Sugar is the CULPRIT!
Replies
-
Yet you also count calories. You think animals in the wild sit there counting calories?
Animals in the wild are also not surrounded by an infinite supply of food, if they don't catch food they do not eat. Animals not counting calories tells us nothing...
There are lean people in the US, that are surrounded with tons of food too. So your statement also tells us nothing.
I'm lean, I eat sugar every day. I eat protein, carbs, fat, sugar, blah blah blah. Most of the people I know who are obese eat much higher amounts of carbohydrates and fats than they do of just plain sugar as you are referring to it (even though the carbohydrates they eat are converted to sugar). They are obese because they overeat in general and don't do much physical activity.
The high numbers of childhood obesity in our country can be directly linked to a decrease in physical activity and an increase in overeating in general, not in sugar intake.
Once again, activity means nothing. Isolated exercise "activity" doesn't produce significant changes in body weight.
"CONCLUSION:
Moderate-intensity aerobic exercise programs of 6-12 months induce a modest reduction in weight and waist circumference in overweight and obese populations. Our results show that isolated aerobic exercise is not an effective weight loss therapy in these patients. Isolated aerobic exercise provides modest benefits to blood pressure and lipid levels and may still be an effective weight loss therapy in conjunction with diets"
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/217879040 -
Isn't Dr. Perricone the Cindy Crawford wrinkly melon guy?0
-
This content has been removed.
-
To explain the problem?OMG! LOL you people eat your sugar if you want it is a free country! I am not sugar police. You would think I smacked the candy bar right out of some of your hands.
People are getting on your case because you're spreading misinformation. Sugar is only "DANGEROUS" if you have diabetes, and even then only if you take in too much. Sugar is in most things, and in many things that are a very nutritious and important part of a well-balanced diet. To tell people they should stay away from it or that it is super duper dangerous and causes cancer, is a) false and b) beyond extreme.
Also, to assume everyone who is / was overweight got that way purely because they ate a lot of sugar makes you appear to be an ignorant, rude individual. You are not a doctor, obviously, nor are you a scientist or a biologist, or else I'd assume you would / could back up your claims with some solid evidence. You're going off one book, and it's a bad book.
Sugar(high GI) foods are the culprit of obesity.
Why don't you explain to us how most people became over weight?
By consuming more food than they needed to and not using the excess energy - which was then stored in fat cells and caused them to balloon up to an uncomfortable and / or unhealthy weight. People can also lose weight by NOT cutting out sugar from their diets, any many do. Imagine that.
That doesn’t explain anything. For example the law energy balance in terms of weight gain/loss states. You get fat by eating more calories than you consume. That just states the obvious. Explains absolutely nothing. If I said to you, “It’s hot outside because it’s not cold” is a pretty idiotic statement. That’s how idiotic the statement of, “you get fat because you consume more calories than you burn” There is nothing that states the “CAUSE” of why people over eat, why people are obese. So try again.
BTW: There are certain types of cancers that feed on glucose. If you provide an environment for certain life forms to exist, it's very possible they will gravity towards that environment.
What causes people to overeat? Really? They choose to. I didn't think I had to spell that one out for you or anyone else.
That's also incorrect. Everyone who over eats doesn't get fat. For example children who over eat grow, people who lift weights and over eat grow muscles.
Over eating isn't the problem.
You state it's a choice, so I guess you never binged in your life.
So what IS the problem, (in your mind)?
People are looking at the energy balance incorrectly. The energy balance equation looks like this. In terms of obesity. FatGain = CaloriesConsumed – Calories Burned. This is proven by mathematics, it’s true. It states if you consume more energy than you burn you get fatter. That’s just stating the obvious.
Look at it from fat cells growth. FatGain = EnergyInFatCells – EnergyOutOfFatCells. This states, The more fat that goes in to your cells the compared to coming out the fatter you get. Looking at the 2 equations.
FatGain = CaloriesConsumed – Calories Burned
FatGain = EnergyInFatCells – EnergyOutOfFatCells
Now the beauty of mathematics.
EnergyInFatCells – EnergyOutOfFatCells = CaloriesConsumed – CaloriesBurned. TADA!
Now with that stated, looking at the Fat Cell side of the equation. If we focus on getting fat OUT of the cells, we will CONSUME LESS CALORIES, or we will expend more energy. This is a LAW of mathematics. So the oppsotie would be true, The more energy we put in to our fat cells the fatter we get. The question at the heart of the matter is, “What causes us to store energy in fat cells? Compared to using the energy for growing in terms of children or building muscle as adults? What dictates where the energy goes? Hormones do.
What hormone is in charge of all this, of putting energy in to fat cells? We all know what it is. It’s elevated levels of insulin. What causes elevated levels of insulin? High GI foods. As insulin goes high, it drops, we try to bring it back up by eating again. Thus we consume more energy(calories). It’s the elevated levels of insulin that cause us to over eat. Most of us know that when we eat simple sugars, we get hungry a lot quicker. Alan Argaon(most people know who he is) Vs Lustig. Lustig claims that sugar is the cause of the obesity epidemic. Alan counters with, “no the problem is due to sedentary life style, and an increase consumption of calories.”
This is the data Alan posts to support his claim
• Meats, eggs, and nut kcals decreased 4%.
• Dairy kcals decreased 3%.
• Percentage of fruit kcals stayed the same.
• Percentage of vegetable kcals stayed the same.
• Flour and cereal product kcals increased 3%.
• Added fat kcals are up 7%,
• Added sugars kcals decreased 1%
• Total energy intake in 1970 averaged 2172 kcal. By 2007 this hiked up to 2775 kcal, a 603 kcal increase.
Fats and flour/cereal products calories increased as well as fats.
Look at the GI index of flours. they are HIGHER THAN SUGAR. No wonder why we eat more. We’re just walking around more hungry. Explaining the increase of fat intake? Most high GI foods are laced with high amounts of fats. Think of pastries, cookies, things of that sort. So Alan is incorrect. A lot of the experienced members go to him for advice. They read his crap, and parrot it back on MFP. Then it gets to most of you guys. Most people are too lazy to think, or do their own research. I wouldn’t listen to anyone on MFP with a personal agenda, such as creating groups, building a big following crowd, and selling personal coaching services.
Also think of this, when people reduce calories, doing things like MFP. they reduce total calories. This also lowers carbs. No one cuts down on protein and fats, and increases carbs. There are vegans, but those foods are low GI. So the insulin response isn’t that big.
The issue is that people are walking around with some degree of insulin resistances brought on by dietary habits. This is why we usually eat more. With that stated, there is also genetic factors. Some people do absolutely fine with high GI carbs. We all know those people who eat junk food all day and are rail thin. I personally believe that MOST people have some degree of insulin resistances. It lies on a spectrum, people fall somewhere within the spectrum.
Your understanding of what you just posted is so so so terribly low.
And lol@law of mathematics
you're making blank claims. Back up how my post is "terribly low"
The law of mathematics. If you ever taken a course in arithmetic, such as 2+2=4, You know understand how math laws are true. That is called the law of addition.
Your understanding is low because what you were referring to is a law of thermodynamics, not a law of mathematics. No one here has ever said 2+2=4 is a false claim.
Your understanding is awful because you are stating that weight loss is due to calorie deficits, weight gain by calorie surplus, obesity by sugar/high GI foods/insulin, that increasing your EAT does not lead to weight loss, and some crap about insulin resistence.
Your posts are all over the place, riddled with incorrect terms, and contradictory. THAT is why your understanding is awful.0 -
If God wanted you to eat candy bars he would of made them grow on trees.
So if your diary were open we would only see things that grow on trees, correct?
Just back out quietly and don't make eye contact, you just may survive the afternoon.
WOW! Did you jus' threat OP?
LOL
Nope, just the facts, man. Just the facts. Or is it fax. Wait.
ETA Oh *kitten*, I just ate a candy bar. Am I gunna die now? Hang on while I call to make sure my insurance premiums are paid.0 -
Yet you also count calories. You think animals in the wild sit there counting calories?
Animals in the wild are also not surrounded by an infinite supply of food, if they don't catch food they do not eat. Animals not counting calories tells us nothing...
There are lean people in the US, that are surrounded with tons of food too. So your statement also tells us nothing.
I'm lean, I eat sugar every day. I eat protein, carbs, fat, sugar, blah blah blah. Most of the people I know who are obese eat much higher amounts of carbohydrates and fats than they do of just plain sugar as you are referring to it (even though the carbohydrates they eat are converted to sugar). They are obese because they overeat in general and don't do much physical activity.
The high numbers of childhood obesity in our country can be directly linked to a decrease in physical activity and an increase in overeating in general, not in sugar intake.
Once again, activity means nothing. Isolated exercise "activity" doesn't produce significant changes in body weight.
"CONCLUSION:
Moderate-intensity aerobic exercise programs of 6-12 months induce a modest reduction in weight and waist circumference in overweight and obese populations. Our results show that isolated aerobic exercise is not an effective weight loss therapy in these patients. Isolated aerobic exercise provides modest benefits to blood pressure and lipid levels and may still be an effective weight loss therapy in conjunction with diets"
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21787904
Way to read 1/2 of what I wrote, as said that there was an increase in overeating in general, not in eating too much sugar.0 -
He is a quack who wants to make a buck selling books. Alan Aragon will destroy him in debate next year.Once again depends what they eat.
You missed the point. The point was that over eating is a CAUSE of something. The cause is hormones.
You're missing the only point.
Can you please state Taubes as your source. I mean the guy is a quack, but you should at least have enough respect for him as a fictional author to not plagiarize.
He's not a quack, you just don't understand what he's saying as most people don't understand what he's saying.
http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.ca/2011/08/carbohydrate-hypothesis-of-obesity.html
A quack that sells books? Sounds like Lyle Mcdonald.
Or people who sells personal coaching services on MFP.
I didn't read that, link i'll read it later. I skimmed through it. I thought it was about a debate coming up. I would like to watch it.
As I already pointed out, Alans views are flawed. He doesn't even realize he's posting supporting evidence for the consumption of high GI foods which have a higher insulin response than sugar. As Taubes states, and others, this is what is making us fat.0 -
There is no problem. Those children and those bodybuilders are not overeating. They are eating what they need to fuel their growth.OMG! LOL you people eat your sugar if you want it is a free country! I am not sugar police. You would think I smacked the candy bar right out of some of your hands.
People are getting on your case because you're spreading misinformation. Sugar is only "DANGEROUS" if you have diabetes, and even then only if you take in too much. Sugar is in most things, and in many things that are a very nutritious and important part of a well-balanced diet. To tell people they should stay away from it or that it is super duper dangerous and causes cancer, is a) false and b) beyond extreme.
Also, to assume everyone who is / was overweight got that way purely because they ate a lot of sugar makes you appear to be an ignorant, rude individual. You are not a doctor, obviously, nor are you a scientist or a biologist, or else I'd assume you would / could back up your claims with some solid evidence. You're going off one book, and it's a bad book.
Sugar(high GI) foods are the culprit of obesity.
Why don't you explain to us how most people became over weight?
By consuming more food than they needed to and not using the excess energy - which was then stored in fat cells and caused them to balloon up to an uncomfortable and / or unhealthy weight. People can also lose weight by NOT cutting out sugar from their diets, any many do. Imagine that.
That doesn’t explain anything. For example the law energy balance in terms of weight gain/loss states. You get fat by eating more calories than you consume. That just states the obvious. Explains absolutely nothing. If I said to you, “It’s hot outside because it’s not cold” is a pretty idiotic statement. That’s how idiotic the statement of, “you get fat because you consume more calories than you burn” There is nothing that states the “CAUSE” of why people over eat, why people are obese. So try again.
BTW: There are certain types of cancers that feed on glucose. If you provide an environment for certain life forms to exist, it's very possible they will gravity towards that environment.
What causes people to overeat? Really? They choose to. I didn't think I had to spell that one out for you or anyone else.
That's also incorrect. Everyone who over eats doesn't get fat. For example children who over eat grow, people who lift weights and over eat grow muscles.
Over eating isn't the problem.
You state it's a choice, so I guess you never binged in your life.
So what IS the problem, (in your mind)?
^^^^^^THIS!!!!! I have a nearly 12yo son. He is approaching 5'6" and weighs all of 93 or 94 lbs, but he EATS over 2000 calories a day. He is not overeating, he is eating to fuel his constant freaking growth. Did I mention his new lacrosse cleats are a men's size 11? Jeebus.0 -
He is a quack who wants to make a buck selling books. Alan Aragon will destroy him in debate next year.Once again depends what they eat.
You missed the point. The point was that over eating is a CAUSE of something. The cause is hormones.
You're missing the only point.
Can you please state Taubes as your source. I mean the guy is a quack, but you should at least have enough respect for him as a fictional author to not plagiarize.
He's not a quack, you just don't understand what he's saying as most people don't understand what he's saying.
http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.ca/2011/08/carbohydrate-hypothesis-of-obesity.html
A quack that sells books? Sounds like Lyle Mcdonald.
Or people who sells personal coaching services on MFP.
I didn't read that, link i'll read it later. I skimmed through it. I thought it was about a debate coming up. I would like to watch it.
As I already pointed out, Alans views are flawed. He doesn't even realize he's posting supporting evidence for the consumption of high GI foods which have a higher insulin response than sugar. As Taubes states, and others, this is what is making us fat.
0 -
Like I asked earlier do you even know how GI is measured? You do realize that you can take a high GI food and make it low GI just by consuming it with a mixed meal of protein ,fat and fiber.
He is a quack who wants to make a buck selling books. Alan Aragon will destroy him in debate next year.Once again depends what they eat.
You missed the point. The point was that over eating is a CAUSE of something. The cause is hormones.
You're missing the only point.
Can you please state Taubes as your source. I mean the guy is a quack, but you should at least have enough respect for him as a fictional author to not plagiarize.
He's not a quack, you just don't understand what he's saying as most people don't understand what he's saying.
http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.ca/2011/08/carbohydrate-hypothesis-of-obesity.html
A quack that sells books? Sounds like Lyle Mcdonald.
Or people who sells personal coaching services on MFP.
I didn't read that, link i'll read it later. I skimmed through it. I thought it was about a debate coming up. I would like to watch it.
As I already pointed out, Alans views are flawed. He doesn't even realize he's posting supporting evidence for the consumption of high GI foods which have a higher insulin response than sugar. As Taubes states, and others, this is what is making us fat.0 -
Yet you also count calories. You think animals in the wild sit there counting calories?
Animals in the wild are also not surrounded by an infinite supply of food, if they don't catch food they do not eat. Animals not counting calories tells us nothing...
There are lean people in the US, that are surrounded with tons of food too. So your statement also tells us nothing.
I'm lean, I eat sugar every day. I eat protein, carbs, fat, sugar, blah blah blah. Most of the people I know who are obese eat much higher amounts of carbohydrates and fats than they do of just plain sugar as you are referring to it (even though the carbohydrates they eat are converted to sugar). They are obese because they overeat in general and don't do much physical activity.
The high numbers of childhood obesity in our country can be directly linked to a decrease in physical activity and an increase in overeating in general, not in sugar intake.
Once again, activity means nothing. Isolated exercise "activity" doesn't produce significant changes in body weight.
"CONCLUSION:
Moderate-intensity aerobic exercise programs of 6-12 months induce a modest reduction in weight and waist circumference in overweight and obese populations. Our results show that isolated aerobic exercise is not an effective weight loss therapy in these patients. Isolated aerobic exercise provides modest benefits to blood pressure and lipid levels and may still be an effective weight loss therapy in conjunction with diets"
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21787904
Way to read 1/2 of what I wrote, as said that there was an increase in overeating in general, not in eating too much sugar.
"way to read only half of what I wrote."
We're OVER EATING because we're eating high GI foods which CAUSE US TO OVER EAT.
But yes, I was going to address your post fully, I saw it, but I thought I didn't reply. I was trying to find it.
As I said in my post, genetic factors play a role as well.
You don't look overweight/obese. More than likely you have no issues with insulin resistances.
If you saw my long post, an increase of flour/cereal products has happened. These foods have a very high GI index. Higher than sugar. This change is causing the problem.0 -
Like I asked earlier do you even know how GI is measured? You do realize that you can take a high GI food and make it low GI just by consuming it with a mixed meal of protein ,fat and fiber.
He is a quack who wants to make a buck selling books. Alan Aragon will destroy him in debate next year.Once again depends what they eat.
You missed the point. The point was that over eating is a CAUSE of something. The cause is hormones.
You're missing the only point.
Can you please state Taubes as your source. I mean the guy is a quack, but you should at least have enough respect for him as a fictional author to not plagiarize.
He's not a quack, you just don't understand what he's saying as most people don't understand what he's saying.
http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.ca/2011/08/carbohydrate-hypothesis-of-obesity.html
A quack that sells books? Sounds like Lyle Mcdonald.
Or people who sells personal coaching services on MFP.
I didn't read that, link i'll read it later. I skimmed through it. I thought it was about a debate coming up. I would like to watch it.
As I already pointed out, Alans views are flawed. He doesn't even realize he's posting supporting evidence for the consumption of high GI foods which have a higher insulin response than sugar. As Taubes states, and others, this is what is making us fat.
Yes, but do you know what GI measures? How quickly glucose raises in the blood. Thus insulin levels.0 -
It's funny you say you support the law of thermodynamics but go on to argue how sugar is making us fat /face desk.0
-
Yet you also count calories. You think animals in the wild sit there counting calories?
Animals in the wild are also not surrounded by an infinite supply of food, if they don't catch food they do not eat. Animals not counting calories tells us nothing...
There are lean people in the US, that are surrounded with tons of food too. So your statement also tells us nothing.
I'm lean, I eat sugar every day. I eat protein, carbs, fat, sugar, blah blah blah. Most of the people I know who are obese eat much higher amounts of carbohydrates and fats than they do of just plain sugar as you are referring to it (even though the carbohydrates they eat are converted to sugar). They are obese because they overeat in general and don't do much physical activity.
The high numbers of childhood obesity in our country can be directly linked to a decrease in physical activity and an increase in overeating in general, not in sugar intake.
Once again, activity means nothing. Isolated exercise "activity" doesn't produce significant changes in body weight.
"CONCLUSION:
Moderate-intensity aerobic exercise programs of 6-12 months induce a modest reduction in weight and waist circumference in overweight and obese populations. Our results show that isolated aerobic exercise is not an effective weight loss therapy in these patients. Isolated aerobic exercise provides modest benefits to blood pressure and lipid levels and may still be an effective weight loss therapy in conjunction with diets"
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21787904
That study did not measure changes in calorie consumption or hold them static, therefore is pointless.0 -
How an 8 year old makes strawberries. . .
Just to say, this looks delicious.0 -
Yet you also count calories. You think animals in the wild sit there counting calories?
Animals in the wild are also not surrounded by an infinite supply of food, if they don't catch food they do not eat. Animals not counting calories tells us nothing...
There are lean people in the US, that are surrounded with tons of food too. So your statement also tells us nothing.
I'm lean, I eat sugar every day. I eat protein, carbs, fat, sugar, blah blah blah. Most of the people I know who are obese eat much higher amounts of carbohydrates and fats than they do of just plain sugar as you are referring to it (even though the carbohydrates they eat are converted to sugar). They are obese because they overeat in general and don't do much physical activity.
The high numbers of childhood obesity in our country can be directly linked to a decrease in physical activity and an increase in overeating in general, not in sugar intake.
Once again, activity means nothing. Isolated exercise "activity" doesn't produce significant changes in body weight.
"CONCLUSION:
Moderate-intensity aerobic exercise programs of 6-12 months induce a modest reduction in weight and waist circumference in overweight and obese populations. Our results show that isolated aerobic exercise is not an effective weight loss therapy in these patients. Isolated aerobic exercise provides modest benefits to blood pressure and lipid levels and may still be an effective weight loss therapy in conjunction with diets"
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21787904
Way to read 1/2 of what I wrote, as said that there was an increase in overeating in general, not in eating too much sugar.
"way to read only half of what I wrote."
We're OVER EATING because we're eating high GI foods which CAUSE US TO OVER EAT.
But yes, I was going to address your post fully, I saw it, but I thought I didn't reply. I was trying to find it.
As I said in my post, genetic factors play a role as well.
You don't look overweight/obese. More than likely you have no issues with insulin resistances.
If you saw my long post, an increase of flour/cereal products has happened. These foods have a very high GI index. Higher than sugar. This change is causing the problem.
that's ridiculous. Explain fat people on Atkin's. and fat people doing the 'gluten-free' fad. and fat people with Celiac disease. Anyone can be fat who overeats. It has nothing to do with one specific food source and everything with conscious choice to open one's mouth and put more food in than one needs, calorically.0 -
Hormones may make people WANT to eat more, but they can't force people to eat more. Eating more than you burn is what makes people gain weight, period. WHY they choose to eat more has nothing to do with that equation.
No one is arguing that hormones can make people hungry - at least, I'm not. I'm well aware of that.0 -
He is a quack who wants to make a buck selling books. Alan Aragon will destroy him in debate next year.Once again depends what they eat.
You missed the point. The point was that over eating is a CAUSE of something. The cause is hormones.
You're missing the only point.
Can you please state Taubes as your source. I mean the guy is a quack, but you should at least have enough respect for him as a fictional author to not plagiarize.
He's not a quack, you just don't understand what he's saying as most people don't understand what he's saying.
http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.ca/2011/08/carbohydrate-hypothesis-of-obesity.html
A quack that sells books? Sounds like Lyle Mcdonald.
Or people who sells personal coaching services on MFP.
I didn't read that, link i'll read it later. I skimmed through it. I thought it was about a debate coming up. I would like to watch it.
As I already pointed out, Alans views are flawed. He doesn't even realize he's posting supporting evidence for the consumption of high GI foods which have a higher insulin response than sugar. As Taubes states, and others, this is what is making us fat.
Incase you missed it.
"Alan Argaon(most people know who he is) Vs Lustig. Lustig claims that sugar is the cause of the obesity epidemic. Alan counters with, “no the problem is due to sedentary life style, and an increase consumption of calories.”
This is the data Alan posts to support his claim
• Meats, eggs, and nut kcals decreased 4%.
• Dairy kcals decreased 3%.
• Percentage of fruit kcals stayed the same.
• Percentage of vegetable kcals stayed the same.
• Flour and cereal product kcals increased 3%.
• Added fat kcals are up 7%,
• Added sugars kcals decreased 1%
• Total energy intake in 1970 averaged 2172 kcal. By 2007 this hiked up to 2775 kcal, a 603 kcal increase.
Fats and flour/cereal products calories increased as well as fats.
Look at the GI index of flours. they are HIGHER THAN SUGAR. No wonder why we eat more. We’re just walking around more hungry. Explaining the increase of fat intake? Most high GI foods are laced with high amounts of fats. Think of pastries, cookies, things of that sort. So Alan is incorrect. "0 -
Pasta and snickers are low GI and Fruit is high GI....therfore fruit makes us fat.....got it, thanks, your smart.Yet you also count calories. You think animals in the wild sit there counting calories?
Animals in the wild are also not surrounded by an infinite supply of food, if they don't catch food they do not eat. Animals not counting calories tells us nothing...
There are lean people in the US, that are surrounded with tons of food too. So your statement also tells us nothing.
I'm lean, I eat sugar every day. I eat protein, carbs, fat, sugar, blah blah blah. Most of the people I know who are obese eat much higher amounts of carbohydrates and fats than they do of just plain sugar as you are referring to it (even though the carbohydrates they eat are converted to sugar). They are obese because they overeat in general and don't do much physical activity.
The high numbers of childhood obesity in our country can be directly linked to a decrease in physical activity and an increase in overeating in general, not in sugar intake.
Once again, activity means nothing. Isolated exercise "activity" doesn't produce significant changes in body weight.
"CONCLUSION:
Moderate-intensity aerobic exercise programs of 6-12 months induce a modest reduction in weight and waist circumference in overweight and obese populations. Our results show that isolated aerobic exercise is not an effective weight loss therapy in these patients. Isolated aerobic exercise provides modest benefits to blood pressure and lipid levels and may still be an effective weight loss therapy in conjunction with diets"
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21787904
Way to read 1/2 of what I wrote, as said that there was an increase in overeating in general, not in eating too much sugar.
"way to read only half of what I wrote."
We're OVER EATING because we're eating high GI foods which CAUSE US TO OVER EAT.
But yes, I was going to address your post fully, I saw it, but I thought I didn't reply. I was trying to find it.
As I said in my post, genetic factors play a role as well.
You don't look overweight/obese. More than likely you have no issues with insulin resistances.
If you saw my long post, an increase of flour/cereal products has happened. These foods have a very high GI index. Higher than sugar. This change is causing the problem.0 -
He is a quack who wants to make a buck selling books. Alan Aragon will destroy him in debate next year.Once again depends what they eat.
You missed the point. The point was that over eating is a CAUSE of something. The cause is hormones.
You're missing the only point.
Can you please state Taubes as your source. I mean the guy is a quack, but you should at least have enough respect for him as a fictional author to not plagiarize.
He's not a quack, you just don't understand what he's saying as most people don't understand what he's saying.
http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.ca/2011/08/carbohydrate-hypothesis-of-obesity.html
A quack that sells books? Sounds like Lyle Mcdonald.
Or people who sells personal coaching services on MFP.
I didn't read that, link i'll read it later. I skimmed through it. I thought it was about a debate coming up. I would like to watch it.
As I already pointed out, Alans views are flawed. He doesn't even realize he's posting supporting evidence for the consumption of high GI foods which have a higher insulin response than sugar. As Taubes states, and others, this is what is making us fat.
Incase you missed it.
"Alan Argaon(most people know who he is) Vs Lustig. Lustig claims that sugar is the cause of the obesity epidemic. Alan counters with, “no the problem is due to sedentary life style, and an increase consumption of calories.”
This is the data Alan posts to support his claim
• Meats, eggs, and nut kcals decreased 4%.
• Dairy kcals decreased 3%.
• Percentage of fruit kcals stayed the same.
• Percentage of vegetable kcals stayed the same.
• Flour and cereal product kcals increased 3%.
• Added fat kcals are up 7%,
• Added sugars kcals decreased 1%
• Total energy intake in 1970 averaged 2172 kcal. By 2007 this hiked up to 2775 kcal, a 603 kcal increase.
Fats and flour/cereal products calories increased as well as fats.
Look at the GI index of flours. they are HIGHER THAN SUGAR. No wonder why we eat more. We’re just walking around more hungry. Explaining the increase of fat intake? Most high GI foods are laced with high amounts of fats. Think of pastries, cookies, things of that sort. So Alan is incorrect. "
No, you simply do not understand the nuances of what you copy/pasted.0 -
Fiber, fat and protein slow down the GI response. Example, putting meat on bread, you know like making a sandwich, dramatically lowers the GI response. Putting butter on bread lowers GI response. Who eats high GI flour by itself without adding yummy frosting to it, which again dramatically lowers the GI response. Most people eat dessert after a meal, which lowers the GI response. Are you starting to see how meaningless Gi becomes.
Like I asked earlier do you even know how GI is measured? You do realize that you can take a high GI food and make it low GI just by consuming it with a mixed meal of protein ,fat and fiber.
He is a quack who wants to make a buck selling books. Alan Aragon will destroy him in debate next year.Once again depends what they eat.
You missed the point. The point was that over eating is a CAUSE of something. The cause is hormones.
You're missing the only point.
Can you please state Taubes as your source. I mean the guy is a quack, but you should at least have enough respect for him as a fictional author to not plagiarize.
He's not a quack, you just don't understand what he's saying as most people don't understand what he's saying.
http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.ca/2011/08/carbohydrate-hypothesis-of-obesity.html
A quack that sells books? Sounds like Lyle Mcdonald.
Or people who sells personal coaching services on MFP.
I didn't read that, link i'll read it later. I skimmed through it. I thought it was about a debate coming up. I would like to watch it.
As I already pointed out, Alans views are flawed. He doesn't even realize he's posting supporting evidence for the consumption of high GI foods which have a higher insulin response than sugar. As Taubes states, and others, this is what is making us fat.
Yes, but do you know what GI measures? How quickly glucose raises in the blood. Thus insulin levels.0 -
Hormones may make people WANT to eat more, but they can't force people to eat more. Eating more than you burn is what makes people gain weight, period. WHY they choose to eat more has nothing to do with that equation.
No one is arguing that hormones can make people hungry - at least, I'm not. I'm well aware of that.
In a free living country, if people are hungry, they will more than likely eat. Calorie restriction(monitoring calories), is not the solution to the problem. You can sit there eating high GI foods all day. If you're under your calorie limit, you won't get fat.
But that doesn't explain "WHY" most Americans are fat. To "solve" the problem, I believe they have to limit high GI foods.0 -
Hormones may make people WANT to eat more, but they can't force people to eat more. Eating more than you burn is what makes people gain weight, period. WHY they choose to eat more has nothing to do with that equation.
No one is arguing that hormones can make people hungry - at least, I'm not. I'm well aware of that.
In a free living country, if people are hungry, they will more than likely eat. Calorie restriction(monitoring calories), is not the solution to the problem. You can sit there eating high GI foods all day. If you're under your calorie limit, you won't get fat.
But that doesn't explain "WHY" most Americans are fat. To "solve" the problem, I believe they have to limit high GI foods.
Stop, just stop, your stupidity is making my brain hurt.
Why are you even on a calorie counting site?0 -
Fiber, fat and protein slow down the GI response. Example, putting meat on bread, you know like making a sandwich, dramatically lowers the GI response. Putting butter on bread lowers GI response. Who eats high GI flour by itself without adding yummy frosting to it, which again dramatically lowers the GI response. Most people eat dessert after a meal, which lowers the GI response. Are you starting to see how meaningless Gi becomes.
Like I asked earlier do you even know how GI is measured? You do realize that you can take a high GI food and make it low GI just by consuming it with a mixed meal of protein ,fat and fiber.
He is a quack who wants to make a buck selling books. Alan Aragon will destroy him in debate next year.Once again depends what they eat.
You missed the point. The point was that over eating is a CAUSE of something. The cause is hormones.
You're missing the only point.
Can you please state Taubes as your source. I mean the guy is a quack, but you should at least have enough respect for him as a fictional author to not plagiarize.
He's not a quack, you just don't understand what he's saying as most people don't understand what he's saying.
http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.ca/2011/08/carbohydrate-hypothesis-of-obesity.html
A quack that sells books? Sounds like Lyle Mcdonald.
Or people who sells personal coaching services on MFP.
I didn't read that, link i'll read it later. I skimmed through it. I thought it was about a debate coming up. I would like to watch it.
As I already pointed out, Alans views are flawed. He doesn't even realize he's posting supporting evidence for the consumption of high GI foods which have a higher insulin response than sugar. As Taubes states, and others, this is what is making us fat.
Yes, but do you know what GI measures? How quickly glucose raises in the blood. Thus insulin levels.
Look at it like this. YOur sandwhich example. What has a higher GI response, some sandwhich meat, with mayo and the vegetables you choose.
Or the same exact thing with adding bread?
It does matter.
I'll come back to all this later. Really busy right now.0 -
Yes, but do you know what GI measures? How quickly glucose raises in the blood. Thus insulin levels.
In the context of an entire meal the GI index is pointless...0 -
Hormones may make people WANT to eat more, but they can't force people to eat more. Eating more than you burn is what makes people gain weight, period. WHY they choose to eat more has nothing to do with that equation.
No one is arguing that hormones can make people hungry - at least, I'm not. I'm well aware of that.
In a free living country, if people are hungry, they will more than likely eat. Calorie restriction(monitoring calories), is not the solution to the problem. You can sit there eating high GI foods all day. If you're under your calorie limit, you won't get fat.
But that doesn't explain "WHY" most Americans are fat. To "solve" the problem, I believe they have to limit high GI foods.
So as opposed to monitoring and restricting calories, which you understand will cause weight loss, you would rather monitor and restrict certain foods, which will not necessarily guarentee weight loss.
I really hope you are pretty.0 -
avi-less, no ticker internet experts disagree.Yes, but do you know what GI measures? How quickly glucose raises in the blood. Thus insulin levels.
In the context of an entire meal the GI index is pointless...0 -
Hormones may make people WANT to eat more, but they can't force people to eat more. Eating more than you burn is what makes people gain weight, period. WHY they choose to eat more has nothing to do with that equation.
No one is arguing that hormones can make people hungry - at least, I'm not. I'm well aware of that.
In a free living country, if people are hungry, they will more than likely eat. Calorie restriction(monitoring calories), is not the solution to the problem. You can sit there eating high GI foods all day. If you're under your calorie limit, you won't get fat.
But that doesn't explain "WHY" most Americans are fat. To "solve" the problem, I believe they have to limit high GI foods.
Stop, just stop, your stupidity is making my brain hurt.
Why are you even on a calorie counting site?
People's brains hurt when they don't have the intellectual capacity to understand something.
You know, if I start showing equations of differential equations, and advanced physics(engineering physics) and you sit there trying to understand it.
Okay as I said, i'll catch up later people.0 -
Hormones may make people WANT to eat more, but they can't force people to eat more. Eating more than you burn is what makes people gain weight, period. WHY they choose to eat more has nothing to do with that equation.
No one is arguing that hormones can make people hungry - at least, I'm not. I'm well aware of that.
In a free living country, if people are hungry, they will more than likely eat. Calorie restriction(monitoring calories), is not the solution to the problem. You can sit there eating high GI foods all day. If you're under your calorie limit, you won't get fat.
But that doesn't explain "WHY" most Americans are fat. To "solve" the problem, I believe they have to limit high GI foods.
Explain fats and oils to me, then. My mother became overweight not from eating too much sugar and carbs, but from using too much butter and oils when cooking and eating fatty meats. Sugar isn't the reason people gain weight, eating too many calories is.0 -
This content has been removed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions