Where is the science!
Replies
-
All Sugar is not created equal.
I eat Fruit and tons of it. Since I started eating a lot of it, I feel great and my blood work is superb! My cholestoral has dropped. I rarely eat refined sugar...in fact, I rarely want any. My cravings are 99 % gone. Fruit is Good! You can't tell me that a beautiful organic apple picked from a tree is the same as a bowl of fruit loops EVER!!!0 -
Dieting has always been hard. The basic concept of calories in/calories out was fine when all there was to eat was healthy, clean food and we worked hard every day - usually doing physical labor. Now we have really bad food choices. Everything is too easy and processed. Fast food is on every corner. Soft drinks are prevalent. Obesity is rampant. Dieting is hard. Someone every few minutes comes up with another gimic that will "help you lose weight for good". I don't buy it. I believe until we get off our collective a$$es and decide to eat "real food" we are doomed to failure. Or at least to short bursts of success followed by failure. Just my opinion.
This. This makes sense.0 -
Sugar is sugar, tell me metabolically how sucrose in fruit is different from sucrose from a a sugar packet?
The benefits in eating fruit far outway any disadvantages of the sugar content - hence good for you. Nutritionally beneficial
There are no benefits to eating refined sugar so you get only disadvantages - hence bad for you. Empty calories
Its fructose that's in fruit not sucrose!! That's the difference! They are metabolised differently and surplus of each is stored and utilised differently! Sucrose (which breaks down to glucose) is stored as fat!! Fructose remains in the blood stream and is used by mitochondria to form energy!!
Maybe you can help me - I've always believed that refined sugar (sucrose) has no nutricianal benefit to my body, hence bad for me (empty caories?)
It seems I'm wrong, happy to stand corrected as I have a sweet tooth!0 -
"I've lost 50lbs by not eating after 3pm"
Are hundreds of millions of people really that stupid or do they just not have the desire to put down the cookies and start exercising?
Once people have enough education, self-awareness and resources to lose weight the reason they don't is usually not an intellectual problem; it's an emotional or behavioral one.
BTW, I think that eating only in a prescribed window helps. That's automatically a period in which you aren't going to over-indulge.0 -
Sugar is sugar, tell me metabolically how sucrose in fruit is different from sucrose from a a sugar packet?
The benefits in eating fruit far outway any disadvantages of the sugar content - hence good for you. Nutritionally beneficial
There are no benefits to eating refined sugar so you get only disadvantages - hence bad for you. Empty calories
Way to avoid the question there champ
I thought it was rhetorical - It was clear by your stance that there is no difference. i'll state it if makes it easier for you "There is no difference"
I am puzzled though - why the confrontation? Why the patronising tone?
I'm making no claims to be an expert, just having a thirst for knowledge. Ive asked a number of times now for you to enlighten me. Take sat fats away for a moment as I'm aware that they are difficult to avoid in a balanced diet. So refined sugar - is there ANY advantages to eating it?
You claimed refined sugar and sat fats were bad for you in any dosage, what does that have to do with having an advantage to eating them?0 -
Quote from the You Are Not Different article:
Invariably, when you get an honest assessment of the person’s food intake (just accept that it can be done right now), their estimates are way off from reality. Studies show that people may under (or overestimate) their true caloric intake by up to 50%. Basically, unless they’ve done it for a while, most people are simply horrible at estimating how much food they are actually eating. Same thing for exercise, people tend to vastly overestimate how many calories they’ve burned.
It is precisely because of this I'm a freak about weighing my food and not eating back all my calories. Sometimes MFP tells me to eat 1300 more than I end up eating, but I just can't. I'm full, and I think my exercise cals burned are WAY overestimated.
I still don't lose weight.
I'm not an idiot, I did factor in the stuff he talks about, and I'm not losing. So what -is- the reason? It's questions like this that cause the plethora of questions on forums.
No doubt I'm still massively under- and over-estimating in all directions. But without, as one poster put it, one of those Dr. McCoy tricorders, I won't know which.
From: http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/adjusting-the-diet.html
Average Weekly Fat Loss
Less than 1 lb/week - Reduce Calories by 10%
1-1.5 lbs/week - No Change
2+ lbs/week - Increase Calories by 10% if there is a performance loss0 -
2. There is a lot of definitive science out there that answers most of your questions. It's not that the answers are unknown. It's that they are unpopular.
3. The human capacity for self-BS is almost unlimited. No amount of definitive knowledge can change that.
This right here0 -
Science?
You want one stop, definitive weight loss info from the very people that said saccharin and a bunch of other chemicals were the safe and healthy- a great alternative to sugar... only to find out a few years later that they were a cause of cancers That's only the tip of the iceberg. I'd prefer that big government work on things like their budget and not so much with what I eat.
The answer is the same as it was 10, 100, 1000 years ago... eat less, move more- what's changed is that WE all seem to want a magic bullet to drop weight instantly.
I Really agree with you!0 -
All of the questions you asked can likely be found out through light-moderate intensive research via the internet, in fact i could answer a few of them just from the very light research i myself do
the info is out there, you just have to know where and how to look for it
you are not a child, use your critical thinking skills and learn how to look for these things
i refuse to be the grade school teacher just spoon feeding you information and expecting you to learn from that, not going to happen
i myself lost a decent chunk of weight, and i am dam proud to say that. I am even prouder to say that i didnt have one person telling me what i needed to do and holding my hand through the entire process. i did it by researching the internet as much as i could and occasionally going to a friend or two that are reputable sources for a little help
not trying to come off as a jerk here but you have to understand how annoying it is to see stuff like this where you are basically not making any attempts to find these things out for yourself, you just want them given to you in an envelope titled "magic secrets to weightloss" , i'll be damned if that ever happens
i wish you all the luck in the world in whatever your goals happen to be, but please do not expect it to be easy. it will be a little tough, it will challenge you, but by the end, you will look back and have a huge smile on your face knowing you have come this far
What this guy said....the reason people still debate these things is because they are prepared to believe anything without doing their own investigations.
What could have been a fairly educational thread has turned into the usual back and forth.
Here are some links if anyone wants to start out
Meal Frequency
http://www.leangains.com/2011/04/critique-of-issn-position-stand-on-meal.html
Carbs at night
http://www.simplyshredded.com/carbs-at-night-fat-loss-killer-or-imaginary-boogeyman.html
Breakfast related (by the way, anyone here want to expand on WTF they are even talking about when they say "kick start your metabolism" LOL.. this one a bit more anecdotal but still a good read
http://www.leangains.com/2012/06/why-does-breakfast-make-me-hungry.html
Clean/Dirty eating....
http://www.wannabebig.com/diet-and-nutrition/the-dirt-on-clean-eating/0 -
You claimed refined sugar and sat fats were bad for you in any dosage, what does that have to do with having an advantage to eating them?
It wasn't a claim, it was an assumption
The assumption was that if there is zero benefit to eating something such as refined sugar, there only has to be a tiny disadvantage to make it bad for you. Tooth decay for example
You still havent helped me correct myself though
As far as I'm aware there are disadvantages to eating refined sugar, tooth decay, empty calories etc so I have assumed that as there are no advantages, it must be bad.
So
a) Are there any disadvantages in your opinion in eating refined sugar
b) Are there any advantages?0 -
I've always believed that refined sugar (sucrose) has no nutricianal benefit to my body, hence bad for me (empty caories?)
There's a big difference between something being "nutritionally void" and something being "bad for you". I would figure out a way to separate these things or you're going to lead a miserable dieting life.
To my knowledge, the inclusion of a little "empty calorie" food among a diet that is nutrient rich, isn't going to do jack scheeet in terms of harm.
You're using all-or-nothing thinking and that can be pretty harmful when you apply it.0 -
OP, do you have any idea of how ridiculously complex the human body is, particularly when it's viewed in the context of its individual environment. The variables are practically infinite.0
-
There are factors we know very little about, such as the effects of pollutants in our food, air, soil, and water on metabolism, hunger, and energy levels. Jet fuel waste, for example, lowers metablism in rats. Does it in humans?
How many people can even afford to have their metabolisms checked? On one thing I agree with OP. For those of us who have had it checked, where is the chart that shows us how many calories we should eat to lose, gain, or maintain specific to our numbers? Would it help? Certainly. Well, maybe. Compliance also differs from person to person.
One thing we do know is that it's natural for humans and other animals to overeat. So we're fighting nature by dieting. What we don't know is why some people stay skinny with no effort inspite of having access to more food than they need.
What if tomorrow the USDA discovered the miracle food that will let all of us lose weight, stay full, and be healthier. Well, great, but what if it was, for example, a diet of nothing but grass fed beef? There's not enough to go around, not even close, so I guarantee they wouldn't announce it even if they knew it was a one size fits all answer.0 -
b) Are there any advantages?
Cleary you've never had Junior's cheesecake
0 -
I've always believed that refined sugar (sucrose) has no nutricianal benefit to my body, hence bad for me (empty caories?)
There's a big difference between something being "nutritionally void" and something being "bad for you". I would figure out a way to separate these things or you're going to lead a miserable dieting life.
And there's a big difference between knowing something is nutrtionally void, and eating it anyway, and aviding it because it is nutritionally void.
I eat refined sugar - bit too much to be honest - I'm aware that it is not good for me (or so I thought)0 -
As a research scientist I feel like I am wading into some hostile territory..... There seems to be an overriding sentiment here that 'first scientists say one thing, then a few years later they say something TOTALLY DIFFERENT!!!' as a way of suggesting that scientific research has little to offer for understanding dieting. Such an assumption belies an ignorance of the way science works.
This is how research science works - a study produces data, which the scientists then interpret and suggest a mechanism that explains their results. And they base this on the current body of knowledge. Then other scientists follow up on that, and now the body of knowledge is larger, so often they refine the original conclusions. This is not evidence of flawed science, or biased interpretation. That's how it works.
The study being mentioned here by a few posters is fine. Just because they didn't set up their experiments in a way that controls the variables of primary interest to you, doesn't necessarily mean it was poorly conducted. So it doesn't answer the question you think is most important - then it's on you as the reader not to use it support a point that the study doesn't attempt to make. Educated readers are just as important as good scientists.
And really, all these claims that everyone's body is unique - sure they are - for about 1% of its biological processes where all of us contain variation. However, for the vast majority of everything our bodies do with energy metabolism, a human is a human. If you can't lose weight, you're probably eating too much. That you have a slow metabolism/PCOS/special hormones/body-builder intentions/etc is all very interesting, but if you're not losing weight, eat less.
Dieting is not difficult or complex. It may be unpleasant, but it's not hard.0 -
Sugar is sugar, tell me metabolically how sucrose in fruit is different from sucrose from a a sugar packet?
The benefits in eating fruit far outway any disadvantages of the sugar content - hence good for you. Nutritionally beneficial
There are no benefits to eating refined sugar so you get only disadvantages - hence bad for you. Empty calories
Its fructose that's in fruit not sucrose!! That's the difference! They are metabolised differently and surplus of each is stored and utilised differently! Sucrose (which breaks down to glucose) is stored as fat!! Fructose remains in the blood stream and is used by mitochondria to form energy!!
Maybe you can help me - I've always believed that refined sugar (sucrose) has no nutricianal benefit to my body, hence bad for me (empty caories?)
It seems I'm wrong, happy to stand corrected as I have a sweet tooth!
"Sucrose" is not refined sugar. Refined sugar ("table", "white", "granulated") just happens to be Sucrose. Sucrose is a disaccharide, consisting of equal parts fructose and glucose.
Glucose is a monosaccharide, and is the human body's preferred energy source (the body can use glucose immediately. It's also the sugar that triggers the largest insulin response in the body.
Fructose is a monosaccharide, and the primary sugar in fruit. It does not cause the same insulin response in the body as glucose, and instead goes to the liver to be processed for use within the body.
Why is refined sugar "bad" and fruit sugar "good"? Aside from the difference in how the body metabolises the two, refined sugar is nothing but sugar, having been removed from its original source, and thus, the other nutrients that usually accompany sugars, while whole fruits have dozens of other nutrients, including fiber, vitamins, and antioxidents, which generally outweigh the negatives of the sugar present in fruits.0 -
As a research scientist I feel like I am wading into some hostile territory..... There seems to be an overriding sentiment here that 'first scientists say one thing, then a few years later they say something TOTALLY DIFFERENT!!!' as a way of suggesting that scientific research has little to offer for understanding dieting. Such an assumption belies an ignorance of the way science works.
This is how research science works - a study produces data, which the scientists then interpret and suggest a mechanism that explains their results. And they base this on the current body of knowledge. Then other scientists follow up on that, and now the body of knowledge is larger, so often they refine the original conclusions. This is not evidence of flawed science, or biased interpretation. That's how it works.
The study being mentioned here by a few posters is fine. Just because they didn't set up their experiments in a way that controls the variables of primary interest to you, doesn't necessarily mean it was poorly conducted. So it doesn't answer the question you think is most important - then it's on you as the reader not to use it support a point that the study doesn't attempt to make. Educated readers are just as important as good scientists.
And really, all these claims that everyone's body is unique - sure they are - for about 1% of its biological processes where all of us contain variation. However, for the vast majority of everything our bodies do with energy metabolism, a human is a human. If you can't lose weight, you're probably eating too much. That you have a slow metabolism/PCOS/special hormones/body-builder intentions/etc is all very interesting, but if you're not losing weight, eat less.
Dieting is not difficult or complex. It may be unpleasant, but it's not hard.
But it's so much easier to blame the scientists!!!0 -
OP, do you have any idea of how ridiculously complex the human body is, particularly when it's viewed in the context of its individual environment. The variables are practically infinite.
Of course - but I refer back to one of the questions that I see on MFP daily
Does eating breakfast boost your metabolism? There is sure to be a definitive answer that would apply to virtually everyone would there not?
Yet opinions are split. If it doesn't then the sceptic in me says that the multi billion dollar breakfast food industry are behind this falsification
If it does then I want to see a bit of scientific proof0 -
If you're speaking in terms of TEF, then that happens ANYTIME you eat.There is actually lots of good science about breakfast--and other foods--boosting your metabolism. Your metabolism fires every time you eat.
Here's the thing--IT FIRES IN PROPORTION TO HOW MUCH YOU EAT.
Therefore, eating breakfast fires your metabolism, but if you have a small breakfast, it fires enough to burn your breakfast. If you have a huge breakfast, it fires more! ...but then you've eaten a pound of bacon, five eggs, some pancakes with syrup....
Same thing for eating small meals throughout the day. It's not any better for you, it's just a snacking style. it fires up and burns low for a little while with each meal, as opposed to firing higher and burning longer with a big meal three times a day. It all sort of evens out, in the end.
I'll see if I can find TEH SCIENCE on this one, I just read about this very-well-understood very-often-misrepresented and mis-used phenomenon.
A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
Maybe the OP is just tired of the same threads all the time?
0 -
b) Are there any advantages?
Cleary you've never had Junior's cheesecake
yeah yeah point taken - I meant nutritional benefits
(Jeez you would think that the amount of times I have written 'nutritional' in this thread, I could spell it without looking it up!)0 -
Government scientists are working on an answer to all your questions right now. It's called soylent green. Disperse! Disperse! The scoops are coming!0
-
Government scientists are working on an answer to all your questions right now. It's called soylent green. Disperse! Disperse! The scoops are coming!
I pushed the "like" button!!!!!!!!0 -
While I do emphatically believe in science, there will ALWAYS be exceptions to any methods offered. And it's those exceptions that force other ideas to solve what may be stopping them from weight/fat loss.
A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
Maybe the OP is just tired of the same threads all the time?
No I'm tired of being wrong!
2 years ago when my wife and I embarked upon a healthy eating regime, I explained that after doing research, we can boost our metabolism by eating 6 small meals a day - "that's the way to go" I said.
We watched what we ate, exercised, ate 6 small meals a day - lost our excess weight
3 months agom after an injury or two and getting a little lazy, we had both put on afew pounds again so decided to embark upon another regime - this time with the help of MFP
"6 small meals a day?" My wife says?
"Apparently that makes no difference!" I replied!
We watched what we ate, exercised, ate no set amount of meals a day - lost our excess weight
The years go by... the same arguments go back and forth0 -
Our bodies are a science so weight loss should be too; however we see the same old arguments on here every day that we did 20 years ago and it's not right! Why are we still guessing about things when we should be given indisputable facts!
The following are debated every day SO PLEASE DON'T ANSWER THEM; we need to be told these things once and for all by an impartial, unbiased organisation with the sole agenda of telling the facts!
Does breakfast kick start your metabolism?
Does spreading your meals out through the day keep your metabolism high?
The old favourite - what is starvation/survival mode? We need to know when or if it kicks in?
Another favourite - are artificial sweetners bad for you?
Is it as simple as calories in = calories out?
Do meal times matter? Is it ok to eat late at night?
To lose weight, Is it better to exercise in the 'fat buring zone'?
Are low carb diets bad for you?
Many many more!
You may well think you have the answer to these but it won't be the same as someone elses. It should be!
The one thing I often hear is "Everyone is different", well no, we're all almost exactly the same chemically and biologically. Scientists didn't stop searching for a cure for leprosy because "we're all different'!
We shouldn't be working to anecdotal evidence...... "Drinking chicken soup worked for me" "I've lost 50lbs by not eating after 3pm" "I've started eating breakfast and now I'm losing the lbs!"
We need an indisputable list - not from Jenny Craig, not from Jillian Michaels, not from Shaun T, not from Tony Horton - they all have their own agenda!
We can all instantly find out exactly how many calories are in a McDonalds chicken burger with half the poppy seeds taken off, We have HRMs to tell us eactly how many calories 33 minutes of Zumba burnt. Dieting SHOULD be getting easier! WHY ISN'T IT?!!!
Because HRM don't tell you "exactly" how many calories you burned, and most people don't have the tools necessary to find "exactly" how many calories are in a McD chicken burger (do they make chicken burgers??). HRM only work under ideal conditions and then give an estimate of calories burned based on HR which is based on oxygen use. It's far from an exact science. McD corp submits a chicken burger made to their specifications for calorie analysis and publishes the results on a website. The odds that the chicken burger you will be served by your local McD will match that count "exactly" is pretty slim.
And no, we are not all alike. Some people have naturally higher metabolisms or higher/lower metabolisms due to lifestyle. Some people absorb less of what they put in their stomachs than others. Some have allergies or intollerances or diseases or syndromes or other ailments that limit what they can or should consume, and may change how the body processes what they consume. This is why in even the most controlled studies all participants don't get the same results. And why nutrition scientists make general recommendations, but urge individuals to work with a qualified professional for personal recommendations.0 -
Government scientists are working on an answer to all your questions right now. It's called soylent green. Disperse! Disperse! The scoops are coming!
I kind of love this.0 -
OP, do you have any idea of how ridiculously complex the human body is, particularly when it's viewed in the context of its individual environment. The variables are practically infinite.
Of course - but I refer back to one of the questions that I see on MFP daily
Does eating breakfast boost your metabolism? There is sure to be a definitive answer that would apply to virtually everyone would there not?
Yet opinions are split. If it doesn't then the sceptic in me says that the multi billion dollar breakfast food industry are behind this falsification
If it does then I want to see a bit of scientific proof
Why would it apply to everyone equally? Is your diet exactly the same as mine? Do you sleep the same amount of time as I do? Is your hormone balance the same as mine ( I can assure you on this one that it is not). How much time are you out in the sun a day? Despite the fact that yes, as humans, our biology is the same, we are not a closed circuit. There are outside variables that impact us. That is why there won't be a one size fits all explanation, or why I can't look at some simple stats for you and say eat exactly this and you will lose weight.0 -
Maybe the OP is just tired of the same threads all the time?
No I'm tired of being wrong!
2 years ago when my wife and I embarked upon a healthy eating regime, I explained that after doing research, we can boost our metabolism by eating 6 small meals a day - "that's the way to go" I said.
We watched what we ate, exercised, ate 6 small meals a day - lost our excess weight
3 months agom after an injury or two and getting a little lazy, we had both put on afew pounds again so decided to embark upon another regime - this time with the help of MFP
"6 small meals a day?" My wife says?
"Apparently that makes no difference!" I replied!
We watched what we ate, exercised, ate no set amount of meals a day - lost our excess weight
The years go by... the same arguments go back and forth
Sooo... watch what you eat and exercise. Bam! you cracked the code.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