• Guest - w'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the 2025 Survey »

Sugar v Fat

Daibell said:
So much guesswork and supposition.
Click to expand...

That's why I didn't watch it. I have never yet seen an unbiased program on any dietary method. I think rational thinking and programs about dietary regimes are probably mutually exclusive.
 
Andy12345 said:
well id say it was a message to the uninformed that we should eat lots of sugar
Click to expand...

I saw it as to avoid large amounts of sugar, large amounts of fat, and more importantly, to avoid processed foods that combine fat and sugar together.
I didn't really see any great bias, both diets were fairly equal, different good/bad points, but the killer was definitely processed foods.
 
I'm going to have a second bullet proof coffee tommorow with extra butter and raise a glass(Or cup as it were) as this programs contents bears no resemblance to any low carber I know-Zero carb??? So **** I just HAD to laugh!!
 
lol douglas, if it had said or suggested low carb as positive we would have 50 studies posted by you by now, i saw it as negative towards low carb diets therefore it dosent surprise me that you liked it, no more than it should surprise you that i didnt
 
I thought it was really unscientific. We didn't know the relative fitness level of the twins and we had no HbA1c baseline to judge their pre-diet ability to metabolize glucose.

The only real conclusion was that a high carb high fat diet is bad for you - well, I think we all knew that.

As for our bodies producing more insulin in response to high carb - mine wouldn't, that's the problem!

Smidge
 
Andy12345 said:
if i can ignore my doctor, ignoring bbc2 is easy

whats the fancination with eddie doug? are you on a promotional tour for hes blog? id better go have a look then if you reckon its good
Click to expand...

Sadly, they seem to have put his muzzle on, and kept him on a short lead tonight.
Ah well.
 
Thommothebear said:
Interesting program, but I would have preferred it if they used more realistic diets such as low carb rather than zero carb. I'm not convinced it was terribly meaningful really, for either of them.
Click to expand...

I did zero carb back in the 1980s. From memory it was just for weight loss and consisted of 3 sessions of ten days on ten days off. It was awful but it worked.

It's a shame they didn't find triplets and have one do a more balanced but low calorie diet.

"I've been a practicing doctor for ten years and I never knew that the combination of fat and sugar was causing so much harm". What an admission to make on TV. He obviously led a sheltered life, never going to the fairground or eating pies at soccer matches, never indulged in real ale followed by sweet and sour chicken take aways. My dictionary claims the first use of the term Comfort Food was back in 1977.
 
Who and what is Eddie and or dr Bob?

The prog was like their donuts half sugar half fat designed to be addicive and full of empty info.
 
I thought it was interesting in that it showed what I've always thought to be true, neither extreme is going to be good for you and a balance diet rich in a variety of foods as unprocessed as possible is likely to be the best long term - which seems to be not too far from the Mediterranean diet.

I think there's a load of bunk circulating on all these diets, like the Paleo insistence on no veggies - really? When paleo/archaeological evidence shows that our ancestors were clearly eating a variety of starchy roots, fruits, and wild grains. WHat they were not doing was processing the hell out of them.

The zero carb one was interesting for me as back in the pre-diagnosis days, I was heavily training for endurance, which involves depleting glycogen reserves to trigger yourself into fat buring mode, typically after about 90 mins of a run. The problem then is that to keep performing reasonably, you need a bit of circulating glucose along with the fat burning, soemthing to do with both mechanisms supporting each other. And you know what, this is exactly what I found, that I could go 90 mins easy with no carbs, between 90-120 depending on effortt level I'd start to struggle, much more than 2hrs would get very difficult. Conclusion - get a mixed diet.

I think the most useful part of this show (as in an entertainment show) was the last ten minutes with the sugar/fat combinations.

And who is Eddie anyway?
 
@brian, I think you're right about teh modern bread "chorleywood process" using cheap flour, milled to death making it much lower GI and then the rapid processing time to get as much produced as quickly as possible. If you look at GI charts, traditionally made sour dough has a lower GI, something to do with the fermentation.

Funny how I've always preferred home made cakes to shop bought, they alway seem too sweet and synthetic - maybe I have trained out my response to that fat+sugar combo
 
Well im not giving up low carbing. My memory was **** for many years before id even heard of low carb. so I think their theory doesnt work.
 
Those in fear of getting type 2 will be concerned about going low carb now....their pancreas may pack in altogether..!!!! Sorry what a load of tosh that 'experiment' that was. High carb low fat, will keep the body producing insulin if it's faltering....Lord give me strength.


Sent from the Diabetes Forum App
 
I think the only thing that "experiment" showed was that either extreme of diet is not good for you

If you choose to take away "high carb is good" then I think you weren't watching very closely as the message came through very strongly that this is not the case. I think the message also came through very strongly that we do not fully understand yet exactly how insulin acts in a consistently high carb diet over a long period of time.


I also caught a channel 4 "health" programmme a while ago with a "fruitarian" on it, and the dietician told him in no uncertatin terms that he had nowhere near enough fat or protein in his diet and that he was likely to end up with health problems in the future including potentially diabetes as his insulin response was likely to go out of control with a diet predominantly coming from sugars.
 


There is quite a difference in the makeup of Inuits compared to our own. They have a highly evolved physiology that makes them suited to life in the Artic.
1. A compact build that conserves warmth.
2. A faster metabolism.
3. Optimally distributed body fat.
4. Special modifications to their circulatory system.

There are some interesting facts about the Inuits in these two articles.

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/83/why-do-eskimo-people-stay-there

http://www.straightdope.com/columns...-only-meat-and-fish-why-didnt-they-get-scurvy

Here is one about the author of the articles.

http://www.nndb.com/people/399/000026321/
 

Thanks Catherine interesting stuff as always!

Sent from the Diabetes Forum App
 
Brian_H said:
I remember in the 60's, as a kid, bottles of lemonade and bars of chocolate were available in shops, but not to the extent that they are now, and there was never any chocolate or lemonade in the house.
Click to expand...

We had a 'Tuck Shop' in our school with everything from boiled sweets to Mars bars. There was a bar called Aztec in those days too. In addition, fruit buns with icing sugar were on sale during morning break. Mind you PE and Games enforced a lot of physical exercise and most of us played soccer during the lunch hour and the school ran a house system with separate soccer, rugby, cross country and hockey leagues for each year.

Most of that land is sold off now for housing developments.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn More.…