Login with Facebook
 ADVANCED
Sugar/Fructose
View Latest Posts in This Forum or All Forums
   Page 1 of 3.  1  2  3   Next>   Last>>
Follow replies to this topic? Notify me at the top of web site.
1

Email me.
 
 
By Brian Abram
From Columbia, SC
Apr 2, 2012
Brian Abram, leading pitch 2 of Dinkus Dog on the ...
cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=74...

The "web extras" are worth watching.

FLAG
By Dirty Gri Gri, or is it GiGi?
From Vegas
Apr 2, 2012
Growing a winter coat in Red Rock Canyon- December...
Interesting info. - thanks for posting.

An athletic, and energetic best friend of mine was diagnosed with breast cancer, and had decided to first try a more holistic approach, as she was followed by respected, and well known cancer specialists; a vital component of her treatment was nutritional immunotherapy. Pretty much ALL sugar (refined, and natural) was a big no-no, as well as a large percentage of the American diet, which is full of refined, highly processed, and toxic foods. I spent time with her in Santa Barbara during some of her cancer treatment/follow-ups, and it was an eye opener for me; having to watch, and follow my friend into 4 , or 5 grocery stores to find various things on her nutritional plan that she could eat. It was very time consuming, and expensive! Many people would not be able to afford to eat as healthy as she had to. We only found one restaurant in Santa Barbara that served organic food that she could treat herself to, and boy was it pricey! The only sweetener her Dr. said she could have was xylitol on occasion. The treatment worked for her, as she remains cancer free for over 4 years now. We really are what we eat.

I had bacon, and a cupcake yesterday.. D'OH!!

FLAG
By Christian
From Casa do Cacete
Apr 2, 2012
Coup
Just the 3 Cliff bars I eat on an average cragging day would get me to 265 calories from sugar; not gonna be meeting that recommendation anytime soon.

FLAG
By Vincent Morton
From Colorado Springs,Colorado
Apr 3, 2012
belay is on
Hey, dirty gri gri, do you happen to know your friends position on the stevia plant as a sweetener? I have been using it to sweeten my tea, it is supposed to be a zero calorie natural sweetener. Just curious, not really sure about the fructose content, but at zero calories im guessing it reacts differently in the body.

FLAG
By redlude97
Apr 3, 2012
Sugar=toxic is the biggest load of sensationalism BS there is.

FLAG
By Mike McKinnon
From Golden, CO
Apr 3, 2012
Bunny pancake
redlude97 wrote:
Sugar=toxic is the biggest load of sensationalism BS there is.


Please elaborate. Show me research that says it is not other than your opinion which you so eloquently stated.

FLAG
By JohnWesely
From Red River Gorge
Apr 3, 2012
Gunking
Mike McKinnon wrote:
Please elaborate. Show me research that says it is not other than your opinion which you so eloquently stated.


I don't even know how to respond to this.

FLAG
By Dirty Gri Gri, or is it GiGi?
From Vegas
Apr 3, 2012
Growing a winter coat in Red Rock Canyon- December...
@ Vincent- I remember reading some info. from literature on cancer treatments, that Xylitol, and Stevia are the only sweeteners that are "okay", but I'm guessing that Stevia wasn't okay for my friend because of the type of cancer she had (Breast CA) ; from what I read, Stevia has shown to cause certain hormonal changes in lab rats (increases fertility). Maybe a more knowledgable person can chime in, as I'm no expert.

@Redlude- My motto is everything in moderation. Sugar on occasion is cool with me for now, but it has been found to speed up the growth of tumors. If I was diagnosed with cancer, I'd cut that shit out of my diet pronto!

FLAG
 
By Jason N.
From Grand Junction
Apr 3, 2012
Indy pass
JohnWesely wrote:
I don't even know how to respond to this.



DISCLAIMER: I haven't watched the video yet.

However, I suspect that as with any mainstream media interpretation of science, there is bias. Conclusions overstated, nuances ignored, important details distilled out, etc., in order to make it more accessible to the lay-person. However it doesn't discredit the entire idea itself, and perhaps re-evaluating our diet from completely new perspectives isn't such a bad thing. Another article from a couple months ago on the same subject:

nytimes.com/2011/04/17/magazin...

FLAG
By Dirty Gri Gri, or is it GiGi?
From Vegas
Apr 3, 2012
Growing a winter coat in Red Rock Canyon- December...
@ Buff- My friend's doing awesome, although she's still going for her screenings, and check-ups, as she should. She chose Issel's Immunotherapy Treatment Center, in Santa Barbara over the more drastic chemo, and mastectomy options that were given to her. I'll admit, I was concerned with her choice,(honestly, if I was in the same shoes, I'd probably want the docs to cut that shit out of me right now), but ultimately it was her decision, and a great one she chose at that.

FLAG
By Peter Franzen
Administrator
From Phoenix, AZ
Apr 3, 2012
Belay
"If you're a kid sitting around doing nothing, playing the x-box, and taking in a high sugar diet, it won't go anywhere except your body's own storage. This is the focal point of the documentary story. "

That is actually pretty close to Dr. Lustig's main point in his lecture. He treats obese children who have fallen for the "sports drink" marketing; the sugar in Gatorade is awesome if you're out running for an hour but it is turned into fat if you're just sitting around doing nothing.

In the absence of a healthy & active life, sugar will make you fat. I don't think anyone has really refuted that point in any of the arguments I've seen on the subject.

The video is worth watching. The more bio-chem you took in college the more you'll get out of it, but even without the chemistry it is a pretty insightful look into how HFCS is processed:



(apparently I'm having issues embedding the YouTube video. Just search for "Sugar: The Bitter Truth" and you'll find it on there).

FLAG
By Richard Radcliffe
From Louisville, CO
Apr 3, 2012
I would take issue with the guy who said that sugar is the most addictive substance out there (actually the interviewer said that -- the scientist hedged a bit). The idea that sugar (or really overeating) is addictive in the same way as drugs of abuse is definitely out there in the world of science, but it's controversial; i.e., the data are not conclusive. Of course sugar activates the reward centers of the brain -- that's not particularly insightful. It's an evolutionary adaptive response, just like sex. If we didn't like these things, our species would have been out the window long ago. Drugs of abuse do what they do because they activate the same systems only more so.

Maybe dinosaurs quit liking sex. Or they discovered an unlimited supply of cocaine...

FLAG
By Dirty Gri Gri, or is it GiGi?
From Vegas
Apr 3, 2012
Growing a winter coat in Red Rock Canyon- December...
Richard Radcliffe wrote:
Maybe dinosaurs quit liking sex. Or they discovered an unlimited supply of cocaine...


Scary visual of beasts doing it Dinostyle... Imagine all the stomps, grunts, snarls, roars, snorts, rumbles, and grumbles coming from these two. Powerful; it'd knock us right off the rock walls if climbing in the vicinity.

Dyno.
Dyno.

FLAG
By redlude97
Apr 3, 2012
Mike McKinnon wrote:
Please elaborate. Show me research that says it is not other than your opinion which you so eloquently stated.

Show me the research that says it is. I want peer reviewed articles in high impact journals that come to this conclusion. The video certainly did not show that.

FLAG
By redlude97
Apr 3, 2012
Buff Johnson wrote:
What do you want to know that the past hundred years of nobel prize winning work has shown in metabolism isn't telling you? These doctors aren't just making this stuff up.

Show me where in the metabolism cycle of sugar, either glucose or fructose leads to a product that is toxic to the body. That is the sensational claim made right at the beginning of clip. That sugar, in moderation, results in death in the majority of cases.

FLAG
By TomCaldwell
From Clemson, S.C.
Apr 4, 2012
Me on One Pitch Wonder at Whitesides.  Photo credi...
No reach arounds in T-rex sex

FLAG
 
By Jason N.
From Grand Junction
Apr 4, 2012
Indy pass
redlude97 wrote:
Show me the research that says it is. I want peer reviewed articles in high impact journals that come to this conclusion. The video certainly did not show that.


Sorry man, but you're not going to get it from a 60 minutes video. Sure, the burden of proof is on the people making the claim, but I think its a bit ridiculous to completely write off the idea because it wasn't completely cited in a video meant for mass consumption.

FLAG
By redlude97
Apr 4, 2012
Jason N. wrote:
Sorry man, but you're not going to get it from a 60 minutes video. Sure, the burden of proof is on the people making the claim, but I think its a bit ridiculous to completely write off the idea because it wasn't completely cited in a video meant for mass consumption.

Isn't that pretty much the definition of sensationalism? Lets be clear, I didn't write off the idea, in general the idea that excess sugar is bad for you is not a new concept and increasing research in the field is broadening our understanding of it's wide range of effects, but the majority of scientists have not come to the conclusion that it is actually toxic, including some of the scientist's views in the video itself.

FLAG
By Jason N.
From Grand Junction
Apr 4, 2012
Indy pass
redlude97 wrote:
Isn't that pretty much the definition of sensationalism? Lets be clear, I didn't write off the idea, in general the idea that excess sugar is bad for you is not a new concept and increasing research in the field is broadening our understanding of it's wide range of effects, but the majority of scientists have not come to the conclusion that it is actually toxic, including some of the scientist's views in the video itself.


I guess I misinterpreted you then. My bad. As always with science, I guess we'll have to wait and see as more evidence accumulates on both sides. Currently, it does seem to be a pretty sensational claim but maybe 10 years down the road it won't be.

FLAG
By Peter Franzen
Administrator
From Phoenix, AZ
Apr 4, 2012
Belay
It doesn't need to be acutely toxic to be toxic. Fructose may not be as toxic as hydrazine or chromium-6, but it still has significant and rather predictable detrimental effects on your health if you eat too much of it.

Is Dr. Lustig slightly sensational in his language? Sure. Does 60 Minutes sensationalize his conclusions? Absolutely. Does that make his conclusions any less true? I don't think so.

The fact is that our society has become so oblivious to the amount of sugar that we ingest that it needs to be sensationalized in order to get it through people's heads that high-fructose/low-fiber food is both ubiquitous and terrible for their health.

FLAG
By redlude97
Apr 4, 2012
Peter Franzen wrote:
It doesn't need to be acutely toxic to be toxic. Fructose may not be as toxic as hydrazine or chromium-6, but it still has significant and rather predictable detrimental effects on your health if you eat too much of it. Is Dr. Lustig slightly sensational in his language? Sure. Does 60 Minutes sensationalize his conclusions? Absolutely. Does that make his conclusions any less true? I don't think so. The fact is that our society has become so oblivious to the amount of sugar that we ingest that it needs to be sensationalized in order to get it through people's heads that high-fructose/low-fiber food is both ubiquitous and terrible for their health.

I still don't agree with considering it toxic, it is overstepping the accepted definition of the term to make it appear worse than it is. Also look at my first comment, I only stated that it was a sensationilistic piece of journalism, they loaded the questions, and a few of the doctors fell for it, and 60 minutes ran with it. The first guy is on quite the crusade, his recommended sugar limits are unsubstantiated.

FLAG
By Jeremy Kasmann
From Denver, CO
Apr 4, 2012
redlude97 wrote:
The first guy is on quite the crusade, his recommended sugar limits are unsubstantiated.


I looked around for a bit and it looks like his recommendations (36M/24F) are from the American Heart Association. No idea where they got them from or how valid they are. Any ideas? It seems to be a general problem with food science/policy - there always has to be a recommendation, however weak the science, because people have to eat. We can't wait 5 or 10 years for science to come to a conclusion.

Sure, the article was sensationalist (it is 60 minutes after all), but most Americans would be better off if they followed the recommendations. Half the people watching are overweight, eat tons of junk a day, and think science is some sort of evil voodoo. In that context the sensationalism doesn't bother me.

FLAG
By redlude97
Apr 4, 2012
JLP wrote:
The whole point of the piece is that "toxic" = an increase in LDL cholesterol = health problems. Itís not an opinion. Some other points were made, but this was the main one with the most minutes and the most research support. For the TV consuming public, I wouldn't say using the word "toxic" was all that sensationalistic. Do you have a better word that dumbs it down for the masses?

So anything that could potentially cause health problems should be labeled toxic?

FLAG
By Jason N.
From Grand Junction
Apr 4, 2012
Indy pass
Jeremy Kasmann wrote:
I looked around for a bit and it looks like his recommendations (36M/24F) are from the American Heart Association. No idea where they got them from or how valid they are. Any ideas? It seems to be a general problem with food science/policy - there always has to be a recommendation, however weak the science, because people have to eat. We can't wait 5 or 10 years for science to come to a conclusion. Sure, the article was sensationalist (it is 60 minutes after all), but most Americans would be better off if they followed the recommendations. Half the people watching are overweight, eat tons of junk a day, and think science is some sort of evil voodoo. In that context the sensationalism doesn't bother me.


I agree with you up until this point. I'd like to believe people can be convinced of something WITHOUT relying on devices like sensationalism. I think that the only way to stop an endless cycle of exaggeration and hyperbole is to begin emphasizing logic and critical thinking in mainstream outlets (media, education, etc.). Will this actually happen? Who knows.

FLAG
 
By redlude97
Apr 4, 2012
Jason N. wrote:
I agree with you up until this point. I'd like to believe people can be convinced of something WITHOUT relying on devices like sensationalism. I think that the only way to stop an endless cycle of exaggeration and hyperbole is to begin emphasizing logic and critical thinking in mainstream outlets (media, education, etc.). Will this actually happen? Who knows.

Sums up my view eloquently. As a fellow scientist I don't like sensationilism, it leads to the issues with global warming, ethanol, oil, solar, nuclear etc. People who don't know what they are talking about take the reasonable conclusions of well respected scientists and mutilate them into some agenda serving statement.

FLAG
By Peter Franzen
Administrator
From Phoenix, AZ
Apr 4, 2012
Belay
Jason N. wrote:
I agree with you up until this point. I'd like to believe people can be convinced of something WITHOUT relying on devices like sensationalism. I think that the only way to stop an endless cycle of exaggeration and hyperbole is to begin emphasizing logic and critical thinking in mainstream outlets (media, education, etc.). Will this actually happen? Who knows.

I share your frustration there. If you want nuance you can go read any number of journals, Nature, The Economist, The New Yorker, &c and come to your own conclusions; there's nothing stopping you from hooking yourself up with a Lexis Nexis or PubMed account and spending hours reading original peer-reviewed pieces in order to come to do so.

I'd love to believe that people are willing to go out and read 5 varying opinions on something and draw their own conclusions in order to live their life in a healthy and responsible manner, but the reality seems to be that people want dramatic one-sided statements of opinions veiled as facts that align with what they already believe to be true.

I cringed many times during Dr. Lustig's lecture at his hyperbole, but I also understand that it might be an effective way to get his (valid, as far as I can tell) points across.

FLAG


Follow replies to this topic? Notify me at the top of web site.
1

Email me.
Page 1 of 3.  1  2  3   Next>   Last>>