I just finished a 48 hour intermittent fast (IF)

[WaveHunter]

And just an added note concerning Aragon's blog that you linked.  Aragon grossly mis-interprets Lustig's view ("Boooo, Doc").  

 

For instance, Aragon states

"..Taking a hard look at the data above, it appears that the rise in obesity is due in large part to an increase in caloric intake in general, rather than an increase in added sugars in particular.

 

What a ridiculous criticism.  Of course increased caloric intake is responsible for obesity!  Of course "dosage" matters! 

 

What Lustig is saying is that sugar, since it is far less satiating that the other macros, requires more of it to feel satiated.  Thus, one will eat more, and more means more calories!  Duhhh!!!

 

That is the whole premise of the processed food industry.  Carbs and sugars are cheap to produce and people tend to eat more of them in the form of snacks, soft drinks, in addition to all the sugars contained in everyday processed foods, and since they never really "fill you up" , you just keep eating and eating, and eating! 

 

Without even realizing it many people are taking in massive amounts of sugar (HFCS) that are placed in food products just to make them palatable.   

 

Seriously, is Aragon really trying to convince people that sugar doesn't make you fat and sick...give me a break!

 

For Aragon to fault Lustig on the basis that it is calories not sugar that causes obesity, Aragon is being intentionally obtuse, and his goal is simply to mislead the reader into believing that Lustig is incorrect!  It's a classic promotional ploy used in politics, and by most health guru's; misinterpret the words of someone you're trying to compete with so you can create controversy where there really isn't any!

 

Obesity from increased calories is only one facet though, and Aragon seems to avoid the more insidious nature of sugar on insulin receptor desensitization (i.e.: burning them out!) , or the role of glycation in the pathogenesis of aging.  Gee, I wonder why he avoids the role of sugar in such metabolic disease?  

 

I'm not even going to go any further with tearing apart his blog because it's all the same; Aragon extensively uses half-truths and intentional mis-interpretations of Luftig's views simply to manufacture controversy where there is none, and for the purpose of advancing his own agenda to attract subscribers and people to pay for his books and speaking engagements.

 

This blog is pretty shameful IMO, and so is Aragon in general.  His only goal is to create controversy with sound scientific study so that he can promote his own agenda in its' place.

 

It's a sound promotional strategy that most "gurus" use to effectively build a following, but it's pretty tacky and sleazy way to make a living IMO!

[robblok]

17 hours ago, WaveHunter said:

And just an added note concerning Aragon's blog that you linked.  Aragon grossly mis-interprets Lustig's view ("Boooo, Doc").  

 

For instance, Aragon states

"..Taking a hard look at the data above, it appears that the rise in obesity is due in large part to an increase in caloric intake in general, rather than an increase in added sugars in particular.

 

What a ridiculous criticism.  Of course increased caloric intake is responsible for obesity!  Of course "dosage" matters! 

 

What Lustig is saying is that sugar, since it is far less satiating that the other macros, requires more of it to feel satiated.  Thus, one will eat more, and more means more calories!  Duhhh!!!

 

That is the whole premise of the processed food industry.  Carbs and sugars are cheap to produce and people tend to eat more of them in the form of snacks, soft drinks, in addition to all the sugars contained in everyday processed foods, and since they never really "fill you up" , you just keep eating and eating, and eating! 

 

Without even realizing it many people are taking in massive amounts of sugar (HFCS) that are placed in food products just to make them palatable.   

 

Seriously, is Aragon really trying to convince people that sugar doesn't make you fat and sick...give me a break!

 

For Aragon to fault Lustig on the basis that it is calories not sugar that causes obesity, Aragon is being intentionally obtuse, and his goal is simply to mislead the reader into believing that Lustig is incorrect!  It's a classic promotional ploy used in politics, and by most health guru's; misinterpret the words of someone you're trying to compete with so you can create controversy where there really isn't any!

 

Obesity from increased calories is only one facet though, and Aragon seems to avoid the more insidious nature of sugar on insulin receptor desensitization (i.e.: burning them out!) , or the role of glycation in the pathogenesis of aging.  Gee, I wonder why he avoids the role of sugar in such metabolic disease?  

 

I'm not even going to go any further with tearing apart his blog because it's all the same; Aragon extensively uses half-truths and intentional mis-interpretations of Luftig's views simply to manufacture controversy where there is none, and for the purpose of advancing his own agenda to attract subscribers and people to pay for his books and speaking engagements.

 

This blog is pretty shameful IMO, and so is Aragon in general.  His only goal is to create controversy with sound scientific study so that he can promote his own agenda in its' place.

 

It's a sound promotional strategy that most "gurus" use to effectively build a following, but it's pretty tacky and sleazy way to make a living IMO!

Guess you did not read the comments between the two as it does not suit your agenda. Because then you would have seen who had the real knowledge. I think you and I are done here because you refuse to even read what i post. Had you read the exchange of information between the two you would have seen who is far better. 

 

Lustig is a cheat who can't even get the numbers to prove his case Aragon puts him down in the discussion that you never read. (below the articles).

 

I think your to held up on heroes and extremists. I have nothing with Aragon but his science and its a whole lot better then Lustig. Lustig is an alarmist that over states his points and you did not even read the discussion between the two its that bias you are.

 

I think you and I are done, your too extreme for my views if you can't even read the discussion between the two where Aragon is the curtious one and Lustig the obtuse who even says he is right because he has more followers.

 

Aragaon is saying that Lustig has a point but is overstating it. Aragaon is stating quite good that its the amount of extra calories that are responsible while Lustig blames it all on sugars and fructose. Lustig has not found a single human study to back his claims up. Only mice and rat. You did not read the postings between the two you were that busy trying to convict someone who attacks your hero.

 

Its all about how much people eat and once people don't eat processed foods all is good. Aragaon states as much. People don't have to fear sugar, just processed foods.

 

Yes he went to Harvard, but not about nutrition. Its like saying I went to the university of Amsterdam and studied accounting but all of a sudden that means I know everything about (fill in something totally opposite). So that does not count. In my book Alan Aragon is the scientist and your hero the quack and if you read how they debated you would have seen so too but you were too afraid to read that.

 

He avoids it all sugar in metabolic disease because lustig cant come up with human studies to prove his point. Just rats, the human studies show nothing and the dosages used are all far more then would ever been used real life. (dose dependent and Lustig does not come with normal doses in his study)

 

Lustig is the most childlike person i have ever seen. I got more followers then you so I am right ???? (simplified quote from lustig himself)

 

10 hours to mountain bike a mc donalds burger off ???? (taken from a video I guess he learned that at Harvard)

 

Maybe if the good doctor not overstate and use real research i would have respect for him. Damm even water is toxic if you ingest enough.

 

 

 

[robblok]

18 hours ago, WaveHunter said:

Don't take this the wrong way, but you really crack me up in your comparison of Aragon vs Luftig, and also Ludwig who aligns with Luftig, and who I have provided you with much information.

 

Both Luftig and Ludwig are credentialed MD's.  They were educated at top universities (MIT, Stanford and Harvard) and both have been, and continue to be very active in serious scholarly research at two of the top medical research universities in the United States.  Both are acknowledged experts in the field of nutrition and metabolic science.

 

Robert Luftig, MD, MSL is Professor emeritus of Pediatrics, Division of Endocrinology at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF).  Luftig has well over 70 scholarly studies and major public health guidelines statements that have been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, and is widely acknowledged in the medical research community as an expert in metabolic sciences and a valuable contributor in matters related to major public health issues today.

 

Daniel Ludwig, MD, PhD is a professor of pediatrics at the Harvard Medical School and a professor of nutrition at the Harvard School of Public Health.  He is a fellow of The Obesity Society and a recipient of the 2008 E.V. McCollum Award of the American Society for Nutrition.

 

Ludwig is considered one of the foremost experts in the world on carbohydrate metabolism.  He has been Principal Investigator on numerous grants from the National Institutes of Health, has published over 200 scientific articles, and served for 10 years as Contributing Writer for JAMA.  http://www.childrenshospital.org/research/researchers/l/david-ludwig

 

Now, just who is Alan Aragon?  He is a celebrity nutritionist.  That's it!  His education consists only of a M.S. in Nutrition, and from a university that only has a doctoral program in Physical Therapy!  While not actually a "diploma mill", it's very close to one.  Not exactly the best credentials for an expert in nutrition IMO.

 

He has no serious scholarly research papers published except as co-author, and only on matters dealing with body-building nutrition, not serious public health issues.

 

One glance at his website makes it clear he is catering to people essentially looking for short-cuts to a lean body, not long-term optimal health.  The website is clearly designed as an e-commerce site to promote his speaking engagements, and his blog, and to sell his book, and nothing more; certainly nothing that addresses major health issues that effect the mainstream population.

 

He's very good at promoting himself as an expert, but I can find nobody in the scholarly world of medical research who acknowledges him as such.

 

His book, The Lean Muscle Diet. amounts to nothing more than just another re-hashed diet plan that only addresses the short-term goal of gaining lean body, while almost totally ignoring major health issues that are seriously relevant today.

 

Every link on the first page of a google search of his name reveal only back links to his website or links to interviews with other "health gurus", or links to mainstream websites like "Men's Health" which are really only thinly disguised marketing/promotional platforms to sell health supplements and books; certainly nothing pertaining to scholarly research or matters of nutrition relevant to public health.

 

It is VERY hard to see him as anything other than just your profit-driven run-of-the-mill health guru!  No significant credentials , no affiliation with scholarly research institutions, no serious scholarly research or publication, no peer-praise from others engaged in scholarly research...just a lot of clever self-promotion! 

 

I admire him as an entrepreneur but certainly not as an health expert.  He's a con man, pure and simple.

 

And worse, he is now likely facing legal problems for some pretty despicable personal behavior if allegations are true.  https://deadspin.com/how-celebrity-nutritionist-alan-aragon-used-his-status-1828684798

 

Sorry, but you are picking the wrong guy to believe in for real science-based truth.  Just like many of these health-gurus who litter the internet, he sounds like a real creep to me.

 

I'm not normally so critical of someone, but the more I learn about him, the less I like!

 

You know you talk about tacky.. but since when is attacking the messenger instead of the message. People do that when they have no arguments. You read all this, but not the exchange between the two and why... because it would show Lustig failing. Why don't you comment on the exchange between the two where the debate is and take this personal attack.. probably because you can't defend Lustig. And me making a typo in a name and you getting up in arms about that again.. no class.

 

https://alanaragon.com/articles/ (links to science on his site) other links are behind pay site. So again you dig up so much dirt but fail to see this. Your not unbias you were just doing a hatched job. Attacking the messenger. (and yes looks like he is scum for the stuff with the woman but that does not invalidate his argument)

[robblok]

Proof of Lustig lack of setting up a proper experiment (i guess you wont read that either). He failed badly no control group a fundamental requirement for real science.

 Also self reporting instead of in house (guess he does not want to spend all his money on a real study that says something). It proves exactly what I say Lustig is a Psuedo scientist who only looks at studies that can help him and can't even set up a study according to accepted practices. 

 

https://health.spectator.co.uk/the-latest-science-on-sugar-is-so-flawed-it-tells-us-nothing-whatsoever/

 

[robblok]

More to come yet to discredit Lustig

 

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/brainwaves/is-sugar-really-toxic-sifting-through-the-evidence/?redirect=1

 

Again he is overstating it and people are not rodents and normally don't get enough sugar for it to be toxic. If he had been more sound telling people to eat less sugar everyone would agree. But by presenting it like the US goverment presented reefer madness he does only harm to his cause.

 

 

[CangguSurfer]

.

[CangguSurfer]

2 hours ago, robblok said:

...people normally don't get enough sugar for it to be toxic. ...

 

I think you might be wrong on that.  The average person gets way more hidden sugar in their supermarket foods than they are even aware of.  The average American consumes over 57 pounds of sugar per year.  That sure sounds like a lot of sugar to me. 

 

The problem is so bad that the World Health Organization dropped its sugar intake recommendations from 10 percent daily calorie intake to 5 percent. 

 

Research also shows that, for some people, eating sugar produces characteristics of craving and withdrawal, along with chemical changes in the brain's reward center, the limbic region.

 

Using brain-scanning technology, scientists at the U.S. National Institute on Drug Abuse were among the first to show that sugar causes changes in peoples' brains similar to those in people addicted to drugs such as cocaine and alcohol. These changes are linked to a heightened craving for more sugar. This important evidence has set off a flood of research on the potentially addictive properties of sugar.

 

I'm not sure how you define "toxic" but these things meet my definition for sure, without question.

 

Here's more to consider.

 

Consuming too much added sugar over long periods of time also can affect the natural balance of hormones that drive critical functions in the body. Eating sugar increases levels of glucose in the bloodstream, which leads the pancreas to release insulin. Higher levels of insulin, in turn, cause the body to store more food calories as fat.

 

Insulin also affects a hormone called leptin, which is our natural appetite suppressant that tells our brains we are full and can stop eating. Imbalanced insulin levels, along with high consumption of certain sugars, such as fructose, has been linked to a condition called leptin resistance in which the brain no longer "hears" the message to stop eating, thus promoting weight gain and obesity.

 

Leptin resistance enabled our ancestors to survive long periods of limited food supply by encouraging them to overeat during times of plenty and enabling them to conserve more calories as fat. In the modern world, that's not a benefit. To make matters worse, people with leptin resistance also tend to feel sluggish, making it difficult to be active and contributing to further weight gain.

 

Here are some links you might want to look at:

• Johnson, R.K., Appel, L., Brands, M., Howard, B., Lefevre, M., Lustig, R., Sacks, F., Steffen, L., & Wyllie-Rosett, J. (2009, September 15). Dietary sugars intake and cardiovascular health: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation , 120(11), 1011-20. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.109.192627. Retrieved from http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/120/11/1011.full.pdf
• (2016, March). 2015-2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans — Cut Down on Added Sugars. Retrieved from https://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015/resources/DGA_Cut-Down-On-Added-Sugars.pdf
• United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. (2012). USDA Sugar Supply: Tables 51-53: US Consumption of Caloric Sweeteners. Retrieved from http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/sugar-and-sweeteners-yearbook-tables.aspx
• Ervin, R.B., Kit, B.K., Carroll, M.D., & Ogden, C.L. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2012). NCHS Data Brief No. 87: Consumption of added sugar among U.S. children and adolescents, 2005–2008. . Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db87.htm
• Soft drinks: sugar content. Retrieved from http://www.floridahealth.gov/chdcollier/Documents/ToothFairy/sugarinsodas.pdf
• Volkow, N.D., & Li, T.-K. (2004). Drug addiction: the neurobiology of behaviour gone awry. Nature Reviews Neuroscience , 5(12), 963-970.
• Brownell, K.D., & Gold, M.S. (2012). Food and addiction: A comprehensive handbook. () Oxford University Press.
• Avena, N., Rada, P., & Hoebel, B. (2008). Evidence for sugar addiction: behaviroal and neurochemical effects of intermittent, excessive sugar intake. Neuroscience Behavior Review , 52(1), 20-39. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17617461
• Garber, A.K., & Lustig, R.H. (2011). Is fast food addictive?. Current Drug Abuse Reviews , 4(3), 146-162.
• Shapiro, A., Mu, W., Roncal, C., Cheng, K.-Y., Johnson, R.J., & Scarpace, P.J. (2008). Fructose-induced leptin resistance exacerbates weight gain in response to subsequent high-fat feeding. American Journal of Physiology. Regulatory, Integrative and Comparative Physiology , 295(5), R1370–1375. doi:10.1152/ajpregu.00195.2008

[samuttodd]

OK ok,  dai lui,  bahp nung lat Jai yen yen.   Remember that when you break your fast to ease into it with some easily digested foods.   things like fruit juice,  con gee etc.    You don't want to go guns blazing and grab a slab of steak.  

 

 

Y'all have inspired me to fast.   I haven't had a bite since yesterday at about 1900hrs.   The first 20 hours are the hardest for me.   I get pretty hungry.    After that, i think most folks swith over from adenosine triphosphate to using adenosine diphosphate.   More simply,  you go from burning glycogen stored in the liver and musculature to metabolizing the stored fat on your frame.  

 

I think that if you want to go long haul fasting,  it is important to supplement minerals and vitamins as you will deplete your stored reserves otherwise, and that may invite illness and weaken you.

 

I haven't done a fast in about a year,  but certainly it works on an 16hr fast and 8 hour eating basis.   This time I will go longer to see how i handle it.

[robblok]

25 minutes ago, CangguSurfer said:

I think you might be wrong on that.  The average person gets way more hidden sugar in their supermarket foods than they are even aware of.  The average American eats over 57 pounds of sugar per year.  That sure sounds like a lot of sugar to me. 

 

The problem is so bad that the World Health Organization dropped its sugar intake recommendations from 10 percent daily calorie intake to 5 percent. 

 

Research also shows that, for some people, eating sugar produces characteristics of craving and withdrawal, along with chemical changes in the brain's reward center, the limbic region.

 

Using brain-scanning technology, scientists at the U.S. National Institute on Drug Abuse were among the first to show that sugar causes changes in peoples' brains similar to those in people addicted to drugs such as cocaine and alcohol. These changes are linked to a heightened craving for more sugar. This important evidence has set off a flood of research on the potentially addictive properties of sugar.

 

I'm not sure how you define "toxic" but these things meet my definition for sure, without question.

 

Here's more to consider.

 

Consuming too much added sugar over long periods of time also can affect the natural balance of hormones that drive critical functions in the body. Eating sugar increases levels of glucose in the bloodstream, which leads the pancreas to release insulin. Higher levels of insulin, in turn, cause the body to store more food calories as fat.

 

Insulin also affects a hormone called leptin, which is our natural appetite suppressant that tells our brains we are full and can stop eating. Imbalanced insulin levels, along with high consumption of certain sugars, such as fructose, has been linked to a condition called leptin resistance in which the brain no longer "hears" the message to stop eating, thus promoting weight gain and obesity.

 

Leptin resistance enabled our ancestors to survive long periods of limited food supply by encouraging them to overeat during times of plenty and enabling them to conserve more calories as fat. In the modern world, that's not a benefit. To make matters worse, people with leptin resistance also tend to feel sluggish, making it difficult to be active and contributing to further weight gain.

 

Here are some links you might want to look at:

• Johnson, R.K., Appel, L., Brands, M., Howard, B., Lefevre, M., Lustig, R., Sacks, F., Steffen, L., & Wyllie-Rosett, J. (2009, September 15). Dietary sugars intake and cardiovascular health: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation , 120(11), 1011-20. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.109.192627. Retrieved from http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/120/11/1011.full.pdf
• (2016, March). 2015-2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans — Cut Down on Added Sugars. Retrieved from https://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015/resources/DGA_Cut-Down-On-Added-Sugars.pdf
• United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. (2012). USDA Sugar Supply: Tables 51-53: US Consumption of Caloric Sweeteners. Retrieved from http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/sugar-and-sweeteners-yearbook-tables.aspx
• ^[4]Ervin, R.B., Kit, B.K., Carroll, M.D., & Ogden, C.L. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2012). NCHS Data Brief No. 87: Consumption of added sugar among U.S. children and adolescents, 2005–2008. . Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db87.htm
• Soft drinks: sugar content. Retrieved from http://www.floridahealth.gov/chdcollier/Documents/ToothFairy/sugarinsodas.pdf
• Volkow, N.D., & Li, T.-K. (2004). Drug addiction: the neurobiology of behaviour gone awry. Nature Reviews Neuroscience , 5(12), 963-970.
• Brownell, K.D., & Gold, M.S. (2012). Food and addiction: A comprehensive handbook. () Oxford University Press.
• Avena, N., Rada, P., & Hoebel, B. (2008). Evidence for sugar addiction: behaviroal and neurochemical effects of intermittent, excessive sugar intake. Neuroscience Behavior Review , 52(1), 20-39. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17617461
• Garber, A.K., & Lustig, R.H. (2011). Is fast food addictive?. Current Drug Abuse Reviews , 4(3), 146-162.
• ^]Shapiro, A., Mu, W., Roncal, C., Cheng, K.-Y., Johnson, R.J., & Scarpace, P.J. (2008). Fructose-induced leptin resistance exacerbates weight gain in response to subsequent high-fat feeding. American Journal of Physiology. Regulatory, Integrative and Comparative Physiology , 295(5), R1370–1375. doi:10.1152/ajpregu.00195.2008

I looked at them and found no relevant studies that are good enough. Most are rodent based and those rodents are fed 50% sugar (not something that would happen in a normal diet). 

 

I think your confusing toxic with addictive. 

 

The human studies have not shown anything yet, only rat based studies. Its all about the amount. 

 

Its good that you come up with some figures. 57 pounds (now lets us get that to metric the system used all over the world for science not that outdated US thingy).  that makes it 25854 grams multiply that by 4 (calories per gram) 103416 calories per year Divide by 365 =283 calories from sugar per day.

 

Average USA caloric intake is 2231 to 3300 cals a day. So the percentage of sugar in that is 0,8 to 12,6 .. average that out is around 10%.

 

So that is 10 percent of calories from sugar that WAY lower then any of the studies that shown problems have used.

 

So conclusion LUSTIG is an alarmist. Now if it was a lot more then sure it would become a problem. But at these levels there is no research backing up what you say.

 

If you can show me studies that show toxic effect at 10% of caloric intake I will agree with your points.. Otherwise no chance. 

 

Personally I try to cut sugar out because they are empty calories. But that is different from calling something toxic and dangerous. Its excess calories that make us fat not sugar.

 

You should read your own research better.. they are taling about high doses not just 10% of the caloric intake per day. You do know you can die from water drinking too ?. Its all dose dependent. No studies with normal doses of sugar have ever shown bad effects (besides them being empty calories and not useful)

[VincentRJ]

The opposing arguments between you two, Rob and WaveHunter, are interesting. Perhaps you two should get married. ????

 

Joke aside, I appreciate both sides of the argument. A few years ago when I was overweight by 18-20 kgs and decided to do something about it, I read about the claimed role of fructose in its interference with the body's sense of satiation. Doing further research at the time, I came across an article on the internet in which the author claimed that he'd been present at a board meeting of a major Fructose manufacturer, in the US, where this issue of the effect of Fructose on satiation was discussed. The board members agreed that the company should do it's own research on the issue, and that, if their research refuted the claims, they would publish the results, and if their research confirmed the claims, they would bury the results.

 

The HFCS industry is huge, and any research which reliably confirmed that Fructose was the main driver of obesity, by increasing appetite and interfering with the body's natural sense of satiation, would devastate the HFCS industry world-wide.

 

Doing a search on the internet today, I see that there is still doubt and confusion about the role of Fructose on satiation, and there seems to be no scientifically reliable studies which confirm that Fructose in particular is the bad boy.

 

This situation is typical of many other situations in the medical/dietary world involving humans. It also reminds me of the current disputes on the causes of climate change. The complexity of so many interacting components, and the long times scales involved before certainty can be achieved, make it impossible to conduct reliable experiments under sufficiently controlled conditions for the significant time periods required.

 

Who is going to spend perhaps a hundred million dollars to conduct reliable research which could destroy the HFCS industry and raise the cost of sugars in general. The sugar from Sugar Cane also contains Fructose, although it's bound to the Glucose molecule and needs to be broken down in the small intestine before it can be absorbed, whereas both fructose and glucose in HFCS are in their free form.

 

As mentioned before, perhaps it's just better to try for yourself whatever you think makes sense, and observe the effects. Before I began to change my diet and do some intermittent fasting to lose weight, I had become concerned about a possible addiction to wine and beer, so I occasionally stopped drinking for several days, and sometimes even weeks, to give my body a rest and convince myself that I wasn't really addicted.

 

What I noticed after a few weeks of abstention from wine and beer drinking was that I lost a significant amount of weight. When I began drinking again, I gradually regained the weight. It was just an observation at the time. When I later read about the fructose issue, I also became aware that wine could also contain fructose. However, at that time I was also drinking large quantities of pure fruit juice on the basis it was an economical way of getting the nutritional benefits of fruit, so the amount of fructose I got from wine would have been very small in comparison. I presume it was the additional calories from all sources in the wine and beer, including the alcohol, which affected my weight.

 

When I later embarked upon a weight-reducing program, I completely stopped drinking pure fruit juice and stopped drinking all alcoholic beverages. I fasted a number of times, over a period of a year or so, for just a day or two, and restricted myself to just one or two meals a day instead of the usual three. The strategy worked with no trouble.

 

I'm now in the situation where I drink wine in moderation, generally eat healthy, unprocessed food, but occasionally eat a delicious bowl of ice cream or a sweet, creamy cake, and fast now and again to help my body cleanse itself.

 

Attached are a couple of articles from, presumably, a reliable source, which demonstrate the confusion and complexity of the whole issue of sugars and satiation. To read the articles from beginning to end would be a great challenge but without any satisfactory conclusion.
 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2991323/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4179169/

[samuttodd]

CangguSurfer   Interesting stuff on sugar and the way it changes gut flora/fauna.  

  There is some research with indicates that high sugar/alcohol intake can allow certain f/f to change the way the gut communicates with the nervous system

 

(The enteric nervous system) causes signals that make you crave even more sugars/alcohol.  

Their existance in your gut modifies your behaviour and eating habits,  because they like sugars/alcohols,  so the enteric nervous system signals your brain to be hungry for things that have sugars and alcohols to ensure they'll get what they need to flourish.

 

 

That is one of the reasons why drunks have such horrible cravings for sweets and alcohol when they dry out.  Their enteric nervous system demands more. 

 

Probably why many succesful detox regimens implement diets that contain zero- minimal refined sugars and whopping doses of probiotics/Apple Cider vinegar.   To re establish a healthy gut in the patients and stop the cravings.

[robblok]

2 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

The opposing arguments between you two, Rob and WaveHunter, are interesting. Perhaps you two should get married. ????

 

Joke aside, I appreciate both sides of the argument. A few years ago when I was overweight by 18-20 kgs and decided to do something about it, I read about the claimed role of fructose in its interference with the body's sense of satiation. Doing further research at the time, I came across an article on the internet in which the author claimed that he'd been present at a board meeting of a major Fructose manufacturer, in the US, where this issue of the effect of Fructose on satiation was discussed. The board members agreed that the company should do it's own research on the issue, and that, if their research refuted the claims, they would publish the results, and if their research confirmed the claims, they would bury the results.

 

The HFCS industry is huge, and any research which reliably confirmed that Fructose was the main driver of obesity, by increasing appetite and interfering with the body's natural sense of satiation, would devastate the HFCS industry world-wide.

 

Doing a search on the internet today, I see that there is still doubt and confusion about the role of Fructose on satiation, and there seems to be no scientifically reliable studies which confirm that Fructose in particular is the bad boy.

 

This situation is typical of many other situations in the medical/dietary world involving humans. It also reminds me of the current disputes on the causes of climate change. The complexity of so many interacting components, and the long times scales involved before certainty can be achieved, make it impossible to conduct reliable experiments under sufficiently controlled conditions for the significant time periods required.

 

Who is going to spend perhaps a hundred million dollars to conduct reliable research which could destroy the HFCS industry and raise the cost of sugars in general. The sugar from Sugar Cane also contains Fructose, although it's bound to the Glucose molecule and needs to be broken down in the small intestine before it can be absorbed, whereas both fructose and glucose in HFCS are in their free form.

 

As mentioned before, perhaps it's just better to try for yourself whatever you think makes sense, and observe the effects. Before I began to change my diet and do some intermittent fasting to lose weight, I had become concerned about a possible addiction to wine and beer, so I occasionally stopped drinking for several days, and sometimes even weeks, to give my body a rest and convince myself that I wasn't really addicted.

 

What I noticed after a few weeks of abstention from wine and beer drinking was that I lost a significant amount of weight. When I began drinking again, I gradually regained the weight. It was just an observation at the time. When I later read about the fructose issue, I also became aware that wine could also contain fructose. However, at that time I was also drinking large quantities of pure fruit juice on the basis it was an economical way of getting the nutritional benefits of fruit, so the amount of fructose I got from wine would have been very small in comparison. I presume it was the additional calories from all sources in the wine and beer, including the alcohol, which affected my weight.

 

When I later embarked upon a weight-reducing program, I completely stopped drinking pure fruit juice and stopped drinking all alcoholic beverages. I fasted a number of times, over a period of a year or so, for just a day or two, and restricted myself to just one or two meals a day instead of the usual three. The strategy worked with no trouble.

 

I'm now in the situation where I drink wine in moderation, generally eat healthy, unprocessed food, but occasionally eat a delicious bowl of ice cream or a sweet, creamy cake, and fast now and again to help my body cleanse itself.

 

Attached are a couple of articles from, presumably, a reliable source, which demonstrate the confusion and complexity of the whole issue of sugars and satiation. To read the articles from beginning to end would be a great challenge but without any satisfactory conclusion.
 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2991323/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4179169/

Point is mate that i don't like alarmists. I don't like people who lie to overstate their position Lustig falls in that group. The more i read about him from other sources the more it shows he totally overstates the problem The problem is excess calories.

 

You said you lost weight when you stopped drinking wine and beer.. great.. Personally I think that that is because you got in less calories and not because sugar is toxic and was making you gain weight. 

 

All the research i seen so far shows that sugar in normal (even american average normal)  doses does not cause any problems. Is it a good idea to cut sugar and replace it for something else.. sure yes. Does that mean its toxic.. No way.

 

I believe in eating unprocessed foods (cooking for yourself) and when you do that your going to lose weight. 

https://anabolicminds.com/articles/heavily-processed-foods-cause-overeating-and-weight-gain-study-finds-40517/

 

I believe once you eat healthy there is no need to be extreme and start screaming when you see sugar running away in fear. Same like carbs are not going to kill you (unlike many of the low carb boys might thing). 

 

I believe in a balanced healthy diet that includes carbs.

[CangguSurfer]

1 minute ago, robblok said:

I looked at them and found no relevant studies that are good enough. Most are rodent based and those rodents are fed 50% sugar (not something that would happen in a normal diet). 

 

I think your confusing toxic with addictive. 

 

The human studies have not shown anything yet, only rat based studies. Its all about the amount. 

 

Its good that you come up with some figures. 57 pounds (now lets us get that to metric the system used all over the world for science not that outdated US thingy).  that makes it 25854 grams multiply that by 4 (calories per gram) 103416 calories per year Divide by 365 =283 calories from sugar per day.

 

Average USA caloric intake is 2231 to 3300 cals a day. So the percentage of sugar in that is 0,8 to 12,6 .. average that out is around 10%.

 

So that is 10 percent of calories from sugar that WAY lower then any of the studies that shown problems have used.

 

So conclusion LUSTIG is an alarmist. Now if it was a lot more then sure it would become a problem. But at these levels there is no research backing up what you say.

Okey Dokey, kind of odd that WHO has cut their recommended consumption from 10% to HALF that amount...Have it your way though if you think you know better.  For me, I'll heed the warning.   ???? 

 

[robblok]

1 minute ago, CangguSurfer said:

Okey Dokey, kind of odd that WHO has cut their recommended consumption from 10% to HALF that amount...Have it your way though if you think you know better.  For me, I'll heed the warning.   ???? 

 

Yea instead of doing your own thinking and reading your own research where the doses were much higher then 10% you give up when someone comes back with some arguments.

 

I think my sugar intake is even less, but not because I think its toxic, just empty calories. Its good to lower your sugar intake. So WHO is right, but they are not saying its toxic. They just say its good to lower it (and it is but for other reasons).

 

My ONLY rant is against the extremism and painting of wrong pictures by for instance Lustig. If someone takes studies on rats (not men) that use dosages far above the 10% to show its toxic and then say that all sugar is toxic its bad science. 

 

If the guy just made a case for cutting down sugar I would be all for it but that would not sell as many books or generate the attention. So guess what....

 

 

[VincentRJ]

2 minutes ago, robblok said:

Point is mate that i don't like alarmists. I don't like people who lie to overstate their position Lustig falls in that group. The more i read about him from other sources the more it shows he totally overstates the problem The problem is excess calories.

 

You said you lost weight when you stopped drinking wine and beer.. great.. Personally I think that that is because you got in less calories and not because sugar is toxic and was making you gain weight. 

 

All the research i seen so far shows that sugar in normal (even american average normal)  doses does not cause any problems. Is it a good idea to cut sugar and replace it for something else.. sure yes. Does that mean its toxic.. No way.

 

I believe in eating unprocessed foods (cooking for yourself) and when you do that your going to lose weight. 

https://anabolicminds.com/articles/heavily-processed-foods-cause-overeating-and-weight-gain-study-finds-40517/

 

I believe once you eat healthy there is no need to be extreme and start screaming when you see sugar running away in fear. Same like carbs are not going to kill you (unlike many of the low carb boys might thing). 

 

I believe in a balanced healthy diet that includes carbs.

 

I did write that I believed it was the reduction in calories that caused my weight loss when I stopped drinking, rather than the smaller quantities of fructose alone. I've never taken the position that sugars are toxic, but I'm open to the position that fructose, in particular, might interfere with the body's normal sense of satiation, which would tend to increase one's appetite and cause one to eat more than one needs.

 

 

[samuttodd]

This is from a paper by Dr Richard Alan Miller....

 

Mind Control and the Gut, Our “Second Brain”
The human gut is now considered to be a "second
brain". It is convoluted (just like the brain) and has
neurotransmitters. This new "mind" is now called the
enteric nervous system. And, just like the larger brain in the
head, this system sends and receives impulses, records
experiences and responds to emotions.
This enteric nervous system influences the brain, and
the brain influences the enteric nervous system. Brain to
gut "dialogues" (influences) include: "butterflies in the
stomach", e.g., a surge in stress hormones; "a gut feeling",
e.g., feeling overriding the facts; and "intestinal urgency",
e.g., anxiety on the night before an important event.
The gut's brain or the enteric nervous system is located
in the sheaths of tissue lining the oesophagus, stomach,
small intestine and colon. Now considered a single
entity, it is a network of neurons, neurotransmitters and
proteins. This network zaps messages between neurons,
supports cells (like those found in the brain) and has a
complex circuitry. This enables it to act independently,
learn, remember and, as the saying goes, "produce gut
feelings".
Details of how the enteric nervous system mirrors the
central nervous system have been emerging in recent
years through the work of Dr Michael Gershon, professor

 

of anatomy and cell biology at Columbia–Presbyterian
Medical Center in New York. He is one of the founders
of neurogastroenterology, a new field of medicine.
The gut contains 100 million neurons, more than are
found in the spinal cord. Major neurotransmitters like
serotonin, dopamine, glutamate, norepinephrine and
nitric oxide are all in the gut. Two dozen small brain
proteins, called neuropeptides, are there along with the
major cells of the immune system. Enkephalins (members
of the endorphins family) are also in the gut. The gut
also is a rich source of benzodiazepines, the family of

psychoactive chemicals which includes such ever-
popular drugs as Valium® and Xanax®.

 

[robblok]

3 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

 

I did write that I believed it was the reduction in calories that caused my weight loss when I stopped drinking, rather than the smaller quantities of fructose alone. I've never taken the position that sugars are toxic, but I'm open to the position that fructose, in particular, might interfere with the body's normal sense of satiation, which would tend to increase one's appetite and cause one to eat more than one needs.

 

 

I am open for many things if you look at the study i quoted you see that processed food makes you eat more. Could be because of the fructose, could be because of something else. Problem is there is no clear evidence and when Guru's then start banging on about toxic this danger that I get a bit annoyed. 

 

I really hate scare tactics like the reefer madness propaganda from the US way back. People should be shown real evidence not exaggerating claims using much higher doses to claim stuff. Just makes me mad. There is enough confusion as is no need to make it worse with fake claims.

 

When I lose weight its always because of eating better food and less food. Training more has some influence too.

 

[robblok]

7 minutes ago, samuttodd said:

This is from a paper by Dr Richard Alan Miller....

 

Mind Control and the Gut, Our “Second Brain”
The human gut is now considered to be a "second
brain". It is convoluted (just like the brain) and has
neurotransmitters. This new "mind" is now called the
enteric nervous system. And, just like the larger brain in the
head, this system sends and receives impulses, records
experiences and responds to emotions.
This enteric nervous system influences the brain, and
the brain influences the enteric nervous system. Brain to
gut "dialogues" (influences) include: "butterflies in the
stomach", e.g., a surge in stress hormones; "a gut feeling",
e.g., feeling overriding the facts; and "intestinal urgency",
e.g., anxiety on the night before an important event.
The gut's brain or the enteric nervous system is located
in the sheaths of tissue lining the oesophagus, stomach,
small intestine and colon. Now considered a single
entity, it is a network of neurons, neurotransmitters and
proteins. This network zaps messages between neurons,
supports cells (like those found in the brain) and has a
complex circuitry. This enables it to act independently,
learn, remember and, as the saying goes, "produce gut
feelings".
Details of how the enteric nervous system mirrors the
central nervous system have been emerging in recent
years through the work of Dr Michael Gershon, professor

 

of anatomy and cell biology at Columbia–Presbyterian
Medical Center in New York. He is one of the founders
of neurogastroenterology, a new field of medicine.
The gut contains 100 million neurons, more than are
found in the spinal cord. Major neurotransmitters like
serotonin, dopamine, glutamate, norepinephrine and
nitric oxide are all in the gut. Two dozen small brain
proteins, called neuropeptides, are there along with the
major cells of the immune system. Enkephalins (members
of the endorphins family) are also in the gut. The gut
also is a rich source of benzodiazepines, the family of

psychoactive chemicals which includes such ever-
popular drugs as Valium® and Xanax®.

 

Yes there is a lot of good research about the gut and its flora. There is so much research on so many things its hard to know what is causing what. I read some nice things about gut bacteria in mice and obesity. So far they can't really transplant the gut bacteria yet but it might be something that can be done in the future.

[VincentRJ]

1 minute ago, robblok said:

I am open for many things if you look at the study i quoted you see that processed food makes you eat more. Could be because of the fructose, could be because of something else. Problem is there is no clear evidence and when Guru's then start banging on about toxic this danger that I get a bit annoyed. 

 

I really hate scare tactics like the reefer madness propaganda from the US way back. People should be shown real evidence not exaggerating claims using much higher doses to claim stuff. Just makes me mad. There is enough confusion as is no need to make it worse with fake claims.

 

When I lose weight its always because of eating better food and less food. Training more has some influence too.

 

Robblok,
You did state in a previous response to my recent post on my own fasting for close to 4 days, where I stated that I didn't experience any significant hunger pangs, that you wish you could do the same, but strong feelings of hunger made it too difficult.

 

Out of curiosity, have you been able to quantify your fructose consumption?
 

[WaveHunter]

51 minutes ago, robblok said:

...Its excess calories that make us fat not sugar. ...

 

That's such a silly comment you keep quoting from Aragon.  It's like saying, "Cancer kills you; not smoking cigarettes"!

 

Yes, of course excess calories make you fat, but it is sugar, more than any other macronutrient, that will cause this to happen, for just the reasons that Canguu stated:

 

• Sugar is hidden in most processed foods today so most people are unaware of the actual sugar they are actually consuming, and is thus probably even higher than statistics show.  That's one of the main reasons that the World Health Organization has lowered its' recommendations for sugar consumption from 10% to HALF OF THAT AMOUNT now!

 

• Sugar elicits an addiction response similar to cocaine and alcohol, so people are much more likely to eat excessive amounts of it

 

• Consuming too much added sugar over long periods of time also can affect the natural balance of hormones that drive critical functions in the body. Eating sugar increases levels of glucose in the bloodstream, which leads the pancreas to release insulin. Higher levels of insulin, in turn, cause the body to store more food calories as fat.

 

• Insulin also affects a hormone called leptin, which is our natural appetite suppressant that tells our brains we are full and can stop eating. Imbalanced insulin levels, along with high consumption of certain sugars, such as fructose, has been linked to a condition called leptin resistance in which the brain no longer "hears" the message to stop eating, thus promoting weight gain and obesity.

 

• Leptin resistance enabled our ancestors to survive long periods of limited food supply by encouraging them to overeat during times of plenty and enabling them to conserve more calories as fat. In the modern world, that's not a benefit. To make matters worse, people with leptin resistance also tend to feel sluggish, making it difficult to be active and contributing to further weight gain.

 

In medical terms, toxicity is defined as: the ability of a substance or mixture of substances to cause harmful effects.  Sugar amply meets this definition in light of the above.

 

How can you possibly argue with these points.  Please stop playing Devil's Advocate and try being objective.

 

[samuttodd]

A gut f/f transplant may not be needed.  

 

If somebody does a regimen of antibiotics that wipe the slate clean of the bacteria  (good and bad)   and then reconstructs it with proper foods and supplemental doses of beneficial pro biotics and gives it a diet that is not condusive to blooms of bad gut bugs (low or no refined sugars)  then that might be enough to jump start the system into proper operating and functionality.   

 

The body is like a high performance racing engine,  sure,  you can run it on lawnmower gas,  but it will probably perform better with proper fuel.

[robblok]

2 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Robblok,
You did state in a previous response to my recent post on my own fasting for close to 4 days, where I stated that I didn't experience any significant hunger pangs, that you wish you could do the same, but strong feelings of hunger made it too difficult.

 

Out of curiosity, have you been able to quantify your fructose consumption?
 

I stated multiple times I cook for myself and don't eat garbage. I might on rare occasions eat fructose in a drink (I am partial to blackcurrant) but try to avoid it. 

 

Normally my day goes something like this eggs with bacon ...  some fruit... vegetables with meat .. protein drinks (unflavored). That is what my meals mostly consist out. Nothing processed.  So I doubt i take much fructose. 

 

As for strong feelings of hunger, that is subjective, i am not retired and an accountant. So i need a clear mind so hunger pangs distract me from working. Normal hunger pangs are ok but when it get too much I just can't work. I can live like that.. but it makes me not productive. 

[robblok]

17 minutes ago, WaveHunter said:

That's such a silly comment you keep quoting from Aragon.  It's like saying, "Smoking doesn't kill you, it's cancer that kills you"!

 

Yes, of course excess calories make you fat, but it is sugar, more than any other macronutrient, that will cause this to happen, for just the reasons that Canguu stated:

 

• Sugar is hidden in most processed foods today so most people are unaware of the actual sugar they are actually consuming, and is thus probably even higher than statistics show.  That's one of the main reasons that the World Health Organization has lowered its' recommendations for sugar consumption from 10% to HALF OF THAT AMOUNT now!

• Sugar elicits an addiction response similar to cocaine and alcohol, so people are much more likely to eat excessive amounts.

• Consuming too much added sugar over long periods of time also can affect the natural balance of hormones that drive critical functions in the body. Eating sugar increases levels of glucose in the bloodstream, which leads the pancreas to release insulin. Higher levels of insulin, in turn, cause the body to store more food calories as fat.

• Insulin also affects a hormone called leptin, which is our natural appetite suppressant that tells our brains we are full and can stop eating. Imbalanced insulin levels, along with high consumption of certain sugars, such as fructose, has been linked to a condition called leptin resistance in which the brain no longer "hears" the message to stop eating, thus promoting weight gain and obesity.

• Leptin resistance enabled our ancestors to survive long periods of limited food supply by encouraging them to overeat during times of plenty and enabling them to conserve more calories as fat. In the modern world, that's not a benefit. To make matters worse, people with leptin resistance also tend to feel sluggish, making it difficult to be active and contributing to further weight gain.

In medical terms, toxicity is defined as: the ability of a substance or mixture of substances to cause harmful effects.  Sugar amply meets this definition in light of the above.

 

How can you possibly argue with these points.  Please stop playing Devil's Advocate and try being objective.

I told you I am done with you.. you never read my data so why should i give you the same curtesy. You never read the exchange between Alan Aragon and Lustig where lustig was totally blown away. So why should i debate with you when 2 giants debated it and Lustig lost.

 

The WHO stating that sugar should be cut down had nothing to do with toxicity but it being empty calories. 

 

No proof of the cocain and alochol response in normal dosage. Do give me a trial on humans with normal dosage to back your claims up.

 

Again show me research on humans with normal dosages. All Lustig his work has already been discredited for it being on rats. 

 

And do give your comments on Lustig his own experiment that i quoted how scientific that is (something you did not read again).

 

I get tired off you really.. you expect others to read and believe what you read while you totally ignore all other evidence.

 

sugar addictive as cocaine debunked. see below.

 

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00394-016-1229-6

 

[VincentRJ]

6 minutes ago, robblok said:

I stated multiple times I cook for myself and don't eat garbage. I might on rare occasions eat fructose in a drink (I am partial to blackcurrant) but try to avoid it. 

 

Normally my day goes something like this eggs with bacon ...  some fruit... vegetables with meat .. protein drinks (unflavored). That is what my meals mostly consist out. Nothing processed.  So I doubt i take much fructose. 

 

As for strong feelings of hunger, that is subjective, i am not retired and an accountant. So i need a clear mind so hunger pangs distract me from working. Normal hunger pangs are ok but when it get too much I just can't work. I can live like that.. but it makes me not productive. 

Surely you don't work 7 days a week. Why not fast for two days during the weekend. Do that several times over several weeks, then during a holiday you'll be able to fast for a whole week with no trouble. ????

 

You should know, when a person first visits a gym, he cannot lift a 100 kg weight. He has to practice over a long period, starting with perhaps 20 kg and gradually increasing the weight.

[robblok]

6 minutes ago, samuttodd said:

A gut f/f transplant may not be needed.  

 

If somebody does a regimen of antibiotics that wipe the slate clean of the bacteria  (good and bad)   and then reconstructs it with proper foods and supplemental doses of beneficial pro biotics and gives it a diet that is not condusive to blooms of bad gut bugs,  then that might be enough to jump start the system into proper operating and functionality.   

 

The body is like a high performance racing engine,  sure,  you can run it on lawnmower gas,  but it will probably perform better with proper fuel.

I know about this but what i read it still does not give people the same gut flora. That is the last what i read about it. I take kefir and other fermented stuff and Yoghurt. I make sure i get inulin in and physillim husk both good for the darm flora.

[robblok]

Just now, VincentRJ said:

Surely you don't work 7 days a week. Why not fast for two days during the weekend. Do that several times over several weeks, then during a holiday you'll be able to fast for a whole week with no trouble. ????

I am my own boss.. and i just worked this morning and 4 months a year I work 30-31 days non stop other months are just busy. So Nah i give fasting a pass as I am not convinced about its magical properties. I prefer my business running good. 

 

The reason I am online a lot is because I work from behind a computer.

[samuttodd]

You guys are going to freak when I tell you that I am flying a chopper right now/ jk

new directions in mind control.pdf

 

This is a related topic that incorporates some of what you guys are discussing.   I think it is a pretty interesting read.

[VincentRJ]

2 minutes ago, robblok said:

I am my own boss.. and i just worked this morning and 4 months a year I work 30-31 days non stop other months are just busy. So Nah i give fasting a pass as I am not convinced about its magical properties. I prefer my business running good. 

 

The reason I am online a lot is because I work from behind a computer.

If you are your own boss, then there should be no obstacle. Choose your priorities; the health benefits of fasting versus the extra income from working every day.

 

Consider, the additional brain neurons created during fasting could compensate in the future for any loss of income. ????

[robblok]

Just now, VincentRJ said:

If you are your own boss, then there should be no obstacle. Choose your priorities; the health benefits of fasting versus the extra income from working every day.

 

Consider, the additional brain neurons created during fasting could compensate in the future for any loss of income. ????

Have you ever been your own boss ?

 

Its not that simple when you run a business. Seriously I don't consider fasting worth it I don't see the benefits. Sure a lot is stated. I still dont see you or wavehunter flying around in a cape jumping building in a single bound ????

 

Nice that you believe in it I just don't believe it will change that much for me. Nothing world shocking worth sacrificing work time for. I already got my priorities straight, eating healthy working out. No need to torture myself with a fast and lose income at the same time for some benefits that IMHO are overstated. (and I tried a lot of things in my time and a lot of bad things supplements too)

[VincentRJ]

1 minute ago, robblok said:

Have you ever been your own boss ?

 

Its not that simple when you run a business. Seriously I don't consider fasting worth it I don't see the benefits. Sure a lot is stated. I still dont see you or wavehunter flying around in a cape jumping building in a single bound ????

 

Nice that you believe in it I just don't believe it will change that much for me. Nothing world shocking worth sacrificing work time for. I already got my priorities straight, eating healthy working out. No need to torture myself with a fast and lose income at the same time for some benefits that IMHO are overstated. (and I tried a lot of things in my time and a lot of bad things supplements too)

I'll reply later because it's getting late and I feel I should go out for my daily walk before it gets too dark. I'm in Queensland, Australia, and I've been sitting at the computer for most of the day. Not healthy. ????