Carbohydrates

3 PAGES
1 | 2 | 3
previous topic · next topic
ClassicRocke...

Joined: Jan 13
Posts: 956

      quote  
Posted: 20 Aug 2013, 22:08
Kelpster... there is a recipe on this site similar to yours but without the almond flour. I'm going to do that one tomorrow.

***It just means being more independent and not allowing your happiness to be dependent on someone else's demanding and contentious attitudes and actions.***

Wisdom from a friend


I am willing to release the need to be unworthy. I am worthy of the very best in life and I now lovingly allow myself to accept it.
Diablo360x

Joined: Jul 11
Posts: 817

      quote  
Posted: 21 Aug 2013, 00:26
mummydee wrote:
nope, not fear mongering, do your research., learn about sugar and it's toxic nature, it's not fat that causes the problems we have it's sugar. going for a great looking muscular body is one thing, going for healthy is another..


Sugars are nothing more than carbs converted to glucose in the body. Stop.
Love your food or risk failure. No quick fixes, this is a lifestyle change. No extremes are needed just consistency.
Diablo360x

Joined: Jul 11
Posts: 817

      quote  
Posted: 21 Aug 2013, 00:34
The sugar in fruit affects us in the exact same way. Now fruit is also toxic? Please use common sense.
Love your food or risk failure. No quick fixes, this is a lifestyle change. No extremes are needed just consistency.
mummydee

Joined: Feb 10
Posts: 2,339

      quote  
Posted: 21 Aug 2013, 05:16
Processed white sugar is not the same as natural fruit sugars.

Try watching "The Men Who Make us Fat" ... just one example of a documentary showing this.

Open your mind and listen instead of mocking. no need for sarcasm or putting words in my mouth.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/magazine/mag-17Sugar-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
onedaat

Joined: Aug 12
Posts: 326

      quote  
Posted: 21 Aug 2013, 07:14
Have you seen Sugar the Bitter Truth mummydee? Here is an article about it.

Is Sugar Toxic? NYT
Quote:
On May 26, 2009, Robert Lustig gave a lecture called “Sugar: The Bitter Truth,” which was posted on YouTube the following July. Since then, it has been viewed well over 800,000 times, gaining new viewers at a rate of about 50,000 per month, fairly remarkable numbers for a 90-minute discussion of the nuances of fructose biochemistry and human physiology.

Lustig is a specialist on pediatric hormone disorders and the leading expert in childhood obesity at the University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine, which is one of the best medical schools in the country. He published his first paper on childhood obesity a dozen years ago, and he has been treating patients and doing research on the disorder ever since.

The viral success of his lecture, though, has little to do with Lustig’s impressive credentials and far more with the persuasive case he makes that sugar is a “toxin” or a “poison,” terms he uses together 13 times through the course of the lecture, in addition to the five references to sugar as merely “evil.” And by “sugar,” Lustig means not only the white granulated stuff that we put in coffee and sprinkle on cereal — technically known as sucrose — but also high-fructose corn syrup, which has already become without Lustig’s help what he calls “the most demonized additive known to man.”

It doesn’t hurt Lustig’s cause that he is a compelling public speaker. His critics argue that what makes him compelling is his practice of taking suggestive evidence and insisting that it’s incontrovertible. Lustig certainly doesn’t dabble in shades of gray. Sugar is not just an empty calorie, he says; its effect on us is much more insidious. “It’s not about the calories,” he says. “It has nothing to do with the calories. It’s a poison by itself.”

If Lustig is right, then our excessive consumption of sugar is the primary reason that the numbers of obese and diabetic Americans have skyrocketed in the past 30 years. But his argument implies more than that. If Lustig is right, it would mean that sugar is also the likely dietary cause of several other chronic ailments widely considered to be diseases of Western lifestyles — heart disease, hypertension and many common cancers among them.

The number of viewers Lustig has attracted suggests that people are paying attention to his argument. When I set out to interview public health authorities and researchers for this article, they would often initiate the interview with some variation of the comment “surely you’ve spoken to Robert Lustig,” not because Lustig has done any of the key research on sugar himself, which he hasn’t, but because he’s willing to insist publicly and unambiguously, when most researchers are not, that sugar is a toxic substance that people abuse. In Lustig’s view, sugar should be thought of, like cigarettes and alcohol, as something that’s killing us.

This brings us to the salient question: Can sugar possibly be as bad as Lustig says it is?

It’s one thing to suggest, as most nutritionists will, that a healthful diet includes more fruits and vegetables, and maybe less fat, red meat and salt, or less of everything. It’s entirely different to claim that one particularly cherished aspect of our diet might not just be an unhealthful indulgence but actually be toxic, that when you bake your children a birthday cake or give them lemonade on a hot summer day, you may be doing them more harm than good, despite all the love that goes with it. Suggesting that sugar might kill us is what zealots do. But Lustig, who has genuine expertise, has accumulated and synthesized a mass of evidence, which he finds compelling enough to convict sugar. His critics consider that evidence insufficient, but there’s no way to know who might be right, or what must be done to find out, without discussing it.

If I didn’t buy this argument myself, I wouldn’t be writing about it here. And I also have a disclaimer to acknowledge. I’ve spent much of the last decade doing journalistic research on diet and chronic disease — some of the more contrarian findings, on dietary fat, appeared in this magazine —– and I have come to conclusions similar to Lustig’s.

The history of the debate over the health effects of sugar has gone on far longer than you might imagine. It is littered with erroneous statements and conclusions because even the supposed authorities had no true understanding of what they were talking about. They didn’t know, quite literally, what they meant by the word “sugar” and therefore what the implications were.

So let’s start by clarifying a few issues, beginning with Lustig’s use of the word “sugar” to mean both sucrose — beet and cane sugar, whether white or brown — and high-fructose corn syrup. This is a critical point, particularly because high-fructose corn syrup has indeed become “the flashpoint for everybody’s distrust of processed foods,” says Marion Nestle, a New York University nutritionist and the author of “Food Politics.”

This development is recent and borders on humorous. In the early 1980s, high-fructose corn syrup replaced sugar in sodas and other products in part because refined sugar then had the reputation as a generally noxious nutrient. (“Villain in Disguise?” asked a headline in this paper in 1977, before answering in the affirmative.) High-fructose corn syrup was portrayed by the food industry as a healthful alternative, and that’s how the public perceived it. It was also cheaper than sugar, which didn’t hurt its commercial prospects. Now the tide is rolling the other way, and refined sugar is making a commercial comeback as the supposedly healthful alternative to this noxious corn-syrup stuff. “Industry after industry is replacing their product with sucrose and advertising it as such — ‘No High-Fructose Corn Syrup,’ ” Nestle notes.

But marketing aside, the two sweeteners are effectively identical in their biological effects. “High-fructose corn syrup, sugar — no difference,” is how Lustig put it in a lecture that I attended in San Francisco last December. “The point is they’re each bad — equally bad, equally poisonous.”

Refined sugar (that is, sucrose) is made up of a molecule of the carbohydrate glucose, bonded to a molecule of the carbohydrate fructose — a 50-50 mixture of the two. The fructose, which is almost twice as sweet as glucose, is what distinguishes sugar from other carbohydrate-rich foods like bread or potatoes that break down upon digestion to glucose alone. The more fructose in a substance, the sweeter it will be. High-fructose corn syrup, as it is most commonly consumed, is 55 percent fructose, and the remaining 45 percent is nearly all glucose. It was first marketed in the late 1970s and was created to be indistinguishable from refined sugar when used in soft drinks. Because each of these sugars ends up as glucose and fructose in our guts, our bodies react the same way to both, and the physiological effects are identical. In a 2010 review of the relevant science, Luc Tappy, a researcher at the University of Lausanne in Switzerland who is considered by biochemists who study fructose to be the world’s foremost authority on the subject, said there was “not the single hint” that H.F.C.S. was more deleterious than other sources of sugar.

The question, then, isn’t whether high-fructose corn syrup is worse than sugar; it’s what do they do to us, and how do they do it? The conventional wisdom has long been that the worst that can be said about sugars of any kind is that they cause tooth decay and represent “empty calories” that we eat in excess because they taste so good.

By this logic, sugar-sweetened beverages (or H.F.C.S.-sweetened beverages, as the Sugar Association prefers they are called) are bad for us not because there’s anything particularly toxic about the sugar they contain but just because people consume too many of them.

Those organizations that now advise us to cut down on our sugar consumption — the Department of Agriculture, for instance, in its recent Dietary Guidelines for Americans, or the American Heart Association in guidelines released in September 2009 (of which Lustig was a co-author) — do so for this reason. Refined sugar and H.F.C.S. don’t come with any protein, vitamins, minerals, antioxidants or fiber, and so they either displace other more nutritious elements of our diet or are eaten over and above what we need to sustain our weight, and this is why we get fatter.

Whether the empty-calories argument is true, it’s certainly convenient. It allows everyone to assign blame for obesity and, by extension, diabetes — two conditions so intimately linked that some authorities have taken to calling them “diabesity” — to overeating of all foods, or underexercising, because a calorie is a calorie. “This isn’t about demonizing any industry,” as Michelle Obama said about her Let’s Move program to combat the epidemic of childhood obesity. Instead it’s about getting us — or our children — to move more and eat less, reduce our portion sizes, cut back on snacks.

Lustig’s argument, however, is not about the consumption of empty calories — and biochemists have made the same case previously, though not so publicly. It is that sugar has unique characteristics, specifically in the way the human body metabolizes the fructose in it, that may make it singularly harmful, at least if consumed in sufficient quantities.

The phrase Lustig uses when he describes this concept is “isocaloric but not isometabolic.” This means we can eat 100 calories of glucose (from a potato or bread or other starch) or 100 calories of sugar (half glucose and half fructose), and they will be metabolized differently and have a different effect on the body. The calories are the same, but the metabolic consequences are quite different.

The fructose component of sugar and H.F.C.S. is metabolized primarily by the liver, while the glucose from sugar and starches is metabolized by every cell in the body. Consuming sugar (fructose and glucose) means more work for the liver than if you consumed the same number of calories of starch (glucose). And if you take that sugar in liquid form — soda or fruit juices — the fructose and glucose will hit the liver more quickly than if you consume them, say, in an apple (or several apples, to get what researchers would call the equivalent dose of sugar). The speed with which the liver has to do its work will also affect how it metabolizes the fructose and glucose.

In animals, or at least in laboratory rats and mice, it’s clear that if the fructose hits the liver in sufficient quantity and with sufficient speed, the liver will convert much of it to fat. This apparently induces a condition known as insulin resistance, which is now considered the fundamental problem in obesity, and the underlying defect in heart disease and in the type of diabetes, type 2, that is common to obese and overweight individuals. It might also be the underlying defect in many cancers.

If what happens in laboratory rodents also happens in humans, and if we are eating enough sugar to make it happen, then we are in trouble.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


"It is in vain to speak of cures, or think of remedies, until such time as we have considered the causes . . . cures must be imperfect, lame, and to no purpose, wherein the causes have not first been searched.”

- Robert Burton, The Anatomy of Melancholy

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

If you don't read the newspaper, you are uninformed. If you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed. - Mark Twain

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
mummydee

Joined: Feb 10
Posts: 2,339

      quote  
Posted: 21 Aug 2013, 07:36
Thanks Onedaat, that's what my link was in my previous post! Wink

and yes, i've read it and also Pure White and Deadly by John Yudkin.

I stopped consuming processed white sugar many years ago and now only use Stevia if i need to sweeten something, which isn't too often.
coffeebiscui...

Joined: Jun 13
Posts: 69

      quote  
Posted: 21 Aug 2013, 08:21
I love how when I started reading the post, I was so passionate about never having pancakes again as well, and as I read the thread, I'm already planning a pancake batter recipe in my head.

“A diet is the penalty we pay for exceeding the feed limit.” ~Unknown~
Nimm

Joined: Dec 10
Posts: 669

      quote  
Posted: 21 Aug 2013, 08:54
onedaat wrote:
In animals, or at least in laboratory rats and mice, it’s clear that if the fructose hits the liver in sufficient quantity and with sufficient speed, the liver will convert much of it to fat. This apparently induces a condition known as insulin resistance, which is now considered the fundamental problem in obesity, and the underlying defect in heart disease and in the type of diabetes, type 2, that is common to obese and overweight individuals. It might also be the underlying defect in many cancers.


The author's reliance on rat and mice data to imply much of anything about human metabolism of carbohydrate - and fructose in particular - is a serious flaw in this argument. This quote is discussing hepatic de novo lipogenesis ("DNL" ) - the conversion of dietary sugar into fatty acids by the liver.

The author says, "In animals, or at least in laboratory rats and mice, it’s clear that if the fructose hits the liver in sufficient quantity and with sufficient speed, the liver will convert much of it to fat." The problem is, the evidence isn't there to start this sentence off with "In animals." There are big differences in the degree to which species will convert dietary carbohydrate into fat - and rodents do this much, much more efficiently than humans.

See, e.g., this study that found no effect on triglyceride levels in Type 2 Diabetics until they were consuming over 60g/day of fructose: Heterogeneous Effects of Fructose on Blood Lipids in Individuals With Type 2 Diabetes

Quote:
The inability of low doses to stimulate a quantitatively meaningful DNL response may explain this threshold. Whereas DNL contributes 60–70% TG in rodents (36), it only contributes <5% TG in humans, under longer term, isocaloric, high-carbohydrate feeding conditions (37). Alternatively, the threshold may relate to the benefit of catalytic fructose doses (<10 g/meal) in decreasing acute postprandial glycemic and insulinemic responses in type 2 diabetes (38 ), mediated by increased hepatic glucose clearance via increased glycogen synthase-flux (39). The suggestion is that the benefit of fructose on carbohydrate metabolism seen at lower doses may mitigate adverse lipid effects, which require high doses to become manifest.


See also: Stable isotope methods for the in vivo measurement of lipogenesis and triglyceride metabolism:

Quote:
In contrast with humans, DNL appears to be very active and quantitatively significant in other animals. In rodents, DNL in adipose and liver can account for over 50% of fatty acids (Lee et al., 1994a; Brunengraber et al., 2003). In the pig, as much as 80% of adipose fatty acids arise from DNL (O’Hea and Leveille, 1969b). Again in contrast with humans, virtually all DNL in both pigs and cows takes place in the adipose tissue (Ballard et al., 1969; O’Hea and Leveille, 1969b). In other animals, such as chickens, the liver is the primary site of DNL (O’Hea and Leveille, 1969a). There is also species variation with respect to the preferred substrate for DNL. In ruminants, the substrate for synthesis of fatty acids in both the liver and adipose is clearly acetate as opposed to glucose (Ballard et al., 1969). This is in contrast to rodents and pigs where glucose is readily and extensively used for fatty acid synthesis in adipose (e.g., Dunshea et al., 1998 ).


Human studies of DNL show a very different result than in rodents:

De novo lipogenesis in humans: metabolic and regulatory aspects.

Quote:
Similarly, addition of CHO to a mixed diet does not increase hepatic DNL to quantitatively important levels, as long as CHO energy intake remains less than total energy expenditure (TEE). Instead, dietary CHO replaces fat in the whole-body fuel mixture, even in the post-absorptive state. Body fat is thereby accrued, but the pathway of DNL is not traversed; instead, a coordinated set of metabolic adaptations, including resistance of hepatic glucose production to suppression by insulin, occurs that allows CHO oxidation to increase and match CHO intake. Only when CHO energy intake exceeds TEE does DNL in liver or adipose tissue contribute significantly to the whole-body energy economy.


Consider the bold portions of this quote - there is controlled research evidence in humans suggesting that the the conversion of dietary CHO into fat doesn't ramp up until we are eating more carbohydrate than our total daily energy expenditure - e.g., 600g+ of carbohydrate per day.** This includes fructose.

DNL in rodents does not tell us much of anything about the metabolism of fructose in humans - experimental data show that a fairly high dietary intake is required to produce measurable adverse effects, even among type II diabetics. And the article's suggestion that in humans "much" fructose is converted by the liver into body fat (especially without meaningful quantifiers like dose, and dietary context) is simply not supported by any human data. It's contradicted by it.



** DNL in humans also ramps up during low-fat diet conditions. The low-fat fad of the 90s was driven in part by the theory that since DNL isn't a very active pathway in humans under most conditions, little fat in the diet would mean little accumulation of body fat, even in a calorie surplus....until we found that DNL increases when dietary fat is lacking. Another reason that fad was off the mark.
Diablo360x

Joined: Jul 11
Posts: 817

      quote  
Posted: 21 Aug 2013, 19:04
Nimm, great post. Here is Alan Aragon debunking this filth. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMc0_s-M08I
Love your food or risk failure. No quick fixes, this is a lifestyle change. No extremes are needed just consistency.
twinklebun

Joined: Apr 13
Posts: 41

      quote  
Posted: 22 Aug 2013, 00:21
I hate when people talk about carbs like they're some sort of demon you must avoid at all cost. Eating carbs doesn't have to mean eating brownies and pancakes. It can mean eating quinoa, brown rice, bananas, sweet potatoes, etc, all which are super foods. Carbs are not evil. Your body needs them, as long as they come from healthy unrefined sources.
onedaat

Joined: Aug 12
Posts: 326

      quote  
Posted: 22 Aug 2013, 04:34
LOL Now you know how a lot of people feel about the low-fat movement. The fact is carbs are the one macro-nutrient that the body simply does not need for survival. Try to live without fat, it's called rabbit starvation and it isn't pleasant.


***********

Let compare Alan Aragon's resume to that of Dr. Robert Lustig to figure out who might be better suited to discuss chemistry and medicine?

Quote:
He obtained a bachelors degree from MIT (1976) and an M.D. degree from Cornell University Medical College (1980). He then spent six years as a research associate in neuroendocrinology at Rockefeller University. He completed a pediatric residency at St. Louis Children's Hospital and his clinical fellowship in pediatric endocrinology at UCSF where he joined the teaching staff in 1984.[1][2] In 2013, Lustig received a Master of Studies in Law (MSL) degree from UC Hastings College of the Law.[5]

Lustig has authored over 85 research articles and 45 book chapters. He is a former chairman of the Obesity Task Force of the Pediatric Endocrine Society, a member of the Obesity Task force of The Endocrine Society, and on the Steering Committee of the International Endocrine Alliance to Combat Obesity.[1]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


"It is in vain to speak of cures, or think of remedies, until such time as we have considered the causes . . . cures must be imperfect, lame, and to no purpose, wherein the causes have not first been searched.”

- Robert Burton, The Anatomy of Melancholy

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

If you don't read the newspaper, you are uninformed. If you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed. - Mark Twain

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
kelpster

Joined: Aug 13
Posts: 5

      quote  
Posted: 22 Aug 2013, 08:45
Okay guys--don't fight--you're all pretty! Smile

Everyone has different tolerance for different kinds of carbs and for fructose. I have PCOS/IR and have been sick for ten years. Eating LCHF is the only thing that has worked not just for weight loss but to help me feel better overall--more energy, fewer to no migraines and no reflux, etc.

So to each his or her own?

And to coffeebiscuit--sorry to give you pancake fever lol!!!
Roblaw2b

Joined: Jan 12
Posts: 48

      quote  
Posted: 22 Aug 2013, 08:49
Here, here Kelpster.

As I posted yesterday, use the site and the internet to expand your understanding, not to limit it. And pay attention to how YOU react to fat/carbs/sugars.. and then make YOUR best decision what what and how much you eat to hopefully be the healthiest you you can be Smile
Diablo360x

Joined: Jul 11
Posts: 817

      quote  
Posted: 22 Aug 2013, 14:30
onedaat wrote:
LOL Now you know how a lot of people feel about the low-fat movement. The fact is carbs are the one macro-nutrient that the body simply does not need for survival. Try to live without fat, it's called rabbit starvation and it isn't pleasant.


***********

Let compare Alan Aragon's resume to that of Dr. Robert Lustig to figure out who might be better suited to discuss chemistry and medicine?

Quote:
He obtained a bachelors degree from MIT (1976) and an M.D. degree from Cornell University Medical College (1980). He then spent six years as a research associate in neuroendocrinology at Rockefeller University. He completed a pediatric residency at St. Louis Children's Hospital and his clinical fellowship in pediatric endocrinology at UCSF where he joined the teaching staff in 1984.[1][2] In 2013, Lustig received a Master of Studies in Law (MSL) degree from UC Hastings College of the Law.[5]

Lustig has authored over 85 research articles and 45 book chapters. He is a former chairman of the Obesity Task Force of the Pediatric Endocrine Society, a member of the Obesity Task force of The Endocrine Society, and on the Steering Committee of the International Endocrine Alliance to Combat Obesity.[1]


Lustig is done learning. He learned his outdated info eons ago in the science world. Aragon is a teacher and a student of new data. Lustig 0 Aragon 1.
Love your food or risk failure. No quick fixes, this is a lifestyle change. No extremes are needed just consistency.
onedaat

Joined: Aug 12
Posts: 326

      quote  
Posted: 22 Aug 2013, 14:32
You speak like someone who has very little experience with scientist. Aragon is a glorified personal trainer from a substandard school.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


"It is in vain to speak of cures, or think of remedies, until such time as we have considered the causes . . . cures must be imperfect, lame, and to no purpose, wherein the causes have not first been searched.”

- Robert Burton, The Anatomy of Melancholy

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

If you don't read the newspaper, you are uninformed. If you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed. - Mark Twain

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nimm

Joined: Dec 10
Posts: 669

      quote  
Posted: 22 Aug 2013, 15:40
Argument from authority and ad hominems have no place in the debate. It doesn't matter whether one party is a high school dropout and the other is a Nobel Prize winner - their claims should be evaluated on their merits.

If you can rebut the claims, do so. As it stands, many extremely well-credentialed people disagree with Lustig and agree with Aragon. That doesn't matter either, because the point is not who has the most letters after their name. The point is the claims each person is making, and the evidence they offer in support.

ClassicRocke...

Joined: Jan 13
Posts: 956

      quote  
Posted: 22 Aug 2013, 16:29
And can we hear an "Amen" and move on??? Please.

***It just means being more independent and not allowing your happiness to be dependent on someone else's demanding and contentious attitudes and actions.***

Wisdom from a friend


I am willing to release the need to be unworthy. I am worthy of the very best in life and I now lovingly allow myself to accept it.
onedaat

Joined: Aug 12
Posts: 326

      quote  
Posted: 22 Aug 2013, 17:10
Nimm wrote:
Argument from authority and ad hominems have no place in the debate. It doesn't matter whether one party is a high school dropout and the other is a Nobel Prize winner - their claims should be evaluated on their merits.

If you can rebut the claims, do so. As it stands, many extremely well-credentialed people disagree with Lustig and agree with Aragon. That doesn't matter either, because the point is not who has the most letters after their name. The point is the claims each person is making, and the evidence they offer in support.



Yea, it does matter it's a little thing called expertise. Argument from authority, gawd, this is something people pull out when they want to back up their degree from Google University. Argument from authority is not fallacious when the authority being referenced is actually an expert on the subject matter! Lustig is an expert in chemistry, medicine and is a specialist in obesity.

Argument from authority comes into play in a situation where, for example, a doctor of economics wants to be taken seriously while giving medical advice.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


"It is in vain to speak of cures, or think of remedies, until such time as we have considered the causes . . . cures must be imperfect, lame, and to no purpose, wherein the causes have not first been searched.”

- Robert Burton, The Anatomy of Melancholy

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

If you don't read the newspaper, you are uninformed. If you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed. - Mark Twain

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
thinner120

Joined: Sep 11
Posts: 810

      quote  
Posted: 23 Aug 2013, 00:43
Kassidy Bogard wrote:
Never again will I eat pancakes for as long as I live!!! Iv'e had enough of bread, pancakes, waffles, fiber bars, brownies, cake, ice cream, pies, dough nuts, cereal, and cookies. If I would stop eating that junk, I would be where I wanted to be, healthy and probably 15-20 lbs. lighter. So over fast food, sugar, and breads. Need to change today and for ever. Can only have a little of it on special occasions. Embarassed


If you have a sensitivity to some foods I can understand stating you will NEVER have them again. There are healthy alternatives to some of the items you have listed so you could have some of them and still eat healthy. Pancakes can be made from oatmeal ground into a flour with protein powder,cottage cheese and eggwhite,topped with berries. I have recipes for breads, cakes, cookies all made with agave nectar, almond flour, and no additives. You are right to want to cut out the white flour and white sugar. If you decide to have something for a special occasion, after eating healthy for awhile you probably won't even want those foods that you mentioned. Just know there are plenty of healthy alternatives for you to choose from. Good luck on your weight loss journey.
Stay strong, stay focused.



Start weight 259 pounds. Ultimate goal: 120 pounds.
"The food will always be there. Anything I want so badly will still be there tomorrow." Pam Turner

"The only reason you will never lose weight is if you quit trying." Kim Benson
onedaat

Joined: Aug 12
Posts: 326

      quote  
Posted: 23 Aug 2013, 06:36
Aragon says total energy consumption has gone up in the last 40 years, from 2100 calories to 2400, so why blame fructose?


Well, imagine if someone said "the total amount of water, vegetables, meat, fat and rat poisoning went up, why blame the rat poison for people dying?" Asian people have eaten carbohydrates for thousands and thousands of years without problem. They never ate much sugar though. Hmmm. No that sugar in all it's forms is being consumed more they are suddenly coming down with metabolic syndrome.

Lustig blames the fructose because he has evidence to support his hypothesis.


Aragon says 100 grams of sugar a day is fine. He doesn't balance this advice by saying "fine for those with healthy metabolisms" or by saying "maybe people with metabolic syndrome should avoid fructose." He just makes a grand statement as if everyone reacts the same to sugar.


Fructose-induced leptin resistance exacerbates weight gain in response to subsequent high-fat feeding.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18703413
Quote:
It has been suggested that increased fructose intake is associated with obesity. We hypothesized that chronic fructose consumption causes leptin resistance, which subsequently may promote the development of obesity in response to a high-fat diet. Sprague-Dawley rats were fed a fructose-free control or 60% fructose diet for 6 mo and then tested for leptin resistance. Half of the rats in each group were then switched to high-fat diet for 2 wk, while the other half continued on their respective diets. Chronic fructose consumption caused leptin resistance, while serum leptin levels, weight, and adiposity were the same as in control rats that were leptin responsive.




Fructose: A Key Factor in the Development of Metabolic Syndrome and Hypertension
http://www.hindawi.com/journals/jnume/2013/682673/

Quote:
Diabetes mellitus and the metabolic syndrome are becoming leading causes of death in the world. Identifying the etiology of diabetes is key to prevention. Despite the similarity in their structures, fructose and glucose are metabolized in different ways. Uric acid, a byproduct of uncontrolled fructose metabolism is known risk factor for hypertension. In the liver, fructose bypasses the two highly regulated steps in glycolysis, glucokinase and phosphofructokinase, both of which are inhibited by increasing concentrations of their byproducts. Fructose is metabolized by fructokinase (KHK). KHK has no negative feedback system, and ATP is used for phosphorylation. This results in intracellular phosphate depletion and the rapid generation of uric acid due to activation of AMP deaminase. Uric acid, a byproduct of this reaction, has been linked to endothelial dysfunction, insulin resistance, and hypertension. We present possible mechanisms by which fructose causes insulin resistance and suggest actions based on this association that have therapeutic implications.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


"It is in vain to speak of cures, or think of remedies, until such time as we have considered the causes . . . cures must be imperfect, lame, and to no purpose, wherein the causes have not first been searched.”

- Robert Burton, The Anatomy of Melancholy

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

If you don't read the newspaper, you are uninformed. If you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed. - Mark Twain

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



Forum Search
Advanced forum search



Latest Posts

diet "supplements"
I considered losing weight as serious however so called diets never worked. This has worked for me::: I figured losing weight and getting fit has not been a diet but a life changing event. It was a c ...
by wholefoodnut on 26 Nov 14 07:38 PM
Still Sticking to It
Still on track. Yesterday had an epic 3 1/2 hours in the garden. Was so worn out could hardly sleep. Muscles in the morning pft lol. Loved it though. Did a bit of planting today of new vegies. So hope ...
by gazu64 on 26 Nov 14 02:38 AM
pre thanksgiving workouts
yesterday 6 miles of hills chest press pushups abs battle ropes today 5 mile steady state jump squats jumping lunges ox jumps one legged box jumps lateral lunges abs trying to lose weight for the ...
by eileenguyen on 25 Nov 14 07:00 PM
Nutrimost Resonant Frequency
It's NOT worth the money. You can do a 500 calorie VLCD for Free. All the benefits you're experiencing from doing this diet is because your body has gone into KETOSIS from being on a Very Low ...
by ebivr on 25 Nov 14 02:59 PM
are you ready for the holidays?
Good luck Eileen. Sounds like you've got a good plan.
by LittleRedFlatBack on 25 Nov 14 12:44 PM