I loooove sugar. At restaurants ill open up packets of sugar on the table and snort lines of it.

I've been on a very high all-sugar diet for some time now and the pounds just keep melting off!

Yep !! Keep eating all you want because now studies show that eggs have a ton of emulsifiers that actually keep plaque from building on the walls of your arteries.

Hell 10-15 yrs ago they (Nazi Food police) came out and said never eat Movie Theatre Popcorn again because that unique smell of buttered popcorn in theatre that we all love so much comes from popping it in coconut oil. Apparently eating that popcorn prepared in coconut oil was just like injecting a syringe full of malignant active cancer cells in your body. Only to find out years later that coconut oil is a HUGE cancer fighter/resister. And when you cook/fry you should only use butter or coconut oil because these foods are the only oils that do not break down during the cooking/frying process into trans fatty acids. All other oils do however.

I remember years ago M&M's removed the red ones. Said the dye was cancerous. Guess they figured with all the other crap out there, the risk wasn't that big of a deal.

So can you juice a rib-eye along with that? Maybe a baked potato, sour cream and butter?

So much misinformation in this thread. Oh well.

One mans information is anothers misinformation, America!!!!!!!!!!

May I have everyone's attention please? (especially Buck)

Please, everyone, stop drinking water immediatley. Apparently, it's toxic.

Statistic have shown, and proven, that anayone who ever drank water, ... died!

Please, everyone, ESPECIALLY YOU, BUCK, stop drinking water. It will kill you!

I appreciated the 60 Minutes spotlight on the potential pitfalls of excess sugar consumption, especially the cancer angle. It's something my household has been practicing since the beginning of the year, not due to being overweight, but simply to improve the quality of our overall health.

But like anything else, it's preachy, better than you personalities that do more to derail the actual science than anything else.

Oh, and moderation was shown in the video, 150 calories from sugar a day for men and 100 for women.

Proven results? Hardly. People have been eating sugar since the beginning of time. I guess no pnr until now realized that it was killing them huh?
Posted via Mobile Device

This shit isn't rocket science and doesn't require cutting out specific food groups altogether or going on a gimmicky diet.

Don't stuff your ****ing face with food and get off the couch/computer chair. That pretty much covers it.

Fact.
Posted via Mobile Device

All 3 stories on last nights 60 minutes were good, IMO.

Eliminating all added sugar from one's diet would be extremely difficult & unnecessary, IMO. However, watching what you eat and eliminating most added sugar, HFCS, and other nasty additives and preservatives is definitely within one's control.

As many on this board have, I stopped consuming soft drinks (~9 years ago now). For close to 2.5 years now I eat a diet mostly consisting of plant-based, whole foods. I don't limit the amount of seafood/fish I consume (only about once a week or so anyway). I was already healthy but my body fat % dropped more, lost about 10 lbs (I don't need to lose weight - the 10lbs dropped quick and stayed off), and my blood work is outstanding. Living an active lifestyle helps too.

Enjoying a sugary dessert or a good steak every now and then is fine. It's all about moderation. And being Awesome.

Wow, this is news.

Over-consumption of simple sugars causes obesity, heart disease, and Type 2 diabetes?

I had no freaking idea! Ban sugar now!

I believe the point of the 60 Minutes piece was that the average American has little to no idea how much sugar they actual intake on a daily basis. It appears that it would be obvious, but just from the people that I'm around on a daily basis, they associate sugar with sweet treats and don't realize that all the processed "savory" food they inhale is also overflowing with sugar.

Plus, the cancer/sugar thing was new information for me that I found interesting from the 60 Minutes segment.

Sugar will Kill you, red meat will kill you, cigarettes will kill you, secondhand smoke will kill you, air pollution will kill you, global warming will kill you.

Screw you! Leave my sugar alone! :)

"Sugar Activates Our Brain In A Special Way That Is Very Reminiscent Of Cocaine" - Starts at the 9:57 mark


He also claims like drugs & alcohol you build up tolerance to sugar. aka the law of diminishing returns.





:eek:

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

This doctor lost 27 pounds by eating nothing but twinkies, nutty bars, etc.

The finger in the throat method doesn't work for everyone.

There's a great documentary on Netflix called Fat Head that everyone should watch. It debunks the lipid hypothesis that was conceived in the 60's (low fat=better theory), and comes up with essentially the same conclusion as this report. Fat (mono unsaturated fat, specifically)is a necessary part of our diet, and processed sugars are absolutely terrible for you.

Corn syrup isn't "sugar", but it is a sweetening agent. I've stopped drinking most soda, I don't really eat many things like donuts or candy bars anymore, rarely eat chips except on special occasions. Learned to like unsweetened tea and I drink a lot of water with lemon or iced tea with lemon now.

edit: damn you Saul

Anyone that eats a reasonable calorie count and exercises every day is most likely going to lose weight one way or another. Not necessarily fat, but they will lose weight. If you read through, he also ate mostly vegetables and protein shakes outside of his junk food to keep his protein/carb/fat intake reasonable.

Watch Fat Head. The guy does basically the same thing, but with fast food. He keeps to a 2000 calorie a day or less diet and loses weight, decreases his LDL and raises HDL.

I could probably lose weight if I stopped drinking beer. but I like it too much.

I dislike 90% of veggies and fruit. Love meat and potatoes.
I suppose I could lose weight if I ate veggies and fruite, simply because I wouldn't eat a lot of it to begin with.

I did see pretty quick results when jogging and cutting out beer. But I hate one, and love the other.

I usually like what you have to say. Care to expand on your thoughts?

It doesn't matter what you eat. As long as you are burning more calories than you're taking in, you'll lose weight.
Posted via Mobile Device

You're still a fatass

What happens when you build up a tolerance to sugar? It doesn't taste as good?

32 inch waist, weighing 175lbs, and 7% BF. Are you 5'3?

I like my coffee strong and black, straight up, no sugary cream, no sugar. None of that fancy starbucks shit either.

I like just a little creamer, and a little sugar. Plain old coffee though. Nothing special that costs 8 dollars. Though their 8 dollar drinks are really good.

Not taste as good, but doesn't satisfy as much. Just like the 2nd beer tastes just like the first, but doesn't satisfy the drunk as it might the casual drinker, according to the 60 Minutes piece of course.

Like your men?
Posted via Mobile Device

No, but if you do, I bet you could sub in jail for MTG10 for a few days and get that.

A pretty lengthy article from back in 2009 on this.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/ma...pagewanted=all

According to the story you would need to consume more sugar to release the same amount of dopamine and receive satisfaction.

I will hopefully get a chance to watch this later but for now I will stick with sugar intake in moderation with the exercising I do 5-6 days a week.

Aspartame is better for you. :rolleyes:

Yes, that's the argument that's being made. :rolleyes:

No, but it should be. Sugar is the least of our worries.

I don't eat sugar to release dopamine. I eat it because it makes things taste good.

not really ... sugar overrides your 'full feeling' by giving you a craving to consume more sugar. That leads to eating when you don't need it.

obesity is a huge problem in America

Health,Insurance ...

The term 'comfort food' is the biggest pile of shit. Its the sugar spike that makes you feel good and keep eating for enjoyment.

Love of chocolate is an addiction to sugar

Sugar is a huge keystone problem for food related issues.

WHAT?

They've been harping on "hidden" sugar for nearly a decade. Hell, pretty much every food I buy at the grocery today lists the glycemic index.

Unless you were living in the jungle for the last 10 years, there really wasn't anything new in the piece.

Sugar, among MANY other things, overrides your "full feeling" because it has an extremely easy-to-break chemical bond.

This isn't new.

This piece gets political, but it gives another great reason why sugar is in so much goddamn shit we eat. Either way, don't read it and complain:

The Great Sugar Shaft
by James Bovard, April 1998

The U.S. government has devotedly jacked up American sugar prices far above world market prices since the close of the War of 1812. The sugar industry is one of America's oldest infant industries — yet it dodders with the same uncompetitiveness that it showed during the second term of James Madison. Few cases better illustrate how trade policy can be completely immune to economic sense.

The U.S. imposed high tariffs on sugar in 1816 in order to placate the growers in the newly acquired Louisiana territory. In the 1820s, sugar plantation owners complained that growing sugar in the United States was "warring with nature" because the U.S. climate was unsuited to sugar production. Naturally, the plantation owners believed that all Americans should be conscripted into the "war." Protectionists warned that if sugar tariffs were lifted, then the value of slaves working on the sugar plantations would collapse — thus causing a general fall in slave values throughout the South.

In 1934, the U.S. government imposed sugar import quotas to complement high sugar tariffs and direct government subsidies to sugar growers. By the 1950s, the U.S. sugar program was renown for its byzantine, impenetrable regulations. Like most arcane systems, the sugar program vested vast power in the few people who understood and controlled the system. As author Douglas Cater observed in 1964, "In reviewing the sugar quotas, House Agriculture Committee Chairman Cooley has had the habit of receiving the [foreign representatives interested in acquiring sugar quotas] one by one to make their presentations, then summoning each afterward to announce his verdict. By all accounts, he has a zest for this princely power and enjoys the frequent meetings with foreign ambassadors to confer on matters of sugar and state."

Sugar quotas have also provided a safety net for former congressmen, many of whom have been hired as lobbyists for foreign sugar producers.

Since 1980, the sugar program has cost consumers and taxpayers the equivalent of more than $3 million for each American sugar grower. Some people win the lottery; other people grow sugar. Congressmen justify the sugar program as protecting Americans from the "roller-coaster of international sugar prices," as Rep. Byron Dorgan (D.-N.D.) declared. Unfortunately, Congress protects consumers from the roller-coaster by pegging American sugar prices on a level with the Goodyear blimp floating far above the amusement park. U.S. sugar prices have been as high as or higher than world prices for 44 of the last 45 years.

Sugar sold for 21 cents a pound in the United States when the world sugar price was less than 3 cents a pound. Each 1-cent increase in the price of sugar adds between $250 million and $300 million to consumers' food bills. A Commerce Department study estimated that the sugar program was costing American consumers more than $3 billion a year.

Congress, in a moment of economic sobriety, abolished sugar quotas in June 1974. But, on May 5, 1982, President Reagan reimposed import quotas. The quotas sought to create an artificial shortage of sugar that would drive up U.S. prices and force consumers to unknowingly support American sugar growers. And by keeping the subsidies covert and off-budget, quotas did not interfere with Reagan's bragging about how he was cutting wasteful government spending.

Between May 1982 and November 1984, the U.S. government reduced the sugar import quotas six times as the USDA desperately tried to balance foreign and domestic sugar supplies with domestic demand.

While USDA bureaucrats worked overtime to minutely regulate the quantity of sugar allowed into the United States, a bomb went off that destroyed their best-laid plans. On November 6, 1984, both Coca Cola and Pepsi announced plans to stop using sugar in soft drinks, replacing it with high-fructose corn syrup. At the drop of two press releases, U.S. sugar consumption decreased by more than 500,000 tons a year — equal to the entire quotas of 25 of the 42 nations allowed to sell sugar to the United States. The quota program drove sugar prices so high that it wrecked the market for sugar — and thereby destroyed the government's ability to control sugar supply and demand. On January 16, 1985, Agriculture Secretary John Block announced an effective 20 percent cut in the quota for all exporting countries.

Sugar quotas made it very profitable to import products with high amounts of sugar. As a USDA report noted, "The incentive to circumvent restrictions had led to creation of new products which had never been traded in the United States and which were designed specifically for the U.S. market." On June 28, 1983, Reagan declared an embargo on imports of certain blends and mixtures of sugar and other ingredients in bulk containers. Naturally, businesses began importing some of the same products in smaller containers. The Economic Report of the President noted, "Entrepreneurs were importing high-sugar content products, such as iced-tea mix, and then sifting their sugar content from them and selling the sugar at the high domestic price." On November 7, 1984, the Customs Service announced new restrictions on sugar- and sweetener-blend imports.

Federal restrictions made sugar smuggling immensely profitable. The Justice Department caught 30 companies in a major sting operation named Operation Bittersweet. Federal prosecutors were proud that the crackdown netted $16 million in fines for the government — less than one-tenth of 1 percent of what the sugar program cost American consumers during the 1980s. The Justice Department was more worried about businessmen's bringing in cheap foreign sugar than about the sugar lobby's bribing of congressmen to extort billions of dollars from consumers. (Public Voice for Food and Health Policy, a Washington, D.C., consumer lobby, reported that the sugar lobby donated more than $3 million to congressmen between 1984 and 1989.)

A few thousand sugar growers became the tail that wagged the dog of American foreign policy. Early in 1982, Reagan announced the Caribbean Basin Initiative (CBI) to aid Caribbean nations by giving them expanded access to the U.S. market. In his May 5, 1982, announcement, Reagan promised, "The interests of foreign suppliers are also protected, since this system provides such suppliers reasonable access to a stable, higher-priced U.S. market. In arriving at this decision, we have taken fully into account the CBI." But between 1981 and 1988, USDA slashed the amount of sugar that Caribbean nations could ship to the United States by 74 percent. The State Department estimated that the reductions in sugar-import quotas cost Third World nations $800 million a year. The sugar program has indirectly become a full-employment program for the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, as many poor Third World farmers who previously grew sugar cane are now harvesting marijuana.

The Reagan administration responded to sugar-import cutbacks by creating a new foreign-aid program — the Quota Offset Program — to give free food to countries hurt by reductions. In 1986, the United States. dumped almost $200 million of free food on Caribbean nations and the Philippines. As the Wall Street Journal reported, "By flooding local markets and driving commodity prices down, the U.S. is making it more difficult for local farmers to replace sugar with other crops." Richard Holwill, deputy assistant secretary of state, observed, "It makes us look like damn fools when we go down there and preach free enterprise."

The U.S. government's generosity to sugar farmers victimizes other American businesses. Brazil retaliated against the United States for cutting its sugar quota by reducing its purchases of American grain. In the Dominican Republic, former sugar growers are now producing wheat and corn, thereby providing more competition for American farmers. American candy producers are at a disadvantage because foreign companies can buy their sugar at much lower prices. Since 1982, dextrose and confectionery coating imports have risen tenfold and chocolate imports are up fivefold.

The sugar program has also decreased soybean exports. In the Red River valley of Minnesota, heavily subsidized sugar growers have bid up the rents on farmland by more than 50 percent. As a result, relatively unsubsidized soybean farmers can no longer find sufficient land to grow soybeans, America's premier export crop. This illustrates how restrictions on imports become restrictions on exports.

The sugar program is corporate welfare in its most overt form. The General Accounting Office estimated that only 17 of the nation's largest sugar cane farmers received more than half of all the benefits provided by the sugar cane subsidies. GAO also estimated that the 28 largest Florida sugar cane producers received almost 90 percent of all the benefits enjoyed by Florida sugar producers from federal programs.

The number of American jobs destroyed by sugar quotas since 1980 exceeds the total number of sugar farmers in the United States. The Commerce Department estimates that the high price of sugar has destroyed almost 9,000 U.S. jobs in food manufacturing since 1981. In early 1990, the Brach Candy Company announced plans to close its Chicago candy factory and relocate 3,000 jobs to Canada because of the high cost of sugar in the United States. Thanks to the cutback in sugar imports, 10 sugar refineries have closed in recent years and 7,000 refinery jobs have been lost. The United States has only 13,000 sugar farmers.

Many observers expected that, with the Republican Revolution in Congress, the sugar program would be abolished when the new farm bill was written in 1996. Instead, the sugar program's survival became one of the starkest symbols of that revolution's collapse. Two-hundred and twenty-three House members cosponsored a bill to get rid of the sugar program; but, when push came to shove, the sugar lobby persuaded several sponsors of the bill (including freshman conservative stalwarts Rep. Steve Stockman [R.-Tex.] and Rep. Sue Myrick [R.-N.C.]) to switch sides. The House voted 217-208 to continue the program.

Environmentalists were anxious about the adverse effects of Florida sugar cane production on the Everglades. Congress did not choose the obvious solution — ending subsides that irrationally encourage sugar production in a fragile area — but instead voted $200 million to clean up the Everglades by buying some of the sugar cane fields from farmers.

There is no reason why the United States must produce its own sugar cane. Sugar is cheaper in Canada primarily because Canada has almost no sugar growers — and thus no trade restrictions or government support programs. Paying lavish subsidies to produce sugar in Florida makes as much sense as creating a federal subsidy program to grow bananas in Massachusetts. The only thing that could make American sugar cane farmers world-class competitive would be massive global warming.

I'm sure it has nothing to do with dopamine being released from your VTA every time you consume sugar.

Gerson diet is here, This would be an extremely hard one to follow...

http://gerson.org/pdfs/Foods_For_The_Gerson_Diet.pdf

I'm going to eat some milk duds right now in honor of this thread.

Sugar is natural. Everybody knows too much of anything is bad for you, but I'll take the natural stuff over that aspartame crap anyday.

No, it doesn't. I like the taste of apple pie and vanilla ice cream from time to time. I'm not having some kind of drug experience from it.

Avocados are prohibited?

Yeah, **** that.

I'm amazed at your ability to tell your brain not to release dopamine during consumption of sugary foods.

doesn't matter whether it's new or not, it's true.

for years the food industry has used simple sugar to get people addicted to their food products. It can't be talked about enough.

Christmas candy
valentine's day candy
Halloween candy

Get them hooked early so you can make billions off of selling crap with sugar sprinkled on it.

sugar is the devil when it comes to nutrition ... it just is.

all these 800lb people on jerry springer don't exist without sugar spikes.

ROFLROFLROFL

Brock is special

I don't care if my brain releases dopamine or not. That isn't why I eat it.

http://www.sweetpoison.com/

According to Lendon Smith, M.D. there is an enormous population suffering from side effects associated with aspartame, yet have no idea why drugs, supplements and herbs don’t relieve their symptoms. Then, there are users who don’t ‘appear’ to suffer immediate reactions at all. Even these individuals are susceptible to the long-term damage caused by excitatory amino acids, phenylalanine, methanol, and DKP.

Adverse reactions and side effects of aspartame include:

Eye
blindness in one or both eyes
decreased vision and/or other eye problems such as: blurring, bright flashes, squiggly lines, tunnel vision, decreased night vision
pain in one or both eyes
decreased tears
trouble with contact lenses
bulging eyes

Ear
tinnitus - ringing or buzzing sound
severe intolerance of noise
marked hearing impairment

Neurologic
epileptic seizures
headaches, migraines and (some severe)
dizziness, unsteadiness, both
confusion, memory loss, both
severe drowsiness and sleepiness
paresthesia or numbness of the limbs
severe slurring of speech
severe hyperactivity and restless legs
atypical facial pain
severe tremors

Psychological/Psychiatric
severe depression
irritability
aggression
anxiety
personality changes
insomnia
phobias

Chest
palpitations, tachycardia
shortness of breath
recent high blood pressure

Gastrointestinal
nausea
diarrhea, sometimes with blood in stools
abdominal pain
pain when swallowing

Skin and Allergies
itching without a rash
lip and mouth reactions
hives
aggravated respiratory allergies such as asthma

Endocrine and Metabolic
loss of control of diabetes
menstrual changes
marked thinning or loss of hair
marked weight loss
gradual weight gain
aggravated low blood sugar (hypoglycemia)
severe PMS

Other
frequency of voiding and burning during urination
excessive thirst, fluid retention, leg swelling, and bloating
increased susceptibility to infection

Additional Symptoms of Aspartame Toxicity include the most critical symptoms of all
death
irreversible brain damage
birth defects, including mental reerunation
peptic ulcers
aspartame addiction and increased craving for sweets
hyperactivity in children
severe depression
aggressive behavior
suicidal tendencies

Aspartame may trigger, mimic, or cause the following illnesses:
Chronic Fatigue Syndrome
Epstein-Barr
Post-Polio Syndrome
Lyme Disease
Grave’s Disease
Meniere’s Disease
Alzheimer’s Disease
ALS
Epilepsy
Multiple Sclerosis (MS)
EMS
Hypothyroidism
Mercury sensitivity from Amalgam fillings
Fibromyalgia
Lupus
non-Hodgkins
Lymphoma
Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD)

These are not allergies or sensitivities, but diseases and disease syndromes. Aspartame poisoning is commonly misdiagnosed because aspartame symptoms mock textbook ‘disease’ symptoms, such as Grave’s Disease.

Aspartame changes the ratio of amino acids in the blood, blocking or lowering the levels of serotonin, tyrosine, dopamine, norepinephrine, and adrenaline. Therefore, it is typical that aspartame symptoms cannot be detected in lab tests and on x-rays. Textbook disorders and diseases may actually be a toxic load as a result of aspartame poisoning.

Way to miss the point.

The study isn't talking about naturally occurring sugars (i.e. in fruits). The entire broadcast targeted added sugars.

Cocaine over Meth it is!

This is like me saying "I like a glass of wine from time to time"

"You're only drinking it because of the alcohol".

:rolleyes:

The dopamine release from the reward system of your brain has zero effect on your perceived enjoyment and taste of the sugary food?

It is a flavor experience. That is all. You apparently experience a little sugar differently than I do.

No it's not. It's like saying the alcohol in the wine enhances your enjoyment of it while you are claiming the alcohol contained in the wine has zero effect upon your decision to drink and enjoy it.

lol ... just giving you shit

but you can't control it, dude ... you just can't

sugar triggers a chemical response in your body that tells your brain to "like it"

sugar
salt
fat

see how much you like food without these three things.

Kids love french fries because they cooked in fatty oil, have salt dumped on them and they dipped them into Ketchup, which has sugar in it.

The alcohol does have zero effect upon my decision to drink and enjoy it, outside of whatever flavor it adds.

If I want to get drunk, it isn't going to be on wine.

Alcoholic drinks generally taste nasty and wouldn't be consumed at all without the buzz.

Purple Passion? :D

They're not as separated as you'd like to think they are. When you taste something that is sugary & sweet it sends the signal to your brain which releases the dopamine to let you know that it tastes good and is safe to eat. The 60 minutes segment last night discussed and pointed this out.

http://pull.imgfave.netdna-cdn.com/i...651719645.jpeg

Hey dudes, check it out. A Cadbury cream egg cheesecake.

I just ate a whole one of these, and I'm still diabetes-free. Toxic my ass.

Exactly. Your brain tells you that you like it and want to eat it - because it contains sugar.

a 6-pack of grape flavored cold duck was my first drunk and my first 3-way kissing with 2 senior girls. :clap:

tis all good

but lets be honest, if people didn't get buzzed they wouldn't drink. There would be no point to drink alcohol instead of much tastier drinks.

The same with candy, if it didn't give you a sugar spike then you wouldn't eat it.

Yep, I'm in. I have been cutting sugar intake, fat intake and working out for the last 7 months. Transformed from pudgy to fairly lean. I had a trainer for the 1st few months and he said you can eat just cut out sweets. He's 47 and in great shape.

I'm polishing off some organic Chocolate Chip cookies as we speak..friggin' dopamine inducing' sugar high if i ever had one. ;)

I MUCH prefer the taste of a strong German beer when I eat red meat. It has nothing to do with being buzzed as I stop consuming them when the food is gone. It is strictly a flavor combination.

I ABSOLUTELY agree. I just don't get the reaction to this 60 Minutes piece when it's not only not new, it's 10-year old advice AT LEAST.

some people aren't paying attention and it's a surprise.

Hell ... there is a thread around here some place where Mecca is telling me how sugar isn't a problem and doesn't spike your blood sugar or some such bullshit.

sugar makes you feel false hungry so if you trying to lose weight the first things you should do is eliminate all simple sugars and increase exercise.

candy
cakes
sugar drinks (hell, they sneak sugar into most drinks)
white pasta
white bread
red sauces
ketchup
etc,etc

weight loss should come pretty naturally then

The food reward aspect is fairly new, especially in the public eye. Food reward is much more than eating because food tastes good; there is a neurological aspect to it, as explained in the last part of the 60 Minutes piece. Not everyone is susceptible to it, just like not everyone who goes to Vegas becomes addicted to gambling (there are similarities between food reward and gambling and drug addiction).

Here's a nice rundown on food reward.

Plain sugar all by itself isn't particularly rewarding. Sit down with a bag of white sugar and a spoon and you'll get tired of it pretty quickly. Put that sugar in water and add some flavoring and it is much easier to put it away. To make sugar really rewarding, combine it with fat (like pretty much all junk food).

A really good book on food reward is The End Of Overeating. It details how food reward works on our brains and how modern food manufacturers engineer their foods to take advantage of it so that we buy more and more of their products.

By the way, the cancer section on the 60 Minute piece is pretty weak. It's true that some cancers have more insulin receptors but the idea that insulin spikes cause the cancer to grow is still pretty controversial. The guy they talked to didn't offer any proof other than some computer animation.

Besides, sugar (as in sucrose and HFCS) is actually fairly low GI since it made up of about 50% fructose and fructose doesn't enter the blood stream as glucose (it's turned into triglycerides in the liver which are either used for fuel or stored as fat). If high blood sugar spikes are the problem, then reducing starch like potatoes and bread would make more sense than just looking at sugar since they convert more readily to glucose in the blood.

It took a 60 minutes special for Buck to learn that sugar is bad for you, and now he thinks he is a dietary expert.

Yep. The fact that simple carbs are detrimental to weight loss is self-evident to anybody that monitors caloric content. In fact, balanced nutrition in general is pretty obvious. Foods with complex carbs, good fats, and/or protein have lower calorie content in general and cellulose fiber has no calories at all. By contrasts, most bad fats and all simple carbs are simply loaded with easily-digestible calories.

Pretty much.

I've eaten nothing but Pixie sticks for 20 years and I feel perfectly fine!