Daily goals: Sugar
Replies
-
DeguelloTex wrote: »
From the chart's author -
Refined carbohydrate and sugar are certainly part of the cause of the obesity epidemic, but these data are consistent with a large body of research suggesting that there's more to the story. Obesity is caused by a number of interacting diet and lifestyle factors, most of which can be traced back to major socioeconomic changes in this country over the last century. These have affected the way we interact with food, the composition of our food, and other aspects of our lifestyle that cause genetically susceptible people to gain fat.
That is all I'm saying.
LOL fats and proteins are also a "part" of the obesity epidemic, yet, I don't see you calling for those to be restricted…
still waiting on your "years" of research ...0 -
christinev297 wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »All I can say if people choose to eat excess sugar over the recommended amounts then hope and pray that research never comes out proving it causes disease or medical conditions.
I'm not pro or against, and have zero interest in debating about sugar. I have an open mind and choose not to nitpick or mock those who believe sugar is not a necessary part of our diet.
I have noticed though, that not a week goes by where I don't read or hear the negative impact sugar can have. It cant all possibly be baseless. .
Everyone has they their own diet path they choose to follow, and if it works for them then who am I to judge.
and some of these negative health impacts on people who get adequate nutrition and hit their calories goals are…?
Not sure how you can say that you don't want to debate it, then come in here and debate it, and then make some kind of strange statement about "reading stuff" about how sugar is bad, and not even referencing how it is bad….
That's the thing, I read the headlines but have only ever skimmed the articles. What I'm hearing is on the TV or in our weekly/daily paper. I'm in Australia, and the last 6mths it's just been constantly mentioned, and never in a positive way, so much so that I almost switch off now. I've never researched on the internet, because as we all know, anyone can find links to back up what they want to hear.
I'm still on the fence, erring more to the lower sugar side. I am one of the people who are hoping and praying that years of excess carbs and sugars aren't going to come back and bite me on the *kitten*. And truthfully I am sick to death of seeing young obese kids and their parents shoving sugar laden foods and drinks down their gullets. That alone is enough to put me off. Yes i know activity level and calories play a part... But so does food choice.
As for the debating thing, It just doesn't interest me, I don't have the time or the energy to drag a thread on for 10+ pages with neither side backing down. It never goes anywhere and NO-ONE ever changes their mind, so i honestly don't see the point..
so you have no evidence to back up anything you are claiming?
As for obesity, too many calories leads to people being obese. Trying to single out one macronutrient as the source of the obesity epidemic is ridiculous.
So you don't have the time or energy to debate this, but you keep coming back to debate this? interesting concept...
As for your first and last sentence, re-read my last paragraph :huh: And i did indeed say calories are to blame also.
The fact that you're asking for "evidence" proves you didn't read my post correctly.
People on either side can post 1,000 links backing up their claims. But they will be poo pooed if they don't line up with whomever believes what. I've been around here long enough and seen enough sugar et al threads to know there is no point. people love their sugar and carbs (and I don't blame them), they will hang on to them for dear life.
Actually, you blamed parents shoveling sugar down their kids throats,and I did not see one word about calories in your quote.
People also love fats, but I don't you see you making spacious claims about fats being the cause of the obesity epidemic, but for some reason you are fixated on sugar; I wonder why that is?
For the record, the sugar is evil crew tend not to have 1000 links on their sides, they just have correlational links between sugar and X outcome, which when looked at in depth have no real correlation at all….
The moderation crew and the no limits on sugar crew also got no links, so quantity of links aren't really a meaningful point.
Fat and protein consumption levels are pretty stable over the decades. Carbohydrate and sugar consumption increases pretty much cover our increase in calories over the same time period, which also happens to correlate with an explosion of metabolic diseases.
The most credible way to start addressing reduction in calories is.. ?
That's not true and you know it, the proponents of everything in moderation on this thread consistently provide links...Gale and Yarwell provide links too...the only person who never ever does is you it seems
I do in general provide links, except to those who have requested links in the past, have been provided links and then demonstrated that they did not read the links.
I've read a lot in my general area of nutritional interest and that certainly does not mean I have any credibility whatsoever, but it does mean that compiling links to a wide variety of sources would be a huge time commitment and I will not do it for folks who have no intention of spending time studying them.
On the other hand, I actually signed up and paid for Aragon based on a mfp provided link and spent a good number of hours there reading.
I started a very respectful thread requesting science on Moderation and got squat. zero.0 -
Yeah, carbs and sugar are food and are, therefore, part of the "eating too much food" problem. Then the rest of the quoted material undercuts the demonization of sugar.DeguelloTex wrote: »
From the chart's author -
Refined carbohydrate and sugar are certainly part of the cause of the obesity epidemic, but these data are consistent with a large body of research suggesting that there's more to the story. Obesity is caused by a number of interacting diet and lifestyle factors, most of which can be traced back to major socioeconomic changes in this country over the last century. These have affected the way we interact with food, the composition of our food, and other aspects of our lifestyle that cause genetically susceptible people to gain fat.
That is all I'm saying.
And, no, that is not all you're saying. Not by a long shot. And it's wildly disingenuous to claim that you are.
0 -
@earlnabby I just needed you to know that your Princess Bride reference did not go unnoticed.
0 -
christinev297 wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »All I can say if people choose to eat excess sugar over the recommended amounts then hope and pray that research never comes out proving it causes disease or medical conditions.
I'm not pro or against, and have zero interest in debating about sugar. I have an open mind and choose not to nitpick or mock those who believe sugar is not a necessary part of our diet.
I have noticed though, that not a week goes by where I don't read or hear the negative impact sugar can have. It cant all possibly be baseless. .
Everyone has they their own diet path they choose to follow, and if it works for them then who am I to judge.
and some of these negative health impacts on people who get adequate nutrition and hit their calories goals are…?
Not sure how you can say that you don't want to debate it, then come in here and debate it, and then make some kind of strange statement about "reading stuff" about how sugar is bad, and not even referencing how it is bad….
That's the thing, I read the headlines but have only ever skimmed the articles. What I'm hearing is on the TV or in our weekly/daily paper. I'm in Australia, and the last 6mths it's just been constantly mentioned, and never in a positive way, so much so that I almost switch off now. I've never researched on the internet, because as we all know, anyone can find links to back up what they want to hear.
I'm still on the fence, erring more to the lower sugar side. I am one of the people who are hoping and praying that years of excess carbs and sugars aren't going to come back and bite me on the *kitten*. And truthfully I am sick to death of seeing young obese kids and their parents shoving sugar laden foods and drinks down their gullets. That alone is enough to put me off. Yes i know activity level and calories play a part... But so does food choice.
As for the debating thing, It just doesn't interest me, I don't have the time or the energy to drag a thread on for 10+ pages with neither side backing down. It never goes anywhere and NO-ONE ever changes their mind, so i honestly don't see the point..
so you have no evidence to back up anything you are claiming?
As for obesity, too many calories leads to people being obese. Trying to single out one macronutrient as the source of the obesity epidemic is ridiculous.
So you don't have the time or energy to debate this, but you keep coming back to debate this? interesting concept...
As for your first and last sentence, re-read my last paragraph :huh: And i did indeed say calories are to blame also.
The fact that you're asking for "evidence" proves you didn't read my post correctly.
People on either side can post 1,000 links backing up their claims. But they will be poo pooed if they don't line up with whomever believes what. I've been around here long enough and seen enough sugar et al threads to know there is no point. people love their sugar and carbs (and I don't blame them), they will hang on to them for dear life.
Actually, you blamed parents shoveling sugar down their kids throats,and I did not see one word about calories in your quote.
People also love fats, but I don't you see you making spacious claims about fats being the cause of the obesity epidemic, but for some reason you are fixated on sugar; I wonder why that is?
For the record, the sugar is evil crew tend not to have 1000 links on their sides, they just have correlational links between sugar and X outcome, which when looked at in depth have no real correlation at all….
The moderation crew and the no limits on sugar crew also got no links, so quantity of links aren't really a meaningful point.
Fat and protein consumption levels are pretty stable over the decades. Carbohydrate and sugar consumption increases pretty much cover our increase in calories over the same time period, which also happens to correlate with an explosion of metabolic diseases.
The most credible way to start addressing reduction in calories is.. ?
That's not true and you know it, the proponents of everything in moderation on this thread consistently provide links...Gale and Yarwell provide links too...the only person who never ever does is you it seems
I do in general provide links, except to those who have requested links in the past, have been provided links and then demonstrated that they did not read the links.
I've read a lot in my general area of nutritional interest and that certainly does not mean I have any credibility whatsoever, but it does mean that compiling links to a wide variety of sources would be a huge time commitment and I will not do it for folks who have no intention of spending time studying them.
On the other hand, I actually signed up and paid for Aragon based on a mfp provided link and spent a good number of hours there reading.
I started a very respectful thread requesting science on Moderation and got squat. zero.
Still waiting for this treasure trove of research....
And why would you need a study on moderation?0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
From the chart's author -
Refined carbohydrate and sugar are certainly part of the cause of the obesity epidemic, but these data are consistent with a large body of research suggesting that there's more to the story. Obesity is caused by a number of interacting diet and lifestyle factors, most of which can be traced back to major socioeconomic changes in this country over the last century. These have affected the way we interact with food, the composition of our food, and other aspects of our lifestyle that cause genetically susceptible people to gain fat.
That is all I'm saying.
LOL fats and proteins are also a "part" of the obesity epidemic, yet, I don't see you calling for those to be restricted…
still waiting on your "years" of research ...
Sciencey folks usually write very carefully, its probably not OK to put your spin on his words
0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
From the chart's author -
Refined carbohydrate and sugar are certainly part of the cause of the obesity epidemic, but these data are consistent with a large body of research suggesting that there's more to the story. Obesity is caused by a number of interacting diet and lifestyle factors, most of which can be traced back to major socioeconomic changes in this country over the last century. These have affected the way we interact with food, the composition of our food, and other aspects of our lifestyle that cause genetically susceptible people to gain fat.
That is all I'm saying.
LOL fats and proteins are also a "part" of the obesity epidemic, yet, I don't see you calling for those to be restricted…
still waiting on your "years" of research ...
Sciencey folks usually write very carefully, its probably not OK to put your spin on his words
So people are just eating a diet of 100% sugar and that is what is causing obesity ..sure.
I am not putting spin on any words. If you are going to deny that obesity is caused by an overconsumption of ALL calories and not just one specific macronutrient, then there is really nothing more to say, as your lack of understanding on the topic is starting to shine through.
oh, and still waiting for that research you keep talking about..0 -
christinev297 wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »All I can say if people choose to eat excess sugar over the recommended amounts then hope and pray that research never comes out proving it causes disease or medical conditions.
I'm not pro or against, and have zero interest in debating about sugar. I have an open mind and choose not to nitpick or mock those who believe sugar is not a necessary part of our diet.
I have noticed though, that not a week goes by where I don't read or hear the negative impact sugar can have. It cant all possibly be baseless. .
Everyone has they their own diet path they choose to follow, and if it works for them then who am I to judge.
and some of these negative health impacts on people who get adequate nutrition and hit their calories goals are…?
Not sure how you can say that you don't want to debate it, then come in here and debate it, and then make some kind of strange statement about "reading stuff" about how sugar is bad, and not even referencing how it is bad….
That's the thing, I read the headlines but have only ever skimmed the articles. What I'm hearing is on the TV or in our weekly/daily paper. I'm in Australia, and the last 6mths it's just been constantly mentioned, and never in a positive way, so much so that I almost switch off now. I've never researched on the internet, because as we all know, anyone can find links to back up what they want to hear.
I'm still on the fence, erring more to the lower sugar side. I am one of the people who are hoping and praying that years of excess carbs and sugars aren't going to come back and bite me on the *kitten*. And truthfully I am sick to death of seeing young obese kids and their parents shoving sugar laden foods and drinks down their gullets. That alone is enough to put me off. Yes i know activity level and calories play a part... But so does food choice.
As for the debating thing, It just doesn't interest me, I don't have the time or the energy to drag a thread on for 10+ pages with neither side backing down. It never goes anywhere and NO-ONE ever changes their mind, so i honestly don't see the point..
so you have no evidence to back up anything you are claiming?
As for obesity, too many calories leads to people being obese. Trying to single out one macronutrient as the source of the obesity epidemic is ridiculous.
So you don't have the time or energy to debate this, but you keep coming back to debate this? interesting concept...
As for your first and last sentence, re-read my last paragraph :huh: And i did indeed say calories are to blame also.
The fact that you're asking for "evidence" proves you didn't read my post correctly.
People on either side can post 1,000 links backing up their claims. But they will be poo pooed if they don't line up with whomever believes what. I've been around here long enough and seen enough sugar et al threads to know there is no point. people love their sugar and carbs (and I don't blame them), they will hang on to them for dear life.
Actually, you blamed parents shoveling sugar down their kids throats,and I did not see one word about calories in your quote.
People also love fats, but I don't you see you making spacious claims about fats being the cause of the obesity epidemic, but for some reason you are fixated on sugar; I wonder why that is?
For the record, the sugar is evil crew tend not to have 1000 links on their sides, they just have correlational links between sugar and X outcome, which when looked at in depth have no real correlation at all….
The moderation crew and the no limits on sugar crew also got no links, so quantity of links aren't really a meaningful point.
Fat and protein consumption levels are pretty stable over the decades. Carbohydrate and sugar consumption increases pretty much cover our increase in calories over the same time period, which also happens to correlate with an explosion of metabolic diseases.
The most credible way to start addressing reduction in calories is.. ?
That's not true and you know it, the proponents of everything in moderation on this thread consistently provide links...Gale and Yarwell provide links too...the only person who never ever does is you it seems
I do in general provide links, except to those who have requested links in the past, have been provided links and then demonstrated that they did not read the links.
I've read a lot in my general area of nutritional interest and that certainly does not mean I have any credibility whatsoever, but it does mean that compiling links to a wide variety of sources would be a huge time commitment and I will not do it for folks who have no intention of spending time studying them.
On the other hand, I actually signed up and paid for Aragon based on a mfp provided link and spent a good number of hours there reading.
I started a very respectful thread requesting science on Moderation and got squat. zero.
Still waiting for this treasure trove of research....
And why would you need a study on moderation?
Moderation is preached as the one true way. For all. Restriction is rejected. For all. Science is missing. For both.
Requesting science seems reasonable.0 -
Yet, you try to spin "Obesity is caused by a number of interacting diet and lifestyle factors, most of which can be traced back to major socioeconomic changes in this country over the last century" by bolding the bit about sugar and carbs being part of the problem.DeguelloTex wrote: »
From the chart's author -
Refined carbohydrate and sugar are certainly part of the cause of the obesity epidemic, but these data are consistent with a large body of research suggesting that there's more to the story. Obesity is caused by a number of interacting diet and lifestyle factors, most of which can be traced back to major socioeconomic changes in this country over the last century. These have affected the way we interact with food, the composition of our food, and other aspects of our lifestyle that cause genetically susceptible people to gain fat.
That is all I'm saying.
LOL fats and proteins are also a "part" of the obesity epidemic, yet, I don't see you calling for those to be restricted…
still waiting on your "years" of research ...
Sciencey folks usually write very carefully, its probably not OK to put your spin on his words0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
Yet, you try to spin "Obesity is caused by a number of interacting diet and lifestyle factors, most of which can be traced back to major socioeconomic changes in this country over the last century" by bolding the bit about sugar and carbs being part of the problem.DeguelloTex wrote: »
From the chart's author -
Refined carbohydrate and sugar are certainly part of the cause of the obesity epidemic, but these data are consistent with a large body of research suggesting that there's more to the story. Obesity is caused by a number of interacting diet and lifestyle factors, most of which can be traced back to major socioeconomic changes in this country over the last century. These have affected the way we interact with food, the composition of our food, and other aspects of our lifestyle that cause genetically susceptible people to gain fat.
That is all I'm saying.
LOL fats and proteins are also a "part" of the obesity epidemic, yet, I don't see you calling for those to be restricted…
still waiting on your "years" of research ...
Sciencey folks usually write very carefully, its probably not OK to put your spin on his words
This thread is about the sugar part.0 -
christinev297 wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »All I can say if people choose to eat excess sugar over the recommended amounts then hope and pray that research never comes out proving it causes disease or medical conditions.
I'm not pro or against, and have zero interest in debating about sugar. I have an open mind and choose not to nitpick or mock those who believe sugar is not a necessary part of our diet.
I have noticed though, that not a week goes by where I don't read or hear the negative impact sugar can have. It cant all possibly be baseless. .
Everyone has they their own diet path they choose to follow, and if it works for them then who am I to judge.
and some of these negative health impacts on people who get adequate nutrition and hit their calories goals are…?
Not sure how you can say that you don't want to debate it, then come in here and debate it, and then make some kind of strange statement about "reading stuff" about how sugar is bad, and not even referencing how it is bad….
That's the thing, I read the headlines but have only ever skimmed the articles. What I'm hearing is on the TV or in our weekly/daily paper. I'm in Australia, and the last 6mths it's just been constantly mentioned, and never in a positive way, so much so that I almost switch off now. I've never researched on the internet, because as we all know, anyone can find links to back up what they want to hear.
I'm still on the fence, erring more to the lower sugar side. I am one of the people who are hoping and praying that years of excess carbs and sugars aren't going to come back and bite me on the *kitten*. And truthfully I am sick to death of seeing young obese kids and their parents shoving sugar laden foods and drinks down their gullets. That alone is enough to put me off. Yes i know activity level and calories play a part... But so does food choice.
As for the debating thing, It just doesn't interest me, I don't have the time or the energy to drag a thread on for 10+ pages with neither side backing down. It never goes anywhere and NO-ONE ever changes their mind, so i honestly don't see the point..
so you have no evidence to back up anything you are claiming?
As for obesity, too many calories leads to people being obese. Trying to single out one macronutrient as the source of the obesity epidemic is ridiculous.
So you don't have the time or energy to debate this, but you keep coming back to debate this? interesting concept...
As for your first and last sentence, re-read my last paragraph :huh: And i did indeed say calories are to blame also.
The fact that you're asking for "evidence" proves you didn't read my post correctly.
People on either side can post 1,000 links backing up their claims. But they will be poo pooed if they don't line up with whomever believes what. I've been around here long enough and seen enough sugar et al threads to know there is no point. people love their sugar and carbs (and I don't blame them), they will hang on to them for dear life.
Actually, you blamed parents shoveling sugar down their kids throats,and I did not see one word about calories in your quote.
People also love fats, but I don't you see you making spacious claims about fats being the cause of the obesity epidemic, but for some reason you are fixated on sugar; I wonder why that is?
For the record, the sugar is evil crew tend not to have 1000 links on their sides, they just have correlational links between sugar and X outcome, which when looked at in depth have no real correlation at all….
The moderation crew and the no limits on sugar crew also got no links, so quantity of links aren't really a meaningful point.
Fat and protein consumption levels are pretty stable over the decades. Carbohydrate and sugar consumption increases pretty much cover our increase in calories over the same time period, which also happens to correlate with an explosion of metabolic diseases.
The most credible way to start addressing reduction in calories is.. ?
That's not true and you know it, the proponents of everything in moderation on this thread consistently provide links...Gale and Yarwell provide links too...the only person who never ever does is you it seems
I do in general provide links, except to those who have requested links in the past, have been provided links and then demonstrated that they did not read the links.
I've read a lot in my general area of nutritional interest and that certainly does not mean I have any credibility whatsoever, but it does mean that compiling links to a wide variety of sources would be a huge time commitment and I will not do it for folks who have no intention of spending time studying them.
On the other hand, I actually signed up and paid for Aragon based on a mfp provided link and spent a good number of hours there reading.
I started a very respectful thread requesting science on Moderation and got squat. zero.
Still waiting for this treasure trove of research....
And why would you need a study on moderation?
Moderation is preached as the one true way. For all. Restriction is rejected. For all. Science is missing. For both.
Requesting science seems reasonable.
who said it is the one true way?
It is just a tool that one can use to get into a calorie deficit and hit macros and micros.
People object to restricting on the grounds that those advocating it are claiming that certain foods are "bad" and hence should be avoided for weight loss. That is the main point of contention with restrictionism.
0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
Yet, you try to spin "Obesity is caused by a number of interacting diet and lifestyle factors, most of which can be traced back to major socioeconomic changes in this country over the last century" by bolding the bit about sugar and carbs being part of the problem.DeguelloTex wrote: »
From the chart's author -
Refined carbohydrate and sugar are certainly part of the cause of the obesity epidemic, but these data are consistent with a large body of research suggesting that there's more to the story. Obesity is caused by a number of interacting diet and lifestyle factors, most of which can be traced back to major socioeconomic changes in this country over the last century. These have affected the way we interact with food, the composition of our food, and other aspects of our lifestyle that cause genetically susceptible people to gain fat.
That is all I'm saying.
LOL fats and proteins are also a "part" of the obesity epidemic, yet, I don't see you calling for those to be restricted…
still waiting on your "years" of research ...
Sciencey folks usually write very carefully, its probably not OK to put your spin on his words
This thread is about the sugar part.
this thread has nothing to do with sugar and obesity…at least until you wandered in.0 -
So no matter how many times "context" is mentioned, you won't get off that hobbyhorse.DeguelloTex wrote: »
Yet, you try to spin "Obesity is caused by a number of interacting diet and lifestyle factors, most of which can be traced back to major socioeconomic changes in this country over the last century" by bolding the bit about sugar and carbs being part of the problem.DeguelloTex wrote: »
From the chart's author -
Refined carbohydrate and sugar are certainly part of the cause of the obesity epidemic, but these data are consistent with a large body of research suggesting that there's more to the story. Obesity is caused by a number of interacting diet and lifestyle factors, most of which can be traced back to major socioeconomic changes in this country over the last century. These have affected the way we interact with food, the composition of our food, and other aspects of our lifestyle that cause genetically susceptible people to gain fat.
That is all I'm saying.
LOL fats and proteins are also a "part" of the obesity epidemic, yet, I don't see you calling for those to be restricted…
still waiting on your "years" of research ...
Sciencey folks usually write very carefully, its probably not OK to put your spin on his words
This thread is about the sugar part.
How many people do you think eat diets of 100% sugar? For all those who don't, it's intellectually dishonest to pretend that sugar consumption shouldn't be evaluated in terms of the overall diet. But, from the "I know, but I won't tell" brigade, that's not a surprising approach.
0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
So no matter how many times "context" is mentioned, you won't get off that hobbyhorse.DeguelloTex wrote: »
Yet, you try to spin "Obesity is caused by a number of interacting diet and lifestyle factors, most of which can be traced back to major socioeconomic changes in this country over the last century" by bolding the bit about sugar and carbs being part of the problem.DeguelloTex wrote: »
From the chart's author -
Refined carbohydrate and sugar are certainly part of the cause of the obesity epidemic, but these data are consistent with a large body of research suggesting that there's more to the story. Obesity is caused by a number of interacting diet and lifestyle factors, most of which can be traced back to major socioeconomic changes in this country over the last century. These have affected the way we interact with food, the composition of our food, and other aspects of our lifestyle that cause genetically susceptible people to gain fat.
That is all I'm saying.
LOL fats and proteins are also a "part" of the obesity epidemic, yet, I don't see you calling for those to be restricted…
still waiting on your "years" of research ...
Sciencey folks usually write very carefully, its probably not OK to put your spin on his words
This thread is about the sugar part.
How many people do you think eat diets of 100% sugar? For all those who don't, it's intellectually dishonest to pretend that sugar consumption shouldn't be evaluated in terms of the overall diet. But, from the "I know, but I won't tell" brigade, that's not a surprising approach.
apparently, this treasure trove of research and knowledge is only available to a select few and they can never share it with anyone else. Maybe they have found the fabled lost "hall of records" that was in Atlantis….0 -
And completely ignoring the decrease in sugar consumption while obesity continued on track but stil wanting to blame sugar. As if protein and fat aren't "part" of why people are obese. It's almost like a religion at this point, including the reliance on faith and secret knowledge.DeguelloTex wrote: »
So no matter how many times "context" is mentioned, you won't get off that hobbyhorse.DeguelloTex wrote: »
Yet, you try to spin "Obesity is caused by a number of interacting diet and lifestyle factors, most of which can be traced back to major socioeconomic changes in this country over the last century" by bolding the bit about sugar and carbs being part of the problem.DeguelloTex wrote: »
From the chart's author -
Refined carbohydrate and sugar are certainly part of the cause of the obesity epidemic, but these data are consistent with a large body of research suggesting that there's more to the story. Obesity is caused by a number of interacting diet and lifestyle factors, most of which can be traced back to major socioeconomic changes in this country over the last century. These have affected the way we interact with food, the composition of our food, and other aspects of our lifestyle that cause genetically susceptible people to gain fat.
That is all I'm saying.
LOL fats and proteins are also a "part" of the obesity epidemic, yet, I don't see you calling for those to be restricted…
still waiting on your "years" of research ...
Sciencey folks usually write very carefully, its probably not OK to put your spin on his words
This thread is about the sugar part.
How many people do you think eat diets of 100% sugar? For all those who don't, it's intellectually dishonest to pretend that sugar consumption shouldn't be evaluated in terms of the overall diet. But, from the "I know, but I won't tell" brigade, that's not a surprising approach.
apparently, this treasure trove of research and knowledge is only available to a select few and they can never share it with anyone else. Maybe they have found the fabled lost "hall of records" that was in Atlantis….
0 -
Yabbut, is there a cool secret handshake?0
-
Your body does not differ from the sugar in food or added sugar, but I do try not to have added sugar. I much rather have the sugar in my healthy foods cause they offer other things our body needs.0
-
DeguelloTex wrote: »
And completely ignoring the decrease in sugar consumption while obesity continued on track but stil wanting to blame sugar. As if protein and fat aren't "part" of why people are obese. It's almost like a religion at this point, including the reliance on faith and secret knowledge.DeguelloTex wrote: »
So no matter how many times "context" is mentioned, you won't get off that hobbyhorse.DeguelloTex wrote: »
Yet, you try to spin "Obesity is caused by a number of interacting diet and lifestyle factors, most of which can be traced back to major socioeconomic changes in this country over the last century" by bolding the bit about sugar and carbs being part of the problem.DeguelloTex wrote: »
From the chart's author -
Refined carbohydrate and sugar are certainly part of the cause of the obesity epidemic, but these data are consistent with a large body of research suggesting that there's more to the story. Obesity is caused by a number of interacting diet and lifestyle factors, most of which can be traced back to major socioeconomic changes in this country over the last century. These have affected the way we interact with food, the composition of our food, and other aspects of our lifestyle that cause genetically susceptible people to gain fat.
That is all I'm saying.
LOL fats and proteins are also a "part" of the obesity epidemic, yet, I don't see you calling for those to be restricted…
still waiting on your "years" of research ...
Sciencey folks usually write very carefully, its probably not OK to put your spin on his words
This thread is about the sugar part.
How many people do you think eat diets of 100% sugar? For all those who don't, it's intellectually dishonest to pretend that sugar consumption shouldn't be evaluated in terms of the overall diet. But, from the "I know, but I won't tell" brigade, that's not a surprising approach.
apparently, this treasure trove of research and knowledge is only available to a select few and they can never share it with anyone else. Maybe they have found the fabled lost "hall of records" that was in Atlantis….
its on par with the global warming folks….at some point it transitions from what is, to what we want it to be...0 -
Links for moderation. Their criteria for selecting their studies are open and public.
http://www.nel.gov
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/res-rech/index-eng.php
0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
Thanks for the interesting chart. Perhaps the rise of artificial sugar replacements did not help reduce obesity or perhaps even increased it.
Pulling fats out of the food supply and adding sugar and other sweeteners to cover the resulting flat taste may be the smoking gun of obesity perhaps.
All I know is I removed all forms of grains and most all form of sugars 14 months ago. 30 days later my pain dropped from a 7-8 level to 2-3 and has not returned. My 40 years of IBS was cured in six months. My triglycerides and cholesterol ratios are better than I can remember since testing for them.
Since carbs are not required for top level human health I personally decided to eat fewer than 50 grams daily for life. I did not decide that for anyone else even in my household.
Diet and its results is a personal choice that we get to live/die by.0 -
@earlnabby I just needed you to know that your Princess Bride reference did not go unnoticed.
Yippee!!!0 -
Was there a post about a land war in Asia?@earlnabby I just needed you to know that your Princess Bride reference did not go unnoticed.
Yippee!!!
0 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
Thanks for the interesting chart. Perhaps the rise of artificial sugar replacements did not help reduce obesity or perhaps even increased it.
Pulling fats out of the food supply and adding sugar and other sweeteners to cover the resulting flat taste may be the smoking gun of obesity perhaps.
All I know is I removed all forms of grains and most all form of sugars 14 months ago. 30 days later my pain dropped from a 7-8 level to 2-3 and has not returned. My 40 years of IBS was cured in six months. My triglycerides and cholesterol ratios are better than I can remember since testing for them.
Since carbs are not required for top level human health I personally decided to eat fewer than 50 grams daily for life. I did not decide that for anyone else even in my household.
Diet and its results is a personal choice that we get to live/die by.
or perhaps, people just eat too many calories and that is what leads to obesity…I don't see why that is so hard to understand.
0 -
_Terrapin_ wrote: »
Was there a post about a land war in Asia?@earlnabby I just needed you to know that your Princess Bride reference did not go unnoticed.
Yippee!!!
Somewhere there is probably one about dreaming of large women0 -
_Terrapin_ wrote: »
Was there a post about a land war in Asia?@earlnabby I just needed you to know that your Princess Bride reference did not go unnoticed.
Yippee!!!
Somewhere there is probably one about dreaming of large women
uh oh...my movie computer.....broke. Ugh....before the storming of the castle?!?
0 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »
I'd like to point out that dietary choices are typically NOT life or death decisions, unless we are picking Nightshade or somesuch.
I'd even contend that the diets on both sides of this debate are only marginally different. We are all eating enough to survive, and we are eating a wide range of foods for nutrition.0 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
Thanks for the interesting chart. Perhaps the rise of artificial sugar replacements did not help reduce obesity or perhaps even increased it.
Pulling fats out of the food supply and adding sugar and other sweeteners to cover the resulting flat taste may be the smoking gun of obesity perhaps.
All I know is I removed all forms of grains and most all form of sugars 14 months ago. 30 days later my pain dropped from a 7-8 level to 2-3 and has not returned. My 40 years of IBS was cured in six months. My triglycerides and cholesterol ratios are better than I can remember since testing for them.
Since carbs are not required for top level human health I personally decided to eat fewer than 50 grams daily for life. I did not decide that for anyone else even in my household.
Diet and its results is a personal choice that we get to live/die by.
or perhaps, people just eat too many calories and that is what leads to obesity…I don't see why that is so hard to understand.
It isn't hard to understand, unless one is determined not to.0 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
Thanks for the interesting chart. Perhaps the rise of artificial sugar replacements did not help reduce obesity or perhaps even increased it.
Pulling fats out of the food supply and adding sugar and other sweeteners to cover the resulting flat taste may be the smoking gun of obesity perhaps.
All I know is I removed all forms of grains and most all form of sugars 14 months ago. 30 days later my pain dropped from a 7-8 level to 2-3 and has not returned. My 40 years of IBS was cured in six months. My triglycerides and cholesterol ratios are better than I can remember since testing for them.
Since carbs are not required for top level human health I personally decided to eat fewer than 50 grams daily for life. I did not decide that for anyone else even in my household.
Diet and its results is a personal choice that we get to live/die by.
You should know by now that artificial sweeteners, being devoid of calories, are incapable of making anyone obese unless that person starts overeating fat and protein (since it can't be sugar because that went down).0 -
My apologies, _Terrapin_. I get testy if I think people are blaming all diabetes on poor lifestyle in total (and you clarified that you weren't).
Earl, so great! Good job! I watch my carbs like a hawk, lost the little bit of weight that I had gained recently (but that was before my diagnosis), and upped my vigorous exercise specifically to help my BG levels. I already lifted and did yoga, but I added longer walks and sprinting. I even take supplements that are supposed to help on top of taking Metformin. My levels haven't changed much
My monitor shows when I slip up that it would be much, much worse now if I didn't do the things to help, though, so maybe I should count my efforts as a win.
I only had PCOS as a risk factor, unless my Native American genes came through on that. That was from my grandfather, so it is possible probably. His mom died of diabetes. I'd rather have gotten the great hair or darker skin, personally
ETA: I did and do have a huge sweet tooth. I am naturally curious as to whether eating a lot of carbs or sugar actually is a risk factor for IR, especially since it can make IR progress to diabetes. But that curiosity isn't settled in the science yet, so I won't say it does cause problems! I do worry for people that it might, I have to admit. But if people get the blood tests at the doc frequently enough, that should catch enough problems early that we won't see as much diabetes. I wish that was the focus of doctors and such.0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
From the chart's author -
Refined carbohydrate and sugar are certainly part of the cause of the obesity epidemic, but these data are consistent with a large body of research suggesting that there's more to the story. Obesity is caused by a number of interacting diet and lifestyle factors, most of which can be traced back to major socioeconomic changes in this country over the last century. These have affected the way we interact with food, the composition of our food, and other aspects of our lifestyle that cause genetically susceptible people to gain fat.
That is all I'm saying.
No, that is not all you are saying. You repeatedly group all carbs together and ignore the issues with respect to other foods that may be contained in excessive amounts in lower carb diets. You also ignore the evidence that many extremely healthy traditional diets are as or higher in carbs than the SAD. The SAD is not a good diet, but the percentage of carbs is the least of it (it's also considered a high fat diet still, btw, although that also is not significant -- the particular carbs and fats and even proteins that make it up is the issue).
But you, you decide that apples should be included as "garbage." No credible nutrition scientist will agree with that.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions