Matt Lauer proving why no-sugar does't work
Options
Replies
-
I am horrified honestly when my friends talk to me about how to resist/delete (ha) added sugars "like I have", and how it is such a great diet. I can't explain to them how much replacement foods typically don't work and how I just eat the things I like in reasonable portions (I legitimately hate chocolate and sweet items besides fruit in general so I guess I have a better time). It feels like I give them advice to just moderate intake and they blame weight gain not on lack of moderation but purely because they like "those evil sweets".
Sorry if this is a bit off topic but those convos get brought to mind whenever I see things on no sugar diets.0 -
You must have some carbohydrate in your diet. You've heard of "triglycerides"? These are 3 fat molecules (hence "tri-") bound to a sugar backbone (hence "glyceride", which is less obvious). This is the form in which your body transfers fat from storage in fat cells via the blood stream to the cells where it will be burned for energy. You can't make the glyceride backbone entirely from scratch--your body needs carbohydrate as a starting point.
Hence, to mobilize fat, you do need at least a little carbohydrate in your diet.
This is why a "zero carbs" diet, sustained, can kill you, and why the minimum carbohydrate level for people starting the Atkins diet is 20 g carbohydrate per day.
As I understand it, this isn't technically true. Living without fat or protein will kill you, but the human body works fine (if not differently) without any carbs. Consider the Inuit, who were very healthy, before their diet was westernized.0 -
nvsmomketo wrote: »You must have some carbohydrate in your diet. You've heard of "triglycerides"? These are 3 fat molecules (hence "tri-") bound to a sugar backbone (hence "glyceride", which is less obvious). This is the form in which your body transfers fat from storage in fat cells via the blood stream to the cells where it will be burned for energy. You can't make the glyceride backbone entirely from scratch--your body needs carbohydrate as a starting point.
Hence, to mobilize fat, you do need at least a little carbohydrate in your diet.
This is why a "zero carbs" diet, sustained, can kill you, and why the minimum carbohydrate level for people starting the Atkins diet is 20 g carbohydrate per day.
As I understand it, this isn't technically true. Living without fat or protein will kill you, but the human body works fine (if not differently) without any carbs. Consider the Inuit, who were very healthy, before their diet was westernized.
Again, I'd challenge you (someone making this statement) to prove how this would be done. The diet, I mean.0 -
nvsmomketo wrote: »You must have some carbohydrate in your diet. You've heard of "triglycerides"? These are 3 fat molecules (hence "tri-") bound to a sugar backbone (hence "glyceride", which is less obvious). This is the form in which your body transfers fat from storage in fat cells via the blood stream to the cells where it will be burned for energy. You can't make the glyceride backbone entirely from scratch--your body needs carbohydrate as a starting point.
Hence, to mobilize fat, you do need at least a little carbohydrate in your diet.
This is why a "zero carbs" diet, sustained, can kill you, and why the minimum carbohydrate level for people starting the Atkins diet is 20 g carbohydrate per day.
As I understand it, this isn't technically true. Living without fat or protein will kill you, but the human body works fine (if not differently) without any carbs. Consider the Inuit, who were very healthy, before their diet was westernized.
This begs the question, if their health declined on account of moving more toward a diet they weren't adapted to, is it proper to assume a person from a long western lineage will be healthy moving toward a traditional Inuit diet?0 -
mantium999 wrote: »nvsmomketo wrote: »You must have some carbohydrate in your diet. You've heard of "triglycerides"? These are 3 fat molecules (hence "tri-") bound to a sugar backbone (hence "glyceride", which is less obvious). This is the form in which your body transfers fat from storage in fat cells via the blood stream to the cells where it will be burned for energy. You can't make the glyceride backbone entirely from scratch--your body needs carbohydrate as a starting point.
Hence, to mobilize fat, you do need at least a little carbohydrate in your diet.
This is why a "zero carbs" diet, sustained, can kill you, and why the minimum carbohydrate level for people starting the Atkins diet is 20 g carbohydrate per day.
As I understand it, this isn't technically true. Living without fat or protein will kill you, but the human body works fine (if not differently) without any carbs. Consider the Inuit, who were very healthy, before their diet was westernized.
This begs the question, if their health declined on account of moving more toward a diet they weren't adapted to, is it proper to assume a person from a long western lineage will be healthy moving toward a traditional Inuit diet?
That we will never know. I have read (first hand) reports by people who lived with the inuit, for 6 months to two years at a time, over a hundred years ago and they reported improved health. It isn't anything that would pass people's scrutiny around here.
I do doubt that the Inuit are evolved that differently from my Northern European heritage though. 20 000 years or so isn't much, evolutionarily speaking.0 -
I'm not one to have a problem with sugar, but Matt Lauer didn't prove anything. All he did was offer his opinion that he did not like the foods he tasted. One man's opinion cannot (and ethically should not) be extrapolated into recommendations or findings about the general public, and trying to do so is a logical fallacy.0
-
nvsmomketo wrote: »You must have some carbohydrate in your diet. You've heard of "triglycerides"? These are 3 fat molecules (hence "tri-") bound to a sugar backbone (hence "glyceride", which is less obvious). This is the form in which your body transfers fat from storage in fat cells via the blood stream to the cells where it will be burned for energy. You can't make the glyceride backbone entirely from scratch--your body needs carbohydrate as a starting point.
Hence, to mobilize fat, you do need at least a little carbohydrate in your diet.
This is why a "zero carbs" diet, sustained, can kill you, and why the minimum carbohydrate level for people starting the Atkins diet is 20 g carbohydrate per day.
As I understand it, this isn't technically true. Living without fat or protein will kill you, but the human body works fine (if not differently) without any carbs. Consider the Inuit, who were very healthy, before their diet was westernized.
Again, I'd challenge you (someone making this statement) to prove how this would be done. The diet, I mean.
You'd have to be a carnivore. 100%. It's done. I was in a forum discussion with someone who recently ate as (100%) carnivore (minus a few spics) for one year. He says he felt fine on it. I have had days where I ate all meat - I felt fine. I don't want to eat as a carnivore at this time though, so I don't. I would miss nuts.
I don't think living as a carnivore is any more radical than a vegan. Humans can handle it fine.0 -
Learning to eat in moderation isn't easy, no one has said that it is. Just because something isn't easy doesn't mean you just give up and go back to overeating. Or trying restriction, which has a very high rate of failure. One common misconception people have about moderation is that it means keeping foods in the home and portioning them out, where they are easily accessible. Often people will binge on foods if that is the case. the recommendation is to not keep the foods in the house, in those cases, and to go and buy a single serving at a time when one is wanted, to avoid overconsumption.
I've tried to abide by the rule if I want junk, I have to make it from scratch. So--scratch-made cake, scratch-made pie, scratch-made ice cream. The idea is I have to exert some effort to acquire the treat. If I don't want it enough to go to the trouble of making it, then I don't want it enough to justify eating it.
I do something like this (I do have exceptions, like my friend's homemade baked goods that she always brings to our monthly book club, and I haven't implemented it with ice cream yet, in part because I find ice cream so easy to fit in, and I make exceptions for good chocolate as I couldn't make that anyway). This is because I like them more, but also because I think the main reason we eat more now is not that "processed" food is so much more irresistible or such nonsense, but because the acquisition costs are so incredibly low. So I try to increase the acquisition costs some.0 -
maillemaker wrote: »The other thing is that some foods are just too disappointing to eat in moderation.
I get 1550 calories a day, which drops every few weeks as I lose weight.
If you look at my diary for today, you'll see I got to eat a half a peanut butter sandwich for breakfast, the other half for lunch, an apple a pear, 4 eggs, and some steak.
That leaves me with 187 calories left for the day.
That's about 3 Oreo cookies or maybe a couple of spoonfuls of ice cream. That's not a treat. That's a tease.
3 Oreos is one serving, and 1/2 cup of ice cream is one serving. The mind set of moderation is learning to understand that when you eat something, you have one serving of it, and enjoy it. Would you rather have that one serving of it, or have none at all? I don't see what's wrong with having 3 cookies.
I agree with this, and that seems about the right number of calories (I think 200-ish) for a treat (although I have more calories, even when trying to lose, which seems a little odd).
However, I can understand that some people would rather indulge in larger amounts less frequently. If that were me, I'd save them up and have something really special once a week.
But I'd also eat more food on my 1550 -- I think I ate more food when I was on 1250 than that sounds like.0 -
nvsmomketo wrote: »You must have some carbohydrate in your diet. You've heard of "triglycerides"? These are 3 fat molecules (hence "tri-") bound to a sugar backbone (hence "glyceride", which is less obvious). This is the form in which your body transfers fat from storage in fat cells via the blood stream to the cells where it will be burned for energy. You can't make the glyceride backbone entirely from scratch--your body needs carbohydrate as a starting point.
Hence, to mobilize fat, you do need at least a little carbohydrate in your diet.
This is why a "zero carbs" diet, sustained, can kill you, and why the minimum carbohydrate level for people starting the Atkins diet is 20 g carbohydrate per day.
As I understand it, this isn't technically true. Living without fat or protein will kill you, but the human body works fine (if not differently) without any carbs. Consider the Inuit, who were very healthy, before their diet was westernized.
The Inuit did not live without carbs although they generally got the (admittedly comparatively few) carbs in their diets from animal sources. My understanding is that they also are adapted so that this low level of carbs did not put them in ketosis.0 -
You do not need carbs. At all. Zero. Now, I do eat carbs, but not because I would die if I didn't. I happen to like nuts and dairy too much to never eat carbs.
But if you wanted to it is very simple. Just east only foods with fat or protein. It's really not complicated.0 -
Well for me, the truth was going through a tough financial time after losing my husband and job.
Food was the first thing I cut back on.
Goodies were a luxury but I still found a way to get a little something for my sweet tooth.
I just change out ice cream for frozen fruit pops and now I don't eat ice cream hardly ever. It's just too heavy.
I did the same with milk....cut it out and now it's very difficult to drink. I don't feel good after consuming milk.
I stopped adding sugar to anything and now I never use it...it became a habit.
I did the same with salt and I never use it ....surely there is enough in the foods already.
I never add sugar and not a sugar eater but I still have a weight problem!
Just saying.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »nvsmomketo wrote: »You must have some carbohydrate in your diet. You've heard of "triglycerides"? These are 3 fat molecules (hence "tri-") bound to a sugar backbone (hence "glyceride", which is less obvious). This is the form in which your body transfers fat from storage in fat cells via the blood stream to the cells where it will be burned for energy. You can't make the glyceride backbone entirely from scratch--your body needs carbohydrate as a starting point.
Hence, to mobilize fat, you do need at least a little carbohydrate in your diet.
This is why a "zero carbs" diet, sustained, can kill you, and why the minimum carbohydrate level for people starting the Atkins diet is 20 g carbohydrate per day.
As I understand it, this isn't technically true. Living without fat or protein will kill you, but the human body works fine (if not differently) without any carbs. Consider the Inuit, who were very healthy, before their diet was westernized.
The Inuit did not live without carbs. My understanding is that they also were adapted so that they weren't even in ketosis.
What carbs did they eat? There isn't much up north.
I've heard their systems may not have been in ketosis either. I'm not sure if it is because of a genetic thing, because they ate so much protein, or just because your a person's body stops spilling ketones after their body has beome adept at using fats for fuel (ei. ketostix will eventually stop being positive after a long time).0 -
I added a bit to the post you quoted. They got carbs largely from glycogen from marine mammals.0
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »I added a bit to the post you quoted. They got carbs largely from glycogen from marine mammals.
You got me there. It appears that the Inuit did get carbs from extremely fresh (still warm) meat. Interesting. Thank you.0 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »You do not need carbs. At all. Zero. Now, I do eat carbs, but not because I would die if I didn't. I happen to like nuts and dairy too much to never eat carbs.
But if you wanted to it is very simple. Just east only foods with fat or protein. It's really not complicated.MoiAussi93 wrote: »You do not need carbs. At all. Zero. Now, I do eat carbs, but not because I would die if I didn't. I happen to like nuts and dairy too much to never eat carbs.
But if you wanted to it is very simple. Just east only foods with fat or protein. It's really not complicated.
That would mean no vegetables or fruits or nuts.0 -
maillemaker wrote: »did you read the whole post? Or my post to you in the other thread? You're missing the point of moderation. Weighing, logging, having the small serving every day. No restriction, no binging necessary. You know you get to have more again. Hold yourself accountable for your actions.
Yes, I read both of them. Did you read mine?
I'm not missing the point of moderation. I understand fully what the point of moderation is. What I'm telling you is that not everyone has the self-discipline for moderation.
If everyone did, there would be no such thing as binging.
Those who binge can practice and learn moderation.
And for those who say you can't or won't binge on things like fruit. My experience differs.
For real. I love that some people think a person only binges on pizza, cookies, chips, crackers, ice cream, etc… Wrong wrong WRONG0 -
That's true. A zero carb diet, or as close as humanly possible to get, will not inlude veggies, fruits or nuts. It's basically the flip side of vegan.0
-
The issues is refined sugars and sugars that are present in processed foods. Naturally occurring sugars are fine in moderation.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 914 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions