5 ms·

And "carbs" as if they are bad things.

by wdewind 12y ago

debacle 12y ago
Carbs are a bad thing in large amounts. The FDA's daily carb intake recommendations (250-350g) are a joke.
- wdewind 12y ago
  The FDA recommendations are not great, but 300g of carbs is totally reasonable if you are on a low fat diet. The problem is people on high carb diets tend to have a hard time keeping it at just 300g due to insulin level effects. But it's a behavioral issue: control the level of carb intake and you'll be fine.
  - debacle 12y ago
    300g of carbs is the same amount of sugar in 3 litres of coke. Do you really think that is reasonable for anyone?
    - wdewind 12y ago
      No because it will be extremely difficult for you to fit within your caloric balance and still get all the micronutrients you need. But the issue here is that the carbs are paired with something that doesn't also give you those micronutrients so you'd have to eat even more calories to get there, not the carbs themselves.
Someone1234 12y ago
A lot of carbohydrates are extremely bad for you (e.g. sugar). However some are good for you (e.g. green veggies). The devil is in the details as they say. From what I've read of this product, it doesn't contain excess anything by design. So it likely isn't problematic, but as a general rule "bad" carbs can be very bad for you and give you things like diabetes if over-consumed.
- wdewind 12y ago
  > The devil is in the details as they say. Yes. First off, there is absolutely no science showing sugar is bad for you, or that it behaves differently from other carbs when combined with equal amounts of fiber (which is why vegetable carbohydrates tend to be "ok"). Second, even without the fiber, for the vast majority of people a high sugar diet (within reasonable max carbohydrate intake) is not going to adversely affect you directly, the issue usually comes in with behavioral impact, causing you to eat more, causing you to get fat, causing you to have diabetes. > as a general rule "bad" carbs can be very bad for you and give you things like diabetes if over-consumed This concept of "bad" carbs is really not useful. Carbs are pretty much carbs. Anything (other carbs, fat and protein) can also be over-consumed but are simply less likely to. TLDR: assuming equal amounts of carbohydrates, the source doesn't actually seem to have a big impact.
  - Someone1234 12y ago
    > First off, there is absolutely no science showing sugar is bad for you, or that it behaves differently from other carbs when combined with equal amounts of fiber (which is why vegetable carbohydrates tend to be "ok"). I just stopped reading there. No point going on, that's just jaw droppingly ignorant. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugar#Health_effects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugar#Health_effects The fact you're arguing that green veggies and sugar are equally bad for people is just, wow, just wow. That's a new low.
    - wdewind 12y ago
      Did you even read the link you sent? Here are some quotes: > Some studies involving the health impact of sugars are effectively inconclusive. The WHO and FAO meta studies have shown directly contrasting impacts of sugar in refined and unrefined forms[66] and since most studies do not use a population that do not consume any "free sugars" at all, the baseline is effectively flawed. Hence, there are articles such as Consumer Reports on Health that stated in 2008, "Some of the supposed dietary dangers of sugar have been overblown. Many studies have debunked the idea that it causes hyperactivity, for example. > Studies on the link between sugars and diabetes are inconclusive, with some suggesting that eating excessive amounts of sugar does not increase the risk of diabetes, although the extra calories from consuming large amounts of sugar can lead to obesity, which may itself increase the risk of developing this metabolic disease. So there is definitely controversy, and to call me jaw droppingly ignorant is pretty offensive. The fact that you think I'm arguing green veggies and sugar are equally bad for people means you fundamentally did not understand what I was saying. What do you think the difference between veggies and other sources of sugar is? Hint: it's not the type of sugar, it's the absence of fiber. Here's another quote, from your link: > Some experts have suggested that refined fructose is more damaging than refined glucose in terms of cardiovascular risk. The refining process is essentially one that removes the fiber. Let's go back to my quote: > First off, there is absolutely no science showing sugar is bad for you, or that it behaves differently from other carbs when combined with equal amounts of fiber (which is why vegetable carbohydrates tend to be "ok"). Emphasis added.

And "carbs" as if they are bad things.

by wdewind 12y ago

And "carbs" as if they are bad things.

debacle 12y ago

Carbs are a bad thing in large amounts. The FDA's daily carb intake recommendations (250-350g) are a joke.

wdewind 12y ago
The FDA recommendations are not great, but 300g of carbs is totally reasonable if you are on a low fat diet. The problem is people on high carb diets tend to have a hard time keeping it at just 300g due to insulin level effects. But it's a behavioral issue: control the level of carb intake and you'll be fine.
- debacle 12y ago
  300g of carbs is the same amount of sugar in 3 litres of coke. Do you really think that is reasonable for anyone?
  - wdewind 12y ago
    No because it will be extremely difficult for you to fit within your caloric balance and still get all the micronutrients you need. But the issue here is that the carbs are paired with something that doesn't also give you those micronutrients so you'd have to eat even more calories to get there, not the carbs themselves.

Someone1234 12y ago

A lot of carbohydrates are extremely bad for you (e.g. sugar). However some are good for you (e.g. green veggies). The devil is in the details as they say. From what I've read of this product, it doesn't contain excess anything by design. So it likely isn't problematic, but as a general rule "bad" carbs can be very bad for you and give you things like diabetes if over-consumed.

wdewind 12y ago
> The devil is in the details as they say. Yes. First off, there is absolutely no science showing sugar is bad for you, or that it behaves differently from other carbs when combined with equal amounts of fiber (which is why vegetable carbohydrates tend to be "ok"). Second, even without the fiber, for the vast majority of people a high sugar diet (within reasonable max carbohydrate intake) is not going to adversely affect you directly, the issue usually comes in with behavioral impact, causing you to eat more, causing you to get fat, causing you to have diabetes. > as a general rule "bad" carbs can be very bad for you and give you things like diabetes if over-consumed This concept of "bad" carbs is really not useful. Carbs are pretty much carbs. Anything (other carbs, fat and protein) can also be over-consumed but are simply less likely to. TLDR: assuming equal amounts of carbohydrates, the source doesn't actually seem to have a big impact.
- Someone1234 12y ago
  > First off, there is absolutely no science showing sugar is bad for you, or that it behaves differently from other carbs when combined with equal amounts of fiber (which is why vegetable carbohydrates tend to be "ok"). I just stopped reading there. No point going on, that's just jaw droppingly ignorant. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugar#Health_effects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugar#Health_effects The fact you're arguing that green veggies and sugar are equally bad for people is just, wow, just wow. That's a new low.
  - wdewind 12y ago
    Did you even read the link you sent? Here are some quotes: > Some studies involving the health impact of sugars are effectively inconclusive. The WHO and FAO meta studies have shown directly contrasting impacts of sugar in refined and unrefined forms[66] and since most studies do not use a population that do not consume any "free sugars" at all, the baseline is effectively flawed. Hence, there are articles such as Consumer Reports on Health that stated in 2008, "Some of the supposed dietary dangers of sugar have been overblown. Many studies have debunked the idea that it causes hyperactivity, for example. > Studies on the link between sugars and diabetes are inconclusive, with some suggesting that eating excessive amounts of sugar does not increase the risk of diabetes, although the extra calories from consuming large amounts of sugar can lead to obesity, which may itself increase the risk of developing this metabolic disease. So there is definitely controversy, and to call me jaw droppingly ignorant is pretty offensive. The fact that you think I'm arguing green veggies and sugar are equally bad for people means you fundamentally did not understand what I was saying. What do you think the difference between veggies and other sources of sugar is? Hint: it's not the type of sugar, it's the absence of fiber. Here's another quote, from your link: > Some experts have suggested that refined fructose is more damaging than refined glucose in terms of cardiovascular risk. The refining process is essentially one that removes the fiber. Let's go back to my quote: > First off, there is absolutely no science showing sugar is bad for you, or that it behaves differently from other carbs when combined with equal amounts of fiber (which is why vegetable carbohydrates tend to be "ok"). Emphasis added.