The deal on sugar
Replies
-
Lol - seems fitting.NothingsGoing2StopMe wrote: »The real danger is in sugar substitutes.
0 -
NothingsGoing2StopMe wrote: »The real danger is in sugar substitutes.
Enlighten us, please.0 -
vivmom2014 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!
There really need to be some qualifications here. My sister is a Type 1 diabetic who has to watch her sugar/carbohydrate intake meticulously. People who have medical issues really don't need to be told that they're decreasing their brain activity, messing up insulin & glucose levels and using muscle mass for energy. It can be daunting enough just to manage their disease(s).
AS a newly diagnosed diabetic, I'll stick to what my Diabetes Association Educator and dietician tell me. Like your sister, I don't need another person telling me what I can and cannot do.0 -
I want to thank you so much for inserting a derpy Facebook meme as I mentioned on Page One as the type of non-cogent rationalizations people use as the basis of their choices. So awesome.christinev297 wrote: »
0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
I want to thank you so much for inserting a derpy Facebook meme as I mentioned on Page One as the type of non-cogent rationalizations people use as the basis of their choices. So awesome.christinev297 wrote: »
Lol - perfect.
0 -
judyvalentine512 wrote: »vivmom2014 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!
There really need to be some qualifications here. My sister is a Type 1 diabetic who has to watch her sugar/carbohydrate intake meticulously. People who have medical issues really don't need to be told that they're decreasing their brain activity, messing up insulin & glucose levels and using muscle mass for energy. It can be daunting enough just to manage their disease(s).
AS a newly diagnosed diabetic, I'll stick to what my Diabetes Association Educator and dietician tell me. Like your sister, I don't need another person telling me what I can and cannot do.
That sounds smart.
0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »
Before bed last night I shared an extremely personal story about my now deceased mother and why a ketogenic diet would not have been a viable option to help manage or alleviate her Alzheimer's disease because of what Alzheimer's is like to live with. I spent the night tossing and turning and remembering things about my moms disease that I had blocked out for quite a while, wondering if there was something we missed or something more that could have been done to help her. To see this kind of insensitive, facebookey meme when I woke up this morning, about people rejecting things they don't know about because of ignorance is possibly one of the most offensive things I have seen on these boards...
Having been involved in a relative who received supported homecare for his Alzheimer's, I could not agree more. Hugs to you, it's the most hellish thing to live through.
Please note, he was a diabetic who handled his diabetes by eating a modified carbohydrate diet. This continued while his disease ravaged him.
There's ignorance abounding here, alrighty, but it's not coming from where some people think it is.
It's interesting to note that the link I posted earlier is being completely ignored in this discussion. An actual scientific link rather than a book.0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
I want to thank you so much for inserting a derpy Facebook meme as I mentioned on Page One as the type of non-cogent rationalizations people use as the basis of their choices. So awesome.christinev297 wrote: »
0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
I want to thank you so much for inserting a derpy Facebook meme as I mentioned on Page One as the type of non-cogent rationalizations people use as the basis of their choices. So awesome.christinev297 wrote: »
Most who have chosen the no-so-easy path of restricting carbs and are doing it right enough to see solid benefits pretty much are unable to do that without some serious nutrititional learning. Most who argue against carb restriction eat much higher carb levels without the issues that would promote the understanding of how and why to restrict carbs successfully. It gets really old fast trying to discuss first hand experiences with those who have no need to experience low carb, but feel compelled to argue against it based on something I cannot, for the life of me, comprehend.
The above is a generalization. Exceptions exist.
0 -
It gets really old fast when people want to play the martyr and outright lie distort what other people write so as to enhance that martyrdom.DeguelloTex wrote: »
I want to thank you so much for inserting a derpy Facebook meme as I mentioned on Page One as the type of non-cogent rationalizations people use as the basis of their choices. So awesome.christinev297 wrote: »
Most who have chosen the no-so-easy path of restricting carbs and are doing it right enough to see solid benefits pretty much are unable to do that without some serious nutrititional learning. Most who argue against carb restriction eat mucher carb levels without the issues that would promote the understanding of how and why to restrict carbs successfully. It gets really old fast trying to discuss first hand experiences with those who have no need to experience low carb, but feel compelled to argue against it based on something I cannot, for the life of me, comprehend.
The above is a generalization. Exceptions exist.
I mean, honestly, you can't comprehend that, "I think it would be ideal if it were done for a cogent reason. Even if it's done because of a derpy Facebook infographic or a laughably bad 'documentary,' though, that's his call" isn't actually saying that someone "needs" a good reason. I wrote, "good reason or bad reason, it's his call and it's not cool to tell people what they should and shouldn't eat" and you turned that into the exact opposite of what I actually wrote because, apparently, you feel compelled to argue with posts that support your position, but in an insufficiently fawning way. Perhaps you can see why that might be hard to comprehend.
0 -
Has anyone noticed I only start spitting nails when it is suggested that carbs are unnecessary? As in no carbs?0
-
PeachyCarol wrote: »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.
I went back and re-read this. My understanding is that it supports a ketogenic state as better functioning for AD sufferers since glucose metabolism is impaired and ketone metabolism is sustained? What are you getting from the study?0 -
christinev297 wrote: »All I can say is, if i had a relative with Alzheimer's I wouldn't think twice about putting them on a keto diet. Whether it works or not, it would certainly be worth a try..
Ya, my grandfather had Alzheimer's and Mom worries about getting it herself. I would certainly recommend this to her if she started developing symptoms. And implement it myself when I became her caretaker.0 -
Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »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)
You are reasonable, diplomatic and explain ketosis concepts well. I bet there are lurkers here who have identified some of the typical issues people have when they have a 'carb problem' and will use your rational explaining as a springboard to do their own research. Thank you.
Thank you, I appreciate that more than you know.
It's good to know that someone has recognized that I'm not on any mission to convert people to Keto, but just to prevent the spread of incorrect information in hopes that anyone that would like to understand the science will continue their research and make choices based on facts.
It's a fascinating metabolic process no matter what personal opinions are.
Moi aussi. If I had listened to the very subtle carb issues I was having decades ago and had changed diet then to more appropriate food choices it would have made a significant difference for me.
I would like those for whom a low carb would possibly benefit to be encouraged and not dissuaded from giving it a good test trial. It is not an easy change, but for some people the health and functioning benefits of very low carb make the decision to change their way of eating for life almost a 'cake walk' (sorry) compared to the alternative typical high carb diet and its results or consequences.0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »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.
I went back and re-read this. My understanding is that it supports a ketogenic state as better functioning for AD sufferers since glucose metabolism is impaired and ketone metabolism is sustained? What are you getting from the study?
Why did you restate what I said and ask me what I got from the abstract?0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »All I can say is, if i had a relative with Alzheimer's I wouldn't think twice about putting them on a keto diet. Whether it works or not, it would certainly be worth a try..
Ya, my grandfather had Alzheimer's and Mom worries about getting it herself. I would certainly recommend this to her if she started developing symptoms. And implement it myself when I became her caretaker.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25832906
This study suggests better results possible if ketone body supplementation began in pre clinical state.0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »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.
I went back and re-read this. My understanding is that it supports a ketogenic state as better functioning for AD sufferers since glucose metabolism is impaired and ketone metabolism is sustained? What are you getting from the study?
Why did you restate what I said and ask me what I got from the abstract?
Sorry, I thought by saying 'different spin' you meant it was contradicting those who were suggesting lowcarb/ketogenic as useful for AD. My bad.0 -
As someone who suffers from a disease of the brain, I can attest to how difficult it can be to have people (often very well-meaning people) come to me and offer up the latest 'cure' or 'treatment'. I get emails, texts, and tags on Facebook a couple of times a week at least with a new idea.
The problem is that the treatments or cures are not things that are going to work. When I tell people this, they say to me, "Well, it's worth a shot, isn't it? Even if it doesn't end up helping, you tried."
That's not true. Some of the 'cures' I've been sent are downright dangerous. If I tried them, I could get desperately ill. And even if they don't work, just the effort of trying them is downright exhausting .
The ketogenic diet is one that is debated wildly when it comes my disease - brain cancer. Most doctors have concluded that it makes no difference. And for me, I have stress issues, memory issues, fatigue issues. I also have multiple food allergies. Imagine the stress of trying to follow a ketogenic diet, for me.
It's not fair to push views on patients. To put them through even more undue suffering than they are already experiencing is completely and utterly wrong. Fanaticism for a WOE needs to stop when it goes so far as to cause suffering.
Thought a patient's perspective might be some help.0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »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.
I went back and re-read this. My understanding is that it supports a ketogenic state as better functioning for AD sufferers since glucose metabolism is impaired and ketone metabolism is sustained? What are you getting from the study?
Why did you restate what I said and ask me what I got from the abstract?
Sorry, I thought by saying 'different spin' you meant it was contradicting those who were suggesting lowcarb/ketogenic as useful for AD. My bad.
Yes, it's a different spin.
Actually, digging further into the full text, the positive effects (which were modest) of keto supplementation were only seen in patients not expressing a certain lipoprotein. The patients expressing the lipoprotein either showed no effect or a small decline.
Since a decline is a possible outcome of just spitballing a ketogenic diet at someone with Alzeheimer's, I'd think long and hard before doing it willy-nilly.Over the last ~ 10 years, a ketogenic diet has been used with some effect in patients suffering from Alzheimer's disease (see below) or Parkinson's disease (Vanitallie et al. 2005; Hashim and VanItallie 2014). Veech et al. (2001) were the first to recommend a ketone-rich diet for treatment of these conditions; the suggested daily amount of β-hydroxybutyrate was relatively (but not extremely) high (100–150 g). Lower doses were used by the Henderson group, where Reger et al. (2004) demonstrated an acute beneficial effect of a single 40 mL oral dose of octanoate on memory in probable Alzheimer's patients with mild to moderate memory impairment (Fig. 2). The positive response was restricted to patients who tested negative for APOE4, whereas APOE4-positive patients showed no effect or even a minor deterioration (in spite of the more pronounced hypometabolism in APOE4 carriers described in section 'Brain hypometabolism precedes clinical signs of Alzheimer's disease').
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jnc.13107/full0 -
0
-
I keep my sugar intake below 10grams a day.catscats222 wrote: »can a person do 0 sugar ? cut it out? is this even possible?
no fruits, no milk?
0 -
I'll eat everyone's sugar who doesn't want it.
Give me all the sugars!0 -
I keep my sugar intake below 10grams a day.catscats222 wrote: »can a person do 0 sugar ? cut it out? is this even possible?
no fruits, no milk?
no veg no fruit, no milk?0 -
This content has been removed.
-
As someone who suffers from a disease of the brain, I can attest to how difficult it can be to have people (often very well-meaning people) come to me and offer up the latest 'cure' or 'treatment'. I get emails, texts, and tags on Facebook a couple of times a week at least with a new idea.
The problem is that the treatments or cures are not things that are going to work. When I tell people this, they say to me, "Well, it's worth a shot, isn't it? Even if it doesn't end up helping, you tried."
That's not true. Some of the 'cures' I've been sent are downright dangerous. If I tried them, I could get desperately ill. And even if they don't work, just the effort of trying them is downright exhausting .
The ketogenic diet is one that is debated wildly when it comes my disease - brain cancer. Most doctors have concluded that it makes no difference. And for me, I have stress issues, memory issues, fatigue issues. I also have multiple food allergies. Imagine the stress of trying to follow a ketogenic diet, for me.
It's not fair to push views on patients. To put them through even more undue suffering than they are already experiencing is completely and utterly wrong. Fanaticism for a WOE needs to stop when it goes so far as to cause suffering.
Thought a patient's perspective might be some help.
@mccindy72 - oh wow. I'm sorry you're having to deal with this. Thank you for sharing your valuable perspective.
(I have a family member who also has a form of brain cancer, glioblastoma in their case. They live in another country, so I didn't see how it was for them, day to day… In the beginning, after reading about some of those keto trials, my first instinct was to encourage them to try, try anything, anything seemed worth it… Another family member was wiser and stopped me, and I'm glad they did. It became apparent [once I understood things a little better] that it would have been a ridiculous and unfair thing to ask... making a suggestion like that is asking a lot.)
All the best to you.0 -
As someone who suffers from a disease of the brain, I can attest to how difficult it can be to have people (often very well-meaning people) come to me and offer up the latest 'cure' or 'treatment'. I get emails, texts, and tags on Facebook a couple of times a week at least with a new idea.
The problem is that the treatments or cures are not things that are going to work. When I tell people this, they say to me, "Well, it's worth a shot, isn't it? Even if it doesn't end up helping, you tried."
That's not true. Some of the 'cures' I've been sent are downright dangerous. If I tried them, I could get desperately ill. And even if they don't work, just the effort of trying them is downright exhausting .
The ketogenic diet is one that is debated wildly when it comes my disease - brain cancer. Most doctors have concluded that it makes no difference. And for me, I have stress issues, memory issues, fatigue issues. I also have multiple food allergies. Imagine the stress of trying to follow a ketogenic diet, for me.
It's not fair to push views on patients. To put them through even more undue suffering than they are already experiencing is completely and utterly wrong. Fanaticism for a WOE needs to stop when it goes so far as to cause suffering.
Thought a patient's perspective might be some help.
@mccindy72 - oh wow. I'm sorry you're having to deal with this. Thank you for sharing your valuable perspective.
(I have a family member who also has a form of brain cancer, glioblastoma in their case. They live in another country, so I didn't see how it was for them, day to day… In the beginning, after reading about some of those keto trials, my first instinct was to encourage them to try, try anything, anything seemed worth it… Another family member was wiser and stopped me, and I'm glad they did. It became apparent [once I understood things a little better] that it would have been a ridiculous and unfair thing to ask... making a suggestion like that is asking a lot.)
All the best to you.
Thank you, @tomatoey .0 -
I'm constantly astounded by the people who recommend a keto diet as a cancer treatment. First of all, cancer isn't a single disease that responds to a single treatment. And equally importantly, so many cancers are accompanied by weight loss, and the side effects for chemo and radiation for many include loss of appetite, nausea, diarrhoea and loss of enjoyment when it comes to food. The last thing you want in that situation is a diet that increases satiety at the expense of calorie consumption. If sugar gets people to eat, then I'm all for sugar in whatever form.
@mccindy72 I hope you're surrounded by people who support whatever treatment path you choose to follow and not people who want to push their own agenda
0 -
I'm constantly astounded by the people who recommend a keto diet as a cancer treatment. First of all, cancer isn't a single disease that responds to a single treatment. And equally importantly, so many cancers are accompanied by weight loss, and the side effects for chemo and radiation for many include loss of appetite, nausea, diarrhoea and loss of enjoyment when it comes to food. The last thing you want in that situation is a diet that increases satiety at the expense of calorie consumption. If sugar gets people to eat, then I'm all for sugar in whatever form.
@mccindy72 I hope you're surrounded by people who support whatever treatment path you choose to follow and not people who want to push their own agenda
I am, thank you @Nikkei74 . I have a great family and friend circle.
0 -
I couldn't agree more. If you don't want, or have the time to read volumes of scientific information, I highly recommend watching a brilliant Australian film/documentary mage in 2012 titled 'That Sugar Film '. It is unbiased and extremely illuminating.PeachyCarol wrote: »You neglected to add context to your remarks. What kind of sugar? I agree that cutting all sugars, like those found in dairy, vegetables and fruit would be unwise. Why? Because they are nutrient dense foods packed with vitamins and minerals and many people shy away from them in the name of cutting sugar and I personally don't see how they are getting enough nutrition without those foods.
The simple fact, though, is that the body will produce the glucose it needs even if you don't ingest sugar in any form.
As a nursing student, you should look into the science of this a bit more.
0 -
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.
So then, the more I consume, the smarter I get, right?
I like this! Just as long as we don't go into a coma first
... 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