Paleo/LC, nutritional knowledge andthe Dunning-Kruger effect
Replies
-
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.
Ah yes, the straw man argument. Crutch of the entire B.S. diet industry and fad diets everywhere0 -
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.
Is it "fear-mongering" when the medical community expresses concern about the amount of sugar included in the typical diet? Is it "fear-mongering" when statisticians note that the consumption of sugar has risen from less than five pounds per capita in 1900 to over 150 pounds per capita now? It is ridiculous to suggest that it isn't having an effect on the health of the populace.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.
Ah yes, the straw man argument. Crutch of the entire B.S. diet industry and fad diets everywhere
And that is irrational but I'll leave you to your amusement.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.
Ah yes, the straw man argument. Crutch of the entire B.S. diet industry and fad diets everywhere
And that is irrational but I'll leave you to your amusement.
Yea, sorry for all that irrational logic. Your type never fails to amuse me, so thank you for that.0 -
I know I said I was done with this thread but the discussion has gotten more civil and logical. So call me a liar!
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2716748/
Long-term effects of a ketogenic diet in obese patients
CONCLUSIONS:
The present study shows the beneficial effects of a long-term ketogenic diet. It significantly reduced the body weight and body mass index of the patients. Furthermore, it decreased the level of triglycerides, LDL cholesterol and blood glucose, and increased the level of HDL cholesterol. Administering a ketogenic diet for a relatively longer period of time did not produce any significant side effects in the patients. Therefore, the present study confirms that it is safe to use a ketogenic diet for a longer period of time than previously demonstrated.
Here are my quibbles with this 2004 study:
Their idea of longterm isn't longterm
I am no longer obese so it doesn't apply to me at this moment although I was obese when I began low carb
I consider the number of participants to be too low. More studies with more participants, please!
Here is a more recent study:
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1199154
Effects of Dietary Composition on Energy Expenditure During Weight-Loss Maintenance
The results of our study challenge the notion that a calorie is a calorie from a metabolic perspective. During isocaloric feeding following weight loss, REE was 67 kcal/d higher with the very low-carbohydrate diet compared with the low-fat diet. TEE differed by approximately 300 kcal/d between these 2 diets, an effect corresponding with the amount of energy typically expended in 1 hour of moderate-intensity physical activity.
So the study shows that the low carb diet was actually the most effective, yet the researches recommend the intermediate diet over the low fat diet because:
Although the very low-carbohydrate diet produced the greatest improvements in most metabolic syndrome components examined herein, we identified 2 potentially deleterious effects of this diet. Twenty-four hour urinary cortisol excretion, a hormonal measure of stress, was highest with the very low-carbohydrate diet. Consistent with this finding, Stimson et al31 reported increased whole-body regeneration of cortisol by 11β-HSD1 and reduced inactivation of cortisol by 5α- and 5β-reductases over 4 weeks on a very low- vs moderate-carbohydrate diet. Higher cortisol levels may promote adiposity, insulin resistance, and cardiovascular disease, as observed in epidemiological studies.32- 34 In a 6-year prospective, population-based study of older adults in Italy,35 individuals in the highest vs lowest tertile of 24-hour cortisol excretion, with or without preexisting cardiovascular disease, had a 5-fold increased risk of cardiovascular mortality. C-reactive protein also tended to be higher with the very low-carbohydrate diet in our study, consistent with the findings of Rankin and Turpyn.36 Other studies also have found reductions in measures of chronic inflammation, including CRP with a low–glycemic index diet.37- 39
So my keto diet does have risks long term. But are those risks greater than the risks of being obese? No.
In the end for me it comes down to compliance. If I won't comply with a moderate or high carb diet that allows me to lose weight and then maintain a healthy weight I must choose the diet that I will comply with. I use the word 'diet' in the broad sense, as in the phrase 'part of a healthy diet', not the narrow, temporary sense.0 -
LMAO @ the OP trying to sound all smart and shlt on the webernets........... ha ha
and yet this is perhaps the most irrelevant and short sight of the posts so far.
Paleo is a fine way to eat. The problem exists here:
1. it has no base in honest science but neither does any "diet", eating patterns, habits are what matter, not food choice, food timing, food frequency, (unless you really have celiac's disease or something). "honest" science and studies usually arrive at the answer: " we still can't prove this ". Dishonest science (the case of most paleo studies touted), are 95% in the affirmative. Somehow, in the last five years, all the scientists studying paleo have made alll sorts of miraculous discoveries that are 100% confirmed! Science doesn't work that way, as least not the kind of science that isn't sponsoring scientists and tells them they won't get published or paid unless they come up with a "yes" or a "no".
2. it has a cultish support base. i once had a client that told me he was KICKED OUT or ousted by his Crossfit box for not doing paleo. People literally stopped talking to him. What kind of diet relegates its non followers to inferiority? I went with some friends to crossfit, out performed their coach on ever lift and in time trials, and ppl said I was just being cocky. No. I had eaten about 400g carbs the day before. That's why I could keep up, on my very first session. The best performers in the 2012 Xfit games...were not on paleo. They were eating healthy, balanced diets. That's logical, since they wanted to be the best, fastest and strongest.
3. The success rate on paleo is ONLY buttressed by the incorporation of Crossfit. They work together. Crossfit carries paleo on its back. Case in point. A woman that has been sedentary starts crossfit/paleo. lost 15 pounds in a month. Hmmm guess what she's going to accredit the loss to? 1/2 crossfit, 1/2 paleo. The thought never enters her mind that she is doing 45 minutes of intense weight circuit cardio. Never. Why? because the prospect of this package is too appealing. Train like a caveman, eat like a caveman. People have gotten very rich off this poor woman. Who by my experience, will plateau in her workouts, as she is not getting enough quality carbohydrate to support her next PR. This will demotivate her and she'll revert, or stay within her plateau, for fear of losing all her great new paleopals!
4. Speaking of cavemen...what was their life expectancy again? 30? Not saying foraging and fishing and hunting yields low quality foods, but...c'mon. If science has extended the lives of humans by 50 years on average, why do you disbelieve the science that exists on the fact that carbs are not the culprit of weight gain (neither is gluten)? Would you like to read the science against paleo? Would you read the statement issued by the USDA and FDA and European Council on health stating that Paleo was ranked 22nd out of 25 diets reviewed in efficacy? Or would you rather just read the studies published in PaeloWeekly?
5. Dr. Lustig in his shameful attack on sugar and primarily fructose on 60 minutes..reminds me of how an educated man, can bend his views on something to make a buck defending questionable truths. Is Dr. Lustig an honest man? Nope. Does he believe that 60 minutes is a great program for him to lay the foundation of his upcoming low carb, gluten free, paleo friendly line of diet products....? Yep!0 -
Three things you should never argue with people about: Religion, Politics, and Diets.
My opinion? Processed foods are BAD. They're not food. When I eat protein, I stay full longer and make better eating choices. Too many carbs, especially simple carbs, make my blood sugar do stupid things. Eating a lot of fatty foods makes my stomach unhappy. Water cleanses you and makes your skin look much more healthy too.0 -
LMAO @ the OP trying to sound all smart and shlt on the webernets........... ha ha
and yet this is perhaps the most irrelevant and short sight of the posts so far.
Paleo is a fine way to eat. The problem exists here:
1. it has no base in honest science but neither does any "diet", eating patterns, habits are what matter, not food choice, food timing, food frequency, (unless you really have celiac's disease or something). "honest" science and studies usually arrive at the answer: " we still can't prove this ". Dishonest science (the case of most paleo studies touted), are 95% in the affirmative. Somehow, in the last five years, all the scientists studying paleo have made alll sorts of miraculous discoveries that are 100% confirmed! Science doesn't work that way, as least not the kind of science that isn't sponsoring scientists and tells them they won't get published or paid unless they come up with a "yes" or a "no".
2. it has a cultish support base. i once had a client that told me he was KICKED OUT or ousted by his Crossfit box for not doing paleo. People literally stopped talking to him. What kind of diet relegates its non followers to inferiority? I went with some friends to crossfit, out performed their coach on ever lift and in time trials, and ppl said I was just being cocky. No. I had eaten about 400g carbs the day before. That's why I could keep up, on my very first session. The best performers in the 2012 Xfit games...were not on paleo. They were eating healthy, balanced diets. That's logical, since they wanted to be the best, fastest and strongest.
3. The success rate on paleo is ONLY buttressed by the incorporation of Crossfit. They work together. Crossfit carries paleo on its back. Case in point. A woman that has been sedentary starts crossfit/paleo. lost 15 pounds in a month. Hmmm guess what she's going to accredit the loss to? 1/2 crossfit, 1/2 paleo. The thought never enters her mind that she is doing 45 minutes of intense weight circuit cardio. Never. Why? because the prospect of this package is too appealing. Train like a caveman, eat like a caveman. People have gotten very rich off this poor woman. Who by my experience, will plateau in her workouts, as she is not getting enough quality carbohydrate to support her next PR. This will demotivate her and she'll revert, or stay within her plateau, for fear of losing all her great new paleopals!
4. Speaking of cavemen...what was their life expectancy again? 30? Not saying foraging and fishing and hunting yields low quality foods, but...c'mon. If science has extended the lives of humans by 50 years on average, why do you disbelieve the science that exists on the fact that carbs are not the culprit of weight gain (neither is gluten)? Would you like to read the science against paleo? Would you read the statement issued by the USDA and FDA and European Council on health stating that Paleo was ranked 22nd out of 25 diets reviewed in efficacy? Or would you rather just read the studies published in PaeloWeekly?
5. Dr. Lustig in his shameful attack on sugar and primarily fructose on 60 minutes..reminds me of how an educated man, can bend his views on something to make a buck defending questionable truths. Is Dr. Lustig an honest man? Nope. Does he believe that 60 minutes is a great program for him to lay the foundation of his upcoming low carb, gluten free, paleo friendly line of diet products....? Yep!
All of this is true (well I don't know anything about the crossfit/Paleo thing). We badly need more unbiased studies. But we have to choose our own methods with the information available to us now. We can't exactly wait until a consensus is reached to choose how we lose and maintain. Especially since a consensus is unlikely to ever be reached.
It is a shame that there is so much junk science out there obscuring the little bit of actual good information we have.0 -
Three things you should never argue with people about: Religion, Politics, and Diets.
My opinion? Processed foods are BAD. They're not food. When I eat protein, I stay full longer and make better eating choices. Too many carbs, especially simple carbs, make my blood sugar do stupid things. Eating a lot of fatty foods makes my stomach unhappy. Water cleanses you and makes your skin look much more healthy too.
Your opinion isn't very educated, frozen veggies, olive oil etc are all processed and therefore terrible according to you, and lol at water cleanses0 -
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
Ok I'll bite- I'm assuming that you therefore belive that paleo is nutritionally unsound? Can you explain how and why please?0 -
Three things you should never argue with people about: Religion, Politics, and Diets.
My opinion? Processed foods are BAD. They're not food. When I eat protein, I stay full longer and make better eating choices. Too many carbs, especially simple carbs, make my blood sugar do stupid things. Eating a lot of fatty foods makes my stomach unhappy. Water cleanses you and makes your skin look much more healthy too.
Your opinion isn't very educated, frozen veggies, olive oil etc are all processed and therefore terrible according to you, and lol at water cleanses
Who said anything about frozen veggies and olive oil? And you're right - I should have been more clear about processed foods. I'm talking about doritos, margarine, little debbie snack cakes, frozen meals (including "lean" ones) . I believe if you eat more fresh things it's better for your body, that's all. And I know how certain foods make me feel. I know first hand you can lose weight eating all kinds of things - been there and done that. Every person on here has a diet they've been successful with with regards to losing weight. There's no diet that I know of that I think is the total answer. I just know from experience when I started adding more protein in my diet and cutting the simple carbs I started feeling better and losing the weight.0 -
One thing that strikes me about this is the reference to paleo being low carb. My understanding is that you can eat a load of carbs if you wish - just from good organic vegetable sources, surely that's a good thing?0
-
Three things you should never argue with people about: Religion, Politics, and Diets.
My opinion? Processed foods are BAD. They're not food. When I eat protein, I stay full longer and make better eating choices. Too many carbs, especially simple carbs, make my blood sugar do stupid things. Eating a lot of fatty foods makes my stomach unhappy. Water cleanses you and makes your skin look much more healthy too.
Your opinion isn't very educated, frozen veggies, olive oil etc are all processed and therefore terrible according to you, and lol at water cleanses
Who said anything about frozen veggies and olive oil? And you're right - I should have been more clear about processed foods. I'm talking about doritos, margarine, little debbie snack cakes, frozen meals (including "lean" ones) . I believe if you eat more fresh things it's better for your body, that's all. And I know how certain foods make me feel. I know first hand you can lose weight eating all kinds of things - been there and done that. Every person on here has a diet they've been successful with with regards to losing weight. There's no diet that I know of that I think is the total answer. I just know from experience when I started adding more protein in my diet and cutting the simple carbs I started feeling better and losing the weight.
Sure. There's an emotional attachment to carbs, and there's one to fat. These are the things your body needs for energy, after all. in the 90s, when people wanted to go pure low fat...even no fat...they had fat cravings. They claimed that they functioned better, were more clear headed, and their stomachs were alot happier too on low fat/high carb. I actually would rather stuff myself on carbs than on fat ( have you ever had a whole extra cheese pizza?...how does your stomach feel afterwards?).
This is what the OP is calling anecdotal evidence. You feel a certain why and "that's all you know"... it works for you "and that's all you know". That is not a sound place to be giving advice. It is only from this platform that you may offer opinions.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
Ok I'll bite- I'm assuming that you therefore belive that paleo is nutritionally unsound? Can you explain how and why please?
I wouldnt say its unsound or unhealthy, i cant speak fro acg though, but you eliminate healthy foods since its not from the caveman like peanuts, grains and all dairy. So if dont have an intolerance and it doesnt cause cravings why eliminate it?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
Ok I'll bite- I'm assuming that you therefore belive that paleo is nutritionally unsound? Can you explain how and why please?
I wouldnt say its unsound or unhealthy, i cant speak fro acg though, but you eliminate healthy foods since its not from the caveman like peanuts, grains and all dairy. So if dont have an intolerance and it doesnt cause cravings why eliminate it?
So essentially you are getting all the nutrients you need from the meat, fruit, veg, and nuts you consume?
In which case why the big paleo bashing? I do primal and I ate more carbs yesterday than acg logged in his diary. Seem's a bit of a non thread0 -
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
Ok I'll bite- I'm assuming that you therefore belive that paleo is nutritionally unsound? Can you explain how and why please?
No, it is fine nutritionally, however arbitrarily eliminating perfectly healthy things like dairy, legumes and grains because some people have issues with them is silly. On top of this, if you just peruse or talk to some paleo adherents, you will find that most but not all, love to spout all manners of nutritional ignorance that has little basis in reality0 -
Three things you should never argue with people about: Religion, Politics, and Diets.
My opinion? Processed foods are BAD. They're not food. When I eat protein, I stay full longer and make better eating choices. Too many carbs, especially simple carbs, make my blood sugar do stupid things. Eating a lot of fatty foods makes my stomach unhappy. Water cleanses you and makes your skin look much more healthy too.
Your opinion isn't very educated, frozen veggies, olive oil etc are all processed and therefore terrible according to you, and lol at water cleanses
Who said anything about frozen veggies and olive oil? And you're right - I should have been more clear about processed foods. I'm talking about doritos, margarine, little debbie snack cakes, frozen meals (including "lean" ones) . I believe if you eat more fresh things it's better for your body, that's all. And I know how certain foods make me feel. I know first hand you can lose weight eating all kinds of things - been there and done that. Every person on here has a diet they've been successful with with regards to losing weight. There's no diet that I know of that I think is the total answer. I just know from experience when I started adding more protein in my diet and cutting the simple carbs I started feeling better and losing the weight.
Sure. There's an emotional attachment to carbs, and there's one to fat. These are the things your body needs for energy, after all. in the 90s, when people wanted to go pure low fat...even no fat...they had fat cravings. They claimed that they functioned better, were more clear headed, and their stomachs were alot happier too on low fat/high carb. I actually would rather stuff myself on carbs than on fat ( have you ever had a whole extra cheese pizza?...how does your stomach feel afterwards?).
This is what the OP is calling anecdotal evidence. You feel a certain why and "that's all you know"... it works for you "and that's all you know". That is not a sound place to be giving advice. It is only from this platform that you may offer opinions.
What I didn't explain is that until recently, I didn't believe the whole "low carb/high protein" hype. I've typically eaten more carbs and less protein. And I did lose weight doing so - and I ate things like lean cuisines for lunch, whole grain pastas for dinner with veggies more than meat, etc. When I exercised, however, my blood sugar did weird things and I felt BAD. By the time I would get home, I was hangry (being so hungry I was angry). Which then made it difficult to make good food choices. So I started reading a LOT about other ways to eat, and found it interesting that a lower carb diet is recommended for diabetics because of the blood sugar thing. So - I adjusted. I started eating more protein than carbs for breakfast in particular and I'm absolutely amazed that one dang egg can keep me satisfied until lunch. Before I'd eat yogurt and a serving size of shredded wheat, and want to chew my left arm off by 10:30 am.
I do remember the no fat fads and did that too - and learned that when I'd get irritated and the slow weight loss and eat a cheeseburger, I'd lose more weight that week. See? I am educated :-)
I don't spend my day researching everything. I'm not a nutritionist. But I pay attention to what seems to be working much better for me. I can exercise and not feel bad afterwards - in fact, I feel GOOD.
So - for me - I eat carbs in the form of veggies and fruits. I stay away as much as possible from processed sweeteners. I try to eat protein at every meal as well which helps me not to snack. I'll eat dairy too, but it's just not my favorite thing. I like brown rice and incorporate it into my diet, but not daily. I enjoy wine - and I enjoy it often. And I watch my calorie intake.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
Ok I'll bite- I'm assuming that you therefore belive that paleo is nutritionally unsound? Can you explain how and why please?
No, it is fine nutritionally, however arbitrarily eliminating perfectly healthy things like dairy, legumes and grains because some people have issues with them is silly. On top of this, if you just peruse or talk to some paleo adherents, you will find that most but not all, love to spout all manners of nutritional ignorance that has little basis in reality
Maybe you're just talking to the wrong people.
If they are happy to eliminate these things what's the problem? They're still eating a nutritionally sound diet. I would never have said I had a problem eating grains but undoubtedly feel better now I don't eat them anymore- I'm not saying I'll never eat them again but pasta/bread etc is no longer a staple of my diet. Do I think every one should do this? I really couldn't care less. I've found what works for me others can find what works for them. If asked do I reccomend it - hell yes, why wouldnt I?0 -
bottom line: if something works for you, use it. If something doesn't work for you, don't use it. Right?0
-
LMAO @ the OP trying to sound all smart and shlt on the webernets........... ha ha
Probably better to sound like a knuckle-dragger?0 -
bottom line: if something works for you, use it. If something doesn't work for you, don't use it. Right?
Yes--and that is exactly the position of the OP. The reason why I am enthusiastic about my approach (which isn't actually Paleo) is because it has worked for me when all other approaches failed. And from that, I simply try to help others by telling them what has worked and continues to work for me.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
Ok I'll bite- I'm assuming that you therefore belive that paleo is nutritionally unsound? Can you explain how and why please?
No, it is fine nutritionally, however arbitrarily eliminating perfectly healthy things like dairy, legumes and grains because some people have issues with them is silly. On top of this, if you just peruse or talk to some paleo adherents, you will find that most but not all, love to spout all manners of nutritional ignorance that has little basis in reality
Maybe you're just talking to the wrong people.
If they are happy to eliminate these things what's the problem? They're still eating a nutritionally sound diet. I would never have said I had a problem eating grains but undoubtedly feel better now I don't eat them anymore- I'm not saying I'll never eat them again but pasta/bread etc is no longer a staple of my diet. Do I think every one should do this? I really couldn't care less. I've found what works for me others can find what works for them. If asked do I reccomend it - hell yes, why wouldnt I?
Its not that its a bad diet its that people swear going paleo will make the healthier and automatically lose weight. Its not the diet its the calories. Its no different than any other diet that people think its superior. Its not. In the end you lose just as much weight on paleo as any other diet. If it works great, but too many people suggest diets because its a fad. For my wife, its more of a requirement due to her health issues but for me it didnt provide any more weight loss benefit.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
Ok I'll bite- I'm assuming that you therefore belive that paleo is nutritionally unsound? Can you explain how and why please?
No, it is fine nutritionally, however arbitrarily eliminating perfectly healthy things like dairy, legumes and grains because some people have issues with them is silly. On top of this, if you just peruse or talk to some paleo adherents, you will find that most but not all, love to spout all manners of nutritional ignorance that has little basis in reality
Maybe you're just talking to the wrong people.
If they are happy to eliminate these things what's the problem? They're still eating a nutritionally sound diet. I would never have said I had a problem eating grains but undoubtedly feel better now I don't eat them anymore- I'm not saying I'll never eat them again but pasta/bread etc is no longer a staple of my diet. Do I think every one should do this? I really couldn't care less. I've found what works for me others can find what works for them. If asked do I reccomend it - hell yes, why wouldnt I?
I think you're missing the point a little and forgive me if I'm doing the same. The problem is that these diets are being touted as the "be all end all" way to eat and that people "should" eat this way. That adds to the morass of misinformation out there. If it works for you, then great. Just don't go with the crowd pushing it. There are a few very reasonable paleo eaters in this thread and one or two that unreasonable. The problem with "selling" it is that it does push people to eliminate nutritious foods from their diets thereby making it more difficult for many. If you understand this, we're good. If not I can't really say much more.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
Ok I'll bite- I'm assuming that you therefore belive that paleo is nutritionally unsound? Can you explain how and why please?
No, it is fine nutritionally, however arbitrarily eliminating perfectly healthy things like dairy, legumes and grains because some people have issues with them is silly. On top of this, if you just peruse or talk to some paleo adherents, you will find that most but not all, love to spout all manners of nutritional ignorance that has little basis in reality
Maybe you're just talking to the wrong people.
If they are happy to eliminate these things what's the problem? They're still eating a nutritionally sound diet. I would never have said I had a problem eating grains but undoubtedly feel better now I don't eat them anymore- I'm not saying I'll never eat them again but pasta/bread etc is no longer a staple of my diet. Do I think every one should do this? I really couldn't care less. I've found what works for me others can find what works for them. If asked do I reccomend it - hell yes, why wouldnt I?
I think you're missing the point a little and forgive me if I'm doing the same. The problem is that these diets are being touted as the "be all end all" way to eat and that people "should" eat this way. That adds to the morass of misinformation out there. If it works for you, then great. Just don't go with the crowd pushing it. There are a few very reasonable paleo eaters in this thread and one or two that unreasonable. The problem with "selling" it is that it does push people to eliminate nutritious foods from their diets thereby making it more difficult for many. If you understand this, we're good. If not I can't really say much more.
I guess my take on it has always been replacing food with more nutritious food rather than eliminating IE i still eat carbs but I'll have cauliflower instead of rice. To be fair to the "paleo pushers" the only posts I've seen in the main forums are ones responding to questions about it and responses to ones like this. Not necessarily pushing paleo.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
Ok I'll bite- I'm assuming that you therefore belive that paleo is nutritionally unsound? Can you explain how and why please?
No, it is fine nutritionally, however arbitrarily eliminating perfectly healthy things like dairy, legumes and grains because some people have issues with them is silly. On top of this, if you just peruse or talk to some paleo adherents, you will find that most but not all, love to spout all manners of nutritional ignorance that has little basis in reality
Maybe you're just talking to the wrong people.
If they are happy to eliminate these things what's the problem? They're still eating a nutritionally sound diet. I would never have said I had a problem eating grains but undoubtedly feel better now I don't eat them anymore- I'm not saying I'll never eat them again but pasta/bread etc is no longer a staple of my diet. Do I think every one should do this? I really couldn't care less. I've found what works for me others can find what works for them. If asked do I reccomend it - hell yes, why wouldnt I?
I think you're missing the point a little and forgive me if I'm doing the same. The problem is that these diets are being touted as the "be all end all" way to eat and that people "should" eat this way. That adds to the morass of misinformation out there. If it works for you, then great. Just don't go with the crowd pushing it. There are a few very reasonable paleo eaters in this thread and one or two that unreasonable. The problem with "selling" it is that it does push people to eliminate nutritious foods from their diets thereby making it more difficult for many. If you understand this, we're good. If not I can't really say much more.
I guess my take on it has always been replacing food with more nutritious food rather than eliminating IE i still eat carbs but I'll have cauliflower instead of rice. To be fair to the "paleo pushers" the only posts I've seen in the main forums are ones responding to questions about it and responses to ones like this. Not necessarily pushing paleo.
There's a "pusher" in this very thread and the books on paleo make some crazy claims. That said, I get what you are saying.0 -
I know I said I was done with this thread but the discussion has gotten more civil and logical. So call me a liar!
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2716748/
Long-term effects of a ketogenic diet in obese patients
CONCLUSIONS:
The present study shows the beneficial effects of a long-term ketogenic diet. It significantly reduced the body weight and body mass index of the patients. Furthermore, it decreased the level of triglycerides, LDL cholesterol and blood glucose, and increased the level of HDL cholesterol. Administering a ketogenic diet for a relatively longer period of time did not produce any significant side effects in the patients. Therefore, the present study confirms that it is safe to use a ketogenic diet for a longer period of time than previously demonstrated.
Here are my quibbles with this 2004 study:
Their idea of longterm isn't longterm
I am no longer obese so it doesn't apply to me at this moment although I was obese when I began low carb
I consider the number of participants to be too low. More studies with more participants, please!
Here is a more recent study:
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1199154
Effects of Dietary Composition on Energy Expenditure During Weight-Loss Maintenance
The results of our study challenge the notion that a calorie is a calorie from a metabolic perspective. During isocaloric feeding following weight loss, REE was 67 kcal/d higher with the very low-carbohydrate diet compared with the low-fat diet. TEE differed by approximately 300 kcal/d between these 2 diets, an effect corresponding with the amount of energy typically expended in 1 hour of moderate-intensity physical activity.
So the study shows that the low carb diet was actually the most effective, yet the researches recommend the intermediate diet over the low fat diet because:
Although the very low-carbohydrate diet produced the greatest improvements in most metabolic syndrome components examined herein, we identified 2 potentially deleterious effects of this diet. Twenty-four hour urinary cortisol excretion, a hormonal measure of stress, was highest with the very low-carbohydrate diet. Consistent with this finding, Stimson et al31 reported increased whole-body regeneration of cortisol by 11β-HSD1 and reduced inactivation of cortisol by 5α- and 5β-reductases over 4 weeks on a very low- vs moderate-carbohydrate diet. Higher cortisol levels may promote adiposity, insulin resistance, and cardiovascular disease, as observed in epidemiological studies.32- 34 In a 6-year prospective, population-based study of older adults in Italy,35 individuals in the highest vs lowest tertile of 24-hour cortisol excretion, with or without preexisting cardiovascular disease, had a 5-fold increased risk of cardiovascular mortality. C-reactive protein also tended to be higher with the very low-carbohydrate diet in our study, consistent with the findings of Rankin and Turpyn.36 Other studies also have found reductions in measures of chronic inflammation, including CRP with a low–glycemic index diet.37- 39
So my keto diet does have risks long term. But are those risks greater than the risks of being obese? No.
In the end for me it comes down to compliance. If I won't comply with a moderate or high carb diet that allows me to lose weight and then maintain a healthy weight I must choose the diet that I will comply with. I use the word 'diet' in the broad sense, as in the phrase 'part of a healthy diet', not the narrow, temporary sense.
Thanks for this studied and reasoned post. Just from my own experience, I have found that ketogenic diets are problematic in the longer term (and I have found that they were the only vehicles for weight loss for me in the past). But the long-term battle appears to be won by the diet that reduces body fat most efficiently while preserving (or even facilitating the building of) muscle mass. One of the problems is that ketogenic diets tend to cause muscle atrophy long-term (that has been observed in several reports that I saw) and it was my own experience as well. Then, when I went back to my "normal" diet the pounds crept back on and the end result was that I gained nearly all of it as body fat because my lean body mass was probably reduced by the ketogenic diet. It has been known, for many years, that carbohydrates have a "muscle sparing" effect. In nearly eliminating them, that effect is lost. It has been my experience that if sugar and wheat is eliminated, that appetite is well controlled at 100-200 grams of carbohydrate per day (with the higher amounts reserved for heavy exercise days).
Both sugar and wheat have been observed to be "addictive" in the laboratory. Recent research has focused on the fructose component in sucrose as the likely culprit--for reasons that are too long to go into here. The relatively low amount of fructose that is in a few servings of fruit don't appear to be a problem, but sugar consumption brings a LOT of fructose into the diet.
As well, research has looked at several components in wheat that appear to be "obesogens." Modern wheat is very high in gluten (it has been specifically bred to have high gluten levels) and commercial "quick rise" baking methods leave most of the gluten intact. But while that has been the focus of much anti-wheat sentiment, it is not the gluten that appears to have "addictive" power (although the virtual epidemic of celiac disease and gluten intolerance could be laid there). It is the gliaden in wheat and also fructans (which the body readily converts to fructose in the gut) that could be producing problems for obese people. All of my food cravings stopped almost instantly the day that I eliminated sugar and wheat from my diet (and I eat everything else that fits into my macros). I now have no trouble staying within my calorie allotment and often find that I have to remind myself to eat, as I do not want to lose too quickly. Losing body mass too quickly may be the source of the cortisol rise that was observed---and no one needs to invite cardiac problems. My blood chemistry profile has improved dramatically and I was able to taper off my blood pressure medication very quickly after eliminating sugar.
I was so weak and tired on ketogenic diets that heavy exercise was out of the question for me (may be another source of the cortisol surge as studies have shown that cortisol levels are lowered through moderate exercise. Paradoxically, it has also been observed that "extreme" exercise tends to raise cortisol levels--probably because of the physical stress). I have no such problem exercising now--in fact, I am enjoying exercise for the first time in my life. I find that this program works better for me. But that is just anecdotal and until more work is done in the field, it is just one example. My body fat has gone from 50% to 32% and I feel great. I want to get my BF down to 25% eventually, but I am patient and expect that it will happen if I stay on this program. I will likely gradually increase my exercise levels. Actually, I will probably have to to get my BF to my goal. It has been a fascinating journey.0 -
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?
Neither. I just appreciate a little honesty and intellectual integrity, both of which seems to be missing from your posts.
You posted numbers that could be made up for all anyone knows as you have no source for them. You posted an article that states the problem is the overall calories and yet you want to fear monger about sugar.
Who is advocating that sucrose should be a major part of people diet? FTR, I am a firm advocate of IIFYM. All your intake should be managed. Carbs (of which sugar is one), fats, proteins as well as micronutrients. If one is practicing this, you cannot overconsume sugar, or any other nutrient for that matter.
If someone is going to overconsume sugar, does the responsibility lie with the sugar or the consumer? Same with any other nutrient where the overconsumption of it will cause excess calories resulting in weight gain. Why do you demonize a substance that is basically amoral?
But hey, keep making your illogical fear mongering argumments. You do more damage to your own credibility than I ever could. I won't speak for Acg67 but it's people like you that I have in mind when I read this:
" if you just peruse or talk to some paleo adherents, you will find that most but not all, love to spout all manners of nutritional ignorance that has little basis in reality."0 -
Thanks for this studied and reasoned post. Just from my own experience, I have found that ketogenic diets are problematic in the longer term (and I have found that they were the only vehicles for weight loss for me in the past). But the long-term battle appears to be won by the diet that reduces body fat most efficiently while preserving (or even facilitating the building of) muscle mass. One of the problems is that ketogenic diets tend to cause muscle atrophy long-term (that has been observed in several reports that I saw) and it was my own experience as well. Then, when I went back to my "normal" diet the pounds crept back on and the end result was that I gained nearly all of it as body fat because my lean body mass was probably reduced by the ketogenic diet. It has been known, for many years, that carbohydrates have a "muscle sparing" effect. In nearly eliminating them, that effect is lost. It has been my experience that if sugar and wheat is eliminated, that appetite is well controlled at 100-200 grams of carbohydrate per day (with the higher amounts reserved for heavy exercise days).
Both sugar and wheat have been observed to be "addictive" in the laboratory. Recent research has focused on the fructose component in sucrose as the likely culprit--for reasons that are too long to go into here. The relatively low amount of fructose that is in a few servings of fruit don't appear to be a problem, but sugar consumption brings a LOT of fructose into the diet.
As well, research has looked at several components in wheat that appear to be "obesogens." Modern wheat is very high in gluten (it has been specifically bred to have high gluten levels) and commercial "quick rise" baking methods leave most of the gluten intact. But while that has been the focus of much anti-wheat sentiment, it is not the gluten that appears to have "addictive" power (although the virtual epidemic of celiac disease and gluten intolerance could be laid there). It is the gliaden in wheat and also fructans (which the body readily converts to fructose in the gut) that could be producing problems for obese people. All of my food cravings stopped almost instantly the day that I eliminated sugar and wheat from my diet (and I eat everything else that fits into my macros). I now have no trouble staying within my calorie allotment and often find that I have to remind myself to eat, as I do not want to lose too quickly. Losing body mass too quickly may be the source of the cortisol rise that was observed---and no one needs to invite cardiac problems. My blood chemistry profile has improved dramatically and I was able to taper off my blood pressure medication very quickly after eliminating sugar.
I was so weak and tired on ketogenic diets that heavy exercise was out of the question for me (may be another source of the cortisol surge as studies have shown that cortisol levels are lowered through moderate exercise. Paradoxically, it has also been observed that "extreme" exercise tends to raise cortisol levels--probably because of the physical stress). I have no such problem exercising now--in fact, I am enjoying exercise for the first time in my life. I find that this program works better for me. But that is just anecdotal and until more work is done in the field, it is just one example. My body fat has gone from 50% to 32% and I feel great. I want to get my BF down to 25% eventually, but I am patient and expect that it will happen if I stay on this program. I will likely gradually increase my exercise levels. Actually, I will probably have to to get my BF to my goal. It has been a fascinating journey.
Thank you for the info! I am able to work out very well at the moment but I will definitely look into the effects of a ketogenic diet on muscle mass, especially since I intend to put some muscle on.
I also intend to avoid wheat and sugar indefinitely, but I will, once I reach maintenance or near maintenance, attempt to find other carbs that I can add back that don't trigger cravings. Unfortunately, one of my favorites, nuts, will not be in that group since I can happily eat an entire can of cashews at a sitting and then look for more.0 -
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?
Neither. I just appreciate a little honesty and intellectual integrity, both of which seems to be missing from your posts.
You posted numbers that could be made up for all anyone knows as you have no source for them. You posted an article that states the problem but the overall calories and yet you want to fear monger about sugar.
Who is advocating that sucrose should be a major part of people diet? FTR, I am a firm advocate of IIFYM. All your intake should be managed. Carbs (of which sugar is one), fats, proteins as well as micronutrients. If one is practicing this, you cannot overconsume sugar, or any other nutrient for that matter.
If someone is going to overconsume sugar, does the responsibility lie with the sugar or the consumer? Same with any other nutrient where the overconsumption of it will cause excess calories resulting in weight gain. Why do you demonize a substance that is basically amoral?
But hey, keep making your illogical fear mongering argumments. You do more damage to your own credibility than I ever could. I won't speak for Acg67 but it's people like you that I have in mind when I read this:
" if you just peruse or talk to some paleo adherents, you will find that most but not all, love to spout all manners of nutritional ignorance that has little basis in reality."
I actually do not follow Paleo, nor do I advocate it---you are barking up the wrong tree there. Nor do I endorse long-term ketogenic diets for the reasons I cited above. To accuse me of dishonesty and lack of intellectual integrity is simply beyond the pale. Just exactly what are you disagreeing with? The fact that I haven't backed up the claim about the 500 calories worth of sugar that the average person eats per day? Google is your friend, but even the article that I cited states that the average person consumes 150 pounds of sugar per year---DO THE MATH!
I have only ever stated my opinion and have outlined what has worked for me---if you would drop the knee-jerk reactions, I think you would see that. If you like sugar, I really do not care if you eat it until you are in diabetic coma. But to keep on sounding the mantra that it does matter what your diet consists of as long as it stays within calories, is to do a health-disservice to those who are reading. Please stop it.0 -
But to keep on sounding the mantra that it does matter what your diet consists of as long as it stays within calories, is to do a health-disservice to those who are reading. Please stop it.
That is not what I said. Sounds like your reading comprehension could use some work in addition to the posting numbers you can't back up thing. Just can't see the forest for all those trees can you.
But hey, thanks for staying rational! :drinker: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