Sugar types: It really does matter WHAT we eat
Replies
-
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 -
Ironic. Talking about someone listening to quack science, then quoting Lustig, who pretty much defines "quack science."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
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.7K Getting Started
- 260.1K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.8K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 415 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.9K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.6K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.5K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions