Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.

What are your unpopular opinions about health / fitness?

1125126128130131358

Replies

  • OliveGirl128
    OliveGirl128 Posts: 801 Member
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    Bry_Lander wrote: »
    JerSchmare wrote: »
    My unpopular opinion is that being fat has nothing to do with sugar.

    Not even proximately? Doesn't sugar tend to make food more delicious, increasing the tendency to consume greater quantities of it, and potentially resulting in consuming more calories than one burns?

    Sure, if you interpret it that way then being fat is also related to dietary fat, salt, spices, herbs, aromatics, maillard reaction, yeast, flavorings, packaging, coloring agents, texture agents, strategic shelf placement, peer pressure, and more. All of these make food more appealing, so singling out sugar makes no sense.

    So you're saying sugar DOES contribute to making one fat?

    There is only one thing that definitively causes someone to be overweight/obese/morbidly obese. Eating too many calories for their individual energy balance (CI > CO). These excess calories can come from foods which contain sugar (rarely do people eat straight table sugar but some insist it happens), but more often than not, the foods contain myriad other ingredients so the point is, why single out sugar? Still others have pointed out that they gained weight eating a lot of non-sugary foods, I myself am one of those. I got fat from eating a little too much, of a lot of different foods, and becoming much more sedentary, but don't have a particularly strong sweet tooth.

    People tend to focus more on sugar because the recommended American diet is so high in carbs which convert to glucose much more easily than say protein.

    Guess whose diets are also high in carbs, even higher than the US? The blue zones, the healthiest and longest living places on earth.

    Yep. I'm currently modeling my woe after one of the blue zone groups and I'm averaging over 200g of carbs a day. Still maintaining fine though, with a current bmi floating around a 20.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Here is something interesting about salt. Evidently a higher salt intake can trigger fat burning. I read a news article recently where cosmonauts who were being given salt tablets in space to decrease fluid intake, were finding they were outputting more water in their urine than they could account for with intake. They were also finding they needed a higher caloric intake to maintain their weight.

    This was extremely puzzling until it was realized that the ingestion of salt at that level was triggering the burning of stored fat, which released the water stored with it, which then was adding to their hydration.

    Nope. It was triggering appetite in response to the body breaking down muscle mass to deal with the increased salt.
  • theresejesu
    theresejesu Posts: 120 Member
    edited July 2017
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    Here is something interesting about salt. Evidently a higher salt intake can trigger fat burning. I read a news article recently where cosmonauts who were being given salt tablets in space to decrease fluid intake, were finding they were outputting more water in their urine than they could account for with intake. They were also finding they needed a higher caloric intake to maintain their weight.

    This was extremely puzzling until it was realized that the ingestion of salt at that level was triggering the burning of stored fat, which released the water stored with it, which then was adding to their hydration.

    NOT FAT burning. Change in water weight. That's it. I actually looked at the study. Not the Dailynews.uk clickbait article.

    If salt intake is high enough, the production of glucocorticoid hormones increase, which influence metabolism and immune function. This was one of the hypotheses offered in the article:

    INCREASED SALT CONSUMPTION INDUCES BODY WATER CONSERVATION AND DECREASES FLUID INTAKE

    published in JCI April 17, 2017

    In followup animal studies on mice by Titze, one of the authors of the study above, he found that as he increased salt in their diet, the less water they drank, and discovered they were increasing production of glucocorticoid hormones which then broke down fat and muscle releasing water.

    I'm not saying people should start drastically increasing their salt intake, as there are potential problems with increased glucocorticoid homrmone increases, such as type 2 diabetes, etc.

    I do find this to be very interesting however.

    We've discussed this study before. Here's a good piece on it (if the study is still available in full I cannot find it):
    https://medicalxpress.com/news/2017-04-high-salt-diet-decreases-thirst-hunger.html
    It takes a lot of energy to conserve water in the face of salt excretion. To do it, the body either must take in more fuel or break down muscle mass. "This predisposes to overeating," said the reports' senior author, Jens Titze, M.D., associate professor of Medicine and of Molecular Physiology and Biophysics....

    Unexpectedly, when dietary salt was increased from six to 12 grams a day, the men drank less water, not more. That suggested they conserved or produced more water.

    In a subsequent study in mice, the researchers showed that high salt induces a catabolic state driven by glucocorticoids that breaks down muscle protein, which is converted into urea by the liver. Urea enables the kidneys to reabsorb water and prevent body water loss while the salt is excreted.

    Muscle wasting is a high price to pay for avoiding dehydration. The alternative is bringing in more fuel - eating more. That may be why the men in the study complained they were hungry.

    Water conservation in response to a high-salt diet may have pathological consequences. Increased levels of glucocorticoids are an independent risk factor for diabetes, obesity, osteoporosis and cardiovascular disease.
    "We have always focused on the role of salt in arterial hypertension. Our findings suggest that there is much more to know—a high salt intake may predispose to metabolic syndrome," Titze said

    So I would not recommend increasing salt as a weight loss trick. For other reasons if appropriate, sure.

    And, as I mentioned, the results of significant increase in salt intake can be associated with negative consequences due to the increase in glucocorticoid hormones. ;)

    As I said, I find this all very interesting.

    I've personally had to increase my salt intake due to autonomic nervous system dysfunction, and it does indeed help.

    These studies have led me to realize I need to watch these other parameters more closely than I understood before.
  • GottaBurnEmAll
    GottaBurnEmAll Posts: 7,722 Member
    Issues with raised cortisol can inhibit fat burning, and this has been an observed effect that has been talked about on these boards before.

    Many people report anecdotal incidents of losing weight after vacation, for example, or there are plenty of stories from the pressure-filled world of contest-prep where a "binge" will lead to the scale suddenly moving again. The reason? Reduced stress.

    However, the inverse of lowering stress from a baseline normal rather than elevated back to normal doesn't hold true to my knowledge and I doubt you'd find anything to back that up in human studies.

    You're welcome to try, though.

    If that's what you're not asserting, forgive me if I've lost track of the point you're trying to make here.
  • accidentalpancake
    accidentalpancake Posts: 484 Member
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    Bry_Lander wrote: »
    JerSchmare wrote: »
    My unpopular opinion is that being fat has nothing to do with sugar.

    Not even proximately? Doesn't sugar tend to make food more delicious, increasing the tendency to consume greater quantities of it, and potentially resulting in consuming more calories than one burns?

    Sure, if you interpret it that way then being fat is also related to dietary fat, salt, spices, herbs, aromatics, maillard reaction, yeast, flavorings, packaging, coloring agents, texture agents, strategic shelf placement, peer pressure, and more. All of these make food more appealing, so singling out sugar makes no sense.

    So you're saying sugar DOES contribute to making one fat?

    There is only one thing that definitively causes someone to be overweight/obese/morbidly obese. Eating too many calories for their individual energy balance (CI > CO). These excess calories can come from foods which contain sugar (rarely do people eat straight table sugar but some insist it happens), but more often than not, the foods contain myriad other ingredients so the point is, why single out sugar? Still others have pointed out that they gained weight eating a lot of non-sugary foods, I myself am one of those. I got fat from eating a little too much, of a lot of different foods, and becoming much more sedentary, but don't have a particularly strong sweet tooth.

    People tend to focus more on sugar because the recommended American diet is so high in carbs which convert to glucose much more easily than say protein.

    Not even close. The American diet composition is remarkably high in FAT, not carbohydrates.

    http://chartsbin.com/view/1154
    http://chartsbin.com/view/1158

    Of course, this isn't the primary issue. The issue is the American diet is high in CALORIES.
    http://chartsbin.com/view/1160

    On calories, I agree.

    However, using your own examples, carbohydrates make up a larger percentage of total diet, and the fat intake doesn't appear remarkable at all unless you cherry-pick data. Remarkably high compared to Ethiopia? Sure. High compared to most of Europe? Not at all...

    Looking at the most recent data (2005-2007), the United States is ranked 16th out of 176 by contribution of fat to dietary calorie intake. Going from lowest to highest on carb contribution, we are number 10. I mean, sure, there are higher, but we are WAY up there on the list.

    If we limit ourselves to just the developed world, The United States still has a higher than average fat contribution and lower than average carb contribution. And despite this, our obesity rate is higher. Probably because we rank 1st in dietary energy consumption at 3770 kcal/person/day...

    I'm in agreement overall. It's the intersection that matters, rather than the isolated factors.
  • joemac1988
    joemac1988 Posts: 1,021 Member
    joemac1988 wrote: »
    Mine is that everyone should do what makes them happy. Wanna be vegan? Great! Just don't try to talk me out of a burger. Love crossfit? Awesome! I like bodybuilding, ya'll have fun in your box. You think sugar and carbs will make you fat? That's your right...if you need me I'll be over here enjoying my poptarts. You think fasted cardio is more effective? Sweet, I eat as soon as I wake up so pretty unlikely for me. Etc, etc, etc.

    Basically, live and let live. Crazy, right???

    I 100% agree with this guy...

    At the end of the day though, all any of us are trying to do is defend our respective fitness churches...

    I'm just a sucker for a good debate

    Yesssss, I got a supporter. I love a debate so don't get me wrong; if I know the person, I'll argue bodybuilding vs. crossfit all day just for fun. I low-key love watching the crossfit games but don't tell anyone.

    At the same time, if someone is trying to make an effort to live a healthier lifestyle I don't care how you do it, you do you.
  • CSARdiver
    CSARdiver Posts: 6,257 Member
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    Bry_Lander wrote: »
    JerSchmare wrote: »
    My unpopular opinion is that being fat has nothing to do with sugar.

    Not even proximately? Doesn't sugar tend to make food more delicious, increasing the tendency to consume greater quantities of it, and potentially resulting in consuming more calories than one burns?

    Sure, if you interpret it that way then being fat is also related to dietary fat, salt, spices, herbs, aromatics, maillard reaction, yeast, flavorings, packaging, coloring agents, texture agents, strategic shelf placement, peer pressure, and more. All of these make food more appealing, so singling out sugar makes no sense.

    So you're saying sugar DOES contribute to making one fat?

    There is only one thing that definitively causes someone to be overweight/obese/morbidly obese. Eating too many calories for their individual energy balance (CI > CO). These excess calories can come from foods which contain sugar (rarely do people eat straight table sugar but some insist it happens), but more often than not, the foods contain myriad other ingredients so the point is, why single out sugar? Still others have pointed out that they gained weight eating a lot of non-sugary foods, I myself am one of those. I got fat from eating a little too much, of a lot of different foods, and becoming much more sedentary, but don't have a particularly strong sweet tooth.

    People tend to focus more on sugar because the recommended American diet is so high in carbs which convert to glucose much more easily than say protein.

    Not even close. The American diet composition is remarkably high in FAT, not carbohydrates.

    http://chartsbin.com/view/1154
    http://chartsbin.com/view/1158

    Of course, this isn't the primary issue. The issue is the American diet is high in CALORIES.
    http://chartsbin.com/view/1160

    On calories, I agree.

    However, using your own examples, carbohydrates make up a larger percentage of total diet, and the fat intake doesn't appear remarkable at all unless you cherry-pick data. Remarkably high compared to Ethiopia? Sure. High compared to most of Europe? Not at all...

    Looking at the most recent data (2005-2007), the United States is ranked 16th out of 176 by contribution of fat to dietary calorie intake. Going from lowest to highest on carb contribution, we are number 10. I mean, sure, there are higher, but we are WAY up there on the list.

    If we limit ourselves to just the developed world, The United States still has a higher than average fat contribution and lower than average carb contribution. And despite this, our obesity rate is higher. Probably because we rank 1st in dietary energy consumption at 3770 kcal/person/day...

    Apologies if this has been reported previously, but is there a decent source to find activity by country/region? My observation working in both the US and EU is that EU is far more active. US commutes by car even for short distances. The only studies I've found are self reported and highly dubious.
This discussion has been closed.