a simple starch?

Do Japanese weigh more then Americans?

Where is that answered? I see people trying to change the subject because they are afraid of answering those simple questions


They are not afraid, and they HAVE given you answers. They just aren't the answers you want.

Here is your straightforward and truthful answer:
Your questions are uselessly simplistic and are constructed specifically to create a strawman of what you're arguing against by ignoring ALL relevant peripheral data and knowledge. If anyone answers your questions in the way you want them to, you will create an out-of-context quote that ignores every relevant piece of information we've given you, and you will repeat that quote ad-infinitum as if it were some kind of proof of your correctness. Nobody appreciates someone who "debates" simply by ignoring every piece of information given to him and repeating his original, irrelevant set of trap questions louder and louder until someone gets annoyed enough to answer them.

You've demonstrated no knowledge that is relevant to the discussion, nor any ability to learn from what other people tell you. Learn to address people's criticisms of your line of reasoning; either rebut them or concede, but simply repeating the same line over and over and over is just annoying and unworthy of any more attention.

Sadly, despite all the explanations we've given, I anticipate you'll ask yet again whether rice is a simple starch.
*facepalm*
I guess that's why they have an ignore list.


First you say my question are being answered then you give an excuse why no one is answering them. Which is it? Then why can't you just answer them?

Is white rice and pasta ok under the Paleo religion diet? Yes or no?

How is that an unfair question?
 
2012-06-17 02:10:15 AM

Corvus: iaazathot: Japanese are thinner, on average, than Americans, but that is changing, because they are adopting a higher sugar intake with more Westernized diets.

So Japanese diet is not increasing in calories too?? You are saying their calorie intake is the same as they are getting fatter? Or your just ignoring that point?


If they were to increase their calories by 35% eating more vegetables, weight gain would be non-significant. The type of food you eat DOES matter.

Are you always this obtuse?

Calories can be a part of the issue, but it is not the entirety.

I am asking this question in all seriousness, are you a high functioning autistic? Your response patterns seem to indicate that you may be.
 
2012-06-17 02:11:55 AM
The whole fructose in to fat in the liver theory is based on rat studies. Rats have very different metabolic processes than humans. The fate of fructose in the human body is to be phosphorylated in the liver, stored for a short time as liver glycogen if it's not needed, or shuttled in to later steps in glycolysis. De novo lipogenesis is a very rare event in humans, and you'd have to not only be in a caloric surplus, but most of your muscle and liver glycogen stores will have to be filled before you start turning carbohydrates in to fat.
 
2012-06-17 02:14:09 AM

Boudica's War Tampon: Fox New


lolwut???
 
2012-06-17 02:14:51 AM

iaazathot: Corvus: iaazathot: Japanese are thinner, on average, than Americans, but that is changing, because they are adopting a higher sugar intake with more Westernized diets.

So Japanese diet is not increasing in calories too?? You are saying their calorie intake is the same as they are getting fatter? Or your just ignoring that point?

If they were to increase their calories by 35% eating more vegetables, weight gain would be non-significant. The type of food you eat DOES matter.

Are you always this obtuse?

Calories can be a part of the issue, but it is not the entirety.

I am asking this question in all seriousness, are you a high functioning autistic? Your response patterns seem to indicate that you may be.


But vegetables are a low calorie density food. Yes food does matter. Some are calorie dense and some are not. You are saying the same thing. You are saying "Well if they eat low calorie foods they won't gain more weight" but that's exactly my point. That doesn't prove I am wrong.
 
2012-06-17 02:16:20 AM

boozerman: The whole fructose in to fat in the liver theory is based on rat studies. Rats have very different metabolic processes than humans. The fate of fructose in the human body is to be phosphorylated in the liver, stored for a short time as liver glycogen if it's not needed, or shuttled in to later steps in glycolysis. De novo lipogenesis is a very rare event in humans, and you'd have to not only be in a caloric surplus, but most of your muscle and liver glycogen stores will have to be filled before you start turning carbohydrates in to fat.


Yes, but that sounds like a lot of overweight Americans doesn't it? I realize, from my simple unerstanding, that lipid storage is on the tail end. However, most Americans ARE in a caloric surplus, and people who are not physically active are likely to have glycogen stores in full supply.

Another issue is what is happening in the pancreas due to these huge sugar loads? Insulin regulation is very important for weight control.

I am not saying that HFCS is a poison, per se, I AM saying that HFCS in our cultural environment is problematic.
 
2012-06-17 02:16:52 AM

iaazathot: I am asking this question in all seriousness, are you a high functioning autistic?


Weird to me it seems you are insulting someone because you don't like the question he is asking because you are afraid of it causing cognitive dissonance with your belief system.
 
2012-06-17 02:17:54 AM

Molavian: Ok, first step is to require manufacturers to stop adding it to everything they make.


Farking THIS.

There's nothing wrong with having a cookie now and again, or ice cream, or cake or whatever "sweet" food you enjoy.

The problem is that EVERYTHING has farking high fructose corn syrup in it these days. Ketchup tastes just fine on it's own, it doesn't need sugar. Neither do a lot of other things. Remove that and you'll remove a lot of the American sugar intake in our diets.

But noooo, let's tax/ban soda pop instead. That'll learn 'em!

/just a money grab, nothing more.
//makes as much sense as taxing cigarettes, but ignoring cigars.
 
2012-06-17 02:18:37 AM

Corvus: Why is it that the diet of Japanese and italians who have a diet of more simple carbs are thinner then us?


We eat far more sugar. Wheat and rice are much more complex carbohydrates by comparison, and are MUCH better for you than a lot of our junk. So yes, it IS okay to eat more rice, if we also cut down on the HFCS that we consume by the truckload. We eat ice-cream and Fruit Loops and drink 44oz Colas with our ketchup-slathered burgers and BBQ-dipped chicken nuggets, all of which contain the simplest possible sugar of all: pure glucose (corn syrup is slightly less than half pure glucose).
 
2012-06-17 02:19:15 AM

Creoena: Clearly the way to end obesity is to shut down all the porn sites.


Fapping burns calories.
 
2012-06-17 02:19:48 AM

Corvus: iaazathot: Corvus: iaazathot: Japanese are thinner, on average, than Americans, but that is changing, because they are adopting a higher sugar intake with more Westernized diets.

So Japanese diet is not increasing in calories too?? You are saying their calorie intake is the same as they are getting fatter? Or your just ignoring that point?

If they were to increase their calories by 35% eating more vegetables, weight gain would be non-significant. The type of food you eat DOES matter.

Are you always this obtuse?

Calories can be a part of the issue, but it is not the entirety.

I am asking this question in all seriousness, are you a high functioning autistic? Your response patterns seem to indicate that you may be.

But vegetables are a low calorie density food. Yes food does matter. Some are calorie dense and some are not. You are saying the same thing. You are saying "Well if they eat low calorie foods they won't gain more weight" but that's exactly my point. That doesn't prove I am wrong.


No, I stated that they eat +35% total calories in vegetables. Total calories goes up. I am sorry, your ability at reading comprehension and your near frothing about this Paleo thing makes impossible to have a meaningful conversation with you. You really need to slow down and think your logic through a bit more.

Goodnight everyone...
 
2012-06-17 02:21:56 AM
It costs more to care for healthy people who live years longer, according to a Dutch study that counters the common perception that preventing obesity would save governments millions of dollars.

Thanks. That's very encouraging.

My life plan is to live to a super old age and be a burden on society. Serves the feckers right.
 
2012-06-17 02:22:13 AM

cuzsis: Ketchup tastes just fine on it's own, it doesn't need sugar.


While I'm not necessarily a fan of HFCS, I must point out that virtually any homemade ketchup recipe will include things like molasses and/or brown sugar. The entire flavor profile of ketchup is supposed a sweet/tangy combination. There IS NO ketchup without sugar.
 
2012-06-17 02:23:07 AM

Corvus: iaazathot: I am asking this question in all seriousness, are you a high functioning autistic?

Weird to me it seems you are insulting someone because you don't like the question he is asking because you are afraid of it causing cognitive dissonance with your belief system.


No, you remind me of an assistant I had who was diagnosed as being on the high end of the autistic range. It was a very serious question. Having certain conversations with him was near impossible, and reading your responses just seems strangely familiar.

Goodnight...
 
2012-06-17 02:23:13 AM

iaazathot: boozerman: The whole fructose in to fat in the liver theory is based on rat studies. Rats have very different metabolic processes than humans. The fate of fructose in the human body is to be phosphorylated in the liver, stored for a short time as liver glycogen if it's not needed, or shuttled in to later steps in glycolysis. De novo lipogenesis is a very rare event in humans, and you'd have to not only be in a caloric surplus, but most of your muscle and liver glycogen stores will have to be filled before you start turning carbohydrates in to fat.

Yes, but that sounds like a lot of overweight Americans doesn't it? I realize, from my simple unerstanding, that lipid storage is on the tail end. However, most Americans ARE in a caloric surplus, and people who are not physically active are likely to have glycogen stores in full supply.

Another issue is what is happening in the pancreas due to these huge sugar loads? Insulin regulation is very important for weight control.

I am not saying that HFCS is a poison, per se, I AM saying that HFCS in our cultural environment is problematic.


While many Americans are in that situation, lets not blame the sugar alone, it's total caloric intake. No food or combination of them has the power to violate the laws of thermodynamics.

While metabolic disorders are a different horse, acute insulin levels in healthy adults are not going to have an impact on anything. Fat and energy stores are flucating in the moment all throughout the day. You are always both anabolic and catabolic. End of the day, week, month, year it's energy in vs. energy out.
 
2012-06-17 02:23:27 AM

austin_millbarge: [2.bp.blogspot.com image 320x240]

Wanted for questioning.


You forgot to add that your link was hot, sticky sweet from its head to its feet.
 
2012-06-17 02:23:35 AM

Gawdzila: Corvus: Why is it that the diet of Japanese and italians who have a diet of more simple carbs are thinner then us?

We eat far more sugar. Wheat and rice are much more complex carbohydrates by comparison, and are MUCH better for you than a lot of our junk. So yes, it IS okay to eat more rice, if we also cut down on the HFCS that we consume by the truckload. We eat ice-cream and Fruit Loops and drink 44oz Colas with our ketchup-slathered burgers and BBQ-dipped chicken nuggets, all of which contain the simplest possible sugar of all: pure glucose (corn syrup is slightly less than half pure glucose).


Thanks. That is the most reasonable answer I have got so far.


So follow up then are thing like rice and pasta fine under the paelo since what you just said suppose to be true? Because this is the first time I have heard that only sugars are bad under the Paleo diet. I heard it was anti-simple carbs? Those people are wrong?
 
2012-06-17 02:24:39 AM

iaazathot: Corvus: iaazathot: I am asking this question in all seriousness, are you a high functioning autistic?

Weird to me it seems you are insulting someone because you don't like the question he is asking because you are afraid of it causing cognitive dissonance with your belief system.

No, you remind me of an assistant I had who was diagnosed as being on the high end of the autistic range. It was a very serious question. Having certain conversations with him was near impossible, and reading your responses just seems strangely familiar.

Goodnight...


Yes more insulting then, running off. this is the normal reaction I get from the followers of the Paleo-religion.
 
2012-06-17 02:25:41 AM

boozerman: iaazathot: boozerman: The whole fructose in to fat in the liver theory is based on rat studies. Rats have very different metabolic processes than humans. The fate of fructose in the human body is to be phosphorylated in the liver, stored for a short time as liver glycogen if it's not needed, or shuttled in to later steps in glycolysis. De novo lipogenesis is a very rare event in humans, and you'd have to not only be in a caloric surplus, but most of your muscle and liver glycogen stores will have to be filled before you start turning carbohydrates in to fat.

Yes, but that sounds like a lot of overweight Americans doesn't it? I realize, from my simple unerstanding, that lipid storage is on the tail end. However, most Americans ARE in a caloric surplus, and people who are not physically active are likely to have glycogen stores in full supply.

Another issue is what is happening in the pancreas due to these huge sugar loads? Insulin regulation is very important for weight control.

I am not saying that HFCS is a poison, per se, I AM saying that HFCS in our cultural environment is problematic.

While many Americans are in that situation, lets not blame the sugar alone, it's total caloric intake. No food or combination of them has the power to violate the laws of thermodynamics.

While metabolic disorders are a different horse, acute insulin levels in healthy adults are not going to have an impact on anything. Fat and energy stores are flucating in the moment all throughout the day. You are always both anabolic and catabolic. End of the day, week, month, year it's energy in vs. energy out.


Really, you are saying that a 1000 calorie diet in sugar is the same as a 1000 calorie diet in cruciferous vegetables? Sorry, if I am misunderstanding you, but that seems to be what you are saying.
 
2012-06-17 02:27:49 AM

Corvus: Vlad_the_Inaner: Do the Japanese eat a mixture of both high fat and simple carbs? Do paleos? Does the typical American?

Do the Japanese eat a diet of less caloriess? YES. Do Americans? NO

See I answer the questions, I don't try to change the subject like you.


No, you answered an imagined question.


You are so [xkcd]found a way to be superior to both[/xkcd], that you are missing a key issue. There are multiple variables in this equation, and number of calories is only one of them.

Insulin is a key part of this problem Eating N calories of simple carbs will stimulate the body storage of fat differently than N calories of non-carbohydrates. That is because eating carbs stiulates te release of insulin, where eating protein and fats basicaaly don't. Insulin is the hormone that tells cell to transport the calories into the cells. That why diabetics get fat lumps at insulin injection sites.

A good non-diet book on the subject is

ecx.images-amazon.com

Good Calories, Bad Calories
 
2012-06-17 02:29:08 AM

boozerman: iaazathot: boozerman: The whole fructose in to fat in the liver theory is based on rat studies. Rats have very different metabolic processes than humans. The fate of fructose in the human body is to be phosphorylated in the liver, stored for a short time as liver glycogen if it's not needed, or shuttled in to later steps in glycolysis. De novo lipogenesis is a very rare event in humans, and you'd have to not only be in a caloric surplus, but most of your muscle and liver glycogen stores will have to be filled before you start turning carbohydrates in to fat.

Yes, but that sounds like a lot of overweight Americans doesn't it? I realize, from my simple unerstanding, that lipid storage is on the tail end. However, most Americans ARE in a caloric surplus, and people who are not physically active are likely to have glycogen stores in full supply.

Another issue is what is happening in the pancreas due to these huge sugar loads? Insulin regulation is very important for weight control.

I am not saying that HFCS is a poison, per se, I AM saying that HFCS in our cultural environment is problematic.

While many Americans are in that situation, lets not blame the sugar alone, it's total caloric intake. No food or combination of them has the power to violate the laws of thermodynamics.

While metabolic disorders are a different horse, acute insulin levels in healthy adults are not going to have an impact on anything. Fat and energy stores are flucating in the moment all throughout the day. You are always both anabolic and catabolic. End of the day, week, month, year it's energy in vs. energy out.


You sound like a sane person who knows what he is talking about.

These guys read a book then they think they are smarter then all the scientist out there who say they are wrong. i have talked to some of these guys who after reading that book that they knew more then institutes and PHDs doing studies on the matter.

One guy said that recent report about meat and cancer was wrong because they didn't normalize the data based on life style. I pointed out to him that they actually did do that and it says it in the report and he started insulting me.

I am the first to admit I am not an expert about the subject but I can tell bad science and people trying to sell books.
 
2012-06-17 02:30:53 AM

Vlad_the_Inaner: Corvus: Vlad_the_Inaner: Do the Japanese eat a mixture of both high fat and simple carbs? Do paleos? Does the typical American?

Do the Japanese eat a diet of less caloriess? YES. Do Americans? NO

See I answer the questions, I don't try to change the subject like you.

No, you answered an imagined question.


You are so [xkcd]found a way to be superior to both[/xkcd], that you are missing a key issue. There are multiple variables in this equation, and number of calories is only one of them.

Insulin is a key part of this problem Eating N calories of simple carbs will stimulate the body storage of fat differently than N calories of non-carbohydrates. That is because eating carbs stiulates te release of insulin, where eating protein and fats basicaaly don't. Insulin is the hormone that tells cell to transport the calories into the cells. That why diabetics get fat lumps at insulin injection sites.

A good non-diet book on the subject is

[ecx.images-amazon.com image 300x300]

Good Calories, Bad Calories


Yes, Yes I know your bible. I know the book that the guys is making millions on and I have read the other side of people and institutes that say he is full of crap.
 
2012-06-17 02:31:28 AM
Corvus,

I have no idea what the Paleo-religion is. I did answer your questions and pointed out exactly where your logical fallacy was, as did some others.

You skirted right around them and then changed your questions completely to whether rice is allowed in the Paleo religion.

Again:

Yes, rice is a starch, but much more complex than simple sugars.
Yes, Japanese eat more rice than Americans on average.
No, Japanese do not eat more simple starches than Americans. (here is your logical fallacy, all rice is a starch, not all starches are rice)
Yes, Japanese are, on average, thinner than Americans.

Because your argument is premised on a straight forward logical fallacy, it fails.
 
2012-06-17 02:31:33 AM

Corvus: First you say my question are being answered then you give an excuse why no one is answering them. Which is it? Then why can't you just answer them?


Did you not read it, or did you not understand?
I explained why people weren't answering the way you wanted, and it's not an "excuse", it is a good reason.

It is because your questions were too simplistic and "leading" in a greasy, lawyer-like way. They're the sort of limited-in-scope questions a defense lawyer asks when he wants to make a witness sound like they're in his favor, even though he knows that he'd look bad if they told the whole story.

Basically, your questions are designed to extract a half-truth, because the whole truth makes you sound stupid. But nobody wants to give you a half-truth because they know you'll twist it around. So when they give you the whole truth instead, you complain that they didn't answer your question.

The truth is that they DID answer it, and HAVE answered it several times. They just didn't give you the lie by omission that you wanted.
 
2012-06-17 02:32:56 AM

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


That was before they decided to give away free health care and then realized that they'd still have to pay for it with your money.

/This dietary crazy train will end with people bringing back crazier proposals, like bans on foods and eugenics.
/But at least we'll have legalized pot.
/Oh who am I kidding. Liberals are as likely to legalize pot as conservatives are to give back gun rights.
/A truck full of promises and fifty cents will get you a can of soda you aren't allowed to drink.
 
2012-06-17 02:33:18 AM

Vlad_the_Inaner: Corvus: Vlad_the_Inaner: Do the Japanese eat a mixture of both high fat and simple carbs? Do paleos? Does the typical American?

Do the Japanese eat a diet of less caloriess? YES. Do Americans? NO

See I answer the questions, I don't try to change the subject like you.

No, you answered an imagined question.


You are so [xkcd]found a way to be superior to both[/xkcd], that you are missing a key issue. There are multiple variables in this equation, and number of calories is only one of them.

Insulin is a key part of this problem Eating N calories of simple carbs will stimulate the body storage of fat differently than N calories of non-carbohydrates. That is because eating carbs stiulates te release of insulin, where eating protein and fats basicaaly don't. Insulin is the hormone that tells cell to transport the calories into the cells. That why diabetics get fat lumps at insulin injection sites.

A good non-diet book on the subject is

[ecx.images-amazon.com image 300x300]

Good Calories, Bad Calories


Taubes is almost as bad as Lustig. He manages to at least get things right on fats, but he is another person that doesn't understand physiology and heavily relies on studies that are either done on rats or are largely flawed. Very few of the studies cited for that book are done on humans, and one of the ones he cites is a study that locked people in a hospital (sedentary) and fed them insane amounts of pure fructose (something like 40% of their calories coming from pure fructose, which you just won't get in a real food diet). He should stick to physics.
 
2012-06-17 02:33:34 AM

Vlad_the_Inaner: You are so [xkcd]found a way to be superior to both[/xkcd], that you are missing a key issue. There are multiple variables in this equation, and number of calories is only one of them.


Nope never said it was.

Once again changing the subject. I am talking about diet habits and weight gain. I am not talking about other health effects of sugar. You guys keep playing this shell game. At least one guy admitted earlier that he did was doing it.
 
2012-06-17 02:34:00 AM

GeneralJim: Let people KNOW, by all means, and then let them decide.


Pretty sure you'd call it a bunch of liberal busybody brainwashing if there was any effort to educate the public about it.

But hey whatever.
 
2012-06-17 02:35:54 AM

Gawdzila: cuzsis: Ketchup tastes just fine on it's own, it doesn't need sugar.

While I'm not necessarily a fan of HFCS, I must point out that virtually any homemade ketchup recipe will include things like molasses and/or brown sugar. The entire flavor profile of ketchup is supposed a sweet/tangy combination. There IS NO ketchup without sugar.


The Paleo website has great recipes for condiments.
 
2012-06-17 02:36:28 AM

Gawdzila: The truth is that they DID answer it, and HAVE answered it several times. They just didn't give you the lie by omission that you wanted.


What lie?

Japenes don't eat white rice?

Italians don't eat a lot of pasta?

US doesn't eat more calories then Japan and Italians?

Us citizens are not fatter then Japanese and Italians?

Many cultures who eat almost no grains or sugars are over weight?

What am I lying about? Just repeating I am lying doesn't make me an actual liar.
 
2012-06-17 02:36:47 AM
guises:
MarkEC: Put the fat back in and take the sugar out, and people will eat fewer calories because your system tells your brain you are full sooner when you eat fat compared to sugar.

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. Obviously replacing that with sugar didn't make anything better, but we need to find a way to do it without so much fat AND sugar.

Not really...

The problem is NOT the food, whether fat or sugar. 150 years ago, people in the Midwest got up in the morning and ate a breakfast that most likely included pork steaks or chops, lots of potatoes, eggs, griddle cakes, and perhaps bacon. A freaking TON of both carbohydrates and fat.

The reason they weren't fat -- and very few were -- is that, after breakfast, they went outside and worked their asses off (literally) in a twelve-hour-plus day of intense physical labor. If they had pushed away from the breakfast table, gone in the other room, and played video games for twelve hours every day, they'd look a lot different.


www.itsagamingworld.com
 
2012-06-17 02:38:04 AM

Corvus: boozerman: iaazathot: boozerman: The whole fructose in to fat in the liver theory is based on rat studies. Rats have very different metabolic processes than humans. The fate of fructose in the human body is to be phosphorylated in the liver, stored for a short time as liver glycogen if it's not needed, or shuttled in to later steps in glycolysis. De novo lipogenesis is a very rare event in humans, and you'd have to not only be in a caloric surplus, but most of your muscle and liver glycogen stores will have to be filled before you start turning carbohydrates in to fat.

Yes, but that sounds like a lot of overweight Americans doesn't it? I realize, from my simple unerstanding, that lipid storage is on the tail end. However, most Americans ARE in a caloric surplus, and people who are not physically active are likely to have glycogen stores in full supply.

Another issue is what is happening in the pancreas due to these huge sugar loads? Insulin regulation is very important for weight control.

I am not saying that HFCS is a poison, per se, I AM saying that HFCS in our cultural environment is problematic.

While many Americans are in that situation, lets not blame the sugar alone, it's total caloric intake. No food or combination of them has the power to violate the laws of thermodynamics.

While metabolic disorders are a different horse, acute insulin levels in healthy adults are not going to have an impact on anything. Fat and energy stores are flucating in the moment all throughout the day. You are always both anabolic and catabolic. End of the day, week, month, year it's energy in vs. energy out.

You sound like a sane person who knows what he is talking about.

These guys read a book then they think they are smarter then all the scientist out there who say they are wrong. i have talked to some of these guys who after reading that book that they knew more then institutes and PHDs doing studies on the matter.

One guy said that recent report about meat and cancer ...


You might like Alan and lyle
 
2012-06-17 02:39:26 AM

Corvus: Yes, Yes I know your bible. I know the book that the guys is making millions on and I have read the other side of people and institutes that say he is full of crap.


[Citation Needed] that Gary Taub is making millions. Its not a diet book, like Atkins, with spin-offs and endorsements.

youvefoundawaytofeelsupriortoboth.gif
 
2012-06-17 02:39:51 AM

boozerman: Vlad_the_Inaner: Corvus: Vlad_the_Inaner: Do the Japanese eat a mixture of both high fat and simple carbs? Do paleos? Does the typical American?

Do the Japanese eat a diet of less caloriess? YES. Do Americans? NO

See I answer the questions, I don't try to change the subject like you.

No, you answered an imagined question.


You are so [xkcd]found a way to be superior to both[/xkcd], that you are missing a key issue. There are multiple variables in this equation, and number of calories is only one of them.

Insulin is a key part of this problem Eating N calories of simple carbs will stimulate the body storage of fat differently than N calories of non-carbohydrates. That is because eating carbs stiulates te release of insulin, where eating protein and fats basicaaly don't. Insulin is the hormone that tells cell to transport the calories into the cells. That why diabetics get fat lumps at insulin injection sites.

A good non-diet book on the subject is

[ecx.images-amazon.com image 300x300]

Good Calories, Bad Calories

Taubes is almost as bad as Lustig. He manages to at least get things right on fats, but he is another person that doesn't understand physiology and heavily relies on studies that are either done on rats or are largely flawed. Very few of the studies cited for that book are done on humans, and one of the ones he cites is a study that locked people in a hospital (sedentary) and fed them insane amounts of pure fructose (something like 40% of their calories coming from pure fructose, which you just won't get in a real food diet). He should stick to physics.


While those are valid criticisms, I don't think they would entirely invalidate the data. I think you are a bit too much baby with the bathwater. Is there any reason to think that processes would radically change with different concentrations of fructose. Is there any reason to think that rat processing of sugars is so different from humans that the results are not useful in, at the very least, constructing studies for humans?

There is too much either or in this field, which, unfortunately, points to the fadishness that corvus MAYBE pointing too, although it seems that he is just as firmly stuck in a camp as he accuses others (still don't know what the Paleo-religion he keeps accusing everyone of is).
 
2012-06-17 02:40:39 AM

Corvus: Because this is the first time I have heard that only sugars are bad under the Paleo diet. I heard it was anti-simple carbs? Those people are wrong?


I don't know, honestly, I've never done the Paleo diet. However, if one has problems with their insulin system (as a diabetic might), the less starches someone eats the better off they will be. Also, since this is a diet, it should be noted that you can get more rapid weight/fat loss if you induce ketosis by eating next to zero carbs. This may be part of the point as well, especially if they have an "introductory" period of some sort where most of the weight loss occurs.
 
2012-06-17 02:41:34 AM

Corvus: Gawdzila: The truth is that they DID answer it, and HAVE answered it several times. They just didn't give you the lie by omission that you wanted.

What lie?

Japenes don't eat white rice?

Italians don't eat a lot of pasta?

US doesn't eat more calories then Japan and Italians?

Us citizens are not fatter then Japanese and Italians?

Many cultures who eat almost no grains or sugars are over weight?

What am I lying about? Just repeating I am lying doesn't make me an actual liar.


Japanese eat more simple starches than Americans. I pointed it out twice. You keep skipping over it and changed it to calories.
 
2012-06-17 02:41:42 AM

boozerman: Taubes is almost as bad as Lustig. He manages to at least get things right on fats, but he is another person that doesn't understand physiology and heavily relies on studies that are either done on rats or are largely flawed. Very few of the studies cited for that book are done on humans, and one of the ones he cites is a study that locked people in a hospital (sedentary) and fed them insane amounts of pure fructose (something like 40% of their calories coming from pure fructose, which you just won't get in a real food diet). He should stick to physics.


Do you have a link that points out these flaws in his book? I have read thing showing he is wrong but mostly they are not in reference to his book. The problem is this book is catching on like wild fire however the scientific studies and institutes that disagree with this book now one knows about or are geared to the scientific community.

It's like scientists and climate change. A lot of FUD came out against human climate change before the science community did a lot argue it in the mainstream and by then the "skeptic" campaign took hold.
 
2012-06-17 02:45:34 AM

iaazathot: Japanese eat more simple starches than Americans. I pointed it out twice. You keep skipping over it and changed it to calories.


Yep and they eat less calories too. And they are thinner than Americans in general.

Americans eat one of the highest calorie diets and are one of the heaviest. Am I saying it's only about calorie intake? Of course not. But calorie intake (and calories burnt) is the biggest correlating factor.
 
2012-06-17 02:47:02 AM

Corvus: boozerman: Taubes is almost as bad as Lustig. He manages to at least get things right on fats, but he is another person that doesn't understand physiology and heavily relies on studies that are either done on rats or are largely flawed. Very few of the studies cited for that book are done on humans, and one of the ones he cites is a study that locked people in a hospital (sedentary) and fed them insane amounts of pure fructose (something like 40% of their calories coming from pure fructose, which you just won't get in a real food diet). He should stick to physics.

Do you have a link that points out these flaws in his book? I have read thing showing he is wrong but mostly they are not in reference to his book. The problem is this book is catching on like wild fire however the scientific studies and institutes that disagree with this book now one knows about or are geared to the scientific community.

It's like scientists and climate change. A lot of FUD came out against human climate change before the science community did a lot argue it in the mainstream and by then the "skeptic" campaign took hold.


It's mostly been a combination of chasing down full text studies on pubmed and other sources, reading Alan Aragon, Lyle McDonald, Leigh Peele, etc, and my background in Human biology and physiology.
 
2012-06-17 02:47:38 AM

Corvus: I am talking about diet habits and weight gain


So saying " Japanese simple starches Japanese simple starches Japanese simple starches Japanese simple starches Japanese simple starches Japanese simple starches Japanese simple starches Japanese simple starches Japanese simple starches Japanese simple starches Japanese simple starches Japanese simple starches Japanese simple starches Japanese simple starches Japanese simple starches Japanese simple starches Japanese simple starches Japanese simple starches answer the question" over and over is discussing diet habits and weight gain?

Fark no. You focused down on a particular case, and now whine when that particular case is responded to.
 
2012-06-17 02:48:20 AM

Corvus: iaazathot: Japanese eat more simple starches than Americans. I pointed it out twice. You keep skipping over it and changed it to calories.

Yep and they eat less calories too. And they are thinner than Americans in general.

Americans eat one of the highest calorie diets and are one of the heaviest. Am I saying it's only about calorie intake? Of course not. But calorie intake (and calories burnt) is the biggest correlating factor.


But they don't eat more starches, and your original qestions said nothing about calories, you threw that in once your logical fallacy was called.

Rice is a starch, not all starches are rice.

You have skipped over and made your substitution a third time. It's ok, if you want to include calories, but your starches statement is false and a very straightforward logical fallacy.
 
2012-06-17 02:51:10 AM
What the hell is Corvus' point? Has he even asserted anything or is he just asking questions wholly unrelated to the topic at hand?
 
2012-06-17 02:53:54 AM

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: What the hell is Corvus' point? Has he even asserted anything or is he just asking questions wholly unrelated to the topic at hand?


So this has nothing to do with starch intake?

FTA:

Refined sugars and starches are a metabolic problem because humans weren't made for today's Western diet, said Dr. Devendra Mehta, a pediatric gastroenterologist at Orlando Regional Medical Center.

That has nothing to do with "starches" when they say "starches"?
 
2012-06-17 02:53:55 AM
So, Corvus, I answered your straightforward questions with straightforward answers that pointed out your logical fallacy. I am not saying the Paleo-religion (apparently a diet of some sort) is right, but the thesis you presented is unfortunately hinged on a huge logical inconsistency.

I am not interested in changing your mind. I am just pointing out that you got your questions answered, and then you moved the goal posts by introducing caloric intake and trying to remove the inconsistency.

This time, I really and signing off.
 
2012-06-17 02:55:48 AM

boozerman: Corvus: boozerman: Taubes is almost as bad as Lustig. He manages to at least get things right on fats, but he is another person that doesn't understand physiology and heavily relies on studies that are either done on rats or are largely flawed. Very few of the studies cited for that book are done on humans, and one of the ones he cites is a study that locked people in a hospital (sedentary) and fed them insane amounts of pure fructose (something like 40% of their calories coming from pure fructose, which you just won't get in a real food diet). He should stick to physics.

Do you have a link that points out these flaws in his book? I have read thing showing he is wrong but mostly they are not in reference to his book. The problem is this book is catching on like wild fire however the scientific studies and institutes that disagree with this book now one knows about or are geared to the scientific community.

It's like scientists and climate change. A lot of FUD came out against human climate change before the science community did a lot argue it in the mainstream and by then the "skeptic" campaign took hold.

It's mostly been a combination of chasing down full text studies on pubmed and other sources, reading Alan Aragon, Lyle McDonald, Leigh Peele, etc, and my background in Human biology and physiology.


But these people have read one book about the subject. They of course know much much more than you do about the subject or all the other scientist who say they are wrong.
 
2012-06-17 02:56:15 AM

Corvus: What am I lying about? Just repeating I am lying doesn't make me an actual liar.


I said "lie by omission".
The point is that your questions are so directed and so focused on such a narrow little yes/no answer to one specific little ingot of a point, that they ignore TONS of other information that is relevant to the discussion. You ask them as if they were a neat little packaged proof of your argument. They're not, but answering them the way you want would make them seem that way.


AbbeySomeone: The Paleo website has great recipes for condiments.


Either it uses fake sugar (in which case it would be terrible and I'd refuse to eat it), or no sweetener at all, in which case it may taste good, but it won't taste like ketchup.

I don't adulterate my foods. Substitution cookery is a non-starter in my book. I'm all for new stuff, interesting spins on old recipes, anything goes. But if I want something I'm going to eat it -- not figure out a way I can kind of have it, almost, in a way that is sort of satisfying.
 
2012-06-17 02:57:49 AM

iaazathot: So, Corvus, I answered your straightforward questions with straightforward answers that pointed out your logical fallacy. I am not saying the Paleo-religion (apparently a diet of some sort) is right, but the thesis you presented is unfortunately hinged on a huge logical inconsistency.

I am not interested in changing your mind. I am just pointing out that you got your questions answered, and then you moved the goal posts by introducing caloric intake and trying to remove the inconsistency.

This time, I really and signing off.


What "inconsistency"? is your argument that US citizens eat more starches then Japanese? That's not an "inconsistency" or a "fallacy". That's just answer no to my question.
 
2012-06-17 02:58:13 AM

Corvus: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: What the hell is Corvus' point? Has he even asserted anything or is he just asking questions wholly unrelated to the topic at hand?

So this has nothing to do with starch intake?

FTA:

Refined sugars and starches are a metabolic problem because humans weren't made for today's Western diet, said Dr. Devendra Mehta, a pediatric gastroenterologist at Orlando Regional Medical Center.

That has nothing to do with "starches" when they say "starches"?


A simple "no" would have sufficed. If you don't have a point of view, that's fine.
 
2012-06-17 02:59:34 AM

Gawdzila: Corvus: What am I lying about? Just repeating I am lying doesn't make me an actual liar.

I said "lie by omission".
The point is that your questions are so directed and so focused on such a narrow little yes/no answer to one specific little ingot of a point, that they ignore TONS of other information that is relevant to the discussion. You ask them as if they were a neat little packaged proof of your argument. They're not, but answering them the way you want would make them seem that way.


Well why can't you answer my question and then clarify it with more detail? Why would that be so hard.
 
2012-06-17 03:01:04 AM

Gawdzila: Corvus: What am I lying about? Just repeating I am lying doesn't make me an actual liar.

I said "lie by omission".
The point is that your questions are so directed and so focused on such a narrow little yes/no answer to one specific little ingot of a point, that they ignore TONS of other information that is relevant to the discussion. You ask them as if they were a neat little packaged proof of your argument. They're not, but answering them the way you want would make them seem that way.


AbbeySomeone: The Paleo website has great recipes for condiments.

Either it uses fake sugar (in which case it would be terrible and I'd refuse to eat it), or no sweetener at all, in which case it may taste good, but it won't taste like ketchup.

I don't adulterate my foods. Substitution cookery is a non-starter in my book. I'm all for new stuff, interesting spins on old recipes, anything goes. But if I want something I'm going to eat it -- not figure out a way I can kind of have it, almost, in a way that is sort of satisfying.


Check out one of their recipe sites. I found a recipe for baconaise. They don't use any artificial anything. I made the ketchup and it was damn tasty.
HereLink
 
2012-06-17 03:01:41 AM

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Corvus: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: What the hell is Corvus' point? Has he even asserted anything or is he just asking questions wholly unrelated to the topic at hand?

So this has nothing to do with starch intake?

FTA:

Refined sugars and starches are a metabolic problem because humans weren't made for today's Western diet, said Dr. Devendra Mehta, a pediatric gastroenterologist at Orlando Regional Medical Center.

That has nothing to do with "starches" when they say "starches"?

A simple "no" would have sufficed. If you don't have a point of view, that's fine.


Wow talk about just ignoring what I said to believe what you want.

When someone says "Refined sugars and starches are a metabolic problem because humans weren't made for today's Western diet, said Dr. Devendra Mehta, a pediatric gastroenterologist at Orlando Regional Medical Center." How is a discussion based on starches and how they affect people not relevant?

Really this is like arguing evolution with Bevets.
 
2012-06-17 03:01:43 AM

Corvus: iaazathot: So, Corvus, I answered your straightforward questions with straightforward answers that pointed out your logical fallacy. I am not saying the Paleo-religion (apparently a diet of some sort) is right, but the thesis you presented is unfortunately hinged on a huge logical inconsistency.

I am not interested in changing your mind. I am just pointing out that you got your questions answered, and then you moved the goal posts by introducing caloric intake and trying to remove the inconsistency.

This time, I really and signing off.

What "inconsistency"? is your argument that US citizens eat more starches then Japanese? That's not an "inconsistency" or a "fallacy". That's just answer no to my question.


Have you ever been to Japan? Fyi, most Japanese folks eat fresh fish, chicken, and a variety of vegetables. In fact, the tallest/healthiest Japanese populations are the coastal regions who eat the most protein. The smallest Japanese are the western/inland populations who eat western diets and a lot ofbrc
 
2012-06-17 03:02:57 AM
rice and processed foods. Just sayin
 
2012-06-17 03:04:42 AM

Corvus: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Corvus: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: What the hell is Corvus' point? Has he even asserted anything or is he just asking questions wholly unrelated to the topic at hand?

So this has nothing to do with starch intake?

FTA:

Refined sugars and starches are a metabolic problem because humans weren't made for today's Western diet, said Dr. Devendra Mehta, a pediatric gastroenterologist at Orlando Regional Medical Center.

That has nothing to do with "starches" when they say "starches"?

A simple "no" would have sufficed. If you don't have a point of view, that's fine.

Wow talk about just ignoring what I said to believe what you want.

When someone says "Refined sugars and starches are a metabolic problem because humans weren't made for today's Western diet, said Dr. Devendra Mehta, a pediatric gastroenterologist at Orlando Regional Medical Center." How is a discussion based on starches and how they affect people not relevant?

Really this is like arguing evolution with Bevets.


So your point is "I don't understand Japanese diets therefore Japanese diets are healthy" ??

Heh. How sad.
 
2012-06-17 03:06:31 AM

Corvus: iaazathot: Corvus: LoneWolf343: You think glucose is a toxin? Try living without it, and we'll see what happens.

I heard some other idiot say this once in person. They have no farking clue what the word "toxin" means and they want us to take them serious on thier BS of pretending the obesity epidemic of the last 30 years was cause 10,000 years ago. They are a bunch of idiots.

Sugar is a "toxin" great show me deaths from OD of direct ingestion of sugar! I'll bet someone here I can ingest any amount of sugar that's possible cosumable and not die. Anything else that is a real toxin there is some point you will die from taking it.

The word "unhealthy" and "toxin" is not mean the same thing. And if you think it doesn't you don't know shiat about what you are talking about.

You are correct, you did not say that. I misread the above quote. However, your basic argument is still reductionistic and pretty irrational.

So is sugar a "toxin"? Do you admit that's a false statement made by the "paleo religion"? or that it's just "unhealthy" which was my actual point that you mischaracterized?


I am confused by the responses I had gotten. Does that make me a troll?
 
2012-06-17 03:07:34 AM

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Have you ever been to Japan? Fyi, most Japanese folks eat fresh fish, chicken, and a variety of vegetables. In fact, the tallest/healthiest Japanese populations are the coastal regions who eat the most protein. The smallest Japanese are the western/inland populations who eat western diets and a lot ofbrc


1) actually the tallest Japanese are those who come to America and that is because their diets in Japan are low in calcium.
2) HEIGHT IS NOT OBESITY SO STOP TRYING TO CHANGE THE SUBJECT AGAIN!!!

this is how this has bee going:

Me: Look these people in these countries have low calorie high starch diets and they are very thin.

Paleo-Relgion: They are shorter! They have XYZ health issue!!!

Me: Umm aren't we talking about obesity not about other health related issues. I never said there wasn't other issues with the types of food but we are talking specifically about over weight.

Paleo-Relgion:Your an idiot!!! shut up!!!!! You are a liar!!!
 
2012-06-17 03:08:47 AM

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Corvus: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Corvus: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: What the hell is Corvus' point? Has he even asserted anything or is he just asking questions wholly unrelated to the topic at hand?

So this has nothing to do with starch intake?

FTA:

Refined sugars and starches are a metabolic problem because humans weren't made for today's Western diet, said Dr. Devendra Mehta, a pediatric gastroenterologist at Orlando Regional Medical Center.

That has nothing to do with "starches" when they say "starches"?

A simple "no" would have sufficed. If you don't have a point of view, that's fine.

Wow talk about just ignoring what I said to believe what you want.

When someone says "Refined sugars and starches are a metabolic problem because humans weren't made for today's Western diet, said Dr. Devendra Mehta, a pediatric gastroenterologist at Orlando Regional Medical Center." How is a discussion based on starches and how they affect people not relevant?

Really this is like arguing evolution with Bevets.

So your point is "I don't understand Japanese diets therefore Japanese diets are healthy" ??

Heh. How sad.


Since my family is Japanese I feel like I know a little.
 
2012-06-17 03:10:17 AM

Corvus: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Have you ever been to Japan? Fyi, most Japanese folks eat fresh fish, chicken, and a variety of vegetables. In fact, the tallest/healthiest Japanese populations are the coastal regions who eat the most protein. The smallest Japanese are the western/inland populations who eat western diets and a lot ofbrc

1) actually the tallest Japanese are those who come to America and that is because their diets in Japan are low in calcium.
2) HEIGHT IS NOT OBESITY SO STOP TRYING TO CHANGE THE SUBJECT AGAIN!!!

this is how this has bee going:

Me: Look these people in these countries have low calorie high starch diets and they are very thin.

Paleo-Relgion: They are shorter! They have XYZ health issue!!!

Me: Umm aren't we talking about obesity not about other health related issues. I never said there wasn't other issues with the types of food but we are talking specifically about over weight.

Paleo-Relgion:Your an idiot!!! shut up!!!!! You are a liar!!!


What is "paleo-religion"? I'm drunk, are you? It's saturday night, chillax bro. Adjust your tinfoil and have a good time :)
 
2012-06-17 03:17:12 AM

Corvus: 1) actually the tallest Japanese are those who come to America and that is because their diets in Japan are low in calcium.


Japanese diets tend not to be low in calcium, BTW. Soy is an extremely rich source of calcium, and soy in its myriad of forms is very common in many styles of Japanese cooking.
 
2012-06-17 03:19:12 AM

morgantx: Corvus: 1) actually the tallest Japanese are those who come to America and that is because their diets in Japan are low in calcium.

Japanese diets tend not to be low in calcium, BTW. Soy is an extremely rich source of calcium, and soy in its myriad of forms is very common in many styles of Japanese cooking.


I'll tell that to my 6 feet tall Japanese cousins that they should be short because of their western diets. They'll love to hear the news.
 
2012-06-17 03:19:36 AM

AbbeySomeone: I found a recipe for baconaise.


Haha, well real mayo is just eggs and oil, I'm sure there's nothing the Paleo diet would restrict in a mayonnaise recipe, lol.
And I'm sure the ketchup was tasty, but did it taste like ketchup? I'm not saying I wouldn't eat it, just that it isn't really a substitute.


Corvus: Well why can't you answer my question and then clarify it with more detail? Why would that be so hard.


They did.


Corvus: Paleo-Relgion: They are shorter! They have XYZ health issue!!!

Me: Umm aren't we talking about obesity not about other health related issues.


They were talking about insulin/diabetes issues, which are INEXTRICABLY related to obesity and the ability to handle starches in the diet. The fact that you don't understand how insulin works doesn't mean that they were changing the subject, it means you were simply unable to comprehend how it was related to the issue at hand.
 
2012-06-17 03:19:49 AM

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: What is "paleo-religion"?


He's whining about a type of low carb dieting that take as a model what a human diet would have been before the agricultural revolution in the neolithic. Thaat' why I found his Bevets/Evolution comment ironic. Because thats a foundation of the concept. Eat what your species spent millions of years adapting to, rather than what was 'invented' a mere several millennia ago.
 
2012-06-17 03:22:42 AM

Corvus: morgantx: Corvus: 1) actually the tallest Japanese are those who come to America and that is because their diets in Japan are low in calcium.

Japanese diets tend not to be low in calcium, BTW. Soy is an extremely rich source of calcium, and soy in its myriad of forms is very common in many styles of Japanese cooking.

I'll tell that to my 6 feet tall Japanese cousins that they should be short because of their western diets. They'll love to hear the news.


O_o

That was a total non-sequitur.
The fact that Japanese food doesn't lack calcium has nothing to do with your Japanese cousins who are on a Western diet.
 
2012-06-17 03:23:15 AM

jaylectricity: spaten: Seriously, the left is more authoritarian then the right and have less of a clue.

Actually, anybody who identifies with the "left" or the "right" is more authoritarian than anybody else.

The rest of us just point and laugh.


Better start paying attention, those bastards are in charge. The only shiatheads who get into politics are authoritarian.

thechive.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-06-17 03:28:53 AM

Gawdzila: Corvus: morgantx: Corvus: 1) actually the tallest Japanese are those who come to America and that is because their diets in Japan are low in calcium.

Japanese diets tend not to be low in calcium, BTW. Soy is an extremely rich source of calcium, and soy in its myriad of forms is very common in many styles of Japanese cooking.

I'll tell that to my 6 feet tall Japanese cousins that they should be short because of their western diets. They'll love to hear the news.

O_o

That was a total non-sequitur.
The fact that Japanese food doesn't lack calcium has nothing to do with your Japanese cousins who are on a Western diet.


Western diets aren't lacking in calcium, either, and I never said they were. The source of calcium is different in Western diets, and most Western diets are at least slightly higher in magnesium (which is necessary for the body to metabolize calcium) than Japanese diets. So it is entirely possible that Japanese people will tend to grow taller on a Western diet. But that's not because of the calcium. It could be magnesium, but twin studies that have been done consistently point the finger at the protein content of the Western diet rather than anything else.

I'm not arguing that Asians on a Western diet do tend to grow taller. I'm only arguing your assertion that Japanese diets are deficient in calcium.
 
2012-06-17 03:29:02 AM

Vlad_the_Inaner: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: What is "paleo-religion"?

He's whining about a type of low carb dieting that take as a model what a human diet would have been before the agricultural revolution in the neolithic. Thaat' why I found his Bevets/Evolution comment ironic. Because thats a foundation of the concept. Eat what your species spent millions of years adapting to, rather than what was 'invented' a mere several millennia ago.


Right because we all became fat 10,000 years ago... Oh wait the much higher increase in obesity actually really started to manifest in only the last few decades not for the last 10,000 years and that obesity rate increase goes hand in hand with increases caloric intake!

There is not one food item you get in a store today that has changes post-agricultural revolution. Have we made more calorie dense foods since then? Hell yes! Are some of these foods like sugar and simple starches bad for you and can cause things like diabetes? Hell yes.

But lets not make up a BS science that major dietician organization say is complete bullshiat. Oh also scientists who study evolution also say his theories are complete BS.
 
2012-06-17 03:30:46 AM

Gawdzila: Corvus: morgantx: Corvus: 1) actually the tallest Japanese are those who come to America and that is because their diets in Japan are low in calcium.

Japanese diets tend not to be low in calcium, BTW. Soy is an extremely rich source of calcium, and soy in its myriad of forms is very common in many styles of Japanese cooking.

I'll tell that to my 6 feet tall Japanese cousins that they should be short because of their western diets. They'll love to hear the news.

O_o

That was a total non-sequitur.
The fact that Japanese food doesn't lack calcium has nothing to do with your Japanese cousins who are on a Western diet.


Can you give me the citation that they have as much calcium as people in the US?

And like I said before:

THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE POINT ABOUT OBESITY!!!

Why do you guys keep trying to change the subject.
 
2012-06-17 03:33:01 AM

Gawdzila: Corvus: morgantx: Corvus: 1) actually the tallest Japanese are those who come to America and that is because their diets in Japan are low in calcium.

Japanese diets tend not to be low in calcium, BTW. Soy is an extremely rich source of calcium, and soy in its myriad of forms is very common in many styles of Japanese cooking.

I'll tell that to my 6 feet tall Japanese cousins that they should be short because of their western diets. They'll love to hear the news.

O_o

That was a total non-sequitur.
The fact that Japanese food doesn't lack calcium has nothing to do with your Japanese cousins who are on a Western diet.


So how is talking about height of Japenese when I was making a point about obesity not a non-sequitor?

Why didn't you have a problem with that?
 
2012-06-17 03:33:14 AM
KarmicDisaster:
It looks like the salt intake/death relationship is maybe going to be a curve with a (broad) sweet spot for salt intake.


quityourdayjob.com.au
Salt intake/death ratio with a sweet Salt broad --
VERY high, but SO worth it.
 
2012-06-17 03:37:33 AM

Vlad_the_Inaner: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: What is "paleo-religion"?

He's whining about a type of low carb dieting that take as a model what a human diet would have been before the agricultural revolution in the neolithic. Thaat' why I found his Bevets/Evolution comment ironic. Because thats a foundation of the concept. Eat what your species spent millions of years adapting to, rather than what was 'invented' a mere several millennia ago.


Yeah about that being based on "evolution"

The evolutionary assumptions underlying the Paleolithic diet have been disputed.[18][21][22][36] According to Alexander Ströhle, Maike Wolters and Andreas Hahn, with the Department of Food Science at the University of Hanover, the statement that the human genome evolved during the Pleistocene (a period from 1,808,000 to 11,550 years ago) rests on an inadequate, but popular gene-centered view of evolution.[22] They rely on Gray (2001)[82] to argue that evolution of organisms cannot be reduced to the genetic level with reference to mutation and that there is no one-to-one relationship between genotype and phenotype.[22]

They further question the notion that 10,000 years is an insufficient period of time to ensure an adequate adaptation to agrarian diets.[22] For example, alleles conferring lactose tolerance increased to high frequencies in Europe just a few thousand years after animal husbandry was invented, and recent increases in the number of copies of the gene for salivary amylase, which digests starch, appear to be related to agriculture.[citation needed] Referring to Wilson (1994),[83] Ströhle et al. argue that "the number of generations that a species existed in the old environment was irrelevant, and that the response to the change of the environment of a species would depend on the heritability of the traits, the intensity of selection and the number of generations that selection acts."[84] They state that if the diet of Neolithic agriculturalists had been in discordance with their physiology, then this would have created a selection pressure for evolutionary change and modern humans, such as Europeans, whose ancestors have subsisted on agrarian diets for 400-500 generations should be somehow adequately adapted to it. In response to this argument, Wolfgang Kopp states that "we have to take into account that death from atherosclerosis and cardiovascular disease (CVD) occurs later during life, as a rule after the reproduction phase. Even a high mortality from CVD after the reproduction phase will create little selection pressure. Thus, it seems that a diet can be functional (it keeps us going) and dysfunctional (it causes health problems) at the same time."[84] Moreover, S. Boyd Eaton and colleagues have indicated that "comparative genetic data provide compelling evidence against the contention that long exposure to agricultural and industrial circumstances has distanced us, genetically, from our Stone Age ancestors"[12] however they mention exceptions such as increased lactose and gluten tolerance, which improve ability to digest dairy and grains, while other studies indicate that human adaptive evolution has accelerated since the Paleolithic.[85]

Referencing Mahner et al. (2001)[86] and Ströhle et al. (2006),[87] Ströhle et al. state that "whatever is the fact, to think that a dietary factor is valuable (functional) to the organism only when there was 'genetical adaptation' and hence a new dietary factor is dysfunctional per se because there was no evolutionary adaptation to it, such a panselectionist misreading of biological evolution seems to be inspired by a naive adaptationistic view of life."[22]

Katharine Milton, a professor of physical anthropology at the University of California, Berkeley, has also disputed the evolutionary logic upon which the Paleolithic diet is based. She questions the premise that the metabolism of modern humans must be genetically adapted to the dietary conditions of the Paleolithic.[18] Relying on several of her previous publications,[88][89][90][91] Milton states that "there is little evidence to suggest that human nutritional requirements or human digestive physiology were significantly affected by such diets at any point in human evolution."[18]

Evidence suggests the diet of Stone Age humans did include, in some form, the refined starches and grains that are excluded from the Paleolithic diet. There is evidence that Paleolithic societies were processing cereals for food use at least as early as 23,000[92][93] or 30,000 years ago,[94] and possibly as early as 105,000[95] or 200,000 years ago.
[96]


Yeah people who study the field for a living biatch slapping him saying he is full of shiat is not "based on evolution".
 
2012-06-17 03:41:05 AM

Corvus: Right because we all became fat 10,000 years ago


Sure, because there is only black and white, no gray. There is only one variable, And it is only on or off.

Link
 
2012-06-17 03:47:53 AM

Gawdzila: cuzsis: Ketchup tastes just fine on it's own, it doesn't need sugar.

While I'm not necessarily a fan of HFCS, I must point out that virtually any homemade ketchup recipe will include things like molasses and/or brown sugar. The entire flavor profile of ketchup is supposed a sweet/tangy combination. There IS NO ketchup without sugar.


I should clarify, Ketchup as is regularly made, tastes just fine on it's own. Very slight sweet flavor (almost subliminal) with a nice zesty zing to it. The abomination sold as ketchup with hfcs is overly sweet and nasty tasting.

/we have both non hfcs ketchup and abomination ketchup in our fridge.
//glad heinz is switching over
 
2012-06-17 03:54:37 AM
My metabolism is farked. Thinking back, it's been so at least since I was 10 (1991).

I'm 5'10" and my peak weight was right around 270. That was very fat.

These days I'm between 160 and 165 and watch my diet pretty closely. Apparently that's rather skinny, although I still see the same person in the mirror as I did at 270.

Things that I've learned about my own metabolism (and no one else's) in the last few years are as follows:
1) The wheat that was engineered in the 1950's is farking poison and shouldn't be eaten.
2) Vegetable oil is nasty shiat and shouldn't be eaten by me.
3) Sugar isn't good and will cause me to balloon rather quickly. (fark if I care if the sugar came from a beet, sugar cane, or corn.)
4) Gorging and fasting works well for me. (ie. 2k calories in a meal followed by nothing for 16+hours.)
5) 50-70% of my calories from fat works for me. Mostly because steamed veggies have damn near no calories and ribeye is farking awesome.
6) Alcohol doesn't hurt my metabolism. (Yay for a scotch liver/brown fat.)
7) Carbs beyond about 100g/day will make me gain weight. If I'm lifting, that's a good thing. If not, it's not.
 
2012-06-17 04:05:02 AM

Corvus: Yeah people who study the field for a living biatch slapping him saying he is full of shiat is not "based on evolution".


'He', like there is some cult of personality going on here? Who is 'he'?

I've never seen a paleo advocate say adaptation can't occur in thousands of years. Quite the opposite. I've seen them point out that many populations that have been using agriculture for a long time are less prone to diet related dietary diseases like diabetes and heart disease. Its populations that were the more recently hunter-gathers that have a high susceptibility when going on a western diet. Like native Americans and Eskimos.

Saying something is better adapted for doesn't mean there can't be other adaptations. Just watch how quickly the old genotype re-asserts itself when a domesticated animal escapes to the wild form a feral population. The wild boar in Floridas swamps look and act like ancient European wild boar, yet they are the descendents of farm animals bred for generations.

I've never seen anyone advocating a paleo diet say that all humanity should adopt it. Its pretty obviously unsustainable at current population levels. But that is quite different from saying it can't be healthier if you can afford to adopt it.
 
2012-06-17 04:10:30 AM
FizixJunkee:
Patients are so big now that you have to be nearly superhuman strong to move some of these patients.

upload.wikimedia.org
Has a solution
 
2012-06-17 04:12:08 AM

Vlad_the_Inaner: Corvus: Yeah people who study the field for a living biatch slapping him saying he is full of shiat is not "based on evolution".

'He', like there is some cult of personality going on here? Who is 'he'?

I've never seen a paleo advocate say adaptation can't occur in thousands of years. Quite the opposite. I've seen them point out that many populations that have been using agriculture for a long time are less prone to diet related dietary diseases like diabetes and heart disease. Its populations that were the more recently hunter-gathers that have a high susceptibility when going on a western diet. Like native Americans and Eskimos.

Saying something is better adapted for doesn't mean there can't be other adaptations. Just watch how quickly the old genotype re-asserts itself when a domesticated animal escapes to the wild form a feral population. The wild boar in Floridas swamps look and act like ancient European wild boar, yet they are the descendents of farm animals bred for generations.

I've never seen anyone advocating a paleo diet say that all humanity should adopt it. Its pretty obviously unsustainable at current population levels. But that is quite different from saying it can't be healthier if you can afford to adopt it.


farkin laughing my ass off. Could you live off a dry lake that was abandoned 9 to 12 thousand years ago?
 
2012-06-17 04:13:16 AM

Vlad_the_Inaner: Corvus: Yeah people who study the field for a living biatch slapping him saying he is full of shiat is not "based on evolution".

'He', like there is some cult of personality going on here? Who is 'he'?

I've never seen a paleo advocate say adaptation can't occur in thousands of years. Quite the opposite. I've seen them point out that many populations that have been using agriculture for a long time are less prone to diet related dietary diseases like diabetes and heart disease. Its populations that were the more recently hunter-gathers that have a high susceptibility when going on a western diet. Like native Americans and Eskimos.

Saying something is better adapted for doesn't mean there can't be other adaptations. Just watch how quickly the old genotype re-asserts itself when a domesticated animal escapes to the wild form a feral population. The wild boar in Floridas swamps look and act like ancient European wild boar, yet they are the descendents of farm animals bred for generations.

I've never seen anyone advocating a paleo diet say that all humanity should adopt it. Its pretty obviously unsustainable at current population levels. But that is quite different from saying it can't be healthier if you can afford to adopt it.


Those weren't my arguments they were experts in their field. Interesting how you didn't actually bother to quote them and you ignored most of the arguments they made showing that the basis of paleo-diet is wron. If you are smarter than them about the subject which you seem to think you are, please call them and show them the errors of their ways.

All I am saying is the scientist who are experts in these fields have repeatedly said these arguments are full of crap. And the only people who seem to support these arguments are people selling books.

Please, it's your duty that you know so much more than these experts in their field explain to them how stupid they are.

I didn't know I was talking to such a genius about these subjects more of an expert then heads of organizations that study these matters.
 
2012-06-17 04:15:59 AM

Vlad_the_Inaner: Corvus: Yeah people who study the field for a living biatch slapping him saying he is full of shiat is not "based on evolution".

'He', like there is some cult of personality going on here? Who is 'he'?

I've never seen a paleo advocate say adaptation can't occur in thousands of years. Quite the opposite. I've seen them point out that many populations that have been using agriculture for a long time are less prone to diet related dietary diseases like diabetes and heart disease. Its populations that were the more recently hunter-gathers that have a high susceptibility when going on a western diet. Like native Americans and Eskimos.

Saying something is better adapted for doesn't mean there can't be other adaptations. Just watch how quickly the old genotype re-asserts itself when a domesticated animal escapes to the wild form a feral population. The wild boar in Floridas swamps look and act like ancient European wild boar, yet they are the descendents of farm animals bred for generations.

I've never seen anyone advocating a paleo diet say that all humanity should adopt it. Its pretty obviously unsustainable at current population levels. But that is quite different from saying it can't be healthier if you can afford to adopt it.


Where you the one bringing up fallacies earlier?


What's the name for the fallacy where you attack a small portion of the argument and pretend that also discounts the 5 or so other points that were made?

Is that "chink in the armor" or is it a "hasty generalization"? Not sure. That's the one that global warming deniers and anti-evolution people use a lot too.
 
2012-06-17 04:17:05 AM

morgantx: Western diets aren't lacking in calcium, either, and I never said they were.


I'm assuming meant to reply to Corvus ;)


Corvus: So how is talking about height of Japenese when I was making a point about obesity not a non-sequitor?


No, your response to morgantx about your cousins height was a logical non-sequitur in relation to his point that the Japanese diet is NOT low in calcium, as you alleged. YOU'RE the one who brought up dietary calcium and height. The fact that it is on a tangential topic has nothing to do with whether your response to morgantx was a non-sequitur or not from a logical standpoint.

And why should I have a problem with talking about height? Sure it's a tangential topic, but I'm not a moderator. I was just pointing out that your response didn't make any sense.


Corvus: Yeah people who study the field for a living biatch slapping him saying he is full of shiat is not "based on evolution".


And there are people who study the field for a living who would agree with him, too.
It means there is a debate about it, and it may or may not be correct, as is the case with MANY things in science. It doesn't mean he got "biatch slapped", and the fact that SOME experts disagree doesn't mean that he is absolutely wrong. As usual, though, the people who disagree with him see any contrary argument as absolute proof that the ideas are 100% bunk. How typical.

The truth is generally in the middle somewhere.
 
2012-06-17 04:19:25 AM
sycraft:
Anyone who makes a statement like "Sugar is a toxin," is either a fear monger or a moron. Reason is that we absolutely rely on a sugar, glucose, to live. It is a metabolic intermediary and important source of energy. You have no glucose in you, you will die.

This is not surprising. Our government has declared carbon dioxide to be a pollutant, and marijuana to be a narcotic.
 
2012-06-17 04:23:16 AM

Gawdzila: And why should I have a problem with talking about height? Sure it's a tangential topic, but I'm not a moderator. I was just pointing out that your response didn't make any sense.


So you can yell about non=sequitor to me but not for anyone else? Got it!

Gawdzila: And there are people who study the field for a living who would agree with him, too.
It means there is a debate about it, and it may or may not be correct, as is the case with MANY things in science. It doesn't mean he got "biatch slapped", and the fact that SOME experts disagree doesn't mean that he is absolutely wrong. As usual, though, the people who disagree with him see any contrary argument as absolute proof that the ideas are 100% bunk. How typical.

The truth is generally in the middle somewhere.


Actually not really. This is the same "Global warming is not settled science" BS. The vast majority of people who are experts in the field about this subject thinks it's bullshiat. There was a recent report of nutritionists and scientist ranking diets on best to worst and Paleo was ranked the worst.

Can you lose weight with it? YES! But that's because it's a diet the moves you away from calorie dense foods and huge studies are quiet clear that a diet like this is not healthy for you in the long run.
 
2012-06-17 04:25:17 AM

GeneralJim: sycraft: Anyone who makes a statement like "Sugar is a toxin," is either a fear monger or a moron. Reason is that we absolutely rely on a sugar, glucose, to live. It is a metabolic intermediary and important source of energy. You have no glucose in you, you will die.
This is not surprising. Our government has declared carbon dioxide to be a pollutant, and marijuana to be a narcotic.

When used in a legal context in the US, a narcotic drug is simply one that is totally prohibited, or one that is used in violation of strict governmental regulation, such as heroin or morphine.


So you are arguing that the US hasn't banned marijuana? OK!
 
2012-06-17 04:29:08 AM

Corvus: Those weren't my arguments they were experts in their field.


He didn't say they were your arguments, nor does his response have anything to do with who made the argument.


Corvus: Interesting how you didn't actually bother to quote them and you ignored most of the arguments they made showing that the basis of paleo-diet is wron.


He didn't need to quote them, it seemed pretty obvious to me which part of their objection he was addressing.
And in fact he wasn't even saying that your experts were wrong so I don't know why you're getting all huffy and indignant, like he is saying that he knows more than your experts. It really doesn't seem like you actually understand what is going on here.

He didn't disagree with or dispute their arguments. He was merely pointing out that their points don't actually argue against the Paleo Diet in any way. In other words, their objections are correct, but their assumptions about what the Paleo Diet is saying is wrong.
 
2012-06-17 04:31:23 AM
Corvus:
The word "unhealthy" and "toxin" is not mean the same thing. And if you think it doesn't you don't know shiat about what you are talking about.

You really should try to avoid criticizing others, since you apparently can't even construct a sentence. And, I can also assure you that insulin plays a very major role in weight gain, and your vehemence in denouncing others who discuss it does not make up for your lack of knowledge. I'm sorry you're so ignorant, but it really is not my job to educate you. I can tell you, however, that you will look significantly less stupid if you quit going off on people who know much more than you do. Just sayin'.
 
2012-06-17 04:32:34 AM

Corvus: GeneralJim: sycraft: Anyone who makes a statement like "Sugar is a toxin," is either a fear monger or a moron. Reason is that we absolutely rely on a sugar, glucose, to live. It is a metabolic intermediary and important source of energy. You have no glucose in you, you will die.
This is not surprising. Our government has declared carbon dioxide to be a pollutant, and marijuana to be a narcotic.

When used in a legal context in the US, a narcotic drug is simply one that is totally prohibited, or one that is used in violation of strict governmental regulation, such as heroin or morphine.

So you are arguing that the US hasn't banned marijuana? OK!


No, just that words have meaning, even though we may choose to ignore them. "Narcotic", like "Toxin" is a word with a very specific meaning. referring to drugs derived from opium, which marijuana is not.
 
2012-06-17 04:35:02 AM

Gawdzila: Corvus: Those weren't my arguments they were experts in their field.

He didn't say they were your arguments, nor does his response have anything to do with who made the argument.


Corvus: Interesting how you didn't actually bother to quote them and you ignored most of the arguments they made showing that the basis of paleo-diet is wron.

He didn't need to quote them, it seemed pretty obvious to me which part of their objection he was addressing.
And in fact he wasn't even saying that your experts were wrong so I don't know why you're getting all huffy and indignant, like he is saying that he knows more than your experts. It really doesn't seem like you actually understand what is going on here.

He didn't disagree with or dispute their arguments. He was merely pointing out that their points don't actually argue against the Paleo Diet in any way. In other words, their objections are correct, but their assumptions about what the Paleo Diet is saying is wrong.


I really think you are just trolling. How is arguing against one of the points invalidate them all? Either you're a troll or you have your head totally up your ass where you can dismiss a big list of exerts in the field who have studied something and said it is wrong as just "well they are confused" because you don't actually want to deal with the actual points they made.

You logic is this:

If someone disagrees with the Paleo-diet obviously, the don't understand it enough. So I will dismiss every point someone makes against it because I believe they don't understand it.
 
2012-06-17 04:36:13 AM

GeneralJim: Corvus: The word "unhealthy" and "toxin" is not mean the same thing. And if you think it doesn't you don't know shiat about what you are talking about.
You really should try to avoid criticizing others, since you apparently can't even construct a sentence. And, I can also assure you that insulin plays a very major role in weight gain, and your vehemence in denouncing others who discuss it does not make up for your lack of knowledge. I'm sorry you're so ignorant, but it really is not my job to educate you. I can tell you, however, that you will look significantly less stupid if you quit going off on people who know much more than you do. Just sayin'.


So unhealthy and Toxin does mean the same thing?
 
2012-06-17 04:37:07 AM

Corvus: So you can yell about non=sequitor to me but not for anyone else? Got it!


You're not making any freaking sense.

It sounds like you think a "non-sequitur" is a response that is off topic.
It isn't.
A non-sequitur is an argument whose conclusion doesn't follow logically. You're the only one who made one of those.
Anyway, whatever. It isn't important.


Corvus: Actually not really. This is the same "Global warming is not settled science" BS. The vast majority of people who are experts in the field about this subject thinks it's bullshiat. There was a recent report of nutritionists and scientist ranking diets on best to worst and Paleo was ranked the worst.


If you think the science of nutrition is anywhere close to being as settled as the science on GW, you're absolutely delusional.

There is more and more evidence that lots of things we take for granted about nutrition are absolutely untrue, and more and more evidence that we still have a lot to learn. And you have the nerve to bring up a panel of old-guard experts on nutrition as "proof" that these new ideas are wrong? Gimme a break. Last I checked, science worked on results, not on the conglomerated "conventional wisdom".
 
2012-06-17 04:38:27 AM

Cyno01: Corvus: GeneralJim: sycraft: Anyone who makes a statement like "Sugar is a toxin," is either a fear monger or a moron. Reason is that we absolutely rely on a sugar, glucose, to live. It is a metabolic intermediary and important source of energy. You have no glucose in you, you will die.
This is not surprising. Our government has declared carbon dioxide to be a pollutant, and marijuana to be a narcotic.

When used in a legal context in the US, a narcotic drug is simply one that is totally prohibited, or one that is used in violation of strict governmental regulation, such as heroin or morphine.

So you are arguing that the US hasn't banned marijuana? OK!

No, just that words have meaning, even though we may choose to ignore them. "Narcotic", like "Toxin" is a word with a very specific meaning. referring to drugs derived from opium, which marijuana is not.


Your right words do have meanings:


narcotic
Popularitya : a drug (as opium or morphine) that in moderate doses dulls the senses, relieves pain, and induces profound sleep but in excessive doses causes stupor, coma, or convulsions b : a drug (as marijuana or LSD) subject to restriction similar to that of addictive narcotics whether physiologically addictive and narcotic or not

Maybe you should tell Merriam Webster they got it wrong.
 
2012-06-17 04:40:46 AM
Corvus:
Do Japanese eat a lot of white rice?
Is Japanese a simple starch?
Are Japanese more then then Americans?
So is the statement that simple starches make you fat not calories bullshiat?

Yes, Japanese eat "a lot" of white rice.

No, Japanese is not a simple starch.

WTF does "Are Japanese more then then Americans?" even mean?

And, no, the statement is correct.

Japanese people do not over-eat in the same way as Americans do. They use rice as their staple, where as Americans use bread and potatoes. Rice is better, albeit not by much. The important factor is that they don't eat several times what they need. And, as the Japanese have not destroyed their bodies response to insulin by repeated blasting with the "sugar howitzer," their bodies can handle any excess starches they consume properly.

It's good to know that your knowledge of nutrition science is on a par with your knowledge of climate science. Consistency is important.
 
2012-06-17 04:42:04 AM

Gawdzila: If you think the science of nutrition is anywhere close to being as settled as the science on GW, you're absolutely delusional.

There is more and more evidence that lots of things we take for granted about nutrition are absolutely untrue, and more and more evidence that we still have a lot to learn. And you have the nerve to bring up a panel of old-guard experts on nutrition as "proof" that these new ideas are wrong? Gimme a break. Last I checked, science worked on results, not on the conglomerated "conventional wisdom".


I never said it was. You are making a "hasty generalizations". I said this ISSUE has consensus settled around it not all nutritional science.

Oh so now saying that most experts say he is wrong is something bad and I am not allowed to do that? This is rich.
 
2012-06-17 04:42:20 AM

Corvus: GeneralJim: sycraft: Anyone who makes a statement like "Sugar is a toxin," is either a fear monger or a moron. Reason is that we absolutely rely on a sugar, glucose, to live. It is a metabolic intermediary and important source of energy. You have no glucose in you, you will die.
This is not surprising. Our government has declared carbon dioxide to be a pollutant, and marijuana to be a narcotic.

When used in a legal context in the US, a narcotic drug is simply one that is totally prohibited, or one that is used in violation of strict governmental regulation, such as heroin or morphine.

So you are arguing that the US hasn't banned marijuana? OK!


Unconstitutionally,

No ban on San Pedro cactus. fark the nannies in NYC and LA.

/Prohibition was Constitutional, a bad idea with the WW1 vets.
//Woodrow Wilson was evil
 
2012-06-17 04:42:30 AM

Corvus: Those weren't my arguments they were experts in their field. Interesting how you didn't actually bother to quote them and you ignored most of the arguments they made showing that the basis of paleo-diet is wron. If you are smarter than them about the subject which you seem to think you are, please call them and show them the errors of their ways.


Sorry, I don't care to match your walls of text by quoting you in full.

You seem to be laboring under the misapprehension that there is a vast cult whose reason for existance is believing that pre-agricultural humans lived solely on mammoth steak and walnuts. That's the stawman your quotes are in opposition to. Another way of putting the rational behind the paleolithic diet followers is that humans have a multiply fuel capability. Carbs and fats and proteins. But back in per-agricultural times, there was not the 24/7/365 availability of high energy carbohydrate foods available like is found in our culture these days. Instead, such foods were a windfall, usually seasonal, and the survival adaptation for that was to eat those calories, even in excess of current needs. Stored as fat for leaner times. They are saying that running that carbohydrate full out with no rest is what causes metabolic disease. And the tendency to want to store carbohydrates gives a tendency toward obesity when given an unlimited supply.

You can keep knocking down strawmen you set up, But it really says little regarding the heart of the subject. But keep on fighting your jihad against the paleo cult.

Geesh.
 
2012-06-17 04:44:10 AM

GeneralJim: It's good to know that your knowledge of nutrition science is on a par with your knowledge of climate science. Consistency is important.


Wow you mean a climate denier also buys into this crap. Color me SHOCKED!! Oh wait no, that's the point I have been making this entire thread.
 
2012-06-17 04:48:07 AM

Corvus: So unhealthy and Toxin does mean the same thing?


Gee, he could either mean that, or he could mean that a sentence with a subject containing multiple objects woutd take the plural declination of the verb.

Which interpretation would you choose?

/tldr just call him a grammer nazi and move on to the next strawman
 
2012-06-17 04:48:45 AM

Vlad_the_Inaner: Corvus: Those weren't my arguments they were experts in their field. Interesting how you didn't actually bother to quote them and you ignored most of the arguments they made showing that the basis of paleo-diet is wron. If you are smarter than them about the subject which you seem to think you are, please call them and show them the errors of their ways.

Sorry, I don't care to match your walls of text by quoting you in full.

You seem to be laboring under the misapprehension that there is a vast cult whose reason for existance is believing that pre-agricultural humans lived solely on mammoth steak and walnuts. That's the stawman your quotes are in opposition to. Another way of putting the rational behind the paleolithic diet followers is that humans have a multiply fuel capability. Carbs and fats and proteins. But back in per-agricultural times, there was not the 24/7/365 availability of high energy carbohydrate foods available like is found in our culture these days. Instead, such foods were a windfall, usually seasonal, and the survival adaptation for that was to eat those calories, even in excess of current needs. Stored as fat for leaner times. They are saying that running that carbohydrate full out with no rest is what causes metabolic disease. And the tendency to want to store carbohydrates gives a tendency toward obesity when given an unlimited supply.

You can keep knocking down strawmen you set up, But it really says little regarding the heart of the subject. But keep on fighting your jihad against the paleo cult.

Geesh.


What strawman *I* set up. These were experts in their field they read the material. It's their job. Don't try to pretend experts who head departments who job it is to look into these issues is some point *I* brought up because you don't want to deal with the cognitive dissonance that the vast majority of experts on this issue say it's full of crap.


I AM NOT KNOCKING THIS DOWN. EXPERT SCIENTISTS ARE KNOCKING IT DOWN.

Don't trust me? Look for yourself! Why not look into what these scientist say about it?? Why do you feel you should only read about one side?
 
2012-06-17 04:50:18 AM

Vlad_the_Inaner: Corvus: So unhealthy and Toxin does mean the same thing?

Gee, he could either mean that, or he could mean that a sentence with a subject containing multiple objects woutd take the plural declination of the verb.

Which interpretation would you choose?

/tldr just call him a grammer nazi and move on to the next strawman


So incorrect grammar makes an invalid argument? Or going back to the insults?

Please take the side of the FARKs Global warming denier. Maybe Bevets can join you too.
 
2012-06-17 04:50:24 AM

Corvus: I really think you are just trolling. How is arguing against one of the points invalidate them all?


When did either he or I say that it invalidated them all?
He responded to one of the bigger points as an illustration that the debate isn't as cut-and-dried as you think.
Maybe he just didn't have the time or inclination to respond to every bit of that huge wall of text? I certainly wouldn't if I were him.


Corvus: You logic is this:

If someone disagrees with the Paleo-diet obviously, the don't understand it enough. So I will dismiss every point someone makes against it because I believe they don't understand it.


You retard, you clearly are not understanding a damn thing I am saying. You've already lumped me into some "Paleo 'Religion' Adherant" category without even bothering to hear what I'm actually saying.
I told you before: I've never studied or adhered to the Paleo Diet in my life. I don't use it, and I don't advocate it. But your arguments are thin or plain wrong, and use tactics like "I have this panel of experts, they know more than you so I win". That's not a debate, that's just an assumption of your own correctness. And you clearly have VERY little understanding of the actual mechanisms behind what is being debated.

I'm not arguing that the Paleo Diet is great (hell I'm just assuming it is something like Atkins), and I'm not saying that your experts are entirely wrong. I'm saying that your arguments are stupid, tiresome, incomplete, and logically moribund, and that the debate is a whole lot less one-sided than your uninformed ass seems to think it is.

Now I'm done here, because it is too late and too frustrating to try and debate with someone who doesn't have a single clue about what is going on, and who uses copypasta from experts they deem infallible instead of actual knowledge of the subject being debated.
 
2012-06-17 04:51:50 AM

Vlad_the_Inaner: /tldr just call him a grammer nazi and move on to the next strawman


How was showing experts in the field on the subjects all said the Paleo-diet is BS a "strawman" again?

Oh yeah I remember because you wanted to ignore all the points they made!
 
2012-06-17 04:53:10 AM

Gawdzila: When did either he or I say that it invalidated them all?


Here:

Gawdzila: He was merely pointing out that their points don't actually argue against the Paleo Diet in any way. In other words, their objections are correct, but their assumptions about what the Paleo Diet is saying is wrong.

 
2012-06-17 04:55:10 AM

Gawdzila: But your arguments are thin or plain wrong, and use tactics like "I have this panel of experts, they know more than you so I win".


He said it was founded on evolutionary principals. Showing experts saying that, that is not true and giving arguments, why is not a good counter argument?

I really think you are just trolling.
 
2012-06-17 04:56:33 AM

BigNumber12: spaten: J. Frank Parnell: Dwedit: Because fruit is sugar-free.

Ancient people who ate lots of fruit still left skeletons with heads full of pearly white teeth. They didn't use toothpaste, either.

Anyone who tries to tell you refined sugar is the same as all sugars is full of shiat, or trying to kill you.

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

[i158.photobucket.com image 228x243]

Came to say this. Glad that you seem to have it covered.


Living beyond 35 is also the product of the agricultural revolution.
 
2012-06-17 04:56:35 AM

Gawdzila: But your arguments are thin or plain wrong, and use tactics like "I have this panel of experts, they know more than you so I win".


Actually I didn't do that. I think you jumped in without understand the context of the points being made.

And also back to insults. Good job!
 
2012-06-17 04:57:33 AM

Coming on a Bicycle: Living beyond 35 is also the product of the agricultural revolution.


Heh!
 
2012-06-17 04:59:55 AM

Corvus: Vlad_the_Inaner: Corvus: Those weren't my arguments they were experts in their field. Interesting how you didn't actually bother to quote them and you ignored most of the arguments they made showing that the basis of paleo-diet is wron. If you are smarter than them about the subject which you seem to think you are, please call them and show them the errors of their ways.

Sorry, I don't care to match your walls of text by quoting you in full.

You seem to be laboring under the misapprehension that there is a vast cult whose reason for existance is believing that pre-agricultural humans lived solely on mammoth steak and walnuts. That's the stawman your quotes are in opposition to. Another way of putting the rational behind the paleolithic diet followers is that humans have a multiply fuel capability. Carbs and fats and proteins. But back in per-agricultural times, there was not the 24/7/365 availability of high energy carbohydrate foods available like is found in our culture these days. Instead, such foods were a windfall, usually seasonal, and the survival adaptation for that was to eat those calories, even in excess of current needs. Stored as fat for leaner times. They are saying that running that carbohydrate full out with no rest is what causes metabolic disease. And the tendency to want to store carbohydrates gives a tendency toward obesity when given an unlimited supply.

You can keep knocking down strawmen you set up, But it really says little regarding the heart of the subject. But keep on fighting your jihad against the paleo cult.

Geesh.

What strawman *I* set up. These were experts in their field they read the material. It's their job. Don't try to pretend experts who head departments who job it is to look into these issues is some point *I* brought up because you don't want to deal with the cognitive dissonance that the vast majority of experts on this issue say it's full of crap.


I AM NOT KNOCKING THIS DOWN. EXPERT SCIENTISTS ARE KNOCKING I ...


As a field scientist, I'm sick of the politicization of this. Geologic time needs to be taught. An old prof told me if you extend your arm and run a nail file over your middle finger once, you have erased human history. Time being from your shoulder to your hand.
 
2012-06-17 05:09:09 AM

austin_millbarge: 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.

[paxholley.files.wordpress.com image 300x225]


Careful, I came across some Mexican Coke that was made with HFCS so just because it's made in Mexico doesn't mean you don't need to read the ingredient list.

I did a blind side by side Pepsi v Pepsi Throwback and Throwback won easily. Interestingly enough the 'regular' Pepsi had a much much stronger smell/aroma.
 
2012-06-17 05:09:30 AM

Gawdzila: I'm not arguing that the Paleo Diet is great (hell I'm just assuming it is something like Atkins)


I see the problem. You don't even understand the context of what I am talking about. Maybe if you don;t understand what someone is referring to maybe instead of calling him an idiot or retard maybe you go "Hey I don't know about this and maybe these people know about something I don't and stay out of it."

I am not going to explain it all to you. If you want to learn about it, you can learn about it yourself. But don't get mad at other people because of your own ignorance about a subject.
 
2012-06-17 05:11:45 AM
Corvus:
I see people trying to change the subject because they are afraid of answering those simple questions

People have been answering your questions, at least as well as the illiterate construction of them allows. The only people "afraid" of you are the people who believe that cognitive disorders are contagious.
 
2012-06-17 05:21:27 AM

Corvus: Gawdzila: I'm not arguing that the Paleo Diet is great (hell I'm just assuming it is something like Atkins)

I see the problem. You don't even understand the context of what I am talking about. Maybe if you don;t understand what someone is referring to maybe instead of calling him an idiot or retard maybe you go "Hey I don't know about this and maybe these people know about something I don't and stay out of it."

I am not going to explain it all to you. If you want to learn about it, you can learn about it yourself. But don't get mad at other people because of your own ignorance about a subject.


You just want individuals to bow to your will. Have a great career in government!
 
2012-06-17 05:56:12 AM
Sugar, ah honey honey
You are my candy girl
And you've got me wanting you.
Honey, ah sugar sugar
You are my candy girls
And you got me wanting you

I just can't believe the lovliness of loving you,
(I just can't believe it's true)
I just can't believe the one to love this feeling to
(I just can't believe it's true)

Sugar, ah honey hiney
you are my candy girl
and you got me wanting you
honey, ah sugar sugar
you are my candy girl
and you got me wanting you

When i kissed you girl I knew how sweet a kiss could be
(I know how sweet a kiss could be)
Like the summer sunshine pour you sweetness over me
(Pour your sweetness over me)

Pour a little sugar on it honey
Pour a little sugar on it Baby
I'm gonna make your life so sweet, yeah yeah yeah
pour a little sugar on it yeah
pour a little sugar on it honey
pour a little sugar on it baby
I'm gonna make your life so sweet, yeah yeah yeah
pour a little sugar on it honey

Ah sugar, ah honey honey
you are my candy girl
and you got me wanting you
Oh honey honey, sugar sugar..............
You are my candy girl
 
2012-06-17 07:08:58 AM

cuzsis:
The problem is that EVERYTHING has farking high fructose corn syrup in it these days. Ketchup tastes just fine on it's own, it doesn't need sugar.



Gawdzila
:


While I'm not necessarily a fan of HFCS, I must point out that virtually any homemade ketchup recipe will include things like molasses and/or brown sugar. The entire flavor profile of ketchup is supposed a sweet/tangy combination. There IS NO ketchup without sugar.


i1159.photobucket.com

Eddie and Clark have some things to discuss with you.
 
2012-06-17 07:54:49 AM
upload.wikimedia.org
Founder of American Sugar Refining Company
Worlds Greatest Monster
 
2012-06-17 08:01:29 AM

Tellingthem: optikeye: Remember when "fat" was the enemy...and everyone switched to Margarine instead of real butter? Until we found out about transfats in the margarine where worse for you than butterfats.

I know people raised in the 80's that think real butter doesn't taste like 'butter' and only like squeeze bottles of parkay and 'butter spreads'.

Heh I use butter on most things but as a kid we used imperial margarine a lot. I still use it on muffins and things like banana bread. It just doesn't taste the same without it.


I stopped using margarine after a little "science experiment" my wife and I did. We took a half full tub of the stuff we had and set it on top of the fridge, for about a year and a half, without opening it. When we finally did get around to looking at it (since we were prepping to move) we open the tub and find that it had separated into oil, and some whitish blob of solids. No smell. No growths of any sort.

Anything worth eating should have spoiled, smelled and started growing under those conditions.
 
2012-06-17 08:02:14 AM

Vlad_the_Inaner: Corvus: Vlad_the_Inaner: Do the Japanese eat a mixture of both high fat and simple carbs? Do paleos? Does the typical American?

Do the Japanese eat a diet of less caloriess? YES. Do Americans? NO

See I answer the questions, I don't try to change the subject like you.

No, you answered an imagined question.


You are so [xkcd]found a way to be superior to both[/xkcd], that you are missing a key issue. There are multiple variables in this equation, and number of calories is only one of them.

Insulin is a key part of this problem Eating N calories of simple carbs will stimulate the body storage of fat differently than N calories of non-carbohydrates. That is because eating carbs stiulates te release of insulin, where eating protein and fats basicaaly don't. Insulin is the hormone that tells cell to transport the calories into the cells. That why diabetics get fat lumps at insulin injection sites.

A good non-diet book on the subject is

[ecx.images-amazon.com image 300x300]

Good Calories, Bad Calories


so basically what your saying is calories in, calories out
 
2012-06-17 08:02:34 AM
Oh, and since it's Sunday, there is NO substitute for butter and REAL MAPLE syrup on some delicious homemade (not bisquick) pancakes.
 
2012-06-17 08:10:37 AM

thornhill: phed


Thanks for the tips. For breakfast I like to have a protein shake and an orange (and the coffee), which is about all I can stand in the morning; Used to I never even ate until lunch, because i'm just not hungry/food doesnt seem palatable at 6am. at lunch I eat one of the fiber-one bars and some blackberries/raspberries/whatever else fresh stuff I pick up on the way to work. Dinner I cook chicken and eat a couple bags of steam-in-the-bag vegetables. And for snacks? freaking celery.

BTW I am not going to lie, I miss chili cheese fritos like crazy.

Between all of that, and the amount of unsweetened tea/water i'm ingesting during the day now instead of soda, I'm still at a good place calorie wise, especially considering that i rarely take a day off of exercise anymore. I lift every other day, doing just cardio on the days i don't lift. I base that feeling on the fact that despite eating a ton less cal's per day, I don't ever feel worn out.

It really is amazing how much of a difference endurance wise I feel after just dropping what I already have.
 
2012-06-17 08:20:26 AM

Corvus: ...I am the first to admit I am not an expert about the subject...


Really? Looks from here like your self-awareness-meter is badly broken.
 
2012-06-17 08:25:28 AM
Not ingesting the "white death" is something bodybuilders have known for decades.
Why anyone would wanna be fat and have rotten teeth is beyond me!
 
2012-06-17 09:48:37 AM

Buffet: Not ingesting the "white death" is something bodybuilders have known for decades.
Why anyone would wanna be fat and have rotten teeth is beyond me!


oh so that's why i'm fat
i thought it was kewl to drink soda after workouts, to replenish glycogen of course
 
2012-06-17 10:54:22 AM

Corvus: Gawdzila: Corvus: Is WHITE RICE A SIMPLE STARCH? Yes or No?

Are you retarded?
I already explained this: a food's effect on your metabolic system cannot simply be categorized as "Simple Starch: Yes/No".
Rice contains starch, but it isn't the same as, say, a potato, and not remotely like a soda. If you have to simplify the discussion this much in order to make your point, it means your point is not worth making.

So the idea that making simple starches from the agricultural revolution makes us now fat is a bunch of BS because it's more complicated then that?

So under the Paleo religion diet white rice is fine to eat?


Wow, you are so confused. There is no suh thing as a "simple starch". Carbs are either simple or complex and all starches are complex by definition. I do not like paleo diet fanatics, but to assuage your rage, you should know that white rice is the one carb that they will eat when pressed. Now as far as the Japanese diet is concerned, other posters have tried to explain that their moderate consumption of simple carbs (aka sugar) in the Japanese diet leaves the Japanese metabolism healthy enough to process a diet high in carbohydrates.

Next time you see a paleo fanatic, challenge them to hike a mountain on their carb free diet (maybe notify emegency services if they take you up on it).
 
2012-06-17 11:23:39 AM
The weight problem is just something we are going to have to let 'play out' on it's own. Either someone will finally invent a drug or drugs that works (maybe when people stop making so much money off of stupid diets and cornball exercise machines) or a bunch of people will die of diabetes without passing on their genetics or people will voluntarily adjust their behaviour.

Talking about it constantly really isn't going to help anything.
 
2012-06-17 11:24:58 AM

Jon iz teh kewl: Buffet: Not ingesting the "white death" is something bodybuilders have known for decades.
Why anyone would wanna be fat and have rotten teeth is beyond me!

oh so that's why i'm fat
i thought it was kewl to drink soda after workouts, to replenish glycogen of course


Bodybuilding workouts/lifting doesn't strictly deplete glycogen. One should only consume sugar after a prolonged or intense cardio workout and the general rule is to consume something that also has a bit of protein in it (4:1 sugar:protein ratio). If you don't want to buy a mix, milk or chocolate milk is good. Yogurt is also good for recovery. If you are just lifting and you want muscle recovery or increase in muscle mass, drink a protein drink.

For weight loss make sure to consider your workout drinks in your daily calorie totals. And I think soda/hfcs is nasty, but if you really gotta have it, right after a cardio workout is the time to drink it.
 
2012-06-17 11:35:29 AM

GeneralJim: Corvus: Do Japanese eat a lot of white rice?
Is Japanese a simple starch?
Are Japanese more then then Americans?
So is the statement that simple starches make you fat not calories bullshiat?
Yes, Japanese eat "a lot" of white rice.

No, Japanese is not a simple starch.

WTF does "Are Japanese more then then Americans?" even mean?

And, no, the statement is correct.

Japanese people do not over-eat in the same way as Americans do. They use rice as their staple, where as Americans use bread and potatoes. Rice is better, albeit not by much. The important factor is that they don't eat several times what they need. And, as the Japanese have not destroyed their bodies response to insulin by repeated blasting with the "sugar howitzer," their bodies can handle any excess starches they consume properly.

It's good to know that your knowledge of nutrition science is on a par with your knowledge of climate science. Consistency is important.


I think it also helps that food there costs a helluva lot more than in most places in the USA. Also, there are much fewer working mothers who cook meals for their kids like they used to in the USA. I'm sure I'll catch heck for that but I'm guessing it's a big help in keeping kids eating healthy.
 
2012-06-17 11:40:05 AM

frestcrallen: [...]
What the hell, I'll bite. Evolutionary biology shows that we've evolved to need coercion. The general populace can't control its appetite for sugar, so the state has to do it for them. I, for one, welcome our new Sugar Police overlords. Don't worry, you still have the right to bear arms.


But...what if my favorite firearm is a super-soaker loaded with HFCS?
 
2012-06-17 11:40:14 AM

elysive: Buffet: Not ingesting the "white death" is something bodybuilders have known for decades.
Why anyone would wanna be fat and have rotten teeth is beyond me!


After some thought (never had any such clients), I have to take back what I said about bodybuilding. It's very different from regular weight lifting and does deplete/rely on glycogen. Buffet, if you are or have been a bodybuilder, don't you use sugar (natural or processed) for exercise recovery?
 
2012-06-17 12:23:52 PM

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.


Even cranberry juice has HFCS in them now.
 
2012-06-17 01:49:35 PM

Abox: Moonfisher: Sugar is addictive and works like a drug in that it makes people feel good and they desire increasingly large quantities of it to maintain that feeling. Fatties need rehab and counseling.


I crave sweets right after a meal but I find that if I can just ignore it for an hour the craving will subside.


One very small piece of dark chocolate does it for me.
 
2012-06-17 02:45:07 PM

vodka: eliminating added sugars - could reverse America's deadliest and costliest ills, including obesity, diabetes, high blood pressure, heart disease and many cancers, experts say.

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



Here's a thought: READ THE DAMN ARTICLE, DUMBASS.

Not all calories equal

In the Nature article, scientists from the University of California-San Francisco blamed sugar consumption - which has tripled in the past 50 years - not only for the world's obesity epidemic, but also for 35 million deaths a year worldwide.

Refined sugars and starches are a metabolic problem because humans weren't made for today's Western diet, said Dr. Devendra Mehta, a pediatric gastroenterologist at Orlando Regional Medical Center.

"The pancreas wasn't made to handle high doses of unrefined sugars," said Mehta, 52, who cut sugar from his diet five years ago. "The strain is manifesting itself as disease. Our ancestors didn't have a lot of refined foods, and nothing in boxes, and they didn't have metabolic diseases."

Fifty years ago, diets were made up of about one-third fat, one-third protein and one-third carbohydrates - which includes sugar, Mehta said. Today, more than half of Americans' calories come from carbohydrates, most of which are refined starches and sugars.

Sugar promotes obesity because it's addictive, said Wood, author of "How Fat Works" (Harvard University Press). "The more you eat, the more you want. It stimulates cravings and promotes overeating."

As soon as you eat sugar or fructose, the pancreas responds by secreting insulin, which converts dietary sugar into glycogen, a fuel tissues can use.

However, when the body doesn't need the fuel immediately - and it often doesn't - insulin parks glycogen in cells where it is stored as fat, Wood said.

The stress on the pancreas makes the insulin-producing beta cells wear down. As they do, diabetes develops. The stress also puts people at risk for inflammation, which contributes to cardiovascular disease, he said.

"Cancer is also fed quite well under a nice supply of the growth-promoting hormone insulin," said Wood, which is why certain cancers track with diabetes.
 
2012-06-17 03:33:05 PM
"I believe in everything in moderation; especially moderation"
-Julia Child
 
2012-06-17 05:44:12 PM

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

It's long, but worth watching.


thanks for this! It has pretty much already changed my outlook on life (really).
 
2012-06-17 07:11:21 PM

elysive: elysive: Buffet: Not ingesting the "white death" is something bodybuilders have known for decades.
Why anyone would wanna be fat and have rotten teeth is beyond me!

After some thought (never had any such clients), I have to take back what I said about bodybuilding. It's very different from regular weight lifting and does deplete/rely on glycogen. Buffet, if you are or have been a bodybuilder, don't you use sugar (natural or processed) for exercise recovery?


No ma'am I don't. My carbs come primarily from oats, rice, sweet potatoes, and salads, paying careful attention to the timing and glycemic load. Sucrose elicits too many peaks and valleys in serum glucose level, causing corresponding ones in energy levels and is hell on one's pancreas. It is a contributing factor to Metabolic Syndrome.
 
2012-06-17 08:01:00 PM

Vlad_the_Inaner: Gulper Eel: I wonder if these scare stories are coming up only because nobody has yet found a way to pimp sugar with pretentious foodie bullshiat like they do with other unhealthful-when-overdone products like coffee, alcohol, and even salt.

let me introduce you to

Evaporated Cane Juice

[ecx.images-amazon.com image 300x300]


It can't just be marketed like that. It has to be Mountain-Breeze-Evaporated Fair-Trade Mozambican Jus de Canne.
 
2012-06-17 08:37:57 PM

vodka: eliminating added sugars - could reverse America's deadliest and costliest ills, including obesity, diabetes, high blood pressure, heart disease and many cancers, experts say.

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


Yes actually it is. An insulin response is required to move blood sugar into fat cells.

Carbohydrates are converted to blood sugar which then results in an insulin response and fat deposition.

Fat consumption does not lead to an increase in blood sugar.

In other words fat consumption alone cannot lead to an increase in body fat. Carbohydrate consumption can and does. And sugar is pure carbohydrate.

Protein consumption generally does not get converted to blood sugar but only up to a certain point. If you consume more protein than your body can use it will get converted to blood sugar. But that would be a shiat load of protein - more than most people could eat.

Most of the huge guts you see waddling around today are the bodies that Coca Cola built. And Krispy Kreme. And Pepsi. And Budweiser. And Hershey. And McDonalds - they have sugar in the bread they use for hamburger buns. And even if they didn't the flour in the bread is also an excellent source of refined carbohydrate to be quickly converted to blood sugar.

An excellent overview can be found in the link below.

Robert H. Lustig, MD, UCSF Professor of Pediatrics in the Division of Endocrinology, explores the damage caused by sugary foods. He argues that fructose (too much) and fiber (not enough) appear to be cornerstones of the obesity epidemic through their effects on insulin. Series: UCSF Mini Medical School for the Public.

Sugar: The Bitter Truth
 
2012-06-17 08:45:43 PM
^You are aware that all three macro nutrients illicit an insulin response, right? GI and insulin response of specific food are pretty useless though, as most people eat mixed meals in a non fasted state.
 
2012-06-17 09:42:40 PM

WhippingBoy: Red Shirt Blues: So my diet of red wine, bourbon, meat, poultry, cheese, eggs, sausage and the occasional salad is ok then?

Actually, it probably is.


Right, the human body needs no fiber whatsoever.
 
2012-06-17 10:00:12 PM

miss marla singer: Corvus: miss marla singer: Corvus: Refined sugars and starches are a metabolic problem because humans weren't made for today's Western diet, said Dr. Devendra Mehta, a pediatric gastroenterologist at Orlando Regional Medical Center.

Right because we know Japanese and Italian who have huge diets of starches are all more over weight than Americans... OH wait that's not farking true at all!!!

They remain insulin sensitive because their foods aren't packed with all the crap ours are.

You guys defending this do this all the time you change the subject when you are shown wrong. Where was I talking about insulin? I was talking about weight gain. These idiots are saying simple starches cause weight gain not calories. That is Bull shiat!! Why are you changing the subject. saying simple sugars/starches can modify insulin has NOTHING to do with weight gain.

You're certainly getting riled up. Insulin has a LOT to do with weight gain. There are many books on the topic... but if you want it broken down simply, here's this guy: http://blog.massivehealth.com/infographics/Carbs_are_killing_you/


Relying on a picture instead of a legit peer-reviewed scientific study to support your claims? Strange strategy, but it should fool many.
 
2012-06-18 01:30:46 AM

AbbeySomeone: qualtrough: Dr.Zom: LarryDan43: Sugar or corn syrup?

I'm old enough to remember the 70s and 80s when everybody ate sugar all the time and yet no one was really fat. Fat people were an anomaly. And more importantly, YOU NEVER SAW MUFFINTOPS.

I repeat, that roll of fat around the middle of an otherwise normal shaped human, was rare as hell. That never showed up until HFCS started being added to everything. There's something about that shiat that condenses fat around the middle.

I came of age in the sixties-early 70s, and sugar was everywhere. My mom served rice with butter and sugar for chrissakes. And yet, what you say is true. When I look back on the one girl in our neighborhood, that's right, one girl, who we thought of as 'fat', she would be totally unremarkable [insert anus joke here] in a lot of schools nowadays. My guess is that the causal factor is not one thing. It is increasingly sedentary lifestyles, abundance of food in huge portions (compare the 6 oz. Coke bottle from the 30s and 40s to the Big Gulp), and perhaps the change in the type of sweeteners used.

Me too. Hardly anyone was fat. Rice,butter, sugar and milk, yum. Fast food was a rare treat.
I remember people putting sugar on fruit salad and grapefruit.
Also all the kids walked or rode their bikes to school.


That is so true. When I went to school every kid walked or rode a bicycle. Now they all get dropped off by their parents even though the school is less than half a mile from most of their homes. When I look at my old class photos I marvel at how skinny the "fat" kids in my class actually were. As for skinny people in the 70s, I think sweating in polyester shirts had a lot to do with it. Man I hated those.
 
2012-06-18 08:29:20 AM
As a diabetic, I invite everyone to try and have a day of minimal sugar intact. It's almost impossible.
They sneak sugar in everything because it's makes it more appetizing.
Your kids like those McDonald hamburger buns? Because sugar.
 
2012-06-18 05:39:20 PM
Corvus:
morgantx: Corvus: 1) actually the tallest Japanese are those who come to America and that is because their diets in Japan are low in calcium.

Japanese diets tend not to be low in calcium, BTW. Soy is an extremely rich source of calcium, and soy in its myriad of forms is very common in many styles of Japanese cooking.

I'll tell that to my 6 feet tall Japanese cousins that they should be short because of their western diets. They'll love to hear the news.

What are you, twelve? However old you are, you are an apparently endless font of logically flawed arguments. An analogy for THIS one... no, wait, it's a HOMOLOGY, that is, an analogy in which every logical point is precisely the same... is as follows:

C: My car won't start because the battery is dead.
M: No, the battery is not dead -- it's turning over just fine, and only a charged battery does that.
C: Oh, well I'm so glad to know that my car starts.
 
2012-06-18 05:50:11 PM
Corvus:
Can you give me the citation that they have as much calcium as people in the US?

And like I said before:

THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE POINT ABOUT OBESITY!!!

Why do you guys keep trying to change the subject.

Gee, as much as I hate to inject reality into your mindless rage, it was YOU who brought up calcium... HERE.

But, yes, I have to agree that people are morons for following YOU there, even if they were just trying to correct your MASSIVE ignorance. They should know better.
 
2012-06-18 06:34:38 PM
Corvus:
Is that "chink in the armor" or is it a "hasty generalization"? Not sure. That's the one that global warming deniers and anti-evolution people use a lot too.

At the risk of internal redundancy, you're wrong, Corvus. The argument for alarmist responses to current warming are similar to those being put forward for reducing simple carbohydrate intake. When, say, five arguments are presented, and one of them fails, that still leaves four. But, in this case, or in the case of suggesting alarmist responses to the planet warming, we are talking NOT about five independent arguments, but ONE argument that is a chain of separate arguments. In that kind of situation, ANY of the arguments being false falsifies the whole argument. The "case" for alarmist responses to warming goes pretty much like this:

1. The planet is warming.
2. The warming is caused by carbon dioxide.
3. Humans have released lots of carbon dioxide.
4. The recent warming is, therefore, caused by humans.
5. The planet warming will cause problems.
6. Humans must fix the problem with warming.
7. The first world needs to send money to the third world.
8. We will allow carbon dioxide levels to rise, and redistributing wealth will correct the problem.

This is a chained argument -- ANY of the hypotheses making up the argument being false falsifies the whole argument.

Above, green statements are true, false statements are red, and statements not proved, or partially true, are in yellow-ish. As one can clearly see, there are several red statements, and several statements which are only partially true. So, panicked reactions to the climate are not necessary.


www.mediatinker.com
Oh, THAT'S what it looks like...
 
2012-06-18 07:00:02 PM
Corvus:
Actually not really. This is the same "Global warming is not settled science" BS. The vast majority of people who are experts in the field about this subject thinks it's bullshiat. There was a recent report of nutritionists and scientist ranking diets on best to worst and Paleo was ranked the worst.

This is another logical fallacy, and apparently one of your favorites, the "Appeal to Authority." If fifty million people believe a fallacy, it's still a fallacy. And you additionally assume that "experts" whose livelihood depends on the answer to a few questions are going to be honest and straightforward. Your naivete, it makes me smile.

Rather than taking brainless polls of scientists, look at what the SCIENCE says. In the case of climate science, the science is pretty definite that the IPCC's estimates are so far off as to be risible. In the case of nutrition, it is clear that refined carbohydrates being a large part of one's diet is very unhealthy. Yelling about "paleo worshippers" and saying "they" say the ideas are "crap" is nowhere near helpful. (I'm still waiting for a "crap" quote, by the way.) So far, we only have YOUR word on it, and I don't trust you to understand a sentence of more than two words -- and both of them must be short.

This lack of adaptation to a diet of heavy refined carbohydrates is understandable, since refined carbohydrates have only been available to anyone but the rich for less than 150 years. Both refined white flour and mass production of sugar date from the late nineteenth century. That is NOT enough time for evolution to work to make it a reasonable food for people -- although diabetes and heart disease show that those unable to process it ARE being removed from the gene pool. But, it will take a while.
 
2012-06-18 07:17:06 PM
Corvus:
Actually not really. This is the same "Global warming is not settled science" BS.

If it's science, it's not settled, and if it's settled, it's not science. Quite a few boneheads, like you, seem to insist that science is "done" on many things, and that the process of science is to take polls of scientists. Your utter and complete lack of understanding of the process of science makes argumentation with you nearly pointless, other than your providing of a platform from which to speak.

In an oversimplified nutshell, science consists mostly of making guesses, and then trying to prove them wrong. Most guesses can be falsified quickly, but every now and then, one of them is incredibly resistant to being proved false. That's the source of scientific knowledge. BY ITS VERY NATURE, that means that what we "believe" at any given time is a set of guesses NOT YET FALSIFIED.

Science does NOT include polls of scientists, data that is destroyed, secret methodologies, and ANYTHING not involving free exchange of data, and attempts to recreate, and, yes, attempts to falsify hypotheses -- those guesses I mentioned previously. The very idea that the Hadley people didn't want to release their data because it would get in the hands of people critical of their hypotheses is as virulently anti-science as it is possible for one to be.

I don't know what your motivation is to speak with such vehemence on a subject of which you know nothing -- hell, a subject for which the PRECURSORS of that subject are, to you, an abject mystery. Do you think people will think you smarter if you take the scientists' side, as you see it? Do you think the ladies are attracted to someone who insults people who don't believe as they do?

The scientists who back up this bullshiat have an excuse -- their paycheck, or in a small number of cases, their bribe package, depends on it. But, what's YOUR excuse?
 
2012-06-18 07:32:56 PM
Gawdzila:
Corvus: Interesting how you didn't actually bother to quote them and you ignored most of the arguments they made showing that the basis of paleo-diet is wron.

He didn't need to quote them, it seemed pretty obvious to me which part of their objection he was addressing.
And in fact he wasn't even saying that your experts were wrong so I don't know why you're getting all huffy and indignant, like he is saying that he knows more than your experts. It really doesn't seem like you actually understand what is going on here.

Understatement, you are the master of it.

www.motifake.com
 
2012-06-18 07:41:13 PM
Corvus:
GeneralJim: Corvus: The word "unhealthy" and "toxin" is not mean the same thing. And if you think it doesn't you don't know shiat about what you are talking about.

You really should try to avoid criticizing others, since you apparently can't even construct a sentence. And, I can also assure you that insulin plays a very major role in weight gain, and your vehemence in denouncing others who discuss it does not make up for your lack of knowledge. I'm sorry you're so ignorant, but it really is not my job to educate you. I can tell you, however, that you will look significantly less stupid if you quit going off on people who know much more than you do. Just sayin'.

So unhealthy and Toxin does mean the same thing?

No. Saming them not goodly. Meaning words not the pointed issue thusly. Talkingof different, subject is.

/ Better?

josiahcm.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-06-18 07:52:20 PM
Corvus:
narcotic
Popularitya : a drug (as opium or morphine) that in moderate doses dulls the senses, relieves pain, and induces profound sleep but in excessive doses causes stupor, coma, or convulsions b : a drug (as marijuana or LSD) subject to restriction similar to that of addictive narcotics whether physiologically addictive and narcotic or not

Maybe you should tell Merriam Webster they got it wrong.

This is a good illustration of the basic problem dealing with you. You don't know ANYTHING which would be taken for granted in a normal person. Like, here, that a dictionary ILLUSTRATES USAGE. Look at the freaking definition, FFS "narcotic ... whether physiologically addictive and narcotic or not" Narcotic: Narcotic, or not. THINK, BONEHEAD.

Webster didn't define the word incorrectly -- bureaucratic jackasses with no more understanding of epistemology than you defined it. Webster just reports on what they did to it. Why not call a bicycle an automobile, or an automobile a bicycle because similar laws apply to their use? Wait... I better not give them any ideas.
 
2012-06-18 07:55:30 PM
Corvus:
I never said it was. You are making a "hasty generalizations". I said this ISSUE has consensus settled around it not all nutritional science.

Oh, I see -- you're arguing about the SCOPE of your errors. Fair enough.

/ ... and, of course, consensus means NOTHING in science.
 
2012-06-18 08:01:29 PM
Corvus:
GeneralJim: It's good to know that your knowledge of nutrition science is on a par with your knowledge of climate science. Consistency is important.

Wow you mean a climate denier also buys into this crap. Color me SHOCKED!! Oh wait no, that's the point I have been making this entire thread.

You just can't get ANYTHING right, can you? No, I don't even have a clear idea what the "paleo diet" is, let alone support it.

And, you are suggesting that someone's ideas in other fields would invalidate an otherwise clear and cogent idea? Really? If you were right about that, YOU should STFU for a period of time most conveniently measured in triple-digit centuries. I have NEVER seen such concentrated ignorance. Now, I'm sure that lots of people are as ignorant as you are -- but most of them are bright enough to shut their cake holes when people are talking over their heads.
 
Displayed 442 of 442 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report