Sugar

[Sbee]

The artificial sweeteners can have negative side effects depending on the individual as well, so while that may help some people, it can also be a big negative for others (can have impact on sugar levels resulting in increased insulin, which triggers the body into thinking it needs more sugar for proper balance, but person then takes in more artificial stuff and the body pumps out more insulin, and the cycle continues).

While sugar is a chemical, it is a "natural" chemical the body is designed to ingest and process. Yes there can be overloads and too much of anything is not healthy. However, some studies indicate that there are a few types of cinnamon that can help naturally balance a sugar overload.

So much we do not understand yet. I knew they were doing gut bacteria studies, but until Gulo's post did not know the info he provided. Still, I'm a tad gun shy these days when we are constantly dealing with scientific studies that contradict each other. Obviously you have to consider the source, right? The anti-sugar scientists are going to produce their data points and potentially say "use artificial sweeteners" while the pro-sugar lobby is going to say "artificial sweeteners and HF corn syrup are unhealthy" and the corn grower lobby is going to say all of that data is skewed hogwash and so on.

It gets very difficult to determine the difference between "real" and "junk" science these days. Just look at all the people who refuse to have their children vaccinated due to a bogus link to autism. It only takes an accredited slimeball scientist to create mass hysteria, and now we have the return of diseases that were at one point virtually non-existent in the US.

We are too caught up currently in trying to black/white everything and have lost sight of fact that each individual is unique. Sure they can be grouped loosely together, but no group should be put forth as an all-defining one, which means it must be the responsibility of each person to determine what is best/worst for them and for once hold themselves accountable for their actions.

I'd consider aspartame chemical poison, worse tha ln sugar. It took years to approve by the fda, it want until Regan was president that he finally pushed it through. Gd Searle invented it and their president Donald rumsfeld re applied right after the inaugural, the new fda head had to change the panel from 5 to 6 since it wa s deadlock so he could break the tie, the Searle sold 500 million in the first year it was legal.

 

[Gulo Blue]

Of course that's a small number but I'm positive there are many health benefits of cutting out sugar, not just weight loss.

This does make me think about what bullshit counting calories is. Calories in calories out essentially says your better off eating 2400 calories of skittles vs 2500 calories of protien, vegetables, and fruits.

Of course coke and Pepsi want you to believe this so they can just sell you shit loads of diet soda. Who cares if you ingest excitotoxons that stimulate your brain cells to death, you're saving calories.

Counting calories works like a champ for the vast majority of people with regard to controlling weight.

It says nothing about nutrition.

That doesn't make it bullshit. That's like saying scales are bullshit because if you weigh out a pound, you might get a pound of the thing you want, or you might get a pound of something you don't want.

 

[Gulo Blue]

FYI, the body can take 3 years to fully adjust to a new calories/exercise level. This body mass simulator represents the state of the art in calorie counting:

http://www.niddk.nih.gov/research-f...ht-simulator/Pages/body-weight-simulator.aspx

 

[Sbee]

Counting calories works like a champ for the vast majority of people with regard to controlling weight.

It says nothing about nutrition.

That doesn't make it bullshit. That's like saying scales are bullshit because if you weigh out a pound, you might get a pound of the thing you want, or you might get a pound of something you don't want.

It's misleading at a minimum, if you limit calories you limit a lot of other things including sugar so in a way that does work. I just think you'd transform your body a lot easier by following the WHO'S recommendation on sugar. The same goes with gastric bypass, you eat less but you also eat less sugar.

You also have a much better chance of sticking with a diet that changes what you eat vs one where you eat a lot less.

 

[Gulo Blue]

It's misleading at a minimum

What exactly do you think is misleading?

 

[Sbee]

What exactly do you think is misleading?

calories in calories out doesn't tell the whole story, that's why i say it's misleading. If all things stay the same and I eat one life saver each day then i'll eventually be obese?

Also, different foods affect the body differently and dictate weight loss. A diet with a lot of protein and vegetables will cause you to lose more weight than eating less calories but all carbs and sugars. your body is going to produce more insulin to turn these carbs and sugars into energy, the insulin tells your body that plenty of energy is available and you start storing it instead of burning it. that insulin surge depletes your body of and then your insulin and blood sugar drop and it makes you hungry again. that's why you're hungry not too long after eating a twix bar but you can eat the same calories in almonds or beef jerky and you'll stay fuller longer.

 

[tigermud]

Sugar is toxic

http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/is-sugar-toxic/