Why you should cut out/lower sodium, sugar or carbs

SKME2013

I am sorry but I completely disagree with OP.

Different food sources trigger different responses in the body. There is a wealth of information out there that will explain this much better that I am willing to try.

To say it doesn't matter whether you eat 500 calories of a Mars bars is the same as eating 500 cal of spinach is only correct in 500 cal are 500 cal, but it neglecting the fact that both food items trigger different responses in our bodies,

Stef.

Requesting that you please try and explain those responses.

Read The calorie myth by Jonathan Bailor. Just look at Harvard medical papers, tons of information that it DOES matter what you put in your body and yes sugar is not good. Can not even believe that this needs to be discussed.
Stef.

You should believe it can be discussed because there is a lot more to it than just 1 website and 1 book.

O.K. fair enough...there are hundreds of articles out there showing/ proofing that sugar is a very bad choice and that what you eat REALLY matters.

Here are some starters...

http://hms.harvard.edu/news/simpler-guide-healthy-meals-10-17-11
“One of the most important fields of medical science over the past 50 years is the research that shows just how powerfully our health is affected by what we eat,” said Anthony Komaroff, the Steven P. Simcox, Patrick A. Clifford and James H. Higby Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School and editor-in-chief at Harvard Health Publications, the consumer information division of HMS. “Knowing what foods to eat, and in what proportions, is crucial for health.In contrast, science underlying the Healthy Eating Plate shows that a plant-based diet rich in vegetables, whole grains, and healthy fats and proteins lowers the risk of both weight gain and chronic disease. Helping Americans get the best possible nutrition advice is critically important as the country grapples with an obesity epidemic. In the United States today, two in three adults and one in three children are overweight or obese.”

http://hms.harvard.edu/news/fatty-foods-addictive-cocaine-growing-body-scientific-research-11-2-11

"Research is increasingly suggesting that processed foods and sugary drinks can take control of the brain in ways that resemble addictions to cocaine, nicotine and other drugs. David Ludwig, HMS professor of pediatrics at Children's Hospital Boston, is quoted."

Or here:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-02/fatty-foods-addictive-as-cocaine-in-growing-body-of-science.html

"... processed foods and sugary drinks ...can hijack the brain in ways that resemble addictions to cocaine, nicotine and other drugs....Lab studies have found sugary drinks and fatty foods can produce addictive behavior in animals. Brain scans of obese people and compulsive eaters, meanwhile, reveal disturbances in brain reward circuits similar to those experienced by drug abusers.

Twenty-eight scientific studies and papers on food addiction have been published this year, according to a National Library of Medicine database. As the evidence expands, the science of addiction could become a game changer for the $1 trillion food and beverage industries...."

or here:
http://hms.harvard.edu/news/childhood-obesity-confronting-big-food-9-24-12
"There’s no question that junk food, most of which is highly processed, and sugar-sweetened beverages are major contributors to the U.S. childhood obesity epidemic."

or here:
http://www.childrenshospital.org/researchers/david-ludwig
" Fast food consumption is associated with factors that increase risk of childhood obesity. Consumption of dairy products may offer protection against insulin resistance in overweight adults. "

or here:
http://hms.harvard.edu/news/harvard-medicine/plate-shifts
"Research in the 1950s and '60s first suggested a connection between food and the development of chronic conditions such as heart disease," says Walter Willett, an HMS professor of medicine and chair of the Harvard School of Public Health's Department of Nutrition. "Today, we're continuing to discover that many illnesses may be linked to modifiable risk factors like diet.... While caloric intake still governs weight gain and loss,

what we eat may matter just as much as how much we eat.


Ludwig and his colleagues share some responsibility for this shift in thinking. In 1999, curious to better determine how dietary composition affected body-weight regulation, Ludwig's research team gave 12 obese teenage boys a meal that ranked low, medium, or high on the glycemic index. Each of the meals had the same number of calories, only the foods varied. The meal that registered high on the glycemic-index scale consisted of instant oatmeal, a refined carbohydrate; the medium-indexed meal featured steel-cut oatmeal, a more complex carbohydrate, and the meal low on the glycemic-index scale included an omelet, rich in protein and fat....Although it may seem clear that we should all try to avoid white bread, candy bars, and other carbohydrate culprits that top the glycemic index, troublesome carbohydrates can lurk in less-expected places. Potatoes, especially their baked and mashed forms, Ding notes, rate quite high on the glycemic index—they've been shown to raise blood sugar levels as quickly as pure table sugar does—yet their inclusion in the produce food group can cause people to think of French fries as a vegetable rather than a starch....Even if produce doesn't protect against cancer, it does appear to promote cardiovascular health: Consumption of at least five daily servings of fruits and vegetables is associated with a 30-percent lower risk of coronary heart disease and stroke. Research also hints at a relationship between fruits and vegetables and a reduced risk of diabetes.

on healthy eating and disease prevention:
http://healthyeating.sfgate.com/eating-healthy-important-7166.html

on why processed food is bad for you:
http://answers.webmd.com/answers/1190049/why-is-processed-food-unhealthy
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2014/02/12/9-dangers-processed-foods.aspx

what happens when you introduce people who are not used to processed food to processed food:

Pacific Islanders Pay Heavy Price for Abandoning Traditional Diet: Replacing Traditional Foods with Imported, Processed Food Has Contributed to the High Prevalence of Obesity and Related Health Problems in the Pacific Islands. Contributors: Parry, Jane - Author. Journal title: Bulletin of the World Health Organization. Volume: 88. Issue: 7 Publication date: July 2010. Page number: 484+.

"Pacific Islanders Pay Heavy Price for Abandoning Traditional Diet: Replacing Traditional Foods with Imported, Processed Food Has Contributed to the High Prevalence of Obesity and Related Health Problems in the Pacific Islands"

There is a gazillion research out there telling you that diet does matter and that it is important not only how much you eat but WHAT you eat.

The obesity problem and diabets problem we are facing today is rising and it is directly linked to fast food, processed food, sugar and pop.
Stef.

SKME2013

Why don't you show us the links to articles that show that nutrition, e.g. Sugar does NOT matter? You are using ONE of my posted articles against me...what about the others? Every book that I read clearly stated how much diet actually does matter. So far I have not seen one article from a reputable source that says something to the contrary. Please enlighten me.
Stef.

kilgore67

Alright ppls, I don't demonize food groups, but I do have medical conditions. I have diabetes, high blood pressure and severe edema in my left lower leg and foot. When I don't control the edema in my leg and foot I get a lovely thing called cellulitis in that leg and get hospitalized with up to 7 I.V. antibiotics. I have a history of blood clots and pulmonary embolisms. In short , I trying not to fall apart any more than I already have. So I count carbs, grams of sugar and restrict my sodium.

Michelle in Ohio trying to live to be 50

snazzyjazzy21

Why don't you show us the links to articles that show that nutrition, e.g. Sugar does NOT matter? You are using ONE of my posted articles against me...what about the others? Every book that I read clearly stated how much diet actually does matter. So far I have not seen one article from a reputable source that says something to the contrary. Please enlighten me.
Stef.

Are we talking weight loss or nutrition here?

asciiqwerty

correlation is not the same as causation

please stay aware of scientific method, burden of proof and the cause-and-effect fallacy and statistical significance applied to regression, correlation and causation when reading scientific papers

tennisdude2004

I have read your post numerous times advocating eat whatever and you jump right in if someone disagrees. Fair Enough.

But I have also seen this same profile picture of yours for sometime now.

Jus' curious when are you updating us with your new picture. That would help me understand and convince me - Yes you are correct.

wow really ...interesting...:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

you want an updated pic when I was in my profile pic 6lbs from goal and now 1lb...you go right to my profile and my 30 week lifting pics are right there...I was 158lbs at that time...and eat all the foodz and have since upped my calories by 200 a day...eating 1800...which includes chocolate everyday and even toaster strudel...cinibon flavor.

I like my profile pic...it's got my sexy younger husband in it...on our vacation down south.

ETA: I think I was suppose to be insulted but nope I just think it's too funny someone would "stoop down there"

You just love showing off that younger sexy hubby of yours - Cradle snatcher!

Great profile pic - no need to change it. lol

tennisdude2004

You should not consume excess sodium, OP. Not going to run on with the sugar or carbs but excessive sodium consumption is very problematic.

I'm not talking about extreme excess. I'm talking about a small/moderate amount over.

So what is the actual level where it goes from okay to excessive?

lemonsnowdrop

You should not consume excess sodium, OP. Not going to run on with the sugar or carbs but excessive sodium consumption is very problematic.

I'm not talking about extreme excess. I'm talking about a small/moderate amount over.

So what is the actual level where it goes from okay to excessive?

I've seen so many people on this forum say, "My sugar is over a little, my sodium is over by 300" etc. Everyone is turning this post into something that it's not. I'm not telling people what to do, I'm not saying that a diet of only sweets and snacks is healthy. I'm simply stating that if you are healthy, there is no reason you should keep yourself from eating pasta if you want it, enjoying an ice cream, or taking in a little too much salt for the day.

ndj1979

I am sorry but I completely disagree with OP.

Different food sources trigger different responses in the body. There is a wealth of information out there that will explain this much better that I am willing to try.

To say it doesn't matter whether you eat 500 calories of a Mars bars is the same as eating 500 cal of spinach is only correct in 500 cal are 500 cal, but it neglecting the fact that both food items trigger different responses in our bodies,

Stef.

Requesting that you please try and explain those responses.

Read The calorie myth by Jonathan Bailor. Just look at Harvard medical papers, tons of information that it DOES matter what you put in your body and yes sugar is not good. Can not even believe that this needs to be discussed.
Stef.

maybe you should review "the twinkie diet" and then come back and see what you have to say …

and saying that "the debate is over" is a typical debate tactic of those that do not even want to debate because they know their argument will be torn apart ..so it is easier to just try and belittle someone with intellect and say "oh, well everyone knows that and i can't believe that we are debating this" ….just like the global warming zealots...

tennisdude2004

You should not consume excess sodium, OP. Not going to run on with the sugar or carbs but excessive sodium consumption is very problematic.

I'm not talking about extreme excess. I'm talking about a small/moderate amount over.

So what is the actual level where it goes from okay to excessive?

I've seen so many people on this forum say, "My sugar is over a little, my sodium is over by 300" etc. Everyone is turning this post into something that it's not. I'm not telling people what to do, I'm not saying that a diet of only sweets and snacks is healthy. I'm simply stating that if you are healthy, there is no reason you should keep yourself from eating pasta if you want it, enjoying an ice cream, or taking in a little too much salt for the day.

I do agree with some of your edited OP. Demonizing food for the sake of it is not helpful. But educating people of the benefits or lack of benefits is.

I think where a lot of people get upset (people who are anti cutting food) is in the terminology used by people who decide to use words like 'stop eating sugar or I am addicted to sugar and need to cut back on it,.

We're all intelligent adults and know what these people actually mean.

After a long hike I sometimes whine to my wife that my feet are killing me - I'm not actually saying that because my feet are sore I am going to die - it's just terminology.

I think people focus on sugar because it is a quick fix to reducing calories and that is what most peoples goal is - to eat in a deficit or to maintain and cutting back on sugar intake is an efficient way to do that without compromising on nutrition.

Off all the food groups it probably offers us the least amount of nutrition back for the cost in calories and it is not an essential food group.

I would agree with a lot of people that eat sugar that I certainly makes things taste good, but then again that's subjective as I personally would rather have a plate of crispy pork belly (with the fat on) than a bar of chocolate or a donut.

Also IMO it is advisable to limit the amount of processed foods, but only due to the possible amount of man made trans fats we COULD be consuming. The WHO advises a daily intake of no more than 2grams. In America food producers do not have to include the trans fats on their labels if the content is less than 0.5grams. Which means that on a 2000 calorie plus diet if we consume a fair amount of processed food, it leaves a bit of margin to be hitting the 2grams or going over it - but as I said that's my opinion.

I think the thing to respect is that if people want to reduce their calorie intake (which if they are looking to lose weight, should be applauded) let them do it in a way that best suits them.

Totally agree with salt though - unless you have a medical condition, the more salt the better (it makes food taste great).

Jestinia

I am sorry but I completely disagree with OP.

Different food sources trigger different responses in the body. There is a wealth of information out there that will explain this much better that I am willing to try.

To say it doesn't matter whether you eat 500 calories of a Mars bars is the same as eating 500 cal of spinach is only correct in 500 cal are 500 cal, but it neglecting the fact that both food items trigger different responses in our bodies,

Stef.

Requesting that you please try and explain those responses.

Read The calorie myth by Jonathan Bailor. Just look at Harvard medical papers, tons of information that it DOES matter what you put in your body and yes sugar is not good. Can not even believe that this needs to be discussed.
Stef.

maybe you should review "the twinkie diet" and then come back and see what you have to say …

and saying that "the debate is over" is a typical debate tactic of those that do not even want to debate because they know their argument will be torn apart ..so it is easier to just try and belittle someone with intellect and say "oh, well everyone knows that and i can't believe that we are debating this" ….just like the global warming zealots...

All the twinkie diet proves is that even a bad diet that causes weight loss in an individual who needs to lose weight may improve health markers. And that is something worth knowing and studying But no high performance athlete is going to recommend this diet. And while most of us are far from high performance anything, we still have enough sense to know that we'd feel like total crap all day on a diet like that. Even those who don't have major food triggers. I know you aren't really trying to imply that twinkies are just as good for you as spinach, though. You're just having fun. Which I can respect, I love a good throw down, dragged out argument over virtually anything!

MityMax96

All the twinkie diet proves is that even a bad diet that causes weight loss in an individual who needs to lose weight may improve health markers. And that is something worth knowing and studying But no high performance athlete is going to recommend this diet. And while most of us are far from high performance anything, we still have enough sense to know that we'd feel like total crap all day on a diet like that. Even those who don't have major food triggers. I know you aren't really trying to imply that twinkies are just as good for you as spinach, though. You're just having fun. Which I can respect, I love a good throw down, dragged out argument over virtually anything!

But the twinkie diet does prove one major thing, that I think people on here tend to over look, or not realize.
Calories in vs Calories out DO matter.
I see so many people say "I eat X number of calories a day, and I ain't losing weight"
But then you ask them are they actually measuring or weighing their food, and they typically are not.....
They want to believe that they are different from the very simple and basic rule.
You eat less than you need, you will weigh less than you currently are.....over time.

Now to go into the nutritional content of twinkies vs. veggies it s a subject for a different thread.
This thread had nothing to do with nutritional content.....

And speaking of high performance athletes...
I think we would all agree that Michael Phelps is a high performance athlete.....
Take a time to go look at what he eats.
You might be surprised......

And no, I have never implied twinkies to be a superior food, or food I would recommend to someone to eat....
My point of bringing it up was to show a very definitive point, that losing weight can be done.
And some improved health markers can be obtained.....
So I was not trying to "have fun" by bringing it up.....
I was trying to point out that weight loss is possible.....
Again, nutritional content is something else entirely for another thread

MityMax96

and that you can eat some chocolate cake if you want it.

Jestinia

and that you can eat some chocolate cake if you want it.

And I will have the chocolate cake. But I don't want a teaspoonful or even a serving size sliver. I want the entire cake. Well, more like half a cake. So in order to get what I want in the quantity that makes it worth having, I can't eat it every day, unless I also want to get fat again.

I also won't pretend I couldn't have made a healthier choice by not having the cake and having 2000 calories of nutrient dense foods instead. Unless they start selling vitamin fortified, antioxidant rich, organic-flavonoid-food-buzzword-something-or-other-cake.

MityMax96

and that you can eat some chocolate cake if you want it.

And I will have the chocolate cake. But I don't want a teaspoonful or even a serving size sliver. I want the entire cake. Well, more like half a cake. So in order to get what I want in the quantity that makes it worth having, I can't eat it every day, unless I also want to get fat again.

I also won't pretend I couldn't have made a healthier choice by not having the cake and having 2000 calories of nutrient dense foods instead. Unless they start selling vitamin fortified, antioxidant rich, organic-flavonoid-food-buzzword-something-or-other-cake.

Well now, once again....
What we are talking about there is a topic for another thread.
Cause it comes down to self-control and discipline......

So comes down to the wonderful thing we have as human beings, that no other living creature has.
Free will and choice.

Jestinia

and that you can eat some chocolate cake if you want it.

And I will have the chocolate cake. But I don't want a teaspoonful or even a serving size sliver. I want the entire cake. Well, more like half a cake. So in order to get what I want in the quantity that makes it worth having, I can't eat it every day, unless I also want to get fat again.

I also won't pretend I couldn't have made a healthier choice by not having the cake and having 2000 calories of nutrient dense foods instead. Unless they start selling vitamin fortified, antioxidant rich, organic-flavonoid-food-buzzword-something-or-other-cake.

Well now, once again....
What we are talking about there is a topic for another thread.
Cause it comes down to self-control and discipline......

So comes down to the wonderful thing we have as human beings, that no other living creature has.
Free will and choice.

It isn't about discipline. No one eats chocolate cake because they need to fuel their body (with the possible exception of a student in need of a sugar buzz). We eat stuff like that because we want to enjoy the tastes, textures, and yes, that nice all over sensation that is a sugar buzz. So if you get your food enjoyment with a sliver and I don't get it until half the cake is gone, it has nothing to do with self control or discipline.

Edit: An example you might understand.

Take a crumb of chocolate cake and eat it. Now stop. Was it worth bothering? One crumb? Doubtful.

tennisdude2004

All the twinkie diet proves is that even a bad diet that causes weight loss in an individual who needs to lose weight may improve health markers. And that is something worth knowing and studying But no high performance athlete is going to recommend this diet. And while most of us are far from high performance anything, we still have enough sense to know that we'd feel like total crap all day on a diet like that. Even those who don't have major food triggers. I know you aren't really trying to imply that twinkies are just as good for you as spinach, though. You're just having fun. Which I can respect, I love a good throw down, dragged out argument over virtually anything!

But the twinkie diet does prove one major thing, that I think people on here tend to over look, or not realize.
Calories in vs Calories out DO matter.
I see so many people say "I eat X number of calories a day, and I ain't losing weight"
But then you ask them are they actually measuring or weighing their food, and they typically are not.....
They want to believe that they are different from the very simple and basic rule.
You eat less than you need, you will weigh less than you currently are.....over time.

Now to go into the nutritional content of twinkies vs. veggies it s a subject for a different thread.
This thread had nothing to do with nutritional content.....

And speaking of high performance athletes...
I think we would all agree that Michael Phelps is a high performance athlete.....
Take a time to go look at what he eats.
You might be surprised......

And no, I have never implied twinkies to be a superior food, or food I would recommend to someone to eat....
My point of bringing it up was to show a very definitive point, that losing weight can be done.
And some improved health markers can be obtained.....
So I was not trying to "have fun" by bringing it up.....
I was trying to point out that weight loss is possible.....
Again, nutritional content is something else entirely for another thread

I think it's more about calories in vs calories stored!

I shouldn't think anyone on such a high sugar diet would necessarily be using those particular units of calories as energy for that particular day.

tennisdude2004

and that you can eat some chocolate cake if you want it.

If you have calories spare and have covered your bases on micro nutrients then sure eat cake.

But that's all cake really offers (unless it's carrot cake, which counts as one of your five a day) is a quick source of glucose, not much else. If you've got calories to blow then, cakes an enjoyable thing to blow them on.