The sugar problem
Tandyman23
Posts: 3 Member
Just a friendly reminder to definitely always watch sugar intake EVEN if you are counting calories closely. The effects sugar had on insulin levels and fat gain isnt correlated with the amount of calories you are consuming. I personally try not to go over 10g a day. If not less.
56
Replies
-
Congratulations?6
-
It's posts like these that make me happy there's a Woo button.23
-
Tandyman23 wrote: »Just a friendly reminder to definitely always watch sugar intake EVEN if you are counting calories closely. The effects sugar had on insulin levels and fat gain isnt correlated with the amount of calories you are consuming. I personally try not to go over 10g a day. If not less.
There is soooooo much truth to this post. I would have thought you were crazy before and dare I say, fanatical. But after cutting my sugar, my cravings all disappeared; my sleep is sound and restorative; my hormones have levelled out and weight loss isn't a struggle. I can't speak for anyone else but it has made all the difference for me personally.27 -
Never had any trouble losing weight and I stopped paying attention to sugar tracking long ago. But averaging 50-100 grams in the last 90 days (I can call up a report for) sure hasn't caused any issues for me.13
-
I eat a lot of sugar, probably north of 120 grams a day, and my abs were slightly visible until I began eating a couple of hundred calories over maintenance some weeks ago.Tandyman23 wrote: »Just a friendly reminder to definitely always watch sugar intake EVEN if you are counting calories closely. The effects sugar had on insulin levels and fat gain isnt correlated with the amount of calories you are consuming. I personally try not to go over 10g a day. If not less.
I strongly disagree with this post, just like most of the responders to your other, identical thread did earlier.
Your claim means that one apple or orange can bust your sugar goal for the day. I'll eat that fruit + a few oreos and still lose weight, so no thanks.
13 -
I eat a lot of sugar, probably north of 120 grams a day, and my abs were slightly visible until I began eating a couple of hundred calories over maintenance some weeks ago.Tandyman23 wrote: »Just a friendly reminder to definitely always watch sugar intake EVEN if you are counting calories closely. The effects sugar had on insulin levels and fat gain isnt correlated with the amount of calories you are consuming. I personally try not to go over 10g a day. If not less.
I strongly disagree with this post, just like most of the responders to your other, identical thread did earlier.
Your claim means that one apple or orange can bust your sugar goal for the day. I'll eat that fruit + a few oreos and still lose weight, so no thanks.
All that means is that you're not pre-diabetic. Also eating an apple or an orange is packed with fiber. If you blend that apple or orange up, especially if you get rid of all the pulp, and drink it in liquid form that stuff is no better for you than a soda.estherdragonbat wrote: »Never had any trouble losing weight and I stopped paying attention to sugar tracking long ago. But averaging 50-100 grams in the last 90 days (I can call up a report for) sure hasn't caused any issues for me.
You are eating low-carbish.
"The Dietary Guidelines for Americans recommends that carbohydrates make up 45 to 65 percent of your total daily calories. So, if you get 2,000 calories a day, between 900 and 1,300 calories should be from carbohydrates. That translates to between 225 and 325 grams of carbohydrates a day.Feb 7, 2017"
Source -Mayo Clinic
50-100 carbs is fine depending on goals, age, mental struggles etc... If you think sugars have NOTHING to do with weightloss you are clueless. You don't know about ghrelin, you don't know about leptin, if you don't understand that an apple is ok, but apple juice is basically as bad as a soda pop then you don't understand incretins and how the structures of the molecules prevents insulin surges.
Don't say that carbs don't matter. They do. If they don't matter to you, then awesome! Just know that humans have not been eating 30%+ high carb for quite a long time, and we just flat out evolved away from sitting around munching on vegetation all day in the hopes that our gut bacteria will produce the materials we need to thrive. We are carnivores first, omnivores second, and herbivores at our peril.
20 grams is great for extreme weight loss, 50-80 can be ideal theoretically for muscle growth, development, and retainment, the muscle sparing effects of ketones only go so far. 120 is probably fine if you're really active and metabolically healthy. 200 is pushing it. 300 will catch up to you for sure.
Final note. Best to eat carbs as the last part of your meal if you can. Save desert for last, doing it first causes insulin spike immediately, there's risk of getting hungry again at a later date when your blood sugars drop... for best results eat sugars after everything else.29 -
only two posts here and both with the same title saying sugar is evil but of course never joining in on the discussion or providing facts.9
-
Makaiookami wrote: »
I eat a lot of sugar, probably north of 120 grams a day, and my abs were slightly visible until I began eating a couple of hundred calories over maintenance some weeks ago.Tandyman23 wrote: »Just a friendly reminder to definitely always watch sugar intake EVEN if you are counting calories closely. The effects sugar had on insulin levels and fat gain isnt correlated with the amount of calories you are consuming. I personally try not to go over 10g a day. If not less.
I strongly disagree with this post, just like most of the responders to your other, identical thread did earlier.
Your claim means that one apple or orange can bust your sugar goal for the day. I'll eat that fruit + a few oreos and still lose weight, so no thanks.
All that means is that you're not pre-diabetic. Also eating an apple or an orange is packed with fiber. If you blend that apple or orange up, especially if you get rid of all the pulp, and drink it in liquid form that stuff is no better for you than a soda.
OP did not limit his post to the pre-diabetic (or actually T2D).
Also "packed with fiber" is an overstatement: a 150 g orange has about 14 g of sugar and 3.6 g of fiber. Similarly, a 180 g apple has about 19 g of sugar, and just over 4 g of fiber. (Unlike OP, I'm pro fruit, I find it filling for myself, and delicious, and it has some fiber, depending on the fruit some have more and some have less, and of course lots of micronutrients.)
The 10 g is especially absurd (as I said in response to the similar post posted elsewhere), as it's quite easy to be above that with just veg. I usually am, and consider it a bad day if I am not, as it would mean my veg intake is less than I like. I normally have fruit too, especially in the summer.estherdragonbat wrote: »Never had any trouble losing weight and I stopped paying attention to sugar tracking long ago. But averaging 50-100 grams in the last 90 days (I can call up a report for) sure hasn't caused any issues for me.Makaiookami wrote: »You are eating low-carbish.
"The Dietary Guidelines for Americans recommends that carbohydrates make up 45 to 65 percent of your total daily calories. So, if you get 2,000 calories a day, between 900 and 1,300 calories should be from carbohydrates. That translates to between 225 and 325 grams of carbohydrates a day.Feb 7, 2017"
Source -Mayo Clinic
50-100 carbs is fine depending on goals, age, mental struggles etc... If you think sugars have NOTHING to do with weightloss you are clueless. You don't know about ghrelin, you don't know about leptin, if you don't understand that an apple is ok, but apple juice is basically as bad as a soda pop then you don't understand incretins and how the structures of the molecules prevents insulin surges.
She said 50-100 g of sugar, and you translated that to carbs
And saying "50-100 carbs is fine depending..." (as if more is bad and it might be too much for some) is silly.
I think she knows a little something about weight loss, she's lost successfully.
(Also, once again OP made no distinctions between juice and fruit or what not. Saying you must avoid all free sugars would also be silly, but most of us would agree that it should not make up too significant a part of the diet, of course.)Don't say that carbs don't matter. They do. If they don't matter to you, then awesome! Just know that humans have not been eating 30%+ high carb for quite a long time, and we just flat out evolved away from sitting around munching on vegetation all day in the hopes that our gut bacteria will produce the materials we need to thrive. We are carnivores first, omnivores second, and herbivores at our peril.
No, and no. We are not carnivores, we are omnivores, and many of the healthiest human diets tend to be higher carb. Macro mix can be all over the place in healthy diets, however, as there are much more important elements.20 grams is great for extreme weight loss, 50-80 can be ideal theoretically for muscle growth, development, and retainment, the muscle sparing effects of ketones only go so far. 120 is probably fine if you're really active and metabolically healthy. 200 is pushing it. 300 will catch up to you for sure.
No, none of this. 300 g could be perfectly appropriate for someone with sufficient cals, and who is getting adequate protein, fiber, fat, and specifically has a healthy overall diet. 200 g is only 50% of a common deficit such as 1600, and only 40% of 2000 -- the idea that that's unhealthy (regardless of source) is unsupported and not reasonable. The idea that 120 g is only workable if one is "really active" is also quite odd.Final note. Best to eat carbs as the last part of your meal if you can. Save desert for last, doing it first causes insulin spike immediately, there's risk of getting hungry again at a later date when your blood sugars drop... for best results eat sugars after everything else.
Don't most people eat dessert last?
Weird to equate carbs with dessert, however, as most carbs are not dessert foods, and many or most dessert foods have as much fat as carbs.16 -
Makaiookami wrote: »
I eat a lot of sugar, probably north of 120 grams a day, and my abs were slightly visible until I began eating a couple of hundred calories over maintenance some weeks ago.Tandyman23 wrote: »Just a friendly reminder to definitely always watch sugar intake EVEN if you are counting calories closely. The effects sugar had on insulin levels and fat gain isnt correlated with the amount of calories you are consuming. I personally try not to go over 10g a day. If not less.
I strongly disagree with this post, just like most of the responders to your other, identical thread did earlier.
Your claim means that one apple or orange can bust your sugar goal for the day. I'll eat that fruit + a few oreos and still lose weight, so no thanks.
All that means is that you're not pre-diabetic. Also eating an apple or an orange is packed with fiber. If you blend that apple or orange up, especially if you get rid of all the pulp, and drink it in liquid form that stuff is no better for you than a soda.
OP did not limit his post to the pre-diabetic (or actually T2D).
Also "packed with fiber" is an overstatement: a 150 g orange has about 14 g of sugar and 3.6 g of fiber. Similarly, a 180 g apple has about 19 g of sugar, and just over 4 g of fiber. (Unlike OP, I'm pro fruit, I find it filling for myself, and delicious, and it has some fiber, depending on the fruit some have more and some have less, and of course lots of micronutrients.)
The 10 g is especially absurd (as I said in response to the similar post posted elsewhere), as it's quite easy to be above that with just veg. I usually am, and consider it a bad day if I am not, as it would mean my veg intake is less than I like. I normally have fruit too, especially in the summer.estherdragonbat wrote: »Never had any trouble losing weight and I stopped paying attention to sugar tracking long ago. But averaging 50-100 grams in the last 90 days (I can call up a report for) sure hasn't caused any issues for me.Makaiookami wrote: »You are eating low-carbish.
"The Dietary Guidelines for Americans recommends that carbohydrates make up 45 to 65 percent of your total daily calories. So, if you get 2,000 calories a day, between 900 and 1,300 calories should be from carbohydrates. That translates to between 225 and 325 grams of carbohydrates a day.Feb 7, 2017"
Source -Mayo Clinic
50-100 carbs is fine depending on goals, age, mental struggles etc... If you think sugars have NOTHING to do with weightloss you are clueless. You don't know about ghrelin, you don't know about leptin, if you don't understand that an apple is ok, but apple juice is basically as bad as a soda pop then you don't understand incretins and how the structures of the molecules prevents insulin surges.
She said 50-100 g of sugar, and you translated that to carbs
And saying "50-100 carbs is fine depending..." (as if more is bad and it might be too much for some) is silly.
I think she knows a little something about weight loss, she's lost successfully.
(Also, once again OP made no distinctions between juice and fruit or what not. Saying you must avoid all free sugars would also be silly, but most of us would agree that it should not make up too significant a part of the diet, of course.)Don't say that carbs don't matter. They do. If they don't matter to you, then awesome! Just know that humans have not been eating 30%+ high carb for quite a long time, and we just flat out evolved away from sitting around munching on vegetation all day in the hopes that our gut bacteria will produce the materials we need to thrive. We are carnivores first, omnivores second, and herbivores at our peril.
No, and no. We are not carnivores, we are omnivores, and many of the healthiest human diets tend to be higher carb. Macro mix can be all over the place in healthy diets, however, as there are much more important elements.20 grams is great for extreme weight loss, 50-80 can be ideal theoretically for muscle growth, development, and retainment, the muscle sparing effects of ketones only go so far. 120 is probably fine if you're really active and metabolically healthy. 200 is pushing it. 300 will catch up to you for sure.
No, none of this. 300 g could be perfectly appropriate for someone with sufficient cals, and who is getting adequate protein, fiber, fat, and specifically has a healthy overall diet. 200 g is only 50% of a common deficit such as 1600, and only 40% of 2000 -- the idea that that's unhealthy (regardless of source) is unsupported and not reasonable. The idea that 120 g is only workable if one is "really active" is also quite odd.Final note. Best to eat carbs as the last part of your meal if you can. Save desert for last, doing it first causes insulin spike immediately, there's risk of getting hungry again at a later date when your blood sugars drop... for best results eat sugars after everything else.
Don't most people eat dessert last?
Weird to equate carbs with dessert, however, as most carbs are not dessert foods, and many or most dessert foods have as much fat as carbs.
No need to respond after this. Appreciate your posts as always @lemurcat2 🙂10 -
Sugar is so important!
Not only is it the most accessible nutrient for energy production by the cellular machinery, but the glycolysis pathway - the biochemical steps every cell in your body takes to break down glucose (sugar) - produces 6 of the 12 essential molecules needed for all living cells (glucose-6-phosphate, fructose-6-phosphate, triose phosphate, 3-phosphoglycerate, phosphoenolpyruvate, and pyruvate).
The reason that our body has so many mechanisms to obtain/store sugar (and part of the reason why we find the taste of sugar so appealing) is precisely because it's so important.
Like anything else, too much of a good thing makes it not a good thing - but so does too little!Makaiookami wrote: »We are carnivores first, omnivores second, and herbivores at our peril.
We are most certainly omnivores first. =] Carnivore tooth anatomy is very different from the set we're packing in our noggins!
20 -
No, none of this. 300 g could be perfectly appropriate for someone with sufficient cals, and who is getting adequate protein, fiber, fat, and specifically has a healthy overall diet. 200 g is only 50% of a common deficit such as 1600, and only 40% of 2000 -- the idea that that's unhealthy (regardless of source) is unsupported and not reasonable. The idea that 120 g is only workable if one is "really active" is also quite odd.
No 300grams is not appropriate for ANYBODY! It will catch up to you eventually.We are not carnivores, we are omnivores, and many of the healthiest human diets tend to be higher carb. Macro mix can be all over the place in healthy diets, however, as there are much more important elements.
Show me the diets of the healthiest people. There's a lot that goes into health. Stress has a lot to do with it, fasting has a lot to do with it, slowing your metabolic rate has a lot to do with it, many of these things will absolutely protect your telomeres, and fasting specifically will give you more Human Growth Hormone as well as increase stem cell output.
We're not going to fix all of the world's nutrient problems here, but just know this, there is research being done on RDAs (recommended daily allowances) because people noticed that when people go strict carnivore they aren't getting scurvy! Turns out you can use fresh carnetine instead of getting copious amounts of vitamin C. Not only that but if you swapped from a SAD diet to a Vegan diet you will need more of almost everything. The Vitamin A you get from Kale only maybe 9% of it is converted into the Vitamin A you actually use, and since Vitamin A is a fat soluble vitamin you'll get even less of it if you don't properly eat it with fats. Don't even get me started anti-nutrients like on Vitamin K1 that they use as a supplement which has to be converted to Vitamin K3, then to K2, and K1 can bind to the K2 receptors before the conversion progress has finished... ASSUMING YOU CAN, which means that the Folic Acid (K1 anti-nutrient) has blocked absorption of 5Methylfolate (K2)
Or you can just eat some Vitamin K2 rich organ meats (especially mixed in with other meats if you don't like the taste of say a liver) and get some fat, countless other nutrients, and it's all completely bioavailable.
Not everyone can even convert the Vitamin A from Kale to a usable form.Don't most people eat dessert last?
Weird to equate carbs with dessert, however, as most carbs are not dessert foods, and many or most dessert foods have as much fat as carbs.
For the most part unless it's fiber, carbs are the same as sugar. They both get converted into glucose, spike your blood sugars, spike your insulin... People who have blood insulin/glucose meters can see what a piece of whole wheat does to your insulin and spiking your insulin shuts off your ability to mobilize lipids into ketones, which slows down fat burning dramatically. Period. You're not into low carb. I get that. You got no clue what you're talking about.
Even the My Fitness Pal blog has
"ADD LEAN PROTEIN AND MINIMIZE SUGAR
Protein is crucial for weight loss, building muscle and recovering from tough workouts. How much a person needs depends on several factors such as muscle mass, activity level, age and fitness goals. According to the National Institutes of Health, the Recommended Daily Allowance for protein intake is 0.8 grams of protein per kilogram of body weight (or 0.36 grams per pound of body weight). Here’s how to add more protein to breakfast, lunch and dinner.
Unlike naturally occuring sugars (such as the types found in fruit) too much added sugar can hamper weight loss and contribute to health issues such as diabetes, heart disease and Alzheimer’s. Try these 7 smart ways to cut sugar from your diet."
https://blog.myfitnesspal.com/healthy-habits-for-life-10-tips-for-better-nutrition-and-weight-loss/
Unless your ancestry came from the tropics, it's highly doubtful that your lineage has evolved in a high carb dietary structure and there is increasing evidence that schizophrenia, Bipolar ESPECIALLY in cases of the MTFHR gene mutation, seizures, a lot of these things are caused by having too many carbs.
There are more and more studies coming in when we have 50 grams or lower ESPECIALLY lower in studies that are showing countless benefits. The participants burn more calories at baseline in supervised controlled weightloss therefor have to be given more calories to keep the same pace as everyone else on higher carbs, the protein is the same. We have case studies where military bases that had less bread had less problems with schizophrenia...
To be honest who is going to fund a study that says "Avoid 90% of the grocery store and cook foods at home."
Your information is out of date. Sorry. The standard care is making diabetes worse, and low carb high fat is reversing it. Some doctors are even reporting 10% reduction in atherosclerosis after telling their patients bacon and eggs will prevent heart attacks. But you know what? Doctors are scared crapless because what I'm saying goes against what they were trained and they don't want to go against standards of care, lose someone to a heart attack, and then risk losing their license.
Once we break through that wall all bets are off.24 -
Makaiookami wrote: »
I eat a lot of sugar, probably north of 120 grams a day, and my abs were slightly visible until I began eating a couple of hundred calories over maintenance some weeks ago.Tandyman23 wrote: »Just a friendly reminder to definitely always watch sugar intake EVEN if you are counting calories closely. The effects sugar had on insulin levels and fat gain isnt correlated with the amount of calories you are consuming. I personally try not to go over 10g a day. If not less.
I strongly disagree with this post, just like most of the responders to your other, identical thread did earlier.
Your claim means that one apple or orange can bust your sugar goal for the day. I'll eat that fruit + a few oreos and still lose weight, so no thanks.
All that means is that you're not pre-diabetic. Also eating an apple or an orange is packed with fiber. If you blend that apple or orange up, especially if you get rid of all the pulp, and drink it in liquid form that stuff is no better for you than a soda.estherdragonbat wrote: »Never had any trouble losing weight and I stopped paying attention to sugar tracking long ago. But averaging 50-100 grams in the last 90 days (I can call up a report for) sure hasn't caused any issues for me.
You are eating low-carbish.
"The Dietary Guidelines for Americans recommends that carbohydrates make up 45 to 65 percent of your total daily calories. So, if you get 2,000 calories a day, between 900 and 1,300 calories should be from carbohydrates. That translates to between 225 and 325 grams of carbohydrates a day.Feb 7, 2017"
Source -Mayo Clinic
50-100 carbs is fine depending on goals, age, mental struggles etc... If you think sugars have NOTHING to do with weightloss you are clueless. You don't know about ghrelin, you don't know about leptin, if you don't understand that an apple is ok, but apple juice is basically as bad as a soda pop then you don't understand incretins and how the structures of the molecules prevents insulin surges.
Don't say that carbs don't matter. They do. If they don't matter to you, then awesome! Just know that humans have not been eating 30%+ high carb for quite a long time, and we just flat out evolved away from sitting around munching on vegetation all day in the hopes that our gut bacteria will produce the materials we need to thrive. We are carnivores first, omnivores second, and herbivores at our peril.
20 grams is great for extreme weight loss, 50-80 can be ideal theoretically for muscle growth, development, and retainment, the muscle sparing effects of ketones only go so far. 120 is probably fine if you're really active and metabolically healthy. 200 is pushing it. 300 will catch up to you for sure.
Final note. Best to eat carbs as the last part of your meal if you can. Save desert for last, doing it first causes insulin spike immediately, there's risk of getting hungry again at a later date when your blood sugars drop... for best results eat sugars after everything else.
What about people (such as myself) who have an intake around 3K cals or more. 300g of carbs is just fine, if anything pretty low. I come from an Italian background and grew up with lots of carb rich foods, a balance of everything. We do just fine.
I eat toast first thing in the morning, and my pre-workout candy in the late morning. It actually doesn't trigger hunger for me at all.8 -
Makaiookami wrote: »
I eat a lot of sugar, probably north of 120 grams a day, and my abs were slightly visible until I began eating a couple of hundred calories over maintenance some weeks ago.Tandyman23 wrote: »Just a friendly reminder to definitely always watch sugar intake EVEN if you are counting calories closely. The effects sugar had on insulin levels and fat gain isnt correlated with the amount of calories you are consuming. I personally try not to go over 10g a day. If not less.
I strongly disagree with this post, just like most of the responders to your other, identical thread did earlier.
Your claim means that one apple or orange can bust your sugar goal for the day. I'll eat that fruit + a few oreos and still lose weight, so no thanks.
All that means is that you're not pre-diabetic. Also eating an apple or an orange is packed with fiber. If you blend that apple or orange up, especially if you get rid of all the pulp, and drink it in liquid form that stuff is no better for you than a soda.estherdragonbat wrote: »Never had any trouble losing weight and I stopped paying attention to sugar tracking long ago. But averaging 50-100 grams in the last 90 days (I can call up a report for) sure hasn't caused any issues for me.
You are eating low-carbish.
"The Dietary Guidelines for Americans recommends that carbohydrates make up 45 to 65 percent of your total daily calories. So, if you get 2,000 calories a day, between 900 and 1,300 calories should be from carbohydrates. That translates to between 225 and 325 grams of carbohydrates a day.Feb 7, 2017"
Source -Mayo Clinic
50-100 carbs is fine depending on goals, age, mental struggles etc... If you think sugars have NOTHING to do with weightloss you are clueless. You don't know about ghrelin, you don't know about leptin, if you don't understand that an apple is ok, but apple juice is basically as bad as a soda pop then you don't understand incretins and how the structures of the molecules prevents insulin surges.
Don't say that carbs don't matter. They do. If they don't matter to you, then awesome! Just know that humans have not been eating 30%+ high carb for quite a long time, and we just flat out evolved away from sitting around munching on vegetation all day in the hopes that our gut bacteria will produce the materials we need to thrive. We are carnivores first, omnivores second, and herbivores at our peril.
20 grams is great for extreme weight loss, 50-80 can be ideal theoretically for muscle growth, development, and retainment, the muscle sparing effects of ketones only go so far. 120 is probably fine if you're really active and metabolically healthy. 200 is pushing it. 300 will catch up to you for sure.
Final note. Best to eat carbs as the last part of your meal if you can. Save desert for last, doing it first causes insulin spike immediately, there's risk of getting hungry again at a later date when your blood sugars drop... for best results eat sugars after everything else.
That... is one of the funniest things I've heard all day. All sugar is carbs, but not all carbs are sugar. Behold: My carb intake for the last month.
I'm an ovo-lacto vegetarian. Most of my protein has carbs in it. And I've gone from 254 to 146 lbs without being bothered about them.
19 -
Makaiookami wrote: »No, none of this. 300 g could be perfectly appropriate for someone with sufficient cals, and who is getting adequate protein, fiber, fat, and specifically has a healthy overall diet. 200 g is only 50% of a common deficit such as 1600, and only 40% of 2000 -- the idea that that's unhealthy (regardless of source) is unsupported and not reasonable. The idea that 120 g is only workable if one is "really active" is also quite odd.
No 300grams is not appropriate for ANYBODY! It will catch up to you eventually.We are not carnivores, we are omnivores, and many of the healthiest human diets tend to be higher carb. Macro mix can be all over the place in healthy diets, however, as there are much more important elements.
Show me the diets of the healthiest people. There's a lot that goes into health. Stress has a lot to do with it, fasting has a lot to do with it, slowing your metabolic rate has a lot to do with it, many of these things will absolutely protect your telomeres, and fasting specifically will give you more Human Growth Hormone as well as increase stem cell output.
We're not going to fix all of the world's nutrient problems here, but just know this, there is research being done on RDAs (recommended daily allowances) because people noticed that when people go strict carnivore they aren't getting scurvy! Turns out you can use fresh carnetine instead of getting copious amounts of vitamin C. Not only that but if you swapped from a SAD diet to a Vegan diet you will need more of almost everything. The Vitamin A you get from Kale only maybe 9% of it is converted into the Vitamin A you actually use, and since Vitamin A is a fat soluble vitamin you'll get even less of it if you don't properly eat it with fats. Don't even get me started anti-nutrients like on Vitamin K1 that they use as a supplement which has to be converted to Vitamin K3, then to K2, and K1 can bind to the K2 receptors before the conversion progress has finished... ASSUMING YOU CAN, which means that the Folic Acid (K1 anti-nutrient) has blocked absorption of 5Methylfolate (K2)
Or you can just eat some Vitamin K2 rich organ meats (especially mixed in with other meats if you don't like the taste of say a liver) and get some fat, countless other nutrients, and it's all completely bioavailable.
Not everyone can even convert the Vitamin A from Kale to a usable form.Don't most people eat dessert last?
Weird to equate carbs with dessert, however, as most carbs are not dessert foods, and many or most dessert foods have as much fat as carbs.
For the most part unless it's fiber, carbs are the same as sugar. They both get converted into glucose, spike your blood sugars, spike your insulin... People who have blood insulin/glucose meters can see what a piece of whole wheat does to your insulin and spiking your insulin shuts off your ability to mobilize lipids into ketones, which slows down fat burning dramatically. Period. You're not into low carb. I get that. You got no clue what you're talking about.
Even the My Fitness Pal blog has
"ADD LEAN PROTEIN AND MINIMIZE SUGAR
Protein is crucial for weight loss, building muscle and recovering from tough workouts. How much a person needs depends on several factors such as muscle mass, activity level, age and fitness goals. According to the National Institutes of Health, the Recommended Daily Allowance for protein intake is 0.8 grams of protein per kilogram of body weight (or 0.36 grams per pound of body weight). Here’s how to add more protein to breakfast, lunch and dinner.
Unlike naturally occuring sugars (such as the types found in fruit) too much added sugar can hamper weight loss and contribute to health issues such as diabetes, heart disease and Alzheimer’s. Try these 7 smart ways to cut sugar from your diet."
https://blog.myfitnesspal.com/healthy-habits-for-life-10-tips-for-better-nutrition-and-weight-loss/
Unless your ancestry came from the tropics, it's highly doubtful that your lineage has evolved in a high carb dietary structure and there is increasing evidence that schizophrenia, Bipolar ESPECIALLY in cases of the MTFHR gene mutation, seizures, a lot of these things are caused by having too many carbs.
There are more and more studies coming in when we have 50 grams or lower ESPECIALLY lower in studies that are showing countless benefits. The participants burn more calories at baseline in supervised controlled weightloss therefor have to be given more calories to keep the same pace as everyone else on higher carbs, the protein is the same. We have case studies where military bases that had less bread had less problems with schizophrenia...
To be honest who is going to fund a study that says "Avoid 90% of the grocery store and cook foods at home."
Your information is out of date. Sorry. The standard care is making diabetes worse, and low carb high fat is reversing it. Some doctors are even reporting 10% reduction in atherosclerosis after telling their patients bacon and eggs will prevent heart attacks. But you know what? Doctors are scared crapless because what I'm saying goes against what they were trained and they don't want to go against standards of care, lose someone to a heart attack, and then risk losing their license.
Once we break through that wall all bets are off.
Did you read all of the information in the link you posted?
This is perfectly in line with what the majority of folks here recommend i.e. IIFYM. Maintenance for me is ~2400 calories. That gives me 240 calories from added sugar, per the FDA recommendation contained within the link you posted. It states nothing about the scare mongering you are posting.According to the FDA, on average, Americans get 13% of their total calories from added sugars, with the major sources being sugar-sweetened beverages, snacks and sweets. And that’s too much. The 2015-2020 U.S. Dietary Guidelines advise that Americans get fewer than 10 percent of their daily calories from added sugar. The reason is it’s simply too difficult to meet your nutrient needs, while staying within your individual calorie requirements, if added sugars make up more than 10 percent of your total daily calories.
While it may be anecdotal, my bloodwork runs textbook every year, and that's on a diet of....everything. Granted, that's only an n=1, but there are plenty here who would attest to being considered extremely healthy by their docs, on varied diets.
To clarify, I am not anti keto, not even a little. If it works for an individual, or is dr recommended then by all means dive in. What I am against is fear mongering against perfectly normal diets in favor of making keto appear to be the be-all end-all word in ways of eating. And that's what you're doing.
I'll keep my carbs and added sugars and everything else I eat, thank you very much.13 -
I know the Onkinawan people have a high rate of people over 100 years. What I don't know is how many carbohydrates they have in a day, how many calories they have in a day, how fatty the fish in their sushi is, their meal frequency etc...
If you only eat 1,200-1,500 calories a day tops, and you eat breakfast at say 6:00 a.m., lunch at 12:00 noon, and then very little if anything for the rest of the day, then yeah, fasting/autophagy is likely going to counteract the the high blood sugar spikes, and glucose.
I guarantee they aren't eating 3 days a meal, snacking every hour or 2, and drinking heavily sweetened tea or fruit juice with a 1,800-2,000 calorie diet, on average.
There's a lot of factors that go into health and either bring a mechanism or do more research. I'm not saying that low carb is the ONLY way to eat healthy, I'm saying that it's a big deal, and people mock and avoid it at their peril.18 -
Makaiookami wrote: »I know the Onkinawan people have a high rate of people over 100 years. What I don't know is how many carbohydrates they have in a day, how many calories they have in a day, how fatty the fish in their sushi is, their meal frequency etc...
If you only eat 1,200-1,500 calories a day tops, and you eat breakfast at say 6:00 a.m., lunch at 12:00 noon, and then very little if anything for the rest of the day, then yeah, fasting/autophagy is likely going to counteract the the high blood sugars, and glucose.
I guarantee they aren't eating 3 days a meal, snacking every hour or 2, and drinking heavily sweetened tea or fruit juice with a 1,800-2,000 calorie diet, on average.
There's a lot of factors that go into health and either bring a mechanism or do more research. I'm not saying that low carb is the ONLY way to eat healthy, I'm saying that it's a big deal, and people mock and avoid it at their peril.
People only avoid the way some people portray it. I loved the keto menu myself. But it's just a way of eating that solves some issues for some folks, can result in weightloss for everyone if a deficit is maintained, but it's just a way of eating.
Here's the thing with me. I love to eat, love it. I'm 60, healthy as a horse internally, and will strenuously resist anything that makes food out to be the enemy. Carbs, fat, proteins and sugars oh my - none of them are the enemy with the exception of a select few with certain health issues.
The temptation or need to shove food into my mouth relentlessly until I do myself harm is the enemy.
So no, I'm not mocking you or anyone, I am however, resisting fear mongering based on some pretty thin information. As always, I encourage everyone to find what works best for them individually and hope it works....just don't try to take away my food happy places and we'll be fine.
11 -
I'm not gonna block quote that whole giant post, but making something really long and using a bunch of caps doesn't make it more informed. To tackle a couple of the points:
"if you want to look at the diets of the world's healthiest people" the Japanese have some of the world's longest lifespans and they eat a traditionally high carb diet.
"humans only recently eat carbs" that couldn't be farther from the truth. Humans have eaten carbs primarily for many thousands of years. Depending on where people lived, they mostly ate bread, potatoes, or pice. Meat was a delicacy for the rich or special ocassion. Americans meat consumption has doubled in the last 100 years. There's a reason why so many people died when they had a potato famine.
There's some massive revisionist history going on to try to write carbs out of our history and replace it with meat consumption.20 -
That... is one of the funniest things I've heard all day. All sugar is carbs, but not all carbs are sugar. Behold: My carb intake for the last month.
I'm an ovo-lacto vegetarian. Most of my protein has carbs in it. And I've gone from 254 to 146 lbs without being bothered about them.
Apparently it doesn't matter if you mention different people are at different stages of health and that carbs might not affect you much right now depending on your insulin sensitivity.
Congratulations being an N of one. I noticed you didn't mention how much fiber was in there because I also made a caveat that fiber doesn't really get processed into glucose and therefor doesn't spike anything. Also you never mentioned meal frequency. It doesn't matter that I gave caveats about fiber, and health, and insulin sensitivity, or that I literally said it will catch up to you eventually. None of that matters. I just HAVE to be wrong.
One of my good friends is ovo-lacto vegetarian. Well she was. She's now Type 2 Diabetic. Oops. I've been obese ALL of my life I was called Fatty Patty since I was in first grade. Being over weight was never my fault, but it is my problem. No matter how much calorie restriction I did, no matter the weight watchers, I NEVER lost weight like I do on low carb high fat, my hunger has gone away, I can fast for longevity for days, my knee swelling has gone down, I'm far less suicidal.
Your advice to someone with the MTFHR gene mutation is putting their life at risk. I'm just suggesting we should eat more like most humans have throughout most of human history ever since we started to go away from herbivorism to scavengers, and then hunters. We don't need sharp teeth, WE INVENTED ON DEMAND FIRE!18 -
Meal timing is irrelevant. I work to hit protein, iron, and fiber in that order. Not everyone develops insulin sensitivity or T2D. The main drivers of those?
From: https://www.endocrineweb.com/conditions/type-2-diabetes/insulin-resistance-causes-symptomsWhile genetics, aging and ethnicity play roles in developing insulin sensitivity, the driving forces behind insulin resistance include excess body weight, too much belly fat, a lack of exercise, smoking, and even skimping on sleep.
You know what's missing from that list? Carb consumption. Because carbs don't cause insulin resistance or T2D. Insulin resistance and T2D cause problems in properly processing carbs.
I'm not giving advice to anyone. But it sounds like you're taking food protocols for people with a specific genetic issue and applying them across the board for everyone.
ETA: Just looked up the MTHFR gene mutation for myself. Interesting.
https://www.healthline.com/health/mthfr-gene#symptomsKeep in mind that research around MTHFR and its effects is still evolving. Evidence linking most of these health conditions [click link for list] to MTHFR is currently lacking or has been disproven and should be taken with a grain of salt.
https://www.healthline.com/health/mthfr-gene#treatment
https://www.healthline.com/health/mthfr-gene#supplements...doctors may suggest supplementation to address deficiencies along with medications or treatments to address the specific health condition.
People with MTHFR mutations may also wish to take preventative measures by changing certain lifestyle choices that can elevate homocysteine levels. Things like stopping smoking, getting enough exercise, and eating a healthy, balanced diet may help without the use of medications.
More than likely, unless you have problems or have testing done, you’ll never become aware of your MTHFR mutation status.The MTHFR gene mutation inhibits the way the body processes folic acid and other important B vitamins. Changing up supplementation of this nutrient is a potential focus in countering its effects.
...Most people are encouraged to take a multivitamin that contains at least 0.4 milligrams of folate or folic acid each day.
Diet considerations
Eating foods rich in folate may help naturally support your levels of this important vitamin. Supplementation may still be necessary, however.
Good food choices include:
proteins like cooked beans, peas, and lentils
veggies like spinach, asparagus, lettuce, beets, broccoli, corn, Brussels sprouts, and bok choy
fruits like cantaloupe, honeydew, banana, raspberries, grapefruit, and strawberries
juices like orange, canned pineapple, grapefruit, tomato, or other vegetable juice
peanut butter
sunflower seeds
People with MTHFR mutations may want to avoid foods that contain the synthetic form of folate, folic acid — though the evidence is not clear that is necessary or beneficial. Be sure to check labels, as this vitamin is added to many enriched grains, like pasta, cereals, breads, and commercially produced flours.
So... how exactly is higher carb consumption risking the life of someone with this condition? Looks like the only potential issue is with folic acid, and the jury's still deliberating on it.
12 -
Makaiookami wrote: »Your advice to someone with the MTFHR gene mutation is putting their life at risk. I'm just suggesting we should eat more like most humans have throughout most of human history ever since we started to go away from herbivorism to scavengers, and then hunters. We don't need sharp teeth, WE INVENTED ON DEMAND FIRE!
The only people in this thread who have told everyone how they should eat are you and OP.
The rest of us say eat the amount of carbs you want within a healthful diet. (I personally don't think carnivore-ism is likely to be healthy compared with a nutrient-dense diet containing a lot of veg and other plant foods, but it's your business and I wouldn't comment on anyone's diet so long as they weren't asking for advice or preaching their own One True Way based on false claims.)20
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 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
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 897 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions