Interesting link on: Exercise Can't Save Us From Too Much Sugar In Our Diets, Say Experts
Replies
-
mamapeach910 wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »I think people should read the original editorial, if they haven't already. The Forbes.com article on the link above missed a couple of the key points. The original is posted here:
http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2015/04/23/bjsports-2015-094911.full
The editorial is certainly another powerful endorsement for a low-carb and junk-free lifestyle. People who are convinced that they aren’t harming themselves by eating junk food when they have calories to ‘spare’ should take heed.
I particularly liked the part about members of the public being “drowned by an unhelpful message about maintaining a ‘healthy weight’ through calorie counting.”
Really? So NEVER eat things like bagels or M&M's?
Well, the editorial makes a strong point that high carb junk foods cause myriad health problems other than obesity. Personally I certainly would like to get to the point where I neither crave nor choose to consume such things.
Well see, here's the thing I don't get. If you can't control your own intake, why are you so prescriptive regarding other people, particularly those who are able to control and moderate theirs?
Oh, c'mon, I believe she's been LCHF for a whole week now.
Isn't there something about the overzealous fervor of new converts?0 -
Its been posted at least 3 times and you stand best chance of understanding what they are trying to say if you read the original article. Some of the claims are ridiculous and the rest is completely unremarkable and what people say on MFP all the time i.e its extremely unlikely that exercise alone will result in weight loss unless you tackle your diet and create a calorific deficit. Is that really so surprising or has anyone else been saying just do a bit of exercise and everything will be ok? I dont think so.
Its also only an editorial ( admittedly they are qualified), but there were plenty of other qualified people putting what they said into question.0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »
Yet they didn't declare any competing interests (such as association with diet plans that generate revenue from those buying into a fear of carbs). ....
Especially considering they pointed out the moneyed interests behind making obscene statements like all calories count ....
True believers of the fear mongering crowd don't care ... they just parrot.
And you think there are no moneyed interests or competing interests on the other side of the argument?
An investigation by The BMJ has uncovered evidence of the extraordinary extent to which key public health experts are involved with the sugar industry and related companies responsible for many of the products blamed for the obesity crisis through research grants, consultancy fees, and other forms of funding.
http://www.bmj.com/content/350/bmj.h231.full?ijkey=e41e6304d48cb7fb4f80441f365fc646724367b7&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha
Hi strawman! Awesome of you to miss the point
Btw what we're these products responsible for the obesity crisis, please post evidence showing how they were responsible for the obesity crisis0 -
This content has been removed.
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »I think people that are obese realise it's the excess food that contributes most, otherwise just another editorial that fosters the impression that exercise is moot and not needed, well, it is.
Right.
This is an article about the same piece that's been discussed in two other threads, and what hits me about it is that it mainly seems to be an effort to debunk things that no one thinks anyway, like "We’re continually “fed” the idea that all that’s behind the rise in obesity is lack of exercise, or sedentariness." That's not true--sure, sedentariness is part of it, in the popular understanding (and correctly), but that goes way beyond intentional exercise. And the main message is always that people eat too much. I mean even in "eat less, move more" the eating bit is first. And most people seem to think it's about eating "bad food." That doesn't mean they change what they eat, but not because they think it's all about exercise.
Yep, when you read the original article you realise you realise it doesnt say anything that isnt obvious. As was pointed out on the other threads.0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »
Yet they didn't declare any competing interests (such as association with diet plans that generate revenue from those buying into a fear of carbs). ....
Especially considering they pointed out the moneyed interests behind making obscene statements like all calories count ....
True believers of the fear mongering crowd don't care ... they just parrot.
And you think there are no moneyed interests or competing interests on the other side of the argument?
An investigation by The BMJ has uncovered evidence of the extraordinary extent to which key public health experts are involved with the sugar industry and related companies responsible for many of the products blamed for the obesity crisis through research grants, consultancy fees, and other forms of funding.
http://www.bmj.com/content/350/bmj.h231.full?ijkey=e41e6304d48cb7fb4f80441f365fc646724367b7&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha
The point is you said the authors were more legit and it's not true at all. You can't turn around and argue that it's okay because other people might be questionable. Your statement was false and you're just fear mongering.
Also, when are you going to show people what progress you've made?
Curious as well.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »I think people should read the original editorial, if they haven't already. The Forbes.com article on the link above missed a couple of the key points. The original is posted here:
http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2015/04/23/bjsports-2015-094911.full
The editorial is certainly another powerful endorsement for a low-carb and junk-free lifestyle. People who are convinced that they aren’t harming themselves by eating junk food when they have calories to ‘spare’ should take heed.
I particularly liked the part about members of the public being “drowned by an unhelpful message about maintaining a ‘healthy weight’ through calorie counting.”
Really? So NEVER eat things like bagels or M&M's?
Well, the editorial makes a strong point that high carb junk foods cause myriad health problems other than obesity. Personally I certainly would like to get to the point where I neither crave nor choose to consume such things.
Well see, here's the thing I don't get. If you can't control your own intake, why are you so prescriptive regarding other people, particularly those who are able to control and moderate theirs?
Oh, c'mon, I believe she's been LCHF for a whole week now.
Isn't there something about the overzealous fervor of new converts?
She hasn't even made it a week. And I feel churlish for bringing up her intake, because goodness knows that I've struggled in the past with mine.
There's no shame in having problems with food, we've all been there.
HOWEVER...
To be where she's at with food and then to position herself the way she does on the message boards?
More than a bit hypocritical.
I get that she's a true believer in what she thinks about food. It's just sort of silly to be so bull-headed about it when you haven't even applied it yet in your own life.
0 -
Hi strawman! Awesome of you to miss the point
Btw what we're these products responsible for the obesity crisis, please post evidence showing how they were responsible for the obesity crisis
You're the one who brought up competing interests in an attempt to discredit the authors and implied their motivation was purely money. I'm merely pointing out that such interests exist on both sides.
As to your other question, you can go to the link and read the information for yourself.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Or opine whether an allocation of 13 grams of fat, 38 grams of carbs, 28 grams of protein on a 3400 calorie a day diet is junk food.Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
Hi strawman! Awesome of you to miss the point
Btw what we're these products responsible for the obesity crisis, please post evidence showing how they were responsible for the obesity crisis
You're the one who brought up competing interests in an attempt to discredit the authors and implied their motivation was purely money. I'm merely pointing out that such interests exist on both sides.
As to your other question, you can go to the link and read the information for yourself.
The point is still that your legit authors are not legit. You can't turn around and argue that it's okay because other people might be questionable. Your statement was false and you're just fear mongering.
Also, once gain, when are you going to show people what progress you've made?
0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »I think people should read the original editorial, if they haven't already. The Forbes.com article on the link above missed a couple of the key points. The original is posted here:
http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2015/04/23/bjsports-2015-094911.full
The editorial is certainly another powerful endorsement for a low-carb and junk-free lifestyle. People who are convinced that they aren’t harming themselves by eating junk food when they have calories to ‘spare’ should take heed.
I particularly liked the part about members of the public being “drowned by an unhelpful message about maintaining a ‘healthy weight’ through calorie counting.”
Really? So NEVER eat things like bagels or M&M's?
Well, the editorial makes a strong point that high carb junk foods cause myriad health problems other than obesity. Personally I certainly would like to get to the point where I neither crave nor choose to consume such things.
Well see, here's the thing I don't get. If you can't control your own intake, why are you so prescriptive regarding other people, particularly those who are able to control and moderate theirs?
Oh, c'mon, I believe she's been LCHF for a whole week now.
Isn't there something about the overzealous fervor of new converts?
She hasn't even made it a week. And I feel churlish for bringing up her intake, because goodness knows that I've struggled in the past with mine.
There's no shame in having problems with food, we've all been there.
HOWEVER...
To be where she's at with food and then to position herself the way she does on the message boards?
More than a bit hypocritical.
I get that she's a true believer in what she thinks about food. It's just sort of silly to be so bull-headed about it when you haven't even applied it yet in your own life.
I'm actually not at all convinced she's a true believer. She might be, she might just be someone who gets off on *kitten* stirring. Or she might just want an excuse to be a couch potato and something/someone to blame for her own struggles.
Eh, don't care. I do find being lectured about my supposedly bad diet that bears no resemblance in reality to this imaginary one where it's mostly Coke and Twinkies or the like to be exceptionally tiresome. And I find potatoes quite helpful to both my weight loss and fitness goals, thank you very much!0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
Hi strawman! Awesome of you to miss the point
Btw what we're these products responsible for the obesity crisis, please post evidence showing how they were responsible for the obesity crisis
You're the one who brought up competing interests in an attempt to discredit the authors and implied their motivation was purely money. I'm merely pointing out that such interests exist on both sides.
As to your other question, you can go to the link and read the information for yourself.
Not that strong at reading comprehension eh? Might want to up the carbs to improve cognition
The point wasn't to discredit them, it was to show they are hypocrites as the whole start of their OP ed talked about moneyed interests and they listed zero conflicting interests.0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
Hi strawman! Awesome of you to miss the point
Btw what we're these products responsible for the obesity crisis, please post evidence showing how they were responsible for the obesity crisis
You're the one who brought up competing interests in an attempt to discredit the authors and implied their motivation was purely money. I'm merely pointing out that such interests exist on both sides.
As to your other question, you can go to the link and read the information for yourself.
Been there, done that. Unfortunately, there is no substantiating information on the link. Sorry.0 -
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/ I like to point out this guy, especially the effect of a low-cal junk food diet on his cholesterol numbers (fasting glucose also dropped from 94 to 75, although you have to dig through his Facebook to find that one) when the "sugar is evil! all carbs are evil! if you eat them ever you'll never lose weight!" people starting making too much noise.
Is a large portion of sugary and/or refined carbs an easy way to end up eating too many calories in a day? Definitely! Let's say I go to Noodles and Company, get a fountain soda (est. 16 oz soda) + a reg noodle dish + a large cookie for dessert, approximately 1600 calories, nearly all carbs (about 240g carbs). And I'll probably still eat two other meals and snacks in the day. But it is not the carbs but the calories that matter, if I only ate that noodles and company meal and nothing else for the day I would probably lose weight.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »I think people should read the original editorial, if they haven't already. The Forbes.com article on the link above missed a couple of the key points. The original is posted here:
http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2015/04/23/bjsports-2015-094911.full
The editorial is certainly another powerful endorsement for a low-carb and junk-free lifestyle. People who are convinced that they aren’t harming themselves by eating junk food when they have calories to ‘spare’ should take heed.
I particularly liked the part about members of the public being “drowned by an unhelpful message about maintaining a ‘healthy weight’ through calorie counting.”
Really? So NEVER eat things like bagels or M&M's?
Well, the editorial makes a strong point that high carb junk foods cause myriad health problems other than obesity. Personally I certainly would like to get to the point where I neither crave nor choose to consume such things.
Well see, here's the thing I don't get. If you can't control your own intake, why are you so prescriptive regarding other people, particularly those who are able to control and moderate theirs?
Oh, c'mon, I believe she's been LCHF for a whole week now.
Isn't there something about the overzealous fervor of new converts?
She hasn't even made it a week. And I feel churlish for bringing up her intake, because goodness knows that I've struggled in the past with mine.
There's no shame in having problems with food, we've all been there.
HOWEVER...
To be where she's at with food and then to position herself the way she does on the message boards?
More than a bit hypocritical.
I get that she's a true believer in what she thinks about food. It's just sort of silly to be so bull-headed about it when you haven't even applied it yet in your own life.
I'm actually not at all convinced she's a true believer. She might be, she might just be someone who gets off on *kitten* stirring. Or she might just want an excuse to be a couch potato and something/someone to blame for her own struggles.
Eh, don't care. I do find being lectured about my supposedly bad diet that bears no resemblance in reality to this imaginary one where it's mostly Coke and Twinkies or the like to be exceptionally tiresome. And I find potatoes quite helpful to both my weight loss and fitness goals, thank you very much!
Well, the hand wringing over my prospective intake of a fun-sized Snickers was laughable given my normal dietary choices, I'll give you that.
In finding her to be a true believer, I'm remembering the vinegar thread. I think she's a food-as-medicine type, and being chronically ill, I've run into those before, both here and other places on the internet. Their capacity to victim blame is remarkable, sadly.
Ah well, as you say... eh, don't care. Potatoes are awesome. I have plenty in my lentil stew and they make it nice and hearty.
0 -
atypicalsmith wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
Hi strawman! Awesome of you to miss the point
Btw what we're these products responsible for the obesity crisis, please post evidence showing how they were responsible for the obesity crisis
You're the one who brought up competing interests in an attempt to discredit the authors and implied their motivation was purely money. I'm merely pointing out that such interests exist on both sides.
As to your other question, you can go to the link and read the information for yourself.
Been there, done that. Unfortunately, there is no substantiating information on the link. Sorry.
That's cause it's made up like most low carbers claims0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »I think people should read the original editorial, if they haven't already. The Forbes.com article on the link above missed a couple of the key points. The original is posted here:
http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2015/04/23/bjsports-2015-094911.full
The editorial is certainly another powerful endorsement for a low-carb and junk-free lifestyle. People who are convinced that they aren’t harming themselves by eating junk food when they have calories to ‘spare’ should take heed.
I particularly liked the part about members of the public being “drowned by an unhelpful message about maintaining a ‘healthy weight’ through calorie counting.”
Really? So NEVER eat things like bagels or M&M's?
Well, the editorial makes a strong point that high carb junk foods cause myriad health problems other than obesity. Personally I certainly would like to get to the point where I neither crave nor choose to consume such things.
Well see, here's the thing I don't get. If you can't control your own intake, why are you so prescriptive regarding other people, particularly those who are able to control and moderate theirs?
Oh, c'mon, I believe she's been LCHF for a whole week now.
Isn't there something about the overzealous fervor of new converts?
She hasn't even made it a week. And I feel churlish for bringing up her intake, because goodness knows that I've struggled in the past with mine.
There's no shame in having problems with food, we've all been there.
HOWEVER...
To be where she's at with food and then to position herself the way she does on the message boards?
More than a bit hypocritical.
I get that she's a true believer in what she thinks about food. It's just sort of silly to be so bull-headed about it when you haven't even applied it yet in your own life.
I'm actually not at all convinced she's a true believer. She might be, she might just be someone who gets off on *kitten* stirring. Or she might just want an excuse to be a couch potato and something/someone to blame for her own struggles.
Eh, don't care. I do find being lectured about my supposedly bad diet that bears no resemblance in reality to this imaginary one where it's mostly Coke and Twinkies or the like to be exceptionally tiresome. And I find potatoes quite helpful to both my weight loss and fitness goals, thank you very much!
Well, the hand wringing over my prospective intake of a fun-sized Snickers was laughable given my normal dietary choices, I'll give you that.
In finding her to be a true believer, I'm remembering the vinegar thread. I think she's a food-as-medicine type, and being chronically ill, I've run into those before, both here and other places on the internet. Their capacity to victim blame is remarkable, sadly.
Ah well, as you say... eh, don't care. Potatoes are awesome. I have plenty in my lentil stew and they make it nice and hearty.
I know some recent converts to the whole "food is medicine" zealotry. It's sad because, in my case, it makes smart people just completely turn off their brains, stick their fingers in their ears, and say, "LALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" when provided with evidence.
0 -
I think the article is missing the elephant in the room. People who exercise tend to live longer healthier lives, even if they are fat. People who are skinny may still have health risks of fat people, if they don't exercise. It doesn't make sense to promote calorie counting over exercise when a moderate weight and exercise are both needed for a person to be healthy.0
-
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/ I like to point out this guy, especially the effect of a low-cal junk food diet on his cholesterol numbers (fasting glucose also dropped from 94 to 75, although you have to dig through his Facebook to find that one) when the "sugar is evil! all carbs are evil! if you eat them ever you'll never lose weight!" people starting making too much noise.
Is a large portion of sugary and/or refined carbs an easy way to end up eating too many calories in a day? Definitely! Let's say I go to Noodles and Company, get a fountain soda (est. 16 oz soda) + a reg noodle dish + a large cookie for dessert, approximately 1600 calories, nearly all carbs (about 240g carbs). And I'll probably still eat two other meals and snacks in the day. But it is not the carbs but the calories that matter, if I only ate that noodles and company meal and nothing else for the day I would probably lose weight.
Weight loss and health are 2 different things. Read the original editorial and how they refer to it.0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »I think the article is missing the elephant in the room. People who exercise tend to live longer healthier lives, even if they are fat. People who are skinny may still have health risks of fat people, if they don't exercise. It doesn't make sense to promote calorie counting over exercise when a moderate weight and exercise are both needed for a person to be healthy.
Read the editorial they make their point from a specific angle which is more to do with public health strategy and what they claim is current and what they think it should be.Tbh theres a lot left unsaid and spin in the original article.
0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
Hi strawman! Awesome of you to miss the point
Btw what we're these products responsible for the obesity crisis, please post evidence showing how they were responsible for the obesity crisis
You're the one who brought up competing interests in an attempt to discredit the authors and implied their motivation was purely money. I'm merely pointing out that such interests exist on both sides.
As to your other question, you can go to the link and read the information for yourself.
Not that strong at reading comprehension eh? Might want to up the carbs to improve cognition
The point wasn't to discredit them, it was to show they are hypocrites as the whole start of their OP ed talked about moneyed interests and they listed zero conflicting interests.
I missed this first time around. LOL!0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »I think the article is missing the elephant in the room. People who exercise tend to live longer healthier lives, even if they are fat. People who are skinny may still have health risks of fat people, if they don't exercise. It doesn't make sense to promote calorie counting over exercise when a moderate weight and exercise are both needed for a person to be healthy.
Agreed. They point out that thin people can still be unhealthy, but don't seem to control for whether the thin person exercises or not.
From what I've heard from Noakes (he's been on lots of podcasts), part of this is related to him having a strong family history of diabetes and a diagnosis himself, despite an obvious history of lots of exercise. But that also gives him a bias.
0 -
Yeah, I'm actually a physicist and every time I see people boil the complexity of the human body and nutrition down to "physics" or "thermodynamics" another part of my soul dies. It is true that too many calories in and of itself will make you gain weight but it's pretty disingenuous even on this website to pretend that there aren't huge problems with the way we "calculate" (estimate really) the calorie content of various foods and to dismiss what's becoming an established scientific fact that sugar and refined carbs are big triggers for overeating in many people. The message of this article isn't that eating sugar in and of itself makes you fat; it's that eating sugar leads to an excess consumption of calories, which is what makes you fat. Is that really "fear-mongering"? Or is it maybe just an important consideration that a lot of people aren't aware of? Because it's generally true that when people cut back on the amount of sugar they eat they automatically consume fewer calories, largely because sugary foods don't trigger satiety cues particularly well. Yes, ultimately you need to be mindful about calories, but nutrition is important not least because it's much easier to eat a calorie-restricted diet if you're consuming whole foods (like, have you ever attempted to consume 3000 calories of spinach). It's also better for you.So basically it is just fear mongering sugar and carbs... Because only those make people fat...
Nope. I don't agree. Physics doesn't either.
None of these statements have anything to do with physics and frankly neither does calculating the calorie content of foods or calorie expenditure during exercise (out of interest the other day I calculated how much mechanical energy I transferred to the bar to lift it against gravity during my squat routine and it was a whopping one calorie, yet we know from studies that heavy lifting burns many more calories than that but it's impossible to calculate the exact number from first principles, which is why we rely on quantitative studies based on post-exercise oxygen consumption and other factors) — and I guess what I really, really want is for people to stop dragging my field of study into discussions that have almost nothing to do with it because they can't be bothered to engage with the content of an article which they perceive to be challenging to their worldview. Which it actually isn't. Because literally the second paragraph characterises "restricting calories" as a key component of successful weight loss.0 -
exercise won't save you from an excess of food period...doesn't matter what kind of food.
At the end of the article is the crux of it all..."you can't outrun a bad diet".
Technically, you can. It's really, really hard, but the body's limit on how much energy it can burn is actually a bit higher than the limit to how quickly it can metabolize food.
But very very few people are going to be motivated enough to work hard enough, so from a practical perspective the saying is true enough.
0 -
milkywayward wrote: »
Yeah, I'm actually a physicist and every time I see people boil the complexity of the human body and nutrition down to "physics" or "thermodynamics" another part of my soul dies. It is true that too many calories in and of itself will make you gain weight but it's pretty disingenuous even on this website to pretend that there aren't huge problems with the way we "calculate" (estimate really) the calorie content of various foods and to dismiss what's becoming an established scientific fact that sugar and refined carbs are big triggers for overeating in many people. The message of this article isn't that eating sugar in and of itself makes you fat; it's that eating sugar leads to an excess consumption of calories, which is what makes you fat. Is that really "fear-mongering"? Or is it maybe just an important consideration that a lot of people aren't aware of? Because it's generally true that when people cut back on the amount of sugar they eat they automatically consume fewer calories, largely because sugary foods don't trigger satiety cues particularly well. Yes, ultimately you need to be mindful about calories, but nutrition is important not least because it's much easier to eat a calorie-restricted diet if you're consuming whole foods (like, have you ever attempted to consume 3000 calories of spinach). It's also better for you.So basically it is just fear mongering sugar and carbs... Because only those make people fat...
Nope. I don't agree. Physics doesn't either.
None of these statements have anything to do with physics and frankly neither does calculating the calorie content of foods or calorie expenditure during exercise (out of interest the other day I calculated how much mechanical energy I transferred to the bar to lift it against gravity during my squat routine and it was a whopping one calorie, yet we know from studies that heavy lifting burns many more calories than that but it's impossible to calculate the exact number from first principles, which is why we rely on quantitative studies based on post-exercise oxygen consumption and other factors) — and I guess what I really, really want is for people to stop dragging my field of study into discussions that have almost nothing to do with it because they can't be bothered to engage with the content of an article which they perceive to be challenging to their worldview. Which it actually isn't. Because literally the second paragraph characterises "restricting calories" as a key component of successful weight loss.
:drinker:
Preach it, sister!0 -
milkywayward wrote: »
Yeah, I'm actually a physicist and every time I see people boil the complexity of the human body and nutrition down to "physics" or "thermodynamics" another part of my soul dies. It is true that too many calories in and of itself will make you gain weight but it's pretty disingenuous even on this website to pretend that there aren't huge problems with the way we "calculate" (estimate really) the calorie content of various foods and to dismiss what's becoming an established scientific fact that sugar and refined carbs are big triggers for overeating in many people. The message of this article isn't that eating sugar in and of itself makes you fat; it's that eating sugar leads to an excess consumption of calories, which is what makes you fat. Is that really "fear-mongering"? Or is it maybe just an important consideration that a lot of people aren't aware of? Because it's generally true that when people cut back on the amount of sugar they eat they automatically consume fewer calories, largely because sugary foods don't trigger satiety cues particularly well. Yes, ultimately you need to be mindful about calories, but nutrition is important not least because it's much easier to eat a calorie-restricted diet if you're consuming whole foods (like, have you ever attempted to consume 3000 calories of spinach). It's also better for you.So basically it is just fear mongering sugar and carbs... Because only those make people fat...
Nope. I don't agree. Physics doesn't either.
i don't think anyone is arguing that calorie estimates like TDEE are 100% accurate. Everyone always states that you have to play with the numbers until you know what intake works for you. However, that does not invalidate the point that at the end of the day it does in fact come down to math, science, and thermodynamics.
Additionally, what about people that binge on salty things, or cheese, or that eat pizza and burgers all day? What does that have to do with sugar consumption?
I know in my obese/over weight days my main problem was over eating on EVERYTHING. I would eat two philly cheese steaks and mozzarella sticks for dinner, or have a double cheeseburger from What-A-Burger or wherever, which has minimal sugar.
Now, I am losing weight and eating about 100+ grams of sugar a day, maintain 12-14% body fat, and every year my blood work is "nearly perfect"…
so sorry, it is not just "sugar"..and to try to boil it down to just that one food is ridiculous in itself.0 -
Is a large portion of sugary and/or refined carbs an easy way to end up eating too many calories in a day? Definitely! Let's say I go to Noodles and Company, get a fountain soda (est. 16 oz soda) + a reg noodle dish + a large cookie for dessert, approximately 1600 calories, nearly all carbs (about 240g carbs). And I'll probably still eat two other meals and snacks in the day. But it is not the carbs but the calories that matter, if I only ate that noodles and company meal and nothing else for the day I would probably lose weight.
Unless someone is actually "likely" to "only" eat as you describe, it's not really a relevant point of argument.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
milkywayward wrote: »The message of this article isn't that eating sugar in and of itself makes you fat; it's that eating sugar leads to an excess consumption of calories, which is what makes you fat.
Well, actually the message seems to be that activity isn't important, which is false.
As for there being a connection between added sugar and excess calories (although hardly only added sugar--we still eat lots of fat in our "junk food," although the authors seem to want to dismiss that--more calories in a typical cookie are from butter than sugar), I can't imagine who they think is unaware of that. I suppose if you want to assume that most fat people are morons who really, truly see no connection between consuming lots of low nutrient sweets as a high percentage of their overall diet and the fact they are obese, then this is an important message, but I think that's extremely unlikely.
But then I got fat eating mostly whole foods, so I have my own biases.
0 -
I know in my obese/over weight days my main problem was over eating on EVERYTHING. I would eat two philly cheese steaks and mozzarella sticks for dinner, or have a double cheeseburger from What-A-Burger or wherever, which has minimal sugar.
My problem was overeating in general too, but like you I wouldn't at all place the majority of the issue on sugar. I could have changed my diet in certain other ways (cut out the overindulgence at restaurants and lazy ordering in of Indian for dinner) and done fine without modifying my consumption of sweets. I did modify my consumption of sweets, as it happened, since I cut out unplanned snacking, but I probably eat more ice cream now than when I was gaining weight.
I don't know if my overall macros are different now--well, I'm confident I eat more protein and less carbs and fat, but I doubt the ratio of carbs and fat to each other has changed, contrary to the authors who insist that HFLC is the way.
My biggest change was getting active, since I always eat better even without thinking about it when I'm active, and because my maintenance when sedentary is ridiculously low (from my perspective, anyway).0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions