Cutting carbs and refined sugar
Options
Replies
-
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.
0 -
Mandyrose1983 wrote: »so I've decided that I am going to cut all sugar and try to decrease my carbs as much as possible. I really really want to drop this weight. I want to keep sugar and refined carbs out of my life forever (or at least limit them from my diet forever). I want this to be a lifestyle change. I am huge on clean eating and I really don't eat junk. However, I have a hard time resisting the "feel good foods" when I am emotional or stressed. Any tips on how to transition to a low carbs lifestyle? Any tips on how to keep from reaching for the junk when my mood is not so good? Also, does anyone have any good substitutes for the "feel good foods"?
I don't like the word forever when talking about food. It's not a realistic aspiration. Why not say you want to cut out refined and added sugar from your diet and leave it at that. One day at a time. Forever is a really long time. Lol0 -
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.
0 -
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.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.
It's generally a good idea to ask WHY someone wants to do an approach that is more restrictive than the straightforward one.
0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »
It works for millions, as does other tools like moderation.
Both are sustainable and both are challenging and unsustainable (different horses for different courses).
OP - try it, low carb diets can be extremely healthy. The only thing that will happen is it will work, or it won't work.
The main thing to realise is, its not a magic pill! Its a tool to help you eat in a calorie deficit, which is the only way you will lose weight.
Good luck.
Way to take what I said out of context - I said that demonizing food doesn't work, not eating low carb. There's nothing at all wrong with eating low carb, it's just another way to eat at a calorie deficit. What is wrong is pretending (or even actually believing) that any food is 'bad' or 'evil' or will harm a person. Food is an inert thing, and can't do harm. It just sits there. People do the harm when they choose to overeat said food, no matter which food it is. Unless there is a specific medical condition that causes a person not to be able to eat a certain type of food, all food is open game and harmless in moderate amounts.
Nope I didn't take what you said out of context.
I agree a lot of people end up cutting back on sugar because they are demonizing it.
What I said is 'it works'. People demonize sugar, they eat less sugar they eat less calories they lose weight - simple!
We demonize lots of things in life to stop ourselves from doing them, why do you think hitchhikers have so much trouble getting a lift?
I also agree, with the exception of trans fats and interestified fats (which even consumed in moderation may have negative health affects on some people) all foods are either healthy, or healthier.
I personally think sugar is the one of the best things to 'cut back' on if someone is looking to switch from a calorie surplus to a calorie deficit. Most people eat way more than they need. Edging back on a portion or three of junk isn't a bad thing.
As all digested carbs we eat get converted to sugar in our system, why do we need eat so much of it? we don't. It offer none (or very little) micro nutrition.
The problem maybe isn't people demonizing it! that can lead to people eating less of it, losing weight and getting healthier. The problem is posts like this where people over-egg the benefits and importance of sugar and encourage people to not cut back on sugar and therefore stump their potentially easy route to cutting back on calories and getting into a calorie deficit.
So OP - cut back on the sugar, you won't find anything more neutral to ditch.
0 -
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.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.
It's generally a good idea to ask WHY someone wants to do an approach that is more restrictive than the straightforward one.
I totally agree with that!!!
Low carb doesn't suit everyone, just like trying to eat using moderation doesn't. I should think both have a very similar fail rate.
I have found that most people trying low carb have done so because the 'straightforward' route hasn't worked for them.
I personally found moderation way more restrictive than low carb. With low carb I was only having to restrict carbs, with moderation I was having to restrict everything.
I can eat till I'm satisfied with low carb and still be in a calorie deficit. I didn't find that the case (for me) with just trying to eat everything in moderation.
0 -
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".0 -
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.0 -
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)0 -
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.0 -
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)
I will start by saying...I am not low-carb nor do I demonize sugar.
Over time what I have done is find a way to create a deficit with the least amount of "agony". I moderated food that I wanted to remain eating...eliminated food that I didn't mind giving up...added food that would give me more "bang for my buck".
Foods that contained high levels of added sugar is where I made the most head way. For me cutting significantly my intake of "sweets" wasn't difficult. Moderating things such as pasta...bread...potatoes...I had to work on a bit. However I replaced those things with other carbs in the form of a variety of vegetables.
At the end...after finding the foods that give me the outcome that I want...I consume between 100-150g a day with my sugar falling around 45-50g a day.
Short version...
I found a workable balance for me by combining moderation/elimination/substitution.
I think that there are some on both sides of this debate that believe in "balance" but that message most often gets lost in the debate. It seems to always be "all or nothing". IMO...that happens because each side is looking for "a win".0 -
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.0 -
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.
0 -
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".
I will cop to being an exercise zealot in a way. I think people SHOULD exercise if they can, that they will be healthier if they do. Similarly, I think they will be healthier if they get adequate protein and fat and if they eat vegetables. If people ask about those things, I usually say they should try to do them and not doing them is not healthy.
If someone asks about carbs I say it's a matter of personal preference, experiment to see how you feel, the MFP default is a decent place to start if you have no preference yet, and that lowering carbs is not necessary to lose weight. I also may mention that my own preferred carb level changed with number of calories I ate, amount of activity I did, and was always driven mostly by taste preference and nutritional considerations.
That someone would treat going low carb as something to be promoted as I would promote exercise or eating vegetables is why I think many low carbers are not just trying to help people who ask for it, but evangelistically pushing a particular diet choice.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.
0 -
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.
0 -
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).
0 -
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.
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.
3. 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.
4. 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 -
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.
Yes, it happens consistently around here. Low carb is not for me, and it's certainly no magic, it's just one of many ways to eat to create a calorie deficit.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.
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.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.4K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 983 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions