A Question About Sugar
Replies
-
goldthistime wrote: »I understand now. I was getting the idea that the max glycogen level thingy might trump CICO, but it does not.
From your link Sarah "That exception is when dietary fat is below about 10% of total daily calories. Under that condition, the body ramps up de novo lipogenesis." So yes, a rare event.
When you take into account the whole low fat craze and people still overeating their TDEE, 10% is actually a lot higher than you think.
wut? the 'average' american eats less than 10% fats?
Considering most are drinking a low fat latte with a bagel that has low fat cream cheese to go with it, yes.
lmao - that's your support?
What about those donuts, chips, fried/fast foods, chocolate and ice cream?
0 -
shelleygold wrote: »Also, Zhost, I have read your comments and really appreciate your links. I did not know that protein consumption stimulated insulin production. As I read the article I realised that I have a great deal more to learn about blood sugar levels and the assumptions I have bought into regarding carbohydrates. Thank you.
Insulin spikes are not inherently bad, it's the blood glucose levels after that cause the crash.
For some people....
For some people? Definitely not a minority.
Care to support that claim?
Also, you seem to be moving the goalposts - where in that wiki link you gave does it show that a 'sugar crash' causes increased appetite as you claimed earlier?
From the wiki -
The majority of these symptoms, often correlated with feelings of hunger, mimic the effect of inadequate sugar intake as the biology of a crash is similar in itself to the body’s response to low blood sugar levels following periods of glucose deficiency.
And it even tells you to eat more sugar to fix it, just to start the cycle anew.
And a sugar crash, for your average person occurs after overeating any kind of carb, heck even protein (but that's a lot of protein). It's a blood glucose thing.
Odd that it was not in the symptoms list - maybe because its a correlation or mimic (which I am not saying is not real to the individual).
What I am still confused about with your argument, is that you agree that insulin spikes suppresses appetite, but are arguing that BG levels increase it. Seems a bit of a push/pull to me - which is probably why its very individual (and does not impact everyone), which comes back to the other question - about supporting the claim that a majority of people suffer from increased appetite due to carbs.
You're correct its not in the symptom list. And while the saying goes causation=/=correlation, it should be noted that sometimes people do in fact eat again, otherwise the wiki wouldn't even have it there.
Yes I agree insulin can suppress appetite. And yes blood glucose is affected more by carb intake, which in general is eaten more than protein. The average American's protein intake is far less than their carb intake. And while it's individual, most individuals aren't special snowflakes when it comes to bodily functions.
Have never disagreed that some people do in fact eat again (even though wikipedia is not the best source to use tbh).
You seem to be hung up on the average American's protein intake - its a theme. First of all, we are not 'average American' not tracking intake on here. Secondly, blanket statements are, well, blanket statements and should not be assumed to be relevant for everyone.
And what has special snowflake and not having sugar crashes got to do with anything? Not having a sugar crash does not make one a special snowflake and has nothing to do with 'bodily functions'.
Also, still waiting for that support.
Go look at your average American. That's the support you need. Seriously, they're not fat because of a high protein low carb diet or even keto. It's because they eat of mix of processed *kitten* that usually ends up being high carb junk.
Eat too many carbs? Insulin spike and then blood glucose levels go crazy. And I guarantee the average american is gonna grab more carbs to settle it.
ok...so, not able to actually support your claim...good to know.
Also, errr...back to dat dere insulin spike again...I thought it was not an issue...now it is...we come full circle...and still using the same MO.
And here I a go explaining, again.
Insulin spike, not so big deal, helps deal with satiety, in which protein actually helps better than carbs.
BG spike, not so good. Might cause issues, ie sugar crash.
That's it.
You may be explaining, but you have still not supported your claim that I requested and also, insulin spike does not necessarily mean BG go wild, which is not what you inferred before.
Your link itself shows a higher BG response from high carb.0 -
ok..I am out..trying to debate with someone who's support is what they assume the average american eats without any support whatsoever, and who is also using this apparent 'average american' to apply to everybody, including those on this site is an exercise in futility.0
-
ok..I am out..trying to debate with someone who's support is what they assume the average american eats without any support whatsoever, and who is also using this apparent 'average american' to apply to everybody, including those on this site is an exercise in futility.
See ya, enjoy those carbs for me would ya? I'm not a fan of cytokine elevation (Go back some pages for info on that).-4 -
shelleygold wrote: »Also, Zhost, I have read your comments and really appreciate your links. I did not know that protein consumption stimulated insulin production. As I read the article I realised that I have a great deal more to learn about blood sugar levels and the assumptions I have bought into regarding carbohydrates. Thank you.
Insulin spikes are not inherently bad, it's the blood glucose levels after that cause the crash.
For some people....
For some people? Definitely not a minority.
Care to support that claim?
Also, you seem to be moving the goalposts - where in that wiki link you gave does it show that a 'sugar crash' causes increased appetite as you claimed earlier?
From the wiki -
The majority of these symptoms, often correlated with feelings of hunger, mimic the effect of inadequate sugar intake as the biology of a crash is similar in itself to the body’s response to low blood sugar levels following periods of glucose deficiency.
And it even tells you to eat more sugar to fix it, just to start the cycle anew.
And a sugar crash, for your average person occurs after overeating any kind of carb, heck even protein (but that's a lot of protein). It's a blood glucose thing.
Odd that it was not in the symptoms list - maybe because its a correlation or mimic (which I am not saying is not real to the individual).
What I am still confused about with your argument, is that you agree that insulin spikes suppresses appetite, but are arguing that BG levels increase it. Seems a bit of a push/pull to me - which is probably why its very individual (and does not impact everyone), which comes back to the other question - about supporting the claim that a majority of people suffer from increased appetite due to carbs.
You're correct its not in the symptom list. And while the saying goes causation=/=correlation, it should be noted that sometimes people do in fact eat again, otherwise the wiki wouldn't even have it there.
Yes I agree insulin can suppress appetite. And yes blood glucose is affected more by carb intake, which in general is eaten more than protein. The average American's protein intake is far less than their carb intake. And while it's individual, most individuals aren't special snowflakes when it comes to bodily functions.
Have never disagreed that some people do in fact eat again (even though wikipedia is not the best source to use tbh).
You seem to be hung up on the average American's protein intake - its a theme. First of all, we are not 'average American' not tracking intake on here. Secondly, blanket statements are, well, blanket statements and should not be assumed to be relevant for everyone.
And what has special snowflake and not having sugar crashes got to do with anything? Not having a sugar crash does not make one a special snowflake and has nothing to do with 'bodily functions'.
Also, still waiting for that support.
Go look at your average American. That's the support you need. Seriously, they're not fat because of a high protein low carb diet or even keto. It's because they eat of mix of processed *kitten* that usually ends up being high carb junk.
Eat too many carbs? Insulin spike and then blood glucose levels go crazy. And I guarantee the average american is gonna grab more carbs to settle it.
ok...so, not able to actually support your claim...good to know.
Also, errr...back to dat dere insulin spike again...I thought it was not an issue...now it is...we come full circle...and still using the same MO.
And here I a go explaining, again.
Insulin spike, not so big deal, helps deal with satiety, in which protein actually helps better than carbs.
BG spike, not so good. Might cause issues, ie sugar crash.
That's it.
You may be explaining, but you have still not supported your claim that I requested and also, insulin spike does not necessarily mean BG go wild, which is not what you inferred before.
Your link itself shows a higher BG response from high carb.
Not that claim. The one I was asking and you came up with what you thought was the average american.0 -
tedboosalis7 wrote: »shelleygold wrote: »Also, Zhost, I have read your comments and really appreciate your links. I did not know that protein consumption stimulated insulin production. As I read the article I realised that I have a great deal more to learn about blood sugar levels and the assumptions I have bought into regarding carbohydrates. Thank you.
Insulin spikes are not inherently bad, it's the blood glucose levels after that cause the crash.
For some people....
For some people? Definitely not a minority.
Care to support that claim?
Also, you seem to be moving the goalposts - where in that wiki link you gave does it show that a 'sugar crash' causes increased appetite as you claimed earlier?
From the wiki -
The majority of these symptoms, often correlated with feelings of hunger, mimic the effect of inadequate sugar intake as the biology of a crash is similar in itself to the body’s response to low blood sugar levels following periods of glucose deficiency.
And it even tells you to eat more sugar to fix it, just to start the cycle anew.
And a sugar crash, for your average person occurs after overeating any kind of carb, heck even protein (but that's a lot of protein). It's a blood glucose thing.
Odd that it was not in the symptoms list - maybe because its a correlation or mimic (which I am not saying is not real to the individual).
What I am still confused about with your argument, is that you agree that insulin spikes suppresses appetite, but are arguing that BG levels increase it. Seems a bit of a push/pull to me - which is probably why its very individual (and does not impact everyone), which comes back to the other question - about supporting the claim that a majority of people suffer from increased appetite due to carbs.
You're correct its not in the symptom list. And while the saying goes causation=/=correlation, it should be noted that sometimes people do in fact eat again, otherwise the wiki wouldn't even have it there.
Yes I agree insulin can suppress appetite. And yes blood glucose is affected more by carb intake, which in general is eaten more than protein. The average American's protein intake is far less than their carb intake. And while it's individual, most individuals aren't special snowflakes when it comes to bodily functions.
Have never disagreed that some people do in fact eat again (even though wikipedia is not the best source to use tbh).
You seem to be hung up on the average American's protein intake - its a theme. First of all, we are not 'average American' not tracking intake on here. Secondly, blanket statements are, well, blanket statements and should not be assumed to be relevant for everyone.
And what has special snowflake and not having sugar crashes got to do with anything? Not having a sugar crash does not make one a special snowflake and has nothing to do with 'bodily functions'.
Also, still waiting for that support.
Go look at your average American. That's the support you need. Seriously, they're not fat because of a high protein low carb diet or even keto. It's because they eat of mix of processed *kitten* that usually ends up being high carb junk.
Eat too many carbs? Insulin spike and then blood glucose levels go crazy. And I guarantee the average american is gonna grab more carbs to settle it.
No. It doesn't matter why type diet you eat when it comes to weight loss, the only thing that counts is calories in/calories out. Someone can live off "processed *kitten*," as you call it, and still lose weight. Likewise, a person can eat no processed foods and gain weight.
You can eat carbs all day long and still lose weight. You might not have a whole lot of energy due to an unbalanced diet, but if you eat less calories than you burn you will lose weight.
Wrong. What matters is what you eat. You are what you eat. I ate more than what was "required" to lose 50 pounds and I lost it. Why??? Well, I didn't eat things that cause fat to be stored very easily. I eat consistently day after day - and I am active. If I do those two things, I cannot fail.
You are speaking in terms of failure. At some point, you stop depriving yourself of calories and then you gain. Why??? Cause you go back to the very method by which you would've retained the very weight you lost in the first place.
The human body cannot process and keep what is not possible - eating the right foods consistently with physical activity renders your point moot.
BOOM!!!
What things that you eat cause fat to be stored easily? As in, more easily than others?
Refined sugar and all processed foods.0 -
OMG. I'm starting to realize that reading these unbearable, never ending, insufferably boring, pathologically tenacious, academically tedious, and laughably obstinate sugar threads is making me not like sugar that much anymore. By virtue alone of its association with these threads. It's making me not want to see, hear about or taste sugar ever again. Sometimes I'm glad I joined this site.
Then my crusade on sugar is going along nicely.
Sorry, I didn't mean you personally. Actually I think you're quite courageous in your approach and are holding up well in the face of well, you know, the usual.
Without some healthy dissent, I wouldn't be reading this thread at all.
People just like a reason to keep eating what they want "in moderation" and then having to go do extra time at the gym to burn it, then bash on those who try to forsake sugar and do keto or some variant.0 -
tedboosalis7 wrote: »shelleygold wrote: »Also, Zhost, I have read your comments and really appreciate your links. I did not know that protein consumption stimulated insulin production. As I read the article I realised that I have a great deal more to learn about blood sugar levels and the assumptions I have bought into regarding carbohydrates. Thank you.
Insulin spikes are not inherently bad, it's the blood glucose levels after that cause the crash.
For some people....
For some people? Definitely not a minority.
Care to support that claim?
Also, you seem to be moving the goalposts - where in that wiki link you gave does it show that a 'sugar crash' causes increased appetite as you claimed earlier?
From the wiki -
The majority of these symptoms, often correlated with feelings of hunger, mimic the effect of inadequate sugar intake as the biology of a crash is similar in itself to the body’s response to low blood sugar levels following periods of glucose deficiency.
And it even tells you to eat more sugar to fix it, just to start the cycle anew.
And a sugar crash, for your average person occurs after overeating any kind of carb, heck even protein (but that's a lot of protein). It's a blood glucose thing.
Odd that it was not in the symptoms list - maybe because its a correlation or mimic (which I am not saying is not real to the individual).
What I am still confused about with your argument, is that you agree that insulin spikes suppresses appetite, but are arguing that BG levels increase it. Seems a bit of a push/pull to me - which is probably why its very individual (and does not impact everyone), which comes back to the other question - about supporting the claim that a majority of people suffer from increased appetite due to carbs.
You're correct its not in the symptom list. And while the saying goes causation=/=correlation, it should be noted that sometimes people do in fact eat again, otherwise the wiki wouldn't even have it there.
Yes I agree insulin can suppress appetite. And yes blood glucose is affected more by carb intake, which in general is eaten more than protein. The average American's protein intake is far less than their carb intake. And while it's individual, most individuals aren't special snowflakes when it comes to bodily functions.
Have never disagreed that some people do in fact eat again (even though wikipedia is not the best source to use tbh).
You seem to be hung up on the average American's protein intake - its a theme. First of all, we are not 'average American' not tracking intake on here. Secondly, blanket statements are, well, blanket statements and should not be assumed to be relevant for everyone.
And what has special snowflake and not having sugar crashes got to do with anything? Not having a sugar crash does not make one a special snowflake and has nothing to do with 'bodily functions'.
Also, still waiting for that support.
Go look at your average American. That's the support you need. Seriously, they're not fat because of a high protein low carb diet or even keto. It's because they eat of mix of processed *kitten* that usually ends up being high carb junk.
Eat too many carbs? Insulin spike and then blood glucose levels go crazy. And I guarantee the average american is gonna grab more carbs to settle it.
No. It doesn't matter why type diet you eat when it comes to weight loss, the only thing that counts is calories in/calories out. Someone can live off "processed *kitten*," as you call it, and still lose weight. Likewise, a person can eat no processed foods and gain weight.
You can eat carbs all day long and still lose weight. You might not have a whole lot of energy due to an unbalanced diet, but if you eat less calories than you burn you will lose weight.
Wrong. What matters is what you eat. You are what you eat. I ate more than what was "required" to lose 50 pounds and I lost it. Why??? Well, I didn't eat things that cause fat to be stored very easily. I eat consistently day after day - and I am active. If I do those two things, I cannot fail.
You are speaking in terms of failure. At some point, you stop depriving yourself of calories and then you gain. Why??? Cause you go back to the very method by which you would've retained the very weight you lost in the first place.
The human body cannot process and keep what is not possible - eating the right foods consistently with physical activity renders your point moot.
BOOM!!!
What things that you eat cause fat to be stored easily? As in, more easily than others?tedboosalis7 wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »shelleygold wrote: »Also, Zhost, I have read your comments and really appreciate your links. I did not know that protein consumption stimulated insulin production. As I read the article I realised that I have a great deal more to learn about blood sugar levels and the assumptions I have bought into regarding carbohydrates. Thank you.
Insulin spikes are not inherently bad, it's the blood glucose levels after that cause the crash.
For some people....
For some people? Definitely not a minority.
Care to support that claim?
Also, you seem to be moving the goalposts - where in that wiki link you gave does it show that a 'sugar crash' causes increased appetite as you claimed earlier?
From the wiki -
The majority of these symptoms, often correlated with feelings of hunger, mimic the effect of inadequate sugar intake as the biology of a crash is similar in itself to the body’s response to low blood sugar levels following periods of glucose deficiency.
And it even tells you to eat more sugar to fix it, just to start the cycle anew.
And a sugar crash, for your average person occurs after overeating any kind of carb, heck even protein (but that's a lot of protein). It's a blood glucose thing.
Odd that it was not in the symptoms list - maybe because its a correlation or mimic (which I am not saying is not real to the individual).
What I am still confused about with your argument, is that you agree that insulin spikes suppresses appetite, but are arguing that BG levels increase it. Seems a bit of a push/pull to me - which is probably why its very individual (and does not impact everyone), which comes back to the other question - about supporting the claim that a majority of people suffer from increased appetite due to carbs.
You're correct its not in the symptom list. And while the saying goes causation=/=correlation, it should be noted that sometimes people do in fact eat again, otherwise the wiki wouldn't even have it there.
Yes I agree insulin can suppress appetite. And yes blood glucose is affected more by carb intake, which in general is eaten more than protein. The average American's protein intake is far less than their carb intake. And while it's individual, most individuals aren't special snowflakes when it comes to bodily functions.
Have never disagreed that some people do in fact eat again (even though wikipedia is not the best source to use tbh).
You seem to be hung up on the average American's protein intake - its a theme. First of all, we are not 'average American' not tracking intake on here. Secondly, blanket statements are, well, blanket statements and should not be assumed to be relevant for everyone.
And what has special snowflake and not having sugar crashes got to do with anything? Not having a sugar crash does not make one a special snowflake and has nothing to do with 'bodily functions'.
Also, still waiting for that support.
Go look at your average American. That's the support you need. Seriously, they're not fat because of a high protein low carb diet or even keto. It's because they eat of mix of processed *kitten* that usually ends up being high carb junk.
Eat too many carbs? Insulin spike and then blood glucose levels go crazy. And I guarantee the average american is gonna grab more carbs to settle it.
No. It doesn't matter why type diet you eat when it comes to weight loss, the only thing that counts is calories in/calories out. Someone can live off "processed *kitten*," as you call it, and still lose weight. Likewise, a person can eat no processed foods and gain weight.
You can eat carbs all day long and still lose weight. You might not have a whole lot of energy due to an unbalanced diet, but if you eat less calories than you burn you will lose weight.
Wrong. What matters is what you eat. You are what you eat. I ate more than what was "required" to lose 50 pounds and I lost it. Why??? Well, I didn't eat things that cause fat to be stored very easily. I eat consistently day after day - and I am active. If I do those two things, I cannot fail.
You are speaking in terms of failure. At some point, you stop depriving yourself of calories and then you gain. Why??? Cause you go back to the very method by which you would've retained the very weight you lost in the first place.
The human body cannot process and keep what is not possible - eating the right foods consistently with physical activity renders your point moot.
BOOM!!!
What things that you eat cause fat to be stored easily? As in, more easily than others?
Refined sugar and all processed foods.
Interesting, please substantiate these claims. If you had said something like high fat foods, since fat is most easily stored as fat, then maybe but sounds like you just made them up.
So are pre cut apple slices really really bad, since they have sucrose and are processed?0 -
ok..I am out..trying to debate with someone who's support is what they assume the average american eats without any support whatsoever, and who is also using this apparent 'average american' to apply to everybody, including those on this site is an exercise in futility.
See ya, enjoy those carbs for me would ya? I'm not a fan of cytokine elevation (Go back some pages for info on that).
I will - they do me very well for my training and as such my body comp thank you very much - as well as tasty. Also, lol at the cytokine elevation comment...really? really? lol.0 -
OMG. I'm starting to realize that reading these unbearable, never ending, insufferably boring, pathologically tenacious, academically tedious, and laughably obstinate sugar threads is making me not like sugar that much anymore. By virtue alone of its association with these threads. It's making me not want to see, hear about or taste sugar ever again. Sometimes I'm glad I joined this site.
Then my crusade on sugar is going along nicely.
Sorry, I didn't mean you personally. Actually I think you're quite courageous in your approach and are holding up well in the face of well, you know, the usual.
Without some healthy dissent, I wouldn't be reading this thread at all.
People just like a reason to keep eating what they want "in moderation" and then having to go do extra time at the gym to burn it, then bash on those who try to forsake sugar and do keto or some variant.
I do not have to burn mine off at the gym. I actually eat extra so I have good training sessions.0 -
tedboosalis7 wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »shelleygold wrote: »Also, Zhost, I have read your comments and really appreciate your links. I did not know that protein consumption stimulated insulin production. As I read the article I realised that I have a great deal more to learn about blood sugar levels and the assumptions I have bought into regarding carbohydrates. Thank you.
Insulin spikes are not inherently bad, it's the blood glucose levels after that cause the crash.
For some people....
For some people? Definitely not a minority.
Care to support that claim?
Also, you seem to be moving the goalposts - where in that wiki link you gave does it show that a 'sugar crash' causes increased appetite as you claimed earlier?
From the wiki -
The majority of these symptoms, often correlated with feelings of hunger, mimic the effect of inadequate sugar intake as the biology of a crash is similar in itself to the body’s response to low blood sugar levels following periods of glucose deficiency.
And it even tells you to eat more sugar to fix it, just to start the cycle anew.
And a sugar crash, for your average person occurs after overeating any kind of carb, heck even protein (but that's a lot of protein). It's a blood glucose thing.
Odd that it was not in the symptoms list - maybe because its a correlation or mimic (which I am not saying is not real to the individual).
What I am still confused about with your argument, is that you agree that insulin spikes suppresses appetite, but are arguing that BG levels increase it. Seems a bit of a push/pull to me - which is probably why its very individual (and does not impact everyone), which comes back to the other question - about supporting the claim that a majority of people suffer from increased appetite due to carbs.
You're correct its not in the symptom list. And while the saying goes causation=/=correlation, it should be noted that sometimes people do in fact eat again, otherwise the wiki wouldn't even have it there.
Yes I agree insulin can suppress appetite. And yes blood glucose is affected more by carb intake, which in general is eaten more than protein. The average American's protein intake is far less than their carb intake. And while it's individual, most individuals aren't special snowflakes when it comes to bodily functions.
Have never disagreed that some people do in fact eat again (even though wikipedia is not the best source to use tbh).
You seem to be hung up on the average American's protein intake - its a theme. First of all, we are not 'average American' not tracking intake on here. Secondly, blanket statements are, well, blanket statements and should not be assumed to be relevant for everyone.
And what has special snowflake and not having sugar crashes got to do with anything? Not having a sugar crash does not make one a special snowflake and has nothing to do with 'bodily functions'.
Also, still waiting for that support.
Go look at your average American. That's the support you need. Seriously, they're not fat because of a high protein low carb diet or even keto. It's because they eat of mix of processed *kitten* that usually ends up being high carb junk.
Eat too many carbs? Insulin spike and then blood glucose levels go crazy. And I guarantee the average american is gonna grab more carbs to settle it.
No. It doesn't matter why type diet you eat when it comes to weight loss, the only thing that counts is calories in/calories out. Someone can live off "processed *kitten*," as you call it, and still lose weight. Likewise, a person can eat no processed foods and gain weight.
You can eat carbs all day long and still lose weight. You might not have a whole lot of energy due to an unbalanced diet, but if you eat less calories than you burn you will lose weight.
Wrong. What matters is what you eat. You are what you eat. I ate more than what was "required" to lose 50 pounds and I lost it. Why??? Well, I didn't eat things that cause fat to be stored very easily. I eat consistently day after day - and I am active. If I do those two things, I cannot fail.
You are speaking in terms of failure. At some point, you stop depriving yourself of calories and then you gain. Why??? Cause you go back to the very method by which you would've retained the very weight you lost in the first place.
The human body cannot process and keep what is not possible - eating the right foods consistently with physical activity renders your point moot.
BOOM!!!
What things that you eat cause fat to be stored easily? As in, more easily than others?
Refined sugar and all processed foods.
lolwut?
Oh, this thread delivers0 -
tedboosalis7 wrote: »shelleygold wrote: »Also, Zhost, I have read your comments and really appreciate your links. I did not know that protein consumption stimulated insulin production. As I read the article I realised that I have a great deal more to learn about blood sugar levels and the assumptions I have bought into regarding carbohydrates. Thank you.
Insulin spikes are not inherently bad, it's the blood glucose levels after that cause the crash.
For some people....
For some people? Definitely not a minority.
Care to support that claim?
Also, you seem to be moving the goalposts - where in that wiki link you gave does it show that a 'sugar crash' causes increased appetite as you claimed earlier?
From the wiki -
The majority of these symptoms, often correlated with feelings of hunger, mimic the effect of inadequate sugar intake as the biology of a crash is similar in itself to the body’s response to low blood sugar levels following periods of glucose deficiency.
And it even tells you to eat more sugar to fix it, just to start the cycle anew.
And a sugar crash, for your average person occurs after overeating any kind of carb, heck even protein (but that's a lot of protein). It's a blood glucose thing.
Odd that it was not in the symptoms list - maybe because its a correlation or mimic (which I am not saying is not real to the individual).
What I am still confused about with your argument, is that you agree that insulin spikes suppresses appetite, but are arguing that BG levels increase it. Seems a bit of a push/pull to me - which is probably why its very individual (and does not impact everyone), which comes back to the other question - about supporting the claim that a majority of people suffer from increased appetite due to carbs.
You're correct its not in the symptom list. And while the saying goes causation=/=correlation, it should be noted that sometimes people do in fact eat again, otherwise the wiki wouldn't even have it there.
Yes I agree insulin can suppress appetite. And yes blood glucose is affected more by carb intake, which in general is eaten more than protein. The average American's protein intake is far less than their carb intake. And while it's individual, most individuals aren't special snowflakes when it comes to bodily functions.
Have never disagreed that some people do in fact eat again (even though wikipedia is not the best source to use tbh).
You seem to be hung up on the average American's protein intake - its a theme. First of all, we are not 'average American' not tracking intake on here. Secondly, blanket statements are, well, blanket statements and should not be assumed to be relevant for everyone.
And what has special snowflake and not having sugar crashes got to do with anything? Not having a sugar crash does not make one a special snowflake and has nothing to do with 'bodily functions'.
Also, still waiting for that support.
Go look at your average American. That's the support you need. Seriously, they're not fat because of a high protein low carb diet or even keto. It's because they eat of mix of processed *kitten* that usually ends up being high carb junk.
Eat too many carbs? Insulin spike and then blood glucose levels go crazy. And I guarantee the average american is gonna grab more carbs to settle it.
No. It doesn't matter why type diet you eat when it comes to weight loss, the only thing that counts is calories in/calories out. Someone can live off "processed *kitten*," as you call it, and still lose weight. Likewise, a person can eat no processed foods and gain weight.
You can eat carbs all day long and still lose weight. You might not have a whole lot of energy due to an unbalanced diet, but if you eat less calories than you burn you will lose weight.
Wrong. What matters is what you eat. You are what you eat. I ate more than what was "required" to lose 50 pounds and I lost it. Why??? Well, I didn't eat things that cause fat to be stored very easily. I eat consistently day after day - and I am active. If I do those two things, I cannot fail.
You are speaking in terms of failure. At some point, you stop depriving yourself of calories and then you gain. Why??? Cause you go back to the very method by which you would've retained the very weight you lost in the first place.
The human body cannot process and keep what is not possible - eating the right foods consistently with physical activity renders your point moot.
BOOM!!!
What things that you eat cause fat to be stored easily? As in, more easily than others?tedboosalis7 wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »shelleygold wrote: »Also, Zhost, I have read your comments and really appreciate your links. I did not know that protein consumption stimulated insulin production. As I read the article I realised that I have a great deal more to learn about blood sugar levels and the assumptions I have bought into regarding carbohydrates. Thank you.
Insulin spikes are not inherently bad, it's the blood glucose levels after that cause the crash.
For some people....
For some people? Definitely not a minority.
Care to support that claim?
Also, you seem to be moving the goalposts - where in that wiki link you gave does it show that a 'sugar crash' causes increased appetite as you claimed earlier?
From the wiki -
The majority of these symptoms, often correlated with feelings of hunger, mimic the effect of inadequate sugar intake as the biology of a crash is similar in itself to the body’s response to low blood sugar levels following periods of glucose deficiency.
And it even tells you to eat more sugar to fix it, just to start the cycle anew.
And a sugar crash, for your average person occurs after overeating any kind of carb, heck even protein (but that's a lot of protein). It's a blood glucose thing.
Odd that it was not in the symptoms list - maybe because its a correlation or mimic (which I am not saying is not real to the individual).
What I am still confused about with your argument, is that you agree that insulin spikes suppresses appetite, but are arguing that BG levels increase it. Seems a bit of a push/pull to me - which is probably why its very individual (and does not impact everyone), which comes back to the other question - about supporting the claim that a majority of people suffer from increased appetite due to carbs.
You're correct its not in the symptom list. And while the saying goes causation=/=correlation, it should be noted that sometimes people do in fact eat again, otherwise the wiki wouldn't even have it there.
Yes I agree insulin can suppress appetite. And yes blood glucose is affected more by carb intake, which in general is eaten more than protein. The average American's protein intake is far less than their carb intake. And while it's individual, most individuals aren't special snowflakes when it comes to bodily functions.
Have never disagreed that some people do in fact eat again (even though wikipedia is not the best source to use tbh).
You seem to be hung up on the average American's protein intake - its a theme. First of all, we are not 'average American' not tracking intake on here. Secondly, blanket statements are, well, blanket statements and should not be assumed to be relevant for everyone.
And what has special snowflake and not having sugar crashes got to do with anything? Not having a sugar crash does not make one a special snowflake and has nothing to do with 'bodily functions'.
Also, still waiting for that support.
Go look at your average American. That's the support you need. Seriously, they're not fat because of a high protein low carb diet or even keto. It's because they eat of mix of processed *kitten* that usually ends up being high carb junk.
Eat too many carbs? Insulin spike and then blood glucose levels go crazy. And I guarantee the average american is gonna grab more carbs to settle it.
No. It doesn't matter why type diet you eat when it comes to weight loss, the only thing that counts is calories in/calories out. Someone can live off "processed *kitten*," as you call it, and still lose weight. Likewise, a person can eat no processed foods and gain weight.
You can eat carbs all day long and still lose weight. You might not have a whole lot of energy due to an unbalanced diet, but if you eat less calories than you burn you will lose weight.
Wrong. What matters is what you eat. You are what you eat. I ate more than what was "required" to lose 50 pounds and I lost it. Why??? Well, I didn't eat things that cause fat to be stored very easily. I eat consistently day after day - and I am active. If I do those two things, I cannot fail.
You are speaking in terms of failure. At some point, you stop depriving yourself of calories and then you gain. Why??? Cause you go back to the very method by which you would've retained the very weight you lost in the first place.
The human body cannot process and keep what is not possible - eating the right foods consistently with physical activity renders your point moot.
BOOM!!!
What things that you eat cause fat to be stored easily? As in, more easily than others?
Refined sugar and all processed foods.
Interesting, please substantiate these claims. If you had said something like high fat foods, since fat is most easily stored as fat, then maybe but sounds like you just made them up.
So are pre cut apple slices really really bad, since they have sucrose and are processed?
Well...look what all that sugar has done to you - its a terrible thing!!!
0 -
ok..I am out..trying to debate with someone who's support is what they assume the average american eats without any support whatsoever, and who is also using this apparent 'average american' to apply to everybody, including those on this site is an exercise in futility.
See ya, enjoy those carbs for me would ya? I'm not a fan of cytokine elevation (Go back some pages for info on that).
I will - they do me very well for my training and as such my body comp thank you very much - as well as tasty. Also, lol at the cytokine elevation comment...really? really? lol.
And ketones will do the same for me, the basic glucose my body will need will come from the natural low GI complex carbs from veggies or GNG.0 -
tedboosalis7 wrote: »shelleygold wrote: »Also, Zhost, I have read your comments and really appreciate your links. I did not know that protein consumption stimulated insulin production. As I read the article I realised that I have a great deal more to learn about blood sugar levels and the assumptions I have bought into regarding carbohydrates. Thank you.
Insulin spikes are not inherently bad, it's the blood glucose levels after that cause the crash.
For some people....
For some people? Definitely not a minority.
Care to support that claim?
Also, you seem to be moving the goalposts - where in that wiki link you gave does it show that a 'sugar crash' causes increased appetite as you claimed earlier?
From the wiki -
The majority of these symptoms, often correlated with feelings of hunger, mimic the effect of inadequate sugar intake as the biology of a crash is similar in itself to the body’s response to low blood sugar levels following periods of glucose deficiency.
And it even tells you to eat more sugar to fix it, just to start the cycle anew.
And a sugar crash, for your average person occurs after overeating any kind of carb, heck even protein (but that's a lot of protein). It's a blood glucose thing.
Odd that it was not in the symptoms list - maybe because its a correlation or mimic (which I am not saying is not real to the individual).
What I am still confused about with your argument, is that you agree that insulin spikes suppresses appetite, but are arguing that BG levels increase it. Seems a bit of a push/pull to me - which is probably why its very individual (and does not impact everyone), which comes back to the other question - about supporting the claim that a majority of people suffer from increased appetite due to carbs.
You're correct its not in the symptom list. And while the saying goes causation=/=correlation, it should be noted that sometimes people do in fact eat again, otherwise the wiki wouldn't even have it there.
Yes I agree insulin can suppress appetite. And yes blood glucose is affected more by carb intake, which in general is eaten more than protein. The average American's protein intake is far less than their carb intake. And while it's individual, most individuals aren't special snowflakes when it comes to bodily functions.
Have never disagreed that some people do in fact eat again (even though wikipedia is not the best source to use tbh).
You seem to be hung up on the average American's protein intake - its a theme. First of all, we are not 'average American' not tracking intake on here. Secondly, blanket statements are, well, blanket statements and should not be assumed to be relevant for everyone.
And what has special snowflake and not having sugar crashes got to do with anything? Not having a sugar crash does not make one a special snowflake and has nothing to do with 'bodily functions'.
Also, still waiting for that support.
Go look at your average American. That's the support you need. Seriously, they're not fat because of a high protein low carb diet or even keto. It's because they eat of mix of processed *kitten* that usually ends up being high carb junk.
Eat too many carbs? Insulin spike and then blood glucose levels go crazy. And I guarantee the average american is gonna grab more carbs to settle it.
No. It doesn't matter why type diet you eat when it comes to weight loss, the only thing that counts is calories in/calories out. Someone can live off "processed *kitten*," as you call it, and still lose weight. Likewise, a person can eat no processed foods and gain weight.
You can eat carbs all day long and still lose weight. You might not have a whole lot of energy due to an unbalanced diet, but if you eat less calories than you burn you will lose weight.
Wrong. What matters is what you eat. You are what you eat. I ate more than what was "required" to lose 50 pounds and I lost it. Why??? Well, I didn't eat things that cause fat to be stored very easily. I eat consistently day after day - and I am active. If I do those two things, I cannot fail.
You are speaking in terms of failure. At some point, you stop depriving yourself of calories and then you gain. Why??? Cause you go back to the very method by which you would've retained the very weight you lost in the first place.
The human body cannot process and keep what is not possible - eating the right foods consistently with physical activity renders your point moot.
BOOM!!!
What things that you eat cause fat to be stored easily? As in, more easily than others?tedboosalis7 wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »shelleygold wrote: »Also, Zhost, I have read your comments and really appreciate your links. I did not know that protein consumption stimulated insulin production. As I read the article I realised that I have a great deal more to learn about blood sugar levels and the assumptions I have bought into regarding carbohydrates. Thank you.
Insulin spikes are not inherently bad, it's the blood glucose levels after that cause the crash.
For some people....
For some people? Definitely not a minority.
Care to support that claim?
Also, you seem to be moving the goalposts - where in that wiki link you gave does it show that a 'sugar crash' causes increased appetite as you claimed earlier?
From the wiki -
The majority of these symptoms, often correlated with feelings of hunger, mimic the effect of inadequate sugar intake as the biology of a crash is similar in itself to the body’s response to low blood sugar levels following periods of glucose deficiency.
And it even tells you to eat more sugar to fix it, just to start the cycle anew.
And a sugar crash, for your average person occurs after overeating any kind of carb, heck even protein (but that's a lot of protein). It's a blood glucose thing.
Odd that it was not in the symptoms list - maybe because its a correlation or mimic (which I am not saying is not real to the individual).
What I am still confused about with your argument, is that you agree that insulin spikes suppresses appetite, but are arguing that BG levels increase it. Seems a bit of a push/pull to me - which is probably why its very individual (and does not impact everyone), which comes back to the other question - about supporting the claim that a majority of people suffer from increased appetite due to carbs.
You're correct its not in the symptom list. And while the saying goes causation=/=correlation, it should be noted that sometimes people do in fact eat again, otherwise the wiki wouldn't even have it there.
Yes I agree insulin can suppress appetite. And yes blood glucose is affected more by carb intake, which in general is eaten more than protein. The average American's protein intake is far less than their carb intake. And while it's individual, most individuals aren't special snowflakes when it comes to bodily functions.
Have never disagreed that some people do in fact eat again (even though wikipedia is not the best source to use tbh).
You seem to be hung up on the average American's protein intake - its a theme. First of all, we are not 'average American' not tracking intake on here. Secondly, blanket statements are, well, blanket statements and should not be assumed to be relevant for everyone.
And what has special snowflake and not having sugar crashes got to do with anything? Not having a sugar crash does not make one a special snowflake and has nothing to do with 'bodily functions'.
Also, still waiting for that support.
Go look at your average American. That's the support you need. Seriously, they're not fat because of a high protein low carb diet or even keto. It's because they eat of mix of processed *kitten* that usually ends up being high carb junk.
Eat too many carbs? Insulin spike and then blood glucose levels go crazy. And I guarantee the average american is gonna grab more carbs to settle it.
No. It doesn't matter why type diet you eat when it comes to weight loss, the only thing that counts is calories in/calories out. Someone can live off "processed *kitten*," as you call it, and still lose weight. Likewise, a person can eat no processed foods and gain weight.
You can eat carbs all day long and still lose weight. You might not have a whole lot of energy due to an unbalanced diet, but if you eat less calories than you burn you will lose weight.
Wrong. What matters is what you eat. You are what you eat. I ate more than what was "required" to lose 50 pounds and I lost it. Why??? Well, I didn't eat things that cause fat to be stored very easily. I eat consistently day after day - and I am active. If I do those two things, I cannot fail.
You are speaking in terms of failure. At some point, you stop depriving yourself of calories and then you gain. Why??? Cause you go back to the very method by which you would've retained the very weight you lost in the first place.
The human body cannot process and keep what is not possible - eating the right foods consistently with physical activity renders your point moot.
BOOM!!!
What things that you eat cause fat to be stored easily? As in, more easily than others?
Refined sugar and all processed foods.
Interesting, please substantiate these claims. If you had said something like high fat foods, since fat is most easily stored as fat, then maybe but sounds like you just made them up.
So are pre cut apple slices really really bad, since they have sucrose and are processed?
I am still waiting for his proof that fat is just inflamation.0 -
ok..I am out..trying to debate with someone who's support is what they assume the average american eats without any support whatsoever, and who is also using this apparent 'average american' to apply to everybody, including those on this site is an exercise in futility.
See ya, enjoy those carbs for me would ya? I'm not a fan of cytokine elevation (Go back some pages for info on that).
I will - they do me very well for my training and as such my body comp thank you very much - as well as tasty. Also, lol at the cytokine elevation comment...really? really? lol.
And ketones will do the same for me, the basic glucose my body will need will come from the natural low GI complex carbs from veggies or GNG.
That's nice.
Difference is, I have not actually argued that your preference for restricting calories is an issue, unlike the other way round.
So....0 -
shelleygold wrote: »Also, Zhost, I have read your comments and really appreciate your links. I did not know that protein consumption stimulated insulin production. As I read the article I realised that I have a great deal more to learn about blood sugar levels and the assumptions I have bought into regarding carbohydrates. Thank you.
Insulin spikes are not inherently bad, it's the blood glucose levels after that cause the crash.
For some people....
For some people? Definitely not a minority.
Care to support that claim?
Also, you seem to be moving the goalposts - where in that wiki link you gave does it show that a 'sugar crash' causes increased appetite as you claimed earlier?
From the wiki -
The majority of these symptoms, often correlated with feelings of hunger, mimic the effect of inadequate sugar intake as the biology of a crash is similar in itself to the body’s response to low blood sugar levels following periods of glucose deficiency.
And it even tells you to eat more sugar to fix it, just to start the cycle anew.
And a sugar crash, for your average person occurs after overeating any kind of carb, heck even protein (but that's a lot of protein). It's a blood glucose thing.
Odd that it was not in the symptoms list - maybe because its a correlation or mimic (which I am not saying is not real to the individual).
What I am still confused about with your argument, is that you agree that insulin spikes suppresses appetite, but are arguing that BG levels increase it. Seems a bit of a push/pull to me - which is probably why its very individual (and does not impact everyone), which comes back to the other question - about supporting the claim that a majority of people suffer from increased appetite due to carbs.
You're correct its not in the symptom list. And while the saying goes causation=/=correlation, it should be noted that sometimes people do in fact eat again, otherwise the wiki wouldn't even have it there.
Yes I agree insulin can suppress appetite. And yes blood glucose is affected more by carb intake, which in general is eaten more than protein. The average American's protein intake is far less than their carb intake. And while it's individual, most individuals aren't special snowflakes when it comes to bodily functions.
Have never disagreed that some people do in fact eat again (even though wikipedia is not the best source to use tbh).
You seem to be hung up on the average American's protein intake - its a theme. First of all, we are not 'average American' not tracking intake on here. Secondly, blanket statements are, well, blanket statements and should not be assumed to be relevant for everyone.
And what has special snowflake and not having sugar crashes got to do with anything? Not having a sugar crash does not make one a special snowflake and has nothing to do with 'bodily functions'.
Also, still waiting for that support.
Go look at your average American. That's the support you need. Seriously, they're not fat because of a high protein low carb diet or even keto. It's because they eat of mix of processed *kitten* that usually ends up being high carb junk.
Eat too many carbs? Insulin spike and then blood glucose levels go crazy. And I guarantee the average american is gonna grab more carbs to settle it.
ok...so, not able to actually support your claim...good to know.
Also, errr...back to dat dere insulin spike again...I thought it was not an issue...now it is...we come full circle...and still using the same MO.
And here I a go explaining, again.
Insulin spike, not so big deal, helps deal with satiety, in which protein actually helps better than carbs.
BG spike, not so good. Might cause issues, ie sugar crash.
That's it.
You may be explaining, but you have still not supported your claim that I requested and also, insulin spike does not necessarily mean BG go wild, which is not what you inferred before.
Your link itself shows a higher BG response from high carb.
Zhost forgive me for jumping in here, but this debate is pertinent to me personally, because I have gone from trying to avoid sugar to the trying to fit it in camp. Does this "higher BG response from high carb" only suggest you shouldn't eat a high carb diet or does it suggest that you should not eat moderate amounts of sugars/carbs?
0 -
ok..I am out..trying to debate with someone who's support is what they assume the average american eats without any support whatsoever, and who is also using this apparent 'average american' to apply to everybody, including those on this site is an exercise in futility.
See ya, enjoy those carbs for me would ya? I'm not a fan of cytokine elevation (Go back some pages for info on that).
I will - they do me very well for my training and as such my body comp thank you very much - as well as tasty. Also, lol at the cytokine elevation comment...really? really? lol.
And ketones will do the same for me, the basic glucose my body will need will come from the natural low GI complex carbs from veggies or GNG.
That's nice.
Difference is, I have not actually argued that your preference for restricting calories is an issue, unlike the other way round.
So....
Arguing against why people shouldn't eat a lot of carbs/sugar is what then?0 -
ok..I am out..trying to debate with someone who's support is what they assume the average american eats without any support whatsoever, and who is also using this apparent 'average american' to apply to everybody, including those on this site is an exercise in futility.
See ya, enjoy those carbs for me would ya? I'm not a fan of cytokine elevation (Go back some pages for info on that).
I will - they do me very well for my training and as such my body comp thank you very much - as well as tasty. Also, lol at the cytokine elevation comment...really? really? lol.
And ketones will do the same for me, the basic glucose my body will need will come from the natural low GI complex carbs from veggies or GNG.
That's nice.
Difference is, I have not actually argued that your preference for restricting calories is an issue, unlike the other way round.
So....
Arguing against why people shouldn't eat a lot of carbs/sugar is what then?
Huh?
0 -
goldthistime wrote: »shelleygold wrote: »Also, Zhost, I have read your comments and really appreciate your links. I did not know that protein consumption stimulated insulin production. As I read the article I realised that I have a great deal more to learn about blood sugar levels and the assumptions I have bought into regarding carbohydrates. Thank you.
Insulin spikes are not inherently bad, it's the blood glucose levels after that cause the crash.
For some people....
For some people? Definitely not a minority.
Care to support that claim?
Also, you seem to be moving the goalposts - where in that wiki link you gave does it show that a 'sugar crash' causes increased appetite as you claimed earlier?
From the wiki -
The majority of these symptoms, often correlated with feelings of hunger, mimic the effect of inadequate sugar intake as the biology of a crash is similar in itself to the body’s response to low blood sugar levels following periods of glucose deficiency.
And it even tells you to eat more sugar to fix it, just to start the cycle anew.
And a sugar crash, for your average person occurs after overeating any kind of carb, heck even protein (but that's a lot of protein). It's a blood glucose thing.
Odd that it was not in the symptoms list - maybe because its a correlation or mimic (which I am not saying is not real to the individual).
What I am still confused about with your argument, is that you agree that insulin spikes suppresses appetite, but are arguing that BG levels increase it. Seems a bit of a push/pull to me - which is probably why its very individual (and does not impact everyone), which comes back to the other question - about supporting the claim that a majority of people suffer from increased appetite due to carbs.
You're correct its not in the symptom list. And while the saying goes causation=/=correlation, it should be noted that sometimes people do in fact eat again, otherwise the wiki wouldn't even have it there.
Yes I agree insulin can suppress appetite. And yes blood glucose is affected more by carb intake, which in general is eaten more than protein. The average American's protein intake is far less than their carb intake. And while it's individual, most individuals aren't special snowflakes when it comes to bodily functions.
Have never disagreed that some people do in fact eat again (even though wikipedia is not the best source to use tbh).
You seem to be hung up on the average American's protein intake - its a theme. First of all, we are not 'average American' not tracking intake on here. Secondly, blanket statements are, well, blanket statements and should not be assumed to be relevant for everyone.
And what has special snowflake and not having sugar crashes got to do with anything? Not having a sugar crash does not make one a special snowflake and has nothing to do with 'bodily functions'.
Also, still waiting for that support.
Go look at your average American. That's the support you need. Seriously, they're not fat because of a high protein low carb diet or even keto. It's because they eat of mix of processed *kitten* that usually ends up being high carb junk.
Eat too many carbs? Insulin spike and then blood glucose levels go crazy. And I guarantee the average american is gonna grab more carbs to settle it.
ok...so, not able to actually support your claim...good to know.
Also, errr...back to dat dere insulin spike again...I thought it was not an issue...now it is...we come full circle...and still using the same MO.
And here I a go explaining, again.
Insulin spike, not so big deal, helps deal with satiety, in which protein actually helps better than carbs.
BG spike, not so good. Might cause issues, ie sugar crash.
That's it.
You may be explaining, but you have still not supported your claim that I requested and also, insulin spike does not necessarily mean BG go wild, which is not what you inferred before.
Your link itself shows a higher BG response from high carb.
Zhost forgive me for jumping in here, but this debate is pertinent to me personally, because I have gone from trying to avoid sugar to the trying to fit it in camp. Does this "higher BG response from high carb" only suggest you shouldn't eat a high carb diet or does it suggest that you should not eat moderate amounts of sugars/carbs?
In the end it's all CICO for weight loss, but that's where it stops. How healthy you are at the end depends on what you ate to get there. High carb restricted eating will help you lose weight, but I'd be interested in seeing your bloodwork.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
goldthistime wrote: »shelleygold wrote: »Also, Zhost, I have read your comments and really appreciate your links. I did not know that protein consumption stimulated insulin production. As I read the article I realised that I have a great deal more to learn about blood sugar levels and the assumptions I have bought into regarding carbohydrates. Thank you.
Insulin spikes are not inherently bad, it's the blood glucose levels after that cause the crash.
For some people....
For some people? Definitely not a minority.
Care to support that claim?
Also, you seem to be moving the goalposts - where in that wiki link you gave does it show that a 'sugar crash' causes increased appetite as you claimed earlier?
From the wiki -
The majority of these symptoms, often correlated with feelings of hunger, mimic the effect of inadequate sugar intake as the biology of a crash is similar in itself to the body’s response to low blood sugar levels following periods of glucose deficiency.
And it even tells you to eat more sugar to fix it, just to start the cycle anew.
And a sugar crash, for your average person occurs after overeating any kind of carb, heck even protein (but that's a lot of protein). It's a blood glucose thing.
Odd that it was not in the symptoms list - maybe because its a correlation or mimic (which I am not saying is not real to the individual).
What I am still confused about with your argument, is that you agree that insulin spikes suppresses appetite, but are arguing that BG levels increase it. Seems a bit of a push/pull to me - which is probably why its very individual (and does not impact everyone), which comes back to the other question - about supporting the claim that a majority of people suffer from increased appetite due to carbs.
You're correct its not in the symptom list. And while the saying goes causation=/=correlation, it should be noted that sometimes people do in fact eat again, otherwise the wiki wouldn't even have it there.
Yes I agree insulin can suppress appetite. And yes blood glucose is affected more by carb intake, which in general is eaten more than protein. The average American's protein intake is far less than their carb intake. And while it's individual, most individuals aren't special snowflakes when it comes to bodily functions.
Have never disagreed that some people do in fact eat again (even though wikipedia is not the best source to use tbh).
You seem to be hung up on the average American's protein intake - its a theme. First of all, we are not 'average American' not tracking intake on here. Secondly, blanket statements are, well, blanket statements and should not be assumed to be relevant for everyone.
And what has special snowflake and not having sugar crashes got to do with anything? Not having a sugar crash does not make one a special snowflake and has nothing to do with 'bodily functions'.
Also, still waiting for that support.
Go look at your average American. That's the support you need. Seriously, they're not fat because of a high protein low carb diet or even keto. It's because they eat of mix of processed *kitten* that usually ends up being high carb junk.
Eat too many carbs? Insulin spike and then blood glucose levels go crazy. And I guarantee the average american is gonna grab more carbs to settle it.
ok...so, not able to actually support your claim...good to know.
Also, errr...back to dat dere insulin spike again...I thought it was not an issue...now it is...we come full circle...and still using the same MO.
And here I a go explaining, again.
Insulin spike, not so big deal, helps deal with satiety, in which protein actually helps better than carbs.
BG spike, not so good. Might cause issues, ie sugar crash.
That's it.
You may be explaining, but you have still not supported your claim that I requested and also, insulin spike does not necessarily mean BG go wild, which is not what you inferred before.
Your link itself shows a higher BG response from high carb.
Zhost forgive me for jumping in here, but this debate is pertinent to me personally, because I have gone from trying to avoid sugar to the trying to fit it in camp. Does this "higher BG response from high carb" only suggest you shouldn't eat a high carb diet or does it suggest that you should not eat moderate amounts of sugars/carbs?
In the end it's all CICO for weight loss, but that's where it stops. How healthy you are at the end depends on what you ate to get there. High carb restricted eating will help you lose weight, but I'd be interested in seeing your bloodwork.
Can you provide studies showing blood markers of health significantly got worse after weight loss, for any of the diets?0 -
ok..I am out..trying to debate with someone who's support is what they assume the average american eats without any support whatsoever, and who is also using this apparent 'average american' to apply to everybody, including those on this site is an exercise in futility.
See ya, enjoy those carbs for me would ya? I'm not a fan of cytokine elevation (Go back some pages for info on that).
I will - they do me very well for my training and as such my body comp thank you very much - as well as tasty. Also, lol at the cytokine elevation comment...really? really? lol.
And ketones will do the same for me, the basic glucose my body will need will come from the natural low GI complex carbs from veggies or GNG.
That's nice.
Difference is, I have not actually argued that your preference for restricting calories is an issue, unlike the other way round.
So....
Arguing against why people shouldn't eat a lot of carbs/sugar is what then?
Huh?
At this point I'm so far removed from why I originally posted here (Inflammation/cytokines/sugar) that I'm losing track of everything.
So keep doing you, I'll do me.0 -
goldthistime wrote: »shelleygold wrote: »Also, Zhost, I have read your comments and really appreciate your links. I did not know that protein consumption stimulated insulin production. As I read the article I realised that I have a great deal more to learn about blood sugar levels and the assumptions I have bought into regarding carbohydrates. Thank you.
Insulin spikes are not inherently bad, it's the blood glucose levels after that cause the crash.
For some people....
For some people? Definitely not a minority.
Care to support that claim?
Also, you seem to be moving the goalposts - where in that wiki link you gave does it show that a 'sugar crash' causes increased appetite as you claimed earlier?
From the wiki -
The majority of these symptoms, often correlated with feelings of hunger, mimic the effect of inadequate sugar intake as the biology of a crash is similar in itself to the body’s response to low blood sugar levels following periods of glucose deficiency.
And it even tells you to eat more sugar to fix it, just to start the cycle anew.
And a sugar crash, for your average person occurs after overeating any kind of carb, heck even protein (but that's a lot of protein). It's a blood glucose thing.
Odd that it was not in the symptoms list - maybe because its a correlation or mimic (which I am not saying is not real to the individual).
What I am still confused about with your argument, is that you agree that insulin spikes suppresses appetite, but are arguing that BG levels increase it. Seems a bit of a push/pull to me - which is probably why its very individual (and does not impact everyone), which comes back to the other question - about supporting the claim that a majority of people suffer from increased appetite due to carbs.
You're correct its not in the symptom list. And while the saying goes causation=/=correlation, it should be noted that sometimes people do in fact eat again, otherwise the wiki wouldn't even have it there.
Yes I agree insulin can suppress appetite. And yes blood glucose is affected more by carb intake, which in general is eaten more than protein. The average American's protein intake is far less than their carb intake. And while it's individual, most individuals aren't special snowflakes when it comes to bodily functions.
Have never disagreed that some people do in fact eat again (even though wikipedia is not the best source to use tbh).
You seem to be hung up on the average American's protein intake - its a theme. First of all, we are not 'average American' not tracking intake on here. Secondly, blanket statements are, well, blanket statements and should not be assumed to be relevant for everyone.
And what has special snowflake and not having sugar crashes got to do with anything? Not having a sugar crash does not make one a special snowflake and has nothing to do with 'bodily functions'.
Also, still waiting for that support.
Go look at your average American. That's the support you need. Seriously, they're not fat because of a high protein low carb diet or even keto. It's because they eat of mix of processed *kitten* that usually ends up being high carb junk.
Eat too many carbs? Insulin spike and then blood glucose levels go crazy. And I guarantee the average american is gonna grab more carbs to settle it.
ok...so, not able to actually support your claim...good to know.
Also, errr...back to dat dere insulin spike again...I thought it was not an issue...now it is...we come full circle...and still using the same MO.
And here I a go explaining, again.
Insulin spike, not so big deal, helps deal with satiety, in which protein actually helps better than carbs.
BG spike, not so good. Might cause issues, ie sugar crash.
That's it.
You may be explaining, but you have still not supported your claim that I requested and also, insulin spike does not necessarily mean BG go wild, which is not what you inferred before.
Your link itself shows a higher BG response from high carb.
Zhost forgive me for jumping in here, but this debate is pertinent to me personally, because I have gone from trying to avoid sugar to the trying to fit it in camp. Does this "higher BG response from high carb" only suggest you shouldn't eat a high carb diet or does it suggest that you should not eat moderate amounts of sugars/carbs?
In the end it's all CICO for weight loss, but that's where it stops. How healthy you are at the end depends on what you ate to get there. High carb restricted eating will help you lose weight, but I'd be interested in seeing your bloodwork.
Can you provide studies showing blood markers of health significantly got worse after weight loss, for any of the diets?
I should've put a note saying, this was actually a personal question in that I'm just curious as to what it'd be. This wasn't a statement for argument.
Though, if you'd like I can provide mine from ditching carbs and sugars.0 -
ok..I am out..trying to debate with someone who's support is what they assume the average american eats without any support whatsoever, and who is also using this apparent 'average american' to apply to everybody, including those on this site is an exercise in futility.
See ya, enjoy those carbs for me would ya? I'm not a fan of cytokine elevation (Go back some pages for info on that).
I will - they do me very well for my training and as such my body comp thank you very much - as well as tasty. Also, lol at the cytokine elevation comment...really? really? lol.
And ketones will do the same for me, the basic glucose my body will need will come from the natural low GI complex carbs from veggies or GNG.
That's nice.
Difference is, I have not actually argued that your preference for restricting calories is an issue, unlike the other way round.
So....
Arguing against why people shouldn't eat a lot of carbs/sugar is what then?
Huh?
At this point I'm so far removed from why I originally posted here (Inflammation/cytokines/sugar) that I'm losing track of everything.
So keep doing you, I'll do me.
My huh? was in reference to me arguing against why people should not eat a lot of carbs/sugar - although the double negative there is confusing. I have never argued that people should not restrict sugar if the circumstances are appropriate. I have questioned your 'facts' and assertions.
Heck, I go into vegetarian threads and argue against spurious claims by vegetarians as to why you should not eat meat, and I am a vegetarian. Debating facts is not slamming someone's dietary choices. However, your snarky comments about mine were.0 -
emily_stew wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »shelleygold wrote: »Also, Zhost, I have read your comments and really appreciate your links. I did not know that protein consumption stimulated insulin production. As I read the article I realised that I have a great deal more to learn about blood sugar levels and the assumptions I have bought into regarding carbohydrates. Thank you.
Insulin spikes are not inherently bad, it's the blood glucose levels after that cause the crash.
For some people....
For some people? Definitely not a minority.
Care to support that claim?
Also, you seem to be moving the goalposts - where in that wiki link you gave does it show that a 'sugar crash' causes increased appetite as you claimed earlier?
From the wiki -
The majority of these symptoms, often correlated with feelings of hunger, mimic the effect of inadequate sugar intake as the biology of a crash is similar in itself to the body’s response to low blood sugar levels following periods of glucose deficiency.
And it even tells you to eat more sugar to fix it, just to start the cycle anew.
And a sugar crash, for your average person occurs after overeating any kind of carb, heck even protein (but that's a lot of protein). It's a blood glucose thing.
Odd that it was not in the symptoms list - maybe because its a correlation or mimic (which I am not saying is not real to the individual).
What I am still confused about with your argument, is that you agree that insulin spikes suppresses appetite, but are arguing that BG levels increase it. Seems a bit of a push/pull to me - which is probably why its very individual (and does not impact everyone), which comes back to the other question - about supporting the claim that a majority of people suffer from increased appetite due to carbs.
You're correct its not in the symptom list. And while the saying goes causation=/=correlation, it should be noted that sometimes people do in fact eat again, otherwise the wiki wouldn't even have it there.
Yes I agree insulin can suppress appetite. And yes blood glucose is affected more by carb intake, which in general is eaten more than protein. The average American's protein intake is far less than their carb intake. And while it's individual, most individuals aren't special snowflakes when it comes to bodily functions.
Have never disagreed that some people do in fact eat again (even though wikipedia is not the best source to use tbh).
You seem to be hung up on the average American's protein intake - its a theme. First of all, we are not 'average American' not tracking intake on here. Secondly, blanket statements are, well, blanket statements and should not be assumed to be relevant for everyone.
And what has special snowflake and not having sugar crashes got to do with anything? Not having a sugar crash does not make one a special snowflake and has nothing to do with 'bodily functions'.
Also, still waiting for that support.
Go look at your average American. That's the support you need. Seriously, they're not fat because of a high protein low carb diet or even keto. It's because they eat of mix of processed *kitten* that usually ends up being high carb junk.
Eat too many carbs? Insulin spike and then blood glucose levels go crazy. And I guarantee the average american is gonna grab more carbs to settle it.
No. It doesn't matter why type diet you eat when it comes to weight loss, the only thing that counts is calories in/calories out. Someone can live off "processed *kitten*," as you call it, and still lose weight. Likewise, a person can eat no processed foods and gain weight.
You can eat carbs all day long and still lose weight. You might not have a whole lot of energy due to an unbalanced diet, but if you eat less calories than you burn you will lose weight.
Wrong. What matters is what you eat. You are what you eat. I ate more than what was "required" to lose 50 pounds and I lost it. Why??? Well, I didn't eat things that cause fat to be stored very easily. I eat consistently day after day - and I am active. If I do those two things, I cannot fail.
You are speaking in terms of failure. At some point, you stop depriving yourself of calories and then you gain. Why??? Cause you go back to the very method by which you would've retained the very weight you lost in the first place.
The human body cannot process and keep what is not possible - eating the right foods consistently with physical activity renders your point moot.
BOOM!!!
What things that you eat cause fat to be stored easily? As in, more easily than others?tedboosalis7 wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »shelleygold wrote: »Also, Zhost, I have read your comments and really appreciate your links. I did not know that protein consumption stimulated insulin production. As I read the article I realised that I have a great deal more to learn about blood sugar levels and the assumptions I have bought into regarding carbohydrates. Thank you.
Insulin spikes are not inherently bad, it's the blood glucose levels after that cause the crash.
For some people....
For some people? Definitely not a minority.
Care to support that claim?
Also, you seem to be moving the goalposts - where in that wiki link you gave does it show that a 'sugar crash' causes increased appetite as you claimed earlier?
From the wiki -
The majority of these symptoms, often correlated with feelings of hunger, mimic the effect of inadequate sugar intake as the biology of a crash is similar in itself to the body’s response to low blood sugar levels following periods of glucose deficiency.
And it even tells you to eat more sugar to fix it, just to start the cycle anew.
And a sugar crash, for your average person occurs after overeating any kind of carb, heck even protein (but that's a lot of protein). It's a blood glucose thing.
Odd that it was not in the symptoms list - maybe because its a correlation or mimic (which I am not saying is not real to the individual).
What I am still confused about with your argument, is that you agree that insulin spikes suppresses appetite, but are arguing that BG levels increase it. Seems a bit of a push/pull to me - which is probably why its very individual (and does not impact everyone), which comes back to the other question - about supporting the claim that a majority of people suffer from increased appetite due to carbs.
You're correct its not in the symptom list. And while the saying goes causation=/=correlation, it should be noted that sometimes people do in fact eat again, otherwise the wiki wouldn't even have it there.
Yes I agree insulin can suppress appetite. And yes blood glucose is affected more by carb intake, which in general is eaten more than protein. The average American's protein intake is far less than their carb intake. And while it's individual, most individuals aren't special snowflakes when it comes to bodily functions.
Have never disagreed that some people do in fact eat again (even though wikipedia is not the best source to use tbh).
You seem to be hung up on the average American's protein intake - its a theme. First of all, we are not 'average American' not tracking intake on here. Secondly, blanket statements are, well, blanket statements and should not be assumed to be relevant for everyone.
And what has special snowflake and not having sugar crashes got to do with anything? Not having a sugar crash does not make one a special snowflake and has nothing to do with 'bodily functions'.
Also, still waiting for that support.
Go look at your average American. That's the support you need. Seriously, they're not fat because of a high protein low carb diet or even keto. It's because they eat of mix of processed *kitten* that usually ends up being high carb junk.
Eat too many carbs? Insulin spike and then blood glucose levels go crazy. And I guarantee the average american is gonna grab more carbs to settle it.
No. It doesn't matter why type diet you eat when it comes to weight loss, the only thing that counts is calories in/calories out. Someone can live off "processed *kitten*," as you call it, and still lose weight. Likewise, a person can eat no processed foods and gain weight.
You can eat carbs all day long and still lose weight. You might not have a whole lot of energy due to an unbalanced diet, but if you eat less calories than you burn you will lose weight.
Wrong. What matters is what you eat. You are what you eat. I ate more than what was "required" to lose 50 pounds and I lost it. Why??? Well, I didn't eat things that cause fat to be stored very easily. I eat consistently day after day - and I am active. If I do those two things, I cannot fail.
You are speaking in terms of failure. At some point, you stop depriving yourself of calories and then you gain. Why??? Cause you go back to the very method by which you would've retained the very weight you lost in the first place.
The human body cannot process and keep what is not possible - eating the right foods consistently with physical activity renders your point moot.
BOOM!!!
What things that you eat cause fat to be stored easily? As in, more easily than others?
Refined sugar and all processed foods.
Interesting, please substantiate these claims. If you had said something like high fat foods, since fat is most easily stored as fat, then maybe but sounds like you just made them up.
So are pre cut apple slices really really bad, since they have sucrose and are processed?
I am still waiting for his proof that fat is just inflamation.
Me too, because that has to be one of the most absurd claims I've ever heard on this forum.
However, I did learn that you can give even the most ridiculous statement your stamp of credibility by adding words like "BAM!" or "BOOYEAH!" as a closing.
BOOYAH!
It only counts if it's a BOOM!0 -
ok..I am out..trying to debate with someone who's support is what they assume the average american eats without any support whatsoever, and who is also using this apparent 'average american' to apply to everybody, including those on this site is an exercise in futility.
See ya, enjoy those carbs for me would ya? I'm not a fan of cytokine elevation (Go back some pages for info on that).
I will - they do me very well for my training and as such my body comp thank you very much - as well as tasty. Also, lol at the cytokine elevation comment...really? really? lol.
And ketones will do the same for me, the basic glucose my body will need will come from the natural low GI complex carbs from veggies or GNG.
That's nice.
Difference is, I have not actually argued that your preference for restricting calories is an issue, unlike the other way round.
So....
Arguing against why people shouldn't eat a lot of carbs/sugar is what then?
Huh?
At this point I'm so far removed from why I originally posted here (Inflammation/cytokines/sugar) that I'm losing track of everything.
So keep doing you, I'll do me.
My huh? was in reference to me arguing against why people should not eat a lot of carbs/sugar - although the double negative there is confusing. I have never argued that people should not restrict sugar if the circumstances are appropriate. I have questioned your 'facts' and assertions.
Heck, I go into vegetarian threads and argue against spurious claims by vegetarians as to why you should not eat meat, and I am a vegetarian. Debating facts is not slamming someone's dietary choices. However, your snarky comments about mine were.
The only possible snarky comments I could've made were asking if you knew what a sugar crash was and cytokines. If you take offense to them, I apologize but the first comment was a legit question and the second has to do with what I came here for originally.0 -
Zhost, may I ask a question pertaining to weight fluctuation? I have attempted to remain loyal to the simple formula you have presented (each time someone asks), and I am noticing success with weight loss. The but in the sentence is that I reside in a humid/hot climate in Australia and notice weight differences on a day to day basis which cannot be explained by fat storage etc. The fluctuation can be as extreme as 2 to 3 kg. I am wonder if you might comment on this and direct me to pertinent links? Merci0
-
tedboosalis7 wrote: »shelleygold wrote: »Also, Zhost, I have read your comments and really appreciate your links. I did not know that protein consumption stimulated insulin production. As I read the article I realised that I have a great deal more to learn about blood sugar levels and the assumptions I have bought into regarding carbohydrates. Thank you.
Insulin spikes are not inherently bad, it's the blood glucose levels after that cause the crash.
For some people....
For some people? Definitely not a minority.
Care to support that claim?
Also, you seem to be moving the goalposts - where in that wiki link you gave does it show that a 'sugar crash' causes increased appetite as you claimed earlier?
From the wiki -
The majority of these symptoms, often correlated with feelings of hunger, mimic the effect of inadequate sugar intake as the biology of a crash is similar in itself to the body’s response to low blood sugar levels following periods of glucose deficiency.
And it even tells you to eat more sugar to fix it, just to start the cycle anew.
And a sugar crash, for your average person occurs after overeating any kind of carb, heck even protein (but that's a lot of protein). It's a blood glucose thing.
Odd that it was not in the symptoms list - maybe because its a correlation or mimic (which I am not saying is not real to the individual).
What I am still confused about with your argument, is that you agree that insulin spikes suppresses appetite, but are arguing that BG levels increase it. Seems a bit of a push/pull to me - which is probably why its very individual (and does not impact everyone), which comes back to the other question - about supporting the claim that a majority of people suffer from increased appetite due to carbs.
You're correct its not in the symptom list. And while the saying goes causation=/=correlation, it should be noted that sometimes people do in fact eat again, otherwise the wiki wouldn't even have it there.
Yes I agree insulin can suppress appetite. And yes blood glucose is affected more by carb intake, which in general is eaten more than protein. The average American's protein intake is far less than their carb intake. And while it's individual, most individuals aren't special snowflakes when it comes to bodily functions.
Have never disagreed that some people do in fact eat again (even though wikipedia is not the best source to use tbh).
You seem to be hung up on the average American's protein intake - its a theme. First of all, we are not 'average American' not tracking intake on here. Secondly, blanket statements are, well, blanket statements and should not be assumed to be relevant for everyone.
And what has special snowflake and not having sugar crashes got to do with anything? Not having a sugar crash does not make one a special snowflake and has nothing to do with 'bodily functions'.
Also, still waiting for that support.
Go look at your average American. That's the support you need. Seriously, they're not fat because of a high protein low carb diet or even keto. It's because they eat of mix of processed *kitten* that usually ends up being high carb junk.
Eat too many carbs? Insulin spike and then blood glucose levels go crazy. And I guarantee the average american is gonna grab more carbs to settle it.
No. It doesn't matter why type diet you eat when it comes to weight loss, the only thing that counts is calories in/calories out. Someone can live off "processed *kitten*," as you call it, and still lose weight. Likewise, a person can eat no processed foods and gain weight.
You can eat carbs all day long and still lose weight. You might not have a whole lot of energy due to an unbalanced diet, but if you eat less calories than you burn you will lose weight.
Wrong. What matters is what you eat. You are what you eat. I ate more than what was "required" to lose 50 pounds and I lost it. Why??? Well, I didn't eat things that cause fat to be stored very easily. I eat consistently day after day - and I am active. If I do those two things, I cannot fail.
You are speaking in terms of failure. At some point, you stop depriving yourself of calories and then you gain. Why??? Cause you go back to the very method by which you would've retained the very weight you lost in the first place.
The human body cannot process and keep what is not possible - eating the right foods consistently with physical activity renders your point moot.
BOOM!!!
BOOM back at you, sweetheart!
You are missing the point. When it comes to weight loss only, calories in/calories out is all that counts. Eat less calories than you burn and you will lose weight.
You are what you eat refers to nutrition, energy, and body composition.
The reason you don't gain weight is because you eat enough calories to maintain your weight. The dietary plan you choose is preference only because you can gain or lose weight on any type of diet if you eat more than your body needs.
0 -
shelleygold wrote: »Zhost, may I ask a question pertaining to weight fluctuation? I have attempted to remain loyal to the simple formula you have presented (each time someone asks), and I am noticing success with weight loss. The but in the sentence is that I reside in a humid/hot climate in Australia and notice weight differences on a day to day basis which cannot be explained by fat storage etc. The fluctuation can be as extreme as 2 to 3 kg. I am wonder if you might comment on this and direct me to pertinent links? Merci
What formula? Also that sounds like water weight to me. I'd look at your sodium/potassium/magnesium levels for electrolyte imbalances?0 -
Fshelleygold wrote: »Zhost, may I ask a question pertaining to weight fluctuation? I have attempted to remain loyal to the simple formula you have presented (each time someone asks), and I am noticing success with weight loss. The but in the sentence is that I reside in a humid/hot climate in Australia and notice weight differences on a day to day basis which cannot be explained by fat storage etc. The fluctuation can be as extreme as 2 to 3 kg. I am wonder if you might comment on this and direct me to pertinent links? Merci
What formula? Also that sounds like water weight to me. I'd look at your sodium/potassium/magnesium levels for electrolyte imbalances?[/quote
Formula related to calories in and calories out0
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