Page 16 of 33 FirstFirst ... 6141516171826 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 160 of 327

Thread: Thoughtd on this article about Sugar page 16

  1. #151
    Cookie`'s Avatar
    Cookie` Guest
    Shop Now
    Quote Originally Posted by Zach View Post
    Both of you are low carb and both give off very menopausal vibes. Also i doubt either of you are "at maintenance".
    Go brush your teeth.

  2. #152
    JoanieL's Avatar
    JoanieL is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    It's not the heat, it's the stupidity.
    Posts
    9,006
    Quote Originally Posted by j3nn View Post
    Are you saying there are more unintelligent people on this forum than intelligent people?
    Well, intelligence is kind of a bell curve. You've got the "average" folks who make up the fat part of the curve, then at either end you've got the below and above averages, and then at the tippy tippy ends you have lower functioning and geniuses.

    So if you're asking if there are more average and less intelligent people than intelligent people, then yes. However I don't think there are many people without intelligence (unintelligent) here since at the very least, everyone can manage to communicate through a keyboard, and that takes some intelligence even if it's not a lot.
    "Right is right, even if no one is doing it; wrong is wrong, even if everyone is doing it." - St. Augustine

    B*tch-lite

    Who says back fat is a bad thing? Maybe on a hairy guy at the beach, but not on a crab.

  3. #153
    j3nn's Avatar
    j3nn is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Manhattan, NY
    Posts
    4,100
    I think there's far more above average intelligence on this forum than others.
    | My (food) Blog | Follow me on Facebook | Pinterest | Twitter |

    “It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.” - Samuel Adams

  4. #154
    JoanieL's Avatar
    JoanieL is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    It's not the heat, it's the stupidity.
    Posts
    9,006
    And I think this forum is representative of the population at large. No way to prove either really.
    "Right is right, even if no one is doing it; wrong is wrong, even if everyone is doing it." - St. Augustine

    B*tch-lite

    Who says back fat is a bad thing? Maybe on a hairy guy at the beach, but not on a crab.

  5. #155
    j3nn's Avatar
    j3nn is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Manhattan, NY
    Posts
    4,100
    It depends which threads you read and who participates in them. I do think the general atmosphere leans more on the intellectual side of the spectrum though. The general population isn't discussing metabolic pathways or homeostasis as a hobby like many here do. It can be a rather boring place to anyone not interested in science. It's nothing like other "health" sites, IMO.
    | My (food) Blog | Follow me on Facebook | Pinterest | Twitter |

    “It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.” - Samuel Adams

  6. #156
    magicmerl's Avatar
    magicmerl is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    3,227
    Quote Originally Posted by 0Angel0 View Post
    It's not even a Primal Blueprint forum but has been taken over by loudmouth sugar lovers. Being loud, obnoxious, and posting a lot doesn't make you more right.
    Yup

    Quote Originally Posted by jakejoh10 View Post
    Please provide a meta-analysis showing that you don't hate sugar. Until then, everything you say is completely wrong.
    So, your aim is to beat the trolls at their own game eh?

    @OP: When I first watched Lustig's the bitter truth I thought it was fairly damning, but I've since found that he essentially distorted the science by presenting studies showing how bad high levels of pure fructose are on the body, and implying (or at least, so it seemed to me) that the same thing happened when you eat fruit or sucrose. That's misleading at best. Lustig actually advocates eating fruit, but you wouldn't know it based on the presentation he gives on sugar.

    There's reciprocal misleading posts from the 'pro-sugar' camp, where people talk about how much they love 'sugar', but they are basically trolling the forums because typically they are eating fruits, not straight sugar.

    And of course, both sides are dogmatically entrenched with their WOE, so good luck trying to convince them of anything.
    Last edited by magicmerl; 09-17-2013 at 03:18 PM.
    Disclaimer: I eat 'meat and vegetables' ala Primal, although I don't agree with the carb curve. I like Perfect Health Diet and WAPF Lactofermentation a lot.

    Griff's cholesterol primer
    5,000 Cal Fat <> 5,000 Cal Carbs
    Winterbike: What I eat every day is what other people eat to treat themselves.
    TQP: I find for me that nutrition is much more important than what I do in the gym.
    bloodorchid is always right

  7. #157
    Cookie`'s Avatar
    Cookie` Guest
    Looking at blog images I wonder how sugar has affected the skin, hair and waistline. Interesting

  8. #158
    Euphoric's Avatar
    Euphoric is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    130
    Outside of various comments made on sugar being a drug, I don't see anything necessarily in this article worth note. I don't see any references. The use of soda cans being used on the front page is also quite interesting too, as most of our sodas contain HFCS, not sugar. Similarly, many cookie brands use the same, although some may of course, use sugar as well, but I doubt it really matters at this point.

    Mr Van der Velpen cites research claiming that sugar, unlike fat or other foods, interferes with the body's appetite creating an insatiable desire to carry on eating, an effect he accuses the food industry of using to increase consumption of their products.
    "Sugar upsets that mechanism. Whoever uses sugar wants more and more, even when they are no longer hungry. Give someone eggs and he'll stop eating at any given time. Give him cookies and he eats on even though his stomach is painful," he argued.
    From a calorie standpoint, cookies contain roughly equal amounts of fat and carbohydrate. Comparing an item that is largely fat and protein to an item that is mostly fat and carbohydrate sounds fishy. Anyone who keeps eating past stomach upset is either crazy, or stupid.

    Quote Originally Posted by j3nn View Post
    Sugar is a supplement and in context, it is harmless. If you are displacing nutrient-dense foods for it then, just like coconut oil or butter, it can be detrimental. Context is everything. There are no black and whites in the matter. It's neither an inherent health food or an inherent poison. Nutrient-dense foods first, supplements, like sodium and sugar, at your discretion.
    This. I have yet to find anything inherently toxic about sugar on it's own. It is, however, very easy to abuse, especially in drinks and other high calorie, low nutrient foods, such as essentially every pastry ever made. However, even there, it can be controlled, but I don't know many people who got obese because they were counting their calories.

    Edit: Off topic, but j3nn, whenever I see your name on here, I end up pronouncing it as Jay Threen.

  9. #159
    Cookie`'s Avatar
    Cookie` Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by magicmerl View Post
    @OP: When I first watched Lustig's the bitter truth I thought it was fairly damning, but I've since found that he essentially distorted the science by presenting studies showing how bad high levels of pure fructose are on the body, and implying (or at least, so it seemed to me) that the same thing happened when you eat fruit or sucrose. That's misleading at best. Lustig actually advocates eating fruit, but you wouldn't know it based on the presentation he gives on sugar.

    There's reciprocal misleading posts from the 'pro-sugar' camp, where people talk about how much they love 'sugar', but they are basically trolling the forums because typically they are eating fruits, not straight sugar.

    And of course, both sides are dogmatically entrenched with their WOE, so good luck trying to convince them of anything.
    When I watched that video way back I got that he advocated eating fruit over fructose because the fruit contains fiber and micro nutrients whereas fructose provided nothing but a kick in the liver.

    From a calorie standpoint, cookies contain roughly equal amounts of fat and carbohydrate. Comparing an item that is largely fat and protein to an item that is mostly fat and carbohydrate sounds fishy. Anyone who keeps eating past stomach upset is either crazy, or stupid.
    It's very easy to polish off 6 or 12 cookies. Unless they're crappy commercial cookies like oreos good cookies practically melt in your mouth and can be devoured in seconds so it is very easy to overeat. You could be full but it doesn't have time to register in the brain. The same can't be said for apples. Try to eat 6-12 apples. If the acidity in the apples doesn't eat away at your mouth first you'll certainly be tired chewing them.
    Last edited by Cookie`; 09-17-2013 at 03:28 PM.

  10. #160
    jakejoh10's Avatar
    jakejoh10 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    California
    Posts
    882
    Learn More
    Thanks for addressing the studies.

    Quote Originally Posted by 0Angel0 View Post
    This is just a calories in = calories out piece. Nothing ground breaking on the health benefits of sugar, no addressing the fact that calorie math is wrong, no taking into account the metabolic issues of a high sugar vs high fat diet. Weaksauce, in other words.
    What metabolic issues are you referring to? Quite a broad statement there. And yes, the study shows that one can lose weight on a high sugar diet, which seems to be groundbreaking news to some.

    I do agree that when isolating or purifying sugars down to their individual components, glucose, fructose, etc it is a different ball game but "sugar", in real life context, is glucose and fructose. Real life consumption of sugar, whether cane, beet, or HFCS includes both. Nobody is eating isolated glucose (unless you're getting an IV or something) and most people now know that isolated fructose is terrible for you. I don't even think diabetics use that anymore do they?
    So why do you say Lustig's points are sound? He consistently cites studies using extreme amounts of pure fructose.

    this link isn't working for me
    Odd. It's a Google Doc, that's probably why.

    Did you actually read this article?

    All you can conclude from this study is that a controlled (key word!) low calorie low fat diet will make fat women lose weight. A six week diet that showed no health benefits or problems from a low fat but high sucrose vs low sucrose diet is shaky ground to be claiming sugar is a healthy thing, don't you think? And did you read the sample menus? Gross! Even six weeks of that crap food isn't long enough to show serious health problems.
    Yes. And again, I'm not citing any kind of amazing new info here, so if that's what you're looking for, you might want to fast forward a few million years to a point in time when we've got it all figured out. Anyways, it just shows that you can lose weight on a high sugar diet, that sugar is not inherently fattening.

    Claiming that exercise increases your tolerance to all carbohydrates via glycogen storage is a far cry from claiming sugar is a necessary health food and people should be eating a lot of it.
    This is a strawman, and you know why. I've never said people should be eating a lot of sugar. But people do, and they have seen benefits. Again, I never said sugar is a "necessary health food".

    Exercise can cancel out a lot of immediate harmful effects from a poor diet. It's a great reason to work out but less than compelling one to eat tons of sugar. There is a difference.
    Another strawman. See above.

    I don't have time to read the rest of your posts right now but I will. I appreciate you taking time to post full texts instead of slapping an abstract in a post and hoping the big works and scientific jargon intimidate your opponent into giving up. I remain unimpressed as to the health benefits of going out of ones way to include lots of sugar in your diet. "Lots" meaning purified sugar more than you would be exposed to in moderate amounts of fruits and vegetables.
    I will check the rest of your links later to see if they change my mind.
    No problem. I don't expect to impress you or change your mind. We all have some sort of bias, whether it becomes dogmatic or not is what makes the difference.

    Like anything else, it comes down to what works for you. If someone eats loads of sugar, fruit, carbs, and dairy and their health markers are improving and they feel awesome, you can go fuck yourself if you think they should change it (not talking to you, but to anyone). And the same applies in the other direction. If you're having health issues, find what works and stick to it, but realize that not everyone will benefit from the same methods.

    Holy shit this thread has gone to hell.
    My nutrition/fitness/critical thinking blog:

Page 16 of 33 FirstFirst ... 6141516171826 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •