On Wednesday 20 Apr 2011 12:57:45 pm Charles Haynes wrote: > Or to put it another (simplistic) way, sugar eaters may be a proper > subset of fat people. All sugar eaters are fat, but not all fat people > are sugar eaters. In which case one should never eat sugar - which is > what the article is trying to say. >
Basically it means that the article is nearly useless for people who do not eat sugar in meaningful amounts but become fat nevertheless and often end up with diabetes and heart and kidney disease. Which is the case around where I live. I can introduce you to many such people. The typical south Indian diet in Bangalore is: Breakfast: Idli, dosa, akki roti or upma, or khara baath Lunch: rice or ragi and sambar or rasam, vegetables, sometimes yogurt, sometimes chapati Dinner: Rice, ragi or chapati with vegetable. Sambar, Add meat about 2-3 times a week for those who eat meat. Savory meat curry. No sugar. Plenty of oil/fat. "Sweets" (Payasam or kheer, or sweet baath) are prepared and served only for guests or for a celebration. Typically once a week or less often. Coffee/tea - usually 2-3 times a day. Almost no confectionery, sugared drinks or other sweets are consumed. These are people who eat all the things that are praised as being good by some people . Complex starch as opposed to sugar. Plenty of vgetables. Let me tell you why Lustig did not take these people and their diet into account when he had his sugar is toxic rant. I think it was because he was talking to Americans in America about other Americans, Nothing wrong in that but relatively non relevant to my part of the world. When people say "Our diet is...whatever" they rarely specify what diet they are talking of in saying "our diet". Our diets are not the same. It would help to specify the diet. Lustig did not do that. shiv
