and its effects on diabetes and metabolic disease:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-lustig-md/sugar-toxic_b...He makes some interesting points.LWW
From the blog:Fiber. You eat 160 calories in almonds, but you absorb only 130. The fiber in the almonds delays absorption of calories into the bloodstream, delivering those calories to the bacteria in your intestine, which chew them up. Because a calorie is not a calorie.Protein. When it comes to food, you have to put energy in to get energy out. You have to put twice as much energy in to metabolize protein as you do carbohydrate; this is called the thermic effect of food. So protein wastes more energy in its processing. Plus protein reduces hunger better than carbohydrate. Because a calorie is not a calorie.Gee, where have I heard this before--oh yeah:So caloric density varies among different foods. So does impact on hormones like insulin and cck. So does the thermic effect of food--fat has the lowest thermic effect whereas protein has the highest.and same post: Fiber content is another difference. http://boards.fool.com/i-think-this-is-getting-sillybreast-m...and:As I previously stated 'calories-in' doesn't mean 100 calories of jelly beans is the equivalent of 100 calories of oat bran or brown rice or lettuce--the fiber is going to blunt the blood sugar response thus the insulin response for exampleSo--forgive me, but Lustig isn't making any earth-shattering points. AGAIN--for the UMPTEENTH TIME this bait-and-switch some people engage in where they imply that if you state 'calories matter when it comes to losing weight' you really mean "all calories are equal in every aspect" is really disingenuous.http://boards.fool.com/the-body-has-many-mechanisms-to-encou...
Well, he might not had made any earth shattering points with you, but I was interested in the sugar intake/diabetes reaction that was separate from issues with obesity.It goes a long way to explaining why there are people out there whose bodies are technically overweight or obese, yet they don't eat sugar and don't have issues with diabetes and are considered relatively healthy from a numbers standpoint (blood sugar, cholesterol, etc).LWW
Thanks, LWW. I've read a couple of things by Robert Lustig and find them quite interesting. ThyPeace, less than half of her intake of calories was "real" food today.
So--forgive me, but Lustig isn't making any earth-shattering points.But he does keep making them....overandoverandover again. Quantity over quality so to speak.In reality, his basic information isn't incorrect in a reductionist sort of way. Manifestly, fibre, protein fat and *sugar* all provoke different hormonal responses and have different digestive patterns/metabolic effects etc.....and why wouldn't they.....they're all different. There's no controversy about this whatsover. You can pick up any physiology or biochemistry textbook from the 1960/70's (I still have mine) and read this same basic information.The problem is, he's using circuitous arguments and all those logical fallacies like Straw Men etc. to bamboozle a readership that doesn't have the basic science background to think critically about it (like me and computers, say) Not quite as bad as Gary Taubes, mind......he does have his basic science right.....but close to. I could never understand it before but I see he has a book out. I'm sure that makes no difference whatsoever....reallyNo one in the scientific community would ever claim that sugar is good for you......and if that ever happened I would surely hope that folk would rebel against the idea. Manifestly I'm not talking about instances when you might find yourself trapped on the North Face of The Eiger and nothing but a slab of Kendal Mint Cake to sustain you http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kendal_Mint_Cake ... "Empty calories" has always been in my lexicon.....along with "If it rots your teeth, imagine what it does to the rest of your body". So attention grabbing openers like this in the context of a Still Believe a Calorie is a Calorie? headline....If you do, you fly in the face of mounting and incontrovertible evidence that some calories -- in particular, "sugar calories" -- are jeopardizing both your and your family's health. ....is nothing more (or less) than pure sensationalism. The sort of thing you see with Science By Press Release......and this is a particularly agregious example.Here's the recently published study he's promoting on HuffPohttp://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjourna...
ThyPeace, less than half of her intake of calories was "real" food today. And there's nothing wrong with that......unless the sum total of yesterday's energy intake was greater than energy expenditure.Even that's not so bad as long as it's not a consistent thing. Recognising what's responsible for weight gain or lack of weight loss is a powerful tool for change.
It must be lonely for you, basking in the knowledge that you an zf are the only people on this board who have any wisdom at all. Nevermind that Listi went to medical school too.But really, falling back on catch-phrases all the time ie: "science by press release" and "mythinformation" and a host of others that you use regularly gets really tiresome for all us mere mortals.And to be honest, you lost credibility with me when you played dumb over tconi's OCD remark in the other thread. I know that you know very well that the "sugars" found in breast milk are not the same thing as the food industry adding refined sugar to baby formula.LWW
It must be lonely for you, basking in the knowledge that you an zf are the only people on this board who have any wisdom at all....Hey--LWW that was uncalled for. Really now. Speaking for myself, I guess my feathers got ruffled when I clicked on your link--thinking there'd be something noteworthy in the article (I'm the first one who will eat up--pardon the pun--anything that gives me another reason to avoid sugar) only to find a ridiculous headline implying that anyone on this planet with an IQ above their shoe size actually claims or even thinks a calorie of jelly beans is the equivalent in every aspect as a calorie of egg whites . No one believes that--so the author is jousting at windmills and setting up strawmen as opponents against which to rail. So I called him out on it. He--and anyone else who uses the bait-and-switch I previously referred to--deserves to be called out for their fallacy-of-thought and implications.
No, I don't think it was. You and V spend an awful lot of time running down the people who post here if they don't lockstep with your ideas. Then, if something gets posted that shows some hypothesis that makes sense to the rest of us, you suddenly jump on it and point out that this was what you'd been saying all along. But who knows if you actually were, given that you both seem to love to use various scientific terms and calculations that most of us are not famliar with. Sorry to lump you in with her, but honestly, you both have a pretty bad habit of doing it. YOu may not even be aware of how it sounds to the average reader, but it comes across bullying and insensitive on a board that's devoted to helping people try to improve their health and weight.And FTR Listi was pointing out that sugar, more than calories in general causes significant damage. He didn't suggest that people think that they can survive on a diet of jelly beans. He did point out that if you increase your caloric intake by 150 calories a day, you could gain weight, but the health impact otherwise isn't that bad, but if you add those 150 calories a day with a can of soda, you see an increase in levels of diabetes. People get hung up on calories, but you have to look beyond calories alone. You might be able to lose weight with a caloric deficit, but you won't improve your health just by cutting back on the number of calories you consume.LWW
YOu may not even be aware of how it sounds to the average reader, but it comes across bullying and insensitive on a board that's devoted to helping people try to improve their health and weight.You might want to give a thought to how you come across when one of your dogmatic statements is disagreed with. One of the reasons I post on this board is that I get to learn stuff and, believe it or not, folk do lurk without posting and to all appearances want accurate information to improve their health and weight. I've gotten the odd e-mail from names I don't recognise in the past as I have during this recent flurry of posts requesting further information that those same folk presumably didn't feel comfortable asking on the board.When folk read statements that it's "possible to gain weight on 500Cals a day".....and links that're supposed to support the statement that have no relationship at all, I could see why they wouldn't think there's much of value to be picked up. Sorry to lump you in with that poster, but the two of you have an awful habit of posting opinion-as-fact and getting testy when the facts are actually presented.
People get hung up on calories, but you have to look beyond calories alone. You might be able to lose weight with a caloric deficit, but you won't improve your health just by cutting back on the number of calories you consume.Well, once again words are put in my mouth. I never said composition of the calories you eat doesn't matter. In FACT I have repeatedly said the opposite:... personally I believe what you eat *does* impact the ability to lose weight: for example, protein (and fat) release cck a satiety hormone that helps you feel full--and in general protein suppresses the appetite whereas refined carbs stimulate it (especially sugar). That eating 'real food' makes it less likely to overeat--and that includes carbs that still have their fiber intact (brown rice, quinoa, oats, yams, fibrous veggies, etc.). However, ignoring or discounting calories in an attempt to 'eat as much as you want and still lose weight' (that standard diet-hawker's slogan), is a small-f fool's errand....http://boards.fool.com/in-dieting-magic-isn8217t-a-substitut... ...I've already posted on more than one occasion that it's alot harder to overeat a bowl of rice and broccoli or baked potatoes than it is to overeat donuts or potato chips. The fiber factor alone in the former is advantageous in controlling hunger. I always recommend focusing on lean proteins, healthy fats and carbs that haven't had their fiber refined and processed out of them. It's far easier to stay within a certain calorie limit when you do that, so why tempt fate by straying over to the dark side of processed crap that only acts to stimulate your appetite instead of satisfy it. You'll feel better and you'll look better if you eat real food. ...http://boards.fool.com/while-i-agree-with-you-about-the-need......I presume the insulin reactions among the groups were altered by the macrocomposition of the 4 diets...http://boards.fool.com/scheduled-high-fat-diet-prevents-obes...I'm sorry if correcting what I perceive as misinformation is seen as bullying. But it serves no one here to promulgate mis-truths. Sorry but anyone who ignores the primacy of calorie control in weight management is doing a disservice. Anyone who tries to do end-runs around the truth that ultimately weight loss is a matter of creating a calorie deficit needs to be brought-back to reality. I view it as tough-love and issuing wake-up calls. However--that said--I will try to watch my tone and find a way to bring the message I'm trying to convey without coming off as a bully or whatever other negative attitude is being ascribed to my posts.
YOu may not even be aware of how it sounds to the average reader, but it comes across bullying and insensitive on a board that's devoted to helping people try to improve their health and weight.You're right - It does come across as patronizing and condescending.
You might want to give a thought to how you come across when one of your dogmatic statements is disagreed with.Wow. Really? Dogmatic? You might want to look up the definition of that word. I do not preach any kind of dogma at all. The only think I have ever actually pushed is get the over-processed junk out of your diet. But hey, you can think what you want.The originator of this board finally gave up in frustration after dealing with so much bullying on this board. I see she was right to do so.<PLOINK>LWW
Wow. Really? Dogmatic? You might want to look up the definition of that word. I do not preach any kind of dogma at all.See, in the context of how we're rolling here it's not so much about how an individual perceives their own posts, right......but how they're judged by others (and reinforced by TMF's *rec* system)The originator of this board finally gave up in frustration after dealing with so much bullying on this board. I see she was right to do so.So, just for the heck of it and looking to learn and improve my skill set, I checked back on this......you're talking about DEANNDA, right?.....she of this sign-out .....Keep it nice, clean and no flaming allowed here unless you're firing up the BBQ ;-)Maybe she would've taken umbrage at this ..<PLOINK>I can't be sure what it's supposed to mean......but I'd like to think she'd <PLOINK> some of the posts that've been made in the context of this thread and others..http://boards.fool.com/dianaa-picky-point-but-cant-you-get-a...http://boards.fool.com/you-may-not-even-be-aware-of-how-it-s...
The originator of this board finally gave up in frustration after dealing with so much bullying on this board....FWIW, DEANNDA had a lot of issues that I'm quite well aware of.......and if she chose to leave this board, I think it's a bit of a cheap shot to surmise and state that it was because of *bullying* on this board. Obviously, I can't be too sure of that because my interactions with her weren't in the context of the FFF board.In the various venues that I noticed her name, there were always folk looking to give honest opinions on what she posted about........and, to be honest, VERY FEW of them were particularly comfortable.......but that's all they were. Uncomfortable Unless I'm misremembering, she was never the one to get bent out of shape.....it was always someone else with an axe to grind/burr up their bum/use her as a Cat's Paw etc.Another FWIW.....every time we drove up to Ithaca when we visited the daughter at vet school, when we turned off whatever I-it was, I'd look at the sign to Elmira and wonder what DEANNDA would think if I actually arrived at her door to say *Hi*
Another FWIW.....every time we drove up to Ithaca when we visited the daughter at vet school, when we turned off whatever I-it was, I'd look at the sign to Elmira and wonder what DEANNDA would think if I actually arrived at her door to say *Hi*That's a good question. I'll ask her the next time I'm on FB.LWW
The originator of this board finally gave up in frustration after dealing with so much bullying on this board. I see she was right to do so.Really? Who was that?Why would there be bullying on a board to lose weight?
Really? Who was that?Deannda was the one who started the board. She referenced "board culture" to me one day as a reason she chose not to post anymore. For most of us, though perhaps not all, that's kind of a PC catch-phrase for "people being rude"To put it in context, when someone posts something they find interesting to read, and then get bombarded with all sorts of posts that indicate essentially that you're some sort of imbecile if you agree with anything in the article, then it's a bullying, or maybe just trolling. I originally thought the point of this board was to provide a little emotional support for those trying to deal with their struggle to lose weight. What I keep running into is that some people just want to belittle the thoughts of others to make themselves feel incredibly smart and important. I guess I've just had enough of it. So I'll bow out now. Good luck to those who are still trying to find something that actually works for them. And my apologies to those who have taken offense to my interpretation of their actions.LWW
Deannda intended this to be a safe place where people could talk about things without feeling bad about themselves. It was an "I'm ok, you're ok, just be nice and/or gentle" thing.And it veered away from that a long, long time ago.I didn't come over here for several years and only recently started poking my head in again, and that only because the formerly "big" boards have been so quiet and I don't want to deal with the political boards any more.Ishtar
Really? Who was that?Well, you've got that down. It was DEANNDAWhy would there be bullying on a board to lose weight?I doubt there ever was or has been. It's very easy to infer that an opinion that doesn't comport with one's own might be derogatory or bullying or whatnot. It's not the case. It's SO not the case 'cept in the minds of those who want it to be.DEANNDA was a poster who had a significant number of issues that I fortunately don't share. Notwithstanding, she and her family are quite dear to my heart because she was a consumate animal lover. We joked that if I needed a Toy Boy, she'd donate hers (we kept pics of him in our office back in Days of Yore) and I'm happy to say I was able to pony up some of the $$bucks to pay for her dogs' care (as I'm sure a good few of us here did)There really is no bullying....reallyDon't try to stir it up. There really was no bullying.
I guess I've just had enough of it. So I'll bow out now.I don't think you should leave. So there are a few annoying people around. What you have to say is still interesting to the vast majority of people who read here. If we all checked out of things because there were annoying people around, we would all be stuck in our houses alone.
Don't try to stir it up. There really was no bullying. I'm not trying to stir anything up.I find lots of posts annoying initially, yours included. That's because it's a written posting. One can read all sorts of stuff into a post that just isn't there, and was never meant to be there by the original poster. I've never been sure why that is, but it seems to be a universal occurrence.I think the original article was interesting. I don't think it was even remotely science by press release. I don't care if someone has been saying this exact-same-thing all the time. I don't think a calorie is just a calorie and I don't think a calorie deficit will cause you to lose weight if they are from sugar, I think you will just reduce your physical rate of burn to preserve fat, thus feeling tired and lethargic all the time. Or so it has been proven with lab rats.
I think the original article was interesting. I don't think it was even remotely science by press release. I don't care if someone has been saying this exact-same-thing all the time. I don't think a calorie is just a calorie and I don't think a calorie deficit will cause you to lose weight if they are from sugar, I think you will just reduce your physical rate of burn to preserve fat, thus feeling tired and lethargic all the time. Or so it has been proven with lab rats. There you go....you're a satisfied customer. Move on.
There you go....you're a satisfied customer. Move on. You first
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. Market data provided by Interactive Data.
Company fundamental data provided by Morningstar