Just posted the following to an interview with Robert Lustig...wonder if the interviewer will ask the question ;) Carbohydrates and insulin are being demonised in the same way that saturated fat has been demonised in the past. People, you included, are taking selective studies and reading lots into them that arent there, including finding conclusions that arent represented by the results. For example, sugar is NOT addictive, there is a difference between needing and the unified process of wanting and liking, which create addictive like behaviours. A fine distinction, yet a distinction nonetheless. Sugar is sucrose, which is just glucose and fructose together. Same as in fruit. Should we also demonise fruit? After all, fruit isnt that nutritionally dense, and while it does contain fibre that slows down the insulin rise, there is still a healthy dollop of the same things that sugar gets broken down into for absorption by the body - glucose and sucrose? While we are at it, insulin response is demonised too, while it shouldnt be in the slightest. It carries out a very important function in our bodies. Carbohydrates do not make us fat. Sugar does not cause insulin resistance and diabetes. Sugar does not deplete nutrients. You put forward anecdote and conclusions not supported by meta and systematic review in respect to sugar and cancer and other such myths. Because that is what they are, myths. Sugar does not cause or feed cancer, any more than any other absorbed carbohydrate. I know that you can pull individual studies out and put a spin on it, however, the points made are irrefutable by current scientific knowledge. I would therefore suggest that you are putting a spin on things in order to shift product for profit, rather than actually identifying a more productive route - removing the excess that most people put in front of sugar? Should put the cat amongst the pigeons?
Posted on: Mon, 29 Sep 2014 17:08:21 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015