Going sugar free

Forums › Health and fitness › Going sugar free

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8

376 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1347506 20-Jul-2015 10:04

joker97: but we have beaten evolution.

in evolution the strongest and fittest and most adaptable has best chance to survive.

today the richest the effluent the developed has the best chance to survive.

The people who have the most offspring that survive to breeding age will drive evolution ultimately, not the most affluent, as they do not produce enough children as they are too busy getting educated and pursuing careers. Look at the population age structure in Japan and Italy .... not enough replacement.

Evolution carries on, even during modern times. It's just that the environment has changed (now drugs and vaccinations enable some people to survive and have offspring, whereas without the drugs and medical intervention they would have died before having offspring).

But the thing is evolutionary change over the broad scale issues, like how our bodies respond to diet, is very slow. There are exceptions, like lactose tolerance in people with several thousands of years exposure to dairy farming, but generally things move on slowly and gradually.

afe66

3181 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1347508 20-Jul-2015 10:08

joker97: but we have beaten evolution.

in evolution the strongest and fittest and most adaptable has best chance to survive.

today the richest the effluent the developed has the best chance to survive.

Not really.
As infant mortality and health care have improved everyones life expectancy, you could argue that affluent people are less likely to have children so less evolution effects vrs poor people having lots of children which now survive to have morekids (in their late teens)

"Any reasonable person would choose a BMW over a third child" Commentator on BBC documentary on aging population.

A.

Batman

Mad Scientist
29760 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1347544 20-Jul-2015 10:22

i suppose, if the end goal of evolution is to have and keep having offsprings and offsprings of offsprings.

i didn't realise the rich people aren't having enough kids for their kids to have kids.

i thought have 8 kids between 14 and 38 that just hang to lifelines would be inferior to having 1-2 kids between 34-45 that gets everything thrown at them

xpd

Geek @ Coastguard NZ
13765 posts

Uber Geek

Retired Mod

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1347576 20-Jul-2015 10:37

After reading through this thread, and speaking to my doctor a week or so back, decided to try and cut back on my sugars and salt intake. Going to be hard for me, got a damn sweet tooth and hate veggies :-p But will do my best...... fingers crossed :D

Gavin / xpd / FastRaccoon / Geek of Coastguard New Zealand

LinkTree

KiwiTim

376 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1347578 20-Jul-2015 10:45

joker97: i suppose, if the end goal of evolution is to have and keep having offsprings and offsprings of offsprings.

i didn't realise the rich people aren't having enough kids for their kids to have kids.

i thought have 8 kids between 14 and 38 that just hang to lifelines would be inferior to having 1-2 kids between 34-45 that gets everything thrown at them

It is a numbers game as to which sets of genes get propagated forward in a population. If you have more offspring that reach breeding age, and they survive long enough to raise their offspring, then that is all that matters. Quality of life is not a factor.

Evolution cannot have an end goal as it is not a thinking entity. It's like saying that a river could decide which route it would take. The river's path is determined by the landscape, the substrate and random events.

The interesting thing is that before modern times pathogens, disease and competition for scarce resources acted more effectively as filters to remove less fit genes (for the specific environment) from the gene pool of a population. Now food resources are less scarce, drugs and medical interventions are available for a large portion of the world's human population, so suites of genes that would have formerly been removed by natural selection are now being preserved across multiple generations by this new man-made environment.

What will happen when resources become more scarce and there are less effective antibiotics. The gene filters of former times will now operate on populations that have diverged throughout this modern era.

Not cheerful I know, but probably true.

jonathan18

7413 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1347583 20-Jul-2015 10:53

xpd: After reading through this thread, and speaking to my doctor a week or so back, decided to try and cut back on my sugars and salt intake. Going to be hard for me, got a damn sweet tooth and hate veggies :-p But will do my best...... fingers crossed :D

Similarly, this thread has been the impetus for our whole family to try a period of reduced sugar intake; my wife and I voluntarily, our kids via compulsion (and the reality won't hit them until they're refused chocolate bisciuts!). Only started today, and will reassess after a couple of weeks I imagine.

I'm not comfortable with the idea of fully removing anything from my diet (other than meat) as I don't think it's sustainable in the long-term, but see the logic of reducing sugar intake. I'm certainly much healthier than I was a couple of years back (still kept the >15kg off I lost on the 5:2 diet through sticking to a 6:1 diet plus exercising every weekday), but feel the biggest flaw of the 5:2 diet is it can be done without as much thought as to what makes up a good/healthy diet (as opposed to simply reducing intake over a particular period).

bales

116 posts

Master Geek

Subscriber

#1347657 20-Jul-2015 11:38

my daughter has the book , that sugar book based on doco that sugar film its fantastic a real eye opener in many ways; by damon gameau

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

fizzychicken

313 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1347677 20-Jul-2015 11:52

I lead a fairly active lifestyle and eat an abnormal amount of eggs/nuts/veges. Always dislikes cutting something out of my diet but have been lucky enough to never have a sweet tooth, love savory stuff instead. Have never added sugar to something unless it was part of a recipe (and chances of that are pretty rare for me)...I'm not even sure if I have anything other than raw coffee sugar (for guests) in the house. But as healthy as I am, and active as I am.....I eat biscuits at 'cookie-monster' levels. Have never put part of a pack of biscuits back in the cupboard....they always get eaten. everything in moderation, avoid what makes you feel rough, and keep as active as you can, everybody's requirements are unique. And if you must go hard out healthy and gym freak...always have an 'off-day' to maintain a balance. Might not work for everyone...but so far it works for me, other than the random unstoppable things such as Malaria/meningitis etc...I haven't even had a 'cold' or headache in at least 15 years. For now my demon is bad posture which is giving me grief.
Also I am pro artificial sweetners, In uni I worked for a division of monsanto (where they purchased nutrasweet) and have consumed more aspartame, ace K etc than probably a thousand people would consume in their entire lifetime. they are not all good, but just like msg...there are common varieties that have never been proven to be bad.

tl;dr, only you can find out what your body does and does not like...take time to find your own balance of what you can handle.

https://keybase.io/fizzychicken

Lostja

239 posts

Master Geek

#1347691 20-Jul-2015 12:11

I'm not comfortable with the idea of fully removing anything from my diet (other than meat) as I don't think it's sustainable in the long-term, but see the logic of reducing sugar intake. I'm certainly much healthier than I was a couple of years back (still kept the >15kg off I lost on the 5:2 diet through sticking to a 6:1 diet plus exercising every weekday), but feel the biggest flaw of the 5:2 diet is it can be done without as much thought as to what makes up a good/healthy diet (as opposed to simply reducing intake over a particular period).

I agree, fully removing something from a diet will make you crave it even more, at least that is my experience.

dafman

3925 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1347742 20-Jul-2015 13:00

Lostja:

I'm not comfortable with the idea of fully removing anything from my diet (other than meat) as I don't think it's sustainable in the long-term, but see the logic of reducing sugar intake. I'm certainly much healthier than I was a couple of years back (still kept the >15kg off I lost on the 5:2 diet through sticking to a 6:1 diet plus exercising every weekday), but feel the biggest flaw of the 5:2 diet is it can be done without as much thought as to what makes up a good/healthy diet (as opposed to simply reducing intake over a particular period).

I agree, fully removing something from a diet will make you crave it even more, at least that is my experience.

Even if you don't fully remove sugar, eliminating the following will go a long way:
- Fruit juice / soft drinks (the easiest win)
- Processed foods (ie. the ones in the middle of the supermarket, a lot of hidden sugar here - learn to read labels - 4gms of sugar = one teaspoon)
- Biscuits/baking/ice cream/chocolate (if you can't cut out entirely, try to limit intake, consume in moderation).

TwoSeven

1623 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#1347838 20-Jul-2015 17:27

joker97: but we have beaten evolution.

in evolution the strongest and fittest and most adaptable has best chance to survive.

today the richest the effluent the developed has the best chance to survive.

In evolutionary terms, 'fitness' doesn't have anything to do with strength or any physical trait. It refers to a set of capabilities and features that an item has related to the environment that the item is in. Another definition for fitness is suitability.

So for example, a white both wont survive long if all of the trees have dark trunks as it will likely stand out a bit, but a both that has the ability to change its colour quickly has a better chance - even though many might get eaten before they get a chance to adapt.

Software Engineer
(the practice of real science, engineering and management)
A.I. (Automation rebranded)
Gender Neutral
(a person who believes in equality and who does not believe in/use stereotypes. Examples such as gender, binary, nonbinary, male/female etc.)

...they/their/them...

TwoSeven

1623 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#1347852 20-Jul-2015 17:36

I went additive free a few years back, so I don't eat any 'refined' products and products made from things that are not natural (plant and animal basically) - this also includes products that have others added to them (such as sugar) which normally wouldn't have those ingredients. Other than that, anything is fair game so long as I eat a balanced diet and do some exercise.

I've now developed an interest in cooking (and the science behind it) and find that it is saving me both in money and time making my own stuff rather than buying it in a packet.

...they/their/them...

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1347925 20-Jul-2015 18:38

TwoSeven:
joker97: but we have beaten evolution.

in evolution the strongest and fittest and most adaptable has best chance to survive.

today the richest the effluent the developed has the best chance to survive.

In evolutionary terms, 'fitness' doesn't have anything to do with strength or any physical trait. It refers to a set of capabilities and features that an item has related to the environment that the item is in. Another definition for fitness is suitability.

So for example, a white both wont survive long if all of the trees have dark trunks as it will likely stand out a bit, but a both that has the ability to change its colour quickly has a better chance - even though many might get eaten before they get a chance to adapt.

Talking about evolutionary terms, and WRT sugar (sucrose / fructose), I wonder if the metabolic pathway in humans where fructose intake may result in increase in body fat relates to survival in temperate climates. It makes sense for us to increase weight over summer and at "harvest time" in preparation for winter when food is scarce. There's an abundance of sugar-rich foods over that time, and none of them store well. It also ties in with problems with Vitamin D levels in people in cold climates. In a pre-agriculture environment, vit D from diet (but mainly sun exposure in summer) was "stored" in fat, released over winter months. Not so now - as people gain weight in winter.

dafman

3925 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1348174 21-Jul-2015 09:03

xpd: After reading through this thread, and speaking to my doctor a week or so back, decided to try and cut back on my sugars and salt intake. Going to be hard for me, got a damn sweet tooth and hate veggies :-p But will do my best...... fingers crossed :D

Good luck, you've made a great decision. And it doesn't need to be an all or nothing, win or lose battle, just developing an awareness of sugar in food and making ongoing positive steps is a worthwhile change. Take the easy wins early, like cutting out fruit juice, and maybe a longer term view on reducing the more difficult sugars. As mentioned earlier, try to track down the documentaries 'Fed Up' and 'That Sugar Film'

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1351539 25-Jul-2015 11:47

dafman:
xpd: After reading through this thread, and speaking to my doctor a week or so back, decided to try and cut back on my sugars and salt intake. Going to be hard for me, got a damn sweet tooth and hate veggies :-p But will do my best...... fingers crossed :D

Good luck, you've made a great decision. And it doesn't need to be an all or nothing, win or lose battle, just developing an awareness of sugar in food and making ongoing positive steps is a worthwhile change. Take the easy wins early, like cutting out fruit juice, and maybe a longer term view on reducing the more difficult sugars. As mentioned earlier, try to track down the documentaries 'Fed Up' and 'That Sugar Film'

Yes - taking note of what you're eating and moderating diet accordingly. Some people will no doubt dismiss concerns about sugar as yet another "fad diet". Pays to remember that perhaps the greatest "fad diet" con of modern times was the high carb / low fat / "sugar is harmless empty carbohydrates" fad diet, promoted by governments for political reasons and to hopefully solve *public health issues - but based on very poor science so largely failed to meet those objectives (and apparently worse), adopted with open arms by processed food manufacturers as it gave them an answer to the problem of reducing hard fat content while maintaining palatability of processed foods made with cheap ingredients - often with little nutritive value. These "fad diet" products still fill shelves in our supermarkets.

*The worst of this IMO is in the claim made by Lustig that the US Government jumped on the concept of feeding infants high sugar diets (juices etc) as a cheap way of addressing concerns about infants from the poorest backgrounds "failing to thrive". Something needed to be done (in the richest country in the world)- but that was the cheap way out and has backfired. The legacy of that can be seen today with obesity, CVD and other health correlations with wealth.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8