Building High-Performance Muscle™
Supplements and Nutrition
 
Is sugar toxic? - 60 minutes
1 2 Next Last
 

Anonymity
Level

Join date: Aug 2009
Location: Illinois, USA
Posts: 743

A segment from 60 minutes tonight.

http://www.cbsnews.com/...y;storyMediaBox

  Report
 

jehovasfitness
Level 10

Join date: Jan 2006
Location: Maryland, USA
Posts: 12547

good stuff.

I loved the part where the "sugar guy" tried to say it's all about balance and exercise. WTF is balance/moderation anyways....

Like how they also mentioned small-dense LDL, but they didn't really stress how it's different and not just LDL.

  Report
 

phishfood1128
Level

Join date: Aug 2009
Location: New York, USA
Posts: 452

one thing that had me curious. They showed sugars activate the reward centers of the brain and release dopamine. As a result of people's high sugar/hfcs diet, people become desensitized and have to overeat to get the same effects, "causing addiction". My question is is there a relationship between high sugar diets the higher incidences of depression we are seeing today.

  Report
 

jehovasfitness
Level 10

Join date: Jan 2006
Location: Maryland, USA
Posts: 12547

Well, if someone consumes a lot of sugar, typically a few things go on.

1. the sugar calories replace other foods that tend to contain more vitamins/minerals which are important for brain health
2. sugar is basically an anti-nutrient and can cause depletion of such nutrients above.

makes total sense IMO how a diet with excess sugar can lead to mental disease

  Report
 

Iron Dwarf
Level

Join date: Feb 2008
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 16335

phishfood1128 wrote:
one thing that had me curious. They showed sugars activate the reward centers of the brain and release dopamine. As a result of people's high sugar/hfcs diet, people become desensitized and have to overeat to get the same effects, "causing addiction". My question is is there a relationship between high sugar diets the higher incidences of depression we are seeing today.


http://psychcentral.com/...-to-depression/

  Report
 

phishfood1128
Level

Join date: Aug 2009
Location: New York, USA
Posts: 452

the cancer cells shuttling glucose to themselves was pretty interesting as well.

  Report
 

jehovasfitness
Level 10

Join date: Jan 2006
Location: Maryland, USA
Posts: 12547

phishfood1128 wrote:
the cancer cells shuttling glucose to themselves was pretty interesting as well.


Yeah, though it would have been nice if they pointed out, that all carbs are broken down into sugar. So, a very low-carb diet could be rather beneficial for a cancer patient.

or even a low-carb diet for prevention

  Report
 

phishfood1128
Level

Join date: Aug 2009
Location: New York, USA
Posts: 452

jehovasfitness wrote:
phishfood1128 wrote:
the cancer cells shuttling glucose to themselves was pretty interesting as well.


Yeah, though it would have been nice if they pointed out, that all carbs are broken down into sugar. So, a very low-carb diet could be rather beneficial for a cancer patient.

or even a low-carb diet for prevention


lol you just made me think of the sugar lobbyist they interviewed. Deer in headlights.

  Report
 

Iron Dwarf
Level

Join date: Feb 2008
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 16335

jehovasfitness wrote:
phishfood1128 wrote:
the cancer cells shuttling glucose to themselves was pretty interesting as well.


Yeah, though it would have been nice if they pointed out, that all carbs are broken down into sugar. So, a very low-carb diet could be rather beneficial for a cancer patient.

or even a low-carb diet for prevention


Dr Barry Sears (of The Zone fame) is convinced of this.

  Report
 

PB Andy
Level 100

Join date: Mar 2006
Location: Illinois, USA
Posts: 9477

Iron Dwarf wrote:
jehovasfitness wrote:
phishfood1128 wrote:
the cancer cells shuttling glucose to themselves was pretty interesting as well.


Yeah, though it would have been nice if they pointed out, that all carbs are broken down into sugar. So, a very low-carb diet could be rather beneficial for a cancer patient.

or even a low-carb diet for prevention


Dr Barry Sears (of The Zone fame) is convinced of this.

Dr. Sears is the shit. I still think The Zone is one of the better macronutrient breakdowns for hard lifters like us... with some changes.

  Report
 

Jeffrey of Troy
Level 2

Join date: May 2011
Location: Michigan, USA
Posts: 458

jehovasfitness wrote:
phishfood1128 wrote:
the cancer cells shuttling glucose to themselves was pretty interesting as well.


Yeah, though it would have been nice if they pointed out, that all carbs are broken down into sugar. So, a very low-carb diet could be rather beneficial for a cancer patient.

or even a low-carb diet for prevention



this was exactly my reaction to the show. I had already cut out added sugar, HFCS, PHVO, and started lifting weights; still fat. Then I read Good Cals Bad Cals, realized it's not just sugar but bread too, and promptly took 4 inches off my waist in 6 months; have kept it off over 2 yrs now.

But 60 minutes ain't exactly "alternative"; they're always covering science/health news purely to say "this will lead to better drugs!". So, Lustig on 60 Mins saying it's sugar not fat? It's a step in the right direction..

  Report
 

Iron Dwarf
Level

Join date: Feb 2008
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 16335

PB Andy wrote:
Iron Dwarf wrote:
jehovasfitness wrote:
phishfood1128 wrote:
the cancer cells shuttling glucose to themselves was pretty interesting as well.


Yeah, though it would have been nice if they pointed out, that all carbs are broken down into sugar. So, a very low-carb diet could be rather beneficial for a cancer patient.

or even a low-carb diet for prevention


Dr Barry Sears (of The Zone fame) is convinced of this.

Dr. Sears is the shit. I still think The Zone is one of the better macronutrient breakdowns for hard lifters like us... with some changes.


I agree. I once contacted Sears about how to apply the Zone to a bodybuilding regimen. He told me to simply add more food blocks as I grow.

  Report
 

jehovasfitness
Level 10

Join date: Jan 2006
Location: Maryland, USA
Posts: 12547

Iron Dwarf wrote:
jehovasfitness wrote:
phishfood1128 wrote:
the cancer cells shuttling glucose to themselves was pretty interesting as well.


Yeah, though it would have been nice if they pointed out, that all carbs are broken down into sugar. So, a very low-carb diet could be rather beneficial for a cancer patient.

or even a low-carb diet for prevention


Dr Barry Sears (of The Zone fame) is convinced of this.


It is well accepted in the veterinary world for dog cancer

  Report
 

jehovasfitness
Level 10

Join date: Jan 2006
Location: Maryland, USA
Posts: 12547

MODOK wrote:
This is the main theme of my upcoming book, Dietary Rehabilitation. There is overwhelming evidence that 1. sugar IS addictive 2. Companies know this and exploit this fact to get you to buy more of their products 3. The addiction precipitates the associated health problems due to the metabolic problems associated with the unnaturally high intake of fructose in particular. The solution is the same as it is with most other addictions-a rehab. Hence the title "Dietary Rehabilitation."


spot on. It amazes me some rather educated people still cling to the idea that it's just a matter of self-control and calories.

  Report
 

Iron Dwarf
Level

Join date: Feb 2008
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 16335

I've been on a 60-100 carbs a day kick (breakfast only) for the past few weeks. Upped my veggie and fatty meat intake as well. At first I felt sluggish and craved carbs all the time, but now I'm focused, clear-headed, and have no carb cravings at all.

Then last weekend my wife and I went out for the day. We went to a Cosi restaurant for cold drinks and I bought a Mojito Ice tea and downed it. Afterward I was shocked to read the nutrition info and it read there were 70 grams of carbs in it... from high fructose corn syrup! The carb cravings returned with a vengeance that night and it took the entire next day to get that feeling to go away.

  Report
 

Powerpuff
Level 3

Join date: Jan 2011
Location: California, USA
Posts: 2302

jehovasfitness wrote:
MODOK wrote:
This is the main theme of my upcoming book, Dietary Rehabilitation. There is overwhelming evidence that 1. sugar IS addictive 2. Companies know this and exploit this fact to get you to buy more of their products 3. The addiction precipitates the associated health problems due to the metabolic problems associated with the unnaturally high intake of fructose in particular. The solution is the same as it is with most other addictions-a rehab. Hence the title "Dietary Rehabilitation."


spot on. It amazes me some rather educated people still cling to the idea that it's just a matter of self-control and calories.


This book by David Kessler, The End of Overeating covers this very well.
http://www.amazon.com/...n/dp/1605297852

Foods that are deemed more "palatable" by the food industry are foods that people want to KEEP eating, or can't put down. Usually they are high in sugar, fat, and salt.

I think this explains why I've been more successful just eliminating some foods, rather than trying to eat them in moderation. We all know that it's very hard to stop at just one, or even one handful. Most packaged snack foods are engineered that way, and they do "rewire" our brain chemistry which further stacks the deck against us.

About carb and sugar cravings, I really notice that if I have something full of sugar and fat, it's MUCH harder to adhere to my diet for about two days afterward. I'm better off staying away from the typical "cheat meal".

  Report
 

endofallclarity
Level 1

Join date: Jun 2009
Location: California, USA
Posts: 204

i was kinda confused on the cancer shuttling glucose to themselves via insulin receptors. Glucose is very good for you. It essentially powers you. Are they saying insulin spikes caused by excess sugar create insulin receptors in tumors, then the receptors on tumors shut off when we eat whole food like nuts or veggies? Doesn't make too much sense. You have glucose in your system regardless of whether you eat good or bad food. Otherwise we wouldn't survive.

  Report
 

Liam M
Level

Join date: Aug 2010
Location:
Posts: 82

I like this thread. Isn't anything bad in the body caused by inflammation? I have read that the liver processes mainly 4 off things. Amino acids, trans fats, alcohol and fructose. Three of these are becoming and already known to cause problems. Should we be minimizing all but protein going through the liver?
In the body doesn't inflammation occur in anything distressed.
There is obviously more to this but since I have eliminated fructose and also gluten my body feels good. I am actually hungry and it feels like my body need nutrients and isn't just desensitized from inflammation.

  Report
 

MAF14
Level 2

Join date: Feb 2009
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 2528

Powerpuff wrote:
Foods that are deemed more "palatable" by the food industry are foods that people want to KEEP eating, or can't put down. Usually they are high in sugar, fat, and salt.


I remember reading about how food manufactures spent millions on finding THE most addictive ratio of salt:sugar:fat.

  Report
 

jehovasfitness
Level 10

Join date: Jan 2006
Location: Maryland, USA
Posts: 12547

Powerpuff wrote:
jehovasfitness wrote:
MODOK wrote:
This is the main theme of my upcoming book, Dietary Rehabilitation. There is overwhelming evidence that 1. sugar IS addictive 2. Companies know this and exploit this fact to get you to buy more of their products 3. The addiction precipitates the associated health problems due to the metabolic problems associated with the unnaturally high intake of fructose in particular. The solution is the same as it is with most other addictions-a rehab. Hence the title "Dietary Rehabilitation."


spot on. It amazes me some rather educated people still cling to the idea that it's just a matter of self-control and calories.


This book by David Kessler, The End of Overeating covers this very well.
http://www.amazon.com/...n/dp/1605297852

Foods that are deemed more "palatable" by the food industry are foods that people want to KEEP eating, or can't put down. Usually they are high in sugar, fat, and salt.

I think this explains why I've been more successful just eliminating some foods, rather than trying to eat them in moderation. We all know that it's very hard to stop at just one, or even one handful. Most packaged snack foods are engineered that way, and they do "rewire" our brain chemistry which further stacks the deck against us.

About carb and sugar cravings, I really notice that if I have something full of sugar and fat, it's MUCH harder to adhere to my diet for about two days afterward. I'm better off staying away from the typical "cheat meal".



Yeah, I read the book. Was an ok read.

  Report
 

schanz_05
Level 5

Join date: Mar 2007
Location: South Dakota, USA
Posts: 220

endofallclarity wrote:
i was kinda confused on the cancer shuttling glucose to themselves via insulin receptors. Glucose is very good for you. It essentially powers you. Are they saying insulin spikes caused by excess sugar create insulin receptors in tumors, then the receptors on tumors shut off when we eat whole food like nuts or veggies? Doesn't make too much sense. You have glucose in your system regardless of whether you eat good or bad food. Otherwise we wouldn't survive.


What they are saying is that the tumors evolved to contain insulin receptors. If you eat foods that result in large amounts of insulin being released this is going to trigger the receptors on the tumor allowing it access to large amounts of glucose. If you eat say a high protein and fat meal that results in very low insulin levels you can reduce or cut off the supply of glucose to the tumor by not activating the insulin receptors.

Yes we always have glucose circulating in our system, but we don't always have insulin circulating. The key is to prevent the release of lots of insulin that triggers the receptors on the tumor allowing the glucose uptake.

  Report
 

facko
Level 2

Join date: Nov 2005
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 1619

It's clear to anyone with any basic understanding of human physiology, as well as proper trial studies that there are various flaws in that particular study. I'm tired of the fear mongering..the key to anything is moderation.

If you'd like me to go over why this study simple does not apply to basically anyone on this forum..then I shall do so.

  Report
 

jehovasfitness
Level 10

Join date: Jan 2006
Location: Maryland, USA
Posts: 12547

facko wrote:
It's clear to anyone with any basic understanding of human physiology, as well as proper trial studies that there are various flaws in that particular study. I'm tired of the fear mongering..the key to anything is moderation.

If you'd like me to go over why this study simple does not apply to basically anyone on this forum..then I shall do so.


I really despsise the phrase "in moderation"... what is exactly is moderation?

btw- what study are you referring to?

  Report
 

MAF14
Level 2

Join date: Feb 2009
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 2528

facko wrote:
It's clear to anyone with any basic understanding of human physiology, as well as proper trial studies that there are various flaws in that particular study. I'm tired of the fear mongering..the key to anything is moderation.

If you'd like me to go over why this study simple does not apply to basically anyone on this forum..then I shall do so.


Proceed...

  Report
 

Lykos
Level

Join date: Mar 2012
Location:
Posts: 28

The only thing that gets moderation right is Mother Nature. If it's not self-limiting such as vegetables for instance you've already lost despite your best intentions to police yourself.

  Report
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next Last