L-C

Fat and glucose vs. fructose

119 posts in this topic

I have carried on in this thread in a hope to point out illogical ideas for those that are concerned about dieting (how one goes about getting their daily nutrients) in a rational manner. I think at this point I (along with some others) have done all that can be done and no further amount of explaining will convince people that they can eat foods that they enjoy in a rational manner without causing any harmful effects (above what all metabolizing does) nor feel guilty about it. So, with that said, those that want to can carry on without me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Can you now see how invalid these arguments are?

Perhaps you missed my point. None of the facts which you and I mentioned can be used to determine what a proper diet should be. That is not how science is done. Scientists may use such facts to make an educated guess about what to test (and they often are wrong) but nothing beyond that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Proponents of "Paleodiet" and "anti-Carbs" diets have a naive understanding of the larger relevant facts and context of the field they claim to understand. Real experts are only too happy to destroy such nonsense, and fill the void with authoritative knowledge.

I would like to thank Carlos for posting the link and excerpt from a journal of real science (as described by Carlos). I found it highly illuminating. From the perspective of what I described in my earlier posting as a neolithic but pre-modern dietary approach, the most significant authoritative knowledge that I found in the excerpt is summed up as follows.

Letter to the Editor

[. . .]

Interestingly, some advocates of a 'paleolithic diet' pointed out that such one is not always low in carbohydrates (Lindeberg, 2005). Consequently, a plant-based diet rich in carbohydrates was accounted to be consistent with our evolutionary past (Lindeberg, 2005 and Lindeberg et al., 2003). Taking all the empirical and theoretical issues presented above together, Kopp's approach to the question of carbohydrate consumption being associated with health risks based on evolutionary reasoning and ethnographic data seems not to be well founded.

In other words, it is an error to equate all carbohydrates together as necessarily harmful, per se, especially if the claim attempts to rely on the evidence of human evolution.

On the other hand, this particular excerpt doesn't deal with very recent (in evolutionary time) increases in consumption of refined carbohydrates, and whether or not any distinction between highly refined versus minimally refined carbs matters much in human nutrition and health.

From the perspective of a neolithic but pre-modern diet, I would be very interested in any further references in the real scientific literature on whether or not it is important for a diet to be pre-modern, i.e., low in highly refined carbs. The excerpt provided by Carlos debunks those who propose to indict all carbs, but does not specifically discuss high consumption of highly refined carbs and their relation, if any, to "diseases of civilization." If I start to sound like a low-carb paleo advocate, I'm not; the illusion proceeds from lack of differentiation as to the type of carbs in question. I have voiced similar objections to Gary Taubes' GCBC for the same reason, although he provides a wealth of references regarding highly refined carbs.

If it is not true that all carbs are necessarily bad, neither does it automatically follow that all carbs are necessarly good. I have often thought that Taubes' GCBC ought to be accompanied by a companion volume titled, "Good Carbs, Bad Carbs."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Proponents of "Paleodiet" and "anti-Carbs" diets have a naive understanding of the larger relevant facts and context of the field they claim to understand. Real experts are only too happy to destroy such nonsense, and fill the void with authoritative knowledge.

I would like to thank Carlos for posting the link and excerpt from a journal of real science (as described by Carlos). I found it highly illuminating. From the perspective of what I described in my earlier posting as a neolithic but pre-modern dietary approach, the most significant authoritative knowledge that I found in the excerpt is summed up as follows.

Letter to the Editor

[. . .]

Interestingly, some advocates of a 'paleolithic diet' pointed out that such one is not always low in carbohydrates (Lindeberg, 2005). Consequently, a plant-based diet rich in carbohydrates was accounted to be consistent with our evolutionary past (Lindeberg, 2005 and Lindeberg et al., 2003). Taking all the empirical and theoretical issues presented above together, Kopp's approach to the question of carbohydrate consumption being associated with health risks based on evolutionary reasoning and ethnographic data seems not to be well founded.

...If it is not true that all carbs are necessarily bad, neither does it automatically follow that all carbs are necessarly good. I have often thought that Taubes' GCBC ought to be accompanied by a companion volume titled, "Good Carbs, Bad Carbs."

I refer you and others to post 2 and 6 of this thread for an explanation of all types of carbohydrates and their general effects on the body.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Can you now see how invalid these arguments are?

Perhaps you missed my point. None of the facts which you and I mentioned can be used to determine what a proper diet should be. That is not how science is done. Scientists may use such facts to make an educated guess about what to test (and they often are wrong) but nothing beyond that.

I disagree with you on your statements from above on what a person (scientist) should be determining from the facts gathered.

Science is defined as:

- a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws.

- systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

- systematized knowledge in general.

- knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.

- skill, esp. reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.

Ayn Rand had this to say about science:

"Science was born as a result and consequence of philosophy; it cannot survive without a philosophical (particularly epistemological) base. If philosophy perishes, science will be next to go." [“For the New Intellectual,” For the New Intellectual, 44.]

"The disintegration of philosophy in the nineteenth century and its collapse in the twentieth have led to a similar, though much slower and less obvious, process in the course of modern science.

Today’s frantic development in the field of technology has a quality reminiscent of the days preceding the economic crash of 1929: riding on the momentum of the past, on the unacknowledged remnants of an Aristotelian epistemology, it is a hectic, feverish expansion, heedless of the fact that its theoretical account is long since overdrawn—that in the field of scientific theory, unable to integrate or interpret their own data, scientists are abetting the resurgence of a primitive mysticism. In the humanities, however, the crash is past, the depression has set in, and the collapse of science is all but complete.

The clearest evidence of it may be seen in such comparatively young sciences as psychology and political economy. In psychology, one may observe the attempt to study human behavior without reference to the fact that man is conscious. In political economy, one may observe the attempt to study and to devise social systems without reference to man.

It is philosophy that defines and establishes the epistemological criteria to guide human knowledge in general and specific sciences in particular." [“What Is Capitalism?” Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, 11.]

Maybe most do not do science as I do. But that does not mean that I cannot determine what a proper diet should be (formulating principles/general laws) by interpreting and integrating the facts and or data collected through observation and experimentation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those that care to look at the facts in an attemp to determine what is essential and hence formulate principles to guide one's choices, here are some further studies.

http://www.britannica.com/bps/additionalco...h-in-Obese-Mice

The study above demonstrates that the mice that ate high-carbohydrate diets (70% carbs) lived longer and without disease.

http://ajpendo.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/293/1/E197

The study above demonstrates that the people that ate a calorie restricted diet lost the most weight out of 3 study groups, of which one exercised and the other just ate according to a "healthy lifestyle." Which should add to documentation that already demonstrates this and hopefully someday annihilates the idea that one must exercise multiple times per week to lose weight and stay healthy.

http://www.slate.com/id/2240688

The above is a simple article that brings together many studies on vitamins and the myths that people (especially some "researchers") hold on these micronutrients.

http://tuftshealthletter.com/ShowArticle.aspx?rowId=650

The above study demonstrates the illeffects on the brain's cognitive performance when people eat a low carbohydrate diet.

The above is a very small example of the more than 2,000 research articles (I am now growing ever close to 3,000) I have read on the subject of man's biological nature. I could go on and keep linking to hundreds and hundreds of them, but I will not do so at this time. I have spent more than 30 years exercising and researching the nature of man to include metabolism, endocrinology, neurology and more. I have done all of it in an attempt to draw-out the essential facts, so that I can formulate principles (some other people already did a lot of the work) to guide me in the application of proper exercise and diet. For those that care, I hope that the information is helpful, but offer that the best knowledge comes from studying the nature of man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One larger point which this thread reveals is the difficulty for lay people to assess the merits of an idea based on what the idea's advocates say. That is to say, without doing either the primary research itself, or researching the published research in details, how can anyone quickly assess the merits of Ray's positions, versus those of Art DeVany or Robb Wolf (see here ). I don't have a good answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One larger point which this thread reveals is the difficulty for lay people to assess the merits of an idea based on what the idea's advocates say. That is to say, without doing either the primary research itself, or researching the published research in details, how can anyone quickly assess the merits of Ray's positions, versus those of Art DeVany or Robb Wolf (see here ). I don't have a good answer.

Well, the fact that many people eat according to different diet plans and still remain lean and healthy should, at the least, cause one to ponder if what someone (some guru) states about dieting and health are correct.

Another thought for pondering. People that eat large amounts of protein and fat usually fail to recognize that with these slightly more complex forms of food/energy comes the release of more toxins during metabolism which is what a lot of them complain about from the so called "processed foods." In one form or another our bodies have to deal with everything we eat and there are cost to the body from every source.

There are studies on all sorts of different types of eating; from high carbohydrates to low carbohydrates, from high protein to low protein, from high fat to low fat and all sorts of combined sources of food. When the researchers lower the intake of a certain form of energy and try and reduce it's effects they run into another unexpected, problem.

For example; a 1998 study of 60,000 Swedish women found that polyunsaturates increased the risk of breast cancer. The study also found that the so called "heart-healthy fish oils" also increased breast cancer. Why were these women eating more polyunsaturates? Because, they were following the guide lines to reduce their saturated fats which raised the risk of heart disease.

Another example; in the 1990s a study from a Boston hospital attempted to find a link between high cholesterol and heart disease, instead the researchers found some unsettleing evidence. Of the 2,535 patients entering the hospital 42% had good cholesterol levels (under 200). But, 64% of the patients had angiographically documented heart disease (narrowing of the coronary arteries). The patients with heart disease, 32%, had the so called "desirable" cholesterol levels.

And another example; in 1998 a Harvard Medical School research study that appeared in JAMA gave more unsettling evidence to irrational dieting habits. For years doctors and researchers have been promoting the idea of controlling one's intake of saturated fat, supposedly the worst of all fats, which suppposedly causes heart disease. But this study demonstrated that saturated fats actually reduced the risk of stroke. When a person's total fat intake was increased by 3% their was a corresponding decrease in risk of a stroke by 15%.

Let us keep going; at the University of Illinois researchers found that canned, frozen and fresh fruits and vegetables were almost similar in their nutrient levels. In some instances the canned and frozen were even higher in nutrients, such as; more fiber, potassium, vitamin A, vitamin C, calcium and iron, just to name a few. The researchers also found no risk of infectious deseases from canned produce.

The only thing (as of now) that has consistently demonstrated an extention to man's life is restricting/controlling one's calories, in a rational manner. Researchers at Cornell University during the 1930s found that restricting the total calories eaten by lab rats resulted in a 50% increase in their life span. If we want to translate that into human terms, that is about 40 extra years. All the age related changes in the rats were retarded, from cataracts to bone deterioration and immune problems. The researchers found that the wear-and-tear put on the body by the processing of food (converting) into useable energy or storing it causes a body to age quicker, no matter what type of food was eaten.

For close to 30 years I have been attempting to take a seemingly difficult subject and derive principles that anyone can follow. Now that I have done that I keep hearing people tell me that I have "over simplified" the subject, or that "it is more complex" or "my simpleton ideas are going to harm people." Well, I disagree, man can eat, drink and be merry, with reason and principles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[...] As I have mentioned before there is almost no research that shows that eating any form of carbohydrates in accordance to their "Glycemic Index" provides any beneficial response. [...]

The work of Durk Pearson and Sandy Shaw contradicts what you say.

I knew when I read this post that I had heard of Durk Pearson and Sandy Shaw before, but at the time I could not remember where, until now. I was given the works of Pearson and Shaw years ago and asked to critique what they wrote and said, my observations were similar to Stephen Barrett, M.D. of which I have linked to below.

http://www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducat...ativeBR/le.html

http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/hgh.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just wanted to thank Rose Lake for her recommendation of Gary Taubes' book "Good Calories, Bad Calories." It was an excellent read and very informative. He covers, in a systematic and objective fashion, the history of nutritional population research from the mid-19th Century to the present and does a very good job of it.

The politicization of nutritional science in the dietary recommendations of the McGovern committee and the political jockeying that led up to it shows instructive similarity to the current Anthropogenic Global Warming "science." I put quotes even around the word science, let alone "settled science," a term that appears in both. One of his main themes is how the politicization of science essentially dictated an agenda-serving allocation of research funds and what constituted an acceptable result, which is the opposite of science.

Taubes has a point of view, all good students of science do, but he is clear about that position and documents in essential detail all significant points of view and the science for and against. It serves as an excellent review of the literature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alan, I appreciate your insight and I agree on the subject of government intervention. But the facts on how the human metabolism deals with any macronutrients does not change because Gary Taubes or the government states it to be so.

Some time ago I reread this thread and thought of adding some items that I forgot, so while I am at it I might as well add it now. As was already discussed, there are 3 major sugars that make up every form of carbohydrates. And as I have mentioned there is almost no evidence that demonstrates that carbohydrates of any sort digest faster than any other carbohydrate nor is there a large difference between carbohydrates to proteins and fats. Fructose, the demonized sugar, does not need a release of insulin to enter the muscle so the fallacious idea that it is harmful to one's liver, kidney or pancreas should be discarded. I would also add that High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS), which so many people also demonize, is primarily made from corn of which some fructose is added. That is the same fructose that comes in many vegetables and fruits. As a matter of fact HFCS is almost chemically identical to regular table sugar (50% fructose, 50% glucose) which comes directly from nature in the form of Sucrose found in sugar cane.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ray,

What about individual differences? Objective tests like the Glucose Tolerance Test (GTT) show significant, measurable differences in how fast various individuals metabolize sugars which correlates with reported symptoms and certain metabolic disorders like diabetes.

I know that if I have something with a lot of sugar, I get high within a minute and then crash into depression five minutes later. I feel so rotten after eating sugary sweets that I have avoided them since I was a child. The GTT confirms that I metabolize sugar much faster than most people although I am not diabetic or pre-diabetic. My doctor put me on a low glycemic diet and it is the easiest "diet" I've ever been on because I can eat all my favorite foods and I don't miss the refined carbs or sugars at all. That's me.

Then again, I have a jolly Italian friend in his eighties who eats loads of pastries and pasta, is trim and fit, and still runs marathons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ray,

What about individual differences? Objective tests like the Glucose Tolerance Test (GTT) show significant, measurable differences in how fast various individuals metabolize sugars which correlates with reported symptoms and certain metabolic disorders like diabetes.

I know that if I have something with a lot of sugar, I get high within a minute and then crash into depression five minutes later. I feel so rotten after eating sugary sweets that I have avoided them since I was a child. The GTT confirms that I metabolize sugar much faster than most people although I am not diabetic or pre-diabetic. My doctor put me on a low glycemic diet and it is the easiest "diet" I've ever been on because I can eat all my favorite foods and I don't miss the refined carbs or sugars at all. That's me.

Then again, I have a jolly Italian friend in his eighties who eats loads of pastries and pasta, is trim and fit, and still runs marathons.

Betsy,

First off the test is given to a person that must be fasting for at least 8 hours but not more than 16 hours which will cause unusual reactions no matter who takes in the glucose. One a person goes more than 5 hours without eating the metabolic status moves from the fed state into a starvation state and begins to conserve one's calories and fat. When a person takes in a meal after moving into the starvation state it has been shown that up to 70% of the calories can and usually are quickly converted and stored as fat while allowing only 30% to be used at that time to fuel the rest of the body. This does not usually include the fasting that goes on at night while one is asleep as humans draw on the glucose/glycogen stored in the liver throughout the previous day. So, it is not surprising that you can take in about 230 calories of sugar after being without food and have a quick drop off of energy soon after as it is being stored for your next starvation state. If one really wanted to know how the body reacts to certain items they would get a much more rational response by taking test under normal situations.

I also offer that your body, like every other humans, does not and cannot use fat and protein as direct energy sources, hence the glucose in your blood. When you take in large amounts of protein and or fat your liver will convert them into what is needed at that specific time for energy which is usually glucose. (One may ask how you can handle this glucose perfectly fine, but not the type that comes in the form of the food you eat as they are both chemically the same.) But most of what you take in will be quickly converted into glucose as that is the primary source of energy for the body and the source of energy which the brain demands. The average human brain requires a minimal 150 grams of sugar per day to function at minimal standards. And as I have mentioned many times carbohydrates and proteins are very similar in chemical makeup; carbs have carbon, hydrogen and oxygen in them and proteins have carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen in them. As a matter of fact excessive amounts of nitrogen cause a build up of ammonia which is toxic to humans and in small amounts is usally converted to urea and passed out of our system without harm. But, in large amounts, such as the type of diets that disregard rational intakes of carbohydrates, the liver cannot process the ammonia fast enough and instead it is turned into uric acid which is also toxic to the liver, the kidneys and the gall-bladder as it passes out of the body through our urine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First: l I understand that around 30% of the calory intake goes directly to the brain, even when you're not "using it".

More importantly: Does keeping a more base rathern than acid balance in your body affects how you metabolize sugars?

I began eating only steamed vegetables (spice and olive oil-fried onions for extra taste) and fruit for the last week, and I feel and even think a lot better. Today I tried some sugar-coated carbohydrate, muched it down in a second, and just as Betsy describes, only for the first time in my life, I had a quick high and then a horrible depression and a taste that I still can't wash off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
First: l I understand that around 30% of the calory intake goes directly to the brain, even when you're not "using it".

More importantly: Does keeping a more base rathern than acid balance in your body affects how you metabolize sugars?

I began eating only steamed vegetables (spice and olive oil-fried onions for extra taste) and fruit for the last week, and I feel and even think a lot better. Today I tried some sugar-coated carbohydrate, muched it down in a second, and just as Betsy describes, only for the first time in my life, I had a quick high and then a horrible depression and a taste that I still can't wash off.

Well, considering that if all you were eating was steamed vegetables then you were probably not taking in enough calories to keep yourself out of a starvation state. The average man and woman require a minimal of 1,300 and 1,100 calories per day to stay out of a starvation state while spreading that over many meals. The average adult brain requires around 600 calories from sugar per day to function at minimum. If you were in a starvation state the body pushes into an emergency state and can release hormones that allow us to overcome the pains of hunger for a short amount of time even though we are doing ourselves harm long-term. But, either way when you ate the carbohydrates you mention your body does not automatically push out of a starvation state as it takes more than one meal to do so. And if you ate more than 500 calories, of any form of food, then your pancreas would be stimulated to release insulin to deal with the excessive calories flowing through your blool stream.

At my office I hear these type of situations all the time as almost everyone I meet there claims one form of metabolism defecency. But, once I get them to understand how human metabolism works and they start applying the principles I define, then they loose weight and feel good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because of the nature of the stomach, everything that goes through it becomes overwhelmed by it's acid. So, all those people that think (not on this forum, just in general) that drinking water with alkaline in it is going to help them restore the base level, they are mistaken as the alkaline never makes it further than the stomach. But, taking in large amounts of certain foods can cause a build up of acids which increase one's acid levels of which the liver and kidneys play the largest part of getting rid of those waste products. Some of those waste products are caused by starving as the body uses it's own muscle to fuel itself which leaves behind acids And for those in long-term starvation that finally begin to eat away their fat in large proportions the metabolized fat acids leave behind toxins in large amounts that can increase one' acid levels. Even fruit and vegetables have been linked to gout as the body converts the excessive waste into uric acid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ray,

I said steamed veggies with olive oil FRIED onions and spices for taste! I come from a place where meat is glorified, and like in america, white flours are the staple of one's diet. I drool for a good cut of wine-soaked sirloin: I'm not a vegetarian but I suspect that being one 6 days a week makes me healthier.

I don't claim to have any metabolysm derficiency, nor I claim to try to make my stomach acids, base, (!?); I just want to know how metabolysm works. I want and need to learn how to live. Our parents, and specially grandmothers, told us how to live and eat in the imminent light of the next hunger. Wolves for instance eat (feat!) once a week or two, and then survive starvation - if they can - until they find new prey or berries. Of course wolves are animals fortunate enough to have developed a symbiotic relationship with men (1).

I used to suffer from acid reflux because of my deep-rooted love for coffee; now that I've changed to a more alcaline diet, it's gone.

Then again the only reason I'm eating "only" veggies is because of what you just said about the liver and kidneys (but every tissue in the "inner body" that is nor the skin nor the gastrointestinal tract) being suffocated by toxins and the body using acid fats to retrieve them and store them in sexy adiose tissue. (I'm very weak in biology, corrections would be more than welcome).

(1) Konrad Lorenz Man meets Dog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cunard, if you are serious about learning how the human body functions I offer that you start by getting a general understanding of the body which can be achieved through books such as Anatomica's Body Atlas. In the book that I just mentioned, and one's similar to it, the author(s) do a good job of describing each individual system of the body and all the major aspects of each system while also explaining how each system functions in concert with the others. I also offer that you purchase medical and biological dictionaries such as those published by Collins which are updated every few years.

After you get a general understanding of how the body functions you can move on to other more indepth books such as those printed by Wiley-Blackwell which give a "glimpse" into each individual organ or system. Some of Wiley-Blackwell books are quite technical and having more than a basic understanding of biology and chemistry will be helpful and sometimes required. Some books you might want to read and or purchase are:

Metabolism at a Glance

http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/p...1405107162.html

The Renal System at a Glance

http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/p...1405184728.html

Neuroscience at a Glance

http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/p...1405150459.html

The Endocrine System at a Glance

http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/p...1405109300.html

Another book that I think is of special importance is Dr. Hans Selye's book, The Stress of Life.

http://www.amazon.com/Stress-Life-Hans-Selye/dp/0070562121

I own all these books and much more, but would advise that they are expensive and require dedication to the studying of the subject as they are not easily understood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, thanks for those links. My knowledge of biology (not even of the human body) is rather limited to Helena Curtis' Biology book for... probably high-schoolers.

So much to learn I wish I could live forever.

I know there's a lot of hype around calorie restriction, ph balance, and life expectancy. My references to this are Ray Kurzweil's over-optimistic research and Patri Friedman's personal "paleo diet" reccommendations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites