Interesting link on: Exercise Can't Save Us From Too Much Sugar In Our Diets, Say Experts
Replies
-
I am certainly not as much of an expert as many here... However, I believe that health is far more than what you see in the mirror. It encompasses energy levels and mood, blood markers, ability to perform - whether it's going out dancing with friends till 2am and not being sore the next day, running a half marathon, or being able to go on a week long hike with a 45lb backpack.
Sure, if you are carrying a lot of excess weight, you can simply increase your burn and drop calories. But you will get to the point at some point where your tolerance for excercise will have increased beyond what your existing diet can sustain LONG TERM. At this point you will need to pay attention to the garbage in garbage out mantra or else performance will suffer.
I am attending a masters swim meet this weekend. I am looking at competitive swimmers of all ages and all physiques. Guess what??? I have not yet seen any top placing in any age category by either gender by someone carrying excess weight. I would wager that the correlation between empty calories consumed, sugar and saturated fat intake and athletic performance is very high.
You might certainly make a lot of progress if starting at a sufficiently overweight body type. But beyond a certain point, more training alone will not lead to progress. Diet becomes a large part of the gains from a persons modest level of fitness. Ask any top performer in ANY athletic discipline.
I suppose its safe to say you dont consider Micheal Phelps a top performing athlete!!
Breakfast: Three fried-egg sandwiches loaded with cheese, lettuce, tomatoes, fried onions and mayonnaise. Two cups of coffee. One five-egg omelet. One bowl of grits. Three slices of French toast topped with powdered sugar. Three chocolate-chip pancakes.
Lunch: One pound of enriched pasta. Two large ham and cheese sandwiches with mayo on white bread. Energy drinks packing 1,000 calories.
Dinner: One pound of pasta. An entire pizza. More energy drink
http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2008/08/13/the-michael-phelps-diet-dont-try-it-at-home/
ETA: Or Serena Williams! Cause she doesnt eat like a "top performing athlete" by your standards either!
Everything from her moms chicken and gravy, to molten lava cakes to moon pies... Oh and fries and pizza. Too much all over the articles to list LOL
http://www.bonappetit.com/people/celebrities/article/interview-with-serena-williams-on-food-cooking-family
http://www.glamour.com/health-fitness/blogs/vitamin-g/2009/09/i-asked-serena-williams-about0 -
milkywayward wrote: »
Yeah, I'm actually a physicist and every time I see people boil the complexity of the human body and nutrition down to "physics" or "thermodynamics" another part of my soul dies. It is true that too many calories in and of itself will make you gain weight but it's pretty disingenuous even on this website to pretend that there aren't huge problems with the way we "calculate" (estimate really) the calorie content of various foods and to dismiss what's becoming an established scientific fact that sugar and refined carbs are big triggers for overeating in many people. The message of this article isn't that eating sugar in and of itself makes you fat; it's that eating sugar leads to an excess consumption of calories, which is what makes you fat. Is that really "fear-mongering"? Or is it maybe just an important consideration that a lot of people aren't aware of? Because it's generally true that when people cut back on the amount of sugar they eat they automatically consume fewer calories, largely because sugary foods don't trigger satiety cues particularly well. Yes, ultimately you need to be mindful about calories, but nutrition is important not least because it's much easier to eat a calorie-restricted diet if you're consuming whole foods (like, have you ever attempted to consume 3000 calories of spinach). It's also better for you.So basically it is just fear mongering sugar and carbs... Because only those make people fat...
Nope. I don't agree. Physics doesn't either.
None of these statements have anything to do with physics and frankly neither does calculating the calorie content of foods or calorie expenditure during exercise (out of interest the other day I calculated how much mechanical energy I transferred to the bar to lift it against gravity during my squat routine and it was a whopping one calorie, yet we know from studies that heavy lifting burns many more calories than that but it's impossible to calculate the exact number from first principles, which is why we rely on quantitative studies based on post-exercise oxygen consumption and other factors) — and I guess what I really, really want is for people to stop dragging my field of study into discussions that have almost nothing to do with it because they can't be bothered to engage with the content of an article which they perceive to be challenging to their worldview. Which it actually isn't. Because literally the second paragraph characterises "restricting calories" as a key component of successful weight loss.
Awesome!0 -
BigLifter10 wrote: »
Me too - I had this problem two years ago. I couldn't lose a pound of fat and I was working out so much that I ended up with overtraining symptoms. My diet sucked. I wised up - changed my entire diet to fit what would be considered an ideal diet based upon the advice of nutritionists, doctors, and PTs. It worked - and I didn't have to exercise as much to make it work.
Bottom line - the equation really is true - it's 80% diet, 20% exercise. To achieve a high level of fitness, you have to inject the 20% into the rest of the 80%.
Yes CICO matters - however, one can eat MORE if one is allocating their macros out to a higher protein, mid to higher level of fat, and lower level of carbohydrate, concentrating on complex carbs loaded with fiber. HIIT actually works best when on a high protein, high fat, low carb diet. See, that's the 80% positively affecting the 20%.0 -
tedboosalis7 wrote: »BigLifter10 wrote: »
Me too - I had this problem two years ago. I couldn't lose a pound of fat and I was working out so much that I ended up with overtraining symptoms. My diet sucked. I wised up - changed my entire diet to fit what would be considered an ideal diet based upon the advice of nutritionists, doctors, and PTs. It worked - and I didn't have to exercise as much to make it work.
Bottom line - the equation really is true - it's 80% diet, 20% exercise. To achieve a high level of fitness, you have to inject the 20% into the rest of the 80%.
Yes CICO matters - however, one can eat MORE if one is allocating their macros out to a higher protein, mid to higher level of fat, and lower level of carbohydrate, concentrating on complex carbs loaded with fiber. HIIT actually works best when on a high protein, high fat, low carb diet. See, that's the 80% positively affecting the 20%.
No it doesn't. Carbs are the preferred energy source for high intensity activities0 -
tedboosalis7 wrote: »Bottom line - the equation really is true - it's 80% diet, 20% exercise. To achieve a high level of fitness, you have to inject the 20% into the rest of the 80%.
How did you come up with this formula? I mean, I know it's a common, unsupported saying, but on what basis can you say it's 80% one thing and 20% another for everyone, and what does that even mean? If I stop exercising will I regain 20%?0 -
Edit: changed my mind - it's not worth it sometimes xD0
-
tedboosalis7 wrote: »HIIT actually works best when on a high protein, high fat, low carb diet. See, that's the 80% positively affecting the 20%.
HIIT on low carb is a disaster. Maintaining HIIT requires adequate replenishment of glycogen, and that ain't happening on a low carb caloric deficit.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »I know in my obese/over weight days my main problem was over eating on EVERYTHING. I would eat two philly cheese steaks and mozzarella sticks for dinner, or have a double cheeseburger from What-A-Burger or wherever, which has minimal sugar.
My problem was overeating in general too, but like you I wouldn't at all place the majority of the issue on sugar. I could have changed my diet in certain other ways (cut out the overindulgence at restaurants and lazy ordering in of Indian for dinner) and done fine without modifying my consumption of sweets. I did modify my consumption of sweets, as it happened, since I cut out unplanned snacking, but I probably eat more ice cream now than when I was gaining weight.
I don't know if my overall macros are different now--well, I'm confident I eat more protein and less carbs and fat, but I doubt the ratio of carbs and fat to each other has changed, contrary to the authors who insist that HFLC is the way.
My biggest change was getting active, since I always eat better even without thinking about it when I'm active, and because my maintenance when sedentary is ridiculously low (from my perspective, anyway).
I've gained weight eating sugar, I've lost weight eating sugar. I've gained a weight not eating sugar, I've lost weight not eating sugar.
I gained quite a lot of weight low carbing.
All of the arguments about satiety are just nonsense in the face of people who eat past their hunger signals in the first place (or confuse mouth hunger with true hunger), and I think that FAR too many in the low carb world understate how much of a problem that is and what role that plays in obesity.
Then again, I'm not without my bias in the matter either.
0 -
tedboosalis7 wrote: »HIIT actually works best when on a high protein, high fat, low carb diet. See, that's the 80% positively affecting the 20%.
HIIT on low carb is a disaster. Maintaining HIIT requires adequate replenishment of glycogen, and that ain't happening on a low carb caloric deficit.
If I understand it correctly, that only applies if you haven't adapted to a low carb diet. Unless an Ironman Triathlon isn't considered intense enough for example purposes?
"... studies of elite athletes chronically adapted to low-carbohydrate diets has uncovered one unexpected finding — their extraordinary ability to produce energy at very high rates purely from the oxidation of fat. Thus some highly adapted runners consuming less than 10% of energy from carbohydrate are able to oxidise fat at greater than 1.5 g/min during progressive intensity exercise and consistently sustain rates of fat oxidation exceeding 1.2g/min during exercise at ∼65% VO2max, thereby providing 56 kJ/min during prolonged exercise. The remaining energy would comfortably be covered by the oxidation of blood lactate, ketone bodies and glucose derived from gluconeogenesis. Thus a fully fat-adapted athlete able to oxidise fat at 1.5 g/min would cover his or her energy cost during an Ironman Triathlon without needing to ingest exogenous fuels especially carbohydrate. This contrasts with the need of carbohydrate-adapted athletes to ingest 90–105 g/h during prolonged exercise if they wish to maintain their performance.
Low-carbohydrate diets for athletes: what evidence?
Timothy Noakes, Jeff S Volek and Stephen D Phinney
Br J Sports Med 2014 48: 1077-1078 originally published online May 26, 2014
doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2014-0938240 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »HIIT actually works best when on a high protein, high fat, low carb diet. See, that's the 80% positively affecting the 20%.
HIIT on low carb is a disaster. Maintaining HIIT requires adequate replenishment of glycogen, and that ain't happening on a low carb caloric deficit.
If I understand it correctly, that only applies if you haven't adapted to a low carb diet. Unless an Ironman Triathlon isn't considered intense enough for example purposes?
"Low carb" for elite athletes is something entirely different than the sub-40g low-carbing dieters are doing - their version of "low carb" is still consuming a couple of hundred grams of carbs/day.
What the famous cycling experiment often referenced actually showed was that low-carbing had a huge negative impact on real world performance, despite increased metabolizability of stored fat.
0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »HIIT actually works best when on a high protein, high fat, low carb diet. See, that's the 80% positively affecting the 20%.
HIIT on low carb is a disaster. Maintaining HIIT requires adequate replenishment of glycogen, and that ain't happening on a low carb caloric deficit.
If I understand it correctly, that only applies if you haven't adapted to a low carb diet. Unless an Ironman Triathlon isn't considered intense enough for example purposes?
"... studies of elite athletes chronically adapted to low-carbohydrate diets has uncovered one unexpected finding — their extraordinary ability to produce energy at very high rates purely from the oxidation of fat. Thus some highly adapted runners consuming less than 10% of energy from carbohydrate are able to oxidise fat at greater than 1.5 g/min during progressive intensity exercise and consistently sustain rates of fat oxidation exceeding 1.2g/min during exercise at ∼65% VO2max, thereby providing 56 kJ/min during prolonged exercise. The remaining energy would comfortably be covered by the oxidation of blood lactate, ketone bodies and glucose derived from gluconeogenesis. Thus a fully fat-adapted athlete able to oxidise fat at 1.5 g/min would cover his or her energy cost during an Ironman Triathlon without needing to ingest exogenous fuels especially carbohydrate. This contrasts with the need of carbohydrate-adapted athletes to ingest 90–105 g/h during prolonged exercise if they wish to maintain their performance.
Low-carbohydrate diets for athletes: what evidence?
Timothy Noakes, Jeff S Volek and Stephen D Phinney
Br J Sports Med 2014 48: 1077-1078 originally published online May 26, 2014
doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2014-093824
65% of Vo2 max is about the amount of exertion required to play shuflleboard with some rowdy seniors0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »All of the arguments about satiety are just nonsense in the face of people who eat past their hunger signals in the first place (or confuse mouth hunger with true hunger), and I think that FAR too many in the low carb world understate how much of a problem that is and what role that plays in obesity.
Totally agree.
I think there are some people for whom actual hunger may be an issue and who seem to find carbs non satiating, and those are the people for whom low carb works (and also may be people with particular insulin issues, who knows).
Actual hunger or carbs not being satiating has just never been my problem and when people claim you can't overeat high fat foods I find this bizarre, because trust me, I can.0 -
I skimmed this, and this blog went into some of the problems with some of the studies touting fat adaptation for endurance athletes. Citations are noted at the bottom. It also showed some of the athletes that low-carbers claim as their own and showed how they carb up.
http://anthonycolpo.com/why-low-carb-diets-are-terrible-for-athletes-part-2/
0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »HIIT actually works best when on a high protein, high fat, low carb diet. See, that's the 80% positively affecting the 20%.
HIIT on low carb is a disaster. Maintaining HIIT requires adequate replenishment of glycogen, and that ain't happening on a low carb caloric deficit.
If I understand it correctly, that only applies if you haven't adapted to a low carb diet. Unless an Ironman Triathlon isn't considered intense enough for example purposes?
"... studies of elite athletes chronically adapted to low-carbohydrate diets has uncovered one unexpected finding — their extraordinary ability to produce energy at very high rates purely from the oxidation of fat. Thus some highly adapted runners consuming less than 10% of energy from carbohydrate are able to oxidise fat at greater than 1.5 g/min during progressive intensity exercise and consistently sustain rates of fat oxidation exceeding 1.2g/min during exercise at ∼65% VO2max, thereby providing 56 kJ/min during prolonged exercise. The remaining energy would comfortably be covered by the oxidation of blood lactate, ketone bodies and glucose derived from gluconeogenesis. Thus a fully fat-adapted athlete able to oxidise fat at 1.5 g/min would cover his or her energy cost during an Ironman Triathlon without needing to ingest exogenous fuels especially carbohydrate. This contrasts with the need of carbohydrate-adapted athletes to ingest 90–105 g/h during prolonged exercise if they wish to maintain their performance.
Low-carbohydrate diets for athletes: what evidence?
Timothy Noakes, Jeff S Volek and Stephen D Phinney
Br J Sports Med 2014 48: 1077-1078 originally published online May 26, 2014
doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2014-093824
65% of Vo2 max is about the amount of exertion required to play shuflleboard with some rowdy seniors
Would need to double check, but seem to recall that 85% of Vo2max is what world class marathoners are huffing during their races. It goes up from there, as distances drop.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »All of the arguments about satiety are just nonsense in the face of people who eat past their hunger signals in the first place (or confuse mouth hunger with true hunger), and I think that FAR too many in the low carb world understate how much of a problem that is and what role that plays in obesity.
Totally agree.
I think there are some people for whom actual hunger may be an issue and who seem to find carbs non satiating, and those are the people for whom low carb works (and also may be people with particular insulin issues, who knows).
Actual hunger or carbs not being satiating has just never been my problem and when people claim you can't overeat high fat foods I find this bizarre, because trust me, I can.
Oh, I totally agree, particularly regarding those with metabolic issues. Where I take issue is trying to argue these things as if they're universal truths.
I'm curious what happens next. What happens after sugar is well and truly demonized the way fat was. After all the products are changed on supermarket shelves and school lunches are revamped and a whole slew of protein and fat rich products takes their place.
What happens with this sort of one-size-fits-all, band-wagon, scapegoating, mentality then when there's still an obesity problem?
0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »I'm curious what happens next. What happens after sugar is well and truly demonized the way fat was. After all the products are changed on supermarket shelves and school lunches are revamped and a whole slew of protein and fat rich products takes their place.
That can't happen - protein is too expensive, especially in low/no-carb form.
The most you could do is end up with HF, LC/LP.
IE, butter.
0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »I think people should read the original editorial, if they haven't already. The Forbes.com article on the link above missed a couple of the key points. The original is posted here:
http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2015/04/23/bjsports-2015-094911.full
The editorial is certainly another powerful endorsement for a low-carb and junk-free lifestyle. People who are convinced that they aren’t harming themselves by eating junk food when they have calories to ‘spare’ should take heed.
I particularly liked the part about members of the public being “drowned by an unhelpful message about maintaining a ‘healthy weight’ through calorie counting.”
To be honest, that's the part of the article I found the silliest. They say calorie counting is unhelpful, but then go on to recommend restricting calories. What's one way to do that??
And there's a lot of diabetics this diabetics that in the article - not sure what that has to do with the general population, as surely most of us aren't diabetics?
0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »I think people should read the original editorial, if they haven't already. The Forbes.com article on the link above missed a couple of the key points. The original is posted here:
http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2015/04/23/bjsports-2015-094911.full
The editorial is certainly another powerful endorsement for a low-carb and junk-free lifestyle. People who are convinced that they aren’t harming themselves by eating junk food when they have calories to ‘spare’ should take heed.
I particularly liked the part about members of the public being “drowned by an unhelpful message about maintaining a ‘healthy weight’ through calorie counting.”
To be honest, that's the part of the article I found the silliest. They say calorie counting is unhelpful, but then go on to recommend restricting calories. What's one way to do that??
And there's a lot of diabetics this diabetics that in the article - not sure what that has to do with the general population, as surely most of us aren't diabetics?
Exactly. Thank you.0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »I think people should read the original editorial, if they haven't already. The Forbes.com article on the link above missed a couple of the key points. The original is posted here:
http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2015/04/23/bjsports-2015-094911.full
The editorial is certainly another powerful endorsement for a low-carb and junk-free lifestyle. People who are convinced that they aren’t harming themselves by eating junk food when they have calories to ‘spare’ should take heed.
I particularly liked the part about members of the public being “drowned by an unhelpful message about maintaining a ‘healthy weight’ through calorie counting.”
I just posted this on 3FatChicks from my Medscape subscription. The most interesting quote (IMHO) is this: "According to the Lancet global burden of disease reports, poor diet now generates more disease than physical inactivity, alcohol and smoking combined. Up to 40% of those with a normal body mass index will harbour metabolic abnormalities typically associated with obesity, which include hypertension, dyslipidaemia, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and cardiovascular disease.3 However, this is little appreciated by scientists, doctors, media writers and policymakers, despite the extensive scientific literature on the vulnerability of all ages and all sizes to lifestyle-related diseases."
Yes, it does matter what you eat, not just how much.
Liana
0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »I'm curious what happens next. What happens after sugar is well and truly demonized the way fat was. After all the products are changed on supermarket shelves and school lunches are revamped and a whole slew of protein and fat rich products takes their place.
That can't happen - protein is too expensive, especially in low/no-carb form.
The most you could do is end up with HF, LC/LP.
IE, butter.
Well, they're already touting protein IN things, aren't there protein cereals and stuff like that?
What about soy protein? The GMO peeps will have their field day with that one, I guess.
I can see the butter diet now. Bullet coffee for everyone!
0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »HIIT actually works best when on a high protein, high fat, low carb diet. See, that's the 80% positively affecting the 20%.
HIIT on low carb is a disaster. Maintaining HIIT requires adequate replenishment of glycogen, and that ain't happening on a low carb caloric deficit.
If I understand it correctly, that only applies if you haven't adapted to a low carb diet. Unless an Ironman Triathlon isn't considered intense enough for example purposes?
"... studies of elite athletes chronically adapted to low-carbohydrate diets has uncovered one unexpected finding — their extraordinary ability to produce energy at very high rates purely from the oxidation of fat. Thus some highly adapted runners consuming less than 10% of energy from carbohydrate are able to oxidise fat at greater than 1.5 g/min during progressive intensity exercise and consistently sustain rates of fat oxidation exceeding 1.2g/min during exercise at ∼65% VO2max, thereby providing 56 kJ/min during prolonged exercise. The remaining energy would comfortably be covered by the oxidation of blood lactate, ketone bodies and glucose derived from gluconeogenesis. Thus a fully fat-adapted athlete able to oxidise fat at 1.5 g/min would cover his or her energy cost during an Ironman Triathlon without needing to ingest exogenous fuels especially carbohydrate. This contrasts with the need of carbohydrate-adapted athletes to ingest 90–105 g/h during prolonged exercise if they wish to maintain their performance.
Low-carbohydrate diets for athletes: what evidence?
Timothy Noakes, Jeff S Volek and Stephen D Phinney
Br J Sports Med 2014 48: 1077-1078 originally published online May 26, 2014
doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2014-093824
Weird
http://t.co/ok5HJumQ3V
Vs
We could trace just 10 other studies of the performance effects of lowcarbohydrate diets in humans published in the past 31 years. Of the total of 11 studies, 3 found that exercise performance improved with adoption of a lowcarbohydrate diet; another 4 showed equivocal results favouring the lowcarbohydrate diet but limited by small sample sizes; 2 found no beneficial effec"
And lol
Competing interests: None
Why keep posting quacks?0 -
milkywayward wrote: »
Yeah, I'm actually a physicist and every time I see people boil the complexity of the human body and nutrition down to "physics" or "thermodynamics" another part of my soul dies. It is true that too many calories in and of itself will make you gain weight but it's pretty disingenuous even on this website to pretend that there aren't huge problems with the way we "calculate" (estimate really) the calorie content of various foods and to dismiss what's becoming an established scientific fact that sugar and refined carbs are big triggers for overeating in many people. The message of this article isn't that eating sugar in and of itself makes you fat; it's that eating sugar leads to an excess consumption of calories, which is what makes you fat. Is that really "fear-mongering"? Or is it maybe just an important consideration that a lot of people aren't aware of? Because it's generally true that when people cut back on the amount of sugar they eat they automatically consume fewer calories, largely because sugary foods don't trigger satiety cues particularly well. Yes, ultimately you need to be mindful about calories, but nutrition is important not least because it's much easier to eat a calorie-restricted diet if you're consuming whole foods (like, have you ever attempted to consume 3000 calories of spinach). It's also better for you.So basically it is just fear mongering sugar and carbs... Because only those make people fat...
Nope. I don't agree. Physics doesn't either.
i don't think anyone is arguing that calorie estimates like TDEE are 100% accurate. Everyone always states that you have to play with the numbers until you know what intake works for you. However, that does not invalidate the point that at the end of the day it does in fact come down to math, science, and thermodynamics.
Additionally, what about people that binge on salty things, or cheese, or that eat pizza and burgers all day? What does that have to do with sugar consumption?
I know in my obese/over weight days my main problem was over eating on EVERYTHING. I would eat two philly cheese steaks and mozzarella sticks for dinner, or have a double cheeseburger from What-A-Burger or wherever, which has minimal sugar.
Now, I am losing weight and eating about 100+ grams of sugar a day, maintain 12-14% body fat, and every year my blood work is "nearly perfect"…
so sorry, it is not just "sugar"..and to try to boil it down to just that one food is ridiculous in itself.
This.
I ate a whole lot more back when I was fat (obviously
), but as an adult I steered clear of the sugary foods and a lot of carbs.
When I decided to start logging food, I made sure sugar foods (which I love) and carbs were included in my diet in moderation. Wow, what a concept. Lost 44 pounds and have been keeping it off eating a combination of foods. Some days I have a sugar treat, some days I don't. It all just depends.
0 -
Words are important. Will and do have consequences. One is speculative the other being factual.canadjineh wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »I think people should read the original editorial, if they haven't already. The Forbes.com article on the link above missed a couple of the key points. The original is posted here:
http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2015/04/23/bjsports-2015-094911.full
The editorial is certainly another powerful endorsement for a low-carb and junk-free lifestyle. People who are convinced that they aren’t harming themselves by eating junk food when they have calories to ‘spare’ should take heed.
I particularly liked the part about members of the public being “drowned by an unhelpful message about maintaining a ‘healthy weight’ through calorie counting.”
I just posted this on 3FatChicks from my Medscape subscription. The most interesting quote (IMHO) is this: "According to the Lancet global burden of disease reports, poor diet now generates more disease than physical inactivity, alcohol and smoking combined. Up to 40% of those with a normal body mass index will harbour metabolic abnormalities typically associated with obesity, which include hypertension, dyslipidaemia, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and cardiovascular disease.3 However, this is little appreciated by scientists, doctors, media writers and policymakers, despite the extensive scientific literature on the vulnerability of all ages and all sizes to lifestyle-related diseases."
Yes, it does matter what you eat, not just how much.
Liana
0 -
neanderthin wrote: »
Words are important. Will and do have consequences. One is speculative the other being factual.canadjineh wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »I think people should read the original editorial, if they haven't already. The Forbes.com article on the link above missed a couple of the key points. The original is posted here:
http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2015/04/23/bjsports-2015-094911.full
The editorial is certainly another powerful endorsement for a low-carb and junk-free lifestyle. People who are convinced that they aren’t harming themselves by eating junk food when they have calories to ‘spare’ should take heed.
I particularly liked the part about members of the public being “drowned by an unhelpful message about maintaining a ‘healthy weight’ through calorie counting.”
I just posted this on 3FatChicks from my Medscape subscription. The most interesting quote (IMHO) is this: "According to the Lancet global burden of disease reports, poor diet now generates more disease than physical inactivity, alcohol and smoking combined. Up to 40% of those with a normal body mass index will harbour metabolic abnormalities typically associated with obesity, which include hypertension, dyslipidaemia, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and cardiovascular disease.3 However, this is little appreciated by scientists, doctors, media writers and policymakers, despite the extensive scientific literature on the vulnerability of all ages and all sizes to lifestyle-related diseases."
Yes, it does matter what you eat, not just how much.
Liana
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3715098/
Here's the only citation given for the sentence quoted. It's interesting, but it certainly doesn't say all that seems to be attributed to it--basically what we don't know is greater than what we do, and it's not remotely clear that carb percentage has a thing to do with anything.0 -
neanderthin wrote: »
Words are important. Will and do have consequences. One is speculative the other being factual.canadjineh wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »I think people should read the original editorial, if they haven't already. The Forbes.com article on the link above missed a couple of the key points. The original is posted here:
http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2015/04/23/bjsports-2015-094911.full
The editorial is certainly another powerful endorsement for a low-carb and junk-free lifestyle. People who are convinced that they aren’t harming themselves by eating junk food when they have calories to ‘spare’ should take heed.
I particularly liked the part about members of the public being “drowned by an unhelpful message about maintaining a ‘healthy weight’ through calorie counting.”
I just posted this on 3FatChicks from my Medscape subscription. The most interesting quote (IMHO) is this: "According to the Lancet global burden of disease reports, poor diet now generates more disease than physical inactivity, alcohol and smoking combined. Up to 40% of those with a normal body mass index will harbour metabolic abnormalities typically associated with obesity, which include hypertension, dyslipidaemia, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and cardiovascular disease.3 However, this is little appreciated by scientists, doctors, media writers and policymakers, despite the extensive scientific literature on the vulnerability of all ages and all sizes to lifestyle-related diseases."
Yes, it does matter what you eat, not just how much.
Liana
Yes, and how much of that "will" is genetics and/or the effects of aging?
0 -
canadjineh wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »I think people should read the original editorial, if they haven't already. The Forbes.com article on the link above missed a couple of the key points. The original is posted here:
http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2015/04/23/bjsports-2015-094911.full
The editorial is certainly another powerful endorsement for a low-carb and junk-free lifestyle. People who are convinced that they aren’t harming themselves by eating junk food when they have calories to ‘spare’ should take heed.
I particularly liked the part about members of the public being “drowned by an unhelpful message about maintaining a ‘healthy weight’ through calorie counting.”
I just posted this on 3FatChicks from my Medscape subscription. The most interesting quote (IMHO) is this: "According to the Lancet global burden of disease reports, poor diet now generates more disease than physical inactivity, alcohol and smoking combined. Up to 40% of those with a normal body mass index will harbour metabolic abnormalities typically associated with obesity, which include hypertension, dyslipidaemia, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and cardiovascular disease.3 However, this is little appreciated by scientists, doctors, media writers and policymakers, despite the extensive scientific literature on the vulnerability of all ages and all sizes to lifestyle-related diseases."
Yes, it does matter what you eat, not just how much.
Liana
Well, for your overall health, yes. For weight loss specifically, no.
0 -
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »
Words are important. Will and do have consequences. One is speculative the other being factual.canadjineh wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »I think people should read the original editorial, if they haven't already. The Forbes.com article on the link above missed a couple of the key points. The original is posted here:
http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2015/04/23/bjsports-2015-094911.full
The editorial is certainly another powerful endorsement for a low-carb and junk-free lifestyle. People who are convinced that they aren’t harming themselves by eating junk food when they have calories to ‘spare’ should take heed.
I particularly liked the part about members of the public being “drowned by an unhelpful message about maintaining a ‘healthy weight’ through calorie counting.”
I just posted this on 3FatChicks from my Medscape subscription. The most interesting quote (IMHO) is this: "According to the Lancet global burden of disease reports, poor diet now generates more disease than physical inactivity, alcohol and smoking combined. Up to 40% of those with a normal body mass index will harbour metabolic abnormalities typically associated with obesity, which include hypertension, dyslipidaemia, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and cardiovascular disease.3 However, this is little appreciated by scientists, doctors, media writers and policymakers, despite the extensive scientific literature on the vulnerability of all ages and all sizes to lifestyle-related diseases."
Yes, it does matter what you eat, not just how much.
Liana
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3715098/
Here's the only citation given for the sentence quoted. It's interesting, but it certainly doesn't say all that seems to be attributed to it--basically what we don't know is greater than what we do, and it's not remotely clear that carb percentage has a thing to do with anything.
I've read that, it's interesting and full of speculation.
0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »I'm curious what happens next. What happens after sugar is well and truly demonized the way fat was. After all the products are changed on supermarket shelves and school lunches are revamped and a whole slew of protein and fat rich products takes their place.
That can't happen - protein is too expensive, especially in low/no-carb form.
The most you could do is end up with HF, LC/LP.
IE, butter.
Well, they're already touting protein IN things, aren't there protein cereals and stuff like that?
What about soy protein? The GMO peeps will have their field day with that one, I guess.
I can see the butter diet now. Bullet coffee for everyone!
There's a "protein" Cheerios out there right now - something ridiculous like 11g IF you include the skim milk they suggest with it.
0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »
Yet they didn't declare any competing interests (such as association with diet plans that generate revenue from those buying into a fear of carbs). ....
Especially considering they pointed out the moneyed interests behind making obscene statements like all calories count ....
True believers of the fear mongering crowd don't care ... they just parrot.
And you think there are no moneyed interests or competing interests on the other side of the argument?
An investigation by The BMJ has uncovered evidence of the extraordinary extent to which key public health experts are involved with the sugar industry and related companies responsible for many of the products blamed for the obesity crisis through research grants, consultancy fees, and other forms of funding.
http://www.bmj.com/content/350/bmj.h231.full?ijkey=e41e6304d48cb7fb4f80441f365fc646724367b7&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha
The other people aren't failing to declare them in a piece you linked to ... the doctors writing that piece are.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions