6 ms·

It's all so confusing since sugar and carbs are in all fruits and vegetables and grains. What are we supposed to eat? I think all the "sugar is toxic and always

by guelo 12y ago

It's all so confusing since sugar and carbs are in all fruits and vegetables and grains. What are we supposed to eat? I think all the "sugar is toxic and always bad" stuff is too simplistic and a better understanding will hopefully emerge.

onewaystreet 12y ago
When it comes to food it's a good bet to assume that all absolutes are wrong.
- pyre 12y ago
  Isn't that statement itself an absolute?
  - onewaystreet 12y ago
    No, because "a good bet" is not an absolute. If I had said "When it comes to food all absolutes are wrong." you would be right.
  - mg1982 12y ago
    Do you want an ice pack, 'cause you just got burned...
- vlasev 12y ago
  Actually, thermodynamics is absolute and adhering to the laws of thermodynamics is a certainty. You can estimate your daily caloric needs on your basal metabolic rate combined with a multiplication factor based on your daily activities. Then you can estimate how much you eat. Within a small error you will be consuming and expending known amounts of energy. Eat less than you use and you'll end up losing mass whether it's fat if you are more active or muscles and fat if you are inactive. It won't be reflected 1-to-1 in the scale measurements and your size but over the long run you'll lose weight.
  - kaitai 12y ago
    Remember, though, that we only absorb a certain proportion of the calories available in our food. Our rules of thumb about estimating caloric needs based on basal metabolic rate are approximate and work for many people, but not all. Digestive and metabolic disturbances can result in some folks not absorbing calories and nutrition (classic presentation of celiac) or extracting calories much more efficiently. The preparation of food also influences this processing: the energy required to digest your food starts to become a non-trivial factor. If you're struggling with weight despite tracking your intake, it might be worth switching your intake to foods from which you absorb fewer calories and for which you expend more energy in digestion: nuts, raw vegetables, and less sugar etc. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2012/08/27/the-hidden-truths-about-calories/ http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2012/08/27/th...
    - vlasev 12y ago
      None of this violates the laws of thermodynamics. These are all quantities that one could measure/estimate/calculate. Once you know the rough quantities then you'll have a more accurate estimate. Perhaps "net calories" of food could become a thing - how much is left after the initial input of energy. Absorption will be a different deal altogether - a factor that you'd need to get measured.
fredsted 12y ago
You're supposed to eat a moderate amount. Fruits and grains aren't that healthy. Most vegetables don't contain any carbs/sugar. Oh, and lots of meat.
- guelo 12y ago
  Vegetables most certainly do contain sugar and carbs. The division between fruits and vegetables is more cultural than botanical or nutritional.
  - fredsted 12y ago
    Sure, some contain carbs. But not all: http://lowcarbdiets.about.com/od/whattoeat/a/whatveg.htm http://lowcarbdiets.about.com/od/whattoeat/a/whatveg.htm
- 001sky 12y ago
  A carbohydrate is any calorie not from fat or protein. You are eating them with all fresh foods, basically.
lisper 12y ago
It's all about the quantities and the delivery mechanism. An apple has about 20g of sugar, about the same as half a can of coke. But two apples come with fiber and vitamins where a can of coke doesn't. That fiber will help you feel full. The coke won't. In fact, the pure refined sugar in a coke will make you feel hungrier. Also, not all sugars are created equal. Fructose is much worse for you than glucose, so sucrose (which is half glucose and half fructose) is much worse for you than starch, which is long chains of glucose molecules. Also, because your body has to work to decompose starch into glucose, that too will make you feel full longer. But by far the best thing you can do is replace sugar with non-saturated fat. Fat is not the enemy, sugar -- and fructose in particular -- is the enemy.
- kristiandupont 12y ago
  >Fat is not the enemy, sugar -- and fructose in particular -- is the enemy I tell this to myself and anyone who wants to listen so I believe it but it bothers me that this is just the current "fact". A while ago, the opposite was "true", and who knows what we will all be thinking in the future? That, I think, is the most depressing thing about nutrition advice.
  - toomuchtodo 12y ago
    I've seen far too many folks on /r/keto shed tens (or even 100+) of pounds on a fat and protein macro heavy diet to not believe it. I myself am doing keto with Ketochow (a Keto-esq Soylent mixture made by a gentleman out of Utag), and lose 3-5 lbs a week on it (yet it tastes like delicious pancake batter) while doing minimal exercise.
    - harshreality 12y ago
      Protein-heavy diets accelerate aging, don't they? I thought that was the result from studies into caloric restriction... a reduction in certain kinds of protein (leucine?) and a reduction in DHEA loss correlate heavily with calorie intake, and are what makes caloric restriction good?
    - 12y ago
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
thret 12y ago
If you can sit through 90 minutes of what feels a lot like a sermon, this is fairly informative - and I think (?) more or less accurate although there's one glaring math error you can't help but see. Sugar: The Bitter Truth: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM
- chillax 12y ago
  Also check out this critisism: http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/ http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-ab... http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/02/19/a-retrospective-of-the-fructose-alarmism-debate/ http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/02/19/a-retrospective-of-...
Htsthbjig 12y ago
Sugars in fruits, vegetables and grains and crystallized sugar are in totally different forms. Along with sugar, in a fruit you have fiber, basically cellulose and lignine, chitines in fungus like a champignon. In fruits and vegetables you include thousands of different substances, like vitamins,anti oxidants and anti cancer, co enzymes, and enzymes, aminoacyds and dietary elements absent in crystallized sugar. Those are specially abundant in integral grains, specially if they are germinated, and vegetables , like Broccoli. Lots of those could get destroyed by storage time, cooking or freezing. So we could believe that we eat well, but actually lack lots of needed substances. That is the reason too much pre-process(pizza, hamburgers, hotdogs) food is not good for you long term. Fiber is inert, and we humans could not process it, only some symbiotic cells in our intestines, but they have a very important function: they physically block the maximum sugar concentration release in the digestion. Concentration is important because sugar is in fact toxic, too much of it will simply kill you. That is what a diabetic is, someone who does not natively release insulin to block the excessive sugar and could die as a result. Your body needs to control glucose in your blood, too much glucose and you die, too much insulin and you die too because you need glucose. When you eat artificial sugar dissolved in water, like in a soda, you disrupt the control mechanism of the body because it is so fast spike compared to normal fiber mixed sugar in a fruit that you disrupt the control process. You are also not eating glucose, but fructose and tissues like those in the liver have to overwork. Some of those could only do one thing at a time, so they need to stop doing important things because you put the body in panic or emergency situation. You create short euphoric behavior, but also over corrections, too much insulin, then the body enters panic depression, and so on.
SixSigma 12y ago
Yeah, it is the processing that does the damage. Notice those sugar containing items you considered are also fat free. What we have in processed foods is fat, sugar, starch and salt, reduced fibre. Not a natural combination.

by guelo 12y ago

onewaystreet 12y ago

When it comes to food it's a good bet to assume that all absolutes are wrong.

pyre 12y ago
Isn't that statement itself an absolute?
- onewaystreet 12y ago
  No, because "a good bet" is not an absolute. If I had said "When it comes to food all absolutes are wrong." you would be right.
- mg1982 12y ago
  Do you want an ice pack, 'cause you just got burned...
vlasev 12y ago
Actually, thermodynamics is absolute and adhering to the laws of thermodynamics is a certainty. You can estimate your daily caloric needs on your basal metabolic rate combined with a multiplication factor based on your daily activities. Then you can estimate how much you eat. Within a small error you will be consuming and expending known amounts of energy. Eat less than you use and you'll end up losing mass whether it's fat if you are more active or muscles and fat if you are inactive. It won't be reflected 1-to-1 in the scale measurements and your size but over the long run you'll lose weight.
- kaitai 12y ago
  Remember, though, that we only absorb a certain proportion of the calories available in our food. Our rules of thumb about estimating caloric needs based on basal metabolic rate are approximate and work for many people, but not all. Digestive and metabolic disturbances can result in some folks not absorbing calories and nutrition (classic presentation of celiac) or extracting calories much more efficiently. The preparation of food also influences this processing: the energy required to digest your food starts to become a non-trivial factor. If you're struggling with weight despite tracking your intake, it might be worth switching your intake to foods from which you absorb fewer calories and for which you expend more energy in digestion: nuts, raw vegetables, and less sugar etc. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2012/08/27/the-hidden-truths-about-calories/ http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2012/08/27/th...
  - vlasev 12y ago
    None of this violates the laws of thermodynamics. These are all quantities that one could measure/estimate/calculate. Once you know the rough quantities then you'll have a more accurate estimate. Perhaps "net calories" of food could become a thing - how much is left after the initial input of energy. Absorption will be a different deal altogether - a factor that you'd need to get measured.

fredsted 12y ago

You're supposed to eat a moderate amount. Fruits and grains aren't that healthy. Most vegetables don't contain any carbs/sugar. Oh, and lots of meat.

guelo 12y ago
Vegetables most certainly do contain sugar and carbs. The division between fruits and vegetables is more cultural than botanical or nutritional.
- fredsted 12y ago
  Sure, some contain carbs. But not all: http://lowcarbdiets.about.com/od/whattoeat/a/whatveg.htm http://lowcarbdiets.about.com/od/whattoeat/a/whatveg.htm
001sky 12y ago
A carbohydrate is any calorie not from fat or protein. You are eating them with all fresh foods, basically.

lisper 12y ago

It's all about the quantities and the delivery mechanism. An apple has about 20g of sugar, about the same as half a can of coke. But two apples come with fiber and vitamins where a can of coke doesn't. That fiber will help you feel full. The coke won't. In fact, the pure refined sugar in a coke will make you feel hungrier. Also, not all sugars are created equal. Fructose is much worse for you than glucose, so sucrose (which is half glucose and half fructose) is much worse for you than starch, which is long chains of glucose molecules. Also, because your body has to work to decompose starch into glucose, that too will make you feel full longer. But by far the best thing you can do is replace sugar with non-saturated fat. Fat is not the enemy, sugar -- and fructose in particular -- is the enemy.

kristiandupont 12y ago
>Fat is not the enemy, sugar -- and fructose in particular -- is the enemy I tell this to myself and anyone who wants to listen so I believe it but it bothers me that this is just the current "fact". A while ago, the opposite was "true", and who knows what we will all be thinking in the future? That, I think, is the most depressing thing about nutrition advice.
- toomuchtodo 12y ago
  I've seen far too many folks on /r/keto shed tens (or even 100+) of pounds on a fat and protein macro heavy diet to not believe it. I myself am doing keto with Ketochow (a Keto-esq Soylent mixture made by a gentleman out of Utag), and lose 3-5 lbs a week on it (yet it tastes like delicious pancake batter) while doing minimal exercise.
  - harshreality 12y ago
    Protein-heavy diets accelerate aging, don't they? I thought that was the result from studies into caloric restriction... a reduction in certain kinds of protein (leucine?) and a reduction in DHEA loss correlate heavily with calorie intake, and are what makes caloric restriction good?
  - 12y ago

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

thret 12y ago

If you can sit through 90 minutes of what feels a lot like a sermon, this is fairly informative - and I think (?) more or less accurate although there's one glaring math error you can't help but see. Sugar: The Bitter Truth: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

chillax 12y ago
Also check out this critisism: http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/ http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-ab... http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/02/19/a-retrospective-of-the-fructose-alarmism-debate/ http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/02/19/a-retrospective-of-...

Htsthbjig 12y ago

Sugars in fruits, vegetables and grains and crystallized sugar are in totally different forms. Along with sugar, in a fruit you have fiber, basically cellulose and lignine, chitines in fungus like a champignon. In fruits and vegetables you include thousands of different substances, like vitamins,anti oxidants and anti cancer, co enzymes, and enzymes, aminoacyds and dietary elements absent in crystallized sugar. Those are specially abundant in integral grains, specially if they are germinated, and vegetables , like Broccoli. Lots of those could get destroyed by storage time, cooking or freezing. So we could believe that we eat well, but actually lack lots of needed substances. That is the reason too much pre-process(pizza, hamburgers, hotdogs) food is not good for you long term. Fiber is inert, and we humans could not process it, only some symbiotic cells in our intestines, but they have a very important function: they physically block the maximum sugar concentration release in the digestion. Concentration is important because sugar is in fact toxic, too much of it will simply kill you. That is what a diabetic is, someone who does not natively release insulin to block the excessive sugar and could die as a result. Your body needs to control glucose in your blood, too much glucose and you die, too much insulin and you die too because you need glucose. When you eat artificial sugar dissolved in water, like in a soda, you disrupt the control mechanism of the body because it is so fast spike compared to normal fiber mixed sugar in a fruit that you disrupt the control process. You are also not eating glucose, but fructose and tissues like those in the liver have to overwork. Some of those could only do one thing at a time, so they need to stop doing important things because you put the body in panic or emergency situation. You create short euphoric behavior, but also over corrections, too much insulin, then the body enters panic depression, and so on.

SixSigma 12y ago

Yeah, it is the processing that does the damage. Notice those sugar containing items you considered are also fat free. What we have in processed foods is fat, sugar, starch and salt, reduced fibre. Not a natural combination.