The deal on sugar
Options
Replies
-
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
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 389 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 918 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions