sugar toxic
Options
Replies
-
And to all you Primal followers and Sisson fans, if you believe that sugar is toxic, Sisson is trying to kill you
Take a look at the ingredients of his Primal Fuel
Speaking of people bringing up arguments that no one else did, WHF does that have to do with anything.
I don't know, maybe the topic? Wasn't this thread started to talk about if sugar is toxic or not?
right, so why did you bring up primal? We know, but to say the reason would not make me popular with the mods around here
Seeing as as their were some Primal/Paleo adherents in the thread, it was to make them aware that if sugar was indeed toxic, Sisson was trying to poison them. If you think otherwise, go ahead and let's hear it
no one mentioned primal until you did, it is just more porof that your BS thread "let's talk primal" was nothing but a hit job like I said. This thread was about a 60 min piece on sugar nothing more nothing less. we know what you are about and you just provided more evidence to that fact.0 -
And to all you Primal followers and Sisson fans, if you believe that sugar is toxic, Sisson is trying to kill you
Take a look at the ingredients of his Primal Fuel
Speaking of people bringing up arguments that no one else did, WHF does that have to do with anything.
I don't know, maybe the topic? Wasn't this thread started to talk about if sugar is toxic or not?
right, so why did you bring up primal? We know, but to say the reason would not make me popular with the mods around here
Seeing as as their were some Primal/Paleo adherents in the thread, it was to make them aware that if sugar was indeed toxic, Sisson was trying to poison them. If you think otherwise, go ahead and let's hear it
sisson isnt the be all and end all of health. he obvi has other things in mind like...making money off his products!!! which IMO are no better than any other protein product or whatever other supplement out there. its bologna if you ask me
i will prob be cast off the primal island haha0 -
It wouldn't be if people actually followed it."Eat less, move more" has been the mainstream approach for decades and it has failed time and time again.
A.C.E. Certified Personal & Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
At this point it really boils down to a philosophical question as to why people don't follow it. You either believe the mind controls the body or the body controls the mind. People come up with all these behavioral changes they need to do to lose weight and/or keep it off. For me it was so simple. I exercise the same amount. I eat the same portions (at least I haven't made any direct changes to my portions or plate sizes). I eat with the same frequency. The only difference is the choice of food items I make each and every time I decide to eat. So my philosophy is that the body controls the mind. The food itself controls me through bodily response.0 -
And to all you Primal followers and Sisson fans, if you believe that sugar is toxic, Sisson is trying to kill you
Take a look at the ingredients of his Primal Fuel
Speaking of people bringing up arguments that no one else did, WHF does that have to do with anything.
I don't know, maybe the topic? Wasn't this thread started to talk about if sugar is toxic or not?
right, so why did you bring up primal? We know, but to say the reason would not make me popular with the mods around here
Seeing as as their were some Primal/Paleo adherents in the thread, it was to make them aware that if sugar was indeed toxic, Sisson was trying to poison them. If you think otherwise, go ahead and let's hear it
no one mentioned primal until you did, it is just more porof that your BS thread "let's talk primal" was nothing but a hit job like I said. This thread was about a 60 min piece on sugar nothing more nothing less. we know what you are about and you just provided more evidence to that fact.
First explain how talking about the paleo diet in an objective manner was a hit job, be specific please. And what am I about, go on...0 -
Sorry, I'm confused about the label. I'm only seeing 5 grams of dietary sugar and sucrose listed in the ingredients. How does this mean Sisson is trying to poison his followers? Pardon my cluelessness.0
-
Sorry, I'm confused about the label. I'm only seeing 5 grams of dietary sugar and sucrose listed in the ingredients. How does this mean Sisson is trying to poison his followers? Pardon my cluelessness.
I think we can also agree that alcohol is toxic, but many of us consume it as well. Its just a matter of knowing your limit. Its pretty obvious with alcohol but not so much with sugar.0 -
Sorry, I'm confused about the label. I'm only seeing 5 grams of dietary sugar and sucrose listed in the ingredients. How does this mean Sisson is trying to poison his followers? Pardon my cluelessness.
Are you trying to imply that dosage and context matter? Interesting0 -
How exactly is 'eat less and move more' a proven way to work? And have you heard of leptin and does it not matter? Is the primary reason for long-term diet failure because people think they have permission to shove food endlessly down their gullet post-diet?
Yes, the primary reason for failure is the lack of acknowledgement of how much they eat. It's been shown that thinner people report more calories than they actually ate and fatter people report less calories than they actually ate. Humans are accountable for themselves. There are millions of successful people who have gone under 10% and maintain physiques in the 10-15% range.
Now, of course, hormones and genetics play an incredibly large role but please don't use leptin as an excuse for someone to stay at 20%. People fail because they have no clue what to do once they've achieved that body. They don't understand what reverse dieting is. Reverse dieting exists to help normalize hormones, especially leptin.
On diet breaks:
"The physiological stuff is the stuff I talk about all the time here on the site, on the forum and elsewhere. When folks diet and lose weight/fat, the body adjusts metabolic rate downwards. While a majority of this is simply due to weighing less (smaller bodies burn fewer calories), there is also an adaptive component, a greater decrease in metabolic rate than would be predicted due to changes in things like leptin, insulin, thyroid hormones, etc.
By moving to roughly maintenance for a couple of weeks, many of those hormones are given time to recover. Thyroid hormones come back up, as does leptin. This is a big part of the reason for the recommendation to raise carbs to 100-150 grams per day as a minimum.
Thyroid hormones are distinctly sensitive to carbohydrate intake as are leptin levels (especially in the short-term). Just raising calories but keeping the diet very low carb doesn’t accomplish everything hormonally I want the full diet break to do."
Any way you slice it, a caloric deficit must be present for fat to be lost. If you currently are not losing weight then you must decrease it more. Yes, your body can adapt to a certain intake. Why do you think a bodybuilder starts at, for example, 3000 calories and, by the end of the cut, ends up at 2000? Stalls happen. Hormones change. But once you're done dieting, you should REVERSE diet. People go off a diet by simply eating. They have no idea how much they're really eat and their body is primed to gain fat.
So, to extent, you're correct. It is proven that post-diet you are primed to put fat back and it's quite possible to put all of it back on. It happens all the time. But is it leptin's fault? Is it the hormones? Or is it a lack of knowledge on post-dieting tactics? Increased fat storage post-dieting is negative effects on hormones, which is why reverse dieting exists. One should seek to be strict post-dieting only for a little while longer to ensure that they properly come off the diet and normalize hormones.
But if we take your position, we have removed accountability yet we can't do that. Fat gain post-dieting is the dieter's fault. Yes, they're more susceptible to fat gain but please do not suggest that it isn't the dieter's fault. The fat gain could not exist without the dieter picking up more food than they need and stuffing it in their gullet. Plain and simple, no other way around that. If it were the hormone's fault then fat gain would exist regardless of food intake.but what defines a flexible diet to you? to me counting calories and doing all sorts of math and living within certain limitations and having to work out extra if i splurge a little seems restrictive. i just choose to make good food decisions MOST of the time and work out a little (3 or 4 days a week) and if i want a treat i have one. i dont count anything and i dont adhere to any nutrient paramaters. i eat when i feel hungry and eat what tastes good. i dont eat food that makes me feel sick or gives me digestive problems. and if i want dessert i have it and i DONT feel guilty about it. oh and i have lost 35 lbs. the thought of actually counting calories and monitoring everything i eat seems restrictive and a pain. and i would much rather not have to do a bunch of math and adding. as long as i have a general idea of what goes on my plate i am fine. how is that not something to live with?
I am failing to see your point. Flexible dieting is something that is flexible to fit someone's lifestyle. It's not particularly definable hence FLEXIBLE.0 -
[First explain how talking about the paleo diet in an objective manner was a hit job, be specific please. And what am I about, go on...
objective manner is the key, you did not, and this post is just more proof.
As for the rest of you FDA, calorie is a calorie followers, move along nothing to see here have a great life
0 -
Pretty much anything is toxic if you ingest too much of it.0
-
How exactly is 'eat less and move more' a proven way to work? And have you heard of leptin and does it not matter? Is the primary reason for long-term diet failure because people think they have permission to shove food endlessly down their gullet post-diet?
Yes, the primary reason for failure is the lack of acknowledgement of how much they eat. It's been shown that thinner people report more calories than they actually ate and fatter people report less calories than they actually ate. Humans are accountable for themselves. There are millions of successful people who have gone under 10% and maintain physiques in the 10-15% range.
Now, of course, hormones and genetics play an incredibly large role but please don't use leptin as an excuse for someone to stay at 20%. People fail because they have no clue what to do once they've achieved that body. They don't understand what reverse dieting is. Reverse dieting exists to help normalize hormones, especially leptin.
On diet breaks:
"The physiological stuff is the stuff I talk about all the time here on the site, on the forum and elsewhere. When folks diet and lose weight/fat, the body adjusts metabolic rate downwards. While a majority of this is simply due to weighing less (smaller bodies burn fewer calories), there is also an adaptive component, a greater decrease in metabolic rate than would be predicted due to changes in things like leptin, insulin, thyroid hormones, etc.
By moving to roughly maintenance for a couple of weeks, many of those hormones are given time to recover. Thyroid hormones come back up, as does leptin. This is a big part of the reason for the recommendation to raise carbs to 100-150 grams per day as a minimum.
Thyroid hormones are distinctly sensitive to carbohydrate intake as are leptin levels (especially in the short-term). Just raising calories but keeping the diet very low carb doesn’t accomplish everything hormonally I want the full diet break to do."
Any way you slice it, a caloric deficit must be present for fat to be lost. If you currently are not losing weight then you must decrease it more. Yes, your body can adapt to a certain intake. Why do you think a bodybuilder starts at, for example, 3000 calories and, by the end of the cut, ends up at 2000? Stalls happen. Hormones change. But once you're done dieting, you should REVERSE diet. People go off a diet by simply eating. They have no idea how much they're really eat and their body is primed to gain fat.
So, to extent, you're correct. It is proven that post-diet you are primed to put fat back and it's quite possible to put all of it back on. It happens all the time. But is it leptin's fault? Is it the hormones? Or is it a lack of knowledge on post-dieting tactics? Increased fat storage post-dieting is negative effects on hormones, which is why reverse dieting exists. One should seek to be strict post-dieting only for a little while longer to ensure that they properly come off the diet and normalize hormones.
But if we take your position, we have removed accountability yet we can't do that. Fat gain post-dieting is the dieter's fault. Yes, they're more susceptible to fat gain but please do not suggest that it isn't the dieter's fault. The fat gain could not exist without the dieter picking up more food than they need and stuffing it in their gullet. Plain and simple, no other way around that. If it were the hormone's fault then fat gain would exist regardless of food intake.but what defines a flexible diet to you? to me counting calories and doing all sorts of math and living within certain limitations and having to work out extra if i splurge a little seems restrictive. i just choose to make good food decisions MOST of the time and work out a little (3 or 4 days a week) and if i want a treat i have one. i dont count anything and i dont adhere to any nutrient paramaters. i eat when i feel hungry and eat what tastes good. i dont eat food that makes me feel sick or gives me digestive problems. and if i want dessert i have it and i DONT feel guilty about it. oh and i have lost 35 lbs. the thought of actually counting calories and monitoring everything i eat seems restrictive and a pain. and i would much rather not have to do a bunch of math and adding. as long as i have a general idea of what goes on my plate i am fine. how is that not something to live with?
I am failing to see your point. Flexible dieting is something that is flexible to fit someone's lifestyle. It's not particularly definable hence FLEXIBLE.
I have a hard time believing that the average dieter who loses weight and regains it multiple times doesn't understand that they can't just go back to their old eating habits. And from what I've read, leptin levels are more affected by fat stores than by eating carbohydrates, so you can't just arbitrarily raise leptin by increasing carbs, at least not for more than a very short term basis. I don't really believe that willpower can overcome the body's desire to eat, otherwise diet success rates would have better long-term prognosis.0 -
It's days like this that make me glad I'm not a Sisson groupie.0
-
I don't really believe that willpower can overcome the body's desire to eat, otherwise diet success rates would have better long-term prognosis.
Hahahaha... you realize how undisciplined the average person is?0 -
The main point here is that we all have a free choice to eat sugar or not eat sugar. I should be able to look at all the studies and decided for myself how much sugar I want to eat. People will understand one day when his goal of having sugar restricted like tobacco and alcohol is obtained.0
-
Sorry, I'm confused about the label. I'm only seeing 5 grams of dietary sugar and sucrose listed in the ingredients. How does this mean Sisson is trying to poison his followers? Pardon my cluelessness.
Are you trying to imply that dosage and context matter? Interesting
Of course it matters. And I've read enough of your posts (many of which I find informative and have learned from) to know that one of your biggest problems with Lustig is that he never mentions either in any specific way. I also read the Paleo thread you started and I understand your issue with Primal/ Paleo is the lack of any definitive study citing benefits.
My own personal take on both is sugar is something to be respected and can have addictive properties that can induce cravings in some. It is not toxic and Lustig's statements are overstatements. I also believe not everyone is as disciplined as you, or me or others on this site and too much sugar can cause issues in their diet. do I have any idea how much is too much? Nope. No clue. That is why I believe it needs to be respected as something potentialy hazardous.
I am a Primal eater based on Sisson's book. I have issues with both gluten and cow's diary. So the lack of inflamation from ingesting these items works for me. I feel better. No peer reviewed study required. I don't believe it's an end all and be all diet for all people. I also see the Primal postion as eating food that are least processed and added to and only limiting carbs to a healthy range which he describes as 150 grams give or take for manitenance.
Bottom line, of course context and dosage matter.0 -
I don't really believe that willpower can overcome the body's desire to eat, otherwise diet success rates would have better long-term prognosis.
Hahahaha... you realize how undisciplined the average person is?
I don't think that avoiding a serious health problem like obesity should require such an enormous amount of discipline in such a large number of people if it was largely a behavioral disorder.0 -
It wouldn't be if people actually followed it."Eat less, move more" has been the mainstream approach for decades and it has failed time and time again.
A.C.E. Certified Personal & Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
At this point it really boils down to a philosophical question as to why people don't follow it. You either believe the mind controls the body or the body controls the mind. People come up with all these behavioral changes they need to do to lose weight and/or keep it off. For me it was so simple. I exercise the same amount. I eat the same portions (at least I haven't made any direct changes to my portions or plate sizes). I eat with the same frequency. The only difference is the choice of food items I make each and every time I decide to eat. So my philosophy is that the body controls the mind. The food itself controls me through bodily response.
Wow. So you REALLY would buy the Twinkie defense? How does one get to the point at which you believe you can completely abdicate personal choice and responsibility and go with "the food made me do it"?0 -
It wouldn't be if people actually followed it."Eat less, move more" has been the mainstream approach for decades and it has failed time and time again.
A.C.E. Certified Personal & Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
At this point it really boils down to a philosophical question as to why people don't follow it. You either believe the mind controls the body or the body controls the mind. People come up with all these behavioral changes they need to do to lose weight and/or keep it off. For me it was so simple. I exercise the same amount. I eat the same portions (at least I haven't made any direct changes to my portions or plate sizes). I eat with the same frequency. The only difference is the choice of food items I make each and every time I decide to eat. So my philosophy is that the body controls the mind. The food itself controls me through bodily response.
Wow. So you REALLY would buy the Twinkie defense? How does one get to the point at which you believe you can completely abdicate personal choice and responsibility and go with "the food made me do it"?
Because it doesn't seem to explain the observations and data on obesity throughout the world.0 -
[First explain how talking about the paleo diet in an objective manner was a hit job, be specific please. And what am I about, go on...
objective manner is the key, you did not, and this post is just more proof.
As for the rest of you FDA, calorie is a calorie followers, move along nothing to see here have a great life
Way to cite specifics. I took no stance on the manner and laid out the current evidence for Paleo. Again specifically what makes you think it was a hit job?
A calorie is a unit of measurement, so strictly speaking a calorie is a calorie. And you can continue to live in your fantasy world of metabolic advantages, fat adaptation and non paleo foods are evil.0 -
Sorry, I'm confused about the label. I'm only seeing 5 grams of dietary sugar and sucrose listed in the ingredients. How does this mean Sisson is trying to poison his followers? Pardon my cluelessness.
Are you trying to imply that dosage and context matter? Interesting
Of course it matters. And I've read enough of your posts (many of which I find informative and have learned from) to know that one of your biggest problems with Lustig is that he never mentions either in any specific way. I also read the Paleo thread you started and I understand your issue with Primal/ Paleo is the lack of any definitive study citing benefits.
My own personal take on both is sugar is something to be respected and can have addictive properties that can induce cravings in some. It is not toxic and Lustig's statements are overstatements. I also believe not everyone is as disciplined as you, or me or others on this site and too much sugar can cause issues in their diet. do I have any idea how much is too much? Nope. No clue. That is why I believe it needs to be respected as something potentialy hazardous.
I am a Primal eater based on Sisson's book. I have issues with both gluten and cow's diary. So the lack of inflamation from ingesting these items works for me. I feel better. No peer reviewed study required. I don't believe it's an end all and be all diet for all people. I also see the Primal postion as eating food that are least processed and added to and only limiting carbs to a healthy range which he describes as 150 grams give or take for manitenance.
Bottom line, of course context and dosage matter.
I'm glad we agree that context and dosage actually matter.
I've mentioned repeatedly that I agree with the main premise of Paleo, which is to eat mostly whole, minimally processed foods. It's the whole limiting or eliminating grains/legumes/dairy for everyone that I take issue with. Yet the more zealous Paleo/Primal peeps think I'm against the diet, which I have my suspicions why, but we'll leave that alone for now0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 402 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 998 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions