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.
CICO is not the whole equation
Replies
-
When in doubt, repeat the same flawed debates and ask the same flawed questions repeatedly until the other person simply can't be bothered anymore.2
-
SymbolismNZ wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Do you know what "refined" sugar is?
I know people can't read; so like I've previously said, it's not worth the debate.
Seems anyone with over a thousand posts here lost the ability to be rational; must have had "A calorie is a calorie is a calorie, no food is bad" beaten into them and all hope is lost.
Later.
I have more than a thousand posts here. What is it that I'm being irrational about?
8 -
diannethegeek wrote: »SymbolismNZ wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Do you know what "refined" sugar is?
I know people can't read; so like I've previously said, it's not worth the debate.
Seems anyone with over a thousand posts here lost the ability to be rational; must have had "A calorie is a calorie is a calorie, no food is bad" beaten into them and all hope is lost.
Later.
I have more than a thousand posts here. What is it that I'm being irrational about?
I'm just under 1,000, so I guess I'm okay still.
No idea what he's on about though.10 -
The point is - that sugar is not good for you. Plain and simple.
No, not plain and simple. Main source of calories in fruit, sugar. A major source of calories in vegetables and dairy, sugar. The main source of energy for your body (since your body easily turns starches into sugar on a routine basis), sugar. Largest source of calories in most blue zone diets, sugar -- not added sugar, but carbs which, again, the body easy turns into sugar, whatever the source.
Yes, many foods with lots of added sugar ARE low nutrition and high cal and also may be bad for you in excess in some other ways (if you eat them in a way so as to cause cravings or blood sugar spikes -- it is possible, thought not yet definitive, for example, that excessive sugary drinks contribute to T2D). But one of the problems with foods with lots of added sugar is that they have lots of calories and are hyperpalatable so often overeaten and why is that? As much due to fat as sugar.
Thus, the idea that this means that "sugar" is "not good for you," period is wrong.
And of course this doesn't mean that I think low carb is a bad choice and no one is saying no one should do it or some other diet. The objection is to saying that eating some sugar in one's diet makes it inherently unhealthy. That's not about personal choices, it's a much broader fact claim.12 -
SymbolismNZ wrote: »When in doubt, repeat the same flawed debates and ask the same flawed questions repeatedly until the other person simply can't be bothered anymore.
Yet here you are...8 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »The only issue with sugar is it is calorie dense. Beyond that, excluding medical issues, it's fine. Don't know why this is still an argument.
I think it comes up a lot because a good half of all people do have health issues (T2D, T1D, prediabetes, insulin resistance, PCOS, NAFLD, Alzheimier's, CAD and a few cancers) that are made less healthy by sugar (large amounts of it - not a teaspoon or so a day). People who are made less healthy by sugar isn't a small minority. My guess is that it may be a majority now.
Not asking to be argumentative...just curious...
Do you think however that there is a percentage of people that use "bad bad sugar" as scapegoat for their lack of control and/or their bad diets? It just seems as if more and more people are showing up that says "I can't lose weight...it must be sugar.". How many of that "half of all people" are self-diagnosing and just using the latest fad.
BTW...I think the same thing happened when it was "bad bad fat". Someone told them that fat made you fat and unhealthy so many people blamed the fat.
Totally agree. I bet if it was 1985 and we had the same culture of addiction and internet sources telling people they are addicted people would all think they were addicted to fat.8 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »SymbolismNZ wrote: »The main ingredient in ice cream is sugar, by a pure calorie basis - and generally you've got sugar ontop of sugar in icecream due to flavourings too, but nice try.
Depends on the ice cream, but usually it's about half sugar, half fat (and the fat is all dairy fat). To me it's pretty much interchangeable with cheese -- I like both, eat both because I think they are tasty and not because I pretend they are good for me, and I find that both tend to increase my satisfaction with my diet and so help me eat an overall nutrient dense, calorie appropriate diet. Yeah, overall for the same calories the ice cream has some sugar and the cheese more sat fat, but I don't agree with your assumption that fat = good, sugar = bad, in all cases -- IMO, my sat fat and sugar levels are fine on a total amount so no harm in including either the cheese or ice cream, but I don't have a need for what is contributed by either and my diet in terms of overall nutrients is not better because of either (better because tastier and more satisfying, sure).
I'd put drinking a glass of good wine or beer in that category too, although I personally don't drink. (And I'd say that's not the same thing as "using" booze or "using" food or whatever you are trying to imply with that.)
Anyway, to support the half fat/half sugar claim, although specific ice creams vary, of course: I have a basic chocolate ice cream recipe in my recipe box, and it comes in as exactly half and half -- 72 calories from sugar, 72 from fat. Some of the sugar is from dairy, though.
I pulled the newest Jeni flavor's nutrition label (there's a Jeni's on my street and I'm a fan), and it has the new nutrition label. It's Bangkok Peanut flavor. I am adjusting to 1/3 a cup, as to me 200 calories of ice cream occasionally seems normal. .5 cup (the old serving) would be about 300 calories, so a high cal ice cream, yes.
For the .33 cup, it's 200 calories of which 74 calories are from sugar, 56 of those from added sugar, and 108 calories from fat. Also 18 calories from of protein. So for that one more of the calories are from fat, although presumably some of the fat is from peanut, not dairy fat.
This amazes me no end. I really couldn't eat just one third c. of ice cream, specially anything called Peanut! Kudos on your amazing capacities at restricting (what I would call it
your special foods. Maybe someday I'll be there too, but at this point I'd rather go for two oranges, or a banana or 200 calories of FF yogurt and a bit of cocoa, than .33 cup of ice cream.
That's why I like the tracking of calories as a way of losing and maintaining, its is so flexible, and, everyone can have their fare according to their taste.
I sometimes would rather go for a couple of clementines (for some reason I don't like regular oranges) or a banana or a pear (my current favorite) or some cheese or popcorn (I have a new gadget that you can use to microwave kernels and then I spray it with olive oil and add salt), but sometimes I like a square of really good quality chocolate or some ice cream. Had a tiny cheesecake from a dessert flight after a work dinner the other day and it was amazing and just the perfect size. And sometimes I have no extra calories since I save them for Chicago style pizza or Ethiopian or a fancy dinner out at a farm to table place I enjoy.
For me it's nice to have the variety. It's not like I always pick one or the other.1 -
Some noobs are just hilarious...8
-
diannethegeek wrote: »SymbolismNZ wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Do you know what "refined" sugar is?
I know people can't read; so like I've previously said, it's not worth the debate.
Seems anyone with over a thousand posts here lost the ability to be rational; must have had "A calorie is a calorie is a calorie, no food is bad" beaten into them and all hope is lost.
Later.
I have more than a thousand posts here. What is it that I'm being irrational about?
I think the claim is that any of the veterans here who believe in CICO and advocat for a balanced diet of eating all foods in moderation have lost our ability to understand science.
Oh and that we are all codependent excuse makers who refuse to acknowledge that we are addicted much in the same way as alcohol or drug addicts who won't admit they have a problem.
I'm not sure which claim I find more offensive, since I have a chemistry degree and am the child of an alcoholic.
29 -
WinoGelato wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »SymbolismNZ wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Do you know what "refined" sugar is?
I know people can't read; so like I've previously said, it's not worth the debate.
Seems anyone with over a thousand posts here lost the ability to be rational; must have had "A calorie is a calorie is a calorie, no food is bad" beaten into them and all hope is lost.
Later.
I have more than a thousand posts here. What is it that I'm being irrational about?
I think the claim is that any of the veterans here who believe in CICO and advocat for a balanced diet of eating all foods in moderation have lost our ability to understand science.
Oh and that we are all codependent excuse makers who refuse to acknowledge that we are addicted much in the same way as alcohol or drug addicts who won't admit they have a problem.
I'm not sure which claim I find more offensive, since I have a chemistry degree and am the child of an alcoholic.13 -
This^^3rdof7sisters wrote: »OMG people - yes anyone who says "always" "will" "must be" almost always turns out to be wrong because there are always exceptions. The point is - that sugar is not good for you. Plain and simple. Will anything bad happen to you from eating ice cream or choc once in a while - no - of course not. But in general sugar is not good for you. I cant believe there is any debate about that simple fact. But if you choose to eat sugar - good for you. And if you dont gain any weight from it even better for you. So many people on here just love to parse each and every word. I have given up sugar and carbs to a large extent. I feel great and lost a lot of weight. Once in a while I will eat pizza when I want. But the point is - it works for me. If something else works for you -great -I am happy for you. I dont feel the need to call someone an idiot because they dont do what I do. I know its not for everyone.
It's not bad for you either. Too much sugar is more then likely bad for you, as is too much water...
^^THIS! Too many calories leads to weight gain. That can be from any, or all, foods. Most people with no health limitations can probably lose weight through moderation of all foods, and not consuming more calories than they are burning.0 -
Up until I hit my 40s I used to eat quite a bit of refined sugar and white flour products. It took a number of years, but that way of eating did catch up with me. Then I started to get inflammatory symptoms, gained weight in midsection, and experienced water retention. Consequently after discovering the reasons for my distress, I have found much relief by cutting back on sugar and refined flour products.
I don't know what percentage of the population suffers from similar effects. But it is worth mentioning that SOME people do better adjusting macros to include a lower percentage net carbs. Those individuals might find that they get relief from body aches, inflammation, and water retention when they restrict sugar, corn syrup, refined flour, and seed oils. I can't figure out why some people on MFP would want others to stay sick and indulge in a woe that makes them unwell as long as it fits CICO model?
During that time, where you also inactive, overweight and ate an overall poor diet?
I never got above 25 BMI and have always eaten a healthy overall diet. When I moved from normal into low overweight range I started to make adjustments.0 -
Up until I hit my 40s I used to eat quite a bit of refined sugar and white flour products. It took a number of years, but that way of eating did catch up with me. Then I started to get inflammatory symptoms, gained weight in midsection, and experienced water retention. Consequently after discovering the reasons for my distress, I have found much relief by cutting back on sugar and refined flour products.
I don't know what percentage of the population suffers from similar effects. But it is worth mentioning that SOME people do better adjusting macros to include a lower percentage net carbs. Those individuals might find that they get relief from body aches, inflammation, and water retention when they restrict sugar, corn syrup, refined flour, and seed oils. I can't figure out why some people on MFP would want others to stay sick and indulge in a woe that makes them unwell as long as it fits CICO model?
I usually stay out of these types of conversations...they have no end or beginning as far as I can tell...but...
Most conversations on this site are targeting healthy people...not people with a health issue unless the topic is about a specific health issue.
For ex:
At times there are conversations about sodium levels...they don't apply to me unless they are specifically about sodium levels and high blood pressure. What works for a typically healthy person won't work for me. I don't advocate for other people to eat low sodium simply because I have to.
I eat a moderately low carb diet (around a 100g net). It helps me with water retention due to my sodium issues. I don't expect that others have to do the same simply because that works for me.
For these types of discussions to have any validity they simply can't take every person's needs in to account. Those specific needs should be addressed in threads specific to those needs.
Except that a huge amount of overweight and obese people DO fall into this category.0 -
SymbolismNZ wrote: »
If you want to debate the differences between refined sugary *kitten* as a source of carbohydrate or say a capsicum; the key point is glycemic index, and how the glucose that is generated enters and ultimately exits your system.
The whole "Well everything gets broken down into glucose" mentality shows a limited understanding of why fibrous carbohydrates are far better for fuel throughout the day; runners who subsist on glucose shots and gels versus those eating bananas, apples and fruits - you can generally tell the difference because the professionals and leaders of the pack aren't the ones chugging down *kitten* to spike their glucose temporarily.
Also, you could easily exist without any form of sugar because your body undertakes gluconeogenesis to convert excess protein and excess fatty acids into a form of glucose for your blood stream.
Also, stop saying "sugar" and start saying "refined sugar" - sugar itself, (ga)lactose, fructose, dextrose - are all perfectly fine and all perfectly healthy.
The problem with this dichotomy is that sucrose is also found in high concentrations in many fruits and vegetables. You could argue that the fiber found in fruits and vegetables blunts the GL, thus making the sucrose in fruits and vegetables "not bad" as compared to refined sugar, but at least in short-term, this is not supported by science.
http://jn.nutrition.org/content/135/10/2387.long
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2936248/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3705335/
You are then left with the argument that refined sugar has long-term effects on "health", which is an abstract argument, and even more difficult to demonstrate causality, or form a counter-argument to oppose. If you remove the correlations with obesity, there is scant evidence that refined sugar can be linked to any disorder or disease.
Also, not sure that it is a good position for you to revert to the "dietary carbs are not required" argument, since this ultimately shows that glucose is so important that your body will go through highly inefficient metabolic pathways to manufacture it if necessary, even in the presence of extreme, prolonged energy deficit.17 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »The only issue with sugar is it is calorie dense. Beyond that, excluding medical issues, it's fine. Don't know why this is still an argument.
I think it comes up a lot because a good half of all people do have health issues (T2D, T1D, prediabetes, insulin resistance, PCOS, NAFLD, Alzheimier's, CAD and a few cancers) that are made less healthy by sugar (large amounts of it - not a teaspoon or so a day). People who are made less healthy by sugar isn't a small minority. My guess is that it may be a majority now.
I'm not convinced on about 1/2 of your list. I worry that the list grows every time Taubes opens his mouth, and that there is not real evidence for a good chunk of it.
Much of it is still theory, like the link to alzheimers. Those issues affect a lot of people. Most people if you follow them into their 80s.Tacklewasher wrote: »The only issue with sugar is it is calorie dense. Beyond that, excluding medical issues, it's fine. Don't know why this is still an argument.
I think it comes up a lot because a good half of all people do have health issues (T2D, T1D, prediabetes, insulin resistance, PCOS, NAFLD, Alzheimier's, CAD and a few cancers) that are made less healthy by sugar (large amounts of it - not a teaspoon or so a day). People who are made less healthy by sugar isn't a small minority. My guess is that it may be a majority now.
your guess is wrong
Meh.3rdof7sisters wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »The only issue with sugar is it is calorie dense. Beyond that, excluding medical issues, it's fine. Don't know why this is still an argument.
I think it comes up a lot because a good half of all people do have health issues (T2D, T1D, prediabetes, insulin resistance, PCOS, NAFLD, Alzheimier's, CAD and a few cancers) that are made less healthy by sugar (large amounts of it - not a teaspoon or so a day). People who are made less healthy by sugar isn't a small minority. My guess is that it may be a majority now.
Honest question, how do overconsumption of fats, or any other foods, work into this equation?
I certainly don't know about anyone else, but I do know how I got to being obese, and that was by overconsumption of a lot of different foods, and sugar was not the main reason certainly. I was an equal opportunity overindulger, I love food and ate too much of everything. I may be the only person to do this, but I really find it hard to believe that I am.
Over consumption of food, including fats, leads to weight gain.
I do find it easier to lose when carbs are low. It curbs my appetite, I don't get BG roller caoster swings (with shakes, light headedness and headaches), my cravings for sugar are reduced, and I find I seem to lose weight faster than expected.
I gained most of my weight after becoming insulin resistant. For me, I ate too many carbs. Overeating protein and fats was not a problem for me. My excess calories came from carbs.Tacklewasher wrote: »The only issue with sugar is it is calorie dense. Beyond that, excluding medical issues, it's fine. Don't know why this is still an argument.
I think it comes up a lot because a good half of all people do have health issues (T2D, T1D, prediabetes, insulin resistance, PCOS, NAFLD, Alzheimier's, CAD and a few cancers) that are made less healthy by sugar (large amounts of it - not a teaspoon or so a day). People who are made less healthy by sugar isn't a small minority. My guess is that it may be a majority now.
Not asking to be argumentative...just curious...
Do you think however that there is a percentage of people that use "bad bad sugar" as scapegoat for their lack of control and/or their bad diets? It just seems as if more and more people are showing up that says "I can't lose weight...it must be sugar.". How many of that "half of all people" are self-diagnosing and just using the latest fad.
BTW...I think the same thing happened when it was "bad bad fat". Someone told them that fat made you fat and unhealthy so many people blamed the fat.
Could be people are using it as a fad diet. Gluten free is a fad. But I'm a celiac - its a reminder to me that these fads may be based on something that is helpful to some people. Trying it hurts no one.
People who are metabollically healthy may experience no benefits to a LCHF diet. I remember seeing weight loss studies comparing low carb and higher carb. The people with insulin resistance lost more on a LCHF diet than the other group. Weight loss for higher carb diets were the same between the two groups.
I doubt many people are self diagnosing IR problems and other health issues. It looks like LCHF helps many of those people. It wouldn't hurt them to try it.
Edited to add that I was one of those people that followed the food pyramid advice to eat low fat because fat is bad and clogs arteries. Big mistake for me and my health.4 -
SymbolismNZ wrote: »
If you want to debate the differences between refined sugary *kitten* as a source of carbohydrate or say a capsicum; the key point is glycemic index, and how the glucose that is generated enters and ultimately exits your system.
The whole "Well everything gets broken down into glucose" mentality shows a limited understanding of why fibrous carbohydrates are far better for fuel throughout the day; runners who subsist on glucose shots and gels versus those eating bananas, apples and fruits - you can generally tell the difference because the professionals and leaders of the pack aren't the ones chugging down *kitten* to spike their glucose temporarily.
Also, you could easily exist without any form of sugar because your body undertakes gluconeogenesis to convert excess protein and excess fatty acids into a form of glucose for your blood stream.
Also, stop saying "sugar" and start saying "refined sugar" - sugar itself, (ga)lactose, fructose, dextrose - are all perfectly fine and all perfectly healthy.
The problem with this dichotomy is that sucrose is also found in high concentrations in many fruits and vegetables. You could argue that the fiber found in fruits and vegetables blunts the GL, thus making the sucrose in fruits and vegetables "not bad" as compared to refined sugar, but at least in short-term, this is not supported by science.
http://jn.nutrition.org/content/135/10/2387.long
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2936248/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3705335/
You are then left with the argument that refined sugar has long-term effects on "health", which is an abstract argument, and even more difficult to demonstrate causality, or form a counter-argument to oppose. If you remove the correlations with obesity, there is scant evidence that refined sugar can be linked to any disorder or disease.
Also, not sure that it is a good position for you to revert to the "dietary carbs are not required" argument, since this ultimately shows that glucose is so important that your body will go through highly inefficient metabolic pathways to manufacture it if necessary, even in the presence of extreme, prolonged energy deficit.
Or you could say that eating carbs is overkill ince we already make all the glucose we need. Sort of like taking vitamin D when you live in the tropics and work outdoors.
I like carbs, I don't think they are necessary for good health, but I like them and enjoy eating them Sadly, my body doesn't do well with many though.3 -
Lots of countries where obesity isn't a problem consume sugar laden foods just fine. They just don't eat a lot of it like US people and some other obese countries do. The issue with health of people (like insulin resistance) who are obese and overweight is because of the weight, genetics, and not because sugar is consumed.SymbolismNZ wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »@SymbolismNZ If you like ice cream but dont like the macros, you should check out "Peters no sugar added vanilla ice cream", this is what I have and tastes better than regular ice cream.
Per 200g (my serving size)- 244 calories
- 17g carbs
- 13g Fibre
- 11g protein
- 6g Fat
- 17g sugar
I don't really have a sweet tooth, I also don't eat refined sugars of any type where I can avoid it so ultimately I'd much rather use those calories on some beautiful pork belly, or cheese sauce on my broccoli.
I do find it interesting people maintain that there is no research indicating sugar (at any level) being correlated to higher risks of many disorders, but not surprised that most trot out the same old "Sugar doesn't make you fat, Sugar isn't addictive" routine.
"How is Refined Sugar not good for you?"
I mean; you could either look at the growing amount of research indicating the increased risks associated with consumption of refined sugar and corn syrups, or you could look at the growing amount of nutritional scientists who completely cut it from their diet (with very small exceptions), or you could just trot out the same lines that "Sugar isn't bad for you as long as it's not excessive"
Even those (with a background in research) who advocate refined sugar as not being bad for you, generally do so with the suffix "So long as you see it as an occasional treat"
Like I keep saying, it's your preference, you're leaning on the same crutches that those who consume alcohol, marijuana, nicotine or psilocybin lean on. It doesn't make you a bad person, also won't have massively detrimental impacts to your health in the next few years, but it probably is eroding your longevity based on the research.
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
10 -
Lol, yep Michael Phelps holds more Gold medals as an elite athlete and eats processed pasta. So do lots of other elite athletes. And while gluconeogenis can happen, it's not an EFFECTIVE way to fuel endurance exercise.SymbolismNZ wrote: »
If you want to debate the differences between refined sugary *kitten* as a source of carbohydrate or say a capsicum; the key point is glycemic index, and how the glucose that is generated enters and ultimately exits your system.
The whole "Well everything gets broken down into glucose" mentality shows a limited understanding of why fibrous carbohydrates are far better for fuel throughout the day; runners who subsist on glucose shots and gels versus those eating bananas, apples and fruits - you can generally tell the difference because the professionals and leaders of the pack aren't the ones chugging down *kitten* to spike their glucose temporarily.
Also, you could easily exist without any form of sugar because your body undertakes gluconeogenesis to convert excess protein and excess fatty acids into a form of glucose for your blood stream.
Also, stop saying "sugar" and start saying "refined sugar" - sugar itself, (ga)lactose, fructose, dextrose - are all perfectly fine and all perfectly healthy.
And please, if you know how sugar breaks down to it's simplest form, it doesn't really matter about glycemic index. The difference usually is in the fiber being consumed with 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
9 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »The only issue with sugar is it is calorie dense. Beyond that, excluding medical issues, it's fine. Don't know why this is still an argument.
I think it comes up a lot because a good half of all people do have health issues (T2D, T1D, prediabetes, insulin resistance, PCOS, NAFLD, Alzheimier's, CAD and a few cancers) that are made less healthy by sugar (large amounts of it - not a teaspoon or so a day). People who are made less healthy by sugar isn't a small minority. My guess is that it may be a majority now.
I'm not convinced on about 1/2 of your list. I worry that the list grows every time Taubes opens his mouth, and that there is not real evidence for a good chunk of it.
Much of it is still theory, like the link to alzheimers. Those issues affect a lot of people. Most people if you follow them into their 80s.
What I thought. Nothing to actually support the claim.
My wife's father passed away from Alzheimer complications, so please don't BS about it.
7 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »The only issue with sugar is it is calorie dense. Beyond that, excluding medical issues, it's fine. Don't know why this is still an argument.
I think it comes up a lot because a good half of all people do have health issues (T2D, T1D, prediabetes, insulin resistance, PCOS, NAFLD, Alzheimier's, CAD and a few cancers) that are made less healthy by sugar (large amounts of it - not a teaspoon or so a day). People who are made less healthy by sugar isn't a small minority. My guess is that it may be a majority now.
I'm not convinced on about 1/2 of your list. I worry that the list grows every time Taubes opens his mouth, and that there is not real evidence for a good chunk of it.
Much of it is still theory, like the link to alzheimers. Those issues affect a lot of people. Most people if you follow them into their 80s.
What I thought. Nothing to actually support the claim.
My wife's father passed away from Alzheimer complications, so please don't BS about it.
... I didn't say nothing supported it. Some of his ideas are theories. The science behind what he reports is science. It will take years to prove or disprove theories on human nutrition and health.
I am sorry for your loss. No BS. If I had a family member with Alzheimer's I would be encouraging MCT oil and ketones with the hope that it could slow the disease. Which it does in quite a few.2 -
Bringing swimming into the conversation of long term endurance sports is an interesting one, especially considering Phelps is a sprint swimmer and doesn't do the longer distances.
Very few people will ever require the output of energy he requires and even he has changed his diet as he's aged to be a lot more rational and reasonable.
[edit by MFP moderator]2 -
SymbolismNZ wrote: »Bringing swimming into the conversation of long term endurance sports is an interesting one, especially considering Phelps is a sprint swimmer and doesn't do the longer distances.
Very few people will ever require the output of energy he requires and even he has changed his diet as he's aged to be a lot more rational and reasonable.
Wrong, again...5 -
SymbolismNZ wrote: »Bringing swimming into the conversation of long term endurance sports is an interesting one, especially considering Phelps is a sprint swimmer and doesn't do the longer distances.
Very few people will ever require the output of energy he requires and even he has changed his diet as he's aged to be a lot more rational and reasonable.
Wrong, again...
Indeed.
Again, that someone has a different idea of what good nutrition or good health involves than what you believe is necessary, SymbolismNZ, does not mean that they don't care about such things as fitness, good health, or nutrition, and repeatedly insisting that they do not is not only unjustified, but rude and shows that you have not been paying attention to the conversation.
One reason these discussions get derailed is that some people can't seem to make that distinction. I happen to disagree with the idea that carbs or sugar is inherently bad for us and we (or some huge percentage of people) naturally need to avoid them. I don't think that makes sense at all with the biology of how sugar is used by the body (no meaningful distinction there between the sugar in fruit or sucrose so as to justify putting sucrose in a separate category), and similarly I don't think the idea that carbs are bad for us (despite being the major sources of many micros and the fact that they are the primary source of calories in most blue zone diets and many other healthy traditional diets) stands up to logic or the evidence.
Ironically, I suppose, I actually have a preference for eating in a somewhat low carb way (I am currently doing it -- not close to keto, but under 150 g total carbs, usually more like 100). My own issues with this is that although I would never tell someone else it is not healthy (since I see no strong reason why it would not be, traditional diets are all over the place and even the traditional Med Diet is higher fat, although NOT higher sat fat), it seems like higher carb seems to be more prevalent among the most healthful diets and particularly low meat and animal product consumption (mine isn't high compared to the SAD, but higher than my ideal and what I was doing for a while last year). Oh, well, not going to worry about it right now so long as I am getting lots of plants in my diet still, especially vegetables, but just pointing out that this idea that I should instead be concerned only with removing the last bit of added sugar or refined carbs to my diet seems a bit out of whack, but not because I care nothing about nutrition. More because balancing nutrition and what's sustainable is a somewhat different question: I actually love the idea of WFPB, but for me it doesn't feel natural or sustainable and I just feel more satisfied (not less hungry - hunger isn't the issue either way) when I have more fat and some meat in my diet. I suspect if I didn't live in an area of abundant food that wouldn't matter, but since it does making some compromises with a different sort of still healthy diet makes me happier and therefore more relaxed overall and less neurotic about it (really!) which in turn seems like a healthier way to live, for me.
Frankly, the things debated as if they were religious dogma on this forum probably don't make much difference to health overall. It's funny because no one slams another's way of being active (well, most of the time) because it is not the most conducive exercise to health according to some study, so it's weird that people suggest that if you have a somewhat different idea about diet than them, well, you just don't care about health!17 -
SymbolismNZ wrote: »
If you want to debate the differences between refined sugary *kitten* as a source of carbohydrate or say a capsicum; the key point is glycemic index, and how the glucose that is generated enters and ultimately exits your system.
The whole "Well everything gets broken down into glucose" mentality shows a limited understanding of why fibrous carbohydrates are far better for fuel throughout the day; runners who subsist on glucose shots and gels versus those eating bananas, apples and fruits - you can generally tell the difference because the professionals and leaders of the pack aren't the ones chugging down *kitten* to spike their glucose temporarily.
Also, you could easily exist without any form of sugar because your body undertakes gluconeogenesis to convert excess protein and excess fatty acids into a form of glucose for your blood stream.
Also, stop saying "sugar" and start saying "refined sugar" - sugar itself, (ga)lactose, fructose, dextrose - are all perfectly fine and all perfectly healthy.
The problem with this dichotomy is that sucrose is also found in high concentrations in many fruits and vegetables. You could argue that the fiber found in fruits and vegetables blunts the GL, thus making the sucrose in fruits and vegetables "not bad" as compared to refined sugar, but at least in short-term, this is not supported by science.
http://jn.nutrition.org/content/135/10/2387.long
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2936248/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3705335/
You are then left with the argument that refined sugar has long-term effects on "health", which is an abstract argument, and even more difficult to demonstrate causality, or form a counter-argument to oppose. If you remove the correlations with obesity, there is scant evidence that refined sugar can be linked to any disorder or disease.
Also, not sure that it is a good position for you to revert to the "dietary carbs are not required" argument, since this ultimately shows that glucose is so important that your body will go through highly inefficient metabolic pathways to manufacture it if necessary, even in the presence of extreme, prolonged energy deficit.
Or you could say that eating carbs is overkill ince we already make all the glucose we need. Sort of like taking vitamin D when you live in the tropics and work outdoors.
I like carbs, I don't think they are necessary for good health, but I like them and enjoy eating them Sadly, my body doesn't do well with many though.
Consuming 50 + % of your diet in fats is not necessary for health either....5 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »The only issue with sugar is it is calorie dense. Beyond that, excluding medical issues, it's fine. Don't know why this is still an argument.
I think it comes up a lot because a good half of all people do have health issues (T2D, T1D, prediabetes, insulin resistance, PCOS, NAFLD, Alzheimier's, CAD and a few cancers) that are made less healthy by sugar (large amounts of it - not a teaspoon or so a day). People who are made less healthy by sugar isn't a small minority. My guess is that it may be a majority now.
I'm not convinced on about 1/2 of your list. I worry that the list grows every time Taubes opens his mouth, and that there is not real evidence for a good chunk of it.
Much of it is still theory, like the link to alzheimers. Those issues affect a lot of people. Most people if you follow them into their 80s.
What I thought. Nothing to actually support the claim.
My wife's father passed away from Alzheimer complications, so please don't BS about it.
You may be interested in: http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10464276/nutritional-ketosis-and-alzheimers-cancer/p1
And that 1/2 number is driven from projected statistics for undiagnosed T2 diabetes. But I wouldn't be surprised if it actually was closer to 1/3 of the population.1 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »The only issue with sugar is it is calorie dense. Beyond that, excluding medical issues, it's fine. Don't know why this is still an argument.
I cant believe there is any debate about that simple fact.2 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »SymbolismNZ wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Do you know what "refined" sugar is?
I know people can't read; so like I've previously said, it's not worth the debate.
Seems anyone with over a thousand posts here lost the ability to be rational; must have had "A calorie is a calorie is a calorie, no food is bad" beaten into them and all hope is lost.
Later.
I have more than a thousand posts here. What is it that I'm being irrational about?
I'm just under 1,000, so I guess I'm okay still.
No idea what he's on about though.
You might want to pace yourself, another 8 posts and you will lose all credibility - make them count!7 -
RobynTheresa wrote: »I've been watching the CICO discussions on this forum with interest. CICO is definitely not a myth, however for optimal health it is not the only consideration for weight loss.
I get what you are saying, but the debate over CICO isn't about optimal health but has always been about weight loss. Losing weight and health and the same but different. In your above context though, CICO is the only consideration for weight loss. Optimal health is about being a healthy weight and maintaining systemic functions.
6 -
While I agree with most of the OP, I think "equation" is used incorrectly in the post title.0
-
SymbolismNZ wrote: »When in doubt, repeat the same flawed debates and ask the same flawed questions repeatedly until the other person simply can't be bothered anymore.
ironic, given that is what you keep doing ...8
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions