-
By using this site you agree to the terms, rules, and privacy policy.
-
Charlie's Restoration Giveaway #2 (Entire Home EMF Mitigation & Protection Along With Personal Protection) - Click Here To Enter
-
Dear Carnivore Dieters, A Muscle Meat Only Diet is Extremely Healing Because it is a Low "vitamin A" Diet. This is Why it Works so Well...
Rest the rest of this post by clicking here
-
The Forum is transitioning to a subscription-based membership model - Click Here To Read
Click Here if you want to upgrade your account
If you were able to post but cannot do so now, send an email to admin at raypeatforum dot com and include your username and we will fix that right up for you.
Fructose, insulin resistance, and metabolic dyslipidemia
- Thread starter you
- Start date
Tom said:
I hate to take issue with Stephen Guyenet, Tom, as I love to read his articles, however, I've noticed he often meticulously puts in details to prove a point, impressing the reader, then leaves out a glaring consideration. This time it's that he measures input, but not output:
He has wasted our time by considering what a people eat without looking at their energy expenditure.Guyenet said:
We all can imagine that these people lead a more active life than the average person in the developed countries, but we are left with no figures on this, which probably if given, would have nullified his whole argument.
Guyenet didn't take on a difficult job of trying to prove sugar caused a disease here. The task was much simpler. To merely compare calories in and calories out. Or if he wanted to focus on sugars as somehow a determinant, all by itself of weight, he could have compared only sugar intake with calories expended, though that even is senseless. But what he looked at was sugar grams (calories) and weight. The audience is too smart to fall for this as a relevant thing to correlate.
If this were a recent article by Guyenet I'd have to say he's getting worse than ever. But looking at the date, almost 3 years ago, I think he's learned a lot since then. I think that's about when he started out writing to the public, though his profile says he's been on Blogger since 2008.
In summation, he proved nothing. I'd love it if he would have included something on longevity though.
It's sad, but I have to say that most health Bloggers are the current version of what were side-show hawkers and snake-oil salesmen 100 years ago. Fast talk, distract from logical assessments, quick-sell a cheap product. The difference is that on the internet, they can't lose their reputation.
Enoree,
Not sure where you´re getting, or your general position on sucrose/fructose in health and disease.
I was posting this article as much to show that some hunter gatherers eat a lot of calories from fruits (hence eat a lot of fructose), suggesting our genes are adapted to this, amongst other things.
In the tropics, especially, the intake of honey can be substantial among present living hunter gatherers, typically honey is 1:1 glucose to fructose, sometimes a bit more fructose than glucose.
Guyenet is too much establishment for me, he is now promoting things like beans etc, so I´m not a "fan" of him. He did say in the article:
"That being said, I think everyone can agree that added sugar almost certainly plays a role in obesity and disease in affluent societies such as the US. Added sugars increase the energy density, seductiveness and palatability of foods, favoring fat gain. In large amounts, refined fructose-containing foods such as added sugar can also promote harmful metabolic changes. However, controlled diet trials have shown that this applies mostly in the context of excess calorie intake (which, to be fair, is the typical dietary context in the US)."
Do you disagree with this?
What are your thoughts on the fact that prevalence of pre diabetes is now higher in China than in the US, without a corresponding rate of obesity and with very low sugar (fructose) intake? What do you think are the cause of diabetes and pre diabetes?
There´s one point I´d like to make about HFCS, is that it has the sugars as monosaccharides, which is different from sucrose, a disaccharide. I think this can have varying effect of different people depending on their ability to split sucrose into its monosaccharides. Probably not everyone can do this, just as not everyone can split lactose easily into galactose and glucose.
Honey is also monosaccharide and most fruits, especially the ripe ones have mainly monosaccharides. There´s been many studies (which I can cite if you want, or you can search pubmed for them) showing tremendously positive effect from honey consumption.
Not sure where you´re getting, or your general position on sucrose/fructose in health and disease.
I was posting this article as much to show that some hunter gatherers eat a lot of calories from fruits (hence eat a lot of fructose), suggesting our genes are adapted to this, amongst other things.
In the tropics, especially, the intake of honey can be substantial among present living hunter gatherers, typically honey is 1:1 glucose to fructose, sometimes a bit more fructose than glucose.
Guyenet is too much establishment for me, he is now promoting things like beans etc, so I´m not a "fan" of him. He did say in the article:
"That being said, I think everyone can agree that added sugar almost certainly plays a role in obesity and disease in affluent societies such as the US. Added sugars increase the energy density, seductiveness and palatability of foods, favoring fat gain. In large amounts, refined fructose-containing foods such as added sugar can also promote harmful metabolic changes. However, controlled diet trials have shown that this applies mostly in the context of excess calorie intake (which, to be fair, is the typical dietary context in the US)."
Do you disagree with this?
What are your thoughts on the fact that prevalence of pre diabetes is now higher in China than in the US, without a corresponding rate of obesity and with very low sugar (fructose) intake? What do you think are the cause of diabetes and pre diabetes?
There´s one point I´d like to make about HFCS, is that it has the sugars as monosaccharides, which is different from sucrose, a disaccharide. I think this can have varying effect of different people depending on their ability to split sucrose into its monosaccharides. Probably not everyone can do this, just as not everyone can split lactose easily into galactose and glucose.
Honey is also monosaccharide and most fruits, especially the ripe ones have mainly monosaccharides. There´s been many studies (which I can cite if you want, or you can search pubmed for them) showing tremendously positive effect from honey consumption.
Tom said:
Your post just had the link. You didn't say you were just posting it to show that some primitive peoples have always, and still eat a lot of fructose. I think that is a good reason to have posted that link, as it is quite impressive that people eat like that and, at least appear, to maintain good health. So the clarification is good. As I said, I hate to take Guyenet down, as he comes up with some novel ideas sometimes. I just didn't want anyone reading his article to come to the conclusion that somehow fructose in substantial quantities was some kind of protection against weight gain. I really wanted to put the article in perspective, not slam you for posting it.
I totally agree with your statement on obesity, diet trials, etc.
I'm still researching to try to find the earliest causative factor for insulin resistance, pre-diabetes, etc. My mind is open.
On the Chinese situation, if it is as you depicted, I suspect it could be caused by any one (or a combination) of these factors having to do with rapidly increased urbanization and industrialization -- faster than any other major country: toxins, including air, water, and food related; reduced physical activity; possible additional stress; lack of access to freshly harvested plants and animals; changes in types and (within the types) changes of proportions of foods. For example, I would imagine, from my brief exposure to rural life in Asia, that when people there move to urban areas so they can commute to work, they abandon the soup pot for fast food, abandon freshly slaughtered pork for aged meats, abandon animal fats such as suet and lard for cheap PUFA oils for stir fries, abandon fresh greens for days-old vegetables, just for starters. Possibly the least changed food they ingest will be the rice.
So if you just focus on the food changes over the years, China may be "catching up quickly" in the race toward pre-diabetes based on what these food changes are doing. I would imagine it has less to do with their carb intake than it has to do with their fat, vitamin, enzyme, and fiber intake. The results will show in their gut health. And I'm a firm believer that, as your gut stays healthy, so do you. But if you focus on toxins and stress, I can see that the Chinese may now have higher levels of chronic inflammation and compromised adrenals. For all we know, these are also causative factors in insulin resistance. As I said, I'm still very open to possibilities here.
Same for the pro's and con's of fructose consumption.
I´m trying to be openminded too, Enoree, and I do not really know exactly what is causing this diabetes epidemic in China, where pre diabetes rates is amongst the highest in the world.
In news articles I read about this problem in China, often there´s this picture of some Chinese taken from a Kentucky Fried Chicken store drinking sugary drinks and fatty chicken. But this is a very distorted image, according to http://www.nationalgeographic.com/what-the-world-eats/, only 2% of calories in China comes from sugar and 6% from vegetable oils, compared to 16% and 19% respectively in the US.
I think dishes like the one´s below (Shanghai fried noodles) kind of indicates the answer to the question.
Vegetable intake was just 260 gm/person and fruit intake just 60 gm per person in China, according to a recent estimate, and meat intake has gone up dramatically past decade.
Somehow an interaction between meats, refined rice and wheat, high sodium intake and lack of fruits and vegetables, seems to cause this problem. PUFAs may also play a role but it appears to be relatively low still compared to other countries in the world.
I would be reluctant to blame it all on a sedentary lifestyle and people eating too much calories, because there are cultures like those on Kitava (Papua new Guinea) that have a surplus of food and yet do not eat excess calories, and in other countries like in Italy caloric intake is as high as in the US, yet average BMI is just 25 compared to 30 in the US. And it´s not like Italians exercise a lot. But a good diet leads to extra energy, so people would want to be active, do something instead of for example watch televsion.
I think too often researchers deduce from correlation to causation, and so they fail to take into account that different diets can have different effect on hormones, so one diet can boost metabolism and a person could lose weight on 2500 kcal, while on another diet a person could gain weight on 1500 kcal due to a slow metabolism.
Things like satiety reflected in the leptin hormone could also affect how much people eat. There´s a lot of smaller paleo diet trials indicating that just a diet with lean meats and fruits lead to calorie reduction, weight loss and reversal of diabetes. I think if the Chinese just replaced a part of their rice and wheat with fruits, vegetables, potatoes and root vegetables, problem would be solved.
As regards the microbioata that could also be one such correlation but not necessarily a causation. A poor diet will lead to a certain intestinal flora, a healthy diet another type of intestinal flora.
I am wondering what a character like Robert Lustig would say to all of this.
He has as I´ve understood it received grants and lecture fees from Novo Nordisk, a major diabetes company, and he is spreading an anti-fructose agenda which has been so effective that many people now have been reluctant to eat even fruits, which the way I see it is a solution to all of this, rather than the problem. And this is very sad. A reflection of the corruption in science, as is I think this very study that started this thread is a similar type of distorted research.
Still, I think there´s some serious ethical issues with slaugthering hundreds of billions of animals annually, factory animals living in terrible conditions like concentration camps. This is what is now done in China to feed the populations increasing lust for meat (and something I guess in very opposition to the Buddhist principles they followed more closely in the past). If it is true that everything is connected, that whatever I do to you or to others, I ultimately do to myself, and this also applies to animals, there may be a certain spiritual revenge coming back, eating this shitty food will also cause misery and disease, it does install a type of brutality in humans that is not good, and it is its own punishment.
In news articles I read about this problem in China, often there´s this picture of some Chinese taken from a Kentucky Fried Chicken store drinking sugary drinks and fatty chicken. But this is a very distorted image, according to http://www.nationalgeographic.com/what-the-world-eats/, only 2% of calories in China comes from sugar and 6% from vegetable oils, compared to 16% and 19% respectively in the US.
I think dishes like the one´s below (Shanghai fried noodles) kind of indicates the answer to the question.
Vegetable intake was just 260 gm/person and fruit intake just 60 gm per person in China, according to a recent estimate, and meat intake has gone up dramatically past decade.
Somehow an interaction between meats, refined rice and wheat, high sodium intake and lack of fruits and vegetables, seems to cause this problem. PUFAs may also play a role but it appears to be relatively low still compared to other countries in the world.
I would be reluctant to blame it all on a sedentary lifestyle and people eating too much calories, because there are cultures like those on Kitava (Papua new Guinea) that have a surplus of food and yet do not eat excess calories, and in other countries like in Italy caloric intake is as high as in the US, yet average BMI is just 25 compared to 30 in the US. And it´s not like Italians exercise a lot. But a good diet leads to extra energy, so people would want to be active, do something instead of for example watch televsion.
I think too often researchers deduce from correlation to causation, and so they fail to take into account that different diets can have different effect on hormones, so one diet can boost metabolism and a person could lose weight on 2500 kcal, while on another diet a person could gain weight on 1500 kcal due to a slow metabolism.
Things like satiety reflected in the leptin hormone could also affect how much people eat. There´s a lot of smaller paleo diet trials indicating that just a diet with lean meats and fruits lead to calorie reduction, weight loss and reversal of diabetes. I think if the Chinese just replaced a part of their rice and wheat with fruits, vegetables, potatoes and root vegetables, problem would be solved.
As regards the microbioata that could also be one such correlation but not necessarily a causation. A poor diet will lead to a certain intestinal flora, a healthy diet another type of intestinal flora.
I am wondering what a character like Robert Lustig would say to all of this.
He has as I´ve understood it received grants and lecture fees from Novo Nordisk, a major diabetes company, and he is spreading an anti-fructose agenda which has been so effective that many people now have been reluctant to eat even fruits, which the way I see it is a solution to all of this, rather than the problem. And this is very sad. A reflection of the corruption in science, as is I think this very study that started this thread is a similar type of distorted research.
Still, I think there´s some serious ethical issues with slaugthering hundreds of billions of animals annually, factory animals living in terrible conditions like concentration camps. This is what is now done in China to feed the populations increasing lust for meat (and something I guess in very opposition to the Buddhist principles they followed more closely in the past). If it is true that everything is connected, that whatever I do to you or to others, I ultimately do to myself, and this also applies to animals, there may be a certain spiritual revenge coming back, eating this shitty food will also cause misery and disease, it does install a type of brutality in humans that is not good, and it is its own punishment.
Attachments
jyb said:
The national geographic info was from 2011, so it´s probably much more now. Still, I don´t think the 500 million pre diabetics in China obtain all their calories from such fast food. And there may be 5000 KFC restaurants in China, but even if they were full at all times, it would be just like a drop in the bucket for a population of 1400 million.
YuraCZ
Member
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2015
- Messages
- 674
only half an apple 22 grams of sugar is too much.. 
Last edited by a moderator:
Tom said:
I wonder about this connection a lot too. Here in the US, this is obviously the way we do it too. I've steered clear of factory farmed meat for years. Even though I do very well on meat, I just can't afford the grass-fed, pasture raised meats to eat with regularity.
I know and admit I am a hypocrite; because here I am now relying on factory farmed dairy for the bulk of my diet. I do seriously wonder if I could ever truly get healthy on a diet based on food attained in such a way. But, what is the alternative? I can't afford $9,12,16 a gallon for grass-fed, pastured milk, especially in the quantities I need to follow this way of eating.
These are truly terrible times for trying to be a healthy human.
YuraCZ
Member
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2015
- Messages
- 674
sometimes quality is better than quantity.. :)Dean said:
Yeah, YuraCZ I see what you are saying. I could just do a quart of milk, a quarter pound of a cheap cut of grass fed meat and just fill in the rest of the calories with the cheap, least offensive starches (white rice, potatoes). I've thought about it. Obviously I would have to abandon the notions of getting sufficient protein grams (something that seems to particularly matter in results for me), calcium to phosphorus ratio, etc.; but from an energetic/spiritual perspective perhaps it would be worth it. The middle path.
I've entertained the notion a lot over the last several years that my life was going to come down to a choice of either clinging to the body or going with the spirit. I guess really every bodies does--whether they know it or not. I think I'm too far gone in a lot of ways to have it both ways. My periods of various forms of vegetarianism, where I was spiritually/energetically less troubled, but did poorly physically and mentally, points in that direction as well.
Perhaps I will give this middle path approach a shot and take it where it goes. It might be the ultimate compromise I've been looking for, where the results will lead me to exactly what I need... and deserve.
I've entertained the notion a lot over the last several years that my life was going to come down to a choice of either clinging to the body or going with the spirit. I guess really every bodies does--whether they know it or not. I think I'm too far gone in a lot of ways to have it both ways. My periods of various forms of vegetarianism, where I was spiritually/energetically less troubled, but did poorly physically and mentally, points in that direction as well.
Perhaps I will give this middle path approach a shot and take it where it goes. It might be the ultimate compromise I've been looking for, where the results will lead me to exactly what I need... and deserve.
EMF Mitigation - Flush Niacin - Big 5 Minerals
Similar threads
