The Skinny on Obesity (or: "Calories are not created equal")
Replies
-
Thanks for those who warn me of the dire sarcasm *shudder* that would follow. I expected it. *yawn*
I posted it for those people who are like me, scouring these forums for actual information based in science. I knew that it would be buried in ponies and unicorns, but figured that others out there looking for this information would still see it, so that accomplishes my goal. You can play word games with the facts, but they remain facts.
I actually enjoy(ed) reading the 'backlash' banter ... it's kind of like watching Fox News. :drinker:
You are all Special Snowflakes in my book!
The reason people are responding with derision is because what you linked is absolute horse****, it's pseudo-science and any studies done by people who actually know what they're talking about (see: actual nutritionists and dietary scientists) will completely and utterly disagree with the fear mongering. If your diet is otherwise healthy, you do not have to worry about sugar, if you are a lifter, someone who runs, or someone who engages in any sort of mild activity, sugar is a necessary part of your diet, processed sugars will not overly hamper you unless you eat them in excess and this goes for nearly everything. Your body needs sugar like it needs nearly every other kind of food, like fat, or protein, or even sodium, or carbs (those last two are another pair that is constantly hounded by idiots who have no idea what they're talking about).
Look at your sources, don't look at random worthless videos and base your ignorant opinions off of those, go to websites that actually understand what's going on, or take a class on nutrition done by someone with actual credentials, I'll guarantee you that your viewpoint regarding crap like this will change instantly.
I propose that just because healthy diets can have sugar does not mean that unhealthy diets with sugar are not better/easier to reduce caloric intake due to decreased sugar intake. Whatever the OP may be basing her viewpoint on, the view is out there because it's true for some people. And this is about the experience, individual experience in diet, that having a food like sugar can be dangerous. Way to go for making sugar a healthy part of yours! I certainly enjoy my sugar once again too. Though, there have been times when I have struggled with sugar even in the last month, and having it as a tool to help me stay on track is great!0 -
Tell me more, tell me more... like does he have a car?? 0
-
Thanks for those who warn me of the dire sarcasm *shudder* that would follow. I expected it. *yawn*
I posted it for those people who are like me, scouring these forums for actual information based in science. I knew that it would be buried in ponies and unicorns, but figured that others out there looking for this information would still see it, so that accomplishes my goal. You can play word games with the facts, but they remain facts.
I actually enjoy(ed) reading the 'backlash' banter ... it's kind of like watching Fox News. :drinker:
You are all Special Snowflakes in my book!
The reason people are responding with derision is because what you linked is absolute horse****, it's pseudo-science and any studies done by people who actually know what they're talking about (see: actual nutritionists and dietary scientists) will completely and utterly disagree with the fear mongering. If your diet is otherwise healthy, you do not have to worry about sugar, if you are a lifter, someone who runs, or someone who engages in any sort of mild activity, sugar is a necessary part of your diet, processed sugars will not overly hamper you unless you eat them in excess and this goes for nearly everything. Your body needs sugar like it needs nearly every other kind of food, like fat, or protein, or even sodium, or carbs (those last two are another pair that is constantly hounded by idiots who have no idea what they're talking about).
Look at your sources, don't look at random worthless videos and base your ignorant opinions off of those, go to websites that actually understand what's going on, or take a class on nutrition done by someone with actual credentials, I'll guarantee you that your viewpoint regarding crap like this will change instantly.
I propose that just because healthy diets can have sugar does not mean that unhealthy diets with sugar are not better/easier to reduce caloric intake due to decreased sugar intake. Whatever the OP may be basing her viewpoint on, the view is out there because it's true for some people. And this is about the experience, individual experience in diet, that having a food like sugar can be dangerous. Way to go for making sugar a healthy part of yours! I certainly enjoy my sugar once again too. Though, there have been times when I have struggled with sugar even in the last month, and having it as a tool to help me stay on track is great!
sugar does not make you fat.
Taking in more calories then you consume makes you fat.
If you eat in a 500 calorie a day deficit AND eat sugar you will lose weight....sugar is not some boogeyman hiding under the bed waiting to make you fat the moment you indulge in some...0 -
There have been dozens of threads about this. Personally, I believe it, but it doesn't change anything for me. I still need to eat my 'junk' food or I'd never stick to any kind of 'diet'. If it means I lose 1 less lb every 2 months, I couldn't care less.
You got it! I choose to eat like I will after reaching goal only less of it. I just had a giant double chocolate muffin that was heaven. I'm not eliminating that or sugar or carbs for the rest of my life so why avoid them mow?0 -
I was going to watch that but I decided to eat a bowl of Ice cream instead.
Love0 -
oh gawd, this again... let me go grab my snickers before I start reading though this thread...0
-
Thanks for those who warn me of the dire sarcasm *shudder* that would follow. I expected it. *yawn*
I posted it for those people who are like me, scouring these forums for actual information based in science. I knew that it would be buried in ponies and unicorns, but figured that others out there looking for this information would still see it, so that accomplishes my goal. You can play word games with the facts, but they remain facts.
I actually enjoy(ed) reading the 'backlash' banter ... it's kind of like watching Fox News. :drinker:
You are all Special Snowflakes in my book!
Somebody get Godwin on the phone! I think we've discovered a possible expansion to his law!
(That said, I have nothing meaningful to contribute to the scientific veracity of either side of the issue. I'm sure solid arguments will be presented on both sides though. Carry on good people.)
Indeed...
...because obviously Fox fails the standard of unbiased, agenda-less reporting like that of CNN or MSNBC.0 -
Thanks for those who warn me of the dire sarcasm *shudder* that would follow. I expected it. *yawn*
I posted it for those people who are like me, scouring these forums for actual information based in science. I knew that it would be buried in ponies and unicorns, but figured that others out there looking for this information would still see it, so that accomplishes my goal. You can play word games with the facts, but they remain facts.
I actually enjoy(ed) reading the 'backlash' banter ... it's kind of like watching Fox News. :drinker:
You are all Special Snowflakes in my book!
Somebody get Godwin on the phone! I think we've discovered a possible expansion to his law!
(That said, I have nothing meaningful to contribute to the scientific veracity of either side of the issue. I'm sure solid arguments will be presented on both sides though. Carry on good people.)
Indeed...
...because obviously Fox fails the standard of unbiased, agenda-less reporting like that of CNN or MSNBC.
0 -
Thanks for those who warn me of the dire sarcasm *shudder* that would follow. I expected it. *yawn*
I posted it for those people who are like me, scouring these forums for actual information based in science. I knew that it would be buried in ponies and unicorns, but figured that others out there looking for this information would still see it, so that accomplishes my goal. You can play word games with the facts, but they remain facts.
I actually enjoy(ed) reading the 'backlash' banter ... it's kind of like watching Fox News. :drinker:
You are all Special Snowflakes in my book!
The reason people are responding with derision is because what you linked is absolute horse****, it's pseudo-science and any studies done by people who actually know what they're talking about (see: actual nutritionists and dietary scientists) will completely and utterly disagree with the fear mongering. If your diet is otherwise healthy, you do not have to worry about sugar, if you are a lifter, someone who runs, or someone who engages in any sort of mild activity, sugar is a necessary part of your diet, processed sugars will not overly hamper you unless you eat them in excess and this goes for nearly everything. Your body needs sugar like it needs nearly every other kind of food, like fat, or protein, or even sodium, or carbs (those last two are another pair that is constantly hounded by idiots who have no idea what they're talking about).
Look at your sources, don't look at random worthless videos and base your ignorant opinions off of those, go to websites that actually understand what's going on, or take a class on nutrition done by someone with actual credentials, I'll guarantee you that your viewpoint regarding crap like this will change instantly.
I propose that just because healthy diets can have sugar does not mean that unhealthy diets with sugar are not better/easier to reduce caloric intake due to decreased sugar intake. Whatever the OP may be basing her viewpoint on, the view is out there because it's true for some people. And this is about the experience, individual experience in diet, that having a food like sugar can be dangerous. Way to go for making sugar a healthy part of yours! I certainly enjoy my sugar once again too. Though, there have been times when I have struggled with sugar even in the last month, and having it as a tool to help me stay on track is great!
sugar does not make you fat.
Taking in more calories then you consume makes you fat.
If you eat in a 500 calorie a day deficit AND eat sugar you will lose weight....sugar is not some boogeyman hiding under the bed waiting to make you fat the moment you indulge in some...
Sometimes I wonder if you're even trying to read and understand where someone else is coming from. I'm not saying anything that you've said, nor would I disagree with it. That's all. Have a good day0 -
The more I read these sugar threads the more I want to read them..... It's addictive. 0_o0
-
If you want something more legit, read this article about calorie partitioning, or Partitioning ratio. It explains why a person genetically gifted with a favorable P-ratio will burn more calories from fat than muscle when in a deficit and add more calories in muscle than fat when assuming a surplus. Someone with a less favorable P-ratio will experience the opposite in both scenarios.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/muscle-gain/calorie-partitioning-part-1.html
This was interesting, thanks.0 -
I was going to watch that but I decided to eat a bowl of Ice cream instead.
In for Cookies & Cream, ya know because IT FITS.0 -
there has been an increase in these "sugar is evil" posts. just in time for Halloween... which works out good for someone like me... all of you anti sugar people can message me for my mailing address, and I will gladly take all of that evil, demonic, poisonous,toxic sugar off your hands. btw, I love snickers, butterfingers, skittles, dots, and twizzlers... just say-in0
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sKxfImHkFI
Documentary mini-series on the dangers of sugar, the Industrial Age diet and how it impacts y/our struggle with weight.
NOTE: While a calorie may be a calorie in terms of energy burn, there are a LOT of other variables like how they burn and their impact on the rest of the body (and its systems) that make some calories a much better choice than others. For those who wonder, here's why.
I rarely if ever use the dislike button on YouTube. After watching part of this video I felt a strong moral responsibility to do so today.
I don't trust scientists who cannot perform basic math:
Watch 9:55 – 10:35 in the video
He claims that 80% of obese people have (his definition of) metabolic diseases
He claims that 40% of skinny/normal (he uses both terms) weight people have metabolic diseases
He then "does the math” (10:25 in the video) and claims this totals 60% of America
This would only be true if the obese group (>30 BMI by CDC criteria) was the exact same size as the other group (which it is not).
http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/adult.html
Since even his most basic math is flawed how can you trust his other data or cause and effect claims?0 -
in for the funny gifs0
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sKxfImHkFI
Documentary mini-series on the dangers of sugar, the Industrial Age diet and how it impacts y/our struggle with weight.
NOTE: While a calorie may be a calorie in terms of energy burn, there are a LOT of other variables like how they burn and their impact on the rest of the body (and its systems) that make some calories a much better choice than others. For those who wonder, here's why.
I rarely if ever use the dislike button on YouTube. After watching part of this video I felt a strong moral responsibility to do so today.
I don't trust scientists who cannot perform basic math:
Watch 9:55 – 10:35 in the video
He claims that 80% of obese people have (his definition of) metabolic diseases
He claims that 40% of skinny/normal (he uses both terms) weight people have metabolic diseases
He then "does the math” (10:25 in the video) and claims this totals 60% of America
This would only be true if the obese group (>30 BMI by CDC criteria) was the exact same size as the other group (which it is not).
http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/adult.html
Since even his most basic math is flawed how can you trust his other data or cause and effect claims?
Shhhhhh! Stop poking holes in perfectly good diatribe with your mathmatical skepticism! Just because someone doesn't understand arithmetic doesn't mean they don't understand complex metabolic processes involving hundreds of variables.0 -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sKxfImHkFI
Documentary mini-series on the dangers of sugar, the Industrial Age diet and how it impacts y/our struggle with weight.
NOTE: While a calorie may be a calorie in terms of energy burn, there are a LOT of other variables like how they burn and their impact on the rest of the body (and its systems) that make some calories a much better choice than others. For those who wonder, here's why.
I rarely if ever use the dislike button on YouTube. After watching part of this video I felt a strong moral responsibility to do so today.
I don't trust scientists who cannot perform basic math:
Watch 9:55 – 10:35 in the video
He claims that 80% of obese people have (his definition of) metabolic diseases
He claims that 40% of skinny/normal (he uses both terms) weight people have metabolic diseases
He then "does the math” (10:25 in the video) and claims this totals 60% of America
This would only be true if the obese group (>30 BMI by CDC criteria) was the exact same size as the other group (which it is not).
http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/adult.html
Since even his most basic math is flawed how can you trust his other data or cause and effect claims?
I suppose next you'll be questioning Morgan Spurlock's math.0 -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sKxfImHkFI
Documentary mini-series on the dangers of sugar, the Industrial Age diet and how it impacts y/our struggle with weight.
NOTE: While a calorie may be a calorie in terms of energy burn, there are a LOT of other variables like how they burn and their impact on the rest of the body (and its systems) that make some calories a much better choice than others. For those who wonder, here's why.
I rarely if ever use the dislike button on YouTube. After watching part of this video I felt a strong moral responsibility to do so today.
I don't trust scientists who cannot perform basic math:
Watch 9:55 – 10:35 in the video
He claims that 80% of obese people have (his definition of) metabolic diseases
He claims that 40% of skinny/normal (he uses both terms) weight people have metabolic diseases
He then "does the math” (10:25 in the video) and claims this totals 60% of America
This would only be true if the obese group (>30 BMI by CDC criteria) was the exact same size as the other group (which it is not).
http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/adult.html
Since even his most basic math is flawed how can you trust his other data or cause and effect claims?
Shhhhhh! Stop poking holes in perfectly good diatribe with your mathmatical skepticism! Just because someone doesn't understand arithmetic doesn't mean they don't understand complex metabolic processes involving hundreds of variables.
To be fair the video does cite some interesting research regarding the interaction of leptin and insulin. It also makes some interesting points about the connection between diet (and obesity levels) of pregnant mothers and insulin levels plus birth weights of their babies.
However it is hard to remain credible with (in addition to statistics based on faulty math and lack of proper control groups in some of the underlying studies) such an overt bias in favor of blaming the "industrial global diet" instead of personal responsibility for the obesity epidemic. See 27:50 - 28:50 in the video.
At 54:45 he compares the need to regulate sugar to the need to regulate nicotine, ethanol, cocaine, morphine, heroine, morphine and cannabis. How can we take him seriously with that agenda?
At 56:00 he talks about 80% of foods in the grocery store being "laced with sugar" providing us no choice but to purchase them. He basically wants to ban/tax sugared food and subsidize "healthy food". Skip to the last few minutes of the video and his agenda becomes clear0 -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sKxfImHkFI
Documentary mini-series on the dangers of sugar, the Industrial Age diet and how it impacts y/our struggle with weight.
NOTE: While a calorie may be a calorie in terms of energy burn, there are a LOT of other variables like how they burn and their impact on the rest of the body (and its systems) that make some calories a much better choice than others. For those who wonder, here's why.
I rarely if ever use the dislike button on YouTube. After watching part of this video I felt a strong moral responsibility to do so today.
I don't trust scientists who cannot perform basic math:
Watch 9:55 – 10:35 in the video
He claims that 80% of obese people have (his definition of) metabolic diseases
He claims that 40% of skinny/normal (he uses both terms) weight people have metabolic diseases
He then "does the math” (10:25 in the video) and claims this totals 60% of America
This would only be true if the obese group (>30 BMI by CDC criteria) was the exact same size as the other group (which it is not).
http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/adult.html
Since even his most basic math is flawed how can you trust his other data or cause and effect claims?
I suppose next you'll be questioning Morgan Spurlock's math.
Haha. I think others have already done that. You are right about the problems with his Super Size Me "math"0 -
people didnt get diabetic from eating berries and apples
It take 8 feet of sugar cane, imagine chewing on that , to get the equivalent amt. of sugar of one can of soda0 -
people didnt get diabetic from eating berries and apples
It take 8 feet of sugar cane, imagine chewing on that , to get the equivalent amt. of sugar of one can of soda
and where can i find one of these 8ft sugar canes you speak of??? that might last me a whole day!0 -
people didnt get diabetic from eating berries and apples
It take 8 feet of sugar cane, imagine chewing on that , to get the equivalent amt. of sugar of one can of soda
"Almost 90% of people with type 2 diabetes are overweight"
http://www.obesity.org/resources-for/your-weight-and-diabetes.htm
"About 80 percent of people with type 2 diabetes are overweight or obese."
http://diabetes.niddk.nih.gov/dm/pubs/overview/
Risk factors for type 2 diabetes include:
Having prediabetes, which may be called impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) and/or impaired fasting glucose (IFG)
Being 45 or older
Having a family history of diabetes
Being overweight
Not exercising regularly
Having high blood pressure
Having low HDL, also known as "good" cholesterol and/or high levels of triglycerides
Certain racial and ethnic groups (e.g., Non-Hispanic Blacks, Hispanic/Latino Americans, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, and American Indians and Alaska Natives)
Women who had gestational diabetes, or who have had a baby weighing 9 pounds or more at birth
http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/prevention/risk-factors/
The list of risk factors above from the American Diabetes Association does not even mention sugar intake as a risk factor for type 2 diabetes. Look at the statistics. It seems clear that being overweight and sedentary is a far greater risk factor than sugar intake. I had 3 type two diabetics in my family (two are deceased). All 3 were obese and sedentary but never consumed much sugar. I (along with most other family members) am lean, active and have perfect cholesterol and blood sugar levels. I also consume a lot of sugar.
For the record, if you eat 8,000 calories a day of berries and apples while sitting on the couch, yes you will eventually become obese and be a a greater risk for diabetes and other diseases. This does not prove that sugar causes diabetes by itself.
Sugar intake (as it relates to insulin resistance) once someone has already become diabetic is another issue. In the context of prevention there has yet to be any studies proving that high sugar intake alone (while maintaining a healthy weight and consuming sufficient macro and micro nutrients) causes diabetes0 -
people didnt get diabetic from eating berries and apples
It take 8 feet of sugar cane, imagine chewing on that , to get the equivalent amt. of sugar of one can of soda
Are you saying people become diabetic from sugar? Really? That's what you're going with?0 -
It might benefit you to take classes in Endocrinology.people didnt get diabetic from eating berries and apples
It take 8 feet of sugar cane, imagine chewing on that , to get the equivalent amt. of sugar of one can of soda
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness industry for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
This content has been removed.
-
people didnt get diabetic from eating berries and apples
It take 8 feet of sugar cane, imagine chewing on that , to get the equivalent amt. of sugar of one can of soda
Oh come on... You and buddy can do better than that...0 -
Entertaining read..lol0
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sKxfImHkFI
Documentary mini-series on the dangers of sugar, the Industrial Age diet and how it impacts y/our struggle with weight.
NOTE: While a calorie may be a calorie in terms of energy burn, there are a LOT of other variables like how they burn and their impact on the rest of the body (and its systems) that make some calories a much better choice than others. For those who wonder, here's why.
I rarely if ever use the dislike button on YouTube. After watching part of this video I felt a strong moral responsibility to do so today.
I don't trust scientists who cannot perform basic math:
Watch 9:55 – 10:35 in the video
He claims that 80% of obese people have (his definition of) metabolic diseases
He claims that 40% of skinny/normal (he uses both terms) weight people have metabolic diseases
He then "does the math” (10:25 in the video) and claims this totals 60% of America
This would only be true if the obese group (>30 BMI by CDC criteria) was the exact same size as the other group (which it is not).
http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/adult.html
Since even his most basic math is flawed how can you trust his other data or cause and effect claims?
Actually, his math is something like this:
60% of people in America = Obese/Overweight
80% of 60% of people in America = Obese/Overweight + Metabolic X = 48% of the American Population
40% of people in America = Skinny/Normal Weight
40% of 40% of people in America = Skinny/Normal Weight + Metabolic X = 16% of the American Population
16% + 48% = 64% of American Population with Metabolic X or approximately 60%.
So even though they did a poor job of the display on the video and I think the editing and splicing of the overall interview seems to have skipped points or information, the numbers do add up to ~60%.0 -
now we just need the "my buddy" guy to show up ...and we will have the whole "sugar is evil" crew together...
He made it.
0 -
Family plays a big part on why you are the way you are.. yep.. who do you look like.. me my Pop and he is like he Mom and her Dad.. so I know what Iam fighting and how to keep on track... it helps .. would love to be more like my Grand on my Moms side but then I would be 4 foot 9 and have had lost my sight to a huge stroke.. sorry no.. so just glad to be 5 foot 6 and 210 pounds at the moment.. at 63 years of age and have had 2 small strokes know what causes them and how to live healthier and maybe a little less stress in life. stop to smell the flowers watch a sun rise never run on your own and if you have to have sound around you let it be the life of the world as your run outside.. Calories give me a steak baked spud and sour cream once in a month and I have to have a cake bit once in a month .. balance balance balance that is life when you over do that is when you have Obesity... so Stand Tall get out there and Try Try Try to not over do and enjoy life and all it has to offer for when you are no more You will not be able to have that hug laughter or cake bite.... hugs Ardith Ann Milwaukee WI....:flowerforyou:0
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