Sugar types: It really does matter WHAT we eat
Replies
-
Yes it does matter and just ignore the mockers. I limit my fruit intake to fruit like blueberries,strawberries and grapefruit. It really helps with fat loss! Have you heard the phrase "abs are made in the kitchen"? I also eat mostly Paleo. No grains and very few processed foods. Lot's of meat and vegetables.
I doubt that there is a person on the face of the Earth that has actually gotten fat by eating too much fruit. I don't even count it against my daily sugar allowance, I just monitor the refined sugar.
Dude,I did not say fruit makes you fat. I said "limiting It helps with fat loss".0 -
Yes it does matter and just ignore the mockers. I limit my fruit intake to fruit like blueberries,strawberries and grapefruit. It really helps with fat loss! Have you heard the phrase "abs are made in the kitchen"? I also eat mostly Paleo. No grains and very few processed foods. Lot's of meat and vegetables.
Abs must be able to be made in the bakery too because I eat cookies and donuts almost daily BUT within reason. Nothing helps with fat loss OTHER than burning some good ol cals. Just stick within your calories and tweak your macros, it's not that difficult.
Obviously this does not include you but there are a lot of people (me included) that have stubborn belly fat to get rid of and cutting out foods high in sugar will help. Just because you don't need this advise doesn't mean it's wrong. It sure is helping me! I can't wait to show my before and after pictures when I'm where I want to be.0 -
Omg why this sort of post again? The evil sugar is out to get us!
0 -
Yes it does matter and just ignore the mockers. I limit my fruit intake to fruit like blueberries,strawberries and grapefruit. It really helps with fat loss! Have you heard the phrase "abs are made in the kitchen"? I also eat mostly Paleo. No grains and very few processed foods. Lot's of meat and vegetables.
Abs must be able to be made in the bakery too because I eat cookies and donuts almost daily BUT within reason. Nothing helps with fat loss OTHER than burning some good ol cals. Just stick within your calories and tweak your macros, it's not that difficult.
Obviously this does not include you but there are a lot of people (me included) that have stubborn belly fat to get rid of and cutting out foods high in sugar will help. Just because you don't need this advise doesn't mean it's wrong. It sure is helping me! I can't wait to show my before and after pictures when I'm where I want to be.
*Sigh*
Just so you know. I have stubborn belly fat, too. All that means is it's the last 'pocket' of fat to go. We need to drop %BF a few more percentage points to get it gone. We can still do that and eat sugar. Processed, even.0 -
Obviously this does not include you but there are a lot of people (me included) that have stubborn belly fat to get rid of and cutting out foods high in sugar will help
Um...you can't target an area to lose weight in, and I seriously doubt not ingesting fructose is going to get rid of 'stubborn belly fat' (which phrase I can only hear in an infomercial announcer's voice, because, really.).
For best nutrition - balance your macros and micros and make sure you're getting a healthy intake. Fats aren't evil. Carbs aren't evil. Sugar isn't evil. Grains aren't evil. Overdoing it is.
For weight loss - eat less than you burn. Period. If you have some weird medical condition, then that is unusual and specific to you and shouldn't be taken into account for everyone else who is desperate for a 'reason' and a 'magic excuse' instead of just burning more than you input. Even with the complexities of bodies, over the long run, calories in v calories out is going to win. Carbonated beverages seem to just stall my weight loss, and I've had a nephrologist acquaintance and a few other physician friends say they notice it in women frequently. But I've never really seen any true science to back it up - anecdotes /= evidence. Ergo, I'm not on here screaming 'zomg stop with teh sodazzzz' to everyone. I bet that it may trigger something in me that makes my body go 'hrm, going to bloat up here a bit, lovin' this sodium, holdin' on to this water weight' and so on, but over the long run, if I'm taking in fewer calories than I burn in a day, I will start to lose weight. Period. [Again, barring any sort of rare, special snowflake medical condition]
For sustainable weight loss and long-term health - find a nice balance that you can live with for the rest of your life, so you aren't depriving yourself, you won't snap and binge it all back, and you are getting all your nutrition from your food. This will typically mean fruits, vegetables, healthy fats (nom down those avocados and use that butter), meats (or other protein sources) - but it shouldn't get rid of your 'treat' things either - like ice cream or lattes, or that bag of Halloween candy. While not essential for weight loss, for long-term health, I'd suggest that exercise is also essential.0 -
No. Cutting out sugar will not magically make belly fat disappear. Reducing calories will make belly fat disappear. When the belly fat disappears depends on your genetic disposition for fat storage, not whether you eat sugar or not.Yes it does matter and just ignore the mockers. I limit my fruit intake to fruit like blueberries,strawberries and grapefruit. It really helps with fat loss! Have you heard the phrase "abs are made in the kitchen"? I also eat mostly Paleo. No grains and very few processed foods. Lot's of meat and vegetables.
Abs must be able to be made in the bakery too because I eat cookies and donuts almost daily BUT within reason. Nothing helps with fat loss OTHER than burning some good ol cals. Just stick within your calories and tweak your macros, it's not that difficult.
Obviously this does not include you but there are a lot of people (me included) that have stubborn belly fat to get rid of and cutting out foods high in sugar will help. Just because you don't need this advise doesn't mean it's wrong. It sure is helping me! I can't wait to show my before and after pictures when I'm where I want to be.
And belly fat can't be stubborn. It doesn't think. It's a storage container.0 -
I see Taubes has already been trotted out..once we get to Lustig I'll be back with cat gifs.0
-
So is Agave. I eat alot of both. I am sooooooooo fat and on the verge of a diabetic coma erry day. I also eat 3 cups of Fruity pebbles after every workout and poop rainbows. SRSAnother good source of sugar info: http://modernhealthmonk.com/natural-sweeteners-sugar-myth/
Honey is high is fructose
bad for weight loss!
This I believe. I pooped blue for three days once after too many Fruit Loops. :noway: :laugh:0 -
0 -
Didn't read all the comments, but my goal isn't just weight loss....I don't think anyones goal should just be wight loss. It's about feeling better, and if others are anything like me, if I put crap food in the tank...I feel like, well...CRAP. Calories are I suppose calories ...but some aren't doing your body any good and so whats the point of losing weight to better yourself if your intent is to just treat it like a garabage can.
The point is in not perpetuating rumours and pseudoscience, I believe. If you feel like crap by putting crap food in - then absolutely, for you, you shouldn't do that. But what defines crap food? We all define it differently and have different lines we draw in the sand, based off of what works for us in keeping our mental health in the right game too. I do believe different foods and levels of nutrition can impact us, possibly in inexplicable ways at times, but when it comes to the actual science behind losing pounds -- calories in/calories out works. The rest is all very squishy and very dependent on personal experiences.
Most people upon demonizing a food, cut it out, feel better, extol the virtues of their 'secret magical thing' and how it is what matters most. And then six months or a year down the road, when they had a craving for something and caved, they're holed up in a bad place mentally because they 'gave in' and had 'a bad food' or other nonsense.
We all start somewhere different too -- we may need to cut out all sugars short term to jumpstart our mental processes into thinking and being healthier, knowing that sugar is our key trigger to overeating on calories, which will not help weight loss. Sugar isn't the bad thing here - it's the trigger. For some, that trigger may be ice cream, or whatever. I believe the healthiest way to do it is to not exclude anything - but if you have to do it at first, walk into it knowing it is just temporary while you get your head in the game, get used to tracking calories, etc.
Pseudoscience and anecdotal 'evidence' fuel the diet industry that wants us to stay fat so we keep buying their products. It also fuels our delusions as to what will really cause weight loss, when it is simple -- eat fewer calories than you burn. It is also hard, of course, otherwise, we'd all be healthy.0 -
Didn't read all the comments, but my goal isn't just weight loss....I don't think anyones goal should just be wight loss. It's about feeling better, and if others are anything like me, if I put crap food in the tank...I feel like, well...CRAP. Calories are I suppose calories ...but some aren't doing your body any good and so whats the point of losing weight to better yourself if your intent is to just treat it like a garabage can.
:huh:
Really? No point to losing weight unless you live a life of sugar celibacy?
I get to live one time. Just once. I am not going to waste what years I have denying myself the foods I love because someone told me sugar was the devil. If it takes a year or two off my life...so be it. I won't be around to care any longer. I feel GREAT, and have more energy than I've ever had. Not because I avoid sugar, but because I LOST WEIGHT....while eating ALL the sugar.0 -
Sugar again. Seriously, what the hell? Why is everyone so utterly hell-bent on "disproving" calorie in -calorie out? Is it really that damn hard to grasp. "thermodynamics doesn't explain everything" does not, in any conceivable universe, equal "Thermodynamics don't apply" or "thermodynamics aren't the most important thing".
Some people have medical problems. Some people have allergies and intolerances. Some people react weird to some food. Most people don't. The vast majority of people don't. The vast majority of people can eat whatever and have the laws of physics work just fine for them.
Look, if eating clean/low GI/ low carb/ low fat/ organic only/ vegan, vegetarian, or plant based/ no HFCS/ no fructose period/no fruit/ low sodium/whatever else I missed works for you, you like the way that tastes, you can mind your calories on it, do it. If you want to get a group together to share recipes, compare results, pat each other on the *kitten* for a job well-done, do it. Enjoy it. Hell, if you want advice on what to avoid to comply with whatever dietary restriction you're doing, go ahead and ask. Some people may knee-jerk and start yelling at you for your choice, but for the most part, other will answer whatever you asked.
But please, for the love of all that is holy, stop harping on about how this, that, or the other thing trumps cals in v cals out. It doesn't, you're wrong. You were wrong when it was fats. You were wrong when it was carbs. You were/are wrong when it was/is unclean/processed. You were/are wrong when it was/is meat. You are wrong with it being fructose now. You will be wrong when it's protein consumption, or whatever stupid thing people start banging on about next. Energy in vs energy out is all that matter for weight loss. How go about creating that difference can be argued about. How you can feel full without messing up your deficit, what foods work best, can be argued. At what point overall nutrition becomes more important than brute loss can be argued. Those are all fair, relevant positions to start a debate on. The validity of cals in cals out is not, nor will ever will be, barring the development of some manner of adipose eating nanobots in the future, where we can argue "good ol' portion control" vs "dude, screw that, I got robots".
Addendum: Oh, as to why someone would post in a thread just to blast the starting point; in most cases, I agree with don't like don't read, or at least, don't post. Plenty of cases where "I think you're doing wrong/what you're doing isn't required to achieve what you want" isn't warranted, as noted above. Cases where someone advances a blatantly untrue position are not such cases. Those need to be challenged, hard, often, and repeatedly.0 -
Sugar again. Seriously, what the hell? Why is everyone so utterly hell-bent on "disproving" calorie in -calorie out? Is it really that damn hard to grasp. "thermodynamics doesn't explain everything" does not, in any conceivable universe, equal "Thermodynamics don't apply" or "thermodynamics aren't the most important thing".
Some people have medical problems. Some people have allergies and intolerances. Some people react weird to some food. Most people don't. The vast majority of people don't. The vast majority of people can eat whatever and have the laws of physics work just fine for them.
Look, if eating clean/low GI/ low carb/ low fat/ organic only/ vegan, vegetarian, or plant based/ no HFCS/ no fructose period/no fruit/ low sodium/whatever else I missed works for you, you like the way that tastes, you can mind your calories on it, do it. If you want to get a group together to share recipes, compare results, pat each other on the *kitten* for a job well-done, do it. Enjoy it. Hell, if you want advice on what to avoid to comply with whatever dietary restriction you're doing, go ahead and ask. Some people may knee-jerk and start yelling at you for your choice, but for the most part, other will answer whatever you asked.
But please, for the love of all that is holy, stop harping on about how this, that, or the other thing trumps cals in v cals out. It doesn't, you're wrong. You were wrong when it was fats. You were wrong when it was carbs. You were/are wrong when it was/is unclean/processed. You were/are wrong when it was/is meat. You are wrong with it being fructose now. You will be wrong when it's protein consumption, or whatever stupid thing people start banging on about next. Energy in vs energy out is all that matter for weight loss. How go about creating that difference can be argued about. How you can feel full without messing up your deficit, what foods work best, can be argued. At what point overall nutrition becomes more important than brute loss can be argued. Those are all fair, relevant positions to start a debate on. The validity of cals in cals out is not, nor will ever will be, barring the development of some manner of adipose eating nanobots in the future, where we can argue "good ol' portion control" vs "dude, screw that, I got robots".
Addendum: Oh, as to why someone would post in a thread just to blast the starting point; in most cases, I agree with don't like don't read, or at least, don't post. Plenty of cases where "I think you're doing wrong/what you're doing isn't required to achieve what you want" isn't warranted, as noted above. Cases where someone advances a blatantly untrue position are not such cases. Those need to be challenged, hard, often, and repeatedly.
I read all this in Dr. Cox's voice, and it was glorious.
tilmoph, you win0 -
tilmoph's post
I read all this in Dr. Cox's voice, and it was glorious.
tilmoph, you win
Totally agreed0 -
Who eats whole grains unprocessed ?
When I've read actual science (as opposed to editorial) the connections between eating sugars and depositing fats that you describe don't appear. If you eat 10 grams of anything you'll use it up in the hour or two after eating it.
I eat steel cut oats as well as rolled oats so I guess I am the one who eats unprocessed grains. In addition to other types of seeds. Quinoa is also a unprocessed grain. I am sure if I thought about it very long at all I could come up with a lot more. So I guess the answer is I do! What happens if you eat more than 10 grams of anything is it deposited as fat?0 -
What she said. I don't count the sugar in my fruit so since I don't eat raw sugar or processed sugar I don't worry about it.0
-
Sugar again. Seriously, what the hell? Why is everyone so utterly hell-bent on "disproving" calorie in -calorie out? Is it really that damn hard to grasp. "thermodynamics doesn't explain everything" does not, in any conceivable universe, equal "Thermodynamics don't apply" or "thermodynamics aren't the most important thing".
Some people have medical problems. Some people have allergies and intolerances. Some people react weird to some food. Most people don't. The vast majority of people don't. The vast majority of people can eat whatever and have the laws of physics work just fine for them.
Look, if eating clean/low GI/ low carb/ low fat/ organic only/ vegan, vegetarian, or plant based/ no HFCS/ no fructose period/no fruit/ low sodium/whatever else I missed works for you, you like the way that tastes, you can mind your calories on it, do it. If you want to get a group together to share recipes, compare results, pat each other on the *kitten* for a job well-done, do it. Enjoy it. Hell, if you want advice on what to avoid to comply with whatever dietary restriction you're doing, go ahead and ask. Some people may knee-jerk and start yelling at you for your choice, but for the most part, other will answer whatever you asked.
But please, for the love of all that is holy, stop harping on about how this, that, or the other thing trumps cals in v cals out. It doesn't, you're wrong. You were wrong when it was fats. You were wrong when it was carbs. You were/are wrong when it was/is unclean/processed. You were/are wrong when it was/is meat. You are wrong with it being fructose now. You will be wrong when it's protein consumption, or whatever stupid thing people start banging on about next. Energy in vs energy out is all that matter for weight loss. How go about creating that difference can be argued about. How you can feel full without messing up your deficit, what foods work best, can be argued. At what point overall nutrition becomes more important than brute loss can be argued. Those are all fair, relevant positions to start a debate on. The validity of cals in cals out is not, nor will ever will be, barring the development of some manner of adipose eating nanobots in the future, where we can argue "good ol' portion control" vs "dude, screw that, I got robots".
Addendum: Oh, as to why someone would post in a thread just to blast the starting point; in most cases, I agree with don't like don't read, or at least, don't post. Plenty of cases where "I think you're doing wrong/what you're doing isn't required to achieve what you want" isn't warranted, as noted above. Cases where someone advances a blatantly untrue position are not such cases. Those need to be challenged, hard, often, and repeatedly.
THANKYOU! Couldn't agree 1000x more!
Tis all. Carry on people.
*exits thread*0 -
Obviously this does not include you but there are a lot of people (me included) that have stubborn belly fat to get rid of and cutting out foods high in sugar will help
Um...you can't target an area to lose weight in, and I seriously doubt not ingesting fructose is going to get rid of 'stubborn belly fat' (which phrase I can only hear in an infomercial announcer's voice, because, really.).
For best nutrition - balance your macros and micros and make sure you're getting a healthy intake. Fats aren't evil. Carbs aren't evil. Sugar isn't evil. Grains aren't evil. Overdoing it is.
For weight loss - eat less than you burn. Period. If you have some weird medical condition, then that is unusual and specific to you and shouldn't be taken into account for everyone else who is desperate for a 'reason' and a 'magic excuse' instead of just burning more than you input. Even with the complexities of bodies, over the long run, calories in v calories out is going to win. Carbonated beverages seem to just stall my weight loss, and I've had a nephrologist acquaintance and a few other physician friends say they notice it in women frequently. But I've never really seen any true science to back it up - anecdotes /= evidence. Ergo, I'm not on here screaming 'zomg stop with teh sodazzzz' to everyone. I bet that it may trigger something in me that makes my body go 'hrm, going to bloat up here a bit, lovin' this sodium, holdin' on to this water weight' and so on, but over the long run, if I'm taking in fewer calories than I burn in a day, I will start to lose weight. Period. [Again, barring any sort of rare, special snowflake medical condition]
For sustainable weight loss and long-term health - find a nice balance that you can live with for the rest of your life, so you aren't depriving yourself, you won't snap and binge it all back, and you are getting all your nutrition from your food. This will typically mean fruits, vegetables, healthy fats (nom down those avocados and use that butter), meats (or other protein sources) - but it shouldn't get rid of your 'treat' things either - like ice cream or lattes, or that bag of Halloween candy. While not essential for weight loss, for long-term health, I'd suggest that exercise is also essential.
Yes! Yes! Yes! Quite excellent. Cut sugar and lose belly fat? Nope!! It's laughable and sounds like an infomercial.0 -
No. Cutting out sugar will not magically make belly fat disappear. Reducing calories will make belly fat disappear. When the belly fat disappears depends on your genetic disposition for fat storage, not whether you eat sugar or not.Yes it does matter and just ignore the mockers. I limit my fruit intake to fruit like blueberries,strawberries and grapefruit. It really helps with fat loss! Have you heard the phrase "abs are made in the kitchen"? I also eat mostly Paleo. No grains and very few processed foods. Lot's of meat and vegetables.
Abs must be able to be made in the bakery too because I eat cookies and donuts almost daily BUT within reason. Nothing helps with fat loss OTHER than burning some good ol cals. Just stick within your calories and tweak your macros, it's not that difficult.
Obviously this does not include you but there are a lot of people (me included) that have stubborn belly fat to get rid of and cutting out foods high in sugar will help. Just because you don't need this advise doesn't mean it's wrong. It sure is helping me! I can't wait to show my before and after pictures when I'm where I want to be.
And belly fat can't be stubborn. It doesn't think. It's a storage container.
True story!0 -
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:"dude, screw that, I got robots".
**Steals this**0 -
Sugar again. Seriously, what the hell? Why is everyone so utterly hell-bent on "disproving" calorie in -calorie out? Is it really that damn hard to grasp. "thermodynamics doesn't explain everything" does not, in any conceivable universe, equal "Thermodynamics don't apply" or "thermodynamics aren't the most important thing".
Some people have medical problems. Some people have allergies and intolerances. Some people react weird to some food. Most people don't. The vast majority of people don't. The vast majority of people can eat whatever and have the laws of physics work just fine for them.
Look, if eating clean/low GI/ low carb/ low fat/ organic only/ vegan, vegetarian, or plant based/ no HFCS/ no fructose period/no fruit/ low sodium/whatever else I missed works for you, you like the way that tastes, you can mind your calories on it, do it. If you want to get a group together to share recipes, compare results, pat each other on the *kitten* for a job well-done, do it. Enjoy it. Hell, if you want advice on what to avoid to comply with whatever dietary restriction you're doing, go ahead and ask. Some people may knee-jerk and start yelling at you for your choice, but for the most part, other will answer whatever you asked.
But please, for the love of all that is holy, stop harping on about how this, that, or the other thing trumps cals in v cals out. It doesn't, you're wrong. You were wrong when it was fats. You were wrong when it was carbs. You were/are wrong when it was/is unclean/processed. You were/are wrong when it was/is meat. You are wrong with it being fructose now. You will be wrong when it's protein consumption, or whatever stupid thing people start banging on about next. Energy in vs energy out is all that matter for weight loss. How go about creating that difference can be argued about. How you can feel full without messing up your deficit, what foods work best, can be argued. At what point overall nutrition becomes more important than brute loss can be argued. Those are all fair, relevant positions to start a debate on. The validity of cals in cals out is not, nor will ever will be, barring the development of some manner of adipose eating nanobots in the future, where we can argue "good ol' portion control" vs "dude, screw that, I got robots".
Addendum: Oh, as to why someone would post in a thread just to blast the starting point; in most cases, I agree with don't like don't read, or at least, don't post. Plenty of cases where "I think you're doing wrong/what you're doing isn't required to achieve what you want" isn't warranted, as noted above. Cases where someone advances a blatantly untrue position are not such cases. Those need to be challenged, hard, often, and repeatedly.
This post is...kinda sexy.
/fans self0 -
Sugar again. Seriously, what the hell? Why is everyone so utterly hell-bent on "disproving" calorie in -calorie out? Is it really that damn hard to grasp. "thermodynamics doesn't explain everything" does not, in any conceivable universe, equal "Thermodynamics don't apply" or "thermodynamics aren't the most important thing".
Some people have medical problems. Some people have allergies and intolerances. Some people react weird to some food. Most people don't. The vast majority of people don't. The vast majority of people can eat whatever and have the laws of physics work just fine for them.
Look, if eating clean/low GI/ low carb/ low fat/ organic only/ vegan, vegetarian, or plant based/ no HFCS/ no fructose period/no fruit/ low sodium/whatever else I missed works for you, you like the way that tastes, you can mind your calories on it, do it. If you want to get a group together to share recipes, compare results, pat each other on the *kitten* for a job well-done, do it. Enjoy it. Hell, if you want advice on what to avoid to comply with whatever dietary restriction you're doing, go ahead and ask. Some people may knee-jerk and start yelling at you for your choice, but for the most part, other will answer whatever you asked.
But please, for the love of all that is holy, stop harping on about how this, that, or the other thing trumps cals in v cals out. It doesn't, you're wrong. You were wrong when it was fats. You were wrong when it was carbs. You were/are wrong when it was/is unclean/processed. You were/are wrong when it was/is meat. You are wrong with it being fructose now. You will be wrong when it's protein consumption, or whatever stupid thing people start banging on about next. Energy in vs energy out is all that matter for weight loss. How go about creating that difference can be argued about. How you can feel full without messing up your deficit, what foods work best, can be argued. At what point overall nutrition becomes more important than brute loss can be argued. Those are all fair, relevant positions to start a debate on. The validity of cals in cals out is not, nor will ever will be, barring the development of some manner of adipose eating nanobots in the future, where we can argue "good ol' portion control" vs "dude, screw that, I got robots".
Addendum: Oh, as to why someone would post in a thread just to blast the starting point; in most cases, I agree with don't like don't read, or at least, don't post. Plenty of cases where "I think you're doing wrong/what you're doing isn't required to achieve what you want" isn't warranted, as noted above. Cases where someone advances a blatantly untrue position are not such cases. Those need to be challenged, hard, often, and repeatedly.
I think I love you.0 -
Steel cut, rolled oats, and quinoa are all processed. For one thing, cooking is processing. Eating an unprocessed grain would be taking it directly out of the ground and munching on it. Quinoa is actually the most highly processed of your three examples. It's also not a grain.Who eats whole grains unprocessed ?
When I've read actual science (as opposed to editorial) the connections between eating sugars and depositing fats that you describe don't appear. If you eat 10 grams of anything you'll use it up in the hour or two after eating it.
I eat steel cut oats as well as rolled oats so I guess I am the one who eats unprocessed grains. In addition to other types of seeds. Quinoa is also a unprocessed grain. I am sure if I thought about it very long at all I could come up with a lot more. So I guess the answer is I do! What happens if you eat more than 10 grams of anything is it deposited as fat?0 -
Had to quote this again because it's truth.Sugar again. Seriously, what the hell? Why is everyone so utterly hell-bent on "disproving" calorie in -calorie out? Is it really that damn hard to grasp. "thermodynamics doesn't explain everything" does not, in any conceivable universe, equal "Thermodynamics don't apply" or "thermodynamics aren't the most important thing".
Some people have medical problems. Some people have allergies and intolerances. Some people react weird to some food. Most people don't. The vast majority of people don't. The vast majority of people can eat whatever and have the laws of physics work just fine for them.
Look, if eating clean/low GI/ low carb/ low fat/ organic only/ vegan, vegetarian, or plant based/ no HFCS/ no fructose period/no fruit/ low sodium/whatever else I missed works for you, you like the way that tastes, you can mind your calories on it, do it. If you want to get a group together to share recipes, compare results, pat each other on the *kitten* for a job well-done, do it. Enjoy it. Hell, if you want advice on what to avoid to comply with whatever dietary restriction you're doing, go ahead and ask. Some people may knee-jerk and start yelling at you for your choice, but for the most part, other will answer whatever you asked.
But please, for the love of all that is holy, stop harping on about how this, that, or the other thing trumps cals in v cals out. It doesn't, you're wrong. You were wrong when it was fats. You were wrong when it was carbs. You were/are wrong when it was/is unclean/processed. You were/are wrong when it was/is meat. You are wrong with it being fructose now. You will be wrong when it's protein consumption, or whatever stupid thing people start banging on about next. Energy in vs energy out is all that matter for weight loss. How go about creating that difference can be argued about. How you can feel full without messing up your deficit, what foods work best, can be argued. At what point overall nutrition becomes more important than brute loss can be argued. Those are all fair, relevant positions to start a debate on. The validity of cals in cals out is not, nor will ever will be, barring the development of some manner of adipose eating nanobots in the future, where we can argue "good ol' portion control" vs "dude, screw that, I got robots".
Addendum: Oh, as to why someone would post in a thread just to blast the starting point; in most cases, I agree with don't like don't read, or at least, don't post. Plenty of cases where "I think you're doing wrong/what you're doing isn't required to achieve what you want" isn't warranted, as noted above. Cases where someone advances a blatantly untrue position are not such cases. Those need to be challenged, hard, often, and repeatedly.
A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
Sugar again. Seriously, what the hell? Why is everyone so utterly hell-bent on "disproving" calorie in -calorie out? Is it really that damn hard to grasp. "thermodynamics doesn't explain everything" does not, in any conceivable universe, equal "Thermodynamics don't apply" or "thermodynamics aren't the most important thing".
Some people have medical problems. Some people have allergies and intolerances. Some people react weird to some food. Most people don't. The vast majority of people don't. The vast majority of people can eat whatever and have the laws of physics work just fine for them.
Look, if eating clean/low GI/ low carb/ low fat/ organic only/ vegan, vegetarian, or plant based/ no HFCS/ no fructose period/no fruit/ low sodium/whatever else I missed works for you, you like the way that tastes, you can mind your calories on it, do it. If you want to get a group together to share recipes, compare results, pat each other on the *kitten* for a job well-done, do it. Enjoy it. Hell, if you want advice on what to avoid to comply with whatever dietary restriction you're doing, go ahead and ask. Some people may knee-jerk and start yelling at you for your choice, but for the most part, other will answer whatever you asked.
But please, for the love of all that is holy, stop harping on about how this, that, or the other thing trumps cals in v cals out. It doesn't, you're wrong. You were wrong when it was fats. You were wrong when it was carbs. You were/are wrong when it was/is unclean/processed. You were/are wrong when it was/is meat. You are wrong with it being fructose now. You will be wrong when it's protein consumption, or whatever stupid thing people start banging on about next. Energy in vs energy out is all that matter for weight loss. How go about creating that difference can be argued about. How you can feel full without messing up your deficit, what foods work best, can be argued. At what point overall nutrition becomes more important than brute loss can be argued. Those are all fair, relevant positions to start a debate on. The validity of cals in cals out is not, nor will ever will be, barring the development of some manner of adipose eating nanobots in the future, where we can argue "good ol' portion control" vs "dude, screw that, I got robots".
Addendum: Oh, as to why someone would post in a thread just to blast the starting point; in most cases, I agree with don't like don't read, or at least, don't post. Plenty of cases where "I think you're doing wrong/what you're doing isn't required to achieve what you want" isn't warranted, as noted above. Cases where someone advances a blatantly untrue position are not such cases. Those need to be challenged, hard, often, and repeatedly.
/thread.
Seriously mfp, the world does not need another "stop eating that *kitten*, I know better than you" thread. Why is F&N full of this crap?0 -
Sugar again. Seriously, what the hell? Why is everyone so utterly hell-bent on "disproving" calorie in -calorie out? Is it really that damn hard to grasp. "thermodynamics doesn't explain everything" does not, in any conceivable universe, equal "Thermodynamics don't apply" or "thermodynamics aren't the most important thing".
Some people have medical problems. Some people have allergies and intolerances. Some people react weird to some food. Most people don't. The vast majority of people don't. The vast majority of people can eat whatever and have the laws of physics work just fine for them.
Look, if eating clean/low GI/ low carb/ low fat/ organic only/ vegan, vegetarian, or plant based/ no HFCS/ no fructose period/no fruit/ low sodium/whatever else I missed works for you, you like the way that tastes, you can mind your calories on it, do it. If you want to get a group together to share recipes, compare results, pat each other on the *kitten* for a job well-done, do it. Enjoy it. Hell, if you want advice on what to avoid to comply with whatever dietary restriction you're doing, go ahead and ask. Some people may knee-jerk and start yelling at you for your choice, but for the most part, other will answer whatever you asked.
But please, for the love of all that is holy, stop harping on about how this, that, or the other thing trumps cals in v cals out. It doesn't, you're wrong. You were wrong when it was fats. You were wrong when it was carbs. You were/are wrong when it was/is unclean/processed. You were/are wrong when it was/is meat. You are wrong with it being fructose now. You will be wrong when it's protein consumption, or whatever stupid thing people start banging on about next. Energy in vs energy out is all that matter for weight loss. How go about creating that difference can be argued about. How you can feel full without messing up your deficit, what foods work best, can be argued. At what point overall nutrition becomes more important than brute loss can be argued. Those are all fair, relevant positions to start a debate on. The validity of cals in cals out is not, nor will ever will be, barring the development of some manner of adipose eating nanobots in the future, where we can argue "good ol' portion control" vs "dude, screw that, I got robots".
Addendum: Oh, as to why someone would post in a thread just to blast the starting point; in most cases, I agree with don't like don't read, or at least, don't post. Plenty of cases where "I think you're doing wrong/what you're doing isn't required to achieve what you want" isn't warranted, as noted above. Cases where someone advances a blatantly untrue position are not such cases. Those need to be challenged, hard, often, and repeatedly.
THANKYOU! Couldn't agree 1000x more!
Tis all. Carry on people.
*exits thread*
bravo well said0 -
Isn't it calories in VS calories out that makes you gain weight? If you have a medical condition that makes you sensitive to sugar or a gluten intolerance, then shouldn't this be when you should be worrying about the sugar and stuff? I'd hate to think the nutella and or Weetabix has caused my weight gain......Nutella use to be a fear food of mine and I think it's starting to become one again....0
-
People interested in this thread should read a book called: Why do we get fat (cant remember the author) ..
Somebody wrote a book about why we get fat? What a scam! I can tell people why in one sentence: You eat more than you burn. Ta-da!!! Somebody give me a book deal.
It's Why We Get Fat, and What and What to Do About it, by Gary Taubes. It's an interesting read and I'd recommend borrowing it from the library. Even though I didn't agree with a lot of it it's always good to learn about different views
http://www.thelivinlowcarbshow.com/shownotes/3557/blogger-carbsane-calls-gary-taubes-a-willful-fraud-episode-436/0 -
I'm sure there are other who understand this more than myself, but the European Union has just come out with a proposal that fructose is the superior sweetener in products marketed to children d/t the fact fructose does not have the instantaneous effect on raising blood sugar as glucose or sucrose.
Anyways, I dont fall into the whole bad food good food bandwagon for some reason a few biochemistry, physiology, and anatomy classes do that to a person. Our monkey ancestors were eating just as many fruits, nuts, insects, and the occasional infant as anyone else.
The worst part here isn't that they listen to quack science. It's that they listen to it and misunderstands it to mean something even more extreme then it was to begin with. Dr. Lustig says fruit is fine because it is a combination of fructose and fiber. It's juice and processed food that according to him is the problem.0 -
I'm sure there are other who understand this more than myself, but the European Union has just come out with a proposal that fructose is the superior sweetener in products marketed to children d/t the fact fructose does not have the instantaneous effect on raising blood sugar as glucose or sucrose.
Anyways, I dont fall into the whole bad food good food bandwagon for some reason a few biochemistry, physiology, and anatomy classes do that to a person. Our monkey ancestors were eating just as many fruits, nuts, insects, and the occasional infant as anyone else.
The worst part here isn't that they listen to quack science. It's that they listen to it and misunderstands it to mean something even more extreme then it was to begin with. Dr. Lustig says fruit is fine because it is a combination of fructose and fiber. It's juice and processed food that according to him is the problem.
In what context and dose?0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K 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