Good news for people who like eating fat!
Replies
-
rprussell2004 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »rprussell2004 wrote: »baconslave wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I think her point is that you have to process it to get it in that form (white sugar), but I still don't see how that makes it different (or less "natural") than various forms of processed stevia, which were claimed as "natural" and what I (jokingly) was comparing to sugar.
Or for that matter than any cooked food, which is hardly in a state of nature. Why is it okay to add some dried cherries to rhubarb to sweeten it, but not a bit of sugar?
Indeed, being on a plate seems kind of "unnatural" if you are going to be a purist about it.
Exactly what kinds of "naturalness" are we supposed to care about when it comes to food and on what basis? This is the argument that always comes up re milk and I've never understood it there either.
The problem with stevia, and any other artificial sweetener, is that it's often mixed with a carrier, since it isn't bulky enough in powder form, and has a filler, like maltodextrin or dextrose, which adds carbs to it to the tune of 1g per teaspoon. That's why you want to get the "purer" stuff, not because it was blessed by baby Jesus.
I know you probably know that lemurcat, I'm just clarifying.
People, EVERYTHING is "processed" in one way or another before you eat it.
Trader joes sells an organic stevia powder that's JUST STEVIA. Like, if you use a tenth of a tablespoon you're overdoing it. No binders at all.
That's what I tend to use in my coffee.
That doesn't make it natural. It's surprising to me how few people seem to know the definitoin of the word "natural", yet it's so often used in MFP posts.
I don't know why you'd even bring up honey in this post. It's not like bee vomit has any place in modern society.
OH WAIT I seem to be responding to something that's NOT the point you made. Just following your lead, there.
What's wrong with honey?0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »shadesofidaho wrote: »Thank you - that's great information! I'll hold off for now - I'm still about 30-35% bg - I have about 35 more lbs to lose before I make any changes. I do know this - I will not go back to eating sugar/wheat. Stevia and Almond flour are my new best friends!
Volfan 22. You are using Stevia. You do not think that is a problem to raise insulin resistance? Please say NO. I am so missing my sweet.
Oh and your photos are fantastic. Way to go.
Thank you Chris
Chris - NO! Stevia is natural - BUT (ah, the caveat) - make sure you're using the pure stevia - not the processed stuff. I get mine at the local health food store. The drops are best (IMO). They are stable enough to bake with - I made an awesome white chocolate macadamia nut creme pie for Thanksgiving - IT WAS PHENOMENAL! (and it was 9 carbs). And thank you8! It's hard to stay the course sometimes, but having a plan and executing it has been my success for losing fat.
http://sweetleaf.com/stevia-products/
If you buy non-processed stevia, does that mean you just eat the leaves... or are you using processed and refined stevia?
You can grow your own plant and use the leaves if you wish. The sweet drops are an extract from the leaf. I don't use the granules (one could - they are refined though) - just depends on what you prefer.
You're committing the naturalistic fallacy.
Do you know what else is natural and nicely almond scented? Cyanide.
Also--and I understand it's far more dangerous than cyanide--white sugar!
White sugar? As in that crystalized stuff you are normally handed if you say "Please pass the sugar"? That stuff is not natural.
Sucrose isn't natural? Weird how it's found in all sorts of fruits
Crystalized table sugar is found in fruits?? Do tell!
Can you please explain the crystallization process?
No, I have no idea how it's done. I'll bet Google knows though.
So how can you say that it is not natural?0 -
LolBroScience wrote: »Can you please explain the crystallization process?
Evaporate to supersaturated state under vacuum, add seed crystals, continue evaporation and feed more solution into vessel until reaches target conditions. Discharge from crystalliser, separate crystals by centrifuge with water washing, dry with warm air.
0 -
LolBroScience wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »shadesofidaho wrote: »Thank you - that's great information! I'll hold off for now - I'm still about 30-35% bg - I have about 35 more lbs to lose before I make any changes. I do know this - I will not go back to eating sugar/wheat. Stevia and Almond flour are my new best friends!
Volfan 22. You are using Stevia. You do not think that is a problem to raise insulin resistance? Please say NO. I am so missing my sweet.
Oh and your photos are fantastic. Way to go.
Thank you Chris
Chris - NO! Stevia is natural - BUT (ah, the caveat) - make sure you're using the pure stevia - not the processed stuff. I get mine at the local health food store. The drops are best (IMO). They are stable enough to bake with - I made an awesome white chocolate macadamia nut creme pie for Thanksgiving - IT WAS PHENOMENAL! (and it was 9 carbs). And thank you8! It's hard to stay the course sometimes, but having a plan and executing it has been my success for losing fat.
http://sweetleaf.com/stevia-products/
If you buy non-processed stevia, does that mean you just eat the leaves... or are you using processed and refined stevia?
You can grow your own plant and use the leaves if you wish. The sweet drops are an extract from the leaf. I don't use the granules (one could - they are refined though) - just depends on what you prefer.
You're committing the naturalistic fallacy.
Do you know what else is natural and nicely almond scented? Cyanide.
Also--and I understand it's far more dangerous than cyanide--white sugar!
White sugar? As in that crystalized stuff you are normally handed if you say "Please pass the sugar"? That stuff is not natural.
Sucrose isn't natural? Weird how it's found in all sorts of fruits
Crystalized table sugar is found in fruits?? Do tell!
Can you please explain the crystallization process?
No, I have no idea how it's done. I'll bet Google knows though.
So how can you say that it is not natural?
Because it's not found in nature.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »shadesofidaho wrote: »Thank you - that's great information! I'll hold off for now - I'm still about 30-35% bg - I have about 35 more lbs to lose before I make any changes. I do know this - I will not go back to eating sugar/wheat. Stevia and Almond flour are my new best friends!
Volfan 22. You are using Stevia. You do not think that is a problem to raise insulin resistance? Please say NO. I am so missing my sweet.
Oh and your photos are fantastic. Way to go.
Thank you Chris
Chris - NO! Stevia is natural - BUT (ah, the caveat) - make sure you're using the pure stevia - not the processed stuff. I get mine at the local health food store. The drops are best (IMO). They are stable enough to bake with - I made an awesome white chocolate macadamia nut creme pie for Thanksgiving - IT WAS PHENOMENAL! (and it was 9 carbs). And thank you8! It's hard to stay the course sometimes, but having a plan and executing it has been my success for losing fat.
http://sweetleaf.com/stevia-products/
If you buy non-processed stevia, does that mean you just eat the leaves... or are you using processed and refined stevia?
You can grow your own plant and use the leaves if you wish. The sweet drops are an extract from the leaf. I don't use the granules (one could - they are refined though) - just depends on what you prefer.
You're committing the naturalistic fallacy.
Do you know what else is natural and nicely almond scented? Cyanide.
Also--and I understand it's far more dangerous than cyanide--white sugar!
White sugar? As in that crystalized stuff you are normally handed if you say "Please pass the sugar"? That stuff is not natural.
Sucrose isn't natural? Weird how it's found in all sorts of fruits
Crystalized table sugar is found in fruits?? Do tell!
Can you please explain the crystallization process?
No, I have no idea how it's done. I'll bet Google knows though.
So how can you say that it is not natural?
Because it's not found in nature.
Hope you don't drink bottled water0 -
LolBroScience wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »shadesofidaho wrote: »Thank you - that's great information! I'll hold off for now - I'm still about 30-35% bg - I have about 35 more lbs to lose before I make any changes. I do know this - I will not go back to eating sugar/wheat. Stevia and Almond flour are my new best friends!
Volfan 22. You are using Stevia. You do not think that is a problem to raise insulin resistance? Please say NO. I am so missing my sweet.
Oh and your photos are fantastic. Way to go.
Thank you Chris
Chris - NO! Stevia is natural - BUT (ah, the caveat) - make sure you're using the pure stevia - not the processed stuff. I get mine at the local health food store. The drops are best (IMO). They are stable enough to bake with - I made an awesome white chocolate macadamia nut creme pie for Thanksgiving - IT WAS PHENOMENAL! (and it was 9 carbs). And thank you8! It's hard to stay the course sometimes, but having a plan and executing it has been my success for losing fat.
http://sweetleaf.com/stevia-products/
If you buy non-processed stevia, does that mean you just eat the leaves... or are you using processed and refined stevia?
You can grow your own plant and use the leaves if you wish. The sweet drops are an extract from the leaf. I don't use the granules (one could - they are refined though) - just depends on what you prefer.
You're committing the naturalistic fallacy.
Do you know what else is natural and nicely almond scented? Cyanide.
Also--and I understand it's far more dangerous than cyanide--white sugar!
White sugar? As in that crystalized stuff you are normally handed if you say "Please pass the sugar"? That stuff is not natural.
Sucrose isn't natural? Weird how it's found in all sorts of fruits
Crystalized table sugar is found in fruits?? Do tell!
Can you please explain the crystallization process?
No, I have no idea how it's done. I'll bet Google knows though.
So how can you say that it is not natural?
Because it's not found in nature.
Hope you don't drink bottled water
Why? It seems like maybe you are reading some meaning into my posts that is not there. I never said everything not natural should be avoided.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Because it's not found in nature.
Depends on your dictionary definition. Sucrose exists in nature.
natural
Pronunciation: /ˈnatʃ(ə)r(ə)l /
Definition of natural in English:
ADJECTIVE
1 Existing in or derived from nature; not made or caused by humankind:
carrots contain a natural antiseptic
natural disasters such as earthquakes
1.1 Having had a minimum of processing or preservative treatment:
natural food our nutritional products are completely natural
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Because it's not found in nature.
Depends on your dictionary definition. Sucrose exists in nature.
natural
Pronunciation: /ˈnatʃ(ə)r(ə)l /
Definition of natural in English:
ADJECTIVE
1 Existing in or derived from nature; not made or caused by humankind:
carrots contain a natural antiseptic
natural disasters such as earthquakes
1.1 Having had a minimum of processing or preservative treatment:
natural food our nutritional products are completely natural
watch out- we got a bada@@ up in here!!!
lul- wildly amused it took this long for this to be posted.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Because it's not found in nature.
Depends on your dictionary definition. Sucrose exists in nature.
natural
Pronunciation: /ˈnatʃ(ə)r(ə)l /
Definition of natural in English:
ADJECTIVE
1 Existing in or derived from nature; not made or caused by humankind:
carrots contain a natural antiseptic
natural disasters such as earthquakes
1.1 Having had a minimum of processing or preservative treatment:
natural food our nutritional products are completely natural
Does table sugar exist in nature? Because that's what I said is unatural.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Because it's not found in nature.
Depends on your dictionary definition. Sucrose exists in nature.
natural
Pronunciation: /ˈnatʃ(ə)r(ə)l /
Definition of natural in English:
ADJECTIVE
1 Existing in or derived from nature; not made or caused by humankind:
carrots contain a natural antiseptic
natural disasters such as earthquakes
1.1 Having had a minimum of processing or preservative treatment:
natural food our nutritional products are completely natural
Does table sugar exist in nature? Because that's what I said is unatural.
Does bottled water?0 -
It's derived from nature.
This is a silly conversation, because there are 100 definitions for nature and people use it in tons of different ways, and the overarching point was that it was silly to claim one thing as natural and another as not when they were both derived from nature and both obviously not in the form in which they existed in nature.
The broader question when someone brings up "nature" is why does it matter? The "nature" of human beings is to mess with things and bring them out of their "natural" state, as the earlier point that someone raised about sugar cane illustrated quite well.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Does table sugar exist in nature? Because that's what I said is unatural.
I don't want to give the impression that I care too much, but it would be pedantically correct to say that crystalline pure sucrose is not found laying around in the wild, any more than any of the other sweeteners (except honey) are.
The compound sucrose, which is what table sugar is, is found in many plants and fruits.
0 -
LolBroScience wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Because it's not found in nature.
Depends on your dictionary definition. Sucrose exists in nature.
natural
Pronunciation: /ˈnatʃ(ə)r(ə)l /
Definition of natural in English:
ADJECTIVE
1 Existing in or derived from nature; not made or caused by humankind:
carrots contain a natural antiseptic
natural disasters such as earthquakes
1.1 Having had a minimum of processing or preservative treatment:
natural food our nutritional products are completely natural
Does table sugar exist in nature? Because that's what I said is unatural.
Does bottled water?
I would imagine that it's all filtered, so probably not. And, of course, that bottle would not be natural.0 -
Meanwhile, back at the point, a previous paper studies the same effect in overweight and obese men maintaining weight. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20820932
Saturated fat from the diet is metabolised rather than accumulated in the blood, especially when carbohydrates are restricted.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »It's derived from nature.
This is a silly conversation, because there are 100 definitions for nature and people use it in tons of different ways, and the overarching point was that it was silly to claim one thing as natural and another as not when they were both derived from nature and both obviously not in the form in which they existed in nature.
The broader question when someone brings up "nature" is why does it matter? The "nature" of human beings is to mess with things and bring them out of their "natural" state, as the earlier point that someone raised about sugar cane illustrated quite well.
Why some things matter to one and not another would likely be a very long discussion, as I imagine there are many different reasons. Another question would be, why does it matter to one person what or why things matter to others?0 -
In every keto site I follow they all recommend the drops instead of the granules.
Which sites are you following?rprussell2004 wrote: »baconslave wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I think her point is that you have to process it to get it in that form (white sugar), but I still don't see how that makes it different (or less "natural") than various forms of processed stevia, which were claimed as "natural" and what I (jokingly) was comparing to sugar.
Or for that matter than any cooked food, which is hardly in a state of nature. Why is it okay to add some dried cherries to rhubarb to sweeten it, but not a bit of sugar?
Indeed, being on a plate seems kind of "unnatural" if you are going to be a purist about it.
Exactly what kinds of "naturalness" are we supposed to care about when it comes to food and on what basis? This is the argument that always comes up re milk and I've never understood it there either.
The problem with stevia, and any other artificial sweetener, is that it's often mixed with a carrier, since it isn't bulky enough in powder form, and has a filler, like maltodextrin or dextrose, which adds carbs to it to the tune of 1g per teaspoon. That's why you want to get the "purer" stuff, not because it was blessed by baby Jesus.
I know you probably know that lemurcat, I'm just clarifying.
People, EVERYTHING is "processed" in one way or another before you eat it.
Trader joes sells an organic stevia powder that's JUST STEVIA. Like, if you use a tenth of a tablespoon you're overdoing it. No binders at all.
That's what I tend to use in my coffee.
I use that Stevia powder, too. Nothing in it but Stevia leaves.
I also use splenda with binders when I bake. Guess I'll be tarred and feathered for being a bad keto-er.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »It's derived from nature.
This is a silly conversation, because there are 100 definitions for nature and people use it in tons of different ways, and the overarching point was that it was silly to claim one thing as natural and another as not when they were both derived from nature and both obviously not in the form in which they existed in nature.
The broader question when someone brings up "nature" is why does it matter? The "nature" of human beings is to mess with things and bring them out of their "natural" state, as the earlier point that someone raised about sugar cane illustrated quite well.
Why some things matter to one and not another would likely be a very long discussion, as I imagine there are many different reasons. Another question would be, why does it matter to one person what or why things matter to others?
If people didn't make general proclamations with respect to what others should do, I imagine no one would care all that much. (For example, "we shouldn't drink milk, it's unnatural!")
However, that aside, why it matters would at least illuminate what they mean by "natural," so it matters at least as to communication. When someone says "humans drinking cow's milk is unnatural," as if that was meaningful, it might be incorrect, it might be correct but no different than plenty of other things that the person finds acceptable, or it might simply not matter to anyone else. Quite often people assert that something is or is not "natural" as if it should be self-evident that that is significant, just because "unnatural" sounds bad to many people.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »It's derived from nature.
This is a silly conversation, because there are 100 definitions for nature and people use it in tons of different ways, and the overarching point was that it was silly to claim one thing as natural and another as not when they were both derived from nature and both obviously not in the form in which they existed in nature.
The broader question when someone brings up "nature" is why does it matter? The "nature" of human beings is to mess with things and bring them out of their "natural" state, as the earlier point that someone raised about sugar cane illustrated quite well.
Why some things matter to one and not another would likely be a very long discussion, as I imagine there are many different reasons. Another question would be, why does it matter to one person what or why things matter to others?
If people didn't make general proclamations with respect to what others should do, I imagine no one would care all that much. (For example, "we shouldn't drink milk, it's unnatural!")
However, that aside, why it matters would at least illuminate what they mean by "natural," so it matters at least as to communication. When someone says "humans drinking cow's milk is unnatural," as if that was meaningful, it might be incorrect, it might be correct but no different than plenty of other things that the person finds acceptable, or it might simply not matter to anyone else. Quite often people assert that something is or is not "natural" as if it should be self-evident that that is significant, just because "unnatural" sounds bad to many people.
OR EATING BEE VOMIT!0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »It's derived from nature.
This is a silly conversation, because there are 100 definitions for nature and people use it in tons of different ways, and the overarching point was that it was silly to claim one thing as natural and another as not when they were both derived from nature and both obviously not in the form in which they existed in nature.
The broader question when someone brings up "nature" is why does it matter? The "nature" of human beings is to mess with things and bring them out of their "natural" state, as the earlier point that someone raised about sugar cane illustrated quite well.
Why some things matter to one and not another would likely be a very long discussion, as I imagine there are many different reasons. Another question would be, why does it matter to one person what or why things matter to others?
If people didn't make general proclamations with respect to what others should do, I imagine no one would care all that much. (For example, "we shouldn't drink milk, it's unnatural!")
While this may true for some, I don't believe it's true of many on this site. The responses would likely be the same whether the post was "we shouldn't drink milk, it's unnatural!" or "I choose not to drink milk because it's unnatural"0 -
I've yet to see someone on this site who takes that position about milk and doesn't go on to moralize about what others should do.
On the other hand, plenty of people say they are vegans or vegetarians for ethical reasons without making general statements about how others should eat (or how others are being "unnatural"), and they haven't been given a hard time that I've seen.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »I've yet to see someone on this site who takes that position about milk and doesn't go on to moralize about what others should do.
On the other hand, plenty of people say they are vegans or vegetarians for ethical reasons without making general statements about how others should eat (or how others are being "unnatural"), and they haven't been given a hard time that I've seen.
I'm not sure if you are serious or not. I thought about starting a post that I was going to transition to a vegan diet for ethical reasons to test your hypothesis, but I think I've probably posted too often about my diet.0 -
blktngldhrt wrote: »In every keto site I follow they all recommend the drops instead of the granules.
Which sites are you following?rprussell2004 wrote: »baconslave wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I think her point is that you have to process it to get it in that form (white sugar), but I still don't see how that makes it different (or less "natural") than various forms of processed stevia, which were claimed as "natural" and what I (jokingly) was comparing to sugar.
Or for that matter than any cooked food, which is hardly in a state of nature. Why is it okay to add some dried cherries to rhubarb to sweeten it, but not a bit of sugar?
Indeed, being on a plate seems kind of "unnatural" if you are going to be a purist about it.
Exactly what kinds of "naturalness" are we supposed to care about when it comes to food and on what basis? This is the argument that always comes up re milk and I've never understood it there either.
The problem with stevia, and any other artificial sweetener, is that it's often mixed with a carrier, since it isn't bulky enough in powder form, and has a filler, like maltodextrin or dextrose, which adds carbs to it to the tune of 1g per teaspoon. That's why you want to get the "purer" stuff, not because it was blessed by baby Jesus.
I know you probably know that lemurcat, I'm just clarifying.
People, EVERYTHING is "processed" in one way or another before you eat it.
Trader joes sells an organic stevia powder that's JUST STEVIA. Like, if you use a tenth of a tablespoon you're overdoing it. No binders at all.
That's what I tend to use in my coffee.
I use that Stevia powder, too. Nothing in it but Stevia leaves.
I also use splenda with binders when I bake. Guess I'll be tarred and feathered for being a bad keto-er.
Not from me you won't. Fillers just steal away your carbs, which are low levels to begin with. It's BETTER to preserve them when you can, so you have more to "spend." But if you have to use them, or you just don't care whether or not you use them, your carbs will be a little higher, but that doesn't make you a bad ketoer. We choose what we want to do with our carbs. Some days I have no fiber at all because I choose carbs without them. Others, I have as many as 10g of fiber when I feel like eating more veggies. Neither is better than the other. Personal choice. I use the liquid sweeteners because I want to preserve my carbs for nuts, and cheese, and some times veggies. I get to eat more. Does that make me a better "keto queen" than anyone else? Of course not.
We're not trying to make this a "sweetener snob" argument. We're just trying to cut carbs where we can. I personally prefer splenda, but I can't afford the liquid version and the carbs in the powder aren't worth it to me. So I found a way that works.0 -
No worries, tomorrow it will be "eat whatever you want" superiority day again. Never fear lad, never fear.
0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
No worries, tomorrow it will be "eat whatever you want" superiority day again. Never fear lad, never fear.
But... but... but...
That's what I already do!
I just only happen to WANT things that are starch- and sugar-free.
WHAT'S WRONG WITH MEEEEEEEEEE???????????
-1 -
You're clearly needing to add more refined sugars to your diet.rprussell2004 wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
No worries, tomorrow it will be "eat whatever you want" superiority day again. Never fear lad, never fear.
But... but... but...
That's what I already do!
I just only happen to WANT things that are starch- and sugar-free.
WHAT'S WRONG WITH MEEEEEEEEEE???????????
You're WANTING the wrong things.
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I've yet to see someone on this site who takes that position about milk and doesn't go on to moralize about what others should do.
On the other hand, plenty of people say they are vegans or vegetarians for ethical reasons without making general statements about how others should eat (or how others are being "unnatural"), and they haven't been given a hard time that I've seen.
I'm not sure if you are serious or not. I thought about starting a post that I was going to transition to a vegan diet for ethical reasons to test your hypothesis, but I think I've probably posted too often about my diet.
You know someone will just dress up a strawman and put words in your mouth. I wouldn't bother with the aggravation personally.
0 -
rprussell2004 wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
No worries, tomorrow it will be "eat whatever you want" superiority day again. Never fear lad, never fear.
But... but... but...
That's what I already do!
I just only happen to WANT things that are starch- and sugar-free.
WHAT'S WRONG WITH MEEEEEEEEEE???????????
Dunno. Must be the lack of carbs starving your brain.
0 -
It's kind of funny that beets, cantaloupes, clementines, pineapples, appricots and peaches have so much sucrose (yes, sucrose, sometimes two to three times as much sucrose as fructose or glucose) but sucrose is being demonized, and foods that contain it are not.0
-
SnuggleSmacks wrote: »It's kind of funny that beets, cantaloupes, clementines, pineapples, appricots and peaches have so much sucrose (yes, sucrose, sometimes two to three times as much sucrose as fructose or glucose) but sucrose is being demonized, and foods that contain it are not.
The OP was about health benefits of a LCHF diet, but I'm not sure that is the same as demonizing sucrose. But on 15-20 g of net carbs a day, I doubt these people are eating much fruit either.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »SnuggleSmacks wrote: »It's kind of funny that beets, cantaloupes, clementines, pineapples, appricots and peaches have so much sucrose (yes, sucrose, sometimes two to three times as much sucrose as fructose or glucose) but sucrose is being demonized, and foods that contain it are not.
The OP was about health benefits of a LCHF diet, but I'm not sure that is the same as demonizing sucrose. But on 15-20 g of net carbs a day, I doubt these people are eating much fruit either.
You must have missed the last few pages. The conversation evolved quite a ways from LCHF.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions