Sugar is poison

[grumbler]

The people in the second picture look like they are wearing bulky fire resistant clothing.  I can't really tell how thin they are.

So do they people in the first picture.  Fire resistant clothing really isn't bulky at all, it's made of three thin layers at most.  It's nothing like what firefighters wear.

I don't think you are going to convince people that the difference in clothing types doesn't make a difference in perception of sizes.  The guys in the first photo don't look like "a whale on very fat legs" and showing an ambiguous picture doesn't evidence the point disproven by the first photo.

I'd bail on this argument, if I were you.  Following the CC route never pays off. 

[Malthus]

Well, to start, much as I'd like to take credit for the starling notion that eating more is more likely to make one fat, it isn't *my* theory. Read the link. It is, evidently, the conclusion come to by the folks at the US Department of Health and Human Services, based on a bunch of research that is described in the link. There are chapter headings entitled "Short-term studies show that people eat more when they are confronted with larger portion sizes".

Now I know that common sense, combined with clinical research by scientists, should not weigh against the inspired writings of a man like Gary Taubes, who has in the past demonstrated in his infinite wisdom total indifference to either, but still ... 

Should it have weight?  Of course.  Should it trump any other theory?  That would imply that we know everything there is to know about nutritional science, and that federal government is a good judge of what it is.  I'm doubtful about both, personally.

I do think that we're still in the dark age when it comes to nutritional sicence, and thus no one has the absolute authority to dismiss any theory outright, unless it is self-contradictory.  People are still bulging at alarming rates, so whatever we do know is either incomplete, or impractical to implement.

Heh, it's like the conversation I overheard in the firm's lunch room the other day: a 320 pound administrative assistant complaining to her buddy, "I just can't seem to lose weight - I dunno what's wrong, must be my glands" - while busy scarfing down an entire box of donuts.

Well, lady (ran the inner monologue), it is no fucking mystery why you are so fat, if you regularly eat boxes of donuts as desert at lunch, and work in a job where you mostly sit on your ass all day, is it? 

This "diet mystery" is just about the same, only writ large. There is no 'mystery". People on average eat more and are more sedentary now then ever before. One would expect them, on average, to be fatter, and lo and behold ...

Now, that being said, if some serious scientist came up with some evidence to contradict the obvious, I'd give him or her a hearing. Sometimes what appears "obvious" to everyone is wrong. But such is not the case here. The serious scientists all appear to confirm the obvious.

[Neil]

Sugar ban is a lot like smoking ban.

Indeed, in that anyone who supports it is a busybody and a cunt.

[MadImmortalMan]

I completely disagree. Start running five miles a day and you are going to lose some weight unless you start doing something crazy. Watching a five minute ab video may be less effective.

Obviously so. It matters far less than what you eat.

[DGuller]

Heh, it's like the conversation I overheard in the firm's lunch room the other day: a 320 pound administrative assistant complaining to her buddy, "I just can't seem to lose weight - I dunno what's wrong, must be my glands" - while busy scarfing down an entire box of donuts.

Well, lady (ran the inner monologue), it is no fucking mystery why you are so fat, if you regularly eat boxes of donuts as desert at lunch, and work in a job where you mostly sit on your ass all day, is it? 

This "diet mystery" is just about the same, only writ large. There is no 'mystery". People on average eat more and are more sedentary now then ever before. One would expect them, on average, to be fatter, and lo and behold ...

Now, that being said, if some serious scientist came up with some evidence to contradict the obvious, I'd give him or her a hearing. Sometimes what appears "obvious" to everyone is wrong. But such is not the case here. The serious scientists all appear to confirm the obvious.

Even if "eat less, excercise more" theory is obvious and correct, it still may be far from the end of it. 

For example, some foods may fool your brain's appetite control system.  That makes you crave more food, and thus you eat more.  You can say that "Ha, you're eating more, of course you're going to get fatter.  Eat less." 

That would be correct, after all the actual eating part is what makes one fat, but I would still say that it would be silly to just discount the factor that started the sequence of events and just stop with "Eat less."  When it comes to developing a workable solution, avoiding that food would be far more practical than controlling your craving for the rest of your life.

[DontSayBanana]

If you watch NASCAR now, pretty much every crew member looks like a whale on very fat legs, and it's not muscle.

 

Maybe some glasses would help.  That also opens the possibility that your eyesight is misleading you as to how your scale reads, and that maybe you didn't lose all that weight when you quit taking in foods with sugars added.

We can all play that game.



The difference is that my picture is more like what you would typically see, at least on TV.

The two guys on the tires in particular look lean and muscular, if anything.  The only one who looks "big" is the guy holding the tank up in the air, so I'd assume that's more muscle than fat.

And yeah, I screwed up the mono/di/polysaccharides bad.  I'm bailing from that one.

[crazy canuck]

Even if "eat less, excercise more" theory is obvious and correct, it still may be far from the end of it. 

For example, some foods may fool your brain's appetite control system.  That makes you crave more food, and thus you eat more.  You can say that "Ha, you're eating more, of course you're going to get fatter.  Eat less." 

That would be correct, after all the actual eating part is what makes one fat, but I would still say that it would be silly to just discount the factor that started the sequence of events and just stop with "Eat less."  When it comes to developing a workable solution, avoiding that food would be far more practical than controlling your craving for the rest of your life.

Or one could just eat healthy food and exercise and not worry about whether their brain is somehow being fooled.

[KRonn]

I don't know which is true, if Aspartame is benign or what ever. But the part about it possibly causing weight gain I see talked about a lot, and if true, it goes against those who want to ban sugars and have people use substitutes.   

http://www.susunweed.com/herbal_ezine/June05/anti-cancer.htm

Anti-Cancer Lifestyle ...
Avoid Aspartame
Excerpt from Death by Modern Medicine
by Dr. Carolyn Dean
   

        Sugar versus Aspartame
        Children's Movement for Creative Education (CMCE) provides teaching modules for inner-city schools in New York. I'm on the board of CMCE, and in one Brooklyn school, much like I did on the Dini Petty show, I demonstrated the ten teaspoons of sugar in a can of pop and the twenty-seven teaspoons in a milkshake to a grade 6 class.

        These kids immediately got the message but then said they would switch to diet pop. I told them, and I'm telling you, to not be fooled into switching from sugar to sugar-free substitutes; they're even unhealthier than sugar! Aspartame (Nutrasweet) is a neurotoxin and should be avoided like the plague. Aspartame has been shown to cause birth defects, brain tumors and seizures, and to contribute to diabetes and emotional disorders.

        Avoid Aspartame, a Genuine Food Adulterant
        Aspartame has three components: phenylalanine, aspartic acid, and methanol (wood alcohol). Those who promote and sell this ubiquitous artificial sweetener state that the two amino acids, phenylalanine and aspartic acid, are a harmless and natural part of our diet contained in protein foods. This is one of the many half-truths about aspartame.

        Phenylalanine and aspartic acid are naturally occurring amino acids (the building blocks of protein) but are always in combination with other amino acids that neutralize their effects when they occur in protein. Our bodies and brains are not equipped to handle the high concentrations found in a diet soda. In that form they are concentrated enough to disrupt nerve cell communication and can cause cell death.

        Art by Stephanie RodriguezThe neurotoxic effects of these isolated amino acids can be linked to migraines, mental confusion, balance problems, and seizures. Read neurosurgeon Russell Blaylock's book Excitotoxins: The Taste That Kills, which describes the dangerous effects of aspartame as well as MSG on sensitive brain cells. (www.russellblaylockmd.com)

        Methanol in Aspartame Causes Blindness
        Methanol, too, is naturally present in fruits and vegetables, but these foods also contain ethanol, which neutralizes the methanol. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) defines safe consumption of methanol as no more than 7.8 mg per day of this dangerous substance. Yet, a one-liter beverage sweetened with aspartame contains about 56 milligrams of wood alcohol, or seven times the EPA safety limit.

        Aspartame Causes Food Cravings
        The absolute irony of the use of aspartame in diet products is that it can actually cause weight gain. Phenylalanine and aspartic acid stimulate the release of insulin. Rapid, strong spikes in insulin remove all glucose from the blood stream and store it as fat. This can result in hypoglycemia (low blood sugar) and sugar cravings.

        Additionally, phenylalanine has been demonstrated to inhibit synthesis of the neurotransmitter serotonin, which signals that the body is full.8 This can cause you to eat more than you normally would and, ultimately, gain weight. In a recent study, a control group switching to an aspartame-free diet resulted in an average weight loss of nineteen pounds.9

        Dr. Betty Martini
        For the best education on aspartame, go to dorway.com and read about the tireless work of Betty Martini, founder of Mission Possible, a worldwide anti-aspartame activist group. This very powerful woman has probably helped thousands of people regain their health by warning them about the dangers of aspartame. On dorway.com you will find the paper trail that led to the approval of aspartame despite epileptic seizures and brain tumors in test animals. You will also learn about the ninety-two aspartame side effects that have been reported to the FDA.

        Sweet Misery: A Poisoned World
        Sweet Misery: A Poisoned World is a 2004 documentary by Cori Brackett, who begins the film with her own miraculous recovery from multiple sclerosis once she threw away aspartame-sweetened products. Ms. Brackett interviews Dr. Russell Blaylock and Dr. Betty Martini, victims of aspartame poisoning, and Arthur Evangelista, a former Food and Drug Administration investigator, who confirms the dirty tricks played to approve aspartame around the world.

        Excerpt from Death by Modern Medicine by Dr. Carolyn Dean

[DGuller]

Or one could just eat healthy food and exercise and not worry about whether their brain is somehow being fooled.

Another problem I have with "eat less, excercise me, that's all there is to it" is that it ignores practicality.  This has been the mantra for a while.  How's that working out for us?

Sure, if you eat healthy and exercise, you'll probably avoid the danger factors, you are unlikely to be fat if you stick to it.  However, if you can avoid the danger factors with far less effort, what's wrong with that? 

Maybe some kinds of junk foods aren't really that bad, and only certain junk foods are highly damaging.  It sure is easier to stick to a diet that allows for some junk food, than to just religiously stick to healthy food.  If you can come up with a theory that work just as well, or almost as well, but requires far less energy to stick to, that's a big win. 

[DGuller]

I don't know which is true, if Aspartame is benign or what ever. But the part about it possibly causing weight gain I see talked about a lot, and if true, it goes against those who want to ban sugars and have people use substitutes.   

I don't think that artificial sweeteners are a solution to the sugar problem.  In my case, diet soda just reminded me of what I was missing, and how much better the stuff I was missing tasted. 

[alfred russel]

Even if "eat less, excercise more" theory is obvious and correct, it still may be far from the end of it. 

For example, some foods may fool your brain's appetite control system.  That makes you crave more food, and thus you eat more.  You can say that "Ha, you're eating more, of course you're going to get fatter.  Eat less." 

That would be correct, after all the actual eating part is what makes one fat, but I would still say that it would be silly to just discount the factor that started the sequence of events and just stop with "Eat less."  When it comes to developing a workable solution, avoiding that food would be far more practical than controlling your craving for the rest of your life.

As someone who was sedentary but now isn't I can say that it works two ways. It isn't pleasant to get into shape, but if you regularly exercise, you feel gross if you don't. And a supersized portion of McDonald's seems a lot less appealing.

[alfred russel]

Or one could just eat healthy food and exercise and not worry about whether their brain is somehow being fooled.

Another problem I have with "eat less, excercise me, that's all there is to it" is that it ignores practicality.  This has been the mantra for a while.  How's that working out for us?

Sure, if you eat healthy and exercise, you'll probably avoid the danger factors, you are unlikely to be fat if you stick to it.  However, if you can avoid the danger factors with far less effort, what's wrong with that? 

Maybe some kinds of junk foods aren't really that bad, and only certain junk foods are highly damaging.  It sure is easier to stick to a diet that allows for some junk food, than to just religiously stick to healthy food.  If you can come up with a theory that work just as well, or almost as well, but requires far less energy to stick to, that's a big win.

The eat less exercise more mantra seems to work for those that follow it. You can't blame the mantra for what happens to people who ignore it.

[The Brain]

Or one could just eat healthy food and exercise and not worry about whether their brain is somehow being fooled.

Another problem I have with "eat less, excercise me, that's all there is to it" is that it ignores practicality.  This has been the mantra for a while.  How's that working out for us?

Sure, if you eat healthy and exercise, you'll probably avoid the danger factors, you are unlikely to be fat if you stick to it.  However, if you can avoid the danger factors with far less effort, what's wrong with that? 

Maybe some kinds of junk foods aren't really that bad, and only certain junk foods are highly damaging.  It sure is easier to stick to a diet that allows for some junk food, than to just religiously stick to healthy food.  If you can come up with a theory that work just as well, or almost as well, but requires far less energy to stick to, that's a big win.

[MadImmortalMan]

Long.

http://www.mensjournal.com/everything-you-know-about-fitness-is-a-lie

[DGuller]

The eat less exercise more mantra seems to work for those that follow it. You can't blame the mantra for what happens to people who ignore it.

That kind of misses the whole point I made about how easy it is to follow, I would think.