The deal on sugar
Options
Replies
-
@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 -
I'll take things said if you substitute the word sugar for the proper word calories for $500 Alex.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 -
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!
Well, you can solve that problem by using it. Just don't eat surplus calories. Surplus calories -- no matter the source -- are going to be stored by your body.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!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!
And I've been very successful in weight loss by sharply decreasing nothing other than my total calorie consumption, which enables me to still be able to enjoy breads, pancakes, waffles, toast, muffins, crackers -- you know, all the good stuff!
0 -
I've been very successful reducing overall calories but actually upping the percentage of sugars I get in relation to my calorie intake....
<
#proofisinthepudding0 -
-
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.
1. I explained why I used the word optimal. It wasn't meant to mean better than glucose, but since you're right, it does actually mean better, it should also not be used to describe glucose usage. Being the first energy used doesn't mean, optimal either.
2. The description of glucose being a lazy fuel was illustrative of exactly the same thing you all have said about glucose being the easiest to burn. I continued that explanation by saying the body will take the path of least resistance and that it's a quick, easy fuel source that requires less effort. I wasn't calling glucose lazy, I was calling the body lazy... But just to illustrate the idea. The same idea that was mentioned about the body conserving energy by someone else. It was in no way the negative remark against glucose, that it was perceived.
3. I don't believe I implied the brain doesn't have good healthy reasons to use glucose as fuel. I definitely acknowledged that it is required, in fact.
4. I also never claimed that ketosis leads to a "cure" for any disease. I did link to medical journals that show the proven benefits that it does provide in treating and preventing neurological disease.
Aside from improperly using the word optimal, I didn't say or imply any of those other things.
I have spent more time correcting a couple of misused words and no one is questioning that original incorrect statement...
"By effectively, you mean didn't die?"
Ketones are a perfectly healthy and natural energy source that won't leave you on the brink of brain death. They aren't picked first, that's true. It's ok, I doubt it hurts their feelings.
(Just to be clear, I don't actually believe they have feelings. Just trying to lighten things up a bit)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.
I did some digging on the Alzheimer's research. Apparently one of the side effects of Alzheimer's is impaired glucose metabolism by the brain. The only reasons ketones are suggested is because they're an alternate source of fuel since the disease has affected the brain's ability to process the primary source of fuel... that's if I'm reading this correctly.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25832906
That's certainly a different spin than what I've been reading around these parts.0 -
You mean, you mean, ketones won't cure Alzheimer's?
http://www.senseaboutscience.org/data/files/resources/136/Ive-got-nothing-to-lose_web.pdf0 -
You mean, you mean, ketones won't cure Alzheimer's?
http://www.senseaboutscience.org/data/files/resources/136/Ive-got-nothing-to-lose_web.pdf
Did someone say they would?0 -
Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »You mean, you mean, ketones won't cure Alzheimer's?
http://www.senseaboutscience.org/data/files/resources/136/Ive-got-nothing-to-lose_web.pdf
Did someone say they would?
Just about. It's coy to pretend otherwise. They certainly are not a miracle intervention.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K 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
- 393 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
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 934 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions