101–110 of 126 posts
442/4 = 110.5+ grams of sugar, per day, every day. Before even including food. Do people really not know living like this is bad? Is this result really surprising?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That supports my claim. If they burn off the calories then they wont get fat and therefore avoid metabolic issues. My whole point is that the bodyfat is causing the issues. If sugar was the root cause then we should be seeing diabetes, etc. in these hunter-gatherer tribes.
Yeah, I should've been more clear that I was supporting what you were saying and agree with your point.
For anyone wondering, this is not an experiment, it's an epidemiological study. I've commented about it on HN before [1], but nutritional epidemiology is in its own league of shady science. If you didn't know, 80% of things you eat give you cancer [2]. That being said, sugar is bad. Main-lining sugar by drinking it in huge concentrations seems even worse! Edit: that being said, if you are doing nutritional epidemiolo…
[2] 80% of things you eat have studies correlating them with increased or decreased risk of cancer
For anyone wondering, this is not an experiment, it's an epidemiological study. I've commented about it on HN before [1], but nutritional epidemiology is in its own league of shady science. If you didn't know, 80% of things you eat give you cancer [2]. That being said, sugar is bad. Main-lining sugar by drinking it in huge concentrations seems even worse! Edit: that being said, if you are doing nutritional epidemiolo…
Which sugar is bad? Is fructose as bad as glucose?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Sugar basically doesn’t exist in nature without fiber Honey?
Would you take on a hive of bees with "caveman technology?"
For anyone wondering, this is not an experiment, it's an epidemiological study. I've commented about it on HN before [1], but nutritional epidemiology is in its own league of shady science. If you didn't know, 80% of things you eat give you cancer [2]. That being said, sugar is bad. Main-lining sugar by drinking it in huge concentrations seems even worse! Edit: that being said, if you are doing nutritional epidemiolo…
Which sugar is bad? Is fructose as bad as glucose?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sugar is not bad. Just like meat or bacon is not bad. Why would sugar on its own be bad? Obviously it's the whole lifestyle and diet that is bad. There are cyclist that carb load by eatig raw sugar and have no metabolic issues like some of the overweight diabetics do when they drink their second gallon of sugary coca cola.
I ate more sugar than anyone I knew, and in 2011 I was diagnosed with type II diabetes. I had no family history of diabetes, I was never overweight, and was always athletic. Admittedly, this is a sample set of 1, but I remain convinced that my voracious appetite for sugar played into my diagnosis. I no longer eat sugar (with the exception of fruit).
For anyone wondering, this is not an experiment, it's an epidemiological study. I've commented about it on HN before [1], but nutritional epidemiology is in its own league of shady science. If you didn't know, 80% of things you eat give you cancer [2]. That being said, sugar is bad. Main-lining sugar by drinking it in huge concentrations seems even worse! Edit: that being said, if you are doing nutritional epidemiolo…
This study appears credible for suggesting an association. The authors do not misrepresent this. They acknowledge it does not determine any causality or solutions.
Determining causality is expensive and time consuming. There is not enough research funding available to do that for every plausible hypothesis. We need retrospective studies such as this to determine where further funding should be applied.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are lots of examples that support your argument. For example, there are hunter-gatherer tribes living today that consume a significant amount of sugar (up to 60% of their calories) and don't have the same problems with obesity, diabetes, etc. I'm no expert but it seems that the human body doesn't handle bodyfat very well. Perhaps all of this negativity around sugar can be explained by the fact that sugar is cal…
> Perhaps all of this negativity around sugar can be explained by the fact that sugar is calorie-dense and calorie-dense foods tend to make people fat. Sugar is less calorie dense than fat, and this kind of naive reductionist CICO thinking would tend to support the war on fat that preceded recognition of the problems associated with sugar. It’s true that humans are not well adapted to deal with persistent surplus, bu…
Yes. I never said that it wasn't.
> naive reductionist CICO thinking
CICO is how the body works. If you absorb more calories than you burn you will gain weight. It also doesn't matter the source of the calories. We have metabolic ward studies that tell us that.
> sugary persistent surplus seems to be a particular problem
I agree. In fact one of the prevailing theories of diabetes is that fat molecules enter the cell and get in the way of insulin absorption. In other words, insulin resistance.
For anyone wondering, this is not an experiment, it's an epidemiological study. I've commented about it on HN before [1], but nutritional epidemiology is in its own league of shady science. If you didn't know, 80% of things you eat give you cancer [2]. That being said, sugar is bad. Main-lining sugar by drinking it in huge concentrations seems even worse! Edit: that being said, if you are doing nutritional epidemiolo…
I second this. Nutritional epidemiology is a crime against science and is responsible for countless deaths and billions in lost productivity, unnecessary medical treatment. Fight against nutritional epidemiology for the good of society.
Wow. Links to supporting documents?