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.

So. What's the worst weight loss myth?

1…5681011…19

Replies

  • fr3smyl
    fr3smyl Posts: 1,418 Member
    leanjogreen18 wrote: »
    SymbolismNZ wrote: »
    leanjogreen18 wrote: »
    Which is kinda my point...everything in moderation:).

    Which is cool, like I said in the thread he's quoting, the point I made in that thread is that refined sugar itself has been linked to a number of health risks in oncogenes, neurological disorders and appetite disorders and therefore consuming it in moderation is very similar to a moderate drug user, i/e the genesis of this debate.

    Yeah, no. Very few drugs are used in moderation. I would love to agree with you but just no. I've not once seen a post where folks go full on the bag of sugar if they run out of cookies nor have I seen folks attack bananas, or any fruit because they are out of sweets. Have I known of folks going after mouthwash or cough syrup when they are out of alcohol or drugs, oh yeah. Sorry I want to believe you but it's just not proven other than the anti sugar folks. Please really think long and hard, folks would full on go for not only bags of sugar but any fruit if this were true.

    ...I don't know, Jo....I have done things for the sugar...I'm not sugar if it's addictive to everyone...but I'm not proud of the things I have done for sugar. The low doses like apples do nothing (not strong enough). Its the hard core dried fruits and processed sugar sources that get me. I have gone after the bag of sugar or wheat or corn when my fix wasn't available...
    This is my shame.
  • SymbolismNZ
    SymbolismNZ Posts: 190 Member
    It's more so the principle of fast release glucose versus slow release glucose; in effect with processed foods (sugar, chocolate, most juices) that are high carb and no fiber, you get an instant rush of glucose which your body and brain loves and thinks "Oh, I must be about to do something here!" so certain genes activate within your system, ten to twenty minutes later..

    It's the principle behind say Lucozade, a glucose drink that immediately enhances the amount of glucose within your system, meaning you feel more energetic and your brain willa lso process things quicker; however recent research indicates that it's not actually the glucose, but more so an increased synthesis of acetylcholine which is now becoming to be more interesting in research as for its impact on the brain long term....

    In any case, three hours later, you finally do a task like walking or maybe some exercise, you've eaten/drunk a ton of calories reasonably quickly and you had that initial fast release of glucose, but now your body feels like it doesn't have enough energy in its system, which some research indicates in turn leads towards neural receptors responsible for appetite being heightened; hence refined sugar may not be addictive, but it is likely responsible for playing tricks on appetite.

    Glycemic Index is a laymans way (seems to be important here, people don't like research) of attempting to describe things, but lemurcat12 is right, it's the process of gylcemic load and release that is important.

    All foods create glucose in some shape or form within your system, be them from fat, carb or protein; however carbohydrates are the easiest for your body to process into glucose, especially when you're pouring them down your throat in an added sugar juice.
  • SymbolismNZ
    SymbolismNZ Posts: 190 Member
    GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27901033
    http://www.prevention.com/eatclean/glycemic-index

    Still waiting on your research around marijuana; but in regards to a literature review that reviews evidence as it relates to "carbohydrate-insulin theory of obesity" is a completely different story; again, you're focused on weight loss, I'm focused on wellness.

    The Wellness debate is "How is your body utilising the calories you've just ingested and how can it draw on them as it needs throughout the day", the weightloss perspective is "If I eat this, do I get fat?"
  • SymbolismNZ
    SymbolismNZ Posts: 190 Member
    edited January 2017
    I've already interacted on sugar; the problem is you keep linking it to weight gain and addiction which I never make statements about. I've pointed out refined sugar increases your risks of heart disease, of digestive issues, of neuro-degenerative diseases and posted my research on it.

    The only thing I've gotten back is either statements that are so wrong it's funny, or research that is linked to an entirely different topic. I'm just responding to what others write, if you don't want me writing in here, don't give me something to respond to

    i.e the genesis of me being here, someone quoting my point that moderate refined sugar and moderate marijuana use have similar factors of risk towards different health ailments and saying it was the dumbest thing he's heard; yet, no one can disprove it, hard to disprove facts.
  • SymbolismNZ
    SymbolismNZ Posts: 190 Member
    psuLemon wrote: »
    SymbolismNZ wrote: »
    I've already interacted on sugar; the problem is you keep linking it to weight gain and addiction which I never make statements about. I've pointed out refined sugar increases your risks of heart disease, of digestive issues, of neuro-degenerative diseases and posted my research on it.

    The only thing I've gotten back is either statements that are so wrong it's funny, or research that is linked to an entirely different topic.

    If you want to debate sugar addiction, do it in the one i posted. It actually has human models and not just rat studies. The conclusions in human trials does not support your hypothesis.

    Point me to a single statement I've made linking sugar and addiction.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    I bumped the thread psulemon linked, so that's a good place to continue the conversation if people want.

    More -- that there's some magic to raw before 4 just because that apparently rhymes in some bizarre version of English.

    ;-)

    Will duck and run now!
  • GottaBurnEmAll
    GottaBurnEmAll Posts: 7,722 Member
    edited January 2017
    SymbolismNZ wrote: »
    You get the respect you give; I've been respectful to a point, but having people refute stated evidence and state "Oh you're cherry picking", "Oh that's not right" while making no attempt to engage in a proper debate or discussion gets tiresome, and to that point, if you're propogating the same old *kitten* repeatedly that isn't accurate, I'm not going to keep nodding and smiling.

    Take this for example "Oh I've seen recent research indicating moderate marijuana usage has long term health impacts" - but you won't post the research.

    Sure, your clique of friends will like/awesome/inspiring your posts and you'll get a lot of kudos, but you're wrong.

    Compare that to my responses to people who actually post their own research, debate the subject and don't rely on either "HAH, SUGAR ISN'T ADDICTIVE" when that has never been a point of contention I've made, or "HAH, WE ALL KNOW THE TRUTH" when the reality is you don't seem to.

    Excuse me, I've told you time and again it was a tv news report, and it wasn't an actual study I saw. This thread isn't about marijuana and I have no dog in this fight.

    I feel free to take the time I want or not to engage as I wish. My time on here is limited. I don't wish to engage you in more than I can pull out of my bookmarks or off the top of my head. But I've never directly insulted you. I have shared my opinion. Having an opinion that you're cherry picking studies isn't showing you disrespect. It's disagreeing with what you're doing.

    If you gauge the politeness of your response on the amount of time you feel someone spends responding to you, it says far more about your character and worth than it says about theirs.

    I'm not the least bothered by your opinion of me given how you've chosen to comport yourself to someone (me), you've apparently judged to be wanting in the intellectual department in your eyes.

    In fact, I'm quite chuffed.
  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,911 Member
    GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
    That would be really funny if he said that, because I'd bet anything he promotes drinking a green smoothie.

    Edit: Yup, he does. http://www.doctoroz.com/recipe/dr-ozs-green-drink

    Yeah obviously. blending them into mush is not bruising them, duh.
  • Nikion901
    Nikion901 Posts: 2,467 Member
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    French_Peasant wrote: »
    The Master Cleanse, where apparently all you drink for 10+ days is acetic acid, maple syrup and cayenne pepper, then take a laxative to blow it all out your kitten. I've heard a lot of stupid ideas, but this takes the cake for pure, sheer idiocy. I have to admit to a certain amount of schadenfreude over the sufferings of certain Master Cleansers as they scour their bowels. Does that make me a bad person?

    I reported a case like this to the FDA this week - multiple deaths related to over-ingestion of vinegar. The extent of damage done to the GI was disturbing.

    That's not new ... really, it's not! My mom had a dear friend way back more than 65 years ago who drank a small bottle (8oz) of vinegar a day to maintain her low weight ... until she died at at 37 or stomach cancer and left two orphaned kids.
  • GottaBurnEmAll
    GottaBurnEmAll Posts: 7,722 Member
    jessiferrrb wrote: »
    GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
    lunaticfish7 wrote: »
    That you have to lose weight to have value.

    That myth only exists in fat acceptance circles and is perpetuated as a false belief that thin people supposedly have. It's nonsense.

    It's usually self-loathing that people have for themselves being projected.

    i disagree. that myth was part of the family lore my mom passed down to me every day growing up. and i didn't just hear it from her, though she was the most consistently vocal.

    nobody will love you if you're not pretty and slim.

    you would be so pretty if you lost weight.

    if you lost weight you would find a SO in no time!

    if you want to be popular you should try harder to lose weight and fit in.

    these are things that predate fat acceptance by a long shot.

    Yes, my mother did the same thing, but here's the distinction. It's a myth that you go into the real world and find isn't true.

    The whole idea that people of size don't have worth and aren't pretty and won't find love like their mothers tell them growing up comes from the mother's internalized sense of self-loathing and it's not a societal movement that devalues the worth of fat people in the way the plain statement in the post of the person I was responding to said.

    A LOT of us have those scars from our childhood, but I can guarantee you, everyone has scars from their childhood. If you weren't a fat kid, you had freckles. Or you were poor and wore cheap clothes. Or you wore glasses. Or you laughed too loud or walked funny.
  • psuLemon
    psuLemon Posts: 38,431 MFP Moderator
    GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    Christine_72 wrote: »
    Re: Gluten... What about the folks who don't have a gluten allergy but switch over to gluten free products thinking it will be better for their diet. Most gluten free products i have looked at have more calories than the regular food they are substituting :huh:

    We avoid gluten free products. Instead, we look for products that are inherently gluten free.

    Preach. It's the only way to go.

    There are some that are worth it (some cookies are pretty tasty), but by and large, there's a whole world of inherently gluten free cuisine out there that requires no tedious substitution nonsense. Potatoes, rice, and corn are tasty starches in their own rights and plenty of dishes feature them.

    I learned my lesson a few years after my celiac diagnosis and too many gluten-free substitute disappointments.

    As for topic, hmmm... I'm not sure what the worst diet myth is.

    I think "a calorie isn't just a calorie" bothers me more than most because I personally fell for the idea that how I ate would make me thin. I was a very fat person with a really healthy diet thinking that.

    Another one I'm not fond of is that carbs spike insulin and make you store fat in a deficit, implying that fat storage is permanent.

    Actually, the whole brouhaha over fat burning vs. glycogen burning is ridiculous when it's simply a matter of energy balance and the choice between diets is preference.

    Interestingly enough, my wife's favorite desert turns out to be gluten free. It's the chocolate thunder from down under from outback steakhouse. And the best desert I had in Disney World was my wifes chocolate lava cake from Mama Melrose. So there are definitely a few, but not too many.
  • Christine_72
    Christine_72 Posts: 16,049 Member
    jessiferrrb wrote: »
    GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
    lunaticfish7 wrote: »
    That you have to lose weight to have value.

    That myth only exists in fat acceptance circles and is perpetuated as a false belief that thin people supposedly have. It's nonsense.

    It's usually self-loathing that people have for themselves being projected.

    i disagree. that myth was part of the family lore my mom passed down to me every day growing up. and i didn't just hear it from her, though she was the most consistently vocal.

    nobody will love you if you're not pretty and slim.

    you would be so pretty if you lost weight.

    if you lost weight you would find a SO in no time!

    if you want to be popular you should try harder to lose weight and fit in.

    these are things that predate fat acceptance by a long shot.

    Yeah but, then you grow up and become an adult and realise what's right and wrong, and truth V BS.

This discussion has been closed.

Categories