Lustig returns

[Lightbringer]

The fat man returns:

http://time.com/4087775/sugar-is-defini ... tudy-says/

Lustig and his colleagues think they’ve produced the “hard and fast data that sugar is toxic irrespective of its calories and irrespective of weight.”

“Up until now, there have been a lot of correlation studies linking sugar and metabolic syndrome,” says Lustig. “This is causation.”

How about a sugar tax ? If only we could tax stupid as well. In his own words:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... -sugar-tax

We were astonished at the results. Diastolic blood pressure decreased by five points. Blood fat levels dropped precipitously. Fasting glucose decreased by five points, glucose tolerance improved markedly, insulin levels fell by 50%. In other words we reversed their metabolic disease in just 10 days, even while eating processed food, by just removing the added sugar and substituting starch, and without changing calories or weight. Can you imagine how much healthier they would have been if we hadn’t given them the starch?

Peat did talk about his youtube lecture very briefly once. I wish he had done a detailed analysis of Lustig's statements - that would provide a compelling case to the Paleo crowd and sugar haters.

 

[Peatri Dish]

What perverse streak made me read this post!?! LOL

 

[Giraffe]

post 106124 If only we could tax stupid as well.

I once watched a TV reportage dealing with "the bitter side of sugar".

To find out how evil sugar is, the journalist started a self-experiment. She wanted to add 1,500 kcal all from sugar to her diet for four weeks, but what she really ate was a lot of junk food. Lots of fatty sweet junk food. She also stopped exercising for four weeks.

Now comes the interesting part. She had her vitals checked in hospital before and after the experiment:

After four weeks on the hypercaloric diet her glucose tolerance was decreased by 15 %, and she had gained 2.5 kg mainly around the waistline. Her doctor asked her to stop eating junk food and processed sugar and come back in two weeks.

Next doctor's visit her glucose tolerance was up by 30%. That means it was better than before the experiment.

Her conclusion: Sugar is the devil!

If only stupidity could be taxed...

 

[charlie]

Karl Denninger is leading a lot of his readers into metabolic hell. He is pretty dialed in regarding the economy stuff, but he totally blows it with his anti-carb its better to run on fat message that he is spreading. :? Karl has the typical low carb death look now. If you check his older pictures he actually looks brighter and more alive. Now he has the sunken in barely alive look, I know, I was there at one time.

Fork You

Fork You (Part 2)

Fork You (Part 3, Tying It Together)

 

[CoolTweetPete]

post 106124 The fat man returns:

http://time.com/4087775/sugar-is-defini ... tudy-says/

Lustig and his colleagues think they’ve produced the “hard and fast data that sugar is toxic irrespective of its calories and irrespective of weight.”

“Up until now, there have been a lot of correlation studies linking sugar and metabolic syndrome,” says Lustig. “This is causation.”

How about a sugar tax ? If only we could tax stupid as well. In his own words:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... -sugar-tax

We were astonished at the results. Diastolic blood pressure decreased by five points. Blood fat levels dropped precipitously. Fasting glucose decreased by five points, glucose tolerance improved markedly, insulin levels fell by 50%. In other words we reversed their metabolic disease in just 10 days, even while eating processed food, by just removing the added sugar and substituting starch, and without changing calories or weight. Can you imagine how much healthier they would have been if we hadn’t given them the starch?

Peat did talk about his youtube lecture very briefly once. I wish he had done a detailed analysis of Lustig's statements - that would provide a compelling case to the Paleo crowd and sugar haters.

Andrew Kim (brilliant mystery man) did a more detailed analysis of Lustig's ideas on fructose, specifically.

http://www.andrewkimblog.com/2013/02/qu ... ke-on.html

 

[Dan W]

Here's the full text of the new study:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 21371/full

I haven't read all of it, but I wish they'd just given the kids a controlled version of their normal diet first, rather than just trusting their food recall.

 

[Giraffe]

post 106164 Here's the full text of the new study:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 21371/full

I haven't read all of it, but I wish they'd just given the kids a controlled version of their normal diet first, rather than just trusting their food recall.

From the study:

Weight reduced by 0.9 ± 0.2 kg (P < 0.001) and fat-free mass by 0.6 kg (P = 0.04).

67 % of the weight lossed is fat-free mass.

After adjustments for both uneaten and supplementary foods, the mean self-reported intake of the study diet was 29 ± 6 kcal/kg with a macronutrient profile of 51 ± 3% carbohydrate, 16 ± 1% protein, and 33 ± 3% fat (16% saturated, 9% polyunsaturated, 13% monounsaturated).

Growing children need about twice as much.

However, there are some limitations to our paradigm. Athough inclusion of a separate external control group would have been optimal, it would have presented novel challenges of its own, such as: 1) if subjects under- or over-estimated their baseline fructose consumption, then providing them their reported daily fructose content would be problematic; 2) altering each subject's diet while trying to maintain the baseline fructose content would require changes in liquid versus solid, which may also result in caloric change, altered absorption, and altered satiety; and 3) our participants were all patients in an obesity program.

See Dan's comment above.

 

[Such_Saturation]

post 106124
How about a sugar tax ?

No dude... I just ate 0.9 pounds of sugars today, and every day.

 

[tara]

post 106177 and 33 ± 3% fat (16% saturated, 9% polyunsaturated, 13% monounsaturated)

Is this from the study? Is all their maths this good? Peer reviewed? (Or maybe I am not up with the latest trends in creative mathematics, devised to support the latest trends in creative accounting?)

post 106124 How about a sugar tax ?

There is discussion about sugar tax here, too.
I find it scary - if it is effective in reducing sugar consumption, it would likely be at the cost of increasing PUFA and poisonous artificial sweeteners, and it will make food more expensive for the people who have the least money to spend on food and push them to worse choices. And perhaps more scary is authorities (and the average person) think they know what a 'healthy' diet is for everyone. Their obsession with conquering the 'obesity epidemic', they may push more people into undereating, which may be more dangerous to health.

If I was in charge of taxation in my country, I'd take the sales tax off at least all fresh and frozen single-ingredient local fruit, juice, veges, milk, cheese, butter, eggs, meat.

 

[Giraffe]

post 106240 There is discussion about sugar tax here, too.

According to wikipedia (German only) a couple of European countries once had a sugar tax. In Germany it was abolished in 1993.

 

[tara]

post 106246 In Germany it was abolished in 1993.

Nice. Do you recall if it was abolished for primarily political reasons, or rationally based on studies showing it unhelpful for the health goals it was supposed to be about? (Though I imagine it could be a bit of both.)

 

[Giraffe]

post 106252

post 106246 In Germany it was abolished in 1993.

Nice. Do you recall if it was abolished for primarily political reasons, or rationally based on studies showing it unhelpful for the health goals it was supposed to be about? (Though I imagine it could be a bit of both.)

We have a lot of strange taxes. Our tax system is mysterious. A couple of taxes have been abolished to clean up the tax system. I assume this was the reason for getting rid of the sugar tax, but I am not sure.

 

[Such_Saturation]

It's like a bread tax, it's an old thing

 

[tara]

I have a vague hypothesis/suspicion about people growing up during war-time sugar rationing being affected by unaware moral hang-overs about it long after the scarcity is passed.

 

[Such_Saturation]

The formation of the guilt regarding sugar already happens in most childhoods. I don't know if that might be due to an older thing though. The dentistry revolution surely contributed. But anything sweet in life, even metaphorically so, is generally frowned upon.

 

[tara]

post 106144 I once watched a TV reportage dealing with "the bitter side of sugar".

To find out how evil sugar is, the journalist started a self-experiment. She wanted to add 1,500 kcal all from sugar to her diet for four weeks, but what she really ate was a lot of junk food. Lots of fatty sweet junk food. She also stopped exercising for four weeks.

Now comes the interesting part. She had her vitals checked in hospital before and after the experiment:

After four weeks on the hypercaloric diet her glucose tolerance was decreased by 15 %, and she had gained 2.5 kg mainly around the waistline. Her doctor asked her to stop eating junk food and processed sugar and come back in two weeks.

Next doctor's visit her glucose tolerance was up by 30%. That means it was better than before the experiment.

Her conclusion: Sugar is the devil!

How come that didn't get a headline saying '1500 cals of added sugar improved glucose tolerance by 30%'? Seems at least as logical.

 

[tara]

post 106273 The formation of the guilt regarding sugar already happens in most childhoods.

Yes, but I was taught it by my parents, both of whom were children during sugar (and other) rationing.

post 106273 The dentistry revolution surely contributed.

Yeah.

 

[Giraffe]

post 106269 I have a vague hypothesis/suspicion about people growing up during war-time sugar rationing being affected by unaware moral hang-overs about it long after the scarcity is passed.

Most old people I know do not restrict sugar. I guess that it is lobbyists and overblown physicians/nutritionists who push this.

Do you know what "Lustig" means in German? = funny

 

[tara]

post 106284 Do you know what "Lustig" means in German? = funny

Yeah.

 

[michael94]

First off this study was done on obese children

Participants were sent home with 9 days of food (...) The menu was planned to restrict added sugar, while substituting other carbohydates such as those in fruit, bagels, cereal, pasta, and bread so that the percentage of calories consumed from carbohydrate was consistent with their baseline diet, but total dietary sugar and fructose were reduced to 10% and 4% of totalcalories, respectively.

They likely replaced low nutrient sucrose and likely some HFCS sources to fruit/carbs sources with better micros. Note that the children also lost more lean body mass than they did fat, which was not statistically significant. Also no control group and self-reporting is always problematic. Crap study