I just finished a 48 hour intermittent fast (IF)

[robblok]

2 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

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. ????

I know send you a message too because i might have come across wrong. Some things I don't want on the open forum. 

[WaveHunter]

52 minutes ago, robblok said:

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.

 

Yes I did read that exchange back when you sent me the link to his blog, and to his written exchange with Lustig.  I replied to you about parts of both of them.  Apparently you didn't even read my replies carefully enough to realize that! 

 

I read EVERYTHING (including the links) when somebody directs a post to me, and I consider it all objectively before replying.    If I don't comment on some point directly, it's usually because I'm so pissed off from what I read that I don't want to be inflammatory in my response.  

 

It would be nice if you also did that a little more often.  I saw how quickly you responded to Canguu's post that included incontrovertible facts and a dozen references which makes it quite obvious you already had your mind made up before even considering the post objectively.

 

I'll give you more  objective feedback on my objective reaction to Aragon's blog and exchange with Luftig in this post but before I do, perhaps you should actually read one of Luftig's books instead of relying completely on Aragon's twisted interpretation of his work!

 

Aragon may have some useful advice on nutrition for bodybuilders but he is way out of his comfort zone discussing nutrition in terms of the actual biochemical and physiological aspects of endocrinology and the metabolic sciences, whereas both Luftig and Ludwing are amply qualified to do, and much of their actual work is conducted in the laboratory, not merely writing articles for Men's Health and other non peer-reviewed publications, attending paid speaking engagements and heavily self-promoting themselves.

 

Argon’s understanding of empirical-based metabolic science is quite limited and mis-informed, and that’s why he rarely discusses fundamental and applied laboratory research, and only focuses on longitudinal and cross-sectional studies (which he usually intentionally mis-interprets for his own ends.

 

It's hard for me to understand how you can completely dismiss the current fundamental and applied research being conducted under the auspices of scholarly institutions such as Harvard University's School of Public Health, and Harvard Medical School, and the Division of Endocrinology at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), where Lustig and Ludwig actively conduct laboratory-based research and make numerous and significant contributions to public health, and instead take Aragon's word that such ACTUAL research is flawed.

 

I'm getting tired of presenting you with science-based information linked to the underlying studies that you immediately reply to without having even checked out references or considering another viewpoint besides your own in an objective way. 

 

What really kills me is that you can argue points that are well accepted in the medial and scientific community simply because some hack like Aragon presents HIS interpretation of it.  Why don't you explore the facts first-hand instead of merely believing somebody like that? 

 

Anyway HERE'S MY FEEDBACK TO ARGON'S BLOG THAT YOU SENT ME

Aragon intentionally mis-interprets the words of legitimate researchers or tries to make them seem to be in error, simply to make his own position seem to be some sort of radical and miraculous departure.  Aragon repeatedly tries to subtly assert that he understands a "hidden secret" that some of the most gifted and accomplished researchers in the world have missed or gotten wrong, and he wants to share all of this with his followers...for a price, of course.

 

Case in point:  Already relayed to you SEVERAL TIMES NOW about his comment

 

"...IT'S CALORIES THAT MAKE US FAT, NOT SUGAR..."

 

My response: 

 

Yes, of course excess calories make you fat, but SUGAR, more than any other form of macronutrient, will cause you to eat excessive amounts because of its' addictive qualities, and because of the hormonal changes to insulin and leptin that result in BOTH insulin resistance and leptin resistance.

 

Aragon's comment is so silly!  It's like saying, "Smoking doesn't kill you, it's cancer that kills you"! 

 

Aragon would have been a great advocate for the tobacco companies back when they were claiming that cigarettes aren't unhealthy or can lead to serious disease!

 

Case in point: Aragon smugly states, "...Perhaps due to hasty error, he (Lustig) says, “That is what we are talking about here; added dietary sugars; not endogenous ones.” I’m (Aragon) going to assume he meant to say intrinsic sugars, not endogenous sugars. ..."

"Intrinsic" sugar has no legitimate meaning here!  The definition of "Intrinsic", according the dictionary, is "being an extremely important and basic characteristic of a person or thing".  How does the word “intrinsic” more properly define "added dietary sugar?  

 

It does not!  In fact, if taken literally, it means the exact OPPOSITE of what Lustig is saying!  It's simply a way for Aragon to infer that Lustig has made a "hasty error", and therefore, everything Lustig is saying may be also be in error.

 

Case in point:   Your belief that Lustig thinks that fruit is bad is another example of somebody misleading you in an attempt to invalidate Lustig, so that you will have an unfounded negative judgement of Luftig.

 

These subtle techniques are what con-artists are masters of!  Maybe I’m being too critical but when these techniques are repeated over and over to the point where actual facts simply go out the window, that’s a bad thing.  Especially it’s a bad thing when the person doing it is profiting by their deliberate use of misinformation and half-truths.

 

Aragon is a master of this type of convoluted coercion of his followers simply to “make a buck”.  To me, it is the definition of a false health guru.

 

Bottom line, Lustig and Ludwig are both acknowledged experts in endocrinology related to nutrition and related public health issues, and Ludwig, in particular is one of the most recognized authorities on carbohydrate metabolism..  They both have an outstanding reputation in the mainstream medical and scientific communities.

 

Aragon, on the other hand, is not recognized as an expert in endocrinology and related public health issues by any legitimate health experts, is connected with no legitimate scholarly research at any recognized university.  He is promoted as an expert only by himself, other "health gurus", or marketing/ promotional platforms like Men's Health, where he is employed.  

 

Bottom line, Aragon is NOT a true scientist.  That’s why he never discusses or debates laboratory-based studies performed by Luftig and Ludwig, and only argues longitudinal or cross-sectional studies which are easily manipulated to fit his own agenda.  it’s not so easy to debate fundamental / applied research that explore endocrinology and the metabolic science in terms of biochemistry and physiology.

 

In short, Those are some of the reasons I don't like Aragon or his blog.

 

Edited May 26, 2019 by WaveHunter

[samuttodd]

Aragon has indicated that he has removed you from his birthday party invitation list.

[CangguSurfer]

1 hour ago, robblok said:

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....

 

 

I'm not sure what your first paragraph means.  Perhaps you can clarify?

 

As for the definition of "toxic", what exactly is your definition?

 

Edited May 26, 2019 by CangguSurfer

[robblok]

54 minutes ago, WaveHunter said:

Yes I did read that exchange back when you sent me the link to his blog, and to his written exchange with Lustig.  I replied to you about parts of both of them.  Apparently you didn't even read my replies carefully enough to realize that! 

 

I read EVERYTHING (including the links) when somebody directs a post to me, and I consider it all objectively before replying.    If I don't comment on some point directly, it's usually because I'm so pissed off from what I read that I don't want to be inflammatory in my response.  

 

It would be nice if you also did that a little more often.  I saw how quickly you responded to Canguu's post that included incontrovertible facts and a dozen references which makes it quite obvious you already had your mind made up before even considering the post objectively.

 

I'll give you more  objective feedback on my objective reaction to Aragon's blog and exchange with Luftig in this post but before I do, perhaps you should actually read one of Luftig's books instead of relying completely on Aragon's twisted interpretation of his work!

 

Aragon may have some useful advice on nutrition for bodybuilders but he is way out of his comfort zone discussing nutrition in terms of the actual biochemical and physiological aspects of endocrinology and the metabolic sciences, whereas both Luftig and Ludwing are amply qualified to do, and much of their actual work is conducted in the laboratory, not merely writing articles for Men's Health and other non peer-reviewed publications, attending paid speaking engagements and heavily self-promoting themselves.

 

Argon’s understanding of empirical-based metabolic science is quite limited and mis-informed, and that’s why he rarely discusses fundamental and applied laboratory research, and only focuses on longitudinal and cross-sectional studies (which he usually intentionally mis-interprets for his own ends.

 

It's hard for me to understand how you can completely dismiss the current fundamental and applied research being conducted under the auspices of scholarly institutions such as Harvard University's School of Public Health, and Harvard Medical School, and the Division of Endocrinology at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), where Lustig and Ludwig actively conduct laboratory-based research and make numerous and significant contributions to public health, and instead take Aragon's word that such ACTUAL research is flawed.

 

I'm getting tired of presenting you with science-based information linked to the underlying studies that you immediately reply to without having even checked out references or considering another viewpoint besides your own in an objective way. 

 

What really kills me is that you can argue points that are well accepted in the medial and scientific community simply because some hack like Aragon presents HIS interpretation of it.  Why don't you explore the facts first-hand instead of merely believing somebody like that? 

 

Anyway...here's my feedback on his blog post you sent me...

 

HERE'S MY FEEDBACK TO ARGON'S BLOG THAT YOU SENT ME

Aragon intentionally mis-interprets the words of legitimate researchers or tries to make them seem to be in error, simply to make his own position seem to be some sort of radical and miraculous departure.  Aragon repeatedly tries to subtly assert that he understands a "hidden secret" that some of the most gifted and accomplished researchers in the world have missed or gotten wrong, and he wants to share all of this with his followers...for a price, of course.

 

Case in point:  Already relayed to you SEVERAL TIMES NOW about his comment "...Its excess calories that make us fat not sugar. ..." 

 

My response: 

 

Yes, of course excess calories make you fat, but it is sugar, more than any other macronutrient, that will you to eat excessive amounts becuase of its' addictive qualities, and because of the hormonal changes to insulin and leptin that result in BOTH insulin resistance and leptin resistance.

 

Aragon's comment is so silly!  It's like saying, "Smoking doesn't kill you, it's cancer that kills you"! 

 

Aragon would have been a great advocate for the tobacco companies back when they were claiming that cigarettes aren't unhealthy or can lead to serious disease!

 

Case in point: Aragon smugly states, "...Perhaps due to hasty error, he (Lustig) says, “That is what we are talking about here; added dietary sugars; not endogenous ones.” I’m (Aragon) going to assume he meant to say intrinsic sugars, not endogenous sugars. ..."

"Intrinsic" sugar has no legitimate meaning here!  The definition of "Intrinsic", according the dictionary, is "being an extremely important and basic characteristic of a person or thing".  How does the word “intrinsic” more properly define "added dietary sugar?  

 

It does not!  In fact, if taken literally, it means the exact OPPOSITE of what Lustig is saying!  It's simply a way for Aragon to infer that Lustig has made a "hasty error", and therefore, everything Lustig is saying may be also be in error.

 

Case in point:   Your belief that Lustig thinks that fruit is bad is another example of somebody misleading you in an attempt to invalidate Lustig, so that you will have an unfounded negative judgement of Luftig.

 

These subtle techniques are what con-artists are masters of!  Maybe I’m being too critical but when these techniques are repeated over and over to the point where actual facts simply go out the window, that’s a bad thing.  Especially it’s a bad thing when the person doing it is profiting by their deliberate use of misinformation and half-truths.

 

Aragon is a master of this type of convoluted coercion of his followers simply to “make a buck”.  To me, it is the definition of a false health guru.

 

Bottom line, Lustig and Ludwig are both acknowledged experts in endocrinology related to nutrition and related public health issues, and Ludwig, in particular is one of the most recognized authorities on carbohydrate metabolism..  They both have an outstanding reputation in the mainstream medical and scientific communities.

 

Aragon, on the other hand, is not recognized as an expert in endocrinology and related public health issues by any legitimate health experts, is connected with no legitimate scholarly research at any recognized university.  He is promoted as an expert only by himself, other "health gurus", or marketing/ promotional platforms like Men's Health, where he is employed.  

 

Bottom line, Aragon is NOT a true scientist.  That’s why he never discusses or debates laboratory-based studies performed by Luftig and Ludwig, and only argues longitudinal or cross-sectional studies which are easily manipulated to fit his own agenda.  it’s not so easy to debate fundamental / applied research that explore endocrinology and the metabolic science in terms of biochemistry and physiology.

 

In short, Those are some of the reasons I don't like Aragon or his blog.

 

If you read everything why dont you comment on the stupid experiment that defies all normal research parameters that lustig set up to prove his point ? Gave a link you ignored it.

 

It shows how bias Ludwig is.

 

1) Aragon and most real scientist hate research data based on things you cant track like say the Americans got fatter so its sugars problem. You even say so yourself I showed you the Australia Paradox where they ate less sugar and fructose but got fatter. You said but its the worst kind of science (and it is) but this is what Lustig relies on mainly not laboratory research that is far better. 

 

Alan Aragaon asks for labratory results on humans in normal dosages. Did Ludwig produce he only got to animal studies in dosages no human would touch so big fail book.

 

Ludwig keeps saying the Japanese don't eat sugar big fail has been proven over and over again

https://www.helgilibrary.com/indicators/sugar-consumption-per-capita/japan/

 

Ludwig could not prove one point not one.. Tell me how he is the winner. When he could not prove one of his points. He won the people on the site saw it I saw it and you would too if you were not bias.

 

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

 

Study by Lustig so failed no scientist would use it .. this is the man you trust ?

I gave you evidence that sugar is not addictive other scientist say the tests are setup wrong and are on rats. Where are the human trials You love stating things based on rat things while in private when we discussed that Sarm you said (and rightly so). So why is it that in private you agree rat tests are not that good and when it benefits Lustig you liked them. 

 

IS Alan Aragon is right to ask for human studies at normal dosage (agree or disagree ?) 

 

Was Lustig lying about sugar use in japan (agree or disagree)

https://www.helgilibrary.com/indicators/sugar-consumption-per-capita/japan/

 

Was Lustig his setup for research on sugar flawed yes or no (see link)

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

 

So I find all those faults with lustig and you never ever comment on them.

 

I also found your statement of sugar being addictive as drugs laughable and so did other scientist who set said the experiments were setup wrong. Shown you the link. You are an extremist. 

 

Not to mention how lustig tries to win his losing argument by saying he has more followers.. Do you think that is scientific ?

 

The guy could have made his points if he was not such an alarmist and just used reason and not exaggeration.

 

Sugar is not addictive like cocaine see link

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 26, 2019 by robblok

[robblok]

9 minutes ago, CangguSurfer said:

I'm not sure what your first paragraph means.  Perhaps you can clarify?

 

As for the definition of "toxic", what exactly is your definition?

 

First paragraph was a reference that all studies that showed that sugar was toxic were don on RATS not humans at dosages far exceeding the 10%  more closer to 50% of all calories. 

 

What I am saying to you is do your own thinking and find studies on humans at a normal dosage instead of accepting studies of a dosage many times higher and on rats. What does that prove for humans at a far lower dosage ?

 

My definition of toxic is probably the same for you it means poison harmful something that could kill you. 

[CangguSurfer]

4 minutes ago, robblok said:

First paragraph was a reference that all studies that showed that sugar was toxic were don on RATS not humans at dosages far exceeding the 10%  more closer to 50% of all calories. 

 

What I am saying to you is do your own thinking and find studies on humans at a normal dosage instead of accepting studies of a dosage many times higher and on rats. What does that prove for humans at a far lower dosage ?

 

My definition of toxic is probably the same for you it means poison harmful something that could kill you. 

So are you saying that the only negative aspect of sugar in human beings as far as you're concerned is that it contains empty calories?  That's all?

 

Edited May 26, 2019 by CangguSurfer

[robblok]

25 minutes ago, CangguSurfer said:

So are you saying that the only negative aspect of sugar in human beings as far as you're concerned is that it contains empty calories?  That's all?

 

In normal dosage.. yes. Not saying that you should take spoon fulls of sugar as it could give an insulin spike. But normal dosage not too bad. Guzzling cans of coca cola .. bad idea. I mean in excess I believe sugar is bad.

 

I don't believe sugar to be any more harmful than other stuff in normal dosage. 

 

The bad things I see about sugar are (empty calories, and could spike your blood sugar real fast). Both not good but certainly not toxic. 

 

I cut most of the sugar, never even had sugar in my tea. Only sugar I sometimes get is from a blackcurrant syrup that I take with a bottle of soda (the stuff they sell in 711) once every few days. 

 

I believe in a balanced diet of mainly unprocessed food. I also believe it won't kill you if you add sugar to your tea if you should like it. I doubt it is toxic at all in normal dosage. 

 

I get ticked off by alarmist who overstate their point and use animal studies at higher dosages then normal to prove their case. 

 

 

 

Edited May 26, 2019 by robblok

[CangguSurfer]

13 minutes ago, robblok said:

In normal dosage.. yes. Not saying that you should take spoon fulls of sugar as it could give an insulin spike. But normal dosage not too bad. Guzzling cans of coca cola .. bad idea. I mean in excess I believe sugar is bad.

 

I don't believe sugar to be any more harmful than other stuff in normal dosage. 

 

The bad things I see about sugar are (empty calories, and could spike your blood sugar real fast). Both not good but certainly not toxic. 

 

I cut most of the sugar, never even had sugar in my tea. Only sugar I sometimes get is from a blackcurrant syrup that I take with a bottle of soda (the stuff they sell in 711) once every few days. 

 

I believe in a balanced diet of mainly unprocessed food. I also believe it won't kill you if you add sugar to your tea if you should like it. I doubt it is toxic at all in normal dosage. 

 

I get ticked off by alarmist who overstate their point and use animal studies at higher dosages then normal to prove their case. 

 

 

 

Well, first off, my definition of toxic is actually quite broader than yours.  You say, "it means poison harmful something that could kill you.".  I say that any substance you ingest that has a repeatable negative effect that can lead to a chronic impaired state is "toxic"

 

If you do not believe that sugar is addictive and which will lead to greater and greater use, then I guess I can see why you think it won't eventually lead to death, but there is a lot of research in the last ten years or so that is making a strong case that sugar is indeed addictive.

 

You make a good case that many people do not exceed a tolerable amount of sugar in their diet, but many people do, and for them, irregardless of whether or not addiction is the cause of their increased consumption, the hormonal changes associated with excessive sugar are very real.

 

Do you agree or not with my original posted comment that 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? 

 

Edited May 26, 2019 by CangguSurfer

[robblok]

Lustig still lies even in his replies.

 

Robert Lustig, M.D. PERMALINK

February 1, 2010

. The Japanese diet does have fructose; but it is only in fruit. There are no added sugars in their diet. That is what we are talking about here; added dietary sugars; not endogenous ones.

https://www.helgilibrary.com/indicators/sugar-consumption-per-capita/japan/

Hmmm strange that Lustig lies so much when a simple google search proves otherwise.

 

Same like how lustig blames all of the ails in epidemiological studies to sugar while ignoring decreased physical activity that is cherry picking not to mention that epidemiological studies are the least trustworthy of all studies. You just can't use them without human studies backing them up.

 

 

[Small Joke]

I misread it as 48 hr 'Internet' fast.

On here, that would be quite the feat for some! They only get a holiday when they're even less agreeable than usual, and get banned. ????

[robblok]

7 minutes ago, CangguSurfer said:

Well, first off, my definition of toxic is actually quite broader than yours.  You say, "it means poison harmful something that could kill you.".  I say that any substance you ingest that has a repeatable negative effect that can lead to a chronic impaired state is "toxic"

 

If you do not believe that sugar is addictive and which will lead to greater and greater use, then I guess I can see why you think it won't eventually lead to death, but there is a lot of research in the last ten years or so that is making a strong case that sugar is indeed addictive.

 

You make a good case that many people do not exceed a tolerable amount of sugar in their diet, but many people do, and for them, irregardless of whether or not addiction is the cause of their increased consumption, the hormonal changes associated with excessive sugar are very real.

 

Do you agree or not with my original posted comment that 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? 

 

I have shown links where they discredit the sugar is addictive part. So that is far from a fact that sugar is addictive. The link shows that the methods used on RATS not humans were questionable. Plus no human studies. So how can you state that sugar is addictive without backing up of human tests ?

 

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

 

I think that too much added sugar can certainly be damaging if not for insulin sensitivity but that can be said for all carbs. Too much of something is never a good thing. So I agree that too much sugar is bad for you. 

[CangguSurfer]

1 hour ago, robblok said:

I have shown links where they discredit the sugar is addictive part. So that is far from a fact that sugar is addictive. The link shows that the methods used on RATS not humans were questionable. Plus no human studies. So how can you state that sugar is addictive without backing up of human tests ?

 

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

 

I think that too much added sugar can certainly be damaging if not for insulin sensitivity but that can be said for all carbs. Too much of something is never a good thing. So I agree that too much sugar is bad for you. 

Indeed there is little present evidence to support sugar addiction in humans but it is by no means a settled matter, and there is still much ongoing research so, at best, it's a very controversial topic, and the outcome could go either way.

 

However, there is much empirical evidence to support that consuming too much added sugar over long periods of time can affect the natural balance of hormones that drive critical functions in the human body; specifically insulin and leptin.  For me, this is the main reason I consider sugar toxic according to my definition, and also why it can eventually become toxic according to your definition.

 

There still no definitive evidence to confirm or deny an absolute link between excessive consumption of sugar and diabetes.  Nonetheless, I don't know about you, but to me, there's enough evidence to support the idea that insulin resistance and leptin resistance are linked with excessive sugar consumption, so I will err on the side of caution and respect the WHO guidelines.

 

Edited May 26, 2019 by CangguSurfer

[robblok]

9 minutes ago, CangguSurfer said:

Indeed there is little present evidence to support sugar addiction in humans but it is by no means a settled matter, and there is still much ongoing research so, at best, it's a very controversial topic, and the outcome could go either way.

 

However, there is much empirical evidence to support that consuming too much added sugar over long periods of time can affect the natural balance of hormones that drive critical functions in the human body; specifically insulin and leptin.  For me, this is the main reason I consider sugar toxic according to my definition, and also why it can eventually become toxic according to your definition.

 

There still no definitive evidence to confirm or deny an absolute link between excessive consumption of sugar and diabetes.  Nonetheless, I don't know about you, but to me, there's enough evidence to support the idea that insulin resistance and leptin resistance are linked with excessive sugar consumption, so I will err on the side of caution and respect the WHO guidelines.

 

I have no problems with that, that is a totally different view from sugar is toxic (your saying its toxic in high doses and that is something that is proven) and we should avoid it at all cost. Its a far more moderate view one that accepts it could go either way about the addiction. 

 

As i told you I don't take sugar as they are empty calories and that is it. Plus I don't like the insulin spike from carbs anymore then other people. Its not that I worry about it but too much insulin is bad. Normal insulin is not bad but normal.

 

I think all that is debatable is how much sugar is bad. That is also something that depends on the situation. I know of lean bodybuilders taking gummy bears after a workout combined with proteins to drive the protein in the muscle and to fill up depleted glycogen stores. (not me).

 

Though after a hard workout the blackcurrant drink is a lot less damaging as all the sugars will be stored as glycogen not fat to replenish what is lost. 

 

Things are not always black and white and should be viewed based on the individual.

 

I think that in cutting down on sugar will almost always be positive as they are empty calories (just for that reason alone its a good thing to cut it as much as you can) I think cutting sugar in obese people is even better as they already got problems. But if you got someone who is on regular weight not gaining weight and does not want to lose any more weight or so could easily keep his sugar consumption the way he wants it.

 

I am trying to get to a bodyfat of around 10% then you really need to watch stuff like sugar (not because its toxic but because there is no use for it) 

[robblok]

3 minutes ago, FredGallaher said:

I previously blocked "Wavehunter" and now  I'll block "Caggusurfer" (probably the same person) because they really don't have a grasp of what they are trying to talk about. They seem to want to troll for argument sake. I usually suspect drifters who frequently move must move on because they overstay their welcome. 

Robbok on the other hand knowledge is focused on bodybuilding and fitness, which is OK. He doesn't profess to be a medical scientist but looks at the logic and sources. 

This reminds me of Greek Mythology:

"A little learning is a dang'rous thing;

Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:

There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,

And drinking largely sobers us again.

 

 Those who profess to know everything should be suspected. 

 

I don't pretend to know it all and I don't but I am just wary of alarmist and people overstating certain things. 

 

For instance lustig has only epidemiological studies and those studies are the least trustworthy of all. Plus of course the Australian paradox completely invalidates it because it shows less sugar and fructose use but more obesity. So he has nothing there.

 

Then he has no human studies to back his claims (big fail)

 

Then the animal studies are all at a far higher dose then humans take. So all in all he has a hypothese that has not been proven.

 

Plus he made a lot mistakes like saying the Japanese dont use suger while facts show it differently. I mean not sugar from fruits but added sugar. The data shows less sugar as the Americans but still 16 kg or so. Calls for a 10 hour mountainbike ride to burn a burger.

 

He is also just one guy and his views are a minority view.

 

So I don't see any proof here.

 

The only hard proof i trust are human studies done in a laboratory where the subjects are fed by the scientists. If such a study is setup correctly its the gold standard. Those are the studies that will convince me otherwise its just a lot of hot air. Someone making that much money from his books could easily do so, BUT i think it would prove him wrong so he does not (but that is a guess / opinion)

 

I respect wavehunter and like his input just dont get why the bar is set lower when it concerns something he likes then lets say when we discuss a SARM where he disproves (with good reason) of studies of rats and wants to see human studies at realistic levels of use. Why not ask the same of Lustig his studies and if Lustig is so right why does he not set it up with all the money he made.

 

He did one study on obese kids and it could not have been more an unscientific disaster aimed at getting the desired outcome. 

 

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

 

Lustig sounds a bit like that  minister of Saddam there are no Americans in Irak and you hear the fighting see the tanks when he says there is no added sugar in the Japanese diet (and keeps persisting in his beliefs)

 

[WaveHunter]

5 hours ago, FredGallaher said:

I previously blocked "Wavehunter" and now  I'll block "Caggusurfer" (probably the same person) because they really don't have a grasp of what they are trying to talk about. They seem to want to troll for argument sake. I usually suspect drifters who frequently move must move on because they overstay their welcome. 

Robbok on the other hand knowledge is focused on bodybuilding and fitness, which is OK. He doesn't profess to be a medical scientist but looks at the logic and sources. 

This reminds me of Greek Mythology:

"A little learning is a dang'rous thing;

Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:

There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,

And drinking largely sobers us again.

 

 Those who profess to know everything should be suspected. 

 

With all due respect Sir, You have not offered one bit of useful information to this thread and only seem to take delight at attacking me personally with nasty, mean-spirited comments and gross misinterpretations of my point of view; all in an attempt, I believe, to make yourself feel more important.  Now you're doing it with someone else because they agree with my POV.

 

This is classic behavior of someone who lacks true knowledge and wisdom and therefore can't intelligently debate using facts, so instead resorts to personal attacks to gain attention.

 

Robblok and I are engaged in an honest debate.  It's a heated one because we both feel strongly about our point of view, but we each try to back up our personal opinions WITH FACTS, not with personal attacks!

 

I respect Robblok as a person, and as a someone who has a lot of knowledge of health and nutrition even when we get so passionate in debate that it seems like we each want to tear the other's head off.  The point is...we always attack each other's opinion, not each other, on a personal level!

 

You, however, offer nothing more than personal attack that are always intentionally inflammatory and only intended to gain personal attention for yourself.  You have never offered anything constructive to this thread that I'm aware of.

 

You like to use high-brow quotes (greek mythology) and lofty language in every post you direct at me.  In past posts, you've alleged a academic background in biochemistry and human physiology that you could use to prove how wrong I am, if you wanted to...but you never actually do!

 

I suppose that's all meant to impress everyone with your superior wisdom and knowledge.  With all due respect, you do you think you are kidding? 

 

You do these things to deflect from your lack of knowledge on the topics being discussed and your complete unwillingness to be properly informed before you are critical of another person's point of view.

 

In a rare post where you actually contributed information germane to the topic (even though it was a veiled shot at something I had stated earlier), you stated a personal opinion about testosterone and tried to pawn it off as scientific fact!  It was a completely unfounded and half-based remark not even worthy of debate because any undergraduate student with a one semester course in basic metabolic sciences would have laughed at what you said!

 

OK Fine, Professor!  Everybody needs a hobby I guess and if tearing down others to make yourself feel superior is your thing, go for it!

Edited May 27, 2019 by WaveHunter

[thedemon]

A lot of wasted time and energy gone into this thread. Even reading it is exhausting.

[WaveHunter]

@robblok

I truly enjoy discussing and debating topics with you but we should end this discussion of Lustig vs Aragon.  Clearly, we have different views on these two guys, and the topic of whether or not sugar is toxic, and have more than amply stated them by now.  Obviously we're not going to sway each other at this point, nor should we try to any further.

 

All we are going to accomplish at this point is attract the interest of the usual ThaiVisa trolls who relish invading controversial threads to stir the flames of debates via inflammatory posts for their own perverse pleasure, and in so doing destroy an otherwise productive topic/thread.

 

I truly respect your knowledge of health and nutrition even when I get a little carried away in debating you, and hope you feel the same way towards me.

 

For the record, I am not an extremist about carbs and sugar, but I feel strongly about the toxic quality of both because I went through the shock of being diagnosed as pre-diabetic several years ago.

 

At that time,  my grandmother had just died from advanced complications of Diabetes type 2, which included blindness in one eye and the necessity for amputation of one of her legs...so I know, first-hand the devastating nature of the disease.  For anyone not familiar with it, Diabetets type 2 is a slow, painful, and emotionally devastating way to die!

 

It was therefore a real shock to learn, only weeks after her passing, that I could be facing the same fate when my blood tests indicated that I was at the high end range of being pre-diabetic!

 

The doctors at the time offered very little advice to me other than to shove a prescription of metformin at me and council me that Diabetes was a chronic disease that I'd just have to learn to live with.  That's the same view as the American Diabetes Association advocates.  At that time, both my doctor and the ADA did not advocate any nutritional basis for correcting Diabetes 

 

I could have accepted that as many who are diagnosed do.  I could have faced the prospect of one day requiring daily insulin injections for treatment that would ultimately lead to me experiencing my Grandmother's fate, but I chose to take another path, and that was to become informed of the actual science underlying diabetes.

 

What I found out was shocking!  I could not believe that mainstream physicians didn't seem informed about the possible hormonal basis for the disease, or that nutrition could effect the condition (for better or for worse) and like many naysayers I was suspicious to say the least.

 

Nonetheless I embraced the notion of controlling excessive carbohydrates as a means to dealing with insulin insensitivity, and guess what?  It worked, and it worked very quickly!  In a matter of months, all my blood markers were in the normal range, and have been since!

 

I was lucky; I took action before the disease had become non-reversible.  My passion about avoiding excess carbs and sugar therefore is not to win a pissing match, as it might seem, but simply to help others, who might find themselves in the same situation I found myself in, do something to change their own fate.

 

I am firmly convinced that progression of the disease can be halted, and often even reversed IF action is taken early enough to address the hormonal imbalance through proper nutrition, before receptors become damaged beyond repair.  Once that happens, the only option is insulin injections, and that's just another way of saying "a slow and agonizing death".

 

Edited May 27, 2019 by WaveHunter

[CangguSurfer]

14 hours ago, FredGallaher said:

I previously blocked "Wavehunter" and now  I'll block "Caggusurfer" (probably the same person) because they really don't have a grasp of what they are trying to talk about. They seem to want to troll for argument sake. I usually suspect drifters who frequently move must move on because they overstay their welcome. 

Robbok on the other hand knowledge is focused on bodybuilding and fitness, which is OK. He doesn't profess to be a medical scientist but looks at the logic and sources. 

This reminds me of Greek Mythology:

"A little learning is a dang'rous thing;

Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:

There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,

And drinking largely sobers us again.

 

 Those who profess to know everything should be suspected. 

 

Definition of an Internet Troll:  A person who starts quarrels or upsets people on the Internet to distract and sow discord by posting inflammatory and digressive, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community with the intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses and normalizing tangential discussion, whether for the troll's amusement or a specific gain.

 

Wow! Sorry buddy, I wasn't aware this thread was your personal domain and you consider me an unwelcome "drifter".  You sound like an unhappy and unstable person.  Life is too short.  Perhaps you should try and make a better life for yourself instead of posting hateful stuff like this!

 

Edited May 27, 2019 by CangguSurfer

[robblok]

21 hours ago, WaveHunter said:

@robblok

I truly enjoy discussing and debating topics with you but we should end this discussion of Lustig vs Aragon.  Clearly, we have different views on these two guys, and the topic of whether or not sugar is toxic, and have more than amply stated them by now.  Obviously we're not going to sway each other at this point, nor should we try to any further.

 

All we are going to accomplish at this point is attract the interest of the usual ThaiVisa trolls who relish invading controversial threads to stir the flames of debates via inflammatory posts for their own perverse pleasure, and in so doing destroy an otherwise productive topic/thread.

 

I truly respect your knowledge of health and nutrition even when I get a little carried away in debating you, and hope you feel the same way towards me.

 

For the record, I am not an extremist about carbs and sugar, but I feel strongly about the toxic quality of both because I went through the shock of being diagnosed as pre-diabetic several years ago.

 

At that time,  my grandmother had just died from advanced complications of Diabetes type 2, which included blindness in one eye and the necessity for amputation of one of her legs...so I know, first-hand the devastating nature of the disease.  For anyone not familiar with it, Diabetets type 2 is a slow, painful, and emotionally devastating way to die!

 

It was therefore a real shock to learn, only weeks after her passing, that I could be facing the same fate when my blood tests indicated that I was at the high end range of being pre-diabetic!

 

The doctors at the time offered very little advice to me other than to shove a prescription of metformin at me and council me that Diabetes was a chronic disease that I'd just have to learn to live with.  That's the same view as the American Diabetes Association advocates.  At that time, both my doctor and the ADA did not advocate any nutritional basis for correcting Diabetes 

 

I could have accepted that as many who are diagnosed do.  I could have faced the prospect of one day requiring daily insulin injections for treatment that would ultimately lead to me experiencing my Grandmother's fate, but I chose to take another path, and that was to become informed of the actual science underlying diabetes.

 

What I found out was shocking!  I could not believe that mainstream physicians didn't seem informed about the possible hormonal basis for the disease, or that nutrition could effect the condition (for better or for worse) and like many naysayers I was suspicious to say the least.

 

Nonetheless I embraced the notion of controlling excessive carbohydrates as a means to dealing with insulin insensitivity, and guess what?  It worked, and it worked very quickly!  In a matter of months, all my blood markers were in the normal range, and have been since!

 

I was lucky; I took action before the disease had become non-reversible.  My passion about avoiding excess carbs and sugar therefore is not to win a pissing match, as it might seem, but simply to help others, who might find themselves in the same situation I found myself in, do something to change their own fate.

 

I am firmly convinced that progression of the disease can be halted, and often even reversed IF action is taken early enough to address the hormonal imbalance through proper nutrition, before receptors become damaged beyond repair.  Once that happens, the only option is insulin injections, and that's just another way of saying "a slow and agonizing death".

 

I think its best we let this topic go I am totally unconvinced of Lustig and see him as an alarmist you don't.  The only part that bothers me about this discussion that in private you accept that rat tests are inferior but from lustig you accept them and even worse you accept epidemiology evidence the weakest of all (and it cant explain the Australia Paradox). 

 

But I said it before Lustig and Aragon have discussed this and both brought their arguments on the table we can't beat that because both of them know more about their view then we do. So there is no point for us to try to do the same. Its just a matter of who's arguments we feel are more compelling. I just prefer human studies in normal dosages over rat studies in dosages that are too high and epidemiology research is the weakest of all research. Correlation is not causation. 

 

I just don't get it how you can be so scientific at times and other times accept weak evidence. Its as if when its about sugar or carbs you hit a blind spot. Understandable if you have been confronted with diabetice in your life. I told you before my brother got it too. But he got it from a really bad diet of far too many carbs and processed stuff. I am 100% in agreement that too much carbs and sugar can cause diabetice, I am just not in agreement that its caused by sugar alone and that sugar at normal levels is poison. IMHO processed foods and processed carbs in big quantities are the problem.  However both sugar and carbs in normal quantities are not a problem. 

 

I just really hate people overstating things cry wolf too much and nobody will listen anymore. You should look in the topic i created, real interesting study if you follow the link. Shows some of the problems of processed foods and shows that going just from processed to unprocessed (not low carb nothing like that) yields far more weight loss then could be expected from numbers alone.

[Kohsamida]

1 hour ago, robblok said:

..I just prefer human studies in normal dosages over rat studies in dosages that are too high and epidemiology research is the weakest of all research...

You don't know their work if you think it's just based on rat studies and epidemiology studies.  Their most important contributions, particularly in the case of Ludwig are biochemical studies on humans.

 

Biochemical studies are the "gold standard" of research.  Very hard to argue with actual biological mechanisms you can see at play under a microscope.

 

Dr. David Ludwig is one of the most acknowledged experts on carbohydrate metabolism in the world. 

 

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2015/12/16/dr-david-ludwig-clears-up-carbohydrate-confusion/

Edited May 28, 2019 by Kohsamida

[Kohsamida]

45 minutes ago, Kohsamida said:

You don't know their work if you think it's just based on rat studies and epidemiology studies.  Their most important contributions, particularly in the case of Ludwig are biochemical studies on humans.

 

Biochemical studies are the "gold standard" of research.  Very hard to argue with actual biological mechanisms you can see at play under a microscope.

 

Dr. David Ludwig is one of the most acknowledged experts on carbohydrate metabolism in the world. 

 

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2015/12/16/dr-david-ludwig-clears-up-carbohydrate-confusion/

Dr. Walter C. Willett, Professor of Epidemiology and Nutrition at Harvard University is another noted authority on nutrition and metabolic health that you should check out.

 

He has published over 1,700 original research papers and reviews, primarily on lifestyle risk factors for heart disease, cancer, and other conditions and has written the textbook, Nutritional Epidemiology, published by Oxford University Press.

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/walter-willett/

[Kohsamida]

One other point about your comment that "epidemiology research is the weakest of all research", Willett points out:

 

"...Nutritional epidemiology is far from being a perfect science, but with a thorough understanding of the discipline, valuable insights on diet and health outcomes can be obtained from free-living populations. ..."  "...When incorporated into a interdisciplinary approach, nutritional epidemiological studies can play an indispensable role. ..."

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4288279/

[VincentRJ]

2 hours ago, Kohsamida said:

You don't know their work if you think it's just based on rat studies and epidemiology studies.  Their most important contributions, particularly in the case of Ludwig are biochemical studies on humans.

 

Biochemical studies are the "gold standard" of research.  Very hard to argue with actual biological mechanisms you can see at play under a microscope.

 

Dr. David Ludwig is one of the most acknowledged experts on carbohydrate metabolism in the world. 

 

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2015/12/16/dr-david-ludwig-clears-up-carbohydrate-confusion/

Dr Ludwig's response to the questions in the linked article seem very reasonable to me. There's nothing I can disagree with.

 

He also makes a distinction between a healthy diet for the average person, and a healthy diet for people with diabetes and other metabolic problems, which I also find sensible and rational.

 

Here are a couple of relevant quotes from the interview.

 

"But for most people, there’s no need to “eat by the numbers” – either glycemic index, total calories or any other scale. Choosing whole instead of highly processed carbohydrates will naturally result in a low GI diet that will also have many other nutritious aspects including high content of fiber, vitamins, minerals and polyphenols. (Note: Use of GI as a guide to food selection may have specific benefit for people with diabetes or other severe metabolic problems.)"

 

"Ultimately, the choice of how to balance macronutrients (protein, carbohydrate and fat) is individual, influenced by culture, food availability, and personal preference. So long as adequate attention is directed to food quality, the relative ratios are probably of secondary importance in most situations (again, excepting individuals with metabolic problems like insulin resistance)." 

[WaveHunter]

4 hours ago, robblok said:

... just going from processed to unprocessed (not low carb nothing like that) yields far more weight loss then could be expected from numbers alone. ...

And why do you think that is?  Could it be that the single thing that differentiates processed from unprocessed foods is that processed foods use high levels of high fructose corn syrup (HFCS), and the fact that producers intentionally make many processed foods in a way so that they are over-consumed?

 

Surely you can't find fault in this article from the respected source, Medical News Today:

 

Nine ways that processed foods are harming people

 

Edited May 28, 2019 by WaveHunter

[FracturedRabbit]

4 hours ago, WaveHunter said:

And why do you think that is?  Could it be that the single thing that differentiates processed from unprocessed foods is that processed foods use high levels of high fructose corn syrup (HFCS), and the fact that producers intentionally make many processed foods in a way so that they are over-consumed?

 

Surely you can't find fault in this article from the respected source, Medical News Today:

 

Nine ways that processed foods are harming people

 

Could it be the incretin response to the damaged structure of processed food?

 

[WaveHunter]

2 hours ago, FracturedRabbit said:

Could it be the incretin response to the damaged structure of processed food?

 

Nice presentation; glad you posted that.  As the video illustrates, there's a significant incretin response to processed foods, and this video documents all the studies that support the view that the incretin response to processed foods is markedly different than foods we have evolved with.

 

Even the way you process food can effect incretin response and your metabolic health.  Check this out:  It is VERY compelling!

 

 

 

 

Edited May 28, 2019 by WaveHunter

[FracturedRabbit]

Here is Gerbosi talking to Cummins on the same subject. Is this basic reason processed food is bad for us?

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

[WaveHunter]

3 hours ago, FracturedRabbit said:

Here is Gerbosi talking to Cummins on the same subject. Is this basic reason processed food is bad for us?

 

For a guy who approaches this as a "hobby", Gerbosi is quite careful in his interpretation of scientific studies that he cites, and his conclusions are pretty insightful, that's for sure!  Though, since he is a molecular biologist by profession, I guess that accounts for it.

 

I don't think that incretin response all by itself sums up why processed foods are so detrimental to metabolic health, but it's an important piece of evidence in a complex puzzle that points to nutrition being far more than a matter of calories in / calories out, and that a hormonal basis for determining proper nutrition needs to be taken seriously.

 

I believe in the Carbohydrate-Insulin Model.  To me, the important take-away about incretin response to the foods we eat is that those foods that our bodies have used for millennia seem to always elicit a balanced incretin response, whereas foods that are not a part of our normal evolution (such as high fructose corn syrup found in processed foods), cause that hormonal balance to become completely disrupted.

 

Right now, there are two basic "camps" concerning proper nutrition for avoiding obesity and metabolic syndrome.  One, based on the Calories In / Calories Out (CICO) model asserts that good nutrition is simply a matter of maintaining an energy balance and does not rely on metabolic hormonal balance, and then the other, the Carbohydrate-Insulin Model (CIM), asserts that metabolic hormonal mechanisms are at work (carbs drive insulin, and insulin drives fat storage), and that hormonal balance is indeed the key to avoiding obesity and metabolic syndrome.

 

There are a lot of smart people on both sides of this fence, and each side offers compelling arguments.  Everyone should explore both sides and then decide for themselves. 

 

You can read about the CIM Model by Ludwig here:  The Carbohydrate-Insulin Model of Obesity Beyond “Calories In, Calories Out"

 

And you can read the case against it (written by Stephan Guyenet PhD) here  :  Always Hungry? It's Probably Not Your Insulin.

 

And then you can read Ludwig's response to Guyenet here: Ludwig Responds to Whole Health Source Article.

 

It's actually a fascinating exchange between these two well respected authorities. 

 

There are a lot of holes in the CIM model for sure.  I won't deny that, but for me, it's just a more compelling argument, even though a lot more research needs to still be done and is being done.

 

Of course, everyone should decide for themselves AFTER becoming knowledgable of BOTH sides of the coin, and these two guys do a good job of presenting unvarnished facts.

Edited May 28, 2019 by WaveHunter

[robblok]

19 hours ago, Kohsamida said:

You don't know their work if you think it's just based on rat studies and epidemiology studies.  Their most important contributions, particularly in the case of Ludwig are biochemical studies on humans.

 

Biochemical studies are the "gold standard" of research.  Very hard to argue with actual biological mechanisms you can see at play under a microscope.

 

Dr. David Ludwig is one of the most acknowledged experts on carbohydrate metabolism in the world. 

 

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2015/12/16/dr-david-ludwig-clears-up-carbohydrate-confusion/

I am talking about Lustig, and yes I do know his work and in the debate he could not come up with any human studies at normal dosages. So the guy is an alarmist.  He lost the debate mate. Just follow it.