Sugar linked to heart disease, even in thin folks

Greytfish

deleted double post

bcattoes

People who log a deficit but not lose weight can be filtered out. MFP already has all that data fully graphed out for the user.
And coming here has the benefit for the people that they can actually write down their stuff. Tracking in your head what you're eating is by far not as easy as writing it down. Unless you wrote it down for a long time and already can tell how many calories something will have by looking at it.

I would suggest doing a search on the forums for posts about not logging a binge, or not logging when eating at a restaurant, or not logging exercise, or any of the other reasons people give for not logging. And those are only the ones that admit to fudging entries.

Then do a search re: not logging weight gain and see all the posts about that.

Then look up the word 'control' and see if it really applies to sites like MFP.

4realrose8

When you have insulin resistance, it's not so simple as just calories in vs. calories out. When you have insulin resistance, it does matter where those calories come from 100 calories from Cocoa puffs, vs. 100 calories from an egg are not treated the same in your body.

But whatever. Forget research. Forget about individual metabolisms and physiological reactions to different macros. You all know it it all.

Why would you eat eggs, they are insulinogenic!

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/66/5/1264.full.pdf+html

Never heard of this. Need to do more research. Maybe I need to eat more fish/meat at breakfast instead. Thanks for the info.

LiftAllThePizzas

Many people fudge entries on MFP and sites like it. It is far from controlled. Second, it would focus on people actively trying to control weight, so would not be a broad study across all cohorts.

For a controlled study, diet would need to be monitored 24 hours a day, every day, for years. Not self reported. Prisoners could be a viable option, but even then it would narrow it to a specific cohort.

The power of megavolume is that data quality stops mattering. Volume creates the control.

MFP for example could very easily reverse engineer the caloric values of all foods and give more accurate data than labels do.

You are still relying on the subjects to enter what they consume correctly. Self reliance is not control. Volume is not control. If it were, there would no need for this discussion.

High volume does iron out occasional wrong entries, as long as not too many are faulty.

That's only true if errors are similar in magnitude on both sides.

Greytfish

People who log a deficit but not lose weight can be filtered out. MFP already has all that data fully graphed out for the user.
And coming here has the benefit for the people that they can actually write down their stuff. Tracking in your head what you're eating is by far not as easy as writing it down. Unless you wrote it down for a long time and already can tell how many calories something will have by looking at it.

You're glossing over the fact that you're touting people with poor food tracking as good exaples of tracking ability just because they have a program that plugs in some of their information?

It may be harder to accurately assess your macros and micros in detail without recording, but it's not at all difficult to track what you're eating. That's exactly what people who don't have an unhealthy relationship with food do all the time. That's how they never become overweigt or obese in the first place.

bcattoes

Many people fudge entries on MFP and sites like it. It is far from controlled. Second, it would focus on people actively trying to control weight, so would not be a broad study across all cohorts.

For a controlled study, diet would need to be monitored 24 hours a day, every day, for years. Not self reported. Prisoners could be a viable option, but even then it would narrow it to a specific cohort.

The power of megavolume is that data quality stops mattering. Volume creates the control.

MFP for example could very easily reverse engineer the caloric values of all foods and give more accurate data than labels do.

You are still relying on the subjects to enter what they consume correctly. Self reliance is not control. Volume is not control. If it were, there would no need for this discussion.

High volume does iron out occasional wrong entries, as long as not too many are faulty.

In a population largely comprised of people with a broadly demonstrated lack of self regulation and control? Really?

Which is why MFP would be better suited than "hey we give you 50 bucks if you tell us what you're eating for a year."

Even if that were true, better suited =/= controlled.

You could have a completely controlled study with that. Only problem would be no one wants to finance that.
So I'd prefer a study where you can assume that the data they get is the most accurate that is possible over random person who's never done it before and will never do it again.
You could even really easily filter out people who logged a constant calorie deficit but didn't lose weight cause there would definitely be something wrong there .

Most of the long term epidemiological nutritional studies being done right now use health professionals, not a random person who has never done it before. I would imagine that many MFP members have never logged food before.

But none of that matters. A controlled study doesn't rely on your opinion of data accuracy. In a controlled study the subjects are controlled. MFP members are not controlled.

stevencloser

People who log a deficit but not lose weight can be filtered out. MFP already has all that data fully graphed out for the user.
And coming here has the benefit for the people that they can actually write down their stuff. Tracking in your head what you're eating is by far not as easy as writing it down. Unless you wrote it down for a long time and already can tell how many calories something will have by looking at it.

I would suggest doing a search on the forums for posts about not logging a binge, or not logging when eating at a restaurant, or not logging exercise, or any of the other reasons people give for not logging. And those are only the ones that admit to fudging entries.

Then do a search re: not logging weight gain and see all the posts about that.

Then look up the word 'control' and see if it really applies to sites like MFP.

Not logging a small gain is not going to fudge the numbers as long as it goes down overall. If I weighed myself every day, the graph would go up and down constantly but would still be 35 pounds lower now than when I started.
Same with a single time binge eating.
If you're not logging so often that it would be an issue, the graphs would have more holes than swiss cheese. À la "that guy ate at a deficit for half a year but hasn't lost a single pound." It would show.

stevencloser

Many people fudge entries on MFP and sites like it. It is far from controlled. Second, it would focus on people actively trying to control weight, so would not be a broad study across all cohorts.

For a controlled study, diet would need to be monitored 24 hours a day, every day, for years. Not self reported. Prisoners could be a viable option, but even then it would narrow it to a specific cohort.

The power of megavolume is that data quality stops mattering. Volume creates the control.

MFP for example could very easily reverse engineer the caloric values of all foods and give more accurate data than labels do.

You are still relying on the subjects to enter what they consume correctly. Self reliance is not control. Volume is not control. If it were, there would no need for this discussion.

High volume does iron out occasional wrong entries, as long as not too many are faulty.

In a population largely comprised of people with a broadly demonstrated lack of self regulation and control? Really?

Which is why MFP would be better suited than "hey we give you 50 bucks if you tell us what you're eating for a year."

Even if that were true, better suited =/= controlled.

You could have a completely controlled study with that. Only problem would be no one wants to finance that.
So I'd prefer a study where you can assume that the data they get is the most accurate that is possible over random person who's never done it before and will never do it again.
You could even really easily filter out people who logged a constant calorie deficit but didn't lose weight cause there would definitely be something wrong there .

Most of the long term epidemiological nutritional studies being done right now use health professionals, not a random person who has never done it before. I would imagine that many MFP members have never logged food before.

But none of that matters. A controlled study doesn't rely on your opinion of data accuracy. In a controlled study the subjects are controlled. MFP members are not controlled.

As I said. No one wants to finance a controlled study of this. Unless it has a laughably low amount of people and a short time span. And if it had, then the results would be useless because too small sample size and too short for long term effects.

So in the end, we can have a useless controlled study or a not as useless non-controlled study.

bcattoes

People who log a deficit but not lose weight can be filtered out. MFP already has all that data fully graphed out for the user.
And coming here has the benefit for the people that they can actually write down their stuff. Tracking in your head what you're eating is by far not as easy as writing it down. Unless you wrote it down for a long time and already can tell how many calories something will have by looking at it.

I would suggest doing a search on the forums for posts about not logging a binge, or not logging when eating at a restaurant, or not logging exercise, or any of the other reasons people give for not logging. And those are only the ones that admit to fudging entries.

Then do a search re: not logging weight gain and see all the posts about that.

Then look up the word 'control' and see if it really applies to sites like MFP.

Not logging a small gain is not going to fudge the numbers as long as it goes down overall. If I weighed myself every day, the graph would go up and down constantly but would still be 35 pounds lower now than when I started.
Same with a single time binge eating.
If you're not logging so often that it would be an issue, the graphs would have more holes than swiss cheese. À la "that guy ate at a deficit for half a year but hasn't lost a single pound." It would show.

*sigh* You seem to be missing the big point. Seriously, look up the word control.

bcattoes

Many people fudge entries on MFP and sites like it. It is far from controlled. Second, it would focus on people actively trying to control weight, so would not be a broad study across all cohorts.

For a controlled study, diet would need to be monitored 24 hours a day, every day, for years. Not self reported. Prisoners could be a viable option, but even then it would narrow it to a specific cohort.

The power of megavolume is that data quality stops mattering. Volume creates the control.

MFP for example could very easily reverse engineer the caloric values of all foods and give more accurate data than labels do.

You are still relying on the subjects to enter what they consume correctly. Self reliance is not control. Volume is not control. If it were, there would no need for this discussion.

High volume does iron out occasional wrong entries, as long as not too many are faulty.

In a population largely comprised of people with a broadly demonstrated lack of self regulation and control? Really?

Which is why MFP would be better suited than "hey we give you 50 bucks if you tell us what you're eating for a year."

Even if that were true, better suited =/= controlled.

You could have a completely controlled study with that. Only problem would be no one wants to finance that.
So I'd prefer a study where you can assume that the data they get is the most accurate that is possible over random person who's never done it before and will never do it again.
You could even really easily filter out people who logged a constant calorie deficit but didn't lose weight cause there would definitely be something wrong there .

Most of the long term epidemiological nutritional studies being done right now use health professionals, not a random person who has never done it before. I would imagine that many MFP members have never logged food before.

But none of that matters. A controlled study doesn't rely on your opinion of data accuracy. In a controlled study the subjects are controlled. MFP members are not controlled.

As I said. No one wants to finance a controlled study of this. Unless it has a laughably low amount of people and a short time span. And if it had, then the results would be useless because too small sample size and too short for long term effects.

So in the end, we can have a useless controlled study or a not as useless non-controlled study.

And we have come full circle.

stevencloser

You seem to be very hung up on it being controlled.

bcattoes

You seem to be very hung up on it being controlled.

Because that was the discussion.

stevencloser

And I was trying to tell you that a controlled study is not feasible for this endeavor and talked about the other person's proposition of using mfp and other logging websites as data, filtering out questionable data. Which would arguably result in better results than a controlled stufy of, say, 5 people over the course of a few weeks.

waldo56

As I said. No one wants to finance a controlled study of this. Unless it has a laughably low amount of people and a short time span. And if it had, then the results would be useless because too small sample size and too short for long term effects.

So in the end, we can have a useless controlled study or a not as useless non-controlled study.

Big data analytic as a concept is still poorly understood by many/most. The idea that high value studies can be drawn from this is almost inconceivable.

But there is no doubt that MFP is interested...

“Clearly there’s this explosion of activity happening around the quantified self,” Lee said. “The amount of data that we will have about our personal health is only going to grow. … We really want to advance our ability to help users make meaning from all this data. We really want to analyze the data to help our users be successful.”

http://techcrunch.com/2013/08/11/myfitnesspal-funding/

40 million users generate A LOT of useful data.

ahamm002

By what mechanism would the long run differ from the short term?

This speaks to my point about understanding physiology. How exactly would this occur? We have extensive systems designed to efficiently use sugar in the body. Why is there a difference in the long term. By what mechanism?

Glucose (sugar) is one of the fundamental sources of energy for humans.

Huh? Do you science? You really don't understand the difference between short and long term health effects? Do you have to ask for a mechanism? There are literally uncountable possibilities. One possibility is that foods with added sugar are low in antioxidants and micronutrients. Over the long term, lack of micronutrients and antioxidants could lead to earlier onset of health problems. Another possibility would be diets that are high in foods with added sugar may lead to earlier onset of diabetes.

And OF COURSE glucose is one of our primary fuel sources. That's neither here nor there in regard to this debate. You're trying to use some logic argument that doesn't hold water. Would it be healthy to go around ingesting pure sugar all day? Oh right, it must be okay b/c "glucose is one of our primary fuel sources!" So lets drink pure sugar water all day long, great idea!

Therefore we must demonize all studies that demonstrate added sugar may actually be unhealthy (the horror!)

Clearly you didn't say or imply that sugar in unhealthy. I'm putting words in your mouth.

That's not the same thing.

bcattoes

And I was trying to tell you that a controlled study is not feasible for this endeavor and talked about the other person's proposition of using mfp and other logging websites as data, filtering out questionable data. Which would arguably result in better results than a controlled stufy of, say, 5 people over the course of a few weeks.

I said, several times actually, that long term controlled studies were impossible. You then started in with MFP and how the sheer volume of it would = control.

Like I said. Full circle.

bcattoes

40 million users generate A LOT of useful data.

Absolultey. And a lot of garbage data.

waldo56

Huh? Do you science? You really don't understand the difference between short and long term health effects? Do you have to ask for a mechanism? There are literally uncountable possibilities. One possibility is that foods with added sugar are low in antioxidants and micronutrients. Over the long term, lack of micronutrients and antioxidants could lead to earlier onset of health problems. Another possibility would be diets that are high in foods with added sugar may lead to earlier onset of diabetes.

1) Science has not proven that you get "extra credit" for more of any micronutrients. There is a reasonably decent case for calcium and Vit D. If your intake is sufficient to avoid deficiency diseases, your intakes is sufficient. The idea that a lack excess micronutrients will lead to the earlier onset of health problems is not supported one bit. Most people's diets are sufficient in micronutrients, at this time there is no proven health benefit to taking a daily multivitamin despite A LOT of studies.

2) Some of the early studies that showed a link between antioxidants and aging/health have not had their results reproduced since in better studies, bringing the value of the earlier studies into question big time. Antioxidant value (above and beyond the amount needed for vitamin intake for the vitamins that are antioxidants) is questionable at best and GROSSLY overexaggerated.

Of course both of these items require the questionable stretch that including added sugar in your diet reduces your micro/antioxident levels.

3) Being fat has been proven to lead to diabetes. Lack of activity has been proven to lead to diabetes. Eating a diet that included added sugar has absolutely NOT been proven to lead to diabetes.

You can replace sugar with any other nutrient (or other) that our bodies are efficient at handling and make the same statement too much over time will lead to problems if it helps you identify the absurdity of the claim about sugar. Water for example. Our bodies efficiently handle water intake. Excess tends to wash out water soluable vitamins (so to speak). Saying that a lifestyle that includes high water intake will lead to the early onset of health problems and possibly to kidney problems just sounds silly and absurd. Yet that is about the same thing you are saying with sugar and long term problems.

waldo56

And OF COURSE glucose is one of our primary fuel sources. That's neither here nor there in regard to this debate. You're trying to use some logic argument that doesn't hold water. Would it be healthy to go around ingesting pure sugar all day? Oh right, it must be okay b/c "glucose is one of our primary fuel sources!" So lets drink pure sugar water all day long, great idea!

Reductio ad absurdum has always been and will always be a stupid argument.

FatFreeFrolicking

When you have insulin resistance, it's not so simple as just calories in vs. calories out. When you have insulin resistance, it does matter where those calories come from 100 calories from Cocoa puffs, vs. 100 calories from an egg are not treated the same in your body.

But whatever. Forget research. Forget about individual metabolisms and physiological reactions to different macros. You all know it it all.

Why would you eat eggs, they are insulinogenic!

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/66/5/1264.full.pdf+html

Never heard of this. Need to do more research. Maybe I need to eat more fish/meat at breakfast instead. Thanks for the info.

I have severe insulin resistance and hypoglycemia and can say that eggs are perfectly fine to eat. I've never had a problem with eggs. You might be different though. You would have to see how they affect you.

Eating a substantial amount of protein at every meal and snack is critical for those with insulin resistance. I don't know whether you have hypoglycemia or not (sometimes comes with IR) but it's even more important for me to eat a lot of protein at every meal and snack due to my low blood sugar. It keeps me from crashing.

NEVER eat carbs alone. Always eat them with protein.

My dietician has me eating 30-45 g carbs per meal and 15-30 g carbs per snack. This helps stabilize insulin and blood glucose and prevents spikes.

Overtime, you learn what foods work for you and what foods you can't tolerate. I know some people who can't eat any carbs in the morning and strictly stick to protein and fat. But others who can eat carbs and still manage their BG throughout the day. If you just have IR without hypoglycemia, that's much easier to manage than IR with hypoglycemia.