Sugar/Fructose
|
|
|
Interesting info. - thanks for posting. |
|
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. |
|
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. |
|
Sugar=toxic is the biggest load of sensationalism BS there is. |
|
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. |
|
@ 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. |
|
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/maga… |
|
@ 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. |
|
"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. " |
|
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. |
|
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. |
|
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. |
|
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. |
|
No reach arounds in T-rex sex |
|
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. |
|
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. |
|
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. |
|
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. |
|
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. |
|
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. |