Sugar is Toxic?

[stevea]

Sucrose, or table sugar, does not occur in nature

False, Ignorant - to such an extent that I have no response, except to load up my ignore list.

 

[bigred]

This one's new to me.
Could you point out to me where to find out more?

As I mentioned before, I don't have links offhand, sorry. That's what I get for not bookmarking. Again it is I think mostly a theory and quite unproven but I thought there were some studies done suggesting its validity at least...I'll keep digging and let you know if I find.

 

[bigred]

I have been on internet forums for several years now and have argued hard & mean, discussed nice & polite and everything in between. I personally always felt worse after a bitter, hateful exchange. Not only that, I never noticed a lot of success when I did so. At best, I felt like it was simply shouting someone down. I see no value in that.

So I'm not the only one who gave up long ago on the "Religion and Philosophy" forum then? Nice to hear.

 

[John Albert]

"First, hepatic fructose metabolism is similar to ethanol, as they both serve as substrates for de novo lipogenesis, and in the process both promote hepatic insulin resistance, dyslipidemia, and hepatic steatosis. Second, fructosylation of proteins with resultant superoxide formation can result in hepatic inflammation similar to acetaldehyde, an intermediary metabolite of ethanol."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20800122

I don't think you read that correctly. He is attempting to propose that the problem of fructose ingestion be treated like the problem of alcohol abuse. The parallels he is drawing between ethanol and fructose are very broad and non-specific.

Yes, he certainly makes that general comparison, but he flatly states that part of the pathway of fructose metabolism in the liver produces some of the same effects of alcohol metabolism, and can contribute to fatty liver disease.

He is referring to gluconeogenesis. This is the final common pathway for any substances which can be converted to glucose. It's meaningless to draw any parallels on that basis.

OK, here's a Google Docs link to the paper whose abstract I'd originally quoted from the PubMed page. (That quote is the first excerpt, above.) This paper was originally published in the Journal of the American Dietetic Association.

If you read it, you'll see that Dr. Lustig starts off his analysis describing the pathway for the metabolism of fructose in the liver, highlighting what he calls the "unique aspects of hepatic fructose metabolism." He explains in great detail how the metabolism of fructose differs from that of glucose. He also explains the pathway by which ethanol is metabolized in the liver. He goes on to illustrate how fructose causes similar effects as alcohol on cholesterol and triglyceride levels, insulin resistance, liver inflammation, and production of fat within liver tissue, and also shows its suppressive effect on leptin.

After that, he proceeds to make his case about fructose having similar effects as alcohol on what he calls the "hedonic pathway" (dopamine levels and all that "feel good" -type stuff), but the first part of the discussion is specifically about the biochemistry of fructose metabolism in the liver.

Attached below are the illustrations he uses in the paper to describe these processes.

Now I'm no biochemist, so I had to gloss over the details of that discussion because reading it made my head hurt. I'm obviously not qualified to make an informed decision about the veracity of these claims, so I'm putting this out there for anyone to see. Hopefully yourself or somebody else with the proper background will step up and add their expertise to the subject.


So yeah, my "similar metabolic pathway to ethanol" statement was incorrect in a strict sense, though there are a few similarities according to this particular study. Thanks, fls, for pointing that out, because it led me to further investigation and clarification of the subject.

My citation of this paper isn't intended as an appeal to authority, only an attempt to show the source of my information regarding fructose metabolism. I hope this is sufficient to assuage your concerns about any misinformation I may have unintentionally introduced to the discussion. As I said in a previous post, My intention is not to spread disinformation or shill for any particular political or ideological group, only the honest pursuit of accurate knowledge on the subject.

 

[tesscaline]

That would be it, but I have to disagree that it is passively aggressive. IMO, it is just plain old aggressive.

My problem is that I do not understand the impulse to act so ugly on such a non-offensive topic. I expect this sort of stuff in politics or religion, but sugar? really guys?

The salient points were addressed, there is no need to get personal about it.

So why do it?

I am attempting to gain a better understanding of why people behave this way. I really can't understand this one. So what if someone is saying something that is not correct? Does that mean they are lying or misinformed? Does that make them evil? Contemptable? What makes someone come back after 15 min.s to edit their post just to tell a person they are laughing at them?

I am sorry, and I do not mean to start a fracus or get anyone's ire up, but I just do not get it. I am hoping to hear a reasonable explanation for why this is acceptable behavior.

Thanks & regards, Canis

First: I edited the post because it occurred to me that the post I was responding to really could have been intended as a joke post. That has happened on this forum more than once, where I responded seriously to an utterly absurd post, only to have it be explained to me after the fact that it was a post intended entirely in jest. I was, naively it seems, hoping that NurseDan was joking in some really twisted way that I didn't get (the Malus Domesticus thread in social issues is an example of "joking in some twisted way that I didn't get" -- thankfully someone had pointed out the joke before I finished the thread, or I might still be clueless).

Second: There are some claims that are simply SO wrong, and SO outrageous, that I find myself having to choose between taking them seriously (and in so doing, becoming disgusted with a level of ignorance and arrogance), or laughing (and sometimes, resorting to ridicule to communicate just how ignorant and arrogant the claims are).

The statement that sucrose is not found in nature, for example, is one of those claims that I just sort of stare at, in shock, and wonder "Wow, does someone actually believe that nonsense? What the...? How can they be soooooo ignorant?" and have to choose whether or not I'm going to get upset that this kind of stupidity exists in modern society, and be angry that people who hold these sorts of weird views of the world are in positions of authority, and feel despondent about the idea that these sorts of blatant factual ignorance are the things that I have to counteract in my son's schooling on a regular basis... Or, I could laugh it off as "Wow, one more instance of someone thinking they know WAY more than they don't, and getting it completely and utterly wrong. How droll!"

Which option, given that this is "just an internet forum" do you think is the better course of action? In this case, I opted to save myself some emotional energy, and laugh.

The other thing is that ridicule and humiliation can be very effective teaching tools. When cool, calm, logical discourse fails (as it just about always does on these forums, especially when dealing with crackpot claims like "sucrose doesn't exist in nature"), what do you do to communicate to someone that their woo just isn't welcome and that they should think about changing their stance if they want to be part of "the group", or if they want to be seen as being as "smart" and "educated" as they claim to be? Well, laughter communicates volumes in that regard, both in real life, as well as online (though, online is slightly less effective), and can be an active deterrent to continuing unwanted behavior (for example, laughing in someone's face when they try to make a pass at you, generally leads to them not attempting more pass making).

Imagine if the person mentioned in the OP had been met with laughter and ridicule for her statement that "sugar is toxic" instead of polite conversation. Do you think that person would be as ready to spread her misinformation after such a reception? I doubt it.

In addition to that, there is the message sent to people who don't actually know whether the information being put forth is true or not. If an entire room is laughing at someone and making it clear that it's because that someone said something really, really, stupid... Well, I'd be less inclined to believe what that someone said. It may not work for everyone, but... *shrugs* You can't always win.

So yeah, when someone tries to broadcast to an entire community that "sucrose doesn't exist in nature" and that "you can eat only meat and be just fine" or imply that glucose isn't a sugar... I'm going to laugh at those statements, poke fun at them, and ridicule them. And hopefully, eventually, enough other people will laugh at this nonsense that it's no longer a concern that many people will believe it because it will have become common knowledge that it's complete and total bunk.

 

[fls]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20800122


OK, here's a Google Docs link to the paper whose abstract I'd originally quoted from the PubMed page. (That quote is the first excerpt, above.) This paper was originally published in the Journal of the American Dietetic Association.

If you read it, you'll see that Dr. Lustig starts off his analysis describing the pathway for the metabolism of fructose in the liver, highlighting what he calls the "unique aspects of hepatic fructose metabolism." He goes on to explain in great detail how the metabolism of fructose differs from that of glucose. He also explains the pathway by which ethanol is metabolized in the liver. He then goes on to illustrate how fructose causes similar effects as alcohol on insulin levels, cholesterol and triglyceride levels, and liver inflammation, and then describes its suppressive effect on leptin production.

After that, he proceeds to make his case about fructose having similar effects as alcohol on what he calls the "hedonic pathway" (dopamine levels and all that good stuff), but the first part of the discussion is specifically about the biochemistry of fructose metabolism.

Attached below are the illustrations he uses in the paper to describe these processes.

Now I'm no biochemist, so I had to gloss over the details of that discussion because reading it made my head hurt. I'm obviously not qualified to make an informed decision about the veracity of these claims, so I'm putting this out there for anyone to see. Hopefully somebody with the proper background will step up and add their expertise to the subject.

Fls, I hope this is sufficient to assuage your concerns about any misinformation I may have unintentionally introduced to the discussion. As I said in a previous post, I'm not trying to spread disinformation or shill for any particular political or ideological group, only the honest pursuit of accurate knowledge on the subject.

I do see now why you made the statement you did.

Would you please consider not making it any more?

To simplify the paper you referenced...he isn't saying that fructose is broken down in the liver along a similar pathway as ethanol. They are broken down along quite different pathways. Some of the products of that breakdown are the same and are fed into the cycle which produces glucose (this also happens with proteins/amino acids) or alternately lipids, as well as a few other substances. Some of the byproducts of the breakdown of ethanol or fructose have other effects, some of which are similar and some of which are different (between fructose and ethanol). You would find a similar situation if you took any two substances and compared their metabolism.

Linda

 

[fls]

Also, he definitely should have used more colour in those illustrations.

Linda

 

[Rolfe]

I recall that well known nutrition writer and researcher Gary Taubes had a long article in the NYT's about sugar, and the health problems associated with it in excess. Possibly this is where your friend got her information.

"Before sugar, we were talking about cholesterol"
http://www.garytaubes.com/2011/04/before-sugar-were-talking-about-cholesterol/

What, she got information from an article published only three months ago, for a rant she handed to me in the mid-1980s?

This is far more interesting than some people's lack of understanding about energy metabolism.

Where's Kumar, anyway? He and NurseDan would get along like a house on fire.

Rolfe.

ETA: I just read some of the intervening posts. Going to bed now.... I can't stand it. Linda, you're a saint.

 

[John Albert]

I do see now why you made the statement you did.

Would you please consider not making it any more?

Well, yeah... of course I will. I may not know everything, but I don't enjoy coming off as an idiot, either.

To simplify the paper you referenced...he isn't saying that fructose is broken down in the liver along a similar pathway as ethanol. They are broken down along quite different pathways. Some of the products of that breakdown are the same and are fed into the cycle which produces glucose (this also happens with proteins/amino acids) or alternately lipids, as well as a few other substances. Some of the byproducts of the breakdown of ethanol or fructose have other effects, some of which are similar and some of which are different (between fructose and ethanol). You would find a similar situation if you took any two substances and compared their metabolism.

I stand corrected, and thank you.

But I believe Dr. Lustig's position is that the metabolism of excessive fructose produces many of the same ill health effects as the metabolism of ethanol, though to different extents and severities.

Would you consider that to be a reasonable assessment of his conclusion?

And, perhaps more importantly, do you feel his science is valid and his conclusion reasonable?

By the way, Lustig has often been known to dumb down his arguments when giving presentations to general public, and has even been known to use the word "toxin" in reference to refined sugar and HFCS, likening them to the toxicity of alcohol.

 

[Nursedan]

False, Ignorant - to such an extent that I have no response, except to load up my ignore list.

I'll just continue the derail then...

Isn't it fascinating that someone would take the time to write the above. Makes me wonder what he edited......you sure showed me!

So yeah, when someone tries to broadcast to an entire community that "sucrose doesn't exist in nature" and that "you can eat only meat and be just fine" or imply that glucose isn't a sugar... I'm going to laugh at those statements, poke fun at them, and ridicule them. And hopefully, eventually, enough other people will laugh at this nonsense that it's no longer a concern that many people will believe it because it will have become common knowledge that it's complete and total bunk.

IN THE CONTEXT OF THE OP I am correct. Sucrose is table sugar and needs to be processed from other goods before it becomes what we know as table sugar. White sugar. The stuff that goes in your tea if you are from England. One of the things that people stop eating when they stop eating sugar. IN THE CONTEXT OF THE OP. Now, I am not afraid to defend my position. If I'm wrong, fine - but for gods sake tell me where and why. You are piling on because it's easy, not because you have different facts or conclusions.

Hey ya know what? Your reply to my posting of the journal article earlier in this thread made no sense to me. What is != ??? Feel free to ignore my comment about adding vitamin supplements to an exclusively meat diet. I'm sure that will be easy for you since it will make belittling me easier. Check page 654 of the study and you will see that the subjects lived on an "exclusive" meat diet and oh my gosh!!! they survived!!! Do you know what 'exclusive' means? So, they did live 'just fine' as I stated. Hmm... funny how that completely proves my original point... Wierd! The article you demanded was given to you, you didn't read it, and then you tried to find a way around a conclusion that you fabricated. Hmm... who has issues again? Was that you or me?

I can't even make a point here because people like you extrapolate things from my argument that I didn't say, then you attack those things. For example, you have it in your head that I said glucose is not a sugar. You extrapolated that from me saying that we don't need to consume glucose for our bodies to use glucose for fuel. Please don't make me the victim of your lack of reading comprehension.

Instead of a dialogue, it becomes nothing more than corrections and defenses and corrections and defenses. I don't usually go off like this but you need to check yourself. PM me if you want to reply because we've taken enough turns derailing this otherwise thoughtful thread.

*rant over*

 

[fls]

I stand corrected, and thank you.

But I believe Dr. Lustig's position is that the metabolism of excessive fructose produces many of the same ill health effects as the metabolism of ethanol, though to different extents and severities. Would you consider that to be a reasonable assessment of his conclusion? And, perhaps more importantly, do you feel his science is valid and his conclusion reasonable?

I thought his way of drawing a parallel between the problems of alcohol abuse and that of excessive fructose consumption was interesting and well supported. I don't know that it's a matter of considering his conclusion reasonable, as I don't think he was trying to go beyond the analogy.

There are only a few ways in which the liver shows damage, so it isn't particularly remarkable to find that if damaged, the damage is similar between two different insults.

Linda

 

[John Albert]

Also, he definitely should have used more colour in those illustrations.

 

[fls]

By the way, Lustig has often been known to dumb down his arguments when giving presentations to general public, and has even been known to use the word "toxin" in reference to refined sugar and HFCS, likening them to the toxicity of alcohol.

Yeah, one gets the sense he's on a crusade.

Linda

 

[ehcks]

Sucrose is table sugar and needs to be processed from other goods before it becomes what we know as table sugar.

No. If you were to eat a sugar beet, you are eating 12-20% of the weight of the beet of sucrose. You process the beet to get to pure sugar, but sucrose is naturally in the sugar beet, as well as sugar cane.

 

[tesscaline]

IN THE CONTEXT OF THE OP I am correct. Sucrose is table sugar and needs to be processed from other goods before it becomes what we know as table sugar. White sugar. The stuff that goes in your tea if you are from England. One of the things that people stop eating when they stop eating sugar. IN THE CONTEXT OF THE OP. Now, I am not afraid to defend my position. If I'm wrong, fine - but for gods sake tell me where and why. You are piling on because it's easy, not because you have different facts or conclusions.

Table sugar is, indeed, sucrose. However, sucrose is a chemical that is naturally occurring. You keep claiming that it's not, when it is common chemical knowledge that it IS. Does it occur in nature in crystalline form? Maybe not. But the chemical itself IS "natural." Even if it wasn't, insisting that it's bad because it's not natural would be fallacious.

Hey ya know what? Your reply to my posting of the journal article earlier in this thread made no sense to me. What is != ??? Feel free to ignore my comment about adding vitamin supplements to an exclusively meat diet. I'm sure that will be easy for you since it will make belittling me easier. Check page 654 of the study and you will see that the subjects lived on an "exclusive" meat diet and oh my gosh!!! they survived!!! Do you know what 'exclusive' means? So, they did live 'just fine' as I stated. Hmm... funny how that completely proves my original point... Wierd! The article you demanded was given to you, you didn't read it, and then you tried to find a way around a conclusion that you fabricated. Hmm... who has issues again? Was that you or me?

!= means "does not equal". And "surviving" is not the same as being "just fine". I can "survive" on sugar and water, but I will have a myriad of health problems due to malnutrition if I do it for too long. And doing something for a year is not the same as the doing that same thing for an indefinite period of time.

I can't even make a point here because people like you extrapolate things from my argument that I didn't say, then you attack those things. For example, you have it in your head that I said glucose is not a sugar. You extrapolated that from me saying that we don't need to consume glucose for our bodies to use glucose for fuel. Please don't make me the victim of your lack of reading comprehension.

You said that meat does not contain "sugar", did you not?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC291228/pdf/aem00244-0171.pdf is just one of many publications that makes reference to the glucose in meat...

Instead of a dialogue, it becomes nothing more than corrections and defenses and corrections and defenses. I don't usually go off like this but you need to check yourself. PM me if you want to reply because we've taken enough turns derailing this otherwise thoughtful thread.

*rant over*

You made a bunch of claims in this thread. Claims that I've asked you to back up with actual evidence. If you cannot do so, you're more than free to just ignore the thread, or recant your position. *shrugs*

 

[caniswalensis]

First: I edited the post because it occurred to me that the post I was responding to really could have been intended as a joke post. That has happened on this forum more than once, where I responded seriously to an utterly absurd post, only to have it be explained to me after the fact that it was a post intended entirely in jest. I was, naively it seems, hoping that NurseDan was joking in some really twisted way that I didn't get (the Malus Domesticus thread in social issues is an example of "joking in some twisted way that I didn't get" -- thankfully someone had pointed out the joke before I finished the thread, or I might still be clueless).

Second: There are some claims that are simply SO wrong, and SO outrageous, that I find myself having to choose between taking them seriously (and in so doing, becoming disgusted with a level of ignorance and arrogance), or laughing (and sometimes, resorting to ridicule to communicate just how ignorant and arrogant the claims are).

The statement that sucrose is not found in nature, for example, is one of those claims that I just sort of stare at, in shock, and wonder "Wow, does someone actually believe that nonsense? What the...? How can they be soooooo ignorant?" and have to choose whether or not I'm going to get upset that this kind of stupidity exists in modern society, and be angry that people who hold these sorts of weird views of the world are in positions of authority, and feel despondent about the idea that these sorts of blatant factual ignorance are the things that I have to counteract in my son's schooling on a regular basis... Or, I could laugh it off as "Wow, one more instance of someone thinking they know WAY more than they don't, and getting it completely and utterly wrong. How droll!"

Which option, given that this is "just an internet forum" do you think is the better course of action? In this case, I opted to save myself some emotional energy, and laugh.

The other thing is that ridicule and humiliation can be very effective teaching tools. When cool, calm, logical discourse fails (as it just about always does on these forums, especially when dealing with crackpot claims like "sucrose doesn't exist in nature"), what do you do to communicate to someone that their woo just isn't welcome and that they should think about changing their stance if they want to be part of "the group", or if they want to be seen as being as "smart" and "educated" as they claim to be? Well, laughter communicates volumes in that regard, both in real life, as well as online (though, online is slightly less effective), and can be an active deterrent to continuing unwanted behavior (for example, laughing in someone's face when they try to make a pass at you, generally leads to them not attempting more pass making).

Imagine if the person mentioned in the OP had been met with laughter and ridicule for her statement that "sugar is toxic" instead of polite conversation. Do you think that person would be as ready to spread her misinformation after such a reception? I doubt it.

In addition to that, there is the message sent to people who don't actually know whether the information being put forth is true or not. If an entire room is laughing at someone and making it clear that it's because that someone said something really, really, stupid... Well, I'd be less inclined to believe what that someone said. It may not work for everyone, but... *shrugs* You can't always win.

So yeah, when someone tries to broadcast to an entire community that "sucrose doesn't exist in nature" and that "you can eat only meat and be just fine" or imply that glucose isn't a sugar... I'm going to laugh at those statements, poke fun at them, and ridicule them. And hopefully, eventually, enough other people will laugh at this nonsense that it's no longer a concern that many people will believe it because it will have become common knowledge that it's complete and total bunk.

Hey, thanks for giving me your take on things. it is most appreciated, esspecially since your posts were the ones that inspired mine, primarily.

...About that, I was not really wantng to single you out, but people kinda figured out who I meant. in retrospect, I guess that was inevitable.

As for the varous options you listed, I did not see any that I think would be worthy of taking. I would add another choice to the list, which is explain to the person why they are wrong, without using bullying or intimidation tactics. If the facts support your argument, why do you need derision? You are only angering another member needlessly & showing the bystanders that the loudest, most obnoxious and hurtful side wins. if you fail to convince them who cares? there will always be people who disagree with you and who will post their views on websites. Worrying about things like that will just make you crazy. ...You probably feel about that choice the same way I feel about yours.

I don't want to belabor the point or repeat myself. I have pretty much laid out my thoughts in previous posts well enough.

I guess it comes down to the fact that you and I just have different views on the matter. I do not believe one can convince the other.

Thanks again for the very civil response to my posts.

Sincerely Canis

 

[Nursedan]

Hey, thanks for giving me your take on things. it is most appreciated, esspecially since your posts were the ones that inspired mine, primarily.

snip..

Sincerely Canis

Him and I are duking it out in PMs. Your posts are thoughtful and appreciated.

Dan

 

[Zerocarbman]

First: I edited the post because it occurred to me that the post I was responding to really could have been intended as a joke post. That has happened on this forum more than once, where I responded seriously to an utterly absurd post, only to have it be explained to me after the fact that it was a post intended entirely in jest. I was, naively it seems, hoping that NurseDan was joking in some really twisted way that I didn't get (the Malus Domesticus thread in social issues is an example of "joking in some twisted way that I didn't get" -- thankfully someone had pointed out the joke before I finished the thread, or I might still be clueless).

Second: There are some claims that are simply SO wrong, and SO outrageous, that I find myself having to choose between taking them seriously (and in so doing, becoming disgusted with a level of ignorance and arrogance), or laughing (and sometimes, resorting to ridicule to communicate just how ignorant and arrogant the claims are).

The statement that sucrose is not found in nature, for example, is one of those claims that I just sort of stare at, in shock, and wonder "Wow, does someone actually believe that nonsense? What the...? How can they be soooooo ignorant?" and have to choose whether or not I'm going to get upset that this kind of stupidity exists in modern society, and be angry that people who hold these sorts of weird views of the world are in positions of authority, and feel despondent about the idea that these sorts of blatant factual ignorance are the things that I have to counteract in my son's schooling on a regular basis... Or, I could laugh it off as "Wow, one more instance of someone thinking they know WAY more than they don't, and getting it completely and utterly wrong. How droll!"

Which option, given that this is "just an internet forum" do you think is the better course of action? In this case, I opted to save myself some emotional energy, and laugh.

The other thing is that ridicule and humiliation can be very effective teaching tools. When cool, calm, logical discourse fails (as it just about always does on these forums, especially when dealing with crackpot claims like "sucrose doesn't exist in nature"), what do you do to communicate to someone that their woo just isn't welcome and that they should think about changing their stance if they want to be part of "the group", or if they want to be seen as being as "smart" and "educated" as they claim to be? Well, laughter communicates volumes in that regard, both in real life, as well as online (though, online is slightly less effective), and can be an active deterrent to continuing unwanted behavior (for example, laughing in someone's face when they try to make a pass at you, generally leads to them not attempting more pass making).

Imagine if the person mentioned in the OP had been met with laughter and ridicule for her statement that "sugar is toxic" instead of polite conversation. Do you think that person would be as ready to spread her misinformation after such a reception? I doubt it.

In addition to that, there is the message sent to people who don't actually know whether the information being put forth is true or not. If an entire room is laughing at someone and making it clear that it's because that someone said something really, really, stupid... Well, I'd be less inclined to believe what that someone said. It may not work for everyone, but... *shrugs* You can't always win.

So yeah, when someone tries to broadcast to an entire community that "sucrose doesn't exist in nature" and that "you can eat only meat and be just fine" or imply that glucose isn't a sugar... I'm going to laugh at those statements, poke fun at them, and ridicule them. And hopefully, eventually, enough other people will laugh at this nonsense that it's no longer a concern that many people will believe it because it will have become common knowledge that it's complete and total bunk.

I pop in to the threads here once in awhile just to take the pulse of what dietary information is out there. Without rehashing my story completely (just search the few threads I've contributed to) I have been consuming meat only (I include eggs as meat) for over 3 years now...and have never felt better! I started as a low-carber some 11-12 years ago, and just experimented with my body, and at every stage of lower carbs, I felt better.

I really think humans can certainly tolerate carbs/sugar, however our societies have (over the last 100 years or so) continuously consumed more and more, which leads each generation to reset what "normal" is wrt carb/sugar consumption.

I have two friends now going into their 6th and 10th month, respectively, of an all meat diet....and they too are <their words> feeling 'superb'....'incredible'. All antecdotal, of course. But low carb (since I started it over a decade ago) has come a long way!

 

[caniswalensis]

Him and I are duking it out in PMs. Your posts are thoughtful and appreciated.

Dan

Thank you, I am glad that I am not just being a boorish kill-joy.

I have to admit that most of what is being said in this thread after the first few posts is way over my head. That leaves me with little else to do here but critiquing civility.

Regards, Canis

 

[dakotajudo]

... Feel free to ignore my comment about adding vitamin supplements to an exclusively meat diet. ... Check page 654 of the study and you will see that the subjects lived on an "exclusive" meat diet and oh my gosh!!! they survived!!! Do you know what 'exclusive' means? ...

You said that meat does not contain "sugar", did you not?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC291228/pdf/aem00244-0171.pdf is just one of many publications that makes reference to the glucose in meat...

Both of you, I think, are being less than precise in your statements. (Table sugar is sucrose, but sucrose is not table sugar, blah blah blah)...

But I point this out because you went off the rails a bit on this paper, and you might be talking past each on this as well.

So the question I have is this - what do you mean by "meat"?

There are two reasonable definitions that could be used to support either of your arguments, so be precise, please. I suspect you both might be using the same definition, though, and that might invalidate one side.

I know what my first impression of the term "meat" was, but I'm curious if that's the common use.

The reason I'm asking may tie back to the original topic.