Why you should cut out/lower sodium, sugar or carbs
Replies
-
Hmmm....
Kinda how I feel w/ my pre-workout. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
:laugh:
Honestly that's why I've largely moved away from pre-workouts. Provided I've had enough sleep, usually a bit of caffeine or maybe BCAA's if I'm working out on an empty stomach is sufficient and avoids the weird tingling/feelings/etc. I get from some pre-workouts.0 -
I like this
Well said, hehe. 0 -
The level of extremes in here is hilarious. But, it's to be expected with every post like this.
For the most part, and I think we've all ruled out those with medical conditions, when people decide to track food in an effort to stop over consumption, this will automatically result in lower carbs(sugars), sodium, fat, but not always protein. When you are more aware of what you are eating, regardless of your style of eating, then macronutrients will usually fall into place on their own. The confusion comes in when people feel they need to lower them even more from reading someones extreme post or an overblown article. When, in reality, they've already lowered carbs(sugars), sodium, etc, from their previous eating levels just by lowering calorie intake.
The reason I mentioned protein not lowering is that, most of the time, people aren't eating enough. Now, that level will have a bearing on their goals, but still most people, IMO, could stand to eat more.
I don't think the OP was that far off. The intent was directed to people who are thoroughly confused. It's not hard to find an article in a popular magazine or newspaper demonizing foods. Her point was that if you don't feel like cutting out certain things, then it's not necessary. If you are someone who just feels the need to stay away from certain foods because of psychological reasons, then that's your business and your business alone.
Thank you! My OP is getting so misconstrued and blown out of proportion. Half the things that are being argued here aren't really anything relevant to this post.0 -
The level of extremes in here is hilarious. But, it's to be expected with every post like this.
For the most part, and I think we've all ruled out those with medical conditions, when people decide to track food in an effort to stop over consumption, this will automatically result in lower carbs(sugars), sodium, fat, but not always protein. When you are more aware of what you are eating, regardless of your style of eating, then macronutrients will usually fall into place on their own. The confusion comes in when people feel they need to lower them even more from reading someones extreme post or an overblown article. When, in reality, they've already lowered carbs(sugars), sodium, etc, from their previous eating levels just by lowering calorie intake.
The reason I mentioned protein not lowering is that, most of the time, people aren't eating enough. Now, that level will have a bearing on their goals, but still most people, IMO, could stand to eat more.
I don't think the OP was that far off. The intent was directed to people who are thoroughly confused. It's not hard to find an article in a popular magazine or newspaper demonizing foods. Her point was that if you don't feel like cutting out certain things, then it's not necessary. If you are someone who just feels the need to stay away from certain foods because of psychological reasons, then that's your business and your business alone.
Thank you! My OP is getting so misconstrued and blown out of proportion. Half the things that are being argued here aren't really anything relevant to this post.
Aww. I like your edited OP. At this point, the sidetracking and derailments are purely for fun.0 -
The level of extremes in here is hilarious. But, it's to be expected with every post like this.
For the most part, and I think we've all ruled out those with medical conditions, when people decide to track food in an effort to stop over consumption, this will automatically result in lower carbs(sugars), sodium, fat, but not always protein. When you are more aware of what you are eating, regardless of your style of eating, then macronutrients will usually fall into place on their own. The confusion comes in when people feel they need to lower them even more from reading someones extreme post or an overblown article. When, in reality, they've already lowered carbs(sugars), sodium, etc, from their previous eating levels just by lowering calorie intake.
The reason I mentioned protein not lowering is that, most of the time, people aren't eating enough. Now, that level will have a bearing on their goals, but still most people, IMO, could stand to eat more.
I don't think the OP was that far off. The intent was directed to people who are thoroughly confused. It's not hard to find an article in a popular magazine or newspaper demonizing foods. Her point was that if you don't feel like cutting out certain things, then it's not necessary. If you are someone who just feels the need to stay away from certain foods because of psychological reasons, then that's your business and your business alone.
Thank you! My OP is getting so misconstrued and blown out of proportion. Half the things that are being argued here aren't really anything relevant to this post.
Aww. I like your edited OP. At this point, the sidetracking and derailments are purely for fun.
I can appreciate how you feel. I started with the mentality that junk is the devil so that I could work my mind to searching and being happy with healthier choices. It helped me a lot. I can now look at junk as... not necessarily the devil, but I can learn to savor a smaller bit and be satisifed. I have also found that my healthier choices are pretty tasty afterall. 0 -
The level of extremes in here is hilarious. But, it's to be expected with every post like this.
For the most part, and I think we've all ruled out those with medical conditions, when people decide to track food in an effort to stop over consumption, this will automatically result in lower carbs(sugars), sodium, fat, but not always protein. When you are more aware of what you are eating, regardless of your style of eating, then macronutrients will usually fall into place on their own. The confusion comes in when people feel they need to lower them even more from reading someones extreme post or an overblown article. When, in reality, they've already lowered carbs(sugars), sodium, etc, from their previous eating levels just by lowering calorie intake.
The reason I mentioned protein not lowering is that, most of the time, people aren't eating enough. Now, that level will have a bearing on their goals, but still most people, IMO, could stand to eat more.
I don't think the OP was that far off. The intent was directed to people who are thoroughly confused. It's not hard to find an article in a popular magazine or newspaper demonizing foods. Her point was that if you don't feel like cutting out certain things, then it's not necessary. If you are someone who just feels the need to stay away from certain foods because of psychological reasons, then that's your business and your business alone.
Thank you! My OP is getting so misconstrued and blown out of proportion. Half the things that are being argued here aren't really anything relevant to this post.
Aww. I like your edited OP. At this point, the sidetracking and derailments are purely for fun.
Maybe edited for flame baiting violation avoidance - nice touch!! 0 -
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.
so a crumb of chocolate cake is the equivalent to a slice and then stopping???? You seriously need to re-examine how you view food...0 -
The level of extremes in here is hilarious. But, it's to be expected with every post like this.
For the most part, and I think we've all ruled out those with medical conditions, when people decide to track food in an effort to stop over consumption, this will automatically result in lower carbs(sugars), sodium, fat, but not always protein. When you are more aware of what you are eating, regardless of your style of eating, then macronutrients will usually fall into place on their own. The confusion comes in when people feel they need to lower them even more from reading someones extreme post or an overblown article. When, in reality, they've already lowered carbs(sugars), sodium, etc, from their previous eating levels just by lowering calorie intake.
The reason I mentioned protein not lowering is that, most of the time, people aren't eating enough. Now, that level will have a bearing on their goals, but still most people, IMO, could stand to eat more.
I don't think the OP was that far off. The intent was directed to people who are thoroughly confused. It's not hard to find an article in a popular magazine or newspaper demonizing foods. Her point was that if you don't feel like cutting out certain things, then it's not necessary. If you are someone who just feels the need to stay away from certain foods because of psychological reasons, then that's your business and your business alone.
Thank you! My OP is getting so misconstrued and blown out of proportion. Half the things that are being argued here aren't really anything relevant to this post.
Aww. I like your edited OP. At this point, the sidetracking and derailments are purely for fun.
Maybe edited for flame baiting violation avoidance - nice touch!!
*looks confused* Nah, that wasn't how I saw it.
Besides, this thread hasn't all been fun and games or a time waster for me. It has convinced me that I've been a hard headed, cheapskate idiot by being off my proper ADD medication and struggling all this time. Thanks, OP! :flowerforyou:0 -
Requesting that you please try and explain those responses.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.
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!
the previous poster was trying to say that calories in vs calories out does not matter and it is about quality of calories and that the "debate was closed"...I simply pointed out that the twinkie diet proves that you can lose weigh based on eating less of the same foods, regardless or quality...
Take a look at the diet of a typical offensive lineman in the NFL ..I would say they are "elite athletes" and I can guarantee they are not eating clean to keep 300 pounds on their frame...0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Requesting that you please try and explain those responses.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.
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!
the previous poster was trying to say that calories in vs calories out does not matter and it is about quality of calories and that the "debate was closed"...I simply pointed out that the twinkie diet proves that you can lose weigh based on eating less of the same foods, regardless or quality...
Take a look at the diet of a typical offensive lineman in the NFL ..I would say they are "elite athletes" and I can guarantee they are not eating clean to keep 300 pounds on their frame...
Oh, nevermind, in that context I see your point. Bad skimmer, bad!
Admittedly, it does show you can also perform well, at least for a time, during perhaps a certain age range, on utter crap food. But would they perform much better if they were eating clean? Maybe not, though, maybe constant calorie burn from sustained serious physical activity counteracts a lot of crap that would drag a sedentary person's health down. Although I did read somewhere that athletes often die surprisingly young. Stress? Drugs? Injuries? Bad food, bad lifestyle? Who knows.0 -
Hmmm....
Kinda how I feel w/ my pre-workout. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
:laugh:
Honestly that's why I've largely moved away from pre-workouts. Provided I've had enough sleep, usually a bit of caffeine or maybe BCAA's if I'm working out on an empty stomach is sufficient and avoids the weird tingling/feelings/etc. I get from some pre-workouts.
Yeah beta-alanine...
I hate that crap.
I loved DS Craze, it didn't use that....
But apparently some of the stuff in it they use to make meth or something....so the product was pulled.
Pissed me off. :mad: :mad: :grumble: :grumble:0 -
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.
Is Sugar Toxic? - Ft. Alan Aragon:
http://youtu.be/BMc0_s-M08I
http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/
http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/02/19/a-retrospective-of-the-fructose-alarmism-debate/
And Alan Aragon is what Kind of doctor/ Professor...of Medicine, Nutrition....??? Any other reputable sources?
You are still referring to me quoting Lustig but you have not taken any stance to any of the other articles that I have quoted of which there are hundreds more out there...
Anyhow, I am out of here. If you believe that sugar does not matter, up to you.
Stef.0 -
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.
so a crumb of chocolate cake is the equivalent to a slice and then stopping???? You seriously need to re-examine how you view food...
Actually it's been scientifically documented that many people NEED to consume more of a substance in order to get the pleasure response that others may get with a smaller amount. Therefore, for some people a slice would be about the same as a crumb to another person. And this isn't about how a person views food or their self-control - it's about the chemical makeup of their brain and how it functions.
That said, if you look at how big a treat slice probably should be (say, 150-200 calories) you really aren't going to be getting much out of most cakes, etc. A few bites (a treat sized slice) isn't really enough for a lot of people; it's a teaser, which really just makes you want to eat more. So in the end eating a few bites and then stopping is worse than not having any cake at all.0 -
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.
so a crumb of chocolate cake is the equivalent to a slice and then stopping???? You seriously need to re-examine how you view food...
Actually it's been scientifically documented that many people NEED to consume more of a substance in order to get the pleasure response that others may get with a smaller amount. Therefore, for some people a slice would be about the same as a crumb to another person. And this isn't about how a person views food or their self-control - it's about the chemical makeup of their brain and how it functions.
That said, if you look at how big a treat slice probably should be (say, 150-200 calories) you really aren't going to be getting much out of most cakes, etc. A few bites (a treat sized slice) isn't really enough for a lot of people; it's a teaser, which really just makes you want to eat more. So in the end eating a few bites and then stopping is worse than not having any cake at all.
This. And much better said than I would have said it.
I usually just shrug and say hey, I'm a pig. And when it comes to chocolate, I am a real oinker. Which is why I don't eat it every day.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
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.
Is Sugar Toxic? - Ft. Alan Aragon:http://youtu.be/BMc0_s-M08I
http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/
http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/02/19/a-retrospective-of-the-fructose-alarmism-debate/
And Alan Aragon is what Kind of doctor/ Professor...of Medicine, Nutrition....??? Any other reputable sources?
You are still referring to me quoting Lustig but you have not taken any stance to any of the other articles that I have quoted of which there are hundreds more out there...
Anyhow, I am out of here. If you believe that sugar does not matter, up to you.
Stef.
lol.0 -
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.
Is Sugar Toxic? - Ft. Alan Aragon:http://youtu.be/BMc0_s-M08I
http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/
http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/02/19/a-retrospective-of-the-fructose-alarmism-debate/
And Alan Aragon is what Kind of doctor/ Professor...of Medicine, Nutrition....??? Any other reputable sources?
:noway: :noway: :noway: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Two names that come to mind, that you can usually trust, hands down is:
Alan Aragon
Lyle McDonald
They usually have there stuff together....
And I know if Alan is wrong on something, he will come out and make it clear he was wrong.0 -
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.
so a crumb of chocolate cake is the equivalent to a slice and then stopping???? You seriously need to re-examine how you view food...
Actually it's been scientifically documented that many people NEED to consume more of a substance in order to get the pleasure response that others may get with a smaller amount. Therefore, for some people a slice would be about the same as a crumb to another person. And this isn't about how a person views food or their self-control - it's about the chemical makeup of their brain and how it functions.
That said, if you look at how big a treat slice probably should be (say, 150-200 calories) you really aren't going to be getting much out of most cakes, etc. A few bites (a treat sized slice) isn't really enough for a lot of people; it's a teaser, which really just makes you want to eat more. So in the end eating a few bites and then stopping is worse than not having any cake at all.
I would be curious to see the "scientific documentation" of this...0 -
This content has been removed.
-
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.
so a crumb of chocolate cake is the equivalent to a slice and then stopping???? You seriously need to re-examine how you view food...
Actually it's been scientifically documented that many people NEED to consume more of a substance in order to get the pleasure response that others may get with a smaller amount. Therefore, for some people a slice would be about the same as a crumb to another person. And this isn't about how a person views food or their self-control - it's about the chemical makeup of their brain and how it functions.
That said, if you look at how big a treat slice probably should be (say, 150-200 calories) you really aren't going to be getting much out of most cakes, etc. A few bites (a treat sized slice) isn't really enough for a lot of people; it's a teaser, which really just makes you want to eat more. So in the end eating a few bites and then stopping is worse than not having any cake at all.
I would be curious to see the "scientific documentation" of this...
http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v31/n9/abs/0803614a.html
Abstract
Objective: To determine the stability of individual differences in non-nutritive 'junk' palatable food (PF) intake in rats; assess the relationship of these differences to binge-eating characteristics and susceptibility to obesity; and evaluate the practicality of using these differences to model binge-eating and obesity.
Design: Binge-eating prone (BEP) and resistant (BER) groups were identified. Differential responses to stress, hunger, macronutrient-varied PFs, a diet-induced obesity (DIO) regimen and daily vs intermittent access to a PF+chow diet, were assessed.
Subjects: One hundred and twenty female Sprague–Dawley rats.
Measurements: Reliability of intake patterns within rats; food intake and body weight after various challenges over acute (1, 2, 4 h), 24-h and 2-week periods.
Results: Although BEP and BER rats did not differ in amount of chow consumed, BEPs consumed >50% more intermittent PF than BERs (P<0.001) and consistently so (alpha=0.86). BEPs suppressed chow but not PF intake when stressed, and ate as much when sated as when hungry. Conversely, BERs were more affected by stress and ate less PF, not chow, when stressed and were normally hyperphagic to energy deficit. BEP overeating generalized to other PFs varying in sucrose, fat and nutrition content. Half the rats in each group proved to be obesity prone after a no-choice high fat diet (DIO diet) but a continuous diet of PF+chow normalized the BEPs high drive for PF.
Conclusion: Greater intermittent intake of PF predicts binge-eating independent of susceptibility to weight gain. Daily fat consumption in a nutritious source (DIO-diet; analogous to a fatty meal) promoted overeating and weight gain but limiting fat to daily non-nutritive food (PF+chow; analogous to a snack with a low fat meal), did not. The data offer an animal model of lean and obese binge-eating, and obesity with and without binge-eating that can be used to identify the unique physiology of these groups and henceforth suggest more specifically targeted treatments for binge-eating and obesity.0 -
That's not a medical condition. You have a problem with over consumption of calories. Sorry.I do have a medical condition. Roughly, it's called a tendency to get fat. Cutting sugar and when possible carbs actually helps me not get fat. So I'll keep right on with it.
But I'll also keep envying those who don't have to cut anything and can still lose or maintain weight. See my green eyes? That is the green eyed envy monster staring you lucky people down.
Uhh, I think the sarcasm on the "medical condition" was lost in translation.
If cutting out carbs and sugars helps you lose weight then there is no reason not to do it. I am consciously aware of my sugar intake. I try not to get a lot of it. I used to have a wicked sweet tooth and I cut back on my sugar years ago and now things like regular soda, and even some candies that I used to love are way too sweet for me. I am also cognizant of added sugars in my food and pay attention to what has it and how many grams per serving. For the most part if sugar is one of the first three ingredients I won't buy it. If it's lower in the list and the grams per serving are low then I'll consider it.
Keep doing what you're doing if it's working for you.0 -
I really am in the mood for twinkies and chocolate cake now.... sounds like a good lunch
eat both at once - chocolate twinkie.
That looks disgusting.0 -
Repeated instances of going over your sodium allowance for long periods of time can lead to high blood pressure...
How about you stop worrying about what others do and concentrate on yourself?0 -
I really am in the mood for twinkies and chocolate cake now.... sounds like a good lunch
eat both at once - chocolate twinkie.
That looks disgusting.
Food shaming!!!
*reported0 -
I really am in the mood for twinkies and chocolate cake now.... sounds like a good lunch
eat both at once - chocolate twinkie.
That looks delectable.
FIFY0 -
That's food? I thought it was a polished turd!0
-
That's food? I thought it was a polished turd!
I guess you can.0 -
Do you realize that in her post she NEVER mentioned Lustig? Nowhere did she mention Dr. Robert Lustig.There are dozens of articles that will say it matters and dozens that say it doesn't matter. So articles mean nothing.
Is there any actual proof?
Then you mention Lustig? The biggest scaremonger of them all. Who whole sugar attack was picked apart and destroyed by Alan Aragon
She did, however, mention Dr. David Ludwig, a professor of pediatrics and the Director of the New Balance Foundation Obesity Prevention Center at Children's Hospital in Boston.
I love how people think that somehow a 'bashing' of Dr. Lustig makes every argument against sugar invalid.The first fact that you even mention Lustig explains your position and confusion.
FYI Aragon's critique was specifically against Lustig's myopic views on completely avoiding/eliminating fructose specifically. Aragon actually has respect for Lustig - both his intelligence and his desire to help with the obesity epidemic. Aragon also correctly points out that the weight of the evidence is against Lustig's claims regarding fructose.
What Aragon DOESN'T do is claim that sugar or fructose are GREAT for us. In fact, he makes a recommendation of his own regarding an upper safe-limit of fructose in the summation of his blog post. People tend to ignore that part though, for some odd reason.
Here's another thing people tend to ignore - Alan Aragon also says this:
Those who think Aragon's critique of Lustig's work on fructose means that Aragon believes it's acceptable to have all the sugar you want are deluded.HFCS and regular sugar are empty-calorie carbohydrates that should be consumed in limited amounts. How? By keeping soft drinks, sweetened fruit juices, and prepackaged desserts to a minimum.
http://www.simplyshredded.com/the-truth-behind-5-food-myths.html0 -
This content has been removed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions