SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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 ?
(Score: 5, Informative) by opinionated_science on Wednesday August 27 2014, @02:07PM
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
"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
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
"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
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
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
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
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
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
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
"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
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
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Starvation_Experiment [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2) by opinionated_science on Friday August 29 2014, @03:29PM
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...