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.

It's All Sugar's Fault

Options
1…68101112

Replies

  • nvmomketo
    nvmomketo Posts: 12,019 Member
    Options
    russelljam08 wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    russelljam08 wrote: »
    PrimalForLife wrote: »
    VintageFeline wrote: »
    I found out what the metabolic effects of sugar are. Well, sort of. If bad science affects your metabolism. Hyper-palatable food and grains are evil and caused the increase in obesity. Apparently. Why do people so confident in their beliefs, thinking they have science to back up those beliefs, suddenly come over all shy when challenged and insist on sending PMs explaining things? I don't want a PM, I want you to be prepared to lay your cards out and either be debunked or acknowledged. Why bother even commenting on a thread if you won't defend your position?

    My bad, I should have seen this discussion was tagged with 'Debate'...

    To keep things digestible (pun intended) for 'metabolism', the concepts are put in point form:

    The mitochondria in your cells provide you energy for your life (this goes for everyone, biology 101)
    The number of mitochondria in your cells/body determine your overall energy access of your system
    Your Mitochondria burn fat more cleanly than they do sugar (glucose)
    If your body needs glucose, it can make it from protein in the process called Gluconeogenesis
    Burning fat requires oxygen, burning glucose doesn't, thus glucose burning leads to degeneration of mitochondria over time
    Degeneration of the number of your mitochondria in your cells over time is bad for you
    Exercising can build up mitochondria, but can't fully combat a high-carb load over time, especially as people age
    Mitochondria can be recovered over time if they are allowed to return to burning their preferred/clean source of fuel
    The more mitochondria you have, the more efficiently you process energy in your system
    Burning your own body fat can only be achieved in a certain hormonal balance (insulin, leptin, etc.) in the body
    Eating a high carbohydrate diet pushes your hormonal balance off so the body can't access it's preferred fuel (fat)
    Becoming fat adapted/metabolically flexible is the process of establishing a balance so you can burn preferred fuel again (body fat) as well as eating other foods
    Our bodies maintain and repair it's own cells when we allow ourselves to not be in a 'constantly fueled state'
    Allowing our bodies to repair itself leads to reduced disease, efficiency of our energy system and overall wellness

    Bonus topic - Ketones:

    The benefits of becoming fat adapted also help the brain have access to Ketones, which are proving to be amazing 'brain food', and likely our 'native' source
    The brain uses 20-25% of our daily energy requirements, feeding it properly has profound implications
    In a Keto-adapted state, our brain can utilize 75-80% of it's energy from Ketones

    (Don't take it from me, any of those points can searched online and you can read the pertinent scientific papers - be warned, they are lengthy...)

    Hopefully that clarifies the 'effects on metabolism' - please take the time to do a little research on the above.

    Thanks -

    Ketosis is the bodies "famine" metabolism. No it is not "native". The first human foods were fruit, honey, and tubers.
    Your brain wants glucose and will literally break down your own organs and muscle tissue to make it. The longest living populations ALL have a higher percentage of their diets in carbs. When traditional cultures start adding fat to their diets, then they start to exhibit signs of diabetes and heart disease(Asians are a good test case:
    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/09/140917151935.htm

    Inuits aren't even in ketosis, thousands of years of evolution on their "high fat" diet created a genetic mutation where they are never in ketosis(it would kill them).

    It would kill them??? Where did you get that from? ... Yeah, I read it that way too.

    I think it is more likely that they are so fat adapted, good at using fat and ketones for their primary fuel, that they don't make excessive ketones that are measurable on a ketostix.

    I've been in ketosis for most of the past 2-3 years and rarely ever test positive for ketones on ketostix, or if I do it is trace amounts. If I eat not a single vegetable in a day, the ketostix result doesn't change.

    The Inuit used to eat almost exclusively meat, with only some of it cooked. That would provide some carbs but I would be shocked if glucose was found to be a primary fuel for energy. If ketones killed them, they would die in their sleep.


    That study you linked shows a lot of things, but not exactly that fat is bad. More along the lines of replacing fibrous whole foods in a higher carb diet may be more healthful to asians than the standard american diet (where whole food carbs and their fibre is replaced by some sort of fat - what sort was unclear but since protein barely changed I am guessing it was from plant oils...not always great).


    And glucose is provided to the brain and RBC's by gluconeogenesis in the liver. Those triglycerides can make the glucose you need. And then eventually the brain's glucose needs decreases by a fair bit as it comes to use ketones. It does not NEED dietary glucose/carbs.

    Glucose is what the body wants and NEEDS, forcing your starvation metabolism to break down fats to make glucose is a process necessary during times of starvation and is unnecessarily stressful to the body. The brains decreasing glucose needs are a means to SURVIVAL. Do you think it is a smart idea to force your body to have to fight for every drop of glucose and turn on physiological processes that only happen during times of starvation? The whole "nutritional" keto thing is an oxymoron, and is a made up concept by people peddling books and blogs. I know a glucose staved brain has trouble comprehending things, but You might do better to take some graduate level classes instead of getting your information from blogs. ;)

    You are wrong, Maybe confused? And a little rude too. LOL

    Sooo, what if I ate 3000kcal in burgers and steaks, minus the buns.... I'm in ketosis because I am starving or because my body is using some metabolic fuel flexibility?

    And I stay mostly keto because of the cognitive improvements that I experienced shortly after starting the diet. My brain like ketones fine.
  • psuLemon
    psuLemon Posts: 38,404 MFP Moderator
    Options
    Xaxxus wrote: »
    I'm not gonna argue with anyone in this thread about whether sugar is good or bad for you.

    But if you want to know the answer, look up the blood test results of people who have been on a ketogenic diet for more then a year. Compare those with someone who has lost weight on a conventional diet for a year. Still don't believe it? Check out this community.

    You can lose weight on any diet, its possible even eating nothing but McDonalds (I wouldn't recommend this though as you will be missing a lot of nutrients). Its all a numbers game. Calories in calories out.

    You really should research the blue zones and then try to compare if there is a Ketogenic equivalent.


    Weight loss and exercise are the largest drivers for improved metabolic heath. Keto is just one of many ways to improve your health.
  • stanmann571
    stanmann571 Posts: 5,728 Member
    edited October 2017
    Options
    At the end of the day, the biggest factor is movement.

    Today, at 42 and 240 lbs , I eat roughly half(2800-3100 calories daily) what I did at 18. At 18, I generally got between 5000-7000 daily calories. I weighed 140-155 lbs. My height was and is 70-72 inches. I also walked 5-8 miles a day as transportation. Some days I walked considerably further.

    Today, I may walk 3-5 miles as deliberate exercise 2-4 days a week, I may run some or all of that distance depending on my particular goals.
  • mmapags
    mmapags Posts: 8,934 Member
    Options
    EllenSBry wrote: »
    "Sugar" is simplistic perhaps, but take a look at how many of our packaged and processed foods (even the savory, non-sweet ones) have a ton of added sugar and simple carbs. This isn't the same food our forefathers ate (you have to go back further than the 50s when convenience food started to take hold.)

    The test for this is easy. Try cutting your carb and sugar intake and see what happens. I know what it's done for me.

    Maybe sugar is a trigger food for you that causes you to be unable to control calories? Or maybe you are Insulin Resistant from eating too much in the past? Other than rare exceptions (for insulin resistance), eating sugar a calorie deficit would be no different than eating anything else. Google "the Twinkie Diet". The guy ate twinkies, sugary cereals, 1 can of veggies and 1 protein shake per day. Reduced his body fat substantially and improved all his blood markers. It's not sugar. It's too much food!
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    edited October 2017
    Options
    EllenSBry wrote: »
    "Sugar" is simplistic perhaps, but take a look at how many of our packaged and processed foods (even the savory, non-sweet ones) have a ton of added sugar and simple carbs. This isn't the same food our forefathers ate (you have to go back further than the 50s when convenience food started to take hold.)

    The test for this is easy. Try cutting your carb and sugar intake and see what happens. I know what it's done for me.

    You seem to be talking about ultra processed junk food. Despite the low fat '80s and '90s, most of that stuff is high in fat as well as carbs -- for example, chips. Fast food, same.

    The focus on "carbs" and specifically just sugar is really inaccurate and misleading.

    What's changed with the US diet (and diets in many other wealthy countries) is not how many carbs we eat -- when growing up my grandparents ate bread or potatoes or both with most meals, from what they told me, and my grandfather also said his mother put a ridiculous amount of sugar in her tea (he claimed it was a Swedish thing as both of her parents were born in Sweden, but I'm not saying that's true, just thought it was funny). But of course they did not have the amount of easy packaged things from stores that we do (although personally I think the reason people overeat those is convenience, period, and I was never a big fat and got fat without them) and the culture was to eat foods cooked at home most of the time (not that they had a lot of options) and, most important, they both grew up on farms where they were very active.

    I got fat not eating fast food (which I never really cared for) or a bunch of packaged so-called junk food, neither of which I really ate. Instead, as someone who was always fit into my 20s and then gradually started gaining, the obvious culprit was (a) I became less active, and (b) I had a high stress life in a lot of ways and -- unlike lots of better adjusted people -- started using food as a coping mechanism, which is really easy to do. But the foods I mostly ate would have been a healthy diet if I'd eaten less of them (or had less access to some nice restaurants that added in extra butter and the like to the same basic dishes).

Categories