"Sugar is good, even though it's high in calories yet doesn't make you feel any fuller, because you need calories to live" seems like an odd claim too, given that we don't live in a society where most people are suffering from insufficient caloric intake.
I imagine most people (surely me) are mostly thinking of added simple sugar when they talk about avoiding sugar, and not the carbohydrates in a slice of toast. But really I don't see the benefits as entirely "obvious" to having toast rather than, say, eggs.
Well it does not seem to me that he's making any scientific claims, just opinionated claims. Which is his right, just as much as it's might right to voice my own opinionated claims as a eater of food.
He makes many claims that are based on science (e.g. nutritional value of various ingredients, health effects of food processing, etc.) Do his social views make his analysis of those studies invalid?
> It found that home-made meals based on 408 bestselling cookbook recipes for infants and young children are not always healthier than ready meals and convenience products. In fact, on many measures they seemed less healthy: they tended to have a lower vegetable variety per meal and were more likely to exceed maximum recommendations for energy and fat content.
Is that representative of what the average person cooks?
Cookbooks are probably not representative of actual cooking, but it is hard to judge whether average cooking is healthier. It is impossible to judge how much less healthy it would be if people who are cool not cooking for children switched to cooking.
It is good point through, not everything that comes in can is bad for you.
Right. I guess the claim has always been that if you made it you know what's in it and you're less likely to unwittingly consume an extreme amount of sugar or whatever. I don't know how accurate that is.
One of the biggest problem I had with that statement is how extremely unscientifically it was. Home cooking don't take a constant amount of time and vary based on what food you make and how many people there is in the household. Some people like me do once a month cooking where you dedicate almost a whole day per month, usually a day on the weekend. If you are a single person then you might not even need to cook that often.
Aren't keto diets about making you more satiated and not about nutrition? I thought I've read that people have done a better job losing weight on such diets.
Where did you read that? How many were in the sample, how long was the diet, was it a double-blind test, what was the significance of the find? That's exactly his point: people write a lot of stuff on the internet that they believe or think is true. It might even work on them because of placebo efect. But it does mean these statements are facts.
The burden of proof is identical on the other side as well, so until then the conclusion is null and all we have are anecdotal stories, of which there are a lot.
It's interesting to see the emotional attachment naysayers have to low carb diets. I can understand advocates having an emotional attachment due to how it has changed their lives in a positive way, often after years if not decades of failure, but the strong emotional response it invokes in people whose lives are literally not affected in any way but are for some reason strongly repulsed by the very idea, almost as if there is something within the human psyche. Very interesting.
What's dismaying about weight loss isn't that people can't manage to lose weight but that the success rates in keeping it off over the longer term (5 or 10 years) are extremely bad for just about every method except stomach stapling.
That's thanks (IMO) to the existence of a huge industry dedicated to convincing people that "a diet" is a temporary change in what you eat, after which you can once again throw restraint to the wind.
Not only that. Many diets are not sustainable - you can't keep them long term and perform well enough on work. They work by keeping you with low energy which affects your performance. Plus you are miserable practicaly constantly while keeping them.
The other reason is that they alter how your body works - meaning it is much easier to gain weight after dieting then before. You body adjusts to hunger by making fat reserves asap.
It really doesn't. Humans (like all animals) tend to do everything based on rates rather than absolute measurements, so setpoints drift all over the place with time.
The thing is that you'll need to forever eat a rather low-calorie diet (more so than someone who was never overweight) and often this leads to frustrating, pervasive cravings for food that aren't that different from what people who have undergone starvation experiences report. Not for some finite period of time, but forever.
> For instance, much of the research assumes that when fat people lose weight, they become “healthy” in the same ways as a thinner person is healthy. The evidence says otherwise. “Even if someone loses weight, they will always need fewer calories and need to exercise more,” says [UNC pediatrician Asheley] Skinner. “So we’re putting people through something we know will probably not be successful anyway. Who knows what we’re doing to their metabolisms.”
> Debra Sapp-Yarwood, a fiftysomething from Kansas City, Missouri, who’s studying to be a hospital chaplain, is one of the three percenters, the select few who have lost a chunk of weight and kept it off. She dropped 55 pounds 11 years ago, and maintains her new weight with a diet and exercise routine most people would find unsustainable: She eats 1,800 calories a day—no more than 200 in carbs—and has learned to put up with what she describes as “intrusive thoughts and food preoccupations.” She used to run for an hour a day, but after foot surgery she switched to her current routine: a 50-minute exercise video performed at twice the speed of the instructor, while wearing ankle weights and a weighted vest that add between 25 or 30 pounds to her small frame.
> “Maintaining weight loss is not a lifestyle,” she says. “It’s a job.” It’s a job that requires not just time, self-discipline, and energy—it also takes up a lot of mental real estate. People who maintain weight loss over the long term typically make it their top priority in life
That link says the chance of keeping lost weight off for 3 years is 3% but of doing so for 5 years is 5%? Seems odd.
Anyway, I'd like to see a credible source on the claim that "Even if someone loses weight, they will always need fewer calories and need to exercise more". And even IF that's true, it doesn't change the fact that that person can still, by eating fewer calories, maintain their weight loss.
The case with Debra Sapp-Yarwood says she eats 1800 calories, or 7500kJ/day. That's not a severe caloric restriction. For a "small-framed" but active 55-year-old woman that's an entirely appropriate intake.
Congrats! Whatever works I say. The one issue, in my experience, is that usually it's just the act of paying attention to what you eat that makes the difference (and basically all diets help with this). I still think there is value in having choice in different diets and such, but hard to see how people can get so religious about any single one of them. You're not being religious or anything, just made me think of this common conflation is all.
That's exactly his point. There is no scientific evidence that this happens systemically, i.e. "Keto will lead to weight loss". That does not mean it does not or that you can't lose weight. There's just no evidence.
You are the one that claimed there is evidence, the onus is on you to show us it, not for us to disprove your claim. No one is claiming there are peer reviewed studies showing the opposite.
That's exactly his point. There is no scientific evidence that this happens systemically, i.e. "Keto will lead to weight loss". That does not mean it does not or that you can't lose weight. There's just no evidence.
Well, I lost weight by eating a junk-food-chain hamburger each day for a few weeks (it was an experiment, and I didn't get the fries and cola, only the hamburger). In the meantime my food intake has become a bit more varied, but ideology-free ;)
It's all about calorie intake and consumption really.
Sure that works. I lost 10 kg only drinking beer (2-3 months because everyone said beer was the fat cause which it is not; it is a combination); losing weight is hard but not if you have the power to cut something out you normally do eat.
Just do not eat as much. I eat half a pizza instead of a whole one (If I do what my mind wants I eat 3-4 napolitana pizzas in a go; I eat half of one now), drink less etc and it works. Unfortunately I love food so on culinary trips the flesh is weak, but I lose it quickly by eating varied and little.
I mean obviously sugar is not toxic. I think most people that do low sugar and no sugar diets are aware of that. Instead, they understand that there's way too much sugar out there and it is very addictive. That's the issue with this kind of anti-homeopathy reasoning, it's mostly just an attack on non-scientists who have their own theories and claims. However, science has a lot of gaps, especially when it comes to nutrition. It's very hard to be precise with it.
For the year to date, I've gotten 33% of my calories from carbs (and 25% from protein, 42% from fat). 23% of the carbs have been added sugars, or 7% of overall calories.
I know that's not actually a low carb diet, at least by the standards most people use when they talk about low carb, but it is quite a bit lower in carbs than what the average American eats.
I've been eating this way since September 2015, and even this moderate reduction in sugar has been enough to cause a change in how I react to sugar.
I don't suffer any adverse reaction, such as headaches, if I have something high in sugar. Well, at least nothing I have ever noticed. What has changed is that I just don't find anything particularly attractive about high sugar foods any more.
For example, if someone brings in donuts for the office and I eat one or two it tastes OK, but it is nothing special. It's not really a treat like it would have been a a few years ago. I will now almost always pick a salty snack like potato chips over a sugary snack.
Science has gaps because scientist do not know things. Non-scientist going "based on what happened to my cousin, this must have been what happened" is not going to fill the gaps in knowledge.
For example, we might now have the 'scientific knowledge' to explain why a particular mushroom is poisonous, but it probably started with a 'avoid it because your cousin died eating that one', followed by the observation that this happened to multiple cousins, followed by some kind of proto-scientific experimentation. None of this might qualify as 'scientists' doing 'science' by our standards, but it's still knowledge.
That doesn't necessarily mean homeopathy should be taken seriously at this point though.
I mean, its obvious that sugar is toxic, as anything is. The toxicity is in the dose. So context matters.
Sugar IS toxic if it hangs out in the blood too long, with adequately high levels. It produces all sorts of bad effects - from AGEs to diminished vitamin C uptake (and thus immunity). Sugar is uniquely toxic to teeth, there is nobody that will argue that.
This ... angry chef ... doesn't actually provide anything but confusion. I highly recommend you to avoid it and do your own reasearch.
The traditional dismissal of detoxes is that your body naturally detoxes itself. If it was full of toxins, you'd be sick. Can anyone parse that with those who get mercury toxicity from eating too much sushi?
And how is sugar an important building block of life? I'm presume he means calories are important, and he's not referring to glycobiology.
Toxicity, when fat starts to burn down, is well known phenomena in medicine. You can be poisoned and toxins can be 'stored' in fat for years, depending on their type, then one day when you start melting that you start to experience symptoms.
> And how is sugar an important building block of life?
Not very much, since there is no such thing as sugar deficiency and liver can make its own via gluconeogenesis. Unless you have impaired liver or are starving, sugar probably has little value.
Toxic or not, sugar is unnecessary. Just look around. It's not healthy, literally, to allow people to believe sugar is okay. The context matters. And in the context of most people's diet and lifestyle giving up sugar is probably the quickest and smartest thing they can do.
Else, we have the status quo. Clearly, that's not working.
52 comments
[ 3.6 ms ] story [ 114 ms ] threadMy point being: you're ignoring obvious benefits by hyperbolizing having a piece of toast to put something in your stomach before leaving the house.
Apparently it's a thing, and just shows this whole line of thought has sort of jumped the shark...
Is that representative of what the average person cooks?
It is good point through, not everything that comes in can is bad for you.
It's interesting to see the emotional attachment naysayers have to low carb diets. I can understand advocates having an emotional attachment due to how it has changed their lives in a positive way, often after years if not decades of failure, but the strong emotional response it invokes in people whose lives are literally not affected in any way but are for some reason strongly repulsed by the very idea, almost as if there is something within the human psyche. Very interesting.
He may have a strong opinion, but I am not sure how based in science it is.
The other reason is that they alter how your body works - meaning it is much easier to gain weight after dieting then before. You body adjusts to hunger by making fat reserves asap.
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_exa...
> For instance, much of the research assumes that when fat people lose weight, they become “healthy” in the same ways as a thinner person is healthy. The evidence says otherwise. “Even if someone loses weight, they will always need fewer calories and need to exercise more,” says [UNC pediatrician Asheley] Skinner. “So we’re putting people through something we know will probably not be successful anyway. Who knows what we’re doing to their metabolisms.”
> Debra Sapp-Yarwood, a fiftysomething from Kansas City, Missouri, who’s studying to be a hospital chaplain, is one of the three percenters, the select few who have lost a chunk of weight and kept it off. She dropped 55 pounds 11 years ago, and maintains her new weight with a diet and exercise routine most people would find unsustainable: She eats 1,800 calories a day—no more than 200 in carbs—and has learned to put up with what she describes as “intrusive thoughts and food preoccupations.” She used to run for an hour a day, but after foot surgery she switched to her current routine: a 50-minute exercise video performed at twice the speed of the instructor, while wearing ankle weights and a weighted vest that add between 25 or 30 pounds to her small frame.
> “Maintaining weight loss is not a lifestyle,” she says. “It’s a job.” It’s a job that requires not just time, self-discipline, and energy—it also takes up a lot of mental real estate. People who maintain weight loss over the long term typically make it their top priority in life
Anyway, I'd like to see a credible source on the claim that "Even if someone loses weight, they will always need fewer calories and need to exercise more". And even IF that's true, it doesn't change the fact that that person can still, by eating fewer calories, maintain their weight loss.
The case with Debra Sapp-Yarwood says she eats 1800 calories, or 7500kJ/day. That's not a severe caloric restriction. For a "small-framed" but active 55-year-old woman that's an entirely appropriate intake.
It's all about calorie intake and consumption really.
Just do not eat as much. I eat half a pizza instead of a whole one (If I do what my mind wants I eat 3-4 napolitana pizzas in a go; I eat half of one now), drink less etc and it works. Unfortunately I love food so on culinary trips the flesh is weak, but I lose it quickly by eating varied and little.
I know that's not actually a low carb diet, at least by the standards most people use when they talk about low carb, but it is quite a bit lower in carbs than what the average American eats.
I've been eating this way since September 2015, and even this moderate reduction in sugar has been enough to cause a change in how I react to sugar.
I don't suffer any adverse reaction, such as headaches, if I have something high in sugar. Well, at least nothing I have ever noticed. What has changed is that I just don't find anything particularly attractive about high sugar foods any more.
For example, if someone brings in donuts for the office and I eat one or two it tastes OK, but it is nothing special. It's not really a treat like it would have been a a few years ago. I will now almost always pick a salty snack like potato chips over a sugary snack.
For example, we might now have the 'scientific knowledge' to explain why a particular mushroom is poisonous, but it probably started with a 'avoid it because your cousin died eating that one', followed by the observation that this happened to multiple cousins, followed by some kind of proto-scientific experimentation. None of this might qualify as 'scientists' doing 'science' by our standards, but it's still knowledge.
That doesn't necessarily mean homeopathy should be taken seriously at this point though.
Sugar IS toxic if it hangs out in the blood too long, with adequately high levels. It produces all sorts of bad effects - from AGEs to diminished vitamin C uptake (and thus immunity). Sugar is uniquely toxic to teeth, there is nobody that will argue that.
This ... angry chef ... doesn't actually provide anything but confusion. I highly recommend you to avoid it and do your own reasearch.
And how is sugar an important building block of life? I'm presume he means calories are important, and he's not referring to glycobiology.
> And how is sugar an important building block of life?
Not very much, since there is no such thing as sugar deficiency and liver can make its own via gluconeogenesis. Unless you have impaired liver or are starving, sugar probably has little value.
Else, we have the status quo. Clearly, that's not working.