Odd sugar calculation something's not right
Replies
-
singingflutelady wrote: »I can't cut and paste but here's the title of a systematic review and meta analysis by Canadian researchers : effect of fructose on body weight in controlled feeding trials.
They found that fructose did not contribute to weight gain when substituted for other carbohydrates in diets providing similar calories
I found the abstract, and it says exactly what you said. That swapping one carbohydrate for another did not show any difference in weight loss over a short period of time. The body of Lustigs research on fructose is about diseases, (diabetes, high blood pressure, liver disease, etc. etc. ) and about how fructose is metabolized through the liver. it metabolizes very similar to alcohol in fact. Glucose doesn't metabolize the same way, but it certainly will spike the insulin. the diseases he tracks are not going to become present in a matter of a 7 to 30 days study. And he does recommends a low carbohydrate diet, not a low fructose diet.
0 -
http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/
OP, don't listen to Lustig. Problem solved. Guy is out there.
Thanks. I wanted to cite this but I can't cut and paste which is annoying0 -
KarlynKeto wrote: »o
Whelp.
If you're getting your information from documentaries and treating it like fact...
@yarwell
This is why I don't think people know exactly what to do.
To be fair, the documentary was quoting a top and endocrinologist, Robert Lustig, who has done years of research on the subject and who is considered the leading expert on sugar digestion. He has books, lectures..etc you can reference. He also has a video with over 8 million views on YouTube called 'sugar the bitter truth'. You may want to check it out. It is a lecture given to medical students, but I think most people can understand his message.
To be fair, Robert Lustig's work has been roundly criticized for it inaccuracy. The documentary based on his work has been debunked by a multitude of scientists that actually care about science and not pseudoscience.0 -
:huh:
Once again... Common sense should prevail.
0 -
Christine_72 wrote: »
:huh:
Once again... Common sense should prevail.
What about the common sense that eating fat will make you fat? Common sense isn't always equal to actuality. Sugar is just the current "one thing I can avoid" that many people want. There is no single magic thing to avoid or eat.0 -
Christine_72 wrote: »
:huh:
Once again... Common sense should prevail.
What about the common sense that eating fat will make you fat? Common sense isn't always equal to actuality. Sugar is just the current "one thing I can avoid" that many people want. There is no single magic thing to avoid or eat.
I wasn't talking about food.. I was saying anyone with a modicum of common sense is not going to ingest arsenic or asbestos. It's a ridiculous comparison that people like to pull out in these discussions. .
0 -
I am still not convinced. Sugars might be all the same but there is a big difference on how the body absorbs glucose and fructose. If you watch the documentary fed up it explain very well that fructose can only be processed by the liver. when the liver is pushed to the max the pancreas come to rescue producing insulin which in excess turns sugar into fat. Now they say that fructose from fruits has a different mechanism because of the fiber and other minerals that are contained into the fruits. Also, app can't put under the same umbrella fructose (natural fructose from fruits or chemical fructose (from sodas/juices/processed foods high fructose corn syrup) and glucose (starch>carbs) as they are absorbed in two different ways . I will research more on this subject as it is the main reason from weight gain and visceral fat gain (the fat around the belly) . I always ate fruits and vegetables and carbs (no meat/no cheeses/very little fish) and i never had belly fat. But again, i might be mistaken. Thank you all for replying!
check this here it might explain better than me
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHEJE6I-Yl4
that is why i think there should be a difference in sugars in the app so we better regulate ourselves. I miss my fruit intake after all and never had problem with it, blood analysis always been perfect.
Only the liver can process glucose? Don't tell your skeletal muscles that! They have those lovely GLUT5 receptors that let them take fructose out of your blood stream. What for? To dump them later back to the liver? I'd like to think your body isn't doing nutrient shuffles for *kitten* and giggles.
The "app" can't tell the difference between fructose and glucose, galactose and -oses beyond because USDA nutritional labeling doesn't requiring more than that. Natural sources and added sources aren't labeled separately. The natural and added are the same molecules (well the various molecules of sugar are slightly different, but glucose in fruit is chemically identical to glucose in a candy bar). The reasons guidelines discuss added versus natural sugars is that not all foods are the same, and limiting added sugars would tend to cause limiting foods containing them, many of which are foods that are rather palatable and can increase the chances of overeating. In comparison, natural sources tend to have fiber and micronutrients that are helpful, and increase satiety.
So essentially the general nutritional advice is simplified proxies for what the USDA and FDA really want you to avoid - excess calories, and lack of appropriate nutrients.
The guy behind NutritionFacts.org is a vegan idealogue that tries to claim it is impossible to become diabetic from natural sugar, and other quackery.
Visceral fat can be influence somewhat by the diet. I've seen more evidence for it be regulated by exercise - the body has something of tendency to burn visceral fat for exercise more than dietary calorie restriction does. Some posit that this gives an evolutionary explanation of the tendency of males or people under the influences of androgen to have more belly fat - it is there for endurance hunting the big game, while more gynoidal fat in females / under the influence of gynogens to store gynoid fat that can supply calories for day to day living, birthing babies, etc.0 -
Christine_72 wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »
:huh:
Once again... Common sense should prevail.
What about the common sense that eating fat will make you fat? Common sense isn't always equal to actuality. Sugar is just the current "one thing I can avoid" that many people want. There is no single magic thing to avoid or eat.
I wasn't talking about food.. I was saying anyone with a modicum of common sense is not going to ingest arsenic or asbestos. It's a ridiculous comparison that people like to pull out in these discussions. .
Sometimes a ridiculous statement implying natural is inherently better needs a ridiculous rebuttal...0 -
KarlynKeto wrote: »o
Whelp.
If you're getting your information from documentaries and treating it like fact...
@yarwell
This is why I don't think people know exactly what to do.
To be fair, the documentary was quoting a top and endocrinologist, Robert Lustig, who has done years of research on the subject and who is considered the leading expert on sugar digestion. He has books, lectures..etc you can reference. He also has a video with over 8 million views on YouTube called 'sugar the bitter truth'. You may want to check it out. It is a lecture given to medical students, but I think most people can understand his message.
He also gets quiet a few facts - not controversial ones, verifiable, historical and scientific facts, like saying Americans invented pasta and sent it to Italy, or that Newton wrote the laws of thermodynamics, or that modern day Japanese don't eat any candy - wrong. He's also rather poor at designing studies (unless you concede that the point of his study design is to get the outcome he wants) and poor at drawing conclusions given the actual incidence. He's also hypocritically defended poor study design by saying failing to intervene would be immoral, but he failed to use the most proven intervention possible because he wanted to do his study. So yeah, I find using for the children to defend your quackery while not actually protecting the children to the maximum extent rather reprehensible, and his other credentials don't mitigate that to me.0 -
Christine_72 wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »
:huh:
Once again... Common sense should prevail.
What about the common sense that eating fat will make you fat? Common sense isn't always equal to actuality. Sugar is just the current "one thing I can avoid" that many people want. There is no single magic thing to avoid or eat.
I wasn't talking about food.. I was saying anyone with a modicum of common sense is not going to ingest arsenic or asbestos. It's a ridiculous comparison that people like to pull out in these discussions. .
Really? So common sense is limited to people with a formal western education?0 -
Christine_72 wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »
:huh:
Once again... Common sense should prevail.
What about the common sense that eating fat will make you fat? Common sense isn't always equal to actuality. Sugar is just the current "one thing I can avoid" that many people want. There is no single magic thing to avoid or eat.
I wasn't talking about food.. I was saying anyone with a modicum of common sense is not going to ingest arsenic or asbestos. It's a ridiculous comparison that people like to pull out in these discussions. .
That's the whole point though. One ridiculous comment deserves another.0 -
He also gets quiet a few facts - not controversial ones, verifiable, historical and scientific facts, like saying Americans invented pasta and sent it to Italy, or that Newton wrote the laws of thermodynamics, or that modern day Japanese don't eat any candy - wrong. He's also rather poor at designing studies (unless you concede that the point of his study design is to get the outcome he wants) and poor at drawing conclusions given the actual incidence. He's also hypocritically defended poor study design by saying failing to intervene would be immoral, but he failed to use the most proven intervention possible because he wanted to do his study. So yeah, I find using for the children to defend your quackery while not actually protecting the children to the maximum extent rather reprehensible, and his other credentials don't mitigate that to me.
This may all be well and true, I couldn't say one way or the other. However none of that discredits him as a scientist. At least not in the true term of the word 'discredit'. (Which I kept seeing written above as a true fact, when it is by no means a true fact). I have only looked at his research on sugar and metabolism and disease. Honestly I don't care where he thinks pasta comes from :-) No one is an expert on everything.
I Also can't speak to his methodology on having children in a study, but it sounds like there are varying opinions on how his research is conducted. Fair enough, but again that doesn't equal the results null and invalid. In his book he discusses many of his young patients, and the horrible diets these kids had at home. Heck, we could easily argue that the parents were highly abusive and should be in jail for their unethical behavior of fattening up their kids. But that is just muddying up the science, and will breed far more misconceptions.
Hey, if you don't like the guy I have no issues there.0 -
KarlynKeto wrote: »
He also gets quiet a few facts - not controversial ones, verifiable, historical and scientific facts, like saying Americans invented pasta and sent it to Italy, or that Newton wrote the laws of thermodynamics, or that modern day Japanese don't eat any candy - wrong. He's also rather poor at designing studies (unless you concede that the point of his study design is to get the outcome he wants) and poor at drawing conclusions given the actual incidence. He's also hypocritically defended poor study design by saying failing to intervene would be immoral, but he failed to use the most proven intervention possible because he wanted to do his study. So yeah, I find using for the children to defend your quackery while not actually protecting the children to the maximum extent rather reprehensible, and his other credentials don't mitigate that to me.
This may all be well and true, I couldn't say one way or the other. However none of that discredits him as a scientist. At least not in the true term of the word 'discredit'. (Which I kept seeing written above as a true fact, when it is by no means a true fact). I have only looked at his research on sugar and metabolism and disease. Honestly I don't care where he thinks pasta comes from :-) No one is an expert on everything.
I Also can't speak to his methodology on having children in a study, but it sounds like there are varying opinions on how his research is conducted. Fair enough, but again that doesn't equal the results null and invalid. In his book he discusses many of his young patients, and the horrible diets these kids had at home. Heck, we could easily argue that the parents were highly abusive and should be in jail for their unethical behavior of fattening up their kids. But that is just muddying up the science, and will breed far more misconceptions.
Hey, if you don't like the guy I have no issues there.
Actually, yes, yes it does discredit him. If he does poor science, and shows a poor understanding of science, he is discredited. That's how that works. He isn't even a scientist, he's an endocrinologist - that's a kind of doctor. Doctors can be scientists, but it is wrong to thing they all are, or that someone who's accomplished as a doctor is automatically accomplished at science - being a doctor tends to be about knowing a host of facts and differentials for diagnosing things from knowns, while science is a methodology and process of discovery of unknowns.
Essentially your point is just to handwave valid criticism as controversy and repeat his expertise, and claim no one's perfect. His bad facts are things he could correct, because they are things he's repeated. He chooses not. He's been shown some of his facts were wrong like Japanese sugar consumption, and his response to Alan Aragon was to throw out how many Youtube views he has, reclaim himself as right, and quit the discussion. That's not the hallmark one in the pursuit of advancing knowledge, that's an egotistical ideologue.
The study he did on children isn't invalid, just his conclusions. They are wrong because he dismissed the fact that the reason they children showed improvement is statistically heavily weight on the fact that he did induce a calorie deficit in some of the children, despite his trying to claim the results are from iso-caloric diets with different compositions. It would be like me saying I can show gravity doesn't matter because I attached helium balloons to some objects, and dismissed the helium balloon's effect as just an anomaly. Then, when people confront me about the fact that I should have then used controls with no helium balloons, I'd claim it was improper not to something - leaving the objects on the ground would have been immoral giving the dangers of the ground. Yet, claiming it isn't immoral that I didn't use helium on all the objects knowing an intervention of the helium balloons on all objects would remove them from the ground because that's already proven.0 -
KarlynKeto wrote: »
He also gets quiet a few facts - not controversial ones, verifiable, historical and scientific facts, like saying Americans invented pasta and sent it to Italy, or that Newton wrote the laws of thermodynamics, or that modern day Japanese don't eat any candy - wrong. He's also rather poor at designing studies (unless you concede that the point of his study design is to get the outcome he wants) and poor at drawing conclusions given the actual incidence. He's also hypocritically defended poor study design by saying failing to intervene would be immoral, but he failed to use the most proven intervention possible because he wanted to do his study. So yeah, I find using for the children to defend your quackery while not actually protecting the children to the maximum extent rather reprehensible, and his other credentials don't mitigate that to me.
This may all be well and true, I couldn't say one way or the other. However none of that discredits him as a scientist. At least not in the true term of the word 'discredit'. (Which I kept seeing written above as a true fact, when it is by no means a true fact). I have only looked at his research on sugar and metabolism and disease. Honestly I don't care where he thinks pasta comes from :-) No one is an expert on everything.
I Also can't speak to his methodology on having children in a study, but it sounds like there are varying opinions on how his research is conducted. Fair enough, but again that doesn't equal the results null and invalid. In his book he discusses many of his young patients, and the horrible diets these kids had at home. Heck, we could easily argue that the parents were highly abusive and should be in jail for their unethical behavior of fattening up their kids. But that is just muddying up the science, and will breed far more misconceptions.
Hey, if you don't like the guy I have no issues there.
Let's be honest. You haven't looked at his research at all. You watched a documentary, bought into it and have been towing the line ever since.0 -
singingflutelady wrote: »Dr lustig's ideas about sugar have been long disputed and discredited
By whom ? While I don't agree with a lot of what he says I'm sure a peer reviewed journal carried at least one study with him as an author in the last 12 months. Oops, make that several.....
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=Lustig, Robert H[Author]0 -
singingflutelady wrote: »I can't cut and paste but here's the title of a systematic review and meta analysis by Canadian researchers : effect of fructose on body weight in controlled feeding trials.
yes, one systematic review and meta analysis came to that conclusion, others have come to the opposite.
Someone even did a systematic review and of all the previously published systematic reviews to determine the effect of funding on the outcome.
This is a controversial area, in the scientific sense, where studies support opposing points of view and it hasn't got completely thrashed out yet. Sievenpiper will prove fructose is innocent, Lustig will prove it's the devil (while being careful not to bad-mouth fruit).
0 -
Christine_72 wrote: »
:huh:
Once again... Common sense should prevail.
What about the common sense that eating fat will make you fat? Common sense isn't always equal to actuality. Sugar is just the current "one thing I can avoid" that many people want. There is no single magic thing to avoid or eat.
There is no need to always wanted to prevail and be absolutely right. I thought this was a forum where we could talk nicely without offending each other. If you think the discussion is ridicolous I am sorry maybe you need a more appropriate environment where you can make your statements. I thought we were here to help and support each other. The discussion I started was the reason why the app was not making any different in the types of sugars and many people are nicely stating their thoughts and I thank them for that. Everybody knows that eating bad will mak you fat but that has nothing to do with discussion, the discussions was centered on the natural sugars from fruits and added sugars from processed food. Because I am calorie counting and I practically do not consume any processed food with bad sugars but I consume lots of veggie fruits nuts seeds legumes (no alcohol no drinks of any kind no meat no dairy few fish) the app was warning me to keep sugar low within a certain amount . We are not talking about gain weight, I did not gain a pound since 10 years know thanks to my normal healthy (for me) eating and I am on a plan because i just want to loose few pounds for summer. Plus I run, swim, never smoked or drunk and conduct a "healthy" lifestyle. So we are just discussing about how to value the natural sugars from fruits vs the added sugars from food.0 -
By the way, to add to the discussions about fructose and glucose (starches) all I can bring is a general example from my country, Italy (someone mentioned pasta...mmmm ) Italy population has lived on pasta (lots of pasta, everyday) , bread, potatoes rice and products from the farm (locally outsorced) up till the 80s early 90s and obesity levels was low and the mediterranean diet was Acclaimed world wide. Obesity in Italy skyrocketed with the advent of american fast food chains and prepared processed foods as well as intensive meat farming. We never gained weight on pounds of pasta rice bread or potatoes,fruits and veggies, it might be genetics I do not know.....so nowadays we live longer but the last year of our lives we live in way worse condition than past years so our sanitary system will soon collapse because we would not be able to meet demand for care.0
-
Christine_72 wrote: »
:huh:
Once again... Common sense should prevail.
What about the common sense that eating fat will make you fat? Common sense isn't always equal to actuality. Sugar is just the current "one thing I can avoid" that many people want. There is no single magic thing to avoid or eat.
There is no need to always wanted to prevail and be absolutely right. I thought this was a forum where we could talk nicely without offending each other. If you think the discussion is ridicolous I am sorry maybe you need a more appropriate environment where you can make your statements. I thought we were here to help and support each other. The discussion I started was the reason why the app was not making any different in the types of sugars and many people are nicely stating their thoughts and I thank them for that. Everybody knows that eating bad will mak you fat but that has nothing to do with discussion, the discussions was centered on the natural sugars from fruits and added sugars from processed food. Because I am calorie counting and I practically do not consume any processed food with bad sugars but I consume lots of veggie fruits nuts seeds legumes (no alcohol no drinks of any kind no meat no dairy few fish) the app was warning me to keep sugar low within a certain amount . We are not talking about gain weight, I did not gain a pound since 10 years know thanks to my normal healthy (for me) eating and I am on a plan because i just want to loose few pounds for summer. Plus I run, swim, never smoked or drunk and conduct a "healthy" lifestyle. So we are just discussing about how to value the natural sugars from fruits vs the added sugars from food.
Re. the bolded portiins:Those of us who have been around a while do not offer blind support to false statements.
For example, "eating bad" does not make you (or anyone else) fat. Eating above the calories a person needs to maintain their weigh will lead to weight gain. It is entirely possible to gain weight eating a plant-based diet. It is entirely possible to lose weight eating nothing but Twinkies, or McDonald's (can someone link those stories? I'm on my phone). But the nutritional profile of your food makes zero difference in terms of weight loss.0 -
ClosetBayesian wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »
:huh:
Once again... Common sense should prevail.
What about the common sense that eating fat will make you fat? Common sense isn't always equal to actuality. Sugar is just the current "one thing I can avoid" that many people want. There is no single magic thing to avoid or eat.
There is no need to always wanted to prevail and be absolutely right. I thought this was a forum where we could talk nicely without offending each other. If you think the discussion is ridicolous I am sorry maybe you need a more appropriate environment where you can make your statements. I thought we were here to help and support each other. The discussion I started was the reason why the app was not making any different in the types of sugars and many people are nicely stating their thoughts and I thank them for that. Everybody knows that eating bad will mak you fat but that has nothing to do with discussion, the discussions was centered on the natural sugars from fruits and added sugars from processed food. Because I am calorie counting and I practically do not consume any processed food with bad sugars but I consume lots of veggie fruits nuts seeds legumes (no alcohol no drinks of any kind no meat no dairy few fish) the app was warning me to keep sugar low within a certain amount . We are not talking about gain weight, I did not gain a pound since 10 years know thanks to my normal healthy (for me) eating and I am on a plan because i just want to loose few pounds for summer. Plus I run, swim, never smoked or drunk and conduct a "healthy" lifestyle. So we are just discussing about how to value the natural sugars from fruits vs the added sugars from food.
Re. the bolded portiins:Those of us who have been around a while do not offer blind support to false statements.
For example, "eating bad" does not make you (or anyone else) fat. Eating above the calories a person needs to maintain their weigh will lead to weight gain. It is entirely possible to gain weight eating a plant-based diet. It is entirely possible to lose weight eating nothing but Twinkies, or McDonald's (can someone link those stories? I'm on my phone). But the nutritional profile of your food makes zero difference in terms of weight loss.
This. I eat far more foods with added sugar than I should for my macro balance, like chocolate, sugary cereals, cookies, etc, but I'm still losing weight. And the fat I used to have on my belly, it's gone.
I do not like misinformation that parades itself around like alternative facts.
Without a metabolic disorder, as long as one nutrient like sugar isn't crowding out other vital nutrients, you don't have to avoid it. Anything else is ignorance of basic nutrition, willful in some cases, accidental in others, or purposeful fearmongering.0 -
KarlynKeto wrote: »Ohhh wow I thought there was actual backed science and that I simply was ignorant about the subject, so now you all saying that those are all opinions
In the medical community he isn't alone with his beliefs, not by a mile. Facts are not opinions, hypothesis' are opinions. Same as correlation and causation are not the same, yet they often get confused. His work is about causation and facts, which are hard to dispute. There are people who really don't want to hear sugar is the root cause of much illness. He's not trying to take sugar away, just inform people of the health risks so we can make smart decisions.
As for your original question about the difference of fructose and glucose, which is a fact that well predates Lustig, that isn't even up for debate anymore. They're metabolically not the same.
And the natural vs added sugars are not listed separately on any food label as the sugar and food industries have lobbied for decades to keep that info mute. (Fact)
He scaremongers about fructose and too many people have taken that to mean they should avoid fruit.
See this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-katz-md/fructose-toxic_b_3529120.html
Katz is a professor at Yale Med and the associate director of their obesity studies center.
I also rather like this piece, and you can find the underlying study if you like too: http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/03/science-compared-every-diet-and-the-winner-is-real-food/284595/0 -
ClosetBayesian wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »
:huh:
Once again... Common sense should prevail.
What about the common sense that eating fat will make you fat? Common sense isn't always equal to actuality. Sugar is just the current "one thing I can avoid" that many people want. There is no single magic thing to avoid or eat.
There is no need to always wanted to prevail and be absolutely right. I thought this was a forum where we could talk nicely without offending each other. If you think the discussion is ridicolous I am sorry maybe you need a more appropriate environment where you can make your statements. I thought we were here to help and support each other. The discussion I started was the reason why the app was not making any different in the types of sugars and many people are nicely stating their thoughts and I thank them for that. Everybody knows that eating bad will mak you fat but that has nothing to do with discussion, the discussions was centered on the natural sugars from fruits and added sugars from processed food. Because I am calorie counting and I practically do not consume any processed food with bad sugars but I consume lots of veggie fruits nuts seeds legumes (no alcohol no drinks of any kind no meat no dairy few fish) the app was warning me to keep sugar low within a certain amount . We are not talking about gain weight, I did not gain a pound since 10 years know thanks to my normal healthy (for me) eating and I am on a plan because i just want to loose few pounds for summer. Plus I run, swim, never smoked or drunk and conduct a "healthy" lifestyle. So we are just discussing about how to value the natural sugars from fruits vs the added sugars from food.
Re. the bolded portiins:Those of us who have been around a while do not offer blind support to false statements.
For example, "eating bad" does not make you (or anyone else) fat. Eating above the calories a person needs to maintain their weigh will lead to weight gain. It is entirely possible to gain weight eating a plant-based diet. It is entirely possible to lose weight eating nothing but Twinkies, or McDonald's (can someone link those stories? I'm on my phone). But the nutritional profile of your food makes zero difference in terms of weight loss.
Wow thanks again for your nice words you are a lovely person to chat with. There are many different ways to express your ideas, i find yours very unpleasant. Nobody asked for blind support this is an application community forum not a scientific event, chill out. Ok I get it, you've been here for I while I just got in, you feel entitled, fine with me, But I definitely not want to argue, so whatever you say it's fine with me, but if you might use a different approach that would be very much appreciated. At this point I am not interested anymore in this thread as it turned out in a completely different direction and I am not looking to prevail over anyone here, so I leave to you all. Thanks to all of the people who kindly partecipated and offered their own thoughts and belief.0 -
Well at the end i'd rather eat what mother nature gave us,( so fruits veggies legumes seeds nuts) than processed food made by humans with God knows what's inside.
Processed foods is a very broad category and includes plenty of foods (like smoked salmon, cheese, dried pasta) where no one will be confused about the ingredients.
And it's easy enough to read a label and research things if you don't know what they are. I tend to eat mostly whole foods (I like to cook and find it relaxing), but I hate how people generalize about processed foods vs. actually looking at the nutritional content and understanding nutrition.0 -
If you're going to try to tone troll other people to avoid discussing the actual topic, it helps if you don't dismiss other's claims as "chill out, this isn't science class". At that point, I'm afraid you just sound hypocritical. In the spirit of elevating the conversation, I'd offer it in a politer manner, but I don't really know a way to tell someone they're a tone trolling hypocrit that doesn't sound contentious because, it ultimately has to be at some level, or else I'm just resorting to lying, which is also a rudeness, just not one people have as easy a time calling someone on.ClosetBayesian wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »
:huh:
Once again... Common sense should prevail.
What about the common sense that eating fat will make you fat? Common sense isn't always equal to actuality. Sugar is just the current "one thing I can avoid" that many people want. There is no single magic thing to avoid or eat.
There is no need to always wanted to prevail and be absolutely right. I thought this was a forum where we could talk nicely without offending each other. If you think the discussion is ridicolous I am sorry maybe you need a more appropriate environment where you can make your statements. I thought we were here to help and support each other. The discussion I started was the reason why the app was not making any different in the types of sugars and many people are nicely stating their thoughts and I thank them for that. Everybody knows that eating bad will mak you fat but that has nothing to do with discussion, the discussions was centered on the natural sugars from fruits and added sugars from processed food. Because I am calorie counting and I practically do not consume any processed food with bad sugars but I consume lots of veggie fruits nuts seeds legumes (no alcohol no drinks of any kind no meat no dairy few fish) the app was warning me to keep sugar low within a certain amount . We are not talking about gain weight, I did not gain a pound since 10 years know thanks to my normal healthy (for me) eating and I am on a plan because i just want to loose few pounds for summer. Plus I run, swim, never smoked or drunk and conduct a "healthy" lifestyle. So we are just discussing about how to value the natural sugars from fruits vs the added sugars from food.
Re. the bolded portiins:Those of us who have been around a while do not offer blind support to false statements.
For example, "eating bad" does not make you (or anyone else) fat. Eating above the calories a person needs to maintain their weigh will lead to weight gain. It is entirely possible to gain weight eating a plant-based diet. It is entirely possible to lose weight eating nothing but Twinkies, or McDonald's (can someone link those stories? I'm on my phone). But the nutritional profile of your food makes zero difference in terms of weight loss.
Wow thanks again for your nice words you are a lovely person to chat with. There are many different ways to express your ideas, i find yours very unpleasant. Nobody asked for blind support this is an application community forum not a scientific event, chill out. Ok I get it, you've been here for I while I just got in, you feel entitled, fine with me, But I definitely not want to argue, so whatever you say it's fine with me, but if you might use a different approach that would be very much appreciated. At this point I am not interested anymore in this thread as it turned out in a completely different direction and I am not looking to prevail over anyone here, so I leave to you all. Thanks to all of the people who kindly partecipated and offered their own thoughts and belief.0 -
ClosetBayesian wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »
:huh:
Once again... Common sense should prevail.
What about the common sense that eating fat will make you fat? Common sense isn't always equal to actuality. Sugar is just the current "one thing I can avoid" that many people want. There is no single magic thing to avoid or eat.
There is no need to always wanted to prevail and be absolutely right. I thought this was a forum where we could talk nicely without offending each other. If you think the discussion is ridicolous I am sorry maybe you need a more appropriate environment where you can make your statements. I thought we were here to help and support each other. The discussion I started was the reason why the app was not making any different in the types of sugars and many people are nicely stating their thoughts and I thank them for that. Everybody knows that eating bad will mak you fat but that has nothing to do with discussion, the discussions was centered on the natural sugars from fruits and added sugars from processed food. Because I am calorie counting and I practically do not consume any processed food with bad sugars but I consume lots of veggie fruits nuts seeds legumes (no alcohol no drinks of any kind no meat no dairy few fish) the app was warning me to keep sugar low within a certain amount . We are not talking about gain weight, I did not gain a pound since 10 years know thanks to my normal healthy (for me) eating and I am on a plan because i just want to loose few pounds for summer. Plus I run, swim, never smoked or drunk and conduct a "healthy" lifestyle. So we are just discussing about how to value the natural sugars from fruits vs the added sugars from food.
Re. the bolded portiins:Those of us who have been around a while do not offer blind support to false statements.
For example, "eating bad" does not make you (or anyone else) fat. Eating above the calories a person needs to maintain their weigh will lead to weight gain. It is entirely possible to gain weight eating a plant-based diet. It is entirely possible to lose weight eating nothing but Twinkies, or McDonald's (can someone link those stories? I'm on my phone). But the nutritional profile of your food makes zero difference in terms of weight loss.
Wow thanks again for your nice words you are a lovely person to chat with. There are many different ways to express your ideas, i find yours very unpleasant. Nobody asked for blind support this is an application community forum not a scientific event, chill out. Ok I get it, you've been here for I while I just got in, you feel entitled, fine with me, But I definitely not want to argue, so whatever you say it's fine with me, but if you might use a different approach that would be very much appreciated. At this point I am not interested anymore in this thread as it turned out in a completely different direction and I am not looking to prevail over anyone here, so I leave to you all. Thanks to all of the people who kindly partecipated and offered their own thoughts and belief.
You're welcome. I enjoyed participating and sharing my thoughts. But not beliefs, this isn't a religion for me. I prefer following supported facts and sharing them with others. Others go by feels, people affected by documentaries.0 -
ClosetBayesian wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »
:huh:
Once again... Common sense should prevail.
What about the common sense that eating fat will make you fat? Common sense isn't always equal to actuality. Sugar is just the current "one thing I can avoid" that many people want. There is no single magic thing to avoid or eat.
There is no need to always wanted to prevail and be absolutely right. I thought this was a forum where we could talk nicely without offending each other. If you think the discussion is ridicolous I am sorry maybe you need a more appropriate environment where you can make your statements. I thought we were here to help and support each other. The discussion I started was the reason why the app was not making any different in the types of sugars and many people are nicely stating their thoughts and I thank them for that. Everybody knows that eating bad will mak you fat but that has nothing to do with discussion, the discussions was centered on the natural sugars from fruits and added sugars from processed food. Because I am calorie counting and I practically do not consume any processed food with bad sugars but I consume lots of veggie fruits nuts seeds legumes (no alcohol no drinks of any kind no meat no dairy few fish) the app was warning me to keep sugar low within a certain amount . We are not talking about gain weight, I did not gain a pound since 10 years know thanks to my normal healthy (for me) eating and I am on a plan because i just want to loose few pounds for summer. Plus I run, swim, never smoked or drunk and conduct a "healthy" lifestyle. So we are just discussing about how to value the natural sugars from fruits vs the added sugars from food.
Re. the bolded portiins:Those of us who have been around a while do not offer blind support to false statements.
For example, "eating bad" does not make you (or anyone else) fat. Eating above the calories a person needs to maintain their weigh will lead to weight gain. It is entirely possible to gain weight eating a plant-based diet. It is entirely possible to lose weight eating nothing but Twinkies, or McDonald's (can someone link those stories? I'm on my phone). But the nutritional profile of your food makes zero difference in terms of weight loss.
Wow thanks again for your nice words you are a lovely person to chat with. There are many different ways to express your ideas, i find yours very unpleasant. Nobody asked for blind support this is an application community forum not a scientific event, chill out. Ok I get it, you've been here for I while I just got in, you feel entitled, fine with me, But I definitely not want to argue, so whatever you say it's fine with me, but if you might use a different approach that would be very much appreciated. At this point I am not interested anymore in this thread as it turned out in a completely different direction and I am not looking to prevail over anyone here, so I leave to you all. Thanks to all of the people who kindly partecipated and offered their own thoughts and belief.
I even bolded the part where you said you thought "we were here to help and support each other....
You posted a common misperception (" eating bad" makes you fat). Science can help answer the question in the OP, which directly relates to the "eating bad" issue: glucose is glucose; fructose is fructose; your body does not know the source, all it knows is the molecule.0 -
Yes, fructose is different from sucrose is different from maltose, is different from lactose, is different from glucose, but your body does close enough to the same thing with all of them that there is no practical difference.0
-
ok sorry if I said "eating bad" without specifying, but you cannot know what I mean by saying eating bad so you can't predict what I mean by that. To me eating bad is many different things, some of these are eating more than what one is supposed to eat (exactly what you stated), eating junk food (to me this is eating bad, again TO ME), eating anything which contains artificial sweeteners, eating anything that contain high fructose corn syrup, even drinking soda to me is eating bad. Whatever I say it is my personal opinion. I personally think for my own body and health that to me is better to eat products from the earth (fruits,vegetables,seeds,nuts and some grains) than processed food. I think this is what is best for me, I never had a twinkie or an oreo and I am keeping them away now and forever. Then one is entitle to his own life style. I cited the documentary ONLY to make a reference on how they were explaining how sugars where absorbed by body, assuming that because I cited a documentary then I believe everything that's in it, that is also another wrong assumption. thank you .0
-
lithezebra wrote: »Yes, fructose is different from sucrose is different from maltose, is different from lactose, is different from glucose, but your body does close enough to the same thing with all of them that there is no practical difference.
Interesting this belief seems to have changed in five days based on linking to the Lustig study.0
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