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.

which is the best diet for overall health and weight loss

Options
1235724

Replies

  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Options
    imfornd wrote: »
    imfornd wrote: »
    imfornd wrote: »
    imfornd wrote: »
    what i am saying is that they are already getting the sugar from the F&V then they buy fat free stuff thinking it health only to be eating massive amount of Sugar - 20% carbs a day are more than enough 40% Fat needed for endocrine system and CNS function, 40% protein needed for muscle retention , blood production, enzyme production....

    Sugar needed for ATP production but you can produce ATP with fats and not have all the ancillary issue associate with Sugar consumption

    Who is doing this? Given the current trends (paleo, low carb, keto, "clean eating"), who exactly is buying this fat free stuff? Who is even making it anymore? I don't think my grocery store even sells Snackwells anymore and they were like the poster child for low fat snacks. The trendy snacks are higher fat things like coconut chips or things that are higher in fiber like roasted chickpeas.

    All I posted was a 40-40-20 rule where carbs are 20 - people started blowing me up over it and i was left having to call up medical journals substantiating my opinion

    That wasn't all you did. You also claimed that the food pyramid was still current, that people following it would be "pounding down pasta all day long," and that someone who was following the current food recommendations would be consuming "massive" amounts of sugar.

    You also claimed that recommendations for fruit and vegetable consumption were the work of sugar companies so that they could more easily sell fat-free products to people (although how this connection is supposed to work still isn't exactly clear to me).

    You've made a lot of claims here and they aren't backed up by studies in reputable medical journals (or any type of journal).

    "You also claimed that recommendations for fruit and vegetable consumption were the work of sugar companies" - NOPE never did that - I did respond to a question about it

    "You've made a lot of claims here and they aren't backed up by studies in reputable medical journals" - yes i did

    NIH
    MAYO
    JAP

    you pic - reading is fun

    When asked whether sugar companies benefit from people eating fruit, you responded: "of course it does - keep them eating sugar(fruit- sugar - basically the same) keep them fat - and watch us justify a low/no fat diet and we'll be able to load the products with sugar."

    So you think the sugar companies had nothing to do with the recommendation to eat fruits and vegetables, they're just benefiting passively from recommendations made for other reasons? If I misunderstood you, then I apologize.

    In the scenario you're writing about, who wants to "keep them fat" and why? If it isn't the sugar companies behind it, then who is doing it?

    Sugar producers and corn producers love a fat USA

    No they don't. It creates conditions where people may start demanding that they be more responsible, it's created one of the arguments for ending farm subsidies, it's created negative press about HFCS and Congressional hearings on them, it's created a climate where sugar and soda taxes can be passed.

    Read Fat Salt Sugar for a discussion of this, which is hardly pro food industry.

    Big Food would vastly prefer a slender US population who still wanted to eat their treats and snacks and convenience foods (and meat, as meat producers are a huge market for corn and soybean and sorgum growers).

    Also, fat content in processed foods is plenty high and has increased over the same period of time that we've had low fat rhetoric. Cheese in particular is in a lot more things (see the book I mention above for a discussion of this).
  • L1zardQueen
    L1zardQueen Posts: 8,754 Member
    Options
    imfornd wrote: »
    imfornd wrote: »
    cwolfman13 wrote: »
    imfornd wrote: »
    imfornd wrote: »
    imfornd wrote: »
    imfornd wrote: »
    what i am saying is that they are already getting the sugar from the F&V then they buy fat free stuff thinking it health only to be eating massive amount of Sugar - 20% carbs a day are more than enough 40% Fat needed for endocrine system and CNS function, 40% protein needed for muscle retention , blood production, enzyme production....

    Sugar needed for ATP production but you can produce ATP with fats and not have all the ancillary issue associate with Sugar consumption

    Who is doing this? Given the current trends (paleo, low carb, keto, "clean eating"), who exactly is buying this fat free stuff? Who is even making it anymore? I don't think my grocery store even sells Snackwells anymore and they were like the poster child for low fat snacks. The trendy snacks are higher fat things like coconut chips or things that are higher in fiber like roasted chickpeas.

    All I posted was a 40-40-20 rule where carbs are 20 - people started blowing me up over it and i was left having to call up medical journals substantiating my opinion

    That wasn't all you did. You also claimed that the food pyramid was still current, that people following it would be "pounding down pasta all day long," and that someone who was following the current food recommendations would be consuming "massive" amounts of sugar.

    You also claimed that recommendations for fruit and vegetable consumption were the work of sugar companies so that they could more easily sell fat-free products to people (although how this connection is supposed to work still isn't exactly clear to me).

    You've made a lot of claims here and they aren't backed up by studies in reputable medical journals (or any type of journal).

    "You also claimed that recommendations for fruit and vegetable consumption were the work of sugar companies" - NOPE never did that - I did respond to a question about it

    "You've made a lot of claims here and they aren't backed up by studies in reputable medical journals" - yes i did

    NIH
    MAYO
    JAP

    you pic - reading is fun

    When asked whether sugar companies benefit from people eating fruit, you responded: "of course it does - keep them eating sugar(fruit- sugar - basically the same) keep them fat - and watch us justify a low/no fat diet and we'll be able to load the products with sugar."

    So you think the sugar companies had nothing to do with the recommendation to eat fruits and vegetables, they're just benefiting passively from recommendations made for other reasons? If I misunderstood you, then I apologize.

    In the scenario you're writing about, who wants to "keep them fat" and why? If it isn't the sugar companies behind it, then who is doing it?

    Sugar producers and corn producers love a fat USA - they get the tout a fat free diet knowing full well they are going to be throwing massive amounts of sugar into the product to make it taste good the whole time the package will say "FAT FREE" it so healthy for you

    what products specifically?

    the only low fat products I buy are 1% milk and non-fat Fage...neither of those products has added sugar at all...let alone "massive amounts"...I get plenty of dietary fat elsewhere from nuts, avocados, good cooking oils, etc...

    It's 2018, not 1990...I don't really see "low fat" products produced and marketed like they were in 1990...

    So what products specifically are marketed as "low fat" but have massive amounts of sugar added...

    Perfect Example Special K - hey a HEALTHY cereal - almost no fat but hey please don;t look at thego1z8yxm0y57.jpg
    33 grams of Sugar - CRAP for you - but touted as healthy and people buy it by the truck loads but hey ITS A GRAIN

    You like hyperbole, I see.

    nope - someone wanted a specific product - so i gave them 1

    Truckloads though
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,876 Member
    edited February 2018
    Options
    imfornd wrote: »
    cwolfman13 wrote: »
    imfornd wrote: »
    imfornd wrote: »
    imfornd wrote: »
    imfornd wrote: »
    what i am saying is that they are already getting the sugar from the F&V then they buy fat free stuff thinking it health only to be eating massive amount of Sugar - 20% carbs a day are more than enough 40% Fat needed for endocrine system and CNS function, 40% protein needed for muscle retention , blood production, enzyme production....

    Sugar needed for ATP production but you can produce ATP with fats and not have all the ancillary issue associate with Sugar consumption

    Who is doing this? Given the current trends (paleo, low carb, keto, "clean eating"), who exactly is buying this fat free stuff? Who is even making it anymore? I don't think my grocery store even sells Snackwells anymore and they were like the poster child for low fat snacks. The trendy snacks are higher fat things like coconut chips or things that are higher in fiber like roasted chickpeas.

    All I posted was a 40-40-20 rule where carbs are 20 - people started blowing me up over it and i was left having to call up medical journals substantiating my opinion

    That wasn't all you did. You also claimed that the food pyramid was still current, that people following it would be "pounding down pasta all day long," and that someone who was following the current food recommendations would be consuming "massive" amounts of sugar.

    You also claimed that recommendations for fruit and vegetable consumption were the work of sugar companies so that they could more easily sell fat-free products to people (although how this connection is supposed to work still isn't exactly clear to me).

    You've made a lot of claims here and they aren't backed up by studies in reputable medical journals (or any type of journal).

    "You also claimed that recommendations for fruit and vegetable consumption were the work of sugar companies" - NOPE never did that - I did respond to a question about it

    "You've made a lot of claims here and they aren't backed up by studies in reputable medical journals" - yes i did

    NIH
    MAYO
    JAP

    you pic - reading is fun

    When asked whether sugar companies benefit from people eating fruit, you responded: "of course it does - keep them eating sugar(fruit- sugar - basically the same) keep them fat - and watch us justify a low/no fat diet and we'll be able to load the products with sugar."

    So you think the sugar companies had nothing to do with the recommendation to eat fruits and vegetables, they're just benefiting passively from recommendations made for other reasons? If I misunderstood you, then I apologize.

    In the scenario you're writing about, who wants to "keep them fat" and why? If it isn't the sugar companies behind it, then who is doing it?

    Sugar producers and corn producers love a fat USA - they get the tout a fat free diet knowing full well they are going to be throwing massive amounts of sugar into the product to make it taste good the whole time the package will say "FAT FREE" it so healthy for you

    what products specifically?

    the only low fat products I buy are 1% milk and non-fat Fage...neither of those products has added sugar at all...let alone "massive amounts"...I get plenty of dietary fat elsewhere from nuts, avocados, good cooking oils, etc...

    It's 2018, not 1990...I don't really see "low fat" products produced and marketed like they were in 1990...

    So what products specifically are marketed as "low fat" but have massive amounts of sugar added...

    Perfect Example Special K - hey a HEALTHY cereal - almost no fat but hey please don;t look at thego1z8yxm0y57.jpg
    33 grams of Sugar - CRAP for you - but touted as healthy and people buy it by the truck loads but hey ITS A GRAIN

    5.8 grams of sugar...the rest of the carbohydrates are starch and fiber
  • ccrdragon
    ccrdragon Posts: 3,365 Member
    Options
    cwolfman13 wrote: »
    imfornd wrote: »
    cwolfman13 wrote: »
    imfornd wrote: »
    imfornd wrote: »
    imfornd wrote: »
    imfornd wrote: »
    what i am saying is that they are already getting the sugar from the F&V then they buy fat free stuff thinking it health only to be eating massive amount of Sugar - 20% carbs a day are more than enough 40% Fat needed for endocrine system and CNS function, 40% protein needed for muscle retention , blood production, enzyme production....

    Sugar needed for ATP production but you can produce ATP with fats and not have all the ancillary issue associate with Sugar consumption

    Who is doing this? Given the current trends (paleo, low carb, keto, "clean eating"), who exactly is buying this fat free stuff? Who is even making it anymore? I don't think my grocery store even sells Snackwells anymore and they were like the poster child for low fat snacks. The trendy snacks are higher fat things like coconut chips or things that are higher in fiber like roasted chickpeas.

    All I posted was a 40-40-20 rule where carbs are 20 - people started blowing me up over it and i was left having to call up medical journals substantiating my opinion

    That wasn't all you did. You also claimed that the food pyramid was still current, that people following it would be "pounding down pasta all day long," and that someone who was following the current food recommendations would be consuming "massive" amounts of sugar.

    You also claimed that recommendations for fruit and vegetable consumption were the work of sugar companies so that they could more easily sell fat-free products to people (although how this connection is supposed to work still isn't exactly clear to me).

    You've made a lot of claims here and they aren't backed up by studies in reputable medical journals (or any type of journal).

    "You also claimed that recommendations for fruit and vegetable consumption were the work of sugar companies" - NOPE never did that - I did respond to a question about it

    "You've made a lot of claims here and they aren't backed up by studies in reputable medical journals" - yes i did

    NIH
    MAYO
    JAP

    you pic - reading is fun

    When asked whether sugar companies benefit from people eating fruit, you responded: "of course it does - keep them eating sugar(fruit- sugar - basically the same) keep them fat - and watch us justify a low/no fat diet and we'll be able to load the products with sugar."

    So you think the sugar companies had nothing to do with the recommendation to eat fruits and vegetables, they're just benefiting passively from recommendations made for other reasons? If I misunderstood you, then I apologize.

    In the scenario you're writing about, who wants to "keep them fat" and why? If it isn't the sugar companies behind it, then who is doing it?

    Sugar producers and corn producers love a fat USA - they get the tout a fat free diet knowing full well they are going to be throwing massive amounts of sugar into the product to make it taste good the whole time the package will say "FAT FREE" it so healthy for you

    what products specifically?

    the only low fat products I buy are 1% milk and non-fat Fage...neither of those products has added sugar at all...let alone "massive amounts"...I get plenty of dietary fat elsewhere from nuts, avocados, good cooking oils, etc...

    It's 2018, not 1990...I don't really see "low fat" products produced and marketed like they were in 1990...

    So what products specifically are marketed as "low fat" but have massive amounts of sugar added...

    Perfect Example Special K - hey a HEALTHY cereal - almost no fat but hey please don;t look at thego1z8yxm0y57.jpg
    33 grams of Sugar - CRAP for you - but touted as healthy and people buy it by the truck loads but hey ITS A GRAIN

    5.8 grams of sugar...

    no, no, no - you don't understand - all those carbs count as sugar as well... at least in his mind.
  • singingflutelady
    singingflutelady Posts: 8,736 Member
    Options
    imfornd wrote: »
    cwolfman13 wrote: »
    imfornd wrote: »
    cwolfman13 wrote: »
    imfornd wrote: »
    imfornd wrote: »
    imfornd wrote: »
    imfornd wrote: »
    what i am saying is that they are already getting the sugar from the F&V then they buy fat free stuff thinking it health only to be eating massive amount of Sugar - 20% carbs a day are more than enough 40% Fat needed for endocrine system and CNS function, 40% protein needed for muscle retention , blood production, enzyme production....

    Sugar needed for ATP production but you can produce ATP with fats and not have all the ancillary issue associate with Sugar consumption

    Who is doing this? Given the current trends (paleo, low carb, keto, "clean eating"), who exactly is buying this fat free stuff? Who is even making it anymore? I don't think my grocery store even sells Snackwells anymore and they were like the poster child for low fat snacks. The trendy snacks are higher fat things like coconut chips or things that are higher in fiber like roasted chickpeas.

    All I posted was a 40-40-20 rule where carbs are 20 - people started blowing me up over it and i was left having to call up medical journals substantiating my opinion

    That wasn't all you did. You also claimed that the food pyramid was still current, that people following it would be "pounding down pasta all day long," and that someone who was following the current food recommendations would be consuming "massive" amounts of sugar.

    You also claimed that recommendations for fruit and vegetable consumption were the work of sugar companies so that they could more easily sell fat-free products to people (although how this connection is supposed to work still isn't exactly clear to me).

    You've made a lot of claims here and they aren't backed up by studies in reputable medical journals (or any type of journal).

    "You also claimed that recommendations for fruit and vegetable consumption were the work of sugar companies" - NOPE never did that - I did respond to a question about it

    "You've made a lot of claims here and they aren't backed up by studies in reputable medical journals" - yes i did

    NIH
    MAYO
    JAP

    you pic - reading is fun

    When asked whether sugar companies benefit from people eating fruit, you responded: "of course it does - keep them eating sugar(fruit- sugar - basically the same) keep them fat - and watch us justify a low/no fat diet and we'll be able to load the products with sugar."

    So you think the sugar companies had nothing to do with the recommendation to eat fruits and vegetables, they're just benefiting passively from recommendations made for other reasons? If I misunderstood you, then I apologize.

    In the scenario you're writing about, who wants to "keep them fat" and why? If it isn't the sugar companies behind it, then who is doing it?

    Sugar producers and corn producers love a fat USA - they get the tout a fat free diet knowing full well they are going to be throwing massive amounts of sugar into the product to make it taste good the whole time the package will say "FAT FREE" it so healthy for you

    what products specifically?

    the only low fat products I buy are 1% milk and non-fat Fage...neither of those products has added sugar at all...let alone "massive amounts"...I get plenty of dietary fat elsewhere from nuts, avocados, good cooking oils, etc...

    It's 2018, not 1990...I don't really see "low fat" products produced and marketed like they were in 1990...

    So what products specifically are marketed as "low fat" but have massive amounts of sugar added...

    Perfect Example Special K - hey a HEALTHY cereal - almost no fat but hey please don;t look at thego1z8yxm0y57.jpg
    33 grams of Sugar - CRAP for you - but touted as healthy and people buy it by the truck loads but hey ITS A GRAIN

    5.8 grams of sugar...the rest of the carbohydrates are starch and fiber

    nope 26.6 with and 33 with Milk

    26.6 carbs 5.8 sugars.....
  • singingflutelady
    singingflutelady Posts: 8,736 Member
    Options
    So what's the sugar content of whole milk vs skim?