4 ms·

"Too many calories" is a simpler problem to solve: increase physical activity, take less sugar, or take sugar less frequently. The signal to watch out for to te

by abenga 1y ago

"Too many calories" is a simpler problem to solve: increase physical activity, take less sugar, or take sugar less frequently. The signal to watch out for to tell that you are taking too much (increasing weight) is straightforward as well. The possible artificial sweetener issues implied by the article ("may be poison") are ultra scary.

aydyn 1y ago
Easier to understand does not mean simpler to solve. 40% of the U.S. is overweight, 11% are diabetic, etc etc. There is no such magnitude of a problem due to erythritol or artificial sweeteners. If "too many calories" were easy to solve we would not have an epidemic of it.
- uncircle 1y ago
  Sweeteners don’t solve the obesity epidemic, they make it worse. Bodies are complex systems with feedback, you cannot focus only on the amount of calories. If one is overweight, and keep reinforcing their dietary patterns by eating sweet food, caloric or not, they’re never gonna adapt to healthy eating which is barely sweet if at all. I’m speaking from an holistic point of view; the American idea of healthy food is twisted by commercial interests and only calories seem to count. Also, you forget that sweeteners still cause an insulin release and some research shows that their effect on metabolism might be even worse than sugar itself because, being zero calories, they do not contribute to the sense of “caloric satiety,” so for the same volume of food your body has released more insulin. It’s convenient for companies to claim sweeteners are safe and sugar is the devil, but consumers should take such a claim with a grain of salt. There is no silver bullet, and dietary sciences is a field of bad science and enormous commercial incentives to lie. A good rule of thumb is whatever we have consumed for thousands of years is likely not that bad. Sugar in quantities should be avoided, but elsewhere you have claimed that it is bad for you and I have to disagree with such hyperbole, compared to something we’ve eaten for less than 50 years created by food lobbies.
- Propelloni 1y ago
  No, the GP is correct. The solution is simple. Calculate your daily passive calorie requirement, take in less calories and/or up active calorie requirement. Simple. Now, implementing this is hard or maybe impossible for many individuals, I'm not denying this. The solution is simple, but for some it is not easy to implement.
  - rat9988 1y ago
    This is word play on the meaning of word simple in "simple solution" that can mean both easy to do or easy to understand. This is orthogonal to the point being made.
    - Jensson 1y ago
      It is simple as in you know if its a problem for you or not. Most people can eat sugar without becoming fat.
    - kreetx 1y ago
      Yup. If more calories were a "simple problem to solve", how come it isn't solved?
      - kelipso 1y ago
        It is a simple problem to solve. Eat less, exercise more. Tons of people have done it successfully. Tons of people do it without even thinking about it. It’s just that some people have mental addictions or whatever problems that makes them want to overeat or not exercise enough. But the solution itself is simple and straightforward.
        kreetx 1y ago
        If the "tons of people" in the first paragraph were multiples more than the "some people" in the second paragraph, then I would agree that the solution is simple. But the thing you describe in the second paragraph is what makes actually solving obesity hard. Using artificial sweeteners is one of the ways in countering the latter half of the puzzle.
vladvasiliu 1y ago
While this looks simple on the surface, what I've found is that there's a missing component to what you describe: the effect sugar has on the perception of satiety: when I eat sugar, I always have a hunger-like feeling, which incites me to keep on eating. I don't get this with sweeteners. This happens with sugary drinks, but also with solid food, such as cake. Sure, once you see your weight go up, you can adjust. But adjusting is difficult, and I think this is a contributing factor to the weight problems people have.
- chewonbananas 1y ago
  That's because not enough of the hormone leptin (feeling of satiety) gets created when you ingest sugary foods.
  - vladvasiliu 1y ago
    I've noticed this happens even after desert. If I have a steak or similar and end there, it's fine. If I have something sweet, I'll feel hungry in two hours.
sieve 1y ago
> "Too many calories" is a simpler problem to solve: increase physical activity, take less sugar, or take sugar less frequently. From Taubes' Good Calories, Bad Calories: > “To attribute obesity to ‘overeating,’” as the Harvard nutritionist Jean Mayer suggested back in 1968, “is as meaningful as to account for alcoholism by ascribing it to ‘overdrinking.’” Obesity etc are hormonal issues. It is not simple calorie-in, calorie-out math. I have been on a diet, off-and-on, for 15 years, and I can notice craving for carbs increase after "slipping/cheating" by consuming sugary food. While I generally manage to avoid reaching for snacks, I can only imagine how people can struggle with this, more so when others around them are stuffing themselves with food rich in sugar.
- dogman1050 1y ago
  For me, it's calories-in calories-out. I've been counting calories for two decades and learned a couple things about my particular case: - If I consume more than 2,300 kcal per day, I gain measurable weight in weeks. - If I consume less than 2,100 kcal per day, I lose measurable weight in weeks. - Physical activity has little effect on my weight change. - Age has little effect on my weight change. - When losing weight, I must work out to retain strength. Moving around an extra 10 kg takes strength that is lost when the weight is lost. In my case, any hormonal effects are secondary to the above. I've changed what I eat over the years and my weight didn't change if I consumed the same kcals. There are likely subtleties I am missing, but eating less works for me. YMMV
  - lithocarpus 1y ago
    What do you eat in those extra 200 calories? I sometimes binge on cheese and nuts or peanut butter when I'm not at my best, but even when I do this for weeks, and I'm talking an extra 2000 calories in a day which is easy with those things, I haven't gained weight (fat). I don't feel as good and I don't recommend it, but I think it's safer than eating sugar if one is going to binge. I had a couple years 10 years ago where I ate sweet things most days and did gain noticeable weight (fat). So it's not like I'm genetically not going to gain weight either. As an aside, physical activity might not affect weight change as much but it will affect the fat/muscle ratio.
woolion 1y ago
I'm quite convinced humans, unless in an environment that restrict their food intake (e.g. being working outside in the fields), are just generally not able to manage the hunger of the sugar-induced insulin crash. I've switched to the keto diet for other health reasons --I never had any weight issues, and my weight didn't change-- but I never feel as hungry as I used to. But eat a square of chocolate and the hunger comes back.

by abenga 1y ago

aydyn 1y ago

Easier to understand does not mean simpler to solve. 40% of the U.S. is overweight, 11% are diabetic, etc etc. There is no such magnitude of a problem due to erythritol or artificial sweeteners. If "too many calories" were easy to solve we would not have an epidemic of it.

uncircle 1y ago
Sweeteners don’t solve the obesity epidemic, they make it worse. Bodies are complex systems with feedback, you cannot focus only on the amount of calories. If one is overweight, and keep reinforcing their dietary patterns by eating sweet food, caloric or not, they’re never gonna adapt to healthy eating which is barely sweet if at all. I’m speaking from an holistic point of view; the American idea of healthy food is twisted by commercial interests and only calories seem to count. Also, you forget that sweeteners still cause an insulin release and some research shows that their effect on metabolism might be even worse than sugar itself because, being zero calories, they do not contribute to the sense of “caloric satiety,” so for the same volume of food your body has released more insulin. It’s convenient for companies to claim sweeteners are safe and sugar is the devil, but consumers should take such a claim with a grain of salt. There is no silver bullet, and dietary sciences is a field of bad science and enormous commercial incentives to lie. A good rule of thumb is whatever we have consumed for thousands of years is likely not that bad. Sugar in quantities should be avoided, but elsewhere you have claimed that it is bad for you and I have to disagree with such hyperbole, compared to something we’ve eaten for less than 50 years created by food lobbies.
Propelloni 1y ago
No, the GP is correct. The solution is simple. Calculate your daily passive calorie requirement, take in less calories and/or up active calorie requirement. Simple. Now, implementing this is hard or maybe impossible for many individuals, I'm not denying this. The solution is simple, but for some it is not easy to implement.
- rat9988 1y ago
  This is word play on the meaning of word simple in "simple solution" that can mean both easy to do or easy to understand. This is orthogonal to the point being made.
  - Jensson 1y ago
    It is simple as in you know if its a problem for you or not. Most people can eat sugar without becoming fat.
  - kreetx 1y ago
    Yup. If more calories were a "simple problem to solve", how come it isn't solved?
    - kelipso 1y ago
      It is a simple problem to solve. Eat less, exercise more. Tons of people have done it successfully. Tons of people do it without even thinking about it. It’s just that some people have mental addictions or whatever problems that makes them want to overeat or not exercise enough. But the solution itself is simple and straightforward.
      - kreetx 1y ago
        If the "tons of people" in the first paragraph were multiples more than the "some people" in the second paragraph, then I would agree that the solution is simple. But the thing you describe in the second paragraph is what makes actually solving obesity hard. Using artificial sweeteners is one of the ways in countering the latter half of the puzzle.

vladvasiliu 1y ago

While this looks simple on the surface, what I've found is that there's a missing component to what you describe: the effect sugar has on the perception of satiety: when I eat sugar, I always have a hunger-like feeling, which incites me to keep on eating. I don't get this with sweeteners. This happens with sugary drinks, but also with solid food, such as cake. Sure, once you see your weight go up, you can adjust. But adjusting is difficult, and I think this is a contributing factor to the weight problems people have.

chewonbananas 1y ago
That's because not enough of the hormone leptin (feeling of satiety) gets created when you ingest sugary foods.
- vladvasiliu 1y ago
  I've noticed this happens even after desert. If I have a steak or similar and end there, it's fine. If I have something sweet, I'll feel hungry in two hours.

sieve 1y ago

> "Too many calories" is a simpler problem to solve: increase physical activity, take less sugar, or take sugar less frequently. From Taubes' Good Calories, Bad Calories: > “To attribute obesity to ‘overeating,’” as the Harvard nutritionist Jean Mayer suggested back in 1968, “is as meaningful as to account for alcoholism by ascribing it to ‘overdrinking.’” Obesity etc are hormonal issues. It is not simple calorie-in, calorie-out math. I have been on a diet, off-and-on, for 15 years, and I can notice craving for carbs increase after "slipping/cheating" by consuming sugary food. While I generally manage to avoid reaching for snacks, I can only imagine how people can struggle with this, more so when others around them are stuffing themselves with food rich in sugar.

dogman1050 1y ago
For me, it's calories-in calories-out. I've been counting calories for two decades and learned a couple things about my particular case: - If I consume more than 2,300 kcal per day, I gain measurable weight in weeks. - If I consume less than 2,100 kcal per day, I lose measurable weight in weeks. - Physical activity has little effect on my weight change. - Age has little effect on my weight change. - When losing weight, I must work out to retain strength. Moving around an extra 10 kg takes strength that is lost when the weight is lost. In my case, any hormonal effects are secondary to the above. I've changed what I eat over the years and my weight didn't change if I consumed the same kcals. There are likely subtleties I am missing, but eating less works for me. YMMV
- lithocarpus 1y ago
  What do you eat in those extra 200 calories? I sometimes binge on cheese and nuts or peanut butter when I'm not at my best, but even when I do this for weeks, and I'm talking an extra 2000 calories in a day which is easy with those things, I haven't gained weight (fat). I don't feel as good and I don't recommend it, but I think it's safer than eating sugar if one is going to binge. I had a couple years 10 years ago where I ate sweet things most days and did gain noticeable weight (fat). So it's not like I'm genetically not going to gain weight either. As an aside, physical activity might not affect weight change as much but it will affect the fat/muscle ratio.

woolion 1y ago

I'm quite convinced humans, unless in an environment that restrict their food intake (e.g. being working outside in the fields), are just generally not able to manage the hunger of the sugar-induced insulin crash. I've switched to the keto diet for other health reasons --I never had any weight issues, and my weight didn't change-- but I never feel as hungry as I used to. But eat a square of chocolate and the hunger comes back.