Is fast food really so bad for you?
Replies
-
Yeah it probally is but why do we tend to think it is the worst thing in the world if it was so bad then why don't we shut it down ever ask that question, but we still should not eat too much of it but alittle should be good because at least we are getting in our daily protein and calories. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Other than the added sugar, excessive salt, bad fats and preservatives, no. If you don't mind all of that, it's one way of tying on the feed bag, I suppose. :ohwell:
What's wrong with sugar or salt? And what's a bad fat? There's almost 0 trans fat in anything fast food these days. You'll find more in a piece of steak.
We have had this discussion before. Added sugar is bad because it triggers binge eating (among other things). EXCESSIVE salt is bad because we are simply not designed for it. The human body is designed to take in something like three times (or more) potassium than sodium. Fast food and processed food contains a LOT more sodium than potassium in most meals. And bad fats--ever look into the crud that builds up in the fryers of the fast food joints? The oils they use in their fryers begin to break down at the very high temperatures that they use, and certain, very nasty chemicals (for example, acrylamides) accumulate in them, over the course of the day. You get a little "extra gift" with each bite of french fries (potatoes absorb nasties very well). From "Living a Healthy Lifestyle" website :
"...A process used by potato chip and donut manufacturers but hidden from the public is a health risk. The vegetable oil used in these products is constantly re-used and recycled until the oil is entirely absorbed. Thousands of gallons of vegetable oil is purchased and only a fraction is ever left over. Using vegetable oils over and over again causes FFAs (free fatty acids) to form. These FFAs are chemically treated to reduce their quantity, and the oil is recycled to be used in making more potato chips and donuts. What's left after the oil has been recycled, until it can't be recycled anymore, is a dirty, thick sludge..." YUM!! :sick:
Sugar triggers binge eating? Sounds more like a personal issue. Not an issue I have or anyone I interact with on a regular basis has or exhibits. That's a broad sweeping statement based on personal tendencies.
The vast majority of fast food isn't deep fried. You're singling out a small niche. Even then only the cheapest of owners don't at least strain their fryers daily. If not change it completely, which is done at Daphnes & Chick-Fil-A daily as example.
As far as sodium, aside from your assumed ratio being off, you assume the radical end of the spectrum as usual. No one is claiming to endorse eating only fast food. If I were to replace a meal with fast food I would easily still hit potassium goals by nature of the rest of my diet.0 -
I suppose the simple answer is " what are you here for ?" as most members here have a weight loss goal and fast food has all the wrong content to aid in wieght loss
Sure we all partake now and then - I last had a burger from a fast food joint at christmas 2012 although it was not one of the plastic joints, like the ones with the arches. just look at the sugar content in their food and then ask the question.
I take the kids in once or twice a month and let them eat what they want and then watch them go hyper.......additives but they get a kick and they are not old enough to go partying so I suppose its ok (NOT)
personaly - give it a miss your arteries will thank you for it by allowing you a nice life free of things like heart disease angina etc etc
( sorry to rant, its over now )
Ill probably get flamed but hey c'est la vie!
Fast food will not hinder weight loss in the least. Caloric deficit is all that is needed.0 -
I can't believe I'm seriously posting in a thread to defend fast food...because honestly, I'm not a big fan of eating a lot of it...and yet the absolute nonsense that is being thrown around in this thread is...well, nonsense.
The reason I'm not a fan of it is that people use up their daily calories on too much of it and displace other more nutrient dense foods that they need to meet their micros/minerals/etc....(and not because of sodium, fat, sugar, etc.)0 -
Yeah, it's that bad for you. Look into the nutrition facts of it and you'll see that. WAY too high in sodium and fat. Really bad for you.
If I take a food and put a lot of salt and butter on it, it does not magically become "bad for me".
Indeed. It magically becomes DELICIOUS.0 -
I can't believe I'm seriously posting in a thread to defend fast food...because honestly, I'm not a big fan of eating a lot of it...and yet the absolute nonsense that is being thrown around in this thread is...well, nonsense.
The reason I'm not a fan of it is that people use up their daily calories on too much of it and displace other more nutrient dense foods that they need to meet their micros/minerals/etc....(and not because of sodium, fat, sugar, etc.)
I very rarely eat it myself, truth be told. I just don't find false information and labeling food as bad helpful, at all.0 -
hahahahahaYeah it probally is but why do we tend to think it is the worst thing in the world if it was so bad then why don't we shut it down ever ask that question, but we still should not eat too much of it but alittle should be good because at least we are getting in our daily protein and calories. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
what?!
lmao... my thoughts exactly.... think I need another cup of coffee to decipher this information...0 -
Yeah it probally is but why do we tend to think it is the worst thing in the world if it was so bad then why don't we shut it down ever ask that question, but we still should not eat too much of it but alittle should be good because at least we are getting in our daily protein and calories. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Other than the added sugar, excessive salt, bad fats and preservatives, no. If you don't mind all of that, it's one way of tying on the feed bag, I suppose. :ohwell:
What's wrong with sugar or salt? And what's a bad fat? There's almost 0 trans fat in anything fast food these days. You'll find more in a piece of steak.
We have had this discussion before. Added sugar is bad because it triggers binge eating (among other things). EXCESSIVE salt is bad because we are simply not designed for it. The human body is designed to take in something like three times (or more) potassium than sodium. Fast food and processed food contains a LOT more sodium than potassium in most meals. And bad fats--ever look into the crud that builds up in the fryers of the fast food joints? The oils they use in their fryers begin to break down at the very high temperatures that they use, and certain, very nasty chemicals (for example, acrylamides) accumulate in them, over the course of the day. You get a little "extra gift" with each bite of french fries (potatoes absorb nasties very well). From "Living a Healthy Lifestyle" website :
"...A process used by potato chip and donut manufacturers but hidden from the public is a health risk. The vegetable oil used in these products is constantly re-used and recycled until the oil is entirely absorbed. Thousands of gallons of vegetable oil is purchased and only a fraction is ever left over. Using vegetable oils over and over again causes FFAs (free fatty acids) to form. These FFAs are chemically treated to reduce their quantity, and the oil is recycled to be used in making more potato chips and donuts. What's left after the oil has been recycled, until it can't be recycled anymore, is a dirty, thick sludge..." YUM!! :sick:
Sugar triggers binge eating? Sounds more like a personal issue. Not an issue I have or anyone I interact with on a regular basis has or exhibits. That's a broad sweeping statement based on personal tendencies.
As far as sodium, aside from your assumed ratio being off, you assume the radical end of the spectrum as usual. No one is claiming to endorse eating only fast food. If I were to replace a meal with fast food I would easily still hit potassium goals by nature of the rest of my diet.
Sugar consumption is not an issue for me because I don't eat any added sugar at all (and haven't for over three years). Sugar consumption carries an "anti-satiety" effect (why else do you think that food processors include it in virtually every food product they make?). Medical researchers are starting to see its connection to food addiction and many other diseases, obesity, Type II diabetes, hypertension, CVD and renal disease. http://www.foodaddictionsummit.org/docs/johnson-347ajcn review.pdf
The sodium/potassium ratio is long established and medical authorities have been complaining about high sodium consumption forever.
"...The vast majority of fast food isn't deep fried. You're singling out a small niche. Even then only the cheapest of owners don't at least strain their fryers daily. If not change it completely, which is done at Daphnes & Chick-Fil-A daily as example..."
And would you like fries with that?
0 -
Sugar consumption is not an issue for me because I don't eat any added sugar at all (and haven't for over three years). Sugar consumption carries an "anti-satiety" effect (why else do you think that food processors include it in virtually every food product they make?). Medical researchers are starting to see its connection to food addiction and many other diseases, obesity, Type II diabetes, hypertension, CVD and renal disease. http://www.foodaddictionsummit.org/docs/johnson-347ajcn review.pdf
The sodium/potassium ratio is long established and medical authorities have been complaining about high sodium consumption forever.
"...The vast majority of fast food isn't deep fried. You're singling out a small niche. Even then only the cheapest of owners don't at least strain their fryers daily. If not change it completely, which is done at Daphnes & Chick-Fil-A daily as example..."
And would you like fries with that?
The article you linked is a proposal, not proof.
Also that whole 'ad libitum' word is a pretty pesky devil in this context.
Eat in moderation, problem solved.0 -
Yeah, it's that bad for you. Look into the nutrition facts of it and you'll see that. WAY too high in sodium and fat. Really bad for you.
If I take a food and put a lot of salt and butter on it, it does not magically become "bad for me".
Indeed. It magically becomes DELICIOUS.
That reminds me of a food I used to eat WAY too much of as a kid...cereal first, then marshmallows*...with a giant glass of chocolate milk usually followed by butter and jelly sandwiches for lunch...as part of my regular "way too much sugar" diet (at least according to some more recent oft-repeated "research"). That I am not diabetic or suffering from serious disease now is remarkable. I clearly beat the odds.
*And there were only FOUR different marshmallows back then...not the ridiculous number they have now. Pfft...kids these days.0 -
"..The article you linked is a proposal, not proof..."
I think you will have to admit that the evidence is pretty compelling. For me, there is no "safe" limit of sugar consumption. When I cut sugary foods out of my diet three years ago, my blood pressure reduced to the point (in about three weeks) where I could eliminate the two blood pressure drugs (maximum dose on each) I had been taking. And that was BEFORE I had lost much weight.
For many obese people (and surely for all the morbidly obese people I have ever encountered), telling them to "eat sweets in moderation" is equivalent to telling an alcoholic to drink alcohol in moderation (interestingly, the fructose in sucrose is metabolized by the body in a similar fashion to alcohol). They are addicted every bit as much as is a cocaine addict or alcoholic. And the more severe the addiction, the more severe the obesity. Some of the morbidly obese eat ONLY foods containing sugar and/or white flour--I have seen the food diaries of some of them--and almost no vegetables or fruit. The only way to "sobriety" for the obese person, is to cut out sugar entirely and to curb carbohydrates in general--particularly white flour. Researchers have demonstrated that obese people have an ability to convert excess carbohydrates into fructose, with all the metabolic fallout from that.
From Medbio.info: "...Carbohydrate metabolism starting from glucose or galactose proceeds under strict control; fructose is in a special class...The rapid entry of fructose into glycolysis leads to fatty acid synthesis in the liver. Because fructose metabolism "fills" glycolysis with substrate at a very high rate, frequent use of sucrose (remember sucrose is a dimer of fructose and glucose) or fructose promotes fat production. Plasma triglyceride levels are increased by the ingestion of large amounts of sugar. There is a correlation between sugar consumption, high plasma lipid levels and atherosclerosis..."
You can read the rest of the article here: http://www.medbio.info/Horn/Time 1-2/carbohydrate_metabolism.htm0 -
"..The article you linked is a proposal, not proof..."
I think you will have to admit that the evidence is pretty compelling. For me, there is no "safe" limit of sugar consumption. When I cut sugary foods out of my diet three years ago, my blood pressure reduced to the point (in about three weeks) where I could eliminate the two blood pressure drugs (maximum dose on each) I had been taking. And that was BEFORE I had lost much weight.
For many obese people (and surely for all the morbidly obese people I have ever encountered), telling them to "eat sweets in moderation" is equivalent to telling an alcoholic to drink alcohol in moderation (interestingly, the fructose in sucrose is metabolized by the body in a similar fashion to alcohol). They are addicted every bit as much as is a cocaine addict or alcoholic. And the more severe the addiction, the more severe the obesity. Some of the morbidly obese eat ONLY foods containing sugar and/or white flour--I have seen the food diaries of some of them--and almost no vegetables or fruit. The only way to "sobriety" for the obese person, is to cut out sugar entirely and to curb carbohydrates in general--particularly white flour. Researchers have demonstrated that obese people have an ability to convert excess carbohydrates into fructose, with all the metabolic fallout from that.
From Medbio.info: "...Carbohydrate metabolism starting from glucose or galactose proceeds under strict control; fructose is in a special class...The rapid entry of fructose into glycolysis leads to fatty acid synthesis in the liver. Because fructose metabolism "fills" glycolysis with substrate at a very high rate, frequent use of sucrose (remember sucrose is a dimer of fructose and glucose) or fructose promotes fat production. Plasma triglyceride levels are increased by the ingestion of large amounts of sugar. There is a correlation between sugar consumption, high plasma lipid levels and atherosclerosis..."
You can read the rest of the article here: http://www.medbio.info/Horn/Time 1-2/carbohydrate_metabolism.htm
Actually I don't think it is that compelling. I think the timeframe that's being discussed was the same one where average daily caloric intake was increasing as well. I suspect THAT has a lot more to do with the health issues being discussed than sugar vs protein or fat or whatever.
Eating in moderationg is often compared to alcoholism, the same resulting suggestion stands. "Eat in moderation, unless you can't." That doesn't mean everyone should have to follow an exclusion-based diet, just like not everyone should have to go to AA if they enjoy alcoholic beverages in moderation. Comparing binge eating or a food diary with chronic calorie intakes over TDEE to cocaine use is both extreme and unfounded. If you get a headache when you don't get your daily cup of coffee due to a caffeine addicition, that's not as bad as selling your body to cover your smack addiction. Some people have truly severe eating disorders. Trying to lump those heart breaking cases with every fat person out there belittles the tremendous challenges those with real problems face in acheiving recovery.
As for your last problem, fat oxidation needs to be less than fat storage to get fat. It doesn't matter how fast or slow the storage is, if you oxidize more than you deposit, you'll lose fat.0 -
I think there is certainly a lot legitimacy to the argument that added sugars should be treated with caution or minimised if possible, particularly in the light of the recent InterAct study:
http://static.rasset.ie/documents/news/diabetes-sugary-drink.pdf
Now, obviously correlation is not the same as causation (thank you Captain Obvious...). However, I doubt a study which attempted to show causation between sugar consumption and Type II diabetes would ever be attempted as the InterAct study would seem to show. Does anyone really thinks that would get passed an Ethics Committee? "Yeah, it will be groovy. I want to take healthy individuals and over feed them with sugar and if I am right by the end of the study they will have diabetes. Isn't that great! What do you mean "guards take this madman to the cells?"
So all we can really do is try and track associations in a real world setting. Clearly there will be a lot of confounding factors so follow up studies will be necessary and findings must be treated with caution. However, that does not mean you can merely discount these association if there is also a compelling body of existing evidence which shows a link. Sometimes reliable conclusions can be drawn from associations if they are strong enough and backed by existing data.
For my part, I think that everyone should keep an eye on sugar consumption, healthy or not, diabetic or not, overweight or not and to say otherwise is potentially irresponsible.0 -
I think there is certainly a lot legitimacy to the argument that added sugars should be treated with caution or minimised if possible, particularly in the light of the recent InterAct study:
http://static.rasset.ie/documents/news/diabetes-sugary-drink.pdf
Now, obviously correlation is not the same as causation (thank you Captain Obvious...). However, I doubt a study which attempted to show causation between sugar consumption and Type II diabetes would ever be attempted as the InterAct study would seem to show. Does anyone really thinks that would get passed an Ethics Committee? "Yeah, it will be groovy. I want to take healthy individuals and over feed them with sugar and if I am right by the end of the study they will have diabetes. Isn't that great! What do you mean "guards take this madman to the cells?"
So all we can really do is try and track associations in a real world setting. Clearly there will be a lot of confounding factors so follow up studies will be necessary and findings must be treated with caution. However, that does not mean you can merely discount these association if there is also a compelling body of existing evidence which shows a link. Sometimes reliable conclusions can be drawn from associations if they are strong enough and backed by existing data.
For my part, I think that everyone should keep an eye on sugar consumption, healthy or not, diabetic or not, overweight or not and to say otherwise is potentially irresponsible.
I'd argue that tracking calories and macros is far more important, and that in a calorie controlled environment where protein and fat requirements are met, worrying about sugar intake becomes largely irrelevant.0 -
I'd argue that tracking calories and macros is far more important, and that in a calorie controlled environment where protein and fat requirements are met, worrying about sugar intake becomes largely irrelevant.
I think you are probably right and there is no need for huge amounts of paranoia in this regard at this stage. However, I do think people should at least be aware of the amount of added sugars they have in their diet (though that does not mean having to track it by any means) and seek to keep it in check. What that would mean on a practical level is hard to know I admit.
The problem thrown up by this study is that added sugars are possibly a risk irrespective of BMI it would appear. Now, I know lots of people take issue with BMI as a measure of body fatness but the indication is the risk is there even if people are not particularly overweight. This goes against the general consensus that simply the act of losing weight through good diet and exercise may not be enough to keep your risk level in check.0 -
Just want to say that this an absolutely terrific blog and website in general.0 -
"...Now, obviously correlation is not the same as causation (thank you Captain Obvious...). However, I doubt a study which attempted to show causation between sugar consumption and Type II diabetes would ever be attempted as the InterAct study would seem to show. Does anyone really think that would get past an Ethics Committee? 'Yeah, it will be groovy. I want to take healthy individuals and over feed them with sugar and if I am right by the end of the study they will have diabetes. Isn't that great! What do you mean 'guards take this madman to the cells?'..."
Actually, that is what the medical researcher Richard J. Johnson, M.D. and his colleagues did with a number of normal weight men during a study at the University of Colorado. At the end of the experiment, the majority had become Type II diabetics (fortunately, they reverted to their previous non-diabetic state after the experiment was over.) It was a calculated risk based on the researchers hypothesis that it is excessive fructose consumption (in the form of sugar and high fructose corn syrup consumption) that causes, not only obesity but Type II diabetes as well. Dr. Johnson believes that Type II is actually a "normal" response to the eating of fructose. What makes sugar (and HFCS) particularly devastating is that there is no mediating influence from fiber and water, which would be the case with fruit consumption. The dose makes the poison. Drinking just one 12-oz. can of "orange" soda has the fructose equivalent of 10 medium oranges. As a further note, the fructose in the fruit is locked in little "pillows" of fiber and is released slowly into the blood stream. It isn't that our bodies cannot handle fructose any more than it cannot handle alcohol, but when it is taken in unusually large amounts, it overwhelms.0 -
"...For my part, I think that everyone should keep an eye on sugar consumption, healthy or not, diabetic or not, overweight or not and to say otherwise is potentially irresponsible..."
And I would agree that it is only prudent to rein in sugar consumption (and if you have a medical problem like obesity or Type II diabetes, it is essential). We went from a nation with a per capita consumption of 5 pounds per year in 1900 to a consumption level of 150 pounds per capita per year now. Think it has had an impact on the nation's expanding waistline? You bet.0 -
"...For my part, I think that everyone should keep an eye on sugar consumption, healthy or not, diabetic or not, overweight or not and to say otherwise is potentially irresponsible..."
And I would agree that it is only prudent to rein in sugar consumption (and if you have a medical problem like obesity or Type II diabetes, it is essential). We went from a nation with a per capita consumption of 5 pounds per year in 1900 to a consumption level of 150 pounds per capita per year now. Think it has had an impact on the nation's expanding waistline? You bet.
Look at average daily calories in 1900 vs now. That's the waistline impact.0 -
If you eat within your daily Macros (protein/carbs/fats) then no its not bad.
Just as long as your hitting your daily amounts of macros its not something to fret about.
Do I eat fast food a lot? not really, but IF I want a juicy cheeseburger, I'M GONNA HAVE ONE!
Look up IIFYM (If it fits your macros)..its a GREAT way to eat.0 -
"...I'd argue that tracking calories and macros is far more important, and that in a calorie controlled environment where protein and fat requirements are met, worrying about sugar intake becomes largely irrelevant..."
And I would argue that since I have only 1,360 calories a day allotted to me on MFP, how am I supposed to include the empty calories of sugar and white flour in my diet and stay well-nourished? What is irrelevant is speaking to me of "moderation". Once I meet my protein, fat and minimal carbohydrate macros (in the form of vegetables and some fruit), I have NO calories left over for frivolous expenditures on "sweets in moderation" (in addition, I do not want to invite hypertension into my life again).0 -
"...For my part, I think that everyone should keep an eye on sugar consumption, healthy or not, diabetic or not, overweight or not and to say otherwise is potentially irresponsible..."
And I would agree that it is only prudent to rein in sugar consumption (and if you have a medical problem like obesity or Type II diabetes, it is essential). We went from a nation with a per capita consumption of 5 pounds per year in 1900 to a consumption level of 150 pounds per capita per year now. Think it has had an impact on the nation's expanding waistline? You bet.
Look at average daily calories in 1900 vs now. That's the waistline impact.
Gotcha! We eat approximately the same amount of fat that our ancestors in 1900 ate and we actually eat slightly less protein. Guess where nearly ALL of the extra calories come from---sugar and white flour.0 -
Actually, that is what the medical researcher Richard J. Johnson, M.D. and his colleagues did with a number of normal weight men during a study at the University of Colorado. At the end of the experiment, the majority had become Type II diabetics (fortunately, they reverted to their previous non-diabetic state after the experiment was over.) It was a calculated risk based on the researchers hypothesis that it is excessive fructose consumption (in the form of sugar and high fructose corn syrup consumption) that causes, not only obesity but Type II diabetes as well. Dr. Johnson believes that Type II is actually a "normal" response to the eating of fructose. What makes sugar (and HFCS) particularly devastating is that there is no mediating influence from fiber and water, which would be the case with fruit consumption. The dose makes the poison. Drinking just one 12-oz. can of "orange" soda has the fructose equivalent of 10 medium oranges. As a further note, the fructose in the fruit is locked in little "pillows" of fiber and is released slowly into the blood stream. It isn't that our bodies cannot handle fructose any more than it cannot handle alcohol, but when it is taken in unusually large amounts, it overwhelms.
Have you got a link / citation / title of the study please?
I am just heading out the door but would like to read it later when I have time.0 -
Actually, that is what the medical researcher Richard J. Johnson, M.D. and his colleagues did with a number of normal weight men during a study at the University of Colorado. At the end of the experiment, the majority had become Type II diabetics (fortunately, they reverted to their previous non-diabetic state after the experiment was over.) It was a calculated risk based on the researchers hypothesis that it is excessive fructose consumption (in the form of sugar and high fructose corn syrup consumption) that causes, not only obesity but Type II diabetes as well. Dr. Johnson believes that Type II is actually a "normal" response to the eating of fructose. What makes sugar (and HFCS) particularly devastating is that there is no mediating influence from fiber and water, which would be the case with fruit consumption. The dose makes the poison. Drinking just one 12-oz. can of "orange" soda has the fructose equivalent of 10 medium oranges. As a further note, the fructose in the fruit is locked in little "pillows" of fiber and is released slowly into the blood stream. It isn't that our bodies cannot handle fructose any more than it cannot handle alcohol, but when it is taken in unusually large amounts, it overwhelms.
Have you got a link / citation / title of the study please?
I am just heading out the door but would like to read it later when I have time.
I'll see if I can find it online but I read about the study in Dr. Johnson's book, "The Fat Switch" which he wrote for the public as a way of getting the results of his research before the people.
Edited to add: Here is an Endocrine Review paper that he published back in 2009. http://edrv.endojournals.org/content/30/1/96.full I think the study that he spoke of in his book was done more recently. I'll keep looking.0 -
"...For my part, I think that everyone should keep an eye on sugar consumption, healthy or not, diabetic or not, overweight or not and to say otherwise is potentially irresponsible..."
And I would agree that it is only prudent to rein in sugar consumption (and if you have a medical problem like obesity or Type II diabetes, it is essential). We went from a nation with a per capita consumption of 5 pounds per year in 1900 to a consumption level of 150 pounds per capita per year now. Think it has had an impact on the nation's expanding waistline? You bet.
Look at average daily calories in 1900 vs now. That's the waistline impact.
Gotcha! We eat approximately the same amount of fat that our ancestors in 1900 ate and we actually eat slightly less protein. Guess where nearly ALL of the extra calories come from---sugar and white flour.
That's not a gotcha. How can you prove that the changes are a result of the type of food (sugar and flour) and not just the calorie excess (which is what I claimed initially)?
ETA:
MFP generally gives pretty low estimates for target calorie intakes (when I first started out it told me to eat 1900 calories, and I can maintain on 4k a day), but assuming that number is accurate you could increase your activity level. Not everyone has the tight margins that you do, and if they don't moderation is most definitely a viable option. The point was never to force it into your diet, but rather to allow it without worry if it could fit.And I would argue that since I have only 1,360 calories a day allotted to me on MFP, how am I supposed to include the empty calories of sugar and white flour in my diet and stay well-nourished? What is irrelevant is speaking to me of "moderation". Once I meet my protein, fat and minimal carbohydrate macros (in the form of vegetables and some fruit), I have NO calories left over for frivolous expenditures on "sweets in moderation" (in addition, I do not want to invite hypertension into my life again).0 -
Just want to say that this an absolutely terrific blog and website in general.
0 -
Actually, that is what the medical researcher Richard J. Johnson, M.D. and his colleagues did with a number of normal weight men during a study at the University of Colorado. At the end of the experiment, the majority had become Type II diabetics (fortunately, they reverted to their previous non-diabetic state after the experiment was over.) It was a calculated risk based on the researchers hypothesis that it is excessive fructose consumption (in the form of sugar and high fructose corn syrup consumption) that causes, not only obesity but Type II diabetes as well. Dr. Johnson believes that Type II is actually a "normal" response to the eating of fructose. What makes sugar (and HFCS) particularly devastating is that there is no mediating influence from fiber and water, which would be the case with fruit consumption. The dose makes the poison. Drinking just one 12-oz. can of "orange" soda has the fructose equivalent of 10 medium oranges. As a further note, the fructose in the fruit is locked in little "pillows" of fiber and is released slowly into the blood stream. It isn't that our bodies cannot handle fructose any more than it cannot handle alcohol, but when it is taken in unusually large amounts, it overwhelms.
Have you got a link / citation / title of the study please?
I am just heading out the door but would like to read it later when I have time.
I'll see if I can find it online but I read about the study in Dr. Johnson's book, "The Fat Switch" which he wrote for the public as a way of getting the results of his research before the people.
Edited to add: Here is an Endocrine Review paper that he published back in 2009. http://edrv.endojournals.org/content/30/1/96.full I think the study that he spoke of in his book was done more recently. I'll keep looking.
This may be what you're talking about, read the actual study and pay attention to the design and how closely it relates to the real world vs just copy pasting from his book
Excessive fructose intake induces the features of metabolic syndrome in healthy adult men: role of uric acid in the hypertensive response.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&ved=0CDgQFjAB&url=http://www.optimalhealthresearch.com/uws/pharm/1_required/A_Intro-Midterm/Week4_DIABETES%20PARADIGM%20Excessive%20fructose%20intake%20induces%20the%20features%20of%20metabolic%20syndrome%20in%20healthy%20adult%20men.pdf&ei=AtmLUaLoEYXA8AT_k4GwDw&usg=AFQjCNG5EFGmjEedmtI3d0GA1i3fOW9YtA&sig2=cqod0nFyeGwYneR7ULrFIw&bvm=bv.46340616,d.eWU0 -
"...How can you prove that the changes are a result of the type of food (sugar and flour) and not just the calorie excess (which is what I claimed initially)?..."
Our ancestors weren't fat and they weren't eating much, if any sugar--and a lot less white flour. Everything else was pretty much the same and the elderly among them were even slighter because of the loss of muscle mass that occurs with age. Most everyone here over 40 is carrying extra body fat (even though they get the same muscle shrinkage that occurred in earlier generations--likely compounding the problem). Researchers have said the data suggests that the older we get, the more profound the impact of sugar consumption. Hmmmm. It isn't exactly rocket science to connect the dots.0 -
"...How can you prove that the changes are a result of the type of food (sugar and flour) and not just the calorie excess (which is what I claimed initially)?..."
Our ancestors weren't fat and they weren't eating much, if any sugar--and a lot less white flour. Everything else was pretty much the same and the elderly among them were even slighter because of the loss of muscle mass that occurs with age. Most everyone here over 40 is carrying extra body fat (even though they get the same muscle shrinkage that occurred in earlier generations--likely compounding the problem). Researchers have said the data suggests that the older we get, the more profound the impact of sugar consumption. Hmmmm. It isn't exactly rocket science to connect the dots.
You're still entirely missing my point.
Our ancestors ate fewer calories than we do today. How can you say the issues we're facing are because of evil sugar and not just excess calories in general?
If you maintain weight on 2000 calories and start eating 3000 a day, you'll gain weight whether those extra calories are protein, fats, or carbs. It's thermodynamics.0 -
"...For my part, I think that everyone should keep an eye on sugar consumption, healthy or not, diabetic or not, overweight or not and to say otherwise is potentially irresponsible..."
And I would agree that it is only prudent to rein in sugar consumption (and if you have a medical problem like obesity or Type II diabetes, it is essential). We went from a nation with a per capita consumption of 5 pounds per year in 1900 to a consumption level of 150 pounds per capita per year now. Think it has had an impact on the nation's expanding waistline? You bet.
Look at average daily calories in 1900 vs now. That's the waistline impact.
Gotcha! We eat approximately the same amount of fat that our ancestors in 1900 ate and we actually eat slightly less protein. Guess where nearly ALL of the extra calories come from---sugar and white flour.
That's not a gotcha. How can you prove that the changes are a result of the type of food (sugar and flour) and not just the calorie excess (which is what I claimed initially)?
ETA:
MFP generally gives pretty low estimates for target calorie intakes (when I first started out it told me to eat 1900 calories, and I can maintain on 4k a day), but assuming that number is accurate you could increase your activity level. Not everyone has the tight margins that you do, and if they don't moderation is most definitely a viable option. The point was never to force it into your diet, but rather to allow it without worry if it could fit.And I would argue that since I have only 1,360 calories a day allotted to me on MFP, how am I supposed to include the empty calories of sugar and white flour in my diet and stay well-nourished? What is irrelevant is speaking to me of "moderation". Once I meet my protein, fat and minimal carbohydrate macros (in the form of vegetables and some fruit), I have NO calories left over for frivolous expenditures on "sweets in moderation" (in addition, I do not want to invite hypertension into my life again).
I'm working as hard as I can at exercise (I have arthritis). I go to the pool twice a week and as my weight has come down (which makes the calorie restrictions become tighter and tighter) I have become a lot more active--as my arthritis improves. I am already down to a 2 pound a month weight loss, even though my macros are set at "1 pound a week". I added light weights several months ago and I am attempting to do heavier weights but I am also eating at a supposed deficit (and I am VERY careful to weigh and record EVERYTHING). I'm happy for you that you are able to maintain on 4,000 calories. I can assure you that I would blow up like a blimp on that many calories. I would have a problem maintaining on half of that.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 394K Introduce Yourself
- 43.9K Getting Started
- 260.4K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 435 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.9K MyFitnessPal Information
- 15 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.7K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions