Is sugar toxic? - 60 minutes

[quote]endofallclarity wrote:
i was kinda confused on the cancer shuttling glucose to themselves via insulin receptors. Glucose is very good for you. It essentially powers you. Are they saying insulin spikes caused by excess sugar create insulin receptors in tumors, then the receptors on tumors shut off when we eat whole food like nuts or veggies? Doesn’t make too much sense. You have glucose in your system regardless of whether you eat good or bad food. Otherwise we wouldn’t survive.[/quote]

What they are saying is that the tumors evolved to contain insulin receptors. If you eat foods that result in large amounts of insulin being released this is going to trigger the receptors on the tumor allowing it access to large amounts of glucose. If you eat say a high protein and fat meal that results in very low insulin levels you can reduce or cut off the supply of glucose to the tumor by not activating the insulin receptors.

Yes we always have glucose circulating in our system, but we don’t always have insulin circulating. The key is to prevent the release of lots of insulin that triggers the receptors on the tumor allowing the glucose uptake.

It’s clear to anyone with any basic understanding of human physiology, as well as proper trial studies that there are various flaws in that particular study. I’m tired of the fear mongering…the key to anything is moderation.

If you’d like me to go over why this study simple does not apply to basically anyone on this forum…then I shall do so.

[quote]facko wrote:
It’s clear to anyone with any basic understanding of human physiology, as well as proper trial studies that there are various flaws in that particular study. I’m tired of the fear mongering…the key to anything is moderation.

If you’d like me to go over why this study simple does not apply to basically anyone on this forum…then I shall do so.[/quote]

I really despsise the phrase “in moderation”… what is exactly is moderation?

btw- what study are you referring to?

[quote]facko wrote:
It’s clear to anyone with any basic understanding of human physiology, as well as proper trial studies that there are various flaws in that particular study. I’m tired of the fear mongering…the key to anything is moderation.

If you’d like me to go over why this study simple does not apply to basically anyone on this forum…then I shall do so.[/quote]

Proceed…

The only thing that gets moderation right is Mother Nature. If it’s not self-limiting such as vegetables for instance you’ve already lost despite your best intentions to police yourself.

I love it when somebody picks a science-fight with MODOK

[quote]caveman101 wrote:
I love it when somebody picks a science-fight with MODOK[/quote]

LMAO

Hehe^^

I’ve been reading some of the transcripts of the video and the idea of ‘isocaloric not isometabolic’ caught me. As I read it the concept states that if fructose reaches the liver in sufficient amounts, it is converted to fat, causing insulin resistance etc.

It also states that this does not apply to fruit consumption due to fiber slowing digestion. What is not clear is what constitutes ‘sufficient’ in this case. I seem to recall Lustig mentioning that the upper limit should be 150 cals of added sugar a day but can’t find the source.

I’m curious as to whether this value has any credibility as presumably if all those cals were consumed in one sitting, it would have a markedly different effect to say 3x 50cal servings.

Any thoughts on this? Or on limits of added sugar consumption?

[quote]MAF14 wrote:

[quote]Powerpuff wrote:
Foods that are deemed more “palatable” by the food industry are foods that people want to KEEP eating, or can’t put down. Usually they are high in sugar, fat, and salt.
[/quote]

I remember reading about how food manufactures spent millions on finding THE most addictive ratio of salt:sugar:fat.[/quote]

Absolutely. That’s why those Jalapeno Cheddar Cheetos are like CRACK! LOL!

And so much of the packaging is tricky. For example, if a food contains more sugar than any other ingredient then sugar must be listed first on the label, according to federal guidelines. That’s why you will see breakfast cereals with ingredient lists that read like this: oats, sugar, fructose, high-fructose corn syrup, honey, molasses, brown sugar. Misleading, right? If you add all the sugars together, they’d be listed first.

The part about Ranch dressing was really fascinating. It’s by far the most popular salad dressing in America. High in fat and salt as you might guess, but also SUGAR. Lots of it. No wonder kids want to dip everything in it.

About Ranch dressing, from today’s WSJ.

See if this product doesn’t gross you out.

“Currently Hidden Valley for Everything needs to be refrigerated after opening. The company is working on a nonperishable recipe.”

Condiments that have been in the fridge too long, yuck. Imagine this stuff that doesn’t even need to go in the fridge. You know that’s got to be good for you. They’d like to see everyone putting it on hamburgers, chips, sandwiches, and …wait for it…pizza. :slight_smile:

[quote]facko wrote:
It’s clear to anyone with any basic understanding of human physiology, as well as proper trial studies that there are various flaws in that particular study. I’m tired of the fear mongering…the key to anything is moderation.

If you’d like me to go over why this study simple does not apply to basically anyone on this forum…then I shall do so.[/quote]

are you an ectomorph? ever been fat?

[quote]roon12 wrote:
Hehe^^

I’ve been reading some of the transcripts of the video and the idea of ‘isocaloric not isometabolic’ caught me. As I read it the concept states that if fructose reaches the liver in sufficient amounts, it is converted to fat, causing insulin resistance etc.

It also states that this does not apply to fruit consumption due to fiber slowing digestion. What is not clear is what constitutes ‘sufficient’ in this case. I seem to recall Lustig mentioning that the upper limit should be 150 cals of added sugar a day but can’t find the source.

I’m curious as to whether this value has any credibility as presumably if all those cals were consumed in one sitting, it would have a markedly different effect to say 3x 50cal servings.

Any thoughts on this? Or on limits of added sugar consumption?[/quote]

This was one of the things I really liked about his appearance on 60 Mins; he was clear that a few servings a day of solid fruit is not the problem at all. It’s that our ancestors only got sweet taste from a little fruit, with always fiber, vitamins, and enzymes along with it; so, our brains interpret that sweet taste as signifying the nutrition. The food engineers use this to trick us into gobbling junk food.

a guy named gnolls wrote a great article on this:

[quote]wannabebig250 wrote:

[quote]facko wrote:
It’s clear to anyone with any basic understanding of human physiology, as well as proper trial studies that there are various flaws in that particular study. I’m tired of the fear mongering…the key to anything is moderation.

If you’d like me to go over why this study simple does not apply to basically anyone on this forum…then I shall do so.[/quote]

are you an ectomorph? ever been fat?[/quote]

A clear majority need to restrict total carbs to less than half of total cals, with severe restriction of wheat and sugar (most Americans got roughly 45% carb, 40% fat before the obesity epidemic). The phrase “everything in moderation” has done enormous harm to many of my fellow humans.

also, all the fat powerlifters prove that just lifting weights doesn’t magically make carbs not fattening for most people.

EDIT: I did not mean to imply that all powerlifters are fat, or even most; I really don’t know what the percentage is. But there are more than a few.

[quote]Jeffrey of Troy wrote:

[quote]wannabebig250 wrote:

[quote]facko wrote:
It’s clear to anyone with any basic understanding of human physiology, as well as proper trial studies that there are various flaws in that particular study. I’m tired of the fear mongering…the key to anything is moderation.

If you’d like me to go over why this study simple does not apply to basically anyone on this forum…then I shall do so.[/quote]

are you an ectomorph? ever been fat?[/quote]

A clear majority need to restrict total carbs to less than half of total cals, with severe restriction of wheat and sugar (most Americans got roughly 45% carb, 40% fat before the obesity epidemic). The phrase “everything in moderation” has done enormous harm to many of my fellow humans.

also, all the fat powerlifters prove that just lifting weights doesn’t magically make carbs not fattening for most people.[/quote]

lol thats exactly what i was getting at. i know i have to restrict carbs and concentrate on good fats and quality protein or i get fat, no matter how much i lift or how many hours of cardio i do.

the way facko talks you can just tell hes an ectomorph who can eat whatever he wants and not put on fat. and by using his mentality and trying to spread the joy of “evertyhing in moderation” to an endormorph, hes just making himself look stupid.

LOLOL ecto??

[quote]wannabebig250 wrote:

[quote]Jeffrey of Troy wrote:

[quote]wannabebig250 wrote:

[quote]facko wrote:
It’s clear to anyone with any basic understanding of human physiology, as well as proper trial studies that there are various flaws in that particular study. I’m tired of the fear mongering…the key to anything is moderation.

If you’d like me to go over why this study simple does not apply to basically anyone on this forum…then I shall do so.[/quote]

are you an ectomorph? ever been fat?[/quote]

A clear majority need to restrict total carbs to less than half of total cals, with severe restriction of wheat and sugar (most Americans got roughly 45% carb, 40% fat before the obesity epidemic). The phrase “everything in moderation” has done enormous harm to many of my fellow humans.

also, all the fat powerlifters prove that just lifting weights doesn’t magically make carbs not fattening for most people.[/quote]

lol thats exactly what i was getting at. i know i have to restrict carbs and concentrate on good fats and quality protein or i get fat, no matter how much i lift or how many hours of cardio i do.

the way facko talks you can just tell hes an ectomorph who can eat whatever he wants and not put on fat. and by using his mentality and trying to spread the joy of “evertyhing in moderation” to an endormorph, hes just making himself look stupid.[/quote]

What bothers me about this board (lately) is the group think that goes on. I post a rather conservative statement on the topic of moderation and I get blasted. People assuming I’m an “ectomorph”…that I eat whatever the fuck I want all the time in whatever quantities I want. Then, the vindictive nature of the “lolz I love when people pick science fights with MODOK” …I’m not picking science fights with anyone. I don’t pick fights. I’m deciding to remain calm and try to explain my previous statements in hope that they will be received by you guys with some level of sanity and logic.

Firstly, I’ll address what I meant by “moderation” in the context of this topic. Perhaps I’ll explain it in terms of how I eat. That way you will understand what I mean and realize at the same time that I don’t eat poptarts for the entirety of my carbohydrate consumption. Maybe this will HELP clear up some vast misconceptions of what if it fits your macros is or flexible eating is about. There seems to be a ton of miscommunication between the camps of those who are more on the IIFYM side and those who are basically complete “bro/clean” eaters. This is how I set it up for me and how it SHOULD be set up: In terms of macronutrients…I account for protein first at around 1g of protein per lb of BW at least (this is the minimum, sometimes I exceed this)…I then account for me EFAs at around 0.45g per lb of BW at least. Now I fill in the rest of my calorie needs with carbs for the most part OR sometimes a mixture of more fat/carbs/protein depending on the day etc. But, I stay within my caloric needs for my goals…I never go under my EFA or protein needs. Even more important: I ALWAYS ACCOUNT FOR MY MICRONUTRIENTS…DAILY. I make sure on a daily basis that my micronutrients are being met through my food intake.

Looking at the above, we must realize that it would be pretty difficult for me, if not impossible, to meet my micronutrient needs by eating only cereal and protein powder. Therefore, you must deduce that a majority of my food consumption is by way of what I would consider whole food sources i.e. animal meats (lean and fatty depending on the day), copious amounts of fibrous green veg, some fruit, starch based carbohydrates such as white rice, white potatoes, sweet potatoes, oats. That makes up about 80% of my overall caloric consumption…the remainder after my needs are addressed MAY be in the form of “non-typical bodybuilding foods” i.e. poptarts etc.

If you read the above two paragraphs and still cannot see the sanity in such and what I mean by “moderation”, then I believe our differences in perception are too vast for us to ever see eye to eye on the subject. I read the above two paragraphs and see nutritional responsibility as well as a more psychologically healthy/less stressful approach to diet.

In regards to the 60 minutes special. I’m referring to the study that was MENTIONED in the program. They basically took a bunch of college kids, kept them in a hospital and controlled what they consumed over some weeks. Firstly, for a period of time they made sure there was no sugar within their diets. Then they increased sugar intake to 25% of their daily total calorie intake. Problem 1: completely sedentary. No this is not a cop out…frequent weight training and/or athletics does make a rather large difference. Problem 2: 25% of their daily totals - sugar…50% of their total carbohydrate intake -sugar. Come on…this should be completely unrealistic in regards to ANY of US on this board or involved in a bodybuilding lifestyle. This type of nutrition behavior only applies to those who don’t give 1 single FUCK about what they consume on a daily basis. This does NOT apply to us. At least it shouldn’t apply to us. I count my macros every single day to as much of an exact that I can manage in real terms, therefore I KNOW it doesn’t apply to me.

So…what does this tell me: When you are fed a STANDARD American diet and you don’t exercise/are entirely sedentary, then you are far greater risk for heart disease, diabetes, obesity, and cancer. Common sense. Perhaps, you hate the term “common sense” as much as you hate the term “moderation”?

I feel that the overarching attitude amongst those within the fitness community as shifted towards or at least is nearing orthorexic eating behavior. Fervent, over-zealous opposition and irrational avoidance of certain foods as if they will immediately make you fat and kill you if they hit your lips. From my perception, this does not seem sane, nor psychologically healthy, nor logical.

I think it is important to understand that “sugar is toxic” concept is one line of research. There are many other lines of research, with just as much backing, but if you believe that idea is most important then naturally you will concentrate it. There is nothing wrong with that. In fact, I would encourage it. However, I would worn you not to immediately flame other ideas based solely on the fact that they do not align with yours. It is, of course, ok to disagree scientifically or on the clinical importance of that idea.

Based on the above, I don’t think anyone would disagree with the idea that sugar can be detrimental to people’s health and should be limited. In my opinion, it’s not necessary to extend that idea to limiting carbohydrate consumption. I disagree, on a scientific basis, with some of the concepts used to derive that concept and I disagree with the clinical importance of taking it that far. ← Remember, this is only from my perspective. I am not ignorant of the literature; I just think other avenues are more important.

But to further this discussion, I would like to ask a scientific question. I am particularly interested if MODOK could offer something, but anybody can offer answers. So here goes: Much work has been done which suggests fructose can induce significant metabolic dysfunction, but the mechanism has been controversial. Does anybody want to offer any opinions?
I am not so much a fan of the lipogenesis->DAG->PKC pathway as (in rodents) some peripheral tissues can be affected just as fast as the liver.

8 paragraphs to explain your rationale on eating in moderation.

or simply eat real food, problem solved :wink:

Tolerance for what you can get away with in terms of junk calories changes over time for a lot of us. You’ll seldom find a very lean person in their 40’s who is eating the typical American diet. That doesn’t mean that food isn’t harming them. What doesn’t make you fat may still be setting up insulin resistance and other health problems down the road.

I have good genes in terms of fat. You can look at my family tree, and you won’t find one single blood relative that is overweight. Not one. And it’s a huge family - My mom was one of 9, and my dad was one of 5 kids so I have tons of aunts, uncles and cousins.

BUT - if you look at my family you will find quite a few people with Type II Diabetes, high cholesterol, high blood pressure, and colon cancer. I have to wonder how much of that could be avoided.

1 - Your post actually came off very condescendingly.

2 - Several people disagreeing with you is not “group think”.

3 - The study absolutely does apply to every human being, including lifters, but no not to the extent that it affected the patients.

4 - Why are you talking in that context? It only makes your tone sound more superior.