3 ms·

Compare sugar intake now and 20 years ago, sugar metabolizes to fat in the body. So that food is fat free, but high in sugar leads to the same thing in the body

by acd 11y ago

Compare sugar intake now and 20 years ago, sugar metabolizes to fat in the body. So that food is fat free, but high in sugar leads to the same thing in the body anyway. Also look at the sizes of portions, soda and food packages they have all increased too. Fast food consumption which is high in sugar and fat has also increased. Lab rats has shown to be as addicted as cocaine on sugar http://www.forbes.com/sites/jacobsullum/2013/10/16/research-shows-cocaine-and-heroin-are-less-addictive-than-oreos/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/jacobsullum/2013/10/16/research-...

bad_user 11y ago
I've just read "In defence of food". It's a little sensationalist, but the author makes a good point that we've been blaming this or that nutrient and in the process we've become more and more unhealthy. Amongst others we blamed cholesterol, we blamed fats, then saturated fats, now we're starting to blame carbohydrates. The problem starts from the reductionist science being applied, coupled with the constant lobbying of the food industry of course. What happens is that nutrition is an incredibly complex subject and nutritionists can only blame what they can currently measure. The result is a whole industry of processed foods that have lost their nutritional value. And for the food industry, that's OK because processed foods are more profitable. The problem is not naturally occurring sugar. The problem is high fructose corn syrup and (to a lesser extent) sucrose and the current practice of injecting these substances in processed foods, because these sugars are fooling our senses and create addiction. But we are talking about refined carbohydrates. The sugar in fruits is totally fine and in fact there are signs that we don't eat enough fruits. But why stop at sugars? Margarine was certainly a bad idea, as was every other idea that the nutritionists' community ever had. So really, if you want an enemy, that's certainly processed foods and the weakest cult-like science that human kind ever practised. To this day doctors are still advising patients to avoid saturated fats, even though there's zero evidence of saturated fats provoking cancer or heart disease or obesity. To this day you can see low-fat products, like low-fat milk that's artificially coloured and enriched with powdered milk, being sold because of health claims. Expect to see Omega-3 in bananas.
tgb 11y ago
The whole point of this study was that the difference exists even after controlling for micronutrients. Your low-fat high-sugar theory is incompatible or at least insufficient.

by acd 11y ago

bad_user 11y ago

I've just read "In defence of food". It's a little sensationalist, but the author makes a good point that we've been blaming this or that nutrient and in the process we've become more and more unhealthy. Amongst others we blamed cholesterol, we blamed fats, then saturated fats, now we're starting to blame carbohydrates. The problem starts from the reductionist science being applied, coupled with the constant lobbying of the food industry of course. What happens is that nutrition is an incredibly complex subject and nutritionists can only blame what they can currently measure. The result is a whole industry of processed foods that have lost their nutritional value. And for the food industry, that's OK because processed foods are more profitable. The problem is not naturally occurring sugar. The problem is high fructose corn syrup and (to a lesser extent) sucrose and the current practice of injecting these substances in processed foods, because these sugars are fooling our senses and create addiction. But we are talking about refined carbohydrates. The sugar in fruits is totally fine and in fact there are signs that we don't eat enough fruits. But why stop at sugars? Margarine was certainly a bad idea, as was every other idea that the nutritionists' community ever had. So really, if you want an enemy, that's certainly processed foods and the weakest cult-like science that human kind ever practised. To this day doctors are still advising patients to avoid saturated fats, even though there's zero evidence of saturated fats provoking cancer or heart disease or obesity. To this day you can see low-fat products, like low-fat milk that's artificially coloured and enriched with powdered milk, being sold because of health claims. Expect to see Omega-3 in bananas.

tgb 11y ago

The whole point of this study was that the difference exists even after controlling for micronutrients. Your low-fat high-sugar theory is incompatible or at least insufficient.