A Question About Sugar
Replies
-
Ok, so the real issue goes back to my second post on page 13 when I mentioned my misunderstanding of the meaning of CI. Now we should be in agreement, correct?ForecasterJason wrote: »
Wow, talk about splitting hairs. Take out the mention of body composition, and I said what one eats affects how hungry one would be, which would affect calorie intake. Unless hunger and fullness is not related to appetite, what part of that does not match up?ForecasterJason wrote: »
The interesting thing is that is almost exactly what I was trying to say a couple pages back and got shot down.Charlottesometimes23 wrote: »My point is simply that "calories in " is not the only variable, and cannot be considered independent of the composition of those calories.
I've read plenty of studies showing higher weight loss with increased protein, usually compared against a low base. Similarly there are overfeeding studies with constant excess calories and divergent weight gain results due to variable composition.
So the devotion to purely calories in is flawed. Which is why you see such variable results from reducing input. Although I accept it's more popular to just assume the measuring is wrong.
In terms of setting a deficit eating plan then yes I would say a high protein eater is likely to have a higher TDEE than a low protein eater but in the context of the +/- 10% estimation of BMR etc probably not a deal breaker. You need a lot of kit or a long time to know if you're in a calorie deficit.
it suggests (to me anyway) that different dietary components influence hunger/satiety signals and body composition, which could indirectly influence weight loss
no it is not.
you said appetite affects CICO ..it does NOT
CICO is a formula for calculating calories in vs calories out
appetite is how hungry one is ..
0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
Ok, so the real issue goes back to my second post on page 13 when I mentioned my misunderstanding of the meaning of CI. Now we should be in agreement, correct?ForecasterJason wrote: »
Wow, talk about splitting hairs. Take out the mention of body composition, and I said what one eats affects how hungry one would be, which would affect calorie intake. Unless hunger and fullness is not related to appetite, what part of that does not match up?ForecasterJason wrote: »
The interesting thing is that is almost exactly what I was trying to say a couple pages back and got shot down.Charlottesometimes23 wrote: »My point is simply that "calories in " is not the only variable, and cannot be considered independent of the composition of those calories.
I've read plenty of studies showing higher weight loss with increased protein, usually compared against a low base. Similarly there are overfeeding studies with constant excess calories and divergent weight gain results due to variable composition.
So the devotion to purely calories in is flawed. Which is why you see such variable results from reducing input. Although I accept it's more popular to just assume the measuring is wrong.
In terms of setting a deficit eating plan then yes I would say a high protein eater is likely to have a higher TDEE than a low protein eater but in the context of the +/- 10% estimation of BMR etc probably not a deal breaker. You need a lot of kit or a long time to know if you're in a calorie deficit.
it suggests (to me anyway) that different dietary components influence hunger/satiety signals and body composition, which could indirectly influence weight loss
no it is not.
you said appetite affects CICO ..it does NOT
CICO is a formula for calculating calories in vs calories out
appetite is how hungry one is ..
NO, we are not.
appetite has nothing to do with CI or CO side..
you figure out what you need on the CI side to cover the CO side…
here is a simple way to look at it..
Calories In - what you need to consume to get to x goal
calories out - daily burn rate based on age, height, weight, activity level.
CI + CO = CICO
tell me where appetite factors into that equation….0 -
Hi again,
I have tried to keep up with the thread(s) associated with this discussion and am aware that I may be repeating or referring to already stated comments and facts regarding appetite, calorie counting, data and findings pertaining to fructose and generally accepted knowledge regarding what causes fat gain and what promotes loss of weight in both healthy and unhealthy ways. I just wanted to add that I have struggled with my weight and more specifically my fat to muscle ratio for many years and relied quite extensively on "quick-fix" recommendations from doctors and dieticians.
What I am absorbed in now is a model which focuses more on a proactive Health paradigm than a "Disease" model; the latter which focuses on specific and symptomatic problems associated with poor eating and poor life-style choices and the former which explores in minute detail personal biochemistry as well as individual dietary and lifestyle choices by way of extensive blood-testing and interviews.
The Disease Model is based on the assumption that health is simply the absence of disease and established risk factors. The major flaw in this model is that symptoms and risk factors are less often the cause of underlying defects. As a result, treating the symptom by dictating to the body what you would like to have happen (rather than supporting natural mechanisms) does little more than hide the underlying defect.
The Health Model begins with the premise that it is necessary to know how something works in order to repair or improve it. It further supports that health changes must be addressed from the perspective of their impact on TOTAL health, rather than just focusing on how a procedure impacts a specific symptom.
I won't bore you with the details of the model unless there is interest from people who are reading this (please just let me know as I do not want to ramble on if this is considered unimportant). The amount of sugar, the type of sugar and the foods which include directly or indirectly quantities of sugar clearly impacts at many levels our physiology and is at the root of chemical reactions and body responses which must be seen in a holistic light. Just discussing whether the absence of sugar or at least a significant reduction of sugar is a good or bad choice ignores the complex realities of blood-sugar levels, acidic potentials (indicated by drops in saliva pH or in urine which may indicate anaerobic metabolism) and hunger drives and needs to part of the bigger picture.
I will stop at this point to test out the interest in what I am stating. I am not an organic scientist and do not wish to engage in academic bantering. I would rather encourage a healthy discussion which explores different points of view regarding a more holistic, health model. I would be grateful to learn what you think about the matters raised. Thank you
0 -
Patttience wrote: »this is a very good question. First off, my advice is don't bother using the sugar counter at all unless you are a diagnosed diabetic. Nobody else needs to know their sugar count.
What we all need to do is know our carb count. You should aim to keep your carb count low.
The reason why i say the sugar counter is a waste of your interest is a) because there are more important factors and b), unless diabetic the body manages blood sugar levels naturally. If you just eat with your macros in an appropriate balance, you do not need to be concered about the sugar counter.
the sugar counter makes no distinction between refined sugars and natural sugars and it is hte refined sugars only that you need to reduce. You can do this without any sort of counter at all. You need to put significant effort into reducing processed foods because these are the foods that have high levels of added/refined sugar.
Why is refined sugar a problem? Because it intensifies the flavours of foods so that you ar enot happy with normal healthy food and prefer processed foods. Because it causes some people to over eat. And when you over eat refined sugar, it start the ball rolling and keep it rolling endlessly towards weight gain and ill health. Overeating causes imbalances in the hormones signalling systems in teh body. For instance leptin. People who eat a lot tend to develop leptin resistance which means your body can't help you restrict your eating at all because you are always hungry.
Just reducing yoru calories will result in correcting of this problem however, so long as you eat a lot of refined sugar, you will struggle to reduce your calorie intake and maitain it long enough to lose the weight and reprogram yourself into better eating habits.
The other things that you need to be eating more and don't when you eat too much refined/added sguars are vegetables and fruit and high fibre foods. Because meat is a strong flavoured food, people tend not to have any difficult eating eating enough meat and protein when they are also eating a lot of very unhealthy foods but fruit and vegetables tend to be less exciting to the palate becuase they have plainer flavours. To enjoy them, they would need to be eaten with other highly flavoursome foods.
So when you cut out all the procesed foods, you can start to enjoy less intensely flavoured foods, though they still do need ot be prepared in such a way as to be tasty. Hence to be honest, steamed vegies and skinless chicken breast was never going to satisfy anyone in the long term.
There are ways you can cook vegetables and other foods that are tasty adn interesting. Its important the food you eat to replace all the processed foods you may have eaten in teh past is tasty. So that suggests that people need to apply themselves to their cooking. Thsi is probalby one of hte hardest things for most dieters to do in this day and age when a) many can't cook b) most people are very busy and too tired too cook.
But i promise you if you make the effort to prepare your own meals, avoid processed fodos as much as possible and increase your vegetables and fruit you will find losing weight easier. You will also find keeping hte weigh off long term more sustainable.
People need to make a life long commitment to eating better. Its not enough just to do it for long enough to get hte weight off. If you don't commit to ongoing change, you will get fat again.
No. Just...no.
and to the bolded part - overeating calories results in weight gain, "refined sugar" (whatever that means) has nothing to do with it...
Refined sugar does cause me to go absolutely bonkers for more calories though. So it could potentially trigger some people to eat more if they don't watch out.0 -
uconnwinsnc1 wrote: »Patttience wrote: »this is a very good question. First off, my advice is don't bother using the sugar counter at all unless you are a diagnosed diabetic. Nobody else needs to know their sugar count.
What we all need to do is know our carb count. You should aim to keep your carb count low.
The reason why i say the sugar counter is a waste of your interest is a) because there are more important factors and b), unless diabetic the body manages blood sugar levels naturally. If you just eat with your macros in an appropriate balance, you do not need to be concered about the sugar counter.
the sugar counter makes no distinction between refined sugars and natural sugars and it is hte refined sugars only that you need to reduce. You can do this without any sort of counter at all. You need to put significant effort into reducing processed foods because these are the foods that have high levels of added/refined sugar.
Why is refined sugar a problem? Because it intensifies the flavours of foods so that you ar enot happy with normal healthy food and prefer processed foods. Because it causes some people to over eat. And when you over eat refined sugar, it start the ball rolling and keep it rolling endlessly towards weight gain and ill health. Overeating causes imbalances in the hormones signalling systems in teh body. For instance leptin. People who eat a lot tend to develop leptin resistance which means your body can't help you restrict your eating at all because you are always hungry.
Just reducing yoru calories will result in correcting of this problem however, so long as you eat a lot of refined sugar, you will struggle to reduce your calorie intake and maitain it long enough to lose the weight and reprogram yourself into better eating habits.
The other things that you need to be eating more and don't when you eat too much refined/added sguars are vegetables and fruit and high fibre foods. Because meat is a strong flavoured food, people tend not to have any difficult eating eating enough meat and protein when they are also eating a lot of very unhealthy foods but fruit and vegetables tend to be less exciting to the palate becuase they have plainer flavours. To enjoy them, they would need to be eaten with other highly flavoursome foods.
So when you cut out all the procesed foods, you can start to enjoy less intensely flavoured foods, though they still do need ot be prepared in such a way as to be tasty. Hence to be honest, steamed vegies and skinless chicken breast was never going to satisfy anyone in the long term.
There are ways you can cook vegetables and other foods that are tasty adn interesting. Its important the food you eat to replace all the processed foods you may have eaten in teh past is tasty. So that suggests that people need to apply themselves to their cooking. Thsi is probalby one of hte hardest things for most dieters to do in this day and age when a) many can't cook b) most people are very busy and too tired too cook.
But i promise you if you make the effort to prepare your own meals, avoid processed fodos as much as possible and increase your vegetables and fruit you will find losing weight easier. You will also find keeping hte weigh off long term more sustainable.
People need to make a life long commitment to eating better. Its not enough just to do it for long enough to get hte weight off. If you don't commit to ongoing change, you will get fat again.
No. Just...no.
and to the bolded part - overeating calories results in weight gain, "refined sugar" (whatever that means) has nothing to do with it...
Refined sugar does cause me to go absolutely bonkers for more calories though. So it could potentially trigger some people to eat more if they don't watch out.
But isn't the point that that's a separate issue. CICO means that it's how many calories you actually eat (and burn) that determines whether you gain, lose, or maintain. The argument about TEF relates to the fact that there is some additional burn associated with digestion that varies depending on what you eat, so there are (minimal) differences between different mixes of food, within the normal variations. (The difference between eating all chicken breast vs. all Twinkies might not be so small, but other than someone doing an experiment, whose diet is really anything like either? If it is, you have bigger issues than TEF.)
For CICO not to be the case, you'd have to show that you could eat significantly more calories of certain foods than others (apart from the differences in burn from TEF) to have the same effect on your weight, all else equal, and that is not the case.
Now, as has been stated throughout this thread, it is also true than numerous other factors may effect how many calories people eat. Willpower being one, but also whether they eat foods they tend to find satiating, in a way (meal number and timing) they find satiating, etc. For many of us, sugary foods on their own may not be satiating, whereas fats and proteins tend to be. But that's not universal--and certainly the claim by some to find that they experience cravings is not--and thus it's not general advice, but something worth experimenting with. The bigger point, though, is that it's not relevant to CICO, since the fact that you may be more likely to eat 2400 calories if you eat lots of sugar vs. 1800 does not mean that sugar makes you fatter than the same calories of something else. It instead would mean that for you it might be a good strategy to eat less sugar, just like for me it's a good strategy to eliminate snacking.0 -
shelleygold wrote: »Hi again,
I have tried to keep up with the thread(s) associated with this discussion and am aware that I may be repeating or referring to already stated comments and facts regarding appetite, calorie counting, data and findings pertaining to fructose and generally accepted knowledge regarding what causes fat gain and what promotes loss of weight in both healthy and unhealthy ways. I just wanted to add that I have struggled with my weight and more specifically my fat to muscle ratio for many years and relied quite extensively on "quick-fix" recommendations from doctors and dieticians.
What I am absorbed in now is a model which focuses more on a proactive Health paradigm than a "Disease" model; the latter which focuses on specific and symptomatic problems associated with poor eating and poor life-style choices and the former which explores in minute detail personal biochemistry as well as individual dietary and lifestyle choices by way of extensive blood-testing and interviews.
The Disease Model is based on the assumption that health is simply the absence of disease and established risk factors. The major flaw in this model is that symptoms and risk factors are less often the cause of underlying defects. As a result, treating the symptom by dictating to the body what you would like to have happen (rather than supporting natural mechanisms) does little more than hide the underlying defect.
The Health Model begins with the premise that it is necessary to know how something works in order to repair or improve it. It further supports that health changes must be addressed from the perspective of their impact on TOTAL health, rather than just focusing on how a procedure impacts a specific symptom.
I won't bore you with the details of the model unless there is interest from people who are reading this (please just let me know as I do not want to ramble on if this is considered unimportant). The amount of sugar, the type of sugar and the foods which include directly or indirectly quantities of sugar clearly impacts at many levels our physiology and is at the root of chemical reactions and body responses which must be seen in a holistic light. Just discussing whether the absence of sugar or at least a significant reduction of sugar is a good or bad choice ignores the complex realities of blood-sugar levels, acidic potentials (indicated by drops in saliva pH or in urine which may indicate anaerobic metabolism) and hunger drives and needs to part of the bigger picture.
I will stop at this point to test out the interest in what I am stating. I am not an organic scientist and do not wish to engage in academic bantering. I would rather encourage a healthy discussion which explores different points of view regarding a more holistic, health model. I would be grateful to learn what you think about the matters raised. Thank you
Shelley that was a positive post. After years of dieting and only getting fatter down the road I am trying to learn how to stop dieting per se and instead learn an eating lifestyle that will give me the best possible health I can have from this point forward.
0 -
shelleygold wrote: »Hi again,
I have tried to keep up with the thread(s) associated with this discussion and am aware that I may be repeating or referring to already stated comments and facts regarding appetite, calorie counting, data and findings pertaining to fructose and generally accepted knowledge regarding what causes fat gain and what promotes loss of weight in both healthy and unhealthy ways. I just wanted to add that I have struggled with my weight and more specifically my fat to muscle ratio for many years and relied quite extensively on "quick-fix" recommendations from doctors and dieticians.
What I am absorbed in now is a model which focuses more on a proactive Health paradigm than a "Disease" model; the latter which focuses on specific and symptomatic problems associated with poor eating and poor life-style choices and the former which explores in minute detail personal biochemistry as well as individual dietary and lifestyle choices by way of extensive blood-testing and interviews.
The Disease Model is based on the assumption that health is simply the absence of disease and established risk factors. The major flaw in this model is that symptoms and risk factors are less often the cause of underlying defects. As a result, treating the symptom by dictating to the body what you would like to have happen (rather than supporting natural mechanisms) does little more than hide the underlying defect.
The Health Model begins with the premise that it is necessary to know how something works in order to repair or improve it. It further supports that health changes must be addressed from the perspective of their impact on TOTAL health, rather than just focusing on how a procedure impacts a specific symptom.
I won't bore you with the details of the model unless there is interest from people who are reading this (please just let me know as I do not want to ramble on if this is considered unimportant). The amount of sugar, the type of sugar and the foods which include directly or indirectly quantities of sugar clearly impacts at many levels our physiology and is at the root of chemical reactions and body responses which must be seen in a holistic light. Just discussing whether the absence of sugar or at least a significant reduction of sugar is a good or bad choice ignores the complex realities of blood-sugar levels, acidic potentials (indicated by drops in saliva pH or in urine which may indicate anaerobic metabolism) and hunger drives and needs to part of the bigger picture.
I will stop at this point to test out the interest in what I am stating. I am not an organic scientist and do not wish to engage in academic bantering. I would rather encourage a healthy discussion which explores different points of view regarding a more holistic, health model. I would be grateful to learn what you think about the matters raised. Thank you
Ok, I'll bite. From what I understand, you're focussing on prevention rather than treating symptoms. However, you're going way out on a limb with the sugar talk.
If you want to discuss it, people will discuss using research from academic journals to prove a point....is that what you call academic bantering? If you're not prepared to engage that way, it's a little pointless IMO.
0 -
Hi Shelleygold, my suggestion is that you begin your own thread and see if anyone is interested. Just state what you said in your post that you are not interested in "academic bantering" and just want "healthy discussion which explores different points of view."
I say go for it.
-1 -
It's understandable too that a person that believes in pseudoscience would not want to engage in actual scientific bantering, so to speak.Charlottesometimes23 wrote: »shelleygold wrote: »Hi again,
I have tried to keep up with the thread(s) associated with this discussion and am aware that I may be repeating or referring to already stated comments and facts regarding appetite, calorie counting, data and findings pertaining to fructose and generally accepted knowledge regarding what causes fat gain and what promotes loss of weight in both healthy and unhealthy ways. I just wanted to add that I have struggled with my weight and more specifically my fat to muscle ratio for many years and relied quite extensively on "quick-fix" recommendations from doctors and dieticians.
What I am absorbed in now is a model which focuses more on a proactive Health paradigm than a "Disease" model; the latter which focuses on specific and symptomatic problems associated with poor eating and poor life-style choices and the former which explores in minute detail personal biochemistry as well as individual dietary and lifestyle choices by way of extensive blood-testing and interviews.
The Disease Model is based on the assumption that health is simply the absence of disease and established risk factors. The major flaw in this model is that symptoms and risk factors are less often the cause of underlying defects. As a result, treating the symptom by dictating to the body what you would like to have happen (rather than supporting natural mechanisms) does little more than hide the underlying defect.
The Health Model begins with the premise that it is necessary to know how something works in order to repair or improve it. It further supports that health changes must be addressed from the perspective of their impact on TOTAL health, rather than just focusing on how a procedure impacts a specific symptom.
I won't bore you with the details of the model unless there is interest from people who are reading this (please just let me know as I do not want to ramble on if this is considered unimportant). The amount of sugar, the type of sugar and the foods which include directly or indirectly quantities of sugar clearly impacts at many levels our physiology and is at the root of chemical reactions and body responses which must be seen in a holistic light. Just discussing whether the absence of sugar or at least a significant reduction of sugar is a good or bad choice ignores the complex realities of blood-sugar levels, acidic potentials (indicated by drops in saliva pH or in urine which may indicate anaerobic metabolism) and hunger drives and needs to part of the bigger picture.
I will stop at this point to test out the interest in what I am stating. I am not an organic scientist and do not wish to engage in academic bantering. I would rather encourage a healthy discussion which explores different points of view regarding a more holistic, health model. I would be grateful to learn what you think about the matters raised. Thank you
Ok, I'll bite. From what I understand, you're focussing on prevention rather than treating symptoms. However, you're going way out on a limb with the sugar talk.
If you want to discuss it, people will discuss using research from academic journals to prove a point....is that what you call academic bantering? If you're not prepared to engage that way, it's a little pointless IMO.
Someone please put this thread out of it's misery.
0 -
shelleygold wrote: »Hi again,
I have tried to keep up with the thread(s) associated with this discussion and am aware that I may be repeating or referring to already stated comments and facts regarding appetite, calorie counting, data and findings pertaining to fructose and generally accepted knowledge regarding what causes fat gain and what promotes loss of weight in both healthy and unhealthy ways. I just wanted to add that I have struggled with my weight and more specifically my fat to muscle ratio for many years and relied quite extensively on "quick-fix" recommendations from doctors and dieticians.
What I am absorbed in now is a model which focuses more on a proactive Health paradigm than a "Disease" model; the latter which focuses on specific and symptomatic problems associated with poor eating and poor life-style choices and the former which explores in minute detail personal biochemistry as well as individual dietary and lifestyle choices by way of extensive blood-testing and interviews.
The Disease Model is based on the assumption that health is simply the absence of disease and established risk factors. The major flaw in this model is that symptoms and risk factors are less often the cause of underlying defects. As a result, treating the symptom by dictating to the body what you would like to have happen (rather than supporting natural mechanisms) does little more than hide the underlying defect.
The Health Model begins with the premise that it is necessary to know how something works in order to repair or improve it. It further supports that health changes must be addressed from the perspective of their impact on TOTAL health, rather than just focusing on how a procedure impacts a specific symptom.
I won't bore you with the details of the model unless there is interest from people who are reading this (please just let me know as I do not want to ramble on if this is considered unimportant). The amount of sugar, the type of sugar and the foods which include directly or indirectly quantities of sugar clearly impacts at many levels our physiology and is at the root of chemical reactions and body responses which must be seen in a holistic light. Just discussing whether the absence of sugar or at least a significant reduction of sugar is a good or bad choice ignores the complex realities of blood-sugar levels, acidic potentials (indicated by drops in saliva pH or in urine which may indicate anaerobic metabolism) and hunger drives and needs to part of the bigger picture.
I will stop at this point to test out the interest in what I am stating. I am not an organic scientist and do not wish to engage in academic bantering. I would rather encourage a healthy discussion which explores different points of view regarding a more holistic, health model. I would be grateful to learn what you think about the matters raised. Thank you
Hi Shelley!
I was wondering if you had some suggestions for some academic articles on this so I could read up on this approach a little bit more. Thank you!0 -
I am so confused. I want to know how you can prove disease states from health states without science and academics entering the picture.
I saw a lot of word salad tossed around basically saying that someone wants to talk about how they feel. Am I misreading things?0 -
Ok, I got it now. I initially did not realize exactly what CI meant.ForecasterJason wrote: »
Ok, so the real issue goes back to my second post on page 13 when I mentioned my misunderstanding of the meaning of CI. Now we should be in agreement, correct?ForecasterJason wrote: »
Wow, talk about splitting hairs. Take out the mention of body composition, and I said what one eats affects how hungry one would be, which would affect calorie intake. Unless hunger and fullness is not related to appetite, what part of that does not match up?ForecasterJason wrote: »
The interesting thing is that is almost exactly what I was trying to say a couple pages back and got shot down.Charlottesometimes23 wrote: »My point is simply that "calories in " is not the only variable, and cannot be considered independent of the composition of those calories.
I've read plenty of studies showing higher weight loss with increased protein, usually compared against a low base. Similarly there are overfeeding studies with constant excess calories and divergent weight gain results due to variable composition.
So the devotion to purely calories in is flawed. Which is why you see such variable results from reducing input. Although I accept it's more popular to just assume the measuring is wrong.
In terms of setting a deficit eating plan then yes I would say a high protein eater is likely to have a higher TDEE than a low protein eater but in the context of the +/- 10% estimation of BMR etc probably not a deal breaker. You need a lot of kit or a long time to know if you're in a calorie deficit.
it suggests (to me anyway) that different dietary components influence hunger/satiety signals and body composition, which could indirectly influence weight loss
no it is not.
you said appetite affects CICO ..it does NOT
CICO is a formula for calculating calories in vs calories out
appetite is how hungry one is ..
NO, we are not.
appetite has nothing to do with CI or CO side..
you figure out what you need on the CI side to cover the CO side…
here is a simple way to look at it..
Calories In - what you need to consume to get to x goal
calories out - daily burn rate based on age, height, weight, activity level.
CI + CO = CICO
tell me where appetite factors into that equation….
0 -
reference for later0
-
Some of our posts were deleted with no explanation. Why was that?0
-
Charlottesometimes23 wrote: »Some of our posts were deleted with no explanation. Why was that?
I think the mods do that when they see them acquiring a lot of flags, but I am not sure...0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Charlottesometimes23 wrote: »Some of our posts were deleted with no explanation. Why was that?
I think the mods do that when they see them acquiring a lot of flags, but I am not sure...
I don't think that they had a lot of flags. I thought an explanation would be provided if posts were deleted.0 -
Charlottesometimes23 wrote: »Charlottesometimes23 wrote: »Some of our posts were deleted with no explanation. Why was that?
I think the mods do that when they see them acquiring a lot of flags, but I am not sure...
I don't think that they had a lot of flags. I thought an explanation would be provided if posts were deleted.
who knows..? The new system is not really a system …its more like confused anarchy where no one knows the rules...0 -
Charlottesometimes23 wrote: »Charlottesometimes23 wrote: »Some of our posts were deleted with no explanation. Why was that?
I think the mods do that when they see them acquiring a lot of flags, but I am not sure...
I don't think that they had a lot of flags. I thought an explanation would be provided if posts were deleted.
who knows..? The new system is not really a system …its more like confused anarchy where no one knows the rules...
Lol. Anarchy is good, but censorship makes me uncomfortable....and I like to know why....
I wonder if shelleygold asked to have them deleted.
0 -
Charlottesometimes23 wrote: »Charlottesometimes23 wrote: »Charlottesometimes23 wrote: »Some of our posts were deleted with no explanation. Why was that?
I think the mods do that when they see them acquiring a lot of flags, but I am not sure...
I don't think that they had a lot of flags. I thought an explanation would be provided if posts were deleted.
who knows..? The new system is not really a system …its more like confused anarchy where no one knows the rules...
Lol. Anarchy is good, but censorship makes me uncomfortable....and I like to know why....
I wonder if shelleygold asked to have them deleted.
I have no issue with the new "wild west" mfp forums…its better than before when they gave out strikes for the most idiotic of reasons...0 -
I have gotten myself tangled in knots about sugar, but basically it comes down to "less sugar, less calories" and the less calories the easier it is to create an energy deficit. I have fruit but not too much as the sugar can creep up, particularly if you are having loads of fruit smoothies. I drink sugar free soda, which while others may not agree with me, it helps me to curb my sugar intake. Processed sugar is responsible for many health issues so try to avoid anything with more than 14% sugar.0
-
I have gotten myself tangled in knots about sugar, but basically it comes down to "less sugar, less calories" and the less calories the easier it is to create an energy deficit. I have fruit but not too much as the sugar can creep up, particularly if you are having loads of fruit smoothies. I drink sugar free soda, which while others may not agree with me, it helps me to curb my sugar intake. Processed sugar is responsible for many health issues so try to avoid anything with more than 14% sugar.
Prepare your shield.0 -
I have gotten myself tangled in knots about sugar, but basically it comes down to "less sugar, less calories" and the less calories the easier it is to create an energy deficit. I have fruit but not too much as the sugar can creep up, particularly if you are having loads of fruit smoothies. I drink sugar free soda, which while others may not agree with me, it helps me to curb my sugar intake. Processed sugar is responsible for many health issues so try to avoid anything with more than 14% sugar.
LOL NO ..
where did you come up with 14% sugar???? so I guess ice cream is out then ...0 -
Diane,
That's great if you watch sugar for your own personal reasons, but you have made a blanket statement:Processed sugar is responsible for many health issues so try to avoid anything with more than 14% sugar.
While sugar restriction is necessary in certain health issues, such as diabetes, hyperglycemia, hypoglycemia, and the like, I don't believe sugar is not the actual cause but rather the body's inability to properly metabolize insulin. Diabetes runs like crazy in my family, and some of those diabetic family members were never big sugar eaters, but they still got diabetes.
Just in case I'm on the wrong track, what health issues are you referring to?
Where did you come up with 14% sugar?
Do you have peer reviewed studies to back up your opinion about sugar causing health issues and to eat only 14% sugar?0 -
I have gotten myself tangled in knots about sugar, but basically it comes down to "less sugar, less calories" and the less calories the easier it is to create an energy deficit. I have fruit but not too much as the sugar can creep up, particularly if you are having loads of fruit smoothies. I drink sugar free soda, which while others may not agree with me, it helps me to curb my sugar intake. Processed sugar is responsible for many health issues so try to avoid anything with more than 14% sugar.
Prepare your shield.
Mmmm....that's an interesting response.
0 -
What about in certain situations such as allergies or digestive problems? Is the problem sugar itself or metabolizing insulin?Diane,
That's great if you watch sugar for your own personal reasons, but you have made a blanket statement:Processed sugar is responsible for many health issues so try to avoid anything with more than 14% sugar.
I don't believe sugar is not the actual cause but rather the body's inability to properly metabolize insulin.
0 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »JoanaMHill wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »JoanaMHill wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_thermodynamics
"The first law of thermodynamics is a version of the law of conservation of energy, adapted for thermodynamic systems. The law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system is constant; energy can be transformed from one form to another, but cannot be created or destroyed."
CICO is a valid concept in a lab setting where an isolated system can be created.
and we have the verdict of the troll account…
so I can only lose weight if I am isolated in a lab??????
I think what he's trying to say is that humans aren't machines so there's no way of knowing exactly how much you burn and eat. That being said, that doesn't invalidate CICO. Just take a look at any of the success threads.
Thanks JoanaMhill. CICO will always be a factor in weight loss.
barring no medical condition, it is the only factor..
I thought CEO's of software companies would know that….
Exactly. A car might run better on higher-grade gas, but it will still get you from point A to point b with the regular, cheapest kind most people buy. It's doing exactly what it should, as is a body in a calorie deficit.
I agree for a human being to be obese (30 or > BMI) there is one or more known or unknown medical condition before a body with want to be that heavy. There are many more hormones at play than just Vitamin D3 sends signals to the brain that correctly controls our body weight in people with no medical conditions.
People are not obese because they are lazy and eat too much. When we develop medical conditions that sap our energy or at least in my case when my energy went down I moved less and ate more to "get my energy up" but I just got fatter and had less energy.
A six month old baby is not obese because they are lazy and eat too much. They have a medical condition. No six year old obese kid wants to be obese. They have a medical condition.
I grew up on a farm and our herd of adult cows weighed about 1000 pounds each. Some were more thin and some were more thick. In all those years we never had that first cow get to 2000, 3000 or 4000 pounds.
For a 150 pound 15 year old boy to get to 300 later in life happens all of the time in humans now unlike 100 years ago.
A scientist will ask WHY will a human become morbid obese and for it to be happening around the globe at the same time?
Being obese is not 'normal' or the desire of the obese person. I think obese people did not start out as fat and lazy kids but something changed/went wrong with their health.
Wait, what??? Do you reread your posts before you hit submit?
Cows and humans are different animals. You really can't compare the two.
All the time? Really? So EVERY person gains 150lbs later in life?
And just because you read one D3 study (that was biased) does not mean its a contributing fact to gaining weight.
Man- you really are trying for that silliest things I've heard all day award, and seeing as I get some really fun drunk rambling at work, that takes amazing effort.0 -
I have gotten myself tangled in knots about sugar, but basically it comes down to "less sugar, less calories" and the less calories the easier it is to create an energy deficit. I have fruit but not too much as the sugar can creep up, particularly if you are having loads of fruit smoothies. I drink sugar free soda, which while others may not agree with me, it helps me to curb my sugar intake. Processed sugar is responsible for many health issues so try to avoid anything with more than 14% sugar.
Prepare your shield.
Mmmm....that's an interesting response.
Haha I catch on quick, also here's some reading for ya
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19150053
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12379575
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12716761
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17130210
http://diabetes.diabetesjournals.org/content/52/5/1256.long (This repeats some of the points in the links above but also adds some more)
http://www.lef.org/Protocols/Health-Concerns/Chronic-Inflammation/Page-02
0 -
Just a quick edit to say to Zhost, whose links I haven't read, that this was written prior to your posting and has nothing whatsoever to do with that. My post is just a general rant.
***************************************************************************
I don't understand why it is necessary for the average person to have to come up with a "peer reviewed study" every time they post an opinion. And if they do post a study, it is never good enough. I had the Australian Government and Health Department supporting one of my claims, but nah, corrupt government, not good enough.
Give me strength! What about a bit of free speech, light discussion and a community working together to help others understand issues instead of ridicule and dictatorship.
If people want to reduce and moderate their sugar, I say "good for them" and believe me there will be no stupid study to back up my statement.0 -
I don't understand why it is necessary for the average person to have to come up with a "peer reviewed study" every time they post an opinion. And if they do post a study, it is never good enough. I had the Australian Government and Health Department supporting one of my claims, but nah, corrupt government, not good enough.
Give me strength! What about a bit of free speech, light discussion and a community working together to help others understand issues instead of ridicule and dictatorship.
If people want to reduce and moderate their sugar, I say "good for them" and believe me there will be no stupid study to back up my statement.
I only find studies because the stuff interests me, it might interest others as well. I support everyone's wanting to lose weight, however they chose to.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions