A Question About Sugar
Replies
-
More than quite a few?
You said she was missing "quite a few variables," so I thought there might be more than one.
You said she missed quite a few. "Context" is debatable as a variabe, but I'll leave that be.
You say she's missing variables. She asks which ones. You tell her what you assume her assumptions are.
You didn't answer. What variables was she missing?
How do you know what she assumes? If she didn't say it, you cannot make up what she's thinking and then attack her for it. Well, you can, but it's ridiculous.DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »
Such as context.
You are assuming that saturated fats are bad, that high fiber is always good, that more is better and completely ignoring personal circumstances such as activity levels, preference and adherence.
Also, she was asking you what you meant about "missing variables." You didn't answer that.
I did answer, and yes I can based on her actual post.
If she did not, then she can tell me.
Also lol at that being attacking.
Why don't you read the thread more carefully.
Putting aside the fact that those assumptions were made up by you, is that your answer? Her assumptions were the key variables she was missing?
Good lawd.
First of all - she actually said what she thought was important in her actual post.
Secondly, and again...read the thread more carefully. I gave an example of the big variable she was missing - context.
She has already responded - if my assumptions were wrong - you think she may have said so.
What were the rest of the "quite a few variables"?
Context is actually the over-riding element for most variables. But, if you want to play semantics, then fine.
I just tried to explain it. Obviously you are not getting the point I made, nor are actually reading my prior responses with a view to dong that. There are, as I indicated quite a few (actually, more than quite a few), but to be perfectly honest, something tells me that you are not sincere in your quest to find out.
So far we have:
1. Context
2. The things you think she was thinking.
Those are the variables you claim she's left out. I wouldn't call it "more than a few."
I'm tired of asking, though, and sorry I bothered.
I'm out.
0 -
More than quite a few?
You said she was missing "quite a few variables," so I thought there might be more than one.
You said she missed quite a few. "Context" is debatable as a variabe, but I'll leave that be.
You say she's missing variables. She asks which ones. You tell her what you assume her assumptions are.
You didn't answer. What variables was she missing?
How do you know what she assumes? If she didn't say it, you cannot make up what she's thinking and then attack her for it. Well, you can, but it's ridiculous.DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »
Such as context.
You are assuming that saturated fats are bad, that high fiber is always good, that more is better and completely ignoring personal circumstances such as activity levels, preference and adherence.
Also, she was asking you what you meant about "missing variables." You didn't answer that.
I did answer, and yes I can based on her actual post.
If she did not, then she can tell me.
Also lol at that being attacking.
Why don't you read the thread more carefully.
Putting aside the fact that those assumptions were made up by you, is that your answer? Her assumptions were the key variables she was missing?
Good lawd.
First of all - she actually said what she thought was important in her actual post.
Secondly, and again...read the thread more carefully. I gave an example of the big variable she was missing - context.
She has already responded - if my assumptions were wrong - you think she may have said so.
What were the rest of the "quite a few variables"?
Context is actually the over-riding element for most variables. But, if you want to play semantics, then fine.
I just tried to explain it. Obviously you are not getting the point I made, nor are actually reading my prior responses with a view to dong that. There are, as I indicated quite a few (actually, more than quite a few), but to be perfectly honest, something tells me that you are not sincere in your quest to find out.
So far we have:
1. Context
2. The things you think she was thinking.
Those are the variables you claim she's left out. I wouldn't call it "more than a few."
I'm tired of asking, though, and sorry I bothered.
I'm out.
That's what you have concluded out of this? Really?. Good reasoning skills! Also, still not read the thread I take it where I gave examples of some variables when asked I see.
Point 2....we covered that already...which you seem to have either forgotten, intentionally or otherwise (I know which one I am going for), did not read, or just not understood.
That's good, because I am getting tired of trying to explain something you seem to have lack of ability to comprehend.0 -
Lots of posts here0
-
This content has been removed.
-
I don't like cats0
-
This content has been removed.
-
emily_stew wrote: »
More than quite a few?
You said she was missing "quite a few variables," so I thought there might be more than one.
You said she missed quite a few. "Context" is debatable as a variabe, but I'll leave that be.
You say she's missing variables. She asks which ones. You tell her what you assume her assumptions are.
You didn't answer. What variables was she missing?
How do you know what she assumes? If she didn't say it, you cannot make up what she's thinking and then attack her for it. Well, you can, but it's ridiculous.DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »
Such as context.
You are assuming that saturated fats are bad, that high fiber is always good, that more is better and completely ignoring personal circumstances such as activity levels, preference and adherence.
Also, she was asking you what you meant about "missing variables." You didn't answer that.
I did answer, and yes I can based on her actual post.
If she did not, then she can tell me.
Also lol at that being attacking.
Why don't you read the thread more carefully.
Putting aside the fact that those assumptions were made up by you, is that your answer? Her assumptions were the key variables she was missing?
Good lawd.
First of all - she actually said what she thought was important in her actual post.
Secondly, and again...read the thread more carefully. I gave an example of the big variable she was missing - context.
She has already responded - if my assumptions were wrong - you think she may have said so.
What were the rest of the "quite a few variables"?
Context is actually the over-riding element for most variables. But, if you want to play semantics, then fine.
I just tried to explain it. Obviously you are not getting the point I made, nor are actually reading my prior responses with a view to dong that. There are, as I indicated quite a few (actually, more than quite a few), but to be perfectly honest, something tells me that you are not sincere in your quest to find out.
So far we have:
1. Context
2. The things you think she was thinking.
Those are the variables you claim she's left out. I wouldn't call it "more than a few."
I'm tired of asking, though, and sorry I bothered.
I'm out.
You know, you can't just nullify any catty statement you make by putting a smiley face at the end. Though I suppose now I'm going to have to point out, specifically and repeatedly, where the catty statements are.
Now I'm getting catty. I too am out.
You forgot BOOM! Or was it BOOMYAH!! Or was that a different thread?0 -
This content has been removed.
-
emily_stew wrote: »emily_stew wrote: »
More than quite a few?
You said she was missing "quite a few variables," so I thought there might be more than one.
You said she missed quite a few. "Context" is debatable as a variabe, but I'll leave that be.
You say she's missing variables. She asks which ones. You tell her what you assume her assumptions are.
You didn't answer. What variables was she missing?
How do you know what she assumes? If she didn't say it, you cannot make up what she's thinking and then attack her for it. Well, you can, but it's ridiculous.DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »
Such as context.
You are assuming that saturated fats are bad, that high fiber is always good, that more is better and completely ignoring personal circumstances such as activity levels, preference and adherence.
Also, she was asking you what you meant about "missing variables." You didn't answer that.
I did answer, and yes I can based on her actual post.
If she did not, then she can tell me.
Also lol at that being attacking.
Why don't you read the thread more carefully.
Putting aside the fact that those assumptions were made up by you, is that your answer? Her assumptions were the key variables she was missing?
Good lawd.
First of all - she actually said what she thought was important in her actual post.
Secondly, and again...read the thread more carefully. I gave an example of the big variable she was missing - context.
She has already responded - if my assumptions were wrong - you think she may have said so.
What were the rest of the "quite a few variables"?
Context is actually the over-riding element for most variables. But, if you want to play semantics, then fine.
I just tried to explain it. Obviously you are not getting the point I made, nor are actually reading my prior responses with a view to dong that. There are, as I indicated quite a few (actually, more than quite a few), but to be perfectly honest, something tells me that you are not sincere in your quest to find out.
So far we have:
1. Context
2. The things you think she was thinking.
Those are the variables you claim she's left out. I wouldn't call it "more than a few."
I'm tired of asking, though, and sorry I bothered.
I'm out.
You know, you can't just nullify any catty statement you make by putting a smiley face at the end. Though I suppose now I'm going to have to point out, specifically and repeatedly, where the catty statements are.
Now I'm getting catty. I too am out.
You forgot BOOM! Or was it BOOMYAH!! Or was that a different thread?
I think it's the same thread. But at 25 pages, who knows? I am not going back down the rabbit hole to find out.
BOOYAH?
I can't blame you.
BOOYAH works!0 -
You said she was missing "quite a few variables," so I thought there might be more than one.
You said she missed quite a few. "Context" is debatable as a variabe, but I'll leave that be.
You say she's missing variables. She asks which ones. You tell her what you assume her assumptions are.
You didn't answer. What variables was she missing?
How do you know what she assumes? If she didn't say it, you cannot make up what she's thinking and then attack her for it. Well, you can, but it's ridiculous.DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »
Such as context.
You are assuming that saturated fats are bad, that high fiber is always good, that more is better and completely ignoring personal circumstances such as activity levels, preference and adherence.
Also, she was asking you what you meant about "missing variables." You didn't answer that.
I did answer, and yes I can based on her actual post.
If she did not, then she can tell me.
Also lol at that being attacking.
Why don't you read the thread more carefully.
Putting aside the fact that those assumptions were made up by you, is that your answer? Her assumptions were the key variables she was missing?
Good lawd.
First of all - she actually said what she thought was important in her actual post.
Secondly, and again...read the thread more carefully. I gave an example of the big variable she was missing - context.
She has already responded - if my assumptions were wrong - you think she may have said so.
What were the rest of the "quite a few variables"?
Context is actually the over-riding element for most variables. But, if you want to play semantics, then fine.
You're amazing. Is this a well crafted act, or earnest questions?0 -
I had a chocolate truffle today0
-
0
-
fearlessleader104 wrote: »I had a chocolate truffle today
I had 3 jaffa cakes.0 -
What happens to this thread if we stop posting0
-
fearlessleader104 wrote: »What happens to this thread if we stop posting
A bear defecates in the woods on a fallen tree.0 -
fearlessleader104 wrote: »What happens to this thread if we stop posting
Well, assuming no-one else posts for a while, it will go to the bowels of MFP where dead posts go, only to be resurrected in a year's time with either a spam post or a post from someone with single digit post count, if precedent is anything to go by.
However, the likelihood of none of the other prior posters not posting here later today/tomorrow is slim to none.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
I would personally try to cut out both sugar AND carbs as much as possible. I have found that for me the only thing that has worked is the Low carb, High fat diet. Carbs and sugar are essentially the same, and scientific research that I have read, suggests humans dont need carbohydrates at all, but rather by using energy dense fats you will not only feel fuller for longer, but this will cause you to eat less. I personally think you can't cut one without the other and expect a result.
Ps: sorry I didnt read all the boring Troll *kitten* first tho and kept the thread alive.0 -
I like science0
-
I'd like to speak to you all about the cult of peanut butter oreos. It's quite delicious.0
-
Charlottesometimes23 wrote: »Charlottesometimes23 wrote: »
Theortically yes. But the composition of that weight loss will be different.If you read what i wrote on the last page you will understand.
I don't understand and when I suggested two alternative interpretations you didn't help. Let's try again to make it really simple for me :-
Do you believe that the same weight loss will occur from eating the same number of calories irrespective of the composition of those calories ?
a) Yes.
b) No.
So a diet that gets 50% of calories from unsoluble fiber (say, 700 of 1400 calories), would have the same results as one that has no calories coming from fiber?
If the tdee and deficit are the same, regardless of the composition of the diet, the loss will be the same. Its ridiculous to try to use extreme examples because no one eats that ways.
Now if you want to show me a metabolic ward study that can prove me wrong please do. But i do know that different foods have different impacts on composition and TEF.
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0106851
the study itself says "the sample size is too small to generalize to a larger population" so throw that one out.
http://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJM199307013290104
Subjects lost weight eating at libitum on high fiber (up to 3g per 100 calorie) diets over 4 months
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1753-4887.2001.tb07001.x/abstract
Addition of 14 g fiber/day to ad libitum diet (fiber was added to existing calories) resulted in weight loss.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/31/7/1149.full.pdf+html
Men on high fiber diet (12 g/day) excreted twice the amount of ingested energy (an extra 970 calories over a week) than those on a low fiber diet (1 g/day)
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/32/2/346.short
"Plant fibers are the portions of plant foods that are not digested in the human small intestine"
Fiber is a carb that is not used for energy. The calories from fiber (100% for unsoluble fiber and up to 100% of soluble fiber) are not used by the body. A calorie is not a calorie.
Diets with higher percentages of calories from fiber will result in higher losses of fat because fiber calories are not used the way other carbohydrate calories are used. Also, some plant fats are indigestable.
Please post your study proving weight loss is not impacted by macro and fiber content.
Again, there are no calories in fibre. Fibre is an indigestible bulking agent.
You continue to say calories from fibre to prove your point that all calories aren't the same but it doesn't prove your point at all. It shows that you don't understand what fibre is.
Fiber has calories. The calories aren't always digestible (by humans) but they are there, and are counted towards your daily calorie goal by MFP. In labelling, fiber is included in total cabohydrates. Diabetics are sometimes told to include fiber when calculating insulin, and sometimes told to take away some fiber grams from total carbohydrate count.
Actually, if you look at the total calories, it takes into account the variance to the 4 cals per g caused by fiber.
Can I clarify? Does MFP count fibre as 4 cals per gram? At most, it would be 2 cals or gram and that's assuming it's all soluble fibre, which isn't the case for most foods.
Actually, I just reread what you said. They must make a guesstimate....
MFP (and food labels/nutritional data) calculates it at somewhere between 2 and 3. Its hard to tell for sure due to the rounding. I also believe that MFP uses an average. I am not exactly sure with labels as I have not tried to 'reverse math' it or looked into it in great detail - they could be more specific re soluble/insoluble mix, but I would doubt it tbh.
Calories still exist whether or not we can metabolize them. Insoluble fiber has calories just like any other carb, 4 per 1 gram. Calories are a unit of energy, not just units of energy that can be metabolized by humans.
I just checked the stats for my salad. 6 g carbs (incl. 3 g fiber), 2 g fat and 2 g protein = 50 total calories. MFP gives it 46 calories, which means fiber calories are deducted by 1/3 total value. My salad had 12 fiber calories, 4 of which were deducted from the total value of the meal. Someone who eats 30 grams of fiber a day, will have 90 calories intake calculated from fiber on MFP (3/4 of total fiber calories).
Manufacturers are allowed to deduct fiber calories from total calories on their nutritional labels, but must include fiber in total carbohydrates:
http://dtc.ucsf.edu/living-with-diabetes/diet-and-nutrition/understanding-carbohydrates/counting-carbohydrates/learning-to-read-labels/
"...On Nutrition Facts food labels, the grams of dietary fiber are already included in the total carbohydrate count..."
If you find the total calories are lower than what would be expected by the macro totals, it may be because the manufacturer has taken the fiber out of the total calories. Manufacturers generally deduct all fiber calories. MFP entries based on these labels will have no fiber calories included.
A lot of studies include fiber calories (at 4 per gram) in total calories consumed. This may be part of why high-fiber diets are associated with weight loss/weight management. Another reason, is that fiber carries nutrients through the digestive tract with it. One of the studies showed that the energy found in the feces of people with higher levels of fiber was double the energy value of the increased fiber. Most of that energy came from fat. The people eating more fiber were less able to access the energy from the fat they ate (it went through the digestive system undigested).
My example of 700 calories a day fiber could be someone on a vegetable fast. Some vegetables are close to 1/2 fiber as far as calories go. It's only about 6x the amount of fiber recommended in the average diet...
I am confused by your post. I think the first part agrees with what I stated (or believed to be the case), but am not sure tbh. You say insoluble fiber has calories? At 4 cals per gram? Where are you getting this from or are we talking semantics here? Not sure the point you are making with the last part.
Also, I actually looked up an example of a potato when double checking the math on what I thought was being shown - not a manufacturers label.
According to Wikipedia:
"Regardless of the type of fiber, the body absorbs less than 17 kJ/g (4.1 kcal/g), which can create inconsistencies for actual product nutrition labels. In some countries fiber is not listed on nutrition labels and is considered to provide no energy. In other countries all fiber must be listed and is simplistically considered to provide 17 kJ/g (4.1 kcal/g) (because chemically fiber is a type of carbohydrate and other carbohydrates provide that amount of energy). In the US, soluble fiber must be counted as 4 kcal/g (17 kJ/g), but insoluble fiber may be (and usually is) treated as not providing energy and not mentioned on the label."
Fiber is a type of carbohydrate. Carbohydrates provide 4.1 kcal/g. Fiber has 4.1 kcal/g. Some animals may be able to actually use this energy, but humans can't. But the fiber still has that much energy (i.e. if you burned it, that much energy would be released).
I popped my salad into MFP, and the 3 grams of fiber (mostly unsoluble) in it counted for 12 calories (instead of 16). If this follows a general rule, then someone entering a total of 30 grams of fiber would have 80 calories counted against them, that was metabolically unavailable to them. This would lead to an inadvertent additional 8 pounds lost/year.0 -
I heard it on a tv program about sugar. Not sugar what "prepare your shield" means, but I am merely repeating what I heard a dr say about 14g in 100g being the limit to cut out excess sugar, that's 14%.0
-
I like TV as much as sugar0
-
my father calls sugar 'white death'... wonder why?0
-
Anyone who eats sugar will die. FACT.0
-
-
This content has been removed.
-
This content has been removed.
-
I am going away now to stick pins in my eyes.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.9K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.9K MyFitnessPal Information
- 15 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.7K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions