211–220 of 274 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, I'm not exactly saying your should eat a bunch of sucrose either, so I might have overstepped by saying it's MUCH worse. But I do think the evidence points to fructose not being good for you, and it's certainly not better than other sugars.
Why are you lying like that? Are you trying to hurt people?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are plenty of healthy diets recommended by leading nutritionists and doctors that aren't the food pyramid. And bringing this up as a straw-man doesn't seem to further the discussion. There are lots of very healthy diets with much more long term data behind them like the Mediterranean diet.
The food pyramid is literally taught to every child in the united states, and, uh, we're kind of a fat nation. I think it's totally fair to call it out, it's not a straw-man, the government is literally forcing bad advice on people that's making them fat.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The food pyramid is literally taught to every child in the united states, and, uh, we're kind of a fat nation. I think it's totally fair to call it out, it's not a straw-man, the government is literally forcing bad advice on people that's making them fat.
The food pyramid has been out of date since 2011
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ok but, the only reason you would care about getting energy super efficiently/quickly is if you're an athlete. Also while glucose is certainly easier to burn, I've seen evidence that ketones are actually a better source of energy. Since we have an obesity epidemic, and the vast majority of (fat) people are on the diet you're proposing, I would suggest that energy efficiency is not exactly a high priority for most peo…
Obese people are obese because they eat--A LOT. I had a relative like that. The amount of food put away was epic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ketone bodies can be used by the brain. It prefers glucose, but you don't absolutely need it. Lets say for a second you're right and you need glucose, though. 65% is a really high number, and we basically know exactly what it leads to (obesity).
Stop spreading misinformation. 65% is well within historical norms. People commonly ate that much or more, oils and meat used to be expensive.
Pro tip: you need a balanced diet. Despite all the recent conspiracy theories, getting rid of sugar while e.g. eating loads of fat is not going to do you good. Downvoters: show me academic papers. Not some tabloid mis-quoting some paper, but the actual paper or at least an abstract. Otherwise you're just being dietary fanboys "SV kids getting healthy thanks to one weird trick"
The verbiage "balanced diet" is begging the question. What is a balanced diet? If it is just "one that works" than this is akin to knowing how to efficiently sort a large array from the definition of "elements are in in increasing order." Well, yes, but how do we get there? That is, at best, claims of a balanced diet resort to existence statements, but never evidence ones. I am not going to claim I eat healthy, or th…
Pro tip: you need a balanced diet. Despite all the recent conspiracy theories, getting rid of sugar while e.g. eating loads of fat is not going to do you good. Downvoters: show me academic papers. Not some tabloid mis-quoting some paper, but the actual paper or at least an abstract. Otherwise you're just being dietary fanboys "SV kids getting healthy thanks to one weird trick"
>>show me academic papers https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2012/11/19/ask-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sugar is just an empty calorie, there's plenty of studies that also show that it has no real net negative effect. The problem is when your diet consists primarily of empty calories, then obviously you are going to have health problems, from lack of nutrients. If your diet is nutrient rich, a bit of extra sugar will not do anything bad.
Sorry, but you are the one that tripped the final wire for me: What exactly is an "empty calorie"? What metric is it low on? It has calories. What is it empty of?
Proteins have specific uses, and some of them can't be produced by your body, so that would be an example of a "non-empty" calorie. Same thing with lipids. Carbohydrates are, essentially, sugar. (Once they're broken down). Obviously you can use them for energy, and they're useful in that regard, but once you have "enough" carbohydrates to fuel whatever activity you're doing adding more just causes your body to convert them into fat. So, that's why they're considered "emtpy" -- they have no nutritional value other than being converted to glucose.
Pro tip: you need a balanced diet. Despite all the recent conspiracy theories, getting rid of sugar while e.g. eating loads of fat is not going to do you good. Downvoters: show me academic papers. Not some tabloid mis-quoting some paper, but the actual paper or at least an abstract. Otherwise you're just being dietary fanboys "SV kids getting healthy thanks to one weird trick"
"Current dietary advice says foods containing high levels of saturated fats such as cream, butter, red meat, eggs and cheese should be avoided because they increase the risk of heart disease, Type 2 diabetes and cancer. "But a study published in a leading medical journal has found the opposite is true, with a diet full of natural fats improving the health of people taking part." "The study, published in the American…