Article by Dr. Jason Fung - interesting point of view & research

Options
2»

Replies

  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,911 Member
    Options
    umayster wrote: »
    DeguelloTex wrote: »
    umayster wrote: »
    DeguelloTex wrote: »
    umayster wrote: »
    determined_14 wrote: »
    I'm disappointed that no one here wants to talk about the *ideas* in the article, specifically the effects of insulin response on weight, and how diet effects that.
    Don't get me wrong, I definitely believe in CICO, but what I hoped some more educated minds than mine would contribute some thoughts to the idea of low-insulin-response diets and the effects hormones can have on weight and weight loss.

    I've had personal success with very low carb, high fat for solving weight and health issues. I've witnessed others success with low fat, high carb. This article helps me find the common thread between some radically different strategies towards nutritional success.

    The toxicity lies in the processing, not the macronutrient composition.


    Addressing metabolic issues of health and weight can be assisted by choosing diet composed of foods in or very close to natural form.
    How does one even try to address overriding concepts like the bolded, then? It's an article of faith, not logic, reason, or empiricism.

    Do you mean 'address' in the practical sense? Like food choices?
    I mean "address" the actual truth of the statement. Like what kind of food processing -- other than adding actual toxins -- introduces toxicity to food?

    Got it, I've been trying to define my choices and beliefs on healthy food choices - with great difficulty. There isn't a great single term or rigid category, but I just read a term someone used - 'fractionated' - which seems to define foods I'm more careful about eating or even avoid entirely.

    It isn't really about added toxins, but being careful about eating isolated parts of foods which affect a body differently than when the food is eaten in its whole state. There isn't a definition or word, but eating things in close to their natural state or whole form is probably the best simplistic description. I don't really like that description though as it makes me think of some crazy stupid food choices and I'm not really about eating to an extreme theme.

    Back to the point - it isn't really macro composition that dictates healthy diet - many different sets of macros work. But if you want to eat high carb and all your carbs are simple ones, you are gonna have a bad time of it eventually!
    Why would eating a sugar beet be better than putting the sugar from that beet into another food you prepared with the same nutrients?
    Why would you have a bad time eating simple carbs when complex carbs just get split into simple carbs by your body?
  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    edited October 2015
    Options
    DeguelloTex wrote: »
    I mean "address" the actual truth of the statement. Like what kind of food processing -- other than adding actual toxins -- introduces toxicity to food?

    I thought he was referring to the processing of the food in the body rather than its composition as he also writes "Macronutrients, just as with calories is the wrong measure of a diet"
  • armylife
    armylife Posts: 196 Member
    edited October 2015
    Options
    stevencloser wrote: »
    umayster wrote: »
    DeguelloTex wrote: »
    umayster wrote: »
    DeguelloTex wrote: »
    umayster wrote: »
    determined_14 wrote: »
    I'm disappointed that no one here wants to talk about the *ideas* in the article, specifically the effects of insulin response on weight, and how diet effects that.
    Don't get me wrong, I definitely believe in CICO, but what I hoped some more educated minds than mine would contribute some thoughts to the idea of low-insulin-response diets and the effects hormones can have on weight and weight loss.

    I've had personal success with very low carb, high fat for solving weight and health issues. I've witnessed others success with low fat, high carb. This article helps me find the common thread between some radically different strategies towards nutritional success.

    The toxicity lies in the processing, not the macronutrient composition.


    Addressing metabolic issues of health and weight can be assisted by choosing diet composed of foods in or very close to natural form.
    How does one even try to address overriding concepts like the bolded, then? It's an article of faith, not logic, reason, or empiricism.

    Do you mean 'address' in the practical sense? Like food choices?
    I mean "address" the actual truth of the statement. Like what kind of food processing -- other than adding actual toxins -- introduces toxicity to food?

    Got it, I've been trying to define my choices and beliefs on healthy food choices - with great difficulty. There isn't a great single term or rigid category, but I just read a term someone used - 'fractionated' - which seems to define foods I'm more careful about eating or even avoid entirely.

    It isn't really about added toxins, but being careful about eating isolated parts of foods which affect a body differently than when the food is eaten in its whole state. There isn't a definition or word, but eating things in close to their natural state or whole form is probably the best simplistic description. I don't really like that description though as it makes me think of some crazy stupid food choices and I'm not really about eating to an extreme theme.

    Back to the point - it isn't really macro composition that dictates healthy diet - many different sets of macros work. But if you want to eat high carb and all your carbs are simple ones, you are gonna have a bad time of it eventually!
    Why would eating a sugar beet be better than putting the sugar from that beet into another food you prepared with the same nutrients?
    Why would you have a bad time eating simple carbs when complex carbs just get split into simple carbs by your body?

    This is the issue with this branch of non-peer reviewed pseudo-science. There is a denial that simple sugars are all the body can use and creates those from the more complex carbohydrates you consume. They, the "scientist" and supporters, use a set of hypothesis that are almost wholly unable to be proven, your body processes food and magics toxins in it. Offer little non-antidotal evidence and bash established, tested, medical theories by saying that people who point this out are taking potshots.

    The truth is extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and it is never provided by the witch doctors and snake oil salesmen.
  • umayster
    umayster Posts: 651 Member
    Options
    stevencloser wrote: »
    umayster wrote: »
    DeguelloTex wrote: »
    umayster wrote: »
    DeguelloTex wrote: »
    umayster wrote: »
    determined_14 wrote: »
    I'm disappointed that no one here wants to talk about the *ideas* in the article, specifically the effects of insulin response on weight, and how diet effects that.
    Don't get me wrong, I definitely believe in CICO, but what I hoped some more educated minds than mine would contribute some thoughts to the idea of low-insulin-response diets and the effects hormones can have on weight and weight loss.

    I've had personal success with very low carb, high fat for solving weight and health issues. I've witnessed others success with low fat, high carb. This article helps me find the common thread between some radically different strategies towards nutritional success.

    The toxicity lies in the processing, not the macronutrient composition.


    Addressing metabolic issues of health and weight can be assisted by choosing diet composed of foods in or very close to natural form.
    How does one even try to address overriding concepts like the bolded, then? It's an article of faith, not logic, reason, or empiricism.

    Do you mean 'address' in the practical sense? Like food choices?
    I mean "address" the actual truth of the statement. Like what kind of food processing -- other than adding actual toxins -- introduces toxicity to food?

    Got it, I've been trying to define my choices and beliefs on healthy food choices - with great difficulty. There isn't a great single term or rigid category, but I just read a term someone used - 'fractionated' - which seems to define foods I'm more careful about eating or even avoid entirely.

    It isn't really about added toxins, but being careful about eating isolated parts of foods which affect a body differently than when the food is eaten in its whole state. There isn't a definition or word, but eating things in close to their natural state or whole form is probably the best simplistic description. I don't really like that description though as it makes me think of some crazy stupid food choices and I'm not really about eating to an extreme theme.

    Back to the point - it isn't really macro composition that dictates healthy diet - many different sets of macros work. But if you want to eat high carb and all your carbs are simple ones, you are gonna have a bad time of it eventually!
    Why would eating a sugar beet be better than putting the sugar from that beet into another food you prepared with the same nutrients?
    Why would you have a bad time eating simple carbs when complex carbs just get split into simple carbs by your body?

    Why? Well when you liberate the sugar from the structure nature packaged it in you change the digestion of it including increasing calories absorbed in some cases. Neither you nor I know the whole answer.

Categories