Cutting carbs and refined sugar
Replies
-
Cindy, Cindy...have the courage of your convictions. Otherwise, it's just...sad.
So, why the mocking on your part?
I may not be consistently polite, but I didn't mock you or insult you.
I didn't insult you. I didn't make fun of you or mock you in any way.
I know. You're always a polite poster. That's why I'm surprised you get such flack. I'd ask why people are battling your recommendation about consulting a doctor, but I don't want to derail the thread.
He doesn't accuse you of it anywhere.
Don't recall mocking you, either.
Don't recall saying you did.
where did I mock you?
-1 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »I choose a low carb diet because it helps me eat intuitively and keeps my appetite in check (plus I don't have the ball-ache of having to log or weight stuff).
Yes. Also, I'm adding "ball-ache" to my vocabulary of things I shouldn't say, but will anyway.0 -
caroldavison332 wrote: »1. cook good enough homemade food ahead of time to tempt you to go home and eat your own cooking. It costs half as much in calories and dollars and won't have artificial flavorings, preservatives and sweeteners or trans fats in it.
Love homemade food, and I don't eat out much, but there is nothing wrong with the ingredients you list. It's all about choice and how you will create your calorie deficit.2. Stop the perimeter of the store. Avoid buying stuff in boxes and cans. 77% of processed food contains sugar which can spike insulin which tells you that you are hungry, which can lead to obesity.
Overeating leads to obesity, not being hungry, it's the excess food that gets us fat. People eat for various reasons, and it does not always mean they are physically hungry.
There is nothing wrong with processed foods and sugar is sugar no matter what form it comes in. Some people have to buy processed food because they can't afford to buy fresh all the time. Again, it's all about calories in/calories out.4. I shop saturdays and cook sunday. I make tub of boiled eggs; tub o oatmeal for breakfast. Stir in some not sweetened peanut butter (it tastes exactly the same) or have a egg for protein. Brown 1/2 pound of meat, and onion and add broth and bitter greens to make tub of veggie based soup. I also make a dozen beef, salmon or turkey burgers and freeze those. I eat off of these all week. It tempts me home instead of stopping at sams club for a pizza.
Sounds like a great plan for you, but not one that would work for everyone. By the way, there is nothing wrong with pizza (I'm not a big pizza fan either because the sauce affects my GERD), it's all about calories in/calories out.
Logging food is an excellent way to, first, make sure you eat within your calorie goals and, secondly, to pay attention to your macros.5. Track everything and learn that sams pizza has X carbs and fat in comparison with the nutrition loss of not eating for life at home. 5.
0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »mantium999 wrote: »
And I'll tell you the same I told others. If someone came into here asking what is the best way to jump out a window, would it be better to ask them if jumping out a window is necessary, or start explaining your personal strategy for opening a window latch? A lot of people think they to give up carbs. There is a lot of misinformation out there, and so it might help the person to actually check they're not following the latest trend in dieting.
Demonization of food is give it negative attributes it doesn't have according to established science.
Solipsistic arguments not withstanding, I'm pretty sure people are real and have no supernatural power over me, so not seeing the demonization.Demons are the blind fears of primitive thinking, the boogie-men of children. It becomes pretty clear that to demonize something is to give it a power over you, to tacitly give it the power to make you afraid because you don't understand it.
Why would you want to give a food that power? Why would anyone want to live in fear of a food for the sake of fearing it? I would like to live in the modern world free of demons - a world where such things are gone because we have rational enlightenment and understanding.
When you demonize people who demonize food, does that give them power over you? Or does this "Relinquishment Of Power" theory only hold true for foods?
That said, tree frog poison can be a very powerful hallucinogen in shamanistic rituals, so you might be one step closer than most.
OK, so I got one definition of demonization. Could you give me your definition of "demonization" as it applies to food?
Also, what power do you think the food is imbued with upon it's demonization?
Particular powers are placebo and nocebo effect, plus by trying to restrict it without need, you're setting up the food as novel when consumed, and thus increasing the desire of the food.
It is generally pretty old and established that intermittent reinforcement is actually more effective than continuous reinforcement. More modern techniques studying dopamine in the brain show that novelty plays a part in dopamine responses, and thus increases the perceived reward of it - essentially a chemical version of the conditioning principle of intermittent reinforcement.
And maybe some people have varying degrees of dopamine responses from you or the norm. So that theoretical relationship might not apply to them at all. Is it then OK for them to demonize?
There is actually an obese/serotonin/carbohydrates relationship. Those people might be better off not viewing a cupcake as innocent calories just waiting to be regulated by sheer willpower.
I don't have answers for everyone else, but like any reasonable person just try different things til I find out what works for my circumstances. When I find my answers, I will definitely not be telling others my way is the only way that will work for them.
All food usually leads to releasing serotonin. The reason why is that it drops the dopamine to stop reward seeking behavior because the reward is right there.
When you demonize the food, you've increased the dopamine response. You've now made it something you've mentally decided is unobtainable, something that is different. There are people that have very specific diseases like Prater-Willy. 99%+ of adults are going to be able to inure themselves to temptation. Believe it or not, the words "oh, not ice cream again", and "oh, not pizza again" have been uttered by English speakers who normally like those things.
If people on here are asking how to avoid something, it seems obvious that it does not work for them at some level. How is my suggesting they change their relationship any worse advice than someone telling them to throw all of it out of the house and hope they never encounter it while out and about? How does it stop being demonization just because it has worked for them?
And honestly, if you really believe there are so many special snowflakes, why do you tell people all the time that people don't need to eat sugar? Lustig himself talks about children that can't generate their own glucose and have to have special diets.
I used to 'change my relationship' with foods, but since discovered that it is easier to just label failed food relationships' foods as 'toxic' and minimize my interaction with them.
The only time it it appropriate to bring up how nutritionally unnecessary it is to eat sugar/carbs is right after a person asks how to minimize/eliminate or get control over a carb/sugar food and half the responses are saying EATTHEFOOD.
I personally pay attention to those people struggling with carb issues due to a long personal struggle with same and in addition our family has metabolic issues related to carbohydrate and I've spent hundreds of hours (or thousands if you ask my SO) learning about them.
Nutrional knowledge is sketchy and we are all unique. People's health and weight are dependant on them figuring out what works best for them. Supporting people in that process is more important than inappropriately applying random personal judgements.
Nutritional knowledge is better than most would think - psychology of food choices still could use improvement, but I can guarantee you, if you give me a metabolic chamber, control over food, and a test subject the science is there to guarantee they'll lose weight. Give me a barbell, weights, and little willingness on the part of the subject and I can even give good odds on most of the weight lost being fat rather than lean body mass. By and large, our metabolisms don't actually vary that much. For one, any kind of marked improvement or failure in metabolism would have profound effects on reproductive success in humans until around 100 years or so. For another, human evolution is marked by genetic bottlenecks where the entire race almost bit the dust and left a much smaller foundation population not that long ago.
And again, if you're going to make the argument that people are unique, don't make statements like glucose is a nonessential nutrient - for some people, it actually can be.
People with impaired gluconeogenesis are very ill, under the care of a doctor (or several), not looking for weight loss advice on MFP and pretty rare. People with issues processing carbohydrates well are frequently not diagnosed, on their own for answers, on weight loss forums like MFP and plentiful - maybe 3 out of 10 if the stats I've read are believable. I think what I am saying is appropriate for the folks here.
And the entire point that I am trying to make is that limiting carbs - even to low levels - is NOT the nutritional equivelent to jumping out a window.
If 3 of 10 who come here have unkown carb issues, and someone suggests limiting carbs to all the folks who ask, one is giving inaccurate advice to 70% of those who are asking.
No one that I've seen is suggesting carb limiting to random mfp posters.
Stick around. You'll see it. It happens all the time.
You may, but you are much more likely to see OP's asking for advice or other peoples feedback on cutting back on carbs and ways to eat LCHF and you will see the usual brigade jump straight in with - moderation blah, blah, blah. Sugars not the devil, then a bit more about moderation.
Not sure I've seen many threads where the OP asks about how to eat using the moderation tool and people jumping in with: just eat low carb blah, blah, blah.
Lately there have been a number of threads where OP says how to I deal with sugar cravings or wanting a dessert after dinner or having so much "junk" in my house where the low carb zealots assume that means they have "carb addictions" and jump in recommending low carb as the only way to solve the problem.
There was even a thread not long ago where OP said she was a picky eater and hated vegetables and got recommendations to go low carb (as if that made not eating vegetables healthy). And there have been several threads where OP is nervous about eating fruit because sugar and gets informed that cutting carbs means cutting fruits. It's been happening a lot.
And in other threads where OP is interested in cutting carbs and I personally wouldn't normally say anything against that, claims have been made that eating 40-50% carbs is inherently bad for humans and that humans naturally eat ketogenic diets, which is a false claim that ought to be addressed. I think keto is a fine diet if someone wants to do it, but the idea that not doing it or eating 50% carbs is "unnatural" and unhealthy is simply not true, and I suspect even the people who say it know that.
You are always going to get the odd people on a general public forum with mis-information - MFP is littered with them.
There are plenty on here claiming the body needs medium to high carbs to function and some claiming the brain needs dietary carbs to function optimally (which is simply not true), but I bet most people on here believe it.
There used to be. I rarely see that anymore. And many of us moderate and high carbers will correct it when we do. I have many times (I am currently 40% carbs, but am 100% neutral on what anyone else's carbs should be beyond thinking everyone probably should eat some vegetables).I choose a low carb diet because it helps me eat intuitively and keeps my appetite in check (plus I don't have the ball-ache of having to log or weight stuff).
Yeah, like I've said often, I think that works for some and if it does for you and you enjoy it, go for it.
I'm still going to correct the misinformation from the low carb side, which has been rampant around here lately.0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »mantium999 wrote: »
And I'll tell you the same I told others. If someone came into here asking what is the best way to jump out a window, would it be better to ask them if jumping out a window is necessary, or start explaining your personal strategy for opening a window latch? A lot of people think they to give up carbs. There is a lot of misinformation out there, and so it might help the person to actually check they're not following the latest trend in dieting.
Demonization of food is give it negative attributes it doesn't have according to established science.
Solipsistic arguments not withstanding, I'm pretty sure people are real and have no supernatural power over me, so not seeing the demonization.Demons are the blind fears of primitive thinking, the boogie-men of children. It becomes pretty clear that to demonize something is to give it a power over you, to tacitly give it the power to make you afraid because you don't understand it.
Why would you want to give a food that power? Why would anyone want to live in fear of a food for the sake of fearing it? I would like to live in the modern world free of demons - a world where such things are gone because we have rational enlightenment and understanding.
When you demonize people who demonize food, does that give them power over you? Or does this "Relinquishment Of Power" theory only hold true for foods?
That said, tree frog poison can be a very powerful hallucinogen in shamanistic rituals, so you might be one step closer than most.
OK, so I got one definition of demonization. Could you give me your definition of "demonization" as it applies to food?
Also, what power do you think the food is imbued with upon it's demonization?
Particular powers are placebo and nocebo effect, plus by trying to restrict it without need, you're setting up the food as novel when consumed, and thus increasing the desire of the food.
It is generally pretty old and established that intermittent reinforcement is actually more effective than continuous reinforcement. More modern techniques studying dopamine in the brain show that novelty plays a part in dopamine responses, and thus increases the perceived reward of it - essentially a chemical version of the conditioning principle of intermittent reinforcement.
And maybe some people have varying degrees of dopamine responses from you or the norm. So that theoretical relationship might not apply to them at all. Is it then OK for them to demonize?
There is actually an obese/serotonin/carbohydrates relationship. Those people might be better off not viewing a cupcake as innocent calories just waiting to be regulated by sheer willpower.
I don't have answers for everyone else, but like any reasonable person just try different things til I find out what works for my circumstances. When I find my answers, I will definitely not be telling others my way is the only way that will work for them.
All food usually leads to releasing serotonin. The reason why is that it drops the dopamine to stop reward seeking behavior because the reward is right there.
When you demonize the food, you've increased the dopamine response. You've now made it something you've mentally decided is unobtainable, something that is different. There are people that have very specific diseases like Prater-Willy. 99%+ of adults are going to be able to inure themselves to temptation. Believe it or not, the words "oh, not ice cream again", and "oh, not pizza again" have been uttered by English speakers who normally like those things.
If people on here are asking how to avoid something, it seems obvious that it does not work for them at some level. How is my suggesting they change their relationship any worse advice than someone telling them to throw all of it out of the house and hope they never encounter it while out and about? How does it stop being demonization just because it has worked for them?
And honestly, if you really believe there are so many special snowflakes, why do you tell people all the time that people don't need to eat sugar? Lustig himself talks about children that can't generate their own glucose and have to have special diets.
I used to 'change my relationship' with foods, but since discovered that it is easier to just label failed food relationships' foods as 'toxic' and minimize my interaction with them.
The only time it it appropriate to bring up how nutritionally unnecessary it is to eat sugar/carbs is right after a person asks how to minimize/eliminate or get control over a carb/sugar food and half the responses are saying EATTHEFOOD.
I personally pay attention to those people struggling with carb issues due to a long personal struggle with same and in addition our family has metabolic issues related to carbohydrate and I've spent hundreds of hours (or thousands if you ask my SO) learning about them.
Nutrional knowledge is sketchy and we are all unique. People's health and weight are dependant on them figuring out what works best for them. Supporting people in that process is more important than inappropriately applying random personal judgements.
Nutritional knowledge is better than most would think - psychology of food choices still could use improvement, but I can guarantee you, if you give me a metabolic chamber, control over food, and a test subject the science is there to guarantee they'll lose weight. Give me a barbell, weights, and little willingness on the part of the subject and I can even give good odds on most of the weight lost being fat rather than lean body mass. By and large, our metabolisms don't actually vary that much. For one, any kind of marked improvement or failure in metabolism would have profound effects on reproductive success in humans until around 100 years or so. For another, human evolution is marked by genetic bottlenecks where the entire race almost bit the dust and left a much smaller foundation population not that long ago.
And again, if you're going to make the argument that people are unique, don't make statements like glucose is a nonessential nutrient - for some people, it actually can be.
People with impaired gluconeogenesis are very ill, under the care of a doctor (or several), not looking for weight loss advice on MFP and pretty rare. People with issues processing carbohydrates well are frequently not diagnosed, on their own for answers, on weight loss forums like MFP and plentiful - maybe 3 out of 10 if the stats I've read are believable. I think what I am saying is appropriate for the folks here.
And the entire point that I am trying to make is that limiting carbs - even to low levels - is NOT the nutritional equivelent to jumping out a window.
If 3 of 10 who come here have unkown carb issues, and someone suggests limiting carbs to all the folks who ask, one is giving inaccurate advice to 70% of those who are asking.
No one that I've seen is suggesting carb limiting to random mfp posters.
Stick around. You'll see it. It happens all the time.
You may, but you are much more likely to see OP's asking for advice or other peoples feedback on cutting back on carbs and ways to eat LCHF and you will see the usual brigade jump straight in with - moderation blah, blah, blah. Sugars not the devil, then a bit more about moderation.
Not sure I've seen many threads where the OP asks about how to eat using the moderation tool and people jumping in with: just eat low carb blah, blah, blah.
Lately there have been a number of threads where OP says how to I deal with sugar cravings or wanting a dessert after dinner or having so much "junk" in my house where the low carb zealots assume that means they have "carb addictions" and jump in recommending low carb as the only way to solve the problem.
There was even a thread not long ago where OP said she was a picky eater and hated vegetables and got recommendations to go low carb (as if that made not eating vegetables healthy). And there have been several threads where OP is nervous about eating fruit because sugar and gets informed that cutting carbs means cutting fruits. It's been happening a lot.
And in other threads where OP is interested in cutting carbs and I personally wouldn't normally say anything against that, claims have been made that eating 40-50% carbs is inherently bad for humans and that humans naturally eat ketogenic diets, which is a false claim that ought to be addressed. I think keto is a fine diet if someone wants to do it, but the idea that not doing it or eating 50% carbs is "unnatural" and unhealthy is simply not true, and I suspect even the people who say it know that.
You are always going to get the odd people on a general public forum with mis-information - MFP is littered with them.
There are plenty on here claiming the body needs medium to high carbs to function and some claiming the brain needs dietary carbs to function optimally (which is simply not true), but I bet most people on here believe it.
I've got nothing against carbs, I eat them, I enjoy them I make them fit my diet and workout regime.
I choose a low carb diet because it helps me eat intuitively and keeps my appetite in check (plus I don't have the ball-ache of having to log or weight stuff).
Does the brain function optimally without dietary carbs? I'd love to see that research.0 -
By the way, there is nothing wrong with pizza (I'm not a big pizza fan either because the sauce affects my GERD), it's all about calories in/calories out.
There might be something wrong with pizza from Sam's Club. I've admittedly never had it, but I think the idea that that's what we are all tempted by is pretty funny.0 -
Well if you ignore everything I wrote and substitute a strawman, I'm sure it sounds like exactly what you want to hear. Diabetes isn't a disease of being unable to process carbs. It is a disease of cells becoming resistant to insulin. Insulin is activated not just by carbs, but protein, but hey, continue to call diabetes the carb processing disease. As I already said, losing weight is the primary factor in treating most diabetes.
Ok. That's a rather different claim than 30% of people have a problem with carbs.
No, you've stated as fact that all human beings can survive without carbs to make the point that it isn't an essential nutrient. You weren't saying about people on MFP, you were saying it as scientific fact. That's fine as covers 99.9%+ of the world's population, but, if you're going to start talking about some people needing certain dietary changes because they're special, without anyone bringing in a doctor's note saying they have said issues, I'll call you on your playing fast and lose with what is or is not the way human metabolism works.
And I'll tell you the same I told others. If someone came into here asking what is the best way to jump out a window, would it be better to ask them if jumping out a window is necessary, or start explaining your personal strategy for opening a window latch? A lot of people think they to give up carbs. There is a lot of misinformation out there, and so it might help the person to actually check they're not following the latest trend in dieting.
Demonization of food is give it negative attributes it doesn't have according to established science.
Solipsistic arguments not withstanding, I'm pretty sure people are real and have no supernatural power over me, so not seeing the demonization.Demons are the blind fears of primitive thinking, the boogie-men of children. It becomes pretty clear that to demonize something is to give it a power over you, to tacitly give it the power to make you afraid because you don't understand it.
Why would you want to give a food that power? Why would anyone want to live in fear of a food for the sake of fearing it? I would like to live in the modern world free of demons - a world where such things are gone because we have rational enlightenment and understanding.
When you demonize people who demonize food, does that give them power over you? Or does this "Relinquishment Of Power" theory only hold true for foods?
That said, tree frog poison can be a very powerful hallucinogen in shamanistic rituals, so you might be one step closer than most.
OK, so I got one definition of demonization. Could you give me your definition of "demonization" as it applies to food?
Also, what power do you think the food is imbued with upon it's demonization?
Particular powers are placebo and nocebo effect, plus by trying to restrict it without need, you're setting up the food as novel when consumed, and thus increasing the desire of the food.
It is generally pretty old and established that intermittent reinforcement is actually more effective than continuous reinforcement. More modern techniques studying dopamine in the brain show that novelty plays a part in dopamine responses, and thus increases the perceived reward of it - essentially a chemical version of the conditioning principle of intermittent reinforcement.
And maybe some people have varying degrees of dopamine responses from you or the norm. So that theoretical relationship might not apply to them at all. Is it then OK for them to demonize?
There is actually an obese/serotonin/carbohydrates relationship. Those people might be better off not viewing a cupcake as innocent calories just waiting to be regulated by sheer willpower.
I don't have answers for everyone else, but like any reasonable person just try different things til I find out what works for my circumstances. When I find my answers, I will definitely not be telling others my way is the only way that will work for them.
All food usually leads to releasing serotonin. The reason why is that it drops the dopamine to stop reward seeking behavior because the reward is right there.
When you demonize the food, you've increased the dopamine response. You've now made it something you've mentally decided is unobtainable, something that is different. There are people that have very specific diseases like Prater-Willy. 99%+ of adults are going to be able to inure themselves to temptation. Believe it or not, the words "oh, not ice cream again", and "oh, not pizza again" have been uttered by English speakers who normally like those things.
If people on here are asking how to avoid something, it seems obvious that it does not work for them at some level. How is my suggesting they change their relationship any worse advice than someone telling them to throw all of it out of the house and hope they never encounter it while out and about? How does it stop being demonization just because it has worked for them?
And honestly, if you really believe there are so many special snowflakes, why do you tell people all the time that people don't need to eat sugar? Lustig himself talks about children that can't generate their own glucose and have to have special diets.
I used to 'change my relationship' with foods, but since discovered that it is easier to just label failed food relationships' foods as 'toxic' and minimize my interaction with them.
The only time it it appropriate to bring up how nutritionally unnecessary it is to eat sugar/carbs is right after a person asks how to minimize/eliminate or get control over a carb/sugar food and half the responses are saying EATTHEFOOD.
I personally pay attention to those people struggling with carb issues due to a long personal struggle with same and in addition our family has metabolic issues related to carbohydrate and I've spent hundreds of hours (or thousands if you ask my SO) learning about them.
Nutrional knowledge is sketchy and we are all unique. People's health and weight are dependant on them figuring out what works best for them. Supporting people in that process is more important than inappropriately applying random personal judgements.
Nutritional knowledge is better than most would think - psychology of food choices still could use improvement, but I can guarantee you, if you give me a metabolic chamber, control over food, and a test subject the science is there to guarantee they'll lose weight. Give me a barbell, weights, and little willingness on the part of the subject and I can even give good odds on most of the weight lost being fat rather than lean body mass. By and large, our metabolisms don't actually vary that much. For one, any kind of marked improvement or failure in metabolism would have profound effects on reproductive success in humans until around 100 years or so. For another, human evolution is marked by genetic bottlenecks where the entire race almost bit the dust and left a much smaller foundation population not that long ago.
And again, if you're going to make the argument that people are unique, don't make statements like glucose is a nonessential nutrient - for some people, it actually can be.
People with impaired gluconeogenesis are very ill, under the care of a doctor (or several), not looking for weight loss advice on MFP and pretty rare. People with issues processing carbohydrates well are frequently not diagnosed, on their own for answers, on weight loss forums like MFP and plentiful - maybe 3 out of 10 if the stats I've read are believable. I think what I am saying is appropriate for the folks here.
And the entire point that I am trying to make is that limiting carbs - even to low levels - is NOT the nutritional equivelent to jumping out a window.
If you have something that seriously shows 3 out 10 people have issues processing carbohydrates, I'd seriously like to see it. I'd find it incredible that something that started as frugivores could turn into a species with 30% of the population having an inability to handle carbohydrates in a span of 2 million years or less.
If you are limiting carbs because the latest headlines says to, or some other pseudo or quack science as often shows up in these threads, then yes, it is similar to jumping out a window for disbelieving gravity. Restricting carbs other than as a way to reduce calories is never a necessity for weight loss.
Prediabetes among people aged 20 years or older, United States, 2012
• In 2009−2012, based on fasting glucose or A1C levels, 37% of U.S. adults aged 20 years or older had
prediabetes (51% of those aged 65 years or older). Applying this percentage to the entire U.S. population
in 2012 yields an estimated 86 million Americans aged 20 years or older with prediabetes.
• On the basis of fasting glucose or A1C levels, and after adjusting for population age differences, the
percentage of U.S. adults aged 20 years or older with prediabetes in 2009−2012 was similar for non-
Hispanic whites (35%), non-Hispanic blacks (39%), and Hispanics (38%).
Total: 29.1 million people or 9.3% of the U.S. population have diabetes
Diagnosed: 21.0 million people
Undiagnosed: 8.1 million people (27.8% of people with diabetes are undiagnosed)
View the full report: CDC’s National Diabetes Statistics Report
So, about 46% of the US population has diabetes or prediabetes.
Yes, it is a national and international crisis. It is actually far higher & worse than I said.
It might just explain why you folks who process carbs OK (so far) are sick of hearing about low carb diets or people worried about carbs and sugars.
1. You're talking US population (though hint, some developing countries do actually have worse rates of diabetes)
2. The fasting A1C and glucose is a biased population. People who don't have other indicators for diabetes don't normally end up taking an A1C or glucose test.
3. You're assuming diabetes or prediabetic means someone has problems with carbs.
4. Diabetic Associations usually don't actually recommend low carbs diets, they recommend consistent carbs, including keeping them in one's diet.
5. Early diabetes and insulin resistance are often treated simply by losing weight, regardless of the carbohydrate composition of the diet.
It sounds like you believe people with high blood glucose and inability to correctly process carbohydrates continue to eat the foods that they are unable to process and increase their glucose to toxic levels? We have very different ideas.
By your terminology, the fact that we have 69% of adults overweight in the US means we have a calorie processing disorder in 69% of the humans.
Absolutely agree with this post. Type 2 diabetics that go very low carb will still have glucose in their blood from their liver and from protein they eat. Which means their insulin resistance is still an issue, even with a low carb diet. It becomes more manageable, sure, but still a problem. Type 2 can be reversed when a person loses weight (either from a low carb, calorie deficit diet or otherwise) and incorporates exercise, as being overweight and inactive directly relates to insulin resistance. I've known quite a few type 2s that lose the weight and take care of their insulin resistance issue WITHOUT cutting carbs out of their diet. That doesn't mean that LCHF diets are any less viable of an option, but they are not the only option - not even for those with type 2 diabetes.
When I was diagnosed with Type 1, I had numerous "experts" and doctors tell me that I needed to cut down my carbs to avoid blood sugar spikes, because even insulin shots cannot keep up with it. It turned out to be BS. I have an amazing A1C and very few blood sugar spikes, all on a diet with as many carbs as I want.0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »mantium999 wrote: »
And I'll tell you the same I told others. If someone came into here asking what is the best way to jump out a window, would it be better to ask them if jumping out a window is necessary, or start explaining your personal strategy for opening a window latch? A lot of people think they to give up carbs. There is a lot of misinformation out there, and so it might help the person to actually check they're not following the latest trend in dieting.
Demonization of food is give it negative attributes it doesn't have according to established science.
Solipsistic arguments not withstanding, I'm pretty sure people are real and have no supernatural power over me, so not seeing the demonization.Demons are the blind fears of primitive thinking, the boogie-men of children. It becomes pretty clear that to demonize something is to give it a power over you, to tacitly give it the power to make you afraid because you don't understand it.
Why would you want to give a food that power? Why would anyone want to live in fear of a food for the sake of fearing it? I would like to live in the modern world free of demons - a world where such things are gone because we have rational enlightenment and understanding.
When you demonize people who demonize food, does that give them power over you? Or does this "Relinquishment Of Power" theory only hold true for foods?
That said, tree frog poison can be a very powerful hallucinogen in shamanistic rituals, so you might be one step closer than most.
OK, so I got one definition of demonization. Could you give me your definition of "demonization" as it applies to food?
Also, what power do you think the food is imbued with upon it's demonization?
Particular powers are placebo and nocebo effect, plus by trying to restrict it without need, you're setting up the food as novel when consumed, and thus increasing the desire of the food.
It is generally pretty old and established that intermittent reinforcement is actually more effective than continuous reinforcement. More modern techniques studying dopamine in the brain show that novelty plays a part in dopamine responses, and thus increases the perceived reward of it - essentially a chemical version of the conditioning principle of intermittent reinforcement.
And maybe some people have varying degrees of dopamine responses from you or the norm. So that theoretical relationship might not apply to them at all. Is it then OK for them to demonize?
There is actually an obese/serotonin/carbohydrates relationship. Those people might be better off not viewing a cupcake as innocent calories just waiting to be regulated by sheer willpower.
I don't have answers for everyone else, but like any reasonable person just try different things til I find out what works for my circumstances. When I find my answers, I will definitely not be telling others my way is the only way that will work for them.
All food usually leads to releasing serotonin. The reason why is that it drops the dopamine to stop reward seeking behavior because the reward is right there.
When you demonize the food, you've increased the dopamine response. You've now made it something you've mentally decided is unobtainable, something that is different. There are people that have very specific diseases like Prater-Willy. 99%+ of adults are going to be able to inure themselves to temptation. Believe it or not, the words "oh, not ice cream again", and "oh, not pizza again" have been uttered by English speakers who normally like those things.
If people on here are asking how to avoid something, it seems obvious that it does not work for them at some level. How is my suggesting they change their relationship any worse advice than someone telling them to throw all of it out of the house and hope they never encounter it while out and about? How does it stop being demonization just because it has worked for them?
And honestly, if you really believe there are so many special snowflakes, why do you tell people all the time that people don't need to eat sugar? Lustig himself talks about children that can't generate their own glucose and have to have special diets.
I used to 'change my relationship' with foods, but since discovered that it is easier to just label failed food relationships' foods as 'toxic' and minimize my interaction with them.
The only time it it appropriate to bring up how nutritionally unnecessary it is to eat sugar/carbs is right after a person asks how to minimize/eliminate or get control over a carb/sugar food and half the responses are saying EATTHEFOOD.
I personally pay attention to those people struggling with carb issues due to a long personal struggle with same and in addition our family has metabolic issues related to carbohydrate and I've spent hundreds of hours (or thousands if you ask my SO) learning about them.
Nutrional knowledge is sketchy and we are all unique. People's health and weight are dependant on them figuring out what works best for them. Supporting people in that process is more important than inappropriately applying random personal judgements.
Nutritional knowledge is better than most would think - psychology of food choices still could use improvement, but I can guarantee you, if you give me a metabolic chamber, control over food, and a test subject the science is there to guarantee they'll lose weight. Give me a barbell, weights, and little willingness on the part of the subject and I can even give good odds on most of the weight lost being fat rather than lean body mass. By and large, our metabolisms don't actually vary that much. For one, any kind of marked improvement or failure in metabolism would have profound effects on reproductive success in humans until around 100 years or so. For another, human evolution is marked by genetic bottlenecks where the entire race almost bit the dust and left a much smaller foundation population not that long ago.
And again, if you're going to make the argument that people are unique, don't make statements like glucose is a nonessential nutrient - for some people, it actually can be.
People with impaired gluconeogenesis are very ill, under the care of a doctor (or several), not looking for weight loss advice on MFP and pretty rare. People with issues processing carbohydrates well are frequently not diagnosed, on their own for answers, on weight loss forums like MFP and plentiful - maybe 3 out of 10 if the stats I've read are believable. I think what I am saying is appropriate for the folks here.
And the entire point that I am trying to make is that limiting carbs - even to low levels - is NOT the nutritional equivelent to jumping out a window.
If 3 of 10 who come here have unkown carb issues, and someone suggests limiting carbs to all the folks who ask, one is giving inaccurate advice to 70% of those who are asking.
No one that I've seen is suggesting carb limiting to random mfp posters.
Stick around. You'll see it. It happens all the time.
You may, but you are much more likely to see OP's asking for advice or other peoples feedback on cutting back on carbs and ways to eat LCHF and you will see the usual brigade jump straight in with - moderation blah, blah, blah. Sugars not the devil, then a bit more about moderation.
Not sure I've seen many threads where the OP asks about how to eat using the moderation tool and people jumping in with: just eat low carb blah, blah, blah.
Lately there have been a number of threads where OP says how to I deal with sugar cravings or wanting a dessert after dinner or having so much "junk" in my house where the low carb zealots assume that means they have "carb addictions" and jump in recommending low carb as the only way to solve the problem.
There was even a thread not long ago where OP said she was a picky eater and hated vegetables and got recommendations to go low carb (as if that made not eating vegetables healthy). And there have been several threads where OP is nervous about eating fruit because sugar and gets informed that cutting carbs means cutting fruits. It's been happening a lot.
And in other threads where OP is interested in cutting carbs and I personally wouldn't normally say anything against that, claims have been made that eating 40-50% carbs is inherently bad for humans and that humans naturally eat ketogenic diets, which is a false claim that ought to be addressed. I think keto is a fine diet if someone wants to do it, but the idea that not doing it or eating 50% carbs is "unnatural" and unhealthy is simply not true, and I suspect even the people who say it know that.
^^This.
I see threads almost everyday where new OP's ask for help with their weight loss and within the first 3-5 replies someone tells them they need to go low carb. To say that doesn't happen on here is laughable.
Nobody is saying 'that' doesn't happen.
Why wouldn't someone offer up low carb as an option, its a sensible viable option for millions of people and if someone is looking for ideas then seems reasonable to pitch it in??
The point being made was there are not many threads where the OP has clearly stated they want to follow the route of eating medium to high carbs but in moderation and then the thread is being peppered with responses that they don't need to eat medium to high carb and that they should eat low carb.
Of course if this happens all the time, I seem to be missing them, so please link below a few that you've seen in the last week.
There is a difference in offering it up as an option and telling a new OP they NEED to. And yes, you didn't say it didn't happen, I misspoke. I'll edit: to say it hasn't happened very many times is still laughable.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »You also get posts where OP explicitly states how much trouble low carb causes them but when people tell them low carb isn't necessary and maybe try a different approach, they get called "unhelpful" by the low carb brigade.
It's generally a good idea to ask WHY someone wants to do an approach that is more restrictive than the straightforward one.
In your opinion, for sure. It may be equally a good idea to actually help them fix their issues rather than converting them to your particular belief set. "Straightforward" is your value judgment, some people would not regard measuring their food intake to gram accuracy as "straightforward".
Should the answer to every exercise question be "Why do you want to exercise, it isn't necessary unless you have a diagnosed physical condition".
Low carb isn't magic, so you'd still have to keep your calories in check unless you happen to eat at a deficit by itself, which someone might be able to do without low carb too. So in that sense, just counting is more straightforward than counting + something else on top of that.
And exercise is objectively healthier than sitting on your *kitten* regardless of anything to do with weightloss. Low carb not so much.
You are right low carb isn't magic, but it is a useful tool for those that are lucky enough to be able to use it.
Just like counting calories is a tool, just like eating all the foods you fancy in restricted portions (aka moderation).
The simple truth is some people find low carb easier to control their eating than your straightforward route and as both are as healthy as each other, shouldn't they be encouraged to find a way that works for them, rather than have to only look at the way that works for you (I'm sure none of us get a commission for getting someone on to a certain eating strategy)
Some find one easier, and others the other, that's true. But you won't find out unless you ask.
Many, so many people simply don't know how weight loss works. There's no shame in that, you can thank the diet and fitness industry with their misinformation to sell crap for that. Starting a discussion to see the knowledge of the asker and maybe telling them something they might genuinely not have known is better than just simply encouraging whatever they were asking about, even if that's just the 100th diet they found in some magazine, with no knowledge of the underlying mechanisms, doomed to fail just the same.
You hit the nail on the head about the "misinformation" being pumped out for financial gain.
I was doing low carb starting last year and had never heard of it when I was working to manage my joint and muscle pain without Rx usage.
Even with a lot of medical training in earning my OD degree I was clueless about diet. At age 63 and crashing health wise I dove into researching the subject since I viewed it as a matter of life or death in my case.
With my research background the info was still hard to wade through. Actually I found more info about diet especially as it relates to cancer prevention/cure from Europe and Asia. The 'noise' level concerning weight loss is VERY high when reading research so getting down to the least common denominator was NOT easy for me.
Carbs and young people seem to mix well if they are very physically active. That just is not the case for many senior citizens. Those of us in the 60+ age group really have to rethink our daily way of eating more often than not I am finding.
There is no one best car or pick-up truck for EVERYONE's needs and there is no one diet best for EVERYONE's needs.
This is not about low fat, low carb, low protein or the inverse. It is about finding the food and its balance that can give us the most years at the highest level of health possible. I had rather live to be 80 walking and talking the entire time as to live to be 100 and spend the last 20 years unaware of what was going on around me.
I do not think most 20 year old posters are going to see eye to eye on dieting discussions at a senior citizen posting on the subject. It is a bit like keeping a three year old car on the road as your daily driver vs. a 30 year old car running well as your daily driver. The needs and concerns can be VERY different.
All seniors are carrying damage due to past eating/living lifestyles I expect. I have diet concerns that do not apply to our 17 year old twins today. They are very high carb eating but over the last year they have watched my health issues greatly improve on very low carb and very high fat eating lifestyle. Leaving them this example that I did not have is all I can do to help them if/when they can no longer live on carbs as well as today.
While I have come to learn diet is important I think physically moving may be even more important. Carbs that get burned daily I expect is of little concern health wise even for like seniors who lived on the farm 75 years ago.
If you are reading this and replying the odds are you are sitting on your butt and not milking the cows or slopping the hogs burning up the high carb breakfast.
Health is a lot more than just diet. The social media fighting mindsets of some of us will do more to cause cancer, heart, glucose health related issue perhaps than what food we consume.
0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »mantium999 wrote: »
And I'll tell you the same I told others. If someone came into here asking what is the best way to jump out a window, would it be better to ask them if jumping out a window is necessary, or start explaining your personal strategy for opening a window latch? A lot of people think they to give up carbs. There is a lot of misinformation out there, and so it might help the person to actually check they're not following the latest trend in dieting.
Demonization of food is give it negative attributes it doesn't have according to established science.
Solipsistic arguments not withstanding, I'm pretty sure people are real and have no supernatural power over me, so not seeing the demonization.Demons are the blind fears of primitive thinking, the boogie-men of children. It becomes pretty clear that to demonize something is to give it a power over you, to tacitly give it the power to make you afraid because you don't understand it.
Why would you want to give a food that power? Why would anyone want to live in fear of a food for the sake of fearing it? I would like to live in the modern world free of demons - a world where such things are gone because we have rational enlightenment and understanding.
When you demonize people who demonize food, does that give them power over you? Or does this "Relinquishment Of Power" theory only hold true for foods?
That said, tree frog poison can be a very powerful hallucinogen in shamanistic rituals, so you might be one step closer than most.
OK, so I got one definition of demonization. Could you give me your definition of "demonization" as it applies to food?
Also, what power do you think the food is imbued with upon it's demonization?
Particular powers are placebo and nocebo effect, plus by trying to restrict it without need, you're setting up the food as novel when consumed, and thus increasing the desire of the food.
It is generally pretty old and established that intermittent reinforcement is actually more effective than continuous reinforcement. More modern techniques studying dopamine in the brain show that novelty plays a part in dopamine responses, and thus increases the perceived reward of it - essentially a chemical version of the conditioning principle of intermittent reinforcement.
And maybe some people have varying degrees of dopamine responses from you or the norm. So that theoretical relationship might not apply to them at all. Is it then OK for them to demonize?
There is actually an obese/serotonin/carbohydrates relationship. Those people might be better off not viewing a cupcake as innocent calories just waiting to be regulated by sheer willpower.
I don't have answers for everyone else, but like any reasonable person just try different things til I find out what works for my circumstances. When I find my answers, I will definitely not be telling others my way is the only way that will work for them.
All food usually leads to releasing serotonin. The reason why is that it drops the dopamine to stop reward seeking behavior because the reward is right there.
When you demonize the food, you've increased the dopamine response. You've now made it something you've mentally decided is unobtainable, something that is different. There are people that have very specific diseases like Prater-Willy. 99%+ of adults are going to be able to inure themselves to temptation. Believe it or not, the words "oh, not ice cream again", and "oh, not pizza again" have been uttered by English speakers who normally like those things.
If people on here are asking how to avoid something, it seems obvious that it does not work for them at some level. How is my suggesting they change their relationship any worse advice than someone telling them to throw all of it out of the house and hope they never encounter it while out and about? How does it stop being demonization just because it has worked for them?
And honestly, if you really believe there are so many special snowflakes, why do you tell people all the time that people don't need to eat sugar? Lustig himself talks about children that can't generate their own glucose and have to have special diets.
I used to 'change my relationship' with foods, but since discovered that it is easier to just label failed food relationships' foods as 'toxic' and minimize my interaction with them.
The only time it it appropriate to bring up how nutritionally unnecessary it is to eat sugar/carbs is right after a person asks how to minimize/eliminate or get control over a carb/sugar food and half the responses are saying EATTHEFOOD.
I personally pay attention to those people struggling with carb issues due to a long personal struggle with same and in addition our family has metabolic issues related to carbohydrate and I've spent hundreds of hours (or thousands if you ask my SO) learning about them.
Nutrional knowledge is sketchy and we are all unique. People's health and weight are dependant on them figuring out what works best for them. Supporting people in that process is more important than inappropriately applying random personal judgements.
Nutritional knowledge is better than most would think - psychology of food choices still could use improvement, but I can guarantee you, if you give me a metabolic chamber, control over food, and a test subject the science is there to guarantee they'll lose weight. Give me a barbell, weights, and little willingness on the part of the subject and I can even give good odds on most of the weight lost being fat rather than lean body mass. By and large, our metabolisms don't actually vary that much. For one, any kind of marked improvement or failure in metabolism would have profound effects on reproductive success in humans until around 100 years or so. For another, human evolution is marked by genetic bottlenecks where the entire race almost bit the dust and left a much smaller foundation population not that long ago.
And again, if you're going to make the argument that people are unique, don't make statements like glucose is a nonessential nutrient - for some people, it actually can be.
People with impaired gluconeogenesis are very ill, under the care of a doctor (or several), not looking for weight loss advice on MFP and pretty rare. People with issues processing carbohydrates well are frequently not diagnosed, on their own for answers, on weight loss forums like MFP and plentiful - maybe 3 out of 10 if the stats I've read are believable. I think what I am saying is appropriate for the folks here.
And the entire point that I am trying to make is that limiting carbs - even to low levels - is NOT the nutritional equivelent to jumping out a window.
If 3 of 10 who come here have unkown carb issues, and someone suggests limiting carbs to all the folks who ask, one is giving inaccurate advice to 70% of those who are asking.
No one that I've seen is suggesting carb limiting to random mfp posters.
Stick around. You'll see it. It happens all the time.
You may, but you are much more likely to see OP's asking for advice or other peoples feedback on cutting back on carbs and ways to eat LCHF and you will see the usual brigade jump straight in with - moderation blah, blah, blah. Sugars not the devil, then a bit more about moderation.
Not sure I've seen many threads where the OP asks about how to eat using the moderation tool and people jumping in with: just eat low carb blah, blah, blah.
Lately there have been a number of threads where OP says how to I deal with sugar cravings or wanting a dessert after dinner or having so much "junk" in my house where the low carb zealots assume that means they have "carb addictions" and jump in recommending low carb as the only way to solve the problem.
There was even a thread not long ago where OP said she was a picky eater and hated vegetables and got recommendations to go low carb (as if that made not eating vegetables healthy). And there have been several threads where OP is nervous about eating fruit because sugar and gets informed that cutting carbs means cutting fruits. It's been happening a lot.
And in other threads where OP is interested in cutting carbs and I personally wouldn't normally say anything against that, claims have been made that eating 40-50% carbs is inherently bad for humans and that humans naturally eat ketogenic diets, which is a false claim that ought to be addressed. I think keto is a fine diet if someone wants to do it, but the idea that not doing it or eating 50% carbs is "unnatural" and unhealthy is simply not true, and I suspect even the people who say it know that.
You are always going to get the odd people on a general public forum with mis-information - MFP is littered with them.
There are plenty on here claiming the body needs medium to high carbs to function and some claiming the brain needs dietary carbs to function optimally (which is simply not true), but I bet most people on here believe it.
I've got nothing against carbs, I eat them, I enjoy them I make them fit my diet and workout regime.
I choose a low carb diet because it helps me eat intuitively and keeps my appetite in check (plus I don't have the ball-ache of having to log or weight stuff).
Does the brain function optimally without dietary carbs? I'd love to see that research.
You have!!!
I know for a fact I have posted a study (probably about a year ago) showing no difference in 'long-term' brain function on a low carb diet compared to a high carb diet.
Maybe if you ate less carbs you would remember (that's a joke by the way!!!).
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »mantium999 wrote: »
And I'll tell you the same I told others. If someone came into here asking what is the best way to jump out a window, would it be better to ask them if jumping out a window is necessary, or start explaining your personal strategy for opening a window latch? A lot of people think they to give up carbs. There is a lot of misinformation out there, and so it might help the person to actually check they're not following the latest trend in dieting.
Demonization of food is give it negative attributes it doesn't have according to established science.
Solipsistic arguments not withstanding, I'm pretty sure people are real and have no supernatural power over me, so not seeing the demonization.Demons are the blind fears of primitive thinking, the boogie-men of children. It becomes pretty clear that to demonize something is to give it a power over you, to tacitly give it the power to make you afraid because you don't understand it.
Why would you want to give a food that power? Why would anyone want to live in fear of a food for the sake of fearing it? I would like to live in the modern world free of demons - a world where such things are gone because we have rational enlightenment and understanding.
When you demonize people who demonize food, does that give them power over you? Or does this "Relinquishment Of Power" theory only hold true for foods?
That said, tree frog poison can be a very powerful hallucinogen in shamanistic rituals, so you might be one step closer than most.
OK, so I got one definition of demonization. Could you give me your definition of "demonization" as it applies to food?
Also, what power do you think the food is imbued with upon it's demonization?
Particular powers are placebo and nocebo effect, plus by trying to restrict it without need, you're setting up the food as novel when consumed, and thus increasing the desire of the food.
It is generally pretty old and established that intermittent reinforcement is actually more effective than continuous reinforcement. More modern techniques studying dopamine in the brain show that novelty plays a part in dopamine responses, and thus increases the perceived reward of it - essentially a chemical version of the conditioning principle of intermittent reinforcement.
And maybe some people have varying degrees of dopamine responses from you or the norm. So that theoretical relationship might not apply to them at all. Is it then OK for them to demonize?
There is actually an obese/serotonin/carbohydrates relationship. Those people might be better off not viewing a cupcake as innocent calories just waiting to be regulated by sheer willpower.
I don't have answers for everyone else, but like any reasonable person just try different things til I find out what works for my circumstances. When I find my answers, I will definitely not be telling others my way is the only way that will work for them.
All food usually leads to releasing serotonin. The reason why is that it drops the dopamine to stop reward seeking behavior because the reward is right there.
When you demonize the food, you've increased the dopamine response. You've now made it something you've mentally decided is unobtainable, something that is different. There are people that have very specific diseases like Prater-Willy. 99%+ of adults are going to be able to inure themselves to temptation. Believe it or not, the words "oh, not ice cream again", and "oh, not pizza again" have been uttered by English speakers who normally like those things.
If people on here are asking how to avoid something, it seems obvious that it does not work for them at some level. How is my suggesting they change their relationship any worse advice than someone telling them to throw all of it out of the house and hope they never encounter it while out and about? How does it stop being demonization just because it has worked for them?
And honestly, if you really believe there are so many special snowflakes, why do you tell people all the time that people don't need to eat sugar? Lustig himself talks about children that can't generate their own glucose and have to have special diets.
I used to 'change my relationship' with foods, but since discovered that it is easier to just label failed food relationships' foods as 'toxic' and minimize my interaction with them.
The only time it it appropriate to bring up how nutritionally unnecessary it is to eat sugar/carbs is right after a person asks how to minimize/eliminate or get control over a carb/sugar food and half the responses are saying EATTHEFOOD.
I personally pay attention to those people struggling with carb issues due to a long personal struggle with same and in addition our family has metabolic issues related to carbohydrate and I've spent hundreds of hours (or thousands if you ask my SO) learning about them.
Nutrional knowledge is sketchy and we are all unique. People's health and weight are dependant on them figuring out what works best for them. Supporting people in that process is more important than inappropriately applying random personal judgements.
Nutritional knowledge is better than most would think - psychology of food choices still could use improvement, but I can guarantee you, if you give me a metabolic chamber, control over food, and a test subject the science is there to guarantee they'll lose weight. Give me a barbell, weights, and little willingness on the part of the subject and I can even give good odds on most of the weight lost being fat rather than lean body mass. By and large, our metabolisms don't actually vary that much. For one, any kind of marked improvement or failure in metabolism would have profound effects on reproductive success in humans until around 100 years or so. For another, human evolution is marked by genetic bottlenecks where the entire race almost bit the dust and left a much smaller foundation population not that long ago.
And again, if you're going to make the argument that people are unique, don't make statements like glucose is a nonessential nutrient - for some people, it actually can be.
People with impaired gluconeogenesis are very ill, under the care of a doctor (or several), not looking for weight loss advice on MFP and pretty rare. People with issues processing carbohydrates well are frequently not diagnosed, on their own for answers, on weight loss forums like MFP and plentiful - maybe 3 out of 10 if the stats I've read are believable. I think what I am saying is appropriate for the folks here.
And the entire point that I am trying to make is that limiting carbs - even to low levels - is NOT the nutritional equivelent to jumping out a window.
If 3 of 10 who come here have unkown carb issues, and someone suggests limiting carbs to all the folks who ask, one is giving inaccurate advice to 70% of those who are asking.
No one that I've seen is suggesting carb limiting to random mfp posters.
Stick around. You'll see it. It happens all the time.
You may, but you are much more likely to see OP's asking for advice or other peoples feedback on cutting back on carbs and ways to eat LCHF and you will see the usual brigade jump straight in with - moderation blah, blah, blah. Sugars not the devil, then a bit more about moderation.
Not sure I've seen many threads where the OP asks about how to eat using the moderation tool and people jumping in with: just eat low carb blah, blah, blah.
Lately there have been a number of threads where OP says how to I deal with sugar cravings or wanting a dessert after dinner or having so much "junk" in my house where the low carb zealots assume that means they have "carb addictions" and jump in recommending low carb as the only way to solve the problem.
There was even a thread not long ago where OP said she was a picky eater and hated vegetables and got recommendations to go low carb (as if that made not eating vegetables healthy). And there have been several threads where OP is nervous about eating fruit because sugar and gets informed that cutting carbs means cutting fruits. It's been happening a lot.
And in other threads where OP is interested in cutting carbs and I personally wouldn't normally say anything against that, claims have been made that eating 40-50% carbs is inherently bad for humans and that humans naturally eat ketogenic diets, which is a false claim that ought to be addressed. I think keto is a fine diet if someone wants to do it, but the idea that not doing it or eating 50% carbs is "unnatural" and unhealthy is simply not true, and I suspect even the people who say it know that.
You are always going to get the odd people on a general public forum with mis-information - MFP is littered with them.
There are plenty on here claiming the body needs medium to high carbs to function and some claiming the brain needs dietary carbs to function optimally (which is simply not true), but I bet most people on here believe it.
There used to be. I rarely see that anymore. And many of us moderate and high carbers will correct it when we do. I have many times (I am currently 40% carbs, but am 100% neutral on what anyone else's carbs should be beyond thinking everyone probably should eat some vegetables).I choose a low carb diet because it helps me eat intuitively and keeps my appetite in check (plus I don't have the ball-ache of having to log or weight stuff).
Yeah, like I've said often, I think that works for some and if it does for you and you enjoy it, go for it.
I'm still going to correct the misinformation from the low carb side, which has been rampant around here lately.
Good keep correcting (from both sides).
0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »mantium999 wrote: »
And I'll tell you the same I told others. If someone came into here asking what is the best way to jump out a window, would it be better to ask them if jumping out a window is necessary, or start explaining your personal strategy for opening a window latch? A lot of people think they to give up carbs. There is a lot of misinformation out there, and so it might help the person to actually check they're not following the latest trend in dieting.
Demonization of food is give it negative attributes it doesn't have according to established science.
Solipsistic arguments not withstanding, I'm pretty sure people are real and have no supernatural power over me, so not seeing the demonization.Demons are the blind fears of primitive thinking, the boogie-men of children. It becomes pretty clear that to demonize something is to give it a power over you, to tacitly give it the power to make you afraid because you don't understand it.
Why would you want to give a food that power? Why would anyone want to live in fear of a food for the sake of fearing it? I would like to live in the modern world free of demons - a world where such things are gone because we have rational enlightenment and understanding.
When you demonize people who demonize food, does that give them power over you? Or does this "Relinquishment Of Power" theory only hold true for foods?
That said, tree frog poison can be a very powerful hallucinogen in shamanistic rituals, so you might be one step closer than most.
OK, so I got one definition of demonization. Could you give me your definition of "demonization" as it applies to food?
Also, what power do you think the food is imbued with upon it's demonization?
Particular powers are placebo and nocebo effect, plus by trying to restrict it without need, you're setting up the food as novel when consumed, and thus increasing the desire of the food.
It is generally pretty old and established that intermittent reinforcement is actually more effective than continuous reinforcement. More modern techniques studying dopamine in the brain show that novelty plays a part in dopamine responses, and thus increases the perceived reward of it - essentially a chemical version of the conditioning principle of intermittent reinforcement.
And maybe some people have varying degrees of dopamine responses from you or the norm. So that theoretical relationship might not apply to them at all. Is it then OK for them to demonize?
There is actually an obese/serotonin/carbohydrates relationship. Those people might be better off not viewing a cupcake as innocent calories just waiting to be regulated by sheer willpower.
I don't have answers for everyone else, but like any reasonable person just try different things til I find out what works for my circumstances. When I find my answers, I will definitely not be telling others my way is the only way that will work for them.
All food usually leads to releasing serotonin. The reason why is that it drops the dopamine to stop reward seeking behavior because the reward is right there.
When you demonize the food, you've increased the dopamine response. You've now made it something you've mentally decided is unobtainable, something that is different. There are people that have very specific diseases like Prater-Willy. 99%+ of adults are going to be able to inure themselves to temptation. Believe it or not, the words "oh, not ice cream again", and "oh, not pizza again" have been uttered by English speakers who normally like those things.
If people on here are asking how to avoid something, it seems obvious that it does not work for them at some level. How is my suggesting they change their relationship any worse advice than someone telling them to throw all of it out of the house and hope they never encounter it while out and about? How does it stop being demonization just because it has worked for them?
And honestly, if you really believe there are so many special snowflakes, why do you tell people all the time that people don't need to eat sugar? Lustig himself talks about children that can't generate their own glucose and have to have special diets.
I used to 'change my relationship' with foods, but since discovered that it is easier to just label failed food relationships' foods as 'toxic' and minimize my interaction with them.
The only time it it appropriate to bring up how nutritionally unnecessary it is to eat sugar/carbs is right after a person asks how to minimize/eliminate or get control over a carb/sugar food and half the responses are saying EATTHEFOOD.
I personally pay attention to those people struggling with carb issues due to a long personal struggle with same and in addition our family has metabolic issues related to carbohydrate and I've spent hundreds of hours (or thousands if you ask my SO) learning about them.
Nutrional knowledge is sketchy and we are all unique. People's health and weight are dependant on them figuring out what works best for them. Supporting people in that process is more important than inappropriately applying random personal judgements.
Nutritional knowledge is better than most would think - psychology of food choices still could use improvement, but I can guarantee you, if you give me a metabolic chamber, control over food, and a test subject the science is there to guarantee they'll lose weight. Give me a barbell, weights, and little willingness on the part of the subject and I can even give good odds on most of the weight lost being fat rather than lean body mass. By and large, our metabolisms don't actually vary that much. For one, any kind of marked improvement or failure in metabolism would have profound effects on reproductive success in humans until around 100 years or so. For another, human evolution is marked by genetic bottlenecks where the entire race almost bit the dust and left a much smaller foundation population not that long ago.
And again, if you're going to make the argument that people are unique, don't make statements like glucose is a nonessential nutrient - for some people, it actually can be.
People with impaired gluconeogenesis are very ill, under the care of a doctor (or several), not looking for weight loss advice on MFP and pretty rare. People with issues processing carbohydrates well are frequently not diagnosed, on their own for answers, on weight loss forums like MFP and plentiful - maybe 3 out of 10 if the stats I've read are believable. I think what I am saying is appropriate for the folks here.
And the entire point that I am trying to make is that limiting carbs - even to low levels - is NOT the nutritional equivelent to jumping out a window.
If 3 of 10 who come here have unkown carb issues, and someone suggests limiting carbs to all the folks who ask, one is giving inaccurate advice to 70% of those who are asking.
No one that I've seen is suggesting carb limiting to random mfp posters.
Stick around. You'll see it. It happens all the time.
You may, but you are much more likely to see OP's asking for advice or other peoples feedback on cutting back on carbs and ways to eat LCHF and you will see the usual brigade jump straight in with - moderation blah, blah, blah. Sugars not the devil, then a bit more about moderation.
Not sure I've seen many threads where the OP asks about how to eat using the moderation tool and people jumping in with: just eat low carb blah, blah, blah.
Lately there have been a number of threads where OP says how to I deal with sugar cravings or wanting a dessert after dinner or having so much "junk" in my house where the low carb zealots assume that means they have "carb addictions" and jump in recommending low carb as the only way to solve the problem.
There was even a thread not long ago where OP said she was a picky eater and hated vegetables and got recommendations to go low carb (as if that made not eating vegetables healthy). And there have been several threads where OP is nervous about eating fruit because sugar and gets informed that cutting carbs means cutting fruits. It's been happening a lot.
And in other threads where OP is interested in cutting carbs and I personally wouldn't normally say anything against that, claims have been made that eating 40-50% carbs is inherently bad for humans and that humans naturally eat ketogenic diets, which is a false claim that ought to be addressed. I think keto is a fine diet if someone wants to do it, but the idea that not doing it or eating 50% carbs is "unnatural" and unhealthy is simply not true, and I suspect even the people who say it know that.
You are always going to get the odd people on a general public forum with mis-information - MFP is littered with them.
There are plenty on here claiming the body needs medium to high carbs to function and some claiming the brain needs dietary carbs to function optimally (which is simply not true), but I bet most people on here believe it.
I've got nothing against carbs, I eat them, I enjoy them I make them fit my diet and workout regime.
I choose a low carb diet because it helps me eat intuitively and keeps my appetite in check (plus I don't have the ball-ache of having to log or weight stuff).
Does the brain function optimally without dietary carbs? I'd love to see that research.
You have!!!
I know for a fact I have posted a study (probably about a year ago) showing no difference in 'long-term' brain function on a low carb diet compared to a high carb diet.
Maybe if you ate less carbs you would remember (that's a joke by the way!!!).
Your quote if you forgot, "Some claiming the brain needs dietary carbs to function optimally (which is simply not true)"
A study showing no difference in long term brain function on low or high carb diets does not support that notion. The brain still gets dietary carbs on a low carb diet, correct? And how does one define optimal in terms of brain functioning? If there was research that showed a bolus of glucose or sucrose outperformed placebo on cognitive exercises, what would that mean?
0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »mantium999 wrote: »
And I'll tell you the same I told others. If someone came into here asking what is the best way to jump out a window, would it be better to ask them if jumping out a window is necessary, or start explaining your personal strategy for opening a window latch? A lot of people think they to give up carbs. There is a lot of misinformation out there, and so it might help the person to actually check they're not following the latest trend in dieting.
Demonization of food is give it negative attributes it doesn't have according to established science.
Solipsistic arguments not withstanding, I'm pretty sure people are real and have no supernatural power over me, so not seeing the demonization.Demons are the blind fears of primitive thinking, the boogie-men of children. It becomes pretty clear that to demonize something is to give it a power over you, to tacitly give it the power to make you afraid because you don't understand it.
Why would you want to give a food that power? Why would anyone want to live in fear of a food for the sake of fearing it? I would like to live in the modern world free of demons - a world where such things are gone because we have rational enlightenment and understanding.
When you demonize people who demonize food, does that give them power over you? Or does this "Relinquishment Of Power" theory only hold true for foods?
That said, tree frog poison can be a very powerful hallucinogen in shamanistic rituals, so you might be one step closer than most.
OK, so I got one definition of demonization. Could you give me your definition of "demonization" as it applies to food?
Also, what power do you think the food is imbued with upon it's demonization?
Particular powers are placebo and nocebo effect, plus by trying to restrict it without need, you're setting up the food as novel when consumed, and thus increasing the desire of the food.
It is generally pretty old and established that intermittent reinforcement is actually more effective than continuous reinforcement. More modern techniques studying dopamine in the brain show that novelty plays a part in dopamine responses, and thus increases the perceived reward of it - essentially a chemical version of the conditioning principle of intermittent reinforcement.
And maybe some people have varying degrees of dopamine responses from you or the norm. So that theoretical relationship might not apply to them at all. Is it then OK for them to demonize?
There is actually an obese/serotonin/carbohydrates relationship. Those people might be better off not viewing a cupcake as innocent calories just waiting to be regulated by sheer willpower.
I don't have answers for everyone else, but like any reasonable person just try different things til I find out what works for my circumstances. When I find my answers, I will definitely not be telling others my way is the only way that will work for them.
All food usually leads to releasing serotonin. The reason why is that it drops the dopamine to stop reward seeking behavior because the reward is right there.
When you demonize the food, you've increased the dopamine response. You've now made it something you've mentally decided is unobtainable, something that is different. There are people that have very specific diseases like Prater-Willy. 99%+ of adults are going to be able to inure themselves to temptation. Believe it or not, the words "oh, not ice cream again", and "oh, not pizza again" have been uttered by English speakers who normally like those things.
If people on here are asking how to avoid something, it seems obvious that it does not work for them at some level. How is my suggesting they change their relationship any worse advice than someone telling them to throw all of it out of the house and hope they never encounter it while out and about? How does it stop being demonization just because it has worked for them?
And honestly, if you really believe there are so many special snowflakes, why do you tell people all the time that people don't need to eat sugar? Lustig himself talks about children that can't generate their own glucose and have to have special diets.
I used to 'change my relationship' with foods, but since discovered that it is easier to just label failed food relationships' foods as 'toxic' and minimize my interaction with them.
The only time it it appropriate to bring up how nutritionally unnecessary it is to eat sugar/carbs is right after a person asks how to minimize/eliminate or get control over a carb/sugar food and half the responses are saying EATTHEFOOD.
I personally pay attention to those people struggling with carb issues due to a long personal struggle with same and in addition our family has metabolic issues related to carbohydrate and I've spent hundreds of hours (or thousands if you ask my SO) learning about them.
Nutrional knowledge is sketchy and we are all unique. People's health and weight are dependant on them figuring out what works best for them. Supporting people in that process is more important than inappropriately applying random personal judgements.
Nutritional knowledge is better than most would think - psychology of food choices still could use improvement, but I can guarantee you, if you give me a metabolic chamber, control over food, and a test subject the science is there to guarantee they'll lose weight. Give me a barbell, weights, and little willingness on the part of the subject and I can even give good odds on most of the weight lost being fat rather than lean body mass. By and large, our metabolisms don't actually vary that much. For one, any kind of marked improvement or failure in metabolism would have profound effects on reproductive success in humans until around 100 years or so. For another, human evolution is marked by genetic bottlenecks where the entire race almost bit the dust and left a much smaller foundation population not that long ago.
And again, if you're going to make the argument that people are unique, don't make statements like glucose is a nonessential nutrient - for some people, it actually can be.
People with impaired gluconeogenesis are very ill, under the care of a doctor (or several), not looking for weight loss advice on MFP and pretty rare. People with issues processing carbohydrates well are frequently not diagnosed, on their own for answers, on weight loss forums like MFP and plentiful - maybe 3 out of 10 if the stats I've read are believable. I think what I am saying is appropriate for the folks here.
And the entire point that I am trying to make is that limiting carbs - even to low levels - is NOT the nutritional equivelent to jumping out a window.
If 3 of 10 who come here have unkown carb issues, and someone suggests limiting carbs to all the folks who ask, one is giving inaccurate advice to 70% of those who are asking.
No one that I've seen is suggesting carb limiting to random mfp posters.
Stick around. You'll see it. It happens all the time.
You may, but you are much more likely to see OP's asking for advice or other peoples feedback on cutting back on carbs and ways to eat LCHF and you will see the usual brigade jump straight in with - moderation blah, blah, blah. Sugars not the devil, then a bit more about moderation.
Not sure I've seen many threads where the OP asks about how to eat using the moderation tool and people jumping in with: just eat low carb blah, blah, blah.
Lately there have been a number of threads where OP says how to I deal with sugar cravings or wanting a dessert after dinner or having so much "junk" in my house where the low carb zealots assume that means they have "carb addictions" and jump in recommending low carb as the only way to solve the problem.
There was even a thread not long ago where OP said she was a picky eater and hated vegetables and got recommendations to go low carb (as if that made not eating vegetables healthy). And there have been several threads where OP is nervous about eating fruit because sugar and gets informed that cutting carbs means cutting fruits. It's been happening a lot.
And in other threads where OP is interested in cutting carbs and I personally wouldn't normally say anything against that, claims have been made that eating 40-50% carbs is inherently bad for humans and that humans naturally eat ketogenic diets, which is a false claim that ought to be addressed. I think keto is a fine diet if someone wants to do it, but the idea that not doing it or eating 50% carbs is "unnatural" and unhealthy is simply not true, and I suspect even the people who say it know that.
You are always going to get the odd people on a general public forum with mis-information - MFP is littered with them.
There are plenty on here claiming the body needs medium to high carbs to function and some claiming the brain needs dietary carbs to function optimally (which is simply not true), but I bet most people on here believe it.
I've got nothing against carbs, I eat them, I enjoy them I make them fit my diet and workout regime.
I choose a low carb diet because it helps me eat intuitively and keeps my appetite in check (plus I don't have the ball-ache of having to log or weight stuff).
Does the brain function optimally without dietary carbs? I'd love to see that research.
You have!!!
I know for a fact I have posted a study (probably about a year ago) showing no difference in 'long-term' brain function on a low carb diet compared to a high carb diet.
Maybe if you ate less carbs you would remember (that's a joke by the way!!!).
Your quote if you forgot, "Some claiming the brain needs dietary carbs to function optimally (which is simply not true)"
A study showing no difference in long term brain function on low or high carb diets does not support that notion. The brain still gets dietary carbs on a low carb diet, correct? And how does one define optimal in terms of brain functioning? If there was research that showed a bolus of glucose or sucrose outperformed placebo on cognitive exercises, what would that mean?
The brain does very well without dietary carbs. Yes, it needs glucose but you don't need to get it from food.
High carb is hard on the brain:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22810099
Low carb helps dementia:
http://www.webmd.com/alzheimers/news/20051018/high-fat-low-carb-diet-may-help-alzheimers
0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »mantium999 wrote: »
And I'll tell you the same I told others. If someone came into here asking what is the best way to jump out a window, would it be better to ask them if jumping out a window is necessary, or start explaining your personal strategy for opening a window latch? A lot of people think they to give up carbs. There is a lot of misinformation out there, and so it might help the person to actually check they're not following the latest trend in dieting.
Demonization of food is give it negative attributes it doesn't have according to established science.
Solipsistic arguments not withstanding, I'm pretty sure people are real and have no supernatural power over me, so not seeing the demonization.Demons are the blind fears of primitive thinking, the boogie-men of children. It becomes pretty clear that to demonize something is to give it a power over you, to tacitly give it the power to make you afraid because you don't understand it.
Why would you want to give a food that power? Why would anyone want to live in fear of a food for the sake of fearing it? I would like to live in the modern world free of demons - a world where such things are gone because we have rational enlightenment and understanding.
When you demonize people who demonize food, does that give them power over you? Or does this "Relinquishment Of Power" theory only hold true for foods?
That said, tree frog poison can be a very powerful hallucinogen in shamanistic rituals, so you might be one step closer than most.
OK, so I got one definition of demonization. Could you give me your definition of "demonization" as it applies to food?
Also, what power do you think the food is imbued with upon it's demonization?
Particular powers are placebo and nocebo effect, plus by trying to restrict it without need, you're setting up the food as novel when consumed, and thus increasing the desire of the food.
It is generally pretty old and established that intermittent reinforcement is actually more effective than continuous reinforcement. More modern techniques studying dopamine in the brain show that novelty plays a part in dopamine responses, and thus increases the perceived reward of it - essentially a chemical version of the conditioning principle of intermittent reinforcement.
And maybe some people have varying degrees of dopamine responses from you or the norm. So that theoretical relationship might not apply to them at all. Is it then OK for them to demonize?
There is actually an obese/serotonin/carbohydrates relationship. Those people might be better off not viewing a cupcake as innocent calories just waiting to be regulated by sheer willpower.
I don't have answers for everyone else, but like any reasonable person just try different things til I find out what works for my circumstances. When I find my answers, I will definitely not be telling others my way is the only way that will work for them.
All food usually leads to releasing serotonin. The reason why is that it drops the dopamine to stop reward seeking behavior because the reward is right there.
When you demonize the food, you've increased the dopamine response. You've now made it something you've mentally decided is unobtainable, something that is different. There are people that have very specific diseases like Prater-Willy. 99%+ of adults are going to be able to inure themselves to temptation. Believe it or not, the words "oh, not ice cream again", and "oh, not pizza again" have been uttered by English speakers who normally like those things.
If people on here are asking how to avoid something, it seems obvious that it does not work for them at some level. How is my suggesting they change their relationship any worse advice than someone telling them to throw all of it out of the house and hope they never encounter it while out and about? How does it stop being demonization just because it has worked for them?
And honestly, if you really believe there are so many special snowflakes, why do you tell people all the time that people don't need to eat sugar? Lustig himself talks about children that can't generate their own glucose and have to have special diets.
I used to 'change my relationship' with foods, but since discovered that it is easier to just label failed food relationships' foods as 'toxic' and minimize my interaction with them.
The only time it it appropriate to bring up how nutritionally unnecessary it is to eat sugar/carbs is right after a person asks how to minimize/eliminate or get control over a carb/sugar food and half the responses are saying EATTHEFOOD.
I personally pay attention to those people struggling with carb issues due to a long personal struggle with same and in addition our family has metabolic issues related to carbohydrate and I've spent hundreds of hours (or thousands if you ask my SO) learning about them.
Nutrional knowledge is sketchy and we are all unique. People's health and weight are dependant on them figuring out what works best for them. Supporting people in that process is more important than inappropriately applying random personal judgements.
Nutritional knowledge is better than most would think - psychology of food choices still could use improvement, but I can guarantee you, if you give me a metabolic chamber, control over food, and a test subject the science is there to guarantee they'll lose weight. Give me a barbell, weights, and little willingness on the part of the subject and I can even give good odds on most of the weight lost being fat rather than lean body mass. By and large, our metabolisms don't actually vary that much. For one, any kind of marked improvement or failure in metabolism would have profound effects on reproductive success in humans until around 100 years or so. For another, human evolution is marked by genetic bottlenecks where the entire race almost bit the dust and left a much smaller foundation population not that long ago.
And again, if you're going to make the argument that people are unique, don't make statements like glucose is a nonessential nutrient - for some people, it actually can be.
People with impaired gluconeogenesis are very ill, under the care of a doctor (or several), not looking for weight loss advice on MFP and pretty rare. People with issues processing carbohydrates well are frequently not diagnosed, on their own for answers, on weight loss forums like MFP and plentiful - maybe 3 out of 10 if the stats I've read are believable. I think what I am saying is appropriate for the folks here.
And the entire point that I am trying to make is that limiting carbs - even to low levels - is NOT the nutritional equivelent to jumping out a window.
If 3 of 10 who come here have unkown carb issues, and someone suggests limiting carbs to all the folks who ask, one is giving inaccurate advice to 70% of those who are asking.
No one that I've seen is suggesting carb limiting to random mfp posters.
Stick around. You'll see it. It happens all the time.
You may, but you are much more likely to see OP's asking for advice or other peoples feedback on cutting back on carbs and ways to eat LCHF and you will see the usual brigade jump straight in with - moderation blah, blah, blah. Sugars not the devil, then a bit more about moderation.
Not sure I've seen many threads where the OP asks about how to eat using the moderation tool and people jumping in with: just eat low carb blah, blah, blah.
Lately there have been a number of threads where OP says how to I deal with sugar cravings or wanting a dessert after dinner or having so much "junk" in my house where the low carb zealots assume that means they have "carb addictions" and jump in recommending low carb as the only way to solve the problem.
There was even a thread not long ago where OP said she was a picky eater and hated vegetables and got recommendations to go low carb (as if that made not eating vegetables healthy). And there have been several threads where OP is nervous about eating fruit because sugar and gets informed that cutting carbs means cutting fruits. It's been happening a lot.
And in other threads where OP is interested in cutting carbs and I personally wouldn't normally say anything against that, claims have been made that eating 40-50% carbs is inherently bad for humans and that humans naturally eat ketogenic diets, which is a false claim that ought to be addressed. I think keto is a fine diet if someone wants to do it, but the idea that not doing it or eating 50% carbs is "unnatural" and unhealthy is simply not true, and I suspect even the people who say it know that.
You are always going to get the odd people on a general public forum with mis-information - MFP is littered with them.
There are plenty on here claiming the body needs medium to high carbs to function and some claiming the brain needs dietary carbs to function optimally (which is simply not true), but I bet most people on here believe it.
I've got nothing against carbs, I eat them, I enjoy them I make them fit my diet and workout regime.
I choose a low carb diet because it helps me eat intuitively and keeps my appetite in check (plus I don't have the ball-ache of having to log or weight stuff).
Does the brain function optimally without dietary carbs? I'd love to see that research.
You have!!!
I know for a fact I have posted a study (probably about a year ago) showing no difference in 'long-term' brain function on a low carb diet compared to a high carb diet.
Maybe if you ate less carbs you would remember (that's a joke by the way!!!).
Your quote if you forgot, "Some claiming the brain needs dietary carbs to function optimally (which is simply not true)"
A study showing no difference in long term brain function on low or high carb diets does not support that notion. The brain still gets dietary carbs on a low carb diet, correct? And how does one define optimal in terms of brain functioning? If there was research that showed a bolus of glucose or sucrose outperformed placebo on cognitive exercises, what would that mean?
The brain does very well without dietary carbs. Yes, it needs glucose but you don't need to get it from food.
High carb is hard on the brain:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22810099
Low carb helps dementia:
http://www.webmd.com/alzheimers/news/20051018/high-fat-low-carb-diet-may-help-alzheimers
Do words have meanings anymore?
Very well =/= optimal does it? And neither of your links support the notion the brain even does "very well" without dietary carbs.
Your first link does not support that high carb is hard on the brain
Doesn't support your statement either
"A new study shows mice bred to develop Alzheimer's disease showed less of the brain-clogging plaques associated with the disease when they were fed a high-fat, low-carbohydrate diet than mice fed a standard low-fat, high-carbohydrate diet."
And neither support that the brain can function optimally without dietary carbs.
This isn't very hard0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »mantium999 wrote: »
And I'll tell you the same I told others. If someone came into here asking what is the best way to jump out a window, would it be better to ask them if jumping out a window is necessary, or start explaining your personal strategy for opening a window latch? A lot of people think they to give up carbs. There is a lot of misinformation out there, and so it might help the person to actually check they're not following the latest trend in dieting.
Demonization of food is give it negative attributes it doesn't have according to established science.
Solipsistic arguments not withstanding, I'm pretty sure people are real and have no supernatural power over me, so not seeing the demonization.Demons are the blind fears of primitive thinking, the boogie-men of children. It becomes pretty clear that to demonize something is to give it a power over you, to tacitly give it the power to make you afraid because you don't understand it.
Why would you want to give a food that power? Why would anyone want to live in fear of a food for the sake of fearing it? I would like to live in the modern world free of demons - a world where such things are gone because we have rational enlightenment and understanding.
When you demonize people who demonize food, does that give them power over you? Or does this "Relinquishment Of Power" theory only hold true for foods?
That said, tree frog poison can be a very powerful hallucinogen in shamanistic rituals, so you might be one step closer than most.
OK, so I got one definition of demonization. Could you give me your definition of "demonization" as it applies to food?
Also, what power do you think the food is imbued with upon it's demonization?
Particular powers are placebo and nocebo effect, plus by trying to restrict it without need, you're setting up the food as novel when consumed, and thus increasing the desire of the food.
It is generally pretty old and established that intermittent reinforcement is actually more effective than continuous reinforcement. More modern techniques studying dopamine in the brain show that novelty plays a part in dopamine responses, and thus increases the perceived reward of it - essentially a chemical version of the conditioning principle of intermittent reinforcement.
And maybe some people have varying degrees of dopamine responses from you or the norm. So that theoretical relationship might not apply to them at all. Is it then OK for them to demonize?
There is actually an obese/serotonin/carbohydrates relationship. Those people might be better off not viewing a cupcake as innocent calories just waiting to be regulated by sheer willpower.
I don't have answers for everyone else, but like any reasonable person just try different things til I find out what works for my circumstances. When I find my answers, I will definitely not be telling others my way is the only way that will work for them.
All food usually leads to releasing serotonin. The reason why is that it drops the dopamine to stop reward seeking behavior because the reward is right there.
When you demonize the food, you've increased the dopamine response. You've now made it something you've mentally decided is unobtainable, something that is different. There are people that have very specific diseases like Prater-Willy. 99%+ of adults are going to be able to inure themselves to temptation. Believe it or not, the words "oh, not ice cream again", and "oh, not pizza again" have been uttered by English speakers who normally like those things.
If people on here are asking how to avoid something, it seems obvious that it does not work for them at some level. How is my suggesting they change their relationship any worse advice than someone telling them to throw all of it out of the house and hope they never encounter it while out and about? How does it stop being demonization just because it has worked for them?
And honestly, if you really believe there are so many special snowflakes, why do you tell people all the time that people don't need to eat sugar? Lustig himself talks about children that can't generate their own glucose and have to have special diets.
I used to 'change my relationship' with foods, but since discovered that it is easier to just label failed food relationships' foods as 'toxic' and minimize my interaction with them.
The only time it it appropriate to bring up how nutritionally unnecessary it is to eat sugar/carbs is right after a person asks how to minimize/eliminate or get control over a carb/sugar food and half the responses are saying EATTHEFOOD.
I personally pay attention to those people struggling with carb issues due to a long personal struggle with same and in addition our family has metabolic issues related to carbohydrate and I've spent hundreds of hours (or thousands if you ask my SO) learning about them.
Nutrional knowledge is sketchy and we are all unique. People's health and weight are dependant on them figuring out what works best for them. Supporting people in that process is more important than inappropriately applying random personal judgements.
Nutritional knowledge is better than most would think - psychology of food choices still could use improvement, but I can guarantee you, if you give me a metabolic chamber, control over food, and a test subject the science is there to guarantee they'll lose weight. Give me a barbell, weights, and little willingness on the part of the subject and I can even give good odds on most of the weight lost being fat rather than lean body mass. By and large, our metabolisms don't actually vary that much. For one, any kind of marked improvement or failure in metabolism would have profound effects on reproductive success in humans until around 100 years or so. For another, human evolution is marked by genetic bottlenecks where the entire race almost bit the dust and left a much smaller foundation population not that long ago.
And again, if you're going to make the argument that people are unique, don't make statements like glucose is a nonessential nutrient - for some people, it actually can be.
People with impaired gluconeogenesis are very ill, under the care of a doctor (or several), not looking for weight loss advice on MFP and pretty rare. People with issues processing carbohydrates well are frequently not diagnosed, on their own for answers, on weight loss forums like MFP and plentiful - maybe 3 out of 10 if the stats I've read are believable. I think what I am saying is appropriate for the folks here.
And the entire point that I am trying to make is that limiting carbs - even to low levels - is NOT the nutritional equivelent to jumping out a window.
If 3 of 10 who come here have unkown carb issues, and someone suggests limiting carbs to all the folks who ask, one is giving inaccurate advice to 70% of those who are asking.
No one that I've seen is suggesting carb limiting to random mfp posters.
Stick around. You'll see it. It happens all the time.
You may, but you are much more likely to see OP's asking for advice or other peoples feedback on cutting back on carbs and ways to eat LCHF and you will see the usual brigade jump straight in with - moderation blah, blah, blah. Sugars not the devil, then a bit more about moderation.
Not sure I've seen many threads where the OP asks about how to eat using the moderation tool and people jumping in with: just eat low carb blah, blah, blah.
Lately there have been a number of threads where OP says how to I deal with sugar cravings or wanting a dessert after dinner or having so much "junk" in my house where the low carb zealots assume that means they have "carb addictions" and jump in recommending low carb as the only way to solve the problem.
There was even a thread not long ago where OP said she was a picky eater and hated vegetables and got recommendations to go low carb (as if that made not eating vegetables healthy). And there have been several threads where OP is nervous about eating fruit because sugar and gets informed that cutting carbs means cutting fruits. It's been happening a lot.
And in other threads where OP is interested in cutting carbs and I personally wouldn't normally say anything against that, claims have been made that eating 40-50% carbs is inherently bad for humans and that humans naturally eat ketogenic diets, which is a false claim that ought to be addressed. I think keto is a fine diet if someone wants to do it, but the idea that not doing it or eating 50% carbs is "unnatural" and unhealthy is simply not true, and I suspect even the people who say it know that.
You are always going to get the odd people on a general public forum with mis-information - MFP is littered with them.
There are plenty on here claiming the body needs medium to high carbs to function and some claiming the brain needs dietary carbs to function optimally (which is simply not true), but I bet most people on here believe it.
I've got nothing against carbs, I eat them, I enjoy them I make them fit my diet and workout regime.
I choose a low carb diet because it helps me eat intuitively and keeps my appetite in check (plus I don't have the ball-ache of having to log or weight stuff).
Does the brain function optimally without dietary carbs? I'd love to see that research.
You have!!!
I know for a fact I have posted a study (probably about a year ago) showing no difference in 'long-term' brain function on a low carb diet compared to a high carb diet.
Maybe if you ate less carbs you would remember (that's a joke by the way!!!).
Your quote if you forgot, "Some claiming the brain needs dietary carbs to function optimally (which is simply not true)"
A study showing no difference in long term brain function on low or high carb diets does not support that notion. The brain still gets dietary carbs on a low carb diet, correct? And how does one define optimal in terms of brain functioning? If there was research that showed a bolus of glucose or sucrose outperformed placebo on cognitive exercises, what would that mean?
The brain does very well without dietary carbs. Yes, it needs glucose but you don't need to get it from food.
High carb is hard on the brain:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22810099
Low carb helps dementia:
http://www.webmd.com/alzheimers/news/20051018/high-fat-low-carb-diet-may-help-alzheimers
Do words have meanings anymore?
Very well =/= optimal does it? And neither of your links support the notion the brain even does "very well" without dietary carbs.
Your first link does not support that high carb is hard on the brain
Doesn't support your statement either
"A new study shows mice bred to develop Alzheimer's disease showed less of the brain-clogging plaques associated with the disease when they were fed a high-fat, low-carbohydrate diet than mice fed a standard low-fat, high-carbohydrate diet."
And neither support that the brain can function optimally without dietary carbs.
This isn't very hard
0 -
Lost cause.0
-
Lost cause.
Agreed, 3 statements all made up or at least not substantiated in the least bit.
"The brain does very well without dietary carbs. Yes, it needs glucose but you don't need to get it from food.
High carb is hard on the brain:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22810099
Low carb helps dementia:
http://www.webmd.com/alzheimers/news/20051018/high-fat-low-carb-diet-may-help-alzheimers"0 -
The people of the world are not into cutting carbs and refined sugar but actually want more.
Data is out there on the www about most any eating lifestyle and it points in both directions on most any eating lifestyle.
At the end of the day one can just pick a point of view that interest one the most and try it for 90 days in a serious manner and see the results it brings and move on with what one learns during that 90 day period. The scales will show loss, no change or gain 100% of the time. 0 -
Again, diabetes is not the disease of glucose. It is the disease of impaired insulin sensitivity. They may look like the same thing at first blush, but they describe different problems. You can switch to a zero carb diet and still slam your insulin through the roof if you eat large amounts of protein, or if I recall correctly, more specifically if you take straight leucine BCAA's.
Well if you ignore everything I wrote and substitute a strawman, I'm sure it sounds like exactly what you want to hear. Diabetes isn't a disease of being unable to process carbs. It is a disease of cells becoming resistant to insulin. Insulin is activated not just by carbs, but protein, but hey, continue to call diabetes the carb processing disease. As I already said, losing weight is the primary factor in treating most diabetes.
Ok. That's a rather different claim than 30% of people have a problem with carbs.
No, you've stated as fact that all human beings can survive without carbs to make the point that it isn't an essential nutrient. You weren't saying about people on MFP, you were saying it as scientific fact. That's fine as covers 99.9%+ of the world's population, but, if you're going to start talking about some people needing certain dietary changes because they're special, without anyone bringing in a doctor's note saying they have said issues, I'll call you on your playing fast and lose with what is or is not the way human metabolism works.
And I'll tell you the same I told others. If someone came into here asking what is the best way to jump out a window, would it be better to ask them if jumping out a window is necessary, or start explaining your personal strategy for opening a window latch? A lot of people think they to give up carbs. There is a lot of misinformation out there, and so it might help the person to actually check they're not following the latest trend in dieting.
Demonization of food is give it negative attributes it doesn't have according to established science.
Solipsistic arguments not withstanding, I'm pretty sure people are real and have no supernatural power over me, so not seeing the demonization.Demons are the blind fears of primitive thinking, the boogie-men of children. It becomes pretty clear that to demonize something is to give it a power over you, to tacitly give it the power to make you afraid because you don't understand it.
Why would you want to give a food that power? Why would anyone want to live in fear of a food for the sake of fearing it? I would like to live in the modern world free of demons - a world where such things are gone because we have rational enlightenment and understanding.
When you demonize people who demonize food, does that give them power over you? Or does this "Relinquishment Of Power" theory only hold true for foods?
That said, tree frog poison can be a very powerful hallucinogen in shamanistic rituals, so you might be one step closer than most.
OK, so I got one definition of demonization. Could you give me your definition of "demonization" as it applies to food?
Also, what power do you think the food is imbued with upon it's demonization?
Particular powers are placebo and nocebo effect, plus by trying to restrict it without need, you're setting up the food as novel when consumed, and thus increasing the desire of the food.
It is generally pretty old and established that intermittent reinforcement is actually more effective than continuous reinforcement. More modern techniques studying dopamine in the brain show that novelty plays a part in dopamine responses, and thus increases the perceived reward of it - essentially a chemical version of the conditioning principle of intermittent reinforcement.
And maybe some people have varying degrees of dopamine responses from you or the norm. So that theoretical relationship might not apply to them at all. Is it then OK for them to demonize?
There is actually an obese/serotonin/carbohydrates relationship. Those people might be better off not viewing a cupcake as innocent calories just waiting to be regulated by sheer willpower.
I don't have answers for everyone else, but like any reasonable person just try different things til I find out what works for my circumstances. When I find my answers, I will definitely not be telling others my way is the only way that will work for them.
All food usually leads to releasing serotonin. The reason why is that it drops the dopamine to stop reward seeking behavior because the reward is right there.
When you demonize the food, you've increased the dopamine response. You've now made it something you've mentally decided is unobtainable, something that is different. There are people that have very specific diseases like Prater-Willy. 99%+ of adults are going to be able to inure themselves to temptation. Believe it or not, the words "oh, not ice cream again", and "oh, not pizza again" have been uttered by English speakers who normally like those things.
If people on here are asking how to avoid something, it seems obvious that it does not work for them at some level. How is my suggesting they change their relationship any worse advice than someone telling them to throw all of it out of the house and hope they never encounter it while out and about? How does it stop being demonization just because it has worked for them?
And honestly, if you really believe there are so many special snowflakes, why do you tell people all the time that people don't need to eat sugar? Lustig himself talks about children that can't generate their own glucose and have to have special diets.
I used to 'change my relationship' with foods, but since discovered that it is easier to just label failed food relationships' foods as 'toxic' and minimize my interaction with them.
The only time it it appropriate to bring up how nutritionally unnecessary it is to eat sugar/carbs is right after a person asks how to minimize/eliminate or get control over a carb/sugar food and half the responses are saying EATTHEFOOD.
I personally pay attention to those people struggling with carb issues due to a long personal struggle with same and in addition our family has metabolic issues related to carbohydrate and I've spent hundreds of hours (or thousands if you ask my SO) learning about them.
Nutrional knowledge is sketchy and we are all unique. People's health and weight are dependant on them figuring out what works best for them. Supporting people in that process is more important than inappropriately applying random personal judgements.
Nutritional knowledge is better than most would think - psychology of food choices still could use improvement, but I can guarantee you, if you give me a metabolic chamber, control over food, and a test subject the science is there to guarantee they'll lose weight. Give me a barbell, weights, and little willingness on the part of the subject and I can even give good odds on most of the weight lost being fat rather than lean body mass. By and large, our metabolisms don't actually vary that much. For one, any kind of marked improvement or failure in metabolism would have profound effects on reproductive success in humans until around 100 years or so. For another, human evolution is marked by genetic bottlenecks where the entire race almost bit the dust and left a much smaller foundation population not that long ago.
And again, if you're going to make the argument that people are unique, don't make statements like glucose is a nonessential nutrient - for some people, it actually can be.
People with impaired gluconeogenesis are very ill, under the care of a doctor (or several), not looking for weight loss advice on MFP and pretty rare. People with issues processing carbohydrates well are frequently not diagnosed, on their own for answers, on weight loss forums like MFP and plentiful - maybe 3 out of 10 if the stats I've read are believable. I think what I am saying is appropriate for the folks here.
And the entire point that I am trying to make is that limiting carbs - even to low levels - is NOT the nutritional equivelent to jumping out a window.
If you have something that seriously shows 3 out 10 people have issues processing carbohydrates, I'd seriously like to see it. I'd find it incredible that something that started as frugivores could turn into a species with 30% of the population having an inability to handle carbohydrates in a span of 2 million years or less.
If you are limiting carbs because the latest headlines says to, or some other pseudo or quack science as often shows up in these threads, then yes, it is similar to jumping out a window for disbelieving gravity. Restricting carbs other than as a way to reduce calories is never a necessity for weight loss.
Prediabetes among people aged 20 years or older, United States, 2012
• In 2009−2012, based on fasting glucose or A1C levels, 37% of U.S. adults aged 20 years or older had
prediabetes (51% of those aged 65 years or older). Applying this percentage to the entire U.S. population
in 2012 yields an estimated 86 million Americans aged 20 years or older with prediabetes.
• On the basis of fasting glucose or A1C levels, and after adjusting for population age differences, the
percentage of U.S. adults aged 20 years or older with prediabetes in 2009−2012 was similar for non-
Hispanic whites (35%), non-Hispanic blacks (39%), and Hispanics (38%).
Total: 29.1 million people or 9.3% of the U.S. population have diabetes
Diagnosed: 21.0 million people
Undiagnosed: 8.1 million people (27.8% of people with diabetes are undiagnosed)
View the full report: CDC’s National Diabetes Statistics Report
So, about 46% of the US population has diabetes or prediabetes.
Yes, it is a national and international crisis. It is actually far higher & worse than I said.
It might just explain why you folks who process carbs OK (so far) are sick of hearing about low carb diets or people worried about carbs and sugars.
1. You're talking US population (though hint, some developing countries do actually have worse rates of diabetes)
2. The fasting A1C and glucose is a biased population. People who don't have other indicators for diabetes don't normally end up taking an A1C or glucose test.
3. You're assuming diabetes or prediabetic means someone has problems with carbs.
4. Diabetic Associations usually don't actually recommend low carbs diets, they recommend consistent carbs, including keeping them in one's diet.
5. Early diabetes and insulin resistance are often treated simply by losing weight, regardless of the carbohydrate composition of the diet.
It sounds like you believe people with high blood glucose and inability to correctly process carbohydrates continue to eat the foods that they are unable to process and increase their glucose to toxic levels? We have very different ideas.
By your terminology, the fact that we have 69% of adults overweight in the US means we have a calorie processing disorder in 69% of the humans.
Reducing high levels of glucose in the blood is the core goal for diabetes and pre diabetes.
The most direct simple method to reduce blood glucose is to reduce carbohydrates.
I'll repeat this for the umpteenth time now. The most profound impact on treating diabetes and prediabetes is reducing weight. Doing so trumps the effects of reducing carbs. Seriously, while fat by itself influences insulin resistance.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC507380/
Give a body enough fat, and it tries to burn fat, and that leaves glucose float free, and you still have the same problems. You have to actually start forcing fat clear of the system.0 -
I'm going to go with the Mayo Clinic's advice, thanks. CICO works just fine.
http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/weight-loss/in-depth/low-carb-diet/art-20045831?pg=20 -
This discussion is strange. You are missing the point(s). Well, most of you.
Lots of people ask for advice to cut carbs to lose weight, because they have no clue about how weight loss works. Lots of people suggest cutting carbs to lose weight, because they have no clue about how weight loss works. Lots of people think they are addicted to carbs because they have heard about that, and think they have to cut bread, pasta and potatoes. Some people mistake water weight gain after eating more carbs for fat gain. And then there are all these other more or less random ideas, like eating pattern, low-fat, water intake, green tea, wheat belly diet etc. It is good to inform people about their delusions. But when people clearly struggle moderating certain foods that often have no nutritional value besides calories, have no pleasure from small amounts and eating to satisfaction will jeopardize their health, and are best off avoiding them as much as possible, and feel fine and not deprived doing so but need help to find good strategies to avoid them, or something - why would the best suggestion be to learn to incorporate those foods into their diet?
Asking for background information and reasons behind people's questions involving restrictions or seemingly bizarre actions (if not obvious and/or stated in OP) is in my opinion important, because unnecessary rules and restrictions will usually make compliance more difficult, and eating less than one burns already means some degree of restriction for most. The problem that usually arises, is that the OP feels insulted about their motives being questioned or perceive questions for stats as "personal", and will not let go of their initial idea no matter what; someone suggests something crazy but the OP likes it, other posters react by getting snarky, then someone throws in "mean", "rude", hates", or "negativity"; OPs often rage quit.
Jumping put of the window can be a good idea in some cases, for instance if there is a fire.0 -
Cindy, Cindy...have the courage of your convictions. Otherwise, it's just...sad.
So, why the mocking on your part?
I may not be consistently polite, but I didn't mock you or insult you.
I didn't insult you. I didn't make fun of you or mock you in any way.
I know. You're always a polite poster. That's why I'm surprised you get such flack. I'd ask why people are battling your recommendation about consulting a doctor, but I don't want to derail the thread.
He doesn't accuse you of it anywhere.
Don't recall mocking you, either.
Don't recall saying you did.
where did I mock you?
Again, what? I asked you a question at one point, in direct reference to something you said, but I never mocked you, specifically. If I'm going to mock someone, there's a quote of that person, so that person knows I'm referring to him or her. Or I refer to him or her by name. If that doesn't happen, it's not about you. If you take something I say personally, that's on you, not on me.0 -
kommodevaran wrote: »This discussion is strange. You are missing the point(s). Well, most of you.
Lots of people ask for advice to cut carbs to lose weight, because they have no clue about how weight loss works. Lots of people suggest cutting carbs to lose weight, because they have no clue about how weight loss works. Lots of people think they are addicted to carbs because they have heard about that, and think they have to cut bread, pasta and potatoes. Some people mistake water weight gain after eating more carbs for fat gain. And then there are all these other more or less random ideas, like eating pattern, low-fat, water intake, green tea, wheat belly diet etc. It is good to inform people about their delusions. But when people clearly struggle moderating certain foods that often have no nutritional value besides calories, have no pleasure from small amounts and eating to satisfaction will jeopardize their health, and are best off avoiding them as much as possible, and feel fine and not deprived doing so but need help to find good strategies to avoid them, or something - why would the best suggestion be to learn to incorporate those foods into their diet?
Asking for background information and reasons behind people's questions involving restrictions or seemingly bizarre actions (if not obvious and/or stated in OP) is in my opinion important, because unnecessary rules and restrictions will usually make compliance more difficult, and eating less than one burns already means some degree of restriction for most. The problem that usually arises, is that the OP feels insulted about their motives being questioned or perceive questions for stats as "personal", and will not let go of their initial idea no matter what; someone suggests something crazy but the OP likes it, other posters react by getting snarky, then someone throws in "mean", "rude", hates", or "negativity"; OPs often rage quit.
Jumping put of the window can be a good idea in some cases, for instance if there is a fire.
I think you make some excellent points here, and I agree with you about most of this. Except for one thing. Jumping out of a window because the building is on fire - you only do this if you are on the first or second floor; or you know there is an inflatable landing pad; or you are willing to die quickly by jumping to your death rather than burn.
0 -
kommodevaran wrote: »This discussion is strange. You are missing the point(s). Well, most of you.
Lots of people ask for advice to cut carbs to lose weight, because they have no clue about how weight loss works. Lots of people suggest cutting carbs to lose weight, because they have no clue about how weight loss works. Lots of people think they are addicted to carbs because they have heard about that, and think they have to cut bread, pasta and potatoes. Some people mistake water weight gain after eating more carbs for fat gain. And then there are all these other more or less random ideas, like eating pattern, low-fat, water intake, green tea, wheat belly diet etc. It is good to inform people about their delusions. But when people clearly struggle moderating certain foods that often have no nutritional value besides calories, have no pleasure from small amounts and eating to satisfaction will jeopardize their health, and are best off avoiding them as much as possible, and feel fine and not deprived doing so but need help to find good strategies to avoid them, or something - why would the best suggestion be to learn to incorporate those foods into their diet?
Asking for background information and reasons behind people's questions involving restrictions or seemingly bizarre actions (if not obvious and/or stated in OP) is in my opinion important, because unnecessary rules and restrictions will usually make compliance more difficult, and eating less than one burns already means some degree of restriction for most. The problem that usually arises, is that the OP feels insulted about their motives being questioned or perceive questions for stats as "personal", and will not let go of their initial idea no matter what; someone suggests something crazy but the OP likes it, other posters react by getting snarky, then someone throws in "mean", "rude", hates", or "negativity"; OPs often rage quit.
Jumping put of the window can be a good idea in some cases, for instance if there is a fire.
I think you make some excellent points here, and I agree with you about most of this. Except for one thing. Jumping out of a window because the building is on fire - you only do this if you are on the first or second floor; or you know there is an inflatable landing pad; or you are willing to die quickly by jumping to your death rather than burn.
I agree - context is crucial, and that was some of my point
0 -
So is anyone going to substantiate the ridiculous claims form low carb advocates in the last few pages? So far the only thing put forth can be called nothing short of a joke, since I'm unsure how anyone with a smidgen of intelligence could consider the links as any proof of their claims0
-
Everyone seems to ignore I said specifically jumping out the window because you no longer believe in gravity.kommodevaran wrote: »This discussion is strange. You are missing the point(s). Well, most of you.
Lots of people ask for advice to cut carbs to lose weight, because they have no clue about how weight loss works. Lots of people suggest cutting carbs to lose weight, because they have no clue about how weight loss works. Lots of people think they are addicted to carbs because they have heard about that, and think they have to cut bread, pasta and potatoes. Some people mistake water weight gain after eating more carbs for fat gain. And then there are all these other more or less random ideas, like eating pattern, low-fat, water intake, green tea, wheat belly diet etc. It is good to inform people about their delusions. But when people clearly struggle moderating certain foods that often have no nutritional value besides calories, have no pleasure from small amounts and eating to satisfaction will jeopardize their health, and are best off avoiding them as much as possible, and feel fine and not deprived doing so but need help to find good strategies to avoid them, or something - why would the best suggestion be to learn to incorporate those foods into their diet?
Asking for background information and reasons behind people's questions involving restrictions or seemingly bizarre actions (if not obvious and/or stated in OP) is in my opinion important, because unnecessary rules and restrictions will usually make compliance more difficult, and eating less than one burns already means some degree of restriction for most. The problem that usually arises, is that the OP feels insulted about their motives being questioned or perceive questions for stats as "personal", and will not let go of their initial idea no matter what; someone suggests something crazy but the OP likes it, other posters react by getting snarky, then someone throws in "mean", "rude", hates", or "negativity"; OPs often rage quit.
Jumping put of the window can be a good idea in some cases, for instance if there is a fire.
It is actually an important distinction because I also said people who have celiac shouldn't eat gluten - there's actual scientific evidence for avoidance. People thinking gluten is what made them fat avoiding gluten are doing for wrong reasons. The whole point is about the reasoning behind the action, not the action.0 -
Everyone seems to ignore I said specifically jumping out the window because you no longer believe in gravity.kommodevaran wrote: »This discussion is strange. You are missing the point(s). Well, most of you.
Lots of people ask for advice to cut carbs to lose weight, because they have no clue about how weight loss works. Lots of people suggest cutting carbs to lose weight, because they have no clue about how weight loss works. Lots of people think they are addicted to carbs because they have heard about that, and think they have to cut bread, pasta and potatoes. Some people mistake water weight gain after eating more carbs for fat gain. And then there are all these other more or less random ideas, like eating pattern, low-fat, water intake, green tea, wheat belly diet etc. It is good to inform people about their delusions. But when people clearly struggle moderating certain foods that often have no nutritional value besides calories, have no pleasure from small amounts and eating to satisfaction will jeopardize their health, and are best off avoiding them as much as possible, and feel fine and not deprived doing so but need help to find good strategies to avoid them, or something - why would the best suggestion be to learn to incorporate those foods into their diet?
Asking for background information and reasons behind people's questions involving restrictions or seemingly bizarre actions (if not obvious and/or stated in OP) is in my opinion important, because unnecessary rules and restrictions will usually make compliance more difficult, and eating less than one burns already means some degree of restriction for most. The problem that usually arises, is that the OP feels insulted about their motives being questioned or perceive questions for stats as "personal", and will not let go of their initial idea no matter what; someone suggests something crazy but the OP likes it, other posters react by getting snarky, then someone throws in "mean", "rude", hates", or "negativity"; OPs often rage quit.
Jumping put of the window can be a good idea in some cases, for instance if there is a fire.
It is actually an important distinction because I also said people who have celiac shouldn't eat gluten - there's actual scientific evidence for avoidance. People thinking gluten is what made them fat avoiding gluten are doing for wrong reasons. The whole point is about the reasoning behind the action, not the action.
You are wise.0 -
Again, diabetes is not the disease of glucose. It is the disease of impaired insulin sensitivity. They may look like the same thing at first blush, but they describe different problems. You can switch to a zero carb diet and still slam your insulin through the roof if you eat large amounts of protein, or if I recall correctly, more specifically if you take straight leucine BCAA's.
Well if you ignore everything I wrote and substitute a strawman, I'm sure it sounds like exactly what you want to hear. Diabetes isn't a disease of being unable to process carbs. It is a disease of cells becoming resistant to insulin. Insulin is activated not just by carbs, but protein, but hey, continue to call diabetes the carb processing disease. As I already said, losing weight is the primary factor in treating most diabetes.
Ok. That's a rather different claim than 30% of people have a problem with carbs.
No, you've stated as fact that all human beings can survive without carbs to make the point that it isn't an essential nutrient. You weren't saying about people on MFP, you were saying it as scientific fact. That's fine as covers 99.9%+ of the world's population, but, if you're going to start talking about some people needing certain dietary changes because they're special, without anyone bringing in a doctor's note saying they have said issues, I'll call you on your playing fast and lose with what is or is not the way human metabolism works.
And I'll tell you the same I told others. If someone came into here asking what is the best way to jump out a window, would it be better to ask them if jumping out a window is necessary, or start explaining your personal strategy for opening a window latch? A lot of people think they to give up carbs. There is a lot of misinformation out there, and so it might help the person to actually check they're not following the latest trend in dieting.
Demonization of food is give it negative attributes it doesn't have according to established science.
Solipsistic arguments not withstanding, I'm pretty sure people are real and have no supernatural power over me, so not seeing the demonization.Demons are the blind fears of primitive thinking, the boogie-men of children. It becomes pretty clear that to demonize something is to give it a power over you, to tacitly give it the power to make you afraid because you don't understand it.
Why would you want to give a food that power? Why would anyone want to live in fear of a food for the sake of fearing it? I would like to live in the modern world free of demons - a world where such things are gone because we have rational enlightenment and understanding.
When you demonize people who demonize food, does that give them power over you? Or does this "Relinquishment Of Power" theory only hold true for foods?
That said, tree frog poison can be a very powerful hallucinogen in shamanistic rituals, so you might be one step closer than most.
OK, so I got one definition of demonization. Could you give me your definition of "demonization" as it applies to food?
Also, what power do you think the food is imbued with upon it's demonization?
Particular powers are placebo and nocebo effect, plus by trying to restrict it without need, you're setting up the food as novel when consumed, and thus increasing the desire of the food.
It is generally pretty old and established that intermittent reinforcement is actually more effective than continuous reinforcement. More modern techniques studying dopamine in the brain show that novelty plays a part in dopamine responses, and thus increases the perceived reward of it - essentially a chemical version of the conditioning principle of intermittent reinforcement.
And maybe some people have varying degrees of dopamine responses from you or the norm. So that theoretical relationship might not apply to them at all. Is it then OK for them to demonize?
There is actually an obese/serotonin/carbohydrates relationship. Those people might be better off not viewing a cupcake as innocent calories just waiting to be regulated by sheer willpower.
I don't have answers for everyone else, but like any reasonable person just try different things til I find out what works for my circumstances. When I find my answers, I will definitely not be telling others my way is the only way that will work for them.
All food usually leads to releasing serotonin. The reason why is that it drops the dopamine to stop reward seeking behavior because the reward is right there.
When you demonize the food, you've increased the dopamine response. You've now made it something you've mentally decided is unobtainable, something that is different. There are people that have very specific diseases like Prater-Willy. 99%+ of adults are going to be able to inure themselves to temptation. Believe it or not, the words "oh, not ice cream again", and "oh, not pizza again" have been uttered by English speakers who normally like those things.
If people on here are asking how to avoid something, it seems obvious that it does not work for them at some level. How is my suggesting they change their relationship any worse advice than someone telling them to throw all of it out of the house and hope they never encounter it while out and about? How does it stop being demonization just because it has worked for them?
And honestly, if you really believe there are so many special snowflakes, why do you tell people all the time that people don't need to eat sugar? Lustig himself talks about children that can't generate their own glucose and have to have special diets.
I used to 'change my relationship' with foods, but since discovered that it is easier to just label failed food relationships' foods as 'toxic' and minimize my interaction with them.
The only time it it appropriate to bring up how nutritionally unnecessary it is to eat sugar/carbs is right after a person asks how to minimize/eliminate or get control over a carb/sugar food and half the responses are saying EATTHEFOOD.
I personally pay attention to those people struggling with carb issues due to a long personal struggle with same and in addition our family has metabolic issues related to carbohydrate and I've spent hundreds of hours (or thousands if you ask my SO) learning about them.
Nutrional knowledge is sketchy and we are all unique. People's health and weight are dependant on them figuring out what works best for them. Supporting people in that process is more important than inappropriately applying random personal judgements.
Nutritional knowledge is better than most would think - psychology of food choices still could use improvement, but I can guarantee you, if you give me a metabolic chamber, control over food, and a test subject the science is there to guarantee they'll lose weight. Give me a barbell, weights, and little willingness on the part of the subject and I can even give good odds on most of the weight lost being fat rather than lean body mass. By and large, our metabolisms don't actually vary that much. For one, any kind of marked improvement or failure in metabolism would have profound effects on reproductive success in humans until around 100 years or so. For another, human evolution is marked by genetic bottlenecks where the entire race almost bit the dust and left a much smaller foundation population not that long ago.
And again, if you're going to make the argument that people are unique, don't make statements like glucose is a nonessential nutrient - for some people, it actually can be.
People with impaired gluconeogenesis are very ill, under the care of a doctor (or several), not looking for weight loss advice on MFP and pretty rare. People with issues processing carbohydrates well are frequently not diagnosed, on their own for answers, on weight loss forums like MFP and plentiful - maybe 3 out of 10 if the stats I've read are believable. I think what I am saying is appropriate for the folks here.
And the entire point that I am trying to make is that limiting carbs - even to low levels - is NOT the nutritional equivelent to jumping out a window.
If you have something that seriously shows 3 out 10 people have issues processing carbohydrates, I'd seriously like to see it. I'd find it incredible that something that started as frugivores could turn into a species with 30% of the population having an inability to handle carbohydrates in a span of 2 million years or less.
If you are limiting carbs because the latest headlines says to, or some other pseudo or quack science as often shows up in these threads, then yes, it is similar to jumping out a window for disbelieving gravity. Restricting carbs other than as a way to reduce calories is never a necessity for weight loss.
Prediabetes among people aged 20 years or older, United States, 2012
• In 2009−2012, based on fasting glucose or A1C levels, 37% of U.S. adults aged 20 years or older had
prediabetes (51% of those aged 65 years or older). Applying this percentage to the entire U.S. population
in 2012 yields an estimated 86 million Americans aged 20 years or older with prediabetes.
• On the basis of fasting glucose or A1C levels, and after adjusting for population age differences, the
percentage of U.S. adults aged 20 years or older with prediabetes in 2009−2012 was similar for non-
Hispanic whites (35%), non-Hispanic blacks (39%), and Hispanics (38%).
Total: 29.1 million people or 9.3% of the U.S. population have diabetes
Diagnosed: 21.0 million people
Undiagnosed: 8.1 million people (27.8% of people with diabetes are undiagnosed)
View the full report: CDC’s National Diabetes Statistics Report
So, about 46% of the US population has diabetes or prediabetes.
Yes, it is a national and international crisis. It is actually far higher & worse than I said.
It might just explain why you folks who process carbs OK (so far) are sick of hearing about low carb diets or people worried about carbs and sugars.
1. You're talking US population (though hint, some developing countries do actually have worse rates of diabetes)
2. The fasting A1C and glucose is a biased population. People who don't have other indicators for diabetes don't normally end up taking an A1C or glucose test.
3. You're assuming diabetes or prediabetic means someone has problems with carbs.
4. Diabetic Associations usually don't actually recommend low carbs diets, they recommend consistent carbs, including keeping them in one's diet.
5. Early diabetes and insulin resistance are often treated simply by losing weight, regardless of the carbohydrate composition of the diet.
It sounds like you believe people with high blood glucose and inability to correctly process carbohydrates continue to eat the foods that they are unable to process and increase their glucose to toxic levels? We have very different ideas.
By your terminology, the fact that we have 69% of adults overweight in the US means we have a calorie processing disorder in 69% of the humans.
Reducing high levels of glucose in the blood is the core goal for diabetes and pre diabetes.
The most direct simple method to reduce blood glucose is to reduce carbohydrates.
I'll repeat this for the umpteenth time now. The most profound impact on treating diabetes and prediabetes is reducing weight. Doing so trumps the effects of reducing carbs. Seriously, while fat by itself influences insulin resistance.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC507380/
Give a body enough fat, and it tries to burn fat, and that leaves glucose float free, and you still have the same problems. You have to actually start forcing fat clear of the system.
The body uses/clears glucose first (if it is able) then looks to fats for energy. If your body is not able to use glucose, it is generally a good idea to reduce how much glucose making carbs you shovel in.
I'm not sure what use your diabetes 'definition' has (or even find it at all accurate) - I find it more useful to focus on solutions. The problem is not that difficult to define as many pre & diabetics have made a transition (both on their own or with medical assistance) to low carb and ketogenic diets and have improved their health in ways drugs and standard diabetic diet recommendations were unable to achieve.
Reducing weight helps when it eventually occurs, dropping carbs helps immediately - that same day as a matter of fact!
From the things you say, it seems that you are not a low carb or keto pre diabetic or even hanging around low carb or keto diet pre diabetics or diabetics. Why don't you apply whatever you are experienced in to those who would value it?0 -
Again, diabetes is not the disease of glucose. It is the disease of impaired insulin sensitivity. They may look like the same thing at first blush, but they describe different problems. You can switch to a zero carb diet and still slam your insulin through the roof if you eat large amounts of protein, or if I recall correctly, more specifically if you take straight leucine BCAA's.
Well if you ignore everything I wrote and substitute a strawman, I'm sure it sounds like exactly what you want to hear. Diabetes isn't a disease of being unable to process carbs. It is a disease of cells becoming resistant to insulin. Insulin is activated not just by carbs, but protein, but hey, continue to call diabetes the carb processing disease. As I already said, losing weight is the primary factor in treating most diabetes.
Ok. That's a rather different claim than 30% of people have a problem with carbs.
No, you've stated as fact that all human beings can survive without carbs to make the point that it isn't an essential nutrient. You weren't saying about people on MFP, you were saying it as scientific fact. That's fine as covers 99.9%+ of the world's population, but, if you're going to start talking about some people needing certain dietary changes because they're special, without anyone bringing in a doctor's note saying they have said issues, I'll call you on your playing fast and lose with what is or is not the way human metabolism works.
And I'll tell you the same I told others. If someone came into here asking what is the best way to jump out a window, would it be better to ask them if jumping out a window is necessary, or start explaining your personal strategy for opening a window latch? A lot of people think they to give up carbs. There is a lot of misinformation out there, and so it might help the person to actually check they're not following the latest trend in dieting.
Demonization of food is give it negative attributes it doesn't have according to established science.
Solipsistic arguments not withstanding, I'm pretty sure people are real and have no supernatural power over me, so not seeing the demonization.Demons are the blind fears of primitive thinking, the boogie-men of children. It becomes pretty clear that to demonize something is to give it a power over you, to tacitly give it the power to make you afraid because you don't understand it.
Why would you want to give a food that power? Why would anyone want to live in fear of a food for the sake of fearing it? I would like to live in the modern world free of demons - a world where such things are gone because we have rational enlightenment and understanding.
When you demonize people who demonize food, does that give them power over you? Or does this "Relinquishment Of Power" theory only hold true for foods?
That said, tree frog poison can be a very powerful hallucinogen in shamanistic rituals, so you might be one step closer than most.
OK, so I got one definition of demonization. Could you give me your definition of "demonization" as it applies to food?
Also, what power do you think the food is imbued with upon it's demonization?
Particular powers are placebo and nocebo effect, plus by trying to restrict it without need, you're setting up the food as novel when consumed, and thus increasing the desire of the food.
It is generally pretty old and established that intermittent reinforcement is actually more effective than continuous reinforcement. More modern techniques studying dopamine in the brain show that novelty plays a part in dopamine responses, and thus increases the perceived reward of it - essentially a chemical version of the conditioning principle of intermittent reinforcement.
And maybe some people have varying degrees of dopamine responses from you or the norm. So that theoretical relationship might not apply to them at all. Is it then OK for them to demonize?
There is actually an obese/serotonin/carbohydrates relationship. Those people might be better off not viewing a cupcake as innocent calories just waiting to be regulated by sheer willpower.
I don't have answers for everyone else, but like any reasonable person just try different things til I find out what works for my circumstances. When I find my answers, I will definitely not be telling others my way is the only way that will work for them.
All food usually leads to releasing serotonin. The reason why is that it drops the dopamine to stop reward seeking behavior because the reward is right there.
When you demonize the food, you've increased the dopamine response. You've now made it something you've mentally decided is unobtainable, something that is different. There are people that have very specific diseases like Prater-Willy. 99%+ of adults are going to be able to inure themselves to temptation. Believe it or not, the words "oh, not ice cream again", and "oh, not pizza again" have been uttered by English speakers who normally like those things.
If people on here are asking how to avoid something, it seems obvious that it does not work for them at some level. How is my suggesting they change their relationship any worse advice than someone telling them to throw all of it out of the house and hope they never encounter it while out and about? How does it stop being demonization just because it has worked for them?
And honestly, if you really believe there are so many special snowflakes, why do you tell people all the time that people don't need to eat sugar? Lustig himself talks about children that can't generate their own glucose and have to have special diets.
I used to 'change my relationship' with foods, but since discovered that it is easier to just label failed food relationships' foods as 'toxic' and minimize my interaction with them.
The only time it it appropriate to bring up how nutritionally unnecessary it is to eat sugar/carbs is right after a person asks how to minimize/eliminate or get control over a carb/sugar food and half the responses are saying EATTHEFOOD.
I personally pay attention to those people struggling with carb issues due to a long personal struggle with same and in addition our family has metabolic issues related to carbohydrate and I've spent hundreds of hours (or thousands if you ask my SO) learning about them.
Nutrional knowledge is sketchy and we are all unique. People's health and weight are dependant on them figuring out what works best for them. Supporting people in that process is more important than inappropriately applying random personal judgements.
Nutritional knowledge is better than most would think - psychology of food choices still could use improvement, but I can guarantee you, if you give me a metabolic chamber, control over food, and a test subject the science is there to guarantee they'll lose weight. Give me a barbell, weights, and little willingness on the part of the subject and I can even give good odds on most of the weight lost being fat rather than lean body mass. By and large, our metabolisms don't actually vary that much. For one, any kind of marked improvement or failure in metabolism would have profound effects on reproductive success in humans until around 100 years or so. For another, human evolution is marked by genetic bottlenecks where the entire race almost bit the dust and left a much smaller foundation population not that long ago.
And again, if you're going to make the argument that people are unique, don't make statements like glucose is a nonessential nutrient - for some people, it actually can be.
People with impaired gluconeogenesis are very ill, under the care of a doctor (or several), not looking for weight loss advice on MFP and pretty rare. People with issues processing carbohydrates well are frequently not diagnosed, on their own for answers, on weight loss forums like MFP and plentiful - maybe 3 out of 10 if the stats I've read are believable. I think what I am saying is appropriate for the folks here.
And the entire point that I am trying to make is that limiting carbs - even to low levels - is NOT the nutritional equivelent to jumping out a window.
If you have something that seriously shows 3 out 10 people have issues processing carbohydrates, I'd seriously like to see it. I'd find it incredible that something that started as frugivores could turn into a species with 30% of the population having an inability to handle carbohydrates in a span of 2 million years or less.
If you are limiting carbs because the latest headlines says to, or some other pseudo or quack science as often shows up in these threads, then yes, it is similar to jumping out a window for disbelieving gravity. Restricting carbs other than as a way to reduce calories is never a necessity for weight loss.
Prediabetes among people aged 20 years or older, United States, 2012
• In 2009−2012, based on fasting glucose or A1C levels, 37% of U.S. adults aged 20 years or older had
prediabetes (51% of those aged 65 years or older). Applying this percentage to the entire U.S. population
in 2012 yields an estimated 86 million Americans aged 20 years or older with prediabetes.
• On the basis of fasting glucose or A1C levels, and after adjusting for population age differences, the
percentage of U.S. adults aged 20 years or older with prediabetes in 2009−2012 was similar for non-
Hispanic whites (35%), non-Hispanic blacks (39%), and Hispanics (38%).
Total: 29.1 million people or 9.3% of the U.S. population have diabetes
Diagnosed: 21.0 million people
Undiagnosed: 8.1 million people (27.8% of people with diabetes are undiagnosed)
View the full report: CDC’s National Diabetes Statistics Report
So, about 46% of the US population has diabetes or prediabetes.
Yes, it is a national and international crisis. It is actually far higher & worse than I said.
It might just explain why you folks who process carbs OK (so far) are sick of hearing about low carb diets or people worried about carbs and sugars.
1. You're talking US population (though hint, some developing countries do actually have worse rates of diabetes)
2. The fasting A1C and glucose is a biased population. People who don't have other indicators for diabetes don't normally end up taking an A1C or glucose test.
3. You're assuming diabetes or prediabetic means someone has problems with carbs.
4. Diabetic Associations usually don't actually recommend low carbs diets, they recommend consistent carbs, including keeping them in one's diet.
5. Early diabetes and insulin resistance are often treated simply by losing weight, regardless of the carbohydrate composition of the diet.
It sounds like you believe people with high blood glucose and inability to correctly process carbohydrates continue to eat the foods that they are unable to process and increase their glucose to toxic levels? We have very different ideas.
By your terminology, the fact that we have 69% of adults overweight in the US means we have a calorie processing disorder in 69% of the humans.
Reducing high levels of glucose in the blood is the core goal for diabetes and pre diabetes.
The most direct simple method to reduce blood glucose is to reduce carbohydrates.
I'll repeat this for the umpteenth time now. The most profound impact on treating diabetes and prediabetes is reducing weight. Doing so trumps the effects of reducing carbs. Seriously, while fat by itself influences insulin resistance.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC507380/
Give a body enough fat, and it tries to burn fat, and that leaves glucose float free, and you still have the same problems. You have to actually start forcing fat clear of the system.
The body uses/clears glucose first (if it is able) then looks to fats for energy. If your body is not able to use glucose, it is generally a good idea to reduce how much glucose making carbs you shovel in.
I'm not sure what use your diabetes 'definition' has (or even find it at all accurate) - I find it more useful to focus on solutions. The problem is not that difficult to define as many pre & diabetics have made a transition (both on their own or with medical assistance) to low carb and ketogenic diets and have improved their health in ways drugs and standard diabetic diet recommendations were unable to achieve.
Reducing weight helps when it eventually occurs, dropping carbs helps immediately - that same day as a matter of fact!
From the things you say, it seems that you are not a low carb or keto pre diabetic or even hanging around low carb or keto diet pre diabetics or diabetics. Why don't you apply whatever you are experienced in to those who would value it?
I've personally known multiple T2 diabetics and prediabetics who reversed their conditions by losing weight. They lost weight through calorie deficit, via moderation, weighing and measuring foods. There was a reduction in carbohydrates, naturally, because of the moderation, but nothing low enough that qualified as a low-carb diet. The few people I've known who've tried to lose weight through low-carb personally have all failed to stick with it.0 -
So is anyone going to substantiate the ridiculous claims form low carb advocates in the last few pages? So far the only thing put forth can be called nothing short of a joke, since I'm unsure how anyone with a smidgen of intelligence could consider the links as any proof of their claims
People who are interested in low carb will find the info - there is lots out there. For someone whose only interest seems to be in proving it is a wrong/bad way to eat, why bother?0
They should be as concerned as you.
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions