Matt Lauer proving why no-sugar does't work
Replies
-
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 -
This content has been removed.
-
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
-
This content has been removed.
-
misclaire81 wrote: »The issues is refined sugars and sugars that are present in processed foods. Naturally occurring sugars are fine in moderation.
Nope. All sugar is fine in moderation. All sugars are the same, digested into glucose by the body.0 -
nvsmomketo wrote: »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.
I actually wouldn't compare it to vegans because vegans still eat protein. Maybe true fruititarians? If there are any?0 -
I don't watch Today Show, so I've no idea what this is about. But they attempted to eliminate added sugars by including a whole bunch of packaged, processed stuff?? For real? What's wrong with a piece of fruit?
Confused.0 -
misclaire81 wrote: »The issues is refined sugars and sugars that are present in processed foods. Naturally occurring sugars are fine in moderation.
Refined sugar IS occuring naturally, or do you think it's made from other stuff?
http://nutritiondata.self.com/foods-009009000000000000000.html?maxCount=74
Seriously, that's like saying spicing your food with salt is bad, but putting sea water in your food is good.0 -
dopeysmelly wrote: »I don't watch Today Show, so I've no idea what this is about. But they attempted to eliminate added sugars by including a whole bunch of packaged, processed stuff?? For real? What's wrong with a piece of fruit?
Confused.
No, they attempted to replace everyone's favorite food with some fake replacement - regular ice cream with 'ice cream' made from blended avocados. And other foolishness.0 -
Maybe my use of terms is off.
I was meaning natural sugars that are in fruits and unprocessed foods as apposed to added sugars and sweeteners that you find in health foods or pre-packet foods.stevencloser wrote: »misclaire81 wrote: »The issues is refined sugars and sugars that are present in processed foods. Naturally occurring sugars are fine in moderation.
Refined sugar IS occuring naturally, or do you think it's made from other stuff?
http://nutritiondata.self.com/foods-009009000000000000000.html?maxCount=74
Seriously, that's like saying spicing your food with salt is bad, but putting sea water in your food is good.
0 -
misclaire81 wrote: »Maybe my use of terms is off.
I was meaning natural sugars that are in fruits and unprocessed foods as apposed to added sugars and sweeteners that you find in health foods or pre-packet foods.stevencloser wrote: »misclaire81 wrote: »The issues is refined sugars and sugars that are present in processed foods. Naturally occurring sugars are fine in moderation.
Refined sugar IS occuring naturally, or do you think it's made from other stuff?
http://nutritiondata.self.com/foods-009009000000000000000.html?maxCount=74
Seriously, that's like saying spicing your food with salt is bad, but putting sea water in your food is good.
The sugar is still the same. The other stuff is nice in fruit, but the sugar is just sugar, no need to sugarcoat it (heh).0 -
misclaire81 wrote: »Maybe my use of terms is off.
I was meaning natural sugars that are in fruits and unprocessed foods as apposed to added sugars and sweeteners that you find in health foods or pre-packet foods.stevencloser wrote: »misclaire81 wrote: »The issues is refined sugars and sugars that are present in processed foods. Naturally occurring sugars are fine in moderation.
Refined sugar IS occuring naturally, or do you think it's made from other stuff?
http://nutritiondata.self.com/foods-009009000000000000000.html?maxCount=74
Seriously, that's like saying spicing your food with salt is bad, but putting sea water in your food is good.
Added sugar is just sugar that is made from sugar cane or sugar beets, etc. It all comes from plants.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »Seriously, that's like saying spicing your food with salt is bad, but putting sea water in your food is good.
Sea salt is a lot different chemically than table salt.
A lot different.
(Not disagreeing with your larger point, though :drinker: )0 -
-
stevencloser wrote: »Seriously, that's like saying spicing your food with salt is bad, but putting sea water in your food is good.
Sea salt is a lot different chemically than table salt.
A lot different.
(Not disagreeing with your larger point, though :drinker: )
"The typical composition of seawater by dry weight percent includes: 55.5% chloride; 30.8% sodium; 7.7% sulfate; 3.7% magnesium; 1.2% calcium; 1.1% potassium. "
Eh, close enough.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.
You're right. Carb intake through diet is not necessary for human survival. IIRC there is even a statement to that effect in the RDA handbook. I think all that is necessary from diet is some protein and a number of essential fatty acids.
That said whether it is optimal or even practically feasible or not to eliminate carbs is another conversation entirely.
On the point about abstinence v moderation as an approach one of the key elements is how it makes a person feel to adopt the given approach and how severe the resulting mental state of deprivation turns out to be. Over the long term deprivation trumps willpower hands down so setting up a method of eating where the need for willpower is reduced to the lowest level possible is preferable to my mind.
I think for most people moderation will be a better fit but for a smaller number of people abstinence is the way forward bearing in mind the above. No one needs to learn moderation if their preferences lie elsewhere.
Whilst it is likely eliminating things from diet can heighten feelings of deprivation which leads to bad outcomes (to include bingeing) that is not a foregone conclusion. In addition there are literally billions of people in the world who purposefully abstain from things without falling to a heap on the floor crying - vegetarians, vegans, religious people.
Let's say today I had a deep, life affirming desire to become Hindu. That would mean giving up beef products. I love steak and burgers. Would I start bingeing as a result of knowing I couldn't eat these things for foreseeable future? My guess is probably not. Why? Because the higher sense of purpose outrides the deprivation I may feel. I think some people who purposefully abstain on a different basis can tap into such feelings of higher purpose leading to being successful.
Find a way of eating that makes you happy and you enjoy. Everyone else can take a hike.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
Well, you're obviously missing the point of the initial post, which was about a specific episode of the Today Show, and replacement food for regular food.
If the point was something other than replacements foods will make you miss the original food and binge on them, then I suppose I did.
People won't like the 'replacement food' because it doesn't taste good. They will miss the food they are trying to replace. They won't eat the replacement food, and will still eat the regular food they like.
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.
Another assumption is that the good things must come in "tiny" portions. So longbas it dosent consistently displace a singjificant amount of your other desirable macros there's nothing wrong with havin a significant portion of a treat and making room for the calories elsewhere.
I have indulged in some ridiculous DQ concoctions that have effectively replaced meals. In those cases I simply salvage cals from other meals/days until I'm back on track.
0 -
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.
Usually, none at all. 3 cookies I'm just getting warmed up to the taste of cookies. It's too easy for 3 cookies to turn into 6. Typically if I "fit in" a treat, it's at the expense of a meal. Or I just go over on my calories for the day.It's also easier to practice moderation and work treats in when people have a moderate calorie deficit as opposed to an very high deficit. Although that's a topic that has been previously argued with you before to death, so I'm just going to leave it there.
I'm sure it is. But then you have to balance that lower deficit with less spectacular weight loss results, and for me anyway, it's the results that make the suffering worthwhile. Lackluster results and you start wondering why you are bothering with the suffering.That's a stupid saying because it's only applicable if all you care about is the next 5 minutes. It's not reasonable for the vast majority of people to expect to be able to avoid temptation for the rest of your life.
Or perhaps just the next 5 weeks or 5 months until you gain some confidence and stamina in controlling what you eat.In the long term it is easier to learn how to deal with these situations and "resistance" becomes much easier, and leads to a better quality of life.
Of course. But not everyone can do that right out of the blocks.Add to that the fact that "making the easy choice and only being concerned with about right now" is why a great many people are on MFP trying to lose a bunch of weight, and it's just plain silly to offer this short-sighted saying as a solution to the very problem it created.
If it works, it's not silly.
0 -
I liked how this morning Matt kept asking "you can eat anything, right".
Of course most know you want to get nutrient dense foods in too, but any food is ok.
It all comes down to cico.
0 -
maillemaker wrote: »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.
Usually, none at all. 3 cookies I'm just getting warmed up to the taste of cookies. It's too easy for 3 cookies to turn into 6. Typically if I "fit in" a treat, it's at the expense of a meal. Or I just go over on my calories for the day.It's also easier to practice moderation and work treats in when people have a moderate calorie deficit as opposed to an very high deficit. Although that's a topic that has been previously argued with you before to death, so I'm just going to leave it there.
I'm sure it is. But then you have to balance that lower deficit with less spectacular weight loss results, and for me anyway, it's the results that make the suffering worthwhile. Lackluster results and you start wondering why you are bothering with the suffering.That's a stupid saying because it's only applicable if all you care about is the next 5 minutes. It's not reasonable for the vast majority of people to expect to be able to avoid temptation for the rest of your life.
Or perhaps just the next 5 weeks or 5 months until you gain some confidence and stamina in controlling what you eat.In the long term it is easier to learn how to deal with these situations and "resistance" becomes much easier, and leads to a better quality of life.
Of course. But not everyone can do that right out of the blocks.Add to that the fact that "making the easy choice and only being concerned with about right now" is why a great many people are on MFP trying to lose a bunch of weight, and it's just plain silly to offer this short-sighted saying as a solution to the very problem it created.
If it works, it's not silly.
And you're still losing? Have you made it to goal weight successfully and maintained? Because you seem self-assured for someone who is still struggling with the journey. Do what you want, but if you're still struggling with weight loss and haven't figured it out yet, arguing with people who have successfully lost and maintained seems rather silly.
Stomp your feet and turn purple and insist you want to stay overweight, then.-2 -
misclaire81 wrote: »The issues is refined sugars and sugars that are present in processed foods. Naturally occurring sugars are fine in moderation.
Nope. All sugar is fine in moderation. All sugars are the same, digested into glucose by the body.
What sugars end up as after digestion has completed doesn't make them "the same".0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »misclaire81 wrote: »The issues is refined sugars and sugars that are present in processed foods. Naturally occurring sugars are fine in moderation.
Nope. All sugar is fine in moderation. All sugars are the same, digested into glucose by the body.
What sugars end up as after digestion has completed doesn't make them "the same".
It doesn't matter what they are before you eat them, if they are going to do the same thing once you digest them, maintaining that you are in a calorie deficit.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »misclaire81 wrote: »The issues is refined sugars and sugars that are present in processed foods. Naturally occurring sugars are fine in moderation.
Nope. All sugar is fine in moderation. All sugars are the same, digested into glucose by the body.
What sugars end up as after digestion has completed doesn't make them "the same".
It doesn't matter what they are before you eat them, if they are going to do the same thing once you digest them, maintaining that you are in a calorie deficit.
What do you mean by "it doesn't matter". Doesn't matter to whom or for what?0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 395.3K Introduce Yourself
- 44.1K Getting Started
- 260.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.2K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.7K Fitness and Exercise
- 445 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.2K Motivation and Support
- 8.2K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 4.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 16 News and Announcements
- 1.3K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.9K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions