A Question About Sugar
Options
Replies
-
In the context of an overall good diet, nothing is wrong with sugar. In fact, if I am bulking or doing endurance/hypertrophy style weight lifting, then sugar (especially dextrose which can be found in gummy bears) is highly beneficial to replenishing glycogen store to help aid muscle growth.Hey back, people still defending sugar? That empty nutrient stuff?
To Carb or Not to Carb
So again, it all comes back to the total context of a diet. None of us are suggesting going to mainline sugar like it's crack. What we are saying if you can fit it into your diet and still get 80-90% of your foods from whole sources (fruits, veggies, lean proteins, fish, whole grains), then why not. Chocolate and other foods help me stick with an overall great diet. If you want to look at my diary, feel free.. I never hide it.
good post..
sadly, no one will even read this correctly...as the anti sugar folks will come in say well "yea, I could eat 2000 calories a day of snickers, but why would I do that..."
ughhhhh
Thanks... we seem to always discuss weight loss but it's a different ball game for bulks and even more so for endurance athletes.
0 -
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.0 -
0
-
Charlottesometimes23 wrote: »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.
Of course fiber has calories. Soluble fiber has 4 calories per gram. Insoluble fiber has essentially zero calories...0 -
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.
0 -
Most scientific journals will publish studies with conflicting findings provided the science is sound. I would consider a scientific journal to be a more reliable source than a website run by researchers from a university who financially benefit from one researchers fame and book. The website includes pre-made infographics you can distribute that support their bias, for pete's sake. The idea that they are some sort of objective clearinghouse for sugar research is laughable.
All science journals are biased. One of their strongest biases is to reject articles that demonstrate the null hypothesis - that is, studies that are unable to demonstrate the link they set out to find.
That is a HUGE problem in science reporting.
It is so prevalent and has been around so long it even has a nickname - "the file drawer effect".
As a researcher (although not in nutrition or exercise), I can attest to the file drawer effect.
In the business realm at least, if you have results that are not statistically significant, the common belief is that journals aren't going to want to publish it. In an industry where publications mean money and success (known commonly as a "publish or perish" attitude), most researchers will just throw the study out even if practically, there is a contribution to science by proving that a link does not exist.
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.
I guess my question is simple. How are there so many successful, shredded people on here that have went from obese to shredded while still eating refined sugar and processed foods? By your statements, that can't possibly be true.
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.
I guess my question is simple. How are there so many successful, shredded people on here that have went from obese to shredded while still eating refined sugar and processed foods? By your statements, that can't possibly be true.
Coz they are special snowflakes? Lucky genetics? Fake profile pics? Aliens?0 -
paulandrachelk wrote: »Ignoring sugar count totally doesn't seem like a good idea because that is how we get to be diabetic.
Wrong. You become diabetic (T2) when you have a combination of two or more risk factors. The most common risk factors are:- genetics
- being overweight
- age
- long term use of certain prescriptions, particularly statins and antidepressants
There is also correlation (not proven causation) to environmental factors like arsenic in food, certain herbicides and pesticides, and excessive stress.
I have never been much of a sugar eater but I developed T2 at the age of 57. The risk factors I had in addition to age were being overweight and long term antidepressant use. I also went through a stage for several years of extreme stress, both physically (undiagnosed anemia) and emotionally.
0 -
Most scientific journals will publish studies with conflicting findings provided the science is sound. I would consider a scientific journal to be a more reliable source than a website run by researchers from a university who financially benefit from one researchers fame and book. The website includes pre-made infographics you can distribute that support their bias, for pete's sake. The idea that they are some sort of objective clearinghouse for sugar research is laughable.
All science journals are biased. One of their strongest biases is to reject articles that demonstrate the null hypothesis - that is, studies that are unable to demonstrate the link they set out to find.
That is a HUGE problem in science reporting.
It is so prevalent and has been around so long it even has a nickname - "the file drawer effect".
As a researcher (although not in nutrition or exercise), I can attest to the file drawer effect.
In the business realm at least, if you have results that are not statistically significant, the common belief is that journals aren't going to want to publish it. In an industry where publications mean money and success (known commonly as a "publish or perish" attitude), most researchers will just throw the study out even if practically, there is a contribution to science by proving that a link does not exist.
Yes, it is a problem, but it is a separate issue from the discussion of bias in this case. Obviously, not all studies are going to be published, but that's different from a scientific journal refusing to publish any statistically significant research that disputes its personal beliefs on the matter. The site that was linked here essentially ignores any research that doesn't fit with its specific views on sugar, which makes it an unreliable source for research on the subject.
0 -
Hey back, people still defending sugar? That empty nutrient stuff?
Just checked the primary sources of sugar in my diet so far today, and it seems to be beets, summer squash, and (of course) dried cherries (which I'm eating now with some nuts as part of a homemade trail-mix-like snack). Sorry, but I see none of these foods as "empty nutrient."
Of course, I also don't see that it's so terrible to have less nutrient dense, higher calorie foods on occasion. Some might argue that the cheese I had last night fell into that category, but it was totally worth all of its calories since it rounded out my diet for the day perfectly. The same can be true re a similar calorie amount of ice cream or, say, a cookie (although of course only a relatively small portion of the cookie calories are from sugar itself, vs. flour or the main source, butter).0 -
goldthistime wrote: »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.
High carb? I'm with you, not a good idea. But Zhost, what about a moderate carb, calorie restricted diet, with lots of veggies, lean meats, plant based fats and a moderate amount of sugar? By moderate, I plan to stick fairly closely to the daily sugar limits MFP suggests, perhaps a bit over. I'm not sure yet whether to forego some fruit on a day when I've had extra added sugar or not. Bananas eat up my sugar allotment quickly. Do you believe my blood work would be much different than if I avoided added sugar completely?
the MFP sugar allotment is ridiculously low , so I would toss that out..
second - you are over thinking the sugar thing...so if you really want to eat a banana you are not going to because sugar?0 -
-
goldthistime wrote: »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.
High carb? I'm with you, not a good idea.
Seems to be working okay for Rich Roll, although he's an extreme even among endurance athletes: http://www.mindbodygreen.com/0-1001/Q-A-with-Rich-Roll-From-DownandOut-at-40-to-PlantBased-Ultraman.html
The point is that macro mix depends on the specifics of an individual's preferences and lifestyle. Probably not a good idea for the average couch potato who also eats lots of fat, certainly. Does that mean--as Zhost would have it--that there's some one-size fits all appropriate macro breakdown and, say, that marathoners who eat pretty high carb are doing it wrong for them? It's hardly odd that my grandfather (who was a farmer) almost certainly ate more carbs as a percentage than me and yet did not become overweight or that many healthy traditional diets are higher carb than the SAD (not that anyone I know actually eats the SAD, but I digress).I'm not sure yet whether to forego some fruit on a day when I've had extra added sugar or not. Bananas eat up my sugar allotment quickly. Do you believe my blood work would be much different than if I avoided added sugar completely?
Up to you, but nothing in the WHO or AHA recs suggest that a banana in these circumstances would be unhealthy at all.
Somehow I suspect Zhost will disagree, though, so if he's your source you are choosing your answer.
0 -
Legit LOL.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.
I guess my question is simple. How are there so many successful, shredded people on here that have went from obese to shredded while still eating refined sugar and processed foods? By your statements, that can't possibly be true.
Coz they are special snowflakes? Lucky genetics? Fake profile pics? Aliens?
Ahh, okay. I got it now. This whole time I thought I was doing pretty good, but come to find out I'm just a special snowflake (although I'm only semi shredded...lol).
0 -
That's an extreme, and you're grasping for straws.
0 -
Charlottesometimes23 wrote: »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.
Of course fiber has calories. Soluble fiber has 4 calories per gram. Insoluble fiber has essentially zero calories...
Yep, insoluble fibre has no calories as I stated. The op was using insoluble fibre in his example, counting calories from it, which is not correct. Soluble fibre has the calories absorbed by colonic salvage which are minimal as I also said in my original post, particularly as it's difficult to tolerate too much fibre in the diet. It's estimated to be 1.5 to 2 calories per gram for soluble fibre but difficult to determine because of individual physiology. Most fibre in food is a mix of both types making it even more difficult to calculate. If you eat 40g fibre in your diet, considering the mix of types of fibre in most foods, it would probably be lucky to provide 40 calories.
Here's an article by Lyle McDonald discussing it.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nutrition/fiber-its-natures-broom.html/
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 395 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 959 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions