Steak "can" probably cause the majority of things on that list too.

That shouldn't be surprising. Steak isn't the healthiest thing for you, either.

LMAO

when Brock dies i will attend his funeral and instead of dropping a handful of earth on his casket, i'm going to drop a handful of sugar.


LMAO

I'm going to leave a box of Peanut Butter Crunch on your grave. With no milk!

We need to raise awareness.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/uWovoIexb2o" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

bastige!! :cuss:

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/DJ5r3oNFVeE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Do explain.

I'm interested since sat fats have been pretty much disproved to be 'unhealthy', as well as food cholesterol impacting blood serum levels.

Red meat consumption is positively correlated with increased risk of heart disease and cancer. You can do research and make your own conclusions.

Can you link me to some of the real studies? Every one I find was a survey/questionnair given to a random group over the last twenty years ROFL

Can't find one were they regulated diet so they could really prove read meat was the culprit.

I said there was correlation, not causation. There may be a study out there but I don't have the time to dig for it.

So what do you plan to do about the "being stupid" part.







:D

Did this come from the same study observed the town in MA that determined when on a diet of animal fats and meat, fruit, vegetables, eggs, bread, TV dinners, ice cream, chocolate and so on, they determined that fat consumption was directly correlated to obesity and heart disease and thus the government mandated food pyramid was created? Poor science and lack of variable control inevitably lead to garbage like this.

Correlation doesn't equal causation. I know you know that, though.

Obviously he knows it, or he wouldn't have made the distinction.

another 400 replies coming up ...


ROFL

the big difference is that pure glucose will raise the blood sugar (glucose) level very quickly. spikes in the blood sugar level reak havoc with your insulin regulatory system which in turn cause more of these sugars to be stored. In fruit, the fiber in the fruit causes the sugar to be absorbed much slower and more even, so the blood sugar level doesn't tend to spike. Healthy sugar metabolism is really all about keeping your blood sugar levels not only at healthy levels, but just as imortantly, at continuous healthy levels.

It's an incredibly important distinction, though. In a lot of these studies, there's just survey data, which isn't reliable, as has been pointed out. If I said that I got fat because I was eating candy and salad at the same time, you might draw the conclusion that it was the candy making me fat. But if the amounts and ingredients weren't specified, the researcher might not know that I ate a salad with a cup of blue cheese dressing, and only one Reese's mini peanut butter cup. The caloric values are very, very different.

once again you come back with the old 'just stop eating ...' perspective

well i guess all food is exactly the same 'as long as you only eat a little bit'

crack is fine as long as you on use a little bit
cigs are fine as long as you only smoke 1 a day

Silock is absolutely correct that very simply, if you eat more calories than you burn, you will get fat, and vice versa. But, you have to remember that while calories are calories, the foods giving you the calories, and how your body uses them are not. The foods giving you these calories have different effects on your lipid and sugar metabolism, which in turn have different effects on fat storage, overall metabolic rate, cholesterol and triglyceride levels, and so many effects on different hormones like cortisol that entire books have been written about it.

Research review here, because I've been over this before.

http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/0...tose-alarmism/

http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/0...armism-debate/

Insulin series:
http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=319

More often than not, the devil is in the dosage.

I'm not saying that eating a shitload of sugar isn't bad. IT IS. But it's equally as bad as eating a shitload of anything else.

Our bodies need balance. From a pure weight loss standpoint, calories are the only thing that matters. That's all I've been trying to say there. From a long-term standpoint of "general health", calories aren't the ONLY thing that matters, although they remain a good part of it. We need minerals and vitamins and fats and proteins and cholesterols and sugars; we just need them in the right amount.

If you aren't taking in more calories than you are burning, and you aren't overeating on one specific thing, you are VERY likely not to be fat and have good markers of health, insofar as they can be controlled by your diet and not any specific genetic abnormalities you may possess.

Demonizing food groups is bad.

Im going to go out on a limb here and say this thing about "sugar" that is so bad is the processing of sugar. Like they say in the video, fruits and vegetables are fine. Those foods have sugar its just not processed sugar. Evaporated Cane juice is better than processed sugar. We have even put processed sugar in our meats, breads and everything else practically...something we havent done forever. People from centuries ago died form lack of medical science and no medications (like dying form common colds)more than they did of diabetes. Now we have medical science but are dropping like flies because of cancer, diabetes etc..which is directly linked to processed sugar. we have ****ed up our food source so badly, that food is a toxin....

Really?

We're now comparing sugar to crack?

Your argument just jumped the shark.

Look, if you're fat, eating less sugar is great. Grains and alcohol break down into sugar, so cut down on those too.

I, however, am not. I will eat these brownies sitting in front of me and I have a hunch I won't wake up obese.

People aren't dying from these things now because of new toxins in foods. They are dying from these things now because they are living longer due to them surviving things that would have killed them in the past.

yea, that's what i'm doing .. comparing sugar to crack

:facepalm:

It's EXACTLY what you did!

You invoked crack into a conversation about sugar... what else is it?

i was comparing the CONCEPT not the items

"sugar is fine, just stop eating it ..."

well that's the dam problem, now isn't it.


processed sugar spikes your blood sugar so it very difficult to stop when you should.

One is a drug, the other is food. They're not comparable by any means. It's ridiculous. That's all I'm saying.

If I smoke a 'little bit of crack' I become addicted and start smoking more until I am a crack head. Cocaine is a helluva drug.

To act like moderating sugar intake is some how comparable to regulating your cocaine intake isn't a realistic comparison. Neither are cigs because nicotine is a hella addictive drug.

It's not that I don't understand what you're trying to drive home, but I don't think it's valid at all.

You really should read the research I posted.

LOL, no. Stop paying attention to quacks.

I liked fathead-movie.com...it's based upon the paleo diet. Has nothing to do with sugar but with the way foods are processed by the body into sugar. Wheat bread is as close to eating granulated sugar as possible.

Eat meat, you'll be fine. Pass the bacon, please.

Wheat bread? Really?

By the way, I haven't eaten more than maybe 10-15 g of sugar in a single day in the last 6 months.

I used to have super high blood pressure, but now it's normal. Also my Cholesterol is in the "ideal" range for all measurements. That's weird because I thought eating more fat was supposed to kill you...oh well.

How many less calories are you taking in? Did you try a similar caloric restriction before?

About 500.

Point is that eating a low sugar, high fat diet won't kill you.

You are quite obtuse.

25 year old guy stops eating like shit and starts working out to the astonishing effect of almost immediate recovery of his health. It's gotta be the sugar!

This guy (a professor of human nutrition) ate sugary foods (twinkies, snack cakes, etc) for 10 weeks. He lost weight, and lowered his cholesterol.

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

I'm 26.

Do you tell your mom to cook your meals without carbs?


Ok, sorry. Had to go there. All the best for anyone that can stick to a diet, whatever diet they choose. Just know there is more than one way to skin a cat.

Never said it would. You didn't answer my question.

Good on ya. Oddly, a lot of folks want to argue when you stop eating this, that or the other thing. Do what makes you feel better and let them do the same. One size does not fit all.

Michael Pollan's 7 rules:

Don't eat anything your great grandmother wouldn't recognize as food. "When you pick up that box of portable yogurt tubes, or eat something with 15 ingredients you can't pronounce, ask yourself, "What are those things doing there?" Pollan says.
Don’t eat anything with more than five ingredients, or ingredients you can't pronounce.
Stay out of the middle of the supermarket; shop on the perimeter of the store. Real food tends to be on the outer edge of the store near the loading docks, where it can be replaced with fresh foods when it goes bad.
Don't eat anything that won't eventually rot. "There are exceptions -- honey -- but as a rule, things like Twinkies that never go bad aren't food," Pollan says.
It is not just what you eat but how you eat. "Always leave the table a little hungry," Pollan says. "Many cultures have rules that you stop eating before you are full. In Japan, they say eat until you are four-fifths full. Islamic culture has a similar rule, and in German culture they say, 'Tie off the sack before it's full.'"
Families traditionally ate together, around a table and not a TV, at regular meal times. It's a good tradition. Enjoy meals with the people you love. "Remember when eating between meals felt wrong?" Pollan asks.
Don't buy food where you buy your gasoline. In the U.S., 20% of food is eaten in the car.

500 per day?

http://www.kare11.com/news/article/1...pur-overeating

yea but scientists have also shown that sucking dick also causes many of the same issues.

Eating empty calories spurs over-eating. Your body craves the nutrients so it signals to keep eating regardless of caloric intake.

Pure fructose is a precise example of 'empty calories'.

I'm curious what controls were done for this experiment.

Sleep - Turd.

You gotta make a decision, man.

Poop will always win

No, I like sugar. Mind your own business. And you aren't taking my guns either! :)

while the broad is sucking you off no less

The rate of diabetes and obesity suggests that this is not a fad, but a storm that has been ignored and brewing for decades

Sadly, the problem isn't just telling people to moderate. It's that there's sugar and corn syrup and all kinds of unhealthy shit added to our foods that we aren't even aware of. We're eating sugar, sometimes in massive amounts, even when we aren't trying to.

maybe your body is running so much better without sugar that you don't need as much sleep.

If i take my vitamins too late in the day it makes me wake up after about 5 hours instead of 8.

THIS.

Grill meat. Eat green veggies...

So if the answer isn't in a person being accountable for their own diet, what is the answer?

I mean I'm not going to agree at all, but I'm really curious.

We need to increase nutritional education and improve transparency in how big food manufacturers tell you about what is exactly in your food.

People can eat or drink whatever they want. For some reason, the message isn't getting through. Some of that is probably because of personal choice. But a lot of that is because I sense a lot of people have no idea how bad for you some stuff is, and some of that stuff is really non-obvious. Diet soda is a perfect example.

Yeah... obviously I do agree with you here. I have no problem with increasing real education.

Diet Soda is a TERRIBLE example! That is simply an example of people who are willfully ignorant and use it as an excuse. There is no shortage of information on how bad that shit is if you spend 2 seconds looking it up in an era where everything is a goddamn google click away. Substitute processed foods, in their entirety, are terrible for you. That includes butter substitutes as well.

I mean I didn't think you were talking about stuff people could easily figure out on their own. Hell man, ignorance isn't an excuse for stupidity. All soda is poison anyway. That's not hard to discover. It should have a warning label on it.

I don't think it's a terrible example. You really, really, really have to pay attention to know what you're eating. If you stop drinking soda, you go to diet soda under the illusion that less calories is better. If you stop drinking that, you drink juice or soda (even Minute Orange Juice) only to learn that it's loaded with sugar. Same with milk. No? What about Vitamin Water. Surely water infused with vitamins can't be bad for you.

If you don't know how to cook, well then you're ****ed. You stop eating fast food, so you go to Panera and don't realize that that lean sandwich is bombarded with bread oozing with greasy butter. Or you go to buy some whole wheat bread and don't realize there are a gazillion additives to make it taste a little better. See where I'm going?

I don't eat like shit. But maybe 5 years ago, I paid attention to my nutrition and even when I was paying attention, I realized I was making a ton of mistakes. It shouldn't be this hard for people who are really trying. And it needs to be to the point where even people casually conscious of their diet know within a quick glance exactly how bad some stuff is for you. And I agree, one way to do that might be to have seals certifying that a certain food meets certain health standards.

Um, it is.

Diet soda won't make you gain weight.

Diet soda is really bad for you. As are low-fat chips.

It doesn't make you gain weight.

Just kills you quicker.

Time for you to use Google. :thumb:

Buck,

Give us your sagely wisdom on what people with hypoglycemia.should be eating.

More like time for everyone to use Pubmed. Diet soda doesn't increase weight. It also doesn't give you cancer.

The question of whether diet soda causes weight gain or not is still unsettled territory, with there being a correlation but no provable/disprovable causation determined, so I'm not sure what you think Pubmed is going to do about it.

Get people to do research for themselves and see that there is no causation link between diet soda and weight gain. It's not "unsettled territory." They can't prove that the link exists. The only reason it's still an issue is because people are trying to blame the diet soda instead of the person drinking it making poor dietary choices.

It is unsettled territory, as even some of those who don't believe there's a link have acknowledged. The reason it's still an issue is because it's still an issue.

Show me a study where the research group and the control group ate the same exact diet at the time the study was done?

It is based solely on the fact that those who originally drink soda (loaded with calories), then switch to diet to "lose weight", are largely making poor decisions with their food choices and nothing more.

Well . . . you're certainly entitled to your opinion.

There's something weird going on with soda. I weigh myself religiously every day, and on days when I have soda my weight shoots up. I'm talking a lot. More than the weight of the soda. I really think soda does something to your system that makes you retain fluids or something.

Time for you to use your brain.

So, you mean to say, that if you artificially force certain parameters on the dieters you can get the results you want?

Brilliant!

In real life, though, secondary impacts of things such as the impact of a particular food on overall diet actually matter.


Here's an example from 2011:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_1...-soda-drinkers

And here's one from Silock's site of choice, although it's a bit older (just wanted to point out that pubmed has both sides, as well):

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?...rgy+Regulation

Well, if you weigh yourself with a newly drank two liter in your body then you are going to weigh a bit more.

Soda has a lot of sodium.

Studies with rats? We have rationale brains that allow us to make choices, rats do not.

So I am most likely right since the only human study you quoted largely suggests that diet soda drinkers are obviously not making adequate food choices. See how many fit people you find drinking any kind of soda. Oh that is right, they use their rationale brains to determine that they don't need it along with understanding basic nutrition for other food choices. Anyone who chooses to drink a boat load of diet soda probably accompanies them with bagel bites and other absurd food choices then blames it on some artificial sweetener. The onus is never on the person!