‘60 Minutes’ Attacks Sugar as Toxic, Like ‘Cocaine’
Sugar is a “toxin” that is killing the unwitting masses, according to an April 1, “60 Minutes” hosted by CNN’s chief medical correspondent, Dr. Sanjay Gupta.
Gupta and all of the medical experts that he interviewed argued that sugar leads to heart disease, cancer (by leading to the creation of insulin, which cancer cells use to trigger their growth), and that sugar can actually be compared to certain drugs, like “cocaine,” in that it triggers the pleasure centers in the brain.
“New research coming out of some of America’s most respected institutions is starting to find that sugar, the way many people are eating it today, is a toxin,” Gupta said at the start of the segment.
Dr. Robert H. Lustig, MD, University of California San Francisco Professor of Pediatrics, was the primary expert in piece. Lustig told Gupta that he believes sugar should be treated the same way as tobacco and alcohol, substances which are still legal, but regulated.
“Ultimately, this is a public health crisis, and when there’s a public health crisis you have to do big things and you have to do them across the board. Tobacco and alcohol are perfect examples … I think that sugar belongs in this exact same wastebasket,” said Lustig.
While Lustig admitted that sugars, whether cane sugar or corn syrup, are not “acute toxins,” or toxins that kill right away, what he and others like him seek is for sugar to achieve “chronic toxin” status, or toxins which kill slowly over extended periods of time.
The New York Times launched a similar op-ed in April of last year entitled “Is Sugar Toxic?” based on a presentation given by Lustig on May 26, 2009.
According to the Times, “His critics argue that what makes [Lustig] compelling is his practice of taking suggestive evidence and insisting that it’s incontrovertible. Lustig certainly doesn’t dabble in shades of gray. Sugar is not just an empty calorie, he says; its effect on us is much more insidious. ‘It’s not about the calories,’ he says. ‘It has nothing to do with the calories. It’s a poison by itself.’” Maybe Dr. Lustig should look more carefully at those shades of gray.
Gupta did make a pit stop at a sugar can farm in Louisiana to talk to Jim Simon, a board member for the Sugar Association. Compared to Lustig’s favorable interview, Simon was badgered and asked loaded questions. (“Would it surprise you that nearly every scientist that we talked to in researching this story, told us that they are eliminating nearly all added sugars…because they’re concerned about the health impacts?”)
The interview with Simon was quickly followed by more time with Lustig, who was seen wearing a headset and working intently on a computer in a room filled with piles and piles of paper. Lustig went on to refute the few things that Simon managed to say.
- Mike Ciandella's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
The sleep of no dreaming is coming, sugar or no sugar
Submitted by Unsane on Tue, 04/03/2012 - 5:45pm.
You know something? Sugar production and refinement was first figured out by the Muslims early on, say, around the 700s or so (maybe a bit later). Oddly, though I was not around at the time and therefore can't verify this 100% postively, I think people were still dying around that time. Come to think of it, I think people were dying well BEFORE that time. People who never tasted sugar died, and died by the millions.
Imagine. In an age where sugar was not around, people actually DIED.
What does that tell you?
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
That tell's us you are some
Submitted by Sude23 on Tue, 04/03/2012 - 9:43pm.
That tell's us you are some crazy right wing nut who does not believe in science!
And racist too!
Submitted by Tugboat Phil on Tue, 04/03/2012 - 10:02pm.
And homophobic and a bully and, and....
And a islamophobe and a
Submitted by Pinetree3 on Tue, 04/03/2012 - 11:19pm.
And a islamophobe and a sexist.
More facts
Submitted by DontFeedTheTrolls on Wed, 04/04/2012 - 5:11am.
Oh, and don't forget, before we had mass sugar production the average lifespan was about 45 years.
What is it now, 85?
Scientific proof positive that sugar extends life and is almost the 'fountain of youth'.
This from the same people who call CO2 a "pollutant."
Submitted by motherbelt on Tue, 04/03/2012 - 6:02pm.
Years ago, some asshat "scientist" at Harvard started talking about what he termed a "toxic food environment." At the time, it was in reference to fast food. In fact, IIRC, he said Ronald McDonald was just Joe Camel for kids.
I knew then that it was only the opening salvo. Anyone who didn't see this coming wasn't paying attention.
This is so asinine. I'm
Submitted by Newsbusterbrown on Tue, 04/03/2012 - 6:02pm.
This is so asinine. I'm pretty sure the mortality rate is much, much higher for those who dabble in cocaine than sugar.
“There are no easy answers, but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right.” - Ronald Reagan (1964 Republican Convention)
Actually.....
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Tue, 04/03/2012 - 7:20pm.
Actually, the mortality rate is exactly the same for those that dabble in cocaine or for those that consume sugar. 100%
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
I believe you know what I
Submitted by Newsbusterbrown on Tue, 04/03/2012 - 7:54pm.
I believe you know what I meant. ;-)
“There are no easy answers, but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right.” - Ronald Reagan (1964 Republican Convention)
I couldn't help myself.
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Tue, 04/03/2012 - 8:06pm.
In a similar vein, there use to be a radio ad that played on my local conservative talk radio station where the ad was selling term life insurance. The advertisement stated that they even had a term life product for sale that would pay off even if you didn't die. I always wanted to call the company and ask them about that "not dying" part, but never got around to it.
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
Quit with the fear mongering
Submitted by TruthMatters on Tue, 04/03/2012 - 6:07pm.
Everything is toxic...it's just a matter of degree. Even water (or dihydrogen monoxide as fear mongers call it)
Petiition: EPA Should Ban Di-Hydrogen Monoxide
Submitted by libBuster on Tue, 04/03/2012 - 6:51pm.
They would be lining up to sign petitions in the liberal bastions of Beverly HIlls or the Upper West Side to ban di-hydrogen monoxide. All it would take is some sincere looking young people who ask you to sign a petition to ban "di-hydrogen monoxide". Just say it is found in large amounts in people immediately prior to death.
People in oh Kentucky would be much less likely to sign.
You beat me to it!!
Submitted by GW on Wed, 04/04/2012 - 10:55am.
.
blithering idiots
Submitted by MidAmerica on Tue, 04/03/2012 - 6:08pm.
The same type of people who feel marijuana, random sexual encounters and abortions performed on 12 year olds are a right to be defended and encouraged by government policy.
The Leftist Agenda
Submitted by ZmanCav on Tue, 04/03/2012 - 6:10pm.
This is so stupid. The Left has already begun sowing these seeds years ago to try to get another TAX on us for drinks with sugar in them. Fraulein Eva Obama made this whole "kids nutrition" and childhood obesity her pet project. The Left always picks "victims" that either seem defenseless or can't tell thier self-appointed "saviors" to shut the hell up..........i.e. children, animals, the environment, etc........
Anyway, this should come as a shock to no one that the Goebbals propaganda machine of CNN and the MSM are "discovering" all this amazing research that supports the already pre-determined results that just happen to support the party approved agenda.
Anyone check which party the sugar growers give most of thier money to?
Everyday, I keep seeing life
Submitted by Bettendor on Tue, 04/03/2012 - 6:14pm.
Everyday, I keep seeing life imitating art, with the stuff banned in the old Sly Stallone movie "Demolition Man" coming to pass. If it tastes or feels good (sugar, red meat, sex, etc.), then it must be bad for you and thus, should be illegal, according to these people.
"“Surely not, Lord!' Peter replied. 'I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.' The voice spoke to him a second time, 'Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.'" - Acts 10:14-15 (NIV)
Demolition Man
Submitted by Tugboat Phil on Tue, 04/03/2012 - 10:03pm.
Would you PLEASE explain to me how the seashells work??
Really? Then explain why Michael Moore still walks the earth.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Tue, 04/03/2012 - 6:29pm.
.
So, I am guessing this guy
Submitted by Antisocial-ism on Tue, 04/03/2012 - 6:28pm.
So, I am guessing this guy wants to criminalize candy while at the same time he probably wants to legalize "Nose Candy".
If you enjoy it, we want to ban it. The lib mantra.
Sniff, sniff,...
Submitted by Eric the Fred on Tue, 04/03/2012 - 6:35pm.
... is that a new class-action lawsuit I smell coming on?
Lawyers (traditional and hugely influential DNC candidate supporters) have given their orders to the DNC that if they want the big cashmoney for their party to continue they need to make something new 'illegal' so they can sue the heck out of those 'evil' companies that produce it.
And the DNC has passed these orders on to the LSM who just love to have a new 'fear' to report on and make the unwitting population (this is where people really are unwitting) paranoid and crazy about in the hopes of brigning down the sugar industry.
And a new 'sugar tax' for the gubmint is just icing on the massive fraud cake.
And that doctors are in bed, on all fours, with the interested parties on this is nothing new.
Calling them all the scum of the earth is insulting to scum.
It's true
Submitted by buttercup815 on Tue, 04/03/2012 - 6:39pm.
There is a direct link between sugar and liberalism. So sugar has to go!
fox played this today too
Submitted by dmacleo on Tue, 04/03/2012 - 6:47pm.
the dr on morning show pretty much fully agreed.
so I did something I seldom do, put sugar in my coffee.
Atkins of diet fame and the RAF of WWII knew about the negative
Submitted by Paarl on Tue, 04/03/2012 - 7:16pm.
effects of large ammounts of dietary sugar decades ago.
This shouldn't be politicized but viewed as a public health issue of importance. The answer is not banning or taxing but some real education about our diets especially refined sugars and cheap refined carbohydrates. And I would hesitate to put the Feds in charge of this needed education because it was the Feds in the 1970s who began the jihad against dietary fat from meats and dairy and began to emphasize the consumption of carbohydrates and soon the obesity epidemic took off
as we ate less meat and eggs and cheese/dairy.
Dietary fat from meat and dairy is healthy and necessary for good health and fat does not cause one to get fat. The over consumption of refined carbs and sugars causes the obesity epidemic and we as individuals and citizens must do something about it in our families and communities because it is front and center of the rapid growth in cost of health care and it will start to cause a reduction in our life spans and standards of living.
I lived in Rhodesia and South Africa until 1995 and returned then to the USA. The amount of sugar consumed by Americans is stunning . South Africa is a large sugar cane producing nation as was Rhodesia to some extent and never was soda and sweets available in schools for kids. It was just considered a poor dietary choice for children.
Paarl of Rhodesia
Just leave it alone
Submitted by Unsane on Wed, 04/04/2012 - 8:33am.
It's really not a public health issue and needs to be left firmly in the square of the individual's discretion. People for millenia had no sugar to consume, and they all still died. The Sugar Age still has not gotten rid of that scourge called Death.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
As the Army told me,
Submitted by UpNorth on Wed, 04/04/2012 - 7:10pm.
life is an acting assignment. As the PD told me, no one gets out of here alive.
So, pardon me while I don't give this whole argument about sugar a whole lot of attention, or time.
I guess he wants me to eat
Submitted by goldbough on Tue, 04/03/2012 - 7:48pm.
I guess he wants me to eat and do anything that DOESN'T trigger pleasure centers in the brain. If I eat only vegetables my whole life, I will die. If I eat sugar I will still die. Nothing is different (except total control over what I eat while I'm alive).
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
Submitted by liberalsarefunny on Tue, 04/03/2012 - 8:29pm.
We're all going to die!!!!
AARRGGHHH!!!
Liberals really are funny, doncha think?
It's gonna be like Woody Allen's "Sleeper"
Submitted by Savonarola on Tue, 04/03/2012 - 8:29pm.
In the future, doctors will give you a cigarette... it's the best thing for you.
(Cracking my knuckles) here goes on pleasure sensations.
Submitted by drsamherman on Tue, 04/03/2012 - 8:51pm.
Where do I even begin except by asking Gupta and Lustig to stop WHORING our profession for their personal agendas? For Fluke's sake--you are physicians! Stop acting like half-assed psychology majors! Now onto our medical moment for the day.
Sugars are a necessary component of human diets. There is no way around it. Glucose, the main source of human energy at the organism level, is ultimately derived physiologically from every food that a person eats. The three main nutrient sources, being fats, carbohydrates and proteins are all important sources of glucose. Carbohydrates are broken down into constituent sugar molecules and converted if possible (some simple sugars may not be converted to glucose) to glucose. A good amount of the fats and proteins which we consume likewise ultimately end up as glucose. Sugar, more precisely glucose, is NOT a toxin. The release of insulin, in most normal individuals, is predicated as a natural part of eating--and this includes eating something that might be high in protein and fat but low in carbohydrate content. Like anything else, including water, sugar and carbohydrate consumption should be in moderation. Simply eliminating all sugar from someone's diet will not make them immediately skinny, cure underlying diabetes or instantly terminate ongoing disease processes. Nor will immediate large consumption trigger automatic diabetes or other disease processes. Quite frankly, Gupta and Lustig should know that NOTHING in the human body, save for some selected diseases, ever happens that fast in the human body. Short of physical injury, those selected disease states (cardiovascular diseases, stroke, COPD) all take years to develop.
The other point of contention I have with these two is their oversimplification of hedonic/pleasure response mechanisms in the human brain. Pleasure response is not as simple as they make it seem. Sugar does NOT cause a pharmacological cascade of events like cocaine, opiates, benzodiazepines, PCP or other drugs. Nor does it have an effect like alcohol or tobacco to the extent they claim. Pleasure response is governed by a complex series of neurotransmissions across multiple brain pathways and often differs depending on the circumstances. The pleasure response essentially consists of two primary elements: the conscious pathway wherein centers of judgment and reason are involved is primarily centered in the cortex, an area we sometimes refer to as the higher brain level and mediated by multiple neurotransmitter substances; the more automatic responses involving the risk/reward, sensory and passive functions of pleasure are generally theorized to occur ultimately in an area known as the nucleus accumbens through a dopamine-mediated process. Brain function is quite theoretic, as there are those who believe in the modular concept, where a brain acts like a computer with memory areas, processing areas, etc. There is also the the distributive processing theory, which states that no one area of the brain solely coordinates a singular function. I subscribe to the latter, largely as the result of practicing neurophysiology and brain imaging for years. What Gupta and Lustig (sometimes called the worst anti-sugar fanatic in the United States) would have you believe is that the pleasure from sugar consists entirely of the lower brain functional nucleus accumbens dopamine pathway, the same area commonly implicated in drug, alcohol and behavioral addiction. Problem is, both of them are dead wrong. Eating is a complex sensory process, and they seemingly ignore the role of visual, auditory, tactile and olfactory components of deriving pleasure from various foods in favor of a completely taste-based theory. Unfortunately, somatic theory has proven this wrong time and time again. Humans derive pleasure from food based on the total sensory experience of it, and often one sense may override another. This directly implies that sugar would not act as a drug because its sensory effect on human behavior is not equivalent to a pharmacologically active compound. Sugar creates no somatic deficits or enhancements in and of its own volition, rather the appearance, texture, smell, sound (e.g. think of a sizzling steak) and taste combine to form a very complex higher and lower functional reaction of pleasure in the human brain that is not consigned to a singular area like addiction. Their model is not only flawed, but whores medical science to their personal agendas.
There will be a quiz after.
Studies say...
Submitted by CobraMan on Tue, 04/03/2012 - 10:25pm.
If we go by what the various studies say about what causes illness in man, especially cancer, we'd end up starving to death, for everything we eat, drink, breath, or even touch can be linked to cancer. Even sunshine causes cancer these days!
It seems that, no matter the substance, there is a "study" linking it to cancer. But what does that tell us? It tells us that the "scientists" have no real understanding of what is actually causing cancers to appear, so anything and everything is a culprit. They are the modern version of a witch doctor, simply replacing the supernatural with the natural. It's no longer evil spirits that is causing disease, it's the evil sugars, the evil dioxins, the evil radon, things that have co-existed with us for millennia, that is to blame. And what is the most evil of all things? OURSELVES!
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
cancer causes
Submitted by jon_torlin on Wed, 04/04/2012 - 7:33am.
Seems like these days I've had more friends dying at younger ages than they should be (in their 30s and 40s, distressingly enough) from cancer and things of that nature, so I started doing some research months ago.(just recently found out a friend has throat cancer) I was surprised to learn that there's a belief that we all have cancer in our bodies at one time or another, just that it's triggered by our immune system if it was working or not.
Because of that belief, this is how the holistic medicine comes into play when it talks about how to change your lifestyle including what you eat, the environment we live and work in and so on, and there are many stories of how people took great care in eliminating certain things and people like Sanjay and etc are not helping that way of improving your life by lumping "sugar" into one blanket category when there are several forms of "sugar"(both natural and a sh!tload of artificial) out there. It's the same kind of thinking that led to that little girl being forced to eat chicken nuggets because some government toady said her lunch wasn't nutritious enough.
As for cancer and other diseases, from what I've been reading and this seems to be more and more plausible, those are signs of weakening immune systems, weakened by external causes which include the multitude of drugs that are out there these days, there have been so many warnings about drugs that were used for treatment of something but have caused many other "unexpected" side effects, while at the same time, there's not enough education (other than the government mandated kind which is bogus like the bogus potus) about proper/healthy eating as well. With all that in mind, they're warning us about SUGAR??
Give me a break.
-Jon
They are Right
Submitted by dpc1212 on Tue, 04/03/2012 - 9:23pm.
They are right about Sugar. It (carbohydrates as well as refined sugar) are causing the explosion of diabetes-type 2,
heart attacks and it's feeding cancer cells. Red meat, dairy and saturated fats have been attacked and maligned since the 70s
and "calling them bad for you" and "totally avoid them" is just wrong and has contributed to the obesity epidemic.
Man can not live on Red Meat alone.
Submitted by CobraMan on Tue, 04/03/2012 - 10:39pm.
Do you know what happens if you don't have any carbohydrates in your diet? YOU DIE! But you probably won't die from type 2 diabetes, just plain old malnutrition.
As far as "feeding; cancer cells, yes, carbohydrates do that, along with every other cell in your body. Yes, we can "cure" cancer by eliminating carbohydrates altogether, but that "cure" is actually called "death."
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Nonsense
Submitted by dpc1212 on Wed, 04/04/2012 - 12:50am.
You don't need any carbohydrates (sugar) to survive. I'm not advocating avoiding all carbohydrates, but we consume
far too many on average. And man can live on Red Meat alone.
Carbs
Submitted by mikebromo on Wed, 04/04/2012 - 10:42am.
Dr Richard Bernsteins book "Diabetic Diet" recommends eating 30 grams of carbs a day.
I did about 60 grams of carbs a day for 6 months and lost 50 pounds.
I also walked 3 miles a day 5 days a week.
Over the years I've tried diet and excercise, just dieting or just excercising.
What I have found that limiting carbs is the best way to lose weight.
You do need carbs
Submitted by CobraMan on Wed, 04/04/2012 - 11:24am.
You do need carbs to survive. Try a totally carb free diet and see what happens to you. You'll soon, within a matter of a few days, go into diabetic shock and DIE! We're omnivores, remember?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Disagree
Submitted by buttercup815 on Wed, 04/04/2012 - 11:51am.
I have a rather eccentric Bulgarian uncle who eats nothing but meat..seriously..and he's in his mid 70's.
When we confront him about this, he just sez.."why should I eat the vegetables when the lamb already ate them?" But he's still around!
Some of us desperately need carbs
Submitted by Unsane on Wed, 04/04/2012 - 5:51pm.
Oh, on the contrary, I need lots and lots of carbohydrates, considering my hobbies. And the way gas prices are going, I am going to need more just to get around.
Men who eat red meat alone also suffer a 100% mortality rate.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Phillip Morris was right!
Submitted by CobraMan on Tue, 04/03/2012 - 10:28pm.
Sugar is as addictive as cocaine? Is that what Phillip Morris said about nicotine during the Big Tobacco trials, that it was as addictive as Sugar? Well... looks like they were right! I wonder of 60 Minutes will do an expose' telling us all that cocaine is only as addictive as sugar?
By the way, how can something mankind has been consuming for tens of thousands of years, carbohydrates, suddenly be a "toxin?" I mean, really, didn't we evolve to eat carbohydrates, like the scientists contend?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
This is not as fun as ATMBP!
Submitted by teg on Tue, 04/03/2012 - 10:24pm.
Gheez!
While there are more pressing issues (like ammonia-treated meat by-product ;-) here we are again discusing pointless crap while the country burns down around us. These libs sure know how to deflect our "intellectual right" media, don't they? They've got you guys defending something even your average American kid on the street knows is wrong!
All of you have been duped!
Our response should be, "yeah its bad, now get out of my face!"
And move along... talk about what's important! You are letting them drive the narrative by responding to this...
Heck, water will kill you if
Submitted by RR GOP on Wed, 04/04/2012 - 1:10am.
Heck, water will kill you if you drink too much of it.
These Socialists are always looking for more power and control. Wouldn't surprise me if there was a government-induced profit in this for them..."sucrose credits"???
"Under Capitalism, man exploits man. Under Communism it's just the opposite."
"All that Communism needs to make it successful is for someone to feed and clothe it."
Sugar
Submitted by ljj-dcm on Wed, 04/04/2012 - 6:12am.
That EXCESS sugar is "toxic" is a no brainer unless you are clueless to the scientific literature. Insulin resistance, Diabetes, Cardiovascular disease, Inflammatory diseases (including neurodegenerative diseases) all related. This is not a conservative vs. liberal issue. Conservatives fall into the stereotypical image of scientific ignoramuses created for them by the left when they take issue with things like this. Stupid.
Deal with it
Submitted by Unsane on Wed, 04/04/2012 - 8:28am.
Conservatives fall into the stereotypical image of scientific ignoramuses created for them by the left when they take issue with things like this Spoken like someone who cares far more about image than substance. Besides, I don't spend every waking hour of my life obsessing over what the Left thinks of me. Because that is how they will think of me NO MATTER WHAT.
Excess sugar is toxic, huh? So, why is my old man still walking upright? He's in great shape for a man his age and at his peak he was going through 10 pound bags of sugar a MONTH. And that was only for his coffee! That isn't bringing in other goodies he ate which were sweet. To say he has a sweet tooth is an understatement.
And guess what? No sign of diabetes in my family either.
I don't need to be a scientist to figure that one out.
And you still fail to note that people were dying of all sorts of diseases and ailments during all the millenia before the advent of sugar. And sugar has been with us a relatively short time. It has only been about 1500 years since humanity first figured out how to refine it. And sugar didn't truly flood world markets until the Europeans began their sugar colonies in places like Brazil and Haiti.
Face it: this has absolutely nothing to do with sugar and EVERYTHING to do with a bunch of nosy busybodies wanting to micromanage and control people's lives. People died before sugar and they will continue to die in The Sugar Age.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Please
Submitted by ljj-dcm on Wed, 04/04/2012 - 10:31pm.
This is a political blog and like it or not, for far too many, perception is reality. Good image, we win; bad image, we loose. It matters.
Beyond that, I'm talking substance as well.That you know people who ate/ eat sugar and didn't get sick and die, or that people got sick and died before refined sugar was ubiquitous - is irrelevant. The scientific literature has absolutely proven beyond any reasonable doubt that excess sucrose is a major factor underlying many of the disease plagues of our modern day.
To take issue with these facts based on your personal anecdotal observations of anomalies and a paranoia of a big brother conspiracy attempting to control all aspects of our lives is to make conservatism look like it is promoted by a bunch of anti-science lunes - an image liberals love to propagandize the public with.
Finally, I was thinking tonight after dinner - as my own anecdotal experience - sugar - though not addictive in the same sense as cocaine - is more addictive than cocaine. As a stupid kid surrounded by cocaine for years, I could always take it or leave it - but put those oatmeal raisin cookies in that easy open / put in my mouth container in an open cupboard door and I can hear them calling. Who can resist?
This is a political blog and
Submitted by Unsane on Thu, 04/05/2012 - 7:10pm.
This is a political blog and like it or not, for far too many, perception is reality. Good image, we win; bad image, we loose. It matters. This is a political blog, not high school. You are clearly a neophyte who cannot understand that Leftists are going to attack the Right was ignoramuses NO MATTER WHAT. You can go seek approval from political enemies all day. I, on the other hand, know that to do so is a pointless exercise.
Beyond that, I'm talking substance as well.That you know people who ate/ eat sugar and didn't get sick and die, or that people got sick and died before refined sugar was ubiquitous - is irrelevant. It is absolutely relevant. We are being told here in this piece that sugar is so horrible and evil - yet it has been around for millenia. You, and the scientists you worship without an ounce of critical thinking, seem to suggest to me that if we just got rid of evil sugar, death will just wither away. Unfortunately that is not the case. You can go for decades without eating sugar and you will still die. You can eat 10 pounds of sugar a day and you will still die. The scientific literature has absolutely proven beyond any reasonable doubt that excess sucrose is a major factor underlying many of the disease plagues of our modern day. You sound like a Leftist who wants to dismantle the economy of the United States on the whim of scientists because they say we are destroying the planet and because scientists are always 100% right, we must. Not so. Try some critical thinking for a change. Sadly for you, nutritionists can't agree on a damn thing. The very sad truth is far more complex: everyone is different, and different things will effect different people in different ways. Cigarettes, for another example, can kill people in their 20s with ease; at the same time the world's longest lived person quit smoking at 117 because she didn't want to ask people to light her cigarettes as she was going blind!
You are reaching for rules for eating which universally effect everyone. Good luck with that.
To take issue with these facts which sadly for you are up for debate. Science is not dogmatic as you so insist that it is. based on your personal anecdotal observations of anomalies and a paranoia of a big brother conspiracy attempting to control all aspects of our lives is to make conservatism look like it is promoted by a bunch of anti-science lunes - an image liberals love to propagandize the public with. You are probably still a high school student still seeking the approval of the in crowd, so let me help you out: no matter what the Right does, the Left will think we are "anti-science lunes" REGARDLESS. Go seek permission slips and approval from the Left all you want - it's a fool's errand. The personal anecdotes that you sneer at are proof of the sad fact that different things effect different people different ways. There is not, nor will there ever be, a "rule book" for nutrition. And we are all still going to die.
Finally, I was thinking tonight after dinner - as my own anecdotal experience - sugar - though not addictive in the same sense as cocaine - is more addictive than cocaine. As a stupid kid surrounded by cocaine for years, I could always take it or leave it - but put those oatmeal raisin cookies in that easy open / put in my mouth container in an open cupboard door and I can hear them calling. Who can resist? Hypocrite. The scientists say you can't have any. So you can't have any, because sugar is SO EVIL. Besides, oatmeal raisin cookies? What, too good for chocolate chip? My chocolate chip peanut butter chip cookies will shut all these clowns up and teach them the most important less of all:
JUST FRIGGING ENJOY LIFE.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Thanks Uns
Submitted by Radical1979 on Thu, 04/05/2012 - 8:18pm.
Lets face it, anything, in excess, is going to be bad for the human body. Some people will have a more deleterious effect from less of a substance, others will be able to tolerate great amounts with no effect at all. So for the left to constantly warn us against consuming products that give some of us great joy, makes me want to smack them all upside the head.
Let me enjoy my sugar. If it causes me to become diabetic my doctor will let me know.
Judging by the photo, I think
Submitted by killa37 on Wed, 04/04/2012 - 9:11am.
Judging by the photo, I think this guy must have inhaled a big fat line of cocaine, AFTER downing a Mountain Dew!!!!
This is getting insane
Submitted by Nemesisesq on Wed, 04/04/2012 - 10:23am.
It's crazy how reflexivley we talk about everything. I doubt if 90% of the people here know what sugar (as in refined sugar) does to the body based upon common scientifice research AND experimentation done since the 1870's. It's also amazing to me that the longest screed on here @drsamherman, which is purportedley from a doctor, states a pure FALSEHOOD, sugar is no more necessarry than fat. Why? Becasue of two bodily processes calle Gluconeogenesis and Lipogenesis, both of which occur in the liver. You need protein (plants contain protein so don't even go there). If you ate nothing but sugar and crisco, you would die. If you ate nothing but porterhouse steaks you would live and thrive.
At the same time, the propensity of those more "learned" among us to effect change by trying to scare the crap out of use is just tired. Sugar is like cocaine? Really? Well I guess I got into that bar fight after I ate that twinkie and I would have never cheated oh my wife if my friend didn't bring those sweet tarts over that friday night.
Anyway Processed foods, including sugar, are bad for you, SORRY. It's true, now shut up have a coke and a smile. Oh wait, coke has sugar.
The Dirt Nap Is Coming!
Submitted by Unsane on Wed, 04/04/2012 - 5:49pm.
Sorry. People who eat nothing but porterhouse steaks also have a 100% mortality rate.
EVERYTHING is bad for you. EVERYTHING can and will kill you. We are ALL going to die.
So instead of worrying about it, I am going to eat lots of processed foods because I am LAZY. And I am going to consume lots and lots of sugar! And people will know when it's time for my dirt nap that I at least enjoyed myself on the way there.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
An entrepreneur who can't even spell the word ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Wed, 04/04/2012 - 6:08pm.
correctly; and a lawyer.
That figures.
'Entrprenuer' - before you go back and change it.
Is it as an entrepreneur, or as a lawyer, that you jump in with both feet and criticize a well respected MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL NB member on this thread?
--"purportedly" -- from a doctor, eh?
Nemesis, indeed.
Of common sense.
You are a putz.
MD
You Mad Bro?
Submitted by Nemesisesq on Thu, 04/05/2012 - 1:20pm.
Misspellings from a hastily put together profile not withstanding, he's still wrong. You don't need sugar to live. You don't even need to ingest carbohydrates to live. You might be more comfortable if you do, but you won't die if you never eat another carbohydrate. I used the word purportedly becasue I don't know if he is a doctor or not, I don't live on this board.
Nemesis indeed, the internet is serious.
Internet MEMEsis
Submitted by sentry_99 on Thu, 04/05/2012 - 2:02pm.
You Mad Bro? You are so cool dude. Please continue to grace us with your presence while nitpicking and taking other posters out of context. Before you deny you do that, let me pull the same with you as an example. "...you won't die if you never eat another carbohydrate." Wow, the secret to eternal life has been given unto us by our resident 'Entrprenuer' and internet meme expert. Thank you.
The key to immortality!
Submitted by Unsane on Thu, 04/05/2012 - 5:43pm.
Maybe you can explain then why the most commonly consumed foods in the world are all full of carbohydrates.
I'm talking rice, wheat, corn, oats, millet.
Our friends, the grains. And do keep in mind what that did for humanity.
but you won't die if you never eat another carbohydrate. So death would not happen whatsoever if not for carbohydrates?
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Mad, Nemesis? Nah, I just happen to enjoy---
Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 04/05/2012 - 10:22pm.
pointing out elemental mistakes made by someone who then expects to be taken seriously when deriding a respected professional.
If you can't take the time to check your spelling, why should I believe you take the time to check your 'facts'?
Your 'argument' may have been hastily put together.
MD
p.s.
"Notwithstanding" - no space between not and withstanding.
No charge - free info.
I'm serious.
Seriously so.
No cost to you.
Porterhouse
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Wed, 04/04/2012 - 6:12pm.
Does it have to be Porterhouse steak? Isn't Porterhouse just the same cut as a T-bone with more of the Filet? What if I just eat the NY Strip portion? And I prefer the NY Strip over the Kansas City Strip because they are more "liberal" with the size of the steak. One of the few times I prefer liberal over conservative.
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama