Interesting Video on 'Sugar: The Bitter Truth'
Replies
-
The thing about the sugar debate I don't get is why is sugar singled out for attention, when most of the food we love to abuse is high in both fat and sugar? Apart from lollies (candy), and sugary drinks, of course.
Same for fat and salt combinations, which are equally as delicious and gimme-moreish. Why sugar alone?
More money and easier.0 -
The thing about the sugar debate I don't get is why is sugar singled out for attention, when most of the food we love to abuse is high in both fat and sugar? Apart from lollies (candy), and sugary drinks, of course.
Same for fat and salt combinations, which are equally as delicious and gimme-moreish. Why sugar alone?
More money and easier.
No, it's because fat without carbs isn't addicting. As everyone who has ever lost weight on a low carb diet knows.0 -
Yes, I've watched it twice. It was really informative. The physician that does the presentation is Dr. Robert Lustig, Professor of Clinical Pediatrics at University of California San Francisco Center for Obesity Assessment. He is a brilliant man who has done decades of research on sugar's effects on the body both long and short term. I lost 30 pounds after watching his video and giving up sweeteners for nine months. I still ate fruit. It took 5 months to lose my weight. When I started eating sugar again at the encouragement of one of my fitness "pals' I unfortunately gained back 10 pounds from my lowest weight. Thanks for letting those who will be helped about his video!
So I guess all this weight loss I have achieved while eating a few sugary things every now and then is a lie then?
When you started eating sugar again it got out of control and you went into a calorie surplus. End of Story. Don't blame the sugar for your lack of control.
Exactly this.
^Agreed.
The lack of accountability that one comes across in this forum alone is just astounding.0 -
Yes, I've watched it twice. It was really informative. The physician that does the presentation is Dr. Robert Lustig, Professor of Clinical Pediatrics at University of California San Francisco Center for Obesity Assessment. He is a brilliant man who has done decades of research on sugar's effects on the body both long and short term. I lost 30 pounds after watching his video and giving up sweeteners for nine months. I still ate fruit. It took 5 months to lose my weight. When I started eating sugar again at the encouragement of one of my fitness "pals' I unfortunately gained back 10 pounds from my lowest weight. Thanks for letting those who will be helped about his video!
So I guess all this weight loss I have achieved while eating a few sugary things every now and then is a lie then?
When you started eating sugar again it got out of control and you went into a calorie surplus. End of Story. Don't blame the sugar for your lack of control.
Exactly this.
^Agreed.
The lack of accountability that one comes across in this forum alone is just astounding.
That and Lustig is a laughing stock0 -
Is it really so hard to fathom that people are just eating to much and aren't as active. Must we really go round and round looking for the mysterious culprit that ... once omitted will allow us to KEEP sitting around all day stuffing our faces and have trim healthy beach bodies. Cos I am telling you that isn't going to happen. So you might as well stop looking for that big thing that's going to let you do what you want and be as healthy as you want OP because it doesn't exist. Health ... requires ... discipline.
There is no escaping it.
Exactly.0 -
Addicting? okaaay...0
-
The thing about the sugar debate I don't get is why is sugar singled out for attention, when most of the food we love to abuse is high in both fat and sugar? Apart from lollies (candy), and sugary drinks, of course.
Same for fat and salt combinations, which are equally as delicious and gimme-moreish. Why sugar alone?
More money and easier.
No, it's because fat without carbs isn't addicting. As everyone who has ever lost weight on a low carb diet knows.
NO :noway:0 -
The thing about the sugar debate I don't get is why is sugar singled out for attention, when most of the food we love to abuse is high in both fat and sugar? Apart from lollies (candy), and sugary drinks, of course.
Same for fat and salt combinations, which are equally as delicious and gimme-moreish. Why sugar alone?
More money and easier.
No, it's because fat without carbs isn't addicting. As everyone who has ever lost weight on a low carb diet knows.
NO :noway:
Everyone on a low carb diet knows?! That's the secret to losing weight? Seriously? Okaaaayyy expert.
I think I'll stick with eating carbs and sugar. Key lime pie almost done.
0 -
The thing about the sugar debate I don't get is why is sugar singled out for attention, when most of the food we love to abuse is high in both fat and sugar? Apart from lollies (candy), and sugary drinks, of course.
Same for fat and salt combinations, which are equally as delicious and gimme-moreish. Why sugar alone?
More money and easier.
No, it's because fat without carbs isn't addicting. As everyone who has ever lost weight on a low carb diet knows.
NO :noway:
Everyone on a low carb diet knows?! That's the secret to losing weight? Seriously? Okaaaayyy expert.
I think I'll stick with eating carbs and sugar. Key lime pie almost done.
Enjoy it, You earned it.0 -
Are you suggesting cheese and nuts aren't addicting? Never seen a person stop at a few peanuts or one square of cheese.The thing about the sugar debate I don't get is why is sugar singled out for attention, when most of the food we love to abuse is high in both fat and sugar? Apart from lollies (candy), and sugary drinks, of course.
Same for fat and salt combinations, which are equally as delicious and gimme-moreish. Why sugar alone?
More money and easier.
No, it's because fat without carbs isn't addicting. As everyone who has ever lost weight on a low carb diet knows.0 -
My goal is to cut back, not cut out sugar. I enjoy my sweets!0
-
The thing about the sugar debate I don't get is why is sugar singled out for attention, when most of the food we love to abuse is high in both fat and sugar? Apart from lollies (candy), and sugary drinks, of course.
Same for fat and salt combinations, which are equally as delicious and gimme-moreish. Why sugar alone?
More money and easier.
No, it's because fat without carbs isn't addicting. As everyone who has ever lost weight on a low carb diet knows.
NO :noway:
Everyone on a low carb diet knows?! That's the secret to losing weight? Seriously? Okaaaayyy expert.
I think I'll stick with eating carbs and sugar. Key lime pie almost done.
I lost a lot of weight on high fat, low carb. I rarely overate (cheese once in awhile got me). But if I took a fatty cut of steak and made a steak sandwich out of it with some bread, I'd eat myself sick, then want a bowl of ice cream. I don't know why, but that is what happened.
Your results may vary, but if fat alone were the overeating trigger, people would have a hard time losing weight on low carb, which is by its nature high fat.0 -
The thing about the sugar debate I don't get is why is sugar singled out for attention, when most of the food we love to abuse is high in both fat and sugar? Apart from lollies (candy), and sugary drinks, of course.
Same for fat and salt combinations, which are equally as delicious and gimme-moreish. Why sugar alone?
More money and easier.
No, it's because fat without carbs isn't addicting. As everyone who has ever lost weight on a low carb diet knows.
NO :noway:
Everyone on a low carb diet knows?! That's the secret to losing weight? Seriously? Okaaaayyy expert.
I think I'll stick with eating carbs and sugar. Key lime pie almost done.
I lost a lot of weight on high fat, low carb. I rarely overate (cheese once in awhile got me). But if I took a fatty cut of steak and made a steak sandwich out of it with some bread, I'd eat myself sick, then want a bowl of ice cream. I don't know why, but that is what happened.
Your results may vary, but if fat alone were the overeating trigger, people would have a hard time losing weight on low carb, which is by its nature high fat.
So you couldn't moderate your intake and overate?
When you stopped overeating and ate a deficit you lost weight?
What an odd thing that is!
Wait i and many others have lost weight and are losing weight eating steak sandwiches and ice cream moderately.
Food is not addictive - our inability to moderate is not the foods fault.0 -
The thing about the sugar debate I don't get is why is sugar singled out for attention, when most of the food we love to abuse is high in both fat and sugar? Apart from lollies (candy), and sugary drinks, of course.
Same for fat and salt combinations, which are equally as delicious and gimme-moreish. Why sugar alone?
More money and easier.
No, it's because fat without carbs isn't addicting. As everyone who has ever lost weight on a low carb diet knows.
NO :noway:
Everyone on a low carb diet knows?! That's the secret to losing weight? Seriously? Okaaaayyy expert.
I think I'll stick with eating carbs and sugar. Key lime pie almost done.
I lost a lot of weight on high fat, low carb. I rarely overate (cheese once in awhile got me). But if I took a fatty cut of steak and made a steak sandwich out of it with some bread, I'd eat myself sick, then want a bowl of ice cream. I don't know why, but that is what happened.
Your results may vary, but if fat alone were the overeating trigger, people would have a hard time losing weight on low carb, which is by its nature high fat.
So you couldn't moderate your intake and overate?
When you stopped overeating and ate a deficit you lost weight?
What an odd thing that is!
Wait i and many others have lost weight and are losing weight eating steak sandwiches and ice cream moderately.
Food is not addictive - our inability to moderate is not the foods fault.
Actually studies are showing food is addictive. Judging by the flavor of your posts, you are addicted to snark. Maybe you should see a professional to help you get that under control?0 -
This content has been removed.
-
The thing about the sugar debate I don't get is why is sugar singled out for attention, when most of the food we love to abuse is high in both fat and sugar? Apart from lollies (candy), and sugary drinks, of course.
Same for fat and salt combinations, which are equally as delicious and gimme-moreish. Why sugar alone?
More money and easier.
No, it's because fat without carbs isn't addicting. As everyone who has ever lost weight on a low carb diet knows.
NO :noway:
Everyone on a low carb diet knows?! That's the secret to losing weight? Seriously? Okaaaayyy expert.
I think I'll stick with eating carbs and sugar. Key lime pie almost done.
I lost a lot of weight on high fat, low carb. I rarely overate (cheese once in awhile got me). But if I took a fatty cut of steak and made a steak sandwich out of it with some bread, I'd eat myself sick, then want a bowl of ice cream. I don't know why, but that is what happened.
Your results may vary, but if fat alone were the overeating trigger, people would have a hard time losing weight on low carb, which is by its nature high fat.
So you couldn't moderate your intake and overate?
When you stopped overeating and ate a deficit you lost weight?
What an odd thing that is!
Wait i and many others have lost weight and are losing weight eating steak sandwiches and ice cream moderately.
Food is not addictive - our inability to moderate is not the foods fault.
Actually studies are showing food is addictive. Judging by the flavor of your posts, you are addicted to snark. Maybe you should see a professional to help you get that under control?
No, not true. All foods stimulates the pleasure center of the brain, because we need it to survive. Mother nature's way of making sure we can carry on to reproduce. That doesn't mean it is addictive.0 -
No, not true. All foods stimulates the pleasure center of the brain, because we need it to survive. Mother nature's way of making sure we can carry on to reproduce. That doesn't mean it is addictive.
Yes, but some foods do this more than others. Including foods never seen in nature in the form we see them in now, not to mention the abundance. Saying we can't addict ourselves to food is like saying we can't addict ourselves to alcohol because our ancestors have been drinking it for thousands of years and sometimes it was a safer bet than water.0 -
No, not true. All foods stimulates the pleasure center of the brain, because we need it to survive. Mother nature's way of making sure we can carry on to reproduce. That doesn't mean it is addictive.
Yes, but some foods do this more than others. Including foods never seen in nature in the form we see them in now, not to mention the abundance. Saying we can't addict ourselves to food is like saying we can't addict ourselves to alcohol because our ancestors have been drinking it for thousands of years and sometimes it was a safer bet than water.
Comparing food to alcohol is absolutely ridiculous.
Alcohol is addictive and unnecessary for life.
Food is not addictive and necessary for life.0 -
No, not true. All foods stimulates the pleasure center of the brain, because we need it to survive. Mother nature's way of making sure we can carry on to reproduce. That doesn't mean it is addictive.
Yes, but some foods do this more than others. Including foods never seen in nature in the form we see them in now, not to mention the abundance. Saying we can't addict ourselves to food is like saying we can't addict ourselves to alcohol because our ancestors have been drinking it for thousands of years and sometimes it was a safer bet than water.
I am sorry, but the idea that you overeat due to a specific food is flat out laughable. It has nothing to do with the food itself. It is 100% the issue of the individual person's willpower and ability to say stop. Blaming food for your problems is far from healthy mentally and is an easy way to try and escape personal responsibility. So really, maybe you should be looking deeper into your issues with food and overeating instead of trying to escape the problem.
And I am saying this from experience, not just to be snarky.0 -
Not interesting, definitely not worth an hour and a half of my time, now I'm off to have some chocolate .. thanks
LOL. I love these typical response to any one of these threads.
Person A posts video/article/study whether it be right or wrong
Person B talks about it's not interesting and then claims they are going to eat something that goes against what the video/article/study says.0 -
No, not true. All foods stimulates the pleasure center of the brain, because we need it to survive. Mother nature's way of making sure we can carry on to reproduce. That doesn't mean it is addictive.
Yes, but some foods do this more than others. Including foods never seen in nature in the form we see them in now, not to mention the abundance. Saying we can't addict ourselves to food is like saying we can't addict ourselves to alcohol because our ancestors have been drinking it for thousands of years and sometimes it was a safer bet than water.
I am sorry, but the idea that you overeat due to a specific food is flat out laughable. It has nothing to do with the food itself. It is 100% the issue of the individual person's willpower and ability to say stop. Blaming food for your problems is far from healthy mentally and is an easy way to try and escape personal responsibility. So really, maybe you should be looking deeper into your issues with food and overeating instead of trying to escape the problem.
And I am saying this from experience, not just to be snarky.
Okay, fine, instead of getting myself in trouble for snarking back at someone who is so obviously determined to get under my skin, I'm breaking out my brand new spanking lie:
I can't eat bready, sugary things because they make me itch. And I could go around itchy and not scratch, but it's annoying to be itchy and not scratch, so I cut those foods out.
If that lie makes you feel better than the truth that some foods make some people hungry after eating them instead of less hungry (which is what food is supposed to do!) good for you. Have a nice day.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
No, not true. All foods stimulates the pleasure center of the brain, because we need it to survive. Mother nature's way of making sure we can carry on to reproduce. That doesn't mean it is addictive.
Yes, but some foods do this more than others. Including foods never seen in nature in the form we see them in now, not to mention the abundance. Saying we can't addict ourselves to food is like saying we can't addict ourselves to alcohol because our ancestors have been drinking it for thousands of years and sometimes it was a safer bet than water.
"Addict ourselves"? That is not even a 'thing'. Cooked meat is not seen in nature. I assume you eat yours raw?0 -
The thing about the sugar debate I don't get is why is sugar singled out for attention, when most of the food we love to abuse is high in both fat and sugar? Apart from lollies (candy), and sugary drinks, of course.
Same for fat and salt combinations, which are equally as delicious and gimme-moreish. Why sugar alone?
More money and easier.
No, it's because fat without carbs isn't addicting. As everyone who has ever lost weight on a low carb diet knows.
NO :noway:
Everyone on a low carb diet knows?! That's the secret to losing weight? Seriously? Okaaaayyy expert.
I think I'll stick with eating carbs and sugar. Key lime pie almost done.
I lost a lot of weight on high fat, low carb. I rarely overate (cheese once in awhile got me). But if I took a fatty cut of steak and made a steak sandwich out of it with some bread, I'd eat myself sick, then want a bowl of ice cream. I don't know why, but that is what happened.
Your results may vary, but if fat alone were the overeating trigger, people would have a hard time losing weight on low carb, which is by its nature high fat.
Some people do have trouble losing on low carb or find it unsustainable. Some do overeat on bacon and eggs and roasted chicken with veggies and giant steaks. And many, many people don't react to a piece of bread like you say you do. On the whole I think meat is pretty satiating and don't overeat on it, but I'd never go nuts and eat lots of bread or potatoes, as the anti carb people claim people do. (Maybe fries, but only because of the fat, and I bet I could easily eat as many bacon or cheese calories. I've sat and eaten a bag of cheese curds like some say they eat chips or you say you would bread. I could do the same with nuts if I allowed myself.)
If my diet is unbalanced I am likely to feel more in need of energy overall and eat more, and individual items may be high in carbs and calories while being unsatisfying (why I think carb heavy breakfasts are a bad idea), but that's different than the claim that eating some food item somehow makes you unable to control yourself. That's not my experience. And steak plus bread is IME as or more filling than just steak. Bread on its own, not so much, but definitely not some sort of trigger. Same with plain old sugar.0 -
No, not true. All foods stimulates the pleasure center of the brain, because we need it to survive. Mother nature's way of making sure we can carry on to reproduce. That doesn't mean it is addictive.
Yes, but some foods do this more than others. Including foods never seen in nature in the form we see them in now, not to mention the abundance. Saying we can't addict ourselves to food is like saying we can't addict ourselves to alcohol because our ancestors have been drinking it for thousands of years and sometimes it was a safer bet than water.
I am sorry, but the idea that you overeat due to a specific food is flat out laughable. It has nothing to do with the food itself. It is 100% the issue of the individual person's willpower and ability to say stop. Blaming food for your problems is far from healthy mentally and is an easy way to try and escape personal responsibility. So really, maybe you should be looking deeper into your issues with food and overeating instead of trying to escape the problem.
And I am saying this from experience, not just to be snarky.
Okay, fine, instead of getting myself in trouble for snarking back at someone who is so obviously determined to get under my skin, I'm breaking out my brand new spanking lie:
I can't eat bready, sugary things because they make me itch. And I could go around itchy and not scratch, but it's annoying to be itchy and not scratch, so I cut those foods out.
If that lie makes you feel better than the truth that some foods make some people hungry after eating them instead of less hungry (which is what food is supposed to do!) good for you. Have a nice day.
There are foods that make you more hungry after you eat them instead of less hungry? Bullsh*t.0 -
No, not true. All foods stimulates the pleasure center of the brain, because we need it to survive. Mother nature's way of making sure we can carry on to reproduce. That doesn't mean it is addictive.
Yes, but some foods do this more than others. Including foods never seen in nature in the form we see them in now, not to mention the abundance. Saying we can't addict ourselves to food is like saying we can't addict ourselves to alcohol because our ancestors have been drinking it for thousands of years and sometimes it was a safer bet than water.
I am sorry, but the idea that you overeat due to a specific food is flat out laughable. It has nothing to do with the food itself. It is 100% the issue of the individual person's willpower and ability to say stop. Blaming food for your problems is far from healthy mentally and is an easy way to try and escape personal responsibility. So really, maybe you should be looking deeper into your issues with food and overeating instead of trying to escape the problem.
And I am saying this from experience, not just to be snarky.
Okay, fine, instead of getting myself in trouble for snarking back at someone who is so obviously determined to get under my skin, I'm breaking out my brand new spanking lie:
I can't eat bready, sugary things because they make me itch. And I could go around itchy and not scratch, but it's annoying to be itchy and not scratch, so I cut those foods out.
If that lie makes you feel better than the truth that some foods make some people hungry after eating them instead of less hungry (which is what food is supposed to do!) good for you. Have a nice day.
When did I ever say cutting out foods you don't want to eat are bad?/
All I said is food is not addictive.
Sorry you read my posts as snarky!0 -
No, not true. All foods stimulates the pleasure center of the brain, because we need it to survive. Mother nature's way of making sure we can carry on to reproduce. That doesn't mean it is addictive.
Yes, but some foods do this more than others. Including foods never seen in nature in the form we see them in now, not to mention the abundance. Saying we can't addict ourselves to food is like saying we can't addict ourselves to alcohol because our ancestors have been drinking it for thousands of years and sometimes it was a safer bet than water.
"Addict ourselves"? That is not even a 'thing'. Cooked meat is not seen in nature. I assume you eat yours raw?
I don't eat meat at all right now. I fail to see your point, however. And I do like my potatoes roasted. Addiction seems to be a process of habituating the brain to the point that we need more and more of the stimulation to get the same effect. Hence 'addict ourselves' although I admit it's probably not a good term to use when the sugar industry defenders of America are out in force and looking for any reason to go off.
If you can eat sugar found in things besides fruits and vegetables and if you can eat all sorts of breads with no problems, have at. I can't. It makes me hungry. And looking around at my fellow Americans, I'm guessing I'm not the only one with this hungrier than I need to be all the time issue.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
The level of derp never ceases to amaze me.The thing about the sugar debate I don't get is why is sugar singled out for attention, when most of the food we love to abuse is high in both fat and sugar? Apart from lollies (candy), and sugary drinks, of course.
Same for fat and salt combinations, which are equally as delicious and gimme-moreish. Why sugar alone?
More money and easier.
No, it's because fat without carbs isn't addicting. As everyone who has ever lost weight on a low carb diet knows.
NO :noway:
Everyone on a low carb diet knows?! That's the secret to losing weight? Seriously? Okaaaayyy expert.
I think I'll stick with eating carbs and sugar. Key lime pie almost done.
I lost a lot of weight on high fat, low carb. I rarely overate (cheese once in awhile got me). But if I took a fatty cut of steak and made a steak sandwich out of it with some bread, I'd eat myself sick, then want a bowl of ice cream. I don't know why, but that is what happened.
Your results may vary, but if fat alone were the overeating trigger, people would have a hard time losing weight on low carb, which is by its nature high fat.
And speaking of the ambassador of the sugar defenders association of America!
You got a source for that citation? It's so weighty, contributes so much to the conversation, and is so clearly on topic, it would be a pity of you didn't have a citation!
Meanwhile, have some actual research:
A small new study suggests the brain responds to Oreo cookies quite like it responds to actual drugs – at least if you’re a rat. The “pleasure center” of the brain, the nucleus accumbens, apparently gets just as activated in response to Oreos as it does to cocaine and morphine, which could actually have some major public health implications. While the study was done in rats, the authors say it’s likely relevant to humans as well, and could explain why people have such a hard time resisting eating an entire sleeve of the cookies. The study, which will be presented at the Society for Neuroscience’s annual conference next month, also made another discovery: Rats, like humans, like to eat Oreo’s creamy center first.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/alicegwalton/2013/10/16/why-your-brain-treats-oreos-like-a-drug/
As you’d expect, the high-glycemic milkshakes led to a fast rise in blood sugar, followed by a marked drop four hours later. What was interesting to the researchers was that the “crash” was accompanied both by higher self-reported ratings of hunger and greater activation in the nucleus accumbens, an area of the brain that has long been linked to addictive behaviors and sensations, including reward and craving. This was all relative to the low-glycemic milkshake group, which had lower measures of both variables.
“Beyond reward and craving, this part of the brain is also linked to substance abuse and dependence, which raises the question as to whether certain foods might be addictive,” said study author David Ludwig, of the New Balance Foundation Obesity Prevention Center at Boston Children’s Hospital, in a statement. Still, he and his team are loth to call this sugar reaction “addiction.”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/alicegwalton/2013/06/27/study-are-cheap-carbs-really-like-drugs-to-your-brain/0 -
No, not true. All foods stimulates the pleasure center of the brain, because we need it to survive. Mother nature's way of making sure we can carry on to reproduce. That doesn't mean it is addictive.
Yes, but some foods do this more than others. Including foods never seen in nature in the form we see them in now, not to mention the abundance. Saying we can't addict ourselves to food is like saying we can't addict ourselves to alcohol because our ancestors have been drinking it for thousands of years and sometimes it was a safer bet than water.
"Addict ourselves"? That is not even a 'thing'. Cooked meat is not seen in nature. I assume you eat yours raw?
I don't eat meat at all right now. I fail to see your point, however. And I do like my potatoes roasted. Addiction seems to be a process of habituating the brain to the point that we need more and more of the stimulation to get the same effect. Hence 'addict ourselves' although I admit it's probably not a good term to use when the sugar industry defenders of America are out in force and looking for any reason to go off.
If you can eat sugar found in things besides fruits and vegetables and if you can eat all sorts of breads with no problems, have at. I can't. It makes me hungry. And looking around at my fellow Americans, I'm guessing I'm not the only one with this hungrier than I need to be all the time issue.
People don't over eat because of real hunger. Nor do they become obese because of it. They may feel hunger when they cut back on calories, but that doesn't automatically mean that they ate all of those extra calories because of hunger.
No one is saying you shouldn't do what works FOR YOU. But don't make proclamations about food that aren't true. What a person eats is a choice. What they become because of what they choose to eat doesn't make it any less their choice. People decide to make different choices and are happy to claim responsibility IF their choices result in health and a good BMI. But some don't want to take that same responsibility when their choices have led them to ill health and obesity.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
- 427 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