What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

The Hacking of the American Mind (1 Viewer)

And while I'm screaming in to the wind, I have to ask:  What, if anything, can be done to separate government/politics from medicine and health?  Do we even want to?  The idea that the government knows how addictive certain things are but either don't warn people or even worse, promote those things seems to be the exact opposite or what we want in government.  Again - I don't want this to be another political debate and I don't think those questions I just proposed fall in to the partisan camp but I'm really curious to know what we can do.  Are we just screwed?
All politics are local. The fault lies not in our stars.

Before i indulge any other cliches and, since i'm guessing we're going to have a substantial dialogue in the near and perhaps far future, AAA, and since i can't assume you've read everything i've written on these boards, allow me a brief introduction.

I've always been bright & tremendously curious, so much so that school was of no use to me and i struck out on my own @ 15yo to sample EVERYTHING, twice. I fell into a lucky gig in entertainment in my early teens, did a decade of that, a decade working in mental health programs, and 25 yrs in the gaming biz (the first 5 as a pro gambler). If i may be indelicate, i used to tell my poker students, "I been in the showbiz, the psych biz & the gamblin' biz - if i don't know what licks the human clit, no one does".

After a dozen years with my wife - a brilliant savage phenomenon who's the only person who never bored me - i lost her to a long, ugly battle with cancer 20 years ago. Because i could never make her happy - she was not only molested for years by her father, but traded to other perv dads like a baseball card and, from the age of 8, had to regularly "seduce" her father  to keep him off her younger siblings - there was a tremendous amount of guilt (which, as an altar boy, i had promised myself never to indulge) mixed in with my grief when she passed. I detoxed, moved to NM, and paid the bills dealing poker on the weekends in order to give myself time to explore precisely what happiness was as my way of resolving both the guilt & grief. The problem i always felt with the psych biz was that there were only models of disease and none of health.

What is a healthy mind? What is happiness (or contentment)? "Balance" is a good start, but not enough, actually, and just what are we balancing? After two decades of reading & thinking & watching & helping, i think i have a pretty good idea. It's largely two things:

1) Biology. The first job of the human mind is not thought. The job of the human mind is the same as that of any organism - survival. Therefore, even though we possess the miraculous cerebral cortex, capable of more combinations than there are atoms in this solar systems, it sits upon a structure entirely based entirely upon survival. As a result, our "alarm" systems will always be the quickest and loudest entities in our heads. The pre-frontal cortex can manage how we deal with alarms, but can not stop them from alarming us. As a result, instead of overriding our lower brains, our higher functions have largely been used to indulge them. Simply put, we have Siri and a poop-throwing monkey arguing over control of our systems and, 99.8% of the time, the ape wins. Why? Well, he's got poop.

2) Upbringing. The major psychologically-philosophical question which kept arising in my wonderings was, "How can a billionaire living the dream be more miserable than a Bidi girl in India sold into slavery by her family to roll cigarettes 16 hrs a day before being raped to sleep?". Because we are pretty much equally prone to think we have it worse than anyone else, no matter our circumstances. Why? Fifteen years it took me to figure this out. The pre-frontal cortex (the highest functioning portion of the brain, the so-called "conductor of the orchestra") grows in two spurts - from six months to two yrs of age and for another 18-month period @ puberty, when executive function becomes hard-wired to our processes. For the time between we are a sponge, able to learn anything & everything which is all sealed in @ puberty and used as required as an adult.

Except for one thing - rage. Never in your adult life will you be as upset as you were at 3yo when you didnt get the impulse item you wanted at the checkout stand. Never will you be as mortified as when you lost your blue blankie. There was no executive function to manage your primitive impulses just as there was none to interfere with your learning. Mommies and daddies were there for that, to frustrate the dominance needs of your animal self to make you a functioning human. Well, the biproduct of frustration is rage. We each have an untold number of memories of being frustrated, shamed & enraged sealed in with the alphabets, manners & times tables in our juvenile memory banks. But no real way to get at them, because we are, now in charge of ourselves, essentially no longer the person who experienced those bad feelings. So, no matter how well or poorly we were raised, we house as much wordless, unresolved rage as we do of process knowledge.

Back to local politics. Passive paranoiacs, each and every one of us, not actually knowing what anyone else, even those closest, thinks of us but sure it's the worst. Unlike a century and more ago, when putting bread on the table for ourselves & family and roofs above them was an allday, everyday necessity, we now have the time and space to entertain these fears and selfish indulgences. What's more, we used to have a book that told us how to act but we pretty much threw that away because it was written by 2000-yrs-dead shepherds & fishermen and what do they know?! Yeah, we can figure it out on our own, taking life personally. That'll work.

I disagree. What's more, since i've developed methods for handling modern life, i've tried them on a few dozen folks until i've become satisfied that they're a good start.

The key to happiness is that it is a condition of being that comes in as one invites it. The matter is to learn how to keep the decks clear of unhappiness so that contentment can rest easy in one's soul. Clearing the decks requires understanding & contextualizing old issues and learning to let "personal weather" pass thru like gas or cramps as the biproduct of activity. I've substituted new disciplines, like checklists & digestions, for old control functions like counting-to-ten & nightly prayers, so that a person can comfortably practice healthy living until they have a base and a second-level where one mines their higher instincts to achieve ongoing interest & renewal of purpose. Other than making "students" notice how silly the rest of the world looks once one has resolved their inner processes, i'd say it's been a success.

Dr Lustig's is some of the science i've trusted along the way to forming my theories, but his answers are partial. Because of the conflict between our higher & lower brain, everything actually is moral. It's just that morality isn't what we've always thought it was and information like Dr Lustig's will be how we resolve the local politics of that.

 
Wikkid - always enjoy reading your posts, this one is no exception.  I'm going to spend some time digesting what you wrote and will respond - glad to have you a part of the discussion because I know you have a lot of wisdom and years of experience to bring to the table.

 
Wikkid - always enjoy reading your posts, this one is no exception.  I'm going to spend some time digesting what you wrote and will respond - glad to have you a part of the discussion because I know you have a lot of wisdom and years of experience to bring to the table.
The reason i responded to your political question in such a fashion is that we've essentially moved beyond the ability for government to be the answer, or possibly even an answer, by the force of our personal unruliness. We have raced past our societal answers to the point that comes a time that the best option will be to heal thyself. As an old dead white guy once said, "Self-reform does more to change the world than any crowd of noisy patriots", and i'm afraid that will soon be the only answer. The time for yelling at wrong people on a screen is leaving us and the time for putting ourselves to task and our neighbors within our care is nigh.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The key to happiness is that it is a condition of being that comes in as one invites it. The matter is to learn how to keep the decks clear of unhappiness so that contentment can rest easy in one's soul.
Everyone should really read the whole post. But for anyone feeling lazy, I wanted to highlight this part because I think it's gold. Pleasure vs. happiness is something I often struggle with. This is a great thread and I look forward to reading what everyone has to say on the topic.

 
  • Smile
Reactions: Ned
I was reluctant to "go there" since I was mixing religion - at least my variant of religion and politics into your thread where these things should be tangential thoughts.   However, at the same time I think all of this is saying the same thing 

  • 2nd Post:   "Happiness begins where selfishness ends"
  • "Love thy neighbor" brings "love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,  gentleness and self-control"
  • Hillary:  "We are stronger together" 
The problem isn't so much that we need this to be discovered, but for whatever reasons we are poor at executing our lives such that we pursue those things that really bring happiness.   Which brings us to your questions of whether the power of government can coerce us towards happiness and the more lasting "rewards" .   (Ignoring whether it should.)

I tend to be a let us empower the masses to make better decisions and not ask government to pick winners and losers kind of guy, but then again everyday I'm reminded of that large chunks of people pursue their passions (whether pleasure or anger or whatever) rather than their rational best interest all too often.  So I may end up taking positions that are contrary to that original tendency.   Unfortunately our imperfections makes our politics the muddiests shades of gray and seldom black and white (or red and blue) .   

Now I need my sugar high.
I think it's fair to bring religion into this to a certain extent.  Like you posted, there are some good lessons in each book that we could all learn from - especially when it comes to this topic.

 
I think it's fair to bring religion into this to a certain extent.  Like you posted, there are some good lessons in each book that we could all learn from - especially when it comes to this topic.
Agree.  Lustig talks about connecting with other and uses religion as an example - I don't know how much time he spends on it but it's not a stretch and I think almost all of us, no matter our religious beliefs, would say that humans have a spiritual side to them.

 
1) Biology. The first job of the human mind is not thought. The job of the human mind is the same as that of any organism - survival. Therefore, even though we possess the miraculous cerebral cortex, capable of more combinations than there are atoms in this solar systems, it sits upon a structure entirely based entirely upon survival. As a result, our "alarm" systems will always be the quickest and loudest entities in our heads. The pre-frontal cortex can manage how we deal with alarms, but can not stop them from alarming us. As a result, instead of overriding our lower brains, our higher functions have largely been used to indulge them. Simply put, we have Siri and a poop-throwing monkey arguing over control of our systems and, 99.8% of the time, the ape wins. Why? Well, he's got poop.
Help me understand how this ties in to the hacking that Dr. Lustig discusses.  Are you saying that this is part of the sensory overload and looking for more pleasure?

 
Help me understand how this ties in to the hacking that Dr. Lustig discusses.  Are you saying that this is part of the sensory overload and looking for more pleasure?
The context is that it wasn't that long ago, barely a moment in evolutionary terms, that we needed every frikkin bit of our cortisol/endorphin/dopamine/serotonin hierarchy when survival was a 24/7 propostion. Now, any who would read this forum barely need any of it, yet all of it is still in play. It is of that which our imbalances are made. We are all on the hyperactivity spectrum, the polarity spectrum, the autism spectrum, the sexuality spectrum etc. We are free-running because we no longer see inhibition as a necessity and that is killing us, with the hormones Lustig cites the tools.

Should you want to learn more about the biology  of it all and are, like me, too impatient for deep brick&mortar reading, check out Robert Sapolsky's long but entertaining lecture series on behavioral biology. Much less of a "popularizer" (as my research engineer - invented the grow light - father used to call it) than Lustig, but actually a more engaging speaker.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I put this book down for a while for a variety of reasons but have picked it back up.  I feel I'm in a little bit over my head with some of the science but it's a fascinating read.

To recap - Lustig believes that our minds have been "hacked" - that biochemically our bodies and our minds have become overstimulated through food, drugs, the internet and more.  He's not spouting some big conspiracy theory (although he claims that corporations know the effects of their products in most cases) but rather a willingness by the government, corporations and ultimately all of us to allow this to happen.

He takes ideas that we all have a gut feel are true and shows scientifically why they are true.  For example, why fast food, alcohol and drugs are addictive and slowly (or quickly) killing us.  Why the internet and gaming and online overstimulates your mind and leads to addiction.  While most of these things are complex, he does a persuasive job in saying that ultimately if we "scratch you will keep itching".  We are overstimulating ourselves and reducing our dopamine receptors which leads to us wanting/needing more and more and more to get the same high but each subsequent "hit" is less satisfactory than before so we go after more.

I'm just to the point where he talks about what impacts our dopamine levels more than anything else.  Stress and the cortisol our body generates to fight it.

 
Stress

The body is designed to handle stress by releasing cortisol - this is both natural and good for you in small doses and small bursts.  While our acute stresses are decreasing (being chased by an animal for example), our chronic stresses are through the roof.  And the resulting cortisol effect is taking a toll on each of us.  Long term exposure kills you slowly.  

Most of that was not really new to me - we've always heard stress is bad for you but a rudimentary understanding of exactly how was enlightening.  Further, he goes on to say that those lower on the socioeconomic scale are most effected - obesity, diabetes, heart disease and other chronic diseases are more prevalent in middle and lower class Americans.  It is only worse for non-white Americans - due to racism and having more issues to deal with that are stress-inducing.

 
These two paragraphs probably sum up why I wanted to read this originally - I was on a health and fitness journey and thought understanding the science would be my best course of action.  This is sobering for people who are obese and fighting to get "thin".

"And what is America's preferred drug of choice in dealing with stress?  The one that is closest at hand.  And that would be - you guessed it - sugar.  Both animals and humans increase their food intake when stressed or when experiencing negative emotions, regardless of whether or not they are hungry.  The boss is yelling at you?  Krispy Kreme seems as good a solution as any.  And there's actually a reason for this.  High-energy dense food, aka comfort food (think chocolate cake) increases acute energy to the brain and thus reduces the amygdala's output and subsequent stress.  Stress may affect food intake in several ways.  For instance, people with eating disorders tend to show higher levels of cortisol or greater cortisol reactivity.

Alternatively, if stress becomes chronic, and eating is the preferred coping behavior of the individual, then highly palatable food, especially food laced with added sugar, may also become addictive.  Cortisol is an appetite stimulant;  infusion of cortisol into humans rapidly increases food intake.  Those who put out more cortisol in response to chronic stress also consume the most comfort food in response to stress.  It gets worse.  Cortisol actually kills neurons that help to inhibit food intake.  Thus the stress and reward systems are linked, with food (usually sugar) being the drug, breeding a new generation of stress eaters.  Break out the Ben & Jerry's."

 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Smile
Reactions: Ned
Thank you to the mods for moving this to the FFA - hopefully this will generate more conversation.  This book is pretty amazing and eye opening.

 
On the "science" part of things, in the video Lustig seemed to downplay the evils of salt.  I forgot the exact quote and context.  It was brief.  I've been doing a little reading about salt and it certainly seems to be an area of current debate.  Although, I guess, moderation is often the key to things.  And if you avoiding a lot of junk food, fast food and processed food, your salt intake is probably reasonable anyway.

I do like my nuts salted though.
This is an interesting one - I think salt intake is one of those things that has been misunderstood and it's impact exaggerated (for some but not all people).  What I do find interesting is when doing Keto they recommend that you salt your food as you aren't getting enough - ultimately I think what you said is accurate - if you are eating a health diet of real food then your salt intake will mostly take care of itself.

 
I put this book down for a while for a variety of reasons but have picked it back up.  I feel I'm in a little bit over my head with some of the science but it's a fascinating read.

To recap - Lustig believes that our minds have been "hacked" - that biochemically our bodies and our minds have become overstimulated through food, drugs, the internet and more.  He's not spouting some big conspiracy theory (although he claims that corporations know the effects of their products in most cases) but rather a willingness by the government, corporations and ultimately all of us to allow this to happen.

He takes ideas that we all have a gut feel are true and shows scientifically why they are true.  For example, why fast food, alcohol and drugs are addictive and slowly (or quickly) killing us.  Why the internet and gaming and online overstimulates your mind and leads to addiction.  While most of these things are complex, he does a persuasive job in saying that ultimately if we "scratch you will keep itching".  We are overstimulating ourselves and reducing our dopamine receptors which leads to us wanting/needing more and more and more to get the same high but each subsequent "hit" is less satisfactory than before so we go after more.

I'm just to the point where he talks about what impacts our dopamine levels more than anything else.  Stress and the cortisol our body generates to fight it.
Time.

Stipulating, of course, that we are products of evolution, the human is a remarkably complex & accomplished species, but its first job and the primary job of all the systems within it, is the same as that of every organism - survival.

When food and shelter and heat and light and security were provided by each household for each household, the day was just barely long enough for most families to do so. A great deal of very determined and focused work was necessary to meet basic needs. Since it takes several generations for significant selection mutation to occur and several human generations ago we lived more closely to how we did 100 gens ago than we do now, we are essentially still designed for 12-hour days of mindless toil and often as many hours of the shutdown methodology of suffering (pain, privation, hunger, disease, fear, grief).

In addition, the hegemony of the Judeo-Christian ethic for all but the last 50 years of the last two millennia has had most western humans thinking that the "noise" within them was God or the fight between good & evil. Personal & religious liberty have left us with internal challenges that we are not even close to developing a system for controlling.

Lustig is being a little too utilitarian in his conclusions, though i really can't blame him because that's where the physiological evidence points. What he's is missing, i fear, is that human life actually is moral. Even if that is anomalous, it is how human herd dynamics have evolved, and functional roles, gender roles & status are products of it. Reaction to place within the family/herd and its moral codes is still the most important determinant of behavior.

So, back to time. We have an organism designed to scratch at the ground elementally every waking hour for survival but little if any scratching left to do and no new moral models nor strong public will giving shape to the course of modern human life. We have inner urges to conquer, cower, attract, attack, hide, hoard, ####, fight, feel and no guidance for how to do so, so we've fallen upon the pleasure/pain, punish/reward cycles of our own endocrinologies as our arch motive. As our current President is the public payoff for our reckless, feckless ways, Dr Lustig is showing the private cost of relying on inner devices for coordination of each our existences.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I haven’t read the Lustig book, but it sounds similar in some ways to another book I liked a lot: The Pleasure Trap. There’s also a TED talk by one of the authors.

https://youtu.be/jX2btaDOBK8
I've now finished it and I agree with the overall premise of his talk but have some nits to pick:

  • I'm wholly unsold on a plant-based diet being what we are meant to eat - I'm much more in the camp of eating whole, natural foods (including vegetables AND meat)
  • he lost me slightly when suggesting people drink a glass of sugar water (that's what fruit juices are) - not saying it's the end of the world but I'd much more in agreement with him if this wasn't one of his solutions for getting the "bad food" out of your system.  Sugar is a MUCH bigger problem than meat and eggs and fundamentally this is where I venture off course from  plant-based diet.  You'll never convince me drinking a glass of fruit juice is a good thing (assuming you are eating a balanced diet otherwise).
Again though, I enjoyed what he had to say and his illustrations.  I think it does align with much of what I've read in the Lustig book.

 
I've now finished it and I agree with the overall premise of his talk but have some nits to pick:

  • I'm wholly unsold on a plant-based diet being what we are meant to eat - I'm much more in the camp of eating whole, natural foods (including vegetables AND meat)
  • he lost me slightly when suggesting people drink a glass of sugar water (that's what fruit juices are) - not saying it's the end of the world but I'd much more in agreement with him if this wasn't one of his solutions for getting the "bad food" out of your system.  Sugar is a MUCH bigger problem than meat and eggs and fundamentally this is where I venture off course from  plant-based diet.  You'll never convince me drinking a glass of fruit juice is a good thing (assuming you are eating a balanced diet otherwise).
Again though, I enjoyed what he had to say and his illustrations.  I think it does align with much of what I've read in the Lustig book.
I think the vegans and the ultra-low-carb proponents are about equally goofy. But neither sort of goofiness is directly relevant to the idea that various super-stimuli in the modern environment can trick us into focusing more on immediate pleasure than we should. I think that's a worthwhile insight no matter which side of the vegan-carnivore aisle it comes from.

For what it's worth, I think a glass of apple juice and a cut of chicken breast are pretty comparable in a lot of ways -- but if I had to pick one to consume for health reasons, I'd go with the apple juice. (Preferably fresh-squeezed.)

There's an overwhelming consensus that whole apples are good for you. There's a slightly weaker consensus, but plenty of good evidence, IMO, that a whole chicken is also good for you. In the context of the standard American diet, I'd say a few hundred calories' worth of whole apples would probably be more advantageous than a few hundred calories' worth of whole chickens, but the opposite may be true in the context of an Ethiopian diet. In any case, they're both good.

Apple juice and chicken breasts, unlike apples and chickens, are not whole foods. But they're not nearly as processed as something like cotton candy. While not perfectly ideal, I'd say that apple juice and chicken breasts can both be quite healthful in moderation.

Apple juice is basically apples with most of the fiber removed.

A chicken breast is a chicken with the liver, spleen, heart, kidney, brain, bones, skin, thymus, adrenal, lung, pancreas, marrow, tracheal cartilage, prostate, and so on removed.

While fiber is an important part of a whole apple, I'd guess that the majority of a whole apple's benefits come from the non-fiberous parts that are still present in the juice.

Conversely, I think it's clear that the majority of a whole chicken's benefits come from the non-breast parts.

So if I had to pick between apple juice and a chicken breast, I'd take the apple juice. Apple juice is closer to a whole apple than a chicken breast is to a whole chicken, and whole apples are probably better than whole chickens to begin with (in the context of a typical American diet).

 
Last edited by a moderator:
@Maurile Tremblay For someone trying to lose weight, would you still favor the apple juice to chicken breast?  I think your post mainly involved a nutritional comparison and I think AAABatteries might be more focused on weight loss.  

 
@Maurile Tremblay For someone trying to lose weight, would you still favor the apple juice to chicken breast?  I think your post mainly involved a nutritional comparison and I think AAABatteries might be more focused on weight loss. 
Right, I almost mentioned that. When it comes to using the pleasure trap against us and tricking us into over-consuming calories, I'd say that apple juice is a worse offender than plain (non-fried) chicken breasts for sure.

But even for weight loss, I'd recommend a juice-only fast over a chicken-only fast. (That was the context where Lisle brought up juice -- not as an add-on to the rest of your diet, but as a temporary fast. It does work well for that.)

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Right, I almost mentioned that. When it comes to using the pleasure trap against us and tricking us into over-consuming calories, I'd say that apple juice is a worse offender than plain (non-fried) chicken breasts for sure.

But even for weight loss, I'd recommend a juice-only fast over a chicken-only fast. (That was the context where Lisle brought up juice -- not as an add-on to the rest of your diet, but as a temporary fast. It does work well for that.)
The reason I disagreed with his idea of suggesting apple juice as a way to reset the pallete is the addiction part of sugar - I don’t know anyone addicted to chicken breasts or vegetables in the same way millions are addicted to sugar.  I’m willing to concede Apple juice in a vacuum is probably more  nutritious than chicken but I’m mainly looking at millions of obese and diabetic people and not someone who is already reasonably healthy and at a good weight.   And that’s assuming it’s nautral apple juice and not the stuff that companies pump loads of extra sugar in to.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Smile
Reactions: Ned
I think the vegans and the ultra-low-carb proponents are about equally goofy. But neither sort of goofiness is directly relevant to the idea that various super-stimuli in the modern environment can trick us into focusing more on immediate pleasure than we should. I think that's a worthwhile insight no matter which side of the vegan-carnivore aisle it comes from.
I agree it’s not relevant directly to his talk and that’s why I still would recommend folks listen to it.  Those were just my nits to pick.  

As for ultra low-carb.  Are we talking less than 50, less than 20 or someone shooting for single-digits?  I agree the last group falls in to the goofy category and probably less than 20 unless you have a lot of weight to lose.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Stress and Sleep

Increased stress both reduces the amount of sleep and the quality of sleep we get.  Lustig states (and I should pause here and say that I'm taking Dr. Lustig's comments at face value - I try to be critical of everything I read but so far he's shown the science and I feel he's a good source) - anyway, Lustig states that BMI increases over time for those who don't get enough sleep.  He sites a study that sleep deprivation can increase intake by 300 kcal/day.  It's well documented and we have a thread around here that people who are obese often suffer from sleep apnea and all the negative consequences of that.  Obese people also retain more carbon dioxide which makes them even hungrier (I'm unclear on that correlation).  All of this leads to a vicious (potentially deadly) cycle.  

Stress -> Sleep deprivation -> cortisol release -> altered dopamine -> Greater appetite -> Obesity -> Sleep Deprivation -> Stress

Get your sleep kiddos.  It's good for you.  It doesn't make you lazy.

 
Stress and Sleep

Increased stress both reduces the amount of sleep and the quality of sleep we get.  Lustig states (and I should pause here and say that I'm taking Dr. Lustig's comments at face value - I try to be critical of everything I read but so far he's shown the science and I feel he's a good source) - anyway, Lustig states that BMI increases over time for those who don't get enough sleep.  He sites a study that sleep deprivation can increase intake by 300 kcal/day.  It's well documented and we have a thread around here that people who are obese often suffer from sleep apnea and all the negative consequences of that.  Obese people also retain more carbon dioxide which makes them even hungrier (I'm unclear on that correlation).  All of this leads to a vicious (potentially deadly) cycle.  

Stress -> Sleep deprivation -> cortisol release -> altered dopamine -> Greater appetite -> Obesity -> Sleep Deprivation -> Stress

Get your sleep kiddos.  It's good for you.  It doesn't make you lazy.
Get rest, reduce stress, exercise, eat well --> feel great. 

 
Get rest, reduce stress, exercise, eat well --> feel great. 
So simple!  :)

The reduce stress part is interesting to me because you can accomplish this by doing the other 3.  I've never been one to think much of meditation or relaxation techniques but it's something I'm going to be looking at in 2019.

 
So simple!  :)

The reduce stress part is interesting to me because you can accomplish this by doing the other 3.  I've never been one to think much of meditation or relaxation techniques but it's something I'm going to be looking at in 2019.
Be humble & unselfish, folks - it's easier

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Lustig states (and I should pause here and say that I'm taking Dr. Lustig's comments at face value - I try to be critical of everything I read but so far he's shown the science and I feel he's a good source)
If you google "criticisms of robert lustig" you'll find plenty of nutritional scientists who think he gets some stuff (occasionally some pretty basic stuff) wrong. (For example.)

The details are generally over my head, so I can't pick a side based on my own independent understanding. But I do get the sense that Lustig appears to depart from the general consensus on some issues, for whatever that's worth.

 
If you google "criticisms of robert lustig" you'll find plenty of nutritional scientists who think he gets some stuff (occasionally some pretty basic stuff) wrong. (For example.)

The details are generally over my head, so I can't pick a side based on my own independent understanding. But I do get the sense that Lustig appears to depart from the general consensus on some issues, for whatever that's worth.
Read a lot of that and like you most of that was over my head.  I do thinks it’s at time too easy to demonize certain things (like sugar) but the problem I have is somebody reads this and says, “see, sugar is fine”.  It seems the equivalent of finding the right level of nicotine or some other drug where it could be deemed safe and then arguing that it’s fine in the right amount.*

*Admitedly I’m as hypocritical as anybody - I still consume alcohol, caffeine, sugar substitutes and other things that are not really good for our systems.

 
Further, while I admit it appears that he’s either wrong or misguided (or this paper is wrong) on some things, I think Lustig would argue, so what?  Show me the percent of people who actually stick to the guidelines versus the millions who have become addicted and can’t break out of it.  

Now, we should (and do) want accuracy from a doctor like Lustig and I’d love to hear his rebuttal to this criticism but I’m happy myself in making the argument above.  Who cares - the goal (for me) isn’t 100% perfect science while still having a lot of sick people (including myself).  And MT, I know you aren’t saying that - I’m just ranting in to the wind at this point. :)  

 
Final thought on this - I’ve not read the sugar book, although I plan to. This dissection of his book and the conclusion Kern writes comes across (to me) as those who are “pro-sugar” went to a knowledgeable source and said pick this apart (which is valid) and then claims this just muddies the water so you can’t trust any of it.  I don’t believe that - it’s one of those letter of the law versus the spirit.  My feeling (and it could just be a feeling and something I’m wrong about) is the Lustig gets the spirit of it right even if it’s not the letter of the law when it comes to sugar nutrition.  I base my feeling on other things I’ve read, the general consensus on sugar and also anecdotal evidence.  Also, unless I missed it, I don’t think he addresses the idea of sugar addiction (could be that I missed it).

 
Read a lot of that and like you most of that was over my head.  I do thinks it’s at time too easy to demonize certain things (like sugar) but the problem I have is somebody reads this and says, “see, sugar is fine”.  It seems the equivalent of finding the right level of nicotine or some other drug where it could be deemed safe and then arguing that it’s fine in the right amount.*

*Admitedly I’m as hypocritical as anybody - I still consume alcohol, caffeine, sugar substitutes and other things that are not really good for our systems.
Nobody who reads that review should come to the conclusion that “sugar is fine”. In fact, a paragraph specifically discusses that point.

I think you’re a little overboard on the anti-sugar thing although I understand your position from a dieting standpoint. I don’t see sugar as a drug. It’s an easy energy source that can be abused in excessive quantities.  I guess I might be a little biased though by my experience with the advantages of consuming sugars during distance running.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Nobody who reads that review should come to the conclusion that “sugar is fine”. In fact, a paragraph specifically discusses that point.

I think you’re a little overboard on the anti-sugar thing although I understand your position from a dieting standpoint. I don’t see sugar as a drug. It’s an easy energy source that can be abused in excessive quantities.  I guess I might be a little biased though by my experience with the advantages of consuming sugars during sistance running.
I think you are 100% right on me being overboard and anti-sugar.  Guilty as charged.  There’s several reasons for that but it’s true.

I do think I missed the paragraph you are referencing - the conclusion seems to imply that though (IMO).  I will go back and reread.

I don’t guess we would classify sugar as a drug, not sure it matters.  If I or others can be addicted to it and we can all agree that there’s a level where it becomes very bad for you then I’d rather avoid it than balance it - but everybody is different and it does seem that some people can handle that balance.  I would argue that you could get that energy from another source but I admit that I’m not knowledgeable enough to know if that would be better or neutral.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think you are 100% right on me being overboard and anti-sugar.  Guilty as charged.  There’s several reasons for that but it’s true.

I do think I missed the paragraph you are referencing - the conclusion seems to imply that though (IMO).  I will go back and reread.

I don’t guess we would classify sugar as a drug, not sure it matters.  If I or others can be addicted to it and we can all agree that there’s a level where it becomes very bad for you then I’d rather avoid it than balance it - but everybody is different and it does seem that some people can handle that balance.  I would argue that you could get that energy from another source but I admit that I’m not knowledgeable enough to know if that would be better or neutral.  
This part:

V. LACK OF RECOGNITION OF SUGAR INTAKE RECOMMENDATIONS
Many organizations, including those of the Federal government, recommend limiting the consumption of sugar, yet the author leads the readers to believe that most health experts and organizations suggest that consumers may eat as much sugar as they desire without negative consequences. On page 245, he says there is “no sugar limit”; however, the Dietary Guidelines for Americans clearly recommend that less than 25% of energy intake be from added sugars. This is also consistent with the recommendations from the Food and Nutrition Board through the Dietary Reference Intake recommendations (Institute of Medicine 2005). Multiple other Federal agencies and publications recommend limiting sugar intake. For instance, the Centers for Disease Control recommends that “Youth should drink fewer sugar-sweetened beverages and more water and low-fat or fat-free milk, or limited amounts of 100% fruit juices. Families, schools and other institutions need to provide healthy beverage choices” ( http://www.cdc.gov/Features/HealthyBeverages/ ). For many years messages for limiting the consumption of sugar have been common.

 
This part:
Yeah, I was just reading that - and while it’s accurate, I read, “see, sugar is fine in moderate amounts”.  But that ignores why I would argue that it’s not - people don’t understand how the body metabolizes carbs and they don’t understand the addictive nature of sugar.  We are getting more educated in those area but not enough.  How many people eat one dessert that takes them to their carb limit and then eat mostly fat otherwise?  Except for a nut job like me on rare occasions?  :)   

 
As i've said early in this thread, Lustig's a better popularizer/polemicist than scientist. If he was more scientist, his important message simply wouldnt have the same reach. There are as many interests and maybe even more money looking to silence/discredit nutrition advocates as have done same to climate-change specialists. I'm happier to take Lustig w a grain of salt than see him buried in it by the corn lobby.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yeah, I was just reading that - and while it’s accurate, I read, “see, sugar is fine in moderate amounts”.  But that ignores why I would argue that it’s not - people don’t understand how the body metabolizes carbs and they don’t understand the addictive nature of sugar.  We are getting more educated in those area but not enough.  How many people eat one dessert that takes them to their carb limit and then eat mostly fat otherwise?  Except for a nut job like me on rare occasions?  :)   
How does your opinion of sugar consumption change for people at healthy body weights?

 
How does your opinion of sugar consumption change for people at healthy body weights?
Good question and honestly I’m not nearly educated enough on these topics to give anything other than what would amount to an opinion and doing a poor job of regurgitating what I’ve read.  But I’ll try.  

I think the question about healthy weight and sugar is the wrong one.  I think there’s people who are healthy weight and diabetic so maybe he better question is around insulin sensitivity.  My guess is most people who are a healthy weight are not insulin sensitive but have the ability to become so.  For those, it does appear that over time your insulin sensitivity becomes “worse” so you need to make sure and stay within limits and monitor how your body reacts.  I think it’s “easier” for most people to keep their carbs low than it is to walk the tightrope - I know it is for me.  

Let me reiterate a few things here since I feel like I’m coming across preachy or a zealot:

- I’m not a doctor or a medical professional; I’ve never been trained and really have limited knowledge on these thing; I’m mostly going off what I read and what I put in to practice 

- I don’t have any answers and I acknowledge what works for me may not work for others

- I’m on a journey like everyone, I want to be healthy and feel good and be happy and I hope the same for everyone here.  

- I’m biased in certain areas because of my experience, some of what I believe may be WAY wrong, some may be right but I know either way I’m biased;  I hope I’m open minded enough to take all information and do what I think is best

- @Ned is worse than sugar and should be permabanned 

 
As i've said early in this thread, Lustig's a better popularizer/polemicist than scientist. If he was more scientist, his important message simply wouldnt have the same reach. There are as many interests and maybe even more money looking to silence/discredit nutrition advocates as have done same to climate-change specialists. I'm happy to take Lustig w a grain of salt than see him buried in it by the corn lobby.
That summarizes my thought about it being a “hit piece”, although a potentially accurate “hit piece”.

 
Read a lot of that and like you most of that was over my head.  I do thinks it’s at time too easy to demonize certain things (like sugar) but the problem I have is somebody reads this and says, “see, sugar is fine”.  It seems the equivalent of finding the right level of nicotine or some other drug where it could be deemed safe and then arguing that it’s fine in the right amount.
I don't think finding the right level of sugar is like finding the right level of nicotine. I think it's rather more like finding the right level of fat.

Sugar and fat are both not just okay; they're absolutely essential. (Sugar is so essential that if you don't eat any with your mouth, your liver will manufacture it for you.) Some people overeat sugary foods just like some people overeat fatty foods (and an awful lot of people overeat both), but neither sugar nor fat are inherently bad for you. Too many calories are bad for you, in whatever form (too much protein being worst of all), but that doesn't make any of the three main micronutrients intrinsically toxic..

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't think finding the right level of sugar is like finding the right level of nicotine. I think it's rather more like finding the right level of fat.

Sugar and fat are both not just okay; they're absolutely essential. (Sugar is so essential that if you don't eat any with your mouth, your liver will manufacture it for you.) Some people overeat sugary foods just like some people overeat fatty foods (and an awful lot of people overeat both), but they're not inherently bad for you. Too many calories are bad for you, in whatever form (too much protein being worst of all), but that doesn't make any of the three main micronutrients intrinsically toxic..
Is sugar essential or carbohydrates or does it matter because of how we metabolize them?  Maybe we even need to talk about what we mean by sugar (and I'm not even sure I know a great answer to that).  I don't think we have to eat sugar in the sense of refined sugar/sugar cane, etc.  When we eat vegetables we can, in theory, get plenty of carbs which our body will metabolize as "sugar" to give us energy.  Maybe a better way of putting it is to say finding a balance of foods where sugar has been added??  I am skeptical of those who say never eat any fruit but I do understand those with a deranged metabolic state with high insulin sensitivity may not react well to fruit (especially the high glycemic ones).

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Is sugar essential or carbohydrates or does it matter because of metabolism?  Maybe we even need to talk about what we mean by sugar (and I'm not even sure I know a great answer to that).  I don't think we have to eat sugar in the sense of refined sugar/sugar cane, etc.  When we eat vegetables we can get plenty of carbs which our body will metabolize as "sugar" to give us energy.  Maybe a better way of putting it is to say finding a balance of foods where sugar has been added??  I am skeptical of those who say never eat any fruit but I do understand those with a deranged metabolic state with high insulin sensitivity may not react well to fruit (especially the high glycemic ones).
Ultimately, it's glucose that's essential.

Yes, there's a huge difference between a banana and a candy cane. Just like there's a huge difference between avocados and vegetable oil. It's the refined stuff that's problematic because it bypasses our normal, evolved, internal signals about appetite regulation and whatnot. Whole fruits are about the best foods possible for improving glucose sensitivity. Refined sugar is about the worst food possible for it. Totally opposite effects even though they're both "carbs."

 
Ultimately, it's glucose that's essential.

Yes, there's a huge difference between a banana and a candy cane. Just like there's a huge difference between avocados and vegetable oil. It's the refined stuff that's problematic because it bypasses our normal, evolved, internal signals about appetite regulation and whatnot. Whole fruits are about the best foods possible for improving glucose sensitivity. Refined sugar is about the worst food possible for it. Totally opposite effects even though they're both "carbs."
Have you read Lustig's sugar book?  If so, do you have any thoughts to add to the link you posted from Kern?

I realize I'm hijacking my own thread but I think this is an important side discussion - although, for those following along, The Hacking of the American Mind has not focused much at all (so far) on sugar.

 
Have you read Lustig's sugar book?  If so, do you have any thoughts to add to the link you posted from Kern?
No, I haven't read either of his books. I did watch (and enthusiastically share) the original very long YouTube video where he compares the metabolism of fructose with the metabolism of alcohol. But since then, I've seen a number of pretty persuasive criticisms of that talk by people who seem to know their stuff.

I don't remember whether the Kern paper was one I'd already seen. That was just a random selection from the first few Google results for "criticisms of Robert Lustig." There are loads more like that.

 
Regarding cost of healthy food, I was thinking about a sales tax structure that could help.  For instance, donuts or Fritos could be taxed at 20%.  Spinach could have a negative tax (discount).  Overall, tax revenue could still be maintained (or grown) assuming they can predict aggregate behavior.  I know there are other ways to tax but this would be good for consumers to see on their receipts.  Of course, this would require labeling foods with some type of tax rating.
Fritos are just corn, corn oil, and salt. Please leave them alone. Do what you must with donuts. 

 
We left off with stress and cortisol.  What I found interesting after reading through that was we here so much about reducing stress, that stress is bad for us, etc., etc.  But is there a good way for us to easily monitor our stress levels in the same way we can monitor our glucose and blood pressure?  I went searching - seems like there's 3 ways to test your cortisol levels - blood, saliva and urine.  The home saliva test seems to be almost like the body fat scale - it's not great at being accurate but can kind of show trends.

I've tried to start incorporating some breathing exercises - probably a bastardized meditation attempt.

One other coincidental thing happened recently.  My company introduced a VR technology that they are bringing in to our office for relaxation and meditation purposes.  I plan to try it this week and will report back.

 
  • Smile
Reactions: Ned

Users who are viewing this thread

Top