Sugar is the CULPRIT!

emsainz23

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.

emsainz23

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.

He is a quack who wants to make a buck selling books. Alan Aragon will destroy him in debate next year.
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.

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.

Yes, but do you know what GI measures? How quickly glucose raises in the blood. Thus insulin levels.

BombshellPhoenix

It's funny you say you support the law of thermodynamics but go on to argue how sugar is making us fat /face desk.

wheird

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.

Francl27

How an 8 year old makes strawberries. . .

Just to say, this looks delicious.

mccindy72

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.

Beezil

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.

emsainz23

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.

He is a quack who wants to make a buck selling books. Alan Aragon will destroy him in debate next year.
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. "

neanderthin

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.

Pasta and snickers are low GI and Fruit is high GI....therfore fruit makes us fat.....got it, thanks, your smart.

wheird

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.

He is a quack who wants to make a buck selling books. Alan Aragon will destroy him in debate next year.
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.

eric_sg61

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.

He is a quack who wants to make a buck selling books. Alan Aragon will destroy him in debate next year.
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.

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.

Yes, but do you know what GI measures? How quickly glucose raises in the blood. Thus insulin levels.

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.

emsainz23

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.

asdowe13

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?

emsainz23

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.

He is a quack who wants to make a buck selling books. Alan Aragon will destroy him in debate next year.
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.

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.

Yes, but do you know what GI measures? How quickly glucose raises in the blood. Thus insulin levels.

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.

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.

J72FIT

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...

wheird

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.

eric_sg61

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...

avi-less, no ticker internet experts disagree.

emsainz23

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.

lemonsnowdrop

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.