What happens to your body when you "carb binge"
Replies
-
LOLOL negative calorie grapefruit.
Negative NET calories that is--but I was perhaps wrongly assuming that would be understood from what I said. http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081121183003AAwA6YT
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Yahoo answers as a source :laugh:
Still no :noway:
Well, you can laugh at it if you want to but you are laughing out of ignorance. You have never heard of "net calories" being lower because of the fiber in the food? I have seen threads discussing that very thing. Grapefruit (the reason why it is a "dieter's friend") is unusual in that regard. You can check the web further if you like and you will find it confirmed. If I cared enough (which I don't) I would go and retrieve something that you, in your exalted position, would find acceptable.
And yet you cared enough to reply.
In any case, you should probably realize at this point in your life that "yahoo answers" is not considered a scientific source. Attempting to pass it off as such is likely to be met with derision and general sarcasm.
eta: typo0 -
Foodgasms?
I found it interesting that sugar consumption leads to 'renal disease' ...
and don't forget sugar was the third shooter on the grassy knoll...
Free Manson!
It was sugar's fault0 -
"All foods have some calories. No food is actually "negative calorie" food. BUT the overall effect of certain foods in our body is that of "negative calories". Negative calorie foods are foods, which use more calories to digest than the calories the foods actually contain!
Calories from these foods are much harder for the body to breakdown and process. In other words, the body has to work harder in order to extract calories from these foods. This gives these foods a tremendous natural fat-burning advantage.
A piece of dessert consisting of 400 calories may require only 150 calories to be digested by our body, resulting in a net gain of 250 calories which is added to our body fat! According to this theory, for example, if you eat 100 calories of a food that requires 150 calories to digest, then you've burnt an additional 50 calories simply by eating that food."
you are talking about the thematic effect of food...which, in most studies, has been shown to be negligible and not increase metabolism by that much ..
Nice try though...
maybe you will have better luck on Wikipedia..?0 -
LOLOL negative calorie grapefruit.
Negative NET calories that is--but I was perhaps wrongly assuming that would be understood from what I said. http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081121183003AAwA6YT
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Yahoo answers as a source :laugh:
Still no :noway:
Well, you can laugh at it if you want to but you are laughing out of ignorance. You have never heard of "net calories" being lower because of the fiber in the food? I have seen threads discussing that very thing. Grapefruit (the reason why it is a "dieter's friend") is unusual in that regard. You can check the web further if you like and you will find it confirmed. If I cared enough (which I don't) I would go and retrieve something that you, in your exalted position, would find acceptable.
And yet you cared enough to reply.
In any case, you should probably realize at this point in your life that "yahoo answers" is not considered a scientific source. Attempting to pass it off as such is likely to be met with derision and general sarcasm.
eta: typo
This thread delivers0 -
Are real medical researchers enough for you? With real M.D. degrees and Ph.D.s?
http://www.foodaddictionsummit.org/presenters-johnson.htm
You are welcome.0 -
"All foods have some calories. No food is actually "negative calorie" food. BUT the overall effect of certain foods in our body is that of "negative calories". Negative calorie foods are foods, which use more calories to digest than the calories the foods actually contain!
Calories from these foods are much harder for the body to breakdown and process. In other words, the body has to work harder in order to extract calories from these foods. This gives these foods a tremendous natural fat-burning advantage.
A piece of dessert consisting of 400 calories may require only 150 calories to be digested by our body, resulting in a net gain of 250 calories which is added to our body fat! According to this theory, for example, if you eat 100 calories of a food that requires 150 calories to digest, then you've burnt an additional 50 calories simply by eating that food."
you are talking about the thematic effect of food...which, in most studies, has been shown to be negligible and not increase metabolism by that much ..
Nice try though...
maybe you will have better luck on Wikipedia..?
I tried to verify this by going to Alta Vista and typing "Go to Yahoo". That broke the computer. So I'll take your word for it because I'm all out of ideas.0 -
Are real medical researchers enough for you? With real M.D. degrees and Ph.D.s?
http://www.foodaddictionsummit.org/presenters-johnson.htm
You are welcome.
Food addiction summit. I'm sure there is no bias there0 -
I have been tracking sugar for a little more than 1000 days. I eat between 150g - 250g (sometime as high as 400g) a day. My overall cholesterol during this same period has been between 97 - 105 w/ about a 3:1 ratio. Clearly sugar is giving me cholesterol problems.0
-
Are real medical researchers enough for you? With real M.D. degrees and Ph.D.s?
http://www.foodaddictionsummit.org/presenters-johnson.htm
You are welcome.
Food addiction summit. I'm sure there is no bias there
Next, we can pick all the doctors on Oprah0 -
Are real medical researchers enough for you? With real M.D. degrees and Ph.D.s?
http://www.foodaddictionsummit.org/presenters-johnson.htm
You are welcome.
Food addiction summit. I'm sure there is no bias there
Next, we can pick all the doctors on Oprah
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
bump0
-
Are real medical researchers enough for you? With real M.D. degrees and Ph.D.s?
http://www.foodaddictionsummit.org/presenters-johnson.htm
You are welcome.
Food addiction summit. I'm sure there is no bias there
oh noooooo they are bias free ....legit source ...0 -
Are real medical researchers enough for you? With real M.D. degrees and Ph.D.s?
http://www.foodaddictionsummit.org/presenters-johnson.htm
You are welcome.
Food addiction summit. I'm sure there is no bias there
Next, we can pick all the doctors on Oprah
while we are at it, why don't we check with Dr. Oz...???0 -
Are real medical researchers enough for you? With real M.D. degrees and Ph.D.s?
http://www.foodaddictionsummit.org/presenters-johnson.htm
You are welcome.
You really don't understand what a good and unbiased source of information is, do you? Which would make sense given some of the talking points you've been using.
Also that has nothing to do with negative calorie grapefruits like you were asked to prove. It's completely irrelevant.
And that site, which is about a food addiction summit from 4 years ago, is so positively anti-sugar that if I told them sugar kidnapped my children and ran to Mexico they'd probably welcome me as an honored speaker.
0 -
Are real medical researchers enough for you? With real M.D. degrees and Ph.D.s?
http://www.foodaddictionsummit.org/presenters-johnson.htm
You are welcome.
You really don't understand what a good and unbiased source of information is, do you? Which would make sense given some of the talking points you've been using.
Also that has nothing to do with negative calorie grapefruits like you were asked to prove. It's completely irrelevant.
And that site, which is about a food addiction summit from 4 years ago, is so positively anti-sugar that if I told them sugar kidnapped my children and ran to Mexico they'd probably welcome me as an honored speaker.
So right about the summit thingie, but did you ever get your kids back??0 -
This content has been removed.
-
0 -
Well I have, and worse then what they describe. But only if I eat the stuff they describe. Never get it from fruits.
Anyway.. maybe the author is trying to sell primal, I didn't really notice that when I read it, but that doesn't make what is written wrong.
Wonder where the line of "too much sugar" is.
LOLZ so fruit sugar has zero impact on you but cake sugar shuts your whole body down? please...
Fruit sugar is fructose. Cake sugar is glucose.
They're handled differently.0 -
Well I have, and worse then what they describe. But only if I eat the stuff they describe. Never get it from fruits.
Anyway.. maybe the author is trying to sell primal, I didn't really notice that when I read it, but that doesn't make what is written wrong.
Wonder where the line of "too much sugar" is.
LOLZ so fruit sugar has zero impact on you but cake sugar shuts your whole body down? please...
Fruit sugar is fructose. Cake sugar is glucose.
They're handled differently.
Just like beer and whiskey.
I handle one with ice.0 -
... And for me, too much is just looking at cake....
I know exactly what you mean. I asked my husband to change soy milk brands because his had a picture of two cookies on the front. Two Peak Freans with raspberry jelly in the middle. I had to fight cravings every time I opened the fridge.0 -
Are real medical researchers enough for you? With real M.D. degrees and Ph.D.s?
http://www.foodaddictionsummit.org/presenters-johnson.htm
You are welcome.
You really don't understand what a good and unbiased source of information is, do you? Which would make sense given some of the talking points you've been using.
Also that has nothing to do with negative calorie grapefruits like you were asked to prove. It's completely irrelevant.
And that site, which is about a food addiction summit from 4 years ago, is so positively anti-sugar that if I told them sugar kidnapped my children and ran to Mexico they'd probably welcome me as an honored speaker.
I think you're right about not knowing sources of unbiased information.
Many people DON'T know the difference between junk that people just post and unbiased, peer-reviewed science journal articles. It's really only been since the invention of the internet that so much really great information has been so readily available.
One great thing about these forums is that people can be exposed to new information and rise above all the media hoopla and fake science.
I hope she will take advantage of an opportunity to learn.0 -
[/quote]Actually sugar does effect our immune system. The metabolic pathway into cell structure for vitamin C is also used for glucose and too much glucose shunts vitamin C uptake compromising the immune systems effectiveness.
[/quote]
Thank you....:o).
I have had RA since highschool and unfortunately was diagnosed with rampant systemic Lupus 2.5 years ago. Both illnesses are autoimmune diseases and are greatly made worse by my eating too much sugar. I stay within two pieces of fruit a day and avoid all added sugar and processed types of carbs, which make things even worse.
I am always surprised that the majority of those who tout the supposed fact that sugar is harmless are usually those in their 20's and lower 30's and that those in their 40's, 50's and more advanced years all of a sudden avoid certain types of sugars. I wonder why that is ......is it possible that sugar abuse sooner or later does catch up with many of us ?0 -
Well I have, and worse then what they describe. But only if I eat the stuff they describe. Never get it from fruits.
Anyway.. maybe the author is trying to sell primal, I didn't really notice that when I read it, but that doesn't make what is written wrong.
Wonder where the line of "too much sugar" is.
LOLZ so fruit sugar has zero impact on you but cake sugar shuts your whole body down? please...
Fruit sugar is fructose. Cake sugar is glucose.
They're handled differently.
actually, fruit sugar contains both fructose and glucose...and some fruit sugars actually have more glucose in them...0 -
... And for me, too much is just looking at cake....
I know exactly what you mean. I asked my husband to change soy milk brands because his had a picture of two cookies on the front. Two Peak Freans with raspberry jelly in the middle. I had to fight cravings every time I opened the fridge.
....
...........
.................Well That's enough internet for me today. I hear a cookies and cream quest bar calling my name anyway.0 -
Actually sugar does effect our immune system. The metabolic pathway into cell structure for vitamin C is also used for glucose and too much glucose shunts vitamin C uptake compromising the immune systems effectiveness.
Thank you....:o).
I have had RA since highschool and unfortunately was diagnosed with rampant systemic Lupus 2.5 years ago. Both illnesses are autoimmune diseases and are greatly made worse by my eating too much sugar. I stay within two pieces of fruit a day and avoid all added sugar and processed types of carbs, which make things even worse.
I am always surprised that the majority of those who tout the supposed fact that sugar is harmless are usually those in their 20's and lower 30's and that those in their 40's, 50's and more advanced years all of a sudden avoid certain types of sugars. I wonder why that is ......is it possible that sugar abuse sooner or later does catch up with many of us ?
[/quote]
45 here. my husband is 50. his mother is in her 70s.
no, no and no for us.
maybe we are just special.0 -
... And for me, too much is just looking at cake....
I know exactly what you mean. I asked my husband to change soy milk brands because his had a picture of two cookies on the front. Two Peak Freans with raspberry jelly in the middle. I had to fight cravings every time I opened the fridge.
....
...........
.................Well That's enough internet for me today. I hear a cookies and cream quest bar calling my name anyway.
By the way, how are those? I've been meaning to try them.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Actually sugar does effect our immune system. The metabolic pathway into cell structure for vitamin C is also used for glucose and too much glucose shunts vitamin C uptake compromising the immune systems effectiveness.
Thank you....:o).
I have had RA since highschool and unfortunately was diagnosed with rampant systemic Lupus 2.5 years ago. Both illnesses are autoimmune diseases and are greatly made worse by my eating too much sugar. I stay within two pieces of fruit a day and avoid all added sugar and processed types of carbs, which make things even worse.
I am always surprised that the majority of those who tout the supposed fact that sugar is harmless are usually those in their 20's and lower 30's and that those in their 40's, 50's and more advanced years all of a sudden avoid certain types of sugars. I wonder why that is ......is it possible that sugar abuse sooner or later does catch up with many of us ?
You might be fine now but one day in the future you may find yourself unhealthy and then you'll see I was right. You can't argue with this because I'm predicting 20-30-40+ years into the future and this in fact totally shuts down all reasonable conversation! Because future!
I love that hand wavey baseless fact devoid mystic future telling stuff.0 -
here is a list of fruit and the amount of glucose in each.
Total Sugars Glucose
Apples 13.3 2.3
Apricots 9.3 1.6
Avocado, California 0.9 0.5
Avocado, Florida 0.9 0.5
Banana 15.6 4.2
Blackberries 8.1 3.1
Blueberries 7.3 3.5
Cantaloupe 8.7 1.2
it is actually from a paleo site http://thepaleodiet.com/fruits-and-sugars/0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K 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
- 426 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