Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'Sugar'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • Forums
    • CR Science & Theory
    • CR Practice
    • Chitchat
    • General Health and Longevity
    • CR Recipes
    • Members-Only Area
  • Community

Blogs

  • Paul McGlothin's Blog
  • News
  • Calorie Restriction News Update

Categories

  • Supporting Members Only
  • Recipes
  • Research

Product Groups

  • CR IX
  • CRSI Membership
  • Conference DVDs

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


Website URL

Found 6 results

  1. I hope everyone here is doing well and having a great summer. Recently I had an episode where low blood-glucose nearly caused me a big problem. Several days ago I underwent a vasectomy (my kids are getting older now and I'm happy to end my chances of further procreation). The procedure itself went well and was relatively uneventful - I was happy to see that Dr. Greger recommends it as his preferred form of birth control. Immediately after the procedure, you are kept in a holding room to see how you are feeling and I was doing great. Smiling, laughing, chatting with the hospital staff, and so forth. My BP and HR were taken and were great (110/70 HR 60, which considering I have white coat syndrome is good). They also commented on how lean I was and I said I "must be a runner." Which is somewhat true, but not anywhere to the extent to which I actually am. My leanness is probably 80% due to diet, not exercise. They come to offer me some juice and cookies and inform me that people routinely faint from this procedure. I kindly inform them that I don't consume processed food. The doctor says, "at least drink the juice - I've seen too many people faint from this." So I drink about 200ml of juice and don't touch the cookies. Feeling great, my wife drives me home, I sit on the couch, and proceed to faint! Fortunately, she was there to catch me bring me some orange juice and a big bowl of dates and instant oatmeal. I actually lost consciousness for 30-60 seconds according to her. While I follow a low glucose lifestyle with post-prandial exercise after most meals, this may have been a time when low glucose was a bad idea. If I fainted, fell and hurt myself, the outcome could have been much worse. Just thought I would share my experience here! It reminds me of how Dr. McDougall fell this past year and was injured after contracting a viral illness. Medical instances may be a time for forgetting about low glucose!
  2. Dear ALL, As many of you know, every morning I carefully brew a very large pot (ca. 360 ml) of Chinese white tea. For many years, I've been sweetening my tea with Neotame, which is an extremely sweet artificial sweetener (about 18 times as sweet as sucralose). All evidence points to Neotame as being a completely safe product -- not affecting the one's diet in any meaningful way. However, my tastes have been slowly evolving -- I've found myself using less and less Neotame in my tea -- and usually finding the sweet taste to be too intense. A few days ago, I finally tried drinking my tea without any Neotame -- or sucralose, sugar or any other sweet substance. I found it delicious -- and I've been enjoying it much better without the distortion and distraction of sweetness. However, after about a week of drinking my tea without sweetener -- I've returned to adding a VERY SMALL AMOUNT of Neotame to my tea. I now enjoy, once again, my lightly Neotame sweetened tea with my morning 2lbs of Nappa cabbage for breakfast. And I drink my tea throughout the day. -- Saul
  3. How the sugar industry sweetened research in its favor By Jacqueline Howard, CNN Updated 12:26 PM ET, Mon September 12, 2016 http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/12/health/sugar-industry-heart-disease-research/index.html Story highlights A new paper claims the sugar industry funded early heart disease research Experts compare the findings to the tobacco industry's controversial history Sugar Association: "It is challenging for us to comment on events that allegedly occurred 60 years ago" Special Communication | September 12, 2016 Sugar Industry and Coronary Heart Disease Research -- A Historical Analysis of Internal Industry Documents FREE ONLINE FIRST Cristin E. Kearns, DDS, MBA1,2; Laura A. Schmidt, PhD, MSW, MPH1,3,4; Stanton A. Glantz, PhD1,5,6,7,8 JAMA Intern Med. Published online September 12, 2016. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.5394 http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=2548255 Abstract Early warning signals of the coronary heart disease (CHD) risk of sugar (sucrose) emerged in the 1950s. We examined Sugar Research Foundation (SRF) internal documents, historical reports, and statements relevant to early debates about the dietary causes of CHD and assembled findings chronologically into a narrative case study. The SRF sponsored its first CHD research project in 1965, a literature review published in the New England Journal of Medicine, which singled out fat and cholesterol as the dietary causes of CHD and downplayed evidence that sucrose consumption was also a risk factor. The SRF set the review’s objective, contributed articles for inclusion, and received drafts. The SRF’s funding and role was not disclosed. Together with other recent analyses of sugar industry documents, our findings suggest the industry sponsored a research program in the 1960s and 1970s that successfully cast doubt about the hazards of sucrose while promoting fat as the dietary culprit in CHD. Policymaking committees should consider giving less weight to food industry–funded studies and include mechanistic and animal studies as well as studies appraising the effect of added sugars on multiple CHD biomarkers and disease development.
  4. sirtuin

    Thoughts on sweeteners?

    From an optimal health / longevity stance, I'm curious which sweeteners might work best. There's honey, which contains a fair amount of free fructose and is basically pure sugar + some minor antioxidants (although, my diet is generally packed with antioxidants.) There's coconut sugar / dark brown sugar / maple syrup, which are fairly similar to honey (or high-fructose corn syrup), but a bit more processed. Then, there's date sugar and molasses, which seem fairly similar to honey, but contain much more in the way of antioxidants and micronutrients. And finally, there's the more interesting sweeteners like Stevia, Monk Fruit, Xylitol, Erythritol, and others ("Just Like Sugar", Trehalose, etc.) For a while, I was fairly anti-sugar / anti-fructose in an attempt to maintain very low levels of small dense LDL, very low levels of triglycerides, and support metabolic health / insulin sensitivity, although lately I'm coming around to a higher intake of fructose+sucrose from fruits along with a higher intake of glucose+starches as I'm finding ways to attenuate their effects on blood sugar. I don't usually buy into zero calorie sweeteners, but I've been experimenting a bit with sugar alcohols / stevia and they seem to work fine for my purposes as well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daf-2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynthia_Kenyon#Personal_diet Am I better off sticking to sugar-based sweeteners (like honey?), or including some mix of sugar alcohols (xylitol or erythritol?), or including some stevia, for my health / longevity goals?
  5. All, Obesity researcher Dr. Robert Lustig, who is notorious for placing blame for the obesity epidemic on added sugar, especially fructose, has a new paper out [1] that is getting quite a bit of popular press attention on the link between added sugar/fructose in the diet of kids and obesity / metabolic syndrome. Despite my distrust of Lustig and his "one underlying cause" thesis, believing as I do that many factors contribute to obesity, including 'mysterious' factors (see this thread), this was nevertheless a pretty interesting study. He recruited ~40 obese kids suffering from metabolic syndrome and for 9 days had them eat a crappy diet with less added sugar/fructose than their normal crappy diet, keeping macronutrients the same, and measured how their markers for metabolic syndrome changed. More specifically, at baseline these kids were on average eating 28% of daily calories from (presumably added) sugar, with 12% of it from (presumably added) fructose. Given where added sugar comes from in general in our culture, they were most likely eating a lot of sugar sweetened beverages, pastries, desserts and candy. In place of these, the authors substituted "kid-friendly" foods with less added sugar, which at one point in the paper they characterize as: This “child-friendly” study diet included various no- or low-sugar added processed foods including turkey hot dogs, pizza, bean burrritos, baked potato chips, and popcorn that were purchased at local supermarkets. Strangely, elsewhere in the paper the authors characterize the intervention diet in a way that sounds significantly less crappy: The menu was planned to restrict added sugar, while substituting other carbohydrates such as those in fruit, bagels, cereal, pasta, and bread so that the percentage of calories consumed from carbohydrate was consistent with their baseline diet, but total dietary sugar and fructose were reduced... A diet enriched with "fruit, bagels, cereal, pasta, and bread" compared with their baseline diet (likely consisting of lots of soda, cookies and candy) sounds like a pretty big improvement to me, although fiber was only increased from 9g at baseline to 11g during the study, so it apparently wasn't that big an improvement. But digging a little further, the second set of substitution foods (fruit, bagels, cereal, pasta, and bread) sounds a lot more plausible to me than the first set (turkey hot dogs, pizza, bean burritos, baked potato chips, and popcorn), given that elsewhere the authors state that: ...compared with the baseline macronutrient distribution determined by FFQ, the total percentage of carbohydrate intake on the study diet decreased by 4%, protein increased by 2%, and there was no change in percentage calories from fat. Substituting fat- and protein-laden processed foods in first set (pizza, bean burritos, baked potato chips etc) for sugary foods and soda, would not have left macronutrients virtually unchanged, as the authors claim. But substituting the high carb foods with little added sugar from the second set (fruit, bagels, cereal, pasta, and bread), would have left macronutrients nearly the same but reduced added sugar, as the authors claim. So if the substitutions were "fruit, bagels, cereal, pasta, and bread" for soda, pastry, and candy, perhaps the the intervention diet wasn't as crappy as Lustig claims, and that the popular press articles like the Wall Street Journal story are parroting: Researchers from the University of California, San Francisco, and Touro University California took soda, pastries, sugary cereals and other foods and beverages sweetened with added sugar away from 43 Latino and African-American children and teens for nine days. They replaced those foods with pizza, baked potato chips, and other starchy processed foods. Either way, it is a rather important ambiguity for the authors to not only leave open, but in fact bake right into the report on their study through the conflicting descriptions of the intervention diet. Since they gave the kids all their food during the intervention period, you would think they would have documented the details of the intervention diet in the paper (or at least in the supplemental material - which doesn't appear to exist), but apparently not. That's Lustig for you... Given all that, what they found was that after 10 days, most indicators of metabolic syndrome improved significantly relative to baseline, including fasting glucose, insulin, OGTT, and blood lipids. They tried to maintain calories and avoid weight loss to make for a fair comparison, but on average the kids lost a couple pounds, which could account for some of the improvement. They separately analysed data from the kids who didn't lose weight, and found that the results weren't quite as strong, but many of the measures still improved, independent of weight loss. So overall, this study seems to provide some (albeit relatively weak) support for the hypothesis that added sugar and fructose are particularly detrimental, and increase risk of metabolic syndrome. --Dean ----------- [1] Lustig, R. H., Mulligan, K., Noworolski, S. M., Tai, V. W., Wen, M. J., Erkin-Cakmak, A., Gugliucci, A. and Schwarz, J.-M. (2015), Isocaloric fructose restriction and metabolic improvement in children with obesity and metabolic syndrome. Obesity. doi: 10.1002/oby.21371 Free Full Text: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/oby.21371/full Abstract Objective Dietary fructose is implicated in metabolic syndrome, but intervention studies are confounded by positive caloric balance, changes in adiposity, or artifactually high amounts. This study determined whether isocaloric substitution of starch for sugar would improve metabolic parameters in Latino (n = 27) and African-American (n = 16) children with obesity and metabolic syndrome. Methods Participants consumed a diet for 9 days to deliver comparable percentages of protein, fat, and carbohydrate as their self-reported diet; however, dietary sugar was reduced from 28% to 10% and substituted with starch. Participants recorded daily weights, with calories adjusted for weight maintenance. Participants underwent dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry and oral glucose tolerance testing on Days 0 and 10. Biochemical analyses were controlled for weight change by repeated measures ANCOVA. Results Reductions in diastolic blood pressure (−5 mmHg; P = 0.002), lactate (−0.3 mmol/L; P < 0.001), triglyceride, and LDL-cholesterol (−46% and −0.3 mmol/L; P < 0.001) were noted. Glucose tolerance and hyperinsulinemia improved (P < 0.001). Weight reduced by 0.9 ± 0.2 kg (P < 0.001) and fat-free mass by 0.6 kg (P = 0.04). Post hoc sensitivity analysis demonstrates that results in the subcohort that did not lose weight (n = 10) were directionally consistent. Conclusions Isocaloric fructose restriction improved surrogate metabolic parameters in children with obesity and metabolic syndrome irrespective of weight change.
  6. Hi, everyone, reading some recent books and papers I've gathered some clues that not caloric restriction in general but the blood sugar control/insulin control might be the major cornerstone for longevity - so I wonder if low-carb, low-glycemic (but fructose-limited) oder even low-carb high-fat (good fats like Omega-3 rich plant oils) diets could give the same fine results like caloric restriction. Is there any recent reseach available focussing this issue? Any ideas/hints or publications are much appreciated! Thanks! Max
×