Daily goals: Sugar
Replies
-
Why do all sugar threads get hijacked by the same people arguing the same points over and over again?
It takes two..._Terrapin_ wrote: »Because they do not eat it?0 -
Why do all sugar threads get hijacked by the same people arguing the same points over and over again?
It takes two..._Terrapin_ wrote: »Because they do not eat it?
One side to make wild claims and refuse to back them up properly, and the other to call them out on it...0 -
I agree with you, but not the way you'd prefer.0
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »I think around half of the population seem to be ables to eat a diet with added sugars and higher carbs. The rest should eat low carbohydrate or, at the very least, moderate carbohydrates.
Insulin resistance is thought to include prediabetes, Type 2 diabetes, PCOS, NAFLD, and Alzheimer's disease as well as other possible neurological diseases (like possibly MS and Parkinson's). Roughly half of North Americans will develop one of these health problems in their lifetime, and sugar intake, along with excessive carbs and obesity, is generally thought to contribute to those problems.
I thought I could eat sugars with no problem unmtil suddenly I couldn't. I have a good mainly friend who loves her sweets and is just slightly overweight. Now in her mid 70s she as Alzheimer's. there was no way to reduction that back in the 80s when she was eating sugars with no apparent problems. I wonder if she could have turned back time and attempted to prevent her dementia with a low sugar diet if she would have... I would have changed things for myself.
In my mind, sugar's only real benefit for the average person is that it tastes good. It as no needed micronutrients and has the potential to contribute to IR problems, never mind the act that those with a higher sugar intake are more likely to develop certain cancers, have a more difficult time beating some cancers, and are more likely to develop CAD.
IMO, the only thing going for added sugars (or a diet high in carbs) is that tastes good. Sugar is a bit of a risk for the (apparently) healthy person, IMO.
Lol so half the population of the world should be low carb?????
And I would be curious to see studies directly linking sugar to cancer...
Sugar is a macronutrient and provides one with energy so it has more of a use than just "tasting good"...
I find cauliflower to not be necessary for anything , does that make it bad too??
Wonder what percentage of the population in the blue zones with higher carb diets have T2D or "prediabetes." I'm guessing vanishingly few. It's not the carbs, it's the overall diet.
And personally I highly doubt that replacing a poor high carb diet with a nutrient-poor diet made up mostly of fat, and very high in sat fat, is going to be an improvement overall. I realize that one can have a healthy low carb diet, but the focus on macros vs. nutrients makes it less likely that people will see that as important.
Nutrient poor? Hardly. This is a quick summary.http://www.ketogenic-diet-resource.com/facts-about-vitamins.html
Yes, I think many of the keto diets promoted on MFP are extremely nutrient poor. Just run it on cronometer and see. Like I said, it's possible to be in ketosis and have a healthy diet, but it takes as much -- likely more -- work as having a vegan diet that meets all nutrient needs, and diets that eschew vegetables in favor of extreme amounts of fat likely aren't cutting it. As I've said before, it seems bizarre to fixate on studies that indicate that excessive sugar is not a good idea, but to ignore all other results of the various population studies relating to nutrition.0 -
_Terrapin_ wrote: »_Terrapin_ wrote: »I keep seeing that half of us population and IR stat bandied about ...I looked for the source once found this on medline
http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/122501-overview#a5
"In the United States, the frequency of insulin resistance is observed to be 3% in the general population; a several-fold increase occurs in individuals with glucose intolerance."
Where is this 50% stat from?
Results In the overall 2011-2012 population, the unadjusted prevalence (using the hemoglobin A1c, FPG, or 2-hour PG definitions for diabetes and prediabetes) was 14.3% (95% CI, 12.2%-16.8%) for total diabetes, 9.1% (95% CI, 7.8%-10.6%) for diagnosed diabetes, 5.2% (95% CI, 4.0%-6.9%) for undiagnosed diabetes, and 38.0% (95% CI, 34.7%-41.3%) for prediabetes; among those with diabetes, 36.4% (95% CI, 30.5%-42.7%) were undiagnosed.
Copied because no one remembers reading this link the last few times it was posted.
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=2434682
I find the standard of proof for suggesting respecting sugar intake levels ridiculous when compared to complete lack of any requirement for advocating unrestricted sugar levels.
The sugar industry has a lot of funds to promote their dying sales. Could there be an industry PR force at work here? Why would anyone care if someone eats less sugar other than the folks selling it?
Okay, so 50% comes from 38% being undiagnosed. Thankfully, the medical profession is aware of these staggering numbers as well as the government(sarcasm). If I remember correctly the total number was around 11%.
Results In the overall 2011-2012 population, the unadjusted prevalence (using the hemoglobin A1c, FPG, or 2-hour PG definitions for diabetes and prediabetes) was 14.3% (95% CI, 12.2%-16.8%) for total diabetes, 9.1% (95% CI, 7.8%-10.6%) for diagnosed diabetes, 5.2% (95% CI, 4.0%-6.9%) for undiagnosed diabetes, and 38.0% (95% CI, 34.7%-41.3%) for prediabetes; among those with diabetes, 36.4% (95% CI, 30.5%-42.7%) were undiagnosed.
Pre-diabetes = 38% and diabetes = 14.3%, for a total of 52.4% of total population._Terrapin_ wrote: »I keep seeing that half of us population and IR stat bandied about ...I looked for the source once found this on medline
http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/122501-overview#a5
"In the United States, the frequency of insulin resistance is observed to be 3% in the general population; a several-fold increase occurs in individuals with glucose intolerance."
Where is this 50% stat from?
Results In the overall 2011-2012 population, the unadjusted prevalence (using the hemoglobin A1c, FPG, or 2-hour PG definitions for diabetes and prediabetes) was 14.3% (95% CI, 12.2%-16.8%) for total diabetes, 9.1% (95% CI, 7.8%-10.6%) for diagnosed diabetes, 5.2% (95% CI, 4.0%-6.9%) for undiagnosed diabetes, and 38.0% (95% CI, 34.7%-41.3%) for prediabetes; among those with diabetes, 36.4% (95% CI, 30.5%-42.7%) were undiagnosed.
Copied because no one remembers reading this link the last few times it was posted.
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=2434682
I find the standard of proof for suggesting respecting sugar intake levels ridiculous when compared to complete lack of any requirement for advocating unrestricted sugar levels.
The sugar industry has a lot of funds to promote their dying sales. Could there be an industry PR force at work here? Why would anyone care if someone eats less sugar other than the folks selling it?
Okay, so 50% comes from 38% being undiagnosed. Thankfully, the medical profession is aware of these staggering numbers as well as the government(sarcasm). If I remember correctly the total number was around 11%.
Results In the overall 2011-2012 population, the unadjusted prevalence (using the hemoglobin A1c, FPG, or 2-hour PG definitions for diabetes and prediabetes) was 14.3% (95% CI, 12.2%-16.8%) for total diabetes, 9.1% (95% CI, 7.8%-10.6%) for diagnosed diabetes, 5.2% (95% CI, 4.0%-6.9%) for undiagnosed diabetes, and 38.0% (95% CI, 34.7%-41.3%) for prediabetes; among those with diabetes, 36.4% (95% CI, 30.5%-42.7%) were undiagnosed.
Pre-diabetes = 38% and diabetes = 14.3%, for a total of 52.4% of total population._Terrapin_ wrote: »I keep seeing that half of us population and IR stat bandied about ...I looked for the source once found this on medline
http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/122501-overview#a5
"In the United States, the frequency of insulin resistance is observed to be 3% in the general population; a several-fold increase occurs in individuals with glucose intolerance."
Where is this 50% stat from?
Results In the overall 2011-2012 population, the unadjusted prevalence (using the hemoglobin A1c, FPG, or 2-hour PG definitions for diabetes and prediabetes) was 14.3% (95% CI, 12.2%-16.8%) for total diabetes, 9.1% (95% CI, 7.8%-10.6%) for diagnosed diabetes, 5.2% (95% CI, 4.0%-6.9%) for undiagnosed diabetes, and 38.0% (95% CI, 34.7%-41.3%) for prediabetes; among those with diabetes, 36.4% (95% CI, 30.5%-42.7%) were undiagnosed.
Copied because no one remembers reading this link the last few times it was posted.
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=2434682
I find the standard of proof for suggesting respecting sugar intake levels ridiculous when compared to complete lack of any requirement for advocating unrestricted sugar levels.
The sugar industry has a lot of funds to promote their dying sales. Could there be an industry PR force at work here? Why would anyone care if someone eats less sugar other than the folks selling it?
Okay, so 50% comes from 38% being undiagnosed. Thankfully, the medical profession is aware of these staggering numbers as well as the government(sarcasm). If I remember correctly the total number was around 11%.
Results In the overall 2011-2012 population, the unadjusted prevalence (using the hemoglobin A1c, FPG, or 2-hour PG definitions for diabetes and prediabetes) was 14.3% (95% CI, 12.2%-16.8%) for total diabetes, 9.1% (95% CI, 7.8%-10.6%) for diagnosed diabetes, 5.2% (95% CI, 4.0%-6.9%) for undiagnosed diabetes, and 38.0% (95% CI, 34.7%-41.3%) for prediabetes; among those with diabetes, 36.4% (95% CI, 30.5%-42.7%) were undiagnosed.
Pre-diabetes = 38% and diabetes = 14.3%, for a total of 52.4% of total population._Terrapin_ wrote: »I keep seeing that half of us population and IR stat bandied about ...I looked for the source once found this on medline
http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/122501-overview#a5
"In the United States, the frequency of insulin resistance is observed to be 3% in the general population; a several-fold increase occurs in individuals with glucose intolerance."
Where is this 50% stat from?
Results In the overall 2011-2012 population, the unadjusted prevalence (using the hemoglobin A1c, FPG, or 2-hour PG definitions for diabetes and prediabetes) was 14.3% (95% CI, 12.2%-16.8%) for total diabetes, 9.1% (95% CI, 7.8%-10.6%) for diagnosed diabetes, 5.2% (95% CI, 4.0%-6.9%) for undiagnosed diabetes, and 38.0% (95% CI, 34.7%-41.3%) for prediabetes; among those with diabetes, 36.4% (95% CI, 30.5%-42.7%) were undiagnosed.
Copied because no one remembers reading this link the last few times it was posted.
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=2434682
I find the standard of proof for suggesting respecting sugar intake levels ridiculous when compared to complete lack of any requirement for advocating unrestricted sugar levels.
The sugar industry has a lot of funds to promote their dying sales. Could there be an industry PR force at work here? Why would anyone care if someone eats less sugar other than the folks selling it?
Okay, so 50% comes from 38% being undiagnosed. Thankfully, the medical profession is aware of these staggering numbers as well as the government(sarcasm). If I remember correctly the total number was around 11%.
Results In the overall 2011-2012 population, the unadjusted prevalence (using the hemoglobin A1c, FPG, or 2-hour PG definitions for diabetes and prediabetes) was 14.3% (95% CI, 12.2%-16.8%) for total diabetes, 9.1% (95% CI, 7.8%-10.6%) for diagnosed diabetes, 5.2% (95% CI, 4.0%-6.9%) for undiagnosed diabetes, and 38.0% (95% CI, 34.7%-41.3%) for prediabetes; among those with diabetes, 36.4% (95% CI, 30.5%-42.7%) were undiagnosed.
Pre-diabetes = 38% and diabetes = 14.3%, for a total of 52.4% of total population.
It is obviously a national problem. What can we possibly do to improve the numbers? Maybe move a number down and make the issue more acute?
A little history? What was the range Ancil Keys gave to cholesterol as 'high'? I'll help you out a little. It was a range of 120. At the low end for Keys he thought 2XX was on the low end. What do you think happened to the low end of the number as more drugs came in to the market place? Do you see US TV ads for diabetic drugs? Can you link what the rationalization would be for reducing a the pre0diabetic number even lower?
So, if you want people to avoid drugs from 'big pharma' then maybe it would be a good idea to understand how these 'nutitrional values' change.
Interesting, and worth thinking about. It turns out cholesterol concerns are a big pile of money funneling woo. Like, all treatment, no actual disease.
I'm not sure that the same scam is present with diabetes - there are definitely life threatening consequences to lack of lifestyle changes or medical treatment.0 -
Well, if cholesterol is a big scam then fine with me. I hope for folks who eat high fat they can find a cardiologist who agrees with them post cardiac event. If you think diabetes isn't headed in the same direction you'd be naive._Terrapin_ wrote: »_Terrapin_ wrote: »I keep seeing that half of us population and IR stat bandied about ...I looked for the source once found this on medline
http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/122501-overview#a5
"In the United States, the frequency of insulin resistance is observed to be 3% in the general population; a several-fold increase occurs in individuals with glucose intolerance."
Where is this 50% stat from?
Results In the overall 2011-2012 population, the unadjusted prevalence (using the hemoglobin A1c, FPG, or 2-hour PG definitions for diabetes and prediabetes) was 14.3% (95% CI, 12.2%-16.8%) for total diabetes, 9.1% (95% CI, 7.8%-10.6%) for diagnosed diabetes, 5.2% (95% CI, 4.0%-6.9%) for undiagnosed diabetes, and 38.0% (95% CI, 34.7%-41.3%) for prediabetes; among those with diabetes, 36.4% (95% CI, 30.5%-42.7%) were undiagnosed.
Copied because no one remembers reading this link the last few times it was posted.
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=2434682
I find the standard of proof for suggesting respecting sugar intake levels ridiculous when compared to complete lack of any requirement for advocating unrestricted sugar levels.
The sugar industry has a lot of funds to promote their dying sales. Could there be an industry PR force at work here? Why would anyone care if someone eats less sugar other than the folks selling it?
Okay, so 50% comes from 38% being undiagnosed. Thankfully, the medical profession is aware of these staggering numbers as well as the government(sarcasm). If I remember correctly the total number was around 11%.
Results In the overall 2011-2012 population, the unadjusted prevalence (using the hemoglobin A1c, FPG, or 2-hour PG definitions for diabetes and prediabetes) was 14.3% (95% CI, 12.2%-16.8%) for total diabetes, 9.1% (95% CI, 7.8%-10.6%) for diagnosed diabetes, 5.2% (95% CI, 4.0%-6.9%) for undiagnosed diabetes, and 38.0% (95% CI, 34.7%-41.3%) for prediabetes; among those with diabetes, 36.4% (95% CI, 30.5%-42.7%) were undiagnosed.
Pre-diabetes = 38% and diabetes = 14.3%, for a total of 52.4% of total population._Terrapin_ wrote: »I keep seeing that half of us population and IR stat bandied about ...I looked for the source once found this on medline
http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/122501-overview#a5
"In the United States, the frequency of insulin resistance is observed to be 3% in the general population; a several-fold increase occurs in individuals with glucose intolerance."
Where is this 50% stat from?
Results In the overall 2011-2012 population, the unadjusted prevalence (using the hemoglobin A1c, FPG, or 2-hour PG definitions for diabetes and prediabetes) was 14.3% (95% CI, 12.2%-16.8%) for total diabetes, 9.1% (95% CI, 7.8%-10.6%) for diagnosed diabetes, 5.2% (95% CI, 4.0%-6.9%) for undiagnosed diabetes, and 38.0% (95% CI, 34.7%-41.3%) for prediabetes; among those with diabetes, 36.4% (95% CI, 30.5%-42.7%) were undiagnosed.
Copied because no one remembers reading this link the last few times it was posted.
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=2434682
I find the standard of proof for suggesting respecting sugar intake levels ridiculous when compared to complete lack of any requirement for advocating unrestricted sugar levels.
The sugar industry has a lot of funds to promote their dying sales. Could there be an industry PR force at work here? Why would anyone care if someone eats less sugar other than the folks selling it?
Okay, so 50% comes from 38% being undiagnosed. Thankfully, the medical profession is aware of these staggering numbers as well as the government(sarcasm). If I remember correctly the total number was around 11%.
Results In the overall 2011-2012 population, the unadjusted prevalence (using the hemoglobin A1c, FPG, or 2-hour PG definitions for diabetes and prediabetes) was 14.3% (95% CI, 12.2%-16.8%) for total diabetes, 9.1% (95% CI, 7.8%-10.6%) for diagnosed diabetes, 5.2% (95% CI, 4.0%-6.9%) for undiagnosed diabetes, and 38.0% (95% CI, 34.7%-41.3%) for prediabetes; among those with diabetes, 36.4% (95% CI, 30.5%-42.7%) were undiagnosed.
Pre-diabetes = 38% and diabetes = 14.3%, for a total of 52.4% of total population._Terrapin_ wrote: »I keep seeing that half of us population and IR stat bandied about ...I looked for the source once found this on medline
http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/122501-overview#a5
"In the United States, the frequency of insulin resistance is observed to be 3% in the general population; a several-fold increase occurs in individuals with glucose intolerance."
Where is this 50% stat from?
Results In the overall 2011-2012 population, the unadjusted prevalence (using the hemoglobin A1c, FPG, or 2-hour PG definitions for diabetes and prediabetes) was 14.3% (95% CI, 12.2%-16.8%) for total diabetes, 9.1% (95% CI, 7.8%-10.6%) for diagnosed diabetes, 5.2% (95% CI, 4.0%-6.9%) for undiagnosed diabetes, and 38.0% (95% CI, 34.7%-41.3%) for prediabetes; among those with diabetes, 36.4% (95% CI, 30.5%-42.7%) were undiagnosed.
Copied because no one remembers reading this link the last few times it was posted.
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=2434682
I find the standard of proof for suggesting respecting sugar intake levels ridiculous when compared to complete lack of any requirement for advocating unrestricted sugar levels.
The sugar industry has a lot of funds to promote their dying sales. Could there be an industry PR force at work here? Why would anyone care if someone eats less sugar other than the folks selling it?
Okay, so 50% comes from 38% being undiagnosed. Thankfully, the medical profession is aware of these staggering numbers as well as the government(sarcasm). If I remember correctly the total number was around 11%.
Results In the overall 2011-2012 population, the unadjusted prevalence (using the hemoglobin A1c, FPG, or 2-hour PG definitions for diabetes and prediabetes) was 14.3% (95% CI, 12.2%-16.8%) for total diabetes, 9.1% (95% CI, 7.8%-10.6%) for diagnosed diabetes, 5.2% (95% CI, 4.0%-6.9%) for undiagnosed diabetes, and 38.0% (95% CI, 34.7%-41.3%) for prediabetes; among those with diabetes, 36.4% (95% CI, 30.5%-42.7%) were undiagnosed.
Pre-diabetes = 38% and diabetes = 14.3%, for a total of 52.4% of total population._Terrapin_ wrote: »I keep seeing that half of us population and IR stat bandied about ...I looked for the source once found this on medline
http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/122501-overview#a5
"In the United States, the frequency of insulin resistance is observed to be 3% in the general population; a several-fold increase occurs in individuals with glucose intolerance."
Where is this 50% stat from?
Results In the overall 2011-2012 population, the unadjusted prevalence (using the hemoglobin A1c, FPG, or 2-hour PG definitions for diabetes and prediabetes) was 14.3% (95% CI, 12.2%-16.8%) for total diabetes, 9.1% (95% CI, 7.8%-10.6%) for diagnosed diabetes, 5.2% (95% CI, 4.0%-6.9%) for undiagnosed diabetes, and 38.0% (95% CI, 34.7%-41.3%) for prediabetes; among those with diabetes, 36.4% (95% CI, 30.5%-42.7%) were undiagnosed.
Copied because no one remembers reading this link the last few times it was posted.
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=2434682
I find the standard of proof for suggesting respecting sugar intake levels ridiculous when compared to complete lack of any requirement for advocating unrestricted sugar levels.
The sugar industry has a lot of funds to promote their dying sales. Could there be an industry PR force at work here? Why would anyone care if someone eats less sugar other than the folks selling it?
Okay, so 50% comes from 38% being undiagnosed. Thankfully, the medical profession is aware of these staggering numbers as well as the government(sarcasm). If I remember correctly the total number was around 11%.
Results In the overall 2011-2012 population, the unadjusted prevalence (using the hemoglobin A1c, FPG, or 2-hour PG definitions for diabetes and prediabetes) was 14.3% (95% CI, 12.2%-16.8%) for total diabetes, 9.1% (95% CI, 7.8%-10.6%) for diagnosed diabetes, 5.2% (95% CI, 4.0%-6.9%) for undiagnosed diabetes, and 38.0% (95% CI, 34.7%-41.3%) for prediabetes; among those with diabetes, 36.4% (95% CI, 30.5%-42.7%) were undiagnosed.
Pre-diabetes = 38% and diabetes = 14.3%, for a total of 52.4% of total population.
It is obviously a national problem. What can we possibly do to improve the numbers? Maybe move a number down and make the issue more acute?
A little history? What was the range Ancil Keys gave to cholesterol as 'high'? I'll help you out a little. It was a range of 120. At the low end for Keys he thought 2XX was on the low end. What do you think happened to the low end of the number as more drugs came in to the market place? Do you see US TV ads for diabetic drugs? Can you link what the rationalization would be for reducing a the pre0diabetic number even lower?
So, if you want people to avoid drugs from 'big pharma' then maybe it would be a good idea to understand how these 'nutitrional values' change.
Interesting, and worth thinking about. It turns out cholesterol concerns are a big pile of money funneling woo. Like, all treatment, no actual disease.
I'm not sure that the same scam is present with diabetes - there are definitely life threatening consequences to lack of lifestyle changes or medical treatment.0 -
Such wild claims as "Hey, you can eat carbs and still be healthy." And "You know, the WHO only tells you to lower your carbs because of calorie content and your teeth, not because it causes cancer or diabetes or any of that other stuff you guys love claiming."I agree with you, but not the way you'd prefer.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I think around half of the population seem to be ables to eat a diet with added sugars and higher carbs. The rest should eat low carbohydrate or, at the very least, moderate carbohydrates.
Insulin resistance is thought to include prediabetes, Type 2 diabetes, PCOS, NAFLD, and Alzheimer's disease as well as other possible neurological diseases (like possibly MS and Parkinson's). Roughly half of North Americans will develop one of these health problems in their lifetime, and sugar intake, along with excessive carbs and obesity, is generally thought to contribute to those problems.
I thought I could eat sugars with no problem unmtil suddenly I couldn't. I have a good mainly friend who loves her sweets and is just slightly overweight. Now in her mid 70s she as Alzheimer's. there was no way to reduction that back in the 80s when she was eating sugars with no apparent problems. I wonder if she could have turned back time and attempted to prevent her dementia with a low sugar diet if she would have... I would have changed things for myself.
In my mind, sugar's only real benefit for the average person is that it tastes good. It as no needed micronutrients and has the potential to contribute to IR problems, never mind the act that those with a higher sugar intake are more likely to develop certain cancers, have a more difficult time beating some cancers, and are more likely to develop CAD.
IMO, the only thing going for added sugars (or a diet high in carbs) is that tastes good. Sugar is a bit of a risk for the (apparently) healthy person, IMO.
Lol so half the population of the world should be low carb?????
And I would be curious to see studies directly linking sugar to cancer...
Sugar is a macronutrient and provides one with energy so it has more of a use than just "tasting good"...
I find cauliflower to not be necessary for anything , does that make it bad too??
Wonder what percentage of the population in the blue zones with higher carb diets have T2D or "prediabetes." I'm guessing vanishingly few. It's not the carbs, it's the overall diet.
And personally I highly doubt that replacing a poor high carb diet with a nutrient-poor diet made up mostly of fat, and very high in sat fat, is going to be an improvement overall. I realize that one can have a healthy low carb diet, but the focus on macros vs. nutrients makes it less likely that people will see that as important.
Nutrient poor? Hardly. This is a quick summary.http://www.ketogenic-diet-resource.com/facts-about-vitamins.html
Yes, I think many of the keto diets promoted on MFP are extremely nutrient poor. Just run it on cronometer and see. Like I said, it's possible to be in ketosis and have a healthy diet, but it takes as much -- likely more -- work as having a vegan diet that meets all nutrient needs, and diets that eschew vegetables in favor of extreme amounts of fat likely aren't cutting it. As I've said before, it seems bizarre to fixate on studies that indicate that excessive sugar is not a good idea, but to ignore all other results of the various population studies relating to nutrition.
I have never found food detail on a ketogenic diet here on MFP. You say you have seen them and determined they are nutrient poor, where are they?
0 -
I've seen people filling their calories with heavy cream.0
-
Or grass fed butter?!? And supplements. Don't forgot the supplements.stevencloser wrote: »I've seen people filling their calories with heavy cream.
0 -
All I can say if people choose to eat excess sugar over the recommended amounts then hope and pray that research never comes out proving it causes disease or medical conditions.
I'm not pro or against, and have zero interest in debating about sugar. I have an open mind and choose not to nitpick or mock those who believe sugar is not a necessary part of our diet.
I have noticed though, that not a week goes by where I don't read or hear the negative impact sugar can have. It cant all possibly be baseless. .
Everyone has they their own diet path they choose to follow, and if it works for them then who am I to judge.0 -
Someone on Keto on another thread just posted about their daily intake and they had some green beans and some celery. No other veggies, no fruits. It seemed more saturated fat content than mono or poly unsaturated fats. Just one day, not necessarily how it is for them every day. But not a nutrient rich diet in my opinion.0
-
omg anything to justify cookies!..lol yes it is different last time i looked cookies do not have nutrients and fiber that slow the insulin response..so cookie=crap fruit=food0
-
People should make sure they are getting their A1C levels checked at their doctor's each year. If you don't know much about your glucose levels (not just one fasting test a year, either), it's hard to say whether you need to care much about sugar or not. Being overweight is already one risk factor towards having to care about it.
I have to care about it, darnit. And I have an enormous sweet tooth, so believe me that I hate that I have to care. It came on so suddenly, too. Sucks.
ETA: I cross posted. Yep, I can eat apples still
Cookies are different, and I have to limit those a whole lot more than apples. Even if they have the same grams of sugar. 0 -
poohpoohpeapod wrote: »omg anything to justify cookies!..lol yes it is different last time i looked cookies do not have nutrients and fiber that slow the insulin response..so cookie=crap fruit=food
See, that's the kind of crap we argue against.
We're not talking about "excess sugar vs. normal amounts" here, it's constantly "OMG, any amount of sugar is horrible for you and you gunna die of the beetus if you have a cookie".0 -
christinev297 wrote: »All I can say if people choose to eat excess sugar over the recommended amounts then hope and pray that research never comes out proving it causes disease or medical conditions.
[
This sounds like so much fear mongering. I just wanna enjoy my Thanksgiving apple pies and cookies. Sheesh.
0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »An apple and a greek yogurt a day and here we go - I'm past my sugar target of 48 grams (for 1550 cal/d). Is there smth wrong with the MFP recommendation for sugar?
Can I just ignore it and bite into my second apple as long as it fits with the calory goal? Do you observe your sugar intake on the basis of what MFP tells you?
48 grams of sugar for an apple and a Greek yogurt seems high to me. You must not be be talking about plain Greek yogurt. I don't worry about the sugar that occurs naturally in fruit and dairy, but I do pay attention to added sugar. Sugar was added to the first yogurt.
Unfortunately, MFP does not differentiate between naturally occurring and added sugar. But when I limit foods like sweetened yogurt and baked goods, I don't exceed the sugar.
OP, please ignore this.
There is no difference between natural and added sugar.
the sugar in your strawberry = the sugar in a cookie
Yep.
0 -
I'm not for or against sugar, just pray the sugar doesn't kill you. That's gold.christinev297 wrote: »All I can say if people choose to eat excess sugar over the recommended amounts then hope and pray that research never comes out proving it causes disease or medical conditions.
I'm not pro or against, and have zero interest in debating about sugar. I have an open mind and choose not to nitpick or mock those who believe sugar is not a necessary part of our diet.
0 -
I realize this is a "hot button" topic for many folks, but can't we have a debate and disagree without name calling? There's no reason to call someone a dummy--just say why you disagree with what they said.0
-
OdeToStrawman wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I think around half of the population seem to be ables to eat a diet with added sugars and higher carbs. The rest should eat low carbohydrate or, at the very least, moderate carbohydrates.
Insulin resistance is thought to include prediabetes, Type 2 diabetes, PCOS, NAFLD, and Alzheimer's disease as well as other possible neurological diseases (like possibly MS and Parkinson's). Roughly half of North Americans will develop one of these health problems in their lifetime, and sugar intake, along with excessive carbs and obesity, is generally thought to contribute to those problems.
I thought I could eat sugars with no problem unmtil suddenly I couldn't. I have a good mainly friend who loves her sweets and is just slightly overweight. Now in her mid 70s she as Alzheimer's. there was no way to reduction that back in the 80s when she was eating sugars with no apparent problems. I wonder if she could have turned back time and attempted to prevent her dementia with a low sugar diet if she would have... I would have changed things for myself.
In my mind, sugar's only real benefit for the average person is that it tastes good. It as no needed micronutrients and has the potential to contribute to IR problems, never mind the act that those with a higher sugar intake are more likely to develop certain cancers, have a more difficult time beating some cancers, and are more likely to develop CAD.
IMO, the only thing going for added sugars (or a diet high in carbs) is that tastes good. Sugar is a bit of a risk for the (apparently) healthy person, IMO.
Lol so half the population of the world should be low carb?????
And I would be curious to see studies directly linking sugar to cancer...
Sugar is a macronutrient and provides one with energy so it has more of a use than just "tasting good"...
I find cauliflower to not be necessary for anything , does that make it bad too??
Wonder what percentage of the population in the blue zones with higher carb diets have T2D or "prediabetes." I'm guessing vanishingly few. It's not the carbs, it's the overall diet.
And personally I highly doubt that replacing a poor high carb diet with a nutrient-poor diet made up mostly of fat, and very high in sat fat, is going to be an improvement overall. I realize that one can have a healthy low carb diet, but the focus on macros vs. nutrients makes it less likely that people will see that as important.
Nutrient poor? Hardly. This is a quick summary.http://www.ketogenic-diet-resource.com/facts-about-vitamins.html
Yes, I think many of the keto diets promoted on MFP are extremely nutrient poor. Just run it on cronometer and see. Like I said, it's possible to be in ketosis and have a healthy diet, but it takes as much -- likely more -- work as having a vegan diet that meets all nutrient needs, and diets that eschew vegetables in favor of extreme amounts of fat likely aren't cutting it. As I've said before, it seems bizarre to fixate on studies that indicate that excessive sugar is not a good idea, but to ignore all other results of the various population studies relating to nutrition.
I have never found food detail on a ketogenic diet here on MFP. You say you have seen them and determined they are nutrient poor, where are they?
Oh yes, this sure does look like it's nutrient filled....
Don't forget hot dogs.
Mayonnaise?!?
0 -
People that mainly burn glucose need sugar or foods that get converted into sugars like grains or in part like meats and other protein sources that gets up to 50% converted to glucose.
People that mainly burn ketones need no carbs, min protein and mainly fats that gets converted to ketones.
Since humans require no carbs to have great health means medically sugar is optional for everyone. Tonight I had some sugar because I ate at McDonald's. The two round eggs cooked cooked in butter only have 1 gram of carbs each. The sausage has three types of added sugar. The 600 calories from half and half in the coffee contained a lot of sugar but it was a major source of fat for the meal. If I had used heavy whipping cream it would have been basically sugar free. Now 3 hours after McDonalds meal my breath acetone levels are 2x what they were before I ate which indicates I am still in a state of Nutritional Ketosis which is my dietary objective in part. Managing my pain levels by eating no grains in any form and most all forms of sugar is my main dietary objective. That in my case simply means I must eat <50 grams of carbs so my pain levels stay reduced by 5 points on a 1-10 point scale.
Anytime blood glucose goes above 100 (USA) it can increase risk of several diseases in humans.
The bottom line at least at this point in time in the USA we are free to ingest any form of chemical combinations that may lead to better or worse health. This includes any forms of carbs, protein or fats to say the least.
What another eats is his or her business in a legal sense today. I do NOT see a sugar prohibition coming in the USA in my lifetime.
0 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »People that mainly burn glucose need sugar or foods that get converted into sugars like grains or in part like meats and other protein sources that gets up to 50% converted to glucose.
People that mainly burn ketones need no carbs, min protein and mainly fats that gets converted to ketones.
Since humans require no carbs to have great health means medically sugar is optional for everyone. Tonight I had some sugar because I ate at McDonald's. The two round eggs cooked cooked in butter only have 1 gram of carbs each. The sausage has three types of added sugar. The 600 calories from half and half in the coffee contained a lot of sugar but it was a major source of fat for the meal. If I had used heavy whipping cream it would have been basically sugar free. Now 3 hours after McDonalds meal my breath acetone levels are 2x what they were before I ate which indicates I am still in a state of Nutritional Ketosis which is my dietary objective in part. Managing my pain levels by eating no grains in any form and most all forms of sugar is my main dietary objective. That in my case simply means I must eat <50 grams of carbs so my pain levels stay reduced by 5 points on a 1-10 point scale.
Anytime blood glucose goes above 100 (USA) it can increase risk of several diseases in humans.
The bottom line at least at this point in time in the USA we are free to ingest any form of chemical combinations that may lead to better or worse health. This includes any forms of carbs, protein or fats to say the least.
What another eats is his or her business in a legal sense today. I do NOT see a sugar prohibition coming in the USA in my lifetime.
What would happen if your blood sugar were 0?0 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »People that mainly burn glucose need sugar or foods that get converted into sugars like grains or in part like meats and other protein sources that gets up to 50% converted to glucose.
People that mainly burn ketones need no carbs, min protein and mainly fats that gets converted to ketones.
Since humans require no carbs to have great health means medically sugar is optional for everyone. Tonight I had some sugar because I ate at McDonald's. The two round eggs cooked cooked in butter only have 1 gram of carbs each. The sausage has three types of added sugar. The 600 calories from half and half in the coffee contained a lot of sugar but it was a major source of fat for the meal. If I had used heavy whipping cream it would have been basically sugar free. Now 3 hours after McDonalds meal my breath acetone levels are 2x what they were before I ate which indicates I am still in a state of Nutritional Ketosis which is my dietary objective in part. Managing my pain levels by eating no grains in any form and most all forms of sugar is my main dietary objective. That in my case simply means I must eat <50 grams of carbs so my pain levels stay reduced by 5 points on a 1-10 point scale.
Anytime blood glucose goes above 100 (USA) it can increase risk of several diseases in humans.
The bottom line at least at this point in time in the USA we are free to ingest any form of chemical combinations that may lead to better or worse health. This includes any forms of carbs, protein or fats to say the least.
What another eats is his or her business in a legal sense today. I do NOT see a sugar prohibition coming in the USA in my lifetime.
What would happen if your blood sugar were 0?
Hmm, free wi-fi?!?
0 -
Aaaand another person on keto who just drinks away 600 calories of half and half in their coffee instead of nutritious food. If that was 600 cals of soda, people would throw a tantrum.0
-
stevencloser wrote: »Aaaand another person on keto who just drinks away 600 calories of half and half in their coffee instead of nutritious food. If that was 600 cals of soda, people would throw a tantrum.
Nah. It's Gale.
0 -
I think around half of the population seem to be ables to eat a diet with added sugars and higher carbs. The rest should eat low carbohydrate or, at the very least, moderate carbohydrates.
Insulin resistance is thought to include prediabetes, Type 2 diabetes, PCOS, NAFLD, and Alzheimer's disease as well as other possible neurological diseases (like possibly MS and Parkinson's). Roughly half of North Americans will develop one of these health problems in their lifetime, and sugar intake, along with excessive carbs and obesity, is generally thought to contribute to those problems.
I thought I could eat sugars with no problem until suddenly I couldn't. I have a good mainly friend who loves her sweets and is just slightly overweight. Now in her mid 70s she as Alzheimer's. there was no way to reduction that back in the 80s when she was eating sugars with no apparent problems. I wonder if she could have turned back time and attempted to prevent her dementia with a low sugar diet if she would have... I would have changed things for myself.
In my mind, sugar's only real benefit for the average person is that it tastes good. It as no needed micronutrients and has the potential to contribute to IR problems, never mind the act that those with a higher sugar intake are more likely to develop certain cancers, have a more difficult time beating some cancers, and are more likely to develop CAD.
IMO, the only thing going for added sugars (or a diet high in carbs) is that tastes good. Sugar is a bit of a risk for the (apparently) healthy person, IMO.
Sugar is rarely identified as a problem... carbs are rarely identified as a problem..... obesity is highly identified to be the problem... and that is usually accompanied by lack of exercise and genetics.
In some cases metabolic conditions or other medical conditions can augment the chance that anothet medical issue will arise (e.i - strokes can increae the chances of developing alzheimer's). And while researching alzheimer's, i found a few things interesting. 1. It cannot be prevented, cured or slowed according to the alzheimer's association (http://m.alz.org/facts-and-figures.asp), 2. I cannot find a lot of studies linking carbs to alzheimer's, although i was able to see one study that suggested a diet very low on fat, cholesterol (biggest driver) and low in antioxidants as being a bigger issue. 3. Most articles linking carbs to alzheimer's comes from sites such as Dr. Oz and mercola (so you know very reputable sources).0 -
Unless you want to have a medical condition you should consider worrying about sugar.
There are many things you body needs and if you are displacing those things and substituting unneeded sugar calories instead, eventually you will have nutritional or metabolic consequences.
Sugar is fun to eat, don' mistake it for necessary.
With the bold statement, you are basically saying sugar causes medical conditions. Which ones?
0 -
The onus is on you to back up your claims because you made the statement in the first place.Unless you want to have a medical condition you should consider worrying about sugar.
There are many things you body needs and if you are displacing those things and substituting unneeded sugar calories instead, eventually you will have nutritional or metabolic consequences.
Sugar is fun to eat, don' mistake it for necessary.
What medical condition would sugar cause in the context of a diet that hits micros and macros??
Hmm. I've done my research. Start reading.
0 -
Unless you want to have a medical condition you should consider worrying about sugar.
There are many things you body needs and if you are displacing those things and substituting unneeded sugar calories instead, eventually you will have nutritional or metabolic consequences.
Sugar is fun to eat, don' mistake it for necessary.
What medical condition would sugar cause in the context of a diet that hits micros and macros??
Hmm. I've done my research. Start reading.
Show me one medical condition that specifically states that sugar causes that medical condition... I am talking causation, not correlation.
Dang, I would love to hear the answer to this too.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions