Understanding the blood sugar roller coaster...

Options
1235»

Replies

  • bcattoes
    bcattoes Posts: 17,299 Member
    Options
    (so much for being the last I'll say on this)
    ...it would qualify as a cause, since eliminating obesity has reversed diabetes in some people.
    Do you see the word "some" in your statement? Did I use "some" in the definition anywhere? No.

    I don't want to be rude or antagonistic, but you seem to be clearly either completely ignorant or totally argumentative. Either way, you are incorrect.

    You can believe what you wish, it won't make you correct here.

    Let's assume I'm ignorant. Can you give me an example of a cause of disease? (any disease, not just diabetes/IR)

    Also, from your statement

    (From a scientific standpoint, "cause" is a condition that produces an effect; AND eliminating the "cause" also eliminates the effect. Both conditions must exist for the condition to be classified as a cause. )

    it would seem that gluten causes celiac disease since, for those with celiac disease, consuming gluten produces an effect and eliminating gluten eliminates the effect. Yet gluten does not cause celiac.

    No...the cause of Celiac Disease is *probably* auto-immune related. The *effect* of Celiac Disease is the immune response to the protein wheat gluten, just like any allergy is an exacerbated immune response to a protein. The fact that the allergic response and gluten are in the same place at the same time is a correlation.

    Correlation is the presence--or absence--of two phenomenon.

    For instance, say I'm wearing a green sweater that looks lovely on me, and my hair is done nicely.

    A friend notices my hair and decides to say, 'You look so nice today!'.

    My hair was the cause of the compliment. The compliment also occurred on a day that I was wearing a nice green sweater, but the green sweater was not the cause of the compliment.

    I could 'test' this by showing up with my nice green sweater and my head shaved. If, all things being equal except my hair, my friend still said I looked so nice, then the compliment could be attributed to my sweater. If I did not another compliment, then it could be said that my sweater correlated with my compliments about 50% of the time, but my hair correlated with my compliments 100% of the time. The other important thing here is the order of events, because an effect can't be causatory of itself.

    Anyway, no researcher worth their salt would ever make the mistake of saying one poorly-understood phenomenon *causes* another poorly-understood phenomenon. Do you know why? Once you do that, the research stops.

    What if your friend was just in an uncomplimentary mood the next time. Or it was the combination of sweater and hair that caused the compliment, thus making them both and neither a cause. So ... we're back to semantics. Got it.

    Listen...it's just really obvious that you don't actually understand science and you're calling it semantics because you don't comprehend the importance of clarifying the difference between correlation and causation.

    I understand the difference. I apologized earlier for daring to use the "cause" word. I was merely pointing out the flaws in your definition of "cause".
  • songbyrdsweet
    songbyrdsweet Posts: 5,691 Member
    Options
    (so much for being the last I'll say on this)
    ...it would qualify as a cause, since eliminating obesity has reversed diabetes in some people.
    Do you see the word "some" in your statement? Did I use "some" in the definition anywhere? No.

    I don't want to be rude or antagonistic, but you seem to be clearly either completely ignorant or totally argumentative. Either way, you are incorrect.

    You can believe what you wish, it won't make you correct here.

    Let's assume I'm ignorant. Can you give me an example of a cause of disease? (any disease, not just diabetes/IR)

    Also, from your statement

    (From a scientific standpoint, "cause" is a condition that produces an effect; AND eliminating the "cause" also eliminates the effect. Both conditions must exist for the condition to be classified as a cause. )

    it would seem that gluten causes celiac disease since, for those with celiac disease, consuming gluten produces an effect and eliminating gluten eliminates the effect. Yet gluten does not cause celiac.

    No...the cause of Celiac Disease is *probably* auto-immune related. The *effect* of Celiac Disease is the immune response to the protein wheat gluten, just like any allergy is an exacerbated immune response to a protein. The fact that the allergic response and gluten are in the same place at the same time is a correlation.

    Correlation is the presence--or absence--of two phenomenon.

    For instance, say I'm wearing a green sweater that looks lovely on me, and my hair is done nicely.

    A friend notices my hair and decides to say, 'You look so nice today!'.

    My hair was the cause of the compliment. The compliment also occurred on a day that I was wearing a nice green sweater, but the green sweater was not the cause of the compliment.

    I could 'test' this by showing up with my nice green sweater and my head shaved. If, all things being equal except my hair, my friend still said I looked so nice, then the compliment could be attributed to my sweater. If I did not another compliment, then it could be said that my sweater correlated with my compliments about 50% of the time, but my hair correlated with my compliments 100% of the time. The other important thing here is the order of events, because an effect can't be causatory of itself.

    Anyway, no researcher worth their salt would ever make the mistake of saying one poorly-understood phenomenon *causes* another poorly-understood phenomenon. Do you know why? Once you do that, the research stops.

    What if your friend was just in an uncomplimentary mood the next time. Or it was the combination of sweater and hair that caused the compliment, thus making them both and neither a cause. So ... we're back to semantics. Got it.

    Listen...it's just really obvious that you don't actually understand science and you're calling it semantics because you don't comprehend the importance of clarifying the difference between correlation and causation.

    I understand the difference. I apologized earlier for daring to use the "cause" word. I was merely pointing out the flaws in your definition of "cause".

    I didn't make up a definition for cause. I didn't even define it. I just said causation can't be applied in this case. That is a GOOD thing. The minute we say, 'Oh, obesity causes insulin resistance. Problem solved!' is the minute we stop exploring and seeking a better mechanism.
  • bcattoes
    bcattoes Posts: 17,299 Member
    Options
    (so much for being the last I'll say on this)
    ...it would qualify as a cause, since eliminating obesity has reversed diabetes in some people.
    Do you see the word "some" in your statement? Did I use "some" in the definition anywhere? No.

    I don't want to be rude or antagonistic, but you seem to be clearly either completely ignorant or totally argumentative. Either way, you are incorrect.

    You can believe what you wish, it won't make you correct here.

    Let's assume I'm ignorant. Can you give me an example of a cause of disease? (any disease, not just diabetes/IR)

    Also, from your statement

    (From a scientific standpoint, "cause" is a condition that produces an effect; AND eliminating the "cause" also eliminates the effect. Both conditions must exist for the condition to be classified as a cause. )

    it would seem that gluten causes celiac disease since, for those with celiac disease, consuming gluten produces an effect and eliminating gluten eliminates the effect. Yet gluten does not cause celiac.

    No...the cause of Celiac Disease is *probably* auto-immune related. The *effect* of Celiac Disease is the immune response to the protein wheat gluten, just like any allergy is an exacerbated immune response to a protein. The fact that the allergic response and gluten are in the same place at the same time is a correlation.

    Correlation is the presence--or absence--of two phenomenon.

    For instance, say I'm wearing a green sweater that looks lovely on me, and my hair is done nicely.

    A friend notices my hair and decides to say, 'You look so nice today!'.

    My hair was the cause of the compliment. The compliment also occurred on a day that I was wearing a nice green sweater, but the green sweater was not the cause of the compliment.

    I could 'test' this by showing up with my nice green sweater and my head shaved. If, all things being equal except my hair, my friend still said I looked so nice, then the compliment could be attributed to my sweater. If I did not another compliment, then it could be said that my sweater correlated with my compliments about 50% of the time, but my hair correlated with my compliments 100% of the time. The other important thing here is the order of events, because an effect can't be causatory of itself.

    Anyway, no researcher worth their salt would ever make the mistake of saying one poorly-understood phenomenon *causes* another poorly-understood phenomenon. Do you know why? Once you do that, the research stops.

    What if your friend was just in an uncomplimentary mood the next time. Or it was the combination of sweater and hair that caused the compliment, thus making them both and neither a cause. So ... we're back to semantics. Got it.

    Listen...it's just really obvious that you don't actually understand science and you're calling it semantics because you don't comprehend the importance of clarifying the difference between correlation and causation.

    I understand the difference. I apologized earlier for daring to use the "cause" word. I was merely pointing out the flaws in your definition of "cause".

    I didn't make up a definition for cause. I didn't even define it. I just said causation can't be applied in this case. That is a GOOD thing. The minute we say, 'Oh, obesity causes insulin resistance. Problem solved!' is the minute we stop exploring and seeking a better mechanism.

    So, because we know the cause of Down's Syndrome we can say "problem solved"? Personally, I'd only say that if we found a cure, not a cause.
  • stealthq
    stealthq Posts: 4,298 Member
    Options
    (so much for being the last I'll say on this)
    ...it would qualify as a cause, since eliminating obesity has reversed diabetes in some people.
    Do you see the word "some" in your statement? Did I use "some" in the definition anywhere? No.

    I don't want to be rude or antagonistic, but you seem to be clearly either completely ignorant or totally argumentative. Either way, you are incorrect.

    You can believe what you wish, it won't make you correct here.

    Let's assume I'm ignorant. Can you give me an example of a cause of disease? (any disease, not just diabetes/IR)

    Yes. Down's Syndrome. Caused by the presence of an extra copy of chromosome 21 (all or in part) during early embryonic development. If it were possible to find and remove the extra copy at an early enough stage, the embryo would never develop the condition.

    A contrary example: Mutations to BRCA1 (or smoking, or exposure to asbestos, sun exposure, etc) do not cause cancer. They increase the likelihood that the individual will eventually develop cancer.

    Can you prove either of those statements?

    There has never been a case reported of Down's syndrome that did not have an extra copy of chromosome 21. How do I know this? It is the definition of Down's syndrome. You don't have Down's syndrome if you don't have that extra copy. Period. You might have another disease with similar features, but it isn't Down's syndrome. On the other hand, if you do have that extra copy, you have Down's syndrome no matter how mild or non-apparent your symptoms. Again, it is the definition of the syndrome.

    As for the second, in the first couple of links searching for "BRCA1 no cancer",

    from Sloan Kettering: http://www.mskcc.org/cancer-care/hereditary-genetics/inherited-risk-breast-ovarian:
    "The genes BRCA1 and BRCA2 are involved in cell growth, cell division, and the repair of damage to DNA. Mutations in the BRCA genes can cause DNA damage in cells to go unrepaired, which increases the chance that a person will develop some types of cancer."

    from a FAQ on the BRCA tests: http://inthefamily.kartemquin.com/content/brca-101#positive
    "If I test Positive for a BRCA mutation, does that mean I WILL get cancer?

    NO! As Dr. Narod says in the beginning of In the Family, “Look, it’d be a lot easier if we could say ‘you’re gonna get it, you’re not.” Testing positive for a BRCA mutation only tells us that you have an increased RISK of developing cancer. A test result will not show if you will develop cancer - or when. Not all women who inherit a BRCA mutation will develop breast or ovarian cancer.

    For more information on your risk of developing cancer with a BRCA mutation, please visit:

    National Cancer Institute Fact Sheet, BRCA

    Cancer Risk: Understanding the Puzzle

    Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tool
    by the National Cancer Institute"

    As for smoking, asbestos, and the rest, I don't think I need to provide evidence that people have been exposed to asbestos, 1st and 2nd hand smoke, and the sun, I'm sure some even all of the above combined, and not gotten cancer.
  • bcattoes
    bcattoes Posts: 17,299 Member
    Options
    (so much for being the last I'll say on this)
    ...it would qualify as a cause, since eliminating obesity has reversed diabetes in some people.
    Do you see the word "some" in your statement? Did I use "some" in the definition anywhere? No.

    I don't want to be rude or antagonistic, but you seem to be clearly either completely ignorant or totally argumentative. Either way, you are incorrect.

    You can believe what you wish, it won't make you correct here.

    Let's assume I'm ignorant. Can you give me an example of a cause of disease? (any disease, not just diabetes/IR)

    Yes. Down's Syndrome. Caused by the presence of an extra copy of chromosome 21 (all or in part) during early embryonic development. If it were possible to find and remove the extra copy at an early enough stage, the embryo would never develop the condition.

    A contrary example: Mutations to BRCA1 (or smoking, or exposure to asbestos, sun exposure, etc) do not cause cancer. They increase the likelihood that the individual will eventually develop cancer.

    Can you prove either of those statements?

    There has never been a case reported of Down's syndrome that did not have an extra copy of chromosome 21. How do I know this? It is the definition of Down's syndrome. You don't have Down's syndrome if you don't have that extra copy. Period. You might have another disease with similar features, but it isn't Down's syndrome. On the other hand, if you do have that extra copy, you have Down's syndrome no matter how mild or non-apparent your symptoms. Again, it is the definition of the syndrome.

    As for the second, in the first couple of links searching for "BRCA1 no cancer",

    from Sloan Kettering: http://www.mskcc.org/cancer-care/hereditary-genetics/inherited-risk-breast-ovarian:
    "The genes BRCA1 and BRCA2 are involved in cell growth, cell division, and the repair of damage to DNA. Mutations in the BRCA genes can cause DNA damage in cells to go unrepaired, which increases the chance that a person will develop some types of cancer."

    from a FAQ on the BRCA tests: http://inthefamily.kartemquin.com/content/brca-101#positive
    "If I test Positive for a BRCA mutation, does that mean I WILL get cancer?

    NO! As Dr. Narod says in the beginning of In the Family, “Look, it’d be a lot easier if we could say ‘you’re gonna get it, you’re not.” Testing positive for a BRCA mutation only tells us that you have an increased RISK of developing cancer. A test result will not show if you will develop cancer - or when. Not all women who inherit a BRCA mutation will develop breast or ovarian cancer.

    For more information on your risk of developing cancer with a BRCA mutation, please visit:

    National Cancer Institute Fact Sheet, BRCA

    Cancer Risk: Understanding the Puzzle

    Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tool
    by the National Cancer Institute"

    As for smoking, asbestos, and the rest, I don't think I need to provide evidence that people have been exposed to asbestos, 1st and 2nd hand smoke, and the sun, I'm sure some even all of the above combined, and not gotten cancer.

    I don't understand this instance that unless something causes something 100% of the time, it never causes it. A shotgun to the head never causes death I suppose, since it doesn't always cause death.

    Re: Down's, my question was referring the remark about curing it with an untested procedure.
  • tekwriter
    tekwriter Posts: 923 Member
    Options
    From the perspective of a diabetic, it makes a world of differnce how those sugars are metabolized. It is extremely difficult to deal with a blood glucose of 273 (after a bowl of cereal and a pear). It impacts most areas of your life and being low is just as scary and miserable. The glycemic Index has begin to shed some light on this subject that may be helpful.
  • victorialkay
    victorialkay Posts: 70
    Options
    Sigh.... I am just waiting the junk food advocates to show up. "I lost 700lbs on taco bell alone!" "I know a lady who eats ice cream at every meal and she is the skinniest person I have ever known!" They don't want to believe this. They will come in here and try to put everyone through the ringer who even suggests a healthful diet.

    There a soooooo many more benefits to eating healthy then just weightloss is all I have to say to those people. Someone can be skinny and still be unhealthy. What about people that are skinny fat? These people need to get a grip, overall eating a healthy balanced diet is and should be about health! Yes weightloss does reduce your chances of some diseases and other health problems but overall, we want to have healthy bodies and minds and actually live until we are old not die early because we have scoffed ice cream or Taco Bell all our life's.

    Get a life losers, lol!
  • victorialkay
    victorialkay Posts: 70
    Options
    Sigh.... I am just waiting the junk food advocates to show up. "I lost 700lbs on taco bell alone!" "I know a lady who eats ice cream at every meal and she is the skinniest person I have ever known!" They don't want to believe this. They will come in here and try to put everyone through the ringer who even suggests a healthful diet.

    I actually did lose 40lbs of pretty much all bodyfat in 90 days...eating virtually nothing but taco bell (lunch), chicken and
    And a lot of it.

    Every day.

    A healthful diet is a wonderful thing...and should be a goal for everyone, but it's unnecessary for fat loss. The truth is the truth.

    Now...to the OP, since you've got this blood sugar/insulin thing down. Please explain to us how doing nothing more than skipping breakfast (eating lunch around 1pm, and dinner no later than 8pm)...which gives you about 16hrs with no food in your body...affects the statements in your above post.
    Insulin resistance. It comes from eating garbage. Even if you exercise.
    http://voices.yahoo.com/does-insulin-resistance-always-gain-weight-6613164.html
    http://www.bodyandsoul.com.au/body+fitness/weight+loss/insulin+resistance+may+be+making+you+fat,7603
    http://lowcarbdiets.about.com/od/prediabetesanddiabetes/a/insulinresistan.htm
    http://www.livestrong.com/article/490298-why-does-insulin-make-you-gain-weight/
    http://www.pre-diabetes.com/prediabetes/why-does-insulin-resistance-cause-weight-gain.html

    you get the point. People who push "a calorie is a calorie" mumbo jumbo are full of it. Sure, there may be people who can get away with eating every meal at a fast food restaurant in the present. But later down the road all the processed junk WILL wreak havoc on the body. JUNK IS NOT GOOD.

    First, not one of those sources is worth the time to click on. Half of them either you or I could write for. There is no accountability.

    Second, no one, not one person on this site that I have EVER SEEN in over two years...says processed food is good for you. But yes, a calorie is a calorie when it comes to weight loss. Any number of REAL, peer reviewed studies (as in...not crap links that the used car salesman on the corner could have written) have proven it. Additionally...it it weren't true, I couldn't have done what I did first hand.

    Third, you bring up insulin resistance. Answer my question to the OP (I bolded it in the quote above), if you will.


    If you actually read what the topic is all about then you will realise that it's mostly about health and how the body works with insulin and glucose!!!
  • crisanderson27
    crisanderson27 Posts: 5,343 Member
    Options
    Sigh.... I am just waiting the junk food advocates to show up. "I lost 700lbs on taco bell alone!" "I know a lady who eats ice cream at every meal and she is the skinniest person I have ever known!" They don't want to believe this. They will come in here and try to put everyone through the ringer who even suggests a healthful diet.

    I actually did lose 40lbs of pretty much all bodyfat in 90 days...eating virtually nothing but taco bell (lunch), chicken and
    And a lot of it.

    Every day.

    A healthful diet is a wonderful thing...and should be a goal for everyone, but it's unnecessary for fat loss. The truth is the truth.

    Now...to the OP, since you've got this blood sugar/insulin thing down. Please explain to us how doing nothing more than skipping breakfast (eating lunch around 1pm, and dinner no later than 8pm)...which gives you about 16hrs with no food in your body...affects the statements in your above post.
    Insulin resistance. It comes from eating garbage. Even if you exercise.
    http://voices.yahoo.com/does-insulin-resistance-always-gain-weight-6613164.html
    http://www.bodyandsoul.com.au/body+fitness/weight+loss/insulin+resistance+may+be+making+you+fat,7603
    http://lowcarbdiets.about.com/od/prediabetesanddiabetes/a/insulinresistan.htm
    http://www.livestrong.com/article/490298-why-does-insulin-make-you-gain-weight/
    http://www.pre-diabetes.com/prediabetes/why-does-insulin-resistance-cause-weight-gain.html

    you get the point. People who push "a calorie is a calorie" mumbo jumbo are full of it. Sure, there may be people who can get away with eating every meal at a fast food restaurant in the present. But later down the road all the processed junk WILL wreak havoc on the body. JUNK IS NOT GOOD.

    First, not one of those sources is worth the time to click on. Half of them either you or I could write for. There is no accountability.

    Second, no one, not one person on this site that I have EVER SEEN in over two years...says processed food is good for you. But yes, a calorie is a calorie when it comes to weight loss. Any number of REAL, peer reviewed studies (as in...not crap links that the used car salesman on the corner could have written) have proven it. Additionally...it it weren't true, I couldn't have done what I did first hand.

    Third, you bring up insulin resistance. Answer my question to the OP (I bolded it in the quote above), if you will.


    If you actually read what the topic is all about then you will realise that it's mostly about health and how the body works with insulin and glucose!!!

    You forgot to write:
    Get a life losers, lol!

    But just so you can get your head around it...I didn't quote the OP, I quoted the lady (wait for it....), that's in the first set of quotes in my post!!

    It was her that I responded to, thank you very much.
  • UnoDrea3732
    UnoDrea3732 Posts: 342 Member
    Options
    I heard cinnamon helps with your insulin levels....just saying. :happy:
  • trojanbb
    trojanbb Posts: 1,297 Member
    Options
    Sigh.... I am just waiting the junk food advocates to show up. "I lost 700lbs on taco bell alone!" "I know a lady who eats ice cream at every meal and she is the skinniest person I have ever known!" They don't want to believe this. They will come in here and try to put everyone through the ringer who even suggests a healthful diet.

    The difference in blood sugar levels in a normally functioning human and different carb sources and their effects on body composition are minimal. Unless you are a top competitor in your given sport, I would be more than a little suspicious if you claimed to notice the difference. If you are a diabetic or are taking insulin, then that's a different story.

    To hear any average gym goer go on and on about insulin, carbs, and blood sugar is a bit laughable...because it really doesnt matter. It's WAY down on the list of priorities for optimal body composition. Again, diabetics and recreational insulin users are a different story.
  • JUDDDing
    JUDDDing Posts: 1,367 Member
    Options
    Actually that would be detrimental to a diabetic. They are already undergoing unregulated gluconeogenesis; the last thing they need to do is release a boatload of cortisol to drive their liver further into glucose over-production.
    Boy is it. It's one of the many things I personally tried. Fasting with severe Type II diabetes = ridiculous liver dumps. I've got logs of my personal readings as I learned to control my D that would blow your mind.

    What really surprised me is what happened when I tried to exercise post-fast (ie: in the morning before breakfast). Instead of utilizing the circulating glucose for the activity, I continued to have greater and greater levels released into my circulatory system. It only worsened as I increased the intensity. I tried this on multiple occasions and stopped each time at a blood glucose level nearly 300mg/dl (about 16.6mmol/L for any non-Americans.)

    Now that I've learned to control it (no insulin, diet and exercise only) even while exercising my CGMS shows me max at about 130mg/dl (about 7.2mmol/L) and I'll get slightly under 70mg/dl (3.9mmol/L) when my liver decides to pump me back up.

    I don't think there is as universal of a lesson here as you seem to think.

    I'm type II for 10+ years and I have fasted on alternate days since 1/1/2013. My last A1C (last week) was 5.6.

    Exercise provides no increase in my blood sugar - quite the opposite in fact. Fasted or not.
  • JUDDDing
    JUDDDing Posts: 1,367 Member
    Options
    Except that diabetes is sometimes cured with weight loss.
    No. Controlled is not the same as cured. Weight-loss, diet and exercise can control diabetes. There is no cure. None. Period.

    http://www.ncl.ac.uk/press.office/press.release/item/diet-reverses-type-2-diabetes#.UWcc1bWkoYN

    If you have normal beta cell function and glucose response - you can think whatever you want.
  • Time2LoseWeightNOW
    Time2LoseWeightNOW Posts: 1,730 Member
    Options
  • mamax5
    mamax5 Posts: 414 Member
    Options
    My hubby ate a bunch of processed junk and now he has type 2 diabetes!! His glucose levels can be as high as 400-500!!! He scares me. Hopefully his wake-up call at the doctor today will stick! Oh, and he doesn't eat a ton of candy bars either...he's eating things like corn dogs, pizza rolls, (fake)wheat bread, regular potatoes, McD's food. Things that a lot of people don't realize is sugar. Oh, and over eating as well.
  • stealthq
    stealthq Posts: 4,298 Member
    Options
    Taking out all the quotes back and forth just to shorten this ...
    I don't understand this instance that unless something causes something 100% of the time, it never causes it. A shotgun to the head never causes death I suppose, since it doesn't always cause death.

    Re: Down's, my question was referring the remark about curing it with an untested procedure.

    No, no, that's not what anyone is saying. You're trying to equate the specific and the general and it doesn't work that way.

    The general: What is the cause of death? The cause of death is the cessation of specific functions of the brain (using brain-death as the definition of death).

    The specific: What is the cause of death for a person who was shot in the head so that the brain was damaged to the point it ceased to function? The gunshot wound caused the damage which caused the death.

    Different questions, different answers. It's important to keep them straight. Lots of misconceptions out there and widespread misuse of terminology.

    The Down's question was answered. If you remove the cause before it has had an effect, you never have a problem at all (again, definition of cause). It's the same way you could cure cancer (at least that one instance of it) if you were able to detect, locate, and remove the first cancer cell before it ever divided or metastasized. This is part of what your immune system does all the time, after all. What is pretty nifty is that they have been successful in removing the extra chromosome from some of an adult Down's patient's cells. It didn't reverse damage that was already done, of course, but it reportedly did improve his condition.
  • caribougal
    caribougal Posts: 865 Member
    Options
    Second, no one, not one person on this site that I have EVER SEEN in over two years...says processed food is good for you. But yes, a calorie is a calorie when it comes to weight loss. Any number of REAL, peer reviewed studies (as in...not crap links that the used car salesman on the corner could have written) have proven it. Additionally...it it weren't true, I couldn't have done what I did first hand.

    I have seen posts on MFP say that processed food is good for you. I was once even told "there is plenty of scientific evidence that carbs, protein and fat are good for us" as a reason why McD was healthy.

    There are plenty of "prcessed foods" that are good for you, and this is generally agreed apon by all but the most hardcore true believers of the cult of Paleo.

    Greek Yogurt is a highly processed food. It is also near universally agreed that it belongs in the "good for you" column. There are plenty of other examples like this.

    How, exactly, is Greek yogurt "highly processed"? Yogurt = milk and/or cream + active cultures + low heat + time, and if you want greek style, strain with a cheese cloth. Doesn't seem highly processed to me. Now, you might argue that a mass produced greek yogurt like Fage uses big mechanical strainers (I actually have no idea about this, just guessing). That's an industrial version of the cheese cloth. I have no clue how Fage makes their yogurt, but the fact that they list the same 2 basic ingredients as a homemade version (milk/cream + cultures) does not imply highly processed to me. Maybe you think it's processed because the cultures change the characteristics of the milk? That seems like something only the most hardcore true believers in the cult of "if it's not raw, it's processed" would say.

Categories