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?
Replies
-
stanmann571 wrote: »theresejesu wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »theresejesu wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »theresejesu wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »theresejesu 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.
None of which was supported by the human data.
The hypothesis was indeed supported by the human data, it which it was stated:
"In addition, increased rhythmical glucocorticoid action may increase metabolic water production by promoting protein, fat, and sugar breakdown."
You seem to have significant issues with critical thinking and reading comprehension.
If you say so.
Maybe read everything I said again?
The hypothesis was verified in animal models. There is significant concern regarding this effect in the human population as well due to the adverse effects such an increase in glucocorticoids can have on health. However, you are welcome to your opinion, as unfounded as it may be.
animal trials. especially mice, have almost zero correlation or relevance to human metabolic behavior. If you had done the appropriate background, you would know this.
Oh my goodness....... I guess the concern these researchers have for humans in regards to this issue means nothing?
Ok. .
if you say so.....;)
7 -
If I want to test whether paper is weakened by soaking it in balsamic vinegar but, due to the price/value of balsamic vinegar I decide it's cheaper/better to run the experiment with tap water and extrapolate that vinegar would yield similar results, I likely wouldn't be far off. However...
If I want to study the effect of adding baking soda to balsamic vinegar but, due to the price/value of balsamic vinegar I decide it's cheaper/better to run the experiment with tap water and extrapolate that vinegar would yield similar results, things would be rather different.
Mice aren't humans. They aren't necessarily going to respond the same way that humans do. Depending on where you stand on animal experimentation (I'm in favor for medical research, opposed for cosmetic), it can be a necessary first step. But it's definitely not the last one.13 -
theresejesu wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »theresejesu wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »theresejesu wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »theresejesu 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.
None of which was supported by the human data.
The hypothesis was indeed supported by the human data, it which it was stated:
"In addition, increased rhythmical glucocorticoid action may increase metabolic water production by promoting protein, fat, and sugar breakdown."
You seem to have significant issues with critical thinking and reading comprehension.
If you say so.
Maybe read everything I said again?
The hypothesis was verified in animal models. There is significant concern regarding this effect in the human population as well due to the adverse effects such an increase in glucocorticoids can have on health. However, you are welcome to your opinion, as unfounded as it may be.
This is good advice - one of those "physician heal thyself moments".14 -
accidentalpancake wrote: »The_Enginerd wrote: »theresejesu wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »theresejesu wrote: »amusedmonkey 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...9 -
The_Enginerd wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »The_Enginerd wrote: »theresejesu wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »theresejesu wrote: »amusedmonkey 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.1 -
Mr_Healthy_Habits wrote: »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.3 -
The_Enginerd wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »The_Enginerd wrote: »theresejesu wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »theresejesu wrote: »amusedmonkey 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.0 -
Another unpopular opinion I have is that fat-shaming has its place as long as the person doesn't have a legitimate eating disorder or medical problem. Hey, I was obese and if it wasn't for being fat-shamed I'd be even bigger today instead of 195lbs and 10%bf with an addiction to nutrition and working out. So don't say I haven't walked in their shoes. The problem I have with it is your obesity is affecting EVERYONE. Medical costs, health insurance costs, fast food on every corner from demand, you flowing onto my lap on the plane, etc, etc, etc.11
-
joemac1988 wrote: »Another unpopular opinion I have is that fat-shaming has its place as long as the person doesn't have a legitimate eating disorder or medical problem. Hey, I was obese and if it wasn't for being fat-shamed I'd be even bigger today instead of 195lbs and 10%bf with an addiction to nutrition and working out. So don't say I haven't walked in their shoes. The problem I have with it is your obesity is affecting EVERYONE. Medical costs, health insurance costs, fast food on every corner from demand, you flowing onto my lap on the plane, etc, etc, etc.
Fat-shaming is NEVER okay.
17 -
joemac1988 wrote: »Another unpopular opinion I have is that fat-shaming has its place as long as the person doesn't have a legitimate eating disorder or medical problem. Hey, I was obese and if it wasn't for being fat-shamed I'd be even bigger today instead of 195lbs and 10%bf with an addiction to nutrition and working out. So don't say I haven't walked in their shoes. The problem I have with it is your obesity is affecting EVERYONE. Medical costs, health insurance costs, fast food on every corner from demand, you flowing onto my lap on the plane, etc, etc, etc.
Yawn....another former fatty who's turned the self hate they had for themselves while obese into a judgmental attitude for those still struggling.
Look, you don't ever have the right to tell someone they're too fat. YOUR obesity ALSO affected EVERYONE while you were obese and if you got a kick in the pants and fixed it, good on ya. However, a kick in the pants doesn't work for everyone and, again, you aren't the one who gets to make that choice for other people.
For me, I don't approve of obesity, my own, or anyone else's. All the problems you listed are legitimate consequences of obesity. I would never try to shame someone into losing weight, however, and the person who tried to do so to me would find out just how mistaken they were in the assumption that they had any right to do so.
29 -
joemac1988 wrote: »Another unpopular opinion I have is that fat-shaming has its place as long as the person doesn't have a legitimate eating disorder or medical problem. Hey, I was obese and if it wasn't for being fat-shamed I'd be even bigger today instead of 195lbs and 10%bf with an addiction to nutrition and working out. So don't say I haven't walked in their shoes. The problem I have with it is your obesity is affecting EVERYONE. Medical costs, health insurance costs, fast food on every corner from demand, you flowing onto my lap on the plane, etc, etc, etc.
shame isn't the right word, but i tend to agree.3 -
You might not mean fat shaming, perhaps you mean a tough love approach, but that's not the best approach for everyone.
People are wired differently. I can personally tell you that my mother's tough love approach backfired and just led me to disordered behavior and thinking with food it's taken years to outgrow.
There is no place for genuine fat shaming, and furthermore, fat people really do know they shouldn't be fat.13 -
I really think there's something to Intermittent Fasting....5
-
Spartan_Gingi wrote: »I really think there's something to Intermittent Fasting....
In that it creates a calorie deficit....sure..magical, nope9 -
I think programming...CAN be overrated. And it is dogmatic, in that, it creates barriers for people to try other types of exercise, diet, or sleep regimens. Specifically I feel that people will cling to a "program" even when what they are using is not providing adequate results given appropriate effort and time to take root. Sticking with a program because it's "proven" but is failing YOU is a phenomenon called "sunk cause effect". Staying on an unsinkable ship because you were told it's unsinkable that happens to be sinking does not change the fact that it is sinking. Find a life raft and move to safety.8
-
The_Enginerd wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »The_Enginerd wrote: »theresejesu wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »theresejesu wrote: »amusedmonkey 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.
It seems there was a study done recently which used smart phone data, but it's behind a paywall.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v547/n7663/full/nature23018.html1 -
Spartan_Gingi wrote: »I really think there's something to Intermittent Fasting....
I used an IF protocol for my weight loss phase and another for the first few years of maintenance and it worked well for me-but really it was just a way to make calorie adherence easier for me. Like pp said-it's nothing magical, but just another tool that can be used to help you achieve your calorie goals.6 -
Spartan_Gingi wrote: »I really think there's something to Intermittent Fasting....
It is a great tool to keep calorie intake within goals without feeling as hungry. I use IF to feel more satisfied by my meals. Trying to spread a limited amount of calories over a full day just makes me feel deprived, and I've never been a breakfast person. I also worry less about my digestive issues interfering with my life and eat when I have time to prepare my food at home.1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »theresejesu wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »theresejesu 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.htmlIt 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.
I'm trying to wrap my mind around the idea that they were considering 6 g salt a day "low salt" and 12 g "high salt"
For reference, the RDA is for most people 1.5 to 2 grams daily.
6 -
I believe in IF. Been doing 1.5 yrs and never been this lean. I dont believe in too much protein unless youre a serious body builder.
I think too much protein can be bad and lead to disease. I dont really know what too much is. My gut says 1gm per lb of body weight is ok for a lifter. You can still lift and be ok on .5 to .75 gm per lb of body weight if youre not looking to bulk. Women only need 40-50 gm of protein per day.
I know my opinion is unpopular. I know people that eat north of 200gm of protein and disagree. Its ok.
I also know that many different strategies work for people, Theres not just one and only way to achieve your goal.
Read and listen to it all and craft a plan for you.
8 -
LOL That's how I pictured my running before I had kids. Then I had a child who would not nap in a stroller nor sit still in it past age 1. Then I had another child who could not sit up in our double stroller until almost 6 months old, but by then the oldest would not tolerate a stroller more than 20 minutes. And then I had three kids under age 5, a husband who worked away from home,... that was that for long runs. Darn it.
11 -
The_Enginerd wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »The_Enginerd wrote: »theresejesu wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »theresejesu wrote: »amusedmonkey 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 pretty sure that 3770 kcal energy consumption is grossly overstated because it counts all food available but not any food waste, of which we have considerable amouonts.5 -
1
-
clicketykeys wrote: »Don't you mean "HeHeHeHeHe"?
i like you. you can have free helium for the first year.
7 -
canadianlbs wrote: »clicketykeys wrote: »Don't you mean "HeHeHeHeHe"?
i like you. you can have free helium for the first year.
And this is exactly why I shall begin the Boron Resistance Movement. I shan't become just another minion to someone who sees themselves as a benevolent overload while controlling the population's helium.
8 -
nutmegoreo wrote: »canadianlbs wrote: »clicketykeys wrote: »Don't you mean "HeHeHeHeHe"?
i like you. you can have free helium for the first year.
And this is exactly why I shall begin the Boron Resistance Movement. I shan't become just another minion to someone who sees themselves as a benevolent overload while controlling the population's helium.
butbutbut . . . oh fine. i'm an introvert anyway, prolly don't want the whole world trying to buy stuff from me.
2 -
canadianlbs wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »canadianlbs wrote: »clicketykeys wrote: »Don't you mean "HeHeHeHeHe"?
i like you. you can have free helium for the first year.
And this is exactly why I shall begin the Boron Resistance Movement. I shan't become just another minion to someone who sees themselves as a benevolent overload while controlling the population's helium.
butbutbut . . . oh fine. i'm an introvert anyway, prolly don't want the whole world trying to buy stuff from me.
Not to mention the assassination attempts.
3 -
joemac1988 wrote: »Another unpopular opinion I have is that fat-shaming has its place as long as the person doesn't have a legitimate eating disorder or medical problem. Hey, I was obese and if it wasn't for being fat-shamed I'd be even bigger today instead of 195lbs and 10%bf with an addiction to nutrition and working out. So don't say I haven't walked in their shoes. The problem I have with it is your obesity is affecting EVERYONE. Medical costs, health insurance costs, fast food on every corner from demand, you flowing onto my lap on the plane, etc, etc, etc.
I remember a world where everyone wasn't so damned fragile, where people weren't obsessed with political correctness, and (gasp) people communicated honestly. Tactful, honest, constructive criticism has a place in society and redacting honesty from communication to spare feelings can (and has) enable(d) people to comfortably engage in destructive behavior and suffer real damage that is far beyond anything that words can inflict upon them.18 -
Bry_Lander wrote: »joemac1988 wrote: »Another unpopular opinion I have is that fat-shaming has its place as long as the person doesn't have a legitimate eating disorder or medical problem. Hey, I was obese and if it wasn't for being fat-shamed I'd be even bigger today instead of 195lbs and 10%bf with an addiction to nutrition and working out. So don't say I haven't walked in their shoes. The problem I have with it is your obesity is affecting EVERYONE. Medical costs, health insurance costs, fast food on every corner from demand, you flowing onto my lap on the plane, etc, etc, etc.
I remember a world where everyone wasn't so damned fragile, where people weren't obsessed with political correctness, and (gasp) people communicated honestly. Tactful, honest, constructive criticism has a place in society and redacting honesty from communication to spare feelings can (and has) enable(d) people to comfortably engage in destructive behavior and suffer real damage that is far beyond anything that words can inflict upon them.
Yeah, the PE teacher told the kids who couldn't run a mile they were out of shape. Maybe had them run extra to fix the issue instead of letting them sit in the shade or stroll around the track like we do now5 -
Those kids knew they were out of shape and shaming them didn't necessarily help.
I started overeating when I hit puberty because I was sexually molested when I was a small child and developing sexual characteristics was scary. I didn't want to be attractive.
None of this was a conscious decision on my part, it took me years to sort through all of this, but I have to tell you that my story is not unique. I have to question how the fat shaming and bullying I experienced on the playground in anyway helped me or dealt with the issues underlying the cause of my being fat.
There are many reasons why a person could be fat, and not all of them are simplistic. To assume that relative strangers should pipe up and say something when in fact they could be doing more harm than good is really ignoring how complex obesity is.37
This discussion has been closed.
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
- 427 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