The deal on sugar
Replies
-
DeguelloTex wrote: »
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?
I honestly can not see how this is "instigating". You made a reference to two different types of Low-Carb groups that DO exist. There are the crazy ones that read an article in Woman's Day and saw a post on Pinterest, and decided to watch Fed Up. Those are the quacks...and they are out there. Of course you have the educated low carbers as well. Why that would be considered instigating, I don't know?
I do know it's never considered instigating when the shoe is on the other foot and we have low carbers saying that moderation means junk all day. Do those people exist? Absolutely, but that is not what the majority of this site stands for.
It's pretty similar really.0 -
Sunny_Bunny_ 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?
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.
Interesting choice of words.
If I had bread that was going to go bad (perhaps I had been trying low carb, eh?) and I decided to use it up first before my can of spam that expires 5 years after my post mortem, would that be lazy fuel, or would someone normally use a term with more positive connotations, like prudent? Thrifty? Efficient? Efficient is surely the word I'd used describing metabolic processes and why ones are preferential.
If to you the word lazy aptly describes using glucose as the first available fuel, you might want to consider then that the idea of biology evolution is laziness. All of biology looks to accomplish the most for the least energy, within the limits of finding efficiencies that don't require complete redesigns.0 -
Sunny_Bunny_ 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?
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.
Interesting choice of words.
If I had bread that was going to go bad (perhaps I had been trying low carb, eh?) and I decided to use it up first before my can of spam that expires 5 years after my post mortem, would that be lazy fuel, or would someone normally use a term with more positive connotations, like prudent? Thrifty? Efficient? Efficient is surely the word I'd used describing metabolic processes and why ones are preferential.
If to you the word lazy aptly describes using glucose as the first available fuel, you might want to consider then that the idea of biology evolution is laziness. All of biology looks to accomplish the most for the least energy, within the limits of finding efficiencies that don't require complete redesigns.
Well put.0 -
I was coming to make a comment about "lazy" fuel and why it's bad. I eat, my body uses it.
Otherwise I am completely and totally lost.
As you were.0 -
this thread has it all
drama
intrigue
madey-up stuff
just need a few monkey butlers and all will be complete0 -
-
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?
Calories in general are a concept not a physical thing you can track in the body. Protein is either incorporated into tissue or oxidised for energy, alcohol is oxidised for energy - as neither of these can be stored.
Carbs are oxidised preferentially (to reduce blood glucose), excess are stored as glycogen, persistent high excess will result in conversion to fat.
Fats are oxidised or stored, there's flux in & out of storage all the time. Bringing excess into the system above what is oxidsed results in more storage.0 -
So, no, this isn't a concept unique to excess carbs or glucose.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?
Calories in general are a concept not a physical thing you can track in the body. Protein is either incorporated into tissue or oxidised for energy, alcohol is oxidised for energy - as neither of these can be stored.
Carbs are oxidised preferentially (to reduce blood glucose), excess are stored as glycogen, persistent high excess will result in conversion to fat.
Fats are oxidised or stored, there's flux in & out of storage all the time. Bringing excess into the system above what is oxidsed results in more storage.0 -
0
-
DeguelloTex wrote: »
So, no, this isn't a concept unique to excess carbs or glucose.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?
Calories in general are a concept not a physical thing you can track in the body. Protein is either incorporated into tissue or oxidised for energy, alcohol is oxidised for energy - as neither of these can be stored.
Carbs are oxidised preferentially (to reduce blood glucose), excess are stored as glycogen, persistent high excess will result in conversion to fat.
Fats are oxidised or stored, there's flux in & out of storage all the time. Bringing excess into the system above what is oxidsed results in more storage.
Indeed, both fat and glucose are stored in humans (much more of the former). There is a subtle difference in that ingested carbs reduces the oxidation of fat whereas ingested fats doesn't do the opposite, so eating carbs affects the fat balance & storage a lot whereas eating fat doesn't do much / anything to the carb balance & storage.0 -
Maybe you can't store alcohol...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?
Calories in general are a concept not a physical thing you can track in the body. Protein is either incorporated into tissue or oxidised for energy, alcohol is oxidised for energy - as neither of these can be stored.
Carbs are oxidised preferentially (to reduce blood glucose), excess are stored as glycogen, persistent high excess will result in conversion to fat.
Fats are oxidised or stored, there's flux in & out of storage all the time. Bringing excess into the system above what is oxidsed results in more storage.
0 -
0 -
Looking into ketones as a treatment for Alzheimer's might be interesting for you, as a nursing student.
are these actually good for alzheimer's? came to comment on original post but saw this and got sidetracked. My grandpop has alzheimer's and dementia and we're always looking for something that might help him hang around with us a little longer.0 -
Your nursing program ought to go over the ethics of providing unfounded, unsupported, opinion-based advice to strangers while improperly claiming a position of professional authority.
Unless you left out a credential more relevant than "nursing major" you are unlicensed to practice and ought to refrain from providing "expert" opinion. When you're on a public forum like this, you would be well-advised to not frame your opinions "as a nursing major."0 -
brittanynicholexx wrote: »Looking into ketones as a treatment for Alzheimer's might be interesting for you, as a nursing student.
are these actually good for alzheimer's? came to comment on original post but saw this and got sidetracked. My grandpop has alzheimer's and dementia and we're always looking for something that might help him hang around with us a little longer.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4617363/0 -
Your nursing program ought to go over the ethics of providing unfounded, unsupported, opinion-based advice to strangers while improperly claiming a position of professional authority.
Unless you left out a credential more relevant than "nursing major" you are unlicensed to practice and ought to refrain from providing "expert" opinion. When you're on a public forum like this, you would be well-advised to not frame your opinions "as a nursing major."
Did OP ever come back?! I really can't be arsed to read through all this to find out!0 -
@senecarr - great new avatar! Way to go!0
-
I deeply sympathize with the OP. If I were in her shoes I'd be halfway to Timbuktu by now.
I agree
Let's not forget that she is a student. It seems like poorly understood and poorly explained "you need carbs to be optimally healthy" advice that she is no doubt being taught at school.
0 -
Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »I deeply sympathize with the OP. If I were in her shoes I'd be halfway to Timbuktu by now.
I agree
Let's not forget that she is a student. It seems like poorly understood and poorly explained "you need carbs to be optimally healthy" advice that she is no doubt being taught at school.
It ain't easy to get into a quality nursing program. Assuming she is in a credentialed school, she has probably worked hard to get there, and is likely intelligent, excited about what she's learning, and eager to help people.
But she really needed the lesson: mind what you say! A nurse has a lot of responsibility to communicate well and clearly, and their words carry a lot of weight simply by the fact of their profession and assumed expertise.
There are good reasons that medical students and law students are prohibited from hanging out their shingle as a practitioner before they get licensed....0 -
@Sunny_Bunny_ I find her reasoning far more compelling than yours. I stand by her education.0
-
Speaking of poorly explained, do you yet have an explanation for how what I wrote could be characterized by you as saying that someone "needs" a good reason to cut sugar?Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »I deeply sympathize with the OP. If I were in her shoes I'd be halfway to Timbuktu by now.
I agree
Let's not forget that she is a student. It seems like poorly understood and poorly explained "you need carbs to be optimally healthy" advice that she is no doubt being taught at school.0 -
It seems that some think I'm making a crazy argument that everyone should be anti carbs and change how they eat or that carbs are bad...
I want to go back to the beginning where my only goal was to counter the idea that the brain doesn't run effectively on ketones, that it simply just "doesn't die".
My brain runs primarily on ketones and things are going well. I don't feel like I'm barely clinging to life.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. 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.
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.
Whether or not I made a poor choice of words by saying "optimally" kind of depends on what a person considers optimal.
I linked two journals later on that discuss modern research that supports brain health benefits of a Ketogenic diet. I feel like optimal applies.
I've provided sources to support my reason for believing a Ketogenic diet is good for brain health, but I initially spoke up in correction of a very incorrect statement that suggested that ketones simply keep the brain alive.
I've been called arrogant, condescending, clueless and rude. I guess it could seem that way since I've had to defend every statement I've made, including my choice of words. Everything I say is called into question and I'm expected to provide proof. Everyone knows there's no hard proof of any of this stuff! No one else has provided any such proof either. There is research that looks for reproducible and consistent information.
But the fact that people have used Ketogenic diets for decades and the results are not just that their brains "didn't die", and that greater health has been achieved, certainly proves the effectiveness of ketones as a primary energy and disproves the statement that suggests it simply keeps your brain alive. A claim that was never supported with any resource to help understand why he believed it.
I apologize for sounding arrogant (and all of the other names I was called) during my defensive replies. I am glad that I don't also owe apologies for doing the same.
I stand by the correction I made.
I'm stepping out of this discussion because it ventured away from sharing information and providing support to name calling and dissecting sentences. I'm just not interested in that.0 -
If ketosis was healthier in any significant amount, humanity would have mostly lived on a ketogenic diet throughout evolution, because that's how evolution works. Stuff that's beneficial stays, while stuff that's not as beneficial slowly dies out. The fact that your brain will immediately drop the ketones as soon as glucose is back on the table shows it just does not want to use them that much. Which makes sense because that's extra work and evolution, as @senecarr pointed out, strives to conserve as much energy as possible.
Humanity really is weird sometimes, trying to convince others that a process that wastes energy and is only done by your body when the preferred power sources aren't available is somehow "superior".0 -
stevencloser wrote: »If ketosis was healthier in any significant amount, humanity would have mostly lived on a ketogenic diet throughout evolution, because that's how evolution works. Stuff that's beneficial stays, while stuff that's not as beneficial slowly dies out. The fact that your brain will immediately drop the ketones as soon as glucose is back on the table shows it just does not want to use them that much. Which makes sense because that's extra work and evolution, as @senecarr pointed out, strives to conserve as much energy as possible.
Humanity really is weird sometimes, trying to convince others that a process that wastes energy and is only done by your body when the preferred power sources aren't available is somehow "superior".
I didn't intend to participate anymore but I have to ask you
Did someone say that ketosis was healthier than some other thing? I didn't. Who said it was healthier and what did they say exactly?
Who is trying to convince anyone that ketosis is superior? What statement was made that claims superiority over any other thing?
Your entire response is in defense to a fictional argument where you think someone has said that ketosis is healthier and superior to the "preferred" way. I don't see the opposing side of the debate you are carrying out here. If there is someone saying those things, I have missed it.0 -
Saying ketones are optimal and that the body uses glucose first because it's toxic?
Repeatedly claiming that there is no reason to eat sugar, as if the micronutrients in fruits and vegetables weren't a reason?0 -
Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »If ketosis was healthier in any significant amount, humanity would have mostly lived on a ketogenic diet throughout evolution, because that's how evolution works. Stuff that's beneficial stays, while stuff that's not as beneficial slowly dies out. The fact that your brain will immediately drop the ketones as soon as glucose is back on the table shows it just does not want to use them that much. Which makes sense because that's extra work and evolution, as @senecarr pointed out, strives to conserve as much energy as possible.
Humanity really is weird sometimes, trying to convince others that a process that wastes energy and is only done by your body when the preferred power sources aren't available is somehow "superior".
I didn't intend to participate anymore but I have to ask you
Did someone say that ketosis was healthier than some other thing? I didn't. Who said it was healthier and what did they say exactly?
Who is trying to convince anyone that ketosis is superior? What statement was made that claims superiority over any other thing?
Your entire response is in defense to a fictional argument where you think someone has said that ketosis is healthier and superior to the "preferred" way. I don't see the opposing side of the debate you are carrying out here. If there is someone saying those things, I have missed it.
Well that would be why you don't call using ketones optimal, claim they're a less lazy fuel, imply the brain doesn't have good, healthy reasons to use glucose as fuel, or that the properties of ketosis lead it to supposedly cure Alzheimer's, epilepsy, and so on.0 -
What they said.0
-
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! [/quote]
Too much sugar increases fat which is stored in the liver, then when unused, gets sent out to the organs!
Decrease as much sugar as possible and get it through fruits and vegetables. I have been very successful in weight loss by sharply decreasing sugars from breads, including pancakes, waffles, toast, muffins, crackers--you know, all the good stuff!
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions