Sugar can make you dumb!

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/sugar-dumb-...190918006.html

Nota bene: This may help to explain how Trader and James became so
damn stupid.

--
Dogman

"I have approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty
about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything" - Richard Feynman

On 5/16/2012 1:39 PM, Dogman wrote:

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/sugar-dumb-...190918006.html

Nota bene: This may help to explain how Trader and James became so
damn stupid.

Being a poster to this group should clue you in to the
fact that I am on a Low Carb diet, avoiding sugar in
particular. Do you really need to clutch at straws and hurl
irrelevant insults? Are you out of arguments?

On Wed, 16 May 2012 15:51:21 -0300, James Warren
wrote:

On 5/16/2012 1:39 PM, Dogman wrote:

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/sugar-dumb-...190918006.html

Nota bene: This may help to explain how Trader and James became so
damn stupid.

Being a poster to this group should clue you in to the
fact that I am on a Low Carb diet, avoiding sugar in
particular. Do you really need to clutch at straws and hurl
irrelevant insults? Are you out of arguments?

Once a certain amount of damage is done, it may be that it's
impossible to totally recover.

You seem to be a good example of that.

--
Dogman

"I have approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty
about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything" - Richard Feynman

On 5/16/2012 4:20 PM, Dogman wrote:
On Wed, 16 May 2012 15:51:21 -0300, James Warren
wrote:

On 5/16/2012 1:39 PM, Dogman wrote:

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/sugar-dumb-...190918006.html

Nota bene: This may help to explain how Trader and James became so
damn stupid.

Being a poster to this group should clue you in to the
fact that I am on a Low Carb diet, avoiding sugar in
particular. Do you really need to clutch at straws and hurl
irrelevant insults? Are you out of arguments?

Once a certain amount of damage is done, it may be that it's
impossible to totally recover.

It may be? Do you have evidence for that?


You seem to be a good example of that.

And you have no way of knowing, do you?

On Wed, 16 May 2012 16:47:47 -0300, James Warren
wrote:

[...]
Once a certain amount of damage is done, it may be that it's
impossible to totally recover.

It may be? Do you have evidence for that?

Yes. You & Trader.

You seem to be a good example of that.

And you have no way of knowing, do you?

Call it a hunch.

--
Dogman

"I have approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty
about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything" - Richard Feynman

On 16/05/2012 5:07 PM, Dogman wrote:
On Wed, 16 May 2012 16:47:47 -0300, James Warren
wrote:

[...]
Once a certain amount of damage is done, it may be that it's
impossible to totally recover.

It may be? Do you have evidence for that?

Yes. You& Trader.

What other conspiracies do you subscribe to? Was the moon landing faked?
Does the Illuminati run the world?


You seem to be a good example of that.

And you have no way of knowing, do you?

Call it a hunch.

How about a wild stab in the dark?

On 2012-05-16 11:39:44 -0500, Dogman said:

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/sugar-dumb-...190918006.html

snip

Interesting article. I'll assume you posted the article to prompt
discussion, rather than to flame two other posters :-)

I will say that I found the conclusions flawed. First, I would have had
further control groups: One who also got the flax seed oil/DHA but NO
high fructose corn syrup. If the two groups that got the omega-3
suppliments did comparable, we could surmise that it was that the
supplement that helped them do better, rather than the HFCS that made
their group do badly.

Also, I would have liked to have seen a group get a sucrose solution to
compare that to the HFCS. I'd love to see further scientific evidence
to help shut up those ads about how HFCS is "just sugar", and is
actually good for you.
--
Bill
"Wise Fool" -- Gandalf, _The Two Towers_
(The Wise will remove 'se' to reach me. The Foolish will not)

Bill O'Meally wrote:
Dogman cited:

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/sugar-dumb-...190918006.html

Interesting article. I'll assume you posted the article to prompt
discussion, rather than to flame two other posters :-)

When I read the article I thought it was a flame by scientists who
conducted the experiment, goot too little result to really mean
anything, flamed as their article.

Also, I would have liked to have seen a group get a sucrose solution to
compare that to the HFCS. I'd love to see further scientific evidence
to help shut up those ads about how HFCS is "just sugar", and is
actually good for you.

There are studies where groups of rats are fed the same number of
calories of different types of sugars. The groups that get more
fructose do gain more weight than the groups that get more glucose. The
effect by type of sugar is tiny compared to eating too much sugar of
any sort.

Eat far less sugar and it stops mattering what type. The fact that
fruits that have sugar in them are beneficial to people who have never
gotten fat in the first place teaches us that fructose or any other type
of sugar is not evil in an of itself. When overused it becomes toxic.
But once overused it stays toxic at even small doses and that's why
those of us who are natural low carbers need to keep any sugar intake
low.

On 2012-05-18 20:37:41 -0500, Dogman said:

On Fri, 18 May 2012 20:17:17 -0500, Bill O'Meally
wrote:

I'd love to see further scientific evidence
to help shut up those ads about how HFCS is "just sugar", and is
actually good for you.

I think Dr. Lustig (among others) does a good job of setting the
record straight regarding HFCS, fructose/sugar, etc. Ever seen his
videos? Read his papers? I think most people are getting the message.
The rest don't seem to care, and they have a right to eat what they
want, IMO. It's their lives.

Thanks for the lead Dogman. Here's an article by Taubes on Lustig I
found (long). He suggests, among other things, that there is no
difference in the toxicity between HFCS and sucrose due to the fructose
component, but that starches are actually OK due to their lack of
fructose. Still, I'm not about to go eat a potato!

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/ma...pagewanted=all

--
Bill
"Wise Fool" -- Gandalf, _The Two Towers_
(The Wise will remove 'se' to reach me. The Foolish will not)

On Sat, 19 May 2012 09:05:04 -0500, Bill O'Meally
wrote:

[...]
Thanks for the lead Dogman. Here's an article by Taubes on Lustig I
found (long). He suggests, among other things, that there is no
difference in the toxicity between HFCS and sucrose due to the fructose
component,

Since sugar (sucrose) is ~ 50% fructose...

but that starches are actually OK due to their lack of
fructose. Still, I'm not about to go eat a potato!

I think this is where it depends on the individual. Some people can
eat starches and do okay, others can't.

Generally, though, I think most people should restrict their starch
consumption, especially if they don't exercise regularly.

--
Dogman

"I have approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty
about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything" - Richard Feynman