How Much Sugar is Acceptable?

Nutrition
61

[quote]mertdawg wrote:

[quote]outlaws wrote:
With your immature and thick headed comments, whether true or not, you last two posters are just about to destroy a quite good thread

I hope someone like Mertdawg or Anonym chimes back in[/quote]

Everything is toxic at a certain dose, but sugar is toxic at a rather low dose. Sucrose is half fructose, and fructose goes straight to the liver through the hepatic portal vein because fructose in the blood leads to oxidative damage. Fructose taxes the liver. Rat studies don’t equate to humans, but the rat studies suggest that a mammalian liver has an ability to process about 4% of maintenence calories from fructose. Above that level the fructose slowly damages the liver over time. The same is true of alcohol. Toxic doesn’t mean to me that it causes death. It means that it makes you less healthy. I already showed evidence that given normal stored glycogen levels, that getting below 20% and above 30% calories from carbs correlates to higher mortality rate and gradual progression of liver disease, heart disease, and cancer. The instigation of heart disease comes from inability to process more than about 30% cals from carbs, and more than about 4% from PUFA’s although the balance of PUFA’s is a factor. Saturated fat has NO mechanism to instigate arterial scarring which leads to plaques. Only PUFA’s and carbs cause significant oxidative damage among energy sources. If you hold to the free radical mechanism of ageing, (at least in part, that is free radicals cause premature cell death) then carbs, particularly sugar, more particularly fructose, and PUFA’s especially w-6’s above a baseline level that can be processed efficiently, lead to cell death, progressive diseases (cancer, diabetes, CHD) and ageing. [/quote]

" Fructose taxes the liver. Rat studies don’t equate to humans, but the rat studies suggest that a mammalian liver has an ability to process about 4% of maintenence calories from fructose. Above that level the fructose slowly damages the liver over time"

so basically, its toxic in rats at a certain dose, what does that tell us about its toxicity in humans? dont rats have much better carbohydrate absorbtion mechanisms? watch that link. alan aragon shit all over lustig in a debate in his comments, lustig was very into it, up to the point where alan completely annihilated his argument,then lustig left without a word. hmmmm. also LOL i just noticed who wrote that article. Gary Taubes is a fucking laughing stock.

62

I didn’t mean you’re far from truth upon ideas about how much sugar is acceptable or whether it’s toxic or not.

You’re far from truth by;

  1. Putting the bread human’s evolved with, with the same category as todays refined bread, claiming a carb is a carb
  2. Saying protein spiking insulin as much as carbs (Protein apart from whey isolate or bcaa’s, that are used in the studies)
  3. Saying carbs being necessary for health (Not even going to bother)
  4. Saying carbs being absolutely necessary on high level performance, yet are plenty of endurance athletes going paleo, and many other professionals low carb during the offseason.

Plus yes it is practically impossible getting obese without carbs. All those things you listed mcdonalds, kfc, french fries have as much carbs as fat if not more. I don’t believe there is a single real world example of an obese person who hasn’t over consumed carbs.

And yet you tell people to educate themselves…

But it’s ok, everyone makes mistakes. This is a forum, we discuss ideas. No one here should be taking everything as a law without filtering. If you shaped your life upon something you read in the past and had consequences, sorry but it’s all your fault.

You’re doing the exact same thing by telling people stop posting and trying to assert your own ideas

63

[quote]outlaws wrote:
I didn’t mean you’re far from truth upon ideas about how much sugar is acceptable or whether it’s toxic or not.

You’re far from truth by;

  1. Putting the bread human’s evolved with, with the same category as todays refined bread, claiming a carb is a carb
  2. Saying protein spiking insulin as much as carbs (Protein apart from whey isolate or bcaa’s, that are used in the studies)
  3. Saying carbs being necessary for health (Not even going to bother)
  4. Saying carbs being absolutely necessary on high level performance, yet are plenty of endurance athletes going paleo, and many other professionals low carb during the offseason.

Plus yes it is practically impossible getting obese without carbs. All those things you listed mcdonalds, kfc, french fries have as much carbs as fat if not more. I don’t believe there is a single real world example of an obese person who hasn’t over consumed carbs.

And yet you tell people to educate themselves…

But it’s ok, everyone makes mistakes. This is a forum, we discuss ideas. No one here should be taking everything as a law without filtering. If you shaped your life upon something you read in the past and had consequences, sorry but it’s all your fault.

You’re doing the exact same thing by telling people stop posting and trying to assert your own ideas[/quote]

oh god where do i start.

1)someone claimed all carbs were bad. also, if someone is active, ie most people on this site, most of the time, a carb IS a carb.

2)http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/66/5/1264.full.pdf+html
beef, chicken and fish spike insulin more than oatmeal, pasta etc. transitory spikes in insulin dont matter to active people to a large degree, leading back to my “a carb is pretty much a carb” for active people thing.

3)i never claimed they were neccesary to health. i claimed they werent fucking toxic, which is patently a retarded statement

4)how many successful athletes got to the very pinnacle of their sport using low carbs?aAAAND i also never said they were “absolutely necessary” are you illiterate or just this fucking dumb? stop putting words in my mouth to create strawman arguements( go look up the meaning of that term)

rich froning, the prince of paleo obsessed crossfit, doesnt actually do paleo.

64

" The body has a very strong response to eliminate sugar as fast as f’ing possible! At least more than you can use in a short time frame."

is this because of the whole “it burns alcohol first, because its toxic, therefore if carbs are its first energy source choice to burn, carbs MUST also be toxic!!!” thats dogshit reasoning

65

[quote]outlaws wrote:
With your immature and thick headed comments, whether true or not, you last two posters are just about to destroy a quite good thread[/quote]
A thread with the title How much sugar is acceptable belongs to a diabetics’ forum.

66

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Since we are all on studies, I’m just quoting the evidence. Fat consumption has drastically dropped.[/quote]

What studies are you quoting, exactly?

Relative fat consumption has decreased; ABSOLUTE fat consumption has increased.

If you are quoting Taubes on this, don’t bother.

Trends in carbohydrate, fat, and protein intakes and association with energy intake in normal-weight, overweight, and obese individuals: 1971-2006
This increase in obesity has occurred despite messages to the public to change dietary intakes. For example, consensus efforts to lower dietary fat did lead to decreases in the percentage of energy consumed from fat. However, the reduction in the percentage of energy from fat resulted not from a significant decrease in total fat intake but rather from an increase in carbohydrate intake resulting in an increase in total energy intake.

67

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
They ate “bread” made from a different species of plant than today’s bread[/quote]

What, exactly, do you feel this has to do with anything?

If you could refer so some specific physiological events, that would be great. Saying things like, “cellular metabolism changes, effects on hunger mechanisms, est.” while claiming researchers in 2014 are entirely clueless about human metabolism won’t cut it.

Get specific.

68

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
And (again) even more directly, almost a 3rd of the population is suffering from some issue that is basically amounts to sugar intolerance.[/quote]

The onus is on you to prove that this is solely the result of carbohydrate intake.

Otherwise, you are using individuals with aberrant physiological mechanisms to make claims involving those with functional metabolisms… which doesn’t cut it when you then claim to say that your assertions aren’t made on “technical terms.”

ALL sugar is toxic does not equal ALL sugar is toxic for almost a 3rd of the population suffering from some issue that is basically amounts to sugar intolerance.

69

[quote]anonym wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
They ate “bread” made from a different species of plant than today’s bread[/quote]

What, exactly, do you feel this has to do with anything?

If you could refer so some specific physiological events, that would be great. Saying things like, “cellular metabolism changes, effects on hunger mechanisms, est.” while claiming researchers in 2014 are entirely clueless about human metabolism won’t cut it.

Get specific.[/quote]

Not that anyone in this thread really cares about a real discussion of the topic. But SPECIFICALLY I went from a pudgy/fat 240 with a total cholesterol of 396 (my LDL was 300 alone) to 200 with abs, stronger (I was strong to begin with and highly active), and with a total cholesterol in the mid 200s (I know total cholesterol is very inaccurate, but just to give you an idea all my numbers got WAY better) simply by not really eating carbs and INCREASING total caloric consumption. I’ve posted plenty of pics through the process on this site.

I’ve read too many books and articles on the subject to go through and cherry pick all the studies to “prove” to some people who everyone here knows aren’t going to really listen to anything.

I have not said carbs are bad. Everything can be bad. I do think carbs, at BEST, are unnecessary. Go read alpha’s log if you think you can’t preform without them. I DID say carbs are toxic, they are HIGHLY toxic for many people, and even if they aren’t currently toxic for you they can become toxic so you still need to think about it. And even if they aren’t causing immediate death (mild sarcasm here), there can be some serious long term negative effects from long term high carb living. I did also say this is very individual specific and these things probably don’t and won’t affect many people.

Someone here mentioned taubes, and I have read most of his books (along with many other authors) and I agree much of what he says is bullshit. Most if his books, he over states and misstates the results of lots of studies. BUT there is one very true thing that he did make me realize. Nutritional studies are abysmal science. They are so flawed as to be virtually useless. He did help me learn to take all nutrition science with a LARGE grain of salt. Another reason why I refuse to get into a study quoting battle, because I don’t really believe them. Going from experience is probably far more correct and useful with studies as a loose rule of thumb. I posted my basic experience above take it or leave it because I’m admitting defeat and giving in to the people calling for me to stop posting. I have a new baby at home to take care of and if people are going to be that contrary about things I’ve actually experienced I don’t have the time for this forum.

70

So, you mean “Sugar is toxic… for you?”

71

noone loses 40 pounds by eating more calories, i am sorry. you probably increased exercise enough to create a deficit. a calorie is still a calorie for active people because of their improved insulin sensitivity. you dont lose weight by eating more, i dont care what anyone says. your cholesterol stuff is more than likely a result of the weightloss, not cutting out carbs