I'm still seething.... It seems that more and more of the "ancestral health" crowd is thinking that sugar isn't so bad after all. To quote one of my favorite bloggers: BOLLOCKS.
An estimated two-thirds of the western world needs to lose weight -- some of them, desperately. To condone sugar and sugar-containing foods (read here, fruit) just because a small percentage of people derive no harm from them is completely and utterly irresponsible.
Ignore the fact that sugar (and starch) drive up blood glucose, which drives up insulin, which denies your body the OPPORTUNITY to burn fat as fuel -- though why you'd WANT to ignore that is a whole 'nother rant in itself -- and look at some of the other things that sugar does:
- feeds cancer;
- drives up triglycerides;
- encourages NAFLD;
- irritates the digestive system;
- promotes dysbiosis;
- contributes to all kinds of brain disorders including Alzheimers and Parkinsons;
- via diabetes, contributes to blindness, gangrene, kidney failure....
F***. What is the matter with people, and what are they using for brains? Does the ADA buy them off? Is there a little devil on their shoulders telling them how much attention they'll get if they shock their audiences enough? Are they so desperate to belong to the in-crowd?
Comes a point, i sit here with my mouth open, wordlessly shaking my head.
Read "Pure, White and Deadly." Read "Sugar Nation." Use your brain.
I think people just like to eat sweet stuff and they like to rationalize why it is okay to do so. I think most people don't think poor health will happen to them no matter their diet until it does. Then they regret not paying attention to what causes stuff like metabolic syndrome. Too bad - too late!
ReplyDeleteAnother thing is the "ancestral crowd" is populated by lots of younger people who may be able to avoid metabolic syndrome etc. if they do ditch refined foods and stick to potatoes and maybe some fruit. For many of them, it may be okay. For the rest of the people(including the older ancestral crowd who think they are twenty again), they do need to grow a brain! I always wonder why they think the rules should be so different for those with "damaged metabolisms" verses those without. Something causes damaged metabolisms, most people weren't born that way. It would be reasonable to think that cutting foods that people with damaged metabolisms can't consume would probably help prevent damage to one's metabolism in the first place(as per the reasons stated in your post).
Have been lurking here for awhile. Nice blog!
thank you, Johannah! :-) "It would be reasonable to think that cutting foods that people with damaged metabolisms can't consume would probably help prevent damage to one's metabolism in the first place" ... i hadn't thought about it in exactly that way before, but it RESONATES!
ReplyDeleteIt is such arrogance with the cross-fit crowd. They truly believe that older people are all fat because they ate SAD. Let's hope they start actually listening to others. You don't have to have eaten SAD to be in a metabolic mess when older. Hey, I used to be much thinner than that Harvard person. Wait till she gets in her 40's. You wake up one morning and realize that all the things that worked before don't work the same. And Johanna, some to believe that people actually are born with damaged metabolisms. This is a central idea in the Kruse kamp.
ReplyDeletedepending on the uterine environment, i think it's very easy for a child to be born "damaged." now, THAT is the real definition of "sad."
ReplyDelete"You wake up one morning and realize that all the things that worked before don't work the same." oh lordy -- is there a truer statement.... :-)
hey, I want a t-shirt "I did all the right things" should I get XXL? lol
ReplyDeleteor perhaps a shirt that says "someday YOU'LL look like this, too!" ;-) should it be available in XXXL?
ReplyDelete