Too much sugar in DIY-Schmilk from the milk?


#1

I’m currently running a DIY schmilk recipe combining whole milk, oat flour, extra fibre and then all the little vitamins and minerals.

My concern is that since a serving of whole milk has 11 grams of sugar * 8 servings of whole milk a day to get 2000 calories I’m going to be consuming 88 grams of sugar. Is this too much / unhealthy?


#2

Added sugar is what is bad for you. Intrinsic sugar, like lactose in milk or fructose in whole fruit, is perfectly ok. This is one reason the FDA is considering adding “added sugar” to nutrition labels.


#3

I did some more research this morning. Even though milk has a pretty low glycemic index, I found a study showing that it produced an insulin reaction comparable to eating bread (http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/74/1/96.full) in a study group without any history of lactose intolerance. Given that I can eat bread fine and don’t have any problem with blood sugar I’m not too troubled, but it’s something to think about tweaking.

I’m going to stick with real-milk-schmilk for a few weeks and see how things go. I’m also going to experiment with a soymilk & peanut butter substitute and see if I can make that work.


#4

Also the current WHO recommendation for sugar is 25 grams a day, and that includes intrinsic sugar.


#5

Mind posting a link to that?


#6

I would be more worried about the high levels of saturated fats you are getting using dairy.


#7

I’m not crazy about the sugar in Schmilk (I am really sensitive to sugar, added or otherwise, and I’m also lactose intolerant) but a lot of people tell me it works really well for them.

I’m not concerned about saturated fat, because I have been thoroughly steeped in Paleo ideology. :wink: But obviously, nutrition science is still far from definitive or universally agreed upon.

So, I guess it all depends on how you feel on it. :stuck_out_tongue:


#8

Actually, there is a pretty large scientific consensus that saturated fats are worse for you than unsaturated. Saturated fats contribute more to heart disease and strokes in the long term through clogged arteries, increases in blood-cholesterol, etc.


http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/good-fats-bad-fats?page=2
…etc…


#9

Yes, and I’ve been convinced that the evidence actually suggests otherwise (that it’s mostly a combination of excess sugar and excess omega-6 fats that cause this). So from the perspective of this minority (for now) view, nutrition science seems far from definitive. :wink:

Wherever nutrition science ends up in 50 years, in the meantime I’m happy to provide an alternative to the conventional nutritional philosophy that is championed so well by Soylent.


#10

That is fine, and the great thing about most civilized countries of the world is that you are free to have your own opinion on things and go against the scientific consensus. There are people who go against the scientific consensus in many other areas as well. (climate change, evolution, vaccines, etc.)


#11

Hooray for freedom of opinion! :stuck_out_tongue: I like to keep my scientific dis-consensing to a few well-chosen subjects. As far as climate change, evolution, and vaccines, you will find my views to be comfortingly conventional, scientifically speaking. :wink:

Heh.


#12

Yes, I find comfort in staying within the scientific consensus, especially when it comes to my personal well-being. They have obviously done enough studies and research to arrive at their consensus.


#13

Sugar is energy.

Google Dr. Robert H. Lustig. Look for his “Sugar the Bitter Truth” video.

He is on Book-TV http://www.c-span.org/video/?314740-1/sugar-policy-health-care-law promoting: “Fat Chance - Sugar processed food Obesity and Disease” http://www.amazon.com/dp/0142180432/

From him I learned that there are 54 different sugars known so far, but the FDA doesn’t require listing of which sugar a food product contains, nor even if it is intrinsic or added (yay Horsfield!).

One of Lustig’s hypothesis as I understand him, is that the everybody has a tipping point for sugar consumption where your internal accountant decides to burn or store. That “Store” point is a lot lower in most people than they imagine, which we see as an Obesity epidemic.

He also says that the sugar in fresh fruit is not the same as the sugar in fruit juices, so that say, Apple Juice, is nearly the same sugar hit as Coke. Again, Kudos to Horsfield.


#14

Lustig has been discussed here before, if anyone is unaware of the previous discussions.

http://discourse.soylent.com/search?q=lustig


#15

[quote=“HealthyBlogger, post:10, topic:22277”]
There are people who go against the scientific consensus in many other areas as well. (climate change, evolution, vaccines, etc.) [/quote]
I shouldn’t join this but I’m OCD on some topics and AGW/Human caused Climate Change is one such.

If you think that “the science is settled” stop reading.

Science is never settled. Ever. Only a politician would say that. A true scientist never will. If that is a new idea, and not a reminder, again you can stop reading.

If you do have a shadow of a doubt, then perhaps you’ve noticed that over 30,000 American scientists signed their name to “The Petition Project” that says AGW/Human Caused Climate Change is at best an unproven hypothesis; that there is not sufficient evidence for the USA to sign on to what is known as the Kyoto Protocol, so the USA should not do it. If you Google Petition Project you’ll see the original and a lot of debate and a lot of bashing. If you care, you can read both sides. It probably won’t be pleasant, but you really should get both sides.

As with everything on the internet, you should note who is saying what, where it is presented, and yeah, what they actually say. If the critique is are about the person and not the facts or ideas, I recommend you dismiss the entire essay, regardless of which side it takes.

As with so many complex issues, people tend to pick an authority figure, and follow what they say. Unfortunately that means a decision based on faith. It does make complex things simple and hey, there are so many things in life and politics to decide, right? Still, where a question is a complex and controversial and scientific, it is better that you do some reading and make your own judgements.

Remember please, that plate tectonics was a career-ending hypothesis long before it became accepted science. Evolution was widely dismissed when first proposed, and is still controversial, if only in communities of faith.

I am not a climate scientist. I’m guessing you are not either. I have to go with meta data, and so do you, unless you act on your faith in an opinion leader or political correctness.

Better to do your own reading. Ignore essays with personal attacks on individual “doubters.” Focus on the facts selected by both sides to prove their cases. Look to actual the scandals, not wild accusations. See if you detect a pattern.

Finally, follow the money. Not claims & accusations - real money - there is a lot of disinformation out there. Who really gets funded? Who draws a paycheck? Who gets fired / de-funded and why?


#16

To start:


 
 

https://www.skepticalscience.com/settled-science.htm

https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

 
 

To end:
http://www.desmogblog.com/2012/11/15/why-climate-deniers-have-no-credibility-science-one-pie-chart
http://www.skepticalscience.com/no-such-thing-as-climate-change-denial.html
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/how-climate-change-deniers-got-it-very-wrong


#17

SkepticalScience.com lets you know up front that they have absolutely positively no doubts about AGW, it’s right there in the masthead. That ain’t science.

MSNBC makes Bernie Sanders look like an arch-conservative. It’s all spin, all the time, and not science. They too, are up front about it.

I consider SciAm totally in the tank for all kinds of unscientific PC-ness, not just AGW. This is hugely sad to me, quite apart from their blatant AGW boosterism. Once upon a time they maintained a valid scientific reserve. No more. Very sad.

Allow me to suggest that you should spend some tiny fraction of the time you devote to reinforcing your prejudices, in looking at opposing views. Ya never know, you could be digesting a steady stream of agit-prop and spin, not facts. How would you know? How would you react if you began to suspect?

Reading other voices will at minimum allow you in the future, to post better counterpoint than this nothingness.


#18

Aaah, yes. The tried and true ad hominem attack instead of responding to the actual facts presented. (…with a side of “media bias” thrown in for good measure!)

Can we keep this thread on topic please? I don’t think there is much interest on this message board for climate change denial, moon landing conspiracy, hoax pseudoscience bullshit.


#19

(post withdrawn by author, will be automatically deleted in 24 hours unless flagged)


#20

At the risk of hijacking this thread, I’m curious as to your (or anyone else’s) thoughts on Gary Taubes’s
New Science Initiative. It feels like a serious attempt to get at some data-driven answers, but I’m curious as to what others think.