Horizon- sugar v fat BBC2
Replies
-
Citation, please.
Here's an article with links to a variety of articles showing that if you are a healthy individual, the type of carbs you eat don't make any difference.
http://www.simplyshredded.com/the-science-of-nutrition-is-a-carb-a-carb.html
However, likely will make a difference if you ARE obese.
I've looked into fibre and what not having it causes. I don't worry so much these days if I do or don't get it.
Fiber helps to keep you feel fuller longer. It takes longer to digest, and helps with water retention and regularity. As for sources here are a few about sugar itself. Insulin production has vast amounts of data, and is well documented. It's not hard to see how continued over production can lead to insulin resistances and type 2 diabetes.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jacobsullum/2013/10/16/research-shows-cocaine-and-heroin-are-less-addictive-than-oreos/
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/12/13/in-food-cravings-sugar-trumps-fat/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24132980
Here is information on carbohydrates and fiber:
http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/features/carbohydrates
Every study should be taken with a grain of salt. Nowadays there is a study for everything. If you tried to find a study that says water is bad I'm sure you could. Regardless, I combine information like this with my personal experiences, and I truly believe that it's the over-consumption of processed carbs that turned me into a jelly belly.
Interesting articles.
Totally agree that the carbs we eat should come from plant base sources and contain nutrients, vitamins and fibre.
However I totally disagree that we should be eating whole grain (grains serve no purpose what-so-ever and in fact cause more problems in diet than you would think.
I agree with percentage split in the diet but only if you are burning Glycogen as a fuel source (which is not the most efficient fuel source to use. Our bodies have evolved to burn body fact as fuel and therefore a healthy diet (for overall longevity of health) would be a high fat diet with a carb intake of approx. 150g.0 -
I actually agree with you as well. I average about 150 gram of carbs a day. Some days are less, some are more.0
-
Just taking points as I remember them.... hairless rat isn't really a species, it is a breed of rat. It is man made, bred from defective rats, just like the dumbo eared rats were.
The point of taking just fat or sugar based restrictions was to show what that one single faddish point would lead to. I think they showed the individual aspects and the cohort based science behind it really well. Also they focused on the Atlantic divide and the reasons for it. Again Dr Sugar (sorry, Lustig) came over as a tad, erm, evangelical, single minded, loopy.... take your pick.
They said their own experiment was poor science but their experience was illuminating, especially honest when they said that 'as GPs' they thought they knew more.
I found it refreshing that Prof Jebb was shown as well as cited - she usually only gets a passing mention as she is almost guaranteed to blow every diet guru's womblings out of the water. Doctor thingy (the rat man) that followed her was fascinating, taking some of her ideas and showing how they could be manipulated in rats. And the wholly common sense upshot that 50:50 fat : sugar is lethal/perfect human food
So I enjoyed it. Simplistic yes, informative, yes.
And to top it off Dr Death (sorry DUKAN) got struck off by the French. Yay
0 -
This is not true at all. Insulin doesn't dump anything into fat storage. Insulin is actually one of the most important hormones for muscle growth.I watched it all and was skeptical that it wasn't going to reveal anything groundbreaking, but it was actually very interesting, particularly the experiments with the cheesecake (fat and sugar) and the rats. And who doesn't like cheesecake?
We all know fat doesn't make us fat and we all know the body NEEDS carbs in order to simply function. I found it ironic that these so called bodybuilding ridiculously low carb diets, that they are actually burning muscle mass as well as fat!
Yes, the body needs carbs to survive, however it needs the "correct" carbs to really get adequate nutrition. Carbs exist in all veggies, and these are much better options that what most of us reach for. Bread, pasta, chips, crackers, cookies, snack packs, etc. Sure, carbs from breads, pasta, rice etc are fine in the short term. But the vast majority of us choose to eat those products consisting of refined carbs. The germ is stripped off the wheat before being ground into flour, thus stripping off the fiber and other nutrients. Most times you see vitamin additives on the label, it signals that the carbs have been processed and nutrients stripped out. Those processed carbs are easily digested, spiking blood sugar and causing an insulin reaction. The insulin will cause the body to dump all that sugar into fat stores quickly to keep the blood sugar level down. Once the blood sugar crashes due to overproduction of insulin, the brain will signal that it's hungry and needs more energy, which then causes the person to look for more snack containing carbs. It ends up being a downward spiral. Over time, insulin over-production will eventually cause the person to become insulin resistant, and may end up causing pre-diabetes or even full blown diabetes if left unchecked.
So, in the end, the statement, "Carbs are bad!" is over generalized. It should read, "Refined carbs are bad!"0 -
If the bolded part were actually true, then please explain how human civilization has survived, when the entire history of human civilization is based on grain.I don't think anyone is suggesting eating purely refined sugar.
In some cases the differences between original and 'white' versions can be pretty minimal as far as micro-nutrients goes - such as rice, for example, I believe.
If you're already getting enough micro-nutrients, you don't get benefit from having more.
As my link mentions - you don't get "healthy +1" if you're already healthy and just eat more 'healthy' food.
Agreed, sounds like you're on a sensible diet.
Most people who are over weight (and I suppose to a degree these are the people the documentary was aimed at) are not on a sensible diet and continue to over-eat carbs (both refined sugar and grain based) that at the end of the day will add to their bad health as opposed to improve it.
Consuming grain based carbs have only one function as far as I can see. They are a cheap source of calories - That's it; apart from that (and it's not a very good reason), they have no benefit what-so-ever.
I do like the article you referenced earlier. It's true if your already healthy some bad carbs won't hurt, but if you're already healthy you're starting from a good foundation anyway.
If you're unhealthy those bad carbs are just going to compound your problems.0 -
This was an hour long show which for me only had about 10 minutes of anything worth watching.
There was an interview with a woman (can't remember her name) who said that she'd studies lots of people on various different diets which restricted or concentrated on single foods. High/Low Protein Hi/Low Carb/ High Fibre/ Low Fat/ GI - Pretty much every "diet" going and concluded i think that restricting certain foods doesn't really have any effect on health/weight loss. -
Did I understand that properly?
Also the bit with the rats was very interesting as it showed that if a rodent eats high sugar or high fat it will regulate it's food intake to get the right amount of calories and not put on any weight. But if it eats sugar and fat mixed together it will end up preferring (dare we say get addicted) to sugar and fatty foods and then they will put on weight.
I once read that no where in nature do we find food with sugar and fat in (except nuts?) so really we need to stay away from (or limit) manufactured foods and stick to "clean foods" and then we'll be fine.0 -
I found it interesting that in the summing up the person on the high fat regime, meats and cheese and all had lost more weight but most of it was MUSSEL, and had pushed himself to the point of being pre diabetic. The twin on the high sugar did also loose but nothing like as much and did not seem to have compromised his system to the same extent.
I came away with the though balance in all things.
Grain became incorporated into the human diet about 7000 years ago with the advent of farming this gave our species the opportunity to thrive and the population grew exponentially as a result0 -
Actually, we started farming grain about 7,000-10,000 years ago. We've been eating it far longer than that. We've found archaeological evidence of flat breads being baked on hot stones 30,000 years ago.I found it interesting that in the summing up the person on the high fat regime, meats and cheese and all had lost more weight but most of it was MUSSEL, and had pushed himself to the point of being pre diabetic. The twin on the high sugar did also loose but nothing like as much and did not seem to have compromised his system to the same extent.
I came away with the though balance in all things.
Grain became incorporated into the human diet about 7000 years ago with the advent of farming this gave our species the opportunity to thrive and the population grew exponentially as a result0 -
If the bolded part were actually true, then please explain how human civilization has survived, when the entire history of human civilization is based on grain.I don't think anyone is suggesting eating purely refined sugar.
In some cases the differences between original and 'white' versions can be pretty minimal as far as micro-nutrients goes - such as rice, for example, I believe.
If you're already getting enough micro-nutrients, you don't get benefit from having more.
As my link mentions - you don't get "healthy +1" if you're already healthy and just eat more 'healthy' food.
Agreed, sounds like you're on a sensible diet.
Most people who are over weight (and I suppose to a degree these are the people the documentary was aimed at) are not on a sensible diet and continue to over-eat carbs (both refined sugar and grain based) that at the end of the day will add to their bad health as opposed to improve it.
Consuming grain based carbs have only one function as far as I can see. They are a cheap source of calories - That's it; apart from that (and it's not a very good reason), they have no benefit what-so-ever.
I do like the article you referenced earlier. It's true if your already healthy some bad carbs won't hurt, but if you're already healthy you're starting from a good foundation anyway.
If you're unhealthy those bad carbs are just going to compound your problems.
Wow I didn't know grains were available before the start of the agricultural revolution!!!? So what your saying is our Paleolithic ancestors were actual snacking on weetabix as opposed to eating animals and plants.
So 2.6 million years of evolution based on a high fat low carb ( from plants) compared to only 10,000 years of trying to digest grains, which a lot of people still cannot do.0 -
Actually, we started farming grain about 7,000-10,000 years ago. We've been eating it far longer than that. We've found archaeological evidence of flat breads being baked on hot stones 30,000 years ago.I found it interesting that in the summing up the person on the high fat regime, meats and cheese and all had lost more weight but most of it was MUSSEL, and had pushed himself to the point of being pre diabetic. The twin on the high sugar did also loose but nothing like as much and did not seem to have compromised his system to the same extent.
I came away with the though balance in all things.
Grain became incorporated into the human diet about 7000 years ago with the advent of farming this gave our species the opportunity to thrive and the population grew exponentially as a result
So it's 2.6 million years compared to 30,000 your point still doesn't stack up. Civilisation started a long, long time ago.0 -
The paleolithic diet was actually high carb, about 50% from grasses and roots. And of course, your argument shows a complete lack of understanding of anything. 99.9% of the food humans eat today are less than 500 years old. We haven't adapted to thousands of years of eating grains, but we've adapted to a few hundred years of eating avocados, turkeys, squash, and sweet potatoes? Right.
If the bolded part were actually true, then please explain how human civilization has survived, when the entire history of human civilization is based on grain.I don't think anyone is suggesting eating purely refined sugar.
In some cases the differences between original and 'white' versions can be pretty minimal as far as micro-nutrients goes - such as rice, for example, I believe.
If you're already getting enough micro-nutrients, you don't get benefit from having more.
As my link mentions - you don't get "healthy +1" if you're already healthy and just eat more 'healthy' food.
Agreed, sounds like you're on a sensible diet.
Most people who are over weight (and I suppose to a degree these are the people the documentary was aimed at) are not on a sensible diet and continue to over-eat carbs (both refined sugar and grain based) that at the end of the day will add to their bad health as opposed to improve it.
Consuming grain based carbs have only one function as far as I can see. They are a cheap source of calories - That's it; apart from that (and it's not a very good reason), they have no benefit what-so-ever.
I do like the article you referenced earlier. It's true if your already healthy some bad carbs won't hurt, but if you're already healthy you're starting from a good foundation anyway.
If you're unhealthy those bad carbs are just going to compound your problems.
Wow I didn't know grains were available before the start of the agricultural revolution!!!? So what your saying is our Paleolithic ancestors were actual snacking on weetabix as opposed to eating animals and plants.
So 2.6 million years of evolution based on a high fat low carb ( from plants) compared to only 10,000 years of trying to digest grains, which a lot of people still cannot do.0 -
We ate a lot of seafood...
Does paleo contain a significant proportion of shellfish?0 -
If I make a home made cheesecake with 50% fat and 50% carbs, is it somehow going to be less bad for me? The opposite, I'd suggest - it's probably going to be even nicer, so I'm going to want to eat more!
True. Although you'll burn off a handful of calories making it at least, and it will probably have less unhealthy ingredients like additives, coloring, and preservatives.
Some of us are lousy cooks, however, and we'd be thinner if we didn't have access to easy packaged goodies and dining out.
Until we gave up and learned to cook properly, anyway. I now make a burrito so blissfully delicious that I can't make it in batches anymore because I'll keep right on going back to the fridge until four day's worth of it is gone, just as though it were my favorite ice cream from the store. This was an eye-opening moment for me. But I'm still not sure exactly what lesson to take away from it. I have to eat, but there are certain foods and combinations of foods that I just can't stop eating too much of. I dread the day I make the perfect steak and can't stop going back for more of that, too.0 -
Your absolutely right a lot of the food we eat now are less than 500 years old indeed fruits back then which were probably very tart and very low in carb and calorific content as were the roots and plants they ate. Whilst they were foragers they were also hunters and probably ate meat and all the fat that comes with it.
The paleolithic diet was actually high carb, about 50% from grasses and roots. And of course, your argument shows a complete lack of understanding of anything. 99.9% of the food humans eat today are less than 500 years old. We haven't adapted to thousands of years of eating grains, but we've adapted to a few hundred years of eating avocados, turkeys, squash, and sweet potatoes? Right.
If the bolded part were actually true, then please explain how human civilization has survived, when the entire history of human civilization is based on grain.I don't think anyone is suggesting eating purely refined sugar.
In some cases the differences between original and 'white' versions can be pretty minimal as far as micro-nutrients goes - such as rice, for example, I believe.
If you're already getting enough micro-nutrients, you don't get benefit from having more.
As my link mentions - you don't get "healthy +1" if you're already healthy and just eat more 'healthy' food.
Agreed, sounds like you're on a sensible diet.
Most people who are over weight (and I suppose to a degree these are the people the documentary was aimed at) are not on a sensible diet and continue to over-eat carbs (both refined sugar and grain based) that at the end of the day will add to their bad health as opposed to improve it.
Consuming grain based carbs have only one function as far as I can see. They are a cheap source of calories - That's it; apart from that (and it's not a very good reason), they have no benefit what-so-ever.
I do like the article you referenced earlier. It's true if your already healthy some bad carbs won't hurt, but if you're already healthy you're starting from a good foundation anyway.
If you're unhealthy those bad carbs are just going to compound your problems.
Wow I didn't know grains were available before the start of the agricultural revolution!!!? So what your saying is our Paleolithic ancestors were actual snacking on weetabix as opposed to eating animals and plants.
So 2.6 million years of evolution based on a high fat low carb ( from plants) compared to only 10,000 years of trying to digest grains, which a lot of people still cannot do.
You will probably agree that most of the time they were probably eating very little and living off the stored fat they had i.e. Fat burners as opposed to sugar burners.
Eating a high carb diets has really only been the norm since we have been able to farm it.
Hmm maybe that's why as humans were are only able to store a small amount of glycogen yet have an abundant supply of natural body fat.
Why do you think that is?0 -
In to learn about deadly food combinations & the evil of grains.0
-
If you get a chance to see this documentry it would be informative at least, it seems that it's not just fat or sugar on its own that puts weight on but a 50/50 combination that processed food manufacturers know about that sets off a craving function in our brain...
If anyone had seen the program it would be great to hear your take on it...
The acronym my name represents applies here methinks.0 -
sugar sugar0
-
I've just finished watching it on iPlayer and whilst it was interesting it was hardly ground breaking.
Fad diets are a bad idea but a balanced diet where discretionary calories are kept in check is a good idea.
Carbs are muscle sparing
The combination of fat and sugar (particularly in an equal ratio) makes food highly palatable and over consumption more likely (because it triggers hedonic hunger in the mind and over rides natural hunger cues)
Exercise is a good idea.0 -
I've just finished watching it on iPlayer and whilst it was interesting it was hardly ground breaking.
Fad diets are a bad idea but a balanced diet where discretionary calories are kept in check is a good idea.
Carbs are muscle sparing
The combination of fat and sugar (particularly in an equal ratio) makes food highly palatable and over consumption more likely (because it triggers hedonic hunger in the mind and over rides natural hunger cues)
Exercise is a good idea.
Don't eat food...because tasty.0 -
I've just finished watching it on iPlayer and whilst it was interesting it was hardly ground breaking.
Fad diets are a bad idea but a balanced diet where discretionary calories are kept in check is a good idea.
Carbs are muscle sparing
The combination of fat and sugar (particularly in an equal ratio) makes food highly palatable and over consumption more likely (because it triggers hedonic hunger in the mind and over rides natural hunger cues)
Exercise is a good idea.
Don't eat food...because tasty.
Not particularly just it makes over consumption / over eating more likely.0 -
You can lose weight eating a calorie deficit diet consisting of processed foods and sugars, however it would not be (long term) good for your health as you would not be getting nearly enough of the vitamins and nutrients you would naturally source from high fat food (not trans fats) and clean carbs,
In...
...for the modern marvel that are "clean carbs".0 -
I've just finished watching it on iPlayer and whilst it was interesting it was hardly ground breaking.
Fad diets are a bad idea but a balanced diet where discretionary calories are kept in check is a good idea.
Carbs are muscle sparing
The combination of fat and sugar (particularly in an equal ratio) makes food highly palatable and over consumption more likely (because it triggers hedonic hunger in the mind and over rides natural hunger cues)
Exercise is a good idea.
Don't eat food...because tasty.
Not particularly just it makes over consumption / over eating more likely.
I know, I was being sarcastic.0 -
I've just finished watching it on iPlayer and whilst it was interesting it was hardly ground breaking.
Fad diets are a bad idea but a balanced diet where discretionary calories are kept in check is a good idea.
Carbs are muscle sparing
The combination of fat and sugar (particularly in an equal ratio) makes food highly palatable and over consumption more likely (because it triggers hedonic hunger in the mind and over rides natural hunger cues)
Exercise is a good idea.
Don't eat food...because tasty.
Not particularly just it makes over consumption / over eating more likely.
I know, I was being sarcastic.
I don't do sarcasm dude.
I'm British.0 -
I've just finished watching it on iPlayer and whilst it was interesting it was hardly ground breaking.
Fad diets are a bad idea but a balanced diet where discretionary calories are kept in check is a good idea.
Carbs are muscle sparing
The combination of fat and sugar (particularly in an equal ratio) makes food highly palatable and over consumption more likely (because it triggers hedonic hunger in the mind and over rides natural hunger cues)
Exercise is a good idea.
Don't eat food...because tasty.
Not particularly just it makes over consumption / over eating more likely.
I know, I was being sarcastic.
I don't do sarcasm dude.
I'm British.
Impossible, your avatar was made in detroit.0 -
Impossible, your avatar was made in detroit.
0 -
A couple of things shone through..
Those on full keto without carbing up once a week can expect to heads towards insulin resistance.
ketones fuel the brain less efficiently.
Protein is responsible for stemming hunger.
Wasn't that fat bald lab rat a cutie !!!!!
here is the program ....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9D-XL-zkNIY
Give me some actual studies on that. Please.
Since all this just sounds like repeated garbage you read from some dude on a forum without actually any basis. Its utter bullcrap.0 -
Yes a great source of omega 3 from fish. We don't get enough of it in our diets.0
-
A couple of things shone through..
Those on full keto without carbing up once a week can expect to heads towards insulin resistance.
ketones fuel the brain less efficiently.
Protein is responsible for stemming hunger.
Wasn't that fat bald lab rat a cutie !!!!!
here is the program ....http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9D-XL-zkNIY
Give me some actual studies on that. Please.
Since all this just sounds like repeated garbage you read from some dude on a forum without actually any basis. Its utter bullcrap.
I agree it's bull crap no way was that rat cute!0 -
There's more that fibres does. One thing is it means less micronutrients are absorbed. But also less calories; and that's less calories even though we DO get some from As for sources here are a few about sugar itself. Insulin production has vast amounts of data, and is well documented. It's not hard to see how continued over production can lead to insulin resistances and type 2 diabetes.Fiber helps to keep you feel fuller longer. It takes longer to digest, and helps with water retention and regularity.
Did you read this link?
I'd say it's not entirely complimentary of the study.
However, if I ever have a pet rat and it gets addicted to Oreos, I'll certainly consider it.
Don't see it has a massive relevant to the topic under discussion - note that it also makes it clear that it could be ANYTHING that is the problem, not just Oreos.
If you have an addiction to bananas, you could have the same problems from addiction.
I bet the same is true of not heavily processed foods that have sugar and fat. Strawberries and cream, say - I can eat loads and loads of them.
But again, it depends on the person. Cheers is one of my big problems. But you don't seem me blaming cheese for the world's problems.
Your next link is the study from this one.
This discusses the same things as my link, but not in as much detail.
Again; for someone of normal weight, instead of spending your time worrying about specific foods, overall I'd say you get better and more significant health benefits from spending a bit of time doing some actual exercise. I'm a bit short on data on this point, I have to admit.
I would suggest that it is the overconsumption of CALORIES that turned you in to a jelly belly.and I truly believe that it's the over-consumption of processed carbs that turned me into a jelly belly.
No where has anyone shown you can eat less calories than you burn and put on fat over the long term.
Oh and yes; water kills an awful lot of people; DHMO - the silent killer!
0 -
But again, it depends on the person. Cheers is one of my big problems. But you don't seem me blaming cheese for the world's problems.
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