Cutting carbs and refined sugar
Replies
-
Mandyrose1983 wrote: »I mean that some people say that that have a bite of ice cream and it satisfies them. For me, as soon as I taste a little bit of ice cream, candy or sugar, I feel like it's a drug and I just want MORE. I truly believe sugar is as addictive as cocaine
I don't know about everyone, but as someone who's been an addict with pretty much every narcotic there is at some point (I know, I know...lame...that's well behind me and it's going to stay there), I feel the same way about refined sugar. Once I start eating *kitten* sugars like cake or candy, it escalates quickly. I get ravenous for it. When I finally make the choice to stop, it sucks. I feel different in a bad way, and I crave it for a good while. But once it's been out of my system I'm okay. I think a lot of people experience this! Or at least some of the people I've talked to about how much I have to stay away from it... Everyone's different, obviously. But I can totally relate to your "dramatic" feelings about it hahaha internet forums are so ridiculous sometimes.
Do you eat sugar right out of the bowl or bag??0 -
So is anyone going to substantiate the ridiculous claims form low carb advocates in the last few pages? So far the only thing put forth can be called nothing short of a joke, since I'm unsure how anyone with a smidgen of intelligence could consider the links as any proof of their claims
People who are interested in low carb will find the info - there is lots out there. For someone whose only interest seems to be in proving it is a wrong/bad way to eat, why bother?
Actually I am quite well versed in the literature, who said it was wrong or a bad way to eat? All l did was ask someone to substantiate a claim, since the burden of proof falls on the claim maker. Perhaps low carbers should stop making things up if they don't want to be called on their nonsense?0 -
Yep, see it all the time.mantium999 wrote: »
And I'll tell you the same I told others. If someone came into here asking what is the best way to jump out a window, would it be better to ask them if jumping out a window is necessary, or start explaining your personal strategy for opening a window latch? A lot of people think they to give up carbs. There is a lot of misinformation out there, and so it might help the person to actually check they're not following the latest trend in dieting.
Demonization of food is give it negative attributes it doesn't have according to established science.
Solipsistic arguments not withstanding, I'm pretty sure people are real and have no supernatural power over me, so not seeing the demonization.Demons are the blind fears of primitive thinking, the boogie-men of children. It becomes pretty clear that to demonize something is to give it a power over you, to tacitly give it the power to make you afraid because you don't understand it.
Why would you want to give a food that power? Why would anyone want to live in fear of a food for the sake of fearing it? I would like to live in the modern world free of demons - a world where such things are gone because we have rational enlightenment and understanding.
When you demonize people who demonize food, does that give them power over you? Or does this "Relinquishment Of Power" theory only hold true for foods?
That said, tree frog poison can be a very powerful hallucinogen in shamanistic rituals, so you might be one step closer than most.
OK, so I got one definition of demonization. Could you give me your definition of "demonization" as it applies to food?
Also, what power do you think the food is imbued with upon it's demonization?
Particular powers are placebo and nocebo effect, plus by trying to restrict it without need, you're setting up the food as novel when consumed, and thus increasing the desire of the food.
It is generally pretty old and established that intermittent reinforcement is actually more effective than continuous reinforcement. More modern techniques studying dopamine in the brain show that novelty plays a part in dopamine responses, and thus increases the perceived reward of it - essentially a chemical version of the conditioning principle of intermittent reinforcement.
And maybe some people have varying degrees of dopamine responses from you or the norm. So that theoretical relationship might not apply to them at all. Is it then OK for them to demonize?
There is actually an obese/serotonin/carbohydrates relationship. Those people might be better off not viewing a cupcake as innocent calories just waiting to be regulated by sheer willpower.
I don't have answers for everyone else, but like any reasonable person just try different things til I find out what works for my circumstances. When I find my answers, I will definitely not be telling others my way is the only way that will work for them.
All food usually leads to releasing serotonin. The reason why is that it drops the dopamine to stop reward seeking behavior because the reward is right there.
When you demonize the food, you've increased the dopamine response. You've now made it something you've mentally decided is unobtainable, something that is different. There are people that have very specific diseases like Prater-Willy. 99%+ of adults are going to be able to inure themselves to temptation. Believe it or not, the words "oh, not ice cream again", and "oh, not pizza again" have been uttered by English speakers who normally like those things.
If people on here are asking how to avoid something, it seems obvious that it does not work for them at some level. How is my suggesting they change their relationship any worse advice than someone telling them to throw all of it out of the house and hope they never encounter it while out and about? How does it stop being demonization just because it has worked for them?
And honestly, if you really believe there are so many special snowflakes, why do you tell people all the time that people don't need to eat sugar? Lustig himself talks about children that can't generate their own glucose and have to have special diets.
I used to 'change my relationship' with foods, but since discovered that it is easier to just label failed food relationships' foods as 'toxic' and minimize my interaction with them.
The only time it it appropriate to bring up how nutritionally unnecessary it is to eat sugar/carbs is right after a person asks how to minimize/eliminate or get control over a carb/sugar food and half the responses are saying EATTHEFOOD.
I personally pay attention to those people struggling with carb issues due to a long personal struggle with same and in addition our family has metabolic issues related to carbohydrate and I've spent hundreds of hours (or thousands if you ask my SO) learning about them.
Nutrional knowledge is sketchy and we are all unique. People's health and weight are dependant on them figuring out what works best for them. Supporting people in that process is more important than inappropriately applying random personal judgements.
Nutritional knowledge is better than most would think - psychology of food choices still could use improvement, but I can guarantee you, if you give me a metabolic chamber, control over food, and a test subject the science is there to guarantee they'll lose weight. Give me a barbell, weights, and little willingness on the part of the subject and I can even give good odds on most of the weight lost being fat rather than lean body mass. By and large, our metabolisms don't actually vary that much. For one, any kind of marked improvement or failure in metabolism would have profound effects on reproductive success in humans until around 100 years or so. For another, human evolution is marked by genetic bottlenecks where the entire race almost bit the dust and left a much smaller foundation population not that long ago.
And again, if you're going to make the argument that people are unique, don't make statements like glucose is a nonessential nutrient - for some people, it actually can be.
People with impaired gluconeogenesis are very ill, under the care of a doctor (or several), not looking for weight loss advice on MFP and pretty rare. People with issues processing carbohydrates well are frequently not diagnosed, on their own for answers, on weight loss forums like MFP and plentiful - maybe 3 out of 10 if the stats I've read are believable. I think what I am saying is appropriate for the folks here.
And the entire point that I am trying to make is that limiting carbs - even to low levels - is NOT the nutritional equivelent to jumping out a window.
If 3 of 10 who come here have unkown carb issues, and someone suggests limiting carbs to all the folks who ask, one is giving inaccurate advice to 70% of those who are asking.
No one that I've seen is suggesting carb limiting to random mfp posters.
Stick around. You'll see it. It happens all the time.
0 -
So is anyone going to substantiate the ridiculous claims form low carb advocates in the last few pages? So far the only thing put forth can be called nothing short of a joke, since I'm unsure how anyone with a smidgen of intelligence could consider the links as any proof of their claims
That is some impressive unsubstantiated dissing - aka 'trumping' your opponent - and you might get a better result with factual knowledge or personal experiences.
0 -
So is anyone going to substantiate the ridiculous claims form low carb advocates in the last few pages? So far the only thing put forth can be called nothing short of a joke, since I'm unsure how anyone with a smidgen of intelligence could consider the links as any proof of their claims
That is some impressive unsubstantiated dissing - aka 'trumping' your opponent - and you might get a better result with factual knowledge or personal experiences.
Unsubstantiated?
"some claiming the brain needs dietary carbs to function optimally (which is simply not true)" which was backed up by this
"You have!!!
I know for a fact I have posted a study (probably about a year ago) showing no difference in 'long-term' brain function on a low carb diet compared to a high carb diet."
That in no way supports the original claim, not even a little
"The brain does very well without dietary carbs. Yes, it needs glucose but you don't need to get it from food.
Unsubstantiated nor could the poster even define what very well means in that context
"High carb is hard on the brain:"
which was supported by this
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22810099
That also does not support that claim
"Low carb helps dementia:"
http://www.webmd.com/alzheimers/news/20051018/high-fat-low-carb-diet-may-help-alzheimers
Link doesn't support the claim
Those are facts, the support offered for the claims does not actually support their claims. So what was unsubstantiated dissing?0 -
So is anyone going to substantiate the ridiculous claims form low carb advocates in the last few pages? So far the only thing put forth can be called nothing short of a joke, since I'm unsure how anyone with a smidgen of intelligence could consider the links as any proof of their claims
perhaps nobody wants to play your semantic nitpicking games. I have no idea if brain function is "optimal" on any given level of dietary carbohydrate. But I do know the brain continues to work in the absence of deitary carbohydrate as has been published and witnessed in real life.0 -
So is anyone going to substantiate the ridiculous claims form low carb advocates in the last few pages? So far the only thing put forth can be called nothing short of a joke, since I'm unsure how anyone with a smidgen of intelligence could consider the links as any proof of their claims
perhaps nobody wants to play your semantic nitpicking games. I have no idea if brain function is "optimal" on any given level of dietary carbohydrate. But I do know the brain continues to work in the absence of deitary carbohydrate as has been published and witnessed in real life.
How is it semantics, even using a loose definition of optimal, how could one make the claim that the brain needs dietary carbs to function optimally is a falsehood and support it with a claim that there was a study in which subjects ate carbs?
Whether or not the brain continues to function without dietary carbs has no bearing on the claim, that was not up for debate. Unsure why you would even bring that up.
Perhaps this is typical behavior of certain advocates making their usual fantastic claims but unable to substantiate them. Not really a surprise there0 -
Sadly, you can't fight faith with facts...
Everyone seems to ignore I said specifically jumping out the window because you no longer believe in gravity.kommodevaran wrote: »This discussion is strange. You are missing the point(s). Well, most of you.
Lots of people ask for advice to cut carbs to lose weight, because they have no clue about how weight loss works. Lots of people suggest cutting carbs to lose weight, because they have no clue about how weight loss works. Lots of people think they are addicted to carbs because they have heard about that, and think they have to cut bread, pasta and potatoes. Some people mistake water weight gain after eating more carbs for fat gain. And then there are all these other more or less random ideas, like eating pattern, low-fat, water intake, green tea, wheat belly diet etc. It is good to inform people about their delusions. But when people clearly struggle moderating certain foods that often have no nutritional value besides calories, have no pleasure from small amounts and eating to satisfaction will jeopardize their health, and are best off avoiding them as much as possible, and feel fine and not deprived doing so but need help to find good strategies to avoid them, or something - why would the best suggestion be to learn to incorporate those foods into their diet?
Asking for background information and reasons behind people's questions involving restrictions or seemingly bizarre actions (if not obvious and/or stated in OP) is in my opinion important, because unnecessary rules and restrictions will usually make compliance more difficult, and eating less than one burns already means some degree of restriction for most. The problem that usually arises, is that the OP feels insulted about their motives being questioned or perceive questions for stats as "personal", and will not let go of their initial idea no matter what; someone suggests something crazy but the OP likes it, other posters react by getting snarky, then someone throws in "mean", "rude", hates", or "negativity"; OPs often rage quit.
Jumping put of the window can be a good idea in some cases, for instance if there is a fire.
It is actually an important distinction because I also said people who have celiac shouldn't eat gluten - there's actual scientific evidence for avoidance. People thinking gluten is what made them fat avoiding gluten are doing for wrong reasons. The whole point is about the reasoning behind the action, not the action.0 -
The idea that the body first uses glucose is an oversimplification. Just as there are metabolic pathways that can only glucose can perform such the brain's need for glucose, there are certain things only fats can use.
Again, diabetes is not the disease of glucose. It is the disease of impaired insulin sensitivity. They may look like the same thing at first blush, but they describe different problems. You can switch to a zero carb diet and still slam your insulin through the roof if you eat large amounts of protein, or if I recall correctly, more specifically if you take straight leucine BCAA's.
Well if you ignore everything I wrote and substitute a strawman, I'm sure it sounds like exactly what you want to hear. Diabetes isn't a disease of being unable to process carbs. It is a disease of cells becoming resistant to insulin. Insulin is activated not just by carbs, but protein, but hey, continue to call diabetes the carb processing disease. As I already said, losing weight is the primary factor in treating most diabetes.
Ok. That's a rather different claim than 30% of people have a problem with carbs.
No, you've stated as fact that all human beings can survive without carbs to make the point that it isn't an essential nutrient. You weren't saying about people on MFP, you were saying it as scientific fact. That's fine as covers 99.9%+ of the world's population, but, if you're going to start talking about some people needing certain dietary changes because they're special, without anyone bringing in a doctor's note saying they have said issues, I'll call you on your playing fast and lose with what is or is not the way human metabolism works.
And I'll tell you the same I told others. If someone came into here asking what is the best way to jump out a window, would it be better to ask them if jumping out a window is necessary, or start explaining your personal strategy for opening a window latch? A lot of people think they to give up carbs. There is a lot of misinformation out there, and so it might help the person to actually check they're not following the latest trend in dieting.
Demonization of food is give it negative attributes it doesn't have according to established science.
Solipsistic arguments not withstanding, I'm pretty sure people are real and have no supernatural power over me, so not seeing the demonization.Demons are the blind fears of primitive thinking, the boogie-men of children. It becomes pretty clear that to demonize something is to give it a power over you, to tacitly give it the power to make you afraid because you don't understand it.
Why would you want to give a food that power? Why would anyone want to live in fear of a food for the sake of fearing it? I would like to live in the modern world free of demons - a world where such things are gone because we have rational enlightenment and understanding.
When you demonize people who demonize food, does that give them power over you? Or does this "Relinquishment Of Power" theory only hold true for foods?
That said, tree frog poison can be a very powerful hallucinogen in shamanistic rituals, so you might be one step closer than most.
OK, so I got one definition of demonization. Could you give me your definition of "demonization" as it applies to food?
Also, what power do you think the food is imbued with upon it's demonization?
Particular powers are placebo and nocebo effect, plus by trying to restrict it without need, you're setting up the food as novel when consumed, and thus increasing the desire of the food.
It is generally pretty old and established that intermittent reinforcement is actually more effective than continuous reinforcement. More modern techniques studying dopamine in the brain show that novelty plays a part in dopamine responses, and thus increases the perceived reward of it - essentially a chemical version of the conditioning principle of intermittent reinforcement.
And maybe some people have varying degrees of dopamine responses from you or the norm. So that theoretical relationship might not apply to them at all. Is it then OK for them to demonize?
There is actually an obese/serotonin/carbohydrates relationship. Those people might be better off not viewing a cupcake as innocent calories just waiting to be regulated by sheer willpower.
I don't have answers for everyone else, but like any reasonable person just try different things til I find out what works for my circumstances. When I find my answers, I will definitely not be telling others my way is the only way that will work for them.
All food usually leads to releasing serotonin. The reason why is that it drops the dopamine to stop reward seeking behavior because the reward is right there.
When you demonize the food, you've increased the dopamine response. You've now made it something you've mentally decided is unobtainable, something that is different. There are people that have very specific diseases like Prater-Willy. 99%+ of adults are going to be able to inure themselves to temptation. Believe it or not, the words "oh, not ice cream again", and "oh, not pizza again" have been uttered by English speakers who normally like those things.
If people on here are asking how to avoid something, it seems obvious that it does not work for them at some level. How is my suggesting they change their relationship any worse advice than someone telling them to throw all of it out of the house and hope they never encounter it while out and about? How does it stop being demonization just because it has worked for them?
And honestly, if you really believe there are so many special snowflakes, why do you tell people all the time that people don't need to eat sugar? Lustig himself talks about children that can't generate their own glucose and have to have special diets.
I used to 'change my relationship' with foods, but since discovered that it is easier to just label failed food relationships' foods as 'toxic' and minimize my interaction with them.
The only time it it appropriate to bring up how nutritionally unnecessary it is to eat sugar/carbs is right after a person asks how to minimize/eliminate or get control over a carb/sugar food and half the responses are saying EATTHEFOOD.
I personally pay attention to those people struggling with carb issues due to a long personal struggle with same and in addition our family has metabolic issues related to carbohydrate and I've spent hundreds of hours (or thousands if you ask my SO) learning about them.
Nutrional knowledge is sketchy and we are all unique. People's health and weight are dependant on them figuring out what works best for them. Supporting people in that process is more important than inappropriately applying random personal judgements.
Nutritional knowledge is better than most would think - psychology of food choices still could use improvement, but I can guarantee you, if you give me a metabolic chamber, control over food, and a test subject the science is there to guarantee they'll lose weight. Give me a barbell, weights, and little willingness on the part of the subject and I can even give good odds on most of the weight lost being fat rather than lean body mass. By and large, our metabolisms don't actually vary that much. For one, any kind of marked improvement or failure in metabolism would have profound effects on reproductive success in humans until around 100 years or so. For another, human evolution is marked by genetic bottlenecks where the entire race almost bit the dust and left a much smaller foundation population not that long ago.
And again, if you're going to make the argument that people are unique, don't make statements like glucose is a nonessential nutrient - for some people, it actually can be.
People with impaired gluconeogenesis are very ill, under the care of a doctor (or several), not looking for weight loss advice on MFP and pretty rare. People with issues processing carbohydrates well are frequently not diagnosed, on their own for answers, on weight loss forums like MFP and plentiful - maybe 3 out of 10 if the stats I've read are believable. I think what I am saying is appropriate for the folks here.
And the entire point that I am trying to make is that limiting carbs - even to low levels - is NOT the nutritional equivelent to jumping out a window.
If you have something that seriously shows 3 out 10 people have issues processing carbohydrates, I'd seriously like to see it. I'd find it incredible that something that started as frugivores could turn into a species with 30% of the population having an inability to handle carbohydrates in a span of 2 million years or less.
If you are limiting carbs because the latest headlines says to, or some other pseudo or quack science as often shows up in these threads, then yes, it is similar to jumping out a window for disbelieving gravity. Restricting carbs other than as a way to reduce calories is never a necessity for weight loss.
Prediabetes among people aged 20 years or older, United States, 2012
• In 2009−2012, based on fasting glucose or A1C levels, 37% of U.S. adults aged 20 years or older had
prediabetes (51% of those aged 65 years or older). Applying this percentage to the entire U.S. population
in 2012 yields an estimated 86 million Americans aged 20 years or older with prediabetes.
• On the basis of fasting glucose or A1C levels, and after adjusting for population age differences, the
percentage of U.S. adults aged 20 years or older with prediabetes in 2009−2012 was similar for non-
Hispanic whites (35%), non-Hispanic blacks (39%), and Hispanics (38%).
Total: 29.1 million people or 9.3% of the U.S. population have diabetes
Diagnosed: 21.0 million people
Undiagnosed: 8.1 million people (27.8% of people with diabetes are undiagnosed)
View the full report: CDC’s National Diabetes Statistics Report
So, about 46% of the US population has diabetes or prediabetes.
Yes, it is a national and international crisis. It is actually far higher & worse than I said.
It might just explain why you folks who process carbs OK (so far) are sick of hearing about low carb diets or people worried about carbs and sugars.
1. You're talking US population (though hint, some developing countries do actually have worse rates of diabetes)
2. The fasting A1C and glucose is a biased population. People who don't have other indicators for diabetes don't normally end up taking an A1C or glucose test.
3. You're assuming diabetes or prediabetic means someone has problems with carbs.
4. Diabetic Associations usually don't actually recommend low carbs diets, they recommend consistent carbs, including keeping them in one's diet.
5. Early diabetes and insulin resistance are often treated simply by losing weight, regardless of the carbohydrate composition of the diet.
It sounds like you believe people with high blood glucose and inability to correctly process carbohydrates continue to eat the foods that they are unable to process and increase their glucose to toxic levels? We have very different ideas.
By your terminology, the fact that we have 69% of adults overweight in the US means we have a calorie processing disorder in 69% of the humans.
Reducing high levels of glucose in the blood is the core goal for diabetes and pre diabetes.
The most direct simple method to reduce blood glucose is to reduce carbohydrates.
I'll repeat this for the umpteenth time now. The most profound impact on treating diabetes and prediabetes is reducing weight. Doing so trumps the effects of reducing carbs. Seriously, while fat by itself influences insulin resistance.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC507380/
Give a body enough fat, and it tries to burn fat, and that leaves glucose float free, and you still have the same problems. You have to actually start forcing fat clear of the system.
The body uses/clears glucose first (if it is able) then looks to fats for energy. If your body is not able to use glucose, it is generally a good idea to reduce how much glucose making carbs you shovel in.
I'm not sure what use your diabetes 'definition' has (or even find it at all accurate) - I find it more useful to focus on solutions. The problem is not that difficult to define as many pre & diabetics have made a transition (both on their own or with medical assistance) to low carb and ketogenic diets and have improved their health in ways drugs and standard diabetic diet recommendations were unable to achieve.
Reducing weight helps when it eventually occurs, dropping carbs helps immediately - that same day as a matter of fact!
From the things you say, it seems that you are not a low carb or keto pre diabetic or even hanging around low carb or keto diet pre diabetics or diabetics. Why don't you apply whatever you are experienced in to those who would value it?
Can you substantiate a better claim for what diabetes is? Seriously, glucose becoming too high is a symptom of diabetes, but it isn't diabetes itself. The problem is the change in insulin sensitivity, and it is a distinction worth making as insulin controls more than just your glucose metabolism. The flip side of this is, if a person is now eating high fat without calorie reduction, and doesn't have glucose causing insulin to signal fat cells to store fat, the body is going to leave fat circulating in the blood stream. This would also be known as having high triglycerides. You've traded one problem for another.
Any change in diet that the subject believes will improve the condition will cause same day changes. That's the placebo effect - it hits far faster than any dietary change can. Immediacy is also a bogus drive. The most important thing for improving diabetes is long term, sustainable changes. It doesn't matter if low carb diets low a person's glucose for a few days if long term compliance doesn't lead to sustained and maintained weight loss.0 -
So is anyone going to substantiate the ridiculous claims form low carb advocates in the last few pages? So far the only thing put forth can be called nothing short of a joke, since I'm unsure how anyone with a smidgen of intelligence could consider the links as any proof of their claims
That is some impressive unsubstantiated dissing - aka 'trumping' your opponent - and you might get a better result with factual knowledge or personal experiences.
Huh???0 -
So is anyone going to substantiate the ridiculous claims form low carb advocates in the last few pages? So far the only thing put forth can be called nothing short of a joke, since I'm unsure how anyone with a smidgen of intelligence could consider the links as any proof of their claims
That is some impressive unsubstantiated dissing - aka 'trumping' your opponent - and you might get a better result with factual knowledge or personal experiences.
Unsubstantiated?
"some claiming the brain needs dietary carbs to function optimally (which is simply not true)" which was backed up by this
"You have!!!
I know for a fact I have posted a study (probably about a year ago) showing no difference in 'long-term' brain function on a low carb diet compared to a high carb diet."
That in no way supports the original claim, not even a little
"The brain does very well without dietary carbs. Yes, it needs glucose but you don't need to get it from food.
Unsubstantiated nor could the poster even define what very well means in that context
"High carb is hard on the brain:"
which was supported by this
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22810099
That also does not support that claim
"Low carb helps dementia:"
http://www.webmd.com/alzheimers/news/20051018/high-fat-low-carb-diet-may-help-alzheimers
Link doesn't support the claim
Those are facts, the support offered for the claims does not actually support their claims. So what was unsubstantiated dissing?
Cosign. When evidence provided doesn't support the claim being made, the claimant is either desperately seeking validation, does not understand the information, or chooses not to learn. All 3 bad for acquiring knowledge.0 -
Sadly, you can't fight faith with facts...
Everyone seems to ignore I said specifically jumping out the window because you no longer believe in gravity.kommodevaran wrote: »This discussion is strange. You are missing the point(s). Well, most of you.
Lots of people ask for advice to cut carbs to lose weight, because they have no clue about how weight loss works. Lots of people suggest cutting carbs to lose weight, because they have no clue about how weight loss works. Lots of people think they are addicted to carbs because they have heard about that, and think they have to cut bread, pasta and potatoes. Some people mistake water weight gain after eating more carbs for fat gain. And then there are all these other more or less random ideas, like eating pattern, low-fat, water intake, green tea, wheat belly diet etc. It is good to inform people about their delusions. But when people clearly struggle moderating certain foods that often have no nutritional value besides calories, have no pleasure from small amounts and eating to satisfaction will jeopardize their health, and are best off avoiding them as much as possible, and feel fine and not deprived doing so but need help to find good strategies to avoid them, or something - why would the best suggestion be to learn to incorporate those foods into their diet?
Asking for background information and reasons behind people's questions involving restrictions or seemingly bizarre actions (if not obvious and/or stated in OP) is in my opinion important, because unnecessary rules and restrictions will usually make compliance more difficult, and eating less than one burns already means some degree of restriction for most. The problem that usually arises, is that the OP feels insulted about their motives being questioned or perceive questions for stats as "personal", and will not let go of their initial idea no matter what; someone suggests something crazy but the OP likes it, other posters react by getting snarky, then someone throws in "mean", "rude", hates", or "negativity"; OPs often rage quit.
Jumping put of the window can be a good idea in some cases, for instance if there is a fire.
It is actually an important distinction because I also said people who have celiac shouldn't eat gluten - there's actual scientific evidence for avoidance. People thinking gluten is what made them fat avoiding gluten are doing for wrong reasons. The whole point is about the reasoning behind the action, not the action.
Sales of certain books support your statement0 -
Apparently feeling low carb helps, makes you feel healthier, and doesn't feel like it reduces intelligence is all the substantiation needed.mantium999 wrote: »So is anyone going to substantiate the ridiculous claims form low carb advocates in the last few pages? So far the only thing put forth can be called nothing short of a joke, since I'm unsure how anyone with a smidgen of intelligence could consider the links as any proof of their claims
That is some impressive unsubstantiated dissing - aka 'trumping' your opponent - and you might get a better result with factual knowledge or personal experiences.
Huh???
Good thing I have enough carbs to remember reading about this study:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195666308005515-1 -
So is anyone going to substantiate the ridiculous claims form low carb advocates in the last few pages? So far the only thing put forth can be called nothing short of a joke, since I'm unsure how anyone with a smidgen of intelligence could consider the links as any proof of their claims
That is some impressive unsubstantiated dissing - aka 'trumping' your opponent - and you might get a better result with factual knowledge or personal experiences.
Unsubstantiated?
"some claiming the brain needs dietary carbs to function optimally (which is simply not true)" which was backed up by this
"You have!!!
I know for a fact I have posted a study (probably about a year ago) showing no difference in 'long-term' brain function on a low carb diet compared to a high carb diet."
That in no way supports the original claim, not even a little
"The brain does very well without dietary carbs. Yes, it needs glucose but you don't need to get it from food.
Unsubstantiated nor could the poster even define what very well means in that context
"High carb is hard on the brain:"
which was supported by this
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22810099
That also does not support that claim
"Low carb helps dementia:"
http://www.webmd.com/alzheimers/news/20051018/high-fat-low-carb-diet-may-help-alzheimers
Link doesn't support the claim
Those are facts, the support offered for the claims does not actually support their claims. So what was unsubstantiated dissing?
Acg67 wrote: »
So is anyone going to substantiate the ridiculous claims form low carb advocates in the last few pages? So far the only thing put forth can be called nothing short of a joke, since I'm unsure how anyone with a smidgen of intelligence could consider the links as any proof of their claims
I was strictly referring the the assorted insults contained in the above post. Who talks like that to others?
0 -
The idea that the body first uses glucose is an oversimplification. Just as there are metabolic pathways that can only glucose can perform such the brain's need for glucose, there are certain things only fats can use.
Again, diabetes is not the disease of glucose. It is the disease of impaired insulin sensitivity. They may look like the same thing at first blush, but they describe different problems. You can switch to a zero carb diet and still slam your insulin through the roof if you eat large amounts of protein, or if I recall correctly, more specifically if you take straight leucine BCAA's.
Well if you ignore everything I wrote and substitute a strawman, I'm sure it sounds like exactly what you want to hear. Diabetes isn't a disease of being unable to process carbs. It is a disease of cells becoming resistant to insulin. Insulin is activated not just by carbs, but protein, but hey, continue to call diabetes the carb processing disease. As I already said, losing weight is the primary factor in treating most diabetes.
Ok. That's a rather different claim than 30% of people have a problem with carbs.
No, you've stated as fact that all human beings can survive without carbs to make the point that it isn't an essential nutrient. You weren't saying about people on MFP, you were saying it as scientific fact. That's fine as covers 99.9%+ of the world's population, but, if you're going to start talking about some people needing certain dietary changes because they're special, without anyone bringing in a doctor's note saying they have said issues, I'll call you on your playing fast and lose with what is or is not the way human metabolism works.
And I'll tell you the same I told others. If someone came into here asking what is the best way to jump out a window, would it be better to ask them if jumping out a window is necessary, or start explaining your personal strategy for opening a window latch? A lot of people think they to give up carbs. There is a lot of misinformation out there, and so it might help the person to actually check they're not following the latest trend in dieting.
Demonization of food is give it negative attributes it doesn't have according to established science.
Solipsistic arguments not withstanding, I'm pretty sure people are real and have no supernatural power over me, so not seeing the demonization.Demons are the blind fears of primitive thinking, the boogie-men of children. It becomes pretty clear that to demonize something is to give it a power over you, to tacitly give it the power to make you afraid because you don't understand it.
Why would you want to give a food that power? Why would anyone want to live in fear of a food for the sake of fearing it? I would like to live in the modern world free of demons - a world where such things are gone because we have rational enlightenment and understanding.
When you demonize people who demonize food, does that give them power over you? Or does this "Relinquishment Of Power" theory only hold true for foods?
That said, tree frog poison can be a very powerful hallucinogen in shamanistic rituals, so you might be one step closer than most.
OK, so I got one definition of demonization. Could you give me your definition of "demonization" as it applies to food?
Also, what power do you think the food is imbued with upon it's demonization?
Particular powers are placebo and nocebo effect, plus by trying to restrict it without need, you're setting up the food as novel when consumed, and thus increasing the desire of the food.
It is generally pretty old and established that intermittent reinforcement is actually more effective than continuous reinforcement. More modern techniques studying dopamine in the brain show that novelty plays a part in dopamine responses, and thus increases the perceived reward of it - essentially a chemical version of the conditioning principle of intermittent reinforcement.
And maybe some people have varying degrees of dopamine responses from you or the norm. So that theoretical relationship might not apply to them at all. Is it then OK for them to demonize?
There is actually an obese/serotonin/carbohydrates relationship. Those people might be better off not viewing a cupcake as innocent calories just waiting to be regulated by sheer willpower.
I don't have answers for everyone else, but like any reasonable person just try different things til I find out what works for my circumstances. When I find my answers, I will definitely not be telling others my way is the only way that will work for them.
All food usually leads to releasing serotonin. The reason why is that it drops the dopamine to stop reward seeking behavior because the reward is right there.
When you demonize the food, you've increased the dopamine response. You've now made it something you've mentally decided is unobtainable, something that is different. There are people that have very specific diseases like Prater-Willy. 99%+ of adults are going to be able to inure themselves to temptation. Believe it or not, the words "oh, not ice cream again", and "oh, not pizza again" have been uttered by English speakers who normally like those things.
If people on here are asking how to avoid something, it seems obvious that it does not work for them at some level. How is my suggesting they change their relationship any worse advice than someone telling them to throw all of it out of the house and hope they never encounter it while out and about? How does it stop being demonization just because it has worked for them?
And honestly, if you really believe there are so many special snowflakes, why do you tell people all the time that people don't need to eat sugar? Lustig himself talks about children that can't generate their own glucose and have to have special diets.
I used to 'change my relationship' with foods, but since discovered that it is easier to just label failed food relationships' foods as 'toxic' and minimize my interaction with them.
The only time it it appropriate to bring up how nutritionally unnecessary it is to eat sugar/carbs is right after a person asks how to minimize/eliminate or get control over a carb/sugar food and half the responses are saying EATTHEFOOD.
I personally pay attention to those people struggling with carb issues due to a long personal struggle with same and in addition our family has metabolic issues related to carbohydrate and I've spent hundreds of hours (or thousands if you ask my SO) learning about them.
Nutrional knowledge is sketchy and we are all unique. People's health and weight are dependant on them figuring out what works best for them. Supporting people in that process is more important than inappropriately applying random personal judgements.
Nutritional knowledge is better than most would think - psychology of food choices still could use improvement, but I can guarantee you, if you give me a metabolic chamber, control over food, and a test subject the science is there to guarantee they'll lose weight. Give me a barbell, weights, and little willingness on the part of the subject and I can even give good odds on most of the weight lost being fat rather than lean body mass. By and large, our metabolisms don't actually vary that much. For one, any kind of marked improvement or failure in metabolism would have profound effects on reproductive success in humans until around 100 years or so. For another, human evolution is marked by genetic bottlenecks where the entire race almost bit the dust and left a much smaller foundation population not that long ago.
And again, if you're going to make the argument that people are unique, don't make statements like glucose is a nonessential nutrient - for some people, it actually can be.
People with impaired gluconeogenesis are very ill, under the care of a doctor (or several), not looking for weight loss advice on MFP and pretty rare. People with issues processing carbohydrates well are frequently not diagnosed, on their own for answers, on weight loss forums like MFP and plentiful - maybe 3 out of 10 if the stats I've read are believable. I think what I am saying is appropriate for the folks here.
And the entire point that I am trying to make is that limiting carbs - even to low levels - is NOT the nutritional equivelent to jumping out a window.
If you have something that seriously shows 3 out 10 people have issues processing carbohydrates, I'd seriously like to see it. I'd find it incredible that something that started as frugivores could turn into a species with 30% of the population having an inability to handle carbohydrates in a span of 2 million years or less.
If you are limiting carbs because the latest headlines says to, or some other pseudo or quack science as often shows up in these threads, then yes, it is similar to jumping out a window for disbelieving gravity. Restricting carbs other than as a way to reduce calories is never a necessity for weight loss.
Prediabetes among people aged 20 years or older, United States, 2012
• In 2009−2012, based on fasting glucose or A1C levels, 37% of U.S. adults aged 20 years or older had
prediabetes (51% of those aged 65 years or older). Applying this percentage to the entire U.S. population
in 2012 yields an estimated 86 million Americans aged 20 years or older with prediabetes.
• On the basis of fasting glucose or A1C levels, and after adjusting for population age differences, the
percentage of U.S. adults aged 20 years or older with prediabetes in 2009−2012 was similar for non-
Hispanic whites (35%), non-Hispanic blacks (39%), and Hispanics (38%).
Total: 29.1 million people or 9.3% of the U.S. population have diabetes
Diagnosed: 21.0 million people
Undiagnosed: 8.1 million people (27.8% of people with diabetes are undiagnosed)
View the full report: CDC’s National Diabetes Statistics Report
So, about 46% of the US population has diabetes or prediabetes.
Yes, it is a national and international crisis. It is actually far higher & worse than I said.
It might just explain why you folks who process carbs OK (so far) are sick of hearing about low carb diets or people worried about carbs and sugars.
1. You're talking US population (though hint, some developing countries do actually have worse rates of diabetes)
2. The fasting A1C and glucose is a biased population. People who don't have other indicators for diabetes don't normally end up taking an A1C or glucose test.
3. You're assuming diabetes or prediabetic means someone has problems with carbs.
4. Diabetic Associations usually don't actually recommend low carbs diets, they recommend consistent carbs, including keeping them in one's diet.
5. Early diabetes and insulin resistance are often treated simply by losing weight, regardless of the carbohydrate composition of the diet.
It sounds like you believe people with high blood glucose and inability to correctly process carbohydrates continue to eat the foods that they are unable to process and increase their glucose to toxic levels? We have very different ideas.
By your terminology, the fact that we have 69% of adults overweight in the US means we have a calorie processing disorder in 69% of the humans.
Reducing high levels of glucose in the blood is the core goal for diabetes and pre diabetes.
The most direct simple method to reduce blood glucose is to reduce carbohydrates.
I'll repeat this for the umpteenth time now. The most profound impact on treating diabetes and prediabetes is reducing weight. Doing so trumps the effects of reducing carbs. Seriously, while fat by itself influences insulin resistance.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC507380/
Give a body enough fat, and it tries to burn fat, and that leaves glucose float free, and you still have the same problems. You have to actually start forcing fat clear of the system.
The body uses/clears glucose first (if it is able) then looks to fats for energy. If your body is not able to use glucose, it is generally a good idea to reduce how much glucose making carbs you shovel in.
I'm not sure what use your diabetes 'definition' has (or even find it at all accurate) - I find it more useful to focus on solutions. The problem is not that difficult to define as many pre & diabetics have made a transition (both on their own or with medical assistance) to low carb and ketogenic diets and have improved their health in ways drugs and standard diabetic diet recommendations were unable to achieve.
Reducing weight helps when it eventually occurs, dropping carbs helps immediately - that same day as a matter of fact!
From the things you say, it seems that you are not a low carb or keto pre diabetic or even hanging around low carb or keto diet pre diabetics or diabetics. Why don't you apply whatever you are experienced in to those who would value it?
Can you substantiate a better claim for what diabetes is? Seriously, glucose becoming too high is a symptom of diabetes, but it isn't diabetes itself. The problem is the change in insulin sensitivity, and it is a distinction worth making as insulin controls more than just your glucose metabolism. The flip side of this is, if a person is now eating high fat without calorie reduction, and doesn't have glucose causing insulin to signal fat cells to store fat, the body is going to leave fat circulating in the blood stream. This would also be known as having high triglycerides. You've traded one problem for another.
Any change in diet that the subject believes will improve the condition will cause same day changes. That's the placebo effect - it hits far faster than any dietary change can. Immediacy is also a bogus drive. The most important thing for improving diabetes is long term, sustainable changes. It doesn't matter if low carb diets low a person's glucose for a few days if long term compliance doesn't lead to sustained and maintained weight loss.
OK, I don't see how this is accomplishing anything for either of us, so I'm out.
0 -
How is it semantics, even using a loose definition of optimal, how could one make the claim that the brain needs dietary carbs to function optimally is a falsehood and support it with a claim that there was a study in which subjects ate carbs?
Whether or not the brain continues to function without dietary carbs has no bearing on the claim, that was not up for debate. Unsure why you would even bring that up.
0 -
So is anyone going to substantiate the ridiculous claims form low carb advocates in the last few pages? So far the only thing put forth can be called nothing short of a joke, since I'm unsure how anyone with a smidgen of intelligence could consider the links as any proof of their claims
That is some impressive unsubstantiated dissing - aka 'trumping' your opponent - and you might get a better result with factual knowledge or personal experiences.
Unsubstantiated?
"some claiming the brain needs dietary carbs to function optimally (which is simply not true)" which was backed up by this
"You have!!!
I know for a fact I have posted a study (probably about a year ago) showing no difference in 'long-term' brain function on a low carb diet compared to a high carb diet."
That in no way supports the original claim, not even a little
"The brain does very well without dietary carbs. Yes, it needs glucose but you don't need to get it from food.
Unsubstantiated nor could the poster even define what very well means in that context
"High carb is hard on the brain:"
which was supported by this
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22810099
That also does not support that claim
"Low carb helps dementia:"
http://www.webmd.com/alzheimers/news/20051018/high-fat-low-carb-diet-may-help-alzheimers
Link doesn't support the claim
Those are facts, the support offered for the claims does not actually support their claims. So what was unsubstantiated dissing?
Acg67 wrote: »
So is anyone going to substantiate the ridiculous claims form low carb advocates in the last few pages? So far the only thing put forth can be called nothing short of a joke, since I'm unsure how anyone with a smidgen of intelligence could consider the links as any proof of their claims
I was strictly referring the the assorted insults contained in the above post. Who talks like that to others?
Where was the insult? Calling the claims ridiculous? (what would you call them? Wishful thinking? Delusional?) that the support offered for their claims was a joke? Again how would that insulting? It's factual. That even people with little intelligence would understand none of the links supported their claim? Again factual, unless many people don't understand difference between 0 and anything higher than zero or that if something is correlated to something it doesn't actually mean it's the cause of it? Not rocket science
0 -
How is it semantics, even using a loose definition of optimal, how could one make the claim that the brain needs dietary carbs to function optimally is a falsehood and support it with a claim that there was a study in which subjects ate carbs?
Whether or not the brain continues to function without dietary carbs has no bearing on the claim, that was not up for debate. Unsure why you would even bring that up.
Not surprising that is your response.
0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »mantium999 wrote: »
And I'll tell you the same I told others. If someone came into here asking what is the best way to jump out a window, would it be better to ask them if jumping out a window is necessary, or start explaining your personal strategy for opening a window latch? A lot of people think they to give up carbs. There is a lot of misinformation out there, and so it might help the person to actually check they're not following the latest trend in dieting.
Demonization of food is give it negative attributes it doesn't have according to established science.
Solipsistic arguments not withstanding, I'm pretty sure people are real and have no supernatural power over me, so not seeing the demonization.Demons are the blind fears of primitive thinking, the boogie-men of children. It becomes pretty clear that to demonize something is to give it a power over you, to tacitly give it the power to make you afraid because you don't understand it.
Why would you want to give a food that power? Why would anyone want to live in fear of a food for the sake of fearing it? I would like to live in the modern world free of demons - a world where such things are gone because we have rational enlightenment and understanding.
When you demonize people who demonize food, does that give them power over you? Or does this "Relinquishment Of Power" theory only hold true for foods?
That said, tree frog poison can be a very powerful hallucinogen in shamanistic rituals, so you might be one step closer than most.
OK, so I got one definition of demonization. Could you give me your definition of "demonization" as it applies to food?
Also, what power do you think the food is imbued with upon it's demonization?
Particular powers are placebo and nocebo effect, plus by trying to restrict it without need, you're setting up the food as novel when consumed, and thus increasing the desire of the food.
It is generally pretty old and established that intermittent reinforcement is actually more effective than continuous reinforcement. More modern techniques studying dopamine in the brain show that novelty plays a part in dopamine responses, and thus increases the perceived reward of it - essentially a chemical version of the conditioning principle of intermittent reinforcement.
And maybe some people have varying degrees of dopamine responses from you or the norm. So that theoretical relationship might not apply to them at all. Is it then OK for them to demonize?
There is actually an obese/serotonin/carbohydrates relationship. Those people might be better off not viewing a cupcake as innocent calories just waiting to be regulated by sheer willpower.
I don't have answers for everyone else, but like any reasonable person just try different things til I find out what works for my circumstances. When I find my answers, I will definitely not be telling others my way is the only way that will work for them.
All food usually leads to releasing serotonin. The reason why is that it drops the dopamine to stop reward seeking behavior because the reward is right there.
When you demonize the food, you've increased the dopamine response. You've now made it something you've mentally decided is unobtainable, something that is different. There are people that have very specific diseases like Prater-Willy. 99%+ of adults are going to be able to inure themselves to temptation. Believe it or not, the words "oh, not ice cream again", and "oh, not pizza again" have been uttered by English speakers who normally like those things.
If people on here are asking how to avoid something, it seems obvious that it does not work for them at some level. How is my suggesting they change their relationship any worse advice than someone telling them to throw all of it out of the house and hope they never encounter it while out and about? How does it stop being demonization just because it has worked for them?
And honestly, if you really believe there are so many special snowflakes, why do you tell people all the time that people don't need to eat sugar? Lustig himself talks about children that can't generate their own glucose and have to have special diets.
I used to 'change my relationship' with foods, but since discovered that it is easier to just label failed food relationships' foods as 'toxic' and minimize my interaction with them.
The only time it it appropriate to bring up how nutritionally unnecessary it is to eat sugar/carbs is right after a person asks how to minimize/eliminate or get control over a carb/sugar food and half the responses are saying EATTHEFOOD.
I personally pay attention to those people struggling with carb issues due to a long personal struggle with same and in addition our family has metabolic issues related to carbohydrate and I've spent hundreds of hours (or thousands if you ask my SO) learning about them.
Nutrional knowledge is sketchy and we are all unique. People's health and weight are dependant on them figuring out what works best for them. Supporting people in that process is more important than inappropriately applying random personal judgements.
Nutritional knowledge is better than most would think - psychology of food choices still could use improvement, but I can guarantee you, if you give me a metabolic chamber, control over food, and a test subject the science is there to guarantee they'll lose weight. Give me a barbell, weights, and little willingness on the part of the subject and I can even give good odds on most of the weight lost being fat rather than lean body mass. By and large, our metabolisms don't actually vary that much. For one, any kind of marked improvement or failure in metabolism would have profound effects on reproductive success in humans until around 100 years or so. For another, human evolution is marked by genetic bottlenecks where the entire race almost bit the dust and left a much smaller foundation population not that long ago.
And again, if you're going to make the argument that people are unique, don't make statements like glucose is a nonessential nutrient - for some people, it actually can be.
People with impaired gluconeogenesis are very ill, under the care of a doctor (or several), not looking for weight loss advice on MFP and pretty rare. People with issues processing carbohydrates well are frequently not diagnosed, on their own for answers, on weight loss forums like MFP and plentiful - maybe 3 out of 10 if the stats I've read are believable. I think what I am saying is appropriate for the folks here.
And the entire point that I am trying to make is that limiting carbs - even to low levels - is NOT the nutritional equivelent to jumping out a window.
If 3 of 10 who come here have unkown carb issues, and someone suggests limiting carbs to all the folks who ask, one is giving inaccurate advice to 70% of those who are asking.
No one that I've seen is suggesting carb limiting to random mfp posters.
Stick around. You'll see it. It happens all the time.
You may, but you are much more likely to see OP's asking for advice or other peoples feedback on cutting back on carbs and ways to eat LCHF and you will see the usual brigade jump straight in with - moderation blah, blah, blah. Sugars not the devil, then a bit more about moderation.
Not sure I've seen many threads where the OP asks about how to eat using the moderation tool and people jumping in with: just eat low carb blah, blah, blah.
Lately there have been a number of threads where OP says how to I deal with sugar cravings or wanting a dessert after dinner or having so much "junk" in my house where the low carb zealots assume that means they have "carb addictions" and jump in recommending low carb as the only way to solve the problem.
There was even a thread not long ago where OP said she was a picky eater and hated vegetables and got recommendations to go low carb (as if that made not eating vegetables healthy). And there have been several threads where OP is nervous about eating fruit because sugar and gets informed that cutting carbs means cutting fruits. It's been happening a lot.
And in other threads where OP is interested in cutting carbs and I personally wouldn't normally say anything against that, claims have been made that eating 40-50% carbs is inherently bad for humans and that humans naturally eat ketogenic diets, which is a false claim that ought to be addressed. I think keto is a fine diet if someone wants to do it, but the idea that not doing it or eating 50% carbs is "unnatural" and unhealthy is simply not true, and I suspect even the people who say it know that.
You are always going to get the odd people on a general public forum with mis-information - MFP is littered with them.
There are plenty on here claiming the body needs medium to high carbs to function and some claiming the brain needs dietary carbs to function optimally (which is simply not true), but I bet most people on here believe it.
I've got nothing against carbs, I eat them, I enjoy them I make them fit my diet and workout regime.
I choose a low carb diet because it helps me eat intuitively and keeps my appetite in check (plus I don't have the ball-ache of having to log or weight stuff).
Does the brain function optimally without dietary carbs? I'd love to see that research.
You have!!!
I know for a fact I have posted a study (probably about a year ago) showing no difference in 'long-term' brain function on a low carb diet compared to a high carb diet.
Maybe if you ate less carbs you would remember (that's a joke by the way!!!).
Your quote if you forgot, "Some claiming the brain needs dietary carbs to function optimally (which is simply not true)"
A study showing no difference in long term brain function on low or high carb diets does not support that notion. The brain still gets dietary carbs on a low carb diet, correct? And how does one define optimal in terms of brain functioning? If there was research that showed a bolus of glucose or sucrose outperformed placebo on cognitive exercises, what would that mean?
The brain does very well without dietary carbs. Yes, it needs glucose but you don't need to get it from food.
High carb is hard on the brain:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22810099
Low carb helps dementia:
http://www.webmd.com/alzheimers/news/20051018/high-fat-low-carb-diet-may-help-alzheimers
That first study might be the ultimate in bad study design.
They're studying people who might have dementia, and having them fill out a survey of what they remember eating. Does anyone else see the potential pitfall of asking people who might have dementia what they remember eating? Anyone?Participants also completed a 128-item food-frequency questionnaire at baseline; total daily caloric and macronutrient intakes were calculated using an established database.0 -
I hear the debate, and sometimes I just need to try something for myself.GaleHawkins wrote: »I find these discussions so bizarre -- genetically we are quite diverse, and most of us fine tune our food plans so that it is easier for us to eat at a calorie deficit. For me that is lower carb/higher protein, fat -- but for some it is a different ratio of macros/ and for some it is higher carb. The sanity for me is that I can only figure out what works for me -- I don't need to impose that on other people with different genetics/psychological responses to food, etc. I know what it is like to be an addict -- that is why I don't drink alcohol at all. Approximately 10% of the population is alcoholic -- for many of those it is easier not to drink at all than to drink in moderation. That is true for me. Same is true for certain very sugary foods -- for me it just doesn't work to eat a little ice cream Easier not to eat it at all -- much easier to eat at a calorie deficit if I'm not trying to eat "a little bit" of ice cream. But I really don't care if you eat sugar, or drink, or whatever else it is that you want to. I don't think its about will power -- I have a lot of it, I lift weights (even though I am an older person, I do a lot of hard physical and work stuff, etc. So I really don't think it is about will power. And a side benefit is that my osteoarthritis goes into remission when I eat lower carb. This is my personal response for what it is worth.
That is a very good post and mirrors my results on low carb. My arthritis pain dropped off the radar for the most part in 30 days. In six months my 40 years of dealing with IBS was OVER and has not returned.
Others can eat what they wish when they wish. I plan to continue to eat in a way my body prefers going forward.
Cutting out processed junk carbs made a huge difference in my health.
That's not science, but getting results are good enough for me. And bully to all of you who can eat whatever you want with zero consequence.
That is so not me!
0 -
I jumped out the window because the fire was burning my backside and the pain was very real. Thankfully I landed in a soft Low Carb bush. I did not even know the LCHF term. I had just read coconut oil helped someone's arthritic pain and another person loss pain when they cut out sugar and grain.
30 days before I was to start on a pain management solution that most likely would lead to cancer in my case I really just closed my eyes and JUMPED out of the Carb window after living there for 40 years.
I was dumb as a brick about food and diet in general, was 63 and going down for the last time and realized it.
30 days after I closed my eyes and jumped out the window burning with pain that I rated as a 7-8 level it was down to 2-3 on a 1-10 scale. In 90 days my 40 years of serious IBS started to clear and was fully gone by 180 days. It has been 300 days since I jumped out of the high carb window.
There is a lot of noise on this subject. This old man can only state what worked for him when there was little to no hope left. I beg those talking down what saved my life with little time left to stop doing. While I do my own research and act on that there are some that may assume disinformation on dieting is factual.
There is no ONE dieting thought that works for everyone. If you have personal experience be it good or bad share it on any dieting idea share it with others but please do not post that something will not work that you have never tried. Thank you.0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »mantium999 wrote: »
And I'll tell you the same I told others. If someone came into here asking what is the best way to jump out a window, would it be better to ask them if jumping out a window is necessary, or start explaining your personal strategy for opening a window latch? A lot of people think they to give up carbs. There is a lot of misinformation out there, and so it might help the person to actually check they're not following the latest trend in dieting.
Demonization of food is give it negative attributes it doesn't have according to established science.
Solipsistic arguments not withstanding, I'm pretty sure people are real and have no supernatural power over me, so not seeing the demonization.Demons are the blind fears of primitive thinking, the boogie-men of children. It becomes pretty clear that to demonize something is to give it a power over you, to tacitly give it the power to make you afraid because you don't understand it.
Why would you want to give a food that power? Why would anyone want to live in fear of a food for the sake of fearing it? I would like to live in the modern world free of demons - a world where such things are gone because we have rational enlightenment and understanding.
When you demonize people who demonize food, does that give them power over you? Or does this "Relinquishment Of Power" theory only hold true for foods?
That said, tree frog poison can be a very powerful hallucinogen in shamanistic rituals, so you might be one step closer than most.
OK, so I got one definition of demonization. Could you give me your definition of "demonization" as it applies to food?
Also, what power do you think the food is imbued with upon it's demonization?
Particular powers are placebo and nocebo effect, plus by trying to restrict it without need, you're setting up the food as novel when consumed, and thus increasing the desire of the food.
It is generally pretty old and established that intermittent reinforcement is actually more effective than continuous reinforcement. More modern techniques studying dopamine in the brain show that novelty plays a part in dopamine responses, and thus increases the perceived reward of it - essentially a chemical version of the conditioning principle of intermittent reinforcement.
And maybe some people have varying degrees of dopamine responses from you or the norm. So that theoretical relationship might not apply to them at all. Is it then OK for them to demonize?
There is actually an obese/serotonin/carbohydrates relationship. Those people might be better off not viewing a cupcake as innocent calories just waiting to be regulated by sheer willpower.
I don't have answers for everyone else, but like any reasonable person just try different things til I find out what works for my circumstances. When I find my answers, I will definitely not be telling others my way is the only way that will work for them.
All food usually leads to releasing serotonin. The reason why is that it drops the dopamine to stop reward seeking behavior because the reward is right there.
When you demonize the food, you've increased the dopamine response. You've now made it something you've mentally decided is unobtainable, something that is different. There are people that have very specific diseases like Prater-Willy. 99%+ of adults are going to be able to inure themselves to temptation. Believe it or not, the words "oh, not ice cream again", and "oh, not pizza again" have been uttered by English speakers who normally like those things.
If people on here are asking how to avoid something, it seems obvious that it does not work for them at some level. How is my suggesting they change their relationship any worse advice than someone telling them to throw all of it out of the house and hope they never encounter it while out and about? How does it stop being demonization just because it has worked for them?
And honestly, if you really believe there are so many special snowflakes, why do you tell people all the time that people don't need to eat sugar? Lustig himself talks about children that can't generate their own glucose and have to have special diets.
I used to 'change my relationship' with foods, but since discovered that it is easier to just label failed food relationships' foods as 'toxic' and minimize my interaction with them.
The only time it it appropriate to bring up how nutritionally unnecessary it is to eat sugar/carbs is right after a person asks how to minimize/eliminate or get control over a carb/sugar food and half the responses are saying EATTHEFOOD.
I personally pay attention to those people struggling with carb issues due to a long personal struggle with same and in addition our family has metabolic issues related to carbohydrate and I've spent hundreds of hours (or thousands if you ask my SO) learning about them.
Nutrional knowledge is sketchy and we are all unique. People's health and weight are dependant on them figuring out what works best for them. Supporting people in that process is more important than inappropriately applying random personal judgements.
Nutritional knowledge is better than most would think - psychology of food choices still could use improvement, but I can guarantee you, if you give me a metabolic chamber, control over food, and a test subject the science is there to guarantee they'll lose weight. Give me a barbell, weights, and little willingness on the part of the subject and I can even give good odds on most of the weight lost being fat rather than lean body mass. By and large, our metabolisms don't actually vary that much. For one, any kind of marked improvement or failure in metabolism would have profound effects on reproductive success in humans until around 100 years or so. For another, human evolution is marked by genetic bottlenecks where the entire race almost bit the dust and left a much smaller foundation population not that long ago.
And again, if you're going to make the argument that people are unique, don't make statements like glucose is a nonessential nutrient - for some people, it actually can be.
People with impaired gluconeogenesis are very ill, under the care of a doctor (or several), not looking for weight loss advice on MFP and pretty rare. People with issues processing carbohydrates well are frequently not diagnosed, on their own for answers, on weight loss forums like MFP and plentiful - maybe 3 out of 10 if the stats I've read are believable. I think what I am saying is appropriate for the folks here.
And the entire point that I am trying to make is that limiting carbs - even to low levels - is NOT the nutritional equivelent to jumping out a window.
If 3 of 10 who come here have unkown carb issues, and someone suggests limiting carbs to all the folks who ask, one is giving inaccurate advice to 70% of those who are asking.
No one that I've seen is suggesting carb limiting to random mfp posters.
Stick around. You'll see it. It happens all the time.
You may, but you are much more likely to see OP's asking for advice or other peoples feedback on cutting back on carbs and ways to eat LCHF and you will see the usual brigade jump straight in with - moderation blah, blah, blah. Sugars not the devil, then a bit more about moderation.
Not sure I've seen many threads where the OP asks about how to eat using the moderation tool and people jumping in with: just eat low carb blah, blah, blah.
Lately there have been a number of threads where OP says how to I deal with sugar cravings or wanting a dessert after dinner or having so much "junk" in my house where the low carb zealots assume that means they have "carb addictions" and jump in recommending low carb as the only way to solve the problem.
There was even a thread not long ago where OP said she was a picky eater and hated vegetables and got recommendations to go low carb (as if that made not eating vegetables healthy). And there have been several threads where OP is nervous about eating fruit because sugar and gets informed that cutting carbs means cutting fruits. It's been happening a lot.
And in other threads where OP is interested in cutting carbs and I personally wouldn't normally say anything against that, claims have been made that eating 40-50% carbs is inherently bad for humans and that humans naturally eat ketogenic diets, which is a false claim that ought to be addressed. I think keto is a fine diet if someone wants to do it, but the idea that not doing it or eating 50% carbs is "unnatural" and unhealthy is simply not true, and I suspect even the people who say it know that.
You are always going to get the odd people on a general public forum with mis-information - MFP is littered with them.
There are plenty on here claiming the body needs medium to high carbs to function and some claiming the brain needs dietary carbs to function optimally (which is simply not true), but I bet most people on here believe it.
I've got nothing against carbs, I eat them, I enjoy them I make them fit my diet and workout regime.
I choose a low carb diet because it helps me eat intuitively and keeps my appetite in check (plus I don't have the ball-ache of having to log or weight stuff).
Does the brain function optimally without dietary carbs? I'd love to see that research.
You have!!!
I know for a fact I have posted a study (probably about a year ago) showing no difference in 'long-term' brain function on a low carb diet compared to a high carb diet.
Maybe if you ate less carbs you would remember (that's a joke by the way!!!).
Your quote if you forgot, "Some claiming the brain needs dietary carbs to function optimally (which is simply not true)"
A study showing no difference in long term brain function on low or high carb diets does not support that notion. The brain still gets dietary carbs on a low carb diet, correct? And how does one define optimal in terms of brain functioning? If there was research that showed a bolus of glucose or sucrose outperformed placebo on cognitive exercises, what would that mean?
The brain does very well without dietary carbs. Yes, it needs glucose but you don't need to get it from food.
High carb is hard on the brain:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22810099
Low carb helps dementia:
http://www.webmd.com/alzheimers/news/20051018/high-fat-low-carb-diet-may-help-alzheimers
That first study might be the ultimate in bad study design.
They're studying people who might have dementia, and having them fill out a survey of what they remember eating. Does anyone else see the potential pitfall of asking people who might have dementia what they remember eating? Anyone?Participants also completed a 128-item food-frequency questionnaire at baseline; total daily caloric and macronutrient intakes were calculated using an established database.
Me, sir.
Also, the second study is in mice. Mice. Really?0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »mantium999 wrote: »
And I'll tell you the same I told others. If someone came into here asking what is the best way to jump out a window, would it be better to ask them if jumping out a window is necessary, or start explaining your personal strategy for opening a window latch? A lot of people think they to give up carbs. There is a lot of misinformation out there, and so it might help the person to actually check they're not following the latest trend in dieting.
Demonization of food is give it negative attributes it doesn't have according to established science.
Solipsistic arguments not withstanding, I'm pretty sure people are real and have no supernatural power over me, so not seeing the demonization.Demons are the blind fears of primitive thinking, the boogie-men of children. It becomes pretty clear that to demonize something is to give it a power over you, to tacitly give it the power to make you afraid because you don't understand it.
Why would you want to give a food that power? Why would anyone want to live in fear of a food for the sake of fearing it? I would like to live in the modern world free of demons - a world where such things are gone because we have rational enlightenment and understanding.
When you demonize people who demonize food, does that give them power over you? Or does this "Relinquishment Of Power" theory only hold true for foods?
That said, tree frog poison can be a very powerful hallucinogen in shamanistic rituals, so you might be one step closer than most.
OK, so I got one definition of demonization. Could you give me your definition of "demonization" as it applies to food?
Also, what power do you think the food is imbued with upon it's demonization?
Particular powers are placebo and nocebo effect, plus by trying to restrict it without need, you're setting up the food as novel when consumed, and thus increasing the desire of the food.
It is generally pretty old and established that intermittent reinforcement is actually more effective than continuous reinforcement. More modern techniques studying dopamine in the brain show that novelty plays a part in dopamine responses, and thus increases the perceived reward of it - essentially a chemical version of the conditioning principle of intermittent reinforcement.
And maybe some people have varying degrees of dopamine responses from you or the norm. So that theoretical relationship might not apply to them at all. Is it then OK for them to demonize?
There is actually an obese/serotonin/carbohydrates relationship. Those people might be better off not viewing a cupcake as innocent calories just waiting to be regulated by sheer willpower.
I don't have answers for everyone else, but like any reasonable person just try different things til I find out what works for my circumstances. When I find my answers, I will definitely not be telling others my way is the only way that will work for them.
All food usually leads to releasing serotonin. The reason why is that it drops the dopamine to stop reward seeking behavior because the reward is right there.
When you demonize the food, you've increased the dopamine response. You've now made it something you've mentally decided is unobtainable, something that is different. There are people that have very specific diseases like Prater-Willy. 99%+ of adults are going to be able to inure themselves to temptation. Believe it or not, the words "oh, not ice cream again", and "oh, not pizza again" have been uttered by English speakers who normally like those things.
If people on here are asking how to avoid something, it seems obvious that it does not work for them at some level. How is my suggesting they change their relationship any worse advice than someone telling them to throw all of it out of the house and hope they never encounter it while out and about? How does it stop being demonization just because it has worked for them?
And honestly, if you really believe there are so many special snowflakes, why do you tell people all the time that people don't need to eat sugar? Lustig himself talks about children that can't generate their own glucose and have to have special diets.
I used to 'change my relationship' with foods, but since discovered that it is easier to just label failed food relationships' foods as 'toxic' and minimize my interaction with them.
The only time it it appropriate to bring up how nutritionally unnecessary it is to eat sugar/carbs is right after a person asks how to minimize/eliminate or get control over a carb/sugar food and half the responses are saying EATTHEFOOD.
I personally pay attention to those people struggling with carb issues due to a long personal struggle with same and in addition our family has metabolic issues related to carbohydrate and I've spent hundreds of hours (or thousands if you ask my SO) learning about them.
Nutrional knowledge is sketchy and we are all unique. People's health and weight are dependant on them figuring out what works best for them. Supporting people in that process is more important than inappropriately applying random personal judgements.
Nutritional knowledge is better than most would think - psychology of food choices still could use improvement, but I can guarantee you, if you give me a metabolic chamber, control over food, and a test subject the science is there to guarantee they'll lose weight. Give me a barbell, weights, and little willingness on the part of the subject and I can even give good odds on most of the weight lost being fat rather than lean body mass. By and large, our metabolisms don't actually vary that much. For one, any kind of marked improvement or failure in metabolism would have profound effects on reproductive success in humans until around 100 years or so. For another, human evolution is marked by genetic bottlenecks where the entire race almost bit the dust and left a much smaller foundation population not that long ago.
And again, if you're going to make the argument that people are unique, don't make statements like glucose is a nonessential nutrient - for some people, it actually can be.
People with impaired gluconeogenesis are very ill, under the care of a doctor (or several), not looking for weight loss advice on MFP and pretty rare. People with issues processing carbohydrates well are frequently not diagnosed, on their own for answers, on weight loss forums like MFP and plentiful - maybe 3 out of 10 if the stats I've read are believable. I think what I am saying is appropriate for the folks here.
And the entire point that I am trying to make is that limiting carbs - even to low levels - is NOT the nutritional equivelent to jumping out a window.
If 3 of 10 who come here have unkown carb issues, and someone suggests limiting carbs to all the folks who ask, one is giving inaccurate advice to 70% of those who are asking.
No one that I've seen is suggesting carb limiting to random mfp posters.
Stick around. You'll see it. It happens all the time.
You may, but you are much more likely to see OP's asking for advice or other peoples feedback on cutting back on carbs and ways to eat LCHF and you will see the usual brigade jump straight in with - moderation blah, blah, blah. Sugars not the devil, then a bit more about moderation.
Not sure I've seen many threads where the OP asks about how to eat using the moderation tool and people jumping in with: just eat low carb blah, blah, blah.
Lately there have been a number of threads where OP says how to I deal with sugar cravings or wanting a dessert after dinner or having so much "junk" in my house where the low carb zealots assume that means they have "carb addictions" and jump in recommending low carb as the only way to solve the problem.
There was even a thread not long ago where OP said she was a picky eater and hated vegetables and got recommendations to go low carb (as if that made not eating vegetables healthy). And there have been several threads where OP is nervous about eating fruit because sugar and gets informed that cutting carbs means cutting fruits. It's been happening a lot.
And in other threads where OP is interested in cutting carbs and I personally wouldn't normally say anything against that, claims have been made that eating 40-50% carbs is inherently bad for humans and that humans naturally eat ketogenic diets, which is a false claim that ought to be addressed. I think keto is a fine diet if someone wants to do it, but the idea that not doing it or eating 50% carbs is "unnatural" and unhealthy is simply not true, and I suspect even the people who say it know that.
You are always going to get the odd people on a general public forum with mis-information - MFP is littered with them.
There are plenty on here claiming the body needs medium to high carbs to function and some claiming the brain needs dietary carbs to function optimally (which is simply not true), but I bet most people on here believe it.
I've got nothing against carbs, I eat them, I enjoy them I make them fit my diet and workout regime.
I choose a low carb diet because it helps me eat intuitively and keeps my appetite in check (plus I don't have the ball-ache of having to log or weight stuff).
Does the brain function optimally without dietary carbs? I'd love to see that research.
You have!!!
I know for a fact I have posted a study (probably about a year ago) showing no difference in 'long-term' brain function on a low carb diet compared to a high carb diet.
Maybe if you ate less carbs you would remember (that's a joke by the way!!!).
Your quote if you forgot, "Some claiming the brain needs dietary carbs to function optimally (which is simply not true)"
A study showing no difference in long term brain function on low or high carb diets does not support that notion. The brain still gets dietary carbs on a low carb diet, correct? And how does one define optimal in terms of brain functioning? If there was research that showed a bolus of glucose or sucrose outperformed placebo on cognitive exercises, what would that mean?
The brain does very well without dietary carbs. Yes, it needs glucose but you don't need to get it from food.
High carb is hard on the brain:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22810099
Low carb helps dementia:
http://www.webmd.com/alzheimers/news/20051018/high-fat-low-carb-diet-may-help-alzheimers
That first study might be the ultimate in bad study design.
They're studying people who might have dementia, and having them fill out a survey of what they remember eating. Does anyone else see the potential pitfall of asking people who might have dementia what they remember eating? Anyone?Participants also completed a 128-item food-frequency questionnaire at baseline; total daily caloric and macronutrient intakes were calculated using an established database.
Me! Me! My mother had dementia. The woman always loved food and our phone conversations when she was in the nursing home in her last few years used to always include this question from her, "so tell me what yummy foods you've been cooking?" And then I would ask her what she had been eating at the home. She would pause, searching for the answer, and say, "meat.... I think, yes meat. That's right isn't it? You always have meat with dinner don't you? Yes I'm sure I ate meat today".
So apparently my mom was a low carber. Didn't seem to do her a lot of good.0 -
If u are eating mostly clean & getting carbs from sweet potatoes, oats etc them u shouldn't restrict your carbs. U will be miserable & u don't need to restrict them to lose weight. Once u stop eating junk food so much u will be less likely to crave it. Don't keep bad foods in your house & try to find low calorie & fat snacks that u like, such as animal crackers, wheat thins, granola, dates etc. but moderation of course & just think of all the hard work u put into the gym & how it will all be pointless if u over eat on junk food0
-
This content has been removed.
-
sunkissmarie wrote: »If u are eating mostly clean & getting carbs from sweet potatoes, oats etc them u shouldn't restrict your carbs. U will be miserable & u don't need to restrict them to lose weight. Once u stop eating junk food so much u will be less likely to crave it. Don't keep bad foods in your house & try to find low calorie & fat snacks that u like, such as animal crackers, wheat thins, granola, dates etc. but moderation of course & just think of all the hard work u put into the gym & how it will all be pointless if u over eat on junk food
Not even sure where to begin with this one. Clean, bad foods, junk, low fat. Just need one more for the MFP bingo card!0 -
This content has been removed.
-
sunkissmarie wrote: »If u are eating mostly clean & getting carbs from sweet potatoes, oats etc them u shouldn't restrict your carbs. U will be miserable & u don't need to restrict them to lose weight. Once u stop eating junk food so much u will be less likely to crave it. Don't keep bad foods in your house & try to find low calorie & fat snacks that u like, such as animal crackers, wheat thins, granola, dates etc. but moderation of course & just think of all the hard work u put into the gym & how it will all be pointless if u over eat on junk food
Been low carbing for two years. Helped budge 20 lbs that weren't moving the way I used to eat and I have yet to put them back on. My foods are awesome and diverse and I love experimenting with new ways to make things. Last night I made chinese food. Miserable, I am not. At least not over what I'm eating.
0 -
mantium999 wrote: »sunkissmarie wrote: »If u are eating mostly clean & getting carbs from sweet potatoes, oats etc them u shouldn't restrict your carbs. U will be miserable & u don't need to restrict them to lose weight. Once u stop eating junk food so much u will be less likely to crave it. Don't keep bad foods in your house & try to find low calorie & fat snacks that u like, such as animal crackers, wheat thins, granola, dates etc. but moderation of course & just think of all the hard work u put into the gym & how it will all be pointless if u over eat on junk food
Not even sure where to begin with this one. Clean, bad foods, junk, low fat. Just need one more for the MFP bingo card!
I was thinking the same thing...oy vey!
0 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »I jumped out the window because the fire was burning my backside and the pain was very real. Thankfully I landed in a soft Low Carb bush. I did not even know the LCHF term. I had just read coconut oil helped someone's arthritic pain and another person loss pain when they cut out sugar and grain.
30 days before I was to start on a pain management solution that most likely would lead to cancer in my case I really just closed my eyes and JUMPED out of the Carb window after living there for 40 years.
I was dumb as a brick about food and diet in general, was 63 and going down for the last time and realized it.
30 days after I closed my eyes and jumped out the window burning with pain that I rated as a 7-8 level it was down to 2-3 on a 1-10 scale. In 90 days my 40 years of serious IBS started to clear and was fully gone by 180 days. It has been 300 days since I jumped out of the high carb window.
There is a lot of noise on this subject. This old man can only state what worked for him when there was little to no hope left. I beg those talking down what saved my life with little time left to stop doing. While I do my own research and act on that there are some that may assume disinformation on dieting is factual.
There is no ONE dieting thought that works for everyone. If you have personal experience be it good or bad share it on any dieting idea share it with others but please do not post that something will not work that you have never tried. Thank you.
I love this and agree.
I'm so happy this worked for you, it's working for me as well. Xo0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions