Exactly a year ago today, I watched a documentary (available on Amazon Prime) called That Sugar Film. The premise: What would happen if I ate only “diet” foods for 60 days? We watch a 30-something lean Australian man start the diet, then take us on a journey to explain what is happening internally. It’s done so creatively that I was entr…
Exactly a year ago today, I watched a documentary (available on Amazon Prime) called That Sugar Film. The premise: What would happen if I ate only “diet” foods for 60 days? We watch a 30-something lean Australian man start the diet, then take us on a journey to explain what is happening internally. It’s done so creatively that I was entranced. He does some traveling to help us see what is happening because of sugar — to the indigenous lands of the Aborigines, and then to a few places in the U.S..
As I was saying, overweight for over 50 years, I struggled to lose weight nearly every day. But I’m a sugar addict, plain and simple. Long story short, I was blown away by the documentary. I watched it again the next day, Dec 31. And the day after that I started a reverse experiment: I vowed to eat no refined sugar for 60 days, then another 60, and another. I also used intermittent fasting. I exercised only a very little bit, mostly because I couldn’t walk much because of extreme pain before and after a knee replacement on April 1. I’ve lost 35 pounds. I’ve been lazy this last 90 days, so tomorrow I will watch the documentary again and start another 60 days on Jan. 1st. I have 35-40 pounds more to lose and I pray I am successful this year. The hardest part — because, remember, I’m a sugar addict — has been not allowing sugary foods into my home. I don’t have the ability to have just one . One cookie, one piece of pie, one snack size Snickers. And when sugar is out of my system it’s astounding how much the aching in my bones quiets down, how much less pain I experience over all.
You may wonder why I’m writing this when much of this is about cholesterol. Two years ago, I had two stents inserted into my right coronary artery, after learning I had a 98% blockage. The cardiologist wanted to prescribe a statin and I absolutely refused because I’d read enough about how “unhelpful” statins are. He was not happy, but I didn’t care. There are scientists who believe it’s sugar, not cholesterol, that destroys the heart. That argument — I read — started after President Eisenhower had a heart attack in 1952. The cholesterol “team” finally won the argument. Sometimes I wonder what would have happened if the sugar team had won. What would our country look like? Would we be slimmer? Healthier? My final recommendation, if you’re still reading this: please go and watch the documentary (That Sugar Film). It was an absolute paradigm shift for me. I saw me toward the end of that film. Dozing off. Unable to concentrate. Drugged up by sugar.
It's worth mentioning that sugars and other carbs, to excess, have a great deal to do with "high cholesterol": If that "low fat" diet is high in carbs (typically is), beyond the small amount stored as glycogen, the liver converts the rest into triglycerides (fats) for storage in the fat cells. This VLDL are a component of total cholesterol. Cut back on carbs and that portion of the "total cholesterol" usually drops substantially. I know from first hand experience that taking a statin* appears to make most of the lipid panel numbers “better” and that includes VLDL (“triglycerides”). A curious mind inquire what is happening to the excess carbs, absent a change in diet, when one is taking a statin. The transparent profit motives aside, the widespread [over-]use of statins is a textbook example of “treat to the numbers,” i.e. treating the “symptom” (which in the case of cholesterol, doesn’t even seem to be a medically valid “condition”!) instead of the underlying cause (a bad diet.).
*Before I wised up reading A Midwestern Doctor and others.
Blah blah blah. Maybe you could say this without all the big words. I’m not trying to be disrespectful, but most people might have to read your reply three times to deconstruct it. I’m guessing you’re a scientist. (Not a bad thing; just an observation because of writing style.)
Genetics has so much to do with cholesterol levels it astounds me sometimes. My cholesterol scores have always impressed my doctors, with one declaring to me in my 20’s that I would never have heart problems. Yet two years ago (50+ years later), even with that total score nearly the same, my calcium score was 1308 on the cardiac CT, (shocking!) and two stents had to be inserted. It took two tries and a micro drill to break up the rock hard calcium before the could insert the stents (a very weird feeling, by the way.). In my case, I know it’s genetic. My dad, most of his five siblings and his dad, had heart issues—death for two, quad bypass for dad, etc. Not one was overweight. It goes to show a lot is yet to be learned. Maybe, as I said before, it’s more about the sugar. Some aunts/uncles drank a lot, and some just loved desserts. Sugar.
And then there’s a longtime friend — an MD, PhD, retired director of a medical laboratory—who vehemently disagreed with my decision to refuse statins. He’d been on them for 40 years or so, and was fine, he said. Within a year I learned he’d researched the issue more after our talk and had ditched the statins.
The simplest thing — but not easiest by any account — is to cut out refined sugar. Of course, if people actually did that, the cereal industry— which is what Dr. Malone’s article was about — would collapse. Probably not a bad thing.
Exactly a year ago today, I watched a documentary (available on Amazon Prime) called That Sugar Film. The premise: What would happen if I ate only “diet” foods for 60 days? We watch a 30-something lean Australian man start the diet, then take us on a journey to explain what is happening internally. It’s done so creatively that I was entranced. He does some traveling to help us see what is happening because of sugar — to the indigenous lands of the Aborigines, and then to a few places in the U.S..
As I was saying, overweight for over 50 years, I struggled to lose weight nearly every day. But I’m a sugar addict, plain and simple. Long story short, I was blown away by the documentary. I watched it again the next day, Dec 31. And the day after that I started a reverse experiment: I vowed to eat no refined sugar for 60 days, then another 60, and another. I also used intermittent fasting. I exercised only a very little bit, mostly because I couldn’t walk much because of extreme pain before and after a knee replacement on April 1. I’ve lost 35 pounds. I’ve been lazy this last 90 days, so tomorrow I will watch the documentary again and start another 60 days on Jan. 1st. I have 35-40 pounds more to lose and I pray I am successful this year. The hardest part — because, remember, I’m a sugar addict — has been not allowing sugary foods into my home. I don’t have the ability to have just one . One cookie, one piece of pie, one snack size Snickers. And when sugar is out of my system it’s astounding how much the aching in my bones quiets down, how much less pain I experience over all.
You may wonder why I’m writing this when much of this is about cholesterol. Two years ago, I had two stents inserted into my right coronary artery, after learning I had a 98% blockage. The cardiologist wanted to prescribe a statin and I absolutely refused because I’d read enough about how “unhelpful” statins are. He was not happy, but I didn’t care. There are scientists who believe it’s sugar, not cholesterol, that destroys the heart. That argument — I read — started after President Eisenhower had a heart attack in 1952. The cholesterol “team” finally won the argument. Sometimes I wonder what would have happened if the sugar team had won. What would our country look like? Would we be slimmer? Healthier? My final recommendation, if you’re still reading this: please go and watch the documentary (That Sugar Film). It was an absolute paradigm shift for me. I saw me toward the end of that film. Dozing off. Unable to concentrate. Drugged up by sugar.
Thank you for sharing this - sugar and the inflammation it causes are deadly. You are spot on.
It's worth mentioning that sugars and other carbs, to excess, have a great deal to do with "high cholesterol": If that "low fat" diet is high in carbs (typically is), beyond the small amount stored as glycogen, the liver converts the rest into triglycerides (fats) for storage in the fat cells. This VLDL are a component of total cholesterol. Cut back on carbs and that portion of the "total cholesterol" usually drops substantially. I know from first hand experience that taking a statin* appears to make most of the lipid panel numbers “better” and that includes VLDL (“triglycerides”). A curious mind inquire what is happening to the excess carbs, absent a change in diet, when one is taking a statin. The transparent profit motives aside, the widespread [over-]use of statins is a textbook example of “treat to the numbers,” i.e. treating the “symptom” (which in the case of cholesterol, doesn’t even seem to be a medically valid “condition”!) instead of the underlying cause (a bad diet.).
*Before I wised up reading A Midwestern Doctor and others.
Blah blah blah. Maybe you could say this without all the big words. I’m not trying to be disrespectful, but most people might have to read your reply three times to deconstruct it. I’m guessing you’re a scientist. (Not a bad thing; just an observation because of writing style.)
Genetics has so much to do with cholesterol levels it astounds me sometimes. My cholesterol scores have always impressed my doctors, with one declaring to me in my 20’s that I would never have heart problems. Yet two years ago (50+ years later), even with that total score nearly the same, my calcium score was 1308 on the cardiac CT, (shocking!) and two stents had to be inserted. It took two tries and a micro drill to break up the rock hard calcium before the could insert the stents (a very weird feeling, by the way.). In my case, I know it’s genetic. My dad, most of his five siblings and his dad, had heart issues—death for two, quad bypass for dad, etc. Not one was overweight. It goes to show a lot is yet to be learned. Maybe, as I said before, it’s more about the sugar. Some aunts/uncles drank a lot, and some just loved desserts. Sugar.
And then there’s a longtime friend — an MD, PhD, retired director of a medical laboratory—who vehemently disagreed with my decision to refuse statins. He’d been on them for 40 years or so, and was fine, he said. Within a year I learned he’d researched the issue more after our talk and had ditched the statins.
The simplest thing — but not easiest by any account — is to cut out refined sugar. Of course, if people actually did that, the cereal industry— which is what Dr. Malone’s article was about — would collapse. Probably not a bad thing.