It's All Sugar's Fault

psuLemon wrote: »

GaleHawkins wrote: »

psuLemon wrote: »

GaleHawkins wrote: »

hale03071 wrote: »

People are eating more processed, boxed, packaged foods, not to mention eating out more than ever. Yes, sugar and grains are super calorie dense in comparison to the nutrition they provide. Cut out sugar and grains and I wonder how hard it would be to stick to staying under your deficit (or maintenance if you are at that stage)....I know I have a really hard time eating even 1300 calories a day since I stopped eating sugar and grains.

I do not think most anyone can gain weight if one truly cuts out sugar and grains. With them I was able to be obese because of the carb cravings that I had. Now without sugar or any form of any grain I eat until I am stuffed and after three years still am losing about 1/2 pound per month on average with out counting anything calorie wise. Just last night I ate at McDonald's and for the heck of it counted up the calories in my double hamburger, salad and coffee and it came to 435 calories so I had another cup of coffee to bump the meal up to 535 calories since it was free.

Don't be so naive. I know people who are Ketogenic who have gotten fat.

I expect those people were pulling your leg. I tried really hard but had to force myself to over eat to break out to the upside. While eating less than 50 grams of carbs fixed my eating disorder I give you the possibility that it might not fix everyone. No one I expect can eat enough to become obese without some kind of health issue and or they set obesity as their health goal for some sport, etc.

First, no those people weren't pulling me leg. In fact, I modified their diet to reduce fat and increase protein/fiber consumption while still hitting ketogenic guidelines. They were consistently gaining weight at less than 50g of carb.


And if we are going to head down this path, let's be honest here, you are not even that lean. If you want to look at the lean individuals in this thread, and largely this forum, they are largely higher carb (men and women). And that is fine, but you can't suggest you have the ultimate path if you aren't as lean at the individuals who you are arguing. And maybe you don't want to be that lean, which is fine, but your being a bit obtuse with your thinking.

I don't think he'll go that far down the path, 1/4 mile max.

GaleHawkins wrote: »

psuLemon wrote: »

GaleHawkins wrote: »

psuLemon wrote: »

GaleHawkins wrote: »

hale03071 wrote: »

People are eating more processed, boxed, packaged foods, not to mention eating out more than ever. Yes, sugar and grains are super calorie dense in comparison to the nutrition they provide. Cut out sugar and grains and I wonder how hard it would be to stick to staying under your deficit (or maintenance if you are at that stage)....I know I have a really hard time eating even 1300 calories a day since I stopped eating sugar and grains.

I do not think most anyone can gain weight if one truly cuts out sugar and grains. With them I was able to be obese because of the carb cravings that I had. Now without sugar or any form of any grain I eat until I am stuffed and after three years still am losing about 1/2 pound per month on average with out counting anything calorie wise. Just last night I ate at McDonald's and for the heck of it counted up the calories in my double hamburger, salad and coffee and it came to 435 calories so I had another cup of coffee to bump the meal up to 535 calories since it was free.

Don't be so naive. I know people who are Ketogenic who have gotten fat.

I expect those people were pulling your leg. I tried really hard but had to force myself to over eat to break out to the upside. While eating less than 50 grams of carbs fixed my eating disorder I give you the possibility that it might not fix everyone. No one I expect can eat enough to become obese without some kind of health issue and or they set obesity as their health goal for some sport, etc.

First, no those people weren't pulling me leg. In fact, I modified their diet to reduce fat and increase protein/fiber consumption while still hitting ketogenic guidelines. They were consistently gaining weight at less than 50g of carb.


And if we are going to head down this path, let's be honest here, you are not even that lean. If you want to look at the lean individuals in this thread, and largely this forum, they are largely higher carb (men and women). And that is fine, but you can't suggest you have the ultimate path if you aren't as lean at the individuals who you are arguing. And maybe you don't want to be that lean, which is fine, but your being a bit obtuse with your thinking.

So you are down to name calling now based on the below from Google?

ob·tuse
əbˈt(y)o͞os,äbˈt(y)o͞os/Submit
adjective
1.
annoyingly insensitive or slow to understand.
"he wondered if the doctor was being deliberately obtuse"
synonyms: stupid, slow-witted, slow, dull-witted, unintelligent, ignorant, simpleminded, witless; More
2.
(of an angle) more than 90° and less than 180°.

No, I am not trying to be insulting. That fact that you don't think we have mechanism to store fat when carbs are low, and insult my experience with working with people who have, is not only pedantic, but short sighted. Our bodies would not survive if we didn't have multiple hormones to store fats. And if you really care to figure it out, I'd suggest starting with Acylation Stimulating Protein, and Glucose-Dependent Insulinotropic Peptide. Both of which inhibit Hormone Sensitive Lipase, which is the fat burning hormone. This is similar to how insulin inhibits HSL.

WinoGelato wrote: »

GaleHawkins wrote: »

psuLemon wrote: »

GaleHawkins wrote: »

hale03071 wrote: »

People are eating more processed, boxed, packaged foods, not to mention eating out more than ever. Yes, sugar and grains are super calorie dense in comparison to the nutrition they provide. Cut out sugar and grains and I wonder how hard it would be to stick to staying under your deficit (or maintenance if you are at that stage)....I know I have a really hard time eating even 1300 calories a day since I stopped eating sugar and grains.

I do not think most anyone can gain weight if one truly cuts out sugar and grains. With them I was able to be obese because of the carb cravings that I had. Now without sugar or any form of any grain I eat until I am stuffed and after three years still am losing about 1/2 pound per month on average with out counting anything calorie wise. Just last night I ate at McDonald's and for the heck of it counted up the calories in my double hamburger, salad and coffee and it came to 435 calories so I had another cup of coffee to bump the meal up to 535 calories since it was free.

Don't be so naive. I know people who are Ketogenic who have gotten fat.

I expect those people were pulling your leg. I tried really hard but had to force myself to over eat to break out to the upside. While eating less than 50 grams of carbs fixed my eating disorder I give you the possibility that it might not fix everyone. No one I expect can eat enough to become obese without some kind of health issue and or they set obesity as their health goal for some sport, etc.

What eating disorder are you referring to? Your "carb cravings"? That. Is. NOT. An. Eating. Disorder. Are you also back to claiming that anyone who is obese has an eating disorder?

More like claiming that eating carbs at all is an eating disorder.

WinoGelato wrote: »

GaleHawkins wrote: »

psuLemon wrote: »

GaleHawkins wrote: »

hale03071 wrote: »

People are eating more processed, boxed, packaged foods, not to mention eating out more than ever. Yes, sugar and grains are super calorie dense in comparison to the nutrition they provide. Cut out sugar and grains and I wonder how hard it would be to stick to staying under your deficit (or maintenance if you are at that stage)....I know I have a really hard time eating even 1300 calories a day since I stopped eating sugar and grains.

I do not think most anyone can gain weight if one truly cuts out sugar and grains. With them I was able to be obese because of the carb cravings that I had. Now without sugar or any form of any grain I eat until I am stuffed and after three years still am losing about 1/2 pound per month on average with out counting anything calorie wise. Just last night I ate at McDonald's and for the heck of it counted up the calories in my double hamburger, salad and coffee and it came to 435 calories so I had another cup of coffee to bump the meal up to 535 calories since it was free.

Don't be so naive. I know people who are Ketogenic who have gotten fat.

I expect those people were pulling your leg. I tried really hard but had to force myself to over eat to break out to the upside. While eating less than 50 grams of carbs fixed my eating disorder I give you the possibility that it might not fix everyone. No one I expect can eat enough to become obese without some kind of health issue and or they set obesity as their health goal for some sport, etc.

What eating disorder are you referring to? Your "carb cravings"? That. Is. NOT. An. Eating. Disorder. Are you also back to claiming that anyone who is obese has an eating disorder?

Yep, as someone who actually had an eating disorder, it's pretty offensive.

ladyhusker39 wrote: »

richln wrote: »

Here is another neat one, from USDA data. Americans are eating more total calories, more added fats, and more flours/cereals than their parents and grandparents:

Source: http://geeksta.net/visualizations/calories-us/

I'm not entirely sure where this graph got it's raw data. It is somewhat at odds with the USDA ERS Food Availability data. (Loss-Adjusted Calories)

Two things stand out to me in the raw data.
1. Our average caloric intake rose consistently through the 1990s to 2000, then plateaued for the next decade, only to start falling again in 2009. It will be interesting to see what happens when they release the next several years of data.
2. Between 1990 and 2000 average caloric intake increased by 14%. That alone clearly explains most of the expanding weight problem observed.

cwolfman13 wrote: »

First off, I highly doubt people now are eating the same calories as our partents and grandparent.

This is true. We're eating more. Actually this is a REALLY GOOD THING because historically malnutrition and hunger were widespread. For all the awareness about food deserts and hunger now, the phenomenon of real, sustained hunger and malnutrition are blessedly rare in the USA.

My grandparents and my parents moved a lot more than we do now...even if they had a desk job, they still had to do a lot more things manually.

Here is the other key to why we weigh more. My grandfathers were a farmer and a ditch digger. They ate a lot. By a lot I mean more than 6,000 calories a day a lot. And until retirement both men were lean.

Every morning for breakfast my mom's dad ate 6 eggs, cooked floating in butter, with 4 slices of bacon and two thick slices of toast from homemade bread, slathered in butter and jam. A few extra slices of toast while out the door. Probably with peanut butter. He ate breakfast, morning snack, dinner (a BIG meal), afternoon snack, late afternoon snack, supper, and dessert. Every day. By "snack" I mean at least 400 calories worth of food, too.

My dad's dad would eat breakfast, mid-morning snack, lunch, dinner, mid-afternoon snack, late afternoon snack, supper, and follow up with dessert and typically a pre-bed snack.He reminded me of Popeye, with muscles that bulged and popped. He was probably the most muscular and strongest man I've ever known. Same as my other grandfather, "Snacks" described what a lot of people here would call a meal. When I first read "The Lord of the Rings", Pippin's woeful account of meals that they were missing seemed normal to me because that's exactly how my family ate.

And talk about calorie-dense foods! Ever heard of Rømmegrøt? Swedish meatballs on mashed potatoes? Blodpølse? And EVERYTHING was slathered in butter. And jam. But they worked hard, everyone did, and everyone needed those calories. Even at my most active I don't even begin to hold a candle to how my grandparents worked. And as such, I need a fraction of the calories.

The adjustment was clearly hardest on my parents. They grew up in this hard-work environment, working along side their parents. Getting used to smaller and fewer meals took conscious effort and a real change in lifestyle.

I think that generational adjustment is occurring in a great many families as the transition from manual labor to other types of work has become profound over the last 50 years. Kids today grow up in an environment of abundant food but low physical demand. It's pretty clear families haven't adjusted to the new reality of food needs and are still using traditional eating patterns. There's no conspiracy to it either; we've evolved to want food, to want high-calorie foods in particular, because people who ate more had a significant survival edge in scarcity. We're not unique in this, most mammals exhibit the same behaviors and will become obese when food is abundant and challenges scarce.

GaleHawkins wrote: »

psuLemon wrote: »

GaleHawkins wrote: »

psuLemon wrote: »

GaleHawkins wrote: »

psuLemon wrote: »

GaleHawkins wrote: »

hale03071 wrote: »

People are eating more processed, boxed, packaged foods, not to mention eating out more than ever. Yes, sugar and grains are super calorie dense in comparison to the nutrition they provide. Cut out sugar and grains and I wonder how hard it would be to stick to staying under your deficit (or maintenance if you are at that stage)....I know I have a really hard time eating even 1300 calories a day since I stopped eating sugar and grains.

I do not think most anyone can gain weight if one truly cuts out sugar and grains. With them I was able to be obese because of the carb cravings that I had. Now without sugar or any form of any grain I eat until I am stuffed and after three years still am losing about 1/2 pound per month on average with out counting anything calorie wise. Just last night I ate at McDonald's and for the heck of it counted up the calories in my double hamburger, salad and coffee and it came to 435 calories so I had another cup of coffee to bump the meal up to 535 calories since it was free.

Don't be so naive. I know people who are Ketogenic who have gotten fat.

I expect those people were pulling your leg. I tried really hard but had to force myself to over eat to break out to the upside. While eating less than 50 grams of carbs fixed my eating disorder I give you the possibility that it might not fix everyone. No one I expect can eat enough to become obese without some kind of health issue and or they set obesity as their health goal for some sport, etc.

First, no those people weren't pulling me leg. In fact, I modified their diet to reduce fat and increase protein/fiber consumption while still hitting ketogenic guidelines. They were consistently gaining weight at less than 50g of carb.


And if we are going to head down this path, let's be honest here, you are not even that lean. If you want to look at the lean individuals in this thread, and largely this forum, they are largely higher carb (men and women). And that is fine, but you can't suggest you have the ultimate path if you aren't as lean at the individuals who you are arguing. And maybe you don't want to be that lean, which is fine, but your being a bit obtuse with your thinking.

So you are down to name calling now based on the below from Google?

ob·tuse
əbˈt(y)o͞os,äbˈt(y)o͞os/Submit
adjective
1.
annoyingly insensitive or slow to understand.
"he wondered if the doctor was being deliberately obtuse"
synonyms: stupid, slow-witted, slow, dull-witted, unintelligent, ignorant, simpleminded, witless; More
2.
(of an angle) more than 90° and less than 180°.

No, I am not trying to be insulting. That fact that you don't think we have mechanism to store fat when carbs are low, and insult my experience with working with people who have, is not only pedantic, but short sighted. Our bodies would not survive if we didn't have multiple hormones to store fats. And if you really care to figure it out, I'd suggest starting with Acylation Stimulating Protein, and Glucose-Dependent Insulinotropic Peptide. Both of which inhibit Hormone Sensitive Lipase, which is the fat burning hormone. This is similar to how insulin inhibits HSL.

I will work to resolve my complaint through the proper channels.

Being told that you're being obtuse is not an insult. As per the definition you quoted, it means slow to understand.
That in perspective, you have been slow to understand the points others have made in this thread (seemingly deliberately so). Pointing out to you that explanations and answers have already been offered to the points you continue to belabor is not an insult.
Trying to make it out that anyone has insulted you by stating that you're being obtuse in this discussion is almost as much grasping at straws as quoting a lawsuit as proof that aspartame is bad...

I think a little column A a little column B. I think we probably eat the same volume of food our ancestors did, but we eat foods that are more calorie dense. I also think that sugar has rather unique effects on our brain chemistry that hurt our ability to control our appetites... (I say as I chow down on a p-nutty bar...)

Oh, good grief. Again?

I'm betting your doctor is materially younger than I am. (I'm 62.) I've been alive and even adult since most of the "obesity crisis" developed. It's the flippin' culture.

In my childhood and beyond:

• A higher percentage of people had physically active jobs, and even "sedentary" jobs were more physical (walk to the filing room, fetch the files you need, bring to your desk, take them back to central files later; write on chalkboard with chalk while walking back & forth rather than projecting PowerPoint; etc.)
• People had more physical hobbies, on average, because video games didn't exist, and even TVs made you get up to change the channel. Reading was completely sedentary, along with a few other hobbies, but active play for all ages was more common. More people played musical instruments instead of just listening; played sports (lower-energy ones, maybe, but moving) or danced vs. only watching others do these things; etc.
• Household chores involved more movement. No Roomba, few riding lawn mowers, etc.
• Gas stations were gas stations, not snack stores. Some gas stations might have a pop machine or cooler, with a small selection of 7 or 12oz bottles, and maybe a spinner rack of small chip bags, but there were no taquitos, roller grills, pizza slices, mega-Slushies, etc. There weren't snack stores per se much at all, just grocery stores, and they had shorter hours.
• Cars didnt have cup holders because we had nearly nothing to put in them, and most people rarely ate in their cars.
• Most people ate at home most of the time. There were fewer (by far) prepared foods in grocery stores, and their nutritional profiles were more similar to from-scratch foods, and portion sizes smaller. Even typical bowls and plates are a little larger now (as I know from having recently shopped to replace some).
• Fast food was just getting off the ground, wasn't even in every town, let alone ubiquitous. The fast food items were smaller at first, too - not super-sized. There were sit-down restaurants in most places, but too expensive for working-class people to eat every meal. Drive-throughs were not a thing at first, either.
• The range of snack foods of all types was smaller, and they were less ubiquitous.To the extent they existed (like candy bars), the average size was smaller.

I could go on and on . . . oh, wait: I just did. But there's much more I could add.

It takes only a few hundred calories of increased food or decreased movement on average per person per day to explain the obesity crisis, and there are certainly that many calories in that list.

TL;DR: It's not the sugar, or any other demon food/ingredient. People move less, and eat more. It's the *baby-feline* culture.

AnnPT77 wrote: »

Oh, good grief. Again?

I'm betting your doctor is materially younger than I am. (I'm 62.) I've been alive and even adult since most of the "obesity crisis" developed. It's the flippin' culture.

In my childhood and beyond:

• A higher percentage of people had physically active jobs, and even "sedentary" jobs were more physical (walk to the filing room, fetch the files you need, bring to your desk, take them back to central files later; write on chalkboard with chalk while walking back & forth rather than projecting PowerPoint; etc.)
• People had more physical hobbies, on average, because video games didn't exist, and even TVs made you get up to change the channel. Reading was completely sedentary, along with a few other hobbies, but active play for all ages was more common. More people played musical instruments instead of just listening; played sports (lower-energy ones, maybe, but moving) or danced vs. only watching others do these things; etc.
• Household chores involved more movement. No Roomba, few riding lawn mowers, etc.
• Gas stations were gas stations, not snack stores. Some gas stations might have a pop machine or cooler, with a small selection of 7 or 12oz bottles, and maybe a spinner rack of small chip bags, but there were no taquitos, roller grills, pizza slices, mega-Slushies, etc. There weren't snack stores per se much at all, just grocery stores, and they had shorter hours.
• Cars didnt have cup holders because we had nearly nothing to put in them, and most people rarely ate in their cars.
• Most people ate at home most of the time. There were fewer (by far) prepared foods in grocery stores, and their nutritional profiles were more similar to from-scratch foods, and portion sizes smaller. Even typical bowls and plates are a little larger now (as I know from having recently shopped to replace some).
• Fast food was just getting off the ground, wasn't even in every town, let alone ubiquitous. The fast food items were smaller at first, too - not super-sized. There were sit-down restaurants in most places, but too expensive for working-class people to eat every meal. Drive-throughs were not a thing at first, either.
• The range of snack foods of all types was smaller, and they were less ubiquitous.To the extent they existed (like candy bars), the average size was smaller.

I could go on and on . . . oh, wait: I just did. But there's much more I could add.

It takes only a few hundred calories of increased food or decreased movement on average per person per day to explain the obesity crisis, and there are certainly that many calories in that list.

TL;DR: It's not the sugar, or any other demon food/ingredient. People move less, and eat more. It's the *baby-feline* culture.

Oh I so identify and agree with this.

There was no snacking or free- for- alls in the kitchen, food was not that abundant, it was portioned out.

Eating out was a treat and you got dressed up for it.

Sweets, and savoury snacks like crisps, of any kind were an occasional treat, not something that had its own cupboard.

Food was not allowed at your work space. You went to the break room, park, or home for your lunch.

We also walked everywhere that was under about 3 miles, swept the floors with a broom, scrubbed it on hands and knees, and did laundry by hand.

Yes this is a bit extreme, but was normal where I grew up. Post war, poor working class, industrial northern England.

Cheers, h.

cwolfman13 wrote: »

GaleHawkins wrote: »

psuLemon wrote: »

GaleHawkins wrote: »

hale03071 wrote: »

People are eating more processed, boxed, packaged foods, not to mention eating out more than ever. Yes, sugar and grains are super calorie dense in comparison to the nutrition they provide. Cut out sugar and grains and I wonder how hard it would be to stick to staying under your deficit (or maintenance if you are at that stage)....I know I have a really hard time eating even 1300 calories a day since I stopped eating sugar and grains.

I do not think most anyone can gain weight if one truly cuts out sugar and grains. With them I was able to be obese because of the carb cravings that I had. Now without sugar or any form of any grain I eat until I am stuffed and after three years still am losing about 1/2 pound per month on average with out counting anything calorie wise. Just last night I ate at McDonald's and for the heck of it counted up the calories in my double hamburger, salad and coffee and it came to 435 calories so I had another cup of coffee to bump the meal up to 535 calories since it was free.

Don't be so naive. I know people who are Ketogenic who have gotten fat.

I expect those people were pulling your leg. I tried really hard but had to force myself to over eat to break out to the upside. While eating less than 50 grams of carbs fixed my eating disorder I give you the possibility that it might not fix everyone. No one I expect can eat enough to become obese without some kind of health issue and or they set obesity as their health goal for some sport, etc.

Lol....Wut? People are sedentary as hell...it's super easy to overeat without some healthy issue.

You consistently make these claims that everyone must have some kind of underlying issue or eating disorder which led them to be obese...I'd say those people are actually in the minority and that most people are just eating normally and aren't even giving a second thought to their food. Portions are large and it's pretty stinkin' easy to eat a lot of calories without even trying.

I was lean my entire life and a competitive athlete from 2nd grade all the way through high school...then the military and then college where I didn't own a car and biked and walked everywhere and worked in retail and landscape construction. I gained my weight to the point of just being obese when I took a desk job working 12 hour days and 6-8 hour days on Saturdays and traveling for work 25 weeks out of the year. I went from being a very active person to sitting at a desk all day...I had no disorder or health issue or any other kind of underlying thing that led to me getting fat. I got fat because I stopped moving...it took about 10 years.

People do not get fat because they stop moving as I see it but because for some reason our fuel gauge breaks and we over eat our requirements. My binge carb eating disorder was resolved within the matter of a few weeks so I automatically started recovering health wise and no meds, doctors, etc were required as well as no counting and measuring.

Healthy animals eating the right macro do not typically become obese in nature. There is no medical evidence that I have seen where healthy people become unhealthy without there being some underlying cause. It may be due to the way we think, eat and or move but there is always a cause to becoming obese. Finding and understanding the cause is the $64K question however.