why does sugar make us fat
Replies
-
amusedmonkey wrote: »Chef_Barbell wrote: »goldthistime wrote: »Sugar doesn't give you any lasting fullness for the calories.
It does for me. *shrug*
Same here. A cup of marshmallows (150 calories) fills me up better than 1/4 cup of pecans (200 calories). Not to mention looking at the amount of pecans for these calories makes me sad.
Wow. We have stunningly different experiences.
2 -
goldthistime wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »Chef_Barbell wrote: »goldthistime wrote: »Sugar doesn't give you any lasting fullness for the calories.
It does for me. *shrug*
Same here. A cup of marshmallows (150 calories) fills me up better than 1/4 cup of pecans (200 calories). Not to mention looking at the amount of pecans for these calories makes me sad.
Wow. We have stunningly different experiences.
Must be the kinds of habits we had previously. I've only had marshmallows in these tiny single serve packages, so a cup feels like a whole lot to me, but I used to consume thousands of calories of nuts in one setting so the amount of pecans feels like you would feel if you had to eat half a chip. Satiety is weird like that, and beautifully individual with quite a bit of a psychological influences.11 -
Chef_Barbell wrote: »goldthistime wrote: »Sugar doesn't give you any lasting fullness for the calories.
It does for me. *shrug*
^Doesn't fill me up, but it makes me happy to have a piece of candy, plus I fit it into my calories for the day, and allow for daily sweets.
2 -
Robert Lustig has been on record saying things that even a high school student who never paid attention in Biology would know are factually wrong.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7QXFJNKWXs
Weird video, it first shows the actual facts and then the crap Lustig talks.4 -
stevencloser wrote: »
Robert Lustig has been on record saying things that even a high school student who never paid attention in Biology would know are factually wrong.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7QXFJNKWXs
Weird video, it first shows the actual facts and then the crap Lustig talks.
Not sure what the writing was about..doesnt mirror him and not gonna pay attention to youtube as not a good source. What caused the obesity rise in our two nations if it wasnt sugar or junk food? Did everyone just suddenly over eat? Asking your opinion mate not being confrontational
Exactly that. Food abundance, convenience, convenient foods often having a lot of calories, reduced activity... so on and so forth. In the 90s, to answer the phone we had to get up and walk then pick up the phone. Now all we need to do is get it out of our pocket and lightly swipe the screen. That's just one small example of a change that happened very recently among many more in the past 100 years.12 -
snowflake930 wrote: »Chef_Barbell wrote: »goldthistime wrote: »Sugar doesn't give you any lasting fullness for the calories.
It does for me. *shrug*
^Doesn't fill me up, but it makes me happy to have a piece of candy, plus I fit it into my calories for the day, and allow for daily sweets.
Agreed on the "makes me happy" part, and I do still have sweetness daily, but just a fraction of what I used to have.
@amusedmonkey your comments about the psychological aspects of fullness are interesting. I certainly have very positive associations, going back to childhood, with desserts. I also think sugar and starches can help me feel satisfied immediately after eating in a way that other foods may not.
But I also have some fairly negative associations with sugar. Your example of a cupful of marshmallows brings me back to unhappy times in my life. That's exactly the kind of comforting snack I used to have, although I didn't consume reasonable quantities. It's hard (perhaps impossible) for me to see a cupful of marshmallows as a normal healthy snack. Psychologically first, but it's a rare day I can afford a snack that has no fibre and no nutrients.
0 -
Because it hits the same brain receptors as cocaine, thus we want more and more.
1) you ruined my pig gifs by sneaking in the middle
2) don't be silly you're equating food which possibly has behavioural addictive properties in some individuals with drugs which are physically addictive through the anticipatory dopamine release that you also get through petting puppies...or pigs
everyone is so quick to jump on a post it was a freaking joke, sarcasm
I personally love to be silly life is too short not to be.
As a side point rats did go for sugar more than cocaine:).
Yes, while being starved they chose the substance that actually had calories. Shocking.
I didn't know they were starved, the study was something I heard a few years ago but never read the study myself.
I personally know an addict that choses his drugs over food - maybe all don't idk.
The rats weren't cocaine addicts or sugar addicts. They had two choices for "food". Sugar water or cocaine water. They chose the substance that would keep them alive. Not really all that shocking.
If you are stranded on an island, and I'm assuming you aren't addicted to cocaine, and I give you the option of hohos or snorting coke, which are you going with?
I personally don't like hoho's and I've never tried cocaine and I do live on an island, thankfully with lots of options.
But seriously dude it was a joke. No need to prove anything to me I don't really care in terms of proving anything. I'm mildly interested in addiction as I have a distant family member who is severely addicted.
I will work on my humor.
Just know that when this occurs and people correct someone's incorrect assumptions (whether the original intent was a humourous one or not) it is being done as much for the people who are here to lurk and learn as it is for the person who actually posted it.
0 -
goldthistime wrote: »Sugar doesn't give you any lasting fullness for the calories.
You mean sugar doesn't give you lasting fullness. It does for me...3 -
I don't think carbs/sugars make you fat on their own. I do know that my body does not do well with high carb intakes, especially the ones suggested by MFP. My sedentary lifestyle (do to work) simply doesn't give me a lot of opportunities to burn away that excess. Sure, it'll be converted to glycogen and stored in my muscle tissue, but everyday consumption won't allow it to be used and so it will be converted into adipose tissue. I think that I'm at a place where I burn exactly what I consume, but am not in a deficit. I tried low calorie, low calorie with running, and nothing worked but a low carb lifestyle. I don't believe we were built to consume carbs in the quantities in which we do or that are recommended for us. How else can you explain how quickly low carb/sugar lifestyles lower LDL, raise HDL, and is so efficient at removing fat directly.1
-
stevencloser wrote: »
Robert Lustig has been on record saying things that even a high school student who never paid attention in Biology would know are factually wrong.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7QXFJNKWXs
Weird video, it first shows the actual facts and then the crap Lustig talks.
Not sure what the writing was about..doesnt mirror him and not gonna pay attention to youtube as not a good source. What caused the obesity rise in our two nations if it wasnt sugar or junk food? Did everyone just suddenly over eat? Asking your opinion mate not being confrontational
The text says the exact thing he says in the recordings.
He's also been on record calling Fructose a poison.
And yes people did start overeating, you know first time ever in history of mankind where everyone can have an overabundance of food and all that.4 -
stevencloser wrote: »
Robert Lustig has been on record saying things that even a high school student who never paid attention in Biology would know are factually wrong.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7QXFJNKWXs
Weird video, it first shows the actual facts and then the crap Lustig talks.
Not sure what the writing was about..doesnt mirror him and not gonna pay attention to youtube as not a good source. What caused the obesity rise in our two nations if it wasnt sugar or junk food? Did everyone just suddenly over eat? Asking your opinion mate not being confrontational
IMO, excess calories and a shortage of activity...1 -
stevencloser wrote: »
Robert Lustig has been on record saying things that even a high school student who never paid attention in Biology would know are factually wrong.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7QXFJNKWXs
Weird video, it first shows the actual facts and then the crap Lustig talks.
Not sure what the writing was about..doesnt mirror him and not gonna pay attention to youtube as not a good source. What caused the obesity rise in our two nations if it wasnt sugar or junk food? Did everyone just suddenly over eat? Asking your opinion mate not being confrontational
IMO, excess calories and a shortage of activity...
Agreed. As well as easier access to all sorts of foods as @amusedmonkey mentioned. It also wasn't a sudden thing, this type of change takes years for the effects to start to show.4 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »
Robert Lustig has been on record saying things that even a high school student who never paid attention in Biology would know are factually wrong.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7QXFJNKWXs
Weird video, it first shows the actual facts and then the crap Lustig talks.
Not sure what the writing was about..doesnt mirror him and not gonna pay attention to youtube as not a good source. What caused the obesity rise in our two nations if it wasnt sugar or junk food? Did everyone just suddenly over eat? Asking your opinion mate not being confrontational
Exactly that. Food abundance, convenience, convenient foods often having a lot of calories, reduced activity... so on and so forth. In the 90s, to answer the phone we had to get up and walk then pick up the phone. Now all we need to do is get it out of our pocket and lightly swipe the screen. That's just one small example of a change that happened very recently among many more in the past 100 years.
Exactly.
For years, people have been trying to find the Prime Suspect (fat, carbs, sugar, processing, gluten, wheat) for causing the obesity crisis. Truth is, it's overeating and lack of activity over the years that has caused it.5 -
WinoGelato wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »
Robert Lustig has been on record saying things that even a high school student who never paid attention in Biology would know are factually wrong.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7QXFJNKWXs
Weird video, it first shows the actual facts and then the crap Lustig talks.
Not sure what the writing was about..doesnt mirror him and not gonna pay attention to youtube as not a good source. What caused the obesity rise in our two nations if it wasnt sugar or junk food? Did everyone just suddenly over eat? Asking your opinion mate not being confrontational
IMO, excess calories and a shortage of activity...
Agreed. As well as easier access to all sorts of foods as @amusedmonkey mentioned. It also wasn't a sudden thing, this type of change takes years for the effects to start to show.
Yep. Easier access equates to excess calories and a shortage of activity. We have the access to just about any food we want, in any amount and we don't have to expend any significant energy to acquire it...3 -
goldthistime wrote: »Sugar doesn't give you any lasting fullness for the calories.
Neither does a protein shake or pure coconut oil.
0 -
TheAncientMariner wrote: »I don't think carbs/sugars make you fat on their own. I do know that my body does not do well with high carb intakes, especially the ones suggested by MFP. My sedentary lifestyle (do to work) simply doesn't give me a lot of opportunities to burn away that excess. Sure, it'll be converted to glycogen and stored in my muscle tissue, but everyday consumption won't allow it to be used and so it will be converted into adipose tissue. I think that I'm at a place where I burn exactly what I consume, but am not in a deficit. I tried low calorie, low calorie with running, and nothing worked but a low carb lifestyle. I don't believe we were built to consume carbs in the quantities in which we do or that are recommended for us. How else can you explain how quickly low carb/sugar lifestyles lower LDL, raise HDL, and is so efficient at removing fat directly.
It takes a lot to convert carbs to fat in reality but it does cause more fat to be stored as fat just as taking in too much fat causes more fat to be stored. The fact is, we aren't designed to eat as much as we tend to because we are in a food rich environment that has foods with that were modified throughout our history to be more calorically dense. If you look at high carb diets you see the exact same thing as low carb diets, a fast drop in LDL, raise in HDL and increase in insulin insensitivity and drop in fat stores. So how you get their just doesn't matter but if you prefer low carb then go for it but that doesn't mean it's special.
1 -
Makes sense as an argument. So what would you say to the people that say it is due to sugar in the "low fat" foods that took off in the 90's? Also people would argue that US and UK are not the most obese, there are small islands and developing countrys that are most obese and this is not due to overindulgence?
Again..just asking the question and seeing opinions
I would say that most people viewed "low fat" as a green light to eat more overall food. I think it had less to do with the sugar and more to do with the psychological effect a "health term" like "low fat" has on an individual...11 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »TheAncientMariner wrote: »I don't think carbs/sugars make you fat on their own. I do know that my body does not do well with high carb intakes, especially the ones suggested by MFP. My sedentary lifestyle (do to work) simply doesn't give me a lot of opportunities to burn away that excess. Sure, it'll be converted to glycogen and stored in my muscle tissue, but everyday consumption won't allow it to be used and so it will be converted into adipose tissue. I think that I'm at a place where I burn exactly what I consume, but am not in a deficit. I tried low calorie, low calorie with running, and nothing worked but a low carb lifestyle. I don't believe we were built to consume carbs in the quantities in which we do or that are recommended for us. How else can you explain how quickly low carb/sugar lifestyles lower LDL, raise HDL, and is so efficient at removing fat directly.
It takes a lot to convert carbs to fat in reality but it does cause more fat to be stored as fat just as taking in too much fat causes more fat to be stored. The fact is, we aren't designed to eat as much as we tend to because we are in a food rich environment that has foods with that were modified throughout our history to be more calorically dense. If you look at high carb diets you see the exact same thing as low carb diets, a fast drop in LDL, raise in HDL and increase in insulin insensitivity and drop in fat stores. So how you get their just doesn't matter but if you prefer low carb then go for it but that doesn't mean it's special.
The problem is that low carb diets do not spike insulin. Carbs do. There is a vast difference between the two. I'm not just low-carbing, I'm moving my body into a state of ketosis, specifically. So there is something special about it, but if I over eat, I'm still subject to weight gain. The high fat content of my diet keeps me satiated and my liver makes the ketones that the rest of my body uses for energy. Excess is disposed of. The high fat also allows me to eat at a caloric deficit because I'm rarely hungry and even if I am, the cravings aren't nearly as strong as they were on the high carb diets so I eat less almost by default. It's a win/win all the way around. Yes, it's still calories in vs/calories out, but I much rather my body be conditioned for using ketones and fat for ALL of it's energy needs versus carbs. For the way I do things, it makes a hell of a lot of sense and the way my body has responded seems like magic. Way more energy, more mental focus, even my little knee issue seems to have disappeared. Again, I'm not speaking for everyone, just myself. So yes, it is special, but only if you do it the right way. Honestly, I even eat healthier because I'm more aware of things like vitamins, leafy greens, etc.5 -
Makes sense as an argument. So what would you say to the people that say it is due to sugar in the "low fat" foods that took off in the 90's? Also people would argue that US and UK are not the most obese, there are small islands and developing countrys that are most obese and this is not due to overindulgence?
Again..just asking the question and seeing opinions
I would say that most people viewed "low fat" as a green light to eat more overall food. I think it had less to do with the sugar and more to do with the psychological effect a "health term" like "low fat" has on an individual...
Similar to how some think that being Low Carb or Keto means that unlimited amounts of fat are a good idea and think nothing of eating a diet built around eggs, bacon, coconut oil, whipping cream and supplements and that it would be impossible to gain weight eating this way.
@Alyssa_Is_LosingIt also put it nicely above, people are always looking for a scapegoat when it comes to explaining why they've gained weight. Whether it be the Low Fat craze in the 90s or the way the pendulum has swung the other way and now sugar is demonized, people always are looking for an explanation that excuses the fact that they simply just ate too much and moved too little...12 -
TheAncientMariner wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »TheAncientMariner wrote: »I don't think carbs/sugars make you fat on their own. I do know that my body does not do well with high carb intakes, especially the ones suggested by MFP. My sedentary lifestyle (do to work) simply doesn't give me a lot of opportunities to burn away that excess. Sure, it'll be converted to glycogen and stored in my muscle tissue, but everyday consumption won't allow it to be used and so it will be converted into adipose tissue. I think that I'm at a place where I burn exactly what I consume, but am not in a deficit. I tried low calorie, low calorie with running, and nothing worked but a low carb lifestyle. I don't believe we were built to consume carbs in the quantities in which we do or that are recommended for us. How else can you explain how quickly low carb/sugar lifestyles lower LDL, raise HDL, and is so efficient at removing fat directly.
It takes a lot to convert carbs to fat in reality but it does cause more fat to be stored as fat just as taking in too much fat causes more fat to be stored. The fact is, we aren't designed to eat as much as we tend to because we are in a food rich environment that has foods with that were modified throughout our history to be more calorically dense. If you look at high carb diets you see the exact same thing as low carb diets, a fast drop in LDL, raise in HDL and increase in insulin insensitivity and drop in fat stores. So how you get their just doesn't matter but if you prefer low carb then go for it but that doesn't mean it's special.
The problem is that low carb diets do not spike insulin. Carbs do. There is a vast difference between the two. I'm not just low-carbing, I'm moving my body into a state of ketosis, specifically. So there is something special about it, but if I over eat, I'm still subject to weight gain. The high fat content of my diet keeps me satiated and my liver makes the ketones that the rest of my body uses for energy. Excess is disposed of. The high fat also allows me to eat at a caloric deficit because I'm rarely hungry and even if I am, the cravings aren't nearly as strong as they were on the high carb diets so I eat less almost by default. It's a win/win all the way around. Yes, it's still calories in vs/calories out, but I much rather my body be conditioned for using ketones and fat for ALL of it's energy needs versus carbs. For the way I do things, it makes a hell of a lot of sense and the way my body has responded seems like magic. Way more energy, more mental focus, even my little knee issue seems to have disappeared. Again, I'm not speaking for everyone, just myself. So yes, it is special, but only if you do it the right way. Honestly, I even eat healthier because I'm more aware of things like vitamins, leafy greens, etc.
Sounds like you found your way, bravo!2 -
WinoGelato wrote: »Makes sense as an argument. So what would you say to the people that say it is due to sugar in the "low fat" foods that took off in the 90's? Also people would argue that US and UK are not the most obese, there are small islands and developing countrys that are most obese and this is not due to overindulgence?
Again..just asking the question and seeing opinions
I would say that most people viewed "low fat" as a green light to eat more overall food. I think it had less to do with the sugar and more to do with the psychological effect a "health term" like "low fat" has on an individual...
Similar to how some think that being Low Carb or Keto means that unlimited amounts of fat are a good idea and think nothing of eating a diet built around eggs, bacon, coconut oil, whipping cream and supplements and that it would be impossible to gain weight eating this way.
@Alyssa_Is_LosingIt also put it nicely above, people are always looking for a scapegoat when it comes to explaining why they've gained weight. Whether it be the Low Fat craze in the 90s or the way the pendulum has swung the other way and now sugar is demonized, people always are looking for an explanation that excuses the fact that they simply just ate too much and moved too little...WinoGelato wrote: »Makes sense as an argument. So what would you say to the people that say it is due to sugar in the "low fat" foods that took off in the 90's? Also people would argue that US and UK are not the most obese, there are small islands and developing countrys that are most obese and this is not due to overindulgence?
Again..just asking the question and seeing opinions
I would say that most people viewed "low fat" as a green light to eat more overall food. I think it had less to do with the sugar and more to do with the psychological effect a "health term" like "low fat" has on an individual...
Similar to how some think that being Low Carb or Keto means that unlimited amounts of fat are a good idea and think nothing of eating a diet built around eggs, bacon, coconut oil, whipping cream and supplements and that it would be impossible to gain weight eating this way.
@Alyssa_Is_LosingIt also put it nicely above, people are always looking for a scapegoat when it comes to explaining why they've gained weight. Whether it be the Low Fat craze in the 90s or the way the pendulum has swung the other way and now sugar is demonized, people always are looking for an explanation that excuses the fact that they simply just ate too much and moved too little...
Agree. It can be a difficult thing to come to grips with...2 -
Makes sense as an argument. So what would you say to the people that say it is due to sugar in the "low fat" foods that took off in the 90's? Also people would argue that US and UK are not the most obese, there are small islands and developing countrys that are most obese and this is not due to overindulgence?
Again..just asking the question and seeing opinions
I would say it is due to less people actually cooking their own food, expanding portion sizes, longer hours working at jobs that require less physical activity, more time sitting in front of computers and TVs, less time out walking, playing, doing physical activity of some kind, more time sitting with a cell phone in hand.
This doesn't apply to everyone, but there are so many people doing so much less activity and eating more easy to prepare or pre-prepared foods that aren't necessarily the best fits in a well balanced diet. Activity is the thing we really have less of these days than we did 20 years ago. There is an app for everything. Everything can be delivered or done by a service. While calorie intake may have gone up somewhat my observation would be that calorie output has gone down a lot for many people due to changes in our work, home and social lives. Thus the CICO equation is being thrown more towards CI>CO5 -
Makes sense as an argument. So what would you say to the people that say it is due to sugar in the "low fat" foods that took off in the 90's? Also people would argue that US and UK are not the most obese, there are small islands and developing countrys that are most obese and this is not due to overindulgence?
Again..just asking the question and seeing opinions
I would say that most people viewed "low fat" as a green light to eat more overall food. I think it had less to do with the sugar and more to do with the psychological effect a "health term" like "low fat" has on an individual...
Precisely this.
In reality, the calorie content in "low fat" foods is nearly the same as full fat foods. People would equate "low fat" to "not fattening" and assume they could eat as much as they wanted, consuming more calories than they would have if they had eaten a proper serving of the full fat food.
Companies still try to trick people into it today. Look at Chex Mix, for example. It touts on the bag that it has 60% less fat than potato chips, but an ounce of Chex Mix has just as many or more calories than an ounce of potato chips. Also, an ounce of Chex Mix looks much smaller than an ounce of potato chips, which would cause more people to underestimate a serving and consume a lot more than they should.6 -
WinoGelato wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »
Robert Lustig has been on record saying things that even a high school student who never paid attention in Biology would know are factually wrong.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7QXFJNKWXs
Weird video, it first shows the actual facts and then the crap Lustig talks.
Not sure what the writing was about..doesnt mirror him and not gonna pay attention to youtube as not a good source. What caused the obesity rise in our two nations if it wasnt sugar or junk food? Did everyone just suddenly over eat? Asking your opinion mate not being confrontational
IMO, excess calories and a shortage of activity...
Agreed. As well as easier access to all sorts of foods as @amusedmonkey mentioned. It also wasn't a sudden thing, this type of change takes years for the effects to start to show.
I'm not certain that I could dig up the stats, but West Point has kept records on its recruits going back to the 1880's. The BMI's of incoming classes have been rising since the Industrial Revolution.
While I'm sure that muscle mass rose with better nutrition, at some point, people started to get fatter too.
The widespread availability of food is something that has been building for years. Even throughout the Great Depression, the weight of incoming recruits continued to climb.
The increase in food availability (and corresponding weight gain) was slower before, but with modern globalization, it's become exponential.
This climb was taking place well before we could place the blame on any one macro-nutrient.2 -
Because you believe it.
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
2 -
Makes sense as an argument. So what would you say to the people that say it is due to sugar in the "low fat" foods that took off in the 90's? Also people would argue that US and UK are not the most obese, there are small islands and developing countrys that are most obese and this is not due to overindulgence?
Again..just asking the question and seeing opinions
I would say that most people viewed "low fat" as a green light to eat more overall food. I think it had less to do with the sugar and more to do with the psychological effect a "health term" like "low fat" has on an individual...
This is very true, and it was part of the message. Susan Powter used to make it seem like you could eat scads of bagels and mounds of pasta.
She and her cohorts were banking on the same thing keto proponents bank on - satiety signals putting a stop on consumption before caloric excess became a problem.
Then the junky food manufacturers like Snackwells hopped on the bandwagon and people transferred that "well, it's low fat and I can eat plenty!" type of thinking to those cookies and we were all gaining weight.
I gained weight doing that kind of low fat just like I gained weight doing low carb.
And there's the point. It doesn't matter what you eat, it matters how much you eat. Macronutrients aren't magic. They don't force fat onto your body. Excess intake does.3 -
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Makes sense as an argument. So what would you say to the people that say it is due to sugar in the "low fat" foods that took off in the 90's? Also people would argue that US and UK are not the most obese, there are small islands and developing countrys that are most obese and this is not due to overindulgence?
Again..just asking the question and seeing opinions
I would say that most people viewed "low fat" as a green light to eat more overall food. I think it had less to do with the sugar and more to do with the psychological effect a "health term" like "low fat" has on an individual...
Precisely this.
In reality, the calorie content in "low fat" foods is nearly the same as full fat foods. People would equate "low fat" to "not fattening" and assume they could eat as much as they wanted, consuming more calories than they would have if they had eaten a proper serving of the full fat food.
Companies still try to trick people into it today. Look at Chex Mix, for example. It touts on the bag that it has 60% less fat than potato chips, but an ounce of Chex Mix has just as many or more calories than an ounce of potato chips. Also, an ounce of Chex Mix looks much smaller than an ounce of potato chips, which would cause more people to underestimate a serving and consume a lot more than they should.
Does Chex Mix have more sugar than Doritos or other crisps/chips? Curious
You can look it up. You have the same access to the internet that we do.
I would hazard a guess that the info is even available in the database here if you're interested.6 -
Makes sense as an argument. So what would you say to the people that say it is due to sugar in the "low fat" foods that took off in the 90's? Also people would argue that US and UK are not the most obese, there are small islands and developing countrys that are most obese and this is not due to overindulgence?
Again..just asking the question and seeing opinions
I would say that most people viewed "low fat" as a green light to eat more overall food. I think it had less to do with the sugar and more to do with the psychological effect a "health term" like "low fat" has on an individual...
This^
I had a co-worker (many years ago) who would eat pounds of grapes....pounds of them while on a diet. The justification was, they were fat free. Just because her diet was very low fat she "didn't have to watch portions"
Eliminating one thing from our diets won't automatically make us thin....it's ALWAYS going to come down to calories.2 -
Makes sense as an argument. So what would you say to the people that say it is due to sugar in the "low fat" foods that took off in the 90's? Also people would argue that US and UK are not the most obese, there are small islands and developing countrys that are most obese and this is not due to overindulgence?
Again..just asking the question and seeing opinions
People like to scapegoat. Admitting personal responsibility is not very pleasant (and doesn't sell as well). What makes me scratch my head is that such people assume when low fat guidelines were established everyone magically adhered to them. Look no further than today. Who, other than some of the health conscious crowd, actually follows the dietary guidelines? People did not get fat because they were all good obedient health conscious scouts. I assure you, in the 90s we ate plenty of fat. I know I did.
As for the islands, I believe you mean the Samoan islands among others? They eat a lot of energy rich foods. If you look at the Samoan diet, heavy use of coconut cream and other coconut products as well as fried foods, mutton fat..etc despite most of their intake coming from whole foods (although convenience foods are becoming more and more available and they are getting more and more sedentary). The caloric density of their cuisine makes it pretty easy to overeat even if you don't down pounds of food. This only proves that regardless of the type of food, sugar, fat, junk, clean, whatever, if you overeat you get fat. It's that simple.
3 -
stevencloser wrote: »
Robert Lustig has been on record saying things that even a high school student who never paid attention in Biology would know are factually wrong.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7QXFJNKWXs
Weird video, it first shows the actual facts and then the crap Lustig talks.
Not sure what the writing was about..doesnt mirror him and not gonna pay attention to youtube as not a good source. What caused the obesity rise in our two nations if it wasnt sugar or junk food? Did everyone just suddenly over eat? Asking your opinion mate not being confrontational
Yes, people have consistently been eating more calories. More of all kinds of calories.
Why? Food is more easily available and cheap (in terms of time cost, as well as money), and traditional cultural checks on eating (that one eat homecooked meals at regular times as a family or bring lunch or go out to eat only occasionally or not overindulge on treats, stuff like that) are largely going away. Unsurprisingly, this happened more easily in the US (a less culturally-bound society where people pick up and toss away cultural things more readily and also move a lot) than in other countries, but you all are catching up, probably.
Add to this that much of the movement necessary in the past (for jobs and household chores) are no longer necessary, so movement must be intentional in a new way, and that (again, the US was ahead on this) many people work sedentary jobs that they must commute to by car, and even live in places without sidewalks, it's really not that surprising.
We also have more variety and tempting foods available to us -- even compared to when I was a kid in the '80s I can get food from tons of restaurants delivered, go out and have a meal from almost anywhere in the world, there are far more options at supermarkets, etc. Choice and variety tends to result in more eating, unsurprisingly.
(There are actually studies of the WW2 and rationing period in the UK that show that despite shortages people got healthier, because they had to eat more basic diets and rely on things like homegrown veg and give up lots of normal sources of excess calories. And that was compared with the '30s!)2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions