After watching it, I've considerably reduced my sugar intake. I still drink soft drinks during lunch/dinner, but I am slowly weaning myself off them and onto water/tea and other better alternatives.
But Coke has very little salt -- about 45 mg.
So the rest of the talk seemed to be colored with a conspiratorial tone, from my perspective. Am I wrong to be so dismissive?
This tells me nothing. 45mg per 100ml? Or per serving (usually 250ml)?
It doesn't really make much difference. It's a small amount of salt for any reasonable level of consumption unless you are really watching your salt intake.
In my personal experience he is correct there. Soda does not quench my thirst and leaves me feeling thirsty.
So 50 mg is 100th of a teaspoon of salt. Roughly.
EDIT: This UK health advice suggests that adults should have less than 6 g of salt per day.
But this Scientific American Article suggests that there's no evidence for that.
However, as cool as it is to get re-introduced to things like ATP and Krebs Cycle, the driving message we get from experts has been a constant for a long time: avoid processed foods.
It's incredibly simple advice to understand and to follow. It's also an excessively easy lifestyle to adopt. There is no lack of unprocessed foods and it isn't more expensive. I just don't understand why people don't eat better. I'd be pretty depressed if I was a health-care professional...decades of messaging and things are only getting worse.
I understand it perfectly. The brain rewards bad diet; sugar tastes better than fiber. Couple this with food companies that need to grow 10% a year to keep their investors happy, and you have the perfect recipe for making people eat more, cheaper calories. Processed food may be the same price as unprocessed food, but it's more calorie-rich, it's more advertised, and it gets more shelf space at the store. (It is really a lot cheaper, but sold at a higher markup. So that profit buys ads and shelf space.) Hence, the path of least resistance is to buy processed food.
I live one block from a giant supermarket; I moved here FOR that supermarket. They have pretty good produce; if I walk 5 minutes there's a local food co-op and 10 minutes gives me Whole Foods.
But you know what's easier than going to the supermarket, picking out produce, planning or googling a meal, and [feeling like] + [remembering to actually] cook that meal before the produce goes bad?
Buying ten boxes of Amy's, congratulating myself on the fact that there are actual identifiable pieces of broccoli instead of green flecks, calling it "healthy", grabbing some ice cream and cookies to reward myself for that, and being all set for ten days, plus a buffer of whatever I actually had in the back of the freezer before.
Fruits and vegetables often don't require cooking, can keep for long enough to not need planning or require water @ work. Add nuts to this, and some water or tea, and you've taken care of snacks.
As for cooking, ya you need to learn. Its an investment, but the rewards are so significant, it really should be a top priority.
I used to go to the supermarket every week to "buy the groceries and change the spinach". (See, once I have fresh veggies, I want FRESH veggies. No water-logged baby spinach for me.)
And yeah, I actually used to cook Passover dinner for 30, built a gourmet kitchen, Calphalon pots, Wusthof knives, Matfer mandouline, Kenwood stainless-gear mixer with every attachment (did you know there's a potato scrubber?), properly seasoned wok, and a freaking pecan picker (http://ontheroadinthevw.blogspot.com/2007/12/catching-up.htm...).
Now I live in an apartment with a cheap electric stove and that stuff is in cabinets I never open and did I mention how easy it is to grab 10 frozen dinners? But yes, of course you're right.
Serious question. My impression is that anything not cut from an animal myself is processed by some harmful additive, so I've given up.
There is plenty of simple advice on what to eat, and it isn't the end of the world if you don't follow the guidelines 100%. "Giving up" makes it sound like you're prone to an extremist view, which life has shown me is rarely the most pragmatic view.
Fruit that looks like it is something that would come off a plant > "Fruit roll-ups"
Whole-wheat bread > wonder bread
strawberries > twinkies
> As Mr. Pollan puts it, “If it came from a plant, eat it; if it was made in a plant, don’t.”
Most pre-made foods have terrible ingredients. Manufactured foods are made of filler (water, flour, emulsifiers), a bit of "flavor" (preferably salt, cheap oil, sugar, and weird chemicals), and preservatives (some of which can be quite harmful).
The priorities of food manufacturers are shelf life, cost, marketing, and tastiness. Tastiness is usually their lowest priority. Unless they want to look healthy, health isn't even a priority.
Pan-frying some in-season vegetables with a bit of chilli and garlic is usually a lot healthier. A big ol' steak is less healthy, but tastier.
Try eating a tomato which was picked green (so it keeps better, and is easier to handle without bruising it), then had its skin artificially ripened. Then try a ripe tomato (you can generally tell just by how soft it is). There's a big difference.
Specifically, I want you to support the assertion that preservatives used in modern, Western food are currently known to be potentially quite harmful in the usual amounts consumed.
Sulfur dioxide can cause problems in some people. It's relatively safe (as in, as safe as you can get for a preservative), but can induce asthma in some people. See http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7426352.
I don't think that's unique to sodium nitrate.
> Sulfur dioxide can cause problems in some people.
Right, and gluten does a real number on the (relatively few) people with celiac disease; gluten is a naturally-occurring protein that is perfectly healthy for most people, so we can't judge a chemical entirely by what it does to some people.
But let's just focus on low hanging stuff for now. There are food products that are more chemical than anything. Oreos, Poptarts, CheezWhiz, pops, frozen meals, Juices "now with 10% real juice"...The list is extensive. Then you have overly refined products (white bread, white pastas).
Fruits and vegetables (fresh, canned or frozen), lentiles and legumes, grains/careals (including breads and pastas), raw meat (fish/chicken/beef/pork/...) are all ok. I'm sure there's more.
I don't think there's much room for confusion between eating Captin' Crunch vs oatmeal, cheetos vs a bowl of plain yogurt with strawberries.
The problem is that even this statement is ambiguous. All foods, processed or not, are almost all chemical by any proper definition of the word chemical I know of.
Of course the point your trying to make is that they contain large amount of "human added chemicals" some synthesized, some not. If you look at the ingredient list of a rockstar energy drink you'll find almost everything in it is "natural", that is a chemical that exists in nature and is part of a diet that would be considered healthy (in some amount / combination).
The argument should really be based on healthy amounts and combinations of chemicals and just because it exists in nature, doesn't make it healthy (see red meat and recent studies regarding it).
I find this discussion to be fascinating in regards to evolutionary development. Humans 'like' sugars and meats for strong evolutionary reasons. They were rare when the average age of death was like 30. Getting cheap calories was very beneficial to successful life and hence child bearing in the era.
Whats really interesting is that I don't see those traits going away. Evolution requires selective pressure. There would have to be a selective mechanism that resulted in those who "eat well" to contribute more to the gene pool than those who do not. While I have no studies at hand to back this up, my personal observation doesn't indicate that this pressure exists. As a result I don't think we'll see the enjoyment of such food disappear any time soon.
When lots of people died before their first birthday‡, the average age being thirty meant that lots of people who made it past their first birthday would live longer than thirty.
‡Estimates vary from 30 to 50% rate, in the old world.
Everything is 100% chemical.
Instead, mention specific chemicals and detail what in specific they do that's bad at the quantities people normally eat them.
Gluten is one aspect of this, but there are apparently a whole range of other things which can impact your digestion, prevent nutrient uptake, etc.
If it didn't exist 150 years ago, or you cannot find it in nature, it's processed food.
Is the corollary true as well? Lead sugar existed a few thousand year ago - so is that processed food?
Tell that to people who go bugnuts about GMO foods.
> If it didn't exist 150 years ago, or you cannot find it in nature
Start checking on when your favorite variety of apples was first created.
What is toxicity?
"A central concept of toxicology is that effects are dose-dependent; even water can lead to water intoxication when taken in too many doses, whereas for even a very toxic substance such as snake venom there is a dose below which there is no detectable toxic effect. Toxicity is species-specific, lending cross-species analysis problematic. Newer paradigms and metrics are evolving to bypass animal-testing, while maintaining the concept of toxicity endpoints."
You are being pedantic.
I'm interested to see what replies his recent Nature publication receives.
And from earlier this year:
His test does not support his conclusion.
It bothers me though that the word sugar is in the title since they really mean sucrose. Both fructose and glucose occur naturally (fruit, veggies, starches) and are not harmful.
It is true that fructose appears naturally all over the place. And that is the tricky part. The liver can actually process fructose fine if it gets a little at a time and simultaneously receives fiber. Almost everywhere fructose occurs naturally it occurs with fiber. Thus, the human body is perfectly capable of processing fructose in its natural state, but once you start concentrating it and removing the fiber the problems come about.
This is why fruits and veggies are perfectly healthy but refined sugars are bad for you.
Dietary fibre gets to the liver?
Too bad he sounds so smug. But I'm pretty sure he will be proven correct.
Today they pick them early, so they try to get the sugars in there sooner.
A healthy liver can process roughly 50g fructose before fat storage begins to occur. This would be a tough number to hit since for every 100g of fruit you eat only 7g is fructose (on average).
Please link baby saying "veggies", ty.
The primary concerns are the biggest killers: cancer and CVD. The main causal pathway by which carbohydrates (of which simple sugars have the largest effect) affect CVD incidence is via the simultaneous lowering of HDL and raising of blood serum triglycerides. This is much more important for predicting CVD episodes than the 'low LDL' you hear touted a lot. The connection between sugar and cancer is less well established.
I cut all added sugar and all flour (bread, pasta, pizza, etc) and most other grains and processed food from my diet about 18 months ago. I basically went on the paleolithic diet, though I'm not really fanatical about it except for the sugar and flour. I mainly eat unprocessed meat, eggs, leafy vegetables, nuts, some fruit (try to stick to berries) and minimal dairy. I went from 215 lbs to 165 without any real effort (exercise, etc). I'm convinced that the obesity "epidemic" and the need for so many people go on Lipitor and similar drugs as they get older is directly attributable to our sugar- and flour-laden diets.
I do miss freshly baked bread but on balance I think it's worth it. Will I live longer? Who knows, but I feel better eating what my body is evolved to consume.
That an abundance of simple sugars is novel in our diets is at least weakly suggestive that we will be poorly adapted to them. There's even evidence for this; in general the shorter a time a population has had agriculture the higher the prevalence of (Type 2) diabetes. Aboriginies, Pacific Islanders, Native Americans all have way, way higher rates than Asians or Europeans. The Arab world has had agriculture for at least as long as anyone else and they have diabetes out the wazoo though in the more developed parts, perhaps a side effect of really, really liking sweet tea and incredibly sweet treats.
 Designed things and evolved things are not even remotely equivalent in an argument about evolutionary changes. Minds can make things better ludicrously faster than the Blind Idiot God.
Of course there is. Take an organism, throw it into a random environment. Chances are that it's not going to do as well as it would in the one that it's evolved for.
That's essentially what we're doing when we eat a modern diet - sugar, starch, wheat, beans, etc. are not what we ate when we were hunter-gatherers. It's not particularly surprising that it causes lots of weird and/or bad side-effects.
I have always found this statistic utterly astounding, esp. considering that sugar is a new world product. In 1500 England, say, the average person consumed 0 pounds of added sugar per year.
Really, if you remove everything harmful to health from you life (including everything related to a computer), you'd probably die of boredom, depression and frustration real fast.
I looked around a bit further and it's even clearer that sugar, sucrose, fructose, etc, by themselves are not poisons.