Mike for some of us we can eat pretty much as we want but for others they have to watch far more. The issue is society looks for a one size fit's all cure but we are all very different even withing groups of thin, middle and overweight so one size may not fit all. Some members of the family have their own reducing diet which consists of eating most things as usual but no cake, biscuits or bread and it has worked a simple as it is. The difference is having the will to go the distance. Mike some body builders (competitive) are also strict veggies and from stats I read a few years back veggies suffered more bowel cancers than meat eaters, but meat eaters suffered from more cancers else where whilst fish eaters were the lowest in any cancer group.
Brian, OK, thanks, I guess that makes a little more sense. And back then Late Onset did what it said on the tin, I expect.
On a different topic, have any of you investigated the rôle of magnesium in our biochemistry?
Ian, it was simply not categorised in the two types. It is now scary as you say but now spreading beyond western society like wildfire which makes it all the more frightening.
I was amazed to read recently that before 1940 there was no type 2 diabetes. And now we have "Late Onset" in choldren aged 7. Scary, what we are doing to ourselves.
Mike, you are on a winner there. we lived on the Gower for five years before coming here. They should put bottles outside and market it under the simple name 'Rain'.
John,
You have reminded of the story of the man who claimed that he could reduce his calorie intake by putting ice in his gin and tonic. His theory was that the calorific value of the drink was balanced by the energy needed to bring it up to body temperature......
Agree with you about high protein diets. People in countries where they consume little meat do not suffer from the diseases of affluence.Bodybuilders go to extremes in order to build muscle and eliminate body fat. A diet of boiled chicken and orange juice, accompanied be certain pharmaceutical substances, seems to do the trick. But although the results may appear impressive, it is very easy to tip the balance into serious ill health. Il faut souffrir.......
There is a wide misunderstanding about carbohydrates. While they may be damaging in refined forms - sugar, alcohol, fruit juices - in the form of wholemeal bread and root vegetables, they are an essential part of a healthy diet (so long as they are not cooked in fat).
Similarly, it is often claimed that lack of exercise contributes to obesity, but the human body is a very fuel-efficient machine and you would need to work as hard as a professional athlete in order to make any significant difference.
Mike it maybe easier to drink juice than eat fruit but what of the workout you get from tying to open the carton!
Whilst Lustig may not have every point correct and by the sound of it the rest of science doesn't have all the answers either unless you are a rat. What harm would it do society to follow the reduced sugars regime compared to naysayers spouting he is wrong which sends a message to fatties to continue their horrible habits of sitting eating pizza and drinking fizzy full sugar drinks. The interaction of sugars with other food stuffs is almost certainly an issue but a calorie is a calorie because we find out a calorific value by burning something in a flame and our stomachs don't, that breaks down the food in another way using acids and enzymes so how can we possibly be able to work out the issue until we work out the system?
Most Muslims also are not aware that the ice cream they eat (Non Dairy Fat) is why Walls make sausages and ice cream...whipped up pig fat (non dairy fat)
Carol that protein article was very poor, Eating protein makes the gut and bowel acidic and tumours grow in an acidic environment but if the cancer cells are dormant it wouldn't make any difference only when active would it be a concern. Shame the prof from Cancer reasearch didn't say that but maybe they just play down press comment for fear of being missed quoted and who could blame them. The cooking or barbequing could make the protein more carcinogenic but smoking tobacco is still more antisocial.
I wonder if our Muslim friends are aware that the CO2 in their non-alcoholic drinks is a by-product of the brewing industry?
We used to live near to Ty Nant. Water is never in short supply in Wales! A stroke of brilliance to put it in fancy bottles and market it as a luxury product.
Soda, or carbonated, water has carbon dioxide gas pumped into it under pressure until it has been dissolved. This is known as carbonation and makes the water fizzy/sparkling.Since the gas then escapes, the bubbles, it is only a relatively short time until it is 'flat' again. The EWG rating of it is usually that the water used is usually inferior quality. The carbonisation simply tarts it up. San Pellegrino is another low down on ratings to what we might expect. As the 'experts' say, once a source like San Pellegrino or Malvern is known, the quality of the water is already at threat because of the way it is pumped out of the ground and 'processed'.
I noticed that when in Dubai, we were not drinking sparkling mineral water but soda water....not sure if there is a real difference....however, not liking still water...and having given up alcohol, I guess a little mineral contaminant is acceptable...San Pellegrino is my poison of choice!
I believe an original 'Weldon' bottle (empty, and that is the place where the drink was first bottled and sold commercially) went for $4000 a couple of years ago. A copy of the original recipe from 1943 was sold a few years ago for for well over a million! So we might speculate on that one.
The only water in bottles actually rated as safe are those known to be bottled directly at unpolluted springs with bottles only of glass that are jet washed with the same water before bottling. There are only a few such springs here in France, Evian not among them. The Environmental Working Group (EWG) has a list of the top 10 bottled ones, seven owned by Nestlé, one by Coca Cola, one by Pepsi and another by another company. EWG's best grade goes to filtered tap water. Their hit list of 150+ bottled varieties would show some of the trusted favourites are quite terrible.
But not bottled water.......!
Many of these contain quantities of mineral "contaminants" that would not be permitted to be delivered to the kitchen tap!
We overheard an aspirational couple at the supermarket discussing whether they had sufficient bottled water to rinse their "vaissailles"!
I know Mike....sad innit? as far as juices go.....fresh fruit juice is certainly very bad news for teeth, the fruit acid dissolves the enamel...with cordials its all down to the amount of sugar and of course we know that 'diet' drinks slowly poison you....glass of water anyone???
I wonder how much a bottle of vintage Coca Cola "original" would realize at auction?
I should have mentioned the tooth-rotting properties of fruit juices. I recall the discrediting of a well-known brand of blackcurrant juice. By putting it in baby's bottle, it was possible to rot his teeth before they had even penetrated the gums - allegedly!
Interestingly Mike, the original Coca Cola recipe was concentrated sugar syrup, carbonated water, cocaine (coca leaves) and caffeine (kola nut) leading to the name Coca-Cola by tweaking the k. Pemberton who 'invented' it would go to prison today for handling illegal coke and using caffeine, it was then a pharmaceutical substance and he was a chemist, in a confection and not saying so because the latter ones were the 'secret' ingredients that didn't come out in the open until recently. The drink not only refreshed but relaxed people (not surprising) but rotted their teeth very quickly.
Yes Carol, but the bad news is that a lot of young people don't cook, don't know how to cook, have never been taught how to cook. Education has become so obsessed with exam results, basic life skills have fallen by the way......
Having read all the headlines here last week about high protein diets being as dangerous as a 20 a day habit, I am now firmly in the group advising a good mixed diet, which would mean heavy with the fresh veg, lighter with the fruit, pulses, beans and cereals, lighter still on fish, meat, eggs, dairy and lightest of all (avoid if possible) any food that has been processed. With a modicum of common sense with regard to alcohol and caffeine, that is probably the best you are going to manage. Of course vegetarians, vegans and fruitarians will have their own preferences....but I think regardless of what diet is popular at any time, we will always return to the idea of good quality food in sensible proportions are what its all about....dont go overboard on anything, keep it simple.
It has been noted that it is much easier to drink fruit juice than to eat fruit. Maybe the fructose we consume in the amount of whole fruit and vegetables we can consume is not enough to be harmful. It is also possible that vegetable fibre shortens transit time, which is generally regarded as healthy.
The food industry is all about "refinement" - the process of removing anything the consumer might find ever-so-slightly difficult to eat. You can even buy crustless bread!
Cola drinks are interesting. If they left out the flavoring, citric acid and CO2, nobody would be able to drink the sugar-water that was left. The "secret formula" makes the drink palatable and fools us into thinking it is refreshing.
Agree Mike. Monosaccharides in the form of glucose (dextrose), fructose (levulose) and galactose are in all fruit, vegetables and so on, so how we even avoid fructose is another question. Brown rice and lentils? Of course not, because they contain monosaccharides too, carbohydrates as we know them. Much as I think Lustig is on to 'something' I am not sure what that something is, but also to what degree do we live by some kind of dietary self-discipline.
Good point about the pharmas, they keep us ill to keep themselves in business. We all get too healthy then they are shtoock, so love us to make ourselves as unwell as possible. Sugar helps...
As for Lustig and fructose, I think he is onto something, though it won't be the magic bullet. Perhaps it is simply the combination of all the factors that play a part - changes in diet, changes in levels of activity, changes in quantity consumed, changes in the degree of processing of our food, changes in the level of nutrients in even the healthy food that we might try to keep to. Still, the overconsumption of sugar cannot be a good thing in the long term.
The point about whether the science is right is a good one. But is it also complete? It's pretty difficult to know the answer to those questions. Part of it is in looking for the motive too, and it seems more and more that those who one might have hoped would be ebove that sort of thing are just as human as the rest of us. This probably belongs in a different ranting-type topic, but what on earth can we do about the economic model of the pharmaceutical company whose interest is that we all remain as sick as possible, ideally with chronic conditions requiring expensive patented drugs, while universally applicable antibiotics to cure acute conditions are no longer financially interesting and therefore they simply aren't developed? Is it really necessary that we all turn into our own doctors, spending large amounts of time searching the internet for the nuggets that we seek?