Fast Running Blog
November 23, 2024, 05:05:41 pm *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: SMF - Just Installed!
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register FAST RUNNING BLOG  
Pages: 1 [2]
  Print  
Author Topic: Sugar: The Bitter Truth  (Read 12957 times)
Steve P
Posting Member
***
Posts: 164


WWW
« Reply #15 on: March 25, 2010, 07:45:16 pm »

For me, the key observation from this study is that even though sugar and HFCS have a very similar "nutrient" makeup (e.g., about the same # of carboyhydrates per ounce), they appear to have a different effect on rats (and thus, quite possibly on humans). Or to borrow a phrase from a great book I read recently (http://run.hammerpig.com/runner-read-book-eating.html), food is more than the sum of its nutrient parts. This difference in effect may be because one is a "natural" food (sugar) whereas the other is manufactured unnaturally by the food industry (because it is cheap and convenient to transport). The fact that HFCS doesn't spoil easily may be a clue--even bacteria and other germs don't want to consume it!

The rats in the study also had other health problems (in addition to obesity), suggesting that "unnatural" foods may affect more than our wastelines. So in my opinion, drinking 4 sodas a day is probably not a great idea. Running may help soda drinkers overcome the risks for obesity, but there may be other unwanted effects.

Twenty years ago runners used to swear off drinking soda because of its carbonation. But now it appears the real danger is the HFCS.
« Last Edit: March 25, 2010, 07:55:42 pm by Steve P » Logged
Steve P
Posting Member
***
Posts: 164


WWW
« Reply #16 on: March 25, 2010, 08:15:47 pm »

Three other tidbits. 1) This doesn't necessarily mean that sugar is particularly good for you. 2) If we follow the logic of this study, we could also (tentatively) conclude the naturally occurring fructose (such as that in fruit) does not pose the same risks as HFCS. 3) Another example of the natural vs artificial debate is margarine vs butter...for a long time it was thought that margarine was better than butter because it doesn't have saturated fat, but later we learned that margarine is actually quite bad because of the hydrogenation process.

This topic is a controversial one, so I think it's important not to make statements that are too strong, but the study was very interesting to me, and I plan to take it to heart with my eating habits, as well as observe what comes out future studies.
Logged
Paul Petersen
Cyber Boltun
*****
Posts: 891



WWW
« Reply #17 on: March 26, 2010, 06:54:10 am »

Something else that helps deal with the fructose in fruit is the high amount of fiber present as well.

Excerpt from an interview with Robert Lustig, MD professor of UCSF Children's Hospital:

MN: And fiber's role in all this?

RL: Fiber is the one item in the diet that reduces the rate of sugar absorption from the gut into the bloodstream, thereby keeping your insulin down. We humans used to eat between 100-300 grams of fiber per day. Now we eat 12 grams. That's just in the last 30 years, and it has had major effects. The reason we've been defibertized is processed food. And the reason the food industry processes fiber out is because they can't freeze fiber. If the fiber is processed out, the food lasts forever.

MN: Is the fructose in fruit bad?

RL: No, as long as it stays as whole fruit, because fruit has fiber and fiber is the antidote to carbohydrate. Whatever bad fructose does, fiber undoes. [Food writer] Michael Pollan says, "Eat food, not too much, mostly plants" I totally agree with that. It comes out of the ground. It's got fiber. Here's another way of looking at it: What do the Atkins diet [high fat, low carb] and Dean Ornish's diet [high carb, extremely low fat] have in common?

MN: I give up.

RL: Both diets eschew fructose.


http://www.entrepreneur.com/tradejournals/article/173486298.html

Personally, I find all this fascinating. Certainly is controversial (esp low-carb vs. low fat, cholesterol theory, etc). But I think if you get rid of all the processed stuff, whether you're low-carb or low fat, you've won half the battle already. BTW - aside from the weight gain/blood sugar issues to drinking lots of soft drinks, it is can also cause tooth decay and bone loss.  Lots of different reasons to quit Wink
Logged
Adele Kimbrough
Lurker

Posts: 6


WWW
« Reply #18 on: March 26, 2010, 10:45:49 am »

I never posted here before; hope it works!  I viewed the you-tube video "Sugar: The Bitter Truth" a couple months ago, and it was an eye opener!  The first 20-30 minutes are pretty standard about how society takes in a whole lot more calories than we used to.  Then Dr. Lustig starts talking about how our pancreas doesn’t recognize HFCS and how the liver processes HFCS, which is where I thought it got really interesting.  It sounds like excessive HFCS can be harmful to the liver, and this might help contribute to the non obesity problems the rats and mice developed in the studies.

So, this is a comment for Joe, who likes his 3-4 cokes a day.  You might be able to find coke products that are not made with HFCS.  I've heard that Coke products sold in other countries are made with all sugar and not HFCS, whereas Coke products sold in the United States contain a fair amount of HFCS. (Interesting!?!)  Perhaps you can buy non-HFCS coke at an ethnic type food market? Or perhaps the more "yuppie" soda makers like Blue Skybuy offer colas without HFCS?  PS: You're lucky you don't easily gain weight!! 
Logged
Sasha Pachev
Administrator
Cyber Boltun
*****
Posts: 1546



WWW
« Reply #19 on: March 26, 2010, 02:05:27 pm »

Joe:

I think the approach of looking for one isolated culprit ingredient is wrong. When a piece of music sounds bad, it is not because let's say the note C occurs in it too many times. In fact, I suppose you could find pieces that are considered classic that would have the exact same frequency of the same note. You could probably find a classic piece that would have every single note with the exact same frequency as the bad one. What makes it bad is not the mix of notes per say, but the lack of harmony.  How you mix those notes is what makes all the difference.

Applying this principle to food, if you seek nutritional harmony you are very unlikely to find it in heavily processed foods. Especially the ones that were made by people who are not in harmony with their own bodies. More particularly when the purpose of the mix was to maximize the profit from the sales. You will find most harmony in natural foods.
Logged
Joe
Lurker

Posts: 40


WWW
« Reply #20 on: March 27, 2010, 02:21:57 pm »

Good info everyone, sounds like an intervention!  I'm slowly moving toward better nutrition (this is all new to me).  This time last year, the cokes were beers so I'm moving in the right direction anyway!
Logged
Joe Furse
Posting Member
***
Posts: 112


WWW
« Reply #21 on: April 07, 2010, 03:35:27 pm »

So, what about honey?  It's essentially the same thing as some concentrations of HFCS, (with small amounts of other simple sugars and bee spit on the side), yet a lot of people who are concerned about things like this swear by honey.  What gives?

I don't worry about HFCS much, because I cook most of my food from scratch anyway.  I figure what little I do eat is pretty much negligible, but I guess if one eats a lot of processed foods and sweets then it becomes something to worry about.  Incidentally, the "Farm Bread" from Macey's (in Utah) is pretty cheap and has no HFCS.  I don't buy it because of that, but I just looked to see.
Logged
Paul Petersen
Cyber Boltun
*****
Posts: 891



WWW
« Reply #22 on: April 07, 2010, 04:07:18 pm »

Joe - yes, honey is very high in fructose. People that avoid fructose also avoid honey. I've seen in come up in discussion before. See:

http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/2009/08/honey-more-fructose-than-high-fructose.html

http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/2009/07/goodbye-fructose.html
Logged
Sasha Pachev
Administrator
Cyber Boltun
*****
Posts: 1546



WWW
« Reply #23 on: April 09, 2010, 12:06:01 pm »

I think calling putting lumping honey with unnatural sweeteners is going too far. Probably a classic example of calling a piece of music bad based solely on the note frequency analysis that I mentioned in my earlier post. Something is just not quite right about putting honey in the unhealthy food group. My mind has a hard time imagining a fat honey lover that stays away from processed sugars.

Perhaps the explanation is simple - honey taste is so sweet that you cannot eat more than what is healthy for you.
Logged
Paul Petersen
Cyber Boltun
*****
Posts: 891



WWW
« Reply #24 on: April 09, 2010, 12:12:48 pm »

For the record, I think honey is fine as long you're not eating tons of it. I eat it about once a month, so I don't really care. But if you're eating it every day, thinking that it's some sort of "health food", you're probably wrong. I mean, think about it, it's pure sugar, no fiber. At least fruit has fiber. But it's definitely a nice treat.
Logged
Joe Furse
Posting Member
***
Posts: 112


WWW
« Reply #25 on: April 09, 2010, 05:58:14 pm »

Yeah, I'd tend to agree.  I don't see honey as a bad thing any more than any other simple sugar.  Eat too much and it's a bad thing, but if you're just eating it here and there I don't see any problem.  I just try to limit my "sweets" as much as possible anyway.  Interestingly, I find that avoiding lots of sugar, and eating well in general, is a lot easier when I'm getting a lot of exercise (running). 
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.2 | SMF © 2006-2007, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!