71–77 of 77 posts
Dr Lustig has been promoting this idea for many years. The problem is that he's doing it very unscientifically. He vastly overstates his evidence and makes claims of certainty that the science doesn't support. I'm interested to see what replies his recent Nature publication receives.
His test does not support his conclusion.
OK, let's try this: Is honey toxic?
I found Dr Lustig's talk enlightening because I always thought of it simply as input -> output (sucrose -> glucose). In retrospect, it's obvious that the bio-checmial process your body uses to convert that is pretty darn important. However, as cool as it is to get re-introduced to things like ATP and Krebs Cycle, the driving message we get from experts has been a constant for a long time: avoid processed foods. It's…
What is considered "unprocessed" foods at the grocer? Raw beans, rice, whole grain wheat? Is the ground beef/deli meat "unprocessed" by your definition? Serious question. My impression is that anything not cut from an animal myself is processed by some harmful additive, so I've given up.
Gluten is one aspect of this, but there are apparently a whole range of other things which can impact your digestion, prevent nutrient uptake, etc.
Is there seriously anyone left at this point who doesn't think sugar is toxic?
I think "toxic" is a strong word. Sugar occurs naturally in fruit which is relatively healthy and sugar in moderation (ie, not added) is completely fine.
I looked around a bit further and it's even clearer that sugar, sucrose, fructose, etc, by themselves are not poisons.
Here is a video from Dr. Robert Lustig about sugars. It is an hour and a half long but very informative. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM After watching it, I've considerably reduced my sugar intake. I still drink soft drinks during lunch/dinner, but I am slowly weaning myself off them and onto water/tea and other better alternatives.
I watched that a while ago and I remember him talking about the amount of salt in a Coke, as though it were a conspiracy of some kind. But Coke has very little salt -- about 45 mg. So the rest of the talk seemed to be colored with a conspiratorial tone, from my perspective. Am I wrong to be so dismissive?
This tells me nothing. 45mg per 100ml? Or per serving (usually 250ml)?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think "toxic" is a strong word. Sugar occurs naturally in fruit which is relatively healthy and sugar in moderation (ie, not added) is completely fine.
Not sure why the downvotes. I looked around a bit further and it's even clearer that sugar, sucrose, fructose, etc, by themselves are not poisons.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I watched that a while ago and I remember him talking about the amount of salt in a Coke, as though it were a conspiracy of some kind. But Coke has very little salt -- about 45 mg. So the rest of the talk seemed to be colored with a conspiratorial tone, from my perspective. Am I wrong to be so dismissive?
>But Coke has very little salt -- about 45 mg. This tells me nothing. 45mg per 100ml? Or per serving (usually 250ml)?
It doesn't really make much difference. It's a small amount of salt for any reasonable level of consumption unless you are really watching your salt intake.