Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 12 submissions in the queue.
posted by janrinok on Wednesday August 27 2014, @01:11PM   Printer-friendly
from the sweets-for-my-sweet,-sugar-for-my-honey-The-Drifters-1961 dept.

Lustig, the maverick scientist, has long argued that sugar is as harmful as cocaine or tobacco – and that the food industry has been adding too much of it to our meals for too long.

If you have any interest at all in diet, obesity, public health, diabetes, epidemiology, your own health or that of other people, you will probably be aware that sugar, not fat, is now considered the devil's food. Dr Robert Lustig's book, Fat Chance: The Hidden Truth About Sugar, Obesity and Disease ( http://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/jan/25/fat-chance-robert-lustig-review ), for all that it sounds like a Dan Brown novel, is the difference between vaguely knowing something is probably true, and being told it as a fact. Lustig has spent the past 16 years treating childhood obesity. His meta-analysis of the cutting-edge research on large-cohort studies of what sugar does to populations across the world, alongside his own clinical observations, has him credited with starting the war on sugar. When it reaches the enemy status of tobacco, it will be because of Lustig.

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/aug/24/robert-lustig-sugar-poison

I think moderation is the key. What do you think ?

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Funny) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Wednesday August 27 2014, @01:13PM

    by GreatAuntAnesthesia (3275) on Wednesday August 27 2014, @01:13PM (#86210) Journal

    I agree, sugar is a drug and should be classified as such. Possession should be punishable by 15 years in the iso-cubes.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by VLM on Wednesday August 27 2014, @01:38PM

      by VLM (445) on Wednesday August 27 2014, @01:38PM (#86218)

      The inevitable diabetes and obesity should be punishment enough. Especially if it takes 15 years off their lifespan.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 27 2014, @02:30PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 27 2014, @02:30PM (#86257)

        Punishment, yes, but it isn't deterrent enough for most people. The weak-willed want their fix, and they want it now! #YOLO #BBW.

        If ailments caused by abuse of sugar (eg. obesity) were not covered by any medical insurance, or catered for in any legislation (eg. no legal requirement to provide wider doors or larger seats), then perhaps the problem could sort itself out naturally, without significant cost to those who don't abuse such drugs.

        • (Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday August 27 2014, @02:49PM

          by VLM (445) on Wednesday August 27 2014, @02:49PM (#86266)

          "then perhaps the problem could sort itself out naturally"

          An analogy where it only kinda sorta works that way is smoking.

          I wouldn't bet on it working as a strategy with sugar.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 27 2014, @03:35PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 27 2014, @03:35PM (#86298)

          The weak-willed want their fix, and they want it now! #YOLO #BBW.

          I've been trying to understand how to reconcile the health dangers of the obesity epidemic with the social niceties of "fat acceptance" and "body positivity" for a while now. Social pressure has been seen to work well in getting a large percentage of the population to quit smoking in just a couple generations. But using the same type of social pressure to help curb obesity is too mean, apparently. Sometimes what's good for you doesn't necessarily feel good...

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 27 2014, @03:59PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 27 2014, @03:59PM (#86314)

            There's a big difference between smoking and eating too much. If you smoke when not alone, you threaten the health of others. If you eat too much, you only threaten your own health. Threatening your own health should not be punishable.

            Otherwise you'll find e.g. your favourite sports on the forbidden list, due to the high risk of injuries; just stick to the small list of proven safe sports, or face punishment!

            Or think of sitting on the computer too long in the evening. You should long be asleep! That's unhealthy! You must be punished!

            And don't even think of a long new year's eve party. No, it doesn't matter that you only do it once per year. Long parties are bad for your health, and therefore forbidden!

            Oh, and of course alcohol is unhealthy. So bring back prohibition!

            OTOH, the Mafia will like the idea of forbidding sugar ... imagine the money they could make with smuggled Coke [the beverage, the other one they already make big money with] and candy bars.

            • (Score: 1) by NeoNormal on Wednesday August 27 2014, @04:06PM

              by NeoNormal (2516) on Wednesday August 27 2014, @04:06PM (#86317)
              > If you eat too much, you only threaten your own health.

               

              The problem is that unhealthy people are often a burden on others, ie, society as a whole.

              • (Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday August 27 2014, @06:21PM

                by frojack (1554) on Wednesday August 27 2014, @06:21PM (#86398) Journal

                This is offset by the shorter time period that the burden hangs around.

                --
                No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
                • (Score: 3, Funny) by cafebabe on Wednesday August 27 2014, @07:24PM

                  by cafebabe (894) on Wednesday August 27 2014, @07:24PM (#86423) Journal

                  I researched this a while back. I found that a BMI [Body Mass Index] increase of five led to a life expectancy decrease of 1.5 years. I was surprised that it was so small. However, it doesn't take into account the decreased quality of life.

                  Anecdotally, I've seen that people tend to CTD [Circle The Drain] [bbc.co.uk] when their knees fail. Obese, sedentary people don't often get into situations where this happens. However, if it does happen, they're screwed.

                  --
                  1702845791×2
                  • (Score: 2) by tynin on Wednesday August 27 2014, @10:24PM

                    by tynin (2013) on Wednesday August 27 2014, @10:24PM (#86490) Journal

                    Thanks for that article you linked to with CTD. I think it would make a fine SN submission in its own right.

            • (Score: 2) by BasilBrush on Wednesday August 27 2014, @06:48PM

              by BasilBrush (3994) on Wednesday August 27 2014, @06:48PM (#86411)

              There's a big difference between smoking and eating too much. If you smoke when not alone, you threaten the health of others.

              Yes there's that difference. But there's also the similarity that people don't take the risks seriously until it happens to them. By which time it is too late - diabetes and heart disease are for life just as cancer is. This in't an individual failure, but is systematic - it's a function of the normal way the brain treats risk - and so individuals shouldn't be blamed.

              Oh, and of course alcohol is unhealthy. So bring back prohibition!

              Actually the evidence is that the first alcoholic drink drink of the day is positive for health, due to the antioxidants. That may vary depending on the type of drink. But a glass of wine a day for sure is a good and healthy thing.

              As to the free choice thing when eating, actually most of the decisions are made by the processed foods industry. People COULD make decisions to override this by for example cutting out processed foods from their diet, but most don't. It's not that they decide to eat processed foods and be unhealthy - they just don't decide at all.

              Also there is nothing more unacceptable about governments making decisions about the contents of processed foods then corporations making those decisions.

              --
              Hurrah! Quoting works now!
      • (Score: 1) by VanessaE on Wednesday August 27 2014, @03:54PM

        by VanessaE (3396) <vanessa.e.dannenberg@gmail.com> on Wednesday August 27 2014, @03:54PM (#86310) Journal

        Obesity, yes, but haven't scientists already determined that sugar isn't what causes diabetes?

        • (Score: 2) by fnj on Wednesday August 27 2014, @07:05PM

          by fnj (1654) on Wednesday August 27 2014, @07:05PM (#86419)

          Of course it doesn't.

          Type 1 diabetes is caused by a loss of insulin-producing cells in the pancreas, usually via an auto-immune pathology.

          Type 2 diabetes is caused by the development of insulin resistance, sometimes caused by reduced insulin secretion.

          Both types are affected by a myriad of factors, including diet, but "eating sugar" DOES NOT "cause diabetes". By the way, the liver MAKES glucose. Good luck telling it to stop.

          • (Score: 3, Interesting) by cafebabe on Wednesday August 27 2014, @07:46PM

            by cafebabe (894) on Wednesday August 27 2014, @07:46PM (#86431) Journal

            I read a detailed fringe theory that insulin resistance occurs in response to systemic candida infection. The outline of the argument is that candida likes an environment which is warm, dark, wet, acidic, anaerobic and sugary. There's not much that can be done about being warm, dark and wet but the remainder are influenced by diet and exercise.

            I've also seen a more mainstream theory [bbc.co.uk] that equal proportions of fat and sugar are the most addictive and the most likely to cause obesity.

            --
            1702845791×2
            • (Score: 2) by mendax on Wednesday August 27 2014, @10:21PM

              by mendax (2840) on Wednesday August 27 2014, @10:21PM (#86488)

              You have hit upon the big issue here that most people don't really understand. Sugar and fat are addictive. One of my many addictions is sugar. I go through the symptoms of withdrawal when I make an attempt to keep it out of my diet—headaches, the shakes, extreme cravings, some depression, anxiety—not unlike drug withdrawal or alcohol although not quite as extreme. No DT's, for example. Addictions are permanent things; an addict is never completely rid of them. They have to be managed through the making of life-altering decisions. In AA and other Twelve Step program, it is said that addiction is a spiritual disease, and in my own experience this is certainly true. The idea of willpower being all that is necessary is a load of crap. No amount of willpower is enough to overcome an addition.

              --
              It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
              • (Score: 2) by Reziac on Tuesday September 16 2014, @03:14PM

                by Reziac (2489) on Tuesday September 16 2014, @03:14PM (#94050) Homepage

                Get your thyroid checked. "Sugar withdrawal" is a common symptom; ie. you only feel good when you're consuming plenty of sugar, because the whole body and especially the brain are chronically energy-deprived, and sugar is an instant fix. Also occurs as "food fixes my depression".

                --
                And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
                • (Score: 2) by mendax on Wednesday September 17 2014, @12:38AM

                  by mendax (2840) on Wednesday September 17 2014, @12:38AM (#94321)

                  My thyroid is fine. I've had it checked.

                  --
                  It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
                  • (Score: 2) by Reziac on Wednesday September 17 2014, @01:46AM

                    by Reziac (2489) on Wednesday September 17 2014, @01:46AM (#94338) Homepage

                    So far so good, but be aware the common TSH test is a very crude indicator, and can be entirely wrong. It's better to diagnose by symptoms, of which the list is long and sometimes bizarre (eg. swelling in the tip of the nose). Sugar craving is a strong redflag.

                    I have Hashimoto's thyroiditis. I've had to become a pocket expert on the topic in sheer self defense. Thank ghu for the Journal of Endocrinology, from which I now go to the doctor armed with printouts.

                    --
                    And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
                    • (Score: 2) by mendax on Wednesday September 17 2014, @02:49AM

                      by mendax (2840) on Wednesday September 17 2014, @02:49AM (#94362)

                      I have been a sugar and carbohydrate addict since I was a child. It has nothing to do with any abnormal biology such as a thyroid condition. It has everything to do with coping with the pain from emotionally distant parents, a emotionally abusive mother, being smarter than nearly everyone else in school, regular teasing, and sexual trauma courtesy of the neighborhood pedophile. PTSD is nasty.

                      --
                      It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
                      • (Score: 2) by Reziac on Wednesday September 17 2014, @04:44AM

                        by Reziac (2489) on Wednesday September 17 2014, @04:44AM (#94394) Homepage

                        That's seriously ugly :( Hope things get better for you.

                        But (based on long and acute observation) I would still posit that =how= we cope is largely fueled by biochemistry. Someone with different levels of critical hormones, enzymes, and whatever might have reacted by going forth and breaking shit instead. Long-term persistence of PTSD is probably due to an imbalance which prevents recovery. Frex, reduced processing of stress metabolites, so once made, you're kinda stuck with 'em.

                        The ability to recover from stress, and its inverse, are very definitely inherited in dogs, which indicates a root in biology rather than psychology. Interestingly, those unable to recover from stress have a high incidence of issues like epilepsy and exercise-induced collapse, and I'm beginning to suspect the MDR1 gene as well.

                        --
                        And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
  • (Score: 3, Funny) by SpockLogic on Wednesday August 27 2014, @01:19PM

    by SpockLogic (2762) on Wednesday August 27 2014, @01:19PM (#86212)

    "I think moderation is the key. What do you think ?"

    Everything in moderation, including moderation. Mmmm ...

    --
    Overreacting is one thing, sticking your head up your ass hoping the problem goes away is another - edIII
    • (Score: 4, Funny) by c0lo on Wednesday August 27 2014, @01:21PM

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday August 27 2014, @01:21PM (#86214) Journal

      "I think moderation is the key. What do you think ?"

      Yes, but ... what to do when you don't have mod points? Continue eating sweets?

      --
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 27 2014, @03:25PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 27 2014, @03:25PM (#86287)

      Just moderate according to his name: "Lustig" is the German translation of "Funny". So moderate +1 Funny, and you're fine. ;-)

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 27 2014, @04:30PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 27 2014, @04:30PM (#86337)

      Don't expect more than (Score:2, Funny) then.

  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by VLM on Wednesday August 27 2014, @01:33PM

    by VLM (445) on Wednesday August 27 2014, @01:33PM (#86217)

    "I think moderation is the key."

    WRT diet, tradition is a better idea. Evolution gave you a body designed to eat meat and natural plants, not a diet consisting primarily of refined sugar and grains and beans.

    From what I remember of recent archeological research the primary dietary difference between our species and neanderthal species is ours eats quite a bit of fish. You're evolved to eat it, so eat fish.

    Diet's a long term thing and doing something stupid short term once in awhile is fine. So I'll eat a slice of birthday cake, knowing that its a dumb idea. Or I'll wrap my meat and vegetables in a tortilla even though a tortilla is a ridiculously unnatural food, its at least small in mass, volume, and nutrients compared to what I wrap up inside it.

    People who follow their ancestors 250K+ year old diet are healthy and skinny and feel great and live a long time. Folks who follow the modern "people of walmart" diet or a fad diet don't turn out as well.

    • (Score: 1) by arashi no garou on Wednesday August 27 2014, @02:39PM

      by arashi no garou (2796) on Wednesday August 27 2014, @02:39PM (#86263)

      So you're basically saying the "paleo diet" is the best way to eat healthy. But you end with this:

      Folks who follow the modern "people of walmart" diet or a fad diet don't turn out as well.

       

      I'm not saying you're wrong, it makes sense and sounds like a healthy diet, as long as one gets the right balance of vitamins and nutrients. But it is my understanding that the paleo diet is an unhealthy fad, just like the gluten-free diet for non-celiacs, and various other high protien/low nutrient diets making the rounds.

      • (Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday August 27 2014, @03:26PM

        by VLM (445) on Wednesday August 27 2014, @03:26PM (#86289)

        "But it is my understanding that the paleo diet is an unhealthy fad"

        If its a fad, its a 200K year old fad which had great results. Can't say that for a diet of corn syrup, sugar, grains, or processed junk.

        I am curious how not eating gluten containing grains could be unhealthy. Folks who are allergic to gluten seem to do quite well, excellently, in fact, without gluten. Its hardly a trace element or required amino acid, so crossing it off the list simply can't cause any negative health effects.

        • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday August 27 2014, @04:27PM

          by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Wednesday August 27 2014, @04:27PM (#86333) Homepage
          > If its a fad, its a 200K year old fad which had great results.

          Please share with us the life expectancy of its followers over that 200Kyear span. Feel free to include figures like the proportion of its followers who reached 60 whilst still being fit and healthy, say? Reputable sources only, please.
          --
          Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
          • (Score: 3, Informative) by VLM on Wednesday August 27 2014, @04:49PM

            by VLM (445) on Wednesday August 27 2014, @04:49PM (#86347)

            No problem, I've got google. You should give it a try.

            Theres a nice article behind a paywall for most people at

            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11817904 [nih.gov]

            "This paper examines these topics and attempts to show that none of them justifies a priori dismissal of the evolutionary approach to preventive medicine. Evolutionary health promotion may ultimately be invalidated because of its falsification by experiment or because another theory accords better with known facts, but these commonly held prejudices should not forestall its thoughtful consideration and investigative evaluation."

            Supposedly this is discussed at

            http://paleodiet.com/life-expectancy.htm [paleodiet.com]

            although as you can guess given the URL it might have a slight bias (LOL)

            Wikipedia, which is only a semi-reputable source, discusses the topic at

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy [wikipedia.org]

            One problem is if you want to feel good about yourself you pick metrics that make you feel good. Pretty much, if you survive childhood, which is easy now and very difficult in the past, and as a woman avoid dying in childbirth, again a bit of a challenge in the olden days, and you avoid dying in the bubonic plague or cholera, thank you civil engineers, you'll pretty much die in your 60s and that's been more or less constant over human history. So paleo diet / lifestyle + civil engineers + medical doctors = modern or better lifespan.

            Its "well known" that agriculture lead to physically stunted people compared to HG lifestyle, although ag supports more sickly people per acre and strongly supports military action.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 27 2014, @06:35PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 27 2014, @06:35PM (#86404)

              [If] you avoid dying in the bubonic plague or [of] cholera, thank you civil engineers

              Cholera? OK. (Water-borne.) [google.com]

              How so with the rat-borne pestilence?
              ...and if our ancestors hadn't been so damned superstitious, they wouldn't have killed off nearly all the cats in Europe (the standard "familiar" of a "witch"), and perhaps the vermin problem wouldn't have happened in the first place.

              -- gewg_

              • (Score: 2) by VLM on Thursday August 28 2014, @03:32PM

                by VLM (445) on Thursday August 28 2014, @03:32PM (#86758)

                "How so with the rat-borne pestilence?"

                At least outside the "urban areas" we have trash collection rather than tossing trash in the streets (which feeds the rats) and it goes to a sanitary landfill which is not an oxymoron if you consider how they could be...

                In my little subdivision I'm not sure where rats would live, what they'd eat.

            • (Score: 1) by Whoever on Thursday August 28 2014, @01:32AM

              by Whoever (4524) on Thursday August 28 2014, @01:32AM (#86537) Journal

              Pretty much, if you survive childhood, which is easy now and very difficult in the past, and as a woman avoid dying in childbirth, again a bit of a challenge in the olden days, and you avoid dying in the bubonic plague or cholera, thank you civil engineers, you'll pretty much die in your 60s and that's been more or less constant over human history.

              I think that modern expected lifespan is actually significantly higher than 60 for those people that make it into their early 20s. What I have to look forward to, I don't know. Already well past 30 and most of my grandparents and parents made it into their 90's.

            • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday August 28 2014, @10:25PM

              by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Thursday August 28 2014, @10:25PM (#86942) Homepage
              Those sources seem to say the life expectancy was about 30-40 years.
              Are you sure that's an improvement - are you an alcoholic Chinese coalminer, or something?
              --
              Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
        • (Score: 1) by arashi no garou on Wednesday August 27 2014, @07:52PM

          by arashi no garou (2796) on Wednesday August 27 2014, @07:52PM (#86433)

          If its a fad, its a 200K year old fad which had great results.

          Except it's not. [scientificamerican.com]

          I'm not saying you're wrong about sugar and other processed foods; indeed, they are not healthy for us compared to natural or raw foods. But we aren't cave people. We've evolved over the years and adapted to advances in food processing, storage, and preparation. Finding the proper diet is a different process for each individual, no single diet plan is going to be as healthy for one person as it is for another. I'm sure the so-called paleo diet is helpful for people with certain metabolisms, but it's certainly not for everyone.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Kell on Wednesday August 27 2014, @02:47PM

      by Kell (292) on Wednesday August 27 2014, @02:47PM (#86265)

      Diet's a long term thing and doing something stupid short term once in awhile is fine.

      I like to say that a diet is a thing you have, not a thing you do. Healthy eating is a lifestyle decision, not a temporary arrangement. If someone has with the misconception that after you lose weight you can go back to 'normal' eating, then they're just going to end up where they started - afterall, that "normal" diet is what got them there in the first place!

      --
      Scientists ask questions. Engineers solve problems.
      • (Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday August 27 2014, @02:53PM

        by VLM (445) on Wednesday August 27 2014, @02:53PM (#86269)

        "you can go back to 'normal' eating"

        You can, but only like one meal a month. So I'll eat grandma's homemade birthday cake on my kids birthday. However, tastes change, and after getting used to real food, I feel like puking after eating that frosting, although I wouldn't tell grannie that.

        There is one aspect of sugar being like a drug, that if you're off it long enough for the tolerance to drop, some "normal" American diet food is just too sugary gross to eat again.

    • (Score: 2) by q.kontinuum on Wednesday August 27 2014, @03:39PM

      by q.kontinuum (532) on Wednesday August 27 2014, @03:39PM (#86302) Journal

      I don't think we should repeat all the past, but we probably should have a closer look and learn from it. To be honest, I had to wiki the term "paleo diet" first. According to wikipedia, this diet allows for unlimited dried food. I think this does not match the diet of our ancestors: Fruits, dried or otherwise, were mainly available in autumn, when most animals have to gain some weight to prepare for winter. In winter times, these fruits were scarcely available. Interestingly, when you subtract the dried fruits, paleo diet is pretty close to low carb; only that low carb diets propose to add vitamins and minerals, which seems to be a good idea considering that we want to achieve a slightly higher live-span than our ancient ancestors.

      --
      Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
      • (Score: 2) by Geotti on Wednesday August 27 2014, @04:27PM

        by Geotti (1146) on Wednesday August 27 2014, @04:27PM (#86332) Journal

        I think this does not match the diet of our ancestors: Fruits, dried or otherwise, were mainly available in autum

        Any reason, why you think that there were insufficient fruits so they'd be available 'till spring?

        And regarding preservation techniques:

        Drying is one of the oldest techniques used to hamper the decomposition of food products. As early as 12,000 B.C.

        (Food Preservation [wikipedia.org])

        • (Score: 2) by q.kontinuum on Thursday August 28 2014, @06:49AM

          by q.kontinuum (532) on Thursday August 28 2014, @06:49AM (#86635) Journal

          The paleolithic diet [wikipedia.org] refers to a time that ended 10.000 years ago. The starter of this thread even mentioned a time 250.000 years ago, but for the sake of argument I will stick to the period mentioned on wikipedia.

          "The smoking of food dates back to the time of primitive cavemen."

          Reference 3 in that article is dead, reference 2 is not based on any artifacts/evidence but rather a conjecture. Both refer to meat, not dried fruits, and I never doubted that people in that time ate meat in winter-times; if it was preserved or fresh doesn't make that much of a difference until we start discussing salt-consumption etc.

          "The earliest cultures have used sugar as a preservative, and it was commonplace to store fruit in honey. "

          Sugar [wikipedia.org] (in crystalline form) is known since ~450AD. Before that, sugar was not used in any relevant amounts, and afterwards usage also developed slowly since it was very expensive. That was more or less the point of the article. Honey [wikipedia.org] is used by humans since at least 8.000 years ago, and I would assume it was eaten even long before that, but I doubt it was available in big enough quantities to preserve fruits for the whole winter.

          "Pickling began 4000 years ago [...]"

          Is 6.000 years too late for the discussed time-frame.

          "Food curing dates back to ancient times"

          Again, no more accurate information is given on the time frame.

          All in all, I think at the time most of human genetic properties developed (>10.000 years ago), carbohydrates were not available in significant quantities, except maybe for fresh fruits in autumn.

          --
          Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
          • (Score: 2) by Geotti on Thursday August 28 2014, @11:26AM

            by Geotti (1146) on Thursday August 28 2014, @11:26AM (#86685) Journal

            Well, the other drying techniques were just for reference, but drying came about

            As early as 12,000 B.C.

            . Good enough?

            • (Score: 2) by q.kontinuum on Thursday August 28 2014, @11:45AM

              by q.kontinuum (532) on Thursday August 28 2014, @11:45AM (#86689) Journal

              For the reference frame of the paleo diet according to the wiki link it depends, if these drying techniques were successfully applied to fruit or only to fish and meat, how far spread their usage was, and how extensive it was used. But generally, yes, since I brought the figure 10.000 years into this discussion and you exceed this time-frame, it is relevant.

              Still, the 10.000 years time-frame from the wikipedia article seems to be intended to mark an order of magnitude rather than a accurate point in time, so I reserve the right to not fundamentally change my opinion ;-)

              --
              Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
              • (Score: 2) by Geotti on Friday August 29 2014, @03:17AM

                by Geotti (1146) on Friday August 29 2014, @03:17AM (#87032) Journal

                The ballpark is ~14k, though, since it's 12k B.C. and we're in 2k A.D. Anyway, a shame that there's no time-machine to check the facts ; )

    • (Score: 2) by morgauxo on Wednesday August 27 2014, @04:22PM

      by morgauxo (2082) on Wednesday August 27 2014, @04:22PM (#86326)

      " Evolution gave you a body designed to eat meat and natural plants"

      Doesn't the paleo diet kind of presume that evolution stopped 100,000 years ago?

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 27 2014, @05:42PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 27 2014, @05:42PM (#86375)

        More like 10,000 years ago.

        Oh, and not necessarily stopped, just not significantly moved on.

      • (Score: 2) by PinkyGigglebrain on Wednesday August 27 2014, @06:30PM

        by PinkyGigglebrain (4458) on Wednesday August 27 2014, @06:30PM (#86401)

        It pretty much did. Physically modern humans are not that different from what we were 100,000 years ago. Yes there have been some small changes in that time, like the amount of melanin in your skin and maybe some antigen proteins in your blood (some think blood types were caused by adaptations to local diet). But for the most part Humans have not significantly changed in well over 100,000 years. The thing that sets us apart is what we know, not what we are.

        --
        "Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
        • (Score: 2) by morgauxo on Thursday August 28 2014, @01:06PM

          by morgauxo (2082) on Thursday August 28 2014, @01:06PM (#86711)

          It seems like I remember reading an article, probably linked to from that other site that said the opposite. I thought I read that although outwardly people haven't changed much there actually seems to have been an acceleration of genetic change since the onset of civilization. Sorry, I haven't had enough caffeine to go find it. It does make sense though, we are living in a completely different environment, shouldn't we be adapting?

    • (Score: 2) by keplr on Wednesday August 27 2014, @04:30PM

      by keplr (2104) on Wednesday August 27 2014, @04:30PM (#86338) Journal

      Evolution gave you a body designed to eat meat and natural plants

      And only intended you to survive in this mode for some thirty years--if evolution could be said to "intend" anything (it can't, really). You're using a variation of the naturalistic fallacy. It's possible, is actually obviously true, that certain "unnatural" behavior modifications can increase health, happiness, and longevity. Reducing meat and dairy, as long as you don't fill the gap with carbohydrates, appears to be imminently healthier than the paleo fad according to actual medical research. Which isn't to say that high animal product diet can't help people lose weight; I'm sure it can, I've seen it work, but that doesn't make it healthier. And it's an abject failure when your circle of concern regarding diet expands to include considerations of ethics.

      --
      I don't respond to ACs.
    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by istartedi on Wednesday August 27 2014, @06:03PM

      by istartedi (123) on Wednesday August 27 2014, @06:03PM (#86388) Journal

      Evolution gave you a body designed to eat meat and natural plants, not a diet consisting primarily of refined sugar and grains and beans.

      Don't trust evolution. It doesn't care about you. It only cares about the survival of the species as a whole. If there were a diet
      that allowed you to have 10 babies and die at the age of 30, evolution would probably be just fine with that.

      --
      Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
    • (Score: 2) by cafebabe on Wednesday August 27 2014, @08:05PM

      by cafebabe (894) on Wednesday August 27 2014, @08:05PM (#86436) Journal

      Diet and physiology are topics where we should dump equality and relativism and follow our ancestors. Many people have alcohol, lactose and pork protein intolerance because it wasn't in their ancestor's diets. An out of place diet of rice or maybe beef and corn may lead to more subtle problems. For example, people who adopt an Occidental diet are more likely to get certain types of cancer.

      --
      1702845791×2
    • (Score: 2) by Teckla on Thursday August 28 2014, @04:05PM

      by Teckla (3812) on Thursday August 28 2014, @04:05PM (#86777)

      You're evolved to eat it, so eat fish.

      I don't like fish, plus, we've put so much mercury into the ocean ecosystem through coal burning, that eating a lot of fish may not be that healthy anymore...

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by bradley13 on Wednesday August 27 2014, @02:06PM

    by bradley13 (3053) on Wednesday August 27 2014, @02:06PM (#86233) Homepage Journal

    It is my impression, backed by nothing but personal observation, that the rise of obesity in the US parallels the change in diet towards pre-prepared foods and snack foods.

    Look at the typical US breakfast. Lots of people eat commercial cereal, which is often 40% or 50% sugar (and the rest consists of other carbohydrates). When I was a kid (I know, get off my lawn), breakfast was eggs and bacon, with a slice of toast. Much lower carbohydrate content in general and sugar content specifically. The new evidence is that eating fat doesn't make you fat - our bodies are designed for it - it's all those carbohydrates spiking your insulin levels.

    --
    Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by TrumpetPower! on Wednesday August 27 2014, @03:07PM

      by TrumpetPower! (590) <ben@trumpetpower.com> on Wednesday August 27 2014, @03:07PM (#86276) Homepage

      It is my impression, backed by nothing but personal observation, that the rise of obesity in the US parallels the change in diet towards pre-prepared foods and snack foods.

      That's because basically all pre-packaged foods are loaded with insane amounts of sugar (in various forms, infamously including HFCS -- but cane sugar and honey and the various substitutes are just as unhealthy).

      The other stuff they do isn't good for you, either, but most of the harm is mostly coming from the sugar. Mostly.

      (Think of it this way: that shit don't spoil. If nothing else wants to eat it, why should you?)

      b&

      --
      All but God can prove this sentence true.
      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by cafebabe on Wednesday August 27 2014, @08:33PM

        by cafebabe (894) on Wednesday August 27 2014, @08:33PM (#86449) Journal

        Living on a high sugar diet is unhealthy but some sugars are worse than others. In decreasing order of health:-

        1. Fructose from fruit and honey.
        2. Lactose from milk and cheese.
        3. Sucrose from cane sugar.
        4. And then there is HFCS [High Fructose Corn Syrup].
        --
        1702845791×2
        • (Score: 2) by Pav on Thursday August 28 2014, @05:31AM

          by Pav (114) on Thursday August 28 2014, @05:31AM (#86618)

          If you read Lustigs stuff it's precisely fructose that does the damage (HFCS/sucrose is quickly broken down into fructose and glucose anyway). He not only has correlations, but well understood mechanisms on why this is so.

          *) Fructose can only be broken down slowly in the liver (to glucose). Glucose on the other hand can be absorbed by any cell in the body. Blood glucose is regulated easily by insulin which stimulates its absorbsion by fat and muscle cells. This regulation happens surprisingly quickly - in tens of seconds.

          *) Your insulin metabolism sees fructose and glucose in the same way ie. as "sugar". Too much circulating fructose therefore causes insulin to be released. Your blood glucose crashes while fructose levels remain unaffected - glucose is absorbed by fat and muscles, while fructose is only absorbed after being slowly converted to glucose by the liver. Low blood glucose causes a lack of energy and food cravings... in this case despite high fructose levels. The food cravings often causes more fructose to be added to the system. What's worse, insulin remains high causing glucose to be continually scrubbed from the blood and deposited as fat as the fructose is processed by the liver... with chronically high insulin eventually causing insulin resistance.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 27 2014, @03:22PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 27 2014, @03:22PM (#86286)

      The new evidence is that eating fat doesn't make you fat - our bodies are designed for it - it's all those carbohydrates spiking your insulin levels.

      And fat makes you fat. Eating too much, makes you fat.

      How many miles did you walk today? Get your step counter. If it is less than 10,000 steps, you are way under your quote for movement. People used to walk for 10-20km a day, every day. Today, people don't walk to to the end of their driveway - and no, I'm not kidding you! On the other hand, we have abundance of food *and* obesogens (mainly plastics related) in our diet making us fatter than expected.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obesogen [wikipedia.org]

      Without obesogens, American diet would make people *FAT* and lazy. With these hormones-like substances, we get morbidly obese doing the same thing - no exercise and snacking. American diet is not high in carbs - it is high in fat. Things like fries, chocolate bars, chips, burgers, all are high in fat. People eat more meat today per person than at any time in history. Look at the steak sizes in American restaurants. 200 years ago, average people didn't eat that much meat in weeks and many not in months.

      If you want to get rid off almost ALL your sugar or sugar-like substances, start drinking plain water. Tap water. It's free.

      So, it's more fad diets about "evil sugar", just like there were fad diets about "evil fat".

      • (Score: 1, Offtopic) by Geotti on Wednesday August 27 2014, @04:30PM

        by Geotti (1146) on Wednesday August 27 2014, @04:30PM (#86336) Journal

        Tap water. It's free.

        You must be one of the lucky few with tasty and healthy tap water. For everyone else, buying bottled water is much more recommended. Also, it's not free.

  • (Score: 5, Informative) by opinionated_science on Wednesday August 27 2014, @02:07PM

    by opinionated_science (4031) on Wednesday August 27 2014, @02:07PM (#86235)

    The scientific facts behind RL's articles are spot on.

    Glucose is burnt in every cell in the body, too much triggers insulin, stored as fat.

    Some carbs are broken down into glucose, some are not. e.g. fructose, which has an independent metabolic pathway that goes straight to fat (stored in liver).

    Alcohol has the same pathway (after initial reduction by EtOH DeHydrogenase).

    If you are an athlete this is easy to metabolise. If you are not, if becomes lard.

    The complete bullshit about "good/bad calories" is just that.

    BUT there is a snag. YOUR body may not process calories the same as someone else, but the physics is identical. you need a MINIMUM of X calories to perform action Y.

    The problem in EVERY instance is that consumption of 2*X for activity Y. For some people, maybe there can be a 0.4 factor due to their metabolism.

    But I guarantee in every case, you eat less or exercise more, you will lose weight.

    There are some details of course...

    As we age, we lose muscle tone NOT because of age, but due to life style changes. Yes age changes our bodies response to exercise when we reach our 60's but clinical studies show that the same muscle tone, burns the same energy no matter how old you are.

    This is perhaps the saddest thing in our society, children are not taught to look after themselves by learning to enjoy sports.

    If you are 50 lb overweight, your body has either grown loads more fat cells or stuffed the ones you have full. There is some clinical evidence that fat distribution is set when we are growing up, and is much harder to change.

    Hence the first 40 lbs will come off easily, because the fat cells are simply shrinking, but eventually this slows down because the body will not jettison the cells until it needs to. It will eventually, but that takes months/years.

    The amount of calories we need to eat is entirely dependent on what we use. The problem is the FDA massively overestimates daily averages. Young bodies grow an enormous amount. Older bodies less so. Exercising bodies always!!

    I have mentioned this before. It takes 3500 calories (minimum) to run a marathon. Do you really think you can burn 2500 just sitting in a office chair? Look at the FDA numbers and see for your self.

    Yes, it matters what you eat as nutrition is a highly variable parameter.

    But no matter what refinements discussed you cannot ignore the thermodynamics of energy balance.

    So use it or lose it. Enjoy life by living to the full!

    • (Score: 2) by Blackmoore on Wednesday August 27 2014, @02:17PM

      by Blackmoore (57) on Wednesday August 27 2014, @02:17PM (#86243) Journal
      Not all of us have enough dexterity to "enjoy" sports - but your point is still correct; the average American spends too much time sitting; and not enough time actively doing some kind of activity.  Even adding a simple hour of walking to your schedule will do a world of difference. Not just to your activity level, but your metabolism, and the bodies processing systems.

      Get out of the chair. Move around. lift things. walk, wander.
      Eat in moderation. Learn new things.
      Try new things.
      Live.
      • (Score: 2) by opinionated_science on Wednesday August 27 2014, @02:28PM

        by opinionated_science (4031) on Wednesday August 27 2014, @02:28PM (#86253)

        Your dexterity point is well taken, I am not saying you have to play competitive sports!

        Walking is just fine. You will just need more time than running for less, say.

        But if your joints are not so good, try pool running. Knock a ball round. Play frisbee. Dance. Climb stairs. Make lurve, and help your partner...!

        Use it , or lose it I cannot stress enough.

        But being fit, reduces the chances of so many other things going wrong...

        • (Score: 4, Interesting) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Wednesday August 27 2014, @02:34PM

          by GreatAuntAnesthesia (3275) on Wednesday August 27 2014, @02:34PM (#86259) Journal

          Also, swimming. Someone upthread waxed lyrical about us eating what we have evolved to eat. Not sure if I agree about that, but if you want to take similar advice about exercise, then walking and swimming are the way to go: There's no doubt that as a species we are adapted to walking. It's less certain (but I'm convinced) that we are also well adapted to life by/ on the water. Our hairless(ish) bodies and our downward-pointing noses suggest this, but also the sheer joy that nearly every human being instinctively has for being near, on, in or around water. [1] Swimming is ideal exercise - uses all important muscle groups without impact. Go and swim.

          And yeah, sex too.

          [1] Some people lose this joy, but trust me, you had it once.

          • (Score: 3, Interesting) by migz on Wednesday August 27 2014, @05:53PM

            by migz (1807) on Wednesday August 27 2014, @05:53PM (#86378)

            Have you ever spent so long in water that your fingers went wrinkley?

            Well when our fingers wrinkle like that scientific studies show that it increases our grip under water. Yep, we have evolved this uncanny ability because our ancestors spent time scrabbling about in water, probably looking for food.

      • (Score: 1) by digitalaudiorock on Wednesday August 27 2014, @05:45PM

        by digitalaudiorock (688) on Wednesday August 27 2014, @05:45PM (#86376) Journal

        Not all of us have enough dexterity to "enjoy" sports

        My strong feeling on this is exercise != sports, and more importantly exercise != fun, There's way too much crap out there trying to get people to "enjoy" exercise. I was never really "athletic" as a kid...didn't go out for any sports etc.

        I've stuck to a regular workout schedule that's never fun at all, but only requires about 4-5 hours a week, for the last 22 years. Right now I do 20 minutes of intense aerobics three times a week, and two days of extensive weight lifting (I tend toward lifting pretty heavy). At almost 61 I have 9.5% body fat, and have actually been getting gradually stronger and more aerobically fit even over the last 10 years.

        Regularity is everything. Unless I happen to be deathly I never miss a week of that. That's what it takes...and it's not fun, but also not really that difficult either...you just plain have to do it, and not waste time expecting to enjoy it. The part I enjoy is feeling less than half my age. There's just no way I can put into words how that makes it worth it.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 27 2014, @06:57PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 27 2014, @06:57PM (#86415)

          Find a physical activity that you ENJOY.
          Previously, I've mentioned dancing with a partner. [soylentnews.org]
          In my experience, it's not that uncommon for technologists to get deeply involved.

          -- gewg_

          • (Score: 1) by digitalaudiorock on Wednesday August 27 2014, @07:39PM

            by digitalaudiorock (688) on Wednesday August 27 2014, @07:39PM (#86429) Journal

            That's all well and good, and obviously any physical activity you get is good or at least better than none.

            However, many activities like that can fall short of being a truly sufficient aerobic exercise...that is maintaining say 75% of your maximum heart rate for 20 minutes.

            Even more significant is that virtually no such activities are a substitute for weight lifting...not even sports. There's a reason that even the top athletes in all sports hit the weight room...because there is no substitute.

            As you age this gets more and more important than anything in my opinion. The average male looses a full 30% of their muscle mass between the age of 50 and 70, and there's no ay to combat that short of very proactive weight resistant exercise. I've gained muscle mass between 50 and 60. There's a reason that a lot of very active people end up needing knee and hip replacements. It's because muscle protects joints. If you keep running into old age, or even worse, playing basketball of tennis, without very proactively keeping your muscle mass via weight lifting, you will beat your knees to death. The same can be true with hip problems.

            Like I said, any activity is better than none, but there's no replacement for real exercise. And as I've said earlier, everything I do (I work out at home by the way) takes between 4 and 5 hours a week. The stuff people will tend to "enjoy" can burn up that much time in one day and totally fall short in terms of real benefit.

            I stand by my position...there is no replacement. Just do it.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 27 2014, @08:55PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 27 2014, @08:55PM (#86459)

              maintaining say 75% of your maximum heart rate for 20 minutes

              You need to find hotter partners. 8-)
              The post that I linked contains links to some images of couples dancing.
              If at least 50 percent of those babes don't get your pulse up, you should have your testosterone level checked.

              -- gewg_

    • (Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday August 27 2014, @02:59PM

      by VLM (445) on Wednesday August 27 2014, @02:59PM (#86273)

      "But I guarantee in every case, you eat less... you will lose weight."

      The point often missed is if you cut calories across the board or cut only fat/protein, you'll be in physical agony of starvation and low blood sugar, leading to binging and typically a higher weight than before you start the diet. A nice fatty cut of protein, even if ridiculously few calories, and I don't feel hungry or starved or exhausted at all.

      Aside from the metabolic pathway issues, I could lose the same weight torturing myself with a starvation ration of rice and corn syrup pepsi, but it would be a horrific way to go thru life, always in agony. On the other hand, lots of meat (And some veg) and I lose weight and feel great..

      • (Score: 2) by opinionated_science on Wednesday August 27 2014, @03:32PM

        by opinionated_science (4031) on Wednesday August 27 2014, @03:32PM (#86296)

        think lobster in boiling pot. Do it gradually you will not notice it. Things that are too sweet, take in smaller quantities.

        Try diluting fruit juice. Think how many oranges you would need to get that glass of juice. Think you could eat the oranges?

        It is important to get the correct nutrition, so protein for body repair is important, but not too much or you promote unwanted cell growth. If you want power you need carbs. That is plain and simple biochemistry, just don't have more than you need!!

        However, without carbs you can burn fat just fine, but at a lower metabolic rate. It is energy dense, but yields less per molecule.

        There's been a lot of FUD in the last 50 years from bad science and the weight of the food industry that simply cannot say "enough is enough".

        A steak every now an again, is good. Every day, not so much.

        There is a lot to be said for "traditional" diets, the problem is the traditions were different too (e.g on the farm 12 hours day!!!)

        • (Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday August 27 2014, @03:43PM

          by VLM (445) on Wednesday August 27 2014, @03:43PM (#86306)

          "the problem is the traditions were different to"

          Also a mere 10Kyrs of farming doesn't erase 100Kyrs of evolved biochemistry not to eat farm products.

          Go back far enough (and its not far...) we ALL had the hunter / gatherer tradition. They're pretty lazy compared to farmers, which makes a HG diet a good match to modern cubical dwellers.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 27 2014, @04:11PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 27 2014, @04:11PM (#86320)

          Try diluting fruit juice.

          Why? I can drink three glasses of diluted 1/3 fruit juice 2/3 water, or I can drink 1 glass of fruit juice and 2 glasses of water, and the total intake will be exactly the same. Just with the diluted fruit juice, the enjoyment would be reduced.

          That's assuming I'd drink one glass of fruit juice for every two glasses of water, to begin with. Actually, if I take the total amount of fruit juice I drink, and the total amount of water I drink, and imagine I'd mix them together in that proportion, I think I wouldn't taste the fruit juice anyway.

    • (Score: 1) by cout on Wednesday August 27 2014, @03:47PM

      by cout (4526) on Wednesday August 27 2014, @03:47PM (#86307)

      I was under the impression that fructose fell under an alternative pathway that results in essentially the same products as glucose, though absorption and metabolism take longer than with glucose. Wikipedia seems to agree with me.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fructose [wikipedia.org]

      "The initial catabolism of fructose is sometimes referred to as fructolysis, in analogy with glycolysis, the catabolism of glucose. In fructolysis, the enzyme fructokinase initially produces fructose 1-phosphate, which is split by aldolase B to produce the trioses dihydroxyacetone phosphate (DHAP) and glyceraldehyde [2]. Unlike glycolysis, in fructolysis the triose glyceraldehyde lacks a phosphate group. A third enzyme, triokinase, is therefore required to phosphorylate glyceraldehyde, producing glyceraldehyde 3-phosphate. The resulting trioses are identical to those obtained in glycolysis and can enter the gluconeogenic pathway for glucose or glycogen synthesis, or be further catabolized through the lower glycolytic pathway to pyruvate."

      Are you suggesting that because fructolysis occurs in the liver that it is more likely to result in fatty acid synthesis?

      Also I'm confused when you seem to say that fat is stored in the liver. Isn't fat stored in adipose tissue?

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 27 2014, @04:04PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 27 2014, @04:04PM (#86316)

        I was under the impression that fructose fell under an alternative pathway that results in essentially the same products as glucose, though absorption and metabolism take longer than with glucose.

        The first step in metabolism of all 6-carbon sugars (ie, glucose and fructose) is phosphorylation by hexokinase. Most of the hexokinases work just as well on glucose as on fructose, so this is the same enzyme doing the same reaction on molecules it can't distinguish. The second step in metabolism of glucose is to isomerize it to fructose.

        All of the glucose you consume is converted to fructose before it generates any ATP

        • (Score: 1) by cout on Wednesday August 27 2014, @05:32PM

          by cout (4526) on Wednesday August 27 2014, @05:32PM (#86371)

          The second step of glycolysis is metabolism from glucose-6-phosphate to fructose-6-phospate, not fructose. When fructose is metabolized, it is phosphorylated by fructokinase to fructose-1-phosphate. So yes, glucose is metabolized to a phosphorylated to a 5-carbon-ring sugar, but the phosphate group is on a different carbon when glucose is metabolized than when fructose is metabolized. In other words, the pathways differ until the sugars are broken down into three-carbon molecules.

          (apparently hexokinase can metabolize fructose to fructose-6-P, but it is a slower reaction and is therefore a less likely reaction).

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 27 2014, @03:56PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 27 2014, @03:56PM (#86312)

      As we age, we lose muscle tone NOT because of age, but due to life style changes.

      Turns out to be bullshit. Muscle mass decreases in all species beginning 2-3x puberty age. Muscle mass decreases in human professional bodybuilders at the same rate as untrained people: 1-2% per year. Older muscles retain do much of their ability to respond to growth stimuli, but they are much more sensitive to atrophy stimuli, which means that the 23 hours a day you spend not training become more important. Frailty is coming. The only thing you can do about it is to start from the largest possible muscle mass.

    • (Score: 1) by xtronics on Wednesday August 27 2014, @08:42PM

      by xtronics (1884) on Wednesday August 27 2014, @08:42PM (#86453) Homepage

      You seem to miss the problem that fructose containing sugars (like table sugar - sucrose and honey) spike ones trygly - switching between carbs (all glucose) and sugar usually about doubles trygly.

      Sucrose is not a human food - wasn't affordable until after the 1600's and only dirt cheap (as HFCS) in the last decades.

      Then there is the problem with sugar being a carbohydrate - If you are lucky, your doctor might know that carbohydrates in excess interfere with the excretion of sodium and sodium retention tends to cause high blood pressure.

    • (Score: 1) by JeffPaetkau on Wednesday August 27 2014, @09:54PM

      by JeffPaetkau (1465) on Wednesday August 27 2014, @09:54PM (#86473)

      "The problem in EVERY instance is that consumption of 2*X for activity Y. For some people, maybe there can be a 0.4 factor due to their metabolism. But I guarantee in every case, you eat less or exercise more, you will lose weight."

      However, you neglect to consider a negative feedback loop in this system. The quantity you eat (as well as your eating habits and environment) change the metabolism factor as well as affect your mental health. Look up the Minnesota semi-starvation experiment for details on this.

      The long and the sort is that, if you alternate between insufficient calorie diets and calorie rich diets you permanently lower your metabolism. As far as your body is concerned you are living in a place with alternating years of feast and famine and it responds appropriately (If not how you would like or expect). The solution is to discontinue the cycle and eat a regular appropriate diet. You may or may not lose weight over time. When you find yourself in a hole the first thing is to stop digging.

      • (Score: 2) by opinionated_science on Thursday August 28 2014, @06:41PM

        by opinionated_science (4031) on Thursday August 28 2014, @06:41PM (#86858)

        Which is why the emphasis is on life style. If you eat the same amount, and simply exercise the calorie equivalent of 1 days food (e.g. 2000 cals, walk for 4 hours /week, run for 2 hours/week etc..), this is putting your body with 1 days less food. No starvation.

        Metabolism really cannot change that much (perhaps 20%?), and as I have posted more than one, if you run a marathon you will need a *minimum* of 3500 calories. One of the parameters of metabolism is the amount of muscle mass. So if there is a feedback scenario, it is being inactive that leads to inactivity.

        The problem is , people leave college and begin sedentary life habits. Earning more cash, spending on richer foods. Aging does lose muscle mass, but that is mainly due to lack of activity than the actual aging.

        Provide the citation of this "experiment" and I will read and respond. Studies of rats and mice are reliable to monitor, but humans really are not...

        • (Score: 1) by JeffPaetkau on Thursday August 28 2014, @11:43PM

          by JeffPaetkau (1465) on Thursday August 28 2014, @11:43PM (#86976)
          • (Score: 2) by opinionated_science on Friday August 29 2014, @03:29PM

            by opinionated_science (4031) on Friday August 29 2014, @03:29PM (#87240)

            Assuming the wikipedia article is accurate....

            This is a poorly designed study, too small (36), narrow (young white men), and "special in circumstance". i.e. during the war recruits "volunteered".

            Just a cursory look at the parameters that define "starvation". Start on 3200 calories and cut it in half (~1560)....go have a look at the modern FDA limits....

            Starvation makes you crazy, maybe. Being stuck in an army camp....definitely!!

            Revisionism is greatly in fashion, but articles like this just show how poor some studies have been used to make a political point.

            Moderation is the key, sure. The point that DL and many others have made (Jamie Oliver had a crack at it too), is that the food *industry* has changed the landscape of what *can be bought* to largely favour foods that promote consumption.

            The reason this is now an epidemic is because it has been 70 years in the making. As the forms of food have been mutated to accommodate cheaper ingredients, the industrialization of food, general consumption has risen due to poor nutrition. Employment restrictions and lifestyle habits have come to favour sedentary poses.

            The hard edge is this, calories do matter. But so dose physiology. Both together is the problem.

            Glucose is controlled by insulin but can be "burnt" by every cell in the body and ends up as glycogen. Fructose is metabolised to pyruvate and ends up either ATP (for immediate use) of stored as fat. Insulin has no effect on fructose, it just gets turned in to work, or fat.

            Too much HFCS skews the body towards ignoring insulin and processing fat. Too much sucrose, eventually overloads the metabolism and impedes organ function. The clinical definition is more forgiving than the biochemical one. The liver is an amazingly flexible organ, but when it can no longer process all the food you eat, nutrients remain in the blood as toxins, and then opportunistic pathogens get a look in.

            We all know that eating is a biological imperative. The problem is that it has also become a profit making one too...

  • (Score: 5, Informative) by TrumpetPower! on Wednesday August 27 2014, @02:12PM

    by TrumpetPower! (590) <ben@trumpetpower.com> on Wednesday August 27 2014, @02:12PM (#86239) Homepage

    What people today considerate moderate amounts of sugar just a few generations ago would have been considered something only somebody would an out-of-control sweet tooth would even have wanted to eat.

    Go back to colonial times, just at the start of the sugar triangle trade routes, and typical annual consumption was about ten pounds or so; roughly a tablespoon (~15 grams) per day or a teaspoon (~5 grams) per meal.

    A single can of Coke has a quarter cup of sugar in it. A tablespoon of ketchup has a teaspoon of sugar. If it's pre-packaged, even if it's not something normally thought of as sweet, it likely has about a teaspoon or so per label serving -- and we all know that most people eat much more than single servings at a time.

    If you want to moderate your sugar intake, don't eat anything pre-packaged; don't eat at restaurants; and limit yourself to a teaspoon per meal -- or, if you like to indulge, balance it out by completely eliminating sugar from other meals.

    Oh -- and that applies to all sweeteners, not just sugar. Cane sugar, beet sugar, honey, maple syrup, HFCS, saccharine, Sucralose...all are either metabolically indistinguishable from sugar or metabolically worse than sugar.

    If that's too much moderation for you, cut down as much as you can. With sugar, less is better; more is worse. That tablespoon a day figure gets you to levels we have historical evidence have negligible impacts on human health. Eat more than that and you increase your risk and severity of obesity and diabetes and the rest of the maladies associated with the metabolic condition. Feel free to eat less; your body doesn't at all need sugar.

    If you have an insatiable sweet tooth, satiate it with fresh fruit -- not canned, and especially not juiced. Eat textbook-standard portion sizes of proteins (about the size of a deck of cards per meal) and carbohydrates (about a quarter cup before cooking of whole grains), add fats to taste, and fill yourself up on fresh veggies -- as much as you care to eat. A few times a week do half an hour or so of intense resistive (not cardio) exercise, and you're basically set.

    Cheers,

    b&

    --
    All but God can prove this sentence true.
    • (Score: 3, Funny) by c0lo on Wednesday August 27 2014, @02:28PM

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday August 27 2014, @02:28PM (#86254) Journal

      Eat textbook-standard portion sizes of proteins (about the size of a deck of cards per meal)

      I like your advice, a pity bacon doesn't come in sizes as large as my choice of cards [photobucket.com] (or even text-books [themetapicture.com]).

      --
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
    • (Score: 3, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday August 27 2014, @03:31PM

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday August 27 2014, @03:31PM (#86293) Journal

      Honey? Huh-uh!

      I'll make allowances for the possibility that I'm just brainwashed. Please, give some references regarding honey being equal to or worse than sugar. I simply cannot buy that without something to back it up.

      A google search offers up many comparisons favorable to honey, https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=honey+calories+compared+to+sugar&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t [google.com]

      While honey actually has more calories than sugar, the calories in sugar is more readily stored as fat. The calories in honey are burnt up more easily, and far less likely to be stored as fat.

      This PDF seems to summarize honey and sugar as well as anything else I've looked at: http://extension.arizona.edu/sites/extension.arizona.edu/files/pubs/az1577.pdf [arizona.edu]

      --
      We've finally beat Medicare! - Houseplant in Chief
    • (Score: 2) by Silentknyght on Wednesday August 27 2014, @08:59PM

      by Silentknyght (1905) on Wednesday August 27 2014, @08:59PM (#86460)

      Oh -- and that applies to all sweeteners, not just sugar. Cane sugar, beet sugar, honey, maple syrup, HFCS, saccharine, Sucralose...all are either metabolically indistinguishable from sugar or metabolically worse than sugar.

      Careful about making assertions about things your body can't actually metabolize. From wikipedia:

      Saccharin is believed to be an important discovery, especially for diabetics, as it goes directly through the human digestive system without being digested. Although saccharin has no food energy, it may trigger the release of insulin in humans and rats, presumably as a result of its taste, but this is not conclusive as the same study states "No statistically significant changes in plasma insulin were found."[4][5][6] This is similar for aspartame (another artificial sweetener).[7]

    • (Score: 2) by SGT CAPSLOCK on Wednesday August 27 2014, @11:14PM

      by SGT CAPSLOCK (118) on Wednesday August 27 2014, @11:14PM (#86511) Journal

      I lift weights, so I bought some whey protein powder and some creatine from the pharmacy at my local Walmart. I'm really blind so I couldn't get a great look at the labels until later, when I found out that both of them contained _massive_ amounts of sugar! They really do stuff it in just about everything, eh? It was a bit of an unfortunate surprise.

      I avoid pure sugar like it's the plague, btw. Because it is.

  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 27 2014, @02:32PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 27 2014, @02:32PM (#86258)

    Man, I wish I could get food with real sugar here. Not that I eat terribly, but it has to be better (and taste better) than the high-fructose corn syrup that's in everything.

    • (Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday August 27 2014, @03:11PM

      by VLM (445) on Wednesday August 27 2014, @03:11PM (#86277)

      "than the high-fructose corn syrup that's in everything."

      In my considerable experience with this topic you pretty much have to abandon processed food. The good news is real food tastes better than processed food.

      So I took some beef stew meat and blackened the outside on a red hot stainless steel fry pan and dumped it into a slow cooker with some taco spices (technically more of a barbacoa sauce given the chipoltle I added but whatever) and let that dude slow cook for about 8 hours and wrapped about half a pound of it in a burrito shell with some onions and a little lettuce salad on the side. And it was heavenly.

      I had some brats the day before. I should have browned the stew meat on the grill once the brats were done. Oh well.

      Tomorrow is shaping up to be grilled kabobs with steak meat, peppers, onions, mushrooms, and pineapples.

      Yesterday for a snack I had a small handful of walnuts. Looking at a small handful of almonds today. They taste pretty good, I think.

      Breakfasts tend to be yummy leftovers or every better fried meat.

      Lunches are salads

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 27 2014, @03:19PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 27 2014, @03:19PM (#86281)

        Oh, you're definitely spot-on. Nothing beats real food made from fresh meat and vegetables. But sometimes I want a coke with lunch or something sweet for a snack, and fruit doesn't always scratch that itch.

      • (Score: 1) by Muad'Dave on Thursday August 28 2014, @01:19PM

        by Muad'Dave (1413) on Thursday August 28 2014, @01:19PM (#86713)

        burrito shell - did you make it? No? Sugar

        brats - did you make them? No? Sugar

        The rest of your diet looks impressive, but there's hidden sugar everywhere.

    • (Score: 2) by Aighearach on Thursday August 28 2014, @02:52AM

      by Aighearach (2621) on Thursday August 28 2014, @02:52AM (#86560)

      As a label-reader I have found that in local supermarkets (Oregon, USA) there is usually 1 or 2 regular-priced options for each food without HFCS, or other syrups, with only real sugar added.

      For example ketchup, I can buy a Hunt's squeeze bottle with real sugar, and an "all natural" label, but even the other Hunt's all have HFCS. It is one of the cheapest, too, and tastes "normal."

      Dry cereal there are 3 or 4, but there is also usually affordable store-brand shredded wheat that is only whole wheat and vitamin E (as a preservative.)

      I've totally cut HFCS out of my diet, and I don't buy "premium" yuppy-food, and I haven't cut out any food categories. Just reading labels every time, and including a step of "choose what I want to eat" is all it takes. Most people don't really choose, they just grab whatever is similar to past things they bought, and just assume they are OK because they ate them before. Once you commit to choosing each time, then you're obligated to read the labels.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 27 2014, @02:54PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 27 2014, @02:54PM (#86270)

    yeah yeah but white sugar is the easiest energy source to scan to be radioactive free.
    everything else is so complex as to be near impossible to filter out all the dust from atom bomb test, "occasional" nuke plant venting and general fucking melt downs ...

  • (Score: 3, Informative) by zafiro17 on Wednesday August 27 2014, @03:31PM

    by zafiro17 (234) on Wednesday August 27 2014, @03:31PM (#86294) Homepage

    I read this article while eating a handful of candy. Tastes great!

    One of the best things you can do to reduce your intake of sugar and artificial sweeteners is to get the hell out of the USA. Once you've done so, if you ever go back you notice even the bread tastes sweet. Many other countries have diets based on fruits and vegetables. The USA is definitely succumbing to the Rich Man lifestyle of health problems brought on by a diet too full of processed foods, sweeteners, fat and chemicals instead of good old beans-and-rice.

    This guy is a great scientist. Changing lifestyles is hard though.

    --
    Dad always thought laughter was the best medicine, which I guess is why several of us died of tuberculosis - Jack Handey
  • (Score: 1) by infodragon on Wednesday August 27 2014, @05:04PM

    by infodragon (3509) on Wednesday August 27 2014, @05:04PM (#86356)

    Soylent... http://www.soylent.me/ [soylent.me]

    Solves the diet/sugar problem!

    --
    Don't settle for shampoo, demand real poo!
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 27 2014, @05:47PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 27 2014, @05:47PM (#86377)

      You expect me to click a link that says "soylent me"? Remember, Soylent Green is people. So what does it then mean to soylent someone, hmm? ;-)

  • (Score: 2) by Subsentient on Wednesday August 27 2014, @09:19PM

    by Subsentient (1111) on Wednesday August 27 2014, @09:19PM (#86466) Homepage Journal

    It sounds like an advertisement.

    --
    "It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." -Jiddu Krishnamurti
    • (Score: 1) by corey on Wednesday August 27 2014, @10:42PM

      by corey (2202) on Wednesday August 27 2014, @10:42PM (#86499)

      Agree with all the anti sugar talk. I cut sugar years ago and managing my weight is now a non issue.

      I just wanted to say however that its funny how whenever someone comes up into the public eye with some big diet theory or advice, they always have a book to sell. Every single time.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 28 2014, @03:32AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 28 2014, @03:32AM (#86568)

    Yay, more sugar for us! Hey guys, you know.. gold is poisonous too!

    If you need to unload your extra Au too, feel free to send it our way.