Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Hot topics! Sugar in fruit
Replies
-
Marone a mi!0
-
ForecasterJason wrote: »
But you stated that you did eat "a lot" of sugar, so according to what you're saying there means you were eating an unhealthy diet. Which is what my claim on sugar, the immune system, allergies, autoimmune diseases, etc. has been about.ForecasterJason wrote: »
My claim is that eating a lot of sugar in the context of a diet that is not healthy overall can lead to a multitude of problems. If one is eating a healthful diet then the effect is most likely going to be minimized.lemurcat12 wrote: »This is not support for Jason's argument, which is that even if one does not gain weight and eats a healthful balanced diet that consuming sugar beyond a certain unidentified level (lots!) is going to be harmful.
(I happen to think the WHO et al. have sensible advise on this, but someone who counts calories and watches overall nutrients and is quite active is going to be able to make an individual decision about the amount of added sugar that is appropriate that might be different, just as many ignore for what they consider good reason the recommendations re sat fat or sodium.)
If one eats an overall healthful diet, they are by default not eating "a lot" of sugar. That said, eating "a lot" of any singular macro nutrient will more then likely lead to an unhealthy diet that is out of balance. So we come back to square 1. Why single out sugar? I bet if we were having this discussion in the 70's and 80's we'd be talking about fat. Same nonsense...
I also stated if there is an energy balance, and nutritional needs are met, extra calories from any source are a non issue. So, what would be "a lot" of sugar (calories) for one may not be "a lot" of sugar (calories) for another...0 -
After looking back at that page when I stated that, it appeared as though we were all in agreement after that, until ndj asked what there was to debate. I then brought up J72's post about eating "a lot" of sugar, which is when it really began in earnest.lemurcat12 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
My claim is that eating a lot of sugar in the context of a diet that is not healthy overall can lead to a multitude of problems. If one is eating a healthful diet then the effect is most likely going to be minimized.lemurcat12 wrote: »This is not support for Jason's argument, which is that even if one does not gain weight and eats a healthful balanced diet that consuming sugar beyond a certain unidentified level (lots!) is going to be harmful.
(I happen to think the WHO et al. have sensible advise on this, but someone who counts calories and watches overall nutrients and is quite active is going to be able to make an individual decision about the amount of added sugar that is appropriate that might be different, just as many ignore for what they consider good reason the recommendations re sat fat or sodium.)
So you are saying people should, ideally, eat healthfully? I don't think anyone disagrees.
Where this (boring) tangent started was when you jumped in in response to the argument that what has changed is not kids eating less healthfully than in the past*, but that kids are a lot less active than in the past, to assert that kids eat much worse and more sugar (including lots of sugar from fruit, which you called out as a potential problem) and therefore have more autoimmune diseases and allergies, because sugar.
That's what people are disagreeing with.
*For the record, I think activity is the most significant part for childhood obesity, but don't discount the possibility that it is partially diet. There are differences in percentage of children who are obese that tracks various income and race differences, and I think it is possible that in some subcultures eating habits are worse than they used to be for various reasons, and worse than in the country as a whole. I am always amazed at how many people on MFP seem never to have eaten a vegetable and to see it as nearly impossible, as that was assumed -- you would eat your vegetables and they were part of a healthful diet -- when I was growing up. I also think home cooked meals may be less common (not that you can't have good meals that are not home cooked), and there are economic and social reasons for that. I don't think the big difference is sugar in and of itself.
0 -
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12727640FunkyTobias wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
There are studies that show what a mother eats doing the pregnancy can affect the child's immune system. So what I stated previously still applies.Alluminati wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Not enough zinc, vitamin C, or vitamin D are among the dietary factors that can play a role in that. Similarly, an unbalanced diet, especially one that is comprised of generous amounts of low nutrient dense foods with not much highly nutritious food is another factor.Alluminati wrote: »
Like what, pray tell?ForecasterJason wrote: »
Because there are many other things that impact the function of the immune system aside from sugar. There are a multitude of other dietary factors that may have been involved in your case.Alluminati wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I guess I still wasn't clear enough. Eating excessive amounts of sugar has been shown to negatively impact the immune system. Autoimmune diseases and allergies are related to an immune system not functioning optimally. If one is eating an appropriate amount of sugar, I don't think there's a problem there.WinoGelato wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
As I stated on page 16, "Autoimmune disorders and allergies can be indirectly related to sugar in fruit. A diet high in sugar can negatively impact the immune system, so if one is eating excessive amounts of sugar from fruit then that could become an issue." Of course, that's not to say that sugar in fruit causes those conditions. But if one is eating a lot of sugar and not enough of certain nutrients, then that can have implications for those conditions.WinoGelato wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Autoimmune diseases and allergies (not necessarily just food, but environmental as well) are two.ForecasterJason wrote: »
So am I correct in that, assuming one is active and at a healthy weight and bodyfat percentage, the only reason why there are more and more people getting certain conditions at a young age is because of random genetic mutations. Still doesn't make sense to me…I grew up in the 70's in NY. We ate almost exclusively canned, boxed, and frozen food. Fish sticks, tater tots, boxed flavored rice, canned veggies, frozen waffles, Wonder bread, Hostess cupcakes, Chips Ahoy cookies, hot dogs, pasta, ice cream, OJ from concentrate, ice tea mix. We had soda and chips or popcorn once or twice a week. So I'm guessing a lot of sugar and salt, not much protein, and really the only fresh food we ate was meat and a little fruit. Our diet was pretty typical of the middle class families we knew at least.
However, we spent most of our time running around outside. I was a string bean. Always on the skinny side, until I got to my mid-twenties and got an office job. Having said that, I've never been "overweight" just the high side of healthy. Lost weight in my twenties and thirties by increasing exercise. Lost weight this time by counting calories. I certainly eat a better diet now, but still probably 50% processed/ 50% whole. I eat ice cream, chocolate, cookies, pasta, whenever I want, but in portion sizes that fit my calorie goal. Getting my activity level up while controlling my calories in was the key to getting to my current weight.
I have always had low blood pressure, normal blood sugar, rarely catch colds and never the flu, haven't taken a prescription medication since I had my last earache when I was a kid. So my n=1 says I was and am fine eating a moderate amount of sugar. My minor problems were caused by not balancing my calories in with my activity level.
And it's silly to say kids used to be healthier. In the 70's bronchitis and ear infections went around practically every month. There were plenty of "sickly" kids in my school who weren't diagnosed with anything but clearly weren't healthy. There were several children in my elementary and high school classes that we lost to cancer. And as @jgnatca said, if you go back to earlier in the century children suffered from all kinds of health problems we don't even think about anymore.
Nothing I've read in this never-ending thread has convinced me the problem is anything other than obesity. If obese kids (and adults) ate less of everything and moved a lot more, they would lose weight and improve their health markers.
What conditions are children at a healthy weight getting more often?
And what does that have to do with sugar?
I looked back to page 16 and I don't see that you posted any studies related to your claims that autoimmune disorders and allergies are indirectly related to sugar in fruit.
Also curious why fruit causes these issues? I thought you were saying it was only added sugar that was the problem, now you are saying that fruit is really to blame for all of our woes?
Then how do you explain a kid who doesn't like fruit, hates sugary treats, doesn't drink soda, and has some of the Big 8 allergies?
Being that the child was diagnosed with allergies at 18 months old, after having kept journals for them since they were about 6 months old, your speculation doesn't make any sense. Maybe stop making things up as you go along and really research allergies and auto immune disease before speaking of them, then maybe you'll be able to make your points a little better.
I like how you claim "it's been shown " and "there are studies" but never cite anything.
http://kellymom.com/pregnancy/bf-prep/how_breastmilk_protects_newborns/
0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
After looking back at that page when I stated that, it appeared as though we were all in agreement after that, until ndj asked what there was to debate. I then brought up J72's post about eating "a lot" of sugar, which is when it really began in earnest.lemurcat12 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
My claim is that eating a lot of sugar in the context of a diet that is not healthy overall can lead to a multitude of problems. If one is eating a healthful diet then the effect is most likely going to be minimized.lemurcat12 wrote: »This is not support for Jason's argument, which is that even if one does not gain weight and eats a healthful balanced diet that consuming sugar beyond a certain unidentified level (lots!) is going to be harmful.
(I happen to think the WHO et al. have sensible advise on this, but someone who counts calories and watches overall nutrients and is quite active is going to be able to make an individual decision about the amount of added sugar that is appropriate that might be different, just as many ignore for what they consider good reason the recommendations re sat fat or sodium.)
So you are saying people should, ideally, eat healthfully? I don't think anyone disagrees.
Where this (boring) tangent started was when you jumped in in response to the argument that what has changed is not kids eating less healthfully than in the past*, but that kids are a lot less active than in the past, to assert that kids eat much worse and more sugar (including lots of sugar from fruit, which you called out as a potential problem) and therefore have more autoimmune diseases and allergies, because sugar.
That's what people are disagreeing with.
*For the record, I think activity is the most significant part for childhood obesity, but don't discount the possibility that it is partially diet. There are differences in percentage of children who are obese that tracks various income and race differences, and I think it is possible that in some subcultures eating habits are worse than they used to be for various reasons, and worse than in the country as a whole. I am always amazed at how many people on MFP seem never to have eaten a vegetable and to see it as nearly impossible, as that was assumed -- you would eat your vegetables and they were part of a healthful diet -- when I was growing up. I also think home cooked meals may be less common (not that you can't have good meals that are not home cooked), and there are economic and social reasons for that. I don't think the big difference is sugar in and of itself.
I think because the term "a lot" is relative. If it is enough to cause someone to gain weight and become obese then it would be "a lot" to me. If not, then no...0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12727640FunkyTobias wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
There are studies that show what a mother eats doing the pregnancy can affect the child's immune system. So what I stated previously still applies.Alluminati wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Not enough zinc, vitamin C, or vitamin D are among the dietary factors that can play a role in that. Similarly, an unbalanced diet, especially one that is comprised of generous amounts of low nutrient dense foods with not much highly nutritious food is another factor.Alluminati wrote: »
Like what, pray tell?ForecasterJason wrote: »
Because there are many other things that impact the function of the immune system aside from sugar. There are a multitude of other dietary factors that may have been involved in your case.Alluminati wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I guess I still wasn't clear enough. Eating excessive amounts of sugar has been shown to negatively impact the immune system. Autoimmune diseases and allergies are related to an immune system not functioning optimally. If one is eating an appropriate amount of sugar, I don't think there's a problem there.WinoGelato wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
As I stated on page 16, "Autoimmune disorders and allergies can be indirectly related to sugar in fruit. A diet high in sugar can negatively impact the immune system, so if one is eating excessive amounts of sugar from fruit then that could become an issue." Of course, that's not to say that sugar in fruit causes those conditions. But if one is eating a lot of sugar and not enough of certain nutrients, then that can have implications for those conditions.WinoGelato wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Autoimmune diseases and allergies (not necessarily just food, but environmental as well) are two.ForecasterJason wrote: »
So am I correct in that, assuming one is active and at a healthy weight and bodyfat percentage, the only reason why there are more and more people getting certain conditions at a young age is because of random genetic mutations. Still doesn't make sense to me…I grew up in the 70's in NY. We ate almost exclusively canned, boxed, and frozen food. Fish sticks, tater tots, boxed flavored rice, canned veggies, frozen waffles, Wonder bread, Hostess cupcakes, Chips Ahoy cookies, hot dogs, pasta, ice cream, OJ from concentrate, ice tea mix. We had soda and chips or popcorn once or twice a week. So I'm guessing a lot of sugar and salt, not much protein, and really the only fresh food we ate was meat and a little fruit. Our diet was pretty typical of the middle class families we knew at least.
However, we spent most of our time running around outside. I was a string bean. Always on the skinny side, until I got to my mid-twenties and got an office job. Having said that, I've never been "overweight" just the high side of healthy. Lost weight in my twenties and thirties by increasing exercise. Lost weight this time by counting calories. I certainly eat a better diet now, but still probably 50% processed/ 50% whole. I eat ice cream, chocolate, cookies, pasta, whenever I want, but in portion sizes that fit my calorie goal. Getting my activity level up while controlling my calories in was the key to getting to my current weight.
I have always had low blood pressure, normal blood sugar, rarely catch colds and never the flu, haven't taken a prescription medication since I had my last earache when I was a kid. So my n=1 says I was and am fine eating a moderate amount of sugar. My minor problems were caused by not balancing my calories in with my activity level.
And it's silly to say kids used to be healthier. In the 70's bronchitis and ear infections went around practically every month. There were plenty of "sickly" kids in my school who weren't diagnosed with anything but clearly weren't healthy. There were several children in my elementary and high school classes that we lost to cancer. And as @jgnatca said, if you go back to earlier in the century children suffered from all kinds of health problems we don't even think about anymore.
Nothing I've read in this never-ending thread has convinced me the problem is anything other than obesity. If obese kids (and adults) ate less of everything and moved a lot more, they would lose weight and improve their health markers.
What conditions are children at a healthy weight getting more often?
And what does that have to do with sugar?
I looked back to page 16 and I don't see that you posted any studies related to your claims that autoimmune disorders and allergies are indirectly related to sugar in fruit.
Also curious why fruit causes these issues? I thought you were saying it was only added sugar that was the problem, now you are saying that fruit is really to blame for all of our woes?
Then how do you explain a kid who doesn't like fruit, hates sugary treats, doesn't drink soda, and has some of the Big 8 allergies?
Being that the child was diagnosed with allergies at 18 months old, after having kept journals for them since they were about 6 months old, your speculation doesn't make any sense. Maybe stop making things up as you go along and really research allergies and auto immune disease before speaking of them, then maybe you'll be able to make your points a little better.
I like how you claim "it's been shown " and "there are studies" but never cite anything.
http://kellymom.com/pregnancy/bf-prep/how_breastmilk_protects_newborns/
You are posting the wrong links.0 -
Yeah, I figured. But are you suggesting that a mother's diet and nutrient levels does not affect the child's immune system? Because if not, then I shouldn't need to provide sources if we agree that it can.queenliz99 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12727640FunkyTobias wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
There are studies that show what a mother eats doing the pregnancy can affect the child's immune system. So what I stated previously still applies.Alluminati wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Not enough zinc, vitamin C, or vitamin D are among the dietary factors that can play a role in that. Similarly, an unbalanced diet, especially one that is comprised of generous amounts of low nutrient dense foods with not much highly nutritious food is another factor.Alluminati wrote: »
Like what, pray tell?ForecasterJason wrote: »
Because there are many other things that impact the function of the immune system aside from sugar. There are a multitude of other dietary factors that may have been involved in your case.Alluminati wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I guess I still wasn't clear enough. Eating excessive amounts of sugar has been shown to negatively impact the immune system. Autoimmune diseases and allergies are related to an immune system not functioning optimally. If one is eating an appropriate amount of sugar, I don't think there's a problem there.WinoGelato wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
As I stated on page 16, "Autoimmune disorders and allergies can be indirectly related to sugar in fruit. A diet high in sugar can negatively impact the immune system, so if one is eating excessive amounts of sugar from fruit then that could become an issue." Of course, that's not to say that sugar in fruit causes those conditions. But if one is eating a lot of sugar and not enough of certain nutrients, then that can have implications for those conditions.WinoGelato wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Autoimmune diseases and allergies (not necessarily just food, but environmental as well) are two.ForecasterJason wrote: »
So am I correct in that, assuming one is active and at a healthy weight and bodyfat percentage, the only reason why there are more and more people getting certain conditions at a young age is because of random genetic mutations. Still doesn't make sense to me…I grew up in the 70's in NY. We ate almost exclusively canned, boxed, and frozen food. Fish sticks, tater tots, boxed flavored rice, canned veggies, frozen waffles, Wonder bread, Hostess cupcakes, Chips Ahoy cookies, hot dogs, pasta, ice cream, OJ from concentrate, ice tea mix. We had soda and chips or popcorn once or twice a week. So I'm guessing a lot of sugar and salt, not much protein, and really the only fresh food we ate was meat and a little fruit. Our diet was pretty typical of the middle class families we knew at least.
However, we spent most of our time running around outside. I was a string bean. Always on the skinny side, until I got to my mid-twenties and got an office job. Having said that, I've never been "overweight" just the high side of healthy. Lost weight in my twenties and thirties by increasing exercise. Lost weight this time by counting calories. I certainly eat a better diet now, but still probably 50% processed/ 50% whole. I eat ice cream, chocolate, cookies, pasta, whenever I want, but in portion sizes that fit my calorie goal. Getting my activity level up while controlling my calories in was the key to getting to my current weight.
I have always had low blood pressure, normal blood sugar, rarely catch colds and never the flu, haven't taken a prescription medication since I had my last earache when I was a kid. So my n=1 says I was and am fine eating a moderate amount of sugar. My minor problems were caused by not balancing my calories in with my activity level.
And it's silly to say kids used to be healthier. In the 70's bronchitis and ear infections went around practically every month. There were plenty of "sickly" kids in my school who weren't diagnosed with anything but clearly weren't healthy. There were several children in my elementary and high school classes that we lost to cancer. And as @jgnatca said, if you go back to earlier in the century children suffered from all kinds of health problems we don't even think about anymore.
Nothing I've read in this never-ending thread has convinced me the problem is anything other than obesity. If obese kids (and adults) ate less of everything and moved a lot more, they would lose weight and improve their health markers.
What conditions are children at a healthy weight getting more often?
And what does that have to do with sugar?
I looked back to page 16 and I don't see that you posted any studies related to your claims that autoimmune disorders and allergies are indirectly related to sugar in fruit.
Also curious why fruit causes these issues? I thought you were saying it was only added sugar that was the problem, now you are saying that fruit is really to blame for all of our woes?
Then how do you explain a kid who doesn't like fruit, hates sugary treats, doesn't drink soda, and has some of the Big 8 allergies?
Being that the child was diagnosed with allergies at 18 months old, after having kept journals for them since they were about 6 months old, your speculation doesn't make any sense. Maybe stop making things up as you go along and really research allergies and auto immune disease before speaking of them, then maybe you'll be able to make your points a little better.
I like how you claim "it's been shown " and "there are studies" but never cite anything.
http://kellymom.com/pregnancy/bf-prep/how_breastmilk_protects_newborns/
You are posting the wrong links.
0 -
I'm getting dizzy
0 -
My conclusion is that sugar is only an issue with people who have a weight issue (barring any health issue like diabetes) and blame sugar for it.
The rest of us fit and lean people eat it to our life's content and enjoy it immensely.
There should only be one debate on sugar: Am I eating more than I need to promote weight loss/maintenance?
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
5 -
It is known.0
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »It is known.
Argument ad Dothrakium5 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
Yeah, I figured. But are you suggesting that a mother's diet and nutrient levels does not affect the child's immune system? Because if not, then I shouldn't need to provide sources if we agree that it can.queenliz99 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12727640FunkyTobias wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
There are studies that show what a mother eats doing the pregnancy can affect the child's immune system. So what I stated previously still applies.Alluminati wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Not enough zinc, vitamin C, or vitamin D are among the dietary factors that can play a role in that. Similarly, an unbalanced diet, especially one that is comprised of generous amounts of low nutrient dense foods with not much highly nutritious food is another factor.Alluminati wrote: »
Like what, pray tell?ForecasterJason wrote: »
Because there are many other things that impact the function of the immune system aside from sugar. There are a multitude of other dietary factors that may have been involved in your case.Alluminati wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I guess I still wasn't clear enough. Eating excessive amounts of sugar has been shown to negatively impact the immune system. Autoimmune diseases and allergies are related to an immune system not functioning optimally. If one is eating an appropriate amount of sugar, I don't think there's a problem there.WinoGelato wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
As I stated on page 16, "Autoimmune disorders and allergies can be indirectly related to sugar in fruit. A diet high in sugar can negatively impact the immune system, so if one is eating excessive amounts of sugar from fruit then that could become an issue." Of course, that's not to say that sugar in fruit causes those conditions. But if one is eating a lot of sugar and not enough of certain nutrients, then that can have implications for those conditions.WinoGelato wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Autoimmune diseases and allergies (not necessarily just food, but environmental as well) are two.ForecasterJason wrote: »
So am I correct in that, assuming one is active and at a healthy weight and bodyfat percentage, the only reason why there are more and more people getting certain conditions at a young age is because of random genetic mutations. Still doesn't make sense to me…I grew up in the 70's in NY. We ate almost exclusively canned, boxed, and frozen food. Fish sticks, tater tots, boxed flavored rice, canned veggies, frozen waffles, Wonder bread, Hostess cupcakes, Chips Ahoy cookies, hot dogs, pasta, ice cream, OJ from concentrate, ice tea mix. We had soda and chips or popcorn once or twice a week. So I'm guessing a lot of sugar and salt, not much protein, and really the only fresh food we ate was meat and a little fruit. Our diet was pretty typical of the middle class families we knew at least.
However, we spent most of our time running around outside. I was a string bean. Always on the skinny side, until I got to my mid-twenties and got an office job. Having said that, I've never been "overweight" just the high side of healthy. Lost weight in my twenties and thirties by increasing exercise. Lost weight this time by counting calories. I certainly eat a better diet now, but still probably 50% processed/ 50% whole. I eat ice cream, chocolate, cookies, pasta, whenever I want, but in portion sizes that fit my calorie goal. Getting my activity level up while controlling my calories in was the key to getting to my current weight.
I have always had low blood pressure, normal blood sugar, rarely catch colds and never the flu, haven't taken a prescription medication since I had my last earache when I was a kid. So my n=1 says I was and am fine eating a moderate amount of sugar. My minor problems were caused by not balancing my calories in with my activity level.
And it's silly to say kids used to be healthier. In the 70's bronchitis and ear infections went around practically every month. There were plenty of "sickly" kids in my school who weren't diagnosed with anything but clearly weren't healthy. There were several children in my elementary and high school classes that we lost to cancer. And as @jgnatca said, if you go back to earlier in the century children suffered from all kinds of health problems we don't even think about anymore.
Nothing I've read in this never-ending thread has convinced me the problem is anything other than obesity. If obese kids (and adults) ate less of everything and moved a lot more, they would lose weight and improve their health markers.
What conditions are children at a healthy weight getting more often?
And what does that have to do with sugar?
I looked back to page 16 and I don't see that you posted any studies related to your claims that autoimmune disorders and allergies are indirectly related to sugar in fruit.
Also curious why fruit causes these issues? I thought you were saying it was only added sugar that was the problem, now you are saying that fruit is really to blame for all of our woes?
Then how do you explain a kid who doesn't like fruit, hates sugary treats, doesn't drink soda, and has some of the Big 8 allergies?
Being that the child was diagnosed with allergies at 18 months old, after having kept journals for them since they were about 6 months old, your speculation doesn't make any sense. Maybe stop making things up as you go along and really research allergies and auto immune disease before speaking of them, then maybe you'll be able to make your points a little better.
I like how you claim "it's been shown " and "there are studies" but never cite anything.
http://kellymom.com/pregnancy/bf-prep/how_breastmilk_protects_newborns/
You are posting the wrong links.
Your links are not backing up your claims regarding sugar.0 -
1
-
That was in response to a mother's diet impacting the immune system, separate from sugar being involved in that.queenliz99 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Yeah, I figured. But are you suggesting that a mother's diet and nutrient levels does not affect the child's immune system? Because if not, then I shouldn't need to provide sources if we agree that it can.queenliz99 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12727640FunkyTobias wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
There are studies that show what a mother eats doing the pregnancy can affect the child's immune system. So what I stated previously still applies.Alluminati wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Not enough zinc, vitamin C, or vitamin D are among the dietary factors that can play a role in that. Similarly, an unbalanced diet, especially one that is comprised of generous amounts of low nutrient dense foods with not much highly nutritious food is another factor.Alluminati wrote: »
Like what, pray tell?ForecasterJason wrote: »
Because there are many other things that impact the function of the immune system aside from sugar. There are a multitude of other dietary factors that may have been involved in your case.Alluminati wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I guess I still wasn't clear enough. Eating excessive amounts of sugar has been shown to negatively impact the immune system. Autoimmune diseases and allergies are related to an immune system not functioning optimally. If one is eating an appropriate amount of sugar, I don't think there's a problem there.WinoGelato wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
As I stated on page 16, "Autoimmune disorders and allergies can be indirectly related to sugar in fruit. A diet high in sugar can negatively impact the immune system, so if one is eating excessive amounts of sugar from fruit then that could become an issue." Of course, that's not to say that sugar in fruit causes those conditions. But if one is eating a lot of sugar and not enough of certain nutrients, then that can have implications for those conditions.WinoGelato wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Autoimmune diseases and allergies (not necessarily just food, but environmental as well) are two.ForecasterJason wrote: »
So am I correct in that, assuming one is active and at a healthy weight and bodyfat percentage, the only reason why there are more and more people getting certain conditions at a young age is because of random genetic mutations. Still doesn't make sense to me…I grew up in the 70's in NY. We ate almost exclusively canned, boxed, and frozen food. Fish sticks, tater tots, boxed flavored rice, canned veggies, frozen waffles, Wonder bread, Hostess cupcakes, Chips Ahoy cookies, hot dogs, pasta, ice cream, OJ from concentrate, ice tea mix. We had soda and chips or popcorn once or twice a week. So I'm guessing a lot of sugar and salt, not much protein, and really the only fresh food we ate was meat and a little fruit. Our diet was pretty typical of the middle class families we knew at least.
However, we spent most of our time running around outside. I was a string bean. Always on the skinny side, until I got to my mid-twenties and got an office job. Having said that, I've never been "overweight" just the high side of healthy. Lost weight in my twenties and thirties by increasing exercise. Lost weight this time by counting calories. I certainly eat a better diet now, but still probably 50% processed/ 50% whole. I eat ice cream, chocolate, cookies, pasta, whenever I want, but in portion sizes that fit my calorie goal. Getting my activity level up while controlling my calories in was the key to getting to my current weight.
I have always had low blood pressure, normal blood sugar, rarely catch colds and never the flu, haven't taken a prescription medication since I had my last earache when I was a kid. So my n=1 says I was and am fine eating a moderate amount of sugar. My minor problems were caused by not balancing my calories in with my activity level.
And it's silly to say kids used to be healthier. In the 70's bronchitis and ear infections went around practically every month. There were plenty of "sickly" kids in my school who weren't diagnosed with anything but clearly weren't healthy. There were several children in my elementary and high school classes that we lost to cancer. And as @jgnatca said, if you go back to earlier in the century children suffered from all kinds of health problems we don't even think about anymore.
Nothing I've read in this never-ending thread has convinced me the problem is anything other than obesity. If obese kids (and adults) ate less of everything and moved a lot more, they would lose weight and improve their health markers.
What conditions are children at a healthy weight getting more often?
And what does that have to do with sugar?
I looked back to page 16 and I don't see that you posted any studies related to your claims that autoimmune disorders and allergies are indirectly related to sugar in fruit.
Also curious why fruit causes these issues? I thought you were saying it was only added sugar that was the problem, now you are saying that fruit is really to blame for all of our woes?
Then how do you explain a kid who doesn't like fruit, hates sugary treats, doesn't drink soda, and has some of the Big 8 allergies?
Being that the child was diagnosed with allergies at 18 months old, after having kept journals for them since they were about 6 months old, your speculation doesn't make any sense. Maybe stop making things up as you go along and really research allergies and auto immune disease before speaking of them, then maybe you'll be able to make your points a little better.
I like how you claim "it's been shown " and "there are studies" but never cite anything.
http://kellymom.com/pregnancy/bf-prep/how_breastmilk_protects_newborns/
You are posting the wrong links.
Your links are not backing up your claims regarding sugar.0 -
And getting back on topic, I was already planning on eating a fruit salad with strawberries and blackberries as a snack today, and I'd already eaten a banana this morning. I thought I would take a pic of me actually eating the salad. I don't think this is too much fruit sugar for one day.
2 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
That was in response to a mother's diet impacting the immune system, separate from sugar being involved in that.queenliz99 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Yeah, I figured. But are you suggesting that a mother's diet and nutrient levels does not affect the child's immune system? Because if not, then I shouldn't need to provide sources if we agree that it can.queenliz99 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12727640FunkyTobias wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
There are studies that show what a mother eats doing the pregnancy can affect the child's immune system. So what I stated previously still applies.Alluminati wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Not enough zinc, vitamin C, or vitamin D are among the dietary factors that can play a role in that. Similarly, an unbalanced diet, especially one that is comprised of generous amounts of low nutrient dense foods with not much highly nutritious food is another factor.Alluminati wrote: »
Like what, pray tell?ForecasterJason wrote: »
Because there are many other things that impact the function of the immune system aside from sugar. There are a multitude of other dietary factors that may have been involved in your case.Alluminati wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I guess I still wasn't clear enough. Eating excessive amounts of sugar has been shown to negatively impact the immune system. Autoimmune diseases and allergies are related to an immune system not functioning optimally. If one is eating an appropriate amount of sugar, I don't think there's a problem there.WinoGelato wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
As I stated on page 16, "Autoimmune disorders and allergies can be indirectly related to sugar in fruit. A diet high in sugar can negatively impact the immune system, so if one is eating excessive amounts of sugar from fruit then that could become an issue." Of course, that's not to say that sugar in fruit causes those conditions. But if one is eating a lot of sugar and not enough of certain nutrients, then that can have implications for those conditions.WinoGelato wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Autoimmune diseases and allergies (not necessarily just food, but environmental as well) are two.ForecasterJason wrote: »
So am I correct in that, assuming one is active and at a healthy weight and bodyfat percentage, the only reason why there are more and more people getting certain conditions at a young age is because of random genetic mutations. Still doesn't make sense to me…I grew up in the 70's in NY. We ate almost exclusively canned, boxed, and frozen food. Fish sticks, tater tots, boxed flavored rice, canned veggies, frozen waffles, Wonder bread, Hostess cupcakes, Chips Ahoy cookies, hot dogs, pasta, ice cream, OJ from concentrate, ice tea mix. We had soda and chips or popcorn once or twice a week. So I'm guessing a lot of sugar and salt, not much protein, and really the only fresh food we ate was meat and a little fruit. Our diet was pretty typical of the middle class families we knew at least.
However, we spent most of our time running around outside. I was a string bean. Always on the skinny side, until I got to my mid-twenties and got an office job. Having said that, I've never been "overweight" just the high side of healthy. Lost weight in my twenties and thirties by increasing exercise. Lost weight this time by counting calories. I certainly eat a better diet now, but still probably 50% processed/ 50% whole. I eat ice cream, chocolate, cookies, pasta, whenever I want, but in portion sizes that fit my calorie goal. Getting my activity level up while controlling my calories in was the key to getting to my current weight.
I have always had low blood pressure, normal blood sugar, rarely catch colds and never the flu, haven't taken a prescription medication since I had my last earache when I was a kid. So my n=1 says I was and am fine eating a moderate amount of sugar. My minor problems were caused by not balancing my calories in with my activity level.
And it's silly to say kids used to be healthier. In the 70's bronchitis and ear infections went around practically every month. There were plenty of "sickly" kids in my school who weren't diagnosed with anything but clearly weren't healthy. There were several children in my elementary and high school classes that we lost to cancer. And as @jgnatca said, if you go back to earlier in the century children suffered from all kinds of health problems we don't even think about anymore.
Nothing I've read in this never-ending thread has convinced me the problem is anything other than obesity. If obese kids (and adults) ate less of everything and moved a lot more, they would lose weight and improve their health markers.
What conditions are children at a healthy weight getting more often?
And what does that have to do with sugar?
I looked back to page 16 and I don't see that you posted any studies related to your claims that autoimmune disorders and allergies are indirectly related to sugar in fruit.
Also curious why fruit causes these issues? I thought you were saying it was only added sugar that was the problem, now you are saying that fruit is really to blame for all of our woes?
Then how do you explain a kid who doesn't like fruit, hates sugary treats, doesn't drink soda, and has some of the Big 8 allergies?
Being that the child was diagnosed with allergies at 18 months old, after having kept journals for them since they were about 6 months old, your speculation doesn't make any sense. Maybe stop making things up as you go along and really research allergies and auto immune disease before speaking of them, then maybe you'll be able to make your points a little better.
I like how you claim "it's been shown " and "there are studies" but never cite anything.
http://kellymom.com/pregnancy/bf-prep/how_breastmilk_protects_newborns/
You are posting the wrong links.
Your links are not backing up your claims regarding sugar.
OK? both links have nothing to do with sugar in which you claim there is an increase in autoimmune disease and allergies.0 -
I thought I was being asked to provide links for the mother's diet and child immune system point.queenliz99 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
That was in response to a mother's diet impacting the immune system, separate from sugar being involved in that.queenliz99 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Yeah, I figured. But are you suggesting that a mother's diet and nutrient levels does not affect the child's immune system? Because if not, then I shouldn't need to provide sources if we agree that it can.queenliz99 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12727640FunkyTobias wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
There are studies that show what a mother eats doing the pregnancy can affect the child's immune system. So what I stated previously still applies.Alluminati wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Not enough zinc, vitamin C, or vitamin D are among the dietary factors that can play a role in that. Similarly, an unbalanced diet, especially one that is comprised of generous amounts of low nutrient dense foods with not much highly nutritious food is another factor.Alluminati wrote: »
Like what, pray tell?ForecasterJason wrote: »
Because there are many other things that impact the function of the immune system aside from sugar. There are a multitude of other dietary factors that may have been involved in your case.Alluminati wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I guess I still wasn't clear enough. Eating excessive amounts of sugar has been shown to negatively impact the immune system. Autoimmune diseases and allergies are related to an immune system not functioning optimally. If one is eating an appropriate amount of sugar, I don't think there's a problem there.WinoGelato wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
As I stated on page 16, "Autoimmune disorders and allergies can be indirectly related to sugar in fruit. A diet high in sugar can negatively impact the immune system, so if one is eating excessive amounts of sugar from fruit then that could become an issue." Of course, that's not to say that sugar in fruit causes those conditions. But if one is eating a lot of sugar and not enough of certain nutrients, then that can have implications for those conditions.WinoGelato wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Autoimmune diseases and allergies (not necessarily just food, but environmental as well) are two.ForecasterJason wrote: »
So am I correct in that, assuming one is active and at a healthy weight and bodyfat percentage, the only reason why there are more and more people getting certain conditions at a young age is because of random genetic mutations. Still doesn't make sense to me…I grew up in the 70's in NY. We ate almost exclusively canned, boxed, and frozen food. Fish sticks, tater tots, boxed flavored rice, canned veggies, frozen waffles, Wonder bread, Hostess cupcakes, Chips Ahoy cookies, hot dogs, pasta, ice cream, OJ from concentrate, ice tea mix. We had soda and chips or popcorn once or twice a week. So I'm guessing a lot of sugar and salt, not much protein, and really the only fresh food we ate was meat and a little fruit. Our diet was pretty typical of the middle class families we knew at least.
However, we spent most of our time running around outside. I was a string bean. Always on the skinny side, until I got to my mid-twenties and got an office job. Having said that, I've never been "overweight" just the high side of healthy. Lost weight in my twenties and thirties by increasing exercise. Lost weight this time by counting calories. I certainly eat a better diet now, but still probably 50% processed/ 50% whole. I eat ice cream, chocolate, cookies, pasta, whenever I want, but in portion sizes that fit my calorie goal. Getting my activity level up while controlling my calories in was the key to getting to my current weight.
I have always had low blood pressure, normal blood sugar, rarely catch colds and never the flu, haven't taken a prescription medication since I had my last earache when I was a kid. So my n=1 says I was and am fine eating a moderate amount of sugar. My minor problems were caused by not balancing my calories in with my activity level.
And it's silly to say kids used to be healthier. In the 70's bronchitis and ear infections went around practically every month. There were plenty of "sickly" kids in my school who weren't diagnosed with anything but clearly weren't healthy. There were several children in my elementary and high school classes that we lost to cancer. And as @jgnatca said, if you go back to earlier in the century children suffered from all kinds of health problems we don't even think about anymore.
Nothing I've read in this never-ending thread has convinced me the problem is anything other than obesity. If obese kids (and adults) ate less of everything and moved a lot more, they would lose weight and improve their health markers.
What conditions are children at a healthy weight getting more often?
And what does that have to do with sugar?
I looked back to page 16 and I don't see that you posted any studies related to your claims that autoimmune disorders and allergies are indirectly related to sugar in fruit.
Also curious why fruit causes these issues? I thought you were saying it was only added sugar that was the problem, now you are saying that fruit is really to blame for all of our woes?
Then how do you explain a kid who doesn't like fruit, hates sugary treats, doesn't drink soda, and has some of the Big 8 allergies?
Being that the child was diagnosed with allergies at 18 months old, after having kept journals for them since they were about 6 months old, your speculation doesn't make any sense. Maybe stop making things up as you go along and really research allergies and auto immune disease before speaking of them, then maybe you'll be able to make your points a little better.
I like how you claim "it's been shown " and "there are studies" but never cite anything.
http://kellymom.com/pregnancy/bf-prep/how_breastmilk_protects_newborns/
You are posting the wrong links.
Your links are not backing up your claims regarding sugar.
OK? both links have nothing to do with sugar in which you claim there is an increase in autoimmune disease and allergies.
Here's one on the immune system and sugar. Yes it's an old study, but at least Lustig didn't write it.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/26/11/1180.abstract
Also, I wasn't claiming that increased sugar consumption directly causes an increase in autoimmune diseases and allergies. I said that excessive sugar consumption compromises immune function. A compromised immune system can then lead to allergies and autoimmune diseases. I also mentioned that there are multiple other factors that can compromise the immune system aside from excessive sugar.
0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
I thought I was being asked to provide links for the mother's diet and child immune system point.queenliz99 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
That was in response to a mother's diet impacting the immune system, separate from sugar being involved in that.queenliz99 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Yeah, I figured. But are you suggesting that a mother's diet and nutrient levels does not affect the child's immune system? Because if not, then I shouldn't need to provide sources if we agree that it can.queenliz99 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12727640FunkyTobias wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
There are studies that show what a mother eats doing the pregnancy can affect the child's immune system. So what I stated previously still applies.Alluminati wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Not enough zinc, vitamin C, or vitamin D are among the dietary factors that can play a role in that. Similarly, an unbalanced diet, especially one that is comprised of generous amounts of low nutrient dense foods with not much highly nutritious food is another factor.Alluminati wrote: »
Like what, pray tell?ForecasterJason wrote: »
Because there are many other things that impact the function of the immune system aside from sugar. There are a multitude of other dietary factors that may have been involved in your case.Alluminati wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I guess I still wasn't clear enough. Eating excessive amounts of sugar has been shown to negatively impact the immune system. Autoimmune diseases and allergies are related to an immune system not functioning optimally. If one is eating an appropriate amount of sugar, I don't think there's a problem there.WinoGelato wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
As I stated on page 16, "Autoimmune disorders and allergies can be indirectly related to sugar in fruit. A diet high in sugar can negatively impact the immune system, so if one is eating excessive amounts of sugar from fruit then that could become an issue." Of course, that's not to say that sugar in fruit causes those conditions. But if one is eating a lot of sugar and not enough of certain nutrients, then that can have implications for those conditions.WinoGelato wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Autoimmune diseases and allergies (not necessarily just food, but environmental as well) are two.ForecasterJason wrote: »
So am I correct in that, assuming one is active and at a healthy weight and bodyfat percentage, the only reason why there are more and more people getting certain conditions at a young age is because of random genetic mutations. Still doesn't make sense to me…I grew up in the 70's in NY. We ate almost exclusively canned, boxed, and frozen food. Fish sticks, tater tots, boxed flavored rice, canned veggies, frozen waffles, Wonder bread, Hostess cupcakes, Chips Ahoy cookies, hot dogs, pasta, ice cream, OJ from concentrate, ice tea mix. We had soda and chips or popcorn once or twice a week. So I'm guessing a lot of sugar and salt, not much protein, and really the only fresh food we ate was meat and a little fruit. Our diet was pretty typical of the middle class families we knew at least.
However, we spent most of our time running around outside. I was a string bean. Always on the skinny side, until I got to my mid-twenties and got an office job. Having said that, I've never been "overweight" just the high side of healthy. Lost weight in my twenties and thirties by increasing exercise. Lost weight this time by counting calories. I certainly eat a better diet now, but still probably 50% processed/ 50% whole. I eat ice cream, chocolate, cookies, pasta, whenever I want, but in portion sizes that fit my calorie goal. Getting my activity level up while controlling my calories in was the key to getting to my current weight.
I have always had low blood pressure, normal blood sugar, rarely catch colds and never the flu, haven't taken a prescription medication since I had my last earache when I was a kid. So my n=1 says I was and am fine eating a moderate amount of sugar. My minor problems were caused by not balancing my calories in with my activity level.
And it's silly to say kids used to be healthier. In the 70's bronchitis and ear infections went around practically every month. There were plenty of "sickly" kids in my school who weren't diagnosed with anything but clearly weren't healthy. There were several children in my elementary and high school classes that we lost to cancer. And as @jgnatca said, if you go back to earlier in the century children suffered from all kinds of health problems we don't even think about anymore.
Nothing I've read in this never-ending thread has convinced me the problem is anything other than obesity. If obese kids (and adults) ate less of everything and moved a lot more, they would lose weight and improve their health markers.
What conditions are children at a healthy weight getting more often?
And what does that have to do with sugar?
I looked back to page 16 and I don't see that you posted any studies related to your claims that autoimmune disorders and allergies are indirectly related to sugar in fruit.
Also curious why fruit causes these issues? I thought you were saying it was only added sugar that was the problem, now you are saying that fruit is really to blame for all of our woes?
Then how do you explain a kid who doesn't like fruit, hates sugary treats, doesn't drink soda, and has some of the Big 8 allergies?
Being that the child was diagnosed with allergies at 18 months old, after having kept journals for them since they were about 6 months old, your speculation doesn't make any sense. Maybe stop making things up as you go along and really research allergies and auto immune disease before speaking of them, then maybe you'll be able to make your points a little better.
I like how you claim "it's been shown " and "there are studies" but never cite anything.
http://kellymom.com/pregnancy/bf-prep/how_breastmilk_protects_newborns/
You are posting the wrong links.
Your links are not backing up your claims regarding sugar.
OK? both links have nothing to do with sugar in which you claim there is an increase in autoimmune disease and allergies.
Here's one on the immune system and sugar. Yes it's an old study, but at least Lustig didn't write it.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/26/11/1180.abstract
Also, I wasn't claiming that increased sugar consumption directly causes an increase in autoimmune diseases and allergies. I said that excessive sugar consumption compromises immune function. A compromised immune system can then lead to allergies and autoimmune diseases. I also mentioned that there are multiple other factors that can compromise the immune system aside from excessive sugar.
Stop making things up
3 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
I thought I was being asked to provide links for the mother's diet and child immune system point.queenliz99 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
That was in response to a mother's diet impacting the immune system, separate from sugar being involved in that.queenliz99 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Yeah, I figured. But are you suggesting that a mother's diet and nutrient levels does not affect the child's immune system? Because if not, then I shouldn't need to provide sources if we agree that it can.queenliz99 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12727640FunkyTobias wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
There are studies that show what a mother eats doing the pregnancy can affect the child's immune system. So what I stated previously still applies.Alluminati wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Not enough zinc, vitamin C, or vitamin D are among the dietary factors that can play a role in that. Similarly, an unbalanced diet, especially one that is comprised of generous amounts of low nutrient dense foods with not much highly nutritious food is another factor.Alluminati wrote: »
Like what, pray tell?ForecasterJason wrote: »
Because there are many other things that impact the function of the immune system aside from sugar. There are a multitude of other dietary factors that may have been involved in your case.Alluminati wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I guess I still wasn't clear enough. Eating excessive amounts of sugar has been shown to negatively impact the immune system. Autoimmune diseases and allergies are related to an immune system not functioning optimally. If one is eating an appropriate amount of sugar, I don't think there's a problem there.WinoGelato wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
As I stated on page 16, "Autoimmune disorders and allergies can be indirectly related to sugar in fruit. A diet high in sugar can negatively impact the immune system, so if one is eating excessive amounts of sugar from fruit then that could become an issue." Of course, that's not to say that sugar in fruit causes those conditions. But if one is eating a lot of sugar and not enough of certain nutrients, then that can have implications for those conditions.WinoGelato wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Autoimmune diseases and allergies (not necessarily just food, but environmental as well) are two.ForecasterJason wrote: »
So am I correct in that, assuming one is active and at a healthy weight and bodyfat percentage, the only reason why there are more and more people getting certain conditions at a young age is because of random genetic mutations. Still doesn't make sense to me…I grew up in the 70's in NY. We ate almost exclusively canned, boxed, and frozen food. Fish sticks, tater tots, boxed flavored rice, canned veggies, frozen waffles, Wonder bread, Hostess cupcakes, Chips Ahoy cookies, hot dogs, pasta, ice cream, OJ from concentrate, ice tea mix. We had soda and chips or popcorn once or twice a week. So I'm guessing a lot of sugar and salt, not much protein, and really the only fresh food we ate was meat and a little fruit. Our diet was pretty typical of the middle class families we knew at least.
However, we spent most of our time running around outside. I was a string bean. Always on the skinny side, until I got to my mid-twenties and got an office job. Having said that, I've never been "overweight" just the high side of healthy. Lost weight in my twenties and thirties by increasing exercise. Lost weight this time by counting calories. I certainly eat a better diet now, but still probably 50% processed/ 50% whole. I eat ice cream, chocolate, cookies, pasta, whenever I want, but in portion sizes that fit my calorie goal. Getting my activity level up while controlling my calories in was the key to getting to my current weight.
I have always had low blood pressure, normal blood sugar, rarely catch colds and never the flu, haven't taken a prescription medication since I had my last earache when I was a kid. So my n=1 says I was and am fine eating a moderate amount of sugar. My minor problems were caused by not balancing my calories in with my activity level.
And it's silly to say kids used to be healthier. In the 70's bronchitis and ear infections went around practically every month. There were plenty of "sickly" kids in my school who weren't diagnosed with anything but clearly weren't healthy. There were several children in my elementary and high school classes that we lost to cancer. And as @jgnatca said, if you go back to earlier in the century children suffered from all kinds of health problems we don't even think about anymore.
Nothing I've read in this never-ending thread has convinced me the problem is anything other than obesity. If obese kids (and adults) ate less of everything and moved a lot more, they would lose weight and improve their health markers.
What conditions are children at a healthy weight getting more often?
And what does that have to do with sugar?
I looked back to page 16 and I don't see that you posted any studies related to your claims that autoimmune disorders and allergies are indirectly related to sugar in fruit.
Also curious why fruit causes these issues? I thought you were saying it was only added sugar that was the problem, now you are saying that fruit is really to blame for all of our woes?
Then how do you explain a kid who doesn't like fruit, hates sugary treats, doesn't drink soda, and has some of the Big 8 allergies?
Being that the child was diagnosed with allergies at 18 months old, after having kept journals for them since they were about 6 months old, your speculation doesn't make any sense. Maybe stop making things up as you go along and really research allergies and auto immune disease before speaking of them, then maybe you'll be able to make your points a little better.
I like how you claim "it's been shown " and "there are studies" but never cite anything.
http://kellymom.com/pregnancy/bf-prep/how_breastmilk_protects_newborns/
You are posting the wrong links.
Your links are not backing up your claims regarding sugar.
OK? both links have nothing to do with sugar in which you claim there is an increase in autoimmune disease and allergies.
Here's one on the immune system and sugar. Yes it's an old study, but at least Lustig didn't write it.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/26/11/1180.abstract
Also, I wasn't claiming that increased sugar consumption directly causes an increase in autoimmune diseases and allergies. I said that excessive sugar consumption compromises immune function. A compromised immune system can then lead to allergies and autoimmune diseases. I also mentioned that there are multiple other factors that can compromise the immune system aside from excessive sugar.
For the umpteenth time, autoimmune diseases are from your immune system being in overdrive, pushed the red button, activated the NOS, Limit Break, [insert other figure of speech], not from being compromised, that's the opposite.5 -
stevencloser wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I thought I was being asked to provide links for the mother's diet and child immune system point.queenliz99 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
That was in response to a mother's diet impacting the immune system, separate from sugar being involved in that.queenliz99 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Yeah, I figured. But are you suggesting that a mother's diet and nutrient levels does not affect the child's immune system? Because if not, then I shouldn't need to provide sources if we agree that it can.queenliz99 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12727640FunkyTobias wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
There are studies that show what a mother eats doing the pregnancy can affect the child's immune system. So what I stated previously still applies.Alluminati wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Not enough zinc, vitamin C, or vitamin D are among the dietary factors that can play a role in that. Similarly, an unbalanced diet, especially one that is comprised of generous amounts of low nutrient dense foods with not much highly nutritious food is another factor.Alluminati wrote: »
Like what, pray tell?ForecasterJason wrote: »
Because there are many other things that impact the function of the immune system aside from sugar. There are a multitude of other dietary factors that may have been involved in your case.Alluminati wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I guess I still wasn't clear enough. Eating excessive amounts of sugar has been shown to negatively impact the immune system. Autoimmune diseases and allergies are related to an immune system not functioning optimally. If one is eating an appropriate amount of sugar, I don't think there's a problem there.WinoGelato wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
As I stated on page 16, "Autoimmune disorders and allergies can be indirectly related to sugar in fruit. A diet high in sugar can negatively impact the immune system, so if one is eating excessive amounts of sugar from fruit then that could become an issue." Of course, that's not to say that sugar in fruit causes those conditions. But if one is eating a lot of sugar and not enough of certain nutrients, then that can have implications for those conditions.WinoGelato wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Autoimmune diseases and allergies (not necessarily just food, but environmental as well) are two.ForecasterJason wrote: »
So am I correct in that, assuming one is active and at a healthy weight and bodyfat percentage, the only reason why there are more and more people getting certain conditions at a young age is because of random genetic mutations. Still doesn't make sense to me…I grew up in the 70's in NY. We ate almost exclusively canned, boxed, and frozen food. Fish sticks, tater tots, boxed flavored rice, canned veggies, frozen waffles, Wonder bread, Hostess cupcakes, Chips Ahoy cookies, hot dogs, pasta, ice cream, OJ from concentrate, ice tea mix. We had soda and chips or popcorn once or twice a week. So I'm guessing a lot of sugar and salt, not much protein, and really the only fresh food we ate was meat and a little fruit. Our diet was pretty typical of the middle class families we knew at least.
However, we spent most of our time running around outside. I was a string bean. Always on the skinny side, until I got to my mid-twenties and got an office job. Having said that, I've never been "overweight" just the high side of healthy. Lost weight in my twenties and thirties by increasing exercise. Lost weight this time by counting calories. I certainly eat a better diet now, but still probably 50% processed/ 50% whole. I eat ice cream, chocolate, cookies, pasta, whenever I want, but in portion sizes that fit my calorie goal. Getting my activity level up while controlling my calories in was the key to getting to my current weight.
I have always had low blood pressure, normal blood sugar, rarely catch colds and never the flu, haven't taken a prescription medication since I had my last earache when I was a kid. So my n=1 says I was and am fine eating a moderate amount of sugar. My minor problems were caused by not balancing my calories in with my activity level.
And it's silly to say kids used to be healthier. In the 70's bronchitis and ear infections went around practically every month. There were plenty of "sickly" kids in my school who weren't diagnosed with anything but clearly weren't healthy. There were several children in my elementary and high school classes that we lost to cancer. And as @jgnatca said, if you go back to earlier in the century children suffered from all kinds of health problems we don't even think about anymore.
Nothing I've read in this never-ending thread has convinced me the problem is anything other than obesity. If obese kids (and adults) ate less of everything and moved a lot more, they would lose weight and improve their health markers.
What conditions are children at a healthy weight getting more often?
And what does that have to do with sugar?
I looked back to page 16 and I don't see that you posted any studies related to your claims that autoimmune disorders and allergies are indirectly related to sugar in fruit.
Also curious why fruit causes these issues? I thought you were saying it was only added sugar that was the problem, now you are saying that fruit is really to blame for all of our woes?
Then how do you explain a kid who doesn't like fruit, hates sugary treats, doesn't drink soda, and has some of the Big 8 allergies?
Being that the child was diagnosed with allergies at 18 months old, after having kept journals for them since they were about 6 months old, your speculation doesn't make any sense. Maybe stop making things up as you go along and really research allergies and auto immune disease before speaking of them, then maybe you'll be able to make your points a little better.
I like how you claim "it's been shown " and "there are studies" but never cite anything.
http://kellymom.com/pregnancy/bf-prep/how_breastmilk_protects_newborns/
You are posting the wrong links.
Your links are not backing up your claims regarding sugar.
OK? both links have nothing to do with sugar in which you claim there is an increase in autoimmune disease and allergies.
Here's one on the immune system and sugar. Yes it's an old study, but at least Lustig didn't write it.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/26/11/1180.abstract
Also, I wasn't claiming that increased sugar consumption directly causes an increase in autoimmune diseases and allergies. I said that excessive sugar consumption compromises immune function. A compromised immune system can then lead to allergies and autoimmune diseases. I also mentioned that there are multiple other factors that can compromise the immune system aside from excessive sugar.
For the umpteenth time, autoimmune diseases are from your immune system being in overdrive, pushed the red button, activated the NOS, Limit Break, [insert other figure of speech], not from being compromised, that's the opposite.
So would you say that their immune systems are trying to Climhazzard the wrong targets?0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »And getting back on topic, I was already planning on eating a fruit salad with strawberries and blackberries as a snack today, and I'd already eaten a banana this morning. I thought I would take a pic of me actually eating the salad. I don't think this is too much fruit sugar for one day.
Your not active enough to eat that much fruit and sugar...3 -
Lol.ForecasterJason wrote: »And getting back on topic, I was already planning on eating a fruit salad with strawberries and blackberries as a snack today, and I'd already eaten a banana this morning. I thought I would take a pic of me actually eating the salad. I don't think this is too much fruit sugar for one day.
Your not active enough to eat that much fruit and sugar...
1 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
But you stated that you did eat "a lot" of sugar, so according to what you're saying there means you were eating an unhealthy diet. Which is what my claim on sugar, the immune system, allergies, autoimmune diseases, etc. has been about.ForecasterJason wrote: »
My claim is that eating a lot of sugar in the context of a diet that is not healthy overall can lead to a multitude of problems. If one is eating a healthful diet then the effect is most likely going to be minimized.lemurcat12 wrote: »This is not support for Jason's argument, which is that even if one does not gain weight and eats a healthful balanced diet that consuming sugar beyond a certain unidentified level (lots!) is going to be harmful.
(I happen to think the WHO et al. have sensible advise on this, but someone who counts calories and watches overall nutrients and is quite active is going to be able to make an individual decision about the amount of added sugar that is appropriate that might be different, just as many ignore for what they consider good reason the recommendations re sat fat or sodium.)
If one eats an overall healthful diet, they are by default not eating "a lot" of sugar. That said, eating "a lot" of any singular macro nutrient will more then likely lead to an unhealthy diet that is out of balance. So we come back to square 1. Why single out sugar? I bet if we were having this discussion in the 70's and 80's we'd be talking about fat. Same nonsense...
I also stated if there is an energy balance, and nutritional needs are met, extra calories from any source are a non issue. So, what would be "a lot" of sugar (calories) for one may not be "a lot" of sugar (calories) for another...
That isn't true if in fact the extra calories from fructose end being stored as visceral fat that increases insulin resistance. The problem with CICO is our system isn't a gas tank, the human body has multiple types of storage and those storage have different effects associated with them. (blood sugar, glycogen, visceral fat, other fat) It isn't a simple energy balance when the underlying metabolism is being changed.
What actually causes visceral fat and the impacts on visceral fat on metabolic processes is currently a on-going area of study. These effects don't mean that CICO doesn't work, it just means the CO part is far more complex than BMR + exercise. Keep in mind true BMR is something rarely measured in people and mostly we are working from estimates. If one really knows exactly what the calories out are, and what exactly the calories in are, then CICO is an energy balance.1 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
But you stated that you did eat "a lot" of sugar, so according to what you're saying there means you were eating an unhealthy diet. Which is what my claim on sugar, the immune system, allergies, autoimmune diseases, etc. has been about.ForecasterJason wrote: »
My claim is that eating a lot of sugar in the context of a diet that is not healthy overall can lead to a multitude of problems. If one is eating a healthful diet then the effect is most likely going to be minimized.lemurcat12 wrote: »This is not support for Jason's argument, which is that even if one does not gain weight and eats a healthful balanced diet that consuming sugar beyond a certain unidentified level (lots!) is going to be harmful.
(I happen to think the WHO et al. have sensible advise on this, but someone who counts calories and watches overall nutrients and is quite active is going to be able to make an individual decision about the amount of added sugar that is appropriate that might be different, just as many ignore for what they consider good reason the recommendations re sat fat or sodium.)
If one eats an overall healthful diet, they are by default not eating "a lot" of sugar. That said, eating "a lot" of any singular macro nutrient will more then likely lead to an unhealthy diet that is out of balance. So we come back to square 1. Why single out sugar? I bet if we were having this discussion in the 70's and 80's we'd be talking about fat. Same nonsense...
I also stated if there is an energy balance, and nutritional needs are met, extra calories from any source are a non issue. So, what would be "a lot" of sugar (calories) for one may not be "a lot" of sugar (calories) for another...
That isn't true if in fact the extra calories from fructose end being stored as visceral fat that increases insulin resistance. The problem with CICO is our system isn't a gas tank, the human body has multiple types of storage and those storage have different effects associated with them. (blood sugar, glycogen, visceral fat, other fat) It isn't a simple energy balance when the underlying metabolism is being changed.
What actually causes visceral fat and the impacts on visceral fat on metabolic processes is currently a on-going area of study. These effects don't mean that CICO doesn't work, it just means the CO part is far more complex than BMR + exercise. Keep in mind true BMR is something rarely measured in people and mostly we are working from estimates. If one really knows exactly what the calories out are, and what exactly the calories in are, then CICO is an energy balance.
That's part of the reason I decided to roll zero carb in the near future. With high water cycling, no glyco stores to worry about, my weight ends up being at a near constant, unless I actually pick up or lose fat/muscle. The biggest weight fluctuations I've seen from day to day, over the last three weeks, are 0.5 lbs, and on about 80% of days, there is literally no change at all. This will make it much easier to find my true maintenance, over the long term.1 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
But you stated that you did eat "a lot" of sugar, so according to what you're saying there means you were eating an unhealthy diet. Which is what my claim on sugar, the immune system, allergies, autoimmune diseases, etc. has been about.ForecasterJason wrote: »
My claim is that eating a lot of sugar in the context of a diet that is not healthy overall can lead to a multitude of problems. If one is eating a healthful diet then the effect is most likely going to be minimized.lemurcat12 wrote: »This is not support for Jason's argument, which is that even if one does not gain weight and eats a healthful balanced diet that consuming sugar beyond a certain unidentified level (lots!) is going to be harmful.
(I happen to think the WHO et al. have sensible advise on this, but someone who counts calories and watches overall nutrients and is quite active is going to be able to make an individual decision about the amount of added sugar that is appropriate that might be different, just as many ignore for what they consider good reason the recommendations re sat fat or sodium.)
If one eats an overall healthful diet, they are by default not eating "a lot" of sugar. That said, eating "a lot" of any singular macro nutrient will more then likely lead to an unhealthy diet that is out of balance. So we come back to square 1. Why single out sugar? I bet if we were having this discussion in the 70's and 80's we'd be talking about fat. Same nonsense...
I also stated if there is an energy balance, and nutritional needs are met, extra calories from any source are a non issue. So, what would be "a lot" of sugar (calories) for one may not be "a lot" of sugar (calories) for another...
That isn't true if in fact the extra calories from fructose end being stored as visceral fat that increases insulin resistance. The problem with CICO is our system isn't a gas tank, the human body has multiple types of storage and those storage have different effects associated with them. (blood sugar, glycogen, visceral fat, other fat) It isn't a simple energy balance when the underlying metabolism is being changed.
What actually causes visceral fat and the impacts on visceral fat on metabolic processes is currently a on-going area of study. These effects don't mean that CICO doesn't work, it just means the CO part is far more complex than BMR + exercise. Keep in mind true BMR is something rarely measured in people and mostly we are working from estimates. If one really knows exactly what the calories out are, and what exactly the calories in are, then CICO is an energy balance.
That's part of the reason I decided to roll zero carb in the near future. With high water cycling, no glyco stores to worry about, my weight ends up being at a near constant, unless I actually pick up or lose fat/muscle. The biggest weight fluctuations I've seen from day to day, over the last three weeks, are 0.5 lbs, and on about 80% of days, there is literally no change at all. This will make it much easier to find my true maintenance, over the long term.
0.5 lbs is really nothing. My weight tends to cycle over about a 2 lbs range over a few days. Maybe even a little more than that.0 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
But you stated that you did eat "a lot" of sugar, so according to what you're saying there means you were eating an unhealthy diet. Which is what my claim on sugar, the immune system, allergies, autoimmune diseases, etc. has been about.ForecasterJason wrote: »
My claim is that eating a lot of sugar in the context of a diet that is not healthy overall can lead to a multitude of problems. If one is eating a healthful diet then the effect is most likely going to be minimized.lemurcat12 wrote: »This is not support for Jason's argument, which is that even if one does not gain weight and eats a healthful balanced diet that consuming sugar beyond a certain unidentified level (lots!) is going to be harmful.
(I happen to think the WHO et al. have sensible advise on this, but someone who counts calories and watches overall nutrients and is quite active is going to be able to make an individual decision about the amount of added sugar that is appropriate that might be different, just as many ignore for what they consider good reason the recommendations re sat fat or sodium.)
If one eats an overall healthful diet, they are by default not eating "a lot" of sugar. That said, eating "a lot" of any singular macro nutrient will more then likely lead to an unhealthy diet that is out of balance. So we come back to square 1. Why single out sugar? I bet if we were having this discussion in the 70's and 80's we'd be talking about fat. Same nonsense...
I also stated if there is an energy balance, and nutritional needs are met, extra calories from any source are a non issue. So, what would be "a lot" of sugar (calories) for one may not be "a lot" of sugar (calories) for another...
That isn't true if in fact the extra calories from fructose end being stored as visceral fat that increases insulin resistance. The problem with CICO is our system isn't a gas tank, the human body has multiple types of storage and those storage have different effects associated with them. (blood sugar, glycogen, visceral fat, other fat) It isn't a simple energy balance when the underlying metabolism is being changed.
What actually causes visceral fat and the impacts on visceral fat on metabolic processes is currently a on-going area of study. These effects don't mean that CICO doesn't work, it just means the CO part is far more complex than BMR + exercise. Keep in mind true BMR is something rarely measured in people and mostly we are working from estimates. If one really knows exactly what the calories out are, and what exactly the calories in are, then CICO is an energy balance.
That's part of the reason I decided to roll zero carb in the near future. With high water cycling, no glyco stores to worry about, my weight ends up being at a near constant, unless I actually pick up or lose fat/muscle. The biggest weight fluctuations I've seen from day to day, over the last three weeks, are 0.5 lbs, and on about 80% of days, there is literally no change at all. This will make it much easier to find my true maintenance, over the long term.
0.5 lbs is really nothing. My weight tends to cycle over about a 2 lbs range over a few days. Maybe even a little more than that.
Exactly. All things considered [my total weight loss, and caloric change from an estimated 365 kcal/day deficit (1450) to maintenance seeking], 0.5 lbs. can easily be dismissed as noise, in the short term.0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
But you stated that you did eat "a lot" of sugar, so according to what you're saying there means you were eating an unhealthy diet. Which is what my claim on sugar, the immune system, allergies, autoimmune diseases, etc. has been about.ForecasterJason wrote: »
My claim is that eating a lot of sugar in the context of a diet that is not healthy overall can lead to a multitude of problems. If one is eating a healthful diet then the effect is most likely going to be minimized.lemurcat12 wrote: »This is not support for Jason's argument, which is that even if one does not gain weight and eats a healthful balanced diet that consuming sugar beyond a certain unidentified level (lots!) is going to be harmful.
(I happen to think the WHO et al. have sensible advise on this, but someone who counts calories and watches overall nutrients and is quite active is going to be able to make an individual decision about the amount of added sugar that is appropriate that might be different, just as many ignore for what they consider good reason the recommendations re sat fat or sodium.)
If one eats an overall healthful diet, they are by default not eating "a lot" of sugar. That said, eating "a lot" of any singular macro nutrient will more then likely lead to an unhealthy diet that is out of balance. So we come back to square 1. Why single out sugar? I bet if we were having this discussion in the 70's and 80's we'd be talking about fat. Same nonsense...
I also stated if there is an energy balance, and nutritional needs are met, extra calories from any source are a non issue. So, what would be "a lot" of sugar (calories) for one may not be "a lot" of sugar (calories) for another...
That isn't true if in fact the extra calories from fructose end being stored as visceral fat that increases insulin resistance. The problem with CICO is our system isn't a gas tank, the human body has multiple types of storage and those storage have different effects associated with them. (blood sugar, glycogen, visceral fat, other fat) It isn't a simple energy balance when the underlying metabolism is being changed.
What actually causes visceral fat and the impacts on visceral fat on metabolic processes is currently a on-going area of study. These effects don't mean that CICO doesn't work, it just means the CO part is far more complex than BMR + exercise. Keep in mind true BMR is something rarely measured in people and mostly we are working from estimates. If one really knows exactly what the calories out are, and what exactly the calories in are, then CICO is an energy balance.
If you are in energy balance the extra calories are not being stored long term...3 -
mayoosh_primrose wrote: »I've read several articles about this topic because I eat so much fruit. I came to the conclusion that it's ok to eat as much as you want -unless you have diabetes.
Fruit has fiber and other nutrients that make them really healthy, unlike white sugar and refined carbs.
As far as Diabetes; you can eat fruit because the fiber in fruit slows down the processing of the sugar in your body. I would recommend a diabetic to stay away from "melons" (cantaloupe, pineapple, etc.) because they have the least amount of fiber to sugar ratio and will be a "fast sugar".
I would also say this same thing as a response to this thread, sugar eaten with fiber (fruit) is better for you than a candy bar.
3 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
But you stated that you did eat "a lot" of sugar, so according to what you're saying there means you were eating an unhealthy diet. Which is what my claim on sugar, the immune system, allergies, autoimmune diseases, etc. has been about.ForecasterJason wrote: »
My claim is that eating a lot of sugar in the context of a diet that is not healthy overall can lead to a multitude of problems. If one is eating a healthful diet then the effect is most likely going to be minimized.lemurcat12 wrote: »This is not support for Jason's argument, which is that even if one does not gain weight and eats a healthful balanced diet that consuming sugar beyond a certain unidentified level (lots!) is going to be harmful.
(I happen to think the WHO et al. have sensible advise on this, but someone who counts calories and watches overall nutrients and is quite active is going to be able to make an individual decision about the amount of added sugar that is appropriate that might be different, just as many ignore for what they consider good reason the recommendations re sat fat or sodium.)
If one eats an overall healthful diet, they are by default not eating "a lot" of sugar. That said, eating "a lot" of any singular macro nutrient will more then likely lead to an unhealthy diet that is out of balance. So we come back to square 1. Why single out sugar? I bet if we were having this discussion in the 70's and 80's we'd be talking about fat. Same nonsense...
I also stated if there is an energy balance, and nutritional needs are met, extra calories from any source are a non issue. So, what would be "a lot" of sugar (calories) for one may not be "a lot" of sugar (calories) for another...
That isn't true if in fact the extra calories from fructose end being stored as visceral fat that increases insulin resistance. The problem with CICO is our system isn't a gas tank, the human body has multiple types of storage and those storage have different effects associated with them. (blood sugar, glycogen, visceral fat, other fat) It isn't a simple energy balance when the underlying metabolism is being changed.
What actually causes visceral fat and the impacts on visceral fat on metabolic processes is currently a on-going area of study. These effects don't mean that CICO doesn't work, it just means the CO part is far more complex than BMR + exercise. Keep in mind true BMR is something rarely measured in people and mostly we are working from estimates. If one really knows exactly what the calories out are, and what exactly the calories in are, then CICO is an energy balance.
If you are in energy balance the extra calories are not being stored long term...
I don't think that is really true, humans aren't that simple.
1) There really isn't any way to be sure you are in energy balance short term. One can make a good guess but the reaction in the body can be pretty fast. Over the long term better a determination of balance can be made.
2) We have no direct control over our fat storage. It is possible to gain visceral fat but use the ugly but less harmful subterraneous fat. There are other possibilities too.
3) Many tools are too simple, for example 3500 kc / pound of fat doesn't consider energy being consumed by the creation of fat or the burning of fat. Those values could vary by diet and probably many other factors.
4) Metabolism isn't constant and the body makes use of glycogen and adipose tissue to balance out short term needs.
5) Different types of molecules have different metabolic pathways. Sometimes there multiple pathways that could be used and different pathways have different energy requirements.
So while in general energy balance is what we have to work with, understanding the impacts of fructose from various sources will be a big benefit for better nutritional choices. Things like it okay to have 25% of calories from refined sugar or pizza being treated as a vegetable in school lunches are not based on valid nutritional science. It isn't just energy it is also nutrition and health that are important.
It isn't that CICO is invalid, it is just a simple model of something that is much more complex. Models are important and useful, but in the end model rarely completely match the real world.0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
But you stated that you did eat "a lot" of sugar, so according to what you're saying there means you were eating an unhealthy diet. Which is what my claim on sugar, the immune system, allergies, autoimmune diseases, etc. has been about.ForecasterJason wrote: »
My claim is that eating a lot of sugar in the context of a diet that is not healthy overall can lead to a multitude of problems. If one is eating a healthful diet then the effect is most likely going to be minimized.lemurcat12 wrote: »This is not support for Jason's argument, which is that even if one does not gain weight and eats a healthful balanced diet that consuming sugar beyond a certain unidentified level (lots!) is going to be harmful.
(I happen to think the WHO et al. have sensible advise on this, but someone who counts calories and watches overall nutrients and is quite active is going to be able to make an individual decision about the amount of added sugar that is appropriate that might be different, just as many ignore for what they consider good reason the recommendations re sat fat or sodium.)
If one eats an overall healthful diet, they are by default not eating "a lot" of sugar. That said, eating "a lot" of any singular macro nutrient will more then likely lead to an unhealthy diet that is out of balance. So we come back to square 1. Why single out sugar? I bet if we were having this discussion in the 70's and 80's we'd be talking about fat. Same nonsense...
I also stated if there is an energy balance, and nutritional needs are met, extra calories from any source are a non issue. So, what would be "a lot" of sugar (calories) for one may not be "a lot" of sugar (calories) for another...
That isn't true if in fact the extra calories from fructose end being stored as visceral fat that increases insulin resistance. The problem with CICO is our system isn't a gas tank, the human body has multiple types of storage and those storage have different effects associated with them. (blood sugar, glycogen, visceral fat, other fat) It isn't a simple energy balance when the underlying metabolism is being changed.
What actually causes visceral fat and the impacts on visceral fat on metabolic processes is currently a on-going area of study. These effects don't mean that CICO doesn't work, it just means the CO part is far more complex than BMR + exercise. Keep in mind true BMR is something rarely measured in people and mostly we are working from estimates. If one really knows exactly what the calories out are, and what exactly the calories in are, then CICO is an energy balance.
If you are in energy balance the extra calories are not being stored long term...
I don't think that is really true, humans aren't that simple.
1) There really isn't any way to be sure you are in energy balance short term. One can make a good guess but the reaction in the body can be pretty fast. Over the long term better a determination of balance can be made.
2) We have no direct control over our fat storage. It is possible to gain visceral fat but use the ugly but less harmful subterraneous fat. There are other possibilities too.
3) Many tools are too simple, for example 3500 kc / pound of fat doesn't consider energy being consumed by the creation of fat or the burning of fat. Those values could vary by diet and probably many other factors.
4) Metabolism isn't constant and the body makes use of glycogen and adipose tissue to balance out short term needs.
5) Different types of molecules have different metabolic pathways. Sometimes there multiple pathways that could be used and different pathways have different energy requirements.
So while in general energy balance is what we have to work with, understanding the impacts of fructose from various sources will be a big benefit for better nutritional choices. Things like it okay to have 25% of calories from refined sugar or pizza being treated as a vegetable in school lunches are not based on valid nutritional science. It isn't just energy it is also nutrition and health that are important.
It isn't that CICO is invalid, it is just a simple model of something that is much more complex. Models are important and useful, but in the end model rarely completely match the real world.
If your weight stays the same you're in energy balance, right? As far as short term, we are built to eat, store a little, use it up until our next meal. It's when we stop using it up and keep storing that it becomes a problem.3
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K 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