Skip

you're my butterfly, sugar baby
April 24, 2003 4:03 AM   Subscribe

Yesterday the World Health Organization launched a report on diet and nutrition, saying that sugar should be restricted to 10% of caloric intake. Predictably, the sugar industry (press releases) threw fits and called on their cronies in Congress to cut off WHO funding. Apparently they're fighting and clawing even more than the tobacco industry in similar circusmtances, and WHO fears that lobbyists have more power with the Bush administration. The SA believes that inactivity, not our increased sugar consumption, is the primary cause of the obesity epidemic. Are we in for another few years of declarations of junk science and endless gov't investigations into what seems obvious, a la most environmental and health concerns?
posted by fotzepolitic (35 comments total)

 
Some facts have to be faced. Sugar isn't all that good for you, especially for the refined types that the sugar industry is more than happy to serve up in full-meal portions.

Breakfast cereals are loaded down with the stuff, restaurants push sodas and downplay water even exists in their establishments, children are constantly assaulted with messages about candy and such. Sugar creates an addictive high, and you can fall from a sugar high.

It's very hard to break the sugar habit, but if we look at what sugar has caused, you have to think its the only choice we have. We have rampant overweight people and obesity in children nationwide. People are dying from Sugar, but no one wants to say anything. It's no worse than any other drug out there, in that taking enough of it will cause you to die.

But then you have to look at the alternatives. The artificial sweeteners are made from ingredients you wouldn't want to give to a lab animal, much less you child. The primary ingredient from paint thinner, for one. It's been known to cause optical degradation from the chemicals in the artificial stuff.

So what's the answer? The WHO is right, move yourself off sugar, and do it now. Drink water instead of soda. (Soda contains caffeine which is a diuretic, which is why it will never, ever quench your thirst.) I know the experience of sugar, and what it can do to you first hand. This industry of 'dump-sugar-into-everything' made me overweight for most of my life, starting when I was a child. As someone who is starting to kick the refined-sugar habit, and getting his life back on track, I will tell you its hard, but necessary. After all, who wants to die from sugar?
posted by benjh at 4:42 AM on April 24, 2003


I wondered if this would come up on Mefi. The sugar industry is saying that 25% of calorific intake can be safely made up of sugar. How can that be? 25%? I would say even 10% sounds dangerously high to me.
posted by Summer at 5:59 AM on April 24, 2003


One of the most eye-opening experiences for me regarding sugar is when I went on the Atkins diet.

The way I see it....(and this may be oversimplified) is that carbs are mostly sugar (more often than not you see it separated into Dietary Fiber, Sugar, and Sugar Alcohol with some hidden carbs). Fiber and Sugar Alcohol don't really count as much as Sugar in Atkins.

Any unburned carbs, turns to fat and is stored in your body. So on the one hand, decreased activity IS a problem because all those unburned sugars/carbs are turning into fat.

On the other-hand, look around your kitchen or your grocery store and check out the nutritional information on everything - they're loaded with carbs!

Even stuff you wouldn't expect like, say, Lobster Bisque which is Lobster, Cream, some spices and a bit of port/sherry. However when canned, starch is added to keep the cream from congealing. Starch = Carbs =Sugar = Fat.

There's been a silly "rumor" floating around that the Sugar/Starch industry has a tight hold on the Department of Agriculture due to the amount of sugars in the 4 food groups. Sounds crazy but sometimes I wonder.

I often compare this to the concept of families with 4-8 children. This was OK and acceptable back in early agrarian America because hands were needed to work the farm.

Well, eating large amounts of sugars and starches were OK in early agrarian America because people worked out in the fields or in factories in ACTIVE jobs burning all the fat intake.

Look at the amount of us who sit at computers in offices al day. More things to ponder.

Also, when you do your next grocery shopping, look at the frozen foods, snack foods (crackers, chips, cookies, snack bars), boxed cereal, breads, and other packaged foods. Absolutely LOADED with sugar.

If you really look at how the body deals with this stuff you'd be amazed at how its a contributing factor to the obesity of America. Yes, we're inactive...so we need to get more exercize but also need to modify our nutritional habits to meet our new lifestyle.

Rant, rant, rant....
posted by bkdelong at 6:06 AM on April 24, 2003


Benjh:

You said it. I know where you're coming from. I stopped ingesting refined sugar quite a while ago and feel tons better for it. Once or twice a week I allow myself a Mt. Dew :) Everything in moderation...including moderation!

One thing I don't know why, and perhaps one of you out there is a chemist, why doesn't the sugar industry (Or even the soft drink industry) invest into the research and production of a stereo isomer of sugar? Rather, it would need to be a stereo isomer of glucose...glucose+glucose = Malt Sugar (Table Sugar) Or could you use just a stereo isomer of glucose as a sweetener as is?

I don't recall where but I remember reading long ago that sugar of this type would taste the same as regular sugar but would be indigestible. Apparently taste receptors are not as discriminating as the enzymes in our digestive system. Although, I suspect that people would suffer the same effects as that of Olean (Which is just fine as long as you don’t sit down and eat an entire large bag of chips made with it) and those with lactose intolerance. But heck, if I could have a Mt. Dew that tasted like the real deal with 0 caloric impact...well..I'd just buy Gax-X and psyllum husks in bulk. :)

Hmm...I think I just answered my own question....who would want to make a soft drink with a simmilar warning to what Olean products have? "Warning: May cause abdominal cramping, bloating and loose stools." Fun!
posted by Hilfy at 6:08 AM on April 24, 2003


It's worse than it appears in fact. I was recently diagnosed as a type II diabetic which led me into all kinds of reading. There's an epidemic of type II diabetes in the US, and the research is suggesting that the combination of sedentary lifestyles and poor diets is a huge factor (if not THE factor) contributing to this.

One of the first lessons I've learned is to stop eating prepared foods. Read the labels on those cans of soup, jars of spaghetti sauce and so on. You'll find that some version of high fructose corn syrup is in most of the foods you're ingesting. It kind of freaked me out when I discovered this. Sure, it makes things tasty but the stuff is basically not good for anyone, diabetic or not, in the quantities we're being exposed to.

I'm waiting for the big class action lawsuit similar to the cigarette cases of the past 10 years to come out. It's just a matter of time I think, time and a larger body of research and investigative reporting showing companies like Nabisco knew this crap is bad for us.
posted by Tempus67 at 6:08 AM on April 24, 2003


Sugar not only causes overweight it is directly linked to diseases including cancers, diabetes, heart attacks, etc.. in general anything that is refined.. sugar, wheat, vegetable oils .. is guaranteed to be bad for you. Glad to see the WHO being honest and the true nature of big business and government exposed when it comes to our food and their livelihood.

Food can be seen providing the energy (calories) that we need to maintain body heat and energy for living. We can get these calories from nutrient rich sources, or nutrient poor sources. Either way we get through the day. In the long run using nutrient poor sources such as sugar and refined wheat, about %50 of most peoples dietary intake with zero nutrients, will result in a lot of public health problems that could be avoided if we used nutrient rich sources of energy instead. It is at the crux of preventative health care and is the answer to the health insurance problem.

My personal goal is to eat only nutrient rich sources of food. Harder to find and it is exspensive but not impossible and market demand would make it more available and cheaper. The key is educating people on what nutrient rich food is, and it's not just Tofu and veggies!
posted by stbalbach at 6:18 AM on April 24, 2003


The sugar industry is a huge and powerful business. They began buying land in Florida in advance of the failure of the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba. Then Castro nationalized and the multi-national sugar co's got kicked out of Cuba.

Then Kennedy got assassinated. (Not that there weren't plenty of other groups with a beef against JFK.)

I quit refined sugar when I found out they filter it through cattle bone ("bone char"). It's kind of surreal--all of the cattle bone is supposed to come from cows that died natural deaths, so they "import" the bones from Afghanistan and India. That must be a grisly sight.

Unrefined sugar tastes great--much better than refined--anyway. Coarse Turbinado sugar on whole grain toast is one of my favorites. It's even better in tea.

And, when you give up refined sugar, you naturally lose weight. Why? Because refined sugar is in everything. Everything. From pizza sauce to breakfast cereal to foods that don't even taste sweet. Giving up refined sugar is a good move whether you're vegan or not, and it opens your eyes to how much sugar is in packaged food.
posted by Shane at 6:33 AM on April 24, 2003


Thanks for posting this. 'fotzepolitic' is one of my favorite Cocteau song titles too, BTW.
posted by Shane at 6:37 AM on April 24, 2003


bkdelong:

Well, eating large amounts of sugars and starches were OK in early agrarian America because people worked out in the fields or in factories in ACTIVE jobs burning all the fat intake.

Well starches sure, sugars no. Pure sugar has only recently become something for the masses. Sweets were a rare treat back then.

Up until the discovery and widespread cultivation of Sugar Cane ( and even then, if memory serves, cane sugar was something only the well off could afford until the mass production of table sugar got off the ground in the last century ) the only sweeteners were fruits, honey, beat sugar etc. All of those were not easy to come by for the average Joe way back when.

The problem isn’t carbohydrates in and of themselves...it’s simple carbohydrates like table sugar. Folks stuffing their face with this crap isn’t good for them as is…couple that with a sedentary lifestyle and you get what we're seeing now...fat lazy people with a sharp rise of Type II diabetes.

Shane:

Bone Char?! UGH! Good lord....that's digusting!
posted by Hilfy at 6:43 AM on April 24, 2003


Soda contains caffeine which is a diuretic, which is why it will never, ever quench your thirst.

I seem to remember hearing that this isn't true, that once your body gets 'used to' the caffeine it does quench thirst. Anybody else hear this?
posted by Utilitaritron at 6:56 AM on April 24, 2003


My personal goal is to eat only nutrient rich sources of food. Harder to find and it is exspensive...

Th' wife and I are finding whole grains from the bulk bins at Whole Foods (or your local "natural" grocery) are pretty affordable and packed with goodness.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 7:08 AM on April 24, 2003


It's already been said here but yeah me too. Sugar is evil. I had a lifetime addiction to sugar mostly in cokey cola form. I decided to go cold turkey because I got tired of waking up with a headache every morning which in turn caused Advil addiction. I started with a three day water fast just to get rid of the cravings. Water is the saviour for me. Now I'm probably overly diligent about what goes into my mouth. Of course that means no alcohol as well. But the rewards are worth it to me ending the headaches and Advil addiction. The bonus was losing fifty pounds just by eliminating sugar.
posted by oh posey at 7:09 AM on April 24, 2003


I would imagine that surviving without eating refined sugar would be the best option for most people. It's not like we have evolved to require it.

T McKenna believed that eating refined sugar closes the third eye, cutting the link to the spiritual world.

The sugar industry is a waste of resources (unless they are making rum or cachaca). Sound on rum site - low quality sound file salsa warning.

fotzepolitic - I am listening to 'Heaven or Las Vegas', which I have been seperated from for 8 months, which is too damn long to go without listening to that album. /cocteaufilter
posted by asok at 7:11 AM on April 24, 2003


Yep, I've kept an eye out for sugar news ever since going on a low-carb diet a few years ago and losing the 45lbs I had gained in college. The dietary change also quickly took care of years of depression and mood swings, leading me to happily drop my anti-depressants. It also increased my energy levels enough to want to exercise. So to me it's obvious that there's a connection between sugar and weight and mood, but I have a hard time convincing anyone else of this, as people seem inherently skeptical of atkins-type diets. I agree with Hilfy -- like auto manufacturers trying to become more "green" and potato chip companies using indigestible fats, sometimes a particular industry just has to suck it up and start looking at healthier/eco-friendlier/etc alternatives for the overall good, rather than throwing temper tantrums that times have changed and scientific knowledge has increased.
posted by fotzepolitic at 7:20 AM on April 24, 2003


once your body gets 'used to' the caffeine it does quench thirst. Anybody else hear this?

The only thing your need to quench your thirst is water. The origin of our taste for sour drinks comes from fermented drinks such as fermented barley or rye drinks .. non-alcoholic or just slightly alcoholic .. they get a natural fizziness and are loaded with nutrients and natural sweeteners and taste great. We've been drinking them for thousands of years until someone invented Colas and "fools" our developed tastes into thinking it's drinking something the body needs.

whole grains from the bulk bins at Whole Foods

In general bins are not good. The reason is whole grains are living foods (they can be sprouted) and thus they have a limited healthy life. 30 days and they have lost %50 of the nutrients is a general rule. Bulk bins are unknown how long it's been around. Buying sealed packaged grains there is hopefully a date of them and the sealed bag keeps out invasive bacteria and other things that infect the open bins and make them rot even faster.
posted by stbalbach at 7:21 AM on April 24, 2003


stbalbach - '30 days and they have lost %50 '

Where did you get this figure? Are you refering to seeds (like sunflower, pumkin etc.) or pulses (lentils, chick-peas etc.) or grains (wheat, rye etc.)?
Are you suggesting that wheat loses 50% of it's nutrients if not consumed within 30 days of picking?
Just interested to know.
Are you macrobiotic?/personal question.
posted by asok at 7:37 AM on April 24, 2003


I put stevia on my cereal. The law says it can't be called a sweetener. Sure, it's pricy, but after several months I've only used perhaps 10% of a four ounce bottle.

Now then. Am I the only one who wonders if some of the arguments againt artificial sweeteners like Nutrasweet are a bit specious? I've heard a couple times that aspartame is bad because it gets broken down into methane at some point in the digestive process. Of course methane is extremely poisonous, but does anyone know if the methane from aspartame isn't just one stage in a perfectly normal chemical degredation process that takes place in the body?

You could say the same thing about chloride ions in the nervous system, for example. "OMG!! There are pool chemicals in my brain!!"
posted by tss at 7:37 AM on April 24, 2003


Interestingly this was just brought up in an old thread on nutrition etc.

Anyone know if this is the sugar industry as in, cane sugar, or as in corn syrup / corn starch, which is what is most commonly used in junk food? The corn products are cheaper and most companies have switched to using them (soft drinks, for example). In that thread I linked above we got into discussing the power of various lobbies, but no one could find numbers (is the corn industry or cane sugar the big player here, basically).
posted by mdn at 8:02 AM on April 24, 2003


once your body gets 'used to' the caffeine it does quench thirst. Anybody else hear this?

I don't know about you guys, but *I* don't drink coffee to quench my thirst.

This week's Dilbert series on caffeine-rehab is resonating...
posted by titboy at 8:06 AM on April 24, 2003


Didn't Marge Simpson take on the sugar cabal?
Sorry, it had to be done.
posted by aladfar at 8:43 AM on April 24, 2003


mdn, it's still my understanding that Big Sugar is specifically controlled by actual sugar-refining concerns based in Florida. But I don't really care, or have the definitive info. I just think that when you're influential enough to have the President of the United States take your call while he's getting a blowjob, well, that sets a certain standard I'm still waiting to see Big Corn reach or exceed.

Once again, stbalbach and I are almost in complete agreement, though we're coming from supposedly opposite directions. Nurtitional density is what you should aim for in eating. The simple equation is that you want the greatest amount of nutrients for the least amount of calories. (Study after study shows that limiting calories has the greatest beneficial effect on health and lifespan.) Sugar, of course, gives you the smallest amount of nutrients for the greatest amount of calories. Joel Fuhrman has written extensively on the topic of nutritional density, and this page (HTML version of a Word doc) has a nice table comparing a couple of well-known food sources in this way. The key seems to be, as stbalbach said, to go for whole foods over refined. The problem this presents for American industry is that whatever the food source, refining and processing it is where the big profit margin comes in, so they're gonna fight that tooth and nail.
posted by soyjoy at 9:22 AM on April 24, 2003


And one word about aspartame: I'm sure the sugar industry is doing all it can to discredit artificial sweeteners, but that doesn't meant they don't have a case. When I first started trying to "eat healthier," I got in the habit of having a diet Coke, sometimes two, every workday. For the first time in my life, I started to get recurring headaches, and they slowly grew more severe. I read some of the first public reports about problems with aspartame and stopped cold on the diet Cokes. Headaches disappeared immediately and never came back. Yeah yeah, correlation/causation, whatever; for me it was an obvious one-to-one correspondence. Apparently I'm not alone.
posted by soyjoy at 9:33 AM on April 24, 2003


mdn - the sugar industry linked to in the post is the cane sugar industry. Just based on shopping at supermarkets here in the US, I'd bet that the overwhelming majority of pre-packaged food is made with high fructose corn syrup, not sugar. But the difference it makes to your health does not seem very clear.

But I'm sure the agribusinesses who manufacure corn syrup and prepackaged foods are just as upset over this WHO report as the cane sugar industry is, and just as powerful, if not moreso.
posted by pitchblende at 9:40 AM on April 24, 2003


Some people are clearly sensitive to aspartame. Some people are sensitive to latose, gluten, and other 100% natural foodstuffs. So it's hard to conclude "It's bad for everyone" from "It gave me a headache."

Of course there are plenty of things that don't immediately kill you that aren't good for you either, so you can't conclude aspartame is harmless either. But a lot of the anti-aspartame groups seem to be as much against big corporations as they are against the product itsef. "Look, it's made by a big corporation! It's no surprise that it's bad for you!" I find this intellectually dubious.
posted by kindall at 9:53 AM on April 24, 2003


I'm diabetic and I've recently been told to cut down my blood sugar levels to under 100 for fasting and under 120 for an hour after eating. Do you know how bloody hard it is to eat day in and day out, especially at work, and avoid high carbs and sugars. They are EVERYWHERE. Even wheat rolls at Whole Foods have 27 gm of carbs in them. And non-fat milk is 15 gm per cup!! If you don't like eggs, bacon, or sausage, try finding a low-sugar way to eat breakfast. Good luck.

If it weren't for aspartame, I would go crazy. I love sugar. I cry in the grocery stores at Easter time because I can't have any of the candy. I love cereal and rice and baked potatos. Blah. I know I'm not really adding anything to the discussion here, but I'm so frustrated and sick of having bland tasteless food because it's good for me when what I really want is a nice big bowl of cereal and milk.
posted by aacheson at 10:05 AM on April 24, 2003


A quick, (over)simplified (but accurate) note about simple sugars and weight gain:

Simple sugars digest very quickly, overloading your blood sugar and causing an insuline reaction that removes the sugar and stores it... in the form of fat.

Complex carbs and protein and even fat digest slowly.

Protein can be "burned" like carbs. But protein cannot be stored in the form of fat. Eat too much protein and your body just takes apart the amino-acid chains and urinates the excess away.

Just one more reason I love Marmite (or Vegemite!) on whole-grain toast. (In fact, Marmite's only calories are from protein. And its B-vitamin rush is something akin to drugs...)
Of course, Vegemite is multinational Kraft Corp...
posted by Shane at 10:12 AM on April 24, 2003


Apparently cocaine isn't particularly good for you either, but goddamn, it just tastes so good!
posted by inpHilltr8r at 10:20 AM on April 24, 2003


So it's hard to conclude "It's bad for everyone" from "It gave me a headache."

I didn't conclude that it's bad for everyone. If you'll read my post, I specifically qualified it as my own experience. But I can't let it be mischaracterized as "It gave me a headache." It gave me a series of headaches that grew in severity over time. And though I only linked to one anecdotal report, there are tons of reports of problems both anecdotal and scientific. Here's a nice mix if you think it's just me and a handful of overly sensitive people. "Everyone," maybe not. A widespread problem, you betcha.
posted by soyjoy at 10:49 AM on April 24, 2003


aacheson, have you tried the Atkins muffin mix? My fiance and I eat one (usually blueberry) with breakfast and it sure helps, and only 4-5 grams of carbs. I'm down 44 pounds in eight months though frequent visits to 24 Hour Fitness are also involved.
posted by billsaysthis at 10:53 AM on April 24, 2003


Also, an Atkins-recommended sugar substitute:

Splenda
posted by billsaysthis at 11:00 AM on April 24, 2003


Where did you get this figure? Are you refering to seeds (like sunflower, pumkin etc.) or pulses (lentils, chick-peas etc.) or grains (wheat, rye etc.)?

I just read about it last night in a nutrition book it's not online. I'm sure with some research one could find studies online that show the effects of time on nutritional values of specific foods, probably a government FDA resource for industry to determain expiration dates. Living foods that can be sprouted are the most fragile. Irradiated foods or otherwise denatured through heat or salts or other perservatives will last a lot longer but have fewer nutrients. No I'm not macrobiotic.

Yes it is amazing Soyjoy. Not sure what path you arrived to the same conclusion? but about the living longer with less calories theory, if you mean where they feed rats and monkeys restricted calorie diets that live longer, I believe that's a bunch of monkey business and not a viable option for humans. However, I do believe we should eat a normal amount of nutrient-dense calories, including lots of fat-soluable vitamins that are easily absorbed as has been shown to be the traditional diet of long lived and healthy non-modern humans the world over.
posted by stbalbach at 11:44 AM on April 24, 2003


stbalbach, as you can imagine, I'm wary of animal studies alone (remember saccharin, since we're on the topic of sweeteners?). But this concept has been confirmed in men by such studies as the Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging. Additionally, from an epidemiological perspective, Okinawans eat 30% less calories than the rest of Japan, and have up to 40 times the number of people over 100. They also have lower incidences of diabetes, tumors, and other diseases than the rest of Japan.

This is not to advocate for starvation diets. You just want to be sure you're getting the best bang for your buck in terms of calorie intake. And I think we can agree that refined sugar is about the worst such investment you can make.
posted by soyjoy at 12:13 PM on April 24, 2003


Hilfy: Stereoisomerism has a profound effect on taste. For example (-) carvone is the main component in spearmint, while (+) carvone is the taste of caraway.

That said, The steroisomer of glucose is (dextro-)mannose, sold under the trade names seminose and carubinose. Its sweet and apparently tastes good. It's not readily absorbed by the body and is mostly excreted directly in urine. It is widely available in plant sources. Mannitol/mannite/diabetic's sugar is derived from mannose. As a bonus side effect, mannose is very effective at preventing and curing bladder infections. There don't seem to be any long term side effects. It's approved for general food use by the FDA---it's not a drug.

I've never seen the product, let alone tasted it. It may, or may not taste anything like glucose, but it does seem worth seeking out.
posted by bonehead at 4:15 PM on April 24, 2003


soyjoy I imagine you would not agree with animal testing. The information I have about calorie-restricted diets is in a magazine journal so I won't be able to link to it but will highlight some of what it says

It points out the myths about the Okinawa diet as being low-cal and soy based. In fact the earliest articles about the Okinawa diet described it as "greasy" with lard for cooking and although it is not used today the centenarians were eating lard as cooking oil most of their lives (Source: Health, "Take a lesson from the people of Okinawa", 1996 pp57-63)

The rat studies on low-cal were done from the time of weaning. Studies done with low-cal restriction on older rats almost always resulted in shorter life spans. And the food being fed the rats consisted of nothing comparable to what humans eat, in one study it was %22 casein, %6 corn oil and %59 sucrose (sugar)!

People (humans) who are active in CR diets are known as "Cronies" after the "Calorie Restriction with Optimal Nutrition (CRON)" plan. They often complain of being irritable and snappish. Testosterone drops, and some of them loose interest in sex. Several have early signs of osteoporosis. It's not something most would want to undertake to add a few years to a human carcass.
posted by stbalbach at 7:22 PM on April 24, 2003


Gosh, where to begin.

aacheson, go buy yourself some Splenda or start reading labels on sodas and calorie-free sweetened drinks. Diet Rite, for one, is (over-)sweetened with Splenda. I think aspartame and saccharin both taste like total crap and have avoided sugar substitutes because of this (also, aspartame gives me a sore throat). Sucralose (Splenda is a brand name) really does taste like sugar. Unfortunately, I think Diet Rite tastes like Pepsi, and I strongly prefer Coke. As a result, I like their fruit flavored sodas, which are incredibly hard to find in grocery stores.

IMHO, the Atkins peanut butter cups are better than the Reese's. Since Reese's switched to high fructose corn syrup, they taste lousy to me. The Atkins version are made with Sucralose, like all the Atkins fake sugar products.

Hilfy: Sucralose starts as sucrose. I believe carbons are changed to chlorines to make it many times sweeter and indigestible. I haven't seen anyone complaining about problems from Sucralose, certainly not anything like anal leakage. (ew!)

Bonehead: Mannitol/Maltitol etc are polyols or "sugar alcohols" and can be found in gums and mints. I have also seen hard candy at Trader Joe's that is made with polyols. These sugars do contain some calories, are not as strongly sweet as stevia, aspartame, acesulfame K or sucralose. They do give some people gas if they eat a lot of them.

Almost everything in the US that contains added "sugar" actually contains high-fructose corn syrup. Just try and find ANY soft drink with actual sugar in it! Even Fresh Fields hippie sodas are made high-fructose corn syrup, though it baffles me how HFCS qualifies as minimally processed. (cane) Sugar is very expensive in the U.S. because of subsidies. This has been a bonanza for ADM, as their sweetner has now all but replaced sugar in the U.S. food supply. Nevermind that it might be even worse for us than cane sugar.

fotzepolitic -- atkins eliminated my anxiety problems, so there's another anecdote for you. And, of course, I continue to lose weight and feel better than I've felt in years, which is nothing to sneeze at. Before I cut all the sugar, I had no idea how much it was messing me up.
posted by astrogirl at 8:19 PM on April 24, 2003


« Older 4,000,000!   |   Polari Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post