Good news for people who like eating fat!
Replies
-
SnuggleSmacks wrote: »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.
Actually, I was pretty involved in the last few pages. Which post demonized sucrose?0 -
SnuggleSmacks wrote: »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.
Yes. But the argument did not become "sucrose is the devil." It became "Is sucrose in the form of table sugar less natural than sucrose in fruits because it is refined?"
No demons there, except for our own personal ones.0 -
baconslave wrote: »SnuggleSmacks wrote: »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.
Yes. But the argument did not become "sucrose is the devil." It became "Is sucrose in the form of table sugar less natural than sucrose in fruits because it is refined?"
No demons there, except for our own personal ones.
ding ding ding, we have a winner.0 -
None of them.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »SnuggleSmacks wrote: »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.
Actually, I was pretty involved in the last few pages. Which post demonized sucrose?
0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
None of them.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »SnuggleSmacks wrote: »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.
Actually, I was pretty involved in the last few pages. Which post demonized sucrose?
All it takes is one spoon to stir the pot. Then the dog-piles begin.
-1 -
baconslave wrote: »No demons there, except for our own personal ones.
think this wraps up food issues pretty much across the board.0 -
baconslave wrote: »No demons there, except for our own personal ones.
think this wraps up food issues pretty much across the board.
Exactly.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.
I've mentioned a bunch of times that I get meat from local farms for ethical reasons of my own and no one has ever given me a hard time about it. (Of course, it's entirely possible no one reads my posts.)
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
I've mentioned a bunch of times that I get meat from local farms for ethical reasons of my own and no one has ever given me a hard time about it. (Of course, it's entirely possible no one reads my posts.)
I can certifiably say I read nothing you wrote.
nothing including the above post about meat from a farmer- did.not.read.
0 -
baconslave wrote: »SnuggleSmacks wrote: »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.
Yes. But the argument did not become "sucrose is the devil." It became "Is sucrose in the form of table sugar less natural than sucrose in fruits because it is refined?"
No demons there, except for our own personal ones.
Well, if we want to be precise, what happened was someone was going on about certain kinds of stevia being "natural" vs. other kinds, and the "natural" kind was an extract. Someone said that it being natural did not necessarily make it better, as cyanide is natural, and I added that under that particular definition of "natural"--allowing for an extract to be counted--so was white sugar, as both are derived from plants. (I didn't spell all that out, but it was obvious in the comment.)
Based on that, I got jumped on and told I didn't know the meaning of "natural."
(As if there were one, and as if my point was ever that sugar is "natural," which I think is a silly thing to care about.)
Are there good keto-related reasons to prefer one form of stevia to another? Seems so, and that's great for those who do keto. Doesn't have to do with "nature," though. Lots of "natural" foods are no doubt terrible for keto, like the all-natural potato!
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »I've mentioned a bunch of times that I get meat from local farms...
That's definitely not natural.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »baconslave wrote: »SnuggleSmacks wrote: »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.
Yes. But the argument did not become "sucrose is the devil." It became "Is sucrose in the form of table sugar less natural than sucrose in fruits because it is refined?"
No demons there, except for our own personal ones.
Well, if we want to be precise, what happened was someone was going on about certain kinds of stevia being "natural" vs. other kinds, and the "natural" kind was an extract. Someone said that it being natural did not necessarily make it better, as cyanide is natural, and I added that under that particular definition of "natural"--allowing for an extract to be counted--so was white sugar, as both are derived from plants. (I didn't spell all that out, but it was obvious in the comment.)
Based on that, I got jumped on and told I didn't know the meaning of "natural."
(As if there were one, and as if my point was ever that sugar is "natural," which I think is a silly thing to care about.)
Are there good keto-related reasons to prefer one form of stevia to another? Seems so, and that's great for those who do keto. Doesn't have to do with "nature," though. Lots of "natural" foods are no doubt terrible for keto, like the all-natural potato!
I agree. It really has nothing to do with being natural. Whatever that is. You want to eat natural stevia, find a plant that randomly seeded somewhere by chance and chew the leaves off it. Otherwise it's processed to some degree. Whether or not it's just ground up leaves, to some that is "processing." H*ll, even chewing the things, and then having them digested by the stomach is "processing" by some definition. Just shove the whole leaves in your vein while it's still attached to the plant if you want to get even more ridiculous.
I see little point in the distinction. It's not that "processing" is putting cyanide in it. It's just an extraneous argument and really adds nothing. It's just fodder for those who feel like a good jaw-wagging or a fight. But since this entire vein is a threadjack of a threadjack, pffft, whatever, IMO.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »baconslave wrote: »SnuggleSmacks wrote: »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.
Yes. But the argument did not become "sucrose is the devil." It became "Is sucrose in the form of table sugar less natural than sucrose in fruits because it is refined?"
No demons there, except for our own personal ones.
Well, if we want to be precise, what happened was someone was going on about certain kinds of stevia being "natural" vs. other kinds, and the "natural" kind was an extract. Someone said that it being natural did not necessarily make it better, as cyanide is natural, and I added that under that particular definition of "natural"--allowing for an extract to be counted--so was white sugar, as both are derived from plants. (I didn't spell all that out, but it was obvious in the comment.)
Based on that, I got jumped on and told I didn't know the meaning of "natural."
(As if there were one, and as if my point was ever that sugar is "natural," which I think is a silly thing to care about.)
Are there good keto-related reasons to prefer one form of stevia to another? Seems so, and that's great for those who do keto. Doesn't have to do with "nature," though. Lots of "natural" foods are no doubt terrible for keto, like the all-natural potato!
"Jumped"?? Geez. Seriously?0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »I've mentioned a bunch of times that I get meat from local farms...
That's definitely not natural.
Luckily I don't care a bit whether something is natural or not.
I also cook the meat.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I've mentioned a bunch of times that I get meat from local farms...
That's definitely not natural.
Luckily I don't care a bit whether something is natural or not.
I also cook the meat.
et tu sushi?0 -
rprussell2004 wrote: »SCIENCE!
"New research links diabetes, heart disease risk to diet high in carbs, not fat."
I'm gonna do them a few better and quadruple it.
I want to know who the clown is that flagged this post.0 -
Next year I'm heading out to a farm to shoot, clean and process my pig for the year. The child who is raising it will help.lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
I've mentioned a bunch of times that I get meat from local farms for ethical reasons of my own and no one has ever given me a hard time about it. (Of course, it's entirely possible no one reads my posts.)
Circle of life.
0 -
Next year I'm heading out to a farm to shoot, clean and process my pig for the year. The child who is raising it will help.lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
I've mentioned a bunch of times that I get meat from local farms for ethical reasons of my own and no one has ever given me a hard time about it. (Of course, it's entirely possible no one reads my posts.)
Circle of life.
Only one for the whole YEAR?
You've got more control than I do.0 -
300# of meat for two people is a lot of pig. I also take a lamb, usually pop a few illegally immigrating ducks out of the year. I try to put a whole in bambi and yogi...
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?
At first blush it seems that you are just poking others to satisfy some underlying need to annoy. But actually there is very little water consumed in the world that is truly natural. Filtering, chemically sterilizing, or both is the norm for most. Even well water isn't something that is truly natural. You can't just go outside and suck on the dirt to get the ground water out (far fetched). The thing is, we just have to understand the world we live in and do the best we can. Practically nothing on my dinner table is going to look like it did in its original state. So just because a plant or animal component has been manipulated for easier or better use then I just don't see the point in differentiating between natural and unnatural. I guess where I might/tend draw the line is when components not found in nature or ever in the history of the human diet are added to maintain freshness or anything else for that matter. And that could be just my lack of education on the subject.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I've mentioned a bunch of times that I get meat from local farms...
That's definitely not natural.
Luckily I don't care a bit whether something is natural or not.
I also cook the meat.
et tu sushi?
I have to admit that I don't get my sushi from local farms! ;-)
0 -
BlackTimber wrote: »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?
At first blush it seems that you are just poking others to satisfy some underlying need to annoy. But actually there is very little water consumed in the world that is truly natural. Filtering, chemically sterilizing, or both is the norm for most. Even well water isn't something that is truly natural. You can't just go outside and suck on the dirt to get the ground water out (far fetched). The thing is, we just have to understand the world we live in and do the best we can. Practically nothing on my dinner table is going to look like it did in its original state. So just because a plant or animal component has been manipulated for easier or better use then I just don't see the point in differentiating between natural and unnatural. I guess where I might/tend draw the line is when components not found in nature or ever in the history of the human diet are added to maintain freshness or anything else for that matter. And that could be just my lack of education on the subject.
lol
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I've mentioned a bunch of times that I get meat from local farms...
That's definitely not natural.
Luckily I don't care a bit whether something is natural or not.
I also cook the meat.
et tu sushi?
I have to admit that I don't get my sushi from local farms! ;-)
probably for the best !!!0 -
BlackTimber wrote: »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?
At first blush it seems that you are just poking others to satisfy some underlying need to annoy. But actually there is very little water consumed in the world that is truly natural. Filtering, chemically sterilizing, or both is the norm for most. Even well water isn't something that is truly natural. You can't just go outside and suck on the dirt to get the ground water out (far fetched). The thing is, we just have to understand the world we live in and do the best we can. Practically nothing on my dinner table is going to look like it did in its original state. So just because a plant or animal component has been manipulated for easier or better use then I just don't see the point in differentiating between natural and unnatural. I guess where I might/tend draw the line is when components not found in nature or ever in the history of the human diet are added to maintain freshness or anything else for that matter. And that could be just my lack of education on the subject.
It's fine that you don't see the point in differentiating between natural and unnatural. But others do see the point.-1 -
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.
^So that article made me do some research. I never realized the size of the ldl makes a difference and that your diet could actually affect the size of the ldl particles you have. Interesting.
I'm surprised the men had a significant increase in ketone bodies considering their carb intake was 12%; I figured you had to be much lower to get ketones to form (although I'm not sure what level is defined as being in ketosis as they only got to about 250).
The increase in arachidonic acid without an increase in oxidative stress response is also interesting.
Although, as per usual, it's an extremely small sample size, and while they demonstrate significant results, there is a huge standard deviation for all of there results.0 -
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!
Sucrose isn't found in fruits? No ignorance there
0 -
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!
Sucrose isn't found in fruits? No ignorance there
This is what I was responding to when I posted this:
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.
Sorry I didn't make that clear.
0 -
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!
Sucrose isn't found in fruits? No ignorance there
So you cut open a banana and sugar granules pour out?
I want what you're smoking.
Nobody said there was no sucrose in fruit.-1 -
baconslave wrote: »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.
Yeah, I was joking about the bad keto-er thing. As long as the sweetener of choice doesn't put me over 5-6%..and I've eaten my vegetables, it doesn't matter to me. 0 -
I've yet to see a hf thread that didn't end up being a ridiculous debate about something not really related to hf..
There are a lot of different takes on what is considered natural. semantics. What's the point in arguing?
..saying someone is demonizing something is probably one of the most annoying things I've come across on these boards. since everyone is just nitpicking..-1
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