Matt Lauer proving why no-sugar does't work

145679

Replies

  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Annie_01 wrote: »
    My only advice to people would be...find what works. Find a way that is healthy...makes you happy...and that you can do long term. If it ceases to work...then back up and try again.

    I think this is good advice.

    It's worth noting that the poster mccindy was advising keeps saying that he CAN'T do moderation so he CAN'T eat foods he seems to want to eat and -- more significantly -- that he is only successful when hungry and miserable. I really don't think that's the only way; I think that's a choice, and that mccindy was trying to help.

    I don't think that poster wants to hear there's another way, though. (And to my mind this has nothing to do with moderation or not, but the idea that dieting must mean misery.)
  • auddii
    auddii Posts: 15,357 Member
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    Annie_01 wrote: »
    My only advice to people would be...find what works. Find a way that is healthy...makes you happy...and that you can do long term. If it ceases to work...then back up and try again.

    I think this is good advice.

    It's worth noting that the poster mccindy was advising keeps saying that he CAN'T do moderation so he CAN'T eat foods he seems to want to eat and -- more significantly -- that he is only successful when hungry and miserable. I really don't think that's the only way; I think that's a choice, and that mccindy was trying to help.

    I don't think that poster wants to hear there's another way, though. (And to my mind this has nothing to do with moderation or not, but the idea that dieting must mean misery.)

    ^All of this.
  • Annie_01
    Annie_01 Posts: 3,097 Member
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    Annie_01 wrote: »
    My only advice to people would be...find what works. Find a way that is healthy...makes you happy...and that you can do long term. If it ceases to work...then back up and try again.

    I think this is good advice.

    It's worth noting that the poster mccindy was advising keeps saying that he CAN'T do moderation so he CAN'T eat foods he seems to want to eat and -- more significantly -- that he is only successful when hungry and miserable. I really don't think that's the only way; I think that's a choice, and that mccindy was trying to help.

    I don't think that poster wants to hear there's another way, though. (And to my mind this has nothing to do with moderation or not, but the idea that dieting must mean misery.)

    I will say...I just skimmed his posts. What I got from that skimming differs somewhat.

    I think what he was saying is that some people have not learned moderation yet and that until they do maybe it is best to eliminate certain foods.

    Personally I think there is a lot that most people need to learn about nutrition and weight management. I certainly did and have spent a lot of time researching. I think that has made the biggest difference for me.

    Trying to get your weight under control is difficult...at least initially. People struggle...what to eat...how much to eat. Trying to find ways to keep binges down yet not being hungry. Also I think realizing what are those trigger foods that set off the binging. There are macro/micro goals...fitness goals...health goals...etc...etc. It can become overwhelming at times...at least it did for me. If there are health issues that just adds to the confusion and frustration.

    So IMO...sometimes you have to chose your battles...do I learn to moderate those PB M&Ms...or do I put my attention on to more important things. I pick and choose my battles...those PB M&Ms came out at the bottom of the list.

    I understand what that poster was trying to say (if what I got from his post is correct). Sometimes it is just easier to eliminate than to have to battle trying to moderate. Later when you have more control then you can possibly reintroduce foods if you choose.

    I might be wrong though...maybe he does want to miserable...IDK.

  • LiftAllThePizzas
    LiftAllThePizzas Posts: 17,857 Member
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    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 don't need fingernails either. So what? It doesn't mean we should form a no-fingernail group and use it as a launching pad to flood the forums with posts telling people they should try to live without fingernails.

    Please show me where I recommended that people eat no carbs? I never did.
    Please show me where I said you recommended that people eat no carbs? I never did.
    ANd I haven't seen anyone else do it. All I did was correct a poster who insists on repeating...many times...that you NEED carbs to survive. You don't. I think it makes sense to correctly blatantly false information.
    Then your correcting someone is entirely irrelevant and serves no purpose in this thread. How is that different from correcting someone's grammar?
  • LiftAllThePizzas
    LiftAllThePizzas Posts: 17,857 Member
    And BTW you do need carbs to survive. If you lowered your blood glucose too much, you would go into a coma and die.
  • MakePeasNotWar
    MakePeasNotWar Posts: 1,329 Member
    And BTW you do need carbs to survive. If you lowered your blood glucose too much, you would go into a coma and die.

    You don't need dietary carbs. Amino acids can be used to generate glucose within the body via gluconeogenesis.

    http://themedicalbiochemistrypage.org/gluconeogenesis.php

  • MoiAussi93
    MoiAussi93 Posts: 1,948 Member
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    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 don't need fingernails either. So what? It doesn't mean we should form a no-fingernail group and use it as a launching pad to flood the forums with posts telling people they should try to live without fingernails.

    Please show me where I recommended that people eat no carbs? I never did.
    Please show me where I said you recommended that people eat no carbs? I never did.
    ANd I haven't seen anyone else do it. All I did was correct a poster who insists on repeating...many times...that you NEED carbs to survive. You don't. I think it makes sense to correctly blatantly false information.
    Then your correcting someone is entirely irrelevant and serves no purpose in this thread. How is that different from correcting someone's grammar?

    Serves no purpose? Uh...you are very much mistaken. If somebody told posters, repeatedly, that you CANNOT lose weight without exercising one hour every day, they would immediately be corrected. Because that is wrong. And saying you need carbs to live is also wrong. And MUST be corrected. This is not at all like correcting grammar. smh
  • MoiAussi93
    MoiAussi93 Posts: 1,948 Member
    And BTW you do need carbs to survive. If you lowered your blood glucose too much, you would go into a coma and die.

    No, for the 100th time you DO NOT NEED CARBS TO SURVIVE. I have said it. So have half a dozen other people. Some have even given links. Carbs are not necessary to the human body.
  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    edited July 2015
    Hold on a second....gluconeogensis cannot fill all the body's glucose requirements, even in the presence of essentially unlimited protein intake.

    If by "carbs aren't necessary" you mean "you won't die for a while", then fair game. But if it's supposed to mean "leads to an energetic, full lifestyle", the answer is yes, carbs *are* biologically necessary.

    Depending on individual and context, the level can be pretty low (some folks can manage on <50g /day more or less indefinitely, and virtually everyone's needs are covered by 100g/day), but going literally zero carb is going to cause problems if done for very long.
  • LiftAllThePizzas
    LiftAllThePizzas Posts: 17,857 Member
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    And BTW you do need carbs to survive. If you lowered your blood glucose too much, you would go into a coma and die.

    No, for the 100th time you DO NOT NEED CARBS TO SURVIVE. I have said it. So have half a dozen other people. Some have even given links. Carbs are not necessary to the human body.
    Your blood glucose level is not zero. If it were you would be dead.
  • MoiAussi93
    MoiAussi93 Posts: 1,948 Member
    Mr_Knight wrote: »
    Hold on a second....gluconeogensis cannot fill all the body's glucose requirements, even in the presence of essentially unlimited protein intake.

    If by "carbs aren't necessary" you mean "you won't die for a while", then fair game. But if it's supposed to mean "leads to an energetic, full lifestyle", the answer is yes, carbs *are* biologically necessary.

    Depending on individual and context, the level can be pretty low (some folks can manage on <50g /day more or less indefinitely, and virtually everyone's needs are covered by 100g/day), but going literally zero carb is going to cause problems if done for very long.

    The body actually needs very little glucose. It can use fat as a primary fuel source instead of carbs in which case the glucose needs are very low and gluconeogenesis can easily fill them.

    So no, carbs are not needed for an energetic full lifestyle.
  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    edited July 2015
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    Mr_Knight wrote: »
    Hold on a second....gluconeogensis cannot fill all the body's glucose requirements, even in the presence of essentially unlimited protein intake.

    If by "carbs aren't necessary" you mean "you won't die for a while", then fair game. But if it's supposed to mean "leads to an energetic, full lifestyle", the answer is yes, carbs *are* biologically necessary.

    Depending on individual and context, the level can be pretty low (some folks can manage on <50g /day more or less indefinitely, and virtually everyone's needs are covered by 100g/day), but going literally zero carb is going to cause problems if done for very long.

    The body actually needs very little glucose.

    For someone extremely sedentary, that's not far from reality.

    For someone even moderately active, it's not, because carb intake is the only metabolically feasible way to restore gylcogen stores. Once those are gone, they're gone, and they cannot be synthesized in sufficient quantities, quickly enough, from either protein or fat pathways.

    It can use fat as a primary fuel source instead of carbs in which case the glucose needs are very low and gluconeogenesis can easily fill them. So no, carbs are not needed for an energetic full lifestyle.

    Yes, they are, because it's not just about the calories, it's about the rate of caloric burn. There are fundamental biological reasons for the complete lack of elite ketogenic athletes at any sport that requires more than low intensity output.
  • msfoxy_25
    msfoxy_25 Posts: 40 Member
    You can totally give it up, added sugar isn't needed. Don't eat replacements, you just have to let it go and find something else to satisfy you.
  • LAT1963
    LAT1963 Posts: 1,375 Member
    The Inuit diet does include some vegetable matter though, and thereby carbohydrate. Almost all the plants on the tundra are edible, though some of it isn't tasty or nutritious. So, sorry--they do eat carbs.
  • MoiAussi93
    MoiAussi93 Posts: 1,948 Member
    Mr_Knight wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    Mr_Knight wrote: »
    Hold on a second....gluconeogensis cannot fill all the body's glucose requirements, even in the presence of essentially unlimited protein intake.

    If by "carbs aren't necessary" you mean "you won't die for a while", then fair game. But if it's supposed to mean "leads to an energetic, full lifestyle", the answer is yes, carbs *are* biologically necessary.

    Depending on individual and context, the level can be pretty low (some folks can manage on <50g /day more or less indefinitely, and virtually everyone's needs are covered by 100g/day), but going literally zero carb is going to cause problems if done for very long.

    The body actually needs very little glucose.

    For someone extremely sedentary, that's not far from reality.

    For someone even moderately active, it's not, because carb intake is the only metabolically feasible way to restore gylcogen stores. Once those are gone, they're gone, and they cannot be synthesized in sufficient quantities, quickly enough, from either protein or fat pathways.

    It can use fat as a primary fuel source instead of carbs in which case the glucose needs are very low and gluconeogenesis can easily fill them. So no, carbs are not needed for an energetic full lifestyle.

    Yes, they are, because it's not just about the calories, it's about the rate of caloric burn. There are fundamental biological reasons for the complete lack of elite ketogenic athletes at any sport that requires more than low intensity output.

    Ketogenic athletes run marathons. So if people can run marathons in ketosis, I think the vast majority of the population can handle normal daily activities including a workout that probably doesn't exceed an hour and is not as intense as a marathon.
  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    edited July 2015
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    Mr_Knight wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    Mr_Knight wrote: »
    Hold on a second....gluconeogensis cannot fill all the body's glucose requirements, even in the presence of essentially unlimited protein intake.

    If by "carbs aren't necessary" you mean "you won't die for a while", then fair game. But if it's supposed to mean "leads to an energetic, full lifestyle", the answer is yes, carbs *are* biologically necessary.

    Depending on individual and context, the level can be pretty low (some folks can manage on <50g /day more or less indefinitely, and virtually everyone's needs are covered by 100g/day), but going literally zero carb is going to cause problems if done for very long.

    The body actually needs very little glucose.

    For someone extremely sedentary, that's not far from reality.

    For someone even moderately active, it's not, because carb intake is the only metabolically feasible way to restore gylcogen stores. Once those are gone, they're gone, and they cannot be synthesized in sufficient quantities, quickly enough, from either protein or fat pathways.

    It can use fat as a primary fuel source instead of carbs in which case the glucose needs are very low and gluconeogenesis can easily fill them. So no, carbs are not needed for an energetic full lifestyle.

    Yes, they are, because it's not just about the calories, it's about the rate of caloric burn. There are fundamental biological reasons for the complete lack of elite ketogenic athletes at any sport that requires more than low intensity output.

    Ketogenic athletes run marathons.

    None of the good ones are ketogenic.

    And ketogenic is not the same as no-carb.

    I think the vast majority of the population can handle normal daily activities including a workout that probably doesn't exceed an hour and is not as intense as a marathon.

    That's exactly backwards - shorter duration workouts typically have higher intensity levels than longer workouts - thereby increasing the need for carb replenishment. Usain Bolt is running at a MUCH higher intensity than his champion equivalent at marathon distances.

    The one place where we might expect to see a genuine full time ketogenic champion is in ultra-distance racing.
  • LAT1963
    LAT1963 Posts: 1,375 Member
    Ketosis is a normal state that thin people go into short-term overnight while they sleep because of the length of time between meals.
  • MakePeasNotWar
    MakePeasNotWar Posts: 1,329 Member
    Mr_Knight wrote: »
    Hold on a second....gluconeogensis cannot fill all the body's glucose requirements, even in the presence of essentially unlimited protein intake.

    If by "carbs aren't necessary" you mean "you won't die for a while", then fair game. But if it's supposed to mean "leads to an energetic, full lifestyle", the answer is yes, carbs *are* biologically necessary.

    Depending on individual and context, the level can be pretty low (some folks can manage on <50g /day more or less indefinitely, and virtually everyone's needs are covered by 100g/day), but going literally zero carb is going to cause problems if done for very long.

    Not sure if it's me you were replying to, but I was only saying that you won't "go into a coma and die" from lack of dietary carbs, assuming you are healthy and have no special conditions that prevent gluconeogenesis.

    Personally I feel like crap without carbs, so I eat 45-55% of my calories as carbs, often more. I was only replying to a poster who said that without dietary carbs, blood sugar levels would collapse and cause coma and death, which isn't the case.
  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    LAT1963 wrote: »
    Ketosis is a normal state that thin people go into short-term overnight while they sleep because of the length of time between meals.

    That's only correct under very specific conditions, rarely seen conditions.

    Under normal conditions, "thin people" are running off of glucose released by the liver during sleep time.
  • MoiAussi93
    MoiAussi93 Posts: 1,948 Member
    Mr_Knight wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    Mr_Knight wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    Mr_Knight wrote: »
    Hold on a second....gluconeogensis cannot fill all the body's glucose requirements, even in the presence of essentially unlimited protein intake.

    If by "carbs aren't necessary" you mean "you won't die for a while", then fair game. But if it's supposed to mean "leads to an energetic, full lifestyle", the answer is yes, carbs *are* biologically necessary.

    Depending on individual and context, the level can be pretty low (some folks can manage on <50g /day more or less indefinitely, and virtually everyone's needs are covered by 100g/day), but going literally zero carb is going to cause problems if done for very long.

    The body actually needs very little glucose.

    For someone extremely sedentary, that's not far from reality.

    For someone even moderately active, it's not, because carb intake is the only metabolically feasible way to restore gylcogen stores. Once those are gone, they're gone, and they cannot be synthesized in sufficient quantities, quickly enough, from either protein or fat pathways.

    It can use fat as a primary fuel source instead of carbs in which case the glucose needs are very low and gluconeogenesis can easily fill them. So no, carbs are not needed for an energetic full lifestyle.

    Yes, they are, because it's not just about the calories, it's about the rate of caloric burn. There are fundamental biological reasons for the complete lack of elite ketogenic athletes at any sport that requires more than low intensity output.

    Ketogenic athletes run marathons.

    None of the good ones are ketogenic.

    And ketogenic is not the same as no-carb.

    I think the vast majority of the population can handle normal daily activities including a workout that probably doesn't exceed an hour and is not as intense as a marathon.

    That's exactly backwards - shorter duration workouts typically have higher intensity levels than longer workouts - thereby increasing the need for carb replenishment. Usain Bolt is running at a MUCH higher intensity than his champion equivalent at marathon distances.

    The one place where we might expect to see a genuine full time ketogenic champion is in ultra-distance racing.

    I'm no basketball expert, but Lebron James & Ray Allen are generally considered "good".