Watched the documentary film Fat Fiction on Amazon last night. Well worth a gander.

laklak wrote:Aspartame is a synthetic sweetener. Sucrose is a natural sugar. Fructose is a natural sugar. There is absolutely no similarity between aspartame and either sucrose or fructose.

If you eat shitloads of sugar and/or artificial sweeteners it will have a deleterious effect on your health. Therefore, don't eat shitloads of sugar and avoid artificial sweeteners.

Actually it's nowhere near a 'shitload' of sugar that is required to be detrimental to health. You could argue it's any amount.

I'd take my chances with any of the artificial sweeteners over sucrose and fructose...not that I have to given there's plenty of natural sweetener options.

I hear artificial sweeteners end up messing up your biology...
real sugars, in moderate amounts at least are fuel for your organism.

Svartalf wrote:I hear artificial sweeteners end up messing up your biology...
real sugars, in moderate amounts at least are fuel for your organism.

Some people say that they can trick the body into thinking you've had sugar and causing an insulin spike but I haven't seen any evidence.

Edit: You mean they can mess with your digestion/biome? Yes some people get the scats with certain sweeteners. As you can't digest them they go straight through to your large intestine where they can draw in fluid. If you have an issue with one there's loads of other options and, ultimately, you can do without. BTW...not all sweeteners are artificial, there's plenty of natural choices. I use Erythritol occasionally.

Any energy boost from glucose is short lived and the resultant insulin spike will cause hunger cravings within a short period of time. The fructose, and table sugar is 50% fructose, has to be metabolised by the liver before it can be used by the body as glucose. It's like alcohol without the mental affects. Often though it is deposited as visceral fat.

Briton wrote:

Fallible wrote:I’m guilty of past junk food consumption, but luckily I also liked an awful lot of ‘healthy’ foods. These days I hardly eat a damn thing, and my main goal is to try and take as many calories on board as I can. My main meal of the day was a whole tub of Onken strawberry yoghurt. 350 calories and lots of sugar.

Your consumption of junk food is not in the past then.

No it isn’t, and it’s a deliberate tactic. I’ve got cancer and have been told to eat any shit I can tolerate, especially high calorie shit. I still managed to lose a further 1st 4lb in a month.

Fallible wrote:

Briton wrote:

Fallible wrote:I’m guilty of past junk food consumption, but luckily I also liked an awful lot of ‘healthy’ foods. These days I hardly eat a damn thing, and my main goal is to try and take as many calories on board as I can. My main meal of the day was a whole tub of Onken strawberry yoghurt. 350 calories and lots of sugar.

Your consumption of junk food is not in the past then.

No it isn’t, and it’s a deliberate tactic. I’ve got cancer and have been told to eat any shit I can tolerate, especially high calorie shit. I still managed to lose a further 1st 4lb in a month.

Ah right. Have you looked into autophagy?

I’ve looked into everything. Believe me, I have no trouble fasting. As for ketogenic diets, trying to eat high amounts of fat while on this drug is self-defeating, as it causes intolerance of fatty foods, so just leads to more vomiting. More vomiting, and my quality of life being even more shit. I’ve been told to eat whatever high calorie crap I can keep down. Unfortunately, that’s carbs, not fat. And no, I’m not prepared to stop taking a drug that is reversing the lytic lesions in my bones so that I can do a diet.

Isn't the keto diet just another fad?
I was reading recently about some people really messing themselves up recently somewhere by cutting carbs. Because we need them, like.

Well, the evidence of benefit isn’t strong enough for me to seriously consider it. There’s a threshold, you know? Someone else may do well, I couldn’t say. The problem with something being apparently preventative is how do you tell? There’s no way to see, for example, who will definitely get cancer without an intervention, so what is the gauge for efficacy?

Every single RCC drug on the market bar one has outright failed to work as profylaxis, and that one shows mixed results. Almost all of them also eventually fail on someone with stage IV cancer, as the cancer mutates to get around them. Now I’m aware that renal cell carcinoma is an especially tricksy beast, but that’s what makes discernment and caution so important. This is just my personal view of course, but if drugs specifically designed to kill or control cancer don’t stop it developing, I have doubts that a diet induced state can.

As for reversal of cancer, I’m not saying there’s nothing in it. I’m a sceptic in most things, not just deity talk, so my default setting is show me the peer reviewed evidence, and if it is there, explain to me in a way I can understand why doctors aren’t in the loop. Explain without resorting to conspiracy theories, that is. The reading I’ve done suggests that in advanced cancers, autophagy is actually tumour promoting. Well, advanced cancer is me, and I’m taking a drug that has given me incontrovertible, quantifiable and well evidenced benefits. Sorry, I’m not the droid you’re (generic) looking for.

Well, I meant in general. I doubt any diet could reverse cancer, though I've heaed people claim it. There was a woman going around recently promoting a diet she said she got from the Old Testament which she she claimed cured her cancer. And not, y'know, the treatment in hospital she claimed only made her sicker.

I'd say with cancer you have quacks springing out of every where?

I was talking to a woman with cancer in the smoking area of a pub one night (I know, lol) when some guy who overheard us suddenly butts in and claims he knew a Buddhist monk with healing hands who could 'burn it out of her'. She told him to fuck off.


No, but in general I was reading about people nearly dying from cutting out carbs.

Quacks are everywhere in this game. So are quack believers who look like normal people on the outside.

Yeah...sorry for taking your point and running with it. Uh huh, I’m in the ‘we probably need them’ camp. Carbs, that is.

I'm still on intermittent fasting with a cheat day. Looking at some medical websites, like the Mayo Clinic's, it's the only one with no known side effects. But only because the long term studies aren't there. I feel fine though. Good in fact.

Well, that’s the main thing.

There's no reason why IF would be a problem health-wise. If you can manage to go that long during the day without eating then it can be very helpful for getting your calories down, even if you don't buy all the shit about your body burning more fat that way (I don't).

Cutting down on carbs is pretty much always a good idea, seeing how much of them we typically consume. But I haven't seen any solid evidence of keto making you lose more weight than you would with CICO (counting calories) if the number of calories are matched. The only thing I think it's got right is consuming more protein when you're dieting so you don't lose as much muscle mass, which you always do to some degree when dieting.