General Poker Discussion Poker Forums

People get very emotional about this topic for some reason- its almost like politics at a certain point.

Totally agree.

This isn't true, but is often quoted as gospel by people. I don't know why it perpetuates as well as it does.

Link discussing these claims: http://www.marksdailyapple.com/artificial-sweeteners-insulin/

FWIW, Mark's Daily Apple is a GREAT resource on nutrition in general. n0whereman is a pretty smart guy too, worth listening to (or reading) on this stuff.

Rob

Thanks for that. I was relying on comments by Robb Wolf, who I generally regard as more up on the biochemical side of things than Mark Sisson, and in my quick Google search I found papers reporting mixed results, although I have nowhere near the expertise to analyze the strengths of any of them. Both Mark and Robb are excellent resources for anyone seeking understanding of evolutionary nutrition and fitness.

Eh, you have to be careful with this. Tons of MDs were educated on stuff from the 50s/60s that is pretty much bullshit now, and many of them never bother updating their knowledge from med school (CME be damned). Also you leave out PHDs from your list, many of whom are doing the research that the MDs spout off to their patients (I am not one of those PHDs that you should necessarily listen to, fwiw).

+1
Also, most MD's have very little education in nutrition. You would think that registered dietitians would have good info, but again the tendency is to rely on conventional wisdom and ignore evolutionary nutrition and biochemical pathways. This leaves it up to us to sort through the hype and misinformation to find the most appropriate diet/lifestyle. In my experience, I look, feel, and perform best when I base my diet on lots of colorful veggies and pastured/grass fed/wild meats, stay grain and legume free, and limit dairy and sugar.

As for myself, I'm a microstakes player posting in a high stakes thread. Do your own research, it's your health, after all.

Thanks for that. I was relying on comments by Robb Wolf, who I generally regard as more up on the biochemical side of things than Mark Sisson, and in my quick Google search I found papers reporting mixed results, although I have nowhere near the expertise to analyze the strengths of any of them. Both Mark and Robb are excellent resources for anyone seeking understanding of evolutionary nutrition and fitness.

From my perspective (type-1 diabetic, produces no insulin, tests blood glucose levels religiously), I can actually observe a lot of the results directly, albeit with a n=1 sample size. It's one of my pet peeves so I had to jump on it.

I've seen references to some of the studies that Wolf commonly cites, but haven't seen any discussion of its link to increased insulin production or glucose spikes.

For example, in recent widely publicized studies in rats, Susan E. Swithers, a psychologist at Purdue University, compared the results when animals were given either caloric sweeteners or saccharin with a regular, unrestricted diet. Those given saccharin gained more weight and more body fat because they overcompensated for the noncaloric sweetener, Dr. Swithers said in an interview. A possible reason, she suggested, is the failure of saccharin to raise the animals' core temperature as much as a caloric sweetener does.

''The experience of the sweet taste no longer has the expected consequences,'' Dr. Swithers said. ''We don't know if humans react in the same way because no one has tested this idea in humans.''

http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/subjects/s/sweeteners_artificial/index.html

FWIW, I'm far from a big supporter of artificial sweeteners, though I do use them occasionally (primarily in protein powders).

Rob

2fouroffsuit, this was the reply I got from my friend:

"" - A film/presentation about sugar: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM
- Fructose: http://www.greenmedinfo.com/toxic-ingredient/fructose (This website lists research articles showing the unhealthfulness of fructose
- 76 ways sugar harms your health (with references): http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2005/05/04/sugar-dangers-part-two.aspx
- All about insulin (4 part article): http://bodye.com/insulin1.htm
- Artificial sweeteners: http://www.westonaprice.org/modern-foods/sugar-free-blues

These are the articles that I have bookmarked. There's plenty more info out there if you do a search. Basically carbs/sugar can directly lead to most chronic diseases as well as advanced aging, while healthful fats and vegetables do the opposite. If you'd like info on why raw milk is much more healthful than pasteurized milk, let me know. ""

I just finished watching the video and I thought it was very interesting and well presented (I have taken biochemistry, and that part of the lecture was interesting). The articles are kinda blah....though

iluv68 - check out the article I posted earlier in the thread. You might like the science in that one too (although he argues against most of what you talk about), and he does a good job of laying things out in a not-too-boring manner.

ok n0whereman, I will check it out. I was interested and dieting two years ago (for weight gain) and started learning nutrition but got "lazy". Now I have a girlfriend who is very health conscious and have been wanting to learn more about all types of food - not limited to sugar. I will have to read this in chunks as well. Now it's time for bed though. See how this thread is in the morning.

My recommendation has always been essentially this: There's no need to eat chocolate coated sugar bombs for every meal - If you keep most of your food to non-processed stuff (eg meat veggies fruits nuts dairy and some rice/beans etc) you'll be just fine. That said, feel free to live your life and not worry about a meal (or 10) killing you. If you like a teaspoon of sugar in your coffee, go for it. If you want a big slice of cheesecake once a week, make it the best cheesecake ever. If chocolate coated sugar bombs happen to be your cereal of choice, have a huge bowl once in a while. I don't think the delivery vehicle of the sweetener (ie sugar vs honey vs whatever) is really that important.

I like this advice. He's a bit older (mid fifties) and eats out all the time so the difference between sweet-n-low in his coffee or honey in his coffee is probably minimal considering the rest of his diet. He's started getting away from white bread, white rice, flour tortillas, etc... and that's probably a good enough place to start.

So I stayed up a little longer and briefly read over the article. He was not actually debunking what the guy in my video was stating, but rather Taubes.
The guy in my video was primarily saying fructose is the "poison" not carbohydrates, and yes fructose is a carbohydrate but not all carbohydrates are fructose. He mentions that glucose is essential (within certain limits of course), and mentions insulin but not carbohydrates cause fat accumulation increasing insulin.
The topic of the lecture was fructose, and in the article you had posted, the blogger didn't mention to any degree of depth fructose.
But any more articles I would still be interested in reading. I am not too biased yet as I seriously just started getting back into nutrition, and I think when I change my diet it will have to be after learning new nutrition concepts

In general meat fruit vegetables > processed foods like bread etc.

He mentions that glucose is essential ...

Someone correct me, but I was under the impression that glucose was not essential, that if the body is keto-adapted, it can generate enough glucose to meet the brain's needs through gluconeogenesis. I think this is why people can live on a zero carb diet.

TBH I think this would be a fantastic idea and I am fully behind it. We have a ton of threads that come up like this all the time.

yeah a poker lifestyle (sub)forum might be great to collect all the mental/physical aspects that comes with playing poker

I like this advice. He's a bit older (mid fifties) and eats out all the time so the difference between sweet-n-low in his coffee or honey in his coffee is probably minimal considering the rest of his diet. He's started getting away from white bread, white rice, flour tortillas, etc... and that's probably a good enough place to start.

I'm sure n0whereman will reply properly but the generally accepted advice of eating brown rice, brown bread etc being better than white isn't necessarily true. All bread is bad and white rice is actually not that bad, whereas brown rice is not good at all. Brown rice, as you probably know, is the rice kernel and husk. The husk actually contains phytic acid (phytates) that bind to the nutrients and prevent them from actually being absorbed - something humans can't break down. There is also a question about the fibre provided by grain husks and what it does to your intestines but probably not worth talking about in detail!

Here's a link discussing rice Rice

With your actual initial question, when I need to sweeten something I use honey where practical - simple reason being that it has many health benefits of its own (some proven, some not - so, worst case, probably the lesser of any evils in my book ).

Someone correct me, but I was under the impression that glucose was not essential, that if the body is keto-adapted, it can generate enough glucose to meet the brain's needs through gluconeogenesis. I think this is why people can live on a zero carb diet.

I should not have used the essential. I can't remember how he words it, but your body metabolizes it to create energy. Doesn't gluconeogenesis inherently utilize glucose?

"The notion that glucose is essential is not really true because like you said we can, through gluconeogenesis, produce a little glucose from amino acids. However, our organs which we once thought could only run on glucose can actually run on ketones, which are produced from fat, particularly when glycogen stores are low.

Concerning fructose versus glucose, fructose is particularly harmful to your health, but carbs in general lead to insulin response, inflammation, and oxidative stress, which are the primary reasons of aging. Perhaps you've heard of "calorie restriction" and the idea that eating about 70% of your daily required calories leads to longevity, but the true reason why it works is because of carb restriction (this is discussed in the insulin article).

Go easy on the fruit "