A Question About Sugar
Options
Replies
-
mamapeach910, I am wondering why you need to insult my text each time I write. I do not think "I am saying nothing" which builds on your accusations of a "word salad". Please move on in your analysis of thoughts and ideas presented. I would prefer to not have to justify my ideas to you. I am curious about which individual deserve warnings and which ones are allowed to be insulting by way of their arrogance.
-2 -
tigersword wrote: »
Reread the quote where he was claiming fat is inflamation from carbs.
I'm going off of my own posts with links, though excess sugar does get stored in fat.
Nope. Excess calories get stored as fat. If all you ate was chicken, but ate 3500 more calories of chicken than you burned, you would still gain weight.
And sugar has calories. And carbs are usually more rampant in a person's diet, carbs get turned into sugar and if it's excess, into fat it goes. So where I might be wrong, I'm also right.
Fat has more calories per gram than carbs. Replace the word sugar with dietary fats...still the case?
DNL does not happen very easily at all btw.
Does fat cause a big of insulin spike as carbs? Possibly making someone want to eat more?
And again, fat may have more calories but carbs are usually more present, gram wise.
Not sure what the point is re the question and how it relates to my comment.
However, I would ask...does an insulin spike cause you to want to eat more? However, that has nothing to do with the fact that DNL rarely happens.
Because a rollercoaster of insulin and blood glucose spikes are perfectly fine, and how does most of that happen? Carbs, unless you specifically eat low on the GI scale. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugar_crash
What about the insulin spikes caused by protein?
Yes protein does cause a spike but since it is digested at a slower rate, glucose levels do not crash.
I am confused as to why you think everyone suffers from these 'sugar crashes' if they have carbs.
While not everyone does, plenty do. And your study shows lower BG response in LC/HP meals and shows more satiety in LC/HP.
Did you read the whole thing?
Yes and I looked at the pretty graphs!
Did you miss this?
"MYTH: Insulin Makes You Hungry
FACT: Insulin Suppresses Appetite
It is a well known fact that insulin acutely suppresses appetite. This has been demonstrated in dozens and dozens of experiments. This will be important when we talk about the next misconception…"
Yep, and protein causes a bigger initial spike, but then we look at blood glucose response.0 -
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.
0 -
tigersword wrote: »
Reread the quote where he was claiming fat is inflamation from carbs.
I'm going off of my own posts with links, though excess sugar does get stored in fat.
Nope. Excess calories get stored as fat. If all you ate was chicken, but ate 3500 more calories of chicken than you burned, you would still gain weight.
And sugar has calories. And carbs are usually more rampant in a person's diet, carbs get turned into sugar and if it's excess, into fat it goes. So where I might be wrong, I'm also right.
Fat has more calories per gram than carbs. Replace the word sugar with dietary fats...still the case?
DNL does not happen very easily at all btw.
Does fat cause a big of insulin spike as carbs? Possibly making someone want to eat more?
And again, fat may have more calories but carbs are usually more present, gram wise.
Not sure what the point is re the question and how it relates to my comment.
However, I would ask...does an insulin spike cause you to want to eat more? However, that has nothing to do with the fact that DNL rarely happens.
Because a rollercoaster of insulin and blood glucose spikes are perfectly fine, and how does most of that happen? Carbs, unless you specifically eat low on the GI scale. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugar_crash
What about the insulin spikes caused by protein?
Yes protein does cause a spike but since it is digested at a slower rate, glucose levels do not crash.
I am confused as to why you think everyone suffers from these 'sugar crashes' if they have carbs.
While not everyone does, plenty do. And your study shows lower BG response in LC/HP meals and shows more satiety in LC/HP.
Did you read the whole thing?
Yes and I looked at the pretty graphs!
Did you miss this?
"MYTH: Insulin Makes You Hungry
FACT: Insulin Suppresses Appetite
It is a well known fact that insulin acutely suppresses appetite. This has been demonstrated in dozens and dozens of experiments. This will be important when we talk about the next misconception…"
Yep, and protein causes a bigger initial spike, but then we look at blood glucose response.
Going back to your first incorrect claim...carbs do not get converted into fat - DNL is pretty uncommon.
You referred to the insulin spike of carbs - protein causes on as well.
You may have sugar crashes, but don't assume others do.
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.0 -
christinev297 wrote: »tigersword wrote: »
Reread the quote where he was claiming fat is inflamation from carbs.
I'm going off of my own posts with links, though excess sugar does get stored in fat.
Nope. Excess calories get stored as fat. If all you ate was chicken, but ate 3500 more calories of chicken than you burned, you would still gain weight.
And sugar has calories. And carbs are usually more rampant in a person's diet, carbs get turned into sugar and if it's excess, into fat it goes. So where I might be wrong, I'm also right.
Fat has more calories per gram than carbs. Replace the word sugar with dietary fats...still the case?
DNL does not happen very easily at all btw.
Does fat cause a big of insulin spike as carbs? Possibly making someone want to eat more?
And again, fat may have more calories but carbs are usually more present, gram wise.
Not sure what the point is re the question and how it relates to my comment.
However, I would ask...does an insulin spike cause you to want to eat more? However, that has nothing to do with the fact that DNL rarely happens.
Because a rollercoaster of insulin and blood glucose spikes are perfectly fine, and how does most of that happen? Carbs, unless you specifically eat low on the GI scale. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugar_crash
What about the insulin spikes caused by protein?
Yes protein does cause a spike but since it is digested at a slower rate, glucose levels do not crash.
I am confused as to why you think everyone suffers from these 'sugar crashes' if they have carbs.
Iam definitely one of those people!
If you get them, then it makes sense to have a meal or eat in such a way that limits it. However, a blanket statement as to how people react is invariably wrong.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....
Also, I am not sure where your increased appetite claim links with sugar crashed - its not even a symptom in that wiki link you gave.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.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 inferred earlier?
0 -
christinev297 wrote: »Just a quick edit to say to Zhost, whose links I haven't read, that this was written prior to your posting and has nothing whatsoever to do with that. My post is just a general rant.
***************************************************************************
I don't understand why it is necessary for the average person to have to come up with a "peer reviewed study" every time they post an opinion. And if they do post a study, it is never good enough. I had the Australian Government and Health Department supporting one of my claims, but nah, corrupt government, not good enough.
Give me strength! What about a bit of free speech, light discussion and a community working together to help others understand issues instead of ridicule and dictatorship.
If people want to reduce and moderate their sugar, I say "good for them" and believe me there will be no stupid study to back up my statement.
well said! I agree 100%.
I think we know the call for a peer review study is valid if one is making a case to a certified board supporting their actions with patients. On this forum the call for such is nothing more than a smoke screen in my view. Heck there are some on this site that think they should be giving dieting advice to others under medical care at the time. No one on this site should be giving any such advice for several reasons.
One does not have to hold a terminal degree to be able to read research papers and gather some info even if it is from the summary. Some people will try to discredit anything they do not understand but that is not the mind of a true investigator.
Some understand for new concepts and practices to go main stream can take 20 years because the generation in charge often must first pass from the scene and their text books be discontinued.
"A question about Sugar?" should not require name calling in a reply. I see so many people asking very serious (therefore good) questions to only be blown away by people in fear of something in the back of their minds in my view. The terms used in the world of dieting often is confusing for even the trained professionals.
If we can just reply with facts and/or our personal options even in a civil manner life will be better for all. Being defensive does not show strength in an debate.
MFP is an awesome site that can help point new people in the right direction in my personal view.
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.0 -
I must say, I have to agree with you on this, particularly the parts I bolded. While it's pretty much hypothetical, in theory I could get a PHD in biology or chemistry, teach college level biology, chemistry, or nutrition for decades, but if I don't have my name on a peer reviewed study, whatever I claim as a "fact" would have zero value to these discussions.GaleHawkins wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »Just a quick edit to say to Zhost, whose links I haven't read, that this was written prior to your posting and has nothing whatsoever to do with that. My post is just a general rant.
***************************************************************************
I don't understand why it is necessary for the average person to have to come up with a "peer reviewed study" every time they post an opinion. And if they do post a study, it is never good enough. I had the Australian Government and Health Department supporting one of my claims, but nah, corrupt government, not good enough.
Give me strength! What about a bit of free speech, light discussion and a community working together to help others understand issues instead of ridicule and dictatorship.
If people want to reduce and moderate their sugar, I say "good for them" and believe me there will be no stupid study to back up my statement.
well said! I agree 100%.
I think we know the call for a peer review study is valid if one is making a case to a certified board supporting their actions with patients. On this forum the call for such is nothing more than a smoke screen in my view. Heck there are some on this site that think they should be giving dieting advice to others under medical care at the time. No one on this site should be giving any such advice for several reasons.
One does not have to hold a terminal degree to be able to read research papers and gather some info even if it is from the summary. Some people will try to discredit anything they do not understand but that is not the mind of a true investigator.
Some understand for new concepts and practices to go main stream can take 20 years because the generation in charge often must first pass from the scene and their text books be discontinued.
"A question about Sugar?" should not require name calling in a reply. I see so many people asking very serious (therefore good) questions to only be blown away by people in fear of something in the back of their minds in my view. The terms used in the world of dieting often is confusing for even the trained professionals.
If we can just reply with facts and/or our personal options even in a civil manner life will be better for all. Being defensive does not show strength in an debate.
MFP is an awesome site that can help point new people in the right direction in my personal view.
0 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »Just a quick edit to say to Zhost, whose links I haven't read, that this was written prior to your posting and has nothing whatsoever to do with that. My post is just a general rant.
***************************************************************************
I don't understand why it is necessary for the average person to have to come up with a "peer reviewed study" every time they post an opinion. And if they do post a study, it is never good enough. I had the Australian Government and Health Department supporting one of my claims, but nah, corrupt government, not good enough.
Give me strength! What about a bit of free speech, light discussion and a community working together to help others understand issues instead of ridicule and dictatorship.
If people want to reduce and moderate their sugar, I say "good for them" and believe me there will be no stupid study to back up my statement.
well said! I agree 100%.
I think we know the call for a peer review study is valid if one is making a case to a certified board supporting their actions with patients. On this forum the call for such is nothing more than a smoke screen in my view. Heck there are some on this site that think they should be giving dieting advice to others under medical care at the time. No one on this site should be giving any such advice for several reasons.
One does not have to hold a terminal degree to be able to read research papers and gather some info even if it is from the summary. Some people will try to discredit anything they do not understand but that is not the mind of a true investigator.
Some understand for new concepts and practices to go main stream can take 20 years because the generation in charge often must first pass from the scene and their text books be discontinued.
"A question about Sugar?" should not require name calling in a reply. I see so many people asking very serious (therefore good) questions to only be blown away by people in fear of something in the back of their minds in my view. The terms used in the world of dieting often is confusing for even the trained professionals.
If we can just reply with facts and/or our personal options even in a civil manner life will be better for all. Being defensive does not show strength in an debate.
MFP is an awesome site that can help point new people in the right direction in my personal view.
When someone states something as opinion or personal experience, I doubt you will find many people asking for peer reviewed studies.
When someone states something as fact, they will. It is doing people a disservice to not question in MY opinion as many people read the threads and I would hate for them to go away thinking that they had to do something or not do something based on misinformation.
I would ask, where are you seeing these very serious questions only to be blown away by people in fear of something in the back of their minds - that is a very vague statement, yet one that is potentially inflammatory, so examples are always good. You know, when you give someone constructive feedback, its always good to use examples where possible.0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
I must say, I have to agree with you on this, particularly the parts I bolded. While it's pretty much hypothetical, in theory I could get a PHD in biology or chemistry, teach college level biology, chemistry, or nutrition for decades, but if I don't have my name on a peer reviewed study, whatever I claim as a "fact" would have zero value to these discussions.GaleHawkins wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »Just a quick edit to say to Zhost, whose links I haven't read, that this was written prior to your posting and has nothing whatsoever to do with that. My post is just a general rant.
***************************************************************************
I don't understand why it is necessary for the average person to have to come up with a "peer reviewed study" every time they post an opinion. And if they do post a study, it is never good enough. I had the Australian Government and Health Department supporting one of my claims, but nah, corrupt government, not good enough.
Give me strength! What about a bit of free speech, light discussion and a community working together to help others understand issues instead of ridicule and dictatorship.
If people want to reduce and moderate their sugar, I say "good for them" and believe me there will be no stupid study to back up my statement.
well said! I agree 100%.
I think we know the call for a peer review study is valid if one is making a case to a certified board supporting their actions with patients. On this forum the call for such is nothing more than a smoke screen in my view. Heck there are some on this site that think they should be giving dieting advice to others under medical care at the time. No one on this site should be giving any such advice for several reasons.
One does not have to hold a terminal degree to be able to read research papers and gather some info even if it is from the summary. Some people will try to discredit anything they do not understand but that is not the mind of a true investigator.
Some understand for new concepts and practices to go main stream can take 20 years because the generation in charge often must first pass from the scene and their text books be discontinued.
"A question about Sugar?" should not require name calling in a reply. I see so many people asking very serious (therefore good) questions to only be blown away by people in fear of something in the back of their minds in my view. The terms used in the world of dieting often is confusing for even the trained professionals.
If we can just reply with facts and/or our personal options even in a civil manner life will be better for all. Being defensive does not show strength in an debate.
MFP is an awesome site that can help point new people in the right direction in my personal view.
Who is asking anyone to provide a peer reviewed study that they conducted?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.
0 -
"...carbs do not get converted into fat - DNL is pretty uncommon.
Do you mean that it is uncommon when calories are balanced or in a deficit? Or do you mean that it is uncommon when in caloric excess too. Just trying to understand.
Further to that, I had a peek at a study on glycogen storage (I think originally linked by Zhost and linked below) that got me a little confused. Why would max storage of glycogen and resultant DNL from large excesses of carbohydrates even matter unless DNL was at least somewhat independent of CICO?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3165600
0 -
I could have worded it better. In that example, if I claim something as fact, and don't provide any peer reviewed sources to back up my claim, then my claim would still have no value, despite my credentials.ForecasterJason wrote: »
I must say, I have to agree with you on this, particularly the parts I bolded. While it's pretty much hypothetical, in theory I could get a PHD in biology or chemistry, teach college level biology, chemistry, or nutrition for decades, but if I don't have my name on a peer reviewed study, whatever I claim as a "fact" would have zero value to these discussions.GaleHawkins wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »Just a quick edit to say to Zhost, whose links I haven't read, that this was written prior to your posting and has nothing whatsoever to do with that. My post is just a general rant.
***************************************************************************
I don't understand why it is necessary for the average person to have to come up with a "peer reviewed study" every time they post an opinion. And if they do post a study, it is never good enough. I had the Australian Government and Health Department supporting one of my claims, but nah, corrupt government, not good enough.
Give me strength! What about a bit of free speech, light discussion and a community working together to help others understand issues instead of ridicule and dictatorship.
If people want to reduce and moderate their sugar, I say "good for them" and believe me there will be no stupid study to back up my statement.
well said! I agree 100%.
I think we know the call for a peer review study is valid if one is making a case to a certified board supporting their actions with patients. On this forum the call for such is nothing more than a smoke screen in my view. Heck there are some on this site that think they should be giving dieting advice to others under medical care at the time. No one on this site should be giving any such advice for several reasons.
One does not have to hold a terminal degree to be able to read research papers and gather some info even if it is from the summary. Some people will try to discredit anything they do not understand but that is not the mind of a true investigator.
Some understand for new concepts and practices to go main stream can take 20 years because the generation in charge often must first pass from the scene and their text books be discontinued.
"A question about Sugar?" should not require name calling in a reply. I see so many people asking very serious (therefore good) questions to only be blown away by people in fear of something in the back of their minds in my view. The terms used in the world of dieting often is confusing for even the trained professionals.
If we can just reply with facts and/or our personal options even in a civil manner life will be better for all. Being defensive does not show strength in an debate.
MFP is an awesome site that can help point new people in the right direction in my personal view.
Who is asking anyone to provide a peer reviewed study that they conducted?
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.0 -
goldthistime wrote: »
"...carbs do not get converted into fat - DNL is pretty uncommon.
Do you mean that it is uncommon when calories are balanced or in a deficit? Or do you mean that it is uncommon when in caloric excess too. Just trying to understand.
Further to that, I had a peek at a study on glycogen storage (I think originally linked by Zhost and linked below) that got me a little confused. Why would max storage of glycogen and resultant DNL from large excesses of carbohydrates even matter unless the DNL production was at least somewhat independent of CICO?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3165600
DNL rarely happens in either. Its kind of a pedantic point though - while DNL is rare, the process of gaining body fat happens in a surplus, no matter whether you have carbs or whether DNL occurs.
Sorry - a little confused as to the second part, or did my above comment address it?.
Edited to add a link to a good read:
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/how-we-get-fat.html/0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
I could have worded it better. In that example, if I claim something as fact, and don't provide any peer reviewed sources to back up my claim, then my claim would still have no value, despite my credentials.ForecasterJason wrote: »
I must say, I have to agree with you on this, particularly the parts I bolded. While it's pretty much hypothetical, in theory I could get a PHD in biology or chemistry, teach college level biology, chemistry, or nutrition for decades, but if I don't have my name on a peer reviewed study, whatever I claim as a "fact" would have zero value to these discussions.GaleHawkins wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »Just a quick edit to say to Zhost, whose links I haven't read, that this was written prior to your posting and has nothing whatsoever to do with that. My post is just a general rant.
***************************************************************************
I don't understand why it is necessary for the average person to have to come up with a "peer reviewed study" every time they post an opinion. And if they do post a study, it is never good enough. I had the Australian Government and Health Department supporting one of my claims, but nah, corrupt government, not good enough.
Give me strength! What about a bit of free speech, light discussion and a community working together to help others understand issues instead of ridicule and dictatorship.
If people want to reduce and moderate their sugar, I say "good for them" and believe me there will be no stupid study to back up my statement.
well said! I agree 100%.
I think we know the call for a peer review study is valid if one is making a case to a certified board supporting their actions with patients. On this forum the call for such is nothing more than a smoke screen in my view. Heck there are some on this site that think they should be giving dieting advice to others under medical care at the time. No one on this site should be giving any such advice for several reasons.
One does not have to hold a terminal degree to be able to read research papers and gather some info even if it is from the summary. Some people will try to discredit anything they do not understand but that is not the mind of a true investigator.
Some understand for new concepts and practices to go main stream can take 20 years because the generation in charge often must first pass from the scene and their text books be discontinued.
"A question about Sugar?" should not require name calling in a reply. I see so many people asking very serious (therefore good) questions to only be blown away by people in fear of something in the back of their minds in my view. The terms used in the world of dieting often is confusing for even the trained professionals.
If we can just reply with facts and/or our personal options even in a civil manner life will be better for all. Being defensive does not show strength in an debate.
MFP is an awesome site that can help point new people in the right direction in my personal view.
Who is asking anyone to provide a peer reviewed study that they conducted?
I would not go so far as that, as perception is also a variable - but it would be easier to dismiss.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 999 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions