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.
which is the best diet for overall health and weight loss
Replies
-
cwolfman13 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »what i am saying is that they are already getting the sugar from the F&V then they buy fat free stuff thinking it health only to be eating massive amount of Sugar - 20% carbs a day are more than enough 40% Fat needed for endocrine system and CNS function, 40% protein needed for muscle retention , blood production, enzyme production....
Sugar needed for ATP production but you can produce ATP with fats and not have all the ancillary issue associate with Sugar consumption
Who is doing this? Given the current trends (paleo, low carb, keto, "clean eating"), who exactly is buying this fat free stuff? Who is even making it anymore? I don't think my grocery store even sells Snackwells anymore and they were like the poster child for low fat snacks. The trendy snacks are higher fat things like coconut chips or things that are higher in fiber like roasted chickpeas.
All I posted was a 40-40-20 rule where carbs are 20 - people started blowing me up over it and i was left having to call up medical journals substantiating my opinion
That wasn't all you did. You also claimed that the food pyramid was still current, that people following it would be "pounding down pasta all day long," and that someone who was following the current food recommendations would be consuming "massive" amounts of sugar.
You also claimed that recommendations for fruit and vegetable consumption were the work of sugar companies so that they could more easily sell fat-free products to people (although how this connection is supposed to work still isn't exactly clear to me).
You've made a lot of claims here and they aren't backed up by studies in reputable medical journals (or any type of journal).
"You also claimed that recommendations for fruit and vegetable consumption were the work of sugar companies" - NOPE never did that - I did respond to a question about it
"You've made a lot of claims here and they aren't backed up by studies in reputable medical journals" - yes i did
NIH
MAYO
JAP
you pic - reading is fun
When asked whether sugar companies benefit from people eating fruit, you responded: "of course it does - keep them eating sugar(fruit- sugar - basically the same) keep them fat - and watch us justify a low/no fat diet and we'll be able to load the products with sugar."
So you think the sugar companies had nothing to do with the recommendation to eat fruits and vegetables, they're just benefiting passively from recommendations made for other reasons? If I misunderstood you, then I apologize.
In the scenario you're writing about, who wants to "keep them fat" and why? If it isn't the sugar companies behind it, then who is doing it?
Sugar producers and corn producers love a fat USA - they get the tout a fat free diet knowing full well they are going to be throwing massive amounts of sugar into the product to make it taste good the whole time the package will say "FAT FREE" it so healthy for you
what products specifically?
the only low fat products I buy are 1% milk and non-fat Fage...neither of those products has added sugar at all...let alone "massive amounts"...I get plenty of dietary fat elsewhere from nuts, avocados, good cooking oils, etc...
It's 2018, not 1990...I don't really see "low fat" products produced and marketed like they were in 1990...
So what products specifically are marketed as "low fat" but have massive amounts of sugar added...
Perfect Example Special K - hey a HEALTHY cereal - almost no fat but hey please don;t look at the
33 grams of Sugar - CRAP for you - but touted as healthy and people buy it by the truck loads but hey ITS A GRAIN
I can't even remember the last time I heard someone talk about Special K in real life, as a healthy food or otherwise. Who is touting this food specifically?5 -
tramaine_21 wrote: »Too each is own when it comes to diets but intermittent fasting is a great kick start to a healthy lifestyle.
Intermittent fasting isn't a diet, it's an eating pattern. And there's nothing magical about it other than the fact that it helps some people adhere to their calorie goals more easily and provides higher satiety. For some people.3 -
40 protein
40 fats
20 carbs
You can thank the Sugar industry and corn manufactures for making fat a demon - but like I said if you want a high A!C number, High Cholesterol number and arteriosclerosis
keep on pounding down that 40% sugar diet
You do know there's other sources of carbs aside from the highly processed startches right?4 -
bratqueen1974 wrote: »Back to the OP (though the discussion sure has been interesting to read.) There is no one 'healthiest diet' that anyone can recommend for you, with the sole exception that your regular way of eating should nourish you, not harm you.
<snipped by the responder>
Agreeing with this. We all, at heart, know which foods are nutritious. The best balance of those foods in our diets (macro balance) comes down to matters of personal preference and what will keep us most compliant with our calorie goals. In order to do that, the macro balance we're eating and the food choices we're making need to be satisfying from both a taste and "emotional" perspective. They also need to leave us feeling satiated.
People vary greatly as to which macro balance (notice I'm shying away from any named diet) ticks all these boxes for them.
I've learned this through years of reading dieting forums and through personal experience of trying various eating plans myself.
There is no one objective "best" eating plan out there. There's only what's best for you.
3 -
This content has been removed.
-
singingflutelady wrote: »You keep repeating the same 3 including webmd. Where is all the other peer reviewed scientific research papers/studies? I mean since you are so well read you should have hundreds
World health organisation?
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/world-health-organization-lowers-sugar-intake-recommendations/
Do you understand what people mean when they talk about "research papers" or "studies"?6 -
This content has been removed.
-
This content has been removed.
-
janejellyroll wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »You keep repeating the same 3 including webmd. Where is all the other peer reviewed scientific research papers/studies? I mean since you are so well read you should have hundreds
World health organisation?
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/world-health-organization-lowers-sugar-intake-recommendations/
Do you understand what people mean when they talk about "research papers" or "studies"?
That would be a no. Clearly thinking articles are the same thing as research papers is a part of the problem, in addition to thinking it's 1998, and not knowing that the fiber and sugar listed on the nutrition label are a part of the carbs, not in addition to the carbs. And moving the goalposts from total sugar to added sugar and back again as if they are interchangeable.9 -
janejellyroll wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »You keep repeating the same 3 including webmd. Where is all the other peer reviewed scientific research papers/studies? I mean since you are so well read you should have hundreds
World health organisation?
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/world-health-organization-lowers-sugar-intake-recommendations/
Do you understand what people mean when they talk about "research papers" or "studies"?
really? you have been on this thread the whole time and never looked at the National Institutes of Health
the May Clinic - Journal of Applied Physiology?
i just find it ironic that the sources you tout are in the exact same vein as the sources you doubt.
(awaiting my extra credit for rhyming)12 -
singingflutelady wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »Still hasn't posted the labels of skim milk vs whole milk sugar content...
Personally, I hope he doesn't. I've had that absurd argument on other threads, and don't really need to have it again with anyone devoid of math and logic dkills.
Skim milk does have "more" sugar than whole milk - not added, inherent.
You have a 100g serving of whole milk, and it's 4% fat. Simplifying, it's therefore 96% (protein + carbs), or 96g. Take out the fat.
A 100g serving of the skim milk will now have more (protein + carbs), 100g vs 96, so a higher amount as well as a higher percent. It has to have more, unless you add water or something. That's why skim milk has more sugar per same-sized serving than whole milk.
I've argued this with people who insist skim milk has added sugar because it has more sugar per serving than whole milk. It does have more inherent sugar per serving, but it was put there by the cow. It's just math.
Let's not have that argument with someone who demonstrably can't do math.
this is a discussion of total sugar consumed both refined and naturally occurring - and we consume to much of it - the 40% carbs is completely off base
No you were talking about added sugar.
no - part of the discussion was about added sugar the OP asked for what is a reasonable diet for the average person
I said
40P
40F
20C
You were going on about how fat free products have tons of ADDED sugar.
they do - next time look at all the fat free stuff and then look at the sugar content - in the 60's the sugar industry got food manufacture to go with a fat free is healthy for you ---- so they could put in sugar - the nation bought it and became fat because of it
So you didn't read the post Ann wrote that about milk that you replied to?
sure I did - my point is that we already get enough sugar and don;t need the high carb load like the FDA say we do
really 40% of our diet?
Why don't you like vegetables?3 -
janejellyroll wrote: »what i am saying is that they are already getting the sugar from the F&V then they buy fat free stuff thinking it health only to be eating massive amount of Sugar - 20% carbs a day are more than enough 40% Fat needed for endocrine system and CNS function, 40% protein needed for muscle retention , blood production, enzyme production....
Sugar needed for ATP production but you can produce ATP with fats and not have all the ancillary issue associate with Sugar consumption
Who is doing this? Given the current trends (paleo, low carb, keto, "clean eating"), who exactly is buying this fat free stuff? Who is even making it anymore? I don't think my grocery store even sells Snackwells anymore and they were like the poster child for low fat snacks. The trendy snacks are higher fat things like coconut chips or things that are higher in fiber like roasted chickpeas.
All I posted was a 40-40-20 rule where carbs are 20 - people started blowing me up over it and i was left having to call up medical journals substantiating my opinion
Because it's 'bro' advice, just like about 99% of what you post.
Most reputable sources in the fitness industry who are current on their research (Helms, Aragon, Schoenfeld, McDonald, etc.) would never advocate setting your macros by straight percentages. You'd set them by grams per bodyweight or grams per pound of lean body mass. Using percentages is like using a yardstick to measure the thickness of a piece of sheet metal. Telling a 280 pound person with 35% bodyfat to get 40% of their calories from protein and 40% from fat is useless and silly advice.
You're also indulging in the typical binary fantasy that there can only be two ways to go about things - either eat "clean" or "pound pasta all day long". As if there can be no reasonable, sensible middle ground in a diet. Not to even mention the misguided "omg teh sugarzzz is teh poizonzzz" rhetoric, straight out of the dialog from crackpots like Fung and Taubes.
And lastly, I don't see anybody here talking about a low-fat diet. That seems to be a strawman of your own creation to move the goalposts.
^I want to bump this since it happened pre-Special K label and is important. You can't recommend one macro split that works for everyone. 40% protein looks vastly different for someone eating 1200 calories than it does for someone eating 3000 calories. My protein is set to 20% and that's enough for me. Going higher is going to bump more important things out of my diet and cause more stress than I care to introduce into my life. A wide variety of macro splits work just fine for people and we don't get extra bro credit for ridiculous amounts of protein that we don't need.22 -
jessiferrrb wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »You keep repeating the same 3 including webmd. Where is all the other peer reviewed scientific research papers/studies? I mean since you are so well read you should have hundreds
World health organisation?
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/world-health-organization-lowers-sugar-intake-recommendations/
Do you understand what people mean when they talk about "research papers" or "studies"?
really? you have been on this thread the whole time and never looked at the National Institutes of Health
the May Clinic - Journal of Applied Physiology?
i just find it ironic that the sources you tout are in the exact same vein as the sources you doubt.
(awaiting my extra credit for rhyming)
Would a slice of chocolate cake with plenty of evil sugar work as extra credit?
1 -
This content has been removed.
-
singingflutelady wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Claim made: 33 g of carbs = crap.
Credible support for that claim = none.
Keeps repeating same photo and same webmd article
Cherry picking is fun -
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/09/13/493739074/50-years-ago-sugar-industry-quietly-paid-scientists-to-point-blame-at-fat
http://annals.org/aim/article-abstract/1900694/effects-low-carbohydrate-low-fat-diets-randomized-trial?doi=10.7326/M14-0180
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5384055/
Just fyi, the npr article is outright lying about the content of the study it's talking about.7 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »Still hasn't posted the labels of skim milk vs whole milk sugar content...
Personally, I hope he doesn't. I've had that absurd argument on other threads, and don't really need to have it again with anyone devoid of math and logic dkills.
Skim milk does have "more" sugar than whole milk - not added, inherent.
You have a 100g serving of whole milk, and it's 4% fat. Simplifying, it's therefore 96% (protein + carbs), or 96g. Take out the fat.
A 100g serving of the skim milk will now have more (protein + carbs), 100g vs 96, so a higher amount as well as a higher percent. It has to have more, unless you add water or something. That's why skim milk has more sugar per same-sized serving than whole milk.
I've argued this with people who insist skim milk has added sugar because it has more sugar per serving than whole milk. It does have more inherent sugar per serving, but it was put there by the cow. It's just math.
Let's not have that argument with someone who demonstrably can't do math.
this is a discussion of total sugar consumed both refined and naturally occurring - and we consume to much of it - the 40% carbs is completely off base
No you were talking about added sugar.
no - part of the discussion was about added sugar the OP asked for what is a reasonable diet for the average person
I said
40P
40F
20C
You were going on about how fat free products have tons of ADDED sugar.
they do - next time look at all the fat free stuff and then look at the sugar content - in the 60's the sugar industry got food manufacture to go with a fat free is healthy for you ---- so they could put in sugar - the nation bought it and became fat because of it
So you didn't read the post Ann wrote that about milk that you replied to?
sure I did - my point is that we already get enough sugar and don;t need the high carb load like the FDA say we do
really 40% of our diet?
Why don't you like vegetables?
All those obese unhealthy vegans. Way too many carbs in their diet.3 -
fionawilliamson wrote: »Go_Deskercise wrote: »I see diets as temporary, quick fix *BS* ...
The best diet is NO diet at all.
Eat what you want within your calorie goal.
I don't understand why people make this more complicated than it has to be...
Stop talking so much sense
UMMMMM no
eat what you want? fine mountain dew chocolate cake under 2000 Cals
sounds healthy to me
What you want, and what I want are obviously very, very different things.
Heh, my thoughts exactly.2 -
janejellyroll wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »You keep repeating the same 3 including webmd. Where is all the other peer reviewed scientific research papers/studies? I mean since you are so well read you should have hundreds
World health organisation?
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/world-health-organization-lowers-sugar-intake-recommendations/
Do you understand what people mean when they talk about "research papers" or "studies"?
really? you have been on this thread the whole time and never looked at the National Institutes of Health
the May Clinic - Journal of Applied Physiology?
I made that post in response to your link to a CBS News article.3 -
This is the link I gave a while back. It doesn't support your numbers.5 -
-
This content has been removed.
-
acorsaut89 wrote: »40 protein
40 fats
20 carbs
You can thank the Sugar industry and corn manufactures for making fat a demon - but like I said if you want a high A!C number, High Cholesterol number and arteriosclerosis
keep on pounding down that 40% sugar diet
You do know there's other sources of carbs aside from the highly processed startches right?
He's already trashed fruit and vegetables.3 -
janejellyroll wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »You keep repeating the same 3 including webmd. Where is all the other peer reviewed scientific research papers/studies? I mean since you are so well read you should have hundreds
World health organisation?
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/world-health-organization-lowers-sugar-intake-recommendations/
Do you understand what people mean when they talk about "research papers" or "studies"?
really? you have been on this thread the whole time and never looked at the National Institutes of Health
the May Clinic - Journal of Applied Physiology?
What fresh hell have I just stumbled into?!
*Mayo
You talk about peer reviewed studies but haven't actually shared any directly.
And honestly come off as incoherent, incapable of well formed, thoughtful debate and thus obliterate any credibility you may have had. Shouting at a bunch of people who, for the most part, are well informed, well read, fit, healthy and not pounding down pasta and cake all day (but hey, not all of us can live the dream right?) isn't going to get you any further than making yourself look a bit, dare I say........silly?
14 -
ladyreva78 wrote: »jessiferrrb wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »You keep repeating the same 3 including webmd. Where is all the other peer reviewed scientific research papers/studies? I mean since you are so well read you should have hundreds
World health organisation?
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/world-health-organization-lowers-sugar-intake-recommendations/
Do you understand what people mean when they talk about "research papers" or "studies"?
really? you have been on this thread the whole time and never looked at the National Institutes of Health
the May Clinic - Journal of Applied Physiology?
i just find it ironic that the sources you tout are in the exact same vein as the sources you doubt.
(awaiting my extra credit for rhyming)
Would a slice of chocolate cake with plenty of evil sugar work as extra credit?
7 -
singingflutelady wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »Still hasn't posted the labels of skim milk vs whole milk sugar content...
Personally, I hope he doesn't. I've had that absurd argument on other threads, and don't really need to have it again with anyone devoid of math and logic dkills.
Skim milk does have "more" sugar than whole milk - not added, inherent.
You have a 100g serving of whole milk, and it's 4% fat. Simplifying, it's therefore 96% (protein + carbs), or 96g. Take out the fat.
A 100g serving of the skim milk will now have more (protein + carbs), 100g vs 96, so a higher amount as well as a higher percent. It has to have more, unless you add water or something. That's why skim milk has more sugar per same-sized serving than whole milk.
I've argued this with people who insist skim milk has added sugar because it has more sugar per serving than whole milk. It does have more inherent sugar per serving, but it was put there by the cow. It's just math.
Let's not have that argument with someone who demonstrably can't do math.
this is a discussion of total sugar consumed both refined and naturally occurring - and we consume to much of it - the 40% carbs is completely off base
No you were talking about added sugar.
no - part of the discussion was about added sugar the OP asked for what is a reasonable diet for the average person
I said
40P
40F
20C
You were going on about how fat free products have tons of ADDED sugar.
they do - next time look at all the fat free stuff and then look at the sugar content - in the 60's the sugar industry got food manufacture to go with a fat free is healthy for you ---- so they could put in sugar - the nation bought it and became fat because of it
So you didn't read the post Ann wrote that about milk that you replied to?
sure I did - my point is that we already get enough sugar and don;t need the high carb load like the FDA say we do
really 40% of our diet?
Why don't you like vegetables?
All those obese unhealthy vegans. Way too many carbs in their diet.
I'd like to respond to this with some wit, but I added some carrot sticks to my lunch and the resulting insulin surge has left me weak and enfeebled. If only someone had warned me about the dangers of vegetables . . .30 -
singingflutelady wrote: »You keep repeating the same 3 including webmd. Where is all the other peer reviewed scientific research papers/studies? I mean since you are so well read you should have hundreds
World health organisation?
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/world-health-organization-lowers-sugar-intake-recommendations/
What is this link supposed to support?
Your claim that people should not consume more than 20% carbs?
It does not.
Again, NO ONE has argued for unlimited added sugar consumption.5 -
Wow, this thread got hairy.
Someone is arguing that the SAD is unhealthy to a bunch of people who don't eat the SAD. Awesome.
I eat around 45% - 50% carbs, have never been overweight, but lost 20 lbs when I hit the upper limit of the healthy weight range and have been maintaining for two years. What does this mean I'm gonna die from?
Yeah, that happens a lot around here. I eat a pretty carb heavy diet, but I also get at least 100 g of protein a day enough fat but not too much (medical reasons).
I've always eaten protein heavy, even when I was obese, because I like protein foods. I also like vegetables and starches. I was raised on a balanced diet, and that seems to be my happy place.5 -
fionawilliamson wrote: »Go_Deskercise wrote: »I see diets as temporary, quick fix *BS* ...
The best diet is NO diet at all.
Eat what you want within your calorie goal.
I don't understand why people make this more complicated than it has to be...
Stop talking so much sense
UMMMMM no
eat what you want? fine mountain dew chocolate cake under 2000 Cals
sounds healthy to me
Why do you assume people want food like that?4 -
singingflutelady wrote: »You keep repeating the same 3 including webmd. Where is all the other peer reviewed scientific research papers/studies? I mean since you are so well read you should have hundreds
World health organisation?
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/world-health-organization-lowers-sugar-intake-recommendations/
And again, that is for added sugar, and it's not for total carbohydrates...added sugar...7 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »fionawilliamson wrote: »Go_Deskercise wrote: »I see diets as temporary, quick fix *BS* ...
The best diet is NO diet at all.
Eat what you want within your calorie goal.
I don't understand why people make this more complicated than it has to be...
Stop talking so much sense
UMMMMM no
eat what you want? fine mountain dew chocolate cake under 2000 Cals
sounds healthy to me
Why do you assume people want food like that?
I dunno, Mountain Dew Chocolate Cake does sound pretty good. I'll bet I could fit a slice of that into my calories and macros for the day.
But context and dosage seem to be thrown the hell out the window in this whole discussion (along with common sense and facts and science and stuff).6
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions