ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 17th April 2017, 11:29 AM   #1
pipelineaudio
Illuminator
 
pipelineaudio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 4,153
Sugar, again

On a recent episode of big picture science (the old SETI podcast), there was a guy named Gary Taubes speaking about the dangers of dietary sugar. https://www.seti.org/BiPiSci/SkepticCheckNotSoSweet

He specifically made the claim, that counter to what I read often on the JREF, obesity does NOT come from more calories going in than calories going out, and that somehow sugar breaks that equation.

The hosts seemed quite a bit less skeptical than they usually are and didn't ask "how?". So I'm asking you guys. How can you gain weight taking in less than you put out?

We just recently installed a vending machine at our place, and I'd love to stock it with stuff that isn't dangerous, but I don't know what that is. I live in a place so monstrously obese, it makes Dallas look like swimsuit models.

I am enourmously confused. When I am at the skatepark, the kids are stuffing their face with mcdonalds, twinkies, handfuls of sour candy, and are capable of a range of movement and endurance far surpassing the general population. When I rode BMX professionally, the older riders always showed us cheap ways of getting as many calories as possible, up to eating lard straight out of the can if you had to. There was just an insatiable craving for calories.

I documented a bit how in my later years after not riding anymore how I turned into a butterball, wider than I was tall, but also the last two years where I came back down to an OK size (170, from 270) and am stronger now than ever before in my life, and riding again. Now I find myself again, hitting the reduced price/stale rack at the local stores and buying whatever is there on the way to the skatepark, which is often donuts or bread, probably unhealthy stuff, but I still am losing weight unless I dont ride for a day.

How dangerous is sugar exactly? How does it break the calories in vs calories out equation? What would be better, but still affordable calories? What could sit in a vending machine that would be good for obese and at risk for obesity kids?
__________________
Don't fear the REAPER, embrace it
pipelineaudio is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th April 2017, 11:36 AM   #2
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 19,669
Originally Posted by pipelineaudio View Post
On a recent episode of big picture science (the old SETI podcast), there was a guy named Gary Taubes speaking about the dangers of dietary sugar. https://www.seti.org/BiPiSci/SkepticCheckNotSoSweet

He specifically made the claim, that counter to what I read often on the JREF, obesity does NOT come from more calories going in than calories going out, and that somehow sugar breaks that equation.

The hosts seemed quite a bit less skeptical than they usually are and didn't ask "how?". So I'm asking you guys. How can you gain weight taking in less than you put out?
In the long run, you can't. Period.

Sugar and fat have different paths in our metabolism, so function and short-term weight regulation may differ, but if you take in more energy than you use, you will gain weight, and if less. you will loose weight.

We're talking laws of physics here.

Hans
__________________
Don't. Just don't.

Last edited by MRC_Hans; 17th April 2017 at 11:40 AM.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th April 2017, 11:37 AM   #3
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 12,714
There is another thread where Taubes in particular is discussed at length. I'd link if I had it handy, but searching his last name with a few key words about diet carbs and sugar should get you there.

My take away is that it is an attractive way of looking at things, but the science isn't really backing him up. I avoid sugars because I feel better when I get most of my calories from non-carbs and I tend to binge eat less. Just like I rarely drink much because I don't like how it makes me feel the next day.
__________________
I once proposed a fun ban.

Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God.
He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa
Dr. Keith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th April 2017, 12:05 PM   #4
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 17,438
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
In the long run, you can't. Period.

Sugar and fat have different paths in our metabolism, so function and short-term weight regulation may differ, but if you take in more energy than you use, you will gain weight, and if less. you will loose weight.

We're talking laws of physics here.

Hans
You will what?
__________________
After a while you can work on points for style
Like the club tie, and the firm handshake,
A certain look in the eye and an easy smile
MikeG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th April 2017, 12:13 PM   #5
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 28,114
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
In the long run, you can't. Period.

Sugar and fat have different paths in our metabolism, so function and short-term weight regulation may differ, but if you take in more energy than you use, you will gain weight, and if less. you will loose weight.

We're talking laws of physics here.

Hans
Careful with the absolutes there. You could eat a brick. Inert, heavy, fewer calories but more added weight.

THUS IS PHYSICS REFUTED!
(Free bibles available in the lobby.)
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th April 2017, 12:28 PM   #6
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 19,669
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
You will what?
If you take in less energy than you use, you will loose weight.

Hans
__________________
Don't. Just don't.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th April 2017, 12:29 PM   #7
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 19,669
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
Careful with the absolutes there. You could eat a brick. Inert, heavy, fewer calories but more added weight.

THUS IS PHYSICS REFUTED!
(Free bibles available in the lobby.)
Well unless you have the mother of all constipations, methinks it will come back out.

Hans
__________________
Don't. Just don't.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th April 2017, 12:34 PM   #8
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 37,083
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
Well unless you have the mother of all constipations, methinks it will come back out.

Hans
If you eat a brick, you will probably get the mother of all constipations.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th April 2017, 12:36 PM   #9
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 28,114
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
Well unless you have the mother of all constipations, methinks it will come back out.

Hans
I have often wondered if new amputees are prone to getting fat because they have less tissue to support.

Say you lost 20 lbs of leg, then added 10 lbs of fat by overeating. You'd weigh less than before the amputation but would still be fatter.
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th April 2017, 12:37 PM   #10
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 17,438
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
If you take in less energy than you use, you will loose weight.

Hans
No, you damn well won't. You'll lose weight.
__________________
After a while you can work on points for style
Like the club tie, and the firm handshake,
A certain look in the eye and an easy smile
MikeG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th April 2017, 12:39 PM   #11
TraneWreck
Philosopher
 
TraneWreck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 7,033
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
You will what?
You aren't familiar with the laxative diet?
TraneWreck is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th April 2017, 12:42 PM   #12
Aepervius
Non credunt, semper verificare
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sigil, the city of doors
Posts: 14,138
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
Careful with the absolutes there. You could eat a brick. Inert, heavy, fewer calories but more added weight.

THUS IS PHYSICS REFUTED!
(Free bibles available in the lobby.)
Also some illness make you retain water and accumulate fluid in your limbs. You gain weight (and it ain't due to fat or sugar).
Aepervius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th April 2017, 12:44 PM   #13
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 37,083
Originally Posted by pipelineaudio View Post
How dangerous is sugar exactly?
It probably varies from person to person. But it does cause problems besides just obesity. It's bad for the teeth, and it can also encourage inflammatory processes which aren't good for you.

Quote:
How does it break the calories in vs calories out equation?
It can't. I think the anti-sugar argument in regards to weight loss isn't that it violates CICO (calories in, calories out), but that it screws with the way your body manages CICO. It can make you more hungry (thus raising CI) and less active (thus dropping CO).

Most people don't measure calories in, and basically nobody measures calories out (even in a research context, that half is very hard to do accurately). So as a practical matter, just trying to balance CICO doesn't always work, even if it always holds true. You can cut calories in, but if calories out takes a dive too, you won't lose weight. The kind of calories you eat (and the non-caloric food you consume) can make a difference. That's the main message I take from Taubs. If he actually meant CICO was violated, then he's just wrong.

Quote:
What would be better, but still affordable calories?
Whole milk is pretty good.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th April 2017, 12:46 PM   #14
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 37,083
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
I have often wondered if new amputees are prone to getting fat because they have less tissue to support.

Say you lost 20 lbs of leg, then added 10 lbs of fat by overeating. You'd weigh less than before the amputation but would still be fatter.
The lose of tissue mass is probably accompanied by a reduction in appetite, so to first order I'd say no, it won't make much difference.

But if you lose a leg (as opposed to an arm), you might also become much more sedentary, and that certainly can lead to weight gain.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th April 2017, 12:53 PM   #15
pipelineaudio
Illuminator
 
pipelineaudio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 4,153
You can't put "affordable" and "milk" together in Hawaii
__________________
Don't fear the REAPER, embrace it
pipelineaudio is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th April 2017, 12:58 PM   #16
Mike!
Official Ponylandistanian National Treasure. Respect it!
 
Mike!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Ponylandistan! Where the bacon grows on trees! Can it get any better than that? I submit it can not!
Posts: 24,646
Originally Posted by pipelineaudio View Post
You can't put "affordable" and "milk" together in Hawaii
They don't have cows in Hawaii?
__________________
"Never judge a man until you’ve walked a mile in his shoes...
Because then it won't really matter, you’ll be a mile away and have his shoes."
Mike! is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th April 2017, 01:03 PM   #17
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 37,083
Originally Posted by Mike! View Post
They don't have cows in Hawaii?
Probably not enough to meet potential demand. And shipping is a little more expensive.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th April 2017, 02:49 PM   #18
TruthJonsen
New Blood
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 2
Below is the logic behind it that I have heard:

(don't shoot me, I am new here and just parroting what I have read and would love to have some healthy skepticism applied to it)

We evolved for at least 1.5 million years as hunter gatherers, then just 12,000 years ago started agriculture which greatly increased the amount of carbohydrate intake. Sugar usage started about 3,000 years ago.

It applies to not just sugar, but all carbohydrates. When carbohydrates are consumed the pancreas secretes the most insulin. For protein about half as much, and almost none for fats. High insulin levels prevent the body from using stored fat. Continual exposure to high levels of insulin can cause what is known as insulin resistance, pre-diabetes, and diabetes.

Complicating this process is the fact that the protein we eat today is usually lean muscle meat which raises insulin higher than fatty and organ meats. Also during our evolution, fruit carbohydrate was rarely available and the varieties were low in carbohydrate. We did not evolve in the tropics. Today fruit is available year round and the varieties have been hybridized into giant sugar balls.

The other part of the equation is that saturated fats (butter, coconut oil, lard/tallow) and some monounsaturated fats (olive, avocado, sesame) are the healthiest. The vegetable oils we were told to use instead have too much Omega-6 as opposed to Omega-3 and are generally unstable and go rancid, especially when used in cooking. It is important to note that these saturated fats are only healthy in the relative absence of carbohydrates when your body has adapted to using fats.

The diet most commonly referenced in this regard is the ketogenic diet originally developed in the 1920's to treat children with epilepsy. It is low carb, high fat and moderate protein. Carbs are limited to about 20-30 grams a day. You could easily get that much from the leafy greens, tomatoes and onions for a day. After a few weeks, depending on your insulin resistance, your body will adjust to using fats instead of carbs for fuel. Your body is said to be in ketosis and is using ketone bodies for fuel which is supposed to be cleaner burning and less hazardous than fructose or glucose. Another aspect of this diet is that when you stop living on carbs your body lets go of water and you drink more water. You will have to increase salt intake to avoid losing important vitamins/minerals.

I was primarily attracted to this diet by the claims of disease avoidance rather than weight loss. It is supposed to help with heart disease, high blood pressure, diabetes. One doctor claims to have reversed her MS. Another group of doctors has setup a site virtahealth to help people reverse type 2 diabetes. You can see the research on that site.

Most people are not doing it as a temporary diet, but as a permanent lifestyle change. They are ending the 12,000 year old carb fad diet. The body has a mechanism for fat intake to provide satiety where there is none from carbs. You do not count calories, only carbs. You do not feel starved or have cravings. You do not have to do additional exercise, you just have to allow the body to use stored fat.
TruthJonsen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th April 2017, 03:31 PM   #19
mgidm86
Illuminator
 
mgidm86's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 3,063
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
If you eat a brick, you will probably get the mother of all constipations.

Here we call it "******** a brick".


* I don't like swearing on the forum and using asterisks but here it is necessary. In real life I'm a pretty ****in foul mouthed ****.
mgidm86 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th April 2017, 03:36 PM   #20
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 16,337
Originally Posted by TruthJonsen
Today fruit is available year round and the varieties have been hybridized into giant sugar balls.
In my lifetime, it seems that fruit has become less sweet and less flavorful.
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th April 2017, 05:11 PM   #21
Tsukasa Buddha
Other (please write in)
 
Tsukasa Buddha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NeverLand
Posts: 14,068
Taubes is what I like to call a "meticulous idiot". He will go on and on in history lessons about 17th century Austrian doctors and American Indians, but he peculiarly doesn't care about scientific evidence.

Oh, and he does deny CICO.

Quote:
And at those points when you’re a little bit overweight, you should be able to cut back on calories and lose the weight. And the fact is it doesn’t work and in fact, in the mid-1950s some of the leading experts on obesity said, look, we can define obesity disorder in which eating less doesn’t work because every one who is obese or overweight knows they’re supposed to eat less or exercise more, some combination of both, everyone tries to do with their whole life.

And if they’re still fat, it means it didn’t work. It’s that simple. So it means for third of the American population it didn’t work, for two-thirds of the American population, and you can actually quantify it in clinical trials, you could do experiments where you tell people to eat less and other people not to. And as a cockring collaboration which is a group that was founded to do unbiased reviews of the medical literature put it, “weight loss achieved in trials of calories restricted diet is so small as to be clinically insignificant”.
Linky.
__________________
As cultural anthropologists have always said "human culture" = "human nature". You might as well put a fish on the moon to test how it "swims naturally" without the "influence of water". -Earthborn
Tsukasa Buddha is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th April 2017, 06:16 PM   #22
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
 
Skeptical Greg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 14,613
Quote:
...in fact, in the mid-1950s some of the leading experts on obesity
Whaaaaa! Obesity ? A problem in the mid 1950's?

Isn't that kind of like referring to the leading experts on quantum mechanics in the Vatican ?
__________________
" What if the Hokey Pokey is what it's all about? "

Prove your computer is not a wimp ! Join Team 13232 !

Last edited by Skeptical Greg; 17th April 2017 at 07:59 PM.
Skeptical Greg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th April 2017, 07:32 PM   #23
alfaniner
Penultimate Amazing
 
alfaniner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 16,366
Oh, you so missed a proper thread title...

"Sugar, Sugar".
alfaniner is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2017, 05:33 AM   #24
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 11,697
This may be tangentially relevant.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/...ig-john-yudkin


Essentially, vested interests in the sugar industry attempting to subvert the narrative.
__________________
Some seem to think the UK leaving the EU is like Robbie leaving Take That.
In reality it's more like Pete leaving The Beatles.

We are lions, not tigers.
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2017, 11:50 AM   #25
Tsukasa Buddha
Other (please write in)
 
Tsukasa Buddha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NeverLand
Posts: 14,068
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
This may be tangentially relevant.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/...ig-john-yudkin


Essentially, vested interests in the sugar industry attempting to subvert the narrative.
Its so funny that they seem to always have to write these pieces like they are investigating palace intrigue instead of reporting on science. But I suppose when you have no evidence that is all you can do.

One of the big myths you see in this piece and others is that the low fat diet standards caused the rise in obesity. The missing piece of evidence in this claim is whether people actually ate according to the official dietary standards.

In actuality, the amount of fat people ate remained constant. People ate more carbs, and thus more calories, leading to more obesity. And increased caloric consumption explains the rise in obesity.
__________________
As cultural anthropologists have always said "human culture" = "human nature". You might as well put a fish on the moon to test how it "swims naturally" without the "influence of water". -Earthborn
Tsukasa Buddha is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2017, 12:15 PM   #26
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 37,083
Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha View Post
That doesn't actually preclude the possibility that people changed their diets in response to low-fat advice. It means they didn't stick to a low-fat diet, but it's still possible the change was prompted by the message. "Don't eat too much fat" can easily be turned around inside people's heads to "eat lots of carbs".
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2017, 12:51 PM   #27
cosmicaug
Muse
 
cosmicaug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 942
He has some ideas about insulin that are contradicted by actual research.

I made some references to refutations in a previous thread (also started by you):
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10803122&postcount=23
__________________
--
August Pamplona
cosmicaug is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2017, 02:49 PM   #28
pipelineaudio
Illuminator
 
pipelineaudio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 4,153
Originally Posted by cosmicaug View Post
He has some ideas about insulin that are contradicted by actual research.

I made some references to refutations in a previous thread (also started by you):
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10803122&postcount=23
Oh man!!! Didn't realize that was the same guy! Thanks, I remember this, you are awesome!
__________________
Don't fear the REAPER, embrace it
pipelineaudio is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2017, 02:50 PM   #29
pipelineaudio
Illuminator
 
pipelineaudio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 4,153
Wow, looking at the dates on that old thread, its crazy how fast the 100 pounds came off
__________________
Don't fear the REAPER, embrace it
pipelineaudio is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th April 2017, 01:07 AM   #30
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
 
Puppycow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,253
Originally Posted by pipelineaudio View Post
Wow, looking at the dates on that old thread, its crazy how fast the 100 pounds came off
Do you think it's mostly the exercise, watching what you eat, or the combination?

Quote:
He specifically made the claim, that counter to what I read often on the JREF, obesity does NOT come from more calories going in than calories going out, and that somehow sugar breaks that equation.
Calories in is whatever it is, but I do think it matters what you eat anyway.

It may be that somehow different kinds of calories affects your metabolism in some way, or perhaps affects how hungry you feel or whether your hunger is sufficiently sated. So better to eat 2000 calories worth of tofu or something healthy than 2000 calories worth of donuts or potato chips or soda. Perhaps certain foods trigger the body to store fat (slow down the metabolism) while others trigger you to burn it faster and not store it as fat. If you have big muscles you can eat more because the body burns more calories per pound to maintain muscles than to maintain fat.
__________________
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare
Puppycow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th April 2017, 01:15 AM   #31
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
 
Puppycow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,253
For example, say there are two different people who both weigh the same amount. 170 pounds, say.

But, one of those people metabolizes 2000 calories per day on average while the other one metabolizes 3000 calories per day. If you put both of them on a 2500 calorie diet, one of them will gain weight and the other one will lose weight.
__________________
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare
Puppycow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th April 2017, 10:45 AM   #32
Vixen
Philosopher
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 8,496
Originally Posted by TruthJonsen View Post
Below is the logic behind it that I have heard:

(don't shoot me, I am new here and just parroting what I have read and would love to have some healthy skepticism applied to it)

We evolved for at least 1.5 million years as hunter gatherers, then just 12,000 years ago started agriculture which greatly increased the amount of carbohydrate intake. Sugar usage started about 3,000 years ago.

It applies to not just sugar, but all carbohydrates. When carbohydrates are consumed the pancreas secretes the most insulin. For protein about half as much, and almost none for fats. High insulin levels prevent the body from using stored fat. Continual exposure to high levels of insulin can cause what is known as insulin resistance, pre-diabetes, and diabetes.

Complicating this process is the fact that the protein we eat today is usually lean muscle meat which raises insulin higher than fatty and organ meats. Also during our evolution, fruit carbohydrate was rarely available and the varieties were low in carbohydrate. We did not evolve in the tropics. Today fruit is available year round and the varieties have been hybridized into giant sugar balls.

The other part of the equation is that saturated fats (butter, coconut oil, lard/tallow) and some monounsaturated fats (olive, avocado, sesame) are the healthiest. The vegetable oils we were told to use instead have too much Omega-6 as opposed to Omega-3 and are generally unstable and go rancid, especially when used in cooking. It is important to note that these saturated fats are only healthy in the relative absence of carbohydrates when your body has adapted to using fats.

The diet most commonly referenced in this regard is the ketogenic diet originally developed in the 1920's to treat children with epilepsy. It is low carb, high fat and moderate protein. Carbs are limited to about 20-30 grams a day. You could easily get that much from the leafy greens, tomatoes and onions for a day. After a few weeks, depending on your insulin resistance, your body will adjust to using fats instead of carbs for fuel. Your body is said to be in ketosis and is using ketone bodies for fuel which is supposed to be cleaner burning and less hazardous than fructose or glucose. Another aspect of this diet is that when you stop living on carbs your body lets go of water and you drink more water. You will have to increase salt intake to avoid losing important vitamins/minerals.

I was primarily attracted to this diet by the claims of disease avoidance rather than weight loss. It is supposed to help with heart disease, high blood pressure, diabetes. One doctor claims to have reversed her MS. Another group of doctors has setup a site virtahealth to help people reverse type 2 diabetes. You can see the research on that site.

Most people are not doing it as a temporary diet, but as a permanent lifestyle change. They are ending the 12,000 year old carb fad diet. The body has a mechanism for fat intake to provide satiety where there is none from carbs. You do not count calories, only carbs. You do not feel starved or have cravings. You do not have to do additional exercise, you just have to allow the body to use stored fat.
I agree with much of this. However, it used to be true that diabetics were told to avoid fruit, especially bananas, as being high in sugar. Recent studies show that actually fruit has a high (or was it low? - but anyway positive <g>) glycaemic index, plus it has fibre if you eat whole fruit, thus you don't get the same sugar spike and the subsequent plunge, as you would with pure sugar.

One reason diabetics or prediabetics can become so fat is because their body cannot deal with converting consumed food into energy stores, the person still feels hungry even after eating a full meal. One symptom of this is feeling tired after eating.

It sounds like a cliché and platitudinous, but the best diet is a balanced one of moderate portions at regular intervals throughout the day, and no more.

Eat lots of fruit as between meal snacks, instead of biscuits, cakes, crisps and chocolate. A large bowl of grapes, berries and a banana will rarely be much over 100 calories.

Watch out for symptoms of feeling hungry after meals or inordinately tired. You could be pre-diabetic. Avoid aperitifs as that will encourage a hearty appetite and before you know it, an inch on your waist!

Yours, Aunty Vixen

PS, if eating lots of vegetables work, how come herbivorous animals (bovines) are so fat (as compared to carnivorous ones)? Ha!
__________________
O'er moor and fen, o'er crag and torrent, till
The night is gone.
And with the morn those angel faces smile,
Which I have loved long since, and lost awhile!
~ John Henry Newman 1833 Lead Kindly Light

Last edited by Vixen; 20th April 2017 at 10:49 AM.
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th April 2017, 10:53 PM   #33
Orphia Nay
Penguilicious Spodmaster.
Tagger
 
Orphia Nay's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Ponylandistan Presidential Palace (above the Spods' stables).
Posts: 36,073
Fruit is still sugar. Sugar cane is natural.

Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Eat lots of fruit as between meal snacks, instead of biscuits, cakes, crisps and chocolate. A large bowl of grapes, berries and a banana will rarely be much over 100 calories.
No, a handful of grapes alone is at least 150 calories.

There is a lot of hysteria about sugar these days.

Taubes is widely known in the science community as a crank.

Originally Posted by TruthJonsen View Post
Most people are not doing it as a temporary diet, but as a permanent lifestyle change. They are ending the 12,000 year old carb fad diet. The body has a mechanism for fat intake to provide satiety where there is none from carbs. You do not count calories, only carbs. You do not feel starved or have cravings. You do not have to do additional exercise, you just have to allow the body to use stored fat.
That is absolutely hilarious. Keto is one of the biggest diet fads around. Everybody wants to get thin just by eating. Pity it doesn't work that way.
__________________
Challenge your thoughts.
Don't believe everything you think.
Orphia Nay is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2017, 12:24 AM   #34
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 28,114
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
(some snipped)

It sounds like a cliché and platitudinous, but the best diet is a balanced one of moderate portions at regular intervals throughout the day, and no more.

Eat lots of fruit as between meal snacks, instead of biscuits, cakes, crisps and chocolate. A large bowl of grapes, berries and a banana will rarely be much over 100 calories.
Balanced really has no objective meaning here, it turns out "balanced" is just another way of telling people to "eat what I suggest."

Here's what we don't eat, but do: A bunch of foodstuffs ground fine, shaken and soaked for a couple hours in a solution full of enzymes and hydrochloric acid. Yum.
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2017, 03:35 AM   #35
paulhutch
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Blackstone River Valley, MA
Posts: 1,696
Originally Posted by Orphia Nay View Post
Fruit is still sugar. Sugar cane is natural.

No, a handful of grapes alone is at least 150 calories.
This Google search shows a handy calculator of calories by grape type and portion size.

https://www.google.com/search?q=frui...rapes+calories

Grapes, 1 cup = 62 to 104 calories depending on type selected

The version for some other common fruits
https://www.google.com/search?q=fruit+calories
paulhutch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2017, 04:14 AM   #36
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 15,890
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
In the long run, you can't. Period.

Sugar and fat have different paths in our metabolism, so function and short-term weight regulation may differ, but if you take in more energy than you use, you will gain weight, and if less. you will loose weight.

We're talking laws of physics here.

Hans
No, we aren't.

The calorie count is based on how much energy is contained in the food. By the time that food turns into body fat, the food has to be broken down, reassembled, distributed, stored, partially excreted. There's a huge amount of chemistry in between your mouth and your belly fat, and that chemistry differs depending on the type of food. A calorimeter measures the energy content of food in the same way for all food. Your body doesn't.


I'm not going to pretend to understand that chemistry or to make any scientific pronouncements about exactly how things work. I'm not sure that the state of the are in scientific knowledge even allows such knowledge. If the scientific community even has a consensus on such topics, it is drowned out by pop culture and ads for dietary supplements. So, instead, I will offer a much more time honored contribution to such topics. Anecdotal evidence!

Like a lot of people, I grew fatter as I grew older. Like a lot of people, I occasionally tried to lose weight. Some of my friends swore by the Atkins diet or other low carb fad diets, but I knew they were just drinking the (unsweetened) Kool-Aid. All that mattered, I knew, was calories in, and calories out. If I ate less and exercised, my weight went down a few pounds. And then, something would happen in my life, and I would go back to my usual habits, and it would come back. Same old story. You've heard it before, and many of you have probably experienced it.

Then, three years ago, I was diagnosed with type II diabetes. I immediately went on a radical low carb diet. I didn't eat bread or potatoes, or soda pop or anything with frosting. I switched to Italian or similar dressing instead of French. (Check the labels. Vinegar and oil versus sugar.) I did moderate exercise, mostly walking after meals, but that wasn't a real change. I've always exercised, sometimes vigorously. I was just conscious to exercise at specific times, instead of heavy duty weightlifting or hard core cardio workouts. I ate as much meat, cheese, nuts, and vegetable matter as I felt like, although I was a little bit cautious on fruit. One banana per day. I read labels and avoided hidden carbs in places like cole slaw.

I lost 20 pounds in a month. I lost 35 pounds in three months.

I didn't count calories, so I honestly don't know what happened to my total calorie intake. What I know is that I ate as much as I felt like eating, and was stunned at how quickly the pounds came off, and stayed off. As time went by, I added some more carbs back into my diet, and I put back on some weight. I still have a relatively low carb diet. I still eat whenever and how much I feel like. I'm still 20 pounds lighter than I was three years ago.

Your mileage may vary, but I'm a believer that not all calories are created equal.
__________________
Dave
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2017, 04:43 AM   #37
Vixen
Philosopher
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 8,496
Originally Posted by Orphia Nay View Post
Fruit is still sugar. Sugar cane is natural.



No, a handful of grapes alone is at least 150 calories.

There is a lot of hysteria about sugar these days.

Taubes is widely known in the science community as a crank.



That is absolutely hilarious. Keto is one of the biggest diet fads around. Everybody wants to get thin just by eating. Pity it doesn't work that way.

100gms of grape is 67 calories. A punnet of grapes is usually about 400gms - 500gms so a 'handful' is not likely to be more than 100 calories.

Compare and contrast to a biscuit or a bag of crisps = 150 calories.

Yes fructose is sugar by another name, however, you missed the point about glycaemic index. Sugar from whole fruit keeps you going longer (it is consumed at a steadier pace) than sugar.

Bear in mind sugar only became hugely popular in Europe in C15-C17 and our bodies have not evolved to consume such concentrated amounts.

OTOH hunter-gatherers (i.e., non-agricultural societies) have been foraging for fruit in the form of berries (and grapes are actually a berry) since year dot.

In addition, eating whole fruit gives you fibre. The inner layer of an orange, for example has a beneficial element shown in studies to reduce something or other <g> which one does not get in orange juice alone, which is why some people like it with the orange bits included.

So it is misleading to say eating fruit has the same effect on one as pure sugar.
__________________
O'er moor and fen, o'er crag and torrent, till
The night is gone.
And with the morn those angel faces smile,
Which I have loved long since, and lost awhile!
~ John Henry Newman 1833 Lead Kindly Light

Last edited by Vixen; 21st April 2017 at 04:53 AM.
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2017, 05:24 AM   #38
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 11,697
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
Balanced really has no objective meaning here, it turns out "balanced" is just another way of telling people to "eat what I suggest."

I'm not sure that's entirely true. I think it also means 'don't live exclusively on Corn flakes' or on Coke, toast and butter. Mix it up a bit. No?
__________________
Some seem to think the UK leaving the EU is like Robbie leaving Take That.
In reality it's more like Pete leaving The Beatles.

We are lions, not tigers.
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2017, 08:22 PM   #39
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 28,114
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
I'm not sure that's entirely true. I think it also means 'don't live exclusively on Corn flakes' or on Coke, toast and butter. Mix it up a bit. No?
Yes, but when I think about what's offered (like your example of Corn Flakes) we are already far along the path toward "balanced" because processed foods are so highly supplemented. It isn't the case that a high percentage of our foodstuffs is wasted xylose or cellulose or other indigestibles from foods in their natural state. We don't grind our teeth away with rocky grit in our food as our ancestors once did.

Corn Flakes might not be the best example, but here are some of the goodies in it: Iron, vitamin C (sodium ascorbate, ascorbic acid), niacinamide, vitamin B6 (pyridoxine hydrochloride), vitamin B2 (riboflavin), vitamin B1 (thiamin hydrochloride), vitamin A palmitate, folic acid, vitamin D, vitamin B12.

If I had to pick out one difference between then and now for eating, I'd suggest it was gorging. The hunter gatherer would probably stuff themselves full of strawberries when those were around, meat when that was available, fish and so on as single-item meals until the supply ran out. My paleo diet would have my victims eating nothing but peanuts for a week and then switching to rabbit for a day and then a week of potatoes. Yum.

Last edited by marplots; 21st April 2017 at 08:26 PM.
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd April 2017, 03:18 PM   #40
pipelineaudio
Illuminator
 
pipelineaudio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 4,153
Originally Posted by Puppycow View Post
Do you think it's mostly the exercise, watching what you eat, or the combination?
At the beginning, I had to keep a log of all the calories, and restricted it to 2500 per day and very strictly made sure I had enough protein for the exercise I was getting. Hard to say which was which, but near the end I had to go up to 4000 per day or risk my stomach getting smaller, which my doctors did not want for other health reasons. I ignored the advice, lost more weight and stomach size anyway because I was obsessed and spent last xmass eve to new years in the hospital because of it, but now I'm back, exercizing a bit less and 3500 calories per day, not as strict about it but still a little obsessive
__________________
Don't fear the REAPER, embrace it
pipelineaudio is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:26 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.