Sugars
Replies
-
-1
-
tincanonastring wrote: »
Best backpedaling gif ever.0 -
So, we're to the point where it's all gifs henceforth, correct?
0 -
0 -
0
-
0 -
Godwin Sugar...
You know, the The 10 Day Master Peep Cleanse(TM) was created to combat the rampant cleanse/detox threads. Maybe we need a similar program for sugar threads...0 -
stevencloser wrote: »
Yes, that is exactly how it works. You cannot say "my side of the debate doesn't have to be specific but the other side does." If asserting sugar is bad requires defining parameters in which it is so - and I tend to agree that it does so require - asserting it isn't also requires defining parameters for which it isn't so. Otherwise, both are imprecise, inaccurate statements.DeguelloTex wrote: »
No. That's not how it works. Saying that sugar isn't bad doesn't lack precision or correctness. If you want to assert that sugar is bad, you need to define precisely and correctly the parameters in which it is so. If X amount of sugar is bad, it's the X amount, rather than something inherent in the sugar. What's the X amount, then, in your view?And the specific person I responded to first made a blanket statement that sugar is not bad (again, as opposed to a precise and correct statement that it isn't bad in all quantities.
No this is not how it works. Sugar isn't bad. By your logic, you'd have to say EVERYTHING is bad, because everything has an amount that is going to kill you.
Except that I never said anything about anything being "bad" as a blanket statement. You claimed, in a blanket statement, that it isn't bad (even just now). Blanket statements are bad for debate and need parameters. Saying that "sugar isn't bad" is an inaccurate and imprecise statement does not mean one is saying that "sugar IS bad." This isn't either or.
0 -
this thread has already reached this point...
0 -
0 -
I approve of page 12 of this thread0
-
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »
This is precise and correct. All I'm asking for.DeguelloTex wrote: »
In the absence of a medical condition, if you're staying without your calorie limit, hitting your macros, and getting good coverage on your micros, you're not eating too much sugar. Pretty much like people have written on nearly every page of this thread.
Yes, that is exactly how it works. You cannot say "my side of the debate doesn't have to be specific but the other side does." If asserting sugar is bad requires defining parameters in which it is so - and I tend to agree that it does so require - asserting it isn't also requires defining parameters for which it isn't so. Otherwise, both are imprecise, inaccurate statements.DeguelloTex wrote: »
No. That's not how it works. Saying that sugar isn't bad doesn't lack precision or correctness. If you want to assert that sugar is bad, you need to define precisely and correctly the parameters in which it is so. If X amount of sugar is bad, it's the X amount, rather than something inherent in the sugar. What's the X amount, then, in your view?And the specific person I responded to first made a blanket statement that sugar is not bad (again, as opposed to a precise and correct statement that it isn't bad in all quantities.
Well, one may frame the issue as "added sugar consumption is safe", in which case the burden falls to those asserting its safety and thus defining the parameters and quantity of that safe limit - which you just did above. To me, that statement ("added sugar consumption is safe") is a bad scientific statement as the answer to the question "is added sugar consumption safe?" is "it depends on how much and how long."And the issue is "excess sugar" not "absence of excess sugar" so the burden is on those asserting excess sugar to define what excess means here.
Did you read the part in Tex's reply where he said "Pretty much like people have written on every page of this thread." Because you just agreed with something that has been repeated on every page of this thread. The same statement that you've been arguing against this whole time. You either didn't read the replies thoroughly, you read what you wanted to read in the replies, or you just wanted to get on your soap box for some reason.
Umm, actually, I always agreed with that statement. But I replied to specific statements with specific comments. It seems you are under the impression that I think all added sugars in all quantities is bad. That isn't true, and I have painstakingly said so again and again. In fact, one of my problems here is that I am being bashed even though I am agreeing with a lot of what is said, simply because I mentioned that sugar can have a negative context (quantity and duration). So no, I don't think I'm the one not reading or that I'm the one demanding a soapbox...
No, you've argued several times in this thread that sugar causes diabetes.
Really? Then PLEASE quote me. I have said multiple times that added sugars (and I have usually been precise to say in high quantities in long term use) consumption is a risk factor of diabetes, not that it causes it. Go ahead, find where I said it causes diabetes rather than that it's a risk factor.
Here you go...this is where you said it caused it...
And excess and long-term refined sugar intake.ihatetodietalways wrote: »Diabetes Epidemic & You, by Dr. J.R. Kraft. He is a renowned doctor in Chicago and he publishes the fact that fasting glucose can miss 20% of diabetics. Yes. He has looked at 15,000 people from age 3-90. There is a lot of information in this book.
And there are TONS of papers about low carb diets. Phinney, Volek, Pulmetter, Noakes, Attia, and others are leading the research.
Stop telling people to eat sugars and instead tell them, go check your fasting insulin with a simple blood test at the doctor. Furthermore, since insulin resistance is a true phenomenon (it is observed before pre-diabetes), we may want to give our pancreas a break and take the carbs slowly. I don't vilify sugar and carbs. There are people who chose to limit them. That is all.
You are equating people with a medical reason for reducing carbs with people who have normal pancreatic function (the majority of the population). They are not the same. Too many carbs does not cause insulin resistance, diabetes, etc. The inability to properly regulate blood glucose is the main SYMPTOM of those medical issues. The causes are many and include:
- genetics
- excess weight
- age
- long term use of certain medications, including statins and antidepressants
Lol. Everything listed in the previous quote to mine, despite its poster claiming as causes, are in fact risk factors. Genetics, for example is not a cause of diabetes but a risk factor. I added one factor. None of the other factors will inevitably lead to diabetes, hence they are risk factors. So no, I didn't call it a cause. But somehow, your problem isn't with the other poster calling those "causes" because you know they are really referring to risk factors.0 -
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »
This is precise and correct. All I'm asking for.DeguelloTex wrote: »
In the absence of a medical condition, if you're staying without your calorie limit, hitting your macros, and getting good coverage on your micros, you're not eating too much sugar. Pretty much like people have written on nearly every page of this thread.
Yes, that is exactly how it works. You cannot say "my side of the debate doesn't have to be specific but the other side does." If asserting sugar is bad requires defining parameters in which it is so - and I tend to agree that it does so require - asserting it isn't also requires defining parameters for which it isn't so. Otherwise, both are imprecise, inaccurate statements.DeguelloTex wrote: »
No. That's not how it works. Saying that sugar isn't bad doesn't lack precision or correctness. If you want to assert that sugar is bad, you need to define precisely and correctly the parameters in which it is so. If X amount of sugar is bad, it's the X amount, rather than something inherent in the sugar. What's the X amount, then, in your view?And the specific person I responded to first made a blanket statement that sugar is not bad (again, as opposed to a precise and correct statement that it isn't bad in all quantities.
Well, one may frame the issue as "added sugar consumption is safe", in which case the burden falls to those asserting its safety and thus defining the parameters and quantity of that safe limit - which you just did above. To me, that statement ("added sugar consumption is safe") is a bad scientific statement as the answer to the question "is added sugar consumption safe?" is "it depends on how much and how long."And the issue is "excess sugar" not "absence of excess sugar" so the burden is on those asserting excess sugar to define what excess means here.
Did you read the part in Tex's reply where he said "Pretty much like people have written on every page of this thread." Because you just agreed with something that has been repeated on every page of this thread. The same statement that you've been arguing against this whole time. You either didn't read the replies thoroughly, you read what you wanted to read in the replies, or you just wanted to get on your soap box for some reason.
Umm, actually, I always agreed with that statement. But I replied to specific statements with specific comments. It seems you are under the impression that I think all added sugars in all quantities is bad. That isn't true, and I have painstakingly said so again and again. In fact, one of my problems here is that I am being bashed even though I am agreeing with a lot of what is said, simply because I mentioned that sugar can have a negative context (quantity and duration). So no, I don't think I'm the one not reading or that I'm the one demanding a soapbox...
No, you've argued several times in this thread that sugar causes diabetes.
Really? Then PLEASE quote me. I have said multiple times that added sugars (and I have usually been precise to say in high quantities in long term use) consumption is a risk factor of diabetes, not that it causes it. Go ahead, find where I said it causes diabetes rather than that it's a risk factor.
Here you go...this is where you said it caused it...
And excess and long-term refined sugar intake.ihatetodietalways wrote: »Diabetes Epidemic & You, by Dr. J.R. Kraft. He is a renowned doctor in Chicago and he publishes the fact that fasting glucose can miss 20% of diabetics. Yes. He has looked at 15,000 people from age 3-90. There is a lot of information in this book.
And there are TONS of papers about low carb diets. Phinney, Volek, Pulmetter, Noakes, Attia, and others are leading the research.
Stop telling people to eat sugars and instead tell them, go check your fasting insulin with a simple blood test at the doctor. Furthermore, since insulin resistance is a true phenomenon (it is observed before pre-diabetes), we may want to give our pancreas a break and take the carbs slowly. I don't vilify sugar and carbs. There are people who chose to limit them. That is all.
You are equating people with a medical reason for reducing carbs with people who have normal pancreatic function (the majority of the population). They are not the same. Too many carbs does not cause insulin resistance, diabetes, etc. The inability to properly regulate blood glucose is the main SYMPTOM of those medical issues. The causes are many and include:
- genetics
- excess weight
- age
- long term use of certain medications, including statins and antidepressants
Lol. Everything listed in the previous quote to mine, despite its poster claiming as causes, are in fact risk factors. Genetics, for example is not a cause of diabetes but a risk factor. I added one factor. None of the other factors will inevitably lead to diabetes, hence they are risk factors. So no, I didn't call it a cause. But somehow, your problem isn't with the other poster calling those "causes" because you know they are really referring to risk factors.
yup, never wrong...0 -
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »
This is precise and correct. All I'm asking for.DeguelloTex wrote: »
In the absence of a medical condition, if you're staying without your calorie limit, hitting your macros, and getting good coverage on your micros, you're not eating too much sugar. Pretty much like people have written on nearly every page of this thread.
Yes, that is exactly how it works. You cannot say "my side of the debate doesn't have to be specific but the other side does." If asserting sugar is bad requires defining parameters in which it is so - and I tend to agree that it does so require - asserting it isn't also requires defining parameters for which it isn't so. Otherwise, both are imprecise, inaccurate statements.DeguelloTex wrote: »
No. That's not how it works. Saying that sugar isn't bad doesn't lack precision or correctness. If you want to assert that sugar is bad, you need to define precisely and correctly the parameters in which it is so. If X amount of sugar is bad, it's the X amount, rather than something inherent in the sugar. What's the X amount, then, in your view?And the specific person I responded to first made a blanket statement that sugar is not bad (again, as opposed to a precise and correct statement that it isn't bad in all quantities.
Well, one may frame the issue as "added sugar consumption is safe", in which case the burden falls to those asserting its safety and thus defining the parameters and quantity of that safe limit - which you just did above. To me, that statement ("added sugar consumption is safe") is a bad scientific statement as the answer to the question "is added sugar consumption safe?" is "it depends on how much and how long."And the issue is "excess sugar" not "absence of excess sugar" so the burden is on those asserting excess sugar to define what excess means here.
Did you read the part in Tex's reply where he said "Pretty much like people have written on every page of this thread." Because you just agreed with something that has been repeated on every page of this thread. The same statement that you've been arguing against this whole time. You either didn't read the replies thoroughly, you read what you wanted to read in the replies, or you just wanted to get on your soap box for some reason.
Umm, actually, I always agreed with that statement. But I replied to specific statements with specific comments. It seems you are under the impression that I think all added sugars in all quantities is bad. That isn't true, and I have painstakingly said so again and again. In fact, one of my problems here is that I am being bashed even though I am agreeing with a lot of what is said, simply because I mentioned that sugar can have a negative context (quantity and duration). So no, I don't think I'm the one not reading or that I'm the one demanding a soapbox...
No, you've argued several times in this thread that sugar causes diabetes.
Really? Then PLEASE quote me. I have said multiple times that added sugars (and I have usually been precise to say in high quantities in long term use) consumption is a risk factor of diabetes, not that it causes it. Go ahead, find where I said it causes diabetes rather than that it's a risk factor.
Here you go...this is where you said it caused it...
And excess and long-term refined sugar intake.ihatetodietalways wrote: »Diabetes Epidemic & You, by Dr. J.R. Kraft. He is a renowned doctor in Chicago and he publishes the fact that fasting glucose can miss 20% of diabetics. Yes. He has looked at 15,000 people from age 3-90. There is a lot of information in this book.
And there are TONS of papers about low carb diets. Phinney, Volek, Pulmetter, Noakes, Attia, and others are leading the research.
Stop telling people to eat sugars and instead tell them, go check your fasting insulin with a simple blood test at the doctor. Furthermore, since insulin resistance is a true phenomenon (it is observed before pre-diabetes), we may want to give our pancreas a break and take the carbs slowly. I don't vilify sugar and carbs. There are people who chose to limit them. That is all.
You are equating people with a medical reason for reducing carbs with people who have normal pancreatic function (the majority of the population). They are not the same. Too many carbs does not cause insulin resistance, diabetes, etc. The inability to properly regulate blood glucose is the main SYMPTOM of those medical issues. The causes are many and include:
- genetics
- excess weight
- age
- long term use of certain medications, including statins and antidepressants
Lol. Everything listed in the previous quote to mine, despite its poster claiming as causes, are in fact risk factors. Genetics, for example is not a cause of diabetes but a risk factor. I added one factor. None of the other factors will inevitably lead to diabetes, hence they are risk factors. So no, I didn't call it a cause. But somehow, your problem isn't with the other poster calling those "causes" because you know they are really referring to risk factors.
Wow just wow...really....just can't be wrong...well I am glad I got it in black and white for all to see...and just so it doesn't get lost...note the word causes...and you added excess and long term refined sugar intake...
one of my most loved quotes is..."you can be right or you can be happy" I am both today....*blah eatin' grin*
<snip>
The causes are many and include:
- genetics
- excess weight
- age
- long term use of certain medications, including statins and antidepressants
ETA: you said find where I said "caused" so I did...can't back peddle with implications, inferrances or any other word you want to come up with...you said it was a cause..accept it and move on...and next time don't ask to be proved wrong...if you don't want to be proved wrong...0 -
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »
This is precise and correct. All I'm asking for.DeguelloTex wrote: »
In the absence of a medical condition, if you're staying without your calorie limit, hitting your macros, and getting good coverage on your micros, you're not eating too much sugar. Pretty much like people have written on nearly every page of this thread.
Yes, that is exactly how it works. You cannot say "my side of the debate doesn't have to be specific but the other side does." If asserting sugar is bad requires defining parameters in which it is so - and I tend to agree that it does so require - asserting it isn't also requires defining parameters for which it isn't so. Otherwise, both are imprecise, inaccurate statements.DeguelloTex wrote: »
No. That's not how it works. Saying that sugar isn't bad doesn't lack precision or correctness. If you want to assert that sugar is bad, you need to define precisely and correctly the parameters in which it is so. If X amount of sugar is bad, it's the X amount, rather than something inherent in the sugar. What's the X amount, then, in your view?And the specific person I responded to first made a blanket statement that sugar is not bad (again, as opposed to a precise and correct statement that it isn't bad in all quantities.
Well, one may frame the issue as "added sugar consumption is safe", in which case the burden falls to those asserting its safety and thus defining the parameters and quantity of that safe limit - which you just did above. To me, that statement ("added sugar consumption is safe") is a bad scientific statement as the answer to the question "is added sugar consumption safe?" is "it depends on how much and how long."And the issue is "excess sugar" not "absence of excess sugar" so the burden is on those asserting excess sugar to define what excess means here.
Did you read the part in Tex's reply where he said "Pretty much like people have written on every page of this thread." Because you just agreed with something that has been repeated on every page of this thread. The same statement that you've been arguing against this whole time. You either didn't read the replies thoroughly, you read what you wanted to read in the replies, or you just wanted to get on your soap box for some reason.
Umm, actually, I always agreed with that statement. But I replied to specific statements with specific comments. It seems you are under the impression that I think all added sugars in all quantities is bad. That isn't true, and I have painstakingly said so again and again. In fact, one of my problems here is that I am being bashed even though I am agreeing with a lot of what is said, simply because I mentioned that sugar can have a negative context (quantity and duration). So no, I don't think I'm the one not reading or that I'm the one demanding a soapbox...
No, you've argued several times in this thread that sugar causes diabetes.
Really? Then PLEASE quote me. I have said multiple times that added sugars (and I have usually been precise to say in high quantities in long term use) consumption is a risk factor of diabetes, not that it causes it. Go ahead, find where I said it causes diabetes rather than that it's a risk factor.
Here you go...this is where you said it caused it...
And excess and long-term refined sugar intake.ihatetodietalways wrote: »Diabetes Epidemic & You, by Dr. J.R. Kraft. He is a renowned doctor in Chicago and he publishes the fact that fasting glucose can miss 20% of diabetics. Yes. He has looked at 15,000 people from age 3-90. There is a lot of information in this book.
And there are TONS of papers about low carb diets. Phinney, Volek, Pulmetter, Noakes, Attia, and others are leading the research.
Stop telling people to eat sugars and instead tell them, go check your fasting insulin with a simple blood test at the doctor. Furthermore, since insulin resistance is a true phenomenon (it is observed before pre-diabetes), we may want to give our pancreas a break and take the carbs slowly. I don't vilify sugar and carbs. There are people who chose to limit them. That is all.
You are equating people with a medical reason for reducing carbs with people who have normal pancreatic function (the majority of the population). They are not the same. Too many carbs does not cause insulin resistance, diabetes, etc. The inability to properly regulate blood glucose is the main SYMPTOM of those medical issues. The causes are many and include:
- genetics
- excess weight
- age
- long term use of certain medications, including statins and antidepressants
Lol. Everything listed in the previous quote to mine, despite its poster claiming as causes, are in fact risk factors. Genetics, for example is not a cause of diabetes but a risk factor. I added one factor. None of the other factors will inevitably lead to diabetes, hence they are risk factors. So no, I didn't call it a cause. But somehow, your problem isn't with the other poster calling those "causes" because you know they are really referring to risk factors.
ETA: Stop f***ing up the page 12 gifs!0 -
amg gif chain destroyed
0 -
0
-
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »
This is precise and correct. All I'm asking for.DeguelloTex wrote: »
In the absence of a medical condition, if you're staying without your calorie limit, hitting your macros, and getting good coverage on your micros, you're not eating too much sugar. Pretty much like people have written on nearly every page of this thread.
Yes, that is exactly how it works. You cannot say "my side of the debate doesn't have to be specific but the other side does." If asserting sugar is bad requires defining parameters in which it is so - and I tend to agree that it does so require - asserting it isn't also requires defining parameters for which it isn't so. Otherwise, both are imprecise, inaccurate statements.DeguelloTex wrote: »
No. That's not how it works. Saying that sugar isn't bad doesn't lack precision or correctness. If you want to assert that sugar is bad, you need to define precisely and correctly the parameters in which it is so. If X amount of sugar is bad, it's the X amount, rather than something inherent in the sugar. What's the X amount, then, in your view?And the specific person I responded to first made a blanket statement that sugar is not bad (again, as opposed to a precise and correct statement that it isn't bad in all quantities.
Well, one may frame the issue as "added sugar consumption is safe", in which case the burden falls to those asserting its safety and thus defining the parameters and quantity of that safe limit - which you just did above. To me, that statement ("added sugar consumption is safe") is a bad scientific statement as the answer to the question "is added sugar consumption safe?" is "it depends on how much and how long."And the issue is "excess sugar" not "absence of excess sugar" so the burden is on those asserting excess sugar to define what excess means here.
Did you read the part in Tex's reply where he said "Pretty much like people have written on every page of this thread." Because you just agreed with something that has been repeated on every page of this thread. The same statement that you've been arguing against this whole time. You either didn't read the replies thoroughly, you read what you wanted to read in the replies, or you just wanted to get on your soap box for some reason.
Umm, actually, I always agreed with that statement. But I replied to specific statements with specific comments. It seems you are under the impression that I think all added sugars in all quantities is bad. That isn't true, and I have painstakingly said so again and again. In fact, one of my problems here is that I am being bashed even though I am agreeing with a lot of what is said, simply because I mentioned that sugar can have a negative context (quantity and duration). So no, I don't think I'm the one not reading or that I'm the one demanding a soapbox...
No, you've argued several times in this thread that sugar causes diabetes.
Really? Then PLEASE quote me. I have said multiple times that added sugars (and I have usually been precise to say in high quantities in long term use) consumption is a risk factor of diabetes, not that it causes it. Go ahead, find where I said it causes diabetes rather than that it's a risk factor.
Here you go...this is where you said it caused it...
And excess and long-term refined sugar intake.ihatetodietalways wrote: »Diabetes Epidemic & You, by Dr. J.R. Kraft. He is a renowned doctor in Chicago and he publishes the fact that fasting glucose can miss 20% of diabetics. Yes. He has looked at 15,000 people from age 3-90. There is a lot of information in this book.
And there are TONS of papers about low carb diets. Phinney, Volek, Pulmetter, Noakes, Attia, and others are leading the research.
Stop telling people to eat sugars and instead tell them, go check your fasting insulin with a simple blood test at the doctor. Furthermore, since insulin resistance is a true phenomenon (it is observed before pre-diabetes), we may want to give our pancreas a break and take the carbs slowly. I don't vilify sugar and carbs. There are people who chose to limit them. That is all.
You are equating people with a medical reason for reducing carbs with people who have normal pancreatic function (the majority of the population). They are not the same. Too many carbs does not cause insulin resistance, diabetes, etc. The inability to properly regulate blood glucose is the main SYMPTOM of those medical issues. The causes are many and include:
- genetics
- excess weight
- age
- long term use of certain medications, including statins and antidepressants
Lol. Everything listed in the previous quote to mine, despite its poster claiming as causes, are in fact risk factors. Genetics, for example is not a cause of diabetes but a risk factor. I added one factor. None of the other factors will inevitably lead to diabetes, hence they are risk factors. So no, I didn't call it a cause. But somehow, your problem isn't with the other poster calling those "causes" because you know they are really referring to risk factors.
Wow just wow...really....just can't be wrong...well I am glad I got it in black and white for all to see...and just so it doesn't get lost...note the word causes...and you added excess and long term refined sugar intake...
one of my most loved quotes is..."you can be right or you can be happy" I am both today....*blah eatin' grin*
<snip>
The causes are many and include:
- genetics
- excess weight
- age
- long term use of certain medications, including statins and antidepressants
ETA: you said find where I said "caused" so I did...can't back peddle with implications, inferrances or any other word you want to come up with...you said it was a cause..accept it and move on...and next time don't ask to be proved wrong...if you don't want to be proved wrong...
Actually you didn't even do that. You found where someone else said other things that are really risk factors were "causes." This is SO left to implications and inferences that there is little else it is left to. What isn't left to implications and inferences is your having no problem with that poster but all of it with me.0 -
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »
This is precise and correct. All I'm asking for.DeguelloTex wrote: »
In the absence of a medical condition, if you're staying without your calorie limit, hitting your macros, and getting good coverage on your micros, you're not eating too much sugar. Pretty much like people have written on nearly every page of this thread.
Yes, that is exactly how it works. You cannot say "my side of the debate doesn't have to be specific but the other side does." If asserting sugar is bad requires defining parameters in which it is so - and I tend to agree that it does so require - asserting it isn't also requires defining parameters for which it isn't so. Otherwise, both are imprecise, inaccurate statements.DeguelloTex wrote: »
No. That's not how it works. Saying that sugar isn't bad doesn't lack precision or correctness. If you want to assert that sugar is bad, you need to define precisely and correctly the parameters in which it is so. If X amount of sugar is bad, it's the X amount, rather than something inherent in the sugar. What's the X amount, then, in your view?And the specific person I responded to first made a blanket statement that sugar is not bad (again, as opposed to a precise and correct statement that it isn't bad in all quantities.
Well, one may frame the issue as "added sugar consumption is safe", in which case the burden falls to those asserting its safety and thus defining the parameters and quantity of that safe limit - which you just did above. To me, that statement ("added sugar consumption is safe") is a bad scientific statement as the answer to the question "is added sugar consumption safe?" is "it depends on how much and how long."And the issue is "excess sugar" not "absence of excess sugar" so the burden is on those asserting excess sugar to define what excess means here.
Did you read the part in Tex's reply where he said "Pretty much like people have written on every page of this thread." Because you just agreed with something that has been repeated on every page of this thread. The same statement that you've been arguing against this whole time. You either didn't read the replies thoroughly, you read what you wanted to read in the replies, or you just wanted to get on your soap box for some reason.
Umm, actually, I always agreed with that statement. But I replied to specific statements with specific comments. It seems you are under the impression that I think all added sugars in all quantities is bad. That isn't true, and I have painstakingly said so again and again. In fact, one of my problems here is that I am being bashed even though I am agreeing with a lot of what is said, simply because I mentioned that sugar can have a negative context (quantity and duration). So no, I don't think I'm the one not reading or that I'm the one demanding a soapbox...
No, you've argued several times in this thread that sugar causes diabetes.
Really? Then PLEASE quote me. I have said multiple times that added sugars (and I have usually been precise to say in high quantities in long term use) consumption is a risk factor of diabetes, not that it causes it. Go ahead, find where I said it causes diabetes rather than that it's a risk factor.
Here you go...this is where you said it caused it...
And excess and long-term refined sugar intake.ihatetodietalways wrote: »Diabetes Epidemic & You, by Dr. J.R. Kraft. He is a renowned doctor in Chicago and he publishes the fact that fasting glucose can miss 20% of diabetics. Yes. He has looked at 15,000 people from age 3-90. There is a lot of information in this book.
And there are TONS of papers about low carb diets. Phinney, Volek, Pulmetter, Noakes, Attia, and others are leading the research.
Stop telling people to eat sugars and instead tell them, go check your fasting insulin with a simple blood test at the doctor. Furthermore, since insulin resistance is a true phenomenon (it is observed before pre-diabetes), we may want to give our pancreas a break and take the carbs slowly. I don't vilify sugar and carbs. There are people who chose to limit them. That is all.
You are equating people with a medical reason for reducing carbs with people who have normal pancreatic function (the majority of the population). They are not the same. Too many carbs does not cause insulin resistance, diabetes, etc. The inability to properly regulate blood glucose is the main SYMPTOM of those medical issues. The causes are many and include:
- genetics
- excess weight
- age
- long term use of certain medications, including statins and antidepressants
Lol. Everything listed in the previous quote to mine, despite its poster claiming as causes, are in fact risk factors. Genetics, for example is not a cause of diabetes but a risk factor. I added one factor. None of the other factors will inevitably lead to diabetes, hence they are risk factors. So no, I didn't call it a cause. But somehow, your problem isn't with the other poster calling those "causes" because you know they are really referring to risk factors.
Wow just wow...really....just can't be wrong...well I am glad I got it in black and white for all to see...and just so it doesn't get lost...note the word causes...and you added excess and long term refined sugar intake...
one of my most loved quotes is..."you can be right or you can be happy" I am both today....*blah eatin' grin*
<snip>
The causes are many and include:
- genetics
- excess weight
- age
- long term use of certain medications, including statins and antidepressants
ETA: you said find where I said "caused" so I did...can't back peddle with implications, inferrances or any other word you want to come up with...you said it was a cause..accept it and move on...and next time don't ask to be proved wrong...if you don't want to be proved wrong...
Actually you didn't even do that. You found where someone else said other things that are really risk factors were "causes." This is SO left to implications and inferences that there is little else it is left to. What isn't left to implications and inferences is your having no problem with that poster but all of it with me.
tincanonastring wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »
This is precise and correct. All I'm asking for.DeguelloTex wrote: »
In the absence of a medical condition, if you're staying without your calorie limit, hitting your macros, and getting good coverage on your micros, you're not eating too much sugar. Pretty much like people have written on nearly every page of this thread.
Yes, that is exactly how it works. You cannot say "my side of the debate doesn't have to be specific but the other side does." If asserting sugar is bad requires defining parameters in which it is so - and I tend to agree that it does so require - asserting it isn't also requires defining parameters for which it isn't so. Otherwise, both are imprecise, inaccurate statements.DeguelloTex wrote: »
No. That's not how it works. Saying that sugar isn't bad doesn't lack precision or correctness. If you want to assert that sugar is bad, you need to define precisely and correctly the parameters in which it is so. If X amount of sugar is bad, it's the X amount, rather than something inherent in the sugar. What's the X amount, then, in your view?And the specific person I responded to first made a blanket statement that sugar is not bad (again, as opposed to a precise and correct statement that it isn't bad in all quantities.
Well, one may frame the issue as "added sugar consumption is safe", in which case the burden falls to those asserting its safety and thus defining the parameters and quantity of that safe limit - which you just did above. To me, that statement ("added sugar consumption is safe") is a bad scientific statement as the answer to the question "is added sugar consumption safe?" is "it depends on how much and how long."And the issue is "excess sugar" not "absence of excess sugar" so the burden is on those asserting excess sugar to define what excess means here.
Did you read the part in Tex's reply where he said "Pretty much like people have written on every page of this thread." Because you just agreed with something that has been repeated on every page of this thread. The same statement that you've been arguing against this whole time. You either didn't read the replies thoroughly, you read what you wanted to read in the replies, or you just wanted to get on your soap box for some reason.
Umm, actually, I always agreed with that statement. But I replied to specific statements with specific comments. It seems you are under the impression that I think all added sugars in all quantities is bad. That isn't true, and I have painstakingly said so again and again. In fact, one of my problems here is that I am being bashed even though I am agreeing with a lot of what is said, simply because I mentioned that sugar can have a negative context (quantity and duration). So no, I don't think I'm the one not reading or that I'm the one demanding a soapbox...
No, you've argued several times in this thread that sugar causes diabetes.
Really? Then PLEASE quote me. I have said multiple times that added sugars (and I have usually been precise to say in high quantities in long term use) consumption is a risk factor of diabetes, not that it causes it. Go ahead, find where I said it causes diabetes rather than that it's a risk factor.
Here you go...this is where you said it caused it...
And excess and long-term refined sugar intake.ihatetodietalways wrote: »Diabetes Epidemic & You, by Dr. J.R. Kraft. He is a renowned doctor in Chicago and he publishes the fact that fasting glucose can miss 20% of diabetics. Yes. He has looked at 15,000 people from age 3-90. There is a lot of information in this book.
And there are TONS of papers about low carb diets. Phinney, Volek, Pulmetter, Noakes, Attia, and others are leading the research.
Stop telling people to eat sugars and instead tell them, go check your fasting insulin with a simple blood test at the doctor. Furthermore, since insulin resistance is a true phenomenon (it is observed before pre-diabetes), we may want to give our pancreas a break and take the carbs slowly. I don't vilify sugar and carbs. There are people who chose to limit them. That is all.
You are equating people with a medical reason for reducing carbs with people who have normal pancreatic function (the majority of the population). They are not the same. Too many carbs does not cause insulin resistance, diabetes, etc. The inability to properly regulate blood glucose is the main SYMPTOM of those medical issues. The causes are many and include:
- genetics
- excess weight
- age
- long term use of certain medications, including statins and antidepressants
Lol. Everything listed in the previous quote to mine, despite its poster claiming as causes, are in fact risk factors. Genetics, for example is not a cause of diabetes but a risk factor. I added one factor. None of the other factors will inevitably lead to diabetes, hence they are risk factors. So no, I didn't call it a cause. But somehow, your problem isn't with the other poster calling those "causes" because you know they are really referring to risk factors.
ETA: Stop f***ing up the page 12 gifs!
and to fix my gif screw up here is another one
0 -
Aww. How cute. Let's see some more gifs. Don't stop now! I mean, the Internet is full of gifs, which makes them a phenomenal tool for self-aggrandizement.0
-
tincanonastring wrote: »Godwin Sugar...
You know, the The 10 Day Master Peep Cleanse(TM) was created to combat the rampant cleanse/detox threads. Maybe we need a similar program for sugar threads...
I will love you forever and if I weren't past my childbearing years, I'd name my next spawn after you if you came up with this.
You'll have to settle for a plant named tincanonastring. I'd name a pet after you, but my husband won't let me get one.
0 -
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »
This is precise and correct. All I'm asking for.DeguelloTex wrote: »
In the absence of a medical condition, if you're staying without your calorie limit, hitting your macros, and getting good coverage on your micros, you're not eating too much sugar. Pretty much like people have written on nearly every page of this thread.
Yes, that is exactly how it works. You cannot say "my side of the debate doesn't have to be specific but the other side does." If asserting sugar is bad requires defining parameters in which it is so - and I tend to agree that it does so require - asserting it isn't also requires defining parameters for which it isn't so. Otherwise, both are imprecise, inaccurate statements.DeguelloTex wrote: »
No. That's not how it works. Saying that sugar isn't bad doesn't lack precision or correctness. If you want to assert that sugar is bad, you need to define precisely and correctly the parameters in which it is so. If X amount of sugar is bad, it's the X amount, rather than something inherent in the sugar. What's the X amount, then, in your view?And the specific person I responded to first made a blanket statement that sugar is not bad (again, as opposed to a precise and correct statement that it isn't bad in all quantities.
Well, one may frame the issue as "added sugar consumption is safe", in which case the burden falls to those asserting its safety and thus defining the parameters and quantity of that safe limit - which you just did above. To me, that statement ("added sugar consumption is safe") is a bad scientific statement as the answer to the question "is added sugar consumption safe?" is "it depends on how much and how long."And the issue is "excess sugar" not "absence of excess sugar" so the burden is on those asserting excess sugar to define what excess means here.
Did you read the part in Tex's reply where he said "Pretty much like people have written on every page of this thread." Because you just agreed with something that has been repeated on every page of this thread. The same statement that you've been arguing against this whole time. You either didn't read the replies thoroughly, you read what you wanted to read in the replies, or you just wanted to get on your soap box for some reason.
Umm, actually, I always agreed with that statement. But I replied to specific statements with specific comments. It seems you are under the impression that I think all added sugars in all quantities is bad. That isn't true, and I have painstakingly said so again and again. In fact, one of my problems here is that I am being bashed even though I am agreeing with a lot of what is said, simply because I mentioned that sugar can have a negative context (quantity and duration). So no, I don't think I'm the one not reading or that I'm the one demanding a soapbox...
No, you've argued several times in this thread that sugar causes diabetes.
Really? Then PLEASE quote me. I have said multiple times that added sugars (and I have usually been precise to say in high quantities in long term use) consumption is a risk factor of diabetes, not that it causes it. Go ahead, find where I said it causes diabetes rather than that it's a risk factor.
Here you go...this is where you said it caused it...
And excess and long-term refined sugar intake.ihatetodietalways wrote: »Diabetes Epidemic & You, by Dr. J.R. Kraft. He is a renowned doctor in Chicago and he publishes the fact that fasting glucose can miss 20% of diabetics. Yes. He has looked at 15,000 people from age 3-90. There is a lot of information in this book.
And there are TONS of papers about low carb diets. Phinney, Volek, Pulmetter, Noakes, Attia, and others are leading the research.
Stop telling people to eat sugars and instead tell them, go check your fasting insulin with a simple blood test at the doctor. Furthermore, since insulin resistance is a true phenomenon (it is observed before pre-diabetes), we may want to give our pancreas a break and take the carbs slowly. I don't vilify sugar and carbs. There are people who chose to limit them. That is all.
You are equating people with a medical reason for reducing carbs with people who have normal pancreatic function (the majority of the population). They are not the same. Too many carbs does not cause insulin resistance, diabetes, etc. The inability to properly regulate blood glucose is the main SYMPTOM of those medical issues. The causes are many and include:
- genetics
- excess weight
- age
- long term use of certain medications, including statins and antidepressants
Lol. Everything listed in the previous quote to mine, despite its poster claiming as causes, are in fact risk factors. Genetics, for example is not a cause of diabetes but a risk factor. I added one factor. None of the other factors will inevitably lead to diabetes, hence they are risk factors. So no, I didn't call it a cause. But somehow, your problem isn't with the other poster calling those "causes" because you know they are really referring to risk factors.
Wow just wow...really....just can't be wrong...well I am glad I got it in black and white for all to see...and just so it doesn't get lost...note the word causes...and you added excess and long term refined sugar intake...
one of my most loved quotes is..."you can be right or you can be happy" I am both today....*blah eatin' grin*
<snip>
The causes are many and include:
- genetics
- excess weight
- age
- long term use of certain medications, including statins and antidepressants
ETA: you said find where I said "caused" so I did...can't back peddle with implications, inferrances or any other word you want to come up with...you said it was a cause..accept it and move on...and next time don't ask to be proved wrong...if you don't want to be proved wrong...
Actually you didn't even do that. You found where someone else said other things that are really risk factors were "causes." This is SO left to implications and inferences that there is little else it is left to. What isn't left to implications and inferences is your having no problem with that poster but all of it with me.tincanonastring wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »
This is precise and correct. All I'm asking for.DeguelloTex wrote: »
In the absence of a medical condition, if you're staying without your calorie limit, hitting your macros, and getting good coverage on your micros, you're not eating too much sugar. Pretty much like people have written on nearly every page of this thread.
Yes, that is exactly how it works. You cannot say "my side of the debate doesn't have to be specific but the other side does." If asserting sugar is bad requires defining parameters in which it is so - and I tend to agree that it does so require - asserting it isn't also requires defining parameters for which it isn't so. Otherwise, both are imprecise, inaccurate statements.DeguelloTex wrote: »
No. That's not how it works. Saying that sugar isn't bad doesn't lack precision or correctness. If you want to assert that sugar is bad, you need to define precisely and correctly the parameters in which it is so. If X amount of sugar is bad, it's the X amount, rather than something inherent in the sugar. What's the X amount, then, in your view?And the specific person I responded to first made a blanket statement that sugar is not bad (again, as opposed to a precise and correct statement that it isn't bad in all quantities.
Well, one may frame the issue as "added sugar consumption is safe", in which case the burden falls to those asserting its safety and thus defining the parameters and quantity of that safe limit - which you just did above. To me, that statement ("added sugar consumption is safe") is a bad scientific statement as the answer to the question "is added sugar consumption safe?" is "it depends on how much and how long."And the issue is "excess sugar" not "absence of excess sugar" so the burden is on those asserting excess sugar to define what excess means here.
Did you read the part in Tex's reply where he said "Pretty much like people have written on every page of this thread." Because you just agreed with something that has been repeated on every page of this thread. The same statement that you've been arguing against this whole time. You either didn't read the replies thoroughly, you read what you wanted to read in the replies, or you just wanted to get on your soap box for some reason.
Umm, actually, I always agreed with that statement. But I replied to specific statements with specific comments. It seems you are under the impression that I think all added sugars in all quantities is bad. That isn't true, and I have painstakingly said so again and again. In fact, one of my problems here is that I am being bashed even though I am agreeing with a lot of what is said, simply because I mentioned that sugar can have a negative context (quantity and duration). So no, I don't think I'm the one not reading or that I'm the one demanding a soapbox...
No, you've argued several times in this thread that sugar causes diabetes.
Really? Then PLEASE quote me. I have said multiple times that added sugars (and I have usually been precise to say in high quantities in long term use) consumption is a risk factor of diabetes, not that it causes it. Go ahead, find where I said it causes diabetes rather than that it's a risk factor.
Here you go...this is where you said it caused it...
And excess and long-term refined sugar intake.ihatetodietalways wrote: »Diabetes Epidemic & You, by Dr. J.R. Kraft. He is a renowned doctor in Chicago and he publishes the fact that fasting glucose can miss 20% of diabetics. Yes. He has looked at 15,000 people from age 3-90. There is a lot of information in this book.
And there are TONS of papers about low carb diets. Phinney, Volek, Pulmetter, Noakes, Attia, and others are leading the research.
Stop telling people to eat sugars and instead tell them, go check your fasting insulin with a simple blood test at the doctor. Furthermore, since insulin resistance is a true phenomenon (it is observed before pre-diabetes), we may want to give our pancreas a break and take the carbs slowly. I don't vilify sugar and carbs. There are people who chose to limit them. That is all.
You are equating people with a medical reason for reducing carbs with people who have normal pancreatic function (the majority of the population). They are not the same. Too many carbs does not cause insulin resistance, diabetes, etc. The inability to properly regulate blood glucose is the main SYMPTOM of those medical issues. The causes are many and include:
- genetics
- excess weight
- age
- long term use of certain medications, including statins and antidepressants
Lol. Everything listed in the previous quote to mine, despite its poster claiming as causes, are in fact risk factors. Genetics, for example is not a cause of diabetes but a risk factor. I added one factor. None of the other factors will inevitably lead to diabetes, hence they are risk factors. So no, I didn't call it a cause. But somehow, your problem isn't with the other poster calling those "causes" because you know they are really referring to risk factors.
ETA: Stop f***ing up the page 12 gifs!
and to fix my gif screw up here is another one
I'm glad to see your above evaluation of yourself. :-) Also, like you, I love filling up forum pages with giant gifs. Thanks for providing some.0 -
I am guessing the gifs are wrong too ...0
-
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »
This is precise and correct. All I'm asking for.DeguelloTex wrote: »
In the absence of a medical condition, if you're staying without your calorie limit, hitting your macros, and getting good coverage on your micros, you're not eating too much sugar. Pretty much like people have written on nearly every page of this thread.
Yes, that is exactly how it works. You cannot say "my side of the debate doesn't have to be specific but the other side does." If asserting sugar is bad requires defining parameters in which it is so - and I tend to agree that it does so require - asserting it isn't also requires defining parameters for which it isn't so. Otherwise, both are imprecise, inaccurate statements.DeguelloTex wrote: »
No. That's not how it works. Saying that sugar isn't bad doesn't lack precision or correctness. If you want to assert that sugar is bad, you need to define precisely and correctly the parameters in which it is so. If X amount of sugar is bad, it's the X amount, rather than something inherent in the sugar. What's the X amount, then, in your view?And the specific person I responded to first made a blanket statement that sugar is not bad (again, as opposed to a precise and correct statement that it isn't bad in all quantities.
Well, one may frame the issue as "added sugar consumption is safe", in which case the burden falls to those asserting its safety and thus defining the parameters and quantity of that safe limit - which you just did above. To me, that statement ("added sugar consumption is safe") is a bad scientific statement as the answer to the question "is added sugar consumption safe?" is "it depends on how much and how long."And the issue is "excess sugar" not "absence of excess sugar" so the burden is on those asserting excess sugar to define what excess means here.
Did you read the part in Tex's reply where he said "Pretty much like people have written on every page of this thread." Because you just agreed with something that has been repeated on every page of this thread. The same statement that you've been arguing against this whole time. You either didn't read the replies thoroughly, you read what you wanted to read in the replies, or you just wanted to get on your soap box for some reason.
Umm, actually, I always agreed with that statement. But I replied to specific statements with specific comments. It seems you are under the impression that I think all added sugars in all quantities is bad. That isn't true, and I have painstakingly said so again and again. In fact, one of my problems here is that I am being bashed even though I am agreeing with a lot of what is said, simply because I mentioned that sugar can have a negative context (quantity and duration). So no, I don't think I'm the one not reading or that I'm the one demanding a soapbox...
No, you've argued several times in this thread that sugar causes diabetes.
Really? Then PLEASE quote me. I have said multiple times that added sugars (and I have usually been precise to say in high quantities in long term use) consumption is a risk factor of diabetes, not that it causes it. Go ahead, find where I said it causes diabetes rather than that it's a risk factor.
Here you go...this is where you said it caused it...
And excess and long-term refined sugar intake.ihatetodietalways wrote: »Diabetes Epidemic & You, by Dr. J.R. Kraft. He is a renowned doctor in Chicago and he publishes the fact that fasting glucose can miss 20% of diabetics. Yes. He has looked at 15,000 people from age 3-90. There is a lot of information in this book.
And there are TONS of papers about low carb diets. Phinney, Volek, Pulmetter, Noakes, Attia, and others are leading the research.
Stop telling people to eat sugars and instead tell them, go check your fasting insulin with a simple blood test at the doctor. Furthermore, since insulin resistance is a true phenomenon (it is observed before pre-diabetes), we may want to give our pancreas a break and take the carbs slowly. I don't vilify sugar and carbs. There are people who chose to limit them. That is all.
You are equating people with a medical reason for reducing carbs with people who have normal pancreatic function (the majority of the population). They are not the same. Too many carbs does not cause insulin resistance, diabetes, etc. The inability to properly regulate blood glucose is the main SYMPTOM of those medical issues. The causes are many and include:
- genetics
- excess weight
- age
- long term use of certain medications, including statins and antidepressants
Lol. Everything listed in the previous quote to mine, despite its poster claiming as causes, are in fact risk factors. Genetics, for example is not a cause of diabetes but a risk factor. I added one factor. None of the other factors will inevitably lead to diabetes, hence they are risk factors. So no, I didn't call it a cause. But somehow, your problem isn't with the other poster calling those "causes" because you know they are really referring to risk factors.
Wow just wow...really....just can't be wrong...well I am glad I got it in black and white for all to see...and just so it doesn't get lost...note the word causes...and you added excess and long term refined sugar intake...
one of my most loved quotes is..."you can be right or you can be happy" I am both today....*blah eatin' grin*
<snip>
The causes are many and include:
- genetics
- excess weight
- age
- long term use of certain medications, including statins and antidepressants
ETA: you said find where I said "caused" so I did...can't back peddle with implications, inferrances or any other word you want to come up with...you said it was a cause..accept it and move on...and next time don't ask to be proved wrong...if you don't want to be proved wrong...
Actually you didn't even do that. You found where someone else said other things that are really risk factors were "causes." This is SO left to implications and inferences that there is little else it is left to. What isn't left to implications and inferences is your having no problem with that poster but all of it with me.tincanonastring wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »
This is precise and correct. All I'm asking for.DeguelloTex wrote: »
In the absence of a medical condition, if you're staying without your calorie limit, hitting your macros, and getting good coverage on your micros, you're not eating too much sugar. Pretty much like people have written on nearly every page of this thread.
Yes, that is exactly how it works. You cannot say "my side of the debate doesn't have to be specific but the other side does." If asserting sugar is bad requires defining parameters in which it is so - and I tend to agree that it does so require - asserting it isn't also requires defining parameters for which it isn't so. Otherwise, both are imprecise, inaccurate statements.DeguelloTex wrote: »
No. That's not how it works. Saying that sugar isn't bad doesn't lack precision or correctness. If you want to assert that sugar is bad, you need to define precisely and correctly the parameters in which it is so. If X amount of sugar is bad, it's the X amount, rather than something inherent in the sugar. What's the X amount, then, in your view?And the specific person I responded to first made a blanket statement that sugar is not bad (again, as opposed to a precise and correct statement that it isn't bad in all quantities.
Well, one may frame the issue as "added sugar consumption is safe", in which case the burden falls to those asserting its safety and thus defining the parameters and quantity of that safe limit - which you just did above. To me, that statement ("added sugar consumption is safe") is a bad scientific statement as the answer to the question "is added sugar consumption safe?" is "it depends on how much and how long."And the issue is "excess sugar" not "absence of excess sugar" so the burden is on those asserting excess sugar to define what excess means here.
Did you read the part in Tex's reply where he said "Pretty much like people have written on every page of this thread." Because you just agreed with something that has been repeated on every page of this thread. The same statement that you've been arguing against this whole time. You either didn't read the replies thoroughly, you read what you wanted to read in the replies, or you just wanted to get on your soap box for some reason.
Umm, actually, I always agreed with that statement. But I replied to specific statements with specific comments. It seems you are under the impression that I think all added sugars in all quantities is bad. That isn't true, and I have painstakingly said so again and again. In fact, one of my problems here is that I am being bashed even though I am agreeing with a lot of what is said, simply because I mentioned that sugar can have a negative context (quantity and duration). So no, I don't think I'm the one not reading or that I'm the one demanding a soapbox...
No, you've argued several times in this thread that sugar causes diabetes.
Really? Then PLEASE quote me. I have said multiple times that added sugars (and I have usually been precise to say in high quantities in long term use) consumption is a risk factor of diabetes, not that it causes it. Go ahead, find where I said it causes diabetes rather than that it's a risk factor.
Here you go...this is where you said it caused it...
And excess and long-term refined sugar intake.ihatetodietalways wrote: »Diabetes Epidemic & You, by Dr. J.R. Kraft. He is a renowned doctor in Chicago and he publishes the fact that fasting glucose can miss 20% of diabetics. Yes. He has looked at 15,000 people from age 3-90. There is a lot of information in this book.
And there are TONS of papers about low carb diets. Phinney, Volek, Pulmetter, Noakes, Attia, and others are leading the research.
Stop telling people to eat sugars and instead tell them, go check your fasting insulin with a simple blood test at the doctor. Furthermore, since insulin resistance is a true phenomenon (it is observed before pre-diabetes), we may want to give our pancreas a break and take the carbs slowly. I don't vilify sugar and carbs. There are people who chose to limit them. That is all.
You are equating people with a medical reason for reducing carbs with people who have normal pancreatic function (the majority of the population). They are not the same. Too many carbs does not cause insulin resistance, diabetes, etc. The inability to properly regulate blood glucose is the main SYMPTOM of those medical issues. The causes are many and include:
- genetics
- excess weight
- age
- long term use of certain medications, including statins and antidepressants
Lol. Everything listed in the previous quote to mine, despite its poster claiming as causes, are in fact risk factors. Genetics, for example is not a cause of diabetes but a risk factor. I added one factor. None of the other factors will inevitably lead to diabetes, hence they are risk factors. So no, I didn't call it a cause. But somehow, your problem isn't with the other poster calling those "causes" because you know they are really referring to risk factors.
ETA: Stop f***ing up the page 12 gifs!
and to fix my gif screw up here is another one
I'm glad to see your above evaluation of yourself. :-) Also, like you, I love filling up forum pages with giant gifs. Thanks for providing some.
0 -
Just how is a posting gifs self-aggrandizing?
Dude throws around big words without actually analyzing what they mean.
Yeah, totally gif time. It's pointless having a discussion that won't be productive.
Actually, I should just Beetlejuice a mod, probably.
@kgeyser this is hopeless.
0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »Just how is a posting gifs self-aggrandizing?
Dude throws around big words without actually analyzing what they mean.
Yeah, totally gif time. It's pointless having a discussion that won't be productive.
Actually, I should just Beetlejuice a mod, probably.
@kgeyser this is hopeless.Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »
This is precise and correct. All I'm asking for.DeguelloTex wrote: »
In the absence of a medical condition, if you're staying without your calorie limit, hitting your macros, and getting good coverage on your micros, you're not eating too much sugar. Pretty much like people have written on nearly every page of this thread.
Yes, that is exactly how it works. You cannot say "my side of the debate doesn't have to be specific but the other side does." If asserting sugar is bad requires defining parameters in which it is so - and I tend to agree that it does so require - asserting it isn't also requires defining parameters for which it isn't so. Otherwise, both are imprecise, inaccurate statements.DeguelloTex wrote: »
No. That's not how it works. Saying that sugar isn't bad doesn't lack precision or correctness. If you want to assert that sugar is bad, you need to define precisely and correctly the parameters in which it is so. If X amount of sugar is bad, it's the X amount, rather than something inherent in the sugar. What's the X amount, then, in your view?And the specific person I responded to first made a blanket statement that sugar is not bad (again, as opposed to a precise and correct statement that it isn't bad in all quantities.
Well, one may frame the issue as "added sugar consumption is safe", in which case the burden falls to those asserting its safety and thus defining the parameters and quantity of that safe limit - which you just did above. To me, that statement ("added sugar consumption is safe") is a bad scientific statement as the answer to the question "is added sugar consumption safe?" is "it depends on how much and how long."And the issue is "excess sugar" not "absence of excess sugar" so the burden is on those asserting excess sugar to define what excess means here.
Did you read the part in Tex's reply where he said "Pretty much like people have written on every page of this thread." Because you just agreed with something that has been repeated on every page of this thread. The same statement that you've been arguing against this whole time. You either didn't read the replies thoroughly, you read what you wanted to read in the replies, or you just wanted to get on your soap box for some reason.
Umm, actually, I always agreed with that statement. But I replied to specific statements with specific comments. It seems you are under the impression that I think all added sugars in all quantities is bad. That isn't true, and I have painstakingly said so again and again. In fact, one of my problems here is that I am being bashed even though I am agreeing with a lot of what is said, simply because I mentioned that sugar can have a negative context (quantity and duration). So no, I don't think I'm the one not reading or that I'm the one demanding a soapbox...
No, you've argued several times in this thread that sugar causes diabetes.
Really? Then PLEASE quote me. I have said multiple times that added sugars (and I have usually been precise to say in high quantities in long term use) consumption is a risk factor of diabetes, not that it causes it. Go ahead, find where I said it causes diabetes rather than that it's a risk factor.
Here you go...this is where you said it caused it...
And excess and long-term refined sugar intake.ihatetodietalways wrote: »Diabetes Epidemic & You, by Dr. J.R. Kraft. He is a renowned doctor in Chicago and he publishes the fact that fasting glucose can miss 20% of diabetics. Yes. He has looked at 15,000 people from age 3-90. There is a lot of information in this book.
And there are TONS of papers about low carb diets. Phinney, Volek, Pulmetter, Noakes, Attia, and others are leading the research.
Stop telling people to eat sugars and instead tell them, go check your fasting insulin with a simple blood test at the doctor. Furthermore, since insulin resistance is a true phenomenon (it is observed before pre-diabetes), we may want to give our pancreas a break and take the carbs slowly. I don't vilify sugar and carbs. There are people who chose to limit them. That is all.
You are equating people with a medical reason for reducing carbs with people who have normal pancreatic function (the majority of the population). They are not the same. Too many carbs does not cause insulin resistance, diabetes, etc. The inability to properly regulate blood glucose is the main SYMPTOM of those medical issues. The causes are many and include:
- genetics
- excess weight
- age
- long term use of certain medications, including statins and antidepressants
Lol. Everything listed in the previous quote to mine, despite its poster claiming as causes, are in fact risk factors. Genetics, for example is not a cause of diabetes but a risk factor. I added one factor. None of the other factors will inevitably lead to diabetes, hence they are risk factors. So no, I didn't call it a cause. But somehow, your problem isn't with the other poster calling those "causes" because you know they are really referring to risk factors.
Wow just wow...really....just can't be wrong...well I am glad I got it in black and white for all to see...and just so it doesn't get lost...note the word causes...and you added excess and long term refined sugar intake...
one of my most loved quotes is..."you can be right or you can be happy" I am both today....*blah eatin' grin*
<snip>
The causes are many and include:
- genetics
- excess weight
- age
- long term use of certain medications, including statins and antidepressants
ETA: you said find where I said "caused" so I did...can't back peddle with implications, inferrances or any other word you want to come up with...you said it was a cause..accept it and move on...and next time don't ask to be proved wrong...if you don't want to be proved wrong...
Actually you didn't even do that. You found where someone else said other things that are really risk factors were "causes." This is SO left to implications and inferences that there is little else it is left to. What isn't left to implications and inferences is your having no problem with that poster but all of it with me.tincanonastring wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »
This is precise and correct. All I'm asking for.DeguelloTex wrote: »
In the absence of a medical condition, if you're staying without your calorie limit, hitting your macros, and getting good coverage on your micros, you're not eating too much sugar. Pretty much like people have written on nearly every page of this thread.
Yes, that is exactly how it works. You cannot say "my side of the debate doesn't have to be specific but the other side does." If asserting sugar is bad requires defining parameters in which it is so - and I tend to agree that it does so require - asserting it isn't also requires defining parameters for which it isn't so. Otherwise, both are imprecise, inaccurate statements.DeguelloTex wrote: »
No. That's not how it works. Saying that sugar isn't bad doesn't lack precision or correctness. If you want to assert that sugar is bad, you need to define precisely and correctly the parameters in which it is so. If X amount of sugar is bad, it's the X amount, rather than something inherent in the sugar. What's the X amount, then, in your view?And the specific person I responded to first made a blanket statement that sugar is not bad (again, as opposed to a precise and correct statement that it isn't bad in all quantities.
Well, one may frame the issue as "added sugar consumption is safe", in which case the burden falls to those asserting its safety and thus defining the parameters and quantity of that safe limit - which you just did above. To me, that statement ("added sugar consumption is safe") is a bad scientific statement as the answer to the question "is added sugar consumption safe?" is "it depends on how much and how long."And the issue is "excess sugar" not "absence of excess sugar" so the burden is on those asserting excess sugar to define what excess means here.
Did you read the part in Tex's reply where he said "Pretty much like people have written on every page of this thread." Because you just agreed with something that has been repeated on every page of this thread. The same statement that you've been arguing against this whole time. You either didn't read the replies thoroughly, you read what you wanted to read in the replies, or you just wanted to get on your soap box for some reason.
Umm, actually, I always agreed with that statement. But I replied to specific statements with specific comments. It seems you are under the impression that I think all added sugars in all quantities is bad. That isn't true, and I have painstakingly said so again and again. In fact, one of my problems here is that I am being bashed even though I am agreeing with a lot of what is said, simply because I mentioned that sugar can have a negative context (quantity and duration). So no, I don't think I'm the one not reading or that I'm the one demanding a soapbox...
No, you've argued several times in this thread that sugar causes diabetes.
Really? Then PLEASE quote me. I have said multiple times that added sugars (and I have usually been precise to say in high quantities in long term use) consumption is a risk factor of diabetes, not that it causes it. Go ahead, find where I said it causes diabetes rather than that it's a risk factor.
Here you go...this is where you said it caused it...
And excess and long-term refined sugar intake.ihatetodietalways wrote: »Diabetes Epidemic & You, by Dr. J.R. Kraft. He is a renowned doctor in Chicago and he publishes the fact that fasting glucose can miss 20% of diabetics. Yes. He has looked at 15,000 people from age 3-90. There is a lot of information in this book.
And there are TONS of papers about low carb diets. Phinney, Volek, Pulmetter, Noakes, Attia, and others are leading the research.
Stop telling people to eat sugars and instead tell them, go check your fasting insulin with a simple blood test at the doctor. Furthermore, since insulin resistance is a true phenomenon (it is observed before pre-diabetes), we may want to give our pancreas a break and take the carbs slowly. I don't vilify sugar and carbs. There are people who chose to limit them. That is all.
You are equating people with a medical reason for reducing carbs with people who have normal pancreatic function (the majority of the population). They are not the same. Too many carbs does not cause insulin resistance, diabetes, etc. The inability to properly regulate blood glucose is the main SYMPTOM of those medical issues. The causes are many and include:
- genetics
- excess weight
- age
- long term use of certain medications, including statins and antidepressants
Lol. Everything listed in the previous quote to mine, despite its poster claiming as causes, are in fact risk factors. Genetics, for example is not a cause of diabetes but a risk factor. I added one factor. None of the other factors will inevitably lead to diabetes, hence they are risk factors. So no, I didn't call it a cause. But somehow, your problem isn't with the other poster calling those "causes" because you know they are really referring to risk factors.
ETA: Stop f***ing up the page 12 gifs!
and to fix my gif screw up here is another one
I'm glad to see your above evaluation of yourself. :-) Also, like you, I love filling up forum pages with giant gifs. Thanks for providing some.
Yay! Right back atcha! See this is why I love this forum. Thank you for saving me the trouble of digging up these gifs for you.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.8K Introduce Yourself
- 43.9K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions