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
Replies
-
jessiferrrb wrote: »jessiferrrb wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »BTW, not sure why we are talking about how much sugar the average person consumes, as no one is recommending the SAD as the best one for health or saying added sugar should be consumed in any amount.
However, I checked the numbers, and what I see is that the average American consumes 82 g of added sugar per day. (http://sugarscience.ucsf.edu/the-growing-concern-of-overconsumption/#.Wn3i1a6nHcs)
That would be .18 lb per day. And that includes outliers who consume a huge amount, so itself is not reflective of, say, even the median US diet.
I'd personally agree that 328 cal from added sugar is excessive, but that doesn't mean that 33 g carbs (including 5.8 g added sugar) at breakfast is inherently terrible. Wouldn't be my personal choice, but so what.
(And I usually do have more than, gasp!, 33 g of carbs at breakfast these days.)
using the 82 grams per day it comes out to 66 pounds of sugar per year. not 152. so i'm confused on where that number came from.
edited to clarify - i'm confused about the number in a post preceding this where annual consumption was listed in pounds - not about any number in this post.
https://www.dhhs.nh.gov/dphs/nhp/documents/sugar.pdf
We are talking total sugar consumption
the subject of that (article? infographic? font monster?) is added sugar, the section you quoted doesn't specify, and the remainder suggests replacing candy with fruit. also, is that seriously your source?
You have an issue with New Hamshire health and human services?
oh totally. you have an issue with the US department of Agriculture's choose my plate model. so it seems neither of us are totally sold.3 -
You keep repeating the same links and graphics over and over. Where are your other sources?3
-
fionawilliamson wrote: »Go_Deskercise wrote: »I see diets as temporary, quick fix *BS* ...
The best diet is NO diet at all.
Eat what you want within your calorie goal.
I don't understand why people make this more complicated than it has to be...
Stop talking so much sense
UMMMMM no
eat what you want? fine mountain dew chocolate cake under 2000 Cals
sounds healthy to me
14 -
Too each is own when it comes to diets but intermittent fasting is a great kick start to a healthy lifestyle.13
-
You keep repeating the same 3 including webmd. Where is all the other peer reviewed scientific research papers/studies? I mean since you are so well read you should have hundreds4
-
Tiny_Dancer_in_Pink wrote: »Tiny_Dancer_in_Pink wrote: »Tiny_Dancer_in_Pink wrote: »Tiny_Dancer_in_Pink wrote: »http://annals.org/aim/article-abstract/1900694/effects-low-carbohydrate-low-fat-diets-randomized-trial?doi=10.7326/M14-0180
Conclusion:
The low-carbohydrate diet was more effective for weight loss and cardiovascular risk factor reduction than the low-fat diet. Restricting carbohydrate may be an option for persons seeking to lose weight and reduce cardiovascular risk factors.
That is absolutely not true.
I guess you can take it up with National Institutes of Health
Or with my PCP. Which I did and I will take her advice.
Which she should be reading the latest research - until 100 years cutting a was great way to get rid of disease
BS
Yeah you are right - doctors shouldn't stay well read with the latest research
Wow, you think they don't stay up on research? Head in the sand
If she is still touting the standard food pyramid to you I would change your doctor - but hey feel free to pound down that pasta all day long if you like
So far I've lost about 80lbs . . . but I guess I could have lost a whole lot more if it wasn't for that pasta.1 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll 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 the
33 grams of Sugar - CRAP for you - but touted as healthy and people buy it by the truck loads but hey ITS A GRAIN
I can't even remember the last time I heard someone talk about Special K in real life, as a healthy food or otherwise. Who is touting this food specifically?5 -
tramaine_21 wrote: »Too each is own when it comes to diets but intermittent fasting is a great kick start to a healthy lifestyle.
Intermittent fasting isn't a diet, it's an eating pattern. And there's nothing magical about it other than the fact that it helps some people adhere to their calorie goals more easily and provides higher satiety. For some people.3 -
40 protein
40 fats
20 carbs
You can thank the Sugar industry and corn manufactures for making fat a demon - but like I said if you want a high A!C number, High Cholesterol number and arteriosclerosis
keep on pounding down that 40% sugar diet
You do know there's other sources of carbs aside from the highly processed startches right?4 -
bratqueen1974 wrote: »Back to the OP (though the discussion sure has been interesting to read.) There is no one 'healthiest diet' that anyone can recommend for you, with the sole exception that your regular way of eating should nourish you, not harm you.
<snipped by the responder>
Agreeing with this. We all, at heart, know which foods are nutritious. The best balance of those foods in our diets (macro balance) comes down to matters of personal preference and what will keep us most compliant with our calorie goals. In order to do that, the macro balance we're eating and the food choices we're making need to be satisfying from both a taste and "emotional" perspective. They also need to leave us feeling satiated.
People vary greatly as to which macro balance (notice I'm shying away from any named diet) ticks all these boxes for them.
I've learned this through years of reading dieting forums and through personal experience of trying various eating plans myself.
There is no one objective "best" eating plan out there. There's only what's best for you.
3 -
singingflutelady wrote: »You keep repeating the same 3 including webmd. Where is all the other peer reviewed scientific research papers/studies? I mean since you are so well read you should have hundreds
World health organisation?
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/world-health-organization-lowers-sugar-intake-recommendations/
Do you understand what people mean when they talk about "research papers" or "studies"?6 -
janejellyroll wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »You keep repeating the same 3 including webmd. Where is all the other peer reviewed scientific research papers/studies? I mean since you are so well read you should have hundreds
World health organisation?
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/world-health-organization-lowers-sugar-intake-recommendations/
Do you understand what people mean when they talk about "research papers" or "studies"?
That would be a no. Clearly thinking articles are the same thing as research papers is a part of the problem, in addition to thinking it's 1998, and not knowing that the fiber and sugar listed on the nutrition label are a part of the carbs, not in addition to the carbs. And moving the goalposts from total sugar to added sugar and back again as if they are interchangeable.9 -
janejellyroll wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »You keep repeating the same 3 including webmd. Where is all the other peer reviewed scientific research papers/studies? I mean since you are so well read you should have hundreds
World health organisation?
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/world-health-organization-lowers-sugar-intake-recommendations/
Do you understand what people mean when they talk about "research papers" or "studies"?
really? you have been on this thread the whole time and never looked at the National Institutes of Health
the May Clinic - Journal of Applied Physiology?
i just find it ironic that the sources you tout are in the exact same vein as the sources you doubt.
(awaiting my extra credit for rhyming)12
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 393 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 937 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions