A Question About Sugar
Options
Replies
-
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....
I guess if you are sedentary that way of eating is fine. But if you are active, my guess is you would bonk.
0 -
I agree with kgeyser on the last sentence.
Nearly everyone has an objective and that gets back to funding themselves often. The best of research that ends up stating you need XXX AND the best place to buy it is at www.xxxxxx.com does make it questionable to an aware reader.
An example is vitamindcouncil.org/ . I did not have any real problem with any of the linked articles but then promoting one brand hurt the validity of good remarks in my mind.
When from perhaps the National Institute of Cancer I learned Vit D3 levels should not go above 80 with the max range for prevention being 60-80 level readings and from an MD that stated she personally as well some of her patients starting feeling worse when levels rose above 80 gave me the research that makes me comfortable at this point in time. If one is not pushing for cancer prevention aspect of Vit D 40-60 levels seems fine. Levels of 100 does not seem to improve protection but does increase chance of death in the wrong direction heart wise. As with most food or hormone in this case there can be a point that is too little and a point that can be too much of a good thing.
Another case last week was some sugar research that really showed some positive results from sugar usage that was countered by other sugar related data. Looking at the disclaimer the lead author was funded by some major sugar producing/using companies.
This is one reason peer reviewed articles may only mean a group of like minded people are in agreement. Herd mentality is NOT good for critical researching. It is the opposing views one may need to watch to get to the bottom of the actual truth in any case.
One can learn good info from about any source. Data aggregation is a must in my view to be able to be better detect what is factual and what is fictional.
This is a big issue when trying to use MD's for medical advice or a plumber for plumbing advice IF they will stand to profit from such advice.
Bottomline the TRUTH is always changing in the world of HEALTH because of new research being done and reported.0 -
Hey back, people still defending sugar? That empty nutrient stuff?0
-
tedboosalis7 wrote: »
Refined sugar and all processed foods.
If that was true, then people wouldn't be able to lose on the twinkie diet. You lost weight because you ate foods that kept you full longer, which helped you achieve a deficit. Ever major scientific organization already recognized CICO causes weight loss and macronutrients affect composition of loss and health.
^^^This, this and this...
0 -
Ignoring sugar count totally doesn't seem like a good idea because that is how we get to be diabetic. Look up a healthy sugar count (yup-added and natural) and go in and change the sugar limit in your profile. I did that and the system will adjust sugar count with added calories. I make note of what sugar was added from natural sources (easy as shows on diary what the sugar came from) and make a note in the memo section. Everything else is added sugar. Though you do have to check your notes to keep track-it works0
-
paulandrachelk wrote: »Ignoring sugar count totally doesn't seem like a good idea because that is how we get to be diabetic.
Not necessarily...
A quote from diabetes.org
"Myth: Eating too much sugar causes diabetes.
Fact: The answer is not so simple. Type 1 diabetes is caused by genetics and unknown factors that trigger the onset of the disease; type 2 diabetes is caused by genetics and lifestyle factors.
Being overweight does increase your risk for developing type 2 diabetes, and a diet high in calories from any source contributes to weight gain"0 -
So says the nameless, faceless poster...
0 -
yup, you can ..."twinkie diet" ..look it up ..guy lost weight and had better health markers...0 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »I agree with kgeyser on the last sentence.
Nearly everyone has an objective and that gets back to funding themselves often. The best of research that ends up stating you need XXX AND the best place to buy it is at www.xxxxxx.com does make it questionable to an aware reader.
An example is vitamindcouncil.org/ . I did not have any real problem with any of the linked articles but then promoting one brand hurt the validity of good remarks in my mind.
When from perhaps the National Institute of Cancer I learned Vit D3 levels should not go above 80 with the max range for prevention being 60-80 level readings and from an MD that stated she personally as well some of her patients starting feeling worse when levels rose above 80 gave me the research that makes me comfortable at this point in time. If one is not pushing for cancer prevention aspect of Vit D 40-60 levels seems fine. Levels of 100 does not seem to improve protection but does increase chance of death in the wrong direction heart wise. As with most food or hormone in this case there can be a point that is too little and a point that can be too much of a good thing.
Another case last week was some sugar research that really showed some positive results from sugar usage that was countered by other sugar related data. Looking at the disclaimer the lead author was funded by some major sugar producing/using companies.
This is one reason peer reviewed articles may only mean a group of like minded people are in agreement. Herd mentality is NOT good for critical researching. It is the opposing views one may need to watch to get to the bottom of the actual truth in any case.
One can learn good info from about any source. Data aggregation is a must in my view to be able to be better detect what is factual and what is fictional.
This is a big issue when trying to use MD's for medical advice or a plumber for plumbing advice IF they will stand to profit from such advice.
Bottomline the TRUTH is always changing in the world of HEALTH because of new research being done and reported.
You are one of the last people that should be posting about what are good or bad sources and good or bad research. All you do is post misleading videos and propaganda along with constantly misinterpreting studies.
not to mention the fact that it is a fake profile picture, fake account, and total troll account...0 -
Like this guy. Lost 27lbs and improved all health markers
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html0 -
Speaking of the Twinkie diet, does anyone know if anyone's attempted the opposite (attempting to gain weight by doing nothing but eating boatloads of lettuce and broccoli) and published anything about it? I can't imagine it would be the most fun thing in the world to attempt, but it would be interesting to read about.0
-
If you want the science behind the effects of sugar on your body and your health, you might want to bookmark this site and make a habit of visiting it for up-to-date information: sugarscience.org/
"SugarScience is the authoritative source for evidence-based, scientific information about sugar and its impact on health."
The average person can tell you their opinion about the subject, but if you're looking for more science and less opinion, you'd do yourself a HUGE favor to educate yourself using more professional sources. You can even ask these doctors and educators (many of them professors at well-known medical schools) questions.
They just say it is...it's not.0 -
Speaking of the Twinkie diet, does anyone know if anyone's attempted the opposite (attempting to gain weight by doing nothing but eating boatloads of lettuce and broccoli) and published anything about it? I can't imagine it would be the most fun thing in the world to attempt, but it would be interesting to read about.
not sure..
there was an article somewhere about a guy that ate nothing but "clean" food and still gained weight, which was being used to debunk the whole "eat clean to lose weight" mantra that is out there...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....
I guess if you are sedentary that way of eating is fine. But if you are active, my guess is you would bonk.
Some people do well on keto - but I would not, and I know of no powerlifters and very few (but some) competitive bb'ers that do keto. I doubt you will find many endurance athletes either.
No issues with people doing it - it has it's place - but its not a panacea or the 'best way' to do it for everyone.0 -
Speaking of the Twinkie diet, does anyone know if anyone's attempted the opposite (attempting to gain weight by doing nothing but eating boatloads of lettuce and broccoli) and published anything about it? I can't imagine it would be the most fun thing in the world to attempt, but it would be interesting to read about.
live.smashthefat.com/why-i-didnt-get-fat/
Personally I have more respect for Mark Haub (the "Twinkie" professor - which is a misleading title for both him and the nature of the diet but never mind...)
0 -
You can also incorporate them as part of a balanced diet and lose weight and be healthy.
Unless you are using the tired and silly example of only eating twinkies (which, some peope can actually improve health markers doing in any event).0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 402 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
- 998 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions