Let's look at this from the standpoint of Pascal's Wager.
If eating too much sugar is bad for you and has negative consequences and you choose to cut back, you have significant gains in living a healthy lifestyle.
If sugar is not bad for you and you cut back, you've given up on a few pleasures, but in the grand scheme of things, you've lost nothing.
So, why not cut back and eat as if sugar is bad for you? I think there is enough credible evidence to take a chance and cut back.
No, I don't feel the same way about non-gmo, organic, grass fed, gluten free food, grown and cultivated by virgin nuns. I think the "natural food" cruft is just a bunch of marketing.
Let's look at this from the standpoint of Pascal's Wager.
If reading hackernews gives you brain cancer, you could save your life by not reading it.
If reading hackernews doesn't give you brain cancer, you've given up on a minor pleasure, but in the grand scheme of things, you've lost nothing.
So, why not cut back and avoid hackernews as if it gives your brain cancer?
...
I don't think Pascal's Wager is a good reason to do anything. It can be used to justify anything: there are an infinite amount of potential bad things that can happen.
That makes it sound easy. For some, trying to cut back is not giving up on a few pleasures, it's embarking on an incredibly effortful, emotionally and often physically draining undertaking.
> If sugar is not bad for you and you cut back, you've given up on a few pleasures, but in the grand scheme of things, you've lost nothing.
I disagree that giving up sugar and sugary stuff is the same as giving up on a few pleasures. That just sweeps the issues under the carpet, so to speak. Depending on the person, giving up sugar can be a whole lot more, and for some people it may be equivalent to giving up the biggest pleasures and the biggest supporters of existence itself. Tangentially, sugar is one of those things that's not as easy to give up for most people because of how our bodies are wired (and have evolved). The dopamine effect, the reinforcement and the need to up the intake to get more pleasure can be a serious hindrance even to the most rational, thinking and open minded people.
> Let's look at this from the standpoint of Pascal's Wager.
The problem with Pascal's Wager in most applications, including this one, is the “if X does Y...” can trivially be flipped to “if not-X does Y...” or, in some cases, “if not-X does Z...” where Z has equally negative consequences to Y).
Mostly, the Pascal's Wager structure is a template for flimsy rationalizations of pre-existing preferences or beliefs.
Pascal’s wager doesn’t apply in this case as Ray Peat believes cutting back on sugar is really bad for you.
He doesn’t just think all current experts are wrong, he seems to be one of those rebel doctors who will specifically claim the opposite of any currently accepted fact regarding health and nutrition.
sigh typical Gary Taubes.
Sugar itself is not an empty calorie, and is more than easily stored and used by the body.
Of course, I do think that sugar has a special place in our body that affects things more than we understand (for instance, how a ketogenic diet can lower and regulate epileptic siezures).
But empty? I get alcohol being an empty calorie, since it's a toxin that your body cannot store, but protein, fat, and carbohydrates can and are all either stored or used.
Not only that, but protein can have an insulin response as well, which makes you think that maybe insulin resistance isn't caused by only a single macronutrient.
Gary Taubes, while I respect some of what he does, approaches his hypotheses as if they were forgone conclusions. And he has had his sugar axe to grind for so long, it's hard to tell how much he his cherry picking his data and how much it reflects reality.
You are taking his definition of "empty" quite literally while in the article, his definition of "empty" clearly states:
> sugars cause dental caries and are a source of excess calories, “empty” of vitamins, minerals, protein, and fibre
On proteins having an insulin response, when you intake too much protein, glucose is formed from a metabolic process known as gluconeogenesis which can definitely cause an insulin response.
Interested to hear why you "think that sugar has a special place in our body". Is this from empirical or anecdotal evidence?
From a myriad of anecdotal evidence from my immediate and extended family, I'm personally convinced that there are significant downsides to America's addiction to sugar.
Discussion, debate, close examination of results/methods, and the like are helpful. But calling out an entire research topic as "non-sense" holds back scientific progress, even if the research topic appears fruitless. Many of today's accepted truths were yesterday's non-sense.
[+] [-] aylons|8 years ago|reply
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/gary-taubes-and-the-cause-o...
[+] [-] scarface74|8 years ago|reply
If eating too much sugar is bad for you and has negative consequences and you choose to cut back, you have significant gains in living a healthy lifestyle.
If sugar is not bad for you and you cut back, you've given up on a few pleasures, but in the grand scheme of things, you've lost nothing.
So, why not cut back and eat as if sugar is bad for you? I think there is enough credible evidence to take a chance and cut back.
No, I don't feel the same way about non-gmo, organic, grass fed, gluten free food, grown and cultivated by virgin nuns. I think the "natural food" cruft is just a bunch of marketing.
[+] [-] cwkoss|8 years ago|reply
If reading hackernews gives you brain cancer, you could save your life by not reading it.
If reading hackernews doesn't give you brain cancer, you've given up on a minor pleasure, but in the grand scheme of things, you've lost nothing.
So, why not cut back and avoid hackernews as if it gives your brain cancer?
...
I don't think Pascal's Wager is a good reason to do anything. It can be used to justify anything: there are an infinite amount of potential bad things that can happen.
[+] [-] Waterluvian|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tszymczyszyn|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] brador|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] newscracker|8 years ago|reply
I disagree that giving up sugar and sugary stuff is the same as giving up on a few pleasures. That just sweeps the issues under the carpet, so to speak. Depending on the person, giving up sugar can be a whole lot more, and for some people it may be equivalent to giving up the biggest pleasures and the biggest supporters of existence itself. Tangentially, sugar is one of those things that's not as easy to give up for most people because of how our bodies are wired (and have evolved). The dopamine effect, the reinforcement and the need to up the intake to get more pleasure can be a serious hindrance even to the most rational, thinking and open minded people.
[+] [-] dragonwriter|8 years ago|reply
The problem with Pascal's Wager in most applications, including this one, is the “if X does Y...” can trivially be flipped to “if not-X does Y...” or, in some cases, “if not-X does Z...” where Z has equally negative consequences to Y).
Mostly, the Pascal's Wager structure is a template for flimsy rationalizations of pre-existing preferences or beliefs.
[+] [-] PinkMilkshake|8 years ago|reply
He doesn’t just think all current experts are wrong, he seems to be one of those rebel doctors who will specifically claim the opposite of any currently accepted fact regarding health and nutrition.
[+] [-] tkyjonathan|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jlebrech|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] natecavanaugh|8 years ago|reply
But empty? I get alcohol being an empty calorie, since it's a toxin that your body cannot store, but protein, fat, and carbohydrates can and are all either stored or used.
Not only that, but protein can have an insulin response as well, which makes you think that maybe insulin resistance isn't caused by only a single macronutrient.
Gary Taubes, while I respect some of what he does, approaches his hypotheses as if they were forgone conclusions. And he has had his sugar axe to grind for so long, it's hard to tell how much he his cherry picking his data and how much it reflects reality.
[+] [-] Axsuul|8 years ago|reply
> sugars cause dental caries and are a source of excess calories, “empty” of vitamins, minerals, protein, and fibre
On proteins having an insulin response, when you intake too much protein, glucose is formed from a metabolic process known as gluconeogenesis which can definitely cause an insulin response.
Interested to hear why you "think that sugar has a special place in our body". Is this from empirical or anecdotal evidence?
[+] [-] jgalvez|8 years ago|reply
https://cowseatgrass.org/2016/02/12/sugar-feeds-thyroid/ http://raypeat.com/articles/articles/sugar-issues.shtml
[+] [-] claar|8 years ago|reply
Discussion, debate, close examination of results/methods, and the like are helpful. But calling out an entire research topic as "non-sense" holds back scientific progress, even if the research topic appears fruitless. Many of today's accepted truths were yesterday's non-sense.
[+] [-] PinkMilkshake|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] raarts|8 years ago|reply