Study: Cutting Sugar From Diet Shows Immediate Health Benefits (wiley.com) 428
turp182 writes: As reported in TIME and other news sources, a recent study found that reducing sugar intake in obese children caused several biological health markers to improve over a short period of time (9 days). Summarizing the results: "Overall, their fasting blood sugar levels dropped by 53%, along with the amount of insulin their bodies produced since insulin is normally needed to break down carbohydrates and sugars. Their triglyceride and LDL levels also declined and, most importantly, they showed less fat in their liver."
The full study is available online.
Note if we can stop.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Putting sugars in everything! You can't even buy prepackaged meats without sugar added!
Re:Note if we can stop.. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Note if we can stop.. (Score:4, Informative)
Try buying actual "food" at the grocery store rather than prepackaged boxes of chemicals.
Vegetables have shockingly low amounts of sugar. Similarly with flour, eggs, rice, beans, meat, etc.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Try buying actual "food" at the grocery store rather than prepackaged boxes of chemicals.
Will it make me talk like a complete douchebag? Is that what happened to you?
Re: Note if we can stop.. (Score:5, Funny)
Have you ever read the ingredients of prepackaged food? Hint: it doesn't contain just one ingredient.
I think one of those chemicals keeps people from being preachy know-it-all douchebags. People without that chemical in their system spend their time annoying everyone around them with a weird sort of self-focused food-related righteousness, as if you think you discovered eating itself and everyone else around you needs to know how superior you are at it.
Re: (Score:3)
Have you ever read the ingredients of prepackaged food? Hint: it doesn't contain just one ingredient.
What's bad is when the first ingredient that I recognize as food is halfway down the list.
Re:Note if we can stop.. (Score:5, Informative)
Vegetables have shockingly low amounts of sugar. Similarly with flour, eggs, rice, beans, meat, etc.
Flour, rice and other carbs may have low amounts of sugar, but our bodies turn them into sugar pretty quickly.
Re:Note if we can stop.. (Score:5, Insightful)
That produce department runs at a loss - it's just there to make people feel good that they're buying some "real" food too. Most of what is there is genetically modified to be as big and heavy as possible while still resembling the namesake commodity, with no regard to nutritional content and little regard to taste. Almost all of what is there is produced on the world Ag market and container shipped to you, picked at the peak of shelf life and delivered just in time to not spoil before you get it to the car.
Try growing your own, if you can still get your hands on decent seed stock, or pay double+ for "real" organics, if you stores in your state even carry them. The difference is remarkable - and if you do try growing your own, you'll appreciate how cheap the "real" organics actually are.
Meanwhile, the wage-slaves of the world who have enough time to skip the fast food restaurants barely have time to shop for pre-processed packaged foods at the grocery store - are you actually expecting them to take time out to prepare food instead of preparing their children for the NCLB standardized tests or watching 4 hours of passive entertainment a night?
Re:Note if we can stop.. (Score:4, Informative)
Hmm... Do you have a citation for that produce department running at a loss? I modeled pedestrian traffic and that included needing to prioritize traffic to optimal areas based on projected profit margins. (Yes, foot traffic is optimized and no, you're not immune.) As near as I know, the bakery operates at close to a loss but not quite a loss - they're able to write down donations and destroyed goods (as they can in the produce section). There are loss leaders - usually on something called an 'end cap' but those are not always loss leaders - they're actually sometimes more expensive.
Anyhow, I can go on but I'll be interested in your citation. The data may have changed in eight years but it seems unlikely. With write-downs the produce section was, as I recall, one of the higher profit areas where fresh dairy was one of the lowest profit areas but one of the greatest traffic draws (which is why it's in the back and on the left, usually).
Re:Note if we can stop.. (Score:4, Interesting)
It is changed per demographics thus the qualifier. And no, it's not all being written off - it's more subtle than that. Additionally... One of the reasons they like produce (and the bread) is because the smell. The smell makes you salivate and makes you hungry. So there's that aspect as well. It doesn't, however, really run at a loss in the end of the year accounting. The pre-packaged bread stuff is actually pretty profitable as are the pre-packaged snacks but that's a whole other topic.
During certain times of the year they may need to just write their losses off which makes it balance, for the quarter, on the books. As an aside, as I understand it, they actually get more from writing it off which is why much of it isn't donated even though there's some small amount of shelf life left. There are also certain times of year when the produce section is quite profitable (this varies by grocer). Those that can get local produce save a ton and actually often charge more for it. Over all, if I recall correctly, only a small portion of the year and only certain items are at a loss and the whole thing tends to be pretty profitable compared to the bakery and fresh dairy.
I'm not sure when you worked at Publix, specifically in Florida, but you may have noticed they did a design change in 2006-2008 region. I'm unable to disclose who did the work on that. I can say that I'm sort of familiar. ;-) They're trying something new and I don't know what the results have been. They were changing some stores, see the panhandle region, to put some of the dairy in center and not too far from the front. However, walking there, that's another matter. Unless you cut through the checkout counter (usually full or blocked by the little plastic chain if not busy or has traffic in it) then check the layout again. You'll probably find it takes you about the same amount of time to reach as it would for any other store - and they still shunt traffic off to the right, where available - though some additional designs were to be tested. It's actually not too difficult to shut a store down for a two week span and re-do the layout. Properly done, they can still keep the door open if it's not a huge remodel.
As I said, I don't know the newest metrics or what's changed in the design phase which is why I asked for a citation. I also don't know what Publix has done but I am curious. There's one of the "newer" model stores, a good size store, just across the bridge into Panama City Beach. It's down on the left - like you're headed out to the golf courses and State Park. If you get curious and are in the area, check that one out. They used the above mention model - where you can see stuff but still need to walk around to get it. Hint: You're meant to be distracted by the pretty colors and then the smell that hits with the bakery which should be on the right as I recall. There's probably a big barrier between you as you go to the right, that's there for a reason.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Note if we can stop.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Stick with Boar's Head deli meats. They are more expensive, but it's quality meat.
Cheap meat is very chemical laden (sugar isn't the half of it).
Re: (Score:3)
Very true. Problem is, it's addictive. (Go ahead. Try to stop using it) Not to mention it tastes good. If it's not added, most foods would just sit on the shelf and rot. Kind of a catch-22 for the producers and the customers.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Depends... If you're in Europe, you're right. If you're in the US, the parent poster is right.
Re: (Score:3)
Causes cancer (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Causes cancer (Score:5, Informative)
The Warburg Effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Cancer loves sugar. Cancer cells consume sugar at 8 times the rate of normal cells. Warburg won the Nobel prize for this discovery.
Yes both sugar and flour are bad for you. There is thing called "Diseases of Western Civilization" and they come along when sugar and flour start showing up in your diet.
Re:Causes cancer (Score:5, Insightful)
Since flour and sugar pretty much coincide with civilization in general and the ability to record anything, the idea that "disease suddenly appears" is a pretty obvious thing. Whether or not it's anything to get hysterical about is another matter.
It still beats the alternative.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
China - wheat/rice/millet flour (how do you think they make steamed buns?)
Japan - rice flour (mochi, yummmm)
Ancient (and much of modern) Americas - corn flour
India - Wheat flour (for naan, roti)
Europe/America - Wheat flour
Seriously, if you're anti-grain, you're probably following a fad diet.
Re: (Score:2)
Since flour and sugar pretty much coincide with civilization in general [...]
Don't forget power and women. [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
All in all it sounds like we're supposed to drop everything, including our clothes, and go back to living in the trees, eating whatever grubs and berries we can forage.
Do we also need to go back to living in fear of our own shadows as well?
Come to think of it did we ever stop to begin with?
Re: Causes cancer (Score:5, Interesting)
I eliminated sugar, wheat, caffeine, and dairy. I lost 80lbs, cut my risk of heart disease by more than half (per blood labs) and my hair started to grow back (vitamins and meditation help to a lesser degree). I was able to start running and lifiting and the ladies are way interested. But go ahead and munch on Doritos and Mt. Dew if you prefer - a goatee should compensate.
Oh, and I have literally hundreds of delicious dishes I can make without doing any foraging. Just shop the outer perimeter of the grocery store and experience real food.
Re: (Score:2)
I eliminated sugar, wheat, caffeine, and dairy.
I can attest to this: I eliminated all of the above (plus quite a bit more) several years ago and my moods, focus/clarity, stamina, strength, skin/muscle tone and lots more have improved so much that at [nearly] 43, I look younger than I have in over a decade and feel healthier than I ever have. People laugh at me when I tell them my age and they boggle in disbelief when I show them the D.O.B. on my ID...
Re: Causes cancer (Score:4, Informative)
You got two years younger while writing the post. Impressive.
Re: (Score:3)
Your own immune system is your biggest enemy. Don't piss it off.
Sounds like it wants a fight, I'm gonna get myself some HIV and fight back!
Re: (Score:2)
If you can't figure this out, I don't think we can help you.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't have to be obese or overweight to develop type 2 diabetes.
Re: (Score:2)
Not getting shot and killed in WW2 at the age of 22 causes cancer. Also not dying of smallpox before your 12th birthday.
Mental health benefits as well (Score:5, Interesting)
My fiance has cut sugar out of her diet and found that her general mood is much happier and more consistent. After a day of eating sugar she would be really depressed and down, low energy and such, but now she has more physical and mental energy on a normal basis. That sugar crash really is killer!
Too many benefits to name (Score:3)
I've been dealing with metabolic syndrome for years, and so far, my blood sugar remains in normal range, weight, cholesterol, etc. is normal, though I do still take some pills to reduce hypertension. I started with The Diabetes Diet by Dr. Bernstein [diabetes-book.com] which laid out the relationship between sugar, blood sugar, and diabetes decades ago. Bernstein is literally the guy who changed the treatment of diabetes in the 1970s and at least doubled the life expectancy of diabetics.
If I keep my diet to simple meats and ve
Let me get this straight: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The risks of dihydrogen monoxide are pretty well publicized.
http://www.dhmo.org/ [dhmo.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, just don't eat meat or sugar.
This study substituted starchy carbs for sugar to show the beneficial effects of eliminating sugar.
Fat is OK... just not animal fat... vegetable fat is fine.
Re:Let me get this straight: (Score:4, Insightful)
"Fat is OK... just not animal fat... vegetable fat is fine."
Completely backwards. Homo Sapiens evolved on a diet containing animal fat. The vegetable oils and especially the hydrogenated vegetable oils are heavily processed and totally unnatural. Factors such as shelf life, not human health drove the development of these substances. The fats that you actually find in nature such as animal fats and unsaturated fats from various seeds and nuts are much healthier than the processed stuff.
Re:Let me get this straight: (Score:5, Insightful)
The vegetable oils and especially the hydrogenated vegetable oils are heavily processed and totally unnatural.
No that's silly. Plain vegtable oil is entirely natural and unprocessed and exists to a greater ot lesser extent in a lot of vegetables, especially seeds. Lumping plain vegetable oil and hydrogenated vegetable oil together as "unnatural" is completely nonsensical.
Re: (Score:3)
That's a fallacy. Life expectancy for a newborn was 30, but that's because the odds of reaching childhood were way worse than today. You weren't an old man at 30- you just had some dead siblings who didn't make it to 4.
Re:Let me get this straight: (Score:5, Informative)
We're now not supposed to eat meat of any kind
If you want to misrepresent what was said, that's your prerogative. The WHO didn't recommend not eating meat, only not to eat processed/smoked meats, and to limit red meat. As usual, the concept of moderation goes *woosh* over people's heads as they furiously go about constructing their strawmen ..
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Let me get this straight: (Score:4, Insightful)
What you are describing is not "moderation", especially the part that includes "not to eat".
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Let me get this straight: (Score:5, Insightful)
As usual, the concept of moderation goes *woosh* over people's heads as they furiously go about constructing their strawmen.
Except these stories never seem to focus on moderation. They focus on "cutting". You can't cut everything, you will starve. However, it seems our society has rejected moderation as something viable. [huffingtonpost.com]
My personal opinion is, eating will kill you. Not eating will kill you faster. We're all going to die at some point. Eat just enough of whatever you want so you don't starve. Don't eat more than that.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I get it. All of this is confusing.
How about we don't get caught up in food trends?
The link between processed meat and cancer has been known for almost 100 years. One of the first two things the FDA did was regulate nitrates in sausage and ban sarsaparilla. We can be pretty confident that both of those things will kill you.
Alcohol? We banned that for nearly a decade because of rampant alcohol abuse and death.
Sugar? Fat? Red Meat? Who knows at this point. Don't worry about it too much.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I heard a segment on America's Test Kitchen who presented a general summary of his research that essentially said that the people with the longest lifespan tend to have the lowest lifetime caloric intake. He noted clearly there is a cut off point to the benefits of eating less, but eating less of everything over a lifetime is indeed a positive as long as you aren't starving your cells of what they need. At this point, I've forgotten the author, so you can take it with a grain of salt if you don't mind risking your heart health with an increase in your sodium intake...
This is the most sensible, and rational thought on nutrition I have ever heard. It's basically what I said above. Eat just enough of whatever you want to keep you alive, and nothing more.
Re: (Score:2)
This actually doesn't hold as well for humans as it does for mice - overall, humans tend to live longer if they're moderately overweight. This - http://healthland.time.com/201... [time.com] - is kind of a fluffy article, but it's a good summary of the research.
Nothing in diet/health is simple (despite 95% of the comments in this thread saying that "it's obviously X").
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Excessive sodium is completely harmless, provided it comes with the requisite fluids.
Too little sodium is however quite deadly. Only control for sodium if you are in fact suffering from hyper tension. Otherwise err on the side of more rather than less sodium in your diet.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I know, allergies right?
Relevant PSA: (Score:2)
We've already known this for over 40 years. (Score:5, Interesting)
For over a decade now, Dr. Eades clinic has done years of diet research with their patients and have been able to reduce and even eliminate in many cases Type II diabetes with mere diet change. (tl;dr; paleo-ish). They've done bloodwork on thousands of patients and have shown that in as little as two weeks and even sometimes less, switching to their recommended diet allowed nearly all blood markers to return to within normal, healthy ranges, including cholesterol.
Yudkin's book "Pure, White, and Deadly" was published in 1972 advising from the then already-currently-known-studies how dangerous sugar was in the human diet--and this was *before* sugar consumption in the West increased 5-10-fold, and before the advent of the even-worse HFCS experiment on the entire population began.
The body is a remarkably self-regulating and healing machine. It's amazing we can survive for as long as we do with continued toxin intake (and even the chronic effects for the vast majority are manageable)--and yet not surprising to me in the least that the body can return itself to a much healthier state so quickly after the toxins cease to be ingested. Our bodies want, really badly, to regulate into a healthy state.
Getting people to understand that our modern diet consists of slowly poisoning ourselves is the real battle to fight.
Re: (Score:3)
The news here isn't that it is a new revelation which it is not. The news here is that this is mainstream media publicity. It means that something will be done. Of course the first thing something will be the sugar lobby maligning the study and spinning it every direction. If the sugar lobby is successful this will be forgotten and never brought up again. If the sugar lobby fails then several things may happen. Such as public support for sugar subsidies could finally fall. Processed foods could reduce sugar
Thanks for the Diabetes. (Score:5, Informative)
Can confirm. Have dropped 90 percent of sugar & carbohydrates (Grains, Rice, Potatoes) from my diet, as a result of having been diagnosed with Type II Diabetes. Too late to recover Pancreas, however attendant diseases (Eye damage, kidney damage, Gout & arthritis are no longer giving me grief. I am down to one cold or less per Canadian winter, and my weight drops about a kg (2.2 lb) per month. Almost down to normal BMI.
Yes, it is also a genetic predisposition, but if I had known what not to eat 40 years ago, I might still have a pancreas.
Time to revise the food guide. Grain & Cane are not food for people.
You missed the point (Score:5, Insightful)
The point is that for at least 3 generations we were taught that Starches and sugars were not just healthy, but necessary in larger quantities. Average people didn't just make this shit up, it was taught in schools at the insistence of Governments (which we could argue is at the behest of large corporations, but that is a different discussion).
You should try less to look like a self righteous prick and much harder to comprehend a few sentences of text.
Re: You missed the point (Score:3)
Who was taught to ingest sugar in large quantities?
The only ones who taught that were Coke and other ads. Not schools. Not government.
Re: (Score:3)
I can point out so many cultures that primarily consumes a grain-based staple diet with long expectancy. I challenge you to provide me with example of a culture / subculture that lives to above-average life expectancy with low health problem that is heavily based on a meat-based diet.
Denmark has the highest meat consumption rate in the world -- some 17% higher per capita than the US -- and has a life expectancy at birth of 80 years which puts it in the top quintile. New Zealanders are the second biggest carnivores in the world, eating only 3 kg per capita less meat than Danes, and boast a life expectancy of 83 years. But of course they're both very wealthy countries (thus the high meat consumption) with socialized medicine.
No the problem with the obesity epidemic in the US isn't carb
Eliminating sugar makes you angry (Score:5, Interesting)
I gave up sugar and I became very angry as I went through what can only be described as withdrawal symptoms. Eventually I started eating again after a few months. I noticed almost everything we eat is super sweet. Fruit tastes like candy and soda was not palatable. Health benefits was everything mentioned except LDL which stayed high. Still a fun experiment.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Had a similar, but not too similar experience when dropping sugar.
I aimed for 28 days without carbs unless I was working out, but only made it 17 before I couldn't handle it anymore. I was not lethargic or moody or angry, though it pissed me off when at lunch I was eating home-cooked chicken (no seasoning, yumm) and I could smell pizza being brought into the building over 100 feet away. It was so overwhelming I could name the toppings without looking. I'm not talking whole pizza's either, nobody else could
Define Sugar... (Score:2)
If you cut them all, what would you eat? Meat causes cancer. [npr.org] Where would you get the calories necessary to survive?
Seems to me we have spent thousands of years to come to the same conclusions as the ancient Greeks. [wikipedia.org] "Nothing to Excess."
Eat less sugar, be more healthy (Score:2)
Film at eleven.
What's remarkable is that we actually need to be told this.
cutting sugar (Score:2)
I made a real effort this past summer to cut out sugar. For about three weeks I wasn't taking in white sugar. I was still eating some carbs like white flour but much reduced. I wasn't eating canned or premade grocery store food. My intake consisted of eggs from our chickens, beef (hamburgers mostly), chicken (although fried with white flour), popcorn (no white flour crackers and no candy of course) and protein shakes that had 1 or 2g of carbs per. (sugar...)
I even stopped drinking diet pop and went with
Small Details Matter - Consider the study group. (Score:5, Insightful)
"reducing sugar intake in obese children"
Small Details Matter - Consider the study group. They started out with abnormal people, the obese. Sugars are a normal part of our diet. The problem is not sugars but overconsumption.
Re: (Score:2)
Selecting only for sugar, regardless of calorie intake, makes for a massive shift in health indicators.
Humans simply have not evolved to handle the amount of sugar that is available in our diets today. Modern diets and processed foods, even honey and fresh juices, just have far more bio-available sugars that can be metabolized for an extended period of time. Add fat to the sugar it because a deadly combo so controlling for fat will extend the amount of time you can maintain a high sugar diet. Kill the sugar
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: And said type 2 diabetics everywhere... (Score:2)
Does the Pope shit in the woods?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What other country in history has "poor" who can afford to be FAT?
Well, off the top of my head, Brazil.
Re: (Score:2)
Mexico, for one. But on a more serious note, during the Thirty Years War in the early 17th century, when all the great powers of Europe were carving up Germany like a Christmas goose, and many of the foreigners not used to the so-called "German diet" blew up like houses. Most notable was Gustavus Adolphus, King of Sweden, who grew so fat in just a few years that his horse couldn't outrun Catholic cavalry, and was killed. Today, mid-western Americans of Swedish descent carry on the proud tradition of dying o
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Never had Mexican fruit-flavored soda? I'm pretty sure you could dunk a string of twine in one and pull out rock candy.
Wow (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Pizza is a vegetable was a Republican spending bill:
"On November 14th, 2011, the Associated Press[15] reported that U.S. House Republicans put forth a spending bill that would bar the USDA from changing its nutritional guidelines for school lunches, which would’ve required more green vegetables and set a higher qualification for tomato paste to be counted as vegetables from 2 tablespoons to a a half-cup. The article also revealed that part of the spending bill would protect the status of tomato paste
Re: (Score:2)
In other words, Republicans were protecting the sacred, time-honored tradition of shitty cafeteria pizza. You can have my cardboard pizza when you pry it from my cold, dead hands.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't understand why school cafeterias are so pervasive in the united states. In Canada, none of the primary schools (grades K-8) even have cafeterias in them. Parents make a lunch and send it with their kids. In highschools, there's usually cafeterias, but most students I know will still bring their own lunch as it's usually cheaper, tastes better, and is also more healthy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No.
Re:School Lunch (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
I think it would be too hard to tax sugar because it exists in so much of the food we eat. Orange juice contains almost as much sugar as soft drinks. Would be be taxing orange juice the same as soft drinks? How would bulk bags of sugar be taxed? If you buy it for baking, but only use it sparingly, you aren't really doing much harm to your body. But if you use it to make cookies or cakes or something with a large amount of sugar per serving, then you are going to have health problems.
Re:and so therefore? (Score:5, Insightful)
...or they could just stop subsidizing sugar production.
Re: (Score:2)
...or they could just stop subsidizing sugar production.
This is the smartest comment in the entire post so far. While we're at it lets stop subsidizing corn to create HFCS (and other idiocies like ethanol) as well...
No need for a tax when we can instead stop handing out freebies that are corrupting our diets instead.
There - something both progressives and libertarians can get behind.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Because look at all the tax money spent over the decades on initiatives to facilitate a better lifestyle by pointing out the dangers of drug use.
Everyone knows they're smarter than the experts and keep snorting, injecting, smoking and swallowing everything they can get their hands on.
Since that didn't work, the government implemented a tax to force people to hand over their money to private companies so all of the above people can keep doing what they're doing, secure in the knowledge they never have to cha
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, an excise tax on sugar makes a ton of sense.
As someone who has done a LCHF diet (and lost a lot of weight with it), it's astonishing how many foods you wouldn't assume have sugar in them in fact have sugar in them. Their makers add sugar because it's a cheap way to jack up flavor or replace fat (which would have provided flavor).
Making sugar more expensive at the producer/wholesale level would make these products more expensive and food producers would have to find another way to get the benefits
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Amazing the amount of stupid wrong statements that are made about over weight people. I know it is easy to think of the ages old "calories in - calories out" adage, but that has been proven wrong in so many studies it is not worth even talking about any more.
More important is WHAT you eat, not how much, and exciting recent studies that have been confirmed in numerous countries show that there is a direct relationship between bowl bacteria and weight gains/losses. The current theory is that there is a hormon
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's not possible for a person to eat 10000 calories of whole fruits in 1 day. Fruit has relatively low calorie density. 10000 calories is like 80 or 90 bananas or apples. It's impossible. This is why eating whole fruits and vegetables helps -- you get full on fewer calories.
If you eat only 500 calories of sugar a day and nothing else, you will also lose weight.
Re: (Score:3)
You are not exactly wrong, just slightly. 10 000 kcal of bananas is about 10 kg.
10 000 kcal is 25 litres of Coke, or 5 kg of avocados, or 4 kg of Big Macs.
None of those amounts are reasonable to consume.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, you are so wrong. The human body (and our microbial friends in our stomachs) are extremely good at digesting food. For any reasonable amount of food, KJ in = KJ stored + KJ expended.
It doesn't matter if it's fruit or Coke, you keep those calories. Plus, there is more energy in a banana than in the same weight of Coke.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Wow, you are so wrong. The human body (and our microbial friends in our stomachs) are extremely good at digesting food. For any reasonable amount of food, KJ in = KJ stored + KJ expended.
It doesn't matter if it's fruit or Coke, you keep those calories. Plus, there is more energy in a banana than in the same weight of Coke.
No you are wrong as well.
KJ food input = KJ stored + KJ expended (effort) + KJ expelled (urine + feces)
Gut microbe has a big impact on what consumed calories are absorbed by the body.
Re: (Score:3)
"KJ food input = KJ stored + KJ expended (effort) + KJ expelled (urine + feces)"
Technically correct. But kJ in urine means you have diabetes; kJ in feces in any form that can be processed by bacteria would give you tremendous intestonal upset. Think of people with lactose intolerance; because they don't digest/absorb milk sugar in the upper intestine, bacteria will do so in the lower intestine.
A more important difference is in the "kJ expended", which involves more than physical exercise. The digestion proc
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Meat is fairly low calorie. Wrong! Meat has the same amount of calories than carbs per weight.
You don't get fat eating meat. True, because proteins can not be converted into fat. However as most eat either contains fat or is cooked in/with fat, you might gain fat from that.
Likewise with nuts and dairy. Wrong!. Nuts contain lots of fat, eat to much and it gets stored in your fat cells.
You can drink as much milk and eat as much cheese as you want. Wrong! Cheese contains fat in noticeable amounts and sugar.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
1. research and fact checking costs money.
2. Fear sells. note. these are in no particular order.