Paleo/LC, nutritional knowledge andthe Dunning-Kruger effect
Replies
-
The first step is understand that health food is a myth. The idea that one food can be healthier than another is just nonsense.
The central core tenent of paleo and all other diets like it is utter nonsense. Its proof in people's minds is based on a series of strawmen arguments (the merits of paleo and other diets like it cannot be debated without use of strawmen by the paleo side).
Egad! You're right! I'm cured!
*throws out steak and goes to live entirely on poptarts and chocolate bars*
Oy
Livin' in the land of strawmen.
Just in case you're serious, you said, and I quote: The idea that one food can be healthier than another is just nonsense.
Okay, so who cares where I get any of my calories from? All food is the same, poptarts are just as healthy as steak or any other food. That is what you seem to be saying.
The constituents cannot be separated from the whole of a diet. If a person eats a healthy diet, all constituents of that diet are healthy.
Breaking down a diet into components and rating the healthiness of those components is a logical fallacy. Healthiness does not exist in piecemeal, it is only an attribute of the whole.
Living on poptarts alone is MORE healthy living on broccoli alone......, If you were to subsist on one and only one food item, the healthiest diet you could possibly construct would be existing solely on milk, which is banned by paleo and dubbed unhealthy.0 -
Okay, so who cares where I get any of my calories from? All food is the same, poptarts are just as healthy as steak or any other food. That is what you seem to be saying.
what he's saying, i believe, is that you can have a healthy diet whether you include poptarts and steak or not.
if paleo does it for you, great... but someone not being paleo does not imply that he/she is somehow making inferior food choices.
you can replace "paleo" above with "primal", "low fat", "low sugar", "low carb", etc. and it's still a position i agree with when referring to all of those diets based on the idea that certain foods are inherently bad and must be avoided.0 -
The first step is understand that health food is a myth. The idea that one food can be healthier than another is just nonsense.
The central core tenent of paleo and all other diets like it is utter nonsense. Its proof in people's minds is based on a series of strawmen arguments (the merits of paleo and other diets like it cannot be debated without use of strawmen by the paleo side).
Egad! You're right! I'm cured!
*throws out steak and goes to live entirely on poptarts and chocolate bars*
Oy
Livin' in the land of strawmen.
Just in case you're serious, you said, and I quote: The idea that one food can be healthier than another is just nonsense.
Okay, so who cares where I get any of my calories from? All food is the same, poptarts are just as healthy as steak or any other food. That is what you seem to be saying.
The constituents cannot be separated from the whole of a diet. If a person eats a healthy diet, all constituents of that diet are healthy.
Breaking down a diet into components and rating the healthiness of those components is a logical fallacy. Healthiness does not exist in piecemeal, it is only an attribute of the whole.
Living on poptarts alone is MORE healthy living on broccoli alone......, If you were to subsist on one and only one food item, the healthiest diet you could possibly construct would be existing solely on milk, which is banned by paleo and dubbed unhealthy.
That makes more sense. Like I said, I'm interested in learning about the chemistry behind why certain foods make me too hungry and make me crave other foods.
Meanwhile, I'm going to eat the foods that cause me to be the least hungry and to crave the least because frankly it's exhausting trying to fight it. Not saying it works for everyone though and I'm certainly not claiming I understand why it works for me. I know some of the terminology, but I'm no fool claiming a biochemist level of comprehension.
Which the thread title reference implies. That we paleo/low carb people are ignorant and too stupid to know it. That is not only insulting, it's incorrect.0 -
brb checking pubmed0
-
Nah, it's correlation, not causation.0
-
The first step is understand that health food is a myth. The idea that one food can be healthier than another is just nonsense.
The central core tenent of paleo and all other diets like it is utter nonsense. Its proof in people's minds is based on a series of strawmen arguments (the merits of paleo and other diets like it cannot be debated without use of strawmen by the paleo side).
Egad! You're right! I'm cured!
*throws out steak and goes to live entirely on poptarts and chocolate bars*
Oy
Livin' in the land of strawmen.
Just in case you're serious, you said, and I quote: The idea that one food can be healthier than another is just nonsense.
Okay, so who cares where I get any of my calories from? All food is the same, poptarts are just as healthy as steak or any other food. That is what you seem to be saying.
The constituents cannot be separated from the whole of a diet. If a person eats a healthy diet, all constituents of that diet are healthy.
Breaking down a diet into components and rating the healthiness of those components is a logical fallacy. Healthiness does not exist in piecemeal, it is only an attribute of the whole.
Living on poptarts alone is MORE healthy living on broccoli alone......, If you were to subsist on one and only one food item, the healthiest diet you could possibly construct would be existing solely on milk, which is banned by paleo and dubbed unhealthy.
That makes more sense. Like I said, I'm interested in learning about the chemistry behind why certain foods make me too hungry and make me crave other foods.
Meanwhile, I'm going to eat the foods that cause me to be the least hungry and to crave the least because frankly it's exhausting trying to fight it. Not saying it works for everyone though and I'm certainly not claiming I understand why it works for me. I know some of the terminology, but I'm no fool claiming a biochemist level of comprehension.
Which the thread title reference implies. That we paleo/low carb people are ignorant and too stupid to know it. That is not only insulting, it's incorrect.
If it works for you and you are getting sufficient protein and micronutrients, then there's no reason to stop. Vegan, vegetarian, primal, and paleo can all work but it makes it harder in the sense that they cut out foods that provide readily available nutrients. The only issue some of us have with diets like these is that some of their supporters claim that they are the "right" way for humans to eat, and thereby confuse people, with no real scientific evidence to support that claim. Again, if it works for you, go to it, just don't push it on everyone else as "right" way or the "only" way.0 -
Check this instead, it's what I was watching last night: "An Organic Chemist's Perspective on Paleo" by Mathieu Lalonde, PhD
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpfs6iT2nDw
Now I'm going to go check for my brain, I must have left it somewhere, clearly if it were still in my head I wouldn't be bothering with this thread anymore, and now I'm done.
I do agree with those who are annoyed by people who think this is the one ultimate solution for everyone. It's not.0 -
I eat what makes me feel good. Gluten and higher carb in general makes me feel like crap. Low carb-moderate protein-high fat makes me look and feel AMAZING.
If donuts, pizza, brownies, and pasta made me look and feel good, you best believe I'd be eating those things instead.
Eat whatever makes you feel best, focus on you, and don't worry about how others eat. Its THEIR diets, why are you even concerning yourself with their business?0 -
I eat what makes me feel good. Gluten and higher carb in general makes me feel like crap. Low carb-moderate protein-high fat makes me look and feel AMAZING.
If donuts, pizza, brownies, and pasta made me look and feel good, you best believe I'd be eating those things instead.
Eat whatever makes you feel best, focus on you, and don't worry about how others eat. Its THEIR diets, why are you even concerning yourself with their business?
In your view, are the only 2 choices gluten and high carb or low carb, moderate protein, high fat? Do you see any other possible choices?0 -
Is it possible that the paleo diet and low carb diets make you dumber on the subject of nutrition, yet at the same time makes you think you know a lot about the subject? Using low carb and paleo dieters favorite sort of evidence, that would be anecdotal, that seems to be the case.
Could this also explain why you also see so many cases of special snowflake syndrome in these dieters, sheer ignorance of basic nutritional facts, despite fancying themselves as quite knowledgeable on the subject?
Or maybe they suffer from a form of true believer syndrome
I understand the frustration with low carb advocates and their sometimes-not-so-awesome use of science, but I don't think threads like these help anybody. To me, this just contributes to the very real problem of holier-than-thou mean-spiritedness that's so rampant in the field and on message boards.0 -
I eat what makes me feel good. Gluten and higher carb in general makes me feel like crap. Low carb-moderate protein-high fat makes me look and feel AMAZING.
If donuts, pizza, brownies, and pasta made me look and feel good, you best believe I'd be eating those things instead.
Eat whatever makes you feel best, focus on you, and don't worry about how others eat. Its THEIR diets, why are you even concerning yourself with their business?
In your view, are the only 2 choices gluten and high carb or low carb, moderate protein, high fat? Do you see any other possible choices?
Um, actually, i was simply stating what way of eating makes ME feel good.
Its pretty implicit in my reply that I'm suggesting we eat whatever way makes our bodies feel good.
Any idiot could figure that out :-)0 -
I am half tempted to lock this thread but its like a car wreck... you just have to keep watching to see what comes next.... well that and it really hasn't violated any rules.0
-
Practitioners of any program tend to be adamant that their way is the correct. Agree with all the comments that you have to find what works for you. A couple of relevant points.
Why would you exclude any macronutrient source? Carbs are not evil, either is fat.
Paleo - Love the principles, eat like our ancestors. Makes sense. In actuality, people use Paleo as an excuse to eat excess amounts of fatty meats and bacon. You might lose weight, but is it the ideal diet for optimal health?
Carbs - Hands down, the bodies preferred source of energy.
Fat - Absolutely necessary to consume some fats, preferably healthy sources. But anything over 20% of daily caloric intake from fat is unnecessary.
Low carb diets will result in greater 'initial' weight loss but after 9 weeks there is zero difference between high and low carb diets. If you want to endure the side effects that come with carb reduction by all means do it, but the benefits are only short lived.
I will share with you lucky people the ideal approach. No applause, just throw money:
Eat whole foods, as little processed crap and supplements as possible.
Take carbs up on training/active days
Take carbs down, and fat up on non/less active days
Keep protein high
If people followed the above points, they wouldn't have to "diet." You can eat all of your favorite foods in moderation. Have some processed carbs or sugar after exercise, enjoy your bacon slathered in gravy and pine nuts on rest days.
Be reasonable, eat well, train hard - and you don't have to worry about strictly following any particular protocol.0 -
Okay, so who cares where I get any of my calories from? All food is the same, poptarts are just as healthy as steak or any other food. That is what you seem to be saying.
what he's saying, i believe, is that you can have a healthy diet whether you include poptarts and steak or not.
if paleo does it for you, great... but someone not being paleo does not imply that he/she is somehow making inferior food choices.
you can replace "paleo" above with "primal", "low fat", "low sugar", "low carb", etc. and it's still a position i agree with when referring to all of those diets based on the idea that certain foods are inherently bad and must be avoided.
Except that sucrose is basically a non-food--it is synthetic and does not exist in nature as the familiar white powder. Stripped as it is of all micro-nutrients, it is essentially just empty carbohydrate calories and most people simply cannot afford it as it crowds out other more nourishing food. The average person eats 500 calories in sugar per day. It has many deleterious effects which, if one keeps on eating it in that quantity for years, will result in a variety of ailments.0 -
I eat what makes me feel good. Gluten and higher carb in general makes me feel like crap. Low carb-moderate protein-high fat makes me look and feel AMAZING.
If donuts, pizza, brownies, and pasta made me look and feel good, you best believe I'd be eating those things instead.
Eat whatever makes you feel best, focus on you, and don't worry about how others eat. Its THEIR diets, why are you even concerning yourself with their business?
In your view, are the only 2 choices gluten and high carb or low carb, moderate protein, high fat? Do you see any other possible choices?
Um, actually, i was simply stating what way of eating makes ME feel good.
Its pretty implicit in my reply that I'm suggesting we eat whatever way makes our bodies feel good.
Any idiot could figure that out :-)
Well I guess then I'm not just any idiot. Passive/ aggressive much?0 -
Okay, so who cares where I get any of my calories from? All food is the same, poptarts are just as healthy as steak or any other food. That is what you seem to be saying.
what he's saying, i believe, is that you can have a healthy diet whether you include poptarts and steak or not.
if paleo does it for you, great... but someone not being paleo does not imply that he/she is somehow making inferior food choices.
you can replace "paleo" above with "primal", "low fat", "low sugar", "low carb", etc. and it's still a position i agree with when referring to all of those diets based on the idea that certain foods are inherently bad and must be avoided.
Except that sucrose is basically a non-food--it is synthetic and does not exist in nature as the familiar white powder. Stripped as it is of all micro-nutrients, it is essentially just empty carbohydrate calories and most people simply cannot afford it as it crowds out other more nourishing food. The average person eats 500 calories in sugar per day. It has many deleterious effects which, if one keeps on eating it in that quantity for years, will result in a variety of ailments.
What is your source for the 500 calories per day in sugar for the average person? That is 125 grams. That number does not seem credible on the surface.0 -
I am half tempted to lock this thread but its like a car wreck... you just have to keep watching to see what comes next.... well that and it really hasn't violated any rules.
LOL. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:0 -
Practitioners of any program tend to be adamant that their way is the correct. Agree with all the comments that you have to find what works for you. A couple of relevant points.
Why would you exclude any macronutrient source? Carbs are not evil, either is fat.
Paleo - Love the principles, eat like our ancestors. Makes sense. In actuality, people use Paleo as an excuse to eat excess amounts of fatty meats and bacon. You might lose weight, but is it the ideal diet for optimal health?
Carbs - Hands down, the bodies preferred source of energy.
Fat - Absolutely necessary to consume some fats, preferably healthy sources. But anything over 20% of daily caloric intake from fat is unnecessary.
Low carb diets will result in greater 'initial' weight loss but after 9 weeks there is zero difference between high and low carb diets. If you want to endure the side effects that come with carb reduction by all means do it, but the benefits are only short lived.
I will share with you lucky people the ideal approach. No applause, just throw money:
Eat whole foods, as little processed crap and supplements as possible.
Take carbs up on training/active days
Take carbs down, and fat up on non/less active days
Keep protein high
If people followed the above points, they wouldn't have to "diet." You can eat all of your favorite foods in moderation. Have some processed carbs or sugar after exercise, enjoy your bacon slathered in gravy and pine nuts on rest days.
Be reasonable, eat well, train hard - and you don't have to worry about strictly following any particular protocol.
I just want to make one correction. If you follow paleo you do not eat bacon, in fact, you do not eat any processed meats. You are thinking of atkins where bacon wrapped everything equals acceptable and encouraged.0 -
Isn't this site supposed to be about how eating normal food with the proper calorie totals is the way to go, vs all that weird, fad Paleo/Adkins/Clean/Cleanse/Raw/Vegan/Grapefruit bull****?0
-
Okay, so who cares where I get any of my calories from? All food is the same, poptarts are just as healthy as steak or any other food. That is what you seem to be saying.
what he's saying, i believe, is that you can have a healthy diet whether you include poptarts and steak or not.
if paleo does it for you, great... but someone not being paleo does not imply that he/she is somehow making inferior food choices.
you can replace "paleo" above with "primal", "low fat", "low sugar", "low carb", etc. and it's still a position i agree with when referring to all of those diets based on the idea that certain foods are inherently bad and must be avoided.
Except that sucrose is basically a non-food--it is synthetic and does not exist in nature as the familiar white powder. Stripped as it is of all micro-nutrients, it is essentially just empty carbohydrate calories and most people simply cannot afford it as it crowds out other more nourishing food. The average person eats 500 calories in sugar per day. It has many deleterious effects which, if one keeps on eating it in that quantity for years, will result in a variety of ailments.
What is your source for the 500 calories per day in sugar for the average person? That is 125 grams. That number does not seem credible on the surface.
I had it in my head but it could be wrong. Here is a link to an article: http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=56589 I haven't read the entire article but it says that sugar should be LIMITED to 200 calories per day for health reasons (and in saying that, one assumes that they are saying we generally eat a lot more). It also says that the average per capita consumption of sugar is over 150 pounds per year. I believe it says that only 39 pounds are directly from the sugar bowl and the rest is from all kinds of processed food. One piece of "Carrot cake a la mode" at The Keg contains 260 grams of sugar. So even if you share it with your "sweetie" (and that soubriquet would be literally true, if you did) you are still taking in 130 grams and that doesn't even touch the rest of the day's intake.
0 -
Absolutely, the high carb highly processed low fat typical SAD has got to be better for you..........NOT
OMG, are those the only 2 options? I'm neither doing paleo/ low carb or SAD. I must be doing it wrong!! :sad:
Right? Lol one extreme or the other.
Yep those are the only options and anyone who disagrees must be a special snowflake! Just like me. LOL -
Just figured the original rather narrow minded snarky post deserved another.0 -
I guess I am a special snowflake. Good to know!0
-
Okay, so who cares where I get any of my calories from? All food is the same, poptarts are just as healthy as steak or any other food. That is what you seem to be saying.
what he's saying, i believe, is that you can have a healthy diet whether you include poptarts and steak or not.
if paleo does it for you, great... but someone not being paleo does not imply that he/she is somehow making inferior food choices.
you can replace "paleo" above with "primal", "low fat", "low sugar", "low carb", etc. and it's still a position i agree with when referring to all of those diets based on the idea that certain foods are inherently bad and must be avoided.
Except that sucrose is basically a non-food--it is synthetic and does not exist in nature as the familiar white powder. Stripped as it is of all micro-nutrients, it is essentially just empty carbohydrate calories and most people simply cannot afford it as it crowds out other more nourishing food. The average person eats 500 calories in sugar per day. It has many deleterious effects which, if one keeps on eating it in that quantity for years, will result in a variety of ailments.
What is your source for the 500 calories per day in sugar for the average person? That is 125 grams. That number does not seem credible on the surface.
I had it in my head but it could be wrong. Here is a link to an article: http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=56589 I haven't read the entire article but it says that sugar should be LIMITED to 200 calories per day for health reasons (and in saying that, one assumes that they are saying we generally eat a lot more). It also says that the average per capita consumption of sugar is over 150 pounds per year. I believe it says that only 39 pounds are directly from the sugar bowl and the rest is from all kinds of processed food. One piece of "Carrot cake a la mode" at The Keg contains 260 grams of sugar. So even if you share it with your "sweetie" (and that soubriquet would be literally true, if you did) you are still taking in 130 grams and that doesn't even touch the rest of the day's intake.
That certainly puts at whole different slant on it no, doesn't it? Interesting how the data changes when it has to be proved.0 -
Okay, so who cares where I get any of my calories from? All food is the same, poptarts are just as healthy as steak or any other food. That is what you seem to be saying.
what he's saying, i believe, is that you can have a healthy diet whether you include poptarts and steak or not.
if paleo does it for you, great... but someone not being paleo does not imply that he/she is somehow making inferior food choices.
you can replace "paleo" above with "primal", "low fat", "low sugar", "low carb", etc. and it's still a position i agree with when referring to all of those diets based on the idea that certain foods are inherently bad and must be avoided.
Except that sucrose is basically a non-food--it is synthetic and does not exist in nature as the familiar white powder. Stripped as it is of all micro-nutrients, it is essentially just empty carbohydrate calories and most people simply cannot afford it as it crowds out other more nourishing food. The average person eats 500 calories in sugar per day. It has many deleterious effects which, if one keeps on eating it in that quantity for years, will result in a variety of ailments.
What is your source for the 500 calories per day in sugar for the average person? That is 125 grams. That number does not seem credible on the surface.
I had it in my head but it could be wrong. Here is a link to an article: http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=56589 I haven't read the entire article but it says that sugar should be LIMITED to 200 calories per day for health reasons (and in saying that, one assumes that they are saying we generally eat a lot more). It also says that the average per capita consumption of sugar is over 150 pounds per year. I believe it says that only 39 pounds are directly from the sugar bowl and the rest is from all kinds of processed food. One piece of "Carrot cake a la mode" at The Keg contains 260 grams of sugar. So even if you share it with your "sweetie" (and that soubriquet would be literally true, if you did) you are still taking in 130 grams and that doesn't even touch the rest of the day's intake.
That certainly puts at whole different slant on it no, doesn't it? Interesting how the data changes when it has to be proved.
That article talks about the WHO recommendation which is to limit calories to 10%. Its more casual reading than study. Take a look at this one. Should you try to limit free sugar? Sure, for overall nutritional reasons I guess, and I do, but the studies really aren't supporting sugar itself as a weight gain problem. The problem is too many calories.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/233214860 -
Okay, so who cares where I get any of my calories from? All food is the same, poptarts are just as healthy as steak or any other food. That is what you seem to be saying.
what he's saying, i believe, is that you can have a healthy diet whether you include poptarts and steak or not.
if paleo does it for you, great... but someone not being paleo does not imply that he/she is somehow making inferior food choices.
you can replace "paleo" above with "primal", "low fat", "low sugar", "low carb", etc. and it's still a position i agree with when referring to all of those diets based on the idea that certain foods are inherently bad and must be avoided.
Except that sucrose is basically a non-food--it is synthetic and does not exist in nature as the familiar white powder. Stripped as it is of all micro-nutrients, it is essentially just empty carbohydrate calories and most people simply cannot afford it as it crowds out other more nourishing food. The average person eats 500 calories in sugar per day. It has many deleterious effects which, if one keeps on eating it in that quantity for years, will result in a variety of ailments.
What is your source for the 500 calories per day in sugar for the average person? That is 125 grams. That number does not seem credible on the surface.
I had it in my head but it could be wrong. Here is a link to an article: http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=56589 I haven't read the entire article but it says that sugar should be LIMITED to 200 calories per day for health reasons (and in saying that, one assumes that they are saying we generally eat a lot more). It also says that the average per capita consumption of sugar is over 150 pounds per year. I believe it says that only 39 pounds are directly from the sugar bowl and the rest is from all kinds of processed food. One piece of "Carrot cake a la mode" at The Keg contains 260 grams of sugar. So even if you share it with your "sweetie" (and that soubriquet would be literally true, if you did) you are still taking in 130 grams and that doesn't even touch the rest of the day's intake.
That certainly puts at whole different slant on it no, doesn't it? Interesting how the data changes when it has to be proved.
No, I'm quite certain that I read the figure of 500 calories per day in sugar---I just haven't laid my cursor on the proper bit of information yet, but I will post it when I do. The data hasn't changed at all--it is what it is. It defies reason to suggest that an artificial, nutritionally-empty substance like sucrose, should become such a major portion of the diet for many people. Do you like being the devil's advocate or do you work for the sugar industry?0 -
And the article that was posted apparently agree with that conclusion. A quote from it:Okay, so who cares where I get any of my calories from? All food is the same, poptarts are just as healthy as steak or any other food. That is what you seem to be saying.
what he's saying, i believe, is that you can have a healthy diet whether you include poptarts and steak or not.
if paleo does it for you, great... but someone not being paleo does not imply that he/she is somehow making inferior food choices.
you can replace "paleo" above with "primal", "low fat", "low sugar", "low carb", etc. and it's still a position i agree with when referring to all of those diets based on the idea that certain foods are inherently bad and must be avoided.
Except that sucrose is basically a non-food--it is synthetic and does not exist in nature as the familiar white powder. Stripped as it is of all micro-nutrients, it is essentially just empty carbohydrate calories and most people simply cannot afford it as it crowds out other more nourishing food. The average person eats 500 calories in sugar per day. It has many deleterious effects which, if one keeps on eating it in that quantity for years, will result in a variety of ailments.
What is your source for the 500 calories per day in sugar for the average person? That is 125 grams. That number does not seem credible on the surface.
I had it in my head but it could be wrong. Here is a link to an article: http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=56589 I haven't read the entire article but it says that sugar should be LIMITED to 200 calories per day for health reasons (and in saying that, one assumes that they are saying we generally eat a lot more). It also says that the average per capita consumption of sugar is over 150 pounds per year. I believe it says that only 39 pounds are directly from the sugar bowl and the rest is from all kinds of processed food. One piece of "Carrot cake a la mode" at The Keg contains 260 grams of sugar. So even if you share it with your "sweetie" (and that soubriquet would be literally true, if you did) you are still taking in 130 grams and that doesn't even touch the rest of the day's intake.
That certainly puts at whole different slant on it no, doesn't it? Interesting how the data changes when it has to be proved.
That article talks about the WHO recommendation which is to limit calories to 10%. Its more casual reading than study. Take a look at this one. Should you try to limit free sugar? Sure, for overall nutritional reasons I guess, and I do, but the studies really aren't supporting sugar itself as a weight gain problem. The problem is too many calories.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23321486
"The problem comes when we simply take in too many calories.
"It's really the extra calories from sugar in our diet that causes health problems like diabetes and obesity, not anything inherently unhealthy about sugar itself," says Jule Anne Henstenberg, RD, director of the Nutrition Program at La Salle University in Philadelphia."
Why the fear mongering about sugar???0 -
And the article that was posted apparently agree with that conclusion. A quote from it:Okay, so who cares where I get any of my calories from? All food is the same, poptarts are just as healthy as steak or any other food. That is what you seem to be saying.
what he's saying, i believe, is that you can have a healthy diet whether you include poptarts and steak or not.
if paleo does it for you, great... but someone not being paleo does not imply that he/she is somehow making inferior food choices.
you can replace "paleo" above with "primal", "low fat", "low sugar", "low carb", etc. and it's still a position i agree with when referring to all of those diets based on the idea that certain foods are inherently bad and must be avoided.
Except that sucrose is basically a non-food--it is synthetic and does not exist in nature as the familiar white powder. Stripped as it is of all micro-nutrients, it is essentially just empty carbohydrate calories and most people simply cannot afford it as it crowds out other more nourishing food. The average person eats 500 calories in sugar per day. It has many deleterious effects which, if one keeps on eating it in that quantity for years, will result in a variety of ailments.
What is your source for the 500 calories per day in sugar for the average person? That is 125 grams. That number does not seem credible on the surface.
I had it in my head but it could be wrong. Here is a link to an article: http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=56589 I haven't read the entire article but it says that sugar should be LIMITED to 200 calories per day for health reasons (and in saying that, one assumes that they are saying we generally eat a lot more). It also says that the average per capita consumption of sugar is over 150 pounds per year. I believe it says that only 39 pounds are directly from the sugar bowl and the rest is from all kinds of processed food. One piece of "Carrot cake a la mode" at The Keg contains 260 grams of sugar. So even if you share it with your "sweetie" (and that soubriquet would be literally true, if you did) you are still taking in 130 grams and that doesn't even touch the rest of the day's intake.
That certainly puts at whole different slant on it no, doesn't it? Interesting how the data changes when it has to be proved.
That article talks about the WHO recommendation which is to limit calories to 10%. Its more casual reading than study. Take a look at this one. Should you try to limit free sugar? Sure, for overall nutritional reasons I guess, and I do, but the studies really aren't supporting sugar itself as a weight gain problem. The problem is too many calories.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23321486
"The problem comes when we simply take in too many calories.
"It's really the extra calories from sugar in our diet that causes health problems like diabetes and obesity, not anything inherently unhealthy about sugar itself," says Jule Anne Henstenberg, RD, director of the Nutrition Program at La Salle University in Philadelphia."
Why the fear mongering about sugar???
No clue. Its just people wanting to blame something so they have a magic bullet I think.0 -
Okay, so who cares where I get any of my calories from? All food is the same, poptarts are just as healthy as steak or any other food. That is what you seem to be saying.
what he's saying, i believe, is that you can have a healthy diet whether you include poptarts and steak or not.
if paleo does it for you, great... but someone not being paleo does not imply that he/she is somehow making inferior food choices.
you can replace "paleo" above with "primal", "low fat", "low sugar", "low carb", etc. and it's still a position i agree with when referring to all of those diets based on the idea that certain foods are inherently bad and must be avoided.
Except that sucrose is basically a non-food--it is synthetic and does not exist in nature as the familiar white powder. Stripped as it is of all micro-nutrients, it is essentially just empty carbohydrate calories and most people simply cannot afford it as it crowds out other more nourishing food. The average person eats 500 calories in sugar per day. It has many deleterious effects which, if one keeps on eating it in that quantity for years, will result in a variety of ailments.
What is your source for the 500 calories per day in sugar for the average person? That is 125 grams. That number does not seem credible on the surface.
I had it in my head but it could be wrong. Here is a link to an article: http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=56589 I haven't read the entire article but it says that sugar should be LIMITED to 200 calories per day for health reasons (and in saying that, one assumes that they are saying we generally eat a lot more). It also says that the average per capita consumption of sugar is over 150 pounds per year. I believe it says that only 39 pounds are directly from the sugar bowl and the rest is from all kinds of processed food. One piece of "Carrot cake a la mode" at The Keg contains 260 grams of sugar. So even if you share it with your "sweetie" (and that soubriquet would be literally true, if you did) you are still taking in 130 grams and that doesn't even touch the rest of the day's intake.
That certainly puts at whole different slant on it no, doesn't it? Interesting how the data changes when it has to be proved.
No, I'm quite certain that I read the figure of 500 calories per day in sugar---I just haven't laid my cursor on the proper bit of information yet, but I will post it when I do. The data hasn't changed at all--it is what it is. It defies reason to suggest that an artificial, nutritionally-empty substance like sucrose, should become such a major portion of the diet for many people. Do you like being the devil's advocate or do you work for the sugar industry?
If sucrose is artificial how does it get into things like honey and fruits? Is someone injecting it in there?0 -
Okay, so who cares where I get any of my calories from? All food is the same, poptarts are just as healthy as steak or any other food. That is what you seem to be saying.
what he's saying, i believe, is that you can have a healthy diet whether you include poptarts and steak or not.
if paleo does it for you, great... but someone not being paleo does not imply that he/she is somehow making inferior food choices.
you can replace "paleo" above with "primal", "low fat", "low sugar", "low carb", etc. and it's still a position i agree with when referring to all of those diets based on the idea that certain foods are inherently bad and must be avoided.
Except that sucrose is basically a non-food--it is synthetic and does not exist in nature as the familiar white powder. Stripped as it is of all micro-nutrients, it is essentially just empty carbohydrate calories and most people simply cannot afford it as it crowds out other more nourishing food. The average person eats 500 calories in sugar per day. It has many deleterious effects which, if one keeps on eating it in that quantity for years, will result in a variety of ailments.
What is your source for the 500 calories per day in sugar for the average person? That is 125 grams. That number does not seem credible on the surface.
I had it in my head but it could be wrong. Here is a link to an article: http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=56589 I haven't read the entire article but it says that sugar should be LIMITED to 200 calories per day for health reasons (and in saying that, one assumes that they are saying we generally eat a lot more). It also says that the average per capita consumption of sugar is over 150 pounds per year. I believe it says that only 39 pounds are directly from the sugar bowl and the rest is from all kinds of processed food. One piece of "Carrot cake a la mode" at The Keg contains 260 grams of sugar. So even if you share it with your "sweetie" (and that soubriquet would be literally true, if you did) you are still taking in 130 grams and that doesn't even touch the rest of the day's intake.
That certainly puts at whole different slant on it no, doesn't it? Interesting how the data changes when it has to be proved.
That article talks about the WHO recommendation which is to limit calories to 10%. Its more casual reading than study. Take a look at this one. Should you try to limit free sugar? Sure, for overall nutritional reasons I guess, and I do, but the studies really aren't supporting sugar itself as a weight gain problem. The problem is too many calories.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23321486
OF COURSE the problem is too many calories but why would any sane person suggest that the composition of those calories doesn't matter for health purposes? You could eat a 2000 calorie diet of Pop Tarts every day, but I doubt whether you'd stay healthy very long. Better yet, why not go to The Keg every day and eat a "Carrot cake a la mode"? I understand it has about 2,400 calories. You wouldn't then have to bother with the nasty chore of shopping and cooking.0 -
Okay, so who cares where I get any of my calories from? All food is the same, poptarts are just as healthy as steak or any other food. That is what you seem to be saying.
what he's saying, i believe, is that you can have a healthy diet whether you include poptarts and steak or not.
if paleo does it for you, great... but someone not being paleo does not imply that he/she is somehow making inferior food choices.
you can replace "paleo" above with "primal", "low fat", "low sugar", "low carb", etc. and it's still a position i agree with when referring to all of those diets based on the idea that certain foods are inherently bad and must be avoided.
Except that sucrose is basically a non-food--it is synthetic and does not exist in nature as the familiar white powder. Stripped as it is of all micro-nutrients, it is essentially just empty carbohydrate calories and most people simply cannot afford it as it crowds out other more nourishing food. The average person eats 500 calories in sugar per day. It has many deleterious effects which, if one keeps on eating it in that quantity for years, will result in a variety of ailments.
What is your source for the 500 calories per day in sugar for the average person? That is 125 grams. That number does not seem credible on the surface.
I had it in my head but it could be wrong. Here is a link to an article: http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=56589 I haven't read the entire article but it says that sugar should be LIMITED to 200 calories per day for health reasons (and in saying that, one assumes that they are saying we generally eat a lot more). It also says that the average per capita consumption of sugar is over 150 pounds per year. I believe it says that only 39 pounds are directly from the sugar bowl and the rest is from all kinds of processed food. One piece of "Carrot cake a la mode" at The Keg contains 260 grams of sugar. So even if you share it with your "sweetie" (and that soubriquet would be literally true, if you did) you are still taking in 130 grams and that doesn't even touch the rest of the day's intake.
That certainly puts at whole different slant on it no, doesn't it? Interesting how the data changes when it has to be proved.
No, I'm quite certain that I read the figure of 500 calories per day in sugar---I just haven't laid my cursor on the proper bit of information yet, but I will post it when I do. The data hasn't changed at all--it is what it is. It defies reason to suggest that an artificial, nutritionally-empty substance like sucrose, should become such a major portion of the diet for many people. Do you like being the devil's advocate or do you work for the sugar industry?
If sucrose is artificial how does it get into things like honey and fruits? Is someone injecting it in there?
If you will note, I said that the white powder that we know as sugar does not exist in nature--not that sucrose did not exist as a part of various food substances. They don't make it from nothing---it is extracted from sugar cane! But it is the concentration that is the problem and also the fact that it is included in a dizzying array of processed foods.0
This discussion has been closed.
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