ChiefsPlanet

ChiefsPlanet (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/index.php)
-   Nzoner's Game Room (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=1)
-   -   Food and Drink Stop Eating Sugar (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=257995)

2112 04-04-2012 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Flopnuts (Post 8516705)
I'm about to change the forum name to Washington DC/The Holy Land and The diet forum

You should make a fatty forum where all the rotund planeteers can commiserate about being fat and unhealthy. It will be a big hit, I assure you!

Saulbadguy 04-04-2012 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Satanic Goat (Post 8517697)
ROFL

****load of excessive, stupid cardio.

Yeah that is a bit excessive. But, your heart needs loving too. :)

Saulbadguy 04-04-2012 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BIG_DADDY (Post 8517407)
My biggest bitch about sugar is that diabetes is already a huge problem in this country and people still give ungodly amounts of it to their kids. My boy has already received enough sugary crap from his little girlfriends for Easter to last 6 months and Easter isn’t even here yet. He will get a small percentage of that and I will toss the rest. Fortunately he has not really developed a taste for sugar as he rarely has it but I can see this being harder to control as he gets older.

Yeah I agree with you on that. Candy is candy but there are alot of products out there that are essentially candy that are marketed differently. Fruit snacks are a great example.

BigMeatballDave 04-04-2012 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aspengc8 (Post 8517680)
Please explain how you would starve on a 2,000 calorie a day diet?

LMAO 2000 calories of sugar. Learn to read.

Marcellus 04-04-2012 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave (Post 8517983)
LMAO 2000 calories of sugar. Learn to read.

Well, in reality you probably wouldn't starve to death on 2,000 calories of sugar.

You would probably die of some other deficiency before you "starved" to death.

Marcellus 04-04-2012 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Silock (Post 8517543)
Yeah, I'm still not understanding this.

Every carbohydrate you consume is broken down into sugar for energy.

Glucose and sucrose are not the same thing. Your body breaks carbs down into glucose.

http://www.differencebetween.net/sci...e-and-sucrose/

htismaqe 04-04-2012 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marcellus (Post 8518095)
Well, in reality you probably wouldn't starve to death on 2,000 calories of sugar.

You would probably die of some other deficiency before you "starved" to death.

You wouldn't starve to death but you'd probably kill someone due to hunger. :)

Mr. Laz 04-04-2012 04:17 PM

most fruit juice is just liquid sugar

doctors have started telling parents not to give it to young kids.

refined sugar is just terrible ... period.

BigMeatballDave 04-04-2012 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Laz (Post 8518173)
most fruit juice is just liquid sugar

doctors have started telling parents not to give it to young kids.

refined sugar is just terrible ... period.

How much is terrible?

BigMeatballDave 04-04-2012 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marcellus (Post 8518095)
Well, in reality you probably wouldn't starve to death on 2,000 calories of sugar.

You would probably die of some other deficiency before you "starved" to death.

Splitting hairs.

Death by malnourishment.

BigMeatballDave 04-04-2012 04:42 PM

I wonder if Buck is drinking alcohol...

Mr. Laz 04-04-2012 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave (Post 8518196)
How much is terrible?

it's all terrible, you can just get away with eating it up to a certain point.


just like all the other bad shit

Lurk 04-04-2012 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by -King- (Post 8517471)
How exactly is sugar bad for you?
Posted via Mobile Device

I recently read an article from a heart doctor that essentially said heart disease is caused by inflammation in the body. This inflammation causes cholesterol to build up...which of course eventually leads to blockage or clots.

He said that the causes for inflammation are the overloading of highly processed carbohydrates (sugar, flour and the products made from them).

Note the word overload. Moderation is key...cutting it out completely is nonsense and, given that damn near everything has sugar in it, practically impossible. Eat a sensible diet, don't go overboard on the sweets/sodas, exercise regularly and you will be ok.

Be a nutcase and cut it out completely...probably binge within a few months and land back at square 1.

seclark 04-04-2012 04:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave (Post 8518203)
I wonder if Buck is drinking alcohol...

i wonder if i'm going to take a shit tomorrow.
sec

Silock 04-04-2012 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marcellus (Post 8518101)
Glucose and sucrose are not the same thing. Your body breaks carbs down into glucose.

http://www.differencebetween.net/sci...e-and-sucrose/

No, they aren't. But, everything gets broken down. Sucrose eventually gets broken down, too.

http://www.fitday.com/fitness-articl...ohydrates.html

"The body interprets and handles all types of sugar in basically the same way. The resulting simple sugar goes into the bloodstream."

2112 04-04-2012 05:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Laz (Post 8518173)
most fruit juice is just liquid sugar

doctors have started telling parents not to give it to young kids.

refined sugar is just terrible ... period.

Orange juice is very high in sugar. ''soft fruits'' like grapes are very high in sugar. apples are ok, they arent as high in sugar. but you are correct young fella.

2112 04-04-2012 05:05 PM

Hey guys, I'll be right back. I gotta take a shit and want to lose weight right now. you guys wait here.

WhiteWhale 04-04-2012 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lurk (Post 8518210)
I recently read an article from a heart doctor that essentially said heart disease is caused by inflammation in the body. This inflammation causes cholesterol to build up...which of course eventually leads to blockage or clots.

He said that the causes for inflammation are the overloading of highly processed carbohydrates (sugar, flour and the products made from them).

Note the word overload. Moderation is key...cutting it out completely is nonsense and, given that damn near everything has sugar in it, practically impossible. Eat a sensible diet, don't go overboard on the sweets/sodas, exercise regularly and you will be ok.

Be a nutcase and cut it out completely...probably binge within a few months and land back at square 1.

The 'sweet' taste is caused by acidity. Sugary foods are acidic and body PH is very important. That's essentially the root cause of the inflammation. Cholesterol is basically an in line goo patch for weakened or cracked arteries. Thus it's actually saving your life until it clogs things up.

It should be noted that fruits are acidic, but the body converts the body to an alkaline. Our bodies are designed for fruits and nuts. People don't eat enough of either.

WhiteWhale 04-04-2012 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by D2112 (Post 8518239)
Orange juice is very high in sugar. ''soft fruits'' like grapes are very high in sugar. apples are ok, they arent as high in sugar. but you are correct young fella.

Even apples are high in sugar when compared to other natural foods, perhaps not so much compared to a lot of other fruits.

Bananas are high in sugar and they're easily one of the best foods you can eat.

If one avoids fruit because of the sugar, they're thinking too small. A good diet isn't about avoiding or focusing on one thing (be it calories, carbs, or fat) and cutting it. You gotta look at the bigger picture. Your body needs sugars for quick energy and fats and proteins for a more sustained energy.

Personally I eat mostly fruit in the mornings... a bottle of OJ and a banana at least. The sugar and vitamins give me a quick energy boost that other people seem to prefer getting from coffee.

DaKCMan AP 04-04-2012 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WhiteWhale (Post 8518268)
Even apples are high in sugar when compared to other natural foods, perhaps not so much compared to a lot of other fruits.

Bananas are high in sugar and they're easily one of the best foods you can eat.

The studies target added sugar, not the natural sugars found in fruit.

WhiteWhale 04-04-2012 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaKCMan AP (Post 8518273)
The studies target added sugar, not the natural sugars found in fruit.

I responded to something someone said about sugars in fruits. You should have seen it quoted in my post.

DaKCMan AP 04-04-2012 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WhiteWhale (Post 8518280)
I responded to something someone said about sugars in fruits. You should have seen it quoted in my post.

https://cdn2.content.compendiumblog....atulations.jpg

MahiMike 04-04-2012 05:31 PM

1 Attachment(s)
Read this book. You'll realize that bread is sugar too.

Silock 04-04-2012 05:33 PM

...and this is why I hate vilifying certain foods. You end up excluding just about everything.

The devil is usually in the dose, not the actual food or product. That's why eating a balanced diet with a reasonable caloric intake works really well. You don't exclude anything, get lots of varied nutrients and still get to enjoy life (like eating cake) without wanting to kill yourself because you're constantly worried about what you can and cannot eat.

Marcellus 04-04-2012 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Silock (Post 8518298)
...and this is why I hate vilifying certain foods. You end up excluding just about everything.

The devil is usually in the dose, not the actual food or product. That's why eating a balanced diet with a reasonable caloric intake works really well. You don't exclude anything, get lots of varied nutrients and still get to enjoy life (like eating cake) without wanting to kill yourself because you're constantly worried about what you can and cannot eat.

All things in moderation. Not complicated at all.

Not easy, but not complicated.

WhiteWhale 04-04-2012 05:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Silock (Post 8518298)
...and this is why I hate vilifying certain foods. You end up excluding just about everything.

The devil is usually in the dose, not the actual food or product. That's why eating a balanced diet with a reasonable caloric intake works really well. You don't exclude anything, get lots of varied nutrients and still get to enjoy life (like eating cake) without wanting to kill yourself because you're constantly worried about what you can and cannot eat.

I was told earlier that such a stance was a 'cop-out'.

How it was a 'cop-out' was never explained, but I try not to expect too much from this group. I doubt guy knows what it even means. It's making an excuse for avoiding accountability. Saying that people should take responsibility for their own diet is not a cop out... it's the exact opposite. Blaming sugar for being fat... that's a cop out. Sugar makes you fat, but you have to eat it. It's not injected into you by the government.

I do agree with you though.

2112 04-04-2012 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WhiteWhale (Post 8518268)
Even apples are high in sugar when compared to other natural foods, perhaps not so much compared to a lot of other fruits.

Bananas are high in sugar and they're easily one of the best foods you can eat.

If one avoids fruit because of the sugar, they're thinking too small. A good diet isn't about avoiding or focusing on one thing (be it calories, carbs, or fat) and cutting it. You gotta look at the bigger picture. Your body needs sugars for quick energy and fats and proteins for a more sustained energy.

Personally I eat mostly fruit in the mornings... a bottle of OJ and a banana at least. The sugar and vitamins give me a quick energy boost that other people seem to prefer getting from coffee.

The most important part people dont realize is that eating a lot of fruit and salads causes very very nice 5 star bowel movements. thats one of the most important reasons why I eat fruit. f the sugar..lol

Epic Fail 007 04-04-2012 06:34 PM

Just eat whatever you want . Just don`t overdue it. **** this shit Im out! **** the government ,**** obama and his porker of a wife! Put that bitch on a diet!

Simply Red 04-04-2012 06:35 PM

The OP is discussing eating extra sugar, not sugar in breads etc but rather the sugar ON TOP of those allocated 'normal' foods. I can't believe some of you still don't recognize that, especially the self-proclaimed experts. I've had my sugar problems in the past and I'm cutting out the extra candies, etc.. Mostly for ME and honestly, nothing ANYone on Chiefs Planet 'LOL' could say to stop what i'm doing to better my health.

You all would argue w/ a Cal. Medical Proffesor, I swear. ROFL

Silock 04-04-2012 06:48 PM

"Extra" sugar is still just a matter of consumption. It's six and one half dozen to the other. You may eat grapes and get 50g of sugar. Or, you may drink some juice that has added sugar, but still end up ingesting only 50g of sugar.

What's the big deal?

DaKCMan AP 04-04-2012 06:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Silock (Post 8518463)
"Extra" sugar is still just a matter of consumption. It's six and one half dozen to the other. You may eat grapes and get 50g of sugar. Or, you may drink some juice that has added sugar, but still end up ingesting only 50g of sugar.

What's the big deal?

The body processes fructose and sucrose differently.

Silock 04-04-2012 07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaKCMan AP (Post 8518468)
The body processes fructose and sucrose differently.

Sucrose still gets broken down into simple sugars in the end.

Fire Me Boy! 04-04-2012 07:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Silock (Post 8518463)
"Extra" sugar is still just a matter of consumption. It's six and one half dozen to the other. You may eat grapes and get 50g of sugar. Or, you may drink some juice that has added sugar, but still end up ingesting only 50g of sugar.

What's the big deal?

How about the fact that fiber slows absorption into the body and blood, which lowers GI.

Silock 04-04-2012 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fire Me Boy! (Post 8518488)
How about the fact that fiber slows absorption into the body and blood, which lowers GI.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17234503

Abstract
OBJECTIVE:
Fructose has been implicated in obesity, partly due to lack of insulin-mediated leptin stimulation and ghrelin suppression. Most work has examined effects of pure fructose, rather than high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS), the most commonly consumed form of fructose. This study examined effects of beverages sweetened with HFCS or sucrose (Suc), when consumed with mixed meals, on blood glucose, insulin, leptin, ghrelin, and appetite.
METHODS:
Thirty lean women were studied on two randomized 2-d visits during which HFCS- and Suc-sweetened beverages were consumed as 30% of energy on isocaloric diets during day 1 while blood was sampled. On day 2, food was eaten ad libitum. Subjects rated appetite at designated times throughout visits.
RESULTS:
No significant differences between the two sweeteners were seen in fasting plasma glucose, insulin, leptin, and ghrelin (P > 0.05). The within-day variation in all four items was not different between the two visits (P > 0.05). Net areas under the curve were similar for glucose, insulin, and leptin (P > 0.05). There were no differences in energy or macronutrient intake on day 2. The only appetite variable that differed between sweeteners was desire to eat, which had a higher area under the curve the day after Suc compared with HFCS.
CONCLUSION:
These short-term results suggest that, when fructose is consumed in the form of HFCS, the measured metabolic responses do not differ from Suc in lean women. Further research is required to examine appetite responses and to determine if these findings hold true for obese individuals, males, or longer periods.

DaKCMan AP 04-04-2012 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Silock (Post 8518482)
Sucrose still gets broken down into simple sugars in the end.

The difference is in the rate at which they are metabolized.

Silock 04-04-2012 07:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaKCMan AP (Post 8518492)
The difference is in the rate at which they are metabolized.

Studies suggest otherwise. See above. There are more if you wish to look at them on pubmed.

Fire Me Boy! 04-04-2012 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Silock (Post 8518495)
Studies suggest otherwise. See above. There are more if you wish to look at them on pubmed.

My daily blood sugars trump studies. I can eat a whole bunch of fruit and take my blood sugar, or drink a glass of juice. My sugars will spike harder and faster with juice... Every. Single. Time.

Fire Me Boy! 04-04-2012 07:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Silock (Post 8518495)
Studies suggest otherwise. See above. There are more if you wish to look at them on pubmed.

That study also says it examined beverages. I was talking about fruit vs. fruit juice. Not sure how your study applies.

Silock 04-04-2012 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fire Me Boy! (Post 8518506)
My daily blood sugars trump studies. I can eat a whole bunch of fruit and take my blood sugar, or drink a glass of juice. My sugars will spike harder and faster with juice... Every. Single. Time.

Of course it will. That doesn't mean it's making you fat or that it's unhealthy.

Mr. Laz 04-04-2012 07:17 PM

don't know about all of Silock's test etc but do the test on yourself

eat until full with a meal without a bunch of cheap(sugar)
note how long before you feel hungry again

next day(or whenever)
eat same meal only add a dessert(candy,donuts ... you know the deal)
note the time before you get hungry again

for me if i have the dessert i will get hungry again in an hour NO MATTER how much i've eaten for dinner. I keep getting hungry every hour until i resist eating the sugar(dessert). My stomach feels bloated and i know i've eaten enough but i still crave more dessert stuff. It seems like i can even feel it when i sweat after eating a bunch of sugar food, my sweat feels 'sticky'. Same way you can tell when you sweat after drinking the night before. :)


just sayin'

Mr. Laz 04-04-2012 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Silock (Post 8518512)
Of course it will. That doesn't mean it's making you fat or that it's unhealthy.

of course it does because when his sugar spikes he craves more food

Fire Me Boy! 04-04-2012 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Silock (Post 8518512)
Of course it will. That doesn't mean it's making you fat or that it's unhealthy.

For a diabetic, yes it does. That's pretty much exactly what it means.

Silock 04-04-2012 07:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fire Me Boy! (Post 8518509)
That study also says it examined beverages. I was talking about fruit vs. fruit juice. Not sure how your study applies.

It was talking about fructose vs. sucrose. The delivery system was selected simply because it's a common delivery system.

I addressed GI earlier and why it's not the huge deal everyone makes it out to be when you control for daily intake.

Silock 04-04-2012 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Laz (Post 8518516)
of course it does because when his sugar spikes he craves more food

Craving doesn't mean you have to eat.

DaKCMan AP 04-04-2012 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Silock (Post 8518512)
Of course it will. That doesn't mean it's making you fat or that it's unhealthy.

When your sugar spikes and you have excess glucose it triggers fat storage. Thus, sugar spikes = more fat storage than the even release when sugar from fruit is metabolized.

Silock 04-04-2012 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fire Me Boy! (Post 8518519)
For a diabetic, yes it does. That's pretty much exactly what it means.

I didn't know we were talking about diabetics. That's the first time it's come up in this discussion.

Fire Me Boy! 04-04-2012 07:21 PM

As for the sugar argument.... you can eat nothing but sugary sweets and lose weight.

This guy (a nutrition professor) did a test to prove to his students the calorie in vs. calorie out. He ate nothing but Hostess sweets for 10 weeks and lost 27 pounds. Limited himself to 1,800 calories.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08...sor/index.html

Silock 04-04-2012 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaKCMan AP (Post 8518525)
When your sugar spikes and you have excess glucose it triggers fat storage. Thus, sugar spikes = more fat storage than the even release when sugar from fruit is metabolized.

So what? Fine, that energy gets stored as fat. But if you don't eat later, what was stored will be burned off for energy. It's just a matter of shifting around when the energy gets burned. It might be immediately because it doesn't get stored, in which case, you have to eat again. Or it might be later, in which case your body will dip into the fat stores to cover energy needs.

Fire Me Boy! 04-04-2012 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Silock (Post 8518527)
I didn't know we were talking about diabetics. That's the first time it's come up in this discussion.

I was talking about me. Why else would someone take daily blood sugar measurements (serious question)? I thought that was implied, but certainly could be wrong.

Mr. Laz 04-04-2012 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Silock (Post 8518523)
Craving doesn't mean you have to eat.

now you're just be silly

of course you don't have to eat but sugar spikes cause cravings which are very difficult to resist and overrides the bodies natural 'i'm full' signal.

a lot of these people who are obese probably wouldn't have that problem without the cravings that simple sugars cause.

Silock 04-04-2012 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fire Me Boy! (Post 8518534)
I was talking about me. Why else would someone take daily blood sugar measurements (serious question)? I thought that was implied, but certainly could be wrong.

I dunno. I've done it before and I'm not diabetic /shrug

Silock 04-04-2012 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Laz (Post 8518536)
now you're just be silly

of course you don't have to eat but sugar spikes cause cravings which are very difficult to resist and overrides the bodies natural 'i'm full' signal.

a lot of these people who are obese probably wouldn't have that problem without the cravings that simple sugars cause.

I'm being silly because I'm suggesting people have self-control? Okay.

Mr. Laz 04-04-2012 07:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Silock (Post 8518541)
I'm being silly because I'm suggesting people have self-control? Okay.

so first you say that the simple sugar DOESN'T work different

now you're saying that it might work different but people just need to 'get over it'

simple sugar is bad for everyone except studs like Silock

is that better?



:rolleyes:

BigMeatballDave 04-04-2012 07:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Laz (Post 8518536)
now you're just be silly

of course you don't have to eat but sugar spikes cause cravings which are very difficult to resist and overrides the bodies natural 'i'm full' signal.

a lot of these people who are obese probably wouldn't have that problem without the cravings that simple sugars cause.

Wow. Lets just ban sugar then. :rolleyes:

Silock 04-04-2012 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Laz (Post 8518546)
so first you say that the simple sugar DOESN'T work different

I'm saying its effect on whether or not you are fat is exactly the same from a calorie standpoint. 3000 calories of simple sugars will make you just as fat as 3000 calories of complex sugars.

Quote:

now you're saying that it might work different but people just need to 'get over it'
I didn't say it was easy.

Put it this way: Cardiovascular exercises stimulates an appetite response. It makes you hungry. So, if you're on a diet, should you avoid cardio simply because it makes you hungry? It might even make you hungry enough to eat exactly the amount of calories (or more) that you burned through exercise. The key is self-control. It always is.

007 04-04-2012 07:36 PM

One of the biggest changes I made was to stop drinking my calories. I pretty much only drink water now except on those rare beer occasions that pop up a few times a year.

Mr. Laz 04-04-2012 07:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave (Post 8518552)
Wow. Lets just ban sugar then. :rolleyes:

nobody said that, you gigantic douche.

but simple sugar is bad for you ... period.

all the people trying to twist it or make excuses are just full of shit

Fire Me Boy! 04-04-2012 07:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Guru (Post 8518565)
One of the biggest changes I made was to stop drinking my calories. I pretty much only drink water now except on those rare beer occasions that pop up a few times a year.

I cut back to one can of diet soda a couple weeks ago, and then about a week ago I went diet soda free.

I've switched to iced tea, with about a half-teaspoon of Splenda. I'm trying to wean myself off the Splenda though, to just plain unsweetened iced tea.

Mr. Laz 04-04-2012 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fire Me Boy! (Post 8518578)
I cut back to one can of diet soda a couple weeks ago, and then about a week ago I went diet soda free.

I've switched to iced tea, with about a half-teaspoon of Splenda. I'm trying to wean myself off the Splenda though, to just plain unsweetened iced tea.

good for you

Fire Me Boy! 04-04-2012 07:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Laz (Post 8518604)
good for you

My next step, I think, is iced tea before noon, iced water after. Still mulling on that one.

Silock 04-04-2012 07:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Laz (Post 8518572)
nobody said that, you gigantic douche.

but simple sugar is bad for you ... period.

all the people trying to twist it or make excuses are just full of shit

True or false: Complex sugars are absorbed into the body as simple sugars.

You guys focus way too much on body chemistry and what foods are good and bad and blah blah blah.

I have single digit body fat and it's not because I'm just awesome. It's not because I exercises a lot. It's because I have self-control. Yes, I eat whatever I want, including *gasp* simply sugars *I'MGONNADIE*. The key is that I don't eat as much as I possibly can of them.

I control for caloric intake. I'm not fat because I don't eat more than I burn. If I did, I'd be fat, and how much exercise I do wouldn't matter. If I burn 3000 calories and eat 5000, I'm getting fat.

All this focus on good and bad foods is taking away from the fact that people just need to stop eating so much goddamn food. That's why people are fat. It's not because of sugar making you store fat (which you all should realize CAN be burned off... it's not permanent).

Guess what? I'm hungry right the **** now. I've been hungry for hours. Ice cream sounds amazing. Juice sounds amazing. But what am I not doing? Ingesting that. Why? Because I have self-control. I might eat some later, but if I do, you can be sure as shit that I won't eat more than my daily caloric allowance lets me.

DaKCMan AP 04-04-2012 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Silock (Post 8518612)
True or false: Complex sugars are absorbed into the body as simple sugars.

You guys focus way too much on body chemistry and what foods are good and bad and blah blah blah.

I have single digit body fat and it's not because I'm just awesome. It's not because I exercises a lot. It's because I have self-control. Yes, I eat whatever I want, including *gasp* simply sugars *I'MGONNADIE*. The key is that I don't eat as much as I possibly can of them.

I control for caloric intake. I'm not fat because I don't eat more than I burn. If I did, I'd be fat, and how much exercise I do wouldn't matter. If I burn 3000 calories and eat 5000, I'm getting fat.

All this focus on good and bad foods is taking away from the fact that people just need to stop eating so much goddamn food. That's why people are fat. It's not because of sugar making you store fat (which you all should realize CAN be burned off... it's not permanent).

Guess what? I'm hungry right the **** now. I've been hungry for hours. Ice cream sounds amazing. Juice sounds amazing. But what am I not doing? Ingesting that. Why? Because I have self-control. I might eat some later, but if I do, you can be sure as shit that I won't eat more than my daily caloric allowance lets me.

Many are focusing too much on body weight. Not being fat doesn't equal healthy. Being skinny doesn't equal healthy. Hell, there are professional athletes who go on to have heart attacks at (relatively) young ages. What you put into your body matters and arguments otherwise are, IMO, asinine. Not saying anything bad will kill you, moderation is key.

Fire Me Boy! 04-04-2012 08:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaKCMan AP (Post 8518629)
Many are focusing too much on body weight. Not being fat doesn't equal healthy. Being skinny doesn't equal healthy. Hell, there are professional athletes who go on to have heart attacks at (relatively) young ages. What you put into your body matters and arguments otherwise are, IMO, asinine. Not saying anything bad will kill you, moderation is key.

You cannot ingest iocane powder. It is odorless, tasteless, and dissolves instantly in liquid.

It will kill you, even a little.

DaKCMan AP 04-04-2012 08:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fire Me Boy! (Post 8518642)
You cannot ingest iocane powder. It is odorless, tasteless, and dissolves instantly in liquid.

It will kill you, even a little.

Ok?

Simply Red 04-04-2012 08:54 PM

I don't care what you all do. Cut open your forehead and pour simple-syrup down it, it doesn't matter. I had a candy addiction, I've come forward, and it's been addressed. I'll continue to eat bread and use shampoo (even) with gluten and sugar added, but i'm shying away from the candy. It's a new me and it's glorious.

BigMeatballDave 04-04-2012 09:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Laz (Post 8518572)
nobody said that, you gigantic douche.

but simple sugar is bad for you ... period.

all the people trying to twist it or make excuses are just full of shit

A LOT of sugar is bad. A little is not.

Sugar is not Meth.

-King- 04-04-2012 09:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave (Post 8518843)
A LOT of sugar is bad. A little is not.

Sugar is not Meth.

This.


I can't believe people are missing this whole concept.

BryanBusby 04-05-2012 01:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Silock (Post 8518612)
True or false: Complex sugars are absorbed into the body as simple sugars.

You guys focus way too much on body chemistry and what foods are good and bad and blah blah blah.

I have single digit body fat and it's not because I'm just awesome. It's not because I exercises a lot. It's because I have self-control. Yes, I eat whatever I want, including *gasp* simply sugars *I'MGONNADIE*. The key is that I don't eat as much as I possibly can of them.

I control for caloric intake. I'm not fat because I don't eat more than I burn. If I did, I'd be fat, and how much exercise I do wouldn't matter. If I burn 3000 calories and eat 5000, I'm getting fat.

All this focus on good and bad foods is taking away from the fact that people just need to stop eating so much goddamn food. That's why people are fat. It's not because of sugar making you store fat (which you all should realize CAN be burned off... it's not permanent).

Guess what? I'm hungry right the **** now. I've been hungry for hours. Ice cream sounds amazing. Juice sounds amazing. But what am I not doing? Ingesting that. Why? Because I have self-control. I might eat some later, but if I do, you can be sure as shit that I won't eat more than my daily caloric allowance lets me.

Oh wow someone gets it!

Seriously, cutting out food groups to the point where you're eating nothing but lettuce will amount to shitty living. Just learn how to moderate and do physical activity beyond pressing the X button on your controller to run.

DaKCMan AP 04-05-2012 05:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BryanBusby (Post 8519213)
Oh wow someone gets it!

Seriously, cutting out food groups to the point where you're eating nothing but lettuce will amount to shitty living. Just learn how to moderate and do physical activity beyond pressing the X button on your controller to run.

Soda, chips, candy bars, fruit snacks, and other processed crap are not food groups.

NewChief 04-05-2012 05:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Silock (Post 8518612)
True or false: Complex sugars are absorbed into the body as simple sugars.

You guys focus way too much on body chemistry and what foods are good and bad and blah blah blah.

I have single digit body fat and it's not because I'm just awesome. It's not because I exercises a lot. It's because I have self-control. Yes, I eat whatever I want, including *gasp* simply sugars *I'MGONNADIE*. The key is that I don't eat as much as I possibly can of them.

I control for caloric intake. I'm not fat because I don't eat more than I burn. If I did, I'd be fat, and how much exercise I do wouldn't matter. If I burn 3000 calories and eat 5000, I'm getting fat.

All this focus on good and bad foods is taking away from the fact that people just need to stop eating so much goddamn food. That's why people are fat. It's not because of sugar making you store fat (which you all should realize CAN be burned off... it's not permanent).

Guess what? I'm hungry right the **** now. I've been hungry for hours. Ice cream sounds amazing. Juice sounds amazing. But what am I not doing? Ingesting that. Why? Because I have self-control. I might eat some later, but if I do, you can be sure as shit that I won't eat more than my daily caloric allowance lets me.

Marion Nestle, who I really like as a food/nutrition writer, has a new book that, I believe, has this exact premise.

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/ar...others/254888/
Quote:


Marion Nestle

Marion Nestle - Marion Nestle is professor of Nutrition, Food Studies, and Public Health at New York University, and the author of Food Politics, Safe Food, What to Eat, and Pet Food Politics. More
Marion Nestle is Paulette Goddard Professor in the Department of Nutrition, Food Studies, and Public Health at New York University. She also holds appointments as Professor of Sociology at NYU and Visiting Professor of Nutritional Sciences at Cornell. She is the author of three prize-winning books: Food Politics: How the Food Industry Influences Nutrition and Health (revised edition, 2007), Safe Food: The Politics of Food Safety (2003), and What to Eat (2006). Her most recent book is Feed Your Pet Right: The Authoritative Guide to Feeding Your Dog and Cat. She writes the Food Matters column for The San Francisco Chronicle and blogs almost daily at Food Politics.

* All Posts
* Email Nestle
* Books

Share Share « Previous Health | Next Health » Email Email Print Print
Close
Why Calories Count: Do Some Diets Work Better Than Others?
By Marion Nestle

Mar 29 2012, 9:58 AM ET 4

Although some diets may be easier for you to stick to or be more satiating, the bottom line is that you need to eat less to reduce body weight.

Africa Studio/Shutterstock

One problem in studying the effects of dietary composition is that it is not possible to vary the proportion of one component without changing the others. At the extremes of weight-loss diets, the Atkins and South Beach diets are low carbohydrate but high fat, while the Ornish diet is low fat, high carbohydrate [1]. To compare the effects of such diets outside metabolic wards, researchers must deal with study subjects whose dietary and other behaviors are not easily controlled.

Investigators do everything they can to encourage compliance with study protocols. But they confront a major challenge: Telling free-living people what you want them to do does not necessarily mean that they will follow your instructions or tell you the truth about what they are eating. And you have no easy way of getting around this problem. Because dietary intake methods all depend on accurately disclosing what subjects consume -- something impossible for most people to do -- the lack of an easy way to measure true calorie consumption in weight control studies must be considered "the fundamental flaw of obesity research [2]."

But that's not the only problem. When conducting clinical trials that compare one diet to another, researchers also face challenges in enrolling enough study subjects to satisfy statistical requirements, getting study subjects to stick to the prescribed diets, and retaining participants in the study throughout its length. Furthermore, clinical trials of diet and weight loss are expensive to conduct, and few are able to last long enough to observe whether initial weight losses were regained. These considerations make it especially difficult for investigators to evaluate the results of dietary studies objectively and for others to interpret the significance of the findings. Keep these caveats in mind as we take a look at some of the studies attempting to find out whether varying the proportions of protein, fat, and carbohydrate makes any difference to weight loss in real life.

Cover.jpg LOW-FAT (AND, THEREFORE, HIGH-CARBOHYDRATE) DIETS

Atwater Values indicate that fat has more than twice the energy value of either protein or carbohydrate. It makes sense to think that cutting down on fat would help with weight maintenance or loss. In the United States the various editions of the Dietary Guidelines have long promoted lower-fat diets: "Avoid too much fat" (1980, 1985), "Choose a diet low in fat" (1990, 1995), "Keep total fat intake between 20 to 35 percent of calories" (2005), and "Reduce intake of solid fats" (2010). The more recent editions have focused on limiting saturated fat and cholesterol intake rather than total fat per se in recognition of the potential role of these components in heart disease risk. But the newer guidelines also recognize that from the standpoint of body weight, calories from fat are no different from calories from any other source.

This is a shift from the earlier recommendations that reshaped the marketplace. In the early 1990s, advice to reduce fat intake was all that food companies needed to hear to start making low-fat versions of many common foods -- low-fat cheese, mayonnaise, and peanut butter, for example -- along with oxymoronic products such as fat-free half-and-half and fat-free (but equally caloric) cookies. Such products are not necessarily healthier than the products they replace, and rarely taste as good.

But the relationship of dietary fat to obesity is still of much interest. For one thing, it takes hardly any energy to store excess fatty acids as body fat, whereas it takes a bit more energy to make fatty acids from excess dietary carbohydrate. For another, proponents of low-fat diets cite experimental observations demonstrating a connection between fat intake and overweight:

* Laboratory animals fed high-fat diets generally become obese.
* Populations consuming low-fat diets maintain lower body weights.
* Some clinical studies show that reducing dietary fat can result in modest weight loss [3].

Some experts, however, view such evidence as not at all specific to fat, as it could just as easily relate to high-calorie diets from any source. Low-fat diets are necessarily high in carbohydrate -- the calories have to come from something. The range of protein in diets is typically 10 percent (low) to 20 percent (high) of calories; it can't be more, because foods are low in protein -- we don't need much. The real issue in real diets is carbohydrate v. fat. Few studies of such difference control for calories. Overall, studies of dietary patterns typically find no association between either the amount or the type of fat in the diet and subsequent weight gain over periods of several years [4].

When investigators compare the effects of weight-loss diets varying in fat content, they find little difference. One study, for example, looked at overweight or obese subjects who had reduced their body weights by about 25 pounds by consuming a diet of 800 calories a day -- a reduction that ought to induce weight loss in anyone. The participants were divided into groups and instructed to consume specified diets containing 20 to 45 percent of calories from fat. Because all participants regained weight at about the same rate during the study period, the investigators concluded that the percentage of dietary fat made no difference [5].

Another study, this one of nearly 50,000 women, compared the effects of low-fat to usual diets over a six-year period. The women assigned to the low-fat diet were treated more attentively, and perhaps for this reason lost more weight during the first year. They also had lower levels of body fat. Those who best adhered to the low-fat diet kept the weight off the longest. But by the end of the study period, the difference between the two groups was too small to be statistically significant. The one long-term benefit seen in the women on the low-fat diet was a small decrease in body fat [6]. Was this benefit due to the low-fat intake or to the reduction in calories? Our guess is fewer calories.

Although diets with varying proportions of fat, carbohydrate, and protein may be easier for you to stick to or be more satiating, the bottom line is that if you want to reduce your body weight, you still need to consume fewer calories.

TEMPLATEReadMoreBookExcerpts.jpgExcerpted from Marion Nestle and Malden Nesheim's Why Calories Count: From Science to Politics (University of California Press)

[1] Atkins RC. Dr. Atkins' New Diet Revolution. New York: Avon Books, 2002. Agatston A. The South Beach Diet. Emmaus, PA: Rodale, 2003. Ornish D. Eat More, Weigh Less: Dr. Dean Ornish's Life Choice Program for Losing Weight Safely while Eating Abundantly. New York: HarperTorch, 2001.

[2] Winkler JT, The fundamental flaw of obesity research. Obesity Reviews 005;6:199-202.

[3] Bray GA, Popkin BM. Dietary fat intake does affect obesity! AJCN 1998:68:1157-73.

[4] Willett WC. Dietary fat and obesity: An unconvincing relation. AJCN 1998;68:1149-50. Forouhi NG, et al. Dietary fat intake and subsequent weight change in adults: Results from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition cohorts. AJCN 2009;90:1632-41.

[5] Due A, et al. Comparison of 3 ad libitum diets for weight-loss maintenance, risk of cardiovascular disease, and diabetes: A 6-mo randomized, controlled trial. AJCN 2008;88:1232-41.

[6] Carty CL, et al. Low-fat dietary pattern and change in body-composition traits in the Women's Health Initiative Dietary Modification Trial. AJCN 2011;93:516-24. For a comment on the importance of adherence, see: Bray GA. Is dietary fat important? AJCN 2011;93:481-82.

Aspengc8 04-05-2012 06:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave (Post 8518843)
A LOT of sugar is bad. A little is not.

Sugar is not Meth.

I don't think anyone here would argue with the fact that eating excess sugar all the time would be bad. It's all the 'sugar makes you fat' arguments when being fat or not boils down to simply a surplus or deficit in daily calories.

htismaqe 04-05-2012 07:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fire Me Boy! (Post 8518642)
You cannot ingest iocane powder. It is odorless, tasteless, and dissolves instantly in liquid.

It will kill you, even a little.

Not remotely. Because iocane comes from Australia, as everyone knows, and Australia is entirely peopled with criminals, and criminals are used to having people not trust them, as you are not trusted by me, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you.

htismaqe 04-05-2012 07:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aspengc8 (Post 8519265)
I don't think anyone here would argue with the fact that eating excess sugar all the time would be bad. It's all the 'sugar makes you fat' arguments when being fat or not boils down to simply a surplus or deficit in daily calories.

It's not quite that simple.

Chemical bonds require energy to break. Simple carbohydrates are MUCH easier to destroy than fats and proteins. Over-eating simple carbohydrates more readily creates a caloric surplus and ends up leading to the body storing excess calories as fat.

In the end you are correct, but maintaining a proper balance is the key to not having a surplus. Eating more lean protein and proper fats is more filling and therefore makes it easier to prevent over-eating.

L.A. Chieffan 04-05-2012 09:34 AM

im going to opening day and im gonna eat nachos and hot dogs and peanuts and cotton candy and ICE CREAM. tons and tons of ice cream. theyre just gonna have to bring a wheelbarrow down to my seat so i can scoop it all out with a ladel and yell at the bullpen pitchers for being too fat.

Simply Red 04-05-2012 09:42 AM

http://i.imgur.com/fOd7m.gif

BigMeatballDave 04-05-2012 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaKCMan AP (Post 8519225)
Soda, chips, candy bars, fruit snacks, and other processed crap are not food groups.

Thats the Marijuana food group.

RealSNR 04-05-2012 10:30 AM

Constantly browsing this thread forces me to look at the still image of those cupcakes every time. I'm tired of craving them. Think I'll go eat a box and not get diabetes because I'm awesome.

RealSNR 04-05-2012 01:07 PM

Please watch this. I care about you all.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/_Gsg9fAMvYM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Mr. Laz 06-25-2012 11:52 AM

:D

146 Reasons Why Sugar Destroys Your Health
25th June 2012
By Nancy Appleton PhD – nancyappleton.com

Excerpted from Suicide by Sugar

1. Sugar can suppress the immune system.
2. Sugar upsets the mineral relationships in the body.
3. Sugar can cause hyperactivity, anxiety, difficulty concentrating, and crankiness in children.
4. Sugar can produce a significant rise in triglycerides.
5. Sugar contributes to the reduction in defense against bacterial infection (infectious diseases).
6. Sugar causes a loss of tissue elasticity and function, the more sugar you eat the more elasticity and function you lose.
7. Sugar reduces high-density lipoproteins.
8. Sugar leads to chromium deficiency.
9. Sugar leads to cancer of the ovaries.
10. Sugar can increase fasting levels of glucose.
11. Sugar causes copper deficiency.
12. Sugar interferes with absorption of calcium and magnesium.
13. Sugar may make eyes more vulnerable to age-related macular degeneration.
14. Sugar raises the level of a neurotransmitters: dopamine, serotonin, and norepinephrine.
15. Sugar can cause hypoglycemia.
16. Sugar can produce an acidic digestive tract.
17. Sugar can cause a rapid rise of adrenaline levels in children.
18. Sugar malabsorption is frequent in patients with functional bowel disease.
19. Sugar can cause premature aging.
20. Sugar can lead to alcoholism.
21. Sugar can cause tooth decay.
22. Sugar contributes to obesity
23. High intake of sugar increases the risk of Crohn’s disease, and ulcerative colitis.
24. Sugar can cause changes frequently found in person with gastric or duodenal ulcers.
25. Sugar can cause arthritis.
26. Sugar can cause asthma.
27. Sugar greatly assists the uncontrolled growth of Candida Albicans (yeast infections).
28. Sugar can cause gallstones.
29. Sugar can cause heart disease.
30. Sugar can cause appendicitis.
31. Sugar can cause hemorrhoids.
32. Sugar can cause varicose veins.
33. Sugar can elevate glucose and insulin responses in oral contraceptive users.
34. Sugar can lead to periodontal disease.
35. Sugar can contribute to osteoporosis.
36. Sugar contributes to saliva acidity.
37. Sugar can cause a decrease in insulin sensitivity.
38. Sugar can lower the amount of Vitamin E (alpha-Tocopherol) in the blood.
39. Sugar can decrease growth hormone.
40. Sugar can increase cholesterol.
41. Sugar can increase the systolic blood pressure.
42. High sugar intake increases advanced glycation end products (AGEs)(Sugar bound non-enzymatically to protein)
43. Sugar can interfere with the absorption of protein.
44. Sugar causes food allergies.
45. Sugar can contribute to diabetes.
46. Sugar can cause toxemia during pregnancy.
47. Sugar can contribute to eczema in children.
48. Sugar can cause cardiovascular disease.
49. Sugar can impair the structure of DNA
50. Sugar can change the structure of protein.
51. Sugar can make our skin age by changing the structure of collagen.
52. Sugar can cause cataracts.
53. Sugar can cause emphysema.
54. Sugar can cause atherosclerosis.
55. Sugar can promote an elevation of low-density lipoproteins (LDL).
56. High sugar intake can impair the physiological homeostasis of many systems in the body.
57. Sugar lowers the enzymes ability to function.
58. Sugar intake is higher in people with Parkinson’s disease.
59. Sugar can increase the size of the liver by making the liver cells divide.
60. Sugar can increase the amount of liver fat.
61. Sugar can increase kidney size and produce pathological changes in the kidney.
62. Sugar can damage the pancreas.
63. Sugar can increase the body’s fluid retention.
64. Sugar is enemy #1 of the bowel movement.
65. Sugar can cause myopia (nearsightedness).
66. Sugar can compromise the lining of the capillaries.
67. Sugar can make the tendons more brittle.
68. Sugar can cause headaches, including migraine.
69. Sugar plays a role in pancreatic cancer in women.
70. Sugar can adversely affect school children’s grades and cause learning disorders.
71. Sugar can cause depression.
72. Sugar increases the risk of gastric cancer.
73. Sugar and cause dyspepsia (indigestion).
74. Sugar can increase your risk of getting gout.
75. Sugar can increase the levels of glucose in an oral glucose tolerance test over the ingestion of complex carbohydrates.
76. Sugar can increase the insulin responses in humans consuming high-sugar diets compared to low-sugar diets.
77. A diet high in refined sugar reduces learning capacity.
78. Sugar can cause less effective functioning of two blood proteins, albumin, and lipoproteins, which may reduce the body’s ability to handle fat and cholesterol.
79. Sugar can contribute to Alzheimer’s disease.
80. Sugar can cause platelet adhesiveness.
81. Sugar can cause hormonal imbalance; some hormones become under active and others become overactive.
82. Sugar can lead to the formation of kidney stones.
83. Diets high in sugar can cause free radicals and oxidative stress.
84. High sugar diet can lead to biliary tract cancer.
85. High sugar consumption of pregnant adolescents is associated with a twofold-increased risk for delivering a small-for-gestational-age (SGA) infant.
86. High sugar consumption can lead to substantial decrease in gestation duration among adolescents.
87. Sugar slows food’s travel time through the gastrointestinal tract.
88. Sugar increases the concentration of bile acids in stools and bacterial enzymes in the colon. This can modify bile to produce cancer-causing compounds and colon cancer.
89. Sugar increases estradiol (the most potent form of naturally occurring estrogen) in men.
90. Sugar combines with and destroys phosphatase, an enzyme, which makes the process of digestion more difficult.
91. Sugar can be a risk factor of gallbladder cancer.
92. Sugar is an addictive substance.
93. Sugar can be intoxicating, similar to alcohol.
94. Sugar can exacerbate PMS.
95. Sugar given to premature babies can affect the amount of carbon dioxide they produce.
96. Decrease in sugar intake can increase emotional stability.
97. The rapid absorption of sugar promotes excessive food intake in obese subjects.
98. Sugar can worsen the symptoms of children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).
99. Sugar adversely affects urinary electrolyte composition.
100. Sugar can slow down the ability of the adrenal glands to function.
101. I.Vs (intravenous feedings) of sugar water can cut off oxygen to the brain.
102. High sucrose intake could be an important risk factor in lung cancer.
103. Sugar increases the risk of polio.
104. High sugar intake can cause epileptic seizures.
105. Sugar causes high blood pressure in obese people.
106. In Intensive Care Units, limiting sugar saves lives.
107. Sugar may induce cell death.
108. Sugar can increase the amount of food that you eat.
109. In juvenile rehabilitation camps, when children were put on a low sugar diet, there was a 44% drop in antisocial behavior.
110. Sugar can lead to prostrate cancer.
111. Sugar dehydrates newborns.
112. Sugar can cause low birth weight babies.
113. Greater consumption of refined sugar is associated with a worse outcome of schizophrenia
114. Sugar can raise homocysteine levels in the blood stream.
115. Sweet food items increase the risk of breast cancer.
116. Sugar is a risk factor in cancer of the small intestine.
117. Sugar may cause laryngeal cancer.
118. Sugar induces salt and water retention.
119. Sugar may contribute to mild memory loss.
120. The more sodas a 10 year old child consumes, the less milk.
121. Sugar can increase the total amount of food consumed.
122. Exposing a newborn to sugar results in a heightened preference for sucrose relative to water at 6 months and 2 years of age.
123. Sugar causes constipation.
124. Sugar causes varicose veins.
125. Sugar can cause brain decay in prediabetic and diabetic women.
126. Sugar can increase the risk of stomach cancer.
127. Sugar can cause metabolic syndrome.
128. Sugar ingestion by pregnant women increases neural tube defects in embryos.
129. Sugar can be a factor in asthma.
130. The higher the sugar consumption the more chances of getting irritable bowel syndrome.
131. Sugar can affect the brain’s ability to deal with rewards and consequences.
132. Sugar can cause cancer of the rectum.
133. Sugar can cause endometrial cancer.
134. Sugar can cause renal (kidney) cell carcinoma.
135. Sugar can cause liver tumors.
136. Sugar can increase inflammatory markers in the blood stream of overweight people.
137. Sugar can lower Vitamin E levels in the blood stream.
138. Sugar can increase your appetite for all food.
139. Sugar plays a role in the etiology and the continuation of acne.
140. Too much sugar can kill your sex life.
141. Sugar saps school performance in children.
142. Sugar can cause fatigue, moodiness, nervousness and depression.
143. Sugar is common choice of obese individuals.
144. A linear decrease in the intake of many essential nutrients is associated with increasing total sugar intake.
145. High fructose consumption has been linked to liver disease.
146. Sugar adds to the risk of bladder cancer.

Bearcat 06-25-2012 11:56 AM

I think there are a total of about 5 things on that list, repeated 30 times.


Quote:

Sugar can lead to alcoholism.
:hmmm:


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:39 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.