Excellent Critique of Good Calories, Bad Calories page 3

[Mirrorball]

couch handy, regular sugar is 50% fructose.

[twa2w]

Some things to consider. Since the low fat hypothesis came out in the US, fat consumption actually went up. But refined carb consumption went up even more and the population is less active than ever inspite of what one poster above says. 35 years ago you had to get up to change channels, you would walk to the corner store - now we drive everywhere. We hire maids to clean the house and peopel to walk our dogs. We are more likely to work at a desk job. There wasn't a fast food restaurant on every corner - people actually ate most of their meals at home - most people had gardens etc etc.
Whether Taubes is right or wrong, i found his book very poorly researched and very lopsided. he had a real agenda to push so he ignored research that proved him wrong and made some really bizarre statements (none that I can recall off hand) I remember being very disappointed.

[couch handy]

couch handy, regular sugar is 50% fructose.

Yes, sucrose, a disaccharide, is 50/50 glucose and fructose. HFCS used in soft drinks is 55% fructose/45% glucose and are composed of two monosaccharides. Sucrose and HFCS digest differently.
Princeton researchers find that high-fructose corn syrup prompts considerably more weight gain

[couch handy]

What pre-war controlled studies are you referring to? I wonder what's wrong with current research?

So you haven't actually read Good Calories Bad Calories, then? If you had, you would know that pre-war Austrian and German obesity researchers had pretty much settled the science over the causes and effective treatment of obesity. The trouble with much of the contemporary science is, there isn't much that actually supports calories-in calories out or any of the public health policy that promotes it. (IIRC, there are only two papers from the 50s, the results of which have never been duplicated, that support the CICO hypothesis)

This is a good primer.

Lustig's "Sugar: the Bitter Truth" lecture if you don't want to take Taube's (a mere science writer) word for it.

[chima_p]

Wow...

Lustig is even worse than Taubes for cherry picking data.

http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/0...tose-alarmism/

Fat is not the Boogey Man.

CHO is not the Boogey Man.

Fructose is not the Boogey Man.

Insulin is not the Boogey Man.

There is NO Boogey Man.

[chima_p]

"Actually soft drink consumption (which uses HFCS primarily) grew by 135% from 1977 to 2001. A large fraction of that growth is due to kids' increased consumption. What is the fastest growing segment of the fattening population? Oh - kids. Really? Amazing. (BTW, fructose whether natural or frankensweet HCFS is very hard on the liver, responsible for elevating circulating LDL and VLDL, fatty liver, etc. Regular sugar doesn't do that.)"

Regular sugar does do this.

Even if the soda was sweetened with sugar obesity would have risen. The increase in soda represents an increase in calories since soda does not replace another calorie source. If soda replaced another source of sugar calories there would have been no increase of obesity.

[couch handy]

Thanks for the feedback. I see this place is primal in more ways than one. Does rubbing two sticks together cause fire? Please discuss.

[Chefgerry]

So you haven't actually read Good Calories Bad Calories, then? If you had, you would know that pre-war Austrian and German obesity researchers had pretty much settled the science over the causes and effective treatment of obesity. The trouble with much of the contemporary science is, there isn't much that actually supports calories-in calories out or any of the public health policy that promotes it. (IIRC, there are only two papers from the 50s, the results of which have never been duplicated, that support the CICO hypothesis)

This is a good primer.

Lustig's "Sugar: the Bitter Truth" lecture if you don't want to take Taube's (a mere science writer) word for it.

No, I though you might produce the studies......anyway those studies and all studies where self reporting of food consumed could never be used as scientific proof and the foundation for any hypothesis where caloric intake is in question. Personally I think sticking his head in the sand and cherry picking his study material in this manner is more in line with his journalistic background and only proves he's no scientist....not even close.

[Allbeef Patty]

I'm down 93 pounds. I know how I got there.

[chima_p]

I am just saying that because of Taubes misleading research there are alot of people who have somehow interperted what he has to say as "Eat as much fat as you want and lose weight!".

This is simply not what is happening. It's still about calories.