The sugar problem

2

Replies

  • mmapags
    mmapags Posts: 8,946 Member
    Phirrgus wrote: »
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    Phirrgus wrote: »
    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 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.

    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.
    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.

    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 🙂

    I was gearing up a response til I read her's. Pure awesomeness right there! (as always)
  • magnusthenerd
    magnusthenerd Posts: 1,207 Member
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    lemurcat2 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.
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    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.
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    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.

    I just really want to analyze the fractal wrongness of the bolded statement.
    To begin with, funding simpliciter is never a way to delegitimatize a scientific study, never. If you find it acceptable, you're binding yourself to accepting it is possible show the Earth is flat if you can show there's a good reason to fund round Earth science.
    But let's just grant you the idea that it is a sound epistemology within science to look at your question that way. Welp - how about every single organization that makes or saves money by improving health, from world governments to health insurance agencies. So even on that level, not as evidential, but just as rhetoric, it is a really bad point to make.

    What we have, when it comes to epidemeology studies - which is about all one can do for longevity because of how long it takes to get results on a longevity RCT besides just studying proxy markers - are the Blue Zones. Overwhelmingly, these people are on carbs. They are eating a large amount of fruits, vegetables, and yes grains.

    I assure you, doctors are not scared stiff of proposed cures to diabetes, nor are they failing in terms of physiological knowledge on how to treat it. T2D is far more reversible by weight reduction for just about any overweight or obese diabetic. The issue is maintaining weight reduction is a cross discipline mess that really needs more knowledge about psychology of sustaining motivation.
    It really is not about getting out more bacon and eggs.

    I agree with everything you say above, but I also want to point out another amusing bit. One of the studies that has been most talked about at MFP lately (and has gotten plenty of press coverage) is the one about ultraprocessed foods vs. unprocessed (or lightly processed, in reality). The people involved included Kevin Hall (who did the study showing NO advantage to low carb when calories are controlled, basically contradicting the "insulin makes you fat, not calories" argument). One could certainly say this is a "cooking from whole foods could be beneficial" study (although again the mechanism was calories).

    However, quite obviously, the issue was NOT carbs. Both diets had the same amount of carbs initially. The people eating the ultraprocessed choices (and I'll note that the results might not have been the same with different ultraprocessed choices) ended up eating more, and specifically more fat+carbs (not merely more carbs). The others, despite a healthy diet including a typical amount of carbs, did not seem to find that carbs made them keep eating (or fat) within the context of the foods they were provided with.

    Clearly Kevin Hall stole money to do this study. Thus we can't rely on the results because of the funding.
  • NovusDies
    NovusDies Posts: 8,940 Member
    sheloves89 wrote: »
    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!

    There is evidence we've been eating bread for 14,000 years (at least). Imagine the life of a typical hunter/gatherer. We aren't fast. We don't have strong jaws. We don't have very much protection, so if something bites us first, we're in trouble. Our hunting strategy focused entirely on our stamina. We could out-jog a deer. That's it. They'd panic and sprint and we'd set off at a jog behind them, and eventually they'd be so exhausted with their bouts of sprinting that we could kill them. Even after we developed things like spears and arrows, our strategy didn't change a whole lot - we would hit them so they bled, and jog after them until they bled out (ideally this wouldn't take long).

    I always wonder why in these discussions eating like "early man" doesn't include eating a very large amount of insects like maggots.
  • sheloves89
    sheloves89 Posts: 88 Member
    edited June 2019
    NovusDies wrote: »
    I always wonder why in these discussions eating like "early man" doesn't include eating a very large amount of insects like maggots.

    LOL so true. Although, with our growing global population and our desperate drive to farm sustainable proteins.... we may come full circle.