There are 'BAD' foods
Replies
-
alstin2015 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
If someone can look at the ingredient list from that food item above and then look at the individual components that make of a banana and not think any differently about them, wow. This is stuff I think understood when I was a kid. But apparently, it's such a difficult concept for some to grasp.diannethegeek wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »alstin2015 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »alstin2015 wrote: »Ok. So nobody has any objections at all whatsoever to chemical additives in food?
What specific ones are you interested in an opinion on?
no specific ones. when you see something like this. do you give it a second thought?
“Chicken Stock, Carrots, Potatoes (With Sodium Acid Pyrophosphate To Protect Color), Peas, Heavy Cream, Modified Food Starch, Contains 2% Or Less Of Wheat Flour, Salt, Chicken Fat, Dried Dairy Blend (Whey, Calcium Caseinate), Butter (Cream, Salt), Natural Chicken Flavor With Other Natural Flavors (Salt, Natural Flavoring, Maltodextrin, Milk Solids, Nonfat Dry Milk, Chicken Fat, Beef Extract, Ascorbic Acid [To Help Protect Flavor]), Monosodium Glutamate, Liquid Margarine (Vegetable Oil Blend [Liquid Soybean, Hydrogenated Cottonseed, Hydrogenated Soybean], Water, Vegetable Mono And Diglycerides, Beta Carotene [Color]), Roasted Garlic Juice Flavor (Garlic Juice, Salt, Natural Flavors), Gelatin, Roasted Onion Juice Flavor (Onion Juice, Salt, Natural Flavors), Chicken Pot Pie Flavor (Hydrolyzed Corn, Soy And Wheat Gluten Protein, Salt, Vegetable Stock [Carrot, Onion, Celery], Maltodextrin, Partially Hydrogenated Soybean Oil, Flavors, Dextrose, Chicken Broth), Chicken Stock, Sugar, Mono and Diglycerides With Citric Acid to Protect Flavor, Spice, Seasoning (Soybean Oil, Oleoresin Turmeric, Spice Extractives), Parsley, Citric Acid, Caramel Color, Yellow 5. Enriched Flour (Bleached Wheat Flour, Niacin, Ferrous Sulfate, Thiamin Mononitrate, Riboflavin, Folic Acid), Hydrogenated Palm Kernel Oil, Water, Nonfat Milk, Maltodextrin, Salt, Dextrose, Sugar, Whey, Natural Flavor, Butter, Citric Acid, Dough Conditioner, L-Cysteine Hydrochloride, Potassium Sorbate and Sodium Benzoate (Preservatives), Colored With Yellow 5 & Red 40. Fresh Chicken Marinated With: Salt, Sodium Phosphate and Monosodium Glutamate. Breaded With: Wheat Flour, Salt, Spices, Monosodium Glutamate, Leavening (Sodium Bicarbonate), Garlic Powder, Natural Flavorings, Citric Acid, Maltodextrin, Sugar, Corn Syrup Solids, With Not More Than 2% Calcium Silicate Added as an Anti Caking Agent OR Fresh Chicken Marinated With: Salt, Sodium Phosphate and Monosodium Glutamate. Breaded With: Wheat Flour, Salt, Spices, Monosodium Glutamate, Corn Starch, Leavening (Sodium Bicarbonate), Garlic Powder, Modified Corn Starch, Spice Extractives, Citric Acid, and 2% Calcium Silicate added as Anticaking Agent OR Fresh Chicken Marinated With: Salt, Sodium Phosphate and Monosodium Glutamate. Breaded With: Wheat Flour, Sodium Chloride and Anti-caking Agent (Tricalcium Phosphate), Nonfat Milk, Egg Whites, Colonel’s Secret Original Recipe Seasoning OR Potato Starch, Sodium Phosphate, Salt, Breaded With: Wheat Flour, Sodium Chloride and Anti-caking agent (Tricalcium Phosphate), Nonfat Milk, Egg Whites, Colonel’s Secret Original Recipe Seasoning OR Potato Starch, Sodium Phosphate, Salt, Breaded With: Wheat Flour, Salt, Spices, Monosodium Glutamate, Leavening (Sodium Bicarbonate), Garlic Powder, Natural Flavorings, Citric Acid, Maltodextrin, Sugar, Corn Syrup Solids, With Not More Than 2% Calcium Silicate Added as an Anti Caking Agent OR Potato Starch, Sodium Phosphate, Salt, Breaded With: Wheat Flour, Salt, Spices, Monosodium Glutamate, Corn Starch, Leavening (Sodium Bicarbonate), Garlic Powder, Modified Corn Starch, Spice Extractives, Citric Acid, and 2% Calcium Silicate Added As Anticaking Agent OR Seasoning (Salt, Monosodium Glutamate, Garlic Powder, Spice Extractives, Onion Powder), Soy Protein Concentrate, Rice Starch and Sodium Phosphates. Battered With: Water, Wheat Flour, Leavening (Sodium Acid Pyrophosphate, Sodium Bicarbonate, Monocalcium Phosphate), Salt, Dextrose, Monosodium Glutamate, Spice and Onion Powder. Predusted With: Wheat Flour, Wheat Gluten, Salt, Dried Egg Whites, Leavening (Sodium Acid Pyrophosphate, Sodium Bicarbonate), Monosodium Glutamate, Spice and Onion Powder. Breaded With: Wheat Flour, Salt, Soy Flour, Leavening (Sodium Acid Pyrophosphate, Sodium Bicarbonate), Monosodium Glutamate, Spice, Nonfat Dry Milk, Onion Powder, Dextrose, Extractives of Turmeric and Extractives of Annatto. Breading Set in Vegetable oil.”
No. And I've been pretty open in this thread about my previous experiences and why I don't label foods as good/bad.
Do you have the same reaction to this as you do to the above?
Goal posts officially moved. The second example has zero added chemicals, right?
Oh please. You were the one who called me naive in this thread yesterday. Do you really believe that this post hasn't moved away from the original goal posts 18 times by now? The poster I was replying to indicated that a long list of ingredients which they have no knowledge of is cause for concern to them. They also indicated very early on in this thread that there are bad foods for everyone and that long-ingredient-list-mystery-food is an example of one. If you think that it's moving the goal posts to inquire whether or not they have the same reaction to natural food lists, then you're not reading the same thread I am.
What are the specific ingredients on the long list that bother you? Perhaps we can discuss them individually. I didn't read through them since the point seemed to be that a long list of chemical names (even if one just refers to baking soda) are inherently bad and scary, and I don't think that's true (although I also just don't happen to run into labels like that).
Those asserting that we should be worried about chemicals should be able to identify the chemicals that concern them. Because there is a huge range of knowledge and some people might not recognize baking soda and find it scary, whereas others might recognize and understand all the things listed and not find any of them scary.
If it's a pot pie, I probably wouldn't buy it, though, because I don't generally eat premade frozen foods (and would be less likely to eat premade frozen pot pie). That's about taste and personal preference, though, not "bad food" or any assumption that something with a long list of ingredients can't be part of a healthy diet.
I dont want to discuss them individually my friend. i would just rather not eat a food i need an encyclopedia to decipher
So don't, but there are much shorter lists with chemical names on them too (that's what I tend to see). So my question is am I supposed to be worried about them because "chemical names, someone might not know what they are!" too? Or would it be more reasonable to look at what they are and make decisions based on that as to whether I think it is worth avoiding or not?
Now, like I said above, I mostly don't run into this issue because most things I buy are pretty whole or have simple ingredient lists (which again is more about lifestyle choices and personal preferences than being worried that most of the chemicals in our foods are toxic). So I would not be critical at all if you were just to say that you'd rather eat mostly whole foods. But you seem to be arguing that this is inherently healthier, no matter what, including no matter what the chemicals at issue are and how knowledgeable someone is about them. That's what I think is wrong.0 -
I am currently eating a banana AND slyly showing off my fish tank (even though some of the plants need tending) simultaneously!!
0 -
fyoung1111 wrote: »Unplanned food is almost always bad almost no matter what it is. Face it. Unplanned food is very rarely steamed broccoli.
That adds a new twist to the OPs argument. But still a fail. Almost all of my food is unplanned. I don't pre-log or preset menus. Especially for breakfast/lunch, I have no idea what I'm going to eat until I walk into the kitchen and open the refrigerator. Sometimes it ends up being chicken breast and broccoli, sometimes it ends up being a bowl of cereal, greek yogurt, eggs & toast or whatever.0 -
kitteh and a banana, double win!
0 -
When I see a thread that exploded in a short span of time, I like to read the first page, then jump to the last page to see how far things have derailed. In this case, I got a cat eating a banana gif. Win!0
-
Nobody clicks links to read and educate themselves so I shouldn't even bother, but here's a research review which examines the body's hormonal responses to a fast food meal (Big Mac, fries and root beer sweetened with HFCS) vs. two nutritionally equivalent "healthy" organic, whole grain, etc. home-cooked meals.
For those who won't bother to click links, the spoiler was that the hormonal response to all three meals was nearly identical. Blood glucose, insulin response, fatty acid/triglyceride levels, leptin/ghrelin, HDL and total cholesterol - all nearly identical.
The reviewer's summary:This study basically backs up what I’ve been saying for years: a single fast food meal, within the context of a calorie controlled diet, is not death on a plate. It won’t destroy your diet and it won’t make you immediately turn into a big fat pile of blubber. And, frankly, this can be predicted on basic physiology (in terms of nutrient digestion) alone. It’s just nice to see it verified in a controlled setting.
It’s not uncommon for the physique obsessed to literally become social pariahs, afraid to eat out because eating out is somehow defined as ‘unclean’ (never mind that a grilled chicken breast eaten out is fundamentally no different than a grilled chicken breast cooked at home) and fast food is, of course, the death of any diet. This is in addition to the fact that apparently eating fast food makes you morally inferior as well. Well, that’s what bodybuilders and other orthorexics will tell you anyhow.
Except that it’s clearly not. Given caloric control, the body’s response to a given set of nutrients, with the exception of blood lipids would appear to be more determined by the total caloric and macro content of that meal more than the source of the food.
In terms of the hormonal response, clean vs. unclean just doesn’t matter, it’s all about calories and macros.
Which is what I’ve been saying all along.0 -
fyoung1111 wrote: »Unplanned food is almost always bad almost no matter what it is. Face it. Unplanned food is very rarely steamed broccoli.
But even unplanned food can be a blessing! Have you tried ketosis?0 -
If you have a rare medical condition that causes you to react to histamine and biogenic amines then a chicken breast in a restaurant is unfortunately very different from cooked at home. You need to purchase the chicken as fresh as possible cook immediately or freeze. Chicken at a restaurant has built up too much histamine. It's very difficult in those circumstances to eat at a restaurant. I have a mast cell disorder from being wrongly prescribed a med that injured me. My doctor thinks I will recover eventually. I just went vegetarian to avoid this issue. At restaurants I stick to a very simple salad. For now. Hopefully I will recover. This is unusual and rare. Most people wouldn't be dealing with this. I was just explaining how it can be different in a rare circumstance.0
-
-
Wetcoaster wrote: »This is an interesting study
http://news.meta.com/2015/11/19/cell-nutrition-is-personal-identical-foods-produce-healthy-and-unhealthy-responses-in-different-individuals/
Nutrition is personal. A high degree of variability exists in the responses of different people to the same food.
The collected observations further revealed both an individual’s responses to the same food were reproducible, and that there exists a high levels of variability in the responses of different individuals to the same foods. The researchers found that the food associated with an individual’s highest glucose response varied greatly between individuals. Foods that induced a “healthy” response in one individual might induce an “unhealthy” response in another. In a particularly compelling figure, the researchers showed an example where two participants had opposite responses to cookies and bananas
I don't feel this study really makes a case why normal blood sugar fluctuations following meals are unhealthy in and of themselves, particularly as their illustrated levels look well within established post-meal guidelines. The R-value correlations with obesity and H1CA levels, never mind actual disease, are unconvincing in establishing a causal effect. Thus labeling the fluctuations in blood glucose "healthy" and "unhealthy" seems a long stretch here.
I recognize instantly that the author's choice of an open journal (Cell) was not coincidental; their writing includes a certain amount of informality that indicates they anticipated and expected a broader audience. Given the press around the Israeli microbiome studies, I'm not surprised. However, they are walking a dangerous line by weaving speculations into the results section. While it makes a 'better read' its poor practice in science writing.
0 -
Wetcoaster wrote: »This is an interesting study
http://news.meta.com/2015/11/19/cell-nutrition-is-personal-identical-foods-produce-healthy-and-unhealthy-responses-in-different-individuals/
Nutrition is personal. A high degree of variability exists in the responses of different people to the same food.
The collected observations further revealed both an individual’s responses to the same food were reproducible, and that there exists a high levels of variability in the responses of different individuals to the same foods. The researchers found that the food associated with an individual’s highest glucose response varied greatly between individuals. Foods that induced a “healthy” response in one individual might induce an “unhealthy” response in another. In a particularly compelling figure, the researchers showed an example where two participants had opposite responses to cookies and bananas
I don't feel this study really makes a case why normal blood sugar fluctuations following meals are unhealthy in and of themselves, particularly as their illustrated levels look well within established post-meal guidelines. The R-value correlations with obesity and H1CA levels, never mind actual disease, are unconvincing in establishing a causal effect. Thus labeling the fluctuations in blood glucose "healthy" and "unhealthy" seems a long stretch here.
I recognize instantly that the author's choice of an open journal (Cell) was not coincidental; their writing includes a certain amount of informality that indicates they anticipated and expected a broader audience. Given the press around the Israeli microbiome studies, I'm not surprised. However, they are walking a dangerous line by weaving speculations into the results section. While it makes a 'better read' its poor practice in science writing.
You just keep making this a better place.
0 -
Wetcoaster wrote: »This is an interesting study
http://news.meta.com/2015/11/19/cell-nutrition-is-personal-identical-foods-produce-healthy-and-unhealthy-responses-in-different-individuals/
Nutrition is personal. A high degree of variability exists in the responses of different people to the same food.
The collected observations further revealed both an individual’s responses to the same food were reproducible, and that there exists a high levels of variability in the responses of different individuals to the same foods. The researchers found that the food associated with an individual’s highest glucose response varied greatly between individuals. Foods that induced a “healthy” response in one individual might induce an “unhealthy” response in another. In a particularly compelling figure, the researchers showed an example where two participants had opposite responses to cookies and bananas
I don't feel this study really makes a case why normal blood sugar fluctuations following meals are unhealthy in and of themselves, particularly as their illustrated levels look well within established post-meal guidelines. The R-value correlations with obesity and H1CA levels, never mind actual disease, are unconvincing in establishing a causal effect. Thus labeling the fluctuations in blood glucose "healthy" and "unhealthy" seems a long stretch here.
I recognize instantly that the author's choice of an open journal (Cell) was not coincidental; their writing includes a certain amount of informality that indicates they anticipated and expected a broader audience. Given the press around the Israeli microbiome studies, I'm not surprised. However, they are walking a dangerous line by weaving speculations into the results section. While it makes a 'better read' its poor practice in science writing.
Always enjoy reading your input (sincere, not sarcasm!)0 -
Wetcoaster wrote: »This is an interesting study
http://news.meta.com/2015/11/19/cell-nutrition-is-personal-identical-foods-produce-healthy-and-unhealthy-responses-in-different-individuals/
Nutrition is personal. A high degree of variability exists in the responses of different people to the same food.
The collected observations further revealed both an individual’s responses to the same food were reproducible, and that there exists a high levels of variability in the responses of different individuals to the same foods. The researchers found that the food associated with an individual’s highest glucose response varied greatly between individuals. Foods that induced a “healthy” response in one individual might induce an “unhealthy” response in another. In a particularly compelling figure, the researchers showed an example where two participants had opposite responses to cookies and bananas
I don't feel this study really makes a case why normal blood sugar fluctuations following meals are unhealthy in and of themselves, particularly as their illustrated levels look well within established post-meal guidelines. The R-value correlations with obesity and H1CA levels, never mind actual disease, are unconvincing in establishing a causal effect. Thus labeling the fluctuations in blood glucose "healthy" and "unhealthy" seems a long stretch here.
I recognize instantly that the author's choice of an open journal (Cell) was not coincidental; their writing includes a certain amount of informality that indicates they anticipated and expected a broader audience. Given the press around the Israeli microbiome studies, I'm not surprised. However, they are walking a dangerous line by weaving speculations into the results section. While it makes a 'better read' its poor practice in science writing.
Always enjoy reading your input (sincere, not sarcasm!)
Ditto on the sincerity.0 -
When applying this study to those that don't have defective genes for glucose metabolism (diabetes genes) in the first place, I can understand your point. But for those that do have these genes, an unusually high surge after meals is problematic.Wetcoaster wrote: »This is an interesting study
http://news.meta.com/2015/11/19/cell-nutrition-is-personal-identical-foods-produce-healthy-and-unhealthy-responses-in-different-individuals/
Nutrition is personal. A high degree of variability exists in the responses of different people to the same food.
The collected observations further revealed both an individual’s responses to the same food were reproducible, and that there exists a high levels of variability in the responses of different individuals to the same foods. The researchers found that the food associated with an individual’s highest glucose response varied greatly between individuals. Foods that induced a “healthy” response in one individual might induce an “unhealthy” response in another. In a particularly compelling figure, the researchers showed an example where two participants had opposite responses to cookies and bananas
I don't feel this study really makes a case why normal blood sugar fluctuations following meals are unhealthy in and of themselves, particularly as their illustrated levels look well within established post-meal guidelines. The R-value correlations with obesity and H1CA levels, never mind actual disease, are unconvincing in establishing a causal effect. Thus labeling the fluctuations in blood glucose "healthy" and "unhealthy" seems a long stretch here.0 -
Wetcoaster wrote: »This is an interesting study
http://news.meta.com/2015/11/19/cell-nutrition-is-personal-identical-foods-produce-healthy-and-unhealthy-responses-in-different-individuals/
Nutrition is personal. A high degree of variability exists in the responses of different people to the same food.
The collected observations further revealed both an individual’s responses to the same food were reproducible, and that there exists a high levels of variability in the responses of different individuals to the same foods. The researchers found that the food associated with an individual’s highest glucose response varied greatly between individuals. Foods that induced a “healthy” response in one individual might induce an “unhealthy” response in another. In a particularly compelling figure, the researchers showed an example where two participants had opposite responses to cookies and bananas
I don't feel this study really makes a case why normal blood sugar fluctuations following meals are unhealthy in and of themselves, particularly as their illustrated levels look well within established post-meal guidelines. The R-value correlations with obesity and H1CA levels, never mind actual disease, are unconvincing in establishing a causal effect. Thus labeling the fluctuations in blood glucose "healthy" and "unhealthy" seems a long stretch here.
I recognize instantly that the author's choice of an open journal (Cell) was not coincidental; their writing includes a certain amount of informality that indicates they anticipated and expected a broader audience. Given the press around the Israeli microbiome studies, I'm not surprised. However, they are walking a dangerous line by weaving speculations into the results section. While it makes a 'better read' its poor practice in science writing.
Absolutely agree. I just found it interesting.0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
When applying this study to those that don't have defective genes for glucose metabolism (diabetes genes) in the first place, I can understand your point. But for those that do have these genes, an unusually high surge after meals is problematic.Wetcoaster wrote: »This is an interesting study
http://news.meta.com/2015/11/19/cell-nutrition-is-personal-identical-foods-produce-healthy-and-unhealthy-responses-in-different-individuals/
Nutrition is personal. A high degree of variability exists in the responses of different people to the same food.
The collected observations further revealed both an individual’s responses to the same food were reproducible, and that there exists a high levels of variability in the responses of different individuals to the same foods. The researchers found that the food associated with an individual’s highest glucose response varied greatly between individuals. Foods that induced a “healthy” response in one individual might induce an “unhealthy” response in another. In a particularly compelling figure, the researchers showed an example where two participants had opposite responses to cookies and bananas
I don't feel this study really makes a case why normal blood sugar fluctuations following meals are unhealthy in and of themselves, particularly as their illustrated levels look well within established post-meal guidelines. The R-value correlations with obesity and H1CA levels, never mind actual disease, are unconvincing in establishing a causal effect. Thus labeling the fluctuations in blood glucose "healthy" and "unhealthy" seems a long stretch here.
pretty sure nothing in this thread is about anyone with a medical condition ….
we understand that some people may need to avoid insulin spikes due to medical condition, but every single post on this board does not need that disclaimer.0 -
This however I like Beer-Protein Shakes Are Being Crowdfunded As We Speak
http://www.pedestrian.tv/news/100dts/beer-protein-shakes-are-being-crowdfunded-as-we-sp/bc04ef3b-d885-48eb-b451-9eac83d10e3d.htm0 -
IdLikeToLoseItLoseIt wrote: »When I see a thread that exploded in a short span of time, I like to read the first page, then jump to the last page to see how far things have derailed. In this case, I got a cat eating a banana gif. Win!
0 -
Thanks for the positive feedback.
0 -
I don't know if you read that study, but there were prediabetics included in it. So if we are going to discuss it, that must be taken into account.ForecasterJason wrote: »
When applying this study to those that don't have defective genes for glucose metabolism (diabetes genes) in the first place, I can understand your point. But for those that do have these genes, an unusually high surge after meals is problematic.Wetcoaster wrote: »This is an interesting study
http://news.meta.com/2015/11/19/cell-nutrition-is-personal-identical-foods-produce-healthy-and-unhealthy-responses-in-different-individuals/
Nutrition is personal. A high degree of variability exists in the responses of different people to the same food.
The collected observations further revealed both an individual’s responses to the same food were reproducible, and that there exists a high levels of variability in the responses of different individuals to the same foods. The researchers found that the food associated with an individual’s highest glucose response varied greatly between individuals. Foods that induced a “healthy” response in one individual might induce an “unhealthy” response in another. In a particularly compelling figure, the researchers showed an example where two participants had opposite responses to cookies and bananas
I don't feel this study really makes a case why normal blood sugar fluctuations following meals are unhealthy in and of themselves, particularly as their illustrated levels look well within established post-meal guidelines. The R-value correlations with obesity and H1CA levels, never mind actual disease, are unconvincing in establishing a causal effect. Thus labeling the fluctuations in blood glucose "healthy" and "unhealthy" seems a long stretch here.
pretty sure nothing in this thread is about anyone with a medical condition ….
we understand that some people may need to avoid insulin spikes due to medical condition, but every single post on this board does not need that disclaimer.
0 -
ClicquotBubbles wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »The UK Government has just labelled ALL processed meats, including bacon and sausages as being dangerous to health [cancer causing] so how can they not be bad?
When did that happen? I must have totally missed it and I do read the Daily Fail. Surely it would have been a headline?
There is increasing scientific evidence that eating cured meats can significantly increase your risk for cancer.
Statistically significantly. Not necessarily significantly. The effect size is negligible, I believe.
Here is what I read: "50g portion of processed meat eaten daily increases the risk for colorectal cancer by about 18%, and that 100 g of red meat could increase the risk for colorectal cancer by 18%."
One's risk of colon cancer is 5% before eating daily processed meats. If you raise that by 18% it brings you to a 6% risk. It is a small increase that some are going to risk.Wetcoaster wrote: »This however I like Beer-Protein Shakes Are Being Crowdfunded As We Speak
http://www.pedestrian.tv/news/100dts/beer-protein-shakes-are-being-crowdfunded-as-we-sp/bc04ef3b-d885-48eb-b451-9eac83d10e3d.htm
On my phone, can someone post a "Shut up and take my money" meme here0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
I don't know if you read that study, but there were prediabetics included in it. So if we are going to discuss it, that must be taken into account.ForecasterJason wrote: »
When applying this study to those that don't have defective genes for glucose metabolism (diabetes genes) in the first place, I can understand your point. But for those that do have these genes, an unusually high surge after meals is problematic.Wetcoaster wrote: »This is an interesting study
http://news.meta.com/2015/11/19/cell-nutrition-is-personal-identical-foods-produce-healthy-and-unhealthy-responses-in-different-individuals/
Nutrition is personal. A high degree of variability exists in the responses of different people to the same food.
The collected observations further revealed both an individual’s responses to the same food were reproducible, and that there exists a high levels of variability in the responses of different individuals to the same foods. The researchers found that the food associated with an individual’s highest glucose response varied greatly between individuals. Foods that induced a “healthy” response in one individual might induce an “unhealthy” response in another. In a particularly compelling figure, the researchers showed an example where two participants had opposite responses to cookies and bananas
I don't feel this study really makes a case why normal blood sugar fluctuations following meals are unhealthy in and of themselves, particularly as their illustrated levels look well within established post-meal guidelines. The R-value correlations with obesity and H1CA levels, never mind actual disease, are unconvincing in establishing a causal effect. Thus labeling the fluctuations in blood glucose "healthy" and "unhealthy" seems a long stretch here.
pretty sure nothing in this thread is about anyone with a medical condition ….
we understand that some people may need to avoid insulin spikes due to medical condition, but every single post on this board does not need that disclaimer.
yes, and we are all aware of the point you are making ..0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
I don't know if you read that study, but there were prediabetics included in it. So if we are going to discuss it, that must be taken into account.ForecasterJason wrote: »
When applying this study to those that don't have defective genes for glucose metabolism (diabetes genes) in the first place, I can understand your point. But for those that do have these genes, an unusually high surge after meals is problematic.Wetcoaster wrote: »This is an interesting study
http://news.meta.com/2015/11/19/cell-nutrition-is-personal-identical-foods-produce-healthy-and-unhealthy-responses-in-different-individuals/
Nutrition is personal. A high degree of variability exists in the responses of different people to the same food.
The collected observations further revealed both an individual’s responses to the same food were reproducible, and that there exists a high levels of variability in the responses of different individuals to the same foods. The researchers found that the food associated with an individual’s highest glucose response varied greatly between individuals. Foods that induced a “healthy” response in one individual might induce an “unhealthy” response in another. In a particularly compelling figure, the researchers showed an example where two participants had opposite responses to cookies and bananas
I don't feel this study really makes a case why normal blood sugar fluctuations following meals are unhealthy in and of themselves, particularly as their illustrated levels look well within established post-meal guidelines. The R-value correlations with obesity and H1CA levels, never mind actual disease, are unconvincing in establishing a causal effect. Thus labeling the fluctuations in blood glucose "healthy" and "unhealthy" seems a long stretch here.
pretty sure nothing in this thread is about anyone with a medical condition ….
we understand that some people may need to avoid insulin spikes due to medical condition, but every single post on this board does not need that disclaimer.
In the study, yes. In this thread, no.0 -
-
ForecasterJason wrote: »I don't know if you read that study, but there were prediabetics included in it. So if we are going to discuss it, that must be taken into account.
- Pre-diabetes means "you are at risk for getting diabetes". It is not itself a disease state. It also isn't a very good predictor of disease state (15%-30% of people will develop diabetes? that means somewhere between 70-85% won't).
- I haven't seen anything convincing that any and all blood glucose spikes in response to eating are bad for anyone. Not even diabetics. Only excessively high spikes ( >180 mg/dL)
- In diabetics, insulin response is borked, so you frequently see unmodulated spikes of >300 mg/dL right after meals.
- None of the data in this study as released suggested the individuals studied were having massive blood sugar spikes; they were all well within the 180 mg/dL recommendation.
- Redefining "bad" blood sugar spikes as those above 115 (which the article doesn't do but the press release does through graphs) requires a quite a bit of justification, which is entirely lacking.
Strike the Spike - Diabetes Self-Management
Checking Your Blood Glucose - American Diabetes Association
Management of Hyperglycemia in Type2 Diabetes - A Patient Centered Approach (Diabetes Care 2012)0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »I don't know if you read that study, but there were prediabetics included in it. So if we are going to discuss it, that must be taken into account.
- Pre-diabetes means "you are at risk for getting diabetes". It is not itself a disease state. It also isn't a very good predictor of disease state (15%-30% of people will develop diabetes? that means somewhere between 70-85% won't).
- I haven't seen anything convincing that any and all blood glucose spikes in response to eating are bad for anyone. Not even diabetics. Only excessively high spikes ( >180 mg/dL)
- In diabetics, insulin response is borked, so you frequently see unmodulated spikes of >300 mg/dL right after meals.
- None of the data in this study as released suggested the individuals studied were having massive blood sugar spikes; they were all well within the 180 mg/dL recommendation.
- Redefining "bad" blood sugar spikes as those above 115 (which the article doesn't do but the press release does through graphs) requires a quite a bit of justification, which is entirely lacking.
Strike the Spike - Diabetes Self-Management
Checking Your Blood Glucose - American Diabetes Association
Management of Hyperglycemia in Type2 Diabetes - A Patient Centered Approach (Diabetes Care 2012)
*mic drop*0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
When applying this study to those that don't have defective genes for glucose metabolism (diabetes genes) in the first place, I can understand your point. But for those that do have these genes, an unusually high surge after meals is problematic.Wetcoaster wrote: »This is an interesting study
http://news.meta.com/2015/11/19/cell-nutrition-is-personal-identical-foods-produce-healthy-and-unhealthy-responses-in-different-individuals/
Nutrition is personal. A high degree of variability exists in the responses of different people to the same food.
The collected observations further revealed both an individual’s responses to the same food were reproducible, and that there exists a high levels of variability in the responses of different individuals to the same foods. The researchers found that the food associated with an individual’s highest glucose response varied greatly between individuals. Foods that induced a “healthy” response in one individual might induce an “unhealthy” response in another. In a particularly compelling figure, the researchers showed an example where two participants had opposite responses to cookies and bananas
I don't feel this study really makes a case why normal blood sugar fluctuations following meals are unhealthy in and of themselves, particularly as their illustrated levels look well within established post-meal guidelines. The R-value correlations with obesity and H1CA levels, never mind actual disease, are unconvincing in establishing a causal effect. Thus labeling the fluctuations in blood glucose "healthy" and "unhealthy" seems a long stretch here.
There are other medical conditions that do better when insulin is kept low or stable as well. So, yeah, studies about insulin are generally of interest to people dealing with a medical condition.0 -
Disclaimer: I'm not going to say that science won't indicate stricter control on blood sugar is good, and that in 20 years they'll recommend keeping spikes under a lower number. Only that there is no strong evidence at this time supporting such strict blood sugar control as this study claims to have achieved.0
-
ClicquotBubbles wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »The UK Government has just labelled ALL processed meats, including bacon and sausages as being dangerous to health [cancer causing] so how can they not be bad?
When did that happen? I must have totally missed it and I do read the Daily Fail. Surely it would have been a headline?
There is increasing scientific evidence that eating cured meats can significantly increase your risk for cancer.
Statistically significantly. Not necessarily significantly. The effect size is negligible, I believe.
Here is what I read: "50g portion of processed meat eaten daily increases the risk for colorectal cancer by about 18%, and that 100 g of red meat could increase the risk for colorectal cancer by 18%."
One's risk of colon cancer is 5% before eating daily processed meats. If you raise that by 18% it brings you to a 6% risk. It is a small increase that some are going to risk.Wetcoaster wrote: »This however I like Beer-Protein Shakes Are Being Crowdfunded As We Speak
http://www.pedestrian.tv/news/100dts/beer-protein-shakes-are-being-crowdfunded-as-we-sp/bc04ef3b-d885-48eb-b451-9eac83d10e3d.htm
On my phone, can someone post a "Shut up and take my money" meme here
Making all kindz of gainz, anabolic and alcoholic.0 -
ClicquotBubbles wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »The UK Government has just labelled ALL processed meats, including bacon and sausages as being dangerous to health [cancer causing] so how can they not be bad?
When did that happen? I must have totally missed it and I do read the Daily Fail. Surely it would have been a headline?
There is increasing scientific evidence that eating cured meats can significantly increase your risk for cancer.
Statistically significantly. Not necessarily significantly. The effect size is negligible, I believe.
Here is what I read: "50g portion of processed meat eaten daily increases the risk for colorectal cancer by about 18%, and that 100 g of red meat could increase the risk for colorectal cancer by 18%."
One's risk of colon cancer is 5% before eating daily processed meats. If you raise that by 18% it brings you to a 6% risk. It is a small increase that some are going to risk.Wetcoaster wrote: »This however I like Beer-Protein Shakes Are Being Crowdfunded As We Speak
http://www.pedestrian.tv/news/100dts/beer-protein-shakes-are-being-crowdfunded-as-we-sp/bc04ef3b-d885-48eb-b451-9eac83d10e3d.htm
On my phone, can someone post a "Shut up and take my money" meme here
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K 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
- 427 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