Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Colpo's response to Lustig, Taubes and Toxic Sugar

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Neckhammer View Post
    I found their exchanges to be hilarious.
    My nutrition/fitness/critical thinking blog:

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by jakejoh10 View Post
      I found their exchanges to be hilarious.
      Oh they are... thats why I linked em

      Honestly at circa 2008 it was before my time (great that the internet records EVERYTHING right?).... I've only been paleo and such for about 3 years, and just relied on my nutrition course info till then.

      Comment


      • #18
        I was enjoying the article as soon as he mentioned that journalists are idiots; they are.
        http://lifemutt.blogspot.sg/ - Gaming, Food Reviews and Life in Singapore

        Comment


        • #19
          The documentary was focused on the elevated levels of sugar (and carbs) that people are eating, it was not talking about lean people exercising. More people are overweight or obese then not. Even those that are not obese, have problems that can be related back to sugar, even skinny people can get diabetes 2. If I was Lustig, and I had to look at those children, I would be pretty pissed off too. But if you tell people to avoid excess sugar and liquid calories, you are helping a whole rake of people. It was an excellent documentary, focusing on the Australian Heart Foundation's stupid tick label and provided some good information.

          If we took away HFCS and GMO beet sugar, natural cane sugar would be at a price that would make people think twice about their daily treats. The price I pay for pure molasses a bottle of 740g is 6.50 euros. Not cheap, this is the real price of real sugar.

          Taubes and Lustig may not be perfect so what shall people do go back to Keys and The China Study?
          Life. Be in it.

          Comment


          • #20
            Saying fructose is bad is just like saying salt is bad. Confounding factors abound. If sugar is bad for you, then refined oils are even worse. White sugar is nutritionally equal to coconut oil, and metabolically there isn't much difference. Maybe sugar is slightly less fattening. And since coconut oil is the most advantageous refined oil, every other oil would be even worse. I guess my point is if sugar is bad for us, we really need to stop eating fat.

            So what is it? Do we starve to death? There is nothing inherently toxic about sugar, and just like everything else on planet Earth, poison is in the dose. Sitting at your desk and drinking a 40oz Coke is probably bad for you. That's probably more straight refined sugar than your body can handle in a sitting. That doesn't mean a packet of white sugar in your morning coffee is bad. Chicken wings fried in canola oil are even worse than the tallest soda, and there is no sugar in that. Eat real food - I don't care if it's meat, fruit, tubers, milk, whatever. Just avoid flours, PUFA oils - especially fried flours - and things you can't pronounce on food labels and you'll probably be okay.
            Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

            Comment


            • #21
              First, OP, thx for this article! I didn't know about this person. And, yet, he says things that I have thought, yet haven't really been able to express. I won't go into all that. I'll get to one point:

              I highly doubt that many people will find that the following statement makes much of a big deal, but I think it's at least something to discuss. Not because I've thought it before (I hadn't really) but because money really, really talks.

              He says:
              "Why, given the astronomical financial rewards awaiting innovators of effective fat loss drugs, Big Pharma world famous for its relentless and often unethical pursuit of profits is hardly tripping over itself to bring insulin-lowering obesity drugs to market? Or why it is not promoting/seeking approval for the use of already available insulin-reducing drugs for this purpose?"

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by jackaaron View Post
                He says:
                "Why, given the astronomical financial rewards awaiting innovators of effective fat loss drugs, Big Pharma – world famous for its relentless and often unethical pursuit of profits – is hardly tripping over itself to bring insulin-lowering obesity drugs to market? Or why it is not promoting/seeking approval for the use of already available insulin-reducing drugs for this purpose?"
                Really I don't think he is correct at all in making this a part of his argument.

                There isn't much profit to Big Pharma in doing as he state. Here it is....They have metformin and things like that for the borderline diabetics already so why would they stop you from reaching that particular disease state? If we are speaking in terms of drive for profits only then it is much more profitable to fatten the pig for the slaughter (pun only partially intended). Lots more money to be made from a chronic disease state with some irreversible damage than from catching such a state in the early stages and preventing said damage.

                From the other side (the legal and ethical end) artificially lowering insulin in non-diseased individuals would lead to various disease states including hyperglycemia and protein wasting. Basically there is no logical way to market such an item to a person.

                Thats if we wanna be all logical about it and ONLY consider the drive for profit.
                Last edited by Neckhammer; 08-15-2013, 08:33 AM.

                Comment


                • #23
                  ChocoTaco

                  I never said a spoon of sugar in your coffee is bad. I do believe in eating real food. I agree that PUFAs and flours are a big problem, but where are you going to start? Excess sugar does cause problems, particularly the way most people eat them. If sugar was priced correctly taking out GMO beet sugar and HFCS, the price of sugar would be realistic and people would be eating it in a more realistic way.

                  This Anthony guy has 1101 likes on Facebook, Catalyst has a bigger audience than him. The information is useful for someone starting out in their search for better health. He just likes writing big letters and big noting himself.
                  Life. Be in it.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
                    There is nothing inherently toxic about sugar, and just like everything else on planet Earth, poison is in the dose. Sitting at your desk and drinking a 40oz Coke is probably bad for you. That's probably more straight refined sugar than your body can handle in a sitting. That doesn't mean a packet of white sugar in your morning coffee is bad. .
                    But there are a ton of people sitting at their desk, drinking a 32oz+ coke. Or several a day. People are giving these to their kids (or chocolate milk, a million times a day, which has tons of sugar). Or Gatorade, as I think was pointed out in the lecture. Lustig is talking to these people, not to you, and if they follow his advice, they will probably have some success.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Belforte View Post
                      Excess sugar does cause problems, particularly the way most people eat them. If sugar was priced correctly taking out GMO beet sugar and HFCS, the price of sugar would be realistic and people would be eating it in a more realistic way.
                      Is excess sugar the problem? Or are excess calories a problem? Why is 500 calories of excess sugar a day worse than 500 excess calories of fat a day?
                      Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by lea View Post
                        But there are a ton of people sitting at their desk, drinking a 32oz+ coke. Or several a day. People are giving these to their kids (or chocolate milk, a million times a day, which has tons of sugar). Or Gatorade, as I think was pointed out in the lecture. Lustig is talking to these people, not to you, and if they follow his advice, they will probably have some success.
                        How does this prove sugar is unhealthy?

                        Let's take two drinks: a 32oz coffee with 400 calories worth of sugar in it and a 32oz coffee with 400 calories worth of emulsified coconut oil. Both are consumed while said office worker is sitting on their butt in addition to all the normal calories they eat throughout a day. Which is worse?
                        Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          CT, you know this, fat included in meat and good dairy etc are sating. A can of soft drink is not. A box of cereal (that the Australian Heart Foundation gives a tick to) is not sating. Satiation comes from nutrition, large amounts of sugar does not provide this, and you are correct neither does a large amount of fat, lacks nutrition. Combinations of fat, sugar and flour are certainly not nutritious. If someone is overweight and cannot start exercising (like Lustig's obese babies) you need to change diet and liquid calories are a huge issue whether it is a soft drink, smoothie, fruit juice, big coffees etc, they do not satisfy hunger and do not provide sustained energy nor nutrition. Considering all the bad information out there, this documentary was a step on the right direction.

                          Colpo comes from a particular viewpoint, that he is fit and is a very regular exerciser and probably eats very good quality carbs, this is not the reality for most overweight people. Most people who are overweight, obese are in pain and do not exercise, for them cutting these unnecessary carbs is an essential part to fixing their system (along with the oils and flours) and a vital first step.
                          Life. Be in it.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
                            How does this prove sugar is unhealthy?

                            Let's take two drinks: a 32oz coffee with 400 calories worth of sugar in it and a 32oz coffee with 400 calories worth of emulsified coconut oil. Both are consumed while said office worker is sitting on their butt in addition to all the normal calories they eat throughout a day. Which is worse?
                            I have a feeling the coffee with fat will stop you from drinking more quicker than the coke (and keep you full longer), but I have not tested that because I'm not about to start drinking blended coffee. Feel free to do experiments and report back.

                            But little children that Dr. Lustig is treating are not drinking CO in Coffee by and large...
                            Last edited by lea; 08-15-2013, 11:21 AM.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Belforte View Post
                              CT, you know this, fat included in meat and good dairy etc are sating. A can of soft drink is not. A box of cereal (that the Australian Heart Foundation gives a tick to) is not sating. Satiation comes from nutrition, large amounts of sugar does not provide this, and you are correct neither does a large amount of fat, lacks nutrition. Combinations of fat, sugar and flour are certainly not nutritious. If someone is overweight and cannot start exercising (like Lustig's obese babies) you need to change diet and liquid calories are a huge issue whether it is a soft drink, smoothie, fruit juice, big coffees etc, they do not satisfy hunger and do not provide sustained energy nor nutrition. Considering all the bad information out there, this documentary was a step on the right direction.

                              Colpo comes from a particular viewpoint, that he is fit and is a very regular exerciser and probably eats very good quality carbs, this is not the reality for most overweight people. Most people who are overweight, obese are in pain and do not exercise, for them cutting these unnecessary carbs is an essential part to fixing their system (along with the oils and flours) and a vital first step.
                              Its interesting to watch the clinicians vs. personal trainers battle. I mean thats what this really usually ends up coming down to. You have the physicians/clinicians who put a much greater emphasis on normalizing labs and hormone profiles vs a group whose emphasis is body fat percentage. Is it any wonder they can't come to terms? They are each dealing with a different subset of the population and have different goals. So you get Colpo, Lyle, and Aaron vs. Eades, Attai, and Lustig sort of thing going on. The journalists usually just end up comeing down on one of those sides. I have my own opinions, but sometimes you just gotta sit back and enjoy the bickering. Its absolutely funny. There is the group of people I find somewhat annoying.... the "couldas"... Several people got good result, normalized hormones and lab results on low carb Primal sort of eating THEN add in tators, fruit, even some sugar as they ramp up their activity levels.... then blog about how they "coulda" just done it this way all along based on their new and improved understanding of the "science". No real appreciation for the healing that had taken place to allow them this new found metabolic flexibility. Ah well, nobody says you have to dance with the one who brought you for life...just a little acknowledgement would be prudent. At the very least to stay honest with yourself about the reality of the journey.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
                                Is excess sugar the problem? Or are excess calories a problem? Why is 500 calories of excess sugar a day worse than 500 excess calories of fat a day?
                                I'm just gonna say sugar in a logical sense. As you have stated soooo many times fat is stored directly as fat correct. This implicates that less manipulation is required by the body to do so. Less processes should equate to less ROS (reactive oxidative species), less stress and use of nutrients to fuel said necessary breakdown and changes, less change and excretion of various hormones to promote storage.... ect. All and all its the least likely to cause collateral damage between the two. Excess may create weight gain, but that is not necessarily a bad thing.

                                But thats just logical thought. We could break it down biochemically and see what some research studies have to say about the matter, but I suspect we will come to the point where "quality" of fat and sugar will become an issue of debate as many studies use poor quality fats in a nutrient deplete diet same as fructose is used in extreme quantities.
                                Last edited by Neckhammer; 08-15-2013, 11:30 AM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X