Taubes Echos Dr. Lustig of UCSF, Calls Sugar A Poison; Also Posts His Lipid Panels

[TromboneAl]

Regarding Cholesterol:

The Blog of Michael R. Eades, M.D. » Low-carbohydrate diets increase LDL: debunking the myth

Sometimes I see the dietary guidelines as a progression.

In 1992, all fats were bad, and all grains were good:

But that changed. Now, some kinds of fats (olive oil, for example) are good for you, and some kinds of grains (white rice, for example) are bad for you.

If you ever think that the medical establishment and the government can't be wrong about this stuff, realize how big of a change that is.

I see that change to be a desperate attempt to resolve the conventional wisdom with actual data.

I see the next step, years down the road, as realizing that in fact all fat is good and all grains are bad.

An interesting thing concerning fat. A slice of bacon, which is thought to be so bad, has 3 g of total fat, 1 g of saturated fat, and 2 g of unsaturated fat. In other words much of the fat in bacon is the so-called healthy type.

Olive oil is 14% "unhealthy" saturated fat.

 

[haha]

Another article I found interesting, not really correlated to Taubes, but you might get something out of it although it was aimed at the body building community:

T NATION | 5 Ways to Improve Insulin Sensitivity

From the page you linked:

Fat loss is just simple arithmetic, right? Subtract x from y, and boom, instant 8-pack.
That sure would make the fat loss game a hell of a lot easier. And best of all, Weight Watchers Centers would be like strip clubs, with the "points/calorie counting" process automatically turning every desperate housewife into a pole dancing bikini babe.

They aren't?

Interesting page DFW.

Ha

 

[TromboneAl]

...turning every desperate housewife into a pole dancing bikini babe.

Hey, it worked for Sarah in SC (link here).

 

[haha]

Regarding Cholesterol:
But that changed. Now, some kinds of fats (olive oil, for example) are good for you, and some kinds of grains (white rice, for example) are bad for you.

If you ever think that the medical establishment and the government can't be wrong about this stuff, realize how big of a change that is.

I see that change to be a desperate attempt to resolve the conventional wisdom with actual data.

I see the next step, years down the road, as realizing that in fact all fat is good and all grains are bad.

An interesting thing concerning fat. A slice of bacon, which is thought to be so bad, has 3 g of total fat, 1 g of saturated fat, and 2 g of unsaturated fat. In other words much of the fat in bacon is the so-called healthy type.

Olive oil is 14% "unhealthy" saturated fat.

I think that this is correct, and unavoidable. I talk frequently with allegedly intelligent people, graduates of well regarded universities about various things, and overall, I would say that almost all of them consciously or unconsciously have similar attitudes to entire blocks of "information". Like politics where to one group "progressive" ideas are pretty much all good, and "conservative" ideas are pretty much all bad. In foods, many people use the adjective and noun "healthy grains" as if it were one information unit, "healthygrains". "Redmeat" is another information unit, the guy who eats these likely looks like Archie Bunker complete with the wife-beater tee and nasty attitudes. Another unit is transandsaturatedfats. Many people who use terms this way don't have the background to begin to understand what they are saying, (and for the most part don't care) but they are nevertheless influential, thanks to the way media works

One guy even got kind of testy with me when I was trying to figure out what if anything his attitudes were based on. He said, "Look, this is my experience. I listen to NPR, I read the New York Times, and I am not cynical so I trust these information sources. People who are always asking for facts and figures are just trying to derail progress.You know which tribe you belong to, you support that tribe." (Actually used the word tribe!) What got him going is I sent him some YouTube links of Swedish conservative thought, that contended that Swedish tax policy is very capital friendly, and not particularly progressive. He adores Sweden, but not this nasty Archie Bunker Sweden!

The only good friend I have other than my kids who does not do these kinds of emotional blanket categorizations is my philosopher friend from the building.

It seems to me that almost all of life is spin and the ability to persuade. Every knowledge area has become to a large extent a political arena.

Ha

 

[TromboneAl]

I am reminded of Martha's post about how arguments against someone's beliefs simply cause that person to hold even more strongly to his/her ideas.

There's an adaptive value to being resistant to new ideas. I remember a study on a colony of monkeys in which the young monkeys invented a way of washing their food. The older monkeys did not adopt it. The investigators theorized that if the entire troop embraced some new idea that turned out to be harmful, it would put the entire gene pool at risk. Better that some resisted the new idea.

And yet people do change their minds. I was very anti-Atkins just a few years ago.

 

[donheff]

I am reminded of Martha's post about how arguments against someone's beliefs simply cause that person to hold even more strongly to his/her ideas.

There's an adaptive value to being resistant to new ideas. I remember a study on a colony of monkeys in which the young monkeys invented a way of washing their food. The older monkeys did not adopt it. The investigators theorized that if the entire troop embraced some new idea that turned out to be harmful, it would put the entire gene pool at risk. Better that some resisted the new idea.

And yet people do change their minds. I was very anti-Atkins just a few years ago.

I think it is probably a good thing that we are resistant to new ideas. Otherwise we would be too vulnerable to glib hucksters. I think it applies to politics, finances, just about everything. It is particularly problematic in complex areas like diet, global warming and the like. I have been back and forth on some of those topics a few times and still can't figure out what is what. I try to keep an open mind but when not certain I am always happy to fall back on my "progressive" biases. Of course, one of my easy fall back biases is to agree with any evidence that supports eating more bacon, eggs, steak and sausage.

 

[eytonxav]

Not all sugar is equal. Refined/processed sugar is worse than "raw" forms of brown sugar and such, and HFCS is the trans fat of the sweetener world.

I still believe that anything we consider "edible" shouldn't be completely avoided if enjoying it enhances our enjoyment of life. Obviously, as with alcohol those who can't consume in moderation should stay away completely, but still...

Likewise, not all carbs are equal. Its the slow digesting carbs that you want to consume (eg sweet potato, brown rice, celery, etc) vs fast digesting ones that quickly turn to glucose (white rice, bread, most pastas , all the processed and high fructose stuff, etc). Also, don't consume more calories than you can burn off in a day, otherwise weight gain will result, and equally important is to make sure your calories have a proper macronutrient balance (protein/carbs/fat).

I believe many people struggle to get enough protein in their diets, while most tend to over do the carbs (especially the bad kind).

 

[TromboneAl]

Here's an excerpt from Rob Thompson's book:

Amazon.com: The Glycemic-Load Diet: A powerful new program for losing weight and reversing insulin resistance (9780071462693): Rob Thompson: Books

The Whole-Grain Myth. What about whole-wheat bread? Isn’t
that supposed to be good for you? Indeed, real whole-grain
bread—bread that contains whole kernels of grain—has more
vitamins, protein, and fiber than white bread. Unfortunately
though, when it comes to causing glucose shocks, a slice of
whole-grain bread is just as bad as—in fact, slightly worse than—
a slice of white bread.

Indeed, whole-grain bread breaks down to glucose slower
than white bread does, so its glycemic index is slightly lower.
However, those little kernels are packed with starch. Slice for
slice, whole-grain bread contains up to twice as much starch as
white bread. You simply get more food in a slice of whole-grain
bread. The glycemic load of whole-grain bread—which takes into
account the amount of carbohydrate in a typical serving—is actu-
ally higherthan that of white bread.

If you ate the same amount of carbohydrates in whole-grain
bread as you did in white bread, you would, in fact, modestly
reduce the size of the resulting glucose shock. But because whole-
grain bread simply contains more carbs per slice than white
bread, that would mean eating fewer or smaller slices. If you just
substitute whole-grain for white bread without reducing the size
or the number of the slices, you end up getting a larger glucose
shock and more calories to boot.

Here’s another problem with whole-grain bread. The modest
reductions in glycemic index (not load) that researchers have
reported for whole-grain breads are, in fact, for breads much
higher in kernel content than the ones you’re likely to find in a
grocery store. Kernels accounted for 80 percent of the weight of
the breads tested but make up less than 20 percent of most com-
mercially available whole-grain breads. Brown bread, rye bread,
and so-called whole-wheat (as opposed to whole-grain) bread
contain less than 5 percent kernels.

Why don’t supermarkets sell breads with higher kernel con-
tents? It’s a matter of palatability. Our ancestors learned thou-
sands of years ago that the husks of grains have to be removed
and the starchy cores pulverized to make them edible. A television
journalist recently asked an owner of a bread company why man-
ufacturers don’t market breads with higher kernel contents. The
company owner replied that people don’t want bread that tastes
like cardboard.

What about studies showing that people who eat whole-grain
bread are healthier than people who eat white bread? Whole-
grain consumption is a sign of someone who tries to live health-
ily. It doesn’t mean whole-grain bread does them any good.

The Fiber Factor. One reason whole-grain bread has a reputa-
tion for being healthful is that the husks of wheat kernels contain
insoluble fiber, an indigestible carbohydrate that helps prevent
constipation and other colon problems. Indeed, the diets of most
Americans and Europeans are grossly deficient in this nutrient.
However, there isn’t enough insoluble fiber in most whole-grain
breads to make much of a difference—certainly not enough to
make up for the glucose shocks you get.

 

[braumeister]

Refined/processed sugar is worse than "raw" forms of brown sugar

Sorry to seem dense, but this makes no sense to me. Can anyone give me a short answer as to why this might be so?

 

[unclemick]

I sense seeds of rebellion brewing - if not downright revolution.

To the barricades! Dryer sheets and Bacon Forever.

heh heh heh - don't fill me with doubt, I'm trying to get back on my Lean Cuisine/high fiber diet. .

 

[GregLee]

Can anyone give me a short answer as to why this might be so?

Brown is the color of dirt and we associate it with impurity, but impurities have valuable nutrients, we now know. Refining/bleaching that makes things white thus removes valuable nutrients, and so we infer that white foods are less nutritious. This is why it might be so.

 

[gindie]

Likewise, not all carbs are equal. Its the slow digesting carbs that you want to consume (eg sweet potato, brown rice, celery, etc) vs fast digesting ones that quickly turn to glucose (white rice, bread, most pastas , all the processed and high fructose stuff, etc).

From what I've recently read, while it is true that some carbs digest more slowly and therefore blood sugar doesn't spike as much, it's also the case that the necessary counteracting insulin excretion needs to happen over a longer period of time and may actually be larger in total, in some cases, than the short burst.

 

[donheff]

Brown is the color of dirt and we associate it with impurity, but impurities have valuable nutrients, we now know. Refining/bleaching that makes things white thus removes valuable nutrients, and so we infer that white foods are less nutritious. This is why it might be so.

Sounds like the rationale for whole grains just skewered above*. What about the sucrose load -- the same or less?

* Thanks T-Al, that just reassured me that my preference for french baguettes and semolina pasta is no worse than multigrain loafs and awful pseudo pastas. Unfortunately they are all still bad.

 

[eytonxav]

Here is a video on the Glycemic Index which explains that while it is an important aspect of nutrition, it can be used out of context.

The Glymic Index, Facts vs Fiction

 

[eytonxav]

From what I've recently read, while it is true that some carbs digest more slowly and therefore blood sugar doesn't spike as much, it's also the case that the necessary counteracting insulin excretion needs to happen over a longer period of time and may actually be larger in total, in some cases, than the short burst.

Gindie,

I am not clear on what you are trying to say. Are you suggesting that a spike in insulin is OK because the net amount of insulin realized is less than a slow release over time and therefore its OK to consume processed/fast digesting carbs? From my understanding a slow release of insulin is what one would want and that would correlate with using slow digesting natural carbs.

 

[gindie]

Gindie,

I am not clear on what you are trying to say. Are you suggesting that a spike in insulin is OK because the net amount of insulin realized is less than a slow release over time and therefore its OK to consume processed/fast digesting carbs? From my understanding a slow release of insulin is what one would want and that would correlate with using slow digesting natural carbs.

Not really, and I wish I could remember the source of what I mentioned above (I read tons of stuff on this subject).

The point of my previous post was not to imply that the fast-acting might be better in some cases, but rather that the slow acting might not be as "good" as has been claimed in the past.

 

[eytonxav]

Not really, and I wish I could remember the source of what I mentioned above (I read tons of stuff on this subject).

The point of my previous post was not to imply that the fast-acting might be better in some cases, but rather that the slow acting might not be as "good" as has been claimed in the past.

I have not heard that, however, I believe the end objective is to maintain as stable a blood sugar level as possible for which insulin plays a key role and its my understanding that the good carbs are best if you want to accomplish that. If your insulin/blood sugars are out of wack, that can also lead to creation of body fat and other health issues.

Maybe Rich can give us his opinion.

 

[haha]

I have not heard that, however, I believe the end objective is to maintain as stable a blood sugar level as possible for which insulin plays a key role and its my understanding that the good carbs are best if you want to accomplish that. If your insulin/blood sugars are out of wack, that can also lead to creation of body fat and other health issues.

This does seem to be true. However, "natural" does not equate to low GI, or perhaps even more inportant, to low glycemic load. As Al mentioned above, a slice of whole wheat bread will perturb one's blood sugar as much or more than slice of white bread. Also, few foods less processed than a potato, a carrot, or a banana. However all these have realatively high GI, and high G. load.

It seems like in so many other areas, one has to pay attention to the particulars, and not think in broad generalities.

Also, all these things are more important to someone with impaired glucose tolerance, and in fact GI index varies markedly from test subject to test subject. (See Jennie Brand Miller, MD on this)

Ha

 

[eytonxav]

This does seem to be true. However, "natural" does not equate to low GI, or perhaps even more inportant, to low glycemic load. As Al mentioned above, a slice of whole wheat bread will perturb one's blood sugar as much or more than slice of white bread. Also, few foods less processed than a potato, a carrot, or a banana. However all these have realatively high GI, and high G. load.

It seems like in so many other areas, one has to pay attention to the particulars, and not think in broad generalities.

Also, all these things are more important to someone with impaired glucose tolerance, and in fact GI index varies markedly from test subject to test subject. (See Jennie Brand Miller, MD on this)

Ha

Agree the GI is more critical to individuals who have impaired glucose sensitivity as it provides an indication of the insulin response when you eat it and its unquestionalby an important piece of the overall nutrition puzzle for everyone (did you see the video I posted on the GI?). However, you also have to keep in mind it has short comings. For example: i) the index is figured out in isolation (eg each food is tested alone to figure out its GI number and we normally do not eat foods in isolation); and ii) the GI of a food sometimes gives an incomplete picture of its impact on blood sugar. Although GL better accounts for the amount of carbs in a food vs GI, and fact that there is a direct relationship between GI and GL, it does not hold for all foods. For example, watermelon has a GI of 72 and a GL of only 4. Another food example that can be misleading is fructose, which has a reasonably low GI, but I'm sure you would agree that is not good for you.

Bottom line, eat good carbs (eg oatmeal, yams. sweet potatoe, beans, lentils, brown rice, vegetable, whole grains) and avoid/limit other not so good ones (eg white rice, pasta, white bread, instant oatmeal, fruit juices, processed cereals, candy).

 

[haha]

Bottom line, eat good carbs (eg oatmeal, yams. sweet potatoe, beans, lentils, brown rice, vegetable, whole grains) and avoid/limit other not so good ones (eg white rice, pasta, white bread, instant oatmeal, fruit juices, processed cereals, candy).

That is your bottom line, not the bottom line. I think we do not yet have a bottom line consensus.

Ha

 

[eytonxav]

Ha,

Here is another article that you might enjoy. Its pretty heady stuff coming from a body building type, but he is well regarded for cutting thru the Bro Science.
Elements Challenging the Validity of the Glycemic Index

 

[haha]

Ha,

Here is another article that you might enjoy. Its pretty heady stuff coming from a body building type, but he is well regarded for cutting thru the Bro Science.
Elements Challenging the Validity of the Glycemic Index

Thanks, DFW. Really interesting article. Even the ironheads are intellectuals now. This is so complicated that am moved back toward take it easy, stay away from the deep end if you can't swim.

It does show for sure that it likely will be a long time before anyone can make a definitive map of this.

Ha

 

[eytonxav]

It does show for sure that it likely will be a long time before anyone can make a definitive map of this.

Ha

Agree, so you were correct about there not being any definitive bottom line.

 

[FlowGirl]

Following this thread with interest. I'm not quite ready to jump on the Taube bandwagon - last checked my cholesterol numbers were HDL: 92, LDL: 56 (I assume that's good?) I eat a lot of oatmeal, beans, and seafood but very little processed wheat or sugar -dinner is usually a piece of fish with salad and veggies.

I have, however, been a fan of Dr. Lustig's video for almost a year and have reduced sugar significantly and even cut out a lot of fruit.

The hard part for me is trying to figure out what to feed my 4 year-old son. He's extremely active and at the top of the height charts but borderline underweight by BMI. He looks very healthy to me but it got a mention from the pediatrician and I wonder if they are so used to seeing obese kids now that a skinny one looks weird. He eats similar to us but with some bread for sandwiches. I try to avoid processed filler foods like cereal and crackers, and he's barely ever had juice, let alone soda. Loves cheese and olives and so I usually serve that for a snack. All of the advice these days about feeding kids is to counter obesity and we don't have that problem at all. OTOH he's only 4, growing fast, and burns a lot of energy so not sure low-carb is sound either.