The deal on sugar
Replies
-
Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »Okay, I've been wondering this for awhile.
Ketostix test for ketones in urine, right?
Ketones in urine is actually an indication of diabetes, so how exactly is this optimal to your body?
Ketones in urine is only an indication of acetoacetate in urine. Nothing else.
Type 1 diabetics, like my daughter, use them as a reference for watching ketone levels along with testing blood sugar levels to prevent a condition called Diabetic KetoAcidosis. This condition only exists in an insulin deficiency such as what T1D presents. Even my daughter could eat a Ketogenic diet and be producing moderate to large ketones every day and be perfectly healthy as long as she continues to maintain a basal insulin level.
I know what ketoacidosis is, and it is not limited to T1 diabetics, however that is where it is commonly seen. It is also seen is severe cases of alcohol ingestion/dehydration although is much more rare.
Ketones are usually found in urine when a person is ill, i.e. Uncontrolled diabetes, starvation, prolonged vomiting, hyperthyroidism, fever etc. I just fail to see how purposely achieving this is considered optimal.
I described Diabetic KetoAcidosis and that is limited to T1D. Or perhaps T2D if the pancreas no longer produces insulin.
Alcoholic KetoAcidosis is very rare as you said and is a result of long periods of excessive alcohol consumption. Binging alcoholics often forgo eating any food at all but certainly don't eat enough food so the body does what it does best. It provides ketones from the stored fat just like it's supposed to. Binging alcoholics often experience some vomiting which speeds the inevitable dehydration. When you drink alcohol your pancreas may stop producing insulin for a short period of time. The explanations below will explain why those facts are important and what actually causes Alcoholic KetoAcidosis.
I will explain why what you are familiar with as a potential medical emergency is entirely different than nutritional ketosis.
In the case of an ill person, i.e. Uncontrolled diabetes: the body is unable to use the glucose that is present in their blood due to lack of insulin so it uses another natural source of energy, ketones. In this situation, the ketones are not what is dangerous until the levels climb to acidotic levels which won't happen if the person can get insulin and bring their blood sugar down. It's the high blood sugar and lack of insulin that creates the immediate need to make ketones and in the continued absence of insulin and presence of climbing blood glucose the body begins to build up too much of the acetone byproduct because there simply isn't enough water available to continue to flush it out to keep up with the rate it is being produced. That's why high blood sugar and ketones makes a person very, very thirsty. Dehydration prevents the body from reducing the acetone byproduct.
Starvation: the state of nutritional ketosis mimics a fasted state like starvation. Fasting can be very beneficial to health. Mimicking it without actually going without food is just awesomeness. The body stores fat for this purpose. There's no reason to think that using the stored fat is a potential health concern. And the acidotic state cannot occur if insulin is available as needed.
Prolonged vomiting: the body will use another natural source... Again, ketones. Same as above. Stored fat is there for this reason. To feed us when there's no food available. If insulin is available, there's no threat of acidosis.
Hyperthyroidism: in Severe hyperthyroidism that continues on for weeks where the person becomes increasingly sick and developing symptoms of vomiting and/or diarrhea for extended periods of time, thereby creating the need for the body to use stored fat to help supply energy with the reduction of food and the inevitable prolonged dehydration from illness could certainly result in an acidotic condition but this is even more rare than Alcoholic KetoAcidosis and develops rather slowly.
Fever: I've never heard of a fever causing KetoAcidosis.
The reason you don't understand why some consider nutritional ketosis to be optimal is because you don't understand the differences between acidotic conditions that are a result of severe illness and the normal, natural state of using stored body fat as a primary energy source.
In every single one of those dangerous conditions, ketones are acting as a life saving force, just as they should. That's not a malfunction. The malfunction comes from the underlying illness that when left untreated, will progress into dehydration that prevents the body from removing the acidic byproduct thereby causing it to build up in the body.
Ketones and their use by the body as an energy source is not unnatural or dangerous in any way.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »Soo.. Nursing major here.. In my opinion cutting out sugar is a bad idea for a lot of reasons like decrease in brain activity, messing up insulin and glucose levels, body will start to use up muscle mass for energy which we want muscle cause it burns more energy which is calories. Your fat is the last thing to go when starving yourself or depriving a thing like sugar. Quick fact: your brain uses 50% of sugar you consume!
@raemj1721 when you say "cutting out sugar" are you referring to just added sugar like in baked goods or that which comes in dairy, fruit, vegetables, grains, legumes, etc?
Why would you think she means just added sugar?
I didn't make any assumptions. That was a request for clarification.0 -
Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »Psst. Fun Fact. Go ahead and eat ZERO carbs (sugar is a carb) and your magical body will magically produce all the magical sugar your body and brain requires to run effectively. Its magic. Don't tell anyone. It is a secret. Amaze your friends. Thank me later.
By "effectively" you mean "doesn't die".
Essential is not the same as optimal.
Precisely. So -- to umayster -- why do no human cultures have a ketogenic diet?
Humans will eat everything which provides energy and doesn't have a direct short time link with sickness or death.
There are some cultures whose diet is low carb to ketogenic.
Name one culture with a ketogenic diet. (And no, neither the Inuit nor the Masai have ketogenic diets)
Provide source for your claim please
One can only prove a positive. Here's a database listing traditional Inuit foods. I see berries.
https://www.mcgill.ca/cine/files/cine/Traditional_Food_Composition_Nutribase.pdf
The Maasai. I see roots, leafy vegetables, and wild fruit.
https://www.mcgill.ca/cine/resources/data/maasai0 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »
Citation neededSunny_Bunny_ wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »
How does it not make sense? Clearly some parts of it can't be run on purely ketones, and when given the option, it always uses glucose. Why would it make sense to run on less optimal fuel when available when the evolution of the brain is the biggest part of the evolution of genus homo, and the only real thing to differentiate it?Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »Psst. Fun Fact. Go ahead and eat ZERO carbs (sugar is a carb) and your magical body will magically produce all the magical sugar your body and brain requires to run effectively. Its magic. Don't tell anyone. It is a secret. Amaze your friends. Thank me later.
By "effectively" you mean "doesn't die".
Essential is not the same as optimal.
Not hardly.
Ketones are an optimal brain fuel.
If ketones were optimal, the brain would be able to run on them exclusively. But it can't.It's been used for decades to preserve brain health in epileptics by preventing seizures and is currently a treatment for many other brain diseases/conditions including cancer. Only a minimal amount of glucose is required on a daily basis and can be provided through gluconeogenesis from consumed protein.
Carbs are a non essential food.
Essential nutrients are those which the body relies on but cannot synthesize itself. Hence the distinction between essential and optimal.
If you think that non-essential nutrients should be avoided, you had better stop eating saturated and monounsaturated fats, since none of them are essential either.It's just as bad to tell people they HAVE to have at least some carbs and sugar to perform at optimal levels as it is to suggest that nobody should ever eat them.
If you eat no carbs at all, then you are eating no vegetables. So yes, you must eat some to perform optimally.
I never said non essential nutrients should be avoided. I've never told anyone they should or shouldn't eat anything. I've never told anyone that a certain this or that must be had in any volume whatsoever.
I simply stated that carbs are a non essential food.
Your statement "Essential nutrients are those which the body relies on but cannot synthesize itself." I agree with. The body CAN synthesize its own glucose. And when it does, it only creates a minimal amount. It could just keep making glucose, but once it has what it needs, any remaining excess protein is also turned into ketones...
And this just doesn't make sense. "If ketones were optimal, the brain would be able to run on them exclusively." Why?
You are saying the body uses glucose first because its the more optimal fuel, what if the body uses glucose first because high blood glucose is a hazardous state for the body? Don't confuse 'uses first' with 'optimal'.
Exactly!
You all do realize that glucose, if not used or stored as glycogen, is then stored as fat, right?
So, doesn't it make sense for the body to use as much of that as possible before resorting to storage as fat?
What do you think it does with dietary fat?
Fat is used for hormone regulation, but then of course, just like anything else, leftovers get stored. Nobody said different. Did you think I did? I guess you got confused since I pointed out that after immediate energy needs and glycogen refilling, there's no other need for glucose so it's stored as fat, but since it's not going to be glucose anymore after that, the body really is good at making use of it before other sources of energy. From an evolutionary standpoint this makes perfect sense since we didn't have access to a lot of carbohydrates on a regular basis and we physically cannot store as many calories of glycogen on our bodies as we can store as fat.Also, it's a quick burn fuel. It's like the lighter fluid you use to start a fire... You wouldn't skip the wood in preference for the quick burning lighter fluid.
And ketone bodies aren't?
No ketone bodies aren't a quick burning fuel. I think you or the other guy already made some comment about how they take longer to burn... Fat was a slower burning source of energy. You get 9 calories per gram compared to 4 with carbs.FunkyTobias wrote: »Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »Psst. Fun Fact. Go ahead and eat ZERO carbs (sugar is a carb) and your magical body will magically produce all the magical sugar your body and brain requires to run effectively. Its magic. Don't tell anyone. It is a secret. Amaze your friends. Thank me later.
By "effectively" you mean "doesn't die".
Essential is not the same as optimal.
Not hardly.
Ketones are an optimal brain fuel.
If ketones were optimal, the brain would be able to run on them exclusively. But it can't.
Even in a primarily carbohydrate diet, the brain still uses ketones on a daily basis. Do you think I am saying that the brain doesn't require any glucose? I'm not. I'm just saying you don't have to ingest it for your brain to get it.It's been used for decades to preserve brain health in epileptics by preventing seizures and is currently a treatment for many other brain diseases/conditions including cancer. Only a minimal amount of glucose is required on a daily basis and can be provided through gluconeogenesis from consumed protein.
Carbs are a non essential food.
Essential nutrients are those which the body relies on but cannot synthesize itself. Hence the distinction between essential and optimal.
If you think that non-essential nutrients should be avoided, you had better stop eating saturated and monounsaturated fats, since none of them are essential either.It's just as bad to tell people they HAVE to have at least some carbs and sugar to perform at optimal levels as it is to suggest that nobody should ever eat them.
If you eat no carbs at all, then you are eating no vegetables. So yes, you must eat some to perform optimally.
Are you able to tell me what it is specifically that vegetables provide that cannot be acquired in animal food sources?
Are you saying you need vegetables because that's what you've always been told or because you are aware of what unique micronutrients they provide?
I never said non essential nutrients should be avoided. I've never told anyone they should or shouldn't eat anything. I've never told anyone that a certain this or that must be had in any volume whatsoever.
I simply stated that carbs are a non essential food.
Your statement "Essential nutrients are those which the body relies on but cannot synthesize itself." I agree with. The body CAN synthesize its own glucose. And when it does, it only creates a minimal amount. It could just keep making glucose, but once it has what it needs, any remaining excess protein is also turned into ketones...
LOL. no.And this just doesn't make sense. "If ketones were optimal, the brain would be able to run on them exclusively." Why?
Are ketones necessary for brain function? No.
Are ketones sufficient for brain function? No.
How then, can they be optimal?
They are absolutely sufficient.
ORLY? So you're saying the brain can run exclusively on ketones? (Cuz that's what "sufficient" means donchaknow)
Again, I never said the brain doesn't need glucose. I just said you don't have to eat it to provide it.
If the brain needs glucose, then by definition ketones aren't sufficient for brain function. Capisce?
The brain uses ketones all the time too you know... Neither of them fly solo. Not sure where that's coming from.
Le sigh. One last time.
The brain can run solely on glucose, therefore ketones are not necessary.
The brain cannot run solely on ketones, therefore ketones are not sufficient.
You are clearly not understanding.
The brain simultaneously uses glucose and ketones.
The brain is not ever without a source for more ketones just as it is not ever without a source for glucose. Ever. There is never a day that goes by without your brain using some amount of ketones. Just as there is not a day that goes by without your brain using some amount of glucose.
Are you with me?
How could you possibly know if the brain could run on either ketones or glucose alone when it cannot be completely deprived of either and does not EVER go without each of them in any given day?
I, again, HAVE NEVER CLAIMED, that it could..
Do you understand what the word sufficient means?
Do you understand what the word necessary means?
What exactly is your argument because I have no idea.
Sigh
Me;Are ketones necessary for brain function? No.
Are ketones sufficient for brain function? No.
How then, can they be optimal?
YouThey are absolutely sufficient.
Do I really have to explain what sufficient means?
Ketones are a part of your brain energy every day. So, it's your body that's says they are essential, not me.Optimal... As in for reducing oxidative stress, preventing disease, supporting mitochondrial growth, long lasting source of fuel that your body always carries extra of and I promise won't leave you "bonking" on a hill somewhere while out running because you ran out of fat.
Citation neededSufficient, meaning as a primary fat burner, the presence of ketones not only serves as a readily available source, it's actually used to treat and prevent diseases, that don't respond as favorably in a primarily glucose burning system.
That's not what sufficient means. And the topic was the brain.
As far as the brain is concerned, it certainly can be.You are under the impression that glucose is a one man show.
Given sufficient glucose, the brain needs ZERO ketones. None. Nil. Nada. The brain will use ketones ONLY when there is insufficient glucose available.
What part of this don't you understand?You need to hit the books.
I can't do this with you anymore.
This is the kind of misinformation that keeps circulating and causes rounds and rounds of the same question over and over again that I've answered like 5 times already.
I can't help that you don't understand it.
Find some sources and do some research. I did.
Citation needed.
I don't know what your mission is. You're awfully hung up on the word sufficient. Sorry dude, I won't use your word anymore. Will that make it better?
I said over and over and over and over and over again... That yes, the brain does NEED a certain amount of glucose every day. You are acting as if I have not acknowledged that.
The brain can sufficiently (oops! My bad), I mean adequately use ketones in a carbohydrate restricted diet as its main energy source. (I NEVER EVER said solely) I feel like I'm having deja vu...
So here's a couple of interesting reads. I promise they aren't attacking or demonizing carbs or glucose. I promise they aren't suggestive that I think everyone is wrong with everything they say and what they believe are accurate definitions of simple English words, because that's absolutely ridiculous.
They are medical journals. I didn't write them. They are not my opinions or findings. They are just up to date information that is highly interesting if you happen to find understanding this kind of stuff cool like I do. It helps to be open to an evolving science that we are constantly learning more about every day. If you're not, you may tend to share very strong, limited, opinions on Internet boards and make it appear to be getting constantly challenged by another user that isn't saying what you think they are saying... Over and over and over and...
Well good luck with life.
Here ya go.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4617348/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4617363/
0 -
Is this unique to consumed carbs, or are unused/excess calories, in general, stored as fat?Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »You all do realize that glucose, if not used or stored as glycogen, is then stored as fat, right?
0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
Where, exactly, did I tell someone what they should or shouldn't eat? Your assertion is wholly without basis.DeguelloTex wrote: »I don't cut sugar.
If someone wants to cut sugar, I think it would be ideal if it were done for a cogent reason. Even if it's done because of a derpy Facebook inforgraphic or a laughably bad "documentary," though, that's his call. The issue, imo, is when people start telling others what they should or shouldn't eat.
Funny, you just did. Most in this post are pushing carbs. It's like some weird crusade to control others food choices.
You did it by suggesting the additional requirement for low carb food choices of "cogent reasons". Why isn't a high carber also required to have "cogent reasons" in your rule book?
0 -
I cut out added sugar. Totally unneeded!0
-
DeguelloTex wrote: »
Is this unique to consumed carbs, or are unused/excess calories, in general, stored as fat?Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »You all do realize that glucose, if not used or stored as glycogen, is then stored as fat, right?
This is exactly the bit about low carb dieting I don't understand. Surely surplus calories from fat are also stored as fat, and the chemical process to store dietary fat on the body is probably more efficient (i.e. requires less calories to do) than converting sugar to fat. So I suspect a surplus calorie from fat will make you fatter than a surplus calorie from carbohydrate.0 -
Your reading comprehension here is poor. Even in the context of low carb, I wrote, "Even if it's done because of a derpy Facebook inforgraphic [sic] or a laughably bad "documentary," though, that's his call."DeguelloTex wrote: »
Where, exactly, did I tell someone what they should or shouldn't eat? Your assertion is wholly without basis.DeguelloTex wrote: »I don't cut sugar.
If someone wants to cut sugar, I think it would be ideal if it were done for a cogent reason. Even if it's done because of a derpy Facebook inforgraphic or a laughably bad "documentary," though, that's his call. The issue, imo, is when people start telling others what they should or shouldn't eat.
Funny, you just did. Most in this post are pushing carbs. It's like some weird crusade to control others food choices.
You did it by suggesting the additional requirement for low carb food choices of "cogent reasons". Why isn't a high carber also required to have "cogent reasons" in your rule book?
No one is required to have a cogent reason. Because diet choices are ultimately "his call."
That is precisely the opposite of telling someone what she should or shouldn't eat.
I think the world would generally be a better place if people had cogent reasons for their choices, but I explicitly wrote that this isn't a requirement. How is that hard for you to understand?0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
Where, exactly, did I tell someone what they should or shouldn't eat? Your assertion is wholly without basis.DeguelloTex wrote: »I don't cut sugar.
If someone wants to cut sugar, I think it would be ideal if it were done for a cogent reason. Even if it's done because of a derpy Facebook inforgraphic or a laughably bad "documentary," though, that's his call. The issue, imo, is when people start telling others what they should or shouldn't eat.
Funny, you just did. Most in this post are pushing carbs. It's like some weird crusade to control others food choices.
You did it by suggesting the additional requirement for low carb food choices of "cogent reasons". Why isn't a high carber also required to have "cogent reasons" in your rule book?
I love how "don't eliminate foods for stupid reasons " is some how "pushing carbs"0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
Where, exactly, did I tell someone what they should or shouldn't eat? Your assertion is wholly without basis.DeguelloTex wrote: »I don't cut sugar.
If someone wants to cut sugar, I think it would be ideal if it were done for a cogent reason. Even if it's done because of a derpy Facebook inforgraphic or a laughably bad "documentary," though, that's his call. The issue, imo, is when people start telling others what they should or shouldn't eat.
Funny, you just did. Most in this post are pushing carbs. It's like some weird crusade to control others food choices.
You did it by suggesting the additional requirement for low carb food choices of "cogent reasons". Why isn't a high carber also required to have "cogent reasons" in your rule book?
I have an argument why "cogent reasons" are required. We have pretty well established that people eat three macros and many micros for health and bodily functions. Anyone who suggests eliminating any of these, must have a "cogent reason". For instance, what if a person chose to follow an "iron-free" diet? It could be done with significant effort, and perhaps the person would not suffer any consequences. But the reasoning better be pretty compelling. What if that person went farther and promoted their iron-free diet as being superior? That could potentially be dangerous, especially for anemics. But it is also frankly dangerous advice for the general public.
Iron is a micro. Carbs are a macro. To advocate cutting any macro or micro there better be a freakishly strong argument.
It's argument enough for me that when blood sugars drop below a certain threshold, the person's brain function may be sufficiently impaired that they cannot rescue themselves. We are similarly cautious when it comes to oxygen. Our astronauts and scuba adventurers for instance, undergo significant training and carry with them safety equipment to prevent loss of consciousness from lack of oxygen. We provide similar protections for miners. Low oxygen testing indeed shows that these skilled athletes may be sufficiently impaired to be unaware of the danger they are in.0 -
Well, when you're sufficiently emotionally invested in a particular decision, anything that doesn't emphatically support that decision probably feels like it's supporting the opposite. Even to the point where explicitly saying "it's his call" really means telling him what he should or shouldn't eat.FunkyTobias wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
Where, exactly, did I tell someone what they should or shouldn't eat? Your assertion is wholly without basis.DeguelloTex wrote: »I don't cut sugar.
If someone wants to cut sugar, I think it would be ideal if it were done for a cogent reason. Even if it's done because of a derpy Facebook inforgraphic or a laughably bad "documentary," though, that's his call. The issue, imo, is when people start telling others what they should or shouldn't eat.
Funny, you just did. Most in this post are pushing carbs. It's like some weird crusade to control others food choices.
You did it by suggesting the additional requirement for low carb food choices of "cogent reasons". Why isn't a high carber also required to have "cogent reasons" in your rule book?
I love how "don't eliminate foods for stupid reasons " is some how "pushing carbs"0 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
Where, exactly, did I tell someone what they should or shouldn't eat? Your assertion is wholly without basis.DeguelloTex wrote: »I don't cut sugar.
If someone wants to cut sugar, I think it would be ideal if it were done for a cogent reason. Even if it's done because of a derpy Facebook inforgraphic or a laughably bad "documentary," though, that's his call. The issue, imo, is when people start telling others what they should or shouldn't eat.
Funny, you just did. Most in this post are pushing carbs. It's like some weird crusade to control others food choices.
You did it by suggesting the additional requirement for low carb food choices of "cogent reasons". Why isn't a high carber also required to have "cogent reasons" in your rule book?
I love how "don't eliminate foods for stupid reasons " is some how "pushing carbs"
How is someone that chose to eliminate foods for better health, and consequently succeeding, supposed to not find that statement offensive?
Again, I would like to say that at no time did any person of a low carb lifestyle make a comment that would suggest another persons choice of foods was made for any "stupid" reason or because of a "derpy Facebook infographic" or express any thoughts at all about how others choose to eat for that matter.
There has also not been any comment that says that any food is "bad" or causes any particular harm to anyone.
There has been no comment suggesting that a person can't live a perfectly healthy life with a primarily glucose system.
Every comment has been in correction of incomplete information that makes ketones and low carb eating seem dangerous and unattainable.
This thread is due for deletion any minute now.
Until next time, I guess.0 -
Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »
How is someone that chose to eliminate foods for better health, and consequently succeeding, supposed to not find that statement offensive?
Exhibit A for my previous post.0 -
hamlet1222 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
Is this unique to consumed carbs, or are unused/excess calories, in general, stored as fat?Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »You all do realize that glucose, if not used or stored as glycogen, is then stored as fat, right?
This is exactly the bit about low carb dieting I don't understand. Surely surplus calories from fat are also stored as fat, and the chemical process to store dietary fat on the body is probably more efficient (i.e. requires less calories to do) than converting sugar to fat. So I suspect a surplus calorie from fat will make you fatter than a surplus calorie from carbohydrate.
That is incorrect. For those with IR it is often slightly the other way around: they get fatter on a carb heavy diet than on a fat heavy diet. It is not a large difference though.0 -
You'd agree, though, I take it, that storing excess intake as fat isn't unique to consumed carbs or glucose, right?hamlet1222 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
Is this unique to consumed carbs, or are unused/excess calories, in general, stored as fat?Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »You all do realize that glucose, if not used or stored as glycogen, is then stored as fat, right?
This is exactly the bit about low carb dieting I don't understand. Surely surplus calories from fat are also stored as fat, and the chemical process to store dietary fat on the body is probably more efficient (i.e. requires less calories to do) than converting sugar to fat. So I suspect a surplus calorie from fat will make you fatter than a surplus calorie from carbohydrate.
That is incorrect. For those with IR it is often slightly the other way around: they get fatter on a carb heavy diet than on a fat heavy diet. It is not a large difference though.0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »
How is someone that chose to eliminate foods for better health, and consequently succeeding, supposed to not find that statement offensive?
Exhibit A for my previous post.
The only thing I was showing was the language that is used when talking about the choice of going low carb.
Words like stupid and derpy and dangerous abound!
It's been deleted now and I didn't get a screen capture, but there was a comment today where someone literally said low carbers are liars and suggested that we tell others how to eat and try to make them feel bad about their choices.
It's just not factual.
The only rebuttals have been in support of modern science and to correct information that is not only wrong, but suggests that another way which has proven healthful for countless people is stupid, derpy or dangerous, so that others can make their own choices.
I wasn't offended by the fact someone may think my decision is stupid. I know that a limited understanding can lead to that opinion. I am simply saddened that any attempt to correct misleading information is viewed as some kind of "finger wagging" at those that prefer the more standard diet options. Even in the complete absence of even one negative word directed at that choice or the people that choose it.
And of course that ironically, low carb opposition does exactly that. Every. Single. Time.0 -
Well, I'm not going to try to defend any poster other than myself.Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »
How is someone that chose to eliminate foods for better health, and consequently succeeding, supposed to not find that statement offensive?
Exhibit A for my previous post.
The only thing I was showing was the language that is used when talking about the choice of going low carb.
Words like stupid and derpy and dangerous abound!
It's been deleted now and I didn't get a screen capture, but there was a comment today where someone literally said low carbers are liars and suggested that we tell others how to eat and try to make them feel bad about their choices.
It's just not factual.
The only rebuttals have been in support of modern science and to correct information that is not only wrong, but suggests that another way which has proven healthful for countless people is stupid, derpy or dangerous, so that others can make their own choices.
I wasn't offended by the fact someone may think my decision is stupid. I know that a limited understanding can lead to that opinion. I am simply saddened that any attempt to correct misleading information is viewed as some kind of "finger wagging" at those that prefer the more standard diet options. Even in the complete absence of even one negative word directed at that choice or the people that choose it.
And of course that ironically, low carb opposition does exactly that. Every. Single. Time.
What I wrote was, ideally, people have a good reason for making the diet choices they do. Even if they don't have a good reason, though, it's still their call.
How that is equivalent to telling someone what he should or shouldn't eat is utterly baffling to me.
0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
Is this unique to consumed carbs, or are unused/excess calories, in general, stored as fat?Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »You all do realize that glucose, if not used or stored as glycogen, is then stored as fat, right?
No. It's not unique to consumed carbs. We were discussing the preference of the body to use glucose before fat. The idea I thought would be understood is that with glucose being such an easy, quick energy source, the body will naturally want to use it. It's like lazy fuel. Before it resorts to the extra effort of breaking down fat, it will use as much of the glucose as possible. When glucose isn't needed for anything else, the leftover becomes fat. It's not going to ever be that easy, quick energy source again. The body will naturally take the path of least resistance.
Fats are used in other ways in the body besides energy, so before the extra gets stored, it has a little more to be spent on.
Of course, excess calories that are not immediately needed will always be stored as fat. I never suggested otherwise.0 -
Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
Where, exactly, did I tell someone what they should or shouldn't eat? Your assertion is wholly without basis.DeguelloTex wrote: »I don't cut sugar.
If someone wants to cut sugar, I think it would be ideal if it were done for a cogent reason. Even if it's done because of a derpy Facebook inforgraphic or a laughably bad "documentary," though, that's his call. The issue, imo, is when people start telling others what they should or shouldn't eat.
Funny, you just did. Most in this post are pushing carbs. It's like some weird crusade to control others food choices.
You did it by suggesting the additional requirement for low carb food choices of "cogent reasons". Why isn't a high carber also required to have "cogent reasons" in your rule book?
I love how "don't eliminate foods for stupid reasons " is some how "pushing carbs"
How is someone that chose to eliminate foods for better health, and consequently succeeding, supposed to not find that statement offensive?
Again, I would like to say that at no time did any person of a low carb lifestyle make a comment that would suggest another persons choice of foods was made for any "stupid" reason or because of a "derpy Facebook infographic" or express any thoughts at all about how others choose to eat for that matter.
There has also not been any comment that says that any food is "bad" or causes any particular harm to anyone.
There has been no comment suggesting that a person can't live a perfectly healthy life with a primarily glucose system.
Every comment has been in correction of incomplete information that makes ketones and low carb eating seem dangerous and unattainable.
This thread is due for deletion any minute now.
Until next time, I guess.
Against my better judgement I'm jumping in here.
If a person is going LC for medical reasons (diabetes, IR, etc) - that is a cogent reason.
If a person is going LC because they find it to be a satiating way of eating that helps them achieve their CI<CO deficit to reach their weight loss goals - that is a cogent reason.
If a person is told that going LC is the "best way" to lose weight and they are trying it because someone else told them they would reach their goals faster, or get to eat all the steak and heavy cream they want and that's super awesome because yeah meat and fat - that is not a cogent reason.
It sounds to me like you have done research and you believe low carb is a better way of eating for you, therefore, YOU have cogent reasons. You shouldn't be offended by the statement that others should have cogent reasons for doing what they do as well.
0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
Where, exactly, did I tell someone what they should or shouldn't eat? Your assertion is wholly without basis.DeguelloTex wrote: »I don't cut sugar.
If someone wants to cut sugar, I think it would be ideal if it were done for a cogent reason. Even if it's done because of a derpy Facebook inforgraphic or a laughably bad "documentary," though, that's his call. The issue, imo, is when people start telling others what they should or shouldn't eat.
Funny, you just did. Most in this post are pushing carbs. It's like some weird crusade to control others food choices.
You did it by suggesting the additional requirement for low carb food choices of "cogent reasons". Why isn't a high carber also required to have "cogent reasons" in your rule book?
I love how "don't eliminate foods for stupid reasons " is some how "pushing carbs"
How is someone that chose to eliminate foods for better health, and consequently succeeding, supposed to not find that statement offensive?
Again, I would like to say that at no time did any person of a low carb lifestyle make a comment that would suggest another persons choice of foods was made for any "stupid" reason or because of a "derpy Facebook infographic" or express any thoughts at all about how others choose to eat for that matter.
There has also not been any comment that says that any food is "bad" or causes any particular harm to anyone.
There has been no comment suggesting that a person can't live a perfectly healthy life with a primarily glucose system.
Every comment has been in correction of incomplete information that makes ketones and low carb eating seem dangerous and unattainable.
This thread is due for deletion any minute now.
Until next time, I guess.
Against my better judgement I'm jumping in here.
If a person is going LC for medical reasons (diabetes, IR, etc) - that is a cogent reason.
If a person is going LC because they find it to be a satiating way of eating that helps them achieve their CI<CO deficit to reach their weight loss goals - that is a cogent reason.
If a person is told that going LC is the "best way" to lose weight and they are trying it because someone else told them they would reach their goals faster, or get to eat all the steak and heavy cream they want and that's super awesome because yeah meat and fat - that is not a cogent reason.
It sounds to me like you have done research and you believe low carb is a better way of eating for you, therefore, YOU have cogent reasons. You shouldn't be offended by the statement that others should have cogent reasons for doing what they do as well.
First, thank you for expressing this view in a sensitive and understanding way.
I agree with you and I understand why people, including myself (though maybe slightly differently), feel this way. It's the kind of "magical cure" language that is a sure sign of someone having unrealistic expectations and not fully understanding. It exists in all "dieting methods" and it can be the cause of diet related stress and failure. No one here wishes failure on another or unnecessary stress.
While I did go into low carb with careful thought and research, I did it as a perfectly healthy person, other than a 28 BMI. I had no medical conditions. Through my years as a mother of a T1D I've done a lot of reading. I felt compelled to understand as much as possible about metabolic science and I spend a great deal of time every day still studying and scrutinizing things I find interesting. That being said, I do know of others that didn't start out with that kind of knowledge and some had certain expectations that weren't met. Sometimes they just stop and I never hear from them again. Sometimes they've asked questions and been provided solid information and made adjustments that allowed them to keep on that plan and have been very happy with their progress. Sometimes, I've told people that it seemed like it wasn't a good fit for them and encouraged them to add more carbs.
Providing support is a balancing act. I want to help someone if they're asking and I don't want to get their expectations too high so they aren't let down or put forth appropriate effort. But no matter their initial understanding or reason for choosing, I would like to help them acquire the correct information.
I am not going to be someone that decides that person made a choice based on a "stupid, derpy, Facebook infographic" and therefore should ONLY be discouraged because it's dumb to make that decision on a whim. I will be the person that tries to guide them to an actual understanding, with realistic expectations. If they still want to try it, then what's the harm? If they let Pinterest pick their diet from a meme, they probably have tried dumber things! Lol
Support matters. It matters tremendously. We don't have to understand others choices, though it helps to try. We don't have to approve of their choices and we can share our concerns, politely, but not without also listening. We can offer help and support through shared experiences and non judgmental information and possibly be a positive influence for another fellow health seeker. Or, we can just decide that we know that 2 - 4 = -2 and nothing else matters. Not even the people on the journey.
And it wasn't the suggestion to have a cogent reason that can come off as offensive as much as throwing around the ideas of the reasons being "stupid and derpy" and information that someone could find inspiring to be from a "laughable documentary".0 -
You don't think "stupid and derpy" is a reasonable antonym for "cogent"? You don't think that people make dietary choices based on non-cogent -- "stupid and derpy" -- reasons? Why is pointing out that this happens -- and you know it does -- offensive to you?Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
Where, exactly, did I tell someone what they should or shouldn't eat? Your assertion is wholly without basis.DeguelloTex wrote: »I don't cut sugar.
If someone wants to cut sugar, I think it would be ideal if it were done for a cogent reason. Even if it's done because of a derpy Facebook inforgraphic or a laughably bad "documentary," though, that's his call. The issue, imo, is when people start telling others what they should or shouldn't eat.
Funny, you just did. Most in this post are pushing carbs. It's like some weird crusade to control others food choices.
You did it by suggesting the additional requirement for low carb food choices of "cogent reasons". Why isn't a high carber also required to have "cogent reasons" in your rule book?
I love how "don't eliminate foods for stupid reasons " is some how "pushing carbs"
How is someone that chose to eliminate foods for better health, and consequently succeeding, supposed to not find that statement offensive?
Again, I would like to say that at no time did any person of a low carb lifestyle make a comment that would suggest another persons choice of foods was made for any "stupid" reason or because of a "derpy Facebook infographic" or express any thoughts at all about how others choose to eat for that matter.
There has also not been any comment that says that any food is "bad" or causes any particular harm to anyone.
There has been no comment suggesting that a person can't live a perfectly healthy life with a primarily glucose system.
Every comment has been in correction of incomplete information that makes ketones and low carb eating seem dangerous and unattainable.
This thread is due for deletion any minute now.
Until next time, I guess.
Against my better judgement I'm jumping in here.
If a person is going LC for medical reasons (diabetes, IR, etc) - that is a cogent reason.
If a person is going LC because they find it to be a satiating way of eating that helps them achieve their CI<CO deficit to reach their weight loss goals - that is a cogent reason.
If a person is told that going LC is the "best way" to lose weight and they are trying it because someone else told them they would reach their goals faster, or get to eat all the steak and heavy cream they want and that's super awesome because yeah meat and fat - that is not a cogent reason.
It sounds to me like you have done research and you believe low carb is a better way of eating for you, therefore, YOU have cogent reasons. You shouldn't be offended by the statement that others should have cogent reasons for doing what they do as well.
First, thank you for expressing this view in a sensitive and understanding way.
I agree with you and I understand why people, including myself (though maybe slightly differently), feel this way. It's the kind of "magical cure" language that is a sure sign of someone having unrealistic expectations and not fully understanding. It exists in all "dieting methods" and it can be the cause of diet related stress and failure. No one here wishes failure on another or unnecessary stress.
While I did go into low carb with careful thought and research, I did it as a perfectly healthy person, other than a 28 BMI. I had no medical conditions. Through my years as a mother of a T1D I've done a lot of reading. I felt compelled to understand as much as possible about metabolic science and I spend a great deal of time every day still studying and scrutinizing things I find interesting. That being said, I do know of others that didn't start out with that kind of knowledge and some had certain expectations that weren't met. Sometimes they just stop and I never hear from them again. Sometimes they've asked questions and been provided solid information and made adjustments that allowed them to keep on that plan and have been very happy with their progress. Sometimes, I've told people that it seemed like it wasn't a good fit for them and encouraged them to add more carbs.
Providing support is a balancing act. I want to help someone if they're asking and I don't want to get their expectations too high so they aren't let down or put forth appropriate effort. But no matter their initial understanding or reason for choosing, I would like to help them acquire the correct information.
I am not going to be someone that decides that person made a choice based on a "stupid, derpy, Facebook infographic" and therefore should ONLY be discouraged because it's dumb to make that decision on a whim. I will be the person that tries to guide them to an actual understanding, with realistic expectations. If they still want to try it, then what's the harm? If they let Pinterest pick their diet from a meme, they probably have tried dumber things! Lol
Support matters. It matters tremendously. We don't have to understand others choices, though it helps to try. We don't have to approve of their choices and we can share our concerns, politely, but not without also listening. We can offer help and support through shared experiences and non judgmental information and possibly be a positive influence for another fellow health seeker. Or, we can just decide that we know that 2 - 4 = -2 and nothing else matters. Not even the people on the journey.
And it wasn't the suggestion to have a cogent reason that can come off as offensive as much as throwing around the ideas of the reasons being "stupid and derpy" and information that someone could find inspiring to be from a "laughable documentary".
If you're offended that I think better decisions are made when not inspired by falsehoods, you're just going to have to continue to be offended.0 -
I don't even understand what the low carb people are trying to argue in here.0
-
DeguelloTex wrote: »
You don't think "stupid and derpy" is a reasonable antonym for "cogent"? You don't think that people make dietary choices based on non-cogent -- "stupid and derpy" -- reasons? Why is pointing out that this happens -- and you know it does -- offensive to you?Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
Where, exactly, did I tell someone what they should or shouldn't eat? Your assertion is wholly without basis.DeguelloTex wrote: »I don't cut sugar.
If someone wants to cut sugar, I think it would be ideal if it were done for a cogent reason. Even if it's done because of a derpy Facebook inforgraphic or a laughably bad "documentary," though, that's his call. The issue, imo, is when people start telling others what they should or shouldn't eat.
Funny, you just did. Most in this post are pushing carbs. It's like some weird crusade to control others food choices.
You did it by suggesting the additional requirement for low carb food choices of "cogent reasons". Why isn't a high carber also required to have "cogent reasons" in your rule book?
I love how "don't eliminate foods for stupid reasons " is some how "pushing carbs"
How is someone that chose to eliminate foods for better health, and consequently succeeding, supposed to not find that statement offensive?
Again, I would like to say that at no time did any person of a low carb lifestyle make a comment that would suggest another persons choice of foods was made for any "stupid" reason or because of a "derpy Facebook infographic" or express any thoughts at all about how others choose to eat for that matter.
There has also not been any comment that says that any food is "bad" or causes any particular harm to anyone.
There has been no comment suggesting that a person can't live a perfectly healthy life with a primarily glucose system.
Every comment has been in correction of incomplete information that makes ketones and low carb eating seem dangerous and unattainable.
This thread is due for deletion any minute now.
Until next time, I guess.
Against my better judgement I'm jumping in here.
If a person is going LC for medical reasons (diabetes, IR, etc) - that is a cogent reason.
If a person is going LC because they find it to be a satiating way of eating that helps them achieve their CI<CO deficit to reach their weight loss goals - that is a cogent reason.
If a person is told that going LC is the "best way" to lose weight and they are trying it because someone else told them they would reach their goals faster, or get to eat all the steak and heavy cream they want and that's super awesome because yeah meat and fat - that is not a cogent reason.
It sounds to me like you have done research and you believe low carb is a better way of eating for you, therefore, YOU have cogent reasons. You shouldn't be offended by the statement that others should have cogent reasons for doing what they do as well.
First, thank you for expressing this view in a sensitive and understanding way.
I agree with you and I understand why people, including myself (though maybe slightly differently), feel this way. It's the kind of "magical cure" language that is a sure sign of someone having unrealistic expectations and not fully understanding. It exists in all "dieting methods" and it can be the cause of diet related stress and failure. No one here wishes failure on another or unnecessary stress.
While I did go into low carb with careful thought and research, I did it as a perfectly healthy person, other than a 28 BMI. I had no medical conditions. Through my years as a mother of a T1D I've done a lot of reading. I felt compelled to understand as much as possible about metabolic science and I spend a great deal of time every day still studying and scrutinizing things I find interesting. That being said, I do know of others that didn't start out with that kind of knowledge and some had certain expectations that weren't met. Sometimes they just stop and I never hear from them again. Sometimes they've asked questions and been provided solid information and made adjustments that allowed them to keep on that plan and have been very happy with their progress. Sometimes, I've told people that it seemed like it wasn't a good fit for them and encouraged them to add more carbs.
Providing support is a balancing act. I want to help someone if they're asking and I don't want to get their expectations too high so they aren't let down or put forth appropriate effort. But no matter their initial understanding or reason for choosing, I would like to help them acquire the correct information.
I am not going to be someone that decides that person made a choice based on a "stupid, derpy, Facebook infographic" and therefore should ONLY be discouraged because it's dumb to make that decision on a whim. I will be the person that tries to guide them to an actual understanding, with realistic expectations. If they still want to try it, then what's the harm? If they let Pinterest pick their diet from a meme, they probably have tried dumber things! Lol
Support matters. It matters tremendously. We don't have to understand others choices, though it helps to try. We don't have to approve of their choices and we can share our concerns, politely, but not without also listening. We can offer help and support through shared experiences and non judgmental information and possibly be a positive influence for another fellow health seeker. Or, we can just decide that we know that 2 - 4 = -2 and nothing else matters. Not even the people on the journey.
And it wasn't the suggestion to have a cogent reason that can come off as offensive as much as throwing around the ideas of the reasons being "stupid and derpy" and information that someone could find inspiring to be from a "laughable documentary".
If you're offended that I think better decisions are made when not inspired by falsehoods, you're just going to have to continue to be offended.
Yeah. Sorry. I guess I didn't realize it was an antonym. Was it not apparent that I clearly didn't associate those words as having the same meaning? My bad again for my failure of the English language.
Pointing out that people don't always have the right information when making a choice isn't what's offensive. Your language is negative and by its very nature, insensitive and insulting. I'm not sure why you're defending it. But I don't have to understand it. I will just choose to provide supportive and correct information without resorting to such insensitivity.
0 -
stevencloser wrote: »I don't even understand what the low carb people are trying to argue in here.
Me neither, lol!0 -
I would just like to chime in as one of the people who unfortunately can't eat too low carb due to genetics (or at least, the blood work got so bad after a year I had to abandon it). Ketosis never worked for me due to my training. And the 50-100 net g per day range was disastrous (for me). Your mileage may vary. I encourage most people without health issues to try low carb (and of course there's some health diagnosises that do better in ketosis, like some epileptics). I enjoyed eating low carb. But blanket statements about what the brain and body needs is a bit simplistic, if you ask me.0
-
stevencloser wrote: »I don't even understand what the low carb people are trying to argue in here.
I've been lurking on here for like 36 hours... there have been some interesting comments....but I'm still not really sure what's going on.0 -
This was the third comment. Previous 2 were not negative or judgemental in any way.
A judgement that a person needs a good reason to choose to just cut sugar (we aren't even talking eliminating it or going low carb) or it could be perceived as derpy and then goes on to say that it's an issue "when people start telling others what they should or shouldn't eat".DeguelloTex wrote: »I don't cut sugar.
If someone wants to cut sugar, I think it would be ideal if it were done for a cogent reason. Even if it's done because of a derpy Facebook inforgraphic or a laughably bad "documentary," though, that's his call. The issue, imo, is when people start telling others what they should or shouldn't eat.
This is blatantly instigating.
A couple of people then responded in agreement.
Next, this question was asked.
Innocent enough right?catscats222 wrote: »can a person do 0 sugar ? cut it out? is this even possible?
no fruits, no milk?
Followed by "everything in moderation" advice,sarahdayski wrote: »Everything in moderation, your body needs something from everything. I overdosed on sugar a few days last week and both days ended up feeling lethargic and achy, so back on track now.
And more support for a required reason for other individuals to cut back on anything at all.DeguelloTex wrote: »I don't cut sugar.
If someone wants to cut sugar, I think it would be ideal if it were done for a cogent reason. Even if it's done because of a derpy Facebook inforgraphic or a laughably bad "documentary," though, that's his call. The issue, imo, is when people start telling others what they should or shouldn't eat.
Agree with this too. You gotta have a reason to cut back on sugar, or anything else for that matter, because sugar is sugar and food is food.
This is followed by another comment of support.
And then that innocent question again...catscats222 wrote: »im confused, wouldn't cutting OUT sugar completely be really hard?
- i didn't see cutting back in the question
A simple answer would've been the level of difficulty depends on the individual.
Then a few reasonable comments suggesting OP gave some incomplete information.
And the curious question about cutting out all sugar again.catscats222 wrote: »cutting out sugar -
copied from original question
not just cutting back - or watching
even brocolli has sugar
A response is provided...Soo.. Nursing major here.. In my opinion cutting out sugar is a bad idea for a lot of reasons like decrease in brain activity, messing up insulin and glucose levels, body will start to use up muscle mass for energy which we want muscle cause it burns more energy which is calories. Your fat is the last thing to go when starving yourself or depriving a thing like sugar. Quick fact: your brain uses 50% of sugar you consume!
Did you fail ? Or just miss the class about ketones as an alternative brain fuel, gluconeogenesis and all that other stuff.
Someone eating no sugar potentially has the same blood glucose level as anyone else. Given that the brain gets its glucose from the bloodstream, where is the issue ?catscats222 wrote: »can a person do 0 sugar ? cut it out? is this even possible?
no fruits, no milk?
technically possible, I've even been to places with very little or no fruit or milk available.
Completely reasonable answer. No judgement. No hint of trying to persuade anyone to do anything. Just an answer.
Then there is another agreement for needing a non-derpy reason.
Followed by a recommendation for OP, as a nursing student to possibly look into some interesting current research going on. First mention of ketones. It's mentioned as an interesting areas of study the commenter thought a nursing student might be intrigued by.Looking into ketones as a treatment for Alzheimer's might be interesting for you, as a nursing student.
Then this person fully discloses they are very strict with their own diet and have achieved better health than ever and follows up to make it clear they have no issue with differing methods and each person is an individual free to make their own choice.I eat an extremely strict diet of meat, veggies, whole fat dairy, and nuts. The only sugar in my diet is the sugar that naturally occurs in those foods. My body is in a state of ketosis and burns ketones instead of sugar. Definitely still have a pulse and healthier than ever.
And I definitely don't care if someone else decides to take the total opposite lifestyle path as me. To each their own. They know their body, I know mine.
Then an agreement that sugar is essential. With some props for fat. And a link to a study done on a glucose burning brain.I agree that sugar is essential, especially the kind that is running through our blood all the time.
More like 60% is consumed by the brain. @RuNaRoUnDaFiEld http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK22436/
I'm going to pipe up in defence of fat, however. It takes so long to metabolise it actually provides sustained energy better than eating sugar. I find if I eat a walnut at breakfast I have better sustained energy through my morning. Now, the quantity of fat must be watched because it is so energy-dense.
Then some more unbiased information explaining a possible answer to a previous question.RuNaRoUnDaFiEld wrote: »Soo.. Nursing major here.. In my opinion cutting out sugar is a bad idea for a lot of reasons like decrease in brain activity, messing up insulin and glucose levels, body will start to use up muscle mass for energy which we want muscle cause it burns more energy which is calories. Your fat is the last thing to go when starving yourself or depriving a thing like sugar. Quick fact: your brain uses 50% of sugar you consume!
Is that a fact? That the brain uses 50% of all the sugar I consume.
it could happen that way. The brain uses about 300 calories from memory, so if you ate 150 grams of sugar = 600 calories then the statement would work.
I've logged 4g of sugar so far today, so double check my maths.
Then this guy is excited to have the "Food Police" called out but I'm not sure who they are because OP was saying you need sugar and no one had said anyone shouldn't have it... I haven't figured out who the food police are.frankiesgirlie wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »I don't cut sugar.
If someone wants to cut sugar, I think it would be ideal if it were done for a cogent reason. Even if it's done because of a derpy Facebook inforgraphic or a laughably bad "documentary," though, that's his call. The issue, imo, is when people start telling others what they should or shouldn't eat.
OMG...thank you, thank you..finally someone calling out the "food police".
I thought umayster was funny because OP seemed to think not having sugar could be a problem and he was letting us know in a humorous way that the body is prepared for a no carb experience and the brain won't fail to function.Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »
And then the choice of words sets off this commenter. It seems he is suggesting that a no carb diet leaves a person barely clinging to life because your brain isn't running "effectively" it just "doesn't die"
And then goes on to explain some more words.FunkyTobias wrote: »Psst. Fun Fact. Go ahead and eat ZERO carbs (sugar is a carb) and your magical body will magically produce all the magical sugar your body and brain requires to run effectively. Its magic. Don't tell anyone. It is a secret. Amaze your friends. Thank me later.
By "effectively" you mean "doesn't die".
Essential is not the same as optimal.
From this point, glucose and ketones are supposed to fight to the death I think...
Each of us has to figure out what makes sense to us but there are scientific resources that can be used instead of random people on Internet forums.
Anyone that is interested in learning about any body process, I hope you encounter some kind, supportive friends that will share some sources of interesting information with you and not tell you how to eat or make you feel bad if you asked some "dumb" questions because of a derpy infographic you saw.0 -
Not to poop in your cereal or anything, but the guy you're implying is unkind and unsupportive has been posting more sources for his claims than you have.0
-
At the risk of interrupting your rant, where did I say a person needs a good reason to choose to just cut out sugar? Your entire position is based on flailing against something that wasn't even said.Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »This was the third comment. Previous 2 were not negative or judgemental in any way.
A judgement that a person needs a good reason to choose to just cut sugar (we aren't even talking eliminating it or going low carb) or it could be perceived as derpy and then goes on to say that it's an issue "when people start telling others what they should or shouldn't eat".DeguelloTex wrote: »I don't cut sugar.
If someone wants to cut sugar, I think it would be ideal if it were done for a cogent reason. Even if it's done because of a derpy Facebook inforgraphic or a laughably bad "documentary," though, that's his call. The issue, imo, is when people start telling others what they should or shouldn't eat.
This is blatantly instigating.
Instigating of what, exactly?
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions