Sugar is the CULPRIT!
Replies
-
So Amen to this. I have been careful with my health all my life and still got cancer. I limit my sugar intake because supposedly some tumors feed on excess sugar. I still don't believe the malarky that's been blathered on and on about in this monstrously long feed.
I can totally understand limiting sugar if you have o had cancer, just in case.
But the way it was worded in the prior post made me picture little tumors running around sniffing people to see which ones smelled sweet, then burrowing into their bodies like little parasites to feed off the sugar. lol0 -
We'll if you're going top pull out that old canard perhaps you could start by explaining why we have sweet receptors in our mouths. Is it to detect poisons like the bitter receptors? Yes, the signal to our brains is, "that tastes delicious, I'd better avoid that because it's toxic". Not, "hmm, this tastes delicious and is full of quick energy so I can survive another day to hunt other things I need".You know if there's a book out there where a doctor proved that sugar caused cancer...don't you think that would be KIND of a big deal? And not just something you remember reading in some book a while back.
But ok. This is what you've decided to tell people. This is the advice you want to give.
Back it up.
Provide some sources. Some evidence. Jesus how about at least the NAME of the doctor you claim to believe.
Provide evidence of the claim you're making or just admit you don't really know what you're talking about.
People continuously provide and have provided plenty of evidence for people to only poo poo it. So go research it for yourself.
We were never intended to eat sugar. And especially not in the quantities we eat it in today. Do what you like though. I try to abstain as much as possible.
I think the reality is probably more like we were never intended (if you could even try to assume what we are intended for at all) to be surrounded by so much sugar.0 -
Going from, not to much around and hard to find, to, let me drive to the store or better yet pick up the phone and restock the coffers.
We'll if you're going top pull out that old canard perhaps you could start by explaining why we have sweet receptors in our mouths. Is it to detect poisons like the bitter receptors? Yes, the signal to our brains is, "that tastes delicious, I'd better avoid that because it's toxic". Not, "hmm, this tastes delicious and is full of quick energy so I can survive another day to hunt other things I need".You know if there's a book out there where a doctor proved that sugar caused cancer...don't you think that would be KIND of a big deal? And not just something you remember reading in some book a while back.
But ok. This is what you've decided to tell people. This is the advice you want to give.
Back it up.
Provide some sources. Some evidence. Jesus how about at least the NAME of the doctor you claim to believe.
Provide evidence of the claim you're making or just admit you don't really know what you're talking about.
People continuously provide and have provided plenty of evidence for people to only poo poo it. So go research it for yourself.
We were never intended to eat sugar. And especially not in the quantities we eat it in today. Do what you like though. I try to abstain as much as possible.
I think the reality is probably more like we were never intended (if you could even try to assume what we are intended for at all) to be surrounded by so much sugar.0 -
Going from, not to much around and hard to find, to, let me drive to the store or better yet pick up the phone and restock the coffers.
Bingo!
This also speaks to how little energy we have to expend to even get our calories...0 -
Hormones may make people WANT to eat more, but they can't force people to eat more. Eating more than you burn is what makes people gain weight, period. WHY they choose to eat more has nothing to do with that equation.
No one is arguing that hormones can make people hungry - at least, I'm not. I'm well aware of that.
In a free living country, if people are hungry, they will more than likely eat. Calorie restriction(monitoring calories), is not the solution to the problem. You can sit there eating high GI foods all day. If you're under your calorie limit, you won't get fat.
But that doesn't explain "WHY" most Americans are fat. To "solve" the problem, I believe they have to limit high GI foods.
Everything you've said in this thread - every last thing - is completely wrong.
Of course it is, you can say "you're wrong" all you want with out any evidence or proof to back up your claims.0 -
Hormones may make people WANT to eat more, but they can't force people to eat more. Eating more than you burn is what makes people gain weight, period. WHY they choose to eat more has nothing to do with that equation.
No one is arguing that hormones can make people hungry - at least, I'm not. I'm well aware of that.
In a free living country, if people are hungry, they will more than likely eat. Calorie restriction(monitoring calories), is not the solution to the problem. You can sit there eating high GI foods all day. If you're under your calorie limit, you won't get fat.
But that doesn't explain "WHY" most Americans are fat. To "solve" the problem, I believe they have to limit high GI foods.
Counting calories is absolutely a solution to the problem, and also allows people like me to continue eating foods they enjoy, such as ice cream, burgers, fries, and cookies. If I couldn't count calories for some reason, I'd still be able to reasonably assess what I eat, and know if I was eating too much within a certain margin of error. I count calories because it makes life easier for me, simply put.
Education is far more important than restriction of specific foods, in my opinion. If people learn to balance their diet and live with a more active lifestyle, that is going to benefit them far more in the long run than simply cutting sugar and carbs out of their diet...
Oh so you monitor to prevent yourself from OVER EATING...
why do you over eat in the first place, what's the problem that causes you to do that?0 -
Hormones may make people WANT to eat more, but they can't force people to eat more. Eating more than you burn is what makes people gain weight, period. WHY they choose to eat more has nothing to do with that equation.
No one is arguing that hormones can make people hungry - at least, I'm not. I'm well aware of that.
In a free living country, if people are hungry, they will more than likely eat. Calorie restriction(monitoring calories), is not the solution to the problem. You can sit there eating high GI foods all day. If you're under your calorie limit, you won't get fat.
But that doesn't explain "WHY" most Americans are fat. To "solve" the problem, I believe they have to limit high GI foods.
Stop, just stop, your stupidity is making my brain hurt.
Why are you even on a calorie counting site?
People's brains hurt when they don't have the intellectual capacity to understand something.
You know, if I start showing equations of differential equations, and advanced physics(engineering physics) and you sit there trying to understand it.
Okay as I said, i'll catch up later people.
Advanced physics (engineering physics) is quite simple to me.
You stupidity with what you are trying to convey in the rest of this thread is what makes my brain hurt.
You're too slow to get the point, I guess you where born knowing advance engineering and physics. You never had to understand anything in your life. I get it.
Yet you sit here making blank statements with no proof or no counters, just pointless words. I get it...0 -
Hormones may make people WANT to eat more, but they can't force people to eat more. Eating more than you burn is what makes people gain weight, period. WHY they choose to eat more has nothing to do with that equation.
No one is arguing that hormones can make people hungry - at least, I'm not. I'm well aware of that.
In a free living country, if people are hungry, they will more than likely eat. Calorie restriction(monitoring calories), is not the solution to the problem. You can sit there eating high GI foods all day. If you're under your calorie limit, you won't get fat.
But that doesn't explain "WHY" most Americans are fat. To "solve" the problem, I believe they have to limit high GI foods.
Everything you've said in this thread - every last thing - is completely wrong.
Dear sweet baby Jesus in heaven.. that is horrible advice.
Okay yeah it's horrible advice. It's worse then the advice, of "eat less move more."
If you had to go build up an appetite, how do you do it? You eat less to get hungry, and probably go out and exercise burn some calories. So to get hungry you "EAT LESS MOVE MORE"
great way to lose weight, go around being hungry, makes great sense, it's realistic too.0 -
Loved this...I agree totally!0
-
Aliens?Hormones may make people WANT to eat more, but they can't force people to eat more. Eating more than you burn is what makes people gain weight, period. WHY they choose to eat more has nothing to do with that equation.
No one is arguing that hormones can make people hungry - at least, I'm not. I'm well aware of that.
In a free living country, if people are hungry, they will more than likely eat. Calorie restriction(monitoring calories), is not the solution to the problem. You can sit there eating high GI foods all day. If you're under your calorie limit, you won't get fat.
But that doesn't explain "WHY" most Americans are fat. To "solve" the problem, I believe they have to limit high GI foods.
Why is monitoring calories not a solution to the problem of getting fat, when staying under your calorie limit will prevent you from getting fat?
It's not a solution because it's not realistic. It doesn't address the problem at hand.
If you want to go eat candy all day, be hungry all day and lose weight by counting your calories, go for it, but it won't last.0 -
You know if there's a book out there where a doctor proved that sugar caused cancer...don't you think that would be KIND of a big deal? And not just something you remember reading in some book a while back.
But ok. This is what you've decided to tell people. This is the advice you want to give.
Back it up.
Provide some sources. Some evidence. Jesus how about at least the NAME of the doctor you claim to believe.
Provide evidence of the claim you're making or just admit you don't really know what you're talking about.
People continuously provide and have provided plenty of evidence for people to only poo poo it. So go research it for yourself.
We were never intended to eat sugar. And especially not in the quantities we eat it in today. Do what you like though. I try to abstain as much as possible.
then please explain the existence of sugar cane, sugar beets, and honey. and berries. And apples. and peaches. and melons.
I'll explain it, those types of foods are for primates. If we ate those foods, we will not have developed the way we have in to the humans we are. We can eat those foods of course, but they wouldn't have helped our development as a species if that's all we ate.0 -
Hormones may make people WANT to eat more, but they can't force people to eat more. Eating more than you burn is what makes people gain weight, period. WHY they choose to eat more has nothing to do with that equation.
No one is arguing that hormones can make people hungry - at least, I'm not. I'm well aware of that.
In a free living country, if people are hungry, they will more than likely eat. Calorie restriction(monitoring calories), is not the solution to the problem. You can sit there eating high GI foods all day. If you're under your calorie limit, you won't get fat.
But that doesn't explain "WHY" most Americans are fat. To "solve" the problem, I believe they have to limit high GI foods.
How about just being more active, or mindful in their eating, or looking into the underlying reasons for emotional eating? It seems as though you are assuming that people eat in excess due to hunger, or at least that is how you have presented it above.
Why do we have to be ore active to maintain our weight? As already discussed activity really doesn't do anything for weight management.
I won't touch on the topic of psychological issues. I really don't know that much about them. I just suspect that sugars do have a negative impact on brain function, I am not certain though.
This isn't to you, but to the others on the thread.
It's pretty much common sense, but people just want to deny it.
2 groups, 1 group eats as much as they want of HI GI sugary foods.
The other group eats proteins and fats, as much as they want? It's common sense who would lose more body fat and be leaner... Not rocket science.0 -
We must educate ourselves that we can eat sugar in moderation
DH actually tried maple syrup on spaghetti and likes it. And he got our daughters doing it to. :sick: That *kitten*.0 -
Hormones may make people WANT to eat more, but they can't force people to eat more. Eating more than you burn is what makes people gain weight, period. WHY they choose to eat more has nothing to do with that equation.
No one is arguing that hormones can make people hungry - at least, I'm not. I'm well aware of that.
In a free living country, if people are hungry, they will more than likely eat. Calorie restriction(monitoring calories), is not the solution to the problem. You can sit there eating high GI foods all day. If you're under your calorie limit, you won't get fat.
But that doesn't explain "WHY" most Americans are fat. To "solve" the problem, I believe they have to limit high GI foods.
How about just being more active, or mindful in their eating, or looking into the underlying reasons for emotional eating? It seems as though you are assuming that people eat in excess due to hunger, or at least that is how you have presented it above.
Why do we have to be ore active to maintain our weight? As already discussed activity really doesn't do anything for weight management.
I won't touch on the topic of psychological issues. I really don't know that much about them. I just suspect that sugars do have a negative impact on brain function, I am not certain though.
This isn't to you, but to the others on the thread.
It's pretty much common sense, but people just want to deny it.
2 groups, 1 group eats as much as they want of HI GI sugary foods.
The other group eats proteins and fats, as much as they want? It's common sense who would lose more body fat and be leaner... Not rocket science.
My point is, there is not necessarily one 'culprit' or one 'solution'. (Hence the use of the 'or')
I also disagree with the fact that activity does not have anything to do with weight management (as a blanket statement).
Also, you have presented a strawman.0 -
If you want to go eat candy all day, be hungry all day and lose weight by counting your calories, go for it, but it won't last.
Who ever recommended that?0 -
I also disagree with the fact that activity does not have anything to do with weight management (as a blanket statement).
Exactly. As a society, the more advanced we get, the less metabolic currency we expend obtaining our calories. How anyone could logic that activity does nothing for energy balance is bewildering to me...0 -
I also disagree with the fact that activity does not have anything to do with weight management (as a blanket statement).
Exactly. As a society, the more advanced we get, the less metabolic currency we expend obtaining our calories. How anyone could logic that activity does nothing for energy balance is bewildering to me...
Doesn't make much sense to me either. There seems to be this strange thought process that A) Hunger is the primary problem and
Hunger is somehow easy to solve in general by reducing carbs and increasing fats and proteins. I agree that looking at satiety is important, but it's not quite such a linchpin/root cause.
Lots of things can affect energy balance, including activity. And lots of factors can influence what people perceive, sometimes incorrectly, as hunger.0 -
Hormones may make people WANT to eat more, but they can't force people to eat more. Eating more than you burn is what makes people gain weight, period. WHY they choose to eat more has nothing to do with that equation.
No one is arguing that hormones can make people hungry - at least, I'm not. I'm well aware of that.
In a free living country, if people are hungry, they will more than likely eat. Calorie restriction(monitoring calories), is not the solution to the problem. You can sit there eating high GI foods all day. If you're under your calorie limit, you won't get fat.
But that doesn't explain "WHY" most Americans are fat. To "solve" the problem, I believe they have to limit high GI foods.
How about just being more active, or mindful in their eating, or looking into the underlying reasons for emotional eating? It seems as though you are assuming that people eat in excess due to hunger, or at least that is how you have presented it above.
Why do we have to be ore active to maintain our weight? As already discussed activity really doesn't do anything for weight management.
I won't touch on the topic of psychological issues. I really don't know that much about them. I just suspect that sugars do have a negative impact on brain function, I am not certain though.
This isn't to you, but to the others on the thread.
It's pretty much common sense, but people just want to deny it.
2 groups, 1 group eats as much as they want of HI GI sugary foods.
The other group eats proteins and fats, as much as they want? It's common sense who would lose more body fat and be leaner... Not rocket science.
My point is, there is not necessarily one 'culprit' or one 'solution'. (Hence the use of the 'or')
I also disagree with the fact that activity does not have anything to do with weight management (as a blanket statement).
Also, you have presented a strawman.
You're slightly late to the party, I have mentioned genetic issues. I originally stated, some people do do well on high carbs. There is a range of carb tolerance. The people who are over weight most likely have some degree of insulin resistances.
The activity part, was from a Meta-Analysis I posted. It pretty much said that in 12 months isolated aerobic exercise didn't produce a significant change in body weight.
Strawmans on who's part? On Alan's or Taubes?
The evidence is pretty clear when I pointed out the issues in Alan's blog.
I am assuming you're talking about Taubes. Since he's the one who's misunderstood. What I have quoted from him is pretty straight forward. Maybe most people aren't up to date. His original books are misinterpreted.
They think he doesn't believe in the law of thermodynamics which is simply incorrect.
He makes statements like "calories don't matter" which is misinterpreted. I misinterpreted his statements many times, thought he was a quack as well.
I was having some issues with my weight, lost 250lbs gained back around 60, now losing again. I just got tired of the yo-yoing. I knew that carbs where an issue, I knew they would cause binges and cause over consumption.
I decided to go keto, and everything I looked at pointed to taubes. This guy is a supposed quack, I listened very carefully and skeptically. When he said something that made no sense, I would contemplate it, in the grand scheme of everything he has said.
He did and does make sense if you understand what he's saying.
"calories don't matter" means, if you eat the right foods, the foods we're supposed to, we will naturally regulate our weight. There for, no need to count calories or focus on calories because they don't matter.0 -
Taubes states very clearly... "We do not get fat because we eat too much, we eat too much because we are fat." Riddle me this... how do most individuals get fat in the first place?0
-
Sugar is not bad if you snort it
In moderation of course0 -
"calories don't matter" means, if you eat the right foods, the foods we're supposed to, we will naturally regulate our weight. There for, no need to count calories or focus on calories because they don't matter.
People can, and do, get overweight by eating "the right foods" though. I use quotes because everyone has their own idea about what qualifies. I don't think it much matters. Any diet, in the sense of a eating plan, can and has had people overeat while using it.
This idea that we'll naturally know when to stop eating because we're getting "the right foods" just doesn't hold up. This is especially true for people who eat for emotional reasons or have eating disorders. Telling those people to just eat the right foods is going to make them wonder what they're doing wrong...which is fairly obvious. They're eating too much food.0 -
if you eat the right foods, the foods we're supposed to
We are omnivores... we are supposed to eat everything. The problem is, the word everything has changed throughout the years. Our caveman ancestors did not have twinkles... if they did, they would have eaten them. Our caveman ancestors, like the wild animals you mentioned before, were forced to fast (when there was nothing to eat) from time to time. We (if we are lucky) are never really forced to ever go without. The exercise we should be doing daily should be treated as a replacement for the lack of activity needed to survive in modern times. So you see, calorie counting (unfortunately for some), is a necessary tool needed to maintain energy balance.0 -
If people on here making such light of sugar addiction would of tried eat only what grows on trees diet they would of never been grossly overweight.
Here is a list of foods found in the Bible. You might see that not all of them grew on trees.
Honey is on the list...a honey bee is not a tree.
From this site
http://www.tcfnj.com/Honey2.htm
For many reasons – mostly because it tasted so good- honey was one of the most popular foods among the people of the bible. It became a symbol for abundance and God’s blessings- thus “a land of milk and honey.” Tradition says that when Kind David made his triumphant entry into Jerusalem with the Ark, the treat he brought with him were honey cakes. And he distributed to all multitude of Israel, both men and women, to everyone a ring-shaped cake of bread and a date cake and a raisin cake. (2 Samuel 6:19)
Maybe before you invoke God...you might want to do some research.
Wasn't there a story about the fishes and the loaves...I think they were part of a...miracle.0 -
You know if there's a book out there where a doctor proved that sugar caused cancer...don't you think that would be KIND of a big deal? And not just something you remember reading in some book a while back.
But ok. This is what you've decided to tell people. This is the advice you want to give.
Back it up.
Provide some sources. Some evidence. Jesus how about at least the NAME of the doctor you claim to believe.
Provide evidence of the claim you're making or just admit you don't really know what you're talking about.
People continuously provide and have provided plenty of evidence for people to only poo poo it. So go research it for yourself.
We were never intended to eat sugar. And especially not in the quantities we eat it in today. Do what you like though. I try to abstain as much as possible.
then please explain the existence of sugar cane, sugar beets, and honey. and berries. And apples. and peaches. and melons.
I'll explain it, those types of foods are for primates. If we ate those foods, we will not have developed the way we have in to the humans we are. We can eat those foods of course, but they wouldn't have helped our development as a species if that's all we ate.
From wiki: "A primate (Listeni/ˈpraɪmeɪt/ PRY-mayt) is a mammal of the order Primates (Listeni/praɪˈmeɪtiːz/ pry-MAY-teez; Latin: "prime, first rank").[2][3] In taxonomy, primates include prosimians and simians.[4] Primates arose from ancestors that lived in the trees of tropical forests; many primate characteristics represent adaptations to life in this challenging three-dimensional environment. Most primate species remain at least partly arboreal.
With the exception of humans, which inhabit every continent, most primates live in tropical or subtropical regions of the Americas, Africa and Asia.[5]"
Also, who says who they are for?
And who--other than fruitarians, I guess--says that's all we should eat. That's not actually the argument.0 -
Taubes states very clearly... "We do not get fat because we eat too much, we eat too much because we are GETTING fat." Riddle me this... how do most individuals get fat in the first place?
I corrected your quote.
Most of the top health experts preach the balance energy equation. It looks like this.
FatGain = CaloriesConsumed – Calories Burned
It states that if we eat more than we burn we get fat.
This is taubes view of the issue. If more fat goes in to our fat cells than what is coming out we become fat.
FatGain = EnergyInFatCells – EnergyOutOfFatCells
Now the beauty of mathematics.
Since FatGain is in both equation, we can equate the equations to each other and have a new equation.
EnergyInFatCells – EnergyOutOfFatCells = CaloriesConsumed – CaloriesBurned.
If you look at it from the FatCell side, it states if fat is coming out of the fat cells, we will consume LESS calories or BURN more Calories. On the contrary, The more fat that goes in to our cells(the fatter we get), the more calories we consume.(This is what you asked). So we’re getting fatter which causes us to eat more.
We drives fat cell storage? We all know what it is, excess levels of insulin. Did you know that elevated levels of insulin is one of the greatest predictors of heart attacks?
I’ll be clear, insulin is an important hormone, but as I mentioned, a lot of people who are over weight have a elevated insulin levels. It does promote fat storage, and we know from the above equation, this causes us to eat more. We eat more cause we’re getting fatter.
An example given earlier is children. Children don’t eat more so they grow tall and bigger in to adults. Their hormones are controlling their growth. They are getting bigger so they’re eating more. Their growth comes before the calories consumed. Physiology comes before calories. You consume more calories because you’re growing, horizontal or lateral, growth is growth, hormones dictate which way you grow.0 -
Here's your sign.....0
-
great way to lose weight, go around being hungry, makes great sense, it's realistic too.
Who's advising that?
If you are hungry, you are eating wrong, for you. But your assertion that someone who eats potatoes and works out must be hungry is meritless.0 -
You know if there's a book out there where a doctor proved that sugar caused cancer...don't you think that would be KIND of a big deal? And not just something you remember reading in some book a while back.
But ok. This is what you've decided to tell people. This is the advice you want to give.
Back it up.
Provide some sources. Some evidence. Jesus how about at least the NAME of the doctor you claim to believe.
Provide evidence of the claim you're making or just admit you don't really know what you're talking about.
People continuously provide and have provided plenty of evidence for people to only poo poo it. So go research it for yourself.
We were never intended to eat sugar. And especially not in the quantities we eat it in today. Do what you like though. I try to abstain as much as possible.
then please explain the existence of sugar cane, sugar beets, and honey. and berries. And apples. and peaches. and melons.
I'll explain it, those types of foods are for primates. If we ate those foods, we will not have developed the way we have in to the humans we are. We can eat those foods of course, but they wouldn't have helped our development as a species if that's all we ate.
I'm going to blow your mind: Human beings (homo sapiens) are primates.0 -
An example given earlier is children. Children don’t eat more so they grow tall and bigger in to adults. Their hormones are controlling their growth. They are getting bigger so they’re eating more. Their growth comes before the calories consumed. Physiology comes before calories. You consume more calories because you’re growing, horizontal or lateral, growth is growth, hormones dictate which way you grow.
And when children stop growing, they should also eat less and move more to make up the difference for what there body was doing naturally before. If you continue to eat like a growing child and you are no longer growing you will get fat. Eating habits are probably more involved with fat gain then the "right" or "wrong" food choices.
As a side note, thank you for correcting the quote...0 -
"calories don't matter" means, if you eat the right foods, the foods we're supposed to, we will naturally regulate our weight. There for, no need to count calories or focus on calories because they don't matter.
People can, and do, get overweight by eating "the right foods" though. I use quotes because everyone has their own idea about what qualifies. I don't think it much matters. Any diet, in the sense of a eating plan, can and has had people overeat while using it.
This idea that we'll naturally know when to stop eating because we're getting "the right foods" just doesn't hold up. This is especially true for people who eat for emotional reasons or have eating disorders. Telling those people to just eat the right foods is going to make them wonder what they're doing wrong...which is fairly obvious. They're eating too much food.
I do agree with you, it's possible to do pretty much anything.
I remember when I was younger, I did atkins, it didn't work for me. I was just being a pig and over riding my signals.
With my yo-yoing I mentioned above, lost 250, gained back 60, lost 20 again, was binging a bit. I knew the issue was the carbs, so I went keto.
The binges stopped, A bad day was like 3000-4000 calories, a bad day on keto is about 2500 calories now. No desire for sugar or carbs really. I do eat carbs, like a reefed maybe once every 10 days or so.
When I do eat carbs, I always go over my calories those days by a lot more than I expect.
I guess what I am trying to is that yes people can over do anything. But the longer you stick to a diet low in GI, the more likely you will start to balance your hormones out and have no problems.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions