[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
You mind PMing me what kind of food you eat/macros/ and where you buy you got time?[/quote]
I just typed up a long-ass PM, hit send… and it doesn’t show up in my Message Center.
Let me know if you get it. Otherwise, FML.
[quote]MODOK wrote:
I would like to know how many people actually watched the video in the OP. It seems like we’ve strayed pretty far off course.[/quote]
I watched it on the teevee.
Maybe start a new thread, just to help others navigate? But what to call it? Are we even agreed on what subject is being discussed now?
I think natural forms of sugar in historically normal amounts are not toxic; Lustig was very clear that HFCS is just as bad as refined white table sugar.
[quote]anonym wrote:
[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
You mind PMing me what kind of food you eat/macros/ and where you buy you got time?[/quote]
I just typed up a long-ass PM, hit send… and it doesn’t show up in my Message Center.
Let me know if you get it. Otherwise, FML.[/quote]
Sorry man i got nothing
[quote]Jeffrey of Troy wrote:
[quote]MODOK wrote:
I would like to know how many people actually watched the video in the OP. It seems like we’ve strayed pretty far off course.[/quote]
I watched it on the teevee.
Maybe start a new thread, just to help others navigate? But what to call it? Are we even agreed on what subject is being discussed now?
I think natural forms of sugar in historically normal amounts are not toxic; Lustig was very clear that HFCS is just as bad as refined white table sugar.[/quote]
Chemically speaking…I really don’t see much difference between sucrose and HFCS…
this is fitting, check the graphic too Opinion | Is Junk Food Really Cheaper? - The New York Times
this is fitting, check the graphic too Opinion | Is Junk Food Really Cheaper? - The New York Times
Hasn’t there also been research showing that sugar is an anti-nutrient? Like it basically leaches vits and mins from your body?
I know for me things with refined sugar in them send me off on a shit eating frenzy…I know it does in others. I also have addiction issues and will admit there are wiring issues involved…
[quote]strangemeadow wrote:
Hasn’t there also been research showing that sugar is an anti-nutrient? Like it basically leaches vits and mins from your body?
I know for me things with refined sugar in them send me off on a shit eating frenzy…I know it does in others. I also have addiction issues and will admit there are wiring issues involved…[/quote]
“The conversion from carbohydrates into ATP requires B vitamins. Hence the argument that sugar provides energy is not strictly true. The body needs B vitamins from elsewhere to enable sucrose to be converted into usable energy. This is why sugar/sucrose has been called an anti-nutrient, as it depletes the body of vitamins from other food sources in its metabolism.”
^^^
Thanks. Where is that from?
[quote]strangemeadow wrote:
^^^
Thanks. Where is that from?[/quote]
“The Obesity Epidemic” by Zoe Harcombe
Pretty interesting read. She has a website too where she touches on some of her beliefs.
Questions the idea of fat\cholesterol being bad for you
Questions the idea that a lb of fat equals 3500 calories
Questions the laws of thermodynamics being used to explain weight loss (energy in vs energy out)
And outlines why carbs/sugar are the devil.
Good stuff.
[quote]phishfood1128 wrote:
[quote]strangemeadow wrote:
^^^
Thanks. Where is that from?[/quote]
“The Obesity Epidemic” by Zoe Harcombe
Pretty interesting read. She has a website too where she touches on some of her beliefs.
Questions the idea of fat\cholesterol being bad for you
Questions the idea that a lb of fat equals 3500 calories
Questions the laws of thermodynamics being used to explain weight loss (energy in vs energy out)
And outlines why carbs/sugar are the devil.
Good stuff.
[/quote]
yeah, she had a great blog about the “red meat instant death” study
[quote]phishfood1128 wrote:
[quote]strangemeadow wrote:
^^^
Thanks. Where is that from?[/quote]
“The Obesity Epidemic” by Zoe Harcombe
Pretty interesting read. She has a website too where she touches on some of her beliefs.
Questions the idea of fat\cholesterol being bad for you
Questions the idea that a lb of fat equals 3500 calories
Questions the laws of thermodynamics being used to explain weight loss (energy in vs energy out)
And outlines why carbs/sugar are the devil.
Good stuff.
[/quote]
Cool, gonna check it out, thx for the info.
[quote]phishfood1128 wrote:
[quote]strangemeadow wrote:
Hasn’t there also been research showing that sugar is an anti-nutrient? Like it basically leaches vits and mins from your body?
I know for me things with refined sugar in them send me off on a shit eating frenzy…I know it does in others. I also have addiction issues and will admit there are wiring issues involved…[/quote]
“The conversion from carbohydrates into ATP requires B vitamins. Hence the argument that sugar provides energy is not strictly true. The body needs B vitamins from elsewhere to enable sucrose to be converted into usable energy. This is why sugar/sucrose has been called an anti-nutrient, as it depletes the body of vitamins from other food sources in its metabolism.”[/quote]
And how many people are deficient in B vitamins from a “moderate” intake of sugar, again? In those who DO achieve a deficient state, is this a reflection on their sugar intake or their overall diet?
I also don’t understand what is meant by “the argument that sugar provides energy is not strictly true”… various steps in nutrient metabolism require energy expenditure to carry out, yet the net result is that a greater amount of useable energy is produced.
Is this really suggesting that there is no net energy to be derived from sucrose ingestion?
[quote]anonym wrote:
[quote]phishfood1128 wrote:
[quote]strangemeadow wrote:
Hasn’t there also been research showing that sugar is an anti-nutrient? Like it basically leaches vits and mins from your body?
I know for me things with refined sugar in them send me off on a shit eating frenzy…I know it does in others. I also have addiction issues and will admit there are wiring issues involved…[/quote]
“The conversion from carbohydrates into ATP requires B vitamins. Hence the argument that sugar provides energy is not strictly true. The body needs B vitamins from elsewhere to enable sucrose to be converted into usable energy. This is why sugar/sucrose has been called an anti-nutrient, as it depletes the body of vitamins from other food sources in its metabolism.”[/quote]
And how many people are deficient in B vitamins from a “moderate” intake of sugar, again? In those who DO achieve a deficient state, is this a reflection on their sugar intake or their overall diet?
I also don’t understand what is meant by “the argument that sugar provides energy is not strictly true”… various steps in nutrient metabolism require energy expenditure to carry out, yet the net result is that a greater amount of useable energy is produced.
Is this really suggesting that there is no net energy to be derived from sucrose ingestion?[/quote]
Question the word “strictly”.
[quote]anonym wrote:
[quote]phishfood1128 wrote:
[quote]strangemeadow wrote:
Hasn’t there also been research showing that sugar is an anti-nutrient? Like it basically leaches vits and mins from your body?
I know for me things with refined sugar in them send me off on a shit eating frenzy…I know it does in others. I also have addiction issues and will admit there are wiring issues involved…[/quote]
“The conversion from carbohydrates into ATP requires B vitamins. Hence the argument that sugar provides energy is not strictly true. The body needs B vitamins from elsewhere to enable sucrose to be converted into usable energy. This is why sugar/sucrose has been called an anti-nutrient, as it depletes the body of vitamins from other food sources in its metabolism.”[/quote]
And how many people are deficient in B vitamins from a “moderate” intake of sugar, again? In those who DO achieve a deficient state, is this a reflection on their sugar intake or their overall diet?
I also don’t understand what is meant by “the argument that sugar provides energy is not strictly true”… various steps in nutrient metabolism require energy expenditure to carry out, yet the net result is that a greater amount of useable energy is produced.
Is this really suggesting that there is no net energy to be derived from sucrose ingestion?[/quote]
I think what she is trying to do is argue the merits of getting energy from sugar/carb sources versus fat. She seems to suggest that if people (especially the obese) refrained from carbohydrates the body would use fat for energy allowing nutrients (b vitamins/C) to do more vital things.
Reading the section again I think the word “strictly” is referring to the fact that sugar alone cant produce energy/ATP and sugar doesnt provide any nutrients.
[quote]phishfood1128 wrote:
[quote]anonym wrote:
[quote]phishfood1128 wrote:
[quote]strangemeadow wrote:
Hasn’t there also been research showing that sugar is an anti-nutrient? Like it basically leaches vits and mins from your body?
I know for me things with refined sugar in them send me off on a shit eating frenzy…I know it does in others. I also have addiction issues and will admit there are wiring issues involved…[/quote]
“The conversion from carbohydrates into ATP requires B vitamins. Hence the argument that sugar provides energy is not strictly true. The body needs B vitamins from elsewhere to enable sucrose to be converted into usable energy. This is why sugar/sucrose has been called an anti-nutrient, as it depletes the body of vitamins from other food sources in its metabolism.”[/quote]
And how many people are deficient in B vitamins from a “moderate” intake of sugar, again? In those who DO achieve a deficient state, is this a reflection on their sugar intake or their overall diet?
I also don’t understand what is meant by “the argument that sugar provides energy is not strictly true”… various steps in nutrient metabolism require energy expenditure to carry out, yet the net result is that a greater amount of useable energy is produced.
Is this really suggesting that there is no net energy to be derived from sucrose ingestion?[/quote]
I think what she is trying to do is argue the merits of getting energy from sugar/carb sources versus fat. She seems to suggest that if people (especially the obese) refrained from carbohydrates the body would use fat for energy allowing nutrients (b vitamins/C) to do more vital things.
Reading the section again I think the word “strictly” is referring to the fact that sugar alone cant produce energy/ATP and sugar doesnt provide any nutrients. [/quote]
It’s still not sinking in.
Enzymes involved in sugar metabolism require vitamins to properly function; therefore, the argument that sucrose provides energy is not strictly true.
Niacin, riboflavin, pyridoxine, thiamin and pantothenic acid are involved in glycolysis, the PDH complex and/or the TCA cycle. So, this is certainly not a specific feature of sucrose. It applies to glucose and amino acids, as well.
Riboflavin plays a role in lipid metabolism (in fatty acyl CoA dehydrogenase). I’m sure if I dug up my biochem book I could find a list of vitamins that are incorporated into enzymes necessary for burning fat.
It just doesn’t make much sense to me. Vitamins play a key role in NUMEROUS enzymes involved in nutrient metabolism. Not just for sugar.
If the argument is that this is “significant” because sugar ALONE doesn’t provide any additional nutrients, the question then becomes: is this really a significant concern for anyone who eats even a moderately balanced diet? Does anyone have any statistics on people suffering from B vitamin deficiencies as a result of moderate sugar intake?
Is it even a surprise to ANYONE, regardless of their level of education, that eating sugar to the expense of everything else will ultimately result in nutrient deficiencies?
And don’t forget about the vitamins used in the electron transport chain, either.
Also, that quote doesn’t address whether or not sucrose “leeches” vitamins from one’s body. Many of these vitamins ARE highly conserved; they aren’t excreted as soon as the reaction takes place.
[quote]anonym wrote:
And don’t forget about the vitamins used in the electron transport chain, either.[/quote]
I am sure i am not doing a good job representing her argument in small segments. I have the chapter in front of me, i can post the whole thing if your interested (She also talks about Dr. Lustig and fructose)
The chapter discusses the pitfalls of basing ones diet on starchy foods as recommended by American, British and Australian food agencies.
[quote]phishfood1128 wrote:
[quote]anonym wrote:
And don’t forget about the vitamins used in the electron transport chain, either.[/quote]
I am sure i am not doing a good job representing her argument in small segments. I have the chapter in front of me, i can post the whole thing if your interested (She also talks about Dr. Lustig and fructose)
The chapter discusses the pitfalls of basing ones diet on starchy foods as recommended by American, British and Australian food agencies. [/quote]
Well, if you find something you feel would be pertinent, feel free to post it. Otherwise, I wouldn’t want to trouble you with that.
Does she discuss the way nutrient fortification/enrichment impacts this vitamin “leeching” that occurs with eating too many carbs? Or is it more an argument against living on nothing but soda and Airheads?