Pure White and Deadly - The Sugar conspiracy (or why the world's obese) ...

[SavageHoutkop]

Personally, I think the whole overweight thing as well as the thin-but-unhealthy thing (i.e. being thin but still dying of a heart attack or related) is very complex. I also think that metabolism has a *lot* to do with it. Personally, I'm petite and I suspect will remain that way almost irrespective of what I eat. Having said that, when I was in London just post uni, and was on a tight budget & eating Iceland foods, I put on weight.

 

[Fab Foodie]

Surely immaterial, given that the salmon is covered in salt, doing the same thing?

Yep the salt is doing the same thing and also offering a preservative effect. However salt differs from sugar in that the brine effectively formed will slowly penetrate the flesh and as it does the salt solubilises some of the meat proteins softening the texture. Using sugar will help to draw out the moisture without too much the solubilising effect ( and strong taste) of using salt alone.
The solubilisation of the meat proteins will bind moisture during the smoking process. Too much salt however has the opposite effect.

That would be my take on it. The sugar allows a more moderate amount of salt to be used.

 

[Yellow Saddle]

Is sugar itself bad for you, or is it only bad if you don't do enough exercise to burn off the calories?

That's an interesting question that's applicable to many long-distance athletes such as runners and cyclists.

The answer is that it is bad for you in itself. It stimulates an insulin response whether you are exercising or not. Too much insulin damages cell walls which then requires more and more insulin in a vicious cycle. The evidence for this is the high percentage of older long-distance athletes who grew up on carbo-loading and X amoung of carbs per hour whilst exercising now developing type two diabetes. This is very well described and documented by Prof Tim Noakes. His first book, Lore of Running sold millions and millions of copies in the 1970s, 80s and 90s and went through several revisions. Five years ago he figuratively tore up the book with another one, telling the world we've been told a lie and he was one of the messengers. His Damascus moment came when he developed diabetes when he was thought not to be a candidate. There's a huge furore in the medical industry about Noaks at present. I'm following it with interest. It is basically the Banting debate with a human twist. A previous proponent killing off his very, very lucrative book sales on purpose and doing a mea culpa.

 

[Spinney]

That's an interesting question that's applicable to many long-distance athletes such as runners and cyclists.

The answer is that it is bad for you in itself. It stimulates an insulin response whether you are exercising or not. Too much insulin damages cell walls which then requires more and more insulin in a vicious cycle. The evidence for this is the high percentage of older long-distance athletes who grew up on carbo-loading and X amoung of carbs per hour whilst exercising now developing type two diabetes. This is very well described and documented by Prof Tim Noakes. His first book, Lore of Running sold millions and millions of copies in the 1970s, 80s and 90s and went through several revisions. Five years ago he figuratively tore up the book with another one, telling the world we've been told a lie and he was one of the messengers. His Damascus moment came when he developed diabetes when he was thought not to be a candidate. There's a huge furore in the medical industry about Noaks at present. I'm following it with interest. It is basically the Banting debate with a human twist. A previous proponent killing off his very, very lucrative book sales on purpose and doing a mea culpa.

Is 'sugar' the same as carb loading though?

I thought the insulin response thing applied mainly to refined sugar, where it takes very little time for it to be digested into the bloodstream, and not to slow-release, complex carbs. i.e. eating the same number of calories from carbs is fine if it is from porridge, but not if done by eating spoonfuls of sugar?
(i.e. low GI OK, high GI - as in refined sugar - not OK) ??

 

[Yellow Saddle]

Is 'sugar' the same as carb loading though?

I thought the insulin response thing applied mainly to refined sugar, where it takes very little time for it to be digested into the bloodstream, and not to slow-release, complex carbs. i.e. eating the same number of calories from carbs is fine if it is from porridge, but not if done by eating spoonfuls of sugar?
(i.e. low GI OK, high GI - as in refined sugar - not OK) ??

My understanding is that both produce an insulin response. I'm out of my depth here, so let's ask @Fab Foodie

 

[Fab Foodie]

My understanding is that both produce an insulin response. I'm out of my depth here, so let's ask @Fab Foodie

Quick answer for now ( I need to spend some time on this thread!).

All carbohydrates are composed of sugars, they are either free or joined together as in starch, maktidextrins, celluloses, pectins Xylans and the like. Some can be broken down in humans like starches, others cannot like celluloses (dietary fibres if you like).
The rate at which carbohydrates are broken down reflects their GI value and this may be affected by the starch form (of which there are many) and the food structure its associated with.

Now, insulin is the bodies sugar scavenger molecule if you like and its main role is to regulate how much sugar is in the blood at any given time ( to stop us fainting or going into a sugar coma) and importantly to make sure any excess is stored for leaner less food abundant times, and that it does very effectively by storing excess as fat.

At any given time there will be some small amounts of insulin activity organising the sugars gently released from your porridge. Much will be utilised by the brain ( a huge glucose consumer), some will be used for fuelling normal cellular activity, much will be stored in either the liver or the muscles as Glycogen, the bodies primary short-term energy store. The glycogen storage however is quite small and any notable excess will be converted to fat.
Most people with a reasonable diet and moderate exercise will tend to have their glycogen stores reasonably well stocked most of the time, trickle-fed by their diets.

Imagine now that we go a drink a coke with all that free sugar. The body suddenly has a high rush of sugar coming it's way, a large quantity of insulin is produced to deal with it to prevent a sugar coma. What will it do with this sugar if it's glycogen stores are mostly full and the brain has plenty already in the blood to feed it? The body has to convert it to fat as it has no other coping mechanism.
But there's is another downside .... The sudden insulin response is not perfect and it can overdo things leading to storing too much and temporarily loosing control over blood sugar levels so that they drop .... Which makes us feel hungry .... For sugar! So we can get a yo-yo effect. Drip feeding carbs via low GI or a lower sugar diet allows the body to control itself better.

Ultimately any excess digestible carbohydrate can be stored as fat if glycogen stores are full.


Not very short was it? Hope it makes sense!

 

[Yellow Saddle]

Quick answer for now ( I need to spend some time on this thread!).

All carbohydrates are composed of sugars, they are either free or joined together as in starch, maktidextrins, celluloses, pectins Xylans and the like. Some can be broken down in humans like starches, others cannot like celluloses (dietary fibres if you like).
The rate at which carbohydrates are broken down reflects their GI value and this may be affected by the starch form (of which there are many) and the food structure its associated with.

Now, insulin is the bodies sugar scavenger molecule if you like and its main role is to regulate how much sugar is in the blood at any given time ( to stop us fainting or going into a sugar coma) and importantly to make sure any excess is stored for leaner less food abundant times, and that it does very effectively by storing excess as fat.

At any given time there will be some small amounts of insulin activity organising the sugars gently released from your porridge. Much will be utilised by the brain ( a huge glucose consumer), some will be used for fuelling normal cellular activity, much will be stored in either the liver or the muscles as Glycogen, the bodies primary short-term energy store. The glycogen storage however is quite small and any notable excess will be converted to fat.
Most people with a reasonable diet and moderate exercise will tend to have their glycogen stores reasonably well stocked most of the time, trickle-fed by their diets.

Imagine now that we go a drink a coke with all that free sugar. The body suddenly has a high rush of sugar coming it's way, a large quantity of insulin is produced to deal with it to prevent a sugar coma. What will it do with this sugar if it's glycogen stores are mostly full and the brain has plenty already in the blood to feed it? The body has to convert it to fat as it has no other coping mechanism.
But there's is another downside .... The sudden insulin response is not perfect and it can overdo things leading to storing too much and temporarily loosing control over blood sugar levels so that they drop .... Which makes us feel hungry .... For sugar! So we can get a yo-yo effect. Drip feeding carbs via low GI or a lower sugar diet allows the body to control itself better.

Ultimately any excess digestible carbohydrate can be stored as fat if glycogen stores are full.


Not very short was it? Hope it makes sense!

Excellent recap, thanks Foodie.

 

[ColinJ]

Is 'maktidextrin' a real word or a typo for 'maltodextrin'? I searched for the former and Google suggested the latter. I add maltodextrin to my drinks for long rides and wonder what that is doing to my insulin.

 

[Yellow Saddle]

Is 'maktidextrin' a real word or a typo for 'maltodextrin'? I searched for the former and Google suggested the latter. I add maltodextrin to my drinks for long rides and wonder what that is doing to my insulin.

Finger trouble.

As for insulin, it spikes it as quickly as glucose, performing exactly as Foodie described above and the same cellular damage that leads to type 2 diabetes as the rest of the culprits.

Current thinking is that water is all you need if your diet contains enough slow-release energy from fat.

 

[Spinney]

Fab Foodie's description is what I thought - so slow release carbs don't tend to give the harmful insulin yo-yo effect...

 

[Wafer]

Which is meant to be the point of the low GI 'diet' which I believe started as a tool for diabetics, so glad that seems to make sense still!

 

[User482]

Yep the salt is doing the same thing and also offering a preservative effect. However salt differs from sugar in that the brine effectively formed will slowly penetrate the flesh and as it does the salt solubilises some of the meat proteins softening the texture. Using sugar will help to draw out the moisture without too much the solubilising effect ( and strong taste) of using salt alone.
The solubilisation of the meat proteins will bind moisture during the smoking process. Too much salt however has the opposite effect.

That would be my take on it. The sugar allows a more moderate amount of salt to be used.

I haven't tried curing salmon without using sugar, but I would imagine the taste would be quite unpleasant.

 

[Yellow Saddle]

Which is meant to be the point of the low GI 'diet' which I believe started as a tool for diabetics, so glad that seems to make sense still!

Unfortunately in the endurance world low GI has been seen as anti-performance. This is evident from all the high GI products on the athletic market ranging from gels and goos, to energy bars, energy drinks, post recovery drinks and god knows what else. The popular notion is that endurance exercise makes you immune from insulin-related diseases. It doesn't.

It takes about 5 decades for scientific "truth" to shift. In the 1970s we had the notion that endurance athletes don't suffer heart disease. Fortunately that notion's foundation crumbled with the heart-attack death of Jim Fixx, a very powerful proponent of the theory.

I feel we are on the cusp of a breakthrough with the carbohydrate thing but confusing and weak messages from the NHS here and FDA in the US don't help. The Food Pyramid is a classic example of outdated theories, yet it is taught in every school. We need Jim Fixx to reincarnate and pop his clogs all over again.

 

[Wafer]

I would assume Low-GI wasn't the best thing for top level performance anyway, not when actually competing at least. Interesting then to say that some of these foods/products might be good for performance, but bad for health, you could argue they should be treated like some performance enhancing drugs...

 

[Yellow Saddle]

I would assume Low-GI wasn't the best thing for top level performance anyway, not when actually competing at least. Interesting then to say that some of these foods/products might be good for performance, but bad for health, you could argue they should be treated like some performance enhancing drugs...

Not really. Top high-endurance athletes are all switching to fat as a fuel. I don't follow the marathon-distance set so I can't comment on the trends there.