Eliminating added sugar from your diet

[RobM77]

OO Beckton said:

I am inspired by you guys. In the past I've quit eating meat, dairy, cheese, pasta, alcohol for year/months at a time, and everything was easy.

What's wrong with dairy?! Provided you have the Lactase persistence trait, milk is extremely nutritious.

Edited to add: Meat, in moderation, is also an excellent source of nutrients.

Edited by RobM77 on Friday 5th January 12:18

[RobM77]

OO Beckton said:

I am inspired by you guys. In the past I've quit eating meat, dairy, cheese, pasta, alcohol for year/months at a time, and everything was easy.

What's wrong with dairy?! Provided you have the Lactase persistence trait, milk is extremely nutritious.

Edited to add: Meat, in moderation, is also an excellent source of nutrients.

Edited by RobM77 on Friday 5th January 14:51

[LordGrover]

RobM77 said:

OO Beckton said:

I am inspired by you guys. In the past I've quit eating meat, dairy, cheese, pasta, alcohol for year/months at a time, and everything was easy.

What's wrong with dairy?! Provided you have the Lactase persistence trait, milk is extremely nutritious.

Or not... click.

[RobM77]

LordGrover said:

RobM77 said:

OO Beckton said:

I am inspired by you guys. In the past I've quit eating meat, dairy, cheese, pasta, alcohol for year/months at a time, and everything was easy.

What's wrong with dairy?! Provided you have the Lactase persistence trait, milk is extremely nutritious.

Or not... click.

That article is quoting a single paper from the BMJ. We could do the same for a certain Andrew Wakefield paper in the Lancet linking the MMR vaccine with autism... Science works via consensus, not individual studies, so it we must look at meta-analyses and expert opinion. If you pick and choose facts from individual studies you can prove anything you like.

Furthermore, several areas of science are under risk from a growing 'anti-science' movement (for example, those against man-made global warming, or religious creationists against evolution), and also people who pick and choose the facts, and even lie, to support their cause (for example, vegan propaganda about milk, meat etc).

So, regarding milk, here's a review of the available evidence:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC51222...

I quote: "Conclusion: The totality of available scientific evidence supports that intake of milk and dairy products contribute to meet nutrient recommendations, and may protect against the most prevalent chronic diseases, whereas very few adverse effects have been reported."

and secondly, here's a collection of expert opinions on the paper you quoted:

http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-...

Regarding the evolution of lactase persistence, there is no conclusive evidence on why this evolved to be so ubiquitous in Europeans, but the two most likely hypotheses are a) that milk is very nutritious (which it is - that's why babies are raised on it), so in an environment of dairy farming like Europe, it was positively selected for; or b) that dairy allows storage of nutritious food during times of lesser food availability, such as winter. Either way - milk is nutritious; a genetic trait does not become so widespread in a population if it's bad for you, that's not how evolution works. Dairy is good for you, it's just new age nonsense that it's not.

Edited by RobM77 on Friday 5th January 14:13

[AlexC1981]

So said:

You could try a handful of berries and nuts at 4.30. Or some unsweetened nut butter. The fats will satiate you until dinner time.

That's not a bad idea and it should help me not to overeat when I have dinner later as I won't be ravenous.

[grumbledoak]

RobM77 said:

Science works via consensus, not individual studies, so it we must look at meta-analyses and expert opinion.

Science does not involve consensus. And meta-analyses are generally piss poor too.

[RobM77]

grumbledoak said:

RobM77 said:

Science works via consensus, not individual studies, so it we must look at meta-analyses and expert opinion.

Science does not involve consensus. And meta-analyses are generally piss poor too.

That's completely untrue. Science is all about consensus. Individual studies cannot be taken as the whole picture. For sure, meta-analyses can be rubbish, but that doesn't mean you can take dodgy results from one paper and label them as truth. As I said in my post above, remember the Andrew Wakefield paper in The Lancet? One paper that was completely wrong and is probably responsible for unexpected rises of measles cases in many developed countries, and measles of course can kill. Hell, there are probably papers out there that show the earth is flat if you look for them. You could show anything you wanted to if you just upheld results from one paper. That is not how science works - you have to look at the consensus for things, how good a study is (i.e. speak to experts in the field - see link above), the authors, the organisation that conducted the study, how reputable the publishing journal is and also who funded it.

The above post of mine is the current accepted scientific view on milk. It's a pretty clear consensus. I've posted a link to a review of the current evidence and the opinion of a number of experts on the above cited and well discredited Swedish epidemiological study, plus I've summarised the story of the evolution of lactase persistence. That's a lot of difference angles pointing at one clear picture: if you can digest it, milk is very good for you. There is no decent evidence otherwise.

Edited by RobM77 on Friday 5th January 19:03

[grumbledoak]

RobM77 said:

That's completely untrue. Science is all about consensus.

No. The Scientific Method, at it's simplest, is about falsifiable theories being falsified.

It does not matter at all how many scientists think something is correct, or whether they are qualified, peer reviewed, Royalty Approved, sober, famous, or good looking. It takes just one scientist to prove them all wrong.


Anyways, sugar. Addictive and harmful. Isn't that the definition of a drug? I'm only surprised there isn't duty on it.

[Huntsman]

grumbledoak said:

No. The Scientific Method, at it's simplest, is about falsifiable theories being falsified.

It does not matter at all how many scientists think something is correct, or whether they are qualified, peer reviewed, Royalty Approved, sober, famous, or good looking. It takes just one scientist to prove them all wrong.


Anyways, sugar. Addictive and harmful. Isn't that the definition of a drug? I'm only surprised there isn't duty on it.

But in the case of milk, its been developed by mammals over millions of years and seems to be working, isn't that part of the consensus?

Yes, I agree, need to rush in a sugar tax.

[grumbledoak]

In the case of milk, I think the reports of South America cutting down rainforest to breed cattle for export has resulted in a broad anti-dairy campaign by "environmentalists" with little regard for scientific rigour, or truth, or soap.

[RobM77]

grumbledoak said:

RobM77 said:

That's completely untrue. Science is all about consensus.

No. The Scientific Method, at it's simplest, is about falsifiable theories being falsified.

It does not matter at all how many scientists think something is correct, or whether they are qualified, peer reviewed, Royalty Approved, sober, famous, or good looking. It takes just one scientist to prove them all wrong.


Anyways, sugar. Addictive and harmful. Isn't that the definition of a drug? I'm only surprised there isn't duty on it.

If the man on the street wants to know the truth about something, such as whether milk is good or bad for you, or whether humans are affecting the climate, he should turn to the scientific consensus, not an individual study, such as posted above. For the third and final time: that Swedish epidemiological study has been discredited and does not represent the consensus view. The scientific consensus is that milk is good for you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus

Edited by RobM77 on Saturday 6th January 10:33

[Halb]

OO Beckton said:

I am inspired by you guys. In the past I've quit eating meat, dairy, cheese, pasta, alcohol for year/months at a time, and everything was easy.

But the longest I've managed off sugar is six weeks and EVERY day during that period was a struggle. Mistake I made was starting out by setting myself a goal of abstaining for six weeks and then rewarding myself for doing it. For me, sugar is so addictive.

I think that is what will give you the longest and healthiest life.

[SVS]

grumbledoak said:

And meta-analyses are generally piss poor too.

What makes you say they’re piss poor?

[grumbledoak]

SVS said:

What makes you say they’re piss poor?

I did say "generally".

Meta-analyses all amount to combing the results of separate experiments. This is, in general, not a valid thing to do. Repeating one experiment with ten times the number of cases can be expected to give smaller errors and more significant results. Combining the results of a number of individual experiments does not do this. But, certainly by the time the media are reporting things, the latter is often portrayed as the former.

[Huntsman]

I gave up sugar again about 3 weeks ago, already lost a few pounds and feel much better.

I just wish I could do this permanently, not for a short while then smash a whole packet of hobnobs.

[MC Bodge]

Huntsman said:

I gave up sugar again about 3 weeks ago, already lost a few pounds and feel much better.

I just wish I could do this permanently, not for a short while then smash a whole packet of hobnobs.

Er, moderation not abstention?

[So]

Huntsman said:

I gave up sugar again about 3 weeks ago, already lost a few pounds and feel much better.

I just wish I could do this permanently, not for a short while then smash a whole packet of hobnobs.

There's an underlying problem, leading you to do this. It could be a gut issue or a nutrition issue.

Or that you're a greedy pig.

[grumbledoak]

Huntsman said:

I gave up sugar again about 3 weeks ago, already lost a few pounds and feel much better.

I just wish I could do this permanently, not for a short while then smash a whole packet of hobnobs.

It's addiction. You have to treat it as such.

ETA - https://youarenotsosmart.com/2010/07/07/extinction...

Edited by grumbledoak on Tuesday 11th December 20:15

[Huntsman]

MC Bodge said:

Er, moderation not abstention?

Nope, never managed that, I start with the plan to just have a couple of biscuits. Then smash!

So said:

Or that you're a greedy pig.

That is well established!

grumbledoak said:

It's addiction. You have to treat it as such.

ETA - https://youarenotsosmart.com/2010/07/07/extinction...

Fascinating

[So]

Huntsman said:

MC Bodge said:

Er, moderation not abstention?

Nope, never managed that, I start with the plan to just have a couple of biscuits. Then smash!

So said:

Or that you're a greedy pig.

That is well established!

grumbledoak said:

It's addiction. You have to treat it as such.

ETA - https://youarenotsosmart.com/2010/07/07/extinction...

Fascinating

I was taking the rip obviously, but in all seriousness there are factors outside of your control that MIGHT be influencing things.

99% of overweight people eat too much of the wrong stuff, but some people struggle more to moderate their intake than others. It isn't just willpower.

There is a lot of evidence to suggest that our gut microbiome has a bearing on what we crave. Some things that can be in the gut make us want sugar, others make it difficult to lose weight even with a reasonable diet.

With a healthy gut you can eat a lot (of the right stuff) and not become fat. But it's difficult to eat a lot of refined sugar and remain slim.

In other news, what YOU are doing is dieting, as opposed to maintaining a healthy diet. Dieting doesn't work, which is why Weightwatchers is a thriving business. You manage to suppress your cravings for so long and, stay in a calorie deficit for a while, and then your hormones and willpower cave in and out come the Hob Nobs.

You could do a lot worse than see a dietician or nutritionist (there is a difference) and get some advice. Your GP might be able to refer you to a dietician. It will be a lot more helpful than getting advice from random blokes on the Internet, who haven't met you, don't know your full story and whose own nutritional regimes revolve around their powerfully built frames.