Sciencemadness Discussion Board - Food for thought

Food for thought

Brain&Force - 1-8-2014 at 15:49

The US is known for its obesity problem. There was a recent documentary, "Fed Up", which placed the blame squarely on a single contributing factor: sugar and the marketing of high-sugar foods. In the words of Dr. Robert Lustig, who was one of the major contributors to the project: "Sugar is poison." Though many other factors have been cited, such as fat consumption, lack of exercise, and simple lack of moderation, what is being said bothers me.

Lustig's wording "sugar is poison" seem way to broad. First of all, living things need saccharides for energy usage - our cells work off of that. Granted, it's not smart to stuff oneself with too much sugar, but it's not a serious problem - and if you're eating pretty much any energy source (fat, carbohydrates, etc.) they need to be converted to sugar as a step towards energy metabolism.

What is even worse is that it's said that the sugars in fruits are somehow healthier because they're natural, and high fructose corn syrup is bad because it's processed. They both contain fructose.

Another claim I'm skeptical about is Lustig saying that "fat doesn't make you fat - sugar makes you fat." I've read that both fatty acids and sugars are stored in adipose tissue and converted to triglycerides, and triglycerides are simply stored in the cells. Either he's wording this very deceptively, he's confused, or he's just lying.

The reason I'm quite skeptical about this is because I've seen the Katie Couric show, and I lost all trust in her after she began peddling anti-vaccine stuff (to prevent kids from getting the HPV shot). Am I crazy here, or are there serious problems with this documentary?

Texium - 1-8-2014 at 16:49

You're not crazy. It's really very frustrating to discern the difference between simple innocent ignorance and the conscious goal to misinform people and spread misinformation that is useless or even harmful.
Upon reading about this Lustig, it seems that he does claim (now) that "natural" fructose and the fructose in HFCS are identical. So that's a step in the right direction. Relating fructose directly to ethanol and calling it a poison though... that's a bit messed up. What I want to know about is who was funding him to do the research. If he has a fat check coming from Splenda... I'd be a bit concerned.

I personally try to not consume a large amount of sugar, but it's not like I read all the labels and plot out allowances or whatever. One thing that I've noticed among our culture is that we seem to be gaining a higher and higher tolerance for sugar, like we keep needing a bit more than we used to to achieve the level of enjoyment that we expect sugar to provide. I think if everyone made a conscious effort to lessen the amount of sugar they consume very gradually, they won't even notice a difference eventually, and be healthier in the process of doing so. And that doesn't mean choosing diet instead of regular, it really means eating and drinking stuff that tastes less sweet, so that the sensation becomes more sensitive.
That's my little theory on the subject!

As for anti-vac people... well, give it a few more years and there won't be any of them left.

Chemosynthesis - 2-8-2014 at 11:07

Any time a purely clinical doctorate-holder tries talking science, I get ready to apply grains of salt. Most medical curricula only require one semester of pharmacology, and a good physician knows this. Unless they have a specialty in pharm/tox, I generally prepare to disregard at least some of what they say about "toxins" or poison.

Paracelsus once said "the dose makes the poison" and I agree that calling essential nutrients, such as vitamins, poisons without specific qualification is intellectually dishonest. Too little can be bad (deficiency), and to much can be bad (toxicity threshold). The sad fact is you see a lot of people cashing in on their credentials who shouldn't be, either academically or morally. I heard a plastic surgeon going anti-vac the other day, and when I asked where they had a residency in epidemiology, things got a little heated before they conceded they had no idea what data they were referring to.
Edit- and I always find it amusing how I have yet to find anyone with training in immunology who recommends avoiding vaccines unless you are specifically immunocompromised.

[Edited on 2-8-2014 by Chemosynthesis]

Brain&Force - 3-8-2014 at 10:45

I never realized that he's not a pharmacologist - that's a big point to make. And I forgot to put that up, zts16, that comparing fructose to ethanol makes me question how this dude even has a Ph.D.

From Scandinavia and the World: I think this is the root of our obesity problem:

Chemosynthesis - 3-8-2014 at 12:17

Quote: Originally posted by Brain&Force

And I forgot to put that up, zts16, that comparing fructose to ethanol makes me question how this dude even has a Ph.D.

Here's the catch. He doesn't. He has an M.D. with some unspecified research associate background for what would be an impressive 6 years... before his clinical residency and clinical fellowship. Given his ridiculous statements, I would suspect he is a pure clinician through-and-through at heart.

Not to detract from clinical work, as it's a different skillset, but too many people try to flaunt the M.D. degree as a science degree. It's Dana Scully syndrome. Obviously there are excellent scientists who have medical degrees as their only advanced degrees; I know a few... however they are very much the exception to the rule. Just as a scientist wouldn't generally claim to be capable of differentially diagnosing a disease, a physician shouldn't generally claim to be a scientist.

Unfortunately, the prestige, paycheck and ego associated with a medical degree, and the sex appeal on TV (scrubs, ER, General Hospital, etc.) really feed into the whole "I touched a paper as a middle author of no note, and maybe have a science bachelors therefore my M.D. degree qualifies me as a world class scientist even though I don't really 'do science.'"

aga - 25-8-2014 at 15:41

You get Fat by Eating Too Much.

It really is as simple as that.

Stop shoving things in the face-hole and you get thinner.
No hormones, no 'heavy bones' no Bariatric money making nonsense.

I once dreamt up a great Money making scheme where people would pay for a Holiday which Guaranteed that they would Rapidly Lose Weight.
Lots of weight, like 100kg from a really big porker, and in a week.

The idea was to take them to a beautiful Pacific Island.
Sun, Sand, Flab ... then deliberately give them amoebic dysentry.

The advertisers scuppered the plan as they refused to broadcast the strap line :-

"Shit Yourself Fitter".

BromicAcid - 25-8-2014 at 16:30

My take on the obesity problem:

At my last medical exam I was 163 lbs. I am 5 ft 8 inches. This gives me a BMI of 24.8, borderline overweight.

My body fat was 10.1%, which would put me in the athletic category. My waist was 28 inches and my waist to height ratio is 41.2% which puts me in the category of a college swimmer.

The final verdict was that I was in danger of becoming overweight and I needed to lose a few pounds. Yes, Americans are getting fatter but some of it also has to do with a poor standard to gauge obesity, the BMI is a horrible means to measure obesity but it is the stick to which we are held.

hissingnoise - 26-8-2014 at 01:58

Quote:

The advertisers scuppered the plan as they refused to broadcast the strap line :-

"Shit Yourself Fitter".

Or "Skitter Yourself Fitter" might be more, er, poetic?
I could go on . . .

PHILOU Zrealone - 27-8-2014 at 09:06

Main problem is when you don't prepare your food from A to Z (or from C to Z) you actually don't know exactly what is present inside your food...discrete/hidden salt, suggar, fats, additives...all makes unconscious intake of alienated food.

Normal body is not devoted to ingest pure suggar over a certain level, nor salt, nor XYZ...then you get acute or chronic poisoning promoting biochemical disorders...life treatening at middle to long term.

When you do it from A to Z you are more conscient of what you put inside and you can dose your poison ;-)

I'm always annoyed to see that "non diet" fruit juices often contains artificial sweeteners... I feel the special taste of it even if it is not always mentionned on the label.

Sometimes the suggar is masked behind another name...corn sirup, starch hydrolysate, ...

Suggar, meat , fats, additives have become so cheap that they enters a lot of industrial food and sadly cheap food - fast food contains a lot. Culturally they are associated with childhood memories of sweetness, welness and comfort...when human are stressed they eat/swallow such low quality food and drinks.

Salts, suggar and water are also added for conservation but most of all to increase cheaply the average weight or volume of the food by moisturization.

[Edited on 28-8-2014 by PHILOU Zrealone]

Fantasma4500 - 28-8-2014 at 08:18

its interesting how many americans are so much more obese than other countries around the world.. it seems unreasonable to blame it entirely on their mentality
what else could it be then? their sorroundings (air water etc)? what they consume? but saying sugar is what easiest goes into fat and other wrong things is just.. you can probably not change it, you can perhaps just try not watch TV if you really hate disinformation

elementcollector1 - 28-8-2014 at 08:33

Hmm. I'm American, and I seem literally unable to gain weight - I've been fluctuating within a pound of 135 for about 5 years or so, and before that I was stuck around 90.
Apparently some bacteria in the lower intestine help with this - one type is very efficient, the other... not so much.
It's not so much sugar as "empty calories" - no vitamins or anything to back them up and help the body deal with them.

Varmint - 28-8-2014 at 08:40

America has had a weight problem for decades. I grant the whole world that straight out, with no apologies.

It got orders of magnitude worse when HFCS became the mainstream sweetner.

That I blame on the corn mafia and their purchased politicians.

These people are far worse than the much lambasted oil barrons, they are killing people, they know it, and they use some of the money they are drowning in to pay off "scientists" to proclaim it "harmless".

They are almost as corrupt as the global warming creeps.

DAS

Chemosynthesis - 28-8-2014 at 09:54

Quote: Originally posted by Antiswat

its interesting how many americans are so much more obese than other countries around the world..

They're not; other developed nations followed in the U.S.' footsteps, and now Mexico is the fattest currently.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/09/mexico-obesity_n_35...

hissingnoise - 28-8-2014 at 11:13

Quote:

They are almost as corrupt as the global warming creeps.

And of course, all those eminent climatologists ─ what would they know about anything?

!!!

[Edited on 30-8-2014 by Bert]

Fantasma4500 - 1-9-2014 at 09:00

o no. oh boi no. dont bring physics and global warming and all of that onto this thread.

however, dont think its entirely random the way aspartame was legalized, having been banned twice before getting legalized with still 50 50 scientists saying its crap

i do agree that there now are many countries where people on average are obese, but i think the fact that there are americans that are incredibly insanely obese is ignored slightly, i think the statistics are simply cut at 'obese' and 'not obese' which shows just a part of the whole picture -- the thing is that some americans are BEYOND obese, as in many hundred kg's
unable to stand up-obese
cafe heart attack-obese

about obesity i recall to have heard an unsettling amount of africans turned out to be obese rather than the image thats usually drawn when someone says 'africa'
im supposing it may have been statistics from south africa, which makes a bit more sense

gregxy - 2-9-2014 at 10:51

As Bromic Acid suggested, measuring body fat % is a better way of determining health than the BMI. Many people are "skinny fat". While they don't look fat, they don't have much muscle either so their body fat % is still high.

A simple way to look at it is that fat releases lipids and glucose (energy) into the blood while muscle removes them from the blood and burns them. So the more muscle you have the lower your glucose, chloresterol etc. Plus muscle burns calories even when you are sleeping. So weight lifting
may be better than cardio for losing weight.

Are sugars (glucose) toxic? Apparently they are. Glucose levels in healthy people are tightly controlled between 70-100 (units that I forget). Obviously low glucose would cause problems. The body uses insulin to prevent blood sugar from rising above 100. The high glucose levels that type-2 diabetics experience, when their insulin stops working cause, all sorts of organ damage over time.

Many processed foods are bad because the sugars in them are absorbed in a shorter time than it takes for the large insulin spike they produce to decay. This results is fat accumulation and low blood sugar (so you quickly become hungry again even though you just ate a bunch of dough-nuts) Read on the glycemic index to find out more.

Low to no carb diets seem to work best (look up ketogenic diet) . You don't get hungry as quickly. Plus since the brain needs glucose, the liver must convert fat to glucose which is probably not the most energy efficient process.

For some interesting but dangerous chemistry, look up the use of DNP (dinitrophenol) as a weight loss drug.

Chemosynthesis - 2-9-2014 at 23:42

Quote:

Quote: Originally posted by gregxy

Are sugars (glucose) toxic? Apparently they are.

Anything is toxic in the appropriate dose. Important characteristics of toxicity are specificity of toxicity, or lack thereof, and chronic vs. acute dosing. Secondarily, toxicokinetics then come into play, with clearance, bioavailability, etc. To call sugars a blanket poison/toxin when it has high tolerability without being more informative is grossly negligent on the part of a medical professional, in my opinion.

gregxy - 3-9-2014 at 09:49

Here is an article on glucose toxicity. Of course it is
not toxic like cyanide but elevated levels do appear to cause
damage. There also seems to be a "positive feedback loop"
with the beta cells in the pancreas. Excess glucose damages them and when they are damaged they can no longer produce insulin so glucose levels go up even more.

http://www.jbc.org/content/279/41/42351.long

The paleo-diet concept seems to make sense. 10,000 years ago before the invention of agriculture the available foods were lower in sugar and starch. Our biochemistry was "optimized" for this diet and has changed little in the last 10,000 years. Selective breeding of grains has also increased their size and starch content. Natural seeds store most of their calories as oil.

Chemosynthesis - 4-9-2014 at 05:20

Quote: Originally posted by gregxy

Here is an article on glucose toxicity. Of course it is not toxic like cyanide but elevated levels do appear to cause damage. There also seems to be a "positive feedback loop" with the beta cells in the pancreas. Excess glucose damages them and when they are damaged they can no longer produce insulin so glucose levels go up even more.

Glucose utilization in particular for cell signaling is thought to be a conserved mechanism from yeasts, and is widely used in humans both through the glycolysis and the pentose phosphate pathway. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1083946/

Yes, a feedback loop (of which there are countless) in glucose and insulin cell signaling does appear to be indicated in type 2 diabetes, but water is toxic, potassium ions are toxic, fat soluble vitamins, etc. They also happen to be required within certain ranges for homeostasis, and life. They are not commonly referred to as poisons because of the safe utility they have, despite having attainable toxic concentrations. It's not like ionizing radiation, where there is no accepted safe limit of exposure. It's not like pertussis toxin, where it serves no useful biochemical purpose in humans. It's not like botulinum toxin, with nanomolar effective concentrations and low LD50's. It hasn't been shown to have a low therapeutic index, or environmental exposure conditions above therapeutic/non-toxic plasma concentrations.

I can't speculate well on diets as I'm not a dietician, but for a medical professional to blanket such a substance with the unqualified misnomer of "toxin" just to bolster their paycheck and gain publicity is insulting, in my opinion. I feel strongly on the subject because I'm educated and published in such matters, in clinical and basic science disciplines.

Edit:but I can say "our" biochemistry (ignoring pharmacogenomics due to selective pressure, age, liver/renal health) is often capable of reversing type 2 diabetes. Patient compliance, as with all medical treatments, is the primary issue. Clinics here tell me no one sticks with the rice diets for type 2 diabetes.

http://m.care.diabetesjournals.org/content/36/4/1047.full

This reversibility in many patients is demonstrable through objective measures.

Additionally, some studies link high protein diets with renal diseases, and the mechanisms of such inferences are well known through rhabdomyolysis. I would scoff at anyone claiming to be medically or biochemically educated calling protein a poison/toxin without mentioning the dosage ranges, and preferably putting a dietary dosage context on the issue if making a dietary claim, to adjust for bioavailability and some clearance issues. They should also note if the purported toxic effects are transient and/or chronic toxicity rather than acute and irreversible. That's something an actual toxicologist would do so as not to be misleading.

Also, at the risk of sounding pedantic, your mg/dl values were only fasting blood glucose. It gets higher after eating. Another acute vs. chronic timing issue of toxicity.

[Edited on 4-9-2014 by Chemosynthesis]

Is it even possible to feed off living things kindly ?

franklyn - 11-9-2014 at 02:37

Herbivore propaganda - ingestion of animals is bad.
http://www.youtube.com/v/THIODWTqx5E

Reminds me of a novel " The Jungle " by Upton Sinclair
http://www.motherjones.com/media/2006/01/jungle-100

.

Morgan - 11-9-2014 at 05:00

Soylent
http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/videos/2kgoki/rob-rhinehart

http://www.soylent.me/

http://ensure.com/

franklyn - 11-9-2014 at 10:31

Morgan - 11-9-2014 at 14:32

Maybe over time our beaks would change if we only drank food.
http://www.infovisual.info/02/060_en.html