The Skinny on Obesity (or: "Calories are not created equal")

fitmusiclifeviola

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!

Cranquistador

Tell me more, tell me more... like does he have a car??

ndj1979

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...

doctorsookie

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?

doctorsookie

I was going to watch that but I decided to eat a bowl of Ice cream instead.

Love

Mcgrawhaha

oh gawd, this again... let me go grab my snickers before I start reading though this thread...

jofjltncb6

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.

Mother_Superior

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.

fitmusiclifeviola

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 day

kitsune1989

The more I read these sugar threads the more I want to read them..... It's addictive. 0_o

servilia

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.

YesIAm17

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.

Mcgrawhaha

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-in

MinimalistShoeAddict

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?

keem88

in for the funny gifs

tross0924

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.

jofjltncb6

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.

MinimalistShoeAddict

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 clear

MinimalistShoeAddict

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"

Lichent

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