Posted on 02/02/2012 7:02:33 AM PST by CharlesThe Hammer
I am a medical sociologist, which means I study the health of whole societies. I've spent more than 20 years studying the best possible ways to address alcohol problems in societies -- what works and what doesn't to protect people from harm.
I work as a professor in the University of California, San Francisco School of Medicine and at the UCSF Clinical and Translational Science Institute. This allows me to connect with other scientists who come from very different backgrounds but who want to work together on big problems -- think of a Manhattan Project, only one focused on protecting health through the collaboration of scientists who study everything from tiny cells to entire societies.
(Excerpt) Read more at edition.cnn.com ...
“Consuming more calories than you burn makes you fat. It’s the amount of calories that matters, not the source of those calories.”
That is the dominant theory, but their are plenty of scientist who disagree with it.
The alternate theory is that fat accumulation is controlled by hormones. They have done many studies where they deliberately overfed volunteers, some people gained weight while other did not.
Certainly the way we consume carbohydrates (amount and concentration) is not natural. Where is the Pizza tree or the doughnut bush in nature
The pizza would be the cow in the wheat field, and the doughnuts would be the sugar cane and beets growing on the border of the same wheat field.
:-)
Just takes a little harvestin' skinnin' and cookin' (after milkin first!)
There are plenty of scientists who want us to believe that we can eat as much food as we'd like and not gain weight -- as long as it's the food they recommend. And for just $29.95 they will gladly share with you what those foods are. Operators are standing by. Fools and their money are soon parted.
Metabolisms vary greatly. Even so, If you consume less energy than you burn, you will lose weight. You cannot gain weight eating 1,500 calories a day while burning 2,000 calories a day. The source of the calories does not matter. Burn more energy than you consume and you will lose weight. That is, unless you've managed to repeal the 1st law of thermodynamics.
I think we should regulate alcohol like sugar.
LOL! I think we should all live until we die.
Thanks for the ping!
by 9YearLurker:Thanks, I know its a highly charged subject but a half-serving of orange juice contains about 10 grams of fructose, not 20-30. The 'sugars' in OJ are about half fructose. http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/fruits-and-fruit-juices/1971/2 With early man, fructose was mostly seasonal. We got it in larger quantities only in the fall. So THAT was perfect for 'fattening' us up for winter, which aided in human survival. Plus food engineers have managed to breed larger, sweeter varieties of those things we now purchase all year long. by desertfreedom765:Yes, that would be a good start but one drawback of that would be it often lures people into buying agave syrup and other things that are the highest in liver-damaging-fructose, because fructose has a very low glycemic index (since it goes to the liver and can only be detox'ed at a slow rate into blood glucose) Bread, Pasta, Starch are basically reduced to sugar in the body and are just as bad. I see people eat huge amounts of the above having no idea what they are doing to their body.Yes, all those starches are converted very quickly by saliva and stomach enzymes into glucose. Plus the starches themselves taste like cardboard so they have to add sweeteners to make them palatable. I know I can eat 2400 calories total, with 1200 of that being carbohydrates and gain weight (even with exercise), or I can eat unlimited calories with no more than about 200 calories (50 grams) of that from carbs, and lose weight (even without exercise). So the 'nutritionist' numbnuts that push the Ag-department food pyramid, and say it's all based on your metabolism and "calories-in versus calories-out" can go peddle their B.S. to someone else. I also have a plugged up liver from decades of sweet-tooth indulgence so I know what Dr. Lustig discovered from his practice is right. |
In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women.
I wonder how much he receives from the makers of high fructose corn syrup?
Your entire post ignores the crux of the issue:
It is the domain of the individual to choose one’s food, not that of the state. The Utopian fantasy that all will be slim, beautiful, and obedient will have us all forming long lines outside the main gate to the camp. Don’t be fooled.
I prefer to have the choice as to what goes on my plate and into my mouth. That’s the essence of Liberty.
But the issue here isn't whether sugar is good for us or not. It is whether, being bad for us, the government has the obligation -- or even the right, for that matter -- to regulate it. We are grown people. We can make our own decisions as to what we will eat and in what quantities. We don't need a nanny state telling us how to behave.
Thanks for that info. I will try to learn more.
As someone else has probably already explained, we are not questioning the science, just mocking the call for more government. Like the use of alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs, I would prefer that people be allowed to make their own decisions and, if they chose to poison themselves, suffer the consequences thereof without sticking me with bill. Private insurance companies can work that out. Government does not need to be involved in regulation or in paying for bad habits.
I certainly appreciate your information, and I am all for voluntarily educating people about the dangers of sugar. Or alcohol or riding a motorcycle without a helmet. I would never ride a bike without a helmet, but I oppose laws that require helmets.
About "sucrose" and toxicity... many things are toxic to an extent and the liver is the chemical plant that processes chemicals into forms usable by our system. Sucrose occurs in many plants, we've been eating those plants for a very long time.
Obviously too much of anything is bad and many things can indeed lead to damage to our systems - I am fairly certain that I can make a solution from common plants/foods that will do great, acute harm to your system in a short amount of time. That doesn't mean that the components are bad, it is about dosage.
As my Toxicology professor was fond of saying; "Food is Drugs" and drugs are about dosage.
“This allows me to connect with other scientists who come from very different backgrounds but who want to work together on big problems — think of a Manhattan Project, only one focused on protecting health through the collaboration of scientists who study everything from tiny cells to entire societies.”
Or more precisely, a utopian gathering to steal individual liberty and dictate to the peons who are to stupid to live their own lives.
“This is the same group of wannabees that have given us smoking bans, increased tobacco taxes and are working to have moving ratings include the use of tobacco products as one of the criteria.”
What? How can that be? I’m shocked that the smoke gnazis didn’t stop at tobacco. Just shocked I tell ya!
Hey fellow FReepers that supported these nannystaters, how does it feel now that they are using your ox to gore you?
Yup - She’s one of Stanton Glantz’ “people.”
Good one.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.