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.
It's All Sugar's Fault
Replies
-
singingflutelady wrote: »How did you keep your carb intake the same while cutting out all sugars? Carbs are sugar?
All sugars are carbs, but not all carbs are sugars. You can easily decrease sugar but increase carbs (starches/fiber).3 -
People are eating more processed, boxed, packaged foods, not to mention eating out more than ever. Yes, sugar and grains are super calorie dense in comparison to the nutrition they provide. Cut out sugar and grains and I wonder how hard it would be to stick to staying under your deficit (or maintenance if you are at that stage)....I know I have a really hard time eating even 1300 calories a day since I stopped eating sugar and grains.
Carbs are not calorie dense... they are 4 calories per gram. Fats are calorie dense. The issue is when it comes to satiate. Some aren't satiated by carbs which can lead to over consumption. Similarly, I could eat fats all day long without being satiated. I have literally eaten blocks of cheese, which is why I don't keep a lot of fats in my house when I am working on losing weight. And I only consume fats when I eat proteins.
They are calorie dense for the NUTRITION and satiety that they provide. I am no way saying a no carb/no sugar diet is the only way to lose weight. I am saying, in my opinion and from my own experience in the last year and the experience of those I know who also eat this way (limited carbs--not true keto, but low carb, less than 50 net a day) that I eat barely 1300 calories a day and I am not often hungry, I do not crave high calorie, nutrient deficient, low satiety type foods that often derail many "dieters." I don't have the need to binge eat anymore, a cycle that was keeping me obese. I don't understand why people get their panties in a twist when low carb is brought up. Its calories in calories out, but you also have to factor in what is sustainable. Many find that eating low carb is sustainable because it is easy to follow, you feel satiated when you eat by keeping your insulin levels fairly stable. But hey-to each their own, there is so much more in this world to worry about than to argue. I've lost 60 lbs with minimal effort, eating the way I do, it works for me.6 -
People are eating more processed, boxed, packaged foods, not to mention eating out more than ever. Yes, sugar and grains are super calorie dense in comparison to the nutrition they provide. Cut out sugar and grains and I wonder how hard it would be to stick to staying under your deficit (or maintenance if you are at that stage)....I know I have a really hard time eating even 1300 calories a day since I stopped eating sugar and grains.
Carbs are not calorie dense... they are 4 calories per gram. Fats are calorie dense. The issue is when it comes to satiate. Some aren't satiated by carbs which can lead to over consumption. Similarly, I could eat fats all day long without being satiated. I have literally eaten blocks of cheese, which is why I don't keep a lot of fats in my house when I am working on losing weight. And I only consume fats when I eat proteins.
They are calorie dense for the NUTRITION and satiety that they provide. I am no way saying a no carb/no sugar diet is the only way to lose weight. I am saying, in my opinion and from my own experience in the last year and the experience of those I know who also eat this way (limited carbs--not true keto, but low carb, less than 50 net a day) that I eat barely 1300 calories a day and I am not often hungry, I do not crave high calorie, nutrient deficient, low satiety type foods that often derail many "dieters." I don't have the need to binge eat anymore, a cycle that was keeping me obese. I don't understand why people get their panties in a twist when low carb is brought up. Its calories in calories out, but you also have to factor in what is sustainable. Many find that eating low carb is sustainable because it is easy to follow, you feel satiated when you eat by keeping your insulin levels fairly stable. But hey-to each their own, there is so much more in this world to worry about than to argue. I've lost 60 lbs with minimal effort, eating the way I do, it works for me.
And many feel more satiated eating low calorie high carb vegetables (a tomato is hardly calorie dense and is high in nutrition) than they do eating high calorie low carb meats/cheeses.
I do. I eat 150-250 carbs a day, even as a diabetic, some high calorie, some low calorie veggies, and feel perfectly satisfied. I ate low carb for a couple months, and was miserable, I couldn't lose weight because I couldn't control my intake naturally and was always hungry.
Blanket statements don't cover everyone. Low carb isn't sustainable for a lot of people, probably at least 50%, and claiming otherwise is what gets pushback.8 -
A Granny Smith apple is pretty filling (for me).0
-
Potatoes are bursting with good stuff and I find them really filling. I've no issue with low carb, I lean towards lower moderate when losing but it's the blanket assertions about how useless starches are for everyone or even most that grinds my gears.7
-
People are eating more processed, boxed, packaged foods, not to mention eating out more than ever. Yes, sugar and grains are super calorie dense in comparison to the nutrition they provide. Cut out sugar and grains and I wonder how hard it would be to stick to staying under your deficit (or maintenance if you are at that stage)....I know I have a really hard time eating even 1300 calories a day since I stopped eating sugar and grains.
Carbs are not calorie dense... they are 4 calories per gram. Fats are calorie dense. The issue is when it comes to satiate. Some aren't satiated by carbs which can lead to over consumption. Similarly, I could eat fats all day long without being satiated. I have literally eaten blocks of cheese, which is why I don't keep a lot of fats in my house when I am working on losing weight. And I only consume fats when I eat proteins.
They are calorie dense for the NUTRITION and satiety that they provide. I am no way saying a no carb/no sugar diet is the only way to lose weight. I am saying, in my opinion and from my own experience in the last year and the experience of those I know who also eat this way (limited carbs--not true keto, but low carb, less than 50 net a day) that I eat barely 1300 calories a day and I am not often hungry, I do not crave high calorie, nutrient deficient, low satiety type foods that often derail many "dieters." I don't have the need to binge eat anymore, a cycle that was keeping me obese. I don't understand why people get their panties in a twist when low carb is brought up. Its calories in calories out, but you also have to factor in what is sustainable. Many find that eating low carb is sustainable because it is easy to follow, you feel satiated when you eat by keeping your insulin levels fairly stable. But hey-to each their own, there is so much more in this world to worry about than to argue. I've lost 60 lbs with minimal effort, eating the way I do, it works for me.
Some of the most satiating things for me contain predominantly carbs (vegetables and starches), and some of the most nutrient dense foods often come in packages where calories are predominantly from carbs (vegetables). Many low satiety and poor nutrient density foods often come bundled with a lot of fat which, along with low moisture, is the cause for the low nutrient density (60% of the calories in potato chips come from fat and less than 40% from carbs because it also has some protein, while a boiled potato is fairly nutrient dense). I have no doubt that you've found a way that works for you, but it has to do with food choices that work best for your satiety more than it has to do with carbs as a general concept.5 -
People are eating more processed, boxed, packaged foods, not to mention eating out more than ever. Yes, sugar and grains are super calorie dense in comparison to the nutrition they provide. Cut out sugar and grains and I wonder how hard it would be to stick to staying under your deficit (or maintenance if you are at that stage)....I know I have a really hard time eating even 1300 calories a day since I stopped eating sugar and grains.
Carbs are not calorie dense... they are 4 calories per gram. Fats are calorie dense. The issue is when it comes to satiate. Some aren't satiated by carbs which can lead to over consumption. Similarly, I could eat fats all day long without being satiated. I have literally eaten blocks of cheese, which is why I don't keep a lot of fats in my house when I am working on losing weight. And I only consume fats when I eat proteins.
They are calorie dense for the NUTRITION and satiety that they provide. I am no way saying a no carb/no sugar diet is the only way to lose weight. I am saying, in my opinion and from my own experience in the last year and the experience of those I know who also eat this way (limited carbs--not true keto, but low carb, less than 50 net a day) that I eat barely 1300 calories a day and I am not often hungry, I do not crave high calorie, nutrient deficient, low satiety type foods that often derail many "dieters." I don't have the need to binge eat anymore, a cycle that was keeping me obese. I don't understand why people get their panties in a twist when low carb is brought up. Its calories in calories out, but you also have to factor in what is sustainable. Many find that eating low carb is sustainable because it is easy to follow, you feel satiated when you eat by keeping your insulin levels fairly stable. But hey-to each their own, there is so much more in this world to worry about than to argue. I've lost 60 lbs with minimal effort, eating the way I do, it works for me.
There are a lot of highly nutritious sources of carbohydrates...potatoes and sweet potatoes and other root vegetables are nutritional powerhouses...lentils, beans, oats, etc, etc, etc...I find these things quite filling. Things like white rice and pasta provide me with quick recovery from my rides...
Yesterday I was really craving some cheese...an old nemesis of mine...I plowed through about 500 calories of cheddar in about 2 minutes...no way I could do that with a potato or lentils or something...I could have kept going to but decided to get up and go do something.4 -
A boiled potato is the most satiating food. Fat is negatively correlated to satiety.People are eating more processed, boxed, packaged foods, not to mention eating out more than ever. Yes, sugar and grains are super calorie dense in comparison to the nutrition they provide. Cut out sugar and grains and I wonder how hard it would be to stick to staying under your deficit (or maintenance if you are at that stage)....I know I have a really hard time eating even 1300 calories a day since I stopped eating sugar and grains.
Carbs are not calorie dense... they are 4 calories per gram. Fats are calorie dense. The issue is when it comes to satiate. Some aren't satiated by carbs which can lead to over consumption. Similarly, I could eat fats all day long without being satiated. I have literally eaten blocks of cheese, which is why I don't keep a lot of fats in my house when I am working on losing weight. And I only consume fats when I eat proteins.
They are calorie dense for the NUTRITION and satiety that they provide. I am no way saying a no carb/no sugar diet is the only way to lose weight. I am saying, in my opinion and from my own experience in the last year and the experience of those I know who also eat this way (limited carbs--not true keto, but low carb, less than 50 net a day) that I eat barely 1300 calories a day and I am not often hungry, I do not crave high calorie, nutrient deficient, low satiety type foods that often derail many "dieters." I don't have the need to binge eat anymore, a cycle that was keeping me obese. I don't understand why people get their panties in a twist when low carb is brought up. Its calories in calories out, but you also have to factor in what is sustainable. Many find that eating low carb is sustainable because it is easy to follow, you feel satiated when you eat by keeping your insulin levels fairly stable. But hey-to each their own, there is so much more in this world to worry about than to argue. I've lost 60 lbs with minimal effort, eating the way I do, it works for me.
16 -
This content has been removed.
-
VintageFeline wrote: »Potatoes are bursting with good stuff and I find them really filling. I've no issue with low carb, I lean towards lower moderate when losing but it's the blanket assertions about how useless starches are for everyone or even most that grinds my gears.
Calorie for calorie potatoes fill me up more than anything else I can think of. And for a long time I believed that I needed to stay away from starchy food's.
What a crock.4 -
People are eating more processed, boxed, packaged foods, not to mention eating out more than ever. Yes, sugar and grains are super calorie dense in comparison to the nutrition they provide. Cut out sugar and grains and I wonder how hard it would be to stick to staying under your deficit (or maintenance if you are at that stage)....I know I have a really hard time eating even 1300 calories a day since I stopped eating sugar and grains.
Carbs are not calorie dense... they are 4 calories per gram. Fats are calorie dense. The issue is when it comes to satiate. Some aren't satiated by carbs which can lead to over consumption. Similarly, I could eat fats all day long without being satiated. I have literally eaten blocks of cheese, which is why I don't keep a lot of fats in my house when I am working on losing weight. And I only consume fats when I eat proteins.
They are calorie dense for the NUTRITION and satiety that they provide. I am no way saying a no carb/no sugar diet is the only way to lose weight. I am saying, in my opinion and from my own experience in the last year and the experience of those I know who also eat this way (limited carbs--not true keto, but low carb, less than 50 net a day) that I eat barely 1300 calories a day and I am not often hungry, I do not crave high calorie, nutrient deficient, low satiety type foods that often derail many "dieters." I don't have the need to binge eat anymore, a cycle that was keeping me obese. I don't understand why people get their panties in a twist when low carb is brought up. Its calories in calories out, but you also have to factor in what is sustainable. Many find that eating low carb is sustainable because it is easy to follow, you feel satiated when you eat by keeping your insulin levels fairly stable. But hey-to each their own, there is so much more in this world to worry about than to argue. I've lost 60 lbs with minimal effort, eating the way I do, it works for me.
No one was complaining about low carb ,but i was correcting your statement. I understand that satiety can range by person, but i can bet more people are satiated by fuits and veggies over oils and butters. Not even including the most dense sourcea of micronutrients are plant based.
All foods have their place, especially when it comes to complaince and adherence. And a total diet is what is important. If you like low carb, but all means. But comapring low carb cs high carb, the volume will be much greater with high carb.0 -
singingflutelady wrote: »How did you keep your carb intake the same while cutting out all sugars? Carbs are sugar?
All sugars are carbs, but not all carbs are sugars. You can easily decrease sugar but increase carbs (starches/fiber).
But starches turn into sugar in your body so the mysterious love handle reducing effect would seem to be stymied by the starches too. I mean, if it's real.6 -
russelljam08 wrote: »
A boiled potato is the most satiating food. Fat is negatively correlated to satiety.People are eating more processed, boxed, packaged foods, not to mention eating out more than ever. Yes, sugar and grains are super calorie dense in comparison to the nutrition they provide. Cut out sugar and grains and I wonder how hard it would be to stick to staying under your deficit (or maintenance if you are at that stage)....I know I have a really hard time eating even 1300 calories a day since I stopped eating sugar and grains.
Carbs are not calorie dense... they are 4 calories per gram. Fats are calorie dense. The issue is when it comes to satiate. Some aren't satiated by carbs which can lead to over consumption. Similarly, I could eat fats all day long without being satiated. I have literally eaten blocks of cheese, which is why I don't keep a lot of fats in my house when I am working on losing weight. And I only consume fats when I eat proteins.
They are calorie dense for the NUTRITION and satiety that they provide. I am no way saying a no carb/no sugar diet is the only way to lose weight. I am saying, in my opinion and from my own experience in the last year and the experience of those I know who also eat this way (limited carbs--not true keto, but low carb, less than 50 net a day) that I eat barely 1300 calories a day and I am not often hungry, I do not crave high calorie, nutrient deficient, low satiety type foods that often derail many "dieters." I don't have the need to binge eat anymore, a cycle that was keeping me obese. I don't understand why people get their panties in a twist when low carb is brought up. Its calories in calories out, but you also have to factor in what is sustainable. Many find that eating low carb is sustainable because it is easy to follow, you feel satiated when you eat by keeping your insulin levels fairly stable. But hey-to each their own, there is so much more in this world to worry about than to argue. I've lost 60 lbs with minimal effort, eating the way I do, it works for me.
While this may be true for you and others, it is not a universal truth. I have found for myself that eating fat satiates me far more than any form of carbs - hence the reason that I tend to a lower carb diet.5 -
This content has been removed.
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »How did you keep your carb intake the same while cutting out all sugars? Carbs are sugar?
All sugars are carbs, but not all carbs are sugars. You can easily decrease sugar but increase carbs (starches/fiber).
But starches turn into sugar in your body so the mysterious love handle reducing effect would seem to be stymied by the starches too. I mean, if it's real.
I recognize how they metabolize... but that wasnt the question lol.0 -
People are eating more processed, boxed, packaged foods, not to mention eating out more than ever. Yes, sugar and grains are super calorie dense in comparison to the nutrition they provide. Cut out sugar and grains and I wonder how hard it would be to stick to staying under your deficit (or maintenance if you are at that stage)....I know I have a really hard time eating even 1300 calories a day since I stopped eating sugar and grains.
Carbs are not calorie dense... they are 4 calories per gram. Fats are calorie dense. The issue is when it comes to satiate. Some aren't satiated by carbs which can lead to over consumption. Similarly, I could eat fats all day long without being satiated. I have literally eaten blocks of cheese, which is why I don't keep a lot of fats in my house when I am working on losing weight. And I only consume fats when I eat proteins.
They are calorie dense for the NUTRITION and satiety that they provide. I am no way saying a no carb/no sugar diet is the only way to lose weight. I am saying, in my opinion and from my own experience in the last year and the experience of those I know who also eat this way (limited carbs--not true keto, but low carb, less than 50 net a day) that I eat barely 1300 calories a day and I am not often hungry, I do not crave high calorie, nutrient deficient, low satiety type foods that often derail many "dieters." I don't have the need to binge eat anymore, a cycle that was keeping me obese. I don't understand why people get their panties in a twist when low carb is brought up. Its calories in calories out, but you also have to factor in what is sustainable. Many find that eating low carb is sustainable because it is easy to follow, you feel satiated when you eat by keeping your insulin levels fairly stable. But hey-to each their own, there is so much more in this world to worry about than to argue. I've lost 60 lbs with minimal effort, eating the way I do, it works for me.
Fats don't really carry much nutrition either.2 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »People are eating more processed, boxed, packaged foods, not to mention eating out more than ever. Yes, sugar and grains are super calorie dense in comparison to the nutrition they provide. Cut out sugar and grains and I wonder how hard it would be to stick to staying under your deficit (or maintenance if you are at that stage)....I know I have a really hard time eating even 1300 calories a day since I stopped eating sugar and grains.
I do not think most anyone can gain weight if one truly cuts out sugar and grains. With them I was able to be obese because of the carb cravings that I had. Now without sugar or any form of any grain I eat until I am stuffed and after three years still am losing about 1/2 pound per month on average with out counting anything calorie wise. Just last night I ate at McDonald's and for the heck of it counted up the calories in my double hamburger, salad and coffee and it came to 435 calories so I had another cup of coffee to bump the meal up to 535 calories since it was free.
Don't be so naive. I know people who are Ketogenic who have gotten fat.
I expect those people were pulling your leg. I tried really hard but had to force myself to over eat to break out to the upside. While eating less than 50 grams of carbs fixed my eating disorder I give you the possibility that it might not fix everyone. No one I expect can eat enough to become obese without some kind of health issue and or they set obesity as their health goal for some sport, etc.23 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »People are eating more processed, boxed, packaged foods, not to mention eating out more than ever. Yes, sugar and grains are super calorie dense in comparison to the nutrition they provide. Cut out sugar and grains and I wonder how hard it would be to stick to staying under your deficit (or maintenance if you are at that stage)....I know I have a really hard time eating even 1300 calories a day since I stopped eating sugar and grains.
I do not think most anyone can gain weight if one truly cuts out sugar and grains. With them I was able to be obese because of the carb cravings that I had. Now without sugar or any form of any grain I eat until I am stuffed and after three years still am losing about 1/2 pound per month on average with out counting anything calorie wise. Just last night I ate at McDonald's and for the heck of it counted up the calories in my double hamburger, salad and coffee and it came to 435 calories so I had another cup of coffee to bump the meal up to 535 calories since it was free.
Don't be so naive. I know people who are Ketogenic who have gotten fat.
I expect those people were pulling your leg. I tried really hard but had to force myself to over eat to break out to the upside. While eating less than 50 grams of carbs fixed my eating disorder I give you the possibility that it might not fix everyone. No one I expect can eat enough to become obese without some kind of health issue and or they set obesity as their health goal for some sport, etc.
It's great that it suppresses your appetite so much that tiny portions leave you satiated. It absolutely does not do that for me (and yes, I have done the low carb thing).
And may I point you in the direction of Jimmy Moore. Not exactly a lean individual. Or even just a healthy weight individual.8 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »People are eating more processed, boxed, packaged foods, not to mention eating out more than ever. Yes, sugar and grains are super calorie dense in comparison to the nutrition they provide. Cut out sugar and grains and I wonder how hard it would be to stick to staying under your deficit (or maintenance if you are at that stage)....I know I have a really hard time eating even 1300 calories a day since I stopped eating sugar and grains.
I do not think most anyone can gain weight if one truly cuts out sugar and grains. With them I was able to be obese because of the carb cravings that I had. Now without sugar or any form of any grain I eat until I am stuffed and after three years still am losing about 1/2 pound per month on average with out counting anything calorie wise. Just last night I ate at McDonald's and for the heck of it counted up the calories in my double hamburger, salad and coffee and it came to 435 calories so I had another cup of coffee to bump the meal up to 535 calories since it was free.
Don't be so naive. I know people who are Ketogenic who have gotten fat.
I expect those people were pulling your leg. I tried really hard but had to force myself to over eat to break out to the upside. While eating less than 50 grams of carbs fixed my eating disorder I give you the possibility that it might not fix everyone. No one I expect can eat enough to become obese without some kind of health issue and or they set obesity as their health goal for some sport, etc.
First, no those people weren't pulling me leg. In fact, I modified their diet to reduce fat and increase protein/fiber consumption while still hitting ketogenic guidelines. They were consistently gaining weight at less than 50g of carb.
And if we are going to head down this path, let's be honest here, you are not even that lean. If you want to look at the lean individuals in this thread, and largely this forum, they are largely higher carb (men and women). And that is fine, but you can't suggest you have the ultimate path if you aren't as lean at the individuals who you are arguing. And maybe you don't want to be that lean, which is fine, but your being a bit obtuse with your thinking.19 -
I think the problem is that we can overeat whatever is our weakness. So, for instance, I like sweet tea and icecream. Well, I can have all the sweet tea and icecream I want, and no one is stopping me, and neither is my paycheck. Some people have a weakness for chips. They can eat all the chips they want and no one will stop them. Same thing with cheese, and other fats.
We live in a world that encourages our overindulgence.
How does that relate to sugar? Maybe more people are prone to sugar being their weakness than other things.2 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »People are eating more processed, boxed, packaged foods, not to mention eating out more than ever. Yes, sugar and grains are super calorie dense in comparison to the nutrition they provide. Cut out sugar and grains and I wonder how hard it would be to stick to staying under your deficit (or maintenance if you are at that stage)....I know I have a really hard time eating even 1300 calories a day since I stopped eating sugar and grains.
I do not think most anyone can gain weight if one truly cuts out sugar and grains. With them I was able to be obese because of the carb cravings that I had. Now without sugar or any form of any grain I eat until I am stuffed and after three years still am losing about 1/2 pound per month on average with out counting anything calorie wise. Just last night I ate at McDonald's and for the heck of it counted up the calories in my double hamburger, salad and coffee and it came to 435 calories so I had another cup of coffee to bump the meal up to 535 calories since it was free.
Don't be so naive. I know people who are Ketogenic who have gotten fat.
I expect those people were pulling your leg. I tried really hard but had to force myself to over eat to break out to the upside. While eating less than 50 grams of carbs fixed my eating disorder I give you the possibility that it might not fix everyone. No one I expect can eat enough to become obese without some kind of health issue and or they set obesity as their health goal for some sport, etc.
First, no those people weren't pulling me leg. In fact, I modified their diet to reduce fat and increase protein/fiber consumption while still hitting ketogenic guidelines. They were consistently gaining weight at less than 50g of carb.
And if we are going to head down this path, let's be honest here, you are not even that lean. If you want to look at the lean individuals in this thread, and largely this forum, they are largely higher carb (men and women). And that is fine, but you can't suggest you have the ultimate path if you aren't as lean at the individuals who you are arguing. And maybe you don't want to be that lean, which is fine, but your being a bit obtuse with your thinking.
I don't think he'll go that far down the path, 1/4 mile max.11 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »People are eating more processed, boxed, packaged foods, not to mention eating out more than ever. Yes, sugar and grains are super calorie dense in comparison to the nutrition they provide. Cut out sugar and grains and I wonder how hard it would be to stick to staying under your deficit (or maintenance if you are at that stage)....I know I have a really hard time eating even 1300 calories a day since I stopped eating sugar and grains.
I do not think most anyone can gain weight if one truly cuts out sugar and grains. With them I was able to be obese because of the carb cravings that I had. Now without sugar or any form of any grain I eat until I am stuffed and after three years still am losing about 1/2 pound per month on average with out counting anything calorie wise. Just last night I ate at McDonald's and for the heck of it counted up the calories in my double hamburger, salad and coffee and it came to 435 calories so I had another cup of coffee to bump the meal up to 535 calories since it was free.
Don't be so naive. I know people who are Ketogenic who have gotten fat.
I expect those people were pulling your leg. I tried really hard but had to force myself to over eat to break out to the upside. While eating less than 50 grams of carbs fixed my eating disorder I give you the possibility that it might not fix everyone. No one I expect can eat enough to become obese without some kind of health issue and or they set obesity as their health goal for some sport, etc.
First, no those people weren't pulling me leg. In fact, I modified their diet to reduce fat and increase protein/fiber consumption while still hitting ketogenic guidelines. They were consistently gaining weight at less than 50g of carb.
And if we are going to head down this path, let's be honest here, you are not even that lean. If you want to look at the lean individuals in this thread, and largely this forum, they are largely higher carb (men and women). And that is fine, but you can't suggest you have the ultimate path if you aren't as lean at the individuals who you are arguing. And maybe you don't want to be that lean, which is fine, but your being a bit obtuse with your thinking.
So you are down to name calling now based on the below from Google?
ob·tuse
əbˈt(y)o͞os,äbˈt(y)o͞os/Submit
adjective
1.
annoyingly insensitive or slow to understand.
"he wondered if the doctor was being deliberately obtuse"
synonyms: stupid, slow-witted, slow, dull-witted, unintelligent, ignorant, simpleminded, witless; More
2.
(of an angle) more than 90° and less than 180°.
18 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »People are eating more processed, boxed, packaged foods, not to mention eating out more than ever. Yes, sugar and grains are super calorie dense in comparison to the nutrition they provide. Cut out sugar and grains and I wonder how hard it would be to stick to staying under your deficit (or maintenance if you are at that stage)....I know I have a really hard time eating even 1300 calories a day since I stopped eating sugar and grains.
I do not think most anyone can gain weight if one truly cuts out sugar and grains. With them I was able to be obese because of the carb cravings that I had. Now without sugar or any form of any grain I eat until I am stuffed and after three years still am losing about 1/2 pound per month on average with out counting anything calorie wise. Just last night I ate at McDonald's and for the heck of it counted up the calories in my double hamburger, salad and coffee and it came to 435 calories so I had another cup of coffee to bump the meal up to 535 calories since it was free.
Don't be so naive. I know people who are Ketogenic who have gotten fat.
I expect those people were pulling your leg. I tried really hard but had to force myself to over eat to break out to the upside. While eating less than 50 grams of carbs fixed my eating disorder I give you the possibility that it might not fix everyone. No one I expect can eat enough to become obese without some kind of health issue and or they set obesity as their health goal for some sport, etc.
First, no those people weren't pulling me leg. In fact, I modified their diet to reduce fat and increase protein/fiber consumption while still hitting ketogenic guidelines. They were consistently gaining weight at less than 50g of carb.
And if we are going to head down this path, let's be honest here, you are not even that lean. If you want to look at the lean individuals in this thread, and largely this forum, they are largely higher carb (men and women). And that is fine, but you can't suggest you have the ultimate path if you aren't as lean at the individuals who you are arguing. And maybe you don't want to be that lean, which is fine, but your being a bit obtuse with your thinking.
So you are down to name calling now based on the below from Google?
ob·tuse
əbˈt(y)o͞os,äbˈt(y)o͞os/Submit
adjective
1.
annoyingly insensitive or slow to understand.
"he wondered if the doctor was being deliberately obtuse"
synonyms: stupid, slow-witted, slow, dull-witted, unintelligent, ignorant, simpleminded, witless; More
2.
(of an angle) more than 90° and less than 180°.
No, I am not trying to be insulting. That fact that you don't think we have mechanism to store fat when carbs are low, and insult my experience with working with people who have, is not only pedantic, but short sighted. Our bodies would not survive if we didn't have multiple hormones to store fats. And if you really care to figure it out, I'd suggest starting with Acylation Stimulating Protein, and Glucose-Dependent Insulinotropic Peptide. Both of which inhibit Hormone Sensitive Lipase, which is the fat burning hormone. This is similar to how insulin inhibits HSL.
22 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »People are eating more processed, boxed, packaged foods, not to mention eating out more than ever. Yes, sugar and grains are super calorie dense in comparison to the nutrition they provide. Cut out sugar and grains and I wonder how hard it would be to stick to staying under your deficit (or maintenance if you are at that stage)....I know I have a really hard time eating even 1300 calories a day since I stopped eating sugar and grains.
I do not think most anyone can gain weight if one truly cuts out sugar and grains. With them I was able to be obese because of the carb cravings that I had. Now without sugar or any form of any grain I eat until I am stuffed and after three years still am losing about 1/2 pound per month on average with out counting anything calorie wise. Just last night I ate at McDonald's and for the heck of it counted up the calories in my double hamburger, salad and coffee and it came to 435 calories so I had another cup of coffee to bump the meal up to 535 calories since it was free.
Don't be so naive. I know people who are Ketogenic who have gotten fat.
I expect those people were pulling your leg. I tried really hard but had to force myself to over eat to break out to the upside. While eating less than 50 grams of carbs fixed my eating disorder I give you the possibility that it might not fix everyone. No one I expect can eat enough to become obese without some kind of health issue and or they set obesity as their health goal for some sport, etc.
What eating disorder are you referring to? Your "carb cravings"? That. Is. NOT. An. Eating. Disorder. Are you also back to claiming that anyone who is obese has an eating disorder?18 -
WinoGelato wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »People are eating more processed, boxed, packaged foods, not to mention eating out more than ever. Yes, sugar and grains are super calorie dense in comparison to the nutrition they provide. Cut out sugar and grains and I wonder how hard it would be to stick to staying under your deficit (or maintenance if you are at that stage)....I know I have a really hard time eating even 1300 calories a day since I stopped eating sugar and grains.
I do not think most anyone can gain weight if one truly cuts out sugar and grains. With them I was able to be obese because of the carb cravings that I had. Now without sugar or any form of any grain I eat until I am stuffed and after three years still am losing about 1/2 pound per month on average with out counting anything calorie wise. Just last night I ate at McDonald's and for the heck of it counted up the calories in my double hamburger, salad and coffee and it came to 435 calories so I had another cup of coffee to bump the meal up to 535 calories since it was free.
Don't be so naive. I know people who are Ketogenic who have gotten fat.
I expect those people were pulling your leg. I tried really hard but had to force myself to over eat to break out to the upside. While eating less than 50 grams of carbs fixed my eating disorder I give you the possibility that it might not fix everyone. No one I expect can eat enough to become obese without some kind of health issue and or they set obesity as their health goal for some sport, etc.
What eating disorder are you referring to? Your "carb cravings"? That. Is. NOT. An. Eating. Disorder. Are you also back to claiming that anyone who is obese has an eating disorder?
More like claiming that eating carbs at all is an eating disorder.7 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »People are eating more processed, boxed, packaged foods, not to mention eating out more than ever. Yes, sugar and grains are super calorie dense in comparison to the nutrition they provide. Cut out sugar and grains and I wonder how hard it would be to stick to staying under your deficit (or maintenance if you are at that stage)....I know I have a really hard time eating even 1300 calories a day since I stopped eating sugar and grains.
I do not think most anyone can gain weight if one truly cuts out sugar and grains. With them I was able to be obese because of the carb cravings that I had. Now without sugar or any form of any grain I eat until I am stuffed and after three years still am losing about 1/2 pound per month on average with out counting anything calorie wise. Just last night I ate at McDonald's and for the heck of it counted up the calories in my double hamburger, salad and coffee and it came to 435 calories so I had another cup of coffee to bump the meal up to 535 calories since it was free.
Don't be so naive. I know people who are Ketogenic who have gotten fat.
I expect those people were pulling your leg. I tried really hard but had to force myself to over eat to break out to the upside. While eating less than 50 grams of carbs fixed my eating disorder I give you the possibility that it might not fix everyone. No one I expect can eat enough to become obese without some kind of health issue and or they set obesity as their health goal for some sport, etc.
First, no those people weren't pulling me leg. In fact, I modified their diet to reduce fat and increase protein/fiber consumption while still hitting ketogenic guidelines. They were consistently gaining weight at less than 50g of carb.
And if we are going to head down this path, let's be honest here, you are not even that lean. If you want to look at the lean individuals in this thread, and largely this forum, they are largely higher carb (men and women). And that is fine, but you can't suggest you have the ultimate path if you aren't as lean at the individuals who you are arguing. And maybe you don't want to be that lean, which is fine, but your being a bit obtuse with your thinking.
So you are down to name calling now based on the below from Google?
ob·tuse
əbˈt(y)o͞os,äbˈt(y)o͞os/Submit
adjective
1.
annoyingly insensitive or slow to understand.
"he wondered if the doctor was being deliberately obtuse"
synonyms: stupid, slow-witted, slow, dull-witted, unintelligent, ignorant, simpleminded, witless; More
2.
(of an angle) more than 90° and less than 180°.
No, I am not trying to be insulting. That fact that you don't think we have mechanism to store fat when carbs are low, and insult my experience with working with people who have, is not only pedantic, but short sighted. Our bodies would not survive if we didn't have multiple hormones to store fats. And if you really care to figure it out, I'd suggest starting with Acylation Stimulating Protein, and Glucose-Dependent Insulinotropic Peptide. Both of which inhibit Hormone Sensitive Lipase, which is the fat burning hormone. This is similar to how insulin inhibits HSL.
I will work to resolve my complaint through the proper channels.15 -
WinoGelato wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »People are eating more processed, boxed, packaged foods, not to mention eating out more than ever. Yes, sugar and grains are super calorie dense in comparison to the nutrition they provide. Cut out sugar and grains and I wonder how hard it would be to stick to staying under your deficit (or maintenance if you are at that stage)....I know I have a really hard time eating even 1300 calories a day since I stopped eating sugar and grains.
I do not think most anyone can gain weight if one truly cuts out sugar and grains. With them I was able to be obese because of the carb cravings that I had. Now without sugar or any form of any grain I eat until I am stuffed and after three years still am losing about 1/2 pound per month on average with out counting anything calorie wise. Just last night I ate at McDonald's and for the heck of it counted up the calories in my double hamburger, salad and coffee and it came to 435 calories so I had another cup of coffee to bump the meal up to 535 calories since it was free.
Don't be so naive. I know people who are Ketogenic who have gotten fat.
I expect those people were pulling your leg. I tried really hard but had to force myself to over eat to break out to the upside. While eating less than 50 grams of carbs fixed my eating disorder I give you the possibility that it might not fix everyone. No one I expect can eat enough to become obese without some kind of health issue and or they set obesity as their health goal for some sport, etc.
What eating disorder are you referring to? Your "carb cravings"? That. Is. NOT. An. Eating. Disorder. Are you also back to claiming that anyone who is obese has an eating disorder?
Yep, as someone who actually had an eating disorder, it's pretty offensive.12 -
Nony_Mouse wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »People are eating more processed, boxed, packaged foods, not to mention eating out more than ever. Yes, sugar and grains are super calorie dense in comparison to the nutrition they provide. Cut out sugar and grains and I wonder how hard it would be to stick to staying under your deficit (or maintenance if you are at that stage)....I know I have a really hard time eating even 1300 calories a day since I stopped eating sugar and grains.
I do not think most anyone can gain weight if one truly cuts out sugar and grains. With them I was able to be obese because of the carb cravings that I had. Now without sugar or any form of any grain I eat until I am stuffed and after three years still am losing about 1/2 pound per month on average with out counting anything calorie wise. Just last night I ate at McDonald's and for the heck of it counted up the calories in my double hamburger, salad and coffee and it came to 435 calories so I had another cup of coffee to bump the meal up to 535 calories since it was free.
Don't be so naive. I know people who are Ketogenic who have gotten fat.
I expect those people were pulling your leg. I tried really hard but had to force myself to over eat to break out to the upside. While eating less than 50 grams of carbs fixed my eating disorder I give you the possibility that it might not fix everyone. No one I expect can eat enough to become obese without some kind of health issue and or they set obesity as their health goal for some sport, etc.
What eating disorder are you referring to? Your "carb cravings"? That. Is. NOT. An. Eating. Disorder. Are you also back to claiming that anyone who is obese has an eating disorder?
Yep, as someone who actually had an eating disorder, it's pretty offensive.
It is. Also the time he claimed his ibs was ibd was equally offensive8 -
ladyhusker39 wrote: »Here is another neat one, from USDA data. Americans are eating more total calories, more added fats, and more flours/cereals than their parents and grandparents:
Source: http://geeksta.net/visualizations/calories-us/
I'm not entirely sure where this graph got it's raw data. It is somewhat at odds with the USDA ERS Food Availability data. (Loss-Adjusted Calories)
Two things stand out to me in the raw data.
1. Our average caloric intake rose consistently through the 1990s to 2000, then plateaued for the next decade, only to start falling again in 2009. It will be interesting to see what happens when they release the next several years of data.
2. Between 1990 and 2000 average caloric intake increased by 14%. That alone clearly explains most of the expanding weight problem observed.cwolfman13 wrote: »First off, I highly doubt people now are eating the same calories as our partents and grandparent.
This is true. We're eating more. Actually this is a REALLY GOOD THING because historically malnutrition and hunger were widespread. For all the awareness about food deserts and hunger now, the phenomenon of real, sustained hunger and malnutrition are blessedly rare in the USA.My grandparents and my parents moved a lot more than we do now...even if they had a desk job, they still had to do a lot more things manually.
Here is the other key to why we weigh more. My grandfathers were a farmer and a ditch digger. They ate a lot. By a lot I mean more than 6,000 calories a day a lot. And until retirement both men were lean.
Every morning for breakfast my mom's dad ate 6 eggs, cooked floating in butter, with 4 slices of bacon and two thick slices of toast from homemade bread, slathered in butter and jam. A few extra slices of toast while out the door. Probably with peanut butter. He ate breakfast, morning snack, dinner (a BIG meal), afternoon snack, late afternoon snack, supper, and dessert. Every day. By "snack" I mean at least 400 calories worth of food, too.
My dad's dad would eat breakfast, mid-morning snack, lunch, dinner, mid-afternoon snack, late afternoon snack, supper, and follow up with dessert and typically a pre-bed snack.He reminded me of Popeye, with muscles that bulged and popped. He was probably the most muscular and strongest man I've ever known. Same as my other grandfather, "Snacks" described what a lot of people here would call a meal. When I first read "The Lord of the Rings", Pippin's woeful account of meals that they were missing seemed normal to me because that's exactly how my family ate.
And talk about calorie-dense foods! Ever heard of Rømmegrøt? Swedish meatballs on mashed potatoes? Blodpølse? And EVERYTHING was slathered in butter. And jam. But they worked hard, everyone did, and everyone needed those calories. Even at my most active I don't even begin to hold a candle to how my grandparents worked. And as such, I need a fraction of the calories.
The adjustment was clearly hardest on my parents. They grew up in this hard-work environment, working along side their parents. Getting used to smaller and fewer meals took conscious effort and a real change in lifestyle.
I think that generational adjustment is occurring in a great many families as the transition from manual labor to other types of work has become profound over the last 50 years. Kids today grow up in an environment of abundant food but low physical demand. It's pretty clear families haven't adjusted to the new reality of food needs and are still using traditional eating patterns. There's no conspiracy to it either; we've evolved to want food, to want high-calorie foods in particular, because people who ate more had a significant survival edge in scarcity. We're not unique in this, most mammals exhibit the same behaviors and will become obese when food is abundant and challenges scarce.14 -
ladyhusker39 wrote: »Here is another neat one, from USDA data. Americans are eating more total calories, more added fats, and more flours/cereals than their parents and grandparents:
Source: http://geeksta.net/visualizations/calories-us/
I'm not entirely sure where this graph got it's raw data. It is somewhat at odds with the USDA ERS Food Availability data. (Loss-Adjusted Calories)
Two things stand out to me in the raw data.
1. Our average caloric intake rose consistently through the 1990s to 2000, then plateaued for the next decade, only to start falling again in 2009. It will be interesting to see what happens when they release the next several years of data.
2. Between 1990 and 2000 average caloric intake increased by 14%. That alone clearly explains most of the expanding weight problem observed.
Good eye! There is a slight discrepancy between the raw and that chart. The USDA/ERS spreadsheet says that the data was last updated on Feb. 1, 2017, so maybe they have made a revision to the data since the person made that chart. I recreated the chart from the 2017 raw. Unfortunately, I don't think it can be updated to include data after 2010 because they don't have data for durum flour, rice, or added oils as noted in the USDA/ERS spreadsheet.
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
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions